Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.

Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.

Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.

But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... es-385977/

Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.

While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.

The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.

Puja

I understand WHY the government are looking to target rich investors, but this approach risks making that more of an attractive option as actual farmers have to sell up. For investors land will be on sale which they can then rent out to actual farmers and sit back to collect their rents.

You mention that the tax could be only on 0.5m. Over 10 years. When your profit is about 30k per year, how do you find even that. The government can’t even be certain on how many farmers will be affected by this. The fact is that farming is not an industry that makes anyone rich. Profit margins are minimal and since brexit the various subsidies have been or are about to be cut right back.

This feels like a poorly thought through policy, and I get why farmers see it as the final straw.

This is the partial closure of a tax-avoidance loophole. The tax on the hypothetical £3.5m farm would be £100k, that is £10k/year for 10 years. It's payable (and extremely lenient compared to what non-farmers face).

But stop for a moment. Are you really saying that someone about to inherit an estate worth £3.5m is in need of tax breaks? That's ridiculous.

[Puja]

Tenant farmers not so much, but it doesn't take much acreage before that £3m threshold would be reached.

Many farms dont have huge profit margins, so while there is value in the land, and in equipment, the running costs are hefty and profit margins slim. Clarkson is a loud mouth, but his series on farming did highlight how tight margins are.

Now you could argue thats just tough luck and if the business isnt viable then unlucky. But having a healthy argicultural sector is pretty handy when trying to reduce carbon emissions caused by importing food. Alternatively, the land will be bought by rich landlords who just employ tenant farmers (or put it to other use). This could easily be one of those laws with unintended consequences.

But the tax is marginal - so a farm of £3.5m is only paying tax on that £0.5m and would have 10 years, interest free, to spread out that tax bill (and that's assuming that they're not bequeathing the land to their children early and avoiding the tax altogether). I don't think the tax is particularly well-designed (apart from anything else, the relief should be "per farm" rather than "per person" as it's assuming a strikingly heteronormative nuclear family of husband+wife - woe betide anyone divorced or just plain single), but the principles behind it are solid and could be a benefit to the farming industry rather than a problem by removing the incentive for rich people to park funds in tax-exempt land.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... es-385977/

Data collected by property consultants Strutt & Parker show farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of the agricultural land market by wealthy investors.

While non-farmers were responsible for less than a third of farmland purchases in 2010, by last year this had risen to 56 per cent. In the last year alone, 400,000 hectares (988,422 acres) of agricultural land has been taken out of use for farming.

The analysis is linking this to financial advice that recommends the potential tax breaks of investing in farmland.

Puja

I understand WHY the government are looking to target rich investors, but this approach risks making that more of an attractive option as actual farmers have to sell up. For investors land will be on sale which they can then rent out to actual farmers and sit back to collect their rents.

You mention that the tax could be only on 0.5m. Over 10 years. When your profit is about 30k per year, how do you find even that. The government can’t even be certain on how many farmers will be affected by this. The fact is that farming is not an industry that makes anyone rich. Profit margins are minimal and since brexit the various subsidies have been or are about to be cut right back.

This feels like a poorly thought through policy, and I get why farmers see it as the final straw.

Thinking about this, while I am still annoyed at how overblown this has been and how performative "common people" millionaires, like Clarkson and Farage, have weaponised it, I do see your point - this is a shitty way to aim for the actual target and runs the risk of collateral damage. There's surely a better option to hit investors buying farmland to avoid taxes, like a stamp duty to buying farmland if you own over a certain amount already - wouldn't hit existing investors, but would scupper future dickheads.

Apart from anything else, this is a terrible replacement for the wealth tax that's needed. The problem is less that James Dyson owns £550 million of UK farmland (although it is still a problem, cause a google tells me that he's massively reduced the amount of actual farming that's done on that 36,000 acres because it's an inheritance tax haven, not a profit-making enterprise, and it's easier just to not work some of it), and more that he has accumulated £23 billion.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I see the "You lost, get over it" brigade have gathered 2 million signatures for their "4 months of a labour government is more than enough, give us a new election now" petition.

Not that 2 million in 24 hours is suspicious at all either...

[Zhivago]

+1 to the sentiment that those multimillionaire farmers should put up and shut up.

One reason why agricultural land has risen in value so much is surely because of tax loopholes like the exemption they had. It artificially supresses the supply of agricultural land onto the market. After this law is introduced, we can expect agricultural land values to decrease, and fewer farms to fall into the category.

If the land does not generate sufficient profit, then why not let someone who can make better use of the land buy it? That's the free market that the Tories and Farage and co are normally so in favour.

[Which Tyler]

As the assisted dying bill approaches Parliament, I would urge all of my friends to (re)watch this documentary from one of the greatest humanists of our time.

If you then choose to write to you MP after doing so, and balancing against other opinions, facts and concerns - that is entirely up to you.

In my personal opinion, strenuous checks and balances are obviously required, but the right to choose should be there.



#YourBodyYourRules

Passes with a majority of 55,a nd goes to committee, where the fun will start.

IMO, the current bill is set too tight; but I doubt that it'll get any looser.
What it really needs is a royal commission to take its time, gather evidence, look at the lay of the land in other countries, learn from their successes and their mistakes; and suggest a new law, based on "intolerable suffering", including the suffering of mental health.

MEanwhile, I'd like one of those MPs voting against this because palliative care is a mess - introduce a member's bill to address palliative care then - these things are NOT mutually exclusive.

[Donny osmond]

Not sure how I feel about assisted dying tbh. Some of the stories of coercion from other countries are truly awful, but I also can't get past the idea that we should be allowed to choose the time and manner of our own passing if we want to. And there are plenty of equally awful stories of people dying in agony precisely because they weren't given the option of choosing their own passing when it was a choice they were able to make.

It can't be beyond the wit of man to craft a law that is cognisant of both sides of the argument, surely?

[Son of Mathonwy]

As the assisted dying bill approaches Parliament, I would urge all of my friends to (re)watch this documentary from one of the greatest humanists of our time.

If you then choose to write to you MP after doing so, and balancing against other opinions, facts and concerns - that is entirely up to you.

In my personal opinion, strenuous checks and balances are obviously required, but the right to choose should be there.



#YourBodyYourRules

Passes with a majority of 55,a nd goes to committee, where the fun will start.

IMO, the current bill is set too tight; but I doubt that it'll get any looser.
What it really needs is a royal commission to take its time, gather evidence, look at the lay of the land in other countries, learn from their successes and their mistakes; and suggest a new law, based on "intolerable suffering", including the suffering of mental health.

MEanwhile, I'd like one of those MPs voting against this because palliative care is a mess - introduce a member's bill to address palliative care then - these things are NOT mutually exclusive.

Great result. I wrote to my MP about it and despite his claiming to be on the fence, he did vote in favour. I guess a Labour government can do good things after all.

The details of the vote are interesting. Labour were about 3:2 in favour, Tories 6:1 against, Libdems 6:1 for. Reform were split (surprisingly) but of course the Greens were all for. (Ratios are a guess based on the graphics).

I'm pleasantly surprised to see Starmer in favour (but Corbyn against ). Not a shock that Farage and Badenoch were against but Lee Anderson, Richard Tice, Rishi Sunak and David Davies were for

https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng- ... sted-dying

[Son of Mathonwy]

Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

[Puja]

Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

[Stom]

Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

[Son of Mathonwy]

Starmer has pissed away almost his entire lead over the Tories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

[Stom]

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

[Sandydragon]

"Judge me on these new six targets," says Kier Starmer, in his third relaunch of his five month old government, while continuing to utterly miss the point of politics.

Civil servants and government people like quantitive economic targets. Banks and markets like quantitive economic targets. Economists like quantitive economic targets. Investors and billionaries like quantitive economic targets. Unfortunately for Keir, those aren't the people whose votes he needs in order to prevent Nigel Farage's privately owned fascism company.

People won't "judge you on your targets" Keir. No-one's going to examine the data before deciding if you've done a good job for them - you need to be making their lives better in a way that they see and believe. If you have to explain to people that, no really, you are actually doing a good job when you look at all the things, you're already losing.

Don't talk. Don't explain. Actually get shit done.

Puja

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

There is a lot of merit in keeping things steady as everyone reacts to Trumps victory and what that means for Reform. Reform will win by-elections and May do very well in the Welsh elections (dear God) but it’s a long way to go to the GE. But Starmer doesn’t seem to have the ability to inspire. He’s missing that vital ability to inspire confidence, which allows those with more charisma to steal the stage.


Starmer has had the shortest honeymoon of any PM and the press are really out to get him. He really needs some wins and then learn how to make the most of them.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Maybe because he knows that the polls don’t matter right now, but the markets do. If he can get a nice economic up turn, it’ll make like better for the majority and they’ll feel better. Then make a couple of policies as bones for the rabid masses in 3 years time and bingo

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

[Stom]

The polls don't matter in a life-or-death way right now but they really do matter in a first impressions way. Start well and you have something to build on. That's what Blair did, and it lasted till he really fucked up . . . and then it still lasted till finance fucked up. Thatcher was very lucky to make it through the first years - she needed the Falklands War and the SDP splitting the labour vote to win reelection.

Starmer doesn't have any of Blair's charisma or political skills. He just fancies himself as a good manager. He thought, I can do that, so he tried and got extremely lucky with the timing (Johnson, Truss, inflation, Reform UK) and won big on a small vote share. He may be a good manager but this is a bigger and different job, one for which his skills do not fit well. He's just winging it - he has no vision, no great plan other than to think that he'll be rewarded for being steady, and hope that things beyond his control get better.

He is unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of the US election (nor will the Democrats, I suspect) and he won't get the advice he needs from the centrists he's surrounded himself with, either. The Winter fuel allowance debacle shows that he's clueless about politics. The lowering of the entry point for employers' NI show that he has no desire to help the poor. His approach to Gaza shows that he has no moral compass and doesn't believe that laws should be applied equally. I'd be glad to see him lose the next election except that the alternative is even worse.

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

[Son of Mathonwy]

As much as I’m one who likes to look at patterns in history, the truth is that the social and media landscape is completely different from when Blair rose to power.

If Blair came to power today, he would not have the celebration that happened in the UK. It was like a celebration at the end of Thatcherism. But everyone who celebrated that has either died or been radicalized by Russian/Saudi propaganda.

We’re not going to get popular politicians who do the right thing. They just need to do the right thing and then play with reality closer to the election.

Look at Romania, ffs. Yes, the situation in the villages is appalling, but that’s because all the young people left for the cities and the old people left behind have no idea how to live in the 21st century.

And situation in the cities… damn it is alive. People have money. Government are corrupt, but they’ve spent money on improving life for people.

And they’re hated by 45%+ of the populace. Who are then suckered into voting for a Russian plant. Luckily, Romanians have backbones and they’ve voided the result and are trying to put him in prison, but still…

The propaganda machine is so powerful today that it’s almost impossible.

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

[Stom]

I disagree about Blair not being similarly celebrated if he was in Starmer's place. He was more charismatic, younger, a much better speaker, and a far better political operator. He created the New Labour brand and had the skills to sell the media and public a nonexistent product - the Third Way. He had Murdoch onside (imagine Starmer having that). And the UK is in a much more desperate state than in 1997, so the need for change is a lot stronger than a tiredness with the Tories. (NB anyone who hoped Blair would end Thatcherism in 1997 was disappointed). Certainly the media landscape is different now but (much as I despise the man) I think Blair would have a much better handle on all that PR stuff, no matter the medium. Starmer simple cannot inspire - I wouldn't blame the technology for that.

Re politicians doing the 'right thing' vs being popular. Depends what you mean by the right thing. Since I think you're more right wing than me, we would likely disagree what the right thing is for putting the economy right. For me, when times are as tough as they are now, we need to spread what we have more evenly (ie increase equality). This should be both popular (obviously, since the majority will benefit) and good for the economy (since money in the hands of the poor is more likely to be spent, hence boosting the economy). You may not agree . . .

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

[Puja]

lol, I wouldn’t put it that way. I think everyone else would consider my economic ideas as extremely radical… just different from yours. Less…traditional.

But I don’t think you can compare. Sure, a leader with the press on side would be incredible. But you can’t transport Blair to today and expect him to have that. The press are not what they were in 1997. Outside of the likes of the granuaid, NYT, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde, nearly every publication has a right wing tinge, while the popularity of alternative media sources whose only purpose is clicks to make money, meaning that the political landscape has been fractured.

No, Blair would not have the same impact, he was of his time. And as we’ve seen, 2020s Blair wouldn’t look out of place as leader of the Tory party…

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

[Stom]

Blair would always have been a good fit for the Tory party. The tragedy for the UK is that he was in the Labour party. Instead of keeping the Tories on the centre-right/right he ruined the Labour party, making it centre-right, destroyed the UK's hopes for any left-wing government and cemented neoliberalism here.

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

[Puja]

I don't see how it's possible to say that Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, while saying the Tory party were centre-right...let's be fair here: economically, the Tories have been far right since Thatcher. I don't think there's any further right it's possible to go. Blair's Labour were pretty left of centre economically (well, they did have Brown in charge, who is definitely old Labour).

I just feel like there is a level of political illiteracy in the world, and it's understandable.

On Starmer, I feel like he's needed to make some decisions he would have wanted to leave alone in an ideal world, while he's been naive with the press and with comms. And unless he manages to make drastic changes to the balance of work in the UK, he's going to be struggling. Luckily the Tories have Karen Badandyuck...so it's not like he's going to lose.

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

[Banquo]

At present, I'm not worried about him losing to the Tories.

The Telegraph are currently flying a kite of outright support of Reform. They're very close as a party to a genuine inflection point where enough people believe they're a viable option that they become a viable option.

Puja

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

Just had my cheese sandwich, crisps and snickers.

But I can move with the times; also had a kiwi fruit.

[Mellsblue]

Meh. Again, not bothered at this stage of the election cycle, and with the potential for major changes in world politics over the coming 3 years. I, for one, feel like there's a change brewing, as the workplace has turned toxic in many, many countries, and as these 17-20 year old kids enter the workplace in the coming years, we're going to see some big changes.

We're (because not all of us are boomers like Banquo , most of us are millennial, right?) going to be shown up badly in our work ethic by these zoomer kids who have grown up in a very different world culture to us, or to the Gen Xers who are starting to find themselves in upper management positions.

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

Just had my cheese sandwich, crisps and snickers.

But I can move with the times; also had a kiwi fruit.

Kiwi fruit?!?!? Living off your inflated house price you did nothing to earn or deserve. You boomer, you.

[Banquo]

I admire your optimism. I don't personally see a way out of this spiral before things get much, much worse.

And yes, Millennial here, reporting for duty with my avocado toast.

Puja

Just had my cheese sandwich, crisps and snickers.

But I can move with the times; also had a kiwi fruit.

Kiwi fruit?!?!? Living off your inflated house price you did nothing to earn or deserve. You boomer, you.

I knows it.

[Puja]

Gods I hate the taste of avocado. Have to eat it though - for the branding.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Gen X here, sitting in the middle, confused by both sides, but trying to make allowances