Snap General Election called - The new UK Politics thread

[Puja]

capture 1.jpg

Well, that took less time to happen than I thought it would. If other polls start showing up like that, it could start to accelerate quite quickly if people see Green as the "sensible" vote to stop Reform.

Puja

[paddy no 11]

Randy Andy in right trouble now, there's the prospect of much mud being thrown in a commons debate...........apparently

[morepork]

Randy Andy in right trouble now, there's the prospect of much mud being thrown in a commons debate...........apparently

It’s past time the lid was lifted on this fermenting turd. If jug ears is really sincere about addressing this, he will step up for the victims, including one who took her own life. What a cancer that family is on constructive discourse.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Hope this article is wrong and Reeves isn't insane enough to raise the basic rate of tax. It would not only hit almost all workers and hit the UK's economic brakes, but it would be brutally punished by voters. If there's one group Starmer's Labour love to claim to support, it's 'ordinary working families'.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -challenge

Far better to raise taxes on unearned income (capital gains, dividends) to the rates incurred by earned income. And if that isn't enough, raise the top tax rate . . . broadest shoulders and all that.

[Stom]

Hope this article is wrong and Reeves isn't insane enough to raise the basic rate of tax. It would not only hit almost all workers and hit the UK's economic brakes, but it would be brutally punished by voters. If there's one group Starmer's Labour love to claim to support, it's 'ordinary working families'.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -challenge

Far better to raise taxes on unearned income (capital gains, dividends) to the rates incurred by earned income. And if that isn't enough, raise the top tax rate . . . broadest shoulders and all that.

Listened to Richard Murphy on this...yeah, she seems terribly incompetent...

[Son of Mathonwy]

[Son of Mathonwy]

Greens at 18% and 2nd place (again) in the latest poll. (Greens seem to score better with Findoutnow and Yougov).

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

[Sandydragon]

Hope this article is wrong and Reeves isn't insane enough to raise the basic rate of tax. It would not only hit almost all workers and hit the UK's economic brakes, but it would be brutally punished by voters. If there's one group Starmer's Labour love to claim to support, it's 'ordinary working families'.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -challenge

Far better to raise taxes on unearned income (capital gains, dividends) to the rates incurred by earned income. And if that isn't enough, raise the top tax rate . . . broadest shoulders and all that.

Reeves is about to do something very silly, but since this government can’t cut spending it seems she will ignore labours manifesto commitment.

[Sandydragon]

Which policies of Blair's New Labour would you like to see emulated by Starmer's Labour?

Continuing to frame immigration as a problem will continue to hand votes to Farage, no matter what policy you propose. You will be saying Farage is right, keep immigration as the big issue and voters will go to Reform because everyone knows that they will have the more radical policy in that area.

The only way to take oxygen from Farage is to change the message completely - immigrants are not the cause of declining living standards, getting rid of them will not fix your lives any more than Brexit did when that was the miracle cure sold by Farage. There is another cause, that is inequality, and there's a different cure for that. Unfortunately Starmer is a rich man paid for by even richer men and will never make that the message.

Ignoring immigration wont work, its too far gone for that. The situation is broken - thousands of people risking their lives on unseaworthy craft isnt a sign working well. Would anyone on here disagree with that?

If the benefits of immigration had been pushed a decade ago, that might have worked. Instead, the issue was seen as racist and ignored, allowing Farage, and worse, to capitalise on it. There has to be a sensible debate around numbers, skills, etc, but Labour won't survive by trying to ignore the issue.

If Labour were to adopt a pro business approach that might help them out. So far, they have strangled more growth than they have created. Looking at how they can help the economy to grow would be a start, working with business as Blair was quite happy to do, which might then provide the money for the giveaways the Labour party wants to throw about.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt from my side here, and agree that there needs to be a big pro business approach. Small business. The same people Thatcher went after with pretty much all her policies, the "petite boulanger". I come from a pretty right of centre background, and while I am generally leaning further to the left, I still believe strongly that small, local businesses are the corner stone of the economy.

Big business, however, drains money from the economy. They rack up massive profits, which they pass on to shareholders, who save that money instead of putting it back into the economy, and pay a lower tax on their rewards than if they were employed.

First thing I would do is realign the tax system so that capital gains tax, dividends tax are aligned directly to income tax, and that you need to pay national insurance on those incomes. So a working class man making 50,000 a year pays the same tax as a rich man making 50,000 a year off his investments, because right now the latter pays less. That is neither fair nor good for the country.

We tend to look at what happened in the country AND the politics at the time, and then try to put two and two together sometimes. Did Blair have boom years because he was in power when the largest generation entered the workforce? Did he get to ride on the strong downward trend of unemployment? Because it was trending down very strongly, and continued to go down.

I would argue that Blair's success came about more because of what happened before him than what happened during his time. He reaped the benefits of the short-term (or medium term) boost to public funding given by the privatisation of services.

And that medium term boost has all gone now. We only get to feel the downside. We only see the rising prices, while the government has no leverage and no assets.

In fact, immediately after Blair has spent the money that came from these privatisations, we enter a period of "austerity" that has lasted until today and led to massive inequality and public services that are not fit for purpose.

Yet they are generally accepted facts. Public discourse around them is there, but it's not universal.

Because the Overton Window has been moved. Privatisation is a given. Big businesses are a given. Treating government like a "household" is a given. These are right leaning positions. They may align with your own views, but they are not centrist.

Shareholders help companies to expand and that normally means more jobs, which puts money back into the economy through taxation and spending. Plus theres corporation tax.

I assume you are really referring to multinationals who structure their affairs to avoid tax. Totally agree with you there.

Blair benefitted from a strong economic recovery he inherited from Major. There was privatisation income that’s fair but there was also economic growth that helped pay for greater government expenditure.

And I’d contest that privatisation is a given. The idea of renationalising the railways has polled well for a while.

[Puja]

Comedy stuff from the Labour party, reminiscent of the mid-90s Conservative party, as Starmer accused of briefing against Streeting for having been slightly less incompetent than his boss and thus a potential leadership threat: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... iefing-row

Only upshot of this is that Morgan McSweeney might be given the blame and have to fall on his sword, which would improve Starmer's leadership no end.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Comedy stuff from the Labour party, reminiscent of the mid-90s Conservative party, as Starmer accused of briefing against Streeting for having been slightly less incompetent than his boss and thus a potential leadership threat: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... iefing-row

Only upshot of this is that Morgan McSweeney might be given the blame and have to fall on his sword, which would improve Starmer's leadership no end.

Puja

This is as inept as we have come to expect.

The positive is that Starmer is going to go, there's no doubt, so the sooner the better. So any rumblings or plots bring us closer to that day.

The negative is that Streeting is a leading candidate to take over. In a clear contest with a number of options I wouldn't give him a great chance because when I last looked he was very unpopular with the membership. However with 20% of MPs support needed to get nominated there will be a very small number of candidates to face the membership vote and Christ help us he might win.

Still whatever it takes. Step one is Starmer goes. I don't think Streeting will be any better but we must attempt to improve this government, otherwise: Farage. Maybe we have to get past Starmer and Streeting.

[Danno]

Ewww don't post tanskii. She's scum.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Mahmood tells the country Farage is right:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ecome-safe

[Which Tyler]

[Son of Mathonwy]

Farage will make him director general.

[Puja]

Haha, wow. Just when I thought the media landscape in the UK could get no worse, the Daily Heil appears to've won the right to buy the Telegraph.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2eg1w0n81o

My mother has read the Telegraph for longer than I've been alive - it's never been a bastion of unbiased reporting, but I have become increasingly alarmed at how increasingly unhinged it's been getting over the last 5-10 years and how more and more it's regarded the truth as optional. This news is not going to assuage my concerns about it being one of her news sources.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Haha, wow. Just when I thought the media landscape in the UK could get no worse, the Daily Heil appears to've won the right to buy the Telegraph.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2eg1w0n81o

My mother has read the Telegraph for longer than I've been alive - it's never been a bastion of unbiased reporting, but I have become increasingly alarmed at how increasingly unhinged it's been getting over the last 5-10 years and how more and more it's regarded the truth as optional. This news is not going to assuage my concerns about it being one of her news sources.

Puja

On one hand you'd think the Telegraph couldn't get any worse. On the other, this kind of concentration of ownership is obviously wrong and should be blocked by government. I'm sure we can count on Lisa Nandy to do the right thing.

[Puja]

Faced with a massive increase in the amount of people with crippling mental health conditions, Wes Streeting's solution is to assume it's all in their heads: https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... laims-soar

Yup, this is about "normal feelings" being "over-pathologised", rather than anything to do with spiralling inequality, the cost of living crisis, late-stage capitalism, or austerity cutting out almost every bit of support available to families as well as gutting public services. That's not to mention the pandemic (and the worrying studies showing we don't really understand how the COVID virus damaged our brains). It's those work-shy snowflake millennials Gen-Z who don't understand the difference between having their feelings hurt and crippling despair!

There should probably be some introspection in the government about whether the current definition of "normal feelings" in Britain is acceptable. There's a reason why people are flocking to Reform, who at least sound angry about the status quo.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Faced with a massive increase in the amount of people with crippling mental health conditions, Wes Streeting's solution is to assume it's all in their heads: https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... laims-soar

Yup, this is about "normal feelings" being "over-pathologised", rather than anything to do with spiralling inequality, the cost of living crisis, late-stage capitalism, or austerity cutting out almost every bit of support available to families as well as gutting public services. That's not to mention the pandemic (and the worrying studies showing we don't really understand how the COVID virus damaged our brains). It's those work-shy snowflake millennials Gen-Z who don't understand the difference between having their feelings hurt and crippling despair!

There should probably be some introspection in the government about whether the current definition of "normal feelings" in Britain is acceptable. There's a reason why people are flocking to Reform, who at least sound angry about the status quo.

Puja

A lot rests on who does the investigation. It could be that economic conditions are blamed in the report (although any mention, even a fleeting one, of over-diagnosis and that will be seized on).

Love the quote from Starmer at the end:

Keir Starmer on Monday signalled that the government will make a fresh push on welfare reform.
He said: “We’ve got to transform it; we also have to confront the reality that our welfare state is trapping people, not just in poverty, but out of work.”

So the welfare state is to blame for poverty and unemployment. That is the 'reality'.

The sooner he's forced out the better. It will happen so come on Labour MPs, get rid of him.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour at 14% in the latest poll (worst ever polling?), 4 points behind the Greens, 6 behind the Tories.

The other pollsters are kinder to Labour but this is totally awful. Labour look like they may fall to 3rd behind the Tories soon. Starmer is a legend of inept politics: a charmless man who decided to betray his voting base, promising change but changing nothing of substance.

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

Your Party's conference was interesting on the weekend (I followed it online). The constitution, standing orders, political statement and first year organisational strategy were decided by online votes, as was the party name (as you may have heard, is unchanged - disappointing, but it seems that most of the good names are already taken). One of the key decisions was for the interim leadership to be collective (which should be fun!). Even more key was that all major decisions will be open to the general membershio for online voting rather that by conference delegates only .

So Your Party will be the most democratic of the parties, even more so than the Greens.

Your Party have thrown away a lot of their potential by being horribly divided over the last few months. This continued to some extent (big in the news, not so much of an impact on the conference) by Sultana boycotting the first day. That's her blowing her last chance with me. This conference was the chance to restart and at least appear unified and professional. Whatever her justification, Sultana decided to give the party's shaky start another kick in the teeth. She isn't professional. We'll see who end up as leading figures in the party, but I wouldn't want her leading it.

But there is some potential in YP. The Greens are obviously the better option now but YP may have some part to play, with their socialist/working class/pro-Palestine thing. I hope to god they can work with the Greens (and my vote will be for that to happen )

[Son of Mathonwy]

Reform UK are, with a single £9m donation, the best-funded party in the UK.

Starmer and his team are fools. They could have reformed the rules and prevented this (God knows there were enough warnings about a BIG donation from Elon Musk . . . which may yet still come to pass). Did they really think they could attract more big-money donations than the right-wing parties? I'm sure they're gutted by this but it is entirely their fault.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30j8r034y8o

[Puja]

Your Party have thrown away a lot of their potential by being horribly divided over the last few months. This continued to some extent (big in the news, not so much of an impact on the conference) by Sultana boycotting the first day. That's her blowing her last chance with me. This conference was the chance to restart and at least appear unified and professional. Whatever her justification, Sultana decided to give the party's shaky start another kick in the teeth. She isn't professional. We'll see who end up as leading figures in the party, but I wouldn't want her leading it.

Sounds like a clusterfuck from all directions, tbh - Sultana boycotted day 1 because Corbyn et al banned a chunk of her supporters from being part of the party under very shaky pretences (a rule which didn't appear to apply to them and has subsequently been repealed at the convention). Very much gives the impression of the experienced organiser Corbyn using nous and procedure to bury a rival - her very public response makes her look naive and unprofessional, he looks dastardly and engaging in traditional leftie-on-leftie-violence, and neither of them look like they should be trusted with running a 20 yard dash, let alone a political party.

It is impressive that they've sorted out having wings to infight with before they've even worked out any policies.

Puja

[Stom]

Your Party have thrown away a lot of their potential by being horribly divided over the last few months. This continued to some extent (big in the news, not so much of an impact on the conference) by Sultana boycotting the first day. That's her blowing her last chance with me. This conference was the chance to restart and at least appear unified and professional. Whatever her justification, Sultana decided to give the party's shaky start another kick in the teeth. She isn't professional. We'll see who end up as leading figures in the party, but I wouldn't want her leading it.

Sounds like a clusterfuck from all directions, tbh - Sultana boycotted day 1 because Corbyn et al banned a chunk of her supporters from being part of the party under very shaky pretences (a rule which didn't appear to apply to them and has subsequently been repealed at the convention). Very much gives the impression of the experienced organiser Corbyn using nous and procedure to bury a rival - her very public response makes her look naive and unprofessional, he looks dastardly and engaging in traditional leftie-on-leftie-violence, and neither of them look like they should be trusted with running a 20 yard dash, let alone a political party.

It is impressive that they've sorted out having wings to infight with before they've even worked out any policies.

Puja

Honestly...I don't understand why you would vote for YP when the Greens are available? They are just a clusterfuck, and offer no real solutions other than infighting.

Corbyn has shown his level, where he is at, and, honestly, it's not good. It's out of touch, and it's not nice, either.

For me, unless there is an early election, I won't be able to vote next time round anyway...

[Puja]

Your Party have thrown away a lot of their potential by being horribly divided over the last few months. This continued to some extent (big in the news, not so much of an impact on the conference) by Sultana boycotting the first day. That's her blowing her last chance with me. This conference was the chance to restart and at least appear unified and professional. Whatever her justification, Sultana decided to give the party's shaky start another kick in the teeth. She isn't professional. We'll see who end up as leading figures in the party, but I wouldn't want her leading it.

Sounds like a clusterfuck from all directions, tbh - Sultana boycotted day 1 because Corbyn et al banned a chunk of her supporters from being part of the party under very shaky pretences (a rule which didn't appear to apply to them and has subsequently been repealed at the convention). Very much gives the impression of the experienced organiser Corbyn using nous and procedure to bury a rival - her very public response makes her look naive and unprofessional, he looks dastardly and engaging in traditional leftie-on-leftie-violence, and neither of them look like they should be trusted with running a 20 yard dash, let alone a political party.

It is impressive that they've sorted out having wings to infight with before they've even worked out any policies.

Puja

Honestly...I don't understand why you would vote for YP when the Greens are available? They are just a clusterfuck, and offer no real solutions other than infighting.

Corbyn has shown his level, where he is at, and, honestly, it's not good. It's out of touch, and it's not nice, either.

For me, unless there is an early election, I won't be able to vote next time round anyway...

Indeed. They had a chance to become the new Left wing party if they had moved quicker and got themselves set up and vaguely competent before the Green party leadership election, but now Polanski has very firmly established the Greens as a genuine political forc. As a result, I'm not really sure what unfulfilled niche YP think they need to serve (aside from Corbyn's ego, of course).

I suspect Sultana will probably end up quitting in frustration/when Corbyn inevitably throws trans people under the bus to placate the Independent Alliance MPs and will end up joining the Greens, who do fit her values fairly well. Jamie Driscoll (ex-North of Tyne mayor, fairly influential figure in the Labour left until stitched up and forced out by Starmer, and part of the group behind the organising and founding of Your Party) has already gone that route and I can't see Sultana lasting much longer.

Incidentally, I am impressed with some of the work that the Greens are doing to acquire competent people. As Reform have demonstrated with their racists, incompetents, teenagers, or just plan paper candidates getting elected as councillors and fucking everything up, the hardest part of being an insurgent political party is getting together enough competent people to stand as candidates for election. The Greens already have a large bank of people who have been with the party and working in local politics for decades, but they're also poaching a lot of figures from the left of Labour - not outright MPs (yet, although I suspect some will be coming if Starmer doesn't pull out of his death spiral of appeasing Reform), but councillors, local organisers, potential MPs who were deselected and blocked by Starmer's clique. Whether it'll be enough, I don't know, but it's at least showing forward thinking.

Puja