Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[Cdd89]

But (given not enough people, to my mind, really understand voting systems) is it really a good idea to entrust a change of voting system to a referendum?

I think we probably agree here and I would say the same thing about the EU referendum. I think there is a good argument that referendums should not even be a thing, especially as they are always presented as "once in a generation" events (and then never are).

But since referendums are 'a thing', and we had one, it would be political suicide to override it without another.

Most of the Tory voters (so that's 40% of the electorate, perhaps) will say No because they know FPTP is in their own self-interest.

Well, I'm not sure if I'm a "Tory voter" since I've voted for three parties since becoming eligible to vote; but I voted Conservative in 2010 and voted in favour of AV in 2011. I think AV was probably more palatable, because there were no real arguments against it that I could see; it was "FPTP with the ability to give more detail on your ballot paper" (who would be against that?) rather than a fundamental change to the way parliament is comprised.

 

[Acfb]

I think the only way we'll get PR is if Lib Dems get 40+ seats at the next election and then hold the balance of power for for at least another 2/3 elections while the Tories are holed below the waterline by losing lots of hitherto safe seats in the South of England to them (at the same time as shifting further right in opposition under someone like Kemi Badenoch).

I think the right wing of Labour (at least Starmer and his allies) will calculate they can get a majority at the election after next (by gaining more SNP seats etc) by using a hung parliament to their advantage rather like David Cameron and Boris Johnson did.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2022 ==

To me this is the key issue. I don't object to people who do what they say they will do, even if I object to the things themselves. But I have severe issues with someone who stands on a platform of doing specific things - in Starmer's case, keeping most of the policies of the 2017/2019 manifestos - and then almost immediately goes back on them.

In retrospect, I also don't think it was wise for Labour to put in place as leader the architect of their second referendum policy. We saw how well that (didn't) go down in 2019 and it makes an easy target for the Tories at the next election - in my opinion they can just claim that Labour want to reverse Brexit, which given Starmer's record has some ring of truth to it, and I think that will be enough for them to hold onto many of the 'red wall' seats.

(Just before leaving the party, I voted for RLBailey, without any enthusiasm but she seemed the least-worst of a rather rubbish bunch of options. I've got some respect for Nandy as she seems to be who she presents herself as, but at the time there were some things she was saying about policy that I really didn't like (can't remember the details now though)).

It's one thing to triangulate and drop some policies although not ideal. I think the issue more for me is Starmer doesn't actually appear to believe in anything at all except becoming PM and just does whatever his ghoulish advisors tell him to do . I also get the same vibes from Streeting and Reeves even if I have more time for most of the rest of the shadow cabinet. I didn't particularly like him in the first place which is why I only gave him my 2nd preference. I have remained in the party though as I have more time for a lot of Labour's Scottish representatives.

I do wonder who Starmer actually *strongly* appeals to who didn't vote Labour in 2019 except a niche group of middle class voters who voted Con/LD and are now very noisy against Johnson/Truss.

I also don't think we should completely underestimate Truss in the 'red wall' even though I think she will go down very badly in the 'blue wall'.

Having said that the Starmer project appears to be more about protecting establishment institutions such as the CPS/Met and cultivating establishment media approval so on balance I still think he will still become PM in 2024/2025 even if he doesn't do much better seats wise than Corbyn did in 2017.

 

[8A Rail]

Back to the original question. Simply when they elected Keir Starmer to become Labour leader - he is more Tory than some of those actually in the Tory Party! I dont see it any other way and before anyone asks, I did not like Corbin either but at least he attempted to keep to his Labour principles. As for next election, odds on hung parliament is on the cards because of apathy and distrust.

 

[MikeWM]

It's one thing to triangulate and drop some policies although not ideal. I think the issue more for me is Starmer doesn't actually appear to believe in anything at all except becoming PM and just does whatever his ghoulish advisors tell him to do . I also get the same vibes from Streeting and Reeves even if I have more time for most of the rest of the shadow cabinet.

Agreed entirely. Streeting in particular I find very problematic and unappealing, all he way back to when he was President of the NUS. I'd rather have Hancock back as health secretary than Streeting have the job, and that is the lowest of low bars!

 

[LittleAH]

Back to the original question. Simply when they elected Keir Starmer to become Labour leader - he is more Tory than some of those actually in the Tory Party! I dont see it any other way and before anyone asks, I did not like Corbin either but at least he attempted to keep to his Labour principles. As for next election, odds on hung parliament is on the cards because of apathy and distrust.

Where has this nonsense come from? I doubt a human rights lawyer who was the former editor of a Socialist Magazine is more Tory. Sadly this is yet again crank left hyperbole.

 

[Typhoon]

Starmer needs to step up the pace now and start to flesh out some of his policy positions. He has a chance to capture the agenda if he sensible

True. Also he needs to ensure that members of the shadow cabinet get a chance to shine. They have talents that he doesn't. His take down of Johnson after the Pincher revelations was clinical; whatever the PMs chances of survival before, they had reduced considerably after. However, there is talent on the opposition front bench that he needs to ensure gets its share of the limelight, add some variety.

When Starmer had covid and Ed Milliband stood in, this was at least two steps up from the Milliband who stood against Cameron. Yvette Cooper - a competent speaker and if anyone is on top of their brief it is her. Jonathan Ashworth - I thought he performed well during the pandemic; he's disappeared. Wes Streeting - I would have thought the current situation with backlogs for ops was an open door for Labour, and Streeting was a 'coming man' - all I've heard is that there was a story in the Mail about his grandmother and the Kray's (they are so desperate); I notice the new Secretary of State is Barclay*; is he still Chief of Staff? Levelling up - it hasn't happened, outside of a bit of dosh to some largely Tory marginals; Labour need to get in before Truss drops the promise or Clark actually turns words into action.
The whole team need to be visible throughout August, speaking to voters, getting the word out, listening, ready to hit the ground running in September, hit Truss (assuming it is her) on health, energy, cost of living, everything before she gets her feet under the table. They should also go through all the speeches, answers, articles of Truss and Sunak looking for promises/policy directions. Challenge from day one.


* -

“A real nightmare, vindictive, arrogant, a bully, hostile to the NHS and all its works, a micro-manager of the wrong things, views NHS management as bloated and profligate.”

As this amalgam of quotes from senior NHS leaders makes clear, never has a politician arrived in the post of health secretary (or health and social care secretary) trailing a worse reputation than Steve Barclay.

From https://www.pslhub.org/learn/leader...ip’s-worst-‘nightmare’-hsj-6-july-2022-r7167/ and other places I cannot access. The NHS will need friends, that should be Labour.

Regarding the figures I notice the gap between Johnson's disapproval and approval has shrunk for 10 points in 3 weeks. Amazing, he hasn't changed, he is still as idle, casual with the truth, self-centred as ever. At this rate, he'll be in the black come September.

 

[DarloRich]

True. Also he needs to ensure that members of the shadow cabinet get a chance to shine. They have talents that he doesn't. His take down of Johnson after the Pincher revelations was clinical; whatever the PMs chances of survival before, they had reduced considerably after. However, there is talent on the opposition front bench that he needs to ensure gets its share of the limelight, add some variety.

When Starmer had covid and Ed Milliband stood in, this was at least two steps up from the Milliband who stood against Cameron. Yvette Cooper - a competent speaker and if anyone is on top of their brief it is her. Jonathan Ashworth - I thought he performed well during the pandemic; he's disappeared. Wes Streeting - I would have thought the current situation with backlogs for ops was an open door for Labour, and Streeting was a 'coming man' - all I've heard is that there was a story in the Mail about his grandmother and the Kray's (they are so desperate); I notice the new Secretary of State is Barclay*; is he still Chief of Staff? Levelling up - it hasn't happened, outside of a bit of dosh to some largely Tory marginals; Labour need to get in before Truss drops the promise or Clark actually turns words into action.
The whole team need to be visible throughout August, speaking to voters, getting the word out, listening, ready to hit the ground running in September, hit Truss (assuming it is her) on health, energy, cost of living, everything before she gets her feet under the table. They should also go through all the speeches, answers, articles of Truss and Sunak looking for promises/policy directions. Challenge from day one.

I agree: this is the time to really up the pace. Listening to some interviews with Starmer he wanted to go in very hard on probity, honesty, integrity, fitness for command, corruption, disorganisation & disinterest of of the Johnson regime and i think he was very successful with that. It is very important to keep those standards in place but now more is needed.

The problem is not so much with Starmer but with the lefter fringes of the Labour family. They simply cant ( or perhaps wont) seem to understand that the only way to win power is to persuade people who DONT vote for Labour to switch. Clown town polices and behaviours wont do that!

outside of a bit of dosh to some largely Tory marginals

an example being Darlington. A number of treasury jobs moved north with a minister of a fairly junior level showing up relatively regularly. What difference, really does that make? I am also cynical about the nature and seniority of the jobs moved/created!

 

[nw1]

Regarding the figures I notice the gap between Johnson's disapproval and approval has shrunk for 10 points in 3 weeks. Amazing, he hasn't changed, he is still as idle, casual with the truth, self-centred as ever. At this rate, he'll be in the black come September.

He's a lame duck, I guess, and people see him as less of a threat given his time's almost up.

Or, people are predicting Truss to be even worse, and thinking a continuation of Johnson is the lesser of the two evils!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2022 ==

I think we probably agree here and I would say the same thing about the EU referendum. I think there is a good argument that referendums should not even be a thing, especially as they are always presented as "once in a generation" events (and then never are).

I do agree that referenda are not a particularly good way of setting policy. They make the assumption that the entire population are clued-up about things, when they are not, necessarily.

But since referendums are 'a thing', and we had one, it would be political suicide to override it without another.

Except that was 2011, so long enough for the original referendum to be forgotten about.

It's not as if they've just had such a referendum and ignored the result.

Well, I'm not sure if I'm a "Tory voter" since I've voted for three parties since becoming eligible to vote; but I voted Conservative in 2010 and voted in favour of AV in 2011. I think AV was probably more palatable, because there were no real arguments against it that I could see; it was "FPTP with the ability to give more detail on your ballot paper" (who would be against that?) rather than a fundamental change to the way parliament is comprised.

Yes, that's a good point. By "Tory voter" I guess I mean dedicated Conservatives, so probably more like 30% than 40%. But I would guess that in 2011 a lot of people voted to keep FPTP simply because they didn't really understand the alternatives, rather than enthusiastic support for FPTP. And that is exactly the problem with referenda on these matters.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, that's a good point. By "Tory voter" I guess I mean dedicated Conservatives, so probably more like 30% than 40%. But I would guess that in 2011 a lot of people voted to keep FPTP simply because they didn't really understand the alternatives, rather than enthusiastic support for FPTP. And that is exactly the problem with referenda on these matters.

I suspect there was a bit of kicking the government then too, just as there was in 2016. The cynic in me says that Osborne scheduled the referendum at the time when the Coalition would be really unpopular and the public would be wondering why they were spending time on something so apparently irrelevant.

 

[8A Rail]

Where has this nonsense come from? I doubt a human rights lawyer who was the former editor of a Socialist Magazine is more Tory. Sadly this is yet again crank left hyperbole.

Is it? As for the latter comment, no idea what you are on about so it has got lost in transit somewhere! Never mind.

Anyway I vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party if they had local candidate because they would do no worst than anyone else! What sad state of affairs for our politics!

 

[The Ham]

Is it? As for the latter comment, no idea what you are on about so it has got lost in transit somewhere! Never mind.

Anyway I vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party if they had local candidate because they would do no worst than anyone else! What sad state of affairs for our politics!

I do wonder if there policy of a 99p coin is still in play, given that cash is falling in use.

However some of their policies actually became mainstream over the years. Unfortunately I don't recall which ones.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think the only way we'll get PR is if Lib Dems get 40+ seats at the next election and then hold the balance of power for for at least another 2/3 elections while the Tories are holed below the waterline by losing lots of hitherto safe seats in the South of England to them (at the same time as shifting further right in opposition under someone like Kemi Badenoch).

I think the right wing of Labour (at least Starmer and his allies) will calculate they can get a majority at the election after next (by gaining more SNP seats etc) by using a hung parliament to their advantage rather like David Cameron and Boris Johnson did.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jul 2022 ==



It's one thing to triangulate and drop some policies although not ideal. I think the issue more for me is Starmer doesn't actually appear to believe in anything at all except becoming PM and just does whatever his ghoulish advisors tell him to do . I also get the same vibes from Streeting and Reeves even if I have more time for most of the rest of the shadow cabinet. I didn't particularly like him in the first place which is why I only gave him my 2nd preference. I have remained in the party though as I have more time for a lot of Labour's Scottish representatives.

Im a mobile voter but i do feel Anas Sarwar comes across far better than Starmer/Reeves/Rayner/Streeting but can't see a change at the top until Labour fail to get a majority and the next election.

 

[brad465]

I think the only way we'll get PR is if Lib Dems get 40+ seats at the next election and then hold the balance of power for for at least another 2/3 elections while the Tories are holed below the waterline by losing lots of hitherto safe seats in the South of England to them (at the same time as shifting further right in opposition under someone like Kemi Badenoch).

I think the right wing of Labour (at least Starmer and his allies) will calculate they can get a majority at the election after next (by gaining more SNP seats etc) by using a hung parliament to their advantage rather like David Cameron and Boris Johnson did.

There are a number of PR supporters hoping for a hung Parliament resulting in some form of Labour and Lib Dem alliance in order to get PR introduced.

 

[Kite159]

There are a number of PR supporters hoping for a hung Parliament resulting in some form of Labour and Lib Dem alliance in order to get PR introduced.

Of course getting PR as part of an agreement as part of an alliance probably still will have the test of trying to get past the voting public in a referendum.

 

[brad465]

Of course getting PR as part of an agreement as part of an alliance probably still will have the test of trying to get past the voting public in a referendum.

Unless the largest party in the alliance has it in their manifesto. At the last Labour party conference 80% of members backed it, the reason it didn't pass was due to some unions not, however at least one union that opposed it before has since endorsed the policy, so if it was voted on at conference again it's more likely to pass, which could lead to pressure to put it in the next manifesto.

 

[Bevan Price]

Sadly I fear it will take more than one election for Labour to skake off the legacy of Corbyn; Starmer reminds me a bit of Gordon Brown - intelligent, sincere, but somewhat lacking in the level of charisma needed to win elections. Whilst I think that Labour may win back many of the "red wall" seats in North & Midland England, it won't be enough unless they can make a big recovery in Scotland.

 

[GusB]

Or it will be watered down to something like the "Alternative Vote" which got voted on after the Tory/Lib-Dem government in 2010

The "Alternative Vote" was always going to fail. It's a slightly better way of electing a single candidate to a single seat, and it was never going to deliver proportional representation. I voted for AV as a step towards the next stage, but I was under no illusion that it would change our current system.

I'm not sure who should be the next Labour leader. Possibly Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner or Bridget Philipson.

Rayner gets my vote; her performance at Prime Minister's Questions have been far better than Starmer's.

PR is not the holy grail of electoral systems that some may think.
Take a look at the recent NI Assembly election.
Alliance polled 116000 first preference votes and gained 17 seats.
TUV polled 65000 first preference votes and got 1 seat.
Obviously second preference votes played a part in this outcome.
If PR were to be introduced in General elections, we would probably have perpetual coalition administrations with policies being watered down to suit minority parties.

What's wrong with coalitions?

It means that the extremists in one party are tamed, to an extent. Some people might say that the Con/Lib coalition from 2010 was awful, but let's not forget how awful it could have been without the Liberals. Nick Clegg can do one as far as I'm concerned but, had Irritable Duncan Syndrome got his way, we would have seen far more deaths from his policies.

 

[Gloster]

An FOI request has revealed that the Beergate investigation cost £101,000, took up 3203 hours of work, and involved nine officers (one a Detective Superintendent) and two other members of staff from the major crime team. Will the Daily Mail be making a donation? (Source: NationalWorld (whoever that is) via The London Economic.)

 

[Broucek]

An FOI request has revealed that the Beergate investigation cost £101,000, took up 3203 hours of work, and involved nine officers (one a Detective Superintendent) and two other members of staff from the major crime team. Will the Daily Mail be making a donation? (Source: NationalWorld (whoever that is) via The London Economic.)

£101k doesn't sound much for 3203 hours' work... It costs rather more to employ someone than just their salary and employer NICs...

 

[Ediswan]

£101k doesn't sound much for 3203 hours' work... It costs rather more to employ someone than just their salary and employer NICs...

The NationalWorld article says: https://www.nationalworld.com/news/...detectives-durham-police-keir-starmer-3844975

We can now reveal the investigation cost the force an estimated £101,000 and approximately 3,203 hours of police work.

So is that £101K in addition to the staff costs ? They don't quote the FOI response directly.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

An FOI request has revealed that the Beergate investigation cost £101,000, took up 3203 hours of work, and involved nine officers (one a Detective Superintendent) and two other members of staff from the major crime team. Will the Daily Mail be making a donation? (Source: NationalWorld (whoever that is) via The London Economic.)

3203 hours????? That's like, not far off 100 man-weeks (depending how many hours/week police officers work)! What on Earth were they doing all that time? They have maybe 10-20 people they can interview, some photos to check out, maybe a bit of detective work if they want to corroborate some people's accounts of the events. And possibly getting some legal advice to verify exactly what was legal on that date. Is there some other huge piece of work I'm missing? Because if not, those figures give the impression of a serious over-manning/lack of productivity problem. It's also very tempting to infer a connection with why so few crimes get investigated properly.

And as for the £100K... If that's not accounted for by wages then... what could they possibly have spent that much money on?

 

[Broucek]

If the new Health Secretary hadn't banned Oxford commas, it would be much clearer....

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

An FOI request has revealed that the Beergate investigation cost £101,000, took up 3203 hours of work, and involved nine officers (one a Detective Superintendent) and two other members of staff from the major crime team. Will the Daily Mail be making a donation? (Source: NationalWorld (whoever that is) via The London Economic.)

Interesting that it was answered so quickly and they didn't try and say it was too difficult to find the information which is the usual excuse when you ask for detailed numbers from meany governmental organisations suggest to me that Durham Police were quite happy to show what a waste of time it had been but don't blame us speak to the Home Secretary.

 

[nw1]

Sadly I fear it will take more than one election for Labour to skake off the legacy of Corbyn; Starmer reminds me a bit of Gordon Brown - intelligent, sincere, but somewhat lacking in the level of charisma needed to win elections. Whilst I think that Labour may win back many of the "red wall" seats in North & Midland England, it won't be enough unless they can make a big recovery in Scotland.

(Sorry, only just seen this).

Scotland is kind-of irrelevant though, as the dominant party there is the SNP, who are an opposition party.

Gains in Scotland will mean few or no Tory seats lost and therefore it's a waste of Labour's energy to focus on Scottish seats. The aim at the next election is surely to significantly reduce the number of Tory seats. If they can be reduced to less than half, then a Labour-led government will surely be the outcome - and that is what Labour need to aim for, not a majority (which is more unrealistic).

So Labour need to target the North and Midlands (and a small number of more southern seats such as Milton Keynes or Swindon, where they are in with a chance), and the Lib Dems, various affluent-but-liberal southern seats - Winchester, Guildford, Esher, that kind of thing.

 

[Acfb]

(Sorry, only just seen this).

Scotland is kind-of irrelevant though, as the dominant party there is the SNP, who are an opposition party.

Gains in Scotland will mean few or no Tory seats lost and therefore it's a waste of Labour's energy to focus on Scottish seats. The aim at the next election is surely to significantly reduce the number of Tory seats. If they can be reduced to less than half, then a Labour-lead government will surely be the outcome - and that is what Labour need to aim for, not a majority (which is more unrealistic). So Labour need to target the North and Midlands (and a small number of more southern seats such as Milton Keynes or Swindon, where they are in with a chance), and the Lib Dems, various affluent-but-liberal southern seats - Winchester, Guildford, Esher, that kind of thing.

I think Labour can win a handful of seats in Scotland (at least 5-10) like in 2017 although Scotland is only really relevant to the difference between a Labour pluraity and an overall majority.

I'm not sure I agree with Bevan Price actually given that Labour is starting from the exact same starting point (Seats wise and votes wise) that the Tories were after the 2005 election and given the unwind from the unusual circumstances of the 2019 election, we could see practically all of the northern Red wall seats revert to Labour at the next election even if the West Midlands in particular is far more challenging for Labour.

There's no real reason why Starmer cannot get 300-310 seats like Cameron did in 2010 (even though I initially had doubts) even if Labour does not make massive gains in vote share.

If Starmer doesn't now at least match Corbyn's 2017 performance (~260 seats) then by any objective standard he will have done fairly badly considering he's had the easiest media ride since Blair (relatively speaking) and the fact he is up against a somewhat tone deaf Truss/Kwarteng led Tory party.

Truss is also very likely to go down really badly in the 'blue wall' which could get the Lib Dems back up to ~30 seats.

 

[Busaholic]

3203 hours????? That's like, not far off 100 man-weeks (depending how many hours/week police officers work)! What on Earth were they doing all that time?

That can needed a hell of a lot of kicking down the road. Everyone up to and including Dear Cressida had to participate, the can had to be changed more often than a Dukes ball in a cricket match and every so often play was suspended for a thumb twiddling contest, which etiquette demanded should be won by the Commissioner. After a few weeks, the 'result' of the 'investigations' had to emerge, so then the real work began to fit the 'evidence' to match the agreed outcome. It was all foreshadowed by George Orwell in 1984, where platoons of people are employed to reprint old newspapers with the contents changed to reflect the current views of the regime.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think Labour can win a handful of seats in Scotland (at least 5-10) like in 2017 although Scotland is only really relevant to the difference between a Labour pluraity and an overall majority.

From what ive seen of Anas Sarwar he would make a better leader than Starmer so if he manages to turn round labours fortunes in Scotland he would be well placed.

I'm not sure I agree with Bevan Price actually given that Labour is starting from the exact same starting point (Seats wise and votes wise) that the Tories were after the 2005 election and given the unwind from the unusual circumstances of the 2019 election, we could see practically all of the northern Red wall seats revert to Labour at the next election even if the West Midlands in particular is far more challenging for Labour.

There's no real reason why Starmer cannot get 300-310 seats like Cameron did in 2010 (even though I initially had doubts) even if Labour does not make massive gains in vote share.

If Starmer doesn't now at least match Corbyn's 2017 performance (~260 seats) then by any objective standard he will have done fairly badly considering he's had the easiest media ride since Blair (relatively speaking) and the fact he is up against a somewhat tone deaf Truss/Kwarteng led Tory party.

Truss/Kwarteng are attempting to buy the vote with there up scaling of the magic money tree to way beyond anything even the so called corbynistas could have dreamt of and in the short term its likely to have the desired effect with people and my view is they will call a GE before Dec24 cut off as they know there is high risk that it will be short lived.

Truss is also very likely to go down really badly in the 'blue wall' which could get the Lib Dems back up to ~30 seats.

Lib Dems could make 50 seats imv as there is thing about true blue Tories just being incapable of putting that X against Labour when they get to the poll booth.

 

[nw1]

From what ive seen of Anas Sarwar he would make a better leader than Starmer so if he manages to turn round labours fortunes in Scotland he would be well placed.

Truss/Kwarteng are attempting to buy the vote with there up scaling of the magic money tree to way beyond anything even the so called corbynistas could have dreamt of and in the short term its likely to have the desired effect with people and my view is they will call a GE before Dec24 cut off as they know there is high risk that it will be short lived.

Not so sure, unless Truss can wave a magic wand and make the cost of living crisis completely go away. The amount of borrowing needed to do that would raise alarm bells in all but the most ardent Tories.

And many will resent that money is being borrowed and the country is being forced into astronomical debt while the energy companies contribute absolutely zilch (doubtless because the Tory party would like some generous donations from said companies or Tory MPs are eyeing up board positions once they retire from frontline politics...). Essentially the government is writing a blank cheque to the energy companies and saying "Here you go. Don't worry about paying it back..."

And remember Truss has apparently implied we're all lazy. That will not go down well in the red wall. And she's no Johnson, someone for whom character compensated for bad politics in the eyes of many. A bad Thatcher tribute act, a bland version of Johnson, or a right-wing version of Theresa May.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Not so sure, unless Truss can wave a magic wand and make the cost of living crisis completely go away. The amount of borrowing needed to do that would raise alarm bells in all but the most ardent Tories.

Well she has already committed 150B to at least take a big chunk out of the cost of living crisis and by all accounts Kwarteng will be in parliament for a mini budget fiscal event this Friday for part two with a tax giveaway so as i say in the short term this will give some "feel good" to the middle classes who will be relieved they can still afford their skiing holiday. The risk for them is whether the speculators drive the pound down although its not great now i suspect the threshold for Tory MP concern will be parity ton the dollar as she will wax lyrical about how this is just short term and we will soon be the envy of the world. The other thing to bare in mind is she is steeling Labours thunder over energy bills.

And many will resent that money is being borrowed and the country is being forced into astronomical debt while the energy companies contribute absolutely zilch (doubtless because the Tory party would like some generous donations from said companies or Tory MPs are eyeing up board positions once they retire from frontline politics...). Essentially the government is writing a blank cheque to the energy companies and saying "Here you go. Don't worry about paying it back..."

People have been worrying about that since 2008 but the linkage between borrowing isn't as hard wired as it was in the 60/70's although I accept there will be a tipping point.

And remember Truss has implied we're all lazy. That will not go down well in the red wall. And she's no Johnson, someone for whom character compensated for bad politics in the eyes of many. A bad Thatcher tribute act, a bland version of Johnson, or a right-wing version of Theresa May.

Shes none of the above she just self centred and concerned for herself.

 

[WizCastro197]

I think Rayner is a lot stronger than Starmer. But the problem is, not many people like her! I do think Starmer is a sensible man who may be able to lead Labour to a Victory but he entered the leadership at a poor time for the Party and hasn't had the chance to "shine" I guess apart from the 2022 council elections.

As for Conservatives, Truss will not last long 3 years tops. But I must admit I think Mordaunt will become next leader.


As for Marginal seats for conservatives, they'll all be lost eg. Kensington, living off a 150 CON majority. Labour and Lib Dem marginal seats will gain further majority I presume but I could be easily as wrong.



What is said "Blue Wall"
I would interpret it as Most of Southern England?