The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[edwin_m]

I'd say Badenoch is the more likely of the two - but hopefully the Tories will have replaced her by then. But even Badenoch would be preferable to the, IMO, far-right* individual that is Farage.

I still think Farage is too extreme to come first - would surely be beaten by either Labour or the Tories. And remember a 2029 election will be immediately in the wake of Trump - will we really want to put ourselves through someone who's arguably worse than Trump just months after he finishes?

(*multiple sources consider the French RN as far-right, so Farage surely could be - to my mind he's right of Le Pen)

I really hope Labour don't mess up enough to make either a possibility.

 

[Falcon1200]

I would not at all surprised to see Nigel Farage elected as PM in 2029.

I would be utterly astonished if that man ever gets anywhere near real power!

I voted Labour this year, next time I would consider Labour, depending on the state of the country after their 5 years of power, or the Tories, depending on their offering. But I will never, ever, vote for Farage, or any party of which he is a member.

 

[Purple Train]

I'd say Badenoch is the more likely of the two - but hopefully the Tories will have replaced her by then. But even Badenoch would be preferable to the, IMO, far-right* individual that is Farage.

I still think Farage is too extreme to come first - would surely be beaten by either Labour or the Tories. And remember a 2029 election will be immediately in the wake of Trump - will we really want to put ourselves through someone who's arguably worse than Trump just months after he finishes?

(*multiple sources consider the French RN as far-right, so Farage surely could be - to my mind he's right of Le Pen)

The maths is very much against him, so I'd be extremely surprised if he gets anywhere near power from a base of just five MPs now. Plus he'll have lost the "upstart factor", after five years of being relatively established in the political structure of the country, and he definitely feeds off that outsider-act dynamism. But those factors have nothing to do with his politics - and I think to argue that he is "too extreme" is to overestimate the critical thinking skills of most of the electorate! What he may well do, though, is pick up much of the far-left socially-conservative vote that deserted Labour in 2019.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The maths is very much against him

Reform did very well and their share of the seats doesn’t reflect their share of the popular vote. It’s hard to move from third place to into the top two but not impossible- look at the Liberal Party vote collapsing. Reform were remarkably close to Labour in a lot of seats.

And if Labour don’t do more for the working poor then they’ll get the same outcome as the Democrats did.

And that’s also assuming Reform don’t complete their reverse takeover of the Conservative Party.

I sincerely hope he never gets near power. But he and his ilk worry me

 

[Purple Train]

Reform did very well and their share of the seats doesn’t reflect their share of the popular vote. It’s hard to move from third place to into the top two but not impossible- look at the Liberal Party vote collapsing. Reform were remarkably close to Labour in a lot of seats.

And if Labour don’t do more for the working poor then they’ll get the same outcome as the Democrats did.

And that’s also assuming Reform don’t complete their reverse takeover of the Conservative Party.

I sincerely hope he never gets near power. But he and his ilk worry me

They'd need to double their vote share to get anywhere near power, and even then they'd probably have to form a coalition with the Conservatives (would Farage do that simply to get power? It would be a monumental turnaround but since when has he cared?). I'm not saying it's impossible, just very, very unlikely, mathematically speaking. All that being said, though, it's very much gazing into a rather opaque crystal ball.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

And if Labour don’t do more for the working poor then they’ll get the same outcome as the Democrats did.

Precisely.

 

[nw1]

Reform did very well and their share of the seats doesn’t reflect their share of the popular vote. It’s hard to move from third place to into the top two but not impossible- look at the Liberal Party vote collapsing. Reform were remarkably close to Labour in a lot of seats.

I would still hope that Trump will be a good lesson for the rest of the West and, after four years of a Trump s***show in the USA, we will have been shocked into not doing something similar.

And if Labour don’t do more for the working poor then they’ll get the same outcome as the Democrats did.

What would you suggest - Labour's policies do seem to be somewhat left-leaning, the people voicing most concern about the effects of the budget, for example, seem to be mostly business people from what I can see.

I guess it's difficult for them to go full-on socialist (much as that might be something of a good thing) because of the state of the economy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2024 ==

Precisely.

The question would be, in the event of a Labour loss, would we get a BritTrump or something like a Bush or a Romney?
I guess the latter is possible if the Tories change leader again to someone more centrist and win the next election.

 

[Richard Scott]

I guess it's difficult for them to go full-on socialist (much as that might be something of a good thing) because of the state of the economy.

Probably because they've also found out it just doesn't work! Not sure they were having much success in the 1970s?

 

[Yew]

I guess it's difficult for them to go full-on socialist (much as that might be something of a good thing) because of the state of the economy.

It seemed to work pretty well rebuilding the country after the war, when public debt was a much higher percentage of GDP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2024 ==

Probably because they've also found out it just doesn't work! Not sure they were having much success in the 1970s?

Whereas we've had such a rapid recovery since the 2008 economic crisis, and there was no inflation increases at all due to the oil price increases due to the war in Ukraine.

 

[nw1]

Badenoch and Boris going on about there being attacks on freedom of speech, or something, under Starmer. Boris, spinning up his usual nonsense, comparing Starmer to the Soviet Union, continuing a long tradition of Tories associating people and entities they dislike with Soviet Russia. Any fool would know that such a comparison is nonsense.

Supposedly triggered by recent events such as (admittedly) slightly-over-the-top responses to school bullying incidents or falsely labelling the police as associating with "anti-Semites" (who were no such thing at all).

I wonder if Trump and Netanyahu fan Badenoch would extend her new found love of freedom of speech to those who strongly support trans rights, or those who wish to criticise Netanyahu and the Israeli government? I suspect not, and I suspect a Badenoch government would be the most authoritarian in more than 100 years.

People really need to lessen their complaints about this sort of thing because the alternative - a Badenoch or even Farage government - would be far, far worse, IMO, when it comes to authoritarianism. We should count ourselves damned lucky we have a centrist government at the moment and do not have a leadership such as that of Hungary, Slovakia, or (soon to be) the USA.

 

[Harpo]

Badenoch and Boris going on about there being attacks on freedom of speech,

Because they’d love us to think things were better before or will be better if they were elected.

The same people who object so vehemently to the ECHR or slap ‘lefty lawyer’ labels on those helping people in distress while labelling others of a like mind as ‘woke’.

Speech is just one of our many freedoms that need to be respected.

 

[nw1]

Because they’d love us to think things were better before or will be better if they were elected.

The same people who object so vehemently to the ECHR or slap ‘lefty lawyer’ labels on those helping people in distress while labelling others of a like mind as ‘woke’.

Speech is just one of our many freedoms that need to be respected.

Of course they won't be, in my opinion Badenoch has "authoritarian" written all over her.

Just look at this piece of sycophancy from Badenoch (https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/trump-team-angry-about-snide-comments-from-uk-and-europe-3379216):

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch meanwhile warned ministers not to be too critical of Musk given his influence over Trump, and criticised Labour’s failure to invite the Tesla chief to the Government’s investment summit last month.

Her press secretary told reporters: “He is one of the most prominent businessmen in the world and he has just taken a role in the US administration, so it would be befitting of the Government’s front bench to stop their sort of student politics approach to President Trump and Elon Musk, and treat them with a little bit more respect.”

Freedom of speech? Yeah, right.
We must doff our caps to Musk and Trump because they are our "betters", Badenoch effectively appears to say.

People are absolutely not worthy of respect just because they are "one of the most prominent businessmen in the world". So what? Doesn't make Musk any less of a jerk.

As for "student politics", this is the typical kind of patronising claptrap the Right always come up with to silence views that they disagree with. As I said, Badenoch a fundamental believer in freedom of speech? Absolutely not.

 

[Shrop]

So today Starmer is being given a bit of grief in Llandudno. The Budget will take a few £million in inheritance tax from the Welsh farmers to help with Labour's proposals, but the Welsh have been loyal to Labour for a great many years, and now they feel scorned, especially when Starmer says he will stand by everything in the Budget. Labour could have raised many times as much money by removing the cap on petrol prices, and most of the electorate not only expected them to do this, they would have accepted it too. So have Labour shot themselves in the foot again? They upset pensioners throughout the country, and now their loyal Welsh supporters, have they actually got their eyes on the ball here? What possible reason do Labour have for being so pro-motorist?

 

[JonathanH]

What possible reason do Labour have for being so pro-motorist?

Not strictly motorists, but the people who use a car daily to get to their workplace. I'm sure Labour wouldn't have any qualms about hitting people who make long discretionary car journeys for leisure purposes, but appear to consider car commutes as something 'working people' do.

 

[Shrop]

Not strictly motorists, but the people who use a car daily to get to their workplace. I'm sure Labour wouldn't have any qualms about hitting people who make long discretionary car journeys for leisure purposes, but appear to consider car commutes as something 'working people' do.

But how do you define "discretionary" car journeys? I'd argue that vast numbers of car journeys to work could be made by train, bus, cycle etc, but one person's justification for their car being essential, is often different to the view held by the next person. The Government would do well to take a lead on this, and not meekly pander to what they (often mistakenly) just think the electorate wants. There are many examples of people stopping using their car without much fuss, when they have to.

 

[edwin_m]

But how do you define "discretionary" car journeys? I'd argue that vast numbers of car journeys to work could be made by train, bus, cycle etc, but one person's justification for their car being essential, is often different to the view held by the next person. The Government would do well to take a lead on this, and not meekly pander to what they (often mistakenly) just think the electorate wants. There are many examples of people stopping using their car without much fuss, when they have to.

Unfortunately that's not true in many cases. A combination of socio-economic trends (couples working in different places, less tendency to move closer to the place of work) and policy failure (not integrating public transport as a network or with land use, not creating cycle routes protected from the resulting car traffic).

 

[nw1]

Unfortunately that's not true in many cases. A combination of socio-economic trends (couples working in different places, less tendency to move closer to the place of work) and policy failure (not integrating public transport as a network or with land use, not creating cycle routes protected from the resulting car traffic).

Plus of course many areas lacking the bus services they did even 20 years ago (try getting into Southampton from even Bishop's Waltham on the bus in 2024 and contrast that to 2003 when not only BW but also the Meon Valley had a regular service). Thus, in many cases, driving is the only viable means of commuting. It's all very well saying that you should pick somewhere to live which is on a bus route (for example someone picking Bishop's Waltham in the 00s as it had a regular service into Southampton), but if the bus route is taken away and you have a car, what can you do but drive?

I'd thus tend to agree that motorists shouldn't be hit, but equally, public transport needs to be funded. The money needs to come from somewhere, and Labour have taken some action to attempt to do this - but some people are inevitably not happy with the means by which they are doing so. But at the end of the day, you can't please everyone all the time given the economy isn't what it could be (as a result of Covid/Putin/Brexit) and I'd far prefer the current government than the horrendous Trump-esque alternatives offered by Badenoch or Farage.

I do think that a lot of the current hate for Labour is blown up by their enemies in the media though - are they really that bad compared to the Johnson and Sunak governments?

 

[edwin_m]

I do think that a lot of the current hate for Labour is blown up by their enemies in the media though - are they really that bad compared to the Johnson and Sunak governments?

Much of the press will jump on anything that puts the Labour government in a bad light, regardless of whether the Tories were worse. I think also there's a sense of let-down by people who expected immediate improvement after the change of government. The government was trying to lower expectations in that respect, but that has backfired and contributed to the let-down - along with high-profile but badly presented and probably badly thought out measures like the winter fuel allowance cut, which gave an open goal to those detractors.

 

[Richard Scott]

Much of the press will jump on anything that puts the Labour government in a bad light, regardless of whether the Tories were worse. I think also there's a sense of let-down by people who expected immediate improvement after the change of government. The government was trying to lower expectations in that respect, but that has backfired and contributed to the let-down - along with high-profile but badly presented and probably badly thought out measures like the winter fuel allowance cut, which gave an open goal to those detractors.

In that case what's the positive side, in your opinion? Be interested to hear what people think the new government have done well? Let's have something positive!

 

[Shrop]

I'd thus tend to agree that motorists shouldn't be hit, but equally, public transport needs to be funded.

Yes, public transport needs to be funded, but saying that motorists shouldn't be hit is having your head well into the sand. If petrol was now £2 per litre, then they still wouldn't be being hit, all this would mean is that fuel prices would be keeping pace with inflation for the last 10 years. If motorists were actually being hit for the last 10 years, then petrol would now cost significantly more than £2 per litre. Now think of this in the context of today's low petrol price of 130-140p per litre or thereabouts, and that 5p on a litre of fuel is worth around £3billion to the Government. A 5p raise would have eliminated the need to scrap the winter fuel payment, and also the need to upset the farmers, all whilst doing nothing more than car drivers were expecting, and all it would have cost would have been a day's worth of moaning headlines in the Tory press, whilst going nowhere near even £1.50 per litre.

I have to say I'm surprised and disappointed that so many people on a rail forum are themselves so blinkered in favour of cars. Yes, of course cars are a great asset, but vast numbers of people are unnecessarily quick to defend their use, without thinking it through that alternatives really are available. I will just finish by saying that this type of comment usually attracts responses from the minority who actually do need to depend on cars - I don't really need to hear from these people. My hope is that there could be some more discussion about car use, rail use, other forms of commuting etc, and why the Starmer Govt is being so unnecessarily lenient towards motorists.

 

[Harpo]

In that case what's the positive side, in your opinion? Be interested to hear what people think the new government have done well? Let's have something positive!

Positives? We finally have a government prepared to show that you cannot have the penny and the bun and that our broken cash-starved services will not magically heal themselves.

Whether it’s associated PR and fixes are the right ones will leave it at the mercy of the press barons and ultra wealthy friends who hate not having their pockets lined and their egos massaged by the government of the day.

 

[nw1]

I have to say I'm surprised and disappointed that so many people on a rail forum are themselves so blinkered in favour of cars.

You're misunderstanding me, and many others. We're pro-PT, we're just not anti-car. And I speak as a non-driver.

I am pro-PT and would like to see a return to the bus network of 2003, at the very least. And I would certainly like to see a reversal of the Tory policy of cuts to council funding, which has meant, for example, that there is now no bus link between Southampton and Bishop's Waltham at all, despite the two being perhaps only 10 miles from each other and having traditionally had an hourly 6-day-a-week service.

I would also have strongly opposed Beeching had I been around at the time.

But I also understand that some people have no choice but to drive. As I said what is the hypothetical Bishop's Waltham resident, working in Southampton, supposed to do now? Bus to Winchester then train to Southampton?

 

[edwin_m]

In that case what's the positive side, in your opinion? Be interested to hear what people think the new government have done well? Let's have something positive!

Unfortunately it's mostly about starting to fix some of the more egregious behaviour of the Tories, such as bringing public sector pay back into line and indeed fixing the rest of the financial hole. This has left little room for positive measures.

 

[nw1]

Unfortunately it's mostly about starting to fix some of the more egregious behaviour of the Tories, such as bringing public sector pay back into line and indeed fixing the rest of the financial hole. This has left little room for positive measures.

I second that and I understood that would be the deal from day one. I'm amazed people are even surprised that utopia hasn't instantly happened under Labour.

As I said, those who are complaining about Labour might want to think about whether they'd prefer to live under the rulers of Hungary, Slovakia or (from next January) the USA. Or live under the likes of Farage or Badenoch and probably have their rights as employees, and possibly some of their personal freedoms, curtailed.

 

[edwin_m]

I second that and I understood that would be the deal from day one. I'm amazed people are even surprised that utopia hasn't instantly happened under Labour.

Cameron and Osborne largely got away with taking a similar line in 2010, that the public finances were broken, even though their "remedy" was more severe and less justified. Part of the difference was having most of the media on their side.

 

[nw1]

Cameron and Osborne largely got away with taking a similar line in 2010, that the public finances were broken, even though their "remedy" was more severe and less justified. Part of the difference was having most of the media on their side.

Indeed, there was not nearly so much hate from the media towards those two. Instead it was "we'll fix broken Britain" etc etc etc.

The only way that Labour can counter the inherent media bias towards the Right is to embrace some kind of PR system.

If the next election is Lab/Lib Dem/Green/Nats versus Tory/Reform, the former will easily win I suspect. Under FPTP we could easily see a Tory government or worse, though I'm still hoping Badenoch will be replaced by someone more sensible which would mitigate things.

 

[brad465]

In that case what's the positive side, in your opinion? Be interested to hear what people think the new government have done well? Let's have something positive!

Big investment in bus services around the country, reversing a key Thatcher legacy:

'London-style' bus services planned for England with £1bn boost

The Department for Transport says funding will be allocated based on levels of deprivation and population.

www.bbc.co.uk

Almost £1bn in funding will go to delivering London-style buses nationwide as part of a massive Budget boost, the government has promised.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has given more details on its plans for 2025 after announcing the funding last month.
It has promised to deliver what it calls "London-style" services to every corner of the country, and said funding would be allocated based on levels of deprivation and population, instead of making areas compete for investment as it has in previous years.
The DfT says Leicester, the Isle of Wight, Torbay, Southend, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are set to receive "unprecedented" levels of funding.
In urban areas, some of the biggest allocations are being given to combined authorities representing South Yorkshire and the Liverpool City Region.
In total, there will be £712m for local authorities to improve services, alongside a further £243m for bus operators.
About 3.4 million people in England travel regularly by bus, making it the most commonly used mode of public transport.
Local authorities in all English regions will be able to introduce new bus routes, make services more frequent and protect crucial routes, the DfT says.
It added the money will allow more urban areas to maintain high levels of service. Meanwhile, rural communities and small towns will be able to offer more services.
Transport Secretary Louise Haigh told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme the funding would "vastly improve" the reliability and frequency of services, particularly in rural areas.

 

[Purple Train]

As I said, Badenoch a fundamental believer in freedom of speech? Absolutely not.

Pretty much nobody, either left-wing or right-wing, who obsesses to any degree about "freedom of speech" actually, genuinely believes in it by your definition, at least in my experience. It's universal human nature to want your own views to be given greater leeway, so I think it's not a terribly helpful topic in most cases. Obviously with the likes of Trump and Orban, it's different, but Badenoch doesn't strike me as someone of their calibre: rather, she reminds me a bit of Liz Truss.

I'm amazed people are even surprised that utopia hasn't instantly happened under Labour.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill. Neither do such people's history books seem well-thumbed: Clement Attlee lost a landslide majority within six years of taking power, amidst a backdrop of austerity and continued rationing into the 50s. Now, he is regarded as one of the greatest Prime Ministers in British history. Short-term pain, long-term gain... I wonder what history will have to say about Starmer's premiership in 75 years' time?

 

[Shrop]

You're misunderstanding me, and many others. We're pro-PT, we're just not anti-car. And I speak as a non-driver.

I am pro-PT and would like to see a return to the bus network of 2003, at the very least. And I would certainly like to see a reversal of the Tory policy of cuts to council funding, which has meant, for example, that there is now no bus link between Southampton and Bishop's Waltham at all, despite the two being perhaps only 10 miles from each other and having traditionally had an hourly 6-day-a-week service.

I would also have strongly opposed Beeching had I been around at the time.

But I also understand that some people have no choice but to drive. As I said what is the hypothetical Bishop's Waltham resident, working in Southampton, supposed to do now? Bus to Winchester then train to Southampton?

I'm certainly not anti-car either. I enjoy driving and appreciate the many benefits of driving, my concern is that a great many (probably most) car drivers use cars a great deal more than they really need to. Of course we in the UK like to respect the right to choose to drive, but there is just so much that the Government could do to encourage better travel habits, but they don't seem to have the gumption to do so.

Just in case my phrase "better travel habits" isn't clear, consider the following. Having said we have the right to drive, at one time or another most of us also complain about the driving or parking habits of others, or about congestion. And who causes this bad driving or parking? It's all those who are exercising their "right" to drive (and park), in practice they often cause concerns and problems for others. Then there's the fact that even all of those who drive and park properly and legally every time, they are all part of the congestion that everyone else experiences. If people would just alter their habits a bit, the country would save a fortune in reduced costs of congestion, which in turn ends up as more in everyone's pockets. Is it even hard to do? Let me give an example. Not so long ago a major road on my route into town was closed due to a major gas main being ruptured, and the alternative route options for driving were very few. For the first two days people were greatly concerned and wondering how they could cope, but after 3 days the normally quiet pavements were full of people walking, and local radio was interviewing people who were saying how much they were enjoying walking instead of driving. Comments included how they were meeting neighbours whilst walking and enjoying the social side, even if just saying a brief "hello", and how they felt so much better thanks to the exercise. Many said they would continue to walk once the road was re-opened, which some did for another week or two, but eventually the car habit crept back in and took over once again. Government could easily encourage and lead on such things if they were minded to, and there are many more examples.

The costs of accidents and insurance is another thing that Government would do well to think about. If Govt would just focus on driving habits and get people to change theirs a bit, we could all benefit. What about the health benefits of being fitter, as in the above example? There are many, many benefits to be gained if Govt didn't have their heads so far into the sand about driving. Please note too, my use of the word "encourage". This is NOT the same as forcing people to do anything, it's just that most people (the general population) need someone to lead them in order to benefit themselves and the country. This should be the Government's job.

What does anyone think about these comments?

 

[edwin_m]

What does anyone think about these comments?

I agree with most of them but we are where we are. Many employment sites, particularly for lower paid "working people", are difficult to access any way other than by car - whereas the better paid often work in city centres with good bus and train services, or work from home. The same is often true for out of town shopping. There's a recent thread on here about how land use hasn't been co-ordinated with public transport.

Hopefully the bus reform measures and the funding announced today will go some way to constructing an integrated transport network that offers an alternative for home to work and other journeys to those who don't drive, cant afford to run a car or choose not to use it. Note that just improving railways isn't going to make much difference to this sort of issue.