DarloRich
Veteran Member
seems to be doing a decent job to me. My only gripe is how little media control they seem to have.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Labour Party under Andy Burnham
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The media handling isn't helped by the fact that Morgan McSweeney has been cheerfully leaking to the press about his internal enemies since day one. No wonder McSweeney apparently said that Starmer thought he was driving the train but was really in the front seat of the DLR.
Loathe him or hate him, Alastair Campbell was always inside the tent and urinating outwards. You really can't say the same about this lot.
Fewer people in general voted in the 2024 election, but for what it's worth I'm otherwise inclined to agree with you. It is rather unfortunate that elections are decided by 50-100 swing sweats which is why I'm very much on board with bringing in proportional representation. I think it would do a lot to restore trust and faith in our politics and make politicians work harder for the electorate.
However I do still believe the Tory collapse that enabled Labour's win wouldn't have taken place under Corbyn as it did with Starmer. The worst people could say about Starmer was that he's a bit bland and boring (something that was actually preferable after so much Tory chaos), whereas Corbyn was very controversial with some of his foreign policy ideals and would've made look weak on the world stage to say the least.
So many swing voters would've been turned off Labour for that reason, and any right-leaning Reform voters would've lent their vote to the Conservatives just to stop Corbyn becoming Prime Minister. That idea genuinely terrified lots of people, so I think if he was still Labour leader we'd be seeing another weak and fragmented Tory government plunging us further into managed decline.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
As I say, please don't take anything as an endorsement of Corbyn. Generally I do think he is a good backbencher and a principled man but, dear Lord, you wouldn't want him anywhere near actual power.
The Starmer who won the Labour leadership election was pretty much perfect IMO. Centre-left sensible Centrist Dad.
Sadly I don't think we have that now. I get some of the practicalities, government is always a compromise. But I really don't like many of the recent pronouncements, especially about "cutting red tape" in relation to building and planning control. And I like the "tough on immigration" rhetoric even less. The sight of a knighted former DPP standing up in Parliament and slagging off the judiciary for making the 'wrong' decision (even though both legally and ethically it was the right decision) was absolutely abhorrent, to be quite honest.
I've said it a few times on this thread already but I am genuinely worried about Starmer's karaoke Farage schtick. Starmer seems to be setting the electorate a choice between Diet Reform and full fat Reform, and all that does is legitimise Reform and strengthen their position. It's like he's determined to make all the same mistakes the Democrats made.
Mandelson demonstrating what an inept fool he is - just to be sure we all know it!
He’s spent the last years since he was in government spouting his opinions, which was fair enough, people could listen to him or not.
But now he’s an ambassador he can’t spot that he needs to shut up, and only parrot the government line, not his own nonsense.
Amongst other things he said that Ukraine should unilaterally call a ceasefire and be more supportive of US peace efforts.
I suspect he thinks he knows better than the elected government.
He’s spent the last years since he was in government spouting his opinions, which was fair enough, people could listen to him or not.
But now he’s an ambassador he can’t spot that he needs to shut up, and only parrot the government line, not his own nonsense.
Amongst other things he said that Ukraine should unilaterally call a ceasefire and be more supportive of US peace efforts.
I suspect he thinks he knows better than the elected government.
I wouldn't assume this hasn't been done with government approval. It's clearly not the line the government plans to take, but it potentially doesn't harm relations with the Trump and two real presidents to have our ambassador say the kinds of things they want to hear.
Mandelson has always been absolutely terrible, and I never for the life of me understood by Blair wasted so much political capital on bringing him back into government after the first scandal. I can only assume he's been put in as US ambassador because it's a role with negligible actual power which for the next few years will mostly involve acting impressed around a moron.
brad465
Veteran Member
It should be noted that Streeting's seat was previously a very safe one; he had a Gaza independent challenger who couldn't quite push him out in the same way Ashworth and a few others were. Had Labour campaigned in that seat to the same extent they campaigned in the other three seats you referred to, Streeting would have had a more comfortable victory.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
He's also very good at dealing with people like Trump. He won't have any problems sitting down next to him at a dinner and telling him that the gold-plated rubbish everywhere is a work of art, nor will he have any problems with flattering the various idiots around Trump as well. Mandelson can and will be the kind of person to remark positively about Trump's love of kitsch, and in a way that will have Trump making orders to always let him in if he wants something.
By all accounts, Corbyn is a fantastic backbencher. He knows his stuff, he goes out on the streets to talk directly to his constituents, he's known for really doing what he can for them, and he really is a textbook example of what an MP should be doing. You wouldn't want him near power, but this is exactly what gives him so much strength as a backbencher.
One major issue with PR: it's just very, very difficult to cover the entire district in some cases. My friend is a Polish MP, and some of the far-flung towns take so much effort to actually visit on a regular basis to the point where she quite openly says that it's just impossible to do it, although they vote just as much as people in the city do.
Remind me who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan now, after our war against the Taliban?
Are these the same Falkland Islands that Margret Thatcher had been planning to give away in 1980?
Are you suggesting that assassinations are a good thing?
You didn't say that though, you said that "Corbyn genuinely dislikes his own country".
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Mandelson is many many things, but he is not a fool.
He is. A matter of mine used to work with him when he was a minister and they are adamant he’s the most skilled operator they’ve ever met. They tell me had the most fanatic memory for details and was great with the patter: he’ll always ask about the kids/dog/etc and he’ll always compliment someone when they’ve bought new shoes or had their hair done.
I can’t think of anyone better to butter up the Cheeto.
It's a matter of great regret that the Taliban are still in charge, but that doesn't change the fact that the invasion back in 2001 can still be somewhat justified despite Corbyn's opposition and insistence that war is never the answer.
Yes, it's the same Falkland Islands that have made clear that they wish to remain British. Are you suggesting we should've just let Argentina invade British territory without consequences just because we planned to give it away?
I don't want to make a blanket statement on assassinations as a whole, and there is much room for nuance, but I don't think you can reasonably argue that the world is somehow worse off without Osama bin Laden.
Yes, and I say that because he has consistently spouted opinions that play into the hands of our enemies and would've made us look weak on the world stage if he became Prime Minister.
Tend to agree. I read a bio of Corbyn. He came over well on the whole (and the left is NOT my tribe). But, as you say, it was extremely clear that he: a) is not remotely suitable for any role that involves making and implementing difficult decisions; and b) thought locally and individually rather than in big picture terms. Finally, he seems to have a HUGE blindspot about antisemitism despite being commendably anti-racist in pretty much any other way.
We could only repel the invasion because we had the manpower, resources, financies and Allies against an inferior force.
Falcon1200
Established Member
An inferior force perhaps, but several thousand miles nearer the conflict, a huge advantage.
Did we have any allies? I seem to remember the US being low-key on the other side.
They may have started that way, but shifted towards the UK. e.g. banning arms sales to Argentina and providing Sidewinders for the Harriers.
France and Chile also supported the UK in various ways.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
In the case of France, via kinetic donation of Exocets...
Which unfortunately doesn't mean anything if you're not prepared to use it, and with a pacifist attitude we most certainly wouldn't have done so. In fact I'd go one step further saying that having those things would make pacifism even worse because it shows a lack of willingness to stand up against foreign aggression. If it was a scenario where the military was stretched thin and focused on protecting ourselves closer to home and genuinely couldn't afford to expend it's energy defending some islands in the South Atlantic, I could somewhat understand, but for pacifists actual military force is never an option regardless of the state of the military.
On the subject of the Labour Party under Keir Starmer, I think he has done a fairly decent job managing overseas relations with the United States and really has stepped up ready to lead the forefront of defending Ukraine. I am lead to question just how long he'll be able to maintain a relationship with the Americans though, and the cynic in me already believes it's fruitless since it seems pretty clear that Trump has abandoned America's allies for Moscow. But truth be told I still think Starmer is showing his real strengths here in diplomacy, and his speeches on the subject have been quite good in my opinion.
This time there were seats which were far from swing seats that changed hands, look up North East Hampshire it's been Tory forever (including the various seats which covered the area it was part of before it's current boarders) and when I say forever I mean well over 100 years, yet it changed hands from Tory to Lib Dems and it wasn't that long ago where the Tory MP had more than a 50% majority (i.e. if the next closest was 15% of the vote they had 65% or more of the votes)
That's not to say that generally it's down to a fairly few swing seats, but even within that rule there can be some significant changes.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
Me neither. He will flatter him, he will praise him, he will talk to him about his great business investments, he will go and learn how to play golf so he can have a round with Trump, the list is pretty much endless. He's also very clued up on trade issues, and I suspect that he'll be engaging in plenty of "Come on Don, no need for tariffs with the UK, after all you don't want to hurt your golf courses there, our people love playing on them" and all the rest of it.
Mandelson is also the kind of person who would tell Trump to do something and then convince him that it was his idea to begin with. Stuff like "Don't you think it would be nice to put that giant picture of your grandmother in the White House? After all, she just oozed royalty", and then when Trump does it, telling him that it's a wonderful idea and that he did the right thing. He also wouldn't be adverse to spending weekends at Mar-a-Lago as well, and it's quite easy to see him forging a strong relationship with Trump as a result.
He's right. War is never the answer, although there are times when it's justified.
Having said that, a lot of misery could have been avoided if assassinations were used more frequently. Milosevic is a great example: if he had been taken out in 1989, the Yugoslav Wars probably wouldn't have erupted. It was largely his very skillful handling of domestic Serbian politics that allowed him to run riot afterwards, particularly by stripping Kosovo and Vojvodina of their autonomy and their votes in the federal Yugoslav Presidency.
The antisemitism stuff to me seemed to be more about Corbyn realising that it was an incredibly toxic issue that could tear the party apart, so he simply chose to ignore it because the party also had/has major issues with turning a blind eye to Israeli actions. He should have clamped down on it, but equally so, made it very clear that there would be no acceptance of supporting crimes against Palestinians as well. Yet, I understand why he left it alone, he simply wasn't strong enough to confront it in the way that it should have been.
And yup, he was and is very much influenced by the streets. He was screaming about mental health when everyone else thought it was just something that affected people in hospitals, and he seems to be absolutely tireless when it comes to getting involved with local initiatives. He's fortunate in that his constituency isn't far from Westminster, but I think even his most bitter political rivals would agree that he's exactly what an MP should be to their constituents.
SteveP29
Member
On Twitter, I always ask for the headlines, a link, anything to anyone who has died due to having the winter fuel allowance cut whenever some 50cc brain says 'there killin ar penshuners'
Surprisingly I never get any response.
I mean, if it were happening, the press in the UK would be all over every story and there'd be plenty examples I could be shown
Meteorological winter has only just finished, are the stats available yet for the media to write such stories?
Winter is one quarter of the year - 13 weeks, so the Winter Fuel Payment is about £23 per week.
Falcon1200
Established Member
If OAPs are not actually dying left right and centre from losing their winter fuel allowance, Labour's '4000 deaths under the evil Tories' was clearly an outright lie designed to scare people; Whereas if OAPs are in fact dying......
Even if there was data available it's unlikely to show any significant difference.
Why you may ask.
In 2023/24 the new (full) state pension was £203.85 per week or £10,600.20 a year. In 2024/25 those rose to £221.20 per week or £11,502.40. That's a 8.5% increase.
If we were to assume that the 2023/24 figure was actually £10,900.20 (including the £300 winter fuel allowance)l whilst the 2024/25 remains as above as the winter fuel allowance has been removed then the increase is still a 5.5% increase.
This compares with inflation of 3.2% (CPI) in March 2024, more recently inflation has been lower.
Therefore, even allowing for the loss of winter fuel allowance, they still saw an increase above inflation.
As such, given that it is unlikely that many would actually be too much worse off than they were last year, the risk of death from the loss of the winter fuel allowance is likely to be fairly low.
The one other thing that I would say, you don't need to wait for data for there to be evidence of something happening. There would be news stories of "my mum, killed by Labour" with an interview from someone who's mum had died and they blamed the loss of money from the winter fuel allowance.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,794
My pension increase has been wiped out by my council tax increase. Now over £2k and I get the single person discount.
It isn't 8.5%. It is 4.1%, based on increased earnings (part of the triple-lock) - the CPI for the relevant period had dipped below 2%. Last year's 8.5% was also based on earnings rather than price inflation. There is always a timelag, but in both years OAPs have had above-inflation increases.
Funnily enough it was Thatcher who changed the earnings link to a cheaper prices link, creating the situation which the triple-lock was intended to remedy.
The Office for National Statistics publish weekly statistics of deaths registered in England and Wales. The most recent publication is for the week ending 21 February.
Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics
Provisional number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the latest weeks.
www.ons.gov.uk
Figure 1 shows the data for each week and a comparison with "expected deaths". Registered deaths have been consistently lower than expected deaths for most of the winter apart from weeks 3-7 of 2025.
Can you show your working there?
Very few council tax increases are more than 5%, so, even on a £2k bill, that is only £100 over a full year or about £2 per week.
That claim was I think made in 2017. Since then pensioners have had the benefit of 8 more years of triple lock, including these increases:
I was responding to
The other issue is, whether you agree with the policy or not, the Labour Manifesto did not say they would abolish the Winter Fuel Allowance. If they had been up front and open about it, there would not have been such an outcry because people would know what they were getting, or they would not have voted for Labour.
Last edited: