The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Harpo]

Starmer having lost control of his party.

Or the party losing control of Starmer who seems to have forgotten/discarded the party’s core values.

 

[JamesT]

Premium Bonds are a good tax free investment. I made £375 on £10000 last year. I would have needed to make 6.25% on a taxed investment to better that.
I maxed out to £50000 in June and have already made £250.

As @styles says, you’ve been lucky. I have some premium bonds that were purchased for me on birth. 40-odd years later and they’ve never won anything.

I think there should be a discussion on ways to encourage saving, especially in longer term investments. Over the long term, shares have always beaten cash savings. But reducing the cash ISA limit as is apparently being proposed doesn’t feel like it’s encouraging anything. But that seems to be this government’s instinct, stick rather than carrot.

 

[styles]

As @styles says, you’ve been lucky. I have some premium bonds that were purchased for me on birth. 40-odd years later and they’ve never won anything.

I think there should be a discussion on ways to encourage saving, especially in longer term investments. Over the long term, shares have always beaten cash savings. But reducing the cash ISA limit as is apparently being proposed doesn’t feel like it’s encouraging anything. But that seems to be this government’s instinct, stick rather than carrot.

It's a noble aim - UK savers/investors are very risk-averse, and we should be encouraging people to invest for long-term goals, instead of holding cash which is often losing value in real terms.

But the way to do that isn't to merely limit how much cash they can save without paying tax. Besides, most people will have a personal savings allowance of £1000, so if they drop the cash ISA limit too much, people will just open a regular savings account and add their cash there. A basic rate taxpayer would need around £21k of savings in the top savings account today before they'd breach the PSA and start paying tax on their interest. Frankly I imagine the number of people who have £21k plus let's say £10k a year (if the cash ISA limit was dropped to £10k as an example) is small; and many people in that position will be the kind of people to take an active interest in such matters and will either already be savings in non-cash assets, or will perhaps even realise that they can invest in cash assets in a S&S ISA if they really want to hold cash still.

Interest rates are expected to come down, which also means that in a couple of years time, that ~£21k could be closer to ~£40k.

Basically, I don't believe this will actually meet the policy objective.

 

[edwin_m]

[Whichever party is in power] I think is going to be damned no matter what it does, the [media], want to undermine them….

Unfortunately this is what the media does. No media wants to give the government any praise or positives. Good news is no news. Anything positive, the media will follow with a negative. The media would have us all think everything is doom & gloom.

Unfortunately most of the media is much less critical of a Tory government than a Labour one.

 

[317 forever]

The fortunes of Labour are sometimes likened to the early years of the Thatcher government. They dipped in the polls and had a new 3rd party challenge (SDP/Liberal Alliance), just like Labour now are facing a new 3rd party challenge in Reform.

Many Labour ministers say how the Conservatives won in 1983, but that was partly down to Falklands. Labour might not have an unexpected event to help their fortunes in time for 2028/29.

I doubt many seats will be affected if challenged by this new Corbyn/Sultana party.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Unfortunately most of the media is much less critical of a Tory government than a Labour one.

Go and have a look at the way the Telegraph, etc, reported on Sunak's government - much of it certainly wasn't positive.

 

[Gloster]

Go and have a look at the way the Telegraph, etc, reported on Sunak's government - much of it certainly wasn't positive.

But the problem was that the Conservative Party was split and occupied with infighting: much of the media did not support the part that they considered Sunak represented and so were having a go at him. Their aim was to push Sunak out and replace him with a Conservative PM that suited them, whereupon everything would be sunlit uplands again and the new PM would do no wrong. It was just a temporary change of emphasis to deal with what they saw as a problem, a Conservative PM who might not entirely bow to their will, but as soon as they got what they wanted it would be back to all-out anti-Labour hostility, not that that ever really lessened.

 

[Acfb]

The fortunes of Labour are sometimes likened to the early years of the Thatcher government. They dipped in the polls and had a new 3rd party challenge (SDP/Liberal Alliance), just like Labour now are facing a new 3rd party challenge in Reform.

Many Labour ministers say how the Conservatives won in 1983, but that was partly down to Falklands. Labour might not have an unexpected event to help their fortunes in time for 2028/29.

I doubt many seats will be affected if challenged by this new Corbyn/Sultana party.

I don't really see this Corbyn-Sultana outfit as a true party as such it's more like Respect mk2 and will be limited to targeting seats (predominantly with large Muslim populations) where Gaza Independents narrowly failed last time such as Ilford North, Birmingham Yardley, Birmingham Ladywood etc so if there is a non-agression pact with the Greens and the new Corbyn/Sultana outfit they won't tread on each others toes and might realistically end up with with about a dozen seats each (seats in Bristol, Sheffield, Huddersfield, Brighton etc are the main targets for the Greens).

 

[sor]

Devo Bill to reintroduce supplementary vote in blow to Reform | LocalGov

The supplementary vote system will be reintroduced to elect mayors in a move that is expected to reduce the chances of success for Reform UK.

www.localgov.co.uk

The supplementary vote system will be reintroduced to elect mayors in a move that is expected to reduce the chances of success for Reform UK.

Ministers hope to move back from first-past-the-post from 2027 onwards under a key measure in the 300-page English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is expected to be introduced into the House of Commons early this afternoon.

Not the greatest source as its paywalled but the major news sites haven't got around to it yet - but essentially this is a reversal of the Tories' blatant attempt to try to unseat Sadiq Khan and others. London is of particular significance as IIRC voters approved SV when they approved devolution

edit: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ution-and-community-empowerment-bill-guidance

Voting system

Currently, Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are elected using the First Past the Post system. When voting under this system, each elector casts a single vote for their preferred candidate, and the candidate with the most votes is elected.

This is a simple voting system but it can lead to individuals being elected with only a small proportion of the total votes cast. The government believes that Mayors and PCCs should be elected with a greater consensus among their electors. Therefore, the Bill will change the voting system for these types of elections to the Supplementary Vote system.

 

[brad465]

After the last set of Mayoral elections saw candidates win with staggeringly low vote shares, FPTP was going to be unsustainable here and support for reversing the system will be easy to obtain given this. While Reform might find winning harder under this, it's definitely not zero; Andrea Jenkyns would almost certainly have still won (she had 42% last May, and only a third of the 26% of Tory voters choosing Reform as 2nd preference would have been necessary to tip her over the line in this hypothetical situation).

 

[styles]

Devo Bill to reintroduce supplementary vote in blow to Reform | LocalGov

The supplementary vote system will be reintroduced to elect mayors in a move that is expected to reduce the chances of success for Reform UK.

www.localgov.co.uk

Not the greatest source as its paywalled but the major news sites haven't got around to it yet - but essentially this is a reversal of the Tories' blatant attempt to try to unseat Sadiq Khan and others. London is of particular significance as IIRC voters approved SV when they approved devolution

edit: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ution-and-community-empowerment-bill-guidance

Yes SV was used for London Mayor elections from day 1. Badenoch and Johnson brought in the Elections Act 2022 which changed it to FPTP, at the same time as photo ID requirements. Neither changes seemed to help them clear up the mess they'd left though. In fact support for Khan went up!

 

[Falcon1200]

but essentially this is a reversal of the Tories' blatant attempt to try to unseat Sadiq Khan and others.

Whereas this is Labour's blatant attempt to prevent Reform from winning?!!

 

[Sorcerer]

I wonder if there's a chance of the Tories and right-wing grifters coming out saying this is Starmer attempting to subvert and override democracy and how there is no mandate for changing the voting system even though the Tories did so in 2022 with London's Mayor Elections and without a referendum. For me personally that was when I started believing that proportional representation no longer requires a people's vote since the precedent for changing the system was now set, but I don't expect that to stop them.

 

[sor]

I should have added - it is quite interesting to see the government express support for an electoral system that isn't FPTP. Of course they'd immediately revert to form when it comes to changing the parliamentary election system

Whereas this is Labour's blatant attempt to prevent Reform from winning?!!

Repairing previous damage. We have the precedent that major changes, and all changes to the democratic process, involve a referendum. The Tories just decided to do it anyway. If Labour actually wanted to make an effort they'd have moved to AV.

There is no evidence that Reform would even get close to winning in places like London, and there are arguments that SV or AV actually benefits them as it protects against inevitable vote splitting between Reform, the Tories, all of the other "Re-" right wing pressure groups, etc. Remember that the Dear Leader himself has expressed support for voting reform. (and I suppose voting Reform, too)

 

[styles]

I should have added - it is quite interesting to see the government express support for an electoral system that isn't FPTP. Of course they'd immediately revert to form when it comes to changing the parliamentary election system

Repairing previous damage. We have the precedent that major changes, and all changes to the democratic process, involve a referendum. The Tories just decided to do it anyway. If Labour actually wanted to make an effort they'd have moved to AV.

There is no evidence that Reform would even get close to winning in places like London, and there are arguments that SV or AV actually benefits them as it protects against inevitable vote splitting between Reform, the Tories, all of the other "Re-" right wing pressure groups, etc. Remember that the Dear Leader himself has expressed support for voting reform. (and I suppose voting Reform, too)

At the same time, the major parties fighting over the centre (Labour, Tories, LibDems), may be less likely to do so if they weren't trying to merely appeal to as many voters as possible regardless of the political wavering. Labour may actually return to more socialist roots for example, and provide a more convincing alternative.

This may then reduce the desire of people to vote for the likes of Reform because they see there is another party offering genuine change.

This is more regarding a system like some form of PR mind.

 

[edwin_m]

At the same time, the major parties fighting over the centre (Labour, Tories, LibDems), may be less likely to do so if they weren't trying to merely appeal to as many voters as possible regardless of the political wavering. Labour may actually return to more socialist roots for example, and provide a more convincing alternative.

This may then reduce the desire of people to vote for the likes of Reform because they see there is another party offering genuine change.

This is more regarding a system like some form of PR mind.

At the moment Labour are fighting for the centre or even what was historically right of centre. Under PR separate parties might emerge targeting the soft left and the hard left, giving the voters more of a choice and avoiding some of the inconsistencies of viewpoint within a party which has to be a broad church to have a chance of winning under FPTP. If these two between them had a majority of seats under PR then they'd have to agree on enough to form a stable coalition, or some other coalition could emerge instead.

Currently the Tories have abandoned any appeal to the centre and are committed to fighting Reform on the right. It's unclear where this will leave them either under FPTP or under PR.

 

[Acfb]

At the same time, the major parties fighting over the centre (Labour, Tories, LibDems), may be less likely to do so if they weren't trying to merely appeal to as many voters as possible regardless of the political wavering. Labour may actually return to more socialist roots for example, and provide a more convincing alternative.

This may then reduce the desire of people to vote for the likes of Reform because they see there is another party offering genuine change.

This is more regarding a system like some form of PR mind.

I genuinely don't know what would happen if Britain had PR. I think the most optimistic scenario is we'd end up like Spain where the centre left can govern with the support of Left and Nationalist parties but we could also just end up like Denmark, Germany, Austria etc with some kind of establishment grand coalition which further drives resentment* (* OK, this is maybe not as much the case in Denmark, admittedly).

I do think Starmer needs to go by 2027. I get governing is difficult but the right of the Labour Party does not realise how much potential trouble they are now in and how they are seen by the wider public.

 

[Thirteen]

Changing the voting system for the Mayoral elections actually ended up backfiring for the Tories. 2028 is going to be interesting because if Sadiq Khan doesn't stand then Londoners will have all new faces to choose from.

 

[styles]

Changing the voting system for the Mayoral elections actually ended up backfiring for the Tories. 2028 is going to be interesting because if Sadiq Khan doesn't stand then Londoners will have all new faces to choose from.

I've probably misused the word backfiring myself when talking about this, but I'm not sure it really did backfire per se - it just wasn't enough to get Susan Hall over the line. I reckon if they hadn't changed the voting system, Khan would've done better. Indeed Khan's FPTP result (43.8%) was better than his 1st round SV result in 2021 (40%). Obviously we don't know how much tactical voting etc was going on, but his 'first preference' vote share went up by 95% and I suspect most of that was principle-based rather than tactical voting.

Basically, I think if the voting system hadn't changed, he'd have done even better. So changing it to FPTP was the best chance for the Tories - it just wasn't enough.

 

[AlistairCowell]

Oh, Rachel Reeves again:

Food bills on course to rise by £275 a year as prices jump

Households are trading down or making simpler meals to save money on groceries, research shows.

www.bbc.co.uk

Now pet food is cheaper than our food.

 

[LYradial]

Oh, Rachel Reeves again:

Food bills on course to rise by £275 a year as prices jump

Households are trading down or making simpler meals to save money on groceries, research shows.

www.bbc.co.uk

Now pet food is cheaper than our food.

So I followed the link to the BBC and the research comp says that fewer than seven in ten dinners contain less than six components.

is this the real world, do we all sit down to a choice of six components, tonight it’s salmon spuds and french beans.
yesterday was spag Bol, that’s only two, I’m not sure if I have ever had a choice of six.

we need a government that lives in our world.

 

[styles]

So I followed the link to the BBC and the research comp says that fewer than seven in ten dinners contain less than six components.

is this the real world, do we all sit down to a choice of six components, tonight it’s salmon spuds and french beans.
yesterday was spag Bol, that’s only two, I’m not sure if I have ever had a choice of six.

we need a government that lives in our world.

I wonder if they include herbs, spices, vinegars, oils etc 'components'?

Certainly most of my meals contain fewer than six 'components' if we ignore seasoning and oils.

 

[oldman]

So I followed the link to the BBC and the research comp says that fewer than seven in ten dinners contain less than six components.

is this the real world, do we all sit down to a choice of six components, tonight it’s salmon spuds and french beans.
yesterday was spag Bol, that’s only two, I’m not sure if I have ever had a choice of six.

we need a government that lives in our world.

This has nothing to do with the government or where it lives. A market research company with a new brand it wants to promote has produced a 'research' report with a catchy headline - £275, no more, no less - and the BBC has cut-and-pasted it for a good bad-news story.

PS how do you 'monitor prices on 75000 identical products' - wouldn't they be different products?

 

[AlistairCowell]

So I followed the link to the BBC and the research comp says that fewer than seven in ten dinners contain less than six components.

is this the real world, do we all sit down to a choice of six components, tonight it’s salmon spuds and french beans.
yesterday was spag Bol, that’s only two, I’m not sure if I have ever had a choice of six.

we need a government that lives in our world.

Well, I'm afraid that's the way the world works in this day and age, everybody costs money to live.
This country is pretty much the 'Nanny State' by money.

And by the way, I had Spag Bol yesterday as well (with garlic bread).

 

[ainsworth74]

Just a note to say that discussion about Hamas - Israel war has its own thread to discuss it and related topics.

 

[brad465]

A year on from the riots, Cooper now seems to falling for Farage's next trick of trying to get ethnicity and immigration status of suspects released:

More disclosure of suspects' immigration status needed, Cooper says

The home secretary's comments follow calls for details to be released of two men charged over an alleged rape.

www.bbc.co.uk

Guidance for police on sharing the immigration status and ethnicity of crime suspects "needs to change", the home secretary has said, following calls for details to be released of two men arrested over the alleged rape of a 12-year-old in Warwickshire.
Yvette Cooper said guidance for police forces on disclosing personal information "needs to change".
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage had previously called the police's decision not to publish it a "cover-up".
The men under suspicion of rape are reportedly Afghan. Warwickshire County Council's Reform UK leader alleges they are asylum seekers. Police have not confirmed this.
Asked if she believed such information should be in the public domain, Yvette Cooper told the BBC: "We do want to see more transparency in cases, we think local people do need to have more information."
On Monday, Farage said he "absolutely" believed that such details should be released.
Warwickshire Police has previously said once someone is charged with an offence, the force follows national guidance that does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status.
Speaking to BBC Breakfast on Tuesday, Cooper said: "It is an operational decision about how much information can be revealed in the middle of a live investigation but we do want to see greater transparency."
She later told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We do think the guidance needs to change".
She said the government had asked the Law Commission - an independent body which reviews laws in England and Wales - to speed up a review into "what the rules are" around what information can be released and when during a legal case.
"We're also working with the College of Policing on strengthening and changing their guidance," she said.
The two men accused of the offence in Warwickshire are: Ahmad Mulakhil, who has been charged with two counts of rape; Mohammad Kabir, who has been accused of kidnap, strangulation and aiding and abetting the rape of a girl aged under 13.
Mr Mulakhil, 23, appeared before magistrates in Coventry on 28 July, and Mr Kabir, also 23, appeared in court on Saturday.
Both were remanded in custody.
In a statement, Warwickshire Police and Crime Commissioner Philip Seccombe said: "It is essential to state that policing decisions - such as whether to release details about a suspect - must follow national guidance and legal requirements."
He added that he would not speculate on the personal circumstances of those involved while court proceedings were active.
Emily Spurrell, chair of the Association Of Police And Crime Commissioners, told the Today programme that police had had "a very difficult job in these kinds of instances".
"Most officers I speak to want to get that information out there, they know the public want to know what's going on, who's being held to account," she added.
But she said police were trying to "walk that line" of going public with information and ensuring suspects had access to a fair trial.
The Law Commission is conducting a review into what information or opinions someone should lawfully be able to publish after a suspect has been arrested.
Following a government request, it has agreed to speed up its reporting on the parts of the review that relate to what the government and law enforcement can do to counter misinformation, including where there are possible public order consequences of failing to do so.
An independent watchdog concluded in March that failure to share basic facts about the Southport killer led to "dangerous fictions" which helped spark rioting.
Jonathan Hall KC, the UK's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said it would have been "far better" for the authorities to share more accurate detail on the arrest of Axel Rudakubana on 29 July last year.
He said the "ineffectual near silence" from police, prosecutors and the government after the attacks led to disinformation that sparked widespread rioting in the days after the attack.

Ignoring the fact this is clearly divide and rule tactics being stoked, this proposal is flawed from the point of view of seeking justice. If such information was released after a guilty conviction, then this wouldn't be a problem, but before a trial, making judgements on defendants based on their background risks jeopardising a fair trial (which is alluded to in this article), so an otherwise guilty person could walk free.

Furthermore, if there is a specific narrative driven to try and depict one group in society (in this case, a certain ethnicity/immigrant group), as being responsible for all serious crimes, prospective criminals who do not fit this description could see this as a free pass to commit crimes themselves, thinking they won't be reported on, which makes crime prevalence worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Either the evidence is that immigrants from specific countries and/or illegal immigrants commit more crime (or more of a specific type of serious crime) than others, or it is that they do not. If they do not, releasing that information at a statistical level is no particular issue. If they do, then hiding it is dishonest, and is being done to avoid needing to deal with the issue, e.g. updating immigration criteria to impose stronger checks on people originating from problem countries, and perhaps keeping them in more secure accommodation if they do arrive on small boats and the likes. This failure appears to be for fear of being branded racist, but that is not a good thing.

Racism is looking down on all people of of specific (or of non-white generally) races on a non-evidential basis (it used to sometimes be called racial prejudice - i.e. judging someone purely based on race, not evidence); if evidence is that people of a specific nationality are committing more of a specific type of crime, then that is simply fact and should not be hidden, and requires adaptation of the policing and educational approach to address it.

Failure to address this sort of thing properly and honestly is what is giving Farage a free pass at the moment.

 

[brad465]

Either the evidence is that immigrants from specific countries and/or illegal immigrants commit more crime than others, or it is that they do not. If they do not, releasing that information at a statistical level is no particular issue. If they do, then hiding it is dishonest, and is being done to avoid needing to deal with the issue, e.g. updating immigration criteria to impose stronger checks on people originating from problem countries, and perhaps keeping them in more secure accommodation if they do arrive on small boats and the likes.

Failure to address this sort of thing properly and honestly is what is giving Farage a free pass at the moment.

The problem we have is that misinformation is rife, and media outlets are not held to high enough standards when it comes to reporting misinformation. Anyone can fiddle stats to suit their narrative (lies, damned lies and statistics), and if the bias at said outlet likes what said stats report, they'll happily report it without concrete sources, and they'll be believed. And even when reported information is correct, our post-truth society means a critical mass of the population will disagree anyway. This is why the provision of critical thinking education, and Leveson-style media reforms, are essential.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem we have is that misinformation is rife, and media outlets are not held to high enough standards when it comes to reporting misinformation. Anyone can fiddle stats to suit their narrative (lies, damned lies and statistics), and if the bias at said outlet likes what said stats report, they'll happily report it without concrete sources, and they'll be believed. And even when reported information is correct, our post-truth society means a critical mass of the population will disagree anyway. This is why the provision of critical thinking education, and Leveson-style media reforms, are essential.

I've long thought we need to move away from teaching facts by rote and instead teaching critical thinking from a very early age. AI makes it all the more important.

FWIW, though, if the Government doesn't openly publish fact, those seeking to push agendas tend to fill the gap with mistruths.

 

[AlterEgo]

Furthermore, if there is a specific narrative driven to try and depict one group in society (in this case, a certain ethnicity/immigrant group), as being responsible for all serious crimes, prospective criminals who do not fit this description could see this as a free pass to commit crimes themselves, thinking they won't be reported on, which makes crime prevalence worse.

Will it? I don’t think that’s how crime works.