UK General Election 2024

[simonw]

I think they're interchangeable.

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



If Nigel Farage manages to become MP, I am convinced he'll defect to the Tories and then attempt to become the leader. I can't see him being remotely serious about the Reform party long-term.

Like Boris, it's all about him. Stuff the party.

He might try and defect, but would the Tories let him join? It takes two to tango.

 

[dangie]

He might try and defect, but would the Tories let him join?

Well they don’t really set the bar very high

 

[Howardh]

How is Starmer supposed to stop ETIAS? ETIAS is being implemented by the EU, not by the UK Government. It's simply not within the UK Government's power or responsibility.

Besides, ETIAS basically means you will fill in an online form and pay 7 Euros to travel to an EU country, and it's valid for up to 3 years. Hardly seems an onerous requirement or something that is worth much energy getting bothered about? The fact that the US has for some years been running a similar (but more expensive) scheme doesn't seem to have caused any significant problems for UK citizens wanting t

Us Brits will walk over hot coal to find some sunshine, and bios shouldn't other the majority, although there are questions to be answered about day trips where there's no overnight stay, however I am concerned about the fiscal impact to our economy.
Put it this way, EUs and EEAs can travel throughout Europe with an id card at worst. Will they bother to come here with all our protocols and costs, when they can go elsewhere? We're not special.
That aside, I wouldn't have thought any UK citizen would accept having their prints taken by a foreign body, only those convicted do that.
If we allow that to go on our holidays then why not go the whole way and have compulsory fingerprinting here, to vote, get a bank account, benefits?
I can see stormy weather ahead!

 

[RailExplorer]

Us Brits will walk over hot coal to find some sunshine, and bios shouldn't other the majority, although there are questions to be answered about day trips where there's no overnight stay, however I am concerned about the fiscal impact to our economy.
Put it this way, EUs and EEAs can travel throughout Europe with an id card at worst. Will they bother to come here with all our protocols and costs, when they can go elsewhere? We're not special.
That aside, I wouldn't have thought any UK citizen would accept having their prints taken by a foreign body, only those convicted do that.
If we allow that to go on our holidays then why not go the whole way and have compulsory fingerprinting here, to vote, get a bank account, benefits?
I can see stormy weather ahead!

USA take your prints. As do plenty of other countries.

 

[The Ham]

The fact that the US has for some years been running a similar (but more expensive) scheme doesn't seem to have caused any significant problems for UK citizens wanting to travel there.

But that's not linked to the EU, everyone knows that anything that the EU does is terrible!!!!!!

Typical leftist Woke, tofu eating foreigns wishing to charge us less, just to attract us to them so people don't get to experience life under the great leader when he returns to power next January (although obviously he's the current rightful president)!!!!!!!

 

[BrianW]

How is Starmer supposed to stop ETIAS? ETIAS is being implemented by the EU, not by the UK Government. It's simply not within the UK Government's power or responsibility.

Besides, ETIAS basically means you will fill in an online form and pay 7 Euros to travel to an EU country, and it's valid for up to 3 years. Hardly seems an onerous requirement or something that is worth much energy getting bothered about? The fact that the US has for some years been running a similar (but more expensive) scheme doesn't seem to have caused any significant problems for UK citizens wanting to travel there.

Indeed. Unlike many posters above, it is the case that negotiations take (at least) two to tango. In the case of travel and goods between UK GB and the EU/ EEA there could be many parties to be considered, many may be unwelcoming, maybe hostile to Brussels-blaming Britain. If I've been listening, some have already made clear their opposition- it's not up to Britain.

Hence there'll be no need for HS1 to reach beyond London- it already doesn't reach Ashford any more!

If they carry the Ming vase ok they will be busy enough with legislation and related changes getting things done. Blair 'got in' by promising to govern as New Conservative Labour; and he needed a Delivery Unit. That's why he is keen not to over-promise. Starmer and co need 10 years at least to overcome years of inertia, austerity, cuts, underfunding, lack of capacity and low expectations. 'I wouldn't start from here ...'.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Perhaps he will enter negotiations on that at some point in the next five years (on a reciprocal basis) - the rationale being the high volume of travel between the UK and France and the delays all this will cause to travellers and goods - but not immediately because there will be a whole load of things in his in-tray. Don't US and Canadian citizens have some kind of arrangement to make it easier for each to visit the other's country?

Mind you if Le Pen wins the forthcoming French parliamentary election I can't see her party being particularly supportive of weakening the border...

The trouble with parking rejoining is that its easy for 5 years to pass and for Labour not to be in the driving seat by then.
Tony Blair could have joined the Euro and Schengen in his first term but let too much time slip by, and was then hemmed in by Gordon Brown's unachievable 6 tests and the Daily Mail's immigration scares, and the prospect was lost.
There's also the issue of whether the EU will want to improve the interface with the UK, after 8 years of hostility from the Tories.

Some small steps to test the water will be a good indication of whether rapprochement is viable.
But the problem will be the Red Wall of Brexit-leaning (ie anti-immigration) Labour voters (who voted Tory last time to get the door closed).
A customs/veterinary deal looks more promising than moves on the single market, but we'd have to abandon new trade agreements (which are near-useless anyway).

France is unlikely to do anything bilaterally if Macron is still there.
But some joint projects, eg in defence, might soften the atmosphere.

 

[Purple Train]

A campaign to rejoin the EU would just amplify the voices of those clamouring for a second referendum on Scottish independence. I doubt Starmer wants to risk uniting the party he is (mostly) fighting against in Scotland when he has a good chance of capitalising on their current division and hence having an easier path to a majority.

 

[brad465]

The EU will not accept any re-join plans until there is widespread and strong political support in the UK from all the major parties, as well as strong support from the population. They would not want to start negotiations to join under one government, only for the next government to suddenly can everything. This is why no party is proposing it for the next parliament.

 

[BrianW]

The EU will not accept any re-join plans until there is widespread and strong political support in the UK from all the major parties, as well as strong support from the population. They would not want to start negotiations to join under one government, only for the next government to suddenly can everything. This is why no party is proposing it for the next parliament.

Absolutely. What's in it for 'Brussels' to accept the troublesome UK back. Are the Great British Mail-following public ready to give up their pint and pound and 'imperial' measures and welcome back Jonny Foreigner?
No, no, no!

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, Starmer's trying his best to lose this election. Discounting, totally, giving us our freedom of movement back, he could be a Tory or Reformist. Who do we rejoiners vote for now? Only one party south of the border, the Libdems; unless it's a secret ploy by Starmer to force a coalition and then his mind will be made up for him.

Got a very heavy heart this morning.

I’m not sure I think they’re losing it, but rather I feel deeply uninspired by their manifesto and the whole vibe of the campaign. I think we are in desperate need of reinvigoration as a liberal democracy and I don’t think Starmer is going to deliver that.

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

USA take your prints. As do plenty of other countries.

Yep. Your photo and/or prints are taken at many places in the world. Makes no difference to me, to be honest.

 

[HSTEd]

If they carry the Ming vase ok they will be busy enough with legislation and related changes getting things done. Blair 'got in' by promising to govern as New Conservative Labour; and he needed a Delivery Unit. That's why he is keen not to over-promise. Starmer and co need 10 years at least to overcome years of inertia, austerity, cuts, underfunding, lack of capacity and low expectations. 'I wouldn't start from here ...'.

I am of the opinion that Starmer is going to have real trouble in 2029 when he hasn't been able to change the fundamental economic situation.

Starmer's manifesto doesn't really seem to contain anything that might actually change the monotonic decline of growth of the past five decades. Then you add the straitjacket of the triple lock and the demographic transition and I expect a wholesale collapse of the remaining elements of the current consensus.

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

Well, Starmer's trying his best to lose this election. Discounting, totally, giving us our freedom of movement back, he could be a Tory or Reformist. Who do we rejoiners vote for now? Only one party south of the border, the Libdems; unless it's a secret ploy by Starmer to force a coalition and then his mind will be made up for him.

Got a very heavy heart this morning.

Rejoining the EU is unlikely to be a particularly popular policy once the public learn what the reality of it would be.

The Euro (and the prospect of Greece style turbo austerity), Schengen, the reversal of the current moves to end rail franchising and the rest.
A lot of people believe that somehow the clock could be magically turned back to 2016, but that world is gone.

The EU will want to make an example, and there will be no opt outs or anything like that. It would be total integration or nothing.

A few polls currently suggest support for being in the EU in the abstract, but I dont think the support would hold up in an actual campaign. Which is why noone is proposing it.

 

[jon0844]

He might try and defect, but would the Tories let him join? It takes two to tango.

Why not? All the people who would say no have pretty much gone.

 

[nw1]

I am of the opinion that Starmer is going to have real trouble in 2029 when he hasn't been able to change the fundamental economic situation.

Starmer's manifesto doesn't really seem to contain anything that might actually change the monotonic decline of growth of the past five decades. Then you add the straitjacket of the triple lock and the demographic transition and I expect a wholesale collapse of the remaining elements of the current consensus.

To be honest I really dislike this kind of fatalistic outlook. It achieves nothing and just makes people miserable.

If as many people actually thought of ways to fix things as just forecast soul-destroying fatalism, then maybe things could improve long-term.

 

[Gloster]

There do seem to be too many people who are taking the attitude that unless their preferred party is going to do exactly what they want, they are going to sulk. To quote Bismarck, ‘Politics is the art of the possible’. They should just accept that, as in every other aspect of life, you can’t have everything you want so make do with the best compromise.

 

[HSTEd]

To be honest I really dislike this kind of fatalistic outlook. It achieves nothing and just makes people miserable.

As opposed to what, blinding believing politicians who have time and again demonstrated that they will say anything if it thinks it will help them win?

If as many people actually thought of ways to fix things as just forecast miserable, soul-destroying fatalism, then maybe things could improve long-term.

I do happen to have ideas. Indeed a lot of serious observers of policy know what has to be done, but the current political consensus is too heavily entrenched to allow it to happen.

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

There do seem to be too many people who are taking the attitude that unless their preferred party is going to do exactly what they want, they are going to sulk. To quote Bismarck, ‘Politics is the art of the possible’. They should just accept that, as in every other aspect of life, you can’t have everything you want so make do with the best compromise.

The problem is that no significant party offers anything that is likely to materially change things in the long run.

Small increments won't help at all when they are essentially rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after it has already hit the iceberg.
You can't expect peopel to delude themselves into thinking things will change when we can clearly see that they won't.

Things will continue to get worse until eventually there is a total break with the previous consensus, however given how entrenched the current consensus is it will have to get very bad indeed.

 

[nw1]

I do happen to have ideas. Indeed a lot of serious observers of policy know what has to be done, but the current political consensus is too heavily entrenched to allow it to happen.

Well that's a relief, at least. Sorry, I just feel we've had enough misery over the past 5 years with Covid, Brexit, Johnson, Truss, etc - and I'd like to see a more positive outlook for the future.

We've got ourselves out of problems before: post-war austerity, the 70s economic crisis, the early-80s recession and so on. Presumably we can again, if the right decisions are made.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I am of the opinion that Starmer is going to have real trouble in 2029 when he hasn't been able to change the fundamental economic situation.

Starmer's manifesto doesn't really seem to contain anything that might actually change the monotonic decline of growth of the past five decades. Then you add the straitjacket of the triple lock and the demographic transition and I expect a wholesale collapse of the remaining elements of the current consensus.

No it doesn't but nor do any of them have an answer to that question. What Labour have though is fresh eyes and bunch of prospective and past MPs who want to do something different and have the energy for its. Also just some plain boring stability will improve things over time.

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


Rejoining the EU is unlikely to be a particularly popular policy once the public learn what the reality of it would be.

The Euro (and the prospect of Greece style turbo austerity), Schengen, the reversal of the current moves to end rail franchising and the rest.
A lot of people believe that somehow the clock could be magically turned back to 2016, but that world is gone.

The EU will want to make an example, and there will be no opt outs or anything like that. It would be total integration or nothing.

A few polls currently suggest support for being in the EU in the abstract, but I dont think the support would hold up in an actual campaign. Which is why noone is proposing it.

48% never voted for it and the consensus is that is now over 50%+ although im not naive enough to say the balance has materially changed but doesn't stop us having a better relationship with our biggest trading partner that eases things for both sides.

 

[nw1]

Absolutely. What's in it for 'Brussels' to accept the troublesome UK back. Are the Great British Mail-following public ready to give up their pint and pound and 'imperial' measures and welcome back Jonny Foreigner?
No, no, no!

What's in it for continental countries is less bureaucracy in trade from the EU to the UK. Admittedly that needn't involve rejoining.

To me, the lack of pro-EU positions in this election is more electioneering than anything: while Brexit is still a recent memory, it's too risky, in terms of votes, to propose anything pro-EU at this time. Won't necessarily be the case in the future. Indeed I predict one of these things will happen: a) we will eventually rejoin (probably post-2035) or b) the EU will cease to exist in its current form in any case, perhaps driven by the growth of the far-right, so there won't be an EU to rejoin!

 

[HSTEd]

Well that's a relief, at least. Sorry, I just feel we've had enough misery over the past 5 years and I'd like to see a more positive outlook for the future.

We've got ourselves out of problems before: post-war austerity, the 70s economic crisis, the early-80s recession and so on. Presumably we can again, if the right decisions are made.

Well in a very real sense we never actually escaped the 1970s economic stagnation.

Each decade's real economic growth has been lower than the previous decade's since the 1960s.
Economic performance that was regarded as indicative of stagnation in the 1970s would now be considered to be amazing.

The real problem is that the right decisions are very unlikely to be made, because there are large voter bases with vested interests in them not being made.
A huge portion of the population is vested in having the triple lock continue, in specially low income tax rates for the elderly, or in the housing crisis continue to worsen (leading to higher house prices). To name just three.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There do seem to be too many people who are taking the attitude that unless their preferred party is going to do exactly what they want, they are going to sulk. To quote Bismarck, ‘Politics is the art of the possible’. They should just accept that, as in every other aspect of life, you can’t have everything you want so make do with the best compromise.

For once I totally agree with you. Good points there

As it happens, I'm about halfway through reading the Labour manifesto and I'm finding myself pleasantly surprised by it. It's (rightly) not radical in the nationalise-everything rejoin-the-EU-now tax-the-rich-till-the-pips-squeak sense that I sense a lot of people on the left want, but it is describing a very different way of doing things, with a lot of emphasis on long term planning, strategic investment, and stability for businesses. There are also some nice surprises - like reforming the business rates system so that high street shops pay less and online businesses pay more, and expanding post offices into high street banking hubs. Labour are not proposing to turn the UK into utopia and there are loads of individual things I disagree with, but overall their manifesto does look to me like a reasonable blueprint for using the resources we currently have available to enable more growth.

Reading between the lines, I do wonder whether there's a long term plan there to use the first Parliamentary term to stabilize the economy, at least somewhat ease the cost of living crisis and (hopefully) show Labour can govern competently, and then at the next election in 4-5 years time, maybe we'll see a Labour manifesto promising more radical change. If I recall correctly, that is after all something like what happened with both the Thatcher and Blair Governments (Blair stuck rigidly to the previous Tory spending plans during his first term, and then started to raise spending after that, while Thatcher only really started her most radical free market reforms after 1983).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

For once I totally agree with you. Good points there

As it happens, I'm about halfway through reading the Labour manifesto and I'm finding myself pleasantly surprised by it. It's (rightly) not radical in the nationalise-everything rejoin-the-EU-now tax-the-rich-till-the-pips-squeak sense that I sense a lot of people on the left want, but it is describing a very different way of doing things, with a lot of emphasis on long term planning, strategic investment, and stability for businesses. There are also some nice surprises - like reforming the business rates system so that high street shops pay less and online businesses pay more, and expanding post offices into high street banking hubs. Labour are not proposing to turn the UK into utopia and there are loads of individual things I disagree with, but overall their manifesto does look to me like a reasonable blueprint for using the resources we currently have available to enable more growth.

Reading between the lines, I do wonder whether there's a long term plan there to use the first Parliamentary term to stabilize the economy, at least somewhat ease the cost of living crisis and (hopefully) show Labour can govern competently, and then at the next election in 4-5 years time, maybe we'll see a Labour manifesto promising more radical change. If I recall correctly, that is after all something like what happened with both the Thatcher and Blair Governments (Blair stuck rigidly to the previous Tory spending plans during his first term, and then started to raise spending after that, while Thatcher only really started her most radical free market reforms after 1983).

It will need at least two terms to implement enough of the manifesto to get the country into a different place. Lets hope the electorate will give them the support to see it through.

 

[The Ham]

or in the housing crisis continue to worsen.

Part* of the reason that it will is because the number of people per household has been shrinking (in part due to the falling birthrate).

*Likely at least as big a reason as immigration, as 50 million people at 2.91 people per household would require 17.2 million homes, with household sizes having fallen to 2.35 that same population size would require 21.1 million homes, which would be the same as if the population had increased by 11.4 million people.

However, it's expected that without immigration the household size would have continued to fall rather than being stable for the last 20 years, not least because 14% of all children (under 18) in the UK have both parents born overseas (whilst the child in born in the UK), this rises to 28% of all UK children who have one or more parents who were born overseas.

 

[Purple Train]

Reading between the lines, I do wonder whether there's a long term plan there to use the first Parliamentary term to stabilize the economy, at least somewhat ease the cost of living crisis and (hopefully) show Labour can govern competently, and then at the next election in 4-5 years time, maybe we'll see a Labour manifesto promising more radical change. If I recall correctly, that is after all something like what happened with both the Thatcher and Blair Governments (Blair stuck rigidly to the previous Tory spending plans during his first term, and then started to raise spending after that, while Thatcher only really started her most radical free market reforms after 1983).

Possibly - but I'm not sure Starmer, if he wins this election, would stay in charge past 2029 - he'd be in his late sixties then, wouldn't he? If he does lead Labour past then, then I'm not sure how long support for him would last - the vast majority of voters are Romantics rather than logicians, and are unlikely to be enthused by a man who, for all his intelligence, and despite having a greater grasp of oratory than Truss and Sunak put together, is not a charismatic figure and is unlikely to promise burger trees (other foods are available) and unicorns. Depending on who succeeds him, I think you might be right.

 

[nw1]

Reading between the lines, I do wonder whether there's a long term plan there to use the first Parliamentary term to stabilize the economy, at least somewhat ease the cost of living crisis and (hopefully) show Labour can govern competently, and then at the next election in 4-5 years time, maybe we'll see a Labour manifesto promising more radical change.

I would tend to agree there. There are all sorts of radical (by 2020s standards) things that I'd want (which I won't mention again but you can probably guess!) but the priority for the first term is presumably to fix the state of the country.

 

[Whistler40145]

The latest prediction is that the Conservative Party could only get 72 seats

 

[nw1]

Possibly - but I'm not sure Starmer, if he wins this election, would stay in charge past 2029 - he'd be in his late sixties then, wouldn't he?

A positive spring chicken compared to the president of the USA over most of the next 5 years - whoever that might be. Certainly late-sixties is absolutely not too old.

 

[JamesT]

A positive spring chicken compared to the president of the USA over most of the next 5 years - whoever that might be. Certainly late-sixties is absolutely not too old.

Starmer is 61 now, so arguably only mid-60s by the next election? Although in recent years PMs have tended to be in their 40s or 50s, historically running well into their 60s or 70s wasn’t that unusual.

 

[takno]

Possibly - but I'm not sure Starmer, if he wins this election, would stay in charge past 2029 - he'd be in his late sixties then, wouldn't he? If he does lead Labour past then, then I'm not sure how long support for him would last - the vast majority of voters are Romantics rather than logicians, and are unlikely to be enthused by a man who, for all his intelligence, and despite having a greater grasp of oratory than Truss and Sunak put together, is not a charismatic figure and is unlikely to promise burger trees (other foods are available) and unicorns. Depending on who succeeds him, I think you might be right.

He's 61, so he'll be 65 or maybe 66 at the next election. Even if he served out the full second term he'd be between 69 and 71. That's not exactly old for a PM

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Part* of the reason that it will is because the number of people per household has been shrinking (in part due to the falling birthrate).

*Likely at least as big a reason as immigration, as 50 million people at 2.91 people per household would require 17.2 million homes, with household sizes having fallen to 2.35 that same population size would require 21.1 million homes, which would be the same as if the population had increased by 11.4 million people.

I don't think your calculation or conclusion is correct. According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/295551/average-household-size-in-the-uk/, the average household size in 2022 (2.36) was no different from in 2005 - just before immigration started rising. In the same period, the population grew from about 60M to 67M - so additional pressure on housing availability would have been almost entirely due to population increase - which of course is mostly due to immigration. I don't know what year you have got the 2.91 people per household statistic from - but even in 1996 it was only 2.42 people per house, so I assume your figure must be from many years before that, and therefore long before high immigration levels became a significant contributor to housing demand.