The Death of the Labour Party and the Rebirth of the UK As We Know It

[Guided Missile]

I remember in 1983 when that grinning taff, Kinnock, slipped and fell on Brighton Beach. Oh how I laughed. To me, the guy was about as nakedly unprincipled as Starmer, in his pursuit of power. It wasn't long, in 1992, when the lefties were crying all over their Socialist Worker paper when Labour lost the GE to John "Fucking" Major, probably the worst PM in my living memory. 

Starmer has started the rot. For any committed socialist, the recruitment of Natalie Elphicke, with her similar lack of principles and open door policies to immigration in Dover, Starmer is beyond the pale. So, I am predicting that last week will be seen as the high water mark for the Labour party. Our very own Rishi Sunak will rise to the challenge and prevent Labour from achieving a majority. In fact, I can see the Conservatives winning, as they did in 1992. Looking back, the Tory win marked the end of the Dock Labour Scheme. Anyone from Southampton will remember what that did to the local economy. The end of strikes and the beginning of the rebirth of our port. Of course, Kinnock got his missus onto the EU gravy train, so unlike his constituents, he wasn't too affected by the election loss. 

I wonder where Starmer will end up? Got to be the House of Lords with two jags Prescott. Just another champagne socialist, spending your taxes until they run out.

Rishi? He doesn't need our money, just Saints winning at Wembley. I look forward to seeing him there. 

[egg]

Starmer isn't a socialist. Agreed. 

Rishi isn't a competent leader or PM.

The Tories won't win the election, but it'll be closer than people think.

Labour and Lib Dems are in danger of splitting the votes in many seats (including mine - Caroline Noakes will likely lose her seat, but labour haven't got a chance). 

Labour aren't dead. They'll form the next government. That said, they've been set up to fail my the current muppets and I can only see them lasting a term cos the tax rises needed to rebuild won't sit well with the masses. 

The Tories have all but killed the UK. Laughable to suggest that they're  the party to resurrect it. 

 

[The Kraken]

Fucking hell. Its a bit early to be drinking, isn’t it?

[Weston Super Saint]

Calling @trousers with the popcorn gif.

[badgerx16]

GM predicts.........

 

Labour majority at the GE a certainty then.

 

Please, please, pretty please, predict a Trump second term.

Edited May 11 by badgerx16

[Tamesaint]

The Conservatives are 33/1 to win the election.

GM can use all his profits from buying Donald Trump shares to really clean up. 

- 

[sadoldgit]

Starmer is a socialist, but he is also pragmatic and has learnt how not to win an election under Corbyn and is trying hard not to make the same mistakes. He has done a good job in making Labour electable again in a relatively short time (yes, helped by the incompetent Tories). He has also done a good job in dismantling the traps that Sunak and the right wing media have been setting for him. He looks and sounds like a PM in waiting and it will make a pleasant change having a PM who wants to make a difference and who wants to govern for everyone, not just a select few. It will also make a pleasant change in having someone in control who will not be lead by eons old ideology but will tailor what he believes should be done with the country’s financial ability to deliver.

The  numerous Tory cabinets we have had over the last 14 years have managed to drag down the UK’s standing in the world and it will take at least a decade to get us back to where we need to be. To get there we need a sensible, pragmatic government who can deliver what is needed, not what blinkered factions of the self interested in the party demand. 
To get elected Starmer knows that he needs to appeal to wavering Tory voters and the only way he can do that is position Labour as a centrist government, just as Blair did. It pisses off the far left but you can’t change things from the opposition benches and Starmer has demonstrated that he has the determination and focus to do what is needed to do to get this bloody awful government out and replace it with something that resembles a competent, functioning administration.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

"Like politicians leaving a sinking party," as marine based rodents say.

Sunak's predecessors, major financial hits, policy fails, fatigue that all parties get, internal bun fights/ power grabs.

Whatever [insert phrase other than "green shoots"] is being made now is offset against that lot.

Also offsetting it are people's memories of previous labour administrations. There are still not many interviews that go by without "fully costed" being mentioned. A number of radio programmes this week taking us back to the 70s too. Grim.

That might make it closer. Even then, Starmer looks likely.

He'll then see his party expand into government, and keeping the lid on the parts of the party he's trying to purge will be hard. And he has to be careful not to lose the votes connected to some of those to other parties.

Implementing major "fully costed" measures, will be difficult too. Being able to change with the wind and making u turns won't be as easy as it's been. The recent conservative policies have left even less wiggle room for them financially, as Egg said.

So far, he's got a handle on what makes them electable, rather than just ideologically popular. Something some of his party have generationally struggled with.

It's an ask to keep his party coherent. But, if he shows a strength of leadership (which doesn't seem to be big part of him, but might be him with his eyes on the voting prize) it might take a couple of parliaments for them to really implement anything they really want. Keeping the electorate onside, while also building for that lot is also going to be tough.

[AlexLaw76]

55 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Starmer is a socialist, but he is also pragmatic and has learnt how not to win an election under Corbyn and is trying hard not to make the same mistakes. He has done a good job in making Labour electable again in a relatively short time (yes, helped by the incompetent Tories). He has also done a good job in dismantling the traps that Sunak and the right wing media have been setting for him. He looks and sounds like a PM in waiting and it will make a pleasant change having a PM who wants to make a difference and who wants to govern for everyone, not just a select few. It will also make a pleasant change in having someone in control who will not be lead by eons old ideology but will tailor what he believes should be done with the country’s financial ability to deliver.

The  numerous Tory cabinets we have had over the last 14 years have managed to drag down the UK’s standing in the world and it will take at least a decade to get us back to where we need to be. To get there we need a sensible, pragmatic government who can deliver what is needed, not what blinkered factions of the self interested in the party demand. 
To get elected Starmer knows that he needs to appeal to wavering Tory voters and the only way he can do that is position Labour as a centrist government, just as Blair did. It pisses off the far left but you can’t change things from the opposition benches and Starmer has demonstrated that he has the determination and focus to do what is needed to do to get this bloody awful government out and replace it with something that resembles a competent, functioning administration.

which is where in what respect?

[Fan The Flames]

3 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

John "Fucking" Major, probably the worst PM in my living memory. 

Too pissed to remember Liz Truss.

[Weston Super Saint]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

which is where in what respect?

Utopia. Flowers and rainbows.

[Fan The Flames]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

which is where in what respect?

 

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Utopia. Flowers and rainbows.

Where public services are fit for purpose.

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

 

Where public services are fit for purpose.

Then reduce immigration drastically.....

[Fan The Flames]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Then reduce immigration drastically.....

Why aren't the Tories doing that?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Fan The Flames said:

Why aren't the Tories doing that?

Not sure...curious if Labour will given the apparent need to make public service et al fit for purpose

[Fan The Flames]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Not sure...curious if Labour will given the apparent need to make public service et al fit for purpose

Do you think public services in your area, NHS, schools, police, roads etc are good enough.

[The Kraken]

14 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Why aren't the Tories doing that?

Because their whole economy is based upon needing mass migration.

[Whitey Grandad]

46 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Because their whole economy is based upon needing mass migration.

Exactly.

With a population growth of around 1% a year annual GDP growth needs to be at least that just to stand still (per capita).

[Lord Duckhunter]

31 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Because their whole economy is based upon needing mass migration.

Both parties are addicted to immigration, have been for 30 years. Legal migration is eye watering, but they’re unwilling to take the difficult decisions needed to do anything about it. Boris Johnson was as liberal as most of the Labour Party when it came to immigration and even Liz Truss had to loosen her policy to give herself fiscal headroom.

You won’t get any radical government from either side, particularly with the ridiculous OBR. Make no mistake, what happened to Truss would have happened to Corbyn had he won the last election. It’s why you end up with a big blob with barely any difference between Governing parties. Economic policy is pretty much settled, it’s a question of who can manage it better within tight confines. I guess some will see this as a positive as you’ll never get extremes, but you’ll never achieve change. Anyone who thinks Starmer will fundamentally change the NHS, the economy, or immigration is living in cloud cuckoo land. The best you’ll get is he manages decline more competently. 

 

[egg]

32 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Both parties are addicted to immigration, have been for 30 years. Legal migration is eye watering, but they’re unwilling to take the difficult decisions needed to do anything about it. Boris Johnson was as liberal as most of the Labour Party when it came to immigration and even Liz Truss had to loosen her policy to give herself fiscal headroom.

You won’t get any radical government from either side, particularly with the ridiculous OBR. Make no mistake, what happened to Truss would have happened to Corbyn had he won the last election. It’s why you end up with a big blob with barely any difference between Governing parties. Economic policy is pretty much settled, it’s a question of who can manage it better within tight confines. I guess some will see this as a positive as you’ll never get extremes, but you’ll never achieve change. Anyone who thinks Starmer will fundamentally change the NHS, the economy, or immigration is living in cloud cuckoo land. The best you’ll get is he manages decline more competently. 

 

I agree with most of that, although I don't see an alternative to legal migration given our skills shortages. Inward migration is here to stay. On the last bit, I can't see labour doing anything of significance in this term, we're too fucked for that, and there's just not enough money or borrowing capacity. Next time round, the Tories will promise to cut taxes, the masses will like that idea, and there'll waltz straight back in. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Next time round, the Tories will promise to cut taxes, the masses will like that idea, and there'll waltz straight back in. 

Yep, and they’ll only be able to cost them with a liberal immigration policy boosting GDP projections. That’s why I don’t agree with having the OBR it bakes in the current economic model. 
 

Unless politicians start being honest about immigration a reckoning is coming. 

[Winnersaint]

7 hours ago, egg said:

the Tories will promise to cut taxes, the masses will like that idea, and there'll waltz straight back in. 

It's why they're delaying a GE they know they will lose. Maximising opportunities to salt the ground is what its all about. Making the country effectively ungovernable hastens their return to power.

[Tamesaint]

Can someone please describe what this brave new world without immigration and where Governments don't have to bother with the restraints imposed by the OBR, looks like. In particular I wonder how the care sector operates. 

 

[Gloucester Saint]

9 hours ago, egg said:

I agree with most of that, although I don't see an alternative to legal migration given our skills shortages. Inward migration is here to stay. On the last bit, I can't see labour doing anything of significance in this term, we're too fucked for that, and there's just not enough money or borrowing capacity. Next time round, the Tories will promise to cut taxes, the masses will like that idea, and there'll waltz straight back in. 

If Mordaunt or Tugendhat get the leadership, that’s possible, this next budget is going to fuck the economy again (not quite at Truss/IEA level, but still badly) for anyone who isn’t a mega billionaire. Always party before national interest with them.

When the tabloids keep referring to the record tax levels, they are talking about their non dom owners, not the likes of us. The NI cut - I’d rather have a functioning NHS when I need it getting towards my 50s rather than £90 extra p/month as a higher rate taxpayer.

What’s really criminal is how they’ve doubled the national debt from the supposedly unsustainable high point in 2010 (an outlier since 1997) yet trashed public services to ruins, fucked thousands of SMEs over with Brexit who export/import and let infrastructure rot so dividends shoot up whilst we pay the highest energy and transport costs in Europe. Michelle Mone was certainly enjoying her billions of champagne socialism via the VIP lane for mountains of duff equipment. There’s always a magic tree with our money on it for their mates.

However, the swivels call the shots in their crazy party and it’ll be Braverman, Femi or some other absolute loon. Trying to persuade an electorate that the party who brought us Truss, Sinclair et al has any economic competence for the next decade at least, probably a lot longer still, is going to take some doing! As Daniel Finkenstein says, it’s their Winter of Discontent and IMF all in one. Rub their noses in it for decades and never let them forget. It was a global disgrace.
Plus after they fucked the Lib Dems over in the coalition, then the DUP, nobody will partner them to get them to 326 seats in the future. 

As a Lib Dem, I can’t wait to us take the Cornish seats and others in the SW return to their proper yellow colour (they’ll hold on in Devon outside the urban areas because the average age). That’s why tactical voting is vital in this election and future ones to deny the useless plastic US Trump Republicans on the Tory right a majority. I’m fine with the One Nation folks in their party - they are welcome to defect to us.

Talking of plastic, Trump Republicans, remind me who the OP was again? You won’t see him for dust on General Election night when it’s defeat after defeat. 

Edited May 11 by Gloucester Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

On 11/05/2024 at 22:12, Tamesaint said:

Can someone please describe what this brave new world without immigration and where Governments don't have to bother with the restraints imposed by the OBR, looks like. In particular I wonder how the care sector operates. 

 

 

What you on about “without immigration “, who is proposing that. Typical thrill response when it comes to discussing immigration. Id hope people would understand it’s not a binary choice, todays levels or none at all. Saying Governments loosen immigration targets to boost GDP projections and therefore give them head room for their pet projects,  isn’t an argument for no immigration. 
 

As for the OBR, remarkable how we managed for hundreds of years without it, it was only set up in 2010. Restraints imposed by a unelected quango, no surprise that the soft arsed wokies on here are all for it. 

[Tamesaint]

19 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

What you on about “without immigration “, who is proposing that. Typical thrill response when it comes to discussing immigration. Id hope people would understand it’s not a binary choice, todays levels or none at all. Saying Governments loosen immigration targets to boost GDP projections and therefore give them head room for their pet projects,  isn’t an argument for no immigration. 
 

As for the OBR, remarkable how we managed for hundreds of years without it, it was only set up in 2010. Restraints imposed by a unelected quango, no surprise that the soft arsed wokies on here are all for it. 

Instead of a rant why not just admit that you have no idea of how several sectors of the economy but in particular the care sector would cope without high levels of immigration? 

I would have thought that the markets's reactions to Truss's budget when GBP almost hit parity to USD demonstrated how important the OBR is to the country's global economic credibility. 

Pethaps join the real world. Practical problems exist here rather than your macho hard man fantasy world where opponents are "soft arsed wokies". 

Edited May 14 by Tamesaint

[Tamesaint]

6 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

 

Whoops!! 

Edited May 14 by Tamesaint

[whelk]

8 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

Instead of a rant why not just admit that you have no idea of how several sectors of the economy but in particular the care sector would cope without high levels of immigration? 

I would have thought that the markets's reactions to Truss's budget when GBP almost hit parity to USD demonstrated how important the OBR is to the country's global economic credibility. 

Pethaps join the real world. Practical problems exist here rather than your macho hard man fantasy world where opponents are "soft arsed wokies". 

There is a case that the fiscal rules are too restrictive and hinder growth. Surprised Labour aren’t making noises about it being seen as some economic tablet in stone not something Osborne introduced. Ignoring the OBR was stupid of Truss but not enough in itself to ‘spook the markets’. Truss’s budget was mental on its own.

[Tamesaint]

43 minutes ago, whelk said:

There is a case that the fiscal rules are too restrictive and hinder growth. Surprised Labour aren’t making noises about it being seen as some economic tablet in stone not something Osborne introduced. Ignoring the OBR was stupid of Truss but not enough in itself to ‘spook the markets’. Truss’s budget was mental on its own.

I don't disagree but if Truss had involved the OBR we wouldn't have had to suffer her mental Budget. 

[rallyboy]

Big blow to rainbow-lanyarded Starmer today with Grant Shapps repeating an old pledge about building perhaps up to a whole new navy....at some vague point in the distant future...in some imaginary shipyards......unbudgeted.

Naysaying cowardly hate marchers may suggest it sounds like a tired old plan recycled, with a 40-year timescale and costs so enormous that it would take a week to write that many noughts - but brave policies win elections!

If peace-loving traitor Starmer and his terrorist-loving, union-paymaster henchpeople had their woke way we'd be reducing the size of our army, taking money from Russia, in bed with China and stuck with aircraft carriers with empty decks.

Well done plucky Rishi, a political giant, leading the world in dangerous times - get him in a tank for a photo opportunity asap.

A small tank.

 

[Fan The Flames]

8 hours ago, whelk said:

There is a case that the fiscal rules are too restrictive and hinder growth. Surprised Labour aren’t making noises about it being seen as some economic tablet in stone not something Osborne introduced. Ignoring the OBR was stupid of Truss but not enough in itself to ‘spook the markets’. Truss’s budget was mental on its own.

Labour find it difficult, because the DM, Sun etc will tear them to shreds. They have to adopt the Tories 'the economies in safe hands' approach.

This is a bug bear of mine, the right wing nutters in the Tory party can float any old nonsense and the papers give it a fair hearing. If the lefts ideas stray outside of the centre the papers go mental over the 'communists'.