• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Its an odd one though - while I dont think he was ever going to be PM, he got 40% of the vote in 2017. Theresa May has got to be the only party leader to come out of a GE in which her party got over 43% and not get a huge majority.

I think Starmer convincing him to u-turn on Brexit resulted in the 2019 collapse as Labour voters in leave areas voted for the tories to ensure it went through.

Starmer actually got Labour fewer votes in 2024 than Corbyn achieved in either of his elections.

And I feel sorry for Sunak and Hunt because they are night and day over Starmer and Reeves in terms of competence - but people were just sick of the tories after party gate and the Liz Truss debacle so they got in by default. Honestly you could have put up Mr. Blobby with a red rosette for PM in 2024 and he'd have got a super majority...

FWIW I don’t find Sunak and Hunt to be any more competent than Starmer and Reeves. I’m not saying this as a fan of one party or the other necessarily. I think Sunak was a good and extremely smart man that was dealt a brick hand and played it extraordinarily badly. And I think Starmer is someone that consistently proves his doubters wrong, but has usually tended to start terribly in his political roles and learn quickly. I think he was also dealt a brick sandwich in taking over and on the real substance I’m not sure what else I would have wanted him to do. There were hard choices each way you turned.

I think where Starmer so far has been absolutely terrible is on the communication. I can’t work out why it’s been so bad, but taken individually they have a set of pretty popular policies that have not been tied together into a singular narrative that enough people can get behind. And by the same token attempts to trim around the edges (relatively speaking, given the amounts spent) on welfare for example, or some of the changes to farmers, dominate the narrative as some sort of proof that he’s a dud.

I don’t think he’s a dud, I think he’s been very canny especially on the international stage especially with Trump. And my belief is that he’s doing a lot of unpopular things in the first year in order to build momentum towards the next GE in the subsequent years to come.

Overall though I think Starmer and Reeves are just as competent as Sunak and Hunt. But Labour have to really deliver in the next 4 years. I’m not sure, given the rate at which politics moves, and how we’ve seen their first year go, whether they’ll do enough to satisfy the mood for change in the country. They would have to take some really big swings, and succeed with them. Otherwise I don’t see how stability and watering down your attempts at change because of back bench rebellions gets the job done. And I don’t say that because I have a view on the changes one way or the other, I just mean that you need to be seen to be doing something to drive change, you need to be seen to be capable of doing it. He can’t look impotent.
 
Although it does seem that stability and convincing the bond markets that the UK is a worthwhile investment is maybe an achievement in and of itself. So if they can drive some wins through that and have that translate into jobs, growth, wages, then great. It is crazy that the UK wasn’t seen as a sure thing by investors, but it does require making hard choices rather than cakeism, and that’s clearly part of the plan with this government.
 
FWIW I don’t find Sunak and Hunt to be any more competent than Starmer and Reeves. I’m not saying this as a fan of one party or the other necessarily. I think Sunak was a good and extremely smart man that was dealt a brick hand and played it extraordinarily badly. And I think Starmer is someone that consistently proves his doubters wrong, but has usually tended to start terribly in his political roles and learn quickly. I think he was also dealt a brick sandwich in taking over and on the real substance I’m not sure what else I would have wanted him to do. There were hard choices each way you turned.

I think where Starmer so far has been absolutely terrible is on the communication. I can’t work out why it’s been so bad, but taken individually they have a set of pretty popular policies that have not been tied together into a singular narrative that enough people can get behind. And by the same token attempts to trim around the edges (relatively speaking, given the amounts spent) on welfare for example, or some of the changes to farmers, dominate the narrative as some sort of proof that he’s a dud.

I don’t think he’s a dud, I think he’s been very canny especially on the international stage especially with Trump. And my belief is that he’s doing a lot of unpopular things in the first year in order to build momentum towards the next GE in the subsequent years to come.

Overall though I think Starmer and Reeves are just as competent as Sunak and Hunt. But Labour have to really deliver in the next 4 years. I’m not sure, given the rate at which politics moves, and how we’ve seen their first year go, whether they’ll do enough to satisfy the mood for change in the country. They would have to take some really big swings, and succeed with them. Otherwise I don’t see how stability and watering down your attempts at change because of back bench rebellions gets the job done. And I don’t say that because I have a view on the changes one way or the other, I just mean that you need to be seen to be doing something to drive change, you need to be seen to be capable of doing it. He can’t look impotent.
It seems to me that the current government is largely under the sway of lobbyists, and it is their agenda that is being enacted. Labour core voters are fast becoming disillusioned with this lot and will certainly turn elsewhere, potentially fracturing the left even further. This would be OK if the UK didn't use a silly FPTP system, but it does.
 
Last edited:
I "bake my own bread" with a bread maker.
Panasonic machine is about £120 from John Lewis ( two year guarantee) £15 for a large bag of flour (15kg).
My own recipe is a egg, and half milk half water for the fluid, 500-550 gr of flour, a teaspoon of salt and sugar and a sachet of dried yeast.
Honestly I have had people buy the machine after tasting my loaf and my family fight over it.
Use it almost every day.

My mum used to have one when growing up, was amazing. Trouble with baking your own low carb bread is that it's usually a mix of almond/coconut flour which are a bit more pricey and super high in calories. The stuff I buy is a bit more processed but lower in calories but overall yeah I should look into making my own, kids would love baking it as well.

I want to get one of those Ninja Creami's for the same reason, they look really good.
 
It seems to me that the current government is largely under the sway of lobbyists, and it is their agenda that is being enacted. Labour core voters are fast becoming disillusioned with this lot and will certainly turn elsewhere, potentially fracturing the left even further. This would be OK if the UK didn't use a silly FPTP system, but it does.

Fptp system wouldn't be stupid if politics worked as intended.
You vote for your local mp who represents your community in parliament. Parliament votes on the pm who forms a government. Party politics was never intended. It was just meant to be areas of the country. No tories, labour etc... no whips telling you which way to vote. You vote the way your voters want you to.
 
Fptp system wouldn't be stupid if politics worked as intended.
You vote for your local mp who represents your community in parliament. Parliament votes on the pm who forms a government. Party politics was never intended. It was just meant to be areas of the country. No tories, labour etc... no whips telling you which way to vote. You vote the way your voters want you to.

This is one of the biggest downfalls I see with society now people look and vote on party headlines and don't scrutinise the deeper politics and local issues.

For all his faults, Farage has done amazingly at using that to his benefit, no one seemingly caring about the members or individuals which has been proven since the number that have left under a cloud (they are not the only party either).

People care more about sticking their flag in the sand for a party like they are a football team now than really getting to the core roots of politics.
 
It seems to me that the current government is largely under the sway of lobbyists, and it is their agenda that is being enacted. Labour core voters are fast becoming disillusioned with this lot and will certainly turn elsewhere, potentially fracturing the left even further. This would be OK if the UK didn't use a silly FPTP system, but it does.

Who are the lobbyists? What are they lobbying for specifically?
 
Fptp system wouldn't be stupid if politics worked as intended.
You vote for your local mp who represents your community in parliament. Parliament votes on the pm who forms a government. Party politics was never intended. It was just meant to be areas of the country. No tories, labour etc... no whips telling you which way to vote. You vote the way your voters want you to.
Unfortunately that's not what the UK has. FPTP in a two-party system gives fairly predictable, if somewhat skewed, results. When other parties start closing the gap results can be quite chaotic. I've seen some predictions for the next UK election which illustrate this point (I'll try to find them). One of the main arguments given for continuing with FPTP is that it keeps the fringe parties on the sidelines and out of power. Of course, the US shows that if one of the two is the fringe, then you are properly fudged.
 
Last edited:
Well there are many. Ethan Shone on openDemocracy has some good stuff on this if you want to dig deeper.

Interesting. I have just read this article: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/07/10/uk-labour-the-party-of-big-business/

I don't disagree that Labour tried to engage business at all. I think it is part of their strategy to drive growth and encourage investment, is it not? This also goes hand in hand with Reeve's fiscal rules, living within our means etc. It's all part of showing business generally that the UK is stable and a worthwhile investment, the hope being that it will drive jobs, wages, growth overall.

I'm wondering which policies we have seen specifically that stand out as being driven by corporate lobbying? I can see why this kind of play will tinkle off their left flank, but I can understand why Labour is doing it after years of meagre growth in the UK.
 
Interesting. I have just read this article: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/07/10/uk-labour-the-party-of-big-business/

I don't disagree that Labour tried to engage business at all. I think it is part of their strategy to drive growth and encourage investment, is it not? This also goes hand in hand with Reeve's fiscal rules, living within our means etc. It's all part of showing business generally that the UK is stable and a worthwhile investment, the hope being that it will drive jobs, wages, growth overall.

I'm wondering which policies we have seen specifically that stand out as being driven by corporate lobbying? I can see why this kind of play will tinkle off their left flank, but I can understand why Labour is doing it after years of meagre growth in the UK.

Why is it corporate lobbying? There are other groups that lobby. Unions, religious groups, political groups etc...
 
Seems like an idiot racist karen. Not sure why you posted it though?
Because she is a regular GB commentator and its clearly where we are as a nation and in many cases because of political rhetoric that these people feel they have to say these things. I think its a fairly common barometer of where this country is.........shamefully
 
Because she is a regular GB commentator and its clearly where we are as a nation and in many cases because of political rhetoric that these people feel they have to say these things. I think its a fairly common barometer of where this country is.........shamefully

No idea who she is. Don't watch gb news.
 
FWIW I don’t find Sunak and Hunt to be any more competent than Starmer and Reeves. I’m not saying this as a fan of one party or the other necessarily. I think Sunak was a good and extremely smart man that was dealt a brick hand and played it extraordinarily badly. And I think Starmer is someone that consistently proves his doubters wrong, but has usually tended to start terribly in his political roles and learn quickly. I think he was also dealt a brick sandwich in taking over and on the real substance I’m not sure what else I would have wanted him to do. There were hard choices each way you turned.

I think where Starmer so far has been absolutely terrible is on the communication. I can’t work out why it’s been so bad, but taken individually they have a set of pretty popular policies that have not been tied together into a singular narrative that enough people can get behind. And by the same token attempts to trim around the edges (relatively speaking, given the amounts spent) on welfare for example, or some of the changes to farmers, dominate the narrative as some sort of proof that he’s a dud.

I don’t think he’s a dud, I think he’s been very canny especially on the international stage especially with Trump. And my belief is that he’s doing a lot of unpopular things in the first year in order to build momentum towards the next GE in the subsequent years to come.

Overall though I think Starmer and Reeves are just as competent as Sunak and Hunt. But Labour have to really deliver in the next 4 years. I’m not sure, given the rate at which politics moves, and how we’ve seen their first year go, whether they’ll do enough to satisfy the mood for change in the country. They would have to take some really big swings, and succeed with them. Otherwise I don’t see how stability and watering down your attempts at change because of back bench rebellions gets the job done. And I don’t say that because I have a view on the changes one way or the other, I just mean that you need to be seen to be doing something to drive change, you need to be seen to be capable of doing it. He can’t look impotent.
Completely disagree. Sunak is extremely competent where it matters: business and management of the economy. Before being in politics this is a guy that had billions of dollars under management globally for one of the world's largest investment banks.

He correctly predicted publically what would happen if Liz Truss got in and enacted her policies and he successfully stabilised the situation and he and hunt began to generate growth in the economy and a feeling of positivity in the economy and the UK in general.

He also correctly predicted what would happen if Labour got in and enacted their policies. Growth and confidence in the UK is flat-lining, confidence got shot by Starmer and Reeves doom and gloom and £22 billion black hole talk.

And unfortunately doing that talk and then: 1) whacking in an unaccounted for and not-in-manifesto NI rise
2) throwing around unfunded huge pay rises to public sector workers
3) rolling back benefit reform promises all of which led to....
a) eclipsing any "black hole" left by the last government and
b) led to some of the starkest analysis I've seen from the OBR and IFS on future state of public finances in a long long time.

If they dont arrest the current level of spending commitments or manage to boost growth considerably they're in an absolute bind:

But the markets have reacted to them already (at a slower pace than they did with Truss as the mask slipped at a slower pace as more and more bad decisions have been made) to the point where the "idiot premium" on UK bonds and stocks has pretty much gone back up to where they were post-Truss.

The other day you've had the boss of Lloyds basically stating that Reeves policies are "anti-growth" .......

A competent team doesnt lead to the chancellor crying on the front bench in front of the entire f*king world while the measly Starmer reads out the shredding of their flagship public finance reform policy in front of jubilant back bench rebels while also being unable to provide assurances as to the chancellors future under repeated questions from the opposition......it was a public and brutal humiliation for this country the likes of which I cant remember seeing in my lifetime...
 
Last edited:
Back