Westminster Politics 2024-2029

[tomaldinho1]

If everyone ditched twitter the world would be a better place.

I think it’s perfectly fine to have a low opinion of those who spend time on the platform, and use it to reinforce and exaggerate their own opinions and perspectives.

Agreed. It is incredible how many people use Twitter and are aware of how the algorithm works but simultaneously think they are somehow not affected by it.

 

[decorativeed]

[

We don’t need so many new houses - improving the old housing stock that’s unliveable would go a long way. But who is going to do that? It’s small builders, landlords or people looking to refurb for themselves. You also have people living in the wrong housing stock - but let’s not go round the houses on stamp duty again.

Flats are a problem, esp now with more and more people working from home.

You'll be surprised at this: I agree with you.

But we also need a lot of those homes in public ownership. No more renting them back off private landlords at silly money because they have no other option.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Agreed. It is incredible how many people use Twitter and are aware of how the algorithm works but simultaneously think they are somehow not affected by it.

You'll be surprised at this: I agree with you.

But we also need a lot of those homes in public ownership. No more renting them back off private landlords at silly money because they have no other option.

Stop it. This must be a parallel dimension!

 

[LDUred]

Labour is incredible divided, but Burnham´s got the best shot of unifying the centrists and leftists.

 

[TwoSheds]

Labour is incredible divided, but Burnham´s got the best shot of unifying the centrists and leftists.

Wouldn't it be wild to have a leader who treats the different wings of the party with respect. Been a long time since some variety of extremist hasn't run the show.

 

[caid]

Stop it. This must be a parallel dimension!

I often think if your shave off the extreme ends of the spectrum then everyone kind of agrees on an awful lot of stuff. Twitter hyperbole makes the other side seem more mental than they really are and while theres often differences on solutions (and definite room for friction there) everyone is basically pointing to the same problems.
A lot of the problems are kind of really obvious and clear and established at this point.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Wouldn't it be wild to have a leader who treats the different wings of the party with respect. Been a long time since some variety of extremist hasn't run the show.

To be fair, the only faction not treating the other with respect were the Mandelson inspired purgers of the left. For all the talk about Corbyn, he was actually too accommodating of the faction actively trying to lose the election and sabotage his leadership (see Labour Leaks).

 

[TwoSheds]

To be fair, the only faction not treating the other with respect were the Mandelson inspired purgers of the left. For all the talk about Corbyn, he was actually too accommodating of the faction actively trying to lose the election and sabotage his leadership (see Labour Leaks).

Agreed but then you'd the Momentum lot who were a bit intolerant too. I guess I was also thinking of PMs really, they have pretty much all been at war with some faction of their party or other since maybe Blair's early days? The lunatics took over the asylum and it would be a blessed relief to put them back in their cells for a bit.

 

[thisisnottaken1]

To be fair, the only faction not treating the other with respect were the Mandelson inspired purgers of the left. For all the talk about Corbyn, he was actually too accommodating of the faction actively trying to lose the election and sabotage his leadership (see Labour Leaks).

Very well said. Corbyn gave too much leeway to the Labour Right. The Labour Right meanwhile is straight up hostile towards the Labour Left.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I often think if your shave off the extreme ends of the spectrum then everyone kind of agrees on an awful lot of stuff. Twitter hyperbole makes the other side seem more mental than they really are and while theres often differences on solutions (and definite room for friction there) everyone is basically pointing to the same problems.
A lot of the problems are kind of really obvious and clear and established at this point.

I agree. I’ve said on here before that 80% of people probably agree about 80%!of things.

I suppose to some extent, you don’t discuss the things that are (mostly) universally agreeable.

 

[TheGame]

Is this all what these feckers do. Obsessed with fecking flags.

 

[Jippy]

Is this all what these feckers do. Obsessed with fecking flags.

Prioritising the important stuff.

 

[Maticmaker]

We are awful at taxing wealth. And that is true of most countries

Thank you for comments, re Pareto

Traditionally attempts at 'taxing wealth' can in many ways be seen fundamentally as a constitutional matter, where precedence is what underpins our law making; ensuring those inparticular whose wealth stems from the perpetuating ownership of land and hence the continued underpining of this system.

millions of working people are in full time work, and still do not have enough to make ends meet

This is the crux of the matter that the government has to face...ending the scourge of the working poor .
How can the economy grow when people who are working effectively full time, but often across one, or two jobs, cannot survive without state benefits.
What comes next, a return to the 'Workhouse era'?
We can change leaders, change governments, but until this scourge is removed, nothing will improve for the working population.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Reading an article about what people in Markerfield think about Burnham - and it’s mixed.

But what struck me, and I’ve heard this from a number of Labour supporters:

He adds: “The problem is, Labour isn’t for the working man any more. Labour’s only for the middle classes now, your teachers, your lawyers, it is not the party for your man on the bottom line.”

I suppose this is the problem for Labour, as I think it is entirely anti-middle class. It’s the middle classes who Labour have been attacking and raiding, and destroying opportunities for.

So who are they for?

 

[Smores]

Reading an article about what people in Markerfield think about Burnham - and it’s mixed.

But what struck me, and I’ve heard this from a number of Labour supporters:

He adds: “The problem is, Labour isn’t for the working man any more. Labour’s only for the middle classes now, your teachers, your lawyers, it is not the party for your man on the bottom line.”

I suppose this is the problem for Labour, as I think it is entirely anti-middle class. It’s the middle classes who Labour have been attacking and raiding, and destroying opportunities for.

So who are they for?

It sums up Starmer's Labour, projecting an image no one believes and alienating their base in doing so. Then they blame thier base who they assumed would just stay loyal.

In reality the policy is broad and bottom weighted that scales up the pyramid. Image matters though and they were goaded into moving away from the working class reputation by the Tories.

 

[strandty]

 

[ericking]

Reading an article about what people in Markerfield think about Burnham - and it’s mixed.

But what struck me, and I’ve heard this from a number of Labour supporters:

He adds: “The problem is, Labour isn’t for the working man any more. Labour’s only for the middle classes now, your teachers, your lawyers, it is not the party for your man on the bottom line.”

I suppose this is the problem for Labour, as I think it is entirely anti-middle class. It’s the middle classes who Labour have been attacking and raiding, and destroying opportunities for.

So who are they for?

I may have misunderstood here: but don't teachers and lawyers count as middle class?

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

[

I may have misunderstood here: but don't teachers and lawyers count as middle class?

Yes. The quote was from a Labour supporter saying that they were no longer for the working class but for the middle classes. My argument is that Labour are certainly not benefitting the middle classes in any way.

So who are they for?

 

[TheGame]

Fecking OAP bingo.

 

[WPMUFC]

yeah i think we need to be careful of the precedent set here. A vetting file is basically an assessment on someones entire life, their deepest secrets and financial status (depending on the clearance level). I would be very uneasy with the idea that vetting files could become a political tool.

 

[Maticmaker]

So who are they for?

They are for the Working population. Whatever ' class,' you want to put yourself in; owner worker, hired worker, part-time worker....etc it doesn't matter that's who Labour represent and why there is different 'wings'

The problem for Labour out of goverment is it has no old power left it no longer has any big batallions left; trade Unions, started to merge as numbers fell, they joined together in blocks that no longer have relevance to British industry, because we no longer have any big batallions there either.....(maybe Steel will have a comeback when its nationalised..) etc. no longer representing specific outputs. In power the only ones that can put a specific 'grip' on society eg. Health workers, notably doctors., train drivers, maybe one or two others...(answers on a postcard please!!)
In power if labour is to nationalise's everything it will be ranged against its traditional roots even more ; who will all expect 'special favours'.
This is why the report from Makerfield have people who think labour is no longer for the working man....big big problem !!!

The press (most of it anti Labour) has always been there to exploit Labour weakness in both obtaining power and retaining it..eg.if Labour currently fails with a new PM, hands up how many think it will get a chance to appoint a few more PM's before being kicked out, like the Tories did?

The real problem for labour to allow itself a chance to 'move the dial',even with the current massive labour majority in government, is it has a long road to travel to even get to the starting line....the public won't wait.
A new leader will face the same inertia that Starmer faces, laws need changing, especially in terms of constitutional issues, these alone will take time. Tweaking the economy is the best the government can do right now.
However if you are still just with your head above water or are already sinking, you dont want to hear about 'jam tomorrow..'.unless perhaps you are under 30!!

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

@Maticmaker they are for the traditional working class, and I respect that, and I respect the purpose.

However, they prioritise public sector workers over private sector workers, and they are very far from being for everyone who works.

If you are a business owner or if you are in the traditional middle classes, you are seen as a cash grab, you are the money tree. Labour are the killers of aspiration.

So if they aren’t for the working classes, they are irrelevant.

 

[decorativeed]

Reading an article about what people in Markerfield think about Burnham - and it’s mixed.

But what struck me, and I’ve heard this from a number of Labour supporters:

He adds: “The problem is, Labour isn’t for the working man any more. Labour’s only for the middle classes now, your teachers, your lawyers, it is not the party for your man on the bottom line.”

I suppose this is the problem for Labour, as I think it is entirely anti-middle class. It’s the middle classes who Labour have been attacking and raiding, and destroying opportunities for.

So who are they for?

I doubt many teachers think Labour are the party for them.

It's always funny to see how detached the average person is from things like education.

And I agree - most parties have policies that are shrinking the middle class and creating a system without one, where within a generation or so there will only be wealthy and poor.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I doubt many teachers think Labour are the party for them.

It's always funny to see how detached the average person is from things like education.

And I agree - most parties have policies that are shrinking the middle class and creating a system without one, where within a generation or so there will only be wealthy and poor.

I don’t disagree that the continued attack on the middle classes is wider than Labour. But specifically it was a reference to Labour, I can’t see why anyone who is traditionally middle class would want them to be in power.

If their core base don’t believe in them… they serve no one.

 

[Buster15]

They are for the Working population. Whatever ' class,' you want to put yourself in; owner worker, hired worker, part-time worker....etc it doesn't matter that's who Labour represent and why there is different 'wings'

The problem for Labour out of goverment is it has no old power left it no longer has any big batallions left; trade Unions, started to merge as numbers fell, they joined together in blocks that no longer have relevance to British industry, because we no longer have any big batallions there either.....(maybe Steel will have a comeback when its nationalised..) etc. no longer representing specific outputs. In power the only ones that can put a specific 'grip' on society eg. Health workers, notably doctors., train drivers, maybe one or two others...(answers on a postcard please!!)
In power if labour is to nationalise's everything it will be ranged against its traditional roots even more ; who will all expect 'special favours'.
This is why the report from Makerfield have people who think labour is no longer for the working man....big big problem !!!

The press (most of it anti Labour) has always been there to exploit Labour weakness in both obtaining power and retaining it..eg.if Labour currently fails with a new PM, hands up how many think it will get a chance to appoint a few more PM's before being kicked out, like the Tories did?

The real problem for labour to allow itself a chance to 'move the dial',even with the current massive labour majority in government, is it has a long road to travel to even get to the starting line....the public won't wait.
A new leader will face the same inertia that Starmer faces, laws need changing, especially in terms of constitutional issues, these alone will take time. Tweaking the economy is the best the government can do right now.
However if you are still just with your head above water or are already sinking, you dont want to hear about 'jam tomorrow..'.unless perhaps you are under 30!!

This is a good summary of how things have rapidly changed here.
Trades Unions are no longer the power base they once were. Some might say good; they became too powerful and too political and some might say that they have outlived their usefulness. I certainly don't agree with that.
I also hate any reference to the archaic class system. Because placing a label on people is to me fundamentally wrong.

The old fashioned right/left Tory and Labour divide we saw in the Ted Heath v Harold Wilson days is quite rightly very much a thing of the past.
People see a political party more as a tool. They vote for it and expect it to do something beneficial for them.
Nothing wrong with that, apart from the fact that pretty much everything the UK does is directly affected by external forces; the international investors who lend their money to the government. That has an immediate affect on the Bond markets and our affordability.

You want better public services but you can't pay for them yourselves.... their eyes light up. 5% interest rate compounded for the next 10 or 20 years to most of us might sound ok. Now think again.
Because each and every one of us has a different priority. The list is endless.

The simple fact is that whatever was in a manifesto might sound great until you have to pay for it. And that is the reality of life in the UK.
We put our cross on the ballot paper and it is like a child constantly wanting more of everything. And when the parents say you can't have it, the child has a tantrum and wishes they had a different parent like their friends.

Opposition is easy. That is why Nigel and reform are so popular. He is an independently wealthy man who doesn't give a sh1t about his followers or Bond markets or anything like that.
The only thing he is interested in is POWER.

 

[Maticmaker]

@Maticmaker they are for the traditional working class, and I respect that, and I respect the purpose.

However, they prioritise public sector workers over private sector workers, and they are very far from being for everyone who works.

If you are a business owner or if you are in the traditional middle classes, you are seen as a cash grab, you are the money tree. Labour are the killers of aspiration.

So if they aren’t for the working classes, they are irrelevant.

@ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg

That was the whole point, they are now trying to present themselves as being for all working people as class connotations are becoming less and less relevant, it's about who does the work!

Out of power Labour has traditionally presented itself for and on behalf of its manual worker base, which has gradually change to include more technical/ academic/ first level supervision management and at the same time overall the numbers (from the 'big battalions') have decreased as automation etc. has reduced purely manual jobs, particular the unskilled ones.

In power is when Labour has overall failed, both its traditional base and the small business owner/manager, because its various wings continue to fight each other, and it looks like once again, when it has the power to really change things... but not instantly as it will take time.... the split between the factions emerge once again and it is likely that 'defeat will be snatched from the jaws of victory'; only this time it will sink the ship as Labour will break into factions, some will move to the Greens, some to Reform and some may even try to battle on as a 'rump' version of 'New Labour'.

This has been coming for a while, the irony is at the moment of its greatest opportunity (in my life anyway) to "move the dial" its divisions become apparent and failure looms.

The warnings were there with Brexit one element within Labour wanted to remain, the other to leave and the leadership give out mixed signals, and we know what happened then.

The leadership battle will be between Starmer (right leaning) and Burnham (left leaning), although he may well present himself as the 'healer' but a split is the most likely outcome. The people who miss out will be those doing the work, whatever class they consider themselves to be in and it will likely spell disaster for those under 30 yrs old.

 

[Fully Fledged]

No, and it's precisely why he hasn't announced his campaign. He's realised these past two days he hasn't got the numbers to win, but he's had to resign regardless because it was an open secret what he was upto, making his position untenable. And with that, he's allowing Burnham to sneak in with enough time, meaning he's got absolutely no chance.

In short, they jumped the gun (in fairness, that's in hindsight, think he and his team thought he'd have more support) and fecked it.

Labour together has made it as hard for Burnham as they can. With the former leader of that group standing down in a constituency where Reform won every ward last week, kind of daring Burnham to stand there.

I'm hoping Burnham can pull it off.

 

[Buster15]

@ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg

That was the whole point, they are now trying to present themselves as being for all working people as class connotations are becoming less and less relevant, it's about who does the work!

Out of power Labour has traditionally presented itself for and on behalf of its manual worker base, which has gradually change to include more technical/ academic/ first level supervision management and at the same time overall the numbers (from the 'big battalions') have decreased as automation etc. has reduced purely manual jobs, particular the unskilled ones.

In power is when Labour has overall failed, both its traditional base and the small business owner/manager, because its various wings continue to fight each other, and it looks like once again, when it has the power to really change things... but not instantly as it will take time.... the split between the factions emerge once again and it is likely that 'defeat will be snatched from the jaws of victory'; only this time it will sink the ship as Labour will break into factions, some will move to the Greens, some to Reform and some may even try to battle on as a 'rump' version of 'New Labour'.

This has been coming for a while, the irony is at the moment of its greatest opportunity (in my life anyway) to "move the dial" its divisions become apparent and failure looms.

The warnings were there with Brexit one element within Labour wanted to remain, the other to leave and the leadership give out mixed signals, and we know what happened then.

The leadership battle will be between Starmer (right leaning) and Burnham (left leaning), although he may well present himself as the 'healer' but a split is the most likely outcome. The people who miss out will be those doing the work, whatever class they consider themselves to be in and it will likely spell disaster for those under 30 yrs old.

Sure. But what is the dial.
Because I might say that in the time Labour has been in, they have done a 5/10 job given the collosal number of problems they inherited.
But everyone's dial is probably different. Including those Labour MPs. Some are patient but more will be impatient.

We place far too much emphasis on the PM. He is only one of over 400. So there are probably over 400 different dials just in parliament let alone the country.

 

[Maticmaker]

This is a good summary of how things have rapidly changed here.
Trades Unions are no longer the power base they once were. Some might say good; they became too powerful and too political and some might say that they have outlived their usefulness. I certainly don't agree with that.
I also hate any reference to the archaic class system. Because placing a label on people is to me fundamentally wrong.

The old fashioned right/left Tory and Labour divide we saw in the Ted Heath v Harold Wilson days is quite rightly very much a thing of the past.
People see a political party more as a tool. They vote for it and expect it to do something beneficial for them.
Nothing wrong with that, apart from the fact that pretty much everything the UK does is directly affected by external forces; the international investors who lend their money to the government. That has an immediate affect on the Bond markets and our affordability.

You want better public services but you can't pay for them yourselves.... their eyes light up. 5% interest rate compounded for the next 10 or 20 years to most of us might sound ok. Now think again.
Because each and every one of us has a different priority. The list is endless.

The simple fact is that whatever was in a manifesto might sound great until you have to pay for it. And that is the reality of life in the UK.
We put our cross on the ballot paper and it is like a child constantly wanting more of everything. And when the parents say you can't have it, the child has a tantrum and wishes they had a different parent like their friends.

Opposition is easy. That is why Nigel and reform are so popular. He is an independently wealthy man who doesn't give a sh1t about his followers or Bond markets or anything like that.
The only thing he is interested in is POWER.

Excellent piece, spot on!

This sums up a number of things, but for me the point that we need money we haven't got, the money lenders are already raising their rates and we haven't asked for anything yet (at least as far as we know). This the biggest issue and will not go away no matter who's in number 10

Starmer offered change, but didn't really say how long it would take; meantime he has been trying to 'rob Peter to pay Paul', got slated by his own side and everyone else affected, those who were being asked to 'cough up' and those who were being told, 'sorry not yet'.

Choosing a new leader I am afraid may be a lot like 'rearranging the chairs on the Titanic'. The only one to benefit will be Reform.

 

[Maticmaker]

Sure. But what is the dial.
Because I might say that in the time Labour has been in, they have done a 5/10 job given the collosal number of problems they inherited.
But everyone's dial is probably different. Including those Labour MPs. Some are patient but more will be impatient.

We place far too much emphasis on the PM. He is only one of over 400. So there are probably over 400 different dials just in parliament let alone the country.

The dial (I believe that Starmer and Co are working towards) is made up of;

Accommodation matters i.e., providing for more affordable houses and introducing laws that prevent the hoarding of land and the power of 'nimbyism' to delay and distract from development.

Employment laws - which give basic protection to employees and have the backing of employers... a new social contract is required.

Changes in the Education system that ensure relevant qualifications, that provides for a basic education entitlement for everybody. A system of curriculum management from pre-school through to tertiary education, that encourages life long learning and retraining as standard.

A joined up system for NHS/Welfare, for working families, including end of life care.

These are the 'four points on the dial' needed to support a relevant, capable and rewarded entitlement, for those who do the work (ostensibly the middle 60% of our population)

[This is based on the belief that the top 20% of our population can take care of themselves; the bottom 20% of the population will always need state support of one kind of another... it is the middle 60% that does the work]

 

[Buster15]

Excellent piece, spot on!

This sums up a number of things, but for me the point that we need money we haven't got, the money lenders are already raising their rates and we haven't asked for anything yet (at least as far as we know). This the biggest issue and will not go away no matter who's in number 10

Starmer offered change, but didn't really say how long it would take; meantime he has been trying to 'rob Peter to pay Paul', got slated by his own side and everyone else affected, those who were being asked to 'cough up' and those who were being told, 'sorry not yet'.

Choosing a new leader I am afraid may be a lot like 'rearranging the chairs on the Titanic'. The only one to benefit will be Reform.

Yes exactly. And it will be the same whichever party gets in. Unless you are Farage who thinks that the Tory austerity wasn't anything like deep enough. And they won't need to borrow anything because he can do everything by cutting everything.

 

[Buster15]

The dial (I believe that Starmer and Co are working towards) is made up of;

Accommodation matters i.e., providing for more affordable houses and introducing laws that prevent the hoarding of land and the power of 'nimbyism' to delay and distract from development.

Employment laws - which give basic protection to employees and have the backing of employers... a new social contract is required.

Changes in the Education system that ensure relevant qualifications, that provides for a basic education entitlement for everybody. A system of curriculum management from pre-school through to tertiary education, that encourages life long learning and retraining as standard.

A joined up system for NHS/Welfare, for working families, including end of life care.

These are the 'four points on the dial' needed to support a relevant, capable and rewarded entitlement, for those who do the work (ostensibly the middle 60% of our population)

[This is based on the belief that the top 20% of our population can take care of themselves; the bottom 20% of the population will always need state support of one kind of another... it is the middle 60% that does the work]

Thank you.
But other people dial would include - pot holes, immigration, the cost of living, scrapping the triple lock, cutting the welfare bill lower energy bills, boosting growth, stop making mistakes and stop the U turns etc etc.

Everyone blames the manager I mean the PM.
Good news about Michael Carrick by the way although I am sure there will be lots of people who think that is bad news...

 

[Frosty]

The dial (I believe that Starmer and Co are working towards) is made up of;

Accommodation matters i.e., providing for more affordable houses and introducing laws that prevent the hoarding of land and the power of 'nimbyism' to delay and distract from development.

Employment laws - which give basic protection to employees and have the backing of employers... a new social contract is required.

Changes in the Education system that ensure relevant qualifications, that provides for a basic education entitlement for everybody. A system of curriculum management from pre-school through to tertiary education, that encourages life long learning and retraining as standard.

A joined up system for NHS/Welfare, for working families, including end of life care.

These are the 'four points on the dial' needed to support a relevant, capable and rewarded entitlement, for those who do the work (ostensibly the middle 60% of our population)

[This is based on the belief that the top 20% of our population can take care of themselves; the bottom 20% of the population will always need state support of one kind of another... it is the middle 60% that does the work]

Starmer's ability to communicate a clear message was very bad. Any future Labour PM needs to see why Macmillan, Thatcher and Blair were great at communicating to the public, and copy them.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

@ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg

That was the whole point, they are now trying to present themselves as being for all working people as class connotations are becoming less and less relevant, it's about who does the work!

Out of power Labour has traditionally presented itself for and on behalf of its manual worker base, which has gradually change to include more technical/ academic/ first level supervision management and at the same time overall the numbers (from the 'big battalions') have decreased as automation etc. has reduced purely manual jobs, particular the unskilled ones.

In power is when Labour has overall failed, both its traditional base and the small business owner/manager, because its various wings continue to fight each other, and it looks like once again, when it has the power to really change things... but not instantly as it will take time.... the split between the factions emerge once again and it is likely that 'defeat will be snatched from the jaws of victory'; only this time it will sink the ship as Labour will break into factions, some will move to the Greens, some to Reform and some may even try to battle on as a 'rump' version of 'New Labour'.

This has been coming for a while, the irony is at the moment of its greatest opportunity (in my life anyway) to "move the dial" its divisions become apparent and failure looms.

The warnings were there with Brexit one element within Labour wanted to remain, the other to leave and the leadership give out mixed signals, and we know what happened then.

The leadership battle will be between Starmer (right leaning) and Burnham (left leaning), although he may well present himself as the 'healer' but a split is the most likely outcome. The people who miss out will be those doing the work, whatever class they consider themselves to be in and it will likely spell disaster for those under 30 yrs old.

But they don’t represent all who work. That might be some sort of panacea you are dreaming of. But Labour have made it difficult for small businesses owners, those who work for small business and many people in work.

They do not represent all people who work, a good percentage they are turning the screw on, and making them constantly worse off.

Now you can argue, and perhaps rightly so that this is to support those worse off - but you can’t at all claim that they are making life better for many many millions in work and contributing to the economy.

 

[strandty]

 

[Buster15]

Starmer's ability to communicate a clear message was very bad. Any future Labour PM needs to see why Macmillan, Thatcher and Blair were great at communicating to the public, and copy them.

Macmillan. He was more wooden than an oak tree and sounded like the Tory toff he was.

 

[Frosty]

Macmillan. He was more wooden than an oak tree and sounded like the Tory toff he was.

And he was PM a long time ago and technology has moved on. But he was very good at boiling down complicated policies into clear, easy to understand phrases and ideas.

 

[711]

And he was PM a long time ago and technology has moved on. But he was very good at boiling down complicated policies into clear, easy to understand phrases and ideas.

There are phrases of Macmillan's that are still well-known today, so I agree. Same for Wilson really, maybe not for Attlee though, good as he was.

edit: Actually Churchill was a good communicator too and he was a twat, so how much it matters I'm not sure.

 

[Maticmaker]

Thank you.
But other people dial would include - pot holes, immigration, the cost of living, scrapping the triple lock, cutting the welfare bill lower energy bills, boosting growth, stop making mistakes and stop the U turns etc etc.

I think we might be thinking about different types of 'dials'.

I believe Starmer was thinking about the fundamentals/staples needed to improve the support for working people throughout their lives, we need new Laws/Acts etc to ensure;

In the areas of:
Accommodation
Employment
Education
Health/Welfare

Historical Note
After WW2 the Labour government introduced two specific pieces of legislation that were to fundamentally enhance the life chances of millions of working people, e.g Education Act and NHS Act, thereafter.

These were seismic shifts of the 'Dial' for improving the life chances of the British population.

This is the scope of 'change' required now.... but this had never been presented as such in the run up to the election, unless you read virtually every document emerging from Labour Together and various other groups... .. then once in power and seeing the state of the books, Starmer (it appears) back peddled, got tangled up in 'U' turn after 'U' turn and seemingly turned everyone against him.

Starmer's ability to communicate a clear message was very bad.

Yes, it looks that way, but what about the other members of the cabinet with specific responsibilities, they also were, either frightened to death of Starmer or out of their depth... or both!!

But they don’t represent all who work

I think that is part of the grand plan of 'we are all in it together now' ...but if it was the intention it was never explained how small businesses would; a) be helped with their problems; b) asked to contribute to 'moving the dial'.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I think we might be thinking about different types of 'dials'.

I believe Starmer was thinking about the fundamentals/staples needed to improve the support for working people throughout their lives, we need new Laws/Acts etc to ensure;

In the areas of:
Accommodation
Employment
Education
Health/Welfare

Historical Note
After WW2 the Labour government introduced two specific pieces of legislation that were to fundamentally enhance the life chances of millions of working people, e.g Education Act and NHS Act, thereafter.

These were seismic shifts of the 'Dial' for improving the life chances of the British population.

This is the scope of 'change' required now.... but this had never been presented as such in the run up to the election, unless you read virtually every document emerging from Labour Together and various other groups... .. then once in power and seeing the state of the books, Starmer (it appears) back peddled, got tangled up in 'U' turn after 'U' turn and seemingly turned everyone against him.


Yes, it looks that way, but what about the other members of the cabinet with specific responsibilities, they also were, either frightened to death of Starmer or out of their depth... or both!!


I think that is part of the grand plan of 'we are all in it together now' ...but if it was the intention it was never explained how small businesses would; a) be helped with their problems; b) asked to contribute to 'moving the dial'.

So great, we get screwed and screwed until the grand plan becomes apparent.