Westminster Politics 2024-2029

dumbo said:
And if you weren't such a blind loyalist to anything that Starmer has ever done, and didn't constantly pick at anyone daring to criticise him you would see the argument for what it is: that no trinket of any size or prestige grants you immunity from transgressions, past or future, particularly when it comes to violence against women and girls. Whether that be promoting the best freind and close confidant to the world's most famous rapist paedophile to the top ambassador role, or Starmer's silence in the face of the reports of systematic rape and sexual assault of Palestinian women and young girls by Israel.

I'll say it again. Starmer does not give a feck about women and girls.
Click to expand...
Blind loyalist…good one! I’ve given up my party membership in the last year due to his rhetoric and capitulation to Reform.

But your analysis is just juvenile and vindictive, suggestions about trinkets etc when the trinket was due to a career where he aimed to support victims of rape and sexual assault.

That he completely crumbled as Labour leader doesn’t negate those changes and the positive impact he’s had on that topic.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Blind loyalist…good one! I’ve given up my party membership in the last year due to his rhetoric and capitulation to Reform.

But your analysis is just juvenile and vindictive, suggestions about trinkets etc when the trinket was due to a career where he aimed to support victims of rape and sexual assault.

That he completely crumbled as Labour leader doesn’t negate those changes and the positive impact he’s had on that topic.
Click to expand...
I am glad he is calling out the American 'interference' in British politics though. Even if it is only recently.
 
Antisocial said:
My assumption is that the aim is to create a British version of the Trump administration, with Farage as the untouchable figurehead while the Bannon/Miller-types are actually running things. The difference between the two political systems means that there is a greater need for puddings required to vote the way they are told to in Parliament when needed (unless they are able to neutralise Parliament like they have Congress), for that reason an army of Lee Andersons is ideal.



Yeah it's basically the Brexit playbook, they probably see no reason to change it - down to how they weaponised the NHS to get Brexit over the line with the population they are doing the same with high energy prices to kill renewables and other threats to fossil fuel investors for example. And it works.



With the electoral system then there's not really much choice sadly; how Labour majorities from Blair to Brown to Starmer continue to leave things unchanged despite knowing how in practice First Past The Post favours the Tories (now Reform) is unbelievable, but at least this time there is the chance that it won't just be the traditional anti-Tory vote split in multiple directions leaving them with an undeserved majority to cause their damage.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly that.
As you say, their very strong opposition to net zero is 100% based on benefiting their very rich donors.
I am sure they will try to character asinate Milliband and make him look like some nutty professor.
They will use every trick, as of course will every party.
 
In a surprise change from the decade plus of politics Andy Burham wants to.....cut benefits!



Andy Burnham has said he would take a "much more devolved" approach to getting people into work and bringing down welfare spending.

In Makerfield on Friday, where he is standing as Labour's by-election candidate later this month, the Greater Manchester mayor said: "We've all got to be concerned with getting the welfare bill down.

"I don't think there’s any debate about that, to be honest, it's how you do it."
Click to expand...

Also more government cuts

 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
In a surprise change from the decade plus of politics Andy Burham wants to.....cut benefits!
Click to expand...
A surprise! ......Really?

How many of the Labour MP's that were moaning and/or threatening to vote against Starmer's cuts, will now vote for Andy's cuts instead?

It would be tragic... if it wasn't so laughable ......or should that be the other way around ?

After nearly 20 years (from being aged 20 to 38 ) a member of the Labour party, I quit in frustration at its attempts to organise itself and to win real power and to know how to use it. In the intervening 40 odd years I have occasionally thought I might have regretted that move.... but no it is still happening!

In opposition Labour can be quite impressive, but in power even with massive majority, it still acts like its in opposition, not only has it constantly been unable to pull the 'right levers' of power I suspect at times they don't know where these levers are.... no, I have no regrets, after spending much of my youth working for and to change the 'modus operandi' of the Labour party.... and with this debacle (left v right) is about to play out once again in public whilst the party is in power.....I know (even if regrettably) I made the right choice.
 
Sweet Square said:
In a surprise change from the decade plus of politics Andy Burham wants to.....cut benefits!





Also more government cuts

Click to expand...

From rhose three sentences, Burnham seems to be talking about getting unemployed people back into work to cut the benefit bill. Devil will obviously be in the detail.
 
Jippy said:
From rhose three sentences, Burnham seems to be talking about getting unemployed people back into work to cut the benefit bill. Devil will obviously be in the detail.
Click to expand...
It's funny how politicians continue to just talk as if the 90s to 2000s are the default norms and that we can use those times as a kind of yardstick when taking about growth and employment levels and stuff.

There's never really any talk about how things have changed. How the environment in which we work is worse, how the costs of all the basics that we need have doubled or tripled. How things like the sums spent on housing benefits are massively inflated due to them being paid to people who have cornered a market and exploited a lack of public housing. About how most benefits recipients are in work and being subsidised by the state. About how our freedom of movement has gone, and with it billions of pounds worth of trade. About how AI is already bringing a end to millions of jobs and there's seemingly no plan to address it.

We'll just pretend we can carry on as usual and that there's somehow, after 16 years of austerity some more money to be saved by cutting all the things that have been cut so much already.
 
decorativeed said:
It's funny how politicians continue to just talk as if the 90s to 2000s are the default norms and that we can use those times as a kind of yardstick when taking about growth and employment levels and stuff.

There's never really any talk about how things have changed. How the environment in which we work is worse, how the costs of all the basics that we need have doubled or tripled. How things like the sums spent on housing benefits are massively inflated due to them being paid to people who have cornered a market and exploited a lack of public housing. About how most benefits recipients are in work and being subsidised by the state. About how our freedom of movement has gone, and with it billions of pounds worth of trade. About how AI is already bringing a end to millions of jobs and there's seemingly no plan to address it.

We'll just pretend we can carry on as usual and that there's somehow, after 16 years of austerity some more money to be saved by cutting all the things that have been cut so much already.
Click to expand...
Well said. It’s completely out of touch with reality.
 
Maticmaker said:
A surprise! ......Really?
Click to expand...
Oh I was being sarcastic.

Jippy said:
From rhose three sentences, Burnham seems to be talking about getting unemployed people back into work to cut the benefit bill. Devil will obviously be in the detail.
Click to expand...
Cut the bill/provide cheap labour to British capital. Starmer wanted to do the same but faced pushback from his MP's.

decorativeed said:
It's funny how politicians continue to just talk as if the 90s to 2000s are the default norms and that we can use those times as a kind of yardstick when taking about growth and employment levels and stuff.

There's never really any talk about how things have changed. How the environment in which we work is worse, how the costs of all the basics that we need have doubled or tripled. How things like the sums spent on housing benefits are massively inflated due to them being paid to people who have cornered a market and exploited a lack of public housing. About how most benefits recipients are in work and being subsidised by the state. About how our freedom of movement has gone, and with it billions of pounds worth of trade. About how AI is already bringing a end to millions of jobs and there's seemingly no plan to address it.

We'll just pretend we can carry on as usual and that there's somehow, after 16 years of austerity some more money to be saved by cutting all the things that have been cut so much already.
Click to expand...
 
decorativeed said:
It's funny how politicians continue to just talk as if the 90s to 2000s are the default norms and that we can use those times as a kind of yardstick when taking about growth and employment levels and stuff.

There's never really any talk about how things have changed. How the environment in which we work is worse, how the costs of all the basics that we need have doubled or tripled. How things like the sums spent on housing benefits are massively inflated due to them being paid to people who have cornered a market and exploited a lack of public housing. About how most benefits recipients are in work and being subsidised by the state. About how our freedom of movement has gone, and with it billions of pounds worth of trade. About how AI is already bringing a end to millions of jobs and there's seemingly no plan to address it.

We'll just pretend we can carry on as usual and that there's somehow, after 16 years of austerity some more money to be saved by cutting all the things that have been cut so much already.
Click to expand...
That's all so true, we've spent the last 20 years pretending that it's just a natural cycle; that austerity and growth will solve all of the issues instead of seeing that there's been a fundamental shift in wealth distribution. Something has to change, and probably will a decade too late for AI in particular.

What gets me, is even some businesses are saying that there needs to be changes but you just know that the government aren't preparing for anything yet. At least there's signs that Labour have realised that we need to rebuild trade with the EU, but they'll probably expect some sort of magical solution that isn't viable.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
If you’d care to put more than a crass comparison in place, you’d see it was for his record as DPP, which centred around changing the processes surrounding victims of rape and sexual assault.
Click to expand...
All Directors of Public Prosecutions get a knighthood/damehood after their term ends by convention. So not necessarily for doing anything useful or honourable.

@dumbo goes to extremes. Starmer is a weak leader who gets dragged around by the remnants of the Blairites who thought they'd made a comeback with their "historic landslide" of 33% of the popular vote. I don't think he's intentionally doing wrong. I don't think he knows what he's doing at all. He's a sock puppet. A product of the managerial class that's been created over the past 40 years.
 
decorativeed said:
It's funny how politicians continue to just talk as if the 90s to 2000s are the default norms and that we can use those times as a kind of yardstick when taking about growth and employment levels and stuff.

There's never really any talk about how things have changed. How the environment in which we work is worse, how the costs of all the basics that we need have doubled or tripled. How things like the sums spent on housing benefits are massively inflated due to them being paid to people who have cornered a market and exploited a lack of public housing. About how most benefits recipients are in work and being subsidised by the state. About how our freedom of movement has gone, and with it billions of pounds worth of trade. About how AI is already bringing a end to millions of jobs and there's seemingly no plan to address it.

We'll just pretend we can carry on as usual and that there's somehow, after 16 years of austerity some more money to be saved by cutting all the things that have been cut so much already.
Click to expand...
No-one's pretending Burnham's inheriting a good position, if he even gets in. As I said, depends what he does and he hasn't provided any policy detail. If he's cutting everything then no, we'll get more of the same. Hopefully he can at least find some measures to boost growth and stimulate employment, like cutting that ill-judged NI rate hike. Funding mental health services to try and help some people back into work would be a start too, along with training workers for needed jobs, like in tech, to support the needed (but seemingly never happening) housebuilding boom needed etc..
 
Jippy said:
No-one's pretending Burnham's inheriting a good position, if he even gets in. As I said, depends what he does and he hasn't provided any policy detail. If he's cutting everything then no, we'll get more of the same. Hopefully he can at least find some measures to boost growth and stimulate employment, like cutting that ill-judged NI rate hike. Funding mental health services to try and help some people back into work would be a start too, along with training workers for needed jobs, like in tech, to support the needed (but seemingly never happening) housebuilding boom needed etc..
Click to expand...
House building boom is not required, repurposing existing stock and unused industrial sites should be the focus.

Removing net zero would help, and even the GMB are saying so.

Reverse the NI hike, and the salary sacrifice changes.

Focus should be on infrastructure projects, and greatly simplifying approvals.

We have enough housing, it’s just not utilised properly, what we don’t have is infrastructure - that’s where the focus should be. Stop raiding capital budgets, and get a grip of welfare to fund projects that will create jobs.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
House building boom is not required, repurposing existing stock and unused industrial sites should be the focus.

Removing net zero would help, and even the GMB are saying so.

Reverse the NI hike, and the salary sacrifice changes.

Focus should be on infrastructure projects, and greatly simplifying approvals.

We have enough housing, it’s just not utilised properly, what we don’t have is infrastructure - that’s where the focus should be. Stop raiding capital budgets, and get a grip of welfare to fund projects that will create jobs.
Click to expand...
You go back to welfare every...single...time.

Yet you continue to evade questions about it. So, nice and simply, without blindly cutting people off from support, how much extra would need to be spent on the extra caseworkers, support, integration etc in order to fully assess the individual needs of each and every benefit claimant, and how much would be saved by implementing this? Would they break even?
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
House building boom is not required, repurposing existing stock and unused industrial sites should be the focus.

Removing net zero would help, and even the GMB are saying so.

Reverse the NI hike, and the salary sacrifice changes.

Focus should be on infrastructure projects, and greatly simplifying approvals.

We have enough housing, it’s just not utilised properly, what we don’t have is infrastructure - that’s where the focus should be. Stop raiding capital budgets, and get a grip of welfare to fund projects that will create jobs.
Click to expand...
Once again, how would removing Net Zero - calculated to be the cheapest option we have with regards to replacing and upgrading current power generation and mitigating the costs of climate change - help anyone but the fossil fuel companies? The reliance on whom being currently responsible for the huge rises in the cost of living during two crises so far this decade?
 
decorativeed said:
Once again, how would removing Net Zero - calculated to be the cheapest option we have with regards to replacing and upgrading current power generation and mitigating the costs of climate change - help anyone but the fossil fuel companies? The reliance on whom being currently responsible for the huge rises in the cost of living during two crises so far this decade?
Click to expand...
calculated by whom exactly?
 
Jericholyte2 said:
You go back to welfare every...single...time.

Yet you continue to evade questions about it. So, nice and simply, without blindly cutting people off from support, how much extra would need to be spent on the extra caseworkers, support, integration etc in order to fully assess the individual needs of each and every benefit claimant, and how much would be saved by implementing this? Would they break even?
Click to expand...
Not only would he cut welfare spending, he’d also like to cut public sector jobs. What happens when people lose their jobs? We already have more unemployed than jobs available.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
calculated by whom exactly?
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure I've posted these before in replies to you, but it's in reports by various bodies such as the NESO - The National Energy System Operator - and the UK Climate Change Committee.

These videos (which I'm also fairly sure I've shared here before) do as good a job as I ever could in explaining them.

[MEDIA]

[MEDIA]

This part is particularly illuminating:

[MEDIA]
 
Last edited:
decorativeed said:
I'm fairly sure I've posted these before in replies to you, but it's in reports by various bodies such as the NESO - The National Energy System Operator - and the UK Climate Change Committee.

These videos (which I'm also fairly sure I've shared here before) do as good a job as I ever could in explaining them.

[MEDIA]

[MEDIA]
Click to expand...

Let’s not go round the same conversations again then.

The aggressive nature of the changes we are making is the wrong path to take in my opinion.

That’s not to say we should not be exploring alternatives, of course we should - but the timeline pressures are both arbitrary and unnecessary.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Let’s not go round the same conversations again then.

The aggressive nature of the changes we are making is the wrong path to take in my opinion.

That’s not to say we should not be exploring alternatives, of course we should - but the timeline pressures are both arbitrary and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
I would have thought driving efficiency, fuel independance and reducing cost as quickly as is possible, as well as attempting to mitigate environmental disaster, would be both necessary and rational.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
I would have thought driving efficiency, fuel independance and reducing cost as quickly as is possible, as well as attempting to mitigate environmental disaster, would be both necessary and rational.
Click to expand...

I'd argue they want the benefits without the capital costs up front but that isn't even true. They just want it branded Tory blue, if a Tory put forward these plans they'd lap it up. When Javid made such proposals the right wing media had a very different tone.

We should have been investing in the infrastructure a long time ago. If the Tories had focused on governing over politics then the journey would be much smoother.

The vast majority of net zero is private funding anyway, it's really only the infrastructure side impacting bills. Once that's done and gas is removed as the primary from the bidding process then costs will reduce.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
You go back to welfare every...single...time.

Yet you continue to evade questions about it. So, nice and simply, without blindly cutting people off from support, how much extra would need to be spent on the extra caseworkers, support, integration etc in order to fully assess the individual needs of each and every benefit claimant, and how much would be saved by implementing this? Would they break even?
Click to expand...
@ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg you swerved this question yet again so here's another chance to look at it and respond.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Let’s not go round the same conversations again then.

The aggressive nature of the changes we are making is the wrong path to take in my opinion.

That’s not to say we should not be exploring alternatives, of course we should - but the timeline pressures are both arbitrary and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
But, as shown in the videos, your opinion is proven wrong, and so is pretty irrelevant. Moving away from Net Zero will cost more money, not less.

The faster we move away from reliance on fossil fuels, the more money we save and the more we mitigate from all the problems they cause our economy and our environment. Therein lies the urgency.
 
decorativeed said:
But, as shown in the videos, your opinion is proven wrong, and so is pretty irrelevant. Moving away from Net Zero will cost more money, not less.

The faster we move away from reliance on fossil fuels, the more money we save and the more we mitigate from all the problems they cause our economy and our environment. Therein lies the urgency.
Click to expand...
Let’s not claim 2 x 2.5 min videos are gospel. If only life were that simple.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Let’s not claim 2 x 2.5 min videos are gospel. If only life were that simple.
Click to expand...
There's sources saying the same all over the place including the International Energy Agency (IEA) & OECD, Lazard, IRENA and there's loads of others. 90% of renewables undercut fossil fuels including setup and maintenance is the consensus amongst them all.

Edit - the IEA one is the one that a lot of governments use

https://www.iea.org/reports/breakthrough-agenda-report-2025/power
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Let’s not claim 2 x 2.5 min videos are gospel. If only life were that simple.
Click to expand...
Yeah, all I have is the videos. You're right.

The videos by a PhD educated expert in which he cites all his sources and clearly outlines the key points within them.

Plus the fact I work in the industry, so see the extremely long-winded policy and research documents that he uses in these very user-friendly videos before he makes them digestable.

The idea that the cumulative work of industry experts is either equal to or less important than the personal opinion of one layman is really the kind of nonsense that's got us here in the first place.

I accept my own ignorance of many fields in which I have no experience of knowledge of, and when my own opinions are inevitably left wanting, I tend to accept the what the experts have to say.

I find refusal to accept others might know better and for opinions to evolve along with changes is what leads to going around in circles.

As fair warning, next time you post the same opinion, I will post the same fact-based rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
decorativeed said:
Yeah, all I have is the videos. You're right.

The videos by a PhD educated expert in which he cites all his sources and clearly outlines the key points.

Plus the fact I work in the industry, so see the extremely long-winded policy and research documents that he uses in these very user-friendly videos.

The idea that the cumulative work of industry experts is either equal to or less important than the personal opinion of one layman is really the kind of nonsense that's got us here in the first place.

I accept my own ignorance of many fields in which I have no experience of knowledge of, and when my own opinions are inevitably left wanting, I tend to accept the what the experts have to say.
Click to expand...
I said I didn’t want to go through this again. I won’t bring up net zero in here again. You are right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.