They wouldn't be considered scandals if SKS & Labour hadn't said - we are better than them and we won't do what they do. We all know that all politicians do it, that's why the Tories didn't shout and scream about the suits, glasses, tickets etc, they left that to the media to do. I'm not really sure what they were trying to achieve yesterday, it just seemed to open himself up to more questions. He didn't need to do it, it wasn't going to win over the doubters or the voters who dislike his choices or policies. He has 4 months before he needs to start to worry about local elections, he didn't really need to put himself in the firing line.
I tend to agree. The only way Labour will win people over is to make them feel better off and that the country is improving after years of decline. That can't happen in months, it will take years. If they time it right then we will see improvement before the next election. The electorate are fickle. All this early negatively will be forgotten if Labour's policies prove to be effective. I think a good move is to focus on improvements that people can see and measure like more money in their pockets. Biden/Harris went on about how well the US economy is doing but people couldn't feel it. They don't care about GDP. They care about the cost of living. That's what Labour need to focus on if they want a second term. Their popularity now is not going to change based on speeches and promises imho.
To be honest I'm starting to doubt this. Listening to the Rest is Politics podcast yesterday Alistair Campbell made the point that we seem to be approaching an era in politics where delivery isn't enough. People are so pissed off with the general direction of travel and frankly a wasted generation with minimal growth, spasms into recession and various crises that setting out arbitrary targets and meeting them won't be enough.
100%. Cost of living is what they need to sort. Unfortunately MPs are narrow thinkers they tackle the symptoms not the cause. Giving a select few of their mates extra pounds in their pocket at the expense of long term inflation is actually going to make things worse.
But the question is why did the media do it then rather than during the election campaign? The stories in August/September weren't based on new disclosures - almost all of it was available much earlier. I agree though from little I've seen of it yesterday appeared totally pointless.
That's a big part of the problem with modern politics - too much emphasis on the messaging or 'the optics'. My message to this bloody shower is stop waffling on about how the previous bunch of shysters f***ed everything up - we know they did, that's why people voted you in with a massive majority at the election. And stop telling us what you're going to do - just bloody well do it!
People are so disillusioned with politicians who achieve nothing, can't give a straight answer to a simple question, etc etc etc, that they'll give up paying any attention to politics at all - which leaves the door wide open for the Trumps of this world to walk through with promises of milk and honey.
And part of that is exactly what the general population understands by ‘it will take time’ to achieve positive results. Starmer has said time & again that it will take 3-4 years, but that just will not cut it with many people. For them a ‘long time’ seems to mean 3-4 months, not years. Hence the apparent disillusionment that Labour’s list of targets has not been successfully ticked off yet.
Not so sure that's the case. I think the general population understands that everything can't be sorted in weeks. They are however growing tired of the now pretty much debunked "black hole" , "what the tories left us" soundbites. Chucking a load more pledges and a relauch out so soon in to their term does not bolster confidence either. The worry people have is that Labour can't even get their own house in order, recent appearances in the media from their top brass have been less than stellar. With the Tories similarly useless the spectre of Farage looms.
So 'freezing this xmas' is number one in the UK download chart. Starmer showing his popularity again I see. But what a great job he's doing, eh?
Well, I for one, am glad that taxpayers' money isn't going to a load of Boomers who don't need it, while those people who genuinely do need it will continue to receive it. Seems like a smart policy to me. Funny how so many of those right-wingers who loathe benefits, despise the thought of anyone getting something for nothing, bang on about the meritocracy, are so upset that a load of already comfortable people are no longer getting a hand-out.
For a moment there I thought Starmer was using some sort of novelty Union Flag pen! Disappointing he's not wearing a flamboyant Union Flag cape. That's what Reform will do. Wonder if Starmer asked the Norwegians about their sovereign wealth fund...
Why don't we just deport all pensioners to Rwanda? They'll be nice and warm there and their empty houses can be given to the homeless/illegal immigrants. Everybody wins. Come on Sir Keir, you know this makes sense
I see today's siren song is that Starmer's stopping all elections next year because he knows he's going to lose to Reform. A position actively promoted by Reform themselves, despite it being complete cobblers. Labour stood on a manifesto commitment of increasing the number of mayors, simplifying combined authorities and looking to push through a different funding settlement with new powers around planning and housing. Reorganising the layers of local government is probably needed and, if you're going to do it, there's no point holding elections to district councils if they will be abolished within a year anyway. We had this happen local to me in 2021 under the Tories (nothing to do with Covid, just merging councils). It's pretty common practice.
Cobblers is a reform speciality although recent polls do seem to suggest that Labour isn't well liked at the moment. Mind you having seen some of the proposals for local government layers I can't see much in the way of benefit and can see that it will result in a lot being spent on extra bureaucracy.
Well, at the moment we have a complete tangle, so something needs to be done. Arguably the era of district councils is up. 150+ of them all huffing around, trying to do bins and playgrounds and some housing, while everything that costs the most is done up the road at county level. And it means you end up with silly situations like district councils being responsible for collecting the bins while the county council is responsible for storing/disposing of the waste produced. Like all these things there's probably an element of better the devil you know, though I quite like the idea of decentralising things more away from Westminster. But one thing it's nothing to with is cancelling elections the vast majority of people ordinarily don't care about or vote in anyway.
Part of me agrees, but we have a services lottery at the moment. Things like waste and recycling can be anywhere from free weekly to paid for bi-weekly depending on your council. What they recycle varies also. Billing for care services is duplicated across councils (not that they've got that right yet in 18months of trying for me currently). The local council offices don't seem to be interested in returning communications either. There's so much that needs to be standardised and so much that is duplicated, Councils seem to be as bad if not worse at organising things than central government so for me the extra layer of inefficiency just seems to be a waste of taxpayers money at the moment.
Can only speak for where I live but since we changed to a unitary and all the districts were abolished - mainly because the county council was bankrupt - they've smoothed out a lot of the services lottery. So now everyone for miles around pays the same for garden waste collections and parking permits and planning applications (and so on). It's probably different in the next shire, but that's fine by me as there will always be geographic and demographic reasons for some variance. Before though it made no sense that we'd pay nothing for the green bin collection while someone 5 miles away paid £50 a year. I don't think central government could operate without councils. It's a fact that part of the reason councils have fallen over so spectacularly in the past decade is because for 20 years or so (ie. there was a lead time before the ill effects were seen) Westminster has piled more and more responsibilities on local councils but provided only a proportion of the budget needed to deliver services properly. To be honest though my main motivation is seeing off the NIBMYs that get elected to or seem to influence a lot of councils. Anything that means someone with a broader, more strategic remit is in charge of the big ticket things like planning, housing, public transport etc is worth trying I reckon.
Not everything is about money. If you have reservations about Starmer, why would you want to give him more power by moving local functions to the centre?
Where I live became a unitary authority three years ago and has promptly lost more money than ever. For some unexplained reason, they kept on both headquarters of the two previous councils with half the staff in each one. During the recent election, a pleasant Lib Dem canvasser called by and I told her the state of local services was awful (we have a Lib Dem council). She said it’s because they have no money. I told her the much vaunted merger of county and district council (that we voted for) was supposed to help. She said it didn’t usually work that way. I told her it wouldn’t if you’ve kept on all the previous buildings and not stream-lined things. And round we went in circles. No wonder most people are so dis-engaged.
Unfortunately, it's probably not as simple as just flogging one of the buildings. It's a long while since I covered council matters but it used to be the case that county councils tended to 'own' buildings; district councils tend to lease them from landlords. So there might be lease issues, or there might be covenants on what the buildings can be used for. Basically, the entire infrastructure of the country is a complete mess and everyone on the outside can see easy solutions that, on closer examination, are not necessarily practical or possible. All of this comes down to a fundamental disconnect between what the public wants (efficient services that serve them when they need them) and what they're prepared to pay for them. Add into that the fact that local government serves as a handy deflector for central government and the entire system is barely fit for purpose.
Kicking off about the WASPI women now. Most of Labour's top brass supporting their claims until the last election when they were fairly quiet. Now they've got the vote they've back tracked. This could all be a cunning plan for Labour. Screw everyone and everything over now and hope that there's something to offer as a sweetner in 4 years time.
The Government was right not to give the waspis a hand out. Their claim is ludicrous. Shame Sir Keir and his grubby band of bulls hitters spent so much time cosying up to them while they were in the opposition - people might start to think this government is not trustworthy
Well, the 'screwing over' in this case was done in 1995. It'd positively ancient. And the WASPI claim is cobblers and ludicrously unaffordable too. Plus the parliamentary ombudsman decision is far narrower than some michevous people are presenting it. It's about letters being sent 28 months late to some women. It's so obviously the right decision even the Tories are having to accept they'd have made the same call. I'm not sure about the accusations of playing politics with it either. As you say, no promises were made during the election campaign. Mostly what current Labour ministers committed to was ensuring a fair outcome. They can argue that's what they've done. It does appear some over-promised - Rayner seems to be on the record 5 years ago saying they'd be compensated if Labour won. But that's life. This has happened on other issues too. People pulling out quotes from 3+ years ago about things like winter fuel allowance and saying Starmer / Labour have lied. But things move on. And frankly I don't believe most people pay the slightest attention to anything the opposition say between elections anyway, so them quoting now like it's gospel is pretty rich!
For me it's a case of more voters lost rather than screwing people over although I think that is how some may feel. Pensioners, Farmers, Waspis, small businesses owners, the bereaved. The list of the disaffected grows.
I'd correct farmers to landowners. Working farmers who are employed by the landowner aren't affected. how many of those people voted labour anyway? The government shouldn't be bribing people for votes anyway. Farmers and waspi women aren't basically complaining at having the same or better deal than everyone else when in the past they had special expemtions
