Anyway, it looks like a long overdue return to a government that actually DOES stuff, rather than just posture for tomorrow mornings Daily Mail headlines. Though by the sound of Suella Bravermans latest unhinged outbust, it looks like the Tories are going to be doubling down on their culture war nonsense and we can expect more of the same from them, and probably little else.
Fingers crossed they'll ignore the noise & get on with actually doing stuff
You can judge class by the size of TV
Working class - as big a TV that fits in the room, filling the wall if possible
Middle Class - small TV discretely placed in room or hidden in cupboard
Upper class - what is a TV?
As for the sexualisation issue I remember some on here some time back said she wasn’t suitable to be the Labour leader due to her rumoured sexual proclivities. Is that what you’re talking about?
No – some discussion about a picture of Raynor in shorts. Creepy as eff
I'm guilty of starting the 'discussion'. I did it in the best of intentions actually, pointing out that according to Tory/Reform commentary on my Twitter feed the new labour admin is a disaster because
1/ Their new 22yo MP has a an ill-suited haircut
2/ They're appointing people with experience and knowledge to roles rather than career politicians
3/ AR has a suit that cost £500
4/ AR went on a Pride march and seemed to be having a good time, while wearing shorts that are 'unbecoming of a deputy PM'
All of which are bollocks obvs, and shows how thin the opposition's erm, opposition is at present.
I am guilty of saying she's got some decent moves. Also that I have a bit of a thing for redheads. I can see that has been called out as creepy sexualisation and on that I guess I'm guilty.
IDK what the right thing is. I think AR is a hugely capable politician and also given her life experience and working class roots is a huge asset to the Gov and country. That is not changed at all by saying that I enjoyed the video of her on the pride march, but if saying that is creepy as eff then I'm sorry.
Fingers crossed they’ll ignore the noise & get on with actually doing stuff
If they don't take full advantage of their enormous majority, while 'the opposition' (such as it is) will be fighting with itself like rats in a sack, then it'll be a wasted opportunity.
All the signs are that this is what they intend to do. Its the opposite of Johnsons aproach, who once he got into number ten appeared to think that was job done (and from his point of view, it was). I suppose we should be thankful that he squandered an 80 seat majority by doing pretty much nothing, but we're living with the results of completely rudderless non-government for those years now.
It seems this Labour government really gets that and intends to crack on with doing stuff
When Labour do something good, I’ll applaud them. They’ve beaten the tories, which is fantastic, but so far haven’t done anything else other than issue a load of press releases.
Something else theyve done is not had one of their own come out and start a leadership bid, or get accused of sexual assault, or any other kind of nonsense. Tories definitely couldn't make it to 5 days without something.
dazh
Full Member
Labour are far better prepared for government than I dared hope for.FGS they haven’t done anything yet. It’s all PR.
All they can do at this point is announce policy and appoint people to enact those policies? Well, they have already killed off the Rwanda scheme so they have enacted some policy already. You can't skip the policy announcements and planning and go straight to enacting half arsed policy. We've seen where that goes.
I understand the caution and I know there absolutely will be **** ups because that's inevitable. I just dont see Labour being constantly consumed by the corruption and cronyism that plagued the Tories.
I'm a glass half empty type by nature but I can't see how Labour could have got off to a better start than they have? The tories are at some far right circle jerk, Reform have only just turned up... Yet Labour have already got their shizzle together and they have the burden of government after a long campaign.
I'm looking at how they approach the junior doctors strikes as an early litmus test. I expect the government won't entirely get what it wants, nor will the doctors. The "perfect" compromise if such a thing exists but we will see. They are at least talking to the doctors which is an improvement over the Tories!
Believing it. their actions and word over many years say the opposite.
I don't think that Labour have had a chance to demonstrate any actions over the last 14 years......so being so tough on them at this point is pretty meaningless and gets us nowhere...
What they have done in the last 4-5 days is pretty interesting and a clear statement of intent that they want to make a difference and do it quickly.
We can keep quibbling about past Labour this and that, and our personally perceived sleights, but the only thing that matters now is what happens moving forward.....
Talking to the junior doctors IMMEDIATELY on taking office ( withing 12 hours IIRC) - a good thing. signalling there is room on wages - a good thing
As is probably painfully obvious I am more than a little skeptical of this labour government but I am impressed with the first few days. Its more than just competence.
Is this the under promise / over deliver the Starmer fans were saying would happen?
Is this the under promise / over deliver the Starmer fans were saying would happen?
The Tories went with a narrative during the campaign that Labour had no policies, which their mates in the press amplified. This was never the case, but it seems the Labour party were happy to go with the attitude of 'well, if thats what you want to think....' less chance of scaring the horses
Do they still have a subsidised bar?
at present yes, but there were rumours that Sue Gray wanted them shut down
https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2024/06/plans-afoot-to-shut-the-house-of-commons-bars/
Green NIMBYs cherry picking their evidence in the face of an immediate need to transform our energy production.
No one is cherry picking evidence. They're making an objective assessment of whether a specific wind farm will have the carbon benefit it is claimed. If we're going to dig up peat bogs and release loads of carbon in addition to destroying local wildlife habitats (and yes visual impact is a thing that's important to many local people even if you sneer at it) then the benefits better be pretty bloody obvious. In the Walshaw Estate Wind Farm case which I'm talking about it very much isn't.
And while I'm on the subject. If our new local MP is determined to ignore opposition to this then he's in for a bit of a shock as I've yet to hear a single person I know apart from yourself who thinks it's a good idea.
Is this the under promise / over deliver the Starmer fans were saying would happen?
I'm not an out and out labour fan, but this is pretty much what I expected. Their game plan was fight give the Tories or media anything to misconstrue. That meant it was pretty boring and underwhelming, but there was a plan.
Getting Sue Gray on board was a master stroke. She's pulling the strings in the background
I would agree with tj that while it's early days, he's making a lot of the right noises and (more importantly) starting to do some of the right things. Better than I expected. Remains to be seen if he can actually win me over in the next 5 years.
I don’t think that Labour have had a chance to demonstrate any actions over the last 14 years
their contempt for Holyrood is obvious and there are clear indications. Starmers kneejerk backing of Sunaks veto of the GRA. Starmers outright refusals to consider another referendum. Nandy stupid comments where she effectivly threatened SNP politicians with extra judicial arrest then backtracked with meaningless twaddle about "outflanking the SNP from the left" which is of course nonsense showing deep ignorance of Scotland and Scottish politics which is pretty contemptuous. Scottish labours behaviour over many years.
I think that and other similar things allows me to be very skeptical about them actually giving devolved entities more power
Edit - I think they mean it for the mayors and possibly Wales but not for Holyrood. My guess is they will give everyone powers similar to Holyrood but also try to reclaim some powers back from Holyrood. Lo0ndon labour hate that Scotland has a series of more progressive policies than they intend to have in England because it gives lie to the ~" we cannot afford it" arguement
at present yes, but there were rumours that Sue Gray wanted them shut down
Obviously not important as such in the grand scale of things but send the electorate a good and important message. Who could really criticise such a move? To even suggest the bars are necessary is immediately easy to to argue down.
their actions and word over many years say the opposite
It's very easy to try and equate this government to "New Labour mk2" and assume that it'll have the same instinct and reactions as that one. They're clearly cherry picking some approaches where there has been substantial new work done, and dumping others where they are just idealist totems from the past. This further devolution stuff is built on the back of a lot of work done by Brown in recent years, and is already very fleshed out so that the government can get on with it from day one. Look out for the "Take Back Control" bill in the King's Speech, that should undo some of the centralisation of decision making and destruction of local administrations... and if as trailed will go further than that. But having an open door policy and actively engaging with local elected bodies and individuals, of whatever party, has already begun. We've had Conservative PMs refusing not just to talk to local leaders from parties they oppose... but from their own party as well! That staleness and block on progress and activity is over. On the other hand, Blair and a string of "New Labour" ex-ministers have been pushing hard since the election for an ID card programme, based on no more recent work other than that they thought it was a good idea decades ago ... to which the response from current Labour ministers has basically been "shut up, we're busy with the important stuff we have planned".
As is probably painfully obvious I am more than a little skeptical of this labour government but I am impressed with the first few days. Its more than just competence
Yes, painfully obvious. But if you can see the positives from 5 days, maybe there is hope.
we're all desperate for a reset, and lets try and be positive and supportive of stuff that seems to be moving towards a government for the country and those in need. Not saying blind adherence, but pragmatic hope and review
it’s that the councils took the capital that right to buy gave them and didn’t use it to add more housing stock.
As the legislation was originally enabled the councils were prohibited from building new houses, due to the "Grantham Witch" treating the economy like a domestic bank account. Very un-busineslike behaviour from someone who professed themselves to be business orientated.
Lindsay Hoyle putting himself up for re-ection.
I hope he loses frankly.
If you live in an area where its wild places are about to be destroyed by a wind farm which will not save any carbon due to the destruction of deep peat and will only make loads of money for the landowner and a bunch of saudi-backed private equity investors, then you might conclude that the end to the ban on onshore wind is a very bad thing. But then I know what side of the argument you’re on with this issue despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary.
"wild places"
Oh, so none where the population is then - who were the NIMBY's stopping them?
at present yes, but there were rumours that Sue Gray wanted them shut down
They've been discussing this on Five Live this morning with a couple of the new MPs. Apparently Sue Gray is on a mission to completely change the culture within the HOC, of which closing the bars is just one part. She's had the novel idea that it should be like any other place of employment, where there are rules and you can't just do WTF you like with complete impunity. I can't imagine theres any other workplace in the country that has a selection of subsidised bars.
They were also saying what Starmer intends to do straight away is bring in a proper ministerial code, with teeth, and geniune oversight and accoutability. That'll certainly be a novelty after the last 5 years of constitutional vandalism
They were also saying what Starmer intends to do straight away is bring in a proper ministerial code, with teeth, and geniune oversight and accoutability.
Sucks to be a reform MP right now.
Kelvin - its Starmer and his teams statements and actions over years that leads me to be sceptical about their intent towards holyrood. Nowt to do with New labour or Brown
Getting rid of the bars? A small step towards a parliament fit for the 21st centrury
“wild places”
Oh, so none where the population is then – who were the NIMBY’s stopping them?
Off topic but this is the issue, one which our local labour representatives seem to be very supportive of despite overwhelming local opposition. As always the politicians will toe the party line over and above the people they represent.
I can’t imagine theres any other workplace in the country that has a selection of subsidised bars.
20 years ago I had a meeting in the HQ of Scottish and Newcastle. They had a bar (presumably subsidised - but not by the tax payer). It had very strict opening rules (the person I was meeting was recalling the times when it open at lunchtime and you could get a lot of meetings done there in the afternoon)! I can only imagine they will be even stricter now.
I don't oppose the HOC having a bar, there are probably security reasons why it makes sense and if it encourages cross party collaboration it seems like a good thing - but I do oppose paying for it, and even more I oppose that it seemingly feeds a very unhealthy culture of inappropriate behaviour.
Not a commentator on the political threads, but on the topic of Reform's first day in parliament and subsidised hospitality: I can't be the only one imagining Farage slipping a 12" badboy out from under his ill-fitting double-breasted jacket, can i...?
I don’t oppose the HOC having a bar, there are probably security reasons why it makes sense and if it encourages cross party collaboration it seems like a good thing – but I do oppose paying for it, and even more I oppose that it seemingly feeds a very unhealthy culture of inappropriate behaviour.
I'm inclined to agree, although I'd like to see either:
"Banned from the HOC bar" brought in as a sanction against any MP accused of any misconduct within the HOC or alcohol related elsewhere. And the threshold should be borderline ridiculously low. If you couldn't (legally) legally drive a car, you shouldn't be discussing government business.
Or it just closed down completely. TBH at this point in time it would need a really good justification to keep it when the weight of evidence is stacked up that it drove poor behavior. I agree that it probably provided a space for informal socializing and an element of team-building as a result. But it's not really a fit idea for the 21st century. The downsides would be the well heeled members just foxtrotting off to the nearest private members club and it becoming even more of a closed shop.
Lindsay Hoyle putting himself up for re-ection.
I hope he loses frankly.
Indeed. He's been absolutely hopeless. The amount of times you saw him let Johnson then Sunak get away with murder, while doing absolutely nothing to hold them to account. If MPs want to send a message out that the culture has changed in Westminster then having a speaker more up to the job would be a good start
Is this the under promise / over deliver the Starmer fans were saying would happen?
I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone on the Starmer thread who's a fan of Starmer, there's those that are sceptical to Starmer's labour, and those saying wait and see.
I’m looking at how they approach the junior doctors strikes as an early litmus test. I expect the government won’t entirely get what it wants, nor will the doctors. The “perfect” compromise if such a thing exists but we will see. They are at least talking to the doctors which is an improvement over the Tories!
I said before the election (numerous times) that one of the things we could expect is for the junior doctors dispute to be resolved quickly. Looks to me like this is one thing they're prioritising so I'll be interested to see the outcome. Streeting is either going to row back on his 'there's no money for pay rises' message or he's going to be in for a rude awakening. I suspect there'll be a compromise with something like 10% now and further rises over the next few years to bring them back to where they should be. I suspect the rest of the public sector will also see new pay deals and settlements.
it should be like any other place of employment, where there are rules and you can’t just do WTF you like with complete impunity. I can’t imagine theres any other workplace in the country that has a selection of subsidised bars.
I'm another on the fence about this. We don't have a bar at work, subsidised or otherwise, but we do have a staff restaurant and coffee shop that is part funded by the company, and it's a nice place to meet informally and chat over a coffee and maybe a cake. Then, there are times when someone will suggest a social pint after work particularly on a Friday of a tough week. MP's could just go to the many pubs around the area but I can see there are reasons why that isn't so easy, hence I am not totally against an onsite bar.
What is clear either way is that the culture of hard drinking, and the indiscretions and bad behaviours associated must stop by sanctions with teeth as appropriate. By all means a social beer after the work is done, maybe even fostering the 'more in common than divides us' ethos - but just that.
Before the election:
FT : Labour confident of ending doctors’ strikes after secret talks
Nothing has really changed, except Labour is now in government... getting to do what they said they would do.
I am totally against a bar in the HOC or Lords and as for being subsidised its an outrage. We pay millions so MPs can get pissed cheap. Letting MPs get pissed at work leads to all sorts of harms and any good it does could easily be done in a canteen / cafe environment
Charles Kennedys alcoholism that killed him was in large part due to the easy availablity of cheap alcohol at work. How many staffers have been groped by drunk MPs?
If I had been drinking at work I would have been sacked on the spot
The whole stupid working hours culture is part of the problem. If they stopped voting at 6 (say) then a bar that opened at that time would be entirely reasonable, sensible even.
I said before the election (numerous times) that one of the things we could expect is for the junior doctors dispute to be resolved quickly. Looks to me like this is one thing they’re prioritising so I’ll be interested to see the outcome.
Indeed you did, I think they have a lot of priorities but this one is relatively easy to resolve so it'll be one of the first policy wins. By that I mean it "just" requires negotiating in good faith and a chunk money.
It'll show a willingness to engage with and resolve problems instead of endless culture war stuff and procrastination/ incompetence. The RW press will slag off any deal as "pandering to the lazy doctors/ unions" but to most people it's objectively a good thing and makes that same RW press that oppose it look foolish and out of touch.
I think the speed of directional change has already shocked a lot of the RW, hence the desperate posting of Rayner dancing or whatever.
Do they still have a subsidised bar?
And restaurant.
Yeah, it's pretty clear where that charlatan will be spending his time.
Plus he gets to engage the '2nd home' scam. He and the others will be milking it for all it's worth.
Meanwhile, poor old Clacton, one of the most deprived towns in the country will not be getting a resurgence.
FGS they haven’t done anything yet. It’s all PR.
Scrapped Rwanda, meeting mayors for talks on devolution, meeting representatives of junior doctors. That'll do for 5 days in.
MP’s could just go to the many pubs around the area but I can see there are reasons why that isn’t so easy
They certainly always used to. Maybe it's time to get those division bells reconnected.
In news that just broke my irony-meter, its the 'Popular Conservative' conference today. Yes, really. You couldn't make it up.
Their founder member Liz Truss, who proved her popularity by losing a 26,000 majority wasn't there, but other founder member Rees-Mogg, who also just proved his popularity by losing his 15,000 majority was though
Sounds like the 'highlight' of the show was a video message from other founder member Suella Braverman who sent a video message from Washington (where else?) where she's at a conference of Steve Bannon conspiracy theorists. She's now gone completely hatstand and just shouts 'WOKE' every 5 seconds like she's got tourettes
done on the first day in power – changed to ” there is some room on pay and I will also look at conditions”
Yep, it was always a big fib, there will be targeted tax increases and borrowing.
Regrettably, we make liars out of our politicians, never more so than during an election campaign. Labour dont have the support of their own TV channel or press and they would have been ripped to bits during the election on a tax increase/borrowing platform. If the Tories had won, they would have faced the same reality and they knew it, hence pressing Labour on taxes.
For what it's worth I absolutely do believe that Starmer has no intention of inflicting austerity on the UK again. Is that the same as saying that every government department will be swimming in money? Unfortunately not but when has that ever been the case?
Starmer has always got flack for lacking an ideology. Personally I think he has an ideology but I think it's tempered with pragmatism. That ideology and pragmatism won't always align with mine but I never expected it to. That's an impossibility and no politician alive will fulfill that.
there will be targeted tax increases and borrowing
As per the manifesto.
Sounds like the ‘highlight’ of the show was a video message from other founder member Suella Braverman who sent a video message from Washington (where else?) where she’s at a conference of Steve Bannon conspiracy theorists. She’s now gone completely hatstand and just shouts ‘WOKE’ every 5 seconds liek she’s got tourettes
The majority of the population have proven they are utterly sick of the culture war bollocks. For her to still be pushing it guarantees there will be infighting in the Tory ranks for the foreseeable. Good. Oddly, many of those that kept their seats were (relatively speaking here!) considered to be to the left of the current Nazified Tory party. What a surprise.
Starmer has always got flack for lacking an ideology.
When people say this, they mean: He does not share the same ideology with me.
As per the manifesto.
They didn't put the scale of extra spending they will do in the manifesto. Instead they made vague promises of 'balancing the books' whilst giving themselves a massive get out clause by saying they will only borrow 'to invest'. Almost anything (except tax cuts as Truss discovered) can be described as investment, including pay rises for public sector workers. Labour's manifesto commitments on tax and borrowing are largely fiction, in a good way though as they'll no doubt spend a lot more than they admitted to during the election campaign.
I would also close the subsidised bars. The same MPs that passed laws saying that I need to be breathalysed and drug screened before starting work are quite happy to make policy decisions while off their heads on the old Peruvian marching powder / hard spirit combo.
No nickc - I mean I do not believe he follows a political Ideology at all. He is not a socialist, he is not a thatcherite, he does not follow marxism, he does not follow monetarism. He does not believe in trickle down. He is a technocrat which is NOT an ideology
Closest he would have IMO is the same vaguely paternalistic attitude as the one nation tories tempered by some reality
I mean I do not believe he follows a political Ideology at all.
Seems to me he's a classic blue labour type. Whether that qualifies as an ideology I don't know but that's his clear identity.
Ideology or not, based on the Wikipedia explanation of Technocracy
Technocracy is a form of government in which the decision-makers are selected based on their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge
I think I could stand to have some of it in my life! Compared to say, a Transport Minister who doesn't understand that you need ferries to run a ferry company.
I would deffo settle for a competent technocrat over an incompetent tory. I'd rather have a competent green or even a competent socialist but one ain't on offer 🙂
Edit - the blue labour label may well be some of the front bench. Its not really an ideology tho is it?
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good TJ.
The only thing carried over from Blue Labour to the current Labour Party team is that there are areas of the UK where Labour need to embrace the flag to be accepted... even if that looks either trite or nationalistic to some.
I would also close the subsidised bars. The same MPs that passed laws saying that I need to be breathalysed and drug screened before starting work are quite happy to make policy decisions while off their heads on the old Peruvian marching powder / hard spirit combo.
I agree they should be closed while business is on, but that points to wider reform with a small r - start the day at a proper time, sit until 6 or 7 for four days a week, use Friday and Saturday as necessary for constituency business, don't have ridiculous long recesses 3 or 4 times a year - basically a bit like y'know, a job. Then to meet security needs, etc., I don't mind having a HP bar to socialise and do a bit of influencing but stop the abuse of it, treat them like employees if they get lairy, etc. and have proper penalties.
are quite happy to make policy decisions
in the main this involves waving a paper from time to time while generally snoozing and/or looking at tractor porn, and then filing through the correct door afterwards otherwise a nasty person with an indecipherable job title will release pictures of your w**king over a 1963 John Deere, or details of some indiscretion at a conference in a northern town during the early 90's. It's not a proper job with any actual dangerous responsibility 😉
No nickc – I mean I do not believe he follows a political Ideology at all. He is not a socialist, he is not a thatcherite, he does not follow marxism, he does not follow monetarism. He does not believe in trickle down. He is a technocrat which is NOT an ideology
But you say that like its always a criticism. Whilst political types like our politicians to be ideological and conform to expectations - the ordinary public actually just want them to be good at running the country rather than following someone else's philosophy.
I think I could stand to have some of it in my life! Compared to say, a Transport Minister who doesn’t understand that you need ferries to run a ferry company.
You see, that's the sort of inside the box thinking that brings this country down - not having PPE didn't stop them boosting the economy by increasing profits during Covid; Dunkrik Spirit is what we need - possibly literally if you've no ferries!
You need evidence and expertise, but it’s not enough by itself and a common fallacy to believe otherwise.
“Is-ought problem” is centuries old.
https://www.stopcalderdalewindfarm.co.uk//a >
Better on a featureless moor than on decent arable land.
But you say that like its always a criticism
Your interpretation not mine. If I had meant it as a criticism it would have been " he is only a ruddy technocrat" I made it just a statement of fact.
He is not a socialist, he is not a thatcherite, he does not follow marxism, he does not follow monetarism. He does not believe in trickle down.
Belief in ideology has got us to austerity and Rwanda though, so if Starmer hasn't been a professional pamphleteering back bench MP for years, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. From what I've seen and heard I think I'd describe Starmerism (you heard it here first) as:
1. A re-centring Labour as the party for the working classes, as opposed to Blair who I think said something along the lines of "I want everyone to be middle class" and I think its a distinct from both the post-work utopia of the radical left and liberal individualism of the right, in so much as 'work should pay' and we'll be active to make sure of that
2. Securonomics (terrible phrase) The idea that wage stagnation, tackling global climate change, and conflict require active and positive govt intervention, not govts getting out of the way to "let the market decide"
3. Realist Foreign policy: nothing surprises me less than the foreign policy decisions taken in just the last few days of a man who was once a human rights lawyer.
kelvin
Full Member
A lot of very happy looking folks sitting on the right as well.Reform lot standing by the entrance, chatting to IDS.
Yep, I can imagine that many of the surviving Tories acknowledge that a time in opposition is what they need now. I'm hoping a long time.
They are also counting their blessings to still be MP's no doubt...
kelvin
Full Member
Starmer has gone full woke already! Welcoming a record number of LGBT+ members, and praise for Dianne Abbot.
That's crashed the FTSE straight away. Lol
What a thoroughly nasty bitch this woman is...
mrlebowski
Free Member
What a thoroughly nasty ***** this woman is…https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/09/home-office-flying-of-pride-flag-was-monstrous-thing-says-suella-braverman/blockquote >
The worst thing (well... possibly) is I don't even think she believes most of what she says, it's far more nefarious/ mercenary than that. It actually makes her worse imo.She'll be leading the Tories into an absolute civil war... and they will still be outflanked by Reform on the right.
Madness.
Edit – the blue labour label may well be some of the front bench. Its not really an ideology tho is it?
Who determines when something becomes an Ideology?
She’ll be leading the Tories into an absolute civil war… and they will still be outflanked by Reform on the right.
She is effectively already the Conservative wing of the Reform Party, given her comments on 'welcoming' Farage. It's been obvious for some time that a chunk of the most awful Tory MPs are expecting Farage to take a senior role in the party pre-2029, and so they are fawning over him now.
All Farage wants is the historical Conservative brand. It's his only route to power. He's like the Mike Ashley of politics, waiting for the party to fail (which it now has) and popping in to take anything of value.
Moderates (and yes, there are still some) will leave of their own accord or be purged, and the likes of that weird AI candidate will be parachuted in as Conservatives.
