Labour Party/government Watch

[BritDownUnder]

Worth remembering this was a Tory policy in 1995 to move women from 60 to 65 by 2020, then a Tory/LibDem policy to accelerate it to 2018. Proper communication was the responsibility of those governments - this isn't really a Labour mess but they get the blame?

Wasn't it actually the result of a man taking the UK to the European Court so he could get his bus pass at the age of 60 like women and they found in his favour and hence the government of the day had to equalise the pension age as a result of the ruling?

[clv101]

Maybe so, but the responsibility of communication falls to the government whose policy it was - that wasn't Labour as far as I know.

[BritDownUnder]

Maybe so, but the responsibility of communication falls to the government whose policy it was - that wasn't Labour as far as I know.

It was pretty well communicated I think. I heard about it in the late 1990s. Not Labour policy as you say. I suppose Labour could have brought the retirement age to 60 for men to equalise things and bankrupted the nation a little bit earlier.

As a senior Actuary described National Insurance to me in the late 1990s. One of the worst scams perpetrated by the government on the British people.

[UndercoverElephant]

My sympathy for the Waspi women is very limited. At the end of the day they are complaining because they were given insufficient notice about the ending of a system which profoundly discriminated against men. There was no good reason why women should have ever retired earlier than men. Most of them are also of a generation which had it relatively easy compared to the people who they are expecting to fund their compensation.

As usual Labour has not handled it well, because they aren't willing to actually explain the above reasoning. You might think that at some point Starmer will realise that they cannot win the next election by being as neutral and inoffensive as possible, but I'm not holding my breath. They need to give people a positive reason to vote for them, and they appear to be completely incapable of this, because it goes against everything Starmer has done since he took over. "Vote for Change! The change is that everything will stay the same, just not quite as bad."

[Potemkin Villager]

Now the Lord of Darkness chosen as ambassador to the US! I have to say he and Trump do really deserve each other
and he will probably undiplomatically shoot his mouth off sooner rather than later.

[UndercoverElephant]

Reeves first speech as Chancellor:

"GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH! The only way to solve Britain's economic and social problems, and make everybody richer, is sustained economic growth."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0n14ywzqpo

Starmer asks UK regulators for ideas to boost growth

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, the chancellor and business secretary have written to the UK's main regulators asking them to come up with ideas for reform that could boost economic growth.

Put all your eggs in one basket, then lose the basket.

[Mark]

Not a good look as it's been presented in the media, as it seems the new government has no ideas.....

I always see it as a strength to liaise with people involved in change, rather than just imposing it...
People who actually do jobs generally know best where to make the improvements....
Plus, you get better 'buy in' for what gets implemented...
However, this should have been done a year ago !!

[UndercoverElephant]

This government is now in big trouble. They have already failed, on two major counts.

The first is economic -- their plan was anti-realistic bullshit anyway, because it was based on growth, but even by their own standards they have failed. They have not been able to generate growth, and the reason for this failure is that they don't understand the reasons why the era of growth is ending. They are true believers in growth-based economics, and they've been found out.

The second is illegal immigration. Their plan was to "smash the gangs" and they pulled out of a Rwanda scheme which I believe was NOT a gimmick, and would have succeeded in stopping the boats. The truth is that they lack the political will to solve this problem (as do at least half of the tory party, for a different reason). There is only one party in the UK which actually does have the political will to solve his problem and it is Reform UK. They have my vote, and I believe many more will follow me. This failure of political will to stop those boats amounts to gross betrayal of the British people.

My prediction is that Labour will not only fail to win a second overall majority. I think they are in deeper trouble than that. I genuinely believe it is possible that the next prime minister of the UK will be Nigel Farage, and that the people who think this is unthinkable are exactly the same people who thought it was unthinkable that the UK would leave the EU. Perpetually behind the curve.

[Mark]

I believe that Mike Amesbury is in Court on 16th January...
Depending on the outcome, we may have a by-election in the NW....?

Here's the GE result:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/202 ... /E14001455

[clv101]

Looking at the four constituencies that fed into this new constituency, I can't see Labour losing a by-election here within the next few months. Neither Reform or the Tories seem to have much history.

[Mark]

I know this area fairly well...

Runcorn has an 'old' town - declining chemical industry, declining town centre, traditional Labour,....
Plus lots of surrounding newer estates - mainly overspill from Liverpool....
Helsby is much more desirable, but lost its main employer (cables) many years ago...
Constituency very 'white' in its demographic.

Alongside all the national issues, HyNet may well be high up on the agenda.....
Stanlow is very close by, and Helsby was proposed for the Hydrogen Home Heating Trial before the locals revoted and the proposal was moved down the road to to Whitby (in neighbouring Ellesmere Port). The Greens have a good local presence in Helsby (and Whitby) as a result...

Suspect it will be a narrow Labour hold, but this could be prime territory for a good Reform showing.
The Greens might do quite well as well - maybe 3rd ?
Can't see much support for the Tories or LDs.

[UndercoverElephant]

Labour is in big economic trouble.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7454gnqdw8o

To be clear, spending restraint would not necessarily mean spending cuts, just much lower spending increases than would otherwise happen.

This is where economics could collide with politics fast.

It's all very well for the Treasury to take measures to soothe the bond markets, where government debt is traded.

But just because a strategy is deemed the most economically viable available, that doesn't mean it is politically viable in a Labour Party made up of MPs who have spent the past 14 years decrying Conservative austerity.

Many Labour MPs, among them cabinet ministers, believe there is little fat left to trim from the state.

They were already anxious about a tough multi-year spending review, expected to conclude around June, before borrowing costs rose.

There is almost a risk of a paradox: that any acts of spending restraint visible and significant enough to calm the markets might, by definition, be too visible and too significant to fly politically among Labour MPs - especially after the controversy of the cut to the winter fuel payment for pensioners.

Labour figures argue that successive Conservative governments dealt with similar problems by piling the most painful spending measures towards the end of five-year forecast periods - hoping that by the year at which those "pencilled-in" measures were reached, circumstances would have changed.

But some also voice a fear that - precisely because of the Conservatives having done this - repeating the trick would be given short shrift by the markets: the fiscal sins of previous governments being visited on this new one.

Economics colliding with politics, and yet both of them are operating in an ideological theatre which is detached from physical reality. It looks like a collision between economics and politics, but the real collision isn't even on their map. Reality is the real cause of the collision because trying to generate economic growth has become an exercise in flogging a dead horse.

[Mark]

They could start by axing Ed Milliband's £22Bn gift to the fossil fuel industry for Blue H2 and CCS....
Closely followed by the subsidies to Drax for bringing all those wood pellets form Canada...

[BritDownUnder]

The main problem is the money leaving the country in terms of the trade deficit. Second problem is the interest payments on the government debt. Let's of tertiary problems like unfettered immigration, lots of people of working age not working, social and ethnic divisions. These are probably not solvable in a BAU scenario.

[mr brightside]

LTG has a lot to say about disproportionate distribution of wealth, i've always thought that the state finances would struggle until this is addressed; but as i've previously said, i'm no expert on economics and fiscal matters. I can't see how a state can function in hard times when 80% of the wealth is with 20% of the people.