I fear also that there is a racist element to this, with certain sections of society claiming that immigrants have larger families than white British people.
I fear also that there is a racist element to this, with certain sections of society claiming that immigrants have larger families than white British people.
Yes, and the latest initiative to publish just the crime statistics related to foreign nationals is tapping into the same set of prejudices.
I see Nigel Farage is now repeating Labour's 'overdiagnosis' language on autism.
And of course Starmer, Karin Smyth and Bridget Phillipson have added their transphobic comments on top of Streeting's behaviour (on issues being discussed in Epiphanies)
And Anas Sarwar ( Scottish Labour leader) has joined Starmer in refusing to support even the first steps to undo Brexit.
I can't see how you meaningfully separate them from the far right now.
What on earth do we do now? To be this depressed 9 months into the government term is appalling. I suppose that, as with the previous regime, we are at least spared outright corruption, but under the current circumstances who would need to bribe them?
I see Nigel Farage is now repeating Labour's 'overdiagnosis' language on autism.
And of course Starmer, Karin Smyth and Bridget Phillipson have added their transphobic comments on top of Streeting's behaviour (on issues being discussed in Epiphanies)
And Anas Sarwar ( Scottish Labour leader) has joined Starmer in refusing to support even the first steps to undo Brexit.
I can't see how you meaningfully separate them from the far right now.
This kind of hyperbolic council of despair is not helpful, see USA - Biden and Trump were not the same. Starmer and Farage are not the same.
I will campaign for Labour this election, I will also march for trans rights and write to my mp about the issue.
If it were just trans rights, that would be one thing. But it's benefits in terms of the disabled and families with more than two children, privatising the NHS at the first available opportunity and generally behaving more like Farage than any version of the Labour party I recognise. I will vote to keep Farage out, but beyond that there is no positive basis for supporting Starmer's troopers.
I see Nigel Farage is now repeating Labour's 'overdiagnosis' language on autism.
And of course Starmer, Karin Smyth and Bridget Phillipson have added their transphobic comments on top of Streeting's behaviour (on issues being discussed in Epiphanies)
And Anas Sarwar ( Scottish Labour leader) has joined Starmer in refusing to support even the first steps to undo Brexit.
I can't see how you meaningfully separate them from the far right now.
This kind of hyperbolic council of despair is not helpful, see USA - Biden and Trump were not the same. Starmer and Farage are not the same.
They are not; but the problem is the policy prescriptions stem from the decision that they'd target voters likely to vote Reform (for the most part the rightmost part of the Conservative vote), and that the increasing focus on that part of the electorate will lead to its own radicalisation.
If Labour continually play on the terrain of the far-right they are to blame for the continuing shift of politics rightwards, and 'we are the least worst party' has a pretty terrible track record as a firewall.
It's on everyone who ran on 'let's get the tories out THEN pressure Labour to move left' to actually do that now.
I see Nigel Farage is now repeating Labour's 'overdiagnosis' language on autism.
And of course Starmer, Karin Smyth and Bridget Phillipson have added their transphobic comments on top of Streeting's behaviour (on issues being discussed in Epiphanies)
And Anas Sarwar ( Scottish Labour leader) has joined Starmer in refusing to support even the first steps to undo Brexit.
I can't see how you meaningfully separate them from the far right now.
This kind of hyperbolic council of despair is not helpful, see USA - Biden and Trump were not the same. Starmer and Farage are not the same.
I will campaign for Labour this election, I will also march for trans rights and write to my mp about the issue.
If Labour hold up well in these elections they'll feel vindicated in running right. If they lose badly the Reform they'll conclude they need to run further right. The only thing that will convince them to change course is haemorrhaging votes and seats to their left faster than they are on the right.
Biden didn't do a fraction of what Starmer has done in terms of adopting far right policies and attitudes and attacking vulnerable groups. He had some big faults but not to that extent that I know of.
This stuff though is far right - it scapegoats vulnerable minorities and plays on hatred of foreigners and immigrants. It is based on economic malpractice rooted in hate politics and misinformation - and it's meant to appeal to far right voters.
You could make the argument that it's lawful evil far-right as opposed to chaotic evil far-right but it's far-right. Though the extent of Starmer's deceptions to gain power and his willingness to suck up to Trump do move him further towards Farage and Trump than I previously would have thought possible at all for a Labour leader. The one thing I would have said in his favour is not being pro-Russian but it's hard to see how he can effectively do that while looking for a trade deal with Trump.
And who's despairing? I can vote for and expect to get a regional MSP for a party which does none of that, and can vote for and expect to get a constituency MSP from a party which has been cowardly on one issue but otherwise has not joined the far right and I have a very good chance of helping kick out the sitting Labour MP for a better party at the next Westminster election.
Saying people might consider doing something about far right parties other than campaigning and voting for them shouldn't be a radical position. If people don't feel they have those choices in England - what is being done about that? Acquiescing to Labour under Morgan McSweeney's coup d'etat means throwing minorities under a bus and tanking the economy so the likelihood of Reform being elected gets higher.
Neither Labour nor the Tories can effectively fight Reform by saying 'Look they're basically right about everything but vote for us instead!'. It doesn't work.
If you want to stop Reform you need to find a party that will actually fight their framing instead of embrace it. Campaigning for Labour won't do that.
As I said no matter what Labour do they have damaged their reputation by focusing cuts on vulnerable people. They are actually doing some good things. They are bringing to water companies to heel for a start. Picking on vulnerable people has put them squarely in the right politically. Getting rid of detractors in parliament is another classic right wing move. I agree they need a bloody nose in the up the up coming election from the left. Unfortunately Starmer is has no left side.
As I said no matter what Labour do they have damaged their reputation by focusing cuts on vulnerable people. They are actually doing some good things. They are bringing to water companies to heel for a start.
In what way are they bringing the water companies to heel? For the most part they are allowing the current regime to continue, and bills to go up. There's talk of penalties for executives, but the offences are the kinds that are very difficult to prove (and usually fall prey to emails and internal comms going conveniently missing).
Picking on vulnerable people has put them squarely in the right politically. Getting rid of detractors in parliament is another classic right wing move.
It points out that they've largely focused on cultural issues which are generally lower priority than economic ones (like the cost of living, or the state of the health service), as they conclude:
"What matters, and should be uncontroversial considering the evidence in front of us, is that much of what Labour has done with its huge majority and yet low popularity has served to normalise reactionary politics and discourse, pitting communities against each other, targeting those already marginalised and emboldening far-right actors. In doing so, it has not only hurt the many communities at the sharp end of their reactionary politics, but made them more acceptable to build on for whoever gets to Number 10 next. Crucially, this has only served those already in privileged positions and the wealthy in particular. By mimicking the far right, Labour and Starmer haven’t stolen their thunder, they have made these politics legitimate and reactionary policies ever more entrenched"
There are several bills going through parliament about water.
I believe money is being ring fenced for improvements to the system. That is why I said bringing.
As to the second part of the article, I have noted my problems with Starmer’s Labour before the election and heading further right was one of them. Many of their supporters say they rubbish at communicating to the public and to wait while their policies have a good effects. It is too late I think.
It seems very odd to regard multi-child benefit as unfair. Surely it is just as "unfair" to receive child benefit for the first two children.
It's the judgemental definition of "unfair" that assumes that doing something different from the norm is wrong. Normal people have one or two children, so we can support that. Having lots of children is abnormal, so clearly the only reason you'd do that is if you were taking unfair advantage of the state.
If you want to stop Reform you need to find a party that will actually fight their framing instead of embrace it. Campaigning for Labour won't do that.
It will stop Reform in the sense that it will prevent Reform from forming the government. But it won’t stop Reform in the sense of stopping policies proposed by Reform from becoming law.
I think Labour (and the Tories for that matter) have got so obsessed with the first that they’ve completely ignored the second.
If you want to stop Reform you need to find a party that will actually fight their framing instead of embrace it. Campaigning for Labour won't do that.
It will stop Reform in the sense that it will prevent Reform from forming the government. But it won’t stop Reform in the sense of stopping policies proposed by Reform from becoming law.
I think Labour (and the Tories for that matter) have got so obsessed with the first that they’ve completely ignored the second.
It's not clear that those at the top of either party give half a week old shit about the second. I'm struggling to think of anything that either Starmer or Badenoch would draw the line at as a matter of principle of political expedience pointed the other way.
There are several bills going through parliament about water.
I believe money is being ring fenced for improvements to the system.
Yes, but part of the existing bills should have been going towards improvements anyway, change would involve ring fencing that part - not just the extra tariffs, and perhaps stop the revolving door of politicians who regulate the water companies then going off and working for them.
If you want to stop Reform you need to find a party that will actually fight their framing instead of embrace it. Campaigning for Labour won't do that.
It will stop Reform in the sense that it will prevent Reform from forming the government. But it won’t stop Reform in the sense of stopping policies proposed by Reform from becoming law.
I think Labour (and the Tories for that matter) have got so obsessed with the first that they’ve completely ignored the second.
It's not clear that those at the top of either party give half a week old shit about the second. I'm struggling to think of anything that either Starmer or Badenoch would draw the line at as a matter of principle of political expedience pointed the other way.
Well, the issue is that 'actually existing centrism' is happiest punching left and defending the status quo, and trying to use the threat of the far right to legitimise those politics is a very dangerous game.
If you want to stop Reform you need to find a party that will actually fight their framing instead of embrace it. Campaigning for Labour won't do that.
It will stop Reform in the sense that it will prevent Reform from forming the government. But it won’t stop Reform in the sense of stopping policies proposed by Reform from becoming law.
I think Labour (and the Tories for that matter) have got so obsessed with the first that they’ve completely ignored the second.
It's not clear that those at the top of either party give half a week old shit about the second. I'm struggling to think of anything that either Starmer or Badenoch would draw the line at as a matter of principle of political expedience pointed the other way.
We certainly seem to be in a political era where Parties exist purely to gain power for its own sake, rather than to gain power in order to create the sort of society they believe in.
Though I suppose it’s easy for us to blame politicians for following what the people appear to want. It’s not our jobs on the line at the next election.
If you want to stop Reform you need to find a party that will actually fight their framing instead of embrace it. Campaigning for Labour won't do that.
It will stop Reform in the sense that it will prevent Reform from forming the government. But it won’t stop Reform in the sense of stopping policies proposed by Reform from becoming law.
I think Labour (and the Tories for that matter) have got so obsessed with the first that they’ve completely ignored the second.
It's not clear that those at the top of either party give half a week old shit about the second. I'm struggling to think of anything that either Starmer or Badenoch would draw the line at as a matter of principle of political expedience pointed the other way.
We certainly seem to be in a political era where Parties exist purely to gain power for its own sake, rather than to gain power in order to create the sort of society they believe in.
Though I suppose it’s easy for us to blame politicians for following what the people appear to want. It’s not our jobs on the line at the next election.
Correct but people don’t want some of the stuff Labour has done. NHS waiting times overall are down but that is not noted. They make some stupid decisions that are noted. It is like they have no real idea how to run the country.
In the one mayoral election that has been declared so far (North Tyneside, historically as solidly Labour as it gets), Labour held on by less than a percentage point against Reform. Last time out Labour got more than half of the overall vote.
The BBC is reporting that as of right now Reform are up by 27 councillors, 16 from the Tories, 10 from Labour and 1 from Lib Dem.
I hope everyone who decided to vote Green in Runcorn is pleased with their Reform MP.
Blaming people for not voting tactically is the kind of thing I'd expect on social media.
The turnout was 46.24%, down 13.57%. Instead of blaming people who actually voted for the candidate they wanted, how about blaming all the people who didn't vote this time round. Or you could just ask why.
Being cynical about democracy is one thing. But criticising people who actually participate in it doesn't seem very productive.
I hope everyone who decided to vote Green in Runcorn is pleased with their Reform MP.
One Reform MP more or less in parliament makes very little difference. Making Labour worry about losing votes to their left might. A by-election is absolutely the right time to send messages to the governing party.
I hope everyone who decided to vote Green in Runcorn is pleased with their Reform MP.
I would suggest the people who voted Reform are those primarily to blame.
Indeed. It's odd to blame the Greens for standing, from the candidates there it looks like anyone who accepts that climate change is happening and action is urgent probably had no one else to vote for (I don't know where the Independent stands on that issue); anyone believing that all people are equal and deserve dignity and respect wouldn't have had much option (the LibDems, Greens and possibly Indy), although I accept that GPEW hasn't been as universally supportive of Green ideals as many within the wider Green movement would have expected; anyone wanting to support a progressive platform with a positive vision had a chance to vote Green. It was a good result for the Greens, a significant increase in their vote share and coming close to getting more votes than the Conservatives.
I doubt anyone other than those who voted Reform in Runcorn are pleased with their MP, including a large proportion of the majority of the electorate (those who didn't vote). Would the result have been different if the Independent candidate hadn't stood (he got more votes than the difference between Labour and Reform), or the Liberals or Lib Dems had stepped aside? Maybe all that would have happened is that their voters would have joined those who stayed at home and the result would still have been the same.
Do you remember when Martin Bell stood against that corrupt Tory (there is an excellent book about it called Homicidal Purple) ? Sometimes you need to band together - there is a right time and place and a wrong time and place for a protest vote.
A Labour/Reform marginal is not it. The fact is, we do not have proportional representation and voting as if we do is futile.
I hope everyone who decided to vote Green in Runcorn is pleased with their Reform MP.
I would suggest the people who voted Reform are those primarily to blame.
Obviously, and on the upside it may finish Kemi Badenoch’s leadership of the Tory party.
Which brings the interesting quandary of would we rather see someone who is a better or a worse leader? Because at least one of those options will keep haemorrhaging support to Reform.
I hope everyone who decided to vote Green in Runcorn is pleased with their Reform MP.
Canvassers came back having run a gauntlet of 'why did you get rid of my winter fuel allowance and PIP', and Labour lost close to 10K votes, but sure it was the fault of 6 voters who voted Green over Labour.
Will Labour change course? Also no, because McSweeney is convinced that the defeat confirms his priors:
I hope everyone who decided to vote Green in Runcorn is pleased with their Reform MP.
Canvassers came back having run a gauntlet of 'why did you get rid of my winter fuel allowance and PIP', and Labour lost close to 10K votes, but sure it was the fault of 6 voters who voted Green over Labour.
Unfortunately one answer to that question is not popular - "because people consistently vote against raising the sorts of taxes needed for a comprehensive welfare state including those sorts of things"
I see Nigel Farage is now repeating Labour's 'overdiagnosis' language on autism.
And of course Starmer, Karin Smyth and Bridget Phillipson have added their transphobic comments on top of Streeting's behaviour (on issues being discussed in Epiphanies)
And Anas Sarwar ( Scottish Labour leader) has joined Starmer in refusing to support even the first steps to undo Brexit.
I can't see how you meaningfully separate them from the far right now.
This kind of hyperbolic council of despair is not helpful, see USA - Biden and Trump were not the same. Starmer and Farage are not the same.
I will campaign for Labour this election, I will also march for trans rights and write to my mp about the issue.
If Labour hold up well in these elections they'll feel vindicated in running right. If they lose badly the Reform they'll conclude they need to run further right. The only thing that will convince them to change course is haemorrhaging votes and seats to their left faster than they are on the right.
A Labour/Reform marginal is not it. The fact is, we do not have proportional representation and voting as if we do is futile.
I've been thinking about this in a southern shire county where with the best will in the world the choice feels like 'vote Tory or you let Reform in*' - now, I voted LibDem, but how much do we hate the Tories? does it matter which of them wins?
Because logically, if Reform are that bad, then there are plenty of council seats where the lesser of two evils would be vote Conservative.
Obviously, as said, I voted for who I wanted, but really if people should be voting Labour to keep out Reform (in Runcorn) then should people be voting Tory to keep out Reform where they're the best boat to do that?
Obviously, as said, I voted for who I wanted, but really if people should be voting Labour to keep out Reform (in Runcorn) then should people be voting Tory to keep out Reform where they're the best boat to do that?
In general it's a very bad idea to give a party the impression they have carte blanche as long as they are less actively bad than the other crowd. This game of political chicken is highly dangerous and ends with the far right in power.
I hope everyone who decided to vote Green in Runcorn is pleased with their Reform MP.
Canvassers came back having run a gauntlet of 'why did you get rid of my winter fuel allowance and PIP', and Labour lost close to 10K votes, but sure it was the fault of 6 voters who voted Green over Labour.
Unfortunately one answer to that question is not popular - "because people consistently vote against raising the sorts of taxes needed for a comprehensive welfare state including those sorts of things"
Its a bout time that politicians started to treat the electorate as sensible adults in the real world instead of toddlers in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes and have wonderful, free public services.
A Labour/Reform marginal is not it. The fact is, we do not have proportional representation and voting as if we do is futile.
I've been thinking about this in a southern shire county where with the best will in the world the choice feels like 'vote Tory or you let Reform in*' - now, I voted LibDem, but how much do we hate the Tories? does it matter which of them wins?
Because logically, if Reform are that bad, then there are plenty of council seats where the lesser of two evils would be vote Conservative.
Obviously, as said, I voted for who I wanted, but really if people should be voting Labour to keep out Reform (in Runcorn) then should people be voting Tory to keep out Reform where they're the best boat to do that?
Polititians like Trump, Johnson and Farage do not operate by the norms and conventions of democratic politics - they are dangerous and they are, for want of a better term, a constitutional threat. A threat to the institution of democracy in a way which, a party I strongly disagree with is usually not.
I have no love for Theresa May, but she believes in the rule of law and in running the country in the way she thinks best for the country - and she believes in the institution of democracy. The same could be said of Thatcher. Johnson, Trump and Farage believe primarily in themselves and in running the country for their own personal interests and those of those they consider loyal to them. It is fundamentally different and more dangerous.
I hope everyone who decided to vote Green in Runcorn is pleased with their Reform MP.
Canvassers came back having run a gauntlet of 'why did you get rid of my winter fuel allowance and PIP', and Labour lost close to 10K votes, but sure it was the fault of 6 voters who voted Green over Labour.
Unfortunately one answer to that question is not popular - "because people consistently vote against raising the sorts of taxes needed for a comprehensive welfare state including those sorts of things"
Sure, but that's a longer term fix, the kinds of costs we are talking about above are the sort that can be handled by - say - reversing Hunt's cut to NI. Announce that as part of the budget and it becomes less part of the overall story (which is one of more state spending to deal with an increasingly dangerous world ).
Experts expected Runcorn to go to Reform. Any vox pop footage made that obvious. Keep in mind that Reform only won by six votes. That is hardly a resounding win. Labour can easily make that back. I too think Labour may move a bit more to the right. I hope not. Considering how awful the Labour coms team is it is a decent result.
Why people vote for Reform when they want to dismantle the NHS I don’t know.
Do you remember when Martin Bell stood against that corrupt Tory (there is an excellent book about it called Homicidal Purple) ? Sometimes you need to band together - there is a right time and place and a wrong time and place for a protest vote.
You do not build alliances by telling people they have to join an alliance and criticising them when they don't.
A Labour/Reform marginal is not it. The fact is, we do not have proportional representation and voting as if we do is futile.
This is not about proportional representation.
I think tactical voting is great. And given the UK voting system, it's quite encouraging to see people finding creative ways of banding together to bring about mutually-desired outcomes.
But insisting that there is only one possible way to engage with the voting system is counter-productive. Voting for a candidate who stands for something you believe in is a valid way to vote. Voting "against" a candidate you don't want is as valid as voting for one you do want. Lending your vote is a valid way of voting. Sending a protest vote to the government of the day is a valid way of voting. Even voting for a party that exists, in effect, to protest against the state of British politics, is a valid way of voting.
One of the threats to the democratic process is increasing disenchantment with the whole process of democracy. Rather than insisting on particular political outcomes, it makes more sense to encourage people to engage with the democratic process in whatever way makes sense to them.
Its a bout time that politicians started to treat the electorate as sensible adults in the real world instead of toddlers in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes and have wonderful, free public services.
The problem is that the right-wing media would get up in arms about it.
Its a bout time that politicians started to treat the electorate as sensible adults in the real world instead of toddlers in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes and have wonderful, free public services.
The problem is that the right-wing media would get up in arms about it.
Yep. Politicians and the right-wing press have been wanking over low taxes for as long as I can remember (ie going back to Thatcher) - it's going to take a hell of a lot to change that.
The key strategic thinking of Labour seems to be wrong here.
There are a number of seats that look like they will be Labour/Reform fights.
OK. But the vast majority of the votes for Reform are not coming from Labour. AND the vast majority of votes Labour are losing/at risk of losing are not going to Reform.
Labour can only win by going Left.
This is not my analysis by the way, this is what Peter Kellner was saying on the Quiet Riot podcast, this week.
Its a bout time that politicians started to treat the electorate as sensible adults in the real world instead of toddlers in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes and have wonderful, free public services.
The problem is that the right-wing media would get up in arms about it.
Yep. Politicians and the right-wing press have been wanking over low taxes for as long as I can remember (ie going back to Thatcher) - it's going to take a hell of a lot to change that.
Its a bout time that politicians started to treat the electorate as sensible adults in the real world instead of toddlers in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes and have wonderful, free public services.
The problem is that the right-wing media would get up in arms about it.
Yep. Politicians and the right-wing press have been wanking over low taxes for as long as I can remember (ie going back to Thatcher) - it's going to take a hell of a lot to change that.
Its a bout time that politicians started to treat the electorate as sensible adults in the real world instead of toddlers in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes and have wonderful, free public services.
The problem is that the right-wing media would get up in arms about it.
Yep. Politicians and the right-wing press have been wanking over low taxes for as long as I can remember (ie going back to Thatcher) - it's going to take a hell of a lot to change that.
The other side of Leveson II you say .. ?
We can dream...
I mean if we are at the stage where the press has to be considered a force of nature that *just* affects politics and nothing can be done about making them follow the rule of law then that seems like a rather important conversation that we should be having.
Comments
But costs more.
Yes, but this becomes class coded doesn't it.
Yes, and the latest initiative to publish just the crime statistics related to foreign nationals is tapping into the same set of prejudices.
But wait for what they implement eh?
And of course Starmer, Karin Smyth and Bridget Phillipson have added their transphobic comments on top of Streeting's behaviour (on issues being discussed in Epiphanies)
And Anas Sarwar ( Scottish Labour leader) has joined Starmer in refusing to support even the first steps to undo Brexit.
I can't see how you meaningfully separate them from the far right now.
This kind of hyperbolic council of despair is not helpful, see USA - Biden and Trump were not the same. Starmer and Farage are not the same.
I will campaign for Labour this election, I will also march for trans rights and write to my mp about the issue.
They are not; but the problem is the policy prescriptions stem from the decision that they'd target voters likely to vote Reform (for the most part the rightmost part of the Conservative vote), and that the increasing focus on that part of the electorate will lead to its own radicalisation.
If Labour continually play on the terrain of the far-right they are to blame for the continuing shift of politics rightwards, and 'we are the least worst party' has a pretty terrible track record as a firewall.
It's on everyone who ran on 'let's get the tories out THEN pressure Labour to move left' to actually do that now.
If Labour hold up well in these elections they'll feel vindicated in running right. If they lose badly the Reform they'll conclude they need to run further right. The only thing that will convince them to change course is haemorrhaging votes and seats to their left faster than they are on the right.
This stuff though is far right - it scapegoats vulnerable minorities and plays on hatred of foreigners and immigrants. It is based on economic malpractice rooted in hate politics and misinformation - and it's meant to appeal to far right voters.
You could make the argument that it's lawful evil far-right as opposed to chaotic evil far-right but it's far-right. Though the extent of Starmer's deceptions to gain power and his willingness to suck up to Trump do move him further towards Farage and Trump than I previously would have thought possible at all for a Labour leader. The one thing I would have said in his favour is not being pro-Russian but it's hard to see how he can effectively do that while looking for a trade deal with Trump.
And who's despairing? I can vote for and expect to get a regional MSP for a party which does none of that, and can vote for and expect to get a constituency MSP from a party which has been cowardly on one issue but otherwise has not joined the far right and I have a very good chance of helping kick out the sitting Labour MP for a better party at the next Westminster election.
Saying people might consider doing something about far right parties other than campaigning and voting for them shouldn't be a radical position. If people don't feel they have those choices in England - what is being done about that? Acquiescing to Labour under Morgan McSweeney's coup d'etat means throwing minorities under a bus and tanking the economy so the likelihood of Reform being elected gets higher.
Neither Labour nor the Tories can effectively fight Reform by saying 'Look they're basically right about everything but vote for us instead!'. It doesn't work.
If you want to stop Reform you need to find a party that will actually fight their framing instead of embrace it. Campaigning for Labour won't do that.
In what way are they bringing the water companies to heel? For the most part they are allowing the current regime to continue, and bills to go up. There's talk of penalties for executives, but the offences are the kinds that are very difficult to prove (and usually fall prey to emails and internal comms going conveniently missing).
A group researching reactionary politics at the Uni of Bath have put out an article that is relevant here: https://reacpol.net/starmer-far-right/
It points out that they've largely focused on cultural issues which are generally lower priority than economic ones (like the cost of living, or the state of the health service), as they conclude:
I believe money is being ring fenced for improvements to the system. That is why I said bringing.
As to the second part of the article, I have noted my problems with Starmer’s Labour before the election and heading further right was one of them. Many of their supporters say they rubbish at communicating to the public and to wait while their policies have a good effects. It is too late I think.
It's the judgemental definition of "unfair" that assumes that doing something different from the norm is wrong. Normal people have one or two children, so we can support that. Having lots of children is abnormal, so clearly the only reason you'd do that is if you were taking unfair advantage of the state.
It will stop Reform in the sense that it will prevent Reform from forming the government. But it won’t stop Reform in the sense of stopping policies proposed by Reform from becoming law.
I think Labour (and the Tories for that matter) have got so obsessed with the first that they’ve completely ignored the second.
It's not clear that those at the top of either party give half a week old shit about the second. I'm struggling to think of anything that either Starmer or Badenoch would draw the line at as a matter of principle of political expedience pointed the other way.
Yes, but part of the existing bills should have been going towards improvements anyway, change would involve ring fencing that part - not just the extra tariffs, and perhaps stop the revolving door of politicians who regulate the water companies then going off and working for them.
Well, the issue is that 'actually existing centrism' is happiest punching left and defending the status quo, and trying to use the threat of the far right to legitimise those politics is a very dangerous game.
We certainly seem to be in a political era where Parties exist purely to gain power for its own sake, rather than to gain power in order to create the sort of society they believe in.
Though I suppose it’s easy for us to blame politicians for following what the people appear to want. It’s not our jobs on the line at the next election.
Correct but people don’t want some of the stuff Labour has done. NHS waiting times overall are down but that is not noted. They make some stupid decisions that are noted. It is like they have no real idea how to run the country.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1917475965531210099
Or maybe they've done a Badenoch, and it's based on what someone said in a comment online.
The BBC is reporting that as of right now Reform are up by 27 councillors, 16 from the Tories, 10 from Labour and 1 from Lib Dem.
Reform are in the ascendancy right now.
I would suggest the people who voted Reform are those primarily to blame.
The turnout was 46.24%, down 13.57%. Instead of blaming people who actually voted for the candidate they wanted, how about blaming all the people who didn't vote this time round. Or you could just ask why.
Being cynical about democracy is one thing. But criticising people who actually participate in it doesn't seem very productive.
One Reform MP more or less in parliament makes very little difference. Making Labour worry about losing votes to their left might. A by-election is absolutely the right time to send messages to the governing party.
I doubt anyone other than those who voted Reform in Runcorn are pleased with their MP, including a large proportion of the majority of the electorate (those who didn't vote). Would the result have been different if the Independent candidate hadn't stood (he got more votes than the difference between Labour and Reform), or the Liberals or Lib Dems had stepped aside? Maybe all that would have happened is that their voters would have joined those who stayed at home and the result would still have been the same.
A Labour/Reform marginal is not it. The fact is, we do not have proportional representation and voting as if we do is futile.
Obviously, and on the upside it may finish Kemi Badenoch’s leadership of the Tory party.
Which brings the interesting quandary of would we rather see someone who is a better or a worse leader? Because at least one of those options will keep haemorrhaging support to Reform.
Canvassers came back having run a gauntlet of 'why did you get rid of my winter fuel allowance and PIP', and Labour lost close to 10K votes, but sure it was the fault of 6 voters who voted Green over Labour.
Will Labour change course? Also no, because McSweeney is convinced that the defeat confirms his priors:
https://bsky.app/profile/duncanrobinson.bsky.social/post/3lo6cvbpmgc24
Unfortunately one answer to that question is not popular - "because people consistently vote against raising the sorts of taxes needed for a comprehensive welfare state including those sorts of things"
Called it.
I've been thinking about this in a southern shire county where with the best will in the world the choice feels like 'vote Tory or you let Reform in*' - now, I voted LibDem, but how much do we hate the Tories? does it matter which of them wins?
Because logically, if Reform are that bad, then there are plenty of council seats where the lesser of two evils would be vote Conservative.
Obviously, as said, I voted for who I wanted, but really if people should be voting Labour to keep out Reform (in Runcorn) then should people be voting Tory to keep out Reform where they're the best boat to do that?
In general it's a very bad idea to give a party the impression they have carte blanche as long as they are less actively bad than the other crowd. This game of political chicken is highly dangerous and ends with the far right in power.
Its a bout time that politicians started to treat the electorate as sensible adults in the real world instead of toddlers in a fantasy world where you can cut taxes and have wonderful, free public services.
In my view, yes.
I have no love for Theresa May, but she believes in the rule of law and in running the country in the way she thinks best for the country - and she believes in the institution of democracy. The same could be said of Thatcher. Johnson, Trump and Farage believe primarily in themselves and in running the country for their own personal interests and those of those they consider loyal to them. It is fundamentally different and more dangerous.
Sure, but that's a longer term fix, the kinds of costs we are talking about above are the sort that can be handled by - say - reversing Hunt's cut to NI. Announce that as part of the budget and it becomes less part of the overall story (which is one of more state spending to deal with an increasingly dangerous world ).
Why people vote for Reform when they want to dismantle the NHS I don’t know.
This is not about proportional representation.
I think tactical voting is great. And given the UK voting system, it's quite encouraging to see people finding creative ways of banding together to bring about mutually-desired outcomes.
But insisting that there is only one possible way to engage with the voting system is counter-productive. Voting for a candidate who stands for something you believe in is a valid way to vote. Voting "against" a candidate you don't want is as valid as voting for one you do want. Lending your vote is a valid way of voting. Sending a protest vote to the government of the day is a valid way of voting. Even voting for a party that exists, in effect, to protest against the state of British politics, is a valid way of voting.
One of the threats to the democratic process is increasing disenchantment with the whole process of democracy. Rather than insisting on particular political outcomes, it makes more sense to encourage people to engage with the democratic process in whatever way makes sense to them.
Yep. Politicians and the right-wing press have been wanking over low taxes for as long as I can remember (ie going back to Thatcher) - it's going to take a hell of a lot to change that.
There are a number of seats that look like they will be Labour/Reform fights.
OK. But the vast majority of the votes for Reform are not coming from Labour. AND the vast majority of votes Labour are losing/at risk of losing are not going to Reform.
Labour can only win by going Left.
This is not my analysis by the way, this is what Peter Kellner was saying on the Quiet Riot podcast, this week.
The other side of Leveson II you say .. ?
We can dream...
I mean if we are at the stage where the press has to be considered a force of nature that *just* affects politics and nothing can be done about making them follow the rule of law then that seems like a rather important conversation that we should be having.