New Labour Leader

[ricardo 7,395]

The Speaker made a serious error of judgement. There is no getting round that.

Whether his apology is enough remains to be seen.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

The Speaker made a serious error of judgement. There is no getting round that.

Whether his apology is enough remains to be seen.

He's more chance of being Speaker next year than had he not done what he did. He's like the majority of politicians and in it to feather his own nest. So was it really an error of judgment?

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

A journalist summed it up when they said they received a text from an unnamed Tory MP, "We're nowhere near as angry as we're pretending to be"!

Even **** twonk Jacob Rees-Mogg understood the move. And if Hoyle was hiding, he didn't do a very good job of it considering he soon fronted up to the Commons later in the day.

Smells like another attempt at brewing up a culture war/gut the internal workings of Parliament to me.

Edited February 22 by TheGunnShow

[Barbe bleu 827]

45 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Smells like another attempt at brewing up a culture war/gut the internal workings of Parliament to me.

Smells like a load of old nonsense to me.  This was one of the least important things to happen this week. 

[Yellow Fever 3,792]

I read somewhere that it was the Tories by removing their government amendment had the knock on effect of stopping the SNP one from being called next!

It just seems to me the SNP and then the Tories were playing politics and arcane HoP procedures yet managed to trip themselves up.

Meanwhile - the whole of the UK and civilized world wants an end to this carnage and moves towards a just peace.

 

Found this snippet - sources have later said the government actually didn't have the votes to knock out Labour. Hence all the manufactured humbug. 

Also, if the government can knock out the Labour amendment, that would lead to a vote on the original SNP motion – which will trigger a Labour revolt (because some MPs would support it). That is a second reason why the Tory whips have a reason for voting against the Labour wording – even though in practice it is hard to detect much difference between the government’s position and Labour’s.

Edited February 22 by Yellow Fever

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

10 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Are you for real? All this from a party that illegally prorogued parliament lying to the then Queen in the process.

I can't see what SKS has done wrong and Hoyle's actions (within his remit) were surely those of good intention (and indeed has the support of several of the rational Tories). Sometimes any Speaker has to make fine calls - he offered more choice not less!. 

I can smell pure humbug here.

You seem blind to many things.

Labour called a three-line whip on the SNP motion. Labour MPs then went crying to the whips that they would have to return to their constituencies and explain to the supporters of Hamas and Palestine why they voted against an immediate ceasefire. Up until this point no ceasefire was Labour policy. Starmer then realised he had to appease the Muslims and so went to bully the Speaker into accepting a Labour amendment which was against all protocols of the House. Just putting those protocols aside for the moment and that Labour could have withdrawn the three-line whip, we are left with the fact that Starmer caved in to extremist intimidation. He does it now, he will cave in again when he is Prime Minister. The extremists now know that they are dealing with a weak man.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

I think the speaker's intentions were sound. He seems to have united the house by and large, in a way.

It's impressive that even our leaders can't seem to be rational about the Middle East, in spite of it not being our war.

Watched a bit of France 24 last night talking about DRC. 2000000 displaced and declared a catastrophe. Who knew?

Edited February 23 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,792]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I think the speaker's intentions were sound. He seems to have united the house by and large, in a way.

It's impressive that even our leaders can't seem to be rational about the Middle East, in spite of it not being our war.

Watched a bit of France 24 last night talking about DRC. 2000000 displaced and declared a catastrophe. Who knew?

Yes - Oddly we got the 'right' decision very much in-line with our allies (Canada, Oz, NZ etc). Same language. I think the government is actually quite happy with it, toughens up the UK position (c.f. Cameron) nicely without them needing to be seen to be stepping out of line. Quietly happy and will leave well alone!

Hoyle's also right the pseudo-rules need changing to stop such party political shenanigans derailing an otherwise serious subject / debate.

Elsewhere I see the Israelis have arrived in Paris. Thought to be a good indication of a new pause/ceasefire and prisoner/hostage swap.

DRC has been mentioned here but I agree seems very remote by comparison. Only somewhat troubling issue is Rwanda's apparent 'involvement' with some factions.

[Herman 9,777]

The Battle Royale!!

Jeremy Corbyn is suing Nigel Farage for defamatory statements.

[Herman 9,777]

Sounds like Starmer made a positive and articulate speech about the arts and culture. More of this please. 👏👏👏

[Well b back 3,208]

How to kick people in the teeth.

Abbot quite rightly objects to the racism from the Tory Donor ( tick for DA )

Parliament allowed itself to look stupid by not letting her speak ( tick for DA )

Abbot wants to get back into the Labour Party ( tick for DA )

Demonstration in her constituency to stand by Dianne ( tick for DA )

Abbot to speak to crowd live on national TV ( tick for DA )

Standing beside her Jeremy Corbin ( WTF )

[cambridgeshire canary 6,731]

18 minutes ago, Well b back said:

How to kick people in the teeth.

Abbot quite rightly objects to the racism from the Tory Donor ( tick for DA )

Parliament allowed itself to look stupid by not letting her speak ( tick for DA )

Abbot wants to get back into the Labour Party ( tick for DA )

Demonstration in her constituency to stand by Dianne ( tick for DA )

Abbot to speak to crowd live on national TV ( tick for DA )

Standing beside her Jeremy Corbin ( WTF )

Why not let her speak? She has a long standing history of often embarrassing herslef and saying very silly things when she does open her mouth so feels like a bit of an own goal not letting her have a trademark gaffe!

[ricardo 7,395]

10 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Why not let her speak? She has a long standing history of often embarrassing herslef and saying very silly things when she does open her mouth so feels like a bit of an own goal not letting her have a trademark gaffe!

In effect Hoyle was just trying to save her from herself.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

14 hours ago, ricardo said:

In effect Hoyle was just trying to save her from herself.

And save Starmer at the same time. 

[sonyc 5,526]

Labour’s plan is deadly dull. I love it.

It was encouraging, says Emma Duncan in The Times, to see that Rachel Reeves’s recent Mais lecture drew the ire of both Unite – “one of the most left-wing unions” – and the once-fashionable firebrand Owen Jones. She must be doing something right. The government’s favourite criticism of Labour, echoed by Unite this week, is that they “haven’t got a plan”. But that’s silly. If what’s meant by a “plan” is some “sweeping, radical idea about how to revolutionise the structure of our economy”, that’s not what we need. We have a well-educated workforce, good economic governance and a top-notch services sector. But we’re struggling with threadbare “capital stock” – infrastructure, buildings, factories and so on – and piddling growth. What’s needed is not some grand scheme, but small, sensible – yes, boring – tweaks. The most important part is the “supply side” stuff, designed to free up businesses to grow without increasing public spending. Margaret Thatcher did it by crushing the unions and making it easier to hire and fire. Reeves’s equivalent is making modest reforms to the planning system to let firms “build more stuff” – both houses, to relieve the housing crisis, and commercial space, to let businesses expand. She is also wise to continue Jeremy Hunt’s sensible adjustments to the way pension funds work – to encourage more investment in British firms – and to devolve skills budgets to local authorities who know better than central government what shortages they have. Boring as they are, these suggestions should boost growth while costing taxpayers “not a bean”. That’s her plan. “To me, its very dullness is rather exciting.”

[Barbe bleu 827]

57 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Labour’s plan is deadly dull. I love it.

It was encouraging, says Emma Duncan in The Times, to see that Rachel Reeves’s recent Mais lecture drew the ire of both Unite – “one of the most left-wing unions” – and the once-fashionable firebrand Owen Jones. She must be doing something right. The government’s favourite criticism of Labour, echoed by Unite this week, is that they “haven’t got a plan”. But that’s silly. If what’s meant by a “plan” is some “sweeping, radical idea about how to revolutionise the structure of our economy”, that’s not what we need. We have a well-educated workforce, good economic governance and a top-notch services sector. But we’re struggling with threadbare “capital stock” – infrastructure, buildings, factories and so on – and piddling growth. What’s needed is not some grand scheme, but small, sensible – yes, boring – tweaks. The most important part is the “supply side” stuff, designed to free up businesses to grow without increasing public spending. Margaret Thatcher did it by crushing the unions and making it easier to hire and fire. Reeves’s equivalent is making modest reforms to the planning system to let firms “build more stuff” – both houses, to relieve the housing crisis, and commercial space, to let businesses expand. She is also wise to continue Jeremy Hunt’s sensible adjustments to the way pension funds work – to encourage more investment in British firms – and to devolve skills budgets to local authorities who know better than central government what shortages they have. Boring as they are, these suggestions should boost growth while costing taxpayers “not a bean”. That’s her plan. “To me, its very dullness is rather exciting.”

Hang on.  Labour's plan is to make some unspecified and modest changes to the planning system, to carry on what we are already doing on pensions and to put some more responsibility of local government.  And that's it? Everything else is going to stay the same?

[KiwiScot 1,449]

Labours plan is to say as little as possible until the election if then and then once in power actually come up with stuff while adjusting them as they infight.

 

Edited March 23 by KiwiScot

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

It's very easy to criticise Labour but the problem is that the country is on it's knees. Truss has proved we are unable to borrow any more and Sunak confirmed we have no more money by cancelling building a railway. Starmer has had to cancel a Green Energy project because there is no money to pay for it. 

The only way to solve this problem is to enter a Customs Union with the EU but Starmer can't say that because the Brexit morons who caused this problem will vote against him. 

In all seriousness, what the **** is he supposed to do? Leave it to this bunch of idiots to bankrupt us? 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

2 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

Labours plan is to say as little as possible until the election if then and then once in power actually come up with stuff while adjusting them as they infight.

 

Even if that were true, which of course it isn't, then it appears to be a plan which is working well enough to deliver its primary (and arguably only) objective which is to win the next election with a thumping majority.

Personally I find Labour's announced plans for Government, of which there are quite a few if you care to take off your blinkers, pretty underwhelming.

But if all the next election does actually achieve is a Labour government that is significantly more competent and much less corrupt than the current incumbents (which is pretty much a given), then that will still represent worthwhile progress even though it won't be sufficient to dig us out of the deep sh!t we are currently in - courtesy of 14 years of Tory misrule.

[sonyc 5,526]

5 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Hang on.  Labour's plan is to make some unspecified and modest changes to the planning system, to carry on what we are already doing on pensions and to put some more responsibility of local government.  And that's it? Everything else is going to stay the same?

The Labour missions are easily researched. I looked a week ago (as I did with Reform's election stuff - plus the Greens) - there are 5 of Labour's main aims. They are costed and they have had to be revised because of the current economic damage caused by the current administration.

I agree with both of the posts by Dylan and Creative M. Labour are trying to be electable. They are also presenting as a sobre alternative to what we are currently putting up with. The opinion from the Times I copied is just one view on the managerial approach Labour are taking...given what you've posted before I'm surprised you haven't agreed with the opinion... a serious and cautious approach with very little fanfare and looking at long term change. Or maybe you've liked the boosterism you've seen in this current lot? Though I doubt that too. I'm not sure what you are surprised about really because Labour's approach has been signalled for many, many months. If not longer. Not only that, but posters have many times discussed how Labour are not the radical alternative of old (under Corbyn). 

Anyway, there is another article from the FT which I also also found interesting (source from the Knowledge, a news aggregator newsletter). Copied below. I guess I have a boring life reading about such stuff, but there we are! This one is about how great the challenges are in tackling big problems. I think on balance I know who I would rather try to tackle them, even though Labour are not perfect.

[KiwiScot 1,449]

4 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Even if that were true, which of course it isn't, then it appears to be a plan which is working well enough to deliver its primary (and arguably only) objective which is to win the next election with a thumping majority.

Personally I find Labour's announced plans for Government, of which there are quite a few if you care to take off your blinkers, pretty underwhelming.

But if all the next election does actually achieve is a Labour government that is significantly more competent and much less corrupt than the current incumbents (which is pretty much a given), then that will still represent worthwhile progress even though it won't be sufficient to dig us out of the deep sh!t we are currently in - courtesy of 14 years of Tory misrule.

So it's not true, but what there is is underwhelming such as to say that you could say there is little said? I'm not interested in spending my time trying to read politicians in-depth plans. I've gathered enough from skimming on here and watching some news from time to time in that the Labour line is at the moment is not to make or say any big plans or ideas. Such is the state of the country, but also to court the Tory voter. They might have some grand policies or good ones, but it's as you say and is obvious. Project Labour as responsibile and not looney tunes like the tories and won't turn into Corbyn = Win election.

I wish Starmer all the best should he win. I just fear the far left factors of Labour will destabilise the goverment as much as the far right Torys have. I just have this nagging feeling he's going to have rough time of it from his own party.

 

 

[Barbe bleu 827]

3 hours ago, sonyc said:

 I'm not sure what you are surprised about 

Might help if I contextualise things.  As a general rule my approach to politicians is 'they are all the same'. I don't therefore see much point in an election  that offers me no difference in policy, only in the colour of the badge.  

I also don't think 300 MPs in the ruling party carry out day to day management of government, 90%+ of the 'competence' stuff is down to civil servants. If department x is badly managed a new minister in the comfy seat isn't  going to change it radically.

Woth thosenthing said even if we accept that circumstances mean that all sensible parties are going to have similar approaches to tax and spending  because the alternatives are crazy  I think there are still millions of points of difference that can be raised.   Labour could promise to reverse the NI changes for instance, or introduce a mansion tax, or raise the personal allowance, but they dont seem to be willing even to differentiate modestly.

If the biggest point of difference is a tiny bit of a change to planning policy really what is the point? It'll be same things, different logo

 

Edited March 23 by Barbe bleu

[sonyc 5,526]

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

If the biggest point of difference is a tiny bit of a change to planning policy really what is the point? It'll be same things, different logo

Yes Bb I can see where you're coming from. Yet, as a few have stated, he has to not upset the chickens too much before the election comes. Don't forget it is a rare event that Labour even gets elected in the last 100 years. He HAS to appeal to the centre ground. Essentially he HAS to appeal in some way to the right of centre press (owned by the billionaires). They still have the ability to influence a national mood. Blair knew that.

I posted Will Hutton's view a good while back. I will copy again because it may give you more information? I'm not canvassing here by the way, simply I'm relieved there is what appears to be a decent opposition at last. I liked Corbyn's manifesto better but as a leader I thought he was just not the right person. Possibly a good fit as a lecturer in a university but not leading the country.

I'm unaffiliated too, having views that might fit somewhere in every party but not in one. I don't think that uncontrolled immigration for one is a good thing and certainly not where there are vast cultural and religious differences....it may be fine in an academic sense or in an idealist utopia in my head but it doesn't work in practice, in reality. That puts me to the right. I also think we ought to be investing in green energy in a big way and need to re-nationalise in some areas. That puts me to the left.

Starmer doesn't seem to inspire but he is likely to be solid. I also think that the last few iterations of the leadership (Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and now Sunak) in the current lot mark some of the worst administrations I have known. Look at all the main economic and social indicators. Everything is in tatters. Water, energy, NHS, trains, local.government, debt levels, pensions, roads, schools, hospitals, international reputation, social care....skills, life expectancy....I posted those 10 graphs recently too. 

Like you I want not to care too much and just let competent administrators get on with stuff. We had a terrible government that brought in Brexit and then we were unfortunate enough to have them steering us through a pandemic. For these kinds of reason it has made me post more often. It has made me more political and not less. And ultimately I'm for the working man and woman because that's where I have come from and where I feel most comfortable. There have been many decisions and policies that have helped the very well off not the majority of people in the last decade. The country has been sold out. There has been such a lack of investment.Covid didn't help of course but that is just a cover for money being syphoned away. What's worse is the effect over a long period in communities. We've had austerity for far too long and yet look at the national debt, look at defence etc

So, in short, I want these bast4rds out. That's me being honest. Sorry for a long reply. Starmer HAS to be an improvement doesn't he? If not, we are in deeper trouble.

 

That article....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/26/ignore-detractors-keir-starmer-radical-transform-country

Edited March 23 by sonyc

[KiwiScot 1,449]

Labours lost 21,000 members. Good since less of them to make trouble. Bad since they'll rejoin in a bad mood 😂

Edited April 1 by KiwiScot

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

So Angela Rayner has two homes. Who knew? Certainly not the taxman. Poor old John Prescott only had two Jags.

[A Load of Squit 5,170]

17 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

So Angela Rayner has two homes. Who knew? Certainly not the taxman. Poor old John Prescott only had two Jags.

Not true, nothing you post stands up to any scrutiny.

[MooreMarriot 310]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

So Angela Rayner has two homes. Who knew? Certainly not the taxman. Poor old John Prescott only had two Jags.

Says Lord Rothermere , the Mail proprietor  , and Lord Ashcroft . Two of the biggest tax avoiders in the UK. In Ashcroft's case £112 million between 2000 and 2010 . And he is worried about Raynor's alleged few thousand ? Not forgetting Lord Rothemere astonishingly inherited his non-dom status from his father. Who knew that was possible.

.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/sep/27/lord-ashcroft-tax-conservative

Edited April 7 by MooreMarriot

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Not true, nothing you post stands up to any scrutiny.

They really don't care about you.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

30 minutes ago, MooreMarriot said:

Says Lord Rothermere , the Mail proprietor  , and Lord Ashcroft . Two of the biggest tax avoiders in the UK. In Ashcroft's case £112 million between 2000 and 2010 . And he is worried about Raynor's alleged few thousand ? Not forgetting Lord Rothemere astonishingly inherited his non-dom status from his father. Who knew that was possible.

.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/sep/27/lord-ashcroft-tax-conservative

Angela is not yet in the Elizabeth Warren league but she isn't in power yet. Give it time.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

So Starmer says he wants to differentiate the incoming Labour government from Tony Blair's old government. The incoming government is to be known as New Tories....