New Labour Leader

[horsefly 4,287]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

Far better said than my post last night (it was quite late though I wouldn't have been able to post so eruditely as you anyway). I posted because I felt it was massive 'breaking news'.

The other point I wanted to make though is about Starmer. I was talking with someone whose close associates worked with him as a young man, including two who knew him very well. He is quite the socialist and very driven by fairness and justice. Of course, nothing new here. But the main point I took from my conversation is that he is a proper reformer at heart and has had to appeal to the whole country of course. He is playing a long game. Also, a very intelligent chap - in the right sense - i.e. not an Etonian and toff who believe that the working class should know their place, nor is he someone who is shallow and quotes Latin as some kind of way of diminishing others. 

I'm more enthused by his leadership and encouraged. Just look at the Labour front bench to that of the government - they are so different. Look at the Senedd, the Scottish Assembly - these appear far more serious in the way matters are discussed. No the 'yah bo' politics we get in England.

 

 

Spot on about Starmer Sonyc! I'm really pleased that he has been able to sort out the internal chaos of the Corbyn years and is now asserting a genuine vision of the political future he sees for the country. Because of Brexit etc too much of our debate has focussed on the economy alone and little has been said about the sort of dispirited and degenerate political culture we have slovenly engendered. Frankly there will be little scope for any kind of radical economic transformation in the foreseeable future, and there will probably be little to distinguish Labour from the Tories regarding future economic policy (competence to carry it out is another matter).  However, there remains the possibility for a radical transformation of our political life. Too many people think that sleaze and corruption is necessarily endemic to our political system and feel utterly disenfranchised with respect to the possibility of making a difference.  However, abolition of the HOL offers a genuine opportunity to engage the country in a positive debate about how we can reinvigorate and transform our democracy for the better. This will mark a clear distinction between labour and the Tories come the next election and I look forward to Starmer laying out the details of his positive vision compared to the stale "more of the same" vision of Sunak.

(BTW you really shouldn't be so humble about your own contributions, they are ALWAYS required reading and marked by a considered temperance and civility that I certainly could never match.)

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

Just saw Starmer on Corbyn.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/15/jeremy-corbyn-will-not-be-labour-candidate-next-election-keir-starmer

Clearly now PM material  - decisive and in full control of his parry. Corbyn has more than had his chance to acknowledge his errors of judgement but seems incapable.

If only the Tories could dispose of their out of date rubbish too.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

Momentum ain't gonna go away....

[Bort 34]

33 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Clearly now PM material  - decisive and in full control of his parry. 

When a centrist makes socialist pledges to his party membership in order to get elected leader, then purges the left-wing elements of said party and seemingly abandons those pledges: "decisive and in full control of his party".

Would people have said the same if Corbyn had expelled the Labour officials who worked to sabotage his campaign during the 2017 election? Somehow I doubt it.

[KiwiScot 1,437]

Starmer can hardly do anything else but continue on his Corbyn stance.

[Herman 9,717]

6 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Starmer can hardly do anything else but continue on his Corbyn stance.

They're unelectable if he lets the hard left hang around. 

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

54 minutes ago, Bort said:

When a centrist makes socialist pledges to his party membership in order to get elected leader, then purges the left-wing elements of said party and seemingly abandons those pledges: "decisive and in full control of his party".

Would people have said the same if Corbyn had expelled the Labour officials who worked to sabotage his campaign during the 2017 election? Somehow I doubt it.

Whatever your grumblings it takes nothing away from the statement that SKS has been decisive and is clearly in full control of his party.

If you don't agree then "there is the door".

The exact opposite of Corbyn it seems.

[canarydan23 4,060]

12 minutes ago, Herman said:

They're unelectable if he lets the hard left hang around. 

They would be unbeatable if he actually had the balls to use some of the proven popular policies of the 2017 and 2019 manifestos. You know, like the ones he stood to be elected leader of the Labour Party on? The ones he was fully in support of until it become more useful not to be? And that was before the cost of living crisis, and Anglian Water sticking their prices up 10% after netting £96.3 million profit, the majority of which will leave the country to fill up Canadian and Australian pension funds.

Starmer is benefiting from the complete meltdown of the Tory Party, nothing more. Being less duplicitous than Johnson, Sunak et al isn't something to laud. He's a typical deceitful and dishonest politician but gets away with it because he's operating in a sphere were others are more so. There are going to be some very disappointed people 12 months after Starmer's election. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

9 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

They would be unbeatable if he actually had the balls to use some of the proven popular policies of the 2017 and 2019 manifestos. You know, like the ones he stood to be elected leader of the Labour Party on? The ones he was fully in support of until it become more useful not to be? And that was before the cost of living crisis, and Anglian Water sticking their prices up 10% after netting £96.3 million profit, the majority of which will leave the country to fill up Canadian and Australian pension funds.

Starmer is benefiting from the complete meltdown of the Tory Party, nothing more. Being less duplicitous than Johnson, Sunak et al isn't something to laud. He's a typical deceitful and dishonest politician but gets away with it because he's operating in a sphere were others are more so. There are going to be some very disappointed people 12 months after Starmer's election. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

I don't agree but as with football you can only beat the opposition in front of you.

Naysayers will ALWAYS claim the opposition are no good or utter s h i t however well you play if you are winning.

If Corbyn was so popular you would of thought he could, nay should, of beaten May in 2017. The Tories were after all in complete disarray and even the God's were conspiring against her at her conference speech (remember the lettering falling down).That was as good as it got for Corbyn and yet he failed.

[Bort 34]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Whatever your grumblings it takes nothing away from the statement that SKS has been decisive and is clearly in full control of his party.

If you don't agree then "there is the door".

The exact opposite of Corbyn it seems.

Decisive in terms of ensuring loyalty within the party, indecisive (or untrustworthy) in terms of policy.

True though, Corbyn should have been less tolerant of people trying to undermine his leadership, even though that would probably have seen him labelled an "authoritarian" (I wonder if anyone will refer to Starmer as such?)

[canarydan23 4,060]

48 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

If Corbyn was so popular

He wasn't popular enough. His policies were. Starmer is a beneficiary of the peculiar notion the electorate have of what is Prime Ministerial (peculiar because someone some completely unfit for the role in Boris Johnson somehow fits that description) but he's either too much of a coward, or to kowtowed by external forces, to stand by the popular policies that got him his stab at Number 10 in the first place.

He'll tweak the Lords and use that as a platform to say "look at what a reformer I am" and use it as a ticket to maintain the status quo that has served him and his family so well. He's eminently disappointing as both a man and a politician. There is a reason he raked in tens of thousands of pounds of donations from people like Peter Coates (betting mogul) and Martin Taylor (hedge fund manager).

If you think he's someone who will bring in the reform this country so desperately needs, when he's bankrolled by people which a massive vested interest in things staying the same, then I have a bridge to sell you. At least with the Tories in charge, they actually try and stand up for their failed policies, with Starmer we'll have the unedifying spectacle of him keeping millionaire-friendly policies whilst standing in front of the cameras saying how much more needs to be done to improve things for millions of people who need radical change. That man is a ****ing weasel.

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

18 minutes ago, Bort said:

Decisive in terms of ensuring loyalty within the party, indecisive (or untrustworthy) in terms of policy.

True though, Corbyn should have been less tolerant of people trying to undermine his leadership, even though that would probably have seen him labelled an "authoritarian" (I wonder if anyone will refer to Starmer as such?)

It always amazes me the 'lefts' appetite for self-destruction. Many of Corbyn's and indeed his Labour parties policies were and indeed remain popular - nationalization of rail for instance but unfortunately it also came with a lot of baggage - his equivocation over Skripal, unable to call a spade a spade, unarmed submarines to name but a few plus of course his inability to deal head on with anti-semitic issues (and no, I don't believe he is anti-semetic). Simply not a leader and certainly not of the country. Just another idealistic protestor.

The truth is Corbyn and his acolytes had managed to seize the larger Labour Party but never had the support of it's elected MPS or it seems its broader range of native support - and indeed those who actually had to face the electorate.

SKS is electable, is 20 plus points ahead of the Tories and will eventually deliver on many of the much needed polices of the left - the NHS, care, education and yes an industrial and energy policy. Perhaps not the polices of the far left but nevertheless left of centre.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Kristallnacht for Starmer. 

[Bort 34]

39 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

SKS will eventually deliver on many of the much needed polices of the left - the NHS, care, education and yes an industrial and energy policy. 

What left-wing policies specifically?

On the NHS, Starmer says it should "effectively use the private sector". Wes Streeting, as shadow health secretary, also says he wants to expand the role of private healthcare in this country, despite one of the main oft-referenced "inefficiencies" of the NHS being the huge amount of money extracted by profit-seeking private contractors.

On education, Starmer's refused to commit to abolishing tuition fees (even though that was one of his promises during the leadership election). He's said he'll scrap charity status for private schools, but that feels like a token gesture which won't actually address the issue of private education effectively helping to create a two-tier society.

Similarly, he's now indicating that he doesn't want to bring rail, energy and water companies into public ownership, despite that being one of his leadership pledges. He's said Labour would set up "Great British Energy" to compete in the market, but I'm not convinced that's anywhere near sufficient if private power generators are allowed to continue making a killing off a basic public need.

He ordered Labour MPs not to join striking workers on picket lines.

Starmer has said we "won't spend our way out of the mess left by the Tories", as "for national renewal, there is no substitute for a robust private sector".

Does any of that sound particularly left-wing to you?

He keeps saying things like "I'm not an ideological person, I'm practical" but that's an incredibly ignorant - or dishonest - thing to say, as everyone makes decisions and forms opinions based on their ideology, and what they think the structure of society should be. He's desperate to come across as Mr Neutral and Sensible, but if that means he's just going to tinker around the edges of the neoliberal status quo, what good is that going to do really? He might not make things actively worse for a few years, but why settle for that?

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

13 minutes ago, Bort said:

What left-wing policies specifically?

On the NHS, Starmer says it should "effectively use the private sector". Wes Streeting, as shadow health secretary, also says he wants to expand the role of private healthcare in this country, despite one of the main oft-referenced "inefficiencies" of the NHS being the huge amount of money extracted by profit-seeking private contractors.

On education, Starmer's refused to commit to abolishing tuition fees (even though that was one of his promises during the leadership election). He's said he'll scrap charity status for private schools, but that feels like a token gesture which won't actually address the issue of private education effectively helping to create a two-tier society.

Similarly, he's now indicating that he doesn't want to bring rail, energy and water companies into public ownership, despite that being one of his leadership pledges. He's said Labour would set up "Great British Energy" to compete in the market, but I'm not convinced that's anywhere near sufficient if private power generators are allowed to continue making a killing off a basic public need.

He ordered Labour MPs not to join striking workers on picket lines.

Starmer has said we "won't spend our way out of the mess left by the Tories", as "for national renewal, there is no substitute for a robust private sector".

Does any of that sound particularly left-wing to you?

He keeps saying things like "I'm not an ideological person, I'm practical" but that's an incredibly ignorant - or dishonest - thing to say, as everyone makes decisions and forms opinions based on their ideology, and what they think the structure of society should be. He's desperate to come across as Mr Neutral and Sensible, but if that means he's just going to tinker around the edges of the neoliberal status quo, what good is that going to do really? He might not make things actively worse for a few years, but why settle for that?

The whole point is having your heart in the right place (and no religious dogma) in doing what is practical within the resources you have available. That actually means taking tough choices. For instance - as to the NHS - what can be done more effectively and cheaper externally I have no objection with. What is however important is that it is (largely) free at the point of use for everybody and not a post code lottery. It is the result that matters not the means.

The alternative if you like ideologies - is doing what Truss did. Follow her blind ideology in defiance of economic reality and then have a pretty good shot at bankrupting the government / country.

What SKS is doing is making sure he has the wiggle room and credibility needed to make the tough choices given the mess and limited borrowing available after the Tories with Brexit have made such a mess of the UK economy. 

I personally would bring all pensioners into the full scope of NI (phase in over 4 years - raises money) and yes look to write down student debt. Is that however more important than the sorting out the care budget or NHS if funds are limited? Perhaps we can do some of all?

And no, I don't blindly support striking workers and nor should any potential government That's called painting yourself into a corner. Some sectors clearly have pay/recruitment issues - others such as the train drivers strike me as overpaid already and yes RMT must accept 1 man operated trains. I don't regard rail simply as a charity case in fact I'm tempted to sack and rehire the lot!

SKS is jus being a grown up unlike many in the current government or indeed those on Corbyn's left.

If you want to join another party  - 'Communist' as you seem to object to SKS comment "for national renewal, there is no substitute for a robust private sector" which is obviously true feel free. It seems to me a far better match for you views.

Meanwhile - the far left attacks on SKS for lack of what might be called ideological purity are just manna from heaven for the likes of the Mail / Express and their readers. Do carry on.

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

and will eventually deliver on many of the much needed polices of the left - the NHS, care, education and yes an industrial and energy policy.

Lol.

Like I said, there are going to be some very disappointed people a year or two into a Starmer premiership.

[Bort 34]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The alternative if you like ideologies - is doing what Truss did. Follow her blind ideology in defiance of economic reality and then have a pretty good shot at bankrupting the government / country.

The alternative ideology is socialism.

Labour describes itself as a democratic socialist party.

Starmer said he based his leadership pledges on "the moral case for socialism".

Expanding the role of the private sector in a society which is already economically developed is antithetical to socialism.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, Bort said:

The alternative ideology is socialism.

Labour describes itself as a democratic socialist party.

Starmer said he based his leadership pledges on "the moral case for socialism".

Expanding the role of the private sector in a society which is already economically developed is antithetical to socialism.

Keir Starmer will say whatever suits Keir Starmer at the given time. The man's an establishment shill. The only time he shows courage is in defence of policemen who kill.

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

Here's another view on why Corbyn had to go -

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/15/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-labour-election-antisemitism

[canarydan23 4,060]

34 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Here's another view on why Corbyn had to go -

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/15/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-labour-election-antisemitism

Weird that you don't hear about antisemitism in the MSM anymore, isn't it? Did it suddenly vanish? Doesn't seem to be something that bothers the mainstream anymore, does it?

Wonder why.

[Herman 9,717]

At this current moment in time Starmer is the biggest chance we have of getting rid of this fascistic government. They are literally destroying this country and I am more than happy to put to one side some of my reservations about his version of Labournthan put up with more years of this awful state of governance.

[Van wink 2,994]

16 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

It always amazes me the 'lefts' appetite for self-destruction. Many of Corbyn's and indeed his Labour parties policies were and indeed remain popular - nationalization of rail for instance but unfortunately it also came with a lot of baggage - his equivocation over Skripal, unable to call a spade a spade, unarmed submarines to name but a few plus of course his inability to deal head on with anti-semitic issues (and no, I don't believe he is anti-semetic). Simply not a leader and certainly not of the country. Just another idealistic protestor.

The truth is Corbyn and his acolytes had managed to seize the larger Labour Party but never had the support of it's elected MPS or it seems its broader range of native support - and indeed those who actually had to face the electorate.

SKS is electable, is 20 plus points ahead of the Tories and will eventually deliver on many of the much needed polices of the left - the NHS, care, education and yes an industrial and energy policy. Perhaps not the polices of the far left but nevertheless left of centre.

I wonder if I will feel the same wave of excitement and hope that I felt when Blair was first elected when SKS gets the keys.

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

I wonder if I will feel the same wave of excitement and hope that I felt when Blair was first elected when SKS gets the keys.

I suspect yes. It will certainly be a turning of the page and fresh reset and (re)start.

Way back in 95 or 96 still with 18 months plus of Major's then rotting government left to run I doubt many would of foreseen the full excitement of Blair's actual victory. A kind of relief rally that the nightmare had ended.

What I suspect SKS needs to do now is not give away any hostages to fortune (no un-costed and easily lampooned polices) but engender the same sort of youthful go getting attitude and exuberance (as a contrast to the stale self-entitled, self-patronizing and ultimately self-aggrandizing Tories pandering only to their ever more elderly base) - a country that helps and believes in its younger generation(s).  

    

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,410]

I just can't shake this nagging doubt that when push comes to shove, the general public can't be trusted to do the right thing and vote this current shower of shoite out. Voter apathy/turnout will play a huge part too.

[sonyc 5,492]

3 hours ago, Van wink said:

I wonder if I will feel the same wave of excitement and hope that I felt when Blair was first elected when SKS gets the keys.

What excites me most - being really honest - is the bigger package of some serious talent in Labour's ranks. I really rate Yvette Cooper. She answers questions with an obvious knowledge of a whole range of issues. She makes Braverman look a fool and lightweight. I'm hopeful under her stewardship that we see huge improvements in our policing and even a building of trust.

Then there's Reeves. No wonder businesses and industry leaders warm to her. Again, she is so 'adult' and like Cooper lacks the awful ego centricity we see in her Tory counterparts. So many of the current administration look like they believe in themselves far too much. I realise I may be projecting these attributes to them. But I doubt I'm the only one who thinks as much. Reeves is a star player.

Bridget Phillipson is another. Fiery, no nonsense kind of woman who quietly but firmly argues for her values.

So whatever I think of the leader (he is fine enough) it's who is in the team that matters as much to me. They will drive a change so needed in Britain of 2023. As others have stated we have been led so appallingly. I would be amazed (still!) why any thinking poster on the Pinkun would ever vote for a Tory in 2024. But of course some still will.

I think if we can be excited if we can believe the polls. A change is so overdue. And if Starmer and team can do what Blair did in his early days then it will be very positive for trust and the health of our country.

Edited February 16, 2023 by sonyc
Actually feel better for writing that!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

18 minutes ago, sonyc said:

What excites me most - being really honest - is the bigger package of some serious talent in Labour's ranks. I really rate Yvette Cooper. She answers questions with an obvious knowledge of a whole range of issues. She makes Braverman look a fool and lightweight. I'm hopeful under her stewardship that we see huge improvements in our policing and even a building of trust.

Then there's Reeves. No wonder businesses and industry leaders warm to her. Again, she is so 'adult' and like Cooper lacks the awful ego centricity we see in her Tory counterparts. So many of the current administration look like they believe in themselves far too much. I realise I may be projecting these attributes to them. But I doubt I'm the only one who thinks as much. Reeves is a star player.

Bridget Phillipson is another. Fiery, no nonsense kind of woman who quietly but firmly argues for her values.

So whatever I think of the leader (he is fine enough) it's who is in the team that matters as much to me. They will drive a change so needed in Britain of 2023. As others have stated we have been led so appallingly. I would be amazed (still!) why any thinking poster on the Pinkun would ever vote for a Tory in 2024. But of course some still will.

I think if we can be excited if we can believe the polls. A change is so overdue. And if Starmer and team can do what Blair did in his early days then it will be very positive for trust and the health of our country.

What Labour really needs is a balance Sonyc. There must be room for radicals and left thinkers as much as those in the centre.

If JC really has done something wrong then take away his membership. But do not try and muffle him within the Party. That is unfair and only makes him a martyr.

[Yellow Fever 3,749]

10 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

What Labour really needs is a balance Sonyc. There must be room for radicals and left thinkers as much as those in the centre.

If JC really has done something wrong then take away his membership. But do not try and muffle him within the Party. That is unfair and only makes him a martyr.

Fully agree KG. There has always to be room for wild thoughts, radical thoughts in any party. The tail however shouldn't be allowed to wag the dog - same as has happened with the ERG in what was the Tory party. 

The problem with JC beyond any quite honest radical views this is that he won't simply accept the independent report on anti-Semitism within the Labour party that SKS has now rooted out. That position makes his future position representing Labour as an MP simply untenable.

[sonyc 5,492]

40 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

What Labour really needs is a balance Sonyc. There must be room for radicals and left thinkers as much as those in the centre.

If JC really has done something wrong then take away his membership. But do not try and muffle him within the Party. That is unfair and only makes him a martyr.

I'm in full agreement KG. And it was the anti semitism issue that I think has been damning. As to his left wing views he clearly galvanised a lot of the youth of the country in his campaign. So he tapped into something very important. Some of his policies were very good too but rather foisted into the electorate realm only just before  the election. It needed longer for the country to know them and reflect. However it would have given the usual right wing outlets more time to rubbish them. I found him infuriating in that I didn't sense a strong leader. Labour became all about factions. And that took away any good messages they ought to have been about. Social justice etc. He stood for progressive values but couldn't lead them. His views were always going to appeal to the right wing press. Too easy a target. I realise a lot of his constituents would vote for him every day. He is not a monster!

But, if we want social change then the first job is to get something that looks electable. (By the way I always wanted Blair to do well in power but I never voted for him over all the years as I felt a few of his policies were insufficiently progressive or left! I thought the Liberals were more radical then. Yet no party probably fits me, Green being the closest).

I was replying to VWs point about a new labour government and it got me thinking about who might be in it. Folk who want better values. I think Starmer has recruited very well on the whole. I was never a fan of McDonald or Abbott. A few others were not credible either. Labour 2023 looks far more credible.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

18 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Fully agree KG. There has always to be room for wild thoughts, radical thoughts in any party. The tail however shouldn't be allowed to wag the dog - same as has happened with the ERG in what was the Tory party. 

The problem with JC beyond any quite honest radical views this is that he won't simply accept the independent report on anti-Semitism within the Labour party that SKS has now rooted out. That position makes his future position representing Labour as an MP simply untenable.

JC was absolutely stupid over anti Semitism (and Brexit but that is another topic). He cannot divorce himself from his hatred of Israel's policies and the need to stop British people being anti Semitic against British Jews. If he just said that he finds it difficult to support British Jews who support Israel's policies then I could understand it even though it would still be a watered down apology.

But to allow so many Momentum members, who were his main grass root supporters, to openly make anti semitic statements while representing the Party is the reason he now finds himself yesterdays man. And to say that he doesn't respect or agree with the EHRC findings then he is denying democracy the same way as he accuses SKS of denying him.

These stupid, stupid people have so much to offer but they cannot accept the grey areas of life. And in the end defeat what they set out to achieve. I think Diane Abbot has a good heart but is so enveloped by the belief that she is not taken seriously because she is black and a woman.

Labour has to be very careful if they want to win back the massive group that turned blue because of Brexit. They have to acknowledge that those voters are not too interested in foreign policy and do not believe the UK is racist and owes the world anything. Important to them is finance and conditions. And whoever puts those policies first will win their support.

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

What excites me most - being really honest - is the bigger package of some serious talent in Labour's ranks. I really rate Yvette Cooper. She answers questions with an obvious knowledge of a whole range of issues. She makes Braverman look a fool and lightweight. I'm hopeful under her stewardship that we see huge improvements in our policing and even a building of trust.

Then there's Reeves. No wonder businesses and industry leaders warm to her. Again, she is so 'adult' and like Cooper lacks the awful ego centricity we see in her Tory counterparts. So many of the current administration look like they believe in themselves far too much. I realise I may be projecting these attributes to them. But I doubt I'm the only one who thinks as much. Reeves is a star player.

Bridget Phillipson is another. Fiery, no nonsense kind of woman who quietly but firmly argues for her values.

So whatever I think of the leader (he is fine enough) it's who is in the team that matters as much to me. They will drive a change so needed in Britain of 2023. As others have stated we have been led so appallingly. I would be amazed (still!) why any thinking poster on the Pinkun would ever vote for a Tory in 2024. But of course some still will.

I think if we can be excited if we can believe the polls. A change is so overdue. And if Starmer and team can do what Blair did in his early days then it will be very positive for trust and the health of our country.

With you all the way, the early years of the Blair government had a real feel of change about them and brought a wave of optimism that I haven't felt since. All long serving governments begin to whiff of rot and decay, Blairs' was no different at the end (but certainly not as stinky as what we have now), but the wave of optimism will be tangible when SKS gets in, the challenge of course is to sustain that for as long as possible.