Election prediction time

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj50qjy9g7ro

 

Interesting counterpoint to the hypothesis that social media can be critical come election time.

[David Hankey]

7 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Discredited?  Much as I didn’t like her much in her Home Secretary days, I do think having experience alongside the secretaries of state is a great idea.  Imo Jacqui was unfairly treated during the expenses scandal.  Under the rules as they were she was entitled to a second home, and no doubt it cost the taxpayer less than setting up a home in London.

Nothing to do with allowing pornographic films entered on her parliamentary expenses and commentators stating she was "completely out of her depth" and "unsuitable" as Home Secretary".

 

Considering Starmer now has over 400 MPs at his disposal his decision to rely on a former discredited politicians must come into question.

[Zear0]

Just now, David Hankey said:

Nothing to do with allowing pornographic films entered on her parliamentary expenses and commentators stating she was "completely out of her depth" and "unsuitable" as Home Secretary".

 

Considering Starmer now has over 400 MPs at his disposal his decision to rely on a former discredited politicians must come into question.

Unlike appointing Cameron as foreign secretary when the conservatives had 300+ MPs? 

[David Hankey]

9 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Unlike appointing Cameron as foreign secretary when the conservatives had 300+ MPs? 

I agree, all unsavoury.

[Daggers]

8 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Discredited?  Much as I didn’t like her much in her Home Secretary days, I do think having experience alongside the secretaries of state is a great idea.  Imo Jacqui was unfairly treated during the expenses scandal.  Under the rules as they were she was entitled to a second home, and no doubt it cost the taxpayer less than setting up a home in London.

The remaining stalwart Reform/Tory voters on the forum struggle with comprehension and processing evidence tbh, so good luck with that argument. He’ll be saying it was her fault her husband liked a bit of porn next. So keen for a simple gotcha, they can’t think for themselves beyond a Wiki quote. 

[Greg2607]

Whether you wanted or didn't want a Labour government, you have to say that the early days of this government have been exceptionally well orchestrated.   

 

I like the fact that there are experts being employed in posts where they are likely to be able to have an impact (and it shows the government doesn't claim to be an all knowing expert in everything).  It definitely speaks to the fact that they will be looking to reform lots of areas as they want people with knowledge to help them do that. 

 

They've hit the ground running and have a well planned out set of events.  Getting round the various nations and then meeting with metropolitan mayors to set an agenda. I like the fact that "mission boards" have been set up which starmer will personally chair. 

 

I also liked Starmers first press conference where he spoke about working on behalf of everyone in this country, whether they voted for labour or not. That type of language and rhetoric will hopefully bring the country together a little in terms of a collective vision. 

 

Little touches like having union jacks as well as scottish and welsh flags during the PM's first speech and the flying of the St Georges Cross for England's game on Saturday.  It does show that these people can really plan. 

 

For a party that allegedly had no plan... they seem to have an exceptionally well executed plan. 

[urban.spaceman]

The Tories have deleted their Twitter account resulting in this. 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

 

[foxes1988]

Don't agree with everything but have to say I'm mightily impressed with the new government so far. 

 

That may just be because the incumbents were so bad anything remotely competent that followed was going to look amazing. 

[Greg2607]

14 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

Don't agree with everything but have to say I'm mightily impressed with the new government so far. 

 

That may just be because the incumbents were so bad anything remotely competent that followed was going to look amazing. 

you are probably right on the latter point... i think we've all forgotten how a seemingly well oiled machine operates. 

 

Let's not forget that Starmer has experience of running large organisations before, so i suspect we are seeing an element of his managerial capability in all of this. 

 

maybe that's the difference between Career Politicians and people who have previously had success in a career being in charge.... 

 

as you say, time will tell if they are able to deliver what they say and I genuinely do appreciate that not everybody will agree with what they do..... 

[urban.spaceman]

 

[ajthefox]

1 hour ago, Greg2607 said:

you are probably right on the latter point... i think we've all forgotten how a seemingly well oiled machine operates. 

 

Let's not forget that Starmer has experience of running large organisations before, so i suspect we are seeing an element of his managerial capability in all of this. 

 

maybe that's the difference between Career Politicians and people who have previously had success in a career being in charge.... 

 

as you say, time will tell if they are able to deliver what they say and I genuinely do appreciate that not everybody will agree with what they do..... 

Probably helps that they will have been fairly confident of a win and as such we're probably able to put more resource into planning. 

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, ajthefox said:

Probably helps that they will have been fairly confident of a win and as such we're probably able to put more resource into planning. 

Yeah this is definitely a factor. They have obviously been planning out the first few weeks and months

[Izzy]

Listening to all these recent cabinet member speeches just hammers home how much work there is to do. Wtf were the previous lot doing?

 

Really impressed with Starmers collaborative approach so far but my concern is they'll all sit down in a few weeks and realise everything they want to do is going to cost a fortune.

 

They'll have to find a way of raising billions without taxing joe public.

[Greg2607]

3 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Listening to all these recent cabinet member speeches just hammers home how much work there is to do. Wtf were the previous lot doing?

 

Really impressed with Starmers collaborative approach so far but my concern is they'll all sit down in a few weeks and realise everything they want to do is going to cost a fortune.

 

They'll have to find a way of raising billions without taxing joe public.

which is why I think they are also looking a private investment..... as an example... I suspect Octopus Energy will be a forerunner in driving onshore wind... Greg Jackson was fairly visible post election.   

 

Labour have been planning for at least 6 months around all of this stuff, so it wouldn't surprise me if they have private sector partners lined up to drive some of the investment around things like infrastructure.  

 

whether that is the right or wrong approach (Hospital PFI springs to mind) remains to be seen.... but it's clear we can't afford to do it all off of the back of pure Government spending.... 

[David Hankey]

32 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Listening to all these recent cabinet member speeches just hammers home how much work there is to do. Wtf were the previous lot doing?

 

Really impressed with Starmers collaborative approach so far but my concern is they'll all sit down in a few weeks and realise everything they want to do is going to cost a fortune.

 

They'll have to find a way of raising billions without taxing joe public.

Ah, the magic of the money trees. I'm afraid taxing 'Joe Public' is inevitable.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Ah, the magic of the money trees. I'm afraid taxing 'Joe Public' is inevitable.

I guess it comes down to whether you want a functioning society in the long term, or not. If you do, a robustly functional tax system is essential - I wish people were more inclined to help others and to build a society out of the goodness of their hearts, but historical evidence is rather clear there.

 

Speaking personally, I'd be happy to have a government that actually looks beyond their own voter base and the next five years. I guess we'll see if that's the case here.

[David Hankey]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I guess it comes down to whether you want a functioning society in the long term, or not. If you do, a robustly functional tax system is essential - I wish people were more inclined to help others and to build a society out of the goodness of their hearts, but historical evidence is rather clear there.

 

Speaking personally, I'd be happy to have a government that actually looks beyond their own voter base and the next five years. I guess we'll see if that's the case here.

All sounds very nice but what do you mean by a "robustly functional tax system"?

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

All sounds very nice but what do you mean by a "robustly functional tax system"?

Well, for a start, one that perhaps, just perhaps, has a higher band for the highest (let's say seven figure gross) earners.

 

Of course, actually directing that tax income towards where it is needed rather than into already deep pockets involved in public projects is another problem, one that really does need addressing too.

 

NB. It would just be nice to see a massive scale long term public infrastructure project that ends up like the Korean KTX network and not like the British HS2.

Edited 8 July by leicsmac

[Super_horns]

Too many people in prison?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/08/a-shoe-fixing-key-cutting-radical-why-labours-new-prisons-minister-is-perfect-for-the-job

 

Guess they will let those out who are in for petty crimes.

[FoxesDeb]

3 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Too many people in prison?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/08/a-shoe-fixing-key-cutting-radical-why-labours-new-prisons-minister-is-perfect-for-the-job

 

Guess they will let those out who are in for petty crimes.

There are definitely too many people in prison who shouldn't be there. There are people there because of petty crimes which don't warrant a custodial sentence, people whose lives are sadly better in prison than they would be on the outside so they go out of their way to remain there, and people who unfortunately know no other life than that of crime.

 

We need to fix the reasons on the outside which lead to some of these numbers, and make the lives of those who do need to be there more productive, and prepare those who will eventually be released for life outside. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

There are definitely too many people in prison who shouldn't be there. There are people there because of petty crimes which don't warrant a custodial sentence, people whose lives are sadly better in prison than they would be on the outside so they go out of their way to remain there, and people who unfortunately know no other life than that of crime.

 

We need to fix the reasons on the outside which lead to some of these numbers, and make the lives of those who do need to be there more productive, and prepare those who will eventually be released for life outside. 

Nah, why do that?

 

Society has zero effect on people's choices and if you end up in jail it's entirely your own fault and no one else's. Build more, no need for prevention or rehabilitation.

 

.... right?

[ajthefox]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

Listening to all these recent cabinet member speeches just hammers home how much work there is to do. Wtf were the previous lot doing?

 

Really impressed with Starmers collaborative approach so far but my concern is they'll all sit down in a few weeks and realise everything they want to do is going to cost a fortune.

 

They'll have to find a way of raising billions without taxing joe public.

 

1 hour ago, David Hankey said:

Ah, the magic of the money trees. I'm afraid taxing 'Joe Public' is inevitable.

I must admit I'm struggling to see Labour not raising taxes for the majority of us somehow.

What I'm not sure about is whether it comes quickly after they've done their due diligence and established how bad the public finances are and the public line is (rightly) blame the Tories, or whether or it's later down the line and far enough away from the election that they argue it's not breaking a promise is the question.

[CosbehFox]

Labour been working in the background with industry. You only have to note that there was nil market reaction when the election was announced, when the polls kept coming and when the election was won. 
 

The guarantee that you aren’t going to have someone completely flip the interest rates on their head and follow after some cult financial think tanking gives business confidence that they can project their short to medium term futures. 

[SpacedX]

I'm very intrigued to see what their policy will be in respect of international student visas and the graduate visa extension.

 

It will also be interesting to see if Stamp Duty will return to its original rate in March 2025.