"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

No it hasn’t. NI is a scapegoat.
The jobs, especially for the young, were being shed anyway due to Brexit and AI.

It’s Labour who stumbled on economics. If you put a jobs tax in place it’ll hammer jobs.

Yes j would totally agree. It was a different world. I have no recollection of the word ‘community’ being used unless a local community. Nowadays we are a nation of parallel lives. This community, that community who superficially are integrated but not really. There were more jobs, people expected to get good salaries if they went to uni, there was a large nightlife, people socialised more. I realised recently that the people who were late teens/early 20s between 1996 and 2001 were the last generation to have it really really good. I wasn’t a massive fan of Tony Blair but when was the last time people were that pumped about the future and what the government would do?

Not suprised it didn’t work even though it is the truth. People generally don’t understand economics and think it’s like flipping a switch to undo damage. So they will be turkeys voting for Christmas if they vote Tory or Reform.

The NI policy has been terrible for jobs, especially for young people.

Why is the economy getting worse under Labour?

Two years is the blink of an eye.
Reeves didn’t kill growth, she stopped the haemorrhage.
The borrowing costs are on the debt that the Tories put us in with the furloughs during lockdown that kept middle class families sitting at home on £2,500/mo per worker. Because UC was not enough for them. While most key workers still had to go to work full time and live on less.

Starmer has already tried this line for two years. It didn’t work.

It’s the truth. Over a decade of austerity & handouts to rich chums for fake contracts followed by Brexit and Truss’ unfunded mini budget. All on the Tories.

You cannot reverse that much long term damage in 10 years!

The Tory architects of Brexit even bragged that the economic damage of Brexit would last 50 years before we saw their famous uplands and prosperity.

Labour need to stop blaming everyone else. It didn’t work for Starmer either.

They are responsible for the economy being in its current state.

Why? I think its been a problem for years for politicians of our Gen X generation. If youre brought up in the 90s the world was a very different place. End of the Cold War. Things were hopeful. The USSR was defeated. We could travel nearly everywhere as we weren't enemies any more. No need to worry about defence.

I think it explains the immigration issue too. Because people were relaxed in the 90s overall (obviously not perfect). But we weren't taught that people were defined mainly by the colour of their skin. We were taught it was a person's character that was important. If you're Gen X the 90s taught you to relax about it and not worry about immigration. And we should be tolerant of everything. Live and let live. Obviously the trouble is we had a massive influx of people that haven't assimilated and the country has now changed. But the Gen X attitudes in government haven't caught up to reality.

Just my opinion.

Some of AB's closest associates, Haigh and Midgley, were working on the PLP for over a year to garner support for AB. That is why they have been rewarded with the key positions they have. They are not going to upset the PLP this early.

Youre stating the obvious. But if a government is so paralysed by its PLP that it is unable to take the necessary decisions to keep all of us safe then the country will be ruined. By Labour's inability to make decisions in the national interest rather than for ideological reasons. I don't know what happens then if we are attacked. And Labour bleat " but the housing allowance..!!".

I'm not going to defend this government's spending choices, but this post is just made up stuff.

Oh yes maybe he is not a Rachel Reeves? Did you show so much indignation then?

I am not saying they can't do it themselves. And in fact, my point really isn't party political at all - I think whoever is in government, they should be working cross party to agree long term defence funding, in the national interest. Lots of other countries do this much better than we do: places like Sweden, Norway, and Finland keep national security separate from electoral cycles. They agree defence spending through multi-party commissions and legally binding long-term plans: that's how Norway's parliament secured unanimous cross-party backing for a locked-in funding framework extending to 2036. I personally would like to see much more of that kind of ambitious consensus building in British politics.

They want a labour government, obviously

This conversation is just silly. Politics is politics.

The opinion polls tell you what people feel now. Yes support for Labour is reduced. Burnham himself has a positive approval rating at present.

It doesn't matter why they won the majority - they won it. That's the system.

Well they won't because the PLP want welfare not defence. Obviously.

The trouble is AB (as we all know) is stuck in the past. He's still living in Fukuyama's world where history ended. No need to build up your military. The peace dividend can still be spent on welfare. No one will attack us or NATO. The US is a reliable ally that will always come to our aid. Open our doors to the world because everyone has the right to a good life in the UK. Gen X attitude. The world does not contain danger for us. Everything will turn out fine if we just chill.

You think the Labour party will vote no confidence in their own government? Why would you think this would happen?

I have already said this. AB and JH have not said that they will answer this specific question - the 3% on Defence - in the Budget. They continue to deflect and AB says that's why he appointed JH. And JH says that it's because of AB that he resigned over it (I made up that bit).

Won a majority by default. People voted to keep the Tories out. Not to get Labour in. Many are now regretting their short sightedness I suspect.