Labour is betraying women

Gosh, you've made my day, Nauticant. Thank you.

Labour still have choices to make public sector pay v WFA

It's the former that has increased public debt to highest since 1960s

If they cannot grow the economy as they pledged repeatedly then we will sink under growing debt.

They won't even be able to uplift defence spending

Your posting on this Pluvia gives me the first plausible explanation of why Labour would do something so negative to the public at large for what is, relatively, a small financial return.

A lot us warned that, while the Tories were inept, Labour didn't seem to have any idea what to do either and just kept quiet so their own ineptitude wouldn't be revealed, apart of course from their amazing idea of pretending men could be women and all the consequences that are flowing from it.

I don't think it's ineptitude. The whole of Europe except for Norway (tiny population, massive income from oil) is struggling. Germany's in decline. France is a basket case. In terms of finances, trade, income, the world has changed massively in the last 20 years. Some of it's to do with world politics and trade — China opening up etc. Some of it seems to be due to the fact that no one can realistically expect economies to keep growing and growing, fuelled by rampant consumerism, ever-expanding healthcare opportunities and costs and so on.

I've been surprised by how badly they've managed the optics so far.

Yes, the optics from your angle. But there may be other and, dare I say it, more important angles.

For the first time for 60 years the UK national debt has risen to 100% of UK GDP. By cutting the winter fuel allowance Labour sent a message to the financial markets that it was prepared to take hard decisions. I'm hoping that when they gamed that move, they also made provision for a financial remedy for the poorest pensioners and that Reeves will soon be able to offer it.

And before the election, so many of us said that this was the danger - there was nothing significant they could do economically, so for a party and Prime Minister desperate to make a mark, destroying women's rights - or supporting trans rights, as they see it - was a very attractive and cheap option and would be pursued for that reason alone. And it's looking that way.

I agree. A lot us warned that, while the Tories were inept, Labour didn't seem to have any idea what to do either and just kept quiet so their own ineptitude wouldn't be revealed, apart of course from their amazing idea of pretending men could be women and all the consequences that are flowing from it.

Sadly we now just have to suck it up.

And before the election, so many of us said that this was the danger - there was nothing significant they could do economically, so for a party and Prime Minister desperate to make a mark, destroying women's rights - or supporting trans rights, as they see it - was a very attractive and cheap option and would be pursued for that reason alone. And it's looking that way.

I've been surprised by how badly they've managed the optics so far.

Corruption and cruelty aren't generally 'on brand' for Labour, but that's what the freebies and the winter fuel payment has looked like.

I'll be interested to see how they present this light at the end of the tunnel/house on the hill.

They still need to make decent decisions, which not everyone thinks they are doing, Labour delegates aside.

Plus Labour are not facing a pandemic or an external event that would really test them. Inflation is low too.

I have less sympathy, as the Labour party has had more than ten years to prepare for office. They ought to have been able to formulate some ideas by now.

One of the fundamental issues with modern politics is that most politicians don't really have much ambition to make the world a better (or at least different) place, and approach the country in the manner of middle managers who are minding the shop whilst the boss is away. Not only do they not believe that they have any ability to change anything meaningful, they don't even believe that they ought to. So policy ends up being about a few pence of income tax in the pound, or slight adjustments to the school curriculum, or the naming of public transport systems. And whilst I agree that there is more pressure to cede authority to international bodies, this effectively represents a significant domestic political failure and weakness.

Back in 1815 the Congress of Vienna created what the great powers of Europe believed to be a stable and effective world order. It lasted for a century of apparent stability which masked an increasingly dysfunctional Europe in which failing states like Turkey and Austria-Hungary were propped up. The first era of globalisation ended in 1914, and it didn't end well. It would be good if the politicians of the modern world were not keen on a replay...

I know a couple of Labour delegates who went to the conference this weekend with very sceptical views about what their own party was offering. They have both returned home more positive about the prospect for some positive change.

A lot of what @TempestTost rings true to me. Everything is now so linked globally that there's a limit to what individual governments can do. The American mortgage crisis nearly bankrupted most of the world back in 2008. I think it's quite likely that Rachel Reeves' decision to abolish the winter fuel allowance was more to do with sending a quick, strong message to the financial world that Labour was prepared to take serious measures to establish fiscal control. That one announcement encouraged lenders to trust that Labour is prepared to make difficult decisions and behave responsibly. Reeves calculated that the pain the fuel allowance cut would cost would be just enough to send the right message globally.

It's no surprise about the money, I said as much pre GE when everyone kept going on about filling coffers with VAT, non dom and Rwanda (all pretty bad choices by Labour anway)

They are still to blame for their messaging to get into power and for their wrong footedness after it

They're mucking it up, and many are not sure they know what they are actually doing which isn't good.

It may sound surprising coming from me, but I have some sympathy for Labour, they have found themselves in a position I think where there is basically no money to do anything.

Creative thinking can only get you so far if there is nothing to work with.

It seems to me like this is increasingly a feature of politics. It's been really exacerbated because of the COVID created worldwide economic screw-up. (Which seems to have been driven by the media as much as anyone - this is an area some really shit-hot investigative journalists need to look at very carefully.) But it's been decades since any new government has really been in a position to make significant changes to the economic set up of a nation, and therefore the social arrangements. It's like everything is locked in and all they can do is tinker.

My gut feeling is this is a result of more and more globalization and international financial integration. How can any country get off that train when so much is out of their control? And there is strong pressure to increase financial and regulatory integration and give up more and more autonomy to international bodies which will only make it worse.

I don't see how we as voters can even expect our governments to do anything seriously differernt or effective. It may be part of the reason social issues have become so important in elections, there isn't much else to differentiate policy.

All while wearing freebies, going to Taylor Swift concerts, the footy and NYC holidays

'Broad shoulders' and 'pain' for everyone else

Shoddy

So bad

Oh but they were happily wittering at the conference yesterday that they were talking to frightened and distressed pensioners and explaining something about the pension lock and most of the pensioners then were all happy and accepting of losing the fuel payment. And there were some that weren't and wouldn't be ok but....er..... something or other. (Big smile.)

Just fuck this lot.

Current state pension if born before 5 April 1953: £8,814.00

This is a risible amount. Not to mention that older pensioners (in their 80’s) are less likely to have paid into a private pension. I wonder how many pensioners live off the state pension alone? It doesn’t seem financially possible. And at what point do pension credits kick in?

Do your figures include housing benefit?

Cracking down on people who've been overpaid is the wrong way to solve overpayment for one. For another, handing more investigative powers to public bodies after all we've seen and are seeing with the post office just seems like another avoidable scandal in the making. Begs the question - why?

Labour are still trying to sell in 'pain' nowhere near sunlit uplands. Apart from some Labour loyals many think that's pretty dishonest and clueless. Hence the large drop in polls

Speaking of heroic individuals, I've been wondering when the NS is going to stop with this gushing over Starmer? It's getting a bit embarrassing. The following week it was Reeves in a suit of armour as the Iron Chancellor, I'll spare you that one. Gives me a few chuckles, though.

Almost too true to be laughable. Just really shows up their lack of experience. Racheal reeves gets on my nerves with all those grandstanding ‘I’ statements. Running a country depends on ‘we’, not one single heroic individual. As if she’s already campaigning to be PM fgs. Please, for the love of hod, no more mention of the £22bn black hole.

Yes I was quite surprised to see this from John Curtice. I recall quite a few pro Labour citing his polls pre GE

He doesn't hold back on Starmer