Labour isn't Working - Thread 33

[Nuthatch26]

A chat thread for those who don't like this Labour government. 💙

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5528337-labour-isnt-working-thread-32?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

That is one cheeky - but effective - article!

It is interesting that Starmer’s speechwriters and advisors can only come up with strings of dull clichés and politico-speak, but Badenoch’s can actually write for an audience.

😂😂😂

And I should have said thank you to you, Nuthatch, for the share token - and many others. 🙏

Starmer is finished politically.

How do I know ? Because the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. No one is currently talking about Starmer. People are talking about Blair, Burham, Rayner. New policy. The right. The greens. But not Starmer.

Why ? Because they don't want to look like idiots for supporting him when he gets the chop. Most of the members are looking swivel eyed at each other trying to figure out who the next person is to support, which is probably going to take a month at least to find out. In the meantime dissing the other parties is the only option without making yourself look a right fool when he finally gets the chop. This is the same in the parliamentary party too. No one wants to nail their colours hard to the Starmer mast.

This sort of "dead zone" where everyone is trying to figure out who to support isn't unusual in politics. But in say the Tory party the whole process is done and dusted in a couple of weeks. This time for Labour we have a huge hiatus while the party tries to sort out who is going to be the next leader because apparently the best person for the job isn't in the PLP.

The dragging on is somewhat tedious and I'm pretty sure everyone would prefer it to be over more quickly so they can move on.

Yes, you are right, he's just treading water and there aren't many people willing to defend his record. The silence is deafening.

That Jonathan Pie had a funny sketch about the ruthless efficiency of Tory leadership changes and Labour wielding the knife 'like the dildo you just found in your Grandma's top drawer..."Oh God, well I don't know what to do with it"...

I'm ruining it. It's here...

Oh I agree he’s a zombie Prime Minister.

But decency should have compelled his resignation by now or the party moved against him so decisively that he had to resign. I realise that Labour doesn’t actually have an internal no confidence mechanism, but it would happen if the party en masse just stopped working for a Labour PM.

Starmer’s survived both of those situations and faced down Streeting’s threatened leadership challenge.

Given what’s already come out about the Mandelson fiasco, that is both surprising and disturbing. I just think he’s so damaged, yet standing, that it’s hard to see what could bring him down before Burnham does.

I think there is an argument that they want the very best person for the job they can get. So maybe it is about more than decency, it's about hanging on until that option becomes available.

I think the biggest problem they will have is policy change. If TB is right and it is all about policy and not the leader, then the only route to success is major policy change, maybe well outside the manifesto.

There will be a lot of pressure for them to go to the country on the back of that if radical policy change is enacted.

People will probably argue that the Tories did not do similar with Truss and Sunak, but Truss probably would have gone to the polls in short order if her policies had been well received and Sunak IIRC was very much behind the 2019 manifesto when he took over (whether he actually did deliver this is another argument).

Implausible as it may be, the best hope for Starmer now is if it transpires that he had an affair with a No.10 intern/secretary, as then nobody will ever remember any of his policy/vetting fuck ups…

Nobody ever talks about Bill Clinton's policies.

Edit: Hopefully Sturgeon previously gifted Starmer a Montblanc pen….

In terms of work....

I am correct in saying that my situation is hugely out of date right? So I'm 50. When I was the relevant age, I would say that your work experience aged 19 to 25 was absolutely fundamental to your future career. I'm not saying everybody was like that. But whatever my class cohort is considered to be, it was considered to be hugely important. If you weren't working in some kind of job during time time at university, it would only be because you were doing something like medicine where you really didn't have the time and you were expecting a big salary later.

This is what I mean about extended adolescence. It looks like a problem 30 years ago and it seemed pretty obvious that politicians wanted everybody at university as a way of getting unemployment statistics down back then. It honestly wasn't something I thought was going to last.

You can't think too much about the past though because today I was wondering if I should've listened to my teachers and gone into the Oxbridge group. I rejected the idea because I didn't think I would survive it. I mean literally.

meh, shoulda woulda coulda. It's easy to have mad ideas about what you should've done more than 30 years ago I guess. 😂

There aren't the jobs there used to be for students / youngsters, so I think it's quite simplistic to look at it from a Gen X point of view.

I worked from 12 (paper round), then in shops from 14. I went to uni at 18, but dropped out and went back at 20, graduating at 23. I worked mainly in the summer (factories / offices / parking and collecting new and second hand cars), but not as much in term time.

I temped in offices a bit and my graduate job started 15 months after I graduated (got dicked about with a start date).

I then worked for 4 years and then went to law school, but had to then work my way up the greasy pole before finally qualifying just before I turned 40. I had two mat leaves during my training contract.

So, even as a Gen X, I think your description of how it used to work is a teeny bit simplistic.

The problem is the lack of jobs for youngsters to do, or that people will take them on for. I got office temp jobs easily as a student, which I bet doesn't happen now.

Sending all the kids to uni (or even 50% of them) is a stupid idea. We need more vocational training from age 16. That's the way I'll encourage my kids to go. Oxbridge isn't needed, IMO. We shouldn't encourage kids into masses of debt if there are other ways to get where they want. Especially if they fancy a non-vocational degree.

Totally agree about vocational training over higher education. If a career needs a degree - like medicine, scientific research and development, or maybe some engineering specialties - then fine, of course. But there won’t be jobs for all the history, English, social science, foreign language etc etc grads. The student debt will be pointless and crushing.

We’ll need people who can work with their hands or have other practical or intellectual skills of a sort (say coding or accountancy) that can be taught vocationally.

The route to this new job market will be painful for many, I accept, but when we get there I am actually quite hopeful that it and the world more generally will be better than what we have now.

It feels like chalk and cheese between my experience and my kid's experience of going to uni and entering the workforce.

I didn't work much at all while at uni (home student/no fees/ had a grant/ looking after much younger siblings) and I still picked up a temp job within a day of getting a train into London which allowed me to fund a proper job search and, after that, I saved up to do post-grad studies. It was all ridiculously easy and I was a very arrogant relaxed about it all.

But my kids feel a pressure to have a CV in mind with many of their choices. They have both worked with dh in their holidays since they were 16 yo, they signed up to a college an hour away to get the best grades, took on more A-Levels than required, ds1 has taken a degree with a year in industry and I expect ds2 will do the same.

Admittedly, I have all the ambition of a cat resting in a sunbeam - so the difference is marked by personality rather than just generation. But they are not outliers among their own peers and I'm not convinced I was amongst my own.

The reason I'm asking is I'm assuming I'm totally out of date

But the young boyfriend I had 😳 he worked from 16, and I do chat to people around here who are working at that kind of age. (This is a very local community based area, so you end up chatting to lots of people)

It's mostly to put themselves through education but they are aware that it's all useful in terms of getting a job after.

I was also very pleased that one of my former friends, her son ditched the idea of going to university and managed to get an accountancy apprenticeship instead. He just thought the debt was a complete waste of time and money and I agree.

But looking at those figures and the 1 and 26 thing, I was wondering what kind of applicants they get. Because I'm seeing lots of great and personable people in that age group. I realise they got the job that means I'm chatting with them, so by default they were a good candidate.

@Upstartled "Admittedly, I have all the ambition of a cat resting in a sunbeam"

this made me laugh. And what a charming image. 😍😙 it's kind of me
in recent years, but I've struggle to shake off the "need more money" and "need greater sense of achievement" thing.

my confidence is on the floor at the moment and that also links into lack of achievement. Not really an issue for a political thread of course.

After 32000+ posts there's plenty of room for real life on the politics thread @SapphireCasino. Unfortunately, I just don't have any useful advice offer but I didn't want your post hanging there like it had been ignored.

@Upstartled that's very sweet

I was just thinking aloud, really

I've got the last episode of the Diplomat to watch this evening, but I don't think the flat is going to cool down enough. Probably have to run the Aircon until bedtime. I'm impressed so far. I just really hope we don't go down the boring rabbit hole of Kate's private life.

This Z-list Labour Parliament is everything that’s wrong with British politics

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/632da01f05c2c0dc

Kemi in The Telegraph today, speaking more sense about growth through business and the importance of business since in governance. And the distinct lack of it in the Labour Party.

Love this, thanks. So nice to hear optimism and a sleeves-up attitude.

You should stand @Upstartled. I'd vote for you.

How did you get on with The Diplomat? I have watched series 3, but now can't remember what happened. 😂
I remember not liking it as much as the other series though.

Streeting now thinks that increasing employer NICs and not issuing oil and gas drilling licenses was a bad idea! Yeh, no shit Sherlock.
Desperate for a job in Burnham's cabinet.

www.thetimes.com/article/f8d234a5-831e-446f-a2d0-f881e63fecbf?shareToken=34fb3189995e6e510d19c61bc961f664

What a surprise. After many said the same. What a waste of nearly half their term on such bad policies.

Entirely foreseeable too.

Yep. Pat McF forced to defend the NI policy this morning. One of the few they haven't u-turned on, yet so damaging to the economy. Meanwhile, youth unemployment running at over 16% - highest for 11 years.

Nearly as many bare bums as Rivals 🤣

Oh man, I couldn't think of anything worse @Nuthatch26. All that cheap booze and being easily provoked into a slanging match, probably a terrible combination 😂😂😂

I quite liked the diplomat but, I agree, I do think it tailed off in the last series. I really liked all Kate's clothes, that's probably what kept me going in the end.

I was shocked to see that the rate of rape has doubled since 2015. We are hearing a lot about Afghan men…but are there any hard statistics showing that the rape spike is due to migrants? Are statistics gathered about the race and ethnicity of rapists?

Pat McFadden and Steve Reed are surely the only ones left batting for bollard. The rest have fled or hedging their bets on getting a good job with the next lot.