To wonder what could Starmer do, to turn things around?

[B0xes]

He was elected on fewer votes than Corbyn with very lukewarm support, the Tories lost that election, Labour did not sweep in on a tide of public approval, they just benefitted from peoples anger at the Conservatives. Since then, Starmers approval rating has tanked. He seems to have gone from one ill judged move to the next and seems totally tone deaf in speeches. Can he turn it around? What would he need to do?

I have some sympathy for this one though (even though keeping the union is better for us in many ways, including for the economy):

• have a vote on removing Scotland from the UK (a vote for Welsh, English and Northern Irish citizens, not Scottish ones)

In the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum, some Scots were strongly opposed to the idea that the rest of the UK should have any say in the matter. One wrote, “if a husband wants to leave his wife, she doesn’t get a say”.

It became obvious that some of them had never considered the idea that the wife might want to leave the husband, rather than wait and hope that he would choose to leave!

They might have had a shock if the rest of the UK had had the chance to vote. The final result might have been that Scotland narrowly chose to remain in the union, while the rest of the UK voted to sever ties with Scotland.

Labour have almost no levers to pull, thats the reality, we ve no headroom to tax more or borrow more, anything they do brings howls of protest... on top of that, the NI cuts Hunt "gave us" cost the Govt £10billion extra each year.

They also have to deal with increases in gas prices, which when passed on to consumers, leads to less consumer confidence.

Starmer said things would get worse, he was roundly criticised for that too, destroying the argument that we want Govt's to tell the truth.

Tbh i think the Tories must be quite relived they are not in Govt.

The actual truth is that 18 LAs (including many Tory run LAs) have asked the government to allow them to postpone local elections.

ETA: Tory-led councils that have publicly announced they are seeking an election delay are Surrey, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Warwickshire, Hampshire, East Sussex, West Sussex, Devon, Leicestershire, Gloucestershire, Kent and Worcestershire.

Yes they had a fairly wide ranging manifesto with a lot of policies that sounded sensible at a very high level but with absolutely no detail.

I can't remember the exact wording but something along the lines of "we aim to make the NHS better and more efficient " which of course sounds great but exactly how are you going to do this?

However the biggest issue for me was that it was under funded by £150 billion which as Liz Truss found out and Rachel Reeves is finding out is simply not going to work with the current level of debt.

Nothing to see here! No gerrymandering going on at all.

Gerrymandering? You mean Tory-led councils bottling it.🤣

Yes I mean gerrymandering. Did you look up the meaning when you checked your spelling? Very convenient for both parties don't you think?

.

Can't be bothered arguing.

Whats the point in holding elections for councils that may not exist in their current form?
Surely better to have the election once the new councils are formed?

To call it "Gerrymandering" i assume you ve actually evidence?

Oh agreed, just the only part i remembered them talking about was taking the 'woke' out of schools. I knew they hadn't funded it either - just makes it even more ridiculous that so many people would vote for policies that cannot be enacted.

Drop the austerity approach and start spending.

Realise that when the Conservatives claimed we needed austerity in 2010 it was untrue and spinning the exact same line makes Labour look like the Tories.

Drop the austerity approach and start spending.

It looks like the opposite is incoming due to high borrowing costs and being maxed out already

Maybe Reeves will steal Badenoch's idea of means-testing the state pension.

Although given the horror being expressed amongst even the Tories, maybe not.

www.ftadviser.com/state-pension/2025/1/17/kemi-badenoch-says-tories-would-look-to-means-test-triple-lock-/

It looks like the opposite is incoming due to high borrowing costs and being maxed out already

We ve got the Tories to thank for that, 65% debt to GDP when they came in 2010, not its nr 100%.

& once again the Tories for borrowing costs, 1.8% pre, 4.5% after she wrecked the economy.... even after Hunt, they've been around 4.0% to 4.5% for much of his tenure.

Now 4.6% and falling.

But with respect, that's exactly what Labour said too, i.e. "we'll fix the NHS" but now they've had to set up dozens of quangos/reviews that are going to take a few years to actually come up with policies to do it!

Not a problem IF they set the means testing at a high level, say £50k or £100k income (like what was done for child benefit and free childcare). That would mean the vast majority of pensioners wouldn't be affected and only the richest of pensioners would see the impact.

Of course, that's what Labour should have done with the winter fuel allowance, rather than set the cut off at the ridiculously low threshold for pension credit. We'd not have seen anywhere near the howls of protest if the WFA was only removed from, say, higher rate taxpayers!

The specific review into the NHS reports in 3 months time, not years & the one into Social care is being bought forward and will have interim reports which will be acted upon.

Can you name a dozen reviews? or did you just make that up?

But the point here is "what were the Tories doing to the NHS for the last 14 years that reviews are even required?"

2000 babies die needlessly in the UK due to sub standard maternity care... that takes some doing....

I think he's doing alright. They've got 15 years of Tory mess to clear up. As pp have said - Brexit is a problem not of their making

Why should anyone, regardless of wealth, who has paid in NI, bear in mind, the wealthy have paid more tax and NI in the first place, not receive a pension???

I agree with your second paragraph.

The flat rate State Pension has only recently been introduced. Means testing it would be really expensive. Plus do you means test everyone who is already in receipt of SP, or introduce it from a future date? Either option would be unfair.

It would all be wildly unpopular and make the controversy around the WFA decision like a storm in a teacup.

Badenoch will backtrack. Although she does say she never makes gaffes...

Because that's not how tax and benefits work. Taxes are paid on various criteria such as income, house value, spending etc. so someone earning more, spending more or saving more will by definition be paying more tax. Benefits are the safety net for those who need them. Why should a "rich" person receive any benefits at all? NIC isn't a savings scheme, it's a tax. State pension isn't an investment return, it's a state benefit. We need to tax the people who are the richest and give benefits to those who are the poorest. Simples.

@Alwaystired94

"just makes it even more ridiculous that so many people would vote for policies that cannot be enacted."

Well to be fair the Greens manifesto was under funded even more and was in excess of £200 billion so voting Green would have been more ridiculous than voting Reform.

Also the LibDems weren't far off being under funded by nearly £100 billion but they managed to get 72 MPs!

and again, voting for parties for policies that aren't funded is a stupid idea. Whether thats Reform or any other party.

I will give them all some grace due to the 22bn black hole, so that still leaves a fair amount not accounted for.

@Alexandra2001

"We ve got the Tories to thank for that, 65% debt to GDP when they came in 2010, not its nr 100%."

Nice try but Labour maxed out even more on debt than the Tories did- debt to GDP was 36% when Labour took over in 1997 and was 70% in 2010 - so they effectively increased it by 100%. Whereas the Tories increased it by just over 50% (which is still unacceptable).

@Alwaystired94

"I will give them all some grace due to the 22bn black hole, so that still leaves a fair amount not accounted for."

Well to be accurate £11 billion of the £22 billion shortfall was of Labour's own making- wage increases to junior doctors and train drivers etc.