Alf Bentley

You seem to frame this largely as a moral issue, ignoring both the political context and the implications for social, economic and political stability in this country. You also mainly focus on "people of talent and ambition" coming to do high-skilled work, but then suddenly merge this with an argument for asylum for people "in desperate need of shelter" - a quite different case. Re. your straw man depiction of opposing arguments: I'm not a protectionist and won't be appalled to see foreign-born players run out in blue shirts this afternoon. Likewise, I wasn't appalled when an Egyptian surgeon operated on my heart - and I was immensely grateful, indeed moved at the wonderful care my Dad was given in his last couple of years by mainly African carers. I'm also happy to see foreign students attend UK universities and British students attend foreign universities - beneficial all round and it's a massive shame that Brexit has removed most of the options to do this via Erasmus schemes within Europe. But my previous post concerned the political realities behind the surge in immigration under the Tories - not a wider moral argument or personal hostility to immigration in general. The official figures identify 2 main factors in this surge: foreign students and foreign workers, particularly those coming to do health and care work. Note that these are 2 DIFFERENT groups - not 1 group of talented and ambitious people studying, then opting to pursue high-skilled careers in the UK. On average, I believe that international students pay at least twice the fees of UK students. That suggests that the influx of international students come disproportionately from privileged sectors within their own countries, so I'm not sure that's necessarily something to be proud of. It also points to UK motivation: universities under-funded by the UK government maximising income from comparatively wealthy foreign students. The other group comprises those coming to work, in particular, in health & care. I presume they mostly have already been trained in their home countries (maybe not all care workers). While I've no problem with some overseas influx, a policy of mass recruitment of foreign workers qualified at their own country's expense does seem like immoral "poaching" to me. So what is the Tory motivation for this, when Brexit, which I opposed, was supposed to be partly about protecting jobs for Brits? There's a massive shortage of health/care workers, at least partly because real wages have been falling for years and stress increasing. Yet the Govt has spent all year fighting NHS fair pay strikes, thereby increasing vacancies, stress & waiting lists. What have the Brexit Tories done to attract UK workers to fill health/care vacancies? Surprise, surprise, they don't really care about British workers, but are happy to cut public spending by importing workers on the cheap. What have they done to improve pay, conditions and esteem for care work so as to attract Brits? Again, importing cheaper labour without improving funding or conditions seems to be their solution. But the govt of any responsible nation state has to protect the interests of its own citizens (until such time as we have global democratic governance - which is a long way off). It also has a responsibility to protect economic, social and political stability. Just this week, we've seen an anti-immigrant party win elections in Netherlands, anti-immigrant riots in Dublin and a chainsaw-wielding demagogue elected Argentine President in a context of economic instability. At the moment, despite other massive problems, UK unemployment is low but that might not remain the case - and it does nobody any favours, Brits or immigrants, if economic/social problems combine with perceptions of excessive immigration, allowing the Far Right to scapegoat foreigners. We've had far too many toxic, autocratic regimes in Europe, the Americas and Asia recently to risk that. Already, at a time when the UK faces major structural/economic problems, Reform UK is polling 10%, which could easily increase if cost of living and public services problems persist. On the separate asylum issue, I share your opposition to govt failure to offer a safe route for asylum claimants (I believe the French even offered to allow the UK to set up a claims processing office in France) and its disgraceful use of the issue to diverts voters with race-based fear and division. I also oppose the dishonest argument that asylum seekers should always go to the nearest safe country - we should take our fair share of those displaced by war, persecution and tyranny. I don't see Labour's policy as "a more competent version of the status quo". Labour is committed to properly funding the asylum system so as to eliminate the massive backlog and to working with other govts to tackle people-trafficking gangs. If achieved, they would not be "the status quo" but an admirable improvement. As well as being a cost to taxpayers, it is massively unfair to asylum seekers that their lives are in limbo for years, unable to work or progress while claims aren't processed. As a large proportion of asylum seekers come from places like Afghanistan, Syria and Iran, I'd expect a lot to be granted asylum, which I'd welcome (despite all the vitriol, asylum seekers only constitute a small proportion of migrants). If a Labour govt wrongly sent lots of persecuted people back to dangerous regimes or failed to offer a safe route for claimants, I'd join you in criticising this. The criminal gangs will be a harder nut to crack, but as Labour would adopt a less confrontational, nationalistic approach than Johnson & Truss, there's a chance of multinational action to tackle gangs. Of course, some asylum seekers deserve to be rejected: p.21 of the current Private Eye has an eye-opening article by an Albanian correspondent about the sudden mass influx of Albanians involved in crime gangs, drugs trade and violence.

Reverse psychology is my superpower.

He who laughs first may not laugh longest, but at least he gets an opportunity to laugh at Leeds before they inevitably go on to win.

Coventry, eh? All these years, I believed that "this town is coming like a ghost town" because "all the clubs have been closed down" [except Coventry City FC, regrettably]. Now I discover that it's a ghost town because they've all murdered one another. "Well, I never!", as my Grandma would've said.

During a lull in proceedings at tomorrow's match, I hope you'll seize the opportunity to start a chant........ "Happy Birthday to you, James Maddison, happy birthday to you!". Bound to go well, I'd say.

Can you remember who any of the pro-Commonwealth Lexit commentators were? Doesn't matter if not. I'm just curious. I recall one or two Labour voters expressing such sentiments, but not politicians/lefty media commentators. I agree with you about the immorality of poaching skilled/trained labour from developing nations. It's then doubly immoral if such foreign labour is being poached in order to avoid the cost of training up British workers and/or to hold down pay levels in certain UK economic sectors (health & care, it seems). I didn't support Brexit but one of the few Brexit arguments that had some validity, in my view, was that foreign labour was holding down pay rates in some lower-paid jobs (e.g. care work & less skilled NHS jobs). It's scandalous if the Tory Govt has "taken back control of our borders" only to massively increase the influx of cheap foreign labour so as to hold down pay for jobs in Britain - including public sector NHS jobs. Scandalous, but entirely unsurprising. Anyway, it's been a long working week, so my weekend focus will now be football and fun, not Brexit and immigration.

Recruiting from the Commonwealth wasn't a Lexit argument. Misguidedly, in my view, the Lexit argument was all about "socialism in one country". It saw the EU as a stooge of global capitalism and Lexit as a solution - freeing the UK to tax and spend and run deficits and nationalise industries/utilities without facing EU capitalist constraints on such actions. Recruiting from the Commonwealth was an argument put forward by some more traditional right-wing Brexiteers. Some of them definitely proclaimed themselves unhappy with EU free movement, but happy with "control of our borders" leading to EU workers being replaced by workers from the Commonwealth with whom we had more of a historical connection - provided the UK controlled the numbers. I well remember posters on here saying they weren't opposed to immigration, so long as the UK controlled it. Presumably people who hold such views will be happy that the Tory Govt has exercised its control of our post-Brexit borders to allow a large influx of workers from India and Nigeria. On the other hand, part of the Brexit argument was also that EU workers were forcing down British workers' pay, particularly in low-paid sectors. Care workers aren't generally well paid and NHS staff have spent half the year on strike over real-terms pay cuts, so it's interesting that the Govt is allowing a large influx of immigrant labour to take up posts in NHS and care work. Brexiteers who used the pay argument presumably won't be happy with that. Still, unemployment is still low - and the UK will have saved a lot of money by not having to fund the training of our own health and care workers, so there'll have been lots of extra cash for tax cuts, improved public services and paying down debt, eh?

A factor, but only a minor one, it seems. About 175,000 Ukrainians have come to the UK, but an unidentified number of them have already left. C4 News said the main nationalities coming in are Indians, Nigerians and Chinese. The 2 big increases seem to have been in foreign students and in workers coming in to work in the NHS and the care sector. In 2019, net migration was about 245,000. The 2022 figure had rocketed to 745,000 - back down slightly to 672,000 in the 12 months to June 2023. Another minor factor increasing the net migration influx is that there has been a fall in the number of Brits leaving. That contrasts with EU migration, where in recent years more have left than have arrived.

I have a new favourite. Didn't even realise it existed until yesterday. By the sadly deceased Poly Styrene. formerly of X-Ray Spex.... Otherwise....Fairytale is a great song but I've heard it too often for now, so I'll go for "Christmas Wrapping" by The Waitresses, followed by Slade (which, aged 11, I bought along with Wizzard, when they were first released).

My daughter and I were those "kind of folk" on trains twice yesterday - but up even earlier to beat the announcement and the rush. This was to avoid missing train connections. If you "calm your tits" and wait to arrive at the station, it can take 5 minutes longer to get off the train, as tit-calmed folk take their time to put on coats, deposit suitcases in the aisle, have a general natter and progress towards the door at 0.00001 mph while looking gormlessly around them. That 5-minute gain can be the difference between making your connection and spending an hour waiting for the next train. When traveling to the terminus and not rushing off somewhere, I do calm my tits and remain seated, though.....

I'm definitely with you on Natalie Merchant. Fantastic voice and songs - and I reckon her last album might be the best she's ever done. She was touring recently, I think, but tickets seemed to be massively expensive. I presume she tours with a lot of musicians, maybe even an orchestra these days, given those prices....

This is a timely thread, as I've recently been job hunting for the first time in 25 years. I'm at a different career stage from most posters, as I'm now 61 (to quote my Dad, "I'm a man with a great future behind me" ). I'd been a self-employed translator, working from home since 1999 - and last hunted for jobs in 1997-98, when the Internet was a new invention. Despite working solo as a translator for so long, I never enjoyed the social isolation. But circumstances conspired to make it the obvious choice: I wanted to work with languages but failed to get a career job using languages; my now ex-partner needed post-accident home care for months; then it allowed me to play a more active parenting role while my daughter was growing up........but none of those reasons now apply and workflow had been dwindling. Rather than look for new translation clients, I've opted to seek outside employment through to pension age. So, for a few months, I'm now a Parking Attendant for a major retail chain. With travel, the hours are long and I'd get sick of it eventually, but so far I've quite enjoyed going out to work, working outside and having some social contact (even if a lot of the contact is telling people they're parked in the wrong place! ). I hope to move to Devon early next year so will look for something slightly better down there - possibly agency office work but I'm wondering about seeking a languages-based Teaching Assistant post. Anyone any experience of TA work? I never fancied being a teacher but TA work could be a means of using my languages, doing something a bit useful/stimulating and having long holidays, without having to do lots of lesson prep, marking or unwinding like a teacher does... A couple of insights so far on job seeking after a 25-year gap: - The Garbage In, Garbage Out principle still applies to a more technology-driven HR - To get work via agencies, it's still worth going to their offices in person, despite most applications now being online I applied for about 15-20 jobs online, direct and via agencies, but didn't get a single reply - apart from an automated message from a supermarket banning from applying for 6 months as I'd got a question wrong in an employment quiz. So, I went into the agency office to get job application advice and to see if the face-to-face approach still worked, as it did 25 years ago. They pretty much offered me the Parking Attendant job there and then. The agency bod also said that most employers now select candidates for interview purely by automated checking of the use of "key words" in applications. So, if the job description requires a "dynamic team worker" who has "customer service experience", you'll get an interview if you use those words in your application - even if you're a crap candidate. Whereas, if you're a good candidate but don't use the key words, you won't even get an interview. Absolute madness, if true. I don't envy you having to complete applications for career jobs, @leicsmac. I remember having to do that back in 97-98, writing mini-essays describing occasions on which I'd shown leadership, initiative, teamwork, flexibility, innovation or whatever. On average, it took half a day to complete an application - and most of them yielded no response whatsoever, not even a rejection letter. After months of that and having failed the few interviews I got, I resorted to agency work, then self-employment. I wish you better fortune!

Noel Edmonds is upsetting the Kiwis...... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/03/noel-edmonds-spat-with-council-new-zealand "He lives with his wife, Liz, in the small rural community of Ngātīmoti. An investigation by the media outlet Stuff this week found that the couple had spent $30m on 12 properties in the area. One is Edmonds’ River Haven estate, which contains a cafe, pub and vineyard and regularly holds events for car enthusiasts as well as the occasional fundraiser. Edmonds is famously a proponent of the benefits of “positive energy” to fight cancer, soothe plants and comfort pets. In 2016, he offered a pet counselling service, calling cats and dogs to offer them words of affirmation and positivity. He has published a book titled Positively Happy: Cosmic Ways to Change Your Life, has claimed that he is visited by two orbs the size of melons that he believes are his dead parents, and carried around a lifesize mannequin named Candice Cannes". "Belinda Crisp, a contractor to the local council, visited River Haven to discuss the possibility of Edmonds allowing a cycle trail to pass through his land rather than alongside a highway. Crisp said she told Edmonds the cycle trail would bring thousands of cyclists to his business every year, but Edmonds objected. “He started saying how dangerous [the cycle trail] was,” she told Stuff. He stood up and pointed at us both: ‘You two need your heads cut off and your brains replaced’.” Stuff’s reporters listened to a recording and said Edmonds could be heard telling Crisp and her colleague: “All hell’s gonna break loose, right. And while you still have this attitude, you are not welcome here. Don’t even think about having a coffee, having a slice … you are our enemies.” First thing: All officials should be named Belinda Crisp and should dress crisply and adopt a crisp manner. Second thing: Edmonds should stay out there and keep his "positive energy" and that fvcker Blobby with him.

Thanks for your thoughtful, considered response. I've not got much time - and will have even less in the coming days - so will respond to select points. That's for the best, anyway, as it's supposed to be about council bankruptcy, not wider politics. Some achievements of the last Labour Govt: a seemingly impossible peace in N. Ireland; minimum wage (I earned £2.75/h for bar work in 1994); equal age of consent; Sure Start family support; slashing of NHS waiting lists; major investment in school infrastructure; improved living standards for the poorest 10%; reduction in homelessness. To be balanced, they also did bad stuff: Iraq War, wasteful PFI schemes, inadequate banking regulation. Some achievements of the Tories (trying to be fair): equal marriage rights; vaccine roll-out; prominent role over Ukraine. I'm sure Tory supporters would also claim "getting Brexit done". I wouldn't see Brexit as a great achievement and you'd correctly claim it was due to populist movements, but Cameron facilitated it & Johnson played a key role in winning the vote. Not only have both govts achieved stuff, I'll also scurry in and say that there are major differences between the two, especially when you look at the state of the nation now (I'm talking public services, poverty, inequality etc.) No and No again... 1) The article defines what it means by "real terms": all figures quoted at 2023-24 prices. "Real terms" specifically means they've adjusted earlier figures to allow for inflation - so that they're comparing equivalent figures. So they ARE saying that the Govt has cut almost £20bn from local authority grants, based on inflation-adjusted figures. 2) Inflation was NOT astronomical between 2009-10 and 2019-20. It was between 0.5% and 4% per annum. It has only been astronomical SINCE then, in the wake of Covid, Truss and particularly Ukraine (impact on fuel/food prices) For many years, the Govt sought to limit local authorities increasing Council Tax for ideological reasons. They're allowing bigger increases now, partly due to crisis in the care sector, but perhaps partly for electoral reasons, knowing that voters will blame their local council for the increases, not central govt. To an extent, that's fair, as it is the councils who put up Council Tax, not the Govt - but they're doing so to offset a budgetary crisis caused by rising needs combined with large cuts in central govt grants. Central govt grants to local councils make sense because councils are not equal in either needs or the ability to tax their local populations. Areas that are high in poverty, have a lot of elderly or a lot of children will have higher needs than areas mainly inhabited by healthy people of working age. Likewise, both property prices and incomes vary widely depending on area/demographics. Not only will some deprived cities and OAP-dominated coastal towns have much higher needs than the stockbroker belt, they will also have less ability to pay - much lower disposable incomes where there are lots of pensioners, kids or people on low pay. I'm quite sympathetic to your point here. It would certainly be more democratic and probably, as you say, more efficient to have more tax-and-spend decisions devolved to local govt. However, for the reasons given under the previous point, there would need to be some mechanism for redistribution from areas with high disposable incomes and/or low needs to areas with low disposable income and/or high needs. Otherwise, the stockbroker belt would easily be able to afford lush, possibly superfluous local public services, while retirement towns and low-income cities would struggle to collect enough local tax to fund much greater needs: i.e. you'd risk exacerbating already growing inequality. Over and out, I'm afraid (very busy in coming days).

To claim that more spending equates to a better job would be ridiculous, I agree. But to claim that "spending more money is obviously a negative thing" is equally ridiculous. If you spend more money on decorating your home or moving to a better seat at LCFC is that obviously a negative thing? It might be money wasted, depending on your priorities, but it might be money well spent. Likewise, extra public spending might be wasted or money well invested because it meets social needs or saves money further down the line: e.g. money spent on a white elephant project would be money wasted but extra money spent on care for the elderly might be socially beneficial and might save NHS resources by reducing bed blocking. Money spent on youth facilities might be wasted - or it might be beneficial in helping truants back into school or avoiding them drifting into criminality. I agree that politicians' boasts about "record levels of investment" are meaningless unless the investment is well directed. But likewise, politicians boast about "saving public money", which may be good in some circumstances but may cause social harm in others - an equally meaningless boast unless we know that the money "saved" was being wasted before. A lot of the spending cuts of the last 13 years have been harmful to the country, in my opinion. The efforts to avoid excess spending haven't proved the govt's "competence". We don't "all know that local govt is disgracefully wasteful and corruption is rife". I don't know that. I suspect most people don't know that - though some will doubtless have encountered particular examples of waste or corruption at local or national govt level. Plenty may believe that local - or national - govt is wasteful and corrupt, based on prejudiced thinking or anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is of little value compared to proper research and balanced evidence. Returning to the bankrupt councils issue, do you think that councils were squeaky clean a few decades back but are now in financial trouble because councils have suddenly become corrupt? That is the point that I was addressing in my reply earlier. Particular councils or individuals may be corrupt now, as in the past, but greatly reduced funding and increased need are also factors nationwide - as shown by the different types/political affiliations of councils in financial trouble despite major cuts. Re. the "demonization of privatization for no discernible reason"....The privatised water companies have been demonized for pumping sewage into the sea/rivers while making big profits and for planning to jack up water bills in order to fund infrastructure repairs. Hardly demonization - and a definite possibility of it ending up more expensive in the long run. I don't say "public good, private bad", but the opposite isn't true either. Anyway, I'm wasting my time. I posted a link and quotes from a properly researched report, but your reply suggests that you didn't bother looking at any of that. It suggests that you have dogmatic ideological ideas (private good, public bad; tax cuts good, extra spending bad - freedom, innit?) and have no interest in engaging with ideas or evidence that conflict with that. If you feel we would be fine with wayyyy less public spending, you must be delighted at the state of the nation now. The national govt has been doing that for 13 years - slashing public services nationally and slashing grants to local govt for local spending. Yet there seems to be a certain amount of misery and squalour and they've somehow managed to achieve this while increasing personal taxation and public debt (yes, partly Ukraine & Covid....partly also corrupt PPE deals for mates etc.), but hey, what's evidence when you can rely on ideological dogma? Anyway, over and out (unless you bother to address the issues raised in the report linked earlier).

In all honesty, I've little idea whether Soulsby or Leicester City Council have managed finances well or badly. I suspect that may apply to others....or maybe they've conducted detailed analysis proving financial waste/incompetence. But I suspect there are bigger reasons why multiple councils (both Labour and Tory) are going bankrupt up and down the country. Years of cuts in central govt funding is certainly part of it - though some councils have lost millions on rash speculative investments designed to offset cuts in central govt support. This is all at a time when many needs are rising (more elderly & kids needing care, school absenteeism, homelessness etc.) Here are some excerpts from a good but brief summary by people who HAVE done some research: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/local-government-funding-england "Local authority ‘spending power’ – the amount of money authorities have to spend from government grants, council tax and business rates – fell by 17.5% between 2009/10 and 2019/20, before partially recovering. However, in 2021/22 it was still 10.2% below 2009/10 levels. [...] The fall in spending power is largely because of reductions in central government grants. These grants were cut by 40% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20, from £46.5bn to £28.0bn (2023/24 prices)". "Upper and single tier authorities have faced particular difficulties because of rising demand for social care, even though since 2016/17 they have been allowed to increase council tax rates more quickly. Social care is a statutory responsibility – that is, local authorities are legally obliged to provide it – and so they have protected spending on social care for children and adults, often at the expense of other services, such as libraries and road maintenance". "Cuts also fell more heavily on more disadvantaged local authorities. The most deprived local authorities experienced the largest falls in spending power between 2010/11 and 2019/20. This is because of the way that central government allocated funding cuts. [...] Most recently, the Sunak government used the 2023/24 finance settlement to claim that while it “remains committed to improving the local government finance landscape”, it would not implement the findings of the Fair Funding Review in this spending review period, meaning that there will be no change until April 2025 at the earliest". Seriously is worth reading that report - or at least having a quick look at the graphs. Nah! Maybe it's more fun to just blame the messenger/frontman. I'll join in.... "I see Vardy failed to score many last season. I blame him for relegation. Did it deliberately because he's a selfish bastard. Vardy out! Boooo! Soulsby out, er, I mean Vardy out! Booo!!! "

I got the impression that Bournemouth pulled out of the loan deal for financial reasons at the last minute. Their striker Kieffer Moore rejected a deadline day loan deal, so their budget wouldn't cover taking Daka on loan?

I don't like to slag refs too much, but last night's bod was the worst I've seen for a long time. Most of it has already been said, but one extra oddity was that he did give fouls for tripping, but never seemed to give anything for shirt-pulling or holding (which Sunderland did a lot)......as if he was reffing to a different rulebook. I'm convinced he didn't have a clue what had happened with the Vestergaard tussle - just had a guess and booked them both. Clear sign of having lost control was that more than once he told a player to take a kick from the right spot, the player ignored him, took it from further forward....and he just played on. Should be struck off and sign on with a circus!

The Mirror is now reporting the Putin cardiac arrest story but ridiculing the reliability of the source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/putin-resuscitated-after-having-cardiac-31259024 On the other hand, at the end of the Mirror article, it says that Putin's motorcade made an unexplained dash to the Kremlin late yesterday evening.... will become interesting if reputable sources start repeating or adding to this.

The world's oldest dog, departed at 31 years & 165 days: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67194721 One day you're happy in the doghouse, next day doggone dog gone.

.....an English or American freelance writer, quoting sources of a former Russian lieutenant-general on Twitter and the Express. Might or might not be true, but not a reliable story based on those sources. If the story was credible, other mass media outlets would be running it. Even if it was only semi-credible, they'd probably report it as an unconfirmed story. Again, she states "doctors diagnosed cardiac arrest - a heart attack" (though the description suggests cardiac arrest). But a journalist who doesn't know the difference suggests someone unreliable. A cardiac arrest is when the heart stops and is fatal within about 10 minutes unless it is restarted. A heart attack (blocked artery killing some heart muscle) can also be serious/fatal, but can be quite minor. My uncle had a heart attack and didn't even notice it until a doctor told him weeks later. This is quite common. My uncle lived another 10+ years, had no further heart issues and died of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking his head off.

Only the Express seems to be reporting this Putin news - and in the same article they're attributing it to "cardiac arrest" and a "heart attack", which are 2 different conditions (the latter may or may not cause the former). Would be astonishing if the Express had scooped the world, while not knowing what it was talking about medically. Sounds like bollocks....whether that's good or bad news, I don't know, not knowing who might replace Putin.

Doubtless true for some people, but not for others, I think. It's true that some (on all sides) will never question their allegiance/world view and will inhabit the echo chambers of their favoured media or social media. Others will opt out and not vote. But there is also a substantial minority who aren't particularly aligned or engaged with politics but pay a bit more attention when there's a general election. Those are the people who could buy into key Labour messages/policies and could warm to Starmer as a national leader, if the presentation is right. That won't penetrate Twitter echo chambers or The Sun or Daily Mail (unless, as you say, they see the wind change and tone down their usual pro-Right partisanship). But a lot of people still see or hear news on BBC, ITV, Sky, radio stations or Google News, which will offer more neutral coverage - and an election campaign will present much more politics and much more of Starmer, Sunak & co to voters' ears and eyes. I'm less of a pessimist than you seem to be. I believe that some pretty non-political people will listen and some can be influenced to some extent. Of course, if Labour do win it'll mainly be because of a widespread public perception that the country is in a state, that the Tories bear great responsibility for this and that "it's time for a change". But during the campaign Labour will have an opportunity to win some more positive voter buy-in. Not from people who are currently hostile to them, but from those with no strong allegiance and those who are currently dissatisfied with their lives and/or the Tories but who think Labour would be no better or that Starmer is a boring, identikit, dishonest politician with no clear policies. Given the challenges in the in-tray, it's important that a few more people buy into Lab plans/Starmer. A win based only on anti-Tory votes and unthinking "time for a change" is a recipe for a Lab govt that soon becomes unpopular if it doesn't solve all the country's problems quickly, which it won't.

I largely agree with that. Labour might win the election due to Tory unpopularity, but if Starmer is to retain authority over his party and retain public support under difficult circumstances, he'll need more public buy-in. That buy-in needs to be both to policy and to him as leader. Hopefully, some of the integrity and focus expressed in that interview will be conveyed to the public during the election campaign, counteracting impressions that he's just bland and ill-defined. On policy, Labour needs to have a small number of believable policies that win public buy-in. They're starting to identify those policies (boost housing, tackle NHS waiting lists, green investment for jobs of the future, devolve power, tackle asylum backlog) but will need to make a convincing pitch to the public between now and the election - and will then need to show that serious progress is being made, if elected. On Starmer's personality as leader, I imagine they'll try to win a lot more voter buy-in during the election campaign, when people will be paying a lot more attention. Part (only part) of the reason why Starmer is a bland mystery to most voters is because most voters have limited interest in politics and busy lives, so don't register more than a few news bulletins and soundbites - though partly it's due to Starmer's ultra-cautious strategy, not wanting to give hostages to fortune. People pay more attention during an election campaign, so I'd expect the party to produce a high-profile party political broadcast specifically about Starmer and to prime him to do personal interviews aiming for more public buy-in. Re. showmanship, we were discussing before how Attlee was apparently the antithesis of the showman (in contrast to the charismatic Churchill) but had a lot of focus and integrity that made him a good leader. It's possible that Starmer could turn out the same. But I tend to agree that he needs a bit more showmanship (not too much - not Johnson levels). Attlee became PM in very particular circumstances, post-war reconstruction - and when mass media was much less important. Thinking of the post-war PMs, I'd say that the least charismatic (Douglas-Home, perhaps Callaghan, Brown, May, Truss & perhaps Sunak) have been those who became PM without winning elections. Thatcher in 1979 and Major in 1992 are slight exceptions for me. Posters older than me might remember 1979 differently (I was 16-17) but my recollection is that Thatcher wasn't seen as charismatic before she was elected - she developed a sort of charisma once in power. Likewise, Major was ridiculed as a "grey man" when he became PM in 1990 and never exactly became Mr. Charisma, but projected some personality in the 1992 campaign that helped the Tories win (honest John, the common man standing on his soapbox in the marketplace - literally). Like Major, Starmer will never be a Johnson-like showman (thank fvck), but during the election and once (hopefully) in office, he needs to project some of the personality shown in that interview. Showmanship/charisma and leadership appeal are slightly different things, though. So long as you deliver on important promises, I reckon it's possible to have leadership appeal through people understanding and approving of who you are and what you're doing as PM, without necessarily having much showmanship or charisma. Humour is an odd one, as very few PMs seem to express much humour/wit - Johnson being the obvious exception. I remember Wilson being quite witty, perhaps Callaghan a bit, but even PMs seen as having charisma, like Thatcher or Blair, didn't show much humour - maybe there's too much risk of alienating voters? Starmer generally comes across as humourless - but there were glimpses of humour in that linked interview. Without turning himself into a Johnson-like entertainer, he'd benefit from showing that more human side of himself in public. Re. the EU: I reckon Starmer's strategy will be to dismiss any idea of rejoining, while trying to build a closer, mutually beneficial relationship with the EU once in office. Unless circumstances change dramatically and there's a much stronger public mood for rejoining the EU, I'd be surprised if Labour even advocated rejoining at the 2029 election. Despite having been a Remainer myself, I think that's the right strategy. It's going to take at least a decade to build any sort of decent future for the country, so a Labour or Labour-led govt would need to focus on delivering key priorities. Unless there's strong public demand, reopening the Brexit Pandora's box would risk massively diverting govt focus/energy and causing public discord.