General News

[bovril]

21 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Don't have freedom though. 

To be fair they also have some of the strictest immigration policies in the Western world. 

[Zear0]

7 minutes ago, bovril said:

To be fair they also have some of the strictest immigration policies in the Western world. 

Can't put a price on US freedom though. 

[Parafox]

23 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

Wasn't he one of the good guys?

 

23 hours ago, st albans fox said:

History has not been too kind to Henry …….

 

23 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Unfortunately the only good thing about him was his PR team. Anthony Bourdain says it best:

 

"Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević."

 

Put simply, he was the master of Might Makes Right realpolitik, and nations like the one Bourdain describes above were just collateral damage to him.

 

I have just read these articles, and it seems I misremembered, or didn't take much notice of his tenure as SoS for America or his "diplomacy":

 

Henry Kissinger: Good or Evil? - POLITICO Magazine

 

The Bad Thing Henry Kissinger Did That You Don’t Even Know About | The New Republic

 

 

[Jattdogg]

Just for shits and giggles maybe Greenland should join Canada (makes more sense geographically speaking) not that I care to take over a country.  Trump would blow a gasket and then threaten to take over Canada.

[Nalis]

5 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Just for shits and giggles maybe Greenland should join Canada (makes more sense geographically speaking) not that I care to take over a country.  Trump would blow a gasket and then threaten to take over Canada.

The upside for Trump would be just the one country to take over instead of two

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, henry56 said:

Labour have disappointed me , particularly with their  cowardice over Brexit . Everyone with a still functioning brain and the rudiments of nouse knows the country’s economy  can never flourish when we can’t trade  freely with the biggest  bloc in the world on our own doorstep . Time to be honest . Stuff the billionaires who own the press and remove the sanctions we imposed on ourselves . 
Other than that I think they’ve made a decent start .
Whatever they do the right wing press will find a way to criticise . 
 

 

Your economic arguments against Brexit were valid before Brexit happened. The Remain campaign used them. As a Remainer, I used them myself. But we lost and Brexit happened.

 

If we wanted to "remove the sanctions we imposed on ourselves", we'd now face a host of complications, it would be massively controversial, would take years and might not even be achievable:

- We couldn't unilaterally decide to trade freely with the EU. We'd have to apply to re-join the EU or at least the Single Market and/or Customs Union. That would take many years.

- In recent decades, it has typically taken about 15 years for countries to join the EU. With the will on both sides, UK membership might happen quicker, but I reckon we'd still have to face the lengthy, multi-stage approval process that all applicant countries face. Maybe it would be achievable in 5-10 years?

- But would the EU want to embark on such a draining process? They didn't want us to leave, but after years of exhausting negotiations over our exit, it's not clear they'd want a mirror-image process.

- All new members also require the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. If just 1 member state rejected our membership, we'd be blocked.

- Not only is there a risk of being blocked, but individual states might demand pre-conditions: Handover of Gibraltar to Spain? Acceptance of extra refugees?

- We'd also re-join on poorer terms than before. As members, we had negotiated various treaty opt-outs and refunds - no way we'd get those back. Might we also be required not only to allow free movement, but to join Schengen and allow passport-free travel? We'd certainly be expected to take a fair share of EU refugees - and would be pressured to join the Euro.

 

All the above only applies once we are hypothetically negotiating re-entry.....but how would we reach that position?

- Polls might now suggest that there's a small Remainer majority, but a lot of people would still be violently opposed....particularly if Labour tried to negotiate EU membership (or even Single Market / Customs Union) without any referendum and without any electoral mandate. It could well hand dozens of Red Wall seats to Reform in 2029.

- If Starmer wanted to join the EU or SM/CU, he'd surely have to get parliament to call another referendum? Can you imagine what that would do to the atmosphere nationwide? It would be a recipe for social conflict and violence, particularly given the high profile of race/immigration issues.

- It would also mean that the rest of their term in government would be dominated by Brexit, at a time when there are already a ridiculous number of serious problems to be addressed: low growth, cost of living crisis, public services in chaos, high/expensive public debt, discontent over tax, millions of long-term sick, care system in crisis, aging population, climate change impacts, AI etc.

- Also, economic confidence / private-sector investment require stability. Years of uncertainty over possible EU re-entry would create uncertainty and hinder confidence/investment.

 

I agree that Brexit was the wrong decision - for the economic reasons you mention, among others. But trying to re-join now would be madness. Maybe, hypothetically, by 2029 we might be in a situation where a party could be elected to govt with a mandate to negotiate EU or SM/CU membership....but I think even that is highly unlikely, given the scale of the problems the UK faces (along with other countries). Yes, we made things harder for ourselves through Brexit, but there's no quick/easy way of reversing that.

 

For the next 4-5 years, the Lab govt is right to prioritise improving relations and trading terms with the EU, but not attempting any more than that. Mind you, I do question why they seem unwilling to re-enter the Erasmus student exchange scheme. Apparently, their stance is due to a lack of "taxpayer value" (because more continentals want to study in the UK than vice-versa, so it's a net tax loss) - but it is a measure that has public support and could be economically beneficial and a potential vote-winner in some groups (young people, parents, many businesses) - and the EU seem keen on it, so there's the possibility of getting something in exchange....

 

Lab is right to focus instead on trying to get some way towards tackling the multiple problems mentioned above. If they do that, they can decide in 2029 whether it would then be wise to re-open the Brexit issue at the next election. If people don't feel their lives/country have at least improved under Labour, Starmer probably won't be in power beyond 2029, anyway - and any Brexit reversal or semi-reversal would take years beyond that....

 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Jattdogg said:

Just for shits and giggles maybe Greenland should join Canada (makes more sense geographically speaking) not that I care to take over a country.  Trump would blow a gasket and then threaten to take over Canada.

And Panama. 

[Parafox]

51 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Your economic arguments against Brexit were valid before Brexit happened. The Remain campaign used them. As a Remainer, I used them myself. But we lost and Brexit happened.

 

If we wanted to "remove the sanctions we imposed on ourselves", we'd now face a host of complications, it would be massively controversial, would take years and might not even be achievable:

- We couldn't unilaterally decide to trade freely with the EU. We'd have to apply to re-join the EU or at least the Single Market and/or Customs Union. That would take many years.

- In recent decades, it has typically taken about 15 years for countries to join the EU. With the will on both sides, UK membership might happen quicker, but I reckon we'd still have to face the lengthy, multi-stage approval process that all applicant countries face. Maybe it would be achievable in 5-10 years?

- But would the EU want to embark on such a draining process? They didn't want us to leave, but after years of exhausting negotiations over our exit, it's not clear they'd want a mirror-image process.

- All new members also require the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. If just 1 member state rejected our membership, we'd be blocked.

- Not only is there a risk of being blocked, but individual states might demand pre-conditions: Handover of Gibraltar to Spain? Acceptance of extra refugees?

- We'd also re-join on poorer terms than before. As members, we had negotiated various treaty opt-outs and refunds - no way we'd get those back. Might we also be required not only to allow free movement, but to join Schengen and allow passport-free travel? We'd certainly be expected to take a fair share of EU refugees - and would be pressured to join the Euro.

 

All the above only applies once we are hypothetically negotiating re-entry.....but how would we reach that position?

- Polls might now suggest that there's a small Remainer majority, but a lot of people would still be violently opposed....particularly if Labour tried to negotiate EU membership (or even Single Market / Customs Union) without any referendum and without any electoral mandate. It could well hand dozens of Red Wall seats to Reform in 2029.

- If Starmer wanted to join the EU or SM/CU, he'd surely have to get parliament to call another referendum? Can you imagine what that would do to the atmosphere nationwide? It would be a recipe for social conflict and violence, particularly given the high profile of race/immigration issues.

- It would also mean that the rest of their term in government would be dominated by Brexit, at a time when there are already a ridiculous number of serious problems to be addressed: low growth, cost of living crisis, public services in chaos, high/expensive public debt, discontent over tax, millions of long-term sick, care system in crisis, aging population, climate change impacts, AI etc.

- Also, economic confidence / private-sector investment require stability. Years of uncertainty over possible EU re-entry would create uncertainty and hinder confidence/investment.

 

I agree that Brexit was the wrong decision - for the economic reasons you mention, among others. But trying to re-join now would be madness. Maybe, hypothetically, by 2029 we might be in a situation where a party could be elected to govt with a mandate to negotiate EU or SM/CU membership....but I think even that is highly unlikely, given the scale of the problems the UK faces (along with other countries). Yes, we made things harder for ourselves through Brexit, but there's no quick/easy way of reversing that.

 

For the next 4-5 years, the Lab govt is right to prioritise improving relations and trading terms with the EU, but not attempting any more than that. Mind you, I do question why they seem unwilling to re-enter the Erasmus student exchange scheme. Apparently, their stance is due to a lack of "taxpayer value" (because more continentals want to study in the UK than vice-versa, so it's a net tax loss) - but it is a measure that has public support and could be economically beneficial and a potential vote-winner in some groups (young people, parents, many businesses) - and the EU seem keen on it, so there's the possibility of getting something in exchange....

 

Lab is right to focus instead on trying to get some way towards tackling the multiple problems mentioned above. If they do that, they can decide in 2029 whether it would then be wise to re-open the Brexit issue at the next election. If people don't feel their lives/country have at least improved under Labour, Starmer probably won't be in power beyond 2029, anyway - and any Brexit reversal or semi-reversal would take years beyond that....

 

 

That took some reading. Like chewing on an overcooked steak. 

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Your economic arguments against Brexit were valid before Brexit happened. The Remain campaign used them. As a Remainer, I used them myself. But we lost and Brexit happened.

 

If we wanted to "remove the sanctions we imposed on ourselves", we'd now face a host of complications, it would be massively controversial, would take years and might not even be achievable:

- We couldn't unilaterally decide to trade freely with the EU. We'd have to apply to re-join the EU or at least the Single Market and/or Customs Union. That would take many years.

- In recent decades, it has typically taken about 15 years for countries to join the EU. With the will on both sides, UK membership might happen quicker, but I reckon we'd still have to face the lengthy, multi-stage approval process that all applicant countries face. Maybe it would be achievable in 5-10 years?

- But would the EU want to embark on such a draining process? They didn't want us to leave, but after years of exhausting negotiations over our exit, it's not clear they'd want a mirror-image process.

- All new members also require the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. If just 1 member state rejected our membership, we'd be blocked.

- Not only is there a risk of being blocked, but individual states might demand pre-conditions: Handover of Gibraltar to Spain? Acceptance of extra refugees?

- We'd also re-join on poorer terms than before. As members, we had negotiated various treaty opt-outs and refunds - no way we'd get those back. Might we also be required not only to allow free movement, but to join Schengen and allow passport-free travel? We'd certainly be expected to take a fair share of EU refugees - and would be pressured to join the Euro.

 

All the above only applies once we are hypothetically negotiating re-entry.....but how would we reach that position?

- Polls might now suggest that there's a small Remainer majority, but a lot of people would still be violently opposed....particularly if Labour tried to negotiate EU membership (or even Single Market / Customs Union) without any referendum and without any electoral mandate. It could well hand dozens of Red Wall seats to Reform in 2029.

- If Starmer wanted to join the EU or SM/CU, he'd surely have to get parliament to call another referendum? Can you imagine what that would do to the atmosphere nationwide? It would be a recipe for social conflict and violence, particularly given the high profile of race/immigration issues.

- It would also mean that the rest of their term in government would be dominated by Brexit, at a time when there are already a ridiculous number of serious problems to be addressed: low growth, cost of living crisis, public services in chaos, high/expensive public debt, discontent over tax, millions of long-term sick, care system in crisis, aging population, climate change impacts, AI etc.

- Also, economic confidence / private-sector investment require stability. Years of uncertainty over possible EU re-entry would create uncertainty and hinder confidence/investment.

 

I agree that Brexit was the wrong decision - for the economic reasons you mention, among others. But trying to re-join now would be madness. Maybe, hypothetically, by 2029 we might be in a situation where a party could be elected to govt with a mandate to negotiate EU or SM/CU membership....but I think even that is highly unlikely, given the scale of the problems the UK faces (along with other countries). Yes, we made things harder for ourselves through Brexit, but there's no quick/easy way of reversing that.

 

For the next 4-5 years, the Lab govt is right to prioritise improving relations and trading terms with the EU, but not attempting any more than that. Mind you, I do question why they seem unwilling to re-enter the Erasmus student exchange scheme. Apparently, their stance is due to a lack of "taxpayer value" (because more continentals want to study in the UK than vice-versa, so it's a net tax loss) - but it is a measure that has public support and could be economically beneficial and a potential vote-winner in some groups (young people, parents, many businesses) - and the EU seem keen on it, so there's the possibility of getting something in exchange....

 

Lab is right to focus instead on trying to get some way towards tackling the multiple problems mentioned above. If they do that, they can decide in 2029 whether it would then be wise to re-open the Brexit issue at the next election. If people don't feel their lives/country have at least improved under Labour, Starmer probably won't be in power beyond 2029, anyway - and any Brexit reversal or semi-reversal would take years beyond that....

 

2026 and he is out.  His own party will send him to the pooonjab

[Alf Bentley]

45 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

That took some reading. Like chewing on an overcooked steak. 

 

Well, thanks for persevering, Para. I'm sure the mastication was worth it for the rich, fulfilling joy of enlightenment at the end of your meal. 

 

I'll try to serve up easily digestible chicken nuggets in future.

Let's try: "We need to cut taxes and improve public services!"  "We just need to go 4-4-2 and get it in the fvcking box!" 

Yep, I'm getting there. I'll be promoted from Foxes Talk to Twitter any day now.

[Alf Bentley]

36 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

2026 and he is out.  His own party will send him to the pooonjab

 

Nah. More chance of you being appointed Prince of Punjab by Modi. Reeves out by 2026 and replaced by Streeting wouldn't surprise me.

[Otis]

4 hours ago, henry56 said:

Other than that I think they’ve made a decent start .
Whatever they do the right wing press will find a way to criticise . 

Not just the right wing press.

 

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/half-britons-disappointed-labour-so-far-pessimism-over-missions-grows

 

Just a quarter (26%) say Keir Starmer is doing a good job as Prime Minister

 

A new Ipsos poll reveals continued public disappointment with the Labour government's performance as we approach five months after their election victory. The survey, conducted online among 1,092 British adults aged 18-75 between November 22nd and 25th, 2024, paints a picture of growing concern about the government's ability to deliver on its key promises.

 

The end of the honeymoon period continues for Labour

Just over half (53%) of Britons say that they are disappointed with what Labour have done in government so far, little changed from 50% in September. One in 5 (19%) say they are pleased.

This includes almost three in ten (28%) of those who voted for the party in the last General Election, although 2024 Labour voters are the only group who are more pleased (38%) than disappointed by what Labour have done in government so far.

81% of Conservative 2024 voters and 90% of Reform UK voters are unhappy with the government’s performance.

Disappointment is also high among those aged 55-75, with three quarters (74%) saying that they are unhappy (+11ppts since September). 

Those aged 18-34 are split on Labour’s performance, with 31% pleased and 35% disappointed.

 

Labour's missions 

Elsewhere in the poll, Labour’s performance on the five key missions that the party campaigned on was assessed, with the public asked to say how the government is delivering now, and how well they expect the party to do ahead of the next General Election. There is little public confidence that the Labour Government will deliver, either now or by the next election, while negative views have increased since September.

 

The NHS remains the top priority for Britons, with two thirds (66%) saying that building an NHS fit for the future is the most important of Labour’s missions. This is followed by kickstarting economic growth (38%) and taking back the streets by reducing crime (33%).

For each mission, only around 1 in 5 think the Labour government is doing a good job now (from 16% on taking back the streets to 22% for building an NHS fit for the future), and only slightly more think it will do a good job by the next election (from 23% for taking back the streets to 30% for the NHS). 

More think the Labour government is or will do a bad job, a feeling which has grown since September. When thinking about current performance, between 38% (for breaking down barriers to opportunity) and 45% (for kickstarting economic growth and taking back the streets) say the government is doing a bad job. Since September negative ratings have increased by between five to nine percentage points. Looking ahead to the next election, still between 38% (breaking down barriers) and 44% (taking back the streets) think the government will do a bad job, with negative ratings increasing by 5-6 ppts.

 

Labour's missions 

Elsewhere in the poll, Labour’s performance on the five key missions that the party campaigned on was assessed, with the public asked to say how the government is delivering now, and how well they expect the party to do ahead of the next General Election. There is little public confidence that the Labour Government will deliver, either now or by the next election, while negative views have increased since September.

• The NHS remains the top priority for Britons, with two thirds (66%) saying that building an NHS fit for the future is the most important of Labour’s missions. This is followed by kickstarting economic growth (38%) and taking back the streets by reducing crime (33%).
• For each mission, only around 1 in 5 think the Labour government is doing a good job now (from 16% on taking back the streets to 22% for building an NHS fit for the future), and only slightly more think it will do a good job by the next election (from 23% for taking back the streets to 30% for the NHS). 
• More think the Labour government is or will do a bad job, a feeling which has grown since September. When thinking about current performance, between 38% (for breaking down barriers to opportunity) and 45% (for kickstarting economic growth and taking back the streets) say the government is doing a bad job.  Since September negative ratings have increased by between five to nine percentage points. Looking ahead to the next election, still between 38% (breaking down barriers) and 44% (taking back the streets) think the government will do a bad job, with negative ratings increasing by 5-6 ppts.

[Dr The Singh]

29 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Nah. More chance of you being appointed Prince of Punjab by Modi. Reeves out by 2026 and replaced by Streeting wouldn't surprise me.

Sounds good, look forward to it.

[HighPeakFox]

50 minutes ago, Otis said:

Not just the right wing press.

 

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/half-britons-disappointed-labour-so-far-pessimism-over-missions-grows

 

Just a quarter (26%) say Keir Starmer is doing a good job as Prime Minister

 

A new Ipsos poll reveals continued public disappointment with the Labour government's performance as we approach five months after their election victory. The survey, conducted online among 1,092 British adults aged 18-75 between November 22nd and 25th, 2024, paints a picture of growing concern about the government's ability to deliver on its key promises.

 

The end of the honeymoon period continues for Labour

Just over half (53%) of Britons say that they are disappointed with what Labour have done in government so far, little changed from 50% in September. One in 5 (19%) say they are pleased.

This includes almost three in ten (28%) of those who voted for the party in the last General Election, although 2024 Labour voters are the only group who are more pleased (38%) than disappointed by what Labour have done in government so far.

81% of Conservative 2024 voters and 90% of Reform UK voters are unhappy with the government’s performance.

Disappointment is also high among those aged 55-75, with three quarters (74%) saying that they are unhappy (+11ppts since September). 

Those aged 18-34 are split on Labour’s performance, with 31% pleased and 35% disappointed.

 

Labour's missions 

Elsewhere in the poll, Labour’s performance on the five key missions that the party campaigned on was assessed, with the public asked to say how the government is delivering now, and how well they expect the party to do ahead of the next General Election. There is little public confidence that the Labour Government will deliver, either now or by the next election, while negative views have increased since September.

 

The NHS remains the top priority for Britons, with two thirds (66%) saying that building an NHS fit for the future is the most important of Labour’s missions. This is followed by kickstarting economic growth (38%) and taking back the streets by reducing crime (33%).

For each mission, only around 1 in 5 think the Labour government is doing a good job now (from 16% on taking back the streets to 22% for building an NHS fit for the future), and only slightly more think it will do a good job by the next election (from 23% for taking back the streets to 30% for the NHS). 

More think the Labour government is or will do a bad job, a feeling which has grown since September. When thinking about current performance, between 38% (for breaking down barriers to opportunity) and 45% (for kickstarting economic growth and taking back the streets) say the government is doing a bad job. Since September negative ratings have increased by between five to nine percentage points. Looking ahead to the next election, still between 38% (breaking down barriers) and 44% (taking back the streets) think the government will do a bad job, with negative ratings increasing by 5-6 ppts.

 

Labour's missions 

Elsewhere in the poll, Labour’s performance on the five key missions that the party campaigned on was assessed, with the public asked to say how the government is delivering now, and how well they expect the party to do ahead of the next General Election. There is little public confidence that the Labour Government will deliver, either now or by the next election, while negative views have increased since September.

• The NHS remains the top priority for Britons, with two thirds (66%) saying that building an NHS fit for the future is the most important of Labour’s missions. This is followed by kickstarting economic growth (38%) and taking back the streets by reducing crime (33%).
• For each mission, only around 1 in 5 think the Labour government is doing a good job now (from 16% on taking back the streets to 22% for building an NHS fit for the future), and only slightly more think it will do a good job by the next election (from 23% for taking back the streets to 30% for the NHS). 
• More think the Labour government is or will do a bad job, a feeling which has grown since September. When thinking about current performance, between 38% (for breaking down barriers to opportunity) and 45% (for kickstarting economic growth and taking back the streets) say the government is doing a bad job.  Since September negative ratings have increased by between five to nine percentage points. Looking ahead to the next election, still between 38% (breaking down barriers) and 44% (taking back the streets) think the government will do a bad job, with negative ratings increasing by 5-6 ppts.

Given nearly the entire press corps is acting like an attack dog and refusing to actually tell people what Labour are doing well, just as they refused to really properly assess  the ruinous Tory party's 14 years, this is hardly surprising. Our oligarch-owned news outlets are just one big collective propaganda machine.

[Otis]

17 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Given nearly the entire press corps is acting like an attack dog and refusing to actually tell people what Labour are doing well, just as they refused to really properly assess  the ruinous Tory party's 14 years, this is hardly surprising. Our oligarch-owned news outlets are just one big collective propaganda machine.

Go on then...

[HighPeakFox]

8 minutes ago, Otis said:

Go on then...

There will be stuff being quietly done, for sure - I'm no expert and am not going to attempt detail, but our (mainly rightwing) press has no interest in genuine unbiased journalism. It is interesting, if unsurprising, that you only focused on that part of what I said. What came before was far, far worse, and although I am disappointed thus far, I knew all along that any incoming party would be utterly hamstrung by the legacy of political thuggery and corruption they inherited..

[Otis]

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

There will be stuff being quietly done, for sure - I'm no expert and am not going to attempt detail, but our (mainly rightwing) press has no interest in genuine unbiased journalism. It is interesting, if unsurprising, that you only focused on that part of what I said. What came before was far, far worse, and although I am disappointed thus far, I knew all along that any incoming party would be utterly hamstrung by the legacy of political thuggery and corruption they inherited..

I agree the last government was a shambles, especially the last few years and I won't make any attempt to defend them, ultimately that's why they lost the election. 

Labour have had years to prepare for government and even boasted of a ready made plan. Yet so far they have upset pensioners, farmers, businesses (increasing NI Which affects anyone who works, despite promises not increasing tax on working people) ,to name a few.

I think it’s quite telling that nothing springs to mind when asked what they are doing well at. No wonder approval ratings have plummeted. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51211-where-public-opinion-stands-at-the-beginning-of-2025

 

I find it weird that people on here will only ever defend Labour and never see the wrongs and even blaming the media.

Hey, It's OK to criticise the party you voted for.

[HighPeakFox]

3 minutes ago, Otis said:

I agree the last government was a shambles, especially the last few years and I won't make any attempt to defend them, ultimately that's why they lost the election. 

Labour have had years to prepare for government and even boasted of a ready made plan. Yet so far they have upset pensioners, farmers, businesses (increasing NI Which affects anyone who works, despite promises not increasing tax on working people) ,to name a few.

I think it’s quite telling that nothing springs to mind when asked what they are doing well at. No wonder approval ratings have plummeted. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51211-where-public-opinion-stands-at-the-beginning-of-2025

 

I find it weird that people on here will only ever defend Labour and never see the wrongs and even blaming the media.

Hey, It's OK to criticise the party you voted for.

As I said, I'm disappointed. But to pretend they're doing nothing good is to be unwilling to look in a balanced way. I choose not to engage too much in politics and keeping up with the news because, frankly, my mental health is delicate, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't wish to get too deeply into it with you.

 

My point was - yes your polls are telling, but if there's a non-stop wave of negative propganda/reporting/slander campaigns, and then you have amplified voices of the hard right and maniacs like Musk wading in, plenty of people will allow themselves to be told what to think.

[Dunge]

I think it’s too early to say with Labour so far. They have a strategy: Plan, Do, Present. It’s a sound strategy. The key thing will be how quickly and efficiently they move to the Do phase or whether they get forever bogged down in the Plan phase. It’s a difficult balance between overthink and underthink. We’ll see how well they do in the coming years. Their problem right now looks like they could be most judged on things they’re not prioritising, and moreover things that would play into a right wing narrative.

[Jon the Hat]

The current Labour government is what happens when you vote against something instead of for something - you are not quite sure what you expect.  It is though also what happens after 14 years out of power. Labour forgot how the levers work and it takes a year or two to work it out and be effective.  Too early to judge whether they use them wisely or not.  

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I think it’s too early to say with Labour so far. They have a strategy: Plan, Do, Present. It’s a sound strategy. The key thing will be how quickly and efficiently they move to the Do phase or whether they get forever bogged down in the Plan phase. It’s a difficult balance between overthink and underthink. We’ll see how well they do in the coming years. Their problem right now looks like they could be most judged on things they’re not prioritising, and moreover things that would play into a right wing narrative.

I guess the criticism is why did they not PLAN before they got elected?  14 years to come up with good policy.  Are they now starting again?  Its a pretty poor message imo.

[ozleicester]

7 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Keep getting Katie Hopkins recommendations by YouTube.

No thanks..vile individual.

 

7 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Is it linked to your most common internet searches ? Do you often use a word beginning with C ? 

There is ONE video you should watch
 

 

Edited 9 January 2025 by ozleicester

[Dunge]

18 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I guess the criticism is why did they not PLAN before they got elected?  14 years to come up with good policy.  Are they now starting again?  Its a pretty poor message imo.

Because you only get all the information you need once you’re in a position to demand it. Take the social care plan that should probably be more descriptive than it is - on the other hand Labour haven’t had the public servants available to collate all the info they needed until now. At least that’s the theory.

 

What you have when you come in is generally a vision. There are certain things like those who want to scrap our involvement in the European human right act who have a responsibility to detail exactly what would replace it because that’s a specific piece of legislation. But for most policies we’re talking having an overview vision for how they should go then flesh out that vision with the help of the civil service once in office. Incidentally it’s an area where Boris struggled - he had grand visions but never bothered to get people to do the planning because he had contempt for the civil service so ultimately little happened beyond grand gestures.

[Jon the Hat]

17 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Because you only get all the information you need once you’re in a position to demand it. Take the social care plan that should probably be more descriptive than it is - on the other hand Labour haven’t had the public servants available to collate all the info they needed until now. At least that’s the theory.

 

What you have when you come in is generally a vision. There are certain things like those who want to scrap our involvement in the European human right act who have a responsibility to detail exactly what would replace it because that’s a specific piece of legislation. But for most policies we’re talking having an overview vision for how they should go then flesh out that vision with the help of the civil service once in office. Incidentally it’s an area where Boris struggled - he had grand visions but never bothered to get people to do the planning because he had contempt for the civil service so ultimately little happened beyond grand gestures.

Fleshing it out is one thing, but I think the messaging that they are now in the planning phase for large chunks of their agenda is a poor message.

[spacemunky]

As a Canadian, what the actual **** is happening right now?