The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

19 minutes ago, whelk said:

I just hope the ID cards are suitably high tech and a chip can be inserted under the skin to save carrying something

It's the upgrades you have to watch out for.

As I found out when I got a betamax player inserted into the back of my head.

[AlexLaw76]

29 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

It's the upgrades you have to watch out for.

As I found out when I got a betamax player inserted into the back of my head.

The only logical step is for a government issued iPhone (every 5 years) to stores said ID Cards on

[Holmes_and_Watson]

17 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The only logical step is for a government issued iPhone (every 5 years) to stores said ID Cards on

It's the logical step to bring all the data harvesting and surveillance tech together in one easily tracked package.

As Starmer said in his historic partnership with Apple " Did you know that you're only 200 feet away from McDonalds and that those trousers you have on are very last season? Remember non-activist citizen: Growth, growth, growth."

[egg]

11 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

ID Cards and such like will happen one day.

however, the thought of the UK Government being guardians of such data is pretty scary given the biggest and best companies, who pour unlimited funds into cyber security, suffer from significant data breaches.

HMRC - government. They have personal data for all legitimate working people. 

I'm not persuaded that the government storing data about working people that the government already has is a point at all, let alone a good one. 

[whelk]

18 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

It's the logical step to bring all the data harvesting and surveillance tech together in one easily tracked package.

As Starmer said in his historic partnership with Apple " Did you know that you're only 200 feet away from McDonalds and that those trousers you have on are very last season? Remember non-activist citizen: Growth, growth, growth."

It is essential to have a GPS chip that is open to FOI requests so we are all free to know everyone’s movements if we wish. I just hope they partner with that lovely ethical fellow Mark Zucherberg

[Weston Super Saint]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

HMRC - government. They have personal data for all legitimate working people. 

 

Which is a good point.

The question still remains though, how do digital IDs solve the issue of illegal workers?

Let's not forget that all non UK citizens already have an online digital ID which allows them to work, but that hasn't had any effect on illegal immigration.

To me (and I couldn't give a shiny shit whether I need one or not), I'm not seeing how it solves the problem we're being told it will solve. Someone will still need to be checking IDs to find the illegal workers, which they can do right now of the appetite was there...

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Which is a good point.

The question still remains though, how do digital IDs solve the issue of illegal workers?

Let's not forget that all non UK citizens already have an online digital ID which allows them to work, but that hasn't had any effect on illegal immigration.

To me (and I couldn't give a shiny shit whether I need one or not), I'm not seeing how it solves the problem we're being told it will solve. Someone will still need to be checking IDs to find the illegal workers, which they can do right now of the appetite was there...

I agree with that. I don't have an issue with an ID card, but like you, I don't see how it addresses the fundamental issue. 

An ID card without bodies on the ground to police them is pointless. 

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

I agree with that. I don't have an issue with an ID card, but like you, I don't see how it addresses the fundamental issue. 

An ID card without bodies on the ground to police them is pointless. 

We need to go full draconian and say any firm employing someone without an  ID card gets fined so heavily that they will go out of business. Or send directors to prison

[egg]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

We need to go full draconian and say any firm employing someone without an  ID card gets fined so heavily that they will go out of business. Or send directors to prison

Absolutely. It needs a proper deterrent, and for it to properly enforced. Utterly ridiculous that firms are getting away with hiring whoever they want without penalty. 

[Weston Super Saint]

45 minutes ago, whelk said:

We need to go full draconian and say any firm employing someone without an  ID card gets fined so heavily that they will go out of business. Or send directors to prison

We already have that in place, I'd wager a £60k fine is enough to put most small businesses out of operation, especially those likely to be employing illegal workers cash in hand - car wash, restaurants, shops etc.

All well and good having a deterrent but it's toothless if no one is bothering to check. Increasing the fine is pointless if there still isn't anyone checking.

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We already have that in place, I'd wager a £60k fine is enough to put most small businesses out of operation, especially those likely to be employing illegal workers cash in hand - car wash, restaurants, shops etc.

All well and good having a deterrent but it's toothless if no one is bothering to check. Increasing the fine is pointless if there still isn't anyone checking.

We need to increase the penalties and throw cash at effective enforcement. The practical difficulty is actually checking who the staff are when they're whizzing around on their bikes delivering shit food. 

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

We need to increase the penalties and throw cash at effective enforcement. The practical difficulty is actually checking who the staff are when they're whizzing around on their bikes delivering shit food. 

If only there was a way of getting them to stop at a certain address when they deliver food...

[egg]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

If only there was a way of getting them to stop at a certain address when they deliver food...

Ha!!! Loads of undercover "ICE" type folks following on their plain clothes bikes ready to pounce after matey has delivered a KFC order is a sure fire recipe to truly smash the gangs. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

23 minutes ago, trousers said:

If only there was a way of getting them to stop at a certain address when they deliver food...

Sadly, apprehension rates plummet due to police forces scoffing abandoned pizzas, and being unable to chase.

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, trousers said:

If only there was a way of getting them to stop at a certain address when they deliver food...

 

23 minutes ago, egg said:

Ha!!! Loads of undercover "ICE" type folks following on their plain clothes bikes ready to pounce after matey has delivered a KFC order is a sure fire recipe to truly smash the gangs. 

And you get to remove illegal e-bikes from the streets at the same time.

Edited September 27 by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

If i were going to whack up inheritance tax on farmers, the first thing I'd do is probably make sure I hadn't avoided inheritance tax myself. Just saying.

[Lord Duckhunter]

[egg]

33 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That's completely meaningless without knowing at what point of their leadership the sample was taken. 

I'd hazard a guess that at peak times, Thatcher, Blair and Johnson were more unpopular than Major ever was, ditto Starmer.

[whelk]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

That's completely meaningless without knowing at what point of their leadership the sample was taken. 

I'd hazard a guess that at peak times, Thatcher, Blair and Johnson were more unpopular than Major ever was, ditto Starmer.

LD’s gone all Batman posting endless pretty meaningless polls. Quite sad really.

[egg]

Just now, whelk said:

LD’s gone all Batman posting endless pretty meaningless polls. Quite sad really.

People have to convince themselves sometimes. 

Any poll which suggests that peak Major or Sunak was more unpopular than peak Thatcher is bollox. Only a Thatcher fanboy would buy that.

Oh.

[Lord Duckhunter]

😂😂 Posters that know better than experienced pollsters.

It’s the lowest approval ratings each PM achieved. Handily, it gives you the date of the rating. “Hazard a guess” or a company that’s been pollling this question since 1977 😂😂.

 

Gideon Skinner, Senior Director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said:

Keir Starmer’s personal satisfaction ratings are the worst for any Prime Minister polled by Ipsos since we first started asking the question in 1977, which shows the scale of the task facing him ahead of the Labour conference. Labour’s share of vote is the lowest we have recorded since 2009 and has dipped three points since June, following a difficult start to the autumn in which he lost his deputy Prime Minister and his Ambassador to the US, and is now facing talk of a potential leadership challenge. But Labour's issues are deeper than changes in personnel - they are losing votes to both left and right, with the public still pessimistic about the state of the economy, immigration and public services, despite his planned relaunch to put a renewed focus on delivery. With a crucial Budget ahead, Rachel Reeves’ personal ratings are comparable to Kwasi Kwarteng’s after October 2022 

[egg]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

😂😂 Posters that know better than experienced pollsters.

It’s the lowest approval ratings each PM achieved. Handily, it gives you the date of the rating. “Hazard a guess” or a company that’s been pollling this question since 1977 😂😂.

 

 

Gideon Skinner, Senior Director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said:

Keir Starmer’s personal satisfaction ratings are the worst for any Prime Minister polled by Ipsos since we first started asking the question in 1977, which shows the scale of the task facing him ahead of the Labour conference. Labour’s share of vote is the lowest we have recorded since 2009 and has dipped three points since June, following a difficult start to the autumn in which he lost his deputy Prime Minister and his Ambassador to the US, and is now facing talk of a potential leadership challenge. But Labour's issues are deeper than changes in personnel - they are losing votes to both left and right, with the public still pessimistic about the state of the economy, immigration and public services, despite his planned relaunch to put a renewed focus on delivery. With a crucial Budget ahead, Rachel Reeves’ personal ratings are comparable to Kwasi Kwarteng’s after October 2022 

Again, it's completely meaningless without the context of whether those figures were at a snapshot in time, or at peak unpopularity. 

None of that ^^^ waffle addresses that. 

[whelk]

He’s a little deranged and obsessed. Sad

[whelk]

11 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

😂😂 Posters that know better than experienced pollsters.

It’s the lowest approval ratings each PM achieved. Handily, it gives you the date of the rating. “Hazard a guess” or a company that’s been pollling this question since 1977 😂😂.

 

 

Gideon Skinner, Senior Director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said:

Keir Starmer’s personal satisfaction ratings are the worst for any Prime Minister polled by Ipsos since we first started asking the question in 1977, which shows the scale of the task facing him ahead of the Labour conference. Labour’s share of vote is the lowest we have recorded since 2009 and has dipped three points since June, following a difficult start to the autumn in which he lost his deputy Prime Minister and his Ambassador to the US, and is now facing talk of a potential leadership challenge. But Labour's issues are deeper than changes in personnel - they are losing votes to both left and right, with the public still pessimistic about the state of the economy, immigration and public services, despite his planned relaunch to put a renewed focus on delivery. With a crucial Budget ahead, Rachel Reeves’ personal ratings are comparable to Kwasi Kwarteng’s after October 2022 

Bless the little polling fanboy getting all excited 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Again, it's completely meaningless without the context of whether those figures were at a snapshot in time, or at peak unpopularity. 

None of that ^^^ waffle addresses that. 

😂😂, what’s so hard to understand.
 

It was peak unpopularity, I thought that was pretty obvious… The bit “ the worst poll ratings since 1977”  was the hint. The Senior director, wouldn’t write that, if the other names were more unpopular at other times. 
 

You’ve spent years moaning about the tories and banging on about Liz Truss, but Starmers unpopularity is “waffle” 😂

Edited September 28 by Lord Duckhunter

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

😂😂, what’s so hard to understand.
 

It was peak unpopularity, I thought that was pretty obvious… The bit “ the worst poll ratings since 1977”  was the hint. The Senior director, wouldn’t write that, if the other names were more unpopular at other times. 
 

You’ve spent years moaning about the tories and banging on about Liz Truss, but Starmers unpopularity is “waffle” 😂

I understand fully. Those are polls that show the highest unpopularity rating at the time of asking. That's different to the highest unpopularity of the leadership. 

Regardless, you've got to be pretty daft to think that at his peak of unpopularity, Major was more unpopular than many if that lot, your mate Thatcher especially. 

[Gloucester Saint]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

I understand fully. Those are polls that show the highest unpopularity rating at the time of asking. That's different to the highest unpopularity of the leadership. 

Regardless, you've got to be pretty daft to think that at his peak of unpopularity, Major was more unpopular than many if that lot, your mate Thatcher especially. 

Poll tax passed him by. She was also very unpopular 1979-82 pre-Falklands and miles behind the SDP in the polls.

Edited September 28 by Gloucester Saint

[egg]

31 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Poll tax passed him by. She was also very unpopular 1979-82 pre-Falklands and miles behind the SDP in the polls.

Indeed. We live in an era where online polls can be done daily. Back then, mori or whoever had to send teams of people out onto the streets all around the country to take polls. They didn't do that daily, and not every time a politician did something that would spike the polls one way or the other. 

The graph is bollox. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Indeed. We live in an era where online polls can be done daily. Back then, mori or whoever had to send teams of people out onto the streets all around the country to take polls. They didn't do that daily, and not every time a politician did something that would spike the polls one way or the other. 

The graph is bollox. 

Polls aren't something I put a lot of faith in.

Observationally, to be worse than Truss, when they were presumably polling just as frequently, is quite the achievement.

That lettuce is looking more and more like the best PM we never had.

[hypochondriac]

19 hours ago, whelk said:

Bless the little polling fanboy getting all excited 

Does it really matter if its historically the worst ever or not? The point is he's incredibly unpopular either the worst ever or close to it. You do appear to get quite defensive at the idea that Labour are doing a shit job of things - I didn't think they'd be great but they have done quite a bit worse than I expected. I know you think they haven't done a bad job so far but clearly you're in the minority there.

Edited September 29 by hypochondriac

[AlexLaw76]

Do Labour still oppose voter ID?

[whelk]

28 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Does it really matter if it’s historically the worst ever or not? The point is he's incredibly unpopular either the worst ever or close to it. You do appear to get quite defensive at the idea that Labour are doing a shit job of things - I didn't think they'd be great but they have done quite a bit worse than I expected. I know you think they haven't done a bad job so far but clearly you're in the minority there.

I just tire of someone going on X and posting it back here as if some revelation. 
Not so much defensive just weary of people who put up some pretence of supporting the government when clearly they are deliriously happy to jump on anything. 

Not going to endlessly repeat myself but there is a limit to how much the govt can make the discontented happy. It runs deeper than that. That the polls seem to indicate that many think Reform will solve issues and improve their lives is for the birds. 

Edited September 29 by whelk

[Gloucester Saint]

52 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Do Labour still oppose voter ID?

Tangentially, the Swiss have a vote on it live and just closing https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/switzerland-votes-on-introducing-electronic-id/90017009

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Tangentially, the Swiss have a vote on it live and just closing https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/switzerland-votes-on-introducing-electronic-id/90017009

Isn't that scheme optional?

[Gloucester Saint]

4 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Isn't that scheme optional?

It seems so, although the Swiss have already got a national identity card as fallback https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr624j16jpo

Narrowly passed (!) so will be interesting to watch. I suspect accessing key services plus consumer goods will be more difficult without it even if it isn’t mandatory as such.

[hypochondriac]

25 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It seems so, although the Swiss have already got a national identity card as fallback https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr624j16jpo

Narrowly passed (!) so will be interesting to watch. I suspect accessing key services plus consumer goods will be more difficult without it even if it isn’t mandatory as such.

I have no issues with a voluntary ID scheme. Making it mandatory is the issue along with the potential for abuse of power.

[skintsaint]

[sadoldgit]

Nothing to say about Starmer’s speech yesterday? After many dour pronouncements I thought it was an excellent and rousing speech . Hopefully this is the beginning of a consistent fight back against the creeping racism that has been growing for a while now. Good to see Farage called out for what he is on a national stage. No surprise to see the far right media still lying about what Starmer is saying. He is not and has never said that it is racist to be concerned about immigration and control of our borders. He called real racism out what it is and Farage sounded, finally, a bit rattled, by the criticism. Starmer was spot on. All he has got (Farage) is grievance. He offers nothing other than division and hatred.

It was a good move to reclaim the flags from the flagshaggers. It is entirely possible to be proud of your country without feeling the need to denigrate immigrants or hang flags from lampposts.

It is one thing to preach to the converted, another to bring the country with you. I hope that we will see more of this from Starmer and Labour going forward. It shouldn’t be an issue to call a racist a racist yet it has become so.

The other big thing to come out of the Labour conference is the almost complete disappearance of the Tory Party. Hardly any mention of them at all. The guns were aimed at Farage and Reform. It’s incredible how  a party who have governed the country for such a large part of the last hundred years have become so insignificant so quickly.

Badenoch is clearly not the answer and if they go with Jenrick they will be worse than they are at the moment, if that is possible. It’s hard to see a way back for them.

So then, the “loony left” and the so called Antifa threat we seem to be importing from Trump. Anyone know who the far left equivalent of Tommy Robinson is? Anyone know how you sign up for Antifa? I’m struggling with this. As a so called “lefty” I haven’t got a clue who I am supposed to be supporting considering that many in the Labour Party consider that Starmer isn’t “left” enough.

Final point. Farage, like Trump, keeps banging on about “Free Speech” up until the point that people use their freedom of speech to criticism them, then they throw their dummies out of the pram. Can’t have it both ways lads.

Edited October 1 by sadoldgit

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Anyone know who the far left equivalent of Tommy Robinson is?

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

What a complete and utter fucking helmet…

 

 

[hypochondriac]

7 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

 

[Wade Garrett]

The impression I get of Starmer is that he has no strategy and seems to just react to the issue of the day.

I don’t think he’s fulfilling his country before party pledge either.

 

Edited October 2 by Wade Garrett

[Jeremy Corbyn]

14 hours ago, Wade Garrett said:

The impression I get of Starmer is that he has no strategy and seems to just react to the issue of the day.

I don’t think he’s fulfilling his country before party pledge either.

 

Part of the issue is that they came in with a very specific and restrictive manifesto and when things haven't gone to plan (which they often don't), they've been hemmed in and reactive.  That combined with a lack of a tangible vision (by the looks of it) and it all seems a bit wank.

[Wade Garrett]

28 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Part of the issue is that they came in with a very specific and restrictive manifesto and when things haven't gone to plan (which they often don't), they've been hemmed in and reactive.  That combined with a lack of a tangible vision (by the looks of it) and it all seems a bit wank.

I very much get the impression that Starmer is just making it up as he goes along.

As much as I hated Thatcher, she was a leader.  Tony Blair was a leader.  I don’t think we’ve had any leaders since him and Starmer certainly isn’t one.

[badgerx16]

15 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

I very much get the impression that Starmer is just making it up as he goes along.

As much as I hated Thatcher, she was a leader.  Tony Blair was a leader.  I don’t think we’ve had any leaders since him and Starmer certainly isn’t one.

I think Starmer was picked as leader because he is bland, and therefore more electable than some of the alternatives.

Labour are finding out that opposition politics is much easier than having to actually govern. 

[Baird of the land]

Starmer very much reminds me of major (solid but unexciting). Like Major it feels like he'll be constantly dogged by elements of his own party.

[sadoldgit]

19 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

Starmer very much reminds me of major (solid but unexciting). Like Major it feels like he'll be constantly dogged by elements of his own party.

I think that is an issue for every PM to a lesser or greater extent. There will always be factions within parties who are not happen with certain policies or direction of travel. The Labour Party are probably more likely to have internal divisions due to its history and the advent of New Labour.

Starmer’s main issue for me is that he is a pragmatist rather than an idealist. Corbyn is an idealist and appeals to those with deep rooted socialist principles. Starmer is a socialist but wants to solve problems without being hamstrung by ideology. Hence what are seen of a number of unborn like decisions in his first year.

He inherited a poisoned chalice isfter 14 years of austerity, misrule and corruption.  He was never going to address the main issues and remain popular in the first phase of his administration. No one could. But as with football managers, if you don’t set the world alight after 6 matches people want you out. 

Every government bring in their unpopular policies at the start knowing that they are safe for a few years and then bring in the sweeteners as another election approaches. Starmer’s problem is that, by his own admission, it will take two terms to address the problems we face. He won’t be given the time because too many people want everything better now. Farage, despite not having a clue how to govern, is selling quick fixes that he doesn’t have.

There have been some high profile mistakes in his first year, but also a number of good things which get buried as the media is bent on doing all it can to diss him, especially the Mail which has plumbed new depths of mostly unsubstantiated bile. 

He has a big task in his second year to fight the rise of populism, racial hatred and to get over the more positive messages. He looks the part on the international stage and has managed to make us look like we belong on the world stage again after a succession of clowns (just imagine Farage representing the UK in similar circumstances). He needs to bring that to his domestic performance.

He has been fortunate that Badenoch is such a poor leader of the opposition as she and her party sink lower and lower into obscurity. The LibDems are still suffering from Clegg’s momentous error to get behind Cameron and look unlikely to pose a real threat to Labour. Hopefully Farage will be a busted flush soon. It is all Labour’s to lose and they and Starmer clearly need to up their game. His problem is that he needs to persuade more of his party that the emphasis should be more on fixing and less on ideology. 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

19 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

Like Major it feels like he'll be constantly dogged by elements of his own party.

No, like Major he’s an incredibly weak and vacuous man. As Wade said, he’s not a leader, at least Major had the excuse of a smallish majority after his election win. This bloke is being pushed around despite having a massive majority. Like or loath Mrs T and Blair, they knew what they wanted and set a path towards those outcomes, constructing a coherent argument for them. They believed in what they’re doing. This bloke is like Boris, just being PM for the sake of being PM, without any real convictions or principles.
 

I’ve no doubt the party thought it would take 2 terms to overturn Boris’ majority and therefore Starmer was ideal candidate to make them appear sensible and serious after the Corbyn years. A kinnock type figure who would then give way to someone better after election defeat. The Tories fucked that up by being so useless that he actually won. Looking back winning in ‘92 did for the Tories and massively contributed to their 13 years in opposition. Had they lost Kinnock would have been PM, Clarke or Portillio would probably have won the leadership & 1997 might not have changed politics so much. Remember membership of The ERM was also their policy as well.  I get the feeling 2024 could be the same, an election that in 20 years time, labour will look back at and wish they’d lost. 

[Farmer Saint]

51 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

No, like Major he’s an incredibly weak and vacuous man. As Wade said, he’s not a leader, at least Major had the excuse of a smallish majority after his election win. This bloke is being pushed around despite having a massive majority. Like or loath Mrs T and Blair, they knew what they wanted and set a path towards those outcomes, constructing a coherent argument for them. They believed in what they’re doing. This bloke is like Boris, just being PM for the sake of being PM, without any real convictions or principles.
 

I’ve no doubt the party thought it would take 2 terms to overturn Boris’ majority and therefore Starmer was ideal candidate to make them appear sensible and serious after the Corbyn years. A kinnock type figure who would then give way to someone better after election defeat. The Tories fucked that up by being so useless that he actually won. Looking back winning in ‘92 did for the Tories and massively contributed to their 13 years in opposition. Had they lost Kinnock would have been PM, Clarke or Portillio would probably have won the leadership & 1997 might not have changed politics so much. Remember membership of The ERM was also their policy as well.  I get the feeling 2024 could be the same, an election that in 20 years time, labour will look back at and wish they’d lost. 

God I hate agreeing with you, but yes this all makes sense. 

The biggest problem with Starmer is doing the opposite to the "country before party" promise he made. If you're going to be a Labour PM, grow some damn balls and be a Labour PM.

[hypochondriac]

29 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

God I hate agreeing with you, but yes this all makes sense. 

The biggest problem with Starmer is doing the opposite to the "country before party" promise he made. If you're going to be a Labour PM, grow some damn balls and be a Labour PM.

Can't argue with that. Like Duckhunter says, I can disagree with most things that Tony Blair did but I can respect the fact that he was carrying out what he believed in and he had a vision for the country that was clear.