There is, of course, an element of wishful thinking there, certainly on my part and probably on Buckley's. In politics as in business, it makes sense to talk up your side, and denigrate the others. I hope Starmer fails, and fails catastrophically. But as he says, there is objective political analysis in there. The problems that Starmer faces are likely to be totally overwhelming. A "National Wealth Fund" based on borrowing. Artificially hobbling industry with expensive energy. Importing low-skill immigrants who are now increasingly unpopular, and legally stifling dissent. Committing to expensive brinkmanship regarding Ukraine. Presiding over an untried and fissiparous team who frequently talk like total idiots. And plenty more.
Perhaps that's where our political preferences come from, in large part. We don't want people who involve us in plans and projects that we can see are not going to work.
I've said elsewhere that Starmer will be removed as leader after the May 2025 council elections. I believe his leadership within Labour is fragile so someone else will take over - my guess is Angela Rayner (as the trade union pick).
From then on matters will degenerate further until we do get another Winter of Discontent and another General Election is called.
Just because Corbyn is currently out in the cold, I would suggest that he will make his way back into the inner circle, possibly even back to the top. As a rabid Palestinian supporter, the growing influence from the Islamic Labour (for now) supporters and officials, may ease his way. If so, it's confirmation that Pte Frazer was right all along. Penseivat
I used to enjoy pointing out that the people's party had never won 50% of the votes cast in a General Election. This would often provoke the dimmer sort of socialist to demand to be told whether the Conservative scum had ever reached 50%. To which the answer, of course, is "yes".
Labour's haul has included 2019 32.2%, 2015 30.4%, 2010 29.0%,1983 27.6%, and (how about this for a 100th anniversary coincidence?) 1924 33%.
Sam - yes there is an element of wishful thinking but there are too many genuine problems which as you say, are likely to be totally overwhelming. He doesn't seem to be the kind of politician who can assign a rational priority to them either - the winter fuel payment mess being a telling example. He seems to be too stubborn to handle that aspect.
DJ - yes, Angela Rayner as the trade union pick is in a good position. She may make a mess of housing, but in political terms that's an issue which shouldn't change quickly enough to mess up her chances. As you say though, matters will still degenerate further.
Penseivat - Corbyn's problem may be his age, but even though he isn't a Labour MP, he may cause splits within the party and who knows where that will go? Yes Pte Frazer was right all along.
dearieme - I didn't know that but yes, even Blair didn't manage it. Not much progress since 1924.
The reason I think the chap in the video is correct about Starmer and Labour's prospects is that the main issues facing the country, and that are of crucial interest to the voters are a) immigration, b) energy costs, c) high taxation and cost of living, and d) the NHS. And on none of those issues do Labour (whoever is their PM) have a single policy that will make things better. Indeed they pretty much want to do more and faster of the things the Tories were doing that people were so p*ssed off about at the last election. So nothing is going to improve, that could make the government more popular. Immigration will remain high, and all the negatives associated with it will continue to dominate the public consciousness. Energy costs will continue to rise as Net Zero tightens its grasp on the country. Taxes will rise and spending does likewise, especially on higher public sector wages. The NHS will continue its rapid descent into 3rd world status (its already there in many parts of the country), while costing a fortune. Public organisation will increasingly provide no service whatsoever, other than fat salaries to their employees. The economy will continue to stagnate as energy costs, increased regulation and higher taxes weigh upon anyone stupid enough to try and run a business.
The one thing Starmer had going for him, a Mr Boring but Clean type image, he's jettisoned by abolishing the WFA and now this clothing scandal (which is a nothing really, but its indicative of his way of thinking - no one who was truly 'clean' would have accepted that money). 2 months into his premiership and he's already lost his USP that separated him from the Tories. And we all know how unpopular they were (and still are).
Labour have made the fatal error of thinking they were popular in and of themselves and their policies and thats why they got such a landslide win, and they could behave as if they'd won a 1945 type election - we are the masters now. When in reality they just got given the keys to the country because the electorate (even the ones who didn't vote Labour) were so fed up with the Tories they'd accept anyone vaguely sensible in their place. They should have attempted to run a sort of National Government type administration, to have taken on board other ideas. But of course they couldn't, in their heads they are the morally superior class of beings and anything their opponents say is de facto not only wrong but objectively evil. So compromise cannot be in their lexicon. Which is why they are already unpopular, and will become increasingly so as they have no more positive effect than the Tories did.
So yes its possible Labour don't last 5 years. It probably more likely they will be like the Tories were - hanging on to the last moment because the polling is so bad they know they are out on their ears the moment the polls close.
Sobers - I can't disagree with any of that, a very cogent summing up if I may say so. As if Starmer and those close to him didn't even think he had a USP and didn't realise this is what he had to protect carefully for at least five years. Even though all their rhetoric was centred on how bad the Tories were, doing the same but more of it seemed to be the plan.
It strongly suggest that Starmer isn't Mr Boring but Clean at all, but a rock solid ideologue who sees nothing whatever beyond his ideology. As if his cronies, assuming he has any, can't tell him anything because it doesn't go in unless it fits the ideology.
"in their heads they are the morally superior class of beings"
I agree, I have a draft post around that attitude. As if they all think they have raised themselves socially and looking down on the majority is the right attitude.
7 comments:
There is, of course, an element of wishful thinking there, certainly on my part and probably on Buckley's. In politics as in business, it makes sense to talk up your side, and denigrate the others. I hope Starmer fails, and fails catastrophically. But as he says, there is objective political analysis in there. The problems that Starmer faces are likely to be totally overwhelming. A "National Wealth Fund" based on borrowing. Artificially hobbling industry with expensive energy. Importing low-skill immigrants who are now increasingly unpopular, and legally stifling dissent. Committing to expensive brinkmanship regarding Ukraine. Presiding over an untried and fissiparous team who frequently talk like total idiots. And plenty more.
Perhaps that's where our political preferences come from, in large part. We don't want people who involve us in plans and projects that we can see are not going to work.
I've said elsewhere that Starmer will be removed as leader after the May 2025 council elections. I believe his leadership within Labour is fragile so someone else will take over - my guess is Angela Rayner (as the trade union pick).
From then on matters will degenerate further until we do get another Winter of Discontent and another General Election is called.
Just because Corbyn is currently out in the cold, I would suggest that he will make his way back into the inner circle, possibly even back to the top.
As a rabid Palestinian supporter, the growing influence from the Islamic Labour (for now) supporters and officials, may ease his way.
If so, it's confirmation that Pte Frazer was right all along.
Penseivat
I used to enjoy pointing out that the people's party had never won 50% of the votes cast in a General Election. This would often provoke the dimmer sort of socialist to demand to be told whether the Conservative scum had ever reached 50%. To which the answer, of course, is "yes".
Labour's haul has included 2019 32.2%, 2015 30.4%, 2010 29.0%,1983 27.6%, and (how about this for a 100th anniversary coincidence?) 1924 33%.
Sam - yes there is an element of wishful thinking but there are too many genuine problems which as you say, are likely to be totally overwhelming. He doesn't seem to be the kind of politician who can assign a rational priority to them either - the winter fuel payment mess being a telling example. He seems to be too stubborn to handle that aspect.
DJ - yes, Angela Rayner as the trade union pick is in a good position. She may make a mess of housing, but in political terms that's an issue which shouldn't change quickly enough to mess up her chances. As you say though, matters will still degenerate further.
Penseivat - Corbyn's problem may be his age, but even though he isn't a Labour MP, he may cause splits within the party and who knows where that will go? Yes Pte Frazer was right all along.
dearieme - I didn't know that but yes, even Blair didn't manage it. Not much progress since 1924.
The reason I think the chap in the video is correct about Starmer and Labour's prospects is that the main issues facing the country, and that are of crucial interest to the voters are a) immigration, b) energy costs, c) high taxation and cost of living, and d) the NHS. And on none of those issues do Labour (whoever is their PM) have a single policy that will make things better. Indeed they pretty much want to do more and faster of the things the Tories were doing that people were so p*ssed off about at the last election. So nothing is going to improve, that could make the government more popular. Immigration will remain high, and all the negatives associated with it will continue to dominate the public consciousness. Energy costs will continue to rise as Net Zero tightens its grasp on the country. Taxes will rise and spending does likewise, especially on higher public sector wages. The NHS will continue its rapid descent into 3rd world status (its already there in many parts of the country), while costing a fortune. Public organisation will increasingly provide no service whatsoever, other than fat salaries to their employees. The economy will continue to stagnate as energy costs, increased regulation and higher taxes weigh upon anyone stupid enough to try and run a business.
The one thing Starmer had going for him, a Mr Boring but Clean type image, he's jettisoned by abolishing the WFA and now this clothing scandal (which is a nothing really, but its indicative of his way of thinking - no one who was truly 'clean' would have accepted that money). 2 months into his premiership and he's already lost his USP that separated him from the Tories. And we all know how unpopular they were (and still are).
Labour have made the fatal error of thinking they were popular in and of themselves and their policies and thats why they got such a landslide win, and they could behave as if they'd won a 1945 type election - we are the masters now. When in reality they just got given the keys to the country because the electorate (even the ones who didn't vote Labour) were so fed up with the Tories they'd accept anyone vaguely sensible in their place. They should have attempted to run a sort of National Government type administration, to have taken on board other ideas. But of course they couldn't, in their heads they are the morally superior class of beings and anything their opponents say is de facto not only wrong but objectively evil. So compromise cannot be in their lexicon. Which is why they are already unpopular, and will become increasingly so as they have no more positive effect than the Tories did.
So yes its possible Labour don't last 5 years. It probably more likely they will be like the Tories were - hanging on to the last moment because the polling is so bad they know they are out on their ears the moment the polls close.
Sobers - I can't disagree with any of that, a very cogent summing up if I may say so. As if Starmer and those close to him didn't even think he had a USP and didn't realise this is what he had to protect carefully for at least five years. Even though all their rhetoric was centred on how bad the Tories were, doing the same but more of it seemed to be the plan.
It strongly suggest that Starmer isn't Mr Boring but Clean at all, but a rock solid ideologue who sees nothing whatever beyond his ideology. As if his cronies, assuming he has any, can't tell him anything because it doesn't go in unless it fits the ideology.
"in their heads they are the morally superior class of beings"
I agree, I have a draft post around that attitude. As if they all think they have raised themselves socially and looking down on the majority is the right attitude.
Post a Comment