Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
You know what, you make a very salient point.
Yes, for some people it would seem dumb, I could see how that would be an assumption by those who can see no further than the end of their noses.
However, for a new government out of office for 14 years It signals two things, first to the community at large it is way of raising money directly from private education 'coffers' to funding recruitment of teachers in state education, (a sort of 'quid pro quo') Also, it sends a signal to the private education sector in total (those who use the sector as well as those who profit from it) that it is no longer under the protection of a sympathetic government and hence no longer 'untouchable' as it was under the Tories, or indeed because a number of Labour MPs use the private sector for their children, often seen by the public, as 'not practicing what they preach'.
Beyond the above, it is indicating perhaps the way forward would be a compromise, of some sort, i.e, extending the new 'quid pro quo' into other areas of mutual support, i.e. the state education sector would see more benefit from operating alongside a private education sector, than it does at present where it's often assumed by many to be in direct competition and therefore diverting resources....e.g. such as teachers!
There are already links of course between both sectors, grants, bursaries, teacher/pupil exchange projects etc. these perhaps need to be extended, in some cases massively. The private sector as a whole (not just the private schools) will need to service the needs of a much wider group/cohort of pupils and parents and the government is signalling that, right now.
Of course given all the other issues the new government is struggling with at the moment, it maybe sometime until it can get around to concentrating in detail on 'dove-tailing' properly and mutually beneficially, the state and private education into one sector, hence this VAT 'tax play', is just a 'shot across the bows', a signal of intent, etc.
Labour donor quits Treasury role amid ‘cronyism’ claims
Ian Corfield resigns as official to Rachel Reeves as ministers deny giving preferential treatment to fundershttps://www.theguardian.com/politic...onor-quits-treasury-role-amid-cronyism-claims
A Labour donor has stepped down from his role as a civil servant at the Treasury, while the party comes under fire for granting a No 10 pass to another, as ministers deny they are giving preferential treatment to their funders.
Ian Corfield has resigned as an official to the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, the Sunday Times reported this weekend, becoming a temporary unpaid adviser instead after days of controversy over his role.
The paper also revealed that Waheed Alli, one of Labour’s biggest fundraisers, had been given full access to Downing Street, where he organised a post-election garden reception for others who contributed to the party’s campaign.
Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, said on Sunday he did not think Lord Alli still held a pass, but could not say why he had been granted one in the first place.
Not sure if William Wragg is looking for absolution or what with this piece. At best he's a naive idiot.
I was the MP in honeytrap scandal. I felt such guilt and horror
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politic...candal-westminster-mp-william-wragg-mgtbbsrbsIts not austerity lite that's coming then, it's going to be full on. Pathetic.
Attorney general intervenes in Foreign Office review of weapons sales to Israel
Exclusive: Richard Hermer tells officials he can’t approve decision to ban arms without knowing if their use would breach international lawhttps://www.theguardian.com/politic...eign-office-review-of-weapons-sales-to-israel
Keir Starmer’s most senior legal adviser has intervened in the contentious decision over whether to ban UK arms sales to Israel, the Guardian has learned, as officials struggle to distinguish between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons.
Sources say Richard Hermer, the attorney general, has told Foreign Office officials he will not approve a decision to ban some weapons sales but allow others, until they can say for sure which could be used to break international humanitarian law.
The legal wrangling at the top of government is understood to be the principal cause of the delay to the decision, which has become even more sensitive in recent weeks as the crisis in the Middle East escalates.
A Foreign Office spokesperson would not comment on Hermer’s role but said: “This government is committed to upholding international law. We have made clear that we will not export items if they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
Finally grown up politics is back!
I wouldn’t trust Starmer around Larry the cat. I haven’t forgot about his views on Geronimo the alpaca!
His handling of that situation was the perfect allegory for the rest of his career
I wouldn’t trust Starmer around Larry the cat. I haven’t forgot about his views on Geronimo the alpaca!
Definitely. As a attempt to appear more electable to blood drenched British ruling class
he demanded the murder of healthy animal.
I always assume there is a dehumanising trial system which people like Starmer have to go through in order to become PM. There’s very high chance Starmer shared his wife at a Eyes Wide Shut style party with both Jacob Rees Mogg and Mogg butler. All because he wanted to get 30% off the meal deal at NATO summits.
I’d agree but there’s no way Jacob Rees Mogg isn’t as smooth as a Ken doll down thereThey should call the new cat Jacob Rees-Moggy
Starmer will go full blown communist and call the cat Chairman Meow.
What!
To be fair he's going for the Ten Hag approach. Says he needs years to fix problems so he can kick the can down the road, speaks like English is a second language, has plenty of options on the left wing but refuses to use them properly...
Well let’s take the NHS for example, how long do you think it would take to:
- restock the beds that have been closed
- rebuild / restock / reopen the A&E wards lost since 2010
- modernise the NHS IT systems
- train / hire the staff to properly service the ward
- repair the damaged / worn-down buildings, or rebuild where needed
Then apply that to:
- schools and teaching
- the police services
- the Crown Prosecution Service
- public transport
- the Home Office
And every other service that has been decimated by the Tories, privatisation and austerity. Then throw in crises such As the waterways pollution, energy, exploitative employers, housing and rental markets etc.
If you think anyone, even with the political will to do so and a united country behind them, could do that in less than a decade then you’re delusional.
The PM doesn’t buy his own clothes
You could give him 100 years and he'd fix feck all, he's reimposing austerity which is a proven scam.
I did say even if you had the political will.
You can argue about his intentions all you want, are the facts wrong?
Exactly! If he gets through half that lot in ten years he will be a hero.
With 170 majority it's important he doesn't get blown off course, by his opponents, (inside) as well as outside the Labour party.
Overcoming the inertia (that there is already building) within the country against 'future-proofing' will however be his main obstacle to overcome, because the likelihood of 'events' over which he has seemingly no control occurring, e.g.on such issues as rampant/uncontrollable immigration, and those which he definitely has no control, natural disasters, wars etc. will do for him.
To have any chance he will need to become ruthless (with everybody) in particular the next 2-5 years in order to keep his government 'in the game', and ultimately being in a position able to eventually 'move the dial' for ordinary folk.... at all.
Can someone explain this? Why would Starmer need donations for clothes?
Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes"
He doesn't, but if someone's giving him decent clothes why would he turn them down? I'm pretty sure none of us would
undoing a decade of austerity by another decade of austerity is a new one on me.
Reading into this, I think Starmer does believe it will take 10 years to improve the country. Given his age, this is a way to ensure an approved successor actually gets approved and doesn't run the risk of losing to someone popular.
Yeah this likely to be true. One of the main goals of the PLP since the Corbyn win in 2015 has been trying to make sure it can never happen again.
I don't recall "we need 10 years" to have been their election campaign slogan. Am pretty sure they promised results and to make a difference.
Oh, you will point to them having said that they had "no idea things were this bad"...despite having said for years that things were just this bad.
Very convenient that for them.
Like @DanH said, it's pretty much all they were saying!
Last edited:
Genuinely impressive Ellie Reeves is as robotic and dull as her sister.
It's early days and it's probably all part of the plan (with reality added in there) but the rhetoric is similar to the last Tory government. It's doom and gloom and a lot off blaming the previous government for the mess that they left. There's no doubt some truth to it but a message of positivity will also need to come at some point, though I wouldn't expect this any time soon.
The gas domes became obsolete when we started drawing gas directly from the North Sea, which in our wisdom we are now winding down. Many of them haven't been in use for decades. That's a separate issue to the lack of energy storge in the UK. We've invested very heavily in pipelines to supply energy as and when its needed but that means we're vulnerable to supply shocks like the Ukraine war.
Energy of all types is usually bought on 6 month futures contracts so the wholesale price of energy now is only reflected on the consumer 6 months into the future.
They can't fill the 2,800 vacancies they already have so the extra teachers will never exist anywhere other than in Keir Starmer's fantasy. They know full well none of the projected revenue will go anywhere near the state sector but it will placate the braying mob's rage for a few weeks.
It's very much the same message.
The main difference is that it is wholly believable. It's been 8 years of being run by absolute children and cretins. Who, on top of their incompetence, were more motivated by greed and pandering to special interests than actual governance. And they were the ones handling brexit as well. It is to be expected that the state of affairs is historically shambolic really. Labour can presumably rectify some of it by simply being the adult choice, more so than choice of policies.
It is there already, a majority of 170 in the commons, that is the message of positivity.
Labour could realistically hold power for the next 15 years or so with such a majority and moving one-foot-in-front-of-the-other, and over that period picking its way carefully it could make the real changes needed to improve the lives of ordinary folk.
However, there will be a lot of people out there trying to 'rock the boat' for Starmer both inside and outside of the Labour party. The first two years will be a fine balancing act, righting some wrongs, e.g. on public service pay, emergency funding for some areas with the NHS, and conversely sticking to the 'harder-nosed' issues of e.g. no change on child allowance, withdrawing winter payments from pensioners, and ultimately, raising some tax intakes, e.g pressing ahead on VAT issues within the private education sector.
Starmer will also have to be more focused on the big issues that have lain just below the water line for years and cut across almost every section of the public, things like immigration, that could blow up in his face ending with Reform his main opponent in 2029. He will also have to hope, the passage/arrival of 'events' that are out of control is more easily spotted in time and are dealt with effectively and as soon as possible, so as to not 'blow him off course'.
'Nerves of steel' Sir Keir that's what you will need!