My other observation would be that if I were Tory leader I’d be moving mountains to make Rishi shadow chancellor. Which isn’t as mad as it sounds if only because this leadership is unlikely to win an election and therefore he wouldn’t be signing up to do the actual job. Consequently, in the circs of 10 years minimum before forming a government having *now* a shadow chancellor who knows *exactly* where the bodies are buried would be very smart politics and make life extraordinarily difficult in the chamber for Reeves. It would also be completely shameless (but this is the Tories) but it would be lethally effective I suspect.
This is frankly delusional. Sunak was at his tetchy worst on Wednesday in the Loyal Opposition response to the budget statement purely because Reeves called out the ways Sunak/Hunt had been lying.
My other observation would be that if I were Tory leader I’d be moving mountains to make Rishi shadow chancellor. Which isn’t as mad as it sounds if only because this leadership is unlikely to win an election and therefore he wouldn’t be signing up to do the actual job. Consequently, in the circs of 10 years minimum before forming a government having *now* a shadow chancellor who knows *exactly* where the bodies are buried would be very smart politics and make life extraordinarily difficult in the chamber for Reeves. It would also be completely shameless (but this is the Tories) but it would be lethally effective I suspect.
This is frankly delusional. Sunak was at his tetchy worst on Wednesday in the Loyal Opposition response to the budget statement purely because Reeves called out the ways Sunak/Hunt had been lying.
Of course he was a bit tetchy after the lies of Ms Reeves
Yes, imagine more Tory govt. The NHS would be gone.
Labour have been saying this for about 75 years and yet it's still there, the biggest employer in the UK
The 'biggest employer' line is not actually very meaningful. In fact, it's basically a lie as the NHS is not one organisation. It is in reality actually thousands of separate organisations.
Either way, what has that got to do with anything?
The simple truth is that the NHS was in a terrible state by multiple measures in 1997. In was flying high in 2010. It was in a terrible state in 2019.
The fact that the Tories keep decimating it without actually quite destroying it is not a winning argument.
AFZ
P.s. care to cite any of Ms Reeves lies with, you know, evidence?
Yes, imagine more Tory govt. The NHS would be gone.
Labour have been saying this for about 75 years and yet it's still there, the biggest employer in the UK
The 'biggest employer' line is not actually very meaningful. In fact, it's basically a lie as the NHS is not one organisation. It is in reality actually thousands of separate organisations.
Either way, what has that got to do with anything?
The simple truth is that the NHS was in a terrible state by multiple measures in 1997. In was flying high in 2010. It was in a terrible state in 2019.
The fact that the Tories keep decimating it without actually quite destroying it is not a winning argument.
AFZ
Do you understand what decimating is ?
P.s. care to cite any of Ms Reeves lies with, you know, evidence?
We will not be taxing working people. There is a £22 billion black hole
You're not about to do the pedantically boring etymology equals meaning thing over "decimate" are you?
Because some of us know some basic linguistics. It won't go well.
Decimate
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages verb
1. kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"
2. historical
kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"
My colloquial use of the word is common place and well understood. Moreover it is a clear way to express the reality.
@Telford, do you know that I've worked in the NHS for more than two decades?
You're not about to do the pedantically boring etymology equals meaning thing over "decimate" are you?
Because some of us know some basic linguistics. It won't go well.
Victims of decimation would not regard it as pedantically boring etymology.
Except they weren't victims of the the English word decimation. They were victims of the Latin concept "decimatus" from which the English word derives, with, as is so often the case, a change in meaning.
You might as well argue that vagina is wrongly used to refer to female genitalia since its meaning in Latin was "sword sheath".
I received an email circular this afternoon from a campaigning organisation which somehow has got hold of my email address deploring how awful Badenoch is, and saying why. I agree. Their criticisms were fair. She is.
When I read it I realised that there was next to nothing in it they could not just as easily and fairly have said about Jenrick if it had been him that had won. Indeed, they could have written the email in preparation several days ago and just added the name when the news became available as to which of them it was who had come out on top.
A small part of me is genuinely tempted to join the Tories now they’ve finally got a leader. If only as the best boat to kick out Labour.
And then in order to achieve what precisely?
Well I’ve never made any secret of hating Labour more than the Tories (Iraq will do for starters and I had skin in that game) so the end of a Labour government will do me as a goal. YMMV, obviously.
I want this government replaced with one that is better as well but like @Arethosemyfeet I don’t think a government led by the Bads will be that. I don’t trust her to have the country at heart. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
You're not about to do the pedantically boring etymology equals meaning thing over "decimate" are you?
Because some of us know some basic linguistics. It won't go well.
Decimate
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages verb
1. kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"
2. historical
kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"
My colloquial use of the word is common place and well understood. Moreover it is a clear way to express the reality.
I accept what you have posted. Perhaps I was too pedantic
@Telford, do you know that I've worked in the NHS for more than two decades?
I was not aware of the two decades. There may well be problems in the NHS but the only problem I have had is parking close to A&E at Sheffield Northern General.
In the past 12 months I have had about 6 hospital appoinments. I have been able to get appointments with doctors at my local surgery whenever necessary. Last year I became a NHS patient at a very local dentist and have had 3 appointments so far.
My personal experience is that it's in a better state than Labour describes. Labour have spent the last 4 months talking down this country and it needs to stop.
P.s. care to cite any of Ms Reeves lies with, you know, evidence?
We will not be taxing working people. There is a £22 billion black hole
I am no fan of the phrase 'black hole.' However, in no way is this a lie. There is a £21.9Bn gap in the 2024-5 financial year budget.
In July 2024, the Treasury published Fixing the foundations, which included a table setting out an estimated £21.9 billion of unfunded net pressure on the RDEL plans for 2024-25 published in the March 2024 OBR forecast.
You're not about to do the pedantically boring etymology equals meaning thing over "decimate" are you?
Because some of us know some basic linguistics. It won't go well.
Decimate
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages verb
1. kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"
2. historical
kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"
My colloquial use of the word is common place and well understood. Moreover it is a clear way to express the reality.
I accept what you have posted. Perhaps I was too pedantic
@Telford, do you know that I've worked in the NHS for more than two decades?
I was not aware of the two decades. There may well be problems in the NHS but the only problem I have had is parking close to A&E at Sheffield Northern General.
In the past 12 months I have had about 6 hospital appoinments. I have been able to get appointments with doctors at my local surgery whenever necessary. Last year I became a NHS patient at a very local dentist and have had 3 appointments so far.
My personal experience is that it's in a better state than Labour describes. Labour have spent the last 4 months talking down this country and it needs to stop.
Thing is, we have to go by statistics rather than your personal experience. I'm pleased it's working well for you, but then Sheffield has a particular advantage in that the GP and ICB computer systems have me and my excellent colleagues supporting them.
Mrs LB works in an acute hospital. She could provide you with a shopping list of things it would be nice to have to enhance patient care - mostly More Staff - but which can't be had because of a lack of money. This means patients not seen, waiting lists increasing, worsening conditions worsening. There're big knock ons here - something as simple as a pressure sore can need minor intervention if addressed early, and end up with a major infection and sepsis if not.
You're not about to do the pedantically boring etymology equals meaning thing over "decimate" are you?
Because some of us know some basic linguistics. It won't go well.
Decimate
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages verb
1. kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"
2. historical
kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"
My colloquial use of the word is common place and well understood. Moreover it is a clear way to express the reality.
I accept what you have posted. Perhaps I was too pedantic
@Telford, do you know that I've worked in the NHS for more than two decades?
I was not aware of the two decades. There may well be problems in the NHS but the only problem I have had is parking close to A&E at Sheffield Northern General.
In the past 12 months I have had about 6 hospital appoinments. I have been able to get appointments with doctors at my local surgery whenever necessary. Last year I became a NHS patient at a very local dentist and have had 3 appointments so far.
My personal experience is that it's in a better state than Labour describes. Labour have spent the last 4 months talking down this country and it needs to stop.
When my wife found my father-in-law unconscious but breathing they had to wait 2 hours for an ambulance. Your personal experience is not normal.
P.s. care to cite any of Ms Reeves lies with, you know, evidence?
We will not be taxing working people. There is a £22 billion black hole
I am no fan of the phrase 'black hole.' However, in no way is this a lie. There is a £21.9Bn gap in the 2024-5 financial year budget.
In July 2024, the Treasury published Fixing the foundations, which included a table setting out an estimated £21.9 billion of unfunded net pressure on the RDEL plans for 2024-25 published in the March 2024 OBR forecast.
Most of them effect working people.
They had a massive lead in then polls. Why couldn't Labour have been honest before the election and say that they might have to raise taxes.
P.s. care to cite any of Ms Reeves lies with, you know, evidence?
We will not be taxing working people. There is a £22 billion black hole
I am no fan of the phrase 'black hole.' However, in no way is this a lie. There is a £21.9Bn gap in the 2024-5 financial year budget.
In July 2024, the Treasury published Fixing the foundations, which included a table setting out an estimated £21.9 billion of unfunded net pressure on the RDEL plans for 2024-25 published in the March 2024 OBR forecast.
Most of them effect working people.
They had a massive lead in then polls. Why couldn't Labour have been honest before the election and say that they might have to raise taxes.
Right, so you're ignoring the first part that proves that she didn't lie about the £22bn.
And deciding that all taxes are on 'working people.' That's actually a defensible philosophical position. It's complex and actually quite an interesting devate. However, within the terms of the promise, she has not done what she said she wouldn't do. You know what she meant. Whether it's right or wrong, it is lazy rhetoric to call it a lie. It is also untrue.
P.s. care to cite any of Ms Reeves lies with, you know, evidence?
We will not be taxing working people. There is a £22 billion black hole
I am no fan of the phrase 'black hole.' However, in no way is this a lie. There is a £21.9Bn gap in the 2024-5 financial year budget.
In July 2024, the Treasury published Fixing the foundations, which included a table setting out an estimated £21.9 billion of unfunded net pressure on the RDEL plans for 2024-25 published in the March 2024 OBR forecast.
Most of them effect working people.
They had a massive lead in then polls. Why couldn't Labour have been honest before the election and say that they might have to raise taxes.
Right, so you're ignoring the first part that proves that she didn't lie about the £22bn.
The OBR have not given us details. Perhaps you have them
And deciding that all taxes are on 'working people.' That's actually a defensible philosophical position. It's complex and actually quite an interesting devate. However, within the terms of the promise, she has not done what she said she wouldn't do. You know what she meant. Whether it's right or wrong, it is lazy rhetoric to call it a lie. It is also untrue.
This is not an answer to my straightforward question
The title page quite clearly has "October 2024". It's the report of a review started at the end of July 2024 into the data supplied to the OBR ahead of the March 2024 forecast.
The OBR have not given us details. Perhaps you have them
Ummm... you mean they have not given any details except in a detailed report published this week.
That I linked to.
In my previous post.
But no, it was just a lie because you think it was.
AFZ
I have tried to read this report of March 2024. No mention of the famous black hole.
Didn't Labour have access to all that?
Just to be clear, the OBR has given details, you just haven't read them.
It is true that the link did not necessarily indicate the title: Office for Budget Responsibility Review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits October 2024
I'll help you out though, paragraph 28-32 explains what has happened: (this bit from para 32):
The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL, about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down at the challenge panel. Further information that came to light after this meeting, but before the forecast was published, about pressures on baseline RDEL budgets and the implications of policy decisions announced at the Budget, was also not sufficiently shared.
The number of £21.9 billion is specifically there in paragraph 28 with refence to how it was calculated in July.
I remain of the view that the term blackbole is not helpful but it is in no way a lie.
Some people are adamant that the gap in finance was known.
Indeed. It is effective tactical politics but I believe it to be a significant strategic mistake.
As I said a little while back, it is entirely possible that Reeves suspected things were worse than being publicly claimed but she could not have known until she became chancellor. Thus the strongest charge that can stick is one of spin and presentation and the idea that she's lying is just wrong. It is ridiculous also in the context of the previous few years, when the other party consistently lied about all sorts of things.
Let's unpack this a little. Imagine if, during the election campaign, Reeves and Starmer came out in all their press events saying "The UK finances are clearly worse than the government is saying, therefore we will need to do x, y and z." How do you think that would have played?
So the Labour party were trapped into talking about the situation as defined by Hunt in March. He clearly lied about it. He also introduced the NI cut that was unfunded, that meant Reeves' NI rise on employers was essentially unavoidable. And we now know that no money had been put aside for either the infected blood scandal or the Post Office scandal compensation schemes.
With the help of their compliant media, the Tories have had fun with the budget and painting Labour a particular way. It is at best deeply disingenuous. Tactically it is quite effective, though.
However, I think it will be a strategic failure and in the context of this thread, a particularly significant one. From 1997 to 2008, Labour contrasted their plans for investment with 'Tory cuts.' This is now open to Reeves as a messaging strategy: They destroyed the public services, we are rebuilding them. Even the majority of Conservative supporters believe the public realm is a mess.
Labour have four and a half years to show an improvement in public services that contrasts with a literal decade and a half of decline. A small, but measurable improvement will be enough for this line to cut through to voters. Which makes a Labour election victory in 2029 a good bet.
The new leader of the His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, has nothing to offer to this debate. The usual advantage that the Tories enjoy on the economy has been wiped out.* The Tories and their supporters in the media don't seem to have adjusted to that reality. If she continues down the culture war path that she has previously trodden, she may win back some Reform voters but will lose more Lib-Dem/Conservative switchers.
This is why I think the continuing decline of the Conservative Party at this point is more likely than not.
AFZ
*This advantage is quite strong despite the data that shows that the Tories are consistently worse for the economy than Labour, but that's actually beside the point here.
... As I said a little while back, it is entirely possible that Reeves suspected things were worse than being publicly claimed but she could not have known until she became chancellor. ...
I'd be surprised if she didn't. Mostly people did. Even I did, and I know nothing about the economy.
The government that she is part of has replaced one which a very large number of people throughout the country - I suspect a majority - had long since concluded that they didn't believe a word that they said. But I agree with what @alienfromzog has said about running any election campaign based on supposition.
Commentators on Hunt's last budget thought he was making spending commitments and tax cuts on the basis that he wasn't going to be the one who had to make the numbers add up.
Commentators on Hunt's last budget thought he was making spending commitments and tax cuts on the basis that he wasn't going to be the one who had to make the numbers add up.
Exactly this. And strangely none of the commentators last week can remember March 2024....
The last thing the country can afford is another Tory win. Fortunately it remains very unlikely this decade.
The Conservatives have a new leader and a new shadow cabinet. The polls are more or less level.
It's a good job that Sir Keir pledged to abolish student fees back in 2020, otherwise he might be upsetting younger voters
The second half of your tweet, whilst sarcastic has some merit. The first half not so much. There is no one in the shadow cabinet of talent or popularity. One poll was close, the rest not so much. The complacency is the Tories' greatest weakness.
I see that Kemi Badenoch promised money to Port Talbot when the steel works closed to the tune of £80million, but then failed to fund it. So the new leader of the Conservative party is in the habit of making promises she has no intention of keeping.
The Port Talbot fund has now been funded in the October budget.
I see that Kemi Badenoch promised money to Port Talbot when the steel works closed to the tune of £80million, but then failed to fund it. So the new leader of the Conservative party is in the habit of making promises she has no intention of keeping.
The Port Talbot fund has now been funded in the October budget.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but those who make promises and don’t have the funding or at least the promise of it are.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but those who make promises and don’t have the funding or at least the promise of it are.
So what do you think of a party that wins and then breaks most of their pre-election promises ?
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but those who make promises and don’t have the funding or at least the promise of it are.
So what do you think of a party that wins and then breaks most of their pre-election promises ?
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but those who make promises and don’t have the funding or at least the promise of it are.
So what do you think of a party that wins and then breaks most of their pre-election promises ?
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but those who make promises and don’t have the funding or at least the promise of it are.
So what do you think of a party that wins and then breaks most of their pre-election promises ?
I think I have made it very clear on here what I think of the way both the current government and the current PM have gone back on promises. You must have noticed.
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but those who make promises and don’t have the funding or at least the promise of it are.
So what do you think of a party that wins and then breaks most of their pre-election promises ?
She shouldn’t have promised then, since, on your analysis, she hadn’t consulted with either the chancellor or the PM to establish whether the money was there.
Are optimists bad people ?
No, but those who make promises and don’t have the funding or at least the promise of it are.
So what do you think of a party that wins and then breaks most of their pre-election promises ?
We all agree Boris Johnson's lies were bad, yes.
Please remind me. What promises did he break?
To "get Brexit done" with his "oven ready deal" - in particular not getting an agreement that was satisfactory for everyone with regard to the Irish border (the NI Protocol in his original deal was replaced under Sunak at the start of 2024, and even that replacement arrangement isn't entirely satisfactory to the pro-Brexit Unionists). That was, more or less, the only thing he promised to do in 2019 - the 2019 Conservative manifesto, of course, contained much more than that but you'd be excused for not knowing that if all you had to go on was what Johnson said during campaigning with his constant "get Brexit done" refrain.
Related to that was his promise to cut red tape for businesses and scrap a whole load of EU regulations, replacing them with less onerous UK versions. Which was never going to be achievable, it's simply not that easy to overturn 1000s of votes of Parliament to bring regulations into UK law and vote through an alternative to those regulations. Plus, the act of forcing UK businesses to adapt to new UK regulations while still adhering to EU regulations for goods and services they export is to create even more red tape and costs to doing business.
As a local councillor one of the first things I was told by our Town Clerk was don’t make promises. However much you’d like to help someone there is a due process. I’m sure MPs get similar advice.
In other news Jenrick is working overtime on Facebook with scare stories about immigrants and sucking up to Trump.
Comments
This is frankly delusional. Sunak was at his tetchy worst on Wednesday in the Loyal Opposition response to the budget statement purely because Reeves called out the ways Sunak/Hunt had been lying.
The last thing the country can afford is another Tory win. Fortunately it remains very unlikely this decade.
Have a lovely evening.
You too.
The 'biggest employer' line is not actually very meaningful. In fact, it's basically a lie as the NHS is not one organisation. It is in reality actually thousands of separate organisations.
Either way, what has that got to do with anything?
The simple truth is that the NHS was in a terrible state by multiple measures in 1997. In was flying high in 2010. It was in a terrible state in 2019.
The fact that the Tories keep decimating it without actually quite destroying it is not a winning argument.
AFZ
P.s. care to cite any of Ms Reeves lies with, you know, evidence?
We will not be taxing working people. There is a £22 billion black hole
Because some of us know some basic linguistics. It won't go well.
Victims of decimation would not regard it as pedantically boring etymology.
My colloquial use of the word is common place and well understood. Moreover it is a clear way to express the reality.
@Telford, do you know that I've worked in the NHS for more than two decades?
Except they weren't victims of the the English word decimation. They were victims of the Latin concept "decimatus" from which the English word derives, with, as is so often the case, a change in meaning.
You might as well argue that vagina is wrongly used to refer to female genitalia since its meaning in Latin was "sword sheath".
When I read it I realised that there was next to nothing in it they could not just as easily and fairly have said about Jenrick if it had been him that had won. Indeed, they could have written the email in preparation several days ago and just added the name when the news became available as to which of them it was who had come out on top.
Perhaps that is exactly what they had done.
I want this government replaced with one that is better as well but like @Arethosemyfeet I don’t think a government led by the Bads will be that. I don’t trust her to have the country at heart. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
In the past 12 months I have had about 6 hospital appoinments. I have been able to get appointments with doctors at my local surgery whenever necessary. Last year I became a NHS patient at a very local dentist and have had 3 appointments so far.
My personal experience is that it's in a better state than Labour describes. Labour have spent the last 4 months talking down this country and it needs to stop.
I am no fan of the phrase 'black hole.' However, in no way is this a lie. There is a £21.9Bn gap in the 2024-5 financial year budget. From here: https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Review_of_the_March_2024_forecast_for_DELs.pdf
Which tax on working people are you referring to?
Thing is, we have to go by statistics rather than your personal experience. I'm pleased it's working well for you, but then Sheffield has a particular advantage in that the GP and ICB computer systems have me and my excellent colleagues supporting them.
Mrs LB works in an acute hospital. She could provide you with a shopping list of things it would be nice to have to enhance patient care - mostly More Staff - but which can't be had because of a lack of money. This means patients not seen, waiting lists increasing, worsening conditions worsening. There're big knock ons here - something as simple as a pressure sore can need minor intervention if addressed early, and end up with a major infection and sepsis if not.
When my wife found my father-in-law unconscious but breathing they had to wait 2 hours for an ambulance. Your personal experience is not normal.
They had a massive lead in then polls. Why couldn't Labour have been honest before the election and say that they might have to raise taxes.
Right, so you're ignoring the first part that proves that she didn't lie about the £22bn.
And deciding that all taxes are on 'working people.' That's actually a defensible philosophical position. It's complex and actually quite an interesting devate. However, within the terms of the promise, she has not done what she said she wouldn't do. You know what she meant. Whether it's right or wrong, it is lazy rhetoric to call it a lie. It is also untrue.
Hey ho.
Ummm... you mean they have not given any details except in a detailed report published this week.
That I linked to.
In my previous post.
But no, it was just a lie because you think it was.
AFZ
I have tried to read this report of March 2024. No mention of the famous black hole.
Didn't Labour have access to all that?
March 2024 it says on the link
For them to pretend they didn't know anything is ridiculous. They would have supporters in the treasury and all over the civil service
Just to be clear, the OBR has given details, you just haven't read them.
It is true that the link did not necessarily indicate the title:
Office for Budget Responsibility Review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits October 2024
I'll help you out though, paragraph 28-32 explains what has happened: (this bit from para 32):
The number of £21.9 billion is specifically there in paragraph 28 with refence to how it was calculated in July.
I remain of the view that the term blackbole is not helpful but it is in no way a lie.
AFZ
Indeed. It is effective tactical politics but I believe it to be a significant strategic mistake.
As I said a little while back, it is entirely possible that Reeves suspected things were worse than being publicly claimed but she could not have known until she became chancellor. Thus the strongest charge that can stick is one of spin and presentation and the idea that she's lying is just wrong. It is ridiculous also in the context of the previous few years, when the other party consistently lied about all sorts of things.
Let's unpack this a little. Imagine if, during the election campaign, Reeves and Starmer came out in all their press events saying "The UK finances are clearly worse than the government is saying, therefore we will need to do x, y and z." How do you think that would have played?
So the Labour party were trapped into talking about the situation as defined by Hunt in March. He clearly lied about it. He also introduced the NI cut that was unfunded, that meant Reeves' NI rise on employers was essentially unavoidable. And we now know that no money had been put aside for either the infected blood scandal or the Post Office scandal compensation schemes.
With the help of their compliant media, the Tories have had fun with the budget and painting Labour a particular way. It is at best deeply disingenuous. Tactically it is quite effective, though.
However, I think it will be a strategic failure and in the context of this thread, a particularly significant one. From 1997 to 2008, Labour contrasted their plans for investment with 'Tory cuts.' This is now open to Reeves as a messaging strategy: They destroyed the public services, we are rebuilding them. Even the majority of Conservative supporters believe the public realm is a mess.
Labour have four and a half years to show an improvement in public services that contrasts with a literal decade and a half of decline. A small, but measurable improvement will be enough for this line to cut through to voters. Which makes a Labour election victory in 2029 a good bet.
The new leader of the His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, has nothing to offer to this debate. The usual advantage that the Tories enjoy on the economy has been wiped out.* The Tories and their supporters in the media don't seem to have adjusted to that reality. If she continues down the culture war path that she has previously trodden, she may win back some Reform voters but will lose more Lib-Dem/Conservative switchers.
This is why I think the continuing decline of the Conservative Party at this point is more likely than not.
AFZ
*This advantage is quite strong despite the data that shows that the Tories are consistently worse for the economy than Labour, but that's actually beside the point here.
The government that she is part of has replaced one which a very large number of people throughout the country - I suspect a majority - had long since concluded that they didn't believe a word that they said. But I agree with what @alienfromzog has said about running any election campaign based on supposition.
Exactly this. And strangely none of the commentators last week can remember March 2024....
The Conservatives have a new leader and a new shadow cabinet. The polls are more or less level.
It's a good job that Sir Keir pledged to abolish student fees back in 2020, otherwise he might be upsetting younger voters
The second half of your tweet, whilst sarcastic has some merit. The first half not so much. There is no one in the shadow cabinet of talent or popularity. One poll was close, the rest not so much. The complacency is the Tories' greatest weakness.
YMMV, of course.
AFZ
The Port Talbot fund has now been funded in the October budget.
Kemi was not in charge of the purse strings.
Or she thought she could persuade the chancellor and the PM at the time she made the promise
Are optimists bad people ?
Here, let me give you a million pounds.
Where will I get it from?
Oh I don't know, but I'm optimistic by nature.
Yeah right.
No, but those who make promises and don’t have the funding or at least the promise of it are.
So what do you think of a party that wins and then breaks most of their pre-election promises ?
We all agree Boris Johnson's lies were bad, yes.
I think I have made it very clear on here what I think of the way both the current government and the current PM have gone back on promises. You must have noticed.
"oven ready deal" for starters.
Related to that was his promise to cut red tape for businesses and scrap a whole load of EU regulations, replacing them with less onerous UK versions. Which was never going to be achievable, it's simply not that easy to overturn 1000s of votes of Parliament to bring regulations into UK law and vote through an alternative to those regulations. Plus, the act of forcing UK businesses to adapt to new UK regulations while still adhering to EU regulations for goods and services they export is to create even more red tape and costs to doing business.
In other news Jenrick is working overtime on Facebook with scare stories about immigrants and sucking up to Trump.