Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Crabcakes, you could add the redistribution of local government grants to the lists of good stuff.

Of course, the Tories did the opposite from 2010 onwards.

The problem all that Crabcakes has written is very good and true. Except it's being ignored and a narrative of government in crisis is being developed.

And not really anything anybody can do about it.

Well, I guess we always knew that when Labour made it back to government, we'd be faced with rampant right-wing tabloid hostility more or less from the word go, so we really don't need to be getting quite so hot under the collar about it only 5 months in. The Blair government faced the same attacks from the Mail/Express/Sun/Telegraph axis, but was better at handling it. We are missing our Alastair Campbell, though Morgan McSweeney is now very much on the case.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 1:18 pm High streets have been in decline for decades. First it was due to localised shopping precincts, then it was out of town malls. Then Starbucking and the Internet. And no matter how many Mary Portas types you send up and down them, they're not going to recover.

Sorry to repeat myself but find and watch the Greg Wallace "High Street Through Time" thing. Points out very succinctly that savings and convenience will always win out over personalised service and charming boutiques.

@Andy McDandy I heard part 1 of "The Bookshop, The Draper, The Candlestick Maker: A History of the High Street" by Annie Gray on Radio 4 this afternoon and thought it might be right up your (High) street. Have a listen https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0025kk6

Just thinking - that message aged like Donovan in the Grail Temple.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:42 pm Well, I guess we always knew that when Labour made it back to government, we'd be faced with rampant right-wing tabloid hostility more or less from the word go, so we really don't need to be getting quite so hot under the collar about it only 5 months in. The Blair government faced the same attacks from the Mail/Express/Sun/Telegraph axis, but was better at handling it. We are missing our Alastair Campbell, though Morgan McSweeney is now very much on the case.

Blair handled The Sun by getting very close to it. I think the Government actually played Murdoch cleverly and got a lot of things done that he probably didn't like. But whatever, the option of getting close to The Sun like that doesn't exist now.

And even if they did, it wouldn't matter that much. See when The Sun endorsed Labour- massive collective shrug. The whole media landscape has changed, and there are far more political options. I don't think Alistair Campbell or anyone else could have done much about it.

Rather than the usual suspects in the press, more of a concern should be the naked hostility of broadcast media and the serial failings of OFCOM to hold them to account.

Blair (or Campbell) figured that what the Sun really wanted was sales. They can get outraged easily enough on whatever side of an issue they choose, and have at times been quite progressive and liberal when it's suited them. What they can't manufacture easily is the inside track, the exclusives and the access to the heart of No. 10.

In the summer of 1997, there was a) not much going on, and b) widespread support for the new government. Newspapers love novelty, and there were several new and photogenic faces. When the death of Princess Di happened, the government's handling of it was pretty competent and actually quite low key (compare to William Hague who joined the "let's rename Heathrow airport after her" mob). Their job was to be the anchor, and they did it fine.

With the current government, first of all it's a totally different media landscape altogether*. Second, the "built on sand" narrative was launched straight away. The new faces were the ReFucks and hitherto obscure Tories, while the Tories just ousted seemed to swam the airwaves. My recollection was that it felt more like the Tories had taken a hammering in local elections than lost a general election spectacularly. That "Yes, it's bad, and there are important lessons to learn, but for now let's concentrate on the issues that really matter to voters" spin on it. I had to remind myself every now and again that Labour had actually won.

*I expect you all to have said that aloud, Airplane-style.

Starmer's now copping it from the Covid Bereaved Families because the new Cabinet Secretary was at the Department of Health before.

It is unbelievably frustrating and worrisome to see the government appoint Sir Christopher Wormald to the most senior civil service position in the UK, given his role at the head of the Department for Health and Social Care at a time when the NHS became completely overwhelmed, healthcare workers were sent to work without adequate PPE and lied to about it, and the UK suffered the 2nd highest death toll in Western Europe.

Time and again Christopher Wormald has refused in the UK Covid inquiry to accept failures on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, backed up by the experiences of everyone in the UK during the pandemic.

Christopher Wormald failed to prepare the Department for Health and Social Care for the pandemic, despite a pandemic being entirely foreseeable. Now he has been given responsibility for the crisis preparedness across the government. Either those in charge don’t take the failures during the pandemic seriously enough, or they fail to see the importance of preparedness and resilience ahead of the next crisis.

When Wormald was at the DfE, I thought he was too keen to protect the minister's arse a the Select Committee, so I'm not writing this as a fan.

But this is pure constitutional illiteracy and seems to be buying wholesale into Tory bollocks that the civil service is really in charge of everything, He couldn't possibly have done the stuff they want without spending lots of money that was never authorized by ministers for that purpose. Sorry Minister, we're not recruiting those doctors you said we'd recruit because we've decided to spend it on buying PPE. Is that how they really think government works?

Never knew it was the Permanent Secretary's job to foresee pandemics either.

The two delayed lockdowns were pretty important in the level of casualties, you might think. If they were Chris Wormald's fault, I think we'd have probably heard that by now. Certainly in the case of the second one, I'm inclined to blame Bozo seeing he was attacking Labour for trying to cancel Christmas.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 11:56 am And not really anything anybody can do about it.

Had an E-mail from the Spectator saying the government has had a reset owing to all the rows they've had.

Labour should now embrace populism

https://labourlist.org/2024/12/keir-sta ... ction-win/

According to Tom Baldwin, Keir Starmer’s biographer, the Labour Prime Minister, “likes to think decisions through and sometimes changes his mind, but he has also been breathtakingly ruthless”.

Baldwin’s implication is that Starmer is slow to act but once he does, he is decisive and, usually, successful.

Given the first six months endured by his government, which have seen Starmer’s personal ratings tumble to below those of Nigel Farage, and his party’s support fall behind the Conservatives, many Labour members are likely hoping for some breathtaking ruthlessness from Number 10.

The signs are that Starmer is going to disappoint them. There is talk of an upcoming big speech in which the Prime Minister will announce a ‘reset’ but this looks like it will amount to just a clarification of the current course.

Ratings below Nigel Farage is a red herring. Lots of people who voted Green and Lib Dem last time are open to voting Labour if Reform are challenging.

Then there's nonsense like this.

I don’t know who first thought up this notion of governments having, or needing to have, a “re-set” every so often, but it’s clearly a right load of old bollocks. Rishi Sunak’s government seemed to be having a “re-set” every other fucking week, and it never seemed to do any good.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:27 pm Then there's nonsense like this.

I thought everyone agreed that it was bad when part of the budget was pre-briefed. Now the problem is that they didn't pre brief something in the budget?

This idea that a 1.2p rise in employers NI is causing unprecedented carnage is pretty implausible to me. The last government increased employers and employee NI and that got written up as clever parking tanks on Labour's lawn.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 10:29 pm I don’t know who first thought up this notion of governments having, or needing to have, a “re-set” every so often

People who don't understand the difference between strategy and tactics.

This latest does seem like a mistake though. I've no particular objection to targets, but having a load of milestones along the way is a recipe for getting it in the neck. The media as it now is won't give you any credit for passing them, and will shit on you if you don't. Just say you're making it better and rely on people to see that at the election.

This is better politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... mmissioner

Rachel Reeves appoints Covid corruption commissioner
Exclusive: Tom Hayhoe, ex-Tory cabinet adviser, will examine an estimated £7.6bn of Covid-related fraud

Briefing is that £2.6bn is recoverable, but I'd be surprised. Fraudsters don't tend to be sitting there 3 years later waiting for you to take their money back. But certainly worth doing, and all going to be money the other lot wouldn't have bothered too much chasing.

Doubtless, the usual people will be claiming it's all a fit up because the bloke worked for the Thatcher Government.