[Oboogie]

The Labour government's agenda: here is what they have done so far....
https://bylinetimes.com/2024/12/03/gove ... ed-so-far/

Which of those reforms are you objecting to?

No plans to reverse WFA cut
No to electoral reform
No renationalisation of public utilities
Too much tinkering at the edges instead of putting a transformative vision to improving civil society

Not the question I asked.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I think it's all in the feels.

[Youngian]

I support PR, but it was ruled out and the election. And I'm wondering why Starmer's getting pressed on it all the time when the previous leader never was.

More small parties in parliament? If the best Starmer can do is tell Davey 'yebbut your party just did well out of FPTP,' he's going to get a whole lot more questions.
Starmer accusing the Tories of running an open border policy is a piece of low rent reciporical mud slinging but does help shut the Tories down.

[Crabcakes]

No plans to reverse WFA cut
No to electoral reform
No renationalisation of public utilities
Too much tinkering at the edges instead of putting a transformative vision to improving civil society

1. Good. The people who need it still get it. Uptake of fuel credits has increased to cover borderline people. And there is no need for the huge number of pensioners who got this and used it as pocket money to keep getting it.
2. Right now, no. But there are more pressing matters 6 months in to a 5-year term
3. Railways is under way. British Energy will help in that sector. Other utilities are far more difficult though because they were sold outright so require expensive re-purchase by the state. And thanks to the Tories there’s not a lot of cash lying around just now.
4. Or, how about instead of talking about what they will do - as the last government did, before proceeding to do precisely fuck all - they could be getting on with stuff (for example, see: https://www.threads.net/@cadoret_thread ... DHfiMjIYru), which they can then point to. And none of this stuff is what I would think of as “tinkering”.

[The Weeping Angel]

I was turned down on three occasions without an interview. On the fourth, I narrowly lost out on selection for a paper candidate.

For which party?

The Lib Dems. I was a Labour supporter in my youth, then I became a communist in the mid-nineties.

I joined the Lib Dems in 2003, because they were the opposition to Labour on my local council. Hence the selections. There was competition for selection for winnable seats.

In hindsight, the local party were right not to put me forward, even as a paper candidate.

Odd because the impression you have was that you had tried to stand for Labour now it's the Lib Dems beginining to think you're full of it Nev.

[The Weeping Angel]

Oh look

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no ... m-30529287

A contract to safeguard Hitachi Rail’s operations in Newton Aycliffe was confirmed by the Government on Friday, as part of what Number 10 called "a £500 million deal that will uplift the industrial heartlands, and boost rail services for passengers across the UK". Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that an agreement had been struck for Hitachi to build 14 new trains for FirstGroup, which runs train services including Lumo and Avanti West Coast.

[The Weeping Angel]

Ah I see we've go the government have got to be more emotional.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -170010696

It also has glaring issues to do with tone and political style. Just under a fortnight ago, I spent a cold Tuesday reporting on the farmers’ protests that took place opposite Downing Street. Amid endless Barbour jackets and wellies and the hyped-up presence of Nigel Farage and Jeremy Clarkson, what hit me most of all was the contrast between the language used on either side of the argument: an object lesson in the fact that politics now takes place in two separate realities, and why the government is so accident prone.

The farmers on the podium talked about family, history and the emotional pull of the British landscape. I heard evocations of people working so hard that their hands bled and the trials of bereavement. In response, the government mostly stuck to dry numbers – “Couples can pass on £3m tax-free, and those above the thresholds will pay only half the normal rate, and can pay over 10 years interest-free,” said Angela Rayner – and its usual abstract language. “The economic situation the government inherited has required us to make tough choices,” said a Downing Street spokesperson, the kind of insistence that suggests No 10 has its own magnetic poetry set.

Made the mistakes of reading the coments and came across this lunacy.

"Spreadsheets eh? Just what Starmer isn't using. His only spreadsheet is "How can we facilitate the private equity funds."

Let's take these bizarre schools issues he has.

What are his breakfast clubs for? The intended answer to that is so that children don't come to school hungry.

But that is simply untrue... If you wanted to feed ALL children, then simply give all children free school meals. Job done. Cost: Virtually nothing. It takes no extra organisation, NO extra staff. Just a tiny bit more food.

Now breakfast clubs ...

Extra staff capable of looking after at least 30 children each (all paid for), extra food, extra equipment, and extra school transport. Effectively resulting quickly in a school day extension.

For what reason?

To ensure his private equity mates can make a quick buck by forcing parents into work an hour earlier! And THAT is the sole reason.

Wanting to feed hungry children is bad but from the left.

[Abernathy]

For which party?

The Lib Dems. I was a Labour supporter in my youth, then I became a communist in the mid-nineties.

In hindsight, the local party were right not to put me forward, even as a paper candidate.

Admittedly, I know very little of the detailed workings of the Liberal Democrats’ selection procedures, but requiring “the local party” to “put you forward” as a paper candidate seems rather odd. Paper candidates are not expected, or required, to campaign, or indeed do anything at all other than agree to be on the ballot paper in a seat which it is known there will be no prospect of them winning. So due diligence, while still important, is somewhat more , shall we say, relaxed than otherwise. All anybody needs to do to be a paper candidate is to apply for selection, and then usually, be immediately accepted (usually there is no-one else interested).

I’m quite intrigued as to just why “the local party” decided you weren’t even good enough to be a paper candidate. Why was that, exactly ?

[kreuzberger]

Ah I see we've go the government have got to be more emotional.

Anyone getting the hump if we start charging to post in Lazy Drivel?

[The Weeping Angel]

What's that supposed to mean?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Read what you posted...

[davidjay]

Oh look

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no ... m-30529287

A contract to safeguard Hitachi Rail’s operations in Newton Aycliffe was confirmed by the Government on Friday, as part of what Number 10 called "a £500 million deal that will uplift the industrial heartlands, and boost rail services for passengers across the UK". Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that an agreement had been struck for Hitachi to build 14 new trains for FirstGroup, which runs train services including Lumo and Avanti West Coast.

How dare they work with capitalists. They should have set up a workers co-operative to build the trains.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Made with pig iron from backyard furnaces!

[Tubby Isaacs]

Good by Rayner on planning.

Developments that officers say meet the local plan don't have to go through the council planning committee as well, where they often get blocked by members who've had nimbies on their back.

[The Weeping Angel]

Been on bluesky and came across this guy who I used to come across on twitter. Seems to think that their overall strategy is as follows

https://bsky.app/profile/ciaranmcgurdy. ... zz4uesyk2g

I'm not sure how ending things like Rwanda is pissig off their core support. Or renationalising the railways is unpopular policy or how they're making themselves personally unpopular.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Think there has been unnecessary pissing off of the liberal element, at least. I think that they'll be able to get more tactical support than people think if Reform are competitive for government, but there's a limit.

[Youngian]

Labour's planning relaxation is a "war on rural Engand" and all the houses are going to be used to home immigrants, according to shadow housing secretary Kevin Hollinrake.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/government-wa ... 03169.html
Don't know what Mr Hollinrake's rural parts are like but drive slowly around here (Fenlands) and you'll notice lots of static caravans discreetly nestled in backyards occupied by off-spring with no chance of getting on the housing ladder. It's not legal but the Council doesn’t move in on them to create an even worse homeless problem. So now that land could be used for a more comfortable small dwelling. So fucking what, Mr Hollinrake?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Hollinrake's constituency is North Yorkshire horse racing country. Would assume it's a fair bit more affluent than the fens.

I think "war on rural England" is going to fall fairly flat because the countryside is so gentrified now. It's like saying "war on Surrey".

[Tubby Isaacs]

I hadn't heard of this bill, but it's a fairly big deal and likely positive.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-brexit-bill-n ... ing-about/

Joël Reland unpacks the significant Brexit bill no-one’s talking about – the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which would give UK ministers the power to unilaterally align with EU regulations related to the environmental impact of products. He highlights that there is still much that’s not clear about the Bill at this stage, and that parliamentary scrutiny will be crucial.

"Environmental impact" is pretty wide, and will likely cover lots of stuff from product safety to regulating supply chains, possibly even regulating online marketplaces (if I've understood that correctly).

Unfortunately, there's a ridiculous debate whereby anything short of joining the Single Market and Customs Union is basically written off as nothing. Continuity Remainers are some of the most tedious people in politics. There's a lot of overlap between people accusing Rachel Reeves of being cakeist this week and who think the UK just waltzes back in on easily sellable terms.

[Oboogie]

Unfortunately, there's a ridiculous debate whereby anything short of joining the Single Market and Customs Union is basically written off as nothing. Continuity Remainers are some of the most tedious people in politics. There's a lot of overlap between people accusing Rachel Reeves of being cakeist this week and who think the UK just waltzes back in on easily sellable terms.

The Continuity Remainers and the Brexiters have far more in common than either side would care to admit. Both believe in British exceptionalism - the EU is expected to tear up their rulebook to give us whatever we demand.