Labour is sinking so fast in my estimation that I now think it could already be worse than the government of Liz Truss, and could be very much worse soon.
This is the audio version:
And this is the transcript:
Is Keir Starmer a worse Prime Minister than Liz Truss?
I think there's a risk that he is already, and if he isn't, that he will be soon.
Saying so, I also make clear that I think that he is worse already than the four other Tory Prime Ministers who preceded him.
Why am I suggesting this? It's because, unlike those Tory Prime Ministers - and I include Liz Truss in that number - who delivered pretty much what we expected, bad as it was, Starmer is delivering things which are terrible and we didn't expect them. That's worse, therefore, in my book, than actually living up to the expectation of being bad. Because he is not only being bad, but he's massively disappointing us whilst being so.
Let me use some examples. Over the next few days, it seems very clear that Starmer will confirm that three London airports will be expanded. Heathrow is going to get another runway as is Gatwick and the facilities at Luton are going to be expanded as well. This is terrible for green policy.
Rachel Reeves has made it clear in response to these suggestions that growth trumps green policy. Everything that we thought Labour stood for when it came to the environment because it had people like Ed Miliband in its ranks has been abandoned.
The narrative that they created only four or so years ago about investing £28 billion a year into the green economy to deliver a Green New Deal and guarantee net zero has disappeared. It's not on their agenda anymore.
We're delivering airports instead.
The only thing that matters to them is growth. They say so time and time again.
But growth, as we know, is indifferent as to who gets it.
Growth doesn't care about inequality.
Growth doesn't care about climate change.
Growth doesn't care that there are those who are left behind when a few are enriched.
And Labour doesn't seem to care either.
It's obvious from its own policies that it doesn't care. Let's just look at what it's done to the former chair of the Competition and Markets Authority. The last chair has been sacked because he wasn't pro-growth enough. But saying that, let's remember what the Competition and Markets Authority was meant to do. It is there to protect us from corporate abuse when companies create monopolies.
Reeves was not happy that the Chair of that Authority was willing to deliver on the brief he had been given in accordance with the mandate that his authority had been set up to deliver. She sacked that chair and has replaced him with a person from Amazon. And if you want an example of somebody who threatens through use of monopoly power, then Amazon is it. She doesn't care.
And we've got the same problem happening elsewhere. When Rachel Reeves talks about being tough, what she means is she wants to deliver austerity. Now we know she's refusing to increase taxes on the rich, and in that sense, Labour is very much like what Liz Truss was, heavily biased when it comes to taxation in favour of the rich.
But what we know is that the narrative is now moving very sharply towards there being austerity and that is going to penalise the poor.
Labour's clue should be in its name. Labour is about working people. It's about those who were left behind. It should be about the oppressed. It should be about those who care. But Labour doesn't do that anymore. What is being made so clear is that, actually, Labour is only on the side of capital.
And again, this became apparent when Labour intervened and has tried to issue an instruction to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land in the UK, in the hearing that it is undertaking on the claims being made by motorists against banks for the mis-selling of car loans.
Those motorists are claiming compensation because they were charged excessive interest rates because information was not disclosed to them, to which they had a right. Rachel Reeves would, you would have thought, be on the side of the motorist, the individual, the voter, the person who might return her to office in 2029. But she isn't. She's come in on the side of the banks. She's asking to make representations to the court to say ‘Please don't find, for the motorists, however good their claim might be, because the threat to the banking sector is too great, and we can't afford that, and therefore we'd rather have growth and leave the banks in place and leave these motorists without the compensation that they are owing.' She is actually working against the best interests of the people of this country, and in favour of the hierarchy of wealth.
That isn't what Labour should be doing. It is what Liz Truss did. And if Labour does deliver austerity in March, as I expect, then I have little doubt at all that she will become worse than Liz Truss, because she actually is going to deliver what Liz Truss failed to do - an economy totally biased to the interests of wealth.
How did we get to a point where Labour is so corrupted, has so lost touch with its core values, is so out of touch with the people of this country who put it into office, that it is actually positively working against the best interests of most people in this country?
I wish I knew the answer to that question. I can only put it down to corruption.
Political corruption.
Intellectual corruption.
And plain straightforward alignment of the personal interests of those who are in office with those who have wealth, which is, in my opinion, corruption even if no money has changed hands.
This is a terrible state to be in, and it's the state the UK is now in.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Shall I buy a lettuce, or perhaps as he might last a little longer a hard white cabbage?
Cabbage
Every time politicians talk about growth I want to ask them “growth of what?” and I wish interviewers would ask them that. I want to see growth in so many areas – health, education, understanding, wellbeing, climate readiness, food security – but none of those seems to be important to the politicians who talk about growth.
Agreed
The way to get growth to care about CO2 emissions is to put it into prices.
I believe there’s a guy who got elevated into the House of Lords for the analysis of this at great depth, and then got ignored. The central idea of CO2 taxation was advocated briefly by the green new deal in around 2008 and then ignored again.
Its time has come.
The way to get growth to care about carbon is for the state to invest directly in decarbonisation. Pricing carbon and carbon offsetting have been around for years now and haven’t changed the dial on CO2 emissions. I recommend you read Adrienne Buller’s book “The Value of a Whale” which sets out a comprehensive critique of market led “solutions” to the climate and ecological crisis.
Government, especially a Labour government, used to present working people, the vast majority of the population.
Today’s Labour Party represents the 1% that are wealthy.
A good party is for the many, not the few.
There is no one representing the Left now, perhaps the new Collective party will do what Labour should be doing.
https://we-are-collective.org/
Where’s the evidence “Collective” will be economically and monetarily literate though? I’m fed up with the “wishful thinking” or “Lucky Dip” approach to politics in this country and the United States!
Is there a manifesto?
Richard asks if there is a manifesto. What is the point as they have no legal standing? Prior to voting, I used to go to the library to read or purchase the manifestos of those standing for election in my seat. I would read them. Cogitate. Then make my voting decision. Now this is a waste of precious time and money as all the big parties volte-face on manifesto promises within weeks or months of taking up incumbency. None of the main parties have any honour. None can be trusted to keep their word, for their word is kept only as long as their party-polling, etc. permits.
WSho cares they have no legal standing?
At last they give us some idea what they think.
Is thinking of no value now?
Is this link anything more than a website? I have signed up twice and not got so much as a confimatory email.
I do not think the problem is that what they are doing is both bad, and unexpected; what is worse about Labour is that after fourteen years of Government endlessly applying the same policies, and doing the same things that they can see have obviously failed badly; austerity, the wrong high taxes applied to the wrong problems, and the same fiscal rules: the Labour Government is applying austerity, the wrong high taxes applied to the wrong problems, and the same fiscal rules; and are incapable of changing direction in a world and the circumstances changing faster than they can.
They are obviously paralysed with fear; and failure is starkly written on their faces.
They say that the definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting a different result. They are paralysed by the thought of failure, which is exactly what is happening, and what they will get!
Pushing through new runways at London airports is not just a terrible anti green policy. It is also undemocratic. Clearly much of the population don’t want this. But Labour are trying to prevent legal challenges. And what is the evidence that it will produce growth, even were that desirable?
Anyone who has landed at Heathrow knows that, should an aircraft have a technical emergency there is nowhere it could even attempt an emergency landing. Mercifully this has not happened yet. Heathrow is a really poor place for an airport. Labour seems determined to compound the problem by adding another runway.
Is there a petition against the expansion of any of Londons airports? It could also call on the government to increase growth by funding a Green New Deal to tackle the existential threat of global warming.
I think Friends of the Earth are doing one.
John,
38 Degrees have a petition. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/sign-the-petition-don-t-expand-heathrow-airport
And Green New Deal Rising (who mainly target a young demographic) have an email-your-MP campaign: https://www.gndrising.org/campaigns/say-no-to-a-third-runway/
Fair point – but will there be anywhere for UK tourists to go? Serious question given this:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jan/25/no-neighbours-overtourism-residents-spain-portugal-visitor
I have posted other articles on this subject (growing anti-torusim feeling) – which is recurring – I have a sense that the age of mass tourism is coming to an end.
LINO mantra: “But let’s ignore that and build more airport capacity – cos that’s growth” (MP sniggers).
Agreed
After all his policy U-turns prior to the general election, is it really so surprising? Many had him pegged as tory-lite even then.
100% agree – except I’m not as shocked as you. When I look at the personalities of Starmer’s Cabinet – Liz Kendal, Yvette Cooper, Jonathan Reynolds, Wes Streeting, the character & CVs of his advisors (McSweeny, MacFadden, Mandelson), the history of the Labour Party’s crawl for corporate donations (after being largely free of corporate money with a huge bank balance gained from member donations under the previous leader) but the key for me is Starmer. Everything I needed to know about him I knew by about 2020, deceitful, compromised (Trilateral Commission), beholden to others (the BoD pledges, Ruth Smeed, “asset, protect”), dishonest and blatantly so (a list of U turns and cynically broken pledges too long to list here but all known & documented long ago), ruthless at a personal level (his treatment of Corbyn, Apsana Begum, Diane Abbot and others esp non-white & Muslim women), his disdain for democracy (1st in the party then the country), authoritarian (blatant control of CLPs, candidate selections, & conference).
I’d abandoned hope in Labour by the end of 2020.
Where I AM surprised, and here I get back to the content of yr post, is how utterly incompetent they have been in managing the economy even by their own standards.
They are either utterly stupid or they really do want us to crash and burn.
Oh dear, I think I’ve found myself at this point before in my reasoning.
I suppose I’m left hoping that contrary to all the available evidence, there is a replacement PM & Chancellor sitting in the Commons, with the required courage, and common sense to CHANGE the direction we are headed (Beachy Head at present).
Meanwhile, KUPTGW because the money message is so important.
Thanks
This is good, no doubt you are aware:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/25/labours-decision-to-muzzle-regulators-in-the-name-of-growth-will-backfire-horribly
Jeremy Gilbert mentioned (and I think it’s the most succinct summary of what we have got as a government) this week, that the Starmer government – the Labour right – was set up (by Labour together with Morgan McSweeney at the helm) to faction fight the Labour left and ‘destroy’ Corbyn and Corbynism. Now that task has been completed, they simply don’t know what to do. That was their task, now it’s done, they are rootless.
Another example (of Labour ‘acting Tory’) is Reeves and Reynolds at Davos, as the excellent Chris Grey on his excellent blog this week says, the boosterism of ‘deregulation’ and the “global Britain” nonsense could easily come from Sunak or other Tories:
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2025/01/five-years-on-stuck.html
Very sad.
Much to agree with
The No.10 team are election strategists.
They know nothing about running an economy, let alone a country, and they’ve already wrecked their party.
If you think of this 2024-29 period as a 5 year election campaign (albeit, a suicidal one) aimed at former Tory/Reform voters, it helps make a little sense of their lunacy. Not much, but a little.
Is there anyone out there with an eye to the common good?
No, in a word.
And we’re not hearing the Greens
The plutocrats won’t love them back, and pro-plutocrat policies won’t get growth. By now it seems they’re just stupid.
There was one good piece of news a couple of days ago. “Bee-killing pesticides have been banned for emergency use in the UK for the first time in five years after the government rejected an application from the National Farmers’ Union and British Sugar.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/23/government-decision-not-to-authorise-pesticide-is-sweet-as-honey-for-pollinators
I was so pleased to read this and it is something the Tories never did, despite the promises.
Precious little else to be pleased about with Labour though.
That is good
Morning Richard it is very difficult to find anything positive in the news at the moment. What can we do?
I watched the debate on the CAN bill yesterday and despite the low number of MPs there were some excellent speeches and the best one was from a Tory MP called Hoare(I think). For a brief moment in time I had a feeling of hope rather than one of despair. Despite everything there seems to be a number of MPs who share a desire to use the power they have to do what is right for the people who voted for them. Unfortunately they are spread among the various parties but what if, and I accept that my thoughts could be just a fantasty, all these like minded MPs resigned from their respective parties and came together to form a new Party of common sense . If their numbers were large enough they could become the new government and govern for the people rather than for themselves.
Is this too much to hope for?
I really do wish for a new party.
But I am really not a politician.
We could wish for a new party, although some MPs would I think disagree on some issues so much, they wouldn’t coalesce on a manifesto; but practically speaking, until and unless we have a functioning PR election process, leaving an existing mainstream party is likely to be suicidal politically: there’s too much (money, publicity, resources, activists knocking on doors…) tied up in existing party machinery. Specific situations may work (remember the Man in the White Suit? Or, very differently, Galloway: a single ‘outrage’ issue widely and deeply held in a locality) but as an organisation, it’s difficult (think SDP… not long before they declined and merged into Lib Dems). In Germany, with PR, a ‘traffic light’ coalition struggled – perhaps because of too many differences on things like economics, government money and spending.
Hi Derek,
this is my go to site for good news
https://www.thebrighterside.news/
which also rates how much good news there is on a daily basis
today was a c+
I’m afraid the Labour Party has long since ceased to be the party of, or for the people. As the late, great Jimmy Reid said, ” I did not leave the Labour Party, the Labour Party left me.”
It has left so many others too.
Shouldn’t we now be calling the Starmer led Labour Party “The Ghost Party” as support for its continuation of cruel and incompetent “Tory/Neoliberal” policies and ideas ebbs away?
LINO does for me – Labour In Name Only
Labour have baked themselves a very interesting cake. The key ingredients are taken from last 4 ‘great’ prime ministers. Copying their work is surely a recipe of success and credibility. The “no deal is better than a bad deal” Brexit red lines form May. Build Build Build bravado of Boris. Go for growth of Liz Truss. And stop the boats from Rish! The strategic placed red icing can’t hide the truth. The cake is inedible.
The Starmer government wants growth yet in terms of a vital component of this growth the provision of water and sewage services instead of permanent nationalisation for a failed means of delivering those services they want to throw good money after bad (Money that this monetary illiterate government declares the country doesn’t have!):-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/25/thames-water-rescuers-seek-clean-break-before-committing-fresh-funds
The British have a load of ignoramuses governing them which is going to become increasingly obvious as the months tick away. Then of course an even worse corrupt and ignorant force will be asserting itself that of a Tory coalition with Reform!
I heard today that Reform have overtaken the Conservatives and Labour in a poll. Not sure which one sorry. We all know that Reform won’t be any different, but at this rate they will win due to Labours incompetence rather than on their own merit. Reform have a cohesive message, and a narrative of the UK’s decline. Labour know why the UK is failing, but can’t tell the public as they are now as complicit in it as the Conservatives were. They are just leaving the door unlocked now for Reform to come in and finish the job of ruining this country beyond repair.
Agreed.
Here’s another on-going symptom then of the march of the market championed by government – the unifying and ‘simplification’ of local authority structures which is STILL on the table, indicating that little change has been brought about by a political party promising ‘change’ at the election.
Why is this issue a problem? Well, jobs will be duplicated, savings will be sought but also, larger ‘local bodies’ in this country will be much easier to control and so will dissenting voices in the increasingly centralised country that we live in – indeed – the unification of LAs has a distinctly authoritarian bent to it when you consider that the levels of British local government increased representation.
It seems that the private sector wants less people to have to talk to in the search for ‘growth’.
An economic growth accompanied by a shrinkage of democracy is not a good idea – even the outrageously misquoted Adam Smith could have told any British government that.
And look at regional government (which Starmer wants to expand geographically and strengthen in power): a single Mayor with a mayoral Authority – not an Assembly. And all the binary, top down executive government and near totalitarianism that results, without proper consultation, nor checks and balances…
A video is coming….
Those are exactly the reasons Bristol just scrapped its mayoral system. A good Mayor. But he got authoritarian in his second term – mayor knows best – and despite massive shift to Greens last locsl election, refused to broaden his Cabinet.
Our WECA Metro Mayor (and his dog) have just been exposed as having done NO feasibilty studies on bus franchising although he has power to do it, & population want it.
Mayors were imposed on us, in v low turnout referenda.
In Manchester we were asked whether we wanted a mayor. The overwhelming answer was that we did not. Nevertheless, the mayor was imposed a few years later. Labour have controlled most of Greater Manchester for a very long time. It has become a fiefdom, now headed by a Labour mayor. There have been and are very few dissenting voices. This is very bad for democracy: even if Labour has the ‘right’ policies, the alternative arguments ought to be heard.
When Starmer and Reeves et al., talk about growth, it’s growth of riches for London or, at most, south east England.
As for the rest of the UK, tens of millions of us are not on their radars.
Even the people of London generally don’t get much. Mostly it’s “the City” and foreign-owned corporations.
Completely off topic, Prince Harry’s* triumph over Britain’s Press (yet again); should be a reminder that the failings of social media are disastrous; and the result of laissez-faire monopolists to run amok and treat public communication solely as a profit opportunity; but ignore the pernicious effect of the mainstream print-press in Britain; which is effectively a cartel – but with a difference. It is not a cartel operated principally for the profit motive; but as a cheap loss-leader by financial interests solely intent on dictating the political agenda; and using the news as defined solely by the cartel; constraining Government to act only within the neoliberal economic and political guidelines dictated by a the operators of the cartel.
British journalism is in the sewer, and everyone operating in the environment is inevitably stained by the foul environment. There is the problem; still unaddressed, still ignore. The pretence goes on and on. There is no excuse.
* I have no interest in the Royal Family, its doings and the baggage train of vulgar junk journalism that follows in its wake; but I would have to be dead not to notice that Harry and his wife have been pilloried by the British press in a most unseemly, vitriolic, personal, gratuitous way.
It’s ironic is it not that a member of the monarchy (Prince Harry) should expose a narcissistic/sociopathic media oligarch at the same time the United States has thrown away the fruits of its 18th century revolution against oligarchy by elected the oligarch Trump?
Most disappointing? Yes, I had hoped for better.
Worst? In absolute terms, no – that is a little harsh. Remember Boris?
I think he might outdo him.
Labour has to stage the coup.
Undecided whether they should be charged under the Trades Description Act or for Fraud, or both ! There is absolutely nothing that Labour stands for in what they are doing !
Labour MPs should immediately refuse to the back the government, effectively go on strike, until the Leadership is sorted out. Then those who don’t are obviously only there for the perks and not the principle or standing up for Labour voters
Given how quickly Labour MPs’ support for the Climate and Nature Bill melted away, we’d be unwise to expect very much at all from them.
These announcements prompted my wife and I to send an email to our local MP explaining why we could no longer support Labour.
Then yesterday I was amazed by the BTL comments on Marina Hyde’s satirical column in The Guardian.Over 1000 comments and the vast majority were very angry at the Government.Obviously Labour sympathisers by the objections they raised.And issues that you have regularly mentioned.
-LINO,as bad as the Tories
– Dismay at Starmer and Reeves
– Reeves’ woeful budget
– Favouring the rich,bankers and non doms
– Wrecking the planet
-Prefer redistribution to growth
– London bias
– Household analogy.
No doubt,you have influenced certain Guardian readers,I just hope some Labour MPs read these BTL comments and your blog.
There can be only one conclusion then,one that you came to some time back.
I’m reading a Hilary Mantel novel.Hopefully,the careers of Starmer and Reeves suffer a similar fate that’s shortly awaiting the King,Danton and Robespierre.
Chat GPT’s summary:
The article on Heathrow’s third runway has elicited a range of reader comments reflecting diverse perspectives. Common themes include:
Environmental Concerns
• Many express apprehension about increased carbon emissions and potential breaches of the UK’s climate commitments.
• Some highlight the contradiction between airport expansion and net-zero targets, questioning the feasibility of sustainable aviation fuels.
Economic Growth vs. Environmental Impact
• Several commenters debate the balance between pursuing economic growth and adhering to environmental responsibilities.
• Some argue that infrastructure projects like the third runway are essential for economic development, while others believe environmental costs outweigh potential benefits.
Alternative Solutions
• A number of readers suggest considering expansions at other airports, such as Gatwick, as potentially less harmful alternatives.
• Some propose investing in rail infrastructure to reduce domestic flights and lower carbon footprints.
Political Leadership and Decision-Making
• Commenters express skepticism about political motives, suggesting that economic interests are being prioritized over environmental concerns.
• Some criticize perceived inconsistencies in policy positions, particularly regarding commitments to net-zero emissions.
Public Consultation and Transparency
• Several readers call for more comprehensive public consultations to ensure diverse viewpoints are considered in decision-making.
• Concerns are raised about the transparency of the planning process and the influence of corporate interests.
These themes underscore the complex interplay between economic ambitions and environmental stewardship in public discourse.
The weird thing about the airport deal is that even if we started building tomorrow with no opposition, the things wouldn’t be ready until Labour is almost certainly going to be out of power, maybe ten years, or more like five at this rate. It’s almost as if they and the Tories simply take turns doing each other’s dirty work – the Tories under Osborne put the boot into poor Labour seats at a time when Labour couldn’t have done that; Labour expand airports which are surrounded by Tory seats.
But in any case, the opposition to expansion will be unprecedented and absolutely massive, so why is Reeves picking this particular fight? Makes no sense.
This is why we refer here to the Single Transferable Party.
They really haven’t learnt anything from 14 years in Opposition. Not only will they lose the next election, but they will be out of government for two decades thereafter. I don’t suppose Starmer will be bothered though, no doubt he’ll have a comfy seat in the House of Lords.
The University of Sheffield is making cuts to 7 departments. Some of these departments are suffering lower international student numbers or producing lots of graduates into areas of the economy where there is no domestic demand, condemning young people to what exactly? Some of these courses are highly regarded the world over from what I can see.
A real government of any persuasion delivering change rather than promising it would:
1. Sort our BREXIT and properly renew links with Europe (create opportunities)
2. Look again at the weird immigration rules that apply to overseas students which to me are more ideological than practical.
3. Invest into areas of the economy that might generate more graduate vacancies – green energy, coastal defences, reopening railways, improving water flows in rivers, tributaries etc., to cope with global warming; more hydro electric where possible including tidal. There’s lot more I can tell you.
Instead, all we’ll get is ministers bleating that the universities like Sheffield did not manage their finances.
I have never expected anything but bad news from any Tory politician from Thatcher onwards. They are my sworn enemy and they have no credibility with me whatsoever. I only associate the Tory party with the harm they have done me and others. Yes – I take it somewhat personally I know, but it has been.
But now its getting to the point where – lacking any alternatives – I do not have any reason to expect (except in one two individuals) anything different from the Labour party. The only difference is that the Tories harm by doing nasty things; Labour harms by doing nothing but tinkering.
It is only history that condemns Starmer really.
To me, today, he’s just another bland modern politician who merely represents the wealth that funds him and the personal benefit he will get from that. And that is that.
The UoS is in dire shape – as are most.
They have become utterly dependent on overseas students. They are nit coming because of visas, racism and course degradation.
Far too many courses in the UK are taught by people with a PhD but little knowledge of their subject, a limited ability to teach, a lack of pedagogical understanding, and a low level of understanding of the needs of the student. The result is far too many courses that are poor value for money, or time expended.
Very interesting Richard – thank you I’d hoped that I would get a response.
One UoS department (among many) under threat of reorganization or worse, which I happen to know well, is East Asian Studies: a centre of excellence teaching topics, and languages, vital in our “Pacific century”. Yes, maybe course modules on K-pop or Chinese cinema aren’t so immediately relevant? But we need people with knowledge of all aspects of these very different cultures, their politics, worldviews, economics and business, as well as the basics of language and communications.
Such shortsightedness – plus government refusal properly to fund useful education and research.
Agreed
In my blog-post ‘Brexiteers’ Pyrrhic Victory’ of 26th June 2016, I made several predictions that have come to pass or look as if they will, including:
“ And university costs will soar, because there will be very few high-paying foreign students entering here. So expect several unis to collapse in bankruptcy.”
https://crippledqueeranglo-europeanranter.blogspot.com/2016/06/brexiteers-pyrrhic-victory.html
You took the words right out of my mouth, PSR, and set them out more concisely than I would have, I suspect. My loathing of Tories is almost visceral given the misery and damage they created in my part of the world from Thatcher onward. But what we’re seeing with Starmer’s version of the Labour Party is almost as bad, for reasons Richard sets out, and others have added to with their comments. My view on Labour now veers from dismay, through despair, to disgust and utter confusion – and most often all in the course of a day.
But anyway, regarding the state of universities in England, Richard captures the fundamental issues in his response. And the issues have been building for years (I actually took voluntary redundancy from the university I worked when they were having an initial ‘clear out’ in 2019, so what we’re seeing now is simply a more visible – and reported – occurence).
The (over) reliance on overseas students, and the pretty dramatic fall in the numbers now coming here to study, is a particular issue and for many universities – particularly in cities with two universities (an ex polytechnic and a red brick university) that became very popular with overseas students, such as Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Leicester, and so on and on. But that has very little to do with universities being bad an financial management, as the previous and this government like to claim. They were, after all, only doing what ‘the market’ dictated – and we all know what slaves to the market our current, and previous governments, are and have been.
But speaking as someone who is married to someone who still works in a university on degrees that were once rated as some of the best in the UK, to here about how they are being further degraded – supposedly in the name of ‘student choice’ but actually because the university is desperate to save money, despite having just been through a voluntary redundancy scheme – is truly sad to see. That said, no doubt the Oxford’s and Cambridge’s of the UK, and the few universities that can still afford to hang on to their coat tails, are celebrating. But to be sure, a crisis in HE is coming.
Much to agree with
Thank you Ivan.
The thing with pedagogy is that we are even losing the ability to do that at work, such is the reliance on home working these days , never mind academia!
But the theme seems to be that it is competition that has degraded courses, as Universities enter a popularity contest. One ex-lecturer I spoke told me that modules without exams were far too popular with students when exams would be appropriate for the subject matter (I have always found university approaches to exams as very reasonable, with lots of effort on exam technique being offered, revision session etc., but all this was before Covid).
Starmer has lied and connived since 2015. Why ahould one expect anything else?
@ John Griffin. Indeed the chickens are coming home to roost as they say and increasingly more and more voters are coming to think Starmer is a type of used car salesman they wouldn’t want to buy a car from. Morgan McSweeney all your conniving behind the scenes is coming to nought because people are not ultimately as dumb as you imagine them to be!
Truss was an open book, a far right libertarian, and made no bones about it. Starmer is pretending to be something he isn’t. Starmer is far, far worse than Truss
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2025/jan/25/nearly-two-thirds-of-britons-say-very-rich-have-too-much-influence-on-politics
Yet Starmer’s party is going in the opposite direction. £107,000 worth of freebies tells you why! Anyone who bothered to read the small print and engage in joined-up thinking knew before last year’s general election Starmer was going to be corrupt and shill for the rich.
The key thing we should be growing is a circular economy I think.
That was Abby Innes’ conclusion at the end of her very long bok “Late Soviet Britain.”
It is the one ray of hope that I see at the end of a very long and dark tunnel.
100% spot on Richard. In complete contrast the Tories have the integrity to openly stand by their core beliefs – privilege and inequality.
Labour always was the UK’s most duplicitous and deeply cynical political party. So cynical that both wings of the party agreed on one thing: ‘the party’ above all else. That meant, to its never-ending shame, that Labour was THE bulwark against the UK achieving a fair voting system.
So its not too surprising that Starmer’s extreme right-wing capture of such a peculiarly self-serving party has fulfilled its destiny: complete betrayal of the working class from which it sprang.
I see from Sunday the 26th 2025 Guardian headline that Trump thinks Starmer is doing a great job. So Murdoch and his criminal global corporate cartel have given Labour and Reeves their tacit approval. Dark days ahead for the majority of us in both the US and UK.
My email is already being distance censored and flooded with unsolicited calls to distracting conflict, mostly to do with calls to heat up the cultural clashes between men and women.
Things can only get worse.
Good luck everyone.
https://europeanpowell.substack.com/p/starmer-is-selling-off-the-family
It seems somewhat inconsistent that you are always demanding growth in public spending, growth in public sector wages, growth in spending on climate change etc, yet are anti-growth of the economy.
Where do you think all of the money is going to come from?
You do realise that the public sector creates and delivers enormous value, don’t you.
Value comes from work, not profit, or exploitation. The public sector more than pays for itself. We have no growth because it is too small.
My impression of Starmer is that, though he may well be a good and compassionate lawyer and manager, he is politically very naive. He’s all too ready to accept what others tell him without realising they may have ulterior motives.
Reeves must surely be a plant? Why someone with her views would even consider joining a party that claims, however nominally, to be socialist is beyond me. Her entire world view appears to represent her career in banking and finance, which she obviously regards as the only important part of the economy.
For me the Lib Dems, however flawed, come closest in policies and competencies to a realistic socialist-minded party. What they lack, and never seem to get, is a firebrand leader. They always seem so keen on being nice, but in today’s political climate “nice” won’t cut it, the bullies have to be confronted.