I asked this question on Twitter yesterday:
It seems that the 'don't knows' have it.
I am not surprised.
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!
Richard, that is seven Blogs on Rachel Reeves or Labour over a couple of days; and each one is met with outrage by readers. One feature of the outrage is the false narrative that Labour were innocents, who had not a clue about how bad things were (perhaps they did come across further unexpected deceit by the Conservatives on entering office; but please – not sufficient for this exaggerated shock on their part; it just will not do, they have no excuse for naivety – this is Britain, expect deceit). But my question is like yours, but a simple ‘Yes/No’ will do. How many voted Labour in the last election? And if it was more than ejecting the Conservatives from office, what did they expect? Anything different from the Single Transferable Party is naive.
Much to agree with
There is an appetite for these books that I happen to want to write at this moment
YouTube, in particular, likes them
On the other hand, I lost Twitter followers overnight
That’s not uncommon and could probably be put down to Twitter/X flaky behaviour.
Selfishness and Deceitfulness undermines democracy but this increasingly appears to be the new normal in Britain. Not a good augur for the future!
The interregnum will be extended.
It should’ve been a reassuring progressive programme tempered with the knowledge the measures will take time, but will transform UK. It wasn’t in the slightest.
On a related note, I see parts of the UK meeja are supporting Os-Reeves & her “speech” – this from somebody (Toynbee) that has played a part in the past supporting what were highly disfunctional LINO govs, & is clearly detached from what passes for reality (I did not read the article – the headline was quite enough).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/24/labour-doom-gloom-rachel-reeves-sunshine-freebies-conference
As Col Smithers has comments, the G’ is just another neo-lib mouthpiece – albeit not quite so obvious as the UK mainstream/feral press.
I am afraid much to agree with
Its the Continuity Tory party – think the same, say the same, do the same- just a different batch of people, who you would not want to run the p*** in a brewery!.
I think you really meant to say ” – p*** up in a brewery”!
In that case, I wholeheartedly agree.
Well said!
Yesterday I was swift to rubbish the vagueries of Reeves’ speech which should have given some real meat on indications of economic policies – and it was dire.
This afternoon Starmer’s effort was undoubtedly aimed at ‘the vision thing’. Though it was still sparse in actual detail on policies – it was definitive in benign tone, in assertion of anti-racist values and, within these two qualities, pragmatically aimed at social improvement. It could never have been made by the Conservatives and it would be beyond churlish not to recognise that it set a tone for political debate that has been long absent from such occasions.
That said – there is still no sign of the kind of economic detail or economic philosophy which gives any real confidence that Starmer’s government can deliver on its still cloudy aspirations. Winning battles against his ideological opponents in the Labour Party or finessing a shallow but widespread majority in the FPTP House of Commons are one set of skills – and not the morally finest. Turning the grossly unequal and broken society of Brexitania (the elephant again floated past unrecognised) into the idealised Britain (a kind of Labour romanticised, Britnat exceptionalism) which he finished up roaring about, is a very different matter. The failure to look beyond Dover and the slipped in nonsense about the removal of the WFA to protect market confidence in the country were two pretty negative tells.
(Also – perhaps lawyerly he prefered to speak of “justice” but eschewed “equality” – and his triumphant partisan demolition of the lone heckler, whose shout I could not make out, felt like a Freudian moment!)
P.S. I heard the “sausages” at he time but thought it too silly to comment; that the Tories have instantly weaponised it, rather makes one of Starmer’s points.
I heard it and decided to ignore it
Misread, like a typo, I decided
I was generous, for once
What I find interesting is that “Yes” is almost equal to “Don’t Care”.
Maybe they are the same group of people who just voted twice??? LOL!
I’m more concerned about the Don’t Knows.
How can you not know whether or not you understand?
In the light of the winter fuels allowance debate being booted to the last day of the conference (when many people have left) – it is clear what LINO/Starmer/assorted minders want to do: message managing. Had the debate on the fuel allowance gone ahead as planned (day 2) the vote against cancelling would have overshadowed the speeches by Os-Reeves (so called cos she is no diff from Osbourne) and Starmer – & we can’t have that – bad news need to be managed or suppressed – so far so very St(alin)armer/LINO. This supports the widerspread view that LINO is about managerialism – managing stuff & keeping up apperances.
Meanwhile stage right – Peter Hitchins thinks that the Starmer gov will be left wing – I wonder what Mr Hitchins has been drinking?