Starmer’s chronicles

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Jesus, have a day off.

The economy was growing in July.

Their disastrous budget has killed growth. You don’t encourage growth by increasing costs to businesses.

I would have thought an “economist” such a as Rachel from Customer Services would have known that?


---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 18:39 ----------

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-...#liveblog-body

She “hopes” growth will return………..F’n hopes!

Yeah, we all do, I hope for lots of things, like world peace but for other things I have a plan that I have researched and have decent idea of what the outcome will be if I complete all my tasks satisfactorily.

I think it’s time Labour realise that they’re not in opposition anymore.

14yrs of just commenting on things, and making claims they don’t have to follow through with is long over.

Reading the tealeaves isn't as accurate as it used to be

[Mr K]

We gave the last Govt 14 years, only fair to give the this Govt the same.
The Brexiteers had their chance at running things. Turns out it was a crap idea sold to us by populists who only had themselves in mind. Who'd have thought?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

We gave the last Govt 14 years, only fair to give the this Govt the same.
The Brexiteers had their chance at running things. Turns out it was a crap idea sold to us by populists who only had themselves in mind. Who'd have thought?

14 years i wonder what it would be like

Train drivers on £1,000,000 pa
no farms left
no electricity gas or petroleum
interest rates 20%
8 million unemployed
a bridge across the channel to stop the boats
no car plants
no steel plants
no small business
tax at 80%
oh toto we're not in Kansas anymore look what the wicked witch has done

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

We gave the last Govt 14 years, only fair to give the this Govt the same.
The Brexiteers had their chance at running things. Turns out it was a crap idea sold to us by populists who only had themselves in mind. Who'd have thought?

5 years of this lot will be enough, as you will see.

[jfman]

Considering your penchant for being out by a decade or two Mr K will sleep easy tonight.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

We gave the last Govt 14 years, only fair to give the this Govt the same.

That’s not how it works

[Russ]

Agreed. It took the previous shower of shit about 2 years to ruin the economy so that’s a more realistic timescale.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s not how it works

It sort of does work that way:-
1979 to 1997 Tories 18 years
1997 to 2010 Labour 13 years
2010 to 2024 Labour Tories 14 years

We tend to give Govts at least 3 parliaments. Not a few months.

[papa smurf]

probably rename London to Starmergrad by then

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

probably rename London to Starmergrad by then

‘-stan’ surely?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

It sort of does work that way:-
1979 to 1997 Tories 18 years
1997 to 2010 Labour 13 years
2010 to 2024 Labour Tories 14 years

We tend to give Govts at least 3 parliaments. Not a few months.

It depends on how many terms Labour want.

As it stands they’re heading for just one.

Originally Posted by Mr K

It sort of does work that way:-
1979 to 1997 Tories 18 years
1997 to 2010 Labour 13 years
2010 to 2024 Labour Tories 14 years

We tend to give Govts at least 3 parliaments. Not a few months.

The 1970s would like a word.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

The 1970s would like a word.

That's it, everybody out

Labour won't get 14 years but then if the Tories get back in they won't either. I think voters are less patient and more volatile now. You need to show progress and even then it might not be enough, after all, Biden is out and their economy grew a lot better than ours over the last five years but it didn't lead to an improvement in living standards fast enough.

6 months is not enough to judge the longer-term success of the government but they won't get another term if 5 years doesn't such enough success that voters can actually feel.

[jfman]

What’s the difference between the two? Volatile voters would move between opposing positions, not migrate slightly within the centrist consensus.

The 1970s were different because genuinely opposing positions would be put forward.

The voters of that age - and even up to 2008 - would find it laughable voters debating the merits of 0.1% growth vs 0.1% decline.