Why hasn’t the PM called a GE

MaizieD

Doodledog

BevSec

Quite a spiteful post.

What is?

I think she objects to your critique of the Daily Telegraph😆

Ah. Ok .

Going back to the original question, Sunak has no good options while the Conservatives are at the lowest point ever in the polls.
If he goes for a GE now, it would be a matter of damage limitation. He may feel he shouldn't wait, however, as the core voters, ie pensioners, are dying off daily, while younger voters are not supporting his government.
Most commentators seem to agree that tomorrow's budget will do little to alter the situation.

Doodledog

BevSec

Quite a spiteful post.

What is?

I think she objects to your critique of the Daily Telegraph😆

BevSec

Quite a spiteful post.

What is?

Quite a spiteful post.

Yeah, the choice is dire. As I say, I can read them all, and will sometimes read several to get different views of a situation. On the whole, though, life’s too short. I just want sensible headlines pushed to my phone and coverage that is as dispassionate as possible. I don’t want to have to trawl numerous sources to get it, unless something serious is happening.

Doodledog

Reading The Telegraph has been a revelation. I stopped subscribing to the Graun some time ago because of its egregious stance on gender issues, and I was gifted a year's subscription to the Telegraph. I thought it would do no harm to get a different perspective on life in general, so have read it since August, I think. I've always read a range of papers, as I can access them through the work library, but this comes straight to my phone and I can read with no paywall if I follow up an article or report.

Anyone worried about WW3 will be traumatised by most of the leader articles and opinion pieces, which are bellicose and jingoistic, and assume that we will all be donning tin hats and sleeping under the stairs by Christmas. The headlines on politics (particularly those about the Labour Party) are hilariously one-sided and histrionic, particularly when it comes to 'wokism' if that's a word. The standard of journalism seems lower than I expected - there are so many cliches about how things will be 'brought to their knees' or 'fall off cliffs', without any indication of what that will mean. That's a bugbear of mine at the best of times - journalists should be able to express themselves better than that, but nobody is taking them to task.

I won't be renewing the subscription when it comes up, as it's been bad for my mental health and my blood pressure. It's not because the perspective on politics is not one I share - I welcome that, actually. I don't like living in an echo chamber, and only hearing one point of view, which is one of the reasons I enjoy discussion forums. It's the drum-banging and blatant propaganda that I dislike, along with the scare-mongering. The comments section would be hilarious if I didn't know that it's not a parody.

It's a poor show, really. I don't know which paper to read as a go-to. Any suggestions?

I also stopped my subscription to the Graun - quite some time ago though, obviously, I do still peruse it from time to time.

There was definitely a 'narrative' that had to be adhered to in the "Comment is Free" section. Some issues just could not be discussed and had to be referred to obliquely. I wasn't the only one who noticed, quite a few others did, too - and were able to articulate that suspicion (although it was worded carefully)... strangely, the G did not censor all comments that were critical of its stance. So comment was free but only within the confines of that narrative.

I don't know which paper to rely on frankly - so I read them all - though I'm not subscribing to the Telegraph. I used to read it years ago when we used to buy papers from the newspaper stands in the street. Maybe my memory is failing but it appeared to be a more 'sober' paper back then.

The only papers I don't read are the Daily Star which objectifies women and is celebrity focused, and The Sun. They are IMO truly the 'gutter' press.

LizzieDrip

I think Sunak and the Tories want to do as much damage as possible before the GE, thereby making Labour’s job (as the next government) virtually impossible. The Tories have accepted they won’t win the election but they want Labour to only have one term in office. They

The longer Sunak waits to call an election, the more damage he & his party can do to the country.

This. His MPs can keep drawing their salaries, claiming expenses etc for as long as possible...😡

Whitewavemark2

I one thing that we can be absolutely certain about is that the focus of the government will change. So all this nonsense about the small boats and immigration and culture wars - over which the Tories have completely failed (forget Rwanda now as it seems certain that they will be at war with their neighbour) - will be dealt with but without all the ridiculous rhetoric.

I suspect that focus will almost certainly be on growth, investment and rebuilding the public services, as well as enabling businesses through less friction in trade etc.

I wish I had your optimism about what Labour will accomplish.
I don’t think any party can handle the small boat situation it’s out of control.

Reading The Telegraph has been a revelation. I stopped subscribing to the Graun some time ago because of its egregious stance on gender issues, and I was gifted a year's subscription to the Telegraph. I thought it would do no harm to get a different perspective on life in general, so have read it since August, I think. I've always read a range of papers, as I can access them through the work library, but this comes straight to my phone and I can read with no paywall if I follow up an article or report.

Anyone worried about WW3 will be traumatised by most of the leader articles and opinion pieces, which are bellicose and jingoistic, and assume that we will all be donning tin hats and sleeping under the stairs by Christmas. The headlines on politics (particularly those about the Labour Party) are hilariously one-sided and histrionic, particularly when it comes to 'wokism' if that's a word. The standard of journalism seems lower than I expected - there are so many cliches about how things will be 'brought to their knees' or 'fall off cliffs', without any indication of what that will mean. That's a bugbear of mine at the best of times - journalists should be able to express themselves better than that, but nobody is taking them to task.

I won't be renewing the subscription when it comes up, as it's been bad for my mental health and my blood pressure. It's not because the perspective on politics is not one I share - I welcome that, actually. I don't like living in an echo chamber, and only hearing one point of view, which is one of the reasons I enjoy discussion forums. It's the drum-banging and blatant propaganda that I dislike, along with the scare-mongering. The comments section would be hilarious if I didn't know that it's not a parody.

It's a poor show, really. I don't know which paper to read as a go-to. Any suggestions?

MaizieD

Oh well, if it was in the Telegraph I think we can safely ignore it 😆

I did 😂 when you first responded, Dickens. I hope you didn't think I was being aggressive...

I did 😂 when you first responded, Dickens. I hope you didn't think I was being aggressive...

Oh no... just your usual perky self, checkin' out and all! 😂

I've just devised a headline for the T if Starmer wins...

"LABOUR WIN - CITY MOURNS"

Oh well, if it was in the Telegraph I think we can safely ignore it 😆

I did 😂 when you first responded, Dickens. I hope you didn't think I was being aggressive...

MaizieD

Dickens

MaizieD

The City / financial sector has much to fear from a Labour government, given some of its monetary plans.

What scary monetary plans would those be, Dickens?

As far as I can see Labour is rowing back on any meaningful investment in anything at all.

And if Labour don't put any significant amounts of money into the economy the 'city' will abandon the UK because there will be no money in the economy for it to hoover up...

I think there is too much scaremongering bout the City. I t exists to make people wealthy; it has no interest in the country or the welfare of its citizens, just in sources of profit..

I suggest you read the economics blog I linked to earlier, all three posts about 'debt'

mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2024/02/detoxifying-government-debt-part-3.html

What scary monetary plans would those be, Dickens?

I was commenting from THEIR point of view - not mine!

😂😂😂

I thought you might have an example of the monetary plans that scare them...

Oh, I read a 'warning' this morning from a 'City' bod about - I think it was titled something like "The City can't see Starmer for what he is". I tried to find it again, but it's in the Telegraph, and when I tried to access it the second time, they put it behind a paywall (Capitalism is bloody mean-minded), though I read the whole article the first time.

If you have a subscription (), you can read it.

Hence my comment - which I should've made clear was tongue-in-cheek.

*cheerfully

I'm praying Starmer is keeping his policies to himself until a GE is announced when he can let us all know what to expect. Any sooner and our current Prime Miniature will cheefully nick them.

I one thing that we can be absolutely certain about is that the focus of the government will change. So all this nonsense about the small boats and immigration and culture wars - over which the Tories have completely failed (forget Rwanda now as it seems certain that they will be at war with their neighbour) - will be dealt with but without all the ridiculous rhetoric.

I suspect that focus will almost certainly be on growth, investment and rebuilding the public services, as well as enabling businesses through less friction in trade etc.

I would like to see similar to the first 100 days of the last Labour government - they hit the ground running and introduced a huge amount during these early days.

Dickens

MaizieD

The City / financial sector has much to fear from a Labour government, given some of its monetary plans.

What scary monetary plans would those be, Dickens?

As far as I can see Labour is rowing back on any meaningful investment in anything at all.

And if Labour don't put any significant amounts of money into the economy the 'city' will abandon the UK because there will be no money in the economy for it to hoover up...

I think there is too much scaremongering bout the City. I t exists to make people wealthy; it has no interest in the country or the welfare of its citizens, just in sources of profit..

I suggest you read the economics blog I linked to earlier, all three posts about 'debt'

mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2024/02/detoxifying-government-debt-part-3.html

What scary monetary plans would those be, Dickens?

I was commenting from THEIR point of view - not mine!

😂😂😂

I thought you might have an example of the monetary plans that scare them...

Look - it surely can’t get any worse, and the focus on growth by Labour which does mean investment by the government is a glimmer of hope - albeit a faint one.

I am hoping that in fact their ducks are in order, including the green agenda but that they are keeping their powder dry as we know what happens if they announce policy etc. the Tories are very good at pinching ideas particularly as they are devoid of anything at the moment.

MaizieD

^The City / financial sector has much to fear from a Labour government, given some of its monetary plans.^

What scary monetary plans would those be, Dickens?

As far as I can see Labour is rowing back on any meaningful investment in anything at all.

And if Labour don't put any significant amounts of money into the economy the 'city' will abandon the UK because there will be no money in the economy for it to hoover up...

I think there is too much scaremongering bout the City. I t exists to make people wealthy; it has no interest in the country or the welfare of its citizens, just in sources of profit..

I suggest you read the economics blog I linked to earlier, all three posts about 'debt'

mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2024/02/detoxifying-government-debt-part-3.html

What scary monetary plans would those be, Dickens?

I was commenting from THEIR point of view - not mine!

The City / financial sector has much to fear from a Labour government, given some of its monetary plans.

What scary monetary plans would those be, Dickens?

As far as I can see Labour is rowing back on any meaningful investment in anything at all.

And if Labour don't put any significant amounts of money into the economy the 'city' will abandon the UK because there will be no money in the economy for it to hoover up...

I think there is too much scaremongering bout the City. I t exists to make people wealthy; it has no interest in the country or the welfare of its citizens, just in sources of profit..

I suggest you read the economics blog I linked to earlier, all three posts about 'debt'

mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2024/02/detoxifying-government-debt-part-3.html

GrannyGravy13

The one thing that I cannot get enthusiastic about is Rachel Reeves has the same household budget mindset to the economy as the current Chancellor.

We need a different approach to get U.K. moving upwards and I am not sure that Labour’s economics are any better than Conservatives.

I absolutely agree with you about Labour's economics, GG13.

But none of the other parties are proposing anything useful, either.

I am living with the faint, very faint, hope that Labour are talking tough on the economy to keep the right wing media off their backs in the run up to the election. They have to counter the completely unjustified perception that Labour are profligate spenders and high taxers who are bad at running the economy. We know this is untrue, but this untruth has been heavily pushed by tory propaganda for so long that it is hard to counter.

In fact, we only have to look at the results of the tory management of the economy over the past 14 years to wonder how they even dare to promote such nonsense.

As I said earlier, commentators and economists are begging Labour to commit to much more state investment in order to get the economy moving. Once the economy shows signs of growth (i.e when consumers have more spare money) the private sector will have a greater incentive to invest. They won't invest unless they can see profit arising from their investments. Which they can't at the moment...

The 'household budget' thing is absurd.

Freya5

Dickens

BevSec

Hi wheniwasyourage

A lot of how I feel is actually put much, much better than I can by columnists Richard Littlejohn and Tom Utley of the Daily Mail. I can not bring myself to vote Tory after the way Boris was ousted, he was an ace prime minister, really caring and highly intelligent. I wonder what those on this forum so ready to put the knife into him would have done in his place.

Will Labour really make this country a better place?
.

I can not bring myself to vote Tory after the way Boris was ousted, he was an ace prime minister, really caring and highly intelligent. I wonder what those on this forum so ready to put the knife into him would have done in his place.

Is this the same Boris Johnson who, when told about investigations into historic child abuse used that refined comment that it was "spaffing money up the wall", the same Boris Johnson who was willing to let the "bodies pile high", and refused to return from holiday to attend the first Cobra meeting when the pandemic was beginning to take hold - and then missed a further 4 meetings?

He is well-educated, whether he is also intelligent is debatable.

Oh, and it's not a question of what we would've done in his place... we are the voters and we are allowed to hold the PM and his party to account without having to come up with a 'plan'. He has aides and advisors - we don't.

I've no idea if Labour will make this country a better place, but I'm sure they won't make it worse than it is now.

Yes well, be careful what you wish for.

Yes well, be careful what you wish for.

You misunderstand - I'm not a Labour voter... I was simply hazarding a guess.

I try to look at the parties dispassionately, though obviously I have a bias.

Taking a 'snapshot' at the state of affairs of the nation as they are currently under 14 years or so of Conservative rule, it's not in good shape, and I believe that is not necessarily because it is a Tory government, more that its leaders and MPs are very much invested in self-interest rather than in the interests of the country as a whole.

Starmer- if his party wins - will inherit a poisoned chalice so I have no high expectations. And in spite of various poll-predictions, there's no guarantee he will be the next PM. The City / financial sector has much to fear from a Labour government, given some of its monetary plans.

I’m not sure that Rachel Reeves will be the Chancellor in a Labour government. My money is on a reshuffle and some old names reappearing too.

The one thing that I cannot get enthusiastic about is Rachel Reeves has the same household budget mindset to the economy as the current Chancellor.

We need a different approach to get U.K. moving upwards and I am not sure that Labour’s economics are any better than Conservatives.