The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

[cactustwirly]

Not sure where you get this from. Starting salary for engineers where I work is £32k and there are real skills shortages.

My personal experience of being a STEM graduate.
Most of the jobs are Lab based paying barely more than the minimum wage

 

[brad465]

Tomorrow is of course Remembrance Sunday, with the traditional Cenotaph ceremony. This year will see NINE living former and current PMs attend, which must surely be a record?

Major
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May
Johnson
Truss
Sunak
Starmer

 

[Yew]

My personal experience of being a STEM graduate.
Most of the jobs are Lab based paying barely more than the minimum wage

Fortunately, there are statistics we can use for this:

£40,000 was the median nominal salary for working age (16-64 years old) graduates in 2023, compared to £45,000 for postgraduates and £29,500 for non-graduates (to the nearest £500).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Labour Party despite there historic animosity to Trump and naked support for Harris looked to have been smart enough not to ignore Trump with Lammy laying foundations with Trumps team which could serve us well in navigating our way through whatever changes he seeks to make from next year.

 

[takno]

Fortunately, there are statistics we can use for this:

Note that that's the median salary, so the salaries below the median could quite rapidly tail off towards minimum wage. I'd expect very few of the salaries above the median to be the under 35s, just because salaries normally go up throughout a career, so really that stat tells us almost nothing at all about the salaries of recent graduates.

 

[Falcon1200]

Labour Party despite there historic animosity to Trump and naked support for Harris looked to have been smart enough

Although pretty much every senior Labour politician has, to a greater or lesser degree, made disparaging remarks about Trump, somehow not realising that a) Labour might regain power at some stage, b) Trump might regain the Presidency at some stage, and c) those events might coincide - which they now have! Which, given that Trump is thin-skinned and has a long memory, is not especially smart. Starmer and Lammy are going to have to work hard to get on his good side.

 

[cactustwirly]

Fortunately, there are statistics we can use for this:

That's not a lot of money, that doesn't pay for living costs in the south east.

It's the median salary of 16-64 year olds, so an average of all levels of job not graduate level jobs which are poorly paid.

 

[DarloRich]

Starmer and Lammy are going to have to work hard to get on his good side.

and yet they both met with him in New York in September

The prime minister has had a two-hour dinner with former US President Donald Trump in New York.

It is the first time Sir Keir Starmer and Trump have met. The pair were joined by Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

Sir Keir was in New York for the UN General Assembly but made time to meet Trump at his New York base

Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump for the first time

The UK's "special relationship" with the US sits above whoever holds office, the prime minister says.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Yew]

That's not a lot of money, that doesn't pay for living costs in the south east.

It's the median salary of 16-64 year olds, so an average of all levels of job not graduate level jobs which are poorly paid.

When you say "graduate level jobs" do you mean "first jobs a graduate can get out of University", or "jobs that typically require a degree, or prior experience in a role that had one"?

 

[Falcon1200]

and yet they both met with him in New York in September

But he hadn't been elected President then!

Maybe things will work out between Trump and Labour, but if someone had said nasty things about me, but then, once I was in a position of power, expected to be treated nicely, if not advantageously.... I'm not sure how I would react.

 

[cactustwirly]

When you say "graduate level jobs" do you mean "first jobs a graduate can get out of University", or "jobs that typically require a degree, or prior experience in a role that had one"?

Entry level jobs or graduate schemes.

 

[simonw]

But he hadn't been elected President then!

Maybe things will work out between Trump and Labour, but if someone had said nasty things about me, but then, once I was in a position of power, expected to be treated nicely, if not advantageously.... I'm not sure how I would react.

You might want to ask JD Vance about what he said about Trump...

 

[DarloRich]

But he hadn't been elected President then!

Sensible each way bet then.

Maybe things will work out between Trump and Labour, but if someone had said nasty things about me, but then, once I was in a position of power, expected to be treated nicely, if not advantageously.... I'm not sure how I would react.

Fair point - however JD Vance said some disobliging things about Trump and is now VP elect!

 

[Richard Scott]

Entry level jobs or graduate schemes.

Also need to remember just because you have a degree doesn't always mean you get a job on a graduate scheme. There are lots of graduates that have to accept that they just have to get a job and, sometimes, one that they could have got 3 years earlier so have wasted their time and money. If everyone had a degree not everyone would get a graduate job.

 

[simonw]

Also need to remember just because you have a degree doesn't always mean you get a job on a graduate scheme. There are lots of graduates that have to accept that they just have to get a job and, sometimes, one that they could have got 3 years earlier so have wasted their time and money. If everyone had a degree not everyone would get a graduate job.

Getting a degree isn't just about getting a job so people don't have to think they have wasted their time or money.

 

[takno]

But he hadn't been elected President then!

Maybe things will work out between Trump and Labour, but if someone had said nasty things about me, but then, once I was in a position of power, expected to be treated nicely, if not advantageously.... I'm not sure how I would react.

Virtually everybody has said nasty things about Trump, and nothing about his recent behaviour suggests that he is making any form of meaningful decisions at all, let alone on a rational basis.

It's likely that the UK will suffer much the same arbitrary and hostile treatment as everywhere else once Trump is in control, but I have no doubt that Farage and the right wing press will be out to blame it on some slight from 10 years earlier that Trump didn't even read in the first place.

 

[Yew]

Also need to remember just because you have a degree doesn't always mean you get a job on a graduate scheme. There are lots of graduates that have to accept that they just have to get a job and, sometimes, one that they could have got 3 years earlier so have wasted their time and money. If everyone had a degree not everyone would get a graduate job.

Judging the effectiveness of Universities by the first job that people get when they leave seems like a poor metric to me.

 

[Richard Scott]

Judging the effectiveness of Universities by the first job that people get when they leave seems like a poor metric to me.

The point I was trying to make is that not all graduates end up in graduate jobs, that may be by choice but it is a fact and they may end up earningno more money than thry would have done had thry not gone.
For some they do feel they wasted their time and money, for others university is as much about the experience.

 

[Shrop]

.... however JD Vance said some disobliging things about Trump and is now VP elect!

Trump doesn't care a great deal for what people say about him, what he cares about is the strength and bullishness with which they say it. He admires these traits in people and sees it as potential for an alliance even if it starts with them expressing distaste for him. What he won't appreciate is if someone (eg Starmer) subsequently shows weakness, because that would make them/him a doormat.

This is key to why he is now the President Elect, American people tend to prefer strength even if it includes unpleasant traits such as blatant lies and exaggerations, rather than the nicey nicey characteristics of the Democrats. It isn't greatly different in the UK, the voting pubic are prepared to tolerate a fair bit of "incorrect" behaviour so long as they can perceive strength in who they're voting for, and can see this strength benefitting them. (The lack of any particularly good options at the last UK election is another matter). So Trump is prepared to work with Vance because he can see mutual benefit from doing so. Starmer will do well to bear all of this in mind - he needs to be strong, a bit of ruthlessness from time to time will endear him in Trump's eyes too, he'll just need to find a way to conduct himself without upsetting his electorate too much.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is key to why he is now the President Elect, American people tend to prefer strength even if it includes unpleasant traits such as blatant lies and exaggerations, rather than the nicey nicey characteristics of the Democrats.

That seems quite simplistic. What about 2020?

 

[Shrop]

That seems quite simplistic. What about 2020?

Again similar to the UK, the public just seemed to want the least bad option at the time of the election.

The electoral systems in both the USA and UK are very much in need of updating, in order that people can begin to feel that they are actually represented. What we have at present is often millions of people who vote against the party they don't want, rather than in favour of the one that they do. In the UK this may well lead to hung parliaments, but then Parliament might be more likely to allow MPs to vote for what they believe in, and in turn what their constituents want, rather than what they're instructed to do by the Party Whip as happens now.

 

[nw1]

and yet they both met with him in New York in September

Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump for the first time

The UK's "special relationship" with the US sits above whoever holds office, the prime minister says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Why should there even be a "special relationship" between the UK and the US?

This needs to end. The recent election result shows that the US has quite different values and priorities to us. I doubt you'd get more than half of the UK electorate voting for someone like Trump.

We need to have the same relationship with the US that other democratic Western countries do. Nothing more. Anything more just increases our chances of being targeted by terrorists.

Otherwise it just feels like we are the US's doormat, at their beck and call whenever they want us, and to be quite honest, we shouldn't be.

To my mind the "special relationship" is all one way anyway. Do they treat the UK any more favourably than other democratic Western countries, unless they want something from us in return?
A trivial example is the US borders. We certainly don't get fast-tracked or treated with extra respect because we are a "country of low risk", for example. By contrast, US citizens (amongst other countries) do get fast tracked through our borders.

 

[takno]

Why should there even be a "special relationship" between the UK and the US?

This needs to end. The recent election result shows that the US has quite different values and priorities to us. I doubt you'd get more than half of the UK electorate voting for someone like Trump.

We need to have the same relationship with the US that other democratic Western countries do. Nothing more. Anything more just increases our chances of being targeted by terrorists.

Otherwise it just feels like we are the US's doormat, at their beck and call whenever they want us, and to be quite honest, we shouldn't be.

To my mind the "special relationship" is all one way anyway. Do they treat the UK any more favourably than other democratic Western countries, unless they want something from us in return?
A trivial example is the US borders. We certainly don't get fast-tracked or treated with extra respect because we are a "country of low risk", for example. By contrast, US citizens (amongst other countries) do get fast tracked through our borders.

We don't have a special relationship with the US, but there is absolutely no benefit in being the PM that points that out.

In any case Trump seems to have a rather one way special relationship with Scotland, and makes decisions on a rather arbitrary basis, so talking up our links may benefit us. You never know, maybe Keir Starmer turning up at the Whitehouse with some gold-plated tartan might make Trump forget that he's besties with Putin for a month or two.

 

[Harpo]

I doubt you'd get more than half of the UK electorate voting for someone like Trump.

But then we don’t have a presidential system. However, adverse personality traits didn’t stop Boris Johnson (who did seem to think that we have a presidential system!) being elected nor does it hinder Farage, who Trump considers a role model.

I don’t think that the UK electorate really behaves that much differently to the US.

 

[nw1]

We don't have a special relationship with the US, but there is absolutely no benefit in being the PM that points that out.

We don't have to point it out, but on the other hand we don't have to mention the relationship supposedly exists either.

But then we don’t have a presidential system. However, adverse personality traits didn’t stop Boris Johnson (who did seem to think that we have a presidential system!) being elected nor does it hinder Farage, who Trump considers a role model.

True, but Johnson didn't behave anything like as badly as Trump has recently. I guess the real test would be if we did have a President with real power and we had two candidates, Cameron vs. Farage (comparing the Dems to soft Tories, which I think is quite accurate). Could Farage win more than half the votes? I would doubt it. I'm no Tory but would certainly vote Cameron in such a situation.

 

[DarloRich]

Otherwise it just feels like we are the US's doormat, at their beck and call whenever they want us, and to be quite honest, we shouldn't be.

To my mind the "special relationship" is all one way anyway. Do they treat the UK any more favourably than other democratic Western countries, unless they want something from us in return?

There is held to be a lot of behind the scenes benefits such as access to satellite technology, intelligence sharing, military cooperation etc. That is held to be better/more/more detailed than with other nations - I don't know if that is true but is certainly offered as the basis for the special relationship

 

[Tetchytyke]

I doubt you'd get more than half of the UK electorate voting for someone like Trump.

Under our electoral system you only need about 20% of the electorate to vote for someone and they've got pretty much carte blanche to do what they want. Starmer got 33.7% of the popular vote on a turnout of 59%, and he's got such a majority he can do what he wants.

I would not at all surprised to see Nigel Farage elected as PM in 2029.

To my mind the "special relationship" is all one way anyway. Do they treat the UK any more favourably than other democratic Western countries, unless they want something from us in return?

I absolutely agree with this. The US says they want us to extradite someone- even if they committed the alleged offence as British citizens whilst based in the UK- and we can't get them locked up and shipped off quickly enough. Look at the "NatWest Three".

But when we want a US fugitive to come and face justice here because they, to choose a random example, killed someone by driving on the wrong side of the road, then it's a complete wall of silence.

There is held to be a lot of behind the scenes benefits such as access to satellite technology, intelligence sharing, military cooperation etc. That is held to be better/more/more detailed than with other nations

Again it's all one-way. We let the US put listening stations here and we disguise it by calling them RAF stations. You won't hear many British accents at RAF Menwith Hill, that's for sure.

Same with Diego Garcia. We force the residents off the island and get all the blowback for it, then we just hand it to the Americans for them to use as they want.

 

[DarloRich]

Same with Diego Garcia. We force the residents off the island and get all the blowback for it, then we just hand it to the Americans for them to use as they want.

We can use the base if we want. We just haven't got anything that can fly there!

Again it's all one-way. We let the US put listening stations here and we disguise it by calling them RAF stations. You won't hear many British accents at RAF Menwith Hill, that's for sure.

it IS an RAF base. it has an RAF commander! Same as the other facilities in the UK like RAF Croughton near me

We also get access to the "take" which is what matters. Maybe not all of it but some useful information. Anyway isn't Menwith Hill a "weather" station?

 

[nw1]

Under our electoral system you only need about 20% of the electorate to votI'e for someone and they've got pretty much carte blanche to do what they want. Starmer got 33.7% of the popular vote on a turnout of 59%, and he's got such a majority he can do what he wants.

I would not at all surprised to see Nigel Farage elected as PM in 2029.

I'd say Badenoch is the more likely of the two - but hopefully the Tories will have replaced her by then. But even Badenoch would be preferable to the, IMO, far-right* individual that is Farage.

I still think Farage is too extreme to come first - would surely be beaten by either Labour or the Tories. And remember a 2029 election will be immediately in the wake of Trump - will we really want to put ourselves through someone who's arguably worse than Trump just months after he finishes?

(*multiple sources consider the French RN as far-right, so Farage surely could be - to my mind he's right of Le Pen)

 

[dangie]

… We let the US put listening stations here and we disguise it by calling them RAF stations.

Because us letting the US have a listening station in the UK is useful to both the UK & US.
Whereas not very useful the US letting us have a listening station in the middle of the Mohave Desert.