The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

[ainsworth74]

In lots of reform-y areas, the issue is not predominantly that "immigrants are taking our jobs", but instead actually "the Tories closed down all our local industries and entrusted the recovery of our town to the supposed 'wisdom' of the free market, which didn't work and now there aren't many jobs". Yes, immigration hasn't helped, but even if the immigrants went away, a lot of the remaining jobs in these towns would be low paid, with minimal chance of technical progression.

Yes that's the thing really. Typically there are still jobs around (he says writing from Teesside) unemployment in Middlesbrough is apparently running at around 5.3% (which compares with the North East level of 5.1% and UK wide 4.5%) which isn't particularly terrible (seeing as in general an unemployment rate of 4% is considered healthy for an economy). So it's not as if we have great swathes of people listlessly lolling around on Universal Credit desperate for work.

But, the issue is, that much of that work is low paid and often precarious. Working in a shipyard or a steel mill wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs but it was often, comparatively, fairly well paid and fairly secure (until towards the end anyway). There are still well paid jobs around (someone is buying the nice big houses in places like Wynyard and driving the shiny big new Range Rovers!) but there's a bit almost underclass (not meant in a derogatory way) of people who are just stuck in dead end jobs with no real hope of ever being able to improve their lot in life because the only way to do that might be to completely uproot themselves and their family from Teesside and move to somewhere else in the UK.

Brutal reality is that that's not probably all that practical if your a cleaner on minimum wage bringing up a small family so stuck you are.

Then looking around you your local area seems to be getting worse by the day (more pot holes, more graffiti, less well cared for public spaces), you can't get a doctors appointment anymore, your mum is waiting nine months for a hip replacement (maybe you'll have to give up that job and become her carer?), and your son has ADHD which can't get diagnosed for four years.

Is it any wonder that you'll latch onto anything and anyone that tells you that they have a solution for your despair? Particularly when you've tried voting for either of the main parties and as far as you can see things have just gotten worse (just perhaps at varying paces depending on the shade of political party)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it any wonder that you'll latch onto anything and anyone that tells you that they have a solution for your despair? Particularly when you've tried voting for either of the main parties and as far as you can see things have just gotten worse (just perhaps at varying paces depending on the shade of political party)?

I think it is fair to say this:

The UK needs major reform - its entire political system is not delivering for the vast majority of the population. However the reform that is needed is unlikely to be provided by Reform.

Or something like that. To me what is needed is a new left-of-centre social democratic party that will propose realistic, costed solutions to the problems we have*, that could be a new party or it could be a coalition of the left of some kind (e.g. Lib Dem plus Green?). But what it isn't is Reform. It could be Labour, but not as long as they persist with the pseudo-austerity policy they seem to be following. It also, particularly importantly, needs to be honest about the reasons for immigration and what the alternatives are (i.e. if the working population stops growing we may have to say goodbye to the state pension).

* i.e. as honest and straightforward as "we can make it so you can have a GP appointment on the day, the cost will be £X pa, this means you will need to pay an extra N pence on income tax per pound". Almost like a menu of what improvements people want will cost.

 

[ainsworth74]

They're not British values, they're what I'd call liberal democratic values.

But British values are, typically, one and the same with liberal democratic values ergo those are British values. Other countries and people may equally consider them to be their own values as well (we after all don't have a monopoly on the concept) but I'd struggle to think of defining British values without including those listed! Some of those are, after all, what schools are told to promote by law:

What are the British values?​

All schools are required by law to promote the fundamental British values of:

• democracy
• the rule of law
• individual liberty
• mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs

Promoting British values in schools | National Governance Association

How governing boards ensure that the legal duty to promote fundamental British values is being met

www.nga.org.uk

 

[DarloRich]

Yes that's the thing really. Typically there are still jobs around (he says writing from Teesside) unemployment in Middlesbrough is apparently running at around 5.3% (which compares with the North East level of 5.1% and UK wide 4.5%) which isn't particularly terrible (seeing as in general an unemployment rate of 4% is considered healthy for an economy). So it's not as if we have great swathes of people listlessly lolling around on Universal Credit desperate for work.

But, the issue is, that much of that work is low paid and often precarious. Working in a shipyard or a steel mill wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs but it was often, comparatively, fairly well paid and fairly secure (until towards the end anyway). There are still well paid jobs around (someone is buying the nice big houses in places like Wynyard and driving the shiny big new Range Rovers!) but there's a bit almost underclass (not meant in a derogatory way) of people who are just stuck in dead end jobs with no real hope of ever being able to improve their lot in life because the only way to do that might be to completely uproot themselves and their family from Teesside and move to somewhere else in the UK.

Brutal reality is that that's not probably all that practical if your a cleaner on minimum wage bringing up a small family so stuck you are.

Then looking around you your local area seems to be getting worse by the day (more pot holes, more graffiti, less well cared for public spaces), you can't get a doctors appointment anymore, your mum is waiting nine months for a hip replacement (maybe you'll have to give up that job and become her carer?), and your son has ADHD which can't get diagnosed for four years.

Is it any wonder that you'll latch onto anything and anyone that tells you that they have a solution for your despair? Particularly when you've tried voting for either of the main parties and as far as you can see things have just gotten worse (just perhaps at varying paces depending on the shade of political party)?

Spot on!

Btw lots of those Range Rovers are on HP. People carry so much debt trying to look more affluent than they are. There is a debt crash coming at some point which will wipe these people out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Btw lots of those Range Rovers are on HP.

PCP more like, which is in effect a lease, they don't own them and are unlikely to be able to afford the "balloon payment" to keep them at the end.

 

[DarloRich]

PCP more like, which is in effect a lease, they don't own them and are unlikely to be able to afford the "balloon payment" to keep them at the end.

thanks - that's the term I was grasping for!

 

[RT4038]

PCP more like, which is in effect a lease, they don't own them and are unlikely to be able to afford the "balloon payment" to keep them at the end.

From what I gather, the practice is not to 'afford' the balloon payment but just enter into a new lease (for an even bigger/more expensive? car). Then they complain about the 'cost of living' crisis and the fact that they have no spare money in their pocket and how the country is going to the dogs......

 

[nw1]

I think it is fair to say this:

The UK needs major reform - its entire political system is not delivering for the vast majority of the population. However the reform that is needed is unlikely to be provided by Reform.

Or something like that. To me what is needed is a new left-of-centre social democratic party that will propose realistic, costed solutions to the problems we have*, that could be a new party or it could be a coalition of the left of some kind (e.g. Lib Dem plus Green?). But what it isn't is Reform. It could be Labour, but not as long as they persist with the pseudo-austerity policy they seem to be following. It also, particularly importantly, needs to be honest about the reasons for immigration and what the alternatives are (i.e. if the working population stops growing we may have to say goodbye to the state pension).

* i.e. as honest and straightforward as "we can make it so you can have a GP appointment on the day, the cost will be £X pa, this means you will need to pay an extra N pence on income tax per pound". Almost like a menu of what improvements people want will cost.

A very good post. Perhaps a new party is a good idea as it will be untainted; both Labour and the Tories are tainted at the moment and, even if both improve, that could put off people voting for either.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think it is fair to say this:

The UK needs major reform - its entire political system is not delivering for the vast majority of the population. However the reform that is needed is unlikely to be provided by Reform.

Agreed I think even back to the Brexit vote what's been going on for a while now is voters expressing their, perfectly legitimate, utter frustration with the current political system (arguably the real schism might well be the MP expenses scandal but it festered for a while) and various other votes since then have been further expressions of frustration and, perhaps increasingly, rage at what's happening.

Or something like that. To me what is needed is a new left-of-centre social democratic party that will propose realistic, costed solutions to the problems we have*, that could be a new party or it could be a coalition of the left of some kind (e.g. Lib Dem plus Green?). But what it isn't is Reform. It could be Labour, but not as long as they persist with the pseudo-austerity policy they seem to be following. It also, particularly importantly, needs to be honest about the reasons for immigration and what the alternatives are (i.e. if the working population stops growing we may have to say goodbye to the state pension).

* i.e. as honest and straightforward as "we can make it so you can have a GP appointment on the day, the cost will be £X pa, this means you will need to pay an extra N pence on income tax per pound". Almost like a menu of what improvements people want will cost.

This is one of the reasons why I think Labour are in less trouble (but remain in trouble) than the Tories. I can still see a path for Labour to actually improve things in a way that would start to defuse the justifiable frustration with the current situation. I just have no faith that the likes of 'Blue Labour' and Morgan McSweeny will actually allow that to happen and will instead continue to pivot right and give us reheated Tory policies that have already failed and been rejected at least once.

If it had been me that had won in 2024 one of the first things I'd have done is throw money at Councils to get out and fix the backlog of potholes, clean up graffiti and do some cosmetic works on their local areas (tidy up that park, lick of paint on dilapidated buildings, repave highstreets, new benches, do up playgrounds, that sort of thing). Does it really address underlying issues? No, that's a long term job. But it might at least help improve peoples general perception of their area not being a rundown hellhole anymore. Instead we get taking Winter Fuel Payment from pensioners (not that I'm necessarily opposed to that, but jesus the optics and method employed were dreadful) and now beating up on disabled people via stupid cuts to disability benefits. Wonderful.

Btw lots of those Range Rovers are on HP. People carry so much debt trying to look more affluent than they are. There is a debt crash coming at some point which will wipe these people out.

PCP more like, which is in effect a lease, they don't own them and are unlikely to be able to afford the "balloon payment" to keep them at the end.

Oh yes I imagine most of them are on PCP, it's the only explanation for it really. But even so the monthly payment on a brand new Range Rover (or whatever fancy car you feel like chosing) is still going to be hefty and suggests a certainly amount money sloshing around! Just quickly jumping onto the Range Rover website and finace section is suggests this:

Range Rover 25MY D300 SE
PCP REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE*



- On the Road Price: £105,675
- Customer Deposit: £23,037
- Total Amount of Credit: £82,638
- Purchase Fee (included in final payment): £10
- 48 Monthly Payments: £1,099
- Optional Final Payment: £47,890
- Total Amount Payable: £123,679
- Duration of Agreement: 49 Months
- Mileage: 10,000 miles pa
- Representative APR: 6.9% APR
- Interest Rate (Fixed): 6.69%

£1,099 per month! That's a lot of money to find down the back of the sofa every month!

Personal Contract Purchase - Range Rover | Range Rover UK

With Range Rover Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) you can secure your Range Rover today: get a quote now.

www.rangerover.com

From what I gather, the practice is not to 'afford' the balloon payment but just enter into a new lease (for an even bigger/more expensive? car). Then they complain about the 'cost of living' crisis and the fact that they have no spare money in their pocket and how the country is going to the dogs......

Yes it does seem like for many cars have become a subscription service. Personally seems barmy to me. I could afford a car on PCP and a nicer one to boot. But I'm quite happy with my 2008 Ford Fiesta which I bought in 2017 for something like £2,000. It only costs me fuel, maintenance, insurance and vehicle tax. If I can't afford one of those then I can just park it on the drive and SORN it until I can. The idea that I've got a monthly commitment to keep up with seems crackers. When it comes time to replace it (which sadly I think isn't all that far away, I've liked that car!) then I'll go and find something similar for £2/3/4k and be in exactly the same boat.

 

[DarloRich]

£1,099 per month! That's a lot of money to find down the back of the sofa every month!

I am not disagreeing - I have a good job and couldn't afford that!

I simply say people are putting everything into pointless trinkets to make themselves look better off than they are. They have no/limited savings and are not many problems away from complete failure.

There is also often some, erm, tax planning going on with self employed people........................

 

[nw1]

This is one of the reasons why I think Labour are in less trouble (but remain in trouble) than the Tories. I can still see a path for Labour to actually improve things in a way that would start to defuse the justifiable frustration with the current situation. I just have no faith that the likes of 'Blue Labour' and Morgan McSweeny will actually allow that to happen and will instead continue to pivot right and give us reheated Tory policies that have already failed and been rejected at least once.

But do Labour not realise that is a bad plan if they want to do well next time?
Giving us Tory policies or worse will have no discernible positive effect, the voters who want those will just vote Tory or worse - and some of the rest of us (not myself) will just stay at home in the (misplaced) belief that they're all as bad as each other - I say misplaced because of course Reform are a genuine worry and a million times worse than Labour, even now.

Surely the Labour Party, its advisors, and Keir Starmer are intelligent enough to realise that? Right?
Surely they are intelligent enough to realise that there are other, better, plans of action than just serving up right-wing policies which voters can get from other parties?

 

[Mrwerdna1]

But do Labour not realise that is a bad plan if they want to do well next time?
Giving us Tory policies or worse will have no discernible positive effect, the voters who want those will just vote Tory or worse - and some of the rest of us (not myself) will just stay at home in the (misplaced) belief that they're all as bad as each other - I say misplaced because of course Reform are a genuine worry and a million times worse than Labour, even now.

Yup, I agree that at best, this is a not-so-great Labour government, which given the current state the country is in just won't cut the mustard.

It's hard not to conclude that they've messed it up already. I agree that what they should have done is instantly given a boost to council budgets and invested in some cosmetic improvements at least, for PR reasons if nothing else. However, the other big missed opportunity was taxes. If, as was quite clear, the treasury had been starved of income for years, for all sorts of reasons ranging from ideological dogma to cronyism (PPE contracts anyone?), then first reaction should be to raise taxes or at least plan for a long-term phase in of various new measures. Now before it is brought up, yes, I know the idea of a wealth tax is politically popular at the moment but no, it is not currently a particularly effective tax, if we take countries on the continent (such as Spain or Sweden) as referrence. BUT, that is not to say taxes could not be raised on high-earners in other more effective ways, they most certainly could. There are an array of options, ranging from capital gains tax, financial transaction tax to a tax on luxury goods. Individually they would not raise much, but cumulatively, they could likely have stuffed the hole that Labour is now desperately trying to fill through benefit cuts and the winter fuel payment cut. At the same time, they would escape the bad optics of a huge tax hike, given these would all be modest increases, individually speaking. Perhaps borrow more, like Germany, but I understand that that is not something they feel comfortable with at the moment and in fairness, like I said, with the right moderate tax increases on high-earners, they would not have to, in my view.

So really, they shot themselves in the foot almost from the get go.

The only conceivable way this all makes sense in the grander scheme of things and Keir Starmer and his strategists haven't gone barmy, is if it was their intention to get all the unpopular stuff out of the way during the first year and then get down to business in the following years. But to be frank, I don't think that is what is happening. Partially, because I don't think there was any need for a lot of the announced policies and crackdowns, but also because this very much seems like a government reacting to opinion polling and the media circus in real time, rather than with a coherent strategy and purpose. What a shame.

 

[jfollows]

No, they're stupid, they inhabit the Westminster bubble and it distorts their views.

I said before the election that it was obvious that Labour would win the election by not being the Conservatives, but also thought then as now that they had to come up with something else they stand for because without it they'll lose the next election.

Looks like the direction of travel now, although it's a long way to go of course. I don't know what Labour stands for other than abandoning its traditional supports and adopting Conservative policies.

For me, the last straw was saying that Churchill's statue would be made an official war memorial so that climbing on it would become illegal and people doing so would be arrested. Really? Is that so important?

 

[Magdalia]

The UK needs major reform - its entire political system is not delivering for the vast majority of the population.

This government recognises that and is attempting major reform.

However, the changes we have seen so far are not what people need or want. It's as if Labour have taken two steps forward and one backwards.

With major reform, the step backwards comes before the two steps forward.

People feel that the step backwards is not what they need, and in the short term they are right. We won't know about the two steps forward for a while yet, whether they happen, and whether people will like it when we get there.

That's why Sir Humphrey used to describe such reforms as courageous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This government recognises that and is attempting major reform.

It's shouting a lot, but I'd question whether it's doing anything of the sort, or certainly not of the sort that's needed. They just seem to be aping a few policies of Reform, which is not the kind of reform that's needed

 

[PGAT]

They’re trying to out-reform Reform but only delivering half baked products that doesn’t even satisfy the populist right. That’s why their performance collapsed in the local elections. Labour saw this, and decided to proceed with the exact same strategy

 

[nw1]

No, they're stupid, they inhabit the Westminster bubble and it distorts their views.

I said before the election that it was obvious that Labour would win the election by not being the Conservatives, but also thought then as now that they had to come up with something else they stand for because without it they'll lose the next election.

Looks like the direction of travel now, although it's a long way to go of course. I don't know what Labour stands for other than abandoning its traditional supports and adopting Conservative policies.

For me, the last straw was saying that Churchill's statue would be made an official war memorial so that climbing on it would become illegal and people doing so would be arrested. Really? Is that so important?

I'd tend to agree.

What do you (and indeed others) think is the best strategy now for ensuring Reform don't win in any shape or form in 4 years?
This doesn't have to mean a Labour win, it basically means an "anyone but Reform win" (though the Badenoch version of the Tories wouldn't be too great either). I think the overwhelming priority now must be to fight Reform, and fight them robustly. That doesn't mean half-accepting their policies, it means offering something else - but something else positive.

I just hope this country isn't screwed until 2034 or even longer. The last five years have been five lost years with nothing good happening; I hope it won't become fifteen. I suspect a Reform government would be one-term only - unless they go full-on Orban or Erdogan - but that's still almost 10 years of misery to get through before we get there, and perhaps longer if Reform leave the country as an absolute basket-case after five years of misrule.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

(...) What do you (and indeed others) think is the best strategy now for ensuring Reform don't win in any shape or form in 4 years?
This doesn't have to mean a Labour win, it basically means an "anyone but Reform win" (though the Badenoch version of the Tories wouldn't be too great either). I think the overwhelming priority now must be to fight Reform, and fight them robustly. That doesn't mean half-accepting their policies, it means offering something else - but something else positive. (...)

I think it's two things.

Firstly, as you say, it's offering a positive vision, reversing austerity and leading with major investments in health, education, transport, housing and public infrastructure - but that also requires adequate funding, which without tax rises or more borrowing is not going to happen. I don't like the fact that PR-friendly measures matter, but they do, so I think a big boost to council budgets and a series of pothole fixing projects should also be given immediate priority. Yes, council budgets have, generally speaking, been increased and yes, more money has been allocated to fixing potholes too, but the increases are a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed to substantially improve the state of public services and of the roads in a matter of just 1-2 years.

Secondly, I think electoral reform (particularly proportional representation) plays an important role. And before the argument is brought forward that Reform would also gain more parliamentary representation that way, I think the way things are heading at the moment, they are very likely to greatly expand their parliamentary representation in any case, worst case even winning an outright majority on barely 25% of the vote (Labour got their thumping majority on a vote-share of just 33.7%). That said, I think given the current state of British politics, as impossible as it seems to predict the future, I would bet heavily on the multi-party situation persisting, that is to say, that no party is likely to win an outright majority at the next election. As such, a coalition government or confidence and supply arrangement seems likely. However, the number of seats in parliament would still not be proportional. Besides reflecting democratic opinion more accurately and proportionally, proportional representation is also important in that it would fundamentally re-orient British politics to be geared more towards the long-term and not on winning elections every 5 years or focusing on select target constituencies, at the cost of the wider electorate's concerns. It is particularly aspects such as long-term investment in public infrastructure (the railways included) that have suffered as a result of this constant party-political ping-pong.

If Labour plays its cards right now and delivers on its promises, even under a proportionally representative system, it may end up winning enough seats to form a coalition with either the LibDems or Greens. If it continues to pander to Reform, however, and does not reform the electoral process, then I fear a likely outcome is either a new merged party (Reform + Tories) winning an outright majority, or the Tories getting into government on the backs of a confidence and supply arrangement with Reform.

I think this last scenario is actually the most likely in 2029 (or whenever the election happens), given that Nigel Farage has persistently demonstrated he does not actually want to govern and be held accountable - instead - he would much rather sit on the sidelines slinging mud, whilst still wielding significant influence on the politics of the day. A confidence and supply arrangement, the likes has been seen before in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway, just to name a few, would be his dream scenario. And the way things are going, it may well end up happening. Remember, a week is a long time in politics and though everyone said the Tories are finished and also, that BoJo will never come back, both statements could be proved wrong and I fancy the British (or should I say English) electorate could once again demonstrate its wilful collective amnesia, if material living standards have not sufficiently improved by then. As a result, I think it is highly likely that Reform UK will become a key player in the formation of the next government, but unless the two parties merge, I still predict the Tories will still get more votes and/or seats. In that case, a Tory + Reform UK confidence and supply agreement seems very likely.

I shudder to think what damage that would do to the UK.

Oh and on a side note, if the next government is indeed Reform UK led or supported, then you will see support for Scottish independence skyrocket to levels previously unimagined.

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh and on a side note, if the next government is indeed Reform UK led or supported, then you will see support for Scottish independence skyrocket to levels previously unimagined.

Whilst I don't disagree, I wouldn't rule out Reform doing quite well in the upcoming Scottish elections in 2026...

Reform UK are the talk of the political steamie following their breakthrough results in England's local elections.

Are they poised to make similar inroads in Scotland?

There had once been a temptation among some of Scotland's political classes to write off Nigel Farage's Reform - and the Brexit Party and UKIP before them - as chiefly an English phenomenon.

But when you start to add up the numbers, their presence feels like a real thing.

A million people in Scotland voted Leave in the EU referendum in 2016, and the Brexit Party went on to finish second in the European Parliament elections here in 2019.

In last year's general election Reform took 7% of the vote - not enough to win any seats, but a serious chunk of the vote for a newly formed vehicle.

The party is still establishing basic infrastructure north of the border, but demonstrated its intent by standing in every constituency across Scotland - something which even familiar parties like the Greens did not do.

Looking at council by-elections since then, Reform has already secured a dozen third-place finishes.

They have also been picking up significant shares of the vote in areas which are far from Conservative strongholds, suggesting a broader appeal than just disaffected Tories.

Although its strongest performance was in Fraserburgh - part of the most Leave-leaning part of Scotland - the party seems to be doing particularly well in the central belt.

They took 24% of the vote in one contest in Glasgow, 23% in Stirling, 18% in Fife, and 19% in two West Lothian seats.

The party's average result across Scotland from almost 30 local by-elections has been over 12% of the vote.

Again that does not translate into seats in these first-past-the-post contests, for all that Reform does now have several councillors via defections from the Tories.

But it is comfortably enough to win multiple seats in next year's Holyrood election, which uses a form of proportional representation.

[...]

Will Scotland be next to feel rise of Reform UK?

The party made sweeping gains in the English council elections and could have the Scottish Parliament vote in their sights next year.

www.bbc.co.uk

Still a long way to go and a lot can happen in that time but polling suggests that whilst SNP are still on course to comfortably be the largest party (though I reckon they won't win a majority) but Reform are duking it out in second place with Labour at the moment in Scottish opinion polls. I wouldn't rule out the next Holyrood elections to return a small number of Reform MSPs (probably via the party list rather than constituencies).

But that could mean that the messaging isn't quite as toxic in Scotland as might initially be presumed...

 

[edwin_m]

Secondly, I think electoral reform (particularly proportional representation) plays an important role. And before the argument is brought forward that Reform would also gain more parliamentary representation that way, I think the way things are heading at the moment, they are very likely to greatly expand their parliamentary representation in any case, worst case even winning an outright majority on barely 25% of the vote (Labour got their thumping majority on a vote-share of just 33.7%). That said, I think given the current state of British politics, as impossible as it seems to predict the future, I would bet heavily on the multi-party situation persisting, that is to say, that no party is likely to win an outright majority at the next election. As such, a coalition government or confidence and supply arrangement seems likely. However, the number of seats in parliament would still not be proportional. Besides reflecting democratic opinion more accurately and proportionally, proportional representation is also important in that it would fundamentally re-orient British politics to be geared more towards the long-term and not on winning elections every 5 years or focusing on select target constituencies, at the cost of the wider electorate's concerns. It is particularly aspects such as long-term investment in public infrastructure (the railways included) that have suffered as a result of this constant party-political ping-pong.

FPTP is characterised by tipping points where a small change in the vote can lead to a big change in seats. That happened in 2020 and in 2024 and is likely to happen again in the future as fewer voters back the two biggest parties. A proportional system would also mean that the parties forming a government will almost certainly have the support of more than 50% of the electorate, possibly giving a bigger sense of political legitimacy which Labour is struggling with when they introduce unpopular measures on the having won only 34% of votes.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

(...) Still a long way to go and a lot can happen in that time but polling suggests that whilst SNP are still on course to comfortably be the largest party (though I reckon they won't win a majority) but Reform are duking it out in second place with Labour at the moment in Scottish opinion polls. I wouldn't rule out the next Holyrood elections to return a small number of Reform MSPs (probably via the party list rather than constituencies).

But that could mean that the messaging isn't quite as toxic in Scotland as might initially be presumed...

True, more recent polling has certainly seen a boost in support for Reform, as high as 19%, actually. So Reform's message as a protest vote does work everywhere, it would seem. Scottish voters are, like English or Welsh voters, tired of the Tories and now, also tired of Labour. The SNP has been in power for so long that it is partially a matter of negative incumbency effect. There is nothing inspiring or believable about a party intent on changing the status quo, if for 18 years, they have been the status quo. There were many indy-ref2 supporters who switched to Labour in protest of the SNP. Those voters are unlikely to switch to Reform now, though some may have done and I suspect a lot of Tory and some Labour voters have switched. In any case, support for the SNP (which is currently in the low 30s) does not equate to support for independence, which is much higher (hovering around 50%).

That said, it is worth pointing out that the SNP government, even if constrained by Westminster in its budgetary powers, has committed a number of embarrassing political blunders as well as mismanaged the economy and public services. I am particularly disappointed by their transport policy, which has at best been lack-lustre, at worst chaotic and incompetent. With transport being a devolved matter for years it is ludicrous that as many as five or more urban areas in the UK will see franchised bus services fully introduced, before even the first services are maybe, maybe not, rolled out in Greater Glasgow. Meanwhile it would seem Aberdeen and Dundee have no intention of reforming their bus services, apart from a BRT project which knowing the SNP will again take forever and a day to complete. But I digress...

Regardless of how much Reform UK will manage to capitalise on the protest vote and increase their support in Scotland's devolved elections, as with the conservative movement in Canada & Australia and the "Trump effect" we have seen over there in recent general elections, I think you will see support for independence skyrocket in Scotland if there is a Reform UK led or supported government in Westminster.

That is because where the rubber meets the road, protest vote or not, Reform UK still is a populist party dominated by English politics and political attitudes. And particularly the Neo-Thatcherite aspects of their policy platform (you just have to look at Nigel Farage's views on worker rights, unions or the NHS), coupled with their socially authoritarian and pseudo-patriotic policies will not be met with approval north of the border, let me assure you. It would likely not take long for a Reform UK led or supported government to inflame tensions with the devolved government(s), it is more a question of when rather than if.

 

[The Ham]

Yes that's the thing really. Typically there are still jobs around (he says writing from Teesside) unemployment in Middlesbrough is apparently running at around 5.3% (which compares with the North East level of 5.1% and UK wide 4.5%) which isn't particularly terrible (seeing as in general an unemployment rate of 4% is considered healthy for an economy). So it's not as if we have great swathes of people listlessly lolling around on Universal Credit desperate for work.

But, the issue is, that much of that work is low paid and often precarious. Working in a shipyard or a steel mill wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs but it was often, comparatively, fairly well paid and fairly secure (until towards the end anyway). There are still well paid jobs around (someone is buying the nice big houses in places like Wynyard and driving the shiny big new Range Rovers!) but there's a bit almost underclass (not meant in a derogatory way) of people who are just stuck in dead end jobs with no real hope of ever being able to improve their lot in life because the only way to do that might be to completely uproot themselves and their family from Teesside and move to somewhere else in the UK.

Brutal reality is that that's not probably all that practical if your a cleaner on minimum wage bringing up a small family so stuck you are.

Then looking around you your local area seems to be getting worse by the day (more pot holes, more graffiti, less well cared for public spaces), you can't get a doctors appointment anymore, your mum is waiting nine months for a hip replacement (maybe you'll have to give up that job and become her carer?), and your son has ADHD which can't get diagnosed for four years.

Is it any wonder that you'll latch onto anything and anyone that tells you that they have a solution for your despair? Particularly when you've tried voting for either of the main parties and as far as you can see things have just gotten worse (just perhaps at varying paces depending on the shade of political party)?

The thing is, there's not always a lot of difference where you are in the country.

In the South East you may have a good job, but houses are even more expensive, in the South West you may have (if it doesn't have a sea view) more affordable housing but the roads are congested all summer, and so on and so forth.

 

[E27007]

PCP more like, which is in effect a lease, they don't own them and are unlikely to be able to afford the "balloon payment" to keep them at the end.

Unlikely to afford the balloon payment or the early termination penalty fee if there is an employment crash.

 

[SteveP29]

Also I'd question just how much rents have increased due to University Students.

For starters, in the general population household sizes are on average 2.4, that would be quite small for the vast majority of student homes (4 to 6 probably being more typical) and that's those who aren't in halls (which generally is most first years and quite a few of the foreign students).

Also whilst the (UK) student population has increased, in the decade from 2011 to 2021 it grew by about 1.3% per year (so not much more than the general growth in the population).

There are all kinds of things a left-of-centre government could do to improve people's lot, which are completely unrelated to immigration.

But if they did, they'd just be accused of being soft, of being do- gooders and pro unmonitored immigration etc.

Those whose lives are s**t now that would be improved by a centre left government would see that there'd be people from other countries and cultures who see that we're happier and would want to have some of that happiness, which would kick off the people who currently spout 'I got nothing when times were hard, why should they' and we'd be doomed once again on the never ending cycle of lurching left and right

I think it is fair to say this:

The UK needs major reform - its entire political system is not delivering for the vast majority of the population.

The populace needs major re- education imo.

We need people to be informed when it comes to politics, we need them to understand what people stand for, what they have done historically, what they have and have not delivered. We need them to be certain before they place a cross in a box, we need them to know why certain politicians have certain viewpoints and opinions, we need them to learn to vote for policies, not personalities and above all, although it may be seemingly boring, politics does have an influence on everything and anything in your life

 

[Sorcerer]

We need people to be informed when it comes to politics, we need them to understand what people stand for, what they have done historically, what they have and have not delivered. We need them to be certain before they place a cross in a box, we need them to know why certain politicians have certain viewpoints and opinions, we need them to learn to vote for policies, not personalities and above all, although it may be seemingly boring, politics does have an influence on everything and anything in your life

While well meaning, this is a bit too idealistic, especially when it comes to voting for policies over personalities. It sounds good on paper, but how can you vote for a policy if you don't understand it? You can tell people to simply do some research but how many people are going to have the free time to do that? How many people are going to be willing to do that? I know a lot of people certainly wouldn't want to dedicate their free time to studying politics.

I'm sorry to say, but politics in a democracy is ultimately about selling people ideas, and what the centre-left now needs to do is work out a strategy for truthfully selling their ideas to voters across the aisle or they will just keep on losing elections. For example, I am in favour of proportional representation and public transit investment, but I wouldn't trust Keir Starmer to convince a floating voter or a conservative to actually support them.

Popular opinion can easily prevail over the truth and the facts, and citizens can be easily manipulated by those who control the flow of information as well as emotional appeal, so that's ultimately the game you're left playing. You can either adapt to it or lose to it, and if you don't like this reality, then you'll start to see why Socrates wasn't a huge fan of democracy.

 

[The Ham]

Popular opinion can easily prevail over the truth and the facts, and citizens can be easily manipulated by those who control the flow of information as well as emotional appeal, so that's ultimately the game you're left playing. You can either adapt to it or lose to it, and if you don't like this reality, then you'll start to see why Socrates wasn't a huge fan of democracy.

Indeed, there's a popularist view that we should have net zero immigration, however we have an aging population so if we do that there'll be fewer people of working age.

Effectively if we are going to reduce the ratio between the working population vs the retired population (by doing the above) then either pensioners will need to paid less, the retirement age increase or everyone will have to pay more taxes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Effectively if we are going to reduce the ratio between the working population vs the retired population (by doing the above) then either pensioners will need to paid less, the retirement age increase or everyone will have to pay more taxes.

Or more sensibly a package of all three.

 

[Magdalia]

Indeed, there's a popularist view that we should have net zero immigration, however we have an aging population so if we do that there'll be fewer people of working age.

Effectively if we are going to reduce the ratio between the working population vs the retired population (by doing the above) then either pensioners will need to paid less, the retirement age increase or everyone will have to pay more taxes.

Which is where economic growth comes in. Economic growth means more tax income for the government without having to raise tax rates. People pay more taxes because they are earning more and spending more, not because the rates are higher.

 

[The Ham]

Which is where economic growth comes in. Economic growth means more tax income for the government without having to raise tax rates. People pay more taxes because they are earning more and spending more, not because the rates are higher.

Using data from:

How the population of England is projected to age - Office for National Statistics

Supplementary analysis to the subnational population projections to help understand local area projections. Subnational population projections provide an indication of the future size and age structure of the population in the regions, local authorities and Clinical Commissioning Groups of England.

www.ons.gov.uk

If we look at the old-age dependency ratio for 2021 in that model (so UK pension is for all 66 year olds) there's 3.52 people supporting one person of pension age.

Fast forwards to 2039 (so 14 years from now) not only has the pension age increased to 67 but there's likely to be 2.74 people supporting one person of pension age.

It should be noted that is assuming similar immigration numbers to what we had leading up to 2016 (the date of that publication).

If that were to change significantly (for example be cut to zero) then that rate would fall further.

However not only is it the fact that those workers have to pay the pensions of those people, but also services will be put under more pressure.

For example, the number of patients per GP is typically 1,700, for those GP surgeries with the highest percentage of patients aged over 65 that falls to 1,540. That means if the trend was too be that the average were to get to the rate of those highest percentages there would be a need to employ an extra 2 GP's per 21 GP's currently (or a little more than an extra 5,000 GP's). That's before we consider the extra pressure on the rest of the NHS.

Typically less than 50% of the population has a long term health issues before they are 50, this rises to about 80% for those over 65.

 

[nw1]

Or more sensibly a package of all three.

Not sure about "pensioners being paid less" though. It would make retirement a miserable experience for those without a good work or private pension - at that age you already have to potentially deal with ill health and loneliness, and you'd just be adding additional financial worries to that.

On the other hand, I can see justification for tax increases and making it easier for people to work into their 70s (which could include legislation to prevent employers trying to get rid of over-70s on the basis of claims that "they can't do the job") should they wish to (but it shouldn't be forced onto people with ill health).

As the third factor I'd just say "don't reduce legal immigration" as another way of ensuring that the worker/pensioner ratio is kept high.