[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......

[RandyWanger]

With a little help from my friend:

• Economic Management: Labour has been accused of killing off economic growth, with reports suggesting they inherited a growing economy but have seen taxes, borrowing, and mortgage rates increase while business confidence, growth, and jobs have declined.

• Public Policy and Scandals: There have been controversies around the handling of issues like Muslim rape gangs, corruption within the cabinet, and the resignation of an anti-corruption minister over corruption allegations. Additionally, there are criticisms regarding Labour's immigration policies and the handling of the Chagos Islands issue.

• Social Issues: Policies such as the means-testing of winter fuel payments have been met with significant backlash, particularly among older voters, with accusations of leaving pensioners in a hard position during winter.

• Public Confidence: The public's mood towards the government seems largely negative, with many unable or unwilling to credit Labour with any specific positive actions in their first 100 days, highlighting a perceived lack of significant achievements or improvements.

• Political Strategy and Leadership: Labour's approach to governance has been critiqued for lacking bold action or change, with some suggesting a disconnect between the party's promises and its actions. There's also mention of internal party divisions, with Labour being described as a coalition of interests that might struggle to hold together./
  
  
• Crime and Justice: There are reports of increasing crime rates, including more murderers and rapists on the streets due to early releases from jail, alongside accusations of introducing a two-tier justice system.

• Public Perception on Social Media: Posts on X indicate a highly critical view of Labour's performance, with mentions of failures in various areas like economy, crime, and immigration, suggesting a sentiment of disillusionment among some voters.

 

[darkwolf666]

Nope didn't miss anything but thanks for checking. The policy exchange say it "Risks swamping" the security services, not the actual authors of the piece, I don't care whether a think tank is left or right to be honest. If you disagree on findings of a report you commissioned and carried out by your own officials then that suggests you already had a pre-conceived position. If that's the case why commission the report in the first place.

Yes we ALL know services are over stretched but does that mean we should disregard the "other" fronts then ?. I don't think so, it's understandable, but still frustrating, to say that we can't because of resources but that's a very different position to disagreeing with findings.

Strangely, it appears pretty much EVERYBODY largely disagrees with the report. So just maybe it is the report that IS wrong! As I said previously, poor Terms of Reference when setting out the requirements of a piece of work can, and often do, lead to unexpected or poor outcomes!

 

[darkwolf666]

With a little help from my friend:

• Economic Management: Labour has been accused of killing off economic growth, with reports suggesting they inherited a growing economy but have seen taxes, borrowing, and mortgage rates increase while business confidence, growth, and jobs have declined.

• Public Policy and Scandals: There have been controversies around the handling of issues like Muslim rape gangs, corruption within the cabinet, and the resignation of an anti-corruption minister over corruption allegations. Additionally, there are criticisms regarding Labour's immigration policies and the handling of the Chagos Islands issue.

• Social Issues: Policies such as the means-testing of winter fuel payments have been met with significant backlash, particularly among older voters, with accusations of leaving pensioners in a hard position during winter.

• Public Confidence: The public's mood towards the government seems largely negative, with many unable or unwilling to credit Labour with any specific positive actions in their first 100 days, highlighting a perceived lack of significant achievements or improvements.

• Political Strategy and Leadership: Labour's approach to governance has been critiqued for lacking bold action or change, with some suggesting a disconnect between the party's promises and its actions. There's also mention of internal party divisions, with Labour being described as a coalition of interests that might struggle to hold together./
  
  
• Crime and Justice: There are reports of increasing crime rates, including more murderers and rapists on the streets due to early releases from jail, alongside accusations of introducing a two-tier justice system.

• Public Perception on Social Media: Posts on X indicate a highly critical view of Labour's performance, with mentions of failures in various areas like economy, crime, and immigration, suggesting a sentiment of disillusionment among some voters.

Lots of bullet points and use of the words “reported”, “critical”, “mood”, “accusations”, “suggestions “, etc., yet little or no facts, with the possible exception of the anti-corruption minister…!

Much of the public perception, from the very night Labour won power, with right wing news and social media saying they had no mandate, has been shaped in a way to make everything Labour has done to look negative, even when events like the Chagos islands and prison numbers were as a direct result of their predecessors actions.

”Posts on X” - well, we ALL know the route X is going, with posts by its owner being extremely inflammatory and appear driven by the owners’ own ideology and political want!

 

[nevergoagain]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c23n73pnkr5o - 4 Labour MP's attend Muslim Council of Britain event despite a government ban.

 

[Bodian]

Nope didn't miss anything but thanks for checking. The policy exchange say it "Risks swamping" the security services, not the actual authors of the piece, I don't care whether a think tank is left or right to be honest. If you disagree on findings of a report you commissioned and carried out by your own officials then that suggests you already had a pre-conceived position. If that's the case why commission the report in the first place.

Yes we ALL know services are over stretched but does that mean we should disregard the "other" fronts then ?. I don't think so, it's understandable, but still frustrating, to say that we can't because of resources but that's a very different position to disagreeing with findings.

How do you know what the report actually says?

Do you have access to something the BBC doesn't?

However, I do see that the shadow home secretary also disagrees with the expansion of the definition. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ribution-4A510DFD-A5D6-46EB-8750-585DDC18DBF7

So - it pretty much seems as though all are in agreement with Cooper's decision.

 

[nevergoagain]

How do you know what the report actually says?

View attachment 195811

Do you have access to something the BBC doesn't?

However, I do see that the shadow home secretary also disagrees with the expansion of the definition. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ribution-4A510DFD-A5D6-46EB-8750-585DDC18DBF7

So - it pretty much seems as though all are in agreement with Cooper's decision.

Chortle, I don't know what the report says nor what the BBC knows as you quite obviously know. If you look closely what I actually said was that it was the people who leaked the report that said it "Risks Swamping etc." and wasn't a direct quote from the actual authors as far as anyone is aware.

 

[Bodian]

Chortle, I don't know what the report says nor what the BBC knows as you quite obviously know. If you look closely what I actually said was that it was the people who leaked the report that said it "Risks Swamping etc." and wasn't a direct quote from the actual authors as far as anyone is aware.

I did look closely at what you said! Which was: The policy exchange say it "Risks swamping" the security services, not the actual authors of the piece. [my highlighting]

So, if read literally - you were therefore actually saying that the 'actual authors of the piece didn't say it'. So thanks for clarifying what you meant.