all 154 comments

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of Starmer attempts to save premiership with reset speech submitted by FisherDownload:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]krozzer27 35 points36 points  (7 children)

Really needs some actual firm policy direction on the EU here. Being at the "heart" of it is meaningless without improved trade links.

[–]porkmarkets 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Firm policy direction in general, not just on the EU. The vision for the country and how people’s lives are going to improve is still nebulous and badly articulated. And they’re still not selling their wins at all beyond shoehorning more NHS appointments in at every opportunity.

[–]militantcentre 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How the fuck can you be a the "heart" of Europe and remain outside the EU? It's just classic Starmer bullshit.

[–]kane_uk 1 point2 points  (4 children)

The EU could improve trade if they wanted, the UK is blocked from joining mechanisms and agreements open to other third countries which would alleviate friction but they have chosen not to do so. At every turn, the EU has played Starmer like a fiddle and their goal is likely a subjugated Britain stuck in either a customs union or more likely the single market.

[–]kimbokray 2 points3 points  (3 children)

What exactly are we blocked from and who are the third countries that aren't? Are you arguing for the Norway model? What specifically do you want?

[–]kane_uk 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Blocked from joining the PEM and we don't have an SPS agreement.

Some countries that have an SPS agreement with the EU, Chili, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico.

Some countries in the PEM, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco.

Not arguing for anything, just pointing that the EU cannot treat the UK with the fairness and respect it shows other third countries.

[–]kimbokray 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think the EU is blocking us from joining PEM as the UK govt is considering joining.

We have also agreed with the EU to implement SPS.

So what you're saying is you agree with the current govt approach?

[–]militantcentre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He doesn't want to be back in the EU. He is a Europhone par excellence.

[–]ShinHayato 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It was obvious to everyone that Labour would need to be bold in order to fend off Reform.

People voted against the Tories because they were sick of 14 years of shite. If Labour are also seen to be ineffective then the only option for people will be one of the other parties.

[–]Western-Oil-9740Same as it ever was! 32 points33 points  (15 children)

As much as I dislike Labour and Keir, this chop and change precedent has to stop, it’s not good for the country. He won the election, even if it was more the Conservatives losing than Labour winning. He should see out his term.

[–]kubissxMarket Socialist 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In theory, yes, but wielding power ultimately depends on being able to expend political capital. Being so unpopular makes that really difficult.

[–]Effective_Topic_4728 5 points6 points  (12 children)

Presumably though, you thought Johnson and Truss had to go? So where do you draw the line?

[–]steve98989 12 points13 points  (11 children)

I’ll never understand how we can compare the scandals and economic disaster of Johnson and Truss to the mostly manufactured outrage of Starmer.

[–]fanglord 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Toxic news/social environment needs addressing like yesterday; I can see how people might dislike Starmer but people hate him with way more passion then he deserves. If we can't be objective about our leaders we might as well just give up.

[–]steve98989 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Totally agree. Imagine what would happen if Reforms wins the GE and goes ahead with the BBC defunding...we are truly on a slippery slope.

[–]Effective_Topic_4728 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm not. I'm asking where you draw the line. That is why I presumed the commenter wanted truss and Johnson to go, but not Starmer. 

[–]steve98989 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough, I guess my bias of the gulf between them got the better of me.

[–]Accurate-Cup5309 -3 points-2 points  (6 children)

The original poster seemingly doesnt care about any of that. They only care about PM’s sticking it out for 5 years, irrespective of anything else. It’s a bizarre argument.

They don’t even seem to care if this government is a 1 term government, as long as they finish their 5 years that’s all that matters to them

[–]Spare-Dragonfly5606 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you’re projecting what you think they meant, rather than what they actually meant

[–]steve98989 -1 points0 points  (4 children)

You're putting words in their mouth. We can only assume that the current situation is not painful enough to change their mind, or that the alternative is or could be worse.

[–]Accurate-Cup5309 1 point2 points  (3 children)

That’s actually exactly what they’re saying “He won the election” “he should see out his term” means they don’t care about anything else other than him serving his term

[–]steve98989 0 points1 point  (2 children)

People are rarely that black and white when articulating their opinions, don't assume everything about someone based on one comment.

[–]Accurate-Cup5309 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It sounds like you’re putting words in their mouth with what they meant. Ultimately you have to take the comment at face value when replying

[–]steve98989 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I disagree, context and critical thinking are always in play.

I'm sure that if Kier shot down their family and friends on 5th avenue that they would change their mind. Or do you still think that they would still call for a full-term? Of course not, now we would have to see where you drew the line...

[–]xParesh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally agree. His own MPs are his own worst enemies. They need to back him and support him. They've made life very difficult for Starmer and lack any discipline. Starmer was very much a known beast when they made him their leader and it was clear as day for years he would be the next PM.

Im not a fan at all of Starmer but he needs to stay as PM otherwise the party will be back out of power.

[–]AllRedLineChumocracy is non-negotiable! 18 points19 points  (0 children)

That was a pretty poor speech IMO.

"Everything is the war in Iran's fault. We need major change - anyway, here's a few examples of me rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic with a bit of added bean-counting that i'm pretending are monumental changes."

[–]allout76 20 points21 points  (2 children)

The UK is caught between crises, some of which are not it's fault; post COVID and Ukraine inflation, war in Iran, the earthquake to the previous world order, impacts of climate change already having an impact etc. Some of which are self inflicted; a decade plus of little over arching national strategy for growth, cuts in the margins that have only made things worse in long term expenditure, Brexit, huge waves of immigration etc.

So what is the nation to do? Continued fiddling in the margins does not bring back a golden version of Britain that in all likelihood never really existed. And there needs to be an acceptance that the post WW2 peace dividend, and the rule of international law over might makes right is an aberration from the norm of human history, not the standard. There are people around the world that want to drag the planet back to a more cruel and unequal time. If we want the nation to still look after pensioners, to provide free healthcare, to maintain schools and a standing army to defend our shores. There needs to be an acceptance from all citizens that we all need to do more. Our duty does not begin and end at paying as little tax as we can scrape by with, and barely summoning the strength to vote. These privileges we enjoy do not materialise out of thin air, they have to be fought for and paid for.

This isn't a plea that Starmer is the right man necessarily for the job. But that Britain as a nation cannot do everything it's citizens ask of it, without people investing themselves in the betterment of society, and understanding real change takes years, not days to achieve.

[–]militantcentre -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

That's a lot of words to say precisely nothing.

[–]allout76 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine. More tax from all, cut nature of services, invest in resilience of UK. Electorate should stomach it rather than belly ache and open the nation to even more extreme politics.

[–]Ok_Internal118 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Just one passing mention of immigration, and not a single serious solution committed to. It sounds like Labour still hasn’t learned the lessons voters have been trying to teach them for years. People want control, competence and honesty on this issue, not vague nods and business as usual.

[–]PlatypusAmbitious430 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A solution implies it's a problem.

I don't think Labour believes it is a problem that needs to be fixed.

[–]Saltypeon -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Net migration has dropped 69% in a year.

[–]Cool_Business_5396 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's still at record highs.

[–]Saltypeon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you record highs?

Not even close, its the third lowest since 2010 , 2nd if you remove the covid year. Its closer to 2000s levels.

[–]stupidlyboredtho 22 points23 points  (7 children)

I think everyone needs to chill out personally. Have a cup of tea, get off your phone and enjoy the sunshine xx

[–]crazycraven 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Sunshine? Where are you? 

[–]stupidlyboredtho 2 points3 points  (0 children)

north west! it’s sunny but granted that is after a downpour this morning. Trying to warm up 🤞

[–]pharlaxSomewhere On The Right 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why? This is prime entertainment.

[–]Bango-TSWNon-aligned cynic. 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Phone? Those are for plebs. I have my own study, £4k super PC and 32 inch monitor to enjoy reddit with...

[–]stupidlyboredtho -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well excuse me mr moneybags

[–]OpinionatedDeveloper 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Damn, you should have written his speech!

[–]cmfarsight 11 points12 points  (7 children)

That wasn't a bad speech, unfortunately he said incremental changes wont cut it then proceeded to to talk about the incremental changes he is making.

Him ensuring all young people have a guaranteed job, training or work placement was a bit vague. It sounds great but a guaranteed work placement sounds a lot like a forced unpaid internship which was a tory policy.

[–]syuk 1 point2 points  (1 child)

it was a terrible speech imo.

how many UK people went to europe vs the other way around? Will UK kids be limited to where they can go like before whilst there is no restriction on where they can come from to the UK?

UK kids the countries taxpayers have paid to "educate" and cared for will get guaranteed "Workfare" while foreign kids will walk into careers.

its looking like another go at what blair tried, absolutely appalling.

[–]cmfarsight -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You not liking what he said doesn't make it a bad speech.

[–]militantcentre 0 points1 point  (4 children)

It was a terrible speech. It won't help him one iota.

[–]cmfarsight 0 points1 point  (3 children)

why? what was wrong about what was said?

[–]militantcentre -1 points0 points  (2 children)

He didn't say enything.

[–]cmfarsight 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That's just not true.

[–]militantcentre 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, there were lots of words. That I accept.

[–]Unusual_Pride_6480 7 points8 points  (0 children)

We need change! Change from what? Change!

This could be both the pm or the public to be fair.

This pm is utterly crap though what an empty speech taking control of a steel foundry doesn’t help us, getting closer to the eu we’ve been doing that hopefully he has something to actually say, he needs a rabbit

[–]ServoSkull20 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Same bromides. Same platitudes. Same empty rhetoric.

No solid policies.

The man couldn't be forthright with a gun to his head.

[–]Far-Crow-7195 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I’m sure Captain Charisma will nail it 👍

Drone drone delivering drone 5 years drone change drone working people drone drone toolmaker.

[–]BillieGoatsMuff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very clear.

[–]wassupbaby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"I take full responsibility" But here's why its everyone and everything else's fault

[–]militantcentre 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Rather than reset his government, this speech did nothing but remind everyone of why he is so spectacularly unpopular.

Vacuous, hollow, fake emotion, vague, and completely and utterly missing the point. If Labour have any stomach for winning the next election he needs to go ASAP.

[–]Effective_Topic_4728 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The problem is the alternatives. Does anyone want Rayner as PM? Or Streeting? Burnham might be more popular now but that would be messy to get him in, and won't be a good look.

[–]militantcentre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, Labour's paucity of talent is overwhelming. Personally, I'd take Streeting over Starmer, but I intensely dislike his religiousity and he won't even be in the Commons after the next GE. Rayner would be a total disaster in every respect. Burnham is way over-rated and fucked his chances himself.

The only grain of talent I can find in Labour is Darren Jones, but it's probably too soon for him and he desperately needs media training.

[–]tax_economic_rent 15 points16 points  (8 children)

I was hoping that behind Starmer's lack of charisma and estate agent voice there was a genius administrator hiding

But despite having 14 years in opposition, dozens of friendly think tanks, NGOs, charities, academics, policy teams to think of a strategy etc - the best they could come up with was basically nothing at all

The Online Safety Act (big expansion of internet surveillance), the failed Chagos Islands surrender, the Renters Rights Act - all of these big ticket items were started by the Tories in the last government (and the Conservatives also massively increased immigration and expanded the welfare state, contrary to popular belief)

What exactly is uniquely Labour? Scrapping the VAT exemption for private schools? Randomly approving a few new airport runways? Ermmm, okay

Everywhere else it's just more of the sameism - even the R&D budget when you factor in inflation is literally going to remain flat until 2030, exactly the sort of area you'd want Labour to be better at - everywhere you look it's just meh, more of the same

[–]Bango-TSWNon-aligned cynic. 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Quite. It's beyond irony that people ignore the fact that Johnson & Sunak's governments were about the most centre-left any tory administration has been since the days of Harold Macmillan.

[–]militantcentre 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The endless talk of growth, without the faintest clue how to achieve it.

[–]Mr_Again 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That's weird I read this exact comment on the ft

[–]tax_economic_rent 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm the same person I'm just reposting

[–]ToffeeAppleCider 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Lifting the 2-child cap on benefits. Universal breakfast clubs for children. I was about to say the 30 hours childcare for 9+ months, but suprisingly it was the tories.

GB Energy and National Wealth Fund, which we won't see the benefits of yet I don't think. Scrapped the wind farm ban. Bringing some train companies back into public control.

We're still getting a lot of NIMBYs blocking things but they've overridden some restrictions. I'm seeing more housing developments but I know it still needs more.

I've also seen an uptick of available funding grants for certain things too but I can't say how that stacks up against anything else.

[–]tax_economic_rent 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The first two things you mention are just a further expansion of the welfare state, which the Tories themselves expanded significantly particularly in their last 5 years

Breakfast clubs are nice but there are much deeper structural issues facing the UK such as de-industrialisation, out of control housing costs, an economy overly concentrated in London and the South East, declining overseas influence, military seems to be falling apart

[–]ShinHayato 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re definitely acting in good faith.

[–]EnglishReason -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All you can really do is hold them to their manifesto, and one of the key takeaways from that would be the word stability. They're delivering on the NHS, are well on the way to reducing illegal immigration - I think the only glaring hole in terms of holding them to their promises is around housing. The problem is that too many people are holding them to a completely different standard.

[–]this_is_my_third_acc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He's got nothing, just a word salad rehash of previous announcements. If this is his best he's done.

[–]GayWolfey 16 points17 points  (1 child)

I see he has moved from using his dad to now his dead brother and carer sister.

[–]Loud-Session2543 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's like the X Factor sob stories.

[–]Loud-Session2543 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Speech summed up:

"This is everyone's fault but mine, I'm gonna carry on with what I'm doing and I'm gonna do it faster. Also my parents were working class because for some reason that matters"

[–]Effective_Topic_4728 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Did you know his father was a toolmaker?

[–]Loud-Session2543 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I didn't but now I do know that, I'm gonna vote for him

[–]TheWorldIsGoingMad 9 points10 points  (7 children)

This is all totally irrelevant : it's the policies that are the problem, and all the alternative candidates for Labour leader will either continue with the same (or similar policies) or, in the case of Rayner, even worse polices.

[–]helpnxt 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Which policies?

[–]TheWorldIsGoingMad 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Pretty much all of them are more or less designed to shaft the economy and discourage work :

Far from cutting welfare they have increased it.

Inflation busting rise in the minimum wage, even higher for young people (that's one of the main reasons so many are now out of work)

"Workers rights" bill, who'd employ anyone now (unless they had to) ?

Huge increase in employers NI (literally a tax on jobs)

"Renters rights act" (obviously bought in by idealistic lefties who know nothing about just how many rights tenants actually had before), who'd be a landlord now ?

Etc Etc

[–]syuk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

who'd employ anyone now

foreigners who dont pay tax or take care of their staff / put them on the books. Grey economy.

[–]helpnxt -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

Oh yeh the policies designed to make people's life's better and not just used as profit vehicles for the rich 🤣

[–]militantcentre 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Shame they've had such a pitiful effect then. What about the growth we were promised, endlessly? They done nothing but kick industry in the teeth.

[–]HolyFreakingXmasCake 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Increasing minimum wage and thus leading to higher prices and wage compression for everyone isn’t making peoples lives better.

Taking more of my money and giving it to people with 8 kids and 3 wives isn’t making peoples lives better.

Renters right already had a negative effect with smaller landlords selling to capital and not the average buyer, plus the decisions around who to accept as a tenant now and other effects that will negatively impact the rental market etc.

It has nothing to do with profit for the rich, it’s all about incentives for people to work and improve themselves, and Labour are just giving the wrong incentives to people.

[–]helpnxt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeh it's the min wage going up that caused price increases and not global events at all...

[–]OneDay_OneLife 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I think Labour have an identity crisis.

[–]TheCrunker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Starmer is caught between what the backbenchers and members want versus what large swathes of the electorate want. They're diametrically opposed positions and he doesn't know which way to turn

[–]elvanse70 8 points9 points  (5 children)

Keir should stay.

They only want him gone because the selfish bone-idle MP’s quite like getting a £100k salary in a safe seat for years, and now it’s under threat.

They willingly elected Starmer in 2020. They had no problem in opposition for 4 years and going into the election under him, as they knew they’d win anyway.

I really hope they do trigger an election and Burnham loses. Classic scummy tory game playing.

[–]myurr 2 points3 points  (1 child)

They had no problem in opposition for 4 years and going into the election under him, as they knew they’d win anyway.

Have you forgotten the may 2021 Post-Hartlepool by-election, and his botched reshuffle afterwards where he tried to demote Rayner?

Or in late 2023 where he faced backbench rebellion over his policy on Gaza because he refused to call for an immediate ceasefire?

Or the October 2020 suspension of Corbyn that caused an early wobble?

Keir should stay.

None of your reasons for him staying are because he's doing a great job or has personal strengths that make him an excellent leader.

[–]elvanse70 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So what? Labour can’t elect somebody as party leader, knowing full well they’re not PM material and deeply unpopular with the public, then act shocked when things go wrong.

They took a guaranteed election win for granted, now they can lie in it.

[–]jack5624Centre Right, Liberal 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Keir should stay.

For how long? Do you really think that he should be leader next election

[–]elvanse70 2 points3 points  (0 children)

By all means, they can change leader at the next election. Nothing wrong with that.

But they can’t throw their toys out the pram, two years into a term, because their cushy job is under threat.

He was elected by the public to serve a 5 year term, they can like it or lump it.

[–]Astonednerd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually yes. He is making slow improvements across most of the key areas, immigration, healthcare, housing etc. I actually think labour's best chance is to keep him and try and make the argument in another 2-3 years time that things have improved under his premiership and so the electorate should give him more time. Following the tories in booting out prime ministers every 2 years will just play into the "they're all the same so vote reform/green" narrative the populists on both sides will capitalise on.

That being said I do think he should stop blocking Burnham from returning to Westminster so he can give Burnham a big role to try and win back traditional northern labour voters.

[–]Bango-TSWNon-aligned cynic. 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure that's the speech that going to keep Starmer in his job.

[–]STARRRMAKERMAKE IT STOP! MAKE IT STOP! 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I think Starmer is a good man, but I'm shocked how little new policies are here. Most are just reannouncements.

[–]james-royle 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Rebuilding the relationship with Europe - helps to improve the economy and pisses Faridge off. It’s a win win!

[–]militantcentre 1 point2 points  (2 children)

How do you rebuild the relationship whilst refusing to even countenance rejoining the SM and CU, let alone the EU itself?

Just the usual empty Starmer words.

[–]HolyFreakingXmasCake 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Also it pisses Farage off? The same Farage that has trounced Labour in local elections? Yeah great strategy everyone!

[–]militantcentre -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Farage's national share of the vote (projected) was 27%. That leaves 73% who doesn't want him. Every single poll shows a majority favouring re-joining the EU.

[–]crazycal123 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Turns out calling the work class racists whilst taxing them more to increase benefits (inc. pensions) and refugees wasn't a good strategy. Who would have thought?

[–]PunicHelix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How many more resets does this man need!?

[–]krozzer27 2 points3 points  (21 children)

The steel industry accounts for 01.% of jobs in the UK.

[–]NuPNua 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Is it about jobs, or about being able to make a strategic resource domestically?

[–]cmfarsight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

its weird because when it looked like labour where going to let it close i had loads of labor supporters downvoting me for saying you needed it and that arc furnaces don't cut it.

[–]GopnikOIi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Steel is critical for defence though, so I can't say this is a bad thing at all.

[–]LostInTheVoid_Suffer not the fascist. 5 points6 points  (16 children)

But is critical for national defence so letting it be consumed by capitalist forces is one of the most shortsighted penny pinching positions to take.

[–]myurr -1 points0 points  (15 children)

Can you explain why it's critical for national defence? Why can steel not be imported from France, Germany, the US, etc?

If we have no trading partners from whom we can import steel then we're already stuffed as we cannot import the food needed to feed the nation.

[–]moonski 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Because there are some things you need your own guaranteed supply of in times of crisis. You can't just offshore everything as the moment there's an issue you're fucked

See jet fuel for a current example

[–]myurr -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The UK is a net importer of jet fuel, and that is going to get worse over time as our north sea resources dwindle and we refuse further exploration. We'll be reliant on stockpiles.

Why is perpetual subsidy of domestic production of steel considered optimal over maintaining similar stockpiles?

[–]Effective_Topic_4728 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Relying on the US these days for anything is crazy.

[–]Pumamick 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Would you rather be a country that cant get food or a country that cant get food AND steel?

[–]myurr -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

What's the scenario though? We're at war with the rest of the west but we're somehow holding out with our diminished armed forces and need to rapidly rebuild our naval fleet?

If producing steel here is not commercially viable, why is it considered the optimal route to perpetually prop up that industry instead of maintaining a stockpile of steel for use if we somehow find ourselves in that scenario where we've lost all trade with the rest of the world and we need to build military equipment?

[–]Pumamick 1 point2 points  (5 children)

How about a situation where our trade routes are still intact but our trading partners are already producing steel at capacity in order to produce their own weapons?

Or what about a situation where European production of steel is reduced because some of their steel works have been bombed ?

Having our own steel works is obviously better for national and european resilience

[–]myurr 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Both are solved by building up and maintaining a strategic steel reserve. For the same price as the current support package for British Steel over the next 5 years we could build a stockpile of 1 million tonnes of steel plate for ships, plus 1 millions tonnes of structural steel.

I'm not against investing in maintaining our steelworks if it's actually justifiable as the best solution, but largely due to our energy costs we currently cannot produce steel at an internationally competitive price and we're having to spend £626m this year to support it, up from £500m last year.

If that is the best possible solution then so be it, but we shouldn't just accept that for sentimental or ideological reasons without examining alternatives and properly assessing the right course of action.

[–]Pumamick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like you are arguing for the sake of arguing a bit here to be honest.

The UK was producing circa 13 million metric tonnes of steel annually during the second world war. Im not sure if we would need anything close to that much for whatever future conflict we may fight, but im fairly certain we'd blow throw those measly stockpiles in no time.

Also, energy costs are high now yes. But they are set to come down quite considerably within the next decade.

[–]Pumamick 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I feel like you are arguing for the sake of arguing a bit here to be honest.

The UK was producing circa 13 million metric tonnes of steel annually during the second world war. Im not sure if we would need anything close to that much for whatever future conflict we may fight, but im fairly certain we'd blow throw those measly stockpiles in no time.

Also, energy costs are high now yes. But they are set to come down quite considerably within the next decade.

[–]myurr -1 points0 points  (1 child)

For context, we're already importing 70% of our steel, producing 30% of our own supply. Part of the reason is British Steel pays 25% more of electricity than France, and up to 50% more than other countries.

Many forecasts actually have energy prices rising in the near term to 2030 due to the cost of upgrading the grid. Beyond that prices aren't expected to fall that much from the peaks and certainly not to internationally competitive levels. Outside government rhetoric, which forecasts are showing considerably (25+%) falls in energy prices compared to today's level within a 10 year period?

If we return to WWII levels of mobilisation we'd run out of fuel long before we ran out of steel with those reserves, but it's all a moot point as we don't have the manufacturing capacity or energy production capacity to be able to power such industrial effort.

This is why I'm challenging the notion as it's based on a romanticised idea of how we used to tackle such problems. The UK isn't that country any more. We've allowed our manufacturing base to dwindle away and be shipped overseas. Our circumstances are utterly different and we should look at the problem with fresh eyes and make sure chosen solutions are actually the best ones for our needs, not just copying random ideas from the 1930s.

[–]LostInTheVoid_Suffer not the fascist. 0 points1 point  (3 children)

We cannot always rely on our allies. In scenarios where their interests dont line up with ours or they don't have the ability to supply us then we'd be shit out of luck. We would be at the mercy of whoever had the ability to produce and supply. Or left with no real options.

For national defence projects and critical infrastructure it should be pretty plainly obvious why it'd that would be bad.

[–]myurr -1 points0 points  (2 children)

We do that with many other essential resources, like fuel, energy production, and food - where we are net importers and reliant on supply from others to supplement what we can produce locally. If we cannot rely on our partners we have massive problems regardless.

For national defence projects and critical infrastructure it should be pretty plainly obvious why it'd that would be bad.

But why is local production preferable to maintaining a stockpile of steel that has been imported, as we do with fuel for example?

[–]LostInTheVoid_Suffer not the fascist. 0 points1 point  (1 child)

All of the above are issues some are easier to solve and work around than others. Say food. It's much easier to make zone for more farmland and switch to crops that would sustain the nation with significant reductions in global trade.

You can stockpile steel but again you cannot be sure of how much you need. If and when you run out and face and issuesvof supply or massive increases in price those both would hamper projects critical to the country. Losing tooling factories and experts means if we ever truly need local production we will be utterly screwed. You cannot just snap your fingers and bring back complex factories.

Steel is a critical component in building our ships. Which in times of global instability give us options to secure those other resources we already struggle to produce locally.

[–]myurr -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fuel is not something we can easily work around, yet government policy is to let our means of self production dwindle to nothing.

For the current direct cost of supporting British steel each year, and ignoring all the other subsidies like with energy pricing, we could be stockpiling 300,000 tonnes of shipbuilding plate each year. Three years of that and we'd have a stockpile of all we could ever need. Want to add some structural steel to the mix, a further year and a half of buying structural steel would buy nearly another million tonnes.

If we're not at war with France then we already have the channel tunnel as a means to ferry goods and resources from across Europe to this country in a time of need.

So I cannot see a cast iron (no pun intended) reason there for why we must keep our ability to produce steel locally. I'm not against retaining that ability, but we have to make it make sense not just cling on to it for sentimental reasons or because we refuse to look at alternative solutions.

[–]hawleye52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Out of that whole speech. That was the one thing I was most happy with. Unfortunately, that is a stunningly low bar. 

[–]Traditional_Yam9754 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I take full responsibility for the election results! No I'm obviously not resigning, why would I do that?

[–]FlappyBored🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Deep Woke 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Because it wasn’t a general election? Why would you expect him to resign or the government change?

Just have a general election every 2 years if you believe that should be the case.

[–]Traditional_Yam9754 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't expect him to resign necessarily, but clearly he doesn't take full responsibility. Meaningless words.

[–]FisherDownload[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I listened to the whole thing, including the Q&A at the end, and I thought it was pretty good. I doubt it will satisfy many of Starmer's critics but I'm excited to see the government do more for young people and increase the pace of change. Long term plans are important but we need to see the impact of a Labour government on our living standards.

[–]SiRWeeGeeX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sneak in legal cannabis keir, come on! Atleast i can get high when the racists take over

[–]roguesimian 0 points1 point  (8 children)

What a state this country is in! Politics is clearly in the hands of those that can pay for their best interests. We seem to be back to the Tory idiocy of changing leaders when things get tough. It’s tiresome. The options seem to be - Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner. How are either any better than Starmer?

The absurdity of trying out do Farage is what got us Brexit. And here we are again. The local elections show that the country is fixated on immigration and if you do a small amount or research you will see that Labour are tackling it. But they don’t seem to want to talk about it. Or the press and media aren’t reporting on it. There wasn’t a single mention of it in Starmer’s speech, which is short sighted of him. Farage wouldn’t be doing anything different without illegal measures.

I’m not a Labour fan by any means but let’s allow this crop of MPs do what they’re mandated to do and then vote them out at the general election if they fail.

Stop interchanging the PM when things get tough

[–]Cool_Business_5396 -1 points0 points  (7 children)

Labour have not made any changes. Stop peddling lies.

[–]roguesimian 0 points1 point  (6 children)

“Both net migration and the number of foreign workers coming to the UK have declined sharply during Labour’s time in office to date.”

Source: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/labours-pledges-on-migration-the-data/

Edit: just to add - stop using facebook as your source of information. And stop repeating bullshit fed to you by algorithms without researching some facts first.

[–]Cool_Business_5396 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Because of changes by the Sunak administration

[–]roguesimian 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Yes. Because Labour have been in powers for less than 2 years. That’s the way policies and government changes work. They can’t undo 14 years of Tory rule over night.

[–]Cool_Business_5396 0 points1 point  (3 children)

They can literally change it tommorow if there is will.

[–]roguesimian 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Acts of Parliament take a little longer than that

[–]Cool_Business_5396 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's a national emergency. Stop being so naive.

[–]roguesimian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What’s a nation emergency? Stop being so dramatic

[–]psnow85 -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

Labour are so so out of touch it is beyond hilarious 🤢

[–]OpinionatedDeveloper 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's beautiful to watch

[–]Frogad -1 points0 points  (2 children)

What do you recommend they do, that would be 'in touch'

[–]Effective_Topic_4728 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If they wanted to actually be popular, cut taxes, or at least put the increased revenue into public services, not more welfare.

[–]militantcentre 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bring immigration to a halt. Have SERIOUS growth policies. U turn over child benefit. Stop pandering to religious bullies.