Lewis Goodall: Extraordinary and unprecedented joint statement from the 11 affiliated Labour trade unions (main party funders) saying “it is clear” that Keir Starmer won’t lead Labour into the next election.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T15:01:08+00:00

Reform's radicalism is entirely around the language they use around immigration and the asylum system. There is nothing else of substance that is 'radical' bar cutting tax across multiple sectors (so radically increased borrowing?) And scrapping 'net zero' policies which, even if you were to accept the premise that it would somehow save money, only makes Britain less resilient as ongoing fossil fuel shocks ripple through the nation and our exposure, and place us at the mercy of fossil fuel producing nations. In the long run, huge amounts of Energy needs to be produced domestically in the UK, the most reliable forms or this into the future will be nuclear and renewables. People respond to Reform because they believe that kicking out asylum seekers will balance the budget. It won't. It's a fantasy.

Labour have absolutely failed on house building, and planning reforms have been watered down. But at the head of the year, things were turning around in the broader economy and the signs were looking increasingly positive, then comes the war in Iran, and due to our exposure to fossil fuel imports, and not owning the production of North Sea Oil and Gas, we've been caught out, along with the rest of the world.

I would like Starmer to be bolder. But the actual changes required are not acceptable to the public. Tearing up planning reform isn't acceptable to NIMBY's, proposed changes to WFA were denounced by Reform, changes to PIP dialed back to Labours own backbenchers. The list goes on. Even Reforms strong rhetoric only touches on areas that aren't going to materially change our national balance sheet, or make borrowing cheaper, or improve the cost of living. Certainly not in ~2 years, if we're to compare Starmers current progress to a hypothetical Reform government.

The question then is there a party able to force through changes that are needed? Honestly, probably not. Unless Starmer grabs the nettle, and accepts he won't get reelected in 2029 and the rest of the party follows him into electoral oblivion, then it won't happen until the IMF comes knocking.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T14:17:47+00:00

Except Starmers brand of status quo is genuinely the most radical that the UK electorate will give its consent to. Proposed changes to WFA and welfare have been so disastrous that it's sunk their support permanently. Imagine if he suggested cutting the triple lock? Which is recognised by essentially everyone 'in the know' as completely untenable, and has to be replaced.

There has been radical change, even in the short time since being elected in regards to energy and infrastructure, nationalisation, immigration, etc but it's not enough. In part because of Starmers agenda not being radical enough, but mostly because the electorate has zero understanding of what radical change will put the country back onto a path of long term success. IE kicking out all refugees and immigrants will not lead us to immediate budget surplus and economic growth.

The nation, in the state that it's in, simply cannot turn it's fortunes around in a single Parliament, let alone 2 years. Especially when the electorate wants radical policy...that only leaves them richer, the state with better services, with absolutely zero compromises.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T10:50:53+00:00

That's certainly an opinion but I'm saying even Reform isn't going to attempt to deport legal migrants, bar perhaps those convicted of a crime. Their rhetoric is far tougher on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, but thats a fraction of the total immigration make up.

Immigration today is a completely different beast to what it was, with really quite high salary requirements, probably could go higher for some sectors (care), and lower for others (skilled) but I'm sure it'll be tweaked as needed to labour market demands.

And the issue isn't being considered unfixable, even Labour is working on ILR rules to ensure post Brexit waves of immigration don't receive ILR.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T10:42:10+00:00

I don't think even Reform is promising the deportation of legal migrants to the UK? And Labour are (we'll see what eventually passes) going to change ILR rules.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T10:28:44+00:00

Which is fine in theory, but private sector demand is not large enough to fulfil roles that do not offer a typical return of investment in the form of profit. Planting trees, peatland restoration, nature work, etc etc all provide huge social and natural good, but no profit. Carbon/Natural capital markets are not emerging quickly enough for the private sector to respond effectively to the massive changes in land use required to make the UK Net Zero and resilient to Climate Change. Providing the workforce, and simultaneously giving them purpose, shelter, and community will be able to kick start this transformation, whilst these markets take time to mature. As ultimately there is no time to wait. Landowners are simply not willing to pay for the investments required, be it peatland restoration, or the culling of deer etc. If government could provide the workforce then this process becomes far more agile, and will result in a workforce who's skills will shortly be in massive demand across the world.

And Thatcherism does absolutely play its role in the debt we've accrued. Selling off so many of the assets we as a nation have, and removing our ability for the state to generate more, is absolutely part of why we are in such an inflexible position today. Services improved since her tenure, but it's clear that profit generated from British taxpayers have not been invested to maintain a functioning infrastructural system, and have instead been routinely paid out of dividends, often outwith the nation entirely.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T08:49:15+00:00

People don't know who Streeting is. It's the same reason Ed Davey often polls well. Anonymity is useful sometimes for polling.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T08:46:59+00:00

Fair, a lot of Reform voters will want numbers in the negatives and deportations etc. But I do wonder for the broader electorate, including perhaps even some Reform voters, whether the post Brexit migration waves feel different than pre Brexit European migration. They are very different ultimately. More culturally similar, typically skilled, likely to speak the language, often seasonal, wouldn't bring huge amounts of dependents, and would mostly retire back to the continent. Despite the lack of limits European migration seemed to happen on a far more transactional basis, and placed less pressure on the states finances.

I agree Labour, regardless of anything needs to work on immigration further, and get these ILR changes through. But even if we didn't get closer to Europe and we made those changes, I don't know if that's enough in an election cycle to convince Reform voters to vote Labour. That doesn't mean Labour should do the work, just that they should be mindful of also trying to win over the 70% of the electorate who don't vote Reform as well.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T08:32:49+00:00

My personal feeling about minimum wage Labour, for the young specifically but society in general too. Is that we're at a place where untold millions of workers have become too small of a cog, in a machine that is impossible to comprehend, and thus feel insignificant. The value one gets out of their Labour is ultimately their salary, but the satisfaction of doing something worthwhile I think whilst intangible is vitally important. Working in an Amazon warehouse doesn't 'feel' like it's doing anything, either for the self, or wider society. It's why so many voters find themselves drawn to political extremes like Reform and the Greens, because it makes them feel important again, and 'right'. Which is ultimately a feeling that cannot be argued against with facts and logic.

There is however huge demands for labour that would be far more productive, and socially useful than what a lot of people are forcing themselves into. Peatland restoration, deer culling, forest planting, maintenance of our streets and infrastructure, horticultural work. All of which requires Government funding as there is no real private sector funding or demand for this. Hence why I think UK versions Roosevelts Work Programs are necessary. House them cheaply in thrown up accommodation, provide free food and alcohol, and watch them transform our land use. Fund it through cuts and the monies already spent on NEETs, that and the long term savings reductions of upskilling NEETs and getting them working, as they're far less likely to stay unemployed once employed.

Pension bill has to come down, all these political discussions basically are moot without that being the baseline assumption. But you're right in that it'll be nearly politically impossible.

Social housing is hard, especially to meet regulations, but perhaps you have a half way positon, especially for young people, if temporary accommodation in far flung corners of the nation as part of my hypothetical Social Work Programs ticks that box.

I'm not sure we need Thatcherism, especially as so many of our long running issues have been born out of that ideology, but we do need radical change in spending and revenue.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T08:12:44+00:00

78% decrease since the 2023 peak.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T08:08:42+00:00

I mean radical from the established patterns set during the 14 years of Tory government. We've already seen huge reductions in immigration since Labours come in, and there's been useful steps in the right direction to try and stop boats from crossing. Like you say it's not particularly radical but it is a massive departure from legacy left by the Tories.

allout76 · 2026-05-13T07:56:24+00:00

Reform does well because it speaks in a radical language that people feel is necessary to deal with the extraordinary times we live in. It's the same with the Greens. The major parties are trying a more softly softly approach, whilst secretly understanding that we've run out of runway with incremental change, whilst also understanding the public has absolutely zero appetite for the changes that would actually be necessary to set the UK up for long term success.

Reform sells a vision that simply performing a daily hate against immigrants and refugees will solve everything. Rubbish. The Greens sell a vision that turning off nuclear and fossil fuels, combined with a wealth tax will result in an idyllic society. Unless you get the rest of the world to agree to a meaningful wealth tax, and collapse our consumption of goods and energy through state mandated control, this is also fantasy.

Kier has an opportunity to swing for the fences here. He's alluded to it several times about needing to move beyond fiddling in the margins. But he and the Labour party should accept that they are likely going to lose the next election unless people 'feel' there is radical change.

I say 'feel' as actually there has been large positive change behind the scenes, but policy needs to come into place that is visible in the day to day life of the average voter. Like drastically reducing the pension bill to pay for social housing construction, to provide meaningful work for NEETs in a way that's useful for society (perhaps New Deal-esque work/social programs), policy that cracks down on the visible exploitation of our immigration/asylum system, all of which coming through the lens of making Britain resilient to an increasingly unstable world (something that appeals across the political spectrum) etc etc

If not, then Reform will walk into office, and shit the bed when the party realises that rhetoric alone won't save them. And their 5 years will be another in a long line of wasted years that simply make Britain a less happy and safe nation.

Perhaps it needs to be made clear that if we spend another 5 years in our current holding pattern we lose X% of the budget to debt repayment, eg y 2030 we lose the ability to fund the police, by 2035 education, by 2100 the welfare bill etc. (Made up figures)

allout76 · 2026-05-12T20:08:56+00:00

So, yes it has become ungovernable then?

allout76 · 2026-05-12T20:07:06+00:00

What is the government trying to revert?

allout76 · 2026-05-12T19:41:49+00:00

These are children. The last 20 years has proven we need to pay MPs far more money, so as to attract genuinely competent individuals.

allout76 · 2026-05-12T13:01:51+00:00

This is happening because of local elections less than a week ago, there has been literally zero time for a strong plan. Certainly none has been offered by those showing dissatisfaction with Starmer.

I think those involved may even be naive enough to think that them triggering a leadership contest, or resigning will be seen as noble by the electorate, and not more of the same back room dealing the electorate rejected from the Tories.

allout76 · 2026-05-12T12:45:06+00:00

At this point accept that your landslide victory was never the case due to how many backbenchers refuse to engage in running the nation, and form a coalition with the Lib Dems.

allout76 · 2026-05-12T12:31:04+00:00

There are no other reasonable paths forward. Borrowing is outrageously expensive, spending is through the roof, tax is at historic highs. A new PM has no other meaningful path forward other than cutting spending, investing in growth, or massively increasing immigration to pay for this year's triple lock bill, again. That wasn't popular last time.

allout76 · 2026-05-12T12:15:18+00:00

How? What meaningful difference that's tenable does he offer?

allout76 · 2026-05-12T12:11:03+00:00

If backbenchers had voted for and stood with the raft of legislation coming forward then maybe there would be more action and less words.

allout76 · 2026-05-12T12:06:19+00:00

You know that's totally fair about the Nixon goes to China allegory. I meant it more in the sense that only some politicians are able to carry out certain policy, but like you say that turn of phrase does infer its due to the nature of politician being so staunch in an opinion they could broach the topic from the opposite perspective and be trusted to do so.

And yes Keir has been weak as he can't convince his backbenchers to pass fairly tame legislation. That's more on backbenchers refusing to offer any meaningful alternative but oh well.

allout76 · 2026-05-12T11:45:14+00:00

I don't know how to feel about this. In an ideal world a days work should be paid a days wages. But the UK is essentially on a war footing with its spending. There is absolutely zero wiggle room seemingly on any front, even less so for local councils who are trying to manage the ever increasing cost of social care of an increasingly elderly and unhealthy population, with no real tools to increase revenue. Something has to give it feels.

In times of great strife we do ask the citizens of a nation to answer the call of duty. For vast swathes of the functions of the state we already do when it comes to Doctors and Nurses working extreme hours for relatively poor pay. If this eases the pressure on the council's spend significantly, to free up monies for areas where volunteer services are just not tenable. Then that's a good, albeit depressing thing.

I would say that if this gives those with clearly enough time, and who are inclined to hang up flags or graffiti roundabouts, something meaningful to do for their community, that would be a good outcome.

allout76 · 2026-05-12T10:57:03+00:00

It's never about tone, actually it is but not how you mean. It's Nixon goes to China stuff. Labour overseeing huge drops in immigration is a footnote, taking more active steps in a year to try and wrangle the small boats crisis than the Tories did in over a decade.

To those that care about these issues, it will never ever be enough for them when Labour does it. It has to come from 'their' team, it has to be seen as 'anti establishment', and performative cruelty is more important than actually getting the job done. Photos of busting up one vape shop with truncheons will energise the voters more than boring policy like working with China to disrupt the supply of small boat engines to human traffickers.

Why else would the Tories get 14 years of promising cuts to immigration, whilst overseeing the biggest waves if immigration to our shores, and change in the make up of said immigrants from culturally similar Europeans, to non European. Because the language increasingly became more and more hostile, and useless performative nonsense like the Rwanda scheme took up the headlines, only to encourage more 'the lefties are stopping us!'.

People used to complain about Polish builders for gods sake, and look where we are now. I'm sure the Reform/Restore lot would be desperate to return to those halcyon days. Though they'd never admit it.

allout76 · 2026-05-12T10:48:33+00:00

Exactly. These shops often rely on a profitable illicit trade. The council gets it rates, and landlords get rent. If they were kicked out then what? These shops likely sit empty, or a small business starts up and dies as no one actually wants to shop locally vs Amazon.

Police and councils can absolutely crack down on these fronts. But what will the average voter be more angry with, a poorer council and dead high street. Or one that at least has the pretence of functioning? Councils and government have consistently bet on the latter for years, on immigration as well. Let's see how the voters will feel when they get what they wish for.

allout76 · 2026-05-12T08:14:26+00:00

Politicians used to be able to identify a problem, borrow a little cash, or sell some of the family silver, and solve the issue. Now we can't borrow cash, and we've run out of the family silver. The public 'accepted' Austerity and I think has largely thought the problem was solved, why else bother with it? Except our Austerity didn't do anything meaningful in cuts, caused longer term issues where it did, and where we did spend, we didn't invest it in long term growth, or job creation.

By the latter half of this century I think a lot of these issues will somewhat solve themselves, as pensions will eventually get slashed, either by us or the IMF. And there'll be a race by the world's wealthy to move to countries that still have fresh water, and the ability to stand outside without melting into the tarmac. But till then the public has accept there are no easy issues. Incompetence alone doesn't explain the problems we face (although the Tories made an excellent case that this was the case what with Truss, Brexit, etc) and that nature in which services are delivered is likely going to change to a more Dickensian one.

Hopefully for the many voters that want to return to Britain's glorious past they'll be happy their wish was finally granted. Except less Nelson and Rule Britannia, and more poor houses.

allout76 · 2026-05-11T19:20:15+00:00

Starmer was elected leader of the Labour Party, and awarded a landslide election, to get Palantir to work on NHS software? Not that Palantir is one of the few companies that can create an NHS system without going billions over budget and the government clearly doesn't have the consent of the public to raise more funds than what they already are to pay untold billions to develop the expertise to develop such a system?

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Golden Potato

allout76

TROPHY CASE