Labour under Starmer.

[the other bob wilson]

Labour making the mistake of believing a vote for them in the next election is a show of support for them as opposed to being the best way of getting the Tories out in a person’s constituency- the desire for a change of Governing party has always been far greater for me than wanting Labour in and that feeling has grown in recent months thanks to stories like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/labour-expelling-mp-activist-neal-lawson

This guy tries to be balanced in his assessment of the situation and makes some good points, but I think his desire not to rock the boat prevents him from saying what he really thinks.

[Doucas]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Labour making the mistake of believing a vote for them in the next election is a show of support for them as opposed to being the best way of getting the Tories out in a person’s constituency- the desire for a change of Governing party has always been far greater for me than wanting Labour in and that feeling has grown in recent months thanks to stories like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/labour-expelling-mp-activist-neal-lawson

This guy tries to be balanced in his assessment of the situation and makes some good points, but I think his desire not to rock the boat prevents him from saying what he really thinks.

Starmer is another neoliberal stooge, to me he is 2010 - 2015 conservative, we will continue to see conservative policies that protect the status quo if he gets in, nothing will change or get better. At this rate I'm just going to spoil my vote.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

The sooner we get a progressive alliance in this country the better

Until we do we will have the Tories governing whilst the opposition argues amongst themselves

Bunch of clowns

Starmer is another hopeless leader in a long line of hopeless labour leaders

The last decent liberal leader was paddy pants down

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Unless the labour party and liberal party accept they have more in common than they don't.....ie get the Tories out .......then they will both be forever focus groups and boring old political party conferences whilst the blue meanies ruin everybody's lives

[JamesWales]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

The interesting thing in the UK at the moment is that we have no left or right wing parties and didn't in the last election. I know people will say that Labour under Corbyn and Tories under Johnson absorbed people from beyond the centre-right and Centre-left, and that's true, but I don't think it can be said now.

Most of our electoral history there has been a solid right wing or left wing party and in some cases a far-right or far-left party. This is also the norm across Europe.

I do wonder whether a correction will occur soon and a party such as the Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Alliance, Respect Party etc rises again?

Until then, I suspect you will see more stories like this as I don't think a Labour party in govt will satisfy everyone on the left at all

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I get why people will vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. For me though there has to be a positive reason to vote for someone rather than it being essentially a protest vote. Starmer is indistinguishable from Blair and not worth the trip to the polling station. I appreciate others will have a different view. Also, the greatest victories have been won by parties offering a vision. That was true of both Thatcher and Blair. What vision is Starmer offering? We're better than the Tories basically.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I get why people will vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. For me though there has to be a positive reason to vote for someone rather than it being essentially a protest vote. Starmer is indistinguishable from Blair and not worth the trip to the polling station. I appreciate others will have a different view. Also, the greatest victories have been won by parties offering a vision. That was true of both Thatcher and Blair. What vision is Starmer offering? We're better than the Tories basically.

Starmer is utterly inept

A lot of people like me however will vote Labour because we can't stand the tories

The sooner the labour and liberal parties merge the better

They are both a bust flush

Together , Stronger and all that

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Starmer is utterly inept

A lot of people like me however will vote Labour because we can't stand the tories

The sooner the labour and liberal parties merge the better

They are both a bust flush

Together , Stronger and all that

I'm sure you are right and a lot will vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. A year or so later you'll be wondering if it was worth it IMO. Labour isn't going to make any radical changes. They'll hopefully be less corrupt but that's about it.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I'm sure you are right and a lot will vote Labour to get rid of the Tories. A year or so later you'll be wondering if it was worth it IMO. Labour isn't going to make any radical changes. They'll hopefully be less corrupt but that's about it.

I agree

If starmer is the progressive he claims he will bust a gut to bring in proportional representation and form a new middle ground party with the liberals and others

I have had enough of the labour party , it's 2023 and its time to kick arse

[Keyser Soze]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Blair and Thatcher were our most successful Prime Ministers, with both having a decade of success in the bag. What made them successful? Well they had a narrative of what the UK could be like - vision imprinted in the minds of voters. They stuck to the plan and delivered.

For Thatcher it was offering a solution to end all the strikes (achieved), the homeowner dream instead of damp, poorly maintained social housing (achieved), shareholder democracy (achieved), creating wealth (achieved) and improving Britain’s economic standing in the world (26th to 4th - achieved).

For Blair his goal was simpler. To protect the Thatcher inheritance (achieved), but to layer a better sense of fairness and social justice (achieved). Some argue he didn’t do much. Yes true, he had an easier shift. But to be fair, many since have screwed up and didn’t have to to much. For all his critics his only errors in my view was two things. Allowing that grumpy, envious Scot of a Chancellor to assert too much control (should have sacked him when he saw the threat), and invasion of Iraq. I thought on balance, Blair was excellent.

But both Blair and Thatcher were clear on what Britain would look like and they delivered on their promises. That is the essence of leadership.

What of the others since?

Brown - a grumpy, plotting, miserable, policy-obsessed control freak who created the regulatory mess with Ed Balls that was the tri-partite regulatory regime that led to poor oversight of the financial system in the UK. No vision. No leadership. A real GINK!! About as inspiring as a burning shit after a lamb madras.

Cameron - an excellent speaker and presenter. Excellent debating skills. So good, Blair knew it was time to exit. But no vision. Like all Etonians he was skilled at retaining power but that’s all. The only brains in his cabinet was Osborne, who was one very, very clever boy.

May - honourable, diligent and sensible. Speaking ability of a technology coder and about as inspiring as Brown. Classic Oxford PPE - no vision. Just like Johnson. Just like Cameron. Oxford PPEs have this in common.

Johnson - another Etonian blusterbuff. Attention to detail of a nat.

Truss - The lettuce. Terrible presenter. Terrible speaker. Tried to present a good vision but had the personality of a member the gestapo. I could see what she was trying to do but badly packaged and presented. Never a PM in a million years.

Sunak - you must be joking. Voice of a twenty-something tech bro: “Hey guys, the future is crypto!”. Completely disconnected from the average man in the street. Financially compromised by his offshore entities, green card, tax-dodging wife and father in law. His lack of empathy in the food kitchen with the “Yes business is important” just left me scratching my head. Utterly crap and dishonourable chap. As I always say, intelligent he may be, but you don’t need to have an IQ of 180 to be a leader. It is about planning, communicating, organising, motivating and painting what the future looks like and people skills. Sunak has very little of any of it.

The only decent person left in the Conservative party is Penny Mordaunt who seems a lovely person. Modern, fair to people, cares for those who served in the armed forces, a good speaker, funny, bright, personable, balanced and would make a thoroughly good Prime Minister. Excellent presented and debater, and put the SNP’s Angus Robertson and Angela Rayner smack bang, back in their seats in recent debates. The Conservative Party tucked Mordaunt up in the leadership votes and stacked it in favour of a Sunak-Truss vote-off, when polling clearly showed three big things:

1. She would hammer Starmer in an election
2. She was most popular with grassroots members
3. She was hugely popular v Sunak, Truss or Starmer in popularity stakes

A weird move. Mordaunt would walked an election victory. But the hedge funds have financed both Sunak and Truss wouldn’t back Mordaunt, so the party lobbying worked, and the hedgies financing it all made sure the party got Truss-Sunak in the final. Now they pay the price for their stupidity.

This is basically 1997, replayed. A corrupt, rudderless, joke of a Conservative party, bought off by foreign entities and tax-dodgers, with no vision, has reached the end of its road. Economically it has failed. It has failed the British people. The economy is a flatlining. Brexit is a mess.

Starmer? He needn’t be that great. People forget that Blair wasn’t aggressive in 1996 and waited for the Conservatives started infighting. He gave nothing away and he was advised by the politically cunning Peter Mandelson. Mandelson is now advising Starmer to do the same via his Global Counsel company. If Starmer is boring or not saying much it is because Mandelson is advising him the same as Blair. When the opposition is so poor, why say too much and give them a target to hit? Good on them, that is clever and cunning politics. The Conservatives will panic with nothing to hit, and start going crazy and coming out with negative attack PR such as the “New Labour, New Danger” nonsense videos (on youtube!) to attack Blair. It just made them look desperate.

My guess is that we will not know who Starmer really is until he hits No.10. But the donors give a clue. Unbeknown to many, hedge funds are stacking New Labour’s funding alongside the unions. My guess, and they will never say it, is that there will be a vote to rejoin the EU. Public opinion is now 60% in favour of it, and increasing every month and the future (youngies) want it. Regardless of what he says, what shrewd politician would not stay quiet until they win, then announce a popular move?

I suspect on the basis of policy, I will vote Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru at the next election. One to ponder.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Blair and Thatcher were our most successful Prime Ministers, with both having a decade of success in the bag. What made them successful? Well they had a narrative of what the UK could be like - vision imprinted in the minds of voters. They stuck to the plan and delivered.

For Thatcher it was offering a solution to end all the strikes (achieved), the homeowner dream instead of damp, poorly maintained social housing (achieved), shareholder democracy (achieved), creating wealth (achieved) and improving Britain’s economic standing in the world (26th to 4th - achieved).

For Blair his goal was simpler. To protect the Thatcher inheritance (achieved), but to layer a better sense of fairness and social justice (achieved). Some argue he didn’t do much. Yes true, he had an easier shift. But to be fair, many since have screwed up and didn’t have to to much. For all his critics his only errors in my view was two things. Allowing that grumpy, envious Scot of a Chancellor to assert too much control (should have sacked him when he saw the threat), and invasion of Iraq. I thought on balance, Blair was excellent.

But both Blair and Thatcher were clear on what Britain would look like and they delivered on their promises. That is the essence of leadership.

What of the others since?

Brown - a grumpy, plotting, miserable, policy-obsessed control freak who created the regulatory mess with Ed Balls that was the tri-partite regulatory regime that led to poor oversight of the financial system in the UK. No vision. No leadership. A real GINK!! About as inspiring as a burning shit after a lamb madras.

Cameron - an excellent speaker and presenter. Excellent debating skills. So good, Blair knew it was time to exit. But no vision. Like all Etonians he was skilled at retaining power but that’s all. The only brains in his cabinet was Osborne, who was one very, very clever boy.

May - honourable, diligent and sensible. Speaking ability of a technology coder and about as inspiring as Brown. Classic Oxford PPE - no vision. Just like Johnson. Just like Cameron. Oxford PPEs have this in common.

Johnson - another Etonian blusterbuff. Attention to detail of a nat.

Truss - The lettuce. Terrible presenter. Terrible speaker. Tried to present a good vision but had the personality of a member the gestapo. I could see what she was trying to do but badly packaged and presented. Never a PM in a million years.

Sunak - you must be joking. Voice of a twenty-something tech bro: “Hey guys, the future is crypto!”. Completely disconnected from the average man in the street. Financially compromised by his offshore entities, green card, tax-dodging wife and father in law. His lack of empathy in the food kitchen with the “Yes business is important” just left me scratching my head. Utterly crap and dishonourable chap. As I always say, intelligent he may be, but you don’t need to have an IQ of 180 to be a leader. It is about planning, communicating, organising, motivating and painting what the future looks like and people skills. Sunak has very little of any of it.

The only decent person left in the Conservative party is Penny Mordaunt who seems a lovely person. Modern, fair to people, cares for those who served in the armed forces, a good speaker, funny, bright, personable, balanced and would make a thoroughly good Prime Minister. Excellent presented and debater, and put the SNP’s Angus Robertson and Angela Rayner smack bang, back in their seats in recent debates. The Conservative Party tucked Mordaunt up in the leadership votes and stacked it in favour of a Sunak-Truss vote-off, when polling clearly showed three big things:

1. She would hammer Starmer in an election
2. She was most popular with grassroots members
3. She was hugely popular v Sunak, Truss or Starmer in popularity stakes

A weird move. Mordaunt would walked an election victory. But the hedge funds have financed both Sunak and Truss wouldn’t back Mordaunt, so the party lobbying worked, and the hedgies financing it all made sure the party got Truss-Sunak in the final. Now they pay the price for their stupidity.

This is basically 1997, replayed. A corrupt, rudderless, joke of a Conservative party, bought off by foreign entities and tax-dodgers, with no vision, has reached the end of its road. Economically it has failed. It has failed the British people. The economy is a flatlining. Brexit is a mess.

Starmer? He needn’t be that great. People forget that Blair wasn’t aggressive in 1996 and waited for the Conservatives started infighting. He gave nothing away and he was advised by the politically cunning Peter Mandelson. Mandelson is now advising Starmer to do the same via his Global Counsel company. If Starmer is boring or not saying much it is because Mandelson is advising him the same as Blair. When the opposition is so poor, why say too much and give them a target to hit? Good on them, that is clever and cunning politics. The Conservatives will panic with nothing to hit, and start going crazy and coming out with negative attack PR such as the “New Labour, New Danger” nonsense videos (on youtube!) to attack Blair. It just made them look desperate.

My guess is that we will not know who Starmer really is until he hits No.10. But the donors give a clue. Unbeknown to many, hedge funds are stacking New Labour’s funding alongside the unions. My guess, and they will never say it, is that there will be a vote to rejoin the EU. Public opinion is now 60% in favour of it, and increasing every month and the future (youngies) want it. Regardless of what he says, what shrewd politician would not stay quiet until they win, then announce a popular move?

I suspect on the basis of policy, I will vote Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru at the next election. One to ponder.

Clearly written from a former tory voting perspective

Once you suggested Thatcher sorted out housing and the nemesis of privatisation I had to switch off

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I’m biased, but I think it’s time for a reevaluation of the Thatcher “economic miracle” in the light of current problems.

[Hilts]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Starmer is another neoliberal stooge, to me he is 2010 - 2015 conservative, we will continue to see conservative policies that protect the status quo if he gets in, nothing will change or get better. At this rate I'm just going to spoil my vote.

Do that you may as well vote Tory.

[Hilts]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Penny Mordaunt.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Eric Cartman]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I’m biased, but I think it’s time for a reevaluation of the Thatcher “economic miracle” in the light of current problems.

Don't forget Blair. He recognised the UK needed/wanted public services that weren't falling apart but couldn't raise taxes on the wealthy because he was in too tight with the establishment and couldnt raise taxes on normal people or he wouldn't get elected. PFI was and still is a shitshow of the highest order.

A lot of the decisions taken under these 'charismatic' leaders were as you would expect, prioritise the needs of people now over the needs of people in the future.