Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It doesn't excite me either.
But the thought of another Tory government with the current lot terrifies me.
I'll take not being excited.
It doesn't excite me either.I didn't say that. I said a Keir Starmer premiership didn't excite me.
Well, not really because there can be a number of reasons people don't vote. You can argue that it shows a general apathy towards the political process, but that isn't necessarily the entire story.Not voting is a far more important statement than just voting as you have to
Irony being that last time the one's who didn't set out their funding plans were the Tories.It is, I fully agree.
Given the state of the country and the country's finances after those aforementioned 13 years, I don't know how possible it is though, and some of it will have to be more gradual.
Also, the problem with coming out with any radical policies this early is they would (probably wrongly) be torn to shreds by the right wing press. 'how are they going to fund this?' 'Labour are going to raise your taxes!' etc
The bottom line is polls show a comprehensive victory for Labour and whilst you and others would like to see some more progressive policies, while they have that big lead why do anything to upset the apple cart? Just keep doing what you're doing, it's working.
Not good enough. Starmer with no vision is miles ahead. Starmer with a vision would if anything be further ahead.It doesn't excite me either.
But the thought of another Tory government with the current lot terrifies me.
I'll take not being excited.
I’m pretty sure it was used by members of the Leave campaign as a reason for leaving as it looked like the EU was going join it.Didnt the Yanks leave because it was an affront to their sovereignty?
Maybe he would. But as you says he (well, Labour) are ahead. That's all they need to be at the end of an election. And that will be good enough for now.Not good enough. Starmer with no vision is miles ahead. Starmer with a vision would if anything be further ahead.
The country does not have "finances" it is not a household. Any government hiding behind that is either Tory or misleading.
When money was cheap to loan, the cost of servicing debt was sustainable. Money isn’t cheap anymore (5-7%) and Governments will have to ‘budget’ more to avoid a debt crisis.
Fears around bonds as a result of increasing interest rates and unfunded policies let to Truss being ousted. This also now impacts Labour because they can’t make significant spending pledges in fear of spooking the markets.
Are you guys fucking serious? You have the easiest election ever coming up. The tories are hated by so many in the country, and you are here, in-fighting and essentially on the verge of giving up and accepting defeat because of Starmer and/or Corbyn. It's fucking embarrassing.
The state of our governance and leadership is akin to our League 1 relegation season.Are you guys fucking serious? You have the easiest election ever coming up. The tories are hated by so many in the country, and you are here, in-fighting and essentially on the verge of giving up and accepting defeat because of Starmer and/or Corbyn. It's fucking embarrassing.
The state of our governance and leadership is akin to our League 1 relegation season.
The people at the top table to guide us through are the political equivalents of Jamie Sterry, Charles Vernam and Vladimir Gadzhev. Sunak is in ‘late-stage Mowbray’ and we are drifting aimlessly down.
We haven’t got Mark Robins coming over the horizon to start the rebuild…. Only Russell Slade.
If we’re comparing to City managers and it’s asking which is dull but effective and which is the fans choice but has no experience and will crash and burn, I argue you’ve got Starmer and Corbyn the wrong way around.
I appreciate your replying to Ians post but in my opinion the question shouldnt be is Starmer better than Corbyn, it should be is he the man to sort out the mess of the last 13 years?
Corbyn is Eric BlackIf we’re comparing to City managers and it’s asking which is dull but effective and which is the fans choice but has no experience and will crash and burn, I argue you’ve got Starmer and Corbyn the wrong way around.
Starmer is robins coming back. Steady hand, nothing flash, playing not to lose rather than try to win.Corbyn is Eric Black
Starmer is still Slade
Genuinely, don't you think that a lurch the other way after years of uber-righty policies would spook global affairs at this time? The only party that ever leapt in and did such things was Labour post WW2 (well, maybe Asquith and Lloyd George's Liberal government, but Lloyd George was then seen as suitable to head up a government consisting mostly of Tories!) and the entire world was rebuilding at that time anyway.I appreciate you're replying to Ians post but in my opinion the question shouldnt be is Starmer better than Corbyn, it should be is he the man to sort out the mess of the last 13 years?
Corbyn is Eric Black
Starmer is still Slade
Step one of fixing a mess is stopping making more mess I guess.
We’re just going to have to see because he’s the only option we’ve got. Same as I voted Corbyn despite wanting a left winger from the 21st century. What do you want? A leadership contest when we’re 20pts ahead with likely a year to an election?
I’m confused - does that make Starmer Fisher or Boddy?Hahahahaga. John Smith is Eric black, Tony Blair is Mickey Adam’s, Ed Milliband is Stephen Presley and Corbyn is Slade.
It is the way.
Oh and Gordon Brown is Roland Nilsson
We havent even had a manifesto yet, and if (no doubt you'll say when) it veers too far from the 2017 one then yep, I'll agree we need more of that kind of thing. But atm, the winning policy is not being a mentalist who crashes the economy, and not changing leaders every other week while being mired in sleaze and corruption. A bit of stability could well improve things on its own, and then we look to progression. Blair's failing (beyond warmongering!) was not building on that stability after one term. For that term, despite not being a particularly radical government, the country got back on its feet as much because we started talking about society again rather than just casting off and demonising the most oppressed.
What you don’t seem to understand is you expect us to all fall in line behind a guy that doesn’t back me as a teacher, doesn’t back train drivers, nurses, bin men, junior doctors or anyone in the public sector that is fighting for a better deal for them, their family or their profession.Exactly this. I really don't know why it's so difficult to understand.
Nobody is suggesting Starmer is some generational leader who is going to radically going to change the country over night, as much as we'd all like that.
But we will be better off under his government than this Tory government. He will stabilise things, there won't be such pure greed and corruption at the top. Then we can look at changing things.
Genuinely, don't you think that a lurch the other way after years of uber-righty policies would spook global affairs at this time? The only party that ever leapt in and did such things was Labour post WW2 (well, maybe Asquith and Lloyd George's Liberal government, but Lloyd George was then seen as suitable to head up a government consisting mostly of Tories!) and the entire world was rebuilding at that time anyway.
Even Thatcher had a relatively moderate first term, where she kept funding British Leyland etc. It was after showing her competence to govern (I know, I know!) that she was emboldened to go properly radical.
We havent even had a manifesto yet, and if (no doubt you'll say when) it veers too far from the 2017 one then yep, I'll agree we need more of that kind of thing. But atm, the winning policy is not being a mentalist who crashes the economy, and not changing leaders every other week while being mired in sleaze and corruption. A bit of stability could well improve things on its own, and then we look to progression. Blair's failing (beyond warmongering!) was not building on that stability after one term. For that term, despite not being a particularly radical government, the country got back on its feet as much because we started talking about society again rather than just casting off and demonising the most oppressed.
I’m confused - does that make Starmer Fisher or Boddy?
Who's in charge of the Twitter account today, Terry Fuckwit?If we’re comparing to City managers and it’s asking which is dull but effective and which is the fans choice but has no experience and will crash and burn, I argue you’ve got Starmer and Corbyn the wrong way around.
Who's in charge of the Twitter account today, Terry Fuckwit?
Without being facetious - there’s no guarantee he won’t renege on every bit of it.Serious question for the disaffected lefties, what in here do you disagree with? Not the interview stuff from the likes of Streeting or policy you wish had been announced but hasn’t. What on here is a bad idea?
Exactly this. I really don't know why it's so difficult to understand.
Nobody is suggesting Starmer is some generational leader who is going to radically going to change the country over night, as much as we'd all like that.
But we will be better off under his government than this Tory government. He will stabilise things, there won't be such pure greed and corruption at the top. Then we can look at changing things.
Think you mean Rachel Reeves there palDiane Abbott
Thatcher had a moderate first term is a laughable statement, the unemployment rate by 1982 was the highest it had been since the war.Genuinely, don't you think that a lurch the other way after years of uber-righty policies would spook global affairs at this time? The only party that ever leapt in and did such things was Labour post WW2 (well, maybe Asquith and Lloyd George's Liberal government, but Lloyd George was then seen as suitable to head up a government consisting mostly of Tories!) and the entire world was rebuilding at that time anyway.
Even Thatcher had a relatively moderate first term, where she kept funding British Leyland etc. It was after showing her competence to govern (I know, I know!) that she was emboldened to go properly radical.
We havent even had a manifesto yet, and if (no doubt you'll say when) it veers too far from the 2017 one then yep, I'll agree we need more of that kind of thing. But atm, the winning policy is not being a mentalist who crashes the economy, and not changing leaders every other week while being mired in sleaze and corruption. A bit of stability could well improve things on its own, and then we look to progression. Blair's failing (beyond warmongering!) was not building on that stability after one term. For that term, despite not being a particularly radical government, the country got back on its feet as much because we started talking about society again rather than just casting off and demonising the most oppressed.
She did things that would be radical left now, she funded BL ffs!Thatcher had a moderate first term is a laughable statement, the unemployment rate by 1982 was the highest it had been since the war.
It's not a can't, but it's the old manager thing isn't it, do you come along and throw out everything and shift so radically everybody ends up destabilised, worried, confidence ends up rocked and nobody knows really what they're supposed to be doing, or do you build a foundation of the defence before looking to the attack?We've been absolutely robbed in the last few years, we're becoming the poor man of western Europe.
A look through this thread will throw up dozens of posts hilighting how bad we've had it.
To say we can't undo that, and that we shouldn't do that, is sometbing I really can't understand.
It's not a can't, but it's the old manager thing isn't it, do you come along and throw out everything and shift so radically everybody ends up destabilised, worried, confidence ends up rocked and nobody knows really what they're supposed to be doing, or do you build a foundation of the defence before looking to the attack?
So then you aim to undo things further down the line. Whether that happens or not (Blair) is the key really. Along with the fear that actually you stabilise things enough but the Tories win the election after...
Really, for a bit of security Labour needs the Liberals to improve again, and the new SNP leader to be a total waste of space. What genuinely (naively?) hadn't occurred to me until their leadership election is that they're not by definition a social democratic party, they get people all across the political spectrum who are only united by the goal of independence. That does offer a crack to split with a wrong move or two...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?