That doesn’t support your original point. the Tories won the last election with ‘get Brexit done’, if you call that a ‘policy’ then you misunderstand everything there is to know about politics. politicians win (or lose) elections based on a mix of public mood, populism and a very small amount of policy. Ed Milliband policies would have played brilliantly in a blind test of the electorate - he wasn’t elected because he looked funny eating a sandwich. Corbyn had some very popular policies (as well as a few that read badly) but against ‘get Brexit done’ they may as well have been non existent. May barely campaigned and won an election. Brown lost an election because he called a bigot … a bigot. Look at how popular Johnson still is, he’s clearly an utter moron; do you honestly believe he’s popular because of the nuances of his ‘policies’.
The "no credible opposition" line is the same angle the media pulled on Corbyn. I don't know how people can seriously look at Johnson and Starmer and judge that Starmer is not credible. He's clearly in a different league to Boris when it comes to integrity, statesmanship and intelligence.
I think this is the point. Regardless of what people think of Starmer, he'd be a vast improvement on Johnson, simply because he's at least a functioning adult.
In what way is he not statesmanlike? In what way has he not got integrity? Im asking when compared to BJ.
Bang on. I like Starmer a lot less than the last 3 Labour leaders but he’s still a hell of a lot better than any Tory especially Johnson
Are you still confident about that, a huge two working days later? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-59652887
I think you should read ‘The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists’ and get back to us with your thoughts when you have. What a book!
The boundary changes didn't go through because May's tories didn't have the majority in the last parliament to force them through