Yeah, that's kind of my point. As I remember it, Brown's relentless centrism got outflanked by "Hug a hoodie but starve them" Cameron on the right and "Scrap tuition fees" Clegg on the left. Labour lost a huge number of votes to the Lib Dems that election. The LDs lost them forever when they went into the coalition, but they were definitely there at the time. Remember "I agree with Nick"? I've got friends who still can't forgive themselves, but at the time we all hated Labour so much.. I do agree with the rest of your post though, obviously.
Good economics primer here from Richard https://x.com/richardjmurphy/status/1699308710563324361?s=46&t=j20zR706pmXrBtdI_7p-NQ
Doesn't matter if he has a 'big' poll lead at all for two reasons. Firstly, he's still a liar and the lead is therefore built on nothing of substance. Secondly, if the poll lead translates into a Labour government there's nothing to suggest that major problems which are crying out to be tackled will be addressed. Nothing. If that floats your boat - a government in waiting that offer nothing but 'The Tories are incompetent' rhetoric - then I think its quite sad. The blind faith some on here have regarding Starmer and his team simply because they wear red rosettes is amazing.
Haha. I have a pet theory that an awful lot of the unpleasantness of the past 20 years or so could have been avoided if Brown had just doubled down on that.
to answer your earlier question I wasn’t lecturing mearly again stating a point. with FPTP what options do we have? The blind faith isn’t blind faith at all when a left Labour have been proved to be unelectable. Not just Corbyn every left of Labour Party in the last 60 years have been unelectable. Is starmer your problem or is it the ground the party occupies under him?
Heyup. Thanks for clearing that up. I dont like Starmer. I think he lacks principle and is deceitful. Boris Johnson wad constantly criticised by many on here, quite rightly, for being a liar but when it comes to Starmer his lies are always ignored. Its also because of Starmer I think that the policies/direction of the party are/is completely unimaginative. So, to answer your question, its probably both. I am very disillusioned at the moment as you can tell. I think there are serious issues in society that need dealing with and I don't think they're going to be dealt with given what Im seeing at the moment. It may transpire that a Starmer government will be transformative and radical but I see NOTHING to suggest that will be the case and would imagine problems will fester thus allowing the return of another Tory government in 6 years time. Very depressing for me based on my observations.
This is the current policy book Revealed: Full draft policy platform that could form 2024 Labour ... https://labourlist.org/2023/05/labour-manifesto-2024-election-what-policies-npf-party/?amp Once it has worked through the process and depending on what state things are in will then form the manifesto they will stand for election for. As yet, what that manifesto is hasn't been agreed. But at least you can get a flavour for what might be on it from above link
Haven't they already dropped the idea outlined in the very first bullet point in that article? (Edit: Yes, less than a month later). I've always said that I'm going to wait for the manifesto before I decide whether I can bring myself to vote for them, and I stand by that. But frankly, given Starmer's record so far I'm not sure it'll be worth the paper it's written on.
Rishi will be glad of your vote (or abstention). It really is that simple. After 13 years of this lot I'll gladly give Keir a chance to show what he can do. But whatever that turns out to be, I cannot ever imagine voting for more years of the current lot (perhaps even in a viler form). I respect everyone's opinion on here, but I think there is a lot of naivety around on this thread about the actualite of politics.
Has Starmer lied? I mean, Boris Johnson lies all the time. He didn’t do this, didn’t do that, there won’t be this, there will be that. Loads of things he has said that have proved to be untrue, something Johnson knew to be the case when he said them. Saying something you know to be factually untrue is lying. Some say Starmer is as bad as or worse than Johnson, but has he actually lied? I.e. said something he knew was factually untrue? He has changed his mind and stance on a lot of things, but that isn’t necessarily lying. It can be almost as bad as lying, particularly if you have given a plan of action, been voted in on the plan of action, but subsequently change your mind, but it’s only lying if he knew that he was promising something he had zero intention of doing, but that is difficult to prove. Certainly since he laid out his intentions during the leadership campaign, the UK and the world is in a very different and far worse state. The pandemic, the war, the energy crisis, Truss trashing he economy, the Tories dishing out billions to the mates, the crisis in the NHS, the ongoing disaster that is Brexit, plus all the other issues like the schools falling to bits, ever increasing mortgage rates, etc. Surely anyone would be excused for changing their stance on a lot of matters, particularly as there is **** all money around to pay for anything. Anyone expecting Labour to come in and start making massive changes immediately need to prepare for disappointment, as the first thing they need to do is assess the mess the Tories have left us in, and that in itself is going to be a big job. But bear in mind that Starmer is trying to get elected. Corbyn’s manifestos were excellent, but are nothing more than pieces of scrap paper, because without getting elected, nothing in the manifestos were ever going to be acted upon. Very easy to make idealistic promises when you know you’re not going to win. Starmer has to win middle England. He’s not going to do that without making the necessary changes to what went before. He has to be careful what he says, as the press are waiting to crucify him. Unfunded spending is the biggie that they usually pin on Labour. He has to avoid that. But by doing so he then gets blamed for things he hasn’t done. The pathetic ‘Sir Kid Starver’ for one. How come Sunak, who can actually change the child benefit limits as soon as Parliament returns doesn’t get criticised for it, but someone in opposition, with no power to change it right now does?! Starmer said he wouldn’t change it when put on the spot recently. The papers were hoping for the opposite, so they can start with the ‘same old Labour, tax and spend’ headlines for a year running up to the election, which could cost the party victory. Starmer didn’t give them that opportunity. Who knows what will be in the manifesto though, as that is a year away, or what they will do when they have the full picture, once in government. But back to my question, has Starmer actually lied? Has he said something that he knew was factually untrue? And I am talking about an indisputable lie, not changing his stance (unless someone has indisputable evidence that he was deliberately making promises he had no intention of keeping). If he’s a bigger liar than Johnson it will have to be a long list! I should point out that I’m not a Starmer fan. I was in the Labour Party, I voted for him, I’m not in the party any longer, I am disappointed with him, I think he needed to make changes and had to distance himself from Corbyn, as Corbyn had become a block to moving the party forward, albeit through no fault of his own (the press, with the help of some Labour members, had done a complete number on Corbyn), but Starmer’s purge of the left has been appalling, totally unnecessary and will be detrimental to the party for some time to come. That said, I want Labour to win, because the current Tory party are dangerous and giving them 5 more years will absolutely see the end of the NHS as we know it and once they remove us from the ECHR there’s no end to the further damage they will do. This current government are borderline fascists. I also hold out hope that the Labour Party will slowly move back towards the left once they are in power. We have a 2 party system and First Past the Post. In most constituencies a vote for anyone other than Labour is a vote for the Tories. I know I t’s **** if all you think you are doing is voting for the least worst option, but when you have a choice of two, surely that’s the best option to take, isn’t it?
Please dont patronise me by suggesting I'm tacitly voting for Sunak's mob. I'll be voting for whichever political party seems to offer the best hope of meaningful change. That's what elections are for. At the moment I have no confidence in Starmer and Labour based on recent events. If you wish to vote for Starmer that's up to you but if the country ends up being run by Tories with red rosettes don't say you weren't warned. I suspect that Starmer will win regardless of whether or not he gets my single vote and we'll see after that what he does but just because I criticise and have a reasoned opinion about political parties and MAY vote for a different party to Labour doesn't mean Im naive. It means Im not a sheep.
I'll probably have to vote for labour so as to get rid of the tories. Unfortunately I think Labour are ******* ****.
You missed the bit where I said I respect folks' opinions. And sorry, but I do think it's naive to think that there is a left wing utopia which the public at large will vote for. People are not being patronising just because they disagree with your view.
He has a lead because the Tories are awful and he's a better option. It's a low bar but historically it's what happens to Governments who've been on power a long time.
It's mendacious to claim anything left of Starmer is a naive left wing Utopian view. They can't even commit to repair crumbling schools....