Ever Get the feeling you’ve been cheated.

Excellent post sums up my feeling exactly.
A room full of chimps would make a better stab at government than this lot, at least the chimps would have no vested interests or billionaire wives benefiting from tax breaks.

Corbyn was a complete disaster for this country even though his actual policies were generally OK. His half-arsed remain campaign was useless and he personally was an easy target for the Tories.

Get rid of the Tories and bring in electoral reform (as wanted by the majority of Labour membership including the unions) is the way forward.

 

As per the reply from another contributor.
Labour were in power from 1964 to 1979 with a Tory government breaking that up between 1970 and 1974.
We all have views about Starmer and I've stated mine quite a few times on here. The bottom line for me (and I'm a 'natural' Labour bloke) is that he is an untrustworthy, deceptive, authoritarian person with no strong moral compass. The most galling thing is that he's Labour. I usually assume that this kind of duplicitous, shape-shifting sort of stance that he has normally comes from the Tories but here we are - a Labour leader who, among other things doesn't like to see support for trade unions, who says the two-cap child benefit should not be altered and who now says, effectively, that Thatcher was a breath of fresh air. A Labour leader. Think about it. If any other Labour people on here truly believe that he's just being clever doing this kind of thing then that's up to them. Voting for Labour looks like a deserate unfounded hope that somehow things will get better rather than a realisation that nothing will really change. In my opinion of course. Therefore, 'vote Labour to get the Tories out' doesn't strike me as a mantra with any aspirational weight behind it. I dont think I can support the party with this bloke leading it and I will have no qualms voting for someone else when I've reflected. I'm not letting the Tories back in, I'm trying to stop them regardless of what colour rosette they wear

 

I agree in part. Corbyn was certainly no leader. But Labour are committed to the same policies minus some of the corruption so why do you think that the outputs will be different. Austerity is pretty much a line in the sand for me. Both main parties are promoting it either actively or tacitly

A bright spark though is that Starmer has similar faults to Corbyn. So seems likely to have to lead a coalition with PR as a driver. In someways his political ineptitude and the Tories incompetence may lead to positive change.

 

Corbyn is a protest politician who never possessed leadership skills. Starmer is a pragmatist with high-level leadership experience whose only aim is to get Labour elected. They really could not be more different.

 

Both are terrible politicians. Corbyn has none of the humour and intelligence of someone like Benn. Starmer has none of the ability to connect to people that Blair John Smith shared. Different faults lead them to the same issue.

Starmer is insecure in a way that Blair never was. Tony had a broad cabinet with people from all strands of the party. He promoted debate and enjoyed being challenged.

Starmer has no underpinning principles that’s why we have arbitrary fiscal rules that guarantee austerity and why he wishes to privatise the NHS and keep the hardest Brexit possible because power counts more than defending any of those things.

You are right in the respect that he cares nothing for changing the country but just wants his turn at the top table. I agree with you there.

 

fair enough, accepted, but it would be better if you didn’t Chuck the people like you and Hitler out there again, cheers

 

No worries your defence of starmer praising Thatcher is equally offensive to me to be so if you can not do that again, cheers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/04/keir-starmer-margaret-thatcher-labour-tories

Good article from someone on the centre right here

 

Margaret Thatcher's legacy not celebrated in Wales - Drakeford

(Drakeford leader of Labour Party in the Senedd.)

 

I'd just like to hear a logical explanation from the pro-Starmer brigade as to why they are expecting any significant improvement in key areas of the country under a Starmer government. The country is dropping to bits, decaying. Public services are crumbling and the NHS is being continually eroded. Inequality is the worst its been since the 70's and poverty is endemic. All of this thanks to the much lauded Thatcher and successive trickle down, austerity Tories.
Anyone with commonsense can see the Tories have ruined the country so 'Get the Tories out' is a no brainer. Why though is there a belief that a Labour Government under Starmer will be significantly better? Why? Either the pro-Starmer brigade know something about future Labour policy I dont ( in which case I'd like to know more) or they have just a blind hope based on no evidence that some of the above will materially improve. I can accept that a Labour Government can't possibly be any worse than the current disgrace - public money looks as though it will be spent in a less corrupt way for example - but where's the real change? It already looks like we are in for more austerity unless Starmer is lying again so I ask again, where's the change going to come from?
Please explain beyond 'they can't be worse than this lot' why backing Starmer seems to be such a great idea.
Looks to me like people are willing to vote for Labour because they're 'probably' likely to be not as bad as the Tories (true but a weak reason) OR because they have a blind belief that Starmer is deliberately lying now so that he can later implement some transformative policies (possible but sounds fantastic). Both therefore seem dodgy reasons for voting Labour to me so please explain the logic if you would beyond the 'anyone is better than the Tories' line. Thanks.
P.s. Dont patronise me as has happened before by telling me I'm letting the Tories in if I don't vote Labour.

 

Interesting views, JV. We can only have our own opinions. Here's mine, for what it's worth.

Both are terrible politicians. Corbyn has none of the humour and intelligence of someone like Benn. Starmer has none of the ability to connect to people that Blair John Smith shared. Different faults lead them to the same issue.

I disagree that either are terrible politicians. But I think Corbyn was a terrible leader, and would have made a terrible PM. He is an effective protest politician, but he should have done better in his time against May. He could have supported her brexit deal and ensured that the workers' rights elements of EU law were better preserved. Starmer has transformed his party (some say not for the better) and has made Labour look electable. What he will do if he gets in remains to be seen. I would concede that he has nothing like the charisma of John Smith or Tony Blair. But let's also recall that Johnson had charisma.

Starmer is insecure in a way that Blair never was. Tony had a broad cabinet with people from all strands of the party. He promoted debate and enjoyed being challenged.

Fair to say Blair was reasonably secure at the head of what was a fairly strong cabinet. But he struggled at times to keep Brown onside, and let's not forget he was unable to overcome Brown's objections to joining the single currency. At the end, he was no longer secure enough to resist Brown's pitch for the top job. I would disagree that Starmer is insecure - while there is protest from time from the left about his positions, he faces no challenge to his leadership. His security can be gauged by the confidence with which he has spoken out about the Israel-Hamas conflict and the impact of Thatcher (he did not 'praise' her - he noted her influence). He knew those views would provoke howls of protest but was confident enough to air them nevertheless.

Starmer has no underpinning principles that’s why we have arbitrary fiscal rules that guarantee austerity and why he wishes to privatise the NHS and keep the hardest Brexit possible because power counts more than defending any of those things.

Starmer outlines his underlying principles in every speech he makes (did you know his father was a toolmaker?) Whether you believe him is a different matter. If there famously was "no money left" after the financial crash, there must be even less after Covid handouts and the support necessitated following the cost of living crisis arising in part from the Ukraine War. Borrowing big time is unviable given the debt interest payments we already make and the mauling in the right wing media that would bring about. He does not wish to privatise the NHS and has never said so. I think he does see a role for some private provision of support functions in partnership with the NHS itself. He and his shadow cabinet members have spoken of the need for closer, more harmonious relations with the EU, so I see nothing to support the claim that he wants a continuing hard brexit. But here again he is all too aware of the easy target that would be presented by giving the media the chance to claim that he is backsliding on brexit.

You are right in the respect that he cares nothing for changing the country but just wants his turn at the top table. I agree with you there.

My own view is that this profoundly misunderstands the nature of the man. He is in no way a 'glory seeker'. He has already risen to the pinnacle in one career, and I think he is driven by a genuine notion of service rather than any personal advancement. You may draw some parallels from his legal career, where he often espoused human rights cases or pro bono work in preference to more lucrative commercial or criminal work. On the one occasion I met him he struck me as a serious-minded young man and an extremely able and thorough lawyer. I don't think he is the perfect leader, nor the most charismatic. But I continue to think that he is the best person to take Labour into the next election. What happens then, we shall see. You will of course have your own views, to which you are entitled.

 

I think I'd make many of the points I did to JV in reply, KCP. We'll not agree, of course, but I'd just add:

It already looks like we are in for more austerity unless Starmer is lying again so I ask again, where's the change going to come from?

The public finances are in a parlous state. Borrowing more is not an option given the debt payments we already make. The only viable option is doing whatever is possible to promote growth. But that will simply have to be encouraged slowly and steadily. The example of Truss shows what happens when you rely on ill-considered gimmicks which unsettle the markets.

Please explain beyond 'they can't be worse than this lot' why backing Starmer seems to be such a great idea.

After the last 13 years, I'd take that as good enough reason on it's own. But I happen to think (although I can't know) that Starmer will surprise you.

P.s. Dont patronise me as has happened before by telling me I'm letting the Tories in if I don't vote Labour.

I'm afraid that if you are in a swing constituency this will be exactly the effect. And Barnsley could conceivably be one such if either the Conservatives or Reform stand aside.

Interesting, innit?

 

Did he? Really. Alexander Johnson has the personality of a golf club bore on his 7th pint. Incorrect Latin translations and casual racism/misogyny aren't particularly charismatic.

 

https://x.com/shehabkhan/status/1731981046596481057?s=46&t=j20zR706pmXrBtdI_7p-NQ

Back to politicians incapable of answering a question. Starmer has flip flopped again on Rwanda meaning Cooper can’t answer a very basic question.

 

Britains finances are not in a parlous state that’s just basic misinformation from people pushing the household national economy model. Britain is in a much better position than it was in a1945 when we managed to set up the welfare state and NHS.

Portes has written a very easy to understand article today on it. I’d recommend it.

if Labour fail to convince the electorate that’s on them. That’s their job. But if they cannot offer hope and change then they deserve to lose. It’s not the job of the electorate to make a party attractive and electable

 

Er, you've not seen the polls then?

 

While we're on though JV, have you read Nick Thomas-Symonds books on Attlee and Wilson? Any views?

 

Has an election been called then?

Why would labour give anybody an answer on anything when the Tories won't call an election. All it will do is exactly this but worse.

Why isn't that same reporter chasing after the ***** that are trying to put in place this ridiculous policy.

When an election is called, then fair do, question everything in the manifesto if need be. But we know what the press are like here. Anything to keep these vultures in power. So labour are doing the right thing at the moment by not revealing everything they would do.

What's the point in announcing anything right now without a GE being called?

 

I’m not pro-Starmer.

He’s a boring, vanilla character who is massively unlikely to do anything radical to change the course of the future. I’m guessing on that we agree.

However, public money not being spent in a corrupt way IS a real change. To the tune of hundreds of billions.

And a boring, vanilla, unspectacular steady pair of hands - and let’s face it, fan or not nobody can suggest he isn’t an educated, competent professional, unlike many of those he faces daily - is possibly what the country needs to begin with. He’d make a competent prime minister. Not special, not radical, but competent. And that would be a HUGE step up.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love a further left leaning leader to implement fairer, dare I say it more socialist policy - but there probably isn’t enough of an appetite for that to be on a manifesto pledge; and besides, the country most definitely needs stabilising, financially and otherwise, before any of that can be achieved.

He’s far from perfect but my view is he’s the best hope we have - for now.

Rome, a day, etc etc.

 

Even me?