I don't get it either mate. Can't believe that folk in a democracy demand policy differences between the main parties. Are they crazy? Just dumb? They should just be satisfied if the folk in charge aren't pocketing their cash. That should be enough to satisfy anybody. Anything else is pie in the sky fantasy and not to be taken seriously.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
I don't get it either mate. Can't believe that folk in a democracy demand policy differences between the main parties. Are they crazy? Just dumb? They should just be satisfied if the folk in charge aren't pocketing their cash. That should be enough to satisfy anybody. Anything else is pie in the sky fantasy and not to be taken seriously.
There are massive differences between parties. Look at NHS after Blair govt was finished with it vs when this mob are.
But those are actual differences manifested in improvents public services that ordinary people rely on, so they don't count.
Differences Labour governments make to public services and the lives of ordinary people do not matter. What matters is tribalism and my wrestler is better than your wrestler because my wrestler had his name sung by thousands of students standing in the mud. Those are the difference that they care about.
These are people who punched the air at an election night exit poll that predicted 'Tory largest party', the pretense they're left wing is weird. Their 'my enemies enemy is my friend' perspective on politics that sees them far more at ease with a Tory in number 10 than anyone else, yet still think this means they're 'socialists', is something I'm not sure gets the focus it deserves.
A fundamental belief that no Labour leader should ever be permitted to campaign in a way that would lead to their election to office.
But those are actual differences manifested in improvents public services that ordinary people rely on, so they don't count.
Differences Labour governments make to public services and the lives of ordinary people do not matter. What matters is tribalism and my wrestler is better than your wrestler because my wrestler had his name sung by thousands of students standing in the mud. Those are the difference that they care about.
These are people who punched the air at an election night exit poll that predicted 'Tory largest party', the pretense they're left wing is weird. Their 'my enemies enemy is my friend' perspective on politics that sees them far more at ease with a Tory in number 10 than anyone else, yet still think this means they're 'socialists', is something I'm not sure gets the focus it deserves.
A fundamental belief that no Labour leader should ever be permitted to campaign in a way that would lead to their election to office.
Last edited:
You seem to be believe that Starmer will return our public services to the levels that they were under Blair. What gives you that impression?
Blair hasn't 'finished' witht he NHS, and that is part of the problems it is having. We are still paying for PFI, his £55 Billion investment in the NHS will ultimately cost around £300 Billion to finally pay off.
Sure start was good for people, PFI was a disaster.
PFI is Expensive
No, the correct form of your sentence is that there were massive differences between the parties. Look at NHS after Blair govt was finished with it vs when this mob are. I could easily identify differences in policy and spending commitments between Blair and his opponents. Other than foreign policy he improved a bunch of stuff. Might not have been exactly what I wanted, I might have ended up disappointed, but it was at least something.
Blair '95 was a far better prospect than Starmer '23. Even so, I'm still gonna vote Labour next year. No choice, I'm in a relatively competitive area and the Tories are just that bad. I do not, however, have to be delighted about it - nor am I compelled to offer reach-arounds to dipshits who complain about child poverty but are apparently satisfied by PR campaigns and allusions to "tough choices".
For all the faults of the last Labour government I don't see how anyone can look at how public services were run under them vs how the Tories always leave them and genuinely think there's "no difference" between how the two parties govern.
Moreover I don't accept 'socialists' aren't aware that this line of attack is anything other than something extremely beneficial to keeping the Tories in office.
In a battle between an imperfect Labour govt and perpetual Tory rule, some of you need to be honest in the fact you'd take Tory rule every day of the week and twice on Sundays. And that's fine but you need to be open to discuss how much of a socialist you actually are because of it.
Moreover I don't accept 'socialists' aren't aware that this line of attack is anything other than something extremely beneficial to keeping the Tories in office.
In a battle between an imperfect Labour govt and perpetual Tory rule, some of you need to be honest in the fact you'd take Tory rule every day of the week and twice on Sundays. And that's fine but you need to be open to discuss how much of a socialist you actually are because of it.
"Imperfect" = most right wing Labour party in history. Big red nose. Enormous yellow shoes. Horn that goes honk. That's a clown alright.
I'd take Brown's Labour over Starmer's ten times over
New Labour had a far better offer than Starmer. And a more competent and charismatic leader and shadow cabinet to see it through.
You seem to be under the impression that anyone complaining about how shit Starmer and his band of incompetents are is the equivalent of supporting the fecking Tories. Can guarantee most people complaining about Labour will vote for them or a party that will remove the Tories in an election. That doesn't mean they have to act as knee bending serfs to the alternative government.
If it was a straight shootout in an election between the BNP and the Tories, would you kick off with anyone that criticised the Tories? They are the least worst option after all.
Labour aren't left by some divine right, it's their historical policies. If their current policies are at best centre, and more accurately right wing it's not exactly anti-socialist to not want to vote for them.
Starmer isn't great. But he isn't awful. I'd much rather he be pro-EU, but understand the caution. I hope he's going to be more radical in power than opposition. My fear is he's going to be the male Yvette Cooper. Yet I think as uninspiring a leader as he might be I think he's fundamentally competent. Which is a big plus.
I think that's where most people probably are except in this thread. Here though everything's a dumpster fire became Skwakbox told me it is and: "How dare you notice my pro-left, socialist Twitter feed is indistinguishable from Tory propaganda"
I think that's where most people probably are except in this thread. Here though everything's a dumpster fire became Skwakbox told me it is and: "How dare you notice my pro-left, socialist Twitter feed is indistinguishable from Tory propaganda"
There’s always so much projection in your posts
Your Twitter feed doing its best to keep Rishi in number 10 is it?
Never mind about how bad the economy is..grr Starmer and his..shit hair, grrr. Cost of living crisis? Let's talk about.....Iraq... and... things
You're off your tits mate. I'm more than happy for you to support a different coloured tie, but leave those alone who want a change of direction rather than a change in management. You've made your point, obsessively, now unless you can find some actual plus points for Starmer rather than regurgitating the same old word salad, give it a rest, yeah?
You seem to have this really confused and warped view of leftists who previously supported Labour. You think they are just happy in opposition? We literally have plenty of evidence of the Labour right trying to sabotage the party when the left had power. There was an actual fecking coup attempt. Numerous cabinet resignations. Head office ignoring electoral strategy to divert funds to safe seats held by MP’s in their faction. The Labour right literally couldn’t have done anymore to help the Tories.
Also, the activists turning up in huge numbers to campaign and knock on doors. Where did they come from? It was the Labour left. So please explain again how these people don’t want to win and are just happy in opposition.
These people also elected Starmer as Labour leader. He couldn’t have won the leadership without getting votes from the Labour left. How’s that for compromise! The truth is, all the Labour left want is a transformational Labour Government. It should be the very minimal expectation… yet we have a current Labour Party acting like the Tories 2.0. Why should any socialist support that?
The country (aided regrettably by the rabid RW press) roundly rejected the more obvious Left version of Labour less than 4 years ago. Demanding more of the same does seem like fantasy talking. Truss tried pulling more to the extreme right and the markets gave her a hammering. Getting into power over the short term clearly demands a Centrist approach. Constant moaning for anything else is pointless. Perceptions and opinions for more socialist ideals need to be embedded more slowly and likely best done over time in power. Corbyn 2.0 won’t work yet.
Do you really believe this is going to happen? Starmer is a corporate puppet , he does what they say. Both parties are owned by big business and their goal is to maintain the status quo , double down on a failed system.
Demented. Utterly demented.
36 posts in this thread and this accounts for 27 of them. Do you not have a single other thing to contribute? At what point does it become wumming? It's just so utterly boring.
Bingo. The ballot has failed entirely and they won't recognise it. The old misdirectionist trick-box doesn't work any more "Blue points to Red; Red points to Blue" and media figures go along for the ride, perpetuating cultural issues to wedge actual economic inequality off the agenda. A bunch of clowns in a played out, washed up, punch and judy show that's long overdue its demise.
'I voted Liberal Democrat' says Alastair Campbell
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-48417885
Those bloody socialists may as well support the Tories by not supporting an imperfect Labour leadership... oh wait.
Walks like a Tory, talks like a Tory...
The aim is to win elections, like a Tory
He has a Blair mandate (stale governance and general scandal to scandal) but not one bit of Blair (real Blair/not-war-mad-Tony) vision. That's what people want. A centrist, but socially significant, manifesto which offers genuine change to be enacted (Blair did enact large chunks of that 97 manifesto, healthcare and education). Instead, we have him moving to whatever direction the Tory tabloid wind blows.
Now, Blair elections and did it "like a Tory" - that wasn't a million years ago.
It was 25 years ago, times have changed.
Yes, education is in the gutter, the NHS is being privatized, and 13 years of austerity have turned the UK into a shithole. Wonder where the mandate comes from?
I think on this rare case I'll say its an unfair accusation. Don't know what the rest of the clip is but i'd hope he at least says he won't do any new licenses.
My vote hangs in the balance on them committing to a green budget. I reckon I'm not the only one so if they abandon green pledged and the Lib Dems are bold enoughthey could sweep up enough votes for a coalition.
Here's the thing.
By saying he will keep any licences already out there, he basically gave sunak the green light to do this.
Had he said 'I'll cancel all new licences if I win', then those new licences would have presented such a risk that they would be worthless, and no one would try to buy them at all, so Sunak would not be saying he will issue them.
Hell, even just saying nothing, something starmer is usually very good at, his best quality some might say, it would create enough commercial uncertainty to stop sunak doing this.
But no. He took the one option that guaranteed oil investors, such as the hedge funds backing him, and murdoch who invited starmer to his big party last month, would make a bit more money.
Yes, and the electorate is different.
Not so different, the mandate is the same. Quality of life and cost of living plus future aspiration against Tory (establishment) austerity. How different? Look at the polling data over the past few years and see where the infliction point comes from: the mini-budget which was the nail in the coffin of Tory neoliberalist (tax-cut) austerity economics (market and public collectively shat it out). From tied and 3 points to 36 points within weeks.
Exactly. It doesn't matter if the Tories or Labour win now, extracting all the fossil fuels is guaranteed. Labour can plead their innocence to any accusations and The Tories can play to their reckless, idiotic base. They all win, but ultimately, we lose.
You also need to take in to account other things, the UK needs private investment in many areas, but business needs long-term commitments, who's going to invest when they know the next prime minister might cancel it 5 years later - it's a fine line to walk and in some ways an impossible one given the state of division and politics these days
Starmer seeing a buy 1 get 1 free deal in Greggs
Or when he sees "children eat for free".
Has Starmer got time to feck up the Labour leadership before the next elections? And has Sadiq Khan got enough time to leapfrog to leadership?
But don't you see, it's only the socialists who are secretly tories who have a problem with starving kids.