I wish it was bud.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Nope, right wing ghouls ran him out of politics with one of the nastiest smear campaigns of all time. Simple as. If I could run Starmer and his goons out of politics, with the benefit of hindsight, I absolutely would. I think Corbyn's biggest failure was not getting rid of all these right wing and centrist blood suckers when he had the chance.
I stand corrected.
But that's when you only look at it in it's own proverbial shoebox. The number one cause of hospitalisations of 6-10yr olds is tooth decay. This looks to resolve that, children's oral health and reduce the requirement of dental and NHS services as a result.
Then combine this with potential increased roll-out of increased FSM and school breakfast clubs, and your suddenly seeing a generation of kids that are better nourished and have better dental habits. Again, the ripple-effect of that is huge, increasing nourishment further reduces the risk of hospitalisation (having seen a 3-fold increase in nutritional-related issues since 2013) and increases things like attention span and mental health, impacting their ability to be active in things like school.
By itself it looks daft, and it doesn't lend itself to flashy tabloid headlines, but you look deeper into it and it has widespread, long-term benefits.
A revolution in children's health is something I can get behind.
Last edited:
I really don't know where you get all this from, every Labour leader and would be PM, has had to face the wrath of the right wing press, some like Corbyn sat up and beg for it...!
I take it that whilst you might be a Labour supporter, you are not a member of the Labour party, or if you are, have not been in the role long? I apologise in advance if you are a long standing member.
However there was no way Jeremy himself could manipulate anything/anyone, he always needed help. His views were fixed and there was no compromise in him. The criticism in that respect would be that he surrounded himself with the wrong people. Its easy to do that in politics and Starmer himself might succumb, but up to now he seems to be holding his own on that score.
I'm not saying you can change the result of Brexit immediately but eventually something has to be done and four years have gone by already with everyone pretending it's not a factor and mustn't be spoken about. Then you've got another five years of Starmer still too frightened to scare the horses, but he's got to understand what the problem is first. Fortunately for the Tories they could hide behind Covid and Ukraine and now more recently the weather is the excuse.
It's not just what's going to happen, it's what already has happened, just the mild dose of Phase 1 to start with so far, then Phase 2 and then Phase 3. People try to pretend that that's it, it's all over; It's only barely begun.
I said four years (and before) - but Starmer wasn't the opposition leader before. I remember when the opposition leaders used to give the incumbent PM hell in the HoC. Starmer's a mouse.
The right wing press has always been the same.
So what's going to happen- how is the UK going to be transformed if Starmer becomes PM. Is he going to reverse all the harm the Tories have done? No, he's going to say we haven't got any money so we'll have to wait until the economy turns round - this is the question - how? It doesn't matter if he's got 100% of the seats. How is he going to turn it around? I have read what's on the Labour website , I have read the 5 Missions and as I said before, it's like it has been written by some naïve 12 year old.
He doesn't have to win my vote. Just a small inkling of how he's going to get the UK back.
Like I said, it's a good policy and clearly one that is sorely needed but it's not revolutionary by any stretch of the term.given all the things he could do, these are a shameful offering. I personally wouldn't be surprised if he reneges on both anyway.
You know exactly where I got it from, no need to play dumb. I'm pretty sure there have been studies done on it. When I'm a little less busy I'll see can I find any of them.
Firstly you didn't mention it being a good policy, you called it embarrassing - secondly, excluding pie in the sky ideological wishes (which I'm 100% sure I'd share), how is transforming children's health not revolutionary?
You're right, I called it a decent policy, I'm extremely sorry for the mistake. Because there is absolutely nothing revolutionary about brushing your teeth, it's a good idea to teach kids how but "revolutionary" is insanely hyperbolic.
Oh, Paul that's what you are saying.. you are suggesting an, 'about face' position for the next government, even though time and tide have moved on.
When we were a member of the EU the decision to leave caught both sides, the EU and the UK government on the hop, hence there was never going to be a peaceful divorce and so it transpired. Now we are out and calmer judgments can be made, especially on trade, then there may be a way forward, but it is not by returning to square one, the UK would never go back as it was with the opt outs, rebates, a separate currency, etc. it enjoyed before, as much as anything because the EU would not accept it. Most certainly the closer political movements towards a European State are dead in the water and not just with the UK, the ghost of Jacques Delor will be put to rest across the EU.
Yes, something has to be done but it will be with the light of past failures in mind, with the effects of Covid in mind, the changing world position on, climate, energy and migration all moving at a rate of knots, in mind. Starmer may not have the answers, I doubt anyone has any neat solutions like... 'lets just rejoin a club we left way back when and everything will be OK'.
A strong Labour Government with a large majority can forge a way ahead with a true 'social contract' agreed between people and government that faces future problems, the big ones already piling up at the door, with belief, honesty and reality, very much in vogue. Something that can never be agreed with a Tory Government that would have 'vested interests' prevailing.
I have lived my life (now in my late 70's) hoping I might see such a thing, God willing I just might, after the next GE. ( I have been saying that for over forty years)
That's the point I have no idea where you got this from, 'Right wing Ghouls'... I assumed you mean the Tory press?
"nastiest campaigns' this is politics is it not? Jeremy never hid his views, his international credentials he burnished regularly, even though he knew it raised the hackles on the necks of a vast majority of the British public.
If anything Jeremy was hiding with plain sight!
'there have been studies done' ....really...do us a favour please, not that one again!
OMG why isn’t anybody talking about the toothbrushing policy after Starmer says the PM is correct in bypassing parliament to bomb a country is peak centre “left”.
Oh, Paul that's what you are saying.. you are suggesting an, 'about face' position for the next government, even though time and tide have moved on.
When we were a member of the EU the decision to leave caught both sides, the EU and the UK government on the hop, hence there was never going to be a peaceful divorce and so it transpired. Now we are out and calmer judgments can be made, especially on trade, then there may be a way forward, but it is not by returning to square one, the UK would never go back as it was with the opt outs, rebates, a separate currency, etc. it enjoyed before, as much as anything because the EU would not accept it. Most certainly the closer political movements towards a European State are dead in the water and not just with the UK, the ghost of Jacques Delor will be put to rest across the EU.
Yes, something has to be done but it will be with the light of past failures in mind, with the effects of Covid in mind, the changing world position on, climate, energy and migration all moving at a rate of knots, in mind. Starmer may not have the answers, I doubt anyone has any neat solutions like... 'lets just rejoin a club we left way back when and everything will be OK'.
A strong Labour Government with a large majority can forge a way ahead with a true 'social contract' agreed between people and government that faces future problems, the big ones already piling up at the door, with belief, honesty and reality, very much in vogue. Something that can never be agreed with a Tory Government that would have 'vested interests' prevailing.
I have lived my life (now in my late 70's) hoping I might see such a thing, God willing I just might, after the next GE. ( I have been saying that for over forty years)
I've said many times it will take decades to get back but one decade will have been wasted by the time Starmer is out of the door. It's edging back that needs to start. Not the way Starmer thinks he can.
The UK has been brainwashed by the politicians and media into believing the EU are punishing them for daring to leave the EU. This is because nobody understands what they voted for, including Starmer. The Uk is outside the SM and CU but they don't seem to be able to accept what that means. The Uk have the best trade deal that any country has outside the EU. Starmer does not understand what being outside the SM and CU means which is also why he thinks he can make Brexit work because he thinks he's going to get some sort of exception or special dispensation. How the hell does he think this? Send him on a course to learn about it before he becomes PM.
The first priority according to Labour's website before anything else happens is to make the economy the most sustainable in the G7. I keep asking how? The EU will always be the UK's major trading partner. You see in the media how Brexiters are still expecting deals with India or the CPTTP will be the saviour or the AUS/NZ. It's all complete nonsense and worthless.
The social contract you are hoping for will need money. Labour even say on their website that growth is the key for all that follows. So will Starmer finally wake up in the next few years and actually realise what Brexit means - then what happens?
I know rejoining the EU in some distant time will be extremely difficult. The 2016 decision will haunt the UK for decades to come.
Well fortunately we can have a multi-stranded conversation.
I think he’s daft in saying that, and I think he should be doing more to hold the PM to account.
But, likewise, a genuinely new, earnest, generation-improving policy position is declared, it gets not one mention.
I wonder, as a Corbynite (I’m assuming from the rhetoric, I admittedly used to be although I still believe in the vast majority of ‘17 and ‘19 manifestos) could Starmer ever win for trying?
You said on one hand that it’s embarrassing that he announces this instead of something ‘truly revolutionary’, yet on the other you suggest you believe he’ll renege on this.
So, if Starmer did promise something revolutionary (PR or an EU return referendum), which response would you give; hurrah a revolutionary idea, or ‘it doesn’t matter, he’ll just renege on it anyway’?
It should be the cherry on top of a more impressive healthcare package, this is, like I said a decent policy but it's nowhere near enough to he considered revolutionary on its own.
Edit: He's reneged on everything else he's said, why should this be any different?
So, if tomorrow he revealed a costed, revolutionary NHS package for which this was the proverbial cherry, you’d go after him as you wouldn’t believe him?
It seems a bit disingenuous, to whinge that he’s not going far enough whilst also whinging about how he’s not trustworthy.
He's a demonstrable con artist. Anyone who believes a thing that comes out of his mouth deserves the mockery they get.
Not really. If he committed to massive health care reform and actually set out a coherent plan I wouldn't have an issue. It's tough believing anything thing he says but that's only because I find it hard to take proven liars at their word.
So you’d risk him not getting a majority and potentially giving this current so-called government a way back in for five more years, out of some combination of ‘he’s not offering enough and even if he did I wouldn’t believe him’
To partly quote @Dobba we deserve the ‘leaders’ we get when we reject viable alternatives.
Pretty much this.
That’s for a different Party during a coalition where the share of power was at least 75/25. Simply not comparable.
I must say quite a lot of the rhetoric around here would hypothetically support a radical dictator. Nobody seems in favour of manifestos and pledges which makes me wonder what you feel about the point of elections.
Tell you all what, let’s all abstain from voting, give Rishi and his gang 5 more years whilst we all piss and moan about how ‘everything is so shit!’
Tell you all what, let’s all abstain from voting, give Rishi and his gang 5 more years whilst we all piss and moan about how ‘everything is so shit!’
Tbh I think your failure to see the connect between Lib Dem austerity and Starmer Labour Party is one of the reasons your saying strange things like this
It’s very strange to accuse others of supporting a hypothetically dictator when Starmer(The guy you want everyone to vote for)yesterday agreed with the PM bypassing parliament in order to bomb other country.
Which again other was another broken pledge
Last edited:
From reading this thread, it seems like people have an issue with broken pledges, and that they don't place much trust in people with a history of breaking their promises. It's quite weird to go from there to claim that people have an issue with manifestos and pledges in general, and even more of a stretch to get to dictatorships.
Although tbh this does sum up my politics
It's the lack of a coherent plan that lets you know it's not really a concern for them. Wes Streeting is very obviously looking to sell off large parts of the NHS, if you've been following his comments at any point over the last few years you can see that this will be a certainty under this version labour.
Like I've said for many years now, this version of labour is ideologically the same as the Tories. Same bigotry. Same adherence to the status quo. Same fiscal policies. Same shady lobbying practices. There is no point in voting for these ghouls because then you end up with more of the same shit for 40 years rather than 1 election cycle. Only if right wing labour fails can we have a credible alternative.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23932636.wes-streeting-wants-nhs-wide-open-private-sector/
https://www.theguardian.com/society...s-uses-winter-crisis-excuse-more-money-labour
Kids brush their teeth in school. Good stuff, a nineteen seventies idea that has the potential to alleviate a tiny amount of pressure on the NHS in years to come.
As far as back-of-a-fag-packet plans go, it's a start.
So now cancer care, social care, dealing with an elderly population, the doctor strikes, crumbling infrastructure, the lack of NHS dentists for every other generation.
Does Kier have a simple fix for these which won't cost his paymasters anything? There's only so much money he can save by not doing anything. Perhaps he's one day going to have acknowledged the gross inequality in the UK and do something about it.
I know, I know. Ming vase, highly polished floor, right?
As far as back-of-a-fag-packet plans go, it's a start.
So now cancer care, social care, dealing with an elderly population, the doctor strikes, crumbling infrastructure, the lack of NHS dentists for every other generation.
Does Kier have a simple fix for these which won't cost his paymasters anything? There's only so much money he can save by not doing anything. Perhaps he's one day going to have acknowledged the gross inequality in the UK and do something about it.
I know, I know. Ming vase, highly polished floor, right?
1. Why does it matter if it was a policy in the 70s or 80s? It was a good policy and it’s great that’s it’s being revived.
2. “A tiny amount of pressure on the NHS” - it’s the No.1 cause of hospitalisation for 6-10yr olds, and then the inherent issues that’ll follow them as a result.
3. Back of a fat packet idea - not quite. It’s linked with the provisions for increased FSM and breakfast clubs, meaning kids get more consistent meals and nutrition, and build habits that’ll see a major part of their health maintained to a higher standard. That has a ripple effect on their lives.
4. This will help “deal with an elderly population” as, from a purely capitalist approach, healthier kids grow up to be healthier workers ->fewer health-related benefits and more tax income to help with social care etc.
5. If you’re looking for ‘simple fixes’ then go have a look at the Reform or Reclaim literature- they’re full of simple solutions because they don’t have to actually care about winning power. That’s Labour’s / Starmer’s intention, as you can’t change anything from the opposition benches.
6. So who exactly are his ‘paymasters’?
But they're so different to the Tories!
1) I've said it's not a bad idea, it's not a new one, but that's fine. It's hardly a revolutionary idea though, is it?
2) As I say, it can have a tiny impact, I've yet to see anyone from the NHS out on the streets declaring that it will be saved. It won't be because of this if it happens, because let's face it, without even having been in power, Starmer has abandoned almost as many ideas as he's ever had.
3) Again, it's a nice, very small p policy that could be part of a bigger one. Will we get that? Who knows?
4) So the teeth brushing, if it happens will be the match that lights the fire that burns the NHS crisis to the ground. As an 80d kid who was told only yesterday he'd need another filling, I doubt that.
5) You have a 20 point lead. The country is in the shit. There's no excuse for having no ideas. It's pathetic and you know it's not because they'll be bold in power, it's just an excuse to buy you time until your team is in an you've "won".
6) Murdoch? His friends at Davros? Banks? Hedgefunds?
Basically what any responsible people would do, without knowing how you will fund it how do you make any grand plans to spend without spooking the markets, Liz Truss wanted tax cuts but never worked out how to fund them how did that work out.
This is how you sound btw
Murdoch is Starmer’s paymaster? Here is page one results when you search for ‘The Sun Keir Starmer’
- Starmer was head of CPS during Horizon scandal, Tories seek amswers
- Starmer worked for free to save baby killers and axe murderers
- Sunak slams Starmer for having no plan
- Keir Starmer must never be forgiven for using a spurious medieval loophole to put investigative journalism in the dock
- Sir Keir and Sir Ed are at heart of Post Office knightmare – they looked other way instead of helping the little people
As for the Davros/Banking/Hedgefund lot, aren’t they the non-dom lot whose loopholes Starmer is looking to close?
Liz Truss wanted unfunded tax cuts to help the wealthiest (funny how they say they’re against the Metropolitan Liberal Elite, yet all of their policies are beneficial to them!) and it nearly collapsed our economy.
What do you think would happen if, going the other way (ideologically I’m all for it, seeing it as a long term investment in the country), Starmer announced £50bn of borrowing?
Davros would draw the line at hanging around with Epstein though.
I suspect it will be virtually impossible, the world situation is changing, and in the UK some fundamental changes (in my terms, a 'social contract') will need to be made first. Whilst lots of people would vote differently if they could, there is not a great ground swell of opinion mounting to try to persuade any future HM government to reapply to the EU.
The EU itself is only 'trundling along', the political will to move forward has disappeared, it would take the arrival of another Jacques Delor to lay down the future 'lines of travel'and persuade governments to take it.
Trade between the EU and the UK is important, but most politicians in both camps and in particular those who survived the Brexit debacle, will stay firmly away from even a hint of the same arguments reappearing. There are too many other important issues arising, climate, energy, migration, etc that all want managing not just in the EU and UK, but across the northern hemisphere in response to changes in the southern hemisphere.
Power is shifting, East and South, challenges to the US domination is occurring and the present middle east situation is likely to be the catalyst for further developments, many balanced on a knife edge for years to come, especially if Trump gets re-elected.
France and Germany will have a hard time holding the EU steady, many of the eastern EU members are already looking over their shoulders, not just about Ukraine, but about what happens next.
Under pressure and with due diligence rules and regulations can be amended, the UK has (wisely in my opinion) decided to keep most of its EU 'friendly' laws this will be somewhere for Starmer to start looking how to fix the post Brexit situation.
Last edited: