If nothing else, it was a handy demonstration as to how much they actually believe their previous comment about how anyone who doesn't back Labour is deserving of insults. But whatever you do, don't following Campbell's example and take a Labour leader off or Drainy will recommend people listen to you, rather than rage baiters. We won't get into how Alistair fecking Campbell doesn't meet that definition.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
A three legged donkey with a red rosette should win the next GE quite easily.
Question is what happens the day after the election and the subsequent five years.
People say that Starmer and his team are keeping quiet but they're not and at this point I'd have more faith in the three-legged donkey being good for the UK but also taking into consideration that the Tories and Reform are even worse.
Question is what happens the day after the election and the subsequent five years.
People say that Starmer and his team are keeping quiet but they're not and at this point I'd have more faith in the three-legged donkey being good for the UK but also taking into consideration that the Tories and Reform are even worse.
Do you think Corbyn would win the election if he was still leader?
The winning labour strategy was the Tories collapsing the economy
Honestly, get a grip.Notwithstanding the fact that she was pretty much senile by that point, it’s also a massive pile of rubbish. Minimum wage, constitutional reform, Agenda for Change (NHS), Good Friday agreement, progression of LGBT rights etc, would never, ever have happened under her.
Yes, obviously.
No but because I don't rate Starmer doesn't mean I rate Corbyn.
The problem is that the Tories can reconfigure and be back in 2029, possibly even worse than they are now.
The deregulation of the financial sector, the Iraq war, the demonisation of immigrants, the global financial crash and the covert sale of the NHS to private enterprise. Guess which ones have been more long lasting and impactful?
Good luck with this one! A lot of people can’t, for some reason, acknowledge this. We’ve had one, ONE, labour leader in the last 50 years who has won an election, and that’s Blair. Corbyn, whose heart was clearly in the right place, was basically a guarantor of perpetual Tory government.
Wait, you’re blaming Tony Blair for the financial crash? And btw I actually work in the NHS, and have done since 2001. That labour govt invested billions and reduced waiting lists by an absolutely extraordinary amount. I’ll give you the Iraq war though:
I reckon it would be close since Truss happened, but probably Sunak would win.
That said, we'd probably still have Boris if it was Corbyn. He was such a non-entity as an opposition leader the Tories would have gotten him through his scandals either through a lack of it being properly revealed over the months through PMQs or by just ignoring it because they would think they can get away with it
The deregulation of the financial sector sure as feck didn't help. If you work for the NHS you must know that he did covertly sell off parts of the NHS then. I've also read that the PFI scheme that he introduced has been an unmitigated disaster.
Not forgetting...
- Normalised benefit cuts by doing it almost immediately after winning in 1997, on the basis that it'll 'get people back into work'. Another cornerstone of Tory mindset and establishing the scrounger rhetoric the country will never recover from.
- Blair boasting about Britain having the most restrictive anti-trade union laws in the western world and long before the pearl clutching about Rwanda and Sunak's ideas to 'stop the boats' started was saying he'd review ‘obligations we have under the Convention on Human Rights’ if it helped stop illegal immigrants.
- On the subject of current pearl clutching we had Margaret Hodge, whilst a minister, saying ‘indigenous’ Britons should be given priority over housing and Phil Woolas, as immigration minister, attacking charities/lawyers of being an ‘industry’ with a ‘vested interest’ that helped refugees stay in the UK.
- Justified the austerity rhetoric of the past decade and a half by heading into the 2010 general election by having Alastair Darling saying he would cut spending deeper than Margaret Thatcher and impose ‘two parliaments of pain’.
- Established Yarls Wood before outsourcing it to those wonderful guys at Serco, at one point detaining 2,000 children a year there. (No idea if they painted over any Mickey Mouse murals so who knows if that's bad or not)
- Detained people indefinitely without charge under so called terror legislation that turned out to be illegal.
- Started the 'health tourism' and 'benefit tourism' bollocks regarding immigration that still infests our media 20 years later.
Last edited:
Most of the country would be dead before that happened!
We're championing Alastair Campbell again? Wonderful, Labour truly is back.
What's going to be Starmer's Iraq then? (Assuming he get's bored of championing the Israeli genocidal/ethnic cleansing adventure). Full marks if he fully revives the ID cards idea too.
What's going to be Starmer's Iraq then? (Assuming he get's bored of championing the Israeli genocidal/ethnic cleansing adventure). Full marks if he fully revives the ID cards idea too.
You'll rip your hair out trying to debate these types of people. Their political views are a bizarre mix that are full of basic contradictions. Tbh I'm not sure they understand their own politics.
Not championing, listening to his insight into his specialism. You know, political communications
I'd like to see a poll. Will you vote for Labour at the next GE or not. Generally doesn't happen in major CE threads except around election time but the results would be interesting.
I would vote Labour with the same set of doubts and general skepticism that some others will vote Labour with. I'd then argue for a radical reformation, in a serious way, if they start missing targets or go for any neolib 2.0 strategy. I don't think the market will allow it. I could be wrong, but the trend with Biden-nomics, despite the losses, is a renationalization and reindustrialization as panacea to the ravages of neoliberalism (actually what Adam Smith wrote when he mentioned the famous "hidden hand" in centralized economic policy, albeit not yet massive).
Trump will not overturn CHIPS or those large bills Biden passed. I cannot see a Britain which has put everything it has on AUKUS going too far from American orthodoxy in economic matters despite trade differences in geographic terms.
I would vote Labour with the same set of doubts and general skepticism that some others will vote Labour with. I'd then argue for a radical reformation, in a serious way, if they start missing targets or go for any neolib 2.0 strategy. I don't think the market will allow it. I could be wrong, but the trend with Biden-nomics, despite the losses, is a renationalization and reindustrialization as panacea to the ravages of neoliberalism (actually what Adam Smith wrote when he mentioned the famous "hidden hand" in centralized economic policy, albeit not yet massive).
Trump will not overturn CHIPS or those large bills Biden passed. I cannot see a Britain which has put everything it has on AUKUS going too far from American orthodoxy in economic matters despite trade differences in geographic terms.
His speciality is mental health advocacy. Except if someone who makes his work life more difficult gets hounded to suicide by the press in which case he finds it so utterly hilarious that he autographs a copy of the public inquiry's report to be auctioned off at a Labour fundraiser.
Poor treatment of whistleblowers is unfortunately something almost all systems have a problem with.
The irony is that most of the biometric measures in the initial proposal the Tories and Lib Dems so opposed has subsquently been introduced in other ways.
And given this government introduced photo ID for elections, which is a massive voter suppression measure and effectively a poll tax for the poor, I have no problems with a free ID card now. Free being the operative word.
Do you go to them for your political insights as well?
He's not wrong on that one. Dissidents are loved in every nation(al system) except their own. The declared democracies should have a far higher standard, though, and that is common sense. Some do, some don't.
I go to anyone who has insight, and communicates it in an interesting way for my insights.
I don't need to agree with them on everything to find some value in what they are saying if you appreciate their perspective when listening and consider it accordingly.
Starmer will be 62 this year. Sunak will be 44.
What I don't understand is at that age, with a limited time to be PM even if Labour win big, surely Starmer should be thinking big with policy ideas or generational changes to be made, akin to Thatcher or Attlee.
What I don't understand is at that age, with a limited time to be PM even if Labour win big, surely Starmer should be thinking big with policy ideas or generational changes to be made, akin to Thatcher or Attlee.
That second sentence is definitely true, as demonstrated by the lofty standards you hold random folks on here to regarding supporting Labour not applying to him and it not bothering you in the slightest
Somewhere between Thatcher and Attlee, given the middle/centrist way, which would be quite decent in surprising ways. But all in on the "middle way" if enunciated correctly: secure the baseline, complete conceptual reunderstanding of what is the welfare state with state welfare -- to simplify, housing, healthcare, and education. First home should be, and this is miles away from where Labour are, impossible to lose (some EU states have something like this). Speculate thereafter. The public baseline has to meet a decent standard whereas it is just failing on all major fronts right now. NHS is but a symbol of this failure. You cannot have a nation if you cannot meet housing, healthcare, and education standards, not one that is going to last long or be suitable for your kids to grow up in.
The only generational change Starmer is concerned about is ensuring none of his kids, their kids and their kids kids ever have to worry about a job interview because their Dad was PM once. Few years raking it in from the donors, then he's off to be a consultant, at one or two of the companies his government sends a lucrative contract to, one day a month for a couple of million a year.
I've protest voted against Labour before for some of the reasons you've listed in reasons why New Labour sucked. At least at the time it seemed like they sucked.
We've had 14 years of the Tories, I read somewhere that in that time excess deaths of disabled people are almost 60k, if you want 5 more years of that to try and get a more radical labour when the last radical labour leader was a complete failure.. I don't know what to say to you
It's sad seeing that people's moral compass' are so flimsy. Victory is all that matters to some people.
I've had to take multiple breaks from discussing politics at all because I was just walking around angry all the time. Every time I start again I quickly realise why I stopped.
5 years is definitely better than 30 to 40 years though.
Question being, do you think the Tories could sink any lower in polling? They were at 14% in one poll I read. That's where the Lib Dems were once upon a time and everyone laughed about how with fptp they were an irrelevancy. Labour is on course for a blowout election if those numbers (say 20% for the Tories instead) hold and I don't see how they won't.
They should be more aspirational (Thatcher irony) in their declared position given the gap but then they might say they're threading a fine line between letting the Tories implode and not being seen to be "left wing" in a propagandized, or traumatized, soon to be post-Tory Britain.
It would be amazing to see the Lib Dems as the official opposition and seeing the Tories crying impotently in a corner while inquiry after inquiry unravels all of their corruption.
Labour are winning the next election, it would be impossible not to.
But Labour's leading politicians are already telling us not to expect anything to improve in their first term in office. So we're going to get 5 more years of that anyway no matter who we vote for in the next election
It would, but that wouldn't happen even if they were at 5%. They gave a few scapegoats, that Baroness, and someone else, and then draw the bridge up. Labour might use the rhetoric of the popular voice when it comes to politicking but it has no real appetite to go forward with a systematic investigation into Tory corruption (there are too many ties and you-toos involved).
I'd settle for a functional political party that can enact generational change as a matter of necessity, not want. That's what Labour isn't speaking to loudly enough.
A joke on a bit of paper lead to justification for a decade and a half of austerity. What do you think a so called 'left-leaning' Chancellor, who thinks people in receipt of benefits don't even deserve the impression of political representation, is going to do for the political consensus of the next 15 years?
As I said, his strategy has been poor, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.
The reason Labour are ahead are because of the absolute nuclear scale incompetence and implosion by the Tory party.
Mr Streeting is a massive cnut
He allegedly burned down a pet shop. That is not a joke. There was this ardent Corbyn supported on Twitter which used to harass him over it and he sought legal advice and a gag order. It was, again, allegedly, part of some societal college ritual for acceptance.