Starmer

Tangerinemoss said:
I keep hoping they will be more radical if they get in, but even I wonder
Click to expand...
They/he really needs to start now. Breaking promises before they have even been implemented isn’t a good look.
There are still a huge number of voters who are hanging in the balance, myself one of them, who need to see that changes are a coming and will make a difference.
I think Labour need someone with a sharper edge and more backbone than Starmer. The country is crying out for that from the major opposition party.
 
There are basically two choices at the forthcoming GE. A vote for the “Nasty” Party and another five years of lies, sleaze, stealth taxes and a continuance of everything being broken, including the NHS, railways, roads, criminal justice system, education, defence, cost of living etc etc. Or, a vote to give the Labour Party a chance to try and improve things.
It’s a fairly simple choice. Think about it!
 
EPM46 said:
There are basically two choices at the forthcoming GE. A vote for the “Nasty” Party and another five years of lies, sleaze, stealth taxes and a continuance of everything being broken, including the NHS, railways, roads, criminal justice system, education, defence, cost of living etc etc. Or, a vote to give the Labour Party a chance to try and improve things.
It’s a fairly simple choice. Think about it!
Click to expand...
I won’t be voting Tory, that’s for certain. But I will look at all the other available options. think Labour have it in the bag for sure anyway, but I’m just looking for more from them. It’s been a long time as you say, so whoever gets in needs to make a strong and positive difference now. Bold leadership is required with real impact making policies.
 
Lala said:
They/he really needs to start now. Breaking promises before they have even been implemented isn’t a good look.
There are still a huge number of voters who are hanging in the balance, myself one of them, who need to see that changes are a coming and will make a difference.
I think Labour need someone with a sharper edge and more backbone than Starmer. The country is crying out for that from the major opposition party.
Click to expand...
Totally agree LaLa, for me Starmer is definitely not the answer.
 
No disrespect to anyone’s viewpoint, but I really think that British people in general have to recognise that the mainstream political parties are all variants of the same outlook and approach. In effect all of our politicians with few exceptions serve the interests of corporations, including the banking system. These corporations are international/multi-national. Our governments are more concerned with the interests of foreign capitalists than the people of Britain. The US system is exactly the same. Biden will spend billions on promoting strife abroad, but allow the water crisis in Michigan to roll on after over a decade. The UK needs an economic and social revolution in order to renew and revitalise. The last time we had one was in the 1640s. That led the way to a great leap forward on all fronts. Right now voting in elections at any level is akin to the proverbial rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
 
EPM46 said:
There are basically two choices at the forthcoming GE. A vote for the “Nasty” Party and another five years of lies, sleaze, stealth taxes and a continuance of everything being broken, including the NHS, railways, roads, criminal justice system, education, defence, cost of living etc etc. Or, a vote to give the Labour Party a chance to try and improve things.
It’s a fairly simple choice. Think about it!
Click to expand...
Reform for me. Rising in the polls all the time.

Labour will get in anyway, but if people had a backbone and stopped being conned by a corrupt voting system that keeps the main parties in power then things could actually change. A system where rather than voting for whose polices most suit. You end up going tactically to keep others out.

Even another party that also wanted a proportional representation system would be better then the usual 2.

How much better would it be if in a safe Labour or Conservative seat that your vote actually mattered equally, rather than being meaningless.

There's almost no point voting if you're in that situation which can't be right.

We also need actual strong leadership and things will only get more out of control under Labour, who are certainly not going to het any sort of grip on immigration or random people arriving by boats.
 
Lala said:
They/he really needs to start now. Breaking promises before they have even been implemented isn’t a good look.
There are still a huge number of voters who are hanging in the balance, myself one of them, who need to see that changes are a coming and will make a difference.
I think Labour need someone with a sharper edge and more backbone than Starmer. The country is crying out for that from the major opposition party.
Click to expand...
Labour seems transfixed by the Tory tax and spend narrative. Why can't they make the case that we need to mend this country and that's going to require long-term spending and is what a responsible government that cares about its people would do. Long-term spending becomes becomes the thing which people would vote for if you only made it you're selling point but instead we get "we're going to stick to Tory spending plans because otherwise we will be seen as irresponsible".
 
Lost Seasider said:
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Labour and their supporters discover there's no money to spend.
Click to expand...
Its quite striking what we find we can afford. In the bank bailout the govt issued £124 billion in loans and share purchases. In the pandemic it spent £300-400 billion, much of it squandered. They were throwing money around like water but as soon as there is something the poorest in society need there is suddenly no money available.

There is a theory money is something the government has complete control over, like a monopoly. So government debt isn't a big problem because the government can always make more money to manage its debts but it doesn't have to raise all the money it spends and can basically magic spending into existence. The only real issue with spending too much money is inflation, which happens when the economy is at full capacity. so it needs then to increase taxes to reduce how much money people have to spend. The pandemic seemed to be a vindication of it.
 
JJpool said:
Reform for me. Rising in the polls all the time.

Labour will get in anyway, but if people had a backbone and stopped being conned by a corrupt voting system that keeps the main parties in power then things could actually change. A system where rather than voting for whose polices most suit. You end up going tactically to keep others out.

Even another party that also wanted a proportional representation system would be better then the usual 2.

How much better would it be if in a safe Labour or Conservative seat that your vote actually mattered equally, rather than being meaningless.

There's almost no point voting if you're in that situation which can't be right.

We also need actual strong leadership and things will only get more out of control under Labour, who are certainly not going to het any sort of grip on immigration or random people arriving by boats.
Click to expand...
Whilst I disagree with you politically, I agree with your analysis of what needs to change, ie PR. As said above, most of our votes make no difference, and to see upstanding citizens like BfCPete thinking about not voting, is horrendous and totally understandable.
 
I think the increase in social media and almost 24/7 scrutiny of politicians, has uncovered many flaws, which weren’t visible even 10/20 years ago. I’m sure if the same scrutiny had been available then, our faith in our political system would have been much different.
 
Beachcomber said:
No disrespect to anyone’s viewpoint, but I really think that British people in general have to recognise that the mainstream political parties are all variants of the same outlook and approach. In effect all of our politicians with few exceptions serve the interests of corporations, including the banking system. These corporations are international/multi-national. Our governments are more concerned with the interests of foreign capitalists than the people of Britain. The US system is exactly the same. Biden will spend billions on promoting strife abroad, but allow the water crisis in Michigan to roll on after over a decade. The UK needs an economic and social revolution in order to renew and revitalise. The last time we had one was in the 1640s. That led the way to a great leap forward on all fronts. Right now voting in elections at any level is akin to the proverbial rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Click to expand...
Fundamentally we suffer from the effects of the five year election cycle. Why should a party spend billions on mending hospitals and schools etc when a different party may reap the benefits in 5-10 years time. But yes, absolutely, we should be resisting when we see politicians responding to special interests, truncating democracy because they're not listening to the people but they're listening to lobby groups or listening to particular powerful people. It's quite disappointing to see how Labour is missing open goal after open goal (like Rhodes against Charlton). There should be a maximum level on individual donations that are donated to parties. At the moment we have this oligarchic funding by a small number of people (or the interests they represent) who supply the bulk of a party's (namely the Tories) funds and as a result achieve massive disproportionate influence over politics. There's a golden opportunity for labour to say this is corrupt, let's end it.
 
Dr Hfuhruhurr said:
Its quite striking what we find we can afford. In the bank bailout the govt issued £124 billion in loans and share purchases. In the pandemic it spent £300-400 billion, much of it squandered. They were throwing money around like water but as soon as there is something the poorest in society need there is suddenly no money available.
Click to expand...

The bank bailouts were mostly guarantees, and the actual transfers were mostly repaid, Covid is the reason there is no money available.


Dr Hfuhruhurr said:
There is a theory money is something the government has complete control over, like a monopoly. So government debt isn't a big problem because the government can always make more money to manage its debts but it doesn't have to raise all the money it spends and can basically magic spending into existence. The only real issue with spending too much money is inflation, which happens when the economy is at full capacity. so it needs then to increase taxes to reduce how much money people have to spend. The pandemic seemed to be a vindication of it.
Click to expand...

How well did that work out for Argentina, or Zimbabwe, or Weimar Germany for that matter?
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Whilst I disagree with you politically, I agree with your analysis of what needs to change, ie PR. As said above, most of our votes make no difference, and to see upstanding citizens like BfCPete thinking about not voting, is horrendous and totally understandable.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have decided to spoil my ballot paper, because that gets registered as a protest. Not voting at all just gets judged as apathy
 
voting reform is what is needed.

A UK ruling party has not received more than 50% of the vote since 1931.

We have had Tory governments with the power to impoverish our communities and the country's regions when not even half of us have voted for them, in all that time.

Force the politicians to form a coalition that represents the population, force them to compromise and co-operate, force them to account for every voter not their party membership.

The current crop of politicians would be immediately redundant, being as they are incapable of any of those things.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Bottling it, no social care or environment reforms and dropped the House of Lords plans.

What's the fucing point then beyond 'not Tory'? We need government that will actually effect change.
Click to expand...
The great British public had the chance of decent government with Corbyn but instead chose a proven narcissist and liar because they seriously believed that Tories even knew they existed. It's no better with Sunak who despises you, all Tories despise you but somehow so many cretins think otherwise. Good luck to you all you now have Tory lite to vote for, enjoy.
 
Foolweary said:
voting reform is what is needed.

A UK ruling party has not received more than 50% of the vote since 1931.

We have had Tory governments with the power to impoverish our communities and the country's regions when not even half of us have voted for them, in all that time.

Force the politicians to form a coalition that represents the population, force them to compromise and co-operate, force them to account for every voter not their party membership.

The current crop of politicians would be immediately redundant, being as they are incapable of any of those things.
Click to expand...
Reform are more to the right than the current lot. That isn't reforming anything, just further down the road to dictatorship.

Edit, realised you're talking about voting reform. I agree.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Whilst I disagree with you politically, I agree with your analysis of what needs to change, ie PR. As said above, most of our votes make no difference, and to see upstanding citizens like BfCPete thinking about not voting, is horrendous and totally understandable.
Click to expand...
Yep, when UKIP got 4 million votes that time and 1 MP was it, whether people agreed with them or not, it's not right and I'd say the same for a party like the Liberal Democrats or anyone.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The bank bailouts were mostly guarantees, and the actual transfers were mostly repaid, Covid is the reason there is no money available.




How well did that work out for Argentina, or Zimbabwe, or Weimar Germany for that matter?
Click to expand...
Current lack of money goes back way before covid. Ecomonic effects of covid were magnified by generations of under investment in the NHS. That's about government choices on spending since Thatcher.

Not saying pure MMT is the answer necessarily but regardless the Argies relied too much on printing money and forgot about inflation. Zimbabwe buggered up production with their land reforms and the govt and politics generally were a basket case. So they printed money but had no production to back it up = hyperinflation. Don't know much about the inter war Germany but I assume they just printed money to pay for post WW1, which is too simplistic.
 
Dr Hfuhruhurr said:
Current lack of money goes back way before covid. Ecomonic effects of covid were magnified by generations of under investment in the NHS. That's about government choices on spending since Thatcher.
Click to expand...
There's "no money", and there's "NO MONEY", post Covid we're very much in the latter situation.


Dr Hfuhruhurr said:
Not saying pure MMT is the answer necessarily but regardless the Argies relied too much on printing money and forgot about inflation. Zimbabwe buggered up production with their land reforms and the govt and politics generally were a basket case. So they printed money but had no production to back it up = hyperinflation. Don't know much about the inter war Germany but I assume they just printed money to pay for post WW1, which is too simplistic.
Click to expand...
So government debt is a bit of a problem after all.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Bottling it, no social care or environment reforms and dropped the House of Lords plans.

What's the fucing point then beyond 'not Tory'? We need government that will actually effect change.
Click to expand...
Surprised that you're surprised by Starmer, hes an institutionalist at heart so not upsetting the apple cart is his stock in trade. He will do nothing radical, at best he will tinker at the edges of economic policy, introduce some vague new legislation for corps and environments which wont be too onerous to set the markets and hence the daily mail off on one, he will probably introduce quite a lot of legislation that will impede day to day living in the same way Blair did.

The interesting thing is that Angela Rayner seems to be moving rightwards as well.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Surprised that you're surprised by Starmer, hes an institutionalist at heart so not upsetting the apple cart is his stock in trade. He will do nothing radical, at best he will tinker at the edges of economic policy, introduce some vague new legislation for corps and environments which wont be too onerous to set the markets and hence the daily mail off on one, he will probably introduce quite a lot of legislation that will impede day to day living in the same way Blair did.

The interesting thing is that Angela Rayner seems to be moving rightwards as well.
Click to expand...
Would you prefer Sunak instead? No other choice!
 
He’s a fcuking clueless “yes man” with no original ideas or charisma, but will still no doubt win the GE at a canter given how most are fed up of Tory rule. I’d rather they put 81 year old Neil Kinnock in charge.
 
Only other country that has our voting system in Europe is Belarus says it all really.

So we've a choice between Gonorreah or Syphylis as choice for our next leader.

Sunak and Starmer you'd be confused which one was left or right both utterly shite.

We need PR in this country but like America who are going to end up with two old farts slogging it out it won't happen.
 
I'm more optimistic than most on here.
Starmer has experience of running a big organisation (the CPS) and he would be the first PM for a while who has had this. Very good experience for being PM. I am pretty sure that he will not play the culture wars game that Sunak is doing (and the rest before him) - hopefully he will try to unify and not divide the country - again for me a positive. We will move back towards Europe, I optimistically expect some rights to be restored on a piecemeal basis - for me this would be a positive thing. We may well get a different and more advantageous trade deal with the EU, Starmer has already held private discussions with them. I think he will command more respect on the international stage than the last 3 or 4 PMs - again a positive. Rachel Reeves is a proper economist who understands markets, she would be a steady hand (which is what the economy needs) and a clear economic policy should prompt more investment - again a more positive thing. I don't care if he is boring, I don't care if he lacks charisma, I just want the adults back in charge of the country.
 
Lala said:
There are other choices. What you mean is if not Tory then we should vote Labour. It’s not democratic to push it on us that only 2 choices are available.
Click to expand...
Realistically, there are only two choices as to who will become PM after the next election. You can obviously vote for whoever you want!
 
This is a broken country.

People are more divided and isolated than ever before. An absolute sense of entitlement is rife.

Our infrastructure and institutions are too f@@ked to be anywhere near recovered in probably 3 or 4 voting cycles.

There is no compassion - from either of the main parties. It’s actually all about them having their turn in charge at the expense of meaningful change for the bettter.

all we have is to vote where your conscience points you and hope it works….

…unfortunately that seems to be all the control we have.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
JJ a possibility for me too. I despise the Tories at the mo, but we have an excellent Tory MP where I live so I have a difficult decision.

One thing for sure is that I will never vote for that t@@@ Starmer and therefore not Labour.
Click to expand...
Far stronger leader than Labour or the Tories can seemingly muster. Would love see a common sense leader for once, straight speaker.

Starmer said it's wrong to say only women have a cervix and struggled with the 'can women have a penis' question.

How can this man lead when he can't even define the basics of biology? I get he knows and is just trying to not to offend, even though basic factual biology shouldn't be offensive. No backbone to answer it seemed.

But even a skilled woke politician could have got round that. Or even better a straight factual talker would have answered easily.
 
Starmer won't be setting up his family's companies with dozens of contracts, like Sunak is with Infosys, in collaboration with other Ministers, including Rees Mogg, who it turns out, has holdings in Infosys.

How they are getting away with such blatant corruption defies belief, yet some still try and push that the Tories are doing their best.

www.mirror.co.uk

Top Tory accused of offering 'VIP lane' for Rishi Sunak's wife's firm in UK

A Mirror Investigation has revealed details of a meeting between a top Conservative operator and the tech company in which Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's wife Akshata has £624m in shares
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Wizaard said:
Starmer won't be setting up his family's companies with dozens of contracts, like Sunak is with Infosys, in collaboration with other Ministers, including Rees Mogg, who it turns out, has holdings in Infosys.

How they are getting away with such blatant corruption defies belief, yet some still try and push that the Tories are doing their best.

www.mirror.co.uk

Top Tory accused of offering 'VIP lane' for Rishi Sunak's wife's firm in UK

A Mirror Investigation has revealed details of a meeting between a top Conservative operator and the tech company in which Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's wife Akshata has £624m in shares
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
Click to expand...
novaramedia.com

The Corruption Behind Starmer’s Rise Has Finally Been Exposed | Novara Media

Details are starting to emerge of the most secretive and dishonest leadership campaign in the history of British politics.
novaramedia.com novaramedia.com

Pot calling kettle black again ?
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
novaramedia.com

The Corruption Behind Starmer’s Rise Has Finally Been Exposed | Novara Media

Details are starting to emerge of the most secretive and dishonest leadership campaign in the history of British politics.
novaramedia.com novaramedia.com

Pot calling kettle black again ?
Click to expand...
I just read the article, I felt it was a non story and I think that is the reason why no mainstream media has touched it. In short, nothing happened. There is no accusation of law breaking and it just reads like sour grapes . Politics is politics, Starmer will have business people who back him, like Johnson, Truss or Sunak and there will always be factions within our political parties - just look at the Conservatives. Starmer won the leadership contest convincingly and has done a lot to move Labour back towards the centre so much so that they now look like a convincing opposition. That, IMO, is a good thing for British politics. Lots of people on here are underwhelmed with the choice on offer, it could be a lot worse; McDonell vs Sunak for instance.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I just read the article, I felt it was a non story and I think that is the reason why no mainstream media has touched it. In short, nothing happened. There is no accusation of law breaking and it just reads like sour grapes . Politics is politics, Starmer will have business people who back him, like Johnson, Truss or Sunak and there will always be factions within our political parties - just look at the Conservatives. Starmer won the leadership contest convincingly and has done a lot to move Labour back towards the centre so much so that they now look like a convincing opposition. That, IMO, is a good thing for British politics. Lots of people on here are underwhelmed with the choice on offer, it could be a lot worse; McDonell vs Sunak for instance.
Click to expand...
To be fair EBSN, my post was a little dig at Wiz who's one of the most blanketed political opinions on this Forum.

He consistently posts negatives about the Tories without seemingly EVER posting something negative about the Labour Party.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
To be fair EBSN, my post was a little dig at Wiz who's one of the most blanketed political opinions on this Forum.

He consistently posts negatives about the Tories without seemingly EVER posting something negative about the Labour Party.
Click to expand...
I can accept that but on this I think that Wizz has a point. Some of what has happened with government contracts in recent years looks at the very least like cronyism if not corruption. It should be investigated.
 
Wizaard said:
Starmer won't be setting up his family's companies with dozens of contracts, like Sunak is with Infosys, in collaboration with other Ministers, including Rees Mogg, who it turns out, has holdings in Infosys.

How they are getting away with such blatant corruption defies belief, yet some still try and push that the Tories are doing their best.

www.mirror.co.uk

Top Tory accused of offering 'VIP lane' for Rishi Sunak's wife's firm in UK

A Mirror Investigation has revealed details of a meeting between a top Conservative operator and the tech company in which Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's wife Akshata has £624m in shares
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
Click to expand...
The problem is though that voting for a party just because they aren’t as corrupt as another party, is a pretty lame vote.

I don’t think many are pushing for the Tories now.

But maybe the electorate need to be bold and strike out for something other than the 2 main parties if there are others that suit our individual needs and beliefs more.
We are enabling the 2 party rule by not being brave enough ourselves to vote for real changes. And it may take time for any other party to break through enough to make a difference, but is that a good reason to not try to effect change ?
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I'm more optimistic than most on here.
Starmer has experience of running a big organisation (the CPS) and he would be the first PM for a while who has had this. Very good experience for being PM. I am pretty sure that he will not play the culture wars game that Sunak is doing (and the rest before him) - hopefully he will try to unify and not divide the country - again for me a positive. We will move back towards Europe, I optimistically expect some rights to be restored on a piecemeal basis - for me this would be a positive thing. We may well get a different and more advantageous trade deal with the EU, Starmer has already held private discussions with them. I think he will command more respect on the international stage than the last 3 or 4 PMs - again a positive. Rachel Reeves is a proper economist who understands markets, she would be a steady hand (which is what the economy needs) and a clear economic policy should prompt more investment - again a more positive thing. I don't care if he is boring, I don't care if he lacks charisma, I just want the adults back in charge of the country.
Click to expand...
i dont think its just that Starmer is boring or lacks charisma - i dont think hes that much different form the Current Tories in charge. as head of the CPS he consistently came down on the side of government and government agencies when they were clearly in the wrong. He jumps on almost any bandwagon and will not make important decisons for fear of being unpopular. This current crop of Tories are possibly the most venal and self serving that have ever been in power, is Starmer as bad as that - no! but he is as out of touch and I'm not convinced that he has either the policies or the motivation to rectify or even possibly slow the grind of the social and economic policies of the last 50 years; wealth disparity and reduced opportunity, impossible living costs including housing, failing education system, crumbling health service, ecological crisis etc etc.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I just read the article, I felt it was a non story and I think that is the reason why no mainstream media has touched it. In short, nothing happened. There is no accusation of law breaking and it just reads like sour grapes . Politics is politics, Starmer will have business people who back him, like Johnson, Truss or Sunak and there will always be factions within our political parties - just look at the Conservatives. Starmer won the leadership contest convincingly and has done a lot to move Labour back towards the centre so much so that they now look like a convincing opposition. That, IMO, is a good thing for British politics. Lots of people on here are underwhelmed with the choice on offer, it could be a lot worse; McDonell vs Sunak for instance.
Click to expand...
Why do you want labour to be centrist? genuine question.

A centrist position in these times is a capital biased, supply side economic model with an acceptance of large corporate and government hegemony, and people just have to live within that - they are a resource to those corporate and government interests
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top