Look Corbyn's history, he's never coming back so you and those who are likeminded really need to get over it.
I'm not sure where this fascination with Corbyn comes from. The manifesto that Corbyn's Labour put out is what we want more of (or even some of). Starmer promised to keep the bulk of it as is. Starmer has since back-tracked on almost all of it. I don't want Corbyn back. I want what was promised to secure the leadership vote.
I don't know how many times I've said on here I'm just Labour. I've supported every leader since 1983. Centre, Centre Left, Centre Right means nothing to me they're just 'labels'.
This is just falling into the old football team analogy - once a red, always a red. Those different 'labels' carry meaning. Maybe you don't care about that but others do. The labels come from the proposed policies and actions of politicians. They don't spring up from a vacuum. We all have red-lines with our politics but rarely get anywhere near them whilst voting for our traditional 'side'. Starmer has already crossed a number of lines that make me feel very uneasy about voting for his Labour Party (in so far as the leader defines the direction of travel).
The current guy has the biggest movement to labour that I've probably ever seen, and I don't see many going the other way.
They might not be going the other way but the membership has been decimated under Starmer. Labour's own figures show that.
The influx under Corbyn was significantly higher and I'm presuming you're old enough to have seen that..?
Anyone can Google it but who's actually in the establishment? Give me some names or actual organisations, companies etc.
It's complicated because there are people in traditionally establishment positions (e.g. House of Lords) who are clearly not establishement figures.
However, with that caveat in mind, the establishment is essentially the long-standing people, houses/families and companies that have maintained a position at the top tables and who influence the running of the country (and the direction it runs in) wihtout ever having to stand for election - usually through civil service of some sort. Parts of the City of London, for instance. Most of the nobility. Generational army families where there are successive high ranks etc.
The people are almost exclusively educated via the public school system. It isn't a massive secret. It also isn't hard to find information if you really want to.
And Starmer's part of it and is 'their man'?
Starmer in on the periphery and is highly likely to have had 'favours' from 'sponsors' (essentially patronage). He was head of the CPS. He will know the people mentioned above intimately.
I agree the country is on it's harris but I tend to think the worse it gets the more people will want a change of leadership so will give Labour a big majority. I don't think we'll see voter apathy and swathes stay at home.
So why not take that opportunity to really make a difference instead of trying to pacify the people who are least likely to bother moving to Labour if they don't vote Tory?
Once again you miss the point by poking at the detail (without wishing to offend, you are worse than some of the closet Tories on here for that) a truly right wing country would not have an NHS of any description or a system which gives access to world class higher education for everybody.
Do you think if the Tories were given a free choice we would have an NHS or higher education for anybody other than the wealthy at all?
No offence taken. The point was that the country has moved right over the past x years (40 was mentioned). You can't argue that it hasn't moved right because there's an NHS on it's knees when the movement to the right is WHY it's on it's knees. Yes, there would be no NHS under a Tory government where the NHS didn't already exist, but it does (at time of writing).
Same with education (and most of the other points on your list). If the argument is we need Labour to give us back the things we've had taken away, then I agree. If the argument is we need Starmer's Labour to keep things as they are right now then I disagree. We should be able to provide care and education (and a whole host of other things) without any major economic problems. If we choose not to then we fail at basic humanity.
Again on a costed manifesto, how were waspie women costed, for the second time?
The WASPI women weren't costed. For the same reasons that Covid and the War in Ukraine weren't costed by the Tories. It was something that came up after the manifesto and costings were published (I think it had been bubbling for some time but wasn' t a major talking point).
It was a bad political move to announce funding without sorting out the costing first. It was the correct moral position though and the WASPI women deserve to be treated with dignity. If that adds costs to the economy due to the inept actions of government then so be it.
As with the public sector pay rises that are being discussed now, it wouldn't be an issue if it had been dealt with properly at the correct time.
Normally it's a good idea to back a horse which can win you something, even if it might not be the 100-1 payout you want.
So why didn't this apply to Centrists in 2019? Again, why does it only ever apply to the left?
Scrote knows his stuff. You should maybe try to listen to him.
My opinion is as relevant as anyone's.
I agree with both these points. Especially Bumface's