I was wrong about starmer
- Thread starter ForssAwakens
- Start date
coluka
Well-known member
I appreciate we are coming at this from different positions on the political spectrum. As you will know I see myself as being more toward the centre ground but clearly left leaning (others may disagree). I also suspect we have a different view on where certain policies fit on a linear political spectrum. What you see as a right wing manifesto, many might see as a centrist one
That said, I am not suggesting Starmer is lying, but i do believe he is being economical with the truth to win power. You can’t effect change without power and to win it, you need to win the centre ground. The centre ground should not be viewed as right wing as i fear some do given where they see themselves on said spectrum. However, there are a good few in the centre who are more traditional tory lite than Labour lite, hence the need for some degree of smoke and mirrors.
Like I say once power is attained, if the necessary policies are drip fed, occuring in a period of naturally occurring growth (post Ukraine war, improving relations with the EU, lower inflation, interest rates and a more stable energy and food price) people will feel better off, see improvements and where policy is drip fed will not see or feel a lurching to the left. I genuinely feel that it can be done, wont be easy and you do things while all along planning for that crucial 2nd term so as not to scare off to many of the swing voters. Getting that 2nd term allows you to press deeper into changing more and taking the voters with you having demonstrated improvement and built a degree of trust.
All easier said than done and the devil will always be not just in the detail, but in the strategy, its implementation and the dialogue used In doing so. You have to make people see they are better off through the things mentioned and public services, NHS, crime, education, trade, job creation, affordable housing being built to reduce waiting lists etc, foodbanks shutting as need reduces etc and so forth. In a 2nd term you can ramp up things like privatisation programmes, although i think the railways could be done through stealth, just letting contracts expire over time.
I am not saying Starmer and his team will do all i envisage and go about it well, it is not an easy sell to folk, it is just how i see things could be done for the better whilst taking the electorate you need with you to see through changes for the benefit of the many.
Laughing
Well-known member
They won't be superceding it. What starmer said was to let it bed in then re-assess. His words not mine.Laughing that's wishful thinking. If what Starmers cabinet meant, was that they'd supercede the legislation with new legislation they'd say that.
You need to heed your own advice!
Starmer, i think, agrees with part of the legislation. He doesn't want to see stop oil, or any other protesters glueing themselves to the m1, for example. He agrees with the right for peaceful protest.
He has said they will revisit te legislation after the full implications become clear. He won;t do that by repealing it, it takes too long. Amendents to existing legislation are quicker to get through parliament and are, generally, the right approach.
WoodallServices
Well-known member
We have also got to appreciate the fact that whether we think it’s ridiculous, there are millions of voters who vote exactly the way their daily paper tells them to vote and luckily so far probably due to his law training he doesn’t seem to bite at the Tories goading thereby providing the headlines the rags are waiting for.
Although it’s probably pointless because when the election approaches without any ammunition they’ll just make the f*ck*r up!!
Although it’s probably pointless because when the election approaches without any ammunition they’ll just make the f*ck*r up!!
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
Repealing a law is completely unnecessary and time consuming with the HoL Tory stacked with even more affiliated cross benchers. Doing this would simply be pointless.
Amending or creating new legislation is far more efficient and it is what Labour will do as soon as practical. Only so many new laws can be brought in, the Tories are suffering from over promising right now.
A new government cannot come in and simply undo what the previous government has done. Our system does not work that way.
Amending or creating new legislation is far more efficient and it is what Labour will do as soon as practical. Only so many new laws can be brought in, the Tories are suffering from over promising right now.
A new government cannot come in and simply undo what the previous government has done. Our system does not work that way.
Wherever I've said left/right feel free to substitute whatever words you feel comfortable with.
The point is, and I think we agree, the 2024 Labour manifesto will at least be something different to the 2019 one. And new voters attracted by that change will quite rightly expect it to be stuck to once in government. If Labour divert from that, they'll likely lose (at least some of) those new voters. If they don't they'll likely lose (at least some of) the traditional voters sticking around hoping it's all just smoke and mirrors to get into parliament.
I'm not sure you can rely on much/all of that happening tbh. But fair enough, I will agree that if a bunch of external factors all line up perfectly then the government of the day will likely benefit from that.
I agree that would not be easy. In fact I'd go further - it'd be unprecedented. We've never had a government move to the left the longer it's been in office. There's two issues with that plan as far as I can see:
First governments generally don't gain trust/support as they go on. Their support usually wanes. So if the conditions are too precarious now to offer a radical agenda, if there's too much danger it'll scare off swing voters or Stevenage man or whatever, that will probably be even worse by 2029.
Secondly, the above relies on the idea that the centrists in charge of the Labour party actually secretly want left wing policies in the long term, and that they only advocate against them for electoralism. That's not the case. Mandleson et al want privatisation, and low taxes for the rich, and authoritarian laws for protestors or trade unions and all the rest of it. The party could get 13 years in government and 100+ seat majorities and this still wouldn't change because this is their politics.
I'm not saying any of the above applies to you personally. Happy to believe you are sincere about a gradualism approach and that you and I probably have a similar end goal in mind. But Starmer and those around him actually controlling the party would never be willing to take us to that end goal regardless of any periods of growth.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Yep, Blairism, centrism, 'the third way' have all become dirty words over the past 12 years or so on this board. He obviously fcuked up enormously with Iraq, like.
I disagree completely. This is a 'centrist' board. There are only about half a dozen left wing posters on here.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
HarryVegas
Well-known member
I'd prefer someone more from the left than Blair or Starmer but it's patently obvious by now to anyone not wearing blinkers that the wider country wouldn't. Fine. In that eventuality I'll take a centrist Labour PM over this bunch of crooks any day of the week.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
My thoughts entirely.
Harry has lovely hair.Who are they? Obviously not Harry after his huge lurch to the Right above.
coluka
Well-known member
Fair enough Stu, all we can do is give some rope, hope its used wisely and effectively. My biggest fear is that once in power, people generally don’t stay focussed on the goals, become complacent, self indulgent and get too embroiled in world politics rather than putting the UK and its peoples needs first. I do worry UK leaders allow themselves to be manipulated too easily by others, the USA in particular i guess, drawn in like a spiders prey into some leaders club and then pander to the priorities of others.
I have to admire that optomism Col, that's definitely not the usual ending to the "give them some rope..." metaphor!
If someone gave me some rope and put me in a room with Starmer I'd definitely use that rope wisely and effectively.I have to admire that optomism Col, that's definitely not the usual ending to the "give them some rope..." metaphor!
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
Yes, we have to be pragmatic about it in my opinion.
Often in life it is about picking the least worst option unfortunately.
Surely everyone can at least agree that the tories in power is the worst option?
No, I don't. A centre Labour is far more dangerous because it means that the average point (the swing between Tory and Labour) sits significantly right. For the Tories to win voters from a centre party they have to move to the extreme right and you end up with Trumpian rhetoric. If you have a two party system then it requires opposite sides of the spectrum to end up with a centre balanced country over time. If the Tories and Labour are looking after the interests of global businesses and billionaires then where do the other 99% of the country turn when they need representing?
A centrist Labour is the better option between the Tories and them but it is not a solution to a problem, it is the cause of a bigger problem. It's a win the battle not the war option. The sort of battle the Tories don't mind losing once in a while because in the long term they are still winning.
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
I can see your point and I kind of agree with it on a theoretical level.
My concern is that if another major battle is lost, how much of society and the country is going to be left after another tory term?
Long term there has to be a new system in place. FPTP is not working so we do need a form of PR.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Seems a lot of people have made their minds up without seeing the next Labour manifesto (not just Starmer) and having the ability to compare that to the Tory or Lib Dem ones, which will still rack up votes from probably 40-50% of the electorate.
Also seems that some here have already lived in the 2025 - 2030 time period, or can predict the future, odd. All we know is the current and the past, the last 13 years have been ****, the 13 or so before that were excellent by comparison, and the 18 years before that were apparently **** as well.
Still seemed to be a hell of a lot of the electorate who are considerably further right of labour, as shown in the council elections, when they voted other than Greens or Labour, people need to understand this reality. These on the right, in opposition, or much further along the scale cannot simply be deleted. Time may delete a lot of them, but probably at least a decade away before this makes an impact.
People also need to factor that we're in a massive financial/ economic hole, and the future growth predictions are absolutely terrible. The result of this is that a hell of a lot of things a lot of the left (or anyone) want will need to be watered down, it's just a fact. This is going to take time to repair, and during that time the books need to balance to a degree, and if they're balanced in a way which massively ***** off the right then Labour lose, just like they've lost every other time it's been attempted. It's not possible to print money without there being major repercussions, and if you tax the hell out of everything then the press and the right kickoff and you just lose.
I still find it crazy that people whinge about Blair, like they would prefer the alternative of what came before or after. Something like Blair is the best anyone can realistically hope for. Sure it's not perfect, nothing ever is and nobody has ever claimed it is, or will be anytime soon.
People should maybe spend more time trying to educate those on the right, rather than trying to dig out the foundations of their supposed own house.
Also seems that some here have already lived in the 2025 - 2030 time period, or can predict the future, odd. All we know is the current and the past, the last 13 years have been ****, the 13 or so before that were excellent by comparison, and the 18 years before that were apparently **** as well.
Still seemed to be a hell of a lot of the electorate who are considerably further right of labour, as shown in the council elections, when they voted other than Greens or Labour, people need to understand this reality. These on the right, in opposition, or much further along the scale cannot simply be deleted. Time may delete a lot of them, but probably at least a decade away before this makes an impact.
People also need to factor that we're in a massive financial/ economic hole, and the future growth predictions are absolutely terrible. The result of this is that a hell of a lot of things a lot of the left (or anyone) want will need to be watered down, it's just a fact. This is going to take time to repair, and during that time the books need to balance to a degree, and if they're balanced in a way which massively ***** off the right then Labour lose, just like they've lost every other time it's been attempted. It's not possible to print money without there being major repercussions, and if you tax the hell out of everything then the press and the right kickoff and you just lose.
I still find it crazy that people whinge about Blair, like they would prefer the alternative of what came before or after. Something like Blair is the best anyone can realistically hope for. Sure it's not perfect, nothing ever is and nobody has ever claimed it is, or will be anytime soon.
People should maybe spend more time trying to educate those on the right, rather than trying to dig out the foundations of their supposed own house.
It doesn't matter whether the manifesto is different to the opposition. You seem to constantly be missing the fact that those of us that aren't happy with the direction of travel are not just hoping for "not as right wing as the Tories". We don't need to wait for a manifesto to know roughly what it will look like because he keeps telling us. Another major problem is that even if it was exactly what I wanted I wouldn't believe a word of it because he changes his mind every time you ask.
You make the point about the country being in the **** but the reason we are is because of the Tory ideology so why would you be content with a version of Labour that will maintain the status quo when what is needed is a complete change of direction. We don't want/need a softer version of Tory policy. We need a significant change in approach.