Starmer's team have been building up this speech as his radical policy reveal and "no return to business as usual". You can't complain when people notice that the speech itself doesn't match up to what Starmer's office have billed it as.
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter Billy Horner
- Start date
Starmer's team have been building up this speech as his radical policy reveal and "no return to business as usual". You can't complain when people notice that the speech itself doesn't match up to what Starmer's office have billed it as.
1997: Blair: 43.2%
2001: Blair: 40.7%
2005 Blair: 35.2%
2010: Brown: 29.0%
2015: Miliband: 30.4%
2017: Corbyn: 40.0%
2019: Corbyn: 32.1%
Tells basically the same story tbh.
coluka
Well-known member
Like I said on a thread earlier in the week, you don't reveal all and allow Johnson ammunition to change the subject off his failures (imho) I did not hear what was said pre this so can’t comment, but maybe there is more, but they are keeping certain things for a later date. I think it is fine anyway, but appreciate the broad church has to have some meat spread around all its supporters.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Not much, he was the problem. The 2019 manifesto was the problem.
The public have been brainwashed over the last 10 years that we need to cut our cloth, spending is bad etc... it was too radical to come out and and say we can renationalise this and that, give free broadband to everyone, spend on this, that and the other.
The policies in themselves were good. There was too many and they all involved spending though - that was the crazy part.
I think Corbyn was unelectable anyway - but with that manifesto he was never getting into power. I'm just unsure why the minority can't see that and still wish to drive Labour down that rabbit hole and stay in opposition for even longer?
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
I don't think anyones asking Starmer to "reveal all" though. IMO as a major party you need to have some policies that the public know about just for situations like us here - people discussing you. You want your members/supporters/whoever to have something that they can point to and answer the question "why would I vote X?" with.
But again, as I said yesterday, if the strategy is keep your hand close to your chest and don't reveal your policies that's fine... but it's probably better not to spend a week bigging up a speech as being a hark back to the Beveridge report and a massive policy reveal.
But again, as I said yesterday, if the strategy is keep your hand close to your chest and don't reveal your policies that's fine... but it's probably better not to spend a week bigging up a speech as being a hark back to the Beveridge report and a massive policy reveal.
Erimus74
Well-known member
Good post coluka
Same_as_before
Well-known member
I would have voted for Lisa Nandy, with Starmer as No2. He is coming across as dull as dishwater. I fully agree with Coluka's assessment.
The statement earlier in the week won no one over. The people who voted Tory the first time won't know what a Bond is, you have to hit the Tory's hard.
In 2021 you have to start drip feeding the corruption of this government, the nepotism, the deaths and keep Boris photos well out it.
Then start the easy graphs of borrowing from 10 years ago to before Covid, not giving them an easy answer, the cuts in defense, health, mental health, councils, education.
Drip drip drip, get at them.
Leave the policies until end of 2021.
The statement earlier in the week won no one over. The people who voted Tory the first time won't know what a Bond is, you have to hit the Tory's hard.
In 2021 you have to start drip feeding the corruption of this government, the nepotism, the deaths and keep Boris photos well out it.
Then start the easy graphs of borrowing from 10 years ago to before Covid, not giving them an easy answer, the cuts in defense, health, mental health, councils, education.
Drip drip drip, get at them.
Leave the policies until end of 2021.
bear66
Well-known member
I voted for Nandy as it was difficult to understand what Starmer was standing for.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
Bear my issue is that people think politics is a nice not nasty. 95% is about personalities, the other 5% are on here. There are very few politicised people, most worry about not getting a holiday this year.
Demonise these evil so and so's, stop messing about, policies win over very few.
BlindBoyGrunt
Well-known member
I know you use this defence of Starmer regularly but this line of argument has already been rendered redundant because nobody is demanding to see Starmers policies. Nobody wants him to publish his manifesto for the next election. What people want to know is what exactly he stands for and he won't be the first politician in the world to reveal his beliefs. There was a time when people went into politics because they had beliefs.
coluka
Well-known member
Yes, Nandy was my preferred choice too bear66, but I am fully behind Starmer.
coluka
Well-known member
He has already made some of his beliefs clear although some would need rethinking in light of the pandemic and public finances. Off the top of my head he was all for increasing income tax for the top 5% of earners, clamping down on tax avoidance, re-nationalisation of certain public services, scrapping UC, repealing the trade unions act, abolishing the House Of Lords, putting health front and centre and climate control and the green deal etc, no doubt there is a lot more besides.
Those were his leadership election 'beliefs'. You won't hear much more of them now he's got the job.
C
Cooper671
Guest
I laugh when the suggestion of scrapping UC turns up. Corbyn promised it too. Literally do not understand that UC is not just a benefit. It is a computer system owned by the department which saves a fortune in IT costs unlike the old legacy benefits which are a mish mash of systems on license and costs an absolute fortune to implement the smallest change. UC can be changed immediately when a fault is spotted. The reality is if they got in they would soon realise they would need to call it something else as the system is going nowhere.
bear66
Well-known member
Shame the government don't understand this when Boris continually accuses Starmer of wanting to get rid of UC but want the £20 UC uplift maintained.
This.
I had high hopes for Starmer but he has been utterly useless. There hasn't been any opposition to the government during the epidemic. The opposition has come from within the conservative party itself and thank goodness for that. Flip-flopped all over the place on schools.
The government has not been held to account and has used emergency powers to enact restrictions for extended periods of time without proper parliamentary scrutiny. My local Labour MP has acknowledged this in email correspondence, but unless Labour stand up to it there will be more of it. It started with the ridiculous prorogation of parliament.
I have never voted for the conservatives and would find it hard to do so now but they actually have more MPs talking sense regarding the epidemic. Labour have been awful under Starmer so no way I will be voting for them in local elections or next general election.
Like Randy I'll be looking to vote for good local independents, as I did in the last election.
Zoophonic
Well-known member
Even you are calling him Boris now.
r00fie1
Well-known member
Business Insider:
[13 hours ago]
The investigation into Labour Together, which counts among its current directors' the Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy MP and Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Steve Reed MP, was opened in December 2020.
The Electoral Commission, which regulates political financing in the United Kingdom, is investigating multiple potential breaches of UK electoral law which requires donations to be reported to the Electoral Commission within 30 days of the donation being accepted.
An analysis of the figures published by the Electoral Commission shows only a small minority of donations received by Labour Together -* £165,000 of the £970,492 donated - had been declared within the 30 day period, from its first donation in October 2015 to its most recent donation in January 2021.
The Electoral Commission is also investigating a potential failure to register a responsible person within 30 days of accepting a reportable donation.
Both of these potential failures would be breaches of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Figures published on the Electoral Commission website in February 2021 show 10 donations for a total of £298,992. Only one of these donations, worth £50,000, is shown to have been received by Labour Together within 30 days of it being reported. The rest range from between June 2017 and April 2019.
Figures published by the Electoral Commission in December 2020 show 19 donations for a total of £465,500. None of these donations appear to have been received in the 30 days prior to their reported date of 10th December 2020. They range from June 2018 to September 2020.
[Continues....]
www.businessinsider.com
A Labour Party group with links to Keir Starmer [Including his Chief of Staff] is being investigated for failing to declare financial backers
[13 hours ago]
- EXCLUSIVE: "Labour Together" is under investigation by the Electoral Commission for alleged breaches of electoral law.
- The group allegedly failed to declare hundreds of thousands of pounds of donations within the time required by law.
- The group is led by senior figures in Keir Starmer's Labour party, including the Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy.
- Its former managing director is now Starmer's chief of staff.
- Visit the Business section of Insider for more stories.
The investigation into Labour Together, which counts among its current directors' the Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy MP and Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Steve Reed MP, was opened in December 2020.
The Electoral Commission, which regulates political financing in the United Kingdom, is investigating multiple potential breaches of UK electoral law which requires donations to be reported to the Electoral Commission within 30 days of the donation being accepted.
An analysis of the figures published by the Electoral Commission shows only a small minority of donations received by Labour Together -* £165,000 of the £970,492 donated - had been declared within the 30 day period, from its first donation in October 2015 to its most recent donation in January 2021.
The Electoral Commission is also investigating a potential failure to register a responsible person within 30 days of accepting a reportable donation.
Both of these potential failures would be breaches of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Figures published on the Electoral Commission website in February 2021 show 10 donations for a total of £298,992. Only one of these donations, worth £50,000, is shown to have been received by Labour Together within 30 days of it being reported. The rest range from between June 2017 and April 2019.
Figures published by the Electoral Commission in December 2020 show 19 donations for a total of £465,500. None of these donations appear to have been received in the 30 days prior to their reported date of 10th December 2020. They range from June 2018 to September 2020.
[Continues....]
A Labour Party group with links to Keir Starmer is being investigated for failing to declare financial backers
EXCLUSIVE: Labour Together is under investigation by the Electoral Commission after failing to declare over £800,000 worth of donations in time.
www.businessinsider.com