Starmer's 5 Missions for Labour

viv_andersons_nana said:
This is partly why people are p*seed off with his behaviour though. There were people who didn’t trust the last Labour leader - for whatever reason - and wanted someone more ‘electable’, someone untainted by accusations of anti-Semitism. Starmer put himself forward as that man. He made promises about what he would do. It turns out he was lying.

What you’re describing is UK politics in a nutshell. Two people sh*t in a pint glass. Ones had a curry, one’s had a curry and a multipack of Quavers. You decide to drink the first one because it’s the least appalling option of the two.

The issue is that it does not have to be like this. Nobody has to drink the sh*t. Starmer originally made promises about progressive policies, visions, building on the momentum built by a previous leader and a growing membership. He has abandoned everything he said. He’s saying you will have to drink the sh*t after all, but hey, look, at least it hasn’t got mashed up Quavers in it!

What makes anyone think this proven liar is any different to the rest of them? He lies to our faces, to the media, to the party, to its supporters, and is celebrated for it. Every. Single. Day. A liar is a liar IMO. How the f*ck can anyone vote for what him and his leadership group are proposing.
Click to expand...
Sorry to boil it right down but it appears that you are saying you prefer the tory party to a keir starmer led labour party?

In a nutshell?
 
MolteniArcore said:
Lying nowadays seems to be reacting to the changing needs of the UK. Yeah, Starmer should stick to his pre-Covid pre-Ukraine pledges...

Give me strength.

Things change. Politics is about the now and the future, not about the past. If you have enjoyed the last 12 years then vote Tory, that's your right. If you want something different, vote Labour, Green, Lib Dem etc - just lets not have ANOTHER thread about Starmer that will inevitably end up with rows about Corbyn leaving the Tories off the hook yet again.
Click to expand...
The thread is about Starmer’s pledges, or missions. Evidence suggests he will have broken, dismissed or abandoned each and every one of them within the year.

If you’re comfortable voting for someone who does this then fair enough. Others are less comfortable with it. It’s not even about Jeremy Corbyn to be honest, it’s more about a politician who’ll say one thing in one room and something else in another - whatever it takes to appease and keep a conplicit news media on side.

Why should I trust him.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
Sorry to boil it right down but it appears that you are saying you prefer the tory party to a keir starmer led labour party?

In a nutshell?
Click to expand...
No I do not. If I oppose Starmer, or aspects of his leadership at least, that makes me a Tory supporter? It does not. This is the point I’m making though. Two glasses of sh*t. We’ve been forced into a corner over the course of what, 40, 50 years to the point where you can only choose between two glasses of sh*t. Calling this out does not make me a Tory.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
No I do not. If I oppose Starmer, or aspects of his leadership at least, that makes me a Tory supporter? It does not. This is the point I’m making though. Two glasses of sh*t. We’ve been forced into a corner over the course of what, 40, 50 years to the point where you can only choose between two glasses of sh*t. Calling this out does not make me a Tory.
Click to expand...
I know and I get it. It's just that if we don't vote for starmer then the tories will win.

Of course I am not calling you a Tory, maybe a tory enabler? To me it borders almost on gross negligence to not vote against the tories in the next election.

This could be voting lib dem or green depending on where you live.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Why does everything have to be radical?

Right now I'd settle with being able to see a GP, not having to wait months for routine treatment and properly funded education.

Removing the corrupt shower we currently have fleecing the nation and not requiring a loan for the weekly shop would be a bonus too.

This isn't a manifesto.
Click to expand...
Great post.

The argument that 'they're not socialist enough so I'll allow the current corrupt mess to continue' makes absolutely no sense to me.

Appreciate people of that mind won't vote Tory but they will let them back in whether they intend to or not.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
I know and I get it. It's just that if we don't vote for starmer then the tories will win.

Of course I am not calling you a Tory, maybe a tory enabler? To me it borders almost on gross negligence to not vote against the tories in the next election.

This could be voting lib dem or green depending on where you live.
Click to expand...
I would vote Green. And the issue is I suppose that the local Labour council might be quite good. So how do you get around this, really. I mean, Labour will win the next election. It’s almost certain.

I’d also say, just to very much Labour the point already made, that Starmer himself said just the other than day that he’d changed the party and those who didn’t like it could leave. So lots of people have left. He’s literally said he doesn’t want those votes. He’s clearly very confident in the polling, opinion polls… and, of course, the knowledge that he has the backing of the newspaper baron who counts.
 
Last edited:
Nano said:
Because the existing situation is dreadful. If you are driving 100mph towards a cliff edge then slowing down to 70mph isn't going to improve the situation much. You need to apply the brakes or completely change course.

Things don't need to be radical if things are ok but we haven't been ok for a long time.
Click to expand...
Corbyn was 'radical', it wasn't popular.
 
This was Blair's 5 point pledge in 97. Pretty similar.
  • Cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme.
  • Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing.
  • Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100,000,000 saved from NHS red tape.
  • Get 250,000 under-25s off benefits and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities.
  • No rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5% and inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
 
atypical_boro said:
Corbyn was 'radical', it wasn't popular.
Click to expand...
He was far from radical. Or at least the party under his leadership was. What’s been in the news this week? The talk of rolling out broadband, and the four-day working week. Both viewed very differently now they’re being suggested by people other than Corbyn.

Don’t buy into the hype that what he was offering was radical. It was soft, Northern European-style social democracy. A bit of wealth redistribution, building some houses, nationalising some utilities - always popular with swathes of the electorate - tackling homelessness, putting back some of the stuff the Tories have spent 13 years stealing and cutting to the bone.
 
atypical_boro said:
This was Blair's 5 point pledge in 97. Pretty similar.
  • Cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds by using money from the assisted places scheme.
  • Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing.
  • Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100,000,000 saved from NHS red tape.
  • Get 250,000 under-25s off benefits and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities.
  • No rise in income tax rates, cut VAT on heating to 5% and inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
Click to expand...
Blair was/is an @rsehole too. Blair is one of the ghouls who are really running the party at the moment. Sir Keith is just a puppet.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
He was far from radical. Or at least the party under his leadership was. What’s been in the news this week? The talk of rolling out broadband, and the four-day working week. Both viewed very differently now they’re being suggested by people other than Corbyn.

Don’t buy into the hype that what he was offering was radical. It was soft, Northern European-style social democracy. A bit of wealth redistribution, building some houses, nationalising some utilities - always popular with swathes of the electorate - tackling homelessness, putting back some of the stuff the Tories have spent 13 years stealing and cutting to the bone.
Click to expand...
Agree that the party under his leadership wasn't radical, but he himself was viewed as a radical departure from the status quo by those of a Right leaning. His biggest failing of course was not having a policy on the outcome of the Brexit referendum, which was electoral suicide.
 
Political leaders and political parties will say anything to get in to power, once in power will then row back on just about everything that got them there, partly because it's impossible to deliver in 4/5 years what they set out to do, and mostly because they don't understand how f**cked everything is until they have their hands on the steering wheel. Starmer maybe well intentioned or just another power seeking leader out to line his own pockets, we won't know until he's got the top job.
I'd like to have seen his top 'mission' be house of lords reform, for sure he won't deliver any of his 5 missions in two terms unless he sorts the lords out first.
 
atypical_boro said:
Agree that the party under his leadership wasn't radical, but he himself was viewed as a radical departure from the status quo by those of a Right leaning. His biggest failing of course was not having a policy on the outcome of the Brexit referendum, which was electoral suicide.
Click to expand...
His policy was to negotiate with the EU - on the customs Union and the single market - and then go back to the public. This was reported as something akin to treason, an inherent weakness, or some sort of political cop out.

I’ve never understood this though, why a leader is categorised as weak for actually exercising democratic process - it happened to Theresa May as well. Having a set position and then negotiating from there, going back to the vote if necessary, seems entirely sensible to me. Especially on generation-defining matters of national importance, such as leaving the EU.

Sticking to something and blundering through regardless will get you exactly where we are now. F*cked.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
I would vote Green. And the issue is I suppose that the local Labour council might be quite good. So how do you get around this, really. I mean, Labour will win the next election. It’s almost certain.

I’d also say, just to very much Labour the point already made, that Starmer himself said just the other than dat that he’d changed the party and those who didn’t like it could leave. So lots of people have left. He’s literally said he doesn’t want those votes. He’s clearly very confident in the polling, opinion polls… and, of course, the knowledge that he has the backing of the newspaper baron who counts.
Click to expand...
I'd vote green if Iived in a constituency where that vote would count, but I don't and so I have to vote labour.

I know it looks like a booming Labour win on the cards but then it looked like a clear win for remain in 2016, until it didn't and what an awful night that was.
 
Looking at the polls these people are just going to have to get used to Starmer.

I don’t think his flexibility on policy is a bad thing at all we don’t need a dogmatic approach , look what that did for Liz Truss.
 
Nano said:
Will it though? I fully agree with the principle of green energy but we produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 so nothing will change. What would make the biggest impact to people? Clean, green energy or cheap energy?
Click to expand...
Having both will make the biggest impact to people, and I believe that is what the aim is.
Nano said:
As for the NHS my guess would be that improving the NHS means removing it from crisis mode, not actually improving it and by that I mean sorting out the massive problems in social care which is causing the increase in demand and not just expanding the capacity of hospitals because that is just kicking the can down the road. In medical parlance we need to cure the cause of the problem, not just deal with the symptoms.
Click to expand...

I agree with you regarding social care, but again, the devil will be in the detail and both you and I will have to wait and see what the actual proposals are, to see whether they will be workable and have tangible positive results.

But I’d still argue that fulfilling both those ‘missions’ could have positive long term results to benefit us all.
 
Last edited:
A. Highest Growth in the G7
B. Clean energy superpower
C. Improve the NHS
D. Reform the justice system
E. Raising education standards

1. Economic justice​

Ties in to A

2. Social justice​

Ties in to A, C, E

3. Climate justice​

Ties in to B

4. Promote peace and human rights​

I’m sure still stands as a core value

5. Common ownership​

Starmer has said this Is still very much on the list of objectives once on government. This is a good goal and should be perused but may take time to get the core foundation pieces out of the clutches of the greedy.

6. Defend migrants’ rights​

I’m sure still stands as a core value but wouldn’t go down well with the right wing of the electorate.

7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions​

Ties into A,

8. Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity​

Ties in to A at least, will affect C, D & E.

9. Equality​

I’m sure still stands as a core value.

10. Effective opposition to the Tories​

irrelevant if GE is won.

Just very quick thoughts. Not everything can be done at once, nor in 1 term. Reversing the damage done by Cons over the last 13 years will take time. You have to start with base building blocks to turn things around and then add on to.

We have to be patient, it’s going to take more than one term and you aren’t going to win a GE even against this current lot if your proposals are viewed as too far left by those in the middle ground who’ve been duped by this current crowd.

For me, no government should be too far left or too far right overall. Being between just right of centre and just left of centre doesn’t make you wish-washy. It’s pragmatic, fair, and usual not far off common sense should see a government achieving a better outcome for all of society.

Capitalism with a conscience, socialism with prosperity.

Balance.

Anyway, just my simple minded thoughts. I’m not really a political animal.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
This is partly why people are p*seed off with his behaviour though. There were people who didn’t trust the last Labour leader - for whatever reason - and wanted someone more ‘electable’, someone untainted by accusations of anti-Semitism. Starmer put himself forward as that man. He made promises about what he would do. It turns out he was lying.

What you’re describing is UK politics in a nutshell. Two people sh*t in a pint glass. Ones had a curry, one’s had a curry and a multipack of Quavers. You decide to drink the first one because it’s the least appalling option of the two.

The issue is that it does not have to be like this. Nobody has to drink the sh*t. Starmer originally made promises about progressive policies, visions, building on the momentum built by a previous leader and a growing membership. He has abandoned everything he said. He’s saying you will have to drink the sh*t after all, but hey, look, at least it hasn’t got mashed up Quavers in it!

What makes anyone think this proven liar is any different to the rest of them? He lies to our faces, to the media, to the party, to its supporters, and is celebrated for it. Every. Single. Day. A liar is a liar IMO. How the f*ck can anyone vote for what him and his leadership group are proposing.
Click to expand...
The problem is that people are naturally really scared about change. Any sort of change. And if you present anything as radical or pushing the status quo, no matter how good it will be for them, they will reject it. You can offer them an alternative of a drink of milk. But you will end up with what we have, the glass of **** and quavers with RWNJs trying to shovel a bit of arsenic in there for good measure.

People need nudging in the right direction. You get a labour government and show people that it is OK. Then you can introduce something a bit more left wing that can be of benefit to people. They accept that and life becomes a bit better again.

I always think the tories are full of nutters but they've been doing this and moving steadily more to the right for ages and society has followed them. So maybe they're not as stupid as I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top