Labour's lost

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Psamathe

Squire
And Defence spending which Healey was so passionate about tha he resigned over it.
Which was the nail in the coffin for Starmer, the move that gave Starmer no choice but to leave. And it was the short term commitment that was Healey's reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
This ought to be an article really, but in pulling apart another article, it's quite a persuasive thread about Labour (and in keeping with the thread title). It has a few interesting ideas, not least that Labour has made a mistake in looking to the US and entrenched two-party politics for inspiration. Also:

"The persistent problem with Starmer's Labour: it lacked a clear philosophy. New Labour could be ruthlessly pragmatic because its leaders spent time working out a theory to explain the moment they faced, distilled it, then communicated it to the public. Starmer did not." His mention of New Labour and Blair isn't necessarily praise of the particular type of politics, but rather "how".

I think he also understands how trying to identify 'working class' and chasing only them at the expense of other people who would like to vote Labour is a bad choice "[...] a focus on material issues rooted in this sort of sentimentality about who counts as working class is a death sentence for Labour. As @jamesdaustin.bsky.social says, you can't hold your own voters in contempt then begrudge them for not voting for you."

https://skywriter.blue/@jack-bailey.co.uk/3mwgpevib7224
 
Top Bottom