Starmer's vision quest

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

Deleted member 49

Guest
I hate this word in the context of debate, but....semantics.

Take Iraq out of the legacy and it would look very different. It was beyond catastrophic. Campbell is still punting the line that it wasn't a mistake. But Blair's years were comparatively good ones up until the economic crash of 08. Comparative being the key word, because the comparison should be made with what preceeded and succeeded his administration and not Adam's fantasy politics.

Blair's talent was communicating a message of hope, and being able to deliver some of it. It is clear that Starmer hasn't got that skill, nor Sunak, but then nor do most.
Bizarre that you think you can take Iraq out of the discussion on Blair...this !

View: https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1658797124513853440?t=C5jRL84RHa1mTlsfjT5S-Q&s=19
 

multitool

Guest
I haven't taken it out, I've said 'if' you take it out.
 

multitool

Guest
Seeing it yet, Adam?

Screenshot_20230518_172900_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
 

Wobblers

Member
"Extraordinarily well" does not refer to current polling, but the journey from Labour being in the bin, to currently likely to get a majority.

You say he's only winning by default, and whilst that is partly true those votes could have gone to LD or Greens instead.

No, he's not Blair. He's not as good, but then most aren't. Blair was exceptional. I know it's cool to slag Blair off, and yes the Iraq war utterly destroyed his legacy, but (apart from Brown) he's been the only non-Tory PM since the 1970s. Like it or not, the centre ground is where the votes are found.

Labour is winning, and that is indeed purely by default. Starmer really has had little to do with it. I remind you that Labour were doing rather badly until Partygate. As for your claim that voters would flock to the Greens or LDs without Starmer, there really is little evidence for that. Quite the reverse: history clearly shows that Labour is the prime beneficiary whenever the electorate becomes disaffected with the Tories. The Greens are to the left of Labour, and far to the left of Starmer: your idea that Starmer would entice them to support his right of centre autocratic tendendencies just doesn't make sense. I'd suggest the opposite is rather more likely: that Starmer is driving the traditional Labour voter away - and there's plenty of evidence for that in this very thread.
 

Wobblers

Member
You allright Andrew 😁
The last Labour government apparently left us skint...then It turns out austerity, cutting public services, attacking disabled/poor people and taking money out of people’s pockets to get the debt down didn't actually work ! Sick of hearing sh1te like wages are driving inflation,there's no money,there is !
We can argue the details of it forever but we need change,stop profiteering from basic infrastructure,nationalise/publicly funded companies, transform the economy blah blah...for me it's redistribute wealth that's it.

Doing fine, if a little cold up here in The Frozen North. How are things in Darkest Lancashire?

Actually, I agree with what you're saying. Austerity is a disaster. And, yes, more could - and should - be done to help the most disadvantaged in society. But we can't do everything at once. We have to prioritise. I suggest that giving people a decent pay rise and reducing inequalities should be the top priority. Nationalising utilities might be nice to do, but it's way down the list of things that need sorted.
 

multitool

Guest
Labour is winning, and that is indeed purely by default. Starmer really has had little to do with it. I remind you that Labour were doing rather badly until Partygate. As for your claim that voters would flock to the Greens or LDs without Starmer, there really is little evidence for that. Quite the reverse: history clearly shows that Labour is the prime beneficiary whenever the electorate becomes disaffected with the Tories. The Greens are to the left of Labour, and far to the left of Starmer: your idea that Starmer would entice them to support his right of centre autocratic tendendencies just doesn't make sense. I'd suggest the opposite is rather more likely: that Starmer is driving the traditional Labour voter away - and there's plenty of evidence for that in this very thread.

This is all supposition.

As for evidence in this thread, you seriously aren't suggesting that a self-selecting sample is evidence of anything but itself are you???

"Traditional Labour voters" abandoned Labour in their droves in 2019. Did you not notice?

There is a myth among Corbynites that Corbyn was popular, because he was popular with them (see Adam's posts fforclassic examples of extrapolating own opinion to everybody) But for people in general...

Screenshot_20230519_063716_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
Last edited:

theclaud

Reading around the chip
This is all supposition.

As for evidence in this thread, you seriously aren't suggesting that a self-selecting sample is evidence of anything but itself are you???

"Traditional Labour voters" abandoned Labour in their droves in 2019. Did you not notice?

There is a myth among Corbynites that Corbyn was popular, because he was popular with them. But for people in general...

View attachment 3901

Labour's been haemorrhaging votes since 2001, with only 2017 bucking the trend.
 
Top Bottom