Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Could you give a summary? I can only see the title.

It is possible that the UK will look back on the next campaign as the hopeless election, a contest between two parties for the support of voters who do not believe either will materially improve their lives or the country. The lack of hope is palpable.

People feel battered by inflation, falling living standards, strikes, public service crises and a general sense of decline. Brexit is now viewed by a majority of voters as a mistake. Labour has yet to fill the void. Politics feels like a battle of low expectations. To quote Aaron Sorkin, voters feel they are being asked “to choose between the lesser of ‘who cares?’”

Polling for the left-leaning New Britain Project shows nearly three-fifths of voters say “nothing in Britain works anymore”. More troubling is that only a fifth believe politicians have the ability to solve the UK’s biggest issues. Labour leaders are rightly worried by this trend which could also depress turnout. “The Conservatives are damping down hope by encouraging the view that no party would do any better,” says a senior Labour strategist. There is limited advantage to a governing party in promoting the idea that things are now so bleak that no one can fix them. But the claim is not entirely empty.

Tories want to convince potential supporters not to risk replacing Rishi Sunak. If voters believe that Keir Starmer offers no improvement then the bar Sunak has to clear is that much lower. This is the thinking behind Sunak’s “pledge card” approach. By setting out five promises, all of which he expected to meet, Sunak aimed to win the reputation as a reliable problem solver. This looks less certain than he would wish, but Tories still hope for enough progress to offer a plausible argument. One cabinet minister says: “This year is about building up Rishi so next year we can offer hope around a better economy, immigration control, Brexit freedoms and Britain’s place in the world.” In truth, this looks like more of the same. Luke Tryl, director of the research group More in Common, argues: “The Tories are struggling on loss aversion because people don’t think they would lose very much if they fell.”

But despite Labour’s poll lead, many contrast the lukewarm support for Starmer with the enthusiasm for Tony Blair in 1997. The shortfall is where the hope should be. One difficulty may be Labour’s “broken Britain” narrative. It is an effective slogan for prosecuting the government’s record. But it also plays into that wider feeling of hopelessness. A tone more along the lines of “Britain can do better” is less downbeat. Labour loyalists have another fear: that the desire to offer hope will be used to agitate for reckless spending commitments. “The hope problem is real,” says one frontbencher, “but it can’t mean a splurge of unfunded spending pledges. That doesn’t work.” For Starmer, confidence in Labour’s control of the public finances must be the foundation for all policy. And voters may not be wrong to have little faith. The UK faces immense technological, environmental, financial and geopolitical challenges. Public services require major reform as well as funding. Yet both parties appear to offer only painless solutions. Labour will not discuss the taxes it knows it must raise to fund public services; the Tories will not discuss spending cuts. All play up reform as a magical, cost-free option.

But from nuclear power to social care, the record on long-term plans has been lamentable. On both sides, voters’ expectations are being managed down. So what can Starmer do? One ally says he needs to remind voters that governments can make a difference. This means stressing the achievements of the early Blair years, from the minimum wage to reducing NHS waiting times. It also requires calculated risks. One pollster says the Labour leader’s recent call for planning reform to boost housebuilding was seen favourably by focus groups as a sign of him taking a strong position. Starmer and Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, were probably wise to water down the unaffordable £28bn-a-year green plan, but dilute too many promises and suddenly your promise of change looks like business as usual. Starmer has got a lot right. He has made his party electable as voters desert the government.

His recent speech about providing hope through economic security was pitch-perfect. Next week, he will flesh out his plan to “break down barriers to opportunity”. He doesn’t need a sharp change of strategy or umpteen new policies which, in any case, voters doubt will be delivered. But as well as the longer-term, ambitious policies, Starmer needs to spell out the ways his government would improve people’s lives in year one. And voters must see more of the courage he showed in routing the hard left. Starmer’s caution, especially on spending, is understandable, but voters respond to leadership. This is not a call for silly risks or more empty boosterism. But of all the UK’s problems, the loss of hope is the most chilling. From the NHS to schools to living standards, voters need at least one of the major parties to offer a sense of direction to a nation that has stalled, even if the journey is hard. The rewards could be huge. For Labour especially, being a convincing voice of hope is probably the difference between winning outright or falling short. There is also a broader price for Britain if fatalism becomes entrenched. If voters cannot find grounds for hope in the traditional parties, they may turn back to the populists for solutions.

Copied. Hope it helps.
 

albion

Guru
"who do not believe either will materially improve their lives or the country"
We voted Brexit so there is only decline to manage, though the Tories did pull off an overnight meltdown.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: C R
Isn't this cynicism just the result of a long, long period of decline in UK politics? Lack of trust, sense of inevitability. It goes back to before Brexit, though that just exemplified it. Maybe back to the expenses scandal and earlier. It reminds me a bit of what Martin Seligsman called 'learned helplessness'; you're so ground down you lose the ability to see things could change or even how to help yourself.

Voting in a general election has always been a compromise (for me anyway), but never so much has politics just felt like a load of self-serving people fighting over who can be the least cr*p option. If Labour get in with a big majority perhaps we will see more decisive action.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
If Labour get in with a big majority perhaps we will see more decisive action.
I'll not hold my breath. Starmer seems terrified of upsetting anyone, thus has no plans to actually *do* anything. He needs to grow a pair, declare that Brexit is a pile of shite, back it up with some hard hitting information campaigns and rejoin the single market as a bare minimum. I can also see arguments for renationalising the railways (or at least ending the franchise nonsense) and water companies - or forcing them to actually address issues with leaks rather than paying shareholders.

Rather than ending charitable status for Private Schools he should be considering pouring public money into state education - address the massive salaries being paid to "academy" management. If state schools were good, with smaller class sizes, good resources etc Private schools would cease to exist. As it is, they do, because state schools cannot support many pupils. One of the most common reasons to go private is not being massively wealthy, it is because the child has additional needs that a state school cannot properly support such as Autism, Type 1 Diabetes, Dyslexia, Anxiety and other mental health issues etc.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
I'll not hold my breath. Starmer seems terrified of upsetting anyone, thus has no plans to actually *do* anything. He needs to grow a pair, declare that Brexit is a pile of shite, back it up with some hard hitting information campaigns and rejoin the single market as a bare minimum. I can also see arguments for renationalising the railways (or at least ending the franchise nonsense) and water companies - or forcing them to actually address issues with leaks rather than paying shareholders.

Rather than ending charitable status for Private Schools he should be considering pouring public money into state education - address the massive salaries being paid to "academy" management. If state schools were good, with smaller class sizes, good resources etc Private schools would cease to exist. As it is, they do, because state schools cannot support many pupils. One of the most common reasons to go private is not being massively wealthy, it is because the child has additional needs that a state school cannot properly support such as Autism, Type 1 Diabetes, Dyslexia, Anxiety and other mental health issues etc.
Fecking socialist....
 
I'd pretty much agree with all that, IC. I think it will depend on the size of the majority whether we see any of that though. They are promising stuff like breakfast clubs, non dom abolished, windfall tax. All welcome but I think the first few years of a Labour government will probably just be dealing with the cost of living crisis and establishing Labour as a safe pair of hands for a second term.
 
If state schools were good, with smaller class sizes, good resources etc Private schools would cease to exist.
Is this actually true? Isn't one of the main attractions the fact that the kids will maintain social separation from the great unwashed?

They're not charities. Tax them as the businesses they are.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
Is this actually true? Isn't one of the main attractions the fact that the kids will maintain social separation from the great unwashed?
No. Maybe for the select few Boris Johnsons of this world. Not all public schools are elite public schools like Eton. Not every child who attends public school is wealthy. I went to a public school on an assisted place. It was very beneficial to me as I was bright but shy and socially awkward. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have survived the local comp. Both of my children have scholarships to help with fees and many of their friends are in the same boat - parents who have remortgaged etc. Attending a public school has been massively beneficial for my daughters who are not pressured by boys and who receive support for their additional needs. If you have type 1 diabetes, an on site nurse is massively helpful. Similarly my older daughters dyslexia is monitored and she is hugely supported by the school.


They're not charities. Tax them as the businesses they are.
Fair enough - but only if you put in place a system to support those children who will have their education disrupted when their parents can no longer afford to send them there. It was Labour after all who got rid of assisted places so that bright children from low income families could no longer benefit.
 

multitool

Guest
Public schools are about buying unfair advantage for the offspring of people wealthy enough to afford it.

When you look at the MASSIVE overrepresentation of the privately educated in top positions in British institutions, such as the military, the judiciary, cultural bodies like the BBC etc, etc, despite only accounting for 6% of all school children, you realise it is probably the major driver for unfair inequality.
 
I think it's the Oxford and Cambridge thing with politicians too. Applies in the media as well. If you look at politicians who went to state schools they still mostly went to Oxford or Cambridge. Not suggesting they do it, but it would be interesting to see if there were any effects if the BBC, all political parties, including as MP candidates and advisors, and the civil service, couldn't employ anyone from Oxford and Cambridge for ten years.

They are actually really small unis but they have a huge amount of influence. The number is falling but it's still huge considering how many unis there are in the UK.

Screenshot_20230629_192039_Chrome.jpg
 

icowden

Legendary Member
Public schools are about buying unfair advantage for the offspring of people wealthy enough to afford it.
*Some* public schools - yes. Not all.

When you look at the MASSIVE overrepresentation of the privately educated in top positions in British institutions, such as the military, the judiciary, cultural bodies like the BBC etc, etc, despite only accounting for 6% of all school children, you realise it is probably the major driver for unfair inequality.
Again, I'll not disagree. But at the moment public schools also fulfil a function of allowing those children to flourish who would be destroyed by a state school. In particular, there are very few state secondary schools which are single sex and it is proven that girls do better in girls schools by a country mile.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
There you go. Exactly as I said in that first quote of mine, icow.
I think you missed my earlier message you pathetic cowardly bullying excuse for a human being. Go back to smearing your own excrement on the walls. Fvck off, keep on fvcking off until you have fvcked off from this forum and preferably the internet. COme back when you can stop being the vulgar mealy mouthed cretinous troll that you are.

Doesn't matter if you phrase it as "allowing children to flourish who would get destroyed at a state school".
What you are saying is that only the kids whose parents are wealthy enough won't get destroyed.
No. That is bollocks. Try actually reading what I write. I know the words are big, but dictionaries are available. I'll try some smaller words for you.
My parents were both teachers. We lived in a small semi detached house when I grew up. We didn't go on holidays. I got an assisted place and my parents income paid for the rest. They sacrificed a great deal so that I could go to a school where I might actually succeed. It was still populated with bullying cretins like you, but it gave me a great start in life.

In turn, I have worked hard, remortgaged my house several times so that my children can have the best start in life. I am wealthier than my parents were which is a plus as now assisted places don't exist. I still rely on my children getting scholarships and stretch finances thin so that they can have a great start in life.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom