Starmer's vision quest

[Ian H]

If you cannot answer all of those questions then how can you expect others to deliver what it is that you want.

So, if I can't drive the bus, I can't expect the driver to do so?

 

[multitool]

So, if I can't drive the bus, I can't expect the driver to do so?

Not a great analogy, I feel.

A better one would be you sitting on the bus asking why the driver can't drop you off on the Moon.

 

[multitool]

Equally, it's not unreasonable to ask what Starmer actually has in mind for anything, because nobody knows.

It's fine for him to have a seemingly rudderless ship which the Conservatives can't take a shot at if that's how thinks Labour should be heading.

But the frustration around him (on this forum and elsewhere) stems from his reliance on "Well, we're not the Conservatives, yeah?"

He sums up the cliché of "These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others", for me at least.

You can have all the principles you like, but what you can't do is wave away socio-economic realities, the starkest of which are crumbling state institutions, and a market that is devastatingly vengeant to the whiff of fiscal laxity. Ask Truss.

It's clear what Labour are saying. The country is fûcked. The economy is fûcked. And if you want decent services the money will have to come (largely) from revenue which will not be short-term.

The problem in this thread is people believing that there are easy answers.

 

[Rusty Nails]

this individual looks likely to be the first opposition leader to remove the Tories from power for 27 years.

While removing the Tories from power would be a laudable achievement, and beyond the other opposition leaders since Blair, I believe it would be more accurate to say that Starmer is the opposition leader who was in place when the Tories contrived to remove themselves from power.

He has had little to do other than win the leadership role and not frighten the horses, which he has been pretty good at tbf, but the true test of his worth will come when he has to take some action which may give some of those horses and their media friends a scare.

I agree there are no easy answers.

 

[multitool]

While removing the Tories from power would be a laudable achievement, and beyond the other opposition leaders since Blair, I believe it would be more accurate to say that Starmer is the opposition leader who was in situ when the Tories contrived to remove themselves from power.

That was largely the case with Major's govt in 97. In fact, there is a truism that opposition parties never win elections...governing parties lose them.

You are right in so far as this government of 14 years has very little to show for itself. Even Major achieved something.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That was largely the case with Major's govt in 97. In fact, there is a truism that opposition parties never win elections...governing parties lose them.

While there is truth in that, and there is no doubt the Tories were also struggling in the polls at that time, there was a general feeling at the time that Blair was someone who had the ability to change things and rock the political boat.

What happened after that is a matter of debate about Blair's worth, mainly over Iraq, and that is why I am not prepared to be over-critical of Starmer at this stage.

 

[multitool]

While there is truth in that, and there is no doubt the Tories were also struggling in the polls at that time, there was a general feeling at the time that Blair was someone who had the ability to change things and rock the political boat.

What happened after that is a matter of debate about Blair's worth

1997 was a time of strong economic growth, not the flat-lining we have now. Major lost in spite of the economy not because of it, he lost because of the ERM crisis in '92, the interest rate effect, followed by endless episodes of sleaze in a tired 18 year old government that was out of time.

In fact, the strong economic growth situation in the lead up to the election with falling unemployment and inflation created a feelgood factor which helped a young dynamic Blair surf to power on a wave of optimism.

That wave isn't there for Starmer to surf. There is no optimism. Quite the contrary, if there is a wave, it's a wave of literal shît.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That wave isn't there for Starmer to surf. Quite the contrary, if there is a wave its a wave of literal shît.

I agree. And he has ridden it well so far.

 

[fozy tornip]

You can have all the principles you like, but what you can't do is wave away socio-economic realities, the starkest of which are crumbling state institutions, and a market that is devastatingly vengeant to the whiff of fiscal laxity. Ask Truss.

It's clear what Labour are saying. The country is fûcked. The economy is fûcked. And if you want decent services the money will have to come (largely) from revenue which will not be short-term.

The problem in this thread is people believing that there are easy answers.

Fulsome re-joining of the EU would seem to be one fairly easy way to begin de-fucking the country and the economy.

As might be societal vengeance - towards the devastating end of the spectrum - to financial institutions that fuck things up globally.

 

[AndyRM]

You can have all the principles you like, but what you can't do is wave away socio-economic realities, the starkest of which are crumbling state institutions, and a market that is devastatingly vengeant to the whiff of fiscal laxity. Ask Truss.

It's clear what Labour are saying. The country is fûcked. The economy is fûcked. And if you want decent services the money will have to come (largely) from revenue which will not be short-term.

The problem in this thread is people believing that there are easy answers.

Well, yeah, it is clear that Labour are saying what's popular and obvious. What they aren't saying is how they'll solve the issues.

I don't think (or at least I hope) anyone is naive enough to think there are easy answers.

 

[theclaud]

There is no optimism.

LOL and how has that come about?

 

[theclaud]

Labour are saying what's popular and obvious

What are they saying that's popular?

 

[BoldonLad]

Well, yeah, it is clear that Labour are saying what's popular and obvious. What they aren't saying is how they'll solve the issues.

I don't think (or at least I hope) anyone is naive enough to think there are easy answers.

Has ANY party ever specified in detail what their intentions are, pre-election? I don’t recall one in my 76 years.

By intentions, I don’t mean vague sound bites, like “we will tax the rich”, or, we will impose a “mansion tax”, without specifying exactly what “mansion”, “rich” means.

 

[multitool]

LOL and how has that come about?

Your posts are becoming increasingly like some sort of recusive teenager.

 

[theclaud]

that is why I am not prepared to be over-critical of Starmer at this stage.

Oh, go on, Rusty. Let it out.