[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Herr Tubthumper]

this is an overused excuse. it supposes the plans are poor and easily pulled apart. if they've done the numbers properly they stand up. if the policy is popular some of the media might even support them, they are in the businss of selling what people want.

interesting contrast the US presidential primary campaign. they come out with their policies over a year before the actual election, and arguing over them through the primaries is seen as battle testing them for the election proper. if Starmer plans to say reform NHS he's better to run it past the electorate early and gauge the response. if its not standing up now, its going to go down badly in the election too. truth is most the time politicans avoid saying too much policy in advance out of fear the other party will nick the idea or upsetting some of their existing support base.

The US system is quite different to the UK though; they pretty much write off the last year of a term as it’s nothing more than a lengthy campaign trail. You don’t do that in the UK, government pretty much operates as normal until the election is called then it switches to the campaign trail. All things considered I prefer the U.K. approach to not waste a year.

 

[clapham_gull]

communist

 

[Hugo Rune]

As the time draws nearer, we shall see what we shall see, I honestly believe that there is no plan but I admit you could be right.

It is what it is.

This man believes that the Conservative’s only chance in the next election is to personally attack Sir Keir with the help of the billionaire owned foreign and non-dom press behind their slogan.

Looks like a (r)dodgy sort doesn’t he?

He has apparently persuaded Sunk & Co. to ditch the 3-word slogan and back of the fag packet manifesto approach (which bullingdon boys believe is enough to convince the dullest voter) and go with a 4-word slogan and back of the fag packet manifesto. They think the electorate has got smarter!

This is it:

Keir Has No Plan

It’s an obvious reaction to Labour’s ‘reduce the target’ approach and seems to be gaining traction 30 weeks away from a possible election date. But traction with who? The polls are not indicating a change. Perhaps the traction is just with those who would lose out the most from a Labour government? Those that would vote for a pig if it had a blue rosette pinned to it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Look, there's no getting away from the fact that FPTP is an incredibly inefficient system in terms of "wasted" votes i.e. the number of votes that are cast that have 0 influence over the outcome.

Now if the only alternative was some party list PR bullshit then I'd be inclined to suck that up, but there are systems that do a much better job of actually reflecting the vote while retaining named individual candidates and a link between the representatives and a relatively manageable constituency.

I might add, that there are limits to my sympathy with this sort of thing. If the party of your choice happens to fall short of 10% or something then you should piss off and convince more people to care about whatever obscure nonsense you've decided to dedicate your evenings to boring people about.

In the end, you have either voted for the party that wins, or you haven't. Having everyone win (a coalition) is of course a resolution. But it isn't one I favour. If my lot can't persuade enough people to vote for them to win, so be it. I would not feel compensated to see my lot in a coalition with Sinn Fein and the Liberals. Or, whabout a Labour/tory coalition ! Bingo!

Bollocks to that.

 

[Rdodge30]

Looks like a (r)dodgy sort doesn’t he?

You’re out of order mate- not impressed

 

[nicko31]

The US system is quite different to the UK though; they pretty much write off the last year of a term as it’s nothing more than a lengthy campaign trail. You don’t do that in the UK, government pretty much operates as normal until the election is called then it switches to the campaign trail. All things considered I prefer the U.K. approach to not waste a year.

The UK system is far from perfect but I’d take it over the US. Often it’s not just the last year it’s the last 2 years, you lose your majority in the house and then your essentially a lame duck President.

The way they vote for Senators is ridiculous, how can California have the same number as Alaska and Rhode Iskand.

 

[WATFORD zero]

You’ve completely misunderstood my point and misrepresented my views there - I haven’t mentioned anything that you’ve suggested?? Are you on the sauce mate!

A criticism of Starmer doesn’t automatically equate to praise of the opposition.

I probably misunderstood and misinterpreted all these posts you've made on this thread over the last month as well

 

[Rdodge30]

I probably misunderstood and misinterpreted all these posts you've made on this thread over the last month as well

View attachment 173313

I think some of those posts are so straightforward that even you couldn’t misunderstand them.

To put you straight- again, I want Sir Keir Starmer to be the next Prime Minister. He is by far the least worst option. He may even actually be the Best option but until he gives us a hint of what he actually intends to do I will reserve judgement.

I would still like to be able to come on NSC and question his stance on policy, without the ridiculous claims thrown at me that I am in favour of Boris/Truss/Sunak or that I am in some way trying to convince you that they are better, simply because I am not drinking from the Starmer Coolade.

As I said to HWT only time will tell if there is any substantial policy in the manifesto, im not inclined to believe that ‘fear of having his policies debunked in the Tory press’ is the reason behind the silence. Even if that is the reason it’s weak.

The country is crying out for change and change it will most certainly get. We don’t actually know what any of those changes will be yet, other than the inevitable change of Government - solutions to problems are thin on the ground at the moment

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think some of those posts are so straightforward that even you couldn’t misunderstand them.

To put you straight- again, I want Sir Keir Starmer to be the next Prime Minister. He is by far the least worst option. He may even actually be the Best option but until he gives us a hint of what he actually intends to do I will reserve judgement.

I would still like to be able to come on NSC and question his stance on policy, without the ridiculous claims thrown at me that I am in favour of Boris/Truss/Sunak or that I am in some way trying to convince you that they are better, simply because I am not drinking from the Starmer Coolade.

As I said to HWT only time will tell if there is any substantial policy in the manifesto, im not inclined to believe that ‘fear of having his policies debunked in the Tory press’ is the reason behind the silence. Even if that is the reason it’s weak.

The country is crying out for change and change it will most certainly get. We don’t actually know what any of those changes will be yet, other than the inevitable change of Government - solutions to problems are thin on the ground at the moment

So you think Starmer may actually be the best option compared to Sunak, but given what they have both said and done, you need to reserve judgement 'until he gives a hint of what he intends to do'. You really can't resist can you

Maybe you'll find some 'hints' here and you can check it against what the current Government have said they are going to do.



Of course you have every right to come on NSC and question Starmer at every possible opportunity, a right you have utilised fully since you set up this account a year ago. It is a forum after all

And I believe what you say above about wanting Starmer to be the next PM and I think you may even vote for that. It's just that you give the impression that you may be struggling with this a little

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

In the end, you have either voted for the party that wins, or you haven't. Having everyone win (a coalition) is of course a resolution. But it isn't one I favour. If my lot can't persuade enough people to vote for them to win, so be it. I would not feel compensated to see my lot in a coalition with Sinn Fein and the Liberals. Or, whabout a Labour/tory coalition ! Bingo!

Bollocks to that.

As a slight side note, I just thought I'd look at which system the Green Party favour.
It turns out, in classic Green Party style, they're happy with a few different options, but their preference would be for AV+.
The "+" bit refers to a party list to make up the numbers and ensure proportionality. f*** that shit.
So anyway, this was first recommended by the Jenkins Commision in 1998, before being blocked by various elements of the Labour Party. The amusing part is reading further down the Wikipedia page, to find David Cameron's reaction when asked about reform in 2009, which was apparently to dismiss the idea on the grounds that it would lead to governments being formed "on the basis of secret backroom deals".
Thank God we've been saved from that horror over the last 14years.
In any case, I'd suggest that viewing politics as some sort of zero-sum game where you either vote for a party that wins or you didn't, tough shit, is not conducive to good government or a healthy democracy.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As a slight side note, I just thought I'd look at which system the Green Party favour.
It turns out, in classic Green Party style, they're happy with a few different options, but their preference would be for AV+.
The "+" bit refers to a party list to make up the numbers and ensure proportionality. f*** that shit.
So anyway, this was first recommended by the Jenkins Commision in 1998, before being blocked by various elements of the Labour Party. The amusing part is reading further down the Wikipedia page, to find David Cameron's reaction when asked about reform in 2009, which was apparently to dismiss the idea on the grounds that it would lead to governments being formed "on the basis of secret backroom deals".
Thank God we've been saved from that horror over the last 14years.
In any case, I'd suggest that viewing politics as some sort of zero-sum game where you either vote for a party that wins or you didn't, tough shit, is not conducive to good government or a healthy democracy.

1. Yep.
2. I note your disgruntlement, but the alternatives, surely, are either that you vote for the party that has a majority, and somehow another party comes to power, or that every government is always a coalition of all the parties (so everyone 'wins'). The first is bonkers and the second will lead to apathy and/or a meaningful strident voice for the lunatic parties.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think some of those posts are so straightforward that even you couldn’t misunderstand them.

To put you straight- again, I want Sir Keir Starmer to be the next Prime Minister. He is by far the least worst option. He may even actually be the Best option but until he gives us a hint of what he actually intends to do I will reserve judgement.

I would still like to be able to come on NSC and question his stance on policy, without the ridiculous claims thrown at me that I am in favour of Boris/Truss/Sunak or that I am in some way trying to convince you that they are better, simply because I am not drinking from the Starmer Coolade.

As I said to HWT only time will tell if there is any substantial policy in the manifesto, im not inclined to believe that ‘fear of having his policies debunked in the Tory press’ is the reason behind the silence. Even if that is the reason it’s weak.

The country is crying out for change and change it will most certainly get. We don’t actually know what any of those changes will be yet, other than the inevitable change of Government - solutions to problems are thin on the ground at the moment

I agree that time will tell

 

[chickens]

So you think Starmer may actually be the best option compared to Sunak, but given what they have both said and done, you need to reserve judgement 'until he gives a hint of what he intends to do'. You really can't resist can you

Maybe you'll find some 'hints' here and you can check it against what the current Government have said they are going to do.



Of course you have every right to come on NSC and question Starmer at every possible opportunity, a right you have utilised fully since you set up this account a year ago. It is a forum after all

And I believe what you say above about wanting Starmer to be the next PM and I think you may even vote for that. It's just that you give the impression that you may be struggling with this a little

There’s a lot there isn’t there? And it all seems quite coherent, joined up and positive. Lovely stuff, especially when compared to the opposition policies of *checks notes* hating trans people and lowering environmental protections.

 

[Titanic]

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves​

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves

Rachel Reeves tells the BBC that she would not reinstate the cap scrapped last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[dazzer6666]

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves​

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves

Rachel Reeves tells the BBC that she would not reinstate the cap scrapped last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

When the cap was introduced, most banks regated banker salaries to incorporate previous bonus levels into salaries so it wasn’t effective anyway. Senior bankers tend to be rewarded on a ‘total comp’ basis, so whether it’s salary or bonus is largely irrelevant

 

[WATFORD zero]

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves​

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves

Rachel Reeves tells the BBC that she would not reinstate the cap scrapped last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

I wondered what desperate supporter of this current cabal would be bouncing this thread with the latest whataboutism, but only had you down as 4th favourite

Maybe you should change this thread title to But, but, but what about Keir Starmer like you have other political threads

 

[Is it PotG?]

I wondered what desperate supporter of this current cabal would be bouncing this thread with the latest whataboutism, but only had you down as 4th favourite

Maybe you should change this thread title to But, but, but what about Keir Starmer

A screeching U-turn already, £28bn green pledge anyone?

 

[Titanic]

I wondered what desperate supporter of this current cabal would be bouncing this thread with the latest whataboutism, but only had you down as 4th favourite

Maybe you should change this thread title to But, but, but what about Keir Starmer like you have other political threads

This thread is about Starmer and his inexorable route to No 10.

Trimming policy and optics to the middle ground seems to be the unsurprising answer.

If you want to hide behind 'whataboutism' then by all means carry on.

 

[beorhthelm]

A screeching U-turn already, £28bn green pledge anyone?

sensible change imo. cant deliver it, costs too much, other priorities. removes it as problem policy that could have been used against them.

 

[Is it PotG?]

sensible change imo. cant deliver it, costs too much, other priorities. removes it as problem policy that could have been used against them.

Makes you wonder how many 'policies' (as they appear) may suffer a similar fate.