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

[Is it PotG?]

Or are told, every day of the week, every year (by billionaire-owned newspapers), that anything else is 'Communist', of course that's what they will want!

If I'd read and believed the Tory press throughout my adult life, I too would 'want' the status quo, be convinced that things could never be different or better, and that Labour were dangerous Commies.

I think you're being very naïve, or disingenuous, if you don't think what many people 'want' or 'believe' is shaped and influenced by what Right-wing newspapers tell them on a daily basis.

Personally I don't read any one paper, ingest one online source or take much notice of news from wherever at face value. Cynicism tells me there's always more than one truth. Most normal folk are the same.

 

[Weststander]

A bit of a silly tweet IMHO. Who reads a party manifesto? Virtually no one. If labour do have policies (that have substance, rather than just meaningless soundbites) then why don't they talk about them? Starmer had the perfect opportunity yesterday.

Me.

I have a peruse through the Labour and Green manifestos pre elections. With specific interest in taxation, housebuilding, environment, etc.

I’d advise others to do the same, rather than just voting based on lifelong tribal beliefs.

 

[abc]

Me.

I have a peruse through the Labour and Green manifestos pre elections. With specific interest in taxation, housebuilding, environment, etc.

I’d advise others to do the same, rather than just voting based on lifelong tribal beliefs.

You are absolutely right but very few do or will. Though i am not sure that many trust anything that is promised by any party, so what’s the point of reading a manifesto?

 

[Chicken Run]

What a dismal choice - more Tory cruelty, divisiveness and Culture Wars, or Tory-lite Labour under Starmer and Reeves.

Two cheeks of the same arse.

Same stinking shit, different toilet paper…..

 

[Weststander]

You are absolutely right but very few do or will. Though i am not sure that many trust anything that is promised by any party, so what’s the point of reading a manifesto?

Imho they can be useful eg planned policies on bloodsports, where new homes will go, taxation. It certainly helped me in 97, 01, 05.

You are correct, a good example would be Blair reneging on fox hunting in a significant way … he watered it down so that in reality the thugs are still chasing/killing foxes.

 

[aolstudios]

I'm sure the right on Guardian will help balance the books!

Given they still feature several bitter Corbynites, they're not likely to be reliably behind Starmer

 

[Weststander]

Given they still feature several bitter Corbynites, they're not likely to be reliably behind Starmer

Especially when he implements policies not exactly aligned to their rigid (unelectable) agenda.

 

[ROSM]

I have read sections on their website and it’s heavy on what they will do but very little on (meaningful) how.
Perhaps a better approach would be ‘we are going to do our best try and sort the nhs, economy, equality etc out. We honestly don’t know how but we will do our best. Above all, we will do so honestly, with integrity and with respect to the law and our parliamentary system of government’.
If there was a GE today I would vote labour, but I would go the whole hog and join the party if they said this!

Trouble is that policy is heavy. The how is generally there but people snooze off with it.

In todays 30 second soundbite 140 character world, people dont do detail. As an example, the day last year when labour initially announced the fee paying school tax changes, alex forsyth from the bbc spent 3 minutes on a bbc news at 10 interview asking starmer about Sunak. The policy itself was never covered in the piece.

 

[Pevenseagull]

We need sensible coalition governance so I'll be voting Reform so they can temper and offset Labour's loony left communistic tendency.

If they do to ahead and stand in all constituencies I am genuinely looking forward to finding out about some of the Reform candidates.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I have read sections on their website and it’s heavy on what they will do but very little on (meaningful) how.
Perhaps a better approach would be ‘we are going to do our best try and sort the nhs, economy, equality etc out. We honestly don’t know how but we will do our best. Above all, we will do so honestly, with integrity and with respect to the law and our parliamentary system of government’.
If there was a GE today I would vote labour, but I would go the whole hog and join the party if they said this!

All I can say is wait until the manifesto is finalized and released.

 

[Is it PotG?]

All I can say is wait until the manifesto is finalized and released.

Indeed, aside from ignoring local councils on planning and building left, right and centre, there might be tax concessions on manbags.

 

[jcdenton08]

Or are told, every day of the week, every year (by billionaire-owned newspapers), that anything else is 'Communist', of course that's what they will want!

If I'd read and believed the Tory press throughout my adult life, I too would 'want' the status quo, be convinced that things could never be different or better, and that Labour were dangerous Commies.

I think you're being very naïve, or disingenuous, if you don't think what many people 'want' or believe is shaped and influenced by what Right-wing newspapers tell them on a daily basis.

The proof is in the pudding. The pudding being the elections under left wing candidates and doctrine that Labour have consistently failed with for a century.

You can blame the right wing press, the Tories, the stupid electorate… nothing changes the fact that the public as a whole - not a very vocal minority which left wingers hear in echo - don’t want a true left wing government.

Labour are only going to win the next election because they’ve ditched the loony left from the party.

It is possible to introduce left wing policies under a centre-right leadership. Blair consistently did it: record spending on the NHS, minimum wage, longest sustained rise in living standards…

We aren’t going to see a revolution under Starmer due to the shit show financially he is inheriting, but we will see a slow and steady shift back to the middle which is exactly what the polls are saying the public wants.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Imho they can be useful eg planned policies on bloodsports, where new homes will go, taxation. It certainly helped me in 97, 01, 05.

You are correct, a good example would be Blair reneging on fox hunting in a significant way … he watered it down so that in reality the thugs are still chasing/killing foxes.

That's a rather partial take on what, I agree, became a too nuanced law. You need to recall the extreme push back against this, and for large swathes on the right, opposition to a hunting ban became a standard to bear in the war against the nanny state, which later morphed into the 'anti-woke' agenda. Blair was attacked for 'gesture politics' and wasting parliamentary time when there were important issues, such a crime and immigration and our relationship with the EU that needed sorting. The nascent ERG had found a new high horse to ride on. Blair, ever reasonable and consensual, tried to take on board the concerns of those who argued that 'townies' who know nothing about the countryside were destroying traditions and a way of life that was 'in balance'. The tories were unsure whether to weaponize this, because there was widespread support for a ban (in the urban population). However, they opposed it, and the whole thing did Blair lasting damage.

I personally wanted to see The Unspeakable barred from cavorting around in their red coats, with their doe-eyed 'followers' (working class rural tories) doing so-called pest control using dogs, perverting the 'drag hunt' so they 'accidentally' ended up chasing a real fox; I regard them as a load of cretinous entitled tossers. But my view is not shared by much of the centre-right, and my view would be labeled as 'typical labour class-war bollocks' by many.

Hunting Act 2004 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So in the end Blair tried to tread a thin line but the loopholes, and lack of interest in pursuit of criminality in many rural communities by the police, and active flagrant flouting of the law with entire communities conspiring in this has resulted in persistent illegal activity:

Figures show the scale of fox hunting carnage

Nearly 1,000 incidents of fox hunts wreaking havoc in the countryside or involved in suspected illegal hunting have been recorded by leading animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports during the last hunting season.

www.league.org.uk

Despite my views about foxhunting, this was not a pivotal reason for voting labour. And I would also suggest that, especially today, there is a case to be made for selecting how to vote by viewing the whole piece rather than focusing on one or two manifesto items. In fact, single issue 'deal breakers' can be particularly dangerous, because they can draw the light away from a party's other (main) agenda.

For example, a pal of mine, centre politics, own business, voted Conservative for the single reason that he wanted us to leave the EU. And having achieved his goal, he has found that the red tape that drove his imperative has got worse, and he now realizes that rather than betting all-in on one colour in virtual roulette, he had instead put all him money on one number, a one in 36 bet rather than 50:50, if you see what I mean. He feels he was conned and cheated now.

And of course a manifesto is largely a list of aspirations. The idea of unbreakable promises actually concerns me, partly because of 'events' changing the landscape, and partly because it reduces politics to a game of 'promise keeping/breaking' top trumps.

 

[beorhthelm]

Trouble is that policy is heavy. The how is generally there but people snooze off with it.

In todays 30 second soundbite 140 character world, people dont do detail. As an example, the day last year when labour initially announced the fee paying school tax changes, alex forsyth from the bbc spent 3 minutes on a bbc news at 10 interview asking starmer about Sunak. The policy itself was never covered in the piece.

actually 30 seconds or a tweet should be enough to convey a basic policy concept. it's ideal really, be succinct and to the point. and i know they can do it, because they use party political broadcasts to put across messages. unfortunatly, too often they would rather waffle around, cry about how bad the other one has/would do it, or sell a vague vision of fluffy, jam-tomorrow, sunlit, semi-utopia. the 5 second sound bite or 3 word slogans are where they dumb down to some marketing inspired lowest denominator.

and yes, the media would rather get into grubby politicking, "Westminster village" topics that aren't really going to help or interest voters. but drama sells so they carry on doing it.

 

[Weststander]

That's a rather partial take on what, I agree, became a too nuanced law. You need to recall the extreme push back against this, and for large swathes on the right, opposition to a hunting ban became a standard to bear in the war against the nanny state, which later morphed into the 'anti-woke' agenda. Blair was attacked for 'gesture politics' and wasting parliamentary time when there were important issues, such a crime and immigration and our relationship with the EU that needed sorting. The nascent ERG had found a new high horse to ride on. Blair, ever reasonable and consensual, tried to take on board the concerns of those who argued that 'townies' who know nothing about the countryside were destroying traditions and a way of life that was 'in balance'. The tories were unsure whether to weaponize this, because there was widespread support for a ban (in the urban population). However, they opposed it, and the whole thing did Blair lasting damage.

I personally wanted to see The Unspeakable barred from cavorting around in their red coats, with their doe-eyed 'followers' (working class rural tories) doing so-called pest control using dogs, perverting the 'drag hunt' so they 'accidentally' ended up chasing a real fox; I regard them as a load of cretinous entitled tossers. But my view is not shared by much of the centre-right, and my view would be labeled as 'typical labour class-war bollocks' by many.

Hunting Act 2004 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So in the end Blair tried to tread a thin line but the loopholes, and lack of interest in pursuit of criminality in many rural communities by the police, and active flagrant flouting of the law with entire communities conspiring in this has resulted in persistent illegal activity:

Figures show the scale of fox hunting carnage

Nearly 1,000 incidents of fox hunts wreaking havoc in the countryside or involved in suspected illegal hunting have been recorded by leading animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports during the last hunting season.

www.league.org.uk

Despite my views about foxhunting, this was not a pivotal reason for voting labour. And I would also suggest that, especially today, there is a case to be made for selecting how to vote by viewing the whole piece rather than focusing on one or two manifesto items. In fact, single issue 'deal breakers' can be particularly dangerous, because they can draw the light away from a party's other (main) agenda.

For example, a pal of mine, centre politics, own business, voted Conservative for the single reason that he wanted us to leave the EU. And having achieved his goal, he has found that the red tape that drove his imperative has got worse, and he now realizes that rather than betting all-in on one colour in virtual roulette, he had instead put all him money on one number, a one in 36 bet rather than 50:50, if you see what I mean. He feels he was conned and cheated now.

And of course a manifesto is largely a list of aspirations. The idea of unbreakable promises actually concerns me, partly because of 'events' changing the landscape, and partly because it reduces politics to a game of 'promise keeping/breaking' top trumps.

Everyone's different, animal welfare is huge to me, it's in my very soul. By coincidence I had a nightmare about it last night .

The pushback was from t@ssers, right wing posh tw@ts and their rural henchmen. Blair had such a great majority he could've sailed through with his first bill.

 

[Chicken Run]

All I can say is wait until the manifesto is finalized and released.

ITK…

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Me.

I have a peruse through the Labour and Green manifestos pre elections. With specific interest in taxation, housebuilding, environment, etc.

I’d advise others to do the same, rather than just voting based on lifelong tribal beliefs.

I remember reading the Lib Dem manifesto in 2017.
I forgot the exact details, but it was something like they hadn't bothered to change the PDF file name and it still appeared as "Draft Manifesto 0.1" on the tab at the top.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Everyone's different, animal welfare is huge to me, it's in my very soul. By coincidence I had a nightmare about it last night .

The pushback was from t@ssers, right wing posh tw@ts and their rural henchmen. Blair had such a great majority he could've sailed through with his first bill.

You're right. But that wasn't his way. He was a consensus politician. Something we have become unused to in recent years. Perhaps Starmer will be similar (he has already upset some elements of the left). I still suspect Blair (and labour) would have suffered had he been more forceful over this, and the tories would have got back in sooner, and felt empowered to quickly reverse the bill (something that they have not done, perhaps surprisingly, albeit to do so after so many years would perhaps have looked vindictive). The status quo isn't ideal, but it is perhaps better than it might have been had the full class-war ban been enacted. And indeed perhaps a full ban may now be more easy to achieve. I bet Labour don't put it in their manifesto, though. Ironically.

 

[Weststander]

You're right. But that wasn't his way. He was a consensus politician. Something we have become unused to in recent years. Perhaps Starmer will be similar (he has already upset some elements of the left). I still suspect Blair (and labour) would have suffered had he been more forceful over this, and the tories would have got back in sooner, and felt empowered to quickly reverse the bill (something that they have not done, perhaps surprisingly, albeit to do so after so many years would perhaps have looked vindictive). The status quo isn't ideal, but it is perhaps better than it might have been had the full class-war ban been enacted. And indeed perhaps a full ban may now be more easy to achieve. I bet Labour don't put it in their manifesto, though. Ironically.

Teresa May wanted a bill with a free vote to repeal the Act. Not the nice person she might seem, imho.

 

[Zeberdi]

And of course a manifesto is largely a list of aspirations. The idea of unbreakable promises actually concerns me, partly because of 'events' changing the landscape, and partly because it reduces politics to a game of 'promise keeping/breaking' top trumps.

Election ‘manifestos’ are largely bllx - they are exactly as the name imbibes, a list of hopes and ideals made in order to get elected but which become completely subject to the reality of governance. That has been even more so n the last 30 years or so of British politics. I was asked to draw up the Local Labour Party’s manifesto on the environment many years ago in the run up to a GE purely on my knowledge of environmental law, in particular European Law. I created a very polished sounding document largely out of thin air using nothing more than a law degree and background in campaigning- nothing to do with what the Labour Party was doing at the time, it was more about the threat from the Greens. I knew it was bllx and so did the Labour Leader of the Council at the time but did I it anyway.

A great political philosopher, Edmund Burke posited in a book I was studying at Uni that ‘parliamentary power blunts the edge of radicalism’.