That Starmer fella...

If you are swing voter who previously voted Conservative, what is Labour offering over Sunak's current cabinet?

A change. Not using culture wars as a distraction. Not saying "STOP THE BOATS". Not painting over children's drawings. Having normal politicians back in power.

I know it's hard for many people on here to grasp, but most swing voters who've voted Tory in the past aren't the sort of people who'd knife a asylum seekers inflatable. They hate Johnson and think the venial corruption and nastiness needs to go.

I don't disagree with wanting to move on from all the things you mention but

Having normal politicians back in power.
And
They hate Johnson and think the venial corruption and nastiness needs to go.

Is that not what Sunak has the potential to demonstrate between now and the election?

Lots of that culture wars and migrant stuff is a social media bubble, most people just want to be able to see a doctor or dentist when they need to, good outcomes for thier kids and affordable housing, secure jobs and good living standards. Labour are currently saying we can't offer you any of these as we have to be fiscally conservative. It's probably more fair to say that's more likely to lead to voter apathy than people turning out to vote tory again

I guess I just find it depressing when we have such bleak politics that there isn't a more optimistic option being proposed

Is that not what Sunak has the potential to demonstrate between now and the election?

No.

He had the potential to bitch slap the cunts in his party and has bottled it every time. The closest he got to sacking up was Johnson's honors BS and dispite people reacting positively he couldn't follow though and make political hay from it.

If he hasn't been able to do it when it's plated up for him, he just can't do it.

Anyway, he doesn't give a fuck. This is something to pad his resume.

Anyway, he doesn't give a fuck. This is something to pad his resume

On this we agree

Is that not what Sunak has the potential to demonstrate between now and the election?

I was concerned about that when he got in. But he's been shit at getting a handle on the scandals or getting his party under control.

Nadine Dorries' "resignation" is the latest one for instance.

Why is the country fucked? Well, a decade plus of austerity, clearly.
What do we need to un-fuck the country? Apparently at least another 5 years of austerity, duh.

To argue that we can’t invest in the country because it hasn’t been invested in is a) circular reasoning and b) fucking nuts. But it is apparently the argument Starmer and co are going to cling to.

Also, lol, if you think the Labour right aren’t going to do culture wars and horrible immigration shit then you must have been napping your way through the Blair years.

Yes there was lots of awful rhetoric (and basically illegality) under Blair - it was especially nasty under Margaret Beckett in relation to aslym seekers. But there simply is no comparison in terms of culture wars.

I have yet to hear anyone say Labour are introducing austerity 2.o.

Given the state of the economy you're going to have to give an increased priority to the investment which will deliver growth. If you don't you risk loss of market confidence - which is not some theoretical maybe, under Truss we all watched live what happens when you fuck it.

I'd love Labour to fix all the things. But it's not in their gift to give. If they can focus on a couple of wins. That will be enough for me

Starmer abandons another of his 'pledges' by refusing to scrap the two child benefit cap, which would lift 250,000 out of poverty.

.

1 Attachment

Said they would reject the public pay review body recommendation of 6.5%

This is not true. I appreciate you don't like Starmer but the truth is important. He didn't say he'd reject the recommendation. What he said was that he wouldn't make a commitment either way:

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-fails-to-commit-to-recommended-public-sector-pay-rises-12910325

I also think re: immigration under Blair people forget that immigration quadrupled while Blair was in power, and it was firmly linked to both a financial message (we need workers to grow) and a cultural one (we are a multi cultural society and immigration benefits us).

Labour's language toughened up around 2008 when it started becoming more obvious that anti-immigrant sentiment was growing, but I don't recall any significant legislative changes to stop it.

But Labour supporters are a weird group. I know people who viscerally loathe Ed Miliband, even now, for having once put out some merch with the phrase 'controls on immigration' stamped on the side. A more anodyne phrase you'll be hard pressed to find, but it made him significant enemies.

I appreciate you don't like Starmer

You can go back a couple of pages and see me saying good things but apparently any criticism is unacceptable. If anyone found that performance yesterday inspiring then good for them

I didn't say I found it inspiring - though I do think he's getting more comfortable in front of the camera - I just said that he didn't reject the public pay review body recommendation of 6.5%. His strategy is to make no commitments either way so as not to make himself a hostage to fortune, so it would've been odd for him to reject or accept anything at the moment, and would amount to a change in strategy.

I don't especially like it - I think some of these issues should have a solid yes or no either way - but he's clearly learned from the whole 'Keir Starmer Pledge Breaker' attack line and is now providing a much more nebulous front. It's less to attack, but less for us to get our teeth into.

but I don't recall any significant legislative changes to stop it.

Right, but they sat by as abuses at Yarl's Wood were committed and where possible did things such as deporting aslym seekers before their hearing dates.

This was prior to 2008. My knowledge of this only started from 2006, so Idk how prevalent it was before then.

would amount to a change in strategy.

I mean this is key right? They have a strategy and are sticking to it.

For all the chat from political pundits and the sort of people in this thread about "needing" to know what he stands for rather than what he's against, what is the actual evidence that this has a negative outcome in his opinion amongst the public?

I also dare say that jornos have got so used to a fastfood like diet from Johnson et al, that they just want content. Regardless of what the public think.

For all the chat from political pundits and the sort of people in this thread about "needing" to know what he stands for rather than what he's against

I guess this is the challenge and to bleekrefs point about starmer not needing to commit to things now, yesterday he was happy to commit to maintaining the cap on child benefit, a policy shown not to bring more people in to the work force as intended but effective at harming disadvantaged children, gives space for pundits and people in this thread space to extrapolate from what he stands for

Right, but they sat by as abuses at Yarl's Wood were committed and where possible did things such as deporting aslym seekers before their hearing dates.

Fair, I was more focussing on legal immigration which is what I thought @Eejit was referring to when he said Blair did 'horrible immigration shit'. I'm less on top of New Labour's approach on illegal immigration but I wouldn't be surprised if it was harsher than necessary. I'd still prefer to be an asylum seeker under Blair's govt than any Tory govt we've had since, but that's not enough, I agree.

yesterday he was happy to commit to maintaining the cap on child benefit

I don't see an inconsistency there. Labour's current approach is not to make any off the cuff commitments - whether that applies to spending or repeal of legislation - so as not to make themselves a hostage to fortune later. Lammy did the same thing with the protest bill. He didn't commit to anything.

He was asked if he would lift the cap and said no, that is different from saying I won't comment on it or we will review benefits as part of a broader review or it will depend if it complies with our new fiscal rules. It was a clear answer to the question.

If you ask him if he'll repeal the GRA or the protest bill he'll say the same thing: no plans to repeal, not going to make promises, going to see where they're at when they get in power.

If he said 'we'll never repeal the cap' or 'we will reduce the cap' I'd take your point, but as it is what he said was not a commitment.

Fair enough but enough others are interpreting it in a similar way
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit

The problem they try to solve is to attract voters of the nasty party without becoming a nasty party.

Currently their high is based on everything getting too expensive and people looking for a quick fix, proper ambitious Labour style policies will just sound condescending to the kind of people
that would vote Tory in a heartbeat if prices dropped a bit.

It really seems like the left are going harder for Starmer than the right. Guardian more than the telegraph. Mick lynch more than sunak. Etc. .

We have cost of living crisis, people have to make a living.

1 Attachment

Polly Toynbee really going hard for them there: “First vote for them, and then be disappointed that they’re fuck all use to anyone”

But then Toynbee has always been of fuck all use herself, so I guess her position is entirely coherent.

I must be morphing into a right old reactionary cunt but the 2 child cap seems fairly reasonable to me. I'd like to apologize to my younger self.