-
I think you've nailed it here. And Starmer isn't a radical. He's a methodical, evidence based, detail-oriented politician who's constantly accused of being boring, but who will hopefully be competent. The stall he set out was pretty much 'vote for me and I'll take the drama out of politics'. The most we'll get is radical with a small r from someone whose detractors say is conservative with a small c.
Fox-
I think I probably agree.
There will be drama though, because that's how our media likes it. There's going to have to be a spending review fairly soon, and they'll turn that into a drama. Hopefully the upcoming Tory leadership contest will provide enough drama to satiate them.
-
Starmer isn't a radical. He's a methodical, evidence based, detail-oriented politician who's constantly accused of being boring, but who will hopefully be competent. The stall he set out was pretty much 'vote for me and I'll take the drama out of politics'.
Rather surprised I haven't seen the phrase 'steer calmer' bandied about
andyp
Kimmo
Firstly - the evidence is half the country voted for parties that have limited support for these outcomes.
Second, these can be tackled in methodical, evidence based, idealogically-neutral manner. You don’t need to be radical.
Radical works both ways - trump, brexit, etc are all radical step changes. Being radical doesn’t necessarily give a positive outcome. And, given the incredible complexity of improving health, schooling, poverty and so on, there is a very high possibility that radical change results in unintended consequences.
It seems that at both ends of the political spectrum “radical” is becoming a populist ideology- persistence, focus, and very hard but boring management aren’t sufficient to improve matters. We just need some simple radical ideas and all will be well.