Keir Starmer

[hilts]

View attachment 86906
"This man is the perfect puppet for me and Mandy."

"Is it all down hill after being PM Tony?"

"No No no mini me the gravy train is long, very long"

 

[Postman Pep]

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

"Is it all down hill after being PM Tony?"

"No No no mini me the gravy train is long, very long"

If Starmer achieves anything like Blair achieved, it’ll be progress from these Tory clowns.

 

[hilts]

.

 

[TinFoilHat]

If Starmer achieves anything like Blair achieved, it’ll be progress from these Tory clowns.

Not Blair's biggest fan but at least he understood you need rabid lefties in your party to argue policies and occasionally get one through.

He didn't cull members for having a different point of view.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Not Blair's biggest fan but at least he understood you need rabid lefties in your party to argue policies and occasionally get one through.

He didn't cull members for having a different point of view.

There’ll be enough there, just probably not the outspoken ones.

Always the same in this case. Blair got rid of what he wanted, Milligan had a cull the opposite way. Corbyn was ruled by the Unions and now Starmer is moving it back to the centre where he believes the votes lie.

To be honest, I don’t get in to deep with what they do internally, the proof in the pudding will be what they deliver when in power. Tories have delivered nothing but harm to this country, time to see if a different party can bring some good.

Simple as that.

 

[bluenova]

If Starmer achieves anything like Blair achieved, it’ll be progress from these Tory clowns.

There was an Owen Jones article about the two child rule which was along the lines of 'even New Labour made a huge difference with child poverty'.

But if you look at the 1997 manifesto, it's very similar to the things Starmer is saying now. Labour promised almost nothing that appeared like it was going to cost extra money.

Those on here who seemingly love this kind of thing, will be rolling in examples of laws that Labour isn't going to commit to repeal between now and the election.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

There was an Owen Jones article about the two child rule which was along the lines of 'even New Labour made a huge difference with child poverty'.

But if you look at the 1997 manifesto, it's very similar to the things Starmer is saying now. Labour promised almost nothing that appeared like it was going to cost extra money.

Those on here who seemingly love this kind of thing, will be rolling in examples of laws that Labour isn't going to commit to repeal between now and the election.

To get into government, New Labour very much went along with Tory economic policies. They stuck with them for the first year or so to not spook the electorate or the markets then slowly started to set their own narrative which brought a real upturn in social and economic well-being. During that period there was never a need to discuss politics with my Tory voting mates as they were content with what Blair brought.

This is why some argue that we are not seeing the real Labour vision, but just small parts of it and we have to understand that there’s a bigger picture at play.

Everybody knows that you cannot set direction of this country from the sidelines, the first purpose is always to get inside No 10.

 

[Vic]

There was an Owen Jones article about the two child rule which was along the lines of 'even New Labour made a huge difference with child poverty'.

But if you look at the 1997 manifesto, it's very similar to the things Starmer is saying now. Labour promised almost nothing that appeared like it was going to cost extra money.

Those on here who seemingly love this kind of thing, will be rolling in examples of laws that Labour isn't going to commit to repeal between now and the election.

They promised to increase education spending, and did.

I can understand the need to avoid the Tory party that's tripled the national debt talking about a Labour magic money tree, but promising not to reverse the two-child benefit limit is daft.

For a start, it may be part of the reason for the falling birth rate. The Tory plan to reduce immigration is to have more Brits doing the jobs and the child benefit policy is a disincentive to having more Brits.

 

[bluenova]

They promised to increase education spending, and did.

I can understand the need to avoid the Tory party that's tripled the national debt talking about a Labour magic money tree, but promising not to reverse the two-child benefit limit is daft.

For a start, it may be part of the reason for the falling birth rate. The Tory plan to reduce immigration is to have more Brits doing the jobs and the child benefit policy is a disincentive to having more Brits.

But they way they promised it was heavily caveated before the election.

The only commitments to spend were funded by cuts elsewhere (assisted places > reduced class sizes) - The main increase was to restore education spending to as much as it was in the past, and only if the economy grew.

If they simply answer yes to 'will you do x', then they end up writing their manifesto via media interviews. The hard-left twitterati and their 'evil Keith' memes are the useful idiots of the right.

It was the same in the 1990s - Blair was a Tory and they're all the same, so why vote for Labour?