Keir Starmer

[bluenova]

Benefit of hindsight. How many people has Boris proclaimed his friend only to say they never were his friend only a few months later?



The Tories have been pretty blatant in blaming all those events (apart from Truss) for being shite haven't they?



Is that all that matters? Wouldn't it be better to have someone who didn't win as convincingly but was able to offer meaningful change with a smaller majority or coalition partners?

The Tories are right that those issues have affected the economy. They've also done plenty of other stuff that was entirely their fault, Truss is a Tory, and arguably the "cutting the green crap" made us more vulnerable when energy prices went up.

The assumption in your last point is that he's guaranteed to win whatever he said. Remember that he came in as leader 20pts behind in the polls, and at various times since the Tories have had leads. How do we know that his original pledges would have got him anywhere near where he is today?

And surely any coalition is likely to end up with a blander offer than his pitch to members? It's unlikely that the Lib Dems or SNP are going to be dragging a Labour govt further to the left.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

The Tories are right that those issues have affected the economy. They've also done plenty of other stuff that was entirely their fault, Truss is a Tory, and arguably the "cutting the green crap" made us more vulnerable when energy prices went up.

The assumption in your last point is that he's guaranteed to win whatever he said. Remember that he came in as leader 20pts behind in the polls, and at various times since the Tories have had leads. How do we know that his original pledges would have got him anywhere near where he is today?

And surely any coalition is likely to end up with a blander offer than his pitch to members? It's unlikely that the Lib Dems or SNP are going to be dragging a Labour govt further to the left.

So he had to junk everything because if he had to compromise with a coalition partner he would only get some of what he promised rather than nothing at all?

Sound logic.

 

[Pedestrian]

Are you Paul Mason in disguise? :)

Are you pretending to be a cock but really you’re a secret ****?

 

[Pedestrian]

Lies are lies.

Ok.

 

[bluenova]

So he had to junk everything because if he had to compromise with a coalition partner he would only get some of what he promised rather than nothing at all?

Sound logic.

No.

Three days before Truss became leader, there was a poll putting Labour just 4 points ahead. Given the absolute shit show of party gate, and the various Tory scandals, the fact that they were still that close was scary. At the time in the betting, Labour weren't predicted to get a majority.

Given how volatile the polling has been over the past parliament it's crazy to have assumed that Labour could say what they wanted and still guarantee that they'd get into power.

Why would any party think, let's do the minimum and hope we can get into a coalition so we can ditch just a few of our policies? Do you think they might have been thinking about the Ed Milliband coalition of 2015-2020? The one Ed went to sleep the night before the election convinced it would happen?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Are you pretending to be a cock but really you’re a secret ****?

I'm asking the questions here buddy.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

No.

Three days before Truss became leader, there was a poll putting Labour just 4 points ahead. Given the absolute shit show of party gate, and the various Tory scandals, the fact that they were still that close was scary. At the time in the betting, Labour weren't predicted to get a majority.

Given how volatile the polling has been over the past parliament it's crazy to have assumed that Labour could say what they wanted and still guarantee that they'd get into power.

Why would any party think, let's do the minimum and hope we can get into a coalition so we can ditch just a few of our policies?

That would be a convincing post if they hadn't already set in motion abandoning the policies before that.

Starmer on ten leadership pledges – "the financial situation has changed" - LabourList

Keir Starmer has warned that “the financial situation has changed” and that therefore there are commitments that he…

www.google.com

 

[hilts]

From December: "The levels of death and destruction over the past weeks has been intolerable. Far too many innocent Palestinians, including women and children, have been killed as part of military operations. There must be full accountability for all actions."

Stopping foreigners? He said they'll reduce net migration. Given that it's been the highest level recorded in modern times, by some distance, and that increase is mostly students making up for not being able to come and study during Covid, it's a no brainer that it will go down. Is that really something we should be horrified about?

Luke Akehurst. You can have that one.

So the levels of death have been unacceptable

I don't have a problem with reducing immigration the point is posters supporting Labour have thrown shit at anyone saying it and now captain creosote is saying it, where is there wrath? Yeah but err...... pmsl

No one can defend luke well maybe Bob and West

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Some of his '10 pledges' don't cost money. He lied and will say pretty much anything to gain power.

The only thing that counts is getting into No 10, anything else is a failure. Doing it with a majority will be the icing on the cake for Labour as they will be able to act without having to cozy up to anybody else.

Changing the plan and being pragmatic when needed is all part of good business, sitting on your laurels thinking you’ve made it, is not.

 

[bluenova]

That would be a convincing post if they hadn't already set in motion abandoning the policies before that.

Starmer on ten leadership pledges – "the financial situation has changed" - LabourList

Keir Starmer has warned that “the financial situation has changed” and that therefore there are commitments that he…

www.google.com

I'm pleased you're convinced, as that was the point I was making. Prior to Truss, Labour couldn't take any kind of win for granted.

Even after Truss, a huge part of the lead has been down to Reform surging, and ex-Tory voters saying they didn't know if they'd vote. Labour were polling around 40% before Truss, and have settled to around 44% over the past year.

Plenty of polling experts have been arguing the lead was still relatively fragile until relatively recently, and there was still an expectation that it might drop considerably as we got closer to an election. If you remember, after 2019, it was argued that Labour needed something like a 12% lead just to get a majority of 1 - that's a lead that could never have been guaranteed. The current strategy of targeting the centre, means that Labour have spread out the vote, and are likely to get a majority with a much smaller vote.