“If I thought the Greens would get in, I would vote Green,” he said, taking a “Hannah the plumber” leaflet. “I’m not a fan of Reform but I’m even less of a fan of Labour.”
The labour manifesto was titled “Change” and nothing has. The population didn’t want a Blue Labour that continued with cuts and austerity. It wanted Red labour that would introduce new spending plans for infrastructure.
How has the fact that the labour left been excluded from leadership made this clusterfuck their fault?
People in government found to have broken rules are sacked, instead of being kept on
Many more health appointments are available
A massive increase in the number of criminal investigations into water companies
On the way to nationalisation of the railways
Legislation to ban section 21 evictions has been passed
Do you see the Tories having done any of these things?
If I may take the liberty of guessing, I think when you say “nothing has changed” you mean shit is still expensive. And it is. But that was never going to change, not in this timeframe. Nothing the government was going to do would have led to deflation (which is pretty catastrophic in any case). The only way to fix that was to have a responsible economic policy (what that looks like, exactly, is up for debate), stick to it, and wait.
There wasn’t much in the manifesto about about infrastructure investment, because they didn’t think there was room within their economic plan: taxes are high, inflation was (somewhat) high, debt and debt interest was already high. And sure you can have the debate about whether that really constrains the economy, but that was always the line they went with, and people voted for that plan.
Where responsibility lies with the labour left is their inability to rally around a leader not of their stripe, suck it up, compromise and take the win. Constantly moaning about how awful their own party is doesn’t really increase the chance that they get a left-wing labour government next time. That persistent habit is a major contributor to why the country elects more Tory governments than Labour ones.
Little of that is really having a big impact on people’s lives.
Being “found to have broken rules” doesn’t have a lot of meaning when the feeling is the rules allow far too much corruption. I’m not aware of any changes to the parliamentary standards.
More health appointments is good, but if you hit a brick wall after your GP visit because the resources aren’t there… well you’re still stuck.
Investigations into water companies? We’re well past that stage. Where are the prosecutions? The evidence existed under previous governments but was ignored.
Nationalisation of the railways may eventually help the commuter class, but not many others. I don’t see why it’s a priority. Railways are functional. Expensive, but functional. Nationalise the water!
And on the other hand people are finding harder and harder to live their lives. Inflation is still rampant and the government cuts support saying their broke.
Of course, that doesn’t stop them inventing a billion pound ID scheme that wasn’t in the manifesto and giving the contracts to foreign tech giants – the money doesn’t even go into the UK. Or to keep trading arms to Israel whilst arresting any protestor that might have a problem with it. Or proposing scrapping trial by jury because they won’t invest in the judicial system. WTF happened to Sir Starmer the Human Rights lawyer.
I don’t see any of those objections as being substantive to the point that Labour is making positive changes.
Your point about inflation is not exactly wrong, but calling 3.5% inflation “rampant” is overblown. How exactly could the government have changed this? You want them to have been investing and spending more, which is inflationary.
You then make some points some of which I certainly agree are wrong, but don’t really stick to the point: if your party is in power and does something you disagree with, do you shout about it, harming your party, or put up with it as a cost of being in power? Merely emphasising that you disagree with those actions is beside the point because I’m not saying I agree with them.
Fucken hell
so long as people continue to treat the ballot box like a complaints box, we’re fucked.
Gotta hand it to labour left, they really helped make people dislike Starmer!
I don’t understand this take.
The labour manifesto was titled “Change” and nothing has. The population didn’t want a Blue Labour that continued with cuts and austerity. It wanted Red labour that would introduce new spending plans for infrastructure.
How has the fact that the labour left been excluded from leadership made this clusterfuck their fault?
I think there has been meaningful change.
Do you see the Tories having done any of these things?
If I may take the liberty of guessing, I think when you say “nothing has changed” you mean shit is still expensive. And it is. But that was never going to change, not in this timeframe. Nothing the government was going to do would have led to deflation (which is pretty catastrophic in any case). The only way to fix that was to have a responsible economic policy (what that looks like, exactly, is up for debate), stick to it, and wait.
There wasn’t much in the manifesto about about infrastructure investment, because they didn’t think there was room within their economic plan: taxes are high, inflation was (somewhat) high, debt and debt interest was already high. And sure you can have the debate about whether that really constrains the economy, but that was always the line they went with, and people voted for that plan.
Where responsibility lies with the labour left is their inability to rally around a leader not of their stripe, suck it up, compromise and take the win. Constantly moaning about how awful their own party is doesn’t really increase the chance that they get a left-wing labour government next time. That persistent habit is a major contributor to why the country elects more Tory governments than Labour ones.
Little of that is really having a big impact on people’s lives.
Being “found to have broken rules” doesn’t have a lot of meaning when the feeling is the rules allow far too much corruption. I’m not aware of any changes to the parliamentary standards.
More health appointments is good, but if you hit a brick wall after your GP visit because the resources aren’t there… well you’re still stuck.
Investigations into water companies? We’re well past that stage. Where are the prosecutions? The evidence existed under previous governments but was ignored.
Nationalisation of the railways may eventually help the commuter class, but not many others. I don’t see why it’s a priority. Railways are functional. Expensive, but functional. Nationalise the water!
And on the other hand people are finding harder and harder to live their lives. Inflation is still rampant and the government cuts support saying their broke.
Of course, that doesn’t stop them inventing a billion pound ID scheme that wasn’t in the manifesto and giving the contracts to foreign tech giants – the money doesn’t even go into the UK. Or to keep trading arms to Israel whilst arresting any protestor that might have a problem with it. Or proposing scrapping trial by jury because they won’t invest in the judicial system. WTF happened to Sir Starmer the Human Rights lawyer.
I don’t see any of those objections as being substantive to the point that Labour is making positive changes.
Your point about inflation is not exactly wrong, but calling 3.5% inflation “rampant” is overblown. How exactly could the government have changed this? You want them to have been investing and spending more, which is inflationary.
You then make some points some of which I certainly agree are wrong, but don’t really stick to the point: if your party is in power and does something you disagree with, do you shout about it, harming your party, or put up with it as a cost of being in power? Merely emphasising that you disagree with those actions is beside the point because I’m not saying I agree with them.
Gotta give it to Starmer, he’s really united the country… Against him.