Sure, but it's very much as-intended for Labour currently. Even if Starmer were a charismatic orator, the best play would still be to stand quietly and look the part, because the only way they lose this is would be if the election became about Starmer, in the fashion the Tories were able to make the past two elections about Corbyn.
? Sterling is at its highest since Brexit atm! We were right to stay with Sterling whether being in or out of the EU. Probably the worst thing was giving the BoE independence to print or not print at the behest of the powers that be above them in world economics.
Starmer has been tremendously lucky to have both the Conservatives and SNP falter fairly spectacularly at the same time, but he has also put Labour in the best position to exploit it to the maximum, I think the offer from Labour is weak but if they were any further to either side of the dial I doubt they would do any better electorally. However I think they are going to have to be far more ambitious once in because this strategy won't wash once in power, for all the talk of issues across the board the main way the Conservatives have lost support is through peoples pockets. If Labour can't find a way to make people feel better off then they will be in trouble come the next election. Where the electorate go from there though I don't know.
Absolutely, and one of the downsides of winning a landslide victory is that you're going to be drawing support from such a wide ideological spectrum that any ambitious agenda is going to upset some of them...it's easy to tie yourself into knots trying to avoid that and accomplish nothing. The real measure of Starmer will be whether he can steer clear of that trap.
Remember that in 2017 Corbyn very nearly got in despite the "all about Corbyn" strategy! For all his faults he actually had a personality and wasn't scared to stand behind his beliefs albeit caving in on the EU issue and pretending he was backing remain. It was UKIP folding that led those voters to vote Tory that beat Corbyn first time round! and the turnout there was incredibly high and then the Brexit Party not contesting Tory seats in 2019 that took votes off Labour in red wall seats that defeated Corbyn, not so much the Tories being on a high! All the talk in recent years of tactical voting from the left came home to roost when it was in fact the right wing that ended up utilising strategy to beat Corbyn! This time round it isn't that Labour are gaining votes, it is that the Tory vote is/was not likely to turn out. The % polls don't show it but Starmer is likely to get his majority with far far less votes than Corbyn got in 2017 and possibly less than Corbnyn got in 2019. Corbyn got over 10m votes in 2019. this election with Tory apathy Starmer might get his majority with something similar to Blair's 2005 result 9m votes, less than both of Corbyn's elections with the Tories voters either staying at home or voting for Reform if that floats their boat. Labour just need to lose less votes to reform than stay at home Tories and they get their majority. You have to remember that Corbyn was only beaten by "peak" Tory turnouts which are not going to happen in 3 week's time! May and Boris got huge numbers in very high turnout (for recent times) elections - 67% / 68%. A repeat of 2005s 61% with a million less votes than Corbyn in 2019 is where I expect it to be. Only Blair's first landslide beat Corbyn's 2017 result and his second only just beat Corbyn's 2019 result. Corbyn got more than Blair's last election, Brown and Milliband! This time round I don't really think Labour are Farage's target. I think he is chancing his arm at replacing the Tories! We have no idea how much apathy will affect the tory vote this time. It could be worse than 1997! who knows. I don't think Starmer will get Corbyn numbers though.
Sure, but one of the most consistent drivers of turnout is people motivated by voting against the other guy. Joe Biden won with the highest turnout as a proportion of population* in US history, by a very large margin, and it wasn't because people were exuberant about Biden...they just really, really wanted to vote against Trump. *Turnout as a percentage of eligible voters was higher at times in the 19th century, but that's because an awfully large portion of the population was ineligible to vote.
None of our politicians have any solutions to the economic problems in this country so you're right on that score. But Labour do have ambitious plans. It's not something the public tend to pay much attention to but they have radical plans to transform the way the country is run so as to make it hard, if not impossible, for future governments to undo the reforms they're going to put in place. The central theme is taking power away from the UK Parliament. More powers for towns and cities (which tend to vote Labour), more powers for the Scottish and Welsh governments, the creation of "social rights" and associated mechanisms to allow the courts to overrule the government. Starmer may be dull personally but he isn't going to lead a dull, more of the same government. Like Blair he will change the way the country works.
It will still slide back down. And even since Brexit, the EU is still our largest trading partner. So with sterling going up and down, this makes things difficult for our exporters. If we had joined the Euro, we would have avoided these costs which would helped business enormously. Secondly, by sticking with sterling, we pay to exhange sterling to euros and vice versa. And on top of that tariffs have to be paid. What a cost this has all been that we have paid by not joining the euro and brexiting. Still, I suppose it is more important to feel the sentimentality of "ownership" of sterling.
Interesting article here about the change from winning to governing N.B. As it’s the Guardian I’ll reference that Rafael Behr identifies as sympathetic to social democracy, liberalism and centrism, so not a ‘radical’ Labour was fighting fit for an election, but some fear a nasty shock once in power Rafael Behr https://www.theguardian.com/profile/rafaelbehr
In principal I would agree with you, but we already have lower taxes for the Uber-rich compared to say 60 years ago and it hasn’t tempered the greed of some of them at all, and let’s face it I’m not sure if many of them pay any tax However, there is also a movement of the Uber-rich that want to pay more tax I’m not sure how significant cash-in-hand jobs are in the big picture. It may be like benefit fraud, talked about a lot but minor compared to behaviours amongst the Uber-rich
To be fair, he doesn't come across that badly. Dodges a few hard questions just fine. He is right that Hitler and Putin can be described as successful politicians - but maybe the questioning was too weak as really his "admiration" for Putin was not addressed. I think it is quite funny though that his stance is exactly the Corbyn stance: we have to talk to everyone - no matter how evil - if we want to save lives. There are people on here apoplectic with rage about Corbyn saying those things. Does Farage get a pass?
Farage is talking about dialogue with global leaders, not with terrorists. Hopefully you can recognise the difference? Throughout every political question show there is only one credible speaker and that is Farage. All of the others sound completely clueless & out of touch.
Unfortunately true. every time the rest of them say the things they thing they should say and snipe for a small audience response they make the man look like the only one who is actually there to debate rather than point score by shouting over each other, but then politics has moved this way further and further since the Blair era. And if they were really honest they would stop trying to point score the "you're scared to do debates and realise that it just makes them look worse and him better! Also only appeals to people that like soundbites. And thus end up thinking "I agree with Nick" Oooh that Clegg sounds good or "corrupt Tories" Why can't we have someone like Nicola Sturgeon as PM!!!! They just get rid of the debates or dismiss anyone who continually speaks over someone else. Before the debate I was watching Cameron being interviewed on the news. Think it was CH4 and he sounded much more PM material than all the carp we have in the house bunfighting for the job atm. I don't think any of them are bothered about the truth. They are quite happy to make things up, get the tweets and publicity, then later quietly accept it was not true once the lie has spread.
That is in your not at all humble opinion with which many will beg to differ. The gatemouthed gobshite is all problems and no viable solutions. Farage would lose a sincerity competition with Hughie Green and Bob Monkhouse.
Cameron, PM material? He proved himself to be unfit to lead when calling for a Referéndum and then showing no leadership or fight for the UK to continue being a member of the EU. And when said result arrived, walked away from the job! Real.leadership!!
I was commenting on how he came across in that interview. Pretty sure I said that. His history has nothing to do with how he comes across in an interview at this moment in time. This comment is a little bit like the folks on Guido continually banging on about electing the man who let Saville get away with it.
Why make a comment that he sounded like a PM when history proved he wasn't really PM material at all. IMO, May was the best of the Tory bunch, although that isn't saying much, as her behaviour at least was dignified and not oñe that relied in soundbites and bluff.
He lists the problems accurately. Identifying issues is the first step to solving them. Every other politician is transparently only there to benefit themselves and their careers. Yes, Farage is too but at least he has some relevant ideas for what’s going wrong.
