I think Blair was a mixed bag. Illegal war, best NHS in my lifetime, student loans, privatisation, expansion of the welfare state. A mixed bag at best. I wasn't happy with him. But at this point I would bite your hand off to get that government back. They knew what they were doing, and they pretended to give a shit about the people they governed. That's six steps up from where we are now. Corbyn would have been better but we don't have that choice anymore do we.
Starmer's purge of the left is infuriating though.
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
28 points (96.7% liked)
United Kingdom
4076 readers
288 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I've been told that now is the time to get behind the leader and put old allegiances aside for the greater good. You know, just like the right of the party did during the Corbyn years.
Yeah! The Corbyn years, that was the time to do character assassinations, takedowns and infighting, didn't you know? Squabbling with the leader is passé these days.
NHS in my lifetime
Aye, paid for on the PFI never never though.
Rather we accrued debt for that than water company dividends.
Does it have to be either or?
It shouldn't be, no. But it looks like we either get to choose between this (gestures broadly) or revenge of the Blair years, so I suppose it does.
If you're asking specifically about financing, then no it doesn't. I believe our economy has shifted way too far over to the free market side since Thatcher and we need to undo what she did so we can have a common sense mixed economy. The landscape would be so different in this situation that PFI wouldn't be feasible, let alone necessary.
In the current landscape, or as it was in the Blair years, I don't think I can propose a better way to pay, though I'm sure there was one.
I see what you were getting at, yeah I would take Blair over (gestures with wanker hands) this here.
Still though, I will hate that man until I die, he is a traitor, a war criminal and I blame him and all his wasted potential for this pile of shit we have now.
I tell you what, with PFI I'd just cancel all that shit and write a law making it legal, fuck being screwed over forever. There again, I probably don't have the mates in finance that all these pricks do.
Fully agree
This is just not scaring the horses, the Tories are kicking themselves in the balls so hard as their policies come home to roost, it's not the time to be radical.
Boring and effective is the way to power. Everyone's had enough of psychodrama politics.
When is the time to be radical, then? Is it when the opposition is in a strong position?
Obviously not. But most of the floating voters labour is trying to attract aren't radicals they just know they want something better.
I, personally, do not think that after dropping the tax on the top 5% on earners (the main frightened the horses policy) it was also necessary to drop the workers rights and ending 2 child limit on benefits.
They've also give cold on green policies by the sounds of it. I mean at some point you've got to differentiate yourself
I think they are keeping their powder dry and hoping the economy can be projected to show enough growth to 'justify' the spend come election time.
Agree. In fact, whether it grows or not, they're hoping to have the political capital to adjust the fiscal rules or fudge the numbers to make them fit the rules. The latter being exactly what Brown did as Chancellor!
At this point all Labour need to do is show even mild competence and they'll probably win.
Also they're not in-fighting and back stabbing each other like the tories are, which is another win!
It's never the time to be radical, we must always put the rich first no matter what. Helping the majority of the nation live decent lives is something that will just have to wait until we're all dead and buried, it really is the only way, all the billionaire owned media agrees.
Things did get better for the majority of the nation under previous Labour governments. It wasn't perfect by any stretch, but if your criterion for good governance is 'helping the majority of the nation live decent lives', which I agree is a noble goal, Labour's track record shows they're the party to vote for.
Being radical for radical's sake seems equally stupid.
The world is literally burning up due to man made climate change and we have highest most obscene inequality since the war and this isn't the time to be radical?
Labour have a net zero plan, and they already tried radical with Corbyn with predictable results
Sure I get that. And I want them in power. But I'm slightly concerned they're going to be so boring as to not be effective - ie be so concerned to not rock the boat they'll enable the status quo to more or less continue
I've been concerned to see the amount of policies they've rowed back on recently. I totally understand they don't want to scare the horses but at the same time it's not like Starmer is Corbyn is it?
I don't think it's so much ideological (though I don't mind if it is) as a case of promoting those with experience of government. Inevitably, that means people who worked under Blair and Brown.
I had such high hopes for Starmer - he was a Human Rights lawyer, he was in Corbyn's cabinet , and he looked to be more of a politician willing to play the game of politics than Corbyn. And yet... And yet...
And yet...?
Blair got elected. Blair stayed elected, and only stepped down after being ousted by the Labour Party membership.
Brown was popular with the Labour Party membership. Brown lost.
Corbyn was popular with the Labour Party membership. Corbyn lost.
A pragmatic Labour party that is actually electable, and that wins, is orders of magnitude better than a "pure" Labour party that loses.
Shouting about how you want to see NATO disbanded, how the Falklands should be given to Argentina, and how much you admire Hugo Chavez, is not electable.
Oh I would absolutely rather Starmer's Labour than anything tory, but that's not a very high bar. I never liked Corbyn, I thought he was a hypocritical arsehole at times, but I did like many of his policies and polling showed so did much of the populous when you took away party designation. So my hope was that Starmer would continue in the same vein as Corbyn but be a more electable individual
In court cases, ideally you save the crystallization of your argument for summing up, because if you reveal it too early on you give the opposing side the opportunity to rebut it.
I like to hope that's Starmer's strategy. If he says anything too exciting too far for an election, it gives the Tories an angle, and time to spin nonsense against him. But you can't punch fog.
It's a theory, and I hope you're right. But there gas been no hint that he is doing anything like that at all
I think the main difference between election mode Blair and election mode Starmer was that Blair looked passionate and enthusiastic about wanting to introduce policies to improve things for people, and that was infectious.
Like I've said, I just get the impression with Starmer he kind of says 'oh yeah... we're not doing that either now', and he might have a good reason. It comes over like he's taking ideas away from the table.
It's easy for me to say I know. I don't know the decisions he has to make. I just worry those floating voters will think Starmer and Sunak are very similar and not care who gets in because 'they're all the same'
Blair, for all his faults, had charisma. He knew how to twist a crowd and how to twist the media. I would have expected a decorate lawyer to have those skills too, but Starmer seems to be a wet blanket who's only skill is the occasional good quip at PMQs
This is the best summary I could come up with:
When Keir Starmer put the final touches to his shadow cabinet reshuffle over the summer recess, his thoughts were not just on who would help propel Labour into government at the next election, but who could run the country if they are successful.
Senior MPs on the soft-left of the party, however, are concerned that with the demotion of Lisa Nandy to the international development brief and Jonathan Ashworth’s move to a more political role, the Labour left has been sidelined from the big policy beats.
Starmer, with his years running the Crown Prosecution Service, has governance experience in abundance, bolstered by bringing in the former top civil servant Sue Gray as his chief of staff.
Pat McFadden, who has worked for Labour since the 1980s and was Blair’s political secretary, is a key figure, taking on the national campaign coordinator role in which he will lead the party’s election strategy group.
As well as promoting experienced operators, Starmer also had to make sure he got what some Labour MPs have called “the Angie question” right, after the explosive fallout of a previous reshuffle in which he tried to demote her but ended up having to smooth things over by giving her an even bigger role.
With a mandate of her own from party members, she is unsackable, but has made no secret of her desire for Starmer to confirm she would also be his deputy prime minister if he ends up in No 10.
The original article contains 685 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!