herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Feb 8, 2024 6:43:01 GMT -5
Valid point. I was thinking Sunak, who is a different level of rich to even a pleb like Johnson.
Starmer has no personality or presence, but he at least gives the impression that he's spoken to a normal person.
|
|
mdgv2
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by mdgv2 on Feb 8, 2024 6:58:22 GMT -5
True that.
|
|
|
Post by crispy78 on Feb 8, 2024 8:26:38 GMT -5
I don't think Starmer is the most thrilling person in the world - but I did warm to him a lot after listening to his interview with James O'Brien a while back: podtail.com/en/podcast/full-disclosure-with-james-o-brien/keir-starmer/He sounds like a good guy, smart and hard working, and a loyal friend. He might not be perfect, but he's certainly head and shoulders above any other actually-possible option for prime minister in the next election.
|
|
mdgv2
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by mdgv2 on Feb 8, 2024 8:32:44 GMT -5
I still feel like it’s a choice between a kick in the bollocks and a Chinese burn, but Starmer is definitely The Least Worst Option.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 8, 2024 8:58:12 GMT -5
Eh, Starmer is a habitual liar who says whatever he thinks will get most support in a given interview and will happily say the opposite at a later date if he thinks it will get votes. He has demonstrated no consistent position except trying to expunge the left of the Labour party and deferring foreign policy to the US position. He was a secret member of the Trilateral Commission from at least 2018 to 2021, one of only two sitting MPs to do that at the time. He is a shady man.
Honestly, Starmer is a lot like Johnson except he is competent at lying, and I don't trust him one bit. However, I do think he is attached to a better party to reign him in and therefore will be less harmful than the Tories, I don't think that is in doubt. The one exception is that I think the country is much more likely to be dragged into some kind of shitty war like Iraq again under Starmer than the Tories.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 9, 2024 5:06:57 GMT -5
Speaking of, Starmer drops the £28 billion green investment pledge. Apparently their second-most popular policy on polling.
|
|
|
Post by redchimera on Feb 9, 2024 5:29:44 GMT -5
Speaking of, Starmer drops the £28 billion green investment pledge. Apparently their second-most popular policy on polling. Yeah, not a fan of that. Did they think that it was an easy target for the Tories? Do they really think that there isn't the cash to pay for it? Couldn't they have said "we need to scale back to £15 billion" or something? Are they cancelling it just to have something to replace it when they release their manifesto for the election? And did we have to have a whole day of "Kier Starmer is going to announce the cancellation of the policy" before the actual (and therefore) actual announcement? I hate the way that politics is 'produced' these days.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Feb 9, 2024 5:54:17 GMT -5
That day at least allows them to gauge feedback before actually announcing anything. That seems to be the way now; (pre-)announce something, find people object, U-turn.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 9, 2024 7:00:12 GMT -5
Apparently last week a Tory MP asked in Parliament how Starmer would fund the green investment pledge given Starmer has also pledged not to increase income tax, corporation tax, or borrowing. The next week Starmer drops the pledge. That day at least allows them to gauge feedback before actually announcing anything. That seems to be the way now; (pre-)announce something, find people object, U-turn. Imagine having politicians that actually believed in something...
|
|
|
Post by crispy78 on Feb 9, 2024 9:16:27 GMT -5
That is more or less what they've done. "Inheriting a shitshow, still going to do stuff but don't think we can hit the full £28 billion a year in the next parliament." www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/08/labour-28bn-green-prosperity-plan-keir-starmer-rachel-reevesI don't however think this is the right thing to do. I think it's definitely the right thing to do, to borrow to fund investment at a national level in developing and leveraging new green technologies - it will help the environment, it will provide jobs, it will give other countries a reason to do business with us. Someone will be the world-leader in green power, and there's no real reason it shouldn't be us. I can absolutely see why people are disappointed in Labour over this. It probably helps that I'm not a Labour voter; I just know that under FPTP they're the only other party than the Tories that can realistically form a government, and the Tories are the bunch of cunts that got us in this mess. Seeing a lot of people saying there's no point voting as Labour as just diet-Tory now, or that they'll spoil their ballot, or that they'll protest vote for the Green party or whoever. That shit is exactly how the Tories might actually still win. The absolute biggest priority at the next election is to get those fuckers out - virtually anyone else (except Reform!) will be better. No, not perfect - but Perfect isn't running. The only sane option, especially if you're in a swing constituency, is to vote for whoever is best placed to beat the Tory candidate where you are. I'll be voting Lib Dem as they're in second place where I am.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 9, 2024 9:30:18 GMT -5
I am always torn on this. Getting less bad is better than more bad, but equally Labour is pushing hard to the right and taking many votes for granted, and less bad now doesn't mean less bad in 5 years. As it happens, Starmer's current positions are similar to Cameron's in 2010. Look how well those worked.
So you end up with a real bind of avoiding outright fascistic parties now vs continuing to move rightwards in the future and making a definitive fascistic win more likely in 5 years. I don't have a good answer to this.
|
|
|
Post by crispy78 on Feb 9, 2024 9:52:35 GMT -5
If we don't avoid it now, we might not even get the chance of avoiding it later.
|
|
|
Post by redchimera on Feb 9, 2024 9:56:54 GMT -5
If we don't avoid it now, we might not even get the chance of avoiding it later. Agreed. There isn't the luxury of choice. People who don't vote and claim they're 'above it all' or 'keeping the morale high ground' are just helping the Conservatives. And wrong. And stupid.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Feb 9, 2024 10:54:58 GMT -5
I am always torn on this. Getting less bad is better than more bad, but equally Labour is pushing hard to the right and taking many votes for granted, and less bad now doesn't mean less bad in 5 years. As it happens, Starmer's current positions are similar to Cameron's in 2010. Look how well those worked. Yeah, but if we let the current Tories hold power *again* what will they try and do? They'll already be untouchable.
It'd be nice to vote for *good*, but there isn't really a viable good option. So less bad is the best option available
|
|
nfe
OT Initiate
Posts: 144
|
Post by nfe on Feb 14, 2024 3:26:28 GMT -5
If we don't avoid it now, we might not even get the chance of avoiding it later. Agreed. There isn't the luxury of choice. People who don't vote and claim they're 'above it all' or 'keeping the morale high ground' are just helping the Conservatives. And wrong. And stupid. This attitude is how the UK and US so successfully protect two party systems. It is the reason that supposedly centre left parties present Blairs, Bidens, Clintons, and Starmers. When swathes of the population will scream that they wish to be taken for granted and will castigate their peers for not allowing themselves to be. Labour will be the largest party. It would be really great if they didn't have a majority.
|
|