Labour will be a major reforming government

I agree - radical it isn’t. But it is a case of not frightening the horses I think. Radical policies are very unlikely to get voted in by the British electorate as the country has moved further and further to the right particularly since 2009 but certainly since 2015, and small steps seem to me to be the way forward as I don’t think the electorate could cope with huge change. Just look at GN, although I appreciate it is the type of demography which naturally resists change.

Truss "I wont speak to Nicola Sturgeon "
Starmer "I wont work with the SNP"

The Scottish vote is irrelevent as far as Labour is concerned or they wouldn't be dismissing the party that has won every election for 13 years here .I guess Labour wont be winning the next election either ...they have effectively disenfranchised a huge part of Scotland by their refusal to accept the ELECTED representatives of this country .
Independence IS normal ,having our neighbouring government pillage us ..now ..to give England council tax cuts is not acceptable and I hope more Scots see it for what it is and vote for the ONLY way we will ever get a say in how weare run .Not the piddling amount of "Devolution we have at the moment when WM can over rule us on just about anything .
Glorianny thanks for reiterating what I've been saying on here for years Churchill was hated in most of Scotland ,certainly by my family as the man who left Scottish ivisions of troops behind on the beaches of France ..."they were of no inportance and would be no loss "

WWM I’ve read it. It ignores Brexit and its disastrous effects on this country’s economy, except to restate Labour’s support for the end of free movement; it ignores the need for massive social housing building, and the removal of right to buy - in fact, it wants the state to subsidise home ownership, a policy which predominantly helps large developers; it doesn’t propose a genuinely redistributive tax system ; it’s limited in terms of devolution, and gives too much to local mayors/authorities and not enough to communities; it says railways will be re-nationalised, yet Starmer said a month ago that they wouldn’t be.

I approve of the environmental direction of travel, but that will be hampered by the ongoing impact of Brexit, by limiting shared scientific knowledge and reducing investment.

It’s tweaks to the existing neo-liberal approach (right down to private sector involvement in health and social care) and thus not transformative, in my opinion.

My natural home is Labour - although I stopped being a member in the Blair years - and if I am still in the UK at the time of the next election, I would vote for them if they were most likely to beat the Tories in my constituency, but I don’t think I’d be voting for a genuinely radical government.

Yes, my grandparents disliked his politics intensely, they didn’t “hate” him though. Churchill also made some deathly decisions during the war for which people couldn’t forgive. But it took more than working class people to reject Churchill at the end of the war.

This perpetual reframing of Churchill as some sort of popular icon has to stop. He was hated by most working class people, who recognised his skills might have helped win the war but knew they were not desirable in peace time. Since his death he has been reinvented as the people's hero. In his lifetime he was booed when he appeared at a lot of cities. His funeral was an orchestrated event to create a legend. The cranes, which seemed to bow as his cortege passed, were manned by men who only did it because it was Saturday and they were paid double time.

Caleo

Whitewavemark wrote:

"But the voter were not fooled into voting for a personality after the war. Churchill had nothing to offer as a Tory and instead the people of the U.K. chose a reforming Labour Party, and have benefited ever since."

Boris would not have stood a chance then, when
modest uncharismatic nice Clement Attlee easily won. Can you tell us what makes people so obtuse now?

People frequently talk in newspaper headlines, you hear it time and time again. (I read it so it must be true) So the media certainly have a huge influence I think.

The post war election saw a period of strict media censorship ending so the type of reporting we see today, with downright lies or attacks on politicians were not taking place.

People could actually think for themselves without interference from media modules with clear agendas. Papers like the Daily Mail with its support of the Nazis were kept under strict control and subdued.

Whitewavemark wrote:

"But the voter were not fooled into voting for a personality after the war. Churchill had nothing to offer as a Tory and instead the people of the U.K. chose a reforming Labour Party, and have benefited ever since."

Boris would not have stood a chance then, when
modest uncharismatic nice Clement Attlee easily won. Can you tell us what makes people so obtuse now?

greenlady102

Whitewavemark2

According to the headline report in the guardian today.

Starmer “if you think that our job in 1997 was to rebuild a crumbling realm, that in 1964 it was to modernise an economy overly dependent on the kindness of strangers, in 1945 to build a new Britain, in a volatile world, out if the trauma of collective sacrifice, in 2024 it will have to be all three”

Starmer then went on to pad out some of the policies he intends to introduce, including investment in a green agenda, expansion of NHS staff, votes at 16, fundamental reform of workers rights, recognise people’s need for stability, order, security.
“We must understand that there are precious things-in our way of life, in our environment, and our communities - we must protect, preserve and pass on to future generations.

The Tories do nothing to protect our rivers and seas, our NHS, or families or nation”

Thats hilarious

I don’t see anything funny about the state that our waterways are in.

Caleo

I agree with Whitewavemark about any personality which I'd call superficial .

Churchill had personality but his personality was not superficial but had enduring depth of character and the modern historian's honesty.

But the voter were not fooled into voting for a personality after the war. Churchill had nothing to offer as a Tory and instead the people of the U.K. chose a reforming Labour Party, and have benefited ever since.

I agree with Whitewavemark about any personality which I'd call superficial .

Churchill had personality but his personality was not superficial but had enduring depth of character and the modern historian's honesty.

Whitewavemark2

According to the headline report in the guardian today.

Starmer “if you think that our job in 1997 was to rebuild a crumbling realm, that in 1964 it was to modernise an economy overly dependent on the kindness of strangers, in 1945 to build a new Britain, in a volatile world, out if the trauma of collective sacrifice, in 2024 it will have to be all three”

Starmer then went on to pad out some of the policies he intends to introduce, including investment in a green agenda, expansion of NHS staff, votes at 16, fundamental reform of workers rights, recognise people’s need for stability, order, security.
“We must understand that there are precious things-in our way of life, in our environment, and our communities - we must protect, preserve and pass on to future generations.

The Tories do nothing to protect our rivers and seas, our NHS, or families or nation”

Thats hilarious

Siope

Trouble is Maizie that Starmer, in defiance of Labour conference, has also said he’s opposed to proportional representation, and, as far as I am aware, has said nothing about reducing the voting age.

At present, overall, I read about Starmer saying a Labour government will be radical and reforming, but I see very few policies which seem to be to be genuinely transformative (in a positive way). While I’m not opposed to incremental change where appropriate or necessary, I would still like to see that the little steps are heading towards real change, not minor tweaks, and I don’t see anything of the sort.

Read the link that maizie put up on page 1. I think that you will be surprised at what reforms are proposed.

Trouble is Maizie that Starmer, in defiance of Labour conference, has also said he’s opposed to proportional representation, and, as far as I am aware, has said nothing about reducing the voting age.

At present, overall, I read about Starmer saying a Labour government will be radical and reforming, but I see very few policies which seem to be to be genuinely transformative (in a positive way). While I’m not opposed to incremental change where appropriate or necessary, I would still like to see that the little steps are heading towards real change, not minor tweaks, and I don’t see anything of the sort.

Of course, if you dont win you can remain in your state of purity

Grany

Major reforms starmer Labour. There were the 17/19 polices, nationalisation utilitis water, no privatisation in our NHS taxing the very rich. Anything else is just tinkering around the edges. Labour are the real conservatives that's true. Think hung parliament coalition might help.

You really are desperate for Labour to do badly aren’t you….

Major reforms starmer Labour. There were the 17/19 polices, nationalisation utilitis water, no privatisation in our NHS taxing the very rich. Anything else is just tinkering around the edges. Labour are the real conservatives that's true. Think hung parliament coalition might help.

I'm not happy with Starmer as Labour leader. I will vote Labour because there is no other choice really. I find three words in the OP very worrying - stability, order, security. I feel they are not really the words of Labour, but are pandering to a worrying trend towards authoritarianism and restriction. I would prefer to see words like equality, opportunity and inclusion. I find the whole slide into xenophobia very depressing.

The unvarnished truth from the current Conservative Democratic Organisation:

Lord Peter Cruddas, "If Labour wins they will reduce the voting age, abolish voter ID, and introduce Proportional Representation making it impossible for the Conservative party to win an outright majority in the future."

twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1657663668102868992

How they have the nerve to call themselves 'Democratic' when they object to widening the franchise, removing barriers to voting and introducing a system in which far more votes actually count, is beyond me.

Perhaps if they made themselves more attractive to voters by actually caring about the country and its citizens....

Allsorts

Well I missed Starmer expressing an opinion!!! That's a first.
People believe what they want to, not facts.

Yes like Trump and his followers.

Bella23

Kandinsky

He could promise everyone the earth, his problem is a lot of people just don’t like him. He has no charisma, no charm, & there’s something about him I just don’t trust.
If Labour had a more popular leader they’d win the next election - with Starmer, not so sure.

I'm with you on this on Kandinsky, If labour had a charismatic leader they would romp home at the next election.
He appears wooden without any appeal and so does most of his shadow cabinet, they whinge and whine but come up with nothing to appeal to the younger voters which they could have in their hands.
I don't even know who our labour M.P. would be, never seen or heard of him. I know who the Conservative one is and Tim Farron the Liberal Democrat but not the Labour.
Having said that I live in a constituency that has never voted labour.

Patently untrue to say that Labour don’t have the support of younger voters*Bella23*. I suggest you read this, and follow the link to the UK voting intentions by age polls.
www.politicshome.com/news/article/conservative-millennial-problem-polling-young-voters

Kandinsky

He could promise everyone the earth, his problem is a lot of people just don’t like him. He has no charisma, no charm, & there’s something about him I just don’t trust.
If Labour had a more popular leader they’d win the next election - with Starmer, not so sure.

I'm with you on this on Kandinsky, If labour had a charismatic leader they would romp home at the next election.
He appears wooden without any appeal and so does most of his shadow cabinet, they whinge and whine but come up with nothing to appeal to the younger voters which they could have in their hands.
I don't even know who our labour M.P. would be, never seen or heard of him. I know who the Conservative one is and Tim Farron the Liberal Democrat but not the Labour.
Having said that I live in a constituency that has never voted labour.

Casdon

Kandinsky

He could promise everyone the earth, his problem is a lot of people just don’t like him. He has no charisma, no charm, & there’s something about him I just don’t trust.
If Labour had a more popular leader they’d win the next election - with Starmer, not so sure.

A lot of right wing Tory voters, and the left of Labour don’t like him. Both of those things will be in his favour in winning the middle ground, which is where the majority of the UK sits politically. I sincerely hope the era of charisma and short termism politics is over, because it’s done us absolutely no favours, what we need is a return to serious, pragmatic, less egocentric politicians who care and will do right by the population.

Thank you Casdon. You have saved me posting the same conclusion. Out with charisma and so called charm and in with attention to detail, consideration and a real care for this poor country. As for being wishy washy he has had no hesitation in excluding those who step out of line; unlike those of so called greater charisma who have been ineffective and so self serving of late.

nandana I think the debate surrounding class and politics is one that is now recognised as being no longer quite so appropriate, and the fact that more people are prepared to switch their votes an example of this. However, I think that there continues to be indicators as to how people may vote. Education attainment level is one.

Brexit if course is the prime example, but here in this part of the south east, as the graduate community move out if the more expensive areas into cheaper areas, you can follow the voting pattern changing. Worthing is strongly suggestive of this. It has previously always been since the beginning of the last century, a Tory held seat, now, the council has gone from Tory to council, increasing its seats at the local election last week. The demography of Worthing shows a growing number of highly educated graduates moving from places like London, the commenter belt and Brighton.

Well I missed Starmer expressing an opinion!!! That's a first.
People believe what they want to, not facts.

When it comes to actually casting your vote in a General Election, patterns have undergone massive change in recent decades. Perhaps the most significant difference is the way in which the proportion of people who usually vote the same way election after election has reduced, as has the strong, emotional commitment which in the past, was strongly based on perceived social class . Also, traditional institutions such as Trade Unions, Churches, Clubs and Societies etc. no longer exert the same influence over people’s value systems as they did in former years. The job market also has a very different appearance now, as what used to be traditional working class jobs have been eroded by the decline of heavy industry. So class is now a very poor predictor of voting patterns. It now appears that voters have become much less “party people” and are now more individualistic in their political outlook. A study which the BBC carried out into voting patterns indicated that back in 1964, about 48% of those questioned said that they identified with a particular party “very strongly”. By 2015 this figure had reduced to only 17%. So yes, both major parties still have a core vote of loyalists, but what used to be a reliable support base has significantly eroded away. The survey also showed that at the 1966 election, a mere 13% of voters switched parties, but at the 2015 election, some 40% did so.
What all this means to me is that voting patterns constantly evolve and change and “in the moment” of a particular election, are subject to immediate, specific influences. Personality comes into it, as in the Blair/Corbyn/Johnson/Truss effect, as does the ongoing clash between those who consider themselves more socially liberal, and those who express perhaps more authoritarian views. Even that contrast has become less definable in party terms, demonstrated recently by Starmer stating that “he doesn’t care” if people think that “he is a Conservative”. Blair was also similarly labelled by the far left in particular.
So how will I decide where my vote will go next time around? The much quoted “a week is a long time in politics” means that my decision will be made close to polling day, and yes, I’ll still take a slightly jaundiced look at all the worthy plans and promises. In addition, I won’t lose sight of Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen’s comment, as in “the rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today”. Wonderland indeed. I’ll also remind myself that in real terms, despite all the political science and the punditry as to what the win of a particular party might mean, on the day it’s still a gamble.. although hopefully an informed one. Bring it on…