FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is Keir Starmer a Weak Leader
Is Keir Starmer a Weak Leader
Jump to: Newest in thread
All polls today are showing that Sir Keir Starmer is showing as the weakest leader in all UK history.
Do you agree with this?
Do you think he should stand up for our country against Trump, China, Russia?
Do you think he should do more to help Ukraine?
What about North Sea oil and gas? Whilst the rest of the World's leaders increase Oil and Gas production and exploration, do you think Keir Starmer is correct to ban all new Exploration and go green?
.
Would you rather we had a Stronger leader with BackBone such as Maggie Thatcher who stands up for the UK and takes no nonsense from anyone? Or do you think Starmer's wimpish approach is best. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Ipsos poll showing he has 11% approval
Probably representative of the public mood
19 months of Labours 60 month term on Wednesday. A bit longer to wait yet for his removal either by the party or the electorate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All polls today are showing that Sir Keir Starmer is showing as the weakest leader in all UK history.
Do you agree with this?
Do you think he should stand up for our country against Trump, China, Russia?
Do you think he should do more to help Ukraine?
What about North Sea oil and gas? Whilst the rest of the World's leaders increase Oil and Gas production and exploration, do you think Keir Starmer is correct to ban all new Exploration and go green?
.
Would you rather we had a Stronger leader with BackBone such as Maggie Thatcher who stands up for the UK and takes no nonsense from anyone? Or do you think Starmer's wimpish approach is best."
I’ll try and break down the OP’s bundle of emotionally-loaded claims designed to provoke outrage or garner attention.
.
“All polls today”. Vague, absolutist. There is no such thing as a poll measuring the ‘weakest leader in all UK history.’ That’s not how polling works — it’s an emotional exaggeration, not a factual statement. The UK has had leaders who resigned within weeks (Liz Truss), leaders during humiliating crises, corruption scandals, wartime failures etc. The “all history” claim is unserious.
.
“Do you think he should stand up to Trump, China, Russia?” Classic rhetorical trap : it assumes he hasn’t. The UK’s strength internationally is based on institutions, NATO, diplomacy, defence policy — not performative chest-beating. The PM is also not a lone warrior. Standing up” is meaningless without specifics: Sanctions? Military spending? Diplomacy? What specifically has he failed to do?
.
“Do you think he should do more to help Ukraine?” The UK is already one of Ukraine’s strongest backers. If you want ‘more,’ that requires specifics — more money, more weapons, more troops? Which, and paid for how?
.
“North Sea oil and gas… rest of world increasing production… Starmer banning exploration”. That is loaded and misleading. North Sea production is declining due to geology and cost — not politics. New exploration would take years to produce anything. Global prices are set internationally. UK drilling doesn’t protect bills much. Net zero transition is mainstream policy across most developed economies.
Ignore Trumpian "Drill, Baby, Drill" soundbites.
.
““Would you rather we had Thatcher, who stood up for the UK?”
Strong = Thatcher
Weak = Starmer.
That’s not analysis — that’s ideology. Calling Thatcher ‘strong’ is a political opinion, not an objective measure. Many communities experienced her leadership as disastrous.
.
“Wimpish approach”. This is just macho culture-war language. It’s not an argument. It’s playground rhetoric dressed up as politics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
He’s made some appalling appointments
Mandelson was a mortgage fraudster under Blair govt, Starmer knew this before he appointed him as USA ambassador, poor due diligence in light of the Epstein connections.
Bad luck on Rayner, she didn’t lie on her CV, just on her parliamentary gifts non disclosure, HMRC stamp duty return and use of son’s trust fund.
Reeves appointment is disappointing, why didn’t anyone check her employment claims. ‘ Rachel worked at the bank of England’ boasted Starmer. Later we find out she was in a middle management role and published a plagiarised book. Her CV subsequently amended. Her previous home rented out without council approval via selective licence while Labour spearheading the renter rights act.
The anti corruption minister he appointed given a prison sentence for corruption.
The homelessness minister he appointed had to resign for issuing a S21 on her tenants then tried reletting the property for higher rent.
Add the free undisclosed donor gifts, new suits and clothes for Starmer, Rayner and Reeves.
You could be forgiven for thinking these are the actions of tories. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Calling Thatcher ‘strong’ is a political opinion, not an objective measure. Many communities experienced her leadership as disastrous."
I doubt you'll find anyone that would call Margret Thatcher a weak leader. Even those that absolutely hate her would struggle to argue that she wasn't strong.
Regardless of whether you think she did well for the country or not, she certainly did lead, and the majority of the electorate followed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Calling Thatcher ‘strong’ is a political opinion, not an objective measure. Many communities experienced her leadership as disastrous.
I doubt you'll find anyone that would call Margret Thatcher a weak leader. Even those that absolutely hate her would struggle to argue that she wasn't strong.
Regardless of whether you think she did well for the country or not, she certainly did lead, and the majority of the electorate followed."
Her failures are not, to my eyes, a lack of courage or conviction. Quite the opposite in fact. Too much courage and too much conviction, leading to inflexibility, poor listening and valuing colleagues, insensitivity and overconfidence.
.
There are many examples of where Thatcher is widely viewed by historians, political colleagues and commentators as not displaying strong or effective leadership. Moments where her authority, judgement or political control faltered.
.
Poll Tax Crisis – She refused to compromise and this showed rigidity of thinking instead of diplomatic strength. A tree that cannot bend or flex in a hurricane will break. She broke.
.
Westland Affair. I had to look this up as I was vaguely aware of it, but in essence this became a major cabinet crisis. Defence Sec Heseltine clashed with Thatcher and resigned. He accused her of preventing proper cabinet discussion. The fallout undermined her government’s stability. If she had listened to his concerns and expertise, all of that could have been avoided. Again, rigidity of thinking and inflexibility.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don’t think Starmer is actually a weak leader, at least no weaker than many of the others that have preceded him. His problem is that he came into power woefully unprepared. He didn’t have a plan or a view as to what he would do. All he had to do was not give the Tories anything that they could grasp onto and he did that masterfully. So masterfully that he had nothing to grab onto either. He is paying the price for that now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Calling Thatcher ‘strong’ is a political opinion, not an objective measure. Many communities experienced her leadership as disastrous."
"I doubt you'll find anyone that would call Margret Thatcher a weak leader. Even those that absolutely hate her would struggle to argue that she wasn't strong.
Regardless of whether you think she did well for the country or not, she certainly did lead, and the majority of the electorate followed."
"Her failures are not, to my eyes, a lack of courage or conviction. Quite the opposite in fact. Too much courage and too much conviction, leading to inflexibility, poor listening and valuing colleagues, insensitivity and overconfidence ..."
You're conflating 'strong leadership' with 'effective leadership'. I'm arguing that Thatcher was a strong leader, taking her party where she wanted to go even when many of them disagreed. She may have been leading in the wrong direction, but she carried the party with her.
I'm arguing that she was 'strong', making the party do what she wanted. You're arguing that she wasn't 'effective', not getting results that could have been better. They're two different things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The whole of Labour are weak, hypocritical and delusional. And that includes the Libs and Greens too!! How anyone can support any of them is mind boggling  "
Voting for any of that lot is a mental illness at this point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I honestly don’t get why he get slagged off so much .
Compare to the Tory’s who got nothing done.
And were absolutely shite.
He has dealt with trump pretty well . Helped Ukraine . Economy ok ,immigration halved , budget now sustainable. NHS improving .
Things don’t happened overnight |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You're conflating 'strong leadership' with 'effective leadership'. I'm arguing that Thatcher was a strong leader, taking her party where she wanted to go even when many of them disagreed. She may have been leading in the wrong direction, but she carried the party with her.
.
I'm arguing that she was 'strong', making the party do what she wanted. You're arguing that she wasn't 'effective', not getting results that could have been better. They're two different things."
If you define strength as simply imposing your will regardless of outcome, that’s not leadership — that’s coercion.
If Thatcher was so able to carry her party with her, why did her party remove her? Domination is not strength.
In a democracy, the ability to steamroll your own party isn’t automatically ‘strength’ — sometimes it’s recklessness and destructive.
.
If your definition of leadership strength is ‘making people do what you want’, then you’re not describing statesmanship — you’re describing dominance.
.
If you like leaders who project certainty and dominance, that’s an emotional preference, not a political analysis.
.
If you prefer performative toughness over competent governance, that's fine — but call it what it is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you define strength as simply imposing your will regardless of outcome, that’s not leadership — that’s coercion."
The OP defined what they meant by weak and strong in the OP. If you can't handle the idea that Thatcher may have had some good qualities along with all the bad ones, you shouldn't be posting in the Politics forum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t think Starmer is actually a weak leader, at least no weaker than many of the others that have preceded him. His problem is that he came into power woefully unprepared. He didn’t have a plan or a view as to what he would do. All he had to do was not give the Tories anything that they could grasp onto and he did that masterfully. So masterfully that he had nothing to grab onto either. He is paying the price for that now."
Vote for us on Thursday and we will hit the ground running on Friday.
What we see now is 14 years of planning. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There are three types of politicians
- The ones who follow people's will and give them what they want.
- The ones who are capable of getting the people to follow their own will
- The ones who suck at both
Starmer seems to fall in the last category. Is he weak? Maybe. But he is definitely incompetent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The OP defined what they meant by weak and strong in the OP. If you can't handle the idea that Thatcher may have had some good qualities along with all the bad ones, you shouldn't be posting in the Politics forum."
I’m perfectly capable of acknowledging that any political figure can have a mix of qualities.
My comment wasn’t “Thatcher bad therefore weak” — it was about the definition of strength being used.
.
If strength is framed as simply forcing outcomes through willpower regardless of consequences, then that’s coercion rather than leadership.
.
If you disagree with that distinction, I’m happy to discuss it — but it’s not about whether you are in a position to tone-police or judge whether I “can handle” Thatcher having good qualities or not.
.
Deal with the OP's argument, not with my supposed feelings, as flattering as that may be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are three types of politicians
- The ones who follow people's will and give them what they want.
- The ones who are capable of getting the people to follow their own will
- The ones who suck at both
Starmer seems to fall in the last category. Is he weak? Maybe. But he is definitely incompetent."
Where he continues to fuck up is over promising.
The gangs won’t be smashed
We can’t build 1,500,000 new homes
The Brexit turd can’t be flushed
Highest small boats since 2022
After right to buy and demolitions new social housing is negative
220,000 new homes last year, 40%+ shortfall on delivery target
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The OP defined what they meant by weak and strong in the OP. If you can't handle the idea that Thatcher may have had some good qualities along with all the bad ones, you shouldn't be posting in the Politics forum."
"I’m perfectly capable of acknowledging that any political figure can have a mix of qualities.
My comment wasn’t “Thatcher bad therefore weak” — it was about the definition of strength being used.
.
If strength is framed as simply forcing outcomes through willpower regardless of consequences, then that’s coercion rather than leadership.
.
If you disagree with that distinction, I’m happy to discuss it — but it’s not about whether you are in a position to tone-police or judge whether I “can handle” Thatcher having good qualities or not.
.
Deal with the OP's argument, not with my supposed feelings, as flattering as that may be."
The OP stated "Would you rather we had a Stronger leader with BackBone such as Maggie Thatcher ...". The OP uses Thatcher to define what they mean by 'strong leadership'.
If you want to introduce a new definition of 'strong', you'll need to explain to the OP why he's wrong, not me.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are three types of politicians
- The ones who follow people's will and give them what they want.
- The ones who are capable of getting the people to follow their own will
- The ones who suck at both
Starmer seems to fall in the last category. Is he weak? Maybe. But he is definitely incompetent.
Where he continues to fuck up is over promising.
The gangs won’t be smashed
We can’t build 1,500,000 new homes
The Brexit turd can’t be flushed
Highest small boats since 2022
After right to buy and demolitions new social housing is negative
220,000 new homes last year, 40%+ shortfall on delivery target
"
Yeah no matter what type of politician one is, I prefer judging them based on their promises and what they really delivered. Starmer seems to do poorly here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All polls today are showing that Sir Keir Starmer is showing as the weakest leader in all UK history.
Do you agree with this?
Do you think he should stand up for our country against Trump, China, Russia?
Do you think he should do more to help Ukraine?
What about North Sea oil and gas? Whilst the rest of the World's leaders increase Oil and Gas production and exploration, do you think Keir Starmer is correct to ban all new Exploration and go green?
.
Would you rather we had a Stronger leader with BackBone such as Maggie Thatcher who stands up for the UK and takes no nonsense from anyone? Or do you think Starmer's wimpish approach is best."
For the foreign side of things I would say he has done no worse than expected with the exception of the chagos islands. Dealing with trump while keeping others on board is a fine balancing act. For the domestic side it has been one car crash after another. If things don't improve quite substantially then they could well loose the next GE, which given their majority would be a big turnaround. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 13 weeks ago
|
Rishi Sunak wrote an interesting piece this weekend pointing out Starmer has made many of the mistakes he made, being directed by events and opinion polls rather than clear policies. At this point I genuinely have no idea what Starmer's politics or policies are, and even worse I'm not sure that he does either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I mean what did people expect. He is doing exactly what the labour party wanted him to do to get their hands on the levers of power.
I think he is loving the melodrama.
If I was him I would tell the lefties to bog of his back or the last thing he wull do is call a General election if they try and take him out with any form of no confidence. I think he genuinely believes in his delusion and will see it right to the bitter end. He has no choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I mean what did people expect. He is doing exactly what the labour party wanted him to do to get their hands on the levers of power.
I think he is loving the melodrama.
If I was him I would tell the lefties to bog of his back or the last thing he wull do is call a General election if they try and take him out with any form of no confidence. I think he genuinely believes in his delusion and will see it right to the bitter end. He has no choice."
41 months left, a long wait but worth it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Starmer must have been asleep when he appointed Mandelson
Reported, bank statements released by the US Department of Justice suggest,
Between 2003 and 2004, Epstein appears to have sent three separate $25,000 payments referencing Lord Mandelson. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 13 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"41 months left, a long wait but worth it
I can't believe that Starmer is going to last 41 months. I think he'll be kicked out after disaster happens in the May elections."
I really hope he is not replaced! I think the country is reasonably safe until the next GE, however I feel we could be in a whole world of hurt if the hard left take the reins.
Better the devil you know at this point, for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 13 weeks ago
|
"Starmer must have been asleep when he appointed Mandelson
Reported, bank statements released by the US Department of Justice suggest,
Between 2003 and 2004, Epstein appears to have sent three separate $25,000 payments referencing Lord Mandelson."
Also lobbied Treasury for Epstein to stop tax increase on bankers bonuses.
Mandelson should be kicked out of Labour Party and HOL. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rishi Sunak wrote an interesting piece this weekend pointing out Starmer has made many of the mistakes he made, being directed by events and opinion polls rather than clear policies. At this point I genuinely have no idea what Starmer's politics or policies are, and even worse I'm not sure that he does either."
I honestly think Rishi Sunak would have done far better for the country.
I believe Rishi Sunak is an honest person and he warned that tax would go up
We reap what we sow and although Keir Starmer is bad, Angela Rayner would be 100 times worse as she is clueless and uneducated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 13 weeks ago
|
"Rishi Sunak wrote an interesting piece this weekend pointing out Starmer has made many of the mistakes he made, being directed by events and opinion polls rather than clear policies. At this point I genuinely have no idea what Starmer's politics or policies are, and even worse I'm not sure that he does either.
I honestly think Rishi Sunak would have done far better for the country.
I believe Rishi Sunak is an honest person and he warned that tax would go up
We reap what we sow and although Keir Starmer is bad, Angela Rayner would be 100 times worse as she is clueless and uneducated."
It's a shame Rishi didn't take over from Johnson instead of the Truss disaster. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is thread about Sir Keir Starmer, the PM, who in just over 4 years took Labour from being a basket case to winning a landslide in the 2024 General Election with 411 seats and a 174 seat majority? Or a different Sir Keir Starmer?
Has any other party leader achieved such a rapid turnaround?
Weakness my a*** |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rishi Sunak wrote an interesting piece this weekend pointing out Starmer has made many of the mistakes he made, being directed by events and opinion polls rather than clear policies. At this point I genuinely have no idea what Starmer's politics or policies are, and even worse I'm not sure that he does either.
I honestly think Rishi Sunak would have done far better for the country.
I believe Rishi Sunak is an honest person and he warned that tax would go up
We reap what we sow and although Keir Starmer is bad, Angela Rayner would be 100 times worse as she is clueless and uneducated."
Sunak was a complete non entity. Let’s not forget he was in charge and I doubt many of the general public actually remembers him now let alone would be able to tell you what he did when in power. Instantly forgettable. He probably wouldn’t have been any worse than Starmer but I doubt he would have been any better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is thread about Sir Keir Starmer, the PM, who in just over 4 years took Labour from being a basket case to winning a landslide in the 2024 General Election with 411 seats and a 174 seat majority?"
But he didn't do that, did he.
Labour under Starmer actually got slightly fewer votes than the "basket case". What won Labour that massive landslide was the Tories being so terrible that most of their voters stayed at home on polling day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is thread about Sir Keir Starmer, the PM, who in just over 4 years took Labour from being a basket case to winning a landslide in the 2024 General Election with 411 seats and a 174 seat majority?
But he didn't do that, did he.
Labour under Starmer actually got slightly fewer votes than the "basket case". What won Labour that massive landslide was the Tories being so terrible that most of their voters stayed at home on polling day."
Wrong.
The Tories intentionally imploded because they'd made such a fucking mess of the country they didn't know how to get out of it, knowing that another 4 years would be another 4 years of lying, so they basically let labour win then have sat back smugly telling labour how terrible they are when they know 90% of the mess is down to them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is thread about Sir Keir Starmer, the PM, who in just over 4 years took Labour from being a basket case to winning a landslide in the 2024 General Election with 411 seats and a 174 seat majority?
But he didn't do that, did he.
Labour under Starmer actually got slightly fewer votes than the "basket case". What won Labour that massive landslide was the Tories being so terrible that most of their voters stayed at home on polling day."
I think the expression Brexiteers used was "we won you lost - get over it".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 13 weeks ago
|
"This is thread about Sir Keir Starmer, the PM, who in just over 4 years took Labour from being a basket case to winning a landslide in the 2024 General Election with 411 seats and a 174 seat majority?
But he didn't do that, did he.
Labour under Starmer actually got slightly fewer votes than the "basket case". What won Labour that massive landslide was the Tories being so terrible that most of their voters stayed at home on polling day.
I think the expression Brexiteers used was "we won you lost - get over it".
"
Labour did win, that's true, although with 33% of the vote compared to 52% for Leave. But you're claiming that victory was a show of strength when it was clearly the opposite. When only a third of voters vote for you then you begin with a very weak mandate and need strong, clear policies to establish your authority, but Starmer has delivered the opposite
This is why that large majority will vanish in 2028/29 and Labour will face the biggest defeat in their history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is thread about Sir Keir Starmer, the PM, who in just over 4 years took Labour from being a basket case to winning a landslide in the 2024 General Election with 411 seats and a 174 seat majority? Or a different Sir Keir Starmer?
Has any other party leader achieved such a rapid turnaround?
Weakness my a***"
Despite what has been pointed out that he got fewer votes than the previous attempt it is true he took them into office which is an achievement. Unfortunately he and his party have discovered being in office is harder than they thought and living up to the promises given to get elected is even harder. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
He is intelligent but not politically astute. That he riles up the right wing morons though is amusing, the same people who supported Truss, Boris, Brexit etc etc Such a pity that they have no sense of shame or irony . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I fear it might be time to get the lettuce out for Sir Kier.🥬🎻"
Looking worse every hour atm. The bbc USA interviewees saying everyone being protected except the victims.
Starmer appointed Mandelson. Buck stops with him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The people who voted Labour into power are truly deserving of what's happening today and on a daily basis.
Hope your proud of yourselves as Labour destroying the UK is daily "
How long will it take, and what will look like..?
The 'Destruction'.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is thread about Sir Keir Starmer, the PM, who in just over 4 years took Labour from being a basket case to winning a landslide in the 2024 General Election with 411 seats and a 174 seat majority?"
"But he didn't do that, did he.
Labour under Starmer actually got slightly fewer votes than the "basket case". What won Labour that massive landslide was the Tories being so terrible that most of their voters stayed at home on polling day."
"Wrong.
The Tories intentionally imploded because they'd made such a fucking mess of the country they didn't know how to get out of it, knowing that another 4 years would be another 4 years of lying, so they basically let labour win then have sat back smugly telling labour how terrible they are when they know 90% of the mess is down to them! "
Starmer did get fewer votes than Corbyn. Labour did win a massive landslide. The Tories (in the 2020s) were terrible. Tory voters didn't vote.
Which bit do you think I got wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The people who voted Labour into power are truly deserving of what's happening today and on a daily basis.
Hope your proud of yourselves as Labour destroying the UK is daily "
Destroying the UK???
Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss.
Truss alone caused my mortgage payment to go up £250 a month.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is thread about Sir Keir Starmer, the PM, who in just over 4 years took Labour from being a basket case to winning a landslide in the 2024 General Election with 411 seats and a 174 seat majority?"
"But he didn't do that, did he.
Labour under Starmer actually got slightly fewer votes than the "basket case". What won Labour that massive landslide was the Tories being so terrible that most of their voters stayed at home on polling day."
"I think the expression Brexiteers used was "we won you lost - get over it"."
I was over it before it happened. It was obvious that Labour would win at least 3 months before the election. I'm happy to accept that Labour won it fair and square.
But your claim was that Starmer had turned around an unelectable mess into a strong and winning party. The polling numbers and the subsequent Labour ratings show that your claim isn't true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Interesting thought experiment. We know that Labour win had a lot to do with the Tories being terrible. Do you think Labour would have won irrespective of who their leader was? Could they have won with Corbyn as their leader instead of Starmer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss.
We all missed austerity. There was no austerity. It's just a buzz word used by the left to describe policies they don't like."
Righto mate… Tell that to the disabled people who had their benefits cut, or the kids who had their Sure Start centres closed down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oufouCouple 13 weeks ago
Somerset |
"
You're conflating 'strong leadership' with 'effective leadership'. I'm arguing that Thatcher was a strong leader, taking her party where she wanted to go even when many of them disagreed. She may have been leading in the wrong direction, but she carried the party with her.
.
I'm arguing that she was 'strong', making the party do what she wanted. You're arguing that she wasn't 'effective', not getting results that could have been better. They're two different things.
If you define strength as simply imposing your will regardless of outcome, that’s not leadership — that’s coercion.
If Thatcher was so able to carry her party with her, why did her party remove her? Domination is not strength.
In a democracy, the ability to steamroll your own party isn’t automatically ‘strength’ — sometimes it’s recklessness and destructive.
.
If your definition of leadership strength is ‘making people do what you want’, then you’re not describing statesmanship — you’re describing dominance.
.
If you like leaders who project certainty and dominance, that’s an emotional preference, not a political analysis.
.
If you prefer performative toughness over competent governance, that's fine — but call it what it is."
Glad someone said this… to which I would add: Starmer’s chief weakness is not a lack of leadership, it’s a lack of charisma. And Farage has charisma, but no leadership. Andy Burnham has charisma and leadership, but his policies are not popular. It’s a dilemma for many! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss."
"We all missed austerity. There was no austerity. It's just a buzz word used by the left to describe policies they don't like."
"Righto mate… Tell that to the disabled people who had their benefits cut, or the kids who had their Sure Start centres closed down."
The odd cut here and there is policy, not austerity. Check the figures, government spending increased in every year but one of the Tories rule. Austerity is about cutting back and lowering spending. If the government is spending more, there isn't any austerity.
If you want to call the Tories evil for attacking the disabled, or kicking disadvantaged kids, go for it. That's something they actually did. But don't claim there was general UK-wide austerity, because the numbers say otherwise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 13 weeks ago
|
"Interesting thought experiment. We know that Labour win had a lot to do with the Tories being terrible. Do you think Labour would have won irrespective of who their leader was? Could they have won with Corbyn as their leader instead of Starmer?"
Really good question ! I'd say yes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 13 weeks ago
|
"The people who voted Labour into power are truly deserving of what's happening today and on a daily basis.
Hope your proud of yourselves as Labour destroying the UK is daily "
No one deserves this clown show ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 13 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss.
We all missed austerity. There was no austerity. It's just a buzz word used by the left to describe policies they don't like.
Righto mate… Tell that to the disabled people who had their benefits cut, or the kids who had their Sure Start centres closed down."
This a little rich when you consider the cuts (austerity) that labour inflicted upon the population they considered fair game, they were such poorly thought out cuts it ended up costing many millions to u-turn.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting thought experiment. We know that Labour win had a lot to do with the Tories being terrible. Do you think Labour would have won irrespective of who their leader was? Could they have won with Corbyn as their leader instead of Starmer?"
I think they'd have done slightly better with Corbyn. I think there were a lot of left-leaning voters that couldn't stomach Starmer and went to the greens. Those would have stayed and voted for Corbyn.
Had he won he would almost certainly be in a better position now. He would have increased taxes at the earliest stage, and would now have more money to play with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Glad someone said this… to which I would add: Starmer’s chief weakness is not a lack of leadership, it’s a lack of charisma. And Farage has charisma, but no leadership. Andy Burnham has charisma and leadership, but his policies are not popular. It’s a dilemma for many! "
Aye. Salient observations,
I might add that very few people possess both qualities, in the abundance needed at least to govern a country.
And I'd go further and say, the same can be said for most companies as well. There is always someone better than us.
Then again, provided the rest of the cabinet can make up the shortfall, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Alas, that is not always the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting thought experiment. We know that Labour win had a lot to do with the Tories being terrible. Do you think Labour would have won irrespective of who their leader was? Could they have won with Corbyn as their leader instead of Starmer?
I think they'd have done slightly better with Corbyn. I think there were a lot of left-leaning voters that couldn't stomach Starmer and went to the greens. Those would have stayed and voted for Corbyn.
Had he won he would almost certainly be in a better position now. He would have increased taxes at the earliest stage, and would now have more money to play with."
Have you forgotten Corbyn lost two general elections? He is the reason they now have Starmer. I think that tells you everything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No austerity..
60% cut to local government from Westminster 2010-2020 (LGA)
20,000 less police
8000 less firefighters
800 libraries closed
64 museums gone
600,000 more kids in poverty 2012-2018
Massive increase in food bank use
60% cut in capital investment to affordable housing
Welfare spending cut apart from state pension
Public sector pay cut
Increased rates of mental health and suicide because of pernicious and cruel assessment procedures to access support for being ill or disabled
Many other areas also cut..
Covids 'little helper' was how the Bma referred to austerity..
Yes Labour make cuts, all governments do but no one can say austerity did not happen..
Not when the evidence is out there..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting thought experiment. We know that Labour win had a lot to do with the Tories being terrible. Do you think Labour would have won irrespective of who their leader was? Could they have won with Corbyn as their leader instead of Starmer?"
"I think they'd have done slightly better with Corbyn. I think there were a lot of left-leaning voters that couldn't stomach Starmer and went to the greens. Those would have stayed and voted for Corbyn.
Had he won he would almost certainly be in a better position now. He would have increased taxes at the earliest stage, and would now have more money to play with."
"Have you forgotten Corbyn lost two general elections? He is the reason they now have Starmer. I think that tells you everything."
Have you forgotten that in 2019 Corbyn got 10.2m votes, whilst in 2024 Starmer only got 9.7m? Corbyn was nearly 6% more popular. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting thought experiment. We know that Labour win had a lot to do with the Tories being terrible. Do you think Labour would have won irrespective of who their leader was? Could they have won with Corbyn as their leader instead of Starmer?
I think they'd have done slightly better with Corbyn. I think there were a lot of left-leaning voters that couldn't stomach Starmer and went to the greens. Those would have stayed and voted for Corbyn.
Had he won he would almost certainly be in a better position now. He would have increased taxes at the earliest stage, and would now have more money to play with."
I think Starmer lost the votes of the left to the Greens after he was elected. The election results would have depended on whether the moderates would have the stomach to vote for Corbyn.
I agree that Corbyn would have sustained the votes of the left though. The country would be in a much worse state with his policies. But the left would have found ways to defend him in spite of all that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No austerity...... but no one can say austerity did not happen..
Not when the evidence is out there."
The evidence is that, no matter how many things lost funding, the overall level of government spending went up every year but one. Austerity is a general cutting back of everything, and that didn't happen. Lots of things got cut, but that money was spent elsewhere. You might disagree with what was cut and what got increased, but that's policy, not austerity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think Starmer lost the votes of the left to the Greens after he was elected. The election results would have depended on whether the moderates would have the stomach to vote for Corbyn.
I agree that Corbyn would have sustained the votes of the left though. The country would be in a much worse state with his policies. But the left would have found ways to defend him in spite of all that."
I agree that Corbyn's policies would have seen this country in a worse place, but I think he would have higher approval ratings. He would have laid out his policies and then implemented them no matter how unpopular they were with better-off people. Starmer hamstrung himself with fiscal rules that weren't necessary and have prevented any solid momentum building up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No austerity...... but no one can say austerity did not happen..
Not when the evidence is out there.
The evidence is that, no matter how many things lost funding, the overall level of government spending went up every year but one. Austerity is a general cutting back of everything, and that didn't happen. Lots of things got cut, but that money was spent elsewhere. You might disagree with what was cut and what got increased, but that's policy, not austerity."
It was a policy yes, a policy to look after the ones who caused the crash and yes the failings for that lie with both tories and Labour over decades of lax oversight but it was also a policy based upon ideology..
It was and will be remembered as what it was, an attack upon some of the most vulnerable in society..
You might not think it was austerity but your pretty much in the minority with that.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 13 weeks ago
|
"Interesting thought experiment. We know that Labour win had a lot to do with the Tories being terrible. Do you think Labour would have won irrespective of who their leader was? Could they have won with Corbyn as their leader instead of Starmer?
I think they'd have done slightly better with Corbyn. I think there were a lot of left-leaning voters that couldn't stomach Starmer and went to the greens. Those would have stayed and voted for Corbyn.
Had he won he would almost certainly be in a better position now. He would have increased taxes at the earliest stage, and would now have more money to play with.
Have you forgotten Corbyn lost two general elections? He is the reason they now have Starmer. I think that tells you everything.
Have you forgotten that in 2019 Corbyn got 10.2m votes, whilst in 2024 Starmer only got 9.7m? Corbyn was nearly 6% more popular."
In 2017 Corbyn got 12.9 m and 40% share. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 13 weeks ago
|
I disagreed with Corbyn on almost every issue and despise his accommodation with anti semites, but I do think he had a level of personal integrity that's vastly superior to Starmer, and he and the rest of the Labour left always saw Mandelson and Blair for the corrupt creeps they were. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting thought experiment. We know that Labour win had a lot to do with the Tories being terrible. Do you think Labour would have won irrespective of who their leader was? Could they have won with Corbyn as their leader instead of Starmer?
I think they'd have done slightly better with Corbyn. I think there were a lot of left-leaning voters that couldn't stomach Starmer and went to the greens. Those would have stayed and voted for Corbyn.
Had he won he would almost certainly be in a better position now. He would have increased taxes at the earliest stage, and would now have more money to play with.
Have you forgotten Corbyn lost two general elections? He is the reason they now have Starmer. I think that tells you everything.
Have you forgotten that in 2019 Corbyn got 10.2m votes, whilst in 2024 Starmer only got 9.7m? Corbyn was nearly 6% more popular."
And?
I agree he got more votes than the current Labour leadership but he also energised the Tory vote. Labour won this time because the country didn’t want the Tories. The Tories won against Corbyn because the country didn’t want him. To the question that was asked: would Labour have won under anyone? The answer is clearly no.
One of the ironies of Corbyn was that his general policies were pretty clear which is why the Tories were able to mobilise against him. The lesson that Labour clearly learned from that was to not have any policies so that they couldn't be used against you. Electorally that clearly worked. Trying to then govern without any policy agenda is clearly not working. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No austerity...... but no one can say austerity did not happen..
Not when the evidence is out there.
The evidence is that, no matter how many things lost funding, the overall level of government spending went up every year but one. Austerity is a general cutting back of everything, and that didn't happen. Lots of things got cut, but that money was spent elsewhere. You might disagree with what was cut and what got increased, but that's policy, not austerity."
Austerity was a political choice, not a necessity. Cameron and Osbourne would’ve found a way to implement it, regardless of the situation they found when elected.
They just handily had an excuse after the Financial Crash. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I agree he got more votes than the current Labour leadership but he also energised the Tory vote. Labour won this time because the country didn’t want the Tories. The Tories won against Corbyn because the country didn’t want him. To the question that was asked: would Labour have won under anyone? The answer is clearly no.
One of the ironies of Corbyn was that his general policies were pretty clear which is why the Tories were able to mobilise against him. The lesson that Labour clearly learned from that was to not have any policies so that they couldn't be used against you. Electorally that clearly worked. Trying to then govern without any policy agenda is clearly not working."
I agree with your logic. I just don't think that Tory voters would have been sufficiently energised by the prospect of Corbyn to save the Tory party. Just my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Austerity was a political choice, not a necessity. Cameron and Osbourne would’ve found a way to implement it, regardless of the situation they found when elected.
They just handily had an excuse after the Financial Crash."
It would have been a political choice, had they chosen it, but they didn't. As I've explained above, government spending increased almost every year. If the spending is going up, there is no austerity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Austerity was a political choice, not a necessity. Cameron and Osbourne would’ve found a way to implement it, regardless of the situation they found when elected.
They just handily had an excuse after the Financial Crash.
It would have been a political choice, had they chosen it, but they didn't. As I've explained above, government spending increased almost every year. If the spending is going up, there is no austerity."
It was Austerity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Austerity was a political choice, not a necessity. Cameron and Osbourne would’ve found a way to implement it, regardless of the situation they found when elected.
They just handily had an excuse after the Financial Crash."
"It would have been a political choice, had they chosen it, but they didn't. As I've explained above, government spending increased almost every year. If the spending is going up, there is no austerity."
"It was Austerity."
You can argue with the dictionary all you like, it won't change the facts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rman82Man 13 weeks ago
Manchester |
Tory, labour, reform, greens, liberal, right, left, and centre… people need to get this thinking out of their heads. None of them give a flying flute about the country, there is no alternative and that’s how it’s planned. You get the same shite no matter what you vote for and if the last 20 odd years hasn’t taught you that then god help you.
Who was it that said… if voting really mattered, they wouldn’t let you do it.. never a truer word said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 13 weeks ago
|
"A lot of brain deads in here how sadpeople are posting stuff you disagree with?
The Politics Forum is a scary place! scary no entertaing most definatley"
🤣🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hief ScoutMan 13 weeks ago
Middx/Herts borders-ish or thereabouts ! |
"Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss.
We all missed austerity. There was no austerity. It's just a buzz word used by the left to describe policies they don't like."
Correct.
At no point in the last twenty years can I recall a lack of basic foodstuffs in the shops.
At no point in the last twenty years has there not been new clothes to buy.
At no point in the last twenty years have shops not been stuffed full of new tellies, computers, fridge-freezers, washing machines and countless other gadgets we take for granted in our sheltered cosseted lives.
Austerity was what our grandparents had to cope with, with many basic items still rationed well into the 1950's.
We genuinely don't appreciate how fortunate we are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Russia is loving this, whilst every broadcast station in the UK talks about Starmer, Russia attacks Ukraine civilians with drones, knocking out power supplies, no heating in minus 20 degrees and front line troops slowly advancing.
Ohhh how the wool gets put in front of our eyes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss.
We all missed austerity. There was no austerity. It's just a buzz word used by the left to describe policies they don't like.
Correct.
At no point in the last twenty years can I recall a lack of basic foodstuffs in the shops.
At no point in the last twenty years has there not been new clothes to buy.
At no point in the last twenty years have shops not been stuffed full of new tellies, computers, fridge-freezers, washing machines and countless other gadgets we take for granted in our sheltered cosseted lives.
Austerity was what our grandparents had to cope with, with many basic items still rationed well into the 1950's.
We genuinely don't appreciate how fortunate we are."
Very true 
At the risk of sounding like one of "The Four Yorkshiremen" I can relate to real austerity from my childhood in the 60's/70's.
Very few people had central heating for example. We had a coal (later replaced by gas) fire in the living room and as a permanent fixture that was it.
For bedrooms/bathroom it was a portable electric fan heater that my mother would often hide because of the bills.
Many of the foods taken for granted today were pretty much unheard of. Even Tomatoes were seasonal and "ready meal" wasn't even wasn't even in the language.
Take away's consisted of the chippy (if it wasn't shut) and most kids my age would have thought a KFC was a war medal and McDonalds something from Shakespeare.
We actually had a bathroom. When we visited relatives in Manchester one aunt still had an outside chemical toilet shared between 2 houses and the midnight mechanics* were still a thing.
Fridges? Rare. Freezers? Even rarer. Dishwasher? Me. Washing machine? Me again. My Saturday morning chore was the Launderette.
I suppose I have to mention black and white TV with 2 (later 3) channels that worked when it wanted to and went off at midnight. We were posh BTW. My father was in the TV business and we had a 23 inch. I was king of the street for the '66 World Cup final. 
*Midnight Mechanics was a name given to the guys who came in the middle of the night emptying the chemical toilets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss.
We all missed austerity. There was no austerity. It's just a buzz word used by the left to describe policies they don't like.
Correct.
At no point in the last twenty years can I recall a lack of basic foodstuffs in the shops.
At no point in the last twenty years has there not been new clothes to buy.
At no point in the last twenty years have shops not been stuffed full of new tellies, computers, fridge-freezers, washing machines and countless other gadgets we take for granted in our sheltered cosseted lives.
Austerity was what our grandparents had to cope with, with many basic items still rationed well into the 1950's.
We genuinely don't appreciate how fortunate we are.
Very true
At the risk of sounding like one of "The Four Yorkshiremen" I can relate to real austerity from my childhood in the 60's/70's.
Very few people had central heating for example. We had a coal (later replaced by gas) fire in the living room and as a permanent fixture that was it.
For bedrooms/bathroom it was a portable electric fan heater that my mother would often hide because of the bills.
Many of the foods taken for granted today were pretty much unheard of. Even Tomatoes were seasonal and "ready meal" wasn't even wasn't even in the language.
Take away's consisted of the chippy (if it wasn't shut) and most kids my age would have thought a KFC was a war medal and McDonalds something from Shakespeare.
We actually had a bathroom. When we visited relatives in Manchester one aunt still had an outside chemical toilet shared between 2 houses and the midnight mechanics* were still a thing.
Fridges? Rare. Freezers? Even rarer. Dishwasher? Me. Washing machine? Me again. My Saturday morning chore was the Launderette.
I suppose I have to mention black and white TV with 2 (later 3) channels that worked when it wanted to and went off at midnight. We were posh BTW. My father was in the TV business and we had a 23 inch. I was king of the street for the '66 World Cup final.
*Midnight Mechanics was a name given to the guys who came in the middle of the night emptying the chemical toilets."
Not sure what that has to do with a Government implementing a policy of Austerity on public services, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss.
We all missed austerity. There was no austerity. It's just a buzz word used by the left to describe policies they don't like.
Correct.
At no point in the last twenty years can I recall a lack of basic foodstuffs in the shops.
At no point in the last twenty years has there not been new clothes to buy.
At no point in the last twenty years have shops not been stuffed full of new tellies, computers, fridge-freezers, washing machines and countless other gadgets we take for granted in our sheltered cosseted lives.
Austerity was what our grandparents had to cope with, with many basic items still rationed well into the 1950's.
We genuinely don't appreciate how fortunate we are.
Very true
At the risk of sounding like one of "The Four Yorkshiremen" I can relate to real austerity from my childhood in the 60's/70's.
Very few people had central heating for example. We had a coal (later replaced by gas) fire in the living room and as a permanent fixture that was it.
For bedrooms/bathroom it was a portable electric fan heater that my mother would often hide because of the bills.
Many of the foods taken for granted today were pretty much unheard of. Even Tomatoes were seasonal and "ready meal" wasn't even wasn't even in the language.
Take away's consisted of the chippy (if it wasn't shut) and most kids my age would have thought a KFC was a war medal and McDonalds something from Shakespeare.
We actually had a bathroom. When we visited relatives in Manchester one aunt still had an outside chemical toilet shared between 2 houses and the midnight mechanics* were still a thing.
Fridges? Rare. Freezers? Even rarer. Dishwasher? Me. Washing machine? Me again. My Saturday morning chore was the Launderette.
I suppose I have to mention black and white TV with 2 (later 3) channels that worked when it wanted to and went off at midnight. We were posh BTW. My father was in the TV business and we had a 23 inch. I was king of the street for the '66 World Cup final.
*Midnight Mechanics was a name given to the guys who came in the middle of the night emptying the chemical toilets.
Not sure what that has to do with a Government implementing a policy of Austerity on public services,"
Just following up on the other post about real austerity.
I just think the word is very overused.
A few cuts and savings to over funded and wasteful public services isn't austerity, it's bringing back affordability.
Very few people today have ever lived through real austerity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss.
We all missed austerity. There was no austerity. It's just a buzz word used by the left to describe policies they don't like.
Correct.
At no point in the last twenty years can I recall a lack of basic foodstuffs in the shops.
At no point in the last twenty years has there not been new clothes to buy.
At no point in the last twenty years have shops not been stuffed full of new tellies, computers, fridge-freezers, washing machines and countless other gadgets we take for granted in our sheltered cosseted lives.
Austerity was what our grandparents had to cope with, with many basic items still rationed well into the 1950's.
We genuinely don't appreciate how fortunate we are.
Very true
At the risk of sounding like one of "The Four Yorkshiremen" I can relate to real austerity from my childhood in the 60's/70's.
Very few people had central heating for example. We had a coal (later replaced by gas) fire in the living room and as a permanent fixture that was it.
For bedrooms/bathroom it was a portable electric fan heater that my mother would often hide because of the bills.
Many of the foods taken for granted today were pretty much unheard of. Even Tomatoes were seasonal and "ready meal" wasn't even wasn't even in the language.
Take away's consisted of the chippy (if it wasn't shut) and most kids my age would have thought a KFC was a war medal and McDonalds something from Shakespeare.
We actually had a bathroom. When we visited relatives in Manchester one aunt still had an outside chemical toilet shared between 2 houses and the midnight mechanics* were still a thing.
Fridges? Rare. Freezers? Even rarer. Dishwasher? Me. Washing machine? Me again. My Saturday morning chore was the Launderette.
I suppose I have to mention black and white TV with 2 (later 3) channels that worked when it wanted to and went off at midnight. We were posh BTW. My father was in the TV business and we had a 23 inch. I was king of the street for the '66 World Cup final.
*Midnight Mechanics was a name given to the guys who came in the middle of the night emptying the chemical toilets.
Not sure what that has to do with a Government implementing a policy of Austerity on public services,"
I think the op is trying to make the point that austerity and poverty is relative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Did you miss Austerity, Brexit, Boris and Truss.
We all missed austerity. There was no austerity. It's just a buzz word used by the left to describe policies they don't like.
Correct.
At no point in the last twenty years can I recall a lack of basic foodstuffs in the shops.
At no point in the last twenty years has there not been new clothes to buy.
At no point in the last twenty years have shops not been stuffed full of new tellies, computers, fridge-freezers, washing machines and countless other gadgets we take for granted in our sheltered cosseted lives.
Austerity was what our grandparents had to cope with, with many basic items still rationed well into the 1950's.
We genuinely don't appreciate how fortunate we are.
Very true
At the risk of sounding like one of "The Four Yorkshiremen" I can relate to real austerity from my childhood in the 60's/70's.
Very few people had central heating for example. We had a coal (later replaced by gas) fire in the living room and as a permanent fixture that was it.
For bedrooms/bathroom it was a portable electric fan heater that my mother would often hide because of the bills.
Many of the foods taken for granted today were pretty much unheard of. Even Tomatoes were seasonal and "ready meal" wasn't even wasn't even in the language.
Take away's consisted of the chippy (if it wasn't shut) and most kids my age would have thought a KFC was a war medal and McDonalds something from Shakespeare.
We actually had a bathroom. When we visited relatives in Manchester one aunt still had an outside chemical toilet shared between 2 houses and the midnight mechanics* were still a thing.
Fridges? Rare. Freezers? Even rarer. Dishwasher? Me. Washing machine? Me again. My Saturday morning chore was the Launderette.
I suppose I have to mention black and white TV with 2 (later 3) channels that worked when it wanted to and went off at midnight. We were posh BTW. My father was in the TV business and we had a 23 inch. I was king of the street for the '66 World Cup final.
*Midnight Mechanics was a name given to the guys who came in the middle of the night emptying the chemical toilets.
Not sure what that has to do with a Government implementing a policy of Austerity on public services,
Just following up on the other post about real austerity.
I just think the word is very overused.
A few cuts and savings to over funded and wasteful public services isn't austerity, it's bringing back affordability.
Very few people today have ever lived through real austerity."
Agreed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *d4ugirlsMan 12 weeks ago
Green Cove Springs |
This where Englands focus needs to be, making real worthwhile efforts to revive England, with this POS leading in England, the death of England is imminent.
Unfortunately the majority on here wants to moan about President Trump. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Honestly I can't see anything different from when Tories in charge labour.
All the taxes are still in place and still paying a fortune.
NHS is still a shit show.
Unemployment
Failing businesses ( let's not forget under the Tories in recent years huge and small businesses going under ona daily basis) this is still happening, pubs still going under mainly due to rates and lack of cheap labour.
There's a huge list of stuff that isn't any different.
My point is they are all shit and even if Labour had an amazing leader in place society today doesn't allow for strong leaders coz all everyone does is complain that it's not fair, or ima victim because you're changing this or that, go on social media and start petitions.....
A divided society that will never work for each other.
Fucking internet!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"Honestly I can't see anything different from when Tories in charge labour.
All the taxes are still in place and still paying a fortune.
NHS is still a shit show.
Unemployment
Failing businesses ( let's not forget under the Tories in recent years huge and small businesses going under ona daily basis) this is still happening, pubs still going under mainly due to rates and lack of cheap labour.
There's a huge list of stuff that isn't any different.
My point is they are all shit and even if Labour had an amazing leader in place society today doesn't allow for strong leaders coz all everyone does is complain that it's not fair, or ima victim because you're changing this or that, go on social media and start petitions.....
A divided society that will never work for each other.
Fucking internet!
"
Too early in the morning for all that gloom ! 🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Honestly I can't see anything different from when Tories in charge labour.
All the taxes are still in place and still paying a fortune.
NHS is still a shit show.
Unemployment
Failing businesses ( let's not forget under the Tories in recent years huge and small businesses going under ona daily basis) this is still happening, pubs still going under mainly due to rates and lack of cheap labour.
There's a huge list of stuff that isn't any different.
My point is they are all shit and even if Labour had an amazing leader in place society today doesn't allow for strong leaders coz all everyone does is complain that it's not fair, or ima victim because you're changing this or that, go on social media and start petitions.....
A divided society that will never work for each other.
Fucking internet!
Too early in the morning for all that gloom ! 🤣"
I know but my point is I don't feel significantly better or worse off financially than I did two years ago under Tories.
The only thing I have noticed is the housing market has stagnated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
Well according to sources in the Scottish Labour Party, Starmer ordered his cabinet to post support for him on social media yesterday udder the threat of sacking if they didn’t.
An idea that can only make things worse for him, not better.
But dictators never step down, they have to be removed, and this one is no different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *CExeCouple 12 weeks ago
Hong-Kong/Exeter |
The bloke is a weapons grade loser. Absolutely zero accountability. Nothing is ever his fault, and apparently nothing ever crossed his desk when he was DPP. Everyone makes mistakes, and it's how they deal with them that is important. Keir just blames those around him. If he'd expelled Mandelson from the Labour Party after sacking him as ambassador and stuck his hand up to an error of judgement, he wouldn't be fighting to save his premiership now. Can we dig up John Smith and have a real Labour Party again please. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"The bloke is a weapons grade loser. Absolutely zero accountability. Nothing is ever his fault, and apparently nothing ever crossed his desk when he was DPP. Everyone makes mistakes, and it's how they deal with them that is important. Keir just blames those around him. If he'd expelled Mandelson from the Labour Party after sacking him as ambassador and stuck his hand up to an error of judgement, he wouldn't be fighting to save his premiership now. Can we dig up John Smith and have a real Labour Party again please."
Yes, making a mistake is only human. How you behave when you have made one speaks volumes. But as a nation we seem to expect our politicians to never make mistakes. It’s viewed as a sign of weakness. I personally think holding you’re hand up and saying, “sorry, I fucked up, it was me, I’ll try not to make that same mistake again” is a sign of strength, not weakness.
But when nearly all parliamentary time seems to be taken up with accusations and avoiding answering questions, what should we expect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I personally think holding you’re hand up and saying, “sorry, I fucked up, it was me, I’ll try not to make that same mistake again” is a sign of strength, not weakness."
That's true if you're generally seen as competent but make a single mistake. Starmer doesn't have a reputation for competence, and this isn't his first mistake (though it may be his last). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Yes, making a mistake is only human. How you behave when you have made one speaks volumes. But as a nation we seem to expect our politicians to never make mistakes. It’s viewed as a sign of weakness. I personally think holding you’re hand up and saying, “sorry, I fucked up, it was me, I’ll try not to make that same mistake again” is a sign of strength, not weakness.
"
Aside from 14 policy U turns he has made a series of poor appointments
Reeves employment history is inaccurate. Her book plagiarised with extracts from Wikipedia.
Rayner has not paid (yet) £40K second home stamp duty, and unanswered re utilisation of son’s trust fund. Inaccurate council tax records of her correct address, breaking ministerial code and winged it selling off her right to buy tax free while living at another property
The anti corruption minister has been given a prison sentence and had to resign
The homelessness minister issued a section 21 on her tenants then tried re letting the property for higher rent. Tenancy bidding is forbidden in labours renters rights bill
Mandelson was a mortgage fraudster under the Blair government, and had to resign. In his next appointment he was involved in passport fraud
How many fuck ups and second chances should he be given.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"
Yes, making a mistake is only human. How you behave when you have made one speaks volumes. But as a nation we seem to expect our politicians to never make mistakes. It’s viewed as a sign of weakness. I personally think holding you’re hand up and saying, “sorry, I fucked up, it was me, I’ll try not to make that same mistake again” is a sign of strength, not weakness.
Aside from 14 policy U turns he has made a series of poor appointments
Reeves employment history is inaccurate. Her book plagiarised with extracts from Wikipedia.
Rayner has not paid (yet) £40K second home stamp duty, and unanswered re utilisation of son’s trust fund. Inaccurate council tax records of her correct address, breaking ministerial code and winged it selling off her right to buy tax free while living at another property
The anti corruption minister has been given a prison sentence and had to resign
The homelessness minister issued a section 21 on her tenants then tried re letting the property for higher rent. Tenancy bidding is forbidden in labours renters rights bill
Mandelson was a mortgage fraudster under the Blair government, and had to resign. In his next appointment he was involved in passport fraud
How many fuck ups and second chances should he be given.
"
How many second chances did he give to Boris Johnson for eating a piece of cake at a surprise birthday party ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rayner has not paid (yet) £40K second home stamp duty ..."
I keep seeing this being posted. Do you have any proof of it? The news reports I've read say that the HMRC investigation is ongoing, but they don't mention anything about her not having paid the tax.
"The anti corruption minister has been given a prison sentence and had to resign"
You keep saying this - and failing to point out that the sentence was given to her by a court in Bangladesh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rayner has not paid (yet) £40K second home stamp duty ...
I keep seeing this being posted. Do you have any proof of it? The news reports I've read say that the HMRC investigation is ongoing, but they don't mention anything about her not having paid the tax.
The anti corruption minister has been given a prison sentence and had to resign
You keep saying this - and failing to point out that the sentence was given to her by a court in Bangladesh."
Rayners transaction was in May 2025 apparently. By now adequate time to conclude stamp duty yes/no/how much. Bearing in mind her position where’s the acknowledgment she’s paid it.
The anti corruption charge, was enough to force resignation. That’s busted in my book and nobody has said she’s innocent
To both of them I say produce and make public the records if you are proclaiming innocence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rayners transaction was in May 2025 apparently. By now adequate time to conclude stamp duty yes/no/how much. Bearing in mind her position where’s the acknowledgment she’s paid it."
Having been involved in tax investigations, the usual way to handle them is to pay all the tax that you might owe, and then fight HMRC to get it back. Paying up straight away makes you look good in front of the tribunal, and avoids having to pay lots of extra interest. And HMRC investigations can drag on for years.
"The anti corruption charge, was enough to force resignation. That’s busted in my book and nobody has said she’s innocent"
Everybody says she's innocent. Or at least that there's no evidence against her. Every story I've read says that this is about her aunt, who was given a prison sentence for corruption, but escaped to India, so the Bangladeshi authorities are going after Tulip instead.
In my book this is one of the few cases of a politician genuinely stepping down to avoid becoming a distraction to the party. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
