Quote:
Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper
Tories inherited a mess in 2010 - not because of labour, but because of the banking crash in 08. They chose the no spend, cut everything austerity route that Starmer looks set to continue.
If the country is a mess, it needs investment, not more austerity, and that's the main issue. Starmer is pretty much guaranteed to win, but his lack of vision will see him kicked out at the first opportunity, which will lead to another 15 years out of power to the tories, resulting in another lost generation, forcing the country evermore righrwards -which always happens in times of poverty.
He had such a massive lead that he didn't need to take advice from Blairites, he needed an ambitious, progressive programme. He's as bad as Johnson, just in a different way. Johnson is about himself, Starmer is about power for powers sake.
I know I'm preaching to the choir a bit, Joey, as I know you don't really disagree, but Starmer is a duplicitous shambles of a man.
He chose to fight the left rather than the tories. Crazy.
|
A lot of that is correct Slim.
I am extremely dissatisfied with the tuition fees change.
My fury duly submitted to the Labour hierarchy too.
Not that my fury will make any difference, not likely others fury in the Party either.
He's dismayed younger people with his tuition fee change.
It will now be interesting to see the local election results.
John Curtice rightly indicated that for the current polling on Labours lead to be likely accurate of around 15%
Then since these results are more in some stronger Con areas from when last fought.
Labour would need to be near, on or above a 10% lead over the Cons in these local elections.
I never believe polling, I've never thought there were 20%+ gaps.
Actual votes tell a more real story.