|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 20, 2023 11:18:48 GMT
You have an opinion, fair enough. We know Starmer has a track record of lying to get elected. Starmer did change his opinions along with the changes taking place in the country. I give him full credit for that, and I would expect any leading MP regardless of party, to do just that. Who wants a Thatcher type PM, so embeded in their own ideology, and who no matter what "is not for turning". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2023 12:16:16 GMT
We know Starmer has a track record of lying to get elected. Starmer did change his opinions along with the changes taking place in the country. I give him full credit for that, and I would expect any leading MP regardless of party, to do just that. Who wants a Thatcher type PM, so embeded in their own ideology, and who no matter what "is not for turning". Pledges to an electorate are supposed to mean something. They were clearly never meant in the first place by the deceitful Starmer. This much was obvious just by looking at who his backers were. But I like the spin you put on it. Breaking his pledges was just him changing his opinions, lol. Once he'd gotten elected naturally. As if he even meant the pledges in the first place. Many of us at the time could already see that he was lying to us. I never voted for him because I could see that. My suspicions have of course been vindicated. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jan 20, 2023 12:42:19 GMT
We know Starmer has a track record of lying to get elected. Starmer did change his opinions along with the changes taking place in the country. I give him full credit for that, and I would expect any leading MP regardless of party, to do just that. Who wants a Thatcher type PM, so embeded in their own ideology, and who no matter what "is not for turning". The problem is he has gone from supporting wacko Corbyn's far left agenda to adopting a Tory lite one... which makes people believe he actually stands for nothing other than wanting to be another World King like Boris. Most people want a Social Democracy party... not this populist shite he is peddling. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 20, 2023 20:34:27 GMT
Starmer portraits himself as the grown up in the room yet he has avoided the obvious, who is going to pay for the NHS we want? Some populist bollocks about scrapping non-dom is not even going to scratch the surface. Personally I think they need to enter into a cross party agreement where healthcare, elder care and the benefits safety net is ringfenced and protected. ie EVERYBODY pays 10% for healthcare, 3% for elderly care, 3% unemployment / safety net and EVERY PENNY raised is spent on those things. Not a bad idea Dave. I worry a bit that we would see various things relabelled as 'care for the elderly' I remember the government ring fencing money for schools and councils saying "Schools need roads" so..... |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 20, 2023 20:42:07 GMT
Starmer did change his opinions along with the changes taking place in the country. I give him full credit for that, and I would expect any leading MP regardless of party, to do just that. Who wants a Thatcher type PM, so embeded in their own ideology, and who no matter what "is not for turning". Pledges to an electorate are supposed to mean something. They were clearly never meant in the first place by the deceitful Starmer. This much was obvious just by looking at who his backers were. But I like the spin you put on it. Breaking his pledges was just him changing his opinions, lol. Once he'd gotten elected naturally. As if he even meant the pledges in the first place. Many of us at the time could already see that he was lying to us. I never voted for him because I could see that. My suspicions have of course been vindicated. As Churchill famously stated. When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 20, 2023 20:44:45 GMT
Starmer portraits himself as the grown up in the room yet he has avoided the obvious, who is going to pay for the NHS we want? Some populist bollocks about scrapping non-dom is not even going to scratch the surface. Personally I think they need to enter into a cross party agreement where healthcare, elder care and the benefits safety net is ringfenced and protected. ie EVERYBODY pays 10% for healthcare, 3% for elderly care, 3% unemployment / safety net and EVERY PENNY raised is spent on those things. I'd go one step further, the NHS has always been a political football.
It's used in GE manifestoes, most of which never happen.
I think it's such a important issue that it should not be left in the hands of one party, if even that party is the governing party.
Time the NHS was ring fenced and made a cross party issue.
All main political parties should he made up of 'independent cross party members' who are specifically formed to deal with the NHS.
That way no political party at a GE can use the NHS as a political football, if it is failing all parties are to blame, once this happens, the NHS will not be weaponised to gain influence GE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 7:36:17 GMT
Pledges to an electorate are supposed to mean something. They were clearly never meant in the first place by the deceitful Starmer. This much was obvious just by looking at who his backers were. But I like the spin you put on it. Breaking his pledges was just him changing his opinions, lol. Once he'd gotten elected naturally. As if he even meant the pledges in the first place. Many of us at the time could already see that he was lying to us. I never voted for him because I could see that. My suspicions have of course been vindicated. As Churchill famously stated. When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do. The fact is that there is every sign that Starmer never meant his ten pledges in the first place. Some of us saw it as obvious lies from the start and so it has proven. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 11:14:38 GMT
As Churchill famously stated. When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do. The fact is that there is every sign that Starmer never meant his ten pledges in the first place. Some of us saw it as obvious lies from the start and so it has proven. Then he's an incredible idiot to admit it BEFORE being elected. Or he's an honest man looking at the changes he faces before getting elected. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 11:44:15 GMT
The fact is that there is every sign that Starmer never meant his ten pledges in the first place. Some of us saw it as obvious lies from the start and so it has proven. Then he's an incredible idiot to admit it BEFORE being elected. Or he's an honest man looking at the changes he faces before getting elected. You entirely misunderstand me, I hope not wilfully. The lies he told were the pledges he made to his own members, which he almost immediately started backing away from once they'd elected him. Something he was quite obviously going to do. You could tell by who was backing him and what they were saying. But the party contained a critical mass of enough gullible fools who nevertheless trusted him, many now no longer in the party having realised their mistake. The notion of Starmer being an honest man is laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 11:52:35 GMT
Then he's an incredible idiot to admit it BEFORE being elected. Or he's an honest man looking at the changes he faces before getting elected. You entirely misunderstand me, I hope not wilfully. The lies he told were the pledges he made to his own members, which he almost immediately started backing away from once they'd elected him. Something he was quite obviously going to do. You could tell by who was backing him and what they were saying. But the party contained a critical mass of enough gullible fools who nevertheless trusted him, many now no longer in the party having realised their mistake. The notion of Starmer being an honest man is laughable. Oh then I did misunderstand you. So; Firstly, can not the party un-elect him? Secondly, Are these changes also unpopular with the voting public and likely to prevent Labour getting elected? I seriously doubt that. My conclusion then is that the left wing of the party would rather remain an unelected side line than surrender any of their principles. And for me that still makes Kier the right man to lead the party. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 12:10:27 GMT
You entirely misunderstand me, I hope not wilfully. The lies he told were the pledges he made to his own members, which he almost immediately started backing away from once they'd elected him. Something he was quite obviously going to do. You could tell by who was backing him and what they were saying. But the party contained a critical mass of enough gullible fools who nevertheless trusted him, many now no longer in the party having realised their mistake. The notion of Starmer being an honest man is laughable. Oh then I did misunderstand you. So; Firstly, can not the party un-elect him? Secondly, Are these changes also unpopular with the voting public and likely to prevent Labour getting elected? I seriously doubt that. My conclusion then is that the left wing of the party would rather remain an unelected side line than surrender any of their principles. And for me that still makes Kier the right man to lead the party. The rules have been stitched up to make it near impossible for the left to remove him and there has in any case been a mass exodus of left leaning members. Many of the pledged policies were popular amongst the public, though the changes away from them are no doubt popular amongst Blairite elements like yourself. But regardless of their popularity or not, does not alter the fact that he wilfully misled - lied to - his own members to get elected leader in the first place. This evidence of a willingness to blatantly lie to win votes cannot be unsaid or undone. It is there for all to see. His supporters will seek to justify or deny it, but it is blatantly obvious. And as I have said to you before, most of the policies in Labour's 2017 manifesto - on which most of his ten pledges were based - polled very well amongst the public with large majorities in favour of most of them. Labour lost in spite of them rather than because of them. The left supports them not only because so many of them are so badly needed but because we see them as a way to win if pushed enthusiastically. And were they being so, Labour would still be a genuine broad church party with people like me still in it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 14:07:04 GMT
Look at Labours record on the NHS
Took over in 1997 with unacceptable waiting lists and waiting times
Turned them around, waiting lists fell dramatically, as did waiting times
Employed thousands of extra nurses and doctors
All of this was done without any extra borrowing or tax increases to the public
The workload of Junior Doctors was appaling and damn right dangerous up until 1997, the incoming Labour government fixed the problem.
Stop defending the indefensible and attacking those that want to fix our NHS, Labour fixed it before, so do the right thing, give them the chance to do it again, and get rid of this shower of shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 14:27:50 GMT
Oh then I did misunderstand you. So; Firstly, can not the party un-elect him? Secondly, Are these changes also unpopular with the voting public and likely to prevent Labour getting elected? I seriously doubt that. My conclusion then is that the left wing of the party would rather remain an unelected side line than surrender any of their principles. And for me that still makes Kier the right man to lead the party. The rules have been stitched up to make it near impossible for the left to remove him and there has in any case been a mass exodus of left leaning members. Many of the pledged policies were popular amongst the public, though the changes away from them are no doubt popular amongst Blairite elements like yourself. But regardless of their popularity or not, does not alter the fact that he wilfully misled - lied to - his own members to get elected leader in the first place. This evidence of a willingness to blatantly lie to win votes cannot be unsaid or undone. It is there for all to see. His supporters will seek to justify or deny it, but it is blatantly obvious. And as I have said to you before, most of the policies in Labour's 2017 manifesto - on which most of his ten pledges were based - polled very well amongst the public with large majorities in favour of most of them. Labour lost in spite of them rather than because of them. The left supports them not only because so many of them are so badly needed but because we see them as a way to win if pushed enthusiastically. And were they being so, Labour would still be a genuine broad church party with people like me still in it. I have no wish to play ping pong with you, so I will only repeat once more, that circumstances have changed meaning some of the promises are not longer affordable at this time. That you ignore that and put it down to lying new labour implies to me that this is what you want it to be rather than what it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 14:55:50 GMT
The rules have been stitched up to make it near impossible for the left to remove him and there has in any case been a mass exodus of left leaning members. Many of the pledged policies were popular amongst the public, though the changes away from them are no doubt popular amongst Blairite elements like yourself. But regardless of their popularity or not, does not alter the fact that he wilfully misled - lied to - his own members to get elected leader in the first place. This evidence of a willingness to blatantly lie to win votes cannot be unsaid or undone. It is there for all to see. His supporters will seek to justify or deny it, but it is blatantly obvious. And as I have said to you before, most of the policies in Labour's 2017 manifesto - on which most of his ten pledges were based - polled very well amongst the public with large majorities in favour of most of them. Labour lost in spite of them rather than because of them. The left supports them not only because so many of them are so badly needed but because we see them as a way to win if pushed enthusiastically. And were they being so, Labour would still be a genuine broad church party with people like me still in it. I have no wish to play ping pong with you, so I will only repeat once more, that circumstances have changed meaning some of the promises are not longer affordable at this time. That you ignore that and put it down to lying new labour implies to me that this is what you want it to be rather than what it is. It was obvious to me right from the very start that he never meant the promises in the first place, but we'll get nowhere by continuing with this other than by producing another me versus See 2 type slanging match. You are happy with his broken promises and approve of them so naturally want to see them in the best possible light as thoughtful changes of mind. I am far less happy with them and thus see them as promises intended deceitfully to be broken from the very start, citing as evidence his Blairite backers and the things they were saying. I see deliberate dishonesty whilst you think you see honest changes of mind. We'll have to agree to differ on that. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 21, 2023 15:15:50 GMT
Starmer did change his opinions along with the changes taking place in the country. I give him full credit for that, and I would expect any leading MP regardless of party, to do just that. Who wants a Thatcher type PM, so embeded in their own ideology, and who no matter what "is not for turning". Pledges to an electorate are supposed to mean something. They were clearly never meant in the first place by the deceitful Starmer. This much was obvious just by looking at who his backers were. But I like the spin you put on it. Breaking his pledges was just him changing his opinions, lol. Once he'd gotten elected naturally. As if he even meant the pledges in the first place. Many of us at the time could already see that he was lying to us. I never voted for him because I could see that. My suspicions have of course been vindicated. I would need to see it all, in context, before changing my opinion. |
|
