The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, CB Fry said:

It wasn't in their manifesto this time to be fair.

But they should never ever have given that group any time at all, and certainly not given them the encouragement and photo opps etc.

I don't think I have encountered a pressure group that I have less sympathy for or support for. Absolute bullshitters most of them and for those that didn't know, well you should have known. Fucking parasites on the scrounge.

 

Quite.

Labour has been indifferent so far but compare that to 2016-24 with the legacy left behind and it’s hard to see how it could have too much better. Tories admit they couldn’t have afforded the £10.5bn compensation either and it was their poor communication in the first place.

Much rather the infected blood and post office scandal affected groups and individuals are made a priority for compensating - but of course they don’t have a large female boomer generation campaigning voice behind them in the same way through the tabloids. Alan Bates is popular but not got the columnists going into bat for the PO affected in the same way.

Edited Wednesday at 23:24 by Gloucester Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Tories admit they couldn’t have afforded the £10.5bn compensation either and it was their poor communication in the first place.

There wasn’t poor communication, a report found that in 2006 some 90% of affected women knew about the changes. 
 

You’ve done exactly what labour were doing, having a cheap shot at the Tories. That's why they’re getting the clog they deserve over this issue, it was a non issue they turned into a stick to beat them with. An own goal. for a few more votes 

Edited Thursday at 08:31 by Lord Duckhunter

[Gloucester Saint]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There wasn’t poor communication, a report found that in 2006 some 90% of affected women knew about the changes. 
 

You’ve done exactly what labour were doing, having a cheap shot at the Tories. That's why they’re getting the clog they deserve over this issue, it was a non issue, they turned into a stick to beat themselves with. 

Some of Labour’s own communication isn’t very good either and in opposition they complained about the unfairness as the Tories did yesterday whilst admitting they couldn’t have afforded it too (which is a lesson for all opposition parties, Lib Dem’s and tuition fees as well for balance as I vote for them). It wasn’t in their manifesto to tackle it and given the state of the country’s finances there are groups like the PO and blood scandal that I’d rather were prioritised. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It wasn’t in their manifesto to tackle it and given the state of the country’s finances there are groups like the PO and blood scandal that I’d rather were prioritised. 

That wasn’t what Liz Kendall said yesterday, she didn’t say the say couldn’t afford it or that due to a fiscal black hole they made the difficult decision to prioritise other causes. She specifically rejected the principle that they were owed compo (correctly in my view). She rejected the ombudsman’s recommendation on the basis that most women knew about the rise in age and the fact they hadn’t received letters was insignificant . She said, 

 “These two facts — that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says — as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman's report.”

 

Theres no new facts that have emerged since Raynor, Starmer and others promised to right this perceived wrong. It’s not the financial situation that’s changed, it’s their principle of whether these birds were owed compo or not. Not a good look and again the issue has been poorly managed. …

 

Edited Thursday at 09:54 by Lord Duckhunter

[Gloucester Saint]

22 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That wasn’t what Liz Kendall said yesterday, she didn’t say the say couldn’t afford it or that due to a fiscal black hole they made the difficult decision to prioritise other causes. She specifically rejected the principle that they were owed compo (correctly in my view). She rejected the ombudsman’s recommendation on the basis that most women knew about the rise in age and the fact they hadn’t received letters was insignificant . She said, 

 “These two facts — that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says — as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman's report.”

 

Theres no new facts that have emerged since Raynor, Starmer and others promised to right this perceived wrong. It’s not the financial situation that’s changed, it’s their principle of whether these birds were owed compo or not. Not a good look and again the issue has been poorly managed. …

 

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

Edited Thursday at 10:16 by Gloucester Saint

[egg]

50 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That wasn’t what Liz Kendall said yesterday, she didn’t say the say couldn’t afford it or that due to a fiscal black hole they made the difficult decision to prioritise other causes. She specifically rejected the principle that they were owed compo (correctly in my view). She rejected the ombudsman’s recommendation on the basis that most women knew about the rise in age and the fact they hadn’t received letters was insignificant . She said, 

 “These two facts — that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says — as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman's report.”

 

Theres no new facts that have emerged since Raynor, Starmer and others promised to right this perceived wrong. It’s not the financial situation that’s changed, it’s their principle of whether these birds were owed compo or not. Not a good look and again the issue has been poorly managed. …

 

Agreed. Virtue signalling his bitten them on the arse. 

[aintforever]

39 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

Not sure there is any way of communicating this sort of thing without some people being pissed off, whatever they say the women are going to moan. Old people will moan about anything given the chance.

[whelk]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

Agreed. Virtue signalling his bitten them on the arse. 

Don’t think it was virtue signalling more naive supporting anyone who was campaigning against the Tory government.

 

[whelk]

44 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

Campbell has huge wisdom and always good value listening to him. Of course some can’t get past what you have to do to govern effectively and he’s forever their bogey man.

Whilst Morgan Mcsweeney ran a very good election campaign strategy for Labour he is not in Campbell’s category for experience. Mind social media and misinformation wasnt as prevalent as in Campbell’s time and there is literally fuck all you can do these days with the rabid Tory papers hell bent on having no objectivity and just solely concentrate on attacking Starmer and co. 

[Gloucester Saint]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Campbell has huge wisdom and always good value listening to him. Of course some can’t get past what you have to do to govern effectively and he’s forever their bogey man.

Whilst Morgan Mcsweeney ran a very good election campaign strategy for Labour he is not in Campbell’s category for experience. Mind social media and misinformation wasnt as prevalent as in Campbell’s time and there is literally fuck all you can do these days with the rabid Tory papers hell bent on having no objectivity and just solely concentrate on attacking Starmer and co. 

I did think that, last time they were in power SM was nowhere near the force it is now. Plus some of the tabloids - I include the DT in that category these days sadly - are solely propaganda tools. They’ve always been right-leaning but in a way it backfires because most people who aren’t politically partisan assume they are just banging on at the behest of the CCO and their non-dom, tax dodging owners.

[egg]

42 minutes ago, whelk said:

Don’t think it was virtue signalling more naive supporting anyone who was campaigning against the Tory government.

 

Possibly both, but certainly naive, and not forward thinking. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

Half the problem is that Starmer just isn't an inspiring person. It feels like when Theresa May was in charge with no inspiration and nothing to make people feel good about themselves and their situation. 

[Jeremy Corbyn]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Don’t think it was virtue signalling more naive supporting anyone who was campaigning against the Tory government.

 

Yep, think that's it and tbh I've been surprised how poor Labour's PR has been in power considering how good they were at taking apart the Tories in the last couple of years.

[The Kraken]

54 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Yep, think that's it and tbh I've been surprised how poor Labour's PR has been in power considering how good they were at taking apart the Tories in the last couple of years.

Were they?  Starmer played it well in opposition but all he had to do was let the Tories implode.

Everyone knew Boris Johnson was a liar, key press knew about Partygate while it was happening. Starmer asked the right questions at PMQs but Johnson was a complete fool and made a complete cunt of himself by telling fibs then being immediately caught out on it.

Liz Truss, well that was just the biggest own goal ever.

And Sunak, despite being the “sensible” appointee was actually inept, advised abysmally, and made ricket after ricket.

I said at the time of the election and I haven’t changed my mind much. Starmer isn’t in any way inspiring but he’s clearly an intelligent man which makes him stand well above the three before him and what’s opposite him now, just because he shows a semblance of relative competence. And that’s with Labour making what can best be described as a poor start to governance.

Edited Thursday at 13:14 by The Kraken

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Half the problem is that Starmer just isn't an inspiring person. It feels like when Theresa May was in charge with no inspiration and nothing to make people feel good about themselves and their situation. 

He’s what I’d describe as serious, very detail focused, which was totally lacking with Boris and Truss. Sunak was more detail focused but they’d shot their bolt by then. Which is fine for a PM but Rayner hasn’t provided the lighter side that might have offset some of that seriousness. Someone like Wes Streeting has that aspect of humour which he seems to land well. Gordon Brown’s seriousness and that of George Osborne wasn’t such a problem as Blair and Cameron were more natural public performers. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

12 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

 

11 hours ago, aintforever said:

Not sure there is any way of communicating this sort of thing without some people being pissed off, whatever they say the women are going to moan. Old people will moan about anything given the chance.

😂😂 I think the point went over Aintclevers head 😂😂 #dopeymiddleagedperson

GS must be referring to the fact they need a Campbell type figure to manage expectations and the announcement this week, not “communicating this sort of thing” from the off as Aintclever seems to think. New Labour were  in Government for 12 of the 14 years which the ombudsman mentioned, they clearly didn’t need a Campbell figure to communicate the pissing off, they had the real one.
 

It’s pandering to the moaners that’s caught them out. GS is right. Campbell/ Ingram wouldn’t have let them expose themselves in opposition by posing with “pledges”, and both would have rolled the pitch for this weeks announcement…

[whelk]

I don’t understand. It is not possible to get more money from taxes. Clearly fake news 

Government borrowing lower than expected in November https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmvr2n4v9o

 

[Gloucester Saint]

10 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

😂😂 I think the point went over Aintclevers head 😂😂 #dopeymiddleagedperson

GS must be referring to the fact they need a Campbell type figure to manage expectations and the announcement this week, not “communicating this sort of thing” from the off as Aintclever seems to think. New Labour were  in Government for 12 of the 14 years which the ombudsman mentioned, they clearly didn’t need a Campbell figure to communicate the pissing off, they had the real one.
 

It’s pandering to the moaners that’s caught them out. GS is right. Campbell/ Ingram wouldn’t have let them expose themselves in opposition by posing with “pledges”, and both would have rolled the pitch for this weeks announcement…

Yes, that’s correct, that’s what I was saying.