I’d say 1997 - 2001 and some of the following one but Iraq and then removing the 10% initial tax rate and then calling the woman racist were the end of the competency
No I’m the IFS - they said both main parties are being dishonest in their manifesto
There is the flip side to that. He’s getting in by promising very little. If he changes his mind chances are it will be positive given how negative the manifesto is.I mean it’s a tongue in cheek comment, but really it’s more that Starmer has changed his opinion on lots of things in the last 4 years. I think there is a piece of video out there saying he supported the actions of activists like Just Stop Oil or Extinction Rebellion before he was leader of the Labour Party.
It’s almost as if the sniff of power has created somewhat of an inverted Damascus moment
Interesting, so what's the point of a manifesto?There is the flip side to that. He’s getting in by promising very little. If he changes his mind chances are it will be positive given how negative the manifesto is.
In the interest of balance the Tories have a £71B black hole in theirs. God knows how big Reforms is as they’re promising the second biggest spend after the Greens but unlike the Greens who are proposing big tax reforms to pay for it whereas Reform is promising tax cuts.Also like the Labour manifesto and the £38 billion black hole.
All parties other than the main two can say what they want - are the Greens grifters?
It’s a fair point but I refer you to every government in my living memory. This isn’t a disease of the Labour Party.Interesting, so what's the point of a manifesto?
Whatever you think of Corbyns politics you've got to be blind to not see he was able to engage people in a way Starmer simply isn't doingMay runs the worst campaign in decades and it’s Corbyn cutting her lead, Sunak does the same and it’s the Tories throwing it away and nothing to do with Starmer.
It’s such a ridiculous meme. Starmers approval now is higher than Corbyns ever was, higher than May and around on par with Johnson in 2019. By any measure he’s a relatively popular politician and on course to win a landslide.
The fact this is true while everyone on social media claims the opposite should give you pause for thought.
Looking at most platforms online, those who slag Starmer off the most tend to be to the left. They attack him more than the Tories do. Not the most exciting of politicians, but I don't want exciting. I don't want a narcassist like Johnson or a near billionaire like Sunak, I want someone sensible, yes, someone boring. Someone who'll govern without thinking of their own mates and their own pockets.
I think someone like Starmer is just what this country needs after 14 years of fuckwittery from the Tories.
Obv this is only one person but my Mum is the stereotypical Mail reading, Thatcher loving life long tory voterLooking at most platforms online, those who slag Starmer off the most tend to be to the left.
Yet, he couldn't engage enough people to vote for him in 2017 or 2019. It's a shame those around him didn't explain that well attended rallys and people singing his name at Glastonbury makes little difference at the end of the day. To change lives for the better Labour need to be in Government and there was no way he was ever going to win. He condemned us to Johnson and the Tories in 2019.Whatever you think of Corbyns politics you've got to be blind to not see he was able to engage people in a way Starmer simply isn't doing
A bigot what I remember?I’d say 1997 - 2001 and some of the following one but Iraq and then removing the 10% initial tax rate and then calling the woman racist were the end of the competency
No one who is an "average working man" can afford to send their kid to private school.
They can if they make massive sacrifices.
No, but he'd have had a decent chance of winning the election overall given the shitshow of the Tories.Does anyone think if Corbyn was still leader of Labour they would have this 20 point + lead in the polls?
Nah, if you can afford private education for your kid(s) then you're not on an "average" salary.They can if they make massive sacrifices.
A low tax economies generate huge inequality and poverty.Exactly, high tax economies generate poor growth. The economy also wasn’t addicted to quantitive easing back in the 90s and early 00s.
Nah, if you can afford private education for your kid(s) then you're not on an "average" salary.
Who to? Beezelbub? Adam Smith? Ayn Rand?They can if they make massive sacrifices.
Average person maybe, but not average salary.There are plenty who sacrifice who are "average" people who graft, it isn't just people born into money.
An average of £15k a year for one kid, that's a hell of a lot of sacrificing for the 'average working man'!
Average person maybe, but not average salary.
Edited my post: Average cost is now £6944 for day pupils and £12344 for borders. Per term.It depends, you will find a lot will be both parents working but far from rich or well off but doing their best to send their kid.
Edited my post: Average cost is now £6944 for day pupils and £12344 for borders. Per term.
If you're saying that the average person/family can afford that then my family is WAY below average in what we earn.
Might be doable for you, but I certainly couldn't afford £21K or £36K a year out of our family budget. I doubt many "average" families could. Great, if you can afford it as we all want the best possible start in life for our kids, but to say that's attainable for the average family, even if they are making sacrifices, is laughable. Seems our view on average is different.Yeah, and it's do-able with both parents grafting for it living a very modest life otherwise.
That and being a fan of FPTP are two of my most consistent beliefs even as far back as my A-levels.
Might be doable for you, but I certainly couldn't afford £21K or £36K a year out of our family budget. I doubt many "average" families could. Great, if you can afford it as we all want the best possible start in life for our kids, but to say that's attainable for the average family, even if they are making sacrifices, is laughable. Seems our view on average is different.
Which is why I'm disputing "average" family here. Very comfortable, family with no mortgage, family who eat very little, but "average"? No way.Average salary is 30k = 2k per month take home.
Average private school cost is apparently 21k = 1750 per month.
Off two average salaries that would take some doing for one kid and impossible for two. If anyone is doing that then fair fucks that really is making some huge sacrifices for your kids!
In 2017 maybe. By 2019 he’d lost the room.Whatever you think of Corbyns politics you've got to be blind to not see he was able to engage people in a way Starmer simply isn't doing
Average salary is 30k = 2k per month take home.
Average private school cost is apparently 21k = 1750 per month.
Off two average salaries that would take some doing for one kid and impossible for two. If anyone is doing that then fair fucks that really is making some huge sacrifices for your kids!
Is that really relevant today. Different situation, totally different individuals.1997-2010
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?