Comment by exasperaited

Comment by exasperaited 2 days ago

> The fact that they were elected as a 'change' government and have barely done anything that really faces up to the scale of the challenge the country faces?

They have done a lot. But they haven't even stopped the runaway train yet. And the fundamental mistake they have made is not explaining to people clearly enough, during the election campaign, that it would take the first three years just to stop it.

Then you have the absolutely shameful, racist, nihilistic, fact-free intervention of five MPs that the media thinks will run the country in future so they are getting ten times the airtime of anyone else.

physicsguy 2 days ago

> They have done a lot.

I really don’t agree. Look at the first year of 1997 Labour:

* Good Friday agreement signed and referendum * Introduction of Minimum Wage * Human Rights act introduced and passed * Scottish and Welsh devolution set out, Parliament voted on it, referendums passed * Bank of England independence

A government coming into a mess of a country on a platform of change cannot just fiddle around with minor things, which is what many of the changes they have done, though positive, are. And at the same time, they’ve also wasted so much political capital on some really stupid things that it’s hard to see where they can go from here.

Reply View 3 replies

squidbeak 2 days ago

This is an unfair comparison. The economy Blair inherited was very different, thanks to Ken Clark's preoccupation with eliminating the 'Public Sector Borrowing Requirement'. The pressure on public finances we see now, in part because of privatization under Blair, wasn't there in 1997.

Reply View | 1 reply
- physicsguy a day ago
  
  I don't think it's unfair at all, stuff like BoE independence was planned prior to the election and implemented quite quickly.
  The planning reforms of Labour have been held up largely by their own MPs. I don't particularly care about it but House of Lords reform seems to have been abandoned. Their 'charter for working people' has been largely unworkable and they're arguing internally an enormous amount. Lots of these don't have a huge amount of bearing on them based on the economy at all, they're largely cost neutral to the government itself.
  Instead we've had (a) more bungs to pensioners via the triple lock which they're too scared to deal with at nearly a 5% increase this year (b) getting rid of the cap on benefits for more than 2 children, which is terrible optics for everyone working who can't afford more than two kids and doesn't get any support (c) a rise in employer NI which has hit hiring and pay rises massively for anyone working (d) a rise in employee NI to pay for all of this via stopping salary sacrifice, which only hits private sector employees.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
mytailorisrich 2 days ago

Yes and I'd argue that this is because they have not been elected on merit but because the people rejected the Tories. I believe that Corbyn got more votes than Starmer!
They have neither talents nor a plan. So far it seems that Starmer has picked policies to make him survive and he knows that this means placating power bases in the Labour party, not generally good policies for the country. Opinion polls are scathing.

Reply View | 0 replies