UK Politics General Discussion

[Craig]

If we look to history, the only times in recent history where this seat has voted Labour were in 1997 and 2001, when Blair was at his absolute peak. The seat was Tory for years prior to 1997, quickly went Tory again when Blair lost popularity in 2005, and Mark Harper’s vote share only seems to have increased ever since. My prediction is that Labour will only win this seat if they have an absolutely spectacular night nationwide (i.e. a 1997-style landslide). If the result ends up being more marginal in Labour’s favour or if the Tories defy the odds and win, I think the seat will probably stay Tory.

Yup they certainly need a magnificent night, I’m just failing to see the Tories doing anything in the next few weeks that turns the tide. Reform are eating into the Tory’s votes, and Labour’s Vote share seems to be relatively static at the moment.

In addition, public approval for Starmer seems to be rising, while Sunak’s is absolutely tanking. For a party who have tried to run this as a ”presidential” campaign on personality (however bizarre the reasoning for that was!), that’s not good news:

On a side note, I find this seat’s consistent tendency to vote Tory quite peculiar. The Forest of Dean has a strong mining heritage, and I thought most mining areas were Labour through and through (or “Red Wall” Tory seats in 2019) after Margaret Thatcher decimated the mines? While the constituency is admittedly pretty rural, has some pretty affluent areas, and also leans considerably older than England as a whole, there are also some notable belts of deprivation locally, particularly within the Forest's larger ex-mining towns.

The last National Coal Board mine closed in 1965 in the Forest of Dean, long before Thatcher’s mine closures up in the north in the 80’s, so it’s not as heavily affected by the ”Thatcher effect” that we have up here. The Tories have been incredibly successful campaigning off the back of ”culture war” issues, almost completely mitigating that Thatcher effect for many of the deprived communities across the country. The problem is that they’ve now been in power and failed to resolve the issues they’ve so glady repeatedly shouted about in the past. They overpromised and severely under delivered. Reform have come along, shouted about it louder and made ”promises” they know they’ll never have to deliver, meaning the Tories lost the voters they’ve attracted. On top of that they’ve not been able to attract those voters with more centrist views back to the party. Topped off with a leader that’s severely disliked, it’s a perfect storm for electorial oblivion.

 

[Matt.GC]

I suppose you answered your own question there Matt about the FOD. A high proportion of rich and old people. That's proper Tory heartland. I may be wrong in my local knowledge, but wasn't Forest of Dean mining a late Victorian-1960's thing like most of the Gloucestershire mining industries (Celestine and coal)? Much like the constituency I grew up in (where there is a village that is quite literally called 'Coalpit Heath'), it all went naturally way before Thatcher did it not? A far cry from down the road in the Welsh valleys where, much like northern England, the communities where solely built around collieries and isolated, and have never recovered from that time period.

@Craig might be right about postal votes. Maybe we'll see more activity soon? I suppose the reason I find the lack of activity around here so bizarre is for a number of reasons. It wasn't a hive of activity last time, even though the Tories winning again was a shoe in, and the Lib Dems collapsed here in the early 2000's and were overtaken by Labour as the challengers in 2015 so there's no point in them throwing anything at us like they are all around us. The Greens seem to be throwing everything bar the kitchen sink at Bristol central to get Carla Denyer elected, the same for Labour in Filton and Bradley Stoke, the same for the Lib Dems in Thornbury and Yate. There's a real effort by Labour trying to unseat Reece-Mogg in North East Somerset and Hanham, and to do the same with Liam Fox in Somerset North which is right next door. Across the motorway and I got the feeling yesterday that the Lib Dems are pushing hard in Wells and Mendip Hills too.

But to put this into perspective, this seat has never had a Labour MP. It was a Lib Dem Tory marginal in the 90's and early 2000's, but the sheer amount of new housing in the town means that boundary changes have decreased the geographical spread. It's lost a load of quaint little Tory villages, and now has a higher proportion of younger less affluent voters. Electoral caulcus (https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Weston-super-Mare) has Labour with a 73% chance of winning. I can see why the smaller parties aren't bothering, and the Tories seem to be spending their cash on trying to defend even safer seats and those held by cabinet ministers, but I would have thought this would be ripe territory for a large Labour campaign? Maybe before the Tory woes worsened we were lower down on the target list as they didn't think they had much of a chance a few weeks ago?

 

[Matt N]

Yup they certainly need a magnificent night, I’m just failing to see the Tories doing anything in the next few weeks that turns the tide. Reform are eating into the Tory’s votes, and Labour’s Vote share seems to be relatively static at the moment.

In addition, public approval for Starmer seems to be rising, while Sunak’s is absolutely tanking. For a party who have tried to run this as a ”presidential” campaign on personality (however bizarre the reasoning for that was!), that’s not good news:

I find that graph a real eye-opener. I never thought Starmer was particularly well-liked in isolation (certainly not on the level of, say, Blair), but the graph would beg to differ.

The other eye opening thing is that while she's not a current leader, I find it staggering just how unpopular Liz Truss was... a rating of almost -80 would imply that pretty much no one liked her, which is almost unprecedented for a political leader.

I know that this graph suggests that Rishi Sunak is pretty unpopular, but part of me reckons that he's largely been lumbered with the Conservatives' previous 14-year record. I could be wrong, but Sunak himself does not seem to me like a polarising hate figure in the same way as some of his predecessors. People like Johnson and Truss, as well as Corbyn on the opposite side of the Commons, were polarising and stirred up quite strong feelings, whereas I think Sunak is a little more like Starmer in that he doesn't stir up particularly strong feelings in isolation. I don't think either man is especially loved, but I get the impression that neither is especially hated, either.

Like you, I find the "presidential" approach bizarre with the two party leaders we have. When it was Johnson vs Corbyn in 2019, and the contenders were both people who had considerable cults of personality around them, this approach would have made a little more sense. But Sunak and Starmer are arguably both quite "beige" politicians who don't stir up an awful lot of emotion in much of the electorate, so I'd argue that a focus on policy over personality would make more sense.

Personally, a large part of me doesn't see Starmer as popular enough in isolation to get some unprecedented Labour landslide. I could be wrong, but my view is that Starmer/Labour's popularity is largely driven by anti-Tory sentiment and Labour being the most obvious alternative rather than any particular love for Starmer's Labour Party. I think Labour will probably win the election, but I just don't see Starmer as popular enough in his own right to get the sort of 400+ seat landslide enjoyed by the likes of Blair. However, I could be wrong, and I could also be severely underestimating the sheer degree of Tory hatred. If enough people hate the Tories enough to vote tactically to oust them, then that could well generate a Labour landslide without any need for Starmer to be particularly popular in isolation.

It'll be an interesting campaign, for sure. One thing I do think, though, is that I think the threat posed by Reform could possibly be overstated. From having read up, I gather that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats were obscenely popular in the lead-up to the 2010 election, with there being talk of the Lib Dems gaining over 100 seats and opinion polls level-pegging them with the Tories and Labour in terms of vote share and some even having them as the largest party in terms of vote share. This didn't ultimately come to anything at the ballot box, and the Lib Dems actually ended up losing seats in 2010. Ditto with UKIP in 2015; they had very high opinion poll ratings, but failed to gain a lot of ground at the ballot box. I reckon that Reform at this election could well end up going the same way, with the opinion poll leads struggling to amount to anything at the ballot box.

I may be wrong in my local knowledge, but wasn't Forest of Dean mining a late Victorian-1960's thing like most of the Gloucestershire mining industries (Celestine and coal)? Much like the constituency I grew up in (where there is a village that is quite literally called 'Coalpit Heath'), it all went naturally way before Thatcher did it not? A far cry from down the road in the Welsh valleys where, much like northern England, the communities where solely built around collieries and isolated, and have never recovered from that time period.

I'll take your word for it! Despite liking to think that I have reasonable general knowledge overall, I'm absolutely terrible at local Forest of Dean history... at the quiz me, my mum and my grandparents have started attending once a month, I never have a clue whenever the quiz master asks a local history question such as "When did the Battle of Coleford take place?" or "Who caused civil unrest in the Forest of Dean in the 1800s?" (those are just two recent examples I can think of)!

 

[Craig]

I find that graph a real eye-opener. I never thought Starmer was particularly well-liked in isolation (certainly not on the level of, say, Blair), but the graph would beg to differ.

I think this all boils down to what I mentioned in an earlier post - I get the feeling people just want someone sensible in charge. Sure, he's seen as boring, sure, he doesn't seem particularly exciting. But, is that exactly what a lot of people want at the moment and a reason for his ratings now rising? Boris's cheeky chappy personality didn't equate to competence in government, so personality isn't as big of a thing as it has been in the past, or indeed in the likes of the USA.

On Sunak, his popularity was somewhat exaggerated thanks to coming to the fore during Covid, when dishing out money left, right and centre made him a popular figure - and when there was little need to communicate difficult messages. That spending was fundamentally against his actual beliefs as a Conservative though, and once that all died out it was very clear he was massively out of his depth as a head of state. He has an unbelievable ability to make even the simplest apology look incredibly inauthentic and as though he's just going through the motions because he has to. Look at the D Day apologies that he made, he just looks exasperated that he's in this position - despite being a Prime Minister who should have thought of the optics of the whole situation in the first place. It's always a case of blame someone or something else rather than actually taking any sort of responsibility. His inability to think on his feet when answering questions is very clear, as he trumps out the same old attack line for the umpteenth time.

Election campaigns are hideously analysed and orchestrated by each of the parties, and Labour will have actively come out with the campaign style that they have off the back of extensive focus groups, polling and research in the background.

For the Tories, my guess would be their focus groups and research they were doing had them hit the panic button before things got even worse, as they were already in a downward trajectory. They hideously miscalculated that Farage would be caught on the back foot and not be as effective. Should they have waited until October/November when there was a possibility he'd be too tied up with US Politics stuff? Possibly, but when the public have stopped listening, and all the coverage was constantly about when the election was going to be, I think we were long past the stage where it would've made a great deal of difference.

 

[Matt.GC]

Sunak isn't a Truss or Johnson type figure, and it's true that much of his unpopularity will be due to carrying the can for the last 14 years. But that doesn't make him just a fall guy. He profited from the 2008 financial crisis by being part of a hedge fund that saddled RBS with toxic debt, from co-founding Caymen island firms, to US Green cards, he has a history of dodging UK taxes. He's wealthier than the King, once boasted that he didn't have working class friends, and thinks not having Sky TV as a kid was "going without". He didn't have to stand for parliament in 2015 on a Tory ticket, and he didn't have to stand for party leader and PM.

Although I would say all that doesn't endear himself with the electorate, it doesn't necessarily make him automatically a bad politician. So that's where his record comes in. Not being Liz Truss isn't good enough. His record since assuming office, and indeed his campaign so far where he has fallen for the trap of constantly throwing red meat to a right wing who will never be satisfied, speaks for itself. His premiership can't just be defined by carrying the can of his predecessors, I think it's safe to say that he's being critiqued for his own actions, not also forgetting his poor performance as chancellor (where he also broke the law alongside his old boss) which is one of the reasons we're saddled with such a heavy national bill now. The guy just isn't a good PM, party leader, or politician. Anything but beige, I think he is also polarising, just not in the same way that his predecessors were.

I think some of the past precedents being discussed are valid, and that's why I don't think we'll see the Tory wipeout that's been predicted is true, and I do think that Reforms support is exaggerated. But, as I've stated before, 1992 is often misremembered, Kinnocks lead ebbed away as the campaign went on and the exit polls on the night did predict that he would loose. The Lib Dems did loose seats in 2010, but also did increase their national vote share. UKIP were never successful in General Elections. Like Kinnock, Theresa May's poll lead also took a visible hammering during the campaign. We're over half way through this campaign and it's getting progressively worse for the Tories and Reform's poll lead, although I think is overstated, is unusually high. The 20 point poll lead for labour, despite not being a ringing endorsement for Starmer, is consistent and has been for years now. There isn't a modern historical precedent for this election.

Now Starmer, he is beige. That's why he's not popular, but also why he's not so polarising. The country could do with boring right now. I believe that deep down he's a lot more radical than he's allowed to be. Like Sunak, he's also not a natural politician, so he's not held back by ideology. At the moment, all he's promised really is a continuation of the current mess, only more competent and stable. Just preventing things from getting worse.

But the clues are in the manifesto where there are few promises, which means he hasn't ruled much out. There's actually some policies in there which are quite eye watering that I'm surprised few have picked up on. The investment and wealth fund strategies, including GB Energy may be scaled down and pretty small fry, but they do give quite a bold vision of the where he wants to go with this. People are bored of talking about renationalised railways as it's old news, but it's still in there from 2015 and would actually be quite a significant change to public transportation. If anyone is wondering how the unions signed such a lightweight manifesto off, the workers rights are anything but, with new employees gaining significant rights from day one, and the minimum wage being regardless of age, something that Blair and Browns Labour went nowhere near.

This could all blow up in his face, he may end up doing very little and we'll have another re-run of this grim choice election in 5 years time. But something tells me that the Labour manifesto, filled with wishy washy political intentions but quite light on policy, is intentionally boring to get them over the line. And that what follows with a decent majority will be quite different. I think it just leaves them too open to attack from right and left this side of the election.

 

[Jonathan]

Sunak isn't a Truss or Johnson type figure, and it's true that much of his unpopularity will be due to carrying the can for the last 14 years. But that doesn't make him just a fall guy. He profited from the 2008 financial crisis by being part of a hedge fund that saddled RBS with toxic debt, from co-founding Caymen island firms, to US Green cards, he has a history of dodging UK taxes. He's wealthier than the King, once boasted that he didn't have working class friends, and thinks not having Sky TV as a kid was "going without". He didn't have to stand for parliament in 2015 on a Tory ticket, and he didn't have to stand for party leader and PM.

Although I would say all that doesn't endear himself with the electorate, it doesn't necessarily make him automatically a bad politician. So that's where his record comes in. Not being Liz Truss isn't good enough. His record since assuming office, and indeed his campaign so far where he has fallen for the trap of constantly throwing red meat to a right wing who will never be satisfied, speaks for itself. His premiership can't just be defined by carrying the can of his predecessors, I think it's safe to say that he's being critiqued for his own actions, not also forgetting his poor performance as chancellor (where he also broke the law alongside his old boss) which is one of the reasons we're saddled with such a heavy national bill now. The guy just isn't a good PM, party leader, or politician. Anything but beige, I think he is also polarising, just not in the same way that his predecessors were.

I think some of the past precedents being discussed are valid, and that's why I don't think we'll see the Tory wipeout that's been predicted is true, and I do think that Reforms support is exaggerated. But, as I've stated before, 1992 is often misremembered, Kinnocks lead ebbed away as the campaign went on and the exit polls on the night did predict that he would loose. The Lib Dems did loose seats in 2010, but also did increase their national vote share. UKIP were never successful in General Elections. Like Kinnock, Theresa May's poll lead also took a visible hammering during the campaign. We're over half way through this campaign and it's getting progressively worse for the Tories and Reform's poll lead, although I think is overstated, is unusually high. The 20 point poll lead for labour, despite not being a ringing endorsement for Starmer, is consistent and has been for years now. There isn't a modern historical precedent for this election.

Now Starmer, he is beige. That's why he's not popular, but also why he's not so polarising. The country could do with boring right now. I believe that deep down he's a lot more radical than he's allowed to be. Like Sunak, he's also not a natural politician, so he's not held back by ideology. At the moment, all he's promised really is a continuation of the current mess, only more competent and stable. Just preventing things from getting worse.

But the clues are in the manifesto where there are few promises, which means he hasn't ruled much out. There's actually some policies in there which are quite eye watering that I'm surprised few have picked up on. The investment and wealth fund strategies, including GB Energy may be scaled down and pretty small fry, but they do give quite a bold vision of the where he wants to go with this. People are bored of talking about renationalised railways as it's old news, but it's still in there from 2015 and would actually be quite a significant change to public transportation. If anyone is wondering how the unions signed such a lightweight manifesto off, the workers rights are anything but, with new employees gaining significant rights from day one, and the minimum wage being regardless of age, something that Blair and Browns Labour went nowhere near.

This could all blow up in his face, he may end up doing very little and we'll have another re-run of this grim choice election in 5 years time. But something tells me that the Labour manifesto, filled with wishy washy political intentions but quite light on policy, is intentionally boring to get them over the line. And that what follows with a decent majority will be quite different. I think it just leaves them too open to attack from right and left this side of the election.

Y'know, I've been thinking for a while that this is what Starmer's plan is. I just hope that if this is what he's doing, it ends up working.

 

[Matt.GC]

Y'know, I've been thinking for a while that this is what Starmer's plan is. I just hope that if this is what he's doing, it ends up working.

Well I look at it like this. Although he hardly grew up on the bread line, he is from a traditional working class background, not too dissimilar to my own. I think he's ideologically left wing, much more than he's making out right now. However, he's not a natural born politician. He's a pragmatist and distinguished legal professional with public service experience (which he reminds everyone constantly to the point it's getting boring). I think his ideals genuinely remain with some of the things he has stood for in the past, but lawyer, pragmatist Starmer keeps kicking in, much like it did in the past which lead to his career in the first place.

He's been taking advice from Tony Blair, a guy obsessed with winning above ideals. He's installed Rachel Reeves as shadow chancellor, and unlike him she genuinely is to the right of the party. Her job is to hold the reigns of economic credibility, the voice that will say "no". Now if you look at when he's being grilled, it's quite obvious when he's being real Starmer and when he's being politician Starmer. Compare when he's relaxed and talking about his family and upbringing, which can look very genuine and heartfelt sometimes, to robotic when he's reeling off the "well my dad was a toolmaker, my mum was a nurse" spin speil. Same recently, very stern one word yes or no answers where he looks the interviewer in the eyes, before the robot Starmer ROM boots up in his brain with the explanation. Catch him on an off day, and I reckon he'd spill the beans. I think he's holding back and has put processes in place to keep himself and his party disciplined.

If you look at some of the investment scheme ideas he's spoken about in the past for public services, it's basically a form of PFI. Only David Davis has talked about that, leading me to believe that the Tories are either completely incompetent and haven't noticed, or have similar plans themselves. No way is he going to talk about that before the election. There's also no way that a majority Labour government will leave the NHS as it is currently. When grilled about growth, cuts to expenditure to fill the black hole, and junior doctors strikes, him and Wes Streeting may as well be grinning and winking at the camera.

There's stuff they're not telling us. I just think that some of it would scare away Tory voters and create an ideological stir on the left (both inside Labour and in other parties to the left). This would leave them very open to attack. Much better having 5 years to explain it than trying to do it in 5 weeks. I'm hoping we'll see Lawyer Starmer in office, breaking eggs and challenging the status quo, not the Robot Starmer we see now. I just can't see him wasting such power with such a toxic in-tray. Wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing some wealth taxes and some investment borrowing going on after the election.

Or I could be completely wrong and he could waste a landslide in his first term, and start waging wars in his second like Blair did.

 

[GaryH]

I don’t think Starmer is popular at all. Most people interviewed on TV say they don’t like the guy. He has no character, is robotic. People are just voting Labour to get the tories out that’s it. Labour could write whatever they want in their manifesto and people will still vote for them.

Quite concerning really that politics has got to this situation.

 

[Matt.GC]

People are just voting Labour to get the tories out that’s it. Labour could write whatever they want in their manifesto and people will still vote for them.

I don't agree at all that they would, and you're underestimating just how toxic the Labour brand was at the last election.

Whilst it's completely true that the Tories are the gift to Labour that keeps on giving, if they ran it like 2019 it would scare millions of voters back to the Tories and to smaller parties. I think this is too simplistic, if Labour are to be the default government which I agree that's what they're going for, then they need a default policy platform to match that offends as few people as possible. That's what they've done. You can't seriously suggest that they'd be receiving similar poll leads if Corbyn and Mcdonell were still in charge?

 

[rob666]

I don’t think Starmer is popular at all. Most people interviewed on TV say they don’t like the guy. He has no character, is robotic. People are just voting Labour to get the tories out that’s it. Labour could write whatever they want in their manifesto and people will still vote for them.

Quite concerning really that politics has got to this situation.

Sorry, the "robot" line came from the tory press, and it is all they have got...
Most people on tv say they don't like the guy...
Really?
Citation needed!
No.
Not on the tv I have been watching.
The Tory members and their supporters , and their press, call him boring.
Like the ginger council house stealer...Tory press lies, nothing more.
Amusing keeping reading the Mail on Sunday at the moment, absolutely hilarious stuff.
Finest "Big Issue" from them at the moment...there might be so many Labour MP's they might have to sit on the opposition benches as well, and they might have to use a rope barrier or something to keep the parties apart!
Constitutional crisis!!!

 

[Matt.GC]

Amusing keeping reading the Mail on Sunday at the moment, absolutely hilarious stuff.
Finest "Big Issue" from them at the moment...there might be so many Labour MP's they might have to sit on the opposition benches as well, and they might have to use a rope barrier or something to keep the parties apart!
Constitutional crisis!!!

I find it amusing that they've pushed the panic button so early in this election. Didn't they wait at least until the last week before they did that in 1997?

If I was advising the Tories right now, I can't say that I wouldn't advise them to do exactly that. People stopped listening to them years ago. They had the chance to fight on the centre ground and they blew it, opting instead to chase Farage rather than face him down. I also read the Reform "contract" last night and it's pretty much a lah lah land populist rant, full of wild and implausible expenditure plans using the word "woke" a lot that wouldn't stand up to slightest bit of scrutiny. All that's changed from the draft they put up before the election was called is inserting a picture of Farage putting his phone in his pocket on the front page. It could have been ridiculed and destroyed months ago.

But it's too late now. Pleading with their base to not abandon them and getting their press chums to scare people about Labour is all they have now. It won't save them from a hammering, but playing the victim card will probably save them a few dozen seats at least.

 

[Mick]

Starmer might appear ‘robotic’ but all Sunak does is interrupt and repeat the same pre-rehearsed lines. Farage and Johnson were the opposite of robots and might make better tv but I don’t want to be entertained by the prime minister, I want somebody who understands, who can unite a party and a country, and will govern with competence and empathy.

 

[Tom]

Murdoch is hanging on until the last minute before conceding he has to back Starmer to maintain his record of backing winners. Part of him must be hoping that he dies before the Sun has to officially come out for Labour.

 

[Matt N]

Murdoch is hanging on until the last minute before conceding he has to back Starmer to maintain his record of backing winners. Part of him must be hoping that he dies before the Sun has to officially come out for Labour.

I thought Murdoch backed Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005?

 

[Benzin]

Rather have a boring yet functioning government compared to whatever you'd term it since 2016.

Read the Reform "contract" (not a manifesto, presumably as they're a limited company). Jesus it ticked all the nonsense boxes, anti-trans, anti-immigrant, anti-HS2/ULEZ. Let alone the "patriotic curriculum" they were pushing.

More disturbed that the likes of them and other far right parties are going across the world. Putin must be laughing his head off.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I thought Murdoch backed Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005?

That's @Tom's point. "It was The Sun wot won it" was a often heard expression after those elections, even 2010 and a bit 2015. Murdoch, since taking ownership of The Sun, has a history of backing the eventual winner. Initially the paper probably had some sway, now of course it'll be an exercise in maintaining a pointless ego driven claim streak.

@Tom's hinting that it's only a matter of time before The Sun officially comes out and backs Labour, so that Murdoch can once again claim to have picked the winner of the election.

 

[Tom]

Thank you, perfectly articulated.

 

[GaryH]

You can't seriously suggest that they'd be receiving similar poll leads if Corbyn and Mcdonell were still in charge?

Actually, yes, its possible given the amount of hatred towards the Tories at the moment and this is the point I am trying to make. Starmer isn't popular. Whatever news channel you watch, or newspaper you read, the general consensus is that is he is boring, lacks charisma, and people question exactly what he stands for. Dare I say it but if Corbyn was trying now I actually do believe they could be leading the polls. I don't think they general public care what is in the Labour manifesto, they just want the Tories out regardless who is leading the party.

Keir Starmer expected to make it to No 10 despite his low personal popularity

The Labour leader has mirrored Blair’s highly cautious ‘Ming vase’ approach, and it has paid off so far

www.theguardian.com

Quote : "Ben Page, the chief executive of Ipsos, said: “Starmer’s personal ratings are the lowest Ipsos has ever seen for an opposition leader who is so far ahead in the overall voting intention. It is more disgust at the Tories than delight at what Labour offers that is driving politics.”

Also, this closing sentence in the above article I find deeply concerning : "One Labour official said: “The good thing about the Ming vase strategy is that at least if we win, expectations will be low.” I think perhaps people are expecting big changes from Labour, after all, their tag line is "Change". I'm not sure the country will get the big changes people are wanting to see, at least not in their first term anyway.

 

[rob666]

I expected big changes under Blair, and got absolutely nothing from my "must happen" list.
Absolutely nothing...apart from cool britannia and shit dadrock in number ten.
The rich stayed rich, the poor remained poor.
We played puppet to the yanks.
I actually have more hope and faith in Starmer.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I expected big changes under Blair, and got absolutely nothing from my "must happen" list.
Absolutely nothing...apart from cool britannia and shit dadrock in number ten.
The rich stayed rich, the poor remained poor.
We played puppet to the yanks.
I actually have more hope and faith in Starmer.

Don't forget the introduction of Academies (privatisation of "education, education, education" by the back door) and the proliferation of PFI contracts. He did Maggie proud, she even said as much.