The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Osvaldorama]

Also - Tony Blair has destroyed our democracy. 

His constitutional vandalism took decision making away from Parliament and gave it to the courts, independent regulators, devolved administrations, etc. etc. The PM has too few levers to pull.

So Starmer found what the Tories also found. Nothing can get done. 

[egg]

49 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Couldn’t be more wrong on all points. Horrendous on the economy, traitor to the country, embarrassed us militarily, grooming gangs , dysfunctional military, raised taxes, raised energy prices, lied non-stop 

Walked into a shit show by the awful Tory party and proceeded to make everything way worse lol 

I see you didn't walk is through his actual points one by one. Give it a go...

[badgerx16]

28 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

The UK borrowed almost as much in May 2026 alone (£23.3bn), as it did during the entire 2018/19 fiscal year (£23.5bn).

 

 

We are not so much sleepwalking as sprinting into a fiscal crisis, and yet people on here still claim he is doing well on the economy 🤣🤣

Of course, Government debt NEVER increased during the many years of Tory Government.

 

 

Similarly for the military, many years of Tory defence cuts led us to where we are today, and I'm not sure how you expected Starmer to reverse the trend whilst at the same time giving you the reduction in taxes you seem to demand.

 Militsry expenditure has been an easy target since John Nott in 1982.

Edited 6 hours ago by badgerx16

[Lord Duckhunter]

It’s laughable people are defending him. He’s been a complete and utter disaster. From Lord Alli, through the self inflicted wounds of increasing employers NI right through to respected labour figures like lord Robertson & John Healy saying his penny pinching on defence is leaving the country unsafe. 
 

Labour do not replace leaders regularly, they left Corbyn in place for 2 elections FFS. Even if he only achieved a quarter of what is claimed on here, they’d have left him in place. The fact Labour turned against him and forced him out 2 years after a landslide shows just how completely useless he is. The hatred for him is off the scale, and as Binface put it so succinctly, his own party recently contested an election on the platform of “vote labour, the leaders shite”. 
 

Let’s see how the next middle aged white leader labour put forward gets on. Professional Northerner, Our Andy, at least they’ve branched out from North London for this one. However, despite his rebranding he’s more of a professional London politician than Starmer ever was. I predict it’ll be a case of, meet the new broom, same as the old broom. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, pingpong said:

Stats wise he has been decent, with the economy slow but steady, workers rights intact, NHS waiting lists moving in the right direction, immigration down, deportations up, Iran well dealt with, and in contrast to the last 3 pms before him, he hasn't killed 200,000 people, beaten his wife, had any affairs, hasn't tanked the economy or made us a laughing stock, insulted any grieving mothers in pmqs, hasn't left d-day commemorations before every other world leader, and hasn't lost an election.

Hard to argue that he isn't the best pm we've had in a while, and he has mandate. The only thing he doesn't have is the media.

Do you live in the UK?

[revolution saint]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s laughable people are defending him. He’s been a complete and utter disaster. From Lord Alli, through the self inflicted wounds of increasing employers NI right through to respected labour figures like lord Robertson & John Healy saying his penny pinching on defence is leaving the country unsafe. 
 

Labour do not replace leaders regularly, they left Corbyn in place for 2 elections FFS. Even if he only achieved a quarter of what is claimed on here, they’d have left him in place. The fact Labour turned against him and forced him out 2 years after a landslide shows just how completely useless he is. The hatred for him is off the scale, and as Binface put it so succinctly, his own party recently contested an election on the platform of “vote labour, the leaders shite”. 
 

Let’s see how the next middle aged white leader labour put forward gets on. Professional Northerner, Our Andy, at least they’ve branched out from North London for this one. However, despite his rebranding he’s more of a professional London politician than Starmer ever was. I predict it’ll be a case of, meet the new broom, same as the old broom. 

Immigration is down, economy is showing signs of improvement and NHS waiting lists are down.  Given what he's had to work with I don't think he's been disastrous.  He's definitely made mistakes and his popularity isn't good by any stretch but I think that's more about his ability to relate and communicate rather than his record.

[Gloucester Saint]

12 hours ago, iansums said:

There’s another thread for this mate

The point I was making is that someone living in a glass house the size of the former Crystal Palace shouldn’t be throwing stones at anyone’s else greenhouse.

Trump 2.0 dwarfs any fuck ups by any British PM by any distance and even his disasterous 1.0, although if the GOP had the same removal mechanisms as UK political parties I suspect they’d be using them as well ahead of the mid-terms. 

[Turkish]

Just heard him get called "spreadsheet Starmer" 😂

[Farmer Saint]

11 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Because many of their MPs made a huge deal out of it before and how they were going to do things differently. 

How many? A majority, or a minority? They had 202 so I assume it must been a majority of those for you to ascertain that.

[Farmer Saint]

Still waiting on @Osvaldorama to answer the questions posed last week. Or are you going to pussy out and run away again?

[badgerx16]

What if Burnham doesn't win the leadership contest ?

[Gloucester Saint]

3 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Immigration is down, economy is showing signs of improvement and NHS waiting lists are down.  Given what he's had to work with I don't think he's been disastrous.  He's definitely made mistakes and his popularity isn't good by any stretch but I think that's more about his ability to relate and communicate rather than his record.

Exactly this, he just isn’t a natural communicator. Good at the formal foreign policy set pieces but no real political nous which we’ve seen time and time again. Burnham or Streeting will be seen as more relatable. If Farage didn’t drink and smoke like a chimney there’s no way he’d be relatable to most people on average or lower incomes and Lowe….any sane Saints fan can put the public right on him. That’s why we had the ‘father was a toolmaker’ stuff. There’s not been an economic crisis despite the chronic impact of two wars, immigration is well down, NHS back office cut by more than 50%.

His actual impact has been OK but he doesn’t resonate with the electorate, and the tabloids led by the Mail have never forgiven him for the phone hacking prosecutions even though he was entirely correct to prosecute them.

Theresa May had some of the same issues, bit better politically but named the ‘Maybot’. I voted for her, didn’t vote for Kier. 

The electorate has to ask itself what it wants - policy detail or ability to bullshit you. Because you’re only going to get a pre-dementia Wilson, Thatcher or Blair who can do both once a generation. 

 

[Gloucester Saint]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

What if Burnham doesn't win the leadership contest ?

He will because of their members. Like Truss v Sunak in 2022, if it was down to just the MPs, it’d be Streeting probably.

[tdmickey3]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

What if Burnham doesn't win the leadership contest ?

Personally, I think its forgone conclusion.

[Osvaldorama]

46 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Of course, Government debt NEVER increased during the many years of Tory Government.

 

 

Similarly for the military, many years of Tory defence cuts led us to where we are today, and I'm not sure how you expected Starmer to reverse the trend whilst at the same time giving you the reduction in taxes you seem to demand.

 Militsry expenditure has been an easy target since John Nott in 1982.

 

No one is defending Tories, not sure why people keep mentioning them. They flooded the country with migrants and showed a horrific lack of morals too  

The most meaningful metric to ascertain how well the country is doing  is GDP per capita. 
 

You can see that Britain has been on a huge decline here:
 

 

 

We are now poorer than South Korea, every state in America and many other nations that we used to be easily wealthier than. 
 

This is not a Labour or Tory issue, this is a systemic failing of our nation and our decline into a third world country will continue until people begin to understand to true issues. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

What if Burnham doesn't win the leadership contest ?

I'm not convinced he'll be opposed, or at least not seriously. 

[Osvaldorama]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Still waiting on @Osvaldorama to answer the questions posed last week. Or are you going to pussy out and run away again?

Give it a rest. I’m not answering your low IQ questions and it’s getting boring  now

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Give it a rest. I’m not answering your low IQ questions and it’s getting boring  now

[Gloucester Saint]

18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Just heard him get called "spreadsheet Starmer" 😂

Which backs up what I was just saying. The public don’t like people who go into the detail and try to move the dial. It’s why the inherently more capable George Osborne was unpopular but David Cameron less so because he didn’t have the ability to really formulate effective policy (see Big Society) from ideas. And how we ended up with Boris who has never done a day’s work in his life but can pass off a good toff’s best man speech.

Can you see any of the opposition - Badenoch, Davey, Farage - being any different?

There was a good piece by Sunak on LinkedIn over the weekend advising Burnham to set his priorities on day 1 and within week 1 as in this turbulent political climate your capital depreciates so rapidly. 

The likes of Wilson, Thatcher, Blair, who all could both communicate very effectively and build the apparatus for proper policy development and strategy are rare creatures.

Edited 5 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, tdmickey3 said:

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

No one is defending Tories, not sure why people keep mentioning them. They flooded the country with migrants and showed a horrific lack of morals too  

The most meaningful metric to ascertain how well the country is doing  is GDP per capita. 
 

You can see that Britain has been on a huge decline here:
 

 

 

We are now poorer than South Korea, every state in America and many other nations that we used to be easily wealthier than. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

We are 19th out of 189 in this table just behind Germeny, wnd ahead of France and Italy among so many others.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

This is not a Labour or Tory issue, this is a systemic failing of our nation and our decline into a third world country will continue until people begin to understand to true issues. 

What are the "true issues" ?

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

We are 19th out of 189 in this table just behind Germeny, wnd ahead of France and Italy among so many others.

 

 

What are the "true issues" ?

I put him on ignore last week but people still quote him. The use of Third world sums him up, he might get a job one day where he has to travel to a third world nation for work and then he might vaguely know what term means or what it looks like in practice.

The west is declining comparatively because Asia has a younger population as well as a larger one and they take a longer term view of strategy and policy. Clinton allowing China into the WTO was a sliding doors moment. Asia isn’t afraid of using migration either when it needs to and to top up supporting their older population. 

Japan is the exception but do people here on a widespread basis work well into their 70s like the Japanese to support a demographic similar to ours?

[Osvaldorama]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

We are 19th out of 189 in this table just behind Germeny, wnd ahead of France and Italy among so many others.

 

 

What are the "true issues" ?

Wikipedia is wrong. We are much lower and falling like a stone. This is true quality of life for people. You can’t tax your way into a prosperous society. 
 

 

We have been on a steep decline for a long time now. Since 2008 our GDP per capita is getting worse due to consecutive awful governments. 
 

Compared to how it was trending before then you can see impact. People are approx $25k per annum worse off than they should be due to currency debasement and rising cost of living 

Edited 5 hours ago by Osvaldorama

[Farmer Saint]

30 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Give it a rest. I’m not answering your low IQ questions and it’s getting boring  now

Oh, the irony 😂😂😂😂

Do you still think 1000s of people will be arrested for criticising the new PM, or are you happy that Keir has gone so that the police can get back to doing their normal job?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Starmer vows to fight on saying it's his duty to lead the country. He said that he was elected to do it, and he's not going to let the country fall into chaos.

Oh wait, that was from a week ago. He's going.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckger03mrl0t

[Farmer Saint]

19 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Wikipedia is wrong. We are much lower and falling like a stone. This is true quality of life for people. You can’t tax your way into a prosperous society. 
 

 

We have been on a steep decline for a long time now. Since 2008 our GDP per capita is getting worse due to consecutive awful governments. 
 

Compared to how it was trending before then you can see impact. People are approx $25k per annum worse off than they should be due to currency debasement and rising cost of living 

What happened in 2008 and 2019/2020? Seems those years may have had quite an impact.

Also, those figures only seem to go up to when Labour got into power...

Edited 4 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

It would be interesting to know if Starmer were to speak candidly if he actually thinks he has done much wrong over these last two years. I suspect he thinks he hasn't done much other than be trusting of advisors and it's other people and things that he hasn't taken responsibility for.

[Osvaldorama]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It would be interesting to know if Starmer were to speak candidly if he actually thinks he has done much wrong over these last two years. I suspect he thinks he hasn't done much other than be trusting of advisors and it's other people and things that he hasn't taken responsibility for.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

Then why is he resigning? If he’s doing such a fantastic job?

 

Have you considered that it’s actually your perspective that is skewed 

Politically - He, McSweeney and Mandelson moved the party to a place where they were just about electable. However, there were still a lot of people to the left of that. A combination of a lot of policies being unpopular with those groups, never listening to the wider elected party, and going against the unions that paid for him to be there.

Public image - They had months of planning. Despite that they rarely controlled their image. From u-turns to dreadful policy launched and various rebrands. Winter fuel, 2 child cap, responses to Southport seriously damaged them.

Scandal - They were the grown ups in the room. Straight into a freebies scandal while Lord Ali wandered around government. An anti corruption minister linked to corruption; a chancellor fibbing on the financial background and misconduct; A transport secretary gone over fraud; housing secretary gone over housing tax.

Then McSweeney turned out to be running a campaign to get shot of the left, hire Mandelson who wasn't on the list, and front a dodgy organisation that would then target journalists. Starmer back in regular contact with McSweeney before the end.

On each of these, more, and Mandelson, Starmer failed to stand up and take responsibility. Like all the people he criticised in opposition, he was dragged screaming at every turn.

Policy - People are not seeing an improved economy. They are not seeing improvements in health care or education. They see a cost of living crisis. They see a government happy to pay to unions and one with no control over immigration. Smash the gangs Keir. They see a country that can't defend itself with a soaring welfare bill. Perception or not, and ignoring some good work, those are broad views. Obviously used by their opponents as sticks to hit them with.

Based on Burnham's positions, look forward to a lot of that seeming to be worse. Tax hikes to pay for more welfare and union pay hikes, seems to be the clamour from backers.

[pingpong]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Do you live in the UK?

Yeah, Southampton. Why do you ask?

[RedArmy]

The bar was so, so low too. 
 

A monumental failure in the context of where British politics was before he got elected. 

[egg]

Streeting supporting Burnham. Unless a big hitter gives it a go, this'll be a coronation for the Gallagher tribute act. 

[hypochondriac]

51 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Why are you sending me loads of laughing faces? Odd guy.

[tdmickey3]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Why are you sending me loads of laughing faces? Odd guy.

You have answered your own question

[Osvaldorama]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Why are you sending me loads of laughing faces? Odd guy.

Because it’s fucking hilarious still reading people on here trying to pretend that Starmer has done nothing wrong 

[revolution saint]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Streeting supporting Burnham. Unless a big hitter gives it a go, this'll be a coronation for the Gallagher tribute act. 

Looking that way isn't it? Personally I'd like to see some sort of contest if only to give everyone a bit more of an idea of what Burnham is all about.  Letting him sail into the job of prime minister without any kind of scrutiny isn't very sensible.

[whelk]

3 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

The UK borrowed almost as much in May 2026 alone (£23.3bn), as it did during the entire 2018/19 fiscal year (£23.5bn).

 

 

We are not so much sleepwalking as sprinting into a fiscal crisis, and yet people on here still claim he is doing well on the economy 🤣🤣

Unfortunately any pretence at you understanding economics has long gone. Tell us about inflation measure -lol

[egg]

2 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Looking that way isn't it? Personally I'd like to see some sort of contest if only to give everyone a bit more of an idea of what Burnham is all about.  Letting him sail into the job of prime minister without any kind of scrutiny isn't very sensible.

Agreed. The idea that a bloke can be a glorified councillor, win a contrived seat, then waltz into number 10 doesn't sit right with me. 

[Gloucester Saint]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Agreed. The idea that a bloke can be a glorified councillor, win a contrived seat, then waltz into number 10 doesn't sit right with me. 

It certainly didn’t with Boris.

Burnham won’t as bad as that surely - anyone who has done a day’s work in their life would be an improvement on Boris - but we don’t know a lot about his intentions which is a concern.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

It would be interesting to know if Starmer were to speak candidly if he actually thinks he has done much wrong over these last two years. I suspect he thinks he hasn't done much other than be trusting of advisors and it's other people and things that he hasn't taken responsibility for.

He probably doesn't. But not having any backbone to take a stand, to challenge his own party from a position of strength and to follow through on any of the things he said he wouldn't put up with is exactly the bit he never got. Not being an actual leader, with personal responsibility, is exactly one of the bits he got wrong.

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Because it’s fucking hilarious still reading people on here trying to pretend that Starmer has done nothing wrong 

What are you talking about you nutter? I've said nothing of the kind.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

He probably doesn't. But not having any backbone to take a stand, to challenge his own party from a position of strength and to follow through on any of the things he said he wouldn't put up with is exactly the bit he never got. Not being an actual leader, with personal responsibility, is exactly one of the bits he got wrong.

I agree. I actually think that was the main thing. You can't say on the one hand that you take responsibility and the buck stops with you and then chuck everyone around you under the bus when things go wrong. 

Edited 3 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

17 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Looking that way isn't it? Personally I'd like to see some sort of contest if only to give everyone a bit more of an idea of what Burnham is all about.  Letting him sail into the job of prime minister without any kind of scrutiny isn't very sensible.

Agreed. At the moment it's looking like an unelected new PM in a couple of weeks with no plan announced, no 100 days and no team. 

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

What are you talking about you nutter? I've said nothing of the kind.

Nor has anyone else for that matter, I just see some more balanced perspectives being reflected whilst accurately describing Starmer’s lack of political judgements which is rather a fatal flaw. Bending to the left on major welfare reform is where his car left the road for me. 

Which is true for all PMs bar Truss. Osvaldo has his head well down the Lowe/Musk/Robinson rabbit hole. Next post will be about what a brilliant chairman of Southampton Football Club Rupert was. 

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

Wikipedia is wrong. We are much lower and falling like a stone. 

 

Wikipedia summarises the IMF, the World Bank, and the UN. Unless, of course, all of those sources are wrong.

[benjii]

4 hours ago, pingpong said:

Stats wise he has been decent, with the economy slow but steady, workers rights intact, NHS waiting lists moving in the right direction, immigration down, deportations up, Iran well dealt with, and in contrast to the last 3 pms before him, he hasn't killed 200,000 people, beaten his wife, had any affairs, hasn't tanked the economy or made us a laughing stock, insulted any grieving mothers in pmqs, hasn't left d-day commemorations before every other world leader, and hasn't lost an election.

Hard to argue that he isn't the best pm we've had in a while, and he has mandate. The only thing he doesn't have is the media.

Yes. 

This shows the lethal combination of morons, social media and influential liars.

Edited 3 hours ago by benjii

[AlexLaw76]

48 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It certainly didn’t with Boris.

Burnham won’t as bad as that surely - anyone who has done a day’s work in their life would be an improvement on Boris - but we don’t know a lot about his intentions which is a concern.

people thought that about Starmer, and here is resigning way before Boris did in his term

[hypochondriac]

Burnham will have a very difficult time trying to convince the parliamentary labour party that the only way to meaningfully improve things you will have to start with a bit more economic prudence. 

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

people thought that about Starmer, and here is resigning way before Boris did in his term

Starmer was crap no doubt but the pandemic meant Boris was in office for 18 months more because the country, very divided as it is now, still rallies around in major crises.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Agreed. The idea that a bloke can be a glorified councillor, win a contrived seat, then waltz into number 10 doesn't sit right with me. 

While I get your point, it's a bit disingenuous to call him a glorified councillor. You're aware he did used to be an MP, right?

At the very least he's less robotic than Starmer. I once visited the HoC public gallery and watched him debate with Michael Gove about the bill to close the Sure Start centres. He came across very well and showed Gove up for the pompous prick that he is. I thought he would have been a good choice for Leader when Corbyn resigned.