I know, but it doesn’t take much to realise that their handling of Covid in particular has been a massive disaster
1 Like
I mean, they’ve literally caused tens of thousands of actual deaths. And Boris has gone up in the polls.
It’s insane.
2 Likes
I really don’t get it but I’d never vote Conservative anyway. What are Conservative voters thinking might help but even then I still doubt I’d understand it.
1 Like
Appealing to the centre does not keep the press moguls happy as they are largely to the right. People in the centre also want things to be addressed and are not at odds with them.
4 Likes
yes you’re right. i was trying to say that they would need to appeal to the centre and win over that right wing press at the same time. Immensely difficult.
2 Likes
It is way too early to make that claim, particularly if you are basing it on content from an article via Novara Media who have been openly hostile to Starmer since he won the leadership election.
2 Likes
You’re right…far too cerebral 
One of the downsides of party politics is that voters don’t get to pick and choose which policies they approve of from a particular party. They have to choose the party whose overall policies (and particularly the major ones) most closely align with their position. That’s not really helpful because a party that is popular because some of it’s central policies resonate most loudly with the electorate (historically these has been health, education, taxes, law and order, and immigration) can have some pretty shit policies operating below those main categories that the electorate get lumbered with. It’s like parties can slip these ones in that wouldn’t actually receive a popular mandate if voted on in isolation but the winning party can later claim they have a mandate for introducing nonetheless. Sigh.
2 Likes
Agreed. I am disappointed by Starmer’s more recent appearances and statements though - but there’s a long time to go yet until the next election and the legacy of covid isn’t going to leave the Conservatives in a particularly strong position once the euphoria of world-leading vaccinations has worn off.
I didn’t check all the links to that article from Novara Media but I did see that the same author had a piece attacking Starmer that he’d written for Verso Media subsequently removed. That’s not normally done unless it contains significant inaccuracies. That’s rather concerning given that this aligns with the same concerns I had with this recent article of his.
1 Like
I really don’t think that it ought to be my job to fact check every single article people post. Personally, I take great care to try and post factual and objective information, and I will correct false information where I can, but that shouldn’t mean that people can just post articles without any attempt to review for themselves their accuracy, relying on others to take the time to double-check whether what is being posted is accurate. I know it happens (a lot) but I wish it didn’t.
Not only do I find myself wasting more time correcting false information than the poster took in posting it but more often than not it matters very little because many posters on this forum are pre-disposed to believe certain claims and have a negative view of me countering inaccuracies. You only have to see the response to my correcting a false claim made regarding employment rights the other day. 
But I’ll do a quick summary of the first few claims made by the article you posted:
Claim 1: Last month a leaked strategy document revealed that Labour leader Keir Starmer plans to capitalise on Captain-Tom-mania by brandishing union jacks and praising the armed forces to win back the trust of disillusioned voters.
My view: Claim not proven. The article linked does not support the claim that Starmer plans to do as claimed. This was research provided by an external agency to help inform the leadership as to where the party was struggling to connect with the electorate. There is no indication that this has actually been adopted by the labour leadership.
Claim 2: Since becoming leader, Starmer has rubbished the Black Lives Matter “moment”
My view: He absolutely did not “rubbish” the Black Lives Matter movement (he describes it as a movement and acknowledges that this is also a “moment”, because it was/is). It is a moment in history, no attempt to rubbish it at all.
Claim 3: Since becoming leader, Starmer has endorsed ten-year jail terms for protesters who vandalise war memorials;
My view: Claim not supported in those specifics. Labour have said that they support tougher sentencing for vandals desecrating memorials be those war memorials or others such as those to Mandela, Gandhi, and specifically the incident of someone urinating on the memorial to PC Keith Palmer was mentioned. Labour have said that they will “work with the government” on this but there was no indication that they approved the proposed length of jail time.
Claim 4: Since becoming leader, Starmer has advocated legal immunity for police officers who commit murder, torture or rape.
My view: This is totally untrue. He has supported a bill to more precisely set out what undercover officers are allowed to do, the necessary authority needed for such covert operations (judge led) etc but this absolutely does not equate to advocating legal immunity for police officers who commit murder, torture or rape. That is not something allowed for under the bill nor is it something that Starmer has, as far as I can tell, ever advocated for.
Claim 5: following on from claim 4… Since becoming leader, Starmer has backed similar protections for British soldiers
My view: This is untrue. Starmer whipped his MPs to abstain on the bill and expressed an intention to work with the government over parts of the bill that he disagreed with. Importantly, the bill would not give British soldiers legal immunity for murder, torture or rape as the author implies. The most drastic provision is that it provides a limitation period of 5 years in which to bring these claims. It is arguable that this is too short but there’s no indication that Starmer supports this limitation period and neither does it provide British soldiers with legal immunity as claimed.
That’s my view on the first 5 claims the author makes. Wild distortions.
3 Likes
I didn’t say you had claimed it as a given. Point still stands.
Just seeing that yesterdays budget included a pretty hefty cut to the NHS budget. This is despite Covid not being done and dusted and a huge back log to catch up on. They’ve basically sliced £9bn off of it for 2021-22
NHS, social care and most vulnerable 'betrayed' by Sunak's budget | UK news | The Guardian.
3 Likes
Don’t worry; I’m sure that £9bn saving will be targeted at all the unnecessary consultants, contractors and hangers-on.
2 Likes
I think its disgusting myself. Right at the moment where the service needs more help to get going again they basically chop it off at the knees.
Of course they didn’t even have the balls to announce it. It was in the Red Book. They honestly don’t give a flying fuck about the welfare of people in the UK, unless they have a few bob that gets passed to them as donations.
2 Likes
Overly exercised by this? If it wasn’t for you constantly asking me to expand I would have left it at my initial response which was “Isn’t Novara Media the left’s equivalent to Fox whatever it was that was criticised a few days ago?” - ie, that it wasn’t known as being particularly factual or objective.
You can’t ask me “why, is the content inaccurate?” to which I responded with an example of its false reporting and then ask me to state whether the article is “on the whole” “substantively accurate”, to which I then give me my views…then accuse me of being overly exercised!
As for your review of my summary, it isn’t a typo at all. The author has deliberately latched on to Starmer describing the movement as a “moment”, to try and distort Starmer’s characterisation of the movement itself.
The author is saying that Starmer, personally, is advocating for these specific aspects. He is not. To be clear, the distortions are such that I would suggest that it would give grounds for an action in libel, so seriously does he mischaracterise and defame Starmer’s actual statements on these issues. It will be interesting to see if this article lasts as long as the author’s for Verso.
1 Like
3 Likes
You asked me to give my opinion as to the accuracy of the article “on the whole”…effectively asking me to fact check the whole article for you. I had felt that the example I had cited was enough to cast doubts as to its reliability/credibility but you wanted more, hence requiring a further assessment of the claims it made. I would not have done this had you not asked me to effectively endorse whether it was otherwise accurate.
I’ll make it simple. The article is horseshit and should probably never have been posted.
That’s it from me.
3 Likes
That’s irritating. It would have been in the interests of the public to have had these claims properly tested before a Tribunal.
1 Like
It is. I didn’t say you did make the “claim”. I know the word “prospect” allows for a range of potential outcomes. I was directing my response at the one that says “issues”… “will not be addressed”.
Starmer has been leader for less than a year. We’re probably 3-4 years away from a general election, it is therefore too early to say what the strategy for that election will be and what policies They will seek to implement if elected.
Anyone relying on Novara Media isn’t going to be best informed.
2 Likes
Equally, sometimes it’s total bullshit. For info.
Right…genuinely done with this now.
1 Like
Sure, but that doesn’t end in the first year, and often doesn’t even begin there as there are short term issues that often need handling first and the leader and his closest advisors adapt to what works and what doesn’t.
I didn’t say you did.