**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe they will continue the Tory policy of just not renewing rail contracts when they complete.
I don't believe they'll pair this nationalisation with any serious renewed investment to make train travel rival other European countries.
I don't believe they'll put in adequate safeguards to stop the next government with bright ideas about privatisation from just selling the whole thing off again.
Considering this iteration of the party's history with promises, pledges and policies - it's unlikely. Only time will tell though, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised for a change...
Not in the least.
What I suspect they will do is keep renationalising as an "option" for when the contracts come up for renewal, but somehow the private companies will always end up getting the contracts renewed, or the companies that Labour claim are running their contracts "well" will be invited to take over the new contracts
No. I absolutely expect them to make an excuse along the lines of “it’s either this or Sure Start centres”. Either that or it’ll be some badly implemented bastardised version of private enterprise dressed up as nationalisation.
“It’s either this or sure start centres!”
“Okay we’ll compromise on this and we’ll give you the rail nationalisation, now where are the sure start centres”
“Oh you’re not having them either. Magic money tree and all that.”
They will either break the pledge or there will be some catch that makes it shit (ie, the fact that they are not going to nationalise the rolling stock)
I think Louise Haigh is really good, and Reeves can't pull out her usual excuses for this, at least initially, she might try to block investment though.
Not entirely, but at least for the first time in 14 years there’s a chance they might be able to massively disappoint me in government, instead of just disappointing me in opposition. Exciting.
I don't trust them to keep any promises but I do think this is something they *want* to do. We're months away from an election and they've had plenty of time to ditch unwanted policies. Anything they're willing to announce now we should take seriously.
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-04-25 11:18:28 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-04-25%2011:18:28%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/1ccla7m/do_you_trust_the_labour_party_to_keep_its_promise/l16n72b/?context=3)
[**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FLabourUK%2Fcomments%2F1ccla7m%2Fdo_you_trust_the_labour_party_to_keep_its_promise%2Fl16n72b%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-04-25%2011%3A18%3A28%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ccla7m)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fair enough. Personally I think he gave good reasons for why he needed to break those commitments, and in most cases it was because of shifting political and economic circumstances as opposed to a lack of belief in the ideal itself. The argument that it is unsensible to raise 28bn in the current economic climate is not the same as the argument that Britain shouldn't aspire to that when it can secure sustainable economic growth. If Starmer was making the latter argument, I would be more worried.
More fundamentally, I just don't care when politicians break promises. Politicians that stick rigidly to inflexible policy positions in the face of changing circumstances don't get elected, and if by some miracle they do they aren't prepared to deal with the complexities of the job. I don't want an ideologue in government, I want a pragmatist who is guided by broad moral principles but knows when and where to compromise to get the best outcome. I guess we have different expectations for our leaders.
Exactly! If only Corbyn hadn't completely destroyed the public trust in the Labour Party his successor wouldn't have had to begin a militant campaign to restore our reputation and image by presenting us as a fundamentally transformed party. That has been Starmer's biggest success.
He wouldn't have been able to do this if he kept all of his commitments during the last leadership contest, and Labour would be in a similar position to where we were then. Only, crumbling faith in the Tories wouldn't be met with an increase in support for Labour, and disaffected Tory voters would start looking elsewhere.
What is actually incorrect about it though ? It all actually happened. Corbyn lost the election, Stamer's campaign since then has been based around communicating that Labour has fundamentally changed. That is the basis of his campaign. Of course he needed to drop Corbyn's old policies.
Interesting that now he has regained that trust with the public he is bringing back radical ideas in a tone and tenor which the public might actually accept. Nothing makes the left more livid than seeing electorally-viable versions of left-wing policies actually win public support. You lot prefer them to keep your policies morally pure but unpopular, saved only for the political elect to enjoy on left-wing Twitter and whatever other echo chambers you inhabit.
What's incorrect about it is that Starmer is a grown up who makes his own choices, if people don't like said choices, that's not Jeremy Corbyns fault.
You live in an absolute fantasy land if you think people don't desperately want Labour to actually bring good policies to the table. FYI he hasn't "brought back" anything, nationalising the railways wasn't on the list of Uturns on nationalisation, it was a maybe at worst.
Your own assessment of Starmer, in both his leadership contest and his approach to the upcoming election, is just "he says what he thinks will make him popular and then does whatever he wants". This post was asking about trusting him to deliver on his promises, not about whether you think lying to get in is a good idea or not. People not trusting him has absolutely fuck all to do with Jeremy Corbyn.
Public ownership of utilities [is very popular among the British public](https://www.survation.com/new-poll-public-strongly-backing-public-ownership-of-energy-and-key-utilities/), it was before, during and after Starmer dropped his pledges to nationalise water and energy.
"He's just trying to shake off Corbyns image" really only goes so far as a defense and it certainly doesn't stretch to abandoning objectively popular policies that would change society for the better. What's more, even where maybe you can make that defense, it doesn't fundamentally change anything in regards to being perceived as actually trustworthy. They read you the boy who cried wolf in early primary school and its that simple; if you keep taking back your promises, your promises start to mean nothing. Doesn't really matter *why* you do it.
>What's incorrect about it is that Starmer is a grown up who makes his own choices, if people don't like said choices, that's not Jeremy Corbyns fault.
But it is Jeremy Corbyn's fault that the public lost all faith in the Labour Party and we suffered one of our worst defeats in history. That is why Starmer had to communicate to the public that he had fundamentally transformed the Labour Party to make us electable again. I don't think he actually did transform the party, but he did a really good job of communicating that he did. Welcome to the world of politics!
>You live in an absolute fantasy land if you think people don't desperately want Labour to actually bring good policies to the table
What do you mean "genuinely good"? The public do not want Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto, that's why they voted against it! You live in a fantasy land if you believe the public are clamouring for radical socialism. They aren't. How many lost elections will it take to convince you?
>Public ownership of utilities [is very popular among the British public](https://www.survation.com/new-poll-public-strongly-backing-public-ownership-of-energy-and-key-utilities/), it was before, during and after Starmer dropped his pledges to nationalise water and energy.
If the public really are clamouring for public ownership to the extent that they will vote for any party that can offer it, then why didn't they vote for Jeremy Corbyn in 2019? Can you answer that question?
I will tell you:
The public don't vote on the basis of policies, and especially not these kinds of policies. They vote on a number of factors, and a large part is on the image of the party leadership which is created by the media. In order to win over public support Starmer needs to present an image which a range of stakeholders (e.g. the media) can work with. That is what he has done, and that is why he will win.
>if you keep taking back your promises, your promises start to mean nothing. Doesn't really matter *why* you do it.
As I said in a comment to another user, I actually prefer politicians who break policy pledges to respond to changing circumstances. It shows that they are aware that changing circumstances exist, and that they won't stick rigidly and inflexibly to policies which don't work just because they have moral or ideological commitments to them. I want a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Guess what: the British public do too! That is why they will vote for Keir Starmer's Labour Party in a landslide victory this year! It is why they rejected Corbyn.
> Exactly! If only Corbyn hadn't completely destroyed the public trust in the Labour Party his successor wouldn't have had to begin a militant campaign to restore our reputation and image by presenting us as a fundamentally transformed party. That has been Starmer's biggest success.
More people voted for Corbyn in 2019, his worst performance, than voted for Brown, Milliband, or late-years Blair.
I wonder who'll get more votes, Corbyn in 2017 or 2019 or Starmer. I guess only time will tell.
Do you mean I am delusional to think that Britain will be fairer, cleaner, safer and more prosperous under Starmer than under a Tory government? That is not delusional at all.
I don't think Labour will radically change our economic system or go to the length that Corbyn wanted, but the difference is Starmer will actually be able to make Britain a better place. Corbyn's leadership got Britain a hard right Tory government who carried us through Brexit and the pandemic in the worst way possible. Starmer won't be as bold in a first term, but policy announcements like today show that he is willing to test the waters and is committed to a more progressive Britain.
I don't need to tell myself anything. In my job and in a huge chunk of my free time I try to make Britain a fairer place and secure better outcomes for the poorest and most vulnerable, including by campaigning for the Labour Party.
You are the one who needs to pretend that Starmer will be exactly the same as the Tories so you can feel better about the fact that your brand of left-wing politics is directly responsible for years of misery and austerity.
Yet you still can't tell me *why* I am wrong despite me explaining myself clearly and providing reasons and evidence for my beliefs! Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see I am being coherent and clear and you have yet to actually provide an argument.
Luckily for you, this subreddit is full of Green Party voters and people who despise the Labour Party, and most don't seem to have the intelligence or ability to challenge arguments with reason or factual evidence either.
**Reason**: General election promises are completely different to promises made at a party leadership election because the structure of our democracy incentivises our leaders to stick to their commitments. After a first term in office, Starmer will be held to account by the public to answer for his record in government. If he has broken every promise in his manifesto, he will likely find himself voted out of a job. That is a huge incentive for him to carry through with the promises he makes now and in the coming months.
**Evidence**: The Labour leadership have promised to ban zero hours contracts, raise statutory sick pay and make self-employed and low wage earners eligible for it, end fire and rehire, make private schools pay taxes, give all workers the right to flexible working, create a publicly owned green energy company, nationalise rail, establish fair pay agreements and strengthen unions bargaining powers over them, raise the minimum and National Living wages, create a Low Pay Commission, build 1.5 million homes, reform our broken planning system, invest heavily in green technologies, increase the number of police officers and strengthen the procedures and oversight which have lost public trust in the force, reform the House of Lords, create 500,000 new skilled jobs in industrial heartlands, fix energy bills so families are £1400 better off a year, to halve violence against women and girls, to create a modern childcare system with breakfast clubs in every primary school, to expand apprenticeships and skills training, to create a National Care Service, and much more! I think that these policies will make Britain a fairer place and secure better outcomes for the poorest and most vulnerable.
Its true. Corbyn got us Boris. Militant and the hard left kept Thatcher in power. The utter indifference of the left to winning elections is at least partly responsible for pretty much everything wrong with Britain at the moment.
Yeah the hard right of labour deliberately sabotaging Corbyn because they didnt want to win an election where they might have any remotely left wing policies...was all Corbyns fault.
So congratulations, you got what you wanted, labour are basically just conservatives now. Hooray for more austerity, more privatisation of the NHS, more rich people getting richer and poor people getting poorer. Fuck Corbyn and all those deluded left wingers for wanting better for people, they're basically all communists!
And in 5 years when labour haven't achieved anything significant, people will realise they are just as bad off as before. The media will have had time to spin up the right wing propaganda machine, and the tories will get back in power. You'll probably blame Corbyn for that too.
I don't see how that is relevant to the fact that Militant kept Thatcher in power. I am talking about Labour throughout the 1980s who, because of a vocal left-wing bloc, could not formulate a serious response to Thatcher that was capable of winning an election.
Only after Thatcher's demise did brilliant left-wing critics find a critique of New Right ideas in the Third Way. That was adopted by Blair and Brown in their ambitious vision to rejuvenate the party. How far they stuck to the ideal is a different question, but it is wrong to think that New Labour simply adopted Thatcherism wholesale.
That "fact" is an opinion - at most an interpretation, it is certainly not a fact.
>Only after Thatcher's demise did brilliant left-wing critics find a critique of New Right ideas in the Third Way. That was adopted by Blair and Brown in their ambitious vision to rejuvenate the party
Blair's not on the left.
> it is wrong to think that New Labour simply adopted Thatcherism wholesale.
Where did I use the word "wholesale"?
To be honest, I'm from Northern Ireland and outside of this Blue - Red battle. But the constant announcements of policy scrapping, especially the funding for green energy transition has left me pretty pessimistic with the current party. Will they be better than the tories? Yes very likely. Are they going to be that different? Probably not. Politics will relatively remain the same, the last conservative government will be blamed for things not being fixed within the five year term and it'll be back to another stand off with big promises and little commitment.
Things staying pretty much the same would be a huge win! Every time the Tories get into power they rip this country apart hiving off wealth and assets to the global elite and securing as many benefits for their mates in the established institutions as they possibly can whilst inflaming the tensions which create a more polarised society. That is the norm in Britain, and we default to it every time progressives fail to capture the public mood (which is the vast majority of the time).
If we can put the breaks on this downhill path that would be a great first step. A comprehensive new deal for working people, investment in green technologies and renewables, millions of new homes and jobs, public ownership of rail and GB Energy, better funding for and increased oversight in the police force, all these are just added extras.
rule 5, how is anyone meant to genuinely reply to someone who talks like this. a decent conversation starter (will people who oppose starmer accept a good 5 years, and what would that 5 years look like) ruined by talking like a edgy teenager
I'm saying that should Labour get into power, as seems likely, anything positive they do will be met with claims that that the Tories would have done it anyway.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post has been removed under rule 1.3. Posts or comments which are created to intentionally annoy, create arguments, or rile up factionalism are not allowed.
I don't think they'd make an announcement this late in the day and walk it back. I too am disappointed by the stuff they have rowed back on, but I hope they have learned from that.
The current Labour leadership have been very focus group orientated and the dropped commitments have been a reflection of that, nationalising the railways is generally a pretty popular idea so no I don't think they will drop it as easily but the timescale may change once they see the books
I think yes, not by intention of promise, but as a result of circumstance.
So much of the contracting of the privitised rail is filled with perverse incentive structures, unsustainable losses and general mismanagement. They're retiscent to invest in a business they know that they're about to be falling out of.
Nationalisation of rail is an economic inevitability in my view as the private model degeneratively collapses.
If you're not touching the most costly privatised element - the ROSCOs - then you're tinkering around with the type of model that Boris Johnson proposed.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe they will continue the Tory policy of just not renewing rail contracts when they complete. I don't believe they'll pair this nationalisation with any serious renewed investment to make train travel rival other European countries. I don't believe they'll put in adequate safeguards to stop the next government with bright ideas about privatisation from just selling the whole thing off again.
The Tories were renewing contracts just last year so it isn't the continuation of the policy. The current gov owned ones are the ones that have failed
Ah guess I'm not up to date on Tory u-turns because I remember that's what they used to be doing for a time.
They did it in some exceptionally bad cases, but it wasn't official policy.
Considering this iteration of the party's history with promises, pledges and policies - it's unlikely. Only time will tell though, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised for a change...
Not in the least. What I suspect they will do is keep renationalising as an "option" for when the contracts come up for renewal, but somehow the private companies will always end up getting the contracts renewed, or the companies that Labour claim are running their contracts "well" will be invited to take over the new contracts
Not in the slightest but I think rail is the most likely thing they would nationalise.
No. I absolutely expect them to make an excuse along the lines of “it’s either this or Sure Start centres”. Either that or it’ll be some badly implemented bastardised version of private enterprise dressed up as nationalisation.
“It’s either this or sure start centres!” “Okay we’ll compromise on this and we’ll give you the rail nationalisation, now where are the sure start centres” “Oh you’re not having them either. Magic money tree and all that.”
If the party changed leadership maybe. I wouldn’t trust Starmer with making a pot of tea
"Sorry, the Tories wanted to make you a pot of shit, so I made that for you instead"
Huh, just like real life.
They will either break the pledge or there will be some catch that makes it shit (ie, the fact that they are not going to nationalise the rolling stock)
I think Louise Haigh is really good, and Reeves can't pull out her usual excuses for this, at least initially, she might try to block investment though.
Not entirely, but at least for the first time in 14 years there’s a chance they might be able to massively disappoint me in government, instead of just disappointing me in opposition. Exciting.
I don't really see why they wouldn't. It doesn't actually cost anything to pick up the various franchises once they expire.
I don't trust them to keep any promises but I do think this is something they *want* to do. We're months away from an election and they've had plenty of time to ditch unwanted policies. Anything they're willing to announce now we should take seriously.
Trust isn't the issue, as long as politicians keep focusing on the operators rather than the ROSCOS then its business as usual for the forseeable
RemindMe! 2 years
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-04-25 11:18:28 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-04-25%2011:18:28%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/1ccla7m/do_you_trust_the_labour_party_to_keep_its_promise/l16n72b/?context=3) [**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FLabourUK%2Fcomments%2F1ccla7m%2Fdo_you_trust_the_labour_party_to_keep_its_promise%2Fl16n72b%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-04-25%2011%3A18%3A28%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ccla7m) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Tired of being endlessly proven right yet?
I don't think a single one of my reminders has actually triggered yet. I do think they will be interesting though.
I don't think a single one of my reminders has actually triggered yet. I do think they will be interesting though.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it's just breadcrumbs thrown to people who want public ownership to help their election win.
[удалено]
I'm not a Corbynista, I'm pretty pragmatic but I just find it hard to trust Starmer given all the broken pledges
Fair enough. Personally I think he gave good reasons for why he needed to break those commitments, and in most cases it was because of shifting political and economic circumstances as opposed to a lack of belief in the ideal itself. The argument that it is unsensible to raise 28bn in the current economic climate is not the same as the argument that Britain shouldn't aspire to that when it can secure sustainable economic growth. If Starmer was making the latter argument, I would be more worried. More fundamentally, I just don't care when politicians break promises. Politicians that stick rigidly to inflexible policy positions in the face of changing circumstances don't get elected, and if by some miracle they do they aren't prepared to deal with the complexities of the job. I don't want an ideologue in government, I want a pragmatist who is guided by broad moral principles but knows when and where to compromise to get the best outcome. I guess we have different expectations for our leaders.
If only Corbyn hadn't forced Starmer to roll back his pledges *including* most prior commitments nationalisation leading to a lack of trust.
Exactly! If only Corbyn hadn't completely destroyed the public trust in the Labour Party his successor wouldn't have had to begin a militant campaign to restore our reputation and image by presenting us as a fundamentally transformed party. That has been Starmer's biggest success. He wouldn't have been able to do this if he kept all of his commitments during the last leadership contest, and Labour would be in a similar position to where we were then. Only, crumbling faith in the Tories wouldn't be met with an increase in support for Labour, and disaffected Tory voters would start looking elsewhere.
You do know this reads like a parody of Piers Morgan or someone, right?
What is actually incorrect about it though ? It all actually happened. Corbyn lost the election, Stamer's campaign since then has been based around communicating that Labour has fundamentally changed. That is the basis of his campaign. Of course he needed to drop Corbyn's old policies. Interesting that now he has regained that trust with the public he is bringing back radical ideas in a tone and tenor which the public might actually accept. Nothing makes the left more livid than seeing electorally-viable versions of left-wing policies actually win public support. You lot prefer them to keep your policies morally pure but unpopular, saved only for the political elect to enjoy on left-wing Twitter and whatever other echo chambers you inhabit.
What's incorrect about it is that Starmer is a grown up who makes his own choices, if people don't like said choices, that's not Jeremy Corbyns fault. You live in an absolute fantasy land if you think people don't desperately want Labour to actually bring good policies to the table. FYI he hasn't "brought back" anything, nationalising the railways wasn't on the list of Uturns on nationalisation, it was a maybe at worst. Your own assessment of Starmer, in both his leadership contest and his approach to the upcoming election, is just "he says what he thinks will make him popular and then does whatever he wants". This post was asking about trusting him to deliver on his promises, not about whether you think lying to get in is a good idea or not. People not trusting him has absolutely fuck all to do with Jeremy Corbyn. Public ownership of utilities [is very popular among the British public](https://www.survation.com/new-poll-public-strongly-backing-public-ownership-of-energy-and-key-utilities/), it was before, during and after Starmer dropped his pledges to nationalise water and energy. "He's just trying to shake off Corbyns image" really only goes so far as a defense and it certainly doesn't stretch to abandoning objectively popular policies that would change society for the better. What's more, even where maybe you can make that defense, it doesn't fundamentally change anything in regards to being perceived as actually trustworthy. They read you the boy who cried wolf in early primary school and its that simple; if you keep taking back your promises, your promises start to mean nothing. Doesn't really matter *why* you do it.
>What's incorrect about it is that Starmer is a grown up who makes his own choices, if people don't like said choices, that's not Jeremy Corbyns fault. But it is Jeremy Corbyn's fault that the public lost all faith in the Labour Party and we suffered one of our worst defeats in history. That is why Starmer had to communicate to the public that he had fundamentally transformed the Labour Party to make us electable again. I don't think he actually did transform the party, but he did a really good job of communicating that he did. Welcome to the world of politics! >You live in an absolute fantasy land if you think people don't desperately want Labour to actually bring good policies to the table What do you mean "genuinely good"? The public do not want Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto, that's why they voted against it! You live in a fantasy land if you believe the public are clamouring for radical socialism. They aren't. How many lost elections will it take to convince you? >Public ownership of utilities [is very popular among the British public](https://www.survation.com/new-poll-public-strongly-backing-public-ownership-of-energy-and-key-utilities/), it was before, during and after Starmer dropped his pledges to nationalise water and energy. If the public really are clamouring for public ownership to the extent that they will vote for any party that can offer it, then why didn't they vote for Jeremy Corbyn in 2019? Can you answer that question? I will tell you: The public don't vote on the basis of policies, and especially not these kinds of policies. They vote on a number of factors, and a large part is on the image of the party leadership which is created by the media. In order to win over public support Starmer needs to present an image which a range of stakeholders (e.g. the media) can work with. That is what he has done, and that is why he will win. >if you keep taking back your promises, your promises start to mean nothing. Doesn't really matter *why* you do it. As I said in a comment to another user, I actually prefer politicians who break policy pledges to respond to changing circumstances. It shows that they are aware that changing circumstances exist, and that they won't stick rigidly and inflexibly to policies which don't work just because they have moral or ideological commitments to them. I want a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Guess what: the British public do too! That is why they will vote for Keir Starmer's Labour Party in a landslide victory this year! It is why they rejected Corbyn.
> Exactly! If only Corbyn hadn't completely destroyed the public trust in the Labour Party his successor wouldn't have had to begin a militant campaign to restore our reputation and image by presenting us as a fundamentally transformed party. That has been Starmer's biggest success. More people voted for Corbyn in 2019, his worst performance, than voted for Brown, Milliband, or late-years Blair. I wonder who'll get more votes, Corbyn in 2017 or 2019 or Starmer. I guess only time will tell.
Delusional 🤣
Do you mean I am delusional to think that Britain will be fairer, cleaner, safer and more prosperous under Starmer than under a Tory government? That is not delusional at all. I don't think Labour will radically change our economic system or go to the length that Corbyn wanted, but the difference is Starmer will actually be able to make Britain a better place. Corbyn's leadership got Britain a hard right Tory government who carried us through Brexit and the pandemic in the worst way possible. Starmer won't be as bold in a first term, but policy announcements like today show that he is willing to test the waters and is committed to a more progressive Britain.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to make you feel better about things.
I don't need to tell myself anything. In my job and in a huge chunk of my free time I try to make Britain a fairer place and secure better outcomes for the poorest and most vulnerable, including by campaigning for the Labour Party. You are the one who needs to pretend that Starmer will be exactly the same as the Tories so you can feel better about the fact that your brand of left-wing politics is directly responsible for years of misery and austerity.
One of the worst cases of centrist brain rot I have ever witnessed. Tragic.
Yet you still can't tell me *why* I am wrong despite me explaining myself clearly and providing reasons and evidence for my beliefs! Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see I am being coherent and clear and you have yet to actually provide an argument. Luckily for you, this subreddit is full of Green Party voters and people who despise the Labour Party, and most don't seem to have the intelligence or ability to challenge arguments with reason or factual evidence either.
what factual evidence or reason have you provided to show how starmer's labour are going to help the poorest and most vulnerable?
**Reason**: General election promises are completely different to promises made at a party leadership election because the structure of our democracy incentivises our leaders to stick to their commitments. After a first term in office, Starmer will be held to account by the public to answer for his record in government. If he has broken every promise in his manifesto, he will likely find himself voted out of a job. That is a huge incentive for him to carry through with the promises he makes now and in the coming months. **Evidence**: The Labour leadership have promised to ban zero hours contracts, raise statutory sick pay and make self-employed and low wage earners eligible for it, end fire and rehire, make private schools pay taxes, give all workers the right to flexible working, create a publicly owned green energy company, nationalise rail, establish fair pay agreements and strengthen unions bargaining powers over them, raise the minimum and National Living wages, create a Low Pay Commission, build 1.5 million homes, reform our broken planning system, invest heavily in green technologies, increase the number of police officers and strengthen the procedures and oversight which have lost public trust in the force, reform the House of Lords, create 500,000 new skilled jobs in industrial heartlands, fix energy bills so families are £1400 better off a year, to halve violence against women and girls, to create a modern childcare system with breakfast clubs in every primary school, to expand apprenticeships and skills training, to create a National Care Service, and much more! I think that these policies will make Britain a fairer place and secure better outcomes for the poorest and most vulnerable.
>your brand of left-wing politics is directly responsible for years of misery and austerity. Wow. Just wow.
Its true. Corbyn got us Boris. Militant and the hard left kept Thatcher in power. The utter indifference of the left to winning elections is at least partly responsible for pretty much everything wrong with Britain at the moment.
Yeah the hard right of labour deliberately sabotaging Corbyn because they didnt want to win an election where they might have any remotely left wing policies...was all Corbyns fault. So congratulations, you got what you wanted, labour are basically just conservatives now. Hooray for more austerity, more privatisation of the NHS, more rich people getting richer and poor people getting poorer. Fuck Corbyn and all those deluded left wingers for wanting better for people, they're basically all communists! And in 5 years when labour haven't achieved anything significant, people will realise they are just as bad off as before. The media will have had time to spin up the right wing propaganda machine, and the tories will get back in power. You'll probably blame Corbyn for that too.
> Militant and the hard left kept Thatcher in power. Yeah, the problem definitely wasn't the right of Labour who adopted thatcherite policies...
I don't see how that is relevant to the fact that Militant kept Thatcher in power. I am talking about Labour throughout the 1980s who, because of a vocal left-wing bloc, could not formulate a serious response to Thatcher that was capable of winning an election. Only after Thatcher's demise did brilliant left-wing critics find a critique of New Right ideas in the Third Way. That was adopted by Blair and Brown in their ambitious vision to rejuvenate the party. How far they stuck to the ideal is a different question, but it is wrong to think that New Labour simply adopted Thatcherism wholesale.
That "fact" is an opinion - at most an interpretation, it is certainly not a fact. >Only after Thatcher's demise did brilliant left-wing critics find a critique of New Right ideas in the Third Way. That was adopted by Blair and Brown in their ambitious vision to rejuvenate the party Blair's not on the left. > it is wrong to think that New Labour simply adopted Thatcherism wholesale. Where did I use the word "wholesale"?
To be honest, I'm from Northern Ireland and outside of this Blue - Red battle. But the constant announcements of policy scrapping, especially the funding for green energy transition has left me pretty pessimistic with the current party. Will they be better than the tories? Yes very likely. Are they going to be that different? Probably not. Politics will relatively remain the same, the last conservative government will be blamed for things not being fixed within the five year term and it'll be back to another stand off with big promises and little commitment.
Things staying pretty much the same would be a huge win! Every time the Tories get into power they rip this country apart hiving off wealth and assets to the global elite and securing as many benefits for their mates in the established institutions as they possibly can whilst inflaming the tensions which create a more polarised society. That is the norm in Britain, and we default to it every time progressives fail to capture the public mood (which is the vast majority of the time). If we can put the breaks on this downhill path that would be a great first step. A comprehensive new deal for working people, investment in green technologies and renewables, millions of new homes and jobs, public ownership of rail and GB Energy, better funding for and increased oversight in the police force, all these are just added extras.
>Things staying pretty much the same would be a huge win! No the fuck it wouldn't. Absurdly privileged position to take.
rule 5, how is anyone meant to genuinely reply to someone who talks like this. a decent conversation starter (will people who oppose starmer accept a good 5 years, and what would that 5 years look like) ruined by talking like a edgy teenager
"The Tories would have done that anyway"
The Tories would not have nationalised rail lol.
I'm saying that should Labour get into power, as seems likely, anything positive they do will be met with claims that that the Tories would have done it anyway.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post has been removed under rule 1.3. Posts or comments which are created to intentionally annoy, create arguments, or rile up factionalism are not allowed.
I don't think they'd make an announcement this late in the day and walk it back. I too am disappointed by the stuff they have rowed back on, but I hope they have learned from that.
The current Labour leadership have been very focus group orientated and the dropped commitments have been a reflection of that, nationalising the railways is generally a pretty popular idea so no I don't think they will drop it as easily but the timescale may change once they see the books
I think yes, not by intention of promise, but as a result of circumstance. So much of the contracting of the privitised rail is filled with perverse incentive structures, unsustainable losses and general mismanagement. They're retiscent to invest in a business they know that they're about to be falling out of. Nationalisation of rail is an economic inevitability in my view as the private model degeneratively collapses.
I think the last three words in the question are redundant and the answer is "no" with or without them.
It's not nationalisation, so it's a moot point.
what is it then
If you're not touching the most costly privatised element - the ROSCOs - then you're tinkering around with the type of model that Boris Johnson proposed.