The 1997 General Election took place on 1st May; the 2024 General Election on 4th July. Blair had well over two months before the Summer recess; Starmer, just over a week after the King's Speech. It's pretty difficult to make changes that require legislation when Parliament is not sitting. And even when they do return from the Summer recess, they will be quickly into another recess for the Party conferences. Focusing on the chronological first 100 days as if it were a US Presidential election is misleading; we should be looking at the first 100 days on which Parliament is sitting to give a fair comparison.
You don't need legislation to change the mood of the nation. And you don't need to continually repeat a half baked household budget comparison as though the concept of taking out a mortgage to buy a house had never existed.
Absolutely spot on BUT you have to be honest and pragmatic! Starmer is trying to do that but the public isn't buying it yet. I agree the worst is yet to come. An economic crash, WW3 and even exodisasters like Apothis are on their way. Our species may only last about 6 more years unless a miracle happens. I am simply being honest! However Starmer can produce hope in a pragmatic way.
Of course - there is a significant difference between Blair, who was carried into office on a wave of jubilation and was master of all he surveyed until 9/11 - and Starmer, who is likely to be acutely aware that Labour did not win an overwhelming majority of the vote because it was loved but because the Tories were and still are widely hated by everyone under 55. (It is a sign of how insulated the Tory parliamentary activists are that they haven't communicated this message clearly and forcefully to the higher-ups.)
In this context, Starmer's approach of constantly reminding your electorate that the mess we are in is the fault of the Tories is not such a bad strategy. The Conservatives haven't sorted out their messaging yet - and will be made to wear the blame.
The next Conservative leader will inherit a poisoned chalice and will have to fight to earn the right to a hearing - and there is every chance that the Conservative Party will continue to embrace electoral doom by appointing someone from the headbanging fringe.
Meanwhile, Starmer will continue his efforts to fix many of the most urgent messes left behind by Truss and Johnson. There is a fair degree of policy continuity between Sunak and Starmer - CPTPP accession, Indian FTA talks etc etc. A bit of finessing of the Windsor Agreement.
He can hold back the big policy announcements to overshadow the Conservatives attempts at a relaunch - and avoid giving them a target against which to define themselves.
I hope the people in Downing Street read your Substack. This is spot on.
The 1997 General Election took place on 1st May; the 2024 General Election on 4th July. Blair had well over two months before the Summer recess; Starmer, just over a week after the King's Speech. It's pretty difficult to make changes that require legislation when Parliament is not sitting. And even when they do return from the Summer recess, they will be quickly into another recess for the Party conferences. Focusing on the chronological first 100 days as if it were a US Presidential election is misleading; we should be looking at the first 100 days on which Parliament is sitting to give a fair comparison.
You don't need legislation to change the mood of the nation. And you don't need to continually repeat a half baked household budget comparison as though the concept of taking out a mortgage to buy a house had never existed.
Absolutely spot on BUT you have to be honest and pragmatic! Starmer is trying to do that but the public isn't buying it yet. I agree the worst is yet to come. An economic crash, WW3 and even exodisasters like Apothis are on their way. Our species may only last about 6 more years unless a miracle happens. I am simply being honest! However Starmer can produce hope in a pragmatic way.
Of course - there is a significant difference between Blair, who was carried into office on a wave of jubilation and was master of all he surveyed until 9/11 - and Starmer, who is likely to be acutely aware that Labour did not win an overwhelming majority of the vote because it was loved but because the Tories were and still are widely hated by everyone under 55. (It is a sign of how insulated the Tory parliamentary activists are that they haven't communicated this message clearly and forcefully to the higher-ups.)
In this context, Starmer's approach of constantly reminding your electorate that the mess we are in is the fault of the Tories is not such a bad strategy. The Conservatives haven't sorted out their messaging yet - and will be made to wear the blame.
The next Conservative leader will inherit a poisoned chalice and will have to fight to earn the right to a hearing - and there is every chance that the Conservative Party will continue to embrace electoral doom by appointing someone from the headbanging fringe.
Meanwhile, Starmer will continue his efforts to fix many of the most urgent messes left behind by Truss and Johnson. There is a fair degree of policy continuity between Sunak and Starmer - CPTPP accession, Indian FTA talks etc etc. A bit of finessing of the Windsor Agreement.
He can hold back the big policy announcements to overshadow the Conservatives attempts at a relaunch - and avoid giving them a target against which to define themselves.