Big difference between Blair and Starmer

Blair took over an economy that had undeniably turned the corner. He had policy options and levers to pull and the biggest criticism of his first term, one he himself also makes, is that he didnt' actually do much with that massive majority and helpful economy. As time went on he became better at executing the office of PM, took worse decisions (iraq, etc) and left office feeling he finally knew how to do the job really well but frustrated that he'd expended all his political capital in the early years when he didn't really push like he could have done.

Starmer is taking over (assuming he wins, I think he will) an economy on its knees with massive national debt, the highest post-war tax burden, a much more fractured society and the outcome of consistently massively inadequate capex (to put it in corporate terms) over at least a decade (austerity innit). You can't fix ten years of not investing overnight, or without spending money, and where that extra money is to come from is hard to see. I think Reeves is very competent and I like the plan for a quick capex injection into the NHS but that's only a small part - probably enough to get them into power but Starmer is being dealt a really rough hand by the general state of the country, a challenge Blair never really had.

Posted By: Old Man, Nov 13, 11:09:24