Little of that is really having a big impact on people’s lives.
Being “found to have broken rules” doesn’t have a lot of meaning when the feeling is the rules allow far too much corruption. I’m not aware of any changes to the parliamentary standards.
More health appointments is good, but if you hit a brick wall after your GP visit because the resources aren’t there… well you’re still stuck.
Investigations into water companies? We’re well past that stage. Where are the prosecutions? The evidence existed under previous governments but was ignored.
Nationalisation of the railways may eventually help the commuter class, but not many others. I don’t see why it’s a priority. Railways are functional. Expensive, but functional. Nationalise the water!
And on the other hand people are finding harder and harder to live their lives. Inflation is still rampant and the government cuts support saying their broke.
Of course, that doesn’t stop them inventing a billion pound ID scheme that wasn’t in the manifesto and giving the contracts to foreign tech giants – the money doesn’t even go into the UK. Or to keep trading arms to Israel whilst arresting any protestor that might have a problem with it. Or proposing scrapping trial by jury because they won’t invest in the judicial system. WTF happened to Sir Starmer the Human Rights lawyer.
I don’t see any of those objections as being substantive to the point that Labour is making positive changes.
Your point about inflation is not exactly wrong, but calling 3.5% inflation “rampant” is overblown. How exactly could the government have changed this? You want them to have been investing and spending more, which is inflationary.
You then make some points some of which I certainly agree are wrong, but don’t really stick to the point: if your party is in power and does something you disagree with, do you shout about it, harming your party, or put up with it as a cost of being in power? Merely emphasising that you disagree with those actions is beside the point because I’m not saying I agree with them.
Little of that is really having a big impact on people’s lives.
Being “found to have broken rules” doesn’t have a lot of meaning when the feeling is the rules allow far too much corruption. I’m not aware of any changes to the parliamentary standards.
More health appointments is good, but if you hit a brick wall after your GP visit because the resources aren’t there… well you’re still stuck.
Investigations into water companies? We’re well past that stage. Where are the prosecutions? The evidence existed under previous governments but was ignored.
Nationalisation of the railways may eventually help the commuter class, but not many others. I don’t see why it’s a priority. Railways are functional. Expensive, but functional. Nationalise the water!
And on the other hand people are finding harder and harder to live their lives. Inflation is still rampant and the government cuts support saying their broke.
Of course, that doesn’t stop them inventing a billion pound ID scheme that wasn’t in the manifesto and giving the contracts to foreign tech giants – the money doesn’t even go into the UK. Or to keep trading arms to Israel whilst arresting any protestor that might have a problem with it. Or proposing scrapping trial by jury because they won’t invest in the judicial system. WTF happened to Sir Starmer the Human Rights lawyer.
I don’t see any of those objections as being substantive to the point that Labour is making positive changes.
Your point about inflation is not exactly wrong, but calling 3.5% inflation “rampant” is overblown. How exactly could the government have changed this? You want them to have been investing and spending more, which is inflationary.
You then make some points some of which I certainly agree are wrong, but don’t really stick to the point: if your party is in power and does something you disagree with, do you shout about it, harming your party, or put up with it as a cost of being in power? Merely emphasising that you disagree with those actions is beside the point because I’m not saying I agree with them.