‘Change’: Starmer hopes simple slogan will chime with exasperated nation
‘Change’: Starmer hopes simple slogan will chime with exasperated nation
Labour leader’s key campaign message is low on content but chimes with public attitudes in recent polling
![‘Change’: Starmer hopes simple slogan will chime with exasperated nation](https://feddit.uk/pictrs/image/2662c563-f3a6-4c46-bfa8-944ddbe5d36f.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=256)
You're viewing a single thread.
I hope this is down to them needing to have this ready weeks ago and not knowing when the election would be.
As slogans go it's about as inspiring as Starmer himself.
Generic, non-commital and subject to change.
11 0 Reply'Hope' worked for Obama
8 0 ReplyTrue, very different vibes!
Tories have been nothing but changeable in recent years and that's not been a good thing!
4 0 ReplyLabour are sort of arguing for a change to a stable government which is the most ambitious bit of political messaging I could possibly think of.
Time will tell if sunak and the Tories are so hopeless it actually works
5 0 ReplyFair point well made. I guess we'll see how this particular campaign is received.
3 0 Reply
It just describes what he plans on saying he's doing if elected, it'll Change every other day.
3 0 ReplyI'll take a pragmatic responsive PM over the lurching idealogues of recent years
9 0 ReplyWell said. While he's not perfect, I'd imagine Starmer will be significantly different to the Tories.
5 0 ReplyThe fact that he won't be distracted by right wing extremists in his own party is a good start.
Within the labour party he is the right wing extremist.
And I don't think he's likely to be too damaged by attacks on the left much either, certainly not until after the honeymoon period.
6 0 Reply
Labour seems to be shifting further and further Right, not sure how much better they'll be than the Tories. But for what it's worth, I totally agree.
1 0 ReplySo when Tories go back on promises it's lying but when labour do it its reasonable pragmatism?
1 0 ReplyDid I say all those things?
1 0 ReplyMaybe I misunderstood but that seemed to be what you were suggesting
1 0 Reply