I think it's far too soon to make assumptions or judgements about what parties will offer until we have full, costed manifestos released closer to the election.
I'm not making assumptions about anything, I'm just going by what Labour under Starmer have said, and what they have not said. It's the people convincing themselves that Starmer is going to fix various things he either hasn't committed to fixing, or has explicitly opposed fixing, who are making assumptions.
"The last Labour manifesto was excellent but sadly, the media did such a hatchet job on Jeremy Corbyn that it was never going to happen and most people did not bother to read it. Personally, I feel that we missed out on the greatest chance we ever had to have real change and a decent, honest politician in charge.*
Agreed.
But a party is more than its leader and whilst it's understandable that anyone has reservations about Kier Starmer, votes should be about policies and not personalities.
In principle yes, but that depends on having a basic level of trust that the people involved will at least try to get somewhere close to what they're promising. Which in turns depends on those promises being rooted in a genuine sense of commitment based on what's right, rather than just being what you think people want to hear. Sadly, based on my observation of how Starmer has gained leadership of and then run the Labour party, I don't believe he has any such commitment and I don't trust him one iota.
And I'm not one of those people who says "all politicians are liars so you may as well not bother". That's a lazy attitude.