He can find the time for a 3 hour interview with Piers Morgan, and for looking at all those focus group reports.
Time well spent if he actually wants to win an election.
Time well spent if he actually wants to win an election.
I'm sure the next opinion poll will show that clearly and this doesn't at all look like desperately floundering around for something, anything to give him the slightest hint of having a personality.
So, you're saying that if the host of a high-ratings, primetime TV show, with an audience of millions asks you to come on and be interviewed in a more informal manner than a political show, he should say no?
Because....?
he should say no?
It's about 12 months too late. Another stark example of his political incompetence. The public have already made their minds up and they're not going to be changed by any amount of soft-soap interviews. Wonder how many times he'll mention his working class parents? I can see it now, 'My mother was a nurse, that's why I think they should get a 2% pay rise'.
It’s about 12 months too late. Another stark example of his political incompetence.
Political incompetence? Hmmmmmm...
You think that a light, soft-focus, prime time interview would have been more appropriate at the height of the first lockdown, when there were thousands of people dying every day?
Everything he does just has the unmistakeable whiff of desperation and insincerity. This is just the latest example.
prime time interview would have been more appropriate at the height of the first lockdown
Don't be daft, what he should have been doing was opposing and exposing Boris's incompetence, instead he was supporting it at every turn. He's such a political genius he's somehow allowed Boris to get away with the deaths of 150,000 people, and take credit for a vaccination programme he had very little to do with. FFS he was even completely outplayed by Angela Rayner, supposedly the thickest MP in parliament. Open your eyes, he's an amateur, completely out of his depth, and he and his scheming right wing friends are taking the labour party down with him.
supposedly the thickest MP in parliament
Can you stop repeating that? It's tedious.
Don’t be daft, what he should have been doing was opposing and exposing Boris’s incompetence
I'm not convinced that in the middle of pandemic, that wouldn't have been cast as anything other than "petty point scoring" by the right wing tabloids, and given that rollout of the vaccine has been a success, any criticism made by Starmer would be used again and again as a stick to beat him with. Johnson tried to hang the "Captain Hindsight" label onto Starmer, and it didn't work, largely because Starmer wasn't/isn't the story.
Johnson tried to hang the “Captain Hindsight” label onto Starmer, and it didn’t work
I'm not sure the polls and approval ratings agree. Although captain clueless would be a more appropriate name right now.
War on the left?
Get a grip
Sigh. Always rely on a Centrist commentator to never see what's coming, deny it when it's in front of their face and never take any responsibility for anything.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1233768468408864768?s=19
pandemic, that wouldn’t have been cast as anything other than “petty point scoring” by the right wing tabloids, and given that rollout of the vaccine has been a success, any criticism made by Starmer would be used again and again as a stick to beat him with.
That's a special level of ridiculousness given the amount of leverage Starmer has against the Government, in the role of actual opposition.
Also, given the Labour party's dreary polling *not opposing* you might think taking the logical position of attacking the government - it might improve their own position with the electorate?
Starmer should point out the mistakes made in handling the pandemic.
Johnson missing first few cobra meetings, shaking hands with covid patients ffs
Late into lockdown
VIP PPE !
Late into lockdown again
etc
Captain hindsight or not these things need to be said by the LOTO as the mainstream media are not doing their job.
I’m not convinced that in the middle of pandemic, that wouldn’t have been cast as anything other than “petty point scoring” by the right wing tabloid
Yup, that's pretty much the line that Starmer is pushing.......the pandemic has prevented him setting out his vision.
Apparently during a crisis is the wrong time to offer an alternative vision to the Tories.
When things get back to normality and everything is just fine and hunky-dory Starmer will then offer a radical alternative which challenges the status quo.
People are only interested in alternative policies when everything is just fine.
Hopefully for Labour there won't be another crisis just before the next general election.
I’d imagine that he’s more important things to be doing rather than plotting against some beardy has-been.
Quite right. There are flags to shag, immigrants to demonise, and curfews to support. What we absolutely don't want is him wasting any time at all on setting out a vision for a functioning opposition. Meanwhile, his dwindling number of supporters will continue to argue that there's nothing to be done, as he continues to haemorrhage votes in pursuit of an electoral dead-end.
Yes Kelvin but he should be doing this every week, every chance he gets - push the points he needs to push until they start to hit home. If his plan is to be a more bearable/ trustable/ competent centrist party then he needs to do a lot of work pointing out why the Tories are ****.
then he needs to do a lot of work pointing out why the Tories are ****.
Don't be daft, it's much easier having a go at Corbyn.
For obvious reasons he goes out of his way to try and avoid any mention of Corbyn, never mind “having a go at him”. CTK, Labour are on these topics you mention all the time, none of it cuts through, because the public just hear “vaccines” and “stop denigrating the hard work of NHS staff” in the answers Johnson and his ministers give. The Conservatives are somehow (we know how) managing to get good news to stick to them and bad news to slide off. I’d suggest replacing the top Labour people immediately with others if I honestly thought there was anyone who could turn that around quickly, but it’s fantasy to think a change of personnel would turn the tables overnight. I still think Starmer can’t win an election, and I’d like him to be replaced before the next election… but right now? I see no point in a quick change. Who could cut through? Labour don’t have a system for replacing their leaders quickly and effectively (ruthlessly?) anyway.
Labour are on these topics you mention all the time, none of it cuts through, because the public just hear “vaccines” and “stop denigrating the hard work of NHS staff” in the answers Johnson and his ministers give.
The UK covid vaccine programme has been a resounding success, there is no disputing that. It is possibly the most successful in the world.
And there is nothing wrong at all with celebrating success of a publicly funded government programme. In fact it provides a shining example of just what, with determination, can be achieved.
If Labour drove that point home I cannot see how that would impact negatively on them.
But covid is just one issue there are a multitude of other issues, and yet despite that people do not know where Labour stands.
The reason for that is quite simple, Starmer provides no vision of what Labour's alternative to the Tories is. You can't shove the blame for that onto the Tories.
I’d like him to be replaced before the next election… but right now? I see no point in a quick change.
So presumably just keep plodding down the road to nowhere and in the event of Johnson calling a snap election hope and pray someone will be quickly found?
Well it's a plan, I grant you that, but it doesn't sound like a very good one...... Tories take the initiative, Labour reacts.
And your ‘plan’ is? If you want Starmer replaced “now”, and we imagine Labour is a party that can do that, who are you proposing?
Well a better plan might be to have a leader of the party who provides some sort vision of what a Labour alternative would look like.
Or is that a bit too challenging?
Who is that then? Who are you proposing?
Sorry Kelvin your constant editing makes things a bit difficult.
Your original post just asked "And your ‘plan’ is? "
Which I answered.
I’m keeping it simple. If you want Starmer replaced ‘now’, who are you proposing?
Who are you proposing?
I'm not proposing anyone. If you are suggesting that Labour has no one better than Starmer then obviously that's tragic.
Personally I gave up on Labour a very long time ago, back in the days of New Labour in fact.
I did momentarily, between 2015-2017, believe that perhaps I had got it all wrong and that Corbyn could make Labour relevant again.
I was obviously wrong about that. Corbyn I mean.
What do you mean by better? I said I wanted Starmer replaced before an election, and I’ve named names in this thread before, as have others. But there is no point replacing him right now, I can’t see how any of my preferred candidates would do any better right now. If you want him gone ‘now’, who do you want him replaced with?
It's you that has talked about replacing Starmer, not me. I have simply pointed out that people don't know what Labour's vision is, and that Starmer is responsible for that, not the Tories.
You are claiming that you want Starmer replaced, but just not now. Which doesn't exactly sound like a particularly good plan to me.
In fact a better plan might be for Starmer to get his finger out and start providing a real alternative to the Tories.
Starmer can “pull his finger” out as much as he wants… he won’t win a general election. And I’m not blaming that entirely on his dullness (or on any political positioning), because I don’t think anyone could have become leader after the last election and taken Labour all the way to an election win. Come the election, Labour need to be new, fresh and distanced from the past. Starmer (or anyone else if they had won the last leadership election) will be utterly damaged by the time we have an election, having taken fire from all sides for many years. A new face will be needed without the baggage of having followed Corbyn, or served under Blair/Brown, but there is no point pushing them forward now. I take your point about an early election making all that sound stupid, and I made that very point myself after the Queen’s Speech. The government do seem to be pathing the way for an early election, and that could well be checkmate, because Labour can not act fast enough to counter such a move. Their approach to leadership contests is a millstone around their necks.
You are putting way too much emphasis on the importance of who is leader of the Labour Party imo.
In the 2017 general election the Labour Party received almost 13 million votes, the largest Labour vote since 1997, and about three and a half million more votes than in the general election 2 years earlier.
Do you honestly think that was simply down to who the leader of the Labour Party was?
Personally I think the makeup of the Labour Party is far more of an issue than who the leader is.
The size of the Labour vote keeps getting trotted out but it's only one part of it, even more so in a country with a growing population. It has to be viewed alongside share of votes and how those votes yield seats. (Before you even get to the other fairly extraordinary influences)
Labours best result was either 1951 or 1997, and its worst, well, last year or 1983 (pre purge).
Typo, I meant 2019
You are putting way too much emphasis on the importance of who is leader of the Labour Party imo.
It is because it is the most important part of a party. To the 80% of voters that are largely ignorant it is the only thing they really base their decision on.
Do you think the tories would have won as many seats without Johnson as leader
Do you think all those ex Labour voters (who didn't change under May) would have changed under say Raab, Gove rather than Johnson
Same goes for Farage (for a smaller audience) Would the same have happened without Farage as leader
It is not right, especially with a leader as technically useless as Johnson, but that is how it works - the public need to like them.
The size of the Labour vote keeps getting trotted out but it’s only one part of it, even more so in a country with a growing population. It has to be viewed alongside share of votes and how those votes yield seats. (Before you even get to the other fairly extraordinary influences)
True, but the share of the vote can also be highly misleading. In 2017, Labour took 40% of the popular vote, its best performance since 2001, yet they didn't win.
Hartlepool is also interesting: much of the conversation was about ex-Brexit party voters turning out for the Tories, but no-one seems to be talking about the collapse of Labour's vote. The Tories aren't any more popular than they were in 2017, but are taking a much higher % of the vote as people have stopped voting Labour, as well as switching from the Brexit party.
It is because it is the most important part of a party.
Obviously not. Unless you are suggesting that Labour enjoyed significantly greater support the in the 2017 general election than it did in the 2005 general election, because Corbyn was seen in a more positive light by the electorate than Blair had been 12 years earlier.
Is that what you are suggesting? Because it is universally accepted that Corbyn was deeply unpopular, relatively speaking, with the electorate prior to the 2017 general election.
Which is of course precisely why Theresa May called a completely unnecessary general election.
How the leader of a party is perceived by the electorate is important but it's not as important as some people seem to think it is, sometimes other things are even more important. Despite your dismissive claim that 80% of voters are largely ignorant.
How the leader of a party is perceived by the electorate is important but it’s not as important as some people seem to think it is,
As I said, it is the most important thing. You may not agree, but the evidence backs me up.
Looks at leader vs leader rather than number of votes historically and the more likeable/popular leader always wins. Must be coincidence...
Do you know how politics actually works?
Some of us do. You, clearly, don't.
I think by now it's obvious that Armrest has pretty much failed to turn the fortunes of the Labour Party around. Mainly due to having no clear ideas on how to address the many issues this country is facing, or to connect with the populace in any meaningful way. The first rule of politics is to be heard; if nobody is listening, then you have no chance of getting your ideas across. Corbyn, by far from being an ideal 'leader', managed to achieve this, despite the massive pressure of a partisan media, the weaponisation of anti-Semitism, and many senior members of his own party, against him. How Armrest can be less popular, despite not having this pressure, really shows just how inadequate he really is. Corbyn is still managing to reach far larger numbers of people, despite not even being in the party at the moment. Armrest, blinkered by his 'unqualified support for Zionism', totally failed to read the public mood regarding the recent atrocities committed by Israel, and is too gutless to say anything more than 'oh people on both sides should back off a bit'. Pathetic.
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Corbyn spent Saturday addressing 100,000 people in London.<br><br>Starmer spent it addressing 56 Centrists on Zoom. pic.twitter.com/oY4gmkHApi</p>— Kerry-Anne Mendoza 🏳️🌈 (@TheMendozaWoman) May 16, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Politics is getting people to listen to you. Armrest isn't doing that. Pissing into the wind. I think even some of the most ardent Armresters on here, can now see he's a failure and needs to go.
the evidence backs me up.
Well if who is leader is "the most important thing" that clears it up. You obviously think that Corbyn was more popular with the electorate in 2017 than Tony Blair was in 2005.
You obviously think that Corbyn was more popular with the electorate in 2017 than Tony Blair was in 2005.
I specifically stated it was leader vs leader at time of election, NOT historical voting numbers.
i.e Was Corbyn more popular than May, not was Corbyn more popular than Blair in a completely different election in a completely different time.
On the subject of Zionism:
The biggest racists I know are zionists
I think this needs to be qualified with a clarification of what 'Zionism' actually is. Do you mean the Zionism of Theodore Hertzl? The Zionism of the founders of the Kibbutzim? The Liberal Zionism of modern middle class westerners? Or the extreme Zionism of cults like Lehava, a far-right fundamentalist group whose slogan is 'Preventing Assimilation'? Because there is an awful lot of difference between say the 'communists' of the Kibbutzim movement, and the fascists of Lehava. There is a world of difference between the Socialist Zionists who believed in the right to self-determination for all Jews, and for the foundation of a nation where Jews cannot suffer the horrors caused by anti-Semitism, and the extreme religious beliefs held by the likes of Lehava. And a whole load of grey in between. 'Zionism' has become somewhat of a pejorative term, used to describe those who believe in the rights of one group over another, and apartheid system as that employed by the current Israeli administration, which I think is grossly unfair, because I know many 'liberal' Zionists who are completely opposed to the fascism of Netanyahu and his acolytes. Once again, the complexity of Zionism is lost on many, and this sets a dangerous precedent, one which has no positive outcome. so I'd urge people to read up, and educate yourselves about Zionism, in order to better understand the situation with Israel and Palestine. Because at the end of the day, it has very little to do with religion, Judaism or anything, and much more to do with western economic and cultural imperialism. Israel was founded under the guise of providing Jews with a safe homeland, a noble cause and one which all of us should respect, but has become a front for US and European economic interests, and a platform to install nuclear weapons pointed at the unruly Arabs. That right-wing extremism has flourished to the point of dominance, is the fault of the west's failure and unwillingness to ensure international laws aren't violated. Because as long as the money keeps flowing, brown people dying doesn't matter. But to get to the root of the issues, we have to look not at Jews, or Muslims, or Israelis, or Palestinians, but to ourselves, here in the affluent 'liberal' west, because it's in our direct interests that that situation is being perpetuated. It's clear that the weaponsitation if anti-Semitism against Corbyn was purely because of his opposition to the actions of the Israeli government, and those of their western enablers, particularly the US and UK governments, and the threat he potentially posed to the flow of all that wealth and power. I'd wager Corbyn knows a fair bit more about actual Zionism than Armrest does, and again, Armrest's abject failure to condemn what are war crimes by the Israeli state, exposes his weakness. A Labour leader needs to stand against such crimes, not condone them. And by sitting on the fence, he is doing just that. Coward.
Armrest, hilarious
Sorry, cross post, but relevant here.
Why is Cummings doing Starmer's job so well?
Starmer going easy on the government has led to where we are today.
Culpable.
Why is Cummings doing Starmer’s job so well?
Because he is a bitter, spurned egotist. Might not want him as a leader...
Starmer just got handed the biggest open goal in the history of opposition politics and still failed to land a blow. The govt of the day has just been exposed as an incompetent, lying and chaotic shitshow which directly led to the deaths of tens of thousands by one of it's main protagonists and all Starmer can think of is to demand an inquiry be brought forward?
Because... the opposition slamming the PM's "work" is just dismissed as "political games" and "looking backwards" and "Captain Hindsight".. EVEN when the information and claims come from someone who was at the heart of the PM's team. It has to become received wisdom, rather than an accusation from the opposition, that this part time PM has utterly failed us. It has to come from all quarters, not just the Labour front bench. Pointing out that the PM is trying to kick the truth into the long grass, with a delayed inquiry, is all part of the "what does the PM have to hide" line. The PM is on the ropes, but successfully looking upright through bluff, bluster and the help of those with interests aligned with him. I still think he'll get through all this just fine, but the public need to feel that he is being unveiled by all, not just attacked by the leader of the opposition, if anything is going to stick to him.
