Forum menu
The Guardian: Stop calling me boring, Keir Starmer tells shadow cabinet.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/14/stop-calling-me-boring-keir-starmer-tells-shadow-cabinet
"Starmer has been accused by senior colleagues in recent days of failing to articulate clearly what Labour stands for or to enthuse the public about his leadership."
Sadly both those issues go beyond Starmer's capabilities imo.
What's his thoughts about the Rwanda situation?
Oh.
Too busy doing articles for the Telegraph currently.
No wonder certain members won't venture into this thread these days to support him.
Too busy doing articles for the Telegraph currently.
You mean the interview? You make it sound as if he’s writing a column for them, Boris Johnson style.
He seems to have mostly left challenging the deportation before asylum process policy to Cooper in parliament, and other front benchers like Lammy in the media. I don’t think that is accidental, they can see what the Tory plan is there. Anyway, the Rhwanda thread features some of Labour’s responses and actions on this.
Too busy doing articles for the Telegraph currently.
You mean the interview?
I doubt that is what rone meant. Giving an interview to the Daily Telegraph is not the same as writing an article for the Daily Telegraph. For example this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/31/britain-better-country-thanks-queen/
In which Keir Starmer deals with the pressing problem of Mrs Windsor's 70 years sitting on the throne and he tells Daily Telegraph readers what a great gal she is.
I hadn’t seen that one, from the headings it sounds excruciating.
Yeah there's a couple of pieces.
You mean the interview? You make it sound as if he’s writing a column for them, Boris Johnson style.
Yep.
In which Keir Starmer deals with the pressing problem of Mrs Windsor’s 70 years sitting on the throne and he tells Daily Telegraph readers what a great gal she
Tbf that's exactly the kind of shit telegraph readers get excited by
And he will need some of them to vote for him!
As for the boring comment, well he certainly can be! And in an age of clickbait and American style shock jocks, becoming the norm here, he's in trouble, because if there's one thing the crisis & scandal ridden Johnson isn't, it's boring!
He needs to get Tory voters to vote for him and I would say of all the Tory groups out there he's probably got a decent chance getting some of the Telegraph readers
I had a good laugh at this. And supports my view that there's an agenda to get rid of him.
Several of those around the table then echoed their leader’s calls for unity and discretion, in a lengthy exchange described by one shadow frontbencher as “ironically very boring”.
I see they're still pursuing the same line about Starmer's amazing job in 'rebuilding' the party, which I presume means his ruthless Stalinesque expulsion of anyone who has expressed a left wing opinion or talked to anyone with left win opinions. It confirms to me that was his only job. Now it's done he can f*** off and let someone who can actually do politics take over.
And I can see why he's a bit sensitive.. 😄
He needs to get Tory voters to vote for him
And then hang on to their support. Which will of course mean that should he ever become PM he will have to implement policies and legislation which appeals to these Tory voters.
Quite how likely it is for readers of a newspaper which these days can on occasions actually manage to make the Daily Mail appear a bit liberal to vote Labour is debatable. Tory voters tend to vote Tory.
If the argument is based on Boris Johnson's alleged non-appeal then the entire argument can instantly collapse with a change in the Tory leadership.
Besides, despite everything that has happened a very recent poll suggests that more people believe Johnson makes a better PM than Starmer would. I very much suspect that represents the prevailing opinion among Daily Telegraph readers.
And he will need some of them to vote for him!
Aside from after years of the Barclays the only telegraph readers left are those who secretly think Thatcher was a bit of a lefty.
So to appeal to them he has to shift rather rightwards.
And I can see why he’s a bit sensitive.. 😄
He is boring. Which is why Labour shouldn't go into the next election with him as leader, modern media driven politics just isn't for him. I'd take him as PM over Johnson or any of his cabinet in a heartbeat though. But an election campaign these days requires skills he just does not have. I'm aware of the damaging effects of our current "campaigning first and foremost, governing the country a distant second" political leadership... but Labour needs someone who can connect with the public to gain their votes AND do the job properly if they do get elected. He should shuffle himself into a shadow cabinet role. He'd be a very useful member of a Labour cabinet... but he isn't likely to deliver one.
Loving his star wars gags at PMQs
Johnson not amused when Starmer called him Jabba the Hutt
Loving his star wars gags at PMQs
Trying desperately not to be boring. Not sure it's working.
Stuck with cost of living and the economy all the way. Wise. Johnson still tried to deliver the "he's on the side of the people traffickers" line that he had ready for a question about denying people asylum application and trying to fly them to Rwanda.
Yeah let's not denounce the widely condemned policy of deporting refugees to Rwanda, in case of false allegations of being on the side of people traffickers.
Let's keep voters ignorant of the truth and let the Tories set the narrative.
Leave it to the ECHR to denounce the policy.
Or even senior Tory MPs:
Let's not make Sir Keir get his hands dirty, we can leave it to others to do that. Let's leave it to him to focus on making jokes. Against a clown.
Trying desperately not to be boring. Not sure it’s working.
I agree, hes obviously trying to be less dull!
the conservative corbyn line seemed to really rile Johnson(perhaps because his own backbenchers are saying it), very good point about Johnson wanting the strikes to go ahead to feed off the division- this should be highlighted more
Johnsons Union Barons line seemed cumbersome
This whole notion getting the Tory vote is flawed. They will vote Tory.
He needs to make a strong case to inspire and appeal for bloody the left.
More voters don't read the Telegraph than do. The ones that do simply aren't switchers.
Let’s keep voters ignorant of the truth and let the Tories set the narrative.
You can tune in to Parliament and hear more right now about the policy of denying asylum application in the UK if you want. And Labour had ministers on all the TV/radio shows to denounce it this morning. Starmer focusing PMQs on the economy, and cost of living, was absolutely spot on. He can't fall into the trap of being painted as wanting to be "a PM for foreigners" that the Tories are dying to make stick at the next election.
Cooper responding to Patel very well... again... leave her to it.
Bumped up against this tweet from David Graeber - over two years ago.
https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1245759857954873346?t=n2tHY0DcMeJP8EUbjc-Vbw&s=19
Of course carry on slagging off the opposition, it's cool...Just remember this passes the next election to the conservatives. All because they have a charismatic liar in charge that sprouts grollocks without any oversight. Just a comment. I personally prefer boring to lies.
JeZ
Of course carry on slagging off the opposition
If the only thing labour can say to voters is that 'we are not the tories' then they don't deserve to be in government. If the tories remain in power after the next election the fault won't be with people who didn't vote labour, it will lie squarely on the shoulders of Starmer and his fellow centrist cowards.
Bumped up against this tweet from David Graeber
Graeber was right about almost everything. It's a tragedy he died so young.
I personally prefer boring to lies.
How about these 10 big whoppers?
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
To be a liar you have to actually say something. Starmer says very little indeed, but when he says something clearly, as he has done on his website in the link above, he has proved himself to be an extraordinary liar.
he has proved himself to be an extraordinary liar.
Starmer represents everything people hate about modern politics. We've had decades of politicians on all sides telling voters that anything that would help or benefit them isn't possible. Johnson (and Corbyn before him in 2017) did the opposite, and unsurprisingly people voted for him. It's astonishing that labour think they can win an election by going back to telling voters that they can't have what they want.
Starmer represents everything people hate about modern politics. We’ve had decades of politicians on all sides telling voters that anything that would help or benefit them isn’t possible. Johnson (and Corbyn before him in 2017) did the opposite, and unsurprisingly people voted for him. It’s astonishing that labour think they can win an election by going back to telling voters that they can’t have what they want.
Well then have the torys then make an extraordinary habit of lying about everything.
Personally I'd do anything to get rid of them if you're a fan then of course be happy with them.
JeZ
Personally I’d do anything to get rid of them if you’re a fan then of course be happy with them.
The reason I'm critical of Starmer is because I'm convinced that he's leading labour to defeat at the next election, not because I want to keep the tories in power. Funny how the same people who spent years slagging off Corbyn now accuse those of us who are critical of Starmer of helping the tories. Grow up FFS.
Personally I’d do anything to get rid of them if you’re a fan then of course be happy with them.
Really? Start a civil war, vote for Farage?
You must have some limits, right?
FWIW - I think Starmer would be an excellent Prime Minister. He's serious, intelligent and has integrity.
Unfortunately, it seems you need to be a "character" to get elected. At least in the eyes of the Tory biased press.
Unfortunately, it seems you need to be a “character” to get elected. At least in the eyes of the Tory biased press.
Nah they are fussed about that. They just want people who deliver what they want.
What Starmer is offering is rather unclear right now.
The reason I’m critical of Starmer is because I’m convinced that he’s leading labour to defeat at the next election, not because I want to keep the tories in power. Funny how the same people who spent years slagging off Corbyn now accuse those of us who are critical of Starmer of helping the tories. Grow up FFS.
I voted Corbyn too I honestly didn't mean to offend I was saying if you slag off either it generally plays into the hands of the Tory's.
JeZ
FWIW – I think Starmer would be an excellent Prime Minister. He’s serious, intelligent and has integrity.
Unfortunately, it seems you need to be a “character” to get elected. At least in the eyes of the Tory biased press.
Yes I think in general you need to be that annoying loud kid in a school classroom, that gets all the attention, just because they are loud an obnoxious.
Personally we all seem to suffer if we keep it the way it is at the moment...
JeZ
Yes I think in general you need to be that annoying loud kid in a school classroom
No you just have to have a positive vision of the future which voters believe will benefit them. Starmer's only offering is that he'll go back to seriously and soberly telling people that there is no alternative to what they currently experience. People don't want a PM who tells them there's nothing much they can do, they want someone who will do something about it.
So what's the solution to fix the issue you talk about?
Corbyn's 2017 stuff would be a good start
So what’s the solution to fix the issue you talk about?
For labour the solution is to present a positive vision of how the state can help normal working people. That means funding and providing quality public services, ensuring the basic necessities in life (utilities, food, housing) are available and affordable, providing job security and decent wages, a safety net when people need help through unemployment, illness or old age, and a quality education for their kids. That is all easily do-able, but it needs someone to put forward the idea of a radical activist state which is on the side of working people. Starmer isn't doing that, even though that's what he promised when he stood for the leadership.
It should be fairly easy to campaign on too, as the tories push the narrative that the state is the problem and the market will solve all these issues if only the state got out of the way, which is evidently not the case as we've had 40 years of it with widening inequality and declining living standards. That's an easy thing for labour to oppose if only they had the balls. Instead though we get meaningless nonsense about balancing the books and being 'pro-business'.
If you listen to some of the other Labour MPs like Cooper, Phillips and Nandy they speak passionately and with substance. A problem is that most people's impression of the Labour party comes from Starmer at PMQs - the news outlets dont broadcast much outside of the PM v Starmer "showdown".
Labour haven’t had a decent orator as leader since Blair, Corbyn was always the butt of jokes, Milliband even more so, the fact that they are now arguing against people who happily lie and disrespect others in parliament make it even harder to fight every argument, because truth and sense aren’t enough to win anymore.
because truth and sense aren’t enough to win anymore.
Truth? Not something often associated with Blair.
The difference with Blair was he was willing to get into bed with Murdoch and co and promise them he wouldnt hurt their interests.
A problem is that most people’s impression of the Labour party comes from Starmer at PMQs
I can’t disagree that this might be some peoples impression but I think the real problem is that most people’s impression of the Labour Party comes from algorithms directing them to stories that Labour are the party for foreigners and free loaders.
Truth? Not something often associated with Blair.
The difference with Blair was he was willing to get into bed with Murdoch and co and promise them he wouldnt hurt their interests.
Stating Blair was only against his ability to argue the point and look natural, with a sense of humour where required, Cameron was probably the best at this in the last 30 years, that was before the current lot stopped caring about getting caught or lying of course.
algorithms directing them to stories that Labour are the party for foreigners and free loaders.
...or the happy regulars on this thread the same as the Tories/party of bosses and liars etc. Ffs
The difference with Blair was he was willing to get into bed with Murdoch and co and promise them he wouldnt hurt their interests.
Maybe that's Starmer's approach with a side order of Johnson big lie to get in before stiffing them good and proper! (One can but hope).
Unfortunately, it seems you need to be a “character” to get elected.
How then do you explain John Major easily, against all expectations, defeating Neil Kinnock in 1992?
Hardly anyone remembers John Major because he was so utterly dull and boring and without a shred of charisma.
In fact John Major was so dull and boring that Spitting Image painted his puppet in grey and had him engaging in inane conversations over a plate of peas. Spitting Image primary goal was to create caricatures of politicians, by all accounts they really struggled with John Major.
In contrast Neil Kinnock "the Welsh windbag" was anything but dull and boring. He was definitely a "character".
https://spittingimage.fandom.com/wiki/Neil_Kinnock
"On Spitting Image and in Private Eye magazine, Neil Kinnock was referred to as "The Welsh Windbag." He talked for hours about anything but his policies and seemed desperate to win the election".
So how did boring John Major easily defeat Neil Kinnock? Well despite being a Tory he offered change. He was seen as completely different to Margaret Thatcher (although I would strongly dispute that he actually was).
One of the very first things Major did on becoming PM was scrap Thatcher's hated "flagship policy" the Poll Tax. He was also seen as less confrontational than Thatcher who had the baggage of a bitter miners strike and deep mistrust of mining communities, and also the inner city riots that blighted her premiership.
Paradoxically Major also provided reassurance and continuity, ie more of the same that still had an appeal, eg buying your council house and pursuing, what was for most people totally unobtainable, the yuppie dream of huge wealth.
In contrast what Neil Kinnock was offering was mostly unknown. As the above quote mentions "he talked for hours about anything but his policies". Kinnock primary selling point appeared to be that he wasn't Thatcher, but by 1992 that was no longer an issue as neither was John Major.
Clear policies that provided a clear alternative would have won it for Labour in 1992, it was there for the taking - everyone previously assumed that Labour would win.
By 1997 things had changed dramatically. After 18 years of Tory rule people were desperate for change. Voting for John Major was no longer going to provide that. Tony Blair offered almost nothing in terms of policies but by then the importance of that had diminished, he effectively convinced a desperate electorate that "things can only get better".
Pretty much anyone leading the Labour Party would have won in 1997. And 25 years ago the "red wall" still voted for anyone who was a Labour candidate, whatever the issues, policies, or lack of policies. New Labour's disinterest in them and taking them for granted hadn't for obvious reasons affected them at that point.
The issue today is were are now. Are voters so desperate for change, because Johnson had a bit of a drink when he shouldn't have done, that they are willing to jump into the unknown and vote for a party whose policies they have no idea about?
With predicted economic instability, rising inflation, and the cost of living crises, is now a good time to take a punt on a party whose policies you don't know?
Labour should be absolutely capitalising on the situation right now by offering a credible and convincing alternative.
How then do you explain John Major easily, against all expectations, defeating Neil Kinnock in 1992?
It was the sun wot won it
How then do you explain John Major easily, against all expectations, defeating Neil Kinnock in 1992?
It was 30 years ago? We don’t live in those times.
I see that Starmer has forced Wes Streeting to apologise for supporting the rail workers on QT last week.
That little stunt by Streeting to position himself as a left-wing alternative to Starmer in what he is clearly hoping will be a soon to come leadership contest has dramatically backfired.
Presumably Streeting thought that if Starmer could convince a significant chunk of the voters in the Labour Party Leadership election that he was a left-winger then so could he.
Unfortunately for Streeting all he has managed to do is firstly piss off right-wingers by coming out in support of a trade union on QT, and then pissing of lefties by spectacularly backtracking.
So pissing off everyone then - a great position for a career politician with aims of becoming party leader to be in.
And it of course portrays him as indecisive and with poor judgement, which aren't exactly recognised leadership qualities.
Corbyn’s 2017 stuff would be a good start
Here here.
And defend it like there's no tomorrow.
There will no significant change until this happens. It will be the same old deteriorating UK until we go for this.
The complete embarrassment that is the current Labour party is not acknowledging the concept that offering very little - results in very little change to people's lives.
It's not hard. Up your game.
It was 30 years ago? We don’t live in those times.
Was just going to say the same. Politics 30 years ago was very different.
Outcomes were no better as still Tory party rule but although politicians have always had a reputation for lying/hiding the truth they seemed to be more capable and better people back then.
Society has also been changed massively due to internet/social media changing campaigning and approaches to selling the party (which possibly helped Corby with younger voters)
Not sure you actually need to be a character but you need to be a bit more memorable and likeable than Starter. I see May as similar to Starmer and we don't need to compare her results to Johnson do we (yes I realise Brexit skewed it so not quite as clear cut)
Of course carry on slagging off the opposition, it’s cool…Just remember this passes the next election to the conservatives
I think some of us have been fairly constructive about why the opposition is not even an opposition, and why that's failing everyone.
Politics 30 years ago was very different.
You do realise that the current Labour leadership's strategy is based on the 1997 formula don't you?
Despite the fact that the situation today is totally different to what it was then, including the once undeniable fact that working-class voters would always vote Labour no matter how crap they might be.
History provides important lessons, it helps to understand what might work again and why, it also helps to understand what might not work again and why.
To ignore history is daft, but so is it to assume that history will repeat itself under different conditions.
Of course carry on slagging off the opposition, it’s cool…Just remember this passes the next election to the conservatives
I think some of us have been fairly constructive about why the opposition is not even an opposition, and why that’s failing everyone.
Its a fine like to walk. Of course we'd all like the very best from the leader of the opposition but the reality is that the next prime minister will be the leader of the Labour party or the leader of the Conservative party, whoever that is at the time. The Tories are very good at backing their guy, even if they don't like them. Labour supporters seem to do the opposite. Look at what happened with Corbyn. I'll take Starmer over Johnson in a heartbeat, and that is the choice right now.
To ignore history is daft
Of course it is. But as ever, you are super selective to keep ramming home the same points, over and over, ‘till all the wise people just avoid this thread.
In 1992, we didn’t have smart phones, we didn’t have Facebook, we didn’t have a Scottish Government, we hadn’t “taken back control”. UK politics is barely recognisable from 15 years ago, never mind 30.
I’ll take Starmer over Johnson in a heartbeat, and that is the choice right now.
Me too.
I will not only be voting that way at the next general election, but I will be doing all I can to help the local Labour candidate to get elected, and reduce the Conservative seat count by one. The lazy among us (like myself) can’t just sit back and cast our solitarily votes any more, we’ve got to get stuck in and campaign. These local elections were a practise for me… glad I helped for the first time… I’m going to really put my back into when it comes to the general election, and offer to do anything anytime.
I know I’ve always been critical of him, and have been perhaps too clear too often that I don’t think he is the best chance/choice as leader to get Labour into government, but he is head and shoulders a better proposition for PM than Johnson or any of his more likely successors as leader of the Conservative party. Those trying hard to create false equivalence between Starmer and Johnson can get in the sea. It’s just utter nonsense.
but the reality is that the next prime minister will be the leader of the Labour party or the leader of the Conservative party.....
......I’ll take Starmer over Johnson in a heartbeat, and that is the choice right now.
Ironically, and it is very ironic, those are not sentiments which you share with Starmer.
Starmer was hugely influential in the campaign to undermine the previous Labour opposition leader, including being part of coordinated front bench resignations to inflict maximum damage on him. The former leader then attempted unsuccessfully to placate him by making him shadow brexit minster.
Starmer still can't say to this day that any Labour Party Prime Minister would be better than Boris Johnson:
And to be fair I have little doubt that Starmer would prefer Johnson to Corbyn as PM, after all he is much closer politically to Johnson than he is to Corbyn. In fact many people claim that when it comes to policies they can't see much difference between the two.
But as ever, you are super selective to keep ramming home the same points, over and over, ‘till all the wise people just avoid this thread.
Jesus you can't avoid getting personal can you, especially when you have a weak argument.
But surely you ramming the same points over and over again has all those wise people rushing to the thread?
The difference between this thread and the Boris Johnson thread is that on the Boris Johnson thread it's great to slag off the subject matter and it has people queuing up to do precisely that.
On this thread it is considered by many, including obviously you, to be totally unacceptable to slag off the subject matter.
Which of course leaves only one option, which is to post what a great guy Starmer is and what a wonderful job he's doing as Leader of the Opposition.
Which under the present situation in which even senior Labour politicians are starting to express their dissatisfaction with Starmer's leadership, has its obvious limitations.
Without criticism of Starmer this thread would be reduced to the tumble weed scenario.
You've got to take the positives, I think he does a good job of promoting Blue Harbour.
Loving Starmer calling Johnson Jabba the Hut, more of this please.
That means nothing to me, never saw any of those films. Ken Loach would've been a better choice but...
Why go in for name-calling when he should be attacking on policy. It's not a comedy, people's lives are being upended here.
I dont think Starmer should be making jokes, he doesnt have the delivery to make them work and it's obviously a poor attempt to make him seem cuddly. He should concentrate on presenting the facts and presenting alternatives. It might be boring, but it's honest. The press/people who care more about personality arent goiung to change their mind anyway,
I’ll take Starmer over Johnson in a heartbeat, and that is the choice right now.
The only point I'm personally concerned with - Starmer is simply not very good and hasn't made much of a dent so it doesn't look like you're going to get Starmer.
His performance hasn't yielded satisfactory gains.
So why do we always reset to Starmer is better than Johnson - a clam is better than Johnson but it's not going to get elected.
Labour supporters really do need to have better aspirations.
yeah but the insulting 15 second sound bites are what goes round soical media and the more chances he can to take the P out of jabba the better. Insults shame johnson and he's in need of a good dose of public shaming.
Insults shame johnson and he’s in need of a good dose of public shaming.
Do that - fine - but offer something better in the process.
Truth? Not something often associated with Blair.
Sure, but I think that came later, and with very good reason. It's a long time ago but I don't particularly remember him being thought of as dishonest in the earlier part of his leadership.
The difference between this thread and the Boris Johnson thread is that on the Boris Johnson thread it’s great to slag off the subject matter and it has people queuing up to do precisely that.
On this thread it is considered by many, including obviously you, to be totally unacceptable to slag off the subject matter.
Which of course leaves only one option, which is to post what a great guy Starmer is and what a wonderful job he’s doing as Leader of the Opposition
yeah the Johnson thread is never called toxic. Because it's an easy game that one.
I hold the leader of the Labour party to a higher standard than the Tories - so I'm likely more disappointed and critical with the party that could actually change things, and one that I would like to vote for.
It’s a long time ago but I don’t particularly remember him being thought of as dishonest in the earlier part of his leadership.
He wasn't but what he did offer and sold very well was something better for people. And I would say under his government it was better for people generally (don't mention the war)
I’ll take Starmer over Johnson in a heartbeat, and that is the choice right now.
Starmer will be a disastrous PM. He'll govern with a restrained technocratic managerialist approach which will do nothing to help working people and further entrench neoliberalism, and in the process will destroy labour as an electoral force in England. This will not only hand perpetual power to the tories, but will also embolden and empower future populists like Farage and Johnson. If you have any hope for a future in this country which includes publicly provided services, a functioning welfare state, and worker protections which prevent us becoming wage slaves then Starmer is a very scary prospect.
Unless of course those who say 'wait til they get in power, then they can do good stuff' are right and Starmer is keeping his powder dry waiting for his opportunity to unleash radically progressive policies which will roll back 40 years of neoliberalism. I suppose that's possible, but seriously, does anyone really think that's going to happen?
does anyone really think that’s going to happen?
What's your purpose here dazh? (I know I know, your goal in posting is personal entertainment because it's the internet and nothing you say matters, but still...) You look at what the Tories are doing right now on every front and you think in comparison Starmer would be a disaster?
So let's undermine him, or just do this anyway because that's what the evil centerists did to St Corbyn (who I voted for) because, because... er, that'll show everyone?
Really? I'd like to see Starmer be PM, very much so in fact, because he'll be decent and competent and make things fairer and better for most people.
He wasn’t but what he did offer and sold very well was something better for people. And I would say under his government it was better for people generally (don’t mention the war)
He could've been an excellent Prime Minister - there were some serious accomplishments during Labour's first term.
Really? I’d like to see Starmer be PM, very much so in fact, because he’ll be decent and competent and make things fairer and better for most people.
Why do you think that?
Unless of course those who say ‘wait til they get in power, then they can do good stuff’ are right and Starmer is keeping his powder dry waiting for his opportunity to unleash radically progressive policies which will roll back 40 years of neoliberalism.
The idea that Starmer is some sort of closet social democrat committed to a mixed economy and universal welfare state, and is simply waiting to secure power to announce his real aims and radical policies, suggests that those who subscribe to such a scenario consider Starmer to be extraordinarily dishonest and that he has a desire to deliberately mislead people.
Which when considering the criticisms of Johnson is a bizarre argument for anyone who supports Starmer to make.
The reality is that should Starmer ever become PM he will almost certainly swing to the right - that's what generally happens, not to the left.
I fear that we are currently seeing Starmer the opposition leader at his most radical. And he has been swinging further and further to the right since becoming leader.
An awful lot hinges on Durham police (again)
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1537540779245436929
What’s your purpose here dazh?
Work avoidance and general procrastination. Isn't that what this place is for? 😕
Really? I’d like to see Starmer be PM, very much so in fact, because he’ll be decent and competent and make things fairer and better for most people.
The evidence of his leadership to date suggests he'll be the very opposite of decent and competent. He lied to the membership to win the leadership. He's conducted a ruthless witch hunt to silence and remove left wing voices from the party, and has completely failed to communicate to voters what he will do if in power. And on the competency front, christ, he couldn't even sack his deputy when he wanted to and has let Johnson off the hook on covid even after nearly 200k people have died and he partied through the lockdowns. He's a dud, and everyone, including his shadow cabinet knows it.
I was inspired by Corbyn, joined the Labour Party during his tenure, voted for him on every occasion, and identified with most of his policies. The guy didn't break through to enough of the electorate though, he wasn't ruthless enough to get a grip on the right of his party, and he wasn't media savvy. Realistically he didn't have a chance.
However, is the choice between Blo-jo and Starmer really that tough though?
My own politics are socialist / centre left, but give me centre right, neoliberal policies over swivel-eyed-loon-gammon-Brexiter-BNP-lite any day.
If we don't get behind what we have to work with, then there really is no hope.
He wasn’t but what he did offer and sold very well was something better for people.
Even in the early part he was PR sound bite driven which helped promote the culture we ended up with.
His doubling down on the tories policies also helped reinforce the idea that they were the only option and also gave the "well they are all the same" a boost.
If we don’t get behind what we have to work with, then there really is no hope.
There's absolutely nothing to get behind. The only real hope is that Durham police do us all a favour and force him to resign.
There’s absolutely nothing to get behind
This. He reneged on his leadership manifesto and has offered nothing in its place. I have absolutely no idea what he stands for, but do know that he lied in order to secure votes.
^^^^^^
A politician who lies. That's settled it for me then. Might as well vote for Boris, or the Lib Dems or Greens (which means a Boris win by proxy). I see the light!
has let Johnson off the hook on covid even after nearly 200k people have died
How would you rate this country's performance on COVID deaths relative to the rest of Europe?
How would you rate this country’s performance on COVID deaths relative to the rest of Europe?
Are you defending Johnson's record on covid?
The covid issue is a good bellweather of Starmer's competence though. He somehow allowed the tories to paint him as 'captain hindsight', 'captain lockdown', or 'sniping from the sidelines in a time of crisis' even though he supported almost all of their covid policies and didn't present any of his own. Then he took a high and mighty position on partygate with the knowledge that he himself was not immune to accusations of inappropriate gatherings and now finds himself at the mercy of a chief constable in Durham. It's simple rank incompetence, caused by an underlying failure to challenge the tories on anything of substance for fear of upsetting people and newspapers who will never support him anyway.