He doesn't have the skill to deal with doorstepping at all, does he? Useless. But I have strong memories of previous Labour leaders trying to respond off the cuff in situations like this, and completely ballsing it up, Brown especially.
Anyway... policy...
https://labourlist.org/2021/09/labour-for-a-green-new-deal-policy-motion-backed-by-conference/
...very messy. Starmer is going to have to let a lot of people down. Personally I think the GMB should get back in their box. I also think Starmer currently running backwards at speed about the energy "market" is out of step with what really needs doing, just as more of the public are coming to terms with the changes we need.
He doesn’t have the skill to deal with doorstepping at all, does he?
He does have the skill, he just thinks he's too important to talk to young members and activists about the issues that concern them. He'll listen to chief executives though, and lobbyists paid by billionaires and other commercial interests. That's all you need to know about him.
He didn't listen to them because they were from the left of the party and as we all know people from the left of the party are nasty troublemakers/possibly anti-semitic/have the forbidden opinion that the EHRC report was a bit of a stitch-up and Jeremy Corbyn wasn't the devil.
He does have the skill
No, he doesn't. He freezes in front of the public. Goes stoney faced and tries to get away from them asap. GNDRising have caught him out before in much the same way.
EDIT: it might have been "Labour for a Green New Deal" actually, I lose track. Anyway, he's shit at talking off the cuff to people on the street. He shouldn't avoid it though, he should engage. Or move aside for someone that can.
this is pre-fuel crisis, mid gas crisis revelations
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1442457412087140355
this is why Johnson wont go for an early election
With the wider public starmer can come out of the conference better than he went in, the worry for the Tories is that while the current crises will abate and xmas wont be a disaster, they just cant be sure what the next one will be and with no actual plans on how to reach the sunlit uplands, theres a route for starmer to offer something better
Have we not touched on the highlight of the conference so far?
Jezza being heckled by his own brother
Absolutely hatstand, the pair of them 🤣
this is why Johnson wont go for an early election
Generally though all the Labour increases are blips from a long term trend in the Tories favours.
Let's see what happens after a couple of weeks.
Or move aside for someone that can.
It's funny cos I know of one guy who was amazing at talking to normal people 😄
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/he-leader-need-jeremy-corbyn-10629102
Shame he was terrible at winning elections
kelvin
Full MemberNo, he doesn’t. He freezes in front of the public. Goes stoney faced and tries to get away from them asap. GNDRising have caught him out before in much the same way.
I think it's just a side effect of not having any beliefs or opinions of his own, or at least, nothing he'll ever admit to. Everything has to be focus-grouped and discussed to death and then tested and rehearsed and speech-written. Does he support the green new deal? Maybe but he'll have to check his big book of pre-checked thinks to be sure and he'll get back to you in a couple of days.
Shame he was terrible at winning elections
Well I don't know about you but I'd much rather have a leader of the labour party who genuinely cares for normal people and feels comfortable with them than arrogant c**k like Starmer. As I've said many times, just imagine the difference it would make to have a PM who is genuinely compassionate and interested in the lives of normal working people rather than an elitist snob like Starmer or Boris.
My statement was nothing to do with Starmer. As Grum kindly shows Corbyn lost 2 elections in a row.
Maybe but he’ll have to check his big book of pre-checked thinks to be sure and he’ll get back to you in a couple of days.
Exactly Northwind - "um, could you just ask Peter Mandelson what his £2000 a day consultants are saying today, I find it hard to keep up TBH. Whatever the safe middle of the road option is?"
As Grum kindly shows Corbyn lost 2 elections in a row.
It's funny how people see what they want to isn't it. It also shows that he did considerably better in 2017 than a lot of 'centrists' ever did.
The last election was widely considered to be largely about Brexit, can you remember who was in charge of Labour's Brexit policy?
just imagine the difference it would make to have a PM who is genuinely compassionate and interested in the lives of normal working people
It would be great. Corbyn had that quality, but failed twice.
It’s funny cos I know of one guy who was amazing at talking to normal people
You say this as if Labour should have kept him. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is unlikely to happen.
Is Starmer the right person for the job? It doesn't look like it at the moment, but I would much rather a Labour government led by him than a Troy one led by Johnson. Small steps but unfortunately some people feel its all or nothing which will result in more Tory rule.
Where did I say he did better or worse than the centrists? Blair clearly did better than the Tories as he got elected. The fact remains Corbyn lost twice, its that simple.
It’s funny how people see what they want to isn’t it.
Is this meant to be ironic?
It’s funny how people see what they want to isn’t it. It also shows that he did considerably better in 2017 than a lot of ‘centrists’ ever did.
Singularly the most stupid comment I've seen on this thread, and there have been some humdingers.
Is this meant to be ironic?
No it's meant to apply to people on both 'sides'.
Singularly the most stupid comment I’ve seen on this thread, and there have been some humdingers.
Singularly the least constructive comment on this thread.
Grum, are you seriously suggesting Corby did better than Blair?
The only thing that matters is getting elected with our FPTP system. Blair won twice, Corbyn lost twice. Looking at it in any other way while we have FPTP is pointless.
You say this as if Labour should have kept him.
I said it for no other reason than winding up the centrist cynics on here. Our leaders don’t have to be self-interested arseholes, and we’d all be better off if they weren’t. Instead though people who should know better demonise and ridicule those who aren’t, and then surprise, surprise we end up with arseholes in charge.
Grum, are you seriously suggesting Corby did better than Blair?
Nope. I'm saying he did better than people with an agenda like to make out when compared to other labour leaders. And we will never know how he would have done if he had the full support of the party rather than people actively working against him.
I don't think he should still be leader, but I also don't think we should throw out everything that he represented and go back to a bland corporate Labour party that stands for nothing and is afraid of its own shadow.
He did better than a lot of people expected in 2017 for sure. He then did spectacularly worse!
Just think where Labour could be now if they'd opposed triggering Article 50.
🤷♂️
Brexiteer Corbyn could barely contain his glee in getting that triggered immediately.
Corbyn lost the second time for a number of reasons. The one he could influence was clear, concise messaging. He failed spectacularly there. The election was all about Brexit and he couldn't/wouldn't answer a simple question on it. On top of that it was obvious that the 2nd referendum policy was unpopular. The vast majority of Brexit voters (52% of the biggest turnout ever) would vote for the party saying "get Brexit done" regardless of how they did it or what their other policies were. Boris could have said he would set the hounds on children from unmarried couples and still won because he promised to "get Brexit done".
However, the Tories were terrified of Corbyn. So were the rich and the media. So they targeted him with thousands upon thousands of lies, untruths and believable distortions of facts on TV, in the papers and particularly on social media. Was it 88% of Tory advertising on SM was proven to be dishonest? But it gained traction and became truth through repetition, causing massive amounts of people who get their only news/views from SM to turn their back on Labour.
Starmer isn't getting destroyed in anything like the same way because he isn't anything like the same level of threat. He is more or less ignored by the media. Very little that he says makes it to the ears/eyes of a huge portion of the voting public. That is what he needs to fix to stand any hope. Not only does he need clear, concise messaging, he needs the messaging to be heard, read and repeated. Then he needs detail behind that messaging and he needs all his MPs to be delivering the same message. So many times he says one thing and someone else says something else. On TV during the conference the shadow chancellor has said that income tax would not be increased under Labour, but Starmer refused to rule out an increase in income tax. At least the Tories usually stick to the same story, even when it's total bollocks.
Is Starmer the best Labour have to lead them into the next election? I'm still not sure. If he can start being heard that would be a start. Doing well at PMQs means nothing if less than 1% of voters watch it. He needs a HUGE social media campaign. He needs to make a huge impact through mainstream media. He needs a united party who all focus on getting the Tories out rather than getting the party to be what several different factions want it to be. They should ALL want the party to be in government, which means they ALL need to compromise and come together behind Starmer and promote the same message. He isn't a threat to BoJo because he is being looked at as a threat by many on his own side and every Tory can point that out in every friendly newspaper and TV programme.
He then did spectacularly worse!
After being branded a ‘f***ing racist’ by vocal rightwingers in his own party and following the suicidal brexit policy designed by the current leader.
Just think where Labour could be now if they’d opposed triggering Article 50.
Almost certainly the same as where they are now.
Almost certainly the same as where they are now
Laughable that this is still even brought up.
Just think where Labour could be now if they’d opposed triggering Article 50.
Really?
Almost certainly the same as where they are now.
You keep telling yourselves that, lads.
https://twitter.com/LouiseEllman/status/1442489286163668997
Just remember kids, it's ok to conflate Israel and Jewish people if you're trying to deny that any criticism of an apartheid regime is legitimate.
Just when Starmer's supporters were claiming the factional war was over. This is going to cause bedlam.. 😂
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1442523876093829120?s=20
Who?
Who?
The guy who's responsible for one of the key bits of policy which forms part of Angela Rayner's remit. The fact that Starmer is obstructing one of the key bits of policy that Rayner has been pushing, and that it's about low pay is going to cause shockwaves. This could well be the end of him in fact.
Rayner and Starmer are clearly at loggerheads. First she expresses public annoyance that the argument over leadership election rules overshadowed her speech. Then she voices her opposition to those rules, and steals the press attention away from Starmer's victory with her scum comments. Now her right hand man resigns on the eve of Starmer's speech on an issue which goes to the heart of what the labour party is supposed to do. It's going to be messy.
Who?
Just a fella speaking up for the low paid. Nothing to worry your well remunerated head about.
allanoleary
Full MemberCorbyn lost the second time for a number of reasons. The one he could influence was clear, concise messaging. He failed spectacularly there. The election was all about Brexit and he couldn’t/wouldn’t answer a simple question on it.
And who masterminded that strategy? Corbyn bears responsibility for following it as leader, but it was Starmer's bright idea.
And the thing about that is, it's not in isolation- look at most of the issues he's faced since. He doesn't want to take strong positions, to do anything that can either alienate on one hand or inspire on the other, he's always looking for the next 650b strategy.
Just a fella speaking up for the low paid. Nothing to worry your well remunerated head about.
Ok... I'll go back to counting my millions in my enormous mansion then
Could you have somebody bring me a deep-fried swan, theres a good man?
The idea that maybe we could pay people a wage that means that those who work full-time don't need the government to top it up is basically communism apparently.
To be fair, Keir could have kept his party together a bit on this one, the reality is that they have no real power to change the minimum wage, but backing it at least gives them an argument that they are the party pushing for this, and give them the time to plot out some plans before the next election.
Labour need to heal the party then focus on what the art of the possible is, you can't keep everyone happy, but you can at least provide evidence why it's not going to happen when you actually have the ability to change.
Isn’t this just a mirror image of the showy resignations that happened early on when Corbyn was attempting to unite the party with his cabinet choices?
While I like the idea of a minimum wage that would apply to over half of workers, the devil is in the detail. £15 an hour now, or in the first year of a Labour government, or something to aim for by the end of a first term? What exactly was he asked to argue against? What did he want the party to commit to?
While I like the idea of a minimum wage that would apply to over half of workers, the devils is in the detail.
So you like the idea but not if it means actually doing it? It's a fairly simple question, do you support it or not?
To be fair, Keir could have kept his party together a bit on this one
If he was interested in doing that, but it's yet another confirmation that he's only interested in the opposite. He thinks because he 'won' (as in only scraped through his plan b) the vote on leadership election rules he now has carte blanche to rip everything else up and go full tory-lite.
kelvin
Full MemberIsn’t this just a mirror image of the showy resignations that happened early on when Corbyn was attempting to unite the party with his cabinet choices?
Not really. Corbyn reached out to the whole party and a bunch of those took the appointments with the full intention of quitting, and then worked together to cause maximum damage and embarassment when they did so, with some even talking to the media to decide when the most damaging time to quit would be. Andy Mcdonald doesn't show any sign of anything like that.
Starmer clearly has binners affliction for not remembering what he thought or said about something only a few months ago.
https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1442546896426336267?s=20
Andy Mcdonald doesn’t show any sign of anything like that.
He didn’t need to talk to the media to know that the first real party conference for the new leader was the most damaging time to resign. He absolutely calculated when to quit for maximum negative impact. Why do you surmise otherwise?
So you like the idea but not if it means actually doing it?
No, I meant what I said. The devil is in the detail. What was he asked to argue against? A £15 minimum wage now? Year one of a Labour government? First term of a Labour government? As an aim without a timeline? Without knowing that detail, we know nothing. What did he want Labour to call for or commit to?
Personally, I want a minimum basic income, not wage, because if workers needs a minimum to live, so do those who can’t work due to illness, or are between jobs, or in a seasonal lull, or, heaven forbid, there is a pandemic.
The event which he cites as being the reason for his quitting happened yesterday, so, there's that.
He absolutely calculated when to quit for maximum negative impact. Why do you surmise otherwise?
He was instructed to defend Starmer's u-turn, which he fundamentally disagreed with. What would you have him do?
Until I know the details around the “£15” fallout, I’m open to the idea that it’s a bullshit excuse for a move long planned. He’s still a politician.
