It is pointless posturing when a GE will not happen!
Of course it will happen. There is a legal requirement.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in pointing out that only a change of government is what is needed not a change of Tory leader. Obviously it's a bit radical, probably too radical for Starmer, but that's the message that Labour should be driving home. Not telling the Tories to change their leader.
Edit : Labour should be campaigning for the next general election right now. It should be telling the British people right now what to expect from the next Labour government. It should be talking as if it believed in itself. It should be making the British people "impatient" for change.
I see the merit in most of the arguments about, regarding good bet you did is of the Tory party, in truth we just don't know which one is best at the moment.
I think (really hope) that '22 shots see its coming out of the pandemic to endemic levels of Covid. There's likely to take some pursue of the Tories and let them take credit for it.
However, the country is in an utter mess even if the worst effects of that are still hidden mostly.
In all honestly, if I were Truss, Sunak or whoever, no way would I want to be the next PM after Boris! Didn't they see what happened to May on the Brexit alter?
The next couple of years are going to be horrendous for many in the country, effecting even some of those that escaped even the '07 crisis. About the only flip side to that is I do now believe there it's a strong possibility we might not have to endure the Tories for another decade.
If Labour do get in, in '24, they have an almost impossible task but at least they won't be pulling is further down the plug hole intentionally.
Brexit is likely to be the undoing of at least another 2 Prime Minister's though.
Calling for a general election is the kind of thing Jeremy Cotbyn would do.
Of course it will happen. There is a legal requirement.
In 2 and a half years time
What do you think calling for a GE now will achieve?
You do realise that the leader of the Opposition can't call a general election don't you?
Perhaps I should have been more aware that every word I write might be taken literally but what I am suggesting is that Starmer should be making the point that what Britian needs is a change of government, not a change of Tory leader.
It is clear that many Tories want to change their leader so that the public perception of them changes, I have no idea why Starmer feels he needs to get involved in that.
Starmer claims that Johnson is guilty of "deceit and deception" and unable to lead. Surely he should be making the point that the Tories are guilty of "deceit and deception" and unable to lead?
Edit : Ref : "many Tories want to change their leader so that the public perception of them changes". It's worth remembering that many Tories also want him gone so that the party can embrace a more right-wing Thatcherite agenda, they would much prefer Liz Truss as leader, or even Sunak. Which is why they are exploiting the situation. Right-wing columnists in the Telegraph, Mail, and Express, have been gunning for Johnson long before partygate.
I quite agree - the point being that calling for a GE that will not happen makes Starmer look weak and daft IMO
What do you think calling for a GE now will achieve?
And what will calling for swapping Johnson for Truss/Sunak/etc achieve
Johnsons exit, however…..
And what people might be missing is, that if Johnson is replaced, it brings an election closer. His successor will need their own mandate, and have a short honeymoon period. If Labour can then successfully tarnish his successor with Johnson’s now obvious to all self serving lying stench, they have a chance at that election. I still think it’ll take a small miracle for them to win with someone as dull as Starmer as leader… but we can hope.
Labour should be campaigning for the next general election right now. It should be telling the British people right now what to expect from the next Labour government. It should be talking as if it believed in itself. It should be making the British people “impatient” for change.
I can only guess. These come to mind ... save the planet, more carbon tax, more energy tax, Clean Air Zone tax in all cities, no private vehicles unless electric vehicles become the standard, old vehicles or those with "high carbon emission" tax to the hilt, council tax payment increase, give EU more concessions to get into their good book, income tax increase, more benefits to buy votes, bigger council/public sector recruitment, more cycle lanes, more city centres ban vehicles, force people to use public transport, income tax increase unless you earn peanuts, more race related issues (polarisation) , regeneration of locations only benefits the few etc. Some party members also want a "proportionate representation".
Oh my god… more cycle lanes?!? Sound like dangerous radicals to me.
Oh my god… more cycle lanes?!? Sound like dangerous radicals to me.
You really don't have space for cycle lanes in certain cities. Simply squeeze into the car lanes is not a solution.
And what people might be missing is, that if Johnson is replaced, it brings an election closer.
Why?
Whilst Johnson, to chose a random hypocritical arse, happily slated Brown for not calling a election immediately I cant see why any Johnsons replacement would call an election early even if we get given quotes of them announcing "anyone who takes over as PM should call an election or be summarily executed".
The only reason they would call it early is if they think they will win and I would tend towards they would want some time to claim a fresh broom and clear the Johnson stench.
... they would want some time to claim a fresh broom and clear the Johnson stench.
They have no other credible candidates to replace Johnson at the moment. To replace Johnson now will certainly get them in trouble going into the next GE. As the saying goes "if it ain't broken, don't fix it".
Labour wants Johnson out because they can't out shire his charisma with a lawyer Max Headroom or Angela look at me Rayner.
Why?
Whilst Johnson, to chose a random hypocritical arse, happily slated Brown for not calling a election immediately I cant see why any Johnsons replacement would call an election early even if we get given quotes of them announcing “anyone who takes over as PM should call an election or be summarily executed”.
100% agree, with an 80 seat majority Tories will leave it until the latest possible moment to call an election
Any new leader will want to call an election within 12 months, before the public tire of them. Not doing so risks them being ousted due to sliding polls before we get to the next election. Remember, this is the Tories, not Labour… they won’t hesitate to swap leaders quickly if they feel they need to. Any new leader needs to prove themselves at the polls fast, during their honeymoon period, to avoid a very short time at the top.
If Tories want to be the clown they can keep banging on the "green" agenda to save the planet.
Any new leader will want to call an election within 12 months, before the public tire of them
Why? How many PMs who took power in office met this criteria of yours?
The key requirement is enough time to be noticed and be able to blame everything bad on their predecessor. That doesnt have a strict one year time limit.
they won’t hesitate to swap leaders quickly if they feel they need to. Any new leader needs to prove themselves at the polls fast
Often stated but not really supported by the evidence. The majority only got the boot after election failure
If I took over as leader there is no way I would be holding an election until the dust has settled/people have forgotten all about some of the crap that has gone on. They may have forgotten most of it by 2024.
Unless of course I had very strong and consistent polling that suggests the 80 seat majority would not be completely lost. Even then it is still risky depending on how good or bad the Labour party are on capitalising on the Tory shenanigans of the last few years.
Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) Tweeted: “I’m not in favour of nationalisation” says Keir Starmer, saying it doesn’t work.
Won’t have consequences anytime soon but the level of lying when he ran for leader was utterly extraordinary.
https://t.co/OGgOM5eaag https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1483022936860762116?s=20
unfortunatly thats not what he actually said. But then what he did say does not fit the narrative some of you want
There are plenty of other ways of bringing themback into pubic ownership without whole scale nationalisation
Not for profit companies, mutuals, etc etc
Aaron bastani making things up!, well I never
He says in the above clip "I'm not in favour of nationalisation"
During the election campaign he said he was.
During the election campaign he said he was.
He is still saying that he is, according to his website :
"Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system."
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" - Marx
the missing bit is "top down" which rather changes the meaning
For example do you think Scottish water is nationalised or a different form of public ownership?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water
Other forms are available as well. Mutuals, not for profit corporations, etc etc
Are people expecting Labour to still be pushing for the nationalisation that they were in 2019? I mean, I was (and am) fully in favour of all the infrastructure nationalisation they were proposing (water, energy, and, yes, even the much laughed about broadband/telcom stuff) but if they run with all that again, the electorate are going to run a mile. They should have stuck with one or two nationalisation projects, and if they had won, and proven they could deliver, proposed more further down the line.
Starmer's "Common ownership" looks like weasel words for those that thought that could only mean state ownership of energy companies (and mail, energy and water companies as well)... but it can mean many things. My fear is that by the time an election comes around it'll mean absolutely nothing... and deliberately so... because so many English voters are (with no good modern day reason in my opinion) scared of any alternative to shareholder capitalism... despite its failings, especially as regards delivering the essentials of life, being laid before them repeatedly.
Aaron bastani making things up!, well I never
I heard that LBC interview this morning.
What is Bastani making up?
unfortunatly thats not what he actually said. But then what he did say does not fit the narrative some of you want
Eh?
Starmer's Labour is very much let the market sort it out with bits of government tinkering. It doesn't work, it's a cop-out as a redistributive exercise.
Neo-Lab.
There is a clip of Starmer putting his hand up to renationalising water and leccy in his leadership campaign on a TV show.
Now, given thing have gotten so much worse with regards to energy companies since 2020 then why would you now move away from that?
Highest Starmer has been so far
Be interesting to see where he'd be facing a nre tory leader
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1483137177496301568?t=R1HZWfIRj3XC__WsZHCovA&s=19
I’m looking at a poll giving Labour a 13 point lead over the Conservatives… I’ll post it once I’ve convinced myself that it isn’t fake. A 13 point lead… with a leader doing an impression of cardboard cutout of himself. Hard to believe it. If it’s genuine, it’s a small but real moment of hope.
Labour getting 25% of 2019 Tory deserters, 50% to don't know & 25% to 'others'
rone - the words "top down" which somewhat changed the meaning and also the explanation that there are other ways of public ownership than outright "nationalisation"
Did you have a look at the scottish water example I gave? Its not nationalised as most of us would recognise but is publicly owned
Are people expecting Labour to still be pushing for the nationalisation that they were in 2019?
Whyever not?
I’m sure you can answer that yourself.
Because 8% of voters now strongly oppose nationalisation of the utilities?
Because 4% of voters now strongly oppose nationalisation of the railways?
Because nationalisation is still simply too popular?
I’m sure you can answer that yourself.
Because he's increasingly in thrall to the right-wing Blairites and/or he was just pretending to believe all that stuff when he thought he needed to?
Take any single nationalisation plan, and it polls well. Tell people that Labour are going to privatise a whole series of infrastructure sectors (all of which I happen to think should be returned to the public sector) and they vote against Labour. They don’t trust Labour to deliver all that. Promise a few nationalisations (or other forms of common ownership), prove that you can deliver them… then the public will trust you when you propose more. Taking the 2019 manifesto to the public again at the next election would be madness.
Taking the 2019 manifesto to the public again at the next election would be madness.
Of course it would be, it included vote losing stuff like calling for a second referendum.
But that has nothing to do with your claim that Labour shouldn't be "pushing for the nationalisation that they were in 2019".
No one has mentioned the 2019 manifesto apart from you.
You haven't provided any proof that nationalisation of the utilities/ public services doesn't enjoy huge public support, even among Tory voters.
You haven’t provided any proof that nationalisation of the utilities/ public services doesn’t enjoy huge public support, even among Tory voters.
Why would I? I said that people support those nationalisations. They just don’t trust Labour when they propose carrying them all out.
They just don’t trust Labour when they propose carrying them all out.
So now you are claiming that voters don't trust Labour to carry out nationalisation of public services. Your claims are getting more and more bizarre Kelvin.
But okay if that really is the case then all the more reason why Starmer should be convincing voters of his commitment, instead of claiming that he's not in favour of nationalisation, contrary to his own website.
Idealogically opposed to nationalisation without any sensible explanation - which is the only route to decarbonisation I can see.
All his words about common ownership etc are just skirting around a different name for shareholders.
(And let's not say wait and see because whenever we wait and see with Starmer he pops something up so uninspiring and useless - green recovery bonds. FFS)
Where does this utter shite idea of pushing a sector for the benefit of shareholders ever get us?
It's insane.
Ideological purity blah blah blah.
Now more than ever we just need the political will, and the investment.
This is a missed opportunity to talk up a Left approach to rebuild.
Starmer is so obsessed with parties and wallpaper he's forgotten about inspiring and mobilising people.
Labour might be storming in the polls but they are heading into a Tory trap that they can't do anything about.
All his words about common ownership etc are just skirting around a different name for shareholders.
Did you look at the scottish water example Iinked to?
Also I don't think Starmer knows what he means by decentralised common ownership.
It does however say public services in public hands in his top ten failed pledges. And he did support nationalisation in the leadership campaign.
The status quo is broken and yet he seeks to follow the status quo.
Did you look at the scottish water example? its state or public ownership but not nationalisation as we know it.
