Rubbish. As the official opposition they have significant leverage on the policies, actions and behaviour of the govt.
I think this is the single most deluded thing I have seen posted on a politics thread
Just how is he supposed to do that with the tories having and 80- seat majority
Just how is he supposed to do that with the tories having and 80- seat majority
Do I really need to explain? An opposition’s leverage is fuelled by the electoral threat they present. Majorities can be overturned, MPs naturally fear losing their seats, so they will take action to save themselves when they think that might happen.
Starmer should be scaring the shit out of at least a 100 tory MPs. So far only a handful have declared their opposition to Johnson.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1487516193405681667?t=cMdU6EOI9aXq9VzsJmD1Zw&s=19
Defecting Tory MPs and off the scale corruption really hitting the spot.
The polls are all over the shop for sure but they really shouldn't be. There should be no room for Tories pulling back currently.
Never heard anything so daft in my life. Name one time where this has happened that a party with a big majority has been scared by the opposition into changing policy. Not a tiny majority but a big one
One instance of this
NO? I thought not
If you think that Scotland is more culturally liberal than England then fair enough, but give a cultural example to make your point.
Note the quote from Sturgeon
Or how about Bashir Ahmed - the first muslim MSP - " its not where I come from as a person, its where we are going as a nation"
Or this "as new MSPs were sworn in to what has been described as Holyrood’s most diverse ever parliament, taking their oaths in British Sign Language, Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi, Doric, Scots, Gaelic, Welsh and Orcadian, and after an election in which refugees had voting rights for the first time in Scotland."
Now what language do you take your oath in Westminster?
TJ you seem to be forgetting the most famous of all policy reversals - the poll tax and Thatcher’s downfall whilst having a 102 majority from the 87 election. Also Cameron was famous in his second term with a safe majority for nicking labour’s policies. Blair was so fearful of the tories he barely did anything at all with two massive majorities!
It’s ridiculous to say oppositions have no power. If they didn’t, democracy - even our shit dysfunctional version of it - wouldn’t work.
That was nothing to do with opposition pressure! Honestly its an absurd thesis. There was no effective opposition to thatcher at that point. Revisionism of the highest order. the poll tax was dropped because it was an electoral liability to tory core voters.
Now go on - explain how Starmer can force Johnson out and get the report published - whats the mechanism?
tj,
We've been here before, plucking individual cases to try and suggest that Scotland is less racist than England is not a good look.
Not a tiny majority but a big one
You have a short memory TJ. It was only 6 weeks ago that despite having a huge majority Johnson needed to rely on support from Labour to pass covid legislation which he deemed to be crucially important.
The negative aspect for the ruling party of having huge majority is that backbench discipline is much harder to maintain, with a very slim majority the backbenchers of a ruling party are far less likely to rebel. Generally it is expected that the Opposition fully exploits these divisions within the ruling party.
Furthermore if Marcus Rashford can force a prime minister with a huge majority to very reluctantly preform U-turns then it shouldn't be completely beyond the capabilities of the leader of the Opposition to have a similar significant effect.
The deathly silence from Starmer on many issues hardly provides Johnson with any incentives to justify his policies or perform U-turns.
Although I am sure that Starmer would very much welcome you blaming Johnson's huge majority rather than his very obvious ineptitude.
It’s ridiculous to say oppositions have no power.
You and TJ seem to be discussing two different things.
Can the opposition force the party in charge to adopt or at least claim to adopt certain politics in the run up to elections.
vs
Midterm how much power does the opposition really have against a majority in cases where the majority party is onside.
So for publishing the report I am with TJ but that the opposition can force the party in charge to respond in the mid/long term I would be with you.
I'm ambivalent towards Starmer but like him or loath him he is the Labour leader and to attempt to get rid of him anytime soon just gifts the Tories what they want.
just gifts the Tories what they want.
Why on earth would the Tories like to see him replaced?
Do they honestly think that someone else would do a worse job?
All the current Tory woes are down to self-inflicted damage and own goals and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with effective opposition.
Edit : Btw replacing Starmer is a non-issue, there is absolutely no chance of that happening. He has consolidated his position as leader and there isn't even the slightest murmurings of replacing him. The majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party is more than happy with the job he is doing/not doing.
The majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party is more than happy with the job he is doing/not doing.
Of course they are the vast majority of them don’t have to worry about losing their 80k salary and generous expenses. Pity the labour staffers don’t have the same security, although I find it hard to have much sympathy for them given the events of 2017.
Starmer's role is the same as that of Neil Kinnock, to de-toxify the Labour Party in the eyes of the electorate in order to make it electable in future.
I don't get the thinking that because Starmer isn't teaming up with Marcus Rashford voters are thinking, "you know what? I think I'll vote Conservative instead."
The Labour voters who switched to Tory at the last election will come back to Labour out of disillusionmen with the government and not because of a particular policy initiative. Politically there is no point in Labour chasing that vote.
Labour won't win with policy, their only chance of winning will be through projecting competence and not scaring the horses.
there was actually some recent research that showed people hardly changed their views as they got older
There is hope yet then. In another 20 years time the current 60+ will mostly be dead although you need to go down to current 30-39 group before Labour are ahead of Conservatives so will still be very tight especially if the turnout remains higher with the older voters.
(I know this is 2019 but note the Brexit party vote which majority would probably go back to Tory making it even worse)
I don’t get the thinking that because Starmer isn’t teaming up with Marcus Rashford voters are thinking, “you know what? I think I’ll vote Conservative instead.”
You don't get that Starmer isn't providing effective opposition to the Tories and on most issues is silent (which according to TJ is because he doesn't want to upset the right-wing press)? Try harder.
I'm loving your claim that "policy" is of no importance btw, your honesty is a breath of fresh air, if only all Starmer supporters were as honesty as that.
Starmer still maintains on his website his 10 policy driven pledges
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Labour won’t win with policy, their only chance of winning will be through projecting competence and not scaring the horses.
Baloney.
Competence (which I don't see Starmer's Labour as particular competent - they're just silent on most issues) will get you so far but the rest needs invigorating that's why you've got such low expectations.
Besides what is there to be competent about if you've not decided the actual direction of your policy?
Have you noticed how over the last few years whenever Labour comes up with a good policy the Tory party nicks it?
How about they don't scare the horses, don't give up their policy ideas to the opposition, get elected, then implement as progressive an agenda as they can get away with?
If it's a good policy then what's the harm in someone else implementing it?
Yup, it's called setting the agenda.
It's not something which Labour does very much of these days, they prefer to leave it to the Daily Mail to do that.
"If it’s a good policy then what’s the harm in someone else implementing it?"
That seems to be the status quo. I think that's what many on here see as effective opposition. Never mind forming a government, if you can provoke the incumbent administration to occasionally implement one of your policy ideas then there's no need to take the responsibility of actually running the country, you can just luxuriate on the moral high ground. Principals intact...
It is the primary role of the Opposition to provide an alternative argument, agreeing with the government renders it pretty pointless and inconsequential.
It is widely accepted that the purpose of arguing your case, whether in a court of law, parliament, etc, is to win.
Putting your case and winning the argument shouldn't be seen in some sort of negative light, it is supposed to be the goal.
It's interesting to note that those who accuse the Tory leadership of pinching Labour policies tend not to refer to it as Starmer-lite but in fact Corbyn-lite.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44621076
Of course it could be argued that the Chair of the Conservative Policy Forum used the term Corbyn-lite rather than Starmer-lite for dramatic effect and to make his point more strongly.
But firstly Starmer doesn't seem to have many policies that a Tory government could pinch. And secondly if he did have I very much doubt that the Chair of the Conservative Policy Forum would feel that strongly about them.
It is the primary role of the Opposition to provide an alternative argument
Depends entirely on the policy. It's not a game.
Same sex marriage legislation required the government and opposition to come together.
The pandemic response required the government and opposition to come together, even if disagreements were and are left hanging.
There will be no way to resolve the social care for the elderly problem we face without government and opposition working together.
"Punch and Judy politics" is good for political commentators, less so for the rest of us.
Oh, and George Freeman's comments aren't gospel.
It is the primary role of the Opposition to provide an alternative argument,
You thought that meant I was saying all government policies should be opposed by the Opposition Kelvin? That's really quite weird!
Starmer’s role is the same as that of Neil Kinnock, to de-toxify the Labour Party in the eyes of the electorate in order to make it electable in future.
I don't know why people keep saying that about Kinnock. 1992 was there for the taking but he completely screwed it up.
You thought that meant I was saying all government policies should be opposed by the Opposition Kelvin?
TBH, I could see (when I first read it) that it could be taken that way. The rest of your response clarifies it though.
"I don’t know why people keep saying that about Kinnock. 1992 was there for the taking but he completely screwed it up."
Didn't he just, but the fact that Kinnock got carried away and went all X- Factor when presented with an open goal does not change the fact that both had the job of de-toxifying the party in the eyes of the electorate.
Should he still be leader at the next GE I somehow doubt that Starmer will repeat Kinnocks mistake.
Deary me, you need to realise that Parliament is not where any significant changes come from. Don't be cowed.
Didn’t he just, but the fact that Kinnock got carried away and went all X- Factor when presented with an open goal does not change the fact that both had the job of de-toxifying the party in the eyes of the electorate.
And the evidence he did that is what exactly? All I'm seeing is an election lost that should've been won. John Smith was the leader who put Labour in a strong position.
Yeah, I saw that and thought the same Dazh…
https://twitter.com/spittingcat/status/1487806942915571716?s=21
ransos, I'm talking about this rally just before the 1992 election. Unfortunately I'm old enough that i remember it at the time. If you watch it I don't think you'll find my X-Factor jibe misplaced...
For people who remember those times, it became a meme for over- confidence, (before memes were a thing). We'll never know about John Smith as he never got to test himself at a GE, just like we can't write the script for Starmer yet.
There's another famous clip of Kinnock kicking militant tendency out of the Labour conference as well, It's his (other) most famous moment, the one where he de-toxified the Labour Party in the eyes of the electorate, (the grounds for my comparison to Starmer.)
He lost it because 'he lost it' (as the video clearly demonstrates)
There’s another famous clip of Kinnock kicking militant tendency out of the Labour conference as well, It’s his (other) most famous moment, the one where he de-toxified the Labour Party in the eyes of the electorate, (the grounds for my comparison to Starmer.)
I know the history, thanks. Ultimately the electorate didn't see him as PM material, which doesn't seem much like detoxification to me.
Starmer starting to pick up don't knows now in decent numbers
This was pre his well delivered & excoriatong speech yesterday too
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1488527308172533766?t=_uI2B9N5u6qhqvNuGneUAw&s=19
This was pre his well delivered & excoriatong speech yesterday too
This is the latest opinion poll taken yesterday :
Labour 40% (-1)
Conservative 33% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 11% (–)
Green 6% (+1)
Scottish National Party 4% (-1)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Plaid Cymru 1% (+1)
Other 1% (–)
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-31-january-2022/
So under Starmer, Labour are still 7 points ahead of the Conservatives, and 11% in the poll taken the previous day.
How can that be spun as anything other than a success for Labour under his leadership?
Are you new here?
Starmer must be given absolutely no credit for anything, EVER, under any circumstances.
The high point of Labour politics was some beardy Marxist bloke not losing an election quite as badly as everyone expected in 2017
It’s all been downhill since then and we won’t have this bloke besmirching the golden legacy of St Jeremy’s Great Triumph by doing silly things like actually being ahead in the polls and looking like a Labour government could finally be a realistic possibility!
Remember the last bloke who did that? Exactly! We don’t want any of that 13 years in power and 3 election victories nonsense!
Are you mad? That was all just awful!
Now go and have a think about what it is you’ve said and sing The Red Flag three times as penance, in front of a shrine to Tony Benn while begging Richard Burgon for forgiveness!
We shall never speak of this again
Are you new here?
Think he’s probably missed your posts from pre-2019 where you said labour should be 20 points ahead of the worst government in history.
The high point of Labour politics was some beardy Marxist bloke not losing an election quite as badly as everyone expected in 2017
No we have a new high point. Labour doing currently ok in the polls against one of the most monumentally terrible and corrupt governments in our history (but getting utterly trounced at the last by-election they actually contested).
What a time to be alive.
Let's wait until Labour actually win something before we get all triumphalist eh.
How can that be spun as anything other than a success for Labour under his leadership?
No spinning required, just some basic questions;
What has Starmer done over the last two years that has brought success - nothing
What has Johnson done to **** it up (especially over the last few months) - shit loads
Labour only win when the Tory government starts to really **** it up and even the idiots that vote for them get fed up with them. That point has temporarily been reached but they could still recover once the idiots forget all about the last 2 months but the cost of living could impact it for longer but again that would be nothing to do with Starmer.
The high point of Labour politics was some beardy Marxist bloke not losing an election quite as badly as everyone expected in 2017
Interesting that you should mention 2017 binners, because coincidentally the latest opinion poll puts Labour on 40% which is exactly the same level of support that they received in the 2017 GE - Labour are no more popular according to the latest poll than they were then.
The Tories however are considerably less popular now than they were in 2017. I'm not sure who you want to give credit for that - Johnson or Starmer? I get the impression that you want to give Starmer all the credit.
And I can't see anywhere, where anyone, at any time, has been critical of Labour leading in an opinion poll. Can you point out where you think this might have happened? TBF I might have missed it.
Of course, as already pointed out, there has been in the past one extraordinary exception - you. You are the only person I can ever recall describing opinion polls showing Labour leading as a disaster for Labour.
The majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party is more than happy with the job he is doing/not doing.
The majority of the PLP are completely anonymous, most of the rest just virtue signal on social media, then you have Richard Burgon.
OK might be unfair here but most of his frontbench are non entities, his pool of talent in the PLP woeful. In the conservatives there are clearly more in numbers ignoring the Desmond Dwayne's more that are capable of putting a coherent view persuasively forward.
The virtue signalling of things like the Bloody Sunday tweet (undoubtedly a awful event) is playing to the converted, one wonders if he's going to tweet on the Warrington bomb anniversary?
The recent report looking at action on CSE is also awful, many labour led local authorities still are playing the three monkeys. He needs to come out swinging on this
> compares front benches <
Easy choice! Point me to one shadow cabinet member who isn't head and shoulders above the current person supposedly handing the brief in government. Just one.
As for what has Starmer done? Well, judging by the upset in this thread, repositioned Labour's image to be more inviting to voters who don't consider themselves left wing, or who place too much importance on the nation and loyalty to it, upsetting many on the left in the process who feel that's a betrayal. Labour is now further from my own politics, but closer to being considered the next government by many people who don't share my political outlook, but aren't really wedded to this current lot of Conservatives either.
