Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Vanden Saab said:
Invading middle eastern countries to steal their vaccines might have long term consequences though.
And in 10 years time 116,000 (and counting) covid deaths might too just as Iraq is remembered as Blair's legacy.It's not a zero-sum game where one is entirely good and the other is entirely bad.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:El stovey said:
I wonder how labour would do if they actually just brought back Blair instead of Starmer who’s trying to be Blair like but not really keeping anyone happy. Now they’re even getting Mandleson involved.
Blair seems to always be in the wings keeping involved, I recon he’d be right up for it.
Blair is politically toxic.Blair seems to always be in the wings keeping involved, I recon he’d be right up for it.
It's odd as whenever I've heard him lately he speaks an awful lot of sense and I'd put him in charge of our pandemic response over Johnson in a heartbeat.
But politically toxic.
Mandelson though wow, thats just desperate, I thought starmer was supposed to be a serious contender?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Blair is politically toxic.
It's odd as whenever I've heard him lately he speaks an awful lot of sense and I'd put him in charge of our pandemic response over Johnson in a heartbeat.
But politically toxic.
Thing is, it's easy to "speak sense" when you're not in charge, not accountable for any kind of result, don't have to make any hard decisions, and have the benefit of hindsight. Blair is just doing the elder statesman thing, like John Major. IMHO it's easy to look impressive in that role.It's odd as whenever I've heard him lately he speaks an awful lot of sense and I'd put him in charge of our pandemic response over Johnson in a heartbeat.
But politically toxic.
AmitG said:
Thing is, it's easy to "speak sense" when you're not in charge, not accountable for any kind of result, don't have to make any hard decisions, and have the benefit of hindsight. Blair is just doing the elder statesman thing, like John Major. IMHO it's easy to look impressive in that role.
That's true.But it's also easy not to sound like a rambling shambles when you are in charge.
I don't remember Blair or Major sounding like one to use your two examples.
You get where I'm going with that
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:AmitG said:
Thing is, it's easy to "speak sense" when you're not in charge, not accountable for any kind of result, don't have to make any hard decisions, and have the benefit of hindsight. Blair is just doing the elder statesman thing, like John Major. IMHO it's easy to look impressive in that role.
That's true.But it's also easy not to sound like a rambling shambles when you are in charge.
I don't remember Blair or Major sounding like one to use your two examples.
You get where I'm going with that
Emily Thornberry is back in the news.
Emily was at one point quite close to Jeremy Corbyn. Before the sordid minds go into overkill close means work wise not hanky panky wise.
Emily was one of the most delightful unassuming politicians in the Corbyn Cabinet and was much loved for it.
Unfortunately she contradicted Jeremy at one point and she was to some extent frozen out
She has been criticised for supposedly criticising Liz Truss President of the Board of Trade, Secretary of State for International Trade
Emily is her shadow
And all this flag thing well it may interest some to know that Emily was ahead of the curve on this
Emily was at one point quite close to Jeremy Corbyn. Before the sordid minds go into overkill close means work wise not hanky panky wise.
Emily was one of the most delightful unassuming politicians in the Corbyn Cabinet and was much loved for it.
Unfortunately she contradicted Jeremy at one point and she was to some extent frozen out
She has been criticised for supposedly criticising Liz Truss President of the Board of Trade, Secretary of State for International Trade
Emily is her shadow
And all this flag thing well it may interest some to know that Emily was ahead of the curve on this
Edited by anonymoususer on Wednesday 17th February 13:15
Edited by anonymoususer on Wednesday 17th February 13:19
biggbn said:
I have seen nothing from Starmer to suggest he is a safe pair of hands to lead the Labour Party never mind the country. I am no fan of Johnson, but don't see the charmless, voiceless and equally spineless Starmer as a viable alternative.
Good point, but if I were given the choice of Johnson (again), would you not vote Starmer? as I have not been in the slightest impressed by Johnson from anything he has done!Why are elections always the least bad candidate?...
AmitG said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Blair is politically toxic.
It's odd as whenever I've heard him lately he speaks an awful lot of sense and I'd put him in charge of our pandemic response over Johnson in a heartbeat.
But politically toxic.
Thing is, it's easy to "speak sense" when you're not in charge, not accountable for any kind of result, don't have to make any hard decisions, and have the benefit of hindsight. Blair is just doing the elder statesman thing, like John Major. IMHO it's easy to look impressive in that role.It's odd as whenever I've heard him lately he speaks an awful lot of sense and I'd put him in charge of our pandemic response over Johnson in a heartbeat.
But politically toxic.
Kier ,on the other hand, just seems ineffective to me. Spends all his time criticising government but then ends every speech saying that he will support the government. Like a spineless version of Jeremy Corbin with better hair, dressed in a better suit.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Blair is politically toxic.
It's odd as whenever I've heard him lately he speaks an awful lot of sense and I'd put him in charge of our pandemic response over Johnson in a heartbeat.
For some, sure; he's not Boris.It's odd as whenever I've heard him lately he speaks an awful lot of sense and I'd put him in charge of our pandemic response over Johnson in a heartbeat.
Meanwhile, the key question would be: who could Blair get to write the obligatory sexed-up covid dossier?
Not Starmer.
PiesAreGreat said:
biggbn said:
I have seen nothing from Starmer to suggest he is a safe pair of hands to lead the Labour Party never mind the country. I am no fan of Johnson, but don't see the charmless, voiceless and equally spineless Starmer as a viable alternative.
Good point, but if I were given the choice of Johnson (again), would you not vote Starmer? as I have not been in the slightest impressed by Johnson from anything he has done!Why are elections always the least bad candidate?...
He appeared a few weeks ago with a s
t soundbite and has never been seen since.PiesAreGreat said:
if I were given the choice of Johnson (again), would you not vote Starmer?
...
No, because it's not just about what Johnson has or hasn't done. Boris remains the least worst choice. Starmer is still joined at the hip to Momentum and the Unions, he hasn't actually done anything substantive to show he isn't still supporting the loony left policies he supported so faithfully as Corbyn's EU spokesmuppet, as wannabe leader of the Labour Party he promised Union bosses that the Party would remain as a radical left outfit. Loony losers led by a grey-red puppet......
anonymoususer said:
swisstoni said:
anonymoususer said:
Two tough cops with a love hate relationship, working the mean streets of Islington. Coming to Channel 5.Thrown together by fate two politicians you love to hate
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff