Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

[swisstoni]

I think he's a decent man, doing what he think's right for the country right now rather than scoring cheap points (unlike some regional leaders I could think of).
No doubt this is at odds with the party headbangers.

[Welshbeef]

Wadeski said:

Eh? The guys said "With Regards To his career background". Starmer was a barrister, then QC, then director of public prosecutions with a 25 year career before becoming an MP.

For a leader you want a high D and I (IMHO)
You want solid ideas.

[Murph7355]

Wadeski said:

Murph7355 said:

jakesmith said:

I find Starmer a far more suitable character, especially WRT his career background, to lead the country than Johnson, but he has not done a good job as leader of opposition so far IMO

This is not dissimilar to El Stovey's comment.

On what basis do you (both) think Starmer is better suited?

It cannot be on functionally material matters as you both note, in essence, he's done fq all other than a poor job. It's not like sorting the Labour Party out, being good opposition or actually having polickes/an opinion is harder than being PM right now

So is it perceptions on moral standing? His hair? His gait? His accent?

Eh? The guys said "With Regards To his career background". Starmer was a barrister, then QC, then director of public prosecutions with a 25 year career before becoming an MP.

Apologies jakesmith, I'd overlooked the "wrt" bit.

(Though in my defence m'lud I suspect in this instance his credentials in politics probably ought to carry some weight)

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

Wadeski said:

Murph7355 said:

jakesmith said:

I find Starmer a far more suitable character, especially WRT his career background, to lead the country than Johnson, but he has not done a good job as leader of opposition so far IMO

This is not dissimilar to El Stovey's comment.

On what basis do you (both) think Starmer is better suited?

It cannot be on functionally material matters as you both note, in essence, he's done fq all other than a poor job. It's not like sorting the Labour Party out, being good opposition or actually having polickes/an opinion is harder than being PM right now

So is it perceptions on moral standing? His hair? His gait? His accent?

Eh? The guys said "With Regards To his career background". Starmer was a barrister, then QC, then director of public prosecutions with a 25 year career before becoming an MP.

Apologies jakesmith, I'd overlooked the "wrt" bit.

(Though in my defence m'lud I suspect in this instance his credentials in politics probably ought to carry some weight)

I agree that he looks to be better qualified and I think he’d be better at managing an emergency but then I see your point which is that he hasn’t exactly managed his own party that well so far also.

[Wombat3]

El stovey said:

Murph7355 said:

Wadeski said:

Murph7355 said:

jakesmith said:

I find Starmer a far more suitable character, especially WRT his career background, to lead the country than Johnson, but he has not done a good job as leader of opposition so far IMO

This is not dissimilar to El Stovey's comment.

On what basis do you (both) think Starmer is better suited?

It cannot be on functionally material matters as you both note, in essence, he's done fq all other than a poor job. It's not like sorting the Labour Party out, being good opposition or actually having polickes/an opinion is harder than being PM right now

So is it perceptions on moral standing? His hair? His gait? His accent?

Eh? The guys said "With Regards To his career background". Starmer was a barrister, then QC, then director of public prosecutions with a 25 year career before becoming an MP.

Apologies jakesmith, I'd overlooked the "wrt" bit.

(Though in my defence m'lud I suspect in this instance his credentials in politics probably ought to carry some weight)

I agree that he looks to be better qualified and I think he’d be better at managing an emergency but then I see your point which is that he hasn’t exactly managed his own party that well so far also.

The fact that he sat on Corbyn's front bench not once but twice & went out to bat with the last bat-st crazy Labour manifesto were massive , massive errors of judgement. I would have far more time for him if he'd bided his time sat on the back benches until Corbyn's demise. Also far too quiet about antisemitism etc.until after Corbyn had gone.

Either that or if he was actually broadly in agreement with the program in which case he's just another nutter but with a veneer of respectability.

Overall plainly short on conviction & neither option is one I can reconcile with someone I'd trust to have his hands on the levers.

[Dromedary66]

Imagine voting for a party led by this obsequious specimen.

[anonymoususer]

Dromedary66 said:

Imagine voting for a party led by this obsequious specimen.

Wow
Never seen that pic before is that his wife ?

[jakesmith]

Wombat3 said:

El stovey said:

Murph7355 said:

Wadeski said:

Murph7355 said:

jakesmith said:

I find Starmer a far more suitable character, especially WRT his career background, to lead the country than Johnson, but he has not done a good job as leader of opposition so far IMO

This is not dissimilar to El Stovey's comment.

On what basis do you (both) think Starmer is better suited?

It cannot be on functionally material matters as you both note, in essence, he's done fq all other than a poor job. It's not like sorting the Labour Party out, being good opposition or actually having polickes/an opinion is harder than being PM right now

So is it perceptions on moral standing? His hair? His gait? His accent?

Eh? The guys said "With Regards To his career background". Starmer was a barrister, then QC, then director of public prosecutions with a 25 year career before becoming an MP.

Apologies jakesmith, I'd overlooked the "wrt" bit.

(Though in my defence m'lud I suspect in this instance his credentials in politics probably ought to carry some weight)

I agree that he looks to be better qualified and I think he’d be better at managing an emergency but then I see your point which is that he hasn’t exactly managed his own party that well so far also.

The fact that he sat on Corbyn's front bench not once but twice & went out to bat with the last bat-st crazy Labour manifesto were massive , massive errors of judgement. I would have far more time for him if he'd bided his time sat on the back benches until Corbyn's demise. Also far too quiet about antisemitism etc.until after Corbyn had gone.

Either that or if he was actually broadly in agreement with the program in which case he's just another nutter but with a veneer of respectability.

Overall plainly short on conviction & neither option is one I can reconcile with someone I'd trust to have his hands on the levers.

There is that, but politics is a dirty game nowadays. The back benches might not have given him the profile to launch a leadership bid from. You have to take it all with a a massive pinch of salt. I’m sure he’s made poor decisions or at best ones that were deemed necessary but could reflect poorly on him. He has done some good and bold things with regards to RLB, that will have cost him support (but from the wrong sort of supporters).

My point really is that looking at the guy’s career he has shown significantly more staying power, gravitas and integrity than Johnson and is therefore likely to be a better leader. Now I know that’s coming from a low base! I would happily sacrifice ‘charisma’ for substance. He has shown substance in his career outside of politics. Less so within politics I guess is the point you and others have made.

[HappyClappy]

anonymoususer said:

Dromedary66 said:

Imagine voting for a party led by this obsequious specimen.

Wow
Never seen that pic before is that his wife ?

That’s the former Shadow Education Secretary who has zero GCSES, now Deputy Leader of the Progressive Marxist Fruitcakes.

[Quisling]

Murph7355 said:

This is not dissimilar to El Stovey's comment.

On what basis do you (both) think Starmer is better suited?

It cannot be on functionally material matters as you both note, in essence, he's done fq all other than a poor job. It's not like sorting the Labour Party out, being good opposition or actually having polickes/an opinion is harder than being PM right now

So is it perceptions on moral standing? His hair? His gait? His accent?

Not a tory

It will shut up the media and as a country we will have a more optimistic outlook

[anonymoususer]

HappyClappy said:

anonymoususer said:

Dromedary66 said:

Imagine voting for a party led by this obsequious specimen.

Wow
Never seen that pic before is that his wife ?

That’s the former Shadow Education Secretary who has zero GCSES, now Deputy Leader of the Progressive Marxist Fruitcakes.

So she's bettered herself then ?
I think that could be viewed as aspirational

[jakesmith]

anonymoususer said:

So she's bettered herself then ?
I think that could be viewed as aspirational

It could be used that way, it could also be viewed that she is completely out of her depth.

For me ‘bettering myself’ is working hard to revisit education or gaining additional qualifications, proving that I have ability and drive. not manouvering from union rep and carer to deputy prime minister and being promoted hopelessly beyond my own ability.

She’s certainly bettered her circumstances, is she able to repeat that trick for the country with know knowledge of business, economics, geo politics, is the question

[bitchstewie]

anonymoususer said:

So she's bettered herself then ?
I think that could be viewed as aspirational

Yes it could and it should.

But something something tribal politics.

[andy43]

anonymoususer said:

HappyClappy said:

anonymoususer said:

Dromedary66 said:

Imagine voting for a party led by this obsequious specimen.

Wow
Never seen that pic before is that his wife ?

That’s the former Shadow Education Secretary who has zero GCSES, now Deputy Leader of the Progressive Marxist Fruitcakes.

So she's bettered herself then ?
I think that could be viewed as aspirational

Obsequious specimen is a bit harsh, it’s only a table.
Who’s the constipated bloke on the left?

[768]

anonymoususer said:

HappyClappy said:

That’s the former Shadow Education Secretary who has zero GCSES, now Deputy Leader of the Progressive Marxist Fruitcakes.

So she's bettered herself then ?

No, she still has no discernable education.

It's more that they've lowered themselves, which sums up their policies in general.

[768]

andy43 said:

Obsequious specimen is a bit harsh, it’s only a table.
Who’s the constipated bloke on the left?

I think he's the top subscriber on her OnlyFans.

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

anonymoususer said:

So she's bettered herself then ?
I think that could be viewed as aspirational

Yes it could and it should.

But something something tribal politics.

On the brexit threads we're constantly hearing how qualifications and education certificates aren’t important. Gove doesn’t like hearing from experts. Not sure why Rayner having no O levels (or whatever) is an issue.

It was her labour conference speech a few years ago that worried me, even her party had to dial back on her want to do things like seize the assets from private schools and assimilate them into the state.

Labour suddenly became the party that might take your property/stuff and even the momentum lot thought it sounded a bit Stalinist.

[98elise]

bhstewie said:

anonymoususer said:

So she's bettered herself then ?
I think that could be viewed as aspirational

Yes it could and it should.

But something something tribal politics.

Her recent answer to how all teachers could be vaccinated without them being out ahead of vulnerable people, was to double the vaccination rate!

That fails on basic logic, and even a tenuous grasp on the vaccination situation. It's the sort of solution a 5 year old would give.

She is monumentally thick.

[andy43]

98elise said:

bhstewie said:

anonymoususer said:

So she's bettered herself then ?
I think that could be viewed as aspirational

Yes it could and it should.

But something something tribal politics.

Her recent answer to how all teachers could be vaccinated without them being out ahead of vulnerable people, was to double the vaccination rate!

That fails on basic logic, and even a tenuous grasp on the vaccination situation. It's the sort of solution a 5 year old would give.

She is monumentally thick.

[SpeckledJim]

98elise said:

bhstewie said:

anonymoususer said:

So she's bettered herself then ?
I think that could be viewed as aspirational

Yes it could and it should.

But something something tribal politics.

Her recent answer to how all teachers could be vaccinated without them being out ahead of vulnerable people, was to double the vaccination rate!

That fails on basic logic, and even a tenuous grasp on the vaccination situation. It's the sort of solution a 5 year old would give.

She is monumentally thick.

The failure isn't Rayner's. She has achieved enormous successes from very meagre mental rations. The failure belongs to the people who keep promoting her. That failure is linked to the huge recent electoral failures. And will be linked to the next one.

The labour party has made repeated mistakes in the selection of their leadership teams, which leads directly to that leadership team failing to win elections.