Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

Author
Discussion

Vanden Saab

8,174 posts

38 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Short Grain said:
amusingduck said:


Why has Starmer fallen off a cliff?
Camped on the edge?
rofl

768

8,335 posts

60 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
hehe

jakesmith

9,032 posts

135 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
Having people like Rayner, Anneliese Dodds, Ashworth etc up front all the time is not a winning strategy.
You might as well have just said this.
They are screwed IMO as he doesn't have the ability to get rid of the hard left whack-jobs without risking his position

Murph7355

28,902 posts

220 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
jakesmith said:
Murph7355 said:
Having people like Rayner, Anneliese Dodds, Ashworth etc up front all the time is not a winning strategy.
You might as well have just said this.
They are screwed IMO as he doesn't have the ability to get rid of the hard left whack-jobs without risking his position
That is a fair point smile

(Though I'm not sure those three are especially hard left, are they?).

lockhart flawse

1,856 posts

199 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
I suggested Starmer as the best leader for Labour last year and so far as I can see he is still the only person who can take them forward in the polls. The shadow front bench is beyond hopeless and whilst the likes of Rayner and Long-Bailey are in the public eye Labour will go nowhere. There is also a general lack of intellect in their MPs and it beggars belief that Dawn Butler ever got elected - I would like to know if she knows about anything at all? Think back to the Labour heavyweights of the 70s - there's apparently no-one of that ilk in today's Labour party.

They seem to have no ideas apart from spending more money; is there anything at all their policy is only that they want to spend more money on it?

But above all they have to jettison the idea that the country needs a radical overhaul. We have evolved to where we are today largely because it's what people want. It might need a few tweeks here and there but the electorate will never vote for the trusted and familar to be turned upside down by a bunch of people they have hardly heard of and whose instincts they don't trust.

And bin the bloody 6th form victim politics. It impresses no-one outside the inner circle and will not win back the lost northern votes.


basherX

1,121 posts

125 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
lockhart flawse said:
But above all they have to jettison the idea that the country needs a radical overhaul. We have evolved to where we are today largely because it's what people want. It might need a few tweeks here and there but the electorate will never vote for the trusted and familar to be turned upside down by a bunch of people they have hardly heard of and whose instincts they don't trust.
I agree with this. Labour, and Starmer particularly, want to draw a parallel with the situation immediately post WW2; assuming that the population wants some sort of grand new settlement. I don’t think that’s true- I think (most) people just want to return to the status quo ante. As such I suspect Starmer might have more luck painting a picture of how that could be achieved.

But he won’t because he/his party assume this is their big chance to make a grab for a more interventionist approach the government.

glazbagun

11,627 posts

161 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
I really don't understand why he isn't making more noise about Scotland, who seldom vote Tory and are crying out for a strong unionist position, whilst the SNP could hardly be more of a sitting duck right now.

In the New Labour years there was a Scottish Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Chancellor, Health Secretary, Transport Secretary, Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary. The SNP campaigned on "holding the feet" of the conservative government "to the fire", but all we have for representation in Westminster is whinger Blackford shooting his mouth off.

I feel that both the Lib Dems and Labour power structures have been gutted to the point that they never seem to leave their bubbles. Or perhaps twitter and internet data are driving arguments to the detriment of broader strategy. At a time of dissatisfaction across the UK, there are open goals all over the place.

768

8,335 posts

60 months

Tuesday 2nd March
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
jakesmith said:
Murph7355 said:
Having people like Rayner, Anneliese Dodds, Ashworth etc up front all the time is not a winning strategy.
You might as well have just said this.
They are screwed IMO as he doesn't have the ability to get rid of the hard left whack-jobs without risking his position
That is a fair point smile

(Though I'm not sure those three are especially hard left, are they?).
Difficult to call empty vessels hard anything and I suppose it depends how you define it. Rayner was a Momentum favourite until Corbyn was dropped and she said he didn't command respect, that she was sharper and resonated with more of the country. I'd say anyone associated with Momentum is likely sufficiently hard left to turn most of the country off.

Dodds makes me laugh, she always looks so pained and eager to interview well, but invariably appears out of her depth.

TriumphStag3.0V8

1,534 posts

45 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Pathetic response to the budget speech today. Childish and petulant. Looking more of a berk each day.

Sadly not doing enough to give us the strong opposition party that we need.

Welshbeef

43,670 posts

162 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
Pathetic response to the budget speech today. Childish and petulant. Looking more of a berk each day.

Sadly not doing enough to give us the strong opposition party that we need.
I’m a Tory supporter through and through - but I want a strong opposition years of incompetence with JC and now KS useless.

And where are Lib Dem’s?

RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat

11,676 posts

59 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
Yoghurt knitting classes.

Dr Doofenshmirtz

12,727 posts

164 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
Pathetic response to the budget speech today. Childish and petulant. Looking more of a berk each day.

Sadly not doing enough to give us the strong opposition party that we need.
To be fair...The Conservatives have been more Socialist that even Labour themselves can possibly imagine!
There's not a lot they can object to really.
Starmer is a berk and literally nobody of sane mind would support him or his failed party.

Edited by Dr Doofenshmirtz on Wednesday 3rd March 21:42

elster

17,463 posts

174 months

Wednesday 3rd March
quotequote all
jakesmith said:
Murph7355 said:
Having people like Rayner, Anneliese Dodds, Ashworth etc up front all the time is not a winning strategy.
You might as well have just said this.
They are screwed IMO as he doesn't have the ability to get rid of the hard left whack-jobs without risking his position
I see the above people more of a problem for Labour than Starmer himself. If he had a good team behind him then he could be a good figurehead.

However if all the shadow ministers are terrible it highlights every shortcoming of the leader as well. If he had a shadow cabinet behind him similar to Blair or Cameron then he could do reasonably well. He hasn't been in position long and wont be making any in roads any time soon, so could play the long game. However with his cabinet as they are, it shows how bad the situation is in Labour. They have got no new talent in parliament either after all recent intake were momentum stooges who ticked all the boxes but have the political nouse of the NUS.

0a

22,735 posts

158 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
Starmer has turned out to be a damp squib for labour, his is shallow, and his front bench have even less depth.

I hate to say it, but Corbyn and McDonnell would have had a more robust and interesting response to today’s budget.

anonymoususer

1,612 posts

12 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
0a said:
Starmer has turned out to be a damp squib for labour, his is shallow, and his front bench have even less depth.

I hate to say it, but Corbyn and McDonnell would have had a more robust and interesting response to today’s budget.
You may have shat yourself when you realised it was you they had in their sites to be paying for it though

SpeckledJim

24,993 posts

217 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
anonymoususer said:
0a said:
Starmer has turned out to be a damp squib for labour, his is shallow, and his front bench have even less depth.

I hate to say it, but Corbyn and McDonnell would have had a more robust and interesting response to today’s budget.
You may have shat yourself when you realised it was you they had in their sites to be paying for it though
It has come to the Kommission's attention that you have two doormats, one at each end of the house, and yet on inspection, only one pair of feet.

Can we trust that you will quickly correct this clearly entirely accidentally transgression, and your disgusting bourgeois excess doormat situation will be rectified within the week?

Or need we take further steps?

PeteinSQ

1,408 posts

174 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
lockhart flawse said:
But above all they have to jettison the idea that the country needs a radical overhaul. We have evolved to where we are today largely because it's what people want. It might need a few tweeks here and there but the electorate will never vote for the trusted and familar to be turned upside down by a bunch of people they have hardly heard of and whose instincts they don't trust.
Whilst I think you are correct that people are broadly happy with the system as it is, it's not fair to say that we evolved to this position. If we'd never had a Labour government during the 20th century do you imagine the welfare state would be what it is, or that we'd have something like the NHS? A lot of the things that people take for granted had to be fought for.

SpeckledJim

24,993 posts

217 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
PeteinSQ said:
lockhart flawse said:
But above all they have to jettison the idea that the country needs a radical overhaul. We have evolved to where we are today largely because it's what people want. It might need a few tweeks here and there but the electorate will never vote for the trusted and familar to be turned upside down by a bunch of people they have hardly heard of and whose instincts they don't trust.
Whilst I think you are correct that people are broadly happy with the system as it is, it's not fair to say that we evolved to this position. If we'd never had a Labour government during the 20th century do you imagine the welfare state would be what it is, or that we'd have something like the NHS? A lot of the things that people take for granted had to be fought for.
If the Conservative governments didn't think the NHS was a good thing, they've had an awful lot of time in office in which to get rid of it. Over the last 40 years, both conservative and labour governments have made huge liberal and progressive and modernising steps forward. Tony Blair had 10 years in which to do something about gay marriage, but it took posh millionaire old Etonian Tory Cameron to do it.


Ntv

2,189 posts

87 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
Corbyn had an open goal and fluffed it. Absolute genius to fluff it and then argue for a GE in which he got battered.

Starmer so far looks like the same breed of clown.

P5BNij

8,504 posts

70 months

Thursday 4th March
quotequote all
PeteinSQ said:
lockhart flawse said:
But above all they have to jettison the idea that the country needs a radical overhaul. We have evolved to where we are today largely because it's what people want. It might need a few tweeks here and there but the electorate will never vote for the trusted and familar to be turned upside down by a bunch of people they have hardly heard of and whose instincts they don't trust.
Whilst I think you are correct that people are broadly happy with the system as it is, it's not fair to say that we evolved to this position. If we'd never had a Labour government during the 20th century do you imagine the welfare state would be what it is, or that we'd have something like the NHS? A lot of the things that people take for granted had to be fought for.
Happy to be corrected, but as I understand it the original idea came from the Liberal Party in the '30s and was put forward again by the Conservatives in 1944, before Labour acted on it in 1948.