Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

[Murph7355]

El stovey said:

Remember it’s just polls far from an election at the end of the day, hopefully it’s bigger issues and policy that matters more in an actual GE.

For labour to look like they could possibly win a GE they’d likely have to be much much further ahead than this at this point in the cycle.

.....

I seem to recall reading an article recently (may even have been a link on here) that suggested at this point in the cycle a lead of 30-40pts would be needed to give strong indications.

With all the st the Tories have caused themselves, a competent leader of the opposition should be out of sight.

[bitchstewie]

Competency in getting your message across matters too though.

Blair sweeping into office is a little before my time in terms of paying too much attention but I expect he was all over the media building up Labours profile and getting their message across?

I just don't see that with Starmer and I don't know what the message is.

[El stovey]

Starmer was doing his best when he stayed completely away from the media for a few weeks/months . He was dragged back into the limelight over the party thing and he’s down in the polls again.

I can kind of understand the conservatives not getting rid of Boris for a bit yet but there’s no obvious reason for keeping starmer unless labour genuinely think he’s the most electable guy they’ve got.

Starmer has so obviously failed to hold Boris and the government to account in opposition or to strike a chord with voters. Why on earth would labour still want him in charge?

[saaby93]

bhstewie said:

Competency in getting your message across matters too though.

Blair sweeping into office is a little before my time in terms of paying too much attention but I expect he was all over the media building up Labours profile and getting their message across?

I just don't see that with Starmer and I don't know what the message is.

All Starmer has to do is look a better bet than Johnson to the middle ground floating voters.
No point looking like from the far left same as there is no point Johnson looking like he's far right

[El stovey]

saaby93 said:

bhstewie said:

Competency in getting your message across matters too though.

Blair sweeping into office is a little before my time in terms of paying too much attention but I expect he was all over the media building up Labours profile and getting their message across?

I just don't see that with Starmer and I don't know what the message is.

All Starmer has to do is look a better bet than Johnson to the middle ground floating voters.
No point looking like from the far left same as there is no point Johnson looking like he's far right

Blair was all about optimistic change from the “sleaze” of Major era conservatives.
He had an upbeat message of patriotism and prosperity and things getting better.

Starmer is totally devoid of any optimism or any message of anything whatsoever.

[CoolHands]

Starmer’s a boring uninspiring dick with no personality and no wit. Maybe his sole plus point was he was supposedly honest and now we have seen that’s bks with his weasel words. So he’s never going to push labour very far up the polls.

And labour have a problem in that no one else stands out as being fantastic plus they have the problems of the wrong leader will allow all the extremists in the party to push it one way or the other. Which the public still won’t vote for.

They need someone like Blair who was interesting and had some charisma and was able to make the whole party electable. Who do they have that could do similar?

[bitchstewie]

I'd give Wes Streeting and Lisa Nandy a go.

I don't remember the starting list of candidates when Starmer replaced Corbyn but it was basically the lunatic side of the party v the sensible side.

It comes down to looking like some weird internal power struggle between being a protest movement v actually getting your st together enough to make people want to vote for you to be in Government.

Half of them are tweeting about the Al Jazeera journalist who got murdered.

I'd rather hear what their actual ideas are for policies that will help people.

[pquinn]

bhstewie said:

I'd give Wes Streeting and Lisa Nandy a go.

I wouldn't. They don't seem to offer anything. Beige personified.

Plus I have an objection in principle to people who've spent their whole education and lives doing nothing but politics.

[bitchstewie]

Who then? It doesn't seem an exceptionally deep pool of talent.

I keep hearing the name Dan Jarvis but I don't think I could even tell you who he is.

[Vasco]

bhstewie said:

Who then? It doesn't seem an exceptionally deep pool of talent.

I keep hearing the name Dan Jarvis but I don't think I could even tell you who he is.

Starmer is probably the best they've got, there's no other obvious candidates. What a situation to be in.

Blair was like a rash in his early years and seemed a bit useful until he got too smarmy and above himself.

Major was ok but too sombre and lacking in drive..

Whether we like it or not, we've had a run of fairly poor political leaders and only Maggie shone any real quality.

[Murph7355]

bhstewie said:

Competency in getting your message across matters too though.

Blair sweeping into office is a little before my time in terms of paying too much attention but I expect he was all over the media building up Labours profile and getting their message across?

I just don't see that with Starmer and I don't know what the message is.

It does cover that, and many other things. Starmer is doing nothing.

His only strategy seems to be hoping that the Tories keep shooting themselves in the foot all the way up to the vote itself and that the electorate just want anything else instead. And at the moment, even though he does little, he's managing to disarm the st bombs he might have been able to use against Johnson in a campaign.

I don't see that winning anything.

[BigMon]

There is next to zero chance of Labour winning the next GE with Starmer in charge so those of you with your blue tints on can rest easy.

Although the clown and his cabal of incompetents are doing their level best to throw it, Starmer is about as inspiring as a wet flannel and it's not like there's anyone behind him who could 'do a Blair' and pull it round.

I personally don't think that's a good thing as it leads to us getting a PM like the clown, and laughable cretins like Rees-Mogg in positions of power but it's where we are.

Labour need root and branch reform but the pea-brains in Islington are about as clued up about the thought processes of the silent majority in Middle England (here's a clue, it's not hard left policies) as they are about interplanetary space travel.

Edited by BigMon on Saturday 14th May 14:34

[Oakey]

Vasco said:

sugerbear said:

Mark Benson said:

Legacywr said:

Please take it over here… https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

No, it's relevant.

What both Johnson and Starmer should be under pressure to do is to explain why they were so keen for the rest of us to follow draconian rules about meeting one another, yet neither of them saw the need to follow those rules themselves.
They either didn't see the need to do so themselves because they didn't believe the threat was acute enough to warrant the restrictions, or they thought themselves above the rules they believe the rest of us should follow.

And perhaps the most damning part is that they were too naive to think about the feelings that this behaviour would stir in people who'd rigidly followed the official guidelines in the belief that they were doing some good.

Whatever you believe about the efficacy or otherwise of the measures, it's entirely pertinant to whether Starmer is fit to lead the opposition and to possibly end up as PM - no amount of lawyer's chicanery changes any of the above; most people aren't fooled by the actions he's taken so far.

What he should have done, if he'd wanted to really strike a blow to Johnson would have been to issue a mea culpa and step down immediately, but somehow I suspect his ego prevents him doing anything so clever.

What Starmer did Mr Tufton Street was legal at the time. What Johnson did was illegal at the time.

Is it really that hard?

I'm lost. How do you know Starmer's was legal ?

Clearly someone knew it was wrong, hence why they filmed it from outside and through a fking window.

[768]

I’ve thought for a while that Labour need to just pack their bags and go, let someone else without the baggage fill the void. With the obvious exception proving the rule, they haven’t been able to offer a viable candidate in as long as most can remember, longer than my lifetime.

They just exist as a placeholder for public sentiment towards the Conservative party between general elections. They make Bath rugby club look successful.

[turbobloke]

Oakey said:

Vasco said:

sugerbear said:

Mark Benson said:

Legacywr said:

Please take it over here… https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

No, it's relevant.

What both Johnson and Starmer should be under pressure to do is to explain why they were so keen for the rest of us to follow draconian rules about meeting one another, yet neither of them saw the need to follow those rules themselves.
They either didn't see the need to do so themselves because they didn't believe the threat was acute enough to warrant the restrictions, or they thought themselves above the rules they believe the rest of us should follow.

And perhaps the most damning part is that they were too naive to think about the feelings that this behaviour would stir in people who'd rigidly followed the official guidelines in the belief that they were doing some good.

Whatever you believe about the efficacy or otherwise of the measures, it's entirely pertinant to whether Starmer is fit to lead the opposition and to possibly end up as PM - no amount of lawyer's chicanery changes any of the above; most people aren't fooled by the actions he's taken so far.

What he should have done, if he'd wanted to really strike a blow to Johnson would have been to issue a mea culpa and step down immediately, but somehow I suspect his ego prevents him doing anything so clever.

What Starmer did Mr Tufton Street was legal at the time. What Johnson did was illegal at the time.

Is it really that hard?

I'm lost. How do you know Starmer's was legal ?

Clearly someone knew it was wrong, hence why they filmed it from outside and through a fking window.

AFAICS the police haven't conluded their investigation yet, so their view on whether it was lawful is awaited, as suchh sugarbear is posting wishful thinking.

[Murph7355]

I like Nandy. I get the impression she has values and stands by them. But she's like an intern. Needs way more experience.

I don't agree with her politics generally, but I think someone like Harriet Harman might be a much better shout. She briefly led the party, has been round the block and I think a female leader would be interesting to put up against Johnson.

Cooper might also be a similar shout, though she comes across a bit whiny.

Problem is, I doubt either would get selected.

[Vasco]

Murph7355 said:

I like Nandy. I get the impression she has values and stands by them. But she's like an intern. Needs way more experience.

I don't agree with her politics generally, but I think someone like Harriet Harman might be a much better shout. She briefly led the party, has been round the block and I think a female leader would be interesting to put up against Johnson.

Cooper might also be a similar shout, though she comes across a bit whiny.

Problem is, I doubt either would get selected.

I must admit that I'd overlooked Harriet - generally a voice of reason and common sense (seems wasted in the Labour party.....). Not sure she would be interested now she's in her 70s, but you never know.

[Murph7355]

Vasco said:

I must admit that I'd overlooked Harriet - generally a voice of reason and common sense (seems wasted in the Labour party.....). Not sure she would be interested now she's in her 70s, but you never know.

FQ me that makes me feel old!

[anonymoususer]

bhstewie said:

Competency in getting your message across matters too though.

Blair sweeping into office is a little before my time in terms of paying too much attention but I expect he was all over the media building up Labours profile and getting their message across?

I just don't see that with Starmer and I don't know what the message is.

I thought you were nearer our age ?
Anyway that was pretty much how it went. The Tories were in disarray and Labour looked new and exciting. The charm offensive was well thought out. He appeared as you put it all over and to some political commentators it was surprising

Education, education, education was one of the messages

[BigMon]

I think one of many problems with Starmer is you can only stand up for so long and berate the Conservatives until someone says 'Well, what would you do differently then?' and it's at that point it falls over as he doesn't present a votable alternative and looks like a bit of a chump.

It may be that they're putting together the 'mother of all manifestos' and will shock everyone but somehow I doubt it.