Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
biggbn said:
Vasco said:
A bit of a poor show when you look back at the various leaders over, say, the past 50 years.
Of those who really impressed, and got things done, we seem to have just Blair (initially) and Thatcher.
A poor overall show of leaders.
Cameron would be, I think, remembered with some degree of respect were it not for Brexit. Of those who really impressed, and got things done, we seem to have just Blair (initially) and Thatcher.
A poor overall show of leaders.
May too seemed to evolve a useful implementation but the party wouldnt go for it
In the end Johnson having followed through on Camerons Brexit could end up implementing Mays agreement.
For everything said about Johnson he seems to bumble from one side to the other trying to bring each side closer together
biggbn said:
Sad to see Milliband being used as a cheerleading talking head on Sophie just now. Labour are doing jist what the Tores did and wheeling out people to defend the gaffer regardless.
There should be no surprise to this whatsoever.With very few exceptions, they. are. all. the. same. Some just wear a preferable suit, better hair cut or have a turn of phrase/demeanour that is more appealing to some than others. People just get sucked in by the veneeer. (Let's face it, there is absolutely no way anyone could be preferring Starmer for his policies right now!).
El Stovey's poll assessment was interesting - that SKS had his biggest lead in the polls when he'd been away from the media and nobody heard from him. That might make an interesting quality of a prime minister.
DM running a story saying they’re going to drop Angela in it as no proof she did any work after beergate. Whereas everyone else has emails or whatsapp messages to supposedly ’prove’ (yeah right) they did go back to work. So are there internal machinations at play to protect kier and stiff Angela?
CoolHands said:
DM running a story saying they’re going to drop Angela in it as no proof she did any work after beergate. Whereas everyone else has emails or whatsapp messages to supposedly ’prove’ (yeah right) they did go back to work. So are there internal machinations at play to protect kier and stiff Angela?
Too busy crossing her legs ?biggbn said:
BrabusMog said:
biggbn said:
Sad to see Milliband being used as a cheerleading talking head on Sophie just now. Labour are doing jist what the Tores did and wheeling out people to defend the gaffer regardless.
He’s such an odious specimen. As already mentioned when the official opposition leader does better in polls when he’s in hiding (walk in freezer optional) than when he’s allowed out in public something is very broken somewhere.
andy43 said:
biggbn said:
BrabusMog said:
biggbn said:
Sad to see Milliband being used as a cheerleading talking head on Sophie just now. Labour are doing jist what the Tores did and wheeling out people to defend the gaffer regardless.
He’s such an odious specimen. As already mentioned when the official opposition leader does better in polls when he’s in hiding (walk in freezer optional) than when he’s allowed out in public something is very broken somewhere.
I’d dearly love it if there were an effective opposition led by a credible leader. But there isn’t. Douglas Murray (yes, I know) put it well most recently in The Spectator:
“What is the Labour party’s challenge to this? It seems to be that we should head towards the same damaging, impossible-to-achieve goals that the Conservatives have already outlined – except faster. Look at the Labour party’s criticisms of the government and they are never based on advocating some other policy. They are for getting to the same destination more swiftly. I wouldn’t say that’s a debate. It’s just a discussion over the speed limit.”
I think that summarises the problem very well. The purposes of the leader of the opposition is not to blindly oppose nor to chuck bricks at a perceived or real lack of speed in the government’s own plan. It is to demonstrate a detailed understanding of the problems of the day and provide an alternative method of dealing with them. Whether you like them or not, Blair did that, as indeed did Thatcher before him. “This is what we want Britain to look like, this is our analysis of what’s wrong and this is how we’re going to do it”.
As far as I can see, Starmer’s major point of difference is a windfall tax. But he hasn’t outlined exactly what they’d tax, how much they’d raise and what they’d then do with it.
So one, poorly articulated policy. And we’re supposed to vote for that?
“What is the Labour party’s challenge to this? It seems to be that we should head towards the same damaging, impossible-to-achieve goals that the Conservatives have already outlined – except faster. Look at the Labour party’s criticisms of the government and they are never based on advocating some other policy. They are for getting to the same destination more swiftly. I wouldn’t say that’s a debate. It’s just a discussion over the speed limit.”
I think that summarises the problem very well. The purposes of the leader of the opposition is not to blindly oppose nor to chuck bricks at a perceived or real lack of speed in the government’s own plan. It is to demonstrate a detailed understanding of the problems of the day and provide an alternative method of dealing with them. Whether you like them or not, Blair did that, as indeed did Thatcher before him. “This is what we want Britain to look like, this is our analysis of what’s wrong and this is how we’re going to do it”.
As far as I can see, Starmer’s major point of difference is a windfall tax. But he hasn’t outlined exactly what they’d tax, how much they’d raise and what they’d then do with it.
So one, poorly articulated policy. And we’re supposed to vote for that?
basherX said:
So one, poorly articulated policy. And we’re supposed to vote for that?
You're allowed to vote for another party to do the same thing.In the recent PCC elections one of the candidates said he would bring in more police officers.
He won
Once in post he reviewed spending and said they couldnt be afforded.
So he's doing the same as the previous guy
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 15th May 15:36
basherX said:
“This is what we want Britain to look like, this is our analysis of what’s wrong and this is how we’re going to do it...
...and this is the cost and this is how it will be funded and this is what the downsides will look like and this is how we'll minimise them". Jee, it would be nice to see that from both sides wouldn't it, at the moment both parties are more like banal protest groups - like XR wanting the gas off today and everyone to switch to electric but where do they think 30M electric cars will come from - Santa? That sort of thing.
andy_s said:
...and this is the cost and this is how it will be funded and this is what the downsides will look like and this is how we'll minimise them".
Jee, it would be nice to see that from both sides wouldn't it, at the moment both parties are more like banal protest groups - like XR wanting the gas off today and everyone to switch to electric but where do they think 30M electric cars will come from - Santa? That sort of thing.
Agreed. Treating the electorate like adults, won’t every catch on though. Jee, it would be nice to see that from both sides wouldn't it, at the moment both parties are more like banal protest groups - like XR wanting the gas off today and everyone to switch to electric but where do they think 30M electric cars will come from - Santa? That sort of thing.
CoolHands said:
But the tories don’t need to do that, cost they are in post. If labour want to get in power they’re the only ones that must do something differently. If they don’t, they don’t get in power. If tories don’t, they do still get in power. Labour must change.
I wouldn’t say those are the only two options. A plausible, and in my view much worse, possibility is neither party doing enough to convince an already sceptical electorate, leaving us with a hung Parliament with the SNP holding the balance of power. Both parties need to sharpen up.
basherX said:
I’d dearly love it if there were an effective opposition led by a credible leader. But there isn’t. Douglas Murray (yes, I know) put it well most recently in The Spectator:
“What is the Labour party’s challenge to this? It seems to be that we should head towards the same damaging, impossible-to-achieve goals that the Conservatives have already outlined – except faster. Look at the Labour party’s criticisms of the government and they are never based on advocating some other policy. They are for getting to the same destination more swiftly. I wouldn’t say that’s a debate. It’s just a discussion over the speed limit.”
I think that summarises the problem very well. The purposes of the leader of the opposition is not to blindly oppose nor to chuck bricks at a perceived or real lack of speed in the government’s own plan. It is to demonstrate a detailed understanding of the problems of the day and provide an alternative method of dealing with them. Whether you like them or not, Blair did that, as indeed did Thatcher before him. “This is what we want Britain to look like, this is our analysis of what’s wrong and this is how we’re going to do it”.
As far as I can see, Starmer’s major point of difference is a windfall tax. But he hasn’t outlined exactly what they’d tax, how much they’d raise and what they’d then do with it.
So one, poorly articulated policy. And we’re supposed to vote for that?
I saw a BBC interview with Kier Starmer, and they bought up the windfall tax. They said would raise 1.2 billion, and there are 18m utility customers, so it's £40 per customer.“What is the Labour party’s challenge to this? It seems to be that we should head towards the same damaging, impossible-to-achieve goals that the Conservatives have already outlined – except faster. Look at the Labour party’s criticisms of the government and they are never based on advocating some other policy. They are for getting to the same destination more swiftly. I wouldn’t say that’s a debate. It’s just a discussion over the speed limit.”
I think that summarises the problem very well. The purposes of the leader of the opposition is not to blindly oppose nor to chuck bricks at a perceived or real lack of speed in the government’s own plan. It is to demonstrate a detailed understanding of the problems of the day and provide an alternative method of dealing with them. Whether you like them or not, Blair did that, as indeed did Thatcher before him. “This is what we want Britain to look like, this is our analysis of what’s wrong and this is how we’re going to do it”.
As far as I can see, Starmer’s major point of difference is a windfall tax. But he hasn’t outlined exactly what they’d tax, how much they’d raise and what they’d then do with it.
So one, poorly articulated policy. And we’re supposed to vote for that?
The Government on the other hand have given a £150 council tax rebate per household.
£150 > £40 but "Windfall Tax" makes a good sound bite even if it doesn't actually help much.
basherX said:
I wouldn’t say those are the only two options. A plausible, and in my view much worse, possibility is neither party doing enough to convince an already sceptical electorate, leaving us with a hung Parliament with the SNP holding the balance of power.
Both parties need to sharpen up.
You make it sound like the only country in the Union that matters is England. Both parties need to sharpen up.
Riff Raff said:
basherX said:
I wouldn’t say those are the only two options. A plausible, and in my view much worse, possibility is neither party doing enough to convince an already sceptical electorate, leaving us with a hung Parliament with the SNP holding the balance of power.
Both parties need to sharpen up.
You make it sound like the only country in the Union that matters is England. Both parties need to sharpen up.
My intent was to highlight that it would be hideous for the whole of the U.K. to have its government beholden to a bunch of single-issue parish councillors who can’t even run Scotland properly.
Happy to clarify.
biggbn said:
Vasco said:
A bit of a poor show when you look back at the various leaders over, say, the past 50 years.
Of those who really impressed, and got things done, we seem to have just Blair (initially) and Thatcher.
A poor overall show of leaders.
Cameron would be, I think, remembered with some degree of respect were it not for Brexit. Of those who really impressed, and got things done, we seem to have just Blair (initially) and Thatcher.
A poor overall show of leaders.
CoolHands said:
But the tories don’t need to do that, cost they are in post. If labour want to get in power they’re the only ones that must do something differently. If they don’t, they don’t get in power. If tories don’t, they do still get in power. Labour must change.
Not necessarily.Electoral pact ‘could hand Keir Starmer the keys to Number 10’
Suspect there will be a lot more of these "pact" type options discussed over the coming months and years.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:CoolHands said:
But the tories don’t need to do that, cost they are in post. If labour want to get in power they’re the only ones that must do something differently. If they don’t, they don’t get in power. If tories don’t, they do still get in power. Labour must change.
Not necessarily.Electoral pact ‘could hand Keir Starmer the keys to Number 10’
Suspect there will be a lot more of these "pact" type options discussed over the coming months and years.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff