Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
CoolHands said:
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.
However, it is also potentially a massive piece of ammunition for the Tories - voters historically really don't like such things.
Pity the boundary changes haven't gone through. Again. Should be taken out of the politicians hands.
CoolHands said:
bhstewie 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.
If that plan goes a bit Baldrick (and frankly coordinating tactical voting across a hundred or so marginal constituencies sounds like an invitation to a 3D chess champonship) the outcome will be that they absolutely *do* have to rely on the SNP. Like trying to shoot the moon in Hearts. Miss and you then handover the keys to a new scotref. With all the problems that will present a shonky coalition. Like building a house of cards on a sandcastle. Strong and stable? I think not…
Here’s a plan… trying constructing policies that don’t p
s off a majority of the electorate. CoolHands said:
erhaps, although no one really seems to vote Lib Dems in big enough numbers these days I would have thought. But anyway even if that works, it’s still a poor show from labour if the best they can do is ‘we’re not going to change, but we will scrape in with lib dems help (then be held to ransom’.) What a bunch of losers.
Presume it's all about the right number of key seats though.basherX said:
Agreed. Treating the electorate like adults, won’t every catch on though.
You've only to look at a good number of the posts on here to know that's a fool's errand. People aren't bothered about the serious issues, just how something looks without exploring it to any sort of depth or having any sort of view of what "better" would actually look like. It's all "just not this", driven by the lack of depth of thought.
SpeckledJim said:
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.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:CoolHands said:
erhaps, although no one really seems to vote Lib Dems in big enough numbers these days I would have thought. But anyway even if that works, it’s still a poor show from labour if the best they can do is ‘we’re not going to change, but we will scrape in with lib dems help (then be held to ransom’.) What a bunch of losers.
Presume it's all about the right number of key seats though.I live in a safe tory seat. Benn blue since its inception. This has given rise to a certain complacency in the minds and actions of our MPs. I was told that the libdems considered my seat winnable. Yeah, right. No chance. Then came the locals, a couple of year ago for me. There was a significant swing to them, earning them seats for the first time, and in that time have put themselves about. Roads being repaired and in camera meetings no longer happening. With the recent move towards them in the locals elsewhere, I thought I'd be getting notes through the letterbox telling me that all's right with the world 'cause we're blue, but nothing. The libdems have a newsletter, so there's some investment centrally. This safe tory seat could change.
There's no way they'll get a majority, but they will have to become a player in some way, and forming an alliance as such with labour, or, perhaps, a cooperative, might be just the way.
Whether it's a poor show by labour or not is immaterial to the libdems. If it is a plague on both their houses, then it is probably they will gain supporters and seats.
At one time, the Gang of Four had nigh on 40% support in some constituencies according to the polls.
The one thing history shows is that if it happened in the past, something similar can happen again.
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.
'What Scotland thinks' rightly carries the same weight as 'what Yorkshire thinks'.
Viewing Scotland as a quarter of the union is nuts. It is comfortably less than a tenth.
Derek Smith said:
basherX said:
So one, poorly articulated policy. And we’re supposed to vote for that?
I'm not sure you can vote for anything at the moment. You'll have to wait for the next GE and I feel certain that different policies will be presented in an articulate manner.98elise said:
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.
2: Maths!!!!!!! 1.2 billion over 18 million is £67 per customer. However if you gave that to the 20% struggling the most that comes out as £333 which is enough to make a quite significant impact.
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?
Think the Conservatives would love Kier to resign and Angela take up the mantle as leader.Pretty sure that would see the Labour party defeated in the next GE as she is an appalling prospect to be PM of the UK
I'm not a Boris fan by any means, but would vote him in again and again if the choice was between him and Raynor.
Boris might be a t**t, but Angela is a nasty piece of work with a huge chip on her shoulder.
It's a bit like deciding which pile of dogs**t you would prefer to tread in, with the full knowledge that either isn't going to be good.
How has UK politics come to a level where a lot of folks are voting for the least "bad" option rather than there being someone standing that they believe in?
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?
Lammy as Deputy. Dream Ticket.Talksteer said:
98elise said:
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.
2: Maths!!!!!!! 1.2 billion over 18 million is £67 per customer. However if you gave that to the 20% struggling the most that comes out as £333 which is enough to make a quite significant impact.
If Windfall tax isn't just a sound bite why do they keep going on about it like it's going to solve the energy bills crisis. Even at £67 per customer it's bugger all compared to the problem.
There isn't a never ending pot of money, and the government have just firehosed a crap load of money we don't have on Covid.
One way or another WE are paying for this. The alternative is getting your kids and grandkids to pay for it. The money isn't coming from anywhere else.
Edited by 98elise on Monday 16th May 16:12
turbobloke said:
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?
Lammy as Deputy. Dream Ticket.turbobloke said:
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?
Lammy as Deputy. Dream Ticket.andy43 said:
No. Incorrect. As predicted so it shall come to pass. The time is now. The time is Burgon.
I get you manMy dream ticket is the following
Burgon - Leader
Angela - Chancellor
Emily Thornberry - Deputy PM - a woman who can do what John Prescott did for Tony Blair - keep the left and right factions together
David Lammy - Foreign secretary - can visit every country that England ever colonised visited and apologise for everything ever
Ed Milliband Energy Minster
And a radical choice but will show the whole world how forward thinking we are :
Shamima Begum given a pardon flown back to the UK and made Minister of women
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff