Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
He seemed to be a decent person. He appeared empathetic, sympathetic and willing to go 15 rounds with anyone who disagreed with him.
He was high tax, being very critical of Thatcher's(?) reduction of income tax. He made the tory government appear self-centred and only interested in big corporations and the rich.
As someone said, he was devastating at the despatch box, although, on the negative side, a lot of it was name-calling. But apt. He was like Starmer in his mastery of facts in discussions/arguments/PMQs. Unlike Starmer, he had a certain charm. That said, he was a bit of a bruiser and if you disagreed with him, at least on TV, he went for the throat.
He was for Scottish independence, but also for a stronger UK. He never explained this dichotomy to my recollection. He was a breath of fresh air for labour.
We’ll never know what he was really like as he was never really tested. He was to the left of the party – a bit of a radical – but against the far left. Some suggested he only attacked them for reasons of electability; not much of a criticism. He changed the way the party related to the unions.
I liked him. At a time when the tories were falling apart through infighting, he unified his party, as far as any party has been. He was authoritative but with a smile. He paved the way for Blair, who moved the party more to the centre. I have no idea whether he could have got the labour party elected with his radical policies, but I doubt it would have been Blair’s massive landslide.
There’s a lot of myths about Smith. We’ve no idea what he’d have done to the country, but he’d have done it with a pleasant expression on his face.
I agree.He was high tax, being very critical of Thatcher's(?) reduction of income tax. He made the tory government appear self-centred and only interested in big corporations and the rich.
As someone said, he was devastating at the despatch box, although, on the negative side, a lot of it was name-calling. But apt. He was like Starmer in his mastery of facts in discussions/arguments/PMQs. Unlike Starmer, he had a certain charm. That said, he was a bit of a bruiser and if you disagreed with him, at least on TV, he went for the throat.
He was for Scottish independence, but also for a stronger UK. He never explained this dichotomy to my recollection. He was a breath of fresh air for labour.
We’ll never know what he was really like as he was never really tested. He was to the left of the party – a bit of a radical – but against the far left. Some suggested he only attacked them for reasons of electability; not much of a criticism. He changed the way the party related to the unions.
I liked him. At a time when the tories were falling apart through infighting, he unified his party, as far as any party has been. He was authoritative but with a smile. He paved the way for Blair, who moved the party more to the centre. I have no idea whether he could have got the labour party elected with his radical policies, but I doubt it would have been Blair’s massive landslide.
There’s a lot of myths about Smith. We’ve no idea what he’d have done to the country, but he’d have done it with a pleasant expression on his face.
He seemed to be a man of principles, and with a calm, considered delivery.
Things now escalating...McConnell has called Corbyn's suspension "profoundly wrong" & demanded it be reversed.
Perhaps Starmer would have been better to have just called Corbyn a "Silly old fool that nobody should listen to" and continue to allow Corbynism to just die on the vine rather than kicking off WW3 while it still, self evidently has significant support.
There are still too many high profile people at the centre of his party closely associated with it, has he gone at them too early?
This going to be some fight
Perhaps Starmer would have been better to have just called Corbyn a "Silly old fool that nobody should listen to" and continue to allow Corbynism to just die on the vine rather than kicking off WW3 while it still, self evidently has significant support.
There are still too many high profile people at the centre of his party closely associated with it, has he gone at them too early?
This going to be some fight
Edited by Wombat3 on Saturday 31st October 09:44
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Given what it looks like Boris is about to announce does anyone have a view on Starmer backing Sage's calls for a 2 week circuit break?
Sage proposed the circuit breaker when there were 2-3k daily cases. Starmer backed it a couple of weeks ago at 15-20k daily cases.Neither an early circuit breaker repeatedly applied or doing it for longer later to protect hospital capacity are great options but the middle option seems to lack the advantages of either - neither being effective in a short period of time nor maximising periods of relative normality.
Edited by 768 on Saturday 31st October 10:05
https://youtu.be/RbTR8hsS5Ek
Boris johnson on Starmer suggesting a national lockdown
“He has no clue”
However you want to spin it if Boris U turns now Starmer doesn’t look like tge person whi ‘has no clue’
Boris johnson on Starmer suggesting a national lockdown
“He has no clue”
However you want to spin it if Boris U turns now Starmer doesn’t look like tge person whi ‘has no clue’
Kent Border Kenny said:
BigMon said:
Fixed that for you. I refer you to my earlier quote about Maggie being reincarnated as Labour leader.
But you didn’t fix it,my oh changed it.Most people probably think that unless Labour pull themselves together then they have very little chance of winning in four years.
But my point is Starmer doesn't have to convince those who would never vote Labour for tribal reasons (who, I suspect, may include Robert amongst several others on here) as it wouldn't matter what he or Labour did as they would never vote for them.
Just as, on the other side of the coin, there are those would never vote Conservative due to tribal reasons. My parents in Sheffield are like that and it's a measure how disastrous Corbyn was that they couldn't bring themselves to vote Labour last time (after a lifetime of doing so).
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Given what it looks like Boris is about to announce does anyone have a view on Starmer backing Sage's calls for a 2 week circuit break?
This is the worst possible outcome, not doing the circuit breaker and trying the tier approach and THEN doing the lockdown from a higher infection level which will then likely need to last longer than the SAGE Starmer plan back at the end of September.It’s circuit breaker early or keep more of the economy open. Doing a middle ground tier approach and THEN a lockdown is the worst of all approaches.
El stovey said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Given what it looks like Boris is about to announce does anyone have a view on Starmer backing Sage's calls for a 2 week circuit break?
This is the worst possible outcome, not doing the circuit breaker and trying the tier approach and THEN doing the lockdown from a higher infection level which will then likely need to last longer than the SAGE Starmer plan back at the end of September.It’s circuit breaker early or keep more of the economy open. Doing a middle ground tier approach and THEN a lockdown is the worst of all approaches.
This is an absolute slam dunk for Starmer.
Well he's been proven right, hasn't he?
All this farting around with different tiers in different regions, all the while Starmer pleading for a national lockdown, and hey presto - we have a national lockdown to be announced a full 3 weeks after Starmer first urged for this to happen.
It doesn't exactly put the Tories on the front foot, does it?
All this farting around with different tiers in different regions, all the while Starmer pleading for a national lockdown, and hey presto - we have a national lockdown to be announced a full 3 weeks after Starmer first urged for this to happen.
It doesn't exactly put the Tories on the front foot, does it?
zygalski said:
Well he's been proven right, hasn't he?
All this farting around with different tiers in different regions, all the while Starmer pleading for a national lockdown, and hey presto - we have a national lockdown to be announced a full 3 weeks after Starmer first urged for this to happen.
It doesn't exactly put the Tories on the front foot, does it?
It was political opportunism by Starmer, but, as often's the case, it came right. He now appears prescient.All this farting around with different tiers in different regions, all the while Starmer pleading for a national lockdown, and hey presto - we have a national lockdown to be announced a full 3 weeks after Starmer first urged for this to happen.
It doesn't exactly put the Tories on the front foot, does it?
Not only that, it's knocked the anti-semitism scandal off the front pages. Got to hand it to the guy, he's been lucky in his 6 months. Johnson must hate him.
The leak shows that Johnson's cabinet is right behind him, ready to put a knife into his back. Not quite what he expected of the top job.
markyb_lcy said:
Without passing comment on the strategies themselves, and assuming the impending lockdown will be longer than the “circuit breaker” (I’m guessing 28 days rather than the 2-3 weeks of the “circuit breaker”)...
This is an absolute slam dunk for Starmer.
The circuit breaker wouldn't be a one off (much like the lockdown). You're comparing apples and pears by looking at one shutdown period alone.This is an absolute slam dunk for Starmer.
To me, the idea of local lockdowns makes a lot of sense. If there are lots of cases in Manchester and very few in Cornwall, why would you lock down Cornwall as well?
Other countries have taken this approach as well.
Why hasn't it worked - I dont know? But I would like to understand why, before another full lockdown.
Other countries have taken this approach as well.
Why hasn't it worked - I dont know? But I would like to understand why, before another full lockdown.
Derek Smith said:
zygalski said:
Well he's been proven right, hasn't he?
All this farting around with different tiers in different regions, all the while Starmer pleading for a national lockdown, and hey presto - we have a national lockdown to be announced a full 3 weeks after Starmer first urged for this to happen.
It doesn't exactly put the Tories on the front foot, does it?
It was political opportunism by Starmer, but, as often's the case, it came right. He now appears prescient.All this farting around with different tiers in different regions, all the while Starmer pleading for a national lockdown, and hey presto - we have a national lockdown to be announced a full 3 weeks after Starmer first urged for this to happen.
It doesn't exactly put the Tories on the front foot, does it?
Not only that, it's knocked the anti-semitism scandal off the front pages. Got to hand it to the guy, he's been lucky in his 6 months. Johnson must hate him.
The leak shows that Johnson's cabinet is right behind him, ready to put a knife into his back. Not quite what he expected of the top job.
Turns out running a country is a big boys and girls job and if you’re like Boris and dishonest, poor at making decisions, not into details and avoid scrutiny then a crisis will highlight all your inadequacies.
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
To me, the idea of local lockdowns makes a lot of sense. If there are lots of cases in Manchester and very few in Cornwall, why would you lock down Cornwall as well?
Other countries have taken this approach as well.
Why hasn't it worked - I dont know? But I would like to understand why, before another full lockdown.
Probably because too many people and supplies move uncontrolled in both directions over local boundaries to contain the virus.Other countries have taken this approach as well.
Why hasn't it worked - I dont know? But I would like to understand why, before another full lockdown.
Someone sends a letter from Manchester to Penzance and suddenly you have an outbreak.
768 said:
markyb_lcy said:
Without passing comment on the strategies themselves, and assuming the impending lockdown will be longer than the “circuit breaker” (I’m guessing 28 days rather than the 2-3 weeks of the “circuit breaker”)...
This is an absolute slam dunk for Starmer.
The circuit breaker wouldn't be a one off (much like the lockdown). You're comparing apples and pears by looking at one shutdown period alone.This is an absolute slam dunk for Starmer.
Now we’re looking at doing a tier approach and THEN lockdowns which will need to be longer as we’re starting from higher infection rates.
It’s the worst of all methods.
768 said:
markyb_lcy said:
Without passing comment on the strategies themselves, and assuming the impending lockdown will be longer than the “circuit breaker” (I’m guessing 28 days rather than the 2-3 weeks of the “circuit breaker”)...
This is an absolute slam dunk for Starmer.
The circuit breaker wouldn't be a one off (much like the lockdown). You're comparing apples and pears by looking at one shutdown period alone.This is an absolute slam dunk for Starmer.
I’m just saying that on the face of it, it’s a massive political win for Starmer, and it will be easy to characterise it as such, at the despatch box, and in the media, where the nuances of the relative pros and cons or contrast between the apples and pears, will be completely lost in the noise.
It will put as ...
“You didn’t heed the warning to do a short circuit breaker and now we must do a much longer national total lockdown, and this after you told us how economically damaging it would be”
swisstoni said:
If Govt had gone for full national lockdowns you can bet that the opposition parties would have called for a more local approach.
If they yang, you ying.
Indeed, and in a continually evolving situation, you can pretty much guarantee you'll eventually be right, or near enough that you can claim clairvoyance.If they yang, you ying.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff