Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
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.
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.
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.
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
(Though I'm not sure those three are especially hard left, are they?).
Dodds makes me laugh, she always looks so pained and eager to interview well, but invariably appears out of her depth.
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. Sadly not doing enough to give us the strong opposition party that we need.
And where are Lib Dem’s?
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!Sadly not doing enough to give us the strong opposition party that we need.
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
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
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 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 thoughI hate to say it, but Corbyn and McDonnell would have had a more robust and interesting response to today’s budget.
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 thoughI hate to say it, but Corbyn and McDonnell would have had a more robust and interesting response to today’s budget.
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?
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. 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. 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. P5BNij said:
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. Maybe the only way to deal with the enormous issues with those would be radical change though.
jesusbuiltmycar said:
His performance yesterday was very flat... It shows the lack of talent though that he didn't trust his Shadow Chancellor (Annalise Dodds in case you have forgotten) to stand-up and respond to Rishi Sunak's budget
Isn't that normal? I thought that it was normally the Leader of the Opposition that responds to the budget. Might be wrong.(still wouldn't trust Annalise to do it, but hey)
AmitG said:
jesusbuiltmycar said:
His performance yesterday was very flat... It shows the lack of talent though that he didn't trust his Shadow Chancellor (Annalise Dodds in case you have forgotten) to stand-up and respond to Rishi Sunak's budget
Isn't that normal? I thought that it was normally the Leader of the Opposition that responds to the budget. Might be wrong.(still wouldn't trust Annalise to do it, but hey)
Wombat3 said:
AmitG said:
jesusbuiltmycar said:
His performance yesterday was very flat... It shows the lack of talent though that he didn't trust his Shadow Chancellor (Annalise Dodds in case you have forgotten) to stand-up and respond to Rishi Sunak's budget
Isn't that normal? I thought that it was normally the Leader of the Opposition that responds to the budget. Might be wrong.(still wouldn't trust Annalise to do it, but hey)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff