What makes you think this? The BBC newsnight photoshop?
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
This will be the final nail in the Labour coffin for Scotland. Crazy leadership to allow it to happen.
Not to worry. I have already derailed things and don't want to start a debate on bin strikes!
What I will say is that the local CLPs have, after seven years, defeated the left of the party and seized control of the structure of power. The problem now is that everyone is slowly starting to realise that the 'anti-Corbyn' coalition they built now cannot agree on anything as they are drawn from the entire spectrum of the party.
It is a classic case of ignoring the wider picture to focus on local issues.
In a best case scenario the new council are brilliant and make everyone's lives better.
Great.
But 95% of the time people vote in local elections according to the national picture, and as you said this is just more Scotland-wide ammo for the SNP to use.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How.
20 points ahead in the polls we were told
Not because of Starmer
Electable...
I imagine as soon as Boris is pushed out, the Tories will shoot back up over Labour and Starmer will soon be done for.
He's a classic centre left ideal: a politician who says the right wing is mean but does toned down versions of their same policies while blaming any defeat on stupid leftists.
I find it Baffling
How anyone can favour Boris over a one legged pigeon is beyond me let alone Starmer
Starmer isn’t exactly my cuppa tea but compared to Boris, I’d rather see him in the PM seat 10,000 times more that Boris a 20 million times more on Sundays
Boris is the worse thing too happen too this Country
I loathed David Cameron, yet he’s a Gods send in comparison too Boris (shudders just saying that about Cameron)
I also would much prefer Starmer over Johnson, and for me a Labour / Labour-led government is always better than the a Tory / Tory-led one.
I have worried in the past that the major criticisms levelled at Starmer during the past couple of years, that he lacks policies, is ‘captain hindsight’, and is just boring and lacks charisma (sadly that is far more important than it should be) etc., would stick. In terms of the policy point, modern day Labour centrists do tend to be incredibly wishy-washy there, often coming out with managerial jargon. That's in contrast to Blair and New Labour in the 90s, who yes would also come out with jargon, but crucially could set out what they stood for in terms of policies clearly and concisely.
I have worried in the past that the major criticisms levelled at Starmer during the past couple of years, that he lacks policies, is ‘captain hindsight’, and is just boring and lacks charisma (sadly that is far more important than it should be) etc., would stick. In terms of the policy point, modern day Labour centrists do tend to be incredibly wishy-washy there, often coming out with managerial jargon. That's in contrast to Blair and New Labour in the 90s, who yes would also come out with jargon, but crucially could set out what they stood for in terms of policies clearly and concisely.
Stockholm syndrome in full effect. Anyone would be better for the country than Johnson & the Tories at the moment, it's as simple as that.
From Labour's perspective, this should be deeply concerning.
Judging Starmer's performance as leader in its own merits, and without comparing him to the disaster zone that is Johnson across the dispatch box or even to his predecessor Corbyn, I think it has been lacklustre at best.
Judging Starmer's performance as leader in its own merits, and without comparing him to the disaster zone that is Johnson across the dispatch box or even to his predecessor Corbyn, I think it has been lacklustre at best.
Given how much the media and his own party hated him, I think Corbyn did pretty well until he screwed up dealing with antisemitism.
Agreed. He is the only Labour leader I can remember in my lifetime who didn’t even have the Guardian onside. In-fact on a few occasions they deliberately misrepresented what he said.
To be fair to him, in his first shadow cabinet in 2015 he reached out and appointed people from across the party. And had the people within the party hostile to him, been far more collegiate and united from the start of the 2017 election campaign, maybe (still a maybe) they could become the largest party.
But in 2018 it was clear that the party were drifting, and over time he increasingly looked worn out and unable to control its different factions.
Re Starmer, I saw a description of him as Blair minus the gravitas, charisma and ability to explain his policy platform clearly, and so without much point to him / his leadership. I find it difficult to disagree with that. Of course despite that I'd still much prefer him as PM than Johnson though.
The Guardian backed Clegg over Miliband (including on a front page editorial before the GE in 2010) and was openly aggressive to Corbyn, save the odd columnist now and again. They're far more with Starmer than they have been with any Labour leader for at least a decade.
I guess at the time of the 2010 GE, Labour had just been in power for 13 years (it was considered to be 13 years of Blair / Brown rather than just 3 years of Brown), while the Lib Dems were considered to be a breath of fresh air to many people (still untainted by being in government at that stage) and Clegg himself was personally very popular. They did encourage anti-Tory tactical voting though. I really wish that the 2010 election had produced the numbers for Labour-Lib Dem coalition, as I think that the country would have been in far better shape; yes there would have been cuts, but not excessive austerity as driven by the Tories.
After the 2010 GE didn't they quickly turn on Clegg, or at least criticise him heavily following the Lib Dems' role in the coalition government, and pretty firmly back Miliband during his time as leader of the opposition (I can't remember if they wanted his brother to win the 2010 leadership contest over him though).
In 2019, of course Corbyn's disastrous approval ratings, plus the over-stuffed 'Christmas wishlist' manifesto (in contrast to the 2017 manifesto which was slick and excellent) were big problems, so I'm not defending him there. But I still maintain that in a GE that was always going to heavily revolve around Brexit, Labour were doomed from the start regardless of their Brexit policy or their leader (Tony Blair knew that and said as much well in advance). When the agenda is dominated by a major constitutional issue such as Brexit or Scottish independence, Labour just cannot handle that and will inevitably suffer.
It was their own fault. If they'd been a strongly pro-EU party in the past it would have been an easy battle to fight, but Labour have plenty of track record of using the EU as an easy scapegoat for their own failures, just like the Tories.
The fact that Corbyn looked to have been dragged ‘kicking and screaming' to supporting another referendum after the European election result, was a very bad look for the party and very damaging.
It was a difficult balance for Labour though, as while most Labour voters in most seats that they were defending and targeting voted to remain even if those areas as a whole voted to leave, with the nature of FPTP moderate swings of leave voters away from them in leave voting seats could be and ultimately were very damaging. On the flipside most Tory party members and voters already supported Brexit ahead of the EU referendum in 2016 with many of those who supported remain including the likes of Ken Clarke not wanting another referendum, all their candidates in 2019 supported Johnson's deal, and the majority of seats that they were defending and targeting voted to leave. So it was much easier for them.
To be honest I think if they'd been a pro-EU and pro-2nd referendum party at the time of the 2017 GE, I think that they'd have done far worse then and I strongly doubt they would have removed May's majority. May wanted 2017 to be a Brexit election, but at that stage there wasn't really much of a Brexit debate or appetite or demand for another EU referendum. Most people, even if reluctantly, accepted that we were leaving, and the formal withdrawal negotiations hadn't started yet. It was only in 2018 when it was clear that those negotiations were going shambolically, that support for another EU referendum and to stop Brexit really grew. So as a result 2017 revolved more around domestic issues with Brexit hardly mentioned during the campaign. Had Labour supported remaining in the EU back then, May would have got her Brexit election and I think would have increased her majority with Labour suffering.
Some Labour MPs and supporters in the media, have said that Labour’s policy in 2019 should have been to negotiate a new 'softer' Brexit deal without putting it to a referendum. But then they would have gone into the election offering neither the promise of an EU departure by the end of January 2020 to please leavers, or the promise of another referendum to please remainers, and so surely would have suffered just as much if not more.
Yeah, I think once the referendum happened the exit needed to be hard, to prove the whole thing was self-destructive crap. A soft Brexit would have just given the brexiteers a cushioned fall.
Agreed, I don't think there was ever much hope of a soft Brexit, as it would have been widely attacked on both sides by leavers as being a betrayal, not proper Brexit etc., and by remainers as being completely pointless compared to just maintaining the terms of our previous EU membership. Blair spelled that quite a few times, and was right when he said it was impossible to unite the country over Brexit.
Any hope of a soft Brexit surely died for good when those series of indicative votes were held in the Commons in at the start of April 2019 (I think), after May's withdrawal agreement had been rejected for a 3rd time. At a time when there was no majority in the Commons for anything, the Customs Union and Common Market 2.0 motions were only narrowly rejected, I think one of them by just 2-3 votes. While those motions were non-binding, either of them gaining the majority of votes and breaking the deadlock in Westminster, could 'potentially' have triggered a move towards a softer Brexit. But then again, I think many Tory back-benchers would surely have revolted had May or whoever the PM was tried to go down that route.
That will preface another shift to the right.
Yeah there is zero chance that the next Labour Government will do anything about it. Either under Starmer or another leader. If anything expect it to be expanded.
Far too concerned with focus groups in the Red Wall.
There is meant to be a full suite of policies finalised by the central party and the various bodies by the end of Summer.
I keep thinking in the back of my mind that they must have something. No one goes to all this effort to then offer nothing but like I’m guessing theres going to be feck all.
It really seems they are banking on labour voters simply having no where else to go on Election Day. Which tbh Starmer, he has completely given up on the platform he was elected on and the membership doesn’t seem to care.
Funny that they never seem to consider how the Scottish might view this sort of thing. That was also a Labour stronghold at one point, why not try to win them round? Economic policies for the red wall, social policies for Scotland, they might even be in danger of winning round two sets of voters.
Seemingly his whole tactic at the moment is to be boring and unnoticed. If that's not a deliberate tactic then I despair at the state of Labour.
i just worry that the entire strategy is built around competing with Boris. The Tories will appoint a new leader and they'll go strong on promoting whoever it is whilst Labour are stuck with Starmer needing to shift towards not being a boring step dad.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
the public would warm to him but the problem is this
and this
he doesn't offer anything which opposes the government which everyone hates. that's a massive failure. if you cut every platform you ran on as candidate for leader, you should be able to replace those platforms with something else tangible. no one knows what he stands for. that's tory 101 and they get away with it because you expect it of them. labour needs to actually offer something. this vapid non-opposition might have been a good idea initially but eventually you have to assert some tangible difference between you and the government and it can't just be some notion of "we're not as bad as them".
It was a while ago now but was he any different during the leadership race ? From I remember I don’t think he was, the only change now is the dropping of left policy.
Tbh a bland progressive bureaucrat to contrast against Boris at least makes sense in theory(although it was never going to happen)but whatever the feck this current shtick is just seems very odd. I mean he was doing Star Wars jokes yesterday while the tories were threatening to the leave the European court of human rights.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I saw a few tweets about him trying to cosplay as left of centre but wasn't curious enough to look in to what he'd said.
Wonder if he'll keep doing it or if it seems to piss important allies off too much.
Hmm. There is something wrong when Wes Streeting is to the left of you.
Yeah it will be interesting to see especially as things seem to be turning on Starmer now. Although tbh not sure it means too much for poor old working class hero Wes, as the only person I can see as the next leader will be Andy Burnham.
The membership will go down the rabbit hole of northern power house shtick. Control immigration mugs but printed over stone roses lemon logos and Marcus Rashford poster in the style of Obama hope design as evidence of progressive English nationalism.
Its going be very shite.