Keir Starmer Labour Leader

ZupZup said:
Tbf, by the time the 2019 election came around... Labour were screwed regardless because there is no Brexit position they could take that would help them win. Pledging for a second referendum alienates too many voters and not doing that would piss off too many Labour voters who backed remain. The main issue is that most constituencies voted leave but something like 70% of Labour voters were remain. It was an unwinnable election for them.

The only hope they would have had is if Teresa May's Brexit deal had gotten through and essentially removed Brexit from the table as the defining issue of an election.
Click to expand...

That's not wholly true, as the 2017 election showed. It also doesn't account for the fact that Brexit was an evolving issue of which Corbyn and Labour were part and could, in theory at least, have shaped. This wasn't like covid, an unexpected external event that spikes popularity for the sitting Government, leaving the opposition with no place in the conversation. Labour were there for the twists and turns of the period between the 2016 vote and the 2019 election, but they never managed to turn the narrative in a direction that suited them. The problem was that Corbyn wasn't popular enough to actually change people's minds, so Labour had to play it defensive and hope for the best.

For what its worth I don't see that Starmer would have fared much better at changing the tune, he's not a visionary by any means.
 
ZupZup said:
Tbf, by the time the 2019 election came around... Labour were screwed regardless because there is no Brexit position they could take that would help them win. Pledging for a second referendum alienates too many voters and not doing that would piss off too many Labour voters who backed remain. The main issue is that most constituencies voted leave but something like 70% of Labour voters were remain. It was an unwinnable election for them.

The only hope they would have had is if Teresa May's Brexit deal had gotten through and essentially removed Brexit from the table as the defining issue of an election.
Click to expand...

Having some sort of concrete brexit policy would of helped though. At the end of the day Labour couldn’t decide what to do with brexit and that indecision hurt them hard.

That indecision really was a result of poor leadership, Corbyn may off had some good policies that polled well but his lack of leadership is what cost him and labour in the end.
 
Longshanks said:
Both the 2017 and 2019 elections were heavily driven by brexit. It’s just that

Having some sort of concrete brexit policy would of helped though. At the end of the day Labour couldn’t decide what to do with brexit and that indecision hurt them hard.

That indecision really was a result of poor leadership, Corbyn may off had some good policies that polled well but his lack of leadership is what cost him and labour in the end.
Click to expand...
They were the party of remain, Starmer went rogue and proclaimed them as such during his conference speech. You can plug your ears and attribute that to Corbyn all you like, but we all know who actually did that.

Fast forward a leadership election and he's become a Johnson deal backer who has swapped freedom of movement for Nigel Farage's wet dream :lol:
 
Longshanks said:
Having some sort of concrete brexit policy would of helped though. At the end of the day Labour couldn’t decide what to do with brexit and that indecision hurt them hard.

That indecision really was a result of poor leadership, Corbyn may off had some good policies that polled well but his lack of leadership is what cost him and labour in the end.
Click to expand...

Ok, hypothetically... what policy do you think they should have settled on that could have won them the election?

Personally, if you think there is one... I'd say you are probably kidding yourself.
 
I think corbyn being labelled as the evil love child of Adolf Hitler and the Anti-christ on the front page of every newspaper in the land had more to do with his election failure than his lack of leadership....
 
Frosty said:
The Lib Dems escape a lot of blame here. They abstained and voted aganist a customs union arrangement which only lost by 6, due to wanting to rejoin that badly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parli...rst_Round_of_Indicative_Votes_(27_March_2019)

They could have saved us a world of hurt.
Click to expand...

Centrist liberals refusing to compromise on lesser evils and then yelling at people for being ideological cranks for refusing to compromise with them? Never!!

Also the CHUK lot were in on this shit too iirc… Despite the media spending the previous months fawning over their formation as some kind of sensible alternative for all the morally haunted politically homeless Gary Linekars of the world.

For what it’s worth, I think the policies that have come out of conference have largely seemed pretty good. No idea if any of them will happen (all of them almost certainly won’t) but the optics are good, which is better than we’ve had up til now, at least.
 
Last edited:
Dobba said:
They were the party of remain, Starmer went rogue and proclaimed them as such during his conference speech. You can plug your ears and attribute that to Corbyn all you like, but we all know who actually did that.

Fast forward a leadership election and he's become a Johnson deal backer who has swapped freedom of movement for Nigel Farage's wet dream :lol:
Click to expand...

They certainly were not the party of Remain, not with Corbyn who was famously a Eurosceptic at the helm they were the party of who the feck actually knows. Some were remain, some were leave and some didn’t really know, much like the country really.

The problem was the electorate in general didn’t really know where labour stood with brexit its one of the reasons they took such a pummelling.

When the country could really of done with some decisive leadership dealing with the huge political issue that was dominating the time including at the time of the referendum, we got ‘not really sure on that, but here is some ideological left wing fantasies and if you don’t like that than you must be Tory scum’.

In terms of ‘Farages wet dream’ what is your particular problem with a ‘points based immigration system’ in a post brexit world?

and like it or not if labour do win the next general election they will have to just simply pick up Johnson’s deal and make the best of it they can. We won’t be re-joining or trying for a different deal anytime soon.
 
Dobba said:
They were the party of remain, Starmer went rogue and proclaimed them as such during his conference speech. You can plug your ears and attribute that to Corbyn all you like, but we all know who actually did that.

Fast forward a leadership election and he's become a Johnson deal backer who has swapped freedom of movement for Nigel Farage's wet dream :lol:
Click to expand...

Yep you are just WUMing now. As someone said in another post, they were not the party of remain. They dithered and didn't have a proper policy on Brexit. Top that with the Leader not being popular. It was up to the Leader of the party to present himself as a prime minister in waiting with policies to appeal to the electorate.
 
Superden said:
I think corbyn being labelled as the evil love child of Adolf Hitler and the Anti-christ on the front page of every newspaper in the land had more to do with his election failure than his lack of leadership....
Click to expand...

Nope that's the narrative that Corbyn supporters want to believe. Don't get me wrong, the media treatment wasnt great but he just wasn't popular with the electorate because he struggled to come across as a prime minister in waiting and also made gaffes of his own. Add to that he had McDonnell and Abbot in key ministerial jobs and they were deemed to be not fit for the job either.
 
TheGame said:
Nope that's the narrative that Corbyn supporters want to believe. Don't get me wrong, the media treatment wasnt great but he just wasn't popular with the electorate because he struggled to come across as a prime minister in waiting and also made gaffes of his own. Add to that he had McDonnell and Abbot in key ministerial jobs and they were deemed to be not fit for the job either.
Click to expand...
The English voter famously hates gaffe prone politicians.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
How triumphant. :lol:

I think you need to understand that Labour's improvement in the polls is in spite of Starmer, not because of him. The Tories have imploded. Labour could have Harry Maguire as leader and they'd still be ahead in the polls.
Click to expand...

Not so. This isn't a protest vote anymore, this is a change in the weather. As the saying goes, Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Starmer has moved Labour to the centre, put in a fairly capable team of administrators into the shadow cabinet, and neutralised the more electorally repellant Corbynisms. He's made Labour look like a reasonably a safe and pragmatic option next to the bunch of incompetent ideologues in power, and that's why their polling is good. Who wouldn't take boring competence right now? These are choices Starmer made and you berated him for them, so you don't get to say Labour's position is all 'in spite of him' now.
 
Last edited:
Kinsella said:
There is far too much bureaucracy involved in modern health care, and the pen pushing management class in every Trust (which the public never encounters) has far too much power and influence over how hospitals are run. The situation in NI is beyond dire, and it’s not just due to funding.
Click to expand...
No, I think it is a myth that the NHS has too much bureaucracy. A while ago analysis of ONS data found the number of managers in the NHS much less than in most organisations. Many "managers' in the NHS are also clinicians.

I don't work in the NHS, but I think it is amazing that such a complex organisation keeps functioning even despite amateurs meddling, an ageing population and non-existent complementary public services. My guess is it is unlikely anyone can get any more sizable efficiency savings out of it, without breaking the fundamental model.
 
Kinsella said:
There is far too much bureaucracy involved in modern health care, and the pen pushing management class in every Trust (which the public never encounters) has far too much power and influence over how hospitals are run. The situation in NI is beyond dire, and it’s not just due to funding.
Click to expand...

main-qimg-f3041996b1005e41d74f54da495700cd-lq


Better than most...especially the privatized ones!
 
@Kinsella
I am in the US. My insurance changed on Aug 1 this year because I changed jobs.
I went to the ER on July 28, and was in hospital July 30- Aug 2, with a bunch of confusing symptoms.

I now have 3 different sets of bills/explanations - 3 bills from the hospital (with no explanation of each amount, for $800, $400, $200, and new bills keep coming). 3 processed claims from the new insurance company (saying I owe $450, $600, $200), with partial explanations. 1 processed claim from the old insurance company ($1200), with full explanation.

So, because of the bureaucracy that is necessary for private healthcare and private insurance, I don't really know what I owe or why, but it's probably around $2000. The old insurance company claims to have paid $3000, while the new one has paid 0 since I'm under my annual deductible. That makes the total bill about $5000*.

What did the hospital do for $5000? They did a CT scan, an X-ray, and blood tests. After the first day in the hospital, my doctor at home in India diagnosed me over the phone with dengue, based on platelet and liver numbers and other symptoms. The hospital here got the dengue antibody test back 2 long after my discharge - it was positive. They refused to diagnose me without that test, so I was discharged without a diagnosis.
I got no medicine (the treatment for dengue is rest, and it's not like this hospital knew what was wrong anyway), and didn't require any special attention.
That was the $5000 hospital visit.

*If I didn't have insurance, my cost would have been ~$15000 instead.
 
RedChip said:
No, I think it is a myth that the NHS has too much bureaucracy. A while ago analysis of ONS data found the number of managers in the NHS much less than in most organisations. Many "managers' in the NHS are also clinicians.

I don't work in the NHS, but I think it is amazing that such a complex organisation keeps functioning even despite amateurs meddling, an ageing population and non-existent complementary public services. My guess is it is unlikely anyone can get any more sizable efficiency savings out of it, without breaking the fundamental model.
Click to expand...

I’m referring specifically to the amount of bureaucracy and admin that doctors themselves have to wade through in their daily routine. The sheer volume of it is overwhelming.

Process replaced purpose as the main driver in the service a long time ago. It’s a pretty toxic culture and a major reason why so many staff have left or taken early retirement. I think a political truce should be declared on the NHS, instead of the usual political grandstanding with each party posing as the sole saviour of the service during every election cycle. It needs root and branch reform and complete reorganisation in the public interest.

And don’t get me started on the clinicians who go into management!
 
nimic said:
Step 1: post a long post blaming them for everything that's gone wrong
Step 2: end the post by saying they always blame everyone else for everything that goes wrong
Step 3: ????
Step 4: profit
Click to expand...

Step 1, pretend 6 lines is a long post to anyone but an idiot.

Step 2, define blaming the blamers as being wrong but blaming is righteous.

Step 3. attack the space.

Step 4. how can a loss be a win.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
How triumphant. :lol:

I think you need to understand that Labour's improvement in the polls is in spite of Starmer, not because of him. The Tories have imploded. Labour could have Harry Maguire as leader and they'd still be ahead in the polls.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that but Corbyn's inability to beat Johnson was definitely down to Corbyn.
 
Smores said:
Love posters who invent conversations to proclaim how smart they are :lol:

It's also a ridiculous spin to claim Corbyn is at fault for MPs self-sabotaging their own party. Its MPs responsibility to work with their leader in trying to get elected, the MPs on the left understand this and took the decision to support Starmer despite everything. Corbyn never purged or rigged the system like we're seeing but perhaps you think he should have?

Absolutely no one thought the Tories couldn't lose an election. The issue is still the same can Starmer win without Scotland and without those on the left he's pushed away? That's still up in the air because Labour need slightly higher polling to be confident of a win.
Click to expand...

1.Love posters who invent conversations to proclaim how smart they are :lol:

You don't have to be smart to be correct on here. Just once in a while I think its important to make the point that the spamming ultra left posters who clog this thread and threads like it are terrible at predicting anything, despite their certainty and absolute commitment to the cause. Take your posts and theirs with a dose of salt is all I am saying. Mine too, as predictions unless they prove correct. I never invented anything. Go back through the threads its all there.

2.Absolutely no one thought the Tories couldn't lose an election.

I was pretty certain they couldn't lose one against Corbyn. I was right about that, you were wrong about it, were you not?


The bold below is obviously what you would normally expect but how could Corbyn expect it given his record and his obvious detriment to the ticket.

"It's also a ridiculous spin to claim Corbyn is at fault for MPs self-sabotaging their own party. Its MPs responsibility to work with their leader in trying to get elected, the MPs on the left understand this and took the decision to support Starmer despite everything. Corbyn never purged or rigged the system like we're seeing but perhaps you think he should have?"

So to be clear your argument is Corbyn should expect a level of loyalty to him as leader he never showed to any of his leaders. I pointed this out at the very beginning and everyone who voted for him knew it. Don't make up a world where Corbyn was a loyalist to leadership undermined when he became leader because he wasn't and what goes around came around.
 
Kinsella said:
I’m referring specifically to the amount of bureaucracy and admin that doctors themselves have to wade through in their daily routine. The sheer volume of it is overwhelming.

Process replaced purpose as the main driver in the service a long time ago. It’s a pretty toxic culture and a major reason why so many staff have left or taken early retirement. I think a political truce should be declared on the NHS, instead of the usual political grandstanding with each party posing as the sole saviour of the service during every election cycle. It needs root and branch reform and complete reorganisation in the public interest.

And don’t get me started on the clinicians who go into management!
Click to expand...
Absolutely. In an ideal world the NHS and pension policy would be outside of party politics and the election cycle, and overseen by a cross-party committee, because they need generational planning, not tinkering round the edges or 10% of budgets shaved off to fund tax cuts to the wealthiest.
 
I understand the arguments against Starmer and why some like @Dobba feel they would prefer not to vote for him, for context my wife has left the Labour and joined the Greens because of her dislike for Starmer.

But for me the priority has to be ousting the Tory government. IMO the last 12 years of Tory government have devastated this country and have caused difficulty and pain for myself and my immediate family.

Looking at the damage they have been responsible for, austerity, Brexit, the decimation of the NHS the underfunding running down of both the mental health and care services, the dangerous lack of any clear climate action, as the father of a transgender child, the horrific use of gender to stoke self serving culture wars and then finally this week the huge cost they have added to my mortgage which renews next Feb, they should not only be voted out, they should put on fecking trial.

The list of their crimes goes on and on, but I have only listed those that have affected me personally.

I voted for Blair, Brown, Corbyn and I will vote for Starmer without hesitation. Corbyn was undoubtedly closest to me in ideological and political outlook, in fact the only area I differed from him was over Brexit.

But looking right now on what is being offered by both main parties, Labour under Starmer in my mind would be far better for the nation, for myself and for my family.

Is Starmer perfect? Definitely not but feck me a Labour government under his leadership will be feck of a lot better than anything I can see realistically happening right now.
 
What I see is that Boris was the man to get brexit done and sometimes strong idiots are needed for a thankless task like this. The UK will follow the states with regards to ukraine policy so any leader of any party could handle that. The idea of government backed companies in energy from Starmer is a good one, a bit like a sovereign wealth fund which I don’t think the UK have.

Overall however the country needs a stable, boring, responsible leader and Starmer fits the bill, the fact Liz Truss is leader worries me if Rishi was white he would be prime minister right now, Liz Truss seems so incapable even in her interviews its actually frightening.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
1.Love posters who invent conversations to proclaim how smart they are :lol:

You don't have to be smart to be correct on here. Just once in a while I think its important to make the point that the spamming ultra left posters who clog this thread and threads like it are terrible at predicting anything, despite their certainty and absolute commitment to the cause. Take your posts and theirs with a dose of salt is all I am saying. Mine too, as predictions unless they prove correct. I never invented anything. Go back through the threads its all there.

2.Absolutely no one thought the Tories couldn't lose an election.

I was pretty certain they couldn't lose one against Corbyn. I was right about that, you were wrong about it, were you not?


The bold below is obviously what you would normally expect but how could Corbyn expect it given his record and his obvious detriment to the ticket.

"It's also a ridiculous spin to claim Corbyn is at fault for MPs self-sabotaging their own party. Its MPs responsibility to work with their leader in trying to get elected, the MPs on the left understand this and took the decision to support Starmer despite everything. Corbyn never purged or rigged the system like we're seeing but perhaps you think he should have?"

So to be clear your argument is Corbyn should expect a level of loyalty to him as leader he never showed to any of his leaders. I pointed this out at the very beginning and everyone who voted for him knew it. Don't make up a world where Corbyn was a loyalist to leadership undermined when he became leader because he wasn't and what goes around came around.
Click to expand...

That Corbyn would struggle to win against the Tories isn't and wasn't some hot take. That was the default for Labour and he came closer against May than anyone really expected. We actually had hubris from his most vocal critics at that point. Still he didn't win so rightly went.

Your second argument seems to be that loyalty is absolute or disloyalty is all the same. An MP sticking to what they campaign on even if it means voting against their party is not the same as a conspiracy at all levels of the party to undermine your leader. Both parties have always had backbenchers who publically disagreed with leaders policy, nothing wrong with that it's the norm and expected.
 
Sweet Square said:
I would guess he just isn't really into football. Which should be fine to say but for whatever reason(Particularly for male politicians)they have to pretend to like it.
Click to expand...

Meh it’s the national sport and we are approaching a WC. At least know who the England Captain is :lol:

I understand what you mean though and it wouldn’t have any baring where I would vote but the issue is it would with others. Especially those who see him as out of touch.
 
TheReligion said:
Meh it’s the national sport and we are approaching a WC. At least know who the England Captain is :lol:
Click to expand...
Yeah not knowing Harry Kane is odd bit. Tbh I was hoping he would say someone like Rooney or Gary Lineker.

TheReligion said:
I understand what you mean though and it wouldn’t have any baring where I would vote but the issue is it would with others. Especially those who see him as out of touch.
Click to expand...
Oh it would bring negative press, if Starmer said he isn't a fan(Unpatriotic lefty etc). Football is odd in that it's still seen as a game for the working class but it's constantly getting more expensive. I'm always reminded of the stat that the average United season holder is around 50 years old(I think it's the same for most clubs).
 
Sweet Square said:
Yeah not knowing Harry Kane is odd bit. Tbh I was hoping he would say someone like Rooney or Gary Lineker.


Oh it would bring negative press, if Starmer said he isn't a fan(Unpatriotic lefty etc). Football is odd in that it's still seen as a game for the working class but it's constantly getting more expensive. I'm always reminded of the stat that the average United season holder is around 50 years old(I think it's the same for most clubs).
Click to expand...

On another note, and in another thread, we need to talk about Blue Velvet and Frank Booth.
 
it is weird that politicians have to pretend to like football. and it almost never convinces when they do pretend. some of them like football, some of them don't. shouldn't be a big deal, really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.