Labour under Starmer.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Don't forget Blair. He recognised the UK needed/wanted public services that weren't falling apart but couldn't raise taxes on the wealthy because he was in too tight with the establishment and couldnt raise taxes on normal people or he wouldn't get elected. PFI was and still is a shitshow of the highest order.

A lot of the decisions taken under these 'charismatic' leaders were as you would expect, prioritise the needs of people now over the needs of people in the future.

I didn’t mention Blair because it seems to me that it’s clear he’s a busted flush whereas Thatcher still enjoys the same sort of reputation, good and bad, as she’s always done - I don’t think Thatcherism is aging well.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I didn’t mention Blair because it seems to me that it’s clear he’s a busted flush whereas Thatcher still enjoys the same sort of reputation, good and bad, as she’s always done - I don’t think Thatcherism is aging well.

I hear a lot of people who say they want to vote Labour but are pining for the charisma of Blair which Starmer is never going to have.

Thatcherism isn't aging well at all but it's so long ago that the awful long term effects of almost her entire political playbook are often not linked back to her for some reason.

Selling everything the country owned for less than it was worth. The privatisation of basic needs to the point where the government has less and less influence on peoples lives and a small number of corporations own us all.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I hear a lot of people who say they want to vote Labour but are pining for the charisma of Blair which Starmer is never going to have.

Thatcherism isn't aging well at all but it's so long ago that the awful long term effects of almost her entire political playbook are often not linked back to her for some reason.

Selling everything the country owned for less than it was worth. The privatisation of basic needs to the point where the government has less and less influence on peoples lives and a small number of corporations own us all.

Precisely.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I hear a lot of people who say they want to vote Labour but are pining for the charisma of Blair which Starmer is never going to have.

Thatcherism isn't aging well at all but it's so long ago that the awful long term effects of almost her entire political playbook are often not linked back to her for some reason.

Selling everything the country owned for less than it was worth. The privatisation of basic needs to the point where the government has less and less influence on peoples lives and a small number of corporations own us all.

You would think a former head of public prosecutions and a formidable QC would have charisma but Starmer has nothing

He's absolutely hopeless and yet again the only party I can vote for has elected a crab with no legs as its leader

The labour party are utterly shambolic

[Keyser Soze]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

You would think a former head of public prosecutions and a formidable QC would have charisma but Starmer has nothing

He's absolutely hopeless and yet again the only party I can vote for has elected a crab with no legs as its leader

The labour party are utterly shambolic

It is a point that gets me as well. One of the key skills of a Barrister / Queen's Counsel is persuasive skills. That said, you don't have to be charismatic, just a good persuader. Mostly the presentation of logical arguments backed by facts is key. Both Blair and Thatcher were qualified barristers, hence their persuasion skills.

Don't forget, somehow Starmer appears to have persuaded Corbyn and The Left, and then suddenly he is now chumming up with Blair and Mandelson and persuading them. So somehow, he has been able to hold court with both sides of Labour - and that takes some persuasion skill. So I am still placing my bets that he is just being cautious until he is in, and not saying too much, as he is advised by Blair and Mandelson, and playing from their playbook. He must have a lot more in the tank than we give credit for, but he is keeping some powder dry.

[Dorcus]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I hear a lot of people who say they want to vote Labour but are pining for the charisma of Blair which Starmer is never going to have.

Thatcherism isn't aging well at all but it's so long ago that the awful long term effects of almost her entire political playbook are often not linked back to her for some reason.

Selling everything the country owned for less than it was worth. The privatisation of basic needs to the point where the government has less and less influence on peoples lives and a small number of corporations own us all.

Small State = Huge Problems

[life on mars]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Blair and Thatcher were our most successful Prime Ministers, with both having a decade of success in the bag. What made them successful? Well they had a narrative of what the UK could be like - vision imprinted in the minds of voters. They stuck to the plan and delivered.

For Thatcher it was offering a solution to end all the strikes (achieved), the homeowner dream instead of damp, poorly maintained social housing (achieved), shareholder democracy (achieved), creating wealth (achieved) and improving Britain’s economic standing in the world (26th to 4th - achieved).

For Blair his goal was simpler. To protect the Thatcher inheritance (achieved), but to layer a better sense of fairness and social justice (achieved). Some argue he didn’t do much. Yes true, he had an easier shift. But to be fair, many since have screwed up and didn’t have to to much. For all his critics his only errors in my view was two things. Allowing that grumpy, envious Scot of a Chancellor to assert too much control (should have sacked him when he saw the threat), and invasion of Iraq. I thought on balance, Blair was excellent.

But both Blair and Thatcher were clear on what Britain would look like and they delivered on their promises. That is the essence of leadership.

What of the others since?

Brown - a grumpy, plotting, miserable, policy-obsessed control freak who created the regulatory mess with Ed Balls that was the tri-partite regulatory regime that led to poor oversight of the financial system in the UK. No vision. No leadership. A real GINK!! About as inspiring as a burning shit after a lamb madras.

Cameron - an excellent speaker and presenter. Excellent debating skills. So good, Blair knew it was time to exit. But no vision. Like all Etonians he was skilled at retaining power but that’s all. The only brains in his cabinet was Osborne, who was one very, very clever boy.

May - honourable, diligent and sensible. Speaking ability of a technology coder and about as inspiring as Brown. Classic Oxford PPE - no vision. Just like Johnson. Just like Cameron. Oxford PPEs have this in common.

Johnson - another Etonian blusterbuff. Attention to detail of a nat.

Truss - The lettuce. Terrible presenter. Terrible speaker. Tried to present a good vision but had the personality of a member the gestapo. I could see what she was trying to do but badly packaged and presented. Never a PM in a million years.

Sunak - you must be joking. Voice of a twenty-something tech bro: “Hey guys, the future is crypto!”. Completely disconnected from the average man in the street. Financially compromised by his offshore entities, green card, tax-dodging wife and father in law. His lack of empathy in the food kitchen with the “Yes business is important” just left me scratching my head. Utterly crap and dishonourable chap. As I always say, intelligent he may be, but you don’t need to have an IQ of 180 to be a leader. It is about planning, communicating, organising, motivating and painting what the future looks like and people skills. Sunak has very little of any of it.

The only decent person left in the Conservative party is Penny Mordaunt who seems a lovely person. Modern, fair to people, cares for those who served in the armed forces, a good speaker, funny, bright, personable, balanced and would make a thoroughly good Prime Minister. Excellent presented and debater, and put the SNP’s Angus Robertson and Angela Rayner smack bang, back in their seats in recent debates. The Conservative Party tucked Mordaunt up in the leadership votes and stacked it in favour of a Sunak-Truss vote-off, when polling clearly showed three big things:

1. She would hammer Starmer in an election
2. She was most popular with grassroots members
3. She was hugely popular v Sunak, Truss or Starmer in popularity stakes

A weird move. Mordaunt would walked an election victory. But the hedge funds have financed both Sunak and Truss wouldn’t back Mordaunt, so the party lobbying worked, and the hedgies financing it all made sure the party got Truss-Sunak in the final. Now they pay the price for their stupidity.

This is basically 1997, replayed. A corrupt, rudderless, joke of a Conservative party, bought off by foreign entities and tax-dodgers, with no vision, has reached the end of its road. Economically it has failed. It has failed the British people. The economy is a flatlining. Brexit is a mess.

Starmer? He needn’t be that great. People forget that Blair wasn’t aggressive in 1996 and waited for the Conservatives started infighting. He gave nothing away and he was advised by the politically cunning Peter Mandelson. Mandelson is now advising Starmer to do the same via his Global Counsel company. If Starmer is boring or not saying much it is because Mandelson is advising him the same as Blair. When the opposition is so poor, why say too much and give them a target to hit? Good on them, that is clever and cunning politics. The Conservatives will panic with nothing to hit, and start going crazy and coming out with negative attack PR such as the “New Labour, New Danger” nonsense videos (on youtube!) to attack Blair. It just made them look desperate.

My guess is that we will not know who Starmer really is until he hits No.10. But the donors give a clue. Unbeknown to many, hedge funds are stacking New Labour’s funding alongside the unions. My guess, and they will never say it, is that there will be a vote to rejoin the EU. Public opinion is now 60% in favour of it, and increasing every month and the future (youngies) want it. Regardless of what he says, what shrewd politician would not stay quiet until they win, then announce a popular move?

I suspect on the basis of policy, I will vote Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru at the next election. One to ponder.

Excellent summary and spot on , your views are the same for millions of centralist, who fell out of love with Labour and struggle with Tories, I with you on Mordant she has that leadership look , as I was with the excellent Ruth Davidson.. to be fair the Tories have more respect for women than Labour in both leadership and not having a penis.

[Dorcus]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Excellent summary and spot on , your views are the same for millions of centralist, who fell out of love with Labour and struggle with Tories, I with you on Mordant she has that leadership look , as I was with the excellent Ruth Davidson.. to be fair the Tories have more respect for women than Labour in both leadership and not having a penis.

I hope Penny Mordaunt doesn't have a penis, that'll be a real shame if she does.

[jon1959]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

It is a point that gets me as well. One of the key skills of a Barrister / Queen's Counsel is persuasive skills. That said, you don't have to be charismatic, just a good persuader. Mostly the presentation of logical arguments backed by facts is key. Both Blair and Thatcher were qualified barristers, hence their persuasion skills.

Don't forget, somehow Starmer appears to have persuaded Corbyn and The Left, and then suddenly he is now chumming up with Blair and Mandelson and persuading them. So somehow, he has been able to hold court with both sides of Labour - and that takes some persuasion skill. So I am still placing my bets that he is just being cautious until he is in, and not saying too much, as he is advised by Blair and Mandelson, and playing from their playbook. He must have a lot more in the tank than we give credit for, but he is keeping some powder dry.

There is no mystery.

Starmer lied - and lied and lied and lied - then he didn’t. The real right wing, adenoidal, personality deficient, cowardly Starmer is the one you see on your TV screens now.

Despite the Labour shit show on offer they are still a marginally better option than the Tories.

Depressing isn’t it?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

I hope Penny Mordaunt doesn't have a penis, that'll be a real shame if she does.

She's a big unit

5 years time you will regret it

And she's a tory

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Excellent summary and spot on , your views are the same for millions of centralist, who fell out of love with Labour and struggle with Tories, I with you on Mordant she has that leadership look , as I was with the excellent Ruth Davidson.. to be fair the Tories have more respect for women than Labour in both leadership and not having a penis.

Well you are certainly not centralist

The Tories are the party for backstabbers

Survival of the fittest etc etc

[Doucas]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Do that you may as well vote Tory.

I belive voting for Starmer is voting tory.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

The only decent person left in the Conservative party is Penny Mordaunt who seems a lovely person. Modern, fair to people, cares for those who served in the armed forces, a good speaker, funny, bright, personable, balanced and would make a thoroughly good Prime Minister. Excellent presented and debater, and put the SNP’s Angus Robertson and Angela Rayner smack bang, back in their seats in recent debates. The Conservative Party tucked Mordaunt up in the leadership votes and stacked it in favour of a Sunak-Truss vote-off, when polling clearly showed three big things:

1. She would hammer Starmer in an election
2. She was most popular with grassroots members
3. She was hugely popular v Sunak, Truss or Starmer in popularity stakes

A weird move. Mordaunt would walked an election victory. But the hedge funds have financed both Sunak and Truss wouldn’t back Mordaunt, so the party lobbying worked, and the hedgies financing it all made sure the party got Truss-Sunak in the final. Now they pay the price for their stupidity.

I don't disagree with the idea that the leadership election (both, if the second one counts) were complete set ups but I think saying she would have 'walked an election' when she would have been inheriting a party 8-10% behind in the polls with all the macro issues facing truss/sunak still in play is an extreme reach.

As for her polling, well fullfact struggled to decipher her claims but clearly her messaging about being wonderfully popular got across.

https://fullfact.org/news/penny-mordaunt-keir-starmer-polling/

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

There is no mystery.

Starmer lied - and lied and lied and lied - then he didn’t. The real right wing, adenoidal, personality deficient, cowardly Starmer is the one you see on your TV screens now.

Despite the Labour shit show on offer they are still a marginally better option than the Tories.

Depressing isn’t it?

That's about the size of it although I draw the line at actually voting for him. As the saying goes, you'll only encourage him.

[Keyser Soze]

Re: Labour under Starmer.

Yes, depressing. There are good reasons for this recent phenomenon of ineffective leaders, a strong view that I have personally held since the financial crisis.

Looking at what has happened since then, and looking forward, I see no reason for it to change for anothet five years at least.