So Who Replaces Starmer

[Heathblue]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

Truss wasn’t voted in by anyone apart from the loons who make up the Conservative Party. Johnson was the last Tory PM to win at the vote which really counts seven years ago.

Fair cop

[Elwood Blues]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

Truss wasn’t voted in by anyone apart from the loons who make up the Conservative Party. Johnson was the last Tory PM to win at the vote which really counts seven years ago.

I don't disagree with you about loons in the conservative party, although it is probably unfair (but only just theses days!) to say they are all loons.

However having seen some of the toady,bootlicking responses defending Starmer. I think there is an creasing number in the Labour party these days

[Dorcus]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

I don't disagree with you about loons in the conservative party, although it is probably unfair (but only just theses days!) to say they are all loons.

However having seen some of the toady,bootlicking responses defending Starmer. I think there is an creasing number in the Labour party these days

In all fairness, a few that aren't loons but sadly they are in a dwindling minority......

Dominic Grieve
David Gaulke
Ken Clarke
Michael Heseltine

[Eric Cartman]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

But he will have his own 'I am not Starmer' knife to use!

For a week or two. The same cycle will continue.

[jon1959]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

For a week or two. The same cycle will continue.

Maybe, but I do not accept the argument that Starmer is 'a decent man' or that he is a victim of circumstances.

I think Starmer is a serial liar with a personality deficit and a front man for a McSweeney/Mandelson clique that plotted to take control of the Labour Party. I think he is a political coward, who also makes stupid and often vindictive decisions. He got lucky with a landslide majority (two thirds of the seats on one third of the votes) and has squandered the hand he was dealt.

I have no confidence that many of the current Cabinet have the skills, vision or experience to do much better - but even they would do a bit better. There are other figures in the Labour Party (still) who have the ability to do an effective job in the interests of the people Labour exist to represent - in the UK and beyond.

Burnham might be one of those - if he could get back into Parliament. He is a mixed bag, with his stock so high because of Manchester and not being Starmer, but also with political sins in his past. But he - or someone like him (maybe even a woman!) is the best chance Labour has of avoiding a generational meltdown.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

Maybe, but I do not accept the argument that Starmer is 'a decent man' or that he is a victim of circumstances.

I think Starmer is a serial liar with a personality deficit and a front man for a McSweeney/Mandelson clique that plotted to take control of the Labour Party. I think he is a political coward, who also makes stupid and often vindictive decisions. He got lucky with a landslide majority (two thirds of the seats on one third of the votes) and has squandered the hand he was dealt.

I have no confidence that many of the current Cabinet have the skills, vision or experience to do much better - but even they would do a bit better. There are other figures in the Labour Party (still) who have the ability to do an effective job in the interests of the people Labour exist to represent - in the UK and beyond.

Burnham might be one of those - if he could get back into Parliament. He is a mixed bag, with his stock so high because of Manchester and not being Starmer, but also with political sins in his past. But he - or someone like him (maybe even a woman!) is the best chance Labour has of avoiding a generational meltdown.

What does the difference look like in policy though? From my position it looks like labour are (quite slowly, as per Westminster) working through quite a few of the issues already. I have always felt as though reeves is too deliberate and orthodox but the left wing alternative seems to be to hold up a sign saying 'wealth tax' and then crumble when asked what it is, who it targets, how it is avoid-proof? Simple questions.

Squandered the hand he was dealt? This is starting to sound a bit like brexiteers saying Brexit didn't work because it was implemented poorly. The public finances are in a pretty ominous state (exacerbated by demographics and a looming welfare issue that nobody seems to want to acknowledge) and I don't see a viable plan from elsewhere that is better than slow incremental improvement.

I would love to see a more equal country where everyone feels like they have purpose and opportunity but I haven't seen a plan from anybody that I have any confidence in, conviction and smooth talking isn't enough.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

What does the difference look like in policy though? From my position it looks like labour are (quite slowly, as per Westminster) working through quite a few of the issues already. I have always felt as though reeves is too deliberate and orthodox but the left wing alternative seems to be to hold up a sign saying 'wealth tax' and then crumble when asked what it is, who it targets, how it is avoid-proof? Simple questions.

Squandered the hand he was dealt? This is starting to sound a bit like brexiteers saying Brexit didn't work because it was implemented poorly. The public finances are in a pretty ominous state (exacerbated by demographics and a looming welfare issue that nobody seems to want to acknowledge) and I don't see a viable plan from elsewhere that is better than slow incremental improvement.

I would love to see a more equal country where everyone feels like they have purpose and opportunity but I haven't seen a plan from anybody that I have any confidence in, conviction and smooth talking isn't enough.

The biggest chunk of welfare is the insane triple lock

50 percent of the budget

But we wont talk about that

Unless you are saying we do ?

[jon1959]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

What does the difference look like in policy though? From my position it looks like labour are (quite slowly, as per Westminster) working through quite a few of the issues already. I have always felt as though reeves is too deliberate and orthodox but the left wing alternative seems to be to hold up a sign saying 'wealth tax' and then crumble when asked what it is, who it targets, how it is avoid-proof? Simple questions.

Squandered the hand he was dealt? This is starting to sound a bit like brexiteers saying Brexit didn't work because it was implemented poorly. The public finances are in a pretty ominous state (exacerbated by demographics and a looming welfare issue that nobody seems to want to acknowledge) and I don't see a viable plan from elsewhere that is better than slow incremental improvement.

I would love to see a more equal country where everyone feels like they have purpose and opportunity but I haven't seen a plan from anybody that I have any confidence in, conviction and smooth talking isn't enough.

Some fair points, Eric.

Without going 'blow by blow' on the policy agenda, Starmer conned the membership into voting him as leader by saying he would base his policy offer to the country on the 2017 Labour Manifesto - and build on Corbyn's legacy, not trash it. He lied.

The challenges are massive - I accept. And any government, especially a Labour government, will be constrained by the markets. But Starmer has adopted a 'late Blairite' template (bar a few scraps thrown to Ed Milliband) and dumped most of the progressive agenda developed in opposition (Green New Deal onwards) and is in bed with Palantir and other rapacious corporations.

The 'squandering his hand' in my mind is about Winter Fuel Payments, about Gaza and Iran and attacks on civil rights and victim blaming. It is about trying to outdo Reform and lurching to the right in language and policy. It is about a lack of openness and honesty at the heart of his government. It is fawning over Trump. It is about claiming to 'take full responsibility' for what he screws up, then blaming every one else. He has handed the political initiative to the Greens (and to some extent Reform). He was in a very strong position at the start of this Parliament, and he blew it - massively!

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

Some fair points, Eric.

Without going 'blow by blow' on the policy agenda, Starmer conned the membership into voting him as leader by saying he would base his policy offer to the country on the 2017 Labour Manifesto - and build on Corbyn's legacy, not trash it. He lied.

The challenges are massive - I accept. And any government, especially a Labour government, will be constrained by the markets. But Starmer has adopted a 'late Blairite' template (bar a few scraps thrown to Ed Milliband) and dumped most of the progressive agenda developed in opposition (Green New Deal onwards) and is in bed with Palantir and other rapacious corporations.

The 'squandering his hand' in my mind is about Winter Fuel Payments, about Gaza and Iran and attacks on civil rights and victim blaming. It is about trying to outdo Reform and lurching to the right in language and policy. It is about a lack of openness and honesty at the heart of his government. It is fawning over Trump. It is about claiming to 'take full responsibility' for what he screws up, then blaming every one else. He has handed the political initiative to the Greens (and to some extent Reform). He was in a very strong position at the start of this Parliament, and he blew it - massively!

Sorcha Eastwood , would love her in the labour party

[Eric Cartman]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

The biggest chunk of welfare is the insane triple lock

50 percent of the budget

But we wont talk about that

Unless you are saying we do ?

Can't see why not. You don't actually project triple lock particularly far into the future for it to become a large problem. I don't think we have the balance right between 'what is the state pension meant to be' and 'how much should we pay over our lives for it' primarily because triple lock has shifted that equation. I think means testing the state pension undermines it and tbh I think the system + pension credit is probably far too generous/loose in certain circumstances but I don't actually have examples of that to give.

But this head in the sand attitude from the left about welfare needs to stop, mental health has fundamentally changed the equation and that will continue to get worse imo. There is a limit to how much you can squeeze the income of people who can and do work, to fund welfare full stop, but especially so if the net widens, which it has. The Tories wanted to solve this with a stick, 'tick, you are fit to work, no more benefits' but there has to be a better humane way to incentivise work (that's part of my issue with the left sticking their heads in the sand on this, they are probably the only ones who can fix it in a decent way). The reality is, if the left doesn't try and fix this humanely before it becomes too much, austerity on steroids is coming..

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

Some fair points, Eric.

Without going 'blow by blow' on the policy agenda, Starmer conned the membership into voting him as leader by saying he would base his policy offer to the country on the 2017 Labour Manifesto - and build on Corbyn's legacy, not trash it. He lied.

The challenges are massive - I accept. And any government, especially a Labour government, will be constrained by the markets. But Starmer has adopted a 'late Blairite' template (bar a few scraps thrown to Ed Milliband) and dumped most of the progressive agenda developed in opposition (Green New Deal onwards) and is in bed with Palantir and other rapacious corporations.

The 'squandering his hand' in my mind is about Winter Fuel Payments, about Gaza and Iran and attacks on civil rights and victim blaming. It is about trying to outdo Reform and lurching to the right in language and policy. It is about a lack of openness and honesty at the heart of his government. It is fawning over Trump. It is about claiming to 'take full responsibility' for what he screws up, then blaming every one else. He has handed the political initiative to the Greens (and to some extent Reform). He was in a very strong position at the start of this Parliament, and he blew it - massively!

Sorcha Eastwood , would love her in the labour party

[Eric Cartman]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

Some fair points, Eric.

Without going 'blow by blow' on the policy agenda, Starmer conned the membership into voting him as leader by saying he would base his policy offer to the country on the 2017 Labour Manifesto - and build on Corbyn's legacy, not trash it. He lied.

The challenges are massive - I accept. And any government, especially a Labour government, will be constrained by the markets. But Starmer has adopted a 'late Blairite' template (bar a few scraps thrown to Ed Milliband) and dumped most of the progressive agenda developed in opposition (Green New Deal onwards) and is in bed with Palantir and other rapacious corporations.

The 'squandering his hand' in my mind is about Winter Fuel Payments, about Gaza and Iran and attacks on civil rights and victim blaming. It is about trying to outdo Reform and lurching to the right in language and policy. It is about a lack of openness and honesty at the heart of his government. It is fawning over Trump. It is about claiming to 'take full responsibility' for what he screws up, then blaming every one else. He has handed the political initiative to the Greens (and to some extent Reform). He was in a very strong position at the start of this Parliament, and he blew it - massively!

Yeah I can see where you are coming from and I do hear it a lot. I'm not going to try and claim Starmer has lived up to my hopes, there's been far too many missteps but I do think this government is getting started with doing a lot of things that people were crying out for (and nobody really talks about these things)

I never really felt like reeves/Starmer meshed well in terms of ideology. I always got the impression that Starmer has sort of been worked on to get him to drop those pledges and deep down he probably believes in at least a few of them, but has been convinced that circumstance prevails. I might be being too generous, I don't know.

I guess my view at a basic level is that a lot was broken after those 14 years and labour have actually made pretty decent progress with fixing some of that in difficult circumstances (but I acknowledge that they have also created their own difficult circumstances as well).

As for Trump, I think it was worth a shot, didn't work out but I can't really criticise the approach there.

[JamesWales]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

I think Labour will get annihilated in the English elections and do poorly (but not disastrously) in Scotland and Wales.

It goes totally against logic but I feel Starmer will survive it. I think people are tired of leadership dramas and he will argue - with some merit - that mid term elections are usually bad.

As an aside, makes me laugh when people say Labour "out Reform Reform". In what way? Imposing the law? Good luck in having an even more lax immigration system and making any inroads in social inequalities, because it won't work. That's why Labour is tightening up. Not to out Reform Reform, but because it's a prerequisite to social progress

[MOZZER2]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

Can't see why not. You don't actually project triple lock particularly far into the future for it to become a large problem. I don't think we have the balance right between 'what is the state pension meant to be' and 'how much should we pay over our lives for it' primarily because triple lock has shifted that equation. I think means testing the state pension undermines it and tbh I think the system + pension credit is probably far too generous/loose in certain circumstances but I don't actually have examples of that to give.

But this head in the sand attitude from the left about welfare needs to stop, mental health has fundamentally changed the equation and that will continue to get worse imo. There is a limit to how much you can squeeze the income of people who can and do work, to fund welfare full stop, but especially so if the net widens, which it has. The Tories wanted to solve this with a stick, 'tick, you are fit to work, no more benefits' but there has to be a better humane way to incentivise work (that's part of my issue with the left sticking their heads in the sand on this, they are probably the only ones who can fix it in a decent way). The reality is, if the left doesn't try and fix this humanely before it becomes too much, austerity on steroids is coming..

was reading last week that for the first time welfare spending has exceeded income tax receipts in the UK
total welfare spending around 334 billion quid Income tax revenue around 331 billion quid

by the end of the decade projections indicate around 400 billion quid on welfare spending !

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So Who Replaces Starmer

was reading last week that for the first time welfare spending has exceeded income tax receipts in the UK
total welfare spending around 334 billion quid Income tax revenue around 331 billion quid

by the end of the decade projections indicate around 400 billion quid on welfare spending !

Most welfare spending is pensions ....due to the triple lock

Dont be fooled into killing the poor so the fat old gits can swan about in benidorm