Starmer Next Labour Leader

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

My memory may mislead me, but from what I remember, it seemed a dead cert David milliband would win the leadership race until Ed ran and swung the trade unions. 

 

I actually don't mind ed milliband, but it's clear as day that David's face would have fit and things like bacon sarniegate would not have happened.

David Cameron v David Miliband would have been the worst choice put forward I can think of, the turnout would probably have been about 50%. I mean just call off the election and have a government of national unity instead.

 

It was bad enough watching Cameron prance around having to pretend he was a Conservative without David Miliband also trying to hoodwink the electorate into thinking he had some leftie credentials.

[Kopfkino]

56 minutes ago, MattP said:

David Cameron v David Miliband would have been the worst choice put forward I can think of, the turnout would probably have been about 50%. I mean just call off the election and have a government of national unity instead.

 

It was bad enough watching Cameron prance around having to pretend he was a Conservative without David Miliband also trying to hoodwink the electorate into thinking he had some leftie credentials.

 

I feel the bit about Cameron is a little bit odd given the previous discussion about Conservatives being pragmatic and basing things on what can win elections. And Cameron won two elections, you might argue he should have done better first time but he did pick up 96 seats and second time he increased seats and vote share after 5 years of government. 

 

I don't really know what a Conservative really is. A lot of people seem to cast a Thatcher narrative but there's only really Michael Howard that truly fits that bill in terms of past leaders and she was quite a departure at the time. The grassroots pretend to be Thatcherite but its only true in the sense they're stuck in 1982. In terms of actual Toryism narrative , then May had that brief nailed. Maybe in my mind Hague and IDS fit the typical Conservative bill and look how that went.

 

Its an unpopular opinion but I like both Cameron and Osborne, more for how they played politics rather than what they achieved. They saw the gaps in the market and they copied what worked for Blair and utilised them. It does irk me that they had no grand vision beyond a propensity for liberalism and that they wasted an opportunity for more agile government, but, for me personally, they at least had the Conservatives at a point I could actually vote for a party and I don't see anyone managing that anytime soon. 

 

But anywah that's by the by, I don't see how they weren't Conservative, presumably Boris is prancing around pretending to be Conservative?

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I feel the bit about Cameron is a little bit odd given the previous discussion about Conservatives being pragmatic and basing things on what can win elections. And Cameron won two elections, you might argue he should have done better first time but he did pick up 96 seats and second time he increased seats and vote share after 5 years of government. 

 

I don't really know what a Conservative really is. A lot of people seem to cast a Thatcher narrative but there's only really Michael Howard that truly fits that bill in terms of past leaders and she was quite a departure at the time. The grassroots pretend to be Thatcherite but its only true in the sense they're stuck in 1982. In terms of actual Toryism narrative , then May had that brief nailed. Maybe in my mind Hague and IDS fit the typical Conservative bill and look how that went.

 

Its an unpopular opinion but I like both Cameron and Osborne, more for how they played politics rather than what they achieved. They saw the gaps in the market and they copied what worked for Blair and utilised them. It does irk me that they had no grand vision beyond a propensity for liberalism and that they wasted an opportunity for more agile government, but, for me personally, they at least had the Conservatives at a point I could actually vote for a party and I don't see anyone managing that anytime soon. 

 

But anywah that's by the by, I don't see how they weren't Conservative, presumably Boris is prancing around pretending to be Conservative?

There is always an element of seriousness but also an element of humour in the posts about Cameron not being a Conservative. Of course he's a Conservative, he was a Conservative Prime Minister - but I also think he'd had have been just as comfortable being the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

 

The same does apply to Boris to an extent as well, he has many of the same credentials. In an ideal World he wouldn't be the leader but Brexit (and more importantly the opposition to it) meant it had to happen. Implementing the referendum result is one of the most important things a PM has ever done though, I don't think it gets more Conservative in the traditional sense than a commitment to democracy.

 

You knew Thatcher, Howard, IDS, May etc could only ever be in one political party all the way from the origins or Burke and Disraeli - what happened in the last decade was bizarre though, Antoinette Sandbach, Justine Greening, Sam Gyimah, Sarah Woolaston - all of these were in the wrong party, these people barely had a Conservative thought or opinion yet they idolised what David Cameron was doing.

Edited 13 May 2020 by MattP

[Facecloth]

11 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I always find that argument really weird. Not the argument that Ed M was a poor leader, that's a matter of opinion.

The idea that he "stabbed his brother in the back" by going for the job - because he was the younger brother, I presume?

 

I'm saying that as an elder brother, too.

 

If BoJo had been younger than Jo Johnson would he have been duty bound to stand aside? What about Rachel Johnson or does the primogeniture only apply to the male line?

Imagine if Maggie T's elder sister had wanted to stand for Tory leader.... 

 

 

Potential Labour gain in NW Leicestershire, then, with Coalville.

 

Just need to change Ashby to Cashby-de-la-zouche to secure the victory.....

I'm not sure I'd want to live in Cloughborough as it sound too much like its named after Brian.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

I'm not sure I'd want to live in Cloughborough as it sound too much like its named after Brian.

Don't fancy telling folks I grew up near Craptoft either 

Edited 13 May 2020 by Dahnsouff

[Mike Oxlong]

Starmer is having Boris on toast for his lunch today 

[StanSP]

31 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Starmer is having Boris on toast for his lunch today 

Yes Boris getting hammered. Noticed Laura K made a good point - Boris lacks without his cheerleaders behind him, 'lawyer beating the showman' 

[Voll Blau]

 

[Fox92]

I like Starmer. At the minute he's coming across as more intelligent and calmer to me.

[martyn]

Boris will get ground down at this rate.  Starmer is running rings around him No wonder JRM wants the braying mob back asap. 

 

Not sure how he didnt see that Starmer set piece on care homes coming. Could have bluffed/obfuscated and avoided this letter being drafted. 

 

How on earth Boris will make that clarification sound palatable will be interesting. 

Edited 13 May 2020 by martyn

[StanSP]

Enjoying Starmer take the government to task in a respectful and professional manner. Avoids getting stuck in to the games other MPs play. 

[Kopfkino]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

There is always an element of seriousness but also an element of humour in the posts about Cameron not being a Conservative. Of course he's a Conservative, he was a Conservative Prime Minister - but I also think he'd had have been just as comfortable being the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

 

The same does apply to Boris to an extent as well, he has many of the same credentials. In an ideal World he wouldn't be the leader but Brexit (and more importantly the opposition to it) meant it had to happen. Implementing the referendum result is one of the most important things a PM has ever done though, I don't think it gets more Conservative in the traditional sense than a commitment to democracy.

 

You knew Thatcher, Howard, IDS, May etc could only ever be in one political party all the way from the origins or Burke and Disraeli - what happened in the last decade was bizarre though, Antoinette Sandbach, Justine Greening, Sam Gyimah, Sarah Woolaston - all of these were in the wrong party, these people barely had a Conservative thought or opinion yet they idolised what David Cameron was doing.

 

Absolutely no idea why Sarah Woolaston even bothered with politics, she'd have been much more suited to a quango like PHE where she could nanny our lives into misery.

 

 

But again I'm not sure Thatcher could ever only be in one party. Whilst she didn't quite grip and try to revolutionise the whole party, she was not too dissimilar to Corbyn in trying to use an existing brand for the convenience of getting into government and a lot of the Conservative establishment was not initially keen on her. She really wasn't much like any other Conservative leader in her lifetime from Baldwin through to Heath. She was much more Gladstone than Disraeli so, whilst Section 28 was famously illiberal, she could easily have been a Liberal if an actual viable Liberal Party had been around. That she recast the Conservative Party to be synonymous with her and her ideas doesn't mean that's where she belonged initially, although in my opinion many Conservatives, and obviously opponents, mischaracterise her.

 

Anyway, if Thatcher belongs as a Conservative then so does Sam Gyimah, certainly wasn't a Lib Dem and it's a shame that people like him had to leave, think once Brexit is out the way the party will rue losing people like him.

[BlueSi13]

Think certain sections of the media are getting a little too excited by Starmer at PMQ's.  It couldn't be easier for him and Labour at the minute.  Pick holes in the governments strategy and offer zero alternatives.  All the pressure is on the Prime Minister and government with every scenario a lose-lose until this thing is eradicated.  

 

As it stands Labour are 20 points behind in the polls and though the current strategy may make things awkward for the government, Labour won't be able to eat in to that lead significantly until they can be seen to truly offer a viable alternative.

 

Also don't forget that Hague used to bully Blair week-in-week-out at PMQ's.  Didn't stop him losing by 246 seats in 2001 

[Wortho]

Brylcreem Bob is a good Labour leader living in £2m house in Islington. He's not exactly charismatic but he is "forensic".

[Kopfkino]

7 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Think certain sections of the media are getting a little too excited by Starmer at PMQ's.  It couldn't be easier for him and Labour at the minute.  Pick holes in the governments strategy and offer zero alternatives.  All the pressure is on the Prime Minister and government with every scenario a lose-lose until this thing is eradicated.  

 

It's relatively easy to do PMQs when you can spend a lot of time preparing for it with a whole warehouse of ammo whilst up against someone that actually has to do something. Add that to the fact that the bar is so low because his predecessor was useless and he's up against somebody who has never been a parliamentary performer and blatantly can't do PMQs who relies on theatre.

 

It's quite remarkable how far competence has fallen out of frontline politics that now people get a boner over somebody actually doing the job adequately. As you say, go back and look at Hague or Cameron or Miliband, Starmer hasn't been anything special.

[martyn]

7 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Think certain sections of the media are getting a little too excited by Starmer at PMQ's.  It couldn't be easier for him and Labour at the minute.  Pick holes in the governments strategy and offer zero alternatives.  All the pressure is on the Prime Minister and government with every scenario a lose-lose until this thing is eradicated.  

 

As it stands Labour are 20 points behind in the polls and though the current strategy may make things awkward for the government, Labour won't be able to eat in to that lead significantly until they can be seen to truly offer a viable alternative.

 

Also don't forget that Hague used to bully Blair week-in-week-out at PMQ's.  Didn't stop him losing by 246 seats in 2001 

Boris and the Conservatives have had it far too easy for too long with Corbyn and co across the bench. Jezza would probably still be talking about bus timetables. 

 

Personality aside, what Starmer is doing very well is showing competence, one which was completely lacking in the previous opposition leader, and something the Labour party needs to be demonstrating right now. How he goes over the longer term remains to be seen, but he has made a very strong start imo. 

 

Its not about picking holes in strategy, its about exposing fundamental errors (that care home piece today being a prime example of both an effective critique in the house and political strategy with the letter). 

 

 

[Chocolate Teapot]

9 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Brylcreem Bob is a good Labour leader living in £2m house in Islington. He's not exactly charismatic but he is "forensic".

He doesn't live in Islington, and i'm pretty sure his house doesn't cost £2m. Think the fact he worked his way up with a pretty serious career is a good thing for politics.

 

He drinks in a local pub, gets the tube to work and is pretty down to earth though. Not sure if you're trying to criticise him there or not, but i think his background compared to many politicians is pretty solid.

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Think certain sections of the media are getting a little too excited by Starmer at PMQ's.  It couldn't be easier for him and Labour at the minute.  Pick holes in the governments strategy and offer zero alternatives.  All the pressure is on the Prime Minister and government with every scenario a lose-lose until this thing is eradicated.  

 

As it stands Labour are 20 points behind in the polls and though the current strategy may make things awkward for the government, Labour won't be able to eat in to that lead significantly until they can be seen to truly offer a viable alternative.

 

Also don't forget that Hague used to bully Blair week-in-week-out at PMQ's.  Didn't stop him losing by 246 seats in 2001 

It's a bit bizarre but you are going to get seriously excited if the last person the party you supported had somebody as woeful at the top of it.

 

It was never a secret Starmer should be good at this given his background, but as others have said, everything is currently in his favour and in the end these contests mean nothing anyway.

 

Winning back seats outside the M25 with the same sort of people who ran the remain and second referendum campaigns on Brexit is where it will go tits up.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Boris always struggles on his own, don't think this will ever change. He relies on his cabinet and experts a lot.

 

EDIT: Starmer is much better than Corbyn, that's the main thing, at least there's some form of pressure on the Governemnt now!

Edited 13 May 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[StanSP]

25 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

 It couldn't be easier for him and Labour at the minute.  Pick holes in the governments strategy and offer zero alternatives.  All the pressure is on the Prime Minister and government with every scenario a lose-lose until this thing is eradicated.  

Sorry but that's not Starmer's fault. 

 

He picks holes and you won't like it. 

If he wasn't doing that you'd be saying why isn't he when it's seemingly so easy. 

 

So he can't win in your eyes 

 

 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Don't know anything about him but just looking at him has a distinct 'tory in a red tie' vibe. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Boris always struggles on his own, don't think this will ever change. He relies on his cabinet and experts a lot.

 

EDIT: Starmer is much better than Corbyn, that's the main thing, at least there's some form of pressure on the Governemnt now!

It's very tough for anyone to be honest, Cameron used to have Osborne helping him a lot, Boris now is naked in this current up.

 

PMQ's should be a piece of piss for the opposition on most occasions, you effectively get to question and attack the government without offering solutions yourself, it's still bemusing how bad Corbyn managed to be.

[StriderHiryu]

29 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Brylcreem Bob is a good Labour leader living in £2m house in Islington. He's not exactly charismatic but he is "forensic".

You can tell why he was an extremely successful lawyer and it's definitely a very strong point of his.

 

Is he charismatic enough to be a leader, and to appeal to those outside of London? He has a much better chance than Corbyn but I can't help but feel he won't quite connect with the masses. It could be put right though with a sensible campaign and the Tories are trying their best to give him a chance it seems.

[BlueSi13]

4 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Sorry but that's not Starmer's fault. 

 

He picks holes and you won't like it. 

If he wasn't doing that you'd be saying why isn't he when it's seemingly so easy. 

 

So he can't win in your eyes 

 

 

Never said it was.  

 

I was commenting on the fact that I've seen some online heralding him as the Prime Minister in-waiting based on a couple of PMQ's where he has had a complete open goal.

 

He is neither winning nor losing in my eyes.  Until he actually steps forward and lays out in detail what he'd be doing DIFFERENTLY during such a crisis I can't pass judgement either way.  

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

I like Starmer. At the minute he's coming across as more intelligent and calmer to me.

But is he kinder and gentler?