advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
droodzilla said:
I think he's finished to be honest (not necessarily now, but certainly in the medium term). I wonder if he will even lead Labour into the next GE. It's sad really, given the goodwill he inherited when he became party leader: (diluted) 2017/2019 manifesto + competence and party unity was an attractive offer but ultimately the headcases on the right of the party will give him the same treatment they gave to Brown, Milliband and (turned up to 11) Corbyn.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. As I say, it’s make or break. I’m at the point where it may be more merciful for the Party to sink width out trace. Perhaps time for a new opposition.
 
notaclue said:
Jonathan Ashworth and Anneliese Dodds also rumoured for the purge.

Along with Nandy and Rayner...
Click to expand...

Possibly no bad thing for them. When Starmer quits they won't find themselves associated with his leadership and will be free to make a return to front benches.
 
Woodface said:
I much prefer McDonnell to Corbyn, think he is far smarter (intellectually). I think he would have made a better leader also.
Click to expand...

McDonnell has a ruthless streak and that is a requirement for a political leader. Jeremy wanted to be friends with everyone and his election to leader was the result of circumstance and needing to step up. I now he wouldn't have chosen to be leader where it possible to substitute another socialist MP.
The Party rules prevented this.
 
Woodface said:
You’re all over the place on this one. Working people like to look smart where appropriate; I wouldn’t turn up to a job interview dressed like Corbyn. Trying to get elected is a very demanding selection process & you should make the effort to look the part. In fairness to Corbyn he did eventually recognise this & smartened up.
Click to expand...

Corbyn has represented the metropolitan latte-drinking hipsters, indie kids and media types of an increasingly gentrified Islington (actually a lovely vibrant place) since the early ‘80s. Maybe they have a somewhat different view of things than you, and may even consider generic politicians in dull grey business suits in a negative light?!
 
If you're given a job to do like, let's say, run the campaign so that you increase the number of council seats held and win a by-election, and then you fail to do it, then you shouldn't be surprised if the boss decides to get someone else in and you lose your job.
 
Seeker_UK said:
If you're given a job to do like, let's say, run the campaign so that you increase the number of council seats held and win a by-election, and then you fail to do it, then you shouldn't be surprised if the boss decides to get someone else in and you lose your job.
Click to expand...

It seems more like sacking the drummer because the songs on your solo album are shite and it doesn’t sell.
 
Seeker_UK said:
If you're given a job to do like, let's say, run the campaign so that you increase the number of council seats held and win a by-election, and then you fail to do it, then you shouldn't be surprised if the boss decides to get someone else in and you lose your job.
Click to expand...

Was she tasked with coming up with the policies to sell as well?
 
Tony L said:
It seems more like sacking the drummer because the songs on your solo album are shite and it doesn’t sell.
Click to expand...

Nope, they're sacking the promoter for not getting the single in the charts and that has *never* been an issue of intrinsic quality.
 
Well, whatever the logic I’m sure we can all agree that it’s an incredibly shrewd and deft move politically.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Nope, they're sacking the promoter for not getting the single in the charts and that has *never* been an issue of intrinsic quality.
Click to expand...

If Rayner was directly responsible for Starmer avoiding even the slightest hint of discernible policy or moral integrity, and was to blame for all that ugly gammon flag-waving, then yes, she absolutely deserved to go. If that was the case it makes one wonder what exactly Starmer does for the money we pay him. It clearly isn’t political opposition.
 
Seanm said:
Well, whatever the logic I’m sure we can all agree that it’s an incredibly shrewd and deft move politically.
Click to expand...

It's what happens elsewhere but, yes, doesn't look good and won't help heal the left / right friction in the party. That said, it's not clear what would at the moment.
 
notaclue said:
Whether Burnham could actually win an election is another matter.
Click to expand...

I think Burnham would stand as good a chance as anyone with his track record of mayoral success and he does seem to be popular and come across as likeable.

He’s managed to achieve what not many within the Labour Party have, and that’s connect with working class voters in the north. In fact if you look at it, all the best performances from Labour have been away from the party machine in London, whether it’s Burnham in the mayoral or Drakeford in Wales.
 
Seeker_UK said:
It's what happens elsewhere but, yes, doesn't look good and won't help heal the left / right friction in the party. That said, it's not clear what would at the moment.
Click to expand...
Saying “We’re going to look hard at our successes - Preston, Salford, Worthing, Manchester, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough - and see what lessons can be learned.”

LOL Only joking: this would provoke an immediate round of toxic briefings and high profile resignations from the right, because most of the success stories involve grassroots democracy and leftish policies.

Unity is absolutely not a priority of the leadership. Rayner’s sacking looks weird and stupid because the priorities of right are weird and stupid: get rid of the left, get rid of the membership, distance ourselves from young people and minorities. Expect more sackings and policy announcements over the next few days designed to accomplish these things. There are already murmurings about tuition fees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top