My 'adolescent politics' jibe was aimed at @Arethosemyfeet in retaliation to his jibe / insinuation that my Labour friends who suffered from attacks from the hard left deserved as much for being 'Blairites'.
I withdraw my jibe now he has acknowledged that it was a shitty situation. And, as I have indicated several times, I was impressed by the way the Party's internal apparatus dealt with the situation.
Shit happened but it wasn't allowed to continue.
I have some sympathy with @Hugal's view. Everyone knew where Corbyn stood (except, arguably, on Europe where he hedged and hummed and harred).
And yes, I've some shit going in the other direction from the Labour right.
I wouldn't go so far as to be reductionist and say it's a tit for tat thing and I'm not taking sides either. I just find it sad that Labour's energies are often dissipated in internal wrangles.
But that's inevitable in any group or political party that isn't monochrome and monolithic.
Would you prefer a Labour Government led by Keir Starmer or a Conservative one led, perhaps, by Penny Mordaunt or James Elphick? (If a story in today's Times is correct.) You could have an 'authentic' left-Labour opposition sitting opposite.
I'd prefer a Labour government that will actually end the counterproductive Conservative austerity, and nominal tax cuts that result in higher stealth taxation.
But for all his faults Starmer does seem likely to close tax loopholes for the rich, stop throwing money at the Rwanda deportation scheme, and stop spending money on dodgy contracts for Tory party donors.
Would you prefer a Labour Government led by Keir Starmer or a Conservative one led, perhaps, by Penny Mordaunt or James Elphick? (If a story in today's Times is correct.) You could have an 'authentic' left-Labour opposition sitting opposite.
I'd prefer not to be presented with a false dichotomy.
Would you prefer a Labour Government led by Keir Starmer or a Conservative one led, perhaps, by Penny Mordaunt or James Elphick? (If a story in today's Times is correct.) You could have an 'authentic' left-Labour opposition sitting opposite.
I'd prefer not to be presented with a false dichotomy.
.. and because whenever the government has pinned down a particular decision they've then gone to the press to say that they wouldn't reverse it.
The UK in particular has never really reckoned with the legacy of 2008, multiple things since then have made that impact worse (including Brexit, which was in many ways compounded by a failure to deal properly with the GFC), at most a Labour government looks likely to arrest decline rather than reverse it.
So Lab has released its first steps.
Keir Starmer sets out what Labour would do first if it wins election https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016719
Some good ideas but there is still a doubt in some people’s mind that Starmer will keep them.
So Lab has released its first steps.
Keir Starmer sets out what Labour would do first if it wins election https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016719
Some good ideas but there is still a doubt in some people’s mind that Starmer will keep them.
Meaningless statements of aspiration with no policies to back them up .. apart from regressive ones.
How are those 40,000 extra appointments to be provided? Well, Labour are briefing that they'll be getting NHS staff to work weekends (having previously ruled out pay rises, also see 'step' one):
So Lab has released its first steps.
Keir Starmer sets out what Labour would do first if it wins election https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016719
Some good ideas but there is still a doubt in some people’s mind that Starmer will keep them.
Meaningless statements of aspiration with no policies to back them up .. apart from regressive ones.
How are those 40,000 extra appointments to be provided? Well, Labour are briefing that they'll be getting NHS staff to work weekends (having previously ruled out pay rises, also see 'step' one):
So Lab has released its first steps.
Keir Starmer sets out what Labour would do first if it wins election https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016719
Some good ideas but there is still a doubt in some people’s mind that Starmer will keep them.
Meaningless statements of aspiration with no policies to back them up .. apart from regressive ones.
How are those 40,000 extra appointments to be provided? Well, Labour are briefing that they'll be getting NHS staff to work weekends (having previously ruled out pay rises, also see 'step' one):
And you get a bit of anti-migrant rhetoric thrown in as a treat.
It remains to be seen,
On the other hand, the Telegraph has not been a reliable source for well over a decade now.
Yes, and in general I'd not pay them much attention, however in this case they've written up the article on the back of an interview Streeting gave to them, if he feels he was misrepresented he would have rowed back by now.
With the next general election about 6 months away, I have to ask and answer several questions.
Q...Do the Conservatives deserve another 5 years in government?.....A....No
Q.....Do Labour do a better job in government?.....A....Don't know
Q.....Will Labour win....A....Yes
Q......Will Sir Keir be a good PM?...A....Probably not
For once we are broadly in agreement. I might amend the second answer to "marginally".
Historically Labour have been better for the country in office. Even under New Labour. The current Lab party only need to do a couple of good things and they will be seen as a success early on. I agree Kier Starmer will not be a great PM.
This list is made to appeal to swing voters. Lab is convinced that they need to get that sector to win.
How much the leak to the left will affect good ship Labour remains to be seen.
Why do people think that Starmer will not make a good PM? Granted, the bar is pretty low, given the current and previous tory incumbents, but even so...
Why do people think that Starmer will not make a good PM?
Because he seems to be devoid of ideas, apart from an instinctive authoritarianism which views current law as morally normative.
c.f his actions on the Overseas Operations Bill, the last Police Crime and Sentencing Bill and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (in all cases he originally pushed to abstain until pressure from his MPs).
Not counting the lack of charisma, that is not necessarily needed. He is not totally trustworthy. He changes with the wind.
Yes circumstances change so policies change, and yes the country is so bad that it will take a long time to make a dent, but if the swing vote said the sky was pink with purple dots he would agree. His promises are built on sand.
In fairness to Starmer, he'd have to be unspeakably awful to not be an improvement on his five immediate predecessors.
He is certainly an improvement on Corbyn and probably Milliband
I disagree. Corbyn did not change his mind every time he brushed his teeth ( OK slight exaggeration there). He did not get rid of those who would get in his way in the party. We will have Starmer as PM soon. So we will have to live with that.
Starmer appears to be someone without any strongly held convictions, nor does Labour appear to have a clearly defined programme of government that reflects his character and priorities. In short, he doesn't appear to be someone who's leading Labour, rather he appears to be someone who's being washed back and forth by changing tides of focus groups. In politics, appearances are important even if they aren't accurate.
That's not an accusation that would have been made about Corbyn. His entire political career was one of strongly held convictions that he maintained regardless of their popularity. We could have discussions about his policy positions, because we all knew what they were. Some of us could hope for him to be PM and work towards those strongly held and clearly articulated centre-left policies, others would consider those to be the wrong direction for the country. But, there wasn't an option to remain neutral and not really care if he was PM, the one reaction Corbyn didn't engender was "m'eh, I don't care".
That's not an accusation that would have been made about Corbyn. His entire political career was one of strongly held convictions that he maintained regardless of their popularity. We could have discussions about his policy positions, because we all knew what they were.
The same could be said for Margaret Thatcher. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
That's not an accusation that would have been made about Corbyn. His entire political career was one of strongly held convictions that he maintained regardless of their popularity. We could have discussions about his policy positions, because we all knew what they were.
The same could be said for Margaret Thatcher. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
Indeed, and quite a few other political leaders. In a democracy we have options to express our opinions on the views held by political leaders, whether or not to vote for their party (there are valid questions about if a party changes leader, especially to one with views that are significantly different, between elections and whether the people have had the chance to express their opinions on those political views).
I never voted Conservative, and would never vote for a party lead by someone with views similar to Thatcher. That's my verdict on her political views, a verdict too few others shared in the 1980s. I considered voting Labour in 2017 and 2019, though the lack of enthusiasm within the Labour leadership for scrapping the concept of Brexit (or even putting the final plan to a binary referendum) was a factor against that decision but across the rest of the policy platform I was broadly in agreement and IMO a Corbyn premiership would certainly have been better than May and far better than Johnson.
That's not an accusation that would have been made about Corbyn. His entire political career was one of strongly held convictions that he maintained regardless of their popularity. We could have discussions about his policy positions, because we all knew what they were.
The same could be said for Margaret Thatcher. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
At least you knew what you were voting for (or against, for that matter). Given Starmer’s record on keeping promises he made to get elected, it’s impossible to say the same for him.
I’ll be voting Labour, but it’s a “can’t be worse than the current shower of shit” vote. I’m not expecting great things from the next five years.
IMO a Corbyn premiership would certainly have been better than May and far better than Johnson.
Yes, as to this last point, I had some issues with Corbyn but he's not in the same league of terrible choices as Johnson.
Every time some Tory attacks Labour with the "you wanted to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister" I want someone to reply "Boris Johnson" and then list his actual failures in government...
That's not an accusation that would have been made about Corbyn. His entire political career was one of strongly held convictions that he maintained regardless of their popularity. We could have discussions about his policy positions, because we all knew what they were.
The same could be said for Margaret Thatcher. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
IMO a Corbyn premiership would certainly have been better than May and far better than Johnson.
I was about to argue that anyone would be better than Johnson, but then I remembered Liz Truss
That's not an accusation that would have been made about Corbyn. His entire political career was one of strongly held convictions that he maintained regardless of their popularity. We could have discussions about his policy positions, because we all knew what they were.
The same could be said for Margaret Thatcher. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
IMO a Corbyn premiership would certainly have been better than May and far better than Johnson.
I was about to argue that anyone would be better than Johnson, but then I remembered Liz Truss
I think it's a close run thing. Truss did immediate economic damage through ideological stupidity but Johnson did long term damage to the UK constitution and to trust in the political process and politicians, and not through ideology but arrogance and carelessness. Plus the tens of thousands of extra deaths from covid fuckups. Then there's Cameron and playing Russian Roulette with the long term future of the country to solve his political problems.
I think May's greatest sins were as Home Secretary. As Prime Minister she made the classic error of confusing the interests of the Conservative Party with the interests of the country. She failed horrendously but in the Worst PM since 2010* list, I think she only ranks 5th.
What's your argument for ranking her higher please?
AFZ
*you can change this date rather a lot before the top 5 change...
I gather that Liz Truss will long be remembered in Pub Quiz circles as the first prime minister to have the same first name as the monarch she "served" for a few centuries.
I disagree.
She failed horrendously but in the Worst PM since 2010* list, I think she only ranks 5th.
*you can change this date rather a lot before the top 5 change...
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant Theresa May set a low bar for political competence and probity in government (her ministers rather than her personally), and even though it is low none of the other PMs since 2010 have cleared it.
I disagree.
She failed horrendously but in the Worst PM since 2010* list, I think she only ranks 5th.
*you can change this date rather a lot before the top 5 change...
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant Theresa May set a low bar for political competence and probity in government (her ministers rather than her personally), and even though it is low none of the other PMs since 2010 have cleared it.
I gather that Liz Truss will long be remembered in Pub Quiz circles as the first prime minister to have the same first name as the monarch she "served" for a few centuries.
Her name will also be forever associated with The Lettuce™, which lasted longer than she did...
Her name will also be forever associated with The Lettuce, which lasted longer than she did...
To be fair to Truss the lettuce would have started after she did.
By a few days, yes...
Truss will also be associated with the unfortunate coincidence of the death of HM the Queen the day after she (Truss) was received at Balmoral, and also by the new King's remark *Here we are again. Dear, O dear...*
Again, to be fair, I think HM the Queen only held on until she'd seen the back of Boris Johnson.
Anyway, I think the point has been made - those doomsayers who predict the dire and calamitous disaster of a Labour government led by the evil beer-swilling Starmer need to get a grip. There really is no viable alternative at the moment.
Comments
@ThunderBunk nails it.
My 'adolescent politics' jibe was aimed at @Arethosemyfeet in retaliation to his jibe / insinuation that my Labour friends who suffered from attacks from the hard left deserved as much for being 'Blairites'.
I withdraw my jibe now he has acknowledged that it was a shitty situation. And, as I have indicated several times, I was impressed by the way the Party's internal apparatus dealt with the situation.
Shit happened but it wasn't allowed to continue.
I have some sympathy with @Hugal's view. Everyone knew where Corbyn stood (except, arguably, on Europe where he hedged and hummed and harred).
And yes, I've some shit going in the other direction from the Labour right.
I wouldn't go so far as to be reductionist and say it's a tit for tat thing and I'm not taking sides either. I just find it sad that Labour's energies are often dissipated in internal wrangles.
But that's inevitable in any group or political party that isn't monochrome and monolithic.
But for all his faults Starmer does seem likely to close tax loopholes for the rich, stop throwing money at the Rwanda deportation scheme, and stop spending money on dodgy contracts for Tory party donors.
I'd prefer not to be presented with a false dichotomy.
This.
The UK in particular has never really reckoned with the legacy of 2008, multiple things since then have made that impact worse (including Brexit, which was in many ways compounded by a failure to deal properly with the GFC), at most a Labour government looks likely to arrest decline rather than reverse it.
Keir Starmer sets out what Labour would do first if it wins election https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69016719
Some good ideas but there is still a doubt in some people’s mind that Starmer will keep them.
Meaningless statements of aspiration with no policies to back them up .. apart from regressive ones.
How are those 40,000 extra appointments to be provided? Well, Labour are briefing that they'll be getting NHS staff to work weekends (having previously ruled out pay rises, also see 'step' one):
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/18/labour-will-tell-nhs-staff-to-work-weekends/
And you get a bit of anti-migrant rhetoric thrown in as a treat.
It remains to be seen,
On the other hand, the Telegraph has not been a reliable source for well over a decade now.
Q...Do the Conservatives deserve another 5 years in government?.....A....No
Q.....Do Labour do a better job in government?.....A....Don't know
Q.....Will Labour win....A....Yes
Q......Will Sir Keir be a good PM?...A....Probably not
Yes, and in general I'd not pay them much attention, however in this case they've written up the article on the back of an interview Streeting gave to them, if he feels he was misrepresented he would have rowed back by now.
For once we are broadly in agreement. I might amend the second answer to "marginally".
The second question should have started swith 'Will' rather than 'Do'
Historically Labour have been better for the country in office. Even under New Labour. The current Lab party only need to do a couple of good things and they will be seen as a success early on. I agree Kier Starmer will not be a great PM.
This list is made to appeal to swing voters. Lab is convinced that they need to get that sector to win.
How much the leak to the left will affect good ship Labour remains to be seen.
Time will tell, as it usually does.
Because he seems to be devoid of ideas, apart from an instinctive authoritarianism which views current law as morally normative.
c.f his actions on the Overseas Operations Bill, the last Police Crime and Sentencing Bill and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (in all cases he originally pushed to abstain until pressure from his MPs).
Yes circumstances change so policies change, and yes the country is so bad that it will take a long time to make a dent, but if the swing vote said the sky was pink with purple dots he would agree. His promises are built on sand.
I think we really will have to wait and see.
He's a politician. They would promise everyone a bag of gold and a mansion if they thought it would get them power.
Possibly, though I think your remark is rather offensive.
At any rate, it looks as though a Labour government with Starmer as PM is the best on offer. Any feasible alternatives?
I find that remark offensive, too.
Sorry. Didnt mean to offend you.
Quite.
Apology accepted.
Well yes, but better is a heck of a long way from good in this instance.
He is certainly an improvement on Corbyn and probably Milliband
I disagree. Corbyn did not change his mind every time he brushed his teeth ( OK slight exaggeration there). He did not get rid of those who would get in his way in the party. We will have Starmer as PM soon. So we will have to live with that.
That's not an accusation that would have been made about Corbyn. His entire political career was one of strongly held convictions that he maintained regardless of their popularity. We could have discussions about his policy positions, because we all knew what they were. Some of us could hope for him to be PM and work towards those strongly held and clearly articulated centre-left policies, others would consider those to be the wrong direction for the country. But, there wasn't an option to remain neutral and not really care if he was PM, the one reaction Corbyn didn't engender was "m'eh, I don't care".
The same could be said for Margaret Thatcher. That doesn’t make it a good thing.
You really do just guzzle down right-wing propaganda and then bring it up again undigested, don't you?
I never voted Conservative, and would never vote for a party lead by someone with views similar to Thatcher. That's my verdict on her political views, a verdict too few others shared in the 1980s. I considered voting Labour in 2017 and 2019, though the lack of enthusiasm within the Labour leadership for scrapping the concept of Brexit (or even putting the final plan to a binary referendum) was a factor against that decision but across the rest of the policy platform I was broadly in agreement and IMO a Corbyn premiership would certainly have been better than May and far better than Johnson.
At least you knew what you were voting for (or against, for that matter). Given Starmer’s record on keeping promises he made to get elected, it’s impossible to say the same for him.
I’ll be voting Labour, but it’s a “can’t be worse than the current shower of shit” vote. I’m not expecting great things from the next five years.
Yes, as to this last point, I had some issues with Corbyn but he's not in the same league of terrible choices as Johnson.
Every time some Tory attacks Labour with the "you wanted to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister" I want someone to reply "Boris Johnson" and then list his actual failures in government...
I was about to argue that anyone would be better than Johnson, but then I remembered Liz Truss
I think it's a close run thing. Truss did immediate economic damage through ideological stupidity but Johnson did long term damage to the UK constitution and to trust in the political process and politicians, and not through ideology but arrogance and carelessness. Plus the tens of thousands of extra deaths from covid fuckups. Then there's Cameron and playing Russian Roulette with the long term future of the country to solve his political problems.
I disagree.
I think May's greatest sins were as Home Secretary. As Prime Minister she made the classic error of confusing the interests of the Conservative Party with the interests of the country. She failed horrendously but in the Worst PM since 2010* list, I think she only ranks 5th.
What's your argument for ranking her higher please?
AFZ
*you can change this date rather a lot before the top 5 change...
I gather that Liz Truss will long be remembered in Pub Quiz circles as the first prime minister to have the same first name as the monarch she "served" for a few centuries.
Agreed
Her name will also be forever associated with The Lettuce™, which lasted longer than she did...
By a few days, yes...
Truss will also be associated with the unfortunate coincidence of the death of HM the Queen the day after she (Truss) was received at Balmoral, and also by the new King's remark *Here we are again. Dear, O dear...*
Again, to be fair, I think HM the Queen only held on until she'd seen the back of Boris Johnson.
Anyway, I think the point has been made - those doomsayers who predict the dire and calamitous disaster of a Labour government led by the evil beer-swilling Starmer need to get a grip. There really is no viable alternative at the moment.