Keir Starmer - new Labour leader

wanderlust wrote:There are so many non sequitors in your attempt at logical coherence I've decided to let you disappear up Bobs arse in your ever diminishing circle of one friend - although perhaps too late to save the decline of the site. But I have to take issue with you declaring time on the Brexit discussion as the ramifications of that decision are still to come when the tax bill arrives. Unless you're a Brexit voting fisherman or creeping price increases and diminishing choice and quality of produce and services affect you already of course.

As an aside, the woke social media centrism thing worked very well for Tony Blair over a long period but I can't see how the left v centre thing in the Labour party has anything to do with their current decline in popularity. That may just be down to the traditional swing cycle of British politics but I suspect their problems lie in their toothless opposition due to a failure to construct telling arguments and overcoming antipathy from the media.

What the hell are you talking about???

First there is absolutely no need for your abuse.

Second I've said nothing of the sort of "declairing time on the Brexit discussion"???  What I did say was the Labour vote left in droves at the 2019 General Election and the first by-election since at Hartlepool - and analysis of both shows that "Brexit was the defining issue" as to why that was.


Analysis: Labour's electoral mountain - (The Miliband Review of Labours General Election defeat in 2019)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53096238

Elections 2021: Labour insiders on Starmer, what went wrong and how to fix it

But the means by which Williams [The Labour candidate] was picked has given critics of Starmer's office added ammunition. Williams was chosen from a one-person shortlist. He campaigned for Remain in the referendum and lost in a nearby seat in the last general election.

Several Labour MPs - from different wings of the party - are blaming Starmer's political secretary, Baroness Chapman, for the decision. One told us: "He is her mate but putting him in was a mind boggling decision since Hartlepool is the centre of Planet Brexit."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57024995

Thirdly as for Tony Blair, he was elected PM in May 1997, long before the concept of 'Wokeism' was ever invented - so how could it have worked well for him???

Fourthly I refer you again to Labours own analysis as to it's failure in the 2019 election (link above) which states in respect of "the left v centre thing"...

New leader, old problems

The report paints a portrait of a party riven by "factionalism", "internal arguments" and "division".

But it issues a stark warning to those who believe a change in both the party leadership and the political landscape will necessarily bring Labour much closer to power.

"It would be a mistake to believe that a different leader, with Brexit no longer the defining issue, would in itself be sufficient to change Labour's electoral fortunes," it says.

And this is perhaps the true value of the report for the new leadership.

It serves as both a reality check for activists and an opportunity for the new regime to argue that a break from the past is necessary.

And lastly the report was damning about many things but did not consider "overcoming antipathy from the media" even to be an issue at all!!!

So in summary to your post above it is abundantly clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

Not for the first time too I may add!

Angela Rayner, who was locked in a dispute with Sir Keir over her role in the party at the weekend, told the BBC the two had "robust conversations".

However, she also said she believed in him "100% because I wouldn't still be working with him if I didn't."

She said the party now had to "connect with voters we've lost".

Ms Rayner was removed as the party's campaign coordinator on Saturday evening but the following day was given a job shadowing Michael Gove at the Cabinet Office and also became Labour's spokesperson for the future of work.

Ms Rayner did not deny she had been sacked from the position but said they had agreed she should take on a more "front-facing" role.

She said she had "a very frank relationship" with her leader, adding: "I have always been a bit fiery... and Keir's a very measured person so actually we work incredibly well... because we bounce off each other."

Ms Rayner said she would use her new job to "get out there and really sock it to the government" but also to address questions from "the doorstep" about "what does Labour stand for?"

Reflecting on Sir Keir's time as Labour leader, Ms Rayner said it was "right that we came together" during the coronavirus pandemic but that now was the time for "a fundamental rethink" and "real change in our communities".

"The taxpayers of tomorrow will be paying off coronavirus for decades to come - I don't want them in low paid insecure work where they can't bring up their family and own their own home.

"I want to do something that tackles insecure work, tackles low pay, and delivers on high skilled jobs."

She also said she wanted to see green jobs go to areas that "for decades haven't had any industry".

Ms Rayner sought to distance herself from briefings by her supporters in the last few days saying, "I say we pull together, like any family we have our fallouts and we do that in private'.

She warned, "if we fight each other, then people don't think we're on their side and I want people to know that we are on their side - and that's what we are focused on."

[Clearly she doesn't know what she's talking about because Wanderlust tells us "the left v centre thing in the Labour Party" doesn't effect people voting for Labour.

Yeah right...

 ]




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57079985

There you go again.

In post 101 you cite the Miliband review. There is no evidence whatsoever that the miliband review came to the right conclusions. In fact it’s unlikely it did given the self introspective nature of the review.
Like a bloke with body odour and halitosis blaming his choice of shirt for not being able to pull - just avoiding uncomfortable truths.
Strategic analysis has been a major failing of the Labour Party for years and the primary reason for not being able to come up with successful strategies and campaigns that appeal to the public.

In post 102 you cite Angela Rayner’s press release as being “proof”. Not only is there a huge question over her ability to analyse the situation but she also has a vested interest so there’s little chance of her telling it like it is even if she knew (probably also  true of the Miliband report to some extent although I suspect that was mainly due to incompetence)

If that is what passes as critical analysis these days you might as well admit here and now that everything I’ve ever written is true - because I wrote it and that’s  the evidence.

wanderlust wrote:There you go again.

In post 101 you cite the Miliband review. There is no evidence whatsoever that the miliband review came to the right conclusions. In fact it’s unlikely it did given the self introspective nature of the review.
Like a bloke with body odour and halitosis blaming his choice of shirt for not being able to pull - just avoiding uncomfortable truths.
Strategic analysis has been a major failing of the Labour Party for years and the primary reason for not being able to come up with successful strategies and campaigns that appeal to the public.

In post 102 you cite Angela Rayner’s press release as being “proof”. Not only is there a huge question over her ability to analyse the situation but she also has a vested interest so there’s little chance of her telling it like it is even if she knew (probably also  true of the Miliband report to some extent although I suspect that was mainly due to incompetence)

If that is what passes as critical analysis these days you might as well admit here and now that everything I’ve ever written is true - because I wrote it and that’s  the evidence.

Hahahaha!!!!

You surpass even your normal self with this utter bollocks trying to pretend the world is wrong and you are right - as always!!!

Internal reviews are always wrong then are they - if so why do most if not every organisation in the world do them then???

I've only put up the above links for ease of reference and simple explanation but if you don't care to accept them (because you can't face admitting being wrong) then knock yourself out with analysis and surveys from multiple independent sources such as these -

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/13/five-reasons-why-labour-lost-the-election

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/23/their-own-words-why-voters-abandoned-labour

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/political_party/Labour_Party

https://electionreview.labourtogether.uk/

http://isj.org.uk/why-did-labour-lose/

...in fact the are whole pages of links to independant analysis -

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=analysis+why+did+labour+lose+the+election+2019&ei=jqybYKHXEvyV1fAP88awmAs&oq=analysis+why+did+labour+lose+the+election+2019&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAxQwFRYwFRg_WdoAHAAeACAAWKIAaQBkgEBMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwih1vmt9sPwAhX8ShUIHXMjDLMQ4dUDCA4

...but obviously they've all wasted their time because you know better and are never wrong!

Yeah right...!

You're an utter joke mate, I feel sorry for those who have to put up with you in real life.

To be honest Norpig you could play a big part in putting an end to all this.

You KNOW that Wanderlust posted that he voted FOR Brexit, maybe if you cared to back me up on that and shown to others on here that he lies in order not to admit he appears wrong in any way then others might see him differently than they have done.

In fact most now have seemingly sussed him and actually don't post to back him up much any more apart from yourself and one or two others who seem to have made up their minds that I'm the bad guy on here.

Maybe if instead of sticking by your mate all the time you'd called things truthfully then much of this repetitive bullshit that has blighted the site for years would finally stop?

Just a thought.

Whoa hold on a minute don't drag me into this! What makes you think i know Lusty voted for Brexit? 

You've always said he had said that on WW but i haven't been on there for months and only posted a handful of times on there.

No one is a bad guy on here, it's just you two who don't like each other and constantly wind each other up. 

For what it's worth i wish you would BOTH cut it out as it doesn't look good to people who were thinking of joining or posting more. You are both to blame for how things are between you so please don't try and involve me and take sides, we are all grown men for Gods sake!

Norpig wrote:Whoa hold on a minute don't drag me into this! What makes you think i know Lusty voted for Brexit? 

You've always said he had said that on WW but i haven't been on there for months and only posted a handful of times on there.

No one is a bad guy on here, it's just you two who don't like each other and constantly wind each other up. 

For what it's worth i wish you would BOTH cut it out as it doesn't look good to people who were thinking of joining or posting more. You are both to blame for how things are between you so please don't try and involve me and take sides, we are all grown men for Gods sake!

Very good, Norpig. 

My solution to avoid being incited to respond has been to put Bob on "Ignore", and to decline to read anything from Sluffy. 

Wanderlust's intelligent, articulate, thought-provoking posts are worth reading, even when they can be seen as controversial.

 I've found that policy to be soothing for my peace of mind.

I endorse what you say about people who might have joined or posted more.

okocha wrote:
Very good, Norpig. 

My solution to avoid being incited to respond has been to put Bob on "Ignore", and to decline to read anything from Sluffy. 

Wanderlust's intelligent, articulate, thought-provoking posts are worth reading, even when they can be seen as controversial.

 I've found that policy to be soothing for my peace of mind.

I endorse what you say about people who might have joined or posted more.

The last time Okocha's thoughts were provoked he followed a muck cart and thought it was a wedding.

'Kinell!

First Glos and now you Okocha. You just know that phrases like "intelligent, articulate, thought-provoking" are going to light a fuse somewhere

I may just take your advice, but first I'd like to reiterate the point that Rayner made that seems to have been edited out above.

She said that in his first year, Starmer did the right thing in supporting and cajoling the Government to act on Covid, that he rightly wanted the Government to succeed in their efforts and had little choice but to go along with them as Covid transcends politics and it was not the right time to argue.

...therefore, if Starmer is seen to be supporting the Government and is not taking issue at every turn, what is their to differentiate him and the Labour party in the eyes of the electorate?

Answer: Nothing - which is why voters have questioned what he/they do stand for.

That of course will change once Covid is no longer centre stage.

Norpig wrote:Whoa hold on a minute don't drag me into this! What makes you think i know Lusty voted for Brexit? 

You've always said he had said that on WW but i haven't been on there for months and only posted a handful of times on there.

No one is a bad guy on here, it's just you two who don't like each other and constantly wind each other up. 

For what it's worth i wish you would BOTH cut it out as it doesn't look good to people who were thinking of joining or posting more. You are both to blame for how things are between you so please don't try and involve me and take sides, we are all grown men for Gods sake!

You KNOW because he contacted you when you were on WW!

He contacted you under the username that also posted that it had voted FOR Brexit - but had now felt duped for doing so.

I don't dislike anyone - it's only the internet - in fact he makes me laugh with his lying and tying himself up in knots all just to avoid admitting he got something wrong - that nobody but he even cares about!

He's clarly got issues of ever being seen to be wrong otherwise he wouldn't tell the porkies and sling such abuse, rather than simply putting his hand up and accepting he'd gone wrong somewhere - hence why we get all the repetitive bullshit from him trying to wriggle out from his mistakes thereafter.

And you are right we are all grown men but it clearly doesn't mean we act like one though.

I stopped telling lies and began owning my mistakes back in my school years - but it doesn't seem Wanderlust has got to that point yet does it, I doubt he ever will...

Nice pair of beetle crushers. That'll impress the doubters for sure.

How big did you say, Sir Kia?

Thought this was an interesting stat from yesterdays by-election

Labour had the worst by-election result in the party's history, with 622 votes.



As for Labour at Chesham and Amersham, their vote collapsed.

It's clear that there was tactical voting to oust the Conservatives.

What might be more concerning to Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is the sheer extent of this - and that the party's vote was as solid as quicksand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-57472032

Not good for Labour but i wouldn;t have thought anyone expected them to win there did they? Reading the article it looks like a protest vote against HS2 but it does sadden me that Labour couldn't attract more votes. 

I did back Starmer for leader but he has a tough battle getting former Labour voters to come back to them.

Norpig wrote:Not good for Labour but i wouldn;t have thought anyone expected them to win there did they? Reading the article it looks like a protest vote against HS2 but it does sadden me that Labour couldn't attract more votes. 

I did back Starmer for leader but he has a tough battle getting former Labour voters to come back to them.

No Labour was never expecting to win there (fwiw I've actually met their candidate several times previously to her standing).

The big surprise though will be that there's always a hardcore support for whatever minority group is standing in unelectable seats and the shock for Labour must be their hardcore isn't seeing their party 'delivering' (if that is the right word to use) against what must be the worst Tory government in my lifetime who clearly have not dealt particularly well with the pandemic up to the jab rollout, and who would rather cast a tactical protest vote (even though it really wasn't thought believable to oust the Conservatives at this election) than stick to their own normal Labour voting practice.

In other words it is a sign that Labour should be doing better in the eyes of their hardcore than what they actually are - and fwiw that's how I see it myself.

I won't get on my soapbox but for my money they are using completely the wrong strategy of pursuing sleaze, and should instead be working in a sort of parallel government if you will and publicly putting forward their own policies and strategies for the best way to deal with balancing Covid with the economy.

It would in effect show them to be 'leading' the country forward as the Conservatives implode amongst themselves.

In other words be seen to be the next government in waiting.

Sleaze and government inefficiencies can't be shown to have happened for a few years yet - even if at all.  

By going down the sleaze route they are aligning themselves with the political activists and public protests (often leading to attacks against the police and damage to property) which is a massive anathema to people with conservative views (with a small 'c' rather than the political party) and will stop them dead for voting for Labour.

Starmer needs to be seen as a statesman heading a united party but instead he has been highly ineffectual and not in control of the factions within Labour as evidenced by the aborted shadow cabinet reshuffle that was quite frankly an utter disaster.

The Labour party as it is today is simply not fit to govern - so why would anyone want to vote for it, let alone overturn over a 78 seat majority to achieve one?

John Bercow joins Labour. Hmm.

I thought this was interesting and backs up something I said sometime ago when Burnham was fighting the government on imposing a Coronavirus 'tier' on Greater Manchester.

"I have always got on well with Andy Burnham. If he wants a grown-up conversation he only has to pick up the phone," she said.

"But if, as I suspect might be the case, this is more about getting a spat with me as part of a some positioning in a Labour leadership contest of the future, then I am not interested."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57551236

It seems pretty obvious to me for some time what he was aiming for - and I've no doubt Starmer knows it too.

Starmer now backing away from another election promise he made to back free social care. What does he stand for? Certainly not the manifesto he was elected on.

They’ve completely lost the plot.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Starmer now backing away from another election promise he made to back free social care. What does he stand for? Certainly not the manifesto he was elected on.

They’ve completely lost the plot.

Which election?

If it was the General Election than surely that was Corbyn's manifesto - and it was comprehensively rejected by the electorate.

If it was his promise in the leadership election then he was very unwise to have made it as free social care is unaffordable by itself and major tax rises or other revenue generation would have to be enacted to pay for it.

Starmer is unfortunately a lame duck as revealed when he couldn't 'sack' Angela Rayner in his botched reshuffle.

Burnham (I know he's not an MP - but it is as clear as day to me he wants to be the next Labour leader) is an utter joke as per Nicola Sturgeon calling him out the other day and running rings around him since!

Annelise Dodds makes me cringe, being savaged by a dead sheep comes to mind!

I can't even think of another senior Labour politician after that - and surely that's got to say something about lack of any recognisable public profile?

Labour needs a rebrand and an end to its never ending civil wars if it ever wants to be taken seriously again - and it needs to move it's policies away from ideology and into to pragmatic reality - because it simply isn't seen to be a credible alternative to the current Tory government - and let's face it, this one really shouldn't be too hard to beat in a normal General Election, should they?

Anybody disagree?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57639970