Jump to content

UK Politics: Drawing Priti Patterns


mormont

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

Starmer is competent and a safe pair of hands who will likely go for the jugular on Boris whenever he really fucks up, one of the benefits of coming from the legal trade.

Everything I read about Starmer suggests that he's got the tools to succeed and the resume to back it up (his previous job as DPP also buttresses him against the usual Tory tactics of being the "law and order" party). It may not be a popular opinion, but I've always thought Labour's best chance of winning government again was to have another go at "New Labour" but without the now-toxic attachment to the Blair era. Starmer looks like he's as good a choice as anyone to have a go at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

He also looks like a tory so it might confuse some of their voters. 

I think hes just too much of a Milliband to win anything. I think he'll get lost in a jungle of blandness. His lack of personality will count against him. 

I think it will confuse the voters though, and they won't vote for him because it's harder to understand what he stands for. If Labour could have found some gruff northerner, who WASN'T at the same time some left wing progressive radical, then they might have had a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I think hes just too much of a Milliband to win anything. I think he'll get lost in a jungle of blandness. His lack of personality will count against him. 

I think it will confuse the voters though, and they won't vote for him because it's harder to understand what he stands for. If Labour could have found some gruff northerner, who WASN'T at the same time some left wing progressive radical, then they might have had a chance.

He looks a lot more impressive than Miliband, he looks like what people think a politician looks like. Labour has elected far too many people such as Foot, Kinnock, Miliband, Corbyn who the public dont like the look of. It shouldn't matter but clearly does. 

As to your second part, that's pretty much me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think hes just too much of a Milliband to win anything. I think he'll get lost in a jungle of blandness. His lack of personality will count against him. 

I think it will confuse the voters though, and they won't vote for him because it's harder to understand what he stands for. If Labour could have found some gruff northerner, who WASN'T at the same time some left wing progressive radical, then they might have had a chance.

She's a Brummie rather than a northerner, but other than that you seem to be talking about Jess Phillips

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Werthead said:

The current polling has Keir Starmer on course for a reasonable lead, with Rebecca Long-Bailey in second place. Her second place lead over Lisa Nandy has narrowed a lot though, although Long-Bailey should still secure the second place in the first ballot.

The people voting for Nandy are generally people rather opposed to Corbynism, so they'll likely go over almost entirely to Starmer, whose comfortable lead in the first ballot should become an unassailable victory in the second.

So at the moment Starmer is on course to win. I think he and Nandy have much to recommend them on different fronts and both have some key weaknesses, Long-Bailey has almost nothing to recommend her as a candidate. She has failed to put clear air between herself and Corbyn's failures and she has some issues with Jewish supporters, whilst Starmer appears to have more credibility there (and Nandy the most of all).

Starmer I think would be a much better foil for Johnson in PMQs and I think has the best shot at securing lost Labour voters and also centrist floating voters who felt alienated by both sides in the last election. He has strong establishment credentials (being a knight, being a queen's councillor, being awarded his title by the Tories in the first place etc so shouldn't scare off older people which Corbyn definitely did) whilst also having centre-left ideas and being vaguely New Labourish in that middle-ground way without being tainted by New Labour (since he didn't enter Parliament until 2015). On top of that he is retaining several key Corbyn core pledges (renationalising the railways, Royal Mail and energy companies), the ones that got widespread support even among some right-wing voters in 2017.

He will probably lose the Momentum youth vote, but since they singularly failed to show up to vote as expected in December, that may not be a great strategic loss. If they also fail to get Long-Bailey elected, which looks like the case right now, that would also show that Momentum as a movement cannot survive without Corbyn. They either become irrelevant and fade away or become more of a broad young Labour support movement rather than built around one figure. More problematic might be Starmer's position as a key Remainer - although by 2024 that may be far less of a problem than it is right now - and yet another London Labour metropolian figure when the party is fighting to reclaim the northern red wall seats, although Starmer may be banking on those votes being lost for one election only over Brexit and figuring that the Tories will likely fail to improve things for them and they will come back to Labour (plus a somewhat more centrist Labour Party might win back northern older voters anyway).

Starmer is competent and a safe pair of hands who will likely go for the jugular on Boris whenever he really fucks up, one of the benefits of coming from the legal trade.

Thanks for that explanation, Wert.  I tend to agree with you about Starmer's merits and Long-Bailey's shortcomings.  Fingers crossed for a Labour resurrection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Maltaran said:

She's a Brummie rather than a northerner, but other than that you seem to be talking about Jess Phillips

She has the most smug face I've ever seen, and I like her. I dread to think what the wavering centre would have made of her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2020 at 8:22 AM, Heartofice said:

I think hes just too much of a Milliband to win anything. I think he'll get lost in a jungle of blandness. His lack of personality will count against him. 

I think it will confuse the voters though, and they won't vote for him because it's harder to understand what he stands for. If Labour could have found some gruff northerner, who WASN'T at the same time some left wing progressive radical, then they might have had a chance.

Describing Starmer as "some left wing progressive radical," especially in a post-Corbyn political world, is quite a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2020 at 5:15 AM, Jeor said:

Everything I read about Starmer suggests that he's got the tools to succeed and the resume to back it up (his previous job as DPP also buttresses him against the usual Tory tactics of being the "law and order" party). It may not be a popular opinion, but I've always thought Labour's best chance of winning government again was to have another go at "New Labour" but without the now-toxic attachment to the Blair era. Starmer looks like he's as good a choice as anyone to have a go at that.

I think that Labour can only win by having a leader, like Blair or Wilson, that the public are reassured by.  That means it can't have a radical left leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This man is dangerous.

Quote

[Boris Johnson] told ITV's This Morning programme: "One of the theories is perhaps you could take it on the chin, take it all in one go and allow the disease to move through the population without really taking as many draconian measures. I think we need to strike a balance."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51749352

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue, surely, is that as Prime Minister at a time of public concern - verging on panic - about a pandemic infection, going on TV and musing aloud about doing insane things is insensitive, shows poor judgement, and suggests a mindset that isn't really taking the whole situation seriously enough. It's fine for us, as educated sensible people to say 'oh of course he wouldn't do that, he doesn't mean it, he isn't advocating it'. But there are plenty of people out there being irrational about this situation and Johnson's carelessness is feeding that. That alone makes him dangerous - and it is part of a repeating pattern of casual, irresponsible, thoughtless public statements that are one of dozens of reasons that Johnson is manifestly unfit to be PM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mormont said:

The issue, surely, is that as Prime Minister at a time of public concern - verging on panic - about a pandemic infection, going on TV and musing aloud about doing insane things is insensitive, shows poor judgement, and suggests a mindset that isn't really taking the whole situation seriously enough. It's fine for us, as educated sensible people to say 'oh of course he wouldn't do that, he doesn't mean it, he isn't advocating it'. But there are plenty of people out there being irrational about this situation and Johnson's carelessness is feeding that. That alone makes him dangerous - and it is part of a repeating pattern of casual, irresponsible, thoughtless public statements that are one of dozens of reasons that Johnson is manifestly unfit to be PM. 

Did you watch the interview? Doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...