Starmer's vision quest

[briantrumpet]

Crass?

Needs to be a noun to replace 'a colossus', so maybe "a character" or "a conundrum". So many nouns beginning with C...

 

[icowden]

Your post was devoid of facts. You chose to make things up.

No, I made an error when picking Digital ID as an example. Substitute the freeze on NIC thresholds.

Don't be surprised that false claims are called out.
A basic check of the manifesto shows it makes no mention of Digital ID

I don't have as much free time on my hands as you do. I just picked the first failure from the full fact government tracker.

My point stands - which is about Starmer's tendency for knee-jerk responses as soon as he is challenged.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Further evidence (if any is needed) of how out of touch they are with the electorate.

I certainly think Starmer and his cabinet are. It would be interesting to know what the wider cohort of Labour MP's think. They were elected on a broad coalition, but their largest base would still be pretty progressive centre left and liberals (people like me) I feel, with a healthy dose of centrist conservatives that wanted rid of what the Tory party had become (and are not going back in the foreseeable future). This is the broad group they need to appeal to and the one they have done rather a good job so far of alienating.

Forget Reform, their voters are voting that way regardless. Labour need to very quickly turn their attention back to people (including a lot of current undecideds) who are actually willing to vote for them

 

[C R]

Needs to be a noun to replace 'a colossus', so maybe "a character" or "a conundrum". So many nouns beginning with C...

But doesn't 'a colossus' function as an adjective in this case?

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2020730824774082898


More sleaze

 

[briantrumpet]

But doesn't 'a colossus' function as an adjective in this case?

No. It would have to read "She is colossal", which has an entirely different meaning 🤣

 

[briantrumpet]

I certainly think Starmer and his cabinet are. It would be interesting to know what the wider cohort of Labour MP's think. They were elected on a broad coalition, but their largest base would still be pretty progressive centre left and liberals (people like me) I feel, with a healthy dose of centrist conservatives that wanted rid of what the Tory party had become (and are not going back in the foreseeable future). This is the broad group they need to appeal to and the one they have done rather a good job so far of alienating.

Forget Reform, their voters are voting that way regardless. Labour need to very quickly turn their attention back to people (including a lot of current undecideds) who are actually willing to vote for them

Lots of convincing opinion that McSweeney was a disaster *because* parties should not be in campaign mode at the start of the tenure with a large majority - see the parallel with Cummings. I think Starmer has been out of touch because he surrounded himself with a campaign team that deluded themselves that it was their brilliance that won the election with a broad coalition, but in fact was down to people not voting Tory (hence Labour getting a wild majority with just 34% of the vote).

So you've got a PM outsourcing his politics to a campaign team that insulated him from the PLP, at the same time riling the PLP as they felt McS was calling all the shots (combined with his being an obnoxious prick, by many reports).

If Starmer doesn't recognise the failings (reflected in the opinion polls) and change tack, they deserve to sink, even though there aren't any obvious choices of a party that would be better. Maybe that's what they are relying on, but it's hardly a convincing sales pitch.

 

[TailWindHome]

Susan Hall. What a loss to London not having her as mayor.

 

[AndyRM]

Crass?

Great band. Arguably one of the best, but very much not wholesome or lovely. Just honest.

A personal favourite:


View: https://youtu.be/YIdcDL64KCE?si=ozd6rmdvyHaFSjy8

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Lots of convincing opinion that McSweeney was a disaster *because* parties should not be in campaign mode at the start of the tenure with a large majority - see the parallel with Cummings. I think Starmer has been out of touch because he surrounded himself with a campaign team that deluded themselves that it was their brilliance that won the election with a broad coalition, but in fact was down to people not voting Tory (hence Labour getting a wild majority with just 34% of the vote).

So you've got a PM outsourcing his politics to a campaign team that insulated him from the PLP, at the same time riling the PLP as they felt McS was calling all the shots (combined with his being an obnoxious prick, by many reports).

If Starmer doesn't recognise the failings (reflected in the opinion polls) and change tack, they deserve to sink, even though there aren't any obvious choices of a party that would be better. Maybe that's what they are relying on, but it's hardly a convincing sales pitch.

No doubt they were campaigning from the outset rather than governing, which I think a fair few of us have been saying for months. The irony is, many elected Starmer on the basis that his strength would be governing, in a fairly boring and bureaucratic way (which would have been welcomed!) and that is the one thing he has neglected to do.

I still think he has the potential to do a more than competent job. When he puts himself front and centre as with his handling of Ukraine and wider foreign relations (EU/Trump), he looks capable and things seem to get done. When he steps back and lets the messaging/comms take centre stage (much of which was clearly McSweeney) it all quickly turns to sh!t. He still doesn't seem to have fully accepted he is their to lead, set the agenda and get things done, and as you say not outsource it.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2020744531642028389

 

[briantrumpet]

No doubt they were campaigning from the outset rather than governing, which I think a fair few of us have been saying for months. The irony is, many elected Starmer on the basis that his strength would be governing, in a fairly boring and bureaucratic way (which would have been welcomed!) and that is the one thing he has neglected to do.

I still think he has the potential to do a more than competent job. When he puts himself front and centre as with his handling of Ukraine and wider foreign relations (EU/Trump), he looks capable and things seem to get done. When he steps back and lets the messaging/comms take centre stage (much of which was clearly McSweeney) it all quickly turns to sh!t. He still doesn't seem to have fully accepted he is their to lead, set the agenda and get things done, and as you say not outsource it.

This x1000.

 

[Shortfall]

No doubt they were campaigning from the outset rather than governing, which I think a fair few of us have been saying for months. The irony is, many elected Starmer on the basis that his strength would be governing, in a fairly boring and bureaucratic way (which would have been welcomed!) and that is the one thing he has neglected to do.

I still think he has the potential to do a more than competent job. When he puts himself front and centre as with his handling of Ukraine and wider foreign relations (EU/Trump), he looks capable and things seem to get done. When he steps back and lets the messaging/comms take centre stage (much of which was clearly McSweeney) it all quickly turns to sh!t. He still doesn't seem to have fully accepted he is their to lead, set the agenda and get things done, and as you say not outsource it.

Don't worry, when Rayner and Milliband are in charge they'll make the Starmer interregnum look like a brief period of boring competence and fiscal probity by comparison. Buckle in!

 

[Psamathe]

What's so frustrating about the McSweeney line is that it patently hasn't been working, and doing more of it and doing it harder is just making it worse. It's beginning to resemble the Brexit cop-out of "it's too early to tell", and it's getting perilously close to the "too late to do anything about it" point of realisation. If he were the genius he is in his own mind, they wouldn't be in such a hole. And even more frustrating that Starmer can't see it.

View attachment 12983

I think this delusion about Sweeney being some election guru stems back to Starmer's victory and a complete failure to recognise that Blue Labour election results was far more down to the Conservatives than anything McSweeney did. Ego means Labour want to take the "credit" for their successful outcome rather than recognise that my dog could have won against the Conservatives at that time.

 

[Psamathe]

Aspect to me is that Ministers (including current incumbents) frequently tell us "Advisers advise, Ministers decide". So who decided to appoint Mandleson?

Thinking back, I frequently reject advice from "experts" eg professional financial advisers (and I've generally been right to reject that advice for my situation or have seen it as "vested interests"). Even medical advice (and the advice I've rejected has turned out to have been bad advice eg after 2nd opinions from better qualified). I'll listen to advice and then consider it and then decide if I will follow it or not.