Starmer's vision quest

[spen666]

I'm curious as to what people think might bring about positive change?

What do you define as Positive change


For some it would be removal of Labour government, for others a more socialist labour government, for others it would be the Met Police to stop any investigations

A change in leader? If so, who and will it make any difference?
An election? Not going to happen as too many current Labour MPs would lose their jobs.

Regardless of who is in charge I think it will take more level headed thinking, thinking all proposals through all potential consequences, being more positive, and cut out the infighting. Do I think that will happen? No.

 

[Pblakeney]

The first thing is to actually think through their policies properly first, which will then prevent the need to U-turn so often.
It's then to grow a backbone and for those policies they have thought through properly, not to bow to back bench pressure to change them (avoiding more U-turns).
Thirdly, think properly about the taxation situation - the NI increase on employers was utterly dumb, adding 2p to savings tax isn't smart, freezing persoanl allowances for years isn't good.

The country certainly doesn't need yet more instability, so a change of PM would not be good, but Starmer needs to up his game significantly.

Sounds like we agree.
Throw in MG's point about campaigning and the country might move forward.

 

[Pblakeney]

What do you define as Positive change


For some it would be removal of Labour government, for others a more socialist labour government, for others it would be the Met Police to stop any investigations

Less politicking for a start.
Get the economy moving so everyone gets benefits from the economy, not just the top 1%.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2021124982953128428

 

[CXRAndy]

Wholly shît. Diane Abbott spot on


View: https://x.com/i/status/2021139858224296264

 

[Psamathe]

I do think something as simple as governing will make a massive change. As we have all discussed at length, stop campaigning from day one and get on with the process of actually delivering what was in the manifesto and stick to things, rather than change tack at the first sign of any criticism.

Thinking things through before legislating (or announcing). considering the consequences before acting. Listen to proper consultations rather than just vested interest lobbyists eg Developers met ministers dozens of times over planning bill while ecologists were shut out eg UK ministers met fossil fuel lobbyists 500 times in first year of power, analysis shows.

Just considering concequences before acting might be a good start.

 

[Psamathe]

One aspect I think many commentators are overlooking or excessively focusing on regarding Starmer's prospects is that it's not about Epstein/Mandleson bringing him down. I feel they are over-focussing on the events of today/yesterday where I see the issue as more about Starmer's continual misjudgements. And if Starmer blames McSweeney for those poor/flawed judgements then who decided to appoint McSweeney? (another "poor judgement").

Too often Starmer has whipped backbenchers to hold their noses and vote contrary to their beliefs only to then U-turn a few months later (when the concequences are considered). Epstein/Mandleson in just the latest in a long series of flawed judgements and it's the track record threatening his leadership.

 

[briantrumpet]

Interesting that Miliband did the media round this morning (and it was an extensive one), with the comment that Starmer's been "liberated". It's been very much the feeling that the Blue Labour faction (McSweeney etc) have been keeping him on a tight leash so he sticks to their messaging and it's not been Starmer driving the Reformy policies. He'll be gone smartish if he can't reconnect with the much more of the PLP.

 

[Psamathe]

Interesting that Miliband did the media round this morning (and it was an extensive one), with the comment that Starmer's been "liberated". It's been very much the feeling that the Blue Labour faction (McSweeney etc) have been keeping him on a tight leash so he sticks to their messaging and it's not been Starmer driving the Reformy policies. He'll be gone smartish if he can't reconnect with the much more of the PLP.

View attachment 13038

What does it say about our PM when what he can do is constrained by an adviser he appointed. When the PM appoints somebody who then "keeps him on a tight leash". When our PM just blindly goes along with what he is told by one unelected individual.

 

[TailWindHome]

It's interesting that when we're in the middle of one of the biggest political scandals in living memory which might also become a constitutional crisis that brings down the monarchy with it, and when the economy is teetering on the brink (even if it hasn't personally affected any of you yet) that you want to turn the attention onto Reform and Donald Trump. Knock yourselves out lads, but I think you're missing the point somewhat.

I don't know.
A lot of things seem to be happening at once and people are posting on all of them.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Interesting that Miliband did the media round this morning (and it was an extensive one), with the comment that Starmer's been "liberated". It's been very much the feeling that the Blue Labour faction (McSweeney etc) have been keeping him on a tight leash so he sticks to their messaging and it's not been Starmer driving the Reformy policies. He'll be gone smartish if he can't reconnect with the much more of the PLP.

View attachment 13038

Interesting that a lot of fairly well respected journos like Sam Freedman, Stephen Bush etc. seem to be of the opinion that it is a matter of when, not if Starmer goes (I think they mean during the current parliament rather than in the next few days). I would err on the side of caution and think that long term he will stick it out and perhaps turn things around in his favour, although I am quite prepared that I may end up being proved wrong! I agree though, he now needs to eschew Blue Labour in its entirety.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

What does it say about our PM when what he can do is constrained by an adviser he appointed. When the PM appoints somebody who then "keeps him on a tight leash". When our PM just blindly goes along with what he is told by one unelected individual.

I think it is the modern malaise, Johnson was exactly the same with Cummings. I do agree it highlights something particular (and unfavourable) about any PM. I think with Johnson it was general apathy, he was happy to outsource the "thinking" to Cummings. With Starmer I think he hates the politics side of it and found someone he felt could take care of that for him (mistakenly!).

 

[briantrumpet]

Interesting that a lot of fairly well respected journos like Sam Freedman, Stephen Bush etc. seem to be of the opinion that it is a matter of when, not if Starmer goes (I think they mean during the current parliament rather than in the next few days). I would err on the side of caution and think that long term he will stick it out and perhaps turn things around in his favour, although I am quite prepared that I may end up being proved wrong! I agree though, he know needs to eschew Blue Labour in its entirety.

I'm of the same mind at the mo. But a week in politics, etc...

Incidentally, there was an interesting thread from Freedman about the press's culpability (or not) in this, which he set as an either/or "Shouldn't we report on this?" Of course they should, but equally it rather overlooks the impression that some of them go beyond reporting/opinion and turn themselves into active agents in the whipping up of the frenzy (as lampooned by Chris Morris in The Day Today's 'War' segment) and become part of the 'story' itself. Egos and perceived 'importance' are part of the equation.

https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3mehivs45wr2g

 

[Psamathe]

Interesting that a lot of fairly well respected journos like Sam Freedman, Stephen Bush etc. seem to be of the opinion that it is a matter of when, not if Starmer goes (I think they mean during the current parliament rather than in the next few days). I would err on the side of caution and think that long term he will stick it out and perhaps turn things around in his favour, although I am quite prepared that I may end up being proved wrong! I agree though, he now needs to eschew Blue Labour in its entirety.

I agree with it "when not if". The Epstein/Mandleson scandal is just one of many misjudgements and prior to recent days MPs were still hacked-off, electorate still hacked-off and one rousing speech where displays of anything other than determined loyalty are career ending cannot turn-round months of misjudgements/missteps/etc.

And his rousing speech was to Labour MPs NOT the electorate and just look at Labour's poll ratings and when MPs start reflecting on their re-election prospects, maybe this weekend, maybe after the coming by-election maybe after the spring Council elections. I don't see Starmer facing down backbenches yesterday as changing much, maybe timescales a bit.

Cabinet coming out in support is meaningless (bit like asking them "do you want to keep your job?").

It's harder for Labour to change leader (than for Conservative Party), particularly when the leader is determined to cling on.

 

[Psamathe]

Of course they should, but equally it rather overlooks the impression that some of them go beyond reporting/opinion

Interesting that whilst much of the press required confirmation of a story eg two sources on record or with some documentary evidence, BBC political correspondents seem to be continually quoting what some MP has supposedly been texting them and from one/two text messages sumising the sentiment of Parliament.

Very easy for an backbench MP who wants to feel important to text a BBC political correspondent stirring things with no risk of his messages ever being associated with him/her.

Channel 4 political reporting seems a lot less oriented around single source anonymous tips.

That said, maybe better interpretations come from what those manoeuvring inadvertently reveal about their intent. similarly electorate polling (which tends to include error margins and/or useful indicative trends).