Starmer's vision quest

[bobzmyunkle]

And we haven't yet mentioned Burnham's membership of Labour Friends of Israel. Hardly something to inspire support of the Left

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

View attachment 15144

The punchline should be "vote Labour" as a Burnham win means Starmer is likely to be replaced. I get the joke, but as it is about undermining Starmer, he missed a trick with this. 'Supporting' Starmer by putting him out of his misery is far more cutting.

 

[Psamathe]

You're assuming 'Labour' want Burnham to win in Makerfield.
Josh Simons/Labour Together conspiracy to stitch up Burnham or Josh Simons trying to redeem himself for his role in getting us into this sh*t?

For Labour (as a Party) winning is a big deal. If Burnham, local lad, great reputation in the area "King of the North" can't beat Reform then alarm bells would be ringing long and loud across Labour, all those backbenchers who see the reality of losing their seats). Confirmation they are toast. And that would likely reflect on their authoritarian leader who has been determining their direction taking them to this point.

If Burnham wins then he will be the saviour of Labour, the person who can beat Reform. I wonder if at that point Starmer might step down as Burnham taking over is a foregone conclusion and maybe he would consider Foreign Secretary as a consolation prize (maybe he's too proud).

 

[Psamathe]

I've no idea what Josh Simons is up to. Deeply weird.

I can see reasons why he might be stepping down. By all reports he'll going to lose next General Election anyway. So leave now as a winner, "for the good of the country" and be seen as a help to the party getting out of their hole vs leave in in few years as a loser (part of Labour's obliteration).

Complete guess but I can see a case for going now.

 

[Pblakeney]

For Labour (as a Party) winning is a big deal. If Burnham, local lad, great reputation in the area "King of the North" can't beat Reform then alarm bells would be ringing long and loud across Labour, all those backbenchers who see the reality of losing their seats). Confirmation they are toast. And that would likely reflect on their authoritarian leader who has been determining their direction taking them to this point.

If Burnham wins then he will be the saviour of Labour, the person who can beat Reform. I wonder if at that point Starmer might step down as Burnham taking over is a foregone conclusion and maybe he would consider Foreign Secretary as a consolation prize (maybe he's too proud).

Option A) means a labour reset would be necessary. Possibly a good thing for the country but only if they don't go head to head with reform.
Option B) means a validation of labour but with a new figurehead. Possibly a bad thing for the country with more of the same.

 

[Psamathe]

Option A) means a labour reset would be necessary. Possibly a good thing for the country but only if they don't go head to head with reform.

I thought Starmer had done Option A "the reset" several times, most recently this week. Didn't seem to work. He talked about "Incremental change won't cut it" then proceeded to put forward less than "incremental" policy plans.

 

[briantrumpet]

For Labour (as a Party) winning is a big deal. If Burnham, local lad, great reputation in the area "King of the North" can't beat Reform then alarm bells would be ringing long and loud across Labour, all those backbenchers who see the reality of losing their seats). Confirmation they are toast. And that would likely reflect on their authoritarian leader who has been determining their direction taking them to this point.

If Burnham wins then he will be the saviour of Labour, the person who can beat Reform. I wonder if at that point Starmer might step down as Burnham taking over is a foregone conclusion and maybe he would consider Foreign Secretary as a consolation prize (maybe he's too proud).

If Starmer is absolutely determined to stick with Mahmood and the gleefully cruel immigration policies, I'd happily take a Burnham PMship, if that would bring about the change in policy. All the incoming polling data confirms that Labour are losing many more votes to the Greens than Reform. I have a suspicion that there's a big chunk of the 'liberal left' who'd be more likely to stick with Labour if their immigration policies were more nuanced and 'regretful' rather than cruel and gleeful, and if the reiteration of the idiotic 'red lines' which are utterly illogical when Starmer talks about being "at the heart of Europe" were dropped in favour of a "case-by-case exploration of opportunities, in partnership with the EU, to undo the damage caused by the Tories and Farage" (or some such formulation).

 

[briantrumpet]

I thought Starmer had done Option A "the reset" several times, most recently this week. Didn't seem to work. He talked about "Incremental change won't cut it" then proceeded to put forward less than "incremental" policy plans.

Yup, he said one thing, but did the opposite. Idiotic, as if we'd not notice.

 

[Pblakeney]

I thought Starmer had done Option A "the reset" several times, most recently this week. Didn't seem to work. He talked about "Incremental change won't cut it" then proceeded to put forward less than "incremental" policy plans.

My default is to judge people by what they do, not what they say.
There have been claims of a reset but has anything had a material change? No.

 

[Psamathe]

My default is to judge people by what they do, not what they say.
There have been claims of a reset but has anything had a material change? No.

Also, that Starmer had time and opportunity to change the King's Speech to reflect his "Incremental change won't cut it" and still came up with something so unambitious speaks volumes. A lot harder to add anything ambitious now as it won't have been part of the King's Speech which is meant to identify major policies.

 

[briantrumpet]

Also, that Starmer had time and opportunity to change the King's Speech to reflect his "Incremental change won't cut it" and still came up with something so unambitious speaks volumes. A lot harder to add anything ambitious now as it won't have been part of the King's Speech which is meant to identify major policies.

It's the opposite of 'pragmatic', and that's what I want from a PM in a fast-changing world.

 

[Psamathe]

Sorry a long quote from a BBC article from a few days ago but it makes sense to me.

Maybe the telling quote from somebody familiar with the workings of Government "Jill Rutter, former British civil servant and senior research fellow of the think tank UK in a Changing Europe, described his [Starmer's] comments as "a damp squib". It lacked even "one single new proposal", she told me."

(from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy2k7re9jdo)
But when it comes to economic ties with the UK, there is a sense of weary cynicism in Brussels.

On Monday, Starmer proclaimed that: "Incremental change won't cut it on growth, defence, Europe, energy - we need a bigger response than we anticipated in 2024 because these are not ordinary times."
But what does he actually mean by "a bigger response" on Europe?

The EU has been clear with the UK since Brexit. It welcomes the idea of getting closer again, if and when the UK decides that is definitely what it wants.

But the sectors the Labour government has so far been discussing in earnest with the EU, in terms of cutting post-Brexit red tape and barriers, are extremely limited: a food and drink safety agreement, known as SPS, a carbon emissions trading agreement, and a youth experience scheme.

The latter Starmer is now touting as a big part of his push to help especially underprivileged UK youth broaden their horizons, but in actual fact it was a) an EU ask particularly from the Germans, and b) something the Starmer government originally pushed back hard against.

In effect, none of the above will serve to hugely boost the UK economy as a whole. Nor will other sector-by-sector agreements the UK is looking at venturing closer to the EU on, like joining the EU single market in electricity.

EU sort of thinking "what's changed"

 

[Ian H]

We're going to do something really radical that will make everyone's lives better: we're going to renationalise water steel.

 

[briantrumpet]

Sorry a long quote from a BBC article from a few days ago but it makes sense to me.

Maybe the telling quote from somebody familiar with the workings of Government "Jill Rutter, former British civil servant and senior research fellow of the think tank UK in a Changing Europe, described his [Starmer's] comments as "a damp squib". It lacked even "one single new proposal", she told me."

EU sort of thinking "what's changed"

Exactly. Starmer's restating of the 'red lines' while claiming he wants the UK to be "at the heart of Europe" is just a rehashing of Johnson's 'cakeism', and will get the same "non!" from the EU, quite rightly.

 

[briantrumpet]

One really does have to wonder where Starmer is getting his political prompts from, because I'm pretty sure its not from normal people., or on the doorstep. In fact, I'm not aware of any channels where defence is anywhere on the list of 'concerns'. It's almost as if he doesn't want to talk about immigration or the EU, because he knows he's out of step with likely/lost Labour supporters.