Any news that suggests RLB isn’t going to win is good news for Labour.
I’m not sure about whether Starmer has what it takes to lead Labour back to government but he is infinitely more preferable and grown up than most of the other candidates on offer.
A narrow factional candidate like Starmer will not produce that unless the Conservatives implode like in the 1990's, but Labour doesn't have candidates with broad appeal.
Any news that suggests RLB isn’t going to win is good news for Labour.
I’m not sure about whether Starmer has what it takes to lead Labour back to government but he is infinitely more preferable and grown up than most of the other candidates on offer.
A narrow factional candidate like Starmer will not produce that unless the Conservatives implode like in the 1990's, but Labour doesn't have candidates with broad appeal.
He is the least factional candidate runnimg.
Yes, but at the moment that’s like saying somebody is the sanest inmate in a lunatic asylum.
An interesting fact. Starmer will be 61 in the 2024 General Election, he is just 7 years younger than Gordon Brown yet he looks like someone in his early 40's.
you need to go to Specsavers...
He doesnt look early 40s, but I'd say he looks mid-life 40s.
An interesting fact. Starmer will be 61 in the 2024 General Election, he is just 7 years younger than Gordon Brown yet he looks like someone in his early 40's.
you need to go to Specsavers...
He doesnt look early 40s, but I'd say he looks mid-life 40s.
Mid life? Is he about to go crazy, throw up his job in a huff, bitch about all his former colleagues, write an unreadable book and then run off with some blonde with big tits 25 years his junior?
Because such a person could never be Prime Min....ah.
An interesting fact. Starmer will be 61 in the 2024 General Election, he is just 7 years younger than Gordon Brown yet he looks like someone in his early 40's.
you need to go to Specsavers...
He doesnt look early 40s, but I'd say he looks mid-life 40s.
Mid life? Is he about to go crazy, throw up his job in a huff, bitch about all his former colleagues, write an unreadable book and then run off with some blonde with big tits 25 years his junior?
Because such a person could never be Prime Min....ah.
An interesting fact. Starmer will be 61 in the 2024 General Election, he is just 7 years younger than Gordon Brown yet he looks like someone in his early 40's.
you need to go to Specsavers...
He doesnt look early 40s, but I'd say he looks mid-life 40s.
Mid life? Is he about to go crazy, throw up his job in a huff, bitch about all his former colleagues, write an unreadable book and then run off with some blonde with big tits 25 years his junior?
Because such a person could never be Prime Min....ah.
she is only 24 yrs his junior and I have no idea about her "accoutrements"
An interesting fact. Starmer will be 61 in the 2024 General Election, he is just 7 years younger than Gordon Brown yet he looks like someone in his early 40's.
you need to go to Specsavers...
He doesnt look early 40s, but I'd say he looks mid-life 40s.
Mid life? Is he about to go crazy, throw up his job in a huff, bitch about all his former colleagues, write an unreadable book and then run off with some blonde with big tits 25 years his junior?
Because such a person could never be Prime Min....ah.
she is only 24 yrs his junior and I have no idea about her "accoutrements"
Really? I was making all that up. Are you saying Starmer really does have all that coming?
Or did you think I was referring to some other politician...
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
But OK, just this once. In the light of his spooky ability to appeal simultaneously to all wings of the party -
Is the YouGov poll just of Labour members? The figures above show Corbyn had bigger leads with union affiliates. How many of these are there compared to members? And if they break for the left-wing candidate Starmer might not be so far ahead.
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
But OK, just this once. In the light of his spooky ability to appeal simultaneously to all wings of the party -
Why is people making light fun of his name showing bias? He looks to be the strongest candidate but a bit punning is fun, it's not like those Rebecca Wrong Daily quips which are derogatory.
An Ed Miliband-like candidate in policy terms, but without the handicap of wonkish, "north london" and middle-class beginnings, and a more forensically aggressive public stance.
Could be very interesting if Brexit goes belly-up.
Unlikely given his Liberal National coalition has a majority and he replaced his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull after he was seen as taking too hard a line on climate change and being too pro a carbon tax.
The Liberal majority also depends on Queensland where coal is a key part of the economy
'Systems thinking' is a buzz phrase of recent years that I particularly don't like given it usually amounts to little more than a ponced up restructuring, and I'm just waiting for it to be renamed 'Dynamic analysis' or something in a few years.
'Systems Thinking' is really good, I can thoroughly recommend the book "Thinking in Systems: A Primer". It is a type of incredibly basic analysis which can be profoundly enlightening and help strip away the complexity of a situation.
However you are right is has been killed to death by rote buzzwording. The type of which I see all over Cummings blog.
Also, the implication that humanities degrees are worthless in that piece is beyond stupid.
An Ed Miliband-like candidate in policy terms, but without the handicap of wonkish, "north london" and middle-class beginnings, and a more forensically aggressive public stance.
Could be very interesting if Brexit goes belly-up.
Any news that suggests RLB isn’t going to win is good news for Labour.
I’m not sure about whether Starmer has what it takes to lead Labour back to government but he is infinitely more preferable and grown up than most of the other candidates on offer.
Starmer will do very good in Scotland outside of Glasgow, he is the type of leader that the scots usually like: Gray and Dire like Gordon Brown.
He will also do well in London, but not well outside of it.
I can see Labour under Starmer winning 15 seats mostly Scottish and London ones.
But Labour need a swing of 4% just to get to Hung Parliament territory.
A narrow factional candidate like Starmer will not produce that unless the Conservatives implode like in the 1990's, but Labour doesn't have candidates with broad appeal.
Starmer is unlikely to win a majority but it is possible he could do a Cameron and win enough seats for a coalition with the LDs (Tory Remainers also being more likely to vote LD with the threat of Corbyn removed).
Remember Cameron started with the Tories on 33%, the same as Labour are now, after 2005 and only increased their vote by 3% to 36% in 2010
Then the government is wrong. The Representation of the Peoples Act 1918 gave the vote to all ex-servicemen, all men aged 21 or over except conscientious objectors, and women over 30 who were ratepayers or the wives of ratepayers.
There is no definition by which that is ‘universal suffrage.’
Universal suffrage - the granting of the vote to all men and women over the age of 21, with the exception of hereditary peers, certified lunatics and prisoners serving more than five years - came as a result of the Equal Franchise Act 1928, which was passed by the Conservative government of Stanley Baldwin at the special urging of his party chairman, who thought it would be politically helpful, and the Home Secretary William Joynson-Hicks, who was a long time Suffragist supporter (largely due to the influence of his wife Grace).
So the first election with universal suffrage was 1929.
(As for OFSTED, they don’t even know what safeguarding is. They have become an utter joke.)
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
I think it was Finkelstein in 1996 with Demon Eyes, wasn’t it?
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Demon Eyes was 1997. The Tories had the measure of the man....
These polls should be bang on in my opinion. Is Starmer a good thing at 4/5 now? I think he probably is
The trouble is the associate members, I. E. The three quid brigade. This poll doesn't capture them.
I wouldn't worry about them. Their votes were not that different to the membership last time. The more substantive issue is that Starmer is now clear favourite and the media and anti-Labour people as well as his rivals will now test him severely. You can see some of the attack lines being tried out on this thread - Smarmy? Boring? Ultra-remainer? Humourless? Fake knight? I don't think any of those actually cut through, but we'll see.
Lots of us are now leaning to him, but it's not a done deal yet. Let's see how he gets on in the debate(s) which I'm sure will be organised.
These polls should be bang on in my opinion. Is Starmer a good thing at 4/5 now? I think he probably is
The trouble is the associate members, I. E. The three quid brigade. This poll doesn't capture them.
I wouldn't worry about them. Their votes were not that different to the membership last time. The more substantive issue is that Starmer is now clear favourite and the media and anti-Labour people as well as his rivals will now test him severely. You can see some of the attack lines being tried out on this thread - Smarmy? Boring? Ultra-remainer? Humourless? Fake knight? I don't think any of those actually cut through, but we'll see.
Lots of us are now leaning to him, but it's not a done deal yet. Let's see how he gets on in the debate(s) which I'm sure will be organised.
What has happened to the imperative and pressing need for the next Labour leader to be female?
Is the YouGov poll just of Labour members? The figures above show Corbyn had bigger leads with union affiliates. How many of these are there compared to members? And if they break for the left-wing candidate Starmer might not be so far ahead.
That's an issue, because unions sometimes load the dice by including stuff favouring their preferred candidate in the same envelope. I'm not sure that it will happen this time to the same extent. Lots of us really, really wanted Corbyn to win. I'm not sure anyone feels that strongly about RLB, trhough I've nothing against her. In any case, union affiliated members don't vote in the same numbers as the membership.
Why is people making light fun of his name showing bias? He looks to be the strongest candidate but a bit punning is fun, it's not like those Rebecca Wrong Daily quips which are derogatory.
That got very tedious, all that "Wrong Daily" stuff. Very inventive and funny at first though. Key is to keep it fresh. If a derogatory nickname is used constantly, this is bullying and is also - which is worse - boring. We are, atm, on the right side of the line with Starmer. It's fun. Hence my little contribution.
These polls should be bang on in my opinion. Is Starmer a good thing at 4/5 now? I think he probably is
The trouble is the associate members, I. E. The three quid brigade. This poll doesn't capture them.
I wouldn't worry about them. Their votes were not that different to the membership last time. The more substantive issue is that Starmer is now clear favourite and the media and anti-Labour people as well as his rivals will now test him severely. You can see some of the attack lines being tried out on this thread - Smarmy? Boring? Ultra-remainer? Humourless? Fake knight? I don't think any of those actually cut through, but we'll see.
Lots of us are now leaning to him, but it's not a done deal yet. Let's see how he gets on in the debate(s) which I'm sure will be organised.
What has happened to the imperative and pressing need for the next Labour leader to be female?
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
But OK, just this once. In the light of his spooky ability to appeal simultaneously to all wings of the party -
Why is people making light fun of his name showing bias? He looks to be the strongest candidate but a bit punning is fun, it's not like those Rebecca Wrong Daily quips which are derogatory.
Politics is about appearance. His talking down manner marks him out as Emily Thornberry in a suit. The Tories have a few like that too.
Yes, I'm shallow, I'd vote for the prettiest woman. But do you really think a large proportion of the electorate study the manifestos and any personal statements before agonising long and hard on who to vote for?
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Demon Eyes was 1997. The Tories had the measure of the man....
The irony is at the time they were heavily criticised, including by their own side, for such a negative and unpleasant poster. Nobody thought of Blair as a demonic figure in 1996. It was hugely damaging to the Tories that they even suggested it.
Why is people making light fun of his name showing bias? He looks to be the strongest candidate but a bit punning is fun, it's not like those Rebecca Wrong Daily quips which are derogatory.
That got very tedious, all that "Wrong Daily" stuff. Very inventive and funny at first though. Key is to keep it fresh. If a derogatory nickname is used constantly, this is bullying and is also - which is worse - boring. We are, atm, on the right side of the line with Starmer. It's fun. Hence my little contribution.
But that should be it now.
Again, further irony, it was allegedly Starmer himself who nicknamed her Wrong Daily after she kept mangling his Brexit policy.
I know the “we are all doomed” cult take every fire, drought, flood and tornado and blame climate change. But is there evidence to say that this is the cause here?
Forrest fires around the world are often about land management. It became ironic that as developed nations got better at putting out fires the worse it gets. A good fire gets rid of the dry material which accumulates with successive dry summers.
More enviro conscience land use has resulted in preservation of these areas over fire walls and regular intervention. In a not dissimilar way, for good reasons river channels in the UK are not regularly dredged anymore. It improves the water quality but allows sediment build up which results in rivers breaking their banks in periods of heavy rainfall.
These fires might be the result of, or might not be the result of a temperature increase caused by increased carbon in the atmosphere.
Those that claim certainty that it is though are not doing so through scientific understanding but quasi religious zealotry.
A Starmer coronation is great news for Boris - enter the Metropolitain Marxist, the Trot Toff, the Bolly swigging Bolshevik, the Red square remoaner...
Starmer is a barrister. Of course he’ll do well in the HoC - if he couldn’t do that, then his whole life has been based on bullshit. His career path is arguing a brief.
But he is dull, does not appear to have a mind of his own and shows little to no evidence of being a team player. However if Nick Palmer - a true weathercock who would lick his own balls if that were party policy - would vote for him then he seems likely to win.
I just struggle to understand where the hopes invested in him come from. And I thought that it was a woman’s turn....
These polls should be bang on in my opinion. Is Starmer a good thing at 4/5 now? I think he probably is
The trouble is the associate members, I. E. The three quid brigade. This poll doesn't capture them.
I wouldn't worry about them. Their votes were not that different to the membership last time. The more substantive issue is that Starmer is now clear favourite and the media and anti-Labour people as well as his rivals will now test him severely. You can see some of the attack lines being tried out on this thread - Smarmy? Boring? Ultra-remainer? Humourless? Fake knight? I don't think any of those actually cut through, but we'll see.
Lots of us are now leaning to him, but it's not a done deal yet. Let's see how he gets on in the debate(s) which I'm sure will be organised.
On demonising the Labour leader, it is clear something effective happened between 2017 and 2019. Some will point to antisemitism or Brexit or even just the fear of Labour actually winning rather than being a safe protest vote, but there is the obvious suspicion that CCHQ hit upon some magic anti-Corbyn formula for its below-the-radar campaigning.
To what extent though, is the answer none of the above, and that Corbyn just looked an awful lot older last year (there was even speculation he'd had a stroke) and even more so when contrasted with Boris and Jo Swinson rather than Theresa May and Vince Cable?
I’d add to this that “grey” leaders, and I think here of, in the recent past, Major, Duncan-Smith, Brown and May, have not proved to be roaring successes.
A Starmer coronation is great news for Boris - enter the Metropolitain Marxist, the Trot Toff, the Bolly swigging Bolshevik, the Red square remoaner...
I don’t think any of those attack lines would work against Starmer, because they don’t match what he is.
What might cause him trouble is his record as DPP - although he could justifiably point out it compares favourably with every other DPP.
What therefore is more likely to be an issue is the Tory account of how he behaved over Brexit negotiations, where he was given exactly what he asked for and said it wasn’t enough. That will be used - with apologies to Cyclefree - to paint him as a typical lawyer. Slippery, cunning, without any principles at all and doing what he’s told by whoever pays his fees.
Equally, while that might cost him the election, it might also allow him to carry through some much needed reforms of Labour to drag them into the 21st century. Because that’s going to require a lot of low cunning and duplicity to get the slaughter of many sacred cows past the members.
I think people are jumping the gun a little bit on Starmer. The first question must surely be, is he certain to make the ballet paper? Could the Momentum dominated NEC find a way to stitch him up?
Starmer is unlikely to win a majority but it is possible he could do a Cameron and win enough seats for a coalition with the LDs (Tory Remainers also being more likely to vote LD with the threat of Corbyn removed).
Remember Cameron started with the Tories on 33%, the same as Labour are now, after 2005 and only increased their vote by 3% to 36% in 2010
Was about to protest at you already predicting the 2024 GE but in fact that is quite plausible and is food for thought. Starmer the Cameron and perhaps Davey as the Clegg. Couple of Knights in shining armour to rescue us from Tory rule.
I think people are jumping the gun a little bit on Starmer. The first question must surely be, is he certain to make the ballet paper? Could the Momentum dominated NEC find a way to stitch him up?
No. The rulebook is set by conference. Ironically, Momentum lowering the threshold makes it easier for Starmer to get on the ballot paper.
I am pretty confident he will get 21 nominations. He is one of the few high profile Shadow Cabinet figures I think most MPs would be able to live with as leader.
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
I think it was Finkelstein in 1996 with Demon Eyes, wasn’t it?
These polls should be bang on in my opinion. Is Starmer a good thing at 4/5 now? I think he probably is
The trouble is the associate members, I. E. The three quid brigade. This poll doesn't capture them.
I wouldn't worry about them. Their votes were not that different to the membership last time. The more substantive issue is that Starmer is now clear favourite and the media and anti-Labour people as well as his rivals will now test him severely. You can see some of the attack lines being tried out on this thread - Smarmy? Boring? Ultra-remainer? Humourless? Fake knight? I don't think any of those actually cut through, but we'll see.
Lots of us are now leaning to him, but it's not a done deal yet. Let's see how he gets on in the debate(s) which I'm sure will be organised.
What has happened to the imperative and pressing need for the next Labour leader to be female?
Gender equality is for other organisations, not Labour. The hypocrisy of Labour is one of their least endearing qualities.
Still, if Labour think a third Londoner in a row is best for the leader .... then the geographical inequality is still more glaring then the gender inequality.
I expect Labour won't stop electing Londoners as leaders until all 73 London seats are safely in the bag.
I see no evidence Starmer understands anything of Wales or Scotland.
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
But OK, just this once. In the light of his spooky ability to appeal simultaneously to all wings of the party -
Why is people making light fun of his name showing bias? He looks to be the strongest candidate but a bit punning is fun, it's not like those Rebecca Wrong Daily quips which are derogatory.
is people ? grammar police grrrrrrrr!
I think the grammar is correct. Is refers to the singular act of 'people making light fun' etc.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Yes, well no harm done here - yet - but with such a rhythmic name as Starmer there is bound to be some extremely dodgy stuff in due course. Labour should be thinking now of ways to shut this down because if it takes hold it can be very very costly.
Or even better, go for a leader with a name that does not lend itself so readily to unhelpful manipulation. This is perhaps the one and only positive in the fact that my erstwhile favourite for next leader - Laura Pidcock - is unable to stand having lost her seat.
These polls should be bang on in my opinion. Is Starmer a good thing at 4/5 now? I think he probably is
The trouble is the associate members, I. E. The three quid brigade. This poll doesn't capture them.
I wouldn't worry about them. Their votes were not that different to the membership last time. The more substantive issue is that Starmer is now clear favourite and the media and anti-Labour people as well as his rivals will now test him severely. You can see some of the attack lines being tried out on this thread - Smarmy? Boring? Ultra-remainer? Humourless? Fake knight? I don't think any of those actually cut through, but we'll see.
Lots of us are now leaning to him, but it's not a done deal yet. Let's see how he gets on in the debate(s) which I'm sure will be organised.
What has happened to the imperative and pressing need for the next Labour leader to be female?
Gender equality is for other organisations, not Labour. The hypocrisy of Labour is one of their least endearing qualities.
Still, if Labour think a third Londoner in a row is best for the leader .... then the geographical inequality is still more glaring then the gender inequality.
I expect Labour won't stop electing Londoners as leaders until all 73 London seats are safely in the bag.
I see no evidence Starmer understands anything of Wales or Scotland.
It does seem incredible that they don't look like appointing a woman yet again. In the YouGov Poll, women are collectively a massive majority, but the man is the most popular
These polls should be bang on in my opinion. Is Starmer a good thing at 4/5 now? I think he probably is
The trouble is the associate members, I. E. The three quid brigade. This poll doesn't capture them.
I wouldn't worry about them. Their votes were not that different to the membership last time. The more substantive issue is that Starmer is now clear favourite and the media and anti-Labour people as well as his rivals will now test him severely. You can see some of the attack lines being tried out on this thread - Smarmy? Boring? Ultra-remainer? Humourless? Fake knight? I don't think any of those actually cut through, but we'll see.
Lots of us are now leaning to him, but it's not a done deal yet. Let's see how he gets on in the debate(s) which I'm sure will be organised.
What has happened to the imperative and pressing need for the next Labour leader to be female?
Gender equality is for other organisations, not Labour. The hypocrisy of Labour is one of their least endearing qualities.
Still, if Labour think a third Londoner in a row is best for the leader .... then the geographical inequality is still more glaring then the gender inequality.
I expect Labour won't stop electing Londoners as leaders until all 73 London seats are safely in the bag.
I see no evidence Starmer understands anything of Wales or Scotland.
It does seem incredible that they don't look like appointing a woman yet again. In the YouGov Poll, women are collectively a massive majority, but the man is the most popular
That’s still the wildcard, how many members can be persuaded that they just can’t have a male leader next time.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Yes, well no harm done here - yet - but with such a rhythmic name as Starmer there is bound to be some extremely dodgy stuff in due course.
Sir Keir's Buddhist monk days - Karma Starmer And when he was maybe over-fond of South American animals - Llama Starmer His days as an actor - Drama Starmer Or as a Zen influence on Labour - No Drama Starmer And finally as a black American President - Obama Starmer.
Appalling bias on show here. Ridiculing and demonizing the next Labour leader before he's even got his feet under the table.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
I think it was Finkelstein in 1996 with Demon Eyes, wasn’t it?
I’d add to this that “grey” leaders, and I think here of, in the recent past, Major, Duncan-Smith, Brown and May, have not proved to be roaring successes.
Major and May won elections.
If Johnson has fouled up badly by ‘24 then as long as Labour have a candidate that doesn’t actively frighten large parts of the electorate like Corbyn did then they are in with a chance. Sir Keir may be such a candidate.
He’s even an Oxford graduate which seems to be an even bigger indicator of general election success.
Equality of opportunities, not outcomes, is what matters.
The problem is that when you never elect a woman to the top job, it is strongly suggestive of bias in the appointments system (whether conscious or unconscious).
Labour are biased. It makes their pronouncements (e.g., on women on the boards of top companies) look ridiculous.
There are at least two female candidates way better than Starmer (Nandy and Rayner).
There is at least one female candidate (Thornberry) as good as Starmer from the same paramilitary metropolitan wing of the party.
Every other organisation has it drummed in to their heads that between two equal candidates (a man and a woman), you should select the woman.
There is no excuse for electing another man, when there are abundant female candidates at least as good. Starmer is nothing special.
I’d add to this that “grey” leaders, and I think here of, in the recent past, Major, Duncan-Smith, Brown and May, have not proved to be roaring successes.
Major and May won elections.
If Johnson has fouled up badly by ‘24 then as long as Labour have a candidate that doesn’t actively frighten large parts of the electorate like Corbyn did then they are in with a chance. Sir Keir may be such a candidate.
He’s even an Oxford graduate which seems to be an even bigger indicator of general election success.
Does a one year conversion course count? If not, then he’s Leeds, not Oxford.
Not that that is a bad thing. Studying in Leeds was probably far more socially useful to somebody from Reigate than going to Oxford would have been, and it is a very good university.
I think people are jumping the gun a little bit on Starmer. The first question must surely be, is he certain to make the ballet paper? Could the Momentum dominated NEC find a way to stitch him up?
No. The rulebook is set by conference. Ironically, Momentum lowering the threshold makes it easier for Starmer to get on the ballot paper.
I am pretty confident he will get 21 nominations. He is one of the few high profile Shadow Cabinet figures I think most MPs would be able to live with as leader.
I think people are jumping the gun a little bit on Starmer. The first question must surely be, is he certain to make the ballet paper? Could the Momentum dominated NEC find a way to stitch him up?
No. The rulebook is set by conference. Ironically, Momentum lowering the threshold makes it easier for Starmer to get on the ballot paper.
I am pretty confident he will get 21 nominations. He is one of the few high profile Shadow Cabinet figures I think most MPs would be able to live with as leader.
What about the affiliates and/or CLPs?
Again, he is high enough profile to get those. It’s the ones people have never heard of, like, say, Corbyn that might struggle with that rule.
Edit - 33 CLPs are needed. I am confident he would get that in London alone, although if he’s wise he will aim for a nationwide base including Wales and Scotland.
3 affiliates, two of which must be trade unions? Two will nominate anyone who might win that Len McCluskey will not back, to spite him after he’s buggered up so much. Starmer now showing he can beat McCluskey’s likely favourite should be enough.
Starmer is unlikely to win a majority but it is possible he could do a Cameron and win enough seats for a coalition with the LDs (Tory Remainers also being more likely to vote LD with the threat of Corbyn removed).
Remember Cameron started with the Tories on 33%, the same as Labour are now, after 2005 and only increased their vote by 3% to 36% in 2010
Was about to protest at you already predicting the 2024 GE but in fact that is quite plausible and is food for thought. Starmer the Cameron and perhaps Davey as the Clegg. Couple of Knights in shining armour to rescue us from Tory rule.
Until Labour grow beyond the soundbite of 'rescue us from Tory rule' (which the election just indicated was significantly more popular than the Labour rule on offer), or similar soundbites that appeal to a tiny inward looking hard core bubble of enthusiasts they are doomed to declining fortune and electoral irrelevance.
Politics is not about angst, anger and belittling your opponents, it is about offering a better solution to the issues confronting the nation.
I believe most electors are bigger than those soundbites. I suspect they put normal electors off the party that sees the world in terms of tribal soundbites.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Yes, well no harm done here - yet - but with such a rhythmic name as Starmer there is bound to be some extremely dodgy stuff in due course. Labour should be thinking now of ways to shut this down because if it takes hold it can be very very costly.
Or even better, go for a leader with a name that does not lend itself so readily to unhelpful manipulation. This is perhaps the one and only positive in the fact that my erstwhile favourite for next leader - Laura Pidcock - is unable to stand having lost her seat.
Did you never go to primary school? Everyone's name has the potential for mockery. On RLB, since the Wrong-Daily meme, I cannot help now think of her apart from as Rebecca Wrong-Trousers.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Yes, well no harm done here - yet - but with such a rhythmic name as Starmer there is bound to be some extremely dodgy stuff in due course. Labour should be thinking now of ways to shut this down because if it takes hold it can be very very costly.
Or even better, go for a leader with a name that does not lend itself so readily to unhelpful manipulation. This is perhaps the one and only positive in the fact that my erstwhile favourite for next leader - Laura Pidcock - is unable to stand having lost her seat.
He can solve that be being known by his first name: Sir Keir has a certain ring to it and would appeal to a lot of the voters he needs to win over.
If Labour looks beyond his gender and choose Starmer, then they can be grateful that all the other parties have done the heavy lifting for them - and the best person for the top job now gets the top job.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Yes, well no harm done here - yet - but with such a rhythmic name as Starmer there is bound to be some extremely dodgy stuff in due course. Labour should be thinking now of ways to shut this down because if it takes hold it can be very very costly.
Or even better, go for a leader with a name that does not lend itself so readily to unhelpful manipulation. This is perhaps the one and only positive in the fact that my erstwhile favourite for next leader - Laura Pidcock - is unable to stand having lost her seat.
“ Keith Sturmer “ is my favourite that I’ve seen - perfect mix of the banal bore from compliance trying to be revolutionary .
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Yes, well no harm done here - yet - but with such a rhythmic name as Starmer there is bound to be some extremely dodgy stuff in due course. Labour should be thinking now of ways to shut this down because if it takes hold it can be very very costly.
Or even better, go for a leader with a name that does not lend itself so readily to unhelpful manipulation. This is perhaps the one and only positive in the fact that my erstwhile favourite for next leader - Laura Pidcock - is unable to stand having lost her seat.
Did you never go to primary school? Everyone's name has the potential for mockery. On RLB, since the Wrong-Daily meme, I cannot help now think of her apart from as Rebecca Wrong-Trousers.
I’d add to this that “grey” leaders, and I think here of, in the recent past, Major, Duncan-Smith, Brown and May, have not proved to be roaring successes.
Major and May won elections.
If Johnson has fouled up badly by ‘24 then as long as Labour have a candidate that doesn’t actively frighten large parts of the electorate like Corbyn did then they are in with a chance. Sir Keir may be such a candidate.
He’s even an Oxford graduate which seems to be an even bigger indicator of general election success.
Does a one year conversion course count? If not, then he’s Leeds, not Oxford.
Not that that is a bad thing. Studying in Leeds was probably far more socially useful to somebody from Reigate than going to Oxford would have been, and it is a very good university.
He is a graduate of both. The point I was trying to make was that since the war two election winning PMs have not been Oxford graduates.
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Yes, well no harm done here - yet - but with such a rhythmic name as Starmer there is bound to be some extremely dodgy stuff in due course. Labour should be thinking now of ways to shut this down because if it takes hold it can be very very costly.
Or even better, go for a leader with a name that does not lend itself so readily to unhelpful manipulation. This is perhaps the one and only positive in the fact that my erstwhile favourite for next leader - Laura Pidcock - is unable to stand having lost her seat.
He can solve that be being known by his first name: Sir Keir has a certain ring to it and would appeal to a lot of the voters he needs to win over.
Also invokes Keir Hardie, who was an absolute legend.
Keir Hardie was sitting in a first class non-smoker one day, when a distinguished looking lady came in and lit up. She said, after the first few puffs, ‘I hope you don’t mind me smoking.’
‘Not at all,’ replied Keir Hardie. ‘As long as you don’t mind me being sick, that is.’
‘My good man,’ retorted the woman, ‘there is no need to be rude. I would have you know I am one of the directors’ wives.’
‘Madame,’ replied Keir Hardie, ‘I do not care if you are the director’s only wife, I shall still be sick.’
I’d add to this that “grey” leaders, and I think here of, in the recent past, Major, Duncan-Smith, Brown and May, have not proved to be roaring successes.
Major and May won elections.
If Johnson has fouled up badly by ‘24 then as long as Labour have a candidate that doesn’t actively frighten large parts of the electorate like Corbyn did then they are in with a chance. Sir Keir may be such a candidate.
He’s even an Oxford graduate which seems to be an even bigger indicator of general election success.
Does a one year conversion course count? If not, then he’s Leeds, not Oxford.
Not that that is a bad thing. Studying in Leeds was probably far more socially useful to somebody from Reigate than going to Oxford would have been, and it is a very good university.
He is a graduate of both. The point I was trying to make was that since the war two election winning PMs have not been Oxford graduates.
OK, now that’s interesting. Major was one. Who was the other?
Edit - d’oh! It was Churchill, of course.
Incidentally, fun fact - how many Prime Ministers from 1916 to 1945 were at Oxford?
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Yes, well no harm done here - yet - but with such a rhythmic name as Starmer there is bound to be some extremely dodgy stuff in due course. Labour should be thinking now of ways to shut this down because if it takes hold it can be very very costly.
Or even better, go for a leader with a name that does not lend itself so readily to unhelpful manipulation. This is perhaps the one and only positive in the fact that my erstwhile favourite for next leader - Laura Pidcock - is unable to stand having lost her seat.
He can solve that be being known by his first name: Sir Keir has a certain ring to it and would appeal to a lot of the voters he needs to win over.
Does lend itself to those who think the QC is above the voters calling him....
Equality of opportunities, not outcomes, is what matters.
The problem is that when you never elect a woman to the top job, it is strongly suggestive of bias in the appointments system (whether conscious or unconscious).
Labour are biased. It makes their pronouncements (e.g., on women on the boards of top companies) look ridiculous.
There are at least two female candidates way better than Starmer (Nandy and Rayner).
There is at least one female candidate (Thornberry) as good as Starmer from the same paramilitary metropolitan wing of the party.
Every other organisation has it drummed in to their heads that between two equal candidates (a man and a woman), you should select the woman.
There is no excuse for electing another man, when there are abundant female candidates at least as good. Starmer is nothing special.
'Better', though, is highly subjective. Everyone has their own preferences, their own views of who might best appeal to the voters the party needs to win over, and the relative importance of the two aspects.
I wouldn't vote for a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer - but tbh when I start voting Labour we're in Labour landslide territory. But the prospect of KSIPM wouldn't fill be with the visceral sense of nausea that Corbyn did or RLB would; nor the sense of furious anger that Emily Thornberry as PM would. I'd say that's a good indicator that he's a candidate that wouldn't alienate the voters. I personally would still prefer Lisa Nandy. But then I'm a northern leaver, and the Labour Party membership are London Remainers.
Either way, I certainly wouldn't say it's obvious that there are 'better' candidates than Starmer.
I’d add to this that “grey” leaders, and I think here of, in the recent past, Major, Duncan-Smith, Brown and May, have not proved to be roaring successes.
Major and May won elections.
If Johnson has fouled up badly by ‘24 then as long as Labour have a candidate that doesn’t actively frighten large parts of the electorate like Corbyn did then they are in with a chance. Sir Keir may be such a candidate.
He’s even an Oxford graduate which seems to be an even bigger indicator of general election success.
Does a one year conversion course count? If not, then he’s Leeds, not Oxford.
Not that that is a bad thing. Studying in Leeds was probably far more socially useful to somebody from Reigate than going to Oxford would have been, and it is a very good university.
He is a graduate of both. The point I was trying to make was that since the war two election winning PMs have not been Oxford graduates.
OK, now that’s interesting. Major was one. Who was the other?
Edit - d’oh! It was Churchill, of course.
Incidentally, fun fact - how many Prime Ministers from 1916 to 1945 were at Oxford?
Someone did a thread on that recently i think it was TSE
Demonising Labour leaders brings to mind that poster of Tony Blair with red eyes from (I think) the 2005 campaign. Somebody with better Photoshop skills than me will have to have a go for the 2024 election.
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
Yes, well no harm done here - yet - but with such a rhythmic name as Starmer there is bound to be some extremely dodgy stuff in due course. Labour should be thinking now of ways to shut this down because if it takes hold it can be very very costly.
Or even better, go for a leader with a name that does not lend itself so readily to unhelpful manipulation. This is perhaps the one and only positive in the fact that my erstwhile favourite for next leader - Laura Pidcock - is unable to stand having lost her seat.
He can solve that be being known by his first name: Sir Keir has a certain ring to it and would appeal to a lot of the voters he needs to win over.
Does lend itself to those who think the QC is above the voters calling him....
Equality of opportunities, not outcomes, is what matters.
The problem is that when you never elect a woman to the top job, it is strongly suggestive of bias in the appointments system (whether conscious or unconscious).
Labour are biased. It makes their pronouncements (e.g., on women on the boards of top companies) look ridiculous.
There are at least two female candidates way better than Starmer (Nandy and Rayner).
There is at least one female candidate (Thornberry) as good as Starmer from the same paramilitary metropolitan wing of the party.
Every other organisation has it drummed in to their heads that between two equal candidates (a man and a woman), you should select the woman.
There is no excuse for electing another man, when there are abundant female candidates at least as good. Starmer is nothing special.
'Better', though, is highly subjective. Everyone has their own preferences, their own views of who might best appeal to the voters the party needs to win over, and the relative importance of the two aspects.
I wouldn't vote for a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer - but tbh when I start voting Labour we're in Labour landslide territory. But the prospect of KSIPM wouldn't fill be with the visceral sense of nausea that Corbyn did or RLB would; nor the sense of furious anger that Emily Thornberry as PM would. I'd say that's a good indicator that he's a candidate that wouldn't alienate the voters. I personally would still prefer Lisa Nandy. But then I'm a northern leaver, and the Labour Party membership are London Remainers.
Either way, I certainly wouldn't say it's obvious that there are 'better' candidates than Starmer.
Forget his name. Forget how he comes across. Starmer's biggest handicap is that he was not just a participant, but a behind the scenes manipulator in the Obstructionists v. the People during the Great Brexit war.
Equality of opportunities, not outcomes, is what matters.
The problem is that when you never elect a woman to the top job, it is strongly suggestive of bias in the appointments system (whether conscious or unconscious).
Labour are biased. It makes their pronouncements (e.g., on women on the boards of top companies) look ridiculous.
There are at least two female candidates way better than Starmer (Nandy and Rayner).
There is at least one female candidate (Thornberry) as good as Starmer from the same paramilitary metropolitan wing of the party.
Every other organisation has it drummed in to their heads that between two equal candidates (a man and a woman), you should select the woman.
There is no excuse for electing another man, when there are abundant female candidates at least as good. Starmer is nothing special.
'Better', though, is highly subjective. Everyone has their own preferences, their own views of who might best appeal to the voters the party needs to win over, and the relative importance of the two aspects.
I wouldn't vote for a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer - but tbh when I start voting Labour we're in Labour landslide territory. But the prospect of KSIPM wouldn't fill be with the visceral sense of nausea that Corbyn did or RLB would; nor the sense of furious anger that Emily Thornberry as PM would. I'd say that's a good indicator that he's a candidate that wouldn't alienate the voters. I personally would still prefer Lisa Nandy. But then I'm a northern leaver, and the Labour Party membership are London Remainers.
Either way, I certainly wouldn't say it's obvious that there are 'better' candidates than Starmer.
Agreed. Except there is a distinct possibility I would vote for Labour led by Starmer if the alternative is the Tories led by Johnson. May depend on where I’m living and what I’m doing by then, though.
I’d add to this that “grey” leaders, and I think here of, in the recent past, Major, Duncan-Smith, Brown and May, have not proved to be roaring successes.
Major and May won elections.
If Johnson has fouled up badly by ‘24 then as long as Labour have a candidate that doesn’t actively frighten large parts of the electorate like Corbyn did then they are in with a chance. Sir Keir may be such a candidate.
He’s even an Oxford graduate which seems to be an even bigger indicator of general election success.
Does a one year conversion course count? If not, then he’s Leeds, not Oxford.
Not that that is a bad thing. Studying in Leeds was probably far more socially useful to somebody from Reigate than going to Oxford would have been, and it is a very good university.
He is a graduate of both. The point I was trying to make was that since the war two election winning PMs have not been Oxford graduates.
OK, now that’s interesting. Major was one. Who was the other?
Edit - d’oh! It was Churchill, of course.
Incidentally, fun fact - how many Prime Ministers from 1916 to 1945 were at Oxford?
Someone dud a thread on that recently i think it was TSE
Equality of opportunities, not outcomes, is what matters.
The problem is that when you never elect a woman to the top job, it is strongly suggestive of bias in the appointments system (whether conscious or unconscious).
Labour are biased. It makes their pronouncements (e.g., on women on the boards of top companies) look ridiculous.
There are at least two female candidates way better than Starmer (Nandy and Rayner).
There is at least one female candidate (Thornberry) as good as Starmer from the same paramilitary metropolitan wing of the party.
Every other organisation has it drummed in to their heads that between two equal candidates (a man and a woman), you should select the woman.
There is no excuse for electing another man, when there are abundant female candidates at least as good. Starmer is nothing special.
'Better', though, is highly subjective. Everyone has their own preferences, their own views of who might best appeal to the voters the party needs to win over, and the relative importance of the two aspects.
I agree with that. "Better" is highly subjective, thus allowing unconscious bias to affect the result.
I think statistical arguments are useful in showing whether a system is biased.
If you are never electing female leaders because there is always a "better" man, then you are biased.
This is exactly the argument Labour use when protesting about the number of females in FTSE 100 boardrooms, or as Vice Chancellors of Universities.
I’d add to this that “grey” leaders, and I think here of, in the recent past, Major, Duncan-Smith, Brown and May, have not proved to be roaring successes.
Major and May won elections.
If Johnson has fouled up badly by ‘24 then as long as Labour have a candidate that doesn’t actively frighten large parts of the electorate like Corbyn did then they are in with a chance. Sir Keir may be such a candidate.
He’s even an Oxford graduate which seems to be an even bigger indicator of general election success.
Does a one year conversion course count? If not, then he’s Leeds, not Oxford.
Not that that is a bad thing. Studying in Leeds was probably far more socially useful to somebody from Reigate than going to Oxford would have been, and it is a very good university.
He is a graduate of both. The point I was trying to make was that since the war two election winning PMs have not been Oxford graduates.
OK, now that’s interesting. Major was one. Who was the other?
Edit - d’oh! It was Churchill, of course.
Incidentally, fun fact - how many Prime Ministers from 1916 to 1945 were at Oxford?
Until Labour grow beyond the soundbite of 'rescue us from Tory rule' (which the election just indicated was significantly more popular than the Labour rule on offer), or similar soundbites that appeal to a tiny inward looking hard core bubble of enthusiasts they are doomed to declining fortune and electoral irrelevance.
Politics is not about angst, anger and belittling your opponents, it is about offering a better solution to the issues confronting the nation.
I believe most electors are bigger than those soundbites. I suspect they put normal electors off the party that sees the world in terms of tribal soundbites.
Mmm, "Beat The Marxist" and "Get Brexit Done" so that we can "Unleash Our Potential". The electorate are way too sophisticated to buy these sort of softhead slogans. They want joined-up thinking, a sober and serious message, and above all policies.
Equality of opportunities, not outcomes, is what matters.
The problem is that when you never elect a woman to the top job, it is strongly suggestive of bias in the appointments system (whether conscious or unconscious).
Labour are biased. It makes their pronouncements (e.g., on women on the boards of top companies) look ridiculous.
There are at least two female candidates way better than Starmer (Nandy and Rayner).
There is at least one female candidate (Thornberry) as good as Starmer from the same paramilitary metropolitan wing of the party.
Every other organisation has it drummed in to their heads that between two equal candidates (a man and a woman), you should select the woman.
There is no excuse for electing another man, when there are abundant female candidates at least as good. Starmer is nothing special.
'Better', though, is highly subjective. Everyone has their own preferences, their own views of who might best appeal to the voters the party needs to win over, and the relative importance of the two aspects.
I wouldn't vote for a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer - but tbh when I start voting Labour we're in Labour landslide territory. But the prospect of KSIPM wouldn't fill be with the visceral sense of nausea that Corbyn did or RLB would; nor the sense of furious anger that Emily Thornberry as PM would. I'd say that's a good indicator that he's a candidate that wouldn't alienate the voters. I personally would still prefer Lisa Nandy. But then I'm a northern leaver, and the Labour Party membership are London Remainers.
Either way, I certainly wouldn't say it's obvious that there are 'better' candidates than Starmer.
Forget his name. Forget how he comes across. Starmer's biggest handicap is that he was not just a participant, but a behind the scenes manipulator in the Obstructionists v. the People during the Great Brexit war.
While that might have some currency with you, if that's really the best attack line they can come up with, then he might give the Tories a run for their money.
I’d add to this that “grey” leaders, and I think here of, in the recent past, Major, Duncan-Smith, Brown and May, have not proved to be roaring successes.
Major and May won elections.
If Johnson has fouled up badly by ‘24 then as long as Labour have a candidate that doesn’t actively frighten large parts of the electorate like Corbyn did then they are in with a chance. Sir Keir may be such a candidate.
He’s even an Oxford graduate which seems to be an even bigger indicator of general election success.
Does a one year conversion course count? If not, then he’s Leeds, not Oxford.
Not that that is a bad thing. Studying in Leeds was probably far more socially useful to somebody from Reigate than going to Oxford would have been, and it is a very good university.
He is a graduate of both. The point I was trying to make was that since the war two election winning PMs have not been Oxford graduates.
OK, now that’s interesting. Major was one. Who was the other?
Edit - d’oh! It was Churchill, of course.
Incidentally, fun fact - how many Prime Ministers from 1916 to 1945 were at Oxford?
Without googling I would guess none?
Correct. In fact, only one of them - Baldwin - actually had a degree. Lloyd George, Bonar Law and MacDonald were all non-graduates, and Neville Chamberlain began a course at Mason College but never finished it.
From 1900-1945 no Oxford graduate won a majority at a general election. Asquith and Balfour forced two hung parliaments in 1910, but Attlee in 1935 could only manage 154 seats.
I think people are jumping the gun a little bit on Starmer. The first question must surely be, is he certain to make the ballet paper? Could the Momentum dominated NEC find a way to stitch him up?
No. The rulebook is set by conference. Ironically, Momentum lowering the threshold makes it easier for Starmer to get on the ballot paper.
I am pretty confident he will get 21 nominations. He is one of the few high profile Shadow Cabinet figures I think most MPs would be able to live with as leader.
What about the affiliates and/or CLPs?
Again, he is high enough profile to get those. It’s the ones people have never heard of, like, say, Corbyn that might struggle with that rule.
Edit - 33 CLPs are needed. I am confident he would get that in London alone, although if he’s wise he will aim for a nationwide base including Wales and Scotland.
3 affiliates, two of which must be trade unions? Two will nominate anyone who might win that Len McCluskey will not back, to spite him after he’s buggered up so much. Starmer now showing he can beat McCluskey’s likely favourite should be enough.
Hmm, looking at it, 33 CLPs isn't that many, especially as even safe Tory seats like Maidenhead have CLPs. In theory, it ought to be easier to swing CLPs in Tory areas as they will have a smaller membership.
Until Labour grow beyond the soundbite of 'rescue us from Tory rule' (which the election just indicated was significantly more popular than the Labour rule on offer), or similar soundbites that appeal to a tiny inward looking hard core bubble of enthusiasts they are doomed to declining fortune and electoral irrelevance.
Politics is not about angst, anger and belittling your opponents, it is about offering a better solution to the issues confronting the nation.
I believe most electors are bigger than those soundbites. I suspect they put normal electors off the party that sees the world in terms of tribal soundbites.
Mmm, "Beat The Marxist" and "Get Brexit Done" so that we can "Unleash Our Potential". The electorate are way too sophisticated to buy these sort of softhead slogans. They want joined-up thinking, a sober and serious message, and above all policies.
To which I would answer, semi-jocularly, small bleeding wonder Corbyn didn’t win then.
And much more seriously, two words - Boris Johnson.
Equality of opportunities, not outcomes, is what matters.
The problem is that when you never elect a woman to the top job, it is strongly suggestive of bias in the appointments system (whether conscious or unconscious).
Labour are biased. It makes their pronouncements (e.g., on women on the boards of top companies) look ridiculous.
There are at least two female candidates way better than Starmer (Nandy and Rayner).
There is at least one female candidate (Thornberry) as good as Starmer from the same paramilitary metropolitan wing of the party.
Every other organisation has it drummed in to their heads that between two equal candidates (a man and a woman), you should select the woman.
There is no excuse for electing another man, when there are abundant female candidates at least as good. Starmer is nothing special.
'Better', though, is highly subjective. Everyone has their own preferences, their own views of who might best appeal to the voters the party needs to win over, and the relative importance of the two aspects.
I wouldn't vote for a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer - but tbh when I start voting Labour we're in Labour landslide territory. But the prospect of KSIPM wouldn't fill be with the visceral sense of nausea that Corbyn did or RLB would; nor the sense of furious anger that Emily Thornberry as PM would. I'd say that's a good indicator that he's a candidate that wouldn't alienate the voters. I personally would still prefer Lisa Nandy. But then I'm a northern leaver, and the Labour Party membership are London Remainers.
Either way, I certainly wouldn't say it's obvious that there are 'better' candidates than Starmer.
Forget his name. Forget how he comes across. Starmer's biggest handicap is that he was not just a participant, but a behind the scenes manipulator in the Obstructionists v. the People during the Great Brexit war.
The war is not over. It very well might be that the ‘obstructionists’ are proven right.
Equality of opportunities, not outcomes, is what matters.
The problem is that when you never elect a woman to the top job, it is strongly suggestive of bias in the appointments system (whether conscious or unconscious).
Labour are biased. It makes their pronouncements (e.g., on women on the boards of top companies) look ridiculous.
There are at least two female candidates way better than Starmer (Nandy and Rayner).
There is at least one female candidate (Thornberry) as good as Starmer from the same paramilitary metropolitan wing of the party.
Every other organisation has it drummed in to their heads that between two equal candidates (a man and a woman), you should select the woman.
There is no excuse for electing another man, when there are abundant female candidates at least as good. Starmer is nothing special.
'Better', though, is highly subjective. Everyone has their own preferences, their own views of who might best appeal to the voters the party needs to win over, and the relative importance of the two aspects.
I wouldn't vote for a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer - but tbh when I start voting Labour we're in Labour landslide territory. But the prospect of KSIPM wouldn't fill be with the visceral sense of nausea that Corbyn did or RLB would; nor the sense of furious anger that Emily Thornberry as PM would. I'd say that's a good indicator that he's a candidate that wouldn't alienate the voters. I personally would still prefer Lisa Nandy. But then I'm a northern leaver, and the Labour Party membership are London Remainers.
Either way, I certainly wouldn't say it's obvious that there are 'better' candidates than Starmer.
Forget his name. Forget how he comes across. Starmer's biggest handicap is that he was not just a participant, but a behind the scenes manipulator in the Obstructionists v. the People during the Great Brexit war.
While that might have some currency with you, if that's really the best attack line they can come up with, then he might give the Tories a run for their money.
Let's see how he plays in Mansfield and Stoke and Hartlepool, eh?
Comments
Because such a person could never be Prime Min....ah.
Or did you think I was referring to some other politician...
But OK, just this once. In the light of his spooky ability to appeal simultaneously to all wings of the party -
Starmer Starmer Starmer Starmer Starmer Chameleon ...
Keir Starmer = smarmy git. No, it's not an anagram.
Could be very interesting if Brexit goes belly-up.
It would be interesting to see a poll with her name as an option. It'd also be interesting to see Lavery as a named candidate, just for a laugh...
The Liberal majority also depends on Queensland where coal is a key part of the economy
Universal suffrage, with voting rights for women (though not for those under 30), did not arrive in Britain until February 1918.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm
However you are right is has been killed to death by rote buzzwording. The type of which I see all over Cummings blog.
Also, the implication that humanities degrees are worthless in that piece is beyond stupid.
Keep the faith, brothers and sisters!
Remember Cameron started with the Tories on 33%, the same as Labour are now, after 2005 and only increased their vote by 3% to 36% in 2010
Starmer is not the answer to Labour's problems. He is mainly known for his europhilia, which seems to me to be a backward look.
He is a London MP for a London party.
I would never trust someone who so obviously dyes his hair. Or someone who accepts a knighthood & then says he prefers not to be called Sir.
It will be a stark contrast to the skittish lump of facetiousness he will be facing across the despatch box.
There is no definition by which that is ‘universal suffrage.’
Universal suffrage - the granting of the vote to all men and women over the age of 21, with the exception of hereditary peers, certified lunatics and prisoners serving more than five years - came as a result of the Equal Franchise Act 1928, which was passed by the Conservative government of Stanley Baldwin at the special urging of his party chairman, who thought it would be politically helpful, and the Home Secretary William Joynson-Hicks, who was a long time Suffragist supporter (largely due to the influence of his wife Grace).
So the first election with universal suffrage was 1929.
(As for OFSTED, they don’t even know what safeguarding is. They have become an utter joke.)
In the meantime, we have Sir Keir as a mellow Buddhist South American agriculturalist actor while simultaneously running to be President of the US. Meet:
No Drama Karma Llama Drama Farmer Obama Starmer.
I think that's where we've got to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour,_New_Danger
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1222553/Emmanuel-Macron-news-London-L-gion-d-honneur-Second-World-War-Boris-Johnson-brexit-news/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Lots of us are now leaning to him, but it's not a done deal yet. Let's see how he gets on in the debate(s) which I'm sure will be organised.
But that should be it now.
Politics is about appearance. His talking down manner marks him out as Emily Thornberry in a suit. The Tories have a few like that too.
Yes, I'm shallow, I'd vote for the prettiest woman. But do you really think a large proportion of the electorate study the manifestos and any personal statements before agonising long and hard on who to vote for?
How times have changed...
Keir is Kenneth Baker resurrected. Do you remember him?
Forrest fires around the world are often about land management. It became ironic that as developed nations got better at putting out fires the worse it gets. A good fire gets rid of the dry material which accumulates with successive dry summers.
More enviro conscience land use has resulted in preservation of these areas over fire walls and regular intervention. In a not dissimilar way, for good reasons river channels in the UK are not regularly dredged anymore. It improves the water quality but allows sediment build up which results in rivers breaking their banks in periods of heavy rainfall.
These fires might be the result of, or might not be the result of a temperature increase caused by increased carbon in the atmosphere.
Those that claim certainty that it is though are not doing so through scientific understanding but quasi religious zealotry.
But he is dull, does not appear to have a mind of his own and shows little to no evidence of being a team player. However if Nick Palmer - a true weathercock who would lick his own balls if that were party policy - would vote for him then he seems likely to win.
I just struggle to understand where the hopes invested in him come from. And I thought that it was a woman’s turn....
To what extent though, is the answer none of the above, and that Corbyn just looked an awful lot older last year (there was even speculation he'd had a stroke) and even more so when contrasted with Boris and Jo Swinson rather than Theresa May and Vince Cable?
What might cause him trouble is his record as DPP - although he could justifiably point out it compares favourably with every other DPP.
What therefore is more likely to be an issue is the Tory account of how he behaved over Brexit negotiations, where he was given exactly what he asked for and said it wasn’t enough. That will be used - with apologies to Cyclefree - to paint him as a typical lawyer. Slippery, cunning, without any principles at all and doing what he’s told by whoever pays his fees.
Equally, while that might cost him the election, it might also allow him to carry through some much needed reforms of Labour to drag them into the 21st century. Because that’s going to require a lot of low cunning and duplicity to get the slaughter of many sacred cows past the members.
"I thought Kenneth Baker was still with us, making resurrection rather problematic."
Apologies. I'm sure he's a very nice man, but even the Tories never made him leader.
(Sorry)
I am pretty confident he will get 21 nominations. He is one of the few high profile Shadow Cabinet figures I think most MPs would be able to live with as leader.
Still, if Labour think a third Londoner in a row is best for the leader .... then the geographical inequality is still more glaring then the gender inequality.
I expect Labour won't stop electing Londoners as leaders until all 73 London seats are safely in the bag.
I see no evidence Starmer understands anything of Wales or Scotland.
Equality of opportunities, not outcomes, is what matters.
Or even better, go for a leader with a name that does not lend itself so readily to unhelpful manipulation. This is perhaps the one and only positive in the fact that my erstwhile favourite for next leader - Laura Pidcock - is unable to stand having lost her seat.
If Johnson has fouled up badly by ‘24 then as long as Labour have a candidate that doesn’t actively frighten large parts of the electorate like Corbyn did then they are in with a chance. Sir Keir may be such a candidate.
He’s even an Oxford graduate which seems to be an even bigger indicator of general election success.
Labour are biased. It makes their pronouncements (e.g., on women on the boards of top companies) look ridiculous.
There are at least two female candidates way better than Starmer (Nandy and Rayner).
There is at least one female candidate (Thornberry) as good as Starmer from the same paramilitary metropolitan wing of the party.
Every other organisation has it drummed in to their heads that between two equal candidates (a man and a woman), you should select the woman.
There is no excuse for electing another man, when there are abundant female candidates at least as good. Starmer is nothing special.
Not that that is a bad thing. Studying in Leeds was probably far more socially useful to somebody from Reigate than going to Oxford would have been, and it is a very good university.
Edit - 33 CLPs are needed. I am confident he would get that in London alone, although if he’s wise he will aim for a nationwide base including Wales and Scotland.
3 affiliates, two of which must be trade unions? Two will nominate anyone who might win that Len McCluskey will not back, to spite him after he’s buggered up so much. Starmer now showing he can beat McCluskey’s likely favourite should be enough.
Politics is not about angst, anger and belittling your opponents, it is about offering a better solution to the issues confronting the nation.
I believe most electors are bigger than those soundbites. I suspect they put normal electors off the party that sees the world in terms of tribal soundbites.
On RLB, since the Wrong-Daily meme, I cannot help now think of her apart from as Rebecca Wrong-Trousers.
Seriously you are being an utter void. Shape up.
They should go for whoever's best, regardless of whether it's a man or a woman.
Just as in 2015 (2016?) they should've gone for Kendall. Or Cooper.
The point I was trying to make was that since the war two election winning PMs have not been Oxford graduates.
Hats off Keir and watch out Blondie.
Keir Hardie was sitting in a first class non-smoker one day, when a distinguished looking lady came in and lit up. She said, after the first few puffs, ‘I hope you don’t mind me smoking.’
‘Not at all,’ replied Keir Hardie. ‘As long as you don’t mind me being sick, that is.’
‘My good man,’ retorted the woman, ‘there is no need to be rude. I would have you know I am one of the directors’ wives.’
‘Madame,’ replied Keir Hardie, ‘I do not care if you are the director’s only wife, I shall still be sick.’
Edit - d’oh! It was Churchill, of course.
Incidentally, fun fact - how many Prime Ministers from 1916 to 1945 were at Oxford?
...Kier Royale.
I wouldn't vote for a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer - but tbh when I start voting Labour we're in Labour landslide territory. But the prospect of KSIPM wouldn't fill be with the visceral sense of nausea that Corbyn did or RLB would; nor the sense of furious anger that Emily Thornberry as PM would. I'd say that's a good indicator that he's a candidate that wouldn't alienate the voters.
I personally would still prefer Lisa Nandy. But then I'm a northern leaver, and the Labour Party membership are London Remainers.
Either way, I certainly wouldn't say it's obvious that there are 'better' candidates than Starmer.
I think statistical arguments are useful in showing whether a system is biased.
If you are never electing female leaders because there is always a "better" man, then you are biased.
This is exactly the argument Labour use when protesting about the number of females in FTSE 100 boardrooms, or as Vice Chancellors of Universities.
By their own metrics, Labour are biased.
From 1900-1945 no Oxford graduate won a majority at a general election. Asquith and Balfour forced two hung parliaments in 1910, but Attlee in 1935 could only manage 154 seats.
And much more seriously, two words - Boris Johnson.