Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Starmer takes clear lead in first YouGov members’ poll of LAB

124»

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    The Tories will be running on "The people's Government" in 2020. Not sure what Starmer goes with "A better future" ?
  • kinabalu said:

    philiph said:

    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.
    “Rescue us from Tory rule” only works if most people feel that they need rescuing. One of the problems that I think Labour has in the last election was the picture they painted of a Britain where you were either a billionaire or using a food bank was one that most people did not recognise. The oft repeated claim that four million children are in poverty is probably correct by a particular definition of poverty, but it is one that many found incredible based on their own perception of what poverty means.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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?
    It is worth pointing out Thatcher lost all those places (Mansfield by a very narrow margin) and still won three landslides.

    The way back for Labour is in metropolitan and semi-metropolitan England among the middle classes. Starmer might well appeal to those groups.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,473
    Nigelb said:

    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.
    No it's a good point, how does arch-Remainer Starmer deal with Brexit? Before he likely gets a chance to run for PM Brexit will have been completed. Does Starmer spend the next five years sniping? Does he propose imposing some new Labour Brexit deal after an election? Does he argue for rejoining the EU or joining EFTA? Starmer could quite easily get it badly wrong.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    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.
    How common was it for politicians to have degrees at all before the war? After all the two PMs I mentioned earlier didn’t.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,473
    kinabalu said:

    philiph said:

    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.
    They've just elected Boris on the back of such slogans. So what you have written is tosh.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    The tendency of Trump and his administration to abase themselves before Putin is remarkable...
    https://twitter.com/howroute/status/1211814774981431296
  • kinabalu said:

    philiph said:

    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.
    That was another spoof, right?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,783

    kinabalu said:

    philiph said:

    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.
    “Rescue us from Tory rule” only works if most people feel that they need rescuing. One of the problems that I think Labour has in the last election was the picture they painted of a Britain where you were either a billionaire or using a food bank was one that most people did not recognise. The oft repeated claim that four million children are in poverty is probably correct by a particular definition of poverty, but it is one that many found incredible based on their own perception of what poverty means.
    4 million? Isn't that just under half the number of children in the country?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520

    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.

    I like that. Sir Keir. Yes, we go with that. Should appeal to the WWC too. Tap into that instinctive deference to their betters which is still very much there - witness their swooning over poshboy Johnson.

    Caveat. The deference only comes out if they find the personality 'down to earth' and appealing. So Sir Keir will need to mug it up a bit when he visits these areas. Not too much, of course, certainly not to the point of phoniness, but enough to tickle the fancy of the people in places such as Doncaster market. Can he do it? I don't see why not.
  • Jess Phillips third. Lol
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    TGOHF666 said:

    “ Keith Sturmer “ is my favourite that I’ve seen - perfect mix of the banal bore from compliance trying to be revolutionary.

    No that's derogatory. We aren't doing ones like that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    edited January 2020

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:

    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.
    How common was it for politicians to have degrees at all before the war? After all the two PMs I mentioned earlier didn’t.
    Between the wars, not very. In the nineteenth century, it was very rare for them not to have attended university as they mostly came from wealthy families and Oxford and Cambridge were treated as finishing schools. The exceptions, off the top of my head, were Wellington and Disraeli. However, merely going to university didn’t necessarily guarantee they would take a degree!
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,656
    glw said:

    kinabalu said:

    philiph said:

    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.
    They've just elected Boris on the back of such slogans. So what you have written is tosh.
    Electoral victors tend to use slogans that the electors find believable.

    What the electors find believable can be diametrically opposed to what party activists and supporters believe the truth to be.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    Cookie said:

    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.

    But some names more than others.

    Tom Tittifer.

    Tony Clark.

    Who would you rather be?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    But some names more than others.

    Tom Tittifer.

    Tony Clark.

    Who would you rather be?
    My grandfather once had a client who was called Ernest Pee.

    Which would have been bad enough even if he hadn’t been about to start teaching at Telford Secondary Modern.
  • glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    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.
    No it's a good point, how does arch-Remainer Starmer deal with Brexit? Before he likely gets a chance to run for PM Brexit will have been completed. Does Starmer spend the next five years sniping? Does he propose imposing some new Labour Brexit deal after an election? Does he argue for rejoining the EU or joining EFTA? Starmer could quite easily get it badly wrong.

    If the government is not talking about Brexit, then Labour won't either. There is no significant rejoin sentiment in th rparty as far as I can make out. The battle has been lost and that has been accepted. Having opposed Brexit, though, Starmer will be in a good position to capitalise if it does go wrong. If it doesn't, then no-one will care.

  • ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341
    kinabalu said:

    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.

    I like that. Sir Keir. Yes, we go with that. Should appeal to the WWC too. Tap into that instinctive deference to their betters which is still very much there - witness their swooning over poshboy Johnson.

    Caveat. The deference only comes out if they find the personality 'down to earth' and appealing. So Sir Keir will need to mug it up a bit when he visits these areas. Not too much, of course, certainly not to the point of phoniness, but enough to tickle the fancy of the people in places such as Doncaster market. Can he do it? I don't see why not.
    That strategy will last until first contact with the enemy a bacon sarnie....

    Any new leader will need to go into intensive training so as to be able to

    - price a pint of milk
    - stand with a banana
    - call bingo
    - name their favourite Bollywood movie
    - pour a pint that isn't 7/8ths head

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
    I think you overestimate the potential damage, TBH. Look at Johnson. Bozza Bear, BoJo, Blowjob Bojo, Bonking Boris. Has it hurt him? No. Because he at least pretends to laugh at himself, people actually like him for it and the nicknames become almost a mark of affection. Thatcher springs to mind as well. Maggie, The Iron Lady, etc., etc. She didn’t fight against these names, some of which were nastily meant. She embraced them, and it boosted her popularity.

    Corbyn’s problem was that he didn’t have much of a sense of humour to deflect these things. Will Starmer be able to? I don’t know because I don’t know enough about him to judge. If he can, it might be a bonus for him.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    WHY will soft Tories vote LibDem? That needs a whole lot more propulsion than firing up the Wish Drive.

    If Boris does a half decent job as PM, there will be plenty flowing back into the Tory fold. Plenty didn't vote this time because of him. I told you - I met plenty.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
    Johnson will have to get used to calling him my right honorable and learned friend when he addresses him in the commons.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
    Newspaper editors everywhere will love the potential for Starmer drama.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127


    - pour a pint that isn't 7/8ths head

    There are just too many big heads in politics these days.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    nichomar said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
    Johnson will have to get used to calling him my right honorable and learned friend when he addresses him in the commons.
    Right honourable and learned MEMBER. Friends are people in your own party.
  • ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    WHY will soft Tories vote LibDem? That needs a whole lot more propulsion than firing up the Wish Drive.

    If Boris does a half decent job as PM, there will be plenty flowing back into the Tory fold. Plenty didn't vote this time because of him. I told you - I met plenty.

    It's a given that if Johnson does OK he will win again. What Labour needs is someone who can take advantage if he doesn't.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited January 2020
    glw said:

    RobD said:

    Chameleon said:
    Surprised he hasn't seen the need to re-weight their numbers. :smiley:
    I'm surprised he hasn't deleted his account, given that he posted absolute rubbish for weeks on end.
    Pah, some of us have posted absolute rubbish for years and it hasnt held me back.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    kinabalu said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    “ Keith Sturmer “ is my favourite that I’ve seen - perfect mix of the banal bore from compliance trying to be revolutionary.

    No that's derogatory. We aren't doing ones like that.
    That settles it - Keith Sturmer...
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    By their own metrics, Labour are biased.
    Maybe it's the metrics that are wrong then? (We may be agreeing here - I'm not sure!)

    In any case, there is an issue of small samoles here. Female Labour MPs have only been over a third of the party since 1997. Senior female MPs have only been any more than occasional for a decade or so. There have only been at most three Labour leaders over the period when we might expect a female leader. This is too small a sample to xonclude any sort of institutional bias from. I'm not saying that there isn't institutional bias, just that the data is not yet large enough to conclude that that is the case.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    WHY will soft Tories vote LibDem? That needs a whole lot more propulsion than firing up the Wish Drive.

    If Boris does a half decent job as PM, there will be plenty flowing back into the Tory fold. Plenty didn't vote this time because of him. I told you - I met plenty.

    It's a given that if Johnson does OK he will win again. What Labour needs is someone who can take advantage if he doesn't.

    If he doesn't, Labour won't get a chance to take advantage. The Tory Party will have moved to replace him before the next election.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746

    kinabalu said:

    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.

    I like that. Sir Keir. Yes, we go with that. Should appeal to the WWC too. Tap into that instinctive deference to their betters which is still very much there - witness their swooning over poshboy Johnson.

    Caveat. The deference only comes out if they find the personality 'down to earth' and appealing. So Sir Keir will need to mug it up a bit when he visits these areas. Not too much, of course, certainly not to the point of phoniness, but enough to tickle the fancy of the people in places such as Doncaster market. Can he do it? I don't see why not.
    That strategy will last until first contact with the enemy a bacon sarnie....

    Any new leader will need to go into intensive training so as to be able to

    - price a pint of milk
    - stand with a banana
    - call bingo
    - name their favourite Bollywood movie
    - pour a pint that isn't 7/8ths head

    - Remember his favourite football team
    - Remember to watch the Queen's speech in the morning.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,473
    kle4 said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    Chameleon said:
    Surprised he hasn't seen the need to re-weight their numbers. :smiley:
    I'm surprised he hasn't deleted his account, given that he posted absolute rubbish for weeks on end.
    Pah, some if us have posted absolute rubbish for years and it hasnt held me back.
    There's nothing wrong with posting opinions and being wrong, as most of us are most of the time. But when you essentially say "these pros have got it wrong, and I have fixed their work", you had better be right, or you will look like a fool.
  • ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    I might be a member of that group certainly. I’m not a fan of my local MP and would not have voted for him if I had not been so unwilling to see Corbyn anywhere near government.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    But some names more than others.

    Tom Tittifer.

    Tony Clark.

    Who would you rather be?
    My grandfather once had a client who was called Ernest Pee.

    Which would have been bad enough even if he hadn’t been about to start teaching at Telford Secondary Modern.
    There was a teacher at my mother-in-law's school called Mr. Poopart. (I have only ever heard this story - I may not have spelled it right). His first name of Rupert may or may not be an embellishment.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    glw said:

    kle4 said:

    glw said:

    RobD said:

    Chameleon said:
    Surprised he hasn't seen the need to re-weight their numbers. :smiley:
    I'm surprised he hasn't deleted his account, given that he posted absolute rubbish for weeks on end.
    Pah, some if us have posted absolute rubbish for years and it hasnt held me back.
    There's nothing wrong with posting opinions and being wrong, as most of us are most of the time. But when you essentially say "these pros have got it wrong, and I have fixed their work", you had better be right, or you will look like a fool.
    I know - it was pretty funny though, given how blatantly their desired outcome was moulding their 'analysis'.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341
    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
    Newspaper editors everywhere will love the potential for Starmer drama.
    How long before The Sun finds Starmer the Llama? You know, the one that spits on Leave voters.....
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    edited January 2020

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    Didn't the soft Tories consider voting Lib Dem over Brexit? If that debate is over, why would they be tempted in the future if they didn't do it then?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520

    That was another spoof, right?

    It was a sarcastic riposte to what (IMO) was utter tosh from @philiph.

    Or perhaps not "tosh" - that's harsh - but an obviously overly generous reading of the electorate.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    Labour LGBT could campaign with "Queer for Keir".
  • If Boris does a half decent job as PM, there will be plenty flowing back into the Tory fold. Plenty didn't vote this time because of him. I told you - I met plenty.

    That is indeed true but there is also the question of whether Conservative governments are pathological liars. I refer of course to Brexit, which according to which recent Conservative government you wish to believe will lead directly to project fear or to the sunlit uplands. They can't all be right. Come the next election, it will be the outcome of Brexit and not, as now, the mere fact of it that matters.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,813

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    If your hopes for the future are based on a LibDem revival, my guess is you will be waiting a long, long time.

    There are two decades of work for the Libdems to get back to where they were under Charlie.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    glw said:

    They've just elected Boris on the back of such slogans. So what you have written is tosh.

    That's my exact point!

    Honestly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    Didn't the soft Tories consider voting Lib Dem over Brexit? If that debate is over, why would they be tempted in the future if they didn't do it then?
    A better description might be reluctant Tories - which answers your question.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    kinabalu said:

    glw said:

    They've just elected Boris on the back of such slogans. So what you have written is tosh.

    That's my exact point!

    Honestly.
    Irony almost always fails to communicate to someone online.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362
    isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    ...

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    Didn't the soft Tories consider voting Lib Dem over Brexit? If that debate is over, why would they be tempted in the future if they didn't do it then?
    I agree with Southam here. I think plenty of potential LD votets voted Tory because fear of Corbyn easily outweighed fear of Brexit. Fear of Starmer will not so easily outweigh reluctance to vote Tory next time around, even if the reluctance to vote Tory doesn't have a eeason that can be summarised in one word in the same way.

    I have a theory that the size of the Conservative vote is directly proportional to how left-wing Labour is perceived to be. Nothing else matters. (Other things do matter for the size of Lab and LD vote).
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,813
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    By their own metrics, Labour are biased.
    Maybe it's the metrics that are wrong then? (We may be agreeing here - I'm not sure!)

    In any case, there is an issue of small samoles here. Female Labour MPs have only been over a third of the party since 1997. Senior female MPs have only been any more than occasional for a decade or so. There have only been at most three Labour leaders over the period when we might expect a female leader. This is too small a sample to xonclude any sort of institutional bias from. I'm not saying that there isn't institutional bias, just that the data is not yet large enough to conclude that that is the case.
    I don't see why the starting point is 1997. It should be at least 1975, when their principal rivals elected a female leader.

    Arguably, it should be even earlier, as there were competent candidates (Barbara Castle)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341
    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    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.

    But some names more than others.

    Tom Tittifer.

    Tony Clark.

    Who would you rather be?
    My grandfather once had a client who was called Ernest Pee.

    Which would have been bad enough even if he hadn’t been about to start teaching at Telford Secondary Modern.
    There was a teacher at my mother-in-law's school called Mr. Poopart. (I have only ever heard this story - I may not have spelled it right). His first name of Rupert may or may not be an embellishment.
    Saatchi has its own section of his work:

    https://www.saatchiart.com/paintings/poopart/feature
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,226

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
    Newspaper editors everywhere will love the potential for Starmer drama.
    How long before The Sun finds Starmer the Llama? You know, the one that spits on Leave voters.....
    He could do a lot worse than get attacked like that, llamas are pretty great
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520

    That strategy will last until first contact with the enemy a bacon sarnie....

    Any new leader will need to go into intensive training so as to be able to

    - price a pint of milk
    - stand with a banana
    - call bingo
    - name their favourite Bollywood movie
    - pour a pint that isn't 7/8ths head

    Sadly accurate. And the banana practice will be especially important since - yes, I know, yawn - it rhymes with Starmer. "Yes, we have no Keir Starmers" bla bla bla. So rather than learn how to "stand with" one, my advice to him would be to avoid all contact with them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
    Newspaper editors everywhere will love the potential for Starmer drama.
    How long before The Sun finds Starmer the Llama? You know, the one that spits on Leave voters.....
    He could do a lot worse than get attacked like that, llamas are pretty great
    So you’re saying Starmer would not be allamad by that?
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666
    edited January 2020
    Cookie said:

    isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    ...

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    Didn't the soft Tories consider voting Lib Dem over Brexit? If that debate is over, why would they be tempted in the future if they didn't do it then?
    I agree with Southam here. I think plenty of potential LD votets voted Tory because fear of Corbyn easily outweighed fear of Brexit. Fear of Starmer will not so easily outweigh reluctance to vote Tory next time around, even if the reluctance to vote Tory doesn't have a eeason that can be summarised in one word in the same way.

    I have a theory that the size of the Conservative vote is directly proportional to how left-wing Labour is perceived to be. Nothing else matters. (Other things do matter for the size of Lab and LD vote).
    That supports to my least worst candidate theory. The more left wing the Labour party is the more likely the Tories are the least worst option.
  • isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    Didn't the soft Tories consider voting Lib Dem over Brexit? If that debate is over, why would they be tempted in the future if they didn't do it then?

    Dislike/fear of Corbyn trumped dislike of Brexit.

  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,287
    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:

    philiph said:

    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.
    “Rescue us from Tory rule” only works if most people feel that they need rescuing. One of the problems that I think Labour has in the last election was the picture they painted of a Britain where you were either a billionaire or using a food bank was one that most people did not recognise. The oft repeated claim that four million children are in poverty is probably correct by a particular definition of poverty, but it is one that many found incredible based on their own perception of what poverty means.
    4 million? Isn't that just under half the number of children in the country?
    I think this is a very big issue for Labour. I mean if Boris convinced the top 5 billionaires in the world to move here and pay taxes here, that would all of a sudden put significant number of children in relative poverty. It’s a complete nonsense statistic designed for perpetual left wing grievance.

    When I was growing up in the 80s with one parent working full time and one part time when we were young then full time as I was older

    - it was difficult to afford clothes and shoes
    - we couldn’t afford to go on holiday every year
    - We rented phone and tv etc as parents couldn’t have afforded to pay out lump sum
    - we never had branded goods, we never ate out - although we might get fish and chips

    The above only started to change when my mum and dad could remortgage and take advantage of equity.

    Even in school there was one teacher for each of the fourteen classes, a secretary and head teacher. Now there are assistants and relief teachers left right and centre.

    For Labour to paint this as some kind of terrible drop in standards is lunacy - they should still be taking credit for investments they supported in education when they got voted in in 1997.

  • ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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 M 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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    WHY will soft Tories vote LibDem? That needs a whole lot more propulsion than firing up the Wish Drive.

    If Boris does a half decent job as PM, there will be plenty flowing back into the Tory fold. Plenty didn't vote this time because of him. I told you - I met plenty.

    It's a given that if Johnson does OK he will win again. What Labour needs is someone who can take advantage if he doesn't.

    If he doesn't, Labour won't get a chance to take advantage. The Tory Party will have moved to replace him before the next election.

    And that will also create opportunities.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    edited January 2020
    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
    Johnson will have to get used to calling him my right honorable and learned friend when he addresses him in the commons.
    Right honourable and learned MEMBER. Friends are people in your own party.
    And Boris in turn being the right member ?
  • Just rejoice at this news.

    Northern rail to be stripped of franchise, says Grant Shapps

    Transport secretary says he has started process after year of chaos and cancellations

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/02/northern-rail-to-be-stripped-of-franchise-says-grant-shapps?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    kinabalu said:

    That strategy will last until first contact with the enemy a bacon sarnie....

    Any new leader will need to go into intensive training so as to be able to

    - price a pint of milk
    - stand with a banana
    - call bingo
    - name their favourite Bollywood movie
    - pour a pint that isn't 7/8ths head

    Sadly accurate. And the banana practice will be especially important since - yes, I know, yawn - it rhymes with Starmer. "Yes, we have no Keir Starmers" bla bla bla. So rather than learn how to "stand with" one, my advice to him would be to avoid all contact with them.
    Starmerana...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520

    How long before The Sun finds Starmer the Llama? You know, the one that spits on Leave voters.....

    That is way too subtle for The Sun.

    Quite subtle for you too actually.
  • I copyrighted ‘Tears for Keir’ years ago.


  • I don't see why the starting point is 1997. It should be at least 1975, when their principal rivals elected a female leader.

    Arguably, it should be even earlier, as there were competent candidates (Barbara Castle)

    That is ahistorical because Wilson was leader from 1963 to 1976.

    Barbara Castle's first front-bench appointment came in Wilson's 1964 government. Therefore she did not have the experience to be a realistic candidate in 1963, and Barbara Castle (or Shirley Williams or any other woman) did not stand in 1976.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Labour_Party_leadership_election
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    nichomar said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    Are you saying his name will Harmer Starmer?

    I think we are seeing exactly that happening here this morning. Hence why I seek to shut it down. Trouble is, I'm only one small voice and am likely to be overwhelmed before too long. Fancy helping out?
    Johnson will have to get used to calling him my right honorable and learned friend when he addresses him in the commons.
    Right honourable and learned MEMBER. Friends are people in your own party.
    And Boris in turn being the right member ?
    More like the complete member.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    The only effective attack on him might be Kier Hardly - and of course that would only work from the left.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,167
    isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    Didn't the soft Tories consider voting Lib Dem over Brexit? If that debate is over, why would they be tempted in the future if they didn't do it then?
    It wasn't just Brexit. Some soft Tories despise and distrust Johnson. I heard it on the doorstep. And Brexit isn't over by a long way.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    Didn't the soft Tories consider voting Lib Dem over Brexit? If that debate is over, why would they be tempted in the future if they didn't do it then?

    Dislike/fear of Corbyn trumped dislike of Brexit.

    Probably, but the motivation to consider voting Lib Dem in the first place was to stop Brexit, and now that’s gone it doesn’t really matter who is in charge of Labour.

    We can test this by asking soft Tories on here I suppose, if anyone is willing to respond to that tag!
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 10,213
    edited January 2020

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    Mr. Cwsc, I must leap to Labour's defence, here.

    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.

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    Spot on.

    Most of the analysis focuses on how Starmer would affect the Con/Lab battle, however, if he wins he will also affect the Con/LD battle, strongly in favour of the LDs. Getting rid of Corbyn is a boon to the Lib Dems.

    There are approximately 100 Con/Lab battleground seats.

    There are approximately 50 Con/LD battleground seats.

    By focussing solely on the 100 Con/Lab seats it is easy to assume that Labour cannot win in 2024. But take into consideration an LD boost and 2024 looks far from certain.

    Tories better pray that RLB wins.

    (Incidentally, not a single one of those 150 seats is in Scotland.)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    Nigelb said:

    Irony almost always fails to communicate to someone online.

    Yes, there is much to be said for the straight bat. Which I guess is what "SKS" as Labour leader would probably represent in some ways. The straight bat after 4 years of devil-may-care slogging. But the good news is that a straight bat does not mean you can't play your strokes. Indeed many strokes - e.g. the orthodox cover drive - can only be played that way.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,950

    Just rejoice at this news.

    Northern rail to be stripped of franchise, says Grant Shapps

    Transport secretary says he has started process after year of chaos and cancellations

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/02/northern-rail-to-be-stripped-of-franchise-says-grant-shapps?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Unacceptable state intervention. Absolutely equivalent to communism.
  • That strategy will last until first contact with the enemy a bacon sarnie....

    Any new leader will need to go into intensive training so as to be able to

    - price a pint of milk
    - stand with a banana
    - call bingo
    - name their favourite Bollywood movie
    - pour a pint that isn't 7/8ths head

    It is probably a bit late to complain about the debasement of the English language with foul Americanisms but Ed's nemesis was a bacon roll, not a sandwich.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,127

    My view is that Starmer would free up a lot of soft Tories to vote LibDem. That could be a very big deal.

    Spot on.

    Most of the analysis focuses on how Starmer would affect the Con/Lab battle, however, if he wins he will also affect the Con/LD battle, strongly in favour of the LDs. Getting rid of Corbyn is a boon to the Lib Dems.

    There are approximately 100 Con/Lab battleground seats.

    There are approximately 50 Con/LD battleground seats.

    By focussing solely on the 100 Con/Lab seats it is easy to assume that Labour cannot win in 2024. But take into consideration an LD boost and 2024 looks far from certain.

    Tories better pray that RLB wins.
    50? Really? Once you go beyond 25 seats (one of which is held by the SNP and two by Labour) almost all the Liberal Democrat ‘targets’ have five figure majorities.

    That’s hard work for a party with quite limited resources to overturn in one go. Admittedly, Labour not being seen as second cousins to the Four Horsemen might help somewhat.

    Labour, by contrast, have around 119 targets where the majority is less than 10,000, which would in theory be enough to give them a bare majority.

    http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground
  • RobD said:

    kinabalu said:

    philiph said:

    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.
    “Rescue us from Tory rule” only works if most people feel that they need rescuing. One of the problems that I think Labour has in the last election was the picture they painted of a Britain where you were either a billionaire or using a food bank was one that most people did not recognise. The oft repeated claim that four million children are in poverty is probably correct by a particular definition of poverty, but it is one that many found incredible based on their own perception of what poverty means.
    4 million? Isn't that just under half the number of children in the country?
    I think this is a very big issue for Labour. I mean if Boris convinced the top 5 billionaires in the world to move here and pay taxes here, that would all of a sudden put significant number of children in relative poverty. It’s a complete nonsense statistic designed for perpetual left wing grievance.

    When I was growing up in the 80s with one parent working full time and one part time when we were young then full time as I was older

    - it was difficult to afford clothes and shoes
    - we couldn’t afford to go on holiday every year
    - We rented phone and tv etc as parents couldn’t have afforded to pay out lump sum
    - we never had branded goods, we never ate out - although we might get fish and chips

    The above only started to change when my mum and dad could remortgage and take advantage of equity.

    Even in school there was one teacher for each of the fourteen classes, a secretary and head teacher. Now there are assistants and relief teachers left right and centre.

    For Labour to paint this as some kind of terrible drop in standards is lunacy - they should still be taking credit for investments they supported in education when they got voted in in 1997.

    Inb4 someone posts four Yorkshire men youtube
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,323
    The main problem with Starmer (apart from him being incredibly boring) is his positioning on Brexit.

    Are Labour really going to be stupid enough to jump from telling people that Boris couldn't get a deal, that nothing could be changed, that we were inevitably doomed into the remainer pit of the EU will dictate all the terms of our trade deal, we remain inferior and subservient, this is all hopeless and we are all doomed yet again? Because if they do 2019 will not be the bottom of the cycle.

    Labour need to accept Brexit like they promised to do. This does not mean that they can't make the case, for example, for a CU, it just means that they need to have unequivocally accepted the principle rather than the process. I am far from persuaded that Starmer is that man. He still thinks he knows better.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341
    Metropolitan elitists wittering about their commute. Yawn.
  • NEW THREAD

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,931
    Nigelb said:

    The tendency of Trump and his administration to abase themselves before Putin is remarkable...
    https://twitter.com/howroute/status/1211814774981431296

    He who pays the Piper calls the tune...
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    edited January 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    Lab Gain Kensington very easily if Starmer is leader. Rest of the country.... hmmm.

    This is a dumb strategy. Yes, in 20 years time Labour needs a leader like Starmer, but for now under FPTP and the constituencies that exist, Labour need to win back the white working class.
    Pulpstar said:

    The "amid fears she cannot win." line is as funny as anything @Kinabalu produced over the last few days.
    Who did u vote for in the GE, Pulp?
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    speedy2 said:

    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 used to really good looking, but now......
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885

    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:

    philiph said:

    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.
    SNIP
    4 million? Isn't that just under half the number of children in the country?
    I think this is a very big issue for Labour. I mean if Boris convinced the top 5 billionaires in the world to move here and pay taxes here, that would all of a sudden put significant number of children in relative poverty. It’s a complete nonsense statistic designed for perpetual left wing grievance.

    When I was growing up in the 80s with one parent working full time and one part time when we were young then full time as I was older

    - it was difficult to afford clothes and shoes
    - we couldn’t afford to go on holiday every year
    - We rented phone and tv etc as parents couldn’t have afforded to pay out lump sum
    - we never had branded goods, we never ate out - although we might get fish and chips

    The above only started to change when my mum and dad could remortgage and take advantage of equity.

    Even in school there was one teacher for each of the fourteen classes, a secretary and head teacher. Now there are assistants and relief teachers left right and centre.

    For Labour to paint this as some kind of terrible drop in standards is lunacy - they should still be taking credit for investments they supported in education when they got voted in in 1997.

    Inb4 someone posts four Yorkshire men youtube
    Very true though , we were tough in those days and did not know we were poor. Life was rich.
This discussion has been closed.