Starmer would never have appointed Mandelson if Harris had won the election . Starmers desperation to suck up to Trump and find someone sleazy enough to deal with him will cost him his job .
He should have left Karen Pierce in the job who was very well regarded and wasn’t a sleaze bucket .
His 2nd choice was someone with the same politics as himself George Ozzy Osborne wasn't it.
Sarwar really has nothing to lose, makes sense for him to go in first.
He's looking at having to resign himself if the May results are anything like as bad as the polling currently indicates. This gets his excuses in early. I would never suggest that Sarwar was sharp but its not completely stupid.
I feel a bit sorry for Sarwar. If the elections had been a bit closer together, he would probably be FM today.
On the NHS discussion that rears its head from time to time, particularly the derision relating to its quasi-religious status, I had a thought about how Magna Carts might be a useful analogy.
In many respects Magna Carta is merely a peace treaty between King John and his barons, but the idea of Magna Carta was appealed to by centuries of reformers to push for innovative reform (while insisting they weren't doing anything innovative). They were restoring the ancient rights and liberties given to the English by Magna Carta.
This seems to be a common mode in British politics, of moving forwards by looking back, and I wonder whether those derisive of the place the NHS has in the British imagination are making a terrible error of misunderstanding the British psyche.
The way to push for reform of the NHS is not by deriding the idea of the NHS, but to embrace the cult-belief, and to criticise the practice of the NHS as a betrayal of the NHS ideal.
Naturally, I have come to this realisation about twenty years behind Cameron, it's just such a shame that the reforms implemented by his government were a complete failure.
Starmer would never have appointed Mandelson if Harris had won the election . Starmers desperation to suck up to Trump and find someone sleazy enough to deal with him will cost him his job .
He should have left Karen Pierce in the job who was very well regarded and wasn’t a sleaze bucket .
If someone predicted this peerless and constant parade of chaos, ineptitude, idiocy, treachery, clumsiness and grisly national humiliation then I salute a Seer for the Ages
I think Casino was one of the most negative about Starmer before the election.
If someone predicted this peerless and constant parade of chaos, ineptitude, idiocy, treachery, clumsiness and grisly national humiliation then I salute a Seer for the Ages
I have long held the view that Starmer is a technocrat not a politician or a leader of people.
What the last 18 months have shown is how little preparation Labour did in opposition to get ready for government.
But I hadn't anticipated this level of incompetence, chaos and bad politics.
One of the biggest majorities in history and they can't govern. It is beyond belief.
The media decided Labour would be crap from day one.
They haven't helped themselves but they aren't 25% as crap as they are made out to be.
Miliband would be the worst option possible. He is bonkers. We have had our fill of him tyvm. Labour couldn't be that stupid could they?
There are many (not me) who feel that it is undemocratic to change PM mid-term; meaning we have a PM with no mandate.
The problem with Miliband is that the above would apply ... and some - because he was leader when rejected in a past GE.
Let's be clear
Crystal clear
Until Labour are on their 4th PM it is not undemocratic
No amount of bleating and blabbing and whataboutery and showboating can change history
Not sure I follow. What is the relevance of 4th?
It's either undemocratic (or at least not cricket) to change a PM mid-term or it isn't. (For me it isn't because we vote for a party not a person.)
My point is that those who think it IS undemocratic will feel that two fingers are being shown to them twice if Lab choose someone who previously went to the country as leader and lost.
If someone predicted this peerless and constant parade of chaos, ineptitude, idiocy, treachery, clumsiness and grisly national humiliation then I salute a Seer for the Ages
I think Casino was one of the most negative about Starmer before the election.
And me - though I didn't expect them to be quite so organisationally bad (or for the media to jump on them to the extent it has).
Miliband would be the worst option possible. He is bonkers. We have had our fill of him tyvm. Labour couldn't be that stupid could they?
There are many (not me) who feel that it is undemocratic to change PM mid-term; meaning we have a PM with no mandate.
The problem with Miliband is that the above would apply ... and some - because he was leader when rejected in a past GE.
I don't think its undemocratic. But what I do think is that, given the obvious move these last 100 years into the Prime Minister being the defacto leader of the country (rather than first amongst equals in Cabinet) that a change in Prime Minister should result in a GE at the next reasonable opportunity, to allow the public to confirm the choice made by the party.
Fact of the matter is, is that a manifesto approved by one leader and then confirmed at a GE needs to be put back to the people again. We all know that party leaders can often change direction rapidly from their predecessor, and there are plenty of examples in the last 80 years of a change in leader NOT be approved of. Home, Callaghan, Brown, May (sort of) and Sunak all lost (or failed to get a majority) suggesting the public weren't happy with the party in charge playing silly beggers and putting up one leader to then swap half way through to pick another.
Starmer would never have appointed Mandelson if Harris had won the election . Starmers desperation to suck up to Trump and find someone sleazy enough to deal with him will cost him his job .
He should have left Karen Pierce in the job who was very well regarded and wasn’t a sleaze bucket .
We'd be paying 25% tariffs
Go figure
No we wouldn’t. We would not be imposing those tariffs on the USA.
Miliband would be the worst option possible. He is bonkers. We have had our fill of him tyvm. Labour couldn't be that stupid could they?
There are many (not me) who feel that it is undemocratic to change PM mid-term; meaning we have a PM with no mandate.
The problem with Miliband is that the above would apply ... and some - because he was leader when rejected in a past GE.
Let's be clear
Crystal clear
Until Labour are on their 4th PM it is not undemocratic
No amount of bleating and blabbing and whataboutery and showboating can change history
Not sure I follow. What is the relevance of 4th?
It's either undemocratic (or at least not cricket) to change a PM mid-term or it isn't. (For me it isn't because we vote for a party not a person.)
My point is that those who think it IS undemocratic will feel that two fingers are being shown to them twice if Lab choose someone who previously went to the country as leader and lost.
Comments
In many respects Magna Carta is merely a peace treaty between King John and his barons, but the idea of Magna Carta was appealed to by centuries of reformers to push for innovative reform (while insisting they weren't doing anything innovative). They were restoring the ancient rights and liberties given to the English by Magna Carta.
This seems to be a common mode in British politics, of moving forwards by looking back, and I wonder whether those derisive of the place the NHS has in the British imagination are making a terrible error of misunderstanding the British psyche.
The way to push for reform of the NHS is not by deriding the idea of the NHS, but to embrace the cult-belief, and to criticise the practice of the NHS as a betrayal of the NHS ideal.
Naturally, I have come to this realisation about twenty years behind Cameron, it's just such a shame that the reforms implemented by his government were a complete failure.
Crystal clear
Until Labour are on their 4th PM it is not undemocratic
No amount of bleating and blabbing and whataboutery and showboating can change history
Go figure
And if he and the Welsh leader are definitely going to call for it, Starmer must resign first to avoid the humiliation no?
They haven't helped themselves but they aren't 25% as crap as they are made out to be.
It's either undemocratic (or at least not cricket) to change a PM mid-term or it isn't. (For me it isn't because we vote for a party not a person.)
My point is that those who think it IS undemocratic will feel that two fingers are being shown to them twice if Lab choose someone who previously went to the country as leader and lost.
https://x.com/astraiaintel/status/2020835400546455653
NEW THREAD
Fact of the matter is, is that a manifesto approved by one leader and then confirmed at a GE needs to be put back to the people again. We all know that party leaders can often change direction rapidly from their predecessor, and there are plenty of examples in the last 80 years of a change in leader NOT be approved of. Home, Callaghan, Brown, May (sort of) and Sunak all lost (or failed to get a majority) suggesting the public weren't happy with the party in charge playing silly beggers and putting up one leader to then swap half way through to pick another.
If Starmer goes, I'd want a GE in May.