Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[AM9]

So Labour get criticised when they stick together and they get criticised when they appear disunited (Gaza resignations)?

No wonder the Tories keep getting elected.

There does seem to be general denialling of being a committed Conservative supporter at the moment. I wonder why?

 

[Busaholic]

Of course not. But he enthusiastically and unequivocally supported Corbyn, as a senior member of his shadow cabinet; He always had the option of resigning from that role. But he did not, and I will therefore never trust him.

I've never been a Starmer fan, but I don't think the first part of your statement is true, in that he was quite equivocal and no more showed enthusiasm for Corbyn than he's ever done for anyone or anything!

What about all those Tories, Cleverly to the fore, who displayed such apparent adulation when Truss first addressed them as our country's leader FFS?

 

[nw1]

I hope so too, but I can't help thinking, every time I see or hear Starmer, 'you thought Corbyn should be Prime Minister'.

Well Sunak thought Braverman should be Home Secretary for 12 months. And still thinks Anderson, someone even further to the right than Braverman, is suitable material for Deputy Chairman of the Tories.

Some of us think Corbyn is infinitely less bad than the likes of Braverman and Anderson...

 

[Falcon1200]

I've never been a Starmer fan, but I don't think the first part of your statement is true, in that he was quite equivocal and no more showed enthusiasm for Corbyn than he's ever done for anyone or anything!

Fair point!

Some of us think Corbyn is infinitely less bad than the likes of Braverman and Anderson...

I have no time for Braverman, Anderson and their like, but I would have to disagree on Corbyn; Unlike them, there was a very real possibility of him becoming Prime Minister, which IMHO would have been an utter disaster for the country. And to be fair to Starmer, he has dealt with Corbyn since becoming Labour leader.

 

[edwin_m]

I have no time for Braverman, Anderson and their like, but I would have to disagree on Corbyn; Unlike them, there was a very real possibility of him becoming Prime Minister, which IMHO would have been an utter disaster for the country. And to be fair to Starmer, he has dealt with Corbyn since becoming Labour leader.

Debatable whether he would have been worse than the succession of Johnson, Truss and Sunak.

 

[jfollows]

Debatable whether he would have been worse than the succession of Johnson, Truss and Sunak.

I voted Labour in 2019 because I believed just about anyone, including Corbyn, would be better than Boris Johnson. Not that I was surprised by the result.
The Gaza thing is interesting, though. Yes, it's been poor publicity for Labour, and all that, but really they all went rather quietly. Without making a fuss. Knowing they had to resign, but just sticking to their views and taking the ramifications. I'm reasonably sure it's been forgotten by most voters now already. Contrast with the Conservatives, in which any disagreement is exploded into vituperative name-calling, thunder and fury from whichever part of the party feels most wronged. I don't think the Gaza thing will hurt Labour all that much because they've been grown-up about it and Starmer remains clearly and firmly in charge.

 

[nw1]

I voted Labour in 2019 because I believed just about anyone, including Corbyn, would be better than Boris Johnson. Not that I was surprised by the result.
The Gaza thing is interesting, though. Yes, it's been poor publicity for Labour, and all that, but really they all went rather quietly. Without making a fuss. Knowing they had to resign, but just sticking to their views and taking the ramifications. I'm reasonably sure it's been forgotten by most voters now already. Contrast with the Conservatives, in which any disagreement is exploded into vituperative name-calling, thunder and fury from whichever part of the party feels most wronged. I don't think the Gaza thing will hurt Labour all that much because they've been grown-up about it and Starmer remains clearly and firmly in charge.

Also, those who are upset by Labour's lack of support for a ceasefire (I am one of them) are unlikely to not vote Labour as a result, so Labour are unlikely to lose many votes. If they do lose votes, it will be in safe seats where the Tories are unlikely to get in : so I do see an increase in support for more radical-left parties in, for example, strongly red inner-city seats such as in central London or Manchester.

The Tories are (from what I can make out) even more anti-ceasefire so they're unlikely to pick up votes from those upset by what's going on in Gaza.

I voted Labour in 2019 because I believed just about anyone, including Corbyn, would be better than Boris Johnson. Not that I was surprised by the result.

I was, to be honest. I suspected Johnson would get the most votes but with a very small majority. I remember having a dream the night before in which Johnson got a majority of 12, and I thought the result would be something like that (maybe a hung parliament if we were lucky). All those red wall seats going Tory was a complete surprise and something I thought would not happen.

I do remember there was a lot of dislike for Johnson and I thought that would count against him. But obviously people disliked Corbyn more.

It was a silly mistake of the Lib Dems and SNP to support Johnson's "one line bill" to hold an election though. Why the Lib Dems did that, I really don't know; the opposition could easily have defeated that bill and avoided that election (and potentially, caused Brexit to either never have happened - if we were lucky - or be softer) if only they had got their act together.

 

[edwin_m]

I voted Labour in 2019 because I believed just about anyone, including Corbyn, would be better than Boris Johnson. Not that I was surprised by the result.

Me too, though only when it became pretty clear the Corbyn wouldn't win a majority, at which point my objective was to vote tactically against the Tories.

The Gaza thing is interesting, though. Yes, it's been poor publicity for Labour, and all that, but really they all went rather quietly. Without making a fuss. Knowing they had to resign, but just sticking to their views and taking the ramifications. I'm reasonably sure it's been forgotten by most voters now already. Contrast with the Conservatives, in which any disagreement is exploded into vituperative name-calling, thunder and fury from whichever part of the party feels most wronged. I don't think the Gaza thing will hurt Labour all that much because they've been grown-up about it and Starmer remains clearly and firmly in charge.

I guess there's an unspoken acceptance by the leadership that those MPs had to vote for what they felt was morally right or what was being demanded by their constituents. It's not as if the votes of an opposition party in an uninvolved country would make any difference to the outcome. I'd guess many of those who have lost front bench posts will be back soon enough.

It was a silly mistake of the Lib Dems and SNP to support Johnson's "one line bill" to hold an election though. Why the Lib Dems did that, I really don't know; the opposition could easily have defeated that bill and avoided that election (and potentially, caused Brexit to either never have happened - if we were lucky - or be softer) if only they had got their act together.

The Lib Dems were all over the place at the time and the SNP probably saw an opportunity to get the Tories back into power, which they can't admit is the best way of building Scottish support for independence.

 

[Acfb]

Alistair Darling has died aged 70. This is an enormous shock. I saw him speak at an event in Edinburgh in February.

 

[GusB]

I hadn't realised that Darling was as old as that.

Guardian report here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/30/former-chancellor-alistair-darling-dies-aged-70

The former chancellor and veteran Labour politician Alistair Darling has died, aged 70, a spokesperson for his family said.

A statement issued on behalf of the family said: “The death of Alistair Darling, a former chancellor of the exchequer and long-serving member of the Labour cabinet, was announced in Edinburgh today.

“Mr Darling, the much-loved husband of Margaret and beloved father of Calum and Anna, died after a short spell in Western General hospital under the wonderful care of the cancer team.”

Darling served as chancellor under the prime minister, Gordon Brown, from 2007 to 2010.

 

[Busaholic]

Alistair Darling has died aged 70. This is an enormous shock. I saw him speak at an event in Edinburgh in February.

How Labour could do with someone of his stature now among their MPs. A wise and thoughtful man who could and did stay calm during the 'banking crisis' and was, I understand, very well regarded by civil servants in the Treasury, much more so than many previous and following incumbents. One of his biggest problems was that Gordon Brown continued to micro-manage the Treasury when he was allowed to become Prime Minister, it being a toss-up as to which the latter was worse at. Darling could admit mistakes, Brown never could.

 

[davetheguard]

Darling could admit mistakes, Brown never could.

I've always thought spending £300 million on not building a tram system in Portsmouth; Liverpool; & Leeds was definately a mistake. (All three were cancelled by Darling after £300 million had already been spent).

 

[geoffk]

I've always thought spending £300 million on not building a tram system in Portsmouth; Liverpool; & Leeds was definately a mistake. (All three were cancelled by Darling after £300 million had already been spent).

Yes I was thinking of that too - a decision which set back light rail in the UK by years and we will need these schemes and others if we are to get people out of cars. I agree though with the other comments above and think the financial crash of 2007 could have been worse without him in charge.

 

[DerekC]

I met Alastair Darling once, when he was Secretary of State for Transport. He was punctual, had read his brief, asked intelligent questions until he found one i didn't know the answer to, said "that's OK, let me know the answer tomorrow" and departed calmly and without fuss. Quite unlike any of the other politicians of either flavour that I came across. I genuinely feel sad about his death.

I've always thought spending £300 million on not building a tram system in Portsmouth; Liverpool; & Leeds was definately a mistake. (All three were cancelled by Darling after £300 million had already been spent).

DfT at that time was heavily anti-tram, for reasons I never understood. I think that had a lot to do with the decisions made.

 

[Typhoon]

How Labour could do with someone of his stature now among their MPs. A wise and thoughtful man who could and did stay calm during the 'banking crisis' and was, I understand, very well regarded by civil servants in the Treasury, much more so than many previous and following incumbents. One of his biggest problems was that Gordon Brown continued to micro-manage the Treasury when he was allowed to become Prime Minister, it being a toss-up as to which the latter was worse at. Darling could admit mistakes, Brown never could.

Looking back. I've found from September 2010

Former Chancellor Alistair Darling rules himself out of running for the new Labour shadow cabinet, before appearing to backtrack and saying he will take a year out and think again about his future.

It is a shame he could not have been persuaded back one year on. He had had 6 high ranking ministerial roles in 5 departments so I can understand his reluctance to take an active part but I think Milliband needed a 'wise head' to guide him. Darling could have been just the man.

Source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-11216887

Cameron wasn't my favourite PM but he was better than Blair at keeping (at least some) major post holders in place. I'm getting a bit worried about Starmer's reshuffle-itis, he needs to keep the current team in place as much as possible. Bringing Hilary Benn back is a decent move though.

 

[brad465]

Cameron wasn't my favourite PM but he was better than Blair at keeping (at least some) major post holders in place. I'm getting a bit worried about Starmer's reshuffle-itis, he needs to keep the current team in place as much as possible. Bringing Hilary Benn back is a decent move though.

I wonder how much this was driven by the frequent Government reshuffles, as certain shadow Cabinet members are better matched to specific Cabinet members (even though it shouldn't be done this way). Much of the top team remained the same in the last shadow reshuffle, including the other 3 shadows for the Great Offices of State.

 

[Typhoon]

I wonder how much this was driven by the frequent Government reshuffles, as certain shadow Cabinet members are better matched to specific Cabinet members (even though it shouldn't be done this way). Much of the top team remained the same in the last shadow reshuffle, including the other 3 shadows for the Great Offices of State.

While that is true 9 members of the current Shadow Cabinet have different roles post reshuffle. I hope he keeps the team as it is. They will need to be on top of their brief, the majority of media sources will want a Conservative government returned so will be asking the difficult questions - get it wrong and it will be in the headlines.

 

[Busaholic]

I've always thought spending £300 million on not building a tram system in Portsmouth; Liverpool; & Leeds was definately a mistake. (All three were cancelled by Darling after £300 million had already been spent).

I was seething about a couple of those decisions too, but I can understand that he might have felt we no longer as a nation have the capability to develop tram systems from scratch running along town and city streets without years of upheaval and costs multiplying by a huge factor. After all, he would then have been presented by his civil servants with the stories from Birmingham and Croydon and been all too aware of how the Edinburgh scheme was going through an appallingly managed birth.

 

[nr758123]

After all, he would then have been presented by his civil servants with the stories from Birmingham and Croydon and been all too aware of how the Edinburgh scheme was going through an appallingly managed birth.

Ironically the Edinburgh scheme through his own constituency was the one scheme he couldn't cancel.

 

[Busaholic]

Ironically the Edinburgh scheme through his own constituency was the one scheme he couldn't cancel.

Yes, but it must have influenced his thinking I feel, making it more explicable.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A second Labour death in within a few days ... Glenys Kinnock, former Labour MEP and also former Labour leader Neil Kinnock's wife has died. (Link to Guardian report)

Glenys Kinnock, the senior Labour politician and wife of the former leader Neil Kinnock, has died aged 79.

In a statement on Sunday, her family said: “It is with the deepest sorrow that we announce the death of Glenys Kinnock. Glenys died peacefully in her sleep in the early hours of Sunday morning at home in London. She was the beloved wife and life partner of Neil, the cherished mother of Steve and Rachel and an adored grandmother.”

Kinnock was a member of the European parliament for 15 years, representing Wales from 1994. In 2009, Gordon Brown appointed her as Europe minister and gave her a life peerage to enable her to join the government.

 

[edwin_m]

Replying to https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/rishi-sunak-and-the-conservative-party.238681/post-6532476 in the Tory thread.

Hopefully that reform includes electoral reform so that centrist parties have some hope of actually having influence.

Unfortunately Starmer seems to be fairly much against it, at least for introduction during the next Parliament, so at least two more GEs under the present system. Perhaps I'm biased but I can't help thinking this is something Labour could do that would attract centrists as well as those further to the left, unlike something like reversing Brexit which is likely to be too divisive to push for at present.

 

[najaB]

Unfortunately Starmer seems to be fairly much against it, at least for introduction during the next Parliament, so at least two more GEs under the present system.

Hopefully he's being pragmatic - knowing that he's on the road to a decent majority due to the unpopularity of the Tories he has no reason to push for it for the upcoming election. But memories are short so they can't depend on that for future elections so I'd expect it to be brought up during the course of the following election campaign.

 

[Acfb]

Hopefully he's being pragmatic - knowing that he's on the road to a decent majority due to the unpopularity of the Tories he has no reason to push for it for the upcoming election. But memories are short so they can't depend on that for future elections so I'd expect it to be brought up during the course of the following election campaign.

I doubt FPTP will ever be abolished at Westminster level in Britain for the same reasons that the Liberals didn't get rid of it in Canada after 2015. I wouldn't like to try and predict the future with any confidence though. My default assumption is that Labour will probably get 8-10 years in power before they lose to the Tories again although it's not impossible (if not likely) that a hard right Tory party could get in again in 2029.

On the other hand, FPTP could also start to benefit the Lib Dems in the South of England however and make it much harder for the Tories to regain power even under FPTP. Unlike 1997-2010 pretty much all the LD target seats in England will be Tory held.

 

[edwin_m]

Hopefully he's being pragmatic - knowing that he's on the road to a decent majority due to the unpopularity of the Tories he has no reason to push for it for the upcoming election. But memories are short so they can't depend on that for future elections so I'd expect it to be brought up during the course of the following election campaign.

Yes indeed. But in 2019 everyone was saying the Tories had a decade in power and that's probably not going to happen. I just hope Starmer can make a good enough job of it to win a second term - he probably can't do much worse than the present lot but (for many reasons besides electoral reform) that's not much of a consolation.

I doubt FPTP will ever be abolished at Westminster level in Britain for the same reasons that the Liberals didn't get rid of it in Canada after 2015. I wouldn't like to try and predict the future with any confidence though. My default assumption is that Labour will probably get 8-10 years in power before they lose to the Tories again although it's not impossible (if not likely) that a hard right Tory party could get in again in 2029.

On the other hand, FPTP could also start to benefit the Lib Dems in the South of England however and make it much harder for the Tories to regain power even under FPTP. Unlike 1997-2010 pretty much all the LD target seats in England will be Tory held.

Not familiar with the Canada situation, but I assume it was the usual story of the party in power not wanting to change the system that got them there - despite the fact that as night follows day it will sooner or later push them out again. PR might be damaging to Labour in the short term, probably splitting the party, but taking a longer view a lot of Labour policies have support in the political centre. And any future right wing government would probably have to include a centre party to gain a majority, which would keep a check on their tendency to reverse them.

 

[brad465]

Labour have appointed Jurgen Maier to head a review into Labour's rail and transport infrastructure:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

The review, set up by shadow transport secretary Louise Haigh, will explore how transport network delivery can be better managed to boost jobs, improve value for money and drive investment and economic growth.

 

[The Ham]

Labour have appointed Jurgen Maier to head a review into Labour's rail and transport infrastructure:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing for Labour to have done‽

It's certainly a better idea than the Network North Document and probably has had more time spent on it!!!

 

[baza585]

Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing for Labour to have done‽

It's certainly a better idea than the Network North Document and probably has had more time spent on it!!!

Not bad thing to have done, but isn't it Haigh's job to do that?

Not that she is remotely capable of doing it.

 

[brad465]

Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing for Labour to have done‽

It's certainly a better idea than the Network North Document and probably has had more time spent on it!!!

Course not, I was just bringing it to attention.

Not bad thing to have done, but isn't it Haigh's job to do that?

Not that she is remotely capable of doing it.

All senior politicians have political advisors advising them on policy decisions, implementation, etc.

 

[The Ham]

Course not, I was just bringing it to attention.

I suspected this was the case.