Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[JamesT]

Correction, Kate Bingham did the vaccination programme well. The fact Conservative opponents fail to bring this up just shows how incompetent they are.

Who was appointed by Boris. The problem the critics have is they attacked her getting the job as cronyism (she’s married to a Conservative MP) and said she was merely a venture capitalist and a medical expert should be in charge.
To praise her now they’d have to unwind some of that and also admit that Boris made the right choice.

 

[317 forever]

Correction, Kate Bingham did the vaccination programme well. The fact Conservative opponents fail to bring this up just shows how incompetent they are.

I think they deliberately omit to mention her so that more of the public want to thank the Conservatives in general and Boris in particular.

 

[507021]

I think they deliberately omit to mention her so that more of the public want to thank the Conservatives in general and Boris in particular.

When things go right, the Government and/or Alexander take the credit even if it was someone else's doing.

When things go wrong, the Government washes their hands of it and lets someone else take the blame. Usually Labour or the EU.

As a party member I don't think Labour are doing a good enough job in respect of the latter. I think SKS needs to go up another gear in PMQs, but even if he did I still very much doubt that Alexander will answer a simple question.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think they deliberately omit to mention her so that more of the public want to thank the Conservatives in general and Boris in particular.

Realistically, people usually tend to give blame/credit for things to Governments and political parties as a whole. If the vaccine programme had gone horribly wrong, does anyone believe that people in the Labour Party or the general public would be saying anything like, 'Kate Bingham totally messed up, but she was only an individual - we can't blame the whole Government for that'? Of course not - everyone on the left would saying 'It's all Boris's / The Tories' fault. This is why you mustn't vote Tory'. So it's not really that surprising that when the vaccine program goes well, the Government as a whole and the person who happens to be in charge of the Government as a whole gets the credit for it in peoples' minds.

 

[edwin_m]

The difficult bits of the vaccination programme were the science of selecting the right vaccines to procure and the logistics of getting them administered as quickly as possible, and getting those hard decisions mostly right was down respectively to the scientists and the administrators respectively. The politicians deserve very little credit - all they had to do was give them the money and tell them to get on it with, and just about anyone asked to take that decision would have done the same.

In areas where politicians have had to make decisions, such as imposing and relaxing restrictions and the setup of a brand new private test and trace system instead of relying on local authorities, the UK has generally done far worse than comparable countries.

 

[Busaholic]

In areas where politicians have had to make decisions, such as imposing and relaxing restrictions and the setup of a brand new private test and trace system instead of relying on local authorities, the UK has generally done far worse than comparable countries.

Absolutely agree, with a prolonged special mention for the total mishandling on every level of the matter of entering or exiting the U.K. So this is what happens when you 'take control of your borders'! The current circulation of the Variant D in this country is almost entirely down to Johnson's ego and crawling up to the appalling Modi. No wonder France, despite missing our tourism economically, has totally lost patience with the U.K. on this and just about everything else, seeing a bumbling idiot who somehow still retains the trust of many of the people who bother to vote. Never again must we mock the high numbers in the USA who still, unbelievably. look up to Trump.

 

[MattRat]

Who was appointed by Boris. The problem the critics have is they attacked her getting the job as cronyism (she’s married to a Conservative MP) and said she was merely a venture capitalist and a medical expert should be in charge.
To praise her now they’d have to unwind some of that and also admit that Boris made the right choice.

I admit that make sense. But it also sounds extremely short sighted.

I think they deliberately omit to mention her so that more of the public want to thank the Conservatives in general and Boris in particular.

But why would other parties want Boris to get the credit?

 

[507021]

But why would other parties want Boris to get the credit?

If they did then it'd make Alexander look far more competent than he actually is.

 

[deltic]

Yet another humilitating by-election performance by Labour - back in 4th place

Johnson the master of riding two horses at the same time in completely different directions will endeavour to hold on to his blue and red walls while Labour's horse is all over the course - a bit like Johnson's shopping trolley

 

[edwin_m]

Yet another humilitating by-election performance by Labour - back in 4th place

Johnson the master of riding two horses at the same time in completely different directions will endeavour to hold on to his blue and red walls while Labour's horse is all over the course - a bit like Johnson's shopping trolley

It does suggest that if Johnson focuses too hard on the red/blue wall and Brexit votes he's likely to lose previously solid Remainer votes in the south.

 

[Acfb]

I think Burnham had the correct diagnosis. Labour is seen as in a Londoncentric bubble and a lot of starmer's political advisors are truly terrible as well as certain idiots on the right of the PLP being seen in as much as a political bubble as the 'left' was. Also that English politics is balkanising along culture war lines. I think the Chesham and Amersham by election was more significant than the Batley and Spen by election is likely to be either way (unless it's a huge Labour loss).

I think Starmer is in trouble regardless and if he stays on, Labour will definitely lose and remaining on ~200 seats could be the best scenario for Labour at the next GE as he could bleed further Red Wall seats and not gain many 'new' targets like Worthing East and Shoreham, Wycombe, Altrincham and Sale West, Southport etc and not win back many marginals that were narrowly lost in 2019 like e.g. High Peak.

 

[edwin_m]

I think Burnham had the correct diagnosis. Labour is seen as in a Londoncentric bubble and a lot of starmer's political advisors are truly terrible as well as certain idiots on the right of the PLP being seen in as much as a political bubble as the 'left' was. Also that English politics is balkanising along culture war lines. I think the Chesham and Amersham by election was more significant than the Batley and Spen by election is likely to be either way (unless it's a huge Labour loss).

I think Starmer is in trouble regardless and if he stays on, Labour will definitely lose and remaining on ~200 seats could be the best scenario for Labour at the next GE as he could bleed further Red Wall seats and not gain many 'new' targets like Worthing East and Shoreham, Wycombe, Altrincham and Sale West, Southport etc and not win back many marginals that were narrowly lost in 2019 like e.g. High Peak.

Strengthens my view that Labour should not stand in seats where they have no hope of winning and leave them to the LibDems or Greens. Although I believe their constitution requires them to stand everywhere.

 

[JamesT]

Strengthens my view that Labour should not stand in seats where they have no hope of winning and leave them to the LibDems or Greens. Although I believe their constitution requires them to stand everywhere.

Isn't that making the assumption that Labour voters will always be happy with those other parties? All these mentions of a 'Progressive Alliance' seem to make the assumption that the only thing that matters is getting Tories out. It seems to be doing a disservice to voters to say that the party knows best and won't allow constituents to make their preference known by voting for them?

 

[507021]

Strengthens my view that Labour should not stand in seats where they have no hope of winning and leave them to the LibDems or Greens.

Completely agree.

 

[ainsworth74]

Isn't that making the assumption that Labour voters will always be happy with those other parties? All these mentions of a 'Progressive Alliance' seem to make the assumption that the only thing that matters is getting Tories out. It seems to be doing a disservice to voters to say that the party knows best and won't allow constituents to make their preference known by voting for them?

My understanding has been that the key point of a "Progressive Alliance" is to get the Tories out to then reform the voting system used in elections to something more representative than First Past the Post so that the next time out after that all bets are off and it's a straight fist fight using a proper fit for purpose electoral system between all the parties who wish to stand in whatever combination of seats. It's not supposed to be, by my understanding, more than a one Parliament affair.

 

[TheBigD]

Though not a seat I'd expect Labour to win, their result in Chesham and Amersham by election is pretty shocking.
Lowest ever by election result with just 1.6% of the vote, 622 votes. For comparison, n 2019 Labour got over 7000 votes, and in 2017 over 11000.

 

[507021]

Though not a seat I'd expect Labour to win, their result in Chesham and Amersham by election is pretty shocking.
Lowest ever by election result with just 1.6% of the vote, 622 votes. For comparison, n 2019 Labour got over 7000 votes, and in 2017 over 11000.

As a Labour member, I'm really not concerned about this result in the slightest.

It's obvious Labour and Green supporters have voted tactically to improve the chances of the Tories losing the seat. I'm hopeful this result will make Labour's leadership consider entering into an electoral pact for future by-elections and general elections.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Hartlepool was a disaster, Chesham was expected

 

[edwin_m]

Isn't that making the assumption that Labour voters will always be happy with those other parties? All these mentions of a 'Progressive Alliance' seem to make the assumption that the only thing that matters is getting Tories out. It seems to be doing a disservice to voters to say that the party knows best and won't allow constituents to make their preference known by voting for them?

Some will, some won't. But the small number of votes cast for Labour suggests that many who would ideally prefer them realised they had no hope of winning but their votes might help get the Tory out. Voters who would ideally prefer the LibDems face this situation much more often!

Unfortunately under FPTP a lot of people are forced to vote against whoever they dislike the least, rather than for who they actually like most. As mentioned, one reason for a "Progressive Alliance" would be to try to change this situation.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

As a Labour member, I'm really not concerned about this result in the slightest.

It's obvious Labour and Green supporters have voted tactically to improve the chances of the Tories losing the seat. I'm hopeful this result will make Labour's leadership consider entering into an electoral pact for future by-elections and general elections.

Even if there was tactical voting, it's an own goal to stand in an election where you lose your deposit. It doesn't matter that the LDs won the seat, a lot of the attention is on how badly Labour did- which again (rightly or wrongly) causes large sections of the media and population to believe that the Labour party is dying and Kier is a utter failure, making elections elsewhere increasingly difficult.

The Labour voters being tactical may have won the LDs a seat, and kept the Conservatives out, but it may have caused even more harm to the broader Labour party overall.

 

[507021]

Even if there was tactical voting, it's an own goal to stand in an election where you lose your deposit. It doesn't matter that the LDs won the seat, a lot of the attention is on how badly Labour did- which again (rightly or wrongly) causes large sections of the media and population to believe that the Labour party is dying and Kier is a utter failure, making elections elsewhere increasingly difficult.

The Labour voters being tactical may have won the LDs a seat, and kept the Conservatives out, but it may have caused even more harm to the broader Labour party overall.

Unfortunately, a clause in the party's constitution requires each CLP to field a candidate in every parliamentary election.

It really needs to be revisited as a matter of urgency.

 

[Gloster]

Unfortunately, a clause in the party's constitution requires each CLP to field a candidate in every parliamentary election.

It really needs to be revisited as a matter of urgency.

When Martin Bell unseated Neil Hamilton in Tatton in the 1997 general election, there was no Labour candidate. Nor was there a LibDem one, as both had stood down. If I remember correctly, the selected Labour candidate got a round of applause at the next party conference just for saying that he would have been the candidate.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Unfortunately, a clause in the party's constitution requires each CLP to field a candidate in every parliamentary election.

It really needs to be revisited as a matter of urgency.

Definitely needs revisiting!

Although if Batley goes blue, that's the least of their issues!

 

[507021]

I have a feeling that if Kier Starmer jumps ship (which is possible!), he could be succeeded by Lisa Nandy (the trojan spokeswoman for Wigan Athletic!!!) who is both female and mixed race.

On the subject of Matt Hancock - does anyone reckon he will sell himself to a tabloid in a few months time to bite back at Dom Cummings?

CJ

I don't see Starmer standing down if Labour lose the by-election, but the pressure will really be on to start turning things around. In any event, I'd rather he was given another year to see if things improve rather than look to replace him after less than eighteen months.

As for his eventual successor, Lisa Nandy would be my choice. I genuinely can't understand the Burnham love-in.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Unless Labour, starts fighting back against further lockdowns, stop with its woke metropolitan views, and favouring urban upper middle class voters over the working classes or the poor in deprived areas I can’t see myself ever voting for them.

They’ve been utterly useless at opposing the Tories with continual lockdowns and restrictions which ultimately hurt poorer and working class people far more than it hurts the upper middle classes, not to mention their lack of consideration toward students who have suffered tremendously during the past year and a half.

Sadly, Labour can’t get out of the rock place of Blair or the hard place of Corbyn or the boulder wokeness above them it seems.

 

[Scotrail12]

Lisa Nandy would be Starmer 2.0 IMO, really not a compelling personality for leader.

 

[AlterEgo]

Lisa Nandy would be Starmer 2.0 IMO, really not a compelling personality for leader.

Labour don’t have any compelling candidates for leader. The whole party is a busted flush and unsalvageable in its current form.

 

[birchesgreen]

Lisa Nandy would be Starmer 2.0 IMO, really not a compelling personality for leader.

I disagree, she seems to have a sense of humour which Starmer seems to lack, i think she would be quite different as leader.

 

[Geezertronic]

Labour don’t have any compelling candidates for leader. The whole party is a busted flush and unsalvageable in its current form.

That could be said for any of them to be honest - whether blue or red. Let's be honest, if Boris & May, and Starmer & Corbyn, were the best each had to offer then we really are stuffed. Seems to be the case in the US as Trump was arguably the better of the worse deal against Clinton, and it seems obvious that Harris will be their first female President before the Biden term is up

 

[Gloster]

Lisa Nandy would be Starmer 2.0 IMO, really not a compelling personality for leader.

She has the problem that she is Shadow Foreign Secretary. This is never a high profile job at the best of times and in a period where everything is overshadowed by one issue it is virtually invisible. In normal times, the recent contretemps off Ukraine would have been a major story for days, but now it has been and gone in no time: no chance for her to comment.

She does give the impression that she better understands Labour’s forgotten voters than the metropolitan elite. I suspect that at the despatch box she could meet Johnson’s waffling and play acting with facts and genuine anger.