pink_triangle

Who were they then, what will these people do in a general election? At the end of the day if they live in the majority of constituencies in the country it won’t matter if they don’t vote, unfortunately that is the way our political system works. Out of interest if your not a fan of Starmer, who do you think would be doing a better job?

Who could labour pick who would be really popular with the electorate? Maybe a flip flopper like Burnham who flips left to centre when ever it suits him, then what happens when he is on power and he has to let people down. I don’t see Starmer as popular or unpopular, people (in general) are not actively voting against him like they did with Jez. Instead of promising the earth (and letting everyone down) his approach seems to be to give him the opportunity and he will show what he can do in power.

That’s a political calculation though, you may not like (or you may disagree with the calculation) but that is what is in play here. Labour are effectively sacrificing pro Corbyn voters thinking they can get more valuable (either total or in more competitive constituencies) people who voted Tory in 2019. You can definitely make an intellectual argument for this approach , whether it’s effective time will tell.

From my perspective he played the Corbyn situation perfectly in terms of politics, he could have made different choices and ended up like Chuka

I think in the right scenario with the right leader, a more radical labour leader could be successful. The trouble with Corbyn was the messenger as much as the message. A younger, charismatic lefty without the baggage, who has been careful in their social media, then who knows.

I mean labour treated a better than expected loss to Theresa May as a victory, politicians will always try and put a positive spin on things. I agree voters aren’t massively enthusiastic about Starmer, the question I would always ask myself s would they be massively enthusiastic about an alternative. I think they would be less enthusiastic about RLB (who came second in the leadership contest) others may disagree. One thing I think is people won’t actively vote against Starmer as many did Corbyn last time around. As for wanting something radical, I’m sure that applies to some, my instinct is that there aren’t a load of swing voters screaming out for radical policies, I think incremental change is probably the most realistic. Voters had the opportunity to vote radical in the last 2 elections and chose not to take that option.

I think a fair comparison would be by-elections when opposition. To be in charge when PM seems very different.

I think the slight difference is that Blair succeeded Smith/Kinnock while Starmer succeeded Corbyn. Starmer has probably needed to do more to show the party has changed than Blair did. The Tory argument that Starmer wanted Jez to be PM is weakened by the fact it was him who chucked him out.

Starmer may be meh, but the question is who are the non meh candidates that could be doing better. I honestly can’t see anyone. I agree the Torys may be limping to the end, but I think Starmer is the best option to take advantage.

I think Starmer doesn’t have many close friends, neither does he have many enemies. I am hoping that means we get new labour without the Blair/Brown infighting. You say he is loathed by many on the left, but who are talking about here? People like Owen Jones changing likes and retweets? Corbynites who have left the party?

I think however that people are guilty of reading too much into the “wrong “ and the impact it will have. I think if you set a baseline for expectation compared to day one of taking the job, most would consider him better than par. To me the priorities were make labour electable and unite the party, I think he has generally done a good job here. You also have to consider what he has achieved and ask the question could anyone else do better. People questioned whether labour had picked the right Milliband, conservatives should have selected Ken Clarke etc. I have not heard anyone make any intellectual argument how labour would be in a better position if they had picked Long Bailey who was the only real alternative.

I guess it depends on how you define a problem. There are always going to be challenges as leader of the Labour Party and if he becomes PM candidate selection in Rochdale is going to seem like a walk in the park compared to the problems he will have to deal with. I think being PM is a really tough job and he seems as qualified as anyone to make a decent go of it. As you said party discipline remains strong, I assume because most labour MPs believe they will win.

There are always things that can be done better, unfortunately Starmer doesn’t have the benefit of hindsight. I think he makes more decisions right than wrong, but always room for approval. The question is could another leader handle things better? I struggle to think of anyone.

The reality is as a politician you are going have to backtrack on occasions, the same will be true if he is PM and is the same for politicians all wings of the political spectrum. To expect someone to get it right all the time is unrealistic, you just hope they are right more than wrong and manage the backtracking in the least damaging way.

The question is what would the polling be if RLB or Nandy had won the leadership, my guess is it would be worse under RLB, not sure about Nandy. I struggle to see a leader who would have done significantly better.

I don’t have a strong feeling about Sadiq Khan changing the names of these overground lines, but it seems to be upsetting the right people .

It won’t happen , but the funniest thing ever would be if Spurs win the Premier league and Leverkusen the German league!

I don’t think I am missing the point. I think something like social care was always a ticking time bomb ready to explode, an aging population meant it was always going to directly impact on the lives of British people. I struggle to see Israel and Palestine (in isolation ) ever having that same impact on the lives of the average person. I think more likely it stays an issue that interests the left and is ignored (not saying that’s a justification) by most. Of course it could be a trigger for Middle East instability which could have huge implications. Let’s hope diplomacy can stop that happening.

It looks like infighting if you have significant MPs coming against it, I just don’t see that at present. Even those who gave up shadow cabinet positions were very respectful to Starmer.

Social care impact on more of us though. In an aging population many are going to have parents and grandparents reliant on it. There is also the impact on NHS by clogging up hospital wards with people they can’t discharge because they can’t find a suitable care package. It’s a problem that is going to get worse and impact on those all sides of the political spectrum. The Israel /Palestine debate has generally been one that has only been a focus for the left. Whether that will change over time who knows.

Is there much labour infighting? I personally don’t see it. The parliamentary party seem really focussed on winning the election, even the Corbyn supporter MPs are pretty quiet

At the same time the NHS is going to impact on more people lives than Middle East politics, so it will be a priority to more. I have no doubt Labour will go into the election really focusing on the issues that matter to the majority. To some that will be considered focus group politics and lacking vision , to me the priority is getting into power and making a difference.

I think people exaggerate the challenge Starmer has in terms of anti semitism. He can point to the evidence in terms of what he has done. He also has the marked contrast with his predecessor which works to his advantage. I don’t get the impression he has acolytes like Blair, Brown, Corbyn or Boris, but think he would take action against them if it became necessary. There will be times like with Ali where he could have acted quicker, but that will happen regularly as PM and you won’t always get it right.

It’s a load of little things that make a difference to their life. Israel/Palestine discussion is big on twitter with people interested in politics, but the wider public are not going to care what a labour prospective mp who they have never heard of, thinks of an issue that has no impact on their life. I think my main point is that this Israel/Palestine issue is one that has more traction on social media than the real world which skews perception of people who are in that world. Far more people care about their kids being able to afford a house even if it gets less likes and retweets.

I think health, housing, employment, education. Many will vote for the leader they like and some will vote for change. I think Corbyn v Boris (as well as Brexit) who people wanted for PM played a big role. I think Starmer and Sunak may cancel each other out in this respect.