[Politics] Keir Starmer

[Diablo]

Not the conventional analysis... yet. Plenty of time though, and the aftermath is bound to be brutal.

YouGov poll, 1-2 April (changes since 2019):

CON: 52% (+7)
LAB: 28% (-5)
LD: 8% (-4)
SNP: 5% (+1)
GRN: 5% (+2)
BXP: 1% (-1)

Thats with Corbyn ......Starmer will be more supported.

 

[Hugo Rune]

WINS.


Labour have a proper leader again.

Game On.

This.

A signal we’re going to get a much needed centralist party at last.

Sit back a watch his ratings shoot past Johnson’s.

 

[Bulldog]

He is going to have a hard time winning the center ground back from Boris.

 

[Titanic]

Thats with Corbyn ......Starmer will be more supported.

Any else would be pretty remarkable achievement

 

[Machiavelli]

Delighted to see that Rosena Allin-Khan got second place in the deputy contest. Alongside being an MP, she has continued to work voluntarily for the NHS. It has the added benefit of putting the buffoon Burgon into third place.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Good choice for the country, whether red or blue.

Sir Keir said he had been elected "at a moment like no other" and promised to work "constructively" with the government to confront the pandemic and not engage in "opposition for opposition's sake".

 

[Guinness Boy]

Not the conventional analysis... yet. Plenty of time though, and the aftermath is bound to be brutal.

YouGov poll, 1-2 April (changes since 2019):

CON: 52% (+7)
LAB: 28% (-5)
LD: 8% (-4)
SNP: 5% (+1)
GRN: 5% (+2)
BXP: 1% (-1)

Presumably that poll was when there was still a chance of getting Wrong-Bailey? I wouldn't have wasted the effort typing my post if she'd won.

 

[Gwylan]

The Tories are doing an absolutely awful job of Covid19 (and I don't think Labour would have done any better at all.

Oh, I do. In fact the Tories would be doing better if they'd elected another leader - it's just happens that the PM at the moment is one of the worst possible choices: lazy, no grasp of detail, poor organisational skills, poor people selection (chooses his mates rather on ability).

Whatever you think of Jeremy Hunt, he was a competent health secretary and was in position for a long time - he should have been closely involved. And when you think of Mark Rutte, the Dutch PM, who chose an opposition politician to be his health secretary on the grounds that he was more experienced, you see how poor Johnson has been.

I wouldn't say that Johnson was the worst MP to be PM at this time but he's not even in the top 300 best.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Brilliant news.

 

[shingle]

Meh,

Best of a bad bunch spose, no game changer though i'm afraid.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Oh, I do. In fact the Tories would be doing better if they'd elected another leader - it's just happens that the PM at the moment is one of the worst possible choices: lazy, no grasp of detail, poor organisational skills, poor people selection (chooses his mates rather on ability).

Whatever you think of Jeremy Hunt, he was a competent health secretary and was in position for a long time - he should have been closely involved. And when you think of Mark Rutte, the Dutch PM, who chose an opposition politician to be his health secretary on the grounds that he was more experienced, you see how poor Johnson has been.

I wouldn't say that Johnson was the worst MP to be PM at this time but he's not even in the top 300 best.

At the risk of violently agreeing with you that was the entire point of the rest of my post. There really could not have been a worse Tory leader for this particular situation. But Labour under Corbyn were ideology first and everything else second. Just as bad.

It really needs a "war government" led by competent medics and scientists but we won't get that.

 

[shingle]

All the personality of a bag of spuds, and will be seen to be part of this 'metropolitan London elite' that Labour voters in the north so despise.

 

[Bold Seagull]

All the personality of a bag of spuds, and will be seen to be part of this 'metropolitan London elite' that Labour voters in the north so despise.

Who so despised the 'metropolitian London elite' voted for the 'metropolitian London Eton elite'.

 

[swindonseagull]

WINS.


Labour have a proper leader again.

Game On.

Hardly game on for another few years but at least he is a credible leader

 

[GT49er]

All the personality of a bag of spuds, and will be seen to be part of this 'metropolitan London elite' that Labour voters in the north so despise.

That is of course his weak point. He will have plenty of time in opposition to work to overcome that - good luck to him, hope he does.

 

[Guinness Boy]

All the personality of a bag of spuds, and will be seen to be part of this 'metropolitan London elite' that Labour voters in the north so despise.

When the sickest of their relatives are dead, when their favourite food disappears off the shelf, when they've been locked in for three months and when their life choices for the next decade involve either unemployment or high taxes the metropolitan elite will be the least of their worries.

 

[swindonseagull]

I couldn't disagree more.

Churchill got us through WW2 and the Great British public rewarded him by electing Labour to rebuild the country. The Tories are doing an absolutely awful job of Covid19 (and I don't think Labour would have done any better at all) but that was the way the dice rolled. Boris was brought in as a populist to deliver Brexit and cheer lead the economy through it, definitely his skill set. Blustering his way through a global pandemic? Not his bag.

IF he screws up C19 he's a dead man walking. IF he subsequently screws up Brexit he's a dead man walking. IF he compounds C19 economic misery with Brexit economic misery the Tories won't get back in for 20 years. If he does ok through both events, history shows that the public still may want a good deal of big government and public spending to get us back on our feet.

Without Covid19 I would have said Boris was on course for a Thatcher-esque length of service. With it anything's possible.

All world leaders are in the same boat with Covid 19 damned if they do damned if they don’t.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, I do. In fact the Tories would be doing better if they'd elected another leader - it's just happens that the PM at the moment is one of the worst possible choices: lazy, no grasp of detail, poor organisational skills, poor people selection (chooses his mates rather on ability).

Whatever you think of Jeremy Hunt, he was a competent health secretary and was in position for a long time - he should have been closely involved. And when you think of Mark Rutte, the Dutch PM, who chose an opposition politician to be his health secretary on the grounds that he was more experienced, you see how poor Johnson has been.

I wouldn't say that Johnson was the worst MP to be PM at this time but he's not even in the top 300 best.

I'm with you here. I think Corbyn would have acted sooner, and made better decisions, instead of the "dither and delay" we've been subjected to

 

[shingle]

Who so despised the 'metropolitian London elite' voted for the 'metropolitian London Eton elite'.

Yes, but Boris was never defined as what was it 'metropolitan London Eton elite' by a large section of voters, to many people it was irrelevant where he went to school, whereas Starmer, Thornberry and Corbyn were seen as out of touch and living in a bubble by many, many Labour voters, particularly is the north and midlands.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Yes, but Boris was never defined as what was it 'metropolitan London Eton elite' by the right wing press and fellow populists and Brexiteers

Corrected for you