[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Colonel Mustard]

"

Starmer says Labour will ignore local opposition to new building if it has to to deliver more homes​

Keir Starmer has said that, in order to achieve his aim of accelerating housebuilding in Britain, he will be willing to ignore local opposition to developments. He also said that he would not tolerate Labour MPs trying to block his housebuilding plans either.

—————————

Just read this in the Guardian. I can’t see this ending well. How can you just ignore opposition to new building development? I’m off to buy shares in the house builders. They must be rubbing their hands in glee.

 

[Stato]

All interesting (and I’m not being sarcastic) but in practice, the leader of the largest party, presuming they can form a majority, with or without a coalition partner, becomes PM.

True, but in practice, that person has been chosen by the country, which is what I blithely stated in my first post, forgetting that I was on NSC and would definitely get pulled up for it.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of a UK election where a party leader faced the ballot and won a majority, only to be immediately replaced as leader by their party, but 2010 actually could have turned out something like that. Shortly after election night, Gordon Brown announced that he would resign as party leader in an effort to try to ease a possible Rainbow coalition. Had this come off, his replacement as leader of the Labour Party could have immediately become PM despite not having faced the electorate as leader of his party. The liberals referenced the unacceptability of this as one reason why they didn't lean towards Labour.

 

[Gwylan]

Being dull is under-rated, the PM most commonly held to be one of the best in the UK's history was Attlee - probably the most charisma-free politician of them all. Asquith wasn't a barrel of laughs either.

Yet, between them, those two transformed the country more radically than any other before or since (with the exception of Grey's Reform Act and Thatcher's reshaping of the economy). Welfare payments, old age pensions, the NHS, overhaul of education all came from these governments.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I don’t really agree, even if that sounds counterintuitive. It’s the difference between being a good leader and a good manager. It's good if a PM is a brilliant intellectual but it’s not a prerequisite. He or she has a large team of civil servants and advisers to do the research and come up with the plans. It’s more important IMO to be able to explain them in the right way, and to project gravitas when needed and optimism when needed. They need to carry people with them. If they’re just clever people who can’t engage easily with the country at large they’ll quickly lose popularity and credibility among the floating voters even if the hardened party supporters will stick with them.

Sorry to sound like a Blair fan boy (and I didn’t like what he did re Bush and Iraq), the fact is that he was engaging and persuasive enough to remain a winner even when things got tough. He stayed incredibly popular, especially through the first administration, by projecting an air of easygoing optimism, and being articulate enoughThese qualities aren’t essential to win power but I think they are needed if you want to stay there.

As for the examples quoted, I think it proves the point. Nearly all US presidents rely on a friendly folksiness to get elected, and most successful leaders around the world need the ability to engage. This even works for tyrants like Putin, Trump, Erdogan etc. in fact they need it more than others. You mention Merkel but Germany is still understandably paranoid about electing leaders with a bit too much charisma. They’re very happy with understated leaders!

All interesting (and I’m not being sarcastic) but in practice, the leader of the largest party, presuming they can form a majority, with or without a coalition partner, becomes PM.

Agree with this and the current economic disaster is exactly what happens if an incompetent group of politicians get in to power and decide that their political doctrines are more important than the country and that they know better than the hugely skilled team of experts that are employed by Britain to give their expertise and advice to those in power. From the moment Johnson took power, this has happened and Sunak, having no experience of any Cabinet other than those run by Johnson has continued, and why I believe the situation is now getting so desperate for many.

I agree that Blair was very successful as a politician and was reflected in his three terms, but I certainly wouldn't have wanted him in charge during the Financial crisis. That was when we really needed the intellect of Brown to avoid what could well have been a much worse disaster.

I wouldn't like to guess what persuades the American electorate to vote the way they do, but I'm not sure friendly folksiness rates that high

But back to the point, I think the current economic situation is similar to the credit crunch and needs a similar level intellect and competence to even start to turn it round

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

It's not exactly a rinsing but Coogan has it spot on.

 

[clapham_gull]

It's not exactly a rinsing but Coogan has it spot on.

It's a very odd trait in modern politics (and you are seeing it now in America as well as the UK) off wasting energy in opposition in attacking your "own side".

The likes of Coogan and Owen Jones appear to want some form of ideological purity in their leaders. Wait and assist them to get in, then start your lobbying.

It's a choice for them isn't it ? The current administration or a centrist Starmer.

Both very annoyed with Starmer with the Israel / Palestine conflict. If he changes tact, it's an open goal for the Tories and press, because very unfortunately the issue is being used for political point scoring over here. Very depressing.

 

[peterward]

It's not exactly a rinsing but Coogan has it spot on.

Coogan thinks what many do. Starmer is a grey risk averse PR man, blown by the wind, and without much conviction of his own. He's no Tony Blair.

That said, he will be our next PM and is the only viable alternative as PM to Sunak, in our flawed FPTP electoral system.

The least worse option?

 

[Beach Hut]

Keir Starmer facing pressure over Gaza stance

Labour leader meets Muslim MPs amid calls from some in his party to be more critical of Israel's conduct.

www.bbc.co.uk

Might have put his foot in it

 

[clapham_gull]

Coogan thinks what many do. Starmer is a grey risk averse PR man, blown by the wind, and without much conviction of his own. He's no Tony Blair.

That said, he will be our next PM and is the only viable alternative as PM to Sunak, in our flawed FPTP electoral system.

The least worse option?

How would replacing the electoral system...

1) Mean the Labour Party would have a different leader ?

2) Make any difference to the likelihood that Labour will be the biggest party and Starmer PM ?

I can safely say that the vast majority of the people who vote Labour next election will disagree with Coogan.

I'm not sure multi millionaire celebs campaigning for left of centre parties is that good a look anyway and belongs to a different era of politics.

 

[clapham_gull]

Keir Starmer facing pressure over Gaza stance

Labour leader meets Muslim MPs amid calls from some in his party to be more critical of Israel's conduct.

www.bbc.co.uk

Might have put his foot in it

In terms of winning over voters who were resistant to the Corbyn era, such resignations probably strengthen Starmer.

 

[Trevor]

In terms of winning over voters who were resistant to the Corbyn era, such resignations probably strengthen Starmer.

I would like many Western politicians to be more even-handed here (atrocities on both sides in the conflict) - but I don't think Starmer would want to open divisions with them - and you can understand why

 

[Titanic]

Keir Starmer facing pressure over Gaza stance

Labour leader meets Muslim MPs amid calls from some in his party to be more critical of Israel's conduct.

www.bbc.co.uk

Might have put his foot in it

I don't think it really matters where he puts his feet.

 

[A1X]

Does it really matter what Starmer's position is anyway to most people? It's not like he's in a position to actually do anything about it.

Let's face it, the Government aren't exactly in much of a position to make too much noise or make demands, and they're the actual Government.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Coogan thinks what many do. Starmer is a grey risk averse PR man, blown by the wind, and without much conviction of his own. He's no Tony Blair.

That said, he will be our next PM and is the only viable alternative as PM to Sunak, in our flawed FPTP electoral system.

The least worse option?

Right now he is the least worst option. However he should not mistake the country's desire to be rid of the Tories as an endorsement of his do nothing agenda. The voters want change, and at the moment all he is offering is a vague commitment to economic growth which will magically enrich the country and pay for improved public services. I believe that is what those in the know call, the politics of wishful thinking.

For me Labour just is not offering any viable solutions to the many problems we face as a nation, just a slightly better managed decline. Let's hope that the reality of government will stir him into meaningful action.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Right now he is the least worst option. However he should not mistake the country's desire to be rid of the Tories as an endorsement of his do nothing agenda. The voters want change, and at the moment all he is offering is a vague commitment to economic growth which will magically enrich the country and pay for improved public services. I believe that is what those in the know call, the politics of wishful thinking.

For me Labour just is not offering any viable solutions to the many problems we face as a nation, just a slightly better managed decline. Let's hope that the reality of government will stir him into meaningful action.

I think he’s being totally realistic. He’s not said anything will “magically enrich the country”. He and his competent shadow chancellor have said it’s going to be hard work.
Is it not precisely because of the unjust stereotype of “but would you trust Labour with the economy?” That they are emphasising what a mess the Tories have got us in to, and that Labour would be responsible in putting things right, needing to rebuild the economy from the current disaster.
There would be a different emphasis. I can remember when Blair came in having conversations with people I knew from the DWP that those working in Job Centres and related fields felt liberated to do the job they ought to be doing - helping people rather than finding reasons to stop people’s benefits, treating people as human beings rather than rubbish.

 

[peterward]

How would replacing the electoral system...

1) Mean the Labour Party would have a different leader ?

2) Make any difference to the likelihood that Labour will be the biggest party and Starmer PM ?

I can safely say that the vast majority of the people who vote Labour next election will disagree with Coogan.

I'm not sure multi millionaire celebs campaigning for left of centre parties is that good a look anyway and belongs to a different era of politics.

You're reading things not implied.

1. It doesn't, the flawed electoral system means that either Labour or Tories will always be the largest party as either government or in coalition and therefore the only possible PMs are Sunak and Starmer as leaders of those parties. It nearly always results in more people not actually voting for the governing party than for it.

2. Labour will be the biggest party, that much is certain and therefore Starmer will be PM as Labour Party leader.

"I can safely say"

That is your "opinion", it maybe right, but you simply cannot say with absolute certainty, the majority of people who vote Labour definitley disagree with Coogan, and think Starmer is a proper conviction politician (which Coogan cites correctly imho, he isnt), or that they vote Labour because of Starmer and not either their support of the wider labour party, their local labour MP or revulsion against the Tories.

There will be a lot of "kick the tories out' votes, as there were a lot of "Stop Corbyn" votes last time, that doesn't make Starmer a conviction politician either. My point was about the man who is leader of the Labour Party and therefore our next PM, as was Coogans and not about the wider Labour Party in general.

I have no doubt the Labour Party left of centre positioning is exactly where party needs to be as a whole and that makes the party highly electable.

That also isn't about the character of the man who will be out next PM by default as head of the Labour Party.

I think Starmer is a decent enough man, scandal free (a bonus), but is blown by popularity and political winds (as Coogan alludes) and will be an everyman for votes rather than having a clear vision of his own and the conviction to stand for it when pressure and critisism comes his way.

We will of course soon find out!

 

[Beach Hut]

I don't think it really matters where he puts his feet.

Indeed just like Kinnock thought

 

[Weststander]

It's a very odd trait in modern politics (and you are seeing it now in America as well as the UK) off wasting energy in opposition in attacking your "own side".

The likes of Coogan and Owen Jones appear to want some form of ideological purity in their leaders. Wait and assist them to get in, then start your lobbying.

It's a choice for them isn't it ? The current administration or a centrist Starmer.

Both very annoyed with Starmer with the Israel / Palestine conflict. If he changes tact, it's an open goal for the Tories and press, because very unfortunately the issue is being used for political point scoring over here. Very depressing.

A sign of times post GE, I said this all along.

There'll be a noisy swathe of the left wing chatter-ati slagging off Labour after a short honeymoon period. If (and they won't) get their way on all of; high taxation, ending all private landlord ownership by financial punishment, immediate high wages increases for the public sector, nationalisations, etc.

Labour seem in a good position because of the Tory collapse and the careful strategy of Starmer/the centre-left. It's they and they alone who've delivered an electable party that makes sense to ordinary people, not the hard left.

Now before they're even in the door, unelected Coogan and chums pop up to ride on the aforementioned coattails, patently dissatisfied and via unelected lobbying looking to crowbar their view of the world into a party that are steering a sensible social democrat route.

 

[Titanic]

Indeed just like Kinnock thought

I think Starmer's all right

 

[Gwylan]

It nearly always results in more people not actually voting for the governing party than for it.

Incredibly, the last time that a government got a majority of the votes cast was in 1935. Time for the Tories to unveil its Baldwinite strategy