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

[Arkwright]

Starmer is not a socialist. He is a social democrat.

With recent comments he's a Tory in disguise
If I wanted to vote Tory I would not some wannabee.
The blokes taking us for idiots.

 

[chickens]

With recent comments he's a Tory in disguise
If I wanted to vote Tory I would not some wannabee.
The blokes taking us for idiots.

It has already been proven categorically that we will not be permitted a true “left” leader in Britain, it simply does not garner enough votes.

Centrism is the best we can hope for. Starmer has to:

a) prove that he’s dispelled any remnants of the Corbyn faction from being anywhere near power.

And

b) gain the votes of people who traditionally vote Conservative but are (understandably) horrified at the direction their ‘usual’ vote has taken.

This statement achieves both of those goals at a single stroke.

Britain does not and will not vote for socialism in sufficient numbers to form a government under FPTP. There’s no escaping that. The choice for our next government is more of the same (please no) or a semi-competent centrist party.

Pick a side, that’s what FPTP makes us do and the realistic choice in front of us.

 

[peterward]

It has already been proven categorically that we will not be permitted a true “left” leader in Britain, it simply does not garner enough votes.

Centrism is the best we can hope for. Starmer has to:

a) prove that he’s dispelled any remnants of the Corbyn faction from being anywhere near power.

And

b) gain the votes of people who traditionally vote Conservative but are (understandably) horrified at the direction their ‘usual’ vote has taken.

This statement achieves both of those goals at a single stroke.

Britain does not and will not vote for socialism in sufficient numbers to form a government under FPTP. There’s no escaping that. The choice for our next government is more of the same (please no) or a semi-competent centrist party.

Pick a side, that’s what FPTP makes us do and the realistic choice in front of us.

Great points and agree with analysis.

I'm also pleased we won't get a hard left majority government as much as I am a hard right one. The majority are more centrist.

As flawed as FPTP is, there is still an advantage in preventing the UKIPs, Reform, and hard left factions from becoming kingmakers in a coalition government, which is what PR (a more representative voting system) could make possible, as well as more collapses.

We all saw it with the DUP..... giving agency and a free blackmail pass to gain all sorts of unfair financial and legislative gains to a small fringe party.

 

[peterward]

Keir Starmer defends praising Thatcher in pitch for Tories

The Labour leader says the former Conservative PM set loose "our natural entrepreneurialism".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[jakarta]

Clever bugger, hoover up the pissed off Tories (quite a lot of them)...

 

[Nobby]

Might as well vote for the Liberal Democrats.....

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Keir Starmer defends praising Thatcher in pitch for Tories

The Labour leader says the former Conservative PM set loose "our natural entrepreneurialism".

www.bbc.co.uk

How on earth does Starmer think channeling that viciously vindictive bitch is going to win him the keys to number 10? Might win over a small handful of Tory voters, but will alienate a whole lot more Labour voters

 

[Pevenseagull]

It has already been proven categorically that we will not be permitted a true “left” leader in Britain, it simply does not garner enough votes.

Centrism is the best we can hope for. Starmer has to:

a) prove that he’s dispelled any remnants of the Corbyn faction from being anywhere near power.

And

b) gain the votes of people who traditionally vote Conservative but are (understandably) horrified at the direction their ‘usual’ vote has taken.

This statement achieves both of those goals at a single stroke.

Britain does not and will not vote for socialism in sufficient numbers to form a government under FPTP. There’s no escaping that. The choice for our next government is more of the same (please no) or a semi-competent centrist party.

Pick a side, that’s what FPTP makes us do and the realistic choice in front of us.

Yep. When people moan that Starmer is Blair it's useful to tell them that since 1945, apart from Blair, Labour have only managed to get a double digit seat majority from a GE once.

 

[Randy McNob]

 

[nicko31]

How on earth does Starmer think channeling that viciously vindictive bitch is going to win him the keys to number 10? Might win over a small handful of Tory voters, but will alienate a whole lot more Labour voters

I'm no fan of Thatcher, she did a lot of damage and encouraged greed and selfish individuals. But she did bring reform that was needed and only go power crazy...

 

[Weststander]

I'm no fan of Thatcher, she did a lot of damage and encouraged greed and selfish individuals. But she did bring reform that was needed and only go power crazy...

Including in the professions and City. Up to 1979 each body had a series of financial and other hurdles designed to make it incredibly hard for young adults without serious family money to qualify, etc.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Leaving aside the politics, she kept a rein on greed and venality in her party and was in the job for all the right reasons.

Starmer is just being honest- she got things done and stuck at the task. Arguably, along with Blair, she is head and shoulders above ever other British PM since Churchill (the WW2 version, not the 1951-55 version)

 

[Machiavelli]

Leaving aside the politics, she kept a rein on greed and venality in her party and was in the job for all the right reasons.

Starmer is just being honest- she got things done and stuck at the task. Arguably, along with Blair, she is head and shoulders above ever other British PM since Churchill (the WW2 version, not the 1951-55 version)

Hmm. Interesting post. I can't think of a politician in the UK's history that has done more than let greed and venality rip across the country (I'm aware that you're referring to their party).
What Thatcher undoubtedly did was not operate from the 'centre ground'. She introduced radical change, which had certain benefits for certain sectors of society for a decade or two.
I'm repeatedly assured on here that the only way to govern is from the centre, and that anyone else who suggests otherwise is a utopian, extremist, etc. Those of that view have forgotten what Thatcher achieved, ditto with Attlee who in my book you're seriously under-estimating.

 

[Machiavelli]

And just in case the substance of my previous post is deemed unfounded, have a look at this overdue and largely accurate assessment of UK politics in the 21C:

Britain has been in a 15-year economic slump. This is our route out of it | Torsten Bell

Ours is the most unequal major economy in Europe, with poorer workers losing out most, says Torsten Bell, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation

www.theguardian.com

 

[nicko31]

And just in case the substance of my previous post is deemed unfounded, have a look at this overdue and largely accurate assessment of UK politics in the 21C:

Britain has been in a 15-year economic slump. This is our route out of it | Torsten Bell

Ours is the most unequal major economy in Europe, with poorer workers losing out most, says Torsten Bell, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation

www.theguardian.com

Pity we effectively did a no deal Brexit on services (the bit we are actually good at).

 

[Pavilionaire]

Hmm. Interesting post. I can't think of a politician in the UK's history that has done more than let greed and venality rip across the country (I'm aware that you're referring to their party).
What Thatcher undoubtedly did was not operate from the 'centre ground'. She introduced radical change, which had certain benefits for certain sectors of society for a decade or two.
I'm repeatedly assured on here that the only way to govern is from the centre, and that anyone else who suggests otherwise is a utopian, extremist, etc. Those of that view have forgotten what Thatcher achieved, ditto with Attlee who in my book you're seriously under-estimating.

I did consider Attlee, indeed many of the challenges he faced will also be facing Starmer, i.e. years of economic hardship and stagnation, high taxes, no money left, wars.

Overall, I think Labour blew it in 1951. Those years 51-55 should have been Part 2 of Labour's post-war recovery, but I don't think the public felt the love and weren't happy about going to war in Korea and rationing still being around 5 years after the end of WW2.

Starmer would do well to heed the lessons from 1951 because there is no point being a "one and done" government. He needs to level with the British people, manage expectation and prepare them for a 10-year, 2 term job to fix growth, the NHS, immigration, defence and our relationship with Europe .

 

[AlbionBro]

Although I wasn't the biggest fan of Sir Keir, I was clearly going to vote for him to remove the Tory bastards. I am not sure I can now he has come out with any type of love towards Thatcher. What was he thinking. Might have to go Lib dems.

 

[giveusfalmerplease]

i cant remember the exact phrase but wasn't there a hand written message when Labour lost power, something like "sorry we spent it all". If (when?) The conservatives lose i recon someone will reply with "we've syphoned off all the tax payers money to pay for our pensions"

 

[giveusfalmerplease]

Also does "Sir" Keir lose his title if he becomes PM.? I always remember the classic Yes Prime Minister episode when our Jim offered Sir Humphrey the choice, pay or honours! If he wants to be PM then he should renounce Peerage and can have it back when he's earnt his salt.

 

[jcdenton08]

Although I wasn't the biggest fan of Sir Keir, I was clearly going to vote for him to remove the Tory bastards. I am not sure I can now he has come out with any type of love towards Thatcher. What was he thinking. Might have to go Lib dems.

A lot of people will be thinking this way.

But I put it to you that Starmer has one aim; to win an election and get a Labour majority government.

That means doing things which previous leaders like Miliband and Corbyn didn’t - winning the centre and centre-right moderates.

Very blatantly this is a pre-planned strategy of carefully released statements/interviews designed to woo Tory voters - which he needs in order to win.

What Starmer is doing is similar to what Blair did, but without Blair’s charisma and the general mid-90’s feel good atmosphere within politics - and Britain generally at this time - getting the stuffy old Tories out.

So I would suggest if you, and other staunch lefties (I don’t know if this is your position, but I’m assuming) want any party other than Conservative actually in government and able to change national policy, it’s Labour under Starmer or nothing for the foreseeable.

Starmer is being very sensible, managing expectations and coming off sane and businesslike - something that Labour desperately have needed basically ever since they lost power.

Vote Labour - if only to get the Tories out. Voting Lib Dem opens the door to another Lib-Con travesty.