Keir Starmer

aint that the truth

 

I personally think he has got very little wrong in the last five years. He has taken Labour from a historically bad election result to an equally historic victory. He has achieved that in one term, despite himself only entering politics at a later stage in his career. My most fervent wish was for the Tories to be ejected. It seems clear that he thoroughly examined the reasons for Labour's failures and fashioned a set of policies that could make a broad enough appeal for Labour to be elected. If that meant ditching priorities he espoused earlier in order to gain office, that is fine by me. He succeeded. The Tories had become unpopular? Sure, but you still have to make enough appeal to be given the chance to replace them. He won a low percentage of the vote? Fine, but everyone knew the rules before the election and he was the one who succeeded, measured against them.

I dare say he has faults, and I dare say that he will make mistakes. But for now he has achieved what I wanted him to. I remain of the belief that he will do more than promised in the manifesto once/if the ship is steadied. One thing I would say is that he approaches his role as leader - and now PM - like a lawyer, rather than like a politician. This means that he operates with pragmatism, and that he is often misunderstood. But he is an achiever. I believe the country will be in a better place for his leadership.

 

I just want to add to that if I can.

He's achieved a huge majority in a timescale people said wasn't possible, but some will say its shallow and of course there will be comparisons with corbyns vote share and tally.

My analysis is that his vote share was lower because tory and swing voters were comfortable with him being PM. As such, tactical voting as well as those who wanted to vote heart not head, did so in the safe knowledge they were fine with a labour win, that was long trailed with years of a large poll lead. That came at a cost without translating to seat losses in historically strong areas... Though it came very close!

Those who say Corbyn had as high a vote share miss the point. In 2017 and 2019 Brexit was in play which meant the sole hope of stopping it was to vote Labour and hope Corbyn could be influenced to weaken the tory version of a deal. As such vote stacked high on labour in already safe areas and because of vote being pushed to just two parties, the share is artificially higher as lib dems and greens held their noses and voted Labour. That wasn't enough obviously given large parts of the country turned away from Corbyn and the tories attained some huge majorities.

So in every sense of judging Starmer and his teams strategy to win in 2024, you can't judge it as anything other than an incredible success. Whether you judge his policies as that... We'll have to see over the next few years, but I suspect what they do now and what they do in 2027 will be very different.

 

So good to see such a rational analysis, DWLC.

 

At the same time there were lots of people who would have voted Labour if Labour respected the result of the Brexit vote but because they didn’t these people voted Conservative for probably the only time in their lives. Certainly in areas around these parts & in the North East this was the case.

It’s debatable whether they lost more to the Tories or gained more from the Lib Dem & Green’s but it wasn’t just as simple as gaining votes from remain parties.

 

The majority of analysis I saw seemed to suggest Labour leave/remain was around 30/70, so pandering to leave areas would have been even more disastrous. While it wasn't the only reason for how people voted in those 2 elections, it was certainly the overriding sentiment and certainly skewed those 2 elections on lines that weren't typical for a general election.

 

They were basically screwed either way. All but two of the seats they lost in 2019 were leave seats

 

I appreciate your reply on this. I just cannot share your and others' hope that he will deliver the change needed that goes beyond the manifesto. The track record shows that any move he makes is geared towards polls and power and a fear that the Tory electorate don't trust Labour with the economy.

For me, his major flaw is that he does not offer enough hope to struggling people and the young, this exacerbated by this needless bent to attack those in his party who believe (as do tens of millions) that Labour need to do more to protect the vulnerable than better managed neoliberal status quo.

He didn't need to take the whip from those 7 on this. No one would be talking about it now if he'd ignored it.

 

Maggie Milk Snatcher returns as Sir Kid Starver , not surprising really

 

What a load of rubbish.

 

you’re welcome

 

Good article here

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2024/07/control-freakery-wont-feed-kids-two-child/

 

I'm not sure there's much to justify criticism of Starmer or the Labour Party here. The voting electorate of Britain have just elected a Right Wing Government to enact right wing policies. What did critics expect?

Moreover most people in this Country (and indeed on this site) are right of centre in their outlook. The election has shown that (as indeed have Polls on this site). The 3 partes which polled the highest number of votes are all on the right - Labour/Conservatives and Reform. There might be people on this site who think Labour is still some left of centre social democratic/socialist party. Wake up! It isn't and those MP's/Trade Unions etc.. who think similarly better wake up a lot sooner.

 

That's an interpretation of results but that's all it is, an interpretation. There are many factors and nuances involved when looking at voting results. I would suggest as my imterpretation that the current Labour majority is very weak in spite of the number of MPs. The FPTP system for once has played into Labour's hands because of tactical voting and the split in the right-wing vote. It worked and Starmer has a coalition of anti-Tories running the show now but there is discontent bubbling under the surface (as witnessed by the vote on the child cap). When only 33% of the voters get you a big majority (not forgetting the millions that didn't even vote) its clear to me that Labour are on trial here. If peoples' lives do not materially improve in the next 4 years or so the coalition will collapse and people will look elsewhere. Suspending the whip from diehard Labour MPs, regardless of whether they were right or 'stupid' to vote for the abolition of the two child cap just shows how fragile this coalition is. Starmer has made an error here in party management and alienated, further, progressives who may feel that the greens or Lib Dems have more to offer on social policy.
So yes, the Tories are out and we have a Labour Government but Starmer is riding a knife edge and made a serious mistake. On a personal level I'm furious with him (little kids are going hungry today) and at the moment I will not be voting Labour again....at the moment.

 

July 2029 will soon come around!

 

Too right. Those kids should have thought about whether their parents could afford them when they had the audacity to be born.

 

I presume that everyone on here knows that the policy is NOT in relation to Child Benefit but the child-related portion of Universal Credit that is limited to 2 children? It's still a bad policy and Labour should change it, however, if they did change it without pinching the money from somewhere else, it would be no different to Liz Truss's budget, ie unfunded spending. The markets would react in the same way as they did then - maybe not as drastically, but the right wing press would have a field day.

It's the first time in my entire lifetime that Labour are seen as more economically competent than the Tories and they can't risk that new found reputation.

I live in hope that Labour's softly softly approach pays off for the good of the country - it certainly can't be any worse than the last 14 years.

 

Personally I think the two child cap is a brilliant thing. The world is overpopulated apparently, schools are full etc so it's a very wise thing not to pay people to have extra kids.

 

I'm on the side of the thought that parents should pay for their child's upbringing, not the state. If it acts as a bit of a disincentive to people having kids they can't afford then it's a policy to keep.

I understand that there are circumstances that are not in the ordinary, and you'd hope there'd be other support available in those instances, but generally if you can't afford kids, don't have them.

Politically though, I don't see why the whip has to be removed from the dissenters. I understand the points made about it sending out a message for future votes, but it does seem to me to be such small scale that it probably wouldn't have even made the front pages.

 

Whatever the circumstances of the parents, the child should not suffer.

Absolutely no way.