Not kidding. I honestly think it's better all round if he goes now. The party will do badly regardless in these locals but this is damage limitation. At least this way campaigners can openly distance themselves from Starmer.
I'm not a political strategist, though, obviously. Just frustrated.
Maybe. But no one could blame a new leader for failing to turn things around before the locals, and in any case, it'd be a caretaker leader for a while if Starmer went now.
I’d certainly agree with that if the bullying worked. He’s not incompetent or completely unlikeable, and I’m convinced the hidden-away principles he has aren’t too bad. But it needs to happen now, the bullying, I mean.
I often agree with you but I’m not convinced by this assessment.
I’d agree if I thought Starmer was doing really good things for the country but the good things he’s doing are tepid and the bad things (e.g. immigration policies foolishly designed to appeal to Reform-curious voters) are dreadful.
43 seconds in: the defeated 'yeah' that brings down a prime minister?
I do hope so; the longer Starmer stays, the harder it'll be for his party to recover.
People sometimes just mean holding things together.
Starmer can’t even do that before you look at what he’s trying to do in office.
(I’m not saying he hasn’t done some good things and I still think this government is better than the last by some distance, but it’s not enough distance.)
This analysis works for me, for what it’s worth, even though I’m not certain she’d win a GE.
There’s been a tendency to get behind Starmer in the past because he was perceived to be inoffensive to most, but if this was ever true, it no longer is.
We also need to clarify the ambiguity in ‘better’.
Based on things I’ve posted to anon and fess that have got published, I reckon it’s a week or two.
Oh, the attracting Reform types DEFINITELY doesn't make sense. I'm just saying that, however disappointed I am with him, I refuse to believe he personally believes all the anti-immigration bullshit and the rest, so it must be for political show, however ineffective it is and was always going to be.
Yep, maybe. But I'm pretty sure that, regardless of whether the next election IS a lost cause (and I fervently hope it isn't), Starmer doesn't THINK it is, otherwise he'd just enact policies that are good for the country, not what he foolishly thinks will give boners to Reform-curious voters.
Not to be a reply guy, as I'm sure you've thought of this, so I'm asking out of curiosity, not because you won't have thought of it, what has been - or do you think would be - the effect of hiking your prices? Could a price point be found that theoretically lifts total revenue if not unit sales?
... is true in the sense he WOULD be one of the main reasons for the party's poor performance but, while he's leader, no one speaking on behalf of Labour can publicly use that excuse; they have to be seen to support him.
A resignation CAN be used as an excuse - and is wrapped up in the same reason.
I've seen this assessment before - about others being ready and willing - and maybe it's right, but when WILL they be ready and willing? Any prep time needs to be weighed up against the ever-reducing time left in this parliament to turn things around.
On who to hang the disaster on, again, this...
Jonathan Keir
Harker Starmer
🤝
Not having enough questions about
their good friend, the Prince of Darkness
😳
Agreed.
Have you ever had to pull one (or a fess) that you've remembered is scheduled but hasn't been published before some awful event has happened?
It's starting to feel inevitable Starmer will go.
So why doesn't he do it before the local elections? Much as I don't want Labour to lose a load of councils (the people on mine are great, for example, and they might yet win), they're going to do badly.
So why not make resignation chaos the excuse?
Yep. An Eleanor Rigby rhythm is much better for makes and models of cars.
(I think you've said in the past that you schedule these well in advance, so I suspected this was a happy coincidence. 'Happy' maybe not quite the right word there, given Starmer's suggestion of Robbins's lack of reliance.)
Nicely saved for when Olly Robbins is in the news, @robmanuel.b3ta.com.
Imagine if Ed Miliband took over as leader and then, sometime before the election, his brother David somehow swooped in, seized the reins and led the party to victory.
I'm not saying that's remotely likely or that I prefer David's policies to Ed's, but it would tie up some familial loose ends.
Ha!
Although we tend to say 'sarse' in British English, James.
So coy posting on here. Why wouldn't you want to share this about yourself publicly?
The PM might be telling the truth over Mandelson.
But I’m not sure what would motivate Olly Robbins to lie. Why would a civil servant care who the US ambassador is beyond not wanting an idiot?
I can only conclude it was down to McSweeney, who DID have an agenda. And Starmer let him get on with it.
Are the women Portu-gals?
All the slimmest men in Germany are called Dieter.
Proof if proof be need be that The Day Today is still relevant.
TRUMP TAKES AIM AT CHRIST
That’s the headline I’m waiting for. Surely it can only be a matter of time.
Maybe she and her advisors think he might not be but that the net effect when you factor in the disruption will be in her party’s favour.
Maybe she’s right, but I think that, two years into this term, there could be a chance for a replacement to get Labour to a better place than Starmer would have.
I’m not saying there’s never a place for opportunism, incidentally, if it’s a happy by-product; I was all for getting rid of Johnson: there was good reason but he had also felt like an asset, albeit a rapidly diminishing one, unlike his successors.
Does Badenoch think Starmer is an asset to Labour?
I’m not saying Starmer shouldn’t go but it’s interesting when opposition leaders call for a PM’s resignation.
With Badenoch and Davey, you have to ask: is it the pursuit of integrity or opportunism?
It’s probably a bit of both with both, skewed towards opportunism with Kemi and integrity with Ed.