Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[quantinghome]

Ask yourself why people were queueing up to leave the Soviet bloc, whereas those trying to go the other way were limited to the likes of Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Donald Mclean. Or why people aren't exactly queuing up to go and live in Cuba or Venezuela, both of whom claim to be operating a different economic model.

If that was the economic model Labour were proposing then you'd have a point. But they're not. So you don't. It's a ludicrous comparison.

Labour had communism's number very early on, refusing to affiliate with them in 1921. Bearing in mind communism had some respectability back then that's rather prescient.

In economically developed countries the danger of extremism has always come from the right, and that's what we're seeing now.

 

[swt_passenger]

...The proper working class hold Corbyn and his ilk in contempt - and a genuine working class guy, Alan Johnson summed it up on election night.

That video is a pretty good takedown of Momentum. They seem to live on a different planet don’t they?

 

[brad465]

Ask yourself why people were queueing up to leave the Soviet bloc, whereas those trying to go the other way were limited to the likes of Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Donald Mclean. Or why people aren't exactly queuing up to go and live in Cuba or Venezuela, both of whom claim to be operating a different economic model.

If that was the economic model Labour were proposing then you'd have a point. But they're not. So you don't. It's a ludicrous comparison.

Labour had communism's number very early on, refusing to affiliate with them in 1921. Bearing in mind communism had some respectability back then that's rather prescient.

In economically developed countries the danger of extremism has always come from the right, and that's what we're seeing now.

While there are flawed economic models, I think an economic model shouldn't necessarily be viewed the same as level of democracy. There is such a thing as democratic socialism, something George Orwell described himself as supporting, while plenty of dictatorships exist/have existed of both far left (e.g. CCP, North Korea, Cuba) and far right (Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet, and someone I won't say for sake of Godwin's law) regimes.

There was a time when neither capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. never existed. I think we should be looking to a new system to face up to the new challenges of the world today, including climate change, other environmental damage, the troubles of infinite boosting of GDP (something that is primarily a feature of capitalism, but other models also feature it), and how human population growth and decline fits in with this. No party though is prepared right now it seems to ask the tough questions involved.

 

[notlob.divad]

There was a time when neither capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. never existed. I think we should be looking to a new system to face up to the new challenges of the world today, including climate change, other environmental damage, the troubles of infinite boosting of GDP (something that is primarily a feature of capitalism, but other models also feature it), and how human population growth and decline fits in with this. No party though is prepared right now it seems to ask the tough questions involved.

Correct, because everything that isn't out and out full blown capitalism is branded as communist by people who have never lived under a communist system. Even the notion that; everyone should have enough food to eat and have a place of shelter that meets their needs, is now deemed by many to be a communist ideology and therefore heretical.

 

[brad465]

Correct, because everything that isn't out and out full blown capitalism is branded as communist by people who have never lived under a communist system. Even the notion that; everyone should have enough food to eat and have a place of shelter that meets their needs, is now deemed by many to be a communist ideology and therefore heretical.

Yes this I believe is a Cold War legacy: while I wasn't around during any of it I see the very strong "capitalism vs communism" attitude for first world vs second world countries. I'm guessing this got so strong that the concept of an economic system other than these 2 is hard to fathom, hence any criticism of capitalism causing an outcry of "do you think communism is better?" or something else on similar lines (Marxism and Socialism are often used interchangeably along with communism, even though there are differences).

 

[JamesT]

Yes this I believe is a Cold War legacy: while I wasn't around during any of it I see the very strong "capitalism vs communism" attitude for first world vs second world countries. I'm guessing this got so strong that the concept of an economic system other than these 2 is hard to fathom, hence any criticism of capitalism causing an outcry of "do you think communism is better?" or something else on similar lines (Marxism and Socialism are often used interchangeably along with communism, even though there are differences).

On the flip side, many things are ascribed to capitalism when they aren't necessarily a consequence of it. Capitalism is merely that the means of production are owned by private individuals. How things are otherwise organised or regulated etc. are somewhat separate questions.

 

[big_rig]

That video is a pretty good takedown of Momentum. They seem to live on a different planet don’t they?

Not really. What has Alan Johnson ever won? His last big role was leading the resounding success which was the formal Labour pro-EU campaign… Prior to that he achieved very little as Shadow Chancellor, and about as little in a few Ministerial roles before that. Genuine question but what has he ever achieved in Parlimentary terms?

 

[swt_passenger]

Not really. What has Alan Johnson ever won? His last big role was leading the resounding success which was the formal Labour pro-EU campaign… Prior to that he achieved very little as Shadow Chancellor, and about as little in a few Ministerial roles before that. Genuine question but what has he ever achieved in Parlimentary terms?

I’m not intending cheerleading for Alan Johnson at all. Landesman shows he’s totally out of touch all by himself.

 

[deltic]

Ops forgot the Lib Dem in Amersham she promised to fight HS2 when her party voted for it

At the risk of going off topic I keep seeing this comment but did she. There was only one reference to HS2 on her web site which was factual and not anti. The issue seemed to be more about private sector development in the area. Has anyone seen any leaflets etc which support his claim?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes this I believe is a Cold War legacy: while I wasn't around during any of it I see the very strong "capitalism vs communism" attitude for first world vs second world countries. I'm guessing this got so strong that the concept of an economic system other than these 2 is hard to fathom,

I would think that is an inevitable consequence of the fact that capitalism and state control/communism (or - particularly in Europe - some combination of the two) are the only two economic systems that have ever been applied in the industrialised World. Any other economic system would be hard to fathom because there are no other economic systems that have ever been devised and tried out in the modern world (maybe the feudal system counts as a different economic system, but to the best of my knowledge that's only been used in agrarian contexts in pre-industrial times, and I don't think anyone would seriously recommend that as an alternative today).

hence any criticism of capitalism causing an outcry of "do you think communism is better?" or something else on similar lines (Marxism and Socialism are often used interchangeably along with communism, even though there are differences).

And that's not an unreasonable outcry given the lack of any alternatives to capitalism and communism (I don't think, as economic terms, the differences between communism/marxism/socialism are that significant. Obviously there are differences in terms of political control/human rights, but that's besides the point here).

 

[Busaholic]

Angela Rayner secured enough votes to become Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I may misunderstand this, but I believe that puts her in a position to make a bid for leadership if she were to secure the backing of 20% of Labour MPs, in a straight fight with Starmer. She'd certainly get the remaining Corbynistas, but I reckon she might get 35-40% without too much effort, and more if there were to be a secret ballot. Many might vote for her both on the basis she couldn't do a worse job than Starmer and perhaps it's about time a woman secured the position.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Labour had communism's number very early on, refusing to affiliate with them in 1921. Bearing in mind communism had some respectability back then that's rather prescient.

Surely that refusal to affiliate, noble as it was, would have been on the grounds of belief in democracy and human rights, and opposition to Soviet militarism - nothing to do with the economic system, and therefore not really relevant to the current discussion.

 

[big_rig]

I’m not intending cheerleading for Alan Johnson at all. Landesman shows he’s totally out of touch all by himself.

I think it is difficult to separate the message from the messenger though. If I were to think of Labour’s biggest problems, they would be the inability to get over three historical events which are of little contemporary relevance. These are:

1) Tony Blair and hangers on. The Labour right have no vision beyond a bizarre obsession with the man. Taking away Twitter and TV appearances from anybody closely involved with him would be a good thing. Alistair Campbell has no business lecturing people on truth in politics, for instance, as I saw him doing the other day.
2) Brexit. See above. Leave won for better or worse, it’s done.
3) Corbyn. He nearly won in 2017, but didn’t. As per 1), constant retrospective attacks on him only show Labour has nothing new to offer.

Two other factors which stack the charts against them are Covid (I strongly believe Labour’s zealously pro restriction stance will age like milk) and the Conservative party’s ability to re-invent itself and present each leader as being totally new, when compared to Labour’s inability to present any vision for the future (I genuinely can’t name any Keir Starmer policies). I think Javid or Sunak will probably be PM after the next election and the next Labour PM is not in Parliament yet. The 2020s would have been very different had the 2017 campaign lasted another week and Labour won.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The 2020s would have been very different had the 2017 campaign lasted another week and Labour won.

I was under the impression that, in the eyes of most Corbyn-supporters, Labour actually did win in 2017, and the fact that the Tories got both more votes and more seats than Labour was just one of those unimportant details

 

[317 forever]

I was under the impression that, in the eyes of most Corbyn-supporters, Labour actually did win in 2017, and the fact that the Tories got both more votes and more seats than Labour was just one of those unimportant details

In the eyes of Corbynistas, this was the only thing standing in the way of victory.

 

[A0wen]

Many might vote for her both on the basis she couldn't do a worse job than Starmer

And "many" would be wrong.

Rayner's got an IQ of 0, an inability to argue coherently and has made herself look stupid in parliament on more than one occasion. Her appeal outside of a hard core of committed Labour supporters doesn't exist.

If the objective of the Labour leader is to lose elections, she'd be a great choice. If it's to win elections then guess again.

If Labour are going to have a female leader (just to tick a box) then Yvette Cooper would be a more sensible choice who might appeal to floating voters.

 

[Busaholic]

Rayner's got an IQ of 0, an inability to argue coherently and has made herself look stupid in parliament on more than one occasion. Her appeal outside of a hard core of committed Labour supporters doesn't exist.

I wouldn't dream to speculate on Rayner's IQ, but it's probably on a level with many other MPs of all parties: if you substituted the word 'Johnson' for 'Rayner' in your first sentence it would be just as true! I'm afraid your prejudices are on show.

 

[brad465]

I was under the impression that, in the eyes of most Corbyn-supporters, Labour actually did win in 2017, and the fact that the Tories got both more votes and more seats than Labour was just one of those unimportant details

In the eyes of Corbynistas, this was the only thing standing in the way of victory.

That perception can largely be put down to expectations, and the fact the Tories had a majority which they suddenly lost. Labour did a lot better than expected through the seats they gained, including ones like Canterbury that was Tory for 100 years previous (and despite the 2019 disaster this seat is still Labour). Theresa May losing a majority through a gamble that completely backfired lowered her approval ratings and when the DUP deal was agreed was lower than Corbyn's, who still had a low rating.

 

[A0wen]

I wouldn't dream to speculate on Rayner's IQ, but it's probably on a level with many other MPs of all parties: if you substituted the word 'Johnson' for 'Rayner' in your first sentence it would be just as true! I'm afraid your prejudices are on show.

Johnson won a General Election and, amazingly, still is regarded positively by the public, which often isn't the case for PMs.

He's also a capable debater and is articulate.

Rayner really is none of those.

 

[tbtc]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...resigns-rochester-tweet-labour-shadow-cabinet is a news story from the time.
I don't know if she or the Labour Party could have tried harder to dispel the notion that she was sneering at the working classes with the tweet, but she ended up having to resign over it.

She resigned in 2014 and came back in 2016. But she only said what most in the Islington Labour set think of those who are patriotic

...all she did was post "Image from #Rochester" - other people inferred some kind of message from the picture - that says a lot more about those people than it does about Thornberry IMHO

I'm not a fan of Thornberry - she seems a career politician who bends whichever way the wind blows - but are people saying that she shouldn't be allowed to take a picture of a working class area?

It almost feels like you are suggesting that Labour need to pander to homophobic views in order to get elected. I don't believe that for one minute. You talk about Labour "encouraging the LGBT agenda" (what on earth that is who knows) but it was the Conservatives who legalised gay marriage, yet someone I don't see you claiming that had a negative impact on them in those communities

The huge huge difference is that the Gay Marriage vote happened after a generation of work to change public opinion, gain acceptance of Civil Partnerships first, then reach a point where nobody is seriously talking about reversing full marriage - very sensible politics (even if you'd have preferred it much sooner, as I would)

Today's activists don't seem to have learned any lessons and are instead making huge demands whilst branding anyone who resists them as bigots

It's also worth saying that the Tories and the right in general are quite clever about this, as some of the posts above have nodded towards - in that they roll out things to specifically get a reaction from the left / Labour (e.g. some of the more ridiculous flag waving rubbish), and then based on that reaction the Tories shout about how the left hate Britain. The Tories do this with Wales and Scotland too - rolling out ludicrous things just to antagonise and get a reaction (the latest one for Wales is an 8 story Union Flag on the side of the new HMRC building in central Cardiff).

...and the frustrating thing is that the non-Tories keep falling into these elephant traps - there's always the option to *not* react, but they always blunder into the position that the Tories want them to be in, so that the Tories can present them as "hating Britain" or whatever =- some people on the left are so bad at it that they might as well be on Conservative Party HQ payroll

The "young" Corbynite protestors are usually middle class, well educated. They are basically middle class Marxists, like the dear leader himself. They haven't a clue about the working class, how to relate to them or what motivates them. The "real" working class young are actually working, trying to get on in life and progress. The last thing they need is patronising by the out of touch middle class hard left who have rarely done a day's work.

Harold Wilson summed up such people in his memoirs when talking about the Oxford University Labour club "One meeting... was enough for me... What I felt I could not stomach was all those Marxist public school products rambling on about the exploited workers and the need for a socialist revolution.... I felt that the Oxford Labour Club wasn't for the likes of me... certainly I never had any common cause with the public school Marxist."

That perfectly describes the Foots, the Benns, the Corbyns of this world.

The proper working class hold Corbyn and his ilk in contempt - and a genuine working class guy, Alan Johnson summed it up on election night.

I'd seen it before but that's a brilliant clip that is worth re-watching - Corbyn's Labour was dominated by all of these people who had very little experience of the working class that they seemed so obsessed about - they treated their annual trip to the Miners Gala in Durham a bit like Glastonbury

Wilson was an interesting guy - a political lecturer at Oxford who managed to maintain a humble "man of the people" with his pipe smoking etc

What Corbyn proposed was a lot of old stuff that didn't seem workable, but that doesn't mean Labour or another party shouldn't come up with radical change for the future.

One of the odd things about Corbyn's manifestos was that they didn't promote a lot of things that were more radical than Milliband had before - he and his supporters wanted to sound provocative and edgy but the actual policies weren't anything like as radical as the "talk" behind them.

Far too many policies (compared to Blair who rightly focused on a handful of "pledges", instead of a long long wishlist), and the electorate didn't trust Corbyn to deliver them (which is why things like "free" broadband managed to go down badly)

As for the general accusations of wokery from Labour, this appears to be a rebadging of 'political correctness (gone mad)', 'the loony left' and further back 'do-goodery'. It's mostly nonsense, although there are always one or two incidents people can point to if they are so inclined. Most of the current accusations against Labour can be summed up by the following video:
Harry Enfield - 'L Is for Labour' - YouTube

But Labour are being hammered by it nonetheless, and it needs to be addressed head on - it requires something like the rapid rebuttal unit which worked well back in the 1990s. But that takes lots of money to do well and unfortunately Labour face a very well-resourced opponent.

Yeah, Campbell was very good at this kind of "rebuttal" stuff - post-Blair Labour have allowed their opponents to define them without fighting back

There are always some people coming up with well meaning policies/suggestions that the right wing can portray as somehow representative of the entire left, even though there's very little evidence - look how many Mail/Express readers will believe in things like "Winterval" or "Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep" even though these were incredibly minor and well intentioned things (a council coming up with an "umbrella" name to cover the fact that there are lots of festivals during winter - Diwali, Hannukkah, Christmas, Chinese New Year etc - or Nursery teachers using a nursery rhyme to teach toddlers different colours)

So we'll get someone with a box of crayons at the Spectator/ Talk Radio pretending that Labour want to force all school kids to "take the knee" before lessons - GB News will pick up on this - then the Mail/ Telegraph will report on it since GB News was talking about it... and Labour will be blindsided by it - again - maybe putting out a pathetic statement that tries to see both sides of something and managing to annoy everyone

2) Brexit. See above. Leave won for better or worse, it’s done

It's not done though - we've left the EU but we'll have many years of negotiations and trade deals and arguments (especially with the "fudge" or Northern Ireland having one foot in both camps) - Labour could easily have a policy of arguing about the fact that the current Government are responsible for the bad deal that they signed up to

Two other factors which stack the charts against them are Covid (I strongly believe Labour’s zealously pro restriction stance will age like milk)

I really don't think Labour are anything like "zealously pro restriction", just pragmatic about protecting public health (especially given how many "key workers" they represent) - but this is the problem - Labour allow their opponents to define Labour - so all the Laurence Fox types can paint Labour as somehow wanting to keep lockdowns and facemarks for the next hundred years and nobody at Labour would fight back

Rayner's got an IQ of 0, an inability to argue coherently and has made herself look stupid in parliament on more than one occasion. Her appeal outside of a hard core of committed Labour supporters doesn't exist

The problem Rayner has is that she's got this far by blandly repeating the buzzwords for the party faithful (if in doubt, say "solidarity", mention Palestine) and not demonstrated any independent thinking - if she was leader I can see no evidence that she'd manage to escape from this (see also Burgeon, Sultana...)

Labour did a lot better than expected through the seats they gained, including ones like Canterbury that was Tory for 100 years previous (and despite the 2019 disaster this seat is still Labour)

The funny thing is that... any sensible party would look at why they won this seat from their opponents, they'd see what lessons could be learned from how to sell the Labour message to a traditionally non-Labour electorate... but instead the Labour faithful seem to hate Duffield and demonise her (because of her feminism) - if you can't learn from your successes and you can't learn from the mistakes that you made in your defeats then how are you going to improve?

 

[brad465]

The funny thing is that... any sensible party would look at why they won this seat from their opponents, they'd see what lessons could be learned from how to sell the Labour message to a traditionally non-Labour electorate... but instead the Labour faithful seem to hate Duffield and demonise her (because of her feminism) - if you can't learn from your successes and you can't learn from the mistakes that you made in your defeats then how are you going to improve?

Many put this down to the "student vote", but if students dominated this vote in 2017, most of them weren't there to do the same in 2019, and the Kent County Council Labour gains in the area earlier this year happened while most students won't have been in the area.

 

[birchesgreen]

He's also a capable debater and is articulate.

Is this an example of that famous British sense of humour?

 

[big_rig]

Is this an example of that famous British sense of humour?

I wish but from the way the bloke is going on in this thread it is more an example of the British way of extremely pro-conservative people saying that they’re ‘not political.’

I really don't think Labour are anything like "zealously pro restriction", just pragmatic about protecting public health (especially given how many "key workers" they represent) - but this is the problem - Labour allow their opponents to define Labour - so all the Laurence Fox types can paint Labour as somehow wanting to keep lockdowns and facemarks for the next hundred years and nobody at Labour would fight back

Labour has been in favour of every single restriction on public life (if you can find one restriction they haven’t supported I’d be genuinely interested), and at every stage called for further ones. Starmer and Khan wanted to ban support bubbles in January and make people wear masks outside, wanted ‘circuit breaker’ lockdowns, more border restrictions, and effectively said that SAGE should run the country with no political or public input. To say that they are ‘just pragmatic’ would have to mean that every single restriction has been perfectly justified and in place for the perfect amount of time, to say nothing of the importance of anything in life beyond ‘public health.’ Khan still wants masks mandatory on transport in London indefinitely and says that people will be too scared to use the tube without them, so I don’t think that’s made up either. Time will tell whether this approach is popular with the public - it certainly isn’t at the moment given the polls.

 

[edwin_m]

Many put this down to the "student vote", but if students dominated this vote in 2017, most of them weren't there to do the same in 2019, and the Kent County Council Labour gains in the area earlier this year happened while most students won't have been in the area.

Seems to me Canterbury is a bit like Chesham & Amersham, the sort of place where Johnson's policies and general demeanour go down like a lead balloon. With an electorate prepared to vote tactically, it was Labour rather than the LibDems who won in this case.

 

[A0wen]

Seems to me Canterbury is a bit like Chesham & Amersham, the sort of place where Johnson's policies and general demeanour go down like a lead balloon. With an electorate prepared to vote tactically, it was Labour rather than the LibDems who won in this case.

Canterbury, like Cambridge and Oxford has a large student population as well and in all 3 Labour have long enjoyed support which a couple of miles out of their cities they don't.

Amersham & Chesham was a 'Remain' area and has got HS2 running right through the middle of it - those factors also played a part. Whether the Lib Dems hold Chesham and Amersham is a better question.

 

[Typhoon]

Many put this down to the "student vote", but if students dominated this vote in 2017, most of them weren't there to do the same in 2019, and the Kent County Council Labour gains in the area earlier this year happened while most students won't have been in the area.

Regarding Canterbury City Council, the City of Canterbury is represented by 7 Labour councillors, 3 Lib Dems and a solitary Conservative (whose ward contains student accommodation). The ward which contains the University of Kent (but is largely outside of the city) has 1 Conservative councillor and 2 Lib Dems. It is not just 'students'. Living very close to the constituency my understanding is that constituents were fed up with an MP who, through ineptitude or inertia, did next to nothing for it; Labour put forward a decent candidate, campaigned enthusiastically and, yes, with the help of more students who actually voted rather than sitting glued to Countdown (or whatever sections of the media think they do), the sitting candidate was defeated. The Labour vote went up by well over 12,000 partly because the Lib Dems and Green vote were squeezed, Labour being seen as the party who could see off an unpopular MP. The conservatives can (and do still) blame 'students', however they have done something about addressing complacency on the council (new, younger leadership), now they need to actually do something about the problems of the city. They've made a start, the bin collection has been brought back in house(!) but they are hampered by the cuts to local government spending (imposed by ....).

Canterbury, like Cambridge and Oxford has a large student population as well and in all 3 Labour have long enjoyed support which a couple of miles out of their cities they don't.

The parliamentary constituency contains an awful lot of leafy villages to the south of the city as well as comfortable retirement areas to the north.

In the local elections in 2015 and 2011 Labour had 3 and 2 councillors respectively across the entire council area (which is greater than the constituency). Labour has 10 councillors in total (7 - Canterbury, 3 - Whitstable); I've looked back to previous elections post 2000 and cannot find any time when Labour has had more councillors, even when the council was a quarter larger. LibDems have been the traditional opposition. Similarly, at General Elections, Labour has traditionally lagged some way behind. The last time Labour came close was in 2001 when Emily Thornberry came up 2,000 votes short.

 

[edwin_m]

Canterbury, like Cambridge and Oxford has a large student population as well and in all 3 Labour have long enjoyed support which a couple of miles out of their cities they don't.

Amersham & Chesham was a 'Remain' area and has got HS2 running right through the middle of it - those factors also played a part. Whether the Lib Dems hold Chesham and Amersham is a better question.

Regarding Canterbury City Council, the City of Canterbury is represented by 7 Labour councillors, 3 Lib Dems and a solitary Conservative (whose ward contains student accommodation). The ward which contains the University of Kent (but is largely outside of the city) has 1 Conservative councillor and 2 Lib Dems. It is not just 'students'. Living very close to the constituency my understanding is that constituents were fed up with an MP who, through ineptitude or inertia, did next to nothing for it; Labour put forward a decent candidate, campaigned enthusiastically and, yes, with the help of more students who actually voted rather than sitting glued to Countdown (or whatever sections of the media think they do), the sitting candidate was defeated. The Labour vote went up by well over 12,000 partly because the Lib Dems and Green vote were squeezed, Labour being seen as the party who could see off an unpopular MP. The conservatives can (and do still) blame 'students', however they have done something about addressing complacency on the council (new, younger leadership), now they need to actually do something about the problems of the city. They've made a start, the bin collection has been brought back in house(!) but they are hampered by the cuts to local government spending (imposed by ....).


The parliamentary constituency contains an awful lot of leafy villages to the south of the city as well as comfortable retirement areas to the north.

In the local elections in 2015 and 2011 Labour had 3 and 2 councillors respectively across the entire council area (which is greater than the constituency). Labour has 10 councillors in total (7 - Canterbury, 3 - Whitstable); I've looked back to previous elections post 2000 and cannot find any time when Labour has had more councillors, even when the council was a quarter larger. LibDems have been the traditional opposition. Similarly, at General Elections, Labour has traditionally lagged some way behind. The last time Labour came close was in 2001 when Emily Thornberry came up 2,000 votes short.

There's undoubtedly a large student element everywhere that votes Labour, and an element of higher-educated and more affluent who would traditionally have voted Tory but have been alienated by Brexit and Boris. Some of both are likely to vote tactically for whichever candidate is most likely to beat the Tory. The same probably at play in Batley and Spen, being portrayed as "Labour scraping home". But they had George Galloway explicitly targeting their Asian vote and a pro-Brexit independent that stood last time and didn't this time, whose voters would probably have gone Tory or stayed at home.

 

[507021]

Johnson won a General Election and, amazingly, still is regarded positively by the public, which often isn't the case for PMs.

He's also a capable debater and is articulate.

Rayner really is none of those.

He blatantly isn't. He can't answer a simple question.

I don't see anyone else doing any better than Starmer at the moment, with Labour's doings being so overshadowed by the response to Covid. I think Starmer should be given a chance to prove himself in more normal times.

Can't really argue with this.

I'm happy to give Starmer a year or so in "normal" times to see what he can do. If things don't improve, then I'd be more inclined to agree with those who are currently arguing we need a change of leadership. If/when we get to that junction in the road, then I'll be backing Lisa Nandy if she decides to stand again.

 

[simonw]

Johnson won a General Election and, amazingly, still is regarded positively by the public, which often isn't the case for PMs.

He's also a capable debater and is articulate.

Did you mean to post this in the joke thread? I know of no one, apart from you, it seems, who would describe Johnson in that way, including many Tory voters.

 

[Typhoon]

He blatantly isn't. He can't answer a simple question.

It's more a question of won't answer questions (simple or otherwise).