The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

[Ghostbus]

The mistakes are starting to stack up. He'll soon be unable to shake the tag, the narrative, the perception. This is how politics works. It's absolutely idiotic to have your own ministers resigning in protest at your decision making. There are difficult decisions and there are stupid decisions, and this is very much the latter.

He's starting to look politically naive, and certainly not very competent even on the policy wonkery side of things. Reform voters don't want a 0.2% cut to the foreign aid budget, they want it gone. Never going to vote Reform Labour voters certainly don't want increased UK defence funding coming from cuts that make the world less safe. If this stupid decision actually adds to the push effect of immigration from failed states where you can't even get your kids clean drinking water or vital medicine, wow.

To see a Labour Prime Minister being praised by the Leader of Opposition, when that person is someone as moronic and frankly irrelevant as Kemi Badenoch, is an absolute embrassment.

Nobody wants one third of the UK's military committed to a never ending peace mission in Ukraine, except of course Trump. That would certainly be a good idea if you genuinely believed we were headed for a new Cold War with Russia so we might as well grow our economy and keep our troops ready so we can win it in 50 years time. But I can't be the only person who is hoping for a bit more actual leadership from our Prime Minister.

 

[takno]

The mistakes are starting to stack up. He'll soon be unable to shake the tag, the narrative, the perception. This is how politics works. It's absolutely idiotic to have your own ministers resigning in protest at your decision making. There are difficult decisions and there are stupid decisions, and this is very much the latter.

He's starting to look politically naive, and certainly not very competent even on the policy wonkery side of things. Reform voters don't want a 0.2% cut to the foreign aid budget, they want it gone. Never going to vote Reform Labour voters certainly don't want increased UK defence funding coming from cuts that make the world less safe. If this stupid decision actually adds to the push effect of immigration from failed states where you can't even get your kids clean drinking water or vital medicine, wow.

To see a Labour Prime Minister being praised by the Leader of Opposition, when that person is someone as moronic and frankly irrelevant as Kemi Badenoch, is an absolute embrassment.

Nobody wants one third of the UK's military committed to a never ending peace mission in Ukraine, except of course Trump. That would certainly be a good idea if you genuinely believed we were headed for a new Cold War with Russia so we might as well grow our economy and keep our troops ready so we can win it in 50 years time. But I can't be the only person who is hoping for a bit more actual leadership from our Prime Minister.

Losing a junior minister in an extremely civilised way underlines that this is a regrettable decision being made out of necessity. It's not naive - it's good politics that you don't happen to agree with, which is a different thing.

It's not at all clear that Reform voters are opposed to all foreign aid. There's just a rather well-developed sense that the target level we've been working to for the last 15 years or so is too high, and it's a department which doesn't provide great value to the UK economy. Individual voters will have different beliefs about how much is wasted, and where there isn't a benefit how much is reasonable to provide out of a sense of altruism. "Othering" Reform and Tory voters by just assuming that they really want zero aid isn't a good look. There isn't a route to re-election for labour which just dismisses 60% of the electorate as evil or too opposed to your preferences to work with.

In terms of the commitment to Ukraine, it absolutely is the start of new cold war, and as a nation it's hugely to our benefit that it's happening a fairly long way away. Nobody particularly wants that cold war, but I don't understand what you think Starmer is supposed to do about it. He can try to influence events, but he's the leader of a decreasingly-relevant economy and military power on the periphery of the power blocks which are deciding what happens. He can try to get people talking, but beyond that all the leadership that's useful is to lead a relatively united country into picking a side.

He's had a good week, and come away looking pretty solid. You don't have to like the policies or the direction the world is going in to see that.

 

[Ghostbus]

Losing a junior minister in an extremely civilised way underlines that this is a regrettable decision being made out of necessity. It's not naive - it's good politics that you don't happen to agree with, which is a different thing.

He's had a good week, and come away looking pretty solid. You don't have to like the policies or the direction the world is going in to see that.

I think you're engaged blind optimism or maybe even blind faith. I was on a bus the other day, the views of Reform voters on things like foreign aid isn't exactly hard to fathom.

These are the people who are watching their own communities displaced by mass immigration. Entire districts changing in the space of a generation. They're not moderates, they don't really do nuance in that fashion. Nor do the bemused/fed up middle aged middle classes and generation anxiety who are also being enticed by Reform.

Not hard to fathom. Just like it wouldn't have been hard to figure out what pensioners in said districts, people who worked all their lives and paid into the system, would think of being forced to the front of the queue for filling in government black holes by a Labour Prime Minister. Or what parents in those districts would think of the failure to deliver on the promise of ending the two child benefit cap.

Or what it looks like to have a Chancellor who doesn't understand that VAT is not a progressive tax. Or an education secretary who can barely contain her working class glee at sticking it to private schools, unable to even fathom (or just care) some of those pupils aren't there by choice but through the failures of her department under previous mainstream failing parties.

Or to be asking companies hit by Covid, Brexit and inflation and stagflation, to pay for ill advised promises not to increase personal tax because the Labour party under Starmer is a dogged aderhent to the very maxims that have seen mainstream politics failing voters for a generation. Over promise and under deliver. Time and time and time again. Or worse, stick rigidly to fiscal rules even when voters are clearly not voting on such things anymore.

Politics is about optics. It's starting to look like every single decision this man makes is a "difficult choice" where you have to get seriously into the weeds of policy wonkery and also see the situation exactly as he sees it, to view it as good decision making.

Politics doesn't work that way. The naivety is thinking it does. Bad decisions when there are decent alternatives are exactly that. Do you seriously think a minister resigns if they don't think there was a way to meet the need for increased defence spending without cutting foreign aid by 0.2%? The man can't get his own Cabinet to agree, so what chance 60% of the voters?

Nobody wants a Cold War, sure. So why is Starmer cutting foreign aid to increase defence spending for exactly that purpose? Nobody will be fooled by this. Anyone who knows anything about the European theatre knows that the previous well established doctrine was that without American troops and equipment, the Russians would walk right over the continent.

And if events in Ukraine has changed that thinking, it's only to make it clear we really wouldn't need to commit a third of our conventional military to defending a Ukrainian demilitarised zone. Not least because by the time we're there, Putin will have figured out the next ruse. We're committing to ground warfare even as it becomes clear the next threat might be maritime.

We have far better things to spend such sums on, even if we stuck to spending it on defence. But if you disagree, you're naive? Come on. It's becoming clear who the weak link is. And the first people to realise it is usually the Cabinet. Unless you pack it with blind loyalists. The result is the same. Defeat.

Politics. Quite a difference animal to policy.

 

[The Ham]

I had an interesting discussion with someone online, they were complaining about the potential cut in ISA contributions so they could only save £4,000 and what would happen to their £4,500 they currently have?

I pointed out that would remain and the £4,000 was a per year basis. However even if they exceeded saving £4,000 per year, there was still the £1,000 a year they could earn from interest before being taxed and even if they exceeded that the accounts of tax would be fairly small.

I said if it was based on an interest rate of 5% (good luck finding it higher than that) then you could have £20,000 in other savings and save £4,000 a year in an ISA and not pay anything, even is you had £4,000 more in savings the income would be £200 so paying 20% on that would be £40 in tax.

The quickly changed the subject, talking about zero emission car tax on their 2013 vehicle. I highlighted that for 2001 - 2017 EV's would have to pay £20 in tax. I was confused by their response which said they didn't have an EV (unless they own a fuel cell vehicle, which would be subject to the same rules). I also highlighted that the introduction of EV VED was first announced by Mr Hunt (Tory).

They came across as someone who was angry at Labour, but only because they hadn't understood what was actually proposed and how it could actually impact them.

 

[takno]

I had an interesting discussion with someone online, they were complaining about the potential cut in ISA contributions so they could only save £4,000 and what would happen to their £4,500 they currently have?

I pointed out that would remain and the £4,000 was a per year basis. However even if they exceeded saving £4,000 per year, there was still the £1,000 a year they could earn from interest before being taxed and even if they exceeded that the accounts of tax would be fairly small.

I said if it was based on an interest rate of 5% (good luck finding it higher than that) then you could have £20,000 in other savings and save £4,000 a year in an ISA and not pay anything, even is you had £4,000 more in savings the income would be £200 so paying 20% on that would be £40 in tax.

The quickly changed the subject, talking about zero emission car tax on their 2013 vehicle. I highlighted that for 2001 - 2017 EV's would have to pay £20 in tax. I was confused by their response which said they didn't have an EV (unless they own a fuel cell vehicle, which would be subject to the same rules). I also highlighted that the introduction of EV VED was first announced by Mr Hunt (Tory).

They came across as someone who was angry at Labour, but only because they hadn't understood what was actually proposed and how it could actually impact them.

The whole cash ISA thing is interesting. It hasn't as far as I'm aware been announced or even trailed as policy by the government, but seems to be the accepted "thing which is going to happen".

Personally I think the economics are a bit shoddy, and rather like the AI thing it smacks of Peter Kyle listening uncritically to some shifty investors who are good at promoting their own narrow interests as the national interest.

On the other hand it's a moderate walk-back of a reasonably recent policy change, and the number of people who will actually be negatively impacted is really small. As you say the main problem is that people don't understand the difference between an annual allowance and a total allowance.

 

[Ghostbus]

They came across as someone who was angry at Labour, but only because they hadn't understood what was actually proposed and how it could actually impact them.

Do you think the Democrats lost to Trump for any other reason than this? This is the broad thread connecting all the other anti-establishment themes, such as Brexit, net zero, DEI and immigration.

You just detailed the absurdity. At best, he's forcing people to take time out of their day poring over the finer details of tax allowances, just to raise £40 in tax per head.

What planet do politicians live on when they assume people with real jobs want to spend their days figuring out tax credits, savings allowances, energy tariffs, etc etc etc, just to not feel like they're being taken advantage of by the powerful and privelaged?

Keir Starmer being the son of a tool maker, not an actual tool maker. If the man had a shred of political instinct, he'd have realised that for most factory workers back then, they could only dream of the pay and privelages of being a tool maker. Kids today don't even know what a tool maker is. Probably think they make shovels or spanners.

I suspect picking a civil servant / lawyer to replace Jeremy might be the biggest mistake Labour ever made. The last best hope for mainstream politics is this guy? That does not inspire confidence. At least Biden was relatable and had a charismatic quality, before the simple passage of time robbed him of even that.

 

[Magdalia]

I had an interesting discussion with someone online, they were complaining about the potential cut in ISA contributions so they could only save £4,000 and what would happen to their £4,500 they currently have?

I pointed out that would remain and the £4,000 was a per year basis. However even if they exceeded saving £4,000 per year, there was still the £1,000 a year they could earn from interest before being taxed and even if they exceeded that the accounts of tax would be fairly small.

I said if it was based on an interest rate of 5% (good luck finding it higher than that) then you could have £20,000 in other savings and save £4,000 a year in an ISA and not pay anything, even is you had £4,000 more in savings the income would be £200 so paying 20% on that would be £40 in tax.

The whole cash ISA thing is interesting. It hasn't as far as I'm aware been announced or even trailed as policy by the government, but seems to be the accepted "thing which is going to happen".

Personally I think the economics are a bit shoddy, and rather like the AI thing it smacks of Peter Kyle listening uncritically to some shifty investors who are good at promoting their own narrow interests as the national interest.

On the other hand it's a moderate walk-back of a reasonably recent policy change, and the number of people who will actually be negatively impacted is really small. As you say the main problem is that people don't understand the difference between an annual allowance and a total allowance.

I was mildly surprised that ISA reform wasn't in the autumn 2024 budget. ISAs have had an overwhelmingly negative impact on the UK economy and the aging population plus the return to high interest rates are making things worse.

The latest statistics for ISAs from HMRC are here:

Commentary for Annual savings statistics: September 2024

www.gov.uk

Official Statistics

Commentary for Annual savings statistics: September 2024​

Updated 4 December 2024

Some key facts:

• over £700bn of savings are in ISAs, with about 40% in cash and 60% in stocks and shares (of the latter about two thirds is in open ended investment companies, unit trusts and investment trusts)
• more than 6 million over 65s hold savings in ISAs with a median value of more than £60k, multiplying those together suggests that roughly half of the £700bn total is held by over 65s

ISAs have been damaging to the UK economy in these ways:

• loss of tax revenue on the income from the ISA investments now runs into billions
• the main beneficiaries are rich pensioners who don't need help (winter fuel allowance but worse)
• distortion of allocation of savings towards cash and away from stocks and shares

UK median household disposable income is about £32k. An annual ISA allowance of £4k would still be a very generous more than 10% of median household disposable income.

 

[takno]

I suspect picking a civil servant / lawyer to replace Jeremy might be the biggest mistake Labour ever made. The last best hope for mainstream politics is this guy? That does not inspire confidence. At least Biden was relatable and had a charismatic quality, before the simple passage of time robbed him of even that.

"Jeremy" was a career politician from a privileged background. Starmer comes from a much more working class background, and has spent most of their career doing a job outside politics, even if it was in a profession.

You appear to still be extremely angry about the ousting of the deeply unpopular former leadership of the party, which is fine. However, it is perhaps leading you to view the performance of Starmer and the current government through a rather blinkered lens.

For what it's worth, I'm not a particular fan of either Starmer or Reeves manner or speech and slightly robotic style. That style actually tends to play out better with the general public than I ever expect it to though, and both are making significant strides in improving it. I don't believe in either case that their public performance skills are negatively impacting how the government is running the country.

I was mildly surprised that ISA reform wasn't in the autumn 2024 budget. ISAs have had an overwhelmingly negative impact on the UK economy and the aging population plus the return to high interest rates are making things worse.

The point in a lot of ways is that people are saving long term in cash ISAs when they would be a lot better off with that money invested in non-cash ISAs. It's not supposed to be about raising more tax or taking away a benefit from people, more about encouraging them to make smarter choices for themselves and the economy.

I don't personally think it's an argument that I'd want to have this year - it will be a lot easier to make the case in a year's time if interest rates are down another 1% and the shine has come off cash ISAs anyway.

 

[styles]

It is frustrating that becoming leader of either of the two biggest parties appears to suck all personality out of a person. People like May and Milliband seem far more 'relatable' now they've stepped down. Milliband in particularly was pure sass on Twitter when he went to the backbenches - regularly quoting Cameron's, "Chaos with Ed Milliband", Tweet whenever the next inevitable Conservative gaff occurred.

However, I think at the current point in time, with the shambles of the past few years of Conservative leadership in particular, people are actually quite in favour of someone like Starmer - boring, but, 'stable'. People are sick of changing leaders every year, the economy bouncing up and down as the change in chancellor means u-turning on major policies every year or so, the law-breaking and apparent dodgy deals. Labour doesn't even have to be whistle clean at this point - they just have to not be an omnishambles.

I suspect Farage will lead Reform into another surge of support when people get bored of Starmer and the mediocrity though.

 

[WelshBluebird]

You appear to still be extremely angry about the ousting of the deeply unpopular former leadership of the party, which is fine. However, it is perhaps leading you to view the performance of Starmer and the current government through a rather blinkered lens

If Corbyn is "deeply unpopular", what does that make the person who replaced him and got less votes (and now seems to be even more unpopular than during the election).

Note I'm not saying Corbyn was a good leader far from it.

But I'd suggest the word you are looking for is divisive rather than unpopular given he was more popular than Starmer (it's just how that support was spread is what made the difference)

 

[Cowley]

If Corbyn is "deeply unpopular", what does that make the person who replaced him and got less votes (and now seems to be even more unpopular than during the election).

Note I'm not saying Corbyn was a good leader far from it.

But I'd suggest the word you are looking for is divisive rather than unpopular given he was more popular than Starmer (it's just how that support was spread is what made the difference)

I do wonder if the chaos happening in US politics might actually start to shift Starmers popularity ratings a bit higher than they currently are as people do start being grateful for a bit of boring stability.

I also think that Kier Starmer is one of the most consistently underestimated people in UK politics and that’s quite possibly his greatest strength.

 

[Yew]

I also think that Kier Starmer is one of the most consistently underestimated people in UK politics and that’s quite possibly his greatest strength.

Possibly, however I worry that his economic policies are closer to those of David Cameron, than of someone like Clement Atlee, or his namesake, Kier Hardie.

 

[Harpo]

the main beneficiaries are rich pensioners who don't need help (winter fuel allowance but worse)

A statistic not unlike the age bands of people who have paid off their mortgages, an accumulated position exactly as the preceding stacks on the chart suggest.

 

[Cowley]

Possibly, however I worry that his economic policies are closer to those of David Cameron, than of someone like Clement Atlee, or his namesake, Kier Hardie.

Yes I agree. I suppose I was more thinking along the lines of how ruthless he is and how he seems to be quite good at finding ways of quietly fixing things.

 

[Harpo]

Yes I agree. I suppose I was more thinking along the lines of how ruthless he is and how he seems to be quite good at finding ways of quietly fixing things.

Just don’t expect The Daily MailGraph to say so!

 

[takno]

A statistic not unlike the age bands of people who have paid off their mortgages, an accumulated position exactly as the preceding stacks on the chart suggest.

Oh, I didn't actually read the figures provided. It is indeed pretty limited vision to complain about the total amount invested in ISAs being mostly held by the elderly, or being a bad thing for that matter.

Stocks and shares ISAs have been heavily recommended as a sensible retirement vehicle for basic-rate taxpayers for as long as I can remember. Given that the tax benefits of actual pensions tend to lean so heavily towards higher-rate taxpayers, it doesn't exactly seem unfair to let people save a limited amount in a more tax-efficient way.

You can argue about whether 20k is perhaps a bit too high, since as it stands a significant proportion of the benefit will go to wealthy people maxing them out. You might consider a 10k annual limit, or a lifetime cap on contributions. You might alternatively consider reintroducing the only-recently removed caps to push people into longer-term more profitable investments.

The overall principle of ISAs to encourage savings and investment is good though, and I don't think we should criticise the vehicle for having achieved its aims.

 

[Ghostbus]

You appear to still be extremely angry about the ousting of the deeply unpopular former leadership of the party, which is fine. However, it is perhaps leading you to view the performance of Starmer and the current government through a rather blinkered lens.

And that's your mistake, making assumptions. I can mention Jeremy's name without being a fan of Jeremy. I am viewing the performance of Starmer through the lens of the last three US elections and the way politics has gone in Europe in general for the last few years.

I literally just told you why Starmer isn't remotely convincing as an authentic working class kid made good, and if anything to middle aged working class people whose voting loyalties is increasingly elastic, sounds like he's more interested in trying to sound like something he's not. You ignored it, heading straight for this faulty assumption.

That's where mainstream politics has been going wrong. Obama wasn't convincing as a white working class factory worker, and for more than the obvious reason. So he didn't even try. He still smashed it in swing states like Michigan, twice, as both the change candidate and then the incumbent. And when faced with a choice between Hillary and Bernie, Michigan wanted Bernie. A man very like Jeremy, and not remotely like Starmer. Hence why I mentioned it.

 

[Sorcerer]

I suspect picking a civil servant / lawyer to replace Jeremy might be the biggest mistake Labour ever made.

Election results speak otherwise.

But I'd suggest the word you are looking for is divisive rather than unpopular given he was more popular than Starmer (it's just how that support was spread is what made the difference)

Corbyn was only popular with his core voter base, and the millions of votes he received was largely from areas that voted Labour anyway. Even then he lost to the abysmal Theresa May campaign, and horribly lost to Boris Johnson (the worst results since 1935 if I may remind you). I'd say on that basis, unpopular is a very suitable word to describe him.

Keir Starmer might not be popular, but at worst he's an uninspiring status quo politician that is barely half a year into his tenure. I also disagree with any comparisons made between Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. The impression I get from Sanders is that he still loves his country and wants to make it better for everyone, whereas Corbyn genuinely dislikes his own country and would prefer to live in his own socialist paradise.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

whereas Corbyn genuinely dislikes his own country and would prefer to live in his own socialist paradise.

Ah yes, the old right-wing trope about Socialists copyright Daily Mail, I believe

 

[Yew]

Election results speak otherwise.

Corbyn was only popular with his core voter base, and the millions of votes he received was largely from areas that voted Labour anyway. Even then he lost to the abysmal Theresa May campaign, and horribly lost to Boris Johnson (the worst results since 1935 if I may remind you). I'd say on that basis, unpopular is a very suitable word to describe him.

More people voted for Labour in 2017, than in 2024.

Keir Starmer might not be popular, but at worst he's an uninspiring status quo politician that is barely half a year into his tenure.

The increase in votes for alternative parties shows that status quo isn't working as well as it used to.

Neoliberal economic policies have failed vast parts of the country, particularly the North, and so far, Kier has not done a lot to satisfy the areas of the "red wall" that are increasingly looking towards reform. People want change from the decline of the last 40 years, and at the moment, Starmer simply isn't offering it; and unfortunately, the only parties that are are on the hard-right.

whereas Corbyn genuinely dislikes his own country and would prefer to live in his own socialist paradise.

Could you provide a primary source for that?

 

[Magdalia]

A statistic not unlike the age bands of people who have paid off their mortgages, an accumulated position exactly as the preceding stacks on the chart suggest.

the total amount invested in ISAs being mostly held by the elderly

Indeed, so it was clear from the outset that large annual ISA allowances were going to become a massive tax shelter for rich pensioners.

You can argue about whether 20k is perhaps a bit too high, since as it stands a significant proportion of the benefit will go to wealthy people maxing them out. You might consider a 10k annual limit, or a lifetime cap on contributions.

£10k is more than 30% of median household disposable income. If people are able to save that much that is their choice, but there is no justification for a tax incentive to help them to do it.

The overall principle of ISAs to encourage savings and investment is good though, and I don't think we should criticise the vehicle for having achieved its aims.

Any policy should be assessed not just on whether it has achieved its aims, but also on its costs and on its other consequences. On that basis ISAs with large annual allowances do not come out at all well.

A £4k cap would achieve those objectives at much less cost and without damaging consequences.

 

[Cowley]

Can we get off the ISA topic or start a new thread on it now please.

Thanks

 

[takno]

Indeed, so it was clear from the outset that large annual ISA allowances were going to become a massive tax shelter for rich pensioners.


£10k is more than 30% of median household disposable income. If people are able to save that much that is their choice, but there is no justification for a tax incentive to help them to do it.

Any policy should be assessed not just on whether it has achieved its aims, but also on its costs and on its other consequences. On that basis ISAs with large annual allowances do not come out at all well.

A £4k cap would achieve those objectives at much less cost and without damaging consequences.

Median income isn't a particularly useful comparison here, since lots of people receive radically different income at different points in their life, and the tax system should broadly support them in that.

If people in their 40s and 50s have been able to pay off mortgages and shoo kids of their homes, and now want to save for retirement, the tax system shouldn't stand in the way. It's entirely possible at that point that they will want to save 20% or more of their disposable income - if their pension is underfunded at that point then they may need to save a lot more than that to maintain any semblance of their current lifestyle in retirement.

Happily nobody is suggesting an actual cap at 4k, just a requirement to put the money into longer term investments which are likely to pay off better.

Can we get off the ISA topic or start a new thread on it now please.

Thanks

Sorry, I'd already posted before I read that!

 

[Sorcerer]

More people voted for Labour in 2017, than in 2024.

Fewer people in general voted in 2024, and many of the votes Labour won in 2017 were already in Labour strongholds. I think it's important to remember that 2017 was still a lost election, and falling 64 seats short of a majority is not considered a good thing by any metric aside from the fact it wasn't as crushing as people thought it would be. I notice people who point out 2017 as an example Corbyn wasn't unpopular also conveniently forget the loss in 2019 which was the worst result since 1935, and had he still been leader in 2024 I have no doubt Rishi Sunak would still be Prime Minister albeit clinging on to a slippery minority coalition like May.

The increase in votes for alternative parties shows that status quo isn't working as well as it used to.

Neoliberal economic policies have failed vast parts of the country, particularly the North, and so far, Kier has not done a lot to satisfy the areas of the "red wall" that are increasingly looking towards reform. People want change from the decline of the last 40 years, and at the moment, Starmer simply isn't offering it; and unfortunately, the only parties that are are on the hard-right.

I don't actually dispute any of that to be honest, especially when I'm on record saying elsewhere on the forums that he has work to do in order to combat the rise of the populist right, including the decline you mentioned. I am of the firm opinion that the Democrats pretty much deserved their loss in the United States because they had since 2016 to work out how to defeat Donald Trump and his influence and yet they still failed, and the results are already speaking for themselves. The answer though isn't someone like Jeremy Corbyn.

Could you provide a primary source for that?

The fact he has consistently spouted anti-western views that play into the hands of our enemies. Prime example being him calling for the west to stop arming Ukraine and being among the key people of the Stop the War Coalition that has also consistently opposed arming Ukraine and uses rhetoric such as "NATO expansion" and favours leaving the alliance along with disbanding it, but has also historically opposed military action that might've been justified such as the war in Afghanistan. If the west did things his way, then Russia would have Ukraine, Argentina would have seized the Falklands, and Osama bin Laden would likely still be alive.

 

[Ghostbus]

Election results speak otherwise.

Not really. The last election was clearly a repudiation of the tired Tories, not an endorsement of Starmer. The fact Reform have made inroads so quickly under Starmer is telling.

The fact Scottish Labour can't replicate his success little more than six months later, is even more telling. All the SNP had to do was pivot away from their cult of personality and dump the trans agenda and they've left Labour in their dust. Swing voters up there clearly want a lot of free stuff and expect Westminster to pay for it. The response from Starmer is....?

He's politically naive. He doesn't know where he's going or how he's going to get there, beyond this idea the growth will save us all. He has this bizarre idea that people will vote Labour simply if they're more willing to stick to fiscal rules than the Tories. Even though it's quite obvious people didn't reject the Tories for their lack of fiduciary responsibility.

The man doesn't seem to have a political bone in his body. He appears to be a technocrat to his core, without the benefit of getting results. He just keeps making basic and obvious mistakes. Political mistakes. The Tories aren't forcing any of these errors, and they're actually behind his latest big idea, the foreign aid cut. It's truly embarrassing.

Look at railway policy. Wildly popular under Jeremy, part of a broad movement to reset this country. Get politics working for ordinary people again. Yet look at the absolutely glacial progress. He didn't even get rid of the jingoistic Borisism "Great British Railways". Is it a priority? The man can't even stop the threat of strikes.

 

[Sorcerer]

Not really. The last election was clearly a repudiation of the tired Tories, not an endorsement of Starmer. The fact Reform have made inroads so quickly under Starmer is telling.

To an extent this is true, and I have asserted before that Starmer's support is wide but shallow and can very easily collapse, and the rise of Reform is somewhat concerning, but it's not beyond a point of no return. However, Corbyn was still very unpopular with the electorate, and there isn't much reason to believe he would've lead Labour to the same victory in 2024 if he was still leader. The idea of him being Prime Minister was genuinely terrifying to some people.

The fact Scottish Labour can't replicate his success little more than six months later, is even more telling. All the SNP had to do was pivot away from their cult of personality and dump the trans agenda and they've left Labour in their dust. Swing voters up there clearly want a lot of free stuff and expect Westminster to pay for it. The response from Starmer is....?

I think we'll have to wait for the next Scottish Parliament elections before we decide if Labour have been left in the dust. The SNP performed very poorly in the general election though.

He's politically naive. He doesn't know where he's going or how he's going to get there, beyond this idea the growth will save us all.

If political naivety is a problem for you then I have some very shocking news about Dear Jeremy.

He has this bizarre idea that people will vote Labour simply if they're more willing to stick to fiscal rules than the Tories. Even though it's quite obvious people didn't reject the Tories for their lack of fiduciary responsibility.

Some people still believe Labour crashed the economy in 2008, so trying to portray yourself as a party of fiscal responsibility isn't really a bad idea when the country has financial problems, which many put down to 14 years of Tory mismanagement, so yes, they did kind of reject them for that reason.

The man doesn't seem to have a political bone in his body. He appears to be a technocrat to his core, without the benefit of getting results. He just keeps making basic and obvious mistakes. Political mistakes. The Tories aren't forcing any of these errors, and they're actually behind his latest big idea, the foreign aid cut. It's truly embarrassing.

The foreign aid cut might be controversial, but doing so as a way to increase defence spending adds a bit more nuance than just making a silly decision for the sake of it, especially if we're going to be at the forefront of a ceasefire deal with Russia in Ukraine and the United States isn't so keen on helping us out too much.

Look at railway policy. Wildly popular under Jeremy, part of a broad movement to reset this country. Get politics working for ordinary people again. Yet look at the absolutely glacial progress. He didn't even get rid of the jingoistic Borisism "Great British Railways". Is it a priority? The man can't even stop the threat of strikes.

Corbyn did not patent nationalisation of the railways, and just because an idea is popular doesn't mean someone who advocates it is popular. But if you believe the support was part of a broad movement to reset the country, then why did he lose two elections despite pledging rail nationalisation? If you're so convinced Corbyn wasn't as unpopular as Starmer is now, then why did his leadership lead to the worst election defeat since 1935?

 

[Ghostbus]

However, Corbyn was still very unpopular with the electorate, and there isn't much reason to believe he would've lead Labour to the same victory in 2024 if he was still leader. The idea of him being Prime Minister was genuinely terrifying to some people.

If political naivety is a problem for you then I have some very shocking news about Dear Jeremy.

Corbyn did not patent nationalisation of the railways, and just because an idea is popular doesn't mean someone who advocates it is popular. But if you believe the support was part of a broad movement to reset the country, then why did he lose two elections despite pledging rail nationalisation?

If you're so convinced Corbyn wasn't as unpopular as Starmer is now, then why did his leadership lead to the worst election defeat since 1935?

This is the second time someone has assumed me merely mentioning Jeremy is proof I support the guy. It's truly bizarre. I can only imagine this was what it was like in America in 2015. And we know how that turned out.

 

[Sorcerer]

This is the second time someone has assumed me merely mentioning Jeremy is proof I support the guy. It's truly bizarre. I can only imagine this was what it was like in America in 2015. And we know how that turned out.

I was simply disagreeing with your original statement that replacing him with Starmer was a mistake and that elections results have proven otherwise. So with that point made I think that I'll leave it there for now.

 

[43096]

Look at railway policy. Wildly popular under Jeremy, part of a broad movement to reset this country. Get politics working for ordinary people again. Yet look at the absolutely glacial progress. He didn't even get rid of the jingoistic Borisism "Great British Railways". Is it a priority? The man can't even stop the threat of strikes.

Ah, so that's what it is about. He's not the blessed (and unelectable) Jeremy. A man who, had he been Prime Minister, would have been a very real threat to our national security, particularly given the current situation.

What would you rather Labour was, a protest party that is not electable or a party capable of winning an election?

 

[DarloRich]

This is the second time someone has assumed me merely mentioning Jeremy is proof I support the guy. It's truly bizarre.

Perhaps you could, succinctly, set out who you think SHOULD be PM and why you think that?