Keir Starmer's Leadership Faces Challenges as Patience Wears Thin

[James105]

8 hours ago, RayC said:

There are +/-120 Ministers who owe their position to Starmer plus, no doubt, numerous ambitious back-benchers attempting to court favour with him. Do you really think that any of them are going to risk their political careers three months into a new parliament on the almost imperceptible chance that Starmer can be overthrown now?

 

They owe their victory to the Tories and the freakish nature of the electoral system.   Starmer received less votes as leader than Labour did previously under Corbyn.    It's fascinating that people give Starmer the credit for happening to be leader of the Labour party when this freak of circumstances occurred but also suggest he bears zero responsibility for being the leader of the CPS when they chose not to prosecute Jiimmy Saville or the Harrods owner - another position he clearly failed at.    He should be riding high in the polls with a Tory party without a new leader and the opportunity he has been given but he is tanking. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/28/keir-starmer-hits-new-low-in-personal-popularity-ratings

[JonnyF]

13 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Yes it is wishful thinking on an epic scale.

 

You can 'never say never' but unless there is a "Starmer eats babies' story, the chances that Starmer will be not be PM this time next year, let alone next week as someone suggested, are virtually nil.

 

Johnson was ousted for a lot less. 

 

As others have said, if Starmer goes we'd probably get Rayner so we need to be careful what we wish for. The last thing we need is a Vicky Pollard impersonator in the house of commons, "yeah but no but yeah but..."

 

It's going to be a dark few years for UK residents.  

[Patong2021]

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Labour received 33% of the votes cast. Two thirds of the electorate who voted don't want labour in power. Only 1 in 5 voters in the UK voted Labour in this year's GE. That is no mandate in any democratic society. Even in tories got 43% of votes in 2019. 

 

That is not how the parliamentary system works in the UK. Labour won 411 out of 650 seats. That is called a landslide election victory. It won a majority of the votes on those seats. 

Using your logic, because 76.3% of the electorate did not vote Conservative, it means that the electorate repudiated the Conservative election platform which included its financial policies. Liberal Democrat, Sinn Fein, Green, Plaid Cymru and SNP economic positions have more in common with the Starmer Labour positions than they do with the Conservative party positions.   So yes indeed, Labour  does have a mandate to govern. Your argument is one for proportional representation, which the Conservatives have been against for ages. Much of Reform and the Social Democrat vote gain come from former Conservative voters who wanted anybody other than the Conservatives. Economic policy was not their primary concern. Rather, it was the mismanagement of the country, the political infighting and the revolving door at 10 Downing that annoyed the electorate.  If the Tories had any common sense they would let Labour implode and concentrate on rebuilding the nation's trust  in the party. They merited being thrown out of government.

 

 

[RayC]

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Johnson was ousted for a lot less. 

 

As others have said, if Starmer goes we'd probably get Rayner so we need to be careful what we wish for. The last thing we need is a Vicky Pollard impersonator in the house of commons, "yeah but no but yeah but..."

 

It's going to be a dark few years for UK residents.  

 

It is nonsense to suggest that Johnson was ousted for less. Johnson was removed because his own MPs (eventually) grew tired of his continual lies to parliament: Starmer has not lied to parliament.

 

To repeat for the umpteenth time: 'Never say never', but in the absence of a bombshell revelation Starmer isn't going anywhere soon. It is currently simply wishing thinking on the part of Labour's opponents to believe that he will be removed from office.

 

Your condescending parody of Rayner is probably indicative of how those in Conservative Central Office view their former 'Red Wall' supporters. Therefore, it was hardly a surprise that this group of voters turned their collective back on the Tories at the last election.

 

The next couple of years may well be problematic for those of us in the UK. It is naive and unrealistic to think that the legacy of 14 years of Tory (largely) mismanagement can be undone overnight.

[RayC]

6 hours ago, James105 said:

 

They owe their victory to the Tories and the freakish nature of the electoral system.   Starmer received less votes as leader than Labour did previously under Corbyn.    It's fascinating that people give Starmer the credit for happening to be leader of the Labour party when this freak of circumstances occurred but also suggest he bears zero responsibility for being the leader of the CPS when they chose not to prosecute Jiimmy Saville or the Harrods owner - another position he clearly failed at.    He should be riding high in the polls with a Tory party without a new leader and the opportunity he has been given but he is tanking. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/28/keir-starmer-hits-new-low-in-personal-popularity-ratings

 

None of which has any bearing on whether Starmer will be PM this time next year.

 

You are letting your personal dislike towards Starmer affect your reasoning.

[JonnyF]

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

To repeat for the umpteenth time: 'Never say never', but in the absence of a bombshell revelation Starmer isn't going anywhere soon. It is currently simply wishing thinking on the part of Labour's opponents to believe that he will be removed from office.

 

 

Oh it's coming. 

 

Any super injunction, should it exist, will only delay the inevitable. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Oh it's coming. 

 

Any super injunction, should it exist, will only delay the inevitable. 

 

You keep crossing your fingers, closing your eyes tight and wishing really, really hard and you never know your luck😁

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

You keep crossing your fingers, closing your eyes tight and wishing really, really hard and you never know your luck😁

 

Hardly. Rayner would be a complete embarrassment to the country on the international stage.

 

I can just imagine her meeting other countries right leaning PM's/Presidents, stubbing out her cigarette with her foot and pointing at them while shouting "Youze are all SCUM".  

[RuamRudy]

8 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

That is not how the parliamentary system works in the UK. Labour won 411 out of 650 seats. That is called a landslide election victory. It won a majority of the votes on those seats. 

Using your logic, because 76.3% of the electorate did not vote Conservative, it means that the electorate repudiated the Conservative election platform which included its financial policies. Liberal Democrat, Sinn Fein, Green, Plaid Cymru and SNP economic positions have more in common with the Starmer Labour positions than they do with the Conservative party positions.   So yes indeed, Labour  does have a mandate to govern. Your argument is one for proportional representation, which the Conservatives have been against for ages. Much of Reform and the Social Democrat vote gain come from former Conservative voters who wanted anybody other than the Conservatives. Economic policy was not their primary concern. Rather, it was the mismanagement of the country, the political infighting and the revolving door at 10 Downing that annoyed the electorate.  If the Tories had any common sense they would let Labour implode and concentrate on rebuilding the nation's trust  in the party. They merited being thrown out of government.

 

 

 

Yes, I am aware that the UK uses FPTP - I am merely pointing out how  inherently undemocratic the UK is, and that Labour is not in power because that's what the electorate wanted. 

 

Not only the Tories push against PR - Labour also campaigned against it during the PR referendum - they also spread misinformation across the country because they, like the tories, have a vested interest in maintaining an undemocratic system that benefits them. 

[johng]

46 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

inherently undemocratic the UK is, and that Labour is not in power because that's what the electorate wanted.

Yep Reform got  4 million votes but only a couple of seats  whilst

others with less votes got more seats.  Something very screwee going on there.

[Patong2021]

3 hours ago, johng said:

Yep Reform got  4 million votes but only a couple of seats  whilst

others with less votes got more seats.  Something very screwee going on there.

 

No, and the format is reasonable.  Nigel Farage had one of the strongest Reform votes, yet won his seat with a minority of the votes, less than 50%. Where Reform had strong showings, it was still trounced by Labour. Reform came second place in 98 constituencies. In 89 of these cases, it was second to Labour. 60 of these were in the north of England and 13 were in Wales. The Green Party strength was in London. 

There is no argument that the  number of seats declared for Labour does not reflect the total voting results, but what it does reflect is the party which had the broadest support across the country, and that was Labour and parties which share a similar position on much of its economic manifesto. Regional dominance is  muted in favour of a national result.

 

The issue here is one of economic policy, and the Labour position  can be argued to have been agreed to or understood would be implemented  by a majority of UK voters. Here's why: the Greens 6.7%, Plaid Cymru 0.7%%, SNP 2.5% Sinn Fein 0.7%  for a total of 10.6%  all have economic policies similar or more "radical" than Labour.  The  Liberal Democrats 12.2% offered  economic policies similar to Labour, although diverging on some issues.   That's a total of 22.8% of the  voters. Reform did not offer an economic platform. It was a one issue policy driven by immigration policy and  Brexit insistence. In effect, the Conservatives occupied their economic policy territory alone. 

 

Former Conservative voters chose to split their votes migrating to  Reform and the Liberal Democrats. The end result is what they were warned would happen: Labour was handed a land slide victory. The current Labour policies should not be a surprise to anyone. Consider it a good dosing of  fiber needed to clear out the failed Conservative policies and to refocus the Conservatives. 

[James105]

20 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The current Labour policies should not be a surprise to anyone.

 

Except their policies and behaviour are a surprise to everyone.   Labour didn't face scrutiny in the build up to the election as the legacy media focused their attention on Reform who were never going to win, so it came as a surprise that Free gear Keir has been on the take from his billionaire sugar daddy in return for what, we don't know yet.   Adults don't receive presents "one way" as they are not children so lets call it what it is, a bribe.   This is especially galling considering how sanctimonious he has been towards the Tories over the last few years.   Also, there was no winter fuel allowance removal on their manifesto so that also came as a surprise.   He also said he would freeze energy bills so its coming as a surprise to people they are going up by 10%.   Students are next to be surprised I should think if they go ahead with the 13% rise in student fees.   

 

So yes, I would say their policies are a surprise.  How many of that list above were on their manifesto?  None.  They obtained power by fraud as if these were manifesto promises and/or his desire for him and his "wife" be bought clothes by sugar daddies had come out earlier I very much doubt they would have received the 33% of the vote that got them into power.  

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

 

No, and the format is reasonable.  Nigel Farage had one of the strongest Reform votes, yet won his seat with a minority of the votes, less than 50%. Where Reform had strong showings, it was still trounced by Labour. Reform came second place in 98 constituencies. In 89 of these cases, it was second to Labour. 60 of these were in the north of England and 13 were in Wales. The Green Party strength was in London. 

There is no argument that the  number of seats declared for Labour does not reflect the total voting results, but what it does reflect is the party which had the broadest support across the country, and that was Labour and parties which share a similar position on much of its economic manifesto. Regional dominance is  muted in favour of a national result.

 

The issue here is one of economic policy, and the Labour position  can be argued to have been agreed to or understood would be implemented  by a majority of UK voters. Here's why: the Greens 6.7%, Plaid Cymru 0.7%%, SNP 2.5% Sinn Fein 0.7%  for a total of 10.6%  all have economic policies similar or more "radical" than Labour.  The  Liberal Democrats 12.2% offered  economic policies similar to Labour, although diverging on some issues.   That's a total of 22.8% of the  voters. Reform did not offer an economic platform. It was a one issue policy driven by immigration policy and  Brexit insistence. In effect, the Conservatives occupied their economic policy territory alone. 

 

Former Conservative voters chose to split their votes migrating to  Reform and the Liberal Democrats. The end result is what they were warned would happen: Labour was handed a land slide victory. The current Labour policies should not be a surprise to anyone. Consider it a good dosing of  fiber needed to clear out the failed Conservative policies and to refocus the Conservatives. 

 

You have highlighted yet another problem with the FPTP system. Not only does it return a government which fails to win a majority of the votes cast, many (most?) of the individual MPs have the support of less than 50% of their constituants: The system is inherently flawed and undemocratic.

 

Had the election been run under PR, the UK would probably now have a coalition government comprising of Labour, Lib-Dems and the Greens.

 

No way of knowing, of course, but I doubt that the Winter Fuel cut (and subsequent debacle) would have happened in those circumstances.