Starmer Faces a Crucial Decision: Sack Reeves or Risk Political Collapse

[Social Media]

 

Keir Starmer is at a critical juncture in his leadership, a mere five months after securing a landslide general election victory. The Prime Minister now finds himself in the unenviable position of having to "reset" his premiership, a move that underscores the magnitude of the failures within his administration. The root cause of these challenges appears to revolve around the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, whose policy decisions and missteps have placed the Labour government in turmoil.  

 

Starmer’s meteoric rise to power seems to be losing altitude. His personal ratings have plummeted from a favorable +19 to a dismal -32, while Labour’s lead over the Conservatives is eroding as Reform UK gains traction. Labour has already lost numerous council by-elections to opposition parties, raising fears that a parliamentary by-election could set off a chain reaction that jeopardizes Starmer’s hopes for a second term. This political instability coincides with growing concerns over the UK’s economic growth.  

 

Reeves has positioned economic growth as her top priority, promising to help businesses, restrain taxes, and improve living standards. Yet the reality has been starkly different. Official growth forecasts have been revised downward, and the nation’s economy, businesses, and individual incomes face increasing pressure. Starmer must be questioning whether these outcomes are the result of dishonesty or sheer incompetence. Either way, he may well be asking himself why he should shoulder the blame for Reeves’s actions.  

 

One of Reeves’s earliest controversies was her claim of a "black hole" in public finances, a claim later undermined by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which could not substantiate her findings. She used this claim to justify two deeply unpopular policies: cutting the winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners and imposing a 20% VAT on independent school fees mid-academic year.  

 

The consequences of cutting the winter fuel allowance have yet to be fully realized. However, past Labour research estimated that limiting the payment to pensioners on pension credit could endanger thousands of lives during winter. Simultaneously, the VAT on school fees has caused significant disruption for families, particularly those with children requiring special education or advanced academic opportunities not available in state schools. Treasury projections suggest thousands of pupils will be forced to change schools mid-term, with more to follow in subsequent years.  

 

Reeves’s economic policies have also created an atmosphere of uncertainty and gloom. Her decision to delay the Budget statement by four months allowed speculation about tax hikes on investments, pensions, and savings to grow unchecked. Deutsche Bank has estimated that Reeves’s proposed National Insurance increase could cost 100,000 jobs, while the CBI Economics report predicts 125,000 job losses over five years due to changes in business property relief. These measures, combined with alterations to capital gains tax, are expected to deter business investment and stifle entrepreneurial activity.  

 

Public frustration with Reeves is mounting. Pensioners, parents, business owners, and private sector workers are among those disillusioned by her decisions. Labour backbenchers are likely to add to the growing chorus of dissent as they witness the damage to the party’s credibility and support base. Further scrutiny of Reeves’s qualifications, particularly allegations that she exaggerated her experience as an economist, has only deepened the ridicule, with critics dismissing her as "Rachel from Accounts."  

 

The question for Starmer is whether he can afford to keep Reeves in her position. Her policies and controversies have left his government vulnerable, and his continued association with her decisions risks undermining his leadership. Acting decisively now could provide an opportunity to restore confidence. Delaying may only lead to greater political and economic consequences for Labour and the nation.  

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-07

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

abour has already lost numerous council by-elections to opposition parties, raising fears that a parliamentary by-election could set off a chain reaction that jeopardizes Starmer’s hopes for a second term.

Surely that would be a desirable outcome, given the disaster that his government is?

[The Cyclist]

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

The question for Starmer is whether he can afford to keep Reeves in her position.

 

I don't think it really matters.

 

The media is already turning on Labour. Check out the opinion pieces in today's Labour loving  Guardian.

 

Not content with shafting large parts of the Country, he has now drawn the ire of the PCS and FDA Unions.

 

7 hours ago, Social Media said:

raising fears that a parliamentary by-election could set off a chain reaction that jeopardizes Starmer’s hopes for a second term.

 

Starmer hasn't a hope in hell of a 2nd term. Starmer will be gone within a year and Labour will be out in 2029, if not sooner.

[Scouse123]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I don't think it really matters.

 

The media is already turning on Labour. Check out the opinion pieces in today's Labour loving  Guardian.

 

Not content with shafting large parts of the Country, he has now drawn the ire of the PCS and FDA Unions.

 

 

Starmer hasn't a hope in hell of a 2nd term. Starmer will be gone within a year and Labour will be out in 2029, if not sooner.

 

 

I hope so, I really do.

 

They certainly have no idea how to govern and are totally at odds with the British public.

[The Cyclist]

12 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

They certainly have no idea how to govern

 

Which is rather amazing, as they had been in opposition for 14 years and had plans ready to go from day one.

 

What we are seeing now, is the difference between 14 years of rabble rousing and actually being in Government.

 

The Tories have a lot to answer for over that 14 year period, but Starmer and his crew, after 5 months is making  them look competent.

[shackleton]

It's only a matter of time when labour will be out of government 

Their cabinet plus policies are a disaster in the making 

More fool the people who voted them in 

Time will tell 😱

[billd766]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I don't think it really matters.

 

The media is already turning on Labour. Check out the opinion pieces in today's Labour loving  Guardian.

 

Not content with shafting large parts of the Country, he has now drawn the ire of the PCS and FDA Unions.

 

 

Starmer hasn't a hope in hell of a 2nd term. Starmer will be gone within a year and Labour will be out in 2029, if not sooner.

But who has the Labour Party got to replace Starmer and his entire cabinet with?

[Scouse123]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

But who has the Labour Party got to replace Starmer with?

 

They can have Boris, because we don't want him.

[The Cyclist]

4 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But who has the Labour Party got to replace Starmer with?

 

Raynor is the darling of the Unions, you heard it here first.

 

Just seen your edit billd

 

I dont think the Cabinet matters either. I would not be surprised ii in about 6 months time, a VONC is called on the current Government.

 

It all depends on how bad things turn once the effects of the Budget works its way through the system.

[Scouse123]

9 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Which is rather amazing, as they had been in opposition for 14 years and had plans ready to go from day one.

 

What we are seeing now, is the difference between 14 years of rabble rousing and actually being in Government.

 

The Tories have a lot to answer for over that 14 year period, but Starmer and his crew, after 5 months is making  them look competent.

 

 

What we have seen is them totally back down to the Unions, which they always have done and always will do, at the expense of everyone else such as Farmers, NHS, Defence, and especially pensioners.

 

They are now using the Police to stifle free speech instead of fighting crime, the list goes on and on.

 

Not to mention a Reeves budget from hell.

[The Cyclist]

Just now, Scouse123 said:

 

 

What we have seen is them totally back down to the Unions, which they always have done and always will do, at the expense of everyone else such as Farmers, NHS, Defence, and especially pensioners.

 

They are now using the Police to stifle free speech instead of fighting crime, the list goes on and on.

 

Not to mention a Reeves budget from hell.

 

No argument from me, on any of that.

 

I am still firmly of the belief that the fun and games have not even started yet, we are just at the warm up act stage.

[mokwit]

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But who has the Labour Party got to replace Starmer and his entire cabinet with?

They're probably still at University.

[billd766]

18 minutes ago, mokwit said:

They're probably still at University.

More likely in Kindergarten, if their parents can afford the fees.

[scottiejohn]

36 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But who has the Labour Party got to replace Starmer and his entire cabinet with?

Nigel Farage!

[topt]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

Raynor is the darling of the Unions, you heard it here first.

This potentially worries me more.

[RichardColeman]

You just knew liebour was as bad and dishonest as you thought they were. First thing they did raid the winter fuel payments pot for their union backers. Then raise taxes and continue to lie. 

 

Funny that every 15 years or so the public forgets how rotten this party truly is

[RayC]

6 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

 

Starmer hasn't a hope in hell of a 2nd term. Starmer will be gone within a year and Labour will be out in 2029, if not sooner.

 

4 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I would not be surprised ii in about 6 months time, a VONC is called on the current Government.

 

 

A VONC has no chance of success and, given that Badenoch can use PMQs to land her blows, it would be nothing other than a waste of parliamentary time.

 

As Labour has a majority of 174 in the Commons, the only way that they will not complete a full term is if 1) they decide to call an early election or 2) there is a coup.

 

Whether Starmer leads Labour into the next election is debatable but, unless there is some scandal which involves him personally, the chances of him being gone by this time next year are very slim.

[The Cyclist]

23 minutes ago, RayC said:

A VONC has no chance of success and, given that Badenoch can use PMQs to land her blows, it would be nothing other than a waste of parliamentary time.

 

Did you understand the part where I said - Once the effects of the budget have worked there way through the system ?

You might also want to have a think about the following 

 

Did you understand the part where I said the media, including the Guardian, are now turning against Labour ?

 

Do you understand that the King could cause the dissolution of Parliament ?
 

Do you understand the part where Donald Trump could seriously undermine the Government by refusing to deal with them, dealing with Farage and Truss instead ?

 

So right now a VONC will not happen, it could do in 6 months time, and there are other ways that the Government could be forcefully collapsed.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Did you understand the part where I said - Once the effects of the budget have worked there way through the system ?

You might also want to have a think about the following 

 

Did you understand the part where I said the media, including the Guardian, are now turning against Labour ?

 

Do you understand that the King could cause the dissolution of Parliament ?
 

Do you understand the part where Donald Trump could seriously undermine the Government by refusing to deal with them, dealing with Farage and Truss instead ?

 

So right now a VONC will not happen, it could do in 6 months time, and there are other ways that the Government could be forcefully collapsed.

 

Let's assume the effects of the budget are negative and that becomes increasingly apparent over time. What does that change?

 

A vote of no confidence will still be doomed to failure. 

 

Do you really think that 18 months into this parliamentary session, the PLP will dump the leader who got them their seat? Maybe there might be the first mutterings of discontent, but - personal scandals aside - Starmer will not be gone this time next year.

 

The Guardian and Mirror turning against Starmer: Maybe they will voice their discontent more loudly but they will not call for him to go that early in the parliamentary session.

 

The King could dissolve Parliament. For what reason? Incompetence? In that case it begs the question why his mother didn't dissolve Parliament on more than one occasion over the past 14 years.

 

Trump could deal with Farage and/or Truss instead of Starmer. To state the blindingly obvious, Farage and Truss are not in government. Truss is not even a MP! Neither has any power when it comes to passing legislation. Notwithstanding that, why would Trump not deal with Starmer? The UK may have lost what little influence it had with the US following the bone-headed decision to leave the EU, but why would Trump decide to undermine the government of an ally? Over a few 'hurty' words from Lammy? I know that Trump is thin-skinned but that's going to extremes.

 

Anyway, you crack on with your fantasies to your heart's content. The rest of us will continue to live in the real world.

[The Cyclist]

Apropos to the thread

 

 

 

Not only lied on her CV regarding past employment.

 

Falsely claimed public money for filing a tax return.

 

Claimed over £5000 in heating allowance, whilst robbing pensioners of Winter Fuel allowance.

 

Previously had her Commons Credit card suspended / revoked. Just the type of person you need looking after the Nations finances.

 

Yet people still think that Labour will not implode in the very near future.

 

A re-run of the 70's  oming soon.

[JonnyF]

Rachel "from accounts" Reeves is a joke as are Labour.

 

She should fo back to customer services but she was probably useless at that as well. If she was a clerk at the bank I wouldn't trust her to count my money. 

 

Labour have shown themselves to be totally incompetent. The Tories have never looked so good.

 

Starmer should have resigned over the lord Ali gifts scandal but he has no morality. They are a complete shambles. Pathetic. Got one term written all over them. Like Biden's shower.

[LittleBear57]

8 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Which is rather amazing, as they had been in opposition for 14 years and had plans ready to go from day one.

 

What we are seeing now, is the difference between 14 years of rabble rousing and actually being in Government.

 

The Tories have a lot to answer for over that 14 year period, but Starmer and his crew, after 5 months is making  them look competent.

 No one can make Liz Truss look competent and Boris Johnson is a liar and a crook. Sunak took the fall for all that. I don't see either party looking competent to be honest.

[RuamRudy]

10 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

 

I hope so, I really do.

 

They certainly have no idea how to govern and are totally at odds with the British public.

 

I am no fan of labour, but have you forgotten the seemingly endless run of appallingly poor, weak and incompetent PMs we had after Cameron, not that he was any more than a dull witted toff? 

 

Starmer's government is simply another clown show in a long running series of clown shows, and there is no prospective source of statesmanship waiting in the wings either. 

[Red Forever]

More far right drivel from the Torygraph.

If anyone thought that Starmer could turn around the economy, NHS, immigration “problems “ and the sleazy cronyism which pervaded Britain for the past 14 years well, you’ll just have to wait.

Look at the far right posts from experts above. No objectivity just the usual repetitive hatred .

 I think it’s fair to wait until halfway through this administration before calling for heads to roll.

Vote of no confidence?

Far right wet dream. Ha ha.

[henryford1958]

I doubt Stasi Starmer cares what anyone thinks. Reeves is a terrible Chancellor but she had to raise taxes to fund the Labour Party's socialist agenda. All Governments have reshuffles so there will be changes at some point. How many Chancellors did the Tories have? 6 in 5 years !

 

People won't forget what the Tories did in 14 years (906,000 !!) and i don't think Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke inspires much confidence. The 2029 election will be interesting.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Starmer's government is simply another clown show in a long running series of clown shows, and there is no prospective source of statesmanship waiting in the wings either. 

I'm of the opinion that politics is becoming so toxic that anybody that is intelligent would never consider becoming an MP, and that doesn't apply only to the UK.

[henryford1958]

19 hours ago, billd766 said:

But who has the Labour Party got to replace Starmer and his entire cabinet with?

 

Diane Abbott is still waiting for her big day.

[The Old Bull]

Taking the pensioners fuel subsidy and giving it to that Ukranian weasel is not a smart move if they have any hope of staying in power.

[The Cyclist]

15 hours ago, LittleBear57 said:

No one can make Liz Truss look competent

 

Starmer says hold my beer.

 

Quote

Keir Starmer will meet Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as part of a controversial trip to the region this week designed to drum up investment for his pledge to overhaul British infrastructure.

 

A Yuman Rites Lawyer meeting the ruler of a Country with an absolutely horrendous record on Yuman Rites issues, begging for cash.

 

Is that incompetence ?

 

Or is it the Socialist / Marxist mantra of ' I have principles, but I will change them like a 2 bob hooker changing her knickers ' for money.

 

The above quote, does not come from any Tory supporting publication. It comes from the rapidly falling out of love with labour Guardian.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/07/starmer-to-meet-saudi-crown-prince-in-push-for-infrastructure-cash

 

If you want any further proof of the media turning against Labour, just tune in to the BBC and have a read of the recently penned articles by Laura ' When are you going to resign PM ' Kuenssberg.

 

Starmers days are numbered. The media are turning against him, the Unions are turning against him, most voters don't want him.

 

If he had a smidgen of intelligence he would see the writing on the wall and resign with a sliver of dignity. He hasn't, and his fingernails will dig tracks in the doorframe of No10 as he is forcibly removed, just like Brown, before him.

[RayC]

23 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Starmer says hold my beer.

 

 

A Yuman Rites Lawyer meeting the ruler of a Country with an absolutely horrendous record on Yuman Rites issues, begging for cash.

 

Is that incompetence ?

 

Or is it the Socialist / Marxist mantra of ' I have principles, but I will change them like a 2 bob hooker changing her knickers ' for money.

 

The above quote, does not come from any Tory supporting publication. It comes from the rapidly falling out of love with labour Guardian.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/07/starmer-to-meet-saudi-crown-prince-in-push-for-infrastructure-cash

 

If you want any further proof of the media turning against Labour, just tune in to the BBC and have a read of the recently penned articles by Laura ' When are you going to resign PM ' Kuenssberg.

 

Starmers days are numbered. The media are turning against him, the Unions are turning against him, most voters don't want him.

 

If he had a smidgen of intelligence he would see the writing on the wall and resign with a sliver of dignity. He hasn't, and his fingernails will dig tracks in the doorframe of No10 as he is forcibly removed, just like Brown, before him.

 

Where does that supposed "quote" appear in The Guardian? The nearest your linked article gets to criticism of Starmer is to call his trip to Saudi 'controversial'.

 

You criticise Starmer for betraying his principles in visiting Saudi but you would, no doubt, berate him for putting his principles above the country's economic interests if he were to refuse to deal with the Saudi regime: Heads Starmer loses, tails you win.

 

Is this the article by Kuenssberg in question? If so, nowhere does she suggest that he should consider resigning as you infer. Instead, it is simply a very well written piece of analysis of Starmer's current situation.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2l781461no

 

The Tory supporting media has not turned; it has been publishing anti-Labour articles from the moment that the election date was announced and has upped the output since this government took office: The Labour supporting media has not turned against Starmer (yet). Like many of us, they are disappointed with what we have seen from the Labour government to date. However - unlike those critical of this government from Day 1 - there is a realisation that 5 months is far too short a period over which to pass final judgement.

 

If things remain as they are this time next year, then it will be reasonable to question whether Starmer and this government is really up to the mark.