New Labour Leader

[king canary 7,668]

13 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

What about this one. Labours answer to John Major I'm not sure if that is good or bad?

I do think Starmer is on to a winner with his recent bit in an interview about how politics has been so tiring and all consuming in recent years and his persona works well with that.

I think there is a mood amongst a lot of British people that, after our brief flirtation with having a 'character' as PM and watching the general ****show that is US politics, a return to a sense of boring competence would be quite welcome. 

[KiwiScot 1,460]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

I do think Starmer is on to a winner with his recent bit in an interview about how politics has been so tiring and all consuming in recent years and his persona works well with that.

I think there is a mood amongst a lot of British people that, after our brief flirtation with having a 'character' as PM and watching the general ****show that is US politics, a return to a sense of boring competence would be quite welcome. 

Kind of like Barack Obama following George W Bush.

[Barbe bleu 832]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

I do think Starmer is on to a winner with his recent bit in an interview about how politics has been so tiring and all consuming in recent years and his persona works well with that.

I think there is a mood amongst a lot of British people that, after our brief flirtation with having a 'character' as PM and watching the general ****show that is US politics, a return to a sense of boring competence would be quite welcome. 

I think that is generally right, we do want politics to be less assertive and less pervasive. 

I'm not sure that starmer would be served by staying purely managerial though. There are certain topics that we probably want to stop hearing about and a new approach will be welcomed by pretty much everyone but we still want and need a leadership figure and we still care about a lot of things.

Labour can still drop the ball on this. It still needs a positive agenda, calm but visible leadership. and it still needs to control the angry finger pointers, the boomerangs assault squads and the hard left media demagogues that will want to reopen Pandora's box

 

Edited January 10 by Barbe bleu

[king canary 7,668]

26 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think that is generally right, we do want politics to be less assertive and less pervasive. 

I'm not sure that starmer would be served by staying purely managerial though. There are certain topics that we probably want to stop hearing about and a new approach will be welcomed by pretty much everyone but we still want and need a leadership figure and we still care about a lot of things.

Labour can still drop the ball on this. It still needs a positive agenda, calm but visible leadership. and it still needs to control the angry finger pointers, the boomerangs assault squads and the hard left demagogue that will want to reopen Pandora's box

 

I think he's largely done a solid job of keeping the far left at arms length, hence them constantly frothing at the mouth about him on twitter.

I do find him a bit too cautious at the moment- he seems too afraid of giving the Tories/Mail/Sun any attack material that it means he comes across as too wishy washy at times. Saying that I think if/when he wins power that will change somewhat and I think a bit more confidence and personality may come out. 

I am glad though that we as a country seem to have recognised our mistakes that putting people who are deemed 'interesting' in charge of our major political parties probably isn't the best strategy, rather than going the US route of further demagoguery. I'm all for our Prime Ministers being as blandly competent as possible.

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

I think he's largely done a solid job of keeping the far left at arms length, hence them constantly frothing at the mouth about him on twitter.

I do find him a bit too cautious at the moment- he seems too afraid of giving the Tories/Mail/Sun any attack material that it means he comes across as too wishy washy at times. Saying that I think if/when he wins power that will change somewhat and I think a bit more confidence and personality may come out. 

I am glad though that we as a country seem to have recognised our mistakes that putting people who are deemed 'interesting' in charge of our major political parties probably isn't the best strategy, rather than going the US route of further demagoguery. I'm all for our Prime Ministers being as blandly competent as possible.

Absolutely, a competent PM would be a very good start but I'm still naive enough to expect that we should be able to expect a full Cabinet of competent ministers, which actually we look as though we moght get if Labour win the next GE.

Obviously we won't know for sure until they are actually in post but at the moment the shadow Cabinet looks to be a massive upgrade over the current bunch of dimwits and chancers occupying ministerial posts - the most intellectually challenged Cabinet we've ever had IMO.

No, sorry - the second most intellectually challenged Cabinet we've ever had, it's so easy to forget that Liz Truss had a Cabinet!

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Starmer's arch of the establishment advisorsMandelson and Blair were mentioned more times in Epstaein's ledger, than the principal fall guy Andrew, is this a case of deflection away from what the media and the establishment is seeking to happen?

A case of don't look here just look at what this already discredited guy has done?

 

[Barbe bleu 832]

8 hours ago, king canary said:

 I'm all for our Prime Ministers being as blandly competent as possible.

I'm edging towards this for the next election, a period of relative silence would be welcome.   

Not sure I'd want all our future prime ministers to be bland though. There must be  sense of purpose about the agenda they set and they must lead the nation in achieving those aims, and its difficult to lead in today's society if you are practically invisible.

Let the civil servants be blandly competent, elected politicians need something different, or what's the point of them?

 

 

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm edging towards this for the next election, a period of relative silence would be welcome.   

Not sure I'd want all our future prime ministers to be bland though. There must be  sense of purpose about the agenda they set and they must lead the nation in achieving those aims, and its difficult to lead in today's society if you are practically invisible.

Let the civil servants be blandly competent, elected politicians need something different, or what's the point of them?

 

 

I think you're getting far too hung up on the 'blandly' component of the phrase 'blandly competent prime minister ' and ignoring the infinitely more important component 'competent'.

We have now endured 13 years of government without a competent Prime Minister and the damage to the country that has resulted is very clearly all around us - I would have thought that the point of having a competent PM, irrespective of the degree of his blandness or otherwise, would be blindingly obvious.

[Barbe bleu 832]

54 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I think you're getting far too hung up on the 'blandly' component of the phrase 'blandly competent prime minister ' and ignoring the infinitely more important component 'competent'.

We have now endured 13 years of government without a competent Prime Minister and the damage to the country that has resulted is very clearly all around us - I would have thought that the point of having a competent PM, irrespective of the degree of his blandness or otherwise, would be blindingly obvious.

The way I see it being a competent manager and a strong leader are subtly different things. Sometimes you need the one quality to come to the fore sometimes you need the other.

Generally I expect our elected politicians to fulfill the leadership role (setting  the strategic intent, enthusing the public and keeping the momentum going ) and leaving the day to day management to the civil service. In this model it is vital that civil servants, to whom the details are entrusted, that have the greater need to be 'competent'. Politicians need 'only' be clear in what is to be achieved, be able to delegate appropriately and know when to ask the right questions - they cannot possibly be all over everything in their remit

But..right now with fractures everywhere in society we need a bit of peace and quiet.  Being bland, boring or however you want to term it is, I feel, a positive asset for the time being, but in a few years time once the noise has settled I probably do want a strong leader to sell the idea of things like carbon reductions and being beige isn't going to be the best way to convince people to be green

 

 

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

10 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

The way I see it being a competent manager and a strong leader are subtly different things. Sometimes you need the one quality to come to the fore sometimes you need the other.

Of course they are different things but by no means mutually exclusive, and the point you keep missing, or perhaps I should say more accurately avoiding is that is competence is in itself important, at all levels actually.

Personally I find the prospect of Starmer as PM pretty uninspiring but as I think as @king canary was suggesting earlier he still represents a massive improvement over the shower of sh!t we've endured for the last 13 years and unless something totally unexpected happens then that is all that will count come the next GE |and probably the one after that as well!).

[Nuff Said 5,176]

10 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

 

We have now endured 13 years of government without a competent Prime Minister and the damage to the country that has resulted is very clearly all around us - I would have thought that the point of having a competent PM, irrespective of the degree of his blandness or otherwise, would be blindingly obvious.

Is the failure we’re seeing in our country caused by a lack of confidence though, or is it because the right wing philosophy of a low tax, low level of public service government just doesn’t work, at least to the level the British public desire?

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

11 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Is the failure we’re seeing in our country caused by a lack of confidence though, or is it because the right wing philosophy of a low tax, low level of public service government just doesn’t work, at least to the level the British public desire?

I'm assuming that you meant to say competence rather than confidence, if so then I think the answer is both.

Clearly this country would be in a much better state if we had had competent governance instead of being run by the corrupt and incompetent shower that have actually been there for the last 13 years.

But even so, I can't think of a low tax, minimal public service western economy that would deliver what the majority of the British people expect, and given that the Tories have actually managed to deliver a high tax, very low level of public services whilst promising the opposite I don't think that right wing philosophy is going to fly again here for a very long time, if ever.

Edited January 11 by Creative Midfielder

[sonyc 5,541]

4 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I'm assuming that you meant to say competence rather than confidence, if so then I think the answer is both.

Clearly this country would be in a much state if we had had competent governance instead of being run by the corrupt and incompetent shower that have actually been there for the last 13 years.

But even so, I can't think of a low tax, minimal public service western economy that would deliver what the majority of the British people expect, and given that the Tories have actually managed to deliver a high tax, very low level of public services whilst promising the opposite I don't think that right wing philosophy is going to fly again here for a very long time, if ever.

Strangely, have been discussing low tax policy during my morning dog walk!.....and I came to the conclusion that the low tax mantra of the Tories is one of, if not the biggest thing, that needs challenging.  Hearing those words ought to ring alarm bells. We've transferred public services like water to private companies because of the sheer investment needs in the sector. Give it to the private sector to generate profits, pay the little people off with some minor shareholdings.  Decades later, the results are showing themselves. 

We need to pay for services for the greater good and there needs to be a narrative (don't like that word but it seems apt) and an understanding why tax is so important. The trouble is that high tax and spend is used as a stick to beat up Labour. Yet, you can't invest without paying for something. We cannot continue a 'fight to the bottom'. Unpopular but necessary. That's the integrity that's needed from politicians. In other words, the hard truth. It requires a new contract with voters, with the public. Like the kind of position you read about in some Scandinavian countries.

In fact, I might argue that being a low tax government is anathema - that such a statement (typically Hunt says it) shows that there is no intent to service the very basic public services the nation needs. Low tax is supposed to incentivise an entrepreneurial attitude, to grow and make money. To some extent I can see that but only if the proceeds of growth are redistributed.

Profits are not and it's become worse over the last decade. Income inequality has widened.

As you state too, this Tory party has the highest tax levels ever, coupled with swingeing cuts and austerity.

"Trusted with the economy"?  Don't make me laugh. As @horsefly has stated in another post, it's the sheer injustice that leads to real anger. And tax and how it is used (for what purpose) is an injustice.

And linked to the point above, watching the Post Office Inquiry now gives one a sense of how stooges (and agents) may have been used to protect capital and the higher establishment. Maybe it's the same all over the country in many institutions.

[TheGunnShow 5,994]

On 09/01/2024 at 17:44, Herman said:

 

Precisely. Also expect the Mail and Express to blow up everything UK-based and decry anything EU-related as a weak justification. Seen another hilarious one where Farage is now pretending to care about democracy in Poland when he was as quiet as a mouse on what was going on under the old PiS regime.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Starter already starting to row back on his non-dom pledge. The guy is establishment to the core.

Anyone thinking we're going to get anything significantly different from the current shower is in for a shock I'm afraid. It might be wrapped up in a more outwardly looking competent exterior, but he'll do what Knights of the Realm have done for centuries and fight gallantly for the elite.

Policy-wise there will be little difference between a Starmer government and a Sunak Premiership. He's even hinted that the only issue with the Rwanda policy is the destination. 

[KiwiScot 1,460]

I didn't realise he was 61. How many terms will he have in him.

[KiwiScot 1,460]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68289460

People are thinking people who attended the meeting, but didn't speak should be banned from labour.

[Herman 9,823]

It's looking like they are trying to rerun the 2019 election. 

[KiwiScot 1,460]

Labour MPs rumbling has started.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/21/how-keir-starmer-averted-gaza-ceasefire-vote-crisis

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

You guys used to joke about Boris hiding in a fridge. Yesterday we had the unedifying sight of the Speaker hiding in thee Commons stationary cupboard and letting his deputy take the flak. All because he kow towed to Starmer's monarchical demands to have his own way in the chamber and be damned to centuries of precedent. 

So we are not going to get a competent PM after the next election. We are going to get a dictator who is not afraid to ride roughshod over democratic processes and bully servants of the crown into submission.  And all on display before he gets his hands on power.  The sheer arrogance of the man!  Starmer is a thug  in a suit and tie as will be revealed in all its nastiness after the next election. 

[TheGunnShow 5,994]

Except Ann Widdecombe agreed with Hoyle.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Except Ann Widdecombe agreed with Hoyle.

I can hear a barrel being scraped, Gunny. 

[TheGunnShow 5,994]

Just now, Rock The Boat said:

I can hear a barrel being scraped, Gunny. 

With your fingernails.

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

You guys used to joke about Boris hiding in a fridge. Yesterday we had the unedifying sight of the Speaker hiding in thee Commons stationary cupboard and letting his deputy take the flak. All because he kow towed to Starmer's monarchical demands to have his own way in the chamber and be damned to centuries of precedent. 

So we are not going to get a competent PM after the next election. We are going to get a dictator who is not afraid to ride roughshod over democratic processes and bully servants of the crown into submission.  And all on display before he gets his hands on power.  The sheer arrogance of the man!  Starmer is a thug  in a suit and tie as will be revealed in all its nastiness after the next election. 

Are you for real? All this from a party that illegally prorogued parliament lying to the then Queen in the process.

I can't see what SKS has done wrong and Hoyle's actions (within his remit) were surely those of good intention (and indeed has the support of several of the rational Tories). Sometimes any Speaker has to make fine calls - he offered more choice not less!. 

I can smell pure humbug here.

Edited February 22 by Yellow Fever

[canarydan23 4,060]

A journalist summed it up when they said they received a text from an unnamed Tory MP, "We're nowhere near as angry as we're pretending to be"!

Even **** twonk Jacob Rees-Mogg understood the move. And if Hoyle was hiding, he didn't do a very good job of it considering he soon fronted up to the Commons later in the day.

RTB is a lunatic.

[Well b back 3,277]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

You guys used to joke about Boris hiding in a fridge. Yesterday we had the unedifying sight of the Speaker hiding in thee Commons stationary cupboard and letting his deputy take the flak. All because he kow towed to Starmer's monarchical demands to have his own way in the chamber and be damned to centuries of precedent. 

So we are not going to get a competent PM after the next election. We are going to get a dictator who is not afraid to ride roughshod over democratic processes and bully servants of the crown into submission.  And all on display before he gets his hands on power.  The sheer arrogance of the man!  Starmer is a thug  in a suit and tie as will be revealed in all its nastiness after the next election. 

Are we talking about Starmer or Trump ?

[Well b back 3,277]

RTB is like a binner on the forum, disappearing and suddenly reappearing when they get 1 result.

[Yellow Fever 3,825]

9 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

A journalist summed it up when they said they received a text from an unnamed Tory MP, "We're nowhere near as angry as we're pretending to be"!

Yes - It's pure manufactured humbug.

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

I think we all need a moment to take in the statement below, we live in curious times.

 

[sonyc 5,541]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Are you for real? All this from a party that illegally prorogued parliament lying to the then Queen in the process.

I can't see what SKS has done wrong and Hoyle's actions (within his remit) were surely those of good intention (and indeed has the support of several of the rational Tories). Sometimes any Speaker has to make fine calls - he offered more choice not less!. 

I can smell pure humbug here.

I thought HIGNFY summed it up about right...