keir starmer; Our future Prime Minister?

[cambridgeshire canary 7,697]

Just for a little fun let's see what you think. What do you think the odds are of Keir being in number 10 this time next year?

 

[TheGunnShow 7,254]

He should be. If you're politically very much a rump Tory then I'll understand why you stick for them, but I really can't see them winning a GE at the moment. 

[sonyc 6,143]

He will be I'm confident of that. But he will be just another one of the establishment and I'm wondering if he will truly represent an even bigger number or people than existed 14 years ago. I very much doubt it. 

Then, any change from the appalling shower this country has had in recent years especially is welcome. It will be the so called 'oil tanker' of a job to try and turn round the mess we've got into. And again, I doubt it will be possible. The best we can hope for is investment in communities and a more redistributive government. I will be voting for them and it will possibly be the first time in over 45 years that I will have voted a winning party in. But I will do so because of the FPTP system we have and the best chance to unseat another Tory, not because it's the radical change I want to see. It will be Tory-lite and to all posters who feel the two main parties are quite similar I tend to agree.

If I don't vote then I've no real case to criticise whoever gets in and I expect I will be doing that anyway. Westminster lets everyone down when it comes to it. 

Hopefully with Labour they will govern without the same nepotism, cronyism, chaos, incompetence and sheer nastiness.

 

Edited January 23 by sonyc

[A Load of Squit 6,205]

13 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Just for a little fun let's see what you think. What do you think the odds are of Keir being in number 10 this time next year?

 

Labour 1/8

Con 15/2

 

[Fen Canary 1,450]

He’ll win the election quite comfortably, but I feel it’s almost by default. I don’t think there’s any great affection for Starmer or that’s he’s particularly popular, it’s just that the Tories are such a shambles almost anybody Labour put forward would be guaranteed a large majority. There’s certainly not the excitement or feeling of upcoming change there was with Blair 

[Fen Canary 1,450]

On 24/01/2024 at 08:14, sonyc said:

He will be I'm confident of that. But he will be just another one of the establishment and I'm wondering if he will truly represent an even bigger number or people than existed 14 years ago. I very much doubt it. 

Then, any change from the appalling shower this country has had in recent years especially is welcome. It will be the so called 'oil tanker' of a job to try and turn round the mess we've got into. And again, I doubt it will be possible. The best we can hope for is investment in communities and a more redistributive government. I will be voting for them and it will possibly be the first time in over 45 years that I will have voted a winning party in. But I will do so because of the FPTP system we have and the best chance to unseat another Tory, not because it's the radical change I want to see. It will be Tory-lite and to all posters who feel the two main parties are quite similar I tend to agree.

If I don't vote then I've no real case to criticise whoever gets in and I expect I will be doing that anyway. Westminster lets everyone down when it comes to it. 

Hopefully with Labour they will govern without the same nepotism, cronyism, chaos, incompetence and sheer nastiness.

 

What would be your usual party out of interest? I’ve always found my political leanings never really match up to any party in particular, so my vote swings wildly depending on what I think is the most pressing issue at the time. I tend to lean slightly left economically and slightly right culturally, which obviously neither main party does. The closest for me would probably be the SDP but they’re so small it’s essentially a wasted vote by going for them unfortunately 

[sonyc 6,143]

11 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

What would be your usual party out of interest? I’ve always found my political leanings never really match up to any party in particular, so my vote swings wildly depending on what I think is the most pressing issue at the time. I tend to lean slightly left economically and slightly right culturally, which obviously neither main party does. The closest for me would probably be the SDP but they’re so small it’s essentially a wasted vote by going for them unfortunately 

No party matches me. Closest would be Green - probably. A bit of Labour (not centre), a bit of Liberal Democrat. No usual party I guess but I've never voted Tory...I have worked with many in the past though (locally). I have found Tory MPs more belonging to the establishment and I suppose I'm back to the class thing. My roots are very lowly and I dislike folk who look down on others.

Although educated and worked hard throughout my career I don't have a thing for status or money. So that feeds into my own take on the world. I also find the left of centre more idealistic and that's me really too, in all walks of life.  I see the best in people, care a lot about them (as a huge introvert I rarely show it but a compassion runs deep for people). I think there are a load of people who think much the same as me. The Tories have hoodwinked so many with an individualist ideology. Very successful at it.

Yet, I don't see the point or argument that folk lift themselves out of poverty through their own will. Of course some do. I did. Many posters on this forum will have done . But it's not an argument for the Tory position that one hears that convinces me. To then blame folk (or do it via the benefits system) as somehow undeserving seems a very poor policy.

The 'system' as a whole has led to huge inequalities in different parts of the country....And what is the real benefit of the pauperisation of whole parts of the UK? If you don't invest in areas you actually build poverty. What long term benefit to us all is that?!

 

 

 

 

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yet, I don't see the point or argument that folk lift themselves out of poverty through their own will. Of course some do. I did. Many posters on this forum will have done . But it's not an argument for the Tory position that one hears that convinces me. To then blame folk (or do it via the benefits system) as somehow undeserving seems a very poor policy.

Thanks SC - I can agree with alt of that but my only two-penneth is that I do expect people to at least try to help themselves i.e. be presentable & prepared to take and stick at a job. I have no concerns about people who need help and benefits (disaster could happen to any of us - even Trump it seems) but we all owe something back to the community in that case even if it's charity work.

, 

[sonyc 6,143]

8 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Thanks SC - I can agree with alt of that but my only two-penneth is that I do expect people to at least try to help themselves i.e. be presentable & prepared to take and stick at a job. I have no concerns about people who need help and benefits (disaster could happen to any of us - even Trump it seems) but we all owe something back to the community in that case even if it's charity work.

, 

Agree 100% YF.

I actually have little time for folk who don't help themselves, believe it or not. I like hard workers too. But I just don't then castigate a whole load of folk en masse because of a few idol b******s and support a party (or parties) who build policies around the so-called idol poor. I think it's actually a myth and you'd see a lot of people who've fallen though safety nets if you come up to say Bradford or Keighley - some folk have multiple problems (mental health, poor upbringing, domestic violence at home, homelessness, unstable backgrounds or they've had PTSD from their life experiences....and so on). You don't normally sleep in a tent outside as a lifestyle choice! 

Piaget would say something like "give me a child up to the age of 7 and I will give you the man". Or was it Aristotle? Anyway, if you speak to some headteachers (inner city )they'll tell you some children are going to primary schools who are pre verbal! They've not been read to or spoken much at home. The heads will tell you their job is impossible.

Anyway.....it's grim and a truly sad subject. And we are not living in workhouse Victorian Britain and nor is it 1924 but 2024.

We need to find a way to have more preventative and early intervention policies not punitive social policy. 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,277]

He'll be a one-term PM and then a hard right Tory/Reform coalition will win in 2030 or whenever thr next election after this one is.

Without radical change the same issues will blight Starmer as what have the Tories (low growth, Brexit, immigration, climate getting worse, high tax, privatised under-perfoming public services, social care staffing and funding). These are neoliberal problems, not Tory/Labour problems. Without an enormous wealth tax and a huge shift in inequality we are heading for a very right wing government sooner or later. As is much of the western world to be fair. Then, a war, and then a reset.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

hoping for Godot. A committed Zionist Christian to run the country? good luck with that.

[king canary 8,644]

On 29/01/2024 at 08:04, Fen Canary said:

He’ll win the election quite comfortably, but I feel it’s almost by default. I don’t think there’s any great affection for Starmer or that’s he’s particularly popular, it’s just that the Tories are such a shambles almost anybody Labour put forward would be guaranteed a large majority. There’s certainly not the excitement or feeling of upcoming change there was with Blair 

Interesting I saw someone posting newspaper clippings from 96/97 where the same arguments were made about Blair.

[dylanisabaddog 5,990]

On 29/01/2024 at 08:04, Fen Canary said:

He’ll win the election quite comfortably, but I feel it’s almost by default. I don’t think there’s any great affection for Starmer or that’s he’s particularly popular, it’s just that the Tories are such a shambles almost anybody Labour put forward would be guaranteed a large majority. There’s certainly not the excitement or feeling of upcoming change there was with Blair 

I understand what you're saying and I agree but what troubles me is that I continually hear that Starmer has no charisma. We've had years of lies, deceit and corruption and right now I couldn't care less about charisma, I just want honesty. A bit of intelligence would be good too. 

I'm hoping for a huge Labour majority. There are still nut jobs on the left of the party who will hold Starmer to ransom if the majority is small, in much the same way as the extreme right wing has done with the Tories. 

It would also be nice to have some MPs with a brain. Freeman of mid Norfolk has today announced that he can't afford to pay his mortgage on a ministerial salary in excess of £120k. Apparently he is surprised at the public attitude to this announcement. What on earth did he think people were going to say? 

Sadly, this country is now in such a mess that I can't see things turning round for another 15 years. 

[sonyc 6,143]

51 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sadly, this country is now in such a mess that I can't see things turning round for another 15 years

I believe so. Areas have struggled though since the late 60s and 70s as local industries floundered leaving behind industrial wastelands, a lack of purpose and skills sets that were not updated through the education system. It has been a 50 year decline at least and arguably has accelerated in the last 10 years. It has been astonishing to witness first hand and also very sad. I think your 15 years is extremely optimistic (and I like optimism) and I wonder if it might even take something catastrophic like a big war to force a rebuild.

It depends on the electoral system too naturally. Our adversarial style is so antiquated and doesn't lead to the kind of politics needed to solve deep structural problems in the UK. It needs careful long term planning and collegiate working. To hear politicians simply score points and to watch how our Commons works is sickening really. Yah Boo....even the scrutiny committees seem to be losing some of their power. The examples in Scotland and Wales always look and sound better. Perhaps it's just Westminster that is a sad spectacle. There are some decent MPs.

However, I have the same hopes as you about intelligence and competence in any new government...Some serious people who might take a long term view.

[canarydan23 4,699]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Interesting I saw someone posting newspaper clippings from 96/97 where the same arguments were made about Blair.

Blair certainly won by default; the Tories were the walking dead well before the 1997 general election. John Smith was enjoying 20 point opinion poll leads when he died. It's a tragedy that doesn't really get talked about enough given its pretty far-reaching consequences. Had he stayed around, Labour would still have enjoyed a landslide in 1997 and probably have kept the vast majority of the voters who gave him it with him rather than driving 3 million votes away.

I suspect Starmer will do an almost identical thing and get a landslide before his time in office bleeds support. The only advantage he does have is that people were energised and excited at the prospect of a reforming Labour which may have fueled a greater level of disappointment when it did very little to change and actually kept some of the most long-term damaging Tory ideas (PFI, anyone?). There's no excitement or expectation about Starmer, the prevailing anyone-but-blue tide will carry him home. At least New Labour bought in Sure Start and the minimum wage.

John Smith's heart-attack ****ed this country more than Boris Johnson and his cronies.

[dylanisabaddog 5,990]

4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Blair certainly won by default; the Tories were the walking dead well before the 1997 general election. John Smith was enjoying 20 point opinion poll leads when he died. It's a tragedy that doesn't really get talked about enough given its pretty far-reaching consequences. Had he stayed around, Labour would still have enjoyed a landslide in 1997 and probably have kept the vast majority of the voters who gave him it with him rather than driving 3 million votes away.

I suspect Starmer will do an almost identical thing and get a landslide before his time in office bleeds support. The only advantage he does have is that people were energised and excited at the prospect of a reforming Labour which may have fueled a greater level of disappointment when it did very little to change and actually kept some of the most long-term damaging Tory ideas (PFI, anyone?). There's no excitement or expectation about Starmer, the prevailing anyone-but-blue tide will carry him home. At least New Labour bought in Sure Start and the minimum wage.

John Smith's heart-attack ****ed this country more than Boris Johnson and his cronies.

Spot on. Smith was a wonderful man. 

The other major turning point was the Trade Unions picking the wrong Milliband. 

And perhaps the fact that no one in the Labour Party had the guts or ability to persuade Gordon Brown that he was a Chancellor but not a Prime Minister. 

[king canary 8,644]

8 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I suspect Starmer will do an almost identical thing and get a landslide before his time in office bleeds support.

I'm sure this is what will happen because it is basically the same thing that happens with every government over time. 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

maybe the great white knight Starmer wants to follow his fellow party members and sign the EDM 61654/177, now that the International Court of Justice ruled that thye war crimes are real, that the right to defend Israel is not related to cutting of water and electricity,or with bombing civilians, mainly women and young children.

I thunk that a GE should have international observers present in council offices and at the ballot boxes that records of imtimidation are taken and postal votes are checked and ratified.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61654

Edited January 31 by nevermind, neoliberalism has had it

[Fen Canary 1,450]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I understand what you're saying and I agree but what troubles me is that I continually hear that Starmer has no charisma. We've had years of lies, deceit and corruption and right now I couldn't care less about charisma, I just want honesty. A bit of intelligence would be good too. 

I'm hoping for a huge Labour majority. There are still nut jobs on the left of the party who will hold Starmer to ransom if the majority is small, in much the same way as the extreme right wing has done with the Tories. 

It would also be nice to have some MPs with a brain. Freeman of mid Norfolk has today announced that he can't afford to pay his mortgage on a ministerial salary in excess of £120k. Apparently he is surprised at the public attitude to this announcement. What on earth did he think people were going to say? 

Sadly, this country is now in such a mess that I can't see things turning round for another 15 years. 

It’s not charisma I was referring to, more that he’s been in charge for years now and still nobody knows what he actually stands for or what he believes in. He’s changed his policies numerous times already and he’s not even in power yet where unfortunately compromise is often necessary. To me I trust him as much as I did Johnson, he’s just much less brazen about it

[littleyellowbirdie 3,103]

2 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

maybe the great white knight Starmer wants to follow his fellow party members and sign the EDM 61654/177, now that the International Court of Justice ruled that thye war crimes are real, that the right to defend Israel is not related to cutting of water and electricity,or with bombing civilians, mainly women and young children.

I thunk that a GE should have international observers present in council offices and at the ballot boxes that records of imtimidation are taken and postal votes are checked and ratified.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61654

The ICJ has not ruled that Israel has committed war crimes regarding South Africa's accusations against Israel. It has merely ruled the case sufficiently plausible to be fully heard.

[canarydan23 4,699]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

I'm sure this is what will happen because it is basically the same thing that happens with every government over time. 

Not really, the UK public tend to be kind to governments in their first term, Attlee, Wilson and Cameron all added votes after the public had a chance to see them in office, Thatcher only lost a few hundred thousand.

Blair lost 3 million. I suspect Johnson would have lost more but thankfully we won't get the chance to see it.

There is an alternative reality somewhere that saw John Smith govern for three terms, potentially handing over to an untainted Blair with experience of high office, where we didn't involve ourselves in Iraq, have a proper, written constitution and a Tory Party that was dragged left in a similar way to how Thatcher encouraged Blair to drag Labour right.

Edited January 31 by canarydan23

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

foregone conclusion that Labour will win the next election. Then they will face the same issues the Tories currently face and they will deal with those issues with pretty much the same policies as the Tories which means that the outcome will be similar. I predict Starmer's ratings will be through the floor within twelve months and he will be facing a left wing leadership challenge.

Reform is up to 14% in polls. However, a recent YouGov poll found 20% said they look favourably on a Reform-led government, so I expect that 14% could rise a couple of points by the time of the election and that might give them a few seats, and they will be real challengers in two elections from now as there will be no need for Tory-lite party and last we will have a real Conservative government.

[dylanisabaddog 5,990]

2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

foregone conclusion that Labour will win the next election. Then they will face the same issues the Tories currently face and they will deal with those issues with pretty much the same policies as the Tories which means that the outcome will be similar. I predict Starmer's ratings will be through the floor within twelve months and he will be facing a left wing leadership challenge.

Reform is up to 14% in polls. However, a recent YouGov poll found 20% said they look favourably on a Reform-led government, so I expect that 14% could rise a couple of points by the time of the election and that might give them a few seats, and they will be real challengers in two elections from now as there will be no need for Tory-lite party and last we will have a real Conservative government.

You're in for a disappointment. Reform won't win any seats in the forthcoming general election. 

[Fen Canary 1,450]

12 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Not really, the UK public tend to be kind to governments in their first term, Attlee, Wilson and Cameron all added votes after the public had a chance to see them in office, Thatcher only lost a few hundred thousand.

Blair lost 3 million. I suspect Johnson would have lost more but thankfully we won't get the chance to see it.

There is an alternative reality somewhere that saw John Smith govern for three terms, potentially handing over to an untainted Blair with experience of high office, where we didn't involve ourselves in Iraq, have a proper, written constitution and a Tory Party that was dragged left in a similar way to how Thatcher encouraged Blair to drag Labour right.

I don’t get the fascination with a written constitution. To me they simply lock in the values of the time and then make it incredibly hard to change as society alters, Americas gun laws or Irelands battles for divorce abortion being prime examples.

I much prefer the British system whereby the elected government is largely free to pursue its policies, as long as it can carry a majority of parliament. These can then be repealed at the subsequent election by the current electorate if they prove unpopular.

I’d hate for the government of the day to be hamstrung by the opinions of a society that’s long since disappeared 

[Fen Canary 1,450]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You're in for a disappointment. Reform won't win any seats in the forthcoming general election. 

I can see another UKIP situation whereby they win over 10% of the vote but fail to win a seat due to the geographical spread of their support 

[canarydan23 4,699]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

I don’t get the fascination with a written constitution. To me they simply lock in the values of the time and then make it incredibly hard to change as society alters, Americas gun laws or Irelands battles for divorce abortion being prime examples.

I much prefer the British system whereby the elected government is largely free to pursue its policies, as long as it can carry a majority of parliament. These can then be repealed at the subsequent election by the current electorate if they prove unpopular.

I’d hate for the government of the day to be hamstrung by the opinions of a society that’s long since disappeared 

I think you're opinion has been understandably clouded by the American experience. A British constitution would only need to provide a broad-brush overview of society's values. That they reflect them at the time they are written is absolutely correct and not a drawback. A manifesto pledge followed by a general election victory would be sufficient to remove or amend part of the constitution. The constitution could make that a requirement, so any clandestine behaviour from duplicitous politicians who pledge things just for votes and then abandons it all when they get power (sadly it would only work at government level and wouldn't present the rank dishonesty the thread's titular subject in the leadership election) would be stamped out; the Supreme Court and/or a democratically representative second chamber would have the authority to block any unconstitutional legislation that wasn't previously pledged.

Our politicians have consistently proven that they are not fit to wield the power they have, diluting it is a good thing.

Anyway, it's a pipe dream, along with PR; the majority of our MPs are power-hungry narcissists, on all sides of the House, so they won't vote anything that might limit their sway. And the lack of a written constitution allows them to do so.

Edited February 1 by canarydan23

[king canary 8,644]

16 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Not really, the UK public tend to be kind to governments in their first term, Attlee, Wilson and Cameron all added votes after the public had a chance to see them in office, Thatcher only lost a few hundred thousand.

Blair lost 3 million. I suspect Johnson would have lost more but thankfully we won't get the chance to see it.

There is an alternative reality somewhere that saw John Smith govern for three terms, potentially handing over to an untainted Blair with experience of high office, where we didn't involve ourselves in Iraq, have a proper, written constitution and a Tory Party that was dragged left in a similar way to how Thatcher encouraged Blair to drag Labour right.

I'd say those numbers lack some context.

Attlee may have added more votes but he lost vote share and lost a huge amount of seats, to the extent he was out of power a year later.

Blair lost votes from 97-2001 but this was mainly due to a much lower turnout- the Tories vote numbers also went down and both parties saw minimal change in vote share. 

[king canary 8,644]

3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I can see another UKIP situation whereby they win over 10% of the vote but fail to win a seat due to the geographical spread of their support 

I don't think Reform will do that well. Stephen Bush from the FT who is out talking to voters has been pretty good on this in that those who say they will vote for reform in online polls don't show up on the doorstep or on phone polls. 

[canarydan23 4,699]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'd say those numbers lack some context.

Attlee may have added more votes but he lost vote share and lost a huge amount of seats, to the extent he was out of power a year later.

Blair lost votes from 97-2001 but this was mainly due to a much lower turnout- the Tories vote numbers also went down and both parties saw minimal change in vote share. 

Number of votes is the number of votes. And lower turnout was indicative of the disappointment of his four years in office.

And for context, Attlee added both votes AND vote share in between 1950 and 1951, it's only because of our utterly **** "democracy" that he was out of power. In fact, in 1951 no candidate had ever received more votes than Attlee, and wouldn't again until Major in 1992 when the population was 15% larger. And he didn't win the election. Democracy, ladies and gentleman.

[king canary 8,644]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

And lower turnout was indicative of the disappointment of his four years in office.

I'm not sure that stacks up to be honest- it doesn't really explain why voter turnout and voter numbers dropped across all three parties. If it was driven solely by disappointment in Labour you'd expect to see other parties numbers increasing. I'd argue it was more one of those elections where the country felt reasonably prosperous, the economy was going well and a result that felt like a forgone conclusion.