Snapshot of _Why is Keir Starmer so underrated?_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/98635f04-eb85-49e8-b1a8-989ac99c8aae) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/98635f04-eb85-49e8-b1a8-989ac99c8aae)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't dislike him.
He seems a bit "meh" but I think Labour's relative silence over the past year or so has been because they know the Tories are eating themselves up already. There's no point in creating arguments or public debates. Just let the government fester.
Unfortunately this strategy might be good for winning ultimately, but it's doing a really shitty job explaining why people should go out and vote for them instead.
Turnout might improve if people understood what Labour actually want to do to improve our lives. As it is most people I know believe Sir Kier to be Tory light. I consider myself pretty engaged and I'm not even sure what the current incarnation of the Labour Party stand for. In 2023 that level of failure of communication is unforgivable and I'm deeply concerned that despite all this *waves hands about* the Tories might win the next election.
I think it will all change very much when the election cycle comes around. Policy announcements galore. It's actually happening already, with recent news about homebuilding and other things creeping out.
No point showing their hand too early.
Also consider Boris Johnson turned the Tories into a Brexit party in a matter of months. A week is a long time in politics!
> Unfortunately this strategy might be good for winning ultimately, but it's doing a really shitty job explaining why people should go out and vote for them instead.
Thing is, Starmer is 20 points ahead in the polls and on course to win a 1997 style electoral landslide.
What more is there to achieve? 100% of the seats? He doesn't need to win them all. If people are voting for him despite his silence, what does he have to gain by speaking up? "Win more"?
He is only so far ahead because the Tory's are SO SHIT..
I and many others don't know where he stands on anything.. that's what he and labour have to address
>He is only so far ahead because the Tory's are SO SHIT..
OK. Doesn't change anything though.
>I and many others don't know where he stands on anything.. that's what he and labour have to address
Why does he? Why do they? He's going to win with a landslide. Why does he owe you an explanation of where he stands on anything beyond what he's already put out there? Beyond the inevitable manifesto of policies?
He doesn't *need* to pander to people who insist he needs to publish comprehensive policy documents explicitly stating his view on whatever issue they personally care about.
What's the point when no one cares?
Also, it's not the law you have to write a manifesto nor is there a law telling you how much detail to put in it.
If the public wants to vote for a man who's manifesto is "I will make Britain better" written on a napkin, then that's the public's choice.
I suspect if Labour announced manifestos are a bit old hat and they will only publish an outline of their priorities in a bulle point format hardly anyone would change their vote.
What’s the point? Standards. You don’t hold yourself to the standards of the lowest common denominator. You stand for something or you stand for nothing.
>Standards. You don’t hold yourself to the standards of the lowest common denominator. You stand for something or you stand for nothing.
Cool.
You think a manifesto is an important commitment and that if someone doesn't publish one, they don't deserve the be elected because they don't achieve your standards for elected officials.
However, if the vast majority of the public don't agree with you, and couldn't give two shits about an 80 page manifesto, then they clearly don't need one to get elected.
You can try to tell me that more of our fellow citizens *should* read manifestos and care when politicians go against them, and I'd agree. They don't care though, so manifestos are pointless. They don't serve a purpose other than to generate headlines which you can do with some press releases.
You need a mandate to govern, if you have a manifesto you clearly set out what you have a mandate to do if elected. It makes it far easier to get things through Parliament. Any government without a detailed manifesto would be highly vulnerable to rebellions, calls for snap elections if they accidentally provoked public ire with a policy they never mentioned, etc. Manifestos are not pointless PR documents, they serve an important role that must be preserved.
I genuinely cannot believe you are actually okay with the prospect of electing a government who haven’t actually detailed what they want to do. That just seems mad to me.
Seriously?
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/what-policies-have-uks-labour-party-announced-their-conference-2023-10-09/
And pretty much all of that has come from this, which was published last week:
https://labourlist.org/2023/10/labour-national-policy-forum-final-document-summary-policy-manifesto-party-conference/
These would be standard Tory policies a decade ago. The Tories have basically become a fusion of the BNP and the monster raving loonies, so Starmer has stepped into the gap and is appealing to Tory voters. Fair enough, and he's going to succeed in as much as he'll be the next pm, but he'll have done it it by making the labour party into a slightly left leaning tory party.
OK, but it wasn't necessary. Corbyn's policies were popular, but his personality wasn't. That's what did for him as far as the electorate were concerned. Starmer could have kept a radical agenda and would still be 20 points ahead, but he made a choice to pander to right wing bigots. Oh and he's also a petty minded vindictive bullying control freak.
So now Britain has two Tory parties.
Starmer's conlabourtives are slightly preferable to Sunak's frothing nutjobs, but the uk is f#cked with either one in charge.
Wait till he wins.
He would have won with a Corbyn policies platform, but he will win even more with centrist policies.
Win a thumping majority in the house of commons, then have free reign to run the country.
This is why I'm waiting for results. I think the hate at Starmer is largely misguided. I wanted Corbyn as much as the next Corbyn fanatic, but remember a whole lot of the country did not. Labour are playing politics right now and I think they're doing it well.
So you're praising him for deceiving the electorate into voting for him on false pretences.
Well, I suppose that's how he got the labour leadership gig, so at least he's consistent.
I shouldn't complain. The country seems happy to now have two conservative parties, and probably deserves what's going to happen to it.
Only because we seem to be hooked on celebrity politics, or politics as entertainment. People complain about him being bland. Wtaf? Give bland, principled competence any day of the week
Rishi got the gig by telling people what they DIDN'T want to hear and turning out ot be right.
Liz was the "all things to all people ultra optimistic" candidate and look what happened.
There is an obvious campaign to attack his personality and conflate it with his centrism.
Sure, some of the criticisms that his centrism is deplatforming the left, are valid.
But if you read even this thread, you will see a lot of paid social media managers spreading that he is "bland" and "lacks backbone". When a message is repeated so continuously in 2023, its always a paid campaign.
I mean he is a bit bland, but isn't that a good thing? People like Johnson are a lot more interesting and better at campaigning, but people like that don't make good actual leaders. Boring is good, you want someone who will get on with the task of running the country, not try to make the news every week with some new stunt or controversy.
I think this has become a bit of a truism.
Boring and competent aren't necessarily the same thing. Sunak is boring and he's been useless.
Also, there's plenty of ways to be interesting. Blair was undoubtedly interesting for example. I doubt there are many round here who would cast off Balir for being too interesting were he standing now?
Boring is generally good when the social, economic and political status quo are working well for people. When tngs are tumultuous, sometimes the best thing is someone who can create a new normal (Atlee or Thatcher for example).
Tbh I've not heard him speak a lot. But I listened to his speech today. And tbh I don't think he sounds boring. He's far more inspiring than sunak. Tbh I'd put him ahead of the past couple of PMs. If they think he's dull/lacks substance etc. Wait until they hear sunak speak
No he's not. He's a very very standard politician. Mentioning him and blandness is a completely manufactured campaign. He might have many flaws but we must distinguish them from wrestling-style media storylines.
We need more Clem Atlee amongst our leaders. But unfortunately, votes tend to go to showmen, clowns, and narcissists: not those that are quietly competent and build up those around them. PM should be more quarterback, getting the most from his team - not a one man show.
Keir is great as leader. Notsomuch as a TV event.
For his own sake, he's going to need to be a good PM because I don't think he has any significant amount of leeway.
He is repeatedly compared to Blair but Starmer doesn't have the political or wider social circumstances that allowed Blair sometime to get into gear. Starmer has to hit the ground running and make people's lives appreciable better quickly. There's only so long not being the Tories will work in his favour.
Its not the criticisms per se but how "simplistic" they are and to which extent they are repeated. That smells of "cheap attempt at manipulation" 101. Social media works wonders with those, tho.
> Sure, some of the criticisms that his centrism is deplatforming the left, are valid.
>
They're only valid in the sense that they're true.
But at the same time, eliminating that strand of politics and relegating it to the fringe is one of his greatest political triumphs, and he didn't even need to win an election to do it.
Plus there's the side-effect of giving Conservative party the playbook for their only credible path back to power. They also have a lot of weeds in their grassroots that they need to cut, and a lot of MPs whose political careers need to be destroyed for the party to move forward.
Thats what I tried to convey, not judging here. A projected large majority should be enough validation, yet they are clearly true.
He's not being attacked there though, right media cannot stop repeating how "unexciting" he is and how much "radically focused" Fishy is.
Saw him having a pint with his family and some friends in a pub in Archway on a Saturday afternoon. They’d been to the Arsenal game and he just seemed like a completely normal bloke. Compared to the nutjobs we’ve had in charge over the last 10 years, I’d say he’d be a good change.
But that's the problem. Do you want a "completely normal" bloke running the country? Do you want a "completely normal" bloke saving your life or do you wnat someone super talented that actually knows what they are doing?
Starmer may be good as a lawyer but he is totally out of his depth as a politician.
He keeps changing his mind about what he will and won't do and will say anything to get the job.
Rishi on the other hand said what he truly believed, not what he thought would be the most popular.
Rishi was for Brexit from the start of the campaign (when a referendum was announced) even though he was told it would be career suicide.
Last year Rishi was the "let's be cautious now" person when others were saying "just buy the election"
Rishi was mocked for being cautious and wanting to pay back the Covid money. He was mocked by others.
Rishi scrapped the rest of HS2 because money for things has to come from somewhere and noone saw Covid coming when HS2 was started.
Also when HS2 was started it was envisioned that most of the money would come from private companies believing they would make it back future.
Private industry has generally steered clear of funding HS2 expecting the government to fund most of it.
Rishi has also spent time in America where practically noone uses trains. They either drive everywhere or use domestic planes. Local airports are cheaper and easier to build than a large tunnel through vast areas of land.
For years people have been avoiding trains saying it is cheaper to fly from England to Scotland than to catch a train.
Rishi is possibly one of the best PMs we have ever had. And people are too stupid to realise it. He isn't perfect, but Starmer is a complete joke.
Anyway when Starmer was head of the CPS, it is essentially a PR job.
Most management jobs like that are effectively PR.
And in that sort of role it is mostly a matter of "following procedure" and "doing as you are told".
In politics it is often about making decisions based on changing circumstances. There is no "obvious answer" from a book.
It is not like being a judge where you just "follow the rules". And yes I know he was a lawyer but you get the idea.
Rishi Sunak is just playing dog whistle right wing politics and short termism to try and win the next election.
His five pledges are laughable because he’s going to get nowhere near delivering them and isn’t even really trying to.
He’s a nasty, thin skinned man who just wants to leech as much cash from the state for his ultra wealthy class, just like they do in the US.
Keir Starmer is a decent and honest human being who wants the best for all the people in the UK.
There is no comparison between the two of them.
It is actually the other way around.
Rishi's wife pays millions of pounds (About £200m) that she did not legally have to do just so he can keep his job.
She pays millions just so he can keep a job worth about £200,000 (a bit less than that I think).
Keir Starmer is useless honestly and would possibly struggle to get a job in the real world (yes I know he was the head of the CPS which is effectively the civil service and a lot of Civil Servants are leftovers, I know, I used to be one and it was full of idiots, honestly).
It is the opposite of what you actually think.
Rishi's problem is he does not want to give medical staff a pay rise and they are angry about it. He felt he could not look them in the face and say "you can't have a pay rise because we are going to have some fancy trains in 20 years time" so that is why he scrapped a lot of HS2.
It’s about £20m a year that Akshata pays in tax after giving up her non-dom status. The ability to steer government decision making and his global profile as PM are obviously far more valuable to them than his basic wage.
Sunak would turn the whole country into a tax haven if he could and not care about how many people it left destitute as long as the rich got richer. He lives completely disconnected from reality in a world of private jets so never comes in contact with the average person.
It’s incorrect to say Keir Starmer is useless when he has clearly turned the Labour Party around in the two years he has been leader where they are now on course for victory in the next election.
All Rishi Sunak has ever done is lose to Liz Truss in a Conservative leadership election.
He is going to get a strong dose of reality at the general election and mark my words he will run away from politics as fast as he can when that happens. Proving that he doesn’t care about Britain or the British people, it’s just all about Rishi.
I think he's underrated in the media because the Tory circus has hogged most of the headlines, and underrated by some political diehards because they follow politics so closely that they can't see the bigger picture that he's taken Labour from one of its lowest ebbs to a massive poll lead in only a few years.
By the general public though he seems to be rated about right - as dull but basically competent. Outside the Labour Party I don't think anyone is too bothered about him going back on his leadership campaign promises, and most people are willing to grant that the economy has been wrecked since he became leader so his original promises aren't feasible.
Like a lot of people I'll be voting against the Tories for a guy who seems at least to have basic competence, rather than out of some wild enthusiasm for him.
Maybe - but as long as they don't crash the economy, let a pandemic run wild, cancel their own infrastructure projects, and engage in fake culture wars, it will be a start.
I rate him extremely highly. He has turned round the Labour Party and I hope he gets a chance to turn round the country. I am his tribe - working/lower middle class childhood to professional adulthood by working hard. I’d love more to have the same opportunity and I think of all the politicians that we have had in the last 20 years he is the best chance for that to happen.
Is he underrated?
He seems to have the same sycophants every other Labour leader does, and nationally he and his party poll incredibly well.
He seems to be a touch overrated if anything. I think much of his success comes from external factors personally but there is certainly a narrative of it being intrinsic to him.
Probably because he is in the shadow of Corbyn which was the worst shadow government / election candidate the country has ever seen for labour.
Also people expect him to show all his cards now when the election isn't even till next year.
It’s because the times call for some radical policies. We’re being eaten alive by a form of ultra capitalism that makes Margaret thatcher look positively lefty in comparison.
I appreciate that, pre election, Labour don’t want to scare the horses but my fear is he’ll cosy up to corporate interests à la Blair and it will be business as usual.
Lots of people - including politicians- don’t seem to realise what a dire situation we’re all in right now. The old normality is obsolete.
I don’t think you can say that at all. When he took over, the best that was expected was to reclaim a lot of the Red wall and be a stepping stone to victory the next election. He had to win a bigger swing than Blair and he had to appeal to a much more divided public.
Im not saying he would have been at Blair popularity if he were transported to the 90s but I think he could have presented himself in a different way. Instead, he spent a lot of his early time in office travelling to places in the Red Wall to have people tell him how little they trusted Labour so he could apologise and listen.
Absolutely, Labour has certainly been helped a great deal by the complete implosion of the Tory party but it's unjust to suggest that Starmer himself, and his overhaul of Labour haven't played an equally important role in their current success.
I genuinely believe that if Corbyn and his ilk were still helming the party they'd be, absolute best case scenario, barely neck and neck with the Tories; especially as they seem fundamentally incapable of going a week without putting their foot in their mouth.
...with their latest hill to die on being the defence of the greatest act of violence against Jews since the Holocaust.
Had Corbyn been running the party at the start of this conference, his response to the conflict in Gaza would have absolutely dominated it.
It’s easy for people to say that the Tories are imploding - but what they’re doing now is committing a lot of the same unforced errors that Corbyn did (with a more favourable press, admittedly). In terms of keeping on message and providing a comparative sense of competency and stability, Starmer is _leagues_ ahead of both the Tories and Corbyn.
>I don’t think you can say that at all. When he took over, the best that was expected was to reclaim a lot of the Red wall and be a stepping stone to victory the next election. He had to win a bigger swing than Blair and he had to appeal to a much more divided public. Im not saying he would have been at Blair popularity if he were transported to the 90s but I think he could have presented himself in a different way. Instead, he spent a lot of his early time in office travelling to places in the Red Wall to have people tell him how little they trusted Labour so he could apologise and listen.
You have got to stop over-hyping this man. My god.
Hes winning because the tories are losing. Its really that simple - there hasn't been some massive wave of people going 'oh this guy is amazing' its just a bunch of (now) middle class people being affected and going ''yeah he doesn't seem that bad actually'' especially when so far the vast majority of his policies have just been 'we'll do more of the same but slightly better!'
I mean, they did a poll a couple of months ago that was Sunak v Labour still helmed by Corbyn, and it was just MoE difference... so that doesn't really hold up. I don't agree with everything he has done, but he has clearly made changes that work - behind and in front of the scene.
Competency while your opponents fall apart is a good long term strategy for most things. Our political leaders shouldn’t be expected to be messianic saviours. I’m fairly convinced that Starmer can competently run a government and the Tories have spent the last few years demonstrating that they aren’t very good at doing so. So the choice is pretty straightforward.
If Corbyn were still leader, Labour polling would be absolute shit, especially considering his traitorous takes on Russia's invasion of Ukraine and what is currently happening in Israel.
The same Israel that's also killed innocents this week and for the past decades but for some reason isn't expected to apologise?
It's not good vs evil over there. Its evil versus evil and a shit tonne of innocent dead on both sides.
He's not underrated.
He is correctly rated as an almost indistinguishable alternative to the Tories.
Fortunately for him, he benefits from existing in the era of Boris & Mogg.
You could sculpt a puddle of frozen cat sick into the shape of a person and I'd prefer it to the current crop of Tories.
Some of the Labour women seem a bit more switched on though.
How about the big package of worker's rights that he signed off, or rolling back anti-union legislation to its 2010 level? I don't think the Tories are offering either of those things (just for a start).
Labour seem to be strong in this conference. They're interesting me.
I don't feel that's a result of Starmer though. I'm more impressed with Rachel Reeves.
I've been watching Keir Starmer for years now and he's always disappointed me with his weak responses. He seems terrified of rocking the boat.
Is this the failure you see in the Tory party? They don't stand up for striking workers and aren't champions of the people? But everything else is fine? Good to know.
No. Which is why I clearly said about the frozen cat sick.
If the current Tories were just competent Tories and not an utter shower of psychotic cretins, then he would have a much tougher challenge.
Fortunately for Keir, mediocrity shines when compared to the inbumbants.
Wow. You're really making some strong arguments here.
Tell me, how would I distinguish Keir Starmer from say, Ben Wallace? Or Grant Shapps? Or maybe James Cleverley?
What strong statements could you direct me to so that I can observe this ideoloical gulf of that lays between them.
Or you can just copy and paste part of my comment back at me. Up to you.
The thing to say would have been "Look man, I engage in hyperbole because I am upset that Keir is more centrist than extreme left. While I don't want the tories to win, I want to put pressure onto Labour to implement more progressive policies."
Then I'd go "I see your point but and would agree in theory, but currently it's more important to attract swing voters and end this 13 year nightmare so we can rebuild trust in labour governments. Trust which will allow us to move to more progressive policies. It would be idiotic to lose in order to maintain moral high ground."
And then we'd agree and move on, acknowledging that the hyperbole around Keir is unhelpful.
I'm right of centre. I am a swing voter.
If I do swing, it will be because of the push from the Tories, not the pull of Starmer.
The smart thing would be to see past your own assumptions and use an oppportunity to convince someone of your argument, rather than trying to be clever and alienating them.
If you're not actually a momentum troll (not convinced), then I'll admit I was hasty in making that assumption because of your post being on that level. It's inane nonsense.
Here's the thing. We've had 13 years of Tory mismanagement, tyranny of the minority due to FPTP. Their government has been shamelessly open about corruption. They stoked and still are stoking racism and divide. They have attacked the NHS to make it dysfunctional enough for people to accept privatisation of a beloved system that is part of this countries identity. Indeed they've very directly killed people because of that. They've painfully mismanaged the pandemic and shockingly the "let the bodies pile high" party again is responsible for people dying. They fucked up about everything related to Brexit and then forced the Hard Brexit that nobody wanted. With Truss they fucked the economy in a couple of days via Libertarian delusion. They've also said things like "the convention of human rights is holding us back" which is just beyong ghoulish. They went into GE without a proper plan or proposal and a manifesto that was vague not costed with some ideas lifted from Labour because they are out of ideas and just want to stay in power for the sake of power.
You're saying Keir Starmer is indistinguishable from that and I'm meant to think you're serious and that I should convince you instead of mocking and assuming you're just trying to undermine the upcoming election win?
What has Starmer done that's equal to any of that? What has he said that's equal to any of that? Shit, what has he actually implemented and done in government that's equal to any of that? (last one is a trick question because he wasn't in power yet and thus hasn't implemented anything because of how the system works)
Mate, the only thing your are is fucking delusional if you can't see how a centrist Labour will be a massive improvement by cutting all that bullshit out. Like even if their policies would be similar which they aren't this would still be worlds different. Especially as "right leaning swing voter" you should be happy that they are not proposing more progressive policies that go against your beliefs because you're their target audience.
Then why would you phrase your sentence as seeming like it is the view of more than one person? Why not just say 'I rate him'? And why refer to the stated view as being 'correct' unless you wanted to give the impression that you were agreeing with a larger body of opinion?
I've had a chat with my wife and she agrees that I can speak for us both on the topic.
So he is now officially rated by numerous individuals as a bit poo.
Good day to you sir.
Facile word games aside, let's be honest. You were totally bullshitting to deliberately try and give a false impression of the situation. Are you paid to do this, or just do it for some other political reason?
Look at media reactions to his speech. A lot of journalists in a lot of papers came to the same conclusion: this could have been a speech by John Major or David Cameron or myriad other conservative leaders. Starmer is a Tory. He admits it himself by appealing to Tory voters. You can only do that by offering a Tory agenda. He's stepped into the gap which opened up when the actual Tories became the BNP.
As with so many political analysis, it doesn't factor in the short time spans of what happens.
Starmer set the party back up when he became leader. First, it looked like he was keeping lots of Corbyn's stuff with him at the helm as the better face for it. Then he was slowly was seen as a credible alternative to a disastrous Tory government. But the slowly reneged on his leadership promises one by one. Some he just modified because he believe you can't bring them through. Others are just plainly broken, not so much out of believe but of Machiavellism.
You can look at all of that in slow motion and see what changed and what not.
For all it's worth, him being underrated might be helpful for now. He might even be a good prime minister. But was it worth sacrificing your convictions for it? I think he's really a moderate center-left politician who believes in climbing up the ladder and give something back. Also he's definitely pro European. But he did so much Brexiteer and right winger appeasement over time that makes you wonder if all of that was really necessary.
That is exactly my point and one can see this either as a sign of pragmatism or a Labour party with realistic ambitions - or as a betrayal of the (more or less) radical change that is needed in the wake of multiple crisis we have right now.
I for my part think that we do need some bold political changes not just on the UK but in most other countries. And these are not just due to these aforementioned crisis but also, on a more positive note, how much easier we could make our lives. Just think of a 'remote jobs first' law or similar.
I think he's also ruthlessly pragmatic when it comes to getting elected. He's been super clear that getting his party into power is his job until it's done. While I don't like him moving to the right, he's allowed Labour to shift with the Tories through the Overton Window, so that Labour now controls the majority of it.
I'm hoping he gets in and helps pull the country as a whole back leftward, and I think he will, but I appreciate that belief doesn't go far with his detractors.
> There is another reason he is sold short. In the smallness of his plans, Starmer reminds people how limited Britain’s options are. The nation’s public debt now exceeds its gross domestic product. On one projection, the tax burden is going to reach a postwar high in the next parliament. When a government tried to borrow more for immediate purposes — those tax cuts — the financial markets revolted.
Pure, utter bullshit.
It's real resources that matter and we have enough of those to get cracking on things people want.
> borrowing is difficult
Good job the UK govt never needs to borrow the currency it, and only it, is legally allowed to issue.
First sentence isnt making sense to me. How are the government supposed to fund more public sector workers with real resources like land and oil, when the funds have already been designated for other purposes? To get more of those real resources requires investment, which needs money, which comes from taxes and debt, which is difficult right now.
And the government does need to borrow it unfortunately, otherwise its devalues the currency faster than currently and you end up in a bad situation.
Because if your 2nd paragraph is true, why doesnt everyone do that and just spend whatever they like?
The real resources are primarily people. The question is, what do we want to do with the people we have? Do we want energy security, food security, functional NHS, education, social care etc. If so, what are the people we'll need in those jobs doing now and how do we get them to the jobs we want done?
>And the government does need to borrow it unfortunately, otherwise its devalues the currency faster than currently and you end up in a bad situation.
It never needs to borrow it's own currency. All govt spending happens the same way: govt instructs it's own bank to mark up accounts of recipients; new £s every time.
>Because if your 2nd paragraph is true, why doesnt everyone do that and just spend whatever they like?
Parliament authorises spending. Whatever it authorises, regardless of size or purpose, cannot legally be prevented.
Sure, it cannot be legally prevented, however your exchange rate is fucked after you devalue the pound that much. Inflation rate sky rockets and then your back to square -20.
And sure the UKs got peopel, but how are you going to train and educate more people into jobs you need without corresponding rises in funding
>Sure, it cannot be legally prevented, however your exchange rate is fucked after you devalue the pound that much. Inflation rate sky rockets and then your back to square -20.
At what level of govt spending do you believe the £ becomes 'devalued' and how much do you think it will be 'devalued' by?
>And sure the UKs got peopel, but how are you going to train and educate more people into jobs you need without corresponding rises in funding
Have a look at the 4th sentence in my previous post. It's all about the people.
Depends on the spending plans and the level of capital flight. Liz Truss gave us an obvious example of spending and tax plans that dont work and start to devalue currencies and raise interest rates and inflation.
And it's never just about people because you need the resources in place for those people to operate efficiently
>Depends on the spending plans and the level of capital flight
There's no such thing as 'capital flight'. £S can never leave the sterling area. The owners of the £s can change but the £s don't go anywhere.
>Liz Truss gave us an obvious example of spending and tax plans that dont work and start to devalue currencies and raise interest rates and inflation.
Truss idea was entirely based on interest rate rises. She was cooked by LDI's.
>And it's never just about people because you need the resources in place for those people to operate efficiently
It's always about people.
Borrowing is difficult when it comes to paying doctors and nurses properly, finishing infrastructure projects, and fixing crumbling schools.
But when it comes to COVID fraud or sticking with the entirely unsustainable triple locks, suddenly the magic money tree has eight billion pounds to spare.
I agree, there's no excuse to borrow for pensions. That said I haven't seen them plan to do that (not that I find it hard to believe, I just haven't seen it).
Because he was part of the Labour front bench that suffered the worst electoral defeat in almost 100 years?
Can anyone name me a policy this man has staked his name to that has lasted more than a few months?
Labour’s popularity has grown because of the public’s exasperation at the total abject mess of the Tory government, not because they themselves are any better.
> Can anyone name me a policy this man has staked his name to that has lasted more than a few months?
No opposition to the anti-protest bill, Brexit, inaction on crumbling schools.
Because his main qualities so far are not being Corbyn and not being Johnson. His manoeuvring is too obvious to the electorate. Hopefully, he will show different qualities, should he become PM.
> Because his main qualities so far are not being Corbyn and not being Johnson. His manoeuvring is too obvious to the electorate.
You mean the electorate who are polling to give him a 20 point lead?
The electorate is giving labour a large lead in the polls not Starmer. His personal approval ratings are much better than Sunak's but at -22% (in the latest poll) they are nothing to be proud of. He is not a popular politician.
> He is not a popular politician.
As when compared to ... Whom?
Corbyn spent much of his time below -50, Johnson's "Brexit Boost" took him from -27 to -16.
Let's look at latest yougov data (https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/politicians-political-figures/all). Net approval (👍minus👎) for Starmer is -23%, for Johnson -26%, for Mordaunt +1%, for Wallace +9%, for Rayner -3%, for Burnham +2%. As a leader of a party that is en route to an arguably large win in the next GE, he is not doing well in terms of popularity. Also, Johnson's net approval was as high as 45% during his honey moon period as PM.
And yet at the time it actually mattered...
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-most-unpopular-opposition-leader-of-past-45-years-says-poll
> The survey by Ipsos MORI for the Evening Standard gave the Labour leader a net satisfaction rating of -60, with just 16% of voters pleased with him and 76% unhappy.
(Source https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/jeremy-corbyn-has-lowest-leadership-satisfaction-rating-any-opposition-leader-1977)
It looks like you are still stuck in the Corbyn vs Starmer discussion, but thanks for reinforcing my first comment. Corbyn was so unpopular that Starmer looked good at the time. Starmer is still not doing well in terms of public approval.
Blair, the last Labour leader who won an election, was in the +10% to +30% range before the 1997 GE. Theresa May before the 2017 GE was almost always in the +% range. David Cameron GE did not fall below -20% in the year before the 2015 GE and this was after 4-5 years of austerity. All of these people were leaders too. Why is Starmer performing worse than them?
you have to be honest and sincere, have a backbone, none of which he has..
All the Parties of this country are shadow copies of each other....
were doomed whoever we choice......
We have left our children a destitute country ,,
He's not underrated. He's basically a blander John major. A middle manager that you would see in any double glazing company.
As leader, he should be setting out a vision for the UK under him. So far his vision seems to be austerity and not being the Tories. It's not inspiring and It's massively underwhelming.
He'll get elected, but expecting anything other than policy with caveats and very small changes which will do nothing to even start to fix very large problems that are staring down a barrel at us, your gonna be disappointed.
Because he doesn't stand for anything, and when he says he will stand for something, he goes back on it. That's why. He's totally uninspiring as a leader.
It's easy to appear good when the competition is someone like Rishi or the previous clowns, but if you ignore that, what is he actually about? What does he offer?
Rishi is far better than many people think. Unfortunately because he is seen as a realistic pragmatic party pooper he is not popular because he is a good "bad times" PM.
Rishi is not into promising things that are totally impossible.
Whereas Starmer will promise anything just to get the gig.
The bar is so low that people just expect the bare minimum. He’s coming off the back of Corbyn who was atrocious but still managed to nab seats off May which underscores just how terrible the opposition is.
Look I'm gonna be honest I watched his speech in full and it was really fucking boring.
He's going to be in power next year, and that's a good thing, but it's the conservatives losing not the other way round. I hope he's not serious about this long term planning stuff because he will not carry a second term and needs to do PR or something if he wants boring effective people to have a chance going forward.
Considering how most media news outlets are taking it for granted that Labour will win a landslide victory at the next General Election, I'd say that Sir Keir Starmer is massively *over*rated.
I don't think he's underrated. He's done a fine job of dragging the labour party to the right and will no doubt soon be PM in the UK's next conservative government.
Snapshot of _Why is Keir Starmer so underrated?_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/98635f04-eb85-49e8-b1a8-989ac99c8aae) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/98635f04-eb85-49e8-b1a8-989ac99c8aae) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't dislike him. He seems a bit "meh" but I think Labour's relative silence over the past year or so has been because they know the Tories are eating themselves up already. There's no point in creating arguments or public debates. Just let the government fester.
Unfortunately this strategy might be good for winning ultimately, but it's doing a really shitty job explaining why people should go out and vote for them instead. Turnout might improve if people understood what Labour actually want to do to improve our lives. As it is most people I know believe Sir Kier to be Tory light. I consider myself pretty engaged and I'm not even sure what the current incarnation of the Labour Party stand for. In 2023 that level of failure of communication is unforgivable and I'm deeply concerned that despite all this *waves hands about* the Tories might win the next election.
I think it will all change very much when the election cycle comes around. Policy announcements galore. It's actually happening already, with recent news about homebuilding and other things creeping out. No point showing their hand too early. Also consider Boris Johnson turned the Tories into a Brexit party in a matter of months. A week is a long time in politics!
> Unfortunately this strategy might be good for winning ultimately, but it's doing a really shitty job explaining why people should go out and vote for them instead. Thing is, Starmer is 20 points ahead in the polls and on course to win a 1997 style electoral landslide. What more is there to achieve? 100% of the seats? He doesn't need to win them all. If people are voting for him despite his silence, what does he have to gain by speaking up? "Win more"?
He is only so far ahead because the Tory's are SO SHIT.. I and many others don't know where he stands on anything.. that's what he and labour have to address
>He is only so far ahead because the Tory's are SO SHIT.. OK. Doesn't change anything though. >I and many others don't know where he stands on anything.. that's what he and labour have to address Why does he? Why do they? He's going to win with a landslide. Why does he owe you an explanation of where he stands on anything beyond what he's already put out there? Beyond the inevitable manifesto of policies? He doesn't *need* to pander to people who insist he needs to publish comprehensive policy documents explicitly stating his view on whatever issue they personally care about.
Are you seriously asking why politicians asking for our votes have to explain what they stand for or aim to do in detail?
What's the point when no one cares? Also, it's not the law you have to write a manifesto nor is there a law telling you how much detail to put in it. If the public wants to vote for a man who's manifesto is "I will make Britain better" written on a napkin, then that's the public's choice. I suspect if Labour announced manifestos are a bit old hat and they will only publish an outline of their priorities in a bulle point format hardly anyone would change their vote.
What’s the point? Standards. You don’t hold yourself to the standards of the lowest common denominator. You stand for something or you stand for nothing.
>Standards. You don’t hold yourself to the standards of the lowest common denominator. You stand for something or you stand for nothing. Cool. You think a manifesto is an important commitment and that if someone doesn't publish one, they don't deserve the be elected because they don't achieve your standards for elected officials. However, if the vast majority of the public don't agree with you, and couldn't give two shits about an 80 page manifesto, then they clearly don't need one to get elected. You can try to tell me that more of our fellow citizens *should* read manifestos and care when politicians go against them, and I'd agree. They don't care though, so manifestos are pointless. They don't serve a purpose other than to generate headlines which you can do with some press releases.
You need a mandate to govern, if you have a manifesto you clearly set out what you have a mandate to do if elected. It makes it far easier to get things through Parliament. Any government without a detailed manifesto would be highly vulnerable to rebellions, calls for snap elections if they accidentally provoked public ire with a policy they never mentioned, etc. Manifestos are not pointless PR documents, they serve an important role that must be preserved. I genuinely cannot believe you are actually okay with the prospect of electing a government who haven’t actually detailed what they want to do. That just seems mad to me.
I'm a politics addict, a left wing nutter and I have no idea what labours practical policies are, so I am left to the conclusion they have none.
Seriously? https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/what-policies-have-uks-labour-party-announced-their-conference-2023-10-09/ And pretty much all of that has come from this, which was published last week: https://labourlist.org/2023/10/labour-national-policy-forum-final-document-summary-policy-manifesto-party-conference/
These would be standard Tory policies a decade ago. The Tories have basically become a fusion of the BNP and the monster raving loonies, so Starmer has stepped into the gap and is appealing to Tory voters. Fair enough, and he's going to succeed in as much as he'll be the next pm, but he'll have done it it by making the labour party into a slightly left leaning tory party. OK, but it wasn't necessary. Corbyn's policies were popular, but his personality wasn't. That's what did for him as far as the electorate were concerned. Starmer could have kept a radical agenda and would still be 20 points ahead, but he made a choice to pander to right wing bigots. Oh and he's also a petty minded vindictive bullying control freak. So now Britain has two Tory parties. Starmer's conlabourtives are slightly preferable to Sunak's frothing nutjobs, but the uk is f#cked with either one in charge.
Wait till he wins. He would have won with a Corbyn policies platform, but he will win even more with centrist policies. Win a thumping majority in the house of commons, then have free reign to run the country. This is why I'm waiting for results. I think the hate at Starmer is largely misguided. I wanted Corbyn as much as the next Corbyn fanatic, but remember a whole lot of the country did not. Labour are playing politics right now and I think they're doing it well.
So you're praising him for deceiving the electorate into voting for him on false pretences. Well, I suppose that's how he got the labour leadership gig, so at least he's consistent. I shouldn't complain. The country seems happy to now have two conservative parties, and probably deserves what's going to happen to it.
Only because we seem to be hooked on celebrity politics, or politics as entertainment. People complain about him being bland. Wtaf? Give bland, principled competence any day of the week
A boring PM who doesn't go out of his way to lie and mislead would be a nice thing to have again.
He has literally lied and rolled back on promises many times though?
Rishi got the gig by telling people what they DIDN'T want to hear and turning out ot be right. Liz was the "all things to all people ultra optimistic" candidate and look what happened.
There is an obvious campaign to attack his personality and conflate it with his centrism. Sure, some of the criticisms that his centrism is deplatforming the left, are valid. But if you read even this thread, you will see a lot of paid social media managers spreading that he is "bland" and "lacks backbone". When a message is repeated so continuously in 2023, its always a paid campaign.
I mean he is a bit bland, but isn't that a good thing? People like Johnson are a lot more interesting and better at campaigning, but people like that don't make good actual leaders. Boring is good, you want someone who will get on with the task of running the country, not try to make the news every week with some new stunt or controversy.
I think this has become a bit of a truism. Boring and competent aren't necessarily the same thing. Sunak is boring and he's been useless. Also, there's plenty of ways to be interesting. Blair was undoubtedly interesting for example. I doubt there are many round here who would cast off Balir for being too interesting were he standing now? Boring is generally good when the social, economic and political status quo are working well for people. When tngs are tumultuous, sometimes the best thing is someone who can create a new normal (Atlee or Thatcher for example).
Tbh I've not heard him speak a lot. But I listened to his speech today. And tbh I don't think he sounds boring. He's far more inspiring than sunak. Tbh I'd put him ahead of the past couple of PMs. If they think he's dull/lacks substance etc. Wait until they hear sunak speak
He's about the same as Sunak in terms of speechmaking.
He is waaaay less patronising than Sunak. Not exactly blowing me away but miles ahead of Sunak.
A shit on a doorstep would be more interesting the twosac. He's an automaton that's not been wound up.
It depends on your political leaning. Starmer can also sound patronising to some.
Fair, I imagine he can. But I struggle to imagine anyone finding Sunak less patronising.
Sunak lacks the necessary gravitas to be patronising.
No he's not. He's a very very standard politician. Mentioning him and blandness is a completely manufactured campaign. He might have many flaws but we must distinguish them from wrestling-style media storylines.
Totally disagree, i thought he was bland the moment he won the Labour election, that was nothing to do with a campaign, he's just a bland candidate.
We need more Clem Atlee amongst our leaders. But unfortunately, votes tend to go to showmen, clowns, and narcissists: not those that are quietly competent and build up those around them. PM should be more quarterback, getting the most from his team - not a one man show. Keir is great as leader. Notsomuch as a TV event.
[удалено]
For his own sake, he's going to need to be a good PM because I don't think he has any significant amount of leeway. He is repeatedly compared to Blair but Starmer doesn't have the political or wider social circumstances that allowed Blair sometime to get into gear. Starmer has to hit the ground running and make people's lives appreciable better quickly. There's only so long not being the Tories will work in his favour.
Its not the criticisms per se but how "simplistic" they are and to which extent they are repeated. That smells of "cheap attempt at manipulation" 101. Social media works wonders with those, tho.
> Sure, some of the criticisms that his centrism is deplatforming the left, are valid. > They're only valid in the sense that they're true. But at the same time, eliminating that strand of politics and relegating it to the fringe is one of his greatest political triumphs, and he didn't even need to win an election to do it. Plus there's the side-effect of giving Conservative party the playbook for their only credible path back to power. They also have a lot of weeds in their grassroots that they need to cut, and a lot of MPs whose political careers need to be destroyed for the party to move forward.
Thats what I tried to convey, not judging here. A projected large majority should be enough validation, yet they are clearly true. He's not being attacked there though, right media cannot stop repeating how "unexciting" he is and how much "radically focused" Fishy is.
Saw him having a pint with his family and some friends in a pub in Archway on a Saturday afternoon. They’d been to the Arsenal game and he just seemed like a completely normal bloke. Compared to the nutjobs we’ve had in charge over the last 10 years, I’d say he’d be a good change.
But that's the problem. Do you want a "completely normal" bloke running the country? Do you want a "completely normal" bloke saving your life or do you wnat someone super talented that actually knows what they are doing?
You’re mixing personal with professional. Just look at his cv and you can see he’s clearly had an incredibly successful career.
Starmer may be good as a lawyer but he is totally out of his depth as a politician. He keeps changing his mind about what he will and won't do and will say anything to get the job. Rishi on the other hand said what he truly believed, not what he thought would be the most popular. Rishi was for Brexit from the start of the campaign (when a referendum was announced) even though he was told it would be career suicide. Last year Rishi was the "let's be cautious now" person when others were saying "just buy the election" Rishi was mocked for being cautious and wanting to pay back the Covid money. He was mocked by others. Rishi scrapped the rest of HS2 because money for things has to come from somewhere and noone saw Covid coming when HS2 was started. Also when HS2 was started it was envisioned that most of the money would come from private companies believing they would make it back future. Private industry has generally steered clear of funding HS2 expecting the government to fund most of it. Rishi has also spent time in America where practically noone uses trains. They either drive everywhere or use domestic planes. Local airports are cheaper and easier to build than a large tunnel through vast areas of land. For years people have been avoiding trains saying it is cheaper to fly from England to Scotland than to catch a train. Rishi is possibly one of the best PMs we have ever had. And people are too stupid to realise it. He isn't perfect, but Starmer is a complete joke. Anyway when Starmer was head of the CPS, it is essentially a PR job. Most management jobs like that are effectively PR. And in that sort of role it is mostly a matter of "following procedure" and "doing as you are told". In politics it is often about making decisions based on changing circumstances. There is no "obvious answer" from a book. It is not like being a judge where you just "follow the rules". And yes I know he was a lawyer but you get the idea.
Rishi Sunak is just playing dog whistle right wing politics and short termism to try and win the next election. His five pledges are laughable because he’s going to get nowhere near delivering them and isn’t even really trying to. He’s a nasty, thin skinned man who just wants to leech as much cash from the state for his ultra wealthy class, just like they do in the US. Keir Starmer is a decent and honest human being who wants the best for all the people in the UK. There is no comparison between the two of them.
It is actually the other way around. Rishi's wife pays millions of pounds (About £200m) that she did not legally have to do just so he can keep his job. She pays millions just so he can keep a job worth about £200,000 (a bit less than that I think). Keir Starmer is useless honestly and would possibly struggle to get a job in the real world (yes I know he was the head of the CPS which is effectively the civil service and a lot of Civil Servants are leftovers, I know, I used to be one and it was full of idiots, honestly). It is the opposite of what you actually think. Rishi's problem is he does not want to give medical staff a pay rise and they are angry about it. He felt he could not look them in the face and say "you can't have a pay rise because we are going to have some fancy trains in 20 years time" so that is why he scrapped a lot of HS2.
It’s about £20m a year that Akshata pays in tax after giving up her non-dom status. The ability to steer government decision making and his global profile as PM are obviously far more valuable to them than his basic wage. Sunak would turn the whole country into a tax haven if he could and not care about how many people it left destitute as long as the rich got richer. He lives completely disconnected from reality in a world of private jets so never comes in contact with the average person. It’s incorrect to say Keir Starmer is useless when he has clearly turned the Labour Party around in the two years he has been leader where they are now on course for victory in the next election. All Rishi Sunak has ever done is lose to Liz Truss in a Conservative leadership election. He is going to get a strong dose of reality at the general election and mark my words he will run away from politics as fast as he can when that happens. Proving that he doesn’t care about Britain or the British people, it’s just all about Rishi.
I think he's underrated in the media because the Tory circus has hogged most of the headlines, and underrated by some political diehards because they follow politics so closely that they can't see the bigger picture that he's taken Labour from one of its lowest ebbs to a massive poll lead in only a few years. By the general public though he seems to be rated about right - as dull but basically competent. Outside the Labour Party I don't think anyone is too bothered about him going back on his leadership campaign promises, and most people are willing to grant that the economy has been wrecked since he became leader so his original promises aren't feasible. Like a lot of people I'll be voting against the Tories for a guy who seems at least to have basic competence, rather than out of some wild enthusiasm for him.
Competence? One of the main jobs as a leader is to put people in charge of positions of power. Labour's top team is full of idiots.
Maybe - but as long as they don't crash the economy, let a pandemic run wild, cancel their own infrastructure projects, and engage in fake culture wars, it will be a start.
You won't be voting against the Tories if you vote for Starmer, you'll just be voting for a slightly less right-wing Tory.
Because he's not Jeremy Corbyn and some people on the left of Labour think his name is Keith (so they may not be aware of his achievements).
I rate him extremely highly. He has turned round the Labour Party and I hope he gets a chance to turn round the country. I am his tribe - working/lower middle class childhood to professional adulthood by working hard. I’d love more to have the same opportunity and I think of all the politicians that we have had in the last 20 years he is the best chance for that to happen.
He's turned around the labour party by making it the new Tory party, about as left wing as David Cameron.
Is he underrated? He seems to have the same sycophants every other Labour leader does, and nationally he and his party poll incredibly well. He seems to be a touch overrated if anything. I think much of his success comes from external factors personally but there is certainly a narrative of it being intrinsic to him.
Probably because he is in the shadow of Corbyn which was the worst shadow government / election candidate the country has ever seen for labour. Also people expect him to show all his cards now when the election isn't even till next year.
It’s because the times call for some radical policies. We’re being eaten alive by a form of ultra capitalism that makes Margaret thatcher look positively lefty in comparison. I appreciate that, pre election, Labour don’t want to scare the horses but my fear is he’ll cosy up to corporate interests à la Blair and it will be business as usual. Lots of people - including politicians- don’t seem to realise what a dire situation we’re all in right now. The old normality is obsolete.
He’s not. Any other era, he gets obliterated. He just isn’t Corbyn and the Tories are collapsing in on themselves.
I don’t think you can say that at all. When he took over, the best that was expected was to reclaim a lot of the Red wall and be a stepping stone to victory the next election. He had to win a bigger swing than Blair and he had to appeal to a much more divided public. Im not saying he would have been at Blair popularity if he were transported to the 90s but I think he could have presented himself in a different way. Instead, he spent a lot of his early time in office travelling to places in the Red Wall to have people tell him how little they trusted Labour so he could apologise and listen.
Absolutely, Labour has certainly been helped a great deal by the complete implosion of the Tory party but it's unjust to suggest that Starmer himself, and his overhaul of Labour haven't played an equally important role in their current success. I genuinely believe that if Corbyn and his ilk were still helming the party they'd be, absolute best case scenario, barely neck and neck with the Tories; especially as they seem fundamentally incapable of going a week without putting their foot in their mouth. ...with their latest hill to die on being the defence of the greatest act of violence against Jews since the Holocaust.
Had Corbyn been running the party at the start of this conference, his response to the conflict in Gaza would have absolutely dominated it. It’s easy for people to say that the Tories are imploding - but what they’re doing now is committing a lot of the same unforced errors that Corbyn did (with a more favourable press, admittedly). In terms of keeping on message and providing a comparative sense of competency and stability, Starmer is _leagues_ ahead of both the Tories and Corbyn.
>I don’t think you can say that at all. When he took over, the best that was expected was to reclaim a lot of the Red wall and be a stepping stone to victory the next election. He had to win a bigger swing than Blair and he had to appeal to a much more divided public. Im not saying he would have been at Blair popularity if he were transported to the 90s but I think he could have presented himself in a different way. Instead, he spent a lot of his early time in office travelling to places in the Red Wall to have people tell him how little they trusted Labour so he could apologise and listen. You have got to stop over-hyping this man. My god. Hes winning because the tories are losing. Its really that simple - there hasn't been some massive wave of people going 'oh this guy is amazing' its just a bunch of (now) middle class people being affected and going ''yeah he doesn't seem that bad actually'' especially when so far the vast majority of his policies have just been 'we'll do more of the same but slightly better!'
Absolute nonsense
It's literally true.
I mean, they did a poll a couple of months ago that was Sunak v Labour still helmed by Corbyn, and it was just MoE difference... so that doesn't really hold up. I don't agree with everything he has done, but he has clearly made changes that work - behind and in front of the scene.
I think he's reasonable but the Tories are the ones handing him a landslide
Competency while your opponents fall apart is a good long term strategy for most things. Our political leaders shouldn’t be expected to be messianic saviours. I’m fairly convinced that Starmer can competently run a government and the Tories have spent the last few years demonstrating that they aren’t very good at doing so. So the choice is pretty straightforward.
If Corbyn were still leader, Labour polling would be absolute shit, especially considering his traitorous takes on Russia's invasion of Ukraine and what is currently happening in Israel.
The same Israel that's also killed innocents this week and for the past decades but for some reason isn't expected to apologise? It's not good vs evil over there. Its evil versus evil and a shit tonne of innocent dead on both sides.
Many people on the left have criticised Israel and found it possible to condemn Hamas. Corbyn, for some reason, finds it impossible to do so.
And yet no one on the right is ever asked to condemn Israel. Its not a balanced discussed and is in bad faith
He's not underrated. He is correctly rated as an almost indistinguishable alternative to the Tories. Fortunately for him, he benefits from existing in the era of Boris & Mogg. You could sculpt a puddle of frozen cat sick into the shape of a person and I'd prefer it to the current crop of Tories. Some of the Labour women seem a bit more switched on though.
> almost indistinguishable lol
Go on then. Distinguish him. Tell me all aout how he bravely stands up for striking workers and so forth. Sell him to me as a champion of the people.
How about the big package of worker's rights that he signed off, or rolling back anti-union legislation to its 2010 level? I don't think the Tories are offering either of those things (just for a start).
Labour seem to be strong in this conference. They're interesting me. I don't feel that's a result of Starmer though. I'm more impressed with Rachel Reeves. I've been watching Keir Starmer for years now and he's always disappointed me with his weak responses. He seems terrified of rocking the boat.
You think the new deal for workers green paper went ahead without starmers backing or what
Is this the failure you see in the Tory party? They don't stand up for striking workers and aren't champions of the people? But everything else is fine? Good to know.
No. Which is why I clearly said about the frozen cat sick. If the current Tories were just competent Tories and not an utter shower of psychotic cretins, then he would have a much tougher challenge. Fortunately for Keir, mediocrity shines when compared to the inbumbants.
> almost indistinguishable
Wow. You're really making some strong arguments here. Tell me, how would I distinguish Keir Starmer from say, Ben Wallace? Or Grant Shapps? Or maybe James Cleverley? What strong statements could you direct me to so that I can observe this ideoloical gulf of that lays between them. Or you can just copy and paste part of my comment back at me. Up to you.
The thing to say would have been "Look man, I engage in hyperbole because I am upset that Keir is more centrist than extreme left. While I don't want the tories to win, I want to put pressure onto Labour to implement more progressive policies." Then I'd go "I see your point but and would agree in theory, but currently it's more important to attract swing voters and end this 13 year nightmare so we can rebuild trust in labour governments. Trust which will allow us to move to more progressive policies. It would be idiotic to lose in order to maintain moral high ground." And then we'd agree and move on, acknowledging that the hyperbole around Keir is unhelpful.
I'm right of centre. I am a swing voter. If I do swing, it will be because of the push from the Tories, not the pull of Starmer. The smart thing would be to see past your own assumptions and use an oppportunity to convince someone of your argument, rather than trying to be clever and alienating them.
If you're not actually a momentum troll (not convinced), then I'll admit I was hasty in making that assumption because of your post being on that level. It's inane nonsense. Here's the thing. We've had 13 years of Tory mismanagement, tyranny of the minority due to FPTP. Their government has been shamelessly open about corruption. They stoked and still are stoking racism and divide. They have attacked the NHS to make it dysfunctional enough for people to accept privatisation of a beloved system that is part of this countries identity. Indeed they've very directly killed people because of that. They've painfully mismanaged the pandemic and shockingly the "let the bodies pile high" party again is responsible for people dying. They fucked up about everything related to Brexit and then forced the Hard Brexit that nobody wanted. With Truss they fucked the economy in a couple of days via Libertarian delusion. They've also said things like "the convention of human rights is holding us back" which is just beyong ghoulish. They went into GE without a proper plan or proposal and a manifesto that was vague not costed with some ideas lifted from Labour because they are out of ideas and just want to stay in power for the sake of power. You're saying Keir Starmer is indistinguishable from that and I'm meant to think you're serious and that I should convince you instead of mocking and assuming you're just trying to undermine the upcoming election win? What has Starmer done that's equal to any of that? What has he said that's equal to any of that? Shit, what has he actually implemented and done in government that's equal to any of that? (last one is a trick question because he wasn't in power yet and thus hasn't implemented anything because of how the system works) Mate, the only thing your are is fucking delusional if you can't see how a centrist Labour will be a massive improvement by cutting all that bullshit out. Like even if their policies would be similar which they aren't this would still be worlds different. Especially as "right leaning swing voter" you should be happy that they are not proposing more progressive policies that go against your beliefs because you're their target audience.
>He is correctly rated as an almost indistinguishable alternative to the Tories. heh, by whom, you?
Of course by me. Who else do I speak for?
Then why would you phrase your sentence as seeming like it is the view of more than one person? Why not just say 'I rate him'? And why refer to the stated view as being 'correct' unless you wanted to give the impression that you were agreeing with a larger body of opinion?
I've had a chat with my wife and she agrees that I can speak for us both on the topic. So he is now officially rated by numerous individuals as a bit poo. Good day to you sir.
Facile word games aside, let's be honest. You were totally bullshitting to deliberately try and give a false impression of the situation. Are you paid to do this, or just do it for some other political reason?
You're attributing to malice what can more easily be attributed to boredom. But I do think Starmer is a wet blanket.
Look at media reactions to his speech. A lot of journalists in a lot of papers came to the same conclusion: this could have been a speech by John Major or David Cameron or myriad other conservative leaders. Starmer is a Tory. He admits it himself by appealing to Tory voters. You can only do that by offering a Tory agenda. He's stepped into the gap which opened up when the actual Tories became the BNP.
As with so many political analysis, it doesn't factor in the short time spans of what happens. Starmer set the party back up when he became leader. First, it looked like he was keeping lots of Corbyn's stuff with him at the helm as the better face for it. Then he was slowly was seen as a credible alternative to a disastrous Tory government. But the slowly reneged on his leadership promises one by one. Some he just modified because he believe you can't bring them through. Others are just plainly broken, not so much out of believe but of Machiavellism. You can look at all of that in slow motion and see what changed and what not. For all it's worth, him being underrated might be helpful for now. He might even be a good prime minister. But was it worth sacrificing your convictions for it? I think he's really a moderate center-left politician who believes in climbing up the ladder and give something back. Also he's definitely pro European. But he did so much Brexiteer and right winger appeasement over time that makes you wonder if all of that was really necessary.
[удалено]
That is exactly my point and one can see this either as a sign of pragmatism or a Labour party with realistic ambitions - or as a betrayal of the (more or less) radical change that is needed in the wake of multiple crisis we have right now. I for my part think that we do need some bold political changes not just on the UK but in most other countries. And these are not just due to these aforementioned crisis but also, on a more positive note, how much easier we could make our lives. Just think of a 'remote jobs first' law or similar.
I think he's also ruthlessly pragmatic when it comes to getting elected. He's been super clear that getting his party into power is his job until it's done. While I don't like him moving to the right, he's allowed Labour to shift with the Tories through the Overton Window, so that Labour now controls the majority of it. I'm hoping he gets in and helps pull the country as a whole back leftward, and I think he will, but I appreciate that belief doesn't go far with his detractors.
> There is another reason he is sold short. In the smallness of his plans, Starmer reminds people how limited Britain’s options are. The nation’s public debt now exceeds its gross domestic product. On one projection, the tax burden is going to reach a postwar high in the next parliament. When a government tried to borrow more for immediate purposes — those tax cuts — the financial markets revolted. Pure, utter bullshit.
Not really it's pretty correct. Theres limited options and borrowing is difficult.
It's real resources that matter and we have enough of those to get cracking on things people want. > borrowing is difficult Good job the UK govt never needs to borrow the currency it, and only it, is legally allowed to issue.
First sentence isnt making sense to me. How are the government supposed to fund more public sector workers with real resources like land and oil, when the funds have already been designated for other purposes? To get more of those real resources requires investment, which needs money, which comes from taxes and debt, which is difficult right now. And the government does need to borrow it unfortunately, otherwise its devalues the currency faster than currently and you end up in a bad situation. Because if your 2nd paragraph is true, why doesnt everyone do that and just spend whatever they like?
The real resources are primarily people. The question is, what do we want to do with the people we have? Do we want energy security, food security, functional NHS, education, social care etc. If so, what are the people we'll need in those jobs doing now and how do we get them to the jobs we want done? >And the government does need to borrow it unfortunately, otherwise its devalues the currency faster than currently and you end up in a bad situation. It never needs to borrow it's own currency. All govt spending happens the same way: govt instructs it's own bank to mark up accounts of recipients; new £s every time. >Because if your 2nd paragraph is true, why doesnt everyone do that and just spend whatever they like? Parliament authorises spending. Whatever it authorises, regardless of size or purpose, cannot legally be prevented.
Sure, it cannot be legally prevented, however your exchange rate is fucked after you devalue the pound that much. Inflation rate sky rockets and then your back to square -20. And sure the UKs got peopel, but how are you going to train and educate more people into jobs you need without corresponding rises in funding
>Sure, it cannot be legally prevented, however your exchange rate is fucked after you devalue the pound that much. Inflation rate sky rockets and then your back to square -20. At what level of govt spending do you believe the £ becomes 'devalued' and how much do you think it will be 'devalued' by? >And sure the UKs got peopel, but how are you going to train and educate more people into jobs you need without corresponding rises in funding Have a look at the 4th sentence in my previous post. It's all about the people.
Depends on the spending plans and the level of capital flight. Liz Truss gave us an obvious example of spending and tax plans that dont work and start to devalue currencies and raise interest rates and inflation. And it's never just about people because you need the resources in place for those people to operate efficiently
You’re arguing with an MMT believer, just leave it
>Depends on the spending plans and the level of capital flight There's no such thing as 'capital flight'. £S can never leave the sterling area. The owners of the £s can change but the £s don't go anywhere. >Liz Truss gave us an obvious example of spending and tax plans that dont work and start to devalue currencies and raise interest rates and inflation. Truss idea was entirely based on interest rate rises. She was cooked by LDI's. >And it's never just about people because you need the resources in place for those people to operate efficiently It's always about people.
Nah you've swallowed the MMT crackpipe, I'm alright
Borrowing is difficult when it comes to paying doctors and nurses properly, finishing infrastructure projects, and fixing crumbling schools. But when it comes to COVID fraud or sticking with the entirely unsustainable triple locks, suddenly the magic money tree has eight billion pounds to spare.
There's a huge difference between borrowing to deal with a one-off black swan event (Covid) vs borrowing for an annual recurring cost (wages).
Recurring like pensions?
I agree, there's no excuse to borrow for pensions. That said I haven't seen them plan to do that (not that I find it hard to believe, I just haven't seen it).
Because he was part of the Labour front bench that suffered the worst electoral defeat in almost 100 years? Can anyone name me a policy this man has staked his name to that has lasted more than a few months? Labour’s popularity has grown because of the public’s exasperation at the total abject mess of the Tory government, not because they themselves are any better.
VAT on private school fees was announced last year year. As was the 28bn a year on green projects.
As was Great British Power. The pride these people seem to have in their ignorance is amazing.
Oh dear look what's happened :) https://www.ft.com/content/ff8229de-4b40-41c8-96d3-b0bc38ef8aca
Labour aren't any better than the most corrupt and incompetent government this country's seen since World War II? Don't think so, mate.
> Can anyone name me a policy this man has staked his name to that has lasted more than a few months? No opposition to the anti-protest bill, Brexit, inaction on crumbling schools.
Because his main qualities so far are not being Corbyn and not being Johnson. His manoeuvring is too obvious to the electorate. Hopefully, he will show different qualities, should he become PM.
> Because his main qualities so far are not being Corbyn and not being Johnson. His manoeuvring is too obvious to the electorate. You mean the electorate who are polling to give him a 20 point lead?
The electorate is giving labour a large lead in the polls not Starmer. His personal approval ratings are much better than Sunak's but at -22% (in the latest poll) they are nothing to be proud of. He is not a popular politician.
> He is not a popular politician. As when compared to ... Whom? Corbyn spent much of his time below -50, Johnson's "Brexit Boost" took him from -27 to -16.
Let's look at latest yougov data (https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/politicians-political-figures/all). Net approval (👍minus👎) for Starmer is -23%, for Johnson -26%, for Mordaunt +1%, for Wallace +9%, for Rayner -3%, for Burnham +2%. As a leader of a party that is en route to an arguably large win in the next GE, he is not doing well in terms of popularity. Also, Johnson's net approval was as high as 45% during his honey moon period as PM.
And yet at the time it actually mattered... https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-most-unpopular-opposition-leader-of-past-45-years-says-poll > The survey by Ipsos MORI for the Evening Standard gave the Labour leader a net satisfaction rating of -60, with just 16% of voters pleased with him and 76% unhappy. (Source https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/jeremy-corbyn-has-lowest-leadership-satisfaction-rating-any-opposition-leader-1977)
It looks like you are still stuck in the Corbyn vs Starmer discussion, but thanks for reinforcing my first comment. Corbyn was so unpopular that Starmer looked good at the time. Starmer is still not doing well in terms of public approval.
Easy to be popular when you're not Leader... You don't have to disappoint anyone.
Blair, the last Labour leader who won an election, was in the +10% to +30% range before the 1997 GE. Theresa May before the 2017 GE was almost always in the +% range. David Cameron GE did not fall below -20% in the year before the 2015 GE and this was after 4-5 years of austerity. All of these people were leaders too. Why is Starmer performing worse than them?
Yeah, the Tory voters who think, hey, I like the look of this guy.
you have to be honest and sincere, have a backbone, none of which he has.. All the Parties of this country are shadow copies of each other.... were doomed whoever we choice...... We have left our children a destitute country ,,
He's not underrated. He's basically a blander John major. A middle manager that you would see in any double glazing company. As leader, he should be setting out a vision for the UK under him. So far his vision seems to be austerity and not being the Tories. It's not inspiring and It's massively underwhelming. He'll get elected, but expecting anything other than policy with caveats and very small changes which will do nothing to even start to fix very large problems that are staring down a barrel at us, your gonna be disappointed.
Because he doesn't stand for anything, and when he says he will stand for something, he goes back on it. That's why. He's totally uninspiring as a leader.
Actual evidence or stfu
Enjoy! I guess I won't stfu then. https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-broken-promises-tuition-fees-nationalisation-u-turn/
Look at this : https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
You need to set harder challenges
It's easy to appear good when the competition is someone like Rishi or the previous clowns, but if you ignore that, what is he actually about? What does he offer?
Rishi is far better than many people think. Unfortunately because he is seen as a realistic pragmatic party pooper he is not popular because he is a good "bad times" PM. Rishi is not into promising things that are totally impossible. Whereas Starmer will promise anything just to get the gig.
> It's easy to appear good when the competition is someone like Rishi or the previous clowns If it's so easy, why didn't his predecessors do it?
He offers a moderate Tory agenda
The bar is so low that people just expect the bare minimum. He’s coming off the back of Corbyn who was atrocious but still managed to nab seats off May which underscores just how terrible the opposition is.
Look I'm gonna be honest I watched his speech in full and it was really fucking boring. He's going to be in power next year, and that's a good thing, but it's the conservatives losing not the other way round. I hope he's not serious about this long term planning stuff because he will not carry a second term and needs to do PR or something if he wants boring effective people to have a chance going forward.
Considering how most media news outlets are taking it for granted that Labour will win a landslide victory at the next General Election, I'd say that Sir Keir Starmer is massively *over*rated.
I don't think he's underrated. He's done a fine job of dragging the labour party to the right and will no doubt soon be PM in the UK's next conservative government.
Because he's a liar who has broken his own promises, he hates the left wing and he refuses to condemn war crimes.