Keir Starmer

[Bjornebye]

The tories will spin any attacks no matter how strong as disrespectful to the dead and unhelpful/hindering the process. "Politics at a tie like this?!" "Selfish Labour!" "Starmer cares more about votes than lives". I don't think he wants them headlines. Keep a log of every single Tory fuck up during this and once it is all over, hammer the fucking mother out of them daily/constantly about it. 

 

No use doing it now. Too much ammo for the tories to spin it in their favour. That or there is too much 'other' news for any attacks to get missed by the wider public. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 19/04/2020 at 18:37, Rico1304 said:

Thank god you didn’t vote for them. I mean. You’ve had blood on your hands (is this how it’s done, I’ve not had much practice) 

I didn't vote for the Labour HQ officials who torpedoed the party in 2017. I'm not even sure how many of them were elected. 

 

What's your point?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 19/04/2020 at 19:16, Numero Veinticinco said:

Out of interest, is that your honest, full appraisal of what Labour was during the Blair years? 

Honest, yes; full, no.

 

Even the worst Labour Government is better than a Tory one. (I usually back that point up with talk of SureStart, the Human Rights Act, the Minimum Wage, etc.)

[Sugar Ape]

16 minutes ago, Neil G said:

I’m not looking for aggressive Mark, if you’ve inferred that from my referencing Piers Morgan then that’s not what I meant. It’s not his hectoring tone I want Starmer to copy, it’s the intensity and incisiveness of his questioning. 

 

Assertive, challenging, and conveying justified anger on behalf of the people affected, without crossing the line into aggression or abuse, is an entirely appropriate and achievable balance. I think Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell have all managed it in response to the crisis, irrespective of how they might have presented themselves before the election. I’ve no doubt Starmer could manage it too if he wanted - I’m sure he’ll have shown more edge when grilling witnesses as a QC than he did against Raab or has done in his public statements so far.

 

The government’s mismanagement of this crisis is the biggest political scandal in this country since the Iraq war, and the media are barely addressing it. It therefore merits a more robust and less respectful response than Starmer and Labour have offered so far, imo. He’ll have to adopt a more forceful stance anyway when the Tories start to weaponise the crisis once the worst has passed - it would be more authentic and more effective if he started now.

 

If he won’t do it and needs someone else from the front bench to turn the screw, Angela Rayner would be my shout.

No I wasn’t referring to you, I was referring to the article from Campbell. Wanting him to be take a more aggressive stance is one of the inferences I’m getting from him with the reference to John Smith. 
 

I know where you’re coming from but I just think it would cause more problems than it solves if Starmer goes too hard, he’s getting a relatively easy ride from the right wing press at the minute and that will galvanise them against him. He needs to tread the line between emphasising how inept the government are and looking like he’s supportive of the effort to get this disease under control.  
 

If he wants to farm that job out to someone on the front bench then that might be a good idea but I’m not sure who is most suitable for that. Rayner might be a good call as you say. 

[VladimirIlyich]

1 hour ago, Neil G said:

I’m not looking for aggressive Mark, if you’ve inferred that from my referencing Piers Morgan then that’s not what I meant. It’s not his hectoring tone I want Starmer to copy, it’s the intensity and incisiveness of his questioning. 

 

Assertive, challenging, and conveying justified anger on behalf of the people affected, without crossing the line into aggression or abuse, is an entirely appropriate and achievable balance. I think Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell have all managed it in response to the crisis, irrespective of how they might have presented themselves before the election. I’ve no doubt Starmer could manage it too if he wanted - I’m sure he’ll have shown more edge when grilling witnesses as a QC than he did against Raab or has done in his public statements so far.

 

The government’s mismanagement of this crisis is the biggest political scandal in this country since the Iraq war, and the media are barely addressing it. It therefore merits a more robust and less respectful response than Starmer and Labour have offered so far, imo. He’ll have to adopt a more forceful stance anyway when the Tories start to weaponise the crisis once the worst has passed - it would be more authentic and more effective if he started now.

 

If he won’t do it and needs someone else from the front bench to turn the screw, Angela Rayner would be my shout.

As somebody who doesn't watch the media and is only seeing the British government copy what other governments have done during this crisis,what are the scandals they(the government) have done before and during this crisis? The hypocrisy around the NHS is obvious given their opposition to it from day one and every day of its existence since,but your views on the specifics please,as you seem to take an interest in these things?

[Gnasher]

I'm probably a bit older than most on here but I preferred it when the founder of our national health service called the conservative party what they are and didnt waste time beating around the bush .

 

Lower than vermin 

 

 

 

[lifetime fan]

22 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

The tories will spin any attacks no matter how strong as disrespectful to the dead and unhelpful/hindering the process. "Politics at a tie like this?!" "Selfish Labour!" "Starmer cares more about votes than lives". I don't think he wants them headlines. Keep a log of every single Tory fuck up during this and once it is all over, hammer the fucking mother out of them daily/constantly about it. 

 

No use doing it now. Too much ammo for the tories to spin it in their favour. That or there is too much 'other' news for any attacks to get missed by the wider public. 

 

Even Campbell thinks Starmer is 'forensic' so stick that up your hoop Damo.

[lifetime fan]

On ‎24‎/‎04‎/‎2020 at 11:38, Neil G said:

Here’s the article.

 

With so many coronavirus deaths, Labour should not be holding back

 

Alastair Campbell

 

‘This is no time to criticise the government,’ say some in the party. But with so many errors, Starmer’s team has to speak out

 

Wed 22 April 2020 06:30 BST

 

It has been both a curse and a blessing for Keir Starmer that he has become Labour leader amid a global pandemic.

 

A curse because in normal times his arrival would be huge news, an opportunity quickly to establish himself firmly in the national conversation; yet in a crisis the last thing the public wants is politics as usual, so this limits his chance to be heard.

 

A blessing, because the current situation plays to Starmer’s strengths – he is serious, forensic, consensus-seeking, and has a strong grasp of detail. These qualities will become especially important when we are through the worst, and “Starmer or Johnson?” becomes the choice of prime minister. They are qualities Boris Johnson proudly lacks, one of the reasons the UK has been so badly hit.

 

Gordon Brown helpful things to say, based on experience, about managing financial crisis. Tony Blair has useful things to say about reordering government around the current challenges on issues such as mass testing, contact tracing, PPE, business, vaccine development, schools, use of technology, social distancing and compliance, travel, and communications. He has suggestions on structure too – an expert task force on each challenge.

 

Whether the government heeds Blair or not, this is not a bad way for the opposition to reorder its approach. There are many experts, academics, business figures, unions, charities and campaign groups that feel they are not being heard by government. There are scientists who feel the experts deployed at No 10 briefings are too establishment, too secretive, and not challenging enough of ministers. Mobilising them around the challenges Blair prioritised would bring greater rigour and effectiveness to the opposition operation.

 

In his leadership acceptance speech, Starmer set a sensible tone – supportive of government objectives, but questioning and scrutinising in a reasonable manner. Yet when so many are dying, so many targets are unmet, so many NHS and care workers are going to work unprotected, and so many mistakes have been made, Labour should frankly show no mercy on issues such as PPE and testing. I keep thinking what John Smith – Blair’s predecessor as Labour leader, and like Starmer a QC – would have made of the Turkish plane farce. There would be no holding back. In interviews with some of Starmer’s team, there has been too much “now is not the time for criticism, those questions can wait” for a crisis of this scale.

 

Ministers should be treated with fairness, because they have enormous responsibility and pressure. But they must be challenged. It is not challenging and questioning per se that helps them do their jobs better; it is that it forces them to amass arguments, data and information, so it is all there at their fingertips.

 

Starmer rightly pressed the government for the parameters of a lockdown exit strategy. Even better, Labour must develop its own ideas about the exit, to show not only that it asks the right questions, but has answers. The shadow cabinet must, with proper expert advice, be a credible alternative government.

 

Much of the focus will fall on Starmer. But every single shadow minister must be empowered to challenge, cajole, offer alternatives and challenge the government to answer one of the best questions in politics: “Why not?” In showing diligence and attention to detail, and by making intelligent suggestions and proposals, they will demonstrate their capability.

 

Shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds must work to develop a profile as high as her predecessor, John McDonnell, because ultimately the future of the economy, and what kind of values underpin our society in a world of turmoil, is where the main post-crisis arguments are going to fall.

 

It is easy to overlook the fact that, Starmer’s role as director of public prosecutions apart, none of the people in the top shadow jobs have senior government experience. But nor did Blair or Brown; nor did John Prescott, or Robin Cook, who ran the Major government ragged before, during and after the Scott inquiry (on Iraq arms sales). What they and others had was real hunger, energy, drive; a determination to ferret out detail the government wanted hidden; an ability to make the media sit up and take notice because of what they were saying and how they were saying it. There can be no soft-pedalling. Oppositions have to win power; governments will do everything they can not to lose it.

 

From my years in opposition working with Blair I remember that, even at the time of the Dunblane school massacre, as sensitive a time as could be imagined, Labour had a different approach on the issue of firearms, and pressed it, sensitively. And in government, when Blair and Brown faced crises – foot-and-mouth, fuel protests, times of war – the Tories were never backward in coming forward to attack, so Labour should not fall for the current line from the right that their role is to support the government.

 

It has been noticeable how rarely, at government briefings and interviews, questions have been framed by things Labour has said or done; that must change. Labour needs to be thinktank, policy expert, advocate for real people in difficulty, and campaign organiser all in one. Backbenchers too are vital in this. There are so many causes and campaigns arising from this crisis.

 

Up till now, No 10 briefings, at which both government presentation and media questioning have generally been poor, have provided the main focus for questioning ministers. Now that parliament is back, albeit in a highly unusual form, Labour has the chance to show it can do a better job of holding the government to account than the media; and a better job than the government in showing what needs to be done, and how.

 

Seizing that opportunity will go a long way towards the public deciding whether the long, wasted years of unelectability are behind us, and a credible alternative government now exists.

 

• Alastair Campbell was Tony Blair’s press secretary and director of communications from 1994-2003

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/22/coronavirus-deaths-labour-criticise-government-starmer

 

Say what you like about Campbell, and I've called him a lot!

 

He knows how to do the job.

[Section_31]

It's a tough one. The government needs holding to account but I'm genuinely interested to know what the psychology of it is.

 

At the moment the public view the government as the only barrier between them and an existential threat (not just in terms of health, but jobs and food too) one wonders if that creates a 'circle the wagons' mentality and views anyone attacking or destabilising it as a potential threat.

 

Just my own musings.

[Barrington Womble]

It's very noticeable on Marr this morning, Starmer is being taken far more seriously than Corbyn ever was. I think in the long run this can only be helpful. 

[Gnasher]

Just fell into a coma watching Rachel Reeves on Marr, not sure which party she was representing, the beige party?

[sir roger]

3 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Just fell into a coma watching Rachel Reeves on Marr, not sure which party she was representing, the beige party?

The fact that an mp who said that ' Labour should not be seen, and is not  seen , as the party for people out of work ' and proudly boasted that she would be ' tougher than the Conservatives on  slashing benefits ' and felt that her constituency was a  ' tinderbox if immigration is not curbed ' , is one of Starmers front benchers worries me a lot.

 

She is far worse than beige.

[VladimirIlyich]

12 hours ago, Barry Wom said:

It's very noticeable on Marr this morning, Starmer is being taken far more seriously than Corbyn ever was. I think in the long run this can only be helpful. 

Corbyn was taken very seriously when he forced the tories to make friends with Northern Irish gangsters to form a government in 2017. Unfortunately he was stabbed in the back so many times he couldn't even come close to hammering that advantage home because of his own party. Corbyn's policies were highly popular but the party's delivery of them wasn't. They also probably think they can control Starmer as they may see him as one of their own,hopefully he will prove otherwise.

[A Red]

8 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Corbyn was taken very seriously when he forced the tories to make friends with Northern Irish gangsters to form a government in 2017. 

Who are these gangsters you speak of? 

[Mudface]

16 minutes ago, A Red said:

Who are these gangsters you speak of? 

Ma Baker and her heavy crew.

 

[Gnasher]

3 hours ago, Mudface said:

Ma Baker and her heavy crew.

 

Shame Sinn Fein dont take their seats in Westminster with the above loony tunes

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

22 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Corbyn was taken very seriously when he forced the tories to make friends with Northern Irish gangsters to form a government in 2017. Unfortunately he was stabbed in the back so many times he couldn't even come close to hammering that advantage home because of his own party. Corbyn's policies were highly popular but the party's delivery of them wasn't. They also probably think they can control Starmer as they may see him as one of their own,hopefully he will prove otherwise.

I don't think the BBC ever took him seriously. They acted shocked for a couple of weeks after the 2017 election and then reverted to treating him like someone who'd won a reality TV show to get there. People often talk about Murdoch's influence, but I think having a relationship with the BBC is far more important. 

[VladimirIlyich]

12 hours ago, Barry Wom said:

I don't think the BBC ever took him seriously. They acted shocked for a couple of weeks after the 2017 election and then reverted to treating him like someone who'd won a reality TV show to get there. People often talk about Murdoch's influence, but I think having a relationship with the BBC is far more important. 

A relationship? Like a tyrannical Father where you make them do exactly what you say? 

[Red Phoenix]

 

[sir roger]

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Is that Torquemada's tome on reducing Universal Credit claimants on the middle shelf ?

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, sir roger said:

Is that Torquemada's tome on reducing Universal Credit claimants on the middle shelf ?

 

Probably.

 

*Googles Torquemada. Checks middle shelf.*

 

Yep, definitely.

[sir roger]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Probably.

 

*Googles Torquemada. Checks middle shelf.*

 

Yep, definitely.

You weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition ?

[Red Phoenix]

34 minutes ago, sir roger said:

You weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition ?

 

Nope, but I bet Reeves was with all those books.

[mattyq]

42 minutes ago, sir roger said:

You weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition ?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

[Sugar Ape]