Is it too soon to ditch Keir Starter? Is it too late to consider David Milli and?

[CliffordTheBigBlueDog]

Maybe these election results are not all Keir Starmers fault but, even though I was delighted when he was elected leader, I'm beginning to have doubts about his electability.
I saw David Milliband on the TV the other night and thought of what might have been.
I'm not sure if he's even in the Labour party any more.
Andy Burnham is the bookies favourite to be the next leader and maybe he'd be an improvement but I'm not sure.
It's all very depressing.

@JustMarriedAndLovingIt

I’m glad the Tories did so well. Labour are just for champagne socialists, virtue signalling snowflakes and whingers. These results show that the tides are turning and hopefully the right people will continue to remain in power.

I'm not a particular fan of Labour, at least in the state they are in just now, but I'm not a particular fan of Liars either.

Corbyn sidelined the grown up women like Yvette Cooper and Caroline Flint. We were left with a bunch of adolescent females. Rosie Dufflield is a brave, principled woman and has been bullied horribly by her so called colleagues.
The Tories are dreadful, but the current shower in the Labour party are worse. They are all so rude and disrespectful to women and anyone over the age of about 20.

@Tealightsandd

There’s a lot more competition for those resources due to cuts in public spending. A growing gig economy and stripped back employment protections has created an employers’ labour market that suits the right very well. I didn’t say nouveau Tory voters were xenophobic or racist; I suggested they’ve been led to believe immigration is the root of their problems, not reduced public services/welfare and less employment security.

@Notonthestairs

What tides are turning? The Conservatives have been in power for over a decade!

Yes it's too soon.

I think the front bench needs looking at.
I'd like to see and hear more from Yvette Cooper.

I think YC is brilliant. That said in her current role chairing the Home Affairs Select Committee she is highly effective at holding the tories to account, possibly more so than she'd be on the shadow front bench. I suspect she's enjoying her Chair role too much atm.

@Tealightsandd has it imo

Whatever else divides them, the Tories are united in their aim of keeping the wealth of the country in the hands of the few (which is why it's beyond baffling that anyone not in that tiny demographic would vote for them - why vote for other people to enjoy lives of unearned and unfettered privilege at your own expense?!); Labour doesn't even have socialism to unite it anymore

Labour need an Andy Burnham.
Until they find someone like him, they will be out in their faction-ridden, Momentum-infected, squabbling, uber-woke wilderness.

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER

Labour need an Andy Burnham. Until they find someone like him, they will be out in their faction-ridden, Momentum-infected, squabbling, uber-woke wilderness.

Erm no. They really don't need a man who focuses on style rather than substance, and bases his campaigns around division and pitting groups against each other. Agree they also don't need Momentum.

@groundcontroltomontydon

Whatever else divides them, the Tories are united in their aim of keeping the wealth of the country in the hands of the few (which is why it's beyond baffling that anyone not in that tiny demographic would vote for them - why vote for other people to enjoy lives of unearned and unfettered privilege at your own expense?!); Labour doesn't even have socialism to unite it anymore

Agree with this, the Conservat'ves remain so successful because they are united in wanting to win.

Labour used to be ruthless too, but not any more.

The Tories haven't always been united, and look at Boris's purge

Yes they are about wealth creation, but not specifically to the few. Yes some do disproportionately well. But the aim is to increase prosperity generally. With Small Government.

The idea that the Tories would want continued pandemic restrictions just to control the population has always struck me as wrong because they are right wing and laissez faire

@meditrina

The Tories haven't always been united, and look at Boris's purge

Yes they are about wealth creation, but not specifically to the few. Yes some do disproportionately well. But the aim is to increase prosperity generally. With Small Government.

The idea that the Tories would want continued pandemic restrictions just to control the population has always struck me as wrong because they are right wing and laissez faire

The aim is not to increase prosperity generally, that is what they say publically but their policies do the precise opposite.

For example, austerity 2010 onwards reduced wealth generally and made the country as a whole poorer - they knew this would happen, it was the aim of the policy.

Agree, the tories are the most successful, oldest political party in the world for a reason. Loyalty, ruthlessness, an ability to shapeshift and sheer determination to win. Labour could learn a lot from them.
I despair of the pointless melodrama and infighting, especially now Angela Rayner has been sacked. It's so sad. Maybe Dominic Cummings could help them
And yes this is a small state government. All the tosh about them trying to control us is so far from the mark.

For example, austerity 2010 onwards reduced wealth generally and made the country as a whole poorer - they knew this would happen, it was the aim of the policy.

Spending needed to be reigned in though, didn’t it?

Mostly I aim for opportunity, if that’s greater with one party over another. I think Blair managed to communicate it and now Cons are. I’m not tied to either party, and hope that Labour can change drastically to centre ground (that knows what a woman is).

Austerity isn't their general policy or what they stand for, though

It was their response to a specific set of circumstances ie there wasn't enough money to go round.

Yes I agree with that

In the same way this set of circumstances means spending is huge from Cons

@meditrina

Austerity isn't their general policy or what they stand for, though

It was their response to a specific set of circumstances ie there wasn't enough money to go round.

It was a strategic decision to take advantage of those circumstances to cut the size of the UK state irrespective of the known harm it would do to both the individuals affected and the wealth, health and security of the nation as a whole.

The response was very different in countries with a strong social model, and the UK Tory policy it was a political choice. Every country experienced the same economic pressure, the Tories chose to make life harder for UK citizens and increase poverty, rather than create growth.

Agree austerity was a specific ideology designed to reduce state intervention. The credit crunch gave them the perfect opportunity to do this. Many many economists questioned it.

How much was it linked to previous overspending?

That famous note

Some economists will be state spenders others not, but I haven’t read up on where austerity falls for most

Andy Burnham would alienate the South I reckon. I live in a deprived area of South East and I can't see a "leader of The North" , chip on his shoulder, type going down very well. I used to vote Labour but this guy would not turn me back.

There was no money in every country. That note was an in-joke and Laws should be ashamed of himself for using it cynically in that way.

Europe invested, and had hgher growth. UK cut and had lower growth.

The UK now has a much smaller state than pre-2010, with all the ensuing issues.

You can say you want a smaller state and are happy to accept the consequences, that is a legitimate and coherent position. But a smaller state means greater inequality.

We’re a strong economy still. I don’t support over spending and Labour has form for bottomless pit policies.

I wouldn’t vote for Burnham either Cross
Far too chippy as you say

I’d settle for a really good balance between state spend and not bigger inequality though which is why I’m willing Labour to sort out their issues.

And Blair felt most comfortable to me

They just feel far from that atm maybe Starmer can pull it around

labour has form for bottomless pit policies there is some debate about that if you are implying that labour are worse custodians of the economy than the tories.

@crossstitchingnana

Andy Burnham would alienate the South I reckon. I live in a deprived area of South East and I can't see a "leader of The North" , chip on his shoulder, type going down very well. I used to vote Labour but this guy would not turn me back.

Ok- I have often felt AB is a bit “too northern” to be PM but one problem is that KS is “too southern” to connect with the Labour voting core. How is that different?

@Onetoomuch

labour has form for bottomless pit policies there is some debate about that if you are implying that labour are worse custodians of the economy than the tories.

Well I’m up to be convinced if people want to put info up.

But it makes sense that spending a lot will bring growth - how sustainable is it?

I can easily look prosperous if someone else has to deal with the aftermath.