Thread 26 Starmer: Cats, Rebels and Orange Chaos

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5349605-thread-25-starmer-cheers-for-a-falling-out-among-thieves?page=40&reply=145224605

Pierrepoints autobiography points out that we went from a situation where the execution was public and the executioner masked, the execution being private and the executioner a celebrity.

I think there is something to be said for public justice. Quite aside from any moral or ethical objections to the death penalty is the argument that if you have to hide it away from civilised society, then maybe it has no place in a civilised society ?

When the US starts doing pay-per-view executions, I can see the appetite for them in the UK being dampened down. If just for the production values.

I was pondering the Venn diagram between posters who savage Reeves and Starmer and the benefits storm - suddenly so apparently concerned about disabled and otherwise/multiply vulnerable people, and the posters who slag off benefits claimants on otehr threads.

It's a bit like the VAT posters who are suddenly faux concerned about SEN/ state school provision and so on.

'True' longstanding Tories wanted Starmer and Reeves to go further and should front up and be honest about that instead of playing a game.

There is also a huge amount of "worry and concern" over debt interest/borrowing and gilt yields by a few regular posters, no such concern raised when these trebled under Truss...

Yet a 0.1% increase - now dropped back - brings out "oh lord above, we are heading into IMF territory if Starmer doesn't get a grip...we need a snap election..."

I think this did contribute to the end of the death penalty. The state couldn’t put its punishments on show for fear of insurrection, and then the hiding of it made it all the more media intense.

Justice should be seen to be done. Vengeance by death, I think no.

Massive horseshit imo. Reeves has a lot of problems in her job, and I do think she’s a very poor politician but I do think she understands the issues the UK has well. It’s just that she should not expect the politics to be optional. She is not expected to be chief economist, she’s expected to act and make political decisions and use the authority of her office. On that she is a big disappointment

The US is edging back to masked executioners.

Well, yes. But given the standard of their work, I'd want to remain anonymous.

Regardless of your views on capital punishment, it's hard to resist a macabre fascination with the various mechanics of it. Plus the weird notion of making it humane ? Jonathan Millers comment about a perfumed fart can't help but chime.

That said, it does seem that Britain genuinely did want the cheapest most efficient method possible.

Fans of history might ponder on the stomachs of the British officials who wandered the world for the Royal Commission witnessing other methods of execution (they decided that long drop hanging was still the best).

If anyone wanted a reason against capital punishment, the grin on the US prison governor saying "But it's got to hurt .... a little" when offered a painless method of execution should be it. It's a straight line back to the English judge who had to wear two pairs of underwear when issued the death sentence to mop up his ... excitement.

I ve little more understanding for her, markets reacted badly when they thought she might get the chop, they reverted when Starmer, belatedly, backed her.

There is the issue in one "Starmer"

His backtracking or agreeing to back track goes to the heart of the matter, have a well thought through policy, stick with it... not this airy-fairy nonsense...if the bill really is bad, then drop it, reset, go again with a better improved version but for goodness sake, get it right first time.

He failed to back her yesterday, thought he'd see which way the wind was blowing and then, when t looked favourably to Reeves, jumped in.

He should have backed her yesterday or sacked her today, as for the "i didn't realise she was upset/i was reading my notes" now that really is horseshit.

Badenooch spelt it out for him!

Was listening to an interview (or part of one to be released fully later) with Starmer and Nick Robinson on R4 earlier.

Starmer comes across well in those interviews but can’t translate it in comms.

Then this afternoon listened to Wes Syreetin (about 1.15) talking about NHS reforms. I’m really warming to him. He’s clear calm and console.

Well this reflects Reform as well as the right wing of the Conservatives.

Truss-ite in impulse (greatest Tory budget according to Farage) with vast tax cuts planned which will benefit the wealthy the most. But understanding that they wil need support from many people reliant on benefits. So getting behind certain benefits and deomising the rest. There is a reason they wanted the WFA over turned but wanted PIP cuts to go further. It doesnt need to be coherent.

Of course when push comes to power then I have no doubt they will throw anyone getting in the way of their tax giveaway under a large red bus.

demonising not deomising!

Yes reading my notes is quite feeble, I agree. Neither of them seem good at domestic policy and how things should be managed. His responsibility is to understand the mood of his party; hers is to pass policy through it.

Starmer impresses internationally and does well and is very politically sensitive there. So who holds the domestic strings; always the Treasury. Reeves holds nearly all the domestic policy in her hand, she’s deciding those budgets and controlling who gets what. I am not impressed with her causal assumption she cannot do the politics. She has to. I would have, after a decent interval, sacked her. It may still happen. Her ponderous style is ill suited to a very volatile world.

Agree with much of that but it appears to me that Starmer undermines her & anyone else.. she has a policy, the relevant minister agrees with it.. trouble in party/country etc and Starmer makes them back down.

Thats how it seems to me but thats purely from the outside, no informants in no 11...

Quite troubling that 2 so called senior Labour MP's have said he could be ousted, last thing this country needs.

Unnamed senior Labour MPs? 🙄
Senior as in 'on the pay roll'?
Or senior as in length of time as an MP/age?

I thought "unnamed" was an anagram of "made up" ?

😄

I don’t think the unattributed word of 2 MPs needs worrying about to be honest. I don’t see any grounds to get rid of him. Yes, the benefit bill is a disaster all round but most other metrics are favourable - NHS waiting list, growth etc.

In theory, it could be nearly 4 years till the next election. That is a lot of time for things to go right.

People forget (and it's amusing Reform and the Tories aren't showing any sense here) that it was always known the first year would be a shit one because there was so much bad stuff to get through before there could be any improvement.

Admittedly it could have been handled better for very little effort.

However if you fold all that into the mix, you can sort of get a sense of how and why things are what they are.

After all, if you know your first year will be shit - no matter how you spin it - then there is a good case for not over-investing in trying to fight the media. Because it won't work and cost precious resources.

Completely agree @SerendipityJane
Theres almost no point in Labour fighting the media anyway, but even more so when you know you won’t have good news for a bit.

I agree , and have said on here before that it is a waste even bothering to try and get a reasonable press on board.
BBC generally included in my opinion.

In much the same way as the number of votes needed to elect an MP of different parties varies, so does the value of £1 when it comes to "buying" media coverage.

So if we assume the middle of the dial is 1:1 , then for every £1 the Conform mob get, they get £1 worth of decent coverage.

However, for Labour, every £1 spent results in 10p worth of decent coverage - Labour comms are 90% less effective than Conform comms. And that's systemic.

Once you know that, you save your capital for where it can do most good.

As previously stated, overwhelming resources are only any good if you can marshal them effectively.

Depends where you spend your £1.

I don’t think it does. Those that would give a fair report don’t have the market share to deliver the value.

Maybe they just need to have some fun. Bring Sue Grey back in. Extend Rayner's or Miliband's portfolios or something. Give Blair and Brown roles! Bring in Alastair Campbell. Remove the Tory appointments to the BBC. Prorogue Parliament. Announce a mini fiscal event without the OBR. Cheese and wine in No 10s garden. Break some swings. The seethers are going to seethe anyway and if it was good enough for the last government...
Or they could start talking about updating Leveson 2.

Well that is true of anything. However if I need to flesh out a back of the fag packet analogy, then we assume that all other variables are equal.