Thread 36 Starmer - Triggered by ads and Da iawn, Caerffili.

[DuncinToffee]

Pull up a chair for some friendly chit chat about politics, cats, dogs and much more

Taxes optional but greatly appreciated.

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5427394-thread-35-starmer-old-and-smelling-of-roses?page=40&reply=148165782

Are we really doing this again ?

The reason you did not get a Labour-LibDem coalition was very much because the electorate had clearly rejected Labour and it would have been problematic to have them return to power propped up by the LDs.

However it's clear that the UK as a whole cannot really handle coalition politics - presumably it's beneath us. So really why waste time on electoral reform ?

You won’t hear me praise the Tory Party or their total economic idiocy. But Reeves is awful. Her political management is dire. Really awful. Her’s is a catalogue of unforced errors.

The mess she is in is definitely connected to Conservative Government. That I appreciate. I do not endorse the Conservative right wing view of her. She is just absolutely awful at the political elements of the job and how they land with ordinary people. That too is part of the job.

Norway standing up for itself again. Bravo !

https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/04/norway_wealth_fund_says_ingen/

They clearly didn't clearly reject Labour otherwise there wouldn't have been a coalition. Yes we are doing this again.

We get it 😀. Every day you say this several times a day.

You're falling short of saying Rachel from accounts.

2-4-1

Completely agree with your assessment of Reeves. A disingenuous person who’s popularity is due to sink further after the budget.

I cannot imagine she has tenure.

Haven't you been saying that since she was appointed Nolle?

Hope you are not a betting person

I still have an axe to grind with Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM so we all have our grievances.

That's because of the anyone can join the Labour Party for £3 awful policy and many people who would never vote Labour did and voted for Corbyn. @Notonthestairs

May paid billions to the bigot DUP to hold together a coalition. So Labour nearly won.

Then the fragrant, booze and fags, Farage let the equally disgusting Boris off the hook in the December 2019 election. The rest is history.

It was I ! I joined Labour then. Am not sorry, not one little bit.

I voted for Andy Burnham. Polishes halo 😇

Wow. I’m not actually a sexist. I defended her when people on here did say that. Labour politicians should be good at their jobs. She had a rake in the face quality

I don’t think she is any more disengenous than any other politician. She is a political klutz. I wish Starmer had appointed someone better suited.

Who do you think was better suited @bombastix?

I would have been happier with Torsten Bell. He is a genuine radical.

Reeves is NBG. She lapped up all that HMT orthodoxy. What sort of Labour Chancellor is that.

He is being mentioned lately, like I wondered earlier in the thread if that was why the right wing press had that attack on him.

He comes across well.

Reeves lands badly with "ordinary" people simply because the media portray her badly.

She found away of raising 40bn for public services, 29bn of which has gone to the NHS.

"Catalogue of unforced errors" the only one i can see is the WFA.

But its hardly her fault that Labour policy was to go into the GE promising not to increase taxes at all.

Like i said, she acts within cabinet govt, any errors are not just on her.

Labours problems are solely to do with the conservatives, she has to find money for Defence, Prisons, NHS, Schools, Roads, Hotel contracts, Compensation scandals etc etc the list is endless.

All because the Cons the UK into the ground, with a combination of austerity and incompetence.

Torsten Bell is part of the team that advises Reeves, he would face exactly the same problems Reeves does & come up with the same solutions, he totally defended last years budget.

Which is exactly why nonsense stories are being published about Bell by the Telegraph. Nevermind that they have to retract it later.

Isn't there a saying about being hanged for a wolf as for a sheep ?

That being the case, and in the certain knowledge that her successors will do her no favours my instinct would be to just do it anyway.

He didn't want it.

It was the poisoned chalice job.

Have the press been on other chancellor's backs as quick as they did with Reeves?

What does that mean? Rake in the face quality.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=2WZLJpMOxS4&pp=0gcJCR4Bo7VqN5tD

Yes but those aren’t credible. Bell has vastly better credentials than Reeves, he’s been a major leader, and advised the UK during the financial crisis back in 2008. He is a vastly better candidate than Reeves. Also, I don’t believe he didn’t want the job.

Reeves is Starmer’s appointment. It does reflect on him but she’s Chancellor. She has her own judgment. Let’s not patronise her by saying she needs his endorsement. All Chancellors have the heft to justify their own policy. I have never seen it otherwise.

What does that mean or signify? Are you referencing yourself?