To like Keir Starmer?

[Emmanuelll]

Unlike Tony Blair, he comes from a working class background - his siblings would still call themselves working class.

As a very bright lawyer, he could have sought a path which made him rich quickly but instead chose human rights which isn’t an easy route to take and he’s defended ‘the little guy’ against corporations. He’s also anti-death penalty.

Ok, he’s a Sir, and I’ve heard people (perhaps not unreasonably) question why the leader of the Labour Party would have a title like that. But he earned it through work for the criminal justice system.

On the face of it, it seems as though he deserves a chance.

I would much rather have him as PM than a former Bullingdon club member who used to burn money in front of homeless people for the fun of it.

If Starmer is seen to walk on water, it's by comparison to the incredibly low bar of gits that have come before him.

Of course he looks good compared to BoJo, Truss and the rest. My god - the lettuce looked good next to Truss.

He has shown himself to be a competent tactitician of general elections, by virtue of the incredible success in terms of seat numbers.

Now is the test of him as Prime Minister - and that test will run for 5 years. And often, some impacts (good and bad) cannot be seen for even longer than that.

In the meantime, I have been impressed with the energy and organisation of the first few days of the new government and genuinely hope they succeed for everyone. Even those sucking sour grapes will enjoy them more if sat in a succesful country while they do so.

Maybe one matter to consider is; given a state alternative, perhaps such a policy does not infringe human rights and or might be justified?

Keir Starmer is a clever man. And he does not write his legal arguments in the Telegraph.

I voted conservative. But I’ve never actually had a problem with Keir himself, seems like a nice affable guy, because he doesn’t do what a lot of politicians do and get nasty and personal and is trying to unite the people and not score cheap shots painting people who don’t vote him as horrid etc, I’m actually warming to him. Angela Rayner however 🙄

Well exactly. Denying someone education would be against their human rights. Charging VAT to an institution they choose to pay extra to for a special type of education? Not seeing it. I don’t think Starmer is stupid, and he knows the human rights laws well. It’s not, as @Araminta1003 suggests him being ‘sly’ and hoping to get it through. He knows it’s legal. He wouldn’t have pushed it so hard if he didn’t.

I'm thinking that surely, being a lawyer he will have checked out the likelihood of legal challenges? Interesting points @Araminta1003 and @Champagnesocialismo

This is such a deep misrepresentation of the position.

For one thing we don’t actually know that VAT on school fees would be held to be a breach of human rights law. Lord Pannick once co-produced a legal opinion (which is now more than 40 years old) advising that the authors considered that taxing school fees could be a contravention of the ECHR, but this has not been tested in the courts and there is no definitive answer. It’s worth remembering that Lord Pannick himself was one of the architects of the Rwanda scheme, so take his commitment to the ECHR with the fistful of salt it deserves.

As for these allegations that KS has been ‘sly’ and tricked people - please stop trying to peddle silly conspiracies when a Labour spokesperson commented on this issue during the election to advise that Labour is aware of the potential legal challenge but are confident their intended plans are compatible with the ECHR. If you think that KS has somehow managed to hide from his party or the public - all of whom are quite as capable of reading the Telegraph as you - that there is a potential legal challenge to this policy then you simply don’t have a sensible grasp on reality.

And only a small handful of people are homeless. Should we just say fuck them then?

Small numbers of people is how he’s getting away with the private school gig. That, paired with complete ignorance of the sector in general and large numbers of people who think everyone else should pay for their life/offspring.

Comparing the homeless with parents who can afford private school. really??

The constant claims on MN of victimhood and poor, persecuted private school parents from some people are really getting old.

There is a whole thread on why taxing private schools VAT is likely illegal already. We do not need to rehash it. Breach of Art 1 and 14, likely. Is the act still directly enforceable in the UK, no.
Is it morally reprehensible to be a party that champions the HR act and then breach it knowingly, yes.
It is complicated. There will be challenges. I would be interested in Keir’s legal arguments, of course.

Agreed - i actually feel like the country is in competent hands - it’s a massive relief.

Yesterday I looked up the news online, and saw a bunch of stuff on specific policies being implemented, and it felt like a breath of fresh air. It wasn’t just yelling and having a go at people. They were actually working for the people. It felt positive.

This morning I’ve seen that Suella Braverman has flown to a conference in America to scream about ‘wokism’. Thank God she is unlikely to ever be in high office ever again. Unbelievably negative.

What’s wrong with Rayner? Are you still hung up on the ‘scum’ comment? That was about Tory MPs, not voters, when they very evidently were acting like scum, so….

I do too so hopefully he will be a good PM.
A barrister relative knew him through work and thought quite highly of him.

Seats are not votes.

I asked you, on this thread, why you thought it was.
I’m pretty confident that if Starmer says the plans are ECHR compatible, then they are.

The thing about seats vs votes though - if it’s such a bad system why hasn’t any government moved to change it?

But they are all that matter in our system. He targeted, and got, the votes he needed.

Remind me which our electoral system is built on?

And which system the Labour and Lib Dem strategies were designed around?

Agree!

There was a referendum in 2011

Indeed.

1 in 3 of the people who voted chose Labour.

Less than 60% of adults voted.

So only 2 in 10 people who could have voted chose Stamer’s Labour.

Although he has a stonking great majority of seats, the fact that 2 in 10 people bothered to vote for him does mean that an itty bitty amount of votes is a fair assessment.

Good for him if he's wealthy and capable. Would you want an idiot running the country? I couldn't care less about his background if he actually brings positive change and is able to fund it without a mass exodus of wealth generators.

I don't disagree. But seats still are not votes.

So, speculation, informed or otherwise

All of this.