AIBU - Keir Starmer's ok - getting rid of him wouldn't help Labour

[Twiglets1]

As a result of the disastrous results for Labour in the recent elections, many people - even within his own party - are now calling for Keir Starmer to stand down.

Would that really help Labour though? It seems to me that a lot of the reasons people are fed up - like the cost of living & housing crisis for example, are not his fault personally but more a result of years of underinvestment, mainly by previous Conservative governments.

Yes he does lack charisma and personally I think the Conservatives have a better leader in Kemi Badenoch. But I wouldn't vote for a political party purely based on how charismatic their leader is.

When you look at the alternatives - I like Wes Streeting but would he be able to turn around the fortunes of the Labour party before the next General Election - I doubt it. And the same goes for Andy Burnham, even if they did find a way to make him eligible for party leadership in time.

The Tories caused turmoil with their constant leadership challenges and it didn't help their brand. Starmer hasn't done anything too awful that I'm aware of - wouldn't it be better just to keep him in post?

It presents a woeful picture of Labour's performance to date and reflects the political earthquake we've seen across England and Wales over the last couple of days.

Yes, I think it would help Labour if Keir stepped aside. I don't understand the personal hatred directed at the man, but its clearly become a thing and I'm not sure he can come back from it. Labour have a tough task with a discontented and impatient electorate wanted things very quickly, that are difficult if not impossible given the wider context. So the chances of Starmer being able to pull off anything quick and dramatic enough to off set his 'most hated' image are slim to none.
I'd think Labour needs to offer the public a new personality, more relatable to ordinary people who listens and responds in their language and who is a lot more vocal about the things the government has achieved. I think Burnham could save Labour.

I don't entirely agree. Though it has shown a lack of progress in some areas, it has shown progress in others and there are things I was unaware that Labour had made progress on so the whole thing is quite interesting both in terms of what they have and haven't achieved so far.

Burnham couldn't quickly step into Starmer's shoes though due to not even being an MP at the moment.

What about Wes Streeting - would he be a good choice as interim leader if you believe we need a new one?

Presumably not Angela Rayner until she has been cleared by HMRC or at least paid the fine over her tax affairs.

Angela Rayner will be death sentence to Labour Party

Out of all of them I’d say Burnham has the best chance if he can get in place. I don’t like Labour but still a better leader is worth it even if it helps them.

The risk with Starmer is he and all of Labour block out the resounding results and dislike hardens so much they get voted out no matter what they do with policies.

To compete with the other parties at the next GE labour will need a politician with strong convictions. There is time for Burnham to get into Parliament via a safe seat. If there is one?
He will be up against Farage and Polanski who have strong personalities. Kemi, slightly less so and there will be Ed Davey looking to fall into some water. His managerial style will make him invisible. Even worse that Gordon Broon.
(ps. I hope he stays on)

Burnham could become an MP and step in and Starmer could continue until then. I don't think we need the disruption of an interim and don't think Raynor or Streeting would be popular (at all or enough, respectively)

He could only become an MP if there is a by election though maybe one could be engineered in a safe seat (if there is one, as a PP said above). But would Starmer play along if he's still in place while this is all happening? It's complicated.

Starmer makes new mistakes today.
He has appointed Gordon Brown as a kind of Economic Ambassador and Harriet Harman to advise on Women and Girls.
What do those appointments say about his opinion of the present Parliamentary Party. Instead of using current MPs he calls up aged Reservists. Harperson born 1950, Broon 1951.
Can you imagine how the Red Tops will write about HH and the links to the Paedophile Information Exchange. Another paedophile story.
How fucking ridiculous!

Due process was not followed, he was given access to the premises, a laptop and phone and access to files before the vetting had even taken place. The vetting signalled red, Olly was told it was amber and the PM thought it was green and by then he was already installed. He was only put through a vetting process after Olly's predecesor said he needed vetting, it had already been approved.

And if you believe Starmer, who said in parliament that Olly had said there was no pressure when I heard Olly say 'there was pressure from No 10' then I'm really not sure where you can go with that, it is like he is Derren Brown or something.

"Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday," the prime minister said at PMQs "He said that 'I didn't feel under… pressure personally in terms of my judgement'."

Sir Olly did tell the committee his decision to grant Lord Mandelson security clearance after a vetting process was not affected by pressure from No 10 Downing Street.

But Sir Olly also told the committee that "my office and the foreign secretary's office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing".

Asked about where the pressure was coming from Sir Olly said the source he "was most conscious of was from the No 10 private office".

No 10 has said Sir Keir meant there was only pressure to get the appointment approved as soon as possible - not the final decision on whether to grant vetting clearance.

The prime minister told the Sunday Times there were "different types of pressure". "There's pressure – 'Can we get this done quickly?' – which is not an unusual pressure. That is the everyday pressure of government," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj949mj41vlo

I don’t think it’s just him - perhaps people are tired of the Labour Party altogether

Op I agree it's not just him Rachel reeves should also go and all the ministers in key positions they have clearly made decisions no one wants.

Yes. From Reeves and Lammy down, the wrong people seem to br in the wrong job. Good reshuffle needed

I think he's done really well, (ETA) the Mandelson decision aside, in very testing circumstances, and I don't think a change of PM now will be at all good for the country.

However, his lack of popular appeal is such that a change to the leadership may be good for Labour.

I think he’d be ousting Bridget & Rachel for starters and Angela Rayner needs to wind her neck in! Sad that the women at the front of the party are appalling!

People do not agree with the benefits culture and all Labour have done since being in is harmed the economy, put taxes up and slammed business.

People love the VAT on school fees but it was a total own goal, not made any money, displaced lots of children, especially those with SEN. Thousands of jobs lost, these schools are big employers in their areas, cooks, cleaners, ground staff.

Changing Prime ministers every 5 minutes is such a bad idea, they get massive pay offs too, new people in new departments, more spending….. no one in Labour understands how to run a business or country!

It doesn't matter what Olly said, Mandleson already been put in place before Olly joined.

This is what we call 'stretching the truth' so that 'pressure' means 'no pressure'.

Cat Little - top civil servant at the Cabinet Office - "I've not seen any documentation that would formally confirm that level of pressure".

Suddenly it doesn't matter what Olly said when you mentioned him 4 times in a your previous post about the vetting ... ok let's move on.

Keir Starmer should absolutely stay. Because just the thought of Angela Rayner replacing him is terrifying. Imagine that. As if the country is not in enough trouble already.

Also, the longer he stays, the more terminal Labour’s decline will be. And hopefully they will be finished forever.

BBC

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent
This is a big moment.
Catherine West does not want to be leader of the Labour Party. And she is not going to be leader of the Labour Party.
But she has just kicked off the process by which the Labour Party may have its first leadership election since Keir Starmer was elected in 2020.
West’s plan (which she says she came up with this morning) is this: by Monday, either the cabinet will have ousted Starmer, or West’s colleagues will have a chance to nominate her formally to contest the party leadership.
It is highly unlikely that West would get to the 81 MPs required for there to be a full ballot of party members between her and Starmer.
But suppose she got close? Suppose dozens of Labour MPs backed West as a show of frustration? That might be enough to tempt others to launch a leadership bid.
Or it might fall apart rapidly and prompt Labour MPs to row in behind Starmer, solidifying his position for now.
Let’s see. Whatever happens next, this is a big moment.

You started a thread saying he is 'ok' but you seem completely oblivious to any of the things he has done.

Bizarre.

Also 'nobody takes minutes or notes anything down'.

Yeh that was a complete stitch up for OR, Starmer got it wrong. Of course whipped against scrutiny too.

More Mandelson files coming out too.