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?

You also deny his utter corruption and lies.

Maybe Gordon Brown as "special advisor" will show Keir how to deal with awkward voters. Remember Bigotgate?

It doesn't help when you see NeverHereKeir back-slapping foreign leaders. @senua

This is another reason why people are turning their back on him. Starmer appears to love a foreign trip as Prime Minister clearly enjoying trappings that go with that.

It doesn't set a good impression when he goes on yet another tax paid trip abroad when there are plenty of issues here for him to focus on.

Think he’s fine. I like him.

No politican is honest about the nature of the problem.

What do you think the problem actually is?

Excellent analysis, I reluctantly agree it may be better to crash the economy quickly than drag this pantomime on any longer.

Labour appear to have failed to prepare a response so we're getting the usual baffling word salad, "Painful result", "The public aren't feeling the benefit", "it's the tories/covid/war", "we need to go faster and further", rather than acknowledge the truth the electorate don't like what they have done.

If you're old enough to remember the UK (under Labour) being bailed out by the IMF in 1976 you might agree we need a party that will decimate public spending and focus purely on growth for any chance of economic survival, but it will never happen.

Perhaps understandably, as most people don't realise how much trouble we're in. For example ask anyone "how much is the daily interest on our national debt?", and see how near it is to the £350+ million a day they get?

Perhaps, Reform would be best placed to pick-up the pieces after the crash, which is looking increasingly likely, although they will probably meet too much resistance if they do any thing too radical. (see Poll tax riots).

Either way, I don't think there's much doubt, the tide is turning...

He’s not terrible, but is a rubbish communicator (surprising for a barrister), and cannot really articulate a vision for the country.

I am sympathetic for his situation because the conservatives really did a number on the country and its finances - putting any incoming government in a near impossible position. (Everything from Brexit and Liz Truss to Jeremy Hunt borrowing from the future to pay for ‘jam’ (such as it was) today, and lots more.)

That said, I don’t think Starmer has been frank and honest enough with his own MPs (or the country) about what is possible. And that is compounded by his inability to present a coherent longer term vision and articulate politically how the small things he can afford to do now are moving towards that vision. Difficult to do in today’s sound-bite (social) media age…

I haven't RTFT but - what on earth do you mean no scandals?

• Employing Morgan McSweeney - possibly the most shady character in the Civil Service (which says a lot)
• The subsequent hiring of Mandelson (through McSweeney) despite full awareness of his closeness to Epstein.
• Taking undisclosed bungs, both personally (Lord Ali) and through Labour Friends of Israel (Trevor Chinn).
• Massive conflicts of interest around the funding and operations of the right wing think tank Labour Together, as well as secret meetings being held with the likes of Elbit Systems.
• The Ukranian rent boys trial!
• U-turns on pretty much everything he has ever promised to do.

At best, he is a weak, duplicitous creep. At worst, he is a calculated, dangerous, pathological liar. The (actually) powerful people have enough Kompromat on him to sink the Titanic so at this point he just has to accept it and keep his masters happy.

No scandals, what planet are you on!?!

There isn't just one problem there are multiple problems. A bit beyond the scope of this thread. I gave a couple in my first post, the cost of living and the housing crisis. There is also too much pressure on public services and we seem to have a problem with illegal immigration, which Reform are capitalising on.

I mean, this was just Tuesday for the Tories.

Jeremy Hunt borrowing from the future to pay for ‘jam’ (such as it was) today
It was Blair and Brown with their PFI borrowing-from-the-future that started the whole mess. Their policies meant we had nothing to fall back on in 2008 when the financial crash happened. I also believe that Brown's "no more boom and bust" is partially responsible for the current situation. Basically he was saying that he wanted to overrule markets, but if we had let the markets do their thing then this would have been resolved before now instead of limping on in agony. The idea that you could peg growth and inflation to 2% would only hold for so long; it's why, when the elastic stretched too far(1), we suddenly had all these huge price increases in a short period of time - it was the market catching up on years of suppressed inflation.
(1) It was triggered by Ukraine but it could have been any event outside the control of Government. You can't buck the markets forever.

The Winter fuel allowance would have saved about a billion a year, but pissed a lot of people off. What idiots.

The winter fuel allowance did get a lot of bad publicity but any other Prime minister would equally have to try to make welfare savings somewhere and they will all be unpopular.

Rising taxes would also be unpopular so basically they will get criticised whether they spend more or try to save more.

Edited to add that there are a lot of well off pensioners who don't need the winter fuel allowance and pensioners on means tested benefits would have been exempt so it wasn't the worse policy idea, in my opinion. If Reform or the Conservatives get into power at the next election, they will very likely make worse cuts than that proposed one.

But this isn't about the Tories. They are a completely separate political party who are not in power. I don't understand the keenness to always ignore the dungheap right here just to say "yeah, well that dungheap over there was worse!". Where is the critique for this dungheap?

Labour claimed they were completely different. And yet....

In a recent interview Nigel Farage said he hoped Keir Starmer stays on as he is the best recruiter for Reform. This should tell anyone rooting for Starmer all they need to know!

Farage is a slick operator and knows that the worst thing for his party would be if Labour appoint a new PM just before the next general election, before the voting public have a chance to realise that they can't perform miracles either.

From that point of view, he must be hoping they replace Starmer either quickly or not at all. Personally, I don't see how replacing him now will help the Labour party as that would give enough time for the new leader to prove just as disappointing. Unless the new leader is so charismatic and likable that voters turn a blind eye to the fact that the UK is still in a downward spiral.

Starmer is championing General Melchett from Blackadder:

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

He aint going nowhere and let's face it, who in that rag-taggle bunch would be suitable to replace him?

That deflection clearly isn’t working for Labour anymore anyway.

It could have well read as a criticism of the Tories, as they also had a massive Friends of Israel faction. However...they are not the political party in power at the moment, so the whataboutery, although predictable, is not relevant is it.

Keir Starmer - Granny Harmer.

Lol.

Like all the Grannies are poor despite all pensioners are rich to those who like soundbites because triple lock.

because triple lock.
Do you realise that the State pension is about half the NMW? It may be a big expense to the State but it's not a huge income to the individual.
It has only now - just - crept over the tax free allowance. (Another example of RR's inept taxation strategy)

I live off the state pension and cant afford holidays or a car. I would hardly call that rich. Some people want to take away the bus pass and free prescriptions from old people. I am not moaning about my situation, I just don't want less.

Yes but the sort of people who like quick soundbites such as Starmer Granny Harmer will on a different day enjoy soundbites about pensioners being well off because of their "gold plated pensions" and triple lock.

That is fair enough that you don't want less. I definitely think pensioners should get free bus passes and prescriptions (maybe not from the age of 60 in the case of prescriptions unless means tested?)

However, a lot of people getting free prescriptions & winter fuel allowance don't actually need it so I was surprised at the level of uproar. Fair enough for people living off the state pension but some pensioners are wealthy.

Maybe where this policy went wrong was that it was too strict in saying that only pensioners on means tested benefits were exempt. A smaller number of pensioners should have been expected to lose the allowance - only those on good incomes.