[Youngian]

His approval ratings are far lower than previous PMs. The conspiracy fuelled vitriol I hear attached to the hatred of Keir doesn't sound rational. Its like the robotic "Brown sold the gold' mantra turned up to 11.
I'm coming to the stage where I just say leave politics to the young and old codgers like me should shut up.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sir Keir's not bothered with a base, which can bite you on the arse if things go wrong.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Non-Dom press barons. Scared of fair taxation.

[Tubby Isaacs]

it's funny how Labour, who are "terrified of the rightwing press", keep doing stuff like abolishing non-dom, increasing inheritance tax for the richest, and putting VAT on school fees.

They've made a reasonable attempt at raising money from shutting down these regressive anomalies. Unfortunately, that's not enough to sort stuff out properly. I don't know how big the 'raise taxes on people like me" vote is. Probably not very big, in fairness, but they might get some grudging respect for it from the markets.

[kreuzberger]

Anybody else wondering what, precisely, are the reasons why so many people apparently dislike Keir Starmer ? I mean, he’s a pleasant enough guy. I suspect that a big part of it is quite simply that he is the Prime Minister, and Prime Ministers, generally speaking, are just not well liked.

I don't know how much he is actively disliked, rather that the government in general is not polling well. The disappointment is palpable, and the "Change" promise is not being either felt or understood.

I can however imagine that the press hate him. He put the shits up them over a possible second referendum and played a pivotal role is smelting their tin god.

For what it's worth, he seems like a nice enough bloke to me.

He also didn't go to a proper school, the oik.

[Youngian]

Sir Keir's not bothered with a base, which can bite you on the arse if things go wrong.

Anti politics candidate usually refers to populist windbags but can also refer to technocratic leaders like Starmer who hate the nonsense of politics but love policies and getting the job done. That quote comes from Arnie Schwarzenegger but he’s an entertainer who could do the connecting with voters bullshit if needs must. It feels like Starmer can’t be arsed with all that bollox. Which the politically engaged don’t have a problem with but it might sink him.

[Abernathy]

Liam’s been thinking about populism, and how we fuck Farage :

https://liambyrne.substack.com/p/the-fi ... irect=true

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Reading that -admittedly a skim-read - it occurs to me that the group we are trying to encourage to switch to us is the 'left-behind collectivist' and that the non-dom press, and their sycophants in the broadcast media, is working very hard to persuade them that they are being left behind by the Westminster elite and The Establishment - with which they are assiduously identifying Labour. Because that suits their oligarchic/kleptocratic world view/plan.

[Abernathy]

All of this bigging-up of Andy Burnham as the next Labour leader and Prime Minister is not just becoming numbingly tedious, it reminds me of nothing so much as the sorry history of how Boris Johnson blagged his way to the leadership of the Conservative Party, then the premiership, after which he presided over the UK’s continuing economic decline, an astonishingly mishandled public health crisis that saw thousands of avoidable deaths, and an orgy of partying at ten Downing Street, lying, dissembling, and bluster. By the way(!)

Like Johnson was, Burnham is currently out of parliament, running a major metropolis as mayor and so ineligible to become the leader of his party. Like Johnson did (and lied when he promised not to do so while still mayor), Burnham would need to find a safe parliamentary seat in which to get elected back to parliament (and presumably more honestly than Johnson resign as Manc mayor first), before setting about engineering the downfall of Keir Starmer and his replacement as leader/PM by Burnham.

Johnson managed all that, of course, aided significantly by Theresa May’s crisis-ridden handling of the Brexit debacle, but it looks like a very tall order for Burnham. Is there really a “safe” seat anywhere in which Burnham could be sure of winning a by-election ? How could he bring an incumbent PM down ?

I think it’s all very, very fanciful and unlikely. And I happen to think that Starmer has not done that bad a job, particularly on foreign policy. He should be allowed to finish the job.

[Youngian]

Not convinced Burnham's positive approval ratings would last if he was in the hot seat but wouldn't mind him back in parliament for a rainy day.
Let's say the economy turns a corner, Labour's ratings improve but not enough for victory because the public don't like Starmer. Is Keir going to be Bill Hayden* and roll over for a colleague that can win or another Jeremy Corbyn?

* Competent Aussie Labor leader who didn't believe he could take the party to power. But was sure his colleague Bob Hawke could so resigned without being pushed.

[Abernathy]

Well, the question arises again of just why most of the public apparently dislike Keir Starmer so much ?
What could it possibly be ? Is it that he is no Tony Blair ? Does he just need some better speechwriters and a bit of coaching on public speaking ? Maybe he’s already on the case,. Maybe conference later this month will be a resurgent triumph.

[Andy McDandy]

He's not an entertainer. With the last few Tory prime ministers, their selection, even if only voted on by the party, was played out in public. They turned government into a performance piece.

[kreuzberger]

Does the electorate actually dislike Starmer or are the people just a bit meh.

For the record, I couldn't pinpoint a single reason why he should be dislikable amongst normal folk who shag neither flags nor publish enemy press.

[Abernathy]

I think the people are fickle. Starmer isn’t the shining saviour they were all hoping for after the 14 year bin fire of the Tories, and there have been mistakes in the first 14 months without the instantaneously visible improvements they all want, so they’re putting the hard word on Starmer and his government whenever they get the chance.

But I still don’t think there is much actively to dislike about Keir Starmer. Yes, he can be accused of being boring and managerial, but wasn’t that what we wanted following the clown shows of Johnson & Truss ?

The truly worrying thing is the apparently real threat from Farage. We really could do with that particular flash in the pan burning itself out soonest.

[Oboogie]

Starmer's a fairly dull bloke, so was Gordon Brown, so was Clem Atlee - so what?
He's a serious politician who works hard at getting shit done, he thinks, he plans, he actions, he reviews - that's exactly what we need.
If I want entertainment, the internet is full of it, I don't need or want it coming from Downing Street.

[davidjay]

People didn't vote for Starmer, they voted against Sunak. Because he didn't have the populist image of Blair, the media felt safe to attack him from the start. Then there's the general feeling of unhappiness, currently manifesting itself against migrants which plays into the hands of the snake oil salesmen of the right. And finally the Corbynistas who will never forgive him for winning. Basically Starmer walked into a perfect storm.

[The Weeping Angel]

Get ready for Lucy Powell, deputy leader, everyone.

[Abernathy]

Lucy as Dep. Leader wouldn’t be so bad, although I intend to vote for Bridget. The Deputy Leader post isn’t really that important, athough it can be (see John Prescott). Tom Watson thinks it really should be scrapped, and I tend to agree with him.

[Abernathy]

Tom Watson’s latest thinking :

A case for a progressive alliance
What Starmer is saying this week. We're heading for a 'Stop Farage' general election
SEP 27

Eighty years on from 1945, we honour a government that fought for social progress and won. Out of ruins, people fashioned a welfare state. Health care became a right, not a privilege. It was not gifted. It was wrestled from the clenched fist of privilege by ordinary men and women who believed tomorrow could be fairer than yesterday.


Eighty years on, the argument about progress is still as strong.
On the eve of his conference, Keir Starmer has named the foe. He tells the Guardian that history will not forgive us if we fail to fight Reform. There is an enemy. There is a project set against our country. He calls this an open fight with Reform, a battle for the soul of this country. That is a stark line to draw, and he has drawn it.


Why cast Reform as the adversary of progress? Because, at heart, Reform preaches brittle liberal economics. Think Hayek. The state is always the problem. Thatcherism was only the warm up. On society, they hide behind the front door. Brexit was the pinnacle of national isolation. Immigration is a threat. They’re no fans of devolution. They stand for Little Britain.

This framing carries an admission. First, Reform is a bigger threat to a progressive government than the Conservatives. Second, there are Reform supporters Labour is not likely to win back. This implies a simple truth: you need a progressive alliance in the country. Choose the coalition you need, then resist the temptation to chase voters you are unlikely to regain from Reform.

Ed Davey signalled as much last week, pitching his party as a bulwark against Faragism. The logic of today’s announcement suggests Starmer may be preparing to say it this week, in different words and with harder edges.

If that is the pitch, then hold the ground. Progressive voters are already the majority. They live in Labour, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and sometimes the SNP. They want climate action, more devolution, electoral reform and a stronger welfare state. They demand safety on the streets but not authoritarianism. They’re sceptical when they see politicians in the company of oligarchs and media moguls. They also tend to be the ones that make our culture; tread carefully around the creative industries. If you march to the drum of big corporates, do not be surprised when Elton John and Paul McCartney sing a different tune.

This is where the strategic detail matters. The government’s plan for digital ID is billed as modern statecraft and a practical answer to illegal working. Starmer calls it an enormous opportunity. Critics warn of overreach and risk. The question for progressives is simple: does this make a complex system work fairly for citizens, or does it borrow the language of Reform to curtail individual liberty? The test is delivery, privacy and trust, not political rhetoric.

A final thought on the coming contest. We are heading for a stop Farage election. If Reform defines the argument, it will be on terrain that belittles the state and popularises new threats. If Labour defines the argument, it should be on terrain that modernises the state, widens opportunity and encourages human flourishing in all its forms. Choose progress, then defend it.

Reading

How to defeat the far right by Nick Lowles. I’ll write a full review in the next few weeks but I think Labour Party members are going to need this in the years ahead!

[Boiler]

Why cast Reform as the adversary of progress? Because, at heart, Reform preaches brittle liberal economics. Think Hayek. The state is always the problem. Thatcherism was only the warm up. On society, they hide behind the front door. Brexit was the pinnacle of national isolation. Immigration is a threat. They’re no fans of devolution. They stand for Little Britain.

And there it is.