Starmer admits he’s frustrated by his first year in power.

escaped

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I’d stop paying ££millions to France. It’s not good value for money.

They even grumbling again about the Bayeux tapestry coming over here, and we're paying
££ millions for it!

I'm not sure it should come! It's too fragile and precious.

Perhaps the £millions could be spent funding school trips so that children could go over there to see 'Harold with the Arrow in his eye'!

Elegran

Luckygirl3

Grantanow

He needs to do two things. 1: get a grip on the so-called immigration problem and resolve it so pulling the rug from under Farage's feet (and the Tories should help him), and 2: go all out for economic growth.

What is your proposal for getting a "grip on" immigration?

This. more detail needed here? For instance, exactly how should he get a grip on immigration? One move would be to solve the international problems that bedevil the world - anything less just patches over the symptoms without curing the disease. Just how do you even begin to make any impression on international problems without international action? While there is war and oppression, and trillionaire power junkies manipulating national finances to increase their own wealth and influence, there will always be people leaving their native countries to seek other homes.

I think Starmer is someone with the ability to see the disease behind the symptoms. He went from a young local volunteer to getting and exercising a law degree because he saw that without legal experience he couldn't help the people who came to him for assistance. Then he went from administering the law to joining those who made them, and from being a back bencher to leading the lawmakers. From there he inevitably gravitated to involvement in international affairs. You can't keep putting plasters on the wounds without wondering what really caused them and attacking the root sources.

to you for your final metaphor

Elegran

I'm not surprised he is frustrated. He does a lot of research, consults a lot of people, works out what will give a long-term effect (and isnt a quick fix or unaffordable), then puts it up for discussion - and is blasted by people who see only their own corner of the problem and think that a different political party will improve their life with a magic wand.

Well said Elegran .

A prime minister should be able to address the complexity of problems for long term remedial action.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I’d stop paying ££millions to France. It’s not good value for money.

They even grumbling again about the Bayeux tapestry coming over here, and we're paying
££ millions for it!

westendgirl

I am convinced that whatever he does some of the posters here will not be satisfied .Even if he had a magic wand to put right the things which do not please many posters and could do it overnight they would still not support him.

Well, I could lend him one, it's in the attic.

Starmer has all the right experience on paper but in practice I think he’s not a natural leader and lets himself be bogged down with too many opinions from others which means he can’t be decisive.I think he’s can be obstinate but that’s a different characteristic.
The first year in power didn’t have to be like this, I think he now knows this and hopefully the reshuffle will help.
Ultimately tho the buck stops with him.

I am convinced that whatever he does some of the posters here will not be satisfied .Even if he had a magic wand to put right the things which do not please many posters and could do it overnight they would still not support him.

Luckygirl3

Grantanow

He needs to do two things. 1: get a grip on the so-called immigration problem and resolve it so pulling the rug from under Farage's feet (and the Tories should help him), and 2: go all out for economic growth.

What is your proposal for getting a "grip on" immigration?

This. more detail needed here? For instance, exactly how should he get a grip on immigration? One move would be to solve the international problems that bedevil the world - anything less just patches over the symptoms without curing the disease. Just how do you even begin to make any impression on international problems without international action? While there is war and oppression, and trillionaire power junkies manipulating national finances to increase their own wealth and influence, there will always be people leaving their native countries to seek other homes.

I think Starmer is someone with the ability to see the disease behind the symptoms. He went from a young local volunteer to getting and exercising a law degree because he saw that without legal experience he couldn't help the people who came to him for assistance. Then he went from administering the law to joining those who made them, and from being a back bencher to leading the lawmakers. From there he inevitably gravitated to involvement in international affairs. You can't keep putting plasters on the wounds without wondering what really caused them and attacking the root sources.

The proof of the pudding is telling though.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I’d stop paying ££millions to France. It’s not good value for money.

You don't know how it's being spent and I bet you've never seen an evaluation.

I’d stop paying ££millions to France. It’s not good value for money.

3,400 arrivals on rubber boats crossing the Channel since Starmer’s much vaunted bromance deal with Macron about the ‘one in one out’. Not ONE has gone back yet….

Grantanow

He needs to do two things. 1: get a grip on the so-called immigration problem and resolve it so pulling the rug from under Farage's feet (and the Tories should help him), and 2: go all out for economic growth.

To be fair, Liz Truss tried to go out for economic growth, but that didn't end well. I must admit I find some of Labour's actions (especially increasing employers' NI) puzzling in that context. If the only figure which mattered were economic growth, one of the easiest ways to do that would be to allow more immigrants with work visas, but there would be all sorts of repercussions.

I think Labour is trying to get to grips with the immigration issue - hence the latest announcement about family visas. Unfortunately for Labour, there are those within the party who strongly disagree wit that for various reasons. Despite the increase in arrivals, Labour hasn't done enough to publicise the increased number of deportations. It inherited a toxic problem with hotels, but there isn't an overnight simple solution. There is now more international liaison. People smuggling is an international problem, linked to other crime, but it takes time to establish international anti-crime networks. Brexit didn't help. I believe there is progress, but the results won't be visible overnight.

Iam64 Good post! I don't disagree with any of it.

Benefits are a poisoned chalice for any government. Labour was/is right to take it on, but faces more difficulties than other parties because some of its own backbenchers and supporters have been seen as supporters of people receiving benefits - most of whom receive them legitimately but have been caught up with cuts.

It's hypocrisy for people who wouldn't ever vote Labour to criticise them for cuts when they, themselves, have advocated for cuts/changes.

Starmer reminds me of Canute. A person can be a brilliant king/prime minister/leader, but s/he will always face (and be beaten) by a hostile sea (media).

PS. I'm not a usual Labour voter, so I'm not entirely partisan and uncritical.

Grantanow

He needs to do two things. 1: get a grip on the so-called immigration problem and resolve it so pulling the rug from under Farage's feet (and the Tories should help him), and 2: go all out for economic growth.

What is your proposal for getting a "grip on" immigration?

He needs to do two things. 1: get a grip on the so-called immigration problem and resolve it so pulling the rug from under Farage's feet (and the Tories should help him), and 2: go all out for economic growth.

The role of prime minister is beyond the scope of any one individual and needs to be split into foreign and home. As in France.
My preference would be for Starmer to be foreign. Out of the country!

Basically, he is ineffectual.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

*Here not hear ha!

Oh I don't know FGT2 perhaps hear/here could apply. After all, he's never here to hear a lot of the time is he 😂😂

Luckygirl3

escaped

When I took over as leader of the Labour Party, I said there will be sort of three phases to this.

You've got to sort of build the fundamentals first and then you move on to the second stage.

What's with these sort of s? He sounds rather uncertain and vague.

Sounds honest. I will settle for that rather than the bluff and bluster that went before.

Honest maybe, but it's a known fact that the sort ofs are used in speech as filler words, a bit like the "ums" used by Boris!! It is possible to criticise both candidly.

escaped

^When I took over as leader of the Labour Party, I said there will be sort of three phases to this^.

You've got to sort of build the fundamentals first and then you move on to the second stage.

What's with these sort of s? He sounds rather uncertain and vague.

Sounds honest. I will settle for that rather than the bluff and bluster that went before.

If he is frustrated he might be best off returning to his previous job as an international lawyer. Better for him, better for you.

I don't trust Starmer on immigration - the big problem. Unfortunately, is it is going to get worse unless we sidestep the ECHR which, as his politics are so law based, will not happen.

He feels doomed.

I voted for him as Labour leader and Labour at the election.
I don’t deny it’s been fits and starts. I see the change of plans on wfa and benefits/pip/disability as very poor management with the parliamentary Labour Party. It can’t have been a total surprise that so many mp’s opposed these proposals. It should have been resolved as best as possible before public announcements were made

FWIW I don’t believe wfa should be a universal benefit. I’d have linked it to pension tax credits and put those at a more realistic, generous start point.

I know benefit fraud a drop in the ocean compared to tax evasion but in my line of work, I did see significant benefit fraud. That linked to fraudulent claims for disability/motability.

Increased benefits for people with mh difficulties, including drug or alcohol addiction were meant to help claimants get to appointments aimed at helping reduce dependency on substances, reduce depression and anxiety and more. Austerity largely demolished those services of course. We now have increasing numbers of people with anxiety and depression. I’ll leave that there.

Accepting poor support services have become the norm, why should X get more benefits to continue drinking or using street drugs when Y, next door gets basic benefits after recently losing their job? Why do substance or alcohol misusers qualify for motability? Yes I do understand the theoretical reasons but where is the incentive to make the necessary lifestyle changes if the result is huge loss of income. It’s an unsustainable mess that Starmer was right to attempt to address.

Mt61

FriedGreenTomatoes2

So are we.

I thought you now liked him FGT?

I always voted Labour.
Although I didn’t vote for Starmer I was prepared to back him and hoped his ‘bank manager, boring, Mr Capability’ would cut the mustard.

It hasn’t and I’m very disappointed in him thus far.