A year of Starmer What do you think?

1983 , labour lost

1997 labour won , followed by two more wins

followed by ?

But trisher the buck stops with the leader, read granys post,
you both share the same beliefs

Of course if all you want is. centrist LP that has proved itself unelectable for the past 20 years carry on!

He only lost 2017 because the Tories bribed the DUP. It isn't enough to keep blaming Corbyn because it was a loss. It is time to start looking at it in more detail. The Hartlepool seat had a bigger majority in 2017, this fell in 2019 but the seat was lost by Starmer. More councils were lost under Starmer. Time to stop blaming the left and look at what really happened.

trisher we did not have a general election last Thursday, and
Corbyn stood down after losing two general elections.

Well said MayBe and suziewoozie

MayBee70

But trisher this isn’t a general election is it? If it was, unlike Corbyn, I’m sure Starmer would have stood down. I couldn’t believe Kuensberg last night (well, it was Kuensberg so I should have expected it). Owen Jones is slagging Starmer off constantly. All it does is divert attention away from the corrupt, lying government that we now have. Starmer has the BBC against him. Murdoch. And large sections of his own party who still worship Corbyn. Maybe he should just promise to abolish tuition fees and get the youth of this country chanting ‘oh, Keir Starmer’.

At least saying he would abolish tuition fees would show he had some form of policies. Why do you think post Tony Blair that election turn out dropped to its lowest ever? Because all that was offered was Tory or Tory lite. Is that what we are going back to? I don't worship Corbyn I simply acknowledge that in 2017 something left wing appealed to the population and, in spite of opposition within the LP, the party did well. In 2019 they failed. They failed massively this year as well, But of course it's nothing to do with Starmer's inadequacies. It's all the fault of the left wing, who have given him a year to further destroy socialism.

Well said May I’m just sick of all the angst - much of it manufactured. It’s filling the gap until tomorrow when the QS will not only promise us unicorns but also in a choice of colours.

But trisher this isn’t a general election is it? If it was, unlike Corbyn, I’m sure Starmer would have stood down. I couldn’t believe Kuensberg last night (well, it was Kuensberg so I should have expected it). Owen Jones is slagging Starmer off constantly. All it does is divert attention away from the corrupt, lying government that we now have. Starmer has the BBC against him. Murdoch. And large sections of his own party who still worship Corbyn. Maybe he should just promise to abolish tuition fees and get the youth of this country chanting ‘oh, Keir Starmer’.

And he went Annie he didn't hide his head in the sand, reshuffle his cabinet and pretend he had nothing to do with it. That's the point.

And the following election labour had the biggest defeat since
1935

suziewoozie

Casdon

You’re right Grany, the buck does stop with him, thankfully. He’s beginning to feel his feet now in terms of the team that will work, we need to give them six months to bed down and then reassess how it’s going.

The problem is, he’s not given a chance is he? The coverage of the reshuffle is getting beyond ridiculous. I would call it obsessive but it’s a deliberate distraction policy. Meanwhile, theres a raft of serious issues that go unaddressed and mostly unmentioned by the media that are squarely in the Govts court. It will be interesting to see what’s in the Queens Speech tomorrow.

He's had a whole year to do things and in that year he has shown himself unwilling to oppose abuses of human rights, unwilling to fully investigate wrongdoing in the LP, incapable of running a decent electoral campaign and unwilling to accept responsibility for this and you want to give him 6 more months to do something!
If Corbyn had had such a disastrous result in 2017there would havebeen calls for him to go. But he didn't the 2017 election produced the highest Labour vote since 2001. But it's all the fault of the left wing isn't it????

Starmer isn't " Left " enough ! He'll have to brush up on his Marxism.

Spot on, Polarbear2, the time's right now to get tough - with a loud, clear message of how things should change!

Casdon

You’re right Grany, the buck does stop with him, thankfully. He’s beginning to feel his feet now in terms of the team that will work, we need to give them six months to bed down and then reassess how it’s going.

The problem is, he’s not given a chance is he? The coverage of the reshuffle is getting beyond ridiculous. I would call it obsessive but it’s a deliberate distraction policy. Meanwhile, theres a raft of serious issues that go unaddressed and mostly unmentioned by the media that are squarely in the Govts court. It will be interesting to see what’s in the Queens Speech tomorrow.

If the buck stops with the leader of the party does not the same apply to the previous leader ?

You’re right Grany, the buck does stop with him, thankfully. He’s beginning to feel his feet now in terms of the team that will work, we need to give them six months to bed down and then reassess how it’s going.

I’m relatively happy but just wish he’d fight a bit more. If Labour are to do anything they have to get tough. It’s all been a bit too polite so far. Which is ok btw if the Tories were also ‘polite’ but they’re not. They’re a nasty bunch. TM said as much.

Labour’s election campaign was run from Starmer’s office and as leader he is ultimately responsible for it The buck stops with him.

Starmer already had a good team in place, superior in my view to the Government team. That doesn't mean that the team should remain exactly as it is. Sometimes it becomes apparent that a team member has greater strengths in another field. There is a world of difference between running a campaign and campaigning. Perhaps running the campaign was not Angela's forte. She is very good on the doorstep and engages well with people on the ground. It doesn't follow she is good at the overall control of a nationwide campaign. The same is true of Anneliese Dodds. Not everyone communicates well in the House. I think Rachel Reeves will be a good match for Rishi and Angela will be a thorn in Gove's side. No doubt Keir will get a bumpy ride over this in the House, press and Party but he is man enough for the job.

It's been a very unusual year (to say the least) with no real opportunity for active campaigning, for getting a clear message across.

The usual 'attack the opposition' tactic was so inappropriate that we're left without a strong Labour promise, just a muddle.

I also think that Starmer cannot reconcile all parts of the LP so shouldn’t even try, he should go all out for what he thinks is the correct way to gain power for Labour in the future.
That means sidelining the far left.
You know it makes sense!?

Starmer made a mistake in trying to demote Raynor so quickly! Should have left it for a few weeks at least, so that it didn’t seem like a knee jerk reaction.
Now he looks weak all round, after a not very inspiring re
shuffle.
Having said that, Reeves is a good replacement for Dodds, have always thought that she was a good strong candidate for a top job.

He has launched a shadow cabinet reshuffle that has already been dubbed a right-turn so hard it would give you whiplash.

Nowhere is this clearer than in his appointment of Rachel (more Tory than the Tories) Reeves as shadow chancellor.

I've just been hearing about the changes Kier Starmer has made and it all seems sensible to me. Mind you with the right-wing MSM and far-left of his party I think he just has to stop reading the papers or paying any attention to the left of his own party.

Galaxy

You would need to read the views.of lesbians who explained why it was offensive, and how that expectation is something they deal with on a regular basis. It was really quite moving as I hadnt considered that viewpoint before. He didnt say women he said lesbians. There was a reason for that. It was interesting to read peoples experiences and how it made them feel. So if I say I believe sex is a reality and impacts on womens lives then people cant blame me for their feelings on that subject either. Which was the point I was making about OJs behaviour towards his fellow journalist. He thought SM was discriminatory towards transwomen, many lesbians thought he was discriminatory towards them. Its interesting whose feelings gets priority.

I don't understand why anyone's feelings are getting priority. He commented on SM about a gay man having a baby with a lesbian couple and said he would like to do it. And for that he is castigated. If a straight man said he wanted to have a baby with a straight woman is he using straight women? Some women wouldn't be interested but some might.