Starmer's speach this morning

Yes. I’d settle for boring any day of the week if it got me back a Britain I could be proud of.

There are those who say that Keir Starmer has no charisma. There were those who said more or less the same about Clement Attlee, but he was the PM who gave us the welfare state and the NHS on which we all rely.
Charismatics like B. Johnson I can do without.

Luciana Berger 🇺🇦

@lucianaberger
·
48m
The Labour Party has turned a significant corner under Keir’s leadership. I’m pleased to be returning to my political home.

Great news

Oh I hadnt heard that WW, that's great news.

Anyone remember Luciana Berger who left Labour as a result of the anti-semitism she experienced 4 years ago?

Well Starmer wrote and invited her back and she has accepted! And will be joining Labour once again.

Good to see a party healing itself.

ExperiencedNotOld

Boring. No substance. Nothing you could hold him to. Disappointing. We need an effective opposition, not a lacklustre party lead by fools.

😄😄

- just a little reminder that only 22% of the voting public agree with you.

50% say that they intend to vote Labour.

Boring. No substance. Nothing you could hold him to. Disappointing. We need an effective opposition, not a lacklustre party lead by fools.

All PM’s and potential PM’s have done exactly that.

I can find photos of Cameron, Johnson, Sunak and Blair all giving speeches in their shirt sleeves.

It is nothing new nor significant.

I'd be much happier if Starmer just made two pledges.
1. No more privatisation of the NHS
2. Non-profit making cooperative companies to run energy and water provision providing reasonably priced products with any profits ploughed back into development.
He won't!
I thought his new image was funny. I could hear his advisors "Leave the jacket off, roll up your sleeves. Try to look like a working man."

Germanshepherdsmum

I suspect, having read a recent interview with her in which she did not come across as ready for government, AR will not be applauded. I am reminded of Diane Abbott and the cost of more policemen.

I am sure you will try and add to that opinion GSM.

Thank you Willow. I'm not a Labour Party member or a member of any party. I like that Sunak is attacking the problems rather than gadding about making himself look important. Sadly, I think he is too late to retrieve anything.

In the same vein, I like that the LP is going to the sources of information - all sources of knowledge without prejudice, it seems, and forming a proper plan. If we have learned anything, it's that without a plan, we fail.

We should also have learned a second thing after this far-right government. Extremist governments will never, except for a very short period while the voters unravel the lies, be acceptable to more than a small percentage of the country. As this is a democracy, we really should be aiming higher than that.

sorry, edit, quite a funny mistake, not"decline" but "deadline"

DaisyAnne I thank you, you have expressed what I think very well. And as a LP member we are taking very seriously the fact that its long term goals and plans that matter, no more "oven ready" quick fixes will either work or convince anyone. the time for detail is not now as we are still working on it, in small working groups like the one I am in, ground level up details (in my case on MH provision within the NHS. For example, we are aware that even if we "demanded and got" more resources, there are not the workers to fill the posts. so you have to work out details of training and bursaries and so on not just "ask for more money" (tho that would help as it does give places, heating, buys beds for now in the private sector as that's sometimes all there is).

So for people asking for "detail now", I'd reply that any decent realistic plan takes time and the decline is an election.

I think it's an interesting dynamic between Starmer and Raynor. Clear differences of approach but they actually work together. Starmer hasn't surrounded himself with "yes men and women", but a good shadow Cabinet with a lot of talent.

I suspect, having read a recent interview with her in which she did not come across as ready for government, AR will not be applauded. I am reminded of Diane Abbott and the cost of more policemen.

Germanshepherdsmum

I knew you’d say that Casdon. He will have to reveal his hand in due course and be cross-examined on it - as will members of his shadow cabinet such as Angela Rayner. That will be interesting.

He seems very aware of how the course towards an election works GSM. He will publish the LP manifesto at the appropriate time. This isn't it, as an election hasn't yet been called.

Most would see this as a start to the General Election Campaign, a campaign which some are starting to suggest the Tories will not fight. Johnson seems set only on destroying the man who followed him into the PM's seat. I imagine that's to boost his income on the "speakers" circuit. Sunak cannot pull his diverse party together and the ERG and similar little bands of disrupters don't give a damn for the country but only themselves. They are happy to do much the same as they have been for over a decade and let the country go to ruin.

As for Angela Rayner, I would guess there will be at least as many of the less snobbish variety of voters who will applaud her, as there are those who find her "not one of us". We will have to wait to see, patiently and without trying to destroy every reasoned argument just because our bias is different.

Germanshepherdsmum

I knew you’d say that Casdon. He will have to reveal his hand in due course and be cross-examined on it - as will members of his shadow cabinet such as Angela Rayner. That will be interesting.

He’s a man who does his homework and then checks it.
I can’t vouch for Angela Rayner, I do have reservations about her but I think she is hardworking, honest and sincere. Who knows if she will feature strongly in the election campaign, or the Labour Government, I guess that remains to be seen.

I knew you’d say that Casdon. He will have to reveal his hand in due course and be cross-examined on it - as will members of his shadow cabinet such as Angela Rayner. That will be interesting.

True Casdon but he was willing to share some of the starting points. I rather think GSM hasn't bothered to watch it before commenting on it.

For instance, when talking about the mission to "Make Britain a clean energy superpower to create jobs, cut bills and boost energy security with zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero." He talked of the start being jobs in retrofitting houses for energy efficiency.

I got the impression that rather than echoing the far-right, "spend as little as possible, take your votes and run" policies for this he was looking more to the policies highlighted by people like Matt Copeland, head of policy at the charity National Energy Action, who has said:

This is not new stuff, this is extremely old stuff,” Copeland added. “We need to be looking at how we go about full-house retrofit programmes.” This needs to be underpinned by a national strategy, with investment in whole-house energy efficiency alongside training to give workforce the skills to upgrade the UK’s housing. *

This means taking even the first steps very seriously.

Source * www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/climate-energy-nature/2022/11/government-home-insulation-scheme Just to be sure we all know the bias, Marr (now working for them) described the New Statesman as writing for the "social, liberal democrat".

Which is absolutely deliberate at this stage in the election campaign of course Germanshepherdsmum. As a lawyer you’ll know not to reveal all your hand until the cross examination - as does Starmer. He’s playing the long game.

He answered questions mentioning this very point, vegansrock and I think it's why he has set this out as a 10 year plan. Even so, they can only make progress if they start so I would be happy to see that happen and criticise once we see how they are doing - if I feel the need. Starting would be good

If they do get in after the next election, and if we are all still here, I do wonder what will be uncovered financially.

Who said they didn’t like any of the Missions? Without any indication of how these laudable aims might be achieved there’s no substance.

Trouble is they will inherit a broken economy , low productivity, low growth, huge debts, not an easy place to rebuild our decimated public services.

Smileless2012

My feelings too GSM no real substance.

So, what I have heard described as the Tories' way of adopting policies is "a clique of like-minded people bouncing ideas off each other's empty skulls". Seeing what we have had as "policies" for the last 13 years, I would guess this is not an unreasonable description.

Starmer and his Labour Party decided to talk to the people whose votes would get them into government. That is, I would have thought, what any political party would do if they had half a brain between them. And what have they come up with, as they see it, to fix the fundamental problems facing Britain and give the UK the confidence to move forward as a country?

Missions
Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country, making everyone, not just a few, better off.

Make Britain a clean energy superpower to create jobs, cut bills and boost energy security with zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero.

Build an NHS fit for the future by reforming health and care services to speed up treatment, harnessing life sciences and technology to reduce preventable illness and cutting health inequalities.

Make Britain's streets safe by reforming the police and justice system to prevent crime, tackle violence against women and stop criminals from getting away without punishment.

Break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage, for every child, by reforming the childcare and education systems, raising standards everywhere, and preparing young people for work and life.

So, those of you who have, so far, only spoken from your bias, which of those don't you like?

Germanshepherdsmum

He’s good at saying what people want to hear. Whether and how he could make good on the rhetoric is another matter.

I would have thought that all politicians put their proposals over in a way people want to hear them. Wouldn't it be odd if they didn't?

I felt very comfortable with the areas he had picked for his "missions". So, which of them did you disagree with when you listened to the speech? Is the Conservative idea of making the wealthy have even more of the nation's wealth one that you think more would agree with? Or is "We are still trying to get Brexit done" the one that grabs you?