Is Sir Keir In The Last Chance Saloon?

Yes actually as have three members of my family Wwm2

Whitewavemark2

ronib

Allira that’s the theory if not the reality.

Have you worked in one of the departments?

I’m not convinced that you know how the civil service works tbh

I'm not convinced either.

I am not convinced that Allira, Wwm2 and Growstuff know any better… how does that help?

Even if you or your family or friends (I can do 2/3 of those categories) it doesn’t mean you know how the Civil Service works.

Mamie

woodenspoon

Radical thought here. Since going abroad takes up so much time for prime ministers, not just Starmer, perhaps we should have two. One to sort home affairs and the other foreign affairs. That way we might, possibly, see improvements without any excuses of foreign affairs being so important, more important than running and improving this country that elected them regardless of party.

That is why you have a Home Secretary and a Foreign Secretary. I don't think you can have one person as the Head of Government. National and international affairs are far too intertwined for that.
Keir Starmer has been unlucky to have to deal with such a chaotic and a dangerous international situation so early in his premiership.
Do you really think domestic politics are more important than the threat of war?

Do I think home policies are more important than the threat of war? Yes I do as things stand. A threat is a threat.

In the UK where prime ministers are elected their first duty is to the citizens of that country. They’ve not been elected prime ministers of the world.

This country requires clear thinking, prompt action and improvement across many areas.

Personally I think the foreign secretary should be replaced. Then Starmer may not need to go abroad so often. I believe he’s off to France again next week.

Yvette Cooper seems to be doing what she can. But they can all do better. Much better. And that goes for the Tories and the yet as untried Reform.

Whitewavemark2

ronib

Allira that’s the theory if not the reality.

Have you worked in one of the departments?

I’m not convinced that you know how the civil service works tbh

Yes, but many years ago.

In fact I doubt many Government Ministers would have a clue about what we did 😀

Allira

Whitewavemark2

ronib

Allira that’s the theory if not the reality.

Have you worked in one of the departments?

I’m not convinced that you know how the civil service works tbh

Yes, but many years ago.

In fact I doubt many Government Ministers would have a clue about what we did 😀

That doesn't sound as I meant it to!!
I didn't mean we went off piste randomly, just that it was specialised. Ministers set policy, made (stupid) changes etc.

fancythat

M0nica

I am afraid that Keir Starmer is a classic case of the 'Peter Principle', the Peter Principle states that people in an organization will be promoted until they are no longer qualified, filling a company with incompetent leadership .

As Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Keir reached his apogee. but when he was he was made PM, he reached his level of incompetence.

Unfortunately this applies to the current Chancellor. As shadow chancellor she was excellent, but reached her level of incompetence when promoted to the real job. In fact this applies to quite a number of the current cabinet. So far the only two who seem to be competent are Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting.

I say this despite disliking Angela Rayner's politics and considering her ideas for this country likely to bring us to ruin. But disliking someone intensely should never stop one seeing their good or competent qualities. To do otherwise is to underestimate them - and that could be dangerous.

This applies

Good answer.

Where have the "good" politicans all gone?
From any Party.
Or were there never "good"[and I mean good at ttheir job] Leaders?

Asking anyone.

Boris Johnson threw out many of the good Conservatives; the ones that could see him for what he really was. Then Truss helped make the party unelectable along with constant leadership changes so the remaining decent MP’s lost their seats.

Well I’m still convinced the members elected the right leader of the Labour Party, in Keir Starmer.

The economic equation is simple if the money can’t be found from savings in spending and social payments it will be found from tax increases, there is not going to be enough growth and they have vowed not to raise borrowing.

You can be sure the increases will hit all but the poorest - that’s anyone above the so called poverty line, there are plenty of options, including new taxes.

I know I’m harking back to the early weeks of the Labour government when I like many others was hopeful they would get us back to a more secure economic footing but the optics of an almost immediate massive pay rise to train drivers allied to cutting back on the WFA just made me realise that the negotiating clout of some sections of society means that the elderly, the needy, the disabled are alas economically unimportant.
Whatever the colour of the government.
It was not a happy realisation and my confidence has not been restored since.
Yes we are in a mess, somebody had to foot the bill for Furlough for (IMHO) too many for too long, for the economic repercussions of the pandemic and the global downturn but I had hoped for a more egalitarian approach

There was no rebellion- the government won the vote and that's the end of it until next time which is probably today if the media are to be believed...

Meanwhile recently elected Reformers are leaking from the posts they have been elected to and no one blinks an eyelid...

Why was Rachel Reeves crying?

Maybe Rachel Reeves has some very bad news as she is working out of Downing Street this afternoon Mollygo

I’ve just seen this on bbc news. I don’t like her policies but she should have been excused from appearing. It benefits nobody to see this woman crying on the front bench. Somebody somewhere should have taken her to one side and let her skip the session. Duty of care.

keepingquiet

Well, the supposed defeat for the government media storm turned into a damp squib didn't it?

I am sick of the anti-Starmer in the media jst now. I'm not a huge fan, I met him once and found him quite underwhelming but all the leaders with so called 'charisma' turned out to be deal losses at running governments.

Starmer is going nowhere just now and get used to it. Reform are fizzling out in practice now they have some power in the localities, even though they are popular in the polls still.

Governemt is a serious business, not a game, and I think Starmer at least realises this.

So no, far from Last Chance Saloon except in the world of media storms people seem to love so much...

Are you joking?
It wasn’t just a media storm whipped up by journalists, Labours own back benchers were promising to sink the bill unless it was significantly altered.Even the watered down version still had a number of back benchers voting against it.
Starmer has just about weathered the storm but hasn’t got what he wanted as regards the welfare bill.

Oh! Gosh, no one should be exposed like that. That poor soul.

Primrose53

Apparently in his manifesto he mentioned sorting out the “chaos” nearly 40 times!

Not going too well is it Keir?

It doesn’t even wipe out completely that oft used phrase ‘black hole’.😁

It just popped up on my phone so I know nothing.
Duty of care says she shouldn’t have had to appear, but would the rumours about non appearance be any better than the rumours about her distress?

ronib

Maybe Rachel Reeves has some very bad news as she is working out of Downing Street this afternoon Mollygo

Maybe? Or has? What do you know?

I am not a fan of Rachel Reeves’s economic model, but flipping heck is the Labour Party that desperate to prove unity that she was sitting on the Front Bench crying.

Is there no duty of care, no Human Resources personnel?

The PM has sunk further in my estimation after this…

It may have helped her if Starmer had answered the question by Badenoch on whether Reeves would still be in the job come election time? He waffled but didn’t say.

woodenspoon

I’ve just seen this on bbc news. I don’t like her policies but she should have been excused from appearing. It benefits nobody to see this woman crying on the front bench. Somebody somewhere should have taken her to one side and let her skip the session. Duty of care.

Hmm, “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen” springs to mind.
If there was an external person reason, I apologise and take it back but a women in a senior position who wants to be taken as seriously as any man, should not dissolve in tears when the going gets tough.
It does other women no favours in our battle for equality.

Oreo

It may have helped her if Starmer had answered the question by Badenoch on whether Reeves would still be in the job come election time? He waffled but didn’t say.

Why wouldn’t he say? It’s a simple yes or no question, and he could always do a u-turn on whatever he said.

Perhaps he didn’t want to have to do yet another u turn?