Can Starmer survive? The wolves are circling in the Labour Party.

The problem that Labour has is they only achieved 32% of popular vote (not including those who didn’t vote), yet our system gave them a massive majority. It is a ‘house’ built on extremely fragile foundations and the cracks are self evident.

The UK has a stagnant economy; low productivity; an aging population and a falling birthrate. Labour MPs who voted against Welfare reforms did it solely out of self interest.

FWIW, I think that Starmer and most of his close cronies lack the political nous and business experience to run the Country effectively. For example, the new Business Secretary was an Aid Worker before becoming a SPad in 2006 specialising in social exclusion.

The latest shambles over Peter Mandelson will be Starmer’s downfall. The knives are out.

MayBee70 they might make headlines if the PM had a decent communications team around him, and if when doing the daily round of news programmes the MP rolled out on that day were not constantly having to field questions about what Labour hasn’t done, and its many failures.

Dreadnought

Labour have destroyed their own power base by forgetting and ignoring the white working class - who are more interested in real issues such as housing, health and money and not the succession of failures and lies.

They’ve reduced hospital waiting times. Increased the number of NHS dental appointments. Reintroduced Sure Start and are providing free breakfasts to many children. I believe they’ve stopped zero hours contracts and unfair dismissals (?). But they’re not the sort of things that make the headlines…

Clem Attlee was competent and experienced via the wartime government but he didn't have to cope with minor parties' sniping nor algorithm-driven social media which feeds the public with a distorted view of the country on a large scale. Some of the Press are as bad. Most people get their news and views via X and other sites so it's not surprising Reform does well in the polls given its charismatic leader and focus on immigrants nor that Robinson was able to muster a 100,000+ demo.

The best thing that could happen would be a shut down of social media but that won't happen and Labour seems unable to use it effectively.

And Labour doesn't present a united front.

Woe, woe and thrice woe.

Labour have destroyed their own power base by forgetting and ignoring the white working class - who are more interested in real issues such as housing, health and money and not the succession of failures and lies.

🍞🔥

I do hope the future will be better.

Starmer was never going to be popular, and it worries me slightly that we seem to be chasing the populism tail again.

When I hear how popular a politician is I think that means they are not doing their job properly.

People have to wake up to the harsh reality of living in a post-Brexit, Post-Covid world with dangerous wars going on in Ukraine and the middle east, as well as the US eating itself due to an inability to do anything about its gun laws (or law of them).

I didn't vote for Starmer in the leadership election, then again my prefered candidate has never been elected leader.

However, I do support him and feel we definately need some stability in a world which seems to be shifting at the whim of the latest social media post.

I can't see how he will hand over the responsibility to someone else without more trouble emerging.

Starmer is toast. Just wait and see.

Imo Starmer needed someone as politically savvy and wily as Mandelson to deal with Trump. Also someone that might have a bit of influence over him for various reasons . Of course, if we were still in the EU we could have used them to do our negotiating and also wouldn’t be so sickeningly dependent on America for trade deals.

Farage is only popular because Starmer is so unpopular. If the Labour Party gets its act together and appoints a new good pm he will disappear in a puff of smoke. That is what they should be seeking. The more Farage is denigrated, the more popular he will become because he represents a way forward.

This BBC article covers much of what I posted

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce845w70g0yo

He claims from his parner's family. That possibility is being looked into, but, how well off are they?

Apparently, they're not well off. As I posted, apparently they ran a modest transport business which didn't make big profits. They no longer run the business but rent out the premises, not enough to finance an expensive house in Frinton.

I'm trying to find references as I've forgotten who exactly sid this...🙁

Farage is on TV just now gloating about another defection from the Tories. He was asked about the house sale and has reassured us all that having consulted a KC, all is above board.
We'll see.

He is also on record, at least twice on TV, saying that he had bought it.
Now he says his partner bought it.
Both cannot be true, so one is a lie, said in public.
It was paid for in cash. The issue, for those who are investigating is, where did the cash come from.
He claims from his parner's family. That possibility is being looked into, but, how well off are they?

He is in record saying that the house was purchased by his partner.

So he has, GG13, but there is a big question mark over where his partner got the money from to purchase the house. she appears to have one failed business in her past and her parents have a modest business which doesn't appear to generate enough income to have given her the money.

Did Farage give her the money to purchase in her name so that he could avoid stamp duty? Which wouldn't be illegal, but certainly would be hypocritical in view of the fuss he made over Angela Rayner.

And over why he first claimed that he'd bought the house.

Maremia

And meanwhile inquiries are going on into that house Farage 'bought himself' in Clacton.

He is in record saying that the house was purchased by his partner.

And meanwhile inquiries are going on into that house Farage 'bought himself' in Clacton.

Most get away with evading Stamp duty on second homes Rayner would have done too but someone checked up and she got caught

^It was a case of being casual and offhand and not bothering to check or confirm information and below the level of competence that one expects from a minister.
^

Yes. Not good enough.

As I say, this was done to death on the relevant thread, and I mentioned it in the context of KS and his reputation management. I'm not going to repeat myself yet again. I am as entitled to an opinion as anyone else, and the reality is that all we have is opinion when it comes to other people's motives.

Allira

^I just happen to believe that it was a mistake, rather than deliberate fraud^

An avoidable mistake; if she had followed advice she would have been fine.

Politicians do need to know when to follow the advice of experts, both in their careers and private life too.

It was a case of being casual and offhand and not bothering to check or confirm information and below the level of competence that one expects from a minister.

This same fault was part of the reason for the downfall of Boris Johnson.

I just happen to believe that it was a mistake, rather than deliberate fraud

An avoidable mistake; if she had followed advice she would have been fine.

Politicians do need to know when to follow the advice of experts, both in their careers and private life too.

Allira

Doodledog

Sorry, that was badly worded. I meant that I wouldn't have a clue about paying SDLT on a house when I didn't own another one (as it was in trust), In other words I understand AR's confusion.

Ms Rayner was advised to take further advice on the issue which she did not do.
She did resign which was the right thing to do and it is too soon for her to make a comeback although I'm sure she will in the future.

Starmer did sack Mandelson and quite rightly but he should never have said he was standing by him.

It's one mistake and U turn after another, unfortunately.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I just happen to believe that it was a mistake, rather than deliberate fraud.

But I said all that (and was shouted down) on the relevant thread. This one is about KS, and my comment on AR was made in that context. She wasn't sacked, she resigned, yet he is being blamed. I think he should have stuck by her more firmly, but I recognise that whatever he does will be criticised, so he's in a difficult position.

OTOH, if I felt that I couldn't do right for doing wrong, I might think 'stuff it, I'll do what I like, as the result will be the same, reputation-wise'. As I said upthread, he needs to sort his comms out as a matter of urgency.

Oh, for heavens sake, does no one recognise tongue in cheek comments when they are made. The fact that an idea just borders on the bounds of possibility, is the point.

I got it, M0nica 😁

I'll lend you a spade! ⛏
Actually, it looks like a pick-axe, but should do the job.

Romola

Well said DaisyAnne. KS may not have "charisma" but nor did Clement Attlee. KS and Rachel Reeves made the big mistake of failing to present their actually sensible reforms in a way that the would have been acceptable to the majority
And M0nica, when you're in a hole, stop digging! The idea of PM as PM is pretty sick.

Oh, for heavens sake, does no one recognise tongue in cheek comments when they are made. The fact that an idea just borders on the bounds of possibility, is the point.

Clement Attlee lacked charisma, but he was up to the job. Starmer isn't. That is the difference.

He is a classic example of the Peter Principle where you continue promoting someone capable until they reach the job which is beyond their capabilities and then they are left where they are and promoted no more.

KS was a successful and able Director of Public Prosecutions. So it was assumed he could lead a political party in government. He cannot, but having reached the level where he has been given the job too far where he ceases to be competent and has become incompetent, no one wants to admit that the promotion was a mistake and sack him