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

I may be wrong of course but imo Starmer needs to banish Morgan McSweeny and appoint someone with the political nouse to read the room at home, Starmer is working well on the international stage. He seems to be leading there based on his genuine belief systems, but not at home.

The mismanagement of WFA and pip was shocking. Starmer was right on both counts. If the plans had been properly discussed within the party I’m sure amendments and proper timing of announcements wouldn’t have led to the u turns.

Yes, MOnica, but you haven’t told me anything that is evidence that Mandelson has any desire to ‘improve the condition of the people’ (apart from the wealthy, of course).

In a UK that is falling apart because ‘the people’ are experiencing hardship and strained public services I think that element is rather important in a future PM.

So, poor comms, poor management and questions raised for me about Keir Starmer’s judgement. I don’t want a new leader, I want Keir Starmer to shape up. He isn’t incompetent and needs to front this with honesty, confidence, even recognition he got thus wrong

You are wanting Keir Starmer to be something he isn't. he is what he is and nothing will change the essential man.

he is a classic example of the Peter Principle. The principle suggests that people are promoted based on their success in their current role, not on their potential for the higher-level position, leading to employees eventually reaching a position where they lack the necessary skills to succeed, thereby becoming incompetent in that role.

This is what has happened to Starmer. As DPP he was a success, so he has been 'promoted' to being leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister and, for him, this is the position where he lacks the necessary skills to succeed, thereby becoming incompetent in that role

He is not up to the job, and never will be, he had best go..

MaizieD

Do you have any compelling reason to suggest that a man who adores the wealthy has the slightest inclination to 'improve the condition of the people in the UK, MOnica

It is because he is such a crawler - and a very devious and manipulative man that Mandelson would actually make a rather good PM.

I wouldn't want to work with him and would not trust him further than I could see him with my eyes tight shut, but in a world where the key players on the world stage are people like Trump, Putin and Xi, he would be able to match them when it came to being a devious little sh*t and probably out manouvre them.

We have seen Starmer trying to play it on the big stage and he is a disaster, just because he isn't a big sh*t.

Starmer is your old fashioned boys comic cricketer, stands tall, looks the world in the eye, plays a straight bat and is as honest and guileless the day is long, he hasn't got a political (in the devious, mixing and matching style) fibre in his body. This is why he is a disaster.

Starmer is proving to be a very weak leader, I agreed with most of his aims and objectives, most of which he’s done a U turn on.
Talking about “core Labour values” is not the answer the economy has to support the social spending we make, MPs have to support the leadership policy. If savings on welfare cannot be made taxation has to be increased, that has to come from the majority of the population. Any notion that significant revenue is going to be gained for the top 0.5% of the population is fanciful it’s going to be paid by the 99.5%

Wes Streeting not "we"!

So, poor comms, poor management and questions raised for me about Keir Starmer’s judgement. I don’t want a new leader, I want Keir Starmer to shape up. He isn’t incompetent and needs to front this with honesty, confidence, even recognition he got thus wrong

Sums it up nicely I think. But I also think he wont manage it to be honest. So change is needed but no idea who or how. I do think we Streeting has potential but too soon for him. After that ...Hmmm!

I'm beginning to wonder whether Starmer was ever cut out for the job in the first place. I know he has had his fair share of political disasters as PM, and he has dealt with them stoically and fairly efficiently, but he still cannot quite command that trusting presence that is needed in a PM at this moment in time. I'm not sure he has learnt to listen, and he has now had long enough not to be a failure in that area, or at least to improve.

Incorruptible? Starmer ? You’re having a laugh.

If Rayner with benefit of legal advice can't understand her tax liability how could she be expected to understand detailed policy in a wide range of different circumstances if she were PM?

According to an article in the DM[I can hear the groans from here[obvs I cant but you can pre guess what the reaction is]]
the Country is not being truly run by Sir Kier at all. But by people who have close links with Tony Blair.
That makes sense to me.

Do you have any compelling reason to suggest that a man who adores the wealthy has the slightest inclination to 'improve the condition of the people in the UK, MOnica

MaizieD

My goodness, MOnica. That's an even more 'interesting' suggestion than that of Angela Rayner!

We've already had to endure one corrupt PM,heaven save us from another one...

Actually I would sooner have a 'corrupt' PM who really is good at the job and improves the conditions of the people in the UK and our standing in the world to having a sea green incoruutible in charge of the government who cannot govern and is a laughing stock overseas.

I had high hopes of Wes Streeting and,while the numbers are looking better, he is not being half as radical as he suggested.

My goodness, MOnica. That's an even more 'interesting' suggestion than that of Angela Rayner!

We've already had to endure one corrupt PM,heaven save us from another one...

Keir Starmer is totally unsuited to be Prime Minister. He may have been a very successful Director of Public Prosecutions but at heart he is an adminstrator not a politician, in the sense that to be a really good politician you have got to have your finger and mind on all the shifts and balances and negotiations and juggling deals needed to keep everybody onboard and avoid one catastrophe after another. if Stramer had had a politiciaans ability to read the wind, he would not ever have considered ppointing Mandelson as British Ambassador to the USA, he ignored the advice, he ignored the wide antipathy and dislike of Mandelson. He just thought he was the best man for the job and gave it to him, and this has happened again and again, right back to the free clothes from Lord Ali, the Rayner affair. Again and again, he failed to read the mood understand which way the wind was blowing.

He is a disaster as a Prime Minister and should be replaced asap. Who by, who knows, but anyone but him. How about Peter Mandelson, now he is a political operator of the first degree, and would be superb at the job, ah, yes, there is the rub, setting aside that he is not an MP, his recent disgrace, his previous disgraces, the general fear and dislike of him, his murky past, all those things that made his appointment to Washington so wrong all mean, here as well, however skilled a political operator he may be, he is too generally disliked and mistrusted to hold any great post.

growstuff, another time when I read your last post and agreed. I’m afeared we will be accused of being a clique 🤣

I think you’re right growstuff, and woukd also add somebody who had something on Trump, which Mandelson undoubtedly does, unfortunately there is no stronger bargaining tool - it makes me feel sick to think about it.

If Starmer is forced out in due course, my preferred PM option is still David Milliband, who sadly also is no longer an MP.

Doodledog

I did not say that failing to meet the highest code of conduct doesn't matter. I said that IMO (as none of us knows what is in someone else's head) AR did not do it deliberately. The rules are convoluted, or there would be no need for those with money to pay experts to look after it for them and avoid paying taxes. I wouldn't have a clue about paying SDLT on a house because I didn't own another one. Few people would know the intricacies of liability in those circumstances.

What I said, for avoidance of doubt, was that KS should have stood by her as I don't think that she did anything deliberately wrong. Please don't twist my words.

Mandelson is another matter.

I agree with you. AR made an error. Mandelson should never have been appointed in the first place. My guess is that Starmer was looking for somebody who is as much slimey and dodgy as Trump.

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.

But being Deputy Prime Minister, or even an MP for that matter, meant she should have got herself unconfused.

Even Joe Bloggs [in her financial postion], should be doing better.

The Country has and should have high expectiations of an MP's financial affairs. Thankfully.

There were no excuses for Rayner and she had to go.Starmer did the right thing for once.

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.

The Deputy PM and Housing Secretary should never have been in such a mighty position if she got “confused” so easily.

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.

I did not say that failing to meet the highest code of conduct doesn't matter. I said that IMO (as none of us knows what is in someone else's head) AR did not do it deliberately. The rules are convoluted, or there would be no need for those with money to pay experts to look after it for them and avoid paying taxes. I wouldn't have a clue about paying SDLT on a house because I didn't own another one. Few people would know the intricacies of liability in those circumstances.

What I said, for avoidance of doubt, was that KS should have stood by her as I don't think that she did anything deliberately wrong. Please don't twist my words.

Mandelson is another matter.

I think that he should have stood by Angela Rayner, as I don't think she did anything (deliberately) wrong, and his judgement around Mandelson wouldn't have seemed so bad.

Words fail me.
AR was caught out because she did do something wrong, yet failing to meet the highest code of conduct when holding high office apparently does not matter; Give her another go.

Mandelson was known to have been disgraced twice yet was deemed suitable as an Ambassador; He will form a good relationship with Trump.

Labour is responsible for these people.