How long can Starmer survive? Getting popcorn ready 🍿🍿

Ilovecheese

surfsup

The destruction of the UK started in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister and has continued, with a brief pause, for the last 46 years. What we're experiencing is the end time...

I disagree. 1997 and the arrival of Blair was the beginning of the destruction of the UK.

Why do you think that? surfsup

I'm curious to know that, too...

Very kind of you to say that, Terribull. Thank you.

It's patently obvious that I lean to the left, but I've never been tribal but I do try to be logical.
Somethings, such as austerity, have never made any sense to me, but it was a product of the economic policies initiated by Thatcher and now hopelessly embedded as 'orthodoxy'

I'm currently reading a book written by Shirley Williams in 1980. She quotes William Beveridge (a Liberal) as saying in 1942, "The object of government, in peace and in war, is not the glory of rulers or races but the happiness of the common man"

I think that is a good maxim.

Williams was writing as Thatcher was implementing her economic theories, she predicted that these would end in much the same way that we are seeing today. "The road that was pursued by state socialism and, for other reasons, the road that is being pursued today by the new conservatism *lead to societies we do not want to live in*" How right she was about that...

Now, if only Saville had been unmasked, while Thatcher was still PM.

I regard you as a maverick on the political threads MaizieD, although left leaning as you say, which of course is easy to discern, but at least not forever trotting out the party line without any critical analysis. That's why I like your posts and am persuaded with some of your arguments and at times disagree but who agrees all of the time anyway. I'm a floating voter, currently without a home you see, I have no loyalties I've flipped flopped between the two major parties, or should I say who were the two major parties. Anyway I like to read a range of opinions and yours often come across as the most succinct.

People talk about u turns but appointing Rachel Reeves as Chancellor was a big mistake on Starmer's part. She made policies that we were not thought out. She obviously didn't listen to back benchers or advisers. I think her policies with the u turns have made the public turn on Starmer. He seems to have very poor judgement and not good advice from those around him.

Starmer promised to stand by the WASPI women. He has done no such thing. A lot of female pensioners put their trust in him.

I posted about this case on another thread.
Now it’s come out that Brussels informed MI5 in 2007 that Mandelsons contacts with the Oligarch didn’t pass the smell test.

It can only get worse.
I think the whole situation will be buried. It’s to bad to ever let it all come out.

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Do MI5 routinely inform party leaders if they have MPs where there are suspicions? Genuine question, I wonder how joined up it is.

I cannot see how Starmer can stay in post, but who is there to take his place? On bended knees I beg, please not Rayner, why is she still in the picture and with bodyguards, couldn't make it up. Labour have left it wide open for Reform, heaven help us.
Surely we can't get much lower.

I thought Thatcher was detestable and thanked my lucky stars that by then we had cut our ties with the Uk. She destroyed so many lives and I have to say, much though I detest Starmer, he is a better person than she was. He just can’t govern effectively and needs to be a Foreign Minister not a Prime Minister. I’m not sure who would replace him, they all seem to lack the leadership skills. Any decent back benchers ?

I think Keir Starmer will remain for the moment, but in the long term I would put money on Al Carns. Charisma and an amazing CV. (DSO OBE MC).

I disagree with you strongly with you about Margaret Thatcher, nanna8. She did not destroy many lives, she destroyed destructive and outdated union practices and broke the grip of the unions on Industry. Now Rayner, only in Parliament because of union support, is considering standing for PM; more treachery.

Starmer is driven by his own ideology, which is not that of the current Labour party.The present disaster has erupted because of his appalling decision to appoint Mandelson despite awareness of his links to Epstein and knowledge that the Files were under investigation and contents likely to be revealed. He has worked with Mandelson throughout his parliamentary career and used his Machiavellian skills to his advantage, he thought. Now they have rebounded on him.
It is Starmer's flawed character which has destroyed him; hubris.
As to his successor, at present, no idea. What a state to be in, with the awful example of the Tory downfall still fresh.

Delene100

People talk about u turns but appointing Rachel Reeves as Chancellor was a big mistake on Starmer's part. She made policies that we were not thought out. She obviously didn't listen to back benchers or advisers. I think her policies with the u turns have made the public turn on Starmer. He seems to have very poor judgement and not good advice from those around him.

Starmers centerist policies were good and credible but the new leftist MPs wont support them, which means the economic revival is not going to happen, we will be stuck with a lame duck government.

Thank you Mamie for the post about Al Carns.
Never heard of him previously , but an impressive CV.
Will continue to watch.

Being able to climb Everest in less than five days feels like quite an advantage for a potential Prime Minister. 😊

But the chain of command in the Royal Marines won’t be anything like the structure of holding high political office. As we have seen with Starmer, holding an important position doesn’t mean success as a prime minister. In fact, it feels more and more that this role is too much for anyone incumbent. Much better to follow the French division of power and reinvent the role between foreign and domestic.

ronib

But the chain of command in the Royal Marines won’t be anything like the structure of holding high political office. As we have seen with Starmer, holding an important position doesn’t mean success as a prime minister. In fact, it feels more and more that this role is too much for anyone incumbent. Much better to follow the French division of power and reinvent the role between foreign and domestic.

Have you heard him speak Ronib?

nanna8

I thought Thatcher was detestable and thanked my lucky stars that by then we had cut our ties with the Uk. She destroyed so many lives and I have to say, much though I detest Starmer, he is a better person than she was. He just can’t govern effectively and needs to be a Foreign Minister not a Prime Minister. I’m not sure who would replace him, they all seem to lack the leadership skills. Any decent back benchers ?

I agree with you, but replaced at some point well before the election he must be!

Al Carn might have too much integrity to handle the role of PM. He might find it difficult to say one thing and do another…..

ronib

Al Carn might have too much integrity to handle the role of PM. He might find it difficult to say one thing and do another…..

That very necessary trait for any PM 😂

Primrose53

Starmer promised to stand by the WASPI women. He has done no such thing. A lot of female pensioners put their trust in him.

I'm surprised if they did.

I signed that letter trying/hoping to get my money back at some point. But still didn't believe I'd ever get any of it - even when promised what would have been around £2,000 in my case (to which I was thinking "They need to add a couple of 0's to that to make good in my case).

So - never believed for one second - even at the "You are going to get a tiny bit of what you're owed" point. Just joined the campaign and signed that letter - just in case I was wrong and might get something at any rate.

I wonder how many of us did believe we'd see any of our money returned to us in the event - but I expect a lot of the other WASPI women were just as "might as well sign - but I'm cynical" as I was.

MayBee70

Primrose53

My gut feeling is Starmer will soon be gone.

Angela Rayner ready to step in apparently. Can you imagine her in that position?

Why? Is she too common?

Nooooo ……. Surely not! 🤣🤣

CariadAgain

Primrose53

Starmer promised to stand by the WASPI women. He has done no such thing. A lot of female pensioners put their trust in him.

I'm surprised if they did.

I signed that letter trying/hoping to get my money back at some point. But still didn't believe I'd ever get any of it - even when promised what would have been around £2,000 in my case (to which I was thinking "They need to add a couple of 0's to that to make good in my case).

So - never believed for one second - even at the "You are going to get a tiny bit of what you're owed" point. Just joined the campaign and signed that letter - just in case I was wrong and might get something at any rate.

I wonder how many of us did believe we'd see any of our money returned to us in the event - but I expect a lot of the other WASPI women were just as "might as well sign - but I'm cynical" as I was.

Doesn’t alter the fact he lied.

Angela Rayner has always said she is a "gobby northerner".
Don't think she is right for government but maybe we need more gobby northerners as the old Etonian types have not worked.
Most are far removed from the ordinary working people in this country.