How long can Starmer survive? Getting popcorn ready 🍿🍿

What we need are intelligent and honest politicians no matter where they hail from.

Rayner has already proven herself to be "on the make and on the take". That careful "stewarding of facts re her house purchase" coming to mind here.

Couldnt care less re her being a Northerner. But she has already proven in more than one way that her attitude to our money leaves somewhat to be desired. Goodness - she's only been on the "naughty step" for 5 months and already she's after staging a comeback and we're not told how in order or otherwise her own affairs are now.

Though she may have a bit more political nous in one or two respects than some - can't say why because it's the 2020's.

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.

So Thatcher privatising our gas, electricity and water, selling our assets in the North Sea and not replacing council houses which disappeared under the right to buy did no damage?

Primrose53

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! 🤣🤣

Which proves my point. Are we resorting to fat shaming now?

MayBee70

Primrose53

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! 🤣🤣

Which proves my point. Are we resorting to fat shaming now?

Wouldnt have thought so.

Anyways - what about Maggie Thatcher and Teresa May (both of similar build as I recall) and so I don't think that's the case.

Now Teresa May I did have some time for - as at least she seemed to be trying to run the country for our benefit and to be "human".

Now thinking about former Prime Ministers and what is peoples verdict on who the one mentioned in the Epstein papers is? I'll give a clue - the date 1997 came to my mind...

No, she is too left wing and isn't squeaky clean herself.

That does not make me a snob.

MayBee70

Primrose53

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! 🤣🤣

Which proves my point. Are we resorting to fat shaming now?

I never mentioned fat!

kittylester

No, she is too left wing and isn't squeaky clean herself.

That does not make me a snob.

Yes agreed nothing to do with "too common" or even too fat, which clearly she isn't or the green trouser suit, which was neither here nor there imo.

I'm afraid the stamp duty debacle has done for her.

Starmer might bounce back from his terrible poll ratings and endless bad news. Older people on here will remember how unpopular Maggie was in 1981, how the opposition Labour Party was seen as unelectable, and how a new party- the SDP- was ahead in the polls. Sounds familiar, and Maggie managed to improve her popularity, and win in 1983. It could happen with Starmer.

In politics anything is possible, events dear boy, events!

And a 'week is a long time in politics'.

All this , on every news channel, every day is doing a good job of diverting attention from more important governmental matters.

Cumbrianmale56

Starmer might bounce back from his terrible poll ratings and endless bad news. Older people on here will remember how unpopular Maggie was in 1981, how the opposition Labour Party was seen as unelectable, and how a new party- the SDP- was ahead in the polls. Sounds familiar, and Maggie managed to improve her popularity, and win in 1983. It could happen with Starmer.

I don’t think she would have won the 83 election if the Falklands war ( officially a conflict) hadn’t happened.

It is one if the most serious government scandals in years, of course the media are covering it, I would ve very concerned if they weren't.

Another reason Thatcher won in 1983 - a divided opposition…

petra

Cumbrianmale56

Starmer might bounce back from his terrible poll ratings and endless bad news. Older people on here will remember how unpopular Maggie was in 1981, how the opposition Labour Party was seen as unelectable, and how a new party- the SDP- was ahead in the polls. Sounds familiar, and Maggie managed to improve her popularity, and win in 1983. It could happen with Starmer.

I don’t think she would have won the 83 election if the Falklands war ( officially a conflict) hadn’t happened.

I was just about to point that out, petra.

The Falklands bounce...

Well yes but also a poor opposition.

Arguing about Margaret Thatcher is another diversion tactic, and will not resolve the current issue, which is the malign influence of Peter Mandelson on an inept and duplicitous Prime Minister whose wrong choice of Ambassador has revealed sleaze in his party both past and present.
Had he not insisted on his choice for Ambassador the revelations about Mandelson's links to Epstein and treachery to Gordon Brown would have brought disgrace, but would not have tarnished and destabilised the present Labour Party and Government.

Oreo

In politics anything is possible, events dear boy, events!

But when push comes to shove "It's the economy, stupid"

Definition 'It's the Economy, Stupid' was a phrase used by Bill Clinton's campaign strategist, James Carville, during the 1992 presidential election to emphasize the importance of economic issues to voters.

While voters might not think in terms of economics the effects of economic policy are felt and noted by them. It's those effects and the promises made by politicians to eliminate them which sway their votes.

Starmer's problem is that his government hasn't achieved any notable difference in mitigation of the bad effects of the neoliberal economic policies followed since Thatcher introduced them and, while it follows the same economic beliefs it never will.

That's what will, once again, let the populists in. But this time we'll have a choice between two parties with charismatic popular leaders. One to the further right, one to the further left.

At least, IMO, the further left lot have a better idea of how the economy 'could' work. The one to the right has leaders who have benefitted mightily from current economic beliefs; they're not going to change anything for the benefit of their voters.

eazybee

Arguing about Margaret Thatcher is another diversion tactic, and will not resolve the current issue, which is the malign influence of Peter Mandelson on an inept and duplicitous Prime Minister whose wrong choice of Ambassador has revealed sleaze in his party both past and present.
Had he not insisted on his choice for Ambassador the revelations about Mandelson's links to Epstein and treachery to Gordon Brown would have brought disgrace, but would not have tarnished and destabilised the present Labour Party and Government.

Well, as posters have claimed that the current government has been a disaster for the UK and I assume that they are talking of the lack of change in people's circumstances that they were expecting, I will bang on about Thatcher until the cows come home and beyond.

Not only because she started the downward spiral for many people in the UK but also because the Epstein phenomenon and Mandelson's involvement in it is a direct effect of the school of economic theory which she implemented. The unchecked acquisition of wealth and the exercise of power by virtue of that wealth are key features.

(Those of you who have looked into the Epstein papers may have noted that the objective of these wealthy and extremely powerful people is the elimination of democracy)

"Getting popcorn ready" - I am sorry but this is so pathetic.

This country is emerging from years of buffoonery in lieu of proper government and the international scene is seriously worrying for us all - and someone thinks it is fine to joke about the idea of more disruption to the continuity of government.

I do not usually actively criticise other posters - disagree with them maybe, but no criticize. But this is too much.

Well he may survive a little longer, Mcsweeney has gone.

Hadn't hear that. Thanks Galaxy.

I’m not surprised he went.

Starmer needs to stay put. He has made mistakes but he has also handled himself well on the world stage. Angela Rayner is pleasant enough but she hasn’t got the political clout to deal with the many problems that are evident at the moment. Then again if the Labour Party is replaced by Reform and Farage who has been close to Trump and has stated he admires Putin then we are opening the door to disaster. The NHS will disappear to make way for American businesses to step in pleasing Trump or Vance or whoever follows the money. The performance of Reform in the Councils led by them shows their inexperience and lies to be evident in the increased cost to the residents in these places who put their trust in their promises. As for the Tories well surely the years they were in power should be further scrutinised. Greens are usually voted for when the electorate feel they should vote but can’t find any party that satisfies them. The Liberals might be worthy of a vote but again their experience in coalition wasn’t anything to write home about but that was some years ago. Well I am not consuming popcorn but probably a large brandy to help combat the misery inflicted on us by Farage and his mixed band of cohorts. However, I probably won’t be able afford it as I will have to pay for the prescriptions I need to keep my 84 year old body alive