Election 2024
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Starmer lost the public when he chose to make his first actions in government further cuts, the exact thing he was elected to stop.
Since those first few months Labour have nose dived and he simply does not have any ideas on how to turn it around.
He's also, unfortunately, become a meme. A political death note.
I'm not writing you a shopping list lol
You're against changing leader, I am too, but sometimes it does need to happen, especially when the current PM is contributing to the growing division in the country. That's what I fear most and under Starmer it's gotten worse and worse.
He has an absolutely appallingly tedious personality, no one likes the bloke. And a PM that is just completely disconnected needs to be replaced by someone who is very connected, which is Burnham.
A PM that can actually sit down and chat to a voter is a novelty.
If Streeting calls the leadership challenge, obviously it would be ridiculous for Burnham not to run. Starmer asking him kindly not too is an admittance he knows he will lose.
This basically.
When you have the country becoming so divided and toxic, ffs, you need to do something.
An someone like Starmer, who just has the personality of a wet flannel isn't it. He puts people off.
You saw it in the US, when Biden eventually realised he was a lame duck
He left it way to late to step aside and by the time he did it just gave ammo to Trump that the Dems didn't know what they were doing
Labour need to move sooner rather than later.
I have to say I feel for Starmer, because he's not done a lot wrong, and compared to the utter **** show of the Tories before him, he's been given a raw deal imo
Yeah his track record is actually better than anything we've had in a long, long time.
He is his own worst enemy. An appalling communicator with zero charisma. Sadly people don't look at the likes of Farage and Johnson and see the dangers of only having charisma and nothing else.
I also think in an ironic way having such a huge majority has been a poisoned chalice for him. A Starmer personality tries to please everyone which is impossible with so many voices now at the table as elected representatives. And he doesn't have the clout or backbone to keep so many potential opponents from within at bay. The last time Labour had a majority this big was under Blair, who despite being an absolute bellend was a great communicator, hugely charismatic and supremely confident.
The problem Starmers had since day one is his vote share. 30% just is not enough, you've been elected with a super majority for a country in which 70% of voters never wanted you.
The days in the UK that you can just conveniently ignore voter share is over imo, the SNP are trying it now in Scotland to get their own way and people just aren't having it anymore.
Labour may have a lot of seats, but they didn't get a lot of votes and these days you can't just expect to get a majority cos the Tories are even worse.
Its why the need for electoral reform is greater than its ever been.
Starmer's legacy will be;
Renationalising the railways
The Employment rights Act
Leasehold Reform Act
Landlord and Tenants act (which the Tories sat on for a decade)
NHS gradually emerging from life support
Steering us through seemingly endless international crises
Extending free school meals to every child
Which actually isn't bad, but the benefits aren't being felt yet. Yeah, the electorate hate him, it's true. Most voters are ****ing clueless though tbf.
Renationalising the railways
The Employment rights Act
Leasehold Reform Act
Landlord and Tenants act (which the Tories sat on for a decade)
NHS gradually emerging from life support
Steering us through seemingly endless international crises
Extending free school meals to every child
Which actually isn't bad, but the benefits aren't being felt yet. Yeah, the electorate hate him, it's true. Most voters are ****ing clueless though tbf.
I think Labour suffered on the PR / Charisma front when Angela Rayner was forced out. (Which was an orchestrated witch hunt by the billionaire owning press)
She was very good at the dispatch box and she also spoke the same language as working people, as she came up through the same set of circumstances that millions of ordinary folk experience day to day.
Yeah, there was no way the establishment was going to allow an articulate working class woman with attitude to go unopposed; so they turned all their guns on her.
If there's any justice in the world, she'll return to the Labour front benches and bring in a bill that wallops the likes of Lord Rothermere for all the tax ****s like him dodge.
The only trouble with electoral reform is that if you introduce PR, you end up with watered down coalitions that can never agree on anything.
For example Italy, which has been ungovernable for decades..
As a country, however, it does have an awful lot going for it.
The Tory/Lib coalition meant that both parties watered down their core principles. And couldn't really agree on new policies. Libs infamously backtracked on Student fees and betrayed their core supporters, so that dippy Clegg could be Deputy PM, a job which had basically zero power
Looking further afield Italy is a prime example of the infighting that coalition Govts bring, none of them like each other, none of them get on with each other and none of them can agree with each other, which is why you see such frequent turnover of power there.
Then you have the danger of what has happened in Israel. Where you have a right wing PM with a nationalistic agenda, who then relies on actual fascists to prop up his Govt, with their demands to push what was a genocidal agenda in Gaza.
I think there should be more representation in Parliament for the smaller parties, but for me the problem with PR means that no one party can form a Govt. Maybe in an ideal world, you'd have more cooperation, but in practice it manifests as threats to destabilise power unless fringe requests are met. Or a watered down vanilla version of what could be a bold legislative programme.
I agree with electoral reform, but not PR. I don't have any answers to what might be better though
The Tory/Lib coalition meant that both parties watered down their core principles. And couldn't really agree on new policies. Libs infamously backtracked on Student fees and betrayed their core supporters, so that dippy Clegg could be Deputy PM, a job which had basically zero power
Looking further afield Italy is a prime example of the infighting that coalition Govts bring, none of them like each other, none of them get on with each other and none of them can agree with each other, which is why you see such frequent turnover of power there.
Then you have the danger of what has happened in Israel. Where you have a right wing PM with a nationalistic agenda, who then relies on actual fascists to prop up his Govt, with their demands to push what was a genocidal agenda in Gaza.
I think there should be more representation in Parliament for the smaller parties, but for me the problem with PR means that no one party can form a Govt. Maybe in an ideal world, you'd have more cooperation, but in practice it manifests as threats to destabilise power unless fringe requests are met. Or a watered down vanilla version of what could be a bold legislative programme.
I agree with electoral reform, but not PR. I don't have any answers to what might be better though
Your mention of Israel is relevant.
Unless someone like Burnham comes in and turns things around, the likelihood is the next ge will return a hung parliament, at which point a Tory/Reform/Restore coalition could become an outcome.
Of course the other option is Labour/Green and we all become pro Palestinian vegan lesbians.
