It was apparent early in his premiership that Starmer was not up to the job. In May the electorate confirmed this. So Labour needed a new leader, sooner rather than later, who could relate to the voters.
I suspect Starmer focused on foreign affairs as he couldn't manage the UK politics. The country needs the PM to focus on domestic issues. Leaving the EU was a major strategic error as would be an attempt to rejoin before there was a large, settled majority of the electorate in favour. In the meantime,the countries of Europe are our friends and allies and we should behave accordingly.
Here we go, racing down the many blind alleys to political suicide. None of the points made are aimed at tackling the real problem of burying our wealth and investment funds into land inflation. Starmer is presiding over a much better clutch of changes than people want to admit or credit. Yes, mistakes have been made, but none that could not be corrected as any management would do. It is our social media and biased press that has created a false impression of false need to evict Starmer. Assuming he is replaced, the new PM will face exactly the same international challenges, with the same funding options and limitations. Stand by to be disappointed and exasperated under another media storm.
This is very much how I feel. But cannot it be equally argued that a Government has a duty to manage the impression it gives - even when this is decidedly uphill work against a biased media? Blair, with Campbell, went to enormous pains to do this. And is not failure to do it, insubstantive and subaltern though presentation may be when set against actual governing, a mistake that cannot be easily corrected?
I agree but the broad width of cultural and education backgrounds in the labour party makes it very difficult to achieve a universal message. For my knowledge of weekly progress, I rely on what I read on a particular posting on Substack. My one frustration with the government is that there is no apparent clear message emerging from No10. What I do hear seems to be lacking in confidence. I am no fan of forthright politicians more focused on ego or image than getting on with what needs to be done. Both Starmer and Burnham are very similar in persona but Starmer has the experience and greater knowledge of writing legislation that might outlast changes of government.
The excitement surrounding Burnham is understandable, as will be the disillusionment when he has been PM for 18 months. But he gives Labour more of a chance in 2029 than Starmer, who is obviously in the wrong job. I have rarely seen anyone more suited to being Foreign Secretary, a move which could ease the burden on Burnham in No 10. There’s little chance of Keir accepting that though. As he dais himself in recent days, whoever is in charge faces the same headwinds and no politician currently seems willing to grasp the nettles which imperil the country.
I think these are valid points, but the issue I have with Starmer is he doesn't seem to like politics or people much, the fact that we're talking about his replacement is because he managed hi party very poorly, apparently met few of his MP's in person, didn't make much of an effort to sell his policies either to the public or the party. Those aren't nice to have's in a politician and at the very least Burnham has a warmth and affability Starmer manifestly lacked.
Luke, these a skimpy reasons to dislodge a legally elected PM and possibly install a new one without even MPs having a vote. All beacuse Starmer doesn't like the more emotional side of politics. You're setting a very high standard!
A fair summary.
I think the bond markets will have a field day if Burnham becomes PM. Bets anyone, on how long he will last?
It was apparent early in his premiership that Starmer was not up to the job. In May the electorate confirmed this. So Labour needed a new leader, sooner rather than later, who could relate to the voters.
I suspect Starmer focused on foreign affairs as he couldn't manage the UK politics. The country needs the PM to focus on domestic issues. Leaving the EU was a major strategic error as would be an attempt to rejoin before there was a large, settled majority of the electorate in favour. In the meantime,the countries of Europe are our friends and allies and we should behave accordingly.
Here we go, racing down the many blind alleys to political suicide. None of the points made are aimed at tackling the real problem of burying our wealth and investment funds into land inflation. Starmer is presiding over a much better clutch of changes than people want to admit or credit. Yes, mistakes have been made, but none that could not be corrected as any management would do. It is our social media and biased press that has created a false impression of false need to evict Starmer. Assuming he is replaced, the new PM will face exactly the same international challenges, with the same funding options and limitations. Stand by to be disappointed and exasperated under another media storm.
This is very much how I feel. But cannot it be equally argued that a Government has a duty to manage the impression it gives - even when this is decidedly uphill work against a biased media? Blair, with Campbell, went to enormous pains to do this. And is not failure to do it, insubstantive and subaltern though presentation may be when set against actual governing, a mistake that cannot be easily corrected?
I agree but the broad width of cultural and education backgrounds in the labour party makes it very difficult to achieve a universal message. For my knowledge of weekly progress, I rely on what I read on a particular posting on Substack. My one frustration with the government is that there is no apparent clear message emerging from No10. What I do hear seems to be lacking in confidence. I am no fan of forthright politicians more focused on ego or image than getting on with what needs to be done. Both Starmer and Burnham are very similar in persona but Starmer has the experience and greater knowledge of writing legislation that might outlast changes of government.
The excitement surrounding Burnham is understandable, as will be the disillusionment when he has been PM for 18 months. But he gives Labour more of a chance in 2029 than Starmer, who is obviously in the wrong job. I have rarely seen anyone more suited to being Foreign Secretary, a move which could ease the burden on Burnham in No 10. There’s little chance of Keir accepting that though. As he dais himself in recent days, whoever is in charge faces the same headwinds and no politician currently seems willing to grasp the nettles which imperil the country.
All the contenders are beginning to look like flies gathering round a corpse
I think these are valid points, but the issue I have with Starmer is he doesn't seem to like politics or people much, the fact that we're talking about his replacement is because he managed hi party very poorly, apparently met few of his MP's in person, didn't make much of an effort to sell his policies either to the public or the party. Those aren't nice to have's in a politician and at the very least Burnham has a warmth and affability Starmer manifestly lacked.
Luke, these a skimpy reasons to dislodge a legally elected PM and possibly install a new one without even MPs having a vote. All beacuse Starmer doesn't like the more emotional side of politics. You're setting a very high standard!
He probably won't have anything to do with Mandelson or McSweeny so there's a couple of positives you've missed.
It was Del Boy in only fools and horses who said you know it makes sense. Now I know who has political commentary running in their veins