The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, CB Fry said:

It wasn't in their manifesto this time to be fair.

But they should never ever have given that group any time at all, and certainly not given them the encouragement and photo opps etc.

I don't think I have encountered a pressure group that I have less sympathy for or support for. Absolute bullshitters most of them and for those that didn't know, well you should have known. Fucking parasites on the scrounge.

 

Quite.

Labour has been indifferent so far but compare that to 2016-24 with the legacy left behind and it’s hard to see how it could have too much better. Tories admit they couldn’t have afforded the £10.5bn compensation either and it was their poor communication in the first place.

Much rather the infected blood and post office scandal affected groups and individuals are made a priority for compensating - but of course they don’t have a large female boomer generation campaigning voice behind them in the same way through the tabloids. Alan Bates is popular but not got the columnists going into bat for the PO affected in the same way.

Edited 18 December, 2024 by Gloucester Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Tories admit they couldn’t have afforded the £10.5bn compensation either and it was their poor communication in the first place.

There wasn’t poor communication, a report found that in 2006 some 90% of affected women knew about the changes. 
 

You’ve done exactly what labour were doing, having a cheap shot at the Tories. That's why they’re getting the clog they deserve over this issue, it was a non issue they turned into a stick to beat them with. An own goal. for a few more votes 

Edited 19 December, 2024 by Lord Duckhunter

[Gloucester Saint]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There wasn’t poor communication, a report found that in 2006 some 90% of affected women knew about the changes. 
 

You’ve done exactly what labour were doing, having a cheap shot at the Tories. That's why they’re getting the clog they deserve over this issue, it was a non issue, they turned into a stick to beat themselves with. 

Some of Labour’s own communication isn’t very good either and in opposition they complained about the unfairness as the Tories did yesterday whilst admitting they couldn’t have afforded it too (which is a lesson for all opposition parties, Lib Dem’s and tuition fees as well for balance as I vote for them). It wasn’t in their manifesto to tackle it and given the state of the country’s finances there are groups like the PO and blood scandal that I’d rather were prioritised. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

It wasn’t in their manifesto to tackle it and given the state of the country’s finances there are groups like the PO and blood scandal that I’d rather were prioritised. 

That wasn’t what Liz Kendall said yesterday, she didn’t say the say couldn’t afford it or that due to a fiscal black hole they made the difficult decision to prioritise other causes. She specifically rejected the principle that they were owed compo (correctly in my view). She rejected the ombudsman’s recommendation on the basis that most women knew about the rise in age and the fact they hadn’t received letters was insignificant . She said, 

 “These two facts — that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says — as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman's report.”

 

Theres no new facts that have emerged since Raynor, Starmer and others promised to right this perceived wrong. It’s not the financial situation that’s changed, it’s their principle of whether these birds were owed compo or not. Not a good look and again the issue has been poorly managed. …

 

Edited 19 December, 2024 by Lord Duckhunter

[Gloucester Saint]

22 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That wasn’t what Liz Kendall said yesterday, she didn’t say the say couldn’t afford it or that due to a fiscal black hole they made the difficult decision to prioritise other causes. She specifically rejected the principle that they were owed compo (correctly in my view). She rejected the ombudsman’s recommendation on the basis that most women knew about the rise in age and the fact they hadn’t received letters was insignificant . She said, 

 “These two facts — that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says — as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman's report.”

 

Theres no new facts that have emerged since Raynor, Starmer and others promised to right this perceived wrong. It’s not the financial situation that’s changed, it’s their principle of whether these birds were owed compo or not. Not a good look and again the issue has been poorly managed. …

 

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

Edited 19 December, 2024 by Gloucester Saint

[egg]

50 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That wasn’t what Liz Kendall said yesterday, she didn’t say the say couldn’t afford it or that due to a fiscal black hole they made the difficult decision to prioritise other causes. She specifically rejected the principle that they were owed compo (correctly in my view). She rejected the ombudsman’s recommendation on the basis that most women knew about the rise in age and the fact they hadn’t received letters was insignificant . She said, 

 “These two facts — that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says — as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman's report.”

 

Theres no new facts that have emerged since Raynor, Starmer and others promised to right this perceived wrong. It’s not the financial situation that’s changed, it’s their principle of whether these birds were owed compo or not. Not a good look and again the issue has been poorly managed. …

 

Agreed. Virtue signalling his bitten them on the arse. 

[aintforever]

39 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

Not sure there is any way of communicating this sort of thing without some people being pissed off, whatever they say the women are going to moan. Old people will moan about anything given the chance.

[whelk]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

Agreed. Virtue signalling his bitten them on the arse. 

Don’t think it was virtue signalling more naive supporting anyone who was campaigning against the Tory government.

 

[whelk]

44 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

Campbell has huge wisdom and always good value listening to him. Of course some can’t get past what you have to do to govern effectively and he’s forever their bogey man.

Whilst Morgan Mcsweeney ran a very good election campaign strategy for Labour he is not in Campbell’s category for experience. Mind social media and misinformation wasnt as prevalent as in Campbell’s time and there is literally fuck all you can do these days with the rabid Tory papers hell bent on having no objectivity and just solely concentrate on attacking Starmer and co. 

[Gloucester Saint]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Campbell has huge wisdom and always good value listening to him. Of course some can’t get past what you have to do to govern effectively and he’s forever their bogey man.

Whilst Morgan Mcsweeney ran a very good election campaign strategy for Labour he is not in Campbell’s category for experience. Mind social media and misinformation wasnt as prevalent as in Campbell’s time and there is literally fuck all you can do these days with the rabid Tory papers hell bent on having no objectivity and just solely concentrate on attacking Starmer and co. 

I did think that, last time they were in power SM was nowhere near the force it is now. Plus some of the tabloids - I include the DT in that category these days sadly - are solely propaganda tools. They’ve always been right-leaning but in a way it backfires because most people who aren’t politically partisan assume they are just banging on at the behest of the CCO and their non-dom, tax dodging owners.

[egg]

42 minutes ago, whelk said:

Don’t think it was virtue signalling more naive supporting anyone who was campaigning against the Tory government.

 

Possibly both, but certainly naive, and not forward thinking. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

Half the problem is that Starmer just isn't an inspiring person. It feels like when Theresa May was in charge with no inspiration and nothing to make people feel good about themselves and their situation. 

[Jeremy Corbyn]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Don’t think it was virtue signalling more naive supporting anyone who was campaigning against the Tory government.

 

Yep, think that's it and tbh I've been surprised how poor Labour's PR has been in power considering how good they were at taking apart the Tories in the last couple of years.

[The Kraken]

54 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Yep, think that's it and tbh I've been surprised how poor Labour's PR has been in power considering how good they were at taking apart the Tories in the last couple of years.

Were they?  Starmer played it well in opposition but all he had to do was let the Tories implode.

Everyone knew Boris Johnson was a liar, key press knew about Partygate while it was happening. Starmer asked the right questions at PMQs but Johnson was a complete fool and made a complete cunt of himself by telling fibs then being immediately caught out on it.

Liz Truss, well that was just the biggest own goal ever.

And Sunak, despite being the “sensible” appointee was actually inept, advised abysmally, and made ricket after ricket.

I said at the time of the election and I haven’t changed my mind much. Starmer isn’t in any way inspiring but he’s clearly an intelligent man which makes him stand well above the three before him and what’s opposite him now, just because he shows a semblance of relative competence. And that’s with Labour making what can best be described as a poor start to governance.

Edited 19 December, 2024 by The Kraken

[Gloucester Saint]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Half the problem is that Starmer just isn't an inspiring person. It feels like when Theresa May was in charge with no inspiration and nothing to make people feel good about themselves and their situation. 

He’s what I’d describe as serious, very detail focused, which was totally lacking with Boris and Truss. Sunak was more detail focused but they’d shot their bolt by then. Which is fine for a PM but Rayner hasn’t provided the lighter side that might have offset some of that seriousness. Someone like Wes Streeting has that aspect of humour which he seems to land well. Gordon Brown’s seriousness and that of George Osborne wasn’t such a problem as Blair and Cameron were more natural public performers. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

12 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Not everyone’s cup of tea in here but I think they need an Alastair Campbell type figure, or Bernard Ingham the other way, so they get the communication of policies landing better. They’ve got plenty of technocrats but lacking in people who can understand optics in presentation.

 

11 hours ago, aintforever said:

Not sure there is any way of communicating this sort of thing without some people being pissed off, whatever they say the women are going to moan. Old people will moan about anything given the chance.

😂😂 I think the point went over Aintclevers head 😂😂 #dopeymiddleagedperson

GS must be referring to the fact they need a Campbell type figure to manage expectations and the announcement this week, not “communicating this sort of thing” from the off as Aintclever seems to think. New Labour were  in Government for 12 of the 14 years which the ombudsman mentioned, they clearly didn’t need a Campbell figure to communicate the pissing off, they had the real one.
 

It’s pandering to the moaners that’s caught them out. GS is right. Campbell/ Ingram wouldn’t have let them expose themselves in opposition by posing with “pledges”, and both would have rolled the pitch for this weeks announcement…

[whelk]

I don’t understand. It is not possible to get more money from taxes. Clearly fake news 

Government borrowing lower than expected in November https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmvr2n4v9o

 

[Gloucester Saint]

10 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

😂😂 I think the point went over Aintclevers head 😂😂 #dopeymiddleagedperson

GS must be referring to the fact they need a Campbell type figure to manage expectations and the announcement this week, not “communicating this sort of thing” from the off as Aintclever seems to think. New Labour were  in Government for 12 of the 14 years which the ombudsman mentioned, they clearly didn’t need a Campbell figure to communicate the pissing off, they had the real one.
 

It’s pandering to the moaners that’s caught them out. GS is right. Campbell/ Ingram wouldn’t have let them expose themselves in opposition by posing with “pledges”, and both would have rolled the pitch for this weeks announcement…

Yes, that’s correct, that’s what I was saying.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Andrew Neil predicting an awful year ahead for this hopeless Government & PM.

 

”Our benighted Labour government, barely half a year old, already has a well-established and well-deserved reputation for making everything it touches worse (and much of what it inherited from the Tories wasn't in great shape in the first place). Expect more of the same in 2025.
 

Far from faster growth, it's more likely we'll start the new year in recession — or close to it. The economy failed to grow at all in the third quarter of 2024 and the signs are that it was even more comatose in the fourth quarter just ending, after Chancellor Rachel Reeves's October Budget went down like a lead balloon with business and consumers.

The public spending splurge she foolishly unveiled is expected to pep up growth a little in 2025. But that will be short-lived. As long as business and consumer confidence remain shot to hell there can be no sustained recovery — and Reeves has nothing in her tool box to revive our economy's animal spirits.

 

Negative or very slow growth, rising inflation, higher than necessary interest rates, a continued squeeze on living standards — we face Liz Truss-levels of economic incompetence in 2025 under the Starmer-Reeves ascendancy, whose dead hand will deliver another year of relative economic decline. Add in the inevitable unravelling of Ed Miliband's fantastical net zero ambitions and you have the perfect storm of economic stupidity.”

[Gloucester Saint]

Didn’t vote for this government but to compare Reeves to Truss shows pure senility. That’s usually what I expect from Andrew Neil. The flop at GB News has turned him into a bitter old git. No different to Soggy posting a whiny one from the Guardian, Andrew Neil is best ignored.

Edited 28 December, 2024 by Gloucester Saint

[AlexLaw76]

38 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Didn’t vote for this government but to compare Reeves to Truss shows pure senility. That’s usually what I expect from Andrew Neil. The flop at GB News has turned him into a bitter old git. No different to Soggy posting a whiny one from the Guardian, Andrew Neil is best ignored.

Reeves is fucking it right up, she can easily be an original in this area

[Gloucester Saint]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Reeves is fucking it right up, she can easily be an original in this area

You’d have been saying the same in the pub in 1980 about Geoffrey Howe the last time a new government had an in-tray that chronic. And in 1981 and early 1982, people talk about the Falklands effect but the economy picking up and Michael Foot being 15 years past his sell by date helped the 1983 landslide. Howe got pelters for doubling VAT similar to the employers NI increase and it was perceived monetarism was killing the economy, lots of pressure from even their own side to stop it. 

[Challenger]

So basically this new red broom is just as shit as the old blue one.

[Gloucester Saint]

17 minutes ago, Challenger said:

So basically this new red broom is just as shit as the old blue one.

They haven’t made the impact hoped yet but if they hadn’t have taken steps to repair some of the severe damage from Boris and Truss they’d have been accused of recklessness. 

Personally I preferred the Blair and Coalition eras to this, but a hard Brexit plus Truss’s failed gambles and the Ukraine war haven’t exactly given the new lot much scope for manoeuvre that those two eras benefitted from (and Cameron tossed away).

Personally, I’d have repealed the stupid and unaffordable NI cut instead of what they did, and Ed Miliband has always been a twat. However, as a Lib Dem majority government will never happen, and then the alternatives are Badenoch or Farage….obvious to give them another couple of years to start making some headway.

Edited 28 December, 2024 by Gloucester Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

How long are you going to keep blaming Truss? 
 

This government inherited a lot of problems and seem to have made them worse. The economy was growing when Sunak left office and it’s now stalled. The CBI survey reported in the guardian found private sector businesses across all industries expected a "steep decline in activity" in the first three months in 2025, so as Neil pointed out ‘25 doesn’t look any better.
 

That’s before it dawns on people that they were sold a pup with this “smash the gangs pony”. As Diane Abbott recently said Starmer has shown poor political judgement and doesn’t have a feel for politics. This is only headed one way…..

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

How long are you going to keep blaming Truss? 
 

This government inherited a lot of problems and seem to have made them worse. The economy was growing when Sunak left office and it’s now stalled. The CBI survey reported in the guardian found private sector businesses across all industries expected a "steep decline in activity" in the first three months in 2025, so as Neil pointed out ‘25 doesn’t look any better.
 

That’s before it dawns on people that they were sold a pup with this “smash the gangs pony”. As Diane Abbott recently said Starmer has shown poor political judgement and doesn’t have a feel for politics. This is only headed one way…..

It wasn’t just Truss though was it? She stupidly poured IEA super accelerant on it, but the economy was already well fucked under Boris and public spending out of control with the cost of the ramped up civil service to deal with Brexit plus COVID debt on top. A bit like the 1970s stagflation, Howe and Thatcher didn’t get out of that in 6 months, or 24 months, took into later 1982 to really show signs of recovery. And they took some very unpopular decisions like doubling VAT early on, letting shipbuilding and steel go to the wall etc. SDP were winning by elections, and Tories were frequently lagging third in the polls.

If we are still at this stage in 2026 onwards, then I’ll revisit my perspective and be as cross as you are. It took time to build this mess and poor decisions by politicians and publics to get to this point. It won’t transform in 6 months.

I didn’t vote for them and not a huge fan FWIW. Far too timid for a start on reconnecting with Europe which would help close the economic gap but then I would say that. I know we have different views on that aspect.

Where we agree is that their communication and presentation of policies is poor and has to improve. The press and social media is far more hostile than Blair had, the electorate highly cynical with all parties (including Reform) and not willing to own its balls ups. You can’t have a hard Brexit, lose £40bn pa and expect 2000s era quality public services. Some of the Red Wall seats need a serious reality check - levelling up doesn’t achieve what you want when you’ve cut several % off GDP - but so do this government. They need a Campbell or Ingram figure for when the shit has to hit the fan. That’s where Starmer has been wanting and I think Streeting or Milburn might be leader by the next GE.

Abandoning Rwanda was not an error though, it was a very expensive fig leaf token for 1% of illegal migration. When people are flooding out of nations like Eritrea where permanent conscription starts at 14, Rwanda with a few quid in your pocket isn’t a deterrent. The rejections are actually being processed quite a bit faster and numbers falling but the boats are increasing which is another PR challenge. There’s actually been quite a bit of progress in disabling the gangs but it’s an ongoing battle. The smugglers are now operating out of Germany because France is too hot in terms of being dispersed. 

 

Edited 28 December, 2024 by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

@whelk- how long is it appropriate to wait before passing judgement on Starmer and how he is doing? What's your verdict this far? 

Looks like Starmer needs a plan for growth to counteract the previous plan for growth that was received like a bag of cold sick. It's the economy stupid... 

Edited Tuesday at 20:30 by hypochondriac

[whelk]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

@whelk- how long is it appropriate to wait before passing judgement on Starmer and how he is doing? What's your verdict this far? 

Looks like Starmer needs a plan for growth to counteract the previous plan for growth that was received like a bag of cold sick. It's the economy stupid... 

he is doing ok. Everywhere is a shitshow and much of discontent can’t be put on him and his govt, although clear many are putting maximum effort to pile into them. Need to protect the ruling classes and the elite to increase their already huge wealth and can’t think the working man has a right to anymore than he already has the ungrateful bastard.

Budget hasn’t excited anyone but businesses whinging about tax means fuck all to me. Plenty make loads and in their blood to get excitable if any costs go up……most can afford it despite the best efforts of their PR.

I think Cooper and Streeting give credibility but still way too many empty vessels in the Labour Party for my liking.

Needs to have more backbone and not worry about right wing press. They are coming for him anyway so do something radical while you have the chance. Not just drift through more of the same as voters will desert.

[Turkish]

Look out Kier, competition is coming

#votebruv  

 

Edited Tuesday at 21:24 by Turkish

[whelk]

I would say they should be careful dismissing populism as far right. They need to be more in touch with working classes and not label their anger conveniently in the same way SOG does.

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Look out Kier, competition is coming 

 

I’m sure Badenoch will be championing his free speech right and not criticising whatsoever 

[egg]

14 minutes ago, whelk said:

I would say they should be careful dismissing populism as far right. They need to be more in touch with working classes and not label their anger conveniently in the same way SOG does.

Yep. Wanting something different to what we're getting seems to be labelled as far right. It feels arrogant, out of touch and often plain wrong. 

[hypochondriac]

39 minutes ago, whelk said:

I would say they should be careful dismissing populism as far right. They need to be more in touch with working classes and not label their anger conveniently in the same way SOG does.

Can't disagree with that. It comes across as tone deaf and elitist. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

he is doing ok. Everywhere is a shitshow and much of discontent can’t be put on him and his govt, although clear many are putting maximum effort to pile into them. Need to protect the ruling classes and the elite to increase their already huge wealth and can’t think the working man has a right to anymore than he already has the ungrateful bastard.

Budget hasn’t excited anyone but businesses whinging about tax means fuck all to me. Plenty make loads and in their blood to get excitable if any costs go up……most can afford it despite the best efforts of their PR.

I think Cooper and Streeting give credibility but still way too many empty vessels in the Labour Party for my liking.

Needs to have more backbone and not worry about right wing press. They are coming for him anyway so do something radical while you have the chance. Not just drift through more of the same as voters will desert.

Thanks for the reply. Are you surprised by their polling? I'll be honest I thought they'd have more of a honeymoon and I'm very surprised by their messaging over the first six months. Almost the opposite of Blair. 

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. Wanting something different to what we're getting seems to be labelled as far right. It feels arrogant, out of touch and often plain wrong. 

Yep. If he doesn't want to get defeated by populism then that's the wrong way to go about it. 

[Winnersaint]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Can't disagree with that. It comes across as tone deaf and elitist. 

Yes, put into words exactly what I was thinking. Needs to be better at reading the room. 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, Winnersaint said:

Yes, put into words exactly what I was thinking. Needs to be better at reading the room. 

Tony Blair was a master at communication, mainly because he said things in such a reasonable and persuasive way when almost certainly behind the scenes he felt differently. Starmer's main problem at the moment is that he can't fake it and it's very likely that he comes across as disdainful and dismissive of certain viewpoints because that is how he genuinely feels and he either hasn't figured out that he should hide that or he is unable to do so. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

12 hours ago, egg said:

Yep. Wanting something different to what we're getting seems to be labelled as far right. It feels arrogant, out of touch and often plain wrong. 

Wes Streeting seems the only one who appears to be in tune with things at the moment.
 

Binning Sue Gray doesn’t appear to have made any difference to Starmer’s handling of things. This NHS thing was a prime example, first question about Musk, he says “I’m here to discuss NHS” and refused to answer, second question, he goes on his ‘far right” narrative. The take away from the speech wasn’t about the NHS, but more fuel added to the Rape gang narrative.
 

How can a former DPP allow a story to run and run that appears to have him the wrong side of this issue. It’s not the “far right” that think he is, or a hostile anti Labour press.  If Tony Blair was running things, he would have gripped the narrative, and made most ordinary people think he was going to get to the bottom of what happened in the past, and put in place safeguards for the future. He’d have come across as emphatic to the victims and understanding of why people are appalled by it. He made people think he was on their side and understood their concerns. This bloke comes across as a technocrat, an over promoted jobsworth who cant take any criticism or push back. Although he’s also banging on about taking politics out of this or that, and doing things differently, he’s incredibly tribal (or comes across as such), and doesn’t seem capable of understanding people who didn’t vote for him. There hasn’t been a PM with such a “them & us” attitude since Maggie, and I’m not sure itll work for him like it did for her. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:39 by Lord Duckhunter

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There hasn’t been a PM with such a “them & us” attitude since Maggie, and I’m not sure itll work for him like it did for her. 

Given the PMs just in the last few years I hope this is a joke, though I suspect it isn’t.

[Winnersaint]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Wes Streeting seems the only one who appears to be in tune with things at the moment.
 

Binning Sue Gray doesn’t appear to have made any difference to Starmer’s handling of things. This NHS thing was a prime example, first question about Musk, he says “I’m here to discuss NHS” and refused to answer, second question, he goes on his ‘far right” narrative. The take away from the speech wasn’t about the NHS, but more fuel added to the Rape gang narrative.
 

How can a former DPP allow a story to run and run that appears to have him the wrong side of this issue. It’s not the “far right” that think he is, or a hostile anti Labour press.  If Tony Blair was running things, he would have gripped the narrative, and made most ordinary people think he was going to get to the bottom of what happened in the past, and put in place safeguards for the future. He’d have come across as emphatic to the victims and understanding of why people are appalled by it. He made people think he was on their side and understood their concerns. This bloke comes across as a technocrat, an over promoted jobsworth who cant take any criticism or push back. Although he’s also banging on about taking politics out of this or that, and doing things differently, he’s incredibly tribal (or comes across as such), and doesn’t seem capable of understanding people who didn’t vote for him. There hasn’t been a PM with such a “them & us” attitude since Maggie, and I’m not sure itll work for him like it did for her. 

Thatcher had the formidable Sir Bernard Ingham on her team and Blair had Alistair Campbell. I know the latter is still a divisive figure probably as a result the unprecedented power he exercised in the Blair Govt but both he and Ingham were masters of messaging. Confirms to me my feeling that Starmer just doesn't know how to do politics which is pretty much what you're saying.

[badgerx16]

Liz Truss has filed a Cease and Desist order against Keir Starmer to stop him repeating that she crashed the economy.

[Gloucester Saint]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Liz Truss has filed a Cease and Desist order against Keir Starmer to stop him repeating that she crashed the economy.

Fucking hilarious and actually very helpful to Labour. Without even a Parliament seat and spending her time on the alt right speaking circuit, she really is cracking up.

She ought to sue Kwarteng as well, he’s gone on various documentaries explaining she went haywire. 

At the end of a bottle of wine, it probably felt like a good idea, but the lawyer’s had a laugh and fleeced her there. 

[egg]

16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Liz Truss has filed a Cease and Desist order against Keir Starmer to stop him repeating that she crashed the economy.

Is she relying on the technical defence of "it was Kwarteng"? Lunacy regardless. 

[whelk]

All she’s got left is her tits

[Gloucester Saint]

21 minutes ago, whelk said:

All she’s got left is her tits

Spaniels’ ears

[Weston Super Saint]

33 minutes ago, whelk said:

All she’s got left is her tits

Kwarteng?

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

All she’s got left is her tits

You’re a sick, sick man.