29
Starmer promotes Blairites as Labour thoughts turn to governing
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
29 points (96.8% liked)
United Kingdom
4060 readers
83 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I had such high hopes for Starmer - he was a Human Rights lawyer, he was in Corbyn's cabinet , and he looked to be more of a politician willing to play the game of politics than Corbyn. And yet... And yet...
And yet...?
Blair got elected. Blair stayed elected, and only stepped down after being ousted by the Labour Party membership.
Brown was popular with the Labour Party membership. Brown lost.
Corbyn was popular with the Labour Party membership. Corbyn lost.
A pragmatic Labour party that is actually electable, and that wins, is orders of magnitude better than a "pure" Labour party that loses.
Shouting about how you want to see NATO disbanded, how the Falklands should be given to Argentina, and how much you admire Hugo Chavez, is not electable.
Oh I would absolutely rather Starmer's Labour than anything tory, but that's not a very high bar. I never liked Corbyn, I thought he was a hypocritical arsehole at times, but I did like many of his policies and polling showed so did much of the populous when you took away party designation. So my hope was that Starmer would continue in the same vein as Corbyn but be a more electable individual
In court cases, ideally you save the crystallization of your argument for summing up, because if you reveal it too early on you give the opposing side the opportunity to rebut it.
I like to hope that's Starmer's strategy. If he says anything too exciting too far for an election, it gives the Tories an angle, and time to spin nonsense against him. But you can't punch fog.
It's a theory, and I hope you're right. But there gas been no hint that he is doing anything like that at all
I think the main difference between election mode Blair and election mode Starmer was that Blair looked passionate and enthusiastic about wanting to introduce policies to improve things for people, and that was infectious.
Like I've said, I just get the impression with Starmer he kind of says 'oh yeah... we're not doing that either now', and he might have a good reason. It comes over like he's taking ideas away from the table.
It's easy for me to say I know. I don't know the decisions he has to make. I just worry those floating voters will think Starmer and Sunak are very similar and not care who gets in because 'they're all the same'
Blair, for all his faults, had charisma. He knew how to twist a crowd and how to twist the media. I would have expected a decorate lawyer to have those skills too, but Starmer seems to be a wet blanket who's only skill is the occasional good quip at PMQs