The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

But what does leaving the ECHR enable us to do?

Other than removing the right to take appeals to the European Court of Human Rights, nothing will change. Admittedly there will he a need for a lot of legislation to amend or replace current laws and regulations that reference the ECHR, but given the low number of UK cases that are taken there anyway, ( on average about 10 a year ), it's really a pointless exercise.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8049/

Edited 20 hours ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

I wish loads of the idiots woudl join Corbyn. Makes sensible policies that should be a slam dunk with their majority so contentious. I’d actually love the Tories to vote with Govt (they won’t of course) and would help give them some credibility back

100% agree with you. A coalition of centrists. Unfortunately unlikely to happen

Edited 19 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

I wish loads of the idiots woudl join Corbyn. Makes sensible policies that should be a slam dunk with their majority so contentious. I’d actually love the Tories to vote with Govt (they won’t of course) and would help give them some credibility back

Exactly, we need pragmatism and an acceptance that centrist policies are the only ones that will realistically work (and be accepted).

If they want to jump ship then let them - do we have any idea how many sit under that banner?

Edited 19 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

Big play from labour. This is pretty much their only chance to win the next election. If they can significantly bring down immigration and get rid of some of the ones here then they have a small chance. If the likes of Reeves succeeds in replacing Starmer then it's all cancelled and they will implode.

[whelk]

44 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If the likes of Reeves succeeds in replacing Starmer

Is anyone realistic in thinking that is going to happen? About 10 others listed in the betting before her.

[whelk]

46 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Big play from labour. This is pretty much their only chance to win the next election. If they can significantly bring down immigration and get rid of some of the ones here then they have a small chance. If the likes of Reeves succeeds in replacing Starmer then it's all cancelled and they will implode.

Tice saying Mahmood looking like she wants to join Reform is great PR for her but a gaff from Tice- their USP you’d have thought 

[whelk]

55 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Exactly, we need pragmatism and an acceptance that centrist policies are the only ones that will realistically work (and be accepted).

If they want to jump ship then let them - do we have any idea how many sit under that banner?

I’m afraid I’m not piped in enough to know the numbers but thought they were trying to cull the extremists from standing and had been successful. Although some of the drips that seem to appeal to Muslim vote expect will not be comfortable voting in anti-immigration measures 

[iansums]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

I wish loads of the idiots woudl join Corbyn. Makes sensible policies that should be a slam dunk with their majority so contentious. I’d actually love the Tories to vote with Govt (they won’t of course) and would help give them some credibility back

It looks like the Tories WILL support the proposed asylum reforms, this could be very interesting.

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, whelk said:

Is anyone realistic in thinking that is going to happen? About 10 others listed in the betting before her.

I expect if the Labour Party members have their way she'd be high up the list.

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, whelk said:

Tice saying Mahmood looking like she wants to join Reform is great PR for her but a gaff from Tice- their USP you’d have thought 

It all depends on if Labour can deliver. If they actually do something meaningful here and don't get stopped by the left of their party then they could do something. If they fail to show meaningful change before the next election then no one who wants immigration control is going to vote for labours version when the real thing is available to vote for.

[Farmer Saint]

24 minutes ago, whelk said:

Is anyone realistic in thinking that is going to happen? About 10 others listed in the betting before her.

Reeves has no chance. No-one wants her in charge.

[Farmer Saint]

19 minutes ago, iansums said:

It looks like the Tories WILL support the proposed asylum reforms, this could be very interesting.

That makes sense - this destroys Reform and their voter base, and places their voter base back with the Tories.

Clever play all round as screws the left or Labour as well.

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Reeves has no chance. No-one wants her in charge.

Who will the left be supporting? They won't be going for Streeting or Mahmood.

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Who will the left be supporting? They won't be going for Streeting or Mahmood.

Rayner, Burnham or Milliband I would go with - outside bet of Lisa Nandy as well.

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[iansums]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

That makes sense - this destroys Reform and their voter base, and places their voter base back with the Tories.

Clever play all round as screws the left or Labour as well.

Only if the policies actually work and even then, they don't go as far as the Tories or Reform would want. It could though cause a split within the Labour party. Fair play to Mahmood though, at least her and Streeting are actually genuinely trying to get things done, unlike Starmer and Reeves who just drift along like a couple of turds in the sewer. 

[iansums]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Rayner, Burnham or Milliband I would go with - outside bet of Lisa Nandy as well.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, iansums said:

Only if the policies actually work and even then, they don't go as far as the Tories or Reform would want. It could though cause a split within the Labour party. Fair play to Mahmood though, at least her and Streeting are actually genuinely trying to get things done, unlike Starmer and Reeves who just drift along like a couple of turds in the sewer. 

People aren't voting Reform for their economic policies though, are they? If this looks like it may work (and the proof is in the pudding) then it will rid us of the chance that Reform could win. Will also push the Tories to get rid of Kemi.

By the way, you're saying that Starmer and Reeves are not trying to get things done - they're not independent of each other, IE. All changes have to go through Starmer anyway (and Reeves a lot of the time).

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, iansums said:

I don't want them BTW, I'm just saying that's who the left of the party are likely to go with.

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Rayner, Burnham or Milliband I would go with - outside bet of Lisa Nandy as well.

Fuck I messed up. I meant Rayner.

[hypochondriac]

40 minutes ago, whelk said:

Is anyone realistic in thinking that is going to happen? About 10 others listed in the betting before her.

Apologies I meant Rayner 

[iansums]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

People aren't voting Reform for their economic policies though, are they? If this looks like it may work (and the proof is in the pudding) then it will rid us of the chance that Reform could win. Will also push the Tories to get rid of Kemi.

By the way, you're saying that Starmer and Reeves are not trying to get things done - they're not independent of each other, IE. All changes have to go through Starmer anyway (and Reeves a lot of the time).

Wrong, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. Sorry to be a pedant but it does irritate me when people use that phrase incorrectly. 

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, iansums said:

Wrong, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. Sorry to be a pedant but it does irritate me when people use that phrase incorrectly. 

I apologise.

[whelk]

21 minutes ago, iansums said:

Wrong, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. Sorry to be a pedant but it does irritate me when people use that phrase incorrectly. 

I’m the same when people say money is the root of all evil. It’s the love of money, not money in itself 

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

But what does leaving the ECHR enable us to do?

Steal gold teeth out of the mouths of illegal immigrants.

Can't believe that hasn't been thought of before.

[iansums]

I’m really starting to warm to Shabana Mahmood, remarkable response to a comment from a Lib Dem MP where she describes how she has been called “a F**$$ Paki”. She has bigger balls than Starmer.

[Gloucester Saint]

Decent set of proposals at first glance. Tougher than last 15 years but if you want to work or study to build a life here you can still do that https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3eplk4047do

The usual pillocks on the Labour left are spouting off but that’s expected. No need to leave the ECHR and more economic self harm either. Judiciary might be more of an issue but judges do retire/leave. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Decent set of proposals at first glance. Tougher than last 15 years but if you want to work or study to build a life here you can still do that https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3eplk4047do

The usual pillocks on the Labour left are spouting off but that’s expected. No need to leave the ECHR and more economic self harm either. Judiciary might be more of an issue but judges do retire/leave. 

There's enough support amongst labour to this through, although I suspect the Tories will back it. 

The devil will be in the detail though re amendments to article 3 and 8, and the modern slavery act. They need to make the statute sufficiently tight to avoid too much judicial leeway - Judges only interpret that. 

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, egg said:

There's enough support amongst labour to this through, although I suspect the Tories will back it. 

The devil will be in the detail though re amendments to article 3 and 8, and the modern slavery act. They need to make the statute sufficiently tight to avoid too much judicial leeway - Judges only interpret that. 

Yeah, on the latter point there were a lot of accepted asylum cases from Romania for example in 2023 under female people trafficking. So the at point needs to be watertight to head that off. 

[sadoldgit]

John Crace not impressed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/17/shabana-mahmood-puts-the-signs-up-britain-is-full-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-irish

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

John Crace not impressed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/17/shabana-mahmood-puts-the-signs-up-britain-is-full-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-irish

It’s not the likes of him it’s aimed at though. It’s aimed at socially conservative but more centre/left economic voters. He’s got Lib Dem or Green as alternatives but Davey’s been moving more towards this as well.

[The Kraken]

There’s always going to be some mad opinions. The left of the left will say that it’s inhumane. The right of the right will say that it goes nowhere near far enough. Those in between will think that it’s a start, and I guess we’ll see. I think almost everyone recognises that we’ve got an immigration problem and, while this hasn’t passed anything yet, I think it’s the most forward approach we’ve seen to the problem in many a year.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

John Crace not impressed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/17/shabana-mahmood-puts-the-signs-up-britain-is-full-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-irish

Hardly a surprise from the bloke who suggested that Oakeshott banged Farage, and writes for the Guardian. 

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

John Crace not impressed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/17/shabana-mahmood-puts-the-signs-up-britain-is-full-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-irish

Must be a good policy then!

[badgerx16]

44 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

John Crace not impressed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/17/shabana-mahmood-puts-the-signs-up-britain-is-full-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-irish

Diddums.

[egg]

3 hours ago, iansums said:

I’m really starting to warm to Shabana Mahmood, remarkable response to a comment from a Lib Dem MP where she describes how she has been called “a F**$$ Paki”. She has bigger balls than Starmer.

Loved her "Farage can sod off" comment when asked how she thought he'd react. 

[whelk]

Who gives a flying fuck what The Guardian thinks? They have a handful of decent journalists left but gone rapidly downhill in last few years. Sad as used to be more relevant

[iansums]

8 hours ago, egg said:

Loved her "Farage can sod off" comment when asked how she thought he'd react. 

And when she tore Carla Denyer a new one, very impressive woman.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

According to Beeb's Newscast, Labour's new media policy is to focus exclusively/relentlessly on a single topic for a week.

This is because they feel their good things are lost in the newscycles. They could now spend plenty of time reinforcing each message until it clicks with the electorate.  In practice, it also would give them a chance across a week to outlast anything else.

Last week was supposed to be Wes Streting and the NHS. The leadership briefings from Starmer's own team did for that across the whole week. Streeting did get lots of strong moments. He was pre-booked to talk NHS, so was on hand to deal firmly with the mess.

This week it's Mahmood on immigration. Which, apart from the expected factions on the left and right seems to have been well received. All sides seem to have respected her strength of conviction and oratory.

It is also having the effect of leaving Starmer quite a bit in the background. The whole point of last week, was for him to come out and say he'd fight for his leadership. Having made so many concessions and u turns to get himself and labour into power, he's now on the backfoot to those in his party who communicate their convictions better.