The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Thanks but this thread is about Starmer. Probably better to stick to discussions of the Labour party if you can.

 

Eh?

[AlexLaw76]

 

[tdmickey3]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Is your assertion that you want Labour in charge because everyone else is even worse? Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Well, it don't want garage and his lunatic rubbish. 

Don't want the self serving tories. 

Lib dems don't seem to have a clue

Greens are never going to amount to anything.

Labour aren't good but better than the above..

We have to have someone, who should it be?

 

 

 

 

[hypochondriac]

17 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Well, it don't want garage and his lunatic rubbish. 

Don't want the self serving tories. 

Lib dems don't seem to have a clue

Greens are never going to amount to anything.

Labour aren't good but better than the above..

We have to have someone, who should it be?

 

 

 

 

I don't see any evidence that they are better.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 

I only got radio snippets throughout the afternoon on this.  What came across was :-

Surprise at an admission that Starmer knew that the relationship had continued. I had thought this was known, and was partly the reason for the poor extra 3 questions Mandelson was asked.

Badenoch telling the house that National Security was already built into humble addresses. Therefore, there had to be another reason why Starmer was looking to add an amendment. That reason could only be to prevent disclosure.

Starmer's "if only I knew then, what I know now" convincing nobody. There were a number of candidates. McSweeney convinced Starmer to go with Mandelson. For all Starmer's objections to Tory sleaze, he decided to agree, rather than take a view to distance his leadership from such people. But then, he and those around him were happy to trough up freebies right off the bat. 

One positive thing, is that backbenchers have held their own leadership to account. Their reasons may vary. From simply being on the other side of the party to being constantly ignored by the leadership group (see umpteen previous u-turns Starmer has been too stupid to learn from). Lots presumably just look at the polls and know how supporting this will go down.But there have been voices of genuine upset by MP's who really did want to move away from sleaze and want no part in their own party covering things up.

Apparently Angela Rayner, or at least her supporters, are working away in the background. No doubt, others are doing the same.

The levels of disquiet were bad enough around the Streeting rumours, then the Burnham blocking. This is much worse for Starmer politically. Will there finally be enough to remove him, even before his expected departure after May's results?