Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Lionator

The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

By Lionator, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Foxdiamond

Foxdiamond

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sampson said:

There’s very little wrong with Starmer, he’s a good talker and clearly an intelligent man. But him being uncharacteristic gets said over and over in the press until people believe it.

 

Any other Labour leader would get treated as a “dud” too. It’s how it works - a Labour leader is either boring or uncharismatic and or theyre radical communists. Or both in the case of Ed Milliband.

 

I’d give it 6 weeks before Andy Burnham, Lisa Nandy or any other replacement would be called a dud as well.

 

Tony Blair is the only Labour leader in the past 50 years who got away with it and that was by being best friends with Rupert Murdoch.

Yes. Labour always seem to have to work harder for a leader to be accepted. They have course made mistakes in choosing wrong person in the past. Going back a bit John Smith was a force but alas died far too soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Dames said:

I’m a fan of Lisa Nandy shes gone about her business quite well over the past few years and always seems across her brief. That and shes a Northern girl which will win over some of those lost voters in the North.

 

22 minutes ago, Dames said:

The biggest worry for me is a Corbynite standing on a platform of reinstating the whip to Jeremy Corbyn, he still has a sizable following in the grass roots and they are biding their time. Otherwise Nandy would definitely get the nod over Cooper good amount of support for Nandy in the grass roots, not so much for Cooper. 

 

As an inactive party member, I voted for Nandy last time with Starmer as second choice. I don't regret that. Nandy might not have much humour or charisma, but that's not essential, but she's a consistently impressive performer in my book - across her brief, as Dames says, with imaginative thinking and a helpful image. I still hope that Starmer can turn it round, but if he doesn't - or if the Durham Police put him out of the game - then I might well back Nandy again.

 

Streeting is a strong performer, too, and I'm happy to see him in a leading role. But I'd be concerned that as leader he'd cause civil war in the Labour Party. He was one of Corbyn's most vocal critics during the Jezza leadership and tends to be viewed as an offensive Blairite by the Hard Left, whereas the likes of Nandy and Miliband were more cautious with their rhetoric.

 

I don't think there's any risk of a Corbynite winning now. Too many Corbynite members have left in disillusionment after his defeat and departure. Even back in 2020, there was a Corbyn-approved candidate in the shape of Rebecca Long-Bailey, but she got nowhere near winning - and she wasn't a bad candidate (as a Soft Left type, I'd have been quite happy to see her as a relatively senior shadow minister, but not as leader).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kenny

kenny

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Both good shouts. I like Nandy but to be honest I'm more impressed with Streeting. I can't think of many others.

I like her when she talks and she would be good. Unfortunately, her views on the Royal Family and the military are not suitable for a leader in this country which rules her out for me. 

 

I was also disappointed to hear her support union strike action recently which is something that Starmer has realised he needs to distance himself from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dames

Dames

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Sampson said:

There’s very little wrong with Starmer, he’s a good talker and clearly an intelligent man. But him being uncharacteristic gets said over and over in the press until people believe it.

 

Any other Labour leader would get treated as a “dud” too. It’s how it works - a Labour leader is either boring or uncharismatic and or theyre radical communists. Or both in the case of Ed Milliband.

 

I’d give it 6 weeks before Andy Burnham, Lisa Nandy or any other replacement would be called a dud as well.

 

Tony Blair is the only Labour leader in the past 50 years who got away with it and that was by being best friends with Rupert Murdoch.

Starmers biggest issue is that he is coming across as untrustworthy and a hypocrite.
 

He took such a moral highground with partygate he’s left himself massively exposed to the Tory/Press counter attack which was always going to come. It was a rookie move. 
 

As for his trustworthiness he made several pledges during his leadership campaign he’s since gone back on and he tends to flip flop on some of the issues we currently have leaving him open again for Tories to divert attention and blame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ealingfox

ealingfox

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Dames said:

No matter how much hate and division he whips up there is no way he survives petrol at over £2 a litre and energy bills tripling in the space of a year. Inaction on those issues will be his undoing no matter how angry he gets people over culture wars bs. 

 

Hopefully Durham Police see sense and fine Keir Starmer. He's a dud and we really need someone in place to take the government to task over the next year. 

 

What does 'take the government to task' look like to you in practice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heathrow fox

Heathrow fox

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Yes. Labour always seem to have to work harder for a leader to be accepted. They have course made mistakes in choosing wrong person in the past. Going back a bit John Smith was a force but alas died far too soon.

I think John Smith would’ve verbally head butted this lot several times over by now.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted

Starmer’s issue isn’t anything to do with being untrustworthy. That’s just Daily Mail slobber that could be targeted at anyone. His issue is whether he’s charismatic enough to get enough people out to the ballot box to vote for him.

 

You could argue that that shouldn’t matter, but ultimately it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Starmer’s issue isn’t anything to do with being untrustworthy. That’s just Daily Mail slobber that could be targeted at anyone. His issue is whether he’s charismatic enough to get enough people out to the ballot box to vote for him.

 

You could argue that that shouldn’t matter, but ultimately it does.

 

I wonder if charisma does matter?

Starmer's currently modest personal ratings might just be down to him not yet having given a clear idea of who he is or what the central purpose(s) of a Labour Govt would be?

 

Thinking of PMs with and without charisma.....

- Attlee was notoriously dull on a personal level, but Labour's most successful leader until Blair

- Thatcher developed charisma, but was shrill and wooden when she first won in 1979

- Major was seen as so boring Spitting Image lampooned him for it - a grey puppet boring on about his lovely peas....but he then won in 1992 as "honest John on the soapbox in the market"

- Brown lacked charisma but was widely respected as Chancellor (less so as PM due to the financial crisis - and he never won an election as PM)

- Cameron charismatic? More oily and smarmy, if articulate...

- May was pretty wooden

 

About the only charismatic PMs I can remember are Wilson, mid-stage Thatcher and Blair.

I know Johnson was seen as charismatic by some, but only in a Rowley Birkin QC (Fast Show) sort of way....entertaining more than a charismatic leader? 

 

Edited by Alf Bentley
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I wonder if charisma does matter?

Starmer's currently modest personal ratings might just be down to him not yet having given a clear idea of who he is or what the central purpose(s) of a Labour Govt would be?

 

Thinking of PMs with and without charisma.....

- Attlee was notoriously dull on a personal level, but Labour's most successful leader until Blair

- Thatcher developed charisma, but was shrill and wooden when she first won in 1979

- Major was seen as so boring Spitting Image lampooned him for it - a grey puppet boring on about his lovely peas....but he then won in 1992 as "honest John on the soapbox in the market"

- Brown lacked charisma but was widely respected as Chancellor (less so as PM due to the financial crisis - and he never won an election as PM)

- Cameron charismatic? More oily and smarmy, if articulate...

- May was pretty wooden

 

About the only charismatic PMs I can remember are Wilson, late-stage Thatcher and Blair.

I know Johnson was seen as charismatic by some, but only in a Rowley Birkin QC (Fast Show) sort of way....entertaining more than a charismatic leader? 

I’d argue a lot of these have an asterisk. Some (Major, May) were already in power, while others (Cameron, Thatcher) were more dependent upon terrible views of the people they were replacing, at least until they got going. Cameron couldn’t even get a majority after the financial crash, and as Rory Bremner would famously say, Cameron did a better impression of Blair than he did. I can’t comment so much on Attlee, but his was a pretty unique situation. Starmer has to convince a lot of the country to switch not just away from the Tories but to him. I figure that’s going to be difficult without charisma.

 

Starmer can rely to an extent on the Tories being unpopular, because I can’t see Boris suddenly finding a popularity charge from anywhere. It’s possible the Tories will change leader before the next election, although it’s increasingly hard to see anyone who’d be classed as “popular” getting the job. Starmer’s biggest problem is therefore surely one of apathy, that nobody on either side gets out and votes. The good news for him is that only really needs to sort this in the election build-up, with a manifesto and passionately stating what he stands for. How successful he is with that will, I believe, determine whether the next government is small Labour majority, Labour + Lib Dem, or my personal horror story of needing the SNP to prop him up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I wonder if charisma does matter?

Starmer's currently modest personal ratings might just be down to him not yet having given a clear idea of who he is or what the central purpose(s) of a Labour Govt would be?

 

Thinking of PMs with and without charisma.....

- Attlee was notoriously dull on a personal level, but Labour's most successful leader until Blair

- Thatcher developed charisma, but was shrill and wooden when she first won in 1979

- Major was seen as so boring Spitting Image lampooned him for it - a grey puppet boring on about his lovely peas....but he then won in 1992 as "honest John on the soapbox in the market"

- Brown lacked charisma but was widely respected as Chancellor (less so as PM due to the financial crisis - and he never won an election as PM)

- Cameron charismatic? More oily and smarmy, if articulate...

- May was pretty wooden

 

About the only charismatic PMs I can remember are Wilson, mid-stage Thatcher and Blair.

I know Johnson was seen as charismatic by some, but only in a Rowley Birkin QC (Fast Show) sort of way....entertaining more than a charismatic leader? 

 

It’s 2022

you can’t compare ‘pre internet/social media’  politics and now 


id say charisma is the most important facet for a PM - Johnson proves this (and sadly he does have charisma or something similar which makes him attractive to voters ) 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It’s 2022

you can’t compare ‘pre internet/social media’  politics and now 


id say charisma is the most important facet for a PM - Johnson proves this (and sadly he does have charisma or something similar which makes him attractive to voters ) 

 

Obviously, electoral politics in 2022 is very different from 1945 or even 1983 or 1997 - and clearly a leader endowed with charisma has an advantage over one who is personally dull.

But I wonder how essential it is? Not only because other qualities can compensate for charisma, such as trust, intelligence and credibility. If it's still Johnson v. Starmer at the next election, I wonder if Johnson's "charisma" still trumps everything else? Though of course it would be helpful if Starmer made a stronger personal impression by then. Mind you, I don't expect Johnson to be Tory leader at the next election - and Starmer might not be Labour leader.

 

I wonder if you're overstating the influence of social media over election results - for now at least?

It's younger people who tend to use social media most - and they voted disproportionately for Corbyn in 2017 and even 2019.

The age groups who voted in the greatest numbers and who voted most strongly for Johnson were the oldest voters.....who would use social media the least!

 

I'm sure Johnson's entertainment value won the Tories some votes in 2019, but I suspect they'd have won anyway under a different leader due to "getting Brexit done" and to antipathy towards Corbyn....though maybe a narrower victory.

 

I struggle to see Johnson coming back from where he is, not only because of his personal unpopularity but because the country faces so many problems directly impacting voters that won't be sorted out within a couple of years.

But I could imagine another Tory leader performing better than Johnson is likely to do - maybe even winning by a small margin if Labour don't up their game.

 

Even if Labour does up its game, it's going to really struggle to win a majority unless the SNP hits disaster and there's a decent Labour comeback in Scotland. Otherwise, to win a majority Labour would have to win back almost all the red wall AND take swathes of long-time Tory seats across the South.....a few is possible, swathes highly unlikely. A Lab-LD minority govt or coalition is the best centre-left outcome I can see......and I'd absolutely settle for that, preferably with Lab having the sense to accept electoral reform this time - and the LDs standing firm to demand that it happens.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izzy

Izzy

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I wonder if charisma does matter?

Starmer's currently modest personal ratings might just be down to him not yet having given a clear idea of who he is or what the central purpose(s) of a Labour Govt would be?

 

Thinking of PMs with and without charisma.....

- Attlee was notoriously dull on a personal level, but Labour's most successful leader until Blair

- Thatcher developed charisma, but was shrill and wooden when she first won in 1979

- Major was seen as so boring Spitting Image lampooned him for it - a grey puppet boring on about his lovely peas....but he then won in 1992 as "honest John on the soapbox in the market"

- Brown lacked charisma but was widely respected as Chancellor (less so as PM due to the financial crisis - and he never won an election as PM)

- Cameron charismatic? More oily and smarmy, if articulate...

- May was pretty wooden

 

About the only charismatic PMs I can remember are Wilson, mid-stage Thatcher and Blair.

I know Johnson was seen as charismatic by some, but only in a Rowley Birkin QC (Fast Show) sort of way....entertaining more than a charismatic leader? 

 

 

19 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It’s 2022

you can’t compare ‘pre internet/social media’  politics and now 


id say charisma is the most important facet for a PM - Johnson proves this (and sadly he does have charisma or something similar which makes him attractive to voters ) 

 

I've always maintained that rather than just 'charisma', a good PM/Leader needs to have the right balance of being both Credible and Approachable.

 

Interesting that in the corporate world, many CFOs who become CEOs are often maligned for their lack of approachability. You could say the same about Chancellors who become PMs (didn't Gordon Browns wife once go on stage at the party conference to tell everyone that he was actually a nice guy?)

 

You could say Theresa May struggled with a lack of approachability (the Grenfell fire etc.) where as Boris may have been seen as 'a man of the people' (approachable) but he's been found out as a far from a credible leader.

 

Wherever you agree with his policies or not, I'd say Obama probably came closest to having both in the US.

 

In the UK, maybe Blair and Cameron at a push.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dunge said:

Starmer’s issue isn’t anything to do with being untrustworthy. That’s just Daily Mail slobber that could be targeted at anyone. His issue is whether he’s charismatic enough to get enough people out to the ballot box to vote for him.

 

You could argue that that shouldn’t matter, but ultimately it does.

It exemplifies the woeful state of the Labour press office and PR management. This is something that Starmer should have been coached to lean in to and play it for all it's worth every time he speaks in public, in the way that Steve Davis embraced being boring.

 

Time and again, the string pullers are being shown up to be a collection of inept rim wearers. It's like the party lives in fear of having another Alastair Campbell - someone capable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Daggers said:

It exemplifies the woeful state of the Labour press office and PR management. This is something that Starmer should have been coached to lean in to and play it for all it's worth every time he speaks in public, in the way that Steve Davis embraced being boring.

 

Time and again, the string pullers are being shown up to be a collection of inept rim wearers. It's like the party lives in fear of having another Alastair Campbell - someone capable.

There is a fair point that Labour these days look like a party desperate not to get things wrong rather than stepping forward and getting things right. Although they do have a problem with Boris’s government in that if they come up with a good and popular policy then the Tories will very likely take it, rebrand it and claim it for their own. Such is the problem in opposing populists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted

I don’t know why everyone is obsessed with ratings right now. Corbyn proved in 2017 in only takes a few months to turn it around, no point peaking too soon. We know in all things British, when your at the top, we like to knock you off.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Lionator

Lionator

Posted
  • Author
  • Popular Post
Posted

Power to all of the railway workers striking tomorrow. Yes it’s inconvenient but so is not being paid enough, having poor employee rights and leaving you having to scrape to live. Frankly I don’t know why more of us aren’t out on the streets, protesting and striking with the stinking mess in government currently. 

  • Like 8
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...