Starmer: I agree with the first section - the Tories were out, he had a stonking majority, and he had 5 years to at least begin to show he could turn the country into something better.
He shoulld have gathered his cabinet and senior members, and said: "We have 5 years. We know we're going to get hit from Left and Right. We know we're always going to get bad headlines from the right wing media. But we're going to ignore all of that. We'll begin campaigning in 4 years, but for now, let's do what we know is right."
But he didn't. He was been swayed by the PPE wonks, desperate to garner good headlines (and failing). And you're right - the government messaging has been AWFUL, and that comes from him. He seems in thrall to whoever it is who's in charge of that, because so many of us have been shouting about it for months. The country of "Take Back Control" and "Get Brexit Done" need simple messages, a straightforward narrative. They'll take the increases in tax if they know where it's going, if people can see the clear destination. What they need is an Alistair Campbell controlling the comms.
And who the hell thought it was a good idea to give Mandelson the US Ambassador job?????
On 'See it. Say it. Sorted': I agree with all the criticism, and I have another. It's quite rare to actually read the slogan – you more often hear it as an announcement. And, as an announcement, it *sounds* like: 'See it. Say it. Sort it.' (I was stunned the first time I saw it written down.) The intent of the slogan is that, in the event you 'see it,' you should only 'say it,' and your responsibility ends there ('sorted'). But what you *hear* is that, having 'seen' the threat, you should now 'sort' the threat – in other words, get involved somehow, neutralise it or something. It communicates almost the precise opposite of what it intends to. I hate it so very deeply.
This. So much this. Every single time I hear it I have visions of some hapless have a go hero initiating a bomb by cutting the red cord…his final thought being “sort it”. Meanwhile, the rest of the carriage dies either oblivious or too polite to question the error - um excuse me sir, surely it is “sorted”…?
Yes, people are complicated! I belong to my local FB group, and in my Reform/ Brexit voting area, it is full of people posting stuff that make me shudder, racist stuff, politically naïve stuff, support for Farage, anti immigrants stuff (we have hardly any here, 95% white British) posts full of hate...And yet the very same names are there, posting pics of things they have found on the pavement, credit cards, kids toys, wallets.....My DIL started a "crowd funding" thingy on the site, for somebody who was badly hurt in a housefire, and was overwhelmed by the response. Same names, same people.
I did the same as ID about Starmer, the other way around. Didn't credit him at all , thought his meekness in opposition would never win the election. How wrong I was. We (I mean the left in general) won the battle, but sadly, I feel we will lose the war, the very meekness now showing as an issue!
Even though I don't vote Labour any more, (now Green), I was also way too optimistic about Starmer. The biggest disappointment for me, has been his complete lack of courage. You would have thought - with their stonking majority - Labour might have thrown their manifesto promises out the window, and said...:
"Fuck it! We are going to bring about real, generational, social change. Tax the rich. Tackle inequality. Invest heavily in social housing; social care; the NHS; renationalise water, rail, etc. Yeah, we're going to do Socialism."
But no. They bottled it. Tinkered around the edges. And left the door wide open for the fascists to play their divisive "it's the migrants fault" game. This is a massive own goal, that Labour - and the rest of us - may have to pay for, if Reform get in at the next election. I genuinely can't believe how weak, and stupid, Labour have been/are.
I remember going to an Origin Story event just before the election, and in the Q&A I asked 'Will Starmer be as bold as we hope, or as benign as we fear?' - it was at the point where the narrative was that he was playing it safe to win the election. You said the former, and I agreed.
Sadly we were both wrong. He seems to be terrified of being a one-term PM, which, ironically, is making that outcome more likely.
Regarding See It…Say it… of course you remember the phrase because it’s so bloody annoying…but do you remember the number to call!? That’s surely the real test.
It was very easy to be very wrong about Starmer. How were we to know that an apparently morally grounded a-tribal, technocrat with a thirst for detail and a deep well of expertise - the diametric opposite of Boris Johnson and his infernal host - would be so bloody venal (and also vindictive) when he got into power? I don’t know, but I do know, to my shame, that my sons nailed him down, as I did not, long before he was elected. I share your chagrin, Ian. At least I got vapes right, I suppose.
Starmer's a visionless, spineless, albeit a largely principled man. With a massive majority, he should have been bold. I'm not talking "seize the means of production" bold, but have a plan of where he needed to be after 5 years and communicated that to the nation. That should have included a vision of exactly where the money was going to come from for the things that needed doing NOW, and an assurance to anyone scared by any additional taxation or borrowing that it was a short term measure to fix the unconscionable. There should be a plan for housing, a plan for health, a plan for the environment, a plan for defence, a plan for the justice system (including asylum), a plan for industry and a plan for affordability. Instead they seem to have apologetically pussy-footed their way around all of these points, afraid to admit that, if you want to solve them in the short to medium term, then you need to invest. And if you don't want to fix them in the short to medium term then you aren't going to get re-elected, anyway, meaning that anything that you do now is largely irrelevant. Ergo, you need to invest. Ergo, if you don't have the money available, you need to tax or borrow. Rearranging the deck chairs on the asylum system as it limps away from the iceberg is pointless. Likewise the NHS, the prison system, social services and so on.
I was so used to "See It..."etc being muttered in a Scottish accent in a barely audible elderly man's voice that it was quite jarring to first hear the more extrovert way it's done in other parts of the UK. Agree with the Starmer stuff, have disliked many PMs more but not sure I've ever felt so frustrated by one
I think you are wrong about Starmer and right the first time. Yes he is an enigma, misunderstood by many that lack the intellectual means to truely get him.
Ian, you have that ability and you are reading him from a skewed position. Starmer has that common decency a good working class upbring provides. The negative side comes from witnessing how the deep state operates to destroy that same decency. In short, I think he spends his life being seriously pulled in various directions. Not least trying to satisfy his own Party.
There is one negative factor however. I think he lacks real political courage. He’s afraid of bringing the roof down on his own party. Safety sometimes means stagnation. He needs to find that courage quickly. There is only a short window. Without that necessary political courage he will never be accepted as one of histories great PMs.
I agree with Logan. Kier *has* convictions and these chime with ours; more courage in speaking up to them. I am not so sure about Logan's "the deep state" - smacks of Crazie Nadie Dorris
That was an important statement, and it needed to be said. Might I suggest, however, that the rest of this discourse is continued by those with brains larger than a grape?
I can’t agree on ‘See it…’. It’s annoying and catchy but I still don’t really know what I’d do if I came across something - ring the number, don’t know what it is, contact ‘station staff’ (or staff as I prefer to call them) probably.
Presumably you've read Steve Richards' The Prime Ministers. In it he says that the best prime ministers are political teachers. They explain to the country what they're doing and why it's necessary.
Seems to me this is precisely the quality that Starmer lacks. He is, as Frankie Boyle noted at the start, the guy in the picture that comes with the frame. Sometimes he does good things, sometimes he does bad things. But there's absolutely no sense of who he is and what he's for. It's fatal. And such a shame, because, as you say, he has a number of other qualities that are unusual in front-rank politicians and seemed to have gone completely out of fashion, like knowing what the fuck you are talking about.
My expectations were way lower than yours. But he's still an epic disappointment. What a shame.
Only three! You're doing well. 😁 It reminds me of a great New Zealand (Aotearohan) wit who described the place as the land of the wrong white crowd. As opposed to the land of the long white cloud.
Starmer: I agree with the first section - the Tories were out, he had a stonking majority, and he had 5 years to at least begin to show he could turn the country into something better.
He shoulld have gathered his cabinet and senior members, and said: "We have 5 years. We know we're going to get hit from Left and Right. We know we're always going to get bad headlines from the right wing media. But we're going to ignore all of that. We'll begin campaigning in 4 years, but for now, let's do what we know is right."
But he didn't. He was been swayed by the PPE wonks, desperate to garner good headlines (and failing). And you're right - the government messaging has been AWFUL, and that comes from him. He seems in thrall to whoever it is who's in charge of that, because so many of us have been shouting about it for months. The country of "Take Back Control" and "Get Brexit Done" need simple messages, a straightforward narrative. They'll take the increases in tax if they know where it's going, if people can see the clear destination. What they need is an Alistair Campbell controlling the comms.
And who the hell thought it was a good idea to give Mandelson the US Ambassador job?????
Simple messages! See it say it sorted!
"Get Brexit done" 😢
On 'See it. Say it. Sorted': I agree with all the criticism, and I have another. It's quite rare to actually read the slogan – you more often hear it as an announcement. And, as an announcement, it *sounds* like: 'See it. Say it. Sort it.' (I was stunned the first time I saw it written down.) The intent of the slogan is that, in the event you 'see it,' you should only 'say it,' and your responsibility ends there ('sorted'). But what you *hear* is that, having 'seen' the threat, you should now 'sort' the threat – in other words, get involved somehow, neutralise it or something. It communicates almost the precise opposite of what it intends to. I hate it so very deeply.
This. So much this. Every single time I hear it I have visions of some hapless have a go hero initiating a bomb by cutting the red cord…his final thought being “sort it”. Meanwhile, the rest of the carriage dies either oblivious or too polite to question the error - um excuse me sir, surely it is “sorted”…?
Becos ever bodee do noe that you'm cut the *blue* wire
Well said 💥
Yes, people are complicated! I belong to my local FB group, and in my Reform/ Brexit voting area, it is full of people posting stuff that make me shudder, racist stuff, politically naïve stuff, support for Farage, anti immigrants stuff (we have hardly any here, 95% white British) posts full of hate...And yet the very same names are there, posting pics of things they have found on the pavement, credit cards, kids toys, wallets.....My DIL started a "crowd funding" thingy on the site, for somebody who was badly hurt in a housefire, and was overwhelmed by the response. Same names, same people.
I did the same as ID about Starmer, the other way around. Didn't credit him at all , thought his meekness in opposition would never win the election. How wrong I was. We (I mean the left in general) won the battle, but sadly, I feel we will lose the war, the very meekness now showing as an issue!
Even though I don't vote Labour any more, (now Green), I was also way too optimistic about Starmer. The biggest disappointment for me, has been his complete lack of courage. You would have thought - with their stonking majority - Labour might have thrown their manifesto promises out the window, and said...:
"Fuck it! We are going to bring about real, generational, social change. Tax the rich. Tackle inequality. Invest heavily in social housing; social care; the NHS; renationalise water, rail, etc. Yeah, we're going to do Socialism."
But no. They bottled it. Tinkered around the edges. And left the door wide open for the fascists to play their divisive "it's the migrants fault" game. This is a massive own goal, that Labour - and the rest of us - may have to pay for, if Reform get in at the next election. I genuinely can't believe how weak, and stupid, Labour have been/are.
I remember going to an Origin Story event just before the election, and in the Q&A I asked 'Will Starmer be as bold as we hope, or as benign as we fear?' - it was at the point where the narrative was that he was playing it safe to win the election. You said the former, and I agreed.
Sadly we were both wrong. He seems to be terrified of being a one-term PM, which, ironically, is making that outcome more likely.
So similar to the timidity of Australian PM Albanese , on becoming PM .
Regarding See It…Say it… of course you remember the phrase because it’s so bloody annoying…but do you remember the number to call!? That’s surely the real test.
It was very easy to be very wrong about Starmer. How were we to know that an apparently morally grounded a-tribal, technocrat with a thirst for detail and a deep well of expertise - the diametric opposite of Boris Johnson and his infernal host - would be so bloody venal (and also vindictive) when he got into power? I don’t know, but I do know, to my shame, that my sons nailed him down, as I did not, long before he was elected. I share your chagrin, Ian. At least I got vapes right, I suppose.
Starmer's a visionless, spineless, albeit a largely principled man. With a massive majority, he should have been bold. I'm not talking "seize the means of production" bold, but have a plan of where he needed to be after 5 years and communicated that to the nation. That should have included a vision of exactly where the money was going to come from for the things that needed doing NOW, and an assurance to anyone scared by any additional taxation or borrowing that it was a short term measure to fix the unconscionable. There should be a plan for housing, a plan for health, a plan for the environment, a plan for defence, a plan for the justice system (including asylum), a plan for industry and a plan for affordability. Instead they seem to have apologetically pussy-footed their way around all of these points, afraid to admit that, if you want to solve them in the short to medium term, then you need to invest. And if you don't want to fix them in the short to medium term then you aren't going to get re-elected, anyway, meaning that anything that you do now is largely irrelevant. Ergo, you need to invest. Ergo, if you don't have the money available, you need to tax or borrow. Rearranging the deck chairs on the asylum system as it limps away from the iceberg is pointless. Likewise the NHS, the prison system, social services and so on.
Someone who told massive lies to get elected as Labour leader then U-turned on pretty much everything can't conceivably be described as "principled".
I was so used to "See It..."etc being muttered in a Scottish accent in a barely audible elderly man's voice that it was quite jarring to first hear the more extrovert way it's done in other parts of the UK. Agree with the Starmer stuff, have disliked many PMs more but not sure I've ever felt so frustrated by one
I think you are wrong about Starmer and right the first time. Yes he is an enigma, misunderstood by many that lack the intellectual means to truely get him.
Ian, you have that ability and you are reading him from a skewed position. Starmer has that common decency a good working class upbring provides. The negative side comes from witnessing how the deep state operates to destroy that same decency. In short, I think he spends his life being seriously pulled in various directions. Not least trying to satisfy his own Party.
There is one negative factor however. I think he lacks real political courage. He’s afraid of bringing the roof down on his own party. Safety sometimes means stagnation. He needs to find that courage quickly. There is only a short window. Without that necessary political courage he will never be accepted as one of histories great PMs.
He needs to stop playing safe.
I agree with Logan. Kier *has* convictions and these chime with ours; more courage in speaking up to them. I am not so sure about Logan's "the deep state" - smacks of Crazie Nadie Dorris
Trans women aren’t women… AND you can’t blame Starmer for having someone else say it for him.
That was an important statement, and it needed to be said. Might I suggest, however, that the rest of this discourse is continued by those with brains larger than a grape?
Marvellous stuff
Only a liberal would headline an article like that Ian!!!
I can’t agree on ‘See it…’. It’s annoying and catchy but I still don’t really know what I’d do if I came across something - ring the number, don’t know what it is, contact ‘station staff’ (or staff as I prefer to call them) probably.
I have now seen an advert on the Tube which is based on See It… this is the grotesque outcome of it all
Wonderskin: See It. Stain it. Sorted. 🤦♂️
Presumably you've read Steve Richards' The Prime Ministers. In it he says that the best prime ministers are political teachers. They explain to the country what they're doing and why it's necessary.
Seems to me this is precisely the quality that Starmer lacks. He is, as Frankie Boyle noted at the start, the guy in the picture that comes with the frame. Sometimes he does good things, sometimes he does bad things. But there's absolutely no sense of who he is and what he's for. It's fatal. And such a shame, because, as you say, he has a number of other qualities that are unusual in front-rank politicians and seemed to have gone completely out of fashion, like knowing what the fuck you are talking about.
My expectations were way lower than yours. But he's still an epic disappointment. What a shame.
Only three! You're doing well. 😁 It reminds me of a great New Zealand (Aotearohan) wit who described the place as the land of the wrong white crowd. As opposed to the land of the long white cloud.