Kier Starmer

I assume that he must be capable to have become DPP, particularly given his background but why is he so utterly, completely useless as leader of the opposition. Is he playing some 4D chess that none of us can see? I can't help thinking that aside from Corbyn, literally anyone would be more effective.

Because people like Laz would rather see a bland centrist in a suit than somebody like Lisa Nandy or Andy Burnham in charge.

I think he’d be a good leader of a united and popular opposition with a clear plan but Labour isn’t that. They need someone charismatic and strong-willed who can take tough decisions, set out a clear philosophy for the party, clear out the dead wood and drag it to electability a bit like a Blair in the 90s but there isn’t anyone.

Dunno, what I heard on the grapevine is that he wasn't even that good as DPP

I agree he is useless, but does seem like a decent bloke so by definition unsuited to running a political party.

@ blind Tom he was considered an exceptional human rights, public and criminal Bazza as a senior junior and in silk ?

Even with all the bullshit infighting within the party how difficult is it to call out the mess they have made of covid, or the corruption, or the dodgy russian money that backs them. Or brexit/NI. or the lack of promised trade agreements???

 

‘how difficult is it to call out the mess they have made of covid, or the corruption, or the dodgy russian money that backs them. Or brexit/NI. or the lack of promised trade agreements???‘

he does that all the time

most people don’t want to hear or believe it, they’d rather be told that everything is fine

out of 4 Ds, 3 Ds are within his labour party. 

His hands are incredibly tied at the behest of the looney lefties. 

A bit similar to how Johnson is limited by the ERG on the right. 

In the meantime, country is fvcked. 

Exactly clyde, and one would think someone who had been dpp would be effective at "making a case" against the government.

I get that BJ could do anything and get away with the its boris being boris defence but the rest of them re sitting ducks.

I'm limited to what I see because I'm overseas but follow KS on twitter and I don't see him saying of that tbh.

he barely has a single vaguely left wing policy lol, how are his "hands tied"

at some point it's going to have to sink in with you people that there isn't a secret CUK-TIG majority just waiting to emerge from hibernation

I think he lacks any level of charisma, so whatever he says, the real problem is that no one is listening to him or falls asleep after 10 seconds.

I think he's fine.

But he's understandably scared of losing the support of the "woke" brigade, so trying to recapture the traditional working class vote is impossible for anyone. 

Only lefties seem to think that if he just “called out” the gov more the scales would drop from the electorates eyes.

Its not about pointing the finger you have to also offer something positive and better - it’s why the right bangs on about patriotism, if you work in some shop somewhere you want to feel proud about something and often that is being “British”.

the Labour Party currently seems to just fixate on the idea that we are all basically horrible and society is shit (which may be true) but it doesn’t motivate people to vote for them.

Arden in NZ is leftie but unrelentingly positive and people relate to that 

 

Best thing about Starmer is his dress sense and even then it needs work. A shade too sharp and he's too heavily set to peddle the sophisticated arch rake look (I can).

Disappointingly, I agree.

I so want him to be good, but his set-piece interview on the Today programme for the party conference had me wandering off to do the washing up.

Remember when Hancock was caught shagging and KS couldn't bring himself to suggest that he should resign or be sacked? I think that's when I lost hope. 

Ebita I acknowledge that, but none of it means he would be good as DPP which is about leading and managing an organisation rather than being a court advocate. Different skills required.

I think he would probably be good at running a normal company or organization, but those are not talents that make him an effective labour leader.

Look at trump, useless at being head of a company but effective as becoming president, similar with bj really. 

Right or wrong a large proportion of the electorate have got to buy into a leader.

He announced Labour would support whatever dogshit bill about online anonymity the Tories come up with yesterday, before anything has been seen. 

Every time he gets mugged into supporting the government it becomes more obvious he's not up to this at all. 

The kind of person with the instincts and hunger to actually become PM would find a way to stick the knife in everywhere, not be panicking about being seen as overly negative or "Captain Hindsight".

The role of DPP has been held by a number of weak leaders. It is not a leadership role. It is a position which involves negotiating and battling within the corridors of government - Home Office and Treasury - and then one of accountability (the ultimate authoriser of proceedings within that part of the executive but in fact people in the hierarchy take steps in the name of the DPP according to procedural checks and balances etc etc so very little actual authorising is actively done by the head of the function).  There are occasional points of importance that crop up and require the DPP to account for policy (e.g. prosecution of assisted death, use of the murder charge where the killer was subject to years of abuse, control etc) but these may come up once or twice at most in a DPP's term. Apart from that it's speeches and placating an increasingly inept CPS in a creaking Criminal Justice System where you can wang on about underfunding and how the Government should do more but you don't actually have to solve anything.

All of the words before this sentence show what a backwoodsman role it is.

I bet he regrets giving up partnership at Mishcon, and missing out on all the IPO wedge, for this.

presumably you need to be a half decent prosecutor to become DPP? 

The CPS is not a high performance environment. There are some great people within it and assisting it, but the great majority of its number are no more impressive or hard working than a council roadworks procurement office or parking control policy team.   Much of the DPP role is dragged away from good leadership by having to run a machine that accommodates - nay relies on - that cohort of civil servant mouth breathing knuckledraggers. 

Clyde21 Oct 21 09:18

Reply | 

Report

presumably you need to be a half decent prosecutor to become DPP? 

 

well I'm not sure you need to be a half decent prosecutor to manage your way up the CPS, to be honest, and to be the DPP you need to be in the running within the senior leadership of the CPS, and that doesn't mean being a great prosecutor it means being a great civil servant. Not so much doing things that make you stand out but making sure you don't do anything that makes you stand out... 

I also dont think it helps that if he walked into a bar i dont think i would recognise him. He is mega bland.

I also dont think it helps that if he walked into a bar i dont think i would recognise him. He is mega bland.

 roadworks procurement is actually very complicated. 

You have to be able to sit on your arse for 9 months a year with your fingers in your ears pretending there aren't any potholes and then all of sudden jump up and spend the last three months' of the year running round like a blue arse fly replacing new pavements and building speed bumps and zebra crossings and coming up with any other elaborate and expensive works you can think of to spend the budget on time so that it isn't diminished next year.

Johnson isn’t limited by the ERG on the right or indeed by anything else but his own laziness, incompetence, narcissism and priapism.

Starmer is a bit wooden and lawyerly, but it’s difficult to see that Burnham or Nandy are any less centrist, tbh, they’re just more Northern. 

 

 

The notion that idiots and lunatics like Baker, Bridgen, Francois, IDS are capable of holding Johnson to do anything he doesn’t want to do is for the birds.

Thanks Jack , I had to google priapism. Good word in the context you used it.

Starmer is a bit wooden and lawyerly, but it’s difficult to see that Burnham or Nandy are any less centrist, tbh, they’re just more Northern.

Being centrist isn't the issue, it's the lack of charisma with it. Also neither were tainted with the Peoples Vote fiasco in 2019.

Yes of course he prosecuted 

have you ever been in court with Senior Crown Prosecutors? 
 

they might be brilliant at presenting the Crown’s case. Does that make them great leaders of a cause or of people?

What the fook is muttley on about. KS was a direct appointment to DPP he didn't work his way up. 

Two things that demonstrated to me the problem with Starmer:

- The reaction to the murder of David Amess. Theresa May made a perfect speech in the House of Commons ("This House has lost a remarkable and valued parliamentarian, and every member of this House has lost a friend. May he rest in peace.”). Other MPs' speeches were more personal if word perfect. Starmer's reaction was completely wooden. He said nothing personal whatsoever.

- Visiting Northern Ireland and saying that, in the event of a referendum on NI leaving the UK and joining with the Republic of Ireland, he would “make a strong case for the United Kingdom”. This is the "patriotism" that Labour are trying to sell, with John Healey speaking of how military veterans who murdered people in NI have been abandoned by the Tory government. It's a play for English votes at the expense of the people in NI.

Starmer should have said that the constitutional status of NI is a matter of the people of NI (which, as a matter of the Belfast Agreement it is). He could have said that he values NI and its people and he would be sorry for it not to be part of the UK without saying that he would campaign for it to remain part of the UK. He could also have said that regardless of NI's constitutional status, NI and the Republic of Ireland will always have a close relationship with the UK. He did not do any of that. It's easy to be "patriotic" at the expense of others. 

If he really said he would “make a strong case for the United Kingdom” then it's the perfect example of his typical fence sitting on an issue that irritates both sides of the debate and loses him any support at all.

Nothing wrong with the Labour Party leader believing in the integrity of the United Kingdom. In fact you'd expect nothing less.

Laywers aren't very good as leaders, perhaps?  Blair being an exception.

As a 2ic, I'm certain that he'd be perfectly adequate.

Dunno, what I heard on the grapevine is that he wasn't even that good as DPP

That's what I heard but equally that's anedotal and as the CPS is the natural resting place of the not very good, it may be that he tried rigour which went down badly.

I see that merely paraphrasing the far better expressed points made by Muttley.

Kudos jack re priapism lol. Starmer is a bit wooden. Also hamstrung a bit by the left 

Re charisma and appeal with the wider electorate, I was listening to this podcast by Iain Dale where he has interviewed a supporter or a biographer of all the PMs of the country. 

For Blair he interviewed Adonis. One of the striking comment Adonis made was that Blair was simply more appealing as a leader for the electorate in the 90s because he was able to sell himself to the English with his English accent. It is true though. McDonald and Eden were blips and never had the resounding support as English candidates. 

I wonder whether, notwithstanding the policies, Labour will never win unless they bring a Blair alike. 

What's so special about the English that we have a problem with competent but wooden? Mark Drakeford is doing fine in Wales. 

Not sure a lot of inhabitants in Wales think he is doing fine.   the shitting around last autumn with firebreaks etc 

“wooden” - not to be muddled up with “got wood”

Germans like their politicians stodgy and boring.

There’s a lesson there, somewhere.

possibly stodgy but Adolf H wasn’t really what I’d describe as boring. 

I meant current Germans. Because Hitler.

Schmidt, Kohl, Merkel; all very boring indeed.

Scholz is also reassuringly pragmatic and a safe pair of hands.

Schmidt is reported to have observed that any politician having visions should go to see their psychiatrist.

1. Completely lacks charisma.

 

2. suffers from having been a lawyer for too long. You can tell he’s a litigator. He’s trying to litigate the fvck out of Johnson when that’s clearly not how to do it. In ‘A Journey’ Blair says it was important he got out of law as quickly as he did - now I see why.

 

3. He’s been dealt an awful hand re party management. Truth is he needs to clear out half the membership. I don’t think any leader who needs to clear out half the membership is going to be in a position to win an election, due to the logistics and optics of that.

 

4. he isn’t a politician.

 

but first things first - no charisma. Many of the issues flow from that. Doesn’t come across as easy going and looks a bit awkward making a speech.

 

 

Schroder was a tiny bit more interesting but nowhere near as interesting as Clinton, Blair etc.

charisma used to be needed for a successful political leader - now it seems to be the only thing that’s required. 
 

Mutters I think you must have had a terrible night's sleep or something. Drakeford monstered the recent elections there.

There is something in Labour needing someone like Blair in order to win. I certainly think it's true that Labour needs an exceptional leader to win, whereas the Conservatives merely need an above average one.

 

On the other hand, Harold Wilson was far from Blair. John Smith was far from Blair and would have won.

 

One of the problems Labour has is it's preference for crap candidates. I'm not even talking about navel gazing left wing politics, just it's liking for buffoons whether it is Ed Miliband or dare I say it Andy Burnham. There is a soft-spot for nice guy losers.

 

There is a lack of talent in the Parliamentary Labour Party which is driven by Labour members preference for people who have put in the hard yards as councillors (utterly mediocre demographic), volunteers and quasi social workers, over interesting private sector careers and other smart people.

 

When there is a talent problem at entry level is it any surprise there is a talent issue when it comes to leadership selection?

Another way in which Blair bossed it. If you’ve ever seen Labour operate at a local level you’ll wonder how anyone lasts a year let alone long enough to get anywhere near leading. They’re a cesspit of utter losers sucking the life out of talent. 

...and the problem of sucking the life out of talent isn't just at local level - it goes all the way up to national HQ.

Another thing re Starmer - he was one of the people Ed Miliband did everything he could to secure a safe seat. That he was one of Miliband's favourites should be an indication of his political aptitude (though admittedly isn't fatal given the age old truth that a broken clock is right twice a day).

 

FYI Miliband was also desperate to get seats for the likes of Jack Monroe, Sunny Hundal, Amy Lame and apparently Owen Jones.

 

And they wonder why the Tories keep winning.

Ed Miliband was easily the worst leader of Labour. Until then.

I couldn't name any policy that the current Labour party has.  I appreciate that the pandemic is an unknown so it's hard to say what you'd have done differently but I don't really hear Starmer offering any alternatives on anything else.  He generally just seems to say he'd had have done largely what the government has done but a bit differently when the electorate want to hear big bold ideas and feel that they're voting for genuine change and not someone who's going to do much the same as the current lot but with a bit less corruption.

I certainly think it's true that Labour needs an exceptional leader to win, whereas the Conservatives merely need an above average one.

or boris johnson, who is deeply deeply below average

I couldn't name any policy that the current Labour party has.  I appreciate that the pandemic is an unknown so it's hard to say what you'd have done differently but I don't really hear Starmer offering any alternatives on anything else.

“kier starmer wants to cancel christmas!!

Blair could have been a very successful Conservative Prime Minister.

Nothing particularly ‘Labourite’ about him, however it is defined.

As a Centrist he’d have had no problem finding a position within the Conservative broad church.

The Labour Party of the time contained less competition on the way to party leadership.

Law Firm Satisfaction Survey

If you work in private practice, please take RollOnFriday's quick survey measuring how happy you are with your firm. We use the results to rank firms and write stories and reports.

Your firm*
Your role*
Your sex
How satisfied are you with your pay?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's management?*
How satisfied are you with your career development?*
How satisfied are you with your work/life balance?*
How satisfied are you with your firm's culture?*