The Labour Party tearing itself apart

Starmer is quite foolish even trying to depower the left of Labour tbh. He has none of tony blair's talent for coalition building and will rupture the whole party.

YLTSI

Rob starts off saying Starmer is unintelligent then quickly shifts to "not super-intelligent" when proved wrong

@bananaman: Obviously Starmer is not low intelligence in a general sense. However, he is low intelligence for the role he's doing.

The evidence given for Starmer's intelligence on this thread was the school he went to, the university he did his postgrad at, and that he was a QC and DPP.  As I already said, I happen to have done the same postgrad at the same university as Starmer. Indeed, my sister also did, as did two people I studied with for undergrad (and a couple others were admitted but did not go). So I can say that one does not have to be of particular intelligence to either get admitted or complete that postgrad.  

There's another thread here about status anxiety and how people fret over what university they go to, what suburb they live in, etc. Doubtless one of the reasons is the British tendency to categorise people's intelligence as based on where they went to school/university rather than basing it on how they perform in their current role. Johnson is clearly more intelligent than Starmer. Johnson is lazy as hell and Starmer is more hard-working, but it's difficult to perform as leader of a political party if you don't have a level of intelligence that Starmer lacks.

What Bentines and Lemo said.

The Labour Party is led by people who are, or are beholden to, fringe academic type lefties who love nothing more than to go on marches about Palestine and Cuba and blather on about gender and other identity politics issues but rely on the votes of people who worry about how to pay the gas bill and whether the police are ever going to do anything about the noisy family of junkies next door or the kids making life harder on the estate hell. 
 

The party is badly out of touch with its base when it comes to immigration as well. Patel is far closer to the average working-class person. 

I agree Starmer isn’t stupid, but he does lack the ability to think on his feet and he has absolutely no charisma. Love him or loathe him, Boris does have that bit of “magic” successful politicians need. Even Corbyn was an engaging speaker and able to connect with people emotionally.

Starmer seems to think politics is like law where it matters whether you are “right” or not. You don’t win elections with pedantic, intellectual argument. You win them by appealing to the voters on an emotional / psychological level. 

Corbyn was woeful in the HoC. He was - allegedly - good speaking to a large (Momentumite) audience, the very definition of preaching to the converted.

Johnson’s act is the same one he’s pulled all his career. It’s politics as light entertainment. People think he’d be fun over a pint (possibly true, but not a great qualification for being PM). Starmer I agree comes across as serious.

Eventually the country might get tired of a PM who is essentially the political version of Benny Hill. And come to realise that some more seriousness wouldn’t be a bad thing.

But I’m not holding my breath.

“The Labour Party is led by people who are, or are beholden to, fringe academic type lefties who love nothing more than to go on marches about Palestine and Cuba and blather on about gender and other identity politics issues but rely on the votes of people who worry about how to pay the gas bill and whether the police are ever going to do anything about the noisy family of junkies next door or the kids making life harder on the estate hell.”

 

I don’t think this is true of Starmer, Nandy, Phillips, Cooper, Benn or even Rayner. It was certainly true of Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne & co.

Has anyone yet read Starmer's 12,300 word essay on his plans for Labour?

Newspaper reports say that its light on policy, but sets out 10 principles which Starmer hopes will form a new contract between Labour and the British public. 12,300 words!  That's 1,230 words per principle.   

Best quote I've seen on this:

Starmer needing 12,000 words to make 10 points is not really a surprise for anyone unfortunate enough to have seen one of his interviews

Jack I'd suggest that Nandy's comments re that trans rapist put in a woman’s prison wouldn't be that popular.

Phillips easy to portray as a man hater and Rayner as benefits gal - who has never had a proper job. Like a younger, female Jez.

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?*