Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,507
And yet it's still not as bad as the last lot...
Corbyn suspended
- Thread starter cremeegg
- Start date
- Status
His main problem is the remains of the Corbyn faction within the Labour Party.
What makes you draw that conclusion?
Is this Keir Starmer’s government or Tony Blair’s?
Tim Allan is only the latest Blairite to take up a powerful position at No 10.
www.newstatesman.com
I've heard similar commentary over the last year or so. The appointment of a Blair favourite (against advice) Mandleson sort of confirmed that Starmer was either without wit or someone else was pulling the levers.
Yep, and Netanyahu isn't quite as bad as Hitler.
The guy who is pulling his strings (and backing Mandelson) is his very special advisor Morgan McSweeney from Macroom - he's the guy who persuaded Starmer to sack Sue Grey). And he's also leaning heavily on both Bliar and Milliband (the bad brother, not the intelligent one).
Interesting, one thing for sure, Starmer is PM in name only, whether its McSweeney or Bliar pulling the strings.
Not forgetting Hermer who also appears to have a tight hold on one Starmer's ears.
Blimey, poor Starmer, they've just about taken up residence on either shoulder and likely have a shift roster agreed
Couldn't see this happening with any other PM, imagine Thatcher taking instruction off one of her minions
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 236
Starmers ambition is for the House of Lords. He will get that now when his PM-ship ends, shortly I'd say. And good riddance, he is a wholesale fraud and snake.
What leads you to that opinion?
This is a shameful and baseless attack on the best leader the Labour Party has had in recent years.
Starmer has 411 seats and a working majority of about 150. Even if you disregard the Corbyn faction of about 30 – 40 MPs, and the ‘Gaza’ block of about 15 MPs, many of whom are also in the Corbyn block, it’s still a working majority of about 100. He’s here for the duration.
Also, Starmer is the only Labour leader since 1923 to break a string of 4 previous Conservative victories. Everyone loves a winner. He’s here for the duration.
We’re also inclined to ignore the victory on the Lib/Dems in securing 72 seats; their highest number ever. A great achievement for Sir Ed Davey.
Add in the 1 Alliance Party MP and this gives a clear majority for centrist policies in the UK for the foreseeable future. They’re here for the duration.
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 236
Well we are all entitled to our opinion. He is the worst Labour Party in my lifetime.
He may have led the Labour Party to 411 seats but it was up against the calamitous Tory Party that hung itself by its own petard through the Brexit shambles.
Starmer's Labour won less votes in the 2024 election that won them a majority than Corbyn's Labour won in 2019, which was pillored as a disaster!
This is the fraud - that Starmer has in anyway rejuvenated the fortunes of the Labour party after Corbyn.
The Labour Party membership peaked at around 530,000 when Corbyn finished as leader. It declined slightly after his departure to 520,000.
But since Starmer has taken the helm, the membership is evaporating. In Feb 2025 the recorded membership is 309,000. Thats a 40%+ fall in membership since he took over and there is little sign of that trend changing.
And while Starmer will propagate that Britain will recognise a Palestinian state, his government has sanctioned and expanded weapons sales to Israel to carry out its genocide - this is the snake.
Last edited:
In my opinion Corbyn was by far the worst leader and most obnoxious person to lead the British Labour Party in my lifetime.
Ed Milliband was the least
The far left in Labour, personified by Corbyn, is the best thing to happen to the Tories and now Reform. They made Labour unelectable for over a decade. Boris was more palatable to most British people than Corbyn.
Last edited:
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 236
The figures suggest otherwise. The 2017 election had Labour at 40%, its highest poll for 16yrs under Corbyn.
Starmer got elected with 33% of the vote. It's simply not true to say Labour was unelectable under Corbyn.
Last edited:
Charismatic perhaps? ( I still shudder over those images of him struggling to eat a rasher sandwich!
)Lest we forget!
Bloody phones...Charismatic perhaps? ( I still shudder over those images of him struggling to eat a rasher sandwich!
Lest we forget!
losttheplot
Registered User
- Messages
- 707
Except for the two general elections where they weren't elected to government under his leadership. The 2019 election was Labours worst since 1935 in terms of seats (which because of the outdated election system in the UK is what matters). Both of these elections were against some of the least inspiring Conservative leaders.
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 236
Well, yes, if you are going to determine the electability of someone after the election then we can all point to whoever we want and say the same thing. I mean, who didn't know that Biden was unelectable for a 2nd term or that his replacement Harris was a complete no-hoper against Trump?
My interpretation of 'electability' (to position of PM) would be to lead a political party that can obtain a vote that can be prospectively, and is historically, shown to be within a reasonable chance of success.
In the 2017 election under Corbyns leadership obtained 40% of the national vote. Tories got 42% and there was a hung parliament. The parliamentary numbers didn't fall in Corbyns favour.
The 2019 election was a de-facto Brexit referendum. Corbyn's handling of it was terrible. Yet Labour still managed to poll better in votes than Starmer in 2024. Labour has an overall majority not because of Starmer but in spite of him. With the Tories in total disarray how could Labour not win? Yet, Labour vote fell even further!
No wonder Starmer is pocketing the gifts and Raynor buying the beach apartment. They are acting like an administration that knows this racket is not going to last too much longer.
- Status