Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[brad465]

Some good news for Starmer today, with Savanta ComRes giving him a new highest rating in who'd be best PM of 39%, 8 points ahead of Johnson, despite the latter also gaining:

https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1493936921604771842

NEW Feb Political Tracker - Best PM rating

Starmer's highest ever Best PM score

Johnson 31% (+3)
Starmer 39% (+3)
◻️ Don't know 30% (-5)

2,226 UK adults, 11-13 Feb

(Changes from 14-16 Jan)

He still has a way to go and needs to hold this lead, but to get ahead of Johnson is a key step, which exceeds ratings during the debacle of the second covid wave and free school meals, which gave Labour as a whole poll leads, but not Starmer over Johnson.

 

[Acfb]

Polling is quite interesting at the moment. It's not stellar for Labour but it is OK. The Labour lead ranges from 3% with Opinium to 9% with Savanta Comres.

Sunak's approval ratings have also gone down substantially and he now only a few points ahead of Starmer. Sunak also only ties Starmer as best PM in hypothetical Best PM polling with Redfield & Wilton.

 

[MattRat]

Polling is quite interesting at the moment. It's not stellar for Labour but it is OK. The Labour lead ranges from 3% with Opinium to 9% with Savanta Comres.

Sunak's approval ratings have also gone down substantially and he now only a few points ahead of Starmer. Sunak also only ties Starmer as best PM in hypothetical Best PM polling with Redfield & Wilton.

I think that sums up British politics right now. I see Sunak as a George Osborne type, ready to swoop in when the PM falls, while pretending to support him in the now. If that's one of the better options, it's really of contest of the least bad option, which shouldn't be the case.

 

[brad465]

Polling is quite interesting at the moment. It's not stellar for Labour but it is OK. The Labour lead ranges from 3% with Opinium to 9% with Savanta Comres.

Sunak's approval ratings have also gone down substantially and he now only a few points ahead of Starmer. Sunak also only ties Starmer as best PM in hypothetical Best PM polling with Redfield & Wilton.

The longer Sunak remains Chancellor, the less likely he'll become PM, as the situation with cost of living is only going to get worse, not helped by the fact he has his name all over this NI tax hike. Labour have also recently been trying to include him in attacks aimed at Johnson wherever possible in anticipation of him becoming leader, and/or to make sure the party as a whole is damaged as much as possible, not just Johnson.

 

[brad465]

Labour have held Birmingham Erdington in the by-election, despite a very low 27% turnout (this seat has a history of low turnouts in GEs). Despite this, their vote share increased, when low turnout usually hinders the incumbent party:

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1499551664486985729

Birmingham Erdington, by-election result: LAB: 55.5% (+5.2) CON: 36.3% (-3.8) TUSC: 2.1% (+2.1) REFUK: 1.7% (-2.4) GRN: 1.4% (-0.4) LDEM: 1.0% (-2.7) IND: 0.6% (+0.6) CPA: 0.5% (+0.5) IND: 0.4% (+0.4) MRLP: 0.3% (+0.3) IND: 0.1% (+0.1) MBPE: 0.0% (+0.0)Birmingham Erdington, by-election result: LAB: 55.5% (+5.2) CON: 36.3% (-3.8) TUSC: 2.1% (+2.1) REFUK: 1.7% (-2.4) GRN: 1.4% (-0.4) LDEM: 1.0% (-2.7) IND: 0.6% (+0.6) CPA: 0.5% (+0.5) IND: 0.4% (+0.4) MRLP: 0.3% (+0.3) IND: 0.1% (+0.1) MBPE: 0.0% (+0.0)

 

[birchesgreen]

Good result, the Tories threw the kitchen sink at this. Got half a forest worth of election pamphlets in my recycle box.

Should say, as a member of Erdington CLP, we threw a (slightly smaller) kitchen sink at it too to be honest.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the Tories will be reasonably happy about that result. That would be a 4.5% swing to Labour, which, if repeated nationally, would still leave them 2.5% ahead of Labour in the popular vote (based on their 11.5% lead at the last election). It's a swing to Labour, but not the kind of meltdown that they would've been fearing at the height of 'Partygate'. LibDems nowhere, but probably not their ideal seat. Obvious disclaimers about low turnout etc.

 

[nw1]

Labour have held Birmingham Erdington in the by-election, despite a very low 27% turnout (this seat has a history of low turnouts in GEs). Despite this, their vote share increased, when low turnout usually hinders the incumbent party:

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1499551664486985729

I remember Erdington was a seat that people were seriously thinking would go to the Tories in either 2015 or 2017 (I forget which). Not even close, and a sure sign that the number of vulnerable Red Wall seats isn't expanding.

To be honest I was completely unaware this by-election was happening, but I suppose it lacks the drama of the Paterson incident.

 

[birchesgreen]

I think the Tories will be reasonably happy about that result. That would be a 4.5% swing to Labour, which, if repeated nationally, would still leave them 2.5% ahead of Labour in the popular vote (based on their 11.5% lead at the last election). It's a swing to Labour, but not the kind of meltdown that they would've been fearing at the height of 'Partygate'. LibDems nowhere, but probably not their ideal seat. Obvious disclaimers about low turnout etc.

I'm not sure they will be reasonably happy at all, they tried very hard to win this. Get managed to get Andy Street to stop telling everyone how wonderful he is for 5 minutes to endorse the Tory candidate in the press a number of times.

At best i think their reaction will be "meh".

 

[Acfb]

The % Labour majority is about the same as in 2017, I don't think there's too much to say about this by election. It is a reasonable result for both Tories and Labour.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The new Labour MP has been caught on camera appearing in 2015 to advocate some kind of violent insurrection in the UK. link. Longer clips on GBNews at link

Her words were:

So you talk about the bullet or the vote. I'm not sure, although I believe in the vote and I believe in our right to use that vote or destroy that vote, I'm not sure that we will get what we really deserve in this country using the vote but I don't know if we are a strong enough group to get what we want to get if we have an uprising, I think we would be quashed in such a way we would lose a generation of our young people so I am very torn.

 

[brad465]

I remember Erdington was a seat that people were seriously thinking would go to the Tories in either 2015 or 2017 (I forget which). Not even close, and a sure sign that the number of vulnerable Red Wall seats isn't expanding.

To be honest I was completely unaware this by-election was happening, but I suppose it lacks the drama of the Paterson incident.

I think a certain war also overshadowed the existence of the by-election.

 

[gg1]

To be honest I was completely unaware this by-election was happening, but I suppose it lacks the drama of the Paterson incident.

I think a certain war also overshadowed the existence of the by-election.

I don't think that necessarily made much of a difference, there was another in a similarly safe seat last year (a Tory one I think) which got no mention at all that I saw on the national news in the days running up to it and the day itself, with only a footnote for the result the following day.

 

[Busaholic]

I feel it's got beyond the time when the title of this thread should change to ''When will things go right again for Labour?''

As it hasn't altered (yet) I'll confine my remarks to:-
In a fair and impartial country, especially with regard to media and reporting unfettered by the power of expensive lawyers, it'd be when even a fraction of the encouragement and embrace offered to Russian oligarchs by the Conservative Party and individuals within it, became common knowledge to the populace.

 

[nw1]

I feel it's got beyond the time when the title of this thread should change to ''When will things go right again for Labour?''

As it hasn't altered (yet) I'll confine my remarks to:-
In a fair and impartial country, especially with regard to media and reporting unfettered by the power of expensive lawyers, it'd be when even a fraction of the encouragement and embrace offered to Russian oligarchs by the Conservative Party and individuals within it, became common knowledge to the populace.

To be fair I get the impression things are going "OK" for Labour right now, but given how the Tories have disgraced themselves over the winter, maybe not quite as well as they perhaps should be.

But hey, Keir Starmer is a "dull", level-headed person, and not a "character", and therefore completely unsuitable material for PM.

 

[Busaholic]

To be fair I get the impression things are going "OK" for Labour right now, but given how the Tories have disgraced themselves over the winter, maybe not quite as well as they perhaps should be.

But hey, Keir Starmer is a "dull", level-headed person, and not a "character", and therefore completely unsuitable material for PM.

Bit like the John Major stereotype - perhaps someone could invent a salacious romance between Starmer and Angela Rayner, say. Bingo, ten point rise in public acceptability.

 

[daodao]

I feel it's got beyond the time when the title of this thread should change to ''When will things go right again for Labour?''

As it hasn't altered (yet) I'll confine my remarks to:-
In a fair and impartial country, especially with regard to media and reporting unfettered by the power of expensive lawyers, it'd be when even a fraction of the encouragement and embrace offered to Russian oligarchs by the Conservative Party and individuals within it, became common knowledge to the populace.

In the interests of impartiality, many Labour politicians have (or had) close links with oligarchs from the territories of the former USSR, as this Daily Mail article from 2014 describes:

Revealed: The knights, peers and royals in pay of the oligarchs

Among those with close links is Lord Mandelson who is a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which boasts stakes in Russia’s oil and energy.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Revealed: The knights, peers and even members of the Royal Family who are now on the payroll of Russian oligarchs

In addition, many of these oligarchs are not ethnically Russian, and some have acquired citizenship of other (friendly) states. Many other ex-Soviet states are infested with oligarchs as well, e.g. the chocolate baron (and former Ukrainian president) Petro Poroshenko.

 

[317 forever]

I think the Tories will be reasonably happy about that result. That would be a 4.5% swing to Labour, which, if repeated nationally, would still leave them 2.5% ahead of Labour in the popular vote (based on their 11.5% lead at the last election). It's a swing to Labour, but not the kind of meltdown that they would've been fearing at the height of 'Partygate'. LibDems nowhere, but probably not their ideal seat. Obvious disclaimers about low turnout etc.

The result is also encouraging for Labour, after losing Hartlepool and losing voteshare at Batley & Spen, even though they did retain that seat.

 

[Busaholic]

In the interests of impartiality, many Labour politicians have (or had) close links with oligarchs from the territories of the former USSR, as this Daily Mail article from 2014 describes:

Revealed: The knights, peers and royals in pay of the oligarchs

Among those with close links is Lord Mandelson who is a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which boasts stakes in Russia’s oil and energy.

www.dailymail.co.uk

In addition, many of these oligarchs are not ethnically Russian, and some have acquired citizenship of other (friendly) states. Many other ex-Soviet states are infested with oligarchs as well, e.g. the chocolate baron (and former Ukrainian president) Petro Poroshenko.

Interesting you had to go back to 2014 for that nugget. Mandelson has had no influence on the Labour party, I'm glad to say. for a very long time, and it's not just people on the left who always despised him. Many of Mandelson's contacts in this regard also appeared in the company of George Osborne too, who had a day job as Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time I recall. I don't believe 'impartiality' was your reason to insinuate that, by the way, given your past posts.

 

[JamesT]

Interesting you had to go back to 2014 for that nugget. Mandelson has had no influence on the Labour party, I'm glad to say. for a very long time, and it's not just people on the left who always despised him. Many of Mandelson's contacts in this regard also appeared in the company of George Osborne too, who had a day job as Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time I recall. I don't believe 'impartiality' was your reason to insinuate that, by the way, given your past posts.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...se-of-new-labours-winning-mentality-wr0w25jpb - Looks like Mandelson’s days aren’t entirely behind him. There have been other reports on Starmer calling on other Blair-era advisors for advice.

 

[oldman]

In addition, many of these oligarchs are not ethnically Russian, and some have acquired citizenship of other (friendly) states.

I'm not sure what their ethnicity has to do with it. They are subjects of the Russian Empire. As Putin said: I am a Lak, Dagestani, Chechen, Ingush, Russian, Tatar, Jew, Mordvin, Ossetian.

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh dear, it looks like Labour have suspended Bercow from membership of the party following the inevitable result of the conclusion of the bullying investigation into him, which found that he was well, a bully and a liar. Repeatedly. Habitually.

The investigators upheld 21 complaints against victims of his bullying while Speaker.

John Bercow found to be ‘serial bully’ and liar by independent inquiry

Ex-Speaker should have been expelled from parliament had he remained an MP, panel says

www.theguardian.com

A true piece of work and more fool anyone who stuck up for him or had any respect for him whatsoever. A "serial liar" and a "serial bully", he is banned from holding a parliamentary pass for life. Good riddance to the horrid toadying little man.

An unpleasant man and I take pleasure in seeing him get his comeuppance.

The sub-panel of the independent experts chaired by Sir Stephen Irwin, a former court of appeal judge, found that parliament’s bullying and harassment policy was “breached repeatedly and extensively by the most senior member of the House of Commons”.

“He has attempted to defeat these complaints by false accusations of collusion and by advancing lies,” it said.

Its sanction decision: “The findings of the parliamentary commissioner for standards, which we have upheld, show that the respondent has been a serial bully […] His evidence in the investigations, the findings of the commissioner, and his submissions to us, show also that the respondent has been a serial liar.”

 

[brad465]

Oh dear, it looks like Labour have suspended Bercow from membership of the party following the inevitable result of the conclusion of the bullying investigation into him, which found that he was well, a bully and a liar. Repeatedly. Habitually.

The investigators upheld 21 complaints against victims of his bullying while Speaker.

John Bercow found to be ‘serial bully’ and liar by independent inquiry

Ex-Speaker should have been expelled from parliament had he remained an MP, panel says

www.theguardian.com

A true piece of work and more fool anyone who stuck up for him or had any respect for him whatsoever. A "serial liar" and a "serial bully", he is banned from holding a parliamentary pass for life. Good riddance to the horrid toadying little man.

An unpleasant man and I take pleasure in seeing him get his comeuppance.

It's certainly not good for him, but I can't see how Labour should suffer because of this. Okay maybe they should of thought twice about accepting him, but all the bullying in this investigation pre-dates him being associated with Labour, and at least they have suspended him, where I certainly think keeping him on would be harmful to the wider party. He was also a relatively insignificant part of the party, in holding membership at most, and was never likely to feature in either Parliamentary house once no longer speaker.

Worth debating, but this is more about him specifically, not Labour.

By the way, there is an irony in criticising a bully with the sort of language a bully would use.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's certainly not good for him, but I can't see how Labour should suffer because of this. Okay maybe they should of thought twice about accepting him, but all the bullying in this investigation pre-dates him being associated with Labour, and at least they have suspended him, where I certainly think keeping him on would be harmful to the wider party. He was also a relatively insignificant part of the party, in holding membership at most, and was never likely to feature in either Parliamentary house once no longer speaker.

They ought never to have accepted him. It was rank opportunism by him, he offered nothing and made people who supported the defection look very daft, for no political gain by the party whatsoever. Now there are news headlines about his suspension; it doesn't look good for Labour. This is supposed to be an electable party.

By the way, there is an irony in criticising a bully with the sort of language a bully would use.

You're allowed to call a bully what they are, and while I'll stay within the forum rules, I'm not going to listen to posters who try and police my tone while they make no comment whatsoever about the man's complete lack of character and the fact he's a liar and a bully.

Unfortunately several people who should have known better expressed their respect and admiration for him, and wondered if his obviously desperate and self-interested defection represented a political opportunity for their side. I welcome any defence of the man's character seeing as it was just assassinated by several complainants whose complaints were upheld by the standards commissioner.

Several of the complainants kept detailed records of the abuse. Sinclair said he was berated and sworn at for answering a press enquiry on members’ pay, noting that the Speaker called him “f***ing stupid”.

In a separate complaint, he alleged Bercow had thrown his phone at him in a row about his official residence and that in another row over timing for a civil partnership, he had shouted: “What the f***! Nothing surprises me about you – it’s your job – don’t you understand you (are stupid) – f***! It’s your job you are to do this despite what Clerk has said.”

Emms made repeated complaints that Bercow had made personal attacks on her, belittled her in public and mimicked her. In one complaint, she described a trip abroad where she claimed Bercow had shouted at her in public and was “irascible and disproportionately rude and threatening in his body language” and that after a separate meeting about the Youth Parliament, he had “directed fury at her over this in front of others, bringing her to tears”.

Lisvane also made multiple complaints about being belittled, backed by a senior MP who claimed Bercow would speak “in a brutal and demeaning way, such as: ‘You come here with your privileged background and offer your opinion, but I’m not interested in your opinion.’”

 

[nw1]

Oh dear, it looks like Labour have suspended Bercow from membership of the party following the inevitable result of the conclusion of the bullying investigation into him, which found that he was well, a bully and a liar. Repeatedly. Habitually.

The investigators upheld 21 complaints against victims of his bullying while Speaker.

John Bercow found to be ‘serial bully’ and liar by independent inquiry

Ex-Speaker should have been expelled from parliament had he remained an MP, panel says

www.theguardian.com

A true piece of work and more fool anyone who stuck up for him or had any respect for him whatsoever. A "serial liar" and a "serial bully", he is banned from holding a parliamentary pass for life. Good riddance to the horrid toadying little man.

An unpleasant man and I take pleasure in seeing him get his comeuppance.

So why hasn't the same happened to Priti Patel I wonder? Patel has at times 'shouted and sworn at civil servants' (source: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-inquiry-why-was-it-held-and-what-did-it-find) yet has not faced any consequences whatsoever.

 

[Cdd89]

So why hasn't the same happened to Priti Patel I wonder?

Patel is the obvious comparison, and I won’t seek to defend her insincere apologies; however, even an insincere apology is better than Bercow’s attempts to smear the committee that concluded on him.

Given what was known about his history, and negative perceptions of bias by 52% of the population, accepting him was a significant unforced error. I’m glad they’ve moved quickly to remove him as his continued membership would have caused serious damage.

 

[LittleAH]

A true piece of work and more fool anyone who stuck up for him or had any respect for him whatsoever. A "serial liar" and a "serial bully",

What's your view on Priti Patel. A vile woman who bullied co=workers and is currently leading a rancid home office in dealing with ukranian refugees.

 

[nw1]

Patel is the obvious comparison, and I won’t seek to defend her insincere apologies; however, even an insincere apology is better than Bercow’s attempts to smear the committee that concluded on him.

Given what was known about his history, and negative perceptions of bias by 52% of the population, accepting him was a significant unforced error. I’m glad they’ve moved quickly to remove him as his continued membership would have caused serious damage.

I agree about Bercow, but I think fairness needs to be employed and that ANY person found to have indulged in this sort of behaviour should face the consequences, including senior government ministers.

I think the key thing regarding Labour is that now there is absolute proof of bullying by Bercow, rather than (as was presumably the case before) mere allegations, they have moved quickly.

 

[AlterEgo]

What's your view on Priti Patel. A vile woman who bullied co=workers and is currently leading a rancid home office in dealing with ukranian refugees.

Oh she’s horrid too - another nasty piece of work and not even terribly competent at her job, not that it would be any consolation. The Home Office is easily the most right wing of all government departments, even more so than the MoD!

Whataboutery, however, is unattractive. Let’s talk more about Bercow and Labour’s glad acceptance of him.

Patel is the obvious comparison, and I won’t seek to defend her insincere apologies; however, even an insincere apology is better than Bercow’s attempts to smear the committee that concluded on him.

Given what was known about his history, and negative perceptions of bias by 52% of the population, accepting him was a significant unforced error. I’m glad they’ve moved quickly to remove him as his continued membership would have caused serious damage.

Quite. A significant unforced error is a diplomatic way of putting it. As a Point of Order I believe he’s suspended, not removed, as there has to be a Labour Party investigation first, which is only fair.

 

[brad465]

They ought never to have accepted him. It was rank opportunism by him, he offered nothing and made people who supported the defection look very daft, for no political gain by the party whatsoever. Now there are news headlines about his suspension; it doesn't look good for Labour. This is supposed to be an electable party.

You're allowed to call a bully what they are, and while I'll stay within the forum rules, I'm not going to listen to posters who try and police my tone while they make no comment whatsoever about the man's complete lack of character and the fact he's a liar and a bully.

Unfortunately several people who should have known better expressed their respect and admiration for him, and wondered if his obviously desperate and self-interested defection represented a political opportunity for their side. I welcome any defence of the man's character seeing as it was just assassinated by several complainants whose complaints were upheld by the standards commissioner.

Fair enough, I certainly believed at the time him joining Labour would make absolutely no difference, as, bullying allegations at the time aside, everyone with political opinions already had one about him, with those agreeing with his opinions either welcoming the move or (if not a Labour party supporter), not saying anything, and for those who disliked his views his move just confirmed their suspicions.

However, when it comes to bullying, double standards are a definite no go, so I think, given the situation regarding Patel, neither the Tory nor Labour politicians should be expressing opinions demanding action against the other but being quiet about their own, until such a time disciplinary action is implemented. They should either condemn both, or condemn neither (obviously the former would be better). Given Labour did rightly come down hard on Claudia Webbe, it would be out of place not to do the same here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2022 ==

Patel is the obvious comparison, and I won’t seek to defend her insincere apologies; however, even an insincere apology is better than Bercow’s attempts to smear the committee that concluded on him.

Given what was known about his history, and negative perceptions of bias by 52% of the population, accepting him was a significant unforced error. I’m glad they’ve moved quickly to remove him as his continued membership would have caused serious damage.

Comparing the two Patel is leading Bercow on the subject's response to the inquiry, while Labour are leading the Tories on the response to the conclusion front. This can of course change in time.