Kier Starmer on Andrew Marr.

There is plenty of hope.

Yes he did well. Not sure Labour have many more like him though.

Early days, early days.

There is also, The Cape of Good Hope, Bob Hope, and No Hope.

But didn't the result of the leader election give him 66% of the vote, which would mean there are more people in the party that agree with his visions for the party than the extreme left of the party.

Buzz lightweight,to obscurity and beyond.

The Independent give a list of possible candidates.
Some decent names but surely Lammy won't get a post.
He was mentioned alongside Miliband, Reeves and Dodds.

Jess Phillips was on later, saying Labour should be embarrassed at not picking a woman. They'll struggle with high profile figures like that, it's divisive.

Apr 5, 2020 -- 11:35AM, saddo wrote:

Jess Phillips was on later, saying Labour should be embarrassed at not picking a woman. They'll struggle with high profile figures like that, it's divisive.

The members rightly picked the person they felt was best to do the job. Some of the possible female candidates for the role over many years have been poor.

I would think a large amount of corbynistas have now realised that them sort of policies were never getting into power and voted Starmer. Lets hope he fronts a good opposition and this once great party can be saved. Tall order.

There were two main issues why former Labour supporters never voted for them at the general election. Corbyn (by far) and Brexit. Starmer has got a free run for now.

Hopefully she'll be told they will when one is not only good enough but the stand-out candidate.
Wasn't the case this time around.

I thought 'none of the above' won the vote ?

Needs to distance himself from Momentum, and get the Labour heartlands back on side.

exactly mmm

My friends are vociferous Labour party members. They were not fans of momentum, but see Starmer as the only way of getting back in. After that they want to dump him and go left again. Is this just them, or a Guardian reader thing in general?

Was Starmer asked why he didn’t prosecute Savile and Warboys?


Under his leadership, the CPS failed to ­prosecute the serial rapist John Worboys for 75 of his suspected crimes.

He was convicted of attacks on 12 women in 2009 but the decision to limit prosecution to those cases led to him being recommended for early release.

It was Sir Keir Starmer’s CPS, too, that failed to prosecute Sir Jimmy Savile, below, in spite of evidence of his offending.

Starmer refused to prosecute two doctors caught on tape appearing to offer women abortions based on the gender of their unborn child – a clear breach of the law.

He said it wouldn’t be “in the public interest” – which presumably meant that he doesn’t like the law.


https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1223380/labour-leadership-s...

Sounds like a good idea, saddo.

I can normally see the Guardian slant every day from this forum, but haven't noticed this being mooted as a tactic by anyone on here Cider. I might have missed it.

The further that Labour pivots to the left the better (for me). When the covid 19 dust has settled, there's potential for a genuine fragmentation of the party.

injera,

We all know his appalling record at the CPS letting down victims.

He is just another establishment talking head.

But the Labour members have voted him in despite knowing that.

Will you be leading the call for his knighthood to be removed ?

Andrew Marr is 100% Blairite Labour, a biased pretend journalist.
I didn't watch this (I will never pay for the BBC again) as he
observed the 2nd coming, but keep that in mind.

Apr 5, 2020 -- 12:36PM, Just Checking wrote:

Andrew Marr is 100% Blairite Labour, a biased pretend journalist.I didn't watch this (I will never pay for the BBC again) as he observed the 2nd coming, but keep that in mind.

If you don't watch it...

What is your point, pp? I at least had one, based on years of observation.

Polly the traditional conservative, if traditional conservative means being wetter than Tom Daleys rectum.

"Jess Phillips was on later, saying Labour should be embarrassed at not picking a woman."
So, sexist bigot then.

Electing him as a trojan horse for the next election is another insight into the dishonest mentality of the far left. The BBC propaganda machine will be promoting him incessantly from now on as well as the line to rejoin the EUSSR which Starmer himself will lead. Time will tell if a significant part of the electorate will be fooled but it will still be an election for the Tories to lose rather than Labour's to win.

Apr 5, 2020 -- 2:12PM, Foinavon wrote:

Electing him as a trojan horse for the next election is another insight into the dishonest mentality of the far left. The BBC propaganda machine will be promoting him incessantly from now on as well as the line to rejoin the EUSSR which Starmer himself will lead. Time will tell if a significant part of the electorate will be fooled but it will still be an election for the Tories to lose rather than Labour's to win.

I wouldn't be certain of that if I were you.

Nothing is certain in politics as we have seen in the past. How on earth did Major win in '92? Was it the rash outburst from Kinnock that turned the tide? May was expecting a landslide in 2017 but it didn't come until last year. This epidemic and the lockdown measures will probably weaken the tories if the economy tanks and in any case the economic outlook is already compromised. They still have strong hand at this moment in time.

They do have a strong hand but their main reasons for being in power (Corbyn) and Brexit won't be in play come the next scheduled election. Kinnock threw away victory by assuming success was guaranteed. Major didn't and the tories were correctly out knocking doors till the last minute. Some of us made a considerable amount of money in 2017 by simply studying polls.

Quietly impressed by Starmer,he will appeal to many that were repelled by the Labour hatred and vitriole. His principal test will be putting Momentum back out of sight,disappointed that Marr never asked him about the Labour MP attending a funeral in the West Midlands with 80 other mourners on thursday though. He wouldn't have let Boris off like that.

Apr 5, 2020 -- 11:23AM, stewarts rise wrote:

But didn't the result of the leader election give him 66% of the vote, which would mean there are more people in the party that agree with his visions for the party than the extreme left of the party.

He got 56% of votes cast.  37% of those eligible to vote didn't bother, so in total Starmer has the direct support of just 35% of his party.  His vote count is 54% that of Tony Blair's in 1994 (275,780 vs 507,950).

Apr 5, 2020 -- 10:17PM, lybertyne wrote:

Apr  5, 2020 -- 10:23AM, stewarts rise wrote:But didn't the result of the leader election give him 66% of the vote, which would mean there are more people in the party that agree with his visions for the party than the extreme left of the party.He got 56% of votes cast.  37% of those eligible to vote didn't bother, so in total Starmer has the direct support of just 35% of his party.  His vote count is 54% that of Tony Blair's in 1994 (275,780 vs 507,950).

Were you expecting every member to vote? Never happens, not in leadership elections or general elections for that matter.

Bear in mind that those eligible to vote are interested enough in politics to sign up as a member of the party.  It's not like a General Election where people who have no concern at all for politics have the power to vote.  100% turnout is unlikely but equally 63% is low.  For every 3 Labour members, 1 didn't vote for their next leader.  Rather than apathy, this suggests a disliking for all 3 options available.  But regardless of my supposed expectations for voter turnout, the figures are fact and can't be disputed.  Starmer has the support of 7 out of every 20 Labour members.

Apr 5, 2020 -- 10:32PM, lybertyne wrote:

Bear in mind that those eligible to vote are interested enough in politics to sign up as a member of the party.

lybertyne • April 5, 2020 10:32 PM BST
Bear in mind that those eligible to vote are interested enough in politics to sign up as a member of the party.  It's not like a General Election where people who have no concern at all for politics have the power to vote.  100% turnout is unlikely but equally 63% is low.  For every 3 Labour members, 1 didn't vote for their next leader.  Rather than apathy, this suggests a disliking for all 3 options available.  But regardless of my supposed expectations for voter turnout, the figures are fact and can't be disputed.  Starmer has the support of 7 out of every 20 Labour members.

So you are saying that every person that didn't vote opposes Starmer?

I never voted,wouldv'e voted starmer if pushed.

At the end of the day, just over half of tory members voted for Boris. That doesn't mean those that didn't vote for him, oppose him.

Leadership Election Turnouts

Labour 2020 - 62.6%
Labour 2016 - 77.6%
Labour 2015 - 76.3%
Labour 2010 - 71.7%

Tories 2019 - 87.4%

Maybe Labour supporters just aren't all that interested.

As I say Boris only got just over half of eligible voters. It's pretty standard stuff.