RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:Starmer doesn't have to come up with detailed policy, but he's got to have an inkling of an idea. Saying as he has Brexit is done with and we need to focus on Covid is way short of the mark, as is saying I might have an idea but I'm not obliged to mention it for many years, a good idea would be bloody useful right now, and if you don't want to be pushed on having a good idea maybe don't ask to lead a major political party as that does involve leadership, whether in power or not

Edd's doing some great work this afternoon in Keir's absence, not that one suspects Boris will care, hard to shame the shameless.

But you're still missing the point. If he says ANYTHING, the media will jump on it and Boris will twist his words to make the Brexiteers believe Starmer is a threat to their racist world vision.

So Ed can say it, he's a mouthpiece without being a mouthpiece.

Labour need to simply show willingness to help if the government can actually govern. He knows full well this government is incapable of that, so he's just building ammunition.

Or at least, I hope that's the case...

He can't force an election now, he can only do that if the Tories eat themselves half to death first.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Starmer doesn't have to come up with detailed policy, but he's got to have an inkling of an idea. Saying as he has Brexit is done with and we need to focus on Covid is way short of the mark, as is saying I might have an idea but I'm not obliged to mention it for many years, a good idea would be bloody useful right now, and if you don't want to be pushed on having a good idea maybe don't ask to lead a major political party as that does involve leadership, whether in power or not

Edd's doing some great work this afternoon in Keir's absence, not that one suspects Boris will care, hard to shame the shameless.

But you're still missing the point. If he says ANYTHING, the media will jump on it and Boris will twist his words to make the Brexiteers believe Starmer is a threat to their racist world vision.

So Ed can say it, he's a mouthpiece without being a mouthpiece.

Labour need to simply show willingness to help if the government can actually govern. He knows full well this government is incapable of that, so he's just building ammunition.

Or at least, I hope that's the case...

He can't force an election now, he can only do that if the Tories eat themselves half to death first.

I would hope the media would comment if a major political leader speaks on an important issue. Yes they might twist his words, but Boris and friends are already twisting his inaction anyway.

I can see why bottling the problem and hoping it goes away of its own accord is tempting, but this supposes the problem will go away, and that the country couldn't use a good idea in the interim whether it comes from government or the official opposition. And it is striking that Starmer is speaking on other subjects but not Brexit, I assume because either he's still working on creating in house a shared position enough people are comfortable moving forwards with, or he simply has no idea how to address an issue that splits his potential voters. But this matters right now, how we leave impacts environmental and labour standards well before there's any chance of a Labour government, saying we'll wait until then before letting the unions, their supporters and potential swing voters know what path they think the UK could take is weak, and if you want to be weak piss off and do something else than be leader of the opposition.

I'd quite like the Lib Dems to be getting stick for not addressing the issue too, but under the charismatic leadership of the bucket of wallpaper paste just elected party leader it's probably going to take a while, and probably either an election or new leadership, before anyone pays any attention to the Lib Dems. It's entirely possible Ed Davey's wife can't be bothered listening to his political take on what to do next.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Starmer doesn't have to come up with detailed policy, but he's got to have an inkling of an idea. Saying as he has Brexit is done with and we need to focus on Covid is way short of the mark, as is saying I might have an idea but I'm not obliged to mention it for many years, a good idea would be bloody useful right now, and if you don't want to be pushed on having a good idea maybe don't ask to lead a major political party as that does involve leadership, whether in power or not

Edd's doing some great work this afternoon in Keir's absence, not that one suspects Boris will care, hard to shame the shameless.

But you're still missing the point. If he says ANYTHING, the media will jump on it and Boris will twist his words to make the Brexiteers believe Starmer is a threat to their racist world vision.

So Ed can say it, he's a mouthpiece without being a mouthpiece.

Labour need to simply show willingness to help if the government can actually govern. He knows full well this government is incapable of that, so he's just building ammunition.

Or at least, I hope that's the case...

He can't force an election now, he can only do that if the Tories eat themselves half to death first.

I would hope the media would comment if a major political leader speaks on an important issue. Yes they might twist his words, but Boris and friends are already twisting his inaction anyway.

I can see why bottling the problem and hoping it goes away of its own accord is tempting, but this supposes the problem will go away, and that the country couldn't use a good idea in the interim whether it comes from government or the official opposition. And it is striking that Starmer is speaking on other subjects but not Brexit, I assume because either he's still working on creating in house a shared position enough people are comfortable moving forwards with, or he simply has no idea how to address an issue that splits his potential voters. But this matters right now, how we leave impacts environmental and labour standards well before there's any chance of a Labour government, saying we'll wait until then before letting the unions, their supporters and potential swing voters know what path they think the UK could take is weak, and if you want to be weak piss off and do something else than be leader of the opposition.

I'd quite like the Lib Dems to be getting stick for not addressing the issue too, but under the charismatic leadership of the bucket of wallpaper paste just elected party leader it's probably going to take a while, and probably either an election or new leadership, before anyone pays any attention to the Lib Dems. It's entirely possible Ed Davey's wife can't be bothered listening to his political take on what to do next.

I'm not surprised Starmer doesn't want to get any Brexit on him. It's a horrible morass of an issue where people feel very strongly in incredibly stupid directions in very simple ways about a very complex problem and the people the Labour party need to support them are split fairly evenly down the middle of it.

It may not be very moral or dutiful of him, but it's going to be incredibly politic of Starmer to stay the hell out of giving definitive opinions on it until it is "settled" (although I'm starting to think that's more in the sense of dust settling than in the sense of being agreed). It might be falling down on his duties as Leader of the Opposition, but if he wants to be Prime Minister in the future, he is better off not trying to help guide the horse but instead point and laugh at the buffoons riding it.

Puja

I don't see how it's easy to stay out of an issue which will speak to the economy, to many of our regulatory standards, to our international relations, to the continuance of the union. If he's going to stay out of issues like that will he have nothing to say about Covid because comments on locking down might jar with economic interests, or have nothing to say about Sunak further exploding the deficit, introducing new taxes or some return (increase in if preferred) to austerity, nothing to say about social housing...?

He can stand to one side and hope not to get tagged with any of the blame, simply telling Boris over and over Boris made his bed, it might even work. But he might also look craven and nothing close to a leader.

I get the media, certainly a lot of the print media will twist his comments but they're not going to allow him to sustain himself in a vacuum either. If he doesn't comment that'll just see commentary being provided for him, that he lacks the will to control the unions, that he lacks the will to speak to middle England or to the former Labour voters in the North.

So far I've been impressed with him, were there an election tomorrow I'd be voting Labour for the first time ever in any election. If he's going to cower in a corner though and say please don't hurt me I might not be the only vote he'd lose.

Interesting that a bloke who was a good and effective minister is derided as bland. Not sure what the Lib Dem’s would want at present other than a steady, sensible and effective politician with a good track record. Speaking as one, if you’re looking for Con voter looking for a reason to move, he’s a better bet than Moran. The LD’s opportunity to take moderate Lab voters has gone now that Starmer is there, not that he’s as close to the centre as many think, I suspect. Perhaps if they’d gone for effective and sensible, rather than being a protest party, during Corbyn’s reign they wouldn’t be where they are now.
I can’t get behind the idea that the official opposition shouldn’t put forward their own ideas. Mainly cos you can’t hope to move govt policy if you don’t show them/the country where you’d like to move them to, partly because because voters need to see you as a govt in waiting and partly because not taking a stance means you can’t gauge voters thoughts prior to the election and voters aren’t enamoured with fencing sitting on totemic issues, see Corbyn and Brexit, May and Brexit etc. I guess Starmer is hoping Brexit will be done by the time the next election comes round but a) the election could be next spring if covid and/or Brexit goes spectacularly wrong b) Brexit, sadly, won’t be done for at least a generation.

Digby wrote:I don't see how it's easy to stay out of an issue which will speak to the economy, to many of our regulatory standards, to our international relations, to the continuance of the union. If he's going to stay out of issues like that will he have nothing to say about Covid because comments on locking down might jar with economic interests, or have nothing to say about Sunak further exploding the deficit, introducing new taxes or some return (increase in if preferred) to austerity, nothing to say about social housing...?

He can stand to one side and hope not to get tagged with any of the blame, simply telling Boris over and over Boris made his bed, it might even work. But he might also look craven and nothing close to a leader.

I get the media, certainly a lot of the print media will twist his comments but they're not going to allow him to sustain himself in a vacuum either. If he doesn't comment that'll just see commentary being provided for him, that he lacks the will to control the unions, that he lacks the will to speak to middle England or to the former Labour voters in the North.

So far I've been impressed with him, were there an election tomorrow I'd be voting Labour for the first time ever in any election. If he's going to cower in a corner though and say please don't hurt me I might not be the only vote he'd lose.

Brexit is a special case for Starmer. HIs approach might not be the one I'd take (I'd find it hard to keep my mouth shut) but it does make sense. Brexit is a particularly emotional thing. Starmer might well say the truth about it, but he risks a large number of potentially Labour-voting Brexiteers hating him for it. Better for him to leave them to slowly realise for themselves the utter disaster it was always destined to become (particularly under Johnson). People don't enjoy having their mistakes exposed, and might never forgive the bearer of this news.

I think Ed Davey a decent bloke, but it's difficult to see how he makes any headway. Paddy Ashdown was an exceptional public speaker with plenty of charisma, so too Charles Kennedy when he was sober, Davey isn't going to pick up the coverage they would, and frankly even with a lot of coverage and seeming competent it wouldn't be easy to add meaningful votes.

Moran is someone I've long thought would end up the party leader, though she's wobbled more than a little since moving away from her brief on education. She might yet be able to help Davey though as she's someone who can get coverage, if she and the party can properly map out what message they want to achieve she can help generate coverage in a way Davey simply will not. Which isn't to say she should have become party leader, I don't think the party did have a good option putting themselves forward, certainly no one who was obviously going to be a success, perhaps for now all there is for the party is growing support at a local level again, we've been here before and in theory we know the way out

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't see how it's easy to stay out of an issue which will speak to the economy, to many of our regulatory standards, to our international relations, to the continuance of the union. If he's going to stay out of issues like that will he have nothing to say about Covid because comments on locking down might jar with economic interests, or have nothing to say about Sunak further exploding the deficit, introducing new taxes or some return (increase in if preferred) to austerity, nothing to say about social housing...?

He can stand to one side and hope not to get tagged with any of the blame, simply telling Boris over and over Boris made his bed, it might even work. But he might also look craven and nothing close to a leader.

I get the media, certainly a lot of the print media will twist his comments but they're not going to allow him to sustain himself in a vacuum either. If he doesn't comment that'll just see commentary being provided for him, that he lacks the will to control the unions, that he lacks the will to speak to middle England or to the former Labour voters in the North.

So far I've been impressed with him, were there an election tomorrow I'd be voting Labour for the first time ever in any election. If he's going to cower in a corner though and say please don't hurt me I might not be the only vote he'd lose.

Brexit is a special case for Starmer. HIs approach might not be the one I'd take (I'd find it hard to keep my mouth shut) but it does make sense. Brexit is a particularly emotional thing. Starmer might well say the truth about it, but he risks a large number of potentially Labour-voting Brexiteers hating him for it. Better for him to leave them to slowly realise for themselves the utter disaster it was always destined to become (particularly under Johnson). People don't enjoy having their mistakes exposed, and might never forgive the bearer of this news.

Brexit is special, it's very important. And actually I'm setting the bar rather higher for Keir than merely delivering bad news in acceptable fashion, I'm saying he actually needs a good idea for what to do about the shite we're in.

I suspect Starmer can't square that circle, and in fairness I can't think of anyone who can. But that might merely mean neither Boris nor Keir contest the next election

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't see how it's easy to stay out of an issue which will speak to the economy, to many of our regulatory standards, to our international relations, to the continuance of the union. If he's going to stay out of issues like that will he have nothing to say about Covid because comments on locking down might jar with economic interests, or have nothing to say about Sunak further exploding the deficit, introducing new taxes or some return (increase in if preferred) to austerity, nothing to say about social housing...?

He can stand to one side and hope not to get tagged with any of the blame, simply telling Boris over and over Boris made his bed, it might even work. But he might also look craven and nothing close to a leader.

I get the media, certainly a lot of the print media will twist his comments but they're not going to allow him to sustain himself in a vacuum either. If he doesn't comment that'll just see commentary being provided for him, that he lacks the will to control the unions, that he lacks the will to speak to middle England or to the former Labour voters in the North.

So far I've been impressed with him, were there an election tomorrow I'd be voting Labour for the first time ever in any election. If he's going to cower in a corner though and say please don't hurt me I might not be the only vote he'd lose.

Brexit is a special case for Starmer. HIs approach might not be the one I'd take (I'd find it hard to keep my mouth shut) but it does make sense. Brexit is a particularly emotional thing. Starmer might well say the truth about it, but he risks a large number of potentially Labour-voting Brexiteers hating him for it. Better for him to leave them to slowly realise for themselves the utter disaster it was always destined to become (particularly under Johnson). People don't enjoy having their mistakes exposed, and might never forgive the bearer of this news.

Brexit is special, it's very important. And actually I'm setting the bar rather higher for Keir than merely delivering bad news in acceptable fashion, I'm saying he actually needs a good idea for what to do about the shite we're in.

I suspect Starmer can't square that circle, and in fairness I can't think of anyone who can. But that might merely mean neither Boris nor Keir contest the next election

But seriously what would be the point in Starmer coming up with a good idea about Brexit/trade deals etc now? What you or I might consider to be a good idea would probably be exactly the opposite of what Johnson/Cummings would enact. And would allow them to paint Starmer as a hate figure for Brexit voters. Something "good" in the sense of popular would be wasted on Labour since the public has no say for 4 years. Anything good and palatable to Johnson/Cummings (difficult to imagine what that might be) would be stolen and enacted disfunctionally via a contract with a private firm with no relevant skills.

Genuinely good and novel ideas (and he may well have some) will need to wait for a couple of years at least. It's a shite system but this is the game Starmer (as leader of the opposition) has to play. Protesters, commentators and smaller parties can play a different game.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Brexit is a special case for Starmer. HIs approach might not be the one I'd take (I'd find it hard to keep my mouth shut) but it does make sense. Brexit is a particularly emotional thing. Starmer might well say the truth about it, but he risks a large number of potentially Labour-voting Brexiteers hating him for it. Better for him to leave them to slowly realise for themselves the utter disaster it was always destined to become (particularly under Johnson). People don't enjoy having their mistakes exposed, and might never forgive the bearer of this news.

Brexit is special, it's very important. And actually I'm setting the bar rather higher for Keir than merely delivering bad news in acceptable fashion, I'm saying he actually needs a good idea for what to do about the shite we're in.

I suspect Starmer can't square that circle, and in fairness I can't think of anyone who can. But that might merely mean neither Boris nor Keir contest the next election

But seriously what would be the point in Starmer coming up with a good idea about Brexit/trade deals etc now? What you or I might consider to be a good idea would probably be exactly the opposite of what Johnson/Cummings would enact. And would allow them to paint Starmer as a hate figure for Brexit voters. Something "good" in the sense of popular would be wasted on Labour since the public has no say for 4 years. Anything good and palatable to Johnson/Cummings (difficult to imagine what that might be) would be stolen and enacted disfunctionally via a contract with a private firm with no relevant skills.

Genuinely good and novel ideas (and he may well have some) will need to wait for a couple of years at least. It's a shite system but this is the game Starmer (as leader of the opposition) has to play. Protesters, commentators and smaller parties can play a different game.

Agreed, the national interest is different to Labours rehabilitation. Though as you say good ideas about how to avoid a no deal in a sensible way wouldn't go amiss, they'd only be claimed by Boris I'd think.

The word is pretty strong that any remain campaign(er)s will reappear as re-join campaigns on or bout jan 1st. Starmer will likely join that bandwagon once the square wheels have even more obviously fallen off the brexit clown car.

A good idea at this point would need to take account of the Brexit vote for the Labour Party, I'm not expecting they'd go for my solution of remain in the single market and customs union and accept dynamic alignment with EU standards. I don't mind if people don't have a good idea, I just think you shouldn't be asking to run a major political movement and then say it's not for me. Really if anything the harder a decision/plan becomes the more you want to hear from those running the country what they think might work for the country

And there will be many instances of our withdrawal and new arrangement Labour will want to weigh in on, and unless they have some sort of overall framework that fits into they're going to be all over the shop. Granted being all over the shop and having no logical way forward allied to no small amount of utter bullshit was enough to get Boris elected, but that's not where I'd pin my ambition.

Digby wrote:A good idea at this point would need to take account of the Brexit vote for the Labour Party, I'm not expecting they'd go for my solution of remain in the single market and customs union and accept dynamic alignment with EU standards. I don't mind if people don't have a good idea, I just think you shouldn't be asking to run a major political movement and then say it's not for me. Really if anything the harder a decision/plan becomes the more you want to hear from those running the country what they think might work for the country

And there will be many instances of our withdrawal and new arrangement Labour will want to weigh in on, and unless they have some sort of overall framework that fits into they're going to be all over the shop. Granted being all over the shop and having no logical way forward allied to no small amount of utter bullshit was enough to get Boris elected, but that's not where I'd pin my ambition.

He's not running the country though, is he? With the partisan nature of our current parliament and Boris's sizeable majority, there's no chance of any inter-party cooperation or any need for Boris to court Labour MPs or the leadership. If Starmer has a good idea on what strategy the government should take with Brexit, it is functionally useless - it'll either be ignored or they'll do the exact opposite. What use right now is a Brexit policy from Labour? What would it benefit?

If an election comes up unexpectedly, then sure, I'd expect them to whip up a plan of attack and some semblance of principles to be guided by. Right now, the next election is May 2024 and realistically, Starmer isn't going to have any real input into how Brexit is conducted until then.

Puja

The leader of the opposition is part of the ruling group of the country. He's not the PM thus he doesn't need to provide a detailed plan. Not that the PM has provided a detailed plan or even a plan, but being better than utter shite isn't (I'd hope) the benchmark

If he has nothing to say as a for instance about Brexit then he has nothing to say about labour rights. And I simply don't understand how you can be the leader of the Labour Party and want to say nothing about setting labour rights. And to set out how you think labour rights can work you need to frame that as part of an overall strategy because none of this exists in a vacuum, you cannot simply say ceteris paribus when pushed

Digby wrote:If he has nothing to say as a for instance about Brexit then he has nothing to say about labour rights. And I simply don't understand how you can be the leader of the Labour Party and want to say nothing about setting labour rights. And to set out how you think labour rights can work you need to frame that as part of an overall strategy because none of this exists in a vacuum, you cannot simply say ceteris paribus when pushed

I don't see how this follows. The conservative majority means Keir Starmer has little to no actual power to effect anything right now (except in extreme cases of something so outrageous that the purged ranks of the Conservative MPs somehow summon up 40+ rebels). This means him setting out, "If I were in charge, this is what I would do," is functionally pointless. You say he's "part of the ruling group of the country," but is he? What power does he have to affect how we're ruled?

It does however free him up to snipe and criticise and to pick and choose which issues to come in on and have an opinion on without having to have a joined up plan for how a Labour government would run the country. He can absolutely keep schtum on how he would solve Brexit yet still be able to chip in on labour rights because, whether he talks or not, he has no power to affect government actions. Literally all he is able to do right now is try and drive public opinion.

Puja

Digby wrote:If he has nothing to say as a for instance about Brexit then he has nothing to say about labour rights. And I simply don't understand how you can be the leader of the Labour Party and want to say nothing about setting labour rights. And to set out how you think labour rights can work you need to frame that as part of an overall strategy because none of this exists in a vacuum, you cannot simply say ceteris paribus when pushed

I think the difference is a good idea from Starmer about labour rights would be a good left wing idea that the Tories would just laugh at, but a good idea about Brexit would be a good, pragmatic solution that the Tories could publicly deride for electrical gain while possibly, if it's a good enough idea, stealing to help them out of their own mess. I think KS is better off just keeping quiet and making the Tories own their bullshit.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If he has nothing to say as a for instance about Brexit then he has nothing to say about labour rights. And I simply don't understand how you can be the leader of the Labour Party and want to say nothing about setting labour rights. And to set out how you think labour rights can work you need to frame that as part of an overall strategy because none of this exists in a vacuum, you cannot simply say ceteris paribus when pushed

I don't see how this follows. The conservative majority means Keir Starmer has little to no actual power to effect anything right now (except in extreme cases of something so outrageous that the purged ranks of the Conservative MPs somehow summon up 40+ rebels). This means him setting out, "If I were in charge, this is what I would do," is functionally pointless. You say he's "part of the ruling group of the country," but is he? What power does he have to affect how we're ruled?

It does however free him up to snipe and criticise and to pick and choose which issues to come in on and have an opinion on without having to have a joined up plan for how a Labour government would run the country. He can absolutely keep schtum on how he would solve Brexit yet still be able to chip in on labour rights because, whether he talks or not, he has no power to affect government actions. Literally all he is able to do right now is try and drive public opinion.

Puja

I’m inclined to agree. At this point in the electoral cycle, the main thing for the leader of the opposition is to look like a potential PM and ensure his shadow front bench help that potential electability. Details come later.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If he has nothing to say as a for instance about Brexit then he has nothing to say about labour rights. And I simply don't understand how you can be the leader of the Labour Party and want to say nothing about setting labour rights. And to set out how you think labour rights can work you need to frame that as part of an overall strategy because none of this exists in a vacuum, you cannot simply say ceteris paribus when pushed

I don't see how this follows. The conservative majority means Keir Starmer has little to no actual power to effect anything right now (except in extreme cases of something so outrageous that the purged ranks of the Conservative MPs somehow summon up 40+ rebels). This means him setting out, "If I were in charge, this is what I would do," is functionally pointless. You say he's "part of the ruling group of the country," but is he? What power does he have to affect how we're ruled?

It does however free him up to snipe and criticise and to pick and choose which issues to come in on and have an opinion on without having to have a joined up plan for how a Labour government would run the country. He can absolutely keep schtum on how he would solve Brexit yet still be able to chip in on labour rights because, whether he talks or not, he has no power to affect government actions. Literally all he is able to do right now is try and drive public opinion.

Puja

I’m inclined to agree. At this point in the electoral cycle, the main thing for the leader of the opposition is to look like a potential PM and ensure his shadow front bench help that potential electability. Details come later.

Fair enough.

I think he looks anything but like a PM in waiting if he has nothing to say about a huge problem with contradictory viewpoints and shifting points of support. And again I'm not asking for all the details to be fleshed out, merely a framework he thinks should inform how we approach discussions with the EU and other trade deals, and what that means for our domestic legislation. Keir is avoiding commentary on this owing perhaps to how Labour support is split even to the point he's had little to nothing to say about the government breaking the law and their own manifesto. I'm also not sold the leader of the opposition has no power, for sure it's substantially less power than the PM, but it's still significant.

Digby wrote:I'm also not sold the leader of the opposition has no power, for sure it's substantially less power than the PM, but it's still significant.

I just want to follow up on this, because it's possible I'm missing something (that's always possible). What significant power do you see the leader of the opposition having in this current parliament? What can he do to effect things?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm also not sold the leader of the opposition has no power, for sure it's substantially less power than the PM, but it's still significant.

I just want to follow up on this, because it's possible I'm missing something (that's always possible). What significant power do you see the leader of the opposition having in this current parliament? What can he do to effect things?

Puja

Not really bringing prospective bills before the house because you're on a hiding to nothing with a private bill. But lobbying and negotiating the government ahead of time, in private, in PMQs, in the media does provide significant power. It mayn't work, but people would know where you stand.

And just to add I wouldn't mind Keir saying we need to to move past Brexit and focus on Covid if he was also saying we should be extending the Brexit timeline. I wouldn't perhaps agree with it, but it'd be reasonable in a way I just don't think trying to say nothing because it's politically difficult isn't

My hopes that people stand up and tell us what they want, how they think it can be managed and how it can be paid for aren't perhaps going to happen, they haven't so far. Which leaves me writing letters to MPs and party leaders and/or aligning with groups to seek better stash standards of behaviour in public life. In the event they ever rise to such standards I'll not thank them but merely raise the standards and start being critical all over.

Basically all they should ever get is criticism they're not doing enough

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm also not sold the leader of the opposition has no power, for sure it's substantially less power than the PM, but it's still significant.

I just want to follow up on this, because it's possible I'm missing something (that's always possible). What significant power do you see the leader of the opposition having in this current parliament? What can he do to effect things?

Puja

Not really bringing prospective bills before the house because you're on a hiding to nothing with a private bill. But lobbying and negotiating the government ahead of time, in private, in PMQs, in the media does provide significant power. It mayn't work, but people would know where you stand.

And just to add I wouldn't mind Keir saying we need to to move past Brexit and focus on Covid if he was also saying we should be extending the Brexit timeline. I wouldn't perhaps agree with it, but it'd be reasonable in a way I just don't think trying to say nothing because it's politically difficult isn't

My hopes that people stand up and tell us what they want, how they think it can be managed and how it can be paid for aren't perhaps going to happen, they haven't so far. Which leaves me writing letters to MPs and party leaders and/or aligning with groups to seek better stash standards of behaviour in public life. In the event they ever rise to such standards I'll not thank them but merely raise the standards and start being critical all over.

Basically all they should ever get is criticism they're not doing enough

It’s as I thought.

Theory and reality are very different in this current world.

Bj won’t act in good faith, they don’t want to change their strategy, the press are monstrous and won’t report in good faith, and the people are so touchy around the idea of getting it done that any suggestion of a delay is electoral suicide.

Stom wrote:
Bj won’t act in good faith, they don’t want to change their strategy, the press are monstrous and won’t report in good faith, and the people are so touchy around the idea of getting it done that any suggestion of a delay is electoral suicide.

Either you take the view that you act with principal or you veer towards the idea I might not agree with the policy but me being in power is the best thing for the country beyond any policy concerns. The latter is hardly unusual in politics, but it tends to come up more in people like Matt Hancock than those who'll do a good job

There is now more clarity on why Keir hasn't spoken out about Brexit. With the online conference coming up Keir and other speakers will be floating the balloon on the nationalism front looking to see what messages work with the red wall as was and keep the prospective middle class voters happy.

Given the intent is to build a message based on patriotic belief, and I think that rather than fervour, they were hesitant to speak out on Brexit. I'm still left concluding I get Brexit is a minefield, but Keir asked for the chance to walk out there and it's possible you should have something to say as the opposition about the government breaking their manifesto and more importantly the law. Maybe you'd blow yourself up on the minefield, but so what, they'd find another leader, it's a better a look to me than being too worried to say anything for fear you might offend or lose votes.

It isn't clear right now if there'll be a more defined position on Brexit than head in the sand after the conference, possibly that'll depend on whether the conference is a success. What a success might be is probably something rather specific in terms of adding back in traditional Labour support, it might well not look much of anything as a general view from the outside

Digby wrote:There is now more clarity on why Keir hasn't spoken out about Brexit. With the online conference coming up Keir and other speakers will be floating the balloon on the nationalism front looking to see what messages work with the red wall as was and keep the prospective middle class voters happy.

Given the intent is to build a message based on patriotic belief, and I think that rather than fervour, they were hesitant to speak out on Brexit. I'm still left concluding I get Brexit is a minefield, but Keir asked for the chance to walk out there and it's possible you should have something to say as the opposition about the government breaking their manifesto and more importantly the law. Maybe you'd blow yourself up on the minefield, but so what, they'd find another leader, it's a better a look to me than being too worried to say anything for fear you might offend or lose votes.

It isn't clear right now if there'll be a more defined position on Brexit than head in the sand after the conference, possibly that'll depend on whether the conference is a success. What a success might be is probably something rather specific in terms of adding back in traditional Labour support, it might well not look much of anything as a general view from the outside

'So what' to you or me perhaps, but the fact that it's Starmer personally at risk of blowing up that might explain the current strategy.

A lot of former and potential Labour voters have tied their intellectual(?) and emotional flags to the Brexit mast and will not feel pleasantly inclined towards someone who rubs their error in their faces (notwithstanding many of them never see it as an error since they'll blame any Brexit downside on those treacherous Europeans anyway). So, better to steer clear of it and watch the Tories rip themselves up even more. Covid-19 is beginning to loom large again anyway, plenty to get stuck into, and more viciously this time.

Also, the strategy isn't looking too bad here (latest poll shows Tories and Labour tied):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

I can see what he's trying to do, but I think he'll get painted into a corner anyway, it looks gutless to stick his head in the sand, and there are simply too many important issues this will impact on for him to hope to tinker on the margins without addressing the whole. Then again voters as Brexit has shown are thick as shit

I will wait with interest to see what Starmer thinks is a rallying nationalistic speech