Petition for starmer to step down

[JohnfromUK]

45 minutes ago, B686 said:

How comes train drivers earn so much

Because that have a strong union who have bullied previous (weak) governments.  The various medical lots (Junior Doctors, BMA, GPs) are now trying the same.  It ALWAYS happens under Labour because the big unions pay for the Labour party - and expect to be well rewarded when Labour get their short spells of office.

take away the pensioners winter fuel allowance and give it to the £60K a yea plus train drivers.  Labour always has been the party, not of the "poor and disadvantaged", but of the union bullies.

[udderlyoffroad]

20 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I didn't even know the graphic was from Sex and the City.

Careful!  People have been sent to prison for posting memes. Not knowing where your meme comes from will only increase your sentence.

 

20 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

What I find well funny is the number of folks complaining about Starmer who undoubtedly increased his party's majority by voting for Reform, you couldn't make it up... 

Pretty sure PW had this debate before the election; my personal conclusion was that "hold my nose and vote tactically" was never going to be an option for me* or many other people.  Did I, because of FPTP, 'increase' Starmer's majority?  Well, arguably, yes.  But given I wouldn't **** on the man if he was on fire, at least I gave you a knowing larf.

By the same token, the 'get the toreez out' contingent, probably to the left of Corbyn, also increased Starmer's majority, and they can't stand him. As did those spoiling their ballot, but laugh on.  Free countries are looking at us and shaking their collective heads at what Starmer has achieved in less than 2 months.  Hilarious. 

*though for the record, my constituency, new as it is, 're-elected' its Tory MP.

[JohnfromUK]

Another lot starting to hammer nails in Starmer's coffin;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13750631/Border-Force-strike-Heathrow-travel-chaos-LNER-industrial-action.html

The Union movement obviously wants Starmer out sooner rather than later.

[yickdaz]

4 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Careful!  People have been sent to prison for posting memes. Not knowing where your meme comes from will only increase your sentence.

 

Pretty sure PW had this debate before the election; my personal conclusion was that "hold my nose and vote tactically" was never going to be an option for me* or many other people.  Did I, because of FPTP, 'increase' Starmer's majority?  Well, arguably, yes.  But given I wouldn't **** on the man if he was on fire, at least I gave you a knowing larf.

By the same token, the 'get the toreez out' contingent, probably to the left of Corbyn, also increased Starmer's majority, and they can't stand him. As did those spoiling their ballot, but laugh on.  Free countries are looking at us and shaking their collective heads at what Starmer has achieved in less than 2 months.  Hilarious. 

*though for the record, my constituency, new as it is, 're-elected' its Tory MP.

I expect that to happen a lot more 

Edited August 16, 2024 by yickdaz

[Vince Green]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

Because that have a strong union who have bullied previous (weak) governments.  The various medical lots (Junior Doctors, BMA, GPs) are now trying the same.  It ALWAYS happens under Labour because the big unions pay for the Labour party - and expect to be well rewarded when Labour get their short spells of office.

take away the pensioners winter fuel allowance and give it to the £60K a yea plus train drivers.  Labour always has been the party, not of the "poor and disadvantaged", but of the union bullies.

The trouble is the Government doesn't pay the train drivers wages. The travelling public does. So why the government has to get involved is a bit of an anachronism. 

Same as the doctors, let the pay find its own level by market forces. Same as it would in other countries and for other jobs

All this big government is ridiculous

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

So why the government has to get involved is a bit of an anachronism.

Because LNER (which is the train company to be hit by the new strike) is a nationalised company.

"Five lines, including Southeastern and LNER, are effectively nationalised as their franchise operators were brought under Government control through the “operator of last resort” scheme."

Full article here; https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/rail-nationalisation-trains-who-owns-labour-party-keir-starmer-b1028349.html

So in reality it is the Minister for Transport who has the final say, and HMG who find the money.

4 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

let the pay find its own level by market forces

The problem there is that big national unions have MUCH more power than small local employers - and the 'bully' win win out at the expense of the less strong

Edited August 16, 2024 by JohnfromUK

[old man]

9 hours ago, yickdaz said:

Yeah but he's a giant weed that needs pulling up by the roots

Maybe the problem the country faces is where to find politicians who have any common sense?

[Vince Green]

4 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Because that have a strong union who have bullied previous (weak) governments.  The various medical lots (Junior Doctors, BMA, GPs) are now trying the same.  It ALWAYS happens under Labour because the big unions pay for the Labour party - and expect to be well rewarded when Labour get their short spells of office.

take away the pensioners winter fuel allowance and give it to the £60K a yea plus train drivers.  Labour always has been the party, not of the "poor and disadvantaged", but of the union bullies.

So Labour just rolled over and give the train drivers a 14% pay increase with no negotiation or demands.

ASLEF respond by announcing another round of strikes every weekend  for months.

This apparently took Labour completely by surprise but it makes them look like a bunch of complete mugs.

I'm just holding my breath waiting for the Doctors to do the same

[Dave-G]

6 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I didn't even know the graphic was from Sex and the City.

What I find well funny is the number of folks complaining about Starmer who undoubtedly increased his party's majority by voting for Reform, you couldn't make it up... 

Your way will never change the First Past The Post vote shafting we currently have and need to at least start undoing the choice between two poor parties.

[JohnfromUK]

57 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

This apparently took Labour completely by surprise but it makes them look like a bunch of complete mugs.

The Unions want Starmer and his bunch of (relative) moderates to look mugs - and so he can be replaced by their choice of leader.  Remember many Labour MPs are 'sponsored' by the big Unions.  They want their paid puppet man at the top, not Starmer.

[Vince Green]

39 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The Unions want Starmer and his bunch of (relative) moderates to look mugs - and so he can be replaced by their choice of leader.  Remember many Labour MPs are 'sponsored' by the big Unions.  They want their paid puppet man at the top, not Starmer.

The old Labour is still there hiding in the shadows waiting in anticipation. They have never gone away, neither has the class hatred and the anti semitism.

[JohnfromUK]

10 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

The old Labour is still there hiding in the shadows waiting in anticipation. They have never gone away, neither has the class hatred and the anti semitism.

Exactly that.

[Weihrauch17]

A petition to be potentially debated by the HOC with a huge Labour majority, I truly despise Starmer and Labour but don't waste your time.

[ditchman]

its sue gray you need to be worried about ...............she is a vindictive nasty peice of work........been waiting in the shadows scheming for a long time....................

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Read this, from the Thunderer (Times) by Iain Martin

 

"For those of us who reported on the New Labour era and the personal conflict between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at its heart, there is a flicker of familiarity in the reports of friction between Sir Keir Starmer’s two leading advisers.

It is claimed that Sue Gray, chief of staff to the prime minister, has become a bottleneck on decision-making. That there is tension between Gray and Morgan McSweeney, the energetic tyro who masterminded Labour’s general election victory and is now the PM’s head of political strategy. There is a battle for access to Starmer. MPs close to the leadership have briefed of Starmer’s displeasure at the infighting — or the reports of infighting.

This week Downing Street has tried to push back by telling reporters Gray and McSweeney have a good working relationship. Again, I am reminded of the early phases of the Blair-Brown wars when No 10 denied there was a feud. It turned out to be much worse than initial reporting suggested.

• Sue Gray ‘limits access to Keir Starmer even over security briefings’

Of course, Gray and McSweeney are not Blair and Brown. That was a battle between the two principals and this is between the top two advisers. But it matters because it gives us a glimpse inside a new government as it develops, as the man in charge is hopefully working out what kind of Downing Street he wants to command and what kind of prime minister he wants to be.

The modern model of the premiership hasn’t been working too well. Of Starmer’s six predecessors only one lasted more than six years. That was David Cameron. Brown, Theresa May and Boris Johnson made it to little more than three years in charge; Rishi Sunak to 19 months and Liz Truss just 49 days.

Can Starmer do better? Prime ministers who achieve something in office and enjoy sustained electoral success are good at critical self-examination. They learn and grow by developing a theory of power, even if it isn’t written down until their memoirs.

Margaret Thatcher, fiercely intelligent and hungry to learn, worked hard at bending the Whitehall machine to her will with the help of dedicated mandarins and advisers. It was only later, after the 1987 election, that she became too rigid.

Contrary to public perception, Thatcher allowed successful ministers great leeway to develop policy and make decisions in their departments. Most of all, it was absolutely clear what she wanted to do: at home, to reinvigorate the British economy, and abroad, to seek victory with allies in the Cold War.

Blair arrived in power as a neophyte with little interest in history or understanding of geopolitics. By the time he left, after ten years, he had developed a distinct world view and a deep understanding of how government works, and sometimes does not.

What does Starmer want? He is an intensely competitive individual, on and off the football pitch. Presumably, having won that landslide, he doesn’t plan to dawdle along as a technocrat for a few years before being flattened by events or overtaken by someone excitingly new. The test for Starmer is whether he can avoid becoming a Whitehall-directed robot. Can he reinvent the premiership, develop his own style and agenda, to govern effectively?

This is what makes the substance of the tensions between Gray and McSweeney interesting, because with Starmer’s style still undeveloped his aides are trying to shape his premiership. As a senior mandarin, Gray sees it in terms of restoring orderly government and ensuring Starmer isn’t swamped with too many meetings, to give him space to think and operate.

As a vigorous campaigner, McSweeney appears to want the prime minister to be involved in a permanent campaign for re-election. Such an approach dates to the mid-1970s in the US and was popularised during the Clinton era, when everything the president decided, even his choice of holiday destination, was seen by the White House through the prism of what it meant for re-election prospects.

Gray and McSweeney both have a point. A successful leader needs both thinking time and to be engaged in the permanent pursuit of politics against his opponents. It is worth noting, though, that a signature feature of Thatcher’s success was that between elections she didn’t think much about them, concentrating instead on solving problems and seeing personal unpopularity as an inevitable consequence of taking tough decisions.

While Gray and McSweeney — and other sources of counsel such as the soon-to-be-announced new cabinet secretary — can present their versions of how business should be done in No 10, only Starmer can decide what it’s all for. It is down to the leader to lead. It always is.

On that front, Starmer is an enigma. Clearly he is as ruthless as his fans say and in the general election campaign he had iron self-discipline to the point of caricature. That’s fine for opposition. Government is different, especially with such enormous challenges facing the country. In a war era, he will need more than better-organised meetings in No 10.

Previous prime ministers looked to history. Some, such as Churchill and Macmillan, read widely, searching for lessons on how to lead and inspire. Friends say Starmer isn’t a reader of history — or much else. The only evidence I could find of him engaging with non-fiction was a recommendation that we all read the latest book by Will Hutton.

On the Bloomsbury website, it states: “This Time No Mistakes is a brilliant book … an intellectual, historical, political read with some strong themes … read it if you haven’t already. Keir Starmer.”

This time no mistakes sounds like a description of Labour’s ultra-cautious election campaign. Starmer will need more than that if he wants a long term in No 10."

[Vince Green]

20 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Read this, from the Thunderer (Times) by Iain Martin

 

"For those of us who reported on the New Labour era and the personal conflict between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at its heart, there is a flicker of familiarity in the reports of friction between Sir Keir Starmer’s two leading advisers.

It is claimed that Sue Gray, chief of staff to the prime minister, has become a bottleneck on decision-making. That there is tension between Gray and Morgan McSweeney, the energetic tyro who masterminded Labour’s general election victory and is now the PM’s head of political strategy. There is a battle for access to Starmer. MPs close to the leadership have briefed of Starmer’s displeasure at the infighting — or the reports of infighting.

This week Downing Street has tried to push back by telling reporters Gray and McSweeney have a good working relationship. Again, I am reminded of the early phases of the Blair-Brown wars when No 10 denied there was a feud. It turned out to be much worse than initial reporting suggested.

• Sue Gray ‘limits access to Keir Starmer even over security briefings’

Of course, Gray and McSweeney are not Blair and Brown. That was a battle between the two principals and this is between the top two advisers. But it matters because it gives us a glimpse inside a new government as it develops, as the man in charge is hopefully working out what kind of Downing Street he wants to command and what kind of prime minister he wants to be.

The modern model of the premiership hasn’t been working too well. Of Starmer’s six predecessors only one lasted more than six years. That was David Cameron. Brown, Theresa May and Boris Johnson made it to little more than three years in charge; Rishi Sunak to 19 months and Liz Truss just 49 days.

Can Starmer do better? Prime ministers who achieve something in office and enjoy sustained electoral success are good at critical self-examination. They learn and grow by developing a theory of power, even if it isn’t written down until their memoirs.

Margaret Thatcher, fiercely intelligent and hungry to learn, worked hard at bending the Whitehall machine to her will with the help of dedicated mandarins and advisers. It was only later, after the 1987 election, that she became too rigid.

Contrary to public perception, Thatcher allowed successful ministers great leeway to develop policy and make decisions in their departments. Most of all, it was absolutely clear what she wanted to do: at home, to reinvigorate the British economy, and abroad, to seek victory with allies in the Cold War.

Blair arrived in power as a neophyte with little interest in history or understanding of geopolitics. By the time he left, after ten years, he had developed a distinct world view and a deep understanding of how government works, and sometimes does not.

What does Starmer want? He is an intensely competitive individual, on and off the football pitch. Presumably, having won that landslide, he doesn’t plan to dawdle along as a technocrat for a few years before being flattened by events or overtaken by someone excitingly new. The test for Starmer is whether he can avoid becoming a Whitehall-directed robot. Can he reinvent the premiership, develop his own style and agenda, to govern effectively?

This is what makes the substance of the tensions between Gray and McSweeney interesting, because with Starmer’s style still undeveloped his aides are trying to shape his premiership. As a senior mandarin, Gray sees it in terms of restoring orderly government and ensuring Starmer isn’t swamped with too many meetings, to give him space to think and operate.

As a vigorous campaigner, McSweeney appears to want the prime minister to be involved in a permanent campaign for re-election. Such an approach dates to the mid-1970s in the US and was popularised during the Clinton era, when everything the president decided, even his choice of holiday destination, was seen by the White House through the prism of what it meant for re-election prospects.

Gray and McSweeney both have a point. A successful leader needs both thinking time and to be engaged in the permanent pursuit of politics against his opponents. It is worth noting, though, that a signature feature of Thatcher’s success was that between elections she didn’t think much about them, concentrating instead on solving problems and seeing personal unpopularity as an inevitable consequence of taking tough decisions.

While Gray and McSweeney — and other sources of counsel such as the soon-to-be-announced new cabinet secretary — can present their versions of how business should be done in No 10, only Starmer can decide what it’s all for. It is down to the leader to lead. It always is.

On that front, Starmer is an enigma. Clearly he is as ruthless as his fans say and in the general election campaign he had iron self-discipline to the point of caricature. That’s fine for opposition. Government is different, especially with such enormous challenges facing the country. In a war era, he will need more than better-organised meetings in No 10.

Previous prime ministers looked to history. Some, such as Churchill and Macmillan, read widely, searching for lessons on how to lead and inspire. Friends say Starmer isn’t a reader of history — or much else. The only evidence I could find of him engaging with non-fiction was a recommendation that we all read the latest book by Will Hutton.

On the Bloomsbury website, it states: “This Time No Mistakes is a brilliant book … an intellectual, historical, political read with some strong themes … read it if you haven’t already. Keir Starmer.”

This time no mistakes sounds like a description of Labour’s ultra-cautious election campaign. Starmer will need more than that if he wants a long term in No 10."

Good post

It was clear before the election when Starmer would not engage in policy discussions that he actually had no policies to discuss. 

Instead Labour appear to have the belief that if you can hide behind a projected image and not actually do too much to shake that image you might get away with it.

Doing away with the winter Fuel allowance and blaming the Tories has already backfired on Rachel Reeves when the latest figures for the economy came out this week. Showing the economy had actually been doing rather well under the Consrvatives.

Angela Raynor keeps banging on about imposing draconian measures on 'greedy' private landlords.  What she doesn't realise is that it's only going to make the shortage of rental properties more acute.  Landlords will walk away and invest their money elsewhere, which they are perfectly free to do.

Both examples of knee jerk politics intended to reinforce the image.

[.357shooter]

Signed for all the good it will do