SIGN UP

Starmer Takes Responsibility For Labour Election Woes

Avatar Image
drmorgans | 09:09 Sun 09th May 2021 | News
19 Answers

... by sacking popular campaign coordinator and party chair Angela Rayner. She stays on as deputy leader as that's an elected post. Hard to see how this dispels the idea that Labour has become too "London centric".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57037839

Answers

1 to 19 of 19rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by drmorgans. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
if she was so popular why was she sacked.
Labour will never win with SKS in charge, he is charmless, and monotone, they need a complete overhaul.
Bit of a non-job now as there won't be any more campaigns for a good while.
Question Author

She's is popular with members. A scapegoat maybe?

I don't think will ever win now the SNP dominates Scotland. The whole point of Starmer is that he is an organiser, safe, but, as you say, dull!
So does charm and colour mean success as a politician, emmie? T'would seem so!
Hilarious "I take full responsibility so i am sacking someone who isn't me"
Anyone got Tony Blairs phone number...
Popular with members maybe, but with the voters?

Looks like Andy Burnham is being lined up.
But the labour party members are on a different planet to the electorate and that's the problem.
Before the elections I wrote on here..
// Labour no longer know who their core voters are. They have been taken over by a London Centric group of career politicians, leftwing activists, minorityists and loons. Outside of the Capital they look massively out of touch, dated, and irrelevant. //

And Thursdays voting confirmed what everyone knew. The elections were a disaster for Labour, and someone is to blame. Rayner was in charge of their campaigning, so it is correct she should go.
But that does not absolve Starmer. He has led the Labour Party for a year, and it has gone backwards. The situation has got much worse rather than improve. And that is because the leader is duff. Cold, unsympathetic, boring and uncharismatic are a few of his faults.
Three elected terrible leaders in a row probably means the selection process is broken. That needs fixing first before a new leader is sought. In the meantime they are stuck with Starmer who is a complete liability.
//that is because the leader is duff.//

True - but that's not all. The electorate know that Labour is duff - and it will take rather more than juggling leaders to save it.
// The electorate know that Labour is duff //

There was some success for Labour on Thursday. 67% of the electorate happily voted Labour in the Greater Manchester Mayoral Election.
The candidate had stuck up for the area last summer when the Government tried to bully it, and when Starmer was a wet blanket. He was dubbed ‘The King of the North’ and his subjects heartily approved on Thursday.

If the national Labour Party started to stick up for working people again, then they would do better. Instead they live in their London ivory towers and look down on the people they are supposed to be helping.
thats the trouble sunk, working people are more or less the whole country - you are alluding to a time gone by when men were the sole breadwinners and had the vote, not women who didn't, those who make up half the population have a voice.
Even Tony Blair needed lots of Scottish seats to get a majority.

Since the loony left packed the membership, any leader's job is impossible there now. I bet Sir Keir wishes he had joined the Tories now.
// you are alluding to a time gone by when men were the sole breadwinners and had the vote //

No I am not. Women got the vote 100 years ago just as the Labour Party was founding.
Labour lost its way when it was in opposition for 18 years after Thatcher’s 1979 landslide. Now already in Opposition for 11 years, they again find themselves on the wrong end of a landslide, and can expect no success for another 10 years.
During the Tories 13 years of Opposition under Blair, they were terrible, had a succession of duff leaders, but they eventually found a way back.
I always reckoned Hague had the makings of a very good leader but he got the job too young and people were still enamoured of Blair. Had he stuck it out instead of throwing in the towel the moment he lost, things might have turned out differently
As an insomniac, i really do miss Hague.
Almost as stupid as Carrie sacking Cummings and Shooting Gummidge in the foot.

1 to 19 of 19rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Starmer Takes Responsibility For Labour Election Woes

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.