I think you’re right Paul, it’s time for Labour to go on the attack, and goodness knows there’s an abundance ammunition they can use. Though I think for the attack to be successful Labour needs to be united, and IMO they are not. In fact they cover a very broad spectrum of opinion and ideologies.
Back in the nineties when IBM looked as if it would have to split up or go under, the CEO brought in to rescue it, Lou Gerstner (a brilliant guy) soon realised that all the IBM divisions, which were full of innovative, smart people, were too busy fighting one another to fight the competition. So he fired most of the divisional and Country GMs, and the Company never looked back.
IMO until Labour is united under one leader and singing immutability from one hymn sheet (those that dissent in public get shot) they’ll struggle to make an impact.
I don’t think that’s true. Certainly not the “nothing he can do” part - he could, for instance agree to align with EU phytosanitary standards which would ease flow of goods - especially important for the NIP as alignment would significantly ease tensions.
He could agree to re-enter Erasmus.
He could work on areas the TCA is clearly failing or has omissions.
He could work to implement the TCA and move towards more co-operation with the EU, not less as is happening now.
He could probably renegotiate specific parts of the TCA - treaties are not set in stone (or if they are it’s mudstone, not granite).
He probably can’t take us into the single market or customs union without another referendum but short of that I think there is a lot that he can (or could) do. Possibly the Tories will be forced by circumstances to do it anyway - there’s still a lot of time before 2024.
The faithful as you put it already know. Starmer’s problem is to convince those who supported Brexit that the Tories are making an unmitigated hash of it (which they are).
I think in terms of brexit there is truth on both Chris’ and Paul’s ‘side’ of the discussion. I’m pretty sure that given half a chance Starmer would renegotiate and improve the TCA, rejoin Erasmus, etc, etc - but I assume the calculation is that while the Tories and media are in full ‘enemies of the people’ mode, it’s best to keep quiet in the hope that at some point there will be a crisis or overwhelming evidence that change is needed, allowing him the opportunity to leap up and play the Lou Gerstner problem-solving role. I see the logic.
But the problem is broader than the particular difficulty around the brexit polarisation. It’s very hard to see how his internal party management could have been worse. John is right that Labour is hobbled by disunity - but Starmer has actually created much of this. There’s so much to this that it’s impossible to describe in a few words - all sorts of shenanigans around party rules, standing orders, etc - but it is clear that Starmer had a huge opportunity on election - he actually had unity behind his fundamental leadership proposition (Corbyn’s 2017 policy platform with a more electable team) - which he threw away through a whole series of very bad misjudgements.
But the main thing is the lack of vision. His idea of an inspirational policy intervention seems to be… covid recovery bonds! There are very obvious big ideas he could be talking about - say linking the ‘green new deal’ philosophy with a big green social housing programme (like the award-winning new council estate in Norwich) - or rolling out ‘the Preston model’ - or a new UBI trial (as the SNP are doing) - or even (if he sees such big ideas as hostages to fortune at this stage) creating a framework of ‘people’s assemblies’ with universities, etc, and a media buzz, to develop the ideas into a vision.
The Hancock debacle does not reflect well on Starmer IMO.
I know it all developed fairly quickly and Starmer is right to say Johnson should have sacked Hancock - but where were the calls from the Labour leader for that sacking before Hancock resigned?
Starmer’s policy, if he has one, seems to be to give the Tories enough rope and they will hang themselves; it’s possible it will even work.
However it is lacklustre and not likely to inspire genuine new Labour support - just an exhausted electorate who feel they have no alternative but to give Labour a go for a couple of terms because the Tories are in disarray.
I’ve no doubt that the ‘let’s give the other lot a go’ factor is real - but it is also a terrible indictment of the system, isn’t it? No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
Does anyone know what he ( and Labour ) stands for? - he excels at rubbishing any action taken by the government, he’s great at stating the obvious but if you had taken away his crystal ball in the early 2020’s what would his decisions have been ?. My guess is that his version of the UK, would be still following Europe and looking for excuses for not delivering the vaccine.
I don’t think that Boris and Co have been perfect but could or would anyone else do better? - Just a last thought - if the UK had not had to fight the against the bemoaners for 3 years, would they have been better prepared for a pandemic?
I think Starmer could make a strong point by announcing to the Speaker that he has no questions to the PM. After all, he could say, he never gets a proper answer …
A couple of quick points off the top of my head John. I don’t think the UK has ever “followed Europe”. In fact in important areas such as human rights the UK has had a leading role. As for “fighting" the “bemoaners”, for me that implies a debate where both sides state their case, with backup. I have never heard a good, concrete reason for Brexit. But maybe I’ve missed something.
Just do not see how you manage to see any discrepancy - I believe the bemoaners set the UK back 3 years and now ex pats should leave them to make their own way in the world - Covid has muddied the waters but they seem to be doing OK - the sky has not fallen their heads!
By the way John, I’d start with avoiding “bemoaners”, “remoaners” etc - they are derogatory terms and, on a site with a significantly higher number of Remain voters than average can only be viewed as intentionally inflammatory.
But I’d love to know, in what way did remain supporters “put the UK back 3 years” - specifics mind, “X did Y on date D which stopped A doing B on date E”, not just general accusations and gut feelings.
