UKH

For the first time in 10 years Labour has a credible leader and we now have an opposition and a credible government in waiting. Johnson's jokes, Gove's lies and Rees Moggs supercilious urbanity are just going to crash against  the rocks of common sense and common decency. 

Yes, first good bit of news for a long time. I think Bojo's position will be a good deal less secure now.

When will the purge begin?

No hurry - I think it can wait till lunchtime.

Having just suffered the worst election defeat since 1935 is it really a good idea to elect someone who was both an architect and leading proponent  of the policies that caused that defeat?
How long before he drops the Sir bit?

Why should he?

Because he's from that common political party?

He hasn't used it since he got it.

Still the only major party never to elect a female leader though.

What's the poor bloke supposed to do, have a sex change? 

Lots of factors influenced the result. 

They did and Starmer was a major player in his party.

Labour need to recapture the seats that they lost and gain a huge number of new seats.

Starmer has too much political baggage to do that.

'Starmer has too much political baggage to do that.'

You wish. I doubt many Labour defectors from the last time round would even recognise him - he was in an impossible position and hardly pushed himself forward.

A fellow in the village who was a staunch corbynite is already on FB having a rant "naming and shaming" all the labour MPs that brought about JCs downfall and saying he would 100% vote for corbyn again if he stood. 

I think Starmer has a lot of work to do within his own party first, but he has time on his side for now.

He’s going to be an easy target for potential critics -

male

london centric

remainer

leading light of a losing opposition.

Just 4 quick ones off the top of my head.

And that’s before Angela Rayner adds to his troubles.

The internal insurrection against Corbyn was both appalling and very counterproductive; those responsible should be ashamed. However, it's now the past.

'all the labour MPs that brought about JCs downfall' - Wasn't it the electorate that handed the Tories an 80 seat majority?

Let's just see how far common sense, pragmatism and intelligence can get us shall we? They've been in short supply for quite a while.

56% of the first round vote, more than twice the votes of the next candidate. Pretty conclusive.

And there was me just 6 months ago  thinking he would forever be the best leader Labour never had!

You mean the one bloke out of two female candidates?

Given that Labour have more female MP's than any other party and are constantly banging the equality drum I find it quite interesting.

Maybe Starmer is actually better than them?

May be that's what they want you to believe?

Are you suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy going on?

WTF are you on about? We're in the middle of the worst crisis since 1945 and you think political leaders should be chosen because of their genitalia?

Do you not find it interesting that the party with the largest female membership has NEVER had a female leader. The Conservatives have had two, the Lib Dems, The SNP but not Labour who are the ones who always go on about equality.

The current crisis has bugger all to do with that.

I am not suggesting a conspiracy. Just that it seems ... well curious. If it wasn't about genitalia surely they would have balanced it out by now. Unless you are suggesting that in the 100 odd years that Labour have been in existence not one suitabl female candidate has ever come along?

Equality means that everyone has an equal chance of success regardless of gender, race, religion and sexuality, etc.
Your definition of equality seems to be that success should be shared out by gender, etc. regardless of ability.

♫ Nooo Jeremy Cooorbyn ♫

Never elected a female leader, but appointed one twice.

Not sure what you are suggesting - that the Left is intrinsically, irredeemably  misogynistic? Maybe the best candidate this time round happened to be a man. 

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. 

Is it finally possible!? A cure for Corbyn-19!? 

So to you are saying that in one hundred years a suitable female candidate has never come along?

This time round? Don't you mean everytime round?

I know but only while they elected one

Apparently so.
Take this latest Leadership Contest as an example.  Do you honestly think that Nandy and Long-Bailey would be better than Starmer?

hmm that strikes me as a little suspicious. Not once in 100 years really?

Oh no the women have never been good enough to lead the party. That's just the way it's been.

Maybe they would be better? I voted for Lisa

I'm afraid I agree with you

Simple question as you seem to have avoided it:
Who should be the current Labour Leader: Starmer, Nandy or Long-Bailey.

You've had a good run!

I think the time to have complained about male leader bias was when a weak male leader was chosen over strong female candidates, not when a strong male candidate has been chosen.

What's the betting that Johnson throws a sickie for every other PMQs? (I'm assuming this could include urgent engagements in far flung places, hiding in fridges and genuine stage fright)

As I said I voted for Nandy

you missed the edit

Well exactly

I am not overly convinced it would make much difference.

Normal tactics still apply:

Answer different question and burble on for a bit.

Have the tory backbenchers bray away.

repeat.

Its theatre, and a poor one, and not a situation where effective questioning occurs.

I'm looking at it as an outsider, but when a new leader is announced and immediately a party member (and he does all the local door to door stuff here) attacks his own party MPs and says he would still vote Corbyn, I can see Starmer may have his work cut out to bring everyone on board. 

But as a non labour voter, I do hope he can build a credible opposition which would be good for the country as a whole, whichever way you swing.

"Steer calmer with Keir Starmer" 

And yet earlier “I am not suggesting a conspiracy. Just that it seems ... well curious”

So is it suspicious (implying a conspiracy) or not? It almost looks as if you can’t even maintain consistency across a few posts in the space of an hour! 

You are obsessed. We've had lots of woman leading politics  recently (May, Sturgeon, Swimson, Foster), Rayner has just been elected deputy. . Politics seems pretty meritocratic to me. You are not saying youd prefer a second best leader simply  because they are a woman, are you?

If you look at the numbers Momentum and Corbynism have been clearly rejected by the party which has voted for change. Starmer has the mandate to sideline the dinosaurs, McCluskey, Milne at al and rebuild the party the heirarchy in his image. Note also that there were two NEC seats up for election and they were both won by moderate candidates as well.

If Momentum and the left of the party can't accept that their politics have been rejected both in the party and at the ballot box they should have the decency to break away, set up their own party and test their popularity with the electorate.

How am I obsessed? I am well aware that we have had lots of parties with women leaders. Just pointing out that Labour isn't one of them.

Are you saying that only the conservatives, SNP and Lib Dems (not to mention the Welsh) are capable of fielding a worthy female candidate?

To be fair that seems better than any of the criteria Boris Johnson was chosen on which appears to be his crafted persona including his hair.  Have to say I’m exceptionally relieved L-B didn’t win.

I leave it up to others to read between the lines.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy it just highlights it as an old man's party

Of late, yes. Nandy was OK but clearly not of the  calibre or experience of Starmer. Expecting people to vote for her (or heaven forbid, Long Bailey) becuae they are women is nuts. 

Duncan, 57 is not 'old' for a party leader. I couldn't care a damn what sex the leader is. Two of the most damaging leaders in our history happen to have been women.

I voted for Nandy

But even so why did no other candidates come forward?

I am not saying vote for someone because they are a woman. I am just saying that it is odd that they don't have any candidates of a quality that is evident in the other parties

What do you hope to achieve from this thread? 

Exactly what I was thinking.  PMQs is scripted and is not the place where pointed questions get straightforward answers, regardless of whose in charge. The reality is that KS has a lot of work to do on the inside of the Labour party before he even starts to think about winning the next GE. In my opinion, hes not a head turner. Hes a safe bet, no charisma and will bore a lot of voters. His policies seem the same as Corbyns, nationalise everything, business wont back him and I'm afraid hes all a bit too uninspiring.

Wasn’t the last Labour manifesto to a large extent a reflection of Kier Starmer?
Especially his Brexit stance which possibly played a major part in Labour’s defeat.

I don’t remember any real opposition to Labour’s policies from Sir Starmer.

In fact did he not fully support the Labour manifesto and did he not promise to keep many of ‘Corbyn’s’ policies during the leadership campaign.

What Labour needed was a leader not directly responsible for the last elections fiasco.

What they’ve got is more of the same.

I was refering to attitude not physical age.

Damaging maybe but they got voted in by the electorate time and time again. Unless you are arguing that women are damaging to politics?

More of a Kinnock than a Blair?

Johnson is looking wobbly already I would say. Competence, which Starmer has, may be sufficient. 

I had a lot of time for Lisa Nandy, but couldn’t take the chance that a vote for her might let Rebecca Long Bailey in, which would have consigned Labour to opposition for a generation. 

Ok, you find it "odd" and "curious". Most seem to find it utterly unremarkable. 

'Wasn’t the last Labour manifesto to a large extent a reflection of Kier Starmer?'

No. Next question?

Out of curiosity why didnt that apply last time round? It seems somewhat rich coming from the "moderates" considering their refusal to accept the members vote the last two times and their consistent attacks on Corbyn and co.

Polling of former labour voters after the election showed that the overwhelming issue was Corbyn (44%) followed by the manifesto (17%) with Brexit a distant third (11%).  There is a vacuum in politics to be filled by a competent, intelligent and statesmanlike Labour leader as a counterpoint to Boris and his no deal Brexit death cult of a Tory party. 

You know it was.

Go on, admit it.

The Labour Party has just elected a leader who was fully supportive of and partly responsible for its election manifesto which the country soundly rejected.

Instead of listening to the voters the Labour Party has chosen to continue along a similar course to its last disastrous one.

The mere fact that Sir Starmer can stand in a leadership election when he ( along with many others)should have accepted responsibility for the defeat and resigned says a lot about the man.

The Labour Party can prepare to spend the next 10 years in opposition.

Okay.

I don't expect to achieve anything. I wanted to point out a very obvious fact and it has been most enlightening that a load of blokes come back at me full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. It's like a re-run of why women shouldn't get the vote or be allowed to fight in the army and so on and so forth.

People have said Starmer was the best candidate and perhaps he was, but that only pushes it back as to why there wasn't a strong female candidate out of 109 mps? More than the conservatives going back to the 1980's when Thatcher got in.

I am not saying that Starmer is a bad choice or will be a bad leader. I am merely pointing out that a party which forever prides itself on its equality has been unable to find a female candidate for leader. If it wasn't such a key policy I wouldn't even mention it

Maybe Labour party members in constituencies that lost their Labour MP encountered hostility to Corbyn on the doorstep or maybe they noticed the 2019 election result.

That's 'cos you're a bloke

Which fails to address the question around the time immediately after his election. I guess one advantage of someone like Starmer is unlike the "moderates" the more left wing members arent going to do their best to sabotage him.

Really?  Faux smiley faces don't make blatant prejudice OK.

He could self-identify as a woman and then Labour would self-implode

You are factually incorrect, it must have been the worst kept secret in politics that Starmer was a staunch Remainer and the Labour party policy was ...er ...er anything but.

'Similar course.' If you can't see the gulf between Corbyn and Starmer in terms of background, careers outside of politics and achievements in politics you really aren't looking very hard.  Yes he's left wing; if the Great British Public don't want well funded public services, a mixed economy, fairer distribution of resources, social justice, rule of law, curbs on big business, international cooperation they won't vote for it, that won't be Starmer's fault, it will just be bad luck for us and our children. 

Why Rayner? She’s been an effective shadow for education,

Typical of UK politics this - as soon as someone (especially anyone without the traditional credentials/background) comes to the fore it starts a digging frenzy to uncover as much negative history, often spurious, as possible.

I suppose Starmer is also on this nonsense radar too. Again - as DPP he was good and has always been a measured voice.

I'm sorry you've lost me.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "refusal to accept"? 

The 2017 and 2019 manifestos were radically different from the 2015 one.

people inside the party attacked Corbyn because we did disastrously during the local elections in 2016, he couldn't come up with a policy on Brexit, he couldn't eradicate racism in the party, etc, etc, etc.

The membership has thought about where the party has come to and decided it wants to move away from Corbynism.

On that basis about half of all previous prime ministers should never have stood.  

It's important you call him 'Sir' Keir, even though he doesn't use the title himself. That will feed into the right wing narrative that he's really a toff gone rogue, not the horny-handed son of toil that former Labour voters crave (Not).  Glad that Baron has given him oh, 2 -3 hours before contributing to that, the start of what will be an unremitting campaign of lies, misinformation and innuendo. (Thanks Duncan for your contribution as well.)

Sound and fury? You are exaggerating massively. And you’re not signifying much yourself, really.

No it isn’t. You are making yourself look a little bit foolish here.

Nobody is saying “women can’t possibly be leaders of the Labour Party”

There were female candidates for the leadership. 

None of them won this time.

The end. 

Yours or mine?

I mean as you find it unremarkable that a woman has never been elected leader

Exaggerating? I would say I am merely observing. Tis a fact as plain as the nose on my face.

How exactly am I foolish for an observation?

None of them won this time

none have won in, let's say, 40 years. I'll just let that sink in. The End.

You are  being an arse. Stop it. 

You weren't merely observing, your observation was followed by innuendo. Almost as if you didn't want Keir Starmer to win and have thrown your dummy out of the pram.

Don't feel bad though, no doubt floors all over the UK will no doubt be covered with dummies this afternoon.

You are being condescending now. It’s unbecoming 

Again you miss the entire point.

I don't give a flying shit about Starmer.

Labour has NEVER elected a female leader despite decades of banging on about how equal it supposedly is. That is an undeniable fact

You're just being silly. What are they supposed to do - take turns? 

Because the number of MPs who could be candidates is much smaller: frontbench experience is a requirement (maybe mayor of a large city is also fine). If I were a Labour voter, I'd vote for someone who can be expected to connect to both the old centrists and to the new membership who joined the party for Corbyn. And then the list becomes pretty small.

Blame the previous leadership for not giving enough women the chance to develop frontbench experience together with the freedom of advocating policies different to those of the core Corbyn group.

How can it possibly be condescending to point out a fact?

A fact that everyone seems quite happy to ignore. Are you not even the least bit interested?

I think you hit the nail on the head here

I advise giving up on Duncan on this thread. 

How am I being silly explain?

Saying “I’ll just let that sink in” is condescending and you know it. You are behaving like a stroppy child and I won’t engage further in this discussion. 

Okay.

I am arguing that from a PR view point it makes Labour look to be hypocritical and perhaps outdated.

People seem to think it is just an anti-labour rant it isn't. From where I am standing you just seem to be dismissing it out of hand without considering why it is so? May be it is because they have never had a good enough candidate but then what does that say about a party with more female members than their rivals?

Hmm I like how you descend to insults

Ah how to avoid an issue

Yes ignore me because you know I'm right

In all your post here you have not put forward one counter argument.

I agree that women are not prevented from going for the leadership I am just saying they have never won. And as a party that prides itself on being equal that is significant in this day and age.

For goodness sake.  Prior to about 2000, there was societal prejudice against female candidates, and there weren't many women MPs anyway.  Brown was essentially the only candidate because of internal power struggles.  So, there have only been three real elections where a women could have been elected - Milliband, Corbyn and Starmer.  With straight chance that would give a 1/8 probability of no women.  Of course it's actually much less because there are still fewer women MPs.  Add in that women were serious candidates in at least two of those elections and it becomes, as I said, entirely unremarkable.

'May be it is because they have never had a good enough candidate but then what does that say about a party with more female members than their rivals?'

Maybe what is says is that on the rare occasions that there was a leadership contest more people voted for the male candidate than the female - you'd have to ask the voters why. Speaking for myself, I must have missed the memo which said I had to vote for a male.

Umm, I know May and Thatcher were particular characters but surely still female?

Oops - I've blanked May out already!

But all frankly in the scheme of things irrelevant.

The current contest will be Starmer versus Boris. Neither of which are woman. So the conservatives pointing out the Labour leader isn't a woman wont get much traction.

However when Angela Rayner stands in at PMQs. Who will the Conservatives put forward?

It's a pity I thought all of them were reasonable candidates, and it would have been nice to have a woman.

Thankfully, it appears the claims of anti-Semitism, seem to have subsided since the last election, strange one that, since the majority of the same people were still connected to the Labour party.

Let's see how the media, treat Keir, I can already see the headlines of how out of touch he is with "Labour" voters, him being a Sir and all that.

To the OP: I not sure God was involved.

Keir Starmer, today

"Antisemitism has been a stain on our party. I have seen the grief that it’s brought to so many Jewish communities. On behalf of the Labour Party, I am sorry. I will tear out this poison by its roots and judge success by the return of Jewish members and those who felt that they could no longer support us.”

There were more women candidates for party leader at every stage of the process, however the membership overwhelmingly decided to elect the candidate with the most experience and a hugely impressive CV.

Theresa May was elected because the favourite was shown to be a duplicitous shit by another duplicitous shit and ran away from the fight, she was elected by default, because the job was a poison chalice and the alternatives were even more unpalatable.

You mean Corbyn had better support before he led the party to a crushing defeat.

I heard his speech, but that doesn't negate we've heard next to nothing regarding the plague of AS within the Labour party since the election, it's like it suddenly went away. One might think the media, don't really care, or that the problem has already been dealt with.

Obviously, CV-19 is a bit more newsworthy at the moment, but even before CV reared it's ugly head, reports of AS had all but died away.

Once again, this needs the caveat, I'm not saying there wasn't AS in the party, there is AS in society, both need stamping out.

Right that is a very good point. Though it should be remembered that Thatcher came to power in the 1980's it is perfectly true that prior to 2000 or even 2008 there were no female party leaders. And I agree that none of this would matter in the normal course of things but as Labour feature "Women and Equality" very prominently in there party papers it does make it stand out.

Appoint someone purely on gender is a NOT good thing. I do not dispute that. What I do say is that given that the other major parties have fielded female leaders, so Conservatives 2, SNP 1, Lib Dems 1, Plaid Cymru 1, Greens 1, it begins to look slightly embarassing that Labour have not fielded a candidate that has captured the vote.

It may well be a coincidence or it may be down to opportunies to do so. We have certainly had no shortage of strong female politicians - Barbara Castle, Clare Short, etc.

I don't know Starmer. He may well be what we need at this time.

But I do think that at some point in the future Labour will have to address the issue and not by appointing some just on gender but by finding a strong candidate to do the job.

All good points Nick.

It's about geting those CV's in

Are you sure he wasn't joking? Or are you suggesting he shouldn't joke about such things?

Yes I am glad that for now that one has been put to rest

Given that the 2 women seemed to spend half the contest arguing that anybody could identify as whatever they wanted, if Starmer identities as a woman it’s job done. 

Yes they did. They voted for whom they saw as best.

But that is what I am saying why was he the best? Where are all the strong women that labout has had in the past?

Think of it this way. The conservatives and the conservative press made a huge deal out of Corbyn and the Labour parties alleged anti-semitism at some point i can see them latching onto this as a rod to beat labour with. If politics has taught us anything it is that the best person for the job isn't always the one who gets it (Hi Boris)

like it

It’s about politics not gender. If Starmer hadn’t of stood I think Thornberry would have won as the representative of the pragmatic more moderate wing of the Party. But with Starmer standing he was bound to win on account of his higher profile taking the votes that would have gone to her

The best candidate in 2015 was probably a woman, she wasn’t elected for different reasons. Which Labour MP, male or female has a more impressive CV than Starmer.

I called him Sir Starmer because that’s his title.

If he wants to be Mister Starmer then I’m sure he can hand back his knighthood.

Personally I couldn’t care less but I’m sure that the press will have a field day.

Agreed.

No. The "moderates" in the party, especially some mps, were trying to destroy him from the beginning.  A bit like the republicans in the US with their belief government doesnt work and the way they then go out to prove it.

Fortunately I doubt the more left wing members are quite so ideologically fanatical and are also adverse to shoring up the tories so they are unlikely to carry out the same sort of actions. Although I guess it depends if the "moderates" try to purge everyone who dares disagree with their ideology.

You mean he's a weak victim and can't be held responsible for his poor results.

Obviously the electorate doesn't want a weak victim who can't be held responsible for his poor results as PM.

Presume you apply the same rule to lady nugee, she can always divorce her husband if she wants to be one of the commoners? 

I think in this enlightened era it's probably acceptable to change identity as required, which toilets have the shortest queue etc. 

No you didn't. You did it to attempt to undermine him.

Who is Lady Nugee?

He is Sir Kier Starmer is he not?

How is calling him by his correct title an attempt to undermine him?
As I said before I couldn’t care less what he’s called.

In your first post you write "How long before he drops the Sir bit?" so you obviously think the title is disadvantagous to him. You then very deliberately use it despite having it pointed out to you he doesn't routinely. You are trying to undermine him. I bet you don't use titles of those you support in such a sarcastic way. 

Given  he was awarded his title for public service I think you are wrong and it won't be a disadvantage to him. 

Live on Channel 4

And call him Keira afterwards!

Yes but you thought Corbyn was the bee's knees so what do you know?

The media were reporting the stunning Conservative election victory/Labour defeat, then it was Christmas, then we were 'getting Brexit done' and then coronavirus came along. So yes the media have gone quiet about antisemitism but that doesn't mean it never existed or has gone away, it just means the media moved on.

We haven't heard much about Palestine recently, that doesn't mean the issue has gone away as I'm sure you'd be only to keen to remind us all.

The thing is that during elections all parties come under scrutiny like at no other time, warts and all and what with Labour MPs and former MPs quitting the party in droves over Antisemitism it's hardly a surprise the media noticed.

Your blindness to the issue rivals Corbyn's.

So?

Not quite right, I've said often enough, it wasn't about Corbyn, but his policies and the direction he wanted to take Labour, but let's not let the truth get in the way.

Still considering what an important thing it is, and was, headline news day in day out, surely there might have been a little time for it in between the election and CV-19, berxit was always going on and yet there was still plenty of time to paint JC AS.

We never hear much about Palestine to be fair, when was the last time you saw it in th enews 2014? and a little bit about the US moving their embassy

Are you certain you have that the right way around, are you so certain they weren't quitting in droves because of the media?

Not blind at all, if you care to re-read my post, I'm pretty sure I mentioned it needing to be combated, indeed I might just have gone a little further than singling out the Labour party and suggested we tackle AS in society also.

Once again, the mention of Labour / Corbyn (whom I didn't mention) seems to have brought out the red mist, which has obscured what has really be said.

180,000 Labour members didn't bother to vote for any of the three uninspiring candidates. Depending on which way he decides to take the party you might get your wish. The media and the billionaires will still be backing the Tories so I don't know how you expect to get anywhere in the next election without activists to balance the inevitable media bullshit. 

Funny that it's actually been the Corbyn/RLB faction who've been the ones to really go to town on the "How can the flat cap wearing, whippet walking Northerners relate to a man who's a sir who's from London?" despite those same coal-smeared, ferret-sporting caricatures managed to vote en masse for de Pfeffel Johnson over Corbyn.

People just want competence.

Yes, Corbyn regularly shamed his opponent on PMQ's but it didn't make it through the media filter into the general public perception. Starmers analytical questions will not make one jot of difference in the polls.

You keep avoiding the fact that he is a Sir.

He might not use it. (Although given that it was awarded for his services to the legal system I can’t see why he shouldn’t. Unless he’s not comfortable with it).

The media usually call him Sir.

And the anti Labour media will exploit it for all that it’s worth.

I’ll continue to call him Sir because that’s the correct form of address.

You can call that undermining him, I prefer to call it respecting the award.

No they dont. A quick google proves this

Yes. Like you

No your motivation is clear. And it's a, not the, correct for of address 

And I call bullshit

I’ve just watched the 10 o’clock news on the BBC.

Sir Kier Starmer was one of the headlines.

Not Mr Starmer or Kier Starmer but Sir.

You seem to have more of a problem with this than I do.

 I couldn’t care less what his title is.

Then again, I won’t be part of the main stream media who will use it against him, again and again, which they will and which was the point that I was trying to make in my OP.

No, but his competence will make a difference. Johnson will be crapping himself, because he's a clown and knows it. He also knows that the electorate will be looking at him, his handling of the current disaster, his culpability for the next 2 (brexit and the shortages that will follow) and they will see on the opposition benches a bloke who could actually benefit the nation, rather than screw it.

You are absolutely obsessed by his title.

He doesn’t appear to be, neither does most of the Labour Party and I suspect, neither does most of the section of the electorate that are not irredeemably Tory!

From what I've seen, it's been the right wing who have been making, or at least trying to, about him being a Sir. One of the most vociferous, although I can only stand a small sample of him, being Peirs Morgan <spit>

I think any of the candidates have demonstrated that, only time will tell, and obviously they need to be given a chance by the media.

I think Boris will be pleased he has covid and parliament is shut. Going against Starmer will be a very different game to Corbyn. I suspect he'll bow out due to commitments quite often and leave it to rishi sunak. 

You make an interesting point. Given the horror shows of Bojo, Gove, Raab, Patel etc etc (and I naturally fall to the right, just) I would be more inclined to vote Starmer.

I'm also hopeful that now the Tories have a credible adversary in opposition that they will have to up their game.

See him on Marr today? Already getting a warm feeling of competence wafting in after that. Tone just right, balancing holding govt to account but doing everything to improve the response to the current situation.

First appointments in Shadow Cabinet are interesting. Lisa Nandy in at Shadow Home Secretary is great because a) she absolutely deserved a top job after an impressive campaign and b) that's the job Corbyn said he'd be "open" to having! Sorry Jez, all in good fun.

According to the BBC, Nandy is appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary.
 

Indeed its foreign secretary; thats also what i remember Corbyn saying he'd quite like to do. Thankfully it appears he will just have to slope off back to the backbenches.

They have a male leader and a female deputy.  It's not as if no women stood and the entire team are male. 

It would be far worse to have a woman for the sake of it.  

Speaking as one of the few women in here its not a big deal to me. 

Agreed. A tale told by an idiot?

How long before he ignores the whip? Just resign Jeremy, call it a day. You did your best and it wasn't very good.

100 years? The other parties have been electing female leaders since 1920?

Did you always call Mr. Johnson by his correct form of address? No, of course you didn't.

What about Mr. Corbyn? No, of course you didn't.

By all means keep calling him Sir Keir Starmer but don't pretend that you are respecting the award.

If you’ve got nothing better to do, which is quite possible given the current situation, you can check my past posts where you’ll find that I quite often refer to Mr Corbyn.

I can’t claim to always put Mr before someone’s name but I do try, not always successfully, to avoid using just a surname as it can convey a feeling of contempt which may or may not be meant.

If I was a Sir I think I’d like to be called Sir Baron.

If I didn’t want to be addressed as such I think I’d probably have refused the title in the first place.

I presume that Sir Starmer has little problem with QC after his name so why isn’t he proud of his knighthood.

He earned it after all.

Yep, slip of the mind. I had in mind it was a surprise she wasn't Shadow Home, after her love-in for towns throughout the leadership election.

Yes he's been so shit, his constituents keep voting him in time and time again, what a complete tw*t!

What complete tw*t's is how I'd put it.

I'm sure it's possible to be both a fantastic constituency MP and a useless party leader.

Just like Kate Hoey's constituency (Vauxhall ?) then, they'll clearly vote for anything wearing a red rosette

Just watched Starmer on Andrew Marr. Very impressive. Hope.

You can’t even spell the man’s first name correctly, consistently across all your posts. Are you dyslexic? If so, fair enough. 

Misspelling his first name misses quite an interesting point about him and/or displays an ignorance of political history.

I can see how failing to spell someone’s name properly negates the points that I was trying to make.

If I’d have tried to spell Keir Hardie I’d have spelt it Kier Hardy, terrible thing ignorance.

Folk seem to have forgotten when the next election is. Some time I'm afraid...

I had a bit of time, so I picked a couple of threads on which you were prolific. Now obviously I'm not calling you a liar, merely suggesting that when you "try" to use a title or avoid just using a surname, you're really, really bad at it.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=711073&v=1#x9065185

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=710628&v=1#x9059282

Mediocrity is my middle name.

Hope you didn’t waste too much of your time.

Mediocre? You think your lie about trying to avoid using just a surname demonstrates mediocrity? 

Hardly any, I had a quick look at your posting history, found a couple of political threads on which you'd been verbally incontinent and saw your claim was bollocks.

I see your usual pleasant disposition hasn’t changed for the better.

I dunno. They have been consistently using your title.

Quite right too, I didn't pay all that money for nothing.

If you don't want your lies picking up on, don't lie.

‘I can’t claim to always put Mr before someone’s name but I do try, not always successfully, to avoid using just a surname as it can convey a feeling of contempt which may or may not be meant.’
 

This was my post that you seem to have such an issue with.

Perhaps you should read it again before you call me a liar.

On second thoughts, don’t bother.

Yes, and your postings show that you either make no such attempt, or that you're really, really bad at it. 

I've read it, my opinion remains.

Bovvered. 

I wonder why some posters are commenting negatively on Keir Starmer's knighthood? He comes from a modest background (mother a nurse, father a toolmaker), and rises through his own efforts, and quite unusually for someone of his background, to become Director of Public Prosecutions This is a senior public service role, every one of the previous holders of which since 1900 has been appointed to a knighthood or damehood - or in one case a peerage. It would surely have said something pretty poor about our honours system if he had not been appointed a knight under these circumstances.

Martin

It's a simple projection of the embittered reverse snobbery of some trots/campists/"anti-imperialists" and them thinking that enough of the population would be repulsed by a working class guy who'd made a success of himself. Usually embittered middle-class trots who claim to speak for a working class they want to represent but patronise and wholly don't understand. In my humble opinion, of course.

I think it is a fair question to wonder how it will be weaponised against him. We do have the problem of the attacks on the elite, often by members of the elite, so I think it is safe to say the hard right will be trying to use the knighthood as one angle of attack.

As I've said upthread, I've mainly seen it used as an attack used by the RLB/Momentum camp. I can't see it being a useful line of attack from the right, seeing how their party is littered with landed gentry and dishes lordships to their failed mates like Zac Goldsmith so they can ignore the fact his constituents rejected him at the last election.

I can't see why a man who'd earned himself recognition for huge amounts of free/voluntary work would be a problem for a significant part of the population. It's an easily repulsed attack at best.

It is part of a  deliberate strategy to make out that Starmer is something he isn't, i.e. a posh white member of the establishment, and so maintain the scepticism among former Labour voters that Labour  represents their interests. 

Did you sleep through the entire brexit campaign? That was full of the elite, landed or otherwise, shouting about how bad the elite was.

Its used all the time against the Islington elites, millionaires and champagne socialists. That its mostly bollocks at worse and hypocritical at best is just standard operating procedure.

MIn reply to baron:

You do realise Sir Starmer is not the correct form of address don’t you?

Two options: Sir Keir or Sir Keir Starmer.

Never Sir surname.

The suggestion was he should move away from politics, not whether he should be leader.

Can it not just mean, they are a shit speller, or dyslexic? I think I'm a bit of both, but you know what they mean regardless of their spelling.

Thanks for that.

I like, Kier Sir Starman

Sure. Difference is that Starmer is something they're really scared of: a man of substance.

Which God are you thanking between Allah and Zeus?

YHWH?

I cannot help but feel we will never see a labour government again, they lost Scotland’s vote to the snp and unless they can win those back they will never poll enough votes for a majority gov. I voted labour at last election in case you were wondering. 

6 months ago I couldn't see the Labour party ever having a credible leader again. There will be a reckoning when the Coronavrus catastrophe has been compounded by Brexit … let's wait and see.

un homme sérieux...enfin!

To be honest, I think they're less scared of Starmer, than they were of Corbyn. time will tell of course, it's interesting to look at the make up of the party under Corbyn and that of Starmer's, the "broad church" that we've heard about so much, seems a lot narrower, when you look at people political views.

Yes. As DPP he made a lot of consequential decisions that can be picked over forensically to deflect form this mismanaged catastrophe and brexit if anyone remembers that in a year's time.

Trivialities.

jk

Rebecca Long-Bailey to Rachel Reeves. How much broader do you want it?