Sir Keir Starmer - Labour Party Leader

[Nefertiti2]

However Will Hutton and the Observer are still out there in the trenches beside Sir Keith, and that’s the main thing

https://twitter.com/joecguinan/status/1363500305917304834?s=21

[Kowalski]

Brave brave Sir Keith has caught the mood of the nation in the manner of a keeper leaping to claim a cross in the midst of a crisis in self-confidence. Continuing with the football crossover the 2019 manifesto really was obviously the Martin Peters of political literature.

[Nefertiti2]

https://twitter.com/datuncleofyours/status/1363271864282456067?s=21

campaigns against those who profiteer from natural disasters are often quite successful

[Snake Plissken]

[Snake Plissken]

The political geniuses who know how to do political branding and marketing and all that stuff really should know better than to leave great big acres of text there.

[Nefertiti2]

Starmer stands as a left candidate, then getting rid of the left and ensuring they never get near the party machine again.

how long before the right turns against him and replaces him with Rachel Reeves or David Miliband?

[Nocturnal Submission]

That photo looks as though Keith, whilst taking a stroll in his stylish windcheater, is reacting to a shout of "Oi! Starmer! You wanker!"

[Etienne]

OK, on the Hancock resignation thing (and on that only), I'm going to defend Sir Keith.

Firstly, from a practical rather than a political basis. I don't think Hancock is a good Health Secretary (quite the reverse), but I can't see any potential replacements being any better, and plenty who are a lot worse. Given the inescapable disruption that a change would involve, I don't think a devastating pandemic is the right time to remove a minister just to be a scalp for the opposition.

From an administrative perspective, the judgement did not say that Hancock was corruptly giving money to his pals, or indeed doing anything corruptly. It merely said that it is important to publish public contracts within the appropriate time frame - and a lot of limited information voters would accept "We were desperately trying to ensure that our brave NHS workers had PPE, of course we cut a corner or two with the paperwork" even if it is utter bollocks. Of course it seems overwhelmingly likely that Covid public tendering has been thoroughly corrupt, but that wasn't what the judgement said.

From a narrowly political perspective, calling for a resignation/sacking can backfire if they don't actually get it. And they'd be highly unlikely to get it. The Johnson government has shown clearly that it doesn't accept the usual norms of what would get rid of a minister and have kept on people for scandals/errors that would have been immediate dismissals in the past. Holding on to an embattled minister can be a political liability if the "why haven't they gone yet" story drags on. But the command of the media that the right has means that won't happen. An opposition that calls for a resignation that doesn't happen and then the story vanishes a week later looks weak and opportunistic to voters who aren't really following the story.

That said, I think the response that Starmer gave was also opportunistic and weak. I think something along the lines of "The Johnson government has clearly showed that no-one will take responsibility for making mistakes or breaking rules, he didn't even fire Dominic Cummings for driving 30 miles to test his eyesight, so I won't waste my time calling for Hancock to resign. But it does how important our campaign against Tory cronyism which has wasted millions of pounds of public money."

[NHH]

No. You pish for them to be sacked because - like impeaching Trump - if you stop trying on the basis of probable failure, you start to corrode the norms on which it is based and soon, we live in a world where Ministers never resign, are never held to account, and no-one even notices anymore. It's shockingly shit.

And if it works, you start to p[opulate the backbenches with angry people whose careers have been cut off at the knees, and who usually see themselves as a fall guy for the PM. Thatcher was voted out on the basis of resentment from sacked ministers. If you don't call for them to be sacked, then you're making it easy.

[NHH]

Those Starmer images call to mind this:

[Etienne]

No. You pish for them to be sacked because - like impeaching Trump - if you stop trying on the basis of probable failure, you start to corrode the norms on which it is based and soon, we live in a world where Ministers never resign, are never held to account, and no-one even notices anymore. It's shockingly shit.

And if it works, you start to p[opulate the backbenches with angry people whose careers have been cut off at the knees, and who usually see themselves as a fall guy for the PM. Thatcher was voted out on the basis of resentment from sacked ministers. If you don't call for them to be sacked, then you're making it easy.

But We already live in a world where Ministers never resign, are never held to account, and no-one even notices anymore. If the government has made it clear that no-one will resign whatever they do (as Cummings illustrated) then I think you are better making the argument the government won't take responsibility rather than calling for individual resignations. The problem is that government is corrupt and incompetent not that Hancock is corrupt and incompetent.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Given the inescapable disruption that a change would involve

This bit, here, I don't get. I don't see any way that sacking Hancock would have a disruptive effect on the NHS.

[pebblethefish]

This bit, here, I don't get. I don't see any way that sacking Hancock would have a disruptive effect on the NHS.

Because they'd all be too hungover after the party to nurse properly?

[DCI Harry Batt]

Heh, yeah probably.

[Snake Plissken]

For the Government to start taking responsibility, they have to be pushed into sacking someone.

It's not just asking for resignations but the "giving millions of YOUR money to HIS mates" line that Labour should be pushing but aren't. It's pure cowardice.

[Etienne]

Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree they should push the "giving millions of YOUR money to HIS mates" line.

But the opposition need the media as well to force a resignation, and they won't.

TonTon, I suppose a hypothetical sensible successor might delegate all decision making down the chain until s/he had familiarised herself with the role. I just don't think that such a successor would be given the role given the calibre of candidate available and the rationale by which the role would be filled.

[Toby Gymshorts]

Fear my l33t Paint skills.

[Nefertiti2]

For the Government to start taking responsibility, they have to be pushed into sacking someone.

It's not just asking for resignations but the "giving millions of YOUR money to HIS mates" line that Labour should be pushing but aren't. It's pure cowardice.

Ivor Novello spent 4 weeks in prison for misusing petrol coupons in the war.

Under COVID The country has faced a crisis with more deaths than in the blitz and Hancock gave a contract worth THIRTY MILLION QUID- (the amount Tom Moore raised)- to the landlord of his local pub,

[Nefertiti2]

Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree they should push the "giving millions of YOUR money to HIS mates" line.

But the opposition need the media as well to force a resignation, and they won't.

TonTon, I suppose a hypothetical sensible successor might delegate all decision making down the chain until s/he had familiarised herself with the role. I just don't think that such a successor would be given the role given the calibre of candidate available and the rationale by which the role would be filled.

the nasty media won't do anything. let's go and hide in a hole in the ground.

[Etienne]

Don't be a twat.

[Etienne]

To expand.

What I've argued is that the limited access that the opposition has to media time should be used to highlight the corruption of the government generally, and it's lack of any accountability, rather than focussing on Matt Hancock. At no point have I argued that the opposition should do nothing. But of course it's far easier to argue against imaginary arguments you've made up.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Hancock doesn't do anything and doesn't decide anything and, operationally, his presence or absence makes no difference to anything.

[Etienne]

OK. Is that the same for all cabinet ministers?

[DCI Harry Batt]

I wouldn't have thought it would necessarily be the same for all cabinet ministers, but I don't know that much about how their departments work, so I can't be sure.

[ad hoc]

I imagine it's the same for most with the possible exception of the foreign secretary. Most of them just set strategy and then monitor /deal with the media /ensure their friends get the contracts