How long can Starmer survive? Getting popcorn ready 🍿🍿

Luckygirl3

"Getting popcorn ready" - I am sorry but this is so pathetic.

This country is emerging from years of buffoonery in lieu of proper government and the international scene is seriously worrying for us all - and someone thinks it is fine to joke about the idea of more disruption to the continuity of government.

I do not usually actively criticise other posters - disagree with them maybe, but no criticize. But this is too much.

Sorry it’s “too much” for you!😥

It’s just a commonly used expression about getting ready for a dramatic or exciting event. You know - like sitting in a cinema with a bucket of popcorn and hardly realising you are devouring it because you are so excited waiting for things to unfold.

Aren’t we all watching and waiting?

I agree Casdon

Iam64

Yes Oreo, Sunak a serious dedicated politician and …. Cameron, truss, Johnson?

It was too late, that was the biggest problem for Sunak.

Yes Oreo, Sunak a serious dedicated politician and …. Cameron, truss, Johnson?

Allsorts

The only one I think up to the job us GordonBrown but he wouldn't want it.

I think Gordon Brown would be a good candidate to lead a drive to reduce the risk of corruption, violence, sexual misconduct, and dishonesty in politicians. I’m still unclear as to whether there is routine exchange of information between MI6, the police and the parties. I feel strongly that it all needs to be massively tightened up, and that vetting should be a common, centralised process.

Luckygirl3

"Getting popcorn ready" - I am sorry but this is so pathetic.

This country is emerging from years of buffoonery in lieu of proper government and the international scene is seriously worrying for us all - and someone thinks it is fine to joke about the idea of more disruption to the continuity of government.

I do not usually actively criticise other posters - disagree with them maybe, but no criticize. But this is too much.

I don’t think you can call Rishi Sunak a buffoon, you may not like his policies but he was a serious politician and PM.

Interesting how perceptions change is it Allsorts:

“Gordon Brown was largely considered an unpopular Prime Minister (2007–2010), experiencing extreme fluctuations in public approval. While initially popular upon taking office, he became one of the least popular post-war premiers due to a failed election gamble in 2007, economic recession, and a perceived "dour" personal style.

Key details regarding his popularity:
Initial Highs and Lows: Brown began with a "honeymoon" period in 2007, earning praise for his handling of early crises like floods. However, his decision not to call an early election in late 2007 and the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis saw his popularity plummet.

Perception Issues: He was often described as indecisive, "dour," and, by 2009, faced open, public ridicule.

Internal Party Struggles: His tenure was marked by several failed leadership coups from within the Labour party.

Legacy: Despite being praised for his leadership during the global financial crisis, he was criticized for being an unelected leader and was ranked by some historians as one of the worst post-war Prime Ministers.”

The only one I think up to the job us GordonBrown but he wouldn't want it.

Starmer needs to stay put. He has made mistakes but he has also handled himself well on the world stage. Angela Rayner is pleasant enough but she hasn’t got the political clout to deal with the many problems that are evident at the moment. Then again if the Labour Party is replaced by Reform and Farage who has been close to Trump and has stated he admires Putin then we are opening the door to disaster. The NHS will disappear to make way for American businesses to step in pleasing Trump or Vance or whoever follows the money. The performance of Reform in the Councils led by them shows their inexperience and lies to be evident in the increased cost to the residents in these places who put their trust in their promises. As for the Tories well surely the years they were in power should be further scrutinised. Greens are usually voted for when the electorate feel they should vote but can’t find any party that satisfies them. The Liberals might be worthy of a vote but again their experience in coalition wasn’t anything to write home about but that was some years ago. Well I am not consuming popcorn but probably a large brandy to help combat the misery inflicted on us by Farage and his mixed band of cohorts. However, I probably won’t be able afford it as I will have to pay for the prescriptions I need to keep my 84 year old body alive

I’m not surprised he went.

Hadn't hear that. Thanks Galaxy.

Well he may survive a little longer, Mcsweeney has gone.

"Getting popcorn ready" - I am sorry but this is so pathetic.

This country is emerging from years of buffoonery in lieu of proper government and the international scene is seriously worrying for us all - and someone thinks it is fine to joke about the idea of more disruption to the continuity of government.

I do not usually actively criticise other posters - disagree with them maybe, but no criticize. But this is too much.

eazybee

Arguing about Margaret Thatcher is another diversion tactic, and will not resolve the current issue, which is the malign influence of Peter Mandelson on an inept and duplicitous Prime Minister whose wrong choice of Ambassador has revealed sleaze in his party both past and present.
Had he not insisted on his choice for Ambassador the revelations about Mandelson's links to Epstein and treachery to Gordon Brown would have brought disgrace, but would not have tarnished and destabilised the present Labour Party and Government.

Well, as posters have claimed that the current government has been a disaster for the UK and I assume that they are talking of the lack of change in people's circumstances that they were expecting, I will bang on about Thatcher until the cows come home and beyond.

Not only because she started the downward spiral for many people in the UK but also because the Epstein phenomenon and Mandelson's involvement in it is a direct effect of the school of economic theory which she implemented. The unchecked acquisition of wealth and the exercise of power by virtue of that wealth are key features.

(Those of you who have looked into the Epstein papers may have noted that the objective of these wealthy and extremely powerful people is the elimination of democracy)

Oreo

In politics anything is possible, events dear boy, events!

But when push comes to shove "It's the economy, stupid"

Definition 'It's the Economy, Stupid' was a phrase used by Bill Clinton's campaign strategist, James Carville, during the 1992 presidential election to emphasize the importance of economic issues to voters.

While voters might not think in terms of economics the effects of economic policy are felt and noted by them. It's those effects and the promises made by politicians to eliminate them which sway their votes.

Starmer's problem is that his government hasn't achieved any notable difference in mitigation of the bad effects of the neoliberal economic policies followed since Thatcher introduced them and, while it follows the same economic beliefs it never will.

That's what will, once again, let the populists in. But this time we'll have a choice between two parties with charismatic popular leaders. One to the further right, one to the further left.

At least, IMO, the further left lot have a better idea of how the economy 'could' work. The one to the right has leaders who have benefitted mightily from current economic beliefs; they're not going to change anything for the benefit of their voters.

Arguing about Margaret Thatcher is another diversion tactic, and will not resolve the current issue, which is the malign influence of Peter Mandelson on an inept and duplicitous Prime Minister whose wrong choice of Ambassador has revealed sleaze in his party both past and present.
Had he not insisted on his choice for Ambassador the revelations about Mandelson's links to Epstein and treachery to Gordon Brown would have brought disgrace, but would not have tarnished and destabilised the present Labour Party and Government.

Well yes but also a poor opposition.

petra

Cumbrianmale56

Starmer might bounce back from his terrible poll ratings and endless bad news. Older people on here will remember how unpopular Maggie was in 1981, how the opposition Labour Party was seen as unelectable, and how a new party- the SDP- was ahead in the polls. Sounds familiar, and Maggie managed to improve her popularity, and win in 1983. It could happen with Starmer.

I don’t think she would have won the 83 election if the Falklands war ( officially a conflict) hadn’t happened.

I was just about to point that out, petra.

The Falklands bounce...

Another reason Thatcher won in 1983 - a divided opposition…

It is one if the most serious government scandals in years, of course the media are covering it, I would ve very concerned if they weren't.

Cumbrianmale56

Starmer might bounce back from his terrible poll ratings and endless bad news. Older people on here will remember how unpopular Maggie was in 1981, how the opposition Labour Party was seen as unelectable, and how a new party- the SDP- was ahead in the polls. Sounds familiar, and Maggie managed to improve her popularity, and win in 1983. It could happen with Starmer.

I don’t think she would have won the 83 election if the Falklands war ( officially a conflict) hadn’t happened.

All this , on every news channel, every day is doing a good job of diverting attention from more important governmental matters.

And a 'week is a long time in politics'.

In politics anything is possible, events dear boy, events!

Starmer might bounce back from his terrible poll ratings and endless bad news. Older people on here will remember how unpopular Maggie was in 1981, how the opposition Labour Party was seen as unelectable, and how a new party- the SDP- was ahead in the polls. Sounds familiar, and Maggie managed to improve her popularity, and win in 1983. It could happen with Starmer.