I forget who said it ,perhaps Ian Dunt, but whoever it was said you understand Starmer better if you see him as a hopeless starter- DPP, Labour party, Number 10. It takes him a while to grasp a new job or concept, but when he does he's effective. The problem is , the world is now changing and throwing new things at him so quickly, taking time to adjust is a luxury he doesn't have.
It is unfair to blame Starmer when you look back at previous Prime Ministers. Even Blair, the most recent Labour PM with a working majority of 160, had a delusional belief in the capacity of the West to resolve the problems of the world. Then Brown, who could not answer questions on National Security despite sitting beside Blair for 10 years of PMQ. Let us skip the Tory wanabees, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak and ask where is the leadership of what was once the most powerful country in the West? An author of a spy book, published in 1979, which revealed Anthony Blunt as the fifth member of the Cambridge Spy Ring, estimated that sometime in 1942 the leadership of the West went from Britain to America. It is still America that dominates the security of what we know as the free world, however much we hate it. As for Labour changing leadership? To whom? There are no giants any more. I remember October 1964 when Harold Wilson commanded a front bench with Roy Jenkins, who had served at Bletchley Park during the war, others had similar achievements too numerous to mention. That generation has gone and with it the likes of Corbyn and his Momentum clique, Miliband minor, who was a trade union puppet and the nameless who sat on Corbyn front bench.
Agree that we have to look at the past PMs. Although skipping the last 15 years is a slight error. Starmer has the blight of fixing an awful mess and a country unfit for its own needs….
I keep hoping that Keir Starmer will have his Incredible Hulk moment and burst out of his cautious and straitlaced demeanour. He can't sit on the fence while those on each side are acting with impunity... Man up, Sir Keir!!!
"Starmer cannot cope with Trump's lawless world" -- Very important summation in my view.
Where is the brilliant, intelligent, motivated, politically astute, genuine person to lead the confused bulk of voters in both the United States (and GB?) Emily Dickinson wrote of an "ample nation" -- can we not find just one?
The two countries are so different, and in such different historical cycles, that the comparison between them is meaningless - and that is also a problem Starmer has (and any other UK PM would). Although I love Emily Dickinson and am always happy to see her quoted.
Yes, of course what you say is right. The only similarity I meant to refer to is that both our countries need leadership that will appeal to sufficient numbers of voters to work, and that in both cases, principled leadership is needed.
Great Britain has principled and smart leadership, in my view (unlike our US so called leadership) but as I read it, Sir Keir Starmer has yet to ignite a popular enthusiastic following (which our disgraceful lunatic in the White House unfortunately has, at least in some circles).
I think it would be fair to say that most political commentators cannot cope with Trump's lawless world. I read one recently where one just couldn't make up his mind about Trump's bombing of Iran. If it succeed it would be a good thing but if it failed it wouldn't be, he seemed to say. The thinking behind Starmer's stance on everything will never be shared beyond his inner circle. But it's instructive that even the most brilliant minds of the commentariat cannot clearly see the future.
Oh, behave! He did what anyone would have done. Whatever Starmer's failings are, picking up something from the ground, dropped ny a doddery old man, only tells us the KS is not a t*sser.
Oh, for some moderate answers (we know there are no easy ones) for the difficult questions.
Now we have impossible ones. All the certainties are torn up. Now what.
I know - let's shoot the leader, 'cos he's not God almighty.
Add to that, there is a concentrated Cyber Hate campaign from friend Putin, against any strong, western leader, giving unequivocal support to the one brave statesman, Zelenskyy.
Starmer? He'll do nicely. Guilty of that too.
Well done, guys, there's a Kremlin medal being struck for you all, as we speak (or weep, more likely)
Farrago for PM next; then everybody will be happy (Putin, Trump, especially)
I forget who said it ,perhaps Ian Dunt, but whoever it was said you understand Starmer better if you see him as a hopeless starter- DPP, Labour party, Number 10. It takes him a while to grasp a new job or concept, but when he does he's effective. The problem is , the world is now changing and throwing new things at him so quickly, taking time to adjust is a luxury he doesn't have.
It is unfair to blame Starmer when you look back at previous Prime Ministers. Even Blair, the most recent Labour PM with a working majority of 160, had a delusional belief in the capacity of the West to resolve the problems of the world. Then Brown, who could not answer questions on National Security despite sitting beside Blair for 10 years of PMQ. Let us skip the Tory wanabees, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak and ask where is the leadership of what was once the most powerful country in the West? An author of a spy book, published in 1979, which revealed Anthony Blunt as the fifth member of the Cambridge Spy Ring, estimated that sometime in 1942 the leadership of the West went from Britain to America. It is still America that dominates the security of what we know as the free world, however much we hate it. As for Labour changing leadership? To whom? There are no giants any more. I remember October 1964 when Harold Wilson commanded a front bench with Roy Jenkins, who had served at Bletchley Park during the war, others had similar achievements too numerous to mention. That generation has gone and with it the likes of Corbyn and his Momentum clique, Miliband minor, who was a trade union puppet and the nameless who sat on Corbyn front bench.
Agree that we have to look at the past PMs. Although skipping the last 15 years is a slight error. Starmer has the blight of fixing an awful mess and a country unfit for its own needs….
I keep hoping that Keir Starmer will have his Incredible Hulk moment and burst out of his cautious and straitlaced demeanour. He can't sit on the fence while those on each side are acting with impunity... Man up, Sir Keir!!!
"Starmer cannot cope with Trump's lawless world" -- Very important summation in my view.
Where is the brilliant, intelligent, motivated, politically astute, genuine person to lead the confused bulk of voters in both the United States (and GB?) Emily Dickinson wrote of an "ample nation" -- can we not find just one?
The two countries are so different, and in such different historical cycles, that the comparison between them is meaningless - and that is also a problem Starmer has (and any other UK PM would). Although I love Emily Dickinson and am always happy to see her quoted.
Yes, of course what you say is right. The only similarity I meant to refer to is that both our countries need leadership that will appeal to sufficient numbers of voters to work, and that in both cases, principled leadership is needed.
Great Britain has principled and smart leadership, in my view (unlike our US so called leadership) but as I read it, Sir Keir Starmer has yet to ignite a popular enthusiastic following (which our disgraceful lunatic in the White House unfortunately has, at least in some circles).
(And yes, E.D. is hard to beat, isn't she? :-)
I think it would be fair to say that most political commentators cannot cope with Trump's lawless world. I read one recently where one just couldn't make up his mind about Trump's bombing of Iran. If it succeed it would be a good thing but if it failed it wouldn't be, he seemed to say. The thinking behind Starmer's stance on everything will never be shared beyond his inner circle. But it's instructive that even the most brilliant minds of the commentariat cannot clearly see the future.
A picture can say more a 1 000 words. Starmer picking up papers at Trump’s feet at the G7 seems to say it all
Oh, behave! He did what anyone would have done. Whatever Starmer's failings are, picking up something from the ground, dropped ny a doddery old man, only tells us the KS is not a t*sser.
Imagine the fallout if he'd just watched them blow away.
...or maybe cheers...?
Of course he not a ’osser, but the optics Watson, the optics.
The man with the deerstalker and magnifying glass strikes again! :-) !!
With so much of it about, for statements of the obvious my favourite:
"No sh*t, Sherlock..." 🤣
Yeh. :-) !!
What would you have done if an elderly man in poor health dropped papers in front of you?
True esp one with smal hands . Its not that the man doesn’t have a zillion other helpers -armed and unarmed
The legendary editor who met trumpf years ago described him as a "short-fingered vulgarian". :-)
good thought :-) !!
Oh, for some moderate answers (we know there are no easy ones) for the difficult questions.
Now we have impossible ones. All the certainties are torn up. Now what.
I know - let's shoot the leader, 'cos he's not God almighty.
Add to that, there is a concentrated Cyber Hate campaign from friend Putin, against any strong, western leader, giving unequivocal support to the one brave statesman, Zelenskyy.
Starmer? He'll do nicely. Guilty of that too.
Well done, guys, there's a Kremlin medal being struck for you all, as we speak (or weep, more likely)
Farrago for PM next; then everybody will be happy (Putin, Trump, especially)
In the scheme of things totally unimportant but we cannot seem to decide if it is Kier or Keir