[davidjay]

He certainly shows that far too much notice is taken of idiots on Twitter.

[Abernathy]

Here is Jess Phillips, writing in this week's New Statesman :

"I don't know why this is, but Starmer does not get anywhere near enough credit for turning around a huge leaking oil tanker. The progress of Labour under him is phenomenal. Anyone else who had managed such a feat would be presented as some sort of political magician. That he is considered and thoughtful, and not a joke-cracking charlatan or a lunatic trying to debase our currency, is presented, for some reason as a negative. It's not fair and it's not accurate.
As I sat in the bar at midnight in a Liverpool hotel I wondered: why doesn't he get plaudits for changing everything? Perhaps I had given it less thought before because I would usually be a few wines down.
No number of cocktails in the world has ever made me feel as much like dancing as the idea that Labour is, for the first time in my political career, now a fighting force."

[Crabcakes]

I think the easy thing to forget is it’s not just the fact he actually *did* get 20 points clear (and then some), but that he also made up -20 points or so first. Yes, Johnson being quite so dreadful clearly helped. But that would have helped any leader.

The fact they’ve been unable to lay a glove on him because he has been *at absolute worst* a slightly uninspiring figure (and even this is arguably unfair) is something I think will only be seen for its full value down the line.

[Abernathy]

.

[Youngian]

Anyone else who had managed such a feat would be presented as some sort of political magician. That he is considered and thoughtful, and not a joke-cracking charlatan or a lunatic trying to debase our currency, is presented, for some reason as a negative. It's not fair and it's not accurate.
As I sat in the bar at midnight in a Liverpool hotel I wondered: why doesn't he get plaudits for changing everything?

Max Hastings wrote some years ago that if Boris Johnson ever became PM we would cease to be called a serious country. Jess wouldn’t need to ponder these questions in a country that has not become dysfunctional. I’m relieved that Keir is looking like a rare slow burn. People usually make up their minds quickly about a leader and don’t change them. Thatcher was another slow burn as was Corbyn but in a downward trajectory.

[Crabcakes]

Corbyn was a slow burn and then a very quick one. Much like the sinking of the Titanic.

[mattomac]

Apparently he was decent on the local radios this morning.

Humour with straight talking and answering the questions, unlike Truss who acted like every question was an insult.

[davidjay]

He's managed to be Kinnock (stop the decline), Smith (turn it round) and Blair (moving in the right direction) within three years. That takes some doing, and it doesn't get enough credit.

[The Weeping Angel]

Apparently he was decent on the local radios this morning.

Humour with straight talking and answering the questions, unlike Truss who acted like every question was an insult.

Yes but he refused to back strikes

https://labourlist.org/2022/10/starmer- ... g-workers/

[Tubby Isaacs]

And he didn't commit to inflation level pay rises for nurses. The markets being famously relaxed about unfunded spending at the moment.

[mattomac]

Labour making any spending pledges at the moment would be silly.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Labour making any spending pledges at the moment would be silly.

Yep.

We don't even have an OBR forecast. I gather there was a problem recently with somebody announcing fiscal policy without the OBR being involved...

[mattomac]

It’s actually probably what Labour should do, make a commitment to have all their financial statements fully delivered with a statement, the likelihood is they will anyhow so it’s a very easy win.

Anyone get the feeling he was seriously underrated?

[davidjay]

It's so bloody annoying that we have to prove ourselves competent while that lot have been fucking up for twelve years and they still get their idiocy through without comment.

[mattomac]

Quite, but I think this is just more of the “beergate” type approach.

[The Weeping Angel]

Oh no he's like Southgate

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... ctory.html

But he can still lose it. For two main reasons. Liz Truss isn’t quite as bad a Prime Minister as her enemies like to think. And Starmer isn’t quite as good a potential Prime Minister as he and his supporters would have the country believe.

Take, for example, their respective addresses. Starmer’s was well delivered and well crafted. Truss’s was wooden and dull. But it was Truss, not Starmer, who provided the only memorable soundbite, with her critique of the ‘Anti-growth Coalition’.

It’s a clumsy phrase and lacks definition. But she has at least managed to draw a rough political dividing line between those who seek to energise and harness the British economy on behalf of ordinary working people, and those – like the environmental protesters who helpfully interrupted her – who opt to oppose it on narrow ideological grounds.

[Spoonman]

The problem is that the "Anti-Growth Coalition" very quickly became a joke of a meme outside of the bubble of "very serious people" & anyone planning to use it as a phrase to platform with in the near future is going to end up being ridiculed. Its potential potency is already dead in the water.

[Youngian]

Oh no he's like Southgate

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... ctory.html

But he can still lose it. For two main reasons. Liz Truss isn’t quite as bad a Prime Minister as her enemies like to think. And Starmer isn’t quite as good a potential Prime Minister as he and his supporters would have the country believe.

Take, for example, their respective addresses. Starmer’s was well delivered and well crafted. Truss’s was wooden and dull. But it was Truss, not Starmer, who provided the only memorable soundbite, with her critique of the ‘Anti-growth Coalition’.

It’s a clumsy phrase and lacks definition. But she has at least managed to draw a rough political dividing line between those who seek to energise and harness the British economy on behalf of ordinary working people, and those – like the environmental protesters who helpfully interrupted her – who opt to oppose it on narrow ideological grounds.

Desperate assembly of rubbish even for Dan Hodges. He’s the pundit version of a contestant on Junkyard challenge.

[Andy McDandy]

Still can't get over Ed beating Dave.

[Bones McCoy]

Oh no he's like Southgate

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... ctory.html

But he can still lose it. For two main reasons. Liz Truss isn’t quite as bad a Prime Minister as her enemies like to think. And Starmer isn’t quite as good a potential Prime Minister as he and his supporters would have the country believe.

Take, for example, their respective addresses. Starmer’s was well delivered and well crafted. Truss’s was wooden and dull. But it was Truss, not Starmer, who provided the only memorable soundbite, with her critique of the ‘Anti-growth Coalition’.

It’s a clumsy phrase and lacks definition. But she has at least managed to draw a rough political dividing line between those who seek to energise and harness the British economy on behalf of ordinary working people, and those – like the environmental protesters who helpfully interrupted her – who opt to oppose it on narrow ideological grounds.

I want to play Poker against Dan Hodges.
Can't wait for him to go all in with an eight high.