A Guardian headline this morning says:
However, the news is that Starmer has no intention of giving Lucy Powell a job back in the Cabinet. She might be deputy leader of the party - which made Angela Rayner deputy prime minister - but Powell is to be left on the back benches in an act clearly intended to send a defiant signal to those in Labour who oppose what Starmer is trying to do.
It really does seem that Starmer has only one goal, which is the destruction of the Labour Party. If so, he's very good at it. The trouble is, he shows no talent for absolutely anything else.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“Starmer has no intention of giving Lucy Powell ” …. McSweeney has no intention … etc.
Keir “The Glove Puppet” Starmer. In fairness, I am also confident that he carriers grudges.
Tic-Tok, this guys time is numbered.
And the LINO mob (MPs, councillors and members) will be reflecting on how to get rid of of the H Corbett & Sooty/Sweep combo. I know I would.
How unbelievably petty. Behaviour you’d expect of a primary school child, not a political leader. It reflects really badly on Starmer when his ratings are already dreadful. For all those who felt after 15 years of Tory chaos we now had grown ups in the room, think again. I shouldn’t be, but I’m shocked.
I wonder what would happen if Lucy Powell decided to vote against an egregiously right wing piece of Labour legislation, for example the budget bill?
Would he try to remove the whip? Could he do that?
Starmer seems a little foolish in not taking Powell into the cabinet. Better to have her inside the tent, bound by collective responsibility, pissing out ……
Powell actually does have a lot of power, perhaps more than Starmer at the moment, if she has the courage to use it. I doubt she has.
All good points…
Might his attitude also be an indication that Sir Starmer has a high democracy deficit?
I’m still perplexed about the 16% turnout.
Is that what makes Starmer think it has no validity so he can ignore her and not give her a place in his government?
Like so much these days, this level of disengagement is unprecedented
But it means something.
Just not sure what.
Most people in Labour linked organisations had no idea they had a vote, and did not want one.
I am one of those. I didn’t realise the organisation was a affiliate nor that I had a vote having left Labour long ago. They told me I had a vote and that they were supporting Phillipson so I found a clothespeg and voted for Powell. Looking at the turnout figures I’m glad I did, if only because it upset Starmer.
Starmer/McSweeney are going to fall very heavily indeed. The question is – who will replace them? Who will 80 Labour MPs nominate that a majority of members/affiliates will support? Can a progressive cndidate get nominated by MPs?? I do not think so.
It will be someone just as neoliberal who maybe has a little more popular appeal, elected on a tiny turnout of members.
There will be cosmetic change, and a huge ramping up of the smear/propaganda campaign against the progressive alternatives outside Labour.
Well, she wont be distracted from her role as Deputy Leader by a cabinet job.
Wise move – not by Starmer
My first reaction to Starmer’s attitude to this event was ‘What a wanker’. Sorry, I know its Sunday, but there you go.
Yes you are right Richard – he has lived up to the very low expectations we have of the bloke. And it’s not hard is it, such a low bar.
But it also reifies that Labour HAS been captured by Tory continuity thinking because the same people pouring money into politics are at play again. And this means that Sir Keir Starmer is a liar; a charlatan.
For the Labour party it is even worse. It is a party in power with a split personality still at war with itself. It puts more effort into that internecine war with the ‘Left’ than it puts into what it was elected for: change.
Therefore it is not in a fit state to govern. It is denying its membership free expression and not helping us. So, in the name of democracy it must split and those who are more progressive should leave and form another party and offer the people of this country a real choice.
I think wanker is a recognised term in political economy.