[bluebellnutter]

I think it's about time he deserved a thread, as he's going to be a major figure for Labour over the coming few years. Speaking in the house after May's speech today and already he seems more on top of it than any other Labour figure. Plus he appears to have beaten Corbyn to the punch.

Starmer says May has effectively ruled out hard Brexit

In the Commons Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is responding to David Davis. He says Theresa May should have made her speech in the Commons. That is not just a convention, he says. That is so MPs can question her on behalf of their constituents.

He says Labour has been arguing for the best possible access to the single market and for the rights of EU nationals in Britain to be protected. May has accepted that, he says.

He says she is effectively offering a half-in, half-out solution.

If Britain has a free trade deal, there will have to be a mechanism for avoiding disputes.

He says May has effectively ruled out a hard Brexit. That is good, he says.

Starmer says May has "effectively ruled out hard Brexit". He welcomes the fact that May has offered MPs a vote on the final deal.

But the threat to change the UK’s economic model if the UK does not get a good deal is a very serious one, he says. He says there would be no mandate for this. It would be “an act of huge self-harm for the UK”, he says. And he says this is incompatible with what May said about wanting to protect workers’ rights.

[youngian]

He says Labour has been arguing for the best possible access to the single market and for the rights of EU nationals in Britain to be protected. May has accepted that, he says.

He says she is effectively offering a half-in, half-out solution.

If Britain has a free trade deal, there will have to be a mechanism for avoiding disputes.

That sounds like an obscure point to make but is an elegantly clever one; You cannot be an international trading economy without being bound by international treaty law and all this sovereignty guff is an illusion.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Not a philosophy lecture though, is it?

[youngian]

This sovereignty bollocks is a deciding factor for many leavers as much as immigration. Getting to the Tories admit we will still be sharing sovereignty if we want a new FTA with Donald Trump is no bad thing.

[Abernathy]

I have to say I've been very disappointed in Keir Starmer with his performance in the Brexit enabling bill debates.

Yes, I give him credit for stepping up to the mark on the most important issue for at least 50 years, and yes, he was dealt a shitty hand by having to stick to Corbyn's "strategy" of whipping the votes hard line, but I just think he's been a bit lack lustre. The clincher was his over-cooked reaction to May's "concession" yesterday of a take-it-or-leave-it vote to accept the government's shit (as it inevitably will be) negotiated deal at the conclusion of the A50 negotiations, or not to accept it and have an almost equally shit hard-edged raw Brexit.

As a possible future leader, I'm going off him. Step up, Danny Jarvis.

[mr angry manchester]

What about Rebecca Long-Bailey?

I would

[Abernathy]

What about Rebecca Long-Bailey?

I would

Get the fuck out of here.

[mr angry manchester]

What about Rebecca Long-Bailey?

I would

Get the fuck out of here.

Course you would

[bluebellnutter]

She's been in Parliament less than 2 years. It'd be the final, conclusive proof that Labour is fucked and would complete the degeneration into a laughing stock. It's not even like she can fall back on anything major pre-Parliament like Starmer conceivably could (idiots don't become DPP and Head of the CPS).

[mr angry manchester]

Agree totally with BBN and Abers on her credibility as a potential leader. My comment was related to the fact that I think she has a slight look of Sophie off Coronation Street....

[youngian]

I can't hardly recall RLB is she like Corbyn a psionic vampire that sucks the life force out all those around her? Like May I doubt Starmer has a cunning plan.

[Arrowhead]

If McDonnell gets his ridiculous amendment accepted re MP leadership nominations, I can easily see someone like Burgon putting his name forward. And he'd probably even bloody well win, too.

How did it ever come to this?

[The Weeping Angel]

A self-indulgent membership preferred purity to winning elections.

[bluebellnutter]

Labour's 2015 election result is no yardstick for success, says Starmer

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ys-starmer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour’s standing in the polls has been creeping up since the start of the election campaign, and senior allies of Jeremy Corbyn have suggested that if the leader tops Miliband’s 30.4% from 2015, he could stay on even if the Conservatives significantly increase their majority.

But when asked about that idea, Starmer, who is touring marginal constituencies in an attempt to bolster the morale of Labour candidates, said: “We are in a first-past-the-post system, therefore we measure success in the number of seats.

“The vote share has to be compared with the vote share of a rival party and therefore establishing a reasonable vote share if your rival gets much more of a vote share just doesn’t do it.”

Labour had 229 seats at the end of the last parliament, but there has been speculation that if the most recent polls prove to be accurate, the party could win fewer than that.

The shadow minister’s remarks effectively rejected a statement made by Corybn’s principal trade union backer earlier this week. On Tuesday, the Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, said that winning 200 seats would mark a “successful campaign”.

[mattomac]

Good to hear...

Absolute joke if Corbyn manages to win more seats than 2015 I'd have to say he has a case, this vote share case is rubbish ...Miliband after all was only 6% behind, Corbyn at his best is 12%.