Posted Mar 28, 2021, 3:06 PM UTC
Important to remember that the murmerings back when Starmer selected his Shadow Cabinet was that Dodds (who McDonnell personally vouched for) was a stopgap shadow chancellor to appease the left and Starmer would move to replace her when he felt safe to do so. Given everything that has happened since, this sacking has a feeling of inevitability about it.
This should be a reminder to anyone who calls themselves "centre-left" that a more peaceful alliance can be found with the socialist-wing than the liberal-wing.
[removed]
This should be a reminder to anyone who calls themselves "centre-left" that a more peaceful alliance can be found with the socialist-wing than the liberal-wing.
What do you mean? The liberal wing are the centre-left wing. The soft-left and right of the party (who are both on the centre-left) have always been closer together than the left, which are generally on their own.
Half a decade ago Reeves was talking about cutting welfare harder than the Tories. The right of the party are centre-left only when the winds blow that way and only ever whilst out of power.
Also the left are hardly dogmatic. Most of us understand that we aren't going to push through immediate change; that replacing an economic system takes decades if not centuries. There is plenty of scope for the left and centre-left to work together on policy and for an incrementalist approach, as 2017 showed.
Nor has Nick Thomas-Symonds, and Starmer isn’t calling for his head. Anneliese is incredibly well placed to present Labour as a safe pair of hands economically while arguing for all the measures of the 2017 manifesto, which were broadly popular. I’ve been impressed with what I’ve seen so far from her. It’s clear that unless this is gauging party opinion, Keir Starmer has all the political skill of a lemming
I think she came across as knowledgable, calm and reasonable in her interviews. No idea why she might be replaced.
Disappointing to hear. The only positive spin I can put on it is the rumours of Milliband getting the promotion. But as much as I love the man, I'm not sure swapping out our current Shadow Chancellor for a defeated leader shows we're a new brand of Labour well worth considering. Still, better soft Ed than a right winger.
Another factor is that the public don't see Dodds as the 2nd in command unlike Balls to Miliband and McDonnell to Corbyn. Rayner fits in that role.
Rayner lacks the pedigree for Chancellor, the chancellor should have some economics background. Dodds knows her brief, but she's not a good enough communicator to get the Labour economic message to the public.
But above all Rayner is also one of the shadow cabinet members that have been a disappointment.
What background on economics did Brown have, or Osborne?
And look what happened there
Does she ever go on any of the usual TV shows like Marr, Newsnight, Daily Politics, Question Time, Peston?
Always seems to be Reeves, Jess Phillips, Nandy.. Though haven't paid much attention the past few months.
Isn't Öpik too busy on the Galactic Council anyways?
He's busy advising Tories on how to beat Lib Dems, something he's an expert in.
This is such a trash argument which one could use against most cabinet politicians, let alone shadow cab MPs. Politicians gain notoriety/recognition through media coverage - why that would change for someone else is unclear to me. Johnny Mac found a way by offering a radical vision and also being a great communicator. Dodds isn’t offering anything on the first front, and I think that’s the real issue - not her personally.
What does this even mean exactly? That she's not that well known with people who are not massively invested in politics? If so I would argue Starmer also 'hasn't really cut through with the public' but if I were to suggest he be dropped I'd get a ton of it from the usual suspects.