The Student Room Group

Should Starmer hand the Labour Party leadership to Reeves?

I was just curious, should Starmer hand the leadership to Rachel Reeves. What are your arguments for and against?
Original post by Kingdragon
I was just curious, should Starmer hand the leadership to Rachel Reeves. What are your arguments for and against?
Why would he do that?
Original post by Kingdragon
I was just curious, should Starmer hand the leadership to Rachel Reeves. What are your arguments for and against?

How about you share your arguments and thoughts on the matter first?
Reply 3
Original post by Gazpacho.
How about you share your arguments and thoughts on the matter first?
He is weak, and does not have the economic literacy like Rachel Reeves does?
Original post by Kingdragon
He is weak, and does not have the economic literacy like Rachel Reeves does?
He's got a roughly 25pt lead in the polls....

And if you think Reeves is more economically literate than Starmer.... your conclusion is to move her out of the role which requires economic literacy... Very strange. Why would labour change their leader when they're so far ahead in the polls, makes absolutely no sense.
Original post by Kingdragon
He is weak, and does not have the economic literacy like Rachel Reeves does?

That was a comprehensive and compelling argument although you do seem to be making the case why Reeves is suited to her current Shadow Chancellor role.
Nope.
Starmer was the person that Labour elected to be their leader and fight the next general election.
Reeves may have put her name forward for a shadow cabinet position but not for leadership of the party.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending