Keir Starmer

[TheHowieLama]

2 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Blairism will not win the next election. 

Neither will Labour

[VladimirIlyich]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

Neither will Labour

I think those too statements are pretty much mutually exclusive.

[Kevin D]

The over/under is 250 pages.

[TheHowieLama]

23 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

The over/under is 250 pages.

He won't last that long

[Duff Man]

25 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

The over/under is 250 pages.

Do you have the odds on Sure Start mentions?

[Neil G]

12 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

The 'demise' of Trade Unions (a deliberate tactic from the tories to starve the movement and Labour Party of funds) has led to fewer and fewer Labour MPs now coming from that background. The 'firebrands' and people steeped in the working class person's way of life are now almost non existent. I could barely identify an MP based on their party as they mostly look the same as they are largely from the same backgrounds. You used to be able to spot the 'slimy tory' a mile off but they could be from any party now.

It’s got nothing to do with his background, which as has been pointed out is working class anyway. 

 

Besides which the Labour Party has always included plenty of people from trade union / working class backgrounds who blow with the political wind as regards the policies they support, or who are outright hostile to genuinely left-wing politics. Some have held senior leadership positions in the union movement, some have been ministers in Labour governments.

[VladimirIlyich]

10 hours ago, Neil G said:

It’s got nothing to do with his background, which as has been pointed out is working class anyway. 

 

Besides which the Labour Party has always included plenty of people from trade union / working class backgrounds who blow with the political wind as regards the policies they support, or who are outright hostile to genuinely left-wing politics. Some have held senior leadership positions in the union movement, some have been ministers in Labour governments.

They don't seem to act like Labour MPs from Union backgrounds used to.

[VladimirIlyich]

Just had a look at Starmer's voting record and its pretty good to be fair. He did vote against an inquiry into the Iraq War but there are two sides to that argument I suppose. He could be protecting Blair? But he could also be against it from a party perspective where the tories have been able to get involved in military actions but don't appear to held accountable so why should his? Time will tell,I suppose.

[Section_31]

21 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Just had a look at Starmer's voting record and its pretty good to be fair. He did vote against an inquiry into the Iraq War but there are two sides to that argument I suppose. He could be protecting Blair? But he could also be against it from a party perspective where the tories have been able to get involved in military actions but don't appear to held accountable so why should his? Time will tell,I suppose.

 

As I said on another thread I think time will tell with Starmer, but he deserves a chance and many aren't giving it to him - which is ironically what they accused others of doing with Corbyn. 

 

Most people in the party (as far as I'm aware) had no problem with him up until about six months ago when he had the temerity to decide to stand against the heiress apparent. He then went from Keir Starmer to 'millionaire knight if the realm Keir Starmer') now he's a Blairite and neo-liberal infiltrator extraordinaire.

 

After he won (by a landslide of Labour members) Momentum said they were going to 'hold him to account'. In the middle of a global pandemic, with the worst Tory government in memory, they're going to hold Starmer to account. The actual fuck. 

 

Two of the top stories in the Canary yesterday were 'dishing the dirt' pieces on Starmer, one about Israeli money and one about him being in league with MI5 because he's pro surveillance or something. 

 

This is the bit I can't abide about the whole thing. From a faction of the Labour party that preached the wrongs of not accepting the party's democratic choice of leadership, bemoaning how he was portrayed in the media (they were often justified in these concerns) to act like this is truly two faced behaviour of the highest order. 

 

 

[Jairzinho]

But he was voted for by the membership, so I think most people are happy to give him a chance.

 

It's hardly surprising that some people are going to be fucked off, and think the worst though.

 

We'll see in 6-12 months, I guess. He hasn't actually done anything yet. The party might as well have no leader.

[VladimirIlyich]

The Labour Party needs money to actually fight the tories,that much is clear. You cannot crowd fund an election or presidential campaign,you just cannot compete. This is where it gets murky though. A moderate/right winger is more likely to get financed by outsiders than a supposed 'left winger' but it may lead to some unpopular policies,tory lite if you like. Unfortunately,the best we can hope for is 'better than what we have' and take it from there.

[Sugar Ape]

12 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

But he was voted for by the membership, so I think most people are happy to give him a chance.

 

It's hardly surprising that some people are going to be fucked off, and think the worst though.

 

We'll see in 6-12 months, I guess. He hasn't actually done anything yet. The party might as well have no leader.

Nah, don’t agree at all. I’ve seen more of Starmer and his front bench than I’ve seen of Corbyn, Abbott etc... over the last few months. You mightn’t agree with the line he’s taken on the pandemic which is fine but saying the party might as well have no leader is well wide of the mark. 
 

He got dogs abuse yesterday for writing an article in the Mail. Like it or not you need to speak to and win over at least some of the people who read the Mail and the Telegraph or you will never win an election. The state of some of the responses are laughable. 
 

 

Corbyn gave an exclusive to the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago. Absolutely nothing said about it. Section is spot on and it’s just transparent double standards now. 
 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/02/labour-must-not-join-national-unity-government-amid-coronavirus/amp/

Also, yesterday alone John McDonnell retweeted Ashworth on Ridge on Sunday and praised Dodds for her performance on Marr. I wish they’d change certain parts of their strategy myself but they are getting out there and having a go. 
 

 

 

[Sugar Ape]

Here is that Corbyn podcast with The Telegraph by the way if anyone is Interested. 
 

 

[Jairzinho]

Dogs abuse from who? Some people on twitter? 

 

Honestly, who fucking cares? 

 

And I know you're not going to agree. You're all in on Starmer and you disliked Corbyn from the start. 

 

[Jairzinho]

I should stress, I'd love to be as positive about his chances as others are and he should definitely be given a chance. I just don't see it. I don't see him getting to the next election.

[Bjornebye]

Has Starmer been called an anti-Semite yet ? Or has he not pissed the right people off yet 

[Sugar Ape]

22 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Dogs abuse from who? Some people on twitter? 

 

Honestly, who fucking cares? 

 

And I know you're not going to agree. You're all in on Starmer and you disliked Corbyn from the start. 

 

Right, no one cared when Corbyn got dogs abuse. You just accepted it and said ‘who cares’. He’s getting an unreasonable amount of abuse and negativity from Labour members and supporters and Corbyn friendly media like Novara and the Canary. 
 

And I wasn’t against Corbyn from the start. I voted for him as leader in 2015 so don’t put words into my mouth. I wanted him gone when it became apparent he had more baggage than Heathrow and his approval ratings were consistently terrible against the most incompetent Tory government I’ve ever seen under May. I’m not arsed which faction runs Labour I just want a Labour government. 

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, Sugar Ape said:

Right, no one cared when Corbyn got dogs abuse. You just accepted it and said ‘who cares’. He’s getting an unreasonable amount of abuse and negativity from Labour members and supporters and Corbyn friendly media like Novara and the Canary. 
 

And I wasn’t against Corbyn from the start. I voted for him as leader in 2015 so don’t put words into my mouth. I wanted him gone when it became apparent he had more baggage than Heathrow and his approval ratings were consistently terrible against the most incompetent Tory government I’ve ever seen under May. I’m not arsed which faction runs Labour I just want a Labour government. 

There is a significant difference between abuse coming from some people on twitter and abuse coming from the leader's own MPs. 

 

The environment in which they are leading their parties is chalk and cheese, and Starmer would probably acknowledge as much. 

[Section_31]

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

The Labour Party needs money to actually fight the tories,that much is clear. You cannot crowd fund an election or presidential campaign,you just cannot compete. This is where it gets murky though. A moderate/right winger is more likely to get financed by outsiders than a supposed 'left winger' but it may lead to some unpopular policies,tory lite if you like. Unfortunately,the best we can hope for is 'better than what we have' and take it from there.

I think it's interesting to see where politics is heading on both sides of the Atlantic. 

 

What seems to have happened with the Democrats is that they're appealing to what you'd traditionally call 'liberals'. Educated, working/middle class, while the Republicans are becoming a party of faux nationalism. 

 

At the last election apparently Labour did okay with the middle classes but as we know, the Tories did well in Northern working class areas. 

 

I think where politics risks going now is that the 'right' just become parties which underneath are all about keeping the status quo for the wealthy, but with fewer and fewer of those wealthy people willing to publicly support them (most companies now pay huge mind to social responsibility, whether genuine or not, because these 'liberal' ideas are more and more important to their customers), so the 'army' of voters they rely on instead are people who will rally around patriotism and flags.

 

More and more 'trendy wealth' will be gravitate to the Democrats. I reckon the same will happen here. 

 

The  Tories are (or will become) a vehicle for protecting extreme wealth (regardless of where it's from, Kuwait, St Petersberg, it doesn't matter) and will come to rely more and more on rabble rousing. 

 

The 'trendy liberals' had nowhere to go under Corbyn, I think they'd be more inclined to vote for Starmer, especially due to his Brexit stance.

 

On both sides of the Atlantic we'll end up with Republicans/Tories, and then a 'party of everyone who's not a Republican/Tory".  

 

Do I want a party like that? In an ideal world no, is it better than perpetual Tory government? Definitely. 

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, Section_31 said:

I think it's interesting to see where politics is heading on both sides of the Atlantic. 

 

What seems to have happened with the Democrats is that they're appealing to what you'd traditionally call 'liberals'. Educated, working/middle class, while the Republicans are becoming a party of faux nationalism. 

 

At the last election apparently Labour did okay with the middle classes but as we know, the Tories did well in Northern working class areas. 

 

I think where politics risks going now is that the 'right' just become parties which underneath are all about keeping the status quo for the wealthy, but with fewer and fewer of those wealthy people willing to publicly support them (most companies now pay huge mind to social responsibility, whether genuine or not, because these 'liberal' ideas are more and more important to their customers), so the 'army' of voters they rely on instead are people who will rally around patriotism and flags.

 

More and more 'trendy wealth' will be gravitate to the Democrats. I reckon the same will happen here. 

 

The  Tories are (or will become) a vehicle for protecting extreme wealth (regardless of where it's from, Kuwait, St Petersberg, it doesn't matter) and will come to rely more and more on rabble rousing. 

 

The 'trendy liberals' had nowhere to go under Corbyn, I think they'd be more inclined to vote for Starmer, especially due to his Brexit stance.

 

On both sides of the Atlantic we'll end up with Republicans/Tories, and then a 'party of everyone who's not a Republican/Tory".  

 

Do I want a party like that? In an ideal world now, is it better than a Tory government? Definitely. 

Do you not think this started several decades ago though?

 

What we're seeing now is simply people actually doing something about it.

[Bjornebye]

I prefer Corbyn to Starmer. Corbyn was never going to be PM. Starmer very well could be. 
 

 

[Jose Jones]

2 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Do you not think this started several decades ago though?

 

What we're seeing now is simply people actually doing something about it.

The seeds were obviously sewn with 20 years of nearly neoliberal consensus starting with Blair and Clinton. Both their governments were miles better than the Bush/Major Tory ones they replaced though.

 

But it’s Trump and Brexit/Johnson elections that have really turned the conservative side of politics into post-fact racist rabble rousing. 

[Sugar Ape]

5 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

There is a significant difference between abuse coming from some people on twitter and abuse coming from the leader's own MPs. 

 

The environment in which they are leading their parties is chalk and cheese, and Starmer would probably acknowledge as much. 

Well it’s early days in seeing how MPs are going to react to him but leaking that reports days after he becomes leader and he’s trying to deal with a once in a century pandemic isn’t the best of starts. I’d imagine the atmosphere isn’t the best amongst Labour MPs at the moment. 

[Section_31]

12 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Do you not think this started several decades ago though?

 

What we're seeing now is simply people actually doing something about it.

Yeah fair point, Trump/Brexit has certainly brought it to the fore I suppose. 

 

With that in mind  though, isn't there something practical about moving to the so-called 'centre ground'? 

 

I'd be interested to know how many Lib Dems, Greens and the likes were drawn to New Labour. 

 

I genuinely don't see where the ammo is for a truly left wing Labour party. There would have been a time you'd have Fords factories and docks packed with blue collar workers, union men being marshaled to campaign and vote for Labour candidates, crucially, in Scotland too. And a lot of the time they still struggled to win, certainly in my early lifetime. 

 

Now those days are gone, unions still exist but not necessarily in large blue collar environments like they did back then. 

 

For Labour to win, it's going to have to discount Scotland, probably forever, and find a way of uniting everyone in England who doesn't want to vote Tory. No mean feat. 

[sir roger]

The leak came from somewhere in Head Office and the only quotes from MPs and the likes of the BoD have been very supportive to him.

 

I  voted for him simply on his electability , but if he thinks he is getting dogs abuse , because of a few left wing websites ,he won’t win an election when the Tory machine gets rumbling.