Keir Starmer

[Captain Turdseye]

It’s not really the ‘independent’ investigation that was promised, is it?

[Anubis]

Nope.

[Jairzinho]

I wonder what the investigation will conclude. Could go either way this.

 

[Neil G]

Jon Lansman and Rachel Garnham from the NEC saying that Starmer and Rayner presented the four names as a fait accompli allowing no time for background checks.

 

Direction of travel seems pretty clear here. Members will be key in holding the party to account and making sure this is dealt with properly. Another reason why people on the left need to stay and fight. 

[Neil G]

12 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

I wonder what the investigation will conclude. Could go either way this.

 

Assuming the WhatsApp messages are confirmed as authentic - and that surely has to be one of the first things for the panel to ascertain - the individuals responsible will be expelled from the party if they’re still members. If that doesn’t happen it’ll tear the party apart and could easily bring Starmer down. Not even the most obstinate or out of touch NEC members can fail to see that.

 

Beyond that I expect there will be efforts to prevent anything else of significance coming to light, especially deeper structural issues about party organisation, complaints handling and misuse of funds.

[Neil G]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Either that or he doesn’t see only lefties as relevant. 

It’s not about left or right, it’s about impartiality in carrying out the investigation. Selecting someone who’s publicly endorsed factionally motivated statements from one of the main people implicated in the scandal calls this into question.

[Captain Howdy]

I honestly can’t see a way forward for the Labour Party, they are irreparably split in my opinion, I don’t see any way out.

[Dr Nowt]

9 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

I honestly can’t see a way forward for the Labour Party, they are irreparably split in my opinion, I don’t see any way out.

It’s certainly as big an impediment to it’s own chances of success as anything else. Depressing.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, Neil G said:

It’s not about left or right, it’s about impartiality in carrying out the investigation.

Well, it is if you’re referring to that. I was referring in a general manner to the suggestion of lefties being irrelevant. 
 

But it does look to have impartiality issues. Haven’t looked too deeply though. 

[Neil G]

45 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, it is if you’re referring to that. I was referring in a general manner to the suggestion of lefties being irrelevant. 
 

But it does look to have impartiality issues. Haven’t looked too deeply though. 

I assumed Rotpeter’s post that you replied to was made in the context of the investigation, i.e. Starmer is prepared to brush this under the carpet because he didn’t care about the left’s reaction.

[VladimirIlyich]

2 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

I honestly can’t see a way forward for the Labour Party, they are irreparably split in my opinion, I don’t see any way out.

I do. Kick out the tories that have infiltrated the party and allow them to form their own. Could do an American style citizenship test with questions such as 'Do you believe in free to all Nationalised Health Service?' ' Anything other than a 'Yes' and this is the result

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, Neil G said:

I assumed Rotpeter’s post that you replied to was made in the context of the investigation, i.e. Starmer is prepared to brush this under the carpet because he didn’t care about the left’s reaction.

He might have been, mate. I dunno. I read it as sarcasm, but either way I'm talking generally. 

[Captain Howdy]

47 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I do. Kick out the tories that have infiltrated the party and allow them to form their own. Could do an American style citizenship test with questions such as 'Do you believe in free to all Nationalised Health Service?' ' Anything other than a 'Yes' and this is the result

 

This post serves to illustrate my point.

[Jairzinho]

20 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

This post serves to illustrate my point.

The church is too broad. Both edges need fucking off.

[Section_31]

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I do. Kick out the tories that have infiltrated the party and allow them to form their own. Could do an American style citizenship test with questions such as 'Do you believe in free to all Nationalised Health Service?' ' Anything other than a 'Yes' and this is the result

 

Genuine question, but where does the narrative come from that the labour party is somehow 'supposed' to be what it was under Corbyn, and at all other times it's been some kind of aberration?

 

Foot tried a socialist agenda and got beat badly, Kinnock sowed the seeds of what it would later become and it assumed and held power for years as that party, where, for whatever other flaws it had, was far and away superior to what followed in terms of the coalition, May and now this shambles.

 

Corbyn had his shot, did okay in 17 but still didn't win, then led the party to its biggest pasting since 1935. Now someone seen, right or wrongly as not being as radical as him, elected by a landslide of members, is painted as an infiltrator who's steered the ship once again away from its 'true self'? They also point out unpalatable members of his cabinet while skirting over the fact Corbyn's chosen successor is in his cabinet too, while Rayner, herself pretty left wing, seems at least for now to be supportive.

 

Seems to me the goalposts get shifted in these discussions. People have an issue with liberals or red tories joining labour under blair, but not with greens or people from the myriad of smaller socialist parties joining under Corbyn. I mean fuck, can you imagine if Blair had had his own version of Momentum? Run and funded by an allie, operating in parallel, canvassing, campaigning, gathering its own election data? "Blair's brownshirts" or some shit they'd have been dubbed.

 

We can remove Starmer, remove anyone dubbed 'centrist' (whatever that means) stack the party to the rafters with hard left (whatever that means too), Corbyn, you name it, but the results will be the same at the ballot box. We can't go on pretending that everyone is just ready willing and able to come onboard with a left wing agenda if only Murdoch would give our man a fair crack of the whip. IMO it's just not a left wing country, it's not even an especially political country, you have to play the cards you're dealt. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

If Starmer and Corbyn’s policies are the same, how is one a leftie and the other a Tory Centrist?

 

Answers on a postcard. 

[Rushies tash]

5 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Genuine question, but where does the narrative come from that the labour party is somehow 'supposed' to be what it was under Corbyn, and at all other times it's been some kind of aberration?

 

Foot tried a socialist agenda and got beat badly, Kinnock sowed the seeds of what it would later become and it assumed and held power for years as that party, where, for whatever other flaws it had, was far and away superior to what followed in terms of the coalition, May and now this shambles.

 

Corbyn had his shot, did okay in 17 but still didn't win, then led the party to its biggest pasting since 1935. Now someone seen, right or wrongly as not being as radical as him, elected by a landslide of members, is painted as an infiltrator who's steered the ship once again away from its 'true self'? They also point out unpalatable members of his cabinet while skirting over the fact Corbyn's chosen successor is in his cabinet too, while Rayner, herself pretty left wing, seems at least for now to be supportive.

 

Seems to me the goalposts get shifted in these discussions. People have an issue with liberals or red tories joining labour under blair, but not with greens or people from the myriad of smaller socialist parties joining under Corbyn. I mean fuck, can you imagine if Blair had had his own version of Momentum? Run and funded by an allie, operating in parallel, canvassing, campaigning, gathering its own election data? "Blair's brownshirts" or some shit they'd have been dubbed.

 

We can remove Starmer, remove anyone dubbed 'centrist' (whatever that means) stack the party to the rafters with hard left (whatever that means too), Corbyn, you name it, but the results will be the same at the ballot box. We can't go on pretending that everyone is just ready willing and able to come onboard with a left wing agenda if only Murdoch would give our man a fair crack of the whip. IMO it's just not a left wing country, it's not even an especially political country, you have to play the cards you're dealt. 

That's the thing though isn't it? Before he was elected, I doubt 99.5% of people would have been able to pick Corbyn out of a line up. The only opinions they have formed of him have been given to them by the overwhelmingly right wing media in this country. The same happened to Foot. Yet, in a blind poll of policies in the last election, a majority favoured Labour's.  People do have an appetite for left wing policies, it's just that they are very easily influenced to vote otherwise.

[sir roger]

18 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

If Starmer and Corbyn’s policies are the same, how is one a leftie and the other a Tory Centrist?

 

Answers on a postcard. 

At this point Starmer has only 'said' he has taken on board the bulk of the previous policies and there has not really been much time for an opinion to be formed either way to be fair. I voted for him and am reserving final judgement until he has been given a decent shot , but I admit the make up of the cabinet and this seemingly bogus enquiry have worried me.

[Megadrive Man]

26 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

If Starmer and Corbyn’s policies are the same, how is one a leftie and the other a Tory Centrist?

 

Answers on a postcard. 

Ricky Tomlinson is a socialist and gave a glowing recommendation of Starmer.

 

Rebecca Long Bailey wasn't a strong enough candidate to lead the party, and when you look at the Labour party there was no obvious candidate to take over from Corbyn that could try and adopt similar policies without being crucified the way Corbyn was.

[Section_31]

1 hour ago, Rushies tash said:

That's the thing though isn't it? Before he was elected, I doubt 99.5% of people would have been able to pick Corbyn out of a line up. The only opinions they have formed of him have been given to them by the overwhelmingly right wing media in this country. The same happened to Foot. Yet, in a blind poll of policies in the last election, a majority favoured Labour's.  People do have an appetite for left wing policies, it's just that they are very easily influenced to vote otherwise.

 

The media were horrendous to Corbyn, they always are to Labour leaders exept Blair. Brown and Miliband got it too but Corbyn got it far worse.

 

But I suspect a lot of what Corbyn genuinely stood for wasn't palatable to a lot of working class folks, rightly or wrongly.

 

For instance, how many working class people have you met who didn't like the Queen, the yanks or the military? 

 

Corbyn was perceived as anti establishment, the British working class are probably the most pro establishment working class in Europe (or certainly the English are at least.)

[Gooch]

As a general rule, the public are to the left on economic policy, but pretty conservative from a social perspective, which probably explains why labour policies polled well but never converted into actual votes.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, sir roger said:

At this point Starmer has only 'said' he has taken on board the bulk of the previous policies and there has not really been much time for an opinion to be formed either way to be fair. I voted for him and am reserving final judgement until he has been given a decent shot , but I admit the make up of the cabinet and this seemingly bogus enquiry have worried me.

He pledged he will keep Corbyn’s manifesto (not a great move as far as I’m concerned), of course he can go back on that. So could Corbyn. For me, the question remains unanswered. 

[Rushies tash]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

 

The media were horrendous to Corbyn, they always are to Labour leaders exept Blair. Brown and Miliband got it too but Corbyn got it far worse.

 

But I suspect a lot of what Corbyn genuinely stood for wasn't palatable to a lot of working class folks, rightly or wrongly.

 

For instance, how many working class people have you met who didn't like the Queen, the yanks or the military? 

 

Corbyn was perceived as anti establishment, the British working class are probably the most pro establishment working class in Europe (or certainly the English are at least.)

Me. And a good deal on here I imagine. But I get your point.

[aRdja]

7 hours ago, Section_31 said:

 

The media were horrendous to Corbyn, they always are to Labour leaders exept Blair. Brown and Miliband got it too but Corbyn got it far worse.

 

But I suspect a lot of what Corbyn genuinely stood for wasn't palatable to a lot of working class folks, rightly or wrongly.

 

For instance, how many working class people have you met who didn't like the Queen, the yanks or the military? 

 

Corbyn was perceived as anti establishment, the British working class are probably the most pro establishment working class in Europe (or certainly the English are at least.)

I agree with this. How many of them daily mail-reading working men and women in the the Red Wall give a flying fuck about the human rights of Palestinians? My guess is probably a handful at most.

[cloggypop]

On 01/05/2020 at 22:40, Nelly-Torres said:

Yeah, alright... 

 

 

I look forward to him championing Mumford & Sons as Chair of UK Music.