Keir Starmer

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Nelly-Matip said:

Owen Jones is a bit of a knob. But, he’s not really doing this.

I always get a little sceptical when someone here posts "X said this on Twitter" but doesn't post the actual tweet.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I wonder how many who are outraged knew Tarry’s name yesterday. 

I feel like I jinxed him. I'd never heard of him until I saw a picture of him on a picket line and thought "Good for you!" Within hours he was out on his arse.

[Bjornebye]

We don't live in a democracy. I wish people would stop pushing that lie. 

[Kevin D]

Shameful.
 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/27/train-drivers-vote-for-fresh-strikes-as-disruptions-hit-britains-rail-network
 

The Guardian understands Tarry was told he was sacked for saying that it was “not acceptable to offer below inflation pay rises” because it would be a real-terms pay cut for workers.

[matt1983]

3 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

 

 

The FBU would

disagree. That is not a popular man amongst the rank and file who remember the fire brigade strikes of 02/03

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I feel like I jinxed him. I'd never heard of him until I saw a picture of him on a picket line and thought "Good for you!" Within hours he was out on his arse.

Yeah, same. I thought his interview was good, though I also understand why he was sacked. He would have known too. He’s Annie’s boyfriend isn’t he? Read something earlier. 

[Creator Supreme]

5 hours ago, matt1983 said:

The FBU would

disagree. That is not a popular man amongst the rank and file who remember the fire brigade strikes of 02/03

Unfortunately Johnny boy forgot he was a Socialist too, which is why he's now in the Lords!

 

And I'm not buying the "I did it for Pauline (to make up for shagging my secretary)!" line either!

[Gnasher]

At least Starmer hasn't made the mistake of rushing David Lammy and Rachel Reeves out around the TV studios this morning to soothe things over.

 

 

 

 

[Captain Willard]

7 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I always get a little sceptical when someone here posts "X said this on Twitter" but doesn't post the actual tweet.

He’s taken it down but his feed is full of discussion re it so you’ll see screenshots there. He’s now saying that he only meant to encourage his 1 million followers to “heckle” Starmer but why take the tweet down if it was so innocent? He’s also saying people who said it was irresponsible are “undermining democracy” but again why take it down ?  Here’s his latest :
 

“Those seeking to conflate heckling a politician - one of the oldest, most basic forms of dissent that a democracy has - to violence are not only being cynical, they’re undermining democracy.”

[halewood pete]

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

Hes just been called a plastic patriot by Truss. Not very nice.

[Bjornebye]

12 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Hes just been called a plastic patriot by Truss. Not very nice.

Yeah but she's a Pattriot and a democrat

 

 

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

Must be some cracking Ketamin in Kyiv, 

 

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

[Vincent Vega]

Spot on this from The Guardian.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/28/post-corbyn-vision-labour-keir-starmer-leadership
 

What happened to the post-Corbyn vision for Labour? Keir Starmer offers nothing

Neal Lawson
 

We need bold ideas, courage and hope, but timidity and backpedaling are the hallmarks of this Labour leadership
 

We live in an age of perpetual conflict. The global crash, the pandemic and now war and the cost of living crisis have shown us our economic and political systems are not fit for such chaotic times. The tide is now going out on one era, and the Labour party seems to have been left behind. It appears perpetually out of step, most recently when it sacked MP Sam Tarry, the now former Labour transport spokesperson who dared to stand on a picket line with striking workers, and lost his job shortly afterwards.

 

Labour in its post-Corbyn period is desperately searching for a playbook that will win it the next election, or at least keep it electorally afloat. But the only one to hand is apparently New Labour’s – and they offer a desiccated, joyless, and stripped bare version of that more interesting but long-gone moment.

 

 

Keir Starmer’s game isn’t to inspire with hope and a grand vision, but to play a glorified game of whack-a-mole with every possible Tory attack line. He promises, for example, “no magic money tree economics”, no nationalisation of public services, that Labour won’t talk to the SNP or deal with Liberal Democrats. And the unions must be held at arm’s length so as not to frighten the horses of the right or some fictional middle England swing voter. When really, even the more conservative voters he hopes to reach are concerned about wages and the cost of living.

 

Labour puts itself in a terrible position. It won’t spend its way out of the cost of living crisis and the recession to come because it’s busy tying itself up in orthodox Treasury knots, spewing out the line that governments are like households and can’t spend what they don’t have. Which is absurd, first, because households often spend what they don’t have, not least through mortgages. Governments can both borrow like that (with better rates and terms) or they can print money – as they did throughout Covid. But Labour is determinedly shutting this door, play-acting at what it thinks political grownups do.

 

It is also shutting the door on one of the best solutions to the cost of living crisis. One of the jobs of a union is to negotiate better wages from company profits, and it’s clear people are willing to go on strike rather than suffer eye-watering real wage cuts that leave their families short. It is the job of the party of labour to back them. To be clear, none of this is some Scargillite game of revolutionary toy soldiers. This is ordinary union action, using methods – such as strikes – familiar to all and protected by law. Moreover, this is a real-life crisis for millions of scared ordinary people. Labour cannot afford to be seen as anything but on their side.

 

The Starmer project, if we can give it such a grand title, knows how brittle and exposed it is in all this. It won on a Corbynism-without-Corbyn ticket and then ruthlessly and cynically kicked that all away. What matters here isn’t an adherence to Corbyn himself, but an analysis of the current situation, and a set of ideas and movements that stand at least a chance of addressing the age we now live in. Jeremy Corbyn was an implausible leader, but there were genuinely popular ideas and a willingness to take on modern challenges found in his movement. Not least revitalising trade unionism.

 

Enter Tarry, one of the stormtroopers for Corbyn’s leadership and an advocate of Labour backing people who actually labour (in 2010 Tarry and I both worked for the campaigning organisation Compass). This landed him in the crosshairs of the leadership’s panicked attempts to both rid the party of any voices of hope and reason, and pivot back to a sixth-form play of the New Labour era. It will not work.

 

What would work, or at least stand a chance, is to learn the lessons of Joe Biden in the US and Olaf Scholz in Germany, who both embraced the left of their parties and at least enjoyed the electoral spoils. What also works is the way Andy Burnham has used the platform of mayor in Greater Manchester to address the cost of living crisis via ownership and control of the buses and therefore lower fares. Burnham has also made democracy and proportional representation a first-order issue by saying that whatever we want, we won’t get it until we change the political system. Or the way that Mark Drakeford, the Labour leader of Wales, has put ideas such as a universal basic income on the map.

 

Meanwhile Labour turns its face against the moment. Complacency about a Liz Truss premiership could rebound in the way the left’s complacency about Margaret Thatcher’s election to the Tory leadership did in 1975. Parties have to win office to do anything. But without a purpose, a vision and hope, Labour is doomed to fail at that.

 

But that’s not the worst of it. Rachel Wolf, a former Conservative adviser, wrote recently about “the spectre of a rise in populism haunting (us)”. If the Tories continue to crash and Labour fails to offer any desirable or feasible alternative, waiting in the wings is something much worse.

 

The choice between a terrible party and a less terrible one is no choice at all – not when the planet burns, and people are starving. Maybe the widespread reaction to Tarry’s sacking will be a wake-up call. It can never be too late.

 

* Neal Lawson is director of the cross-party campaign organisation Compass

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

Spot on this from The Guardian.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/28/post-corbyn-vision-labour-keir-starmer-leadership
 

What happened to the post-Corbyn vision for Labour? Keir Starmer offers nothing

Neal Lawson
 

We need bold ideas, courage and hope, but timidity and backpedaling are the hallmarks of this Labour leadership
 

We live in an age of perpetual conflict. The global crash, the pandemic and now war and the cost of living crisis have shown us our economic and political systems are not fit for such chaotic times. The tide is now going out on one era, and the Labour party seems to have been left behind. It appears perpetually out of step, most recently when it sacked MP Sam Tarry, the now former Labour transport spokesperson who dared to stand on a picket line with striking workers, and lost his job shortly afterwards.

 

Labour in its post-Corbyn period is desperately searching for a playbook that will win it the next election, or at least keep it electorally afloat. But the only one to hand is apparently New Labour’s – and they offer a desiccated, joyless, and stripped bare version of that more interesting but long-gone moment.

 

 

Keir Starmer’s game isn’t to inspire with hope and a grand vision, but to play a glorified game of whack-a-mole with every possible Tory attack line. He promises, for example, “no magic money tree economics”, no nationalisation of public services, that Labour won’t talk to the SNP or deal with Liberal Democrats. And the unions must be held at arm’s length so as not to frighten the horses of the right or some fictional middle England swing voter. When really, even the more conservative voters he hopes to reach are concerned about wages and the cost of living.

 

Labour puts itself in a terrible position. It won’t spend its way out of the cost of living crisis and the recession to come because it’s busy tying itself up in orthodox Treasury knots, spewing out the line that governments are like households and can’t spend what they don’t have. Which is absurd, first, because households often spend what they don’t have, not least through mortgages. Governments can both borrow like that (with better rates and terms) or they can print money – as they did throughout Covid. But Labour is determinedly shutting this door, play-acting at what it thinks political grownups do.

 

It is also shutting the door on one of the best solutions to the cost of living crisis. One of the jobs of a union is to negotiate better wages from company profits, and it’s clear people are willing to go on strike rather than suffer eye-watering real wage cuts that leave their families short. It is the job of the party of labour to back them. To be clear, none of this is some Scargillite game of revolutionary toy soldiers. This is ordinary union action, using methods – such as strikes – familiar to all and protected by law. Moreover, this is a real-life crisis for millions of scared ordinary people. Labour cannot afford to be seen as anything but on their side.

 

The Starmer project, if we can give it such a grand title, knows how brittle and exposed it is in all this. It won on a Corbynism-without-Corbyn ticket and then ruthlessly and cynically kicked that all away. What matters here isn’t an adherence to Corbyn himself, but an analysis of the current situation, and a set of ideas and movements that stand at least a chance of addressing the age we now live in. Jeremy Corbyn was an implausible leader, but there were genuinely popular ideas and a willingness to take on modern challenges found in his movement. Not least revitalising trade unionism.

 

Enter Tarry, one of the stormtroopers for Corbyn’s leadership and an advocate of Labour backing people who actually labour (in 2010 Tarry and I both worked for the campaigning organisation Compass). This landed him in the crosshairs of the leadership’s panicked attempts to both rid the party of any voices of hope and reason, and pivot back to a sixth-form play of the New Labour era. It will not work.

 

What would work, or at least stand a chance, is to learn the lessons of Joe Biden in the US and Olaf Scholz in Germany, who both embraced the left of their parties and at least enjoyed the electoral spoils. What also works is the way Andy Burnham has used the platform of mayor in Greater Manchester to address the cost of living crisis via ownership and control of the buses and therefore lower fares. Burnham has also made democracy and proportional representation a first-order issue by saying that whatever we want, we won’t get it until we change the political system. Or the way that Mark Drakeford, the Labour leader of Wales, has put ideas such as a universal basic income on the map.

 

Meanwhile Labour turns its face against the moment. Complacency about a Liz Truss premiership could rebound in the way the left’s complacency about Margaret Thatcher’s election to the Tory leadership did in 1975. Parties have to win office to do anything. But without a purpose, a vision and hope, Labour is doomed to fail at that.

 

But that’s not the worst of it. Rachel Wolf, a former Conservative adviser, wrote recently about “the spectre of a rise in populism haunting (us)”. If the Tories continue to crash and Labour fails to offer any desirable or feasible alternative, waiting in the wings is something much worse.

 

The choice between a terrible party and a less terrible one is no choice at all – not when the planet burns, and people are starving. Maybe the widespread reaction to Tarry’s sacking will be a wake-up call. It can never be too late.

 

* Neal Lawson is director of the cross-party campaign organisation Compass

Not sure the shill allows stuff offering any form of criticism of Starmer on this thread mate.

 

 

 

 

yes it is spot on.

[Vincent Vega]

And good to see a national newspaper journalist advocating taking energy back into public hands. 

 

[Anubis]

Absolutely. Yet Rachel Reeves is on news interviews saying Labour wouldn’t do it. It’s so disheartening.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I wish they’d fuck off with this ‘vision and hope’ bullshit. It’s another meaningless phrase to be filed alongside ‘show some passion’ which really means ‘shout at them at PMQs because we hate them’. It’s all fucking bluster. Most of these people who are losing their absolute shit over Tarry hadn’t heard of him until he went on the TV, pretended to be a shadow Secretary and made up some policies. 

[Gnasher]

Who Tarry was is irrelevant. The issue is it was yet another act where the Labour leadership once again failed to support its core base. We had Lammy a few weeks ago. 

 

Genuine question. Anyone in the shadow cabinet made a statement yet on the gas profit announcement yesterday? 

[Gnasher]

25 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Absolutely. Yet Rachel Reeves is on news interviews saying Labour wouldn’t do it. It’s so disheartening.

It's even more disheartening to see Labour supporters defending her position. 

[Kevin D]

2 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

 

 

As well as it being obviously wrong, it looks like this was also a tactical mistake from Starmer.

Naturally, filthy, immature leftists like McDonnell have been critical but there’s also been quite a bit of criticism from other quarters. Moderates like Burnham and Khan, supporters like the Guardian and even the Unions that backed him over RLB in the leadership election.

[Bruce Spanner]

14 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

As well as it being obviously wrong, it looks like this was also a tactical mistake from Starmer.

Naturally, filthy, immature leftists like McDonnell have been critical but there’s also been quite a bit of criticism from other quarters. Moderates like Burnham and Khan, supporters like the Guardian and even the Unions that backed him over RLB in the leadership election.

 

It's a difficult line to walk, and I get the idea that 'a governement in waiting shouldn't...', but he's fucked this up.

 

Labour is the labour movements political arm, that's it's day one objective, anything else comes second.

 

An easier take would have been 'We are there as individuals showing support to workers around the land, as we would for you in the face of unprecedented attacks on your standards of living and I do not speak for the party here, but in a personal capacity. Labour, the party, is not in favour of strikes and would look to work towards mutually beneficial outcomes to help all involved and the only way that will happen is through govermental engagement with the unions, which the Tories are failing, or unwilling, to do.'

 

It'll be torn apart by the Hail, but que sera, sera.

 

I have a feeling there's more than meets the eye about this Tarry stuff though.

[Creator Supreme]

In fairness Bruce, who is in favour of strikes? They're always a last resort aren't they?

 

That's what I was told in my rep training, negotiation and consultation with the full involvement of the employer and the employee / Union member! Failing that arbitration, and if arbitration doesn't work, then you start the long road to withdrawal of labour!