Keir Starmer

[Jairzinho]

Quote

"the fact is that Corbyn had his chance and fluffed it spectacularly."

No, he didn't have much of a chance at all really. 

 

Starmer will. So, no excuses for him.

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

If you blame Corbyn for everything you probably are a centrist like. 

Alas, the word already has a meaning. It can’t have another one. The political spectrum existed long before Jeremy Corbyn and it’ll exist long after him. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

No, he didn't have much of a chance at all really. 

 

Starmer will. So, no excuses for him.

He had five years as Labour leader. If that’s not a chance, I don’t know what it is. He had stern opposition inside and outside the party, no denying that, but five years is a chance. A chance to get his vision across, a chance to sort out the party and bring it together, a chance to win support, especially after the 2017 challenge. Saying he didn’t have much of a chance isn’t right, in my view. He made it much harder for himself and for the party. What the fuck was Milne doing? I suspect Corbyn’s nature as a loyal and principled person manifested into accepting mediocrity in the name of loyalty. He just didn’t have fundamental leadership skills. I don’t think it was easy for him, as it wasn’t for Brown or ‘Red Ed’, but the chance he did have, especially in the last two years, was fluffed and squandered. I can’t think of many campaigns in politics that have been more poorly run. 
 

As for Starmer, I don’t think he should be judged any differently to Corbyn. He has exactly the same position and has a lot of internal issues to sort out. In fact, he has a significantly worse starting position. He inherited a broken party, by any sensible measure. He has time to do it and should, like Corbyn, be judged on how he manages it. Externally he might, if we are lucky, get an easier ride. I suspect some of that will be his own doing. The way he dealt with Bailey will make the external easier but the internal harder. I’m not wanting excuses made for either of them. 
 

 

[Jairzinho]

He doesn't have exactly the same position at all. It isn't even remotely comparable, and if you think it is I'm not really sure how we could continue the discussion. 

 

Hope he wins, like.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

He doesn't have exactly the same position at all. It isn't even remotely comparable, and if you think it is I'm not really sure how we could continue the discussion. 

 

Hope he wins, like.

I do think they have same position, yeah. Both Labour party leaders. That’s not to say they’re in the same position or the climate is the same or any of that, but it’s the same position. We could continue the discussion with you letting me know what you mean by they’re not the same position. I explained what I meant by it. 
 

It might not be worth your time, or mine; he’s gone and it’s really just raking over coals that are still warm but not that relevant outside of Corbynites that are pissed off. 

[Scooby Dudek]

1 hour ago, Numero said:

I do think they have same position, yeah. Both Labour party leaders. That’s not to say they’re in the same position or the climate is the same or any of that, but it’s the same position. We could continue the discussion with you letting me know what you mean by they’re not the same position. I explained what I meant by it. 
 

It might not be worth your time, or mine; he’s gone and it’s really just raking over coals that are still warm but not that relevant outside of Corbynites that are pissed off. 

The last bit is the issue I have, you talk about labels bring thrown about but any negative comment about Starmer is "Corbynites that are pissed off". Throw a label and ignore people's opinion, I thought that was a terrible thing to do. 

 

Lots of Labour M.P.s were lining up to condemn Corbyn from the start, the coordinated resignations being an obvious example. BBC having a resignation live before PMQs is great independent television. 

Now either the Corbynite M.P.s either have followed party unity and have not lined up to slag Starmer off, or they want too but are not getting the media coverage. Either way Starmer is not in the same position.

 

 

[Scooby Dudek]

Stating the obvious, I didn't vote for Starmer and do not have confidence he will put forward the policies I want. However, I admit I have been surprised and impressed with him at PMQs. As I said earlier I will publically support him (this site doesn't count) until review of the leaked documents in relation to leading members working against/supporting Labour losing an election. 

 

In relation to policies, the membership propose and vote at conference and we will then see if he will listen to the membership completely or go exclusively with his team and decide without taking membership into account or follow a middle ground.

I have no issue, conference voted to abolish private schools (Labour leadership never put it in manifesto or supported it, despite media reports), if the leadership tone down conference policy votes but they should not ignore them completely if they wish to call themselves a democratic party.

[Numero Veinticinco]

17 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

The last bit is the issue I have, you talk about labels bring thrown about but any negative comment about Starmer is "Corbynites that are pissed off". Throw a label and ignore people's opinion, I thought that was a terrible thing to do. 

What opinion am I ignoring? I’m saying that Corbyn is no longer relevant outside of all of the Corbynites who are pissed off, not that all Cirbynites are pissed off or - which is what I think you’re erroneously suggesting - that all negative opinion is dismissible by saying ‘it’s just Corbynites being pissy’. That said, a lot of the criticism that’s coming from pissy Corbynites. 

 

17 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Lots of Labour M.P.s were lining up to condemn Corbyn from the start, the coordinated resignations being an obvious example. BBC having a resignation live before PMQs is great independent television. 

Now either or the Corbynite M.P.s either have followed party unity and have not lined up to slag Starmer off, or they want too but are not getting the media coverage. Either way Starmer is not in the same position.

I even bolded the relevant difference, mate. He has the same position. He isn’t necessarily in the same position (if, by position, we mean circumstances). I think it’s too early to say what the Socialist Campaign Group will do. But in many ways Starmer has a worse situation than Corbyn and in some ways he has an easier situation. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Staying the obvious, I didn't vote for Starmer and do not have confidence he will put forward the policies I want. 

I don’t think it’d be fair to judge either way just yet. I don’t know if he will or will not put forward the policies I want. We can only really judge on what information we have and that’s not a huge amount. 
 

15 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

I admit I have been surprised and impressed with him at PMQs. As I said earlier I will publically support him (this site doesn't count) until review of the leaked documents in relation to leading members working against/supporting Labour losing an election. 

That will indeed be interesting. It will be interesting to see the findings, how Starmer reacts, and it will be interesting to see the reaction of people who don’t get their desired result. That could be the ones implicated and their supporters or it could be those who claim it and it wasn’t found to be true. It will be a partisan witch hunt that is a stitch up or it’ll be unfair and have been a cover up for Starmer’s allies. Anybody found working against Labour in a general election, including Starmer, has no business being in the party. If it comes back with senior members working against their own party, he surely has to get rid. Unless there’s some very good reason not to (like, if somebody inadvertently said or did something), he can’t not. But if it comes back and there’s no evidence for it, I suspect and predict those same pissy Corbynites just won’t accept it. Not the left. Not people who supported Corbyn under his leadership, but the pissy Corbynites I posted examples of earlier. 

[Bruce Spanner]

It’s almost like some people want the Tories in perpetuity...

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

It’s almost like some people want the Tories in perpetuity...

Indeed. 

[sir roger]

14 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

It’s almost like some people want the Tories in perpetuity...

We are talking about the shenanigans at Labour HQ I assume. 

[Dr Nowt]

Siamese twins taking it in turns to shoot their own bollocks off, then arguing over who’s fault it was.

 

Never change, Labour.

[Bruce Spanner]

23 minutes ago, sir roger said:

We are talking about the shenanigans at Labour HQ I assume. 

Yes, and the party members, the unions and every other petty cunt who is placing their own thoughts, emotions and feeling over what is actually fucking important, beating the fucking Tories.

 

I am a person who wants equality, job security, a considered approach to geopolitics, a fully funded NHS and welfare state, so nobody goes hungry or can’t afford treatment, a school system that genuinely promoted social mobility, an economy based on what’s best for everybody and jobs for as many are capable, with pay that recognises effort.

 

You know who’s best to produce that, on whatever subjective sliding scale you’re clinging to, the Labour Party working in union with all the ideas and considerations of its members.

 

Corbyn is labour, Starmer is labour it’s a broad fucking church and while everyone stares at their shoes blaming every other cunt the Tories are riding roughshod over everything and WE are to fucking blame because of this self destructive, ideological chest puffing.

 

Anything is better than the fucking Tories, get over yourselves.

 

 

[Captain Howdy]

9 hours ago, Section_31 said:

I've only ever been to two Labour conferences, both under sufferance. 

 

The first was under Brown's leadership and there were the likes of Ed Balls, an economics expert talking about stuff like how the country could harness post war economics as an alternative to austerity.

 

The second was under corbyn. There were loads of old white blokes outside waving Palestinian flags and Eddie Izzard was walking around the lobby in high heels. There was nobody recognisable giving speeches either, MPs had been banished to some kind of naughty step and the vibe was very much that they were there to do what they were told and speak when they were spoken to, most of the speeches were by delegates, random council staff from Trafford and the likes, talking about solidarity with kashmir.

 

Both myself and everyone else I know who are members of a clp (three different ones between us) have largely the same experience. You 'get told' what the clp has voted for, if you go and raise an unpopular view you get shouted down. If you email and ask why you weren't invited to an important vote (I was never told when they'd be meeting to vote for their preferred party leadership candidate, for example) you don't get a response. If you complain about this to region or the national party, you don't get a response. 

 

During the election working for a Labour MP I was writing pamphlets and posters and making it up as I went along as there was nobody above you delivering any kind of strategy or support. It was every man for themselves.

 

The people around corbyn focused their election efforts on stuff that would make the news, such as trying to oust high profile tory MPs even though they had no chance of winning, rather than concentrating any resources on areas where labour could actually win or retain a seat.

 

Crucially, and this is where I was well and trying finished with the corbyn project. There was talk about a year ago about replacing him as leader (with his agreement) with someone that might have a better chance of winning, as it was felt that due to all the Brexit shit that an election was coming (probably this year). The people who suggested this were allies of his but who wanted to see a labour government.

 

But the people in his immediate circle convinced him to stay, knowing that he couldn't win. We went into the election knowing we'd lose, everything was about fighting your own fires with no support from above. It was a disgrace.

 

A lot of pople latched onto the corbyn project because it gave them some power and influence. They rocked up to meetings in caps and Che Guevara t shirts with banjos autographed by Jeremy and told elected MPs "just remember who you're working for". They were the type of people we've all met, the type of people who berate the work experience kids for having 'no common sense' and claimed to have been from the University of life. But they didn't know shit about shit. They just said solidarity a lot, blagged their way into council committees for a few extra grand a year and tried to bully anyone that stood in their way. 

 

I'm not saying these are representative of everyone who joined under corbyn, but in my experience they're the ones who've wielded the influence.

 

Needless to say, these are not firm foundations for acquiring power and forming a government. But many of them didn't care, and as a pragmatist who simply doesn't want to live under a tory government into his 50s and fucking 60s, that's unforgivable.

I always had you down as a Corbynite, must have misremembered. I said from day one the appointment was an unmitigated disaster, I wanted nothing to do with him. 

[Section_31]

12 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

I always had you down as a Corbynite, must have misremembered. I said from day one the appointment was an unmitigated disaster, I wanted nothing to do with him. 

 

I'm not into politics or personalities enough to devote myself to a particular leader (captain Kirk and Ken Barlow would be the only notable exceptions)

 

I'm not even particularly into labour, I just see them as the only alternative to the s

tories. I'm a pragmatist and feel you have to play the historical and societal cards you're dealt if you're trying to get into government.

 

As far as Corbyn was concerned my opinion went back and forth depending on how I felt he was doing. I buzzed off the fact he won as he was a disruptor and I was tired of the same old suits, then I started to suspect he was a bad leader creating a lot of bad blood, then I felt like he started to grow into the role and looked good against May in the 2017 election, then the old flaws re-emerged and I was genuinely freaked out that him and people around him seemed determined to hold on regardless of the clear fact he had no chance of winning, as someone who felt ordinary folk would suffer as a result of that, my personal opinion of him for allowing that to happen plummeted.

[Captain Howdy]

13 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

I'm not into politics or personalities enough to devote myself to a particular leader (captain Kirk and Ken Barlow would be the only notable exceptions)

 

I'm not even particularly into labour, I just see them as the only alternative to the s

tories. I'm a pragmatist and feel you have to play the historical and societal cards you're dealt if you're trying to get into government.

 

As far as Corbyn was concerned my opinion went back and forth depending on how I felt he was doing. I buzzed off the fact he won as he was a disruptor and I was tired of the same old suits, then I started to suspect he was a bad leader creating a lot of bad blood, then I felt like he started to grow into the role and looked good against May in the 2017 election, then the old flaws re-emerged and I was genuinely freaked out that him and people around him seemed determined to hold on regardless of the clear fact he had no chance of winning, as someone who felt ordinary folk would suffer as a result of that, my personal opinion of him for allowing that to happen plummeted.

I don’t even vote mate, I’m more a political voyeur, had Corbyn down as a disaster, I was correct.

[Jairzinho]

What is a Corbynite?

[Section_31]

13 minutes ago, Captain Howdy said:

I don’t even vote mate, I’m more a political voyeur, had Corbyn down as a disaster, I was correct.

I could never not vote to be honest. 

 

I proceed from the belief that the Tories are the source of all evil in Britain and vote accordingly. I vote labour but would tactically vote for the Lib Dems, Greens or for an SNP invasion if needs be.

 

In an ideal world though I'd just move to Norway and save all the hassle.

[cloggypop]

5 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

What is a Corbynite?

Them lot to the left of the centrists. 

[Bruce Spanner]

12 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

What is a Corbynite?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Corbynite

 

 

[Captain Howdy]

31 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

What is a Corbynite?

A political term, a Thatcherite a Bennite, a Blairite a Brownite etc 

[Jairzinho]

Yeah, that doesn't mean anything. 

[Captain Howdy]

Following /endorsing/supporting/espousing the views of a particular individuals political beliefs

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Captain Howdy said:

A political term, a Thatcherite a Bennite, a Blairite a Brownite etc 

Yeah, I get that. But it isn't like the man invented a political ideology. 

 

What if you largely supported the policies but didn't think he was a very good leader?

 

What if you didn't even support the policies but wholeheartedly supported him when he was leader? 

 

Exactly the same views, but never wanted him as leader?

 

Etc, etc. 

 

Or is it just a catch all term of insult for anyone that has reservations about the direction of the party now?

 

Like centrist or Blairite are the other way.