He deleted those allegations pretty sharpish didn't he...
But as he's part of the right wing murdoch media it's probably all a smear anyway according to several years worth of your moaning
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
He deleted those allegations pretty sharpish didn't he...
But as he's part of the right wing murdoch media it's probably all a smear anyway according to several years worth of your moaning
A perspective I read elsewhere. That despite left-wing politics seemingly appearing more popular on social media compared to right-wing politics, it's actually social media that has broken the Labour Party and galvanised the Conservative Party.
The rationale behind this is that while most people are not on Twitter, the media class are. The activist types are. And the hyper politically partisan people are. And on the left there is a greater emphasis on these activist ideas which is not a bad thing in motivation and goals but it can box politicians into having to co-opt language or embrace outwardly subjects that are resonating yet outside the social bubble. Or face being shamed. The media class who are more educated and cosmopolitan get their cues from what is trending online pick it up and before you know it creates a backlash whereby Labour are complicit in bigotry. If Labour do outwardly show solidarity without being shamed into it, this is where the right-wing ecosystem of playing into people's fears of "wokeness" in the absence of real policies that actually matter comes into play. The Conservative Party has been in power for eleven years yet they don't run on a record of what they've done because they don't have a positive record. Traditional conservative economic policy hurts these small town areas and communities but loss of status is the driving factor now.
If you take the trans community for example, they only make up a tiny percentage of the public. So small that most people don't ever encounter a trans person. Yet by affirming that even if they are a small group of the public, they deserve the same respect as any other, the right-wing ecosystem of tabloid media, talkradio, sensationalist spin and fearmongering will then spend weeks and months caricaturing transgender people as a menace to society and suddenly if you are someone who is white, middle aged, heterosexual, a non-degree holder surrounded by people just like you in small towns, and you drive a truck for a living, the worry of a loss of status comes in as it is implied that Labour cares much more about them than you. This applies to immigration to where the areas which are most anti-immigration happen to be the areas where the least amount of effect of immigration takes place. Again, the idea that Labour cares more about them than you is pushed.
When Labour used to be the clear working class party it wasn't that they were paragons of virtue. Economic left-wing philosophy were shared among a lot of people who were also racists, sexists, crooks. Now the idea is that Labour have lost the working class precisely because they are trying to hard to be of virtue. Trying to not offend. It's a difficult conundrum to solve because the white working class man now resonates more with the epitome of elite (Johnson, Farage, Trump in the US) because they "say it as it is". Never mind that their policies do not help improve real conditions, it's just about feel and status that these men look like me, sound like me, dislike the people I dislike and aren't PC/woke.
The rationale behind this is that while most people are not on Twitter, the media class are. The activist types are. And the hyper politically partisan people are. And on the left there is a greater emphasis on these activist ideas which is not a bad thing in motivation and goals but it can box politicians into having to co-opt language or embrace outwardly subjects that are resonating yet outside the social bubble. Or face being shamed. The media class who are more educated and cosmopolitan get their cues from what is trending online pick it up and before you know it creates a backlash whereby Labour are complicit in bigotry. If Labour do outwardly show solidarity without being shamed into it, this is where the right-wing ecosystem of playing into people's fears of "wokeness" in the absence of real policies that actually matter comes into play. The Conservative Party has been in power for eleven years yet they don't run on a record of what they've done because they don't have a positive record. Traditional conservative economic policy hurts these small town areas and communities but loss of status is the driving factor now.
If you take the trans community for example, they only make up a tiny percentage of the public. So small that most people don't ever encounter a trans person. Yet by affirming that even if they are a small group of the public, they deserve the same respect as any other, the right-wing ecosystem of tabloid media, talkradio, sensationalist spin and fearmongering will then spend weeks and months caricaturing transgender people as a menace to society and suddenly if you are someone who is white, middle aged, heterosexual, a non-degree holder surrounded by people just like you in small towns, and you drive a truck for a living, the worry of a loss of status comes in as it is implied that Labour cares much more about them than you. This applies to immigration to where the areas which are most anti-immigration happen to be the areas where the least amount of effect of immigration takes place. Again, the idea that Labour cares more about them than you is pushed.
When Labour used to be the clear working class party it wasn't that they were paragons of virtue. Economic left-wing philosophy were shared among a lot of people who were also racists, sexists, crooks. Now the idea is that Labour have lost the working class precisely because they are trying to hard to be of virtue. Trying to not offend. It's a difficult conundrum to solve because the white working class man now resonates more with the epitome of elite (Johnson, Farage, Trump in the US) because they "say it as it is". Never mind that their policies do not help improve real conditions, it's just about feel and status that these men look like me, sound like me, dislike the people I dislike and aren't PC/woke.
Any excuse. We all know the problem has been Starmer and the centrists lack of ideas.
Probably because people like Karrie Murphy are going on record saying things like this
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...bours-fortunes.html?__twitter_impression=true
Or more likely. Probably because this has been their agenda all along.
I think people seeing his mug in Hartlepool just reminded them how bad labour has been for their city.
She looks like she's about to ice to mofo.
Off topic but I wish my union would spend time actually dealing with its members problems at work instead of fecking around trying to force in whoever Len wants to be Labour leader.
She looks like she's about to ice to mofo.
promo for a shit detective drama on ITV3.
Really well articulated perspective. Would you mind sharing the source you mentioned?
Twas ever thus I am afraid.
Starmer has lost 326 seats (-7%), the worst local election results for a new opposition leader in over 40 years.
CON: 2,345 (+235)
LAB: 1,345 (-326)
LD: 586 (+7)
GRN: 151 (+88)
If he is going to shift the party further right and go against his leadership pledges. Then he should get a mandate from Labour members. Another leadership contest would be interesting.
CON: 2,345 (+235)
LAB: 1,345 (-326)
LD: 586 (+7)
GRN: 151 (+88)
If he is going to shift the party further right and go against his leadership pledges. Then he should get a mandate from Labour members. Another leadership contest would be interesting.
Last edited:
i don't think this is a terrible strategy, but it will need boris to suffer a pretty bad fall to work. the party can produce rhetoric and maybe some policy to the right of the tories on some economic issues, and match them on the right on social issues, which should appeal to the lost voters.
e -to reinforce the point, we heard from a labour-> tory voter here on what the party does wrong, a chancellor like this would certainly help win some of those voters:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare
e -to reinforce the point, we heard from a labour-> tory voter here on what the party does wrong, a chancellor like this would certainly help win some of those voters:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare
Last edited:
What's the mechanism by which the party membership could force this, eg by a vote of no confidence?
In Corbyn's case, I think it came from Labour MPs?
Can the grass roots membership force one?
I've no idea if it is possible tbh. But the way the party are going away from Starmers previous leadership pledges, it would be a valid request.
Apologies if anyone has already posted the news about Starmer's shadow cabinet reshuffle tonight:
Rachel Reeves promoted to Shadow Chancellor, Annalise Dodds demoted.
Angela Rayner sacked as party chair and policy coordinator, but appointed as Dutchy of Lancaster (Gove's shadow), and given a newly created internal role.
Main stories after a bizarre and farcical 24 hours for Labour...
1) The party continues to lurch to the right
Rachel Reeves is arguably further to the right economically than Rishi Sunak has been over the last 12 months, so we're in the strange situation where Labour will likely continue to be outflanked from the left economically by a populist Tory government.
2) Starmer's position is really shaky
It seems clear this wasn't the shadow cabinet that he wanted, and all of the delays and bizarre briefings and backpedaling over Rayner look like a leader that wanted to blame and bin off his deputy leader but was forced into backing down and giving her a 'promotion' after they hugely underestimated the backlash from all wings of the party.
Another day, another set of embarrassing Labour party internal politics. At least we may soon have yet more proof that moving to the centre and creating a New Labour tribute act is not the path to electoral success in 2021 that some high profile pundits have been saying it would be for 4 years.
Rachel Reeves promoted to Shadow Chancellor, Annalise Dodds demoted.
Angela Rayner sacked as party chair and policy coordinator, but appointed as Dutchy of Lancaster (Gove's shadow), and given a newly created internal role.
Main stories after a bizarre and farcical 24 hours for Labour...
1) The party continues to lurch to the right
Rachel Reeves is arguably further to the right economically than Rishi Sunak has been over the last 12 months, so we're in the strange situation where Labour will likely continue to be outflanked from the left economically by a populist Tory government.
2) Starmer's position is really shaky
It seems clear this wasn't the shadow cabinet that he wanted, and all of the delays and bizarre briefings and backpedaling over Rayner look like a leader that wanted to blame and bin off his deputy leader but was forced into backing down and giving her a 'promotion' after they hugely underestimated the backlash from all wings of the party.
Another day, another set of embarrassing Labour party internal politics. At least we may soon have yet more proof that moving to the centre and creating a New Labour tribute act is not the path to electoral success in 2021 that some high profile pundits have been saying it would be for 4 years.
Rachel Reeves came out with this policy before didnt she
sounds like a vote winner to me - bit of a nightmare to actually try to implement probably but given they would almost certainly have to look at a coalition involving the SNP they can always fudge it and blame the snp (who wont care if they get indy rerf 2)
shadow work and pensions mininster
shadow chief secretary to the treasury
Shadow Business secretary
Masteres in Economics from LSE
Worked as an Economist for the Bank of England in Washington
Hard to imagine many people better qualified from the 200 or so MP's labour has for the treasury brief
Though I imagine supporting the Auschwitz - Birkenau Foundation is proabably a red line for some of her opponents
[
If that's a vote winner then we need to address a bigger problem.
So in an economic down turn, unemployed professionals should be forced to take jobs working for the likes of Amazon probably on a "self employed" basis which means less rights and no holiday or sick pay.
If that's a vote winner then we need to address a bigger problem.
Or all of those jobs that we cant fill post brexit... or fixing up parks and youth centres... or clearing rubbish out of rivers and canals or many other community type projects
Or they are free to turn the job down and receive a reduction in benefits (unless there is a valid reason they can't do the job)
I find this really odd, why does the Daily Mail refer to Karie Murphy as a close ally of McCluskey rather than Chief of Staff for Corbyn, surely more Mail readers would know and loathe JC than McCluskey.
Is this Peter Mandelson's account? Feck me.
No and nah...
Mandy might throw you a pitty bone though... feel free to hit him up
So community service for being unemployed? Isn't that normally reserved as a punishment for soft criminals?
I assume you know being unemployed is not a crime and should not be punishable.
Rachel Reeves is garbage. Literal waste of skin and oxygen, it makes far too much sense that you would like her.
You’re a very angry person
When it comes to politics... very much so.
Edit: although I'd say passionate more than angry, I always surprises me that people aren't more passionate about things that affect every one.
Dealing with 'less rights and no holiday or sick pay' is a separate issue, which I am right behind, it's long overdue.
A guaranteed job for the unemployed would be a huge vote winner. There are lots of people unemployed desperate for a job, but they don't quite 'fit in' with what employers are looking for, they often just look or behave differently to the norm and can't get past the interview stage. A programme like that would be expensive but worth it for me.
I find the term 'professional' a bit snobby at the best of times, but does it really apply anyway after someone has been unemployed for two years?
He doesn't come across well at all anytime I see or hear him speak, like a robot trying to mimic the behaviour of humans. Corbyn appeared positively statesmanlike by comparison.
Labour just keep learning all the wrong lessons from their failures and continue to make the same mistakes over and over. Bet the tories can't believe their luck.
Labour just keep learning all the wrong lessons from their failures and continue to make the same mistakes over and over. Bet the tories can't believe their luck.
Community service is unpaid... jobs are paid...
I think that differentiation makes a big difference here
Yep, that's her.
I disagree that it would be a vote winner and would be interested to see any evidence/rationale you have for that. I mean, even in the 2010s in the peak 'Benefit Steeet' shirkers vs workers era, it failed miserably. Along with austerity, I think social security is one of the areas where Corbyn's Labour party have managed to shape public opinion - if you look at opinion polling on social security, you can see the public view of benefit recipients become far less negative and toxic during Corbyn's leadership and obviously during a pandemic with millions of people and businesses relying on state transfers it's shifted even further.
I would also push back on the 'most qualified' point. Hillary Clinton was touted as the most qualified presidential candidate ever, but in the end that didn't cut through to anyone other than a few middle class woke feminist centrists online. Besides, nobody really cares about the competency of the shadow cabinet as they don't really have to do much - it's about party direction, ideology and management.
Ultimately, responding to losing a working class red wall seat by demoting working class MPs and promoting the third way technocratic unrelatable wing is tone deaf and marks the shift of the party to the right rather than any 'most qualified people for the job' narrative. She's also an example of the exact 'metropolitan elite' (born in London, Oxbridge educated, parachuted into a 'safe' northern Labour seat she has no connection to), that has contributed to the decimation of Labour's northern base of working class support.
I think the only thing they hate more than immigrants is unions.
Of course many of their readers are people who would benefit from unions but for some reason that doesn't matter.
It's very disappointing that the only thing they can think to remedy their failure is to double down on the old classics.
They still don't get that new labour is as toxic as Corbyn and that they need a new approach.
At this stage I'm just waiting for the collapse to juatify an alliance and then a change in leadership. Bring on Burnham.
They still don't get that new labour is as toxic as Corbyn and that they need a new approach.
At this stage I'm just waiting for the collapse to juatify an alliance and then a change in leadership. Bring on Burnham.