Keir Starmer Labour Leader

moses said:
Healthy opposition is not a sideshow, without it, democracy is a sham. An unelected but actual opposition, is much better than two ideologically similar parties passing the baton back and forth.

We here in Ireland have a two party system where there is no visible ideological difference between the parties and it's been utterly disastrous. We have an actual opposition in the parliament now and it's arguable whether it's having a positive effect (I think it is) but the conversations are at least being had and people are being held to account.
Click to expand...

Again. Perfectly understandable, were that to be the case.
However, we can all see what damage the last election has done. Giving Boris and the Tories an 80 seat majority; leaving them to do whatever they choose.
That must never happen again. And that is precisely why Labour has got to become electable. Which means listening to the public and not telling the public what it should want as an ideology.
 
moses said:
I think you are overlooking the amount of regimes voted into power on non centrist platforms outside of the realms of Western Capitalism (which is arguably the great example of might is right)
Click to expand...

Yes, I wasn't looking anywhere except the UK.

Where extreme left or right figures/party's in the rest of the world have been voted into power, its usually only a one time occurrence, i.e. "one man, one vote...once"!

Was the outcome, in many cases
 
Buster15 said:
Again. Perfectly understandable, were that to be the case.
However, we can all see what damage the last election has done. Giving Boris and the Tories an 80 seat majority; leaving them to do whatever they choose.
That must never happen again. And that is precisely why Labour has got to become electable. Which means listening to the public and not telling the public what it should want as an ideology.
Click to expand...
The last election was unique in that Brexit is a once in a lifetime issue that dominated the GE. To take an outlier and use it to model your whole strategy will be disastrous.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes, I wasn't looking anywhere except the UK.

Where extreme left or right figures/party's in the rest of the world have been voted into power, its usually only a one time occurrence, i.e. "one man, one vote...once"!

Was the outcome, in many cases
Click to expand...

I think again you have an immediacy bias. There have been lots of Socialist / Marxist election victories; followed immediately by right wing military coups with foreign backing, like Brazil in 61, Chile in 1970, Argentina in 1976 . Frequently the intervention happens before the election, like Italy in 48 and Greece in 47. The one time occurrence is usually dictated as such by military intervention.

But sorry, wildly off topic.
 
Buster15 said:
Again. Perfectly understandable, were that to be the case.
However, we can all see what damage the last election has done. Giving Boris and the Tories an 80 seat majority; leaving them to do whatever they choose.
That must never happen again. And that is precisely why Labour has got to become electable. Which means listening to the public and not telling the public what it should want as an ideology.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I just think that to be become electable in any short term they will almost have to abandon any left leanings which will make the victory quite hollow. So for the long term benefit I'd rather see them become a loud, principled and consistent opposition and rebuild from there.

At the moment, neither is happening
 
Last edited:
Buster15 said:
Again. Perfectly understandable, were that to be the case.
However, we can all see what damage the last election has done. Giving Boris and the Tories an 80 seat majority; leaving them to do whatever they choose.
That must never happen again. And that is precisely why Labour has got to become electable. Which means listening to the public and not telling the public what it should want as an ideology.
Click to expand...

Two-party systems pervert politics. Politics should be about political parties advocating for their particular ideology, not just about identifying what the likely majority position is an assuming that. But when there are only two relevant parties it becomes all about that second part. It's worse in the US, but it's clearly happening in the UK as well, and that's honestly sad.
 
moses said:
I think again you have an immediacy bias. There have been lots of Socialist / Marxist election victories; followed immediately by right wing military coups with foreign backing, like Brazil in 61, Chile in 1970, Argentina in 1976 . Frequently the intervention happens before the election, like Italy in 48 and Greece in 47. The one time occurrence is usually dictated as such by military intervention.

But sorry, wildly off topic.
Click to expand...
They say the Pound is behaving more and more like an emerging market currency...
 
moses said:
Yeah, I just think that to be become electable in any short term they will almost have to abandon any left leanings which will make the victory quite hollow. So for the long term benefit I'd rather see them become a loud, principled and consistent opposition and rebuild from there.

At the moment, neither is happening
Click to expand...
I think you have to be in personally quite a privileged position to afford to be sanguine about the long view. Short term, there are millions of people right now who will get a rougher ride because it's Tories and not labour in power, whether it's a perfect version of labour or not. Perfection being the enemy of good and all that.
 
nimic said:
Two-party systems pervert politics. Politics should be about political parties advocating for their particular ideology, not just about identifying what the likely majority position is an assuming that. But when there are only two relevant parties it becomes all about that second part. It's worse in the US, but it's clearly happening in the UK as well, and that's honestly sad.
Click to expand...
There is an argument that says two party systems force parties to make the internal compromises necessary to win broad support. Otherwise what you get is parties taking all kinds of purist positions that immediately have to be jettisoned post election when they do the inevitable deals to take power. Choose your poison, but some sort of horse trading is inevitable.
 
nickm said:
There is an argument that says two party systems force parties to make the internal compromises necessary to win broad support. Otherwise what you get is parties taking all kinds of purist positions that immediately have to be jettisoned post election when they do the inevitable deals to take power. Choose your poison, but some sort of horse trading is inevitable.
Click to expand...

You can and will have those internal compromises anyway in multi-party systems. Even relatively small parties will have them, because the reality is that every party wants some growth and exists to achieve some influence. When there are only two relevant parties, then you often have to stick too many different positions into them, and the compromises get too wide.

And besides, as we've seen it's not like the UK and the US are any better at keeping promises after elections. If anything it's the opposite, since in multi-party systems everyone knows that their party will have to come to compromise to gain power.

I've heard the argument you present many times in the past, and I see the logic, I just don't really agree with it. Winner takes all is just worse than the alternatives, in my opinion, in almost every way. Some are worse than others. When there's not even a parliamentary system to back it up, it gets even worse. We've seen that in the US.
 
nickm said:
I think you have to be in personally quite a privileged position to afford to be sanguine about the long view. Short term, there are millions of people right now who will get a rougher ride because it's Tories and not labour in power, whether it's a perfect version of labour or not. Perfection being the enemy of good and all that.
Click to expand...

I agree, but do you think a labour shift to the centre is a viable option to win an election? The point being if they shift towards the centre and don't win, then there is not even a conversation remaining? Also if they do win what power will they have considering all the promises they'll have to make to win?
 
Buster15 said:
The only way to defeat the terrible Tories is for the Labour supporters to unite in order to vote Boris out.
To be honest, I find these type of factions self defeating.
Any political party is by definition going to have a range of preferences.
But as far as I am concerned, Labour is Labour. And that is good enough for me.
Click to expand...
This. Exactly this. The infighting is stupid, there is a real chance beat the Tories if Labour pull together.
 
Mart1974 said:
This. Exactly this. The infighting is stupid, there is a real chance beat the Tories if Labour pull together.
Click to expand...

When it's the leader instigating the infighting it's kind of unavoidable at this point. He stood on a unification platform that was popular with the membership, and now he's purging everyone he doesn't like, rigging future leadership elections and generally pursuing an unpopular, vague set of neoliberal policies that nobody quite understands. If you look at the polling he's no longer popular with Labour members, he's not popular with Tory voters, and many people simply don't know who he is or what he stands for. The only people who are seemingly into his policy vacuum are Lib Dem supporters which is, what, 10% of the country? Meanwhile he's also well on his way to bankrupting his own party, hiring and refiring party staff on zero hours contracts, and has most likely lost a lot of volunteers for campaigning due to having either purged them from the party or simply disillusioned them.

So if becoming electable means having Laura Kuenssberg cheerlead for you from time to time and maybe picking up a few Lib Dem votes here and there then I guess he's well on his way. If it means winning an election where the wider British public get a vote, I think telling them you're a liar with no policies is not that likely to work out for him.

But hey maybe up really is down, white is black etc etc. If it's not though, this dickhead is condemning us to another 5 interminable years of the Toryban.
 
TwoSheds said:
When it's the leader instigating the infighting it's kind of unavoidable at this point. He stood on a unification platform that was popular with the membership, and now he's purging everyone he doesn't like, rigging future leadership elections and generally pursuing an unpopular, vague set of neoliberal policies that nobody quite understands. If you look at the polling he's no longer popular with Labour members, he's not popular with Tory voters, and many people simply don't know who he is or what he stands for. The only people who are seemingly into his policy vacuum are Lib Dem supporters which is, what, 10% of the country? Meanwhile he's also well on his way to bankrupting his own party, hiring and refiring party staff on zero hours contracts, and has most likely lost a lot of volunteers for campaigning due to having either purged them from the party or simply disillusioned them.

So if becoming electable means having Laura Kuenssberg cheerlead for you from time to time and maybe picking up a few Lib Dem votes here and there then I guess he's well on his way. If it means winning an election where the wider British public get a vote, I think telling them you're a liar with no policies is not that likely to work out for him.

But hey maybe up really is down, white is black etc etc. If it's not though, this dickhead is condemning us to another 5 interminable years of the Toryban.
Click to expand...
my bolding... looking at the events here and across the pond, its actually the best way of getting power.
 
Superden said:
my bolding... looking at the events here and across the pond, its actually the best way of getting power.
Click to expand...

Not really. Telling them you're a liar with no policies is very much not the same as being a liar who tells the electorate you have a glorious plan. If you're going to lie it has to be about something interesting or big.
 
moses said:
I think again you have an immediacy bias. There have been lots of Socialist / Marxist election victories; followed immediately by right wing military coups with foreign backing, like Brazil in 61, Chile in 1970, Argentina in 1976 . Frequently the intervention happens before the election, like Italy in 48 and Greece in 47. The one time occurrence is usually dictated as such by military intervention.

But sorry, wildly off topic.
Click to expand...

You will have to explain that one to me, sorry!

I have lived through all those events you referred to above and a few more, if by immediacy you mean 'I was there' sort of thing... well I wasn't exactly there but do remember the news and media coverage, (such as it was)and as I've said in previous posts it all depends on where you are standing as to what's left and whats right.
Military intervention has changed governments that is absolutely correct, but the legitimacy of many voting systems which seem to result in almost 100% for one side or the other have been called into question as well as the actual outcome...seemed to remember it happening not long ago in the US!

You are right we have wandered off topic it was the UK system and Government originally under discussion, but I take my share of the blame for wandering off.
 
Maticmaker said:
You will have to explain that one to me, sorry!

I have lived through all those events you referred to above and a few more, if by immediacy you mean 'I was there' sort of thing... well I wasn't exactly there but do remember the news and media coverage, (such as it was)and as I've said in previous posts it all depends on where you are standing as to what's left and whats right.
Military intervention has changed governments that is absolutely correct, but the legitimacy of many voting systems which seem to result in almost 100% for one side or the other have been called into question as well as the actual outcome...seemed to remember it happening not long ago in the US!

You are right we have wandered off topic it was the UK system and Government originally under discussion, but I take my share of the blame for wandering off.
Click to expand...

Result in almost 100% for one side or the other? I think Mugabe got 98% once, can't think of many others. I really think trying to liken the recent electoral results in the US with those under a dictator in Zimbabwe is pretty obviously foolish. Might not have been so foolish if they'd let Trump back in for another term mind, could certainly have increased the levels of corruption in their electoral system further.

Every situation is different and trying to lump them all together is misguided. On the other hand drawing a common thread between places where the Russians, US, UK and France have been trying to fiddle their elections / launch coups is less daft since the CIA have used similar tactics all over Latin America for example. Nothing to do with whether they were "left" or "right" governments, merely whether they were on board with the Americans taking over their economies / politics. It just happens that the Americans are pretty "right" usually.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Not like Keir to break a promise made last year...

Merseyside Labour MPs accuse Keir Starmer of ‘betrayal’ over article in The Sun newspaper
Labour leader has previously said he would not give interview to newspaper
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-keir-starmer-sun-liverpool-b1931591.html
Click to expand...

I thought this lot were supposed to be the ones good at optics?

We're back to Immigration mug levels of incompetence where out of touch MPs try and figure out what what the common man would like.
 
TwoSheds said:
I really think trying to liken the recent electoral results in the US with those under a dictator in Zimbabwe is pretty obviously foolish.
Click to expand...

It was the voting systems I was referencing. I've been told (don't know myself) but I have been advised by many Caf. contributors living in the US that; Gerrymandering, voter suppression, the manipulation of the rules for registration, and the like have been used in the United States, mainly it seems by Republican States to affect majorities in elections. Such activities are designed (so I am told) to reject/mitigate against certain category of voters, or place them at a disadvantage, make things difficult for them to exercise their right to vote, etc. This presumably is done to result in majorities, sometimes massive majorities for specific candidates, so the comparison with Zimbabwe and many other states which 'manipulate' their voters systems is not foolish, we just don't like to think it happens in so called liberal democracies.
 
esmufc07 said:
Click to expand...


We should never places too much emphasis on individual spot polls for obvious reasons.
But if this is showing a trend over a week or so, then maybe we could begin to make some basic assumptions.
It does appear that both Starmer and Labour Conference in general had a positive impact on people's perceptions. At least in those areas.
And despite his limitations, Starmer seems to be starting to make an impact as a competent leader.
 
Buster15 said:
We should never places too much emphasis on individual spot polls for obvious reasons.
But if this is showing a trend over a week or so, then maybe we could begin to make some basic assumptions.
It does appear that both Starmer and Labour Conference in general had a positive impact on people's perceptions. At least in those areas.
And despite his limitations, Starmer seems to be starting to make an impact as a competent leader.
Click to expand...

I think that's an optimistic interpretation really. Labour only saw a +2 rise in areas where they're traditionally popular while the Greens grabbed +6. That reads as pretty awful for Starmer to me, and I'm not particularly anti-Starmer.
 
Buster15 said:
We should never places too much emphasis on individual spot polls for obvious reasons.
But if this is showing a trend over a week or so, then maybe we could begin to make some basic assumptions.
It does appear that both Starmer and Labour Conference in general had a positive impact on people's perceptions. At least in those areas.
And despite his limitations, Starmer seems to be starting to make an impact as a competent leader.
Click to expand...

Well the same poll at the national level had Labour -4 so i think your first statement is probably accurate.

The Green swing is the interesting one really. Either those who lent their votes are fed up of Tory, Lib Dem, Labour and thus going Green or Labour is seeing an exodus to the Greens itself.
 
Buster15 said:
We should never places too much emphasis on individual spot polls for obvious reasons.
But if this is showing a trend over a week or so, then maybe we could begin to make some basic assumptions.
It does appear that both Starmer and Labour Conference in general had a positive impact on people's perceptions. At least in those areas.
And despite his limitations, Starmer seems to be starting to make an impact as a competent leader.
Click to expand...
Yet the Greens outperform Labour. Do you think that is down to their leader?
 
Smores said:
Well the same poll at the national level had Labour -4 so i think your first statement is probably accurate.

The Green swing is the interesting one really. Either those who lent their votes are fed up of Tory, Lib Dem, Labour and thus going Green or Labour is seeing an exodus to the Greens itself.
Click to expand...
The latter is feasible. The break of the left vote in Scotland to a previously fringe party carrying more palatable policies may repeat in England.
 
Last edited:
Maticmaker said:
It was the voting systems I was referencing. I've been told (don't know myself) but I have been advised by many Caf. contributors living in the US that; Gerrymandering, voter suppression, the manipulation of the rules for registration, and the like have been used in the United States, mainly it seems by Republican States to affect majorities in elections. Such activities are designed (so I am told) to reject/mitigate against certain category of voters, or place them at a disadvantage, make things difficult for them to exercise their right to vote, etc. This presumably is done to result in majorities, sometimes massive majorities for specific candidates, so the comparison with Zimbabwe and many other states which 'manipulate' their voters systems is not foolish, we just don't like to think it happens in so called liberal democracies.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah well you're spot on, the US and UK electoral systems are very much set up to disadvantage the less unscrupulous parties but what does that actually result in in terms of the vote (counted fairly)? Maybe 5-10% at most? In countries where you get shot in the head by police stationed outside the polling station it's quite a different level of impossible to dislodge the establishment party.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

Funny enough, the German labour party (SPD), did have ads for the European elections which were basically saying: "Make Europe great"....
Then the German government began their presideny in the EU with the slogan... "make Europe great again".
 
Smores said:
Well the same poll at the national level had Labour -4 so i think your first statement is probably accurate.

The Green swing is the interesting one really. Either those who lent their votes are fed up of Tory, Lib Dem, Labour and thus going Green or Labour is seeing an exodus to the Greens itself.
Click to expand...

Yes. I should have mentioned the Green figure which I do find encouraging. Because I am passionate about man made climate change. And if I ever did abandon Labour, it would be to the Greens.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Yet the Greens outperform Labour. Do you think that is down to their leader?
Click to expand...

Not at all.
Climate change is definitely starting to be taken seriously by the public. And so I would have been surprised if their figure was not increasing.
 
Buster15 said:
Yes. I should have mentioned the Green figure which I do find encouraging. Because I am passionate about man made climate change. And if I ever did abandon Labour, it would be to the Greens.
Click to expand...

I think at this point my ideal government would be a Labour-Green coalition. It's the only way I'd trust Labour to do anything other than platitudes sadly.
 
Reading the replies in this thread just remind me why the Tories have been in power for 12 years and are likely to win again next time. We have corrupt, inhuman bastards running the country into the ground, but apparently its the opposition who just aren't good enough to vote for..
 
TwoSheds said:
Oh yeah well you're spot on, the US and UK electoral systems are very much set up to disadvantage the less unscrupulous parties but what does that actually result in in terms of the vote (counted fairly)? Maybe 5-10% at most? In countries where you get shot in the head by police stationed outside the polling station it's quite a different level of impossible to dislodge the establishment party.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly, but even 5-10% on a turnout of 65% of a 48M registered voter electorate in the UK (2019 figures), is still in the region of 3M+ votes unfairly treated or ignored, or not cast at all.

Of course physical reprisals (or the threat of) are more obvious and more effective, either in debarring someone from voting, or getting them to vote in a particular way. The point is that voting systems (all over the world) and therefore voters rights, can and are 'violated' sometimes obviously, sometimes succinctly, but in all cases they make a difference to those who either through manipulation of the rules are prevented from voting, or coerced into voting a particular way, or intimidated into not voting.

If you are one of the 3M+ voters (10%)whose vote has been subject to manipulation then your rights have been violated, just as much as if someone had put a gun to your head. In some ways its more insidious because in many cases you don't know that your vote has been violated, at least when threatened physically you know your rights have been denied... as well as probably experiencing an unexpected bowel movement!
 
Maticmaker said:
I don't know exactly, but even 5-10% on a turnout of 65% of a 48M registered voter electorate in the UK (2019 figures), is still in the region of 3M+ votes unfairly treated or ignored, or not cast at all.

Of course physical reprisals (or the threat of) are more obvious and more effective, either in debarring someone from voting, or getting them to vote in a particular way. The point is that voting systems (all over the world) and therefore voters rights, can and are 'violated' sometimes obviously, sometimes succinctly, but in all cases they make a difference to those who either through manipulation of the rules are prevented from voting, or coerced into voting a particular way, or intimidated into not voting.

If you are one of the 3M+ voters (10%)whose vote has been subject to manipulation then your rights have been violated, just as much as if someone had put a gun to your head. In some ways its more insidious because in many cases you don't know that your vote has been violated, at least when threatened physically you know your rights have been denied... as well as probably experiencing an unexpected bowel movement!
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. However, all major elections involving lots of different "moving parts" and millions of people are inevitably in some ways slightly unfair, whether intentional or not. The extent of that unfairness is very important though - I'm not condoning the UK and US voting systems but the extent of their unfairness is of an entirely different magnitude compared to, for example, a dictatorship or a place that has a free election which is undermined by what amounts to a coup (e.g. the US intervening in Venezuela or Bolivia in recent years).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.