yeah, i'm not certain he means it or that labour means it, either. it should happen but it'll always be a problem for the next opposition bench. if you think you can win, why bother?
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Leading in the polls doesn't mean an election win. Labour are said to need a good 12% lead to get a majority.
Given where we are you'd think the poll lead may not slip like it usually does during a campaign but who knows.
the biggest one for me is that starmer's three year project of courting the right wing press, which i'm no fan of, has paid off insofar as it's not clear they won't move behind labour come next election. how much more value is there for someone like murdoch or whoever inherits that empire in staying behind this tory government? on the other hand, they could very easily jump behind some new tory face.
it's true that the poll lead could narrow a lot. but it could also widen. the next ge could be an open air forum on all the ills of successive tory governments from the inflection point of post-pandemic, high-inflation, and crippling cost of living britain.
I certainly hope you are right.
What are you banging on about? Are you just WUMing now? No one is forcing you to vote for anyone. All people did on here was ask you question of who you are voting for yet you get your knickers in a twist and play some kind of victim. Very strange.
I can't say I've read anywhere near enough about the profiling issue to make anything like an informed judgment about it, so I won't (it's a rare talent I feel these days to be able to say 'I don't know').
Regarding the ideological purity: I see it as being unwavering in your pursuit of a mythical Party that is both electable and also matching you exactly in your ideology. Corbyn, for his many issues, had a wealth of policies that I'm 100% on board with, but I acknowledge that Labour under him, lost two elections to two of the worst PMs in our history, giving one an absolutely horrific 80-seat majority. Because of that I've acknowledged that I can't realistically find a party that is likely to be elected, that is anywhere near to my personal political ideology. Therefore, I look at which of the electable parties is closer to my desired destination.
I've posted before about political parties being busses, not taxis. They won't get you exactly where you want to go, but you take the one that gets you closest. Starmer may lie about being able to take me to the proverbial end of my street, but he's heading in the right direction, so I'm going with him.
Ideological purity is the equivalent of staying on the bus that's heading in the opposite direction, all the while complaining about the direction the bus is going, all because the Labour bus didn't have a stop outside your door.
As someone who is trying to get to grips with current politics (I hate it generally because I find them all liars who won’t admit they are in the wrong).
What are Starmer’s general faults? As in, I’ve heard some people say that Labour would stand better chance without him in charge. What’s generally the negatives for him?
What are Starmer’s general faults? As in, I’ve heard some people say that Labour would stand better chance without him in charge. What’s generally the negatives for him?
These are vote winners IMO
For some it's that he's not Jeremy Corbyn
Though for most that's his biggest positive
Made 10 pledges in the run up to becoming leader before abandoning all of them. Promised to unite the party but instead purged the left. Promised to root out antisemitism but the definition of the word for him means that criticism of Israel is antisemitic, which has led to the expulsion of many Jews from the party. Claims that his first order of business as PM will be the Hillsborough Law but also gives interviews to the Sun newspaper. The flag shagging, the monarchy sycophancy, the lack of solidarity with picketing union members.
Probably more but that's just off the top of my head.
Alright. So to bring it back to what started it all, saying that those who believes in Starmer's latest spiel (the energy thing) deserves to be taken for a ride is not on its own ideological purity as long as you still voting Labour while pointing out that it's just bullshit, right?
I'm also wondering if there's a line that can be crossed here. For instance, say that Labour figures they have to compete on immigration, so they launch the Congo Republic asylum plan. It's more centrist than the Rwanda one on most measures; it's closer to the UK, it scores slightly higher on the Human Development Index and it has a coastline.
Would that matter at all? Also they snap up Rishi Sunak to take advantage of Tory turmoil.
The line is simply ‘Do I believe that life under this Labour would be better or worse than it currently is’
It'll be absolutely no different. Except the people who rightly dragged Farage and co for their points based immigration system fantasies will instead be supporting it.
So, yes, you would vote for Sunak and his Congo Republic asylum plan. Ok, I wouldn't.
And you know that how? From his career as a public defender? Or more of the media driven nonsense about ‘all politicians are the same’?
I didn’t say would my life be better, I’d take everything in to account.
Again, your suggesting that we stay with this cabal of fascists because the opposition isn’t offering a Shangri La with everyone holding hands and living in peace.
Oh I know for definite that not all politicians are the same. For example, I'm quite right in my view not to vote Tory because their policies are a combination of things I find utterly appalling and outright lies. Where as I'm completely wrong to think that way about a bunch of neoliberal policies I despise spouted by a demonstrable liar who has done almost nothing but abstain on the utterly appalling policies of the Tories whilst he's been in the job.
Calls for 'Points based immigration' were thinly veiled racism and xenophobia for every day of the past 10 years, now they're things you should ignore and vote for the party leader spouting them anyway.
If anything Starmer is the poster boy for treating politicians who say the same things entirely differently.
That’s simply not true. You know what the Tories do because they’ve been doing it for 12 years.
You think you know what Labour will do because of prejudices about the leader not being Jeremy Corbyn and the media influence.
I know what Labour will do because of who the leader is, the lies he spouts in order to gain power and the appalling records of his handpicked Shadow Cabinet.
Heck, I'll even drop the first bit of that and say you could stick Corbyn in charge of this Shadow Cabinet of absolute bastards, whilst calling for a points based immigration system and I still absolutely wouldn't be voting for them.
Yes, and taking everything into account surely Sunak and Congo for Labour is better that the Tories, so you'd want that.
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm responding to you calling people pure and them wanting the Tories in power etc. By the same token, you want everything the Tories are doing just marginally shifted towards the left, whatever that means. All those tax cuts for the rich? You support that, just a cent less. Letting migrants drown? Perfect, just as long as we save one more than now. 172 103 people dead from Covid, 172 102 would have been a great success.
I just don't see why this is a very useful thing to do. Unless you think talking about ideological purity and saying that people are as bad as the tories will make them change their minds, and you're doing it for som kind of campaigning purpose, but I don't think you believe that.
Again though, purely conjecture and magic 8-ball predictions.
We’re heading for a horrific recession, the pound heading to parity with the dollar. Public services on their knees and population of children living under the poverty line is increasing hand over fist.
And you genuinely think it will be no better than under Labour…
I feel bad for you.
8-ball predictions or, as they're known to everyone else, judging people by their actions.
Oh don't feel bad for me, you're the one rushing to support Farage's immigration policy because the rosette of the guy spouting it has gone from purple to red.
I want a fair system of taxation
I want public services to be able to do the jobs they need
I want an empathetic immigration policy
I want significant public ownership of utilities etc
But no party is doing that.
The party currently in power is making things worse literally on a daily basis.
So yes, if the option is between what is happening now and something that’s 1% better, I’m picking the option that’s 1% better. I won't feel great about it, and would likely do it through gritted teeth, but I'd do it as I'd rather things get slightly better, then start a fight again to make it even better than that, then again, and again, until we have something resembling good.
Last edited:
Ok so vote for the Lib Dems, or the Greens, or fecking anybody other than the Tories.
I think we need to do that anyway if they are the party most likely to get elected in your area.
I already mentioned I could be persuaded to vote Green, based on the local candidate. There's as much chance of me voting for the Farage-aping Starmer Party as voting Lib Dem.
Can't be voting for this lot after seeing what they've just done to the economy.
Fair enough, go green
Whatever about public ownership of the NHS, the service needs fundamental root and branch reform.
There is far too much bureaucracy involved in modern health care, and the pen pushing management class in every Trust (which the public never encounters) has far too much power and influence over how hospitals are run. The situation in NI is beyond dire, and it’s not just due to funding.
Brexit was the core issue of the 2019 election. Let's be honest.
With regard to Brexit policy, Starmer went rogue. Seems he was plotting even back then.
"Keir Starmer defies Jeremy Corbyn to say Labour could back second EU referendum"
https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...to-say-labour-could-back-second-eu-referendum
It was a key issue not the defining issue for the election. Corbyn just wasn't appealing or convincing to the electorate. Of course the media didn't help but he made a number of gaffe's himself. To use Brexit as the argument why Labour lost is lazy and suddenly absolves Corbyn of any responsibility. Him and his shadow cabinet include McDonnell and Abbott didn't come across a Government who could govern.
Look up his 10 leadership pledges and what his position is on them now...
It is not absolving anyone of responsibility to acknowledge that Brexit was the core issue for the 2019 election. As in, it was the primary concern and I would argue it was the defining issue of that political period.
Not the time for jokes considering the Labour Party is tanking the economy and making millions poorer.
Without going too far into old ground I think one understated issue that impacted Corbyn negatively is simply that he was a career politician who spent decades in the obscurity of the commons and who came from a relatively privileged background. That was a tap in for attacks of champagne socialism. And for the critics of Starmer's beige personality which I don't disagree with, Corbyn was a dullard too but with a less relatable life story. You may say that no one relates to etonian tories and that is true but they get held to a different standard on that question. It's why Johnson gets portrayed as one of the lads by the media. I've often wondered if a long serving politician like Dennis Skinner would turn that on its head because he had a strong personality and was working class having been a miner before politics. Labour generally lack charismatic/strong personalities now compared to the past.
How triumphant.
I think you need to understand that Labour's improvement in the polls is in spite of Starmer, not because of him. The Tories have imploded. Labour could have Harry Maguire as leader and they'd still be ahead in the polls.
See, these arguments don't really matter. It's like arguing about Brazil 1982 vs Italy 1982. Purists can admire the youtube videos of Brazil, but Italy carved their name into the thing.
You can argue about circumstances, sabotage, etc. What history will note is a 18 point loss by a leftist and a 15 point win by the right-wing. Same as Blair's success vs Foot's failure - every circumstance melts away, leaving behind the right-wing wins. And that will be the lesson taken.
Timing is as important as anything else, and the right-wing have timed their purges and abandoning of promises perfectly, because of covid, Johnson's scandals, and the current mess.
There are a few maybes for Corbyn - doing his own purges before his party could back stab him seems to, have been an obvious solution. But it didn't happen, and his ideology goes into the dustbin with him.
Agreed, it certainly was the core issue, though I always find it odd when people claim that the 2017 result wasn't conditioned by Brexit but 2019 was. They both were.
In the years up to 2019 I think Corbyn played a difficult hand badly. He tried to court both remain and leave voters, and that looked like it might work for a while. Then the prospect of a 2nd referendum reared its head, and Labour's strange position ended up alienating both sides. Both leavers and remainers left the party and the rest is history.
Tbf, by the time the 2019 election came around... Labour were screwed regardless because there is no Brexit position they could take that would help them win. Pledging for a second referendum alienates too many voters and not doing that would piss off too many Labour voters who backed remain. The main issue is that most constituencies voted leave but something like 70% of Labour voters were remain. It was an unwinnable election for them.
The only hope they would have had is if Teresa May's Brexit deal had gotten through and essentially removed Brexit from the table as the defining issue of an election.