Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
He's doing a De Santis. [probably]
Before every election National or local ever since I was eligible to vote, I have checked out when, where, and timings of voting, who are the candidates, what do they stand for, and on occasions have attend pre-election meetings to hear candidates speak. I've never relied on others to tell me when or what my rights are.
My local council always send information on voter eligibility, they regularly ask for details to confirm where I live and who else is living there who is eligible to vote, they ask whether I want to appear on electoral rolls, whether I want (or are eligible for) postal voting, etc.
They have also recently sent voting change information out with Council Tax details and indeed separate leaflets on the ID change.
The list of ID forms suggested is wide ranging, although admittedly a proper ID card for everybody would be a better bet, and should be the only thing accepted for voting identification. However none of this has anything to do with how or why someone votes a particular way.
If people want to vote and are eligible to do so then they should find out the information they need themselves, its not a state secret!
It really is hard to take such a childish statement so seriously. "Keir is doing this because he knows Jeremy Corbyn would wipe the floor in any selection contest."
Oh please.
Cry more
So, in grown up language, why is he doing it then?
The statement is not well worded, no, but I'm pretty sure that Corbyn would indeed win the vote for selection to stand by the local Labour party membership comfortably.
Think it might be something to do with Corbyn handing the Tories the biggest GE majority in living memory.
Not in his constituency.Think it might be something to do with Corbyn handing the Tories the biggest GE majority in living memory.
It really is a grotesque transformation.
That's correct, but I think the GE majorities 'writ' runs right across the country, and Jeremy has a habit of 'scaring the horses' throughout the land and therefore he would not be an asset, outside his own environment, to the Labour herd that Starmer plans to lead to victory across the country.
Think it might be something to do with the Labour party's electoral strategy being a complete dissociation with anything that could be considered to be resembling any left or socialist policy. Which, as we know, you're in favour of. Personally, any Labour victory engendered by being completely unrecognisable in values or political vision from anything resembling the democratic socialist party Labour party membership cards still declare them to be is, to me, hollow and self defeating. You're comfortable with this direction - it repels I and many others. There were ways to handle this entire situation and Starmer has taken the nuclear option setting in action a path a chain of events that can no longer be deviated from. This has left Starmer saying things as ridiculous as that he would prefer to sit next to Piers Morgan and, far more seriously, utterly alienating huge swathes of his own party and voter base because he knows that they have no alternative and'll probably end up voting Labour anyway to get these Tory bastards out. It's incredibly disheartening.Think it might be something to do with Corbyn handing the Tories the biggest GE majority in living memory.
I'm sure he would. It appears he's well-liked by his constituents and it's a utterly silly course of action to take that's going to further drive a wedge with the left of the party, which Starmer clearly doesn't give a feck about (unless it's to encourage it). But they could try to at least try mature communications instead of co-opting WWE dramatics.
No argument there, but the dye is set.
Its incredibly focused, and bodes well for a Labour victory with a (hopefully) large majority enough to stick it to the Tories
This direction wasn't the only path to victory - Starmer had the choice to bring the party together or create a pastiche or McCarthyism and he chose the latter despite standing for election on the former. Any delight I have in the inevitable (I hope) Tory loss will be tempered by a real, and I think justified given all evidence, fear that what we'll have in place is a slightly more tempered, significantly less corrupt and more competent continuation of the general policy direction that we've seen for the last 13 years. However, there's no point in even expressing those concerns now as, apparently, expressing such worries is Tory enablement and the disenfranchised of this country should just accept our lot quietly and concede the prevailing argument that any policies of the left are electoral poison.
Now if we were to accept that everyone in the country were as worthy and engaged as you in the process then this might be a sensible viewpoint. Alternatively if we were to accept the viewpoint that the majority of the electorate are unworthy of a vote then it would also be a sensible viewpoint.
Since I think the former is quite patently as untrue as the latter, and believing in democracy as I do (for everyone, not just the educated and engaged), I'm going to have to call this post either clueless or extremist, or perhaps a touch of both.
Not Tory is not enough reason to vote Labour anymore imo, as I really don't see what difference they offer. Even New Labour under Blair was underpinned by the likes of Brown, Cook etc.. This shower has nothing, it's infuriating. Mine is only one vote but it won't be going to Labour for the forseeable future.
Still no sign of Momentum and the like wanting to form their own party. Will the excuses last forever? 'The press won't let us', 'It's impossible with first past the post'.
A few more up and down the country will leave Labour in sympathy with Corbyn, but they seem incapable of actually doing anything. Other than threatening to vote Green I suppose. Good luck Greens.
A few more up and down the country will leave Labour in sympathy with Corbyn, but they seem incapable of actually doing anything. Other than threatening to vote Green I suppose. Good luck Greens.
The whole point of the Labour movement was precisely to have a political arm to represent the people and combat the vested interests of those with inherent power. The party that's meant to provide that political arm is the Labour party and is surely the natural home of "Momentum and the like". Splintering into separate parties with no prospect of electoral reform is unlikely to result in any meaningful influence on any future Government so is, in a very real and practical sense, "impossible with first past the post". A broad church left leaning party with actual capacity to get elected was surely the path to follow but it seems factional warfare has been the choice taken when, after Starmer's election, there was another direction that could've been followed.
The position you're advocating is effectively if you're of the left, get out of Labour and do your own thing with limited prospect of electoral victory for the remaining schism rended diaspora or just bite the bullet and accept that virtually no aspect of your political will will have any representation. You must be able to see why neither of those paths are palatable?
I accept the possibility that my judgement may be clouded by my feelings but I'm not convinced Starmer's Labour will stand up to the scrutiny of an election campaign.
I think that's one of the problems Labour has got. They should be the voice of the people and especially working classes, but a lot of the traditional areas have some right leaning tendencies around immigration and Brexit (although the latter isn't particularly right or left I guess).
If they moved away from that, they'd be moving more broadly left, which is already held by the Greens and their manifesto is noticeably more left than Labour's at the moment. They're probably centre left with some economically centrist, socially left policies and Labour would be moving directly into that with a broad church move. Labour are just a mess at the moment, and I'm not sure where I'd even put them politically as they're such a mix of ideas which are changing constantly.
Exactly nowhere. It's focus group politics which the electorate will likely see through.
I can see they're not palatable yes, I don't suppose Corbyn and his supporters are bouncing with delight today, it will be interesting to see what they do.
My goodness me what a position to take, its not a viewpoint, its what I and millions of others do when we cast our vote. Its not a question of people being 'unworthy' to vote...wherever did you get that from
?I believe in democracy for everybody as well, and if people can be bothered to ask a few questions to determine their eligibility then they can cast their vote for any party, but if they cannot be bothered, or they are not eligible, then they don't get to vote.
I am therefore going to have to call your post ill-informed or nonsense, or perhaps a bit of both
It hasn't succeed yet!
The changes today in Scotland might help Labour (with Starmers approach) to regain the forty or so seats they lost to the SNP over the last two (or is it three) elections. Of course Labour may not make a full recovery of its former position, but will clearly have to make some headway in reclaiming some seats in Scotland in order to hold a big enough majority to enable it in Westminster to operate as a 'recognizable' Labour Government; which incidentally has always been slightly left of centre... but not way out on a limb like Jeremy/Michael Foot were.
I don't think the wider left in the party can be accused of expressing worries that Starmer may not win, it has no need to be disenfranchised, its got a better chance of influencing future Labour policy by staying 'inside the tent', than standing on the sidelines wearing sackcloth and ashes and crying in its beer.
Hopefully there wasn't a recent report out about how certain police forces are institutionally racist, sexist, etc. And tbf this type of shite was talked about during the Corbyn years.
It’s weird how the grown up sensible grown up sensibles never want to have any difficult practical adult conversations about crime or drugs… and would rather just slog it out with the same soundbite tabloid shit
It doesn’t seem very grown up. Seems lazy.
It doesn’t seem very grown up. Seems lazy.
Last edited:
That's great for you but I notice you missed out on the one thing I actually asked you and the topic of debate....do you go and check the acceptable forms of id? Do you do so, with it not having changed for god knows how long? If not, why not?
There are clearly different levels of council engagement on this. My council has sent out exactly 1 leaflet on it. There are no posters or adverts around the area. Others have said that their Council has not sent anything out at all.
They are extensive for people in your generation perhaps. How many 18 year old hold an older persons bus pass or a blue badge? How many of them have got a driving licence or passport by that age?
You may perhaps also explain why a 60+ oyster card is acceptable but an 18+ oyster card isn't? Or a young persons railcard? Or a student id?
Or like most western countries, we could be trying to make voting easier for people, as opposed to disenfranchising people for something the government's own report admitted there is no evidence of?
Last edited:
Here is the adult back in the room.
Oh well.
Sensible grown up sensibles
I like that.If the people didn't vote for these ideas when momentum had control of the Labour party and put that policy agenda and candidate forward for election then those views probably don't represent the peoples except in the extreme lefts mind.
The communist always talked about being on the side of the workers and sought to represent them but they don't and neither does a party of the extreme left.
.
I would enter into a conversation about the policies of Labour at that, and the previous election, but since you use term "extreme left" in regards to those policies, then I feel it'd be a waste of both our time. The fact that Corbyn's Labour are seen as extreme shows how skewed the political compass of this country has become and why we'll continue to be fecked by our betters and their mates.
My goodness me what a position to take, its not a viewpoint, its what I and millions of others do when we cast our vote. Its not a question of people being 'unworthy' to vote...wherever did you get that from
I believe in democracy for everybody as well, and if people can be bothered to ask a few questions to determine their eligibility then they can cast their vote for any party, but if they cannot be bothered, or they are not eligible, then they don't get to vote.
I am therefore going to have to call your post ill-informed or nonsense, or perhaps a bit of both
But most of the electorate aren't very well informed. So you're advocating for a very limited form of democracy. It stands to reason. Please explain the misstep in my logic to me. You believe in "citizen democracy" or whatever where you have to be deemed worthy in order to cast a vote.
If people really want to cast their vote, then it is simply a matter of them seeking the information they require, like they would when booking a holiday or even ordering a pizza, they want something so they take steps to obtain it. No one is disenfranchised unless they do it themselves. Yes, some may be ineligible, then they can either fight that situation, or accept it and move on.
Voting is a privaledge, many people have suffered in order to establish the widest franchise possible, those who are eligible and want to vote are able to do so under the ID proposals.
It stands to reason that younger people will have less opportunity in terms of some examples of personal ID, because they have not been around long enough to have acquired such items; however they can get such ID evidence if they want to do so...I would accept that for many younger people it's not probably at the top of their 'to do list'.