You have to be a troll.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Insulting another member
If you genuinely believe that, you're an idiot.
I think the right response is ...'it takes one to know one'... and incidentally, you just proved my point about sober and calm discussions.. congrats!
You think he'll be beholden to nobody. Yet he'll have spent years twerking for the right about immigrants, trans and capital.I think the right response is ...'it takes one to know one'... and incidentally, you just proved my point about sober and calm discussions.. congrats!
His posts make much more sense when you treat them this wayYou have to be a troll.
A bit condescending?
I think he simply means because people always talk about Lgbt which groups lesbian gay and bi with trans.
Yes, if he gets his landslide victory then the Labour government will be out of the grip of both left and right. Then indeed some calm and sober discussions can be held, that even the general public, with no 'axes to grind', might want to join in.
Intensely naive.
He won't get a landslide victory though. He's up against the weakest tory cabinet in decades with controversy after controversy being handed to him on a plate and they're still pulling back on the polls. He has no vision and regularly contradicts himself or changes his position on things to people please.
Not sure what the calm and sober discussion shit you keep banging on about is related to. Presume it's some troll as others have mentioned? Or what are you suggesting? Too much coke in the commons these days to have a sober discussion.
I wouldn't say naive, I stopped being that when I left the Labour party, and that was because I realised that many of my contemporaries in the party at that time were not serious about doing what was necessary to win elections.
Blair got in because in the 90's the Tory's had drove themselves into the ground and the public were fed up, but because he had made so many pacts with different groups, especially on the right, he could make little impact, his one centre piece was the saving of NHS, but then the Iraq situation arose and the US government called in its 'markers' on Blair.
A new situation once again has arisen and after 13 or so years the Tories have once again pushed the 'self destruct button' (although Sunak does appear to be making a fist of it) Also the SNP is jittery a lot less surefooted than under Sturgeon, and its not beyond belief Labour could win 20+ seats there, which of course it will need if a 'landslide' victory for Labour is required.
So Starmer has to engage with the public, on their terms, if he doesn't Labour may still win but with a small workable majority, but not enough to change the future and eveyone will be disappointed.
Go back and read @jeff_goldblum 's post and my response, when you get on the same page we can continue if you like
I presume Jeff goldblum was being sarcastic? Seeing as he also said fact driven and alot of the arguments being produced by the tories aren't based on fact? So thus we aren't having these sober fact driven discussions.Go back and read @jeff_goldblum 's post and my response, when you get on the same page we can continue if you like
Ok up to speed now!
I ventured that nobody is having sober/calm discussion.... sorry, perhaps on the extremities, in the various 'echo chambers', i.e. the left has their sober discussions, but these don't always appear to be calm, the right have some calm discussions, but you wonder how sober they are!
The general public don't seem interested in calm or sober discussion they just want to keep their heads above water on inflation, etc., they also want to see action on various issues which both the right and left wing press seem to want to keep on the front pages, this ranges from the Illegal Immigration Bill, through to Public sector strikes, to whether there will be further government intervention/energy company (windfall tax) to alleviate increases in energy bills in the next financial year.
Starmer is 'going with the flow' and hopes to arrive in Downing street on the high tide of public opinion at the next GE.
Go back and read @jeff_goldblum 's post and my response, when you get on the same page we can continue if you like
In fairness, I think you've totally missed the point of my post. My point is that Labour throwing in with the bigots on immigration/asylum didn't win them over or placate them. Rather, it brought them and their rhetoric into the political mainstream and turned every conversation on the topic for the next decade into a battle of who could be tougher on foreigners. It made a sober and facts-led debate impossible, as no-one (barring the Greens) was standing up for the position the facts were pointing to. What Starmer is doing now just confirms we'll continue to move in the wrong direction despite the Tories getting booted.
We don't know that yet? Also calling them 'bigots' backfired on Gordon Brown, I think Starmer is intent on not making the same mistake!
How do we not know that yet, given he was talking about after 2001?
You'd assume the Tories will only go further right out of power, Starmer will maintain or shift further right to not be marked as a lefty.
We'll be told the approach is sensible as it's to maintain power and thus we'll have a Cameron style government. Great time for those who like their Tory policy without the baggage of guilt but less so for those who need a Labour government.
The next GE is what, almost two years away? As I have tried to explain previously, in my opinion Starmer is trying to 'shoot the Tory fox', on the run up to the GE, like he has with Brexit.
Yes, exactly, like Blair "shot the Tory fox" on immigration and asylum
What, by suicide bombing our Brexit policy at the last election?
Okay, but what does that have to do with his point about post 2001?
So you reckon that he doesn't have anything hanging over his head? Seems a little far fetched, especially given that he's brought back Mandelson.
I agree. It's very difficult to have civil discussion between two groups with polarising views these days.
The right, in my opinion, have a thing for buzzwords and phrases and often avoid discussing the detail, as well as childish insults.
The left, in my opinion, can often be very patronising and condescending with a know it all attitude, often taking the easier morale high ground.
In my opinion we have to be a bit more accepting on both sides that the answer to most issues will most often be a compromise despite how passionately we may feel.
As for Starmer. I'm not personally a fan of him at all, I'm more of a corbynista. What are your own views?
I can't vote for him. I've been Labour all my life, even voted for Blair but this is no better than what the Tories are currently proposing.
Blair stood for stuff at least.
True.
The racism is the biggest problem I've got with the current shadow cabinet, but there is so much more.
If the assumption alluded to by the poster is common enough and an issue important enough to challenge then I would like to see a few examples of this assumption being made. In news stories or on forum or reddit posts would suffice. I've never seen or heard about it and it sounds like a malicious fiction about how the trans community banner is swallowing up gay and lesbian voices/spaces/resources. A fiction being used as a wedge to drive the t from the lgb.
However they may have misspoke and your interpretation may be what they meant.
Well then it should be immediately obvious to anyone who has a cursory knowledge of history, culture or the present, why such groupings exist, in the same way that it is clear why lesbians and gays have been traditionally grouped politically. One could point out that gay men have different genitals and biology to lesbian women and whine about people assuming that gays are part of the lesbian community. You can cut this up in as many ways and as many times as you like to divide and estrange those of shared political aims - a common tactic to alienate and suppress.
Why did Frederick Douglass lecture on rights and freedoms in Ireland? He was black and fighting slavery surely he didn't belong there.
Why did Desmond Tutu speak out in support of Palestinians? He was a Christian that campaigned against Apartheid South Africa, surely he was out of his element.
Why did Huey Newton speak on gay and lesbian liberation when his lane was black power?
Why did Fred Hampton align with white and native groups under a socialist banner, when he was a black activist.
Angela Davis speaks in support of trans women but she is a feminist. How is that allowed?
Allyship, solidarity, mutual aims, civil rights.
If it was ignorance then there was enough in my reply to help them educate themselves, and if they were being a sly fecking weasel then they deserve all the condescension in the world.
? No idea, that was about twenty odd years ago, I am more interested in what Starmer is saying and doing now.
It may be a case of " If I were you I wouldn't start from here..'.but here is were he is and where he starts from.
I am saying that is what he is aiming for...
Bringing back Mandelson is presumably for the 'Prince of Darkness's' insight into avoiding 'tangled webs'. Mandelson created quite a few in his time.
I am 'warming' to Starmer, he looks and sounds as though he wants to be PM... which I felt he was not doing twelve or eighteen months ago... Corbyn and his 'ilk' were one of the reasons I left the Labour party, he/they were too interested in playing the 'international socialist' and taking no notice of his heartlands, finally pushing them over to Boris.
I must admit I was not surprised when Jeremy got some 'leverage' on to the Labour leadership ballot, but was surprised (and deflated) when he won it! However I knew my decision to leave the party was the right one, for me, especially when the Tory's won the GE at a cantor, with a staggering majority and with Jeremy total mishandling the party, over Brexit in particular. Jeremy was an acolyte of the late Tony Benn who was always against the 'multi-nationals club', even when it was just thought of as the Common Market. Jeremy shared his views, but he refused to lead the party on his true beliefs... the rest is history.
Starmer has to take note of the public's opinion, especially those the Tories are planning a last ditch 'defend the Alamo' stance on, he needs to (and is) slowly 'heading them off at the pass', 'circling their wagons' and 'shooting their foxes' on these issues... that way not only will he win the GE but with a large if not landslide victory. This 'landslide' part will depend on Labour's showing in Scotland at the GE, can they take advantage of the SNP's current internal troubles to land 20+ seats.
In such uncertain times, I find it incredible that the opposition is speeding toward a Cones Hotline-inspired manifesto.
This type of petty authoritarianism seems to be the one thing Starmer is consistent with. During his time as director of public prosecutions he tried to get two protesters arrested for wearing fancy dress police costumes.
Very bizarre.
In fairness, Mandelson is definitely a master of avoiding tangled webs, he'd have to be to find himself as a Labour party power broker having been close friends with Jeff Epstein.
Is that a saying or is that something you've said?