Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Fluctuation0161 said:
Fair enough. I didn't mean you voted for him in the leadership contest but meant do you like those traits in a political you could vote for in a GE.

I'm not a Labour member so didn't vote in the leadership election. But I gave Starmer a clean slate when he started as leader, I hoped he would stick to the majority of his pledges. I now see him as unelectable, for my vote.
Click to expand...

Luckily your vote doesn't seem to mean that much in terms of electability.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Fair enough. I didn't mean you voted for him in the leadership contest but meant do you like those traits in a political you could vote for in a GE.

I'm not a Labour member so didn't vote in the leadership election. But I gave Starmer a clean slate when he started as leader, I hoped he would stick to the majority of his pledges. I now see him as unelectable, for my vote.
Click to expand...

The electoral coin only has two possible outcomes. If you can't endorse heads then it's going to be tails. And that's fine but it goes back to my point that for many on the left given the option of a Tory government or a Labour one not led by someone from the same faction as them, a Tory government will always be the lesser of the two evils every single time.

And that's fine but own what it is. You aren't going to go to bed on election night thinking the People’s Socialst Republic of Jeremy is going to win 390 seats and get swept to power. You're going to hope you don't wake up with a Labour government and then pretend that doesn't mean you'd prefer a Tory one.

I don't get why so many on the left are in denial about this. Or they pretend they don't know elections are essentially a binary choice. They oppose the only realistic chance to oust the Tories whilst pretending ousting the Tories is their ambition. It's an impressive con.

Even among parties broadly of the left in the mainstream there's a consensus that anyone but the Tories would be preferable. Whether they call it the 'rainbow coalition' or organised campaigns on tactical voting. But not for the hard left. They would rather the Tories won because outrage and opposition to a Tory government is their political home.
 
Last edited:
stw2022 said:
The electoral coin only has two possible outcomes. If you can't endorse heads then it's going to be tails. And that's fine but it goes back to my point that for many on the left given the option of a Tory government or a Labour one not led by someone from the same faction as them, a Tory government will always be the lesser of the two evils every single time.

And that's fine but own what it is. You aren't going to go to bed on election night thinking the People’s Socialst Republic of Jeremy is going to win 390 seats and get swept to power. You're going to hope you don't wake up with a Labour government and then pretend that doesn't mean you'd prefer a Tory one.

I don't get why so many on the left are in denial about this. Or they pretend they don't know elections are essentially a binary choice. They oppose the only realistic chance to oust the Tories whilst pretending ousting the Tories is their ambition. It's an impressive con.

Even among parties broadly of the left in the mainstream there's a consensus that anyone but the Tories would be preferable. Whether they call it the 'rainbow coalition' or organised campaigns on tactical voting. But not for the hard left. They would rather the Tories won because outrage and opposition to a Tory government is their political home.
Click to expand...
You're embarrassing yourself, have a lie down.
 
stw2022 said:
The electoral coin only has two possible outcomes. If you can't endorse heads then it's going to be tails. And that's fine but it goes back to my point that for many on the left given the option of a Tory government or a Labour one not led by someone from the same faction as them, a Tory government will always be the lesser of the two evils every single time.

And that's fine but own what it is. You aren't going to go to bed on election night thinking the People’s Socialst Republic of Jeremy is going to win 390 seats and get swept to power. You're going to hope you don't wake up with a Labour government and then pretend that doesn't mean you'd prefer a Tory one.

I don't get why so many on the left are in denial about this. Or they pretend they don't know elections are essentially a binary choice. They oppose the only realistic chance to oust the Tories whilst pretending ousting the Tories is their ambition. It's an impressive con.

Even among parties broadly of the left in the mainstream there's a consensus that anyone but the Tories would be preferable. Whether they call it the 'rainbow coalition' or organised campaigns on tactical voting. But not for the hard left. They would rather the Tories won because outrage and opposition to a Tory government is their political home.
Click to expand...

You seem to have created some beret wearing spectre in your head that's haunting the electorate and stopping Starmer from being popular with voters.

Has anyone said they would prefer the Tories over Labour?

Or does critising Labour = endorsing the Tories now?

Also, elections may well be effectively a binary choice in a lot of constituencies but it's not a universal one. If some lives in a Lib Dem/Tory swing seat then would you hope they vote Labour?

If someone lives in a safe Labour seat and doesn't want to vote for Starmer's Labour. Can they vote for someone else or would that make them a heretic as well?
 
stw2022 said:
The electoral coin only has two possible outcomes. If you can't endorse heads then it's going to be tails. And that's fine but it goes back to my point that for many on the left given the option of a Tory government or a Labour one not led by someone from the same faction as them, a Tory government will always be the lesser of the two evils every single time.

And that's fine but own what it is. You aren't going to go to bed on election night thinking the People’s Socialst Republic of Jeremy is going to win 390 seats and get swept to power. You're going to hope you don't wake up with a Labour government and then pretend that doesn't mean you'd prefer a Tory one.

I don't get why so many on the left are in denial about this. Or they pretend they don't know elections are essentially a binary choice. They oppose the only realistic chance to oust the Tories whilst pretending ousting the Tories is their ambition. It's an impressive con.

Even among parties broadly of the left in the mainstream there's a consensus that anyone but the Tories would be preferable. Whether they call it the 'rainbow coalition' or organised campaigns on tactical voting. But not for the hard left. They would rather the Tories won because outrage and opposition to a Tory government is their political home.
Click to expand...
Pretty broad, inaccurate generalisations and assumptions there. Well done for cramming so many nonsensical points in.
 
I'm not sure what she would have been thinking when writing that letter. The swift apology does mean something.
 
She is not wrong. Trust someone to twist it to make it look like she is being Antisemitic
 
Drifter said:
She is not wrong. Trust someone to twist it to make it look like she is being Antisemitic
Click to expand...
Don’t think she is being antisemitic, but she is displaying titanic levels of ignorance and stupidity, even for an MP.
 
It might not be deliberately antisemitic, but it’s monumentally dumb when members of the left are under heightened scrutiny around that kind of thing. Not to mention completely ahistorical to be bringing up mid-20th century history as some kind of gotcha
 
stw2022 said:
I don't get why so many on the left are in denial about this. Or they pretend they don't know elections are essentially a binary choice. They oppose the only realistic chance to oust the Tories whilst pretending ousting the Tories is their ambition. It's an impressive con.
Click to expand...

Pretty much why I left the Labour Party years ago. Its the biggest and longest running con in British Parliamentary history and its set to run for ever.
 
The sooner Labour manages to get all these lunatics out of the party, the better.
 
It seems that Labour's worst enemy this election will be themselves. Well, that and the press splashing a picture of Starmer eating an egg and cress sandwich wrong.
 
Incredibly stupid thing to say, and Starmer must have been rubbing his hands at the open goal he was given to continue the purge of the left of the party.

Total shitshow all round.
 
That is crap. I'm pretty sure that the the establishment of the term "racism" is directly linked to European antisemitism, even though the definition has expanded and been retrofitted to earlier historical violence and discrimination.

Instead of focusing on the actual racism within the Labour party including the continued targeting of Jewish members by those controlling the party, she comes out with this bullshit.
 
711 said:
It's excellent news for Labour, kicking Abbott out will win votes not lose them. You're not wrong about the sandwich though.
Click to expand...
I'm worried it can go either way though, because "Labour are a party of antisemites" is still an easy vote winner for the Tories, regardless of its accuracy. It's good that she's done it now rather than a month before an election, though.

Sorry but the sandwich thing made me hungry...
 
It's a pretty ignorant comment in the sense that she should know better as a politician than to try to rank racism.

There is nonetheless some truth to white supremacy being a slightly separate problem - you can see it amongst Jews in Israel for example. The Ethiopian Jews have not generally been treated as equal to the Ashkenazi Jews for example. There is definitely some kind of hierarchy of colour thing going on. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32813056

Either way, her letter was very daft.
 
I thought during 2015-2019, someone like John McDonnell, while I didn't agree with everything he said or did, really matured and grew into his shadow chancellor role and in front line politics (Corbyn and him while not feuding drifted apart from 2018 as he was clearly much more focused on actually trying to win power), while Abbott on the otherhand actually regressed and was completely out of her depth.

Of course this letter is inexcusable and goes way beyond her various blunders at shadow home secretary, and she deserved the swift sanctions that she received.
 
GuybrushThreepwood said:
I thought during 2015-2019, someone like John McDonnell, while I didn't agree with everything he said or did, really matured and grew into his shadow chancellor role and in front line politics (Corbyn and him while not feuding drifted apart from 2018 as he was clearly much more focused on actually trying to win power), while Abbott on the otherhand actually regressed and was completely out of her depth.
Click to expand...
I don't have any time for McDonnell's ideology but I thought he was a pretty competent politician, surprisingly pragmatic given his background.
 
Can't believe Starmer suspended her so quickly. Surely the right way to do this is a 5 to 10 weeks internal inquiry that upholds what is obvious and then Starmer dithers on the findings allowing Abbott to resign.
 
It’s an incredibly clumsily worded statement she made, but I understand what she’s getting at. But it’s never a good look to try and rank racism / prejudice if you’re a politician.
 
The Corinthian said:
It’s an incredibly clumsily worded statement she made, but I understand what she’s getting at. But it’s never a good look to try and rank racism / prejudice if you’re a politician.
Click to expand...
Yeah, just avoid it.

I imagine as a black woman she is looking at the racism faced by black people which is perhaps could be deemed as more "visual" and say, less subtle than antisemitism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.