guess we know how remainers will take to Starmers continuing labours policy of being as vague as possible on brexit
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
I think it would be pretty helpful for the sanity of Labour, both right and left, to forget Corbyn exists for a few years.
Surely remainers have just given up on that idea. I know I have.
you'd think the ones who were frothing about a second referendum not being good enough would raise an eyebrow about him letting no deal happen
Amen.
That debates over. They won.
It also wasn't a vague policy but rather a nuanced one which is anathema in current politics. This is my worry with Statmer: he's clever and understands things aren't binary. It seems the British public hate such positioning.
it's the blair thing, he ran on "education education education" and battered everyone, just pick something that people want now and sum it up in as few words as possible, no one outside the handful of polnerds that follow everything in inane detail and who will never change their minds about anything is going to follow his lawyerly dissections of boris
even if your policy is nuanced af you have to present it easily
There's zero political value in kicking off over Brexit. Starmer's Achilles heel is that he's staunchly pro-remain. He can't afford to be seen as getting in the way of Brexit. There's nothing he can do anyway. The other problem is that the Tories will be able to bury the economic impact of no-deal in the Covid mess now. The EU is going to be mess for the next 5 years at least so remainers have very little to sell at the moment anyway.
Why was it a minority government? Could you please remind me who led Labour into the election that achieved that. Oh, I forgot, Corbyn's role only becomes consequential two years later. And if you want to argue the 2019 result 'potentially undermined Labour for ever', you may want to ask yourself why Starmer, the architect of the Remain policy shift that was significant in Labour's dismal result - 52/54 seats lost were Leave voting constituencies - is now the leader to make amends for this fatal undermining wreaked supposedly by Corbyn.
If Corbyn was so pathetic as leader, why has his successor pledged to retain the agenda formulated under his leadership? It's beyond a parody how the likes of you insist one election result had nothing to do with Corbyn, but then two years later all of a sudden the result is undoubtedly the doing of Corbyn. No logical consistency whatsoever. It's also telling that the only person who has actually brought up Blair/Israel/Illuminati over the past few pages is you. Ridiculous, and sums up the intellectual deficiency of the majority of your posts on this issue.
I do suggest though that you go look at how Labour was performing in elections in working-class areas in the fifteen or so years predating Corbyn's leadership. You might notice a trend that predated Corbyn, a trend that was reversed then ultimately exacerbated under him (and guess what? He deserves credit for the former and culpability for the latter. Almost as if these things are complex and no simple view of 'Corbyn good' or 'Corbyn bad' suffices) Maybe you'd realise Labour's problems go far deeper than simply whoever happens to be their leader, and you'd realise if you actually wanted Starmer to win an election then abandoning the childish view that Corbyn was a hopeless leader responsible for all Labour's woes would be helpful.
What the two election results tell me is that the more people saw of Corbyn the less they liked him, and considerably so.
It was a minority government because May called a foolish election and Labour took advantage. I won't ever say that Corbyn did badly in 2017 - he performed far better than expected. However, better than expected still wasn't an election win and considering at that point we had had seven years of Tory led rule, an unprecedented vote to leave the EU the year prior and May being absolutely shocking, it would have been a shambles had Labour not capitalised in that election.
Once again though, Corbyn did well in 2017 all things considered - he was, of course, permanently written off by anyone paid for an opinion.
Fast forward two years later to 2019 and Corbyn presided over the most catastrophic defeat in Labour's history. This is a fact and the buck stops with Corbyn. Brexit played a part, but the number one issue on doorsteps up and down the country was "I do not want Corbyn as PM". I appreciate that it's a bitter pill to swallow, when wrapped up in all the hope for a better society that Corbyn and his team espoused, however that is the ultimate reason.
As I mentioned in a previous post, Starmer carries a lot of the responsibility for Labour's brexit policy and not communicating it properly. But then again, Corbyn was the leader and the majority of the blame falls on him. (Corbyn famously mute on the subject of Brexit, happy to let more junior members fight those battles.)
I'm wondering how you think Starmer has done in his first two months as Labour leader? What do you think Corbyn would have done differently during this pandemic?
Just to the latter part of your post - I completely agree with the first part in bold. However, overall, I honestly believe that history will look back at Corbyn's tenure leading Labour as one of the worst periods in its history. Considering all the aims that Corbyn stands for - too many to list, but let's generalise it for sake of argument to a "fairer society" - Britain is further away from this than ever before.
No. Starmer didn’t have the authority to dictate Labour’s Brexit policy. He amongst others were constantly pushing Corbyn to take a clearer position. Their Brexit policy is on Corbyn and no-one else.
He lost both... I blame him for both ... How's that inconsistent.?
I give him no credit for the maybot running a terrible campaign
I didn't find it a confusing position. One would have hoped given Starmer's role he had at least a significant hand in shaping it? He has backed it again recently as a position with the caveat he felt that Labour should've openly stated which way they'd campaign post negotiation.
Certainly it can't have been on "Corbyn and no-one else". He isn't, despite portrayals, actually Stalin.
It was unnecessary to clarify that you give Cotbyn no credit.
Any political position that requires people to actually think about what it mean is too complex for a large proportion of the population. If you question that, maybe consider that the Tories ran on ‘Get Brexit Done’ and won by a landslide.
He was the party leader, and had final say. The Labour Party was overwhelmingly Remain and if he cared a damn about representing the will of the party he’d have insisted on a pro-Remain position. But he didn’t, because when he said he would be listening to the members and representing them not himself, he neglected to mention that he only meant on issues where they agreed with him.
He doesn’t have £3-4m you melt. Read some proper journalism.
I don't question your point. It is true. That does not make Labour's position vague nor ambiguous and I can't see how pretending that it was helps us in these days of binary sloganeering.
It's not just about the final position (although that itself was slightly bizarre), it was the years of build up where Labour were hugely unclear about what they actually supported, with the membership pushing hard for Remain, and a group of Corbyn's inner circle fighting for a Leave position. I was absolutely ready to vote Labour before Brexit (and I did in the end anyway) but their positioning was so contradictory and weird that if the Lib Dems hadn't chosen such a Tory light muppet who screwed their own Brexit position so badly, I'd have probably jumped ship.
Given the split in the country going back to the polls on a negotiated deal, the impacts of which were better understood, seems clear and sensible to me. I also respect a party that takes time to arrive at the best answer to a complex problem, although I have many issues with the Labour party. I have done since the late 90s but over the Tories? Corbyn, Miliband, Starmer - all fine by me.
If we must compromise to win the general vote, then I cannot see how a remain position would have gone well for Labour. I'd love to think a remain party would have been able to win, just as I wish a party of the left with integrity could, but that's not the reality of British politics.
However, I see no point in opening these old wounds now. Good luck to Starmer and let's hope the opposition can unite against the feudal Lords the country seems to favour.
It would have been entirely unrealistic though to make the yardstick for success in 2017 for Labour to be winning a majority. The situation inherited in 2015 was impossible to overturn in such a short time-period. The fact they were able to take away the Tory majority was a very good achievement and the best that could be hoped for. It's easy to say in hindsight it would have been a shambles if not but very few commentators and analysts thought that at the time. And had the party got fully behind Corbyn from the start, and not attempted to undermine him from within during the campaign as per the leaked report in addition to forcing another leadership election, then they may well have done even better and been able to lead a coalition government.
Yes, in 2019 Corbyn was an important factor in the scale of the defeat, but the ultimate problem was Brexit - the polling that suggested Corbyn was the biggest factor actually showed that the main reason for this was his Brexit policy. Ironically, in 2017 Brexit was quite important in Labour's revival but once it became the issue I think they were screwed. Corbyn could not force a Brexit policy on the membership even if he wanted to and once they backed Remain in the turbo-charged culture war I cannot see how on earth they could have a route to victory. 52/54 seats lost were Leave - that is utterly essential to understanding the election result. Are we seriously suggesting that Labour could have held on to them without explicitly committing to not overturn the referendum result?
On Starmer's opening two months, I think he's been solid if uninspiring. If Corbyn was still in power (although I don't think even his biggest fans argued against him standing down) I think we'd have seen some more forceful and substantive criticisms of government failures, more populist policies (e.g. cancel rent, which I believe McDonnell confirmed was their stance) as well as vocal backings for unions in the present dispute. But Starmer is better placed to appeal to the lost voters than Corbyn, even if I have serious concerns about his own ability to do that, and he seems to be acting very cautiously for now while he finds his feet as leader.
As for historical reflections on Corbyn's era, that's a completely different debate and it will largely be shaped by what happens over the next few decades. Personally, I think history will be a lot kinder to him than contemporaneous assessments are/were, but that's only because they are presently so skewed (e.g. the common criticism of his detractors for not winning in 2017 I can guarantee is not going to be repeated in any serious historical work).
Harry Cole is the guy who quickly had to delete an article he wrote about Corbyn being an extremist that heavily referenced a neo-nazi website as its main source. He shouldn't have a job any more really.
More unfair criticism from Novara. They really are relentless.
Honestly. Quite how some people can even consider that Corbyn was anything other than a complete disaster is mind blowing.
It was perfectly obvious that the electorate had no time for him as a leader.
Let's just look forward for a change instead of trying to re-invent the past.
Christ this is Johnson all over again. People not responsible for their actual job eh.
Starmer laid out the majority of brexit messaging and his infamous tests didn't work. He's also publically said he agreed with the Brexit policy that turned off voters and no not being neutral doesn't change the substance of policy.
I'm backing Starmer but it's time for some of you to stop being childish and accept others made mistakes too. No good comes out of such deflection.
It was a collective party policy for a 2nd referendum as of February 2019. In an interview with Andrew Marr, Starmer said he would campaign for remain and he would vote for remain, which was against the Labour policy of a 2nd referendum and neutral stance, which would have been agreed by Corbyn. Evidently, Starmer did want the party to take a firmer stance on their position, but they chose not to. So to suggest that this communication was even partially down to Starmer is totally incorrect.
That's one small element brushing over a year of messaging and as i said neutrality wasn't the substance. A renegotiation and second referendum was the substance which came out of Starmers side pushing at cabinet. Pretending otherwise is just more selective reasoning to deflect blame.
Nandy and the rest of those labelled traitors were right in the end but people don't like to admit that it seems. 90% of the Labour party and membership were wrong on Brexit it's as simple as that.
I'm not sure about 'right' as I still can't see for sure what policy would ultimately have been 'right' for the election, but yeah, it's beyond baffling that some people even after the result are still trying to criticise Corbyn for not adopting an unequivocal Remain position.
I mainly meant right in their understanding of the voter rather than a right decision that leads to election victory. I don't think Corbyn was winning either way so this isn't about that.
Labour treated the voters not as people who disagreed with them but as misunderstood people who just needed teaching. True or not that approach failed with the majority complicit and a lesson needs to be learned rather than swept under the carpet amongst Corbyn bashing.
It was all a bit pointless this Brexit fight and Labour are now following (supposedly) Corbyn's preferred approach. All it's given us is Boris and Cummings.
That is a very fair reflection.
What Labour absolutely has to do is to 'win back' its traditional voters who deserted the party in droves at the last election.
Many of these were simply anti Corbyn, which is quite understandable.
While many others want a party which represents their center left beliefs. Not a party which was realing out incoherent policies on the hoof.
All that needs a leader capable of clear thinking and not old fashioned dogma.
We have to hope that Starmer is that person.
I think it's a problem wider than Brexit. I can not see how you can in any way square Labour ideals with the version of Brexit that was popular amongst voters. The anti-immigration, pro-free movement of goods and capital vision, an ideal that even a largely left wing Labour party under Corbyn began to put forward, strikes me as in inherently neoliberal position which entrenches class inequality and ensures only the well off have the means to live and work in a another country.
Unless people are going to advocate for a return of New Labour in its entirety then the Labour party must convince voters of its vision for the country and counter pro-Tory lines that have taken hold amongst voters. If there's no way for them to do that, be it on Brexit, welfare, immigration, nationalisation or whatever then I do not see how Labour can win elections. How to counter that without being seen as patronising and out of touch is the real challenge.
Where I have a real issue with Nandy and her ilk in the Labour party (and I do think she's quite good even though I don't agree with her) is that she seems willing to cede vast areas of Labour's policy position to the Tories on the grounds that the electorate is too right wing to make it worthwhile to tackle issues that, at least in my opinion (and I suspect hers too) need to be tackled.
Sorry but that's bullshit. They were not wrong on Brexit, there was an excellent opportunity for Labour to spend those years as a strong Remain option working hard to convince the public of that argument during that time when the Tories were fecking up every aspect of their leave negotiations. Instead Corbyn managed to spend most of that time with no-one sure what he was supporting, Labour managed to argue for remain and leave pretty much at the same time depending on which MP was speaking, and there was never a consistent and coherent political push for a 2nd ref.
The idea that Labour Remain supporters were 'wrong' because Jeremy Corbyn's leadership made a giant mess of things for 3 years is insulting quite frankly.
I think it depends how you look at that though. I think it's more true in terms of policy than it is in terms of attitude. I suspect there's an awful lot of common ground between what the two groups want even if there's a massive, massive gap in terms of how that could or should be achieved.
I think the battle for Labour is one of convincing people they're competent (and rightly or wrongly Starmer looks far better suited to that than Corbyn was or Long-Bailey would be) and that they're proposing realistic, achievable, worthwhile things. For as much as Brexit was an issue I can't help but think that the amount of ridicule the free broadband pledge attracted was at least as damaging; whether it was a good idea or not, it solidified opinions amongst the sort of voters that Corbyn already did badly with that he was a joke.
I think, really, that's the key. Labour got bogged down and torn apart on detail which the Tories just simply didn't bother to offer. A simpler message, with an indication of the general direction the party would move in, and a smattering of affordable policies which were illustrative of that direction would, I think, do far better with people who aren't as engaged as us.
I'm really not going to change your mind so i won't bother trying. You're demonstrating exactly what i think remains wrong with the party as per my follow up posts.
How on earth you can look at the election result and conclude Labour should have presented themselves as a ‘strong Remain option’ is incomprehensible. And you are aware that Labour’s superficial commitment to Brexit was a central factor in its revival in 2017?
Superficial?
I couldn't get on board with backing Nandy for those exact reasons but to be fair to her she seems to have put representing her constituents views first.
We all know the temperature of the country was quite well reflected in the 'Get on with it" and "you lost" mantras. There was no argument to be won at that stage as people thought it was only fair to see it through and they don't like being told they were wrong.
Labour have a huge opportunity to focus on it's 'fairer society' outlook for a while with a fairer deal for key workers. I'd over sell now to embed that message and then be frugal in the next election given we'll be coming out of recession.
Superficial in the sense that they were not so forceful in their view that they were still able to attract Remain voters who viewed them as potential ‘blockers’ to Brexit, but firm enough to keep Leave voters onside. Granted, superficial was not the best word to use.