Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Ubik said:
The US seems to be an outlier due to how comically bad Trump is from what I can see, governments everywhere are getting boosts right now, Macron was getting obituaries written not that long ago and is now at 40-50% approval in France. Outside of the Cummings episode (before which the government lead had been 20+ points since March), people haven't been that annoyed with the government (in this same poll they're at -4, which doesn't suggest widespread dissatisfaction when compared to May's handling of Brexit). When the economy begins to bite, that'll probably change.
Click to expand...
You could be right that the US is an outliner but Starmer hasn't even tried. Yesterday's comments where beyond a parody and the "real opposition" is basically a meme at this point. If he can't criticize the government during a pandemic then I'm not sure we can expect anything in the future(Its always worth saying Starmer is really new to politics).

As for the economy again maybe you'll be right but I think it's native to expect any response from Labour that will different to what we've seen with covid. I've yet to see anyone who isn't part of the left offering a real policy alternative, the economy will tank and Labour will offer a less harmful Tory lite project(I hope I'm massively wrong).

And then finally I've heard just wait until the economy goes bang for years now, which I think underestimates the current of make up of the tory vote(Older homeowners, deinstitutionalized small towns and small business owner/middle classes)if everything goes tits up then there's every chance these people will move further to the right and like wise the Labour base(People under 40)will move further to the left. All of which will render a rather dull centrist like Starmer and undemocratic party like Labour irrelevant.
 
F-Red said:
That's the million dollar question, that most have avoided answering on here (for obvious echo chamber reasons). I'll answer it by saying no, I think it's extremely difficult. There hasn't been in recent times a left wing government across Europe, more centre left if anything that has power, closest was probably Costa in Portugal or Macron in France.

The challenge the Labour party has here is to understand that in order to employ some of the forward thinking policies, is that it needs to win a General Election first. Frustratingly parts within it decide a big game of who was right & wrong in whatever twitter 'analyst' says happened over the last 3 years, it needs to recognise it's position & understand what will make them win a democratic process going forward. Otherwise the policies have no chance of being implemented, and is just a waste of oxygen.
Click to expand...

Costa I can see. Macron is not remotely close to left wing.
 
Sweet Square said:
Why do you mean by left ?

Honestly I don't know, there's giant barriers to any "left" party such as Scotland, the long trend of the Labour "heartlands" going to the right, the generational divide and many more things. All of which goes far beyond simply replacing the top of the Labour party.

At the moment the issue isn't policy(At I'm sure it will become one) it's this -
Click to expand...
Boycott said:
In forty years the only elected Labour government was the Tony Blair government. He won three landslides in a row. Most of the other elections Labour got crushed. I think there ought to be a reckoning that Britain is just a more libertarian nation than is needed for a left-wing government to get elected on a left-wing platform. You could run to the center and shift left just like Johnson realising in order to keep those brexit labour voters he's going to have to pivot from the right to the center and invest in their public services and communities. Now he's got no excuse after taking back control from the big bad european union. The economics of a left-wing platform just doesn't sell unless you change the attitudes of people. The reaction to Labour proposing free broadband by getting involved with private companies said it all. It wasn't an attitude of "we don't want that". There is need for better and more accessible provision of internet. But the reaction was simply "bullshit". No one believed they could do that and cut into a private industry and pay for it so the backlash was that Labour were desperate. That was an own goal of a campaign pledge which if they wanted to pursue they should have kept quiet until after an election win.
Click to expand...
F-Red said:
That's the million dollar question, that most have avoided answering on here (for obvious echo chamber reasons). I'll answer it by saying no, I think it's extremely difficult. There hasn't been in recent times a left wing government across Europe, more centre left if anything that has power, closest was probably Costa in Portugal or Macron in France.

The challenge the Labour party has here is to understand that in order to employ some of the forward thinking policies, is that it needs to win a General Election first. Frustratingly parts within it decide a big game of who was right & wrong in whatever twitter 'analyst' says happened over the last 3 years, it needs to recognise it's position & understand what will make them win a democratic process going forward. Otherwise the policies have no chance of being implemented, and is just a waste of oxygen.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the responses all. I asked it to try and stimulate a little more than the Corbyn vs Starmer ‘debate’ that rages through the thread. In truth, I don’t know the answer to the question. I can’t help but think that whilst a lot of the ideas and policies may well be popular, there’s a distrust of the Labour Party to deliver them well. I think the general public expect what they’re going to get with the tories. They’re elitist, they’re bastards, but you know what you’re getting so it’s just accepted. For people that aren’t massively engaged (and most people in this thread are way more engaged than the average person) there’s a fear of moving to anything new.
Please note this is my assessment of the general public opinion, not particularly my own.
 
F-Red said:
That's the million dollar question, that most have avoided answering on here (for obvious echo chamber reasons). I'll answer it by saying no, I think it's extremely difficult. There hasn't been in recent times a left wing government across Europe, more centre left if anything that has power, closest was probably Costa in Portugal or Macron in France.

The challenge the Labour party has here is to understand that in order to employ some of the forward thinking policies, is that it needs to win a General Election first. Frustratingly parts within it decide a big game of who was right & wrong in whatever twitter 'analyst' says happened over the last 3 years, it needs to recognise it's position & understand what will make them win a democratic process going forward. Otherwise the policies have no chance of being implemented, and is just a waste of oxygen.
Click to expand...
2017 Labour were 2500 votes off forming a minority government.

I wonder what could have been achieved if the whole party worked together and factions hadn't diverted funds away from winnable seats.

There are also lots of successful policies across Europe which are much more left wing or socialist than we have here in the UK. Many from governments not considered especially radical.

Maybe if the UK media didn't dress up any progressive policies as Communism we would be more aligned with Europe in that regard.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
2017 Labour were 2500 votes off forming a minority government.
Click to expand...

It wasn't as close as people would suggest though - https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-2017-general-election-not-that-close-after-all/

Fluctuation0161 said:
I wonder what could have been achieved if the whole party worked together and factions hadn't diverted funds away from winnable seats.
Click to expand...

That's a good question, and one we'll never know the answer to. I put it down to weak leadership in the Labour Party for the last 10 years. The trouble with most staunch supporters of the party is this rage to prove who is right and who is wrong, which distracts the whole party from aiming to unseat the Tories and win an election. I've voted Labour at every election I've been able to, but I can't help feel that there is and has always been a distinct lack of people who understand what it takes to win an election in Labour.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
2017 Labour were 2500 votes off forming a minority government.

I wonder what could have been achieved if the whole party worked together and factions hadn't diverted funds away from winnable seats.

There are also lots of successful policies across Europe which are much more left wing or socialist than we have here in the UK. Many from governments not considered especially radical.

Maybe if the UK media didn't dress up any progressive policies as Communism we would be more aligned with Europe in that regard.
Click to expand...
The answer to that is some kind of proportional representation IMO.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
If people were paying attention to the vast amount of scandals, they would realise it is the government that we need to see change in. That is where any concerns should sit, not with the opposition.
Click to expand...
I think you are expecting too much too soon

Parliament isn't sitting and when it did, it was virtual. And it's hard to get broad cut through with the virus dominating everything. So it's too early IMO to be expecting the electorate to notice all this, judge the cumulative impact etc. My guess is it takes time for voter opinions to form about the character of a government, and then some kind of triggering event is needed to make it a settled view. Johnson is certainly helping that along but the election wasnt that long ago. (It is noticeable how the Telegraph and Mail in particular, have become recently more critical of Johnson personally and his governments effectiveness in general.)

In all this, Starmer needs to make sure labour looks like a government in waiting. Which he he is beginning. He doesn't need policies (yet) but he does need directional stuff. But above all he needs to unite his party.
 
Last edited:
F-Red said:
It wasn't as close as people would suggest though - https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-2017-general-election-not-that-close-after-all/
Click to expand...
For clarity, that link says the 2500 votes thing is wrong. If people are basing an argument off it, the argument is wrong.

F-Red said:
That's a good question, and one we'll never know the answer to. I put it down to weak leadership in the Labour Party for the last 10 years. The trouble with most staunch supporters of the party is this rage to prove who is right and who is wrong, which distracts the whole party from aiming to unseat the Tories and win an election. I've voted Labour at every election I've been able to, but I can't help feel that there is and has always been a distinct lack of people who understand what it takes to win an election in Labour.
Click to expand...

I was hoping the bitter reality check the electorate gave the labour left would have focussed minds, but I suppose it's more fun to indulge a stab in the back narrative instead- that way they still get to be 'right'.
 
Why does anyone actually care whether this Labour gets elected rather than the Conservatives given that, at a time of national crisis, they are saying they’d be doing exactly the same things.
 
Untied said:
Costa I can see. Macron is not remotely close to left wing.
Click to expand...

Macron was a member of the socialist party, served in a socialist government under Hollande, and ran on a platform of including left and right. He lied his ass off basically, as he’s governed as a firmly centre right leader since. Initially though a number of prominent left wing people served in his government (many of whom resigned once they saw what his real agenda was).

He also promised he’d appoint a woman prime minister, which was a barefaced lie.
 
Untied said:
Why does anyone actually care whether this Labour gets elected rather than the Conservatives given that, at a time of national crisis, they are saying they’d be doing exactly the same things.
Click to expand...

You really have to ask a question like that? You think Labour are really comparable to this bunch of corrupt Tory bastards?
 
The UK has always, well since the advent of party politics, been Conservative with a small 'c'. That's why the Tories see themselves as the natural 'party of power.'

The only real Labour Government was just after WWII, did lots of good things, housing, education and some nationalisation of certain disorientated pre war industries, but it couldn't last, people got fed up and wanted something better and turned again to the Tories. This post war Labour government was not what I would call left wing, but it did represent 'the red wall' common working people, unless it gets them back it will never achieve power, not in a first past the post voting system.
 
Kentonio said:
Macron was a member of the socialist party, served in a socialist government under Hollande, and ran on a platform of including left and right. He lied his ass off basically, as he’s governed as a firmly centre right leader since. Initially though a number of prominent left wing people served in his government (many of whom resigned once they saw what his real agenda was).
Click to expand...

This sounds familiar.

Kentonio said:
You really have to ask a question like that? You think Labour are really comparable to this bunch of corrupt Tory bastards?
Click to expand...

All I see at the moment is an opposition that is enabling the Government to get away with every single misstep/crime without even attempting to shift the narrative, and a return of the Labour right who I don't really want determining policy either.

But I don't just see it as a sport. From a harm reduction perspective, no doubt Starmer's Labour would be less bad than Johnson's Tories. But at the same time I honestly care very little whether Rachel Reeves gets to be in the cabinet rather than the shadow cabinet.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
How Boris is polling well baffles me. It is mistake after mistake. Dodgy contract after dodgy contract.

Either the polls are wrong. Or I suspect that the reason Cummings is bullet proof, is because he is conducting wizardry in the digital marketing sector. It seems he has developed software to manipulate public opinion by targeting key marginal voters.
Click to expand...
These are the people keeping the Tories at +40%

In an immaculate house a 15-minute walk from Leigh town centre live NHS nurses Keith and Jacqueline Park – though not for long. They are soon to downsize to a nearby bungalow, and the stamp duty cut has come at just the right time.

“Before this, we were thinking of changing the kitchen in the bungalow, but weren’t sure, as it’s quite nice already. But now we know we will be saving a few thousand pounds we will go ahead,” said Keith, 68.

He recently retired from the NHS, where he worked for years as an infectious diseases nurse. He felt able to vote Tory only after burying his dad – “He’d kill me!” – and said he was primarily motivated by a desire to cut immigration in a borough that is 97% white. “Whole sections of Leigh that are colonised with new entrants,” he said in March, claiming that when he used to do contact tracing for TB, almost all the new infections came from asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East.

He was disappointed that Sunak had not announced anything to try to recruit the 43,000 nurses the NHS needs.

“Think of all the excess deaths we’ve had from Covid-19; more than 44,000 of them have been in my age group, the over-65s,” he said. “Surely the government has saved money as a result? That’s 44,000 fewer pensions the government is paying each week, plus they have probably saved a fortune in care home fees, too. I’d like to see that money going into the NHS, not just hospitality.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...had-been-in-charge-the-view-from-the-red-wall
Click to expand...

They basically have the same social relationship to the state as that of reactionary peasants. Their social conditions creates a different outlook on life then the one we have.


Untied said:
This sounds familiar.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
These are the people keeping the Tories at +40%


They basically have the same social relationship to the state as that of reactionary peasants. Their social conditions creates a different outlook on life then the one we have.
Click to expand...

We're still not allowed to call them racists though right? As long as they mask their words well (or not in this case) we have to pretend they're just confused or have different perspectives.

The greatest failure of the left and centre left isn't that we don't pander to these people enough it's that we let "not in my neighbourhood/taking what's ours" views to be seen as acceptable. The Tories will always win whilst they're setting the narrative on this and have people looking elsewhere.
 
Smores said:
The greatest failure of the left and centre left isn't that we don't pander to these people enough it's that we let "not in my neighbourhood/taking what's ours" views to be seen as acceptable. The Tories will always win whilst they're setting the narrative on this and have people looking elsewhere.
Click to expand...
As usual New Labour fecked it up. The failure to not
  • Implement a PR system
  • Give full voting rights to all UK residents
  • Both invest massively in these places and to connect them to the cities
  • Fill them up with a ton of people of all colours and from different parts of the world
Instead New Labour continuously pandered to these people(Blair speech on the white cliffs of Dover for example). Also the left view that the media is simply tricking people into not voting labour or is making them racist is another massive failure.

To change peoples views requires imo a fundamental change in their daily social relations.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...


It’s pretty hilarious seeing The Guardian/Observer presenting the return of wealthy donors, in the form of the beneficiary widow of someone embroiled in the cash for honours scandal, as a good thing. Masks off I guess.
 
Untied said:
It’s pretty hilarious seeing The Guardian/Observer presenting the return of wealthy donors, in the form of the beneficiary widow of someone embroiled in the cash for honours scandal, as a good thing. Masks off I guess.
Click to expand...
Yay. Wealthy donors can now influence both parties.
 
Everyone on here will no dobut think i'm crazy, but what the hell; Labour have no chance under either a corbyn type or starmer to get in currently, the problem being for the last few years the bulk of labours MPs & membership pushed in a direction of anti-brexit & pro critical theory talking points which has made small-c working class labour voters distrustful of the party.

Compounding the issue, despite the torys holding an 8 point lead at present, labours voters are condensed into limited constituencies while small-c type voters are spread across the whole of the map, which hinders them further with a FPTP system.
Added, scotlands decision to abandon labour for the SNP which doesn't look like changing.

For those on here who think Starmer the "optics choice" was the wrong way to go, at present another corbyn type continuing to talk critical race theory and the rest would no doubt be even further behind.
 
The poster who links to a website three times a week that is so popular with antisemites that they've had to ban the word Jew from the comments section (which just means they spell it Joo or Jue to get around it) is pretending they give a shit about antisemitism again.
 
@BennyBlanco - I don't anyone will think you're crazy, a lot of those points have been discussed in here, especially in the immediate aftermath of the election.

I think the general consensus is that Labour's prospects look bleak regardless of who leads them - largely due to demographics and Labour's base being split by the 'culture war'. It's only a couple of extreme centrists who think Starmer just needs time to lead Labour to a glorious revival.
 
nimic said:
Weren't you helpfully warning people about libel earlier in the thread, at which point they suggested your true motivation was to silence the debate? Funny that.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure he was banned from standing as an mp by labour due to his views on antisemitism (you know saying labour does not have an issue with it... singing "celebrations" when jews leave the party over allegations of antisemitism... booking a room in Parliament to screen antisemitic films... so yeah scum in my opinion) and those that fund people like him are equally bad in my opinion

Let's see what the ehrc report says about him as its clear now he is named in it
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysi...-going-to-take-legal-action-against-the-ehrc/

Probably better than relying on the antisemitic scum who fund legal fees against the ehrc
Click to expand...
I assume you understand the negative implications of parties relying on corporate donors cover a full spectrum of issues? Not only the one that Guido tells you about.

I can now only conclude that your lack of cognitive abilities in political threads may not only apply to the legal sector.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
@BennyBlanco - I don't anyone will think you're crazy, a lot of those points have been discussed in here, especially in the immediate aftermath of the election.

I think the general consensus is that Labour's prospects look bleak regardless of who leads them - largely due to demographics and Labour's base being split by the 'culture war'. It's only a couple of extreme centrists who think Starmer just needs time to lead Labour to a glorious revival.
Click to expand...

It is about time that Labour supporters made their minds up as to whether they are serious about winning the next election and becoming the next government.

For far too long, many have been happy to be, in effect a party of protest.
And since the much decided Tony Blair, we have not had a leader nor been a party capable of being electable.

In my view, Sir Keir Starmer is that serious politician who is genuinely capable to challenging the terrible Tories.

No one and nothing is perfect.
But if we are serious about wanting to take power, should we not be far more supportive?
 
Buster15 said:
No one and nothing is perfect.
But if we are serious about wanting to take power, should we not be far more supportive?
Click to expand...
I would agree. But the very people you are asking to support adopted exactly the opposite approach for the last few years.

Surely you can see why that argument will not work easily on every Labour member/voter?
 
Buster15 said:
It is about time that Labour supporters made their minds up as to whether they are serious about winning the next election and becoming the next government.

For far too long, many have been happy to be, in effect a party of protest.
And since the much decided Tony Blair, we have not had a leader nor been a party capable of being electable.

In my view, Sir Keir Starmer is that serious politician who is genuinely capable to challenging the terrible Tories.

No one and nothing is perfect.
But if we are serious about wanting to take power, should we not be far more supportive?
Click to expand...

Don't mistake being realistic for being unsupportive. I've put plenty of my time and energy into trying to get Labour elected over the last 10 years, which is a lot more than many in here giving their two cents will ever do.

Understanding the scale of the challenge is part of getting back into government. Labour has only got 40% of the vote (which is way short of what we need to win a majority, by the way) three times in the last 40 years, believing against all the evidence that Corbyn was the problem and that Starmer doing a Blair-tribute act is the solution is not helpful.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Don't mistake being realistic for being unsupportive. I've put plenty of my time and energy into trying to get Labour elected over the last 10 years, which is a lot more than many in here giving their two cents will ever do.

Understanding the scale of the challenge is part of getting back into government. Labour has only got 40% of the vote (which is way short of what we need to win a majority, by the way) three times in the last 40 years, believing against all the evidence that Corbyn was the problem and that Starmer doing a Blair-tribute act is the solution is not helpful.
Click to expand...

Corbyn was the problem. He came with so much baggage that attacking him was child’s play, and he had no interest in working the media like you have to these days to get anywhere. I’m sorry but even though he was right a lot, you can’t just be that naive and act like that’s all that matters. Politics is dirty and unfair and frequently dishonest, and if you’re not willing to at least try and work around that then you’ll never get the power needed to change anything. It became beyond tiring watching Corbyn get ratfecked and then just complain later.
 
Kentonio said:
he had no interest in working the media like you have to these days
Click to expand...
Why was that, do you think? His attitude towards the media was terribly counter productive. I remember watching one of his early interviews after becoming leader. My wife, who isn't that interested in politics, come into the room and asked, 'Why is he so angry?' And I have wondered ever since why he couldn't even be bothered to make the effort. Surely, that is part of the job of being a figure head for a political movement? It seems almost juvenile to not try.
 
Kentonio said:
Corbyn was the problem. He came with so much baggage that attacking him was child’s play, and he had no interest in working the media like you have to these days to get anywhere. I’m sorry but even though he was right a lot, you can’t just be that naive and act like that’s all that matters. Politics is dirty and unfair and frequently dishonest, and if you’re not willing to at least try and work around that then you’ll never get the power needed to change anything. It became beyond tiring watching Corbyn get ratfecked and then just complain later.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you about Corbyn - half the time he said something I agreed with him whilst grimacing at how stupid he was to say it.

But you're missing my point a little, which is that there isn't a golden pre-Corbyn era for Labour to hark back to, which is what the poster I was responding to seemed to be suggesting. Corbyn wasn't the problem in 2005 when Labour got 35% of the vote or in 2010 and 2015 when they got 29%. Even if you think a lot of Starmer, the idea that it's as simple as replacing Corbyn and trying to do what worked 20 years ago is desperately naïve.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
I don't disagree with you about Corbyn - half the time he said something I agreed with him whilst grimacing at how stupid he was to say it.

But you're missing my point a little, which is that there isn't a golden pre-Corbyn era for Labour to hark back to, which is what the poster I was responding to seemed to be suggesting. Corbyn wasn't the problem in 2005 when Labour got 35% of the vote or in 2010 and 2015 when they got 29%. Even if you think a lot of Starmer, the idea that it's as simple as replacing Corbyn and trying to do what worked 20 years ago is desperately naïve.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s just as simple as replacing Corbyn, but I actually think Starmer might do well himself. He’s the first Labour leader since Brown who I actually believe could win the election, even though he needs to work on his charisma.
 
What becomes ever more revealing is that it's actually the centrists who have the cult of personality.

Ask a Corbyn fan what they like about Corbyn and they'll list the policies they see him as embodying.

Ask a centrist why they like Starmer and they'll say it's because they think he's electable. Electable to do what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.