Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Untied said:
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?
Click to expand...
Turns out it was all projection. The new one is the bollocks now about the importance of unity, when the guy who has the job spent 2 years of the last guy's leadership trying to remove him from office and they're doing everything they can to brush his half of the party undermining it. Whatever you do, don't learn the lesson that doing everything to ensure a leader you dislike fails works because they get replaced and you'll be rewarded with someone from your half of the party back in charge.
 
Untied said:
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?
Click to expand...

i'll be honest, i liked him because i agreed with his policy and world-view generally, but i found corbyn personally endearing too. wouldn't mind a cult of personality based around the jam-producing cyclist (and appealing directly to me - a vegetarian after he worked on a farm).
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes of course not every Labour voter.
But I would hope that a majority would get behind him to try to oust the Tories.
 
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...

Fair point.
But what is preferable.
The Tories.
Or a Labour government which is able to appeal to the majority of voters.
 
Untied said:
cult of personality.
Click to expand...
Cult of personality about Sir Keir? Is that plausible? What about his personality inspires such a cult? I tend to think this applied more with Corbyn, who drew in devoted followers because of his values and strong stances on certain issues.

I think what people see (at least, what I see and I assume others do) is a display of competence (so far) in leadership and organisation. This is why he looks electable. He needs a vision, of course; looking like a competent manager won't be enough to persuade enough of the voters to follow him and Labour.
 
berbatrick said:
i'll be honest, i liked him because i agreed with his policy and world-view generally, but i found corbyn personally endearing too. wouldn't mind a cult of personality based around the jam-producing cyclist (and appealing directly to me - a vegetarian after he worked on a farm).
Click to expand...

Omg this guy on a quest to support unelectable grand dads all over the world
 


Er.....it's nearly been 24 hours since a Labour MP was racially profiled(And she is getting constant racist abuse online afterwards) and Starmer has so far said nothing.
 
RedChip said:
Cult of personality about Sir Keir? Is that plausible? What about his personality inspires such a cult? I tend to think this applied more with Corbyn, who drew in devoted followers because of his values and strong stances on certain issues.

I think what people see (at least, what I see and I assume others do) is a display of competence (so far) in leadership and organisation. This is why he looks electable. He needs a vision, of course; looking like a competent manager won't be enough to persuade enough of the voters to follow him and Labour.
Click to expand...

Good summary.
 
Sweet Square said:


Er.....it's nearly been 24 hours since a Labour MP was racially profiled(And she is getting constant racist abuse online afterwards) and Starmer has so far said nothing.
Click to expand...


No one has told her to read A Christmas Carol though, there are some lines even the most hardended racists will not cross.
 
Sweet Square said:


Er.....it's nearly been 24 hours since a Labour MP was racially profiled(And she is getting constant racist abuse online afterwards) and Starmer has so far said nothing.
Click to expand...


He never said feck all when she had to move out of her constituency office due to the abuse she was receiving, did he? The media barely said a peep about it either.
 
RedChip said:
Cult of personality about Sir Keir? Is that plausible? What about his personality inspires such a cult? I tend to think this applied more with Corbyn, who drew in devoted followers because of his values and strong stances on certain issues.

I think what people see (at least, what I see and I assume others do) is a display of competence (so far) in leadership and organisation. This is why he looks electable. He needs a vision, of course; looking like a competent manager won't be enough to persuade enough of the voters to follow him and Labour.
Click to expand...

Let's phrase it a different way. For a lot of centrists, liberals, Guardian columnists, etc their understanding of politics is that it is driven by superficial presentation. Hence the idea that people loved Corbyn because he was a magic-grandpa.

In reality a huge chunk of Corbyn supporters would have voted for a mannequin holding the policies they wanted… the person of Corbyn was pretty unimportant. In fact one of the problems for the whole movement is that through no deliberate choice, it stumbled upon a fairly poor choice of leader as its figure-head. McDonnell would never have been able to get on the ballot in 2015 —he wasn't seen as harmless by fellow Labour MPs — but I suspect he'd have been a more ruthless leader.

Whereas the people most keen on Starmer are entirely concerned about HIS qualities as a person. HE is competent, HE appears electable, HE appears prime-ministerial, HE is forensic. It's entirely about the superficial presentation rather than what changes he could bring about or what they want to see. The centre has no vision and it shows.
 
Untied said:
Let's phrase it a different way. For a lot of centrists, liberals, Guardian columnists, etc their understanding of politics is that it is driven by superficial presentation. Hence the idea that people loved Corbyn because he was a magic-grandpa.

In reality a huge chunk of Corbyn supporters would have voted for a mannequin holding the policies they wanted… the person of Corbyn was pretty unimportant. In fact one of the problems for the whole movement is that through no deliberate choice, it stumbled upon a fairly poor choice of leader as its figure-head. McDonnell would never have been able to get on the ballot in 2015 —he wasn't seen as harmless by fellow Labour MPs — but I suspect he'd have been a more ruthless leader.

Whereas the people most keen on Starmer are entirely concerned about HIS qualities as a person. HE is competent, HE appears electable, HE appears prime-ministerial, HE is forensic. It's entirely about the superficial presentation rather than what changes he could bring about or what they want to see. The centre has no vision and it shows.
Click to expand...

Good post. There’s a lot of admiration for Corbyn, but the idea of a ‘cult’ around him was hysterical rubbish and in fact the focus on Corbyn as a person was not started by his supporters but by a press and hostile factions determined to undermine his politics by ruthlessly attacking him personally.

And, as you point out, ironically I’ve seen a a lot of praise about Starmer personally, but not his politics. It was nearly always the latter for Corbyn. Which is how it should be. Corbyn was clearly out of his depth at first but his authenticity and vision was what helped to win 40% in 2017. The personal image of Starmer alone will not be enough to replicate that result, let alone talk of winning.
 
Hammerfell said:
It’d be nice if he actually had an opinion about something.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice if centrists had an opinion about anything other than moaning about the left. You won't see some of the vocal lot on here care about this issue, not until they've are able to form an opposing position to the left anyway.

Twitter gammon now out in force saying she should be sacked. This country is descending into madness.
 
I think this sums up why the left can be uncompromising with the centre. This is not a point of ideology, like whether we should nationalise an industry. This is a quite fundamental point of standing up to racism. It should be immutable in any party, let alone Labour. Yet here we are, the leader of the party unable to offer any solidarity with a Black woman MP. Why? There is no good or appropriate answer. I despair. Silent when she was forced out of her office due to abuse and threats of violence, silent when she is racially profiled by the police (and they’ve admitted a mistake!) and she is still getting an insane amount of abuse on social media.
Nothing. Not a peep. Whereas even Boris Johnson has given some mealy mouthed generic response, but a response acknowledging the wrong nevertheless. Starmer is utterly spineless, and on this matter he deserves nothing but vilification.
 
BobbyManc said:
I think this sums up why the left can be uncompromising with the centre. This is not a point of ideology, like whether we should nationalise an industry. This is a quite fundamental point of standing up to racism. It should be immutable in any party, let alone Labour. Yet here we are, the leader of the party unable to offer any solidarity with a Black woman MP. Why? There is no good or appropriate answer. I despair. Silent when she was forced out of her office due to abuse and threats of violence, silent when she is racially profiled by the police (and they’ve admitted a mistake!) and she is still getting an insane amount of abuse on social media.
Nothing. Not a peep. Whereas even Boris Johnson has given some mealy mouthed generic response, but a response acknowledging the wrong nevertheless. Starmer is utterly spineless, and on this matter he deserves nothing but vilification.
Click to expand...
Hammerfell said:


Click to expand...

so erm yeah ... whats the next #smear starmer campaign then
 
Must be reading this thread.

Kier - if you're reading this, you have the personality of a goldfish. Fix up - if we have another Tory government, the one that follows will be waving swastikas.
 
Hammerfell said:


Click to expand...


All this tells me is that he had a chance to make a statement yesterday, and he chose not to, thinking a private response was only necessary.
This statement is very cleverly worded too, the abuse she's receiving is wrong & must be condemned, but he hasn't actually condemned it.

His team probably saw that he's getting crucified by Black UK Twitter and decided to try and stop the bleeding.

I don't think he cares much about anti-black racism unless it's hindering his chance of election or helping it.
 
sun_tzu said:
so erm yeah ... whats the next #smear starmer campaign then
Click to expand...

Too late, it’s clear he’s been forced into it after issuing no comment until now, and only after he’s allowed Boris Johnson to get in there first. He has still said nothing on the issue of her having to leave her constituency office. It was inevitable he’d come out and say something after the backlash to his original silence, the same way the BBC finally apologised for using the N word. It doesn’t make it any less infuriating.

Why does it feel like we are having to toil to make our party leader stand in solidarity with Black women MP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyManc said:
Too late, it’s clear he’s been forced into it after issuing no comment until now, and only after he’s allowed Boris Johnson to get in there first. He has still said nothing on the issue of her having to leave her constituency office. It was inevitable he’d come out and say something after the backlash to his original silence, the same way the BBC finally apologised for using the N word. It doesn’t make it any less infuriating.

Why does it feel like we are having to toil to make our party leader stand in solidarity with Black women MPs? You’re just an irredeemably shite poster though so please let someone else reply.
Click to expand...
This is untrue. From a month ago:



He's definitely too slow on these things though, his social media team is a bit shit in general.
 
Ubik said:
He's definitely too slow on these things though, his social media team is a bit shit in general.
Click to expand...

That's probably his law background. Usually better legally to take a bit of time and make sure you fully understand everything that's going on, rather than just jump straight in and get blindsided 5 minutes later.

This idea that everything has to happen within an hour or else its a heinous dereliction of duty really needs to feck off. Yes the world works on a 24 hour news cycle now, but this demand for instant response and gratification isn't exactly making our politics any better.
 
Dobba said:
The Silent Knight.
Click to expand...
Labour very own white knight.

Kentonio said:
That's probably his law background. Usually better legally to take a bit of time and make sure you fully understand everything that's going on, rather than just jump straight in and get blindsided 5 minutes later.

This idea that everything has to happen within an hour or else its a heinous dereliction of duty really needs to feck off. Yes the world works on a 24 hour news cycle now, but this demand for instant response and gratification isn't exactly making our politics any better.
Click to expand...
Is this some sort of kink humiliation thing ?

It's pretty clear what's going on tbh, Starmer wants to win over old racists in northern towns so he is ready and willing to not show publicly solidarity to a black Labour Mp.

This is the outcome of "electability" and it's not very difficult to understand.
 
Sweet Square said:
It's pretty clear what's going on tbh, Starmer wants to win over old racists in northern towns so he is ready and willing to not show publicly solidarity to a black Labour Mp.

This is the outcome of "electability" and it's not very difficult to understand.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. It seems quite clear that is the line he is walking.

This is the problem of electability at all costs with no core values. Even if he gets into office, which is still unlikely, he will only action policies that the right wing UK media will get behind.
 
Kentonio said:
That's probably his law background. Usually better legally to take a bit of time and make sure you fully understand everything that's going on, rather than just jump straight in and get blindsided 5 minutes later.

This idea that everything has to happen within an hour or else its a heinous dereliction of duty really needs to feck off. Yes the world works on a 24 hour news cycle now, but this demand for instant response and gratification isn't exactly making our politics any better.
Click to expand...

Even if he doesn't know all the facts, he saw his MP being abused online for expressing her experience and said nothing about it. It's pathetic & can't be defended.
 
Ubik said:
This is untrue. From a month ago:



He's definitely too slow on these things though, his social media team is a bit shit in general.
Click to expand...


Yeah thanks for correcting me on that, I knew he’d been criticised for being silent but turns out it was another ‘woops little bit late opposing racism there’ incident instead.

sun_tzu said:
Erm attack the post not the poster
Click to expand...

Sorry Mr Tzu, as a poster you’re fine, but all your posts are irredeemably shite.
 
Kentonio said:
But he did say something about it.



Click to expand...


Your point was that he shouldn't rush into things without knowing all facts.
My point in response to that was that clearly he saw his MP getting abused online for expressing her experience with the MET and whether he knew all the facts or not - he should've defended her, as party leader publicly. You don't need to be a lawyer or know all facts to do that.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Totally agree. It seems quite clear that is the line he is walking.
Click to expand...
imo the people defending Starmer also know this but are too embarrassed to openly admit they agree with him. Which is why we get such dumb excuses as well his social team is rubbish, it's left wing smears or it's because he used to be a lawyer etc etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.