Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
If I was a politician I'd just delete Twitter, it's far more harmful than helpful. Racists galore and the sad thing is nothing will be done to help Butler and she'll receive the same racist abuse as she always has going forward. Starmer needs to be quicker with these things.
Putting aside the northern towns thing (I assure you there are just as many racists down South), the inability of centrists to grasp the bolded is hugely frustrating.
Throwing racists a bone and hoping they'll be content does not work, plain and simple. Blair tacking hard to the right on immigration and asylum in office did not shut the racists up or get their votes, it just emboldened them. It normalised and promoted the views of fringe lunatics from the right of the Tory Party and beyond and cemented a political landscape where distrust of immigrants was a perfectly acceptable political position. Over the last 10 years we've paid a heavy price for that cowardly appeasement.
If the Labour leader is more concerned with pandering to racists than speaking out loud and clear about stuff like we should all be criticising him, regardless of whether we have different views on income tax or whatever.
Twitter is a cesspit recently. Reason I’ve been so critical of Starmer today is because every post about Butler I’ve seen has been full of abuse, including from former police officers with tens of thousands of followers amplifying it all. It’s harrowing to see, normally it’s easier to dismiss as a few morons but the scale of it was disturbing and it got to me. I can’t even imagine having to deal with that kind of vitriol.
I’d suggest the fact he used to be a lawyer and former head of the DPP is relevant actually, but not for the reasons his supporters would like to hear.
I don't understand why, if you're attempting to "pander to racists," you put Lammy as shadow justice secretary, ie in charge of policy on this stuff.
Yeah I had a quick look before and I had to stop reading because it was disgusting. The comfort of anonymity which Twitter provides certainly shines a light on the worst of humanity. Must take its toll on your mental health when your subject to such constant abuse.
Whilst Starmer was slow to respond publicly I’m sure he was quick to talk to Butler and offer his support to her which is important.
After the riots in London Lammy blamed the relaxing of rules on parents’ ability to smack their children as a factor. His views matter far more than his skin colour. Besides, it’s a silly notion that ‘oh he can’t possibly be pandering to racists, he’s got a Black shadow justice secretary’. We wouldn’t excuse the Tories of doing the same on the basis of Priti Patel’s position, would we?
Oh yeah of course but they always vote tory(Unlike the northern towns).
Great point.
That's something of a misstatement of my point - he's long been outspoken on racial issues and gets a ton of racial abuse for it. If Starmer wants them racists, he's not going to risk that, surely? Particularly if you're saying it's a factor that motivates him enough not to post something on twitter, which isn't read by most of the people you're saying he wants to attract to Labour.
That's a correct assessment although I'd say there is another factor whereby people who aren't massively engaged in the day to day politicking are much more representative of the working class than young activists. By that I mean that activists have a cultural and theoretical take on the working class movement based on trade unions and predominately industrial work but it's rooted in old battles whereas the working class of today is more insular. It's not a badge of honour and an affront to the establishment anymore.
So you have a problem in the north with voters who aren't rooted in the old battles voted tory even if the seat is where the old Durham miners used to congregate.
Apologies if you feel I misstated you but that’s how it read to me. I think you’re approaching it wrong - you’re acting as if the claim is that Starmer’s only priority is pandering to racists, but it’s not, the criticism is he’s essentially trying to straddle a line between doing that and continuing Labour’s anti-racist principles. There should be no room for compromise. So he can appoint someone like David Lammy who does indeed deliver some exceptional speeches about racism, and he can also be guilty of pandering to racists in other areas i.e. in his comments on BLM, his lethargy or absence in expressing solidarity with Black women MPs receiving abuse, especially in regards to Diane Abbott and the leaked report.
Well he did, the next day. Maybe that's too long nowadays, but it seems like he contacted her to discuss it and offer support on the day itself, and then the next day put out a public statement. Maybe I'm just being dumb, but I don't see what he's supposed to have done wrong here. Just seems like a former lawyer doing things in a calm and responsible manner.
I live in that seat, still Labour and last year 250,000 came to the Big Meeting.
He reached out to her privately, but made no comment publicly to condemn the people who were racially abusing her until a day later - and it's not like he hasn't been on twitter either, he certainly found time to tweet about other issues in the mean time.
If you don't see what's wrong with his response, that's fine - it's not my job to get that message across.
It's just clear to me and many other black people who have voted Labour in the past that this guy isn't a leader who we can look for support in.
As a lawyer myself, him being a former lawyer has no bearings in this so i'm not sure why it's brought up continuously.
Maybe you’re right then, I’d just like to see more evidence before definitively coming to a conclusion about his real attitudes. I’m sure there’ll be plenty more examples come along that will make it beyond clear where his sympathies really lie.
Not really sure what evidence you're looking for.
Nobody is saying he is racist, or holds anti-black views - but on the topic of anti-blackness this isn't the first time he's faltered.
And it's not like this level of criticism is unique or only aimed at him - Corbyn was criticised for not putting up a tweet celebrating the NHS workers quickly enough in the early days of Covid.
It doesn't seem like Starmer is learning from his mistakes, so i'm not sure how many times the black community will continue to support him - if twitter is anything to go by, he's certainly lost the young black vote.
Maybe I’m just misunderstanding expectations then. If he’s not racist or holds anti-black views then what is the accusation?
Totally agree.
He panders to BLM by taking a knee when it's trending. But when issues affect the black community directly, he fails to come out with an opinion or action or support - and his slow responses don't help either because it just comes across like he doesn't actually care until it affects his electability, and when it comes to racism - that's frankly unacceptable.
Thanks for the explanation.
He is certainly part of the status quo. Although I'm sure he'll make noises to the contrary until he gets a sniff of power.
I think the last election showed conclusively it's not.
For me I voted for the Labour party as I always have done no matter the leader because I believe a Labour government is better for the country. I'm neither voting or not voting because of a solitary person.
I think the last election showed conclusively it's not.
For me I voted for the Labour party as I always have done no matter the leader because I believe a Labour government is better for the country. I'm neither voting or not voting because of a solitary person.
The young black voters liked Corbyn because he actually engaged with us, and offered policies to help.
Starmer isn't doing that, and based on twitter in the last few months - he's not getting the same unification in that voting bloc.
I once thought i'd always be a Labour supporter too, but I can't align with blind party allegiance anymore.
I'd say it's not blind allegiance though. I'm not holding out for a Labour government to get into power for change to occur. My perspective that a Labour government is better than a Tory government which is the based on that the sole Labour government in my lifetime in my opinion did far more good than bad for this country. But in between being in opposition to being in power and back in opposition again there's a hell of a lot of things you can do with your local council and within your community groups to the extent where it's irrespective of the government or the party. I don't have to like the Labour Party leader to want to keep my Labour MP in office who does a good job. I don't have to like the Labour Party leader to think the Labour councillors who have been around for two or three leaders before him and will perhaps be there for one more after him have done a good job for our local hospital and our school system and our public libraries and services. I'd rather a Labour government be in office so they aren't shackled as much. But ultimately what gets done in Westminster is always a fraction of what gets proposed hence why I didn't have the confidence in a Jeremy Corbyn government to deliver anything near as much as he proposed ... but still voted for Labour twice under him because he'd still have got important things done.
Yep local politics is where I spend most of my time now, I live in a comfortable Tory seat but I am involved with a few organisations help the underprivileged. here & in London.
My vote may not mean much, but there are still actionable things that can get done at the grassroots level.
What you say is understandable.
However, the reality is that while Corbyn may have offered policies to help, he had no capability to actually deliver them.
So they were of no value and of no practical help.
Keir Starmer is far more intelligent.
Don't make a promise you cannot deliver.
And until he has led Labour back into government, you and the rest of us are at the mercy of a merciless right wing autocratic party.
And please, ignore the rubbish posted on twitter.
None of it makes any sense.
Be your own man and trust your own principles.
Well done. Good to hear.
All of that sounds great on paper, but if you want to secure the vote of black and ethnic minorities, then your position on racism is important.
It's not something that can be solved purely by pragmatism because it's such an emotive topic, and this idea that there's only 'rubbish' on twitter is an excellent illustrator of this.
Starmer hasn't offered anything so far and his attitude towards anti-blackness is not going down well. I'm failing to see how he can get elected without the young people and without the ethnic minorities, and based on his first few months he has a long, long, long way to go go to secure these votes.
I personally don't see myself voting for him. He's not guaranteed my vote just because the Tories are worse, sorry - it's not my fault the electorate are dumb.
Well it’s not your fault, but you will suffer along with the rest of us if the Tories get back in. It’s not like any of us get a free pass.
I understand that, but I’ll never vote for the Tories because of their position on values I hold close to me such as immigration. Why would I vote for a Labour leader who has demonstrated a lack of understanding & engagement when it comes to anti blackness?
Why should he get my vote?
Again. Perfectly understandable.
All I would caution is that for someone with socialist views, not voting Labour will be like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Apology for the analogy, but it really is that basic.
And I stand by my statement on twitter. The overwhelming majority of stuff posted is meaningless.
Are you writing for guido now
https://order-order.com/2020/08/10/starmers-shameful-silence-over-dawn-butler/
It might be asking too much but I'd like Starmer to actually push back against the governments latest xenophobia push with some facts and empathy. For him to point out it's a minor issue that the government are using to distract from xyz.
I am a left wing Labour voter... and was a member until fairly recently but couldn't justify giving this current version of the party any money. It's easy to say 'but the Tories are worse so you should still vote Labour'... it's getting to the stage where I'd actually like to see some evidence of that because I am not seeing a great deal of difference between either party at the moment. We've had no real opposition on the coronavirus shambles and Labour have been completely ineffective on issues of equality.
I have genuinely gone from being a member to actually quite disliking the party in the space of 6 months for a whole multitude of reasons... and I started as someone who believed in getting behind the leader and hoping he might unify the party.
I've considered cancelling and giving my money to the good law project instead, at least they're doing some good. There's little reason to pay into Labour right now as they're not representing my own views and they're going to listen to wealthy donors over the membership anyway.
If Starmer is so electable why are we already hearing the "well you'll just have to suck it up and vote for him". Surely being electable should mean voting for his Labour is an appealing prospect?
It should hardly need saying anymore that this forum isn't particularly representative of the country.
Although I also don't think anyone should be sucking it up to vote for him, votes need to be won not taken as given.
You must have missed the memo - left wing voters have to vote Labour regardless or it's their fault if the Tories win. Everyone else can vote for whoever they like and if they don't choose to vote Labour it's the left's fault.