If he was American, he'd 100% be against free healthcare
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
He clapped for the doctors though so it's all ok.
No it was shown to be correct. Labours pledge was specifically on there being no more tax to the 95% and it was shown to be false. Doesn’t matter if they gain from other services. But more importantly, as you can see in the interview itself, Corbyn just had no idea. He didn’t believe that what Neil was telling him was true, because he didn’t know the manifesto.
We're about to have a huge recession amid a public health crisis, and it's going to dominate politics for the foreseeable future. I'm sceptical that the trade deal will have the same kind of impact. I saw people predicting that Starmer would fall into the "trap" of arguing for an extension to negotiations beyond this year, the same "trap" that Isabel Oakeshott has today fallen into.
Not in this particular research -
But it did mention previous research which showed it was a large factor in his negative rating, mainly because he looked weak on it -
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...3/their-own-words-why-voters-abandoned-labour
And given that brexit itself was an option, it doesn't seem persuasive to say that the "Corbyn/the leadership" answer is another way of saying "it was brexit". It's a factor, but the main issue with them is still the person and whether they think he's capable as a leader.
This is also without taking into account the 1/3 of people voting Labour that thought he was doing badly - https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...0h01ub/TheSundayTimes_VI_Results_191206_w.pdf - something not particularly tenable for someone hoping to become Prime Minister.
I'm coming around to the idea that conservatives act as a giant bolder and chain locked around the foot of human progress. They can't be reasoned with or argued out of their political positions(As we've seen over the last few pages, their political positions are insane), instead they have to be dragged by the rest of us to a better world. It's only the past work of the labour movement, socialists, the labour party etc that old clayton isn't against free healthcare.
Also whenever I hear talk of ''what next free food!'' I'm reminded of this recent video
Which is the
He still thinks he's arguing with Tories 
Surprised at how many people already know about Starmer.
Let's just pray the nation lets him finish lets him finish lets him finish.
I'm going to shoot myself if I see another graph.
I'd love to see the probability of that happening in graph form.
True. Judging historical figures by today’s standards is basically just going to result in the conclusion that they were all vile assholes.
You don’t know me - or the fact I’ve worked for the NHS. I don’t think broadband, the provision of water, electric, gas or food should be free. Those in need get benefits - if everything v was free there would be no incentive for investment.
we all know that the NHS needs more money, and elements of society will need to start paying more for it and for some services. That’s inevitable.
Last edited:
Good question. Generally the NHS provides appropriate and essential care to us. It doesn’t provide non essential functions, like boob jobs, or hair transplants.
I wouldn’t be against free water, internet, or food - but it would clearly need to be the amount needed to survive. So we wouldn’t be providing everyone with steak and chips every day or gallons of water to wash your car - it would be a very inefficient way of providing recourses to people. The wastage would be phenomenal is everyone had access to free resources.
There’s some leeway involved when assessing the morality of people in a completely different era, but I think we can accept praising Hitler because he’ll deal with the ‘Jews’ kind of transgresses the boundary of any time, no?
I like Starmer. I genuinely do. He’s a good guy with a good moral compass and solid principles. Incomparable to Blair in my view. I would not hesitate to vote for him as things stand. But some people are in for a shock when they realise that, lo and behold, Labour’s problems are actually far more complex and deeper than simply removing Corbyn.
Sweet Square said:
Jeremy Corbyn: “I’m really pleased the statue is going up.”
Also, a motion from the archives, December 1994 - “That this House celebrates the election of Nancy Astor, the first woman Member of Parliament to take her seat in the House of Commons, on 1st December 1919...”
Tabled by Jeremy Corbyn.
Jez celebrating an antisemite isn’t much of a surprise.
You're in favour of mass state planning of the economy ? So what the hell is all this about then ?
Unless you thought that Labour where promising free car washes for the many and not the few ? Also aren't you annoyed at the wastage we produced under the current system ?
Mate I'm apparently his illegitimate son but shock horror I don't actually agree with everything Corbyn has said. Although who knew the bonding issue between @nickm and Corbyn would be Nancy Astor
Edit - Just seen you fecked up the motion mentioning Markiewicz.
Last edited:
That isn't actually the motion tabled by Corbyn, he's tabling an amendment that mentions Markiewicz.
Jez celebrating Sinn Fein isn’t much of a surprise.
You're in favour of mass state planning of the economy ? So what the hell is all this about then ?
Unless you thought that Labour where promising free car washes for the many and not the few ? Also aren't you annoyed at the wastage we produced under the current system ?
Mate I'm apparently his illegitimate son but shock horror I don't actually agree with everything Corbyn has said. Although who knew the bonding issue between @nickm and Corbyn would be Nancy Astor
Edit - Just seen you fecked up the motion mentioning Markiewicz.
My apologies. Point still stands re: statue.
What utter rubbish. No need to say any more.
You're in favour of mass state planning of the economy ? So what the hell is all this about then ?
Unless you thought that Labour where promising free car washes for the many and not the few ? Also aren't you annoyed at the wastage we produced under the current system ?
clearly I’m not in favour of “mass state planning” it was in indicative example of the fact in theory providing essentials could work.
Obviously there’s a lot of wastage, but not as much as in a communist Corbyn world. Anyway, this is all very silly and I’ve got better things to do than argue about free broadband.
To clarify @Ubik, I agree with you that Corbyn was way more toxic to voters in 2019 than in 2017. I just think that those (not necessarily you) who believe that removing Corbyn removes the most important reason why Labour did so badly in 2019 are barking up the wrong tree.
Yup, good article. Still a question mark over whether he has what it takes to be a leader, he could go the way of Brown in being highly competent behind the scenes only to be found wanting when front and centre, but time can only tell on that one.
Yeah I think there are a bunch of important reasons behind it - historical decline, brexit, an unpleasant print media among them. It's also important to recognise that the extent of his unpopularity unquestionably contributed to the scale of the defeat, and that the 2017 results needs context to it, both in terms of what went right and what went wrong. Basically, removing him was necessary but nowhere near sufficient.
I wish that the first sitting woman MP was a better role model, but sadly she wasn’t. However it was a smear to label Rachel Reeeves an anti Semite because she celebrated Astor’s anniversary, given the well known nature of Astor’s symbolism for women’s rights. It is obvious what Reeves was noting.
Similarly most grown ups are able to see Churchill is a symbol of freedom for British people, even though we also know many counties (Eg India) have very different and understandable views about the man and his unacceptable racism.
Last edited:
Oh gosh, she called a man rude who said the following about Palestine..
Churchill said:
Or the man who called Indians ‘A beastly people with a beastly culture’ who he also said he hated?
Yes Lady Aster was a vile witch, but if we’re historically consistent, she was a horrible person in an age of horrible people. If we follow this line of thinking, then there are no good historical figures, and they should all just be condemned. But then again in a hundred years or so we will be too, because we’ll be the ones looking like horrific barbarians by more enlightened generations that follow (hopefully).
Personally I just don’t think it’s particularly helpful. It ignores the entire circumstances under which people are raised, and the cultural norms of their times, and just passes judgement on people using standards that aren’t of their time.
If you’re going back to the 1930’s you’re going to find a lot more anti-semites than not. There was a reason the Holocaust happened and it wasn’t just because of a few German psychopaths. It was the result of centuries of Christian hatred creating a horribly common attitude of discrimination across most of Europe.
Great post.
there's disingenuous and then there's this. she didn't call churchill rude for his view that my grandmother and her sisters were inferior humans under the spell of a naked fakir, she called him rude because he opposed hitler on a geopolitical level. that's proven by everything else his post quoted.
for the thing about context and timing, etc, that is a question of how much leeway and good faith is given to people who disagree with you politically. corbyn got none from his detractors and they in turn should expect the same.
She called him rude because of his stance against the 1938 Munich Pact.
It's worth saying we are already not being historically consistent, Aster was the second woman to be elected to westminster, if we want to be consistent and not put off by the views of historical figures then it should be a statue of Countess Markievicz, right ? Interesting side note, there is a portrait of Markievicz in Westminster, which I'm guessing is something she would have absolutely hated.
The future generations with their flying toasters and their killer robot dogs will of course look at us like the unwashed peasantry that we are but Aster wasn't someone who said homophobic or racist slurs but someone who was bang into Hilter and Nazism. We are talking about someone who supported an ideology that is the pure shit stain of humanity, a death cult, one of the few things we can call pure evil and importantly it was an ideology that was opposed by millions of people all around the globe, nazism and it's supporters were not the norm. And look this isn't me ignoring the historical context(I've literally made a USSR thread on here, I get that history isn't simply black or white but a feck ton of grey) but taking seriously the views of Astor.
Personally I think what ignores the circumstances under which people are raised, and the cultural norms of their times is giving someone a statue without mentioning at all their political views.Her website has a bizarre section labelled fake news as it attempts to distance her from Nazism. How is any of this particularly helpful, educational to the public or anything but white washing of a nazi sympathiser ? As for passing judgement of people using the standards that aren't of their time -
And finally statues aren't mandatory. No one is talking about removing Aster from the history books, that would of course be wrong but you can recognise someone and what they've achieved and not have to honour them with a statue. right ? In fact this is what we do with the vast majority of historical figures.
Last edited:
No she didn’t, and I’m not defending her or her anti-Semitic filth in the slightest. But I think if you’re going to hold historical figures to account for their racism then you have to be consistent about it. Churchill was a racist bastard too. Vast swathes of the aristocracy and the governing classes were racist and anti-Semitic as hell. My issue is with this idea that Lady Aster was somehow an outlier. She wasn’t. Fascism had a large amount of support in the U.K. in the years before the war, and even the ones who weren’t pro-fascist were largely racist as all hell towards other ethnicities.
It just feels a bit hypocritical to call one person out for anti-semitism in the 30’s if we’re not going to call out others for blatant racism towards blacks and Asians. And let’s make no mistake, it wasn’t just bigotry, it was often support of policies that included genocide and ethnic cleansing.
I see Operation Smearstarmer is ongoing...
Yeah he totally should have refused the title and spent his time drawing a line that facilitates laying wreaths for terrorists or inviting hamas to tea ... Clearly not worthy to succeed jezbollah
Clearly I could be wrong but I’d hope the signs are all positive there. Starmer seems almost universally liked by people who have worked with him from what I’ve heard. Who has ever actually complained about him? It also seems silly how many times I’ve heard journalists say that “he actually comes across as incredibly warm and charming” away from the cameras.
Brown on the other hand was seen as a bit of a weirdo from the early 90s on, as far as I’m aware. Not to mention 15 years of paranoia and bitter infighting caused by him and his people attacking the Blairs and theirs, a lot of which I think can be blamed on Brown’s personality defects.
Imo, the divisions are now cultural and an economic argument cannot win when divisions are cultural, unless a catastrophic economic collapse occurs.
I think the Americanization of our poliics is already in full flow and our parliamentary system puts Tories at an advantage.
Labour will just have to decide what side of the cultural battle it is on, while making economic arguments.