Keir Starmer Labour Leader

If Labour can't stand by "War crimes should be punished regardless of who commits them" then they don't deserve our support or votes (although as we have no other option they'll get them anyway).

Maybe in this case it's just moral cowardice from Starmer, but as with so many policy points it's difficult to tell whether Labour are attempting to follow public opinion or whether they're just covering their own arses (or those of their mates). The pit of depravity that was Labour in government completely hamstrings the party's ability to hold the Tories to power without seeming like complete hypocrites or dobbing half the PLP in. Want to call out the government giving dodgy contracts to their mates, legislating in the interests of their investment portfolios or making backroom deals with vested interests? You can't because New Labour was up to their necks in the lot. Want to criticise right wing rhetoric on immigration, asylum or benefits? You can't because Labour, not to mention members of the current Shadow Cabinet, spent over a decade spouting the same shit. Want to prosecute war crimes? You can't because the defining figure of the modern Labour Party is a man who 1/3 voters want to see tried as a war criminal and half the party hierarchy owe their careers to him. As a matter of course, probably best not criticise any country with a bad human rights record because the odds are they have Blair on either retainer or speed dial.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
If Labour can't stand by "War crimes should be punished regardless of who commits them" then they don't deserve our support or votes (although as we have no other option they'll get them anyway).

Maybe in this case it's just moral cowardice from Starmer, but as with so many policy points it's difficult to tell whether Labour are attempting to follow public opinion or whether they're just covering their own arses (or those of their mates). The pit of depravity that was Labour in government completely hamstrings the party's ability to hold the Tories to power without seeming like complete hypocrites or dobbing half the PLP in. Want to call out the government giving dodgy contracts to their mates, legislating in the interests of their investment portfolios or making backroom deals with vested interests? You can't because New Labour was up to their necks in the lot. Want to criticise right wing rhetoric on immigration, asylum or benefits? You can't because Labour, not to mention members of the current Shadow Cabinet, spent over a decade spouting the same shit. Want to prosecute war crimes? You can't because the defining figure of the modern Labour Party is a man who 1/3 voters want to see tried as a war criminal and half the party hierarchy owe their careers to him. As a matter of course, probably best not criticise any country with a bad human rights record because the odds are they have Blair on either retainer or speed dial.
Click to expand...

Don’t government generally support this but in practice it’s pretty difficult?
 
What a tool this man is. To ask someone like Nadia Whittome to stand down is a disgrace. She's exactly what the Labour party needs and more importantly parliament needs.
 
Zlatattack said:
What a tool this man is. To ask someone like Nadia Whittome to stand down is a disgrace. She's exactly what the Labour party needs and more importantly parliament needs.
Click to expand...
And over voting against a bill that would allow for huge leniency for war criminals. He's an absolute cretin, I mean why on earth is he sacking people for opposing a Tory bill?
 
Starmer's pivoting to the right of the Tories. Polls have Labour and Tories in a dead heat and so his abstention from this recent vote is nothing more than an attempt to pacify little England types and natonalists who make up large portions of the red wall which went blue last year. He's afraid to rock the boat which is why his leadership has been characterised by invisibility, all of which has the effect of making Britain a more right wing country to be governed by whoever wins the next election. So the question is whether there's any point in supporting this version of Labour, which, in its scurry to win back "traditional" voters, is ceding match-point to the government time after time.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
Have you ever served in the military?

When soldiers breach the law or rules of engagement, they are punished. They are highly trained to deal with these situations and have a chain of command who are very robust in insuring soldiers carry out their duties as expected.

Of course, training cannot replicate real life, and we do not know how someone will react under extreme circumstances. However, the rule book doesn’t get ripped up, and things are not covered up when they do go wrong.
Click to expand...

Bollocks. All soldiers are mass murderers who never get penalized. How dare you disagree with people who believe in unscientific, unfounded and un-fact-checked conspiracy theories on Facebook and Reddit.
 
Last edited:
I really don’t believe some criticism of Starmer in this thread. It seems to me that there are a significant amount of posters on the Caf who cannot accept others not sharing the same political opinions as they hold. Sign of the times...
 
Rams said:
I really don’t believe some criticism of Starmer in this thread. It seems to me that there are a significant amount of posters on the Caf who cannot accept others not sharing the same political opinions as they hold. Sign of the times...
Click to expand...

Your last 3 posts of course being great examples of accepting others who don't share the same political opinions as you hold.
 
neverdie said:
Starmer's pivoting to the right of the Tories. Polls have Labour and Tories in a dead heat and so his abstention from this recent vote is nothing more than an attempt to pacify little England types and natonalists who make up large portions of the red wall which went blue last year. He's afraid to rock the boat which is why his leadership has been characterised by invisibility, all of which has the effect of making Britain a more right wing country to be governed by whoever wins the next election. So the question is whether there's any point in supporting this version of Labour, which, in its scurry to win back "traditional" voters, is ceding match-point to the government time after time.
Click to expand...

I don't see how abstaining is pivoting to the right of the Tories who voted aye.
 
Shamwow said:
Your last 3 posts of course being great examples of accepting others who don't share the same political opinions as you hold.
Click to expand...

I’m saying that to call Starmer a right wing Tory just because he doesn’t share the political views as me is ludicrous. And I reckon I am myself more leftwing than Starmer.
 
Rams said:
I’m saying that to call Starmer a right wing Tory just because he doesn’t share the political views as me is ludicrous. And I reckon I am myself more leftwing than Starmer.
Click to expand...

Be more specific then because I agree with you on that despite being very against him whipping Labour to abstain and sacking nadia whittome .
 
Shamwow said:
I don't see how abstaining is pivoting to the right of the Tories who voted aye.
Click to expand...
It's not pivoting to the right but appeasing racist dick heads is not something I can get behind. Protecting war criminals is something I actively oppose.
 
Shamwow said:
Be more specific then because I agree with you on that despite being very against him whipping Labour to abstain and sacking nadia whittome .
Click to expand...

I don’t see how Starmer can keep members in the shadow cabinet if they rebel against the official party line, not in the current climate anyway. What Labour needs now the most is unity and such harsh decisions is what a strong leader unfortunately needs to make in order to unify a divided party. That’s my two cents worth anyway.
 
Raven said:
It's not pivoting to the right but appeasing racist dick heads is not something I can get behind. Protecting war criminals is something I actively oppose.
Click to expand...

But the electorate is what it is - a significant portion, particularly in Labour target seats, are nationalistic. To gain support and de-toxify the Labour brand among those voters (many of whom viewed Corbyn as an IRA supporter), Starmer has to make these kind of tactical trade offs to avoid presenting an easy target to Johnson, Cummings and the right wing media. It might be better if he didn’t have to operate under those conditions, but the party cannot dissolve the people and elect another.
 
Rams said:
I don’t see how Starmer can keep members in the shadow cabinet if they rebel against the official party line, not in the current climate anyway. What Labour needs now the most is unity and such harsh decisions is what a strong leader unfortunately needs to make in order to unify a divided party. That’s my two cents worth anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this will increase unity and not sure the point when at the same time Labour are tweeting this

 
William Hague as LOTO came up with loads and loads of policies to win over voters. Blair just stole the good ones leaving the Tories banging on about keeping the pound.

I doubt we will see much in the way of policies from Labour for another 12 to 18 months. All of this triangulation (which did happen under Corbyn too, although to be fair it attracted far more criticism and media attention) is to make Labour less toxic and seem competent. And it will piss off a lot of voters on the left.

With a majority of 80, every vote will be calculated - Labour will likely never win a division, and LOTO office are working out what to do on individual votes to maximise Government embarrassment and minimise any negative press for the Labour Party. I voted for Starmer because I want a Labour Government, and I thought that he would do what was needed to make Labour electable again. These compromises, if they ensure Labour becomes more electable and a potential Government in waiting, are ones I am happy for the leadership to make.

That probably won't be a popular view, but I am giving Starmer a good couple of years at least of leeway before looking for an alternative.
 
ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg said:
How is it not a genuine question?

Would you prefer a far more left leaning Labour Party that is never getting into power, and just functions as an opposition. Or would you rather a party that has a genuine chance of winning an election, but moving to the centre ground?
Click to expand...
Again, you have inserted so many assumptions into your question it is not genuine. It is a leading question.

I can see you may be doing this unintentionally. So to give you some insight, the 2 premises you present are not mutually exclusive, there is no evidence yet to show that Labour moving to the centre ground does give a genuine chance of winning the next election. Take Scotland as one key sticking point.

Put it this way, I'm glad you don't write questions for the census. :lol:
 
neverdie said:
Starmer's pivoting to the right of the Tories. Polls have Labour and Tories in a dead heat and so his abstention from this recent vote is nothing more than an attempt to pacify little England types and natonalists who make up large portions of the red wall which went blue last year. He's afraid to rock the boat which is why his leadership has been characterised by invisibility, all of which has the effect of making Britain a more right wing country to be governed by whoever wins the next election. So the question is whether there's any point in supporting this version of Labour, which, in its scurry to win back "traditional" voters, is ceding match-point to the government time after time.
Click to expand...
I see very little benefit in potential Starmer govenrment. I started out optimistic about his leadership but my worst suspicions, and more, are coming to light.
 
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2020/09/labour-disconnected

I thought this was a very good piece from Ronan Burtenshaw, so I'm going to share three paragraphs, and recommened reading it:

To believe that people can only be proud of this country when it is covering up war crimes is to demean the reality of their connection to their communities. In recent months, we have seen what makes this country a home – the medical workers who overcame the cutbacks to their hospitals to save lives at the frontline, the carers who looked after the vulnerable every day even as their employer paid poverty wages, the binmen and bus drivers and council workers who kept vital services going amid widespread anxiety, the community volunteers who organised food deliveries when people couldn’t leave their homes.

These are the real patriots; the people whose everyday acts stitch our social fabric together. Their concerns for Britain run far deeper than the pursuit of terrorists. Their enemies are not immigrants or refugees, benefit scroungers or woke teenagers, but those forces which tear our communities apart – transnational corporations who replace decent jobs with permanent insecurity or tax-dodging billionaires who starve public services of funding.

This, however, is not the terrain on which Keir Starmer has planted his flag, and when his newfound friends in The Sun begin defining the enemies of the nation, it will be their game that he is forced to play. His silence over the question of refugee rights this summer makes perfectly clear where the Labour Party will end up.
Click to expand...
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
I see very little benefit in potential Starmer govenrment. I started out optimistic about his leadership but my worst suspicions, and more, are coming to light.
Click to expand...

What. That the Labour Party might actually win the next election.
 
Every single Labour Government has been criticised from the left as being too right-wing (very much including Attlee).

Every single one has been markedly different in terms of policy from what the Conservatives in opposition offered.

Starmer is a social democrat. The current Tory Party has been drifting rightwards since they got into power.

I would happily bet any money that a Starmer led Labour Government would have clear policy differences to the Conservatives. You are asking me to predict specific differences and I cannot do that because we are four years out from an election and it would be politically foolish to lay out a blueprint for Government this early.
 
Dobba said:
What will they differ on policy wise?
Click to expand...

As much as I have zero enthusiasm for Starmer or New Labour, the left should avoid taking the argument against him and his predecessors like Blair too far. Yes, there was and will be plenty to criticise, they will not do anything to tackle systemic injustices and inequalities (in fact they'll reinforce them), but they will be better (or less harsh might be a better way of putting it) than a Tory government in domestic policies. The left can also still organise under a Starmer government and try and force concessions - if Starmer does become PM, it will almost certainly be in a pretty precarious position in the HoC where he cannot afford dissenting MPs - that is a prime opportunity for the remaining left MPs to put their foot down when needed. It's different to when Blair had a healthy majority and didn't even have to pay lip service to the likes of Corbyn and Skinner.
 
BobbyManc said:
As much as I have zero enthusiasm for Starmer or New Labour, the left should avoid taking the argument against him and his predecessors like Blair too far. Yes, there was and will be plenty to criticise, they will not do anything to tackle systemic injustices and inequalities (in fact they'll reinforce them), but they will be better (or less harsh might be a better way of putting it) than a Tory government in domestic policies. The left can also still organise under a Starmer government and try and force concessions - if Starmer does become PM, it will almost certainly be in a pretty precarious position in the HoC where he cannot afford dissenting MPs - that is a prime opportunity for the remaining left MPs to put their foot down when needed. It's different to when Blair had a healthy majority and didn't even have to pay lip service to the likes of Corbyn and Skinner.
Click to expand...
I guarantee PM Sir Keith would go with the sacking them and minority government (he'll obviously want to call it something else to avoid upsetting his gammon target audience) option than listening to anything they have to say.
 
Terrible what Starmer is doing, making Labour electable again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.