Depends on your definition of right and left wing over time, but there are examples of a leader being more progressive when in power. Theodore Roosevelt turned on his donors and used competition law to break corporate monopolies: https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3141.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Depends on your definition of right and left wing over time, but there are examples of a leader being more progressive when in power. Theodore Roosevelt turned on his donors and used competition law to break corporate monopolies: https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3141.
He's got a massive platform. He influences opinion. He had one young lad disagreeing with Starmer's acceptance of this horrible MP and he was condescending and abrupt with him. Everyone else agreed with him and he let them waffle away about how smart Starmer is. There was even a bit about how genuinely caring Starmer is and that there hasn't been a leader like that forever. It was nauseating sycophancy and divorced from reality.
And I can listen and criticise. Same way I can watch Question Time and criticise. Same way I can watch United and criticise. Same way I can read your posts, and you can read mine, and we can criticise. I'm sharing my opinion on the biggest politics/current affairs show host on the radio, on this one particular issue, on this one particular day. Don't ask me to put my fingers in my ears.
Good point. I'd forgotten about him. And it may well prove that, in a UK that could end up as broken as the US in the Great Depression, Starmer might be pragmatic and pivot towards policies that benefit those in need the most. We will see.
One month ago Elphicke was slating Starmer. In five or six months or whenever the GE happens, there is a tiny teeny weeny possibility that she may quite possibly change her mind. Especially now the nice weather has started and many people in those boats may swarm across the Channel. Then the EU introduce the EES and the tailback from Dover is past Maidstone.
And will Starmer
Starmer - "Feeeeeeeeecccckkkk, Rishi. I've tried to put people off voting Labour but now it looks like they're still planning to. Our beloved Tory party are going to lose!"
Sunak - "I've got an idea, Agent 69. An idea that might make that party shit the bed..."
Starmer - "Tell me more, Master... *Dislocates jaw and eats baby*"
So conservative less than Libs, SNP and North Ireland? That would be insanity
So shadow government would be Libs, then?
It also won't happen. I would be shocked if the Tories ended up with fewer than 200 MPs.
That what I think too. It seems dystopian. But one can dream
If this is true, then Starmer would be courting the extreme left (whatever that means in a UK Labour context). Is he?
Doubt that will happen but it is nice to think about.
I think people notice when a Tory defects to Labour, and see it as Labour broadening its appeal. I am not sure how the same works for an extreme left MP that's already in Labour. I mean, I guess there is always George Galloway...
It’s a very stupid twitter thread. It’s impossible be to the Party of Britain as the country is made up various classes who have different interests to other each. Can’t be the party of landlords and also of renters.
Doing an Attlee but succeeding(Whatever that means) isn’t possible when labour health secretary loves taking donations from private healthcare companies.
Last edited:
Which cohort is bigger if you’re aiming to become THE Party of Britain?
You can criticise it for naïveté, being contrary to your ideological standing, and many other factors, but none of your ‘reasoning’ explains why it’s stupid.
It’s awfully written and as if he’s some sort of mage who’s worked out Starmer’s secret plan that no one can see.
Takes the nonsense pledges at face value too.
Part of me thinks the Elphicke defection is a trojan horse and that Labour are so unbelievably high on their current opinion poll lead they’re easily duped.
Or they just don’t mind her being a Labour MP. This has Labour Together strategy written all over it.
That would have any salience except she’s not running at the next election and the Party already has a candidate for that constituency.
It’s not about having her as a standing Labour MP.
If you want to say that Starmer is moving to the right to gain voters, I wouldn't disagree at all (although I think it's a combination of votes and ideology), but this guy is explicitly rejecting that. If he's right, then Starmer should be courting the extremes on both the left and the right, so I'm asking if you think that's happening. I certainly agree that he's courting the right, that's obvious.
I don't see Starmer as a big picture politician, especially after the stories about him as Shadow Brexit Secretary.
That said, the team around him are full of those thinkers: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/07/whos-who-in-keir-starmers-reshaped-top-team.
I know his Director of Communications, Matthew Doyle, worked on some constituency campaigns in the South East in the 2017 election (despite being a Spad for Blair and not liking Corbyn). I volunteered on a couple and got to know how he worked a little. He is extremely able and focused on this 'big picture' thinking. If this is the plan I can see it being driven from the backroom team, rather than any specific masterplan from the Leader.
Of course, there is a skill in appointing the right people to run the Party too.
That said, the team around him are full of those thinkers: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/07/whos-who-in-keir-starmers-reshaped-top-team.
I know his Director of Communications, Matthew Doyle, worked on some constituency campaigns in the South East in the 2017 election (despite being a Spad for Blair and not liking Corbyn). I volunteered on a couple and got to know how he worked a little. He is extremely able and focused on this 'big picture' thinking. If this is the plan I can see it being driven from the backroom team, rather than any specific masterplan from the Leader.
Of course, there is a skill in appointing the right people to run the Party too.
Agree. These people see themselves as part of a secret plan to trick voters into giving labour power so Starmer can repeatedly smash the progressive politics button when in office.
The strangest thing is the more evidence against this(Starmer dropping pledges and accepting Tory MP’s)somehow makes these people think the secret plan is working even more!
A lot of it is just cope and desperation to find the positives. They voted for Starmer in 2019 with the hopes of a more electable version of Corbyn platform and they’ve been completely fecked over. Rather than coming to terms with this it’s just easier(Although very stupid) to pretend Wes Street is the next Nye Bevan.
The staff have finally received an offer from college management that might give them their first pay rise since 2021, as well as break the deadlock on a nationalised pay structure (only public sector workers left in Scotland that don't have it, as far as I know).
It's confusing as feck because the main reason why it's happening seems to be because of pressure from a TORY member of Parliament. The world has gone insane.
MI5 sorry over handling of machete attack case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51nzz626rdo
MI5 has apologised for failing to promptly disclose information to a woman who was attacked with a machete by one of its agents.
The woman, known by the alias Beth, has complained to the watchdog which considers complaints against the intelligence services.
In 2022 a BBC investigation revealed the man - who cannot be named for legal reasons - had used his role to coercively control Beth, his ex-partner.
He was physically and sexually abusive, and was filmed threatening to kill her and then attacking her with a machete.
Two years ago, the government took the BBC to court to block the story being broadcast.
It failed to do so, but succeeded in gaining him legal anonymity, having argued that the man - a right-wing extremist known publicly as X - would be in danger if publicly named. The BBC argued he should be identified so that women could be warned about such a predatory and violent man.
Beth, represented by the Centre for Women’s Justice, then lodged a formal complaint with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), a panel of senior judges which investigates human rights claims against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
MI5 has always refused to publicly confirm whether or not X was an agent, meaning an authorised informant.
----
Putting this here as Parliament in 2021 passed a law giving intelligence sources complete civil and criminal immunity for any acts committed in the undertaking of their duty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51nzz626rdo
MI5 has apologised for failing to promptly disclose information to a woman who was attacked with a machete by one of its agents.
The woman, known by the alias Beth, has complained to the watchdog which considers complaints against the intelligence services.
In 2022 a BBC investigation revealed the man - who cannot be named for legal reasons - had used his role to coercively control Beth, his ex-partner.
He was physically and sexually abusive, and was filmed threatening to kill her and then attacking her with a machete.
Two years ago, the government took the BBC to court to block the story being broadcast.
It failed to do so, but succeeded in gaining him legal anonymity, having argued that the man - a right-wing extremist known publicly as X - would be in danger if publicly named. The BBC argued he should be identified so that women could be warned about such a predatory and violent man.
Beth, represented by the Centre for Women’s Justice, then lodged a formal complaint with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), a panel of senior judges which investigates human rights claims against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
MI5 has always refused to publicly confirm whether or not X was an agent, meaning an authorised informant.
----
Putting this here as Parliament in 2021 passed a law giving intelligence sources complete civil and criminal immunity for any acts committed in the undertaking of their duty.
I assume the tactic with bringing over Natalie Elphicke is to run on the narrative that one of the most ardent "Stop the Boats" advocates has lost faith in the Tories doing it and now backs Labour to do it instead. Knowing full well the general public don't have a a clue who she actually is and any negative press around her will cycle out in a day or two.
Will help them win back Dover and provides campaign material to appeal to the anti-immigrant types. She's not a figurehead of the right or well known enough for it to put anyone off voting Labour who wasn't already put off.
It's actually pretty smart campaign politics. If that was the intention. As cynical as it is.
Will help them win back Dover and provides campaign material to appeal to the anti-immigrant types. She's not a figurehead of the right or well known enough for it to put anyone off voting Labour who wasn't already put off.
It's actually pretty smart campaign politics. If that was the intention. As cynical as it is.
I think the Labour party do want to help people and improve the country in a way that is not in the nature of Tories to assist with. They are however held to a different standard in terms of how they need to explain where money is coming from to fund schemes, so it will take time for the economy to recover to be able to promise a much more traditional Labour offering.
Additionally the UK is a pretty centre to centre right country in most constituencies which is why since 1979 the furthest left we've seen a Prime Minister is Gordon Brown who is pretty centrist by caf standards, was unelected and lost the next election. In the areas that are further left Labour are stronger. Campaigning to the centre might lose votes in the areas they are expecting to win and may even cause the greens to run closer or win the couple of very progressive areas but Labour are betting that they can win far more seats in middle England by a narrow to decent margin but giving them far more power in parliament. Once you are in power it's far easier to change the national discourse or political culture of the country but being out of power and principled, telling the voters they are wrong does nothing to help anyone
Sure.
“Charlie is charming, wealthy, charismatic and successful – attractive, and attracted to, women” said Elphicke following her husband's conviction for sexual assault on three women.
But did he really need to publicly flag shag this piece of shit?
Once you are in power it really is far easier to change the national discourse. But change it how? Maybe what he really is exactly the person he's acting. It's awfully dangerous to elect someone on the hope they might be something else.
Isn't Labour keeping their Dover candidate?
So they've taken on Elphicke who is a horrible candidate to weaken the Tories but will still be standing their own candidate in her constituency?
yes this is literally all a show to make the conservatives look bad. The way people are going on about it you'd have thought Starmer made her shadow home secretary
She's now Deputy PM and Equalities ministeryes this is literally all a show to make the conservatives look bad. The way people are going on about it you'd have thought Starmer made her shadow home secretary
Honestly, the perpetual opposition a huge swathe of the left inhabit is because they sincerely care more about performative, peer group apporval rather than actually improving people's lives. They also always look for heretics rather than converts and completely misunderstand that you need people who you don't agree with to vote for you - if you want to win. Which they don't. They want to podcast and snipe from the sidelines.
This utopian, naive notion you can just have everything your way and every one will join you is so weird. In combination with a rejection of everything that isn't 100% aligned to your own personal values means you don't collaborate or consider reaching across the aisle.
What's her not standing got to do with it? She has 6 months to spy on the Labour party... Anyway, it's all moot because I don't think she's a trojan horse looking to steal secrets for the ERG to exploit, just pointing out that it's such a crazy defection that I struggle to understand why either party have done it beyond having one more thing to batter Sunak with at PMQs. The points raised in that tweet are incredibly vague and rely on endless assumption and non-sequiturs.
Some examples: "Doing an Attlee" and succeeding, "Make Labour the party of Britain", leaning on the Labour "mission" to Take back our streets - all of it is utter nonsense and genuinely doesn't make sense. If the plan is that unclear and Machiavellian then the plan isn't a good one.
Just a silly, patronising, tweet written as if the great unwashed can't see the genius of Labour strategy - which is not the case at all and a great example of why Starmer's team (i.e. Labour Together) are so out of touch with the general public. And then to top it off the author resorts to claiming he's just "describing" rather than advocating, as if it's fact.
Long term, defections like Elphicke's undermine the basis of the Labour Party. They're going to get elected without her and now you have the shit show that is Labour MPs briefing against each other and some like Rosie Duffield openly and understandably criticising the decision. It's a stupid move with very little - if any - long-term upside for the party.
I'm keen to see what "doing an Attlee" - arguably the greatest Labour PM of all time - and succeeding looks like for Starmer.
I kind of agree with this and I think it is clear what Starmer is doing, appealing to as many people as possible who did not vote Labour in 2019 or 2017 so as to make sure Labour does win the next election. But the difficulty with that is by positioning himself to take those votes, he is also taking a lot of traditional left wing Labour voters for granted and that's always dangerous.
The Elphicke defection makes a lot of sense from a campaign point of view, but very little sense from a ideological one and it is ideology driven voters (like Momentum etc) that are most upset.
I hope beyond hope that once in power his drift into the centre right of British politics stops and we begin to see some sensible and beneficial left wing policies coming to the fore as well. It's similar in a way to what Cameron did in the build up to 2010. He initially positioned the Tories in the centre and then after the 2015 election, once he'd won outright control laid all the groundwork and began their move back to the right in an attempt to stop UKIP hoovering up all the disaffected right wing voters.
It's a very fine line to walk.
I think this is so wrong. I get your wider points and your opinions are fair but this is just off.
The problem with pandering to hard right wing voters who care mainly about immigration (which is clearly what the Elphicke thing is all about) for the short term purpose of winning an election, is that these voters will expect you to deliver what they want, which is zero net immigration and no asylum at all.
Obviously that’s never going to happen (if the Tories couldn’t manage it in 14 years, Labour sure as hell won’t) and so by over promising and under delivering on immigration, all you’re going to do is further radicalise these people and drive them into the arms of grifters like Farage.
i'd agree if she was staying and they turfed out their candidate for her. But she's essentially a gimmick and a tool to bash Sunak with. When she leaves, what is her ideological impact on the party? Nothing. She's going to be forgotten to history like 99% of the other nutters that has 5 seconds of political fame. Her one and only purpose was to sit on the labour benches for one PMQs and that was it.
Personally i think it was a needless gimmick as the polls are so one sided, it just created needless headlines. But i just don't see it as some kind of fundamental altering of labour ideology. It's a cheap trick and certain groups are way too invested in making this a thing.
Elphicke taunted victims of sexual assault and was warmly embraced by Starmer and co. Compare that to his shameful treatment and exploitation of Diane Abbott, for just one easy double standard to point to.
She told the Sun in September 2020, shortly after his conviction, that he had suffered “a terrible miscarriage of justice” and that one of his victims was “embarrassingly and gushingly obsessed with him”.
Completely evil shit.
High fiving Elphicke is the the equivalent of making monkey noises towards student protestors - no good rhyme or reason, just a good opportunity for some obscene, mindless trolling at the expense of your opponents.
She told the Sun in September 2020, shortly after his conviction, that he had suffered “a terrible miscarriage of justice” and that one of his victims was “embarrassingly and gushingly obsessed with him”.
Completely evil shit.
High fiving Elphicke is the the equivalent of making monkey noises towards student protestors - no good rhyme or reason, just a good opportunity for some obscene, mindless trolling at the expense of your opponents.