What's Starmer got against...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Ciro 24 Feb 2021

... the idea of a black, female, left-wing mayor of Liverpool?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/23/labour-scraps-all-female-sh...

4
 Tyler 24 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

Either nothing or that she is Momentum. What do you think?

In reply to Ciro:

It's part of Starmer's ongoing war on the left and on the membership. 

Starmer's role is to destroy the Labour Party as a party of the left after the political establishment had the fright of their lives in 2017 when they underestimated the appeal of left wing politics and their desperate dirty tricks campaign only just prevented Corbyn becoming the first socialist PM.

53
 philipivan 25 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

That would be one way of thinking about it, another way might be that he's trying to create a party which might be elected and beat the Conservative party. 

The more I hear stuff like this and the more the conservatives (and republicans) adopt a policy of win at all costs, with any leader, I start to think we'll never have another non tory party government again!

2
 The New NickB 25 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> It's part of Starmer's ongoing war on the left and on the membership. 

> Starmer's role is to destroy the Labour Party as a party of the left after the political establishment had the fright of their lives in 2017 when they underestimated the appeal of left wing politics and their desperate dirty tricks campaign only just prevented Corbyn becoming the first socialist PM.

F*ck that is delusional. Erasing Clement Attlee from history as well, a very classy move for an apparent saviour of the Labour Party.

3
 Rob Exile Ward 25 Feb 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Scary. Most of my friends are solid Labour supporters, have been as long as I've known them for 40+ years. Almost to a man -and woman - they were really uncomfortable with Corbyn, both as a person and for his politics. I was able to vote Labour with a clear conscience because our local MP made her views on Corbyn (and Brexit') perfectly clear. I think quite a few of my friends in less favoured constituencies strayed to the Greens or Libdems.

If Cumbria Mammoths views become NEC mainstream then we truly are condemned to one-party politics forever.

2
 hang_about 25 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Did I miss something? I thought the Conservatives won with a landslide? That made me very unhappy but was foreseeable months/years in advance.

1
 jkarran 25 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Starmer's role is to destroy the Labour Party as a party of the left after the political establishment had the fright of their lives in 2017 when they underestimated the appeal of left wing politics and their desperate dirty tricks campaign only just prevented Corbyn becoming the first socialist PM.

Corbyn resoundingly lost two elections, he's history. Personally I think a leftward shift from where we are can sell especially post-covid* but Corbyn proved inept, unable to sell what people didn't believe he could deliver. Starmer could deliver some of it and the alternative is a endless rightward drift under more tories. He's what you've got for this election cycle, suck it up and choose: Labour or Conservative, that's the way our system works, you choose the least worst.

* equally the low taxes and austerity narrative could easily win, indeed it's far more likely.

In reality with Scottish independence in play and Labour unwilling to make progressive pacts it'll be another 4 years of Tories, we can toss a coin to decide whether it'll be more looting and turbo austerity or just more looting. Maybe we can look forward to the 30s...

jk

3
 Alkis 25 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Yeah, the fright of their lives, when nearly everyone I know, including LibDem voters and several that have voted Tory in the past voted for Labour to keep May out and *hopefully* stop Brexit, not out of love for Corbyn's policies. That election was an 1-issue election, just like the 2019 election. Still lost.

OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to philipivan:

> That would be one way of thinking about it, another way might be that he's trying to create a party which might be elected and beat the Conservative party. 

They've already thrown Scotland away, you think the best way to become electable is to throw Liverpool away too?

She's been removed precisely because she's electable. They're determined to force a candidate onto the people of Liverpool that the people of Liverpool don't want. It's a blatantly anti-democratic move to appeal to voters in other parts of the country at Liverpool's expense. 

If the people of Liverpool want to elect the UK's first black female mayor (an historic step that any decent party should be proud of) what justification is there to deny them that opportunity?

> The more I hear stuff like this and the more the conservatives (and republicans) adopt a policy of win at all costs, with any leader, I start to think we'll never have another non tory party government again!

The more I hear the labour party throwing away their core support, in order to chase Tory voted by being a little bit less Tory than the Tories, I start to think will never have a non Tory party government again.

4
 Dave Garnett 25 Feb 2021
In reply to philipivan:

> The more I hear stuff like this and the more the conservatives (and republicans) adopt a policy of win at all costs, with any leader, 

I share your frustration, but I think the problem was more that Corbyn had a policy of losing at all costs.

1
Removed User 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

As far as I'm aware no one seems to know why the candidates, all three by the way not just the black one, were barred and the selection process restarted. It's also unclear who decided this, probably not Starmer, the Labour party is more than one person.

It may have something to do, for example, with the ongoing criminal investigations associated with the council but I'm speculating here. The fact that none of the candidates have said anything about why they have been barred is curious.

I assume you don't know either but have just decided it was a good opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of those who don't like Starmer and give the Tories a bit of a hand. 

Of course if I'm wrong and you do know what's going on maybe you could publish what you know.

 veteye 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

Why does the Labour party have to be considered a dichotomous group? Surely the aim is to have the party coalesce around reasonable compromise with reasonable logical profound increments in the social fields that matter, without radical and irrational moves that cost the country in many ways (Which is how Corbyn's manifesto looked to most of us). This is what I think Starmer is trying to do, apart from the matter of Liverpool, which so far, I have not  properly read up about. The aim is surely to have a win; win situation for both sides of the party, to head into the future with goals that can be sold as reasonable aims to the electorate, with the good of the many being key.

Removed User 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> If Cumbria Mammoths views become NEC mainstream then we truly are condemned to one-party politics forever.

You'll be pleased to know then that the NEC is now broadly supportive of the leadership. 

Further something like 80 or 100000 members of the party have left in the past year. Presumably mainly the entryists who joined in 2015. You should not find that concerning however because a pretty much equal number have joined the party over the same period, presumably people who support Starmer.

Momentum is a spent force in the party, mainly. It's voice grows weaker every month and in a year's time those ex members who still bother with politics will be mainly found selling Socialist Worker outside bus stations.

3
 mondite 25 Feb 2021
In reply to veteye:

> Why does the Labour party have to be considered a dichotomous group? Surely the aim is to have the party coalesce around reasonable compromise with reasonable logical profound increments in the social fields that matter

There doesnt really seem much interest in compromise from the more centrist members though.  A example is Eric9Points "don't like Starmer and give the Tories a bit of a hand.". That basic line of we must follow the dear leader without question seems to be a favourite of people who displayed a somewhat different approach when Corbyn was in charge.

Another issue is the basic flaw of centrism which is it moves. We have seen a massive shift rightward in what is perceived as "centrist" positions over the last twenty years as new labour chased the tory rightwards.  Until the centrists explain how they can deal with that their approach needs treating with scepticism unless we end up with the US where a timetravelled Thatcher would nowadays be considered a communist socialist liberal.

7
 Alkis 25 Feb 2021
In reply to mondite:

> Another issue is the basic flaw of centrism which is it moves. We have seen a massive shift rightward in what is perceived as "centrist" positions over the last twenty years as new labour chased the tory rightwards.  Until the centrists explain how they can deal with that their approach needs treating with scepticism unless we end up with the US where a timetravelled Thatcher would nowadays be considered a communist socialist liberal.

I can, very easily in fact: you can only shift politics in a direction by being in power. If politics has moved to the right, you have to move to the right to get elected and use your new found power to move things back to the left.

If politics has shifted to the right and you insist on targeting the bit that stayed on the left, losing the centrist vote, then all you can do is shout from the sidelines and watch the country be pulled in whatever directions the Tories fancy.

 mondite 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> I can, very easily in fact: you can only shift politics in a direction by being in power.

Thats incorrect. For example there was a clear shift leftwards in the policies pushed by the tories to counter those in Labours manifesto in both 15 and 19 in order to try and capture some of the wavering vote. 

Of course this does rely on a)the party in power keeping its promises and b) if they dont people remembering this.

Whereas what you seem to be proposing breaks the second of those.

If you let the other party define the political landscape then you will then find all your policies being rubbished as "far" left or right when, only a few years back, they would have been centre right or left.

 Alkis 25 Feb 2021
In reply to mondite:

That is small fry in comparison to the changes you can make in the political system after a decade or two of controlling education, labour policies and the mainstream media.

 wbo2 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:I'd also argue that Mondites argument only works if you have a wavering vote.  If you're opposition is extemely unpopular, has some politically awkward views and history, can't answer a straight question and can't even make a decent fist of sorting out racism in his own party your wavering voters aren't going to go very far.  

If your opposition is unelectable and utterly ineffective as an opposition you can do what you want.  

OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> As far as I'm aware no one seems to know why the candidates, all three by the way not just the black one, were barred and the selection process restarted. It's also unclear who decided this, probably not Starmer, the Labour party is more than one person.

You think the labour leader was not informed, and not in a position to veto, a plan by party HQ to suspend a major local government election process, bar the existing candidates from standing, and start again?

> It may have something to do, for example, with the ongoing criminal investigations associated with the council but I'm speculating here. The fact that none of the candidates have said anything about why they have been barred is curious.

Probably because they haven't been told? 

> I assume you don't know either but have just decided it was a good opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of those who don't like Starmer and give the Tories a bit of a hand. 

> Of course if I'm wrong and you do know what's going on maybe you could publish what you know.

Well, I suppose it could be that the reason she's been barred from standing is anything. Maybe they just discovered she's a shape shifting alien trying to take over the planet?

However Occams razor says that if a party is in the middle of a purge of an element of its makeup, and one of that element is predicted to win an election, and that candidate is suddenly barred from standing for election with no reason given, the reason is the purge.

3
 Naechi 25 Feb 2021
In reply to wbo2:

> I'd also argue that Mondites argument only works if you have a wavering vote.  If you're opposition is extemely unpopular, has some politically awkward views and history, can't answer a straight question and can't even make a decent fist of sorting out racism in his own party your wavering voters aren't going to go very far.  

> If your opposition is unelectable and utterly ineffective as an opposition you can do what you want.  

I'm unclear as to which party you are talking about...

OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to veteye:

> Why does the Labour party have to be considered a dichotomous group?

It shouldn't be considered dichotomous, it should be a broad church of largely left of centre political ideals. It was founded to represent the political interests of the working classes, and as such represents a wide range of people. 

> Surely the aim is to have the party coalesce around reasonable compromise

How can you reach a compromise if you push out those who have a slightly different view?

> with reasonable logical profound increments in the social fields that matter, without radical and irrational moves that cost the country in many ways (Which is how Corbyn's manifesto looked to most of us).

What aspects of Corbyn's manifesto did you find radical and/or irrational?

> This is what I think Starmer is trying to do, apart from the matter of Liverpool, which so far, I have not  properly read up about. The aim is surely to have a win; win situation for both sides of the party, to head into the future with goals that can be sold as reasonable aims to the electorate, with the good of the many being key.

The labour party is supposed to be a reasonably democratic movement. What is win-win for the people of Liverpool about being denied the opportunity to vote for a local politician with long standing support in the community in their local elections?

Post edited at 12:13
4
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> That is small fry in comparison to the changes you can make in the political system after a decade or two of controlling education, labour policies and the mainstream media.

That worked well in the 90s, huh?

1
 Alkis 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

It certainly worked better than 2010-2020

Removed User 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

> You think the labour leader was not informed, and not in a position to veto, a plan by party HQ to suspend a major local government election process, bar the existing candidates from standing, and start again?

> Probably because they haven't been told? 

> Well, I suppose it could be that the reason she's been barred from standing is anything. Maybe they just discovered she's a shape shifting alien trying to take over the planet?

> However Occams razor says that if a party is in the middle of a purge of an element of its makeup, and one of that element is predicted to win an election, and that candidate is suddenly barred from standing for election with no reason given, the reason is the purge.

Thanks for confirming you have no idea why the selection process was stopped.

1
 AllanMac 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

Starmer's tactic is to make the Labour Party electable again. Severing connections with Momentum is probably part of that process. 

There's no point in campaigning with policies that people won't vote for and the popular media will not support.

Post edited at 13:12
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> Thanks for confirming you have no idea why the selection process was stopped.

If you're not familiar with Occam's Razor you can apply the duck test - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

If the labour party HQ had a legitimate reason for interference in the democratic process in Liverpool, why would they not release it?

4
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to AllanMac:

> Starmer's tactic is to make the Labour Party electable again. 

> There's no point in campaigning with policies that people won't vote for and the popular media will not support.

And the best way to do this is to remove the person who is expected to win the election from the process?

She seems to have a great deal of local support and there's a good chance she could win Liverpool mayoral election if she stands as an independent.

This isn't a parliamentary by-election, it's a local appointment.

3
 MonkeyPuzzle 25 Feb 2021
In reply to mondite:

> Another issue is the basic flaw of centrism which is it moves. We have seen a massive shift rightward in what is perceived as "centrist" positions over the last twenty years as new labour chased the tory rightwards.  Until the centrists explain how they can deal with that their approach needs treating with scepticism unless we end up with the US where a timetravelled Thatcher would nowadays be considered a communist socialist liberal.

This argument only works if we accept your assertion that anyone not on the left-left must be a principle-free, weathervane, triangulating centrist. That's of course not true, with soft left, liberal left and social democratic positions being just as well-defined and principled as your own, but it makes your argument much easier to pretend otherwise.

1
 jkarran 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

> The more I hear the labour party throwing away their core support, in order to chase Tory voted by being a little bit less Tory than the Tories, I start to think will never have a non Tory party government again.

Support bases, the issues and outlooks driving and binding them change. We don't have an organised, unionised labour force the Labour party can count on to turn out fro them anymore. Even when we did they were never enough alone to return and sustain Labour government. Anyway, the axis on which our political seesaw pivots has been shifted significantly in recent years. If the Labour party speaks only to that shrinking rump of politically engaged, justifiably angry working class (or any other niche exclusively for that matter) then it will not get elected.

If it fails to recognise the Westminster landscape has changed with the long term loss of traditionally red Scottish seats it will not get elected. It is not entitled to periodic power.

If the Labour party can't find a way through the appalling divides and damage caused by the Conservatives' brexit accident it will not get elected.

If the Labour party cannot counter the public misunderstanding of national debt as we emerge from the pall of covid it will not get elected. Worse, it will gift the Conservatives the opportunity to erase what remains of the post-war welfare state under the cover of more austerity.

jk

OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> Support bases, the issues and outlooks driving and binding them change. We don't have an organised, unionised labour force the Labour party can count on to turn out fro them anymore. Even when we did they were never enough alone to return and sustain Labour government. Anyway, the axis on which our political seesaw pivots has been shifted significantly in recent years. If the Labour party speaks only to that shrinking rump of politically engaged, justifiably angry working class (or any other niche exclusively for that matter) then it will not get elected.

If they don't want to be part of the labour movement, why are they in the labour party?

Other parties are available.

5
 fred99 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

> She seems to have a great deal of local support and there's a good chance she could win Liverpool mayoral election if she stands as an independent.

In that case why doesn't she ? - Then she'd also have the advantage of being able to progress with whatever policies she personally wanted, without having to accede to anyone else's views.

In reply to Ciro:

> If they don't want to be part of the labour movement, why are they in the labour party?

> Other parties are available.

Because they want to steer it to wards being a credible, electable alternative rather than a bat-shit loon fest.

2
 summo 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

> If they don't want to be part of the labour movement, why are they in the labour party?

> Other parties are available.

The reality is why were corbyn, Mcdonnell etc in labour. Their views were far more in line with any socialists, far left, or communist party. Plenty exist in other European countries. The fact is that without sticking a red rosette on, they'd never have been elected. They are just using labour as a wage packet, even though their views haven't matched Labour since the mid 70s. The only time they managed to steer labour's manifesto in their direction, the party bombed massively in two GEs. 

4
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

> In that case why doesn't she ? - Then she'd also have the advantage of being able to progress with whatever policies she personally wanted, without having to accede to anyone else's views.

If her legal case fails she may well do - and labour may lose Liverpool. The question is, why force a popular local candidate to do that with no reason, no disciplinary process, nothing.

I can imagine the outcry on here of Corbyn had done something similar to prevent a popular local right wing candidate from being elected.

4
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

> The reality is why were corbyn, Mcdonnell etc in labour. Their views were far more in line with any socialists, far left, or communist party. Plenty exist in other European countries. The fact is that without sticking a red rosette on, they'd never have been elected. They are just using labour as a wage packet, even though their views haven't matched Labour since the mid 70s. The only time they managed to steer labour's manifesto in their direction, the party bombed massively in two GEs. 

I guess because they are far more faithful to the party than I was.

If the labour party has changed that much, is dishonest to hide behind the Labour branding.

Perhaps New Labour could change its name to New Conservative, and a new party could be launched called the Labour Party, in the interests of being honest with the electorate?

7
 summo 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

Labour hasn't changed for decades. It hasn't won on a remotely far left manifesto since the mid 70s. The world has changed since then. Corbyn has never agreed with labour, his entire life on the back bench was spent voting against the various leaders. 

Corbyn is a die hard socialist who wouldn't know what labour was, if it hit him in face. 

2
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

> Labour hasn't changed for decades. It hasn't won on a remotely far left manifesto since the mid 70s. The world has changed since then. Corbyn has never agreed with labour, his entire life on the back bench was spent voting against the various leaders. 

> Corbyn is a die hard socialist who wouldn't know what labour was, if it hit him in face. 

What was it in his manifesto that you found to be far left?

 summo 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

> What was it in his manifesto that you found to be far left?

The magical aspiration that some how better everything could be funded by only 5% of the population paying more. The forced buy back of utility company shares at below market value.....

3
 Ramblin dave 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

Nationalising the railways. Clearly the stuff of ultra-left Communist dictatorships like France, Germany and Spain. Also only supported by 64% of the adult population of Britain and opposed by a massive 19%. Lunacy.

 jkarran 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

> If they don't want to be part of the labour movement, why are they in the labour party?

Sorry, you've lost me. Who is they in this context?

> Other parties are available.

Yes, both to voters and ambitious centre-left politicians. Careful what you wish for. Our inertial electoral system may prevent a British En Marche emerging but that's not guaranteed and it owes the Labour party nothing. If Labour wants to make a difference it needs to find appeal in 2024 without losing what made it in 1945.

To be honest I don't think the window has shifted so very far right. If it wasn't for Corbyn's personal managerial ineptitude and the baggage a long career gifts the right-wing press the Labour party could have won on a significantly left leaning manifesto post 2016 if only it were organised, prioritised, deliverable with a hint of aspiration also an open recognition of the disaster brexit threatens those the party exists to represent. Alas it wasn't to be, Corbyn was never the right man to fight an election and he absolutely should have resigned in 2017 yet the response to that loss wasn't calculating reflection and renewal, it was triumphal delusion.

jk

 Ramblin dave 25 Feb 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> To be honest I don't think the window has shifted so very far right. If it wasn't for Corbyn's personal managerial ineptitude and the baggage a long career gifts the right-wing press the Labour party could have won on a significantly left leaning manifesto post 2016 if only it were organised, prioritised, deliverable with a hint of aspiration also an open recognition of the disaster brexit threatens those the party exists to represent. Alas it wasn't to be, Corbyn was never the right man to fight an election and he absolutely should have resigned in 2017 yet the response to that loss wasn't calculating reflection and renewal, it was triumphal delusion.

I broadly agree with this, but that's also why I take issue with the current line that anyone who still hopes for a significantly left-leaning manifesto needs to purge themselves from the party sharpish now the grownups are back in charge.

Although I guess I am also slightly dubious about the idea that there was something particularly egregious about Corbyn that made him unelectable, though. I mean, there was, but there was also something about Ed Milliband, and about Gordon Brown, and no doubt there will be about Kier Starmer, too, and there will continue to be for as long as most of the British press act like an extension of the Conservative Party propaganda machine. Labour supporters probably need to get wise to that at some point rather than continuing to think that if we could only find the right leader then the smear campaigns wouldn't stick.

1
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

> The magical aspiration that some how better everything could be funded by only 5% of the population paying more. The forced buy back of utility company shares at below market value.....

So you think a tax rate of 45p in the pound for earnings significantly over double the national average, and 50p in the pound for earnings at the top end is far left politics?

If so, where would you classify Denmark (55% of earnings over over 1.3 times the national average) and Sweden (57% over 1.5 times the national average)?

3
 summo 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Nationalising the railways. Clearly the stuff of ultra-left Communist dictatorships like France, Germany and Spain. Also only supported by 64% of the adult population of Britain and opposed by a massive 19%. Lunacy.

All parties promise the same thing, better state services, for less money. They only vary in how they claim they'll achieve it. Plus in corbyns case, they vote for their faith in the party leader to be able to deliver said manifesto promise. 

1
 summo 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

> If so, where would you classify Denmark (55% of earnings over over 1.3 times the national average) and Sweden (57% over 1.5 times the national average)?

You might want to look at what the lower tax brackets pay in tax too. You only need to be earning a little over £55k to reach the top tax bracket in sweden. Zero tax threshold is around £1800/yr, after that you pay 32/33%. 

In Scandinavia, everyone pays more tax. It's not just the ultra rich. That's equality. 

1
 Rob Exile Ward 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I've said it before - assuming he can get the policy thing together, not easy in a time of national crisis, Starmer has got one huge advantage over previous leaders - he's a lawyer. It will be hard for the media scum to run a smear campaign and stay on the right side of the law, and their lawyers know it.   All they've been able to pin on him so far is the fact that he supported his folks' donkey sanctuary, and that was something of an own goal.

I really think that as we return to more normal times the clipping of the media scum's wings will have a significant effect on his credibility and voter appeal.

3
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

> You might want to look at what the lower tax brackets pay in tax too. You only need to be earning a little over £55k to reach the top tax bracket in sweden. Zero tax threshold is around £1800/yr, after that you pay 32/33%. 

> In Scandinavia, everyone pays more tax. It's not just the ultra rich. That's equality. 

Indeed, but as I understand it, with a highly unionised workforce and non-unionised workers often covered by collective bargaining agreements, even low paid workers can expect to be paid around £15 / HR.

If Corbyn had suggested strengthening the unions with a view to creating such equality the place would be up in arms. 

And yet a much more modest proposal, to leave the wage disparity in the UK unchallenged and tax the rich just a a little bit more is branded as far left?

3
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I've said it before - assuming he can get the policy thing together, not easy in a time of national crisis, Starmer has got one huge advantage over previous leaders - he's a lawyer. It will be hard for the media scum to run a smear campaign and stay on the right side of the law, and their lawyers know it.   All they've been able to pin on him so far is the fact that he supported his folks' donkey sanctuary, and that was something of an own goal.

> I really think that as we return to more normal times the clipping of the media scum's wings will have a significant effect on his credibility and voter appeal.

This seems to be going into the realms of serious wishful thinking fantasy. Did the previous leaders not have access to lawyers?

Post edited at 17:24
3
 Rob Exile Ward 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

No. There's a heck of a difference racking up £x000 an hour bills talking to a lawyer just to find out whether you have a case, and just picking up the phone and saying 'Starmer here, you're out of order, retract and apologise or meet me in court.' It's a huge asset.

What exactly HAS Starmer been accused of since he took office? Nowt. Coincidence? What do you think?

4
 summo 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

> Indeed, but as I understand it, with a highly unionised workforce and non-unionised workers often covered by collective bargaining agreements

the unions have influence, but it's not like the 70s, companies still need to be competitive globally. Many people join a union then pay into their unemployment insurance scheme, as unemployment benefits are extra on top of the base tax rate of 32/33%. Plenty ignore unions and have private insurance.

> even low paid workers can expect to be paid around £15 / HR.

not quite that high, but certainly higher than uk. But then it's balanced out by most things costing more, so it doesn't mean a low paid person has more spending power. Those higher wages have to be ultimately paid by somebody, it's not free money. 

> If Corbyn had suggested strengthening the unions with a view to creating such equality the place would be up in arms. 

But the unions don't rule in sweden either. As I said it's 2021, not 1975, there is employment legislation, union relevance is less every year. 

> And yet a much more modest proposal, to leave the wage disparity in the UK unchallenged and tax the rich just a a little bit more is branded as far left?

Because he promised so much just by taxing the few, it was clearly impossible. But it doesn't matter he couldn't lead a scout group, never mind a country.

Corbyn didn't want the uk to be like Scandinavia, his eyes were firmly more communist/ socialist. Cherry picking parts of the nordics was just a carrot he'd never be able to deliver. 

2
 mark s 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

Spineless starmer. Opposition leader my arse. Just a tory plant 

9
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

> the unions have influence, but it's not like the 70s, companies still need to be competitive globally. Many people join a union then pay into their unemployment insurance scheme, as unemployment benefits are extra on top of the base tax rate of 32/33%. Plenty ignore unions and have private insurance.

> not quite that high, but certainly higher than uk. But then it's balanced out by most things costing more, so it doesn't mean a low paid person has more spending power. Those higher wages have to be ultimately paid by somebody, it's not free money. 

So poverty indicators such as the proportion of people using food banks are similar in the Scandinavian countries to the UK?

> But the unions don't rule in sweden either. As I said it's 2021, not 1975, there is employment legislation, union relevance is less every year.

So the Scandinavian politicians pushing back against EU minimum wage legislation on the basis that their collective bargaining system already results in fair wages are taking bollocks?

> Because he promised so much just by taxing the few, it was clearly impossible. But it doesn't matter he couldn't lead a scout group, never mind a country.

So it's not the tax rises he was proposing, but in fact over-promising that you consider to be a far left trait?

> Corbyn didn't want the uk to be like Scandinavia, his eyes were firmly more communist/ socialist. Cherry picking parts of the nordics was just a carrot he'd never be able to deliver. 

I guess we're back to the start then. What parts of his manifesto evidenced this dastardly communist agenda?

1
 Neil Williams 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

Is it possible that he considers that she would for whatever reason (including peoples' prejudices) be unelectable?  Like with Corbyn and indeed Hilary Clinton, ideals are all very well but they're no use at all if they cause the other side to be elected.

You could say that they shouldn't pander to prejudice, but it's easier to change things when you are in power than looking in from outside.

1
OP Ciro 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> No. There's a heck of a difference racking up £x000 an hour bills talking to a lawyer just to find out whether you have a case, and just picking up the phone and saying 'Starmer here, you're out of order, retract and apologise or meet me in court.' It's a huge asset.

Really? The labour party had no internal legal expertise with which to work out if they had a case until Starmer came along? He couldn't pick up the phone when Corbyn was his leader?

> What exactly HAS Starmer been accused of since he took office? Nowt. Coincidence? What do you think?

Do I think it's co-incidence that a leader of the labour party who is prepared to throw out the party left, and abstain rather than oppose on every right wing policy that the right wing conservative government brings to parliament is being given an easy ride by the right wing billionaire media barons? 

No. But possibly not for the same reasons you do.

1
 Rob Exile Ward 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

'The labour party had no internal legal expertise with which to work out if they had a case until Starmer came along?' The legal expertise it had access to would be expensive, not necessarily top of the range and I would respectfully suggest not necessarily in tune with briefs from a politician whose career up till then had been that of playing a naughty backbench schoolboy. 

I don't know whether there's anything in it or not, Starmer certainly hasn't been subject to the same onslaught that Corbyn was. Choose your own explanation, I'm just happy that  so far at least Starmer is becoming to be seen as a safe pair of hands and a credible PM.

Post edited at 19:24
5
 summo 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Ciro:

> So poverty indicators such as the proportion of people using food banks are similar in the Scandinavian countries to the UK?

Using a food bank isn't really a reliable poverty indicator. 

> So the Scandinavian politicians pushing back against EU minimum wage legislation on the basis that their collective bargaining system already results in fair wages are taking bollocks?

Collective bargaining has a lot less influence overall than your imagining. Because cost of living is higher, folk just wouldn't take the job if they were paid less. You can sweep floors or flip burgers for £10-12equiv. But if say you earned £12/hr; that's £25k/year pre tax but here you'll pay £7500 tax on that, before extras like unemployment insurance etc... plus employers contribution is matched taxation, so the coffers get the equivalent of £15k in tax revenue, from a £25k job. 

There's no real debate about eu minimum wage, because all the Scandinavian countries would be above it anyway. They just don't want the eu meddling.  

> So it's not the tax rises he was proposing, but in fact over-promising that you consider to be a far left trait?

I never brought tax into it, you did. Forced buying of shares below market value was one of my examples. 

> I guess we're back to the start then. What parts of his manifesto evidenced this dastardly communist agenda?

The fact he hates anyone who has studied, worked hard, made their own money. He's just bitter.

1
 Tom Walkington 25 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

Equality is more about peoples pay after tax,rather than how much they are taxed.

 summo 25 Feb 2021
In reply to Tom Walkington:

> Equality is more about peoples pay after tax,rather than how much they are taxed.

True. But if the rich don’t feel like they are being milked dry to fund the masses they'll likely feel less aggrieved or flee. The lower paid need to see and feel the benefit whilst paying their share too. The equality is everyone paying their way to a proportional level and benefitting from it. 

In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I broadly agree with this, but that's also why I take issue with the current line that anyone who still hopes for a significantly left-leaning manifesto needs to purge themselves from the party sharpish now the grownups are back in charge.

> Although I guess I am also slightly dubious about the idea that there was something particularly egregious about Corbyn that made him unelectable, though. I mean, there was, but there was also something about Ed Milliband, and about Gordon Brown, and no doubt there will be about Kier Starmer, too, and there will continue to be for as long as most of the British press act like an extension of the Conservative Party propaganda machine. Labour supporters probably need to get wise to that at some point rather than continuing to think that if we could only find the right leader then the smear campaigns wouldn't stick.

I agree. 13million votes for Corbyn to be PM in 2017 proves that in the right circumstances a left wing manifesto can win in Britain. It doesn't matter that each individual had their own reasons for voting that way, all voters always have to make some sort of electoral calculation, at the end of the day 13 million people decided that a significant shift to the left was better than the alternative.

This happened despite the media propaganda machine and internal party sabotage of the election campaign. Now the propaganda machine and the right wing party machine is giving Starmer an easy ride because he is their man but Starmer is still polling worse than Corbyn was.

For left wing policies to get over the line, a left wing LOTO will have to use the media hatred, along with public distrust of the media, to their advantage. People may well be correct that there could have been a better figurehead for this than Corbyn who was probably too nice for the job, but how could members have trusted any such political manoeuvrings when they were aware of the dirty tactics that the Labour right controlled party machine were pulling?

Not that Starmer or the Labour right are bothered about beating the Conservative Party at the next GE. Starmer is Johnsons cheerleader through this pandemic, he thinks Johnson is "trying to do the right thing" despite having inflicted 150,000 deaths on us when other countries have managed close to zero. Look at how, for instance, when the Conservatives were on the ropes over free school meals suffering a storm of public outrage. Starmer decided to take the heat off them by creating a huge media distraction with the unprecedented suspension of Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer has one goal which is to ensure Labour returns to its role as the safety net for the political establishment and left wing politics never again gets near Westminster.

7
 MonkeyPuzzle 26 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

In 2017 Theresa May ran one of the worst campaigns in memory and got the highest Tory vote share since 1983.

Cherry picking election results to suit your narrative gets pulled apart very quickly.

2
In reply to Ciro:

>> The reality is why were corbyn, Mcdonnell etc in labour. Their views were far more in line with any socialists, far left, or communist party. Plenty exist in other European countries. The fact is that without sticking a red rosette on, they'd never have been elected. They are just using labour as a wage packet, even though their views haven't matched Labour since the mid 70s. The only time they managed to steer labour's manifesto in their direction, the party bombed massively in two GEs. > I guess because they are far more faithful to the party than I was.

> If the labour party has changed that much, is dishonest to hide behind the Labour branding.

> Perhaps New Labour could change its name to New Conservative, and a new party could be launched called the Labour Party, in the interests of being honest with the electorate?

That's true, I wonder if Summo realises that Labour is constituted as a socialist party?

I wonder how many of the right wing entryist PLP MP's that were recruited by Progress (funded from offshore by Lord Sainsbury) and parachuted into safe seats by Tony Blair would have won without the red rosette branding that leads people to expect that they are voting for left wing politics and without the activism of 100's of thousands of socialist members?

2
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> In 2017 Theresa May ran one of the worst campaigns in memory and got the highest Tory vote share since 1983.

> Cherry picking election results to suit your narrative gets pulled apart very quickly.

I thought you could do better than lazily churning out a media propaganda narrative without addressing the point.

I repeat,

"13million votes for Corbyn to be PM in 2017 proves that in the right circumstances a left wing manifesto can win in Britain. It doesn't matter that each individual had their own reasons for voting that way, all voters always have to make some sort of electoral calculation, at the end of the day 13 million people decided that a significant shift to the left was better than the alternative."

7
In reply to Removed User:

> You'll be pleased to know then that the NEC is now broadly supportive of the leadership. 

> Further something like 80 or 100000 members of the party have left in the past year. Presumably mainly the entryists who joined in 2015. You should not find that concerning however because a pretty much equal number have joined the party over the same period, presumably people who support Starmer.

You're confirming my initial post here. Starmer's role is to destroy the Labour Party as a party of the left.

The reason that the NEC is now dominated by the Labour right is because of the anti-democratic power grab that has taken place, orchestrated by Starmer and Evans who ignore their obligation to have rule changes approved by a vote at conference. That alongside constant attacks and purges of the left membership to decrease the left vote within the party. Voting rules for the NEC elections were changed to favour right wingers and right wing Labour MP's supported by right wing staff were writing to members asking them to vote for their favoured NEC candidates in breach of data protection and party rules.

That not being enough display of contempt for the membership from Starmer and his crowd, the right dominated NEC launched a further assault on party democracy by removing every member elected representative as chair of every subcommittee.

Despite all the dirty manoeuvring behind the scenes by the Labour right, the left slate still won all but one of the elected positions that it was possible to win. The membership is still left wing but the party isn't.

> Momentum is a spent force in the party, mainly. It's voice grows weaker every month and in a year's time those ex members who still bother with politics will be mainly found selling Socialist Worker outside bus stations.

Look at your choice of insult here. Do you really think you have found the right political home in a socialist party formed to improve the rights of workers or are you one of these right wing wreckers like Starmer? 

7
 MonkeyPuzzle 26 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> I thought you could do better than lazily churning out a media propaganda narrative without addressing the point.

> I repeat,

> "13million votes for Corbyn to be PM in 2017 proves that in the right circumstances a left wing manifesto can win in Britain. It doesn't matter that each individual had their own reasons for voting that way, all voters always have to make some sort of electoral calculation, at the end of the day 13 million people decided that a significant shift to the left was better than the alternative."

And you can directly flip that narrative for an awful Tory campaign except the number is nearly a million higher.

2
 summo 26 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> That's true, I wonder if Summo realises that Labour is constituted as a socialist party?

I do, started in 1900.. didn't really have any prominence until 1922, but this is in an era when not everyone could even vote. The world has moved since then, so should the party. 

Corbyn didn't get 13m votes, how many of those votes would vote labour regardless of who led labour? 

If labour did so well, why do the tories gave a 80 seat majority? 

 guffers_hump 26 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

Surely the losing of Scotland thanks to Blair, has pretty much stuffed Labour for the foreseeable?

That is a good few seats lost. Gaining 30 more seats in 2017 was pretty good going.

 summo 26 Feb 2021
In reply to guffers_hump:

It was arguably against the weakest, most incompetent and disliked tory party for decades, a wishy washy leader, with a dire campaign and Labour still lost. If Labour couldn't win then with its corbyn style manifesto it never will. As proved at the next GE. He makes Ed Milliband look good. 

1
In reply to summo:

I just thought it was funny (and typically uninformed bollocks from you) when you tried to say say socialists don't belong in the Labour party.

This isn't some outdated historical artefact, if you become a Labour member today you agree to

"accept and conform to the principles of ... a democratic socialist Party that believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create ... a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few".

Who are the entryists then? The returning members and students who wish to see a return to the left wing politics demanded by the Labour Party constitution, or the right wing MP's, recruited and parachuted into safe seats by Progress, who only keep their seats because of the left wing branding of the Labour party and the activism of the left wing membership?

5
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

1) 13 million people (40%) voted for the left wing option as better than the alternative in 2017.

2) 13 million votes (40%) usually wins general elections. 

As 1 and 2 are both true it is a simple matter of logic that 3 is true.

3) under the right conditions a left wing option could win a UK general election. 

7
 Alkis 26 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> 1) 13 million people (40%) voted for the left wing option as better than the alternative in 2017.

> 2) 13 million votes (40%) usually wins general elections. 

> As 1 and 2 are both true it is a simple matter of logic that 3 is true.

> 3) under the right conditions a left wing option could win a UK general election. 

The right conditions being a vote to leave the European Union and the opponents of a tory-led Brexit desperately voting for the opposition party most likely to win. As I said, including some former Tory voters that I personally know and including nearly all LibDems that I personally know.

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 26 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> 1) 13 million people (40%) voted for the left wing option as better than the alternative in 2017.

> 2) 13 million votes (40%) usually wins general elections. 

> As 1 and 2 are both true it is a simple matter of logic that 3 is true.

> 3) under the right conditions a left wing option could win a UK general election. 

You can't just yoink a stat out from a multi-party, multi-issue election and try and get it to stand alone. With Corbyn as leader, record numbers of people were inspired to vote for May and then Johnson, no.2 and then no.1 on the worst PM's of all time list. Was the "Dementia Tax" proposed by May such an inspiring idea to justify the largest number of votes since 1983? No, of course not. Other factors, such as the opposition, were in play. That's the First Past The Post electoral system for you. 

In reply to cumbria mammoth

> "13million votes for Corbyn to be PM in 2017 proves that in the right circumstances a left wing manifesto can win in Britain. It doesn't matter that each individual had their own reasons for voting that way, all voters always have to make some sort of electoral calculation, at the end of the day 13 million people decided that a significant shift to the left was better than the alternative."

Only 13 million votes for Corbyn in 2017 during the worst government in living memory, appalling, brutal decisions and leadership by the Tories, proves that what is now perceived as a far left wing manifesto can’t win in Britain. Circumstances couldn’t have been better, it should have been a Labour landslide rather than a significant shift. FTFY

What this country needs is a Labour government, and unpalatable as it might be, presenting unelectable policies and people again and again might be ideologically pure, but it’s letting the country down. We have to be pragmatic, and if Starmer can make the LP electable, then no matter where the party is on the left spectrum, it’s got to be better than the Cons. He’s got a long time to prepare because given the current majority, history tells us it’s unlikely the Cons will get overturned at the next election. By that time even Blair’s 13 years in 50 years of Conservative rule might become a less tarnished memory? Unfortunately pragmatism disappears the further left (or right) which a party travels.

2
 summo 26 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> "accept and conform to the principles of ... a democratic socialist Party that

Threatened to delist mps who didn't conform?

Or like when it's biggest funder Mccluskey sacked someone who stood against him as unite leader.

Yeah, very democratic. 

3
 lorentz 26 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

"No no, not St Jeremy of Corbyn. He surely wasn't aware or responsible for anything reprehensible like that going on in his party. That was all part of a plot undertaken by the Media and the right-wing of labour conspirators in order to smear our dear leader."

And so it goes on and on and on. Those Rose tinted Corbyn-labour goggles are clamped firmly in place. 🥀🥽

Post edited at 10:31
1
 jkarran 26 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> I repeat,

> "13million votes for Corbyn to be PM in 2017 proves that in the right circumstances a left wing manifesto can win in Britain.

Yes but those circumstances were a radicalised Conservative party hell bent on accidentally fu*King Britain into the floor. Corbyn still lost. Twice for shame.

Those 13M votes weren't for Corbyn, some were, many were in spite of Corbyn, against the Brexit disaster the Conservatives had triggered. 

The failure on the left of Labour to recognise 2017 for what it was and as a failure for Corbyn lead directly to the disaster we are now living with.

I say this as someone who'd happily vot for a left leaning policy platform, who joined up to support Corbyn's first run in order to widen the range of ideas considered normal in British politics. I didn't then expect him to have to fight the most important election in our lifetimes then fail to recognise his failure only to fail again. As with Johnson and Covid, Corbyn and Brexit was the wrong man at the wrong time. Part bad luck, part bad judgement. 

Labour needs to move on from Corbyn, draw a line under the disastrous last few years. 

Jk

 MonkeyPuzzle 26 Feb 2021
In reply to jkarran:

Exactly. This political leader as identity stuff is so dysfunctional. If a leader becomes more of a liability to your party than an asset they need to be kicked to the kerb. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not, and it doesn't matter if it's done gently or harshly, but get it done. They're standing in the way of the lives of tens of millions of people who deserve better. Corbyn supporters seem to have that last bit the wrong way round.

 Rob Exile Ward 26 Feb 2021
In reply to jkarran:

I think this thread should be renamed 'What did Corbyn have against winning elections?'

 fred99 26 Feb 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I think this thread should be renamed 'What did Corbyn have against winning elections?'

That's easy; If he and Labour had won, then he would have had to make decisions (and implement them) for the first time. Maybe that's why he made such a pigs ear of the job - he was scared shitless of actually DOING something.

2
 Philb1950 26 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

If that’s all good how come the Tories have an 80 seat majority. I think Starmer is the only hope. And consider this, at the next G.E. it will be nearly 50 years, half a century, since a Labour politician won a G.E.  other than Tony Blair. No wonder Starmer wants to move to the centre ground.

 Morty 26 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

> Using a food bank isn't really a reliable poverty indicator. 

Why not? 

Post edited at 18:40
1
 summo 26 Feb 2021
In reply to Morty:

> Why not? 

Because the presence or lack of isn't necessarily an indicator of demand or usage. I bet many countries in Africa, Asia, South America... don't have very many, but it doesn't mean they don't have poverty or inequality. Food banks indicate a proportion of the population is willing to help others, but poverty is relative. Most charities count food bank use by visit, not number of individuals. So even the data available isn't very accurate. 

In the uk folk don't like paying tax, benefits are for some sections of society too low, social care is dire, etc..  instead of paying cash through taxation, many donate food or money to charities.. end result is the same. Another country with almost no food banks and higher benefits, could have exactly the same levels of poverty or inequality. 

Define poverty; wealth, housing, food, heating, utilities, spare cash, luxury items, Internet access etc.. ? 

4
 Morty 26 Feb 2021

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying poverty in this country isn't really poverty when compared against other countries on a global scale? 

1
 summo 26 Feb 2021
In reply to Morty:

Define poverty? Better to have precise metrics, rather than the presence of food banks. 

Edit. Poverty does exist everywhere, I'm not denying it. 

Post edited at 19:25
2
 kevin stephens 26 Feb 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> Those 13M votes weren't for Corbyn, some were, many were in spite of Corbyn, against the Brexit disaster the Conservatives had triggered. 

^ This ^

In reply to jkarran:

> Yes but those circumstances were a radicalised Conservative party hell bent on accidentally fu*King Britain into the floor. Corbyn still lost. Twice for shame.

> Those 13M votes weren't for Corbyn, some were, many were in spite of Corbyn, against the Brexit disaster the Conservatives had triggered. 

> The failure on the left of Labour to recognise 2017 for what it was and as a failure for Corbyn lead directly to the disaster we are now living with.

> I say this as someone who'd happily vot for a left leaning policy platform, who joined up to support Corbyn's first run in order to widen the range of ideas considered normal in British politics. I didn't then expect him to have to fight the most important election in our lifetimes then fail to recognise his failure only to fail again. As with Johnson and Covid, Corbyn and Brexit was the wrong man at the wrong time. Part bad luck, part bad judgement. 

> Labour needs to move on from Corbyn, draw a line under the disastrous last few years. 

> Jk

You did well then because the range of ideas considered normal in British politics has shifted towards the left due to Corbyn simply putting an alternative forward as leader of the opposition. Previously unthinkable ideas such as an end to austerity and renationalisation have become sensible, mainstream, political ideas.

Compare that to the Silent Knight's brand of non opposition and we are currently being prepared to face austerity again, and £ billions of public money is being handed over to profiteers in the chumocracy to (fail to) deliver services that make more sense to be delivered by public bodies.

Can you achieve more in government than you can in opposition? Well of course, but not if you don't have a mandate for change that you have sold to the electorate. Not if you don't intend to deliver any reform either, unbelievably Sunak plans to announce an increase in Corporation Tax next week but corporate man Starmer is opposed to this. Can you remember any long lasting leftwards shift in politics due to Blair-Browns 13 years in government? No, the effect of that betrayal of the Labour movement was to concede the argument and cement the radical shift to the right that had occurred under Thatcher-Major as the new sensible politics.

Could Labour have got more votes with a different leader than Corbyn? Could Corbyn have played the Brexit situation better to get more votes? Very probably yes to both and that adds weight to my argument that in the right circumstances a left wing manifesto can win in Britain. Left wing policies are popular (they are even supported by Conservative voters when they are not told where the policies come from), that's why the media always distract people from talking about policy and propagate the unelectable myth.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/12/labour-eco...

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/01/09/eurotrack-...

Is Starmer making Labour more electable? Corbyn led in the polls until the Boris Bounce. The media propaganda back then was that anyone but Corbyn would have a 20 point lead. What about these circumstances we are in now? This is now the worst government in living memory, pretty much universally viewed as corrupt and incompetent, much more so than Theresa May's, and Starmer's Labour have slipped backwards to 7% behind the Conservatives in the latest polls today. At this rate Starmer will be lucky if he polls 20 points ahead of the Lib Dems.

Post edited at 00:04
8
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

>You can't just yoink a stat out from a multi-party, multi-issue election and try and get it to stand alone. With Corbyn as leader, record numbers of people were inspired to vote for May and then Johnson, no.2 and then no.1 on the worst PM's of all time list. Was the "Dementia Tax" proposed by May such an inspiring idea to justify the largest number of votes since 1983? No, of course not. Other factors, such as the opposition, were in play. That's the First Past The Post electoral system for you. 

So, did 13 million people make an electoral calculation, and decide that a significant shift to the left was better than the alternative or not? Tony Blair won an election with only 9.5 million votes in 2005. These numbers show that it is definitely possible to persuade enough people.

If Corbyn was the problem then clearly a different leader with the same policies would have been able to make up that difference.

> Exactly. This political leader as identity stuff is so dysfunctional. If a leader becomes more of a liability to your party than an asset they need to be kicked to the kerb. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not, and it doesn't matter if it's done gently or harshly, but get it done. They're standing in the way of the lives of tens of millions of people who deserve better. Corbyn supporters seem to have that last bit the wrong way round.

Certainly by 2019 Corbyn was a damaged brand and will have cost votes, but how could members have trusted any political manoeuvrings to replace him when they were aware of the dirty tactics that the Labour right controlled party machine were pulling? We have been proven correct in this distrust of the party machine when you look at the bait and switch that Starmer has pulled off.

Post edited at 00:24
9
 MonkeyPuzzle 27 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

No other party leader gets absolved of responsibility for their party's performance but Corbyn. Anything good happened in 2017? Well that was definitely Jezza despite not having control of the party machine. 2019 went awful? Oh that was nothing to do with Jezza despite having complete control of the party from top to bottom.

It's impossible / pointless even discussing it with Corbynites because if anything went wrong then *by definition* it can't have been anything to do with their guy.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Excuse me!? Can you remind me when Jeremy Corbyn ever "had complete control of the party machine from top to bottom"? The EHRC report shows us that this was never the case.

Disappointing that you've misrepresented my position above and attacked something I didn't say instead of engaging with any of my points. 

There's a rewriting of history going on above (by a few posters), 2017 was far from a perfect opportunity for Labour against the worst government in history (that was later exposed after the election because of Corbyn's opposition). Ed Miliband had had a bit of a disaster in 2015 with his uninspiring austerity lite campaign and Brexit favoured the Conservatives. Theresa May called the snap 2017 election from a position of strength thinking she would wipe Labour from the map.

Corbyn's Labour had a relatively good result in 2017, despite the dirty tricks of the party machine, and a terrible result in 2019. The party machine was always working against him but yes, 2019 was partly due to Corbyn's own failings.

So yes, lessons to learn but the was the answer really to throw all principles and vision out of the window?

Post edited at 23:36
5
 MonkeyPuzzle 28 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

From 2018 onwards with control of the NEC and Formby in as Gen Sec. What other mechanisms of the party did he need and not have?

 summo 28 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> Corbyn's Labour had a relatively good result in 2017, despite the dirty tricks of the party machine, and a terrible result in 2019. The party machine was always working against him but yes, 2019 was partly due to Corbyn's own failings.

it wasn't corbyns fault as leader, it wasn't the fault of his manifesto, not his shadow cabinet either; it was the voters fault for putting the cross in the wrong box? 

We all know a corbyn, someone who won't  accept responsibility for anything, always something or somebody else to blame for their own failings. Even now you declare 2017 as some kind of victory, labour still lost.

2
 Rob Exile Ward 28 Feb 2021
In reply to summo:

This is depressing:

youtube.com/watch?v=Gudj2-vSueo&

...particularly after 37 minutes.

 "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."

 summo 28 Feb 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Indeed. It's funny and sad, all Labour has to do is be centrist and tories would be history. But they are too busy fighting themselves over ideals. 

2
 Andrew Wells 28 Feb 2021

I'm a pretty hardcore leftwinger, I voted for Corbyn twice and would do again.

My problem with Corbyn however is that Corbynism became more important than the country and the policies. It was more important that the leader be protected from any blame than it was to have a hard look at why Labour failed in 2019.

Corbyn wasn't the only reason, but he was part of the reason. And his supporters led us to repeated losees (and yes, 2017 was a loss. When a Tory government is in power... Labour lost).

It is slightly galling as well that a defence of Corbyn oft-heard was "okay you might not like him, but don't you like his policies?" i.e. you should overlook his politics and focus on the benefit he would bring to the country. A lot of the same people who made that defence are critical of Starmer... because they don't like his politics. But his policies are in fact largely the same as Corbyn's ones (and Corbyn's weren't very different from Milliband's either). But St Jeremy could do no wrong (despite presiding over, for example, the absolutely awful anti-semitism scandal and getting rightfully hammered for his response to the report's release after he left the leadership position) and therefore he gets a free pass.

I said that it was important to try to rally around the leader when Corbyn was in charge, despite a lot of misgivings. And I got a lot of "hear hear" from Corbynites. And those same people now are happy to drag Starmer as a Red Tory. It's not good. We need to rally around Starmer and get him into power. And yes I have many criticisms of Starmer myself, but the Tory government is strangling this country. We need to win.

 jkarran 01 Mar 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> ...Previously unthinkable ideas such as an end to austerity and renationalisation have become sensible, mainstream, political ideas. Compare that to the Silent Knight's brand of non opposition and we are currently being prepared to face austerity again, and £ billions of public money is being handed over to profiteers in the chumocracy to (fail to) deliver services that make more sense to be delivered by public bodies.

The situation has changed between Corbyn and Starmer but there are similarities. Corbyn (deeply wrongly IMO) felt unable to seriously oppose brexit. Starmer likewise is constrained in how able he feels to criticise the government. Superficially this seems mad, it's genuinely hard to imagine a government getting more wrong for worse reasons but right now they have a lot of well wishers (perhaps not supporters) and they're currently riding high on some luck with the vaccine gamble. We're also a long way from election day. There's a time to recognise when too much criticism looks counterproductive and churlish.

Do you think we're being primed for more austerity? It's possible, perhaps even likely given the petty intellectual void the Conservative party has become but it's not a given. An unemploment crisis is one of the few things that could actually remove the Conservatives in the early 2020s, I wouldn't be surprised to see them continue borrowing and spending heavily, especially if it's broadly in line with the recovery policies of our peers. Sure it'll be spending indirectly to keep the siphons flowing and the donors fat but I'm not convinced they'll repeat the 2010s. Yet.

> Can you achieve more in government than you can in opposition? Well of course, but not if you don't have a mandate for change that you have sold to the electorate.

You have no idea what Starmer's manifesto will look like and frankly none of us have a Scooby Doo what 2024 will look like.

> Not if you don't intend to deliver any reform either, unbelievably Sunak plans to announce an increase in Corporation Tax next week but corporate man Starmer is opposed to this.

Reference?

> Could Labour have got more votes with a different leader than Corbyn? Could Corbyn have played the Brexit situation better to get more votes? Very probably yes to both and that adds weight to my argument that in the right circumstances a left wing manifesto can win in Britain. Left wing policies are popular (they are even supported by Conservative voters when they are not told where the policies come from), that's why the media always distract people from talking about policy and propagate the unelectable myth.

The policies aren't the problem. The leader (in Corbyn) really didn't help but fundamentally the problem is the press barons aren't finished squeezing the Conservatives yet, their brexit investment had not returned. In the meantime the Conservatives, by destabilising Scotland have consolidated a base the even the popular press may struggle to erode should they ever stop getting just what they want from weak leaders. 

> Is Starmer making Labour more electable? Corbyn led in the polls until the Boris Bounce. The media propaganda back then was that anyone but Corbyn would have a 20 point lead. What about these circumstances we are in now? This is now the worst government in living memory, pretty much universally viewed as corrupt and incompetent, much more so than Theresa May's, and Starmer's Labour have slipped backwards to 7% behind the Conservatives in the latest polls today. At this rate Starmer will be lucky if he polls 20 points ahead of the Lib Dems.

It's the worst government in living memory but memories are short, dragging us out of the deadly covid mire, ideally blinkered to the fact the mire was largely of their making will provide quite a boost for the government. The transition from awful to really quite bad is going to feel fabulous. Expect another Johnson landslide despite his catastrophically bad period in office to date. We are that stupid. The Westminster electoral situation with Scotland is that bad.

Labour needs a broad progressive pact to re-take power and demonstrate change is possible in order to secure it. They won't do it (The LD just might after their 2019 obliteration). Frankly people like you are major obstacle to that right now.

jk

Post edited at 13:43
 Rob Exile Ward 02 Mar 2021
In reply to jkarran:

Dear God, this would be funny if it wasn't tragic:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56246532

What bubble do these people live in? 

 mondite 02 Mar 2021
In reply to summo:

> Indeed. It's funny and sad, all Labour has to do is be centrist and tories would be history.

Its mad isnt it? Why dont they look at the stunning success of the centrist libdems and take a lesson from them eh?

What are you expecting the left wing voters to do once you have turned Labour into a centrist party? Do you expect them to turn up every five years to provide their vote for a party which doesnt represent them? How well will centrist labour do once they dont bother turning up and who will they end up voting for? I would have thought brexit would have given a hint of the problems of what happens when you take peoples vote for granted but perhaps not.

1
 mondite 02 Mar 2021
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> This argument only works if we accept your assertion that anyone not on the left-left must be a principle-free, weathervane, triangulating centrist. That's of course not true

Hence why its not my assertion and, neither for that matter, is your assertion about where my actual beliefs lie but hey ho.

Plenty of positions that were soft left a couple of decades back are portrayed as hard left now. With more and more positions being crammed into that term.

 Alkis 02 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

> What are you expecting the left wing voters to do once you have turned Labour into a centrist party? Do you expect them to turn up every five years to provide their vote for a party which doesnt represent them? 

 

You are saying that as if the centrist position is a distinct position that cannot satisfy anyone but a centrist. Centrism is about compromise. As a random example, a left wing economical platform with a mildly right wing "patriotic" attitude (as much as that makes me gag) to appeal to the rural north could well be a centrist government. If you truly feel like you can never be satisfied without having the entire platform being to your liking, I fear progressive policies may never happen again in our lifetime and the tories will be in power for a long long time, as they have no such qualms.

Sticking to your guns without compromise is an admirable stance that does not fit a FPTP system.

Post edited at 11:38
 jkarran 02 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

> Its mad isnt it? Why dont they look at the stunning success of the centrist libdems and take a lesson from them eh?

The LibDem's problem in normal times isn't their policies. Their 2019 obliteration was an artefact of brexit overlayed on the damage done betraying students. Educational hubs were the only real geographic centres pulling together enough LD voters in one place to return MPs. Small changes to the LD vote collapsed the number of MPs returned. FPTP as ever proving totally dysfunctional.

> What are you expecting the left wing voters to do once you have turned Labour into a centrist party? Do you expect them to turn up every five years to provide their vote for a party which doesnt represent them? How well will centrist labour do once they dont bother turning up and who will they end up voting for? I would have thought brexit would have given a hint of the problems of what happens when you take peoples vote for granted but perhaps not.

In a healthy ecosystem many would stick with a broad enough Labour party in the hope of holding ground and shifting its centre of mass back their way in power, others would seek representation through other parties further left. We don't have a healthy ecosystem, minority parties (even really big ones like UKIP/brexit) and interests are denied a parliamentary voice to disastrous effect.

In reality many will still vote Labour with a heavy heart, some won't. If the gamble of shifting position pays off that loss is more than offset by the floating voters you pick up. In reality, it's more complicated, Labour's activist base is further left than its voter base so the loss of fringe votes isn't the big cost, it's the loss of energy and work from the activists. Also the axis on which we pivot as voters has shifted away from the traditional left-right economics toward a liberal-authoritarian* divide in recent years, this may temporary of course while it work to the government's interest, we'll see. Still, attracting floating voters is the only way Labour wins elections so the choice is clear, appeal to them or become a protest group.

*other definitions work, these two words alone poorly sum up the divide, perhaps progressive/regressive works a bit better. It's clearly contentious, they're always loaded words

I don't think attracting floating voters to Labour means selling out on core values, it means speaking their language, selling your ideas. It means not alienating too many people. It means getting enough of the press on side that your voice is amplified and that's a dirty business. You're not changing anything in impotent opposition.

jk

Post edited at 12:08
 john arran 02 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

> What are you expecting the left wing voters to do once you have turned Labour into a centrist party?

They could form the UK People's Front, except for those that would no doubt have a problem with that plan, in which case they can form the People's Front of UK. That way everyone has a party that precisely mirrors their political ideals, nobody need compromise to achieve anything, and we all disappear happily into the unelectable night, leaving the Tories to further shaft all of the people that "left wing voters" presumably are trying to help.

2
 mondite 02 Mar 2021
In reply to Alkis:

> You are saying that as if the centrist position is a distinct position that cannot satisfy anyone but a centrist. Centrism is about compromise.

This is frequently claimed but isnt supported by the evidence.  You only have to look at the absolutely unwillingness of the centrists in Labour to work with the left of the party to see that. Some self identified centrists are pretty idelogically extreme but seem to fool themselves into the idea they are not. At least the hard right and hard left tend more to accepting they are outliers (with a few exceptions).

Part of the problem is the weakness of the "left" and "right" labels and how things are assigned to those positions. Overall "centrists" at least in the UK seem economically fairly "right" wing but more "left" on the social side of things. Although even there it is somewhat confused by general shifts in positions.

 Alkis 02 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

That is not evidence, that is just an observation of British politics. I'd argue that the reason that the compromise tends to go in that direction is that full on social conservatism is not hugely palatable in Britain, it certainly doesn't make centrism a distinct political stance that rejects left and right and cannot satisfy any parts of either, by very definition.

Post edited at 12:30
 fred99 02 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

> What are you expecting the left wing voters to do once you have turned Labour into a centrist party? Do you expect them to turn up every five years to provide their vote for a party which doesnt represent them? ...

They can vote for the Socialist Workers Party, or the Communist Party, or even the Monster Raving Loony Party.

After said Party has lost its' deposit a few times they might realise that the Labour Party, whilst not eschewing ALL their desires, is a darn sight better Party to vote for than one that could never get elected rat-catcher.

1
 fred99 02 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

> This is frequently claimed but isnt supported by the evidence.  You only have to look at the absolutely unwillingness of the centrists in Labour to work with the left of the party to see that....

When the "left" wing of the Party continue with ideas that would make the Labour Party unelectable, then it is only common sense to ditch those ideas. Unfortunately the "left" seems to believe that they are the only people who are right, and the voters of this country are all wrong. However it is not the "left" of the Labour Party that has millions of votes, it is the voters of this country.

2
In reply to Andrew Wells: jkarran:

Hope you don't mind that I've mangled your two posts together in order to make one reply as you made similar points and it works better this way.

> It is slightly galling as well that a defence of Corbyn oft-heard was "okay you might not like him, but don't you like his policies?" i.e. you should overlook his politics and focus on the benefit he would bring to the country. A lot of the same people who made that defence are critical of Starmer... because they don't like his politics. But his policies are in fact largely the same as Corbyn's ones (and Corbyn's weren't very different from Milliband's either).

>You have no idea what Starmer's manifesto will look like and frankly none of us have a Scooby Doo what 2024 will look like.

>There's a time to recognise when too much criticism looks counterproductive and churlish.

It's only about the policies really. What makes you think that Starmer's policies are largely the same as Corbyn's, or even Milibands?  His number 1 pledge was to reverse the Tories' cuts in corporation tax but this week, in a rare example of making some noise against the government, he's been opposing a Tory idea to increase corporation tax in the budget.

https://www.cityam.com/keir-starmer-pushes-boris-johnson-to-rule-out-corpor...

Why isn't he criticising the government and making the case for progressive change at a time when the injustices of our society are more exposed than ever? Clement Attlee did these things during WW2 then won the election at the end of the war. Starmer has pulled off a bait and switch on the membership, he pledged to make the moral case for socialism and unite our party but he has been silent on the issues of the day and he has displayed outrageous factionalism in favour of the right at every opportunity. The people he favours describe Ed Miliband as a Trot.

>Labour needs a broad progressive pact to re-take power and demonstrate change is possible in order to secure it.

Do you think the 13 years of Blair-Brown government demonstrated that change is possible? I think it did the opposite, it demonstrated that it doesn't matter whether you vote for the reds or the blues as they are all the same and it drove 5 million working class voters away from Labour.

In any case, left wing policies are popular and I don't believe this abandonment of a left wing agenda is the strategy that will get Labour into power. Labour slipped further to 8 points behind on Monday.

https://www.survation.com/survation-uk-politics-poll-23-25-february-2021/

1
 jkarran 03 Mar 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Do you think that slip in the polls is Starmer's economic position (in so much as he's taken one long run) or the tumbling covid mortality and the looming social relaxations? 

Jk

 mondite 04 Mar 2021
In reply to fred99:

> They can vote for the Socialist Workers Party, or the Communist Party, or even the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Because those are the only choices arent they? They could just give up voting or, just maybe, vote for anyone who offers something alledgedly different since any change is better than none? Can you think of any recent scenario matching that?

It isnt going to be a better party when twenty years down the road ALL of their desires are portrayed as hard left and so are all discounted.

For an actual working political system we need some choices to represent all parts of society. Not the "centre" and the hard right with those on the left to go begging to the centrists for a few scraps in return for their unquestioning support.

 jkarran 04 Mar 2021
In reply to mondite:

> For an actual working political system we need some choices to represent all parts of society. Not the "centre" and the hard right with those on the left to go begging to the centrists for a few scraps in return for their unquestioning support.

So you need either PR or to accept you will, within you party of choice, spend periods at its edges working to shift the centre of gravity without undermining the whole.

I know which I'd prefer but I also know which we're stuck with, at least until it finally dawns on those at the helm that our electoral system does not owe the Labour party anything that it is now for reasons mostly beyond its control having been outplayed by establishment interests just another smaller party in a parliament with one big one.

jk

In reply to mondite:

Tell you what, it's a good to know that Starmer has made Labour electable again with his war on the left and lack of an alternative vision on the major issues of the day.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/03/04/voting-int...

13 points behind on today's polling, projection would be 197 seats on a universal swing.

In reply to jkarran:

I'm sure the vaccine roll out has something to do with the recent upturn for the government but is this really good enough? Starmer hasn't made any impression while Tory corruption and incompetence caused 150,000 deaths. He's spurned a number of open goals and turned his fire against the left instead of the Tories. This disastrous poll is with a largely supportive media behind him. The usual suspects on here would be screaming for Corbyn or Long Bailey to resign with this sort of poll.

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 05 Mar 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

In the middle of a very successful vaccine rollout having announced a roadmap out of a pandemic that nobody blames the government for, for which they've been giving people unprecedented amounts of free money and with Opposition parties having had no platform, a public not wanting to see adversarial politics and no ability to even meet members let alone campaign face-to-face, Starmer had increased Labour's polling by up to 8% in less than a year over the last leader.

More work to be done though.

 Rob Exile Ward 05 Mar 2021
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I agree - now would not be a good time to adopt a Corbynite 'whatever it is, I'm agin it.'

 jkarran 05 Mar 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> I'm sure the vaccine roll out has something to do with the recent upturn for the government but is this really good enough? Starmer hasn't made any impression while Tory corruption and incompetence caused 150,000 deaths. He's spurned a number of open goals and turned his fire against the left instead of the Tories. This disastrous poll is with a largely supportive media behind him. The usual suspects on here would be screaming for Corbyn or Long Bailey to resign with this sort of poll.

Personally I think the vaccine and the promised spring relaxation is enough to explain the Conservatives polling lead. We've had a very rough year and now we have hope. The government with a broadly uncritical press has managed to appropriate the credit while shirking the blame.

jk

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Come off it, you wouldn't have been making these lame excuses for Corbyn or a successor on the left of the party. If nobody blames the government for the corrupt mishandling of a pandemic which has cost 150,000 lives, and crashed our economy, and seen us all locked up for months on end, when other countries have not suffered the same, who's fault is that? If only there was somebody who's job it was to challenge the government narrative, if that person would just do their job properly maybe Starmer might be polling better.

 MonkeyPuzzle 06 Mar 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Oppositions around Europe and beyond are having exactly the same struggles.

The government gets a daily press conference on live TV if they want it and Labour get refused their request to go on BBC breakfast today to discuss the NHS 1% rise and wider budget.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> having announced a roadmap out of a pandemic that nobody blames the government for

For the origin of the pandemic? No.

For the utterly piss-poor handling of it? Most definitely Yes.

> for which they've been giving people unprecedented amounts of free money

Our money. Not theirs. Not Johnson's (maybe he could set up a charity for it...?). Not Sunak's. Not Sunak's wife's family's money. But our money. Furlough was the only reasonable choice, and one of their few good decisions. But it's hardly something to crow about.

 MonkeyPuzzle 07 Mar 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> For the origin of the pandemic? No.

> For the utterly piss-poor handling of it? Most definitely Yes.

You and I do, but the majority of the public simply don't. There's little Labour can do about that when they're expected to work in the national interest rather than attacking the government.

> Our money. Not theirs. Not Johnson's (maybe he could set up a charity for it...?). Not Sunak's. Not Sunak's wife's family's money. But our money. Furlough was the only reasonable choice, and one of their few good decisions. But it's hardly something to crow about.

Look at Sunak's numbers each time he made announcements re financial support and then most recently the budget. Again, the majority of the public disagree with us.

Labour spent the previous five years attacking the government on what outraged them and the people who already agreed with them and were rewarded with huge majorities in metropolitan seats and an absolute drubbing in terms of number of seats. The next election will be more of the same unless Labour can speak to the actual national mood rather than that of just the metropolitan (me), very online (me), politics obsessive (me), who already hates this government with a vengeance (definitely me). I'm strapping myself in and accepting that a lot of the messaging from Labour will definitely not be aimed in my direction for the next couple of years but that's fine as long as the policy offer is good enough.

Post edited at 13:02
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I'm strapping myself in and accepting that a lot of the messaging from Labour will definitely not be aimed in my direction for the next couple of years but that's fine as long as the policy offer is good enough.

I'm hoping they will be aiming at people like me. I'm a realistic pragmatist social democrat rather than dogmatist Corbynite. I voted Labour last time, in spite of Corbyn, not because of him. Labour as the only alternative to the Tories, assuming the PLP would curb his more dogmatic policies.

 MonkeyPuzzle 07 Mar 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I'm hoping they will be aiming at people like me. I'm a realistic pragmatist social democrat rather than dogmatist Corbynite. I voted Labour last time, in spite of Corbyn, not because of him. Labour as the only alternative to the Tories, assuming the PLP would curb his more dogmatic policies.

Well of course they'll be aiming at people like you (and me) but I think we'll need not to piss our pants when they aim a significant amount of messaging (note messaging rather than necessarily policy) at people to the right, certainly socially if not economically, of where we sit.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...