And when the local party select candidates that are part of the old corrupt circle-jerk (which is what they did), what then?
Well this goes to the heart of the problem with party politics, and it's why I keep sayiing we need a new, more democratic, and more transparent approach. Starmer isn't solving any problems, he's just doing the same as the local party by selecting his own preferred candidates. Why not open up the selection process in some form of primary or some other process? These candidates will be representing local communities, so give those communities a say.
You lot really need to get out of your paranoid, conspiracy-theory mindset. Once again: Starmer had little choice but to put a stop to it
FFS did you even read what I said above about corrupt councillors/members being ejected?
Why not open up the selection process in some form of primary or some other process?
Given that the elections are about 6 weeks away, what new system for selecting candidates do you suggest they put in place?
The Liverpool Labour party has been more than happy with the process up until this point as it continued to deliver power to their corrupt cabal
FFS did you even read what I said above about corrupt councillors/members being ejected?
Yes. You then went on to suggest that their corrupt mates be allowed to be installed in their place
Starmer isn’t solving any problems, he’s just doing the same as the local party by selecting
his own preferred candidatespeople who aren't bent
FTFY
Given that the elections are about 6 weeks away
But you said this has been going on for decades so presumably Starmer knew about this long ago?
I'd imagine he's had a busy enough year dealing with the car crash he inherited, while in the middle of a global pandemic, without having to devise a new electoral system because of what a bunch of Deggsies bent mates are getting up to on Merseyside
You then went on to suggest that their corrupt mates be allowed to be installed in their place
No I said that actions should be taken to uphold party democracy whilst at the same time rooting out anyone proven to be corrupt via usual due process. All you're doing is taking a nakedly partisan positon in order to paint anyone who might be slightly to the left of your liberal democrat fantasies as corrupt. As if those on the right of the party have never indulged in a bit of self-interested power brokering. Or have you forgotten the antics of Mandelson, Byers et al?
One of the new candidates is arguably to the left of the ones on the rejected list, and is a local councillor. This isn't a left/right issue, it's about getting rid of a short list designed to ensure the successful candidate could only be one that is implicated in this mess, and wouldn't expose others that were. There were making themselves a wagon circle. There was no option for local members to vote for anyone not connected to this mess. The list had to go. The new list had local representatives on it that members could vote for. A better more open selection process would be great, but Labour's democracy is already slow and cumbersome and plays so often into the hands of their opponents. More open/transparent AND quicker would be fantastic. How long would it take to get implemented...? Crack on..
This did make me chuckle. After Corbyn was roundly derided for his interest in local bus services, Binners' two favourite politicians appear to be copying him. Surely there are much more important things to be getting on with? 😂
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1375140272661729281?s=20
Bloody hell they're all at it! I suppose you have to celebrate the little things.
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1375157980778409994?s=20
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1375109810987937793?s=20
even the Tories have stolen Corbyns allotment intiative.
Good move by Burnham. Deregulation really hasn't worked in MCR.
This did make me chuckle. After Corbyn was roundly derided for his interest in local bus services, Binners’ two favourite politicians appear to be copying him. Surely there are much more important things to be getting on with? 😂
My point about grandad wasn't his focus on bus services, which is totally understandable and worthwhile, but the completely inopportune moments he chose to do so.
The government would have made some absolutely monumental * up with the NHS or something really important, supplying the leader of the opposition with a wide open goal, but he'd written his PMQ's questions about buses 3 days ago (including shouty 10-second Twitter clip) and he wasn't going to change then just because of some epic government cluster-* that had happened in the meantime.
My point was nothing to do with buses, or anything else specific, but the the fact that he was utterly politically clueless and consistently failed to pick up on which way the wind was blowing. Every time he was offered an open goal he'd spoon it into row Z.You could literally see the heads going into hands and hear the groans on the benches behind him as he got it wrong and let the government off the hook yet again. I found it painful to watch.
I think it's brilliant that Andy has decided to sort out Manchesters public transport. He's been pressing to do this for years and its a total shambles. A very expensive shambles which is totally unfit for purpose
This is not some sort of progressive nationalisation but rather bailing out the firms that were profiting handsomely like on the rail and steel but now things have changed, the taxpayer picks up the bill. Post war nationalisations were to support the development of private business not as some sort of soft socialism and when it suited they were flogged off.
Starmer said his first priority is defence. Apart from troop numbers, he must be quite pleased with the needy greedy blubbery blonde, brand new wmd and even more of 'em. Just imagine, all that killing!
point one - currently illegal to properly nationalise the bus service - need a new government if you want that to happen - Burnham has struggled to find a way to make the changes needed within the law, that's why it's taken so long
point two - Starmer has stated Labour's opposition to the nuclear war head expansion
My point was nothing to do with buses, or anything else specific, but the the fact that he was utterly politically clueless, who consistently failed to pick up on which way the wind was blowing.
Are you describing Starmer or Corbyn?
Corbyn waa not politically clueless. That's a ridiculous assertion. If anything he didn't have a great connection to certain groups of people - but he wasn't clueless. He was in an impossible situation which has been completely born out.
There is no point trying to convert Labour back to New Labour. It's been pointed out time and time again - centrism has failed. It's enabled the Tories, assured Brexit and recycled neolibralism.
We need something that is not Starmer nor Corbyn but still socialist. And even then it's got an uphill struggle.
(PMQs is not a benchmark for changing the country.)
We need something that is not Starmer nor Corbyn but still socialist
By "We" you mean "You". "We" as in the majority of the country don't want socialism at all.
'Keir Starmer voted for replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system'.
I suppose we could argue about what's a 'reasonable' increase when you're prepared to go along with giving the nurses 1%, but...
Corbyn was not politically clueless.
He really was. Completely and utterly clueless. He didn't have a single shred of political instinct or nous.
Thats why before he became leader by mistake, he'd spent his entire decades long 'career', such as it was, as a completely anonymous backbencher untroubled by a shadow or government job as even the most junior of bag-carriers.
He may have been good at making placards and signing petitions but thats not really the same thing
I suppose we could argue about what’s a ‘reasonable’ increase when you’re prepared to go along with giving the nurses 1%, but…
What are you on about? Starmer has stated Labour's opposition to both the warhead numbers being increased, and the nurses only getting a 1% "rise". He's not "gone along with" either.
What are you on about? Starmer has stated Labour’s opposition to both the warhead numbers being increased, and the nurses only getting a 1% “rise”.
I don't stalk Starmer and catch his every word but it is obvious in this thread that a lot of people whining about him are not paying attention to anything he says and are just making it up.
By “We” you mean “You”. “We” as in the majority of the country don’t want socialism at all.
Just don't mention socialism. Labour always has popular policies, but a general election is not a referendum. He who should not be mentioned and who I never voted for understood that people don't vote based on their agreement with individual polices.
People say that they want all these things, just like they say the'd like world peace and a kitten, but when push comes to shove they won't put their money where their mouth is and actually vote for it. Mention the 'S' word and they conjure up images of Soviet Russia and run mile
This was tested to destruction at the last 2 elections. I despair at this just as much as you do, but thats where we are in this country. The UK has never elected a socialist government and it never will.
As Kelvin said, he who must not be mentioned (IRAQ!!) knew this. Starmer appears to get it too
Apologies for this...
https://twitter.com/modernuklabour/status/1373995802159353867?s=20
...I'd best run away from this thread now.
The UK has never elected a socialist government and it never will.
Not sure if serious...
He didn’t have a single shred of political instinct or nous.
Except on many things he appears to have been way ahead of everyone else:
Rail nationalisation - implemented by the tories
Green Industrial Revolution - nicked by the tories
Funding public investment and spending via borrowing/QE - done by the tories
Improving local bus services - Done by Burnham and supported by Starmer
I'm sure we could add to this list. For someone who didn't have 'a single shred' of political instinct he sure does get copied a lot. 😄
The UK has never elected a socialist government and it never will.
There's a simple reason behind that, because it's never been offered one. Labour, even under Atlee, Foot and Corbyn has never been a socialist party. Instead they are a capitalist party which wants to implement socialist-style policies whilst retaining a capitalist economic system.
…I’d best run away from this thread now.
I watched that and agree with him. Let me say again, Blair is right. That's why instead of frilling round the edges of the existing status quo by raising pay for nurses a bit, or increasing tax on the rich a bit, or creating recovery bonds or whatever, labour need to be offering something which actually provides solutions to all the failures which have been proven over the past 30 years within a single identifiable objective. They had that in '45 (the welfare state), in '97 (modernising for the 21st century) and partially in 2017 in the form of 'For the many, not the few'.
So what is Starmer's big idea going to be? We're all still waiting but as far as I can work out it's 'trust us not to do anything too radical'. When he should be talking about climate change, automation, monopolism and inequality, he's waving flags and doing his best to avoid talking about anything at all.
The government would have made some absolutely monumental * up with the NHS or something really important, supplying the leader of the opposition with a wide open goal, but he’d written his PMQ’s questions about buses 3 days ago (including shouty 10-second Twitter clip) and he wasn’t going to change then just because of some epic government cluster-* that had happened in the meantime.
And now the govt have killed thousands and pocketed billions and all Starmer does at PMQ is look aloof while Johnson blusters and lies with impunity and the public lap it up and say what a good chap he is. Something needs to change!
Well, in the Have I Got News For You style PMQs, nothing will change from your description of how it's working without one or both of the leaders changing. Johnson doesn't have any answers, and he doesn't need them. He wasn't elected to be across his brief and do his job. Starmer is doing a good impression of someone who could actually carry out the role of PM... but that will never cut though when the people are still loving the clown. Starmer needs to step aside before we get to a general election. I doubt he will, and I'm damn sure the Labour Party are too inflexible to replace him if to comes to that.
“How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies whole art of Conservative politics.”
-Aneurin Bevan
Instead they are a capitalist party which wants to implement socialist-style policies whilst retaining a capitalist economic system.
And that is the closest you are going to get to it. You can stamp your feet all you like but the majority of the country simply do not want a socialist state.
You can stamp your feet all you like but the majority of the country simply do not want a socialist state.
Err, that's fine by me. I've never suggested labour should dismantle the capitalist system. I certainly don't want a socialist state, as I'm not a socialist. The last thing we need is a bunch of socialist worker types who think they're the vanguard who speak on behalf of workers.
THe majority want to live in their front rooms pretending to be servants in Downton Abbey while Stanley Johnson swans off to Greece.
Starmer needs to step aside before we get to a general election. I doubt he will, and I’m damn sure the Labour Party are too inflexible to replace him if to comes to that.
I think of there was a shoe-in candidate in the wings it would happen pretty quickly. Sadly I don't think there is.
this is an interesting article for those of you impatient with Starmer.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/26/joe-biden-left-parties-power-radical-winning
I think of there was a shoe-in candidate in the wings it would happen pretty quickly.
There was in the form of Rayner, but she's been exposed as an opportunistic careerist who lacks any political intelligence. I look at her now as the labour version of Priti Patel, but her backstory and political capital she had with both the membership and ordinary voters would have made her very popular. All she needed was some academic clout behind her to guide her on the policy side. But instead she chose to ally herself with the wrong side of the party which makes her previous sucking up to Corbyn look utterly pathetic and completely disengenuous.
Sadly I don’t think there is.
Not at the moment. There might be someone ready in a few years time. Those single-mindedly attacking Starmer for what he has done, or hasn't done, or they've have just dreamt up he wants to do, keep being asked who should step in and replace him if they want him gone now... tumbleweed.
this is an interesting article for those of you impatient with Starmer.
Thanks for the link TJ, will have a read in the bath.
I look at her now as the labour version of Priti Patel
Oh, for **** sake.
tjagain
Full Memberthis is an interesting article for those of you impatient with Starmer.
I'm not sure I see the relevance tbh? I'm impatient with Starmer because he's nowhere. If he could run as a middle ground moderate, win, and then deliver more potent policies then the Biden comparison would be apt but that's not what's happening.
I think that is what is happening northwind. He looks like a moderate safe pair of hands. very similar image to Biden
Biden is boring; Biden is making a significant difference. Is that it? I’ll have a read…
…well worth the read TJ, thanks.
I’ll mull that over and do what I can to avoid all the “Starmer is doing/opposing nothing” noise being generated for a while. It includes a lot of often repeated nonsense/lies, so discussing it all is getting boring/tiring anyway.
Biden is boring; Biden is making a significant difference. Is that it? I’ll have a read…
pretty much
Despite not living in Uk anymore I still take an interest in UK politics . Very disappointed with Starmer .
I am not even sure he mentioned Brexit since signing Boris deal .
With PMQ , he is not far from Corbyn bus timetables level . Food exports to the EU down , Deloitte consultants paid 1000s a day , and he talks about foreign aid and size of the army ??
If he carries on like that he will never win an election .
Biden is boring
He is but a safe and steady leader is what is needed after Trump and even over here it is a massive relief not to wonder what crap Trump is going to come out with next.
I think Starmer would be a pretty good PM, I just don't think he has to what it takes to actually get voted in.
Those single-mindedly attacking Starmer for what he has done, or hasn’t done, or they’ve have just dreamt up he wants to do, keep being asked who should step in and replace him if they want him gone now… tumbleweed.
Andy Burnham would be better but I'm not sure he wants the job any more.
Burnham is beyond the pale for playing the race card to get elected mayor. Utterly disgraceful
