Forum menu
I would have voted for labour under Corbyn, I would for starmer ( depending on the tactical situation / type of election)
Corbyn fought two general elections, you didn't vote labour
Starmer is an out and out unionist so I expect "would" means the same as it did for Corbyn...?
Beyond contempt chucking Loach out. A man who has devoted his entire life to high-lighting the pitfalls of inequality
Or is it that he wouldn't leave an organisation the party had proscribed?
Or is it that he wouldn’t leave an organisation the party had proscribed?
That's the problem with Ken Loach, he has principles. And he stands up for what he believes in. In fact he's famous for it.
I can't see a place for someone like that in Starmer's Labour Party.
It is now a party of careerists and opportunitists with no principles, people like Starmer.
Ken Loach will undoubtedly keep publicising the cruel injustices of Tory Britain, he just won't be doing it from inside the Labour Party. A party which will continue to be ever more irrelevant under Starmer.
Big and daft - try to read and understand
I would vote for Corbyn led party if appropriate in the tactical situation. I would vote for a party led by starmer. I wouldn't if any of Nandy, Raynor or Burnham were leading the party.
t is now a party of careerists and opportunitists with no principles, people like Starmer.
Its been like that for decades. Since Blair hollowed out the party and turned it from leading to following
Burnham is your classic for this. ~a contemptible playing of the race card to get elected. Utterly vile
Burnham is your classic for this. ~a contemptible playing of the race card to get elected. Utterly vile
And the smug Zionist Starmer isn't a racist??
He might be hypersensitive to any criticism of a Jewish person or Israel, and happily throw out of the Labour Party anyone who does so, but he hugely accepting and tolerant of anti-black racists who praise Israel:
Anti-black racism isn't seen as an issue for Starmer :
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-party-black-racism-keir-starmer-b1809223.html
But hey, it's not his fault, it's just "unconscious bias", it's probably the way he was brought up:
Big and daft – try to read and understand
I would vote for Corbyn led party if appropriate in the tactical situation. I would vote for a party led by starmer. I wouldn’t if any of Nandy, Raynor or Burnham were leading the party.
What's the appropriate tactical situation to vote for a party that supports the Union?
It must be a strange alignment of the stars to get you to make that decision
Are you really that daft? I vote anti tory first. If there is a chance of a tory getting in I will hold my nose and vote for whoever is most likely to beat them - unless that party is led by somone as bad or worse.
Oh - and contrary to what you keep attempting to imply as I have said on here many times I am not scots nationalist from ideology. Separation is not my preferred option. However Scots independence will give me a better chance of a proper progressive representative government than remaining shackled to England
If we had any prospect of proper electoral reform UK wide and a federal system that would be my preference
Ernie - I have never heard any racist statements from Starmer - compared to Burnhams deliberate and cynical racist posturing during his mayoral campaign
Nor have I heard him threaten scots nationalists with violence and extrajudical arrest as Nandy did did
Nor have I heard Starmer make stupid comments about Scotland that show his ignorance and stupidity as Raynor has done
but he hugely accepting and tolerant of anti-black racists who praise Israel:
Flatfooted might be a more sympathetic view, he does seem to avoid confrontation with the public. Everyone understands he's not John Prescot.
Anti-black racism isn’t seen as an issue for Starmer
As you know the report overlaps another investigation the ICO. After the debacle of the internal anti semitism report and impact on people's lives and the party's bank balance you would be cautious. To be honest I'm shocked it's an issue in any mainstream party these days let alone labour. I'm probably just naive.
And the smug Zionist Starmer
Maybe you need to get a slot on the same course
To be honest I’m shocked it’s an issue in any mainstream party these days let alone labour. I’m probably just naive.
head in sand? racism is commonplace in all UK political parties with the tories of course being the worst by a long way. We have a PM who is an overt racist
So TJ you have heard two senior Labour politicians publicly make racist comments? Why hasn't Keir Starmer expelled them from the party?
Starmer has made it abundantly clear that he will not tolerate antisemitism, even just saying that antisemitism is exaggerated is enough to get thrown out of the Labour Party.
Are you suggesting that Keir Starmer doesn't have a problem with other forms of racism?
If so it's something which we can both agree on.
Because Burnham was elected and left himself just about enough plausible denial and Nandy made up a load of nonsense when called out claiming she was misquoted / didn't mean it how we all interpreted it but both were clearly pandering to the racists in their constituencies
I vote anti tory first. If there is a chance of a tory getting in I will hold my nose and vote for whoever is most likely to beat them – unless that party is led by somone as bad or worse.
I hope you don't read too many Lib Dem election leaflets, they can be a bit, optimistic
Nor have I heard Starmer make stupid comments about Scotland that show his ignorance and stupidity as Raynor has done
I'm sure Angela Rayner can see the ironing...
Oh – and contrary to what you keep attempting to imply as I have said on here many times I am not scots nationalist from ideology. Separation is not my preferred option. However Scots independence will give me a better chance of a proper progressive representative government than remaining shackled to England
You are very vocal for someone with a hollow reason for a constitutional change on this scale and disregard for the consequences. But as long as you get what you want....
Maybe you need to get a slot on the same course
I feel confident that all my bias is fully conscious, obviously.
Because Burnham was elected and left himself just about enough plausible denial and Nandy made up a load of nonsense when called out claiming she was misquoted / didn’t mean it how we all interpreted it but both were clearly pandering to the racists in their constituencies
So basically TJ you are saying that unlike you Starmer isn't sufficiently convinced that Burnham and Nandy are racists, and that's why he hasn't expelled them.
Has he completed his unconscious bias course yet?
head in sand? racism is commonplace in all UK political parties with the tories of course being the worst by a long way. We have a PM who is an overt racist
Hiding it in the most diverse cabinet the country has ever seen, his likely successor BAME
He may well be racist, he may just be guilty of writing click bait, or he maybe somewhere in between. The sooner the sooner he goes off to write his books the better
...
the most diverse cabinet the country has ever seen, his likely successor BAMEHe may well be racist, he may just be guilty of writing click bait, or he maybe somewhere in between.
I agree entirely with that. For many it's the uncomfortable truth which they prefer to ignore.
Although I wouldn't want to exaggerate the likelihood of the next Tory leader being non-white. But it is more likely imo than the next Labour leader being non-white. The Labour Party seems remarkably homogeneousness compared to the Tory Party.
Edit : I am of course talking at senior party level. I have no doubt that the Labour Party has far more non-white members than the Tories, they just don't seem to get to the upper echelons of the party in the same way that the fewer Tory non-white members do. Which says a lot.
Hiding it in the most diverse cabinet the country has ever seen, his likely successor BAME
Yep, the diversity of the cabinet is good but not sure how the diverse cabinet will actually help diversity in policies and approach (see Priti Patel)
So basically TJ you are saying that unlike you Starmer isn’t sufficiently convinced that Burnham and Nandy are racists, and that’s why he hasn’t expelled them.
Nandy wasn't being racist particularly ( Just threatened scots nationalists) and I don't believe Burnham is - just he played the race card.
But yes - both are electorally useful so Starmer does not see this as important. Nandys words lost them more votes in Scotland but like most in the labour party they have no understanding of why they lost so many votes in Scotland
Perhaps a controversial opinion but I suspect that it's rather useful to the Tories to have BAME people in charge of things such as racist immigration policies, and enquiries that declare racism doesn't exist.
I don’t believe Burnham is – just he played the race card.
But yes – both are electorally useful so Starmer does not see this as important.
So Burnham played the race card but that isn't a problem to Starmer because of electoral success?
Surely that is the attitude you would expect from a UKIP leader?
Still, at least Burnham hasn't said that antisemitism in the Labour Party is an exaggerated problem, otherwise today he would be the independent mayor of Manchester.
It's interesting TJ that you can carefully hone your opposition to racism so that you would feel able to vote for a party led by Starmer but not one led Burnham.
Perhaps a controversial opinion but I suspect that it’s rather useful to the Tories to have BAME people in charge of things such as racist immigration policies, and enquiries that declare racism doesn’t exist.
Doesn't sound controversial to me, of course it is useful to have BAME people heading things such as immigration. The "Priti suffered loads of racism herself" line is trotted out all the time. Bit like saying someone who suffered sexual abuse can't become a sexual abuser isn't it.
The tory party are sucessfully using the like of patel and Sunak as convenient cover for their racism which is deeply embedded in the party. Looks like a few of you have been taken in by this -
Ernie - fortunately it never actually came to me having to cast my vote that way. Its a case of "the least bad"
The tory party are sucessfully using the like of patel and Sunak as convenient cover for their racism which is deeply embedded in the party.
Will they still be covering it up when they have a BAME PM, potentially in two years time? Served by a cabinet stuffed full of BAME MPs, some of which are real talents (whether you like their politics or not) probably lining up to be the second BAME PM
Are party's that don't have this stream of BAME talent racists?
Or, as with much in life, it's a bit more complex than that
I thought the general consensus was that flavour of the month in post-brexit Britian was racism, and that Johnson and the Tories were trying to tap into this new racist attitude among the UK population.
It now turns out that the complete opposite is true, ie Johnson is stuffing his Cabinet with Black and Asian ministers precisely to hide the fact that he's racist.
Personally I think that Johnson chose Sunak to be Chancellor because he felt Sunak was the best person available to be a Tory Chancellor.
The idea that Johnson would have deliberately picked someone who he felt wasn't capable of doing the job just to keep woke lefties happy is frankly ridiculous.
Then there's all the other Black and Asian Cabinet members, who as a total make up 21% of the Cabinet, the suggestion that they were all chosen not because they are capable of doing their job but because of the colour of their skin is pretty insulting.
Sunak may be half way competent but patel certainly is not
Big and Daft - just read what Warsi has to say about the racism in the tory party and of course Johnson himself is a racist
The level of racism in the tory party is far greater than in other parties. have no doubt about that
and there will not be a BAME tory PM ever - the racist membership will not stand for it
I think they might well…
If you are rich, you don’t need to have been born here, or be white. If you are poor you need to either be born here, or be white, or preferably both. One rule for the rich, one rule for the poor. Racism and xenophobia are complicated beasts.
As for Labour, well they have a Muslim Mayor of London. I can see Lammy winning that post in future as well. The leadership seems well out of reach for both of them though, sadly (he says trying to drag this back on topic and away from the Johnson fan club path it is on again).
away from the Johnson fan club
Grow up.
of course Johnson himself is a racist
Is that based on Johnson's picaninnies, watermelon smiles, and women in burkas looking like letterboxes and bank robbers comments?
Genuine question. Earlier you accused Burnham and Nandy of being racist although you later appeared to retract those allegations, so I'm wondering what metrics you are using in Johnson's case.
I did not say either Nandy or Burnham was racist. I said Burnham played the race card to get elected. Is he racist? I don't know but his playing the race card was disgraceful
nandys indiscretion was not racist at all. what she did was to state that the snp should be dealt with in the same way as the catalans were by the spanish central government - ie state violence and arrest. Just a nice little play for the bigots that she needs to be elected.
Yes those things and others from Johnson are enough for me to consider him a racist.
Hopefully that explains
Sunak may be half way competent but patel certainly is not
There are plenty of other talented BAME cabinet members if you hadn't noticed. Or perhaps you hadn't.
Big and Daft – just read what Warsi has to say about the racism in the tory party and of course Johnson himself is a racist
I don't doubt she found some
The level of racism in the tory party is far greater than in other parties. have no doubt about that
Personal experience or third hand click bait?, what are you sources for the that make you so certain the other parties are so much better? (Obviously discounting UKIP, reformUK, BNP and other parties for people who like being angry)
and there will not be a BAME tory PM ever – the racist membership will not stand for it
I'd happily put a cash bet on they will, I'd even consider betting they'll have two before labour has one
nandys indiscretion was not racist at all. what she did was to state that the snp should be dealt with in the same way as the catalans were by the spanish central government – ie state violence and arrest. Just a nice little play for the bigots that she needs to be elected.
Remind me, Spain is a EU country that operates under the rule of law. Spanish government enforced law, they went to court, judgement was made by the legal system. Or are you alleging the EU is made up of dictators?
I’d happily put a cash bet on they will, I’d even consider betting they’ll have two before labour has one
I wouldn't take that bet, because I think you're right. Tightening up immigration requirements to keep "them" out is only aimed at the normal folk, not the rich. Conservative MPs and members will support a BAME candidate as long as they are hard on lower paid immigrants.
Spain is a EU country that operates under the rule of law.
Yes, Spanish laws. It would be easy for a UK government to also "legally" use violence and arrests to break the efforts of Scottish separatists as well... under UK law that they themselves set.
Starmer is currently pushing a two pronged attack that should cut through with a lot of people who have recently supported Johnson instead... linking cuts to the police, and cuts to youth services. This should be great territory for Starmer to gain ground on the Tories, and nothing he has written and released about it is out of step with what the voters want and the Conservatives fail to deliver... but... it'll fall entirely on deaf ears, won't it?
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1427210932615270400?s=20
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1427258369824460801?s=20
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1427265625290952710?s=20
How fortuitous is that? Chukka and Luciana work in the same building as the LP headquarters.
Personal experience or third hand click bait?,
listening to the experts like Warsi and listening to the racists comments from tories at all levels - PM down.
Unless the tories change the way they elect a leader there is no chance of BAME pm - they have to win an election with their racist membership
Unless the tories change the way they elect a leader there is no chance of BAME pm – they have to win an election with their racist membership
If the MPs shortlist two BAME MPs for leadership the membership doesn't have a choice. (21% of the cabinet is BAME, a sunak/javid run off is quite likely)
That's disregarding the inconvenient fact that members at constituency level vite for their parliamentary candidates, you know those BAME MPs didn't get there without members voting for them
Like I said, I'm prepared to go for a cash bet on this. The list of frontbencher BAME MPs on the conservatives benches far surpasses any other party. I can give 3 or 4 names now who could have a serious run and more outsiders who might surprise.
Social Attitudes survey in 2013 which asked 'would you describe yourself as very prejudiced/a little prejudiced against people of other races?'
Perhaps they are a little more honest, after all, which good socialist is going to admit to being racist? Suggesting this to LibDems would be like accusing them of eating puppies
And you really think a slimebag like gove would not also stand big and daft knowing full well he will win the vote because of racism?
there is zero chance of a BAME tory leader. the only way it could be is if as you say only BAME candidates stand but the party is so full of greasy opportunists that a non BAME candidate will stand because they know they would win
Social Attitudes survey in 2013 which asked ‘would you describe yourself as very prejudiced/a little prejudiced against people of other races?’
I would think the majority of people have a little predujice against some races if they were really honest with themselves. They may not however say or do anything so it stays in their head.
Probably the same with homosexuality and lots of other things.
Starmer is currently pushing a two pronged attack...
Problem for Starmer, when it comes to Law and Order, is that as DPP, he oversaw the disproportionate sentencing of offenders following the 2011 riots; sentencing which disproportionately affected people of colour, and saw ridiculous sentences being handed down, such as 6 months imprisonment for stealing a bottle of water, etc. Most of those sentences were later overturned or lessened on appeal. I think Armrest wanted to look tough, to appeal to his future potential employers and benefactors. It blotted his copybook somewhat with in the legal profession though, although it provided a lot of extra work for lawyers, barristers and judges etc. So ultimately, the middle classes benefitted quite well out of it. Perhaps that was the plan all along. But Armrest is losing support from minority communities, and he kind of needs their support. But then; the Labour leadership is almost exclusively white and middle class. Oh dear, poor Keir, what can he do?
How fortuitous is that? Chukka and Luciana work in the same building as the LP headquarters
What's the betting that those two unemployed layabouts will somehow find their way back in the Labour party, with cushy jobs, at some point in the not too distant future?
Perhaps they are a little more honest, after all, which good socialist is going to admit to being racist?
There may be an element of that, but the fact that 40% of them are willing to openly admit to being racist tells it's own story really doesn't it. Perhaps the Tories also have the same percentage of racists who won't admit it either, as well as the 40%.
WTAF?
This?
It's a whole lot of nothing again isn't it.
'I'm definitely going to be really inspiring and clear about what I stand for at some point in the future. It's probably going to involve abandoning all the stuff I said to get elected Labour leader, I'm not sure exactly as I haven't been told yet'.
I would think the majority of people have a little predujice against some races if they were really honest with themselves. They may not however say or do anything so it stays in their head.
Probably the same with homosexuality and lots of other things.
Almost certainly everyone has those kind of reactions at times in their instinctive monkey brain - the difference is in using your logical brain to pretend it's justified...
sentencing which disproportionately affected people of colour, and saw ridiculous sentences being handed down, such as 6 months imprisonment for stealing a bottle of water, etc.
Nevermind the boring fact that sentencing is nothing to do with the DPP, so not exactly Starmer sending people down
But then; the Labour leadership is almost exclusively white and middle class. Oh dear, poor Keir, what can he do?
Is it? The bit Starmer can do something about the front bench seem to have diversity of race and class
Significantly more diverse than most unions leadership
Odd to see Starmer as DPP criticised for sentences handed down to offenders - don't people realise sentencing is the responsibility of the courts, not Prosecutors?
there is zero chance of a BAME tory leader.
I can't stand the Tories, but it's them, not Labour, that had the first female PM and elected leader, and now a BAME Chancellor and Home Secretary. I wouldn't be so cocky esp if it were Patel vs a "wet".
there is zero chance of a BAME tory leader.
He's so confident he won't accept my offer of a cash bet on it
After all would someone like Javid tear apart some of the preconceptions of who some minorities should vote for....could we see Dan Dare v the Mekon with the later winning?
Who is this "Keir Starmer" person you are talking about? Is he on the telly or something?
I think he's a character from Viz........ Starmer the Farmer.
Something about his unfeasibly large cucumbers
Nevermind the boring fact that sentencing is nothing to do with the DPP, so not exactly Starmer sending people down
Never mind the boring fact that I didn't actually say Starmer sent anyone down. As DPP, he OVERSAW the prosecutions of those arrested for 'rioting', where the CPS pushed for maximum sentences for serious crimes.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/dec/22/england-riots-all-night-courts
https://www.rs21.org.uk/2020/06/14/whose-side-are-you-on/
Odd to see Starmer as DPP criticised for sentences handed down to offenders – don’t people realise sentencing is the responsibility of the courts, not Prosecutors?
As DPP, Starmer had influence over sentencing, yes:
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/who-does-what-in-sentencing/
"The Director of Public Prosecutions, who is the head of the CPS, is a member of the Sentencing Council."
Obviously wanted to make a bit of a name for himself. I think it's pretty clear now that Starmer is most definitely nothing more than a right-wing stooge, intent on ensuring the UK retains right wing governments for eternity. But; he could bum a pig live on TV, and still some on here would think the sun shines out of his arse.
Is it? The bit Starmer can do something about the front bench seem to have diversity of race and class
Significantly more diverse than most unions leadership
Lol! I love this kind of rubbish on a Monday morning... 😀
right-wing stooge
When people write things like this it immediately makes me question the validity of their other points. Don't like Starmer - fine, especially when reasons are backed with facts. But concluding he is a "right wing stooge" is just nonsense.
Don’t like Starmer – fine, especially when reasons are backed with facts. But concluding he is a “right wing stooge” is just nonsense.
If you bothered to actually do your own research, you'd find plenty to back that up. I've provided plenty just myself. Others have too.
He's a right-wing stooge; end of. And he'll probably bum a pig.
except he really isn't.
You can have an opinion that he is useless, should be replaced etc and that's fine.
Calling him this makes me less likely to listen to your point of view on other points as I am more likely to just assume its nonsense.
I think maybe right wing of the Labour Party stooge would be apt - I think that could probably be fairly classed as centre-right in overall political terms.
I know I keep harping on about it, but pretending to be a unity candidate in the leadership election while keeping secret his blairite funding was a very duplicitous move.
That is a reasonable point of view to have and one that I would listen to. I don't know enough to argue if he is centre left or centre right. One thing for sure though is that he is clearly not doing as well as a lot of people hoped.
Part of me thinks things are going to have to get really bad before people stop voting for the tories, the disaster of Brexit needs to be really felt and fully pinned on this disaster of a government. I don't think it would matter who the Labour leader is/was for just now it would be an extremely difficult job to unite the party and move forward. Its a crap state of affairs, and unfortunately one we are going to have to live through.
His spy photographed attendees at a Labour In Exile Zoom meeting and ex post facto proscribed the organisation and retrospectively threatened expulsion to anyone attending. I paid attention as I worked with one of the characters involved in the early 80s and then and ever since he was a loyal and active LP member. Pretty shabby behaviour in my book.
except he really isn’t.
Except he really, really is. If you haven't realised this by now, then quite frankly you're deluded. Or in denial. Or stupid. Or perhaps even all three.
I don’t know enough to argue if he is centre left or centre right.
Yet you feel qualified to dismiss the fact he is a right wing stooge as 'nonsense'? In spite of plenty of evidence to suggest the actually is? Lol! Ok then.
Pretty shabby behaviour in my book.
Standard behaviour from a right-wing authoritarian. Starmer is destroying the Labour Party, and manoeuvring to completely demonise the Left. The neoliberal project is in full swing. Thatcher must be smiling in her grave.
If you bothered to actually do your own research, you’d find plenty to back that up. I’ve provided plenty just myself. Others have too.
Pretty much puts into context everything you write on here. As soon as that phrase is used you know where it's going.
Lol! Yes dear.
@bridges - your attitude completely puts me off listening to anything you have to say. The concept of him being a right wing stooge is ridiculous, its tin foil hat nonsense.
I generally read and don't comment on this thread because its interesting to see what peoples opinions are. There are some comments I go and research because I find it interesting others I don't.
What I mean by not knowing enough about centre left/right is its quite hard to pinpoint exactly what that is. If you have some interesting articles for me to read send them through. Or should I do like you say and "do my own research" might find some convincing anti vax stuff while I am there...
Ranting angrily and being abusive is not generally a good way to get people to come round to your way of thinking.
Can you clarify what you mean by "right wing stooge".
To me it reads he is secretly working for the tory party and murdoch is some hair brained scheme to rid us of anything but far right politics. If this is what you believe then fine, but to me it is nonsense. If its as Grum says "right wing of the Labour Party stooge" then fair enough.
He's a rightwinger and seeks support wherever he can find it, sponsorship from big businesses etc. He was very much part of the AS smears to discredit the left of the LP (which isn't very left) and he's leading a campaign of fear, intimidation and expulsion going in the party. He doesn't look his own man to me and seems to have ludicrous scripts written for him, win the future, ideas in colours, military occupation as a force for good. On the plus side, if he remains LP leader, more people will begin to realise that parliament wasn't designed for radical change: 'I've got the foreman's job at last.'
your attitude completely puts me off listening to anything you have to say. The concept of him being a right wing stooge is ridiculous, its tin foil hat nonsense.
pssst - don't mention his puppet masters.
@bridges – your attitude completely puts me off listening to anything you have to say. The concept of him being a right wing stooge is ridiculous, its tin foil hat nonsense.
See, if you're going to dismiss other people's views as 'tin foil hat nonsense', whilst ignoring clear signs that UK politics is shifting alarmingly rightwards, with democracy increasingly undermined, with people's rights being eroded and even removed, then do you really think people are going to respect what you have to say? By all means; please counter anything I've posted, with intelligent, well-thought out and reasoned arguments. I've set this challenge a number of times on this very thread. So far, not a single advocate of neoliberalism has been able to do so. All that tends to happen, is pathetic, cowardly attempts at ad hominems. Such as this:
pssst – don’t mention his puppet masters.
You see? Unable to intelligently engage with any real debate, some are reduced to pathetic trolling. Very sad. The level of political ignorance and delusion in our society, as evidenced on this thread and elsewhere, is alarming and depressing. What we once took for granted in our society, such as functioning democracy, worker representation and labour power, an efficient and world-leading NHS, free and universal access to education at all levels, these things have either disappeared or are rapidly being dismantled. And it's people like Starmer, like Blair before him, that are aiding this destruction of our society, by courting wealth and corporate power, and ignoring the very people who vote for them.
BillMC has it right. Starmer isn't going to change anything; he just wants his own slice of the pie. Wake up and smell the coffee; it stinks of shit.
Ranting angrily and being abusive is not generally a good way to get people to come round to your way of thinking.
Actually, Binners hasn't posted for some time on here. A blessing. 😀
All that tends to happen, is pathetic, cowardly attempts at ad hominems
the irony runs deep.
On that note, I can think of a few people in high places who are noted for clutching buttocks with both hands.
please counter anything I’ve posted
My advice is not to bother, and to go and talk to some left wingers away from this forum thread instead. It'll be far more pleasant and enlightening.
He doesn’t look his own man to me and seems to have ludicrous scripts written for him
According to Alexei Sayle Starmer looks like a Thunderbird puppet because someone is pulling his strings.
It's now looking more and more as if that person is currently Peter Mandelson.
The stuff Starmer is coming out with these days is identical to the stuff that Mandelson told Blair to say 25 years ago.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/modernisation-key-future-labour-success-21371875
"We have to modernise and we have to be the party of the next 10 or 20 years, not the party that simply looks back at the last 10 years"
The absurdity of that statement isn't simply because of the weird suggestion that the Labour Party is somehow some sort of old fashion party, but the supreme irony of using the same identical rhetoric and strategy which were used a quarter of a century ago, and automatically assuming that they must be just as affective today.
Labour's election strategy in the 1990s was very very simple, and extremely effective.
Convincing people to abandon their previously held positions and embrace a different political perspective is never an easy exercise for a politician. And yet that is precisely what an opposition party has to do to win power.
Unless of course the party is New Labour and the strategist is Peter Mandelson, in which case that age-old problem is simply binned and a completely new, much simpler strategy, is adopted.
Instead of attempting to convince Tory voters that they are wrong and you are right you simply convince them that they are in fact right and that you completely agree with them.
It was an election winning formula that could not fall to succeed 25 years ago, it convinced people who had voted Conservative all their lives to vote for this new Thatcherite party.
But totally central and vital to its success one thing had to be absolutely certain, that Labour's traditional core vote would, no matter how far to the right the party went, still vote Labour.
Peter Mandelson was convinced beyond any doubt that they would. He told Peter Hain in 1999 to stop fussing over the working class because they had "nowhere else to go".
And he was right of course. For sure some Labour support haemorrhaged to the LibDems but the small amount that did was more than made up by the huge amount of Tory voters who supported Blair.
Throughout the dark days of Thatcher and Major the Labour heartlands, now called the red wall, remained solidly Labour. They were hardly likely to abandon Labour just when it was poised to take power. The tide only slowly started to turn after Blair won his first general election (between 1997 and 2010 Labour lost 5 million votes).
Mandelson, the man who Starmer clearly listens to, thinks the formula which worked 25 years ago will still work today. Despite the talk of 'modernising' he acts like a dinosaur who doesn't accept that Labour voters can't be taken for granted anymore.
There is no reason to assume that Mandelson has any understanding at all of Labour voters, a few days before Labour's devastating defeat in Hartlepool Mandelson declared that 'with brexit done and Corbyn gone the townspeople are ready to return to Labour'. And yet this is the person who Starmer has turned to for advice.
I’ve got the foreman’s job at last.’
That was very much on my mind when I saw how quickly after winning his election Starmer dumped his '10 socialist pledges'...... the working-class can kiss my arse...... I've got the foreman's job at last.
My advice is not to bother, and to go and talk to some left wingers away from this forum thread instead. It’ll be far more pleasant and enlightening.
And yet, here you still are. 😀 Fact is, you don't have any coherent intelligent arguments. Snidey digs is all you have. How sad.
That was very much on my mind when I saw how quickly after winning his election Starmer dumped his ’10 socialist pledges’…… the working-class can kiss my arse…… I’ve got the foreman’s job at last.
I think Ernie's post sums it up pretty well; Starmer, having had a taste of 'power', has pretty much abandoned any principles that made him such a great Human Rights lawyer. In fairness, this happens to many politicians. Very few manage to stick anywhere near their principles, like Corbyn. But yes; Starmer does seem to be going down the exact same route as Blair. Which left us suffering right wing governments without any light at the end of the tunnel. Which is very depressing.
a few days before Labour’s devastating defeat in Hartlepool Mandelson declared that ‘with brexit done and Corbyn gone the townspeople are ready to return to Labour’.
He was never going to say they were going to get defeated before a poll
And yet this is the person who Starmer has turned to for advice.
Which is disappointing if true I'd have expected them to have moved on.
Mandleson can argue quite successfully that labour won with him and introduced many good things. I suppose the greatest sin for the left is that it wasn't what they wanted to see so they hate it as much as they hate it when the conservatives are in power, perhaps even more
Conference for Starmer is make or break, not looking good at the moment.
My advice is not to bother, and to go and talk to some left wingers away from this forum thread instead. It’ll be far more pleasant and enlightening.
Agree, this thread contains the very people you don't want being anything to do with Labour if they ever want to get elected again. They simply don't understand that the majority of people do not want what they think they should want.
I suppose the greatest sin for the left is that it wasn’t what they wanted to see so they hate it
Seeing what Blair is now (ultra rich PR man for Abu Dhabi and other human rights abusing dictators) doesn't exactly make you look back on his legacy fondly. Then there's the still-unfolding PFI disaster.
The sad part for me is that many of the left-wing policies are consistently popular with the electorate but either no one has the balls to campaign for them (Starmer) or when they do everyone (including many on the 'left') tells them they're insane.
Neo-liberal politics is driving us headlong into environmental armageddon but yet dissenters are the crazy ones?
There is no reason to assume that Mandelson has any understanding at all of Labour voters
There's every reason to think that after the shocking last election defeat that no one currently in Labour has any understanding of Labour voters either. Starmer tells you the reason he's got Mandelson involved. He says his number one priority in to be in Government, well, the last person to manage for Labour was Mandelson. I don't think it's any more complex than that.
The sad part for me is that many of the left-wing policies are consistently popular with the electorate
Interesting research paper I read recently suggested that when offered "blind" policies, people heavily associate with the party they last voted for. So, if you show Labour policies to folks who voted Tory, they may assume that a Labour policy is a Tory policy... and vice versa.
For example say you want strong borders, and are shown a "blind" Tory policy in immigration control, a good percentage of folk will "assume" it's a Labour policy if they voted for Labour last election.
Which is disappointing if true I’d have expected them to have moved on.
That's quite an astonishing statement considering you spend all your time dismissing the arguments of those of us who are saying the labour party needs to modernise and mobilise around the politics and economics of today, rather than rehashing outdated and irrelevant new labour strategies which were designed for an entirely different world.
I'll repeat what I've said many times. Those of us who think labour should be looking at stuff like the green new deal, MMT based economics, UBI etc are the ones looking to the future, rather than being stuck in the past. I don't want an old-school socialist state, and I don't want a kleptocratic neoliberal state as we have now.
If we don't start tackling the existential issues that stare us in the face then all we'll have in future is chaos and environmental, economic and political collapse. As grum suggest, those who want to continue with the status quo are the extremists.