Forum menu
Yup I think that seems a decent idea. Makes Starmer/the Labour Party seem more relevant apart from anything else - reminds people that they aren't just whiners!
Johnson has used the fact that Labour are in opposition very smartly to diminish Starmer. Whenever he does his actual job as Leader or the Opposition, Johnson manages to make charges of “talk not action” stick… which is maddening, as it is Johnson who so often refuses to act when it is needed, yet he is the person in the ultimate position to do so.
And, on a thread about Kier Starmer, here we are once again, talking about Jeremy Corbyn. Surprise surprise.
The ironing....
Johnson has used the fact that Labour are in opposition very smartly to diminish Starmer. Whenever he does his actual job as Leader or the Opposition, Johnson manages to make charges of “talk not action” stick…
The PM's job isn't to make the leader of the opposition look good, although Theresa May and John Major had a good go
Starmer needs to start cutting through as do his front bench.
The ironing…
I don't actually think you know what that means.
Oh, I see you sort of did attempt to answer the question I asked about how is Starmer going to change things. Except, you didn't, actually. Some pointless whataboutery, then waffle on about how things are actually ok in your opinion. So; crack on. Vote for Starmer. Or Boris; either way, it won't make any difference...
Anyone else want to attempt to explain how Starmer is going to achieve the kind of changes necessary for our society to move forwards positively?
Anybody?
No?
Ah well. Can't say I didn't try.
Oh, I see you sort of did attempt to answer the question I asked about how is Starmer going to change things. Except, you didn’t, actually. Some pointless whataboutery, then waffle on about how things are actually ok in your opinion. So; crack on. Vote for Starmer. Or Boris; either way, it won’t make any difference…
Did I miss the but where you came up with your definition of democracy and examples of properly democratic countries?
Anyone else want to attempt to explain how Starmer is going to achieve the kind of changes necessary for our society to move forwards positively?
Anybody?
No?
Ah well. Can’t say I didn’t try.
How is he going to do it?
Become PM.
To do this have 326+ labour MPs (possibly less but let's keep it simple)
To do this convince the majority of voters in 326+ constituencies to vote labour at a GE
Anything/ anyone who isn't helping that strategy needs to be sidelined/discarded. He needs to realise that whatever is set out it will not be enough for some loud voices on the left
It needs a Lazer focus and for the conservatives to continue to look increasingly incompetent, Boris will help this as he seems pathologically adverse to reshuffles
The way our system works it's the executive that makes things happen, there can be some disruption from the opposition but it's still the government making the changes to the status quo. So fundamentally the way to make the changes happen is to get 326+ labour MPs.
pointless whataboutery, then waffle
How do you do it? You and your winning ways!
Where did you learn the subtle art of persuasion, diplomacy, and cordial respect?
A stint at the Foreign Office perhaps?
It needs a Lazer focus and for the conservatives to continue to look increasingly incompetent
The conservatives are already looking utterly incompetent, but no one cares.
The public still prefer them to 'bickering preachy do-gooders who only care about illegal immigrants and dole scroungers and being woke'.
How do you do it? You and your winning ways!
Where did you learn the subtle art of persuasion, diplomacy, and cordial respect?
A stint at the Foreign Office perhaps?
The only thing I win at is connect4 when the kids take it easy on me
Not a karate black belt, passport has run out
Don't move in exalted circles with secular saints
The public still prefer them to ‘bickering preachy do-gooders who only care about illegal immigrants and dole scroungers and being woke’.
Start talking about something else then? Bury the rest on page 53 of the manifesto.
Did I miss the but where you came up with your definition of democracy and examples of properly democratic countries?
No, because I never posted up such. Because I'm not talking about 'other countries'; I'm talking about the UK. Because this thread is all about a UK political leader. So as much as you'd clearly love to distract attention away from Armrest, please keep on topic. Thanks.
How is he going to do it?
Become PM.
To do this have 326+ labour MPs (possibly less but let’s keep it simple)
To do this convince the majority of voters in 326+ constituencies to vote labour at a GE
And then what's he going to do?
How do you do it? You and your winning ways!
Where did you learn the subtle art of persuasion, diplomacy, and cordial respect?
A stint at the Foreign Office perhaps?
Nah. A council estate in North London.
And then what’s he going to do?
Pretty much anything he wants as long as it doesn't contradict the manifesto and really that's just a guide. With a parliamentary majority he can push legislation through that makes changes. On the opposition benches he can do little other than oppose and hope there's a rebellion in the governing party. It's the difference between virtue signalling and actually making things happen.
No, because I never posted up such. Because I’m not talking about ‘other countries’; I’m talking about the UK.
But you were adamant in your post that this country (the UK) wasn't a "proper democracy". If you can't come up with other countries as examples of "proper democracy" you must have a vision of it in your head?
The current government has spent a lot of time and energy responding to "events" since the last election, putting in place laws and measures that share no resemblance at all to any manifesto.
Pretty much anything he wants as long as it doesn’t contradict the manifesto
What 'manifesto'? Do you mean this?
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Which seems to be nothing more than a rehash of 'Corbynist' policies. Nothing new at all.
"10. Effective opposition to the Tories
Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament – linked up to our mass membership and a professional election operation. Never lose sight of the votes ‘lent’ to the Tories in 2019. Unite our party, promote pluralism and improve our culture. Robust action to eradicate the scourge of antisemitism. Maintain our collective links with the unions."
"Unite our party" That's going well, isn't it? Labour are haemorrhaging members, votes and party funding*.
Given that he's already u-turned on Covid tests, Freedom of Movement, and his own pledge to 'unite the party' (whilst sacking 90 members of staff), what makes you confident he's going to actually bother with any of those other pledges?
*That's ok because there's always the wealthy donors he can charge £5000 for access to him:
What an absolute shyster. And you put your faith in this duplicitous ****? Wow.
It appears that no one can "unite" the Labour party, but of course anyone who stands to be leader has to state that as an aim. Johnson did a pretty good job of uniting his own party... by kicking out anyone who spoke out against him or his policies. The Conservative party is now less fit to govern, yet more able to win elections, because of his ruthlessness. It's a depressing thought that perhaps the next Labour leader needs to take a similar approach... I hope that doesn't happen, as it is likely to return Labour to the kind of party I couldn't vote for.
Johnson did a pretty good job of uniting his own party… by kicking out anyone who spoke out against him or his policies
Starmer appears to be using exactly the same approach. And all that's happening, is that he is dividing the party even further (oh the irony), and even if he ends up with a safe little cabal of neoliberal yes-people, he'll only be the leader of an utterly toothless and pointless party which will get nowhere near power.
it is likely to return Labour to the kind of party I couldn’t vote for
I am currently not a Labour voter, supporter or member. And I'm not alone. So how does Armrest turn this around? I mean, he is quite good at u-turns, after all...
To be polite, Starmer “needs help”, and also to be seen to be getting help from Labour leaders across the country.
The first line of your link says :
Keir Starmer should invite the Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, and the Welsh first minister, Mark Drakeford, to join a powerful new “political cabinet” to help Labour shape policy and get its message across to voters
The problem I see with that is that Mark Drakeford has currently upset certain Jewish groups.
They are making that now well-used accusation that he is associating with known anti-Semites.
And we all know how damaging it can be to someone's political career if they upset the Zionists.
Of course the Tories are jumping onboard and milking the allegation that Mark Drakeford plans to speak along side anti-Semites.
The antisemitism stick to beat Labour with isn't simply going to go away. Not whilst there are still some people critical of Israel in the party.
The way to stop it is to fight back. Every time Zionists make accusations of antisemitism they should be held responsible for their disgraceful and unconditional support for the IDF.
The IDF is an organisation which uses terrorist tactics, the only reason it is not classified as a terrorist organisation is because it has the support of the United States, from whom it receives billions in military aid.
The IDF carries out collective "punishments", illegal under international law in which completely innocent civilians are targeted, it regularly and indiscriminately shoots children, it engages in war crimes - often during offensives it will use civilians as human shields, it will attack non-military targets such as schools, medical centres, and ambulances and their crews, it helps to facilitate the settlement of civilians in occupied territories - a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, it carries out assassinations, it supports and maintains a racist apartheid system.
If the Zionists who instantly shout "antisemitism" at anyone who dares to criticise Israel were held responsible for their unwavering and uncritical support they give the IDF, and the apartheid system that it props up, that would provide two benefits.
Firstly it would make them think twice about whether they really want a spotlight shone on the appalling crimes being committed to the Palestinian people. And secondly it would indeed highlight an appalling historical injustice which the world seems to tolerate simply due to the heinous crimes committed by Germans and other people European people against the Jewish people.
And the fact they are a nuclear power.
Ah yes it's ok to take donations (which he kept secret until elected) from a executive member of a pro-Israel lobby group founded and funded by an Israel arms manufacturer's billionaire son - but god forbid you would appear with an old lefty film-maker at an event.
I feel it's important to point out that Zionism, historically at least, isn't one simple thing, in fact it encompasses a number or different political ideologies from 'hard' left to ultra-right wing. But modern, 21st century 'Zionism' has become synonymous with endorsing and supporting a far-right apartheid regime. Starmer's support for Zionism 'without qualification' allies himself with some extremely nasty, racist scum, who have no qualms about murdering innocent children. As well as some truly decent, kind, compassionate and caring people, for balance. You HAVE to qualify your support for Zionism; I personally support the right for people to have a homeland, but equally for Palestinians and Israelis. There's Zionism and there's Zionism. Lumping it all together under one roof is both unfair, and dangerous.
Expelling Jewish Labour Party members, many of whom are lifelong members who have been committed to anti-racist and anti-fascist causes for longer than Starmer has been a Labour Party member, could itself be seen as anti-Semitic; by expelling someone who is Jewish, for having the 'wrong' opinions, even though they are actually far more aligned with the traditional values of the party, is discriminatory and sends the message that there are 'the wrong kind of Jews'. That's problematic. Starmer hasn't covered himself in glory there. By not condemning the Israeli regime for it's murderous and genocidal actions, he is complicit in that injustice. Not a good look.
Ah yes it’s ok to take donations (which he kept secret until elected) from a executive member of a pro-Israel lobby group founded and funded by an Israel arms manufacturer’s billionaire son – but god forbid you would appear with an old lefty film-maker at an event.
Awks...
I don't support the idea of an ethno-religious state, and I don't support the idea of a homeland based on religious beliefs that involves evicting other people from it.
Obviously I support the right of jewish people to live safely wherever that may be but I don't support an imperialist, expansionist state that operates an apartheid system. I'm sure according to some that makes me a terrible anti-semite, but I disagree. I'd be equally contemptuous of a christian state behaving in the same way.
And yes I keep banging on about Israel, but it goes to the core of what Labour wants to be - is it on the side of the oppressed, or the oppressor? With Starmer, I think the answer is pretty clear.
I don’t support the idea of a homeland based on religious beliefs that involves evicting other people from it.
Over forty percent of Israelis claim to be "secular Jews" which I think means atheist. Although apparently they are still entitled to a piece of Palestine due to a promise God made to them three thousand years ago, or thereabouts.
For me it is absolutely clear. A British Jew's homeland is Britian, a French Jew's homeland is France, and so on. What isn't their homeland is a bit of prime agricultural land a few thousand miles away in another country and which happens to belong to someone else.
When was the last time there was another country anywhere in the world where they talked of having "settlers"?
This is the 21st century and yet Israel believes that uniquely they are still entitled to engage in colonisation.
We're back to this again?
Yup it's going round in circles, including you complaining about it kelvin - I'm bored laid up with tendinitis do you have anything more interesting to talk about?
We’re back to this again?
Yup, because of a link that you provided. The link suggested that Mark Drakeford should be next to Starmer to help to provide leadership.
Mark Drakeford is currently being criticised by Zionists and Tories for allegedly associating with anti-Semites.
Labour's enemies will keep going back to allegations of antisemitism as often as they can, it is a tactic which has clearly had some success recently.
The response should not to be constantly apologising but to hit back and highlight their disgraceful support for Israeli apartheid.
For me it is absolutely clear. A British Jew’s homeland is Britian, a French Jew’s homeland is France, and so on. What isn’t their homeland is a bit of prime agricultural land a few thousand miles away in another country and which happens to belong to someone else.
It's extremely problematic. Anti-Semitism is deeply rooted in British society, from the monarchy downwards. And of course, the Church is complicit, although the CofE isn't quite as openly hateful as Catholicism. There is a long history of institutional anti-Semitism in Britain, and this pattern is repeated across Europe. Hence why many Jews have never felt 'home' here, and elsewhere. The foundation of Israel was meant to give Jews a homeland where they could be Jewish without fear of attack, hatred or discrimination. Israel could even have been formed in what is now Uganda. How the Israeli state was actually implemented in Palestine, is obviously now considered terrible, but many early Zionists never envisaged the oppression, persecution and murder of innocent people that followed. The West, particularly Britain and the US, failed to ensure that genocide didn't happen.
Modern Israel is a nation flawed beyond any reasonable vision early liberal Zionists may have had. And the West is complicit in how things have evolved there. But if many British and other Jews worldwide, still see Israel as their 'homeland', then the problem isn't necessarily with Zionism itself, but with our own failure to deal effectively with anti-Semitism (real, not the imagined kind opponents of Corbyn still try pushing). But again; this come from the very 'top' of our society, it's not just a few disgruntled 'lefties' the popular media narrative portrays. Rather than argue about the legitimacy or otherwise of the state of Israel, we should be pushing to create a society that all people, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and all others, can feel safe to call Home.
How many folk in the Red Wall seats aren't voting Labour because of Jews?
The anti semitism stuff was used as part of a wider 'these people are dangerous extremists/terrorist sympathisers' narrative that I think landed pretty heavily in red wall seats.
How many folk in the Red Wall seats aren’t voting Labour because of Jews?
Very few I would have thought.
That hasn't put Keir Starmer off treating alleged antisemitism as one of the most important topics which he needs to deal with.
Which is pretty insulting to Black and Asian voters imo.
And he is surprisingly quiet about the UK's racist immigration and nationality laws.
The anti semitism stuff was used as part of a wider ‘these people are dangerous extremists/terrorist sympathisers’ narrative that I think landed pretty heavily in red wall seats.
I think it was the vegetarianism more than the anti-semitism, to be honest.
Anyone who turns their nose up at a steak bake is rightfully viewed with suspicion. I don’t think anyone who isn’t partial to a sausage roll is fit to wield supreme executive power. I know I’m not alone in that opinion
You’d think the warnings would have been heeded with Ed and his bacon button, but alas the same mistakes are being repeated time and time again
The only way for the Labour Party to truly engage with its lost former voters is for Keir Starmer to appear on celebrity Masterchef and cook his nans favourite meat and potato pie recipe
While doing so he could point out that if Boris or any of the Tory cabinet were on they’d definitely cook a stew, put a piece of puff pastry on the top of it and try and pass it off as a pie
And THAT is surely something the whole country can unite against?
It seems that Palestine will be a hot topic at this year's Labour Conference, thanks to Keir Starmer and his allies total obsession with silencing any mention of Palestine.
The last 4 paragraphs are particularly poignant :
Nevertheless, the pro-Palestine group was critical of Labour's handling of the situation. "The key question is how can it be that the PSC, an anti-racist organisation that is the largest Palestine solidarity group in Europe, with a broad base of support and affiliations from 14 trade unions and the TUC could be considered illegitimate to provide a platform speaker?
"More deeply, how can it be that support for the call from Palestinian civil society for a campaign of BDS, a campaign rooted in anti-racist principles, could be regarded as possibly anti-Semitic by a senior official within the Labour Party?"
The group argued that the answer lies in "the significant efforts made over a long period of time by the Israeli state and its allies to delegitimise the global campaign for Palestinian rights, most particularly by conflating that campaign with anti-Semitism."
It added that, "This programme of delegitimisation has sought to prevent the description of the oppression experienced by Palestinians as a form of apartheid; to avoid discussion of the history of ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their lands; and to block support for the Palestinian call for a programme of BDS which would continue until Israel ceases its violations of Palestinian rights."
Although the article also highlights another unrelated but important issue :
"In fact, it was reported that the party is refusing to allow Young Labour's own conference to go ahead this year. Barnard pointed out that an annual Young Labour meeting is a requirement of Labour's rule book. Moreover, she noted that she has had no contact from Starmer's office since his election as leader last year: "No acknowledgement we exist, no reply to emails, nothing."
So Keir Starmer and his general secretary are now waging war against the Labour Party's official youth section. Young Labour, the organisation for party members aged 27 and younger.
The very people who are likely to be the backbone of an election campaign and the most likely to knock on people's doors and deliver leaflets.
The Tories must be pissing themselves. As long as Keir Starmer keeps attacking his own party and not them he will continue to be a gift to them.
I see the hand of Peter Mandelson in all of this.
I see you’re avoiding the pie/stew with a pastry lid on debate, comrade?
You’re not one of them, are you?
I actually totally agree with you binners.
Obviously the amusing way that you like to present things has resulted in you mentioning veggies v meat eaters, but
I do think Corbyn's whole middle-class liberal demeanor put working-class voters off more than any suggestion of having links with Palestinian terrorists.
Am I one of them what?.... middle-class liberals? Nah, definitely not.
Or meat pie eater? I'm not one of those either. I don't eat anything with big eyes that can blink. So fish pie is okay.
I wouldn't eat squid or octopus either.... they are too intelligent, emotional, and sensitive. I would just feel guilty.
Edit : I've just looked back to the last page and see that you edited your post and added the pie lid thing.
I hadn't seen that. It's a controversial subject that I would rather not comment on.
Which seems to be nothing more than a rehash of ‘Corbynist’ policies. Nothing new at all.
So the person implementing the policies has a better suit and it's a betrayal? Is it because he's not the secular Saint? Or because he had a real job before becoming an MP?
How many folk in the Red Wall seats aren’t voting Labour because of
Jews?the constant debate on Palestine rather than the issues in Stoke, Sunderland etc, etc
FIFY
Israel/Palestine is one of the most complex issues to resolve so putting it front and centre of internal party debate means a massive ongoing acrimonious battle without end or resolution. Essentially hobbling Labour as it seeks to get 326+ MPs.
Am I one of them what?…. middle-class liberals? Nah, definitely not.
Nah, mate. I mean one of ‘them’ as in people who class a stew with a puff pastry lid as a pie?
When I’m running the world (not long now) people who commit pie heresy will be first against the wall
Israel/Palestine is one of the most complex issues to resolve so putting it front and centre of internal party debate means a massive ongoing acrimonious battle without end or resolution. Essentially hobbling Labour as it seeks to get 326+ MP
Or ffs would you have said that about apartheid South Africa as well?
What about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that also too complicated and controversial to be discussed by Conference?
How convenient.
The only reason Palestine is proving to be a distraction for Labour is because Starmer and his cohorts are so determined to make alleged antisemitism such a huge big issue.
The Palestinian Solidarity Campaign has had a presence at Labour Conferences for years, the only reason it ever became an issue this year was because Keir Starmer and David Evans wanted to make it an issue.
Sorry binners as I said, the whole pie/stew thing is too controversial for me to delve in, and a distraction.
As a South Londoner I leave all pie related issues to Northerners to sort out.
Unless it's pie and mash issue, in which case I leave it to EastEnders.
How convenient
It's about proportionality. The issues you raise are important, they need to be addressed. I'm not sure what a conference debate or row over a non-debate will do to get labour to 326+ MPs, and until that happens labour can't change UK policy on these issues
Or ffs would you have said that about apartheid South Africa as well?
Did anyone in Labour support apartheid in SA? I'm not old enough to remember.
I’m not sure what a conference debate or row over a non-debate will do to get labour to 326+ MPs
Nothing, I think is the answer.
So why does Starmer seem obsessed with attacking members of his own party rather than the Tories?
As I said, I see the hand of Peter Mandelson in all of this. As Blair's strategist he was convinced that attacking the left and the trade unions was a sure way to win over Tory voters.
However this isn't 1997 and the situation isn't the same. We haven't had 18 years of continuous Tory vote with the soft Tory vote looking for an alternative.
Moreover unlike 1997 Labour's priority right now should be to hang on and win back their vote in the former Labour Heartlands.
Attacking your own party whilst at the same time offering no real opposition to the Tories doesn't appear to be the most effective way to do this.
And certainly both opinion polls and actual election results don't suggest that it is a strategy which is working.
Although I don't think that fact is likely to influence Peter Mandelson - he only knows one tune.
Did anyone in Labour support apartheid in SA? I’m not old enough to remember.
No of course not. Why would anyone in the Labour Party support a racist apartheid system?
Even in the Tory Party very few publicly supported apartheid. Obviously many did privately and even Thatcher at least publicly claimed to oppose it. Although she repeatedly frustrated attempts to apply effective international sanctions.
No of course not. Why would anyone in the Labour Party support a racist apartheid system?
So there wasn't a 'Labour Friends of Apartheid South Africa' group with half the shadow cabinet in it? Weird.
No there wasn't. Ironically, or perhaps not so ironically, Apartheid South Africa's only real friend internationally was Israel. IIRC Israel helped the Apartheid regime develop nuclear weapons.
Btw it should never be forgotten that Jews were at the forefront of the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa, including within the leadership of the ANC - Jews such as Joe Slovo and Ruth First were persecuted and imprisoned by the regime.
Edit ; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons
So why does Starmer seem obsessed with attacking members of his own party rather than the Tories?
Is he attacking? Or trying to lead?
If your own party is uncontrollable how are you going to convince the electorate that you can run the country and get 326+ MPs? Without 326+ you are basically virtue signalling to the converted with nearly zero power to bring legislation forward
Uncontrollable?? What do you mean uncontrollable? Is he some sort of control freak?
You mean there are people in the Labour Party who don't entirely agree with him on some things?
Isn't that the point of having an annual Conference? If everyone agreed on everything it wouldn't be necessary to hold a conference.
And why would the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign being at Conference, as they have for years, suddenly become an issue?
He needs to show control by only allowing Labour Friends of Israel at Conference?
Why is he refusing to engage with Labour's youth wing and trying to silence them?
I don't think turning the Labour Party into some sort of Stalinist organisation is the way forward.
I know he's doing whatever he can to drive anyone who disagree with him out of the party but it doesn't appear to be an election winning strategy, unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
And it's left the party in a deep financial crisis, which won't exactly help in its election campaign.
No money, no activists, no policies, no vision...... onwards to victory!
Wouldn’t it be great if, seeing as they ultimately have absolutely zero impact on the situation, all factions of the Labour Party agreed to STFU about Israel and Palestine for a year or two.
Maybe dedicate the time spent endlessly banging on about it to address some issues of some actual relevance to the average UK voter?
A mad thought, I know.
Wouldn’t it be great if, seeing as they ultimately have absolutely zero impact on the situation, all factions of the Labour Party agreed to STFU about Israel and Palestine for a year or two.
Maybe dedicate the time spent endlessly banging on about it to address some issues of some actual relevance to the average UK voter?
A mad thought, I know.
I don't think they need to go to the point of STFU. The issues are important and need some open debate. What needs to change is it being a defining issue for the party where it's the thing people associate with it and don't remember anything else.
The defining issues need to be jobs, climate, health, social care, housing, community etc
It's what will help get to 326+
Isn’t that the point of having an annual Conference? If everyone agreed on everything it wouldn’t be necessary to hold a conference.
Is conference a shop window for non-members who you want to vote for you (always plenty of TV coverage). Or is a place to be denounced as red Tories? Is having visceral fights on foreign policy issues which are important but not that important to the people you need to vote for you really going to help get to 326+?
Conference is important because it in part starts to set future policy, it's a place where the pitch starts to get 326+
What needs to change is it being a defining issue for the party where it’s the thing people associate with it and don’t remember anything else.
Unfortunately the right wing of the party who made it a defining issue by harping on about it incessantly can't put the cat back in the bag now.
A mad thought, I know.
The mad thought is to think that the Zionists, Blairites, and Tories, might suddenly stop throwing allegations of antisemitism with gay abandon at every opportunity.
Their latest target is the Welsh Labour leader is Mark Drakeford, so they are clearly not going to do that anytime soon.
The whole antisemitism media extravaganza is their creation, they are not going to suddenly stop, especially as it has been so successful in silencing criticism of Israel and causing a complete distraction from real issues.
What is also mad binners, is you saying that it is such a non-issue among Labour voters that vegetarianism is more of an issue than antisemitism, and then claiming that it is such an important issue which in putting people off voting Labour that the debate about Palestine and Israel should be buried for a year or two.
I agree, most Labour voters don't have the question of Palestine and Israel at the top of their priority list. Plus abandoning and burying your principles is of course the Keir Starmer way - just look how obscenely quickly after getting elected as leader he abandoned his 10 socialist pledges.
However it is not entirely true. There are 2 million Muslim voters in the UK which is a sufficient number to swing an election. It is a fact that many are uneasy about the creeping islamophobia which has crept into the Labour Party since Keir Starmer became leader, to the point that they are questioning whether they feel able to vote Labour.
Is conference a shop window for non-members who you want to vote for you (always plenty of TV coverage)
It's compulsory viewing for millions of voters every year. Can there be anything more fascinating than watching a live party conference?
It’s compulsory viewing for millions of voters every year. Can there be anything more fascinating than watching a live party conference?
Makes the TV news, radio, papers, social media etc etc
They might not be watching it live but they will see something from it. The question is whether it's the internal fighting or policies and ideas preparing the ground for 326+
However it is not entirely true. There are 2 million Muslim voters in the UK which is a sufficient number to swing an election. It is a fact that many are uneasy about the creeping islamophobia which has crept into the Labour Party since Keir Starmer became leader, to the point that they are questioning whether they feel able to vote Labour.
My understanding is that the majority already vote labour, the current infighting just sheds votes
I agree, most Labour voters don’t have the question of Palestine and Israel at the top of their priority list.
So sensible to focus on their priorities for 326+ then
Plus abandoning and burying your principles is of course the Keir Starmer way – just look how obscenely quickly after getting elected as leader he abandoned his 10 socialist pledges.
And we see how high the mountain KS has to climb due to internal labour fight with the left
You can virtue signal all you want and you'll be as effective as JC was in 40 years as a legislator at getting just one policy on the books
When you have 326+ you can legislate, make the laws, change people's lives for the better.
My understanding is that the majority already vote labour, the current infighting just sheds votes
That is exactly my point, the growing islamophobia which has crept into the Labour Party is putting some Labour voters off.
They need to stop screaming "antisemitism" at anyone who speaks in favour of Palestinian rights.
And stop giving the Tories and Daily Mail headline writers a stick with which to beat Labour.
So sensible to focus on their priorities for 326+ then
So why isn't Starmer doing it?
Why is he focusing on fighting alleged antisemitism and expelling members?
My understanding is that the majority already vote labour, the current infighting just sheds votes
Is there any research on what motivates people to vote Labour other than "I hate the ****ing Tories"? Which is a perfectly valid reason but not very useful in formulating policy. You can either have model/manifesto/philosphy and hope people ashere to it and/or you can take positions on topical/controversial subjects and hope people take sides.
I generally vote for what conforms to my view of social justice but I realise that is rare and it's easier to get votes with meaningless slogans such as "take back control".
Why do people vote Labour other than hating the Tories?
Why do people vote Labour other than hating the Tories?
Well traditionally it was because they knew that Labour served their best interests and that the Tories didn't.
Great reforms such as the creation of the NHS, decriminalisation of homosexuality, race relations, equal pay, etc, reinforced that perception.
In recent times however it's all become rather blurred and the distinction less apparent. Labour politicians declaring that they are "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" doesn't quite strike the same chord.
Labour and Starmer have got to decide what they want to be. It feels like a straight choice to me:
1. Become the party of sensible folk who want a prosperous country and who don't drink Carling. Outward-looking, positive and worldly.
2. Become a workers' Nationalist party and try to win back their Red Wall Racists. Introspective, negative and parochial. Drink of choice = Carling.
Starmer has had long enough. The Tories are useless but he hasn't got the balls to do one thing or the other. His 'lost' support don't respond much to anything other than tub thumping nationalism. His potential 'new' support still don't trust Labour with their economy.
I know which option I'd go for, but it ain't my calculation to make.
So why isn’t Starmer doing it?
Why is he focusing on fighting alleged antisemitism and expelling members?
Because he is crap, have we not agreed that already.
I think it's blatantly obvious now, that the real problem with Labour isn't after all the 'lefties', or Corbyn, or anti-Semitism, but Neoliberalism. Which is a failed project (see: the Environment and Capitalist Imperialism). Yet had the neoliberals in the party actually got behind Corbyn in 2017, after it was apparent that there WAS support for his policies, instead of being hypocritical duplicitous ****s, and united behind the democratically elected leader, then we might actually be in a situation where things might not be perfect, but they'd be a darn sight better than they are now, as we might not have a ****ing tory government. Yet some people are obviously still deluded or naive enough to believe it's all Corbyn's fault. So crack on; that approach is working well for you, isn't it?
When you have 326+ you can legislate, make the laws, change people’s lives for the better.
And how do you think, even if Armrest did become PM, he'd actually achieve that? Have you any ideas? Do you really think he'd enact the kind of fairly radical changes needed, to steer the UK back in the right direction? And if so; in the face of overwhelming evidence he wouldn't do anything like that, that he hasn't got the balls to be able to stand up to corporate power and interests, why do you keep placing your faith in what is clearly a lame duck?
Become a workers’ Nationalist party and try to win back their Red Wall Racists. Introspective, negative and parochial. Drink of choice = Carling.
Ha a direct snub to Marxist Vegetarians against Carling.
So why isn’t Starmer doing it?
Why is he focusing on fighting alleged antisemitism and expelling members?
He's probably being told that Boris will steal any policy that looks in any way popular
And possibly he's playing wack-a-mole with the "good socialists" who take the Palestine issue to heart and start getting carried away with the rhetoric
Plus settling the claims from JC's time coming out from mishandling of reports and personal data
As I've said earlier, his conference matters, it's his first proper platform both for the party and nationally
Do you really think he’d enact the kind of fairly radical changes needed, to steer the UK back in the right direction?
He will be far more able with 326+ than without. I also think you highlight the left's problem, everything seems to have to be done immediately, Blair/Brown had three terms in office, the left operate like they'll have one. You can build support with positive change rather than destroying it with upheaval, losers are always louder than winners.
And if so; in the face of overwhelming evidence he wouldn’t do anything like that, that he hasn’t got the balls to be able to stand up to corporate power and interests, why do you keep placing your faith in what is clearly a lame duck?
Some people will never be happy with Starmer, he isn't pure enough for them, ever.
For the pragmatists he's the only game in town, no-one has a alternative to Starmer that doesn't have considerable baggage, attract similar levels of opprobrium just from different people, and won't melt in the hot seat as LOTO
As for corporate interests, I think he's more likely to take them on and win (again) than most. It's useless taking them on and losing.
Or are you suggesting the resurrection of the secular saint.......
no-one has a alternative to Starmer that doesn’t have considerable baggage, attract similar levels of opprobrium just from different people, and won’t melt in the hot seat as LOTO
This is still key. The who, the when and the how, when it comes to replacing Starmer. I've not seen any realistic answer to this yet. No, he's not good enough to win the next election... but at the moment, as during his election campaign, perhaps he's still the best on offer in the parliamentary party. Not the best politician, but the best MP to have as party leader right now. A depressing thought, and I'd love to hear suggestions to the contrary.
Ha a direct snub to Marxist Vegetarians against Carling.
I forgot that faction.
The fact is that Tory support is more amorphous than traditional Labour support. If you can convince enough people to vote out of pure self interest, then the Tories will always win. Even better when you can tell different groups different lies via targeted social media. Throw in a bit of cheap racism (it's a secret ballot, remember, indulge your inner prejudices).
I would like to see a party emerge that just had "**** off if you're stupid, you won't fit in here" as it's main slogan. Everyone else, who has half an inkling how the world really works is welcome.
Leave the Red Wall to dig their own graves.
It is interesting that the reason given for not challenging Starmer's leadership of the party is that there is no one remotely capable of doing a better job.
It's interesting for two reasons. Firstly what happened to the Labour Party which has led to a situation that the very best they have is someone who is so clearly totally incompetent?
And secondly why did this same consideration not stop the Parliamentary Labour Party from throwing their weight behind Owen Smith, a monstrously appalling candidate, when he challenged Corbyn for the leadership?
They were happy to challenge Corbyn when he was leader, despite the obvious damage and bad publicity it would cause the Labour Party, and yet now not the slightest hint of challenging Starmer.
All the opinion polls of the last few months have placed Labour share of the vote firmly in the low 30s, which is exactly what Labour achieved in the last general election. And yet the Parliamentary Labour Party's attitude is 'let Starmer crack on'.
It is clear, if ever there was any doubt, that the Parliamentary Labour Party's opposition to Corbyn had nothing ever to do with poor poll ratings, as they claimed, but instead his determination to challenge the status quo, his determination not to act like a Tory, his determination fight austerity and not let the Tories screw the British people and their social services with lies about needing to have a budgetry surplus.
It’s interesting for two reasons. Firstly what happened to the Labour Party which has led to a situation that the very best they have is someone who is so clearly totally incompetent?
Well, partly, many capable MPs voluntarily left the parliamentary party under the last leader. And others lost their seats. But Starmer is not "the very best they have", I didn't mean to claim that, but he still might be the best person to be in the post right now. There are many better politicians in the parliamentary party, in my opinion, who I would love to see become leader with less than 18 months 'till an election, but not right now.
He will be far more able with 326+ than without.
You're really not understanding the question. WHAT is he going to do, to reverse the situation we have currently, where we have a tory government sliding towards right-wing fascism, aided by the increased corporatisation and privatisation of essential public services, where we are seeing homelessness and deprivation increasing at alarming rates, where access to legal services is becoming increasingly more difficult, and where human rights are being eroded? WAHAT is he going to do to reverse a trend started by Thatcher, and continued by BLair, then subsequent tory governments? WAHAT? That's the question I'm asking you; so answer THAT.
Some people will never be happy with Starmer, he isn’t pure enough for them, ever.
It's got nothing to do with 'purity'. Armrest has nothing to be pure about. He's just ****ing useless. So why are you still backing him? Even most of the other former Armresters on here have deserted him. Why are you still in his thrall?
Leave the Red Wall to dig their own graves.
Trouble is, there's far too big a Blue Wall round London, that needs breaking down if Labour are going to win over a majority. Ignoring that for decades has left Labour far too reliant on the so-called Red Wall, most of whom have forgotten about Thatcherism and the damage it did. Which is why they voted tory; all about 'taking back control', wasn't it? That's worked out well for them. Trouble is, for al the racists and ignorant narrow-minded ****s, there's also lots of decent people too. They just don't drink in the Rose and Crown, Ramsbottom...
The PLP reaction to Corbyn says more about Corbyn than the PLP. He singularly failed to build a network outside his fellow travellers and did nothing as a legislator. Then when elected leader told everyone to step into line and essentially not do a Corbyn.
As for the "why are we here?" analysis, it's arguably not Starmer's fault, he is a late entry into the PLP and as far as I know didn't hold a senior party position before that. If I'm wrong I'm sure you'll correct me
As for
It is interesting that the reason given for not challenging Starmer’s leadership of the party is that there is no one remotely capable of doing a better job
Open to your suggestions, any mention of Richard Burgon will be taken as humorous.
Labour needs to either go with Starmer or oust him with someone with more talent asap, whichever way it goes they need to have a clear message that cuts through otherwise it's another cycle of opposition
My understanding is that the majority already vote labour, the current infighting just sheds votes
Yes, taking large blocks of votes for granted has worked out really well for Labour hasn't it.
Some people will never be happy with Starmer, he isn’t pure enough for them, ever.
We'd just like him to be what he pretended to be to get elected, ie a more competent, slicker presentation of the government he was a part of previously.
Labour needs to either go with Starmer
And what would be the point? He's nothing more than an establishment corporate stooge! Have you really not seen that yet??? He's not going to change anything; you'd just be stuck with a tory with a red rosette instead of a blue one. But you don't seem to think there's much wrong with UK society, so perhaps Starmer is perfect for you. Trouble is; you need people like me to vote Labour. And we won't. So whatcha gonna do now?
WAHAT? That’s the question I’m asking you; so answer THAT.
Mute point unless he has 326+, you aren't legislating unless you are in government
As labour is likely to move in your desired direction in any case the discussion revolves around the speed of implementation and whether it's iterative change or big bang.
You are the one missing the point completely, without 326+ it's all virtue signalling and "winning the argument". 326+ gets you legislating.
But keep raging that he's a red Tory and establishment etc etc. You are clearly "winning the argument"
And what would be the point? He’s nothing more than an establishment corporate stooge! Have you really not seen that yet??? He’s not going to change anything; you’d just be stuck with a tory with a red rosette instead of a blue one.
Trouble is; you need people like me to vote Labour. And we won’t. So whatcha gonna do now?
Labour need people not like you to vote for them, the ones who held their noses and voted conservative for the first or second time in the most recent elections. The ones labelled as Tories, racists, bigots, selfish, uncaring etc etc
Mute point unless he has 326+
It's 'moot'.
You are the one missing the point completely, without 326+ it’s all virtue signalling and “winning the argument”. 326+ gets you legislating.
Legislating for what? you really believe Armrest is going to challenge the status quo? Is he bollocks; he doesn't have the balls.
But keep raging that he’s a red Tory and establishment etc etc. You are clearly “winning the argument”
You need our votes. So how's YOUR argument holding up?
Labour need people not like you to vote for them
Labour need all the votes they can get, if they are to win an election. I'm sure I'm not alone in not wanting to vote Labour at the moment. So how are you going to win us over? By telling us we're not wanted? Great strategy!
If you don't understand, or can't answer the question, just say so, instead of making yourself look silly by trying to appear intelligent. 'Mute'. Lol! 😀
You are the one missing the point completely, without 326+ it’s all virtue signalling and “winning the argument”. 326+ gets you legislating.
Ironically it is you that is missing the point, banging on about 326+
I have lost count how many times you have mentioned 326+. Do you not realise that nothing Starmer is doing suggests that 326+ will be achieved?
Midterm a Tory government should be trailing the Opposition. Instead, if there was an election tomorrow all the overwhelming evidence is that the result will be the same as last general election.
If you don’t understand, or can’t answer the question, just say so, instead of making yourself look silly by trying to appear intelligent. ‘Mute’. Lol!
I bow to your superior spelling and intelligence. I salute your indefatigability.
I look forward to hearing your choice for the leadership of Labour after Starmer
Do you not realise that nothing Starmer is doing suggests that 326+ will be achieved?
I agree, I look forward to hearing your choice for the leadership of Labour after Starmer
I bow to your superior spelling and intelligence. I salute your indefatigability.
It wasn't actually the spelling, spelling mistakes I don't care about, I do it myself all the time I'm sure; it was the lack of actual understanding of what the word 'moot' actually means. I'm embarrassed for you.
Some (hopefully) enlightening and interesting reading for you:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/jan/16/mind-your-language-moot-point
Top tip: if you're going to a knife fight, take a gun. Not a spoon.
Just a small point but I've noticed some of this type of language popping up from time to time
he doesn’t have the balls.
Now I'm sure we all agree Keith is manly and his behaviour reflects his manliness adequately, using this sort of language perpetuates the myth that real men are strong/brave/principled or not manly if they don't behave as you demand which we know is a sexist nonsense
It's not just one poster and I appreciate it's societal habit rather than deliberate sexism.
Could we stop or at least mix it up a bit between our diverse society👍
I’m embarrassed for you.
I'm sure you are not, but if you are I'm sure it confirms your views.
I still look forward to hearing your choice for the leadership of Labour after Starmer
Care to enlighten us with your pick to take labour into power?
Now I’m sure we all agree Keith is manly and his behaviour reflects his manliness adequately, using this sort of language perpetuates the myth that real men are strong/brave/principled or not manly if they don’t behave as you demand which we know is a sexist nonsense
It’s not just one poster and I appreciate it’s societal habit rather than deliberate sexism.
Could we stop or at least mix it up a bit between our diverse society
Fair enough. I hadn't stop to consider that, and you're right.
He's still a gutless coward though.
I agree, I look forward to hearing your choice for the leadership of Labour after Starmer
Are we back to that ffs?
"Don't point out how useless Starmer is and how disastrous the polls, there's no one better"
Don't rock the boat, eh?
The Blairites were more than happy to rock the boat when Corbyn was leader, and the best they could come up with was Owen Smith ffs.
And the damage they inflected on the Labour Party was unimportant to them, in fact damaging the chances of Corbyn becoming Prime Minister was a definite goal of theirs.
The level of double standards and hypocrisy in British politics today is truly staggering.