Forum menu
Jess Phillips would get my vote.
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 opposite, it's about looking for someone who can mobilise labour to provide an alternative to the conservatives that has a chance of being elected in the future
It's about the people to watch, Starmer clearly isn't winning the left over, they'll never be his fans. So who can they get behind who could get broad electoral support and offer a decent chance of getting into office. Who are the thinkers from the left in the labour PLP who can be credible to a broad spectrum of voters and party activists? Can they enthuse a party and an electorate?
Or is the challenge a generational one and labour need to rebuild the PLP and prevent the farce of people like Jared O'Mara getting on a ballot paper to create a PLP that has talent throughout?
If you cannot name a successor in the PLP now it's likely that unless the conservatives really stuff it up that it's going to be another 8 years in opposition for Labour at least.
Jess Phillips would get my vote.
But not many votes from anyone else unfortunately. She would put even more people off than Starmer has. I don't personally think she is bad, but can't see her being successful.
I would probably go with Clive Lewis but I don't think he would be successful either.
That is the problem, as far as leader goes, the Labour party have.
He’s still a gutless coward though.
Some people won't even name their preference for the successor to Starmer as LOTO
I guess there are different standards for bravery in public office than on an internet forum
So who can they get behind who could get broad electoral support and offer a decent chance of getting into office.
Much as I think Starmer is useless and pulled a fast one to get elected leader, I think the problem is much deeper than that. The Labour Party is kind of an anachronism, and doesn't know what it's supposed to be/stand for in a mostly post-industrial society. The Tories have completely stolen their thunder with their hard right culture war and their lefty economic policies (talking about tax rises, handing out billions to support people, etc),
The Labour Party is kind of an anachronism, and doesn’t know what it’s supposed to be/stand for in a mostly post-industrial society.
Nothing stopping an inspiring leader changing the direction, who is your best pick?
Starmer clearly isn’t winning the left over, they’ll never be his fans.
You say that but to my utter amazement many on the left of the party did indeed vote for him to become party leader, with his 10 socialist pledges scam. Despite Starmer's concerted attempts to oust the former leader which they had twice overwhelmingly voted for.
It's frankly staggering how clueless the metropolitan left can be.
Who are the thinkers from the left in the labour PLP who can be credible to a broad spectrum of voters and party activists? Can they enthuse a party and an electorate?
Part of the problem, and it's a huge one, is the legacy of New Labour where control freakery and being on-message was the order of the day. The sort of people which you describe would not have thrived in New Labour. Any independent thinker with a vision would have been seen as a threat to Blair/New Labour and would not have been selected for a winnable seat, or simply wouldn't have wasted their time and not bothered.
New Labour produced clones, on-message clones.
I think you are right to ask if it is a generational problem BnD, imo it is at least a generational problem.
The Labour Party needs to reconnect with ordinary voters in the way that it once did. It needs to not only represent them but they need to be part of the struggle. If and how that can be achieved is a whole different debate imo.
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.
Which is why you have to appeal to intellect (or flatter people that you are) whilst painting the New Tories (accurately) as the party of the Carling-drinking, cash-in-hand, oi oi saveloy, mouth-breathing brigade. Unfortunately, the Blue Wall in the Home counties suspect (rightly) that Johnson and his ilk have no intention whatsoever of 'levelling up' and are laughing their tits off at the Red Wall Racists and can't believe their luck in conning them.
The New Tory trick has been to dupe dupes.
I think you are right to ask if it is a generational problem BnD, imo it is at least a generational problem.
Can be fixed quicker with good leadership
The Labour Party needs to reconnect with ordinary voters in the way that it once did. It needs to not only represent them but they need to be part of the struggle. If and how that can be achieved is a whole different debate imo.
Is there such a thing as an ordinary voter anymore? We are increasingly balkanising into separate identity groups so "our" interests are getting heard. Is there someone who can reinvigorate the concept of the "the common weal" on the left?
Yeah, the overwhelming majority of people are just ordinary voters. Whatever their colour, sexual preferrences, creed, whatever.
Unfortunately, the Blue Wall in the Home counties suspect (rightly) that Johnson and his ilk have no intention whatsoever of ‘levelling up’ and are laughing their tits off at the Red Wall Racists and can’t believe their luck in conning them.
I disagree in part, I think that there is some effort, treasury jobs and DIT are moving to Darlington for example, the waiting King in the North Rishi wants an easy commute home. The issue is that to appease the south they are trying to do it on the cheap. All that means is no-one is happy and they get flak from everyone
Yeah, the overwhelming majority of people are just ordinary voters. Whatever their colour, sexual preferrences, creed, whatever.
So do Labour "de-balkanise" their approach and go for a broad offer to voters and avoid the rabbit holes of contentious issues until they are in power? Can the party hold together if they try that? Or does it need to reform from its current state into this new "ordinary decent people" party (being ODP isn't dependent on race, sexuality, gender identity, or even voting history )?
Who could lead this reform, without leadership it's a pipedream surely?
So do Labour “de-balkanise” their approach and go for a broad offer to voters and avoid the rabbit holes of contentious issues until they are in power?
Yes, simple slogans or even polices that people can understand the intent of. If you can see what a party intends to do at a high level you should be able to either agree with that and vote for them or vote for another party.
Who says the Tories are selfish and lacking in compassion eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/03/labour-tory-councils-asylum-seekers
Who says the Tories are selfish and lacking in compassion eh?
Possibly due to labour running councils in areas with lower housing costs and more available housing, Scotland seems an anomaly with low numbers which are probably concentrated in Glasgow
It would be something you would have thought you could campaign with.... Positively, I.e. labour councils step up showing what is best about Britain etc etc
and avoid the rabbit holes of contentious issues until they are in power?
And then what?
We know for a fact that Starmer will say whatever he feels he needs to say to get elected.
Then once elected will simply ditch any commitments which he felt necessary to make.
Is that an acceptable way to achieve power? No of course not. It is an attack against democracy, and it should be illegal despite the fact that it isn't.
The ends justify the means has been used by every junta that has seized power and trampled on democracy.
Anyone who knocks on people's doors in a general election urging them to vote Labour with Starmer as leader will be part of a scam as far as I'm concerned. There is absolutely no way of knowing how Starmer would behave as prime minister once elected. Any Labour manifesto would of course be completely worthless.
The only thing we can be truly sure of is that he can't be trusted.
The only thing we can be truly sure of is that he can’t be trusted.
I think he is more trustworthy on the personal integrity front than any of the New Tory Party (aka the ENP).
Starmer's problem is that he needs his racists back.
Possibly due to labour running councils in areas with lower housing costs
I reckon it's probably simpler than that. Recently arrived refugees (I hate the term asylum seekers) have a tendency to be accommodated in large cities. Labour disproportionately controls more large cities than the Tories.
I guess there are different standards for bravery in public office than on an internet forum
Lol! There's a slight difference between running a country, and not bothering to respond to a clear failure to answer a simple question on an internet forum. Just to help you out there, because you appear not to know that...
Which is why you have to appeal to intellect (or flatter people that you are) whilst painting the New Tories (accurately) as the party of the Carling-drinking, cash-in-hand, oi oi saveloy, mouth-breathing brigade. Unfortunately, the Blue Wall in the Home counties suspect (rightly) that Johnson and his ilk have no intention whatsoever of ‘levelling up’ and are laughing their tits off at the Red Wall Racists and can’t believe their luck in conning them.
Yep. The Blue Wall are sitting pretty, have more or less everything they need, and no intention of giving that up for 'scroungers' etc. Which is why the tories appeal so much to them. Which is why the tories pump so much more money into such areas. The irony being, that those who have the least to fear, seem to fear the most.
What happened with the Red Wall, is that instead of driving on with 'Education, Education, Education', Blair actually made education a lot more difficult to access for millions of working class people (keep the plebs ignorant, and they'll be more pliable and docile, and easily manipulable). If traditional jobs are disappearing, then people need to be educated and trained in new areas and skills. NeoLabour and the tories didn't bother with that. Blair wasn't bothered that that would impact on Labour's traditional support, as he'd already long made his own plans for life after politics. He's done ok for himself. And what we've ended up is a load of mushrooms; kept in the dark and fed on shit. And a Labour party full of Neoliberals.
Starmer’s problem is that he needs his racists back.
Problem being, that he doesn't know how to turn those racists into decent members of society, because he doesn't actually have a plan to create that better society. He hasn't got a clue how to help enable people to re-educate themselves, and understand things better. So instead, he resorts to flag-shagging. Clueless useless ****.
The only thing we can be truly sure of is that he can’t be trusted.
Word.
We know for a fact that Starmer will say whatever he feels he needs to say to get elected.
The perceived breach of trust when he backtracked from renewing his 10 commitments runs really deep clearly. It seems to be a wound that cannot heal.
Is that an acceptable way to achieve power? No of course not. It is an attack against democracy, and it should be illegal despite the fact that it isn’t.
I think the strong convention is that you only put things in the queen's speech that were in the manifesto. If he is establishment then he'll surely stick to that, otherwise the premise (of being a establishment stooge) is false. The easy way to have flexibility to tackle some of the important long standing issues is to give yourself room to manoeuvre in the text of the manifesto (the bury it on page 53 strategy). So what you want might not be explicit but implied to give the opportunity to do something without a stupid row before the election
The problem is no matter what he puts in large parts of the left don't trust him and never will, having a radical manifesto won't be enough (you will believe he won't implement it), actually getting in and legislating won't be enough (you will want more).
The logic is surely as the left clearly can't come up with an alternative to Starmer (still waiting Bridges, you know you want to say the name (unless it's Burgon)), they either suck it up as get behind him and bury their misgivings or Starmer disconnects from the left and remodels labour his way with people who will campaign for him.
Blair actually made education a lot more difficult to access for millions of working class people
Citation needed for this statement
He hasn’t got a clue how to help enable people to re-educate themselves, and understand things better.
I thought all that was needed was to send you on a tour of pubs and you'll help their re-education of racists etc
The perceived breach of trust when he backtracked from renewing his 10 commitments runs really deep clearly. It seems to be a wound that cannot heal.
I don't understand what that means. He didn't have to "renew" anything, he just had to stick to what he claimed he believed.
And it's not a case of a wound that won't heal, it's a simple observation. He can't be trusted to say what he believes.
It is obvious that he is not a conviction politician and that he is not motivated by principles.
He just wants to move into Number 10.
His strategy appears to be to wait for Johnson to shoot himself in the foot and then sneak in.
It is a strategy. It's just not a very good one.
The logic is surely as the left clearly can’t come up with an alternative to Starmer (still waiting Bridges, you know you want to say the name (unless it’s Burgon)), they either suck it up as get behind him and bury their misgivings
Has that been offered as an option for 'the left'? Cos it seems like unless they convincingly swear their undying love of an apartheid regime they won't be welcome in the party anyway.
The perceived breach of trust
It's not just 'perceived' though is it. He deliberately kept his anti-Corbyn/Blairite/pro-Israel funding secret (despite numerous requests and full transparency from other candidates) until it was too late, and pretended to be a socialist/unity candidate to get elected leader. Then carried out a purge of left wing members including the former leader and even ejecting jewish life-long members for not being the right type of jews, and abandoned his famous '10 pledges'. Then turned on the labour youth movement.
And TBH a lot would be forgiven if he was actually showing any sign that he might have the vaguest possibility of winning.
But to abandon your supposed principles to supposedly make yourself electable, then failing utterly - well... He's very lucky there's no one else very good waiting in the wings isn't he.
He just wants to move into Number 10.
I’d love him to move into no10. But it simply won’t happen. I agree, he doesn’t appear to have a good strategy to achieve that. Or the personality required to get people to accept you have a strategy when you don’t (unlike the PM).
As for not sticking to his leadership election promises… since then every politician should have changed their priorities, approach and commitments… the world has changed in that time. The thing for me isn’t that he is saying different things, it is that he isn’t saying enough that is new, or fresh, or sounds vital. Some might say he’s holding back ‘till an election. I don’t buy that, I think he is just as boring as he currently appears to be. Unlike others, I don’t think he has an integrity problem, but I do think he is dull, dull, dull. Modern politics does not allow that. And don’t cite Biden… what works for a relatively short campaign against Trump doesn’t work with years to go ‘till an election against a shape shifting opponent like the Conservatives.
Has the world fundamentally changed? How so? Rich people got much richer?
While you’re discussing sticking to the policy commitments that Jeremy Corbyn carried down from the mountain, carved in tablets of stone, the Tory’s are about to raise national insurance (read: increase tax in a way that will hit the poorest hardest)
Citation needed for this statement
It was Blair who signed off student fees within days on becoming PM IIRC.
And binners turns up on the Starmer thread to try to take the attention away from Starmer and onto Jeremy Corbyn.
Good to see everyone sticking to their scripts.
As for not sticking to his leadership election promises… since then every politician should have changed their priorities, approach and commitments… the world has changed in that time.
Every politician should have changed their principles in the last few months because the world has also changed?
How long do you think politicians should hold onto their principles for..... until the end of the month?
To remind you here's Starmer's 10 pledges. It's from Jewish Voice for Labour so I don't know if that makes them anti-Semitic but they have very helpfully included when Starmer binned a particular pledge.
Christ there is some depressing reading on that site. Fans of the phrase 'puppet masters' used to refer directly to jewish people might be interested in this one - this guy still has a ministerial post! Unbelievable hypocrisy.
“Steve deleted the tweet and did not mean to cause offence” said Starmer, dismissing calls for Reed’s resignation
Imagine if this has been Corbyn or one of his allies, the outrage would have gone on for weeks - I don't even remember this being reported. But he was one who was willing to swear his undying love for Israel and how right Starmer was to kick him out, so I guess he's ok.
It contains this little gem:
Asked how he would respond to the view that he could not completely absolve himself given that he served under the ex-leader, Mr Reed said: “I don’t criticise people who take that view.
“I would ask them only this… if all of us had walked out, then the Labour Party would be in the hands of the antisemites now.”
He also has jewish friends, so there's that too.
But now of course the Labour Party has been cleansed so we should all definitely vote for them now. What an absolute shit-show
I said…
every politician should have changed their priorities, approach and commitments
…not…
Every politician should have changed their principles in the last few months
And it’s been one and half years, not a few months. And not a normal one and half years.
this guy still has a ministerial post!
He should have been shuffled out of the shadow cabinet for that “puppet masters” comment in my opinion.
Oh, hang on… he deleted the comment as soon as it was pointed out to him that he had slipped into using an antisemitic trope? That’s different.
Is it?
It’s not good, but it’s better than claiming it isn’t an antisemitic trope, repeating it again again, and claiming anyone pointing out that it is a trope just has some kind of weird personal vendetta against you.
You need to pay more attention Kelvin. Within months of making his pledges Starmer was binning them, I don't think any of them managed to last a whole year.
So yeah, my reference to "within months" is perfectly accurate.
And you might choose to describe his pledges as "priorities, approach and commitments" but when he himself was referring to his pledges he talks about, quote :
"Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand."
And, quote :
"No stepping back from our core principles"
It's pretty damn clear that he wanted people to believe that his pledges were his principles.
And since he abandoned all ten pledges within months of winning the leadership election it is perfectly accurate to claim that he changed his principles within months.
The only thing that is certain about Starmer is that he cannot be trusted.
I wouldn't even trust him if he declared that he was committed to following Tony Blair's New Labour legacy.
I would just assume that he had said it because he believed that was what his audience wanted to hear.
He's not left-wing, he's not right-wing, he's just a man who wants to be Prime Minister.
Not that vastly different to Boris Johnson really.
It’s pretty damn clear that he wanted people to believe that his pledges were based on his principles.
Policy has to change. It has to keep up. I think he’s not changed enough since becoming leader to be honest… he’s jettisoned stuff (or just quietly ignored it hoping it’ll go away) without replacing it. Some might say he’s clearing the decks and will bring forward a full platform on the run up to an election (much as Labour did in 2017)… I don’t think he should be left in place long enough to find out if that’s true… someone else should be leading that pre-election policy formation, I see no signs Starmer is up to the task.
It’s not good, but it’s better than claiming it isn’t an antisemitic trope, repeating it again again, and claiming anyone pointing out that it is a trope just has some kind of weird personal vendetta against you.
Who did that then?
Edit: Oh I see you are comparing a minister with some guy posting on a bike forum. Got it.
Yeah alright Kelvin, "No stepping back from our core principles” actually meant "this is what I believe today, next week I'll probably believe something else".
You are Groucho Marx and I claim my greasepaint mustache.
I don’t think he’s “stepping back from” Labour’s “core principles”. Policies presented at the next election can be very different (and should be) to those at the last one, but built on the same core principles. If nothing else, they’ll need to reflect the changes made by the incumbent government over five years. Five years that already include a multi year pandemic and changed arrangements between UK nations (and between the UK and the rest of the world).
Has that been offered as an option for ‘the left’? Cos it seems like unless they convincingly swear their undying love of an apartheid regime they won’t be welcome in the party anyway.
The view of the left is that KS is the equivalent of the anti-christ after the secular Saint.
So you want him gone, so who is going to be the next leader??
Bridges can't bring himself to name Richard Burgon
The other names put forward so far get shot down
So imagine that Starmer tanks at conference (shouldn't be hard for you), looks in the mirror and as the opportunist you claim he is decides to walk out of politics.
So who leads labour next? They need to be a PLP member and be pure enough for the left (otherwise we'll end up going round the same loop)
Go on name them.
Or just keep telling the rest of us how bad Starmer is
I don’t think he’s “stepping back from” Labour’s “core principles”.
Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand.
1. Economic justice
Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles.
Increase income tax for the top 5% - binned
Reverse the Tories' cuts in corporation tax - binned
Yup. New policies on taxation required. Principles and values inform policies. Policies have to change. He’s binning commitments ahead of announcing (you would hope) new ones in the run up to the next election. I still think he should be replaced and someone else given that task. But whoever forms that next manifesto will have to ensure it is very different to the last one, that isn’t unique to Starmer, and doing so does not necessarily mean a change in fundamental principles or values.
So who leads labour next?
I don’t think anyone is obviously ready and willing right now, but there are plenty who could be in the running.
pure enough for the left
Which “left”?
All the candidates I prefer would get the backs up of some. Lammy would annoy the Brexit loving anti-London anti-liberal types. Lewis would annoy the tribal types who see other non-Tory parties as the real enemy. And so on… there is no “unity” candidate. There is no one “left” group in Labour, it is many different groups, many of which see others of the “left” as not being left at all. On and on it goes…
Yup. New policies on taxation required.
Starmer calls them "our core principles".
Why are devaluing his core principles by referring to them as merely "policies"?
Setting specific tax rates or bands is policy. They were polices based on seeking economic justice. Other policies can be drawn up based on a desire for economic justice.
Well he wasn't very good at writing his 10 socialist pledges, was he?
He seemed to think that he was talking about "core principles" as in "No stepping back from our core principles", after the blurb about the 5% top earners and corporation tax.
But it turns out, thanks for pointing it out Kelvin, that he meant policies, not principles......."no stepping back from our core policies", it should have said.
Any other glaring mistakes in Starmer's 10 socialist pledges Kelvin?
How about "Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand."?
Should Starmer have used a different word to "socialism"? Or perhaps "here is where I stand" is a bit contentious?
As it happens, I think he should have said “social democracy” rather than “socialism”, because much of the British voting public are now far too easily led into hearing “soviet style communism” or “failing low income country” when the word socialism is used, and the leadership campaign should be step one in talking to the wider public that you need to win over, not just talking to party members and gaining the reins of the party.
Come on Ernie, we get it, Starmer isn't cutting it.
Who in the PLP can?
Or does labour need someone to restructure and aim for the next but one election with someone new in the hot seat
We already have two names Lewis and Lammy as maybe candidates for the job. Not ringing endorsements for them. Who would you see replace the leader you despise?
Go on name them.
Or just keep telling the rest of us how bad Starmer is
We've already established there are no strong candidates. I just wish Keir Starmer was the leader he pretended to be.
As it happens, I think he should have said “social democracy”
Social Democracy???......you mean a mixed economy and universal welfare state?? Wow
Isn't that all a bit Jeremy Corbyn? What would the Daily Mail say? Or the PLP?
Sounds waaay too radical.
Perhaps the next time he decides to firmly commit himself and make 10 pledges he should start off with "based on the moral case for conservative values"
You can't be too cautious.
Isn’t that all a bit Jeremy Corbyn?
Yes it is. And every other Labour leader.
Starmer has tried the establishment sound-bite politician act, whilst trying to con us into a Socialism cover versions.
I thought it was pretty obvious from the start.
And just because we can't think of who could replace Starmer doesn't mean he shouldn't go. (Clive Lewis is the closest to a good choice. I know I know.)
Oh, he is right-wing (at least economically) as he seeks to protect the status-quo of free market to tinkering.
Low wages increases for NHS staff?
Forget the Corporation tax, that's not really redistribution.
And just because we can’t think of who could replace Starmer doesn’t mean he shouldn’t go.
But it matters quite a but doesn't it. If nobody here can think of anyone who would be a good choice then a leadership contest would achieve the goal of putting someone else in as leader but if they are as bad/worse than starter then what? Another leadership contest closer to the election and another choice of another poor leader?
And we must remember, the choice of any new leader needs to be approved in this thread.
But it matters quite a but doesn’t it. If nobody here can think of anyone who would be a good choice then a leadership contest would achieve the goal of putting someone else in as leader but if they are as bad/worse than starter then what? Another leadership contest closer to the election and another choice of another poor leader?
All I know his Starmer's cheerleaders have disappeared from this thread.
It's not 1997 is it? That was always blidingly obvious to me.
But it matters quite a but doesn’t it. If nobody here can think of anyone who would be a good choice then a leadership contest would achieve the goal of putting someone else in as leader but if they are as bad/worse than starter then what? Another leadership contest closer to the election and another choice of another poor leader?
Well if someone pure enough to satisfy the left replaces Starmer (who clearly triggers the left) and doesn't upset the right wing too much then the infighting calms down. If they can hold the party together then you would hope their new front bench would start to make inroads
Alternatively it's just another circle of hell
And we must remember, the choice of any new leader needs to be approved in this thread.
Any approval on this thread is probably the kiss of death to their prospects
Straw poll so far
Lewis 1.5
Lammy 0.5
Burgon 2 (assumed as they cannot say his name.....)
I'd pick Clive Lewis.
I want Starmer to stay and fight an election though. Don't want him gone yet. I still have a faint hope that he will come up with an amazing properly radical, outside the box manifesto* that will wrong foot the Tories and the establishment media.
Yes he seems shit but there is a chance that being quiet, harmless and safe until the election is a good way of winning it.
*I don't mean radical left, I mean different from all before, not drawn up along traditional Labour/Tory lines.
Starmer's lost the next election for Labour already.
Anyone decent is better off avoiding that mess and starting afresh later.
Even Sam Allardyce would give it a swerve.
I want Starmer to stay and fight an election though. Don’t want him gone yet. I still have a faint hope that he will come up with an amazing properly radical, outside the box manifesto* that will wrong foot the Tories and the establishment media.
It would be handy for Starmer if it got him 326+ MPs as well
Although some seem to be arguing that Starmer as PM is a defeat for the left and essentially red Tory rule, establishment stitch up and more years of the same "not left wing" government
If you are on the left the only hope seems to be depose Starmer in the next year, otherwise it's just back to the traditional role of name calling, othering, and moaning from the wilderness
otherwise it’s just back to the traditional role of name calling, othering, and moaning from the wilderness
In which case, they couldn’t be happier.
I’d put my house on the fact that if Corbyn had somehow made it to number ten then the same people who presently deify him would now be calling him a Judas, a sellout and a Tory for having to make some of the real-world compromises that power entails, that don’t chime with their idea of the socialist utopia he promised.
So he’s laughing his tits off really, this way he gets to keep his secular saint status in the common room, without any of the responsibilities associated with actually governing or doing anything concrete at all really
A fitting end to a career, such as it is, spent doing an awful lot of pious, self-indulgent virtue signalling while achieving absolutely nothing
Talking of sure certainties binners, still banging on about Jeremy Corbyn to deflect criticism away from Keir Starmer, on a thread about Starmer?
I note the reference to "the common room", just to keep everything totally predictable.
But shouldn't there be also some mention of "sixth form politics" just in case someone is new to this thread and is confused about the common room reference?
I’ve told you my opinion repeatedly about Starmer, so there’s little point repeating it.
I’m just baffled by those who hold up a man as some kind of messiah who, over a lifelong career, achieved considerably less politically than Gavin Williamson.
Even more baffled that the policies he espoused, universally rejected in two successive elections should be treated as if they were passed down in tablets of stone carved out by God himself
If a large chunk of the Labour Party membership can’t accept that the electorate didn’t like what they were selling, then they’re just doomed to repeat the same outcomes.
Yet they all soil their petticoats in howling indignation when it’s even suggested that it might be an idea to try something different from that which the sainted one had bequeathed to them
It’s like some weird cult, suspended in aspic in 1975. A metaphorical brown Austin Allegro parked in a museum
it might be an idea to try something different
How's that working out?
It’s too early to tell. We live in bizarre and unprecedented times and we’re a few years out from an election
It’s got to be an improvement on ‘let’s’ have a third crack at the Grandad stuff! The fools might have seen the light and be ready for it by now.’
Starmer has a hell of a job of trying to convince a large chunk of the party membership of that though, clearly, who seem to still be stuck in a state of denial
Like I said: I fail to see the silent unquestioning reverence to policies written by a man who’s political achievements have been eclipsed by Liz Truss
We had 2 cracks at slightly to the left of the Tories but not so much as you'd notice before Corbyn FFS. That's why Corbyn got in!
So are we going to repeat the pattern? Or is somebody in Labour going to think of something new?
I’ve told you my opinion repeatedly about Starmer, so there’s little point repeating it.
Little point repeating your opinion?
Oh come come binners, it's unusual for you to be so reticent about expressing your opinions.
And don't sell yourself short, you repeating the same identical narrative over and over and over and over again is hugely entertaining. The well-worn references to sixth-form common rooms, the constant use of terms such as "self-indulgent virtue signalling", the hilarious talk of "magic grandad" and "allotment dweller", the total obsession with Austin Allegros, and your stunning ability to post stills from a 40 year old British comedy film.
So don't you worry about repeating yourself binners, it is after all a thread about Keir Starmer.
Like I said: I fail to see the silent unquestioning reverence to policies written by a man who’s political achievements have been eclipsed by Liz Truss
Well you know the answer to that, don't you?
Of course you do........ he didn't have enough time. It was too early to tell.
That’s why Corbyn got in!
Grandad ‘got in’ because of Ed’s terminally disastrous ‘free leadership vote with every pack of Quavers’ policy, which had Tory’s chortling in absolute disbelief as they signed up in droves to vote for the weird unelectable beardy communist who would repel voters in a style never before witnessed and demolish the Labour Party as a realistic opposition party, never mind a potential government
So let’s not delude ourselves otherwise, shall we?
I remember watching his gormless grin as he accidentally became leader and realised they must have been having one almighty party at Tory Central Office that night. The gift that never stops giving had arrived. A man who’s ‘career’ had been so backbench that - to quote Malcolm Tucker - he was out by the bins
I’ll guarantee you one thing: no political party in the world will ever do anything remotely similar. Nobody is that stupid!
Starmer has a hell of a job of trying to convince a large chunk of the party membership of that though, clearly, who seem to still be stuck in a state of denial
Most of the main detractors on here aren't members atm, whereas you are. Apparently that makes you a red Tory and establishment stooge for trying to get Starmer in.
Little point repeating your opinion?
🤣🤣🤣💪💪💪
So let’s not delude ourselves
.
It’s too early to tell. We live in bizarre and unprecedented times
Apparently that makes you a red Tory and establishment stooge for trying to get Starmer in.
I’m well aware that I shall never be forgiven for my part in stopping Rebecca Long-Bailey ascending to her anointed throne
I wasn't even aware that you played a part in Rebecca Long-Bailey's downfall!
I find your deep relentless hatred of Corbyn quite fascinating.
These days it seems to be triggered by any criticism of Starmer, which presumably reflects your cult-like admiration of him...... how dare they criticise the poor man when he has had so little time to do anything!
The shameless hypocrisy is also quite interesting.
I find your deep relentless hatred of Corbyn quite fascinating.
I don’t know why.
When I said he achieved absolutely nothing, I should have added the caveat
*apart from delivering successive Tory governments, gifting Boris Johnson an enormous majority to do as he pleases, facilitating the hardest of Brexits at every available opportunity and turning the Labour Party into a laughable, second-rate, sixth-form protest group. Being so utterly po-faced and joyless, they even failed to deliver any amusing placards. Unforgivable!
Does that help?
As for a admiration for Starmer, I admire anyone who’s prepared to have a crack at clearing up the absolute car crash that muppet left in his wake as he finally toddled off to the allotment
Does that help?
Well I have never heard you say any of those things before so I guess it probably does.
Any opinions concerning Starmer that you might like to share?
Or are you still worried about repeating yourself?
Edit : Apart from the fact that you admire him of course.
Well if someone pure enough to satisfy the left replaces Starmer
What a load of bollocks. The only thing the left wants is a leader who promises policies in line with labour’s purpose of representing working people and who isn’t embarrassed to stand up for the working class. It’s really not a lot to ask.
It’s really not a lot to ask.
Well it's quite a lot to ask of Starmer, that's for sure. He appears to have done and said very little recently, if anything at all. Certainly the news providers aren't reporting much.
I think the last time Starmer actually announced or said anything was a few weeks ago when he expressed the opinion that Geronimo the Alpaca should be slaughtered. I don't think he has really said anything since his important intervention on that matter.
Perhaps Starmer feels that everything is just tickety-boo in the UK at the moment, and the Tories are doing a grand job governing the country, so no opposition is necessary. No point being contrary just for the sake of it.
Although to be fair binners says "it's still too early". Apparently being in the job for over a year isn't long enough. Labour doing worse in elections than it did under Corbyn means nothing, apparently. A year is a very short time in politics - it's a week that's a long time.
Starmer is probably spending a lot of time thinking. Forensically.
I find your deep relentless hatred of Corbyn quite fascinating.
How could anyone hate someone as dodderingly and comically inept as Corbyn?
The Labour party needs to appeal to more than working people. There are 29 million of them, and many of those economically active people are very much in the Tory demographic. The Labour party needs to appeal to anyone who would benefit from their policies, i.e. the vast majority. That majority needs convincing and someone capable of convincing them to do the convincing. My profile is:
Female
Well educated but not a toff
No Blarite skeletons in cupboard
Under 50
Doesn't speak 1974 trade-union comrade speak
In the Absence of Jo Cox Jess Phillips is the best fit unless someone who knows the party well can educate me.
^^^
That's far too 'metro' for the purists.
What a load of bollocks. The only thing the left wants is a leader who promises policies in line with labour’s purpose of representing working people and who isn’t embarrassed to stand up for the working class. It’s really not a lot to ask.
No it's not
A far harder ask is getting elected as PM with 326+ and doing all that