Forum menu
Result, the Spectator and New Statesman both seem to approve, people who want a Labour Government should be pretty bouyed up this morning.
You're one of those people who treat politics like supporting Chelsea.
Awash with dodgy Russian money?
Thats the other lot
People need to move on past Burnham, it’s not going to happen, he doesn’t want it, he’ll wilt under the pressure, his successes in Manchester will be forgotten. Just because he has some sanity doesn’t mean he either wants or is capable of the job.
I think Burnham does want it. He's in full on "King over the Water" mode but yeah, who knows what will happen. He's not even an MP, will he even have a seat next time?
...but I only offered Burnham as a "for instance", my point is that Starmer could win, but if he doesn't he'll have to go if a successor can be found - the days of one leader surviving multiple election defeats are gone, 7 years of the same bloke saying how crap the government are is wearing to voters. ....but he'll be leaving the party in a far better state than he found it. Sadly I don't think that will console him much, but that's politics.
You’re one of those people who treat politics like supporting Chelsea.
Eh?
Eh?
Can you explain how life would improve under a Starmer Labour government?
Can you explain how life would improve under a Starmer Labour government?
What's that got to do with either my post or treating "politics like supporting Chelsea."????
Wonder if tackling dodgy Russian money is still on SKS' agenda. Neither of the people mentioned here are in post any more I don't think - did he mention it in his speech?
Or does the new corporate-friendly Labour party not bother itself with such 'lefty' matters any more.
I’ll ask again: What would induce the SNP to enter into coalition with the Labour party? and what d ‘you their price would be should that situation arise?
The SNP would not go into coalition. It would be a supply and confidence deal ie support the budget / queens speech and in any confidence votes. they would not go into formal coalition.
The price would of course be a referendum on independence
Can you explain how life would improve under a Starmer Labour government?
Really? You honestly think that life would not be improved by having a Starmer led Labour Government in power compared to this current lot? It might not be the socialist utopia you yearn for but it would be an improvement on this current lot. To make changes you have to be in power and with a FPTP system that involves compromising.
Your all or nothing attitude will just give us years more of Tory, it is utterly infuriating and depressing.
("what's the difference between labour and tory?" keeps getting asked in different ways and degrees of rhetoriclal self satisfaction. There's pages of answers along this thread but anyone who genuinely doesn't know and has access to the internet will benefit more from working this out for themselves than by being fed a few more lines here.)
Can you explain how life would improve under a Starmer Labour government?
Vague question requires vague question. Can you explain why it wouldn't improve?
You honestly think that life would not be improved by having a Starmer led Labour Government in power compared to this current lot?
Well, it's not going to happen by magic.
It needs people to come up with ideas and to implement them. What are they?
Can you explain how life would improve under a Starmer Labour government?
He spent 90 minutes yesterday detailing how
Can you explain how life would improve under a Starmer Labour government?
Starmer listed things the last Labour government did to wild applause yesterday.
So presumably he has that kind of thing in mind.
Yes, but apparently the only thing that the last labour government did in 13 years in power was invade Iraq
DON’T MENTION THE WAR.
Well, it’s not going to happen by magic.
It needs people to come up with ideas and to implement them. What are they?
I don't think you are interested, you have made your mind up despite there being evidence out there for you to find, including a 90 minute speech yesterday. You want a socialist utopia and Starmer won't deliver this so you won't vote for him. This will result in another Tory government which is far worse than a Starmer led Labour government. Remember this when Labour lose again and the poor get poorer our NHS gets even worse etc.
poor get poorer
I don't think that's going to stack up at the next election. We're seeing blue collar wages go through the ceiling and those pay increases are largely being paid for by the white collar workers paying more for Latte out/Deliveries/Petrol/restaurant food/home improvements.
...but that wasn't central to your point.
That’ll be taxed back out of those workers (and all the workers who don’t get pay rises) while the staples of life get more and more expensive for them.
So; the Labour Party conference was a complete failure for Starmer, and all he's done has reaffirmed his position on dividing the party even further (funny, cos he claimed he was going to unify the party, when he got elected leader) and making it less democratic. And to see the usual deluded suspects on here, lapping up his bullshit in the mistaken belief it might actually be sincere, is quite depressing. And we are where we are. Labour in tatters; tory rule for the foreseeable. Hey ho.
That’ll be taxed back out of those workers
Maybe, but that's a different issue, and based on the polls and past experience probably a vote winner for the opposition. Whereas running with "Poor getting poorer" when blue collar wages are very publicly going through the roof is not going to fly, quite the opposite.
It's a digression from the original point, though. (Which I am to blame for.)
You honestly believe that the present labour party would have imposed austerity like George Osbourne did? Seriously?
Care to provide any evidence that they wouldn't? Rachel Reeves said in her speech that hard choices would need to be made to balance the books. The only interpretation of that is that labour are pro-austerity. Where she's being dishonest is that those savings can be gained from greater efficiency and value for money. It's a fantasy, the scale of the deficit and the debt is so massive that even abolishing the NHS wouldn't resolve them. So the only other option is massive austerity across govt on an Osborne-like scale.
Vague question requires vague question. Can you explain why it wouldn’t improve?
It's generally up to those making a claim to support it.
So; the Labour Party conference was a complete failure for Starmer,
Only amongst JC fans it was. The general opinion I am seeing out with the JC circle was positive. The reality is though that the average joe on the street will be paying zero attention.
The general opinion I am seeing out with the JC circle was positive.
So you watched the news then? Surely you must've figured out that this is all just stage-managed soap opera? The media can spin any scenario they want. Someone somewhere has decided to give Starmer an easy ride, hence the positive spin on the news yesterday. They could have easily reported it as a car crash, how he's at war with his party and still behind in the polls. But they didn't, so maybe spend a minute to think about why that is.
Can you explain why it wouldn’t improve?
Starmer did that yesterday.
Generic policies and an outlook that would be equally at home in a Tory/Lib Dem manifesto.
Work hard, support business, invest in green stuff, education x 3, be patriotic, give rapists harsh sentences, protect the union etc.
The only interpretation of that is that labour are pro-austerity
You know that's a popular policy though, right? I mean rightly or wrong, lots of folk would vote for that. It makes sense to a lot of folk that if govts spend money you have to pay it back. and that the Tories with their "We had to make hard choices to rescue to country from Labour mis-management" message was massively, overwhelmingly popular with voters?
Labour's vote now comes from university graduates and the young. It's not enough They need to re-claim the votes of their socially and fiscally conservative parents and grandparents who have had thiat message driven into them for their entre lives. They aren't going to be transformed into MMT devotees in one election cycle. It's a fantasy.
So you watched the news then
No.
We get you hate Starmer and would love him to fail so that we can have 5 more years of Tory so that you can say "I told you so" its tedious and unfortunately the poorest in society will suffer the most.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1443519341354524672
This shows what Labour are up against with the general public.
Someone somewhere has decided to give Starmer an easy ride, hence the positive spin on the news yesterday. They could have easily reported it as a car crash, how he’s at war with his party and still behind in the polls.
I listened to the speech and the media coverage I've seen and read represented it 100pc accurately and fairly.
Both Spectator and the New Statesman reported it in the same terms which pretty much agreed with my take on it.
The media aren't perfect but on this there is consensus and that consensus is pretty fair and accurate.
value for money
A reminder that doesn’t just mean making the most of government spending, it is also code for not asset stripping the country and giving away our money to mates with opaque procurement (this has happened under Tory and Labour at the national and local level, which is why a department dedicated to ensuring transparency and good value is a good idea, whoever is in power). VIP lanes for mates and contacts of Tory MPs and Councillors, and trying to use the courts to keep those deals secret, is the exact opposite of that, and is an example of why this government must go.
As an aside, here’s little piece on Preston that won’t take long to read:
https://goodlawproject.org/news/good-procurement/
They could have easily reported it as a car crash, how he’s at war with his party and still behind in the polls. But they didn’t, so maybe spend a minute to think about why that is.
That is literally what they reported for the first few days of the conference and reporting how popular JC still is, then Starmers speech got positive attention, maybe because there wasn't much in it to criticise?
The “media” did also go straight to people like Laura Piddock to get their negative take on the speech, they didn’t just pass on positive takes.
I think it’s entirely fair to say, and report, that the speech, and its delivery, exceeded expectations for many people (it did for me). Expectations were low though, weren’t they.
Where she’s being dishonest is that those savings can be gained from greater efficiency and value for money.
ALL oppositions claim they will save money in that way. Yes it's a lie, but oppositions are expected to say it and always do. (In fact it might not even be a lie, they probably believe it and then find out in Government savings are are hard to make.)
This shows what Labour are up against with the general public.
And telling that the Tory rise was in line with their austerity program meaning it clearly fooled a lot of people into think it was necessary and that the Tories did it in the best way.
Exactly, it's easy to compare government finances to that of a person as that makes sense to people. Unfortunately as we know its a total fallacy but its simple and the Torys do simple understandable slogans well. It doesn't matter if they are false.
Breakdown of recent polling
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1443522335601045504
We get you hate Starmer and would love him to fail so that we can have 5 more years of Tory so that you can say “I told you so” its tedious and unfortunately the poorest in society will suffer the most.
No, what is ****ing tedious is the fact you think us in the Labour Party should roll over and let the right do a ****ing Blairite hatchet job on the left and be happy about it, because ‘anything’s better than Joris’s Tory scumbags isn’t it?’
No it’s not.
Starmer and co is better than the current Tory mob. Its not what you would choose but being further left was tried twice and failed twice.
We get you hate Starmer and would love him to fail so that we can have 5 more years of Tory so that you can say “I told you so” its tedious and unfortunately the poorest in society will suffer the most.
I get you hate Corbyn and would love him to fail so that we can 5 more years of Tory that you can say 'I told you so' blah blah...
Honestly the f** brass neck of blairite centrists whining about lefties wanting the tories in power. You've done more in the past 5 years to ensure a tory govt than anyone from the left has ever. Even now you've won you're still fighting the left rather than Boris. You can all * right off with that bollocks.
No, what is * tedious is the fact you think us in the Labour Party should roll over and let the right do a * Blairite hatchet job on the left and be happy about it, because ‘anything’s better than Joris’s Tory scumbags isn’t it?
Your idea of what the labour party should put to the electorate has already been put to the electorate.
Twice.
The first time they rejected it, the second time they not so much rejected it as set fire to it, put it out with a shovel, then pissed on it, just to make sure
You'd have to be mad to offer them the same thing again, you know... just in case they've changed their minds. They haven't. So it would only ever end one way.
Saying you 'won the argument' or 'well Jeremy increased the vote in 2017' is just delusional nonsense that gets nobody (other than the Tories) anywhere.
And you can't just stick a new leader in and then tell him to stick rigidly to the policies of the sainted one, as if his words were engraved on tablets of stone, passed down by god (which seems to be pretty much what some of you think they are)
I know that it is the sin that dare not speak its name (oh my! What would Jeremy think?!), but the labour party has to not only regain the votes of those who deserted the party in droves, but also convince a lot of other people who aren't their natural supporters to vote for them too. Which means that at some point you have to compromise.
'The Left' (as this thread amply demonstrates) are the equivalent of Iain Paisley shouting NO SURRENDER!!!! But even he realised that at some point you have to sit down and take a more realistic approach and deal with the world as it is, not as you'd like it to be
I wanted Corbyn as PM rather than May or Johnson. As did most people in this thread, even those that might be characterised as “Blairite”. They voted Labour at general elections, with Corbyn as leader, even if he was far from their choice as party leader. Now, there are people here saying that they wouldn’t want Starmer instead of Johnson, because it would make no difference, so they won’t vote Labour at the next general election if he is still leader. That is clearly different.
Even now you’ve won you’re still fighting the left rather than Boris. You can all * right off with that bollocks.
Daz, you've said you're not even going to vote Labour. You can tell 'blairites' as you'd probably call me to "*right off" all you like, but you're the one who appears to have left.
And you can’t just stick a new leader in and then tell him to stick rigidly to the policies of the sainted one
It’s worse than that, where the front bench have kept 2019 policies in places, they are already being derided for these continuity policies not going far enough. Look at the manufactured argument over the minimum wage.
lost, lost, lost, lost, Blair, Blair, Blair, Lost, lost lost lost
This country isn’t socialist and never will be….to have any hope of getting elected then Labour needs to capture the middle ground. that might not sit well with some on here but if you truly believe Starmer is no better than Johnson then there’s no hope for Labour.
Starmer and co is better than the current Tory mob
In an ideologically simplistic world maybe, but this really isn’t a black or white choice is it?
Yeah the left option was really given a fair go wasn't it. 🙄
Thing is anyway, you want a return to Blairite centrism? Ok - just don't lie about that when you're trying to get elected leader, and hide the money you received from arch-Blairite donors until it's too late.
You can take the piss about winning the argument all you like but the fact is Corbyn did inspire/engage a whole host of people who were entirely switched off by politics - eg young people, POC - now all of them are branded undesirables (stupid naive sixth formers etc) in the new smarmy corporate Labour party. How do you think they feel about politics now?
The continued delusion demonstrated on this thread about the desire for some form of socialism in this country is manna from heaven to Boris and co
Who won the argument?
The bloke sat in number ten, obviously
You shouldn't really need that pointing out
In an ideologically simplistic world maybe, but this really isn’t a black or white choice is it?
We have a two party state with a FPTP electoral system. its the absolute dictionary definition of a black or white choice
lost, lost, lost, lost, Blair, Blair, Blair, Lost, lost lost lost
This country isn’t socialist and never will be…
Based on the last 50 years of elections I did claim it was Tory Britain but that upsets people here if you mention it.
We live in a country where the Tory party win every time in last 50 years apart from the blip when Blair won (but he isn't Labour anyway is he) yet people are still under the illusion that what the people want is a socialist dream.
Corbyn may have inspired young voters who had little knowledge of the working world, but he caused nothing but fear for those who would sway the vote, and i don't mean that from leftist speeches or manifestos, i mean that from his commitment to being able to argue his point without either being made to look like he doesn't have a clue, or he had absolutely no sense of humour, unless he was preaching to the converted he never came across as inspirational or being able to lead.
Who won the argument?
Congratulations on answering a question no one asked.
But yes carry on shitting on young idealistic left-leaning people (most of whom are being pretty much screwed by the current system and can see a need for radical change) - it's a great look.
I've said this before but I photographed a reggae night a few years ago and the MC was a black guy - he gave a little speech about how he'd never voted before, and was totally cynical about politics, but he would vote for Corbyn because he seemed like a real person who cares about people. Said there were many others he knew who felt similarly.
What a dickhead eh? Let's mock him and make him feel stupid and keep him away from politics again.
I get you hate Corbyn and would love him to fail so that we can 5 more years of Tory that you can say ‘I told you so’ blah blah…
I would have voted for him the first and second time quite happily, but I live in Scotland so voted SNP. I don't hate Corbyn, I hate that he is put on some pedestal as they greatest Labour leader of modern times despite having lost twice.
In an ideologically simplistic world maybe, but this really isn’t a black or white choice is it?
It really is that simple. With FPTP it can't be anything else.
being able to argue his point without either being made to look like he doesn’t have a clue, or he had absolutely no sense of humour
“can I finish”
All leaders are flawed. This one is as well. But he has to move the party on/away from the 2019 manifesto, and he can’t avoid the howls that will be the response to that from many if the movement isn’t to the left. Any leader would have that problem though, whoever they were. If every step away from the platform of 2019 is a “betrayal” leading to calls of “liar”, well, would that response be something a different leader could have avoided?
i mean that from his commitment to being able to argue his point without either being made to look like he doesn’t have a clue, or he had absolutely no sense of humour
Jesus wept, are you capable of forming an opinion outside of what people in the media tell you to think? You literally just said young people don't matter. FFS I can't think of a more negative, cynical or self-defeating viewpoint. If you don't give a shit about the young, then you're an idiot quite frankly.
But yes carry on shitting on young idealistic left-leaning people
Absolutely nobody (other than the Tory's) is doing that. 'The Left' really do need to move on from this paranoid, reactionary, bunker-mentality persecution complex that it seems to actually enjoy wallowing in.
Whats being asked is that people take a cold, harsh, objective look at the reality of the country we live in and its repeatedly stated desires. If its ever to have a cat in hells chance of gaining power, then at least be prepared meet the electorate half way
Otherwise there is nothing but permanent opposition. And ideological purity and righteous indignation will get you precisely nowhere
Dazh he said no such thing. Are you capable of forming an opinion out with the Corbyn echo chamber you reside in?
Absolutely nobody (other than the Tory’s) is doing that.
Wow, erm... Self-aware much? Maybe read back over your posts in this thread for starters.
Jesus wept, are you capable of forming an opinion outside of what people in the media tell you to think?
Aaaah.. we're back on this old chestnut, are we?
Those of us who don't 'get' Jeremy's doctrine are simply mindless drones and capitalist stooges who need our opinions spoon-fed to us by Rupert Murdoch?
I can't imagine why, when repeatedly told this by 'the left', the electorate don't rush into their welcoming arms?
Its a mystery
Whats being asked is that people take a cold, harsh, objective look at the reality of the country we live in and its repeatedly stated desires. If its ever to have a cat in hells chance of gaining power, then at least be prepared meet the electorate half way
Otherwise there is nothing but permanent opposition. And ideological purity and righteous indignation will get you precisely nowhere
100% this, those on the left seem utterly incapable of compromising in any fashion. All we shall see because of this is continued Tory crap. Its at this point I am glad to live in Scotland as at least we would have the opportunity to escape it however sad that may be.
You literally just said young people don’t matter.
Dazh, you do this time and time again. Why? They didn’t say that, did they.
Corbyn may have inspired young voters who had little knowledge of the working world
This is an incredibly patronising thing to say.
How about “Corbyn engaged huge numbers of young people in politics, and got them supporting Labour, including many who previously had little or no knowledge or involvement in party politics.”
Can someone who's claiming "blue collar wages are going through the ceiling" please prove this? I'd like to know because I am a blue collar worker that can't afford to rent a 1 bed flat to live in, let alone power, food, fuel for the car, insurance, clothes and communication on top of that. You know... the essentials.
Hospitality jobs round my way are advertised at minimum wage. So are retail jobs. Some retailers are deliberately hiring younger staff as they don't have to pay the full minimum wage to someone under 25. Tesco are notorious for taking on swathes of temporary staff, letting them go then recruiting loads more temporary staff, all on minimum wage or barely above. They don't want to have to take people on permanent contracts as it costs them more long term and impacts shareholders bank balances.
Labour this week proposed full workers rights from day one of starting your job, with no distinction between permanent and temporary staff. We’d all be workers, with full rights, with a crack down on what has become normalised in terms of denying rights to workers, especially by huge companies such as Tesco.
Can someone who’s claiming “blue collar wages are going through the ceiling” please prove this?
I am a blue collar worker that can’t afford to rent a 1 bed flat to live in
Get a loan and get an HGV license?
Who gives them the loan? How long ‘till training and accreditation is complete? What is going to happen to their rent, gas, electricity, council tax, national insurance, food bill, petrol costs in that time and in the near future? What hours will they be pushed into working once they are driving? What rights will they have in the first two years in the job? What will the working conditions be like?
This is an incredibly patronising thing to say.
Boils my piss TBH. It's the young who understand what's going on. Not because Corbyn told them, but because they can see it with their own eyes. They're being shafted by student debt, rapacious boomer landlords, slave wages in shitty jobs, and the biggest of all, by climate change which is going to rob them of their future.
My 16 year old understands how the world works better than most of the cynical idiots on here, and she's rightly extremely pissed off - and not a little depressed - about it. And yet the supposed 'grown ups' see fit to lecture them about 'the working world' or 'that's just the way it is' or some other vapid patronising bollocks about what's 'acceptable' or 'credible'.
You want reality? Well here it is.. (not you grum, I know you get this stuff)
They’re being shafted by student debt, rapacious boomer landlords, slave wages in shitty jobs, and the biggest of all, by climate change which is going to rob them of their future
The quote about the young is wrong I agree.
I completely agree with your point above as do most others on this thread. Where we differ is on how to fix it. I suggest that we tried with a left wing labour government twice and failed twice, I suggest some compromise is required from the left to get a labour government in power to stat to fix these issues. If we can't get labour into power we can't fix these issues.
People talk like Corbyn lost 4 elections in a row.
If Keir loses this next election are we going to swing back left or have another go in the centre?
No leader should ever get the chance to lose more than once
Corbyn should have been long gone in 2017, instead of the ludicrous spectacle of it being celebrated as a victory
Everything that has gone on since should have happened two years earlier
FFS, I’m agreeing with Binners again.
Anyway…
Does this sound familiar…?
I was heckled for suggesting that, while Boris Johnson has personality, Starmer has character. About half the people in the tent were outraged at the suggestion that there is any moral difference between a man who spent his life upholding the rule of law and the charlatan in Downing Street. And it was not mock outrage. It is a genuinely held belief among a large cohort of political activists on the left that Starmer is a corrupt liar in the pockets of the Trilateral Commission.
I suggest that we tried with a left wing labour government twice and failed twice
I'll happily accept this when the people on the right acknowledge their role preventing it from happening.
I suggest some compromise is required from the left to get a labour government in power to stat to fix these issues.
See above, there is no compromise with these c*, there's only 'do what we say'. Labour in its current form won't fix these issues. They won't abolish university fees and loans, they won't provide affordable homes, they won't reduce rents, they won't increase the minimum wage for the young, and they'll continue to pay lip service to climate change whilst doing bugger all (and no, 28bn a year won't solve it, it's not even close).
If you're wondering why I get so angry about this then look at it this way, The labour right wing in it's failure to 'compromise' with Corbyn has cost both my kids something like £50k each in fees and loans which would have been cancelled under a Corbyn govt. My oldest is now seriously talking about not going to uni (even though she got straight As in her GCSEs) because she's terrified of the debt. And you want me to vote for them now? Well f that!
Yeah it would have been a lot easier if the PLP got behind him, gave it their best shot and then dumped him if he lost.
Instead they tried everything to get rid of him and involuntarily strengthened his hand. Doh!
Have Labour dropped their policy on tuition fees? It may be too late for your kids and mine if a Labour government ever happens, but if that policy forms part of the next manifesto, and they win, because enough of us vote for them, then other kids will be weighing up different cost/benefit ratios when planning their futures.
I suggest some compromise is required from the left to get a labour government in power to stat to fix these issues.
Oh not this bollocks again. The left voted for Starmer in huge numbers - swayed no doubt by promises of unity and a commitment to some left wing policies.
The left has compromised, and in return has been lied to, marginalised, ignored and expelled.
Yep same when Corbyn took over. It was the centrists who refused to compromise.
Have Labour dropped their policy on tuition fees? It may be too late for your kids and mine if a Labour government ever happens, but if that policy forms part of the next manifesto, and they win, because enough of us vote for them, then other kids will be weighing up different cost/benefit ratios when planning their futures.
Let's hope it's in there then. Fabulous policy from Labours left.
Agreed.
Have Labour dropped their policy on tuition fees?
Do you even doubt it? Come on man open your eyes!