Forum menu
Surely he mentioned that his dad was a toolmaker?
Yep. Think there was a lot about his mum. Fair enough.
But what are you going to do about anything Starmzy?
Well I think you have failed to understand what Starmer is saying.
What is he going to do? ...... the answer is really quite clear.
Expect to hear a lot more of "my father was a toolmaker" as the general election approaches. When coupled with the soundbites which you posted at the top of this page...... vote Labour because Britian deserves better and vote Labour for a party on your side, the message is "Don't worry about policy, don't concern yourself with detail, I'm an average guy just like you so you can trust me to do what is best for you".
Obviously Starmer avoids mentioning that his father owned the factory where the toolmaking was going on as that would spoil the message. As would mentioning that he went to an independent school in a particularly affluent part of leafy Surrey.
On the other hand he might well mention the fact that his father was a factory owner when he's rubbing shoulders with the bods in the CBI, and he's attempting to convince them that he's on their side and will do what is best for them.
After all he is known to adjust his principles and beliefs to suit his audience.
With headlines like this :
Yahoo News: UK police to issue first 20 fines over Downing Street lockdown parties.
https://news.yahoo.com/uk-police-issue-first-20-082735756.html
And a Parliamentary Labour Party united.
This is what a Starmer leadership achieves :
The latest YouGov/Times voting intention figures show Labour narrowly in front, holding 37% of the vote (n/c from our previous survey on 23 - 24 March) to the Conservatives' 33% (-2).
So the question as previously asked, if not Starmer to lead the Labour party at the next election, who should it be, who can do what you want, whilst appealing to enough of the voters to get Labour into power? Can someone even list one name, two or three to choose from would be better, but one would do?
If there is a problem with Labour it isn't Starmer.
If Starmer was the problem he could simply be replaced.
Run things efficiently of course as better for everyone
That is problematic in itself since what does efficient mean? I can make a business far more efficient by cutting back maintenance windows or by sacking some of the staff to maximise working hours.
Which is great until the maintenance bill comes due or a major storm hits and we find the advantage of having staff not necessarily at full capacity most of the year is that when the proverbial hits the fan there are enough to respond effectively.
If there is a problem with Labour it isn’t Starmer.
If Starmer was the problem he could simply be replaced.
It's the same with all the parties though, the tories can lever Boris out, even after all his failings, Lib Dems are just tumbling, SNP are just a bit stagnant and taking hits daily just now, but Labour have a chance, and they can't seem to work out if they should get behind Starmer and take that chance, or do something different, but have no clue what that would be!
That is problematic in itself since what does efficient mean? I can make a business far more efficient by cutting back maintenance windows or by sacking some of the staff to maximise working hours.
Which is great until the maintenance bill comes due or a major storm hits and we find the advantage of having staff not necessarily at full capacity most of the year is that when the proverbial hits the fan there are enough to respond effectively.
Yeah, the first part is buying it back, then you have to appraise it, then fix it to do whatever it is you want it to do, all that costs money, time and effort, the Scottish Government are about to hit this with Scotrail, brought back in, but already throwing soundbites out about price reductions maybe not happening, so already you're getting grumblings about it, and they've not even really done anything yet, and that's simply because nationalising something has perceived benefits, and for the normal public, they're thinking of that as being cost reductions, or someone is selling them that line.
Personally, i've seen stuff sold off through privatisation, and it's always been daylight robbery, the same process over and over again, you get the appraisal for the assets, it's way under the value, those who are high up in that area/department/etc suddenly start circling shares and positions in the new structure, it gets moved over, they start selling off the 'hidden' assets (land, kit, etc that's not part of the main picture), parcelling off bits of the business and so on and so on, then you have people who become millionaires overnight, an undersold asset being sold for its market value and split up into near parcels for more profitability. Roll on a few years, the infrastructure is falling apart, the service is crap, lets renationalise it, guess what happens in 30 years time after we've brought it back to life?
but Labour have a chance, and they can’t seem to work out if they should get behind Starmer and take that chance
Really? You must be getting your news from a different source to me.
I see his position as leader completely unchallenged. Apart from very few exceptions the PLP seems solidly behind him.
Which is precisely why when you previously asked who should replace him I claimed it was a moot question.
As would mentioning that he went to an independent school in a particularly affluent part of leafy Surrey.
Yeah, I think you'll find Corbyn doesn't go out of his way to mention that he went to a private school either. But bearing in mind they were both children and didn't really have much say in the matter, it seems a bit pointless to criticise them for it. Again, like the last time you tried to blame the 2016 shadow cabinet resignations on him, this feels a little desperate. There's much to criticise Starmer for, the school which his parents chose for him probably isn't one.
it seems a bit pointless to criticise them for it.
Who is criticising them for it? I can't imagine why anyone would criticise someone for being sent to an independent school. You sound touchy, were you sent to one?
they were both children and didn’t really have much say in the matter
Do you think Starmer had much say in his father being a toolmaker? He mentions it a lot so he clearly thinks that it is an important point.
Btw Starmer was without doubt part of mass shadow cabinet resignations designed to put maximum pressure on the then leader of the Labour Party and force him to resign. If you dispute that it puts you very much at odds with the consensus among political pundits
I can’t imagine that even Starmer himself would deny it.
That is problematic in itself since what does efficient mean?
Of God yes! But to old fashioned Tories it doesn't matter. Penny pinching sits well as a virtue.
Which of course is bollocks. As balanced books my no sense in the context of a country that issues its own currency.
But to your average golf Treasurer ...
There’s much to criticise Starmer for, the school which his parents chose for him
Very small point, Corbyn did a private prep school and state grammar.
But I agree you can't do much about which school you are sent to.
It's what you do later that matters.
Well I think you have failed to understand what Starmer is saying.
What is he going to do? …… the answer is really quite clear.
It sort of doesn't interest me really. These people are media trained so you can see the sound bites scripted in advance.
The old adage people are what they do not what they say very much applies to Starmer and his deceitful mission.
Btw Starmer was without doubt part of mass shadow cabinet resignations designed to put maximum pressure on the then leader of the Labour Party and force him to resign. If you dispute that it puts you very much at odds with the consensus among political pundits
I can’t imagine that even Starmer himself would deny it.
And the reason 21 resignations occurred was due to Corbyn's poor handling of the Brexit saga, he was lampooned in the press, ridiculed in parliament and did nothing, in the minds of many, he was standing on the same side of Brexit as Johnson and Farage!
Okay so they felt they had valid reasons for doing what they did.
How does that deny the fact that they coordinated mass front bench resignations in an attempt to force the party leader to resign?
Edit : Btw that is a particular low for you to attempt to connect Corbyn with Nigel Farage. Try punching above the belt.
Edit : Btw that is a particular low for you to attempt to connect Corbyn with Nigel Farage. Try punching above the belt.
But weirdly true that the far right and far left wanted the same thing, for completely different reasons!
The Brexit vote split the party at the time, and still does, Corbyn trusted the likes of McCluskey, Murphy and Milne, and it cost him.
All you need to know about the sort of MP Starmer wants in his party. The fact that this utter **** can be in the PLP and not Corbyn speaks volumes.
https://twitter.com/solhugheswriter/status/1510200217504821249?s=21&t=DoCP0GYmrmBwKoJw5RhLmg
How do people like that get to be a MP?
The Brexit vote split the party at the time, and still does, Corbyn trusted the likes of McCluskey, Murphy and Milne, and it cost him.
Obviously that comment flies in the face of actual facts.
When Starmer was part of a coordinated mass front bench rebellion he cited brexit as the driving factor.
"Brexit has changed the challenge ahead" Starmer claimed. Corbyn's response was to make Starmer shadow brexit sec, despite the fact that he was clearly a committed remainer.
Furthermore Corbyn capitulated to Starmer's demands for a second referendum.
So Labour's policy went from fully accepting the result of the referendum and a commitment to implement it in 2017, to not accepting it and calling for a second referendum in 2019.
The electoral consequences of that policy shift, which was championed by Starmer, can be seen by how badly did in specifically leave areas in 2019 compared to 2017.
The idea that Labour's 2019 brexit policy was driven by the likes of Milne is patently absurd. Labour shadow brexit sec was clearly the man who influenced the policy.
Long after the horse has bolted Starmer obviously now accepts the electoral folly of his policy. He now agrees with Corbyn :
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-brexit_uk_620a1851e4b03230246d43a2
.....he now wants to focus on 'taking advantage of the opportunities' of Brexit.
Starmer’s comments are significant because, as shadow Brexit secretary under Jeremy Corbyn, he was the architect of Labour’s support for a second EU referendum.
All you need to know about the sort of MP Starmer wants in his party. The fact that this utter **** can be in the PLP and not Corbyn speaks volumes.
I know very little about this MP, but the fact that he crossed the floor to Labour tells the story, publicly denouncing Johnson as he crossed. He'll be out at the next election, but this action has provided positive press for Labour, and ammunition to fight Johnson on.
As for Corbyn, again, i believe he has a route back provided by Starmer, but is unwilling to apologise for his comments that had him suspended from the PLP.
As for Corbyn, again, i believe he has a route back provided by Starmer, but is unwilling to apologise for his comments that had him suspended from the PLP.
Who's talking about that?
@ernielynch, i was on about the actual Brexit vote in 2016, not the 2019 brexit policy, which was basically a stable door policy that had no real hope, the bigger concern was a no deal brexit.
Who’s talking about that?
DazH mentioned Corbyn not currently being part of the PLP.
Starmer on BBC Breakfast being as wishy washy and lawyer-like as possible when it comes to energy bills.
Don't upset the shareholders with your answer Sir Starmer. If you're smart you will see the system is broken. Stop supporting a broken system?
People might actually vote for that.
If you’re smart you will see the system is broken. Stop supporting a broken system?
If you have a look at his website you will see that he couldn't be any clearer.
"Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders." - Sir Keir Starmer
The electoral consequences of that policy shift, which was championed by Starmer, can be seen by how badly did in specifically leave areas in 2019 compared to 2017.
Hardly Starmer’s fault that a large proportion of his party’s core voters are backwards-looking self-obsessed elderly racists. It became clear when votes shifted to Tory that they only voted for what they thought would give them the best outcome for themselves, not the good of everyone or the poorest.
How do people like that get to be a MP?
By being the tory candidate than people voted for more than any other parties candidate. People generally vote for the party not the MP which is why where I live we must have 2 particularly ****y tory MPs in Desomnd Swayne and Christopher Chope.
Hardly Starmer’s fault that a large proportion of his party’s core voters are backwards-looking self-obsessed elderly racists.
Yup. If it's not Corbyn's fault then it's voters fault for being stupid.
Or someone else.
But definitely not Starmer's fault.
However badly Labour do it can't possibly be the responsibility of Starmer.
@kerley I just imagine there are loads of people trying to be the Labour/Tory candidate in every constituency.
Tbf I actually know better - most, nearly all, Labour/Tory councillors I've met have been terrible. Plaid Cymru councillors nearly all very good.
Surely he mentioned that his dad was a toolmaker?
So was mine (he's retired now) and his political views are not something I would aspire to nor would I make a big song and dance about it. Major problem for my toolmaker was a lack of empathy and understanding that not everyone's skills and motivations are the same.
Major problem for my toolmaker was a lack of empathy ...
Perhaps like Starmer's father your dad was bitter and had a chip on his shoulder about being a toolmaker?
“Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that”
- Sir Keir Starmer
It is strange that Starmer agrees his father "was right" to think that people looked down on him.
I guess for someone as middle-class as Starmer it is reasonable to assume that people look down on factory workers, certainly in the social circles that he generally moves in.
Although when sharing a pint with the lads down the pub I am sure it is a source of much pride.
Perhaps he just looked enviously at welders or boilermakers and their increased social status in the pub due to working with burny things?
According to Starmer the shamefulness of it all was working "on the factory floor".
What he really means is: don't look down on people but congratulate them when they know their place.
Do we know if this contempt is reserved purely for people who work 'on the factory floor', which sounds charmingly retro, or whether it extends to non-1970's jobs like working in a call centre or driving a delivery van for Amazon?
Is there some kind of easy to reference status/contempt chart, running in descending order?
It is strange that Starmer agrees his father “was right” to think that people looked down on him.
Starmer's quote very obviously means that Starmer elder was right in his thinking that people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. The fact you pretend not to understand makes discussion impossible.
(^^^Father Jack on the other hand genuinely may not understand. It's hard to tell 🙂 )
Is there some kind of easy to reference status/contempt chart, running in descending order?
Dunno. He only mentions that his father was right to think that people looked down on him for working in a factory.
Is there some kind of easy to reference status/contempt chart, running in descending order?
I'll have a copy please
Was his work on the factory floor not bossing people around since he owned the factory? Sort of bloke who's wear a chore coat and a tie.
Starmer’s quote very obviously means that Starmer elder was right in his thinking that people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor.
I understand totally. You apparently didn't fully read my post :
I guess for someone as middle-class as Starmer it is reasonable to assume that people look down on factory workers, certainly in the social circles that he generally moves in.
“Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that”
Was he right about that? Which people looked down on a skilled toolmaker? Was he hanging around with Dominic Cummings' dads crew?
It is strange that Starmer agrees his father “was right” to think that people looked down on him.
Stop making things up to start arguments.
I guess for someone as middle-class as Starmer it is reasonable to assume that people look down on factory workers, certainly in the social circles that he generally moves in.
Some middle class people look down on manual workers (possibly not realising that some on the factory floor earn more than managers, whatever, different topic), and some don't. I don't. Whatever, Starner says his dad was right to think that some people looked down on him because of his job. Does this say anything negative about starmer the younger?
When you say "making things up" nick do you mean providing precise quotes with quotation marks?
And when you say "to start arguments" are you suggesting avoiding arguments on a thread about Sir Keir Starmer?
Or am I "making up stuff" again?
Whatever, Starner says his dad was right to think that some people looked down on him because of his job. Does this say anything negative about starmer the younger?
Well it is obvious from the quote that Rodney Starmer had some sort of issue throughout his working life about people looking down him, is Sir Keir wrong to apparently validate that attitude?
I would say yes. Throughout my working life I have worked on building sites as a skilled tradesman. I know for certain that some people look down on me because that's what they do - they look down on building workers. Do I give a ****?
I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I don't. And I don't recall that being an issue for any other builder worker I have ever encountered.
But perhaps it is different for factory workers?
Have you thought of getting into property development?
But perhaps it is different for factory workers?
So starmer should have said that his dad shouldn't have given a shit? I mean fair enough. But just because building workers don't care about attitudes in this country to highly skilled manual work, doesn't mean that these attitudes aren't a problem.
And that's too many negatives in one sentence for me. I now need to do some non-skilled non-manual work.
So starmer should have said that his dad shouldn’t have given a shit?
Well I'm not entirely sure why Starmer felt he needed to tell the world that his dad had some sort of problem with people looking down on him.
But perhaps Bill hit the nail on the head earlier :
What he really means is: don’t look down on people but congratulate them when they know their place.
He only mentions that his father was right to think that people looked down on him for working in a factory.
Whichever way you interpret Starmer's view of his dad it's still the same 'aspirational party' bollocks that Yvette Cooper pushed in her leadership campaign which failed miserably. In short, working people should aspire to be 'better', and the labour party should help them do that. That way the labour party doesn't have to dirty it's hands with the difficult and messy job of defending the working people who don't have the opportunity or ability get 'better'.
Well I’m not entirely sure why Starmer felt he needed to tell the world that his dad had some sort of problem with people looking down on him.
That's a contortion. It's obvious the quote indicated that it's the people doing the looking down who are the problem.
But perhaps Bill hit the nail on the head earlier :
Perhaps? That would be an ecumenical matter.
Total bullshit and the very definition of trolling there Ernie. It's blindingly obvious that Starmer was referring to class prejudice and that people did/do look down on shop floor workers and that's a big problem. Blatantly not Starmer looking down on his father, because he doesn't.
When you say “making things up” nick do you mean providing precise quotes with quotation marks?
That are misquoted deliberately in order to misrepresent them, yes stop doing that in order to provoke arguments.
Again; criticise Starmer for the things he does, not for (the list grows ever longer) his peripheral (at best along with every other Labour MP) participation in the PLP rejection of Corbyn in 2016 (6 years ago now), or his lack of consent of how his education was provided to him as a child, or now what you think Starmer thinks of his own class status
Most, if not all the regular participants on this thread think that Starmer isn't doing well, All this dull sideshow of pettiness does is to continually signal that you dislike him, which we're already aware of.
It’s obvious the quote indicated that it’s the people doing the looking down who are the problem.
Yeah I get that. If you think people looking down on you is a problem.
It's not a problem for me or anyone else I know. But maybe it should be?
Blatantly not Starmer looking down on his father, because he doesn’t.
Erm, I didn't suggest for a moment that Starmer was looking down on his father.
Perhaps it's you that's doing the trolling.
Yes you did
I guess for someone as middle-class as Starmer it is reasonable to assume that people look down on factory workers, certainly in the social circles that he generally moves in.
A deniable "guilt by association" slur but the inference is clear
it’s the people doing the looking down who are the problem.
Yeah I get that. If you think people looking down on you is a problem.
We're saying different things. You seem to be saying you think negative attitudes in this country to people who do manual work are not a problem, because you personally and every building worker you've known don't experience this as a problem. But maybe you're not saying that? it's hard to tell through the ironic tone.
My first job was as a wages and costs clerk in an engineering company. And the toolmakers were very aloof and obviously thought themselves as the elites of the factory floor. But it was made clear to me by my older colleagues that us suit wearing office workers were a step above "all" the shop floor workers. I didn't really get it, doing the wages I was aware they earned 3x my salary dirty hands or not.
I don't have a fish to fry in this debate.
Can we get back to how Starmer is doing a vapid job?
Some stuff the government won't do but Labour could offer up:
As much as it is incomprehensible that the Opposition is not arguing for my alternative.
Starmer picking up a £2k pay rise and refusing to demand £15ph minimum wage illuminates his position on inequality. He's quick enough to demand more is spent on arms. You'd really have to be an intellectual acrobat to support this worm.
Didn't ha say in 2020 that MPs shouldn't have a pay rise and again a couple of months ago?
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1511033259987197961?t=hr7ParZeD0u_ib0XgwqdFg&s=19
Starmer at 2 years polling/favourability below Corbyn.
Could he have guaged the public mood more incorrectly.
No Brexit, No scathing MSM, No constant AS uproar. Covid deaths + Economy mismanagement + partygate. Etc.
May will be real interesting.
(The Cameron one does make me physically sick though.)
Starmer at 2 years polling below Corbyn.
That's how you chose to interpret that graph, with one data point? What conclusion do you draw from that?
That's how Britain Elects have framed it. Have I missed something?
That’s how you chose to interpret that graph, with one data point? What conclusion do you draw from that?
I don't need a graph to know he's missing the mark.
That’s how you chose to interpret that graph, with one data point? What conclusion do you draw from that?
My interpretation is that he enjoyed an initial bounce from an inclusive leadership campaign and being Not Jeremy, but has since slid, presumably because he has offered so little else.
I posted this two years ago, on page 2 of this thread:
My principal objection to Starmer is that he is as dull as ditchwater. I think he would be an effective leader in the managerial sense, but in terms of getting people enthused to vote for him, I’m not so sure. He will also need to develop an offer that appeals to the lost voters across the north, without which Labour has only permanent opposition.
I think Nickc- the relevance is it's two years today since he became Leader.
I see a page on a single quote without context, having come through the apprenticeship to skilled worker route I can say in my life skilled workers are as bitchy as anyone, there was a pecking order, I.e. joiners, sparkys, mechanical, etc and you had your levels of craft. Above all though was the engineer, in the office with a degree, still see the technician vs engineer debate these days, god knows why.
As for the current starmer is an empty suit, again I ask the simple question, who is it be alternative to go into the next election for labour?
I hadn't realised, or at least I had forgotten, just how unpopular Ed Miliband had been.
I guess like Starmer despite having the PLP united behind him he had little of substance to offer voters, other than broadly similar policies to the Tories.
As I remember it Miliband's most radical flagship policy during the 2015 election campaign was a 2 year freeze on energy prices. Which I don't think was seen as a long term solution to anything.
I said a day or two back that if Labour has a problem it isn't Starmer. The dismal performance of the previous 2 leaders kind of backs up that claim.
I hadn’t realised, or at least I had forgotten, just how unpopular Ed Miliband had been
Bacon butty wrestling is a highly regarded skill. Failure to master it often leads to rejection
Perhaps like Starmer’s father your dad was bitter and had a chip on his shoulder about being a toolmaker?
No his beef was with a middle management that did not recognise a 25 year veteran of the company at a visit to his facility. Which is understandable and symptomatic of the other part of the failure of British industry in the 70's a god awful management class.
His main problem was not recognising at that time that other people have other drivers than climbing the greasy pole or raking in the most money. It was beyond him that others may want to better society without any reward other than the satisfaction of a job well done.
As I remember it Miliband’s most radical flagship policy during the 2015 election campaign was a 2 year freeze on energy prices. Which I don’t think was seen as a long term solution to anything.
Yes, a perfect example of let's keep the market forces in control but toss everyone a bone. Tories nicked it anyway as they could see the value of a pretty limited cap - that you can change twice a year. (Standing charge nearly doubled.)
The boneheadness of liberal politics.
Flagship policy ...
Every single year some principled person says MPs shouldn't get the whopping rise but then they have to cave in because it's determined 'independently'. It's laughable and, in part, it's how they're bought off by the system and even more distanced from constituents.
Independent is a meaningless term for bureaucratic purposes.
You couldn’t make this up. Starmer was too spineless to stand behind one of labour’s most popular policies in fear that the establishment would turn against him, and now the tories have gone and nicked (part of) it.
Good job Keir.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1512205823770075140?s=21&t=3BYyr0iQo94kcAkopEJFtw
Or good work LibDems. They have been doing a hell of a lot over the last year, I just haven't seen any of it...
They have been doing a hell of a lot over the last year
Following the centrists main principle of not offering any new ideas interrupting your enemy while they are shooting themselves in the foot. Imagine building successes on being even more invisible than Starmer and labour.
There’s “a bit” of local history as regards the Labour council, with ongoing battles and rebellions and investigations. Surprised they held the seats that they did. I’d have considered trying to help get a LibDem candidate over the line as well if I was there. Not exactly going to risk flipping the council to the Conservatives, is it.
There’s “a bit” of local history
This is true of damn near every local election.
I wouldn't read too much into a council by-election result, if anything.
Here are the results of the Everton by-election also held yesterday where the Labour candidate received 62% of the vote and the LibDem candidate 2%
https://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=451&RPID=53836591
I don't know if the fact that Labour candidate is the daughter of the former Everton councillor, who is a left-wing Labour MP, not a Starmer supporter, helped her.
Or the fact that the LibDem candidate is a former member of the Tory Party was the reason for him coming an extremely poor last in the ballot.
But I do know that most of the opinion polls of the last couple of years show the LibDems on less support than they had at the last general election, in which they did very badly.
'A bit' of local history?
Thats a gloriously understated way of pointing out that Liverpool council is one of the most brazenly corrupt institutions in the country. The living embodiment of Private Eye's 'Rotten Boroughs'
I’m trying to be understated and free of hyperbole from here on in. Doubt it’ll last. I probably would still vote for a Labour councillor in Liverpool, but it would be a much harder decision than here, where the local team are bloody ace, and firmly have my vote.
[ we have some good LibDem councillors as well ]