Forum menu
Remember when all the remainers on here were saying they weren’t going to vote labour in 2019 because they refused to be part of a pro-brexit majority?
Nope.
Yeah political amnesia is a fairly widespread phenomena.
I clearly remember how in the local elections 5 years ago punters were coming on here proudly announcing how they hadn't voted Labour to "teach them a lesson" for not supporting a second referendum.
Corbyn did eventually capitulate before the last general election, with devastating consequences, as he managed the remarkable feat of pissing off both leavers and remainers.
Yet now those of us who don’t want to vote labour (I really, really don’t*) on account of Starmer’s acquiesance to the right wing establishment are called ‘tory enablers’ by many of the same people who took exactly the same stance on brexit. What’s the difference?
What right wing acquiescence, all I’ve seen is either sticking with soft left policies or not being drawn into a position?
I'll add a +1 for wanting to know what the kier starmer shade bots actually need to persuade them to vote labour.
Left leaning policies had a chance at the last 2 elections. They were rejected both times (not by me, I was all for it). Clearly there's not a majority for it within our voting system. So moving back to the centre is inevitable.
The MSM is too powerful and in the hands of the right so any Labour leader is ****ed from the start imo. "Boring" is better than "terrorist sympathiser" at least.
Personally I'd like to see a PR vote policy because I think it's the only way we'll ever escape the torys
The past couple of weeks has very much clarified SKS's political outlook. His instructions to not support industrial action for those working people trying to get by and survive inflationary wage erosion has quite clearly demonstrated he is not a soft left politician, but a soft right. He is more interested in telling the few in the city of London that their profits and greed will be safe under his leadership, than he is telling the working population that he has their backs in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
all I’ve seen is either sticking with soft left policies or not being drawn into a position?
In yesterday's article which Starmer himself wrote he claims to occupy "the centre ground".
There is no mention of left policies, soft or otherwise.
The Labour Party is not currently a left-wing party. And with the centrists consolidating their power and grip on the party there is no evidence that it is likely to become one any time soon.
Remember when all the remainers on here were saying they weren’t going to vote labour in 2019 because they refused to be part of a pro-brexit majority? I clearly recall being called a nazi sympathiser for saying labour (and remainers in general) should accept the referendum result.
I think that was just me. Although I don't remember calling anyone a nazi sympathiser.
To be honest, you should probably remember that this is all academic for me since I'm an SNP supporter so I can afford to have 'red lines' and 'principles' given I don't have to vote for any unionist party.
If I lived in England then to be brutally honest I would probably vote for my local Labour candidate if that was the most likely route to blocking the Tory candidate. **** it, I might even vote lib-dem if it would block a Tory.
Anyway, like I said earlier, I'm glad you've all caught up with me and stopped supporting KS because he keeps u-turning on campaign promises.
It's just, for next time, if a candidate starts doing u-turns on policies you don't agree with anyway, don't just assume he's not going to start doing u-turns on the policies you do like.
rsl1
Left leaning policies had a chance at the last 2 elections. They were rejected both times (not by me, I was all for it). Clearly there’s not a majority for it within our voting system.
Both times they were rejected mostly for the leader and for the presentation/delivery, rather than the policies. I mean, even Miliband wasn't sure what his policies were.
Left leaning policies are the only way out of decades of disintegration.
That bit is just not rocket science.
Centrists don't really have a position as such, just a buffer between the right leaning status-quo and mild social consolation prizes.
If the right can win elections with a shit scrapbook of a decaying, failed pro-market dumping ground policies then the left (without the Brexit vote baggage) sure as hell ought to be able to win with bold and necessary progressive ideas for the masses.
The only difference is lack of conviction, ideas and drive from the cowardly and frankly lazy - current version of the Labour party hell-bent on not solving any of the UKs problems.
And let's not start with - 'you've got to get elected first.' as a typical Centrist argument. Libdems are either in power with the Tories or booted out come election time
If the Tories can get elected with nothing to offer then Labour need to up their game.
The past couple of weeks has very much clarified SKS’s political outlook. His instructions to not support industrial action for those working people trying to get by and survive inflationary wage erosion has quite clearly demonstrated he is not a soft left politician, but a soft right. He is more interested in telling the few in the city of London that their profits and greed will be safe under his leadership, than he is telling the working population that he has their backs in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
Labour have pushed for negotiations to be continued, especially in the current climate, and have in the main blamed government for negotiation breakdowns, that’s a long way from right wing views on this issue.
I’ve not heard him say anything to the city about labour protecting their capitalism?
There’s still plenty of time for labour to push more, this will be a summer of strikes.
Labour have pushed for negotiations to be continued, especially in the current climate, and have in the main blamed government for negotiation breakdowns, that’s a long way from right wing views on this issue.
SKS told his MP's not to support the pickets, he was going to punish those who ignored him until he realised that they had public support.
Pushing unions to negotiate with companies negotiating in bad faith is just empty rhetoric and does not support working people.
I’ve not heard him say anything to the city about labour protecting their capitalism?
The actions above are the message, he doesn't always need to write an opinion piece in the telegraph to let them know which side he is on.
bold and necessary progressive ideas for the masses
As someone who has always been to the left of Labour, I have to ask myself if the masses will support that. The signs are that they will not. Is it possible to persuade the public to support the policy platform of 2017, given the right leader, absolutely. 2019? I don’t believe so. I’d like to be proven wrong one day, but I don’t think that day is the next General Election. Does that make me a centrist, or just someone who lives in England who listens to other people?
All I'm seeing currently is the same hatred of the labour party for 'not being left enough', as the same absurd lib dem voters that absatined after the tory coalition 'sellout'.
To me it just shows a total lack of undersanding of how the political machine works in the UK.
Sure don't vote labour or lib dem, but in doing that you may as well vote tory. Go you!
I'm probably more aligned to lib dem rather than labour, but I'll vote labour without a second thought, If, I think that's the best way to get the conservatives out of power.
We have a common enemy as people here, so officially or unoficcialy we need to work together to change the direction of the political tide.
I’m probably more aligned to lib dem rather than labour, but I’ll vote labour without a second thought, If, I think that’s the best way to get the conservatives out of power.
I would reciprocate that if I lived in a Tory/LibDem marginal. Punishing the LibDems for the coalition gave us more Conservative MPs. Punishing Labour for moving their policies “right” from 2019 will do the same. Tactical voting is key. Or we’ll keep getting majority Tory governments based on a minority of support.
We have a common enemy as people here, so officially or unoficcialy we need to work together to change the direction of the political tide.
What direction is that?
What direction is that?
Away from the right?
What direction is that?
Hatred, poverty, confusion and disillusion with the tories, or something more progressive.
Away from the right?
How?
How
By voting Labour, Lib Dems SNP or Green maybe?
Still no answers I see, just arguing that I'm wrong. Wasn't that what you don't like about starmer?
We have a common enemy as people here
This is the problem with labour, they are least two factions, center left and far left, the far left hate starmer and will abstain, rather than vote lib dem, hence handing votes to the tories.
JHFC
The thing is it's usually the centrists who are causing the division. It was when Corbyn was in power, it is now.
All I’m seeing currently is the same hatred of the labour party for ‘not being left enough’, as the same absurd lib dem voters that absatined after the tory coalition ‘sellout’.
Not left enough? Starmer doesn't even claim that Labour is left-wing. He proudly announced yesterday that Labour was now an established centre party.
And the LibDems did indeed sellout which is precisely why 12 years later their support is still half of what it was before the sellout.
Nick Clegg and the LibDems enabled a Tory government, they enabled and enthusiastically supported austerity, with all its devastating consequences. They could have joined a grand anti-Tory coalition government but because they objected so strongly to Gordon Brown being PM they decided to cosy up with the Tories instead.
I find it hugely reassuring that so many of their former supporters haven't forgotten that.
All I’m seeing currently is the same hatred of the labour party
It’s not hatred of the party, just massive disappointment and anger with a small number of people at the top of the party, who are willing to abandon the party’s mission and principles when it isn’t necessary.
Labour can win power with a progressive agenda which helps working people. The current leadership don’t want to do that, they just want the power. And f*** knows why when they don’t seem to want to do anything with it.
I'm not going to argue against the above few points, because that would be a waste of time.
But they do illustrate quite nicely why the Conservatives might well win the next gerneral election, whenever that comes.
And the LibDems did indeed sellout which is precisely why 12 years later their support is still half of what it was before the sellout.
Nick Clegg and the LibDems enabled a Tory government, they enabled and enthusiastically supported austerity, with all its devastating consequences. They could have joined a grand anti-Tory coalition government but because they objected so strongly to Gordon Brown being PM they decided to cosy up with the Tories instead.
We certainly agree on that. The damage they willingly inflicted is there for all to see.
I’m not going to argue against the above few points, because that would be a waste of time.
But they do illustrate quite nicely why the Conservatives might well win the next gerneral election, whenever that comes.
So you feel that it might well be a widespread view which could result in the Conservatives winning the next election. That's great. But why hasn't the message apparently got across to Starmer?
This is the problem with labour, they are least two factions, center left and far left, the far left hate starmer and will abstain, rather than vote lib dem
The problem is the "far left" are actually the "left". Its just when the centrists got their hands on power they dragged everything hard right so mildly left wing policies are now claimed to be "far left".
The left gave starmer the benefit of the doubt initially, unlike the centrist nutters with Corbyn, but have just lost patience with him. Just look back through the thread to see those evolving views.
As for vote libdem dont you recall what happened last time? They would need to purge the orange book brigade to make it worth the risk.
It is fascinating how keen some people are to provide lectures now on the chances of the tories winning. Were you as keen when binners and his fellow nutters were doing their best to help the tories out?
Wasn’t that what you don’t like about starmer?
What do you like about Starmer?
The left gave starmer the benefit of the doubt initially, unlike the centrist nutters with Corbyn, but have just lost patience with him.
This is absolutely me. Whilst I liked Corbyn’s manifestos, I could see that the writing was on the wall with him from an early stage. A career of being an idealistic but somewhat naive chancer was not a good foundation for a Leader, and gave his enemies all the ammo they needed to destroy him. I spotted SKS’s political ambitions early on, long pre Corbyn, and kind of knew he was going to be the party leader at some point. I was cautiously optimistic about him; human rights lawyer and champion of the underdog through his legal career made me feel like he’d be someone that people can get behind.
But I’ve become more and more disappointed with him. He’s rowed back on commitment after commitment and now it feels like you’d be hard pushed to tell the difference between him and David Cameron, except maybe Cameron was a bit more exciting and clearer on what he stood for. SKS’s vacuum of intent feels disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
His behaviour in relation to the RMT strikes has been appalling for a Labour leader; talk about walking away from the working people base. It comes across as calculated and cynical. I feel very disenfranchised by him.
His behaviour in relation to the RMT strikes has been appalling for a Labour leader; talk about walking away from the working people base. It comes across as calculated and cynical. I feel very disenfranchised by him.
But not surprising to those who knew what motivates Starmer. In fact it was very much predicted as a clear possibility almost two and a half years ago, a couple of months before Starmer became Labour Leader, by David Renton QC. Quote:
"Starmer’s enthusiasm while DPP for using mundane news events to feed the press with rightwing talking points is a possible concern for Labour members. If such a leader was faced with news of an injustice in the future – the consequence of a change to immigration rules, say, or of a strike in public services – Starmer’s approach to the press as DPP might raise worries that he would not give a principled defence of the victims but would tell the press whatever it wanted to hear"
Scarily accurate.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/keir-starmer-past-scrutiny
So you would still rather have de Pfeffel than Starmer in here?
'Man of the people' Boris and the 'men not so much of the people' behind him, is still better than some sort of 'Tory-lite' Starmer Government?
This is why we can't aspire to nice things.
This is why we can’t aspire to nice things.
Not likely with either current party as they're following an economic model that won't offer it - or pay decent wages to provide a good standard of living.
We'd quite like better than both.
Centrists doing their best to force everyone to accept a lower standard of Labour party, and standard of living because they think that is the route to power.
What's embarrassing is that lower standard of Labour party still ain't that close to delivering the goods against this disasterous backdrop.
You lot of have been so dumbed down by the establishment's offerings you will never have nice things.
This is why we can’t aspire to nice things.
What would they be? What is labour offering that will be better than the tories? Serious question, because I haven’t a clue.
Aren't they encouraging us to vote for non-material be happy benefits like 'respect' and 'security'? I can't wait.
What is labour offering that will be better than the tories? Serious question, because I haven’t a clue.
I think you will find the answer that you are looking for in the Boris Johnson thread.
Johnson is so utterly evil that it doesn't matter what Labour are offering.
No further explanation is required.
is still better than some sort of ‘Tory-lite’ Starmer Government?
How do you think we ended up with Johnson, brexit and the hard right loons to begin with?
Thats the flaw with this seize the centre approach. The centre then shifts to the side and you end up with mildly left wing policies being called far left and policies which Thatcher wouldnt have touched with someone elses bargepole being considered centrist.
Starmer says they're putting the earlier manifesto to one side and wiping the slate clean for the new one.
Absolutely can't wait for this shiner when it appears.
I'm guessing it will be a couple of pages about tax cuts and insulation grants; peppered with photos of NHS workers largely from different ethnic backgrounds but no real wage commitments for them as times are tough - and no more EU.
Photos - I'm assuming pictures of Starmer clapping, couple of shots of terraced houses with skinheads stood outside and maybe some wind turbines in the background faded to red/green.
And a big wash of flag.
The Guardian: David Lammy apologises for getting facts wrong about BA strike.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/29/david-lammy-apologises-for-getting-facts-wrong-about-ba-strike
I am unconvinced that he "misheard". I struggle to believe that he didn't know the very basic facts behind a dispute on which he publicly expressed very strong opinions.
It sounds like the sort of pathetic excuse which we have come to expect from the current Prime Minister.
He has been making the point that however worthy a claim might be unions should not resort to the only genuine weapon they have available and take industrial action.
Instead, Lammy claims, they should only "negotiate", whilst totally ignoring the very likely possibility that an employer might have absolutely no intention at all of negotiating with a trade union which it feels won't strike.
I suspect that Lammy and the Starmer team were taken back by the predictable backlash to Labour's callous Tory-inspired position towards working people involved in dispute with employers, hence the backtracking and the claim of "misheard".
He has been making the point that however worthy a claim might be unions should not resort to the only genuine weapon they have available and take industrial action.
He has?!? I'd think far less of him if those turn out to be his words, not yours.
Engaging with you is probably a mistake but anyway:
Pressed on whether he supports the proposed strike by check-in staff, he said: “No, I don’t. No I don’t – it is a no, it’s a categorical no.”
Asked why, he said: “Because I’m serious about the business of being in government and the business of being in government is that you support negotiation.”
He couldn't have made it clearer that he didn't support the proposed strike but did support negotiations.
Despite his so-called apology he still hasn't come out in support of the proposed strike.
Now argue that he didn't mean what he actually said and that he in fact meant something completely different. Like when you claimed that Starmer didn't actually mean "the best Labour have had in Wakefield" when he himself wrote : “the best we have had in the constituency”.
You are very good at pretending that people don't mean what they actually say, when it suits your agenda. Obviously it's a whole different ball game when it comes to the Tories.
I'll leave others to decide if Lammy's words there mean what you said.
As to your other point, I didn't argue the point you're making at all about the Wakefield result. But others can page back and see what I said for themselves. You just carry on making things up.
I too am losing faith in SKS. It doesn't feel like he's yet managed to unite enough of the Labour party to win an election. Too many of his own party are prepared to undermine him to push their version of Labour through to the top, fair enough, but voters can see when there isn't unity within the party and that feels unstable and fractious, something the electorate must be very much ready to move on from.
Too many of his own party are prepared to undermine him to push their version of Labour
I don't see that. Starmer appears to enjoy the overwhelming support of the PLP. I see very little criticism from within the party - he seems to have kept criticism in check by either expelling or withdrawing the Labour whip, or threatening to do so.
The only criticism I am aware of recently was when Starmer himself claimed that shadow cabinet members were accusing him of being boring.
Do you have any examples of him being seriously undermined by members of his own party?
It doesn’t feel like he’s yet managed to unite enough of the Labour party to win an election.
What made you come to that conclusion? Was it the unrelenting war of attrition against anyone in the party who didn't do, say or think what they were told? Or was it the explulsion of members based on flimsy evidence from years ago such as a stray tweet or attendance at the wrong meeting which Starmer decided was unacceptable? A leader who constantly goes on about 'my party' is not a unifier. He's the very opposite.
Johnson is off on the G7 international stuff because it's an easy win that.
We need more weapons, future security getting worse etc. The old fashioned war on terror recycled.
This will leave Starmer with nothing. I mean he could be ripping into him over all sorts of stuff but Starmer island is a lonely place.
Johnson is the perfect deflector and matters at home look insignificant when you're on the NATO trail.
As for above comments on Starmer - seems to me people happy to blame other stuff for coming to terms with Starmer not performing as expected.
In other news I see Starmer and Khan disagreeing over the single market today. Interesting punch up.
seems to me people happy to blame other stuff for coming to terms with Starmer not performing as expected.
They just blame the lefties don't they? Which is highly ironic seeing as the lefties put him in the job and have on the whole been extremely quiet and unwilling to stick their heads above the parapet.
Yeah I really don't get the defence of him he's offering nothing to get remotely excited about.
There was talk about being boring is exactly what you need. Ugh. That's the why to inspire people for sure.
Old Rodney is invisible.
They just blame the lefties don’t they?
Not really. There is very little criticism of Starmer for "under preforming" by those on the right. They appear fairly satisfied with his performance.
But if push comes to shove and they have to accept that Labour isn't preforming quite as well as it should be then they usually manage to somehow blame Corbyn. Or Johnson. Or the right-wing press. Or when everything else fails, voters - stupid racist voters.
My local MP is Jacob Rees Mogg's niece.
The fact that she is Jacob Rees Mogg's niece probably had no bearing whatsoever on her selection to what is well on its way to becoming a safe seat in the Shires.
So what some of you seem to be saying is that i may as well vote to keep her as my MP, because the alternative is more of the same?
Centrist my arse, i was happy to vote for a Corbyn headed Labour Party - as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?
as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?
Agree in general but that doesn't mean we can want a better alternative than Starmer/Lib Dems (don't know what the difference would actually be other than Ed Davey is probably more memorable than Starmer)
Centrist my arse, i was happy to vote for a Corbyn headed Labour Party – as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?
If that was the priority for Starmer - why is he doing such a poor job?
The two go together - change the country and get elected. Maybe convincing the electorate goes hand in hand with inspiring them?
Why are Labour supporters so willing to accept a shoddy version of Labour that they think is super electable?
If that was the priority for Starmer – why is he doing such a poor job?
It's not like Starmer is intentionally boring, he just is!
Even tho hes polling much better than Corbyn or milliband, he still looks awkward in interviews, just as they did, (tho milliband these days seems far more comfortable in his own skin)
tho milliband these days seems far more comfortable in his own skin
He does but then he is not trying to be the Prime Minister anymore. The role clearly needs a lot of self confidence and BS.
I'm assuming even the Beeb is giving up on Starmer going by the length of the R4 interview they gave to Blair just now.
Centrist my arse, i was happy to vote for a Corbyn headed Labour Party – as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?
I think the worry for some of us is, if I can explain with an analogy. Boris has built a garish shoddy palace for oligarchs. If Starmer then just fixes the foundations and plumbing and makes the oligarchs palace less shody it becomes more permanent, and that appears to be the direction he is taking.
So I am starting to think that a Starmer lead labour government will only give some small steps of improvement while cementing into permanence the damaging swing of neoliberal economic policies that will be felt for generations.
So I am starting to think that a Starmer lead labour government will only give some small steps of improvement while cementing into permanence the damaging swing of neoliberal economic policies that will be felt for generations.
So much this.
The idea that if they got in power they would suddenly unleash dramatic changes is for the fairies too.
They'd want to not rock the boat.
The argument would be - they need to stay in power to enact change so we can't upset anyone.
Lammy's apology for his comments about BA must reflect that there is a realisation in the PLP that Mick Lynch is very very popular and that strikes will get considerable support and that Starmer's direction of travel will create much hostility.
@billMC definitely - for the time being Starmer has read this situation incorrectly.
The more people are squeezed the more the straight talking Lynch will get public support.
It's only when 'everyone' thought we were doing okay that unions were just a pain.
If Lynch and Starmer were on a panel together you would assume that Lynch was leader of the Labour party and Starmer was a moderate tory MP
The idea that if they got in power they would suddenly unleash dramatic changes is for the fairies too.
It's more than that. A Labour government can often introduce or massively expand right-wing policies, without any effective opposition, precisely because it is a Labour government - a Tory government doing the same would likely face constant opposition which would either stop or slow down their ability to push through right-wing policies.
A good example of this is PFI, introduced by the Tories, massively expanded by Labour.
Privatisation is generally much easier for a Labour government as they can invariably count on support from the Tories. This extends to other areas of policy such as welfare, foreign policy, etc.
A Labour government going to war is always going to face less parliamentary opposition than a Tory government going to war.
If Lynch and Starmer were on a panel together you would assume that Lynch was leader of the Labour party and Starmer was a moderate tory MP
Now that panel I would pay to see.
A Labour government can often introduce or massively expand right-wing policies, without any effective opposition, precisely because it is a Labour government – a Tory government doing the same would likely face constant opposition
...by which analysis it would seem things are working out brilliantly for you. That or you're just very wrong.
All these votes over industrial action will reveal the fault lines very quickly as shown marvellously by Munira Wilson and Baaaa Lammy. Shadow FB and other TU leaders will be taking note particularly when the proletarianised middle class starts thinking and behaving like a proletariat. Not sure if they'll get away with a clap this time.
Do we think that Labour would be performing better if they got behind the strike?
I don't think so. What has happened is that Mick Lynch has managed ro bring a more left wing discourse into the public domain. Before the strike began the public were mostly against it. Polling today suggests a significant majority support strike action.
The govt thought taking on the unions would be an easy win and the press (all of them, not just the RW press) thought they could simply take Lynch apart by portraying him as Arthur Scargill 2.0
Whilst I'll concede that Starmer has his shortcomings, for the moment Mick Lynch is doing a fantastic job for Ladour by getting a hitherto smothered left wing perspective discussed in public, without tethering the party to the unions.
I'd be happy for Labour to move leftward but am aware that the public has to be moved in that direction first. Lynch is doing that job.
He's also had me in stitches on more than one occasion. He made that Kay Burley interview look like a sketch from Father Ted...
IMO brother Mick's appeal is threefold. First of all he is talking from a position of genuine belief and commitment and is therefore direct and straight talking, something which doesn't come easy to career politicians, including Starmer.
Secondly he is seen as an ordinary guy taking on the "establishment" on behalf of his members - ordinary men and women. Most politicians are seen as part of the establishment, the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service is no exception.
And thirdly Lynch has made it absolutely clear that he doesn't see RMT members as an exception but simply another group of working people who have the right to stand up for themselves.
All of these points imo appear to have endeared him to the general public, whether this will benefit the Labour Party remains to be seen. I am unconvinced, more likely it exposes the current Labour regime as inapt and incapable of standing up for ordinary working men and women.
The latest YouGov poll out today for the Times gives Labour a 3% lead over the Tories, which suggests no sudden boost for Labour.
You were doing so well there ernie with your first 3 points, then you went on to do exactly what the Daily Mail wants you to do, use Mick Lynch as a stick to beat Labour with, thus helping the Tories.
I don't believe it was left wing policies that failed Labour at the last two elections, it was down to Corbyn the individual. The nation thought him a wrongun, and events in Ukraine have proved them right.
Can you imagine how things would be right now if the anti NATO, "Let's wait until Putin has concluded his investigations until we apportion any blame for the Salisbury poisonings" Corbyn was at the helm? Most people shudder at that thought, regardless of their political affiliation.
It wasn't left wing ideas that failed for Labour, it was Corbyn that failed left wing ideas. The man was a moron and since his departure it has been difficult for others to voice progressive ideas without being linked to him.
Mick Lynch has managed to change the script a little.
You were doing so well there ernie with your first 3 points, then you went on to do exactly what the Daily Mail wants you to do, use Mick Lynch as a stick to beat Labour with, thus helping the Tories.
I didn't use it as a stick to beat Labour with at all, I made an observational comment :
"All of these points imo appear to have endeared him to the general public, whether this will benefit the Labour Party remains to be seen."
How is that me using Mick Lynch as the Daily Mail does (I wasn't aware that they have been praising his common man touch in the way I just have) to beat Labour with?
I pointed out that today's YouGov poll for the Times gives Labour just a 3% lead, which doesn't provide much evidence that Mick Lynch is boosting support for Labour, as you apparently have suggested that he might.
Btw as I was halfway through writing my previous post sitting at a large table in the local Italian deli I became aware that about half a dozen Labour canvassers had sat down at the same table - there is a council by-election on today and the Italian deli is popular with people who use the Trade Union centre nearby.
I didn't look at the woman who sat next to me as she ordered her oat milk latte despite the fact that she was about two inches away from me. When I eventually momentarily stopped writing my post and I looked I couldn't believe my luck - it was one of Croydon's Labour MPs Sarah Jones.
We had a lively and good humoured exchange after I informed her that I wasn't voting Labour due not only to the Labour Party's scandalous record on Croydon council but also the appalling lack of credible opposition from Starmer.
Ironically I canvassed for Sarah Jones in 2017 when she successfully won the seat from the Tories. I like her (which I told her) she isn't on the left of the party but she certainly isn't a rabid right-wing Blairite like Croydon's other Labour MP Steve Reed.
Before the 2017 general election Sarah Jones had been quite critical of Corbyn, but after she won the seat from the Tories she openly admitted that Corbyn's 2017 manifesto had played a very major contribution to which she credited Corbyn.
she openly admitted that Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto had played a very major contribution to which she credited Corbyn
I would agree with that 100%. That manifesto got me voting Labour, and I don't believe it would have been what it was without Corbyn (or someone else on the left of the parliamentary party) being leader. That was 5 years ago though, and in the time that followed the party was damaged by both Corbyn not realising that he should move on to help the party get a new leader who could build on the positive reception that 2017 manifesto received from many quarters, and by the contents and the manner of the unveiling of 2019 manifesto. Over correction has been nailed on as a response ever since that 2019 election drubbing... blaming Starmer for it is loads of fun, I'm sure... but any potential leader would have taken a similar course to try and erase the public's 2019 view of Labour... that explains the FoM/SingleMarket changes of policy just as much as shifting away from large scale nationalisation. Both those, and other policy shifts, would have been Labour's path since the last election, come what may. That's not down to Starmer. It's down to the deep distrust and dislike of the last leader amongst voters in 2019, and down to the "who's side are you on" element of the Brexit process, and down to that 2019 manifesto, the way it was received, and the votes that followed.
Can you imagine how things would be right now if the anti NATO, “Let’s wait until Putin has concluded his investigations until we apportion any blame for the Salisbury poisonings” Corbyn was at the helm? Most people shudder at that thought, regardless of their political affiliation.
Look all you need to know is the current administration is 100 times more dangerous and more likely to take us into trouble than Corbyn ever would've been.
"Look all you need to know is the current administration is 100 times more dangerous and more likely to take us into trouble than Corbyn ever would’ve been."
With regards to how we deal with Russia I think we would be in a potentially worse position under Corbyn than under the current administration. That's how bad it is.... I'll refer you again to how he responded to the Salisbury poisonings and a view of NATO that was as negative as Trump's. I would even expect that the security services would see him as a potential security risk, him being such a maverick.
Similarly to Kelvin, I was impressed with the argument he put forward in 2017 and I voted Labour, had he stepped down then Labour could have moved forward with a more progressive agenda. He didn't and the rest is history, he more than destroyed his own legacy, he destroyed the left for a period. Starmer is Corbyns fault.
With regards to how we deal with Russia I think we would be in a potentially worse position under Corbyn than under the current administration. That’s how bad it is…. I’ll refer you again to how he responded to the Salisbury poisonings ....
Well you have certainly accepted the right-wing narrative that's for sure!
Corbyn has consistently opposed Putin right from the very start, in sharp contrast to the UK's political establishment.
In the year 2000, at the height of the second Chechen war, the British establishment widely backed Putin to replace Boris Yeltsin as Russia’s leader.
The then prime minister, Tony Blair, even invited him to visit Britain and meet the Queen, a visit Corbyn described as “premature and inappropriate”.
The following year when Blair went to Moscow, Corbyn warned: “We must be very careful to condemn abuses of human rights, whoever commits them, whoever they are committed against and however uncomfortable or inconvenient it is for us to do so.
In the aftermath of the poisoning on 15 March 2018, Corbyn said: “Either this was a crime authored by the Russian state; or that state has allowed these deadly toxins to slip out of the control it has an obligation to exercise.
“If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded.”
The Tory Party is Putin's and the Russian oligarchy's favourite UK political party - they have bankrolled it. The idea that the Tories's current leader is more trustworthy in dealing with Putin and the Russian oligarchs than a man who has relentlessly opposed them from the start is absurd.
Throughout the world Putin has formed close links with hard right/racist politicians and their political parties, in the US, France, the UK, Brazil,Italy, Hungary, etc. The idea that a left-wing Labour government led by Corbyn would buck the global trend and do him any favours is ridiculous.
Still don't listen to me, embrace what the Daily Mail tells you about Corbyn.
Starmer is Corbyns fault.
Starmer ran on a left wing manifesto! Is it Corbyn's fault that he lied?
All of these points imo appear to have endeared him to the general public, whether this will benefit the Labour Party remains to be seen. I am unconvinced, more likely it exposes the current Labour regime as inapt and incapable of standing up for ordinary working men and women.
Well as a bit of balance to inkster I think you are right on the money Ernie.
Jeez,
I remember why I rarely post on this thread, within a couple of posts someone will always be accusing me of Sri king the Daily Mail kool-aid.
It wasn't the RW press that told me Corbyn was a t***, He managed to do that all by himself.
Big swing in Tory land for council by-election
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1542641437283684361?t=_xrNbeA-WmlnLNXwBSCnFQ&s=19
It wasn’t the RW press that told me Corbyn was a t***, He managed to do that all by himself
And here we are.
Corbyn was always an easy target for RW media. He wasn't very good at dealing with it and they had a lot of stuff they could stick on him (right or wrong) meaning he would have to have been exceptional at dealing with it, which again he wasn't.
Which is where Starmer came in where it has been difficult for the media to attack him to anything like the same level so they have supported all of Johnson's shit instead.
Lose, lose.
edit: actually I can't be bothered