Forum menu
I dunno, maybe he will appeal more to the Germans and get the praise he thinks he deserves with his wishy washy statements.
I still think they will see straight through him though.
Well there's always a photo op.
I believe that Jeremy Corbyn, the man who Starmer has decided isn’t fit to be a Labour MP, will also be speaking later – no doubt about issues that concern ordinary working people, such as the cost of living crises in the UK, whatever is currently happening in Germany.
Yeah I mean it's all good here currently so why not bugger of to Germany to explain the macro-economic situation back home?
I thoroughly approve of Starmer being in Berlin. If ever he does get into power then improving the UK's relationship with the EU is one of the ways he can improve the lot of his electors.
I hope he takes time to do some tourism in Berlin, there's a lot to be learned from its past and present. Unfortunately he's a week late for Rave the Planet, that would have done him a world of good.
I thoroughly approve of Starmer being in Berlin. If ever he does get into power then improving the UK’s relationship with the EU is one of the ways he can improve the lot of his electors
He's spent the last few weeks making noises in the opposite direction, so yeah dine out on that one.
And why not primarly spend some time in the UK offering ideas and solutions to the UK's huge problems? I'm not seeing any of that.
Germany is in no way any sort of priority for the Labour party or the electorate currently despite him dressing it about the SPD.
And in the film Starmer Island talks about Labour having a contract with the British people. FFS.
We simply don't believe any contract will hold.
If ever he does get into power...
Indeed, and at the moment the "if" can't be overemphasized imo.
A requirement for Starmer to become UK PM might also involve him explaining his vision and his economic policies to British voters, as well as explaining it to "senior politicians" in Germany which he appears to be so proud to be associating with.
I agree, Ernie, Starmer is almost absent from the UK media I drop into. It takes a trip to Germany for him to exist and there's still no mention of his policies or ideals, even those he might share with the German left/greens. I'm no sure that's his failt though when those media are sold out to the Tories or Starmer sceptic even whe leftward leaning.
In fact if no-one were taking a blind bit of notice of me (they don't), I'd spend some time in Berlin too (I have).
Well if the UK media aren't taking a blind bit of notice of Starmer then it is because they don't see him as a threat to anything - neither the status quo nor the Tories. I can assure you that he wouldn't be ignored if they thought he presented some sort of threat.
I'm not sure that the "leftward leaning" are part of a conspiracy to ignore Starmer though - aren't the lefties getting stick from centrists for going on about Starmer and drawing attention to what he is doing, and more often what he's not doing?
Neither am I convinced that ignored in the UK Starmer will find satisfaction from in a trip to Berlin. How enthused do you imagine Germans might be to Starmer's vague comments about the UK economy and the need for the UK to grab the opportunities offered by brexit?
The Germans I hung out with were as aware as their government of the Brexit unfair advantage objective and equally as confident in their government and the EU to look after their interests.
Thing is that a Britain unchained will progressively be cut off. Sunak's proposed tearing up of EU derived legislation will be counter productive.
IMO Starmer is making a mistake pandering to the ever decreasing number of Brexiteers, especially as on the left they are a literally dying group of voters.
Shot some of that party political broadcast in the holocaust memorial which is a bit yuck.
"Bit yuk". The memorial or shooting the broadcast there? In Prague there are bronze cobble stones as memorials in front of buildings. From a population of 50 000 jews to 800. I prefer subtle reminders over big memorials. From a Wir sind Helden song, "Die haben Uns ein Denkmal gebaut, und jeder voll Idiot weiss das Das die Lieber versaut"
Edit: thinking about it a party leader speaking from a war crimes memorial when he's just sacked an MP for voting against giving impunity to British soldiers for war crimes is a "bit yuk".
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1550591401930416130?t=07ICFRYH6W7D-_TpdMhhFA&s=19
Brainless Tory nugget from Reeves.
The exact opposite of Labour values, and more in line with classic Tory thinking.
Failed Tory thinking.
We could end child poverty tomorrow without growth. Ditto homelessness. It’s a question of distribution.
The problem with redistribution of wealth in favour of those at the bottom of the tree is that those at the top of the tree will have less, thereby reducing their standards of living.
And yes while fighting child poverty and homelessness at the expense of those with huge wealth might well reflect the founding principles of the Labour Party it should be accepted that the party has experienced a total transformation in its long history - "modernisation" is what the Blairites would refer to it as.
Like all successful institutions within a capitalist society the Labour Party has been comprehensively taken over those with bourgeois attitudes - and why would it be any different? The solution lies in recognising that, not deny it or expecting different.
The problem with redistribution of wealth in favour of those at the bottom of the tree is that those at the top of the tree will have less, thereby reducing their standards of living.
Depends how you frame redistribution.
Resources yes - finances no.
But ultimately what's the point of finances without resources?
Also I tend to think of redistribution as putting the brakes on the rich and spreading more around for the less well off. Not literally taking from the rich.
So as a private individual you can't build 10 more skyscrapers because we're having the steel and concrete for our hospitals and train-lines.
Unfortunately a lot of Labour supporters believe in literal redistribution so they want to take from the rich.
As we've discussed government finances don't work like this. This is the utterly missed opportunity for Labour they can frame that they don't need to hike taxes initially - they could spend massively first and then apply the appropriate fiscal response.
It's madness that they are going for fiscal prudence first. It's barbaric, stupid and pointlessly uneconomic.
Also Reeves is relying on growth in a world where growth is on a downward trajectory.
Meanwhile Truss isn't even headlining with fiscal prudence. She's looked at the covid spend and thought yeah - it's not actually a problem. (Possibly without understanding it. But she's looked at it as a long-term thing.)
So as a private individual you can’t build 10 more skyscrapers because we’re having the steel and concrete for our hospitals and train-lines.
How would a Labour government legislate to control the use of scarce resources in that way? Ban the private individual from buying steel and concrete? Issue licenses?
I am happy to consider various ways to redistribute wealth but simply reducing the purchasing power of the very wealthiest would seem the easiest way of doing it rather than some convoluted scheme which denies them access to resources.
Besides, if you are denying the private individual the right of access to steel and concrete to build 10 more skyscrapers then you are presumably risking them seeing their standard of living falling, which was my original point - The problem with redistribution of wealth in favour of those at the bottom of the tree is that those at the top of the tree will have less.
Besides, if you are denying the private individual the right of access to steel and concrete to build 10 more skyscrapers then you are presumably risking them seeing their standard of living falling, which was my original point –
You'd be ingnoring what society needs then.
Asset class have had it good. Their wealth is locked in for the time being.
How would a Labour government legislate to control the use of scarce resources in that way? Ban the private individual from buying steel and concrete? Issue licenses?
I don't think it's a problem for the state to redirect resources to the needs of its electorate.
I don't care how they do it. And when the state operates it still needs private contractors.
Things are only a problem from the current way of doing things.
Besides, if you are denying the private individual the right of access to steel and concrete to build 10 more skyscrapers then you are presumably risking them seeing their standard of living falling, which was my original point –
They can seek other forms of employment? And the state itself can become and employer too to deliver its needs.
You’d be ingnoring what society needs then.
Well yes obviously but isn't that what we have learnt to expect from both Tory and Labour governments?
They can seek other forms of employment? And the state itself can become and employer too to deliver its needs.
Quite. However I get the feeling that you might be underestimating the task which you are proposing and the likely pushback.
What you were originally suggesting was an economic strategy for politicians today to "end child poverty tomorrow". But that has now apparently metamorphosed into a very radical programme in which the power and privileges of the very wealthy are challenged in a meaningful way, and any concerns they might have dismissed as inconsequential.
Whilst I applaud your goals you have to accept that it will never be on the agenda of neither the Tories nor Labour.
Other than that it's a great idea and if I might suggest a slogan....."for the many, not the few".
Nice slogan, unfortunately you can't even beat a Brexit downtrodden Theresa May with it and got trounced by Johnson so can only assume the the voters of the country are not interested in it and are happy for the odds to be stacked in favour of the few.
“Bit yuk”. The memorial or shooting the broadcast there?
Missed this soz yes shooting the broadcast.
Whilst I applaud your goals you have to accept that it will never be on the agenda of neither the Tories nor Labour.
What goes on in my head bears no resemblance to what will likely happen. But you have to hope and an idea.
Also RLB entirely gets it - well done.
Where Starmer island thinks you can just grow the economy somehow without intervention. He's clearly not drilled down on the Tory growth rules play book. i.e No explanation.
The man's a complete economic idiot. And so is RR. They're aping the Tories growth wishes - based on what? It's the same project. Just they're looking at 2024.
(Apologies for fragmentation of discussion. Touring across France)
Also Ernie where do you think productive capacity is going to come from if the private sector contracts?
Somebody will have to do something - it's impossible to not intervene, eventually.
Seems like labour are going to spend almost all of their first term in office telling the voting public why they can't have decent public services, well paying jobs, and functioning and affordable public infrastructure. That's if they even get into office. Is anyone going to vote for the party poopers?
I was warming at one slight point but the stuff they're offering up - I'm going to struggle now more than ever.
The desperation to try and take power by making all the cynical economic choices leaves me out.
It's laughable they see it a pragmatic approach not to nationalise utils etc. Where's the pragmatism in big bill, poor service, and no real competition?
I don't see how they're going to change things for the better. The argument that wait until they take power doesn't stand any longer as they're cutting all progressive ideas off by the balls.
There's only RLB speaking sense as far as I can see.
The Tories will now box them in on spending I reckon too.
It’s laughable they see it a pragmatic approach not to nationalise utils etc.
They're basically just terrified of the 'where will the money come from' question about the cost of nationalisation. I get that, but what I don't understand is why they don't say 'we may not be able to afford to buy back energy firms, but we can regulate them to stop profiteering and take a shareholding in failing firms in return for government support. That's the pragmatic approach which they seem so keen on, and it's not particularly controversial given it's been done before with the banks. All I'm hearing though is business as usual, nothing can be done etc. And if nothing can be done then what's the point in voting for them?
I'd go one further and just say they're terrified of anything remotely sounding like socialism.
But why is the failed ideology of market forces considered acceptable then? People on here go on about being ideologically pure - bad and pragmatism good. But we currently have Ideology! It's just that it's considered the correct way.
Still picking one ideology over the other. And on top of that they should easily be able to defend the cost of nationalisation versus the current actual cost to the electorate in their actual pockets.
Let them keep sinking the ship between them.
Let's see how the private sector behaves over the next 6 months or so. So much uncharted territory - I think we will see a Tory government offering up more (probably in a piss poor way) than Starmer and that will sink his ship.
https://twitter.com/ChaplainChloe/status/1551510112254164992?t=_ZtwdEakJKmAj0qqYSumWw&s=19
Over to you Starmer how actually do you grow a country with pragmatism? Bursting to know what this word salad means.
Cringe city. But this woman lays it out.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1551607324552355841?t=RWMnGDCmKieFZu2Of3aNPg&s=19
Wonder where the clip was from?
Edit: here
https://twitter.com/MerseyPensioner/status/1551591122446737409?t=9eTxGL1WU5JU5Gom4U2_yg&s=19
SKS is ****ing it up. The majority of the public are in favour of rail, mail, water & probably energybeing brought back in to public ownership, it was one of his ten pledges. WTF is he doing?
Don't worry ctk, people will be along shortly to tell you how unpopular those things are and how they prefer the current messed up market based services that are great for us all.
Further to that they will then claim pragmatism over ideology but will not recognise the current failings of their chosen ideology - neoliberalism.
They will drivel on like puppets about being ideologically pure because they heard James o'Brien say it.
And yet ironically at this point being pragmatic would include nationalisation.
Starmer has wrecked the answer to society's problems by avoiding the obvious counter-arguments to Conservatism, and instead aligning himself to their values.
And yet ironically at this point being pragmatic would include nationalisation
Yep 100% It's crazy he is getting in such a tangle over these things. He is not thinking about winning over voters, he is thinking of city donors and the newspapers.
We want to Take Back Control of our water, rail, and mail 🤣 It's a vote winner.
SKS is on BBC breakfast at the moment. Unfortunately he's coming across (to me) like any other politician who doesn't answer the question, uses too many words, avoids the point and answers different questions to the one being askedb and doesn't commit to anything solid.
Asked about nationalisation and it's all "pragmatic response","fix the problems" and on public sector pay its "there's an established body round the table to sort that."
I think undecided voters just want someone who gets straight to the point and answers the bloody question with a simple answer.
That's because he hasn't really got the answers. He's not offering solutions.
How hard can it be to push back against the Tories? Pragmatism is the new empty buzzword.
It astonishes me how bad Starmer is becoming day by day.
At least Truss offers stuff up. People like to see a bit passion. He's got none.
Mick Lynch has taught people that if you know your stuff and you can present a clear line you don't need nebulous media training to get you through.
It astonishes me how bad Starmer is becoming day by day.
The strategy is pretty clear. He's putting all his chips on not saying anything that will upset or offend the tory media or give them ammuninition to accuse him of being a lefty. I get it, and can ignore most of what he says (or doesn't say) with that in mind. But it's a huge gamble. At a time when the country is screaming out for solutions and politicians willing to do something about the struggles they're experiencing, at best Starmer is coming across as someone with no answers, at worst someone who doesn't care.
And what happens if labour doesn't win the next election? They've tried the centrist approach with Miliband and failed. They tried the left wing approach with Corbyn and failed. Now they're trying the right wing approach and are failing. What do they do after that?
The strategy is pretty clear. He’s putting all his chips on not saying anything that will upset or offend the tory media or give them ammuninition to accuse him of being a lefty. I get it, and can ignore most of what he says (or doesn’t say) with that in mind. But it’s a huge gamble.
Agree, he is going for the Blair approach. Clearly worked very well for Blair but we are in very different times and Starmer doesn't have what Blair had.
Can't see it working out well but an election against Truss will be a good test.
They tried the left wing approach with Corbyn and failed
Yeah but now more than ever maybe the timing is much better?
I'm not into the quiet approach I think it's cowardice. Be sincere with your ideas and defend them.
Shouldn't be difficult currently.
Agree, he is going for the Blair approach. Clearly worked very well for Blair but we are in very different times and Starmer doesn’t have what Blair had.
Can’t see it working out well but an election against Truss will be a good test.
Blair had ideas, and as you said was of his time.
I don't think Truss is going to be the pushover everyone thinks.
I don’t think Truss is going to be the pushover everyone thinks.
Truss fancies herself as a the new iron lady. Trouble is she has no convictions, principles or beliefs beyond being in power. The reason thatcher carried it off is because she had the security of her beliefs to fall back on. At the first hint of trouble Truss will be thrashing around looking for quick PR fixes to intractable problems. She has all the worst traits of Thatcher (stubbornness and lack of empathy), May (incompetence) and Johnson (narcissism and dishonesty) combined and no redeeming features (that I can think of anyway). I'm pretty certain she's going to be a disaster. Starmer must be thanking his lucky stars.
I’m not into the quiet approach I think it’s cowardice. Be sincere with your ideas and defend them.
Me too but it would seem that's not what the media or voting public want in a leader. They want someone who 'says the right things' and doesn't offend anyone. If that's the persona that Starmer is playing then I can ignore that. All I'm interested in is what he'll do once in power. I've been repeatedly assured by people here and IRL that labour/Starmer will be different in power to what they are now. I've seen no evidence to support this but will keep an open mind out of nothing but blind hope. Pretty sure I'll be disappointed though.
Me too but it would seem that’s not what the media or voting public want in a leader. They want someone who ‘says the right things’ and doesn’t offend anyone. If that’s the persona that Starmer is playing then I can ignore that
At some point he absolutely has to upset the right wing media if he's to implement anything progressive.
Otherwise he's not doing his job for the rest of us.
I’ve seen no evidence to support this but will keep an open mind out of nothing but blind hope. Pretty sure I’ll be disappointed though.
That's because you are correct. There's isn't anything else. All the evidence points towards him not having any actual ideas.
And we both know better than most that the country doesn't need to afford things - and yet he's peddling that currently like a single speed bike. He's doing the rounds talking about rail nationalisation but pragmatism on others. What does any of it mean?
I'm not with you on Truss though. I don't think she will be a gift for Starmer. She looks like a doer to me - something Starmer just ain't.
Although I'm not invested in it so I couldn't care less if I'm right or wrong on that.
I don’t think she will be a gift for Starmer. She looks like a doer to me – something Starmer just ain’t.
That's because she's so thick she thinks doing stuff is as easy as issuing a prime-ministerial decree and then stuff magically happens. Her record elsewhere shows she has never got anything done (reintroducing beavers doesn't count). Starmer probably knows how difficult it is from his time as DPP, which is why he's averse to making promises he can't keep. Getting stuff done, especially stuff that helps working people, in this country requires a combination of intelligence, guile, courage and determination. I don't think Truss or Starmer have many of those qualities.
Agreed. It's a rough mix.
But I think both Presidents/Prime-minsters largely are dopey and don't really do a whole lot other than open their mouths occasionally.
I know Dominic Cummings has questionable motives, but his description (below) of Truss was all you need to know to decide how effective a PM she'll be. She thinks the job of a government minister is no more than the political manoevrings and PR required to generate positive headlines. Johnson was the same and look what happened to him. When she starts cocking up the establishment will move against her, just like they did with Johnson, and with an election looming there'll be no honeymoon period.
Starmer on the other hand seems to think governing is simply managing the status quo and day-to-day operations. He'll keep the establishment happy but piss off everyone else with his lack of action. TBH I don't know which is worse.
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1549782798608785408?s=20&t=hDWUpRtuo3mV4cDrassNMA
Starmer on the other hand seems to think governing is simply managing the status quo and day-to-day operations. He’ll keep the establishment happy but piss off everyone else with his lack of action. TBH I don’t know which is worse.
That's easy for me - as a Labour supporter you can only shape(ish) the Labour party.
You don't have a whole lot of control what goes on with the Tories.
So I'm always going to be disappointed with my own side more if they don't push back.
(PS Cummings tweets are too cryptic for me generally. I mostly haven't a clue what he's talking about.)
I'm cutting Truss a tiny bit of slack because I believe Sunak is the worst possible kind of Tory.
All the good stuff for him and crumbs for everyone else.
Also Sunak - "the government doesn't have money of its own." I despite him for that line.
Truss could come in and sort energy bills properly and she'll win the next election. There may be other easy wins for her.
SKS needs to come up with some positive reasons for people to vote for him. I may be misremembering but I think Blair ran a very positive campaign.
https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1551977543397433344?t=9URXGInlWowoBzrJ6AzRiw&s=19
I don't mind James Meadway - he's was John Mcdonnell's economic advisor. He's very keen to point out that the previous manifestos were fully costed so Starmer is not offering anything new here.
(I don't agree with fully costed logic but for a level playing field.)
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1552254079363153921?t=_22nm3qctLiuIo_w3TdMLw&s=19
Look at public ownership opinion data.
What an arse hole. Hope that sacking backfires big time for Starmer.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1552338295035772928?t=ImtUT_EKGcnu_Dse6LhqZA&s=19
I am lost now, if the Labour Party does not stand by ordinary working people asking for a cost of living pay rise/acceptable working conditions what the **** do they stand for?
FFS.
Is this because the RMT aren't Labour affiliated? On the face of it is seems a crazy decision, and even if that's the case and it's because of that reason, that's not really been well communicated to the public, and additionally that looks completely mercenary
Labour have lost their way on this
Are there any Starmer apologists still willing to defend this ****ing pathetic right wing nutjob. There was a few "centrists" quite willing to do some union bashing when the RMT announced the strikes (iirc the excuse was that the daily mail might say nasty things) maybe they would like to post some pictures from monty python and blame Corbyn for labour deserting working people, or maybe they are too busy calling anyone who wants to talk about policy instead of just bashing the political caricatures on "tory" threads communists.
Starmer has allowed the oligarchs complete control of labour, there is no opposition, just a pretence of choice.
MSP on fire there.
It really is a rotten state of affairs that we appear to have no way out.
And it's getting worse.
Also I don't want to hear any longer this is about electability. Starmer could've have been electable and progressive.
I've been reasonably supportive of Starmer for the most part, but I'm really disappointed with this move.
Reminds me of Corbyn's pickle over Brexit tbh - hasn't defined a clear position and looks lost as a result.
Sigh.
It's going down like a cup of the proverbial cold sick locally with the party -across the board lefties, centerists and everything in-between. At least one of the most critical voices is mates with a shadow front-bencher so I hope this is getting fed back.
The bigger issue is that the labour party has become pathologically afraid of taking a stand on anything because it will be unpopular with someone - we aint going to win any elections like that - the Tories will Tory their way back once they have a new leader (even if it's Truss)
Stupid and naive of Starmer. Although, he wasnt sacked for being on the picket liine, it's being spun like that. Which was obviously going to happen.
As above, the Labour Party are trying too hard not upset anyone.
They wont call out Brexit for the disaster it is for fear of upsetting the Red Wall Brexiteers. - instead they should be emphasising that people were lied to and our long-term strategy should be with the EU - I accept it can't happen overnight.
They won't support the strikers because it'll upset the Tories who think strikers are communist scum.
We need someone less timid.
Are there any Starmer apologists still willing to defend this
Not a Starmer apologist, but looking at this in more detail, the story is one of internal party arguing, It's clear the RMT have been used as a prop to force the Labour leadership the result that occurred. neither Tarry or Starmer come out of this looking like grown ups IMO
Petty internal squabbling gets in the way of looking after the interests of people again.
Nah, it's Starmer's take on unions and industrial action. It's now the Hard Labour Party.
Petty internal squabbling gets in the way of looking after the interests of people again
Nah - not even close. The issue is about supporting normal working people in a cost of living crisis and against the tide of increasingly poor employment practice. RMT is just the initial skirmishes - teachers and nurses (even the RCN!) are balloting for strike action. private sector employers like the airports have already met worker demands because of the threat of industrial action.
Is Labour seriously not going to support striking nurses?
Nah, it’s Starmer’s take on unions and industrial action.
Oh, don't misunderstand me, I think Labour's stance about not supporting the RMT (or unions in general) is unhinged. No arguments. But Tarry is no innocent either, he's used the RMT for his own purposes here.
But Tarry is no innocent either, he’s used the RMT for his own purposes here.
Possibly especially with the talk about the deselection. However it was Starmer who created the scenario which could be used in his hope of making the daily heil like him.
Tarry is a former national officer for TSSA, which presumably played a part in his position as shadow transport minister. TSSA btw is currently in dispute with rail companies.
The idea that a Labour politician, and former full-time official of a transport trade union, would not openly and publicly lend their support to a transport union demanding a cost of living wage rise, in face of strong opposition from a Tory government which is determined that once again ordinary working people should make all the sacrifices, is frankly ridiculous.
I can't see how Tarry even had a choice. Abstaining or keeping silent or prevaricate on important headline issues might seem like a reasonable choice for Starmer but many people expect far more from the official party of Opposition.
We spend a lot of time on here taking apart Starmer's shitty right-wing twitching - when was the last time he did something good that we could applaud? ...
And that's the point.
Everything in this thread has been about the disintegration of the Labour party with Centrists queuing up to find the value of crumbs in Starmer and there isn't any. The tiny positive crumbs have been stolen by the Tories.
The Centrists have left the thread because they can't defend him any longer.
The concept of him upsetting the right wing does not wash. When he's in power he's going to be exactly the same for fear of losing an election. It will be this constant excuse from the Centrists.
Progressive polices will upset the establishment. You just need to defend them like Lynch does.
We seriously need this coward gone.
Hard to defend Starmer here.
It reminds me of when Corbyn sacked Owen Smith for suggesting a confirmatory referendum on Brexit would be a good idea. Sacked him for not towing the party line.
There are lots of great points in that.
I think you could be a centrist and have bold, ambitious or at least practical ideas of how to improve the UK. SKS has nothing. It's a real shame.
I actually remember him saying that they will have ambitious/radical policies before the next election.
I think you could be a centrist and have bold, ambitious or at least practical ideas of how to improve the UK
I don't think you can, centrism is by definition sitting on the fence. It is the political philosophy equivalent of allowing climate scientists and a denier equal footing in a debate.
Centrism is an "Instagram picture of compassion" that hides the reality, it is engaging the right wing culture wars so you can be seen to be on the good side, without actually wanting the economic changes that would bring equality and greater wellbeing to society. It is accepting that climate change is an existential threat to life on earth, but not willing to commit to solution because the "markets" still want short term greed as a higher priority. Centrism is indecisiveness and fear of change masked as balance.
Centrism is indecisiveness and fear of change masked as balance.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's political cowardice, plain and simple. It's also a direct result of a political culture where the acquisition of power and the development of a political 'career' is the primary concern of politicians. Starmer is a perfect example of that, along with many in the shadow cabinet. Liz Truss, Johnson and Sunak too. They all represent a system where the needs of the electorate are secondary to the careers of politicians, and all the people who have careers which feed on that system such as journalists, lobbyists, commentators etc.
Nah you can offer stuff from the centre. A centrist can offer further devolution, reform of the Lords, smaller class sizes, better GP appointments, controls on MPs 2nd jobs, free university education etc
But yes Keir is offering nothing and saying nothing which is political cowardice.
Give us a clue SKS! Or is the next manifesto just going to be blank?
It's incredible. His alternative to the far right anti-woke pantomime playing out is to hide away until it all blows over. Mick Lynch is a braver interviewee than the leader of the opposition.
Lynch has just one thing to care about, know all about and defend it. An MP, especially would be leader of a party, has to pretend to care about everything while knowing little about most of it and always having the voters and media response on their mind.
Always worth remembering Centrism is not the centre of anything.
It's the endorsement of current market forces but with a bit more taxation here and there.
It also follows and criticises the right constantly with no answers of its own.
I also find the other difference with Centrists over the loon right is they tend to believe the EU is the absolute answer to all economic problems. You've only got to read Dunt or O'Brien's material.
Lynch has just one thing to care about, know all about and defend it.
I think you might have missed the point concerning the praise the Mick Lynch [blessings be upon him] has been receiving.
What impresses people is how Lynch [blessings be upon him] answers direct questions in a direct manner. Where a question is clearly a ridiculous question he exposes it as such. There is absolute clarity in his position and no prevarication.
And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why Keir Starmer cannot handle media interviews in the same manner. He needs to make up his mind where he stands on issues and clearly communicate that in interviews.
It really shouldn't be too much to expect from the leader of a political party.
I think you might have missed the point concerning the praise the Mick Lynch [blessings be upon him] has been receiving.
Not missed the point at all and I think Mick Lynch is great. But again he can easily answer straight with no repercussions as his sole job is representing a single group of people on one subject rather than trying to make a country, a party and the media happy across many, many areas.
I would rather have Lynchs job than Starmers.
Starmer is still shit at it though so no argument from me there.
But again he can easily answer straight with no repercussions
What "repercussions" do you think Keir Starmer [pain and misery be upon him] might face if he gave straight answers?
People might know where he stood on issues and criticise him?
I completely agree that he won't give a straight answer because he is worried about the repercussions.
But ffs is really too much to expect from a politician? Most people appear to think it isn't.
Edit: And to get back to the point that was being made, Lynch [blessings be upon him] is showing him how to do it.
I think it is the contrast between the two which strikes people and reminds them that straight answers to straight questions in media interviews is actually possible.
Starmer is ultimately hiding behind fiscal rules which restrict giving sensible answers on pay rises by the state.
If you take his economic line of logic then there will never be adequate pay rises as tax will always be too low for a wage rise whilst inflation is high. Because unlike all the thick brained Tories reasoning for a wage price spiral we have a wage price contractiom currently. That can only be fixed by the state or huge growth.
But because we really know tax doesn't pay for spending then we know he's incompetent and a liar, and not befitting of a Labour leader to talk like this.
Fiscal rules will utterly ruin the Labour party in periods of low or no growth.
So looks like Starmer has had to back down on his picket line ban. Nice one Keir. Picking a pointless fight with your own side to keep the Daily Mail happy. Pathetic.
Tories not embarrassed about sticking up for capital ...
Lisa Nandy went to a picket line today with the looks of it.
Lmfao
Truss ahead of Starmer. Look below 2 weeks ago Starmer was ahead by 12pts!
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1554139397209182208?t=c0ph6EStmIcpVweuVzQFzA&s=19
Lmfao
Truss ahead of Starmer. Look below 2 weeks ago Starmer was ahead by 12pts!
It's what you'd expect, nothing is happening at Labour HQ just now, Starmer is not in the news really, it's all about the tory leadership elections, so the poll is just feeding off that.
The actual facts show that Liz Truss, who has been in positions of power is pretty much a disaster, turning anything that should be simple diplomacy or political discussions into an awkward exchange.