The perceived breach of trust when he backtracked from renewing his 10 commitments runs really deep clearly. It seems to be a wound that cannot heal.
I don't understand what that means. He didn't have to "renew" anything, he just had to stick to what he claimed he believed.
And it's not a case of a wound that won't heal, it's a simple observation. He can't be trusted to say what he believes.
It is obvious that he is not a conviction politician and that he is not motivated by principles.
He just wants to move into Number 10.
His strategy appears to be to wait for Johnson to shoot himself in the foot and then sneak in.
It is a strategy. It's just not a very good one.
The logic is surely as the left clearly can’t come up with an alternative to Starmer (still waiting Bridges, you know you want to say the name (unless it’s Burgon)), they either suck it up as get behind him and bury their misgivings
Has that been offered as an option for 'the left'? Cos it seems like unless they convincingly swear their undying love of an apartheid regime they won't be welcome in the party anyway.
The perceived breach of trust
It's not just 'perceived' though is it. He deliberately kept his anti-Corbyn/Blairite/pro-Israel funding secret (despite numerous requests and full transparency from other candidates) until it was too late, and pretended to be a socialist/unity candidate to get elected leader. Then carried out a purge of left wing members including the former leader and even ejecting jewish life-long members for not being the right type of jews, and abandoned his famous '10 pledges'. Then turned on the labour youth movement.
And TBH a lot would be forgiven if he was actually showing any sign that he might have the vaguest possibility of winning.
But to abandon your supposed principles to supposedly make yourself electable, then failing utterly - well... He's very lucky there's no one else very good waiting in the wings isn't he.
He just wants to move into Number 10.
I’d love him to move into no10. But it simply won’t happen. I agree, he doesn’t appear to have a good strategy to achieve that. Or the personality required to get people to accept you have a strategy when you don’t (unlike the PM).
As for not sticking to his leadership election promises… since then every politician should have changed their priorities, approach and commitments… the world has changed in that time. The thing for me isn’t that he is saying different things, it is that he isn’t saying enough that is new, or fresh, or sounds vital. Some might say he’s holding back ‘till an election. I don’t buy that, I think he is just as boring as he currently appears to be. Unlike others, I don’t think he has an integrity problem, but I do think he is dull, dull, dull. Modern politics does not allow that. And don’t cite Biden… what works for a relatively short campaign against Trump doesn’t work with years to go ‘till an election against a shape shifting opponent like the Conservatives.
Has the world fundamentally changed? How so? Rich people got much richer?
While you’re discussing sticking to the policy commitments that Jeremy Corbyn carried down from the mountain, carved in tablets of stone, the Tory’s are about to raise national insurance (read: increase tax in a way that will hit the poorest hardest)
Citation needed for this statement
It was Blair who signed off student fees within days on becoming PM IIRC.
And binners turns up on the Starmer thread to try to take the attention away from Starmer and onto Jeremy Corbyn.
Good to see everyone sticking to their scripts.
As for not sticking to his leadership election promises… since then every politician should have changed their priorities, approach and commitments… the world has changed in that time.
Every politician should have changed their principles in the last few months because the world has also changed?
How long do you think politicians should hold onto their principles for..... until the end of the month?
To remind you here's Starmer's 10 pledges. It's from Jewish Voice for Labour so I don't know if that makes them anti-Semitic but they have very helpfully included when Starmer binned a particular pledge.
Christ there is some depressing reading on that site. Fans of the phrase 'puppet masters' used to refer directly to jewish people might be interested in this one - this guy still has a ministerial post! Unbelievable hypocrisy.
“Steve deleted the tweet and did not mean to cause offence” said Starmer, dismissing calls for Reed’s resignation
Imagine if this has been Corbyn or one of his allies, the outrage would have gone on for weeks - I don't even remember this being reported. But he was one who was willing to swear his undying love for Israel and how right Starmer was to kick him out, so I guess he's ok.
It contains this little gem:
Asked how he would respond to the view that he could not completely absolve himself given that he served under the ex-leader, Mr Reed said: “I don’t criticise people who take that view.
“I would ask them only this… if all of us had walked out, then the Labour Party would be in the hands of the antisemites now.”
He also has jewish friends, so there's that too.
But now of course the Labour Party has been cleansed so we should all definitely vote for them now. What an absolute shit-show
I said…
every politician should have changed their priorities, approach and commitments
…not…
Every politician should have changed their principles in the last few months
And it’s been one and half years, not a few months. And not a normal one and half years.
this guy still has a ministerial post!
He should have been shuffled out of the shadow cabinet for that “puppet masters” comment in my opinion.
Oh, hang on… he deleted the comment as soon as it was pointed out to him that he had slipped into using an antisemitic trope? That’s different.
Is it?
It’s not good, but it’s better than claiming it isn’t an antisemitic trope, repeating it again again, and claiming anyone pointing out that it is a trope just has some kind of weird personal vendetta against you.
You need to pay more attention Kelvin. Within months of making his pledges Starmer was binning them, I don't think any of them managed to last a whole year.
So yeah, my reference to "within months" is perfectly accurate.
And you might choose to describe his pledges as "priorities, approach and commitments" but when he himself was referring to his pledges he talks about, quote :
"Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand."
And, quote :
"No stepping back from our core principles"
It's pretty damn clear that he wanted people to believe that his pledges were his principles.
And since he abandoned all ten pledges within months of winning the leadership election it is perfectly accurate to claim that he changed his principles within months.
The only thing that is certain about Starmer is that he cannot be trusted.
I wouldn't even trust him if he declared that he was committed to following Tony Blair's New Labour legacy.
I would just assume that he had said it because he believed that was what his audience wanted to hear.
He's not left-wing, he's not right-wing, he's just a man who wants to be Prime Minister.
Not that vastly different to Boris Johnson really.
It’s pretty damn clear that he wanted people to believe that his pledges were based on his principles.
Policy has to change. It has to keep up. I think he’s not changed enough since becoming leader to be honest… he’s jettisoned stuff (or just quietly ignored it hoping it’ll go away) without replacing it. Some might say he’s clearing the decks and will bring forward a full platform on the run up to an election (much as Labour did in 2017)… I don’t think he should be left in place long enough to find out if that’s true… someone else should be leading that pre-election policy formation, I see no signs Starmer is up to the task.
It’s not good, but it’s better than claiming it isn’t an antisemitic trope, repeating it again again, and claiming anyone pointing out that it is a trope just has some kind of weird personal vendetta against you.
Who did that then?
Edit: Oh I see you are comparing a minister with some guy posting on a bike forum. Got it.
Yeah alright Kelvin, "No stepping back from our core principles” actually meant "this is what I believe today, next week I'll probably believe something else".
You are Groucho Marx and I claim my greasepaint mustache.
I don’t think he’s “stepping back from” Labour’s “core principles”. Policies presented at the next election can be very different (and should be) to those at the last one, but built on the same core principles. If nothing else, they’ll need to reflect the changes made by the incumbent government over five years. Five years that already include a multi year pandemic and changed arrangements between UK nations (and between the UK and the rest of the world).
Has that been offered as an option for ‘the left’? Cos it seems like unless they convincingly swear their undying love of an apartheid regime they won’t be welcome in the party anyway.
The view of the left is that KS is the equivalent of the anti-christ after the secular Saint.
So you want him gone, so who is going to be the next leader??
Bridges can't bring himself to name Richard Burgon
The other names put forward so far get shot down
So imagine that Starmer tanks at conference (shouldn't be hard for you), looks in the mirror and as the opportunist you claim he is decides to walk out of politics.
So who leads labour next? They need to be a PLP member and be pure enough for the left (otherwise we'll end up going round the same loop)
Go on name them.
Or just keep telling the rest of us how bad Starmer is
I don’t think he’s “stepping back from” Labour’s “core principles”.
Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand.
1. Economic justice
Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles.
Increase income tax for the top 5% - binned
Reverse the Tories' cuts in corporation tax - binned
Yup. New policies on taxation required. Principles and values inform policies. Policies have to change. He’s binning commitments ahead of announcing (you would hope) new ones in the run up to the next election. I still think he should be replaced and someone else given that task. But whoever forms that next manifesto will have to ensure it is very different to the last one, that isn’t unique to Starmer, and doing so does not necessarily mean a change in fundamental principles or values.
So who leads labour next?
I don’t think anyone is obviously ready and willing right now, but there are plenty who could be in the running.
pure enough for the left
Which “left”?
All the candidates I prefer would get the backs up of some. Lammy would annoy the Brexit loving anti-London anti-liberal types. Lewis would annoy the tribal types who see other non-Tory parties as the real enemy. And so on… there is no “unity” candidate. There is no one “left” group in Labour, it is many different groups, many of which see others of the “left” as not being left at all. On and on it goes…
Yup. New policies on taxation required.
Starmer calls them "our core principles".
Why are devaluing his core principles by referring to them as merely "policies"?
Setting specific tax rates or bands is policy. They were polices based on seeking economic justice. Other policies can be drawn up based on a desire for economic justice.
Well he wasn't very good at writing his 10 socialist pledges, was he?
He seemed to think that he was talking about "core principles" as in "No stepping back from our core principles", after the blurb about the 5% top earners and corporation tax.
But it turns out, thanks for pointing it out Kelvin, that he meant policies, not principles......."no stepping back from our core policies", it should have said.
Any other glaring mistakes in Starmer's 10 socialist pledges Kelvin?
How about "Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand."?
Should Starmer have used a different word to "socialism"? Or perhaps "here is where I stand" is a bit contentious?
As it happens, I think he should have said “social democracy” rather than “socialism”, because much of the British voting public are now far too easily led into hearing “soviet style communism” or “failing low income country” when the word socialism is used, and the leadership campaign should be step one in talking to the wider public that you need to win over, not just talking to party members and gaining the reins of the party.
Come on Ernie, we get it, Starmer isn't cutting it.
Who in the PLP can?
Or does labour need someone to restructure and aim for the next but one election with someone new in the hot seat
We already have two names Lewis and Lammy as maybe candidates for the job. Not ringing endorsements for them. Who would you see replace the leader you despise?
Go on name them.
Or just keep telling the rest of us how bad Starmer is
We've already established there are no strong candidates. I just wish Keir Starmer was the leader he pretended to be.
As it happens, I think he should have said “social democracy”
Social Democracy???......you mean a mixed economy and universal welfare state?? Wow
Isn't that all a bit Jeremy Corbyn? What would the Daily Mail say? Or the PLP?
Sounds waaay too radical.
Perhaps the next time he decides to firmly commit himself and make 10 pledges he should start off with "based on the moral case for conservative values"
You can't be too cautious.
Isn’t that all a bit Jeremy Corbyn?
Yes it is. And every other Labour leader.
Starmer has tried the establishment sound-bite politician act, whilst trying to con us into a Socialism cover versions.
I thought it was pretty obvious from the start.
And just because we can't think of who could replace Starmer doesn't mean he shouldn't go. (Clive Lewis is the closest to a good choice. I know I know.)
Oh, he is right-wing (at least economically) as he seeks to protect the status-quo of free market to tinkering.
Low wages increases for NHS staff?
Forget the Corporation tax, that's not really redistribution.
And just because we can’t think of who could replace Starmer doesn’t mean he shouldn’t go.
But it matters quite a but doesn't it. If nobody here can think of anyone who would be a good choice then a leadership contest would achieve the goal of putting someone else in as leader but if they are as bad/worse than starter then what? Another leadership contest closer to the election and another choice of another poor leader?
And we must remember, the choice of any new leader needs to be approved in this thread.
But it matters quite a but doesn’t it. If nobody here can think of anyone who would be a good choice then a leadership contest would achieve the goal of putting someone else in as leader but if they are as bad/worse than starter then what? Another leadership contest closer to the election and another choice of another poor leader?
All I know his Starmer's cheerleaders have disappeared from this thread.
It's not 1997 is it? That was always blidingly obvious to me.
But it matters quite a but doesn’t it. If nobody here can think of anyone who would be a good choice then a leadership contest would achieve the goal of putting someone else in as leader but if they are as bad/worse than starter then what? Another leadership contest closer to the election and another choice of another poor leader?
Well if someone pure enough to satisfy the left replaces Starmer (who clearly triggers the left) and doesn't upset the right wing too much then the infighting calms down. If they can hold the party together then you would hope their new front bench would start to make inroads
Alternatively it's just another circle of hell
And we must remember, the choice of any new leader needs to be approved in this thread.
Any approval on this thread is probably the kiss of death to their prospects
Straw poll so far
Lewis 1.5
Lammy 0.5
Burgon 2 (assumed as they cannot say his name.....)
I'd pick Clive Lewis.
I want Starmer to stay and fight an election though. Don't want him gone yet. I still have a faint hope that he will come up with an amazing properly radical, outside the box manifesto* that will wrong foot the Tories and the establishment media.
Yes he seems shit but there is a chance that being quiet, harmless and safe until the election is a good way of winning it.
*I don't mean radical left, I mean different from all before, not drawn up along traditional Labour/Tory lines.
Starmer's lost the next election for Labour already.
Anyone decent is better off avoiding that mess and starting afresh later.
Even Sam Allardyce would give it a swerve.
I want Starmer to stay and fight an election though. Don’t want him gone yet. I still have a faint hope that he will come up with an amazing properly radical, outside the box manifesto* that will wrong foot the Tories and the establishment media.
It would be handy for Starmer if it got him 326+ MPs as well
Although some seem to be arguing that Starmer as PM is a defeat for the left and essentially red Tory rule, establishment stitch up and more years of the same "not left wing" government
If you are on the left the only hope seems to be depose Starmer in the next year, otherwise it's just back to the traditional role of name calling, othering, and moaning from the wilderness
otherwise it’s just back to the traditional role of name calling, othering, and moaning from the wilderness
In which case, they couldn’t be happier.
I’d put my house on the fact that if Corbyn had somehow made it to number ten then the same people who presently deify him would now be calling him a Judas, a sellout and a Tory for having to make some of the real-world compromises that power entails, that don’t chime with their idea of the socialist utopia he promised.
So he’s laughing his tits off really, this way he gets to keep his secular saint status in the common room, without any of the responsibilities associated with actually governing or doing anything concrete at all really
A fitting end to a career, such as it is, spent doing an awful lot of pious, self-indulgent virtue signalling while achieving absolutely nothing
Talking of sure certainties binners, still banging on about Jeremy Corbyn to deflect criticism away from Keir Starmer, on a thread about Starmer?
I note the reference to "the common room", just to keep everything totally predictable.
But shouldn't there be also some mention of "sixth form politics" just in case someone is new to this thread and is confused about the common room reference?
I’ve told you my opinion repeatedly about Starmer, so there’s little point repeating it.
I’m just baffled by those who hold up a man as some kind of messiah who, over a lifelong career, achieved considerably less politically than Gavin Williamson.
Even more baffled that the policies he espoused, universally rejected in two successive elections should be treated as if they were passed down in tablets of stone carved out by God himself
If a large chunk of the Labour Party membership can’t accept that the electorate didn’t like what they were selling, then they’re just doomed to repeat the same outcomes.
Yet they all soil their petticoats in howling indignation when it’s even suggested that it might be an idea to try something different from that which the sainted one had bequeathed to them
It’s like some weird cult, suspended in aspic in 1975. A metaphorical brown Austin Allegro parked in a museum
it might be an idea to try something different
How's that working out?
It’s too early to tell. We live in bizarre and unprecedented times and we’re a few years out from an election
It’s got to be an improvement on ‘let’s’ have a third crack at the Grandad stuff! The fools might have seen the light and be ready for it by now.’
Starmer has a hell of a job of trying to convince a large chunk of the party membership of that though, clearly, who seem to still be stuck in a state of denial
Like I said: I fail to see the silent unquestioning reverence to policies written by a man who’s political achievements have been eclipsed by Liz Truss
We had 2 cracks at slightly to the left of the Tories but not so much as you'd notice before Corbyn FFS. That's why Corbyn got in!
So are we going to repeat the pattern? Or is somebody in Labour going to think of something new?
