Forum menu
Funny I don’t remember him saying the same about Corbyn.
Corbyn was unelectable. That was unfair and largely based on ageism with a healthy dose of caricature along the leather-elbow-patched, beardy, sandal-wearing, lentil-bothering 70s geography teacher line. Totally unfair. But he was a gift for the Johnson operation. OK, so they got the supposed terrorist supporting danger man stuff out there, but that wasn't their main framing of him as far as I could make out. What they did, very successfully, was portray him as a slow, grumpy, permanent contrarian who held the views he did because he was a dogmatic dinosaur, stuck in his ways. The free broadband thing was also a gift because he could be portrayed as being like that elderly relative who says stuff like "My son got it onlines for me" or still thinks mainframes are really a thing.
Because he was so easy to caricature he was always going to be shredded by the Tory election machine. Excellence at campaigning vs uselessness at governing being more marked with Johnson than anyone else. Even his earnestness and honesty were a weakness against someone like Johnson, who could change skins readily, because no one particular trusted him so much as liked him - which is enough to make you vomit if you pay any attention to politics - which the vast majority of the UK population don't. Johnson's appeal wasn't that of being a guy you'd trust to buy a second hand car off. His appeal was as a bloke who you might have a funny, pissed up, exaggeration and lie heavy, chat at a bar with. And enough of our electorate preferred that. To our eternal discredit.
Starmer is still trying to walk both sides of the street. His advisers are clearly telling him he has to pretend Brexit is a good thing to avoid injuring the misplaced pride of the Red Wallers who voted for it. He's also trying to guard against Libdem encroachment by implying the opposite. As a supposed competent and steady technocrat he is making a rod for his own back by doing this. His only real line of defence is that the Tories have ballsed Brexit up - rather than the full truth, which is the whole idea of Brexit is idiotic. Make no mistake, the Tory campaigning operation will back him into that corner on day 1.
Even now, though, the Labour election campaign can still be one poster - three vertical photos of Johnson raising his glass at that lockdown pissup, Truss looking mental (easy one there) and Sunak looking greedy and corrupt (not much more difficult). The words 'Britain Deserves Better' underneath. But Starmer will have to nail his colours to the mast at some point - he can't win by hiding in a fridge.
We also must not underestimate the goldfish memory and IQ of the electorate either. If Sunak gets inflation back to norm, but the baked in increases stay, the temperature in the frog pan has increased, but the bloody frog has forgotten why or what came before. When people give up caring (or lack the capacity to appreciate the why) the Tories benefit.
Some commentary on those more liberal voters Starmer might lose along this route to gaining and keeping red wall and blue wall support… some brightspark has dubbed them “Mavis”…
https://twitter.com/newstatesman/status/1663945682535829504?s=21
who held the views he did because he was a dogmatic dinosaur
And yet his economic policies were massively popular with voters.
The most popular involve increasing tax on the highest earners. Close to two thirds (64%) would support raising the tax rate on earnings over £123,000 a year from 45% to 50%. Likewise, six in ten support increasing the tax rate on earnings over £80,000 a year from 40% to 45%.
Most people also support nationalising the railways (56%) and reserving a third of the space on company boards to workers (54%).
Around half (53%) would support a wealth tax, nationalising water companies (50%) and 45% support taking gas and utility companies into public ownership.
The electorate seems to be full of dogmatic dinosaurs.
And as for "unelectable", as you call it, when Corbyn first stood for the Labour Party and won Islington North he received 40% of the vote, almost 40 years later at the last general election he received 64% of the vote.
In the 2017 general election after two years of Corbyn as leader, and with his anti-austerity economic policies, Labour gained an extra 30 MPs. It was this real threat that he would become prime minister that made the Tories and the right-wing of the Labour redouble their efforts. Resulting in the 2019 general election result.
Why would you expect voters to vote for a party whose MPs were constantly and publicly attacking their leader?
Even here on supposedly "leftie" stw alledgedly leftie posters were endlessly queuing up to publicly slag off the Labour leader. And then those same people went on to denounce voters for being stupid and thick for not voting Labour!
I agree that Corbyn was a shite leader. Amongst other things he was weak, as was seen by the way he pandered to Starmer despite Starmer doing all that he could to undermine him, including being part of a choreographed front bench resignation stunt.
But there is no reason to make stuff up about his policies not being popular or that only he was responsible for Labour's poor showing at the last general election.
Btw Danny as someone who particularly vents their dislike of the Tories on here, certainly more than me, can you explain why you appear to want Labour follow policies much closer to those of the Tories and why you dismiss any radical alternative as being Jurassic? It seems strange.
New Statesman did a hilarious article on this climate.
Very good on the tossers of twitter.
What they did, very successfully, was portray him as a slow, grumpy, permanent contrarian who held the views he did because he was a dogmatic dinosaur, stuck in his ways.
Was the full quote. And they did. Very successfully. It was easy.
That the 2017 Labour manifesto was filled with popular policies, but after that election Corbyn was increasingly a turn off for voters, was why they should have changed leader after that election defeat. A new leader might have delivered a different result in 2019 (or whenever) rather than it becoming a “stop Corbyn” election. Now we have over correction away from that policy agenda in an attempt to put those double election defeats behind the party and scrub its image in an attempt to get the Tories out.
There were people in Labour, and who left Labour, who didn’t want Corbyn as PM, and either soft pedalled or outright talked against Labour at the 2019 General Election. But Starmer wasn’t one of them. He campaigned to get a Corbyn led Labour Party into government… something we’re reminded of by whoever is Tory PM at the time at PMQs each and every week it’s held.
Oh, and being popular in Islington doesn’t always scale up to UK wide acceptance. Come up North sometime…
I don't care what conclusion anyone comes to - Corbyn's ideas are exactly what we need.
If only 50% were implemented we'd be in a different universe.
In fact it's not even him it's the whole idea of pushing back against the menace of the right.
Something the current Labour party will never understand before it's too late.
. If Sunak gets inflation back to norm, but the baked in increases stay, the temperature in the frog pan has increased, but the bloody frog has forgotten why or what came before. When people give up caring (or lack the capacity to appreciate the why) the Tories benefit.
Sunak nor the BoE are currently in control of inflation. They're going to struggle as they raise rates (which adds to parts of inflation) and expecting inflation to fall faster. I've said this since day one.
The race to slow the economy is not currently biting.
I think Q3/Q4 is where the action might happen.
If only 50% were implemented we’d be in a different universe.
Agreed. I voted for it. Twice.
Sunak nor the BoE are currently in control of inflation.
Sunak knows that. He’s betting on others sorting inflation for him. Or more accurately, for what would have only two years ago been seen as high inflation to look like “a drop” in inflation compared to what’s happened over the last few years, as energy hikes work their way through.
I hate that phrase “a drop in inflation” that the BBC and others use. It should be a “slowing of inflation”. Nothing is dropping, prices are rising less quickly. Change in rates of rates of change is beyond the instinctive maths of most people… they just hear drop or fall and don’t emotionally connected with what that really means.
And as for “unelectable”, as you call it, when Corbyn first stood for the Labour Party and won Islington North he received 40% of the vote, almost 40 years later at the last general election he received 64% of the vote.
He conceded a 80 seat majority to a bloke who hid in a fridge and publicly diddled him over the BBC interview. This is like a football team that's down 5-0, having been hit on the break five times, taking solace in the possession stats.
What they did, very successfully, was portray him as a slow, grumpy, permanent contrarian who held the views he did because he was a dogmatic dinosaur, stuck in his ways.
Was the full quote. And they did. Very successfully. It was easy.
Don't worry about it, mate. If someone is resorting to selective quoting sans context, then imposing their own made-up context around it, they are about 2000 years late on the uptake. That kind of stuff was probably going on back in ancient Greece. But thanks for correcting the record - even if we know it won't make a jot of difference going forwards.
I voted for Corbyn. I liked both the man and the policies. But that wasn't the prevailing view amongst the population.
Fact is, he conceded a 80 seat majority to an actual proven liar, philanderer and chancer. He lost because more people preferred a known liar over an honest man. The reason was that Corbyn the man was easy to pin stuff to for all the reasons above. That's the only result that matters and that is a matter of record - and cannot be selectively quoted. Although I'm sure some people would try. 🙂
He conceded a 80 seat majority to a bloke who hid in a fridge and publicly diddled him over the BBC interview.
You said, quote, "Corbyn was unelectable". It was very specifically aimed at him. He is an extremely popular MP who has been repeatedly reelected for the last 40 years, he has increased his share of the vote massively over that period.
If you meant Labour were so-called "unelectable" when he was leader I asked, why would you expect voters to vote for a party whose MPs were constantly and publicly attacking their leader?
Seriously, how well do you expect a political party, any political party, to do under those circumstances?
And btw the term "unelectable" is a nonsense term used by Tories and other right-wingers, mostly in the right-wing press, to describe people that they don't support.
The only way anyone or any party is "unelectable" is if their names aren't on the ballot paper.
If someone is resorting to selective quoting
I specifically selected your "dogmatic dinosaur" because I was specifically interested in that comment, the "slow, grumpy, permanent contrarian" comment I wasn't particularly interested in. What is exactly is the problem with that?
The reason I was particularly interested in that comment was because Corbyn's economic policies were massively popular with voters. Which suggests that "dogmatic dinosaur" isn't an appropriate label.
Whether he is a "slow, grumpy, permanent contrarian" is another question.
Anyway Danny you still haven't answered this question - as someone who particularly vents their dislike of the Tories on here can you explain why you want Labour to follow policies much closer to those of the Tory Party, and why you dismiss any radical alternative to Tory policies as being Jurassic?
Or can't you explain?
I hate that phrase “a drop in inflation” that the BBC and others use. It should be a “slowing of inflation”. Nothing is dropping, prices are rising less quickly. Change in rates of rates of change is beyond the instinctive maths of most people… they just hear drop or fall and don’t emotionally connected with what that really means.
Agreed.
Economics reporting is inaccurate, and performed to an outmoded understanding of the way things work. In essence they're behind the times and simply can't articulate the levels of complexity involved.
US has just approved a new debt-ceiling. Oh lordy- they're total batshit with all of that. Glad we don't have a fabricated spending limit they have to keep arguing needlessly about. This is something they choose rather than need.
All this stuff simply gets dumped on to the poor to suffer.
My mum is very much an average voter - doesn't really think things through that much and a 5 minute conversation has her doubting/not being able to back up what she has voted for but she continues anyway.
Every one of Corbyn's Labour policies sounded good to her when stated without any link to any party so I asked so why won't you vote Labour then as that is whose policies they are - answer "because of that awful Corbyn man"
And that was in May's time so add in the love of Johnson and love of getting Brexit done and he was finished as we know.
I think there's got to be some pivoting in politics/economics soon on certain issues. I think timing will be interesting.
It does feel like we're heading for an almighty crunch of some sort. But then equally we keep breezing along.
Bizarre. I mean we're out the EU (and avoiding debate of that) and inflation is up and interest rates, post covid fall-out, strikes, NHS turmoil etc. And yet even with all those things are just simply Tory business as usual.
The status-quo is a powerful magnet. Tory outrage doesn't stick. People move on too quickly to remember.
Every one of Corbyn’s Labour policies sounded good to her when stated without any link to any party so I asked so why won’t you vote Labour then as that is whose policies they are – answer “because of that awful Corbyn man”
And yet aside from everything else he seems to be one of least awful mean alive.
Same when people say 'I'm not voting for any of them - they're all the same.'
Well you had an opportunity to vote for change and it wasn't taken.
I think their is an innate force in people to not take the change. Even if what's on offer is potentially good for them. I see it in lots of decision making.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1664141881129795584?t=_ywyjSDhO87mKmojdMZT9g&s=19
I'm with Rich.
This is a useful arms-length tool for the government. Labour could sieze this one as a poweful argument (but they wont). I reckon Bailey is a dead man walking (figuratively. )
The BoE/MPC is not fit for purpose and shouldn't sit above democracy. Inflation is not going back to 2%. (Though it will go lower than currently.)
Even the Guardian has noticed that there's not much difference between Labour and Tory economic policy: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/01/brexit-labour-tory-policies-rachel-reeves-jeremy-hunt
It does feel like we’re heading for an almighty crunch of some sort.
As a canary in the coal mine, every time there has been a major recession I know it long in advance because the financial people and senior management at my employers start getting very twitchy about future work pipelines and time accounting. Right now there's a tsunami of negative messaging about the need to win more work, reduce or eliminate unnecessary meetings/activities, logging potential future work in our CRM (which is the main indicator of future utilisation forecasts), and recording our time accurately. It all points to one thing, a massive recession on the horizon and future redundancies. The last time I saw this amount of panic at work from senior leadership was 2008 and back then we lost 40% of our UK headcount. It's going to be brutal.
My mum is very much an average voter – doesn’t really think things through that much and a 5 minute conversation has her doubting/not being able to back up what she has voted for but she continues anyway.
Every one of Corbyn’s Labour policies sounded good to her when stated without any link to any party so I asked so why won’t you vote Labour then as that is whose policies they are – answer “because of that awful Corbyn man”And that was in May’s time so add in the love of Johnson and love of getting Brexit done and he was finished as we know.
Yes. But apparently he's very popular in Islington, so that balances it out.
But apparently he’s very popular in Islington, so that balances it out.
Because in Islington they know what sort of man he is rather than the charicature that you seem to have swallowed. The tories, the media and the labour right wing knew what a threat he was to their corrupt and self-serving status quo, and people like yourself swallowed it hook, line and sinker. And now you all moan about how shit everything is while supporting politicians who say and do nothing to change anything. You get what you deserve.
He is an extremely popular MP
So what? That he's a popular campaigner in one constituency doesn't translate to being a good leader of a political party - as he demonstrated. Personally I think the Corbyn leadership failed because he just didn't command the loyalty of the rest of the PLP, and there's a very good reason for that; he's never shown any loyalty to it himself, he's never needed to in the past, but too many times he voted against things that MPs in his own party had put forward, most of the time, it made no difference, but folks remember that shit.
I agree that he should've stepped down after 2017, but has there ever been a politician who lacked hubris?
Dear God.
I voted for Corbyn twice. The man and the policies.
I am on about how easy he was to caricature for the electorate at large.
If you can't grasp the detachment between my personal view and Corbyn's proven electoral repellency then this conversation is pointless.
then this conversation is pointless.
I agree.
Now back to Starmer and the looming economic chaos. What do you think of his Trussite proclamations on growth and spending? Apparently they're calling it 'securenomics'. I don't see anything secure about it, just more shifting the burden on to people who can't afford it while they allow the rich to continue raking it in. I notice Amazon have again paid no corporation tax in the last FY. I wonder what Starmer and Reeves are proposing to address that?
while supporting politicians who say and do nothing to change anything. You get what you deserve.
There is nothing but the slow march of progress. That's it, that's your choice. Every time the other road is taken - Revolution, Civil war, Coups whatever, ends in violence, death, and economic ruin and all that goes with it. If you demand immediate change, or If you want Accerationist policies and populist banners and slogans then all you need to do is look across the Atlantic of how the far right in America has hijacked the politic space that the Democrats used to occupy, you only need look at how the word "Freedom" has now been captured as a slogan of the right in any number of wealthy countries across the world.
Revolution, Civil war, Coups whatever, ends in violence, death, and economic ruin and all that goes with it.
There's a huge amount of space between what we have now and revolution. I'm not a revolutionary by any measure, I'm actually an uber-pragmatist. When something isn't working, we need to change it and try something else. What we have now isn't working, and I have no time for politicians who tell us that they can't do anything about it.
Yes. But apparently he’s very popular in Islington, so that balances it out.
No you made the claim that he was a "dogmatic dinosaur" which you can't back up. It suggests that he stuck rigidly to outdated policies from a bygone era.
And yet his policies had very popular appeal, in fact the Tories had to publicly declare 'austerity over' to counter the growing support for Corbyn's policies. No one uses the term 'austerity' now.
I appreciate that you are constantly reinventing yourself Danny but there was nothing stuck in the past about Corbyn's policies. The reference to him being a "dinosaur" is just something which you read in the Daily Mail or the Sun and decided to repeat without bothering to think if it was appropriate.
The totally meaningless term "unelectable" is another classic right-wing attack line which you have picked up from the Daily Mail or the Sun. Quite a few people have pointed out on this thread that they voted Labour.
I notice that you are still ducking my question concerning why you support the current Labour strategy of emulating the Tories, despite your apparent intense dislike of the Tories.
If want clarity of what I'm talking about have a look at Ransos link above and the comment in the headline: "it’s hard to tell Labour and Tory policies apart"
nickc
Full MemberHe is an extremely popular MP
So what? That he’s a popular campaigner in one constituency doesn’t translate to being a good leader of a political party
I said that Corbyn was imo, quote, a shite leader. The comment about him being an extremely popular MP was in response to Danny's nonsense claim that he was "unelectable".
When something isn’t working, we need to change it and try something else.
Isn't that what Liz and Kwazi tried to do? That went well. Untested unfinanced dramatic changes to cause a shock to the system. Or throwing out of all the EU law with no scrutiny, or any versions of that. Yeah, no thanks. Every time a politician says that they have the answers and what we just need to do are these simple things...No thank you.
Isn’t that what Liz and Kwazi tried to do?
Sure. It's also what Clement Attlee did, so I don't think a failure means the principle is unsound.
Isn’t that what Liz and Kwazi tried to do? That went well.
Not really. They took the current approach and doubled down on it. So wouldnt really count that as really trying something new.
Isn’t that what Liz and Kwazi tried to do? That went well. Untested unfinanced dramatic changes to cause a shock to the system. Or throwing out of all the EU law with no scrutiny, or any versions of that. Yeah, no thanks. Every time a politician says that they have the answers and what we just need to do are these simple things…No thank you.
Like I keep saying there's way more to that than meets the eye. BoE was about to perform Q/T a few days before the budget (moving in the opposite direction), Scamming Pension leverage gambling pricks and also Truss/Kwazi didn't explain what they were going to do ahead of time. They actually should have been allowed to carry out their wishes really for lots of democratic reasons - which could hinder a future progressive government.
And it was totally sorted a few days later by the BoE.
Let's not let this be the template for never trying something new.
And always remember the market shouldn't overrule public good. If Truss and Kwazi were offering big spending plans that were good for us - then it wouldn't be a proper thing that the markets dictated how the government should implement their spending plans.
Bigger picture.
There’s a huge amount of space between what we have now and revolution. I’m not a revolutionary by any measure, I’m actually an uber-pragmatist. When something isn’t working, we need to change it and try something else. What we have now isn’t working, and I have no time for politicians who tell us that they can’t do anything about it
This - the evidence is clear it's not working but we have a sticky wicket in neoliberalism don't we?
I believe this is a much to do with MPs/Advisors simply not having/knowing about better ideas as much as being scared off from a different approach - all because we've done this shit for way too long and learned to firefight a failing system.
No you made the claim that he was a “dogmatic dinosaur” which you can’t back up. It suggests that he stuck rigidly to outdated policies from a bygone era.
No. I. Did. Not.
His vulnerability to attack because of his age, his face, his mannerisms, probably even his dress sense made it easy for the Tory campaigning machine to PORTRAY him as a dogmatic dinosaur. And enough people were willing to swallow it. I can't make it any plainer than that, but I'm sure you'll twist it somehow.
How many pics were released via the RW media of Corbyn in 70s shirt/tie combo, looking a bit like a cross between Kenny Everett and Rolf Harris, shaking hands with someone from the PFLP? I can recall at least two.
Now, why don't the Tories dredge up pics of Starmer in his former life as a QC? Well, presumably they show him looking professorial, competent, and in the act of prosecuting IRA terrorist or somesuch. So not a good attack line. Corbyn was a gift to the Brexit Tories with their love of three word slogans and childish messaging - something the Leave campaign made evident was a successful tactic with the British electorate (to our eternal shame). Cummings would have been laughing his tits off knowing he had Corbyn to do over. Child's play for a machiavellian shit like him.
You can go back a bit and look at when Labour elected the wrong Milliband as leader. Again - Ed's policies were more my cup of tea. But Ed looked a bit weird, and David didn't. The Tory machine was waiting for a photo op and the poor sod looked a bit weird for a split second eating a bacon sarnie. Political wonks everywhere like to deceive themselves that enough of the electorate read manifestos and watch party political broadcasts. Campaign directors know that is not case, now more than ever. It is totally unfair and childish.
Anyway, this thread is clearly the chosen strutting ground of a few STW big hitting bantams. The mere presence of debate seems to be an issue. No need to occupy anyone further.
His vulnerability to attack because of his age, his face, his mannerisms, probably even his dress sense made it easy for the Tory campaigning machine to PORTRAY him as a dogmatic dinosaur.
Jesus - you could easily talking about Johnson there (bar is age.)
Now, why don’t the Tories dredge up pics of Starmer in his former life as a QC? Well, presumably they show him looking professorial, competent, and in the act of prosecuting IRA terrorist or somesuch. So not a good attack line.
It won't stop them trying.
Actually, sorry, one last thing.
The Guardian opinion piece linked to up thread somewhere about how Labour and tory policies are becoming indistinguishable...
It is by Larry Elliott. Two things the uninitiated need to know about Larry.
1) He's a ****ing idiot.
2) He is consistently the wrongest commentator across a range of topics. For sheer consistency of wrongness, he is unrivalled. Just don't accept any racing tips from him. His hot tip for the 4 o'clock at Haydock Park will probably turn out to have been a runner in the previous night's greyhound action action at Walthamstow.
Now that really is me done on this one.
It is by Larry Elliott. Two things the uninitiated need to know about Larry.
1) He’s a **** idiot.
If you say so Danny, it must be true.
The Guardian opinion piece linked to up thread somewhere about how Labour and tory policies are becoming indistinguishable
The Guardian are simply late to the party.
Both parties are fiscally very similar, and want to utilise the market as a *useful* tool for offering solutions - over the government paying.
That puts them close enough to not make much of a difference.
That puts them close enough to not make much of a difference.
"much" doing some heavy lifting there. Elsewhere on this thread we see that C who most not be named was actually proposing a mainstream euro social democratic policy programme at the last GE, which by the same token wouldn't have made much of a difference. Hey ho. We just need to have a successful revolution to join all those other countries which have made it to the utopian sunlit socialist uplands...
“much” doing some heavy lifting there. Elsewhere on this thread we see that C who most not be named was actually proposing a mainstream euro social democratic policy programme at the last GE, which by the same token wouldn’t have made much of a difference. Hey ho. We just need to have a successful revolution to join all those other countries which have made it to the utopian sunlit socialist uplands…
And your supporting evidence is?
Corbyn was talking large swathes of Nationalisation just for a start. I just can't see your comparison of Starmer and Reeves who have constantly supported a neoliberal / tip-toe austerity agenda.
It's not even in the same ball-park.
Starmer:
"I set out the fiscal rules which will guide the next Labour government and from which we will not deviate. I declared then that debt will fall as a share of GDP and that day-to-day spending must be sustainably funded. Everything Labour does in government will be in keeping with those rules. "
That's depriving the country of money to spend. Simple economics means small deficit = no radical spending. Zilch.
Now, why don’t the Tories dredge up pics of Starmer in his former life as a QC?
Well I missed the pictures of "Corbyn in 70s shirt/tie combo" but photos certainly weren't the main attack line by the right-wing press against Corbyn.
You are absolutely right that the Tory press are incomparably kinder to Starmer than they were towards Corbyn but it has nothing to do with Starmer being a suited former DPP which leaves them unable to attack him.
The reason there was an unprecedented vilification of Corbyn, and in comparison kid glove treatment of Starmer, is that Corbyn presented a massive unprecedented threat to neoliberalism and the 40 year experiment.
Keir Starmer poses no threat at all to neoliberalism and the power and wealth of the elite, for that reason they are perfectly happy for him to temporarily look after Number 10 until the Tories return.
But it wasn't the right-wing press that was the main reason for Labour's defeat under Corbyn.
A day or two before the 2017 general election the Daily Mail devoted 13 pages directly attacking Corbyn:
A couple of days later the Labour Party saw the greatest increase in share of the vote since 1945 and had an extra 30 MPs.
The single most important reason for the 80 seat Tory majority last general election (apart from first-past-the-post) was the constant and relentless sabotage and attacks by the right-wing within the Labour Party. It caused far more damage than any amount of pages (or photos) in the Daily Mail.
Voters can and do often dismiss attacks from the right-wing press with the attitude "well it's the Daily Mail, what do you expect", but when it is from the Labour Party itself it's a whole new ballgame.
https://labourlist.org/2017/02/mandelson-i-am-working-every-day-to-bring-down-corbyn/
Yeah, and Ian Austin shall forever be on my I'd love to tackle in real life list.
Vile, vile man.
My Dad had calming words with John Mann the other day too - in person - over the Corbyn savagery. He just smirked and walked off. But at least we discovered aren't all right wingers around here.
@ernielynch have you noticed Paul Mason's descent into USA type military madness recently?
What an interestingly bizarre turn of logic he's taken.
I don’t generally get involved with political threads, I don’t study or follow politics generally speaking, but one thing I can’t get my head around is Starmer’s steadfast refusal to consider even looking at rejoining the EU. More and more of the public are asking questions about starting discussions about closer cooperation with the EU with a view to rejoining, yet Starmer just dismisses it out of hand. In doing so, he’s really not giving those considering actually voting for Labour as a real alternative to the Tories any real change; there’s no ‘clear water’ between them, that I can see. Well, apart from the likes of Braverman… 😖
one thing I can’t get my head around is Starmer’s steadfast refusal to consider even looking at rejoining the EU
I'm wondering (actually desperately hoping) it's some sort of political long game and he knows that saying "yes we'll look at rejoining" now would lead to the Tories crying about how Starmer is going against the will of the people and ignoring a democratic vote and "if he does this how can you trust him with anything?!" rhetoric and that if/when he's PM, he'll take a more open position on it.
Equally, I'm not remotely convinced by that, he could just be a red Tory.
Don't forget that Corbyn was calling for Article 50 to be triggered more or less the day after the referendum result, he was just as much a Eurosceptic as many on the Tory benches.
Edit: I wonder if some of it is simply that the public are sick to death of hearing about bloody Brexit and he knows not to keep banging on about it - part of the reason Boris got elected with such a large majority was his promise to Get Brexit Done and move on.
one thing I can’t get my head around is Starmer’s steadfast refusal to consider even looking at rejoining the EU.
He already has the remainers on board. He's targeting the disenfranchised red wall brexit-voting demographic.
Don’t forget that Corbyn was calling for Article 50 to be triggered more or less the day after the referendum result, he was just as much a Eurosceptic as many on the Tory benches.
It is probably also worth remembering that Corbyn agreeing with Keir Starmer in 2019 that there should a second referendum had a devastating affect on support for the Labour Party in the last general election.
And that the leader of the LibDems, who campaigned to remain in the EU without even bothering to have a second referendum, lost her seat.
I am guessing that Starmer hasn't forgotten all that. Although I totally agree with your suggestion that whatever Starmer says now doesn't in any way guarantee what he will be saying or doing in a couple of years time.
A fact which will be fully exploited by the Tories during the next general election campaign.
He already has the remainers on board.
Until he starts losing them to Libdem/SNP.
It is probably also worth remembering that Corbyn agreeing with Keir Starmer in 2019 that there should a second referendum had a devastating affect on support for the Labour Party in the last general election
I think it is stretching it a bit to suggest that any single policy, especially the 2nd ref, had any significant affect on the labour parties support at the GE. In fact as you said, the most significant impact was on the personal attacks on the leader from both within the party and supported by the wider media. Personally I think that in that environment Corbyn could have presented a near perfect policy based manifesto for the countries needs (within or outside the eu), and still the result would have been the same.
Personally I think that in that environment Corbyn could have presented a near perfect policy based manifesto for the countries needs (within or outside the eu), and still the result would have been the same.
Agree, people were swayed/fooled by good old Johnson and getting Brexit done. The more aware people are probably regretting that now!
Unfortunately Starmer is not even attempting a near perfect policy based manifesto for the countries needs so doesn't offer anything other than not scaring the voters by coming across a bit socialist
Great quote from the Labourlist that Ernie links to above
“The idea of Jeremy Corbyn being prime minister and implementing policies that actually benefit the people terrifies the establishment, so it’s no surprise Peter Mandelson has found time in his busy schedule of spending time on oligarch’s yachts to attempt to undermine him,” a Labour source said.
He wants only the hardest of Tory brexits
Wants to trash the green belt.
Is against voting reforms.
Against supporting strikers.
Why the **** would I vote for him?
A massive chance for change is bring thrown away.
I expect Tories to be ****s ,I had hoped for better from labour.
It is probably also worth remembering that Corbyn agreeing with Keir Starmer in 2019 that there should a second referendum had a devastating affect on support for the Labour Party in the last general election
I think it is stretching it a bit to suggest that any single policy, especially the 2nd ref, had any significant affect on the labour parties support at the GE.
The devastating effect of the Labour's second referendum policy in the so-called red wall seats is widely accepted by all sides, including the blairites, hence the fact that it has been endlessly discussed.
It was consequently a huge factor in why the Tories ended up with an 80 seat majority. Some people seem to forget why they are called "red wall seats"
The devastating effect of the Labour’s second referendum policy in the so-called red wall seats is widely accepted by all sides
Most people put Corbyn's leadership at the top of the reasons why 2019 was a disaster, A fact that has been endlessly discussed and widely accepted.
Most people put Corbyn’s leadership at the top of the reasons why 2019 was a disaster, A fact that has been endlessly discussed and widely accepted.
Absolutely. You can include me among those people. As I said yesterday on the previous page:
I agree that Corbyn was a shite leader. Amongst other things he was weak, as was seen by the way he pandered to Starmer despite Starmer doing all that he could to undermine him, including being part of a choreographed front bench resignation stunt.
You can also add Corbyn's political correct nonsense as another thing that probably didn't go down well in the 'red wall' seats.
Which is ironic as Corbyn's stance on a second EU referendum and political correctness are the two things which probably go down rather well on STW 😉
Yep, I think you're spot on there!
Anyway, Starmer, Brexit, another view:
On the face of it, it’s just another head-in-hands endorsement of Brexit by the Leader of the Opposition. Writing in the Express on Wednesday morning, Keir Starmer made the usual deadening promises: no return to the EU. No return to the single market. No return to the customs union. It’s repeated like a magic incantation, the secret code he must utter to gain access to the temple of the Brexit debate.
Whenever Starmer issues one of these statements, Remainers on Twitter slump into anger and despair. Even as the disastrous ill-effects of Brexit become clear, the Labour leader apparently refuses to accept the obvious. And there is ultimately something profoundly unhealthy about a political culture in which one of the main causes of the country’s economic malaise cannot be spoken about by either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.
But read a little further and things become more interesting. In truth, Labour’s Brexit position is far more nuanced, and much more radical, than it first appears. It has been carefully couched in the language of Brexit defence, but the proposals themselves promise a return to a much closer relationship with the Continent. It is the start of a journey back to Europe.
from https://inews.co.uk/opinion/brexit-collapsing-britain-drifting-europe-2376482 (edited to highlight a bit)
^^^^
Anyone with any sense knows that any 'improvement' to Brexit means reversing part of it in some way. It is such a fundamentally stupid concept. 🤷♂️
But if he specifically rules out rejoining the SM & CU, he is going to spend a lot of time, money and political capital turd polishing.
I can't vote for a former DPP and QC who is willing to trash his credibility by being forced to pretend Brexit is a good idea. It means he has been corrupted by Brexshit too.
Nah, Libdem or Green for me.
Anyway, Starmer, Brexit, another view
@twodog posted that up the page... was I the only one who followed their link?
I didn't comment on it, as it's sensible boring stuff that's not really worth discussing with either the "tell the morons they were wrong and campaign on reversing Brexit" or the "Starmer isn't saying the same thing in 2023 as he was in 2019, he's a (B)liar" brigades that fill this thread.
^^^^
All of which is fine, so long as Starmer's pollsters have got their maths right.
If my vote isn't needed, then they're on the right track.
https://www.bestforbritain.org/mrp_polling_new_boundaries_june_2023
Best for Britain MRP Polling analysis.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1666389898243309574?s=20
I admit to not reading absolutely everything in that ^^ link (there's a lot of stuff!) but based on what I saw it suggests a "Labour 140+ seat majority with 470 seats", which when you consider that it is a MRP poll, so therefore will specifically take into consideration Labour's current brexit stance, and commissioned by a pro-Remain organisation, it seems to very much undermine any argument that Labour's brexit stance will have a significantly negative effect on their vote.
Whilst I appreciate that they might want to explore all possible scenarios this particular one really isn't plausible:
New analysis assuming that Reform UK will stand aside in Conservative marginals, shows that Labour could drop to 401 seats and the Conservatives would rise to 201 seats.
It seems very certain that won't be happening:
I also found this assumption a tad bizarre:
We assumed that 100% of Reform UK’s vote would transfer to the Conservatives in marginal seats.
Plus I can't work out what the percentages are without the 'don't knows' that the seat predictions are based on - I'm pisspoor at maths! Obviously the Tories are going to poll more than the 23% shown and Labour more than 35%. And the LibDems more than 7%!
But the poll findings should please Starmer.
But the poll findings should please Starmer.
Yes. He'll feel no hesitation about doubling down on his Tory tribute act now.
But the poll findings should please Starmer.
Yep, and prove (to him) that his Tory lite approach is great so no need to change it.
Saw a good one yesterday: Choosing previous governments by the lesser of two evils delivers the government of today.
Something like that.
Yep, and prove (to him) that his Tory lite approach is great so no need to change it.
And yet all the evidence in the world is we desperately need change. The upside down.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1667069628227395584?s=20
Oh **** off you inept bunch of tired old economic cranks.
Labour will mismanage the economy.
It gets worse on a daily basis.
None of this is necessary - in fact - entirely the opposite; progressive voters are being penalised for wanting a Labour government that is simply not fit for purpose.
https://twitter.com/anyotherleader/status/1667081433041580033?s=20
Imagine being a party where you're based on the worst bits of wonky Conservatism?
Oh **** off you inept bunch of tired old economic cranks.
It was never in doubt. Doesn't really matter though, politics has nowt to do with doing stuff like this, it's the winning that counts so the likes of binners can wave their flags and take the piss out of the other side.
For sure - I've gotten confused somewhere along the way - I thought hating Tory so much that the Centrist bunch might stop and look what it means to offer something that might fix neoliberal damage. My mistake.
Centrist: When you haven't a ****ing clue what 'better' means or how to get there.
It would really help if they stopped pretending they were in any way shape or form progressives.
It's a total embarassment that any of this was somehow the better option than a Corbyn government.
I mean they got Hard Brexit, Rigid Labour Brexit, Undemocratic Labour, Streeting NHS private gob-shite, Spending Cuts, Rachel-Reeves establishment economics, Low Wages, High inflation, High interest rates.
Who would ever trust their judgment on a ****ing thing?
(And just for the record Japan's inflation sits at 3.5% - and their interest rates sits at -0.1%)
What's the logic and why is this Labour's fault? Well simply pointing out there is a better way to control the central bank and rates - and that could be Reeves' argument if she wants to tackle the cost of living with any seriousness.
Toynbee on a different planet.
Thatcherism has definitely failed but Starmer is along to have another crack at it
*pops head round the door to see if this thread is still those three blokes down at the park who shout at buses*
Yip…
pops head round the door to see if this thread is still those three blokes down at the park who shout at buses*
Yip…
Don't bother looking into the Tory outrage-ists threads and see the same folk who scream Tory blue murder are not understanding the difference between Tory policy and Labour policy, and still shocked at Tory behaviour.
And are still supporting a right-wing government outcome, hard brexit endorsement, private healthcare etc etc
Bozos.
It's like politics for chimps.
You always read this thread binners! Who do you think you are kidding 🤣
It's just that despite famously having very strong opinions about politicians you strongly disagree with you don't seem to have any opinions at all concerning politicians which you actually like.
You are clearly a huge fan of Keir Starmer but you appear quite unable to explain why. I would describe it as 'lost for words'.
Which is strange as you seem to have an abundance of words for politicians that you don't like.
*pops head round the door to see if this thread is still those three blokes down at the park who shout at buses*
Never really understood the urge of some on here to shut down discussion on a particular subject. Seems it's been successful on this thread. Same on the Ukraine thread(s). Funny how people with supposed strong beliefs can't handle even a slightly different viewpoint to their own. It's quite pathetic.
And yet there's endless gossip and speculation on the Boris Johnson thread. I think that tells us all we need to know about this place. I guess it's no different to real life where people have been sucked into the cult of personality.
Never really understood the urge of some on here to shut down discussion on a particular subject.
Because they would rather there no discussion than have their opinions challenged or need to explain them.
"We all hate the Tories" is far easier for the intellectually lazy or challenged. Criticising is always so much simpler than having to think constructively.
Criticising is always so much simpler than having to think constructively.
It is indeed. In fact it’s got to the stage with a friend of mine, a politically aware Labour Party member that stood in the recent council elections, won’t hear any criticism of Starmer at all. He won’t watch ‘The Labour Files’, has stopped watching Novara & Owen Jones on YouTube because they’re now ‘tory enablers’ and won’t read Oliver Eagleton’s book ‘The Starmer Project’ that I bought him for his birthday. Nope, fingers in the ears shouting la, la, la, etc.
It's also far far easier to criticise your so called opponents rather than the guy and party who is supposed to stand for us and give us hope. (The biggest liar in politics.)
Pissed on our chips for certain.
World will never change for the better with Centrists cocking everything up and leaning with Tories, whilst at the same time not having a shred of knowledge on the economy or the delivery of progessive policies.
Every step of the way there's been an excuse for Starmer's manoeuvring until we get to this shitty part of the story.
"Andrew Rawnsley bang on as usual they bleat " .... Oh my ****ing life. Unless it's Brexit there is no narrative or tale worth a bit of nuance - despite missing the obvious trajectory.
One of my dozey arse Labour councillors being a bell on twitter.
https://twitter.com/CllrAlanRhodes/status/1667854090464817153?t=sRA_hRCP9vfsmguNSmjctw&s=19
This is the level of Centrist commentary.
Alan Cummings makes a total valid point and this bloke's response here.
Bronze award for neoliberal enthusiasm.
Dozy not dozey. Lol.
In fact it’s got to the stage with a friend of mine, a politically aware Labour Party member that stood in the recent council elections, won’t hear any criticism of Starmer at all.
I have a very similar friend. She basically accused me of being a tory supporter for questioning the wisdom and motives of Starmer's and Reeves idiotic economic policies. I mean at least Blair had a bit of feelgood factor about him, even if we all knew it was hollow. Stamer's approach is more 'support me, or else!'.
More Binners loving Labour regression.
Labour rules out universal childcare for young children in fiscal credibility drive
Absolute guff. Over and over again this bullshit fiscal credibility rule is causing all spending to stall.
See you could be screeching at Sunak not being a grown-up or asking why Labour are illegitimately turning the money taps off?
No spending - no growth - no correcting of inequality. The question shouldn't be based on means testing - it should be what good can this do?
A future government has no fiscal reason or technical reason why they can't spend.
You see - Binners and co, this is actually what true ideological purity is. A fiscal credibility rule. That's an idiot at the wheels that hasn't got a clue and running the country at its knees like a household.
Starmer will sink the country even further. Then the Tories will be back and more outrage.