Forum menu
Very much so - the rightwing of labour deliberately sabotaged Corbyn ( tho an easy target) and in Scotland we had a labour / tory pact that gave the tories 10 seats which saved Mays government. without that labour / tory pact in Scotland the tories would have fallen and we would never have had brexit. It was orchestrated by a right wing labour MP and his team
I love how Corbyn alway gets dug up to remind us how good Starmer is at being a conservative. Yeah we all know you can win elections on shifting to the right. The Tories are evidence of everything you hate including being successful.
But that's not really what we all want is it?
Excuses are made for Starmer every step of the way - I remember the days of debating the semantics of state-owned utilities when he was backing off from that. The excuse was flat-out nationalisation was a bad idea - blah blah, and Starmer is probably looking at partial state ownership. An absolute terribly unpragmatic position actually. You know - people with not much cash looking for solutions to failed private ownership.
He was conning you too - as a moderate, to convince you he was a pragmatic progressive (he's the exact opposite). Make no mistake Labour aren't interested in fixing much at all unless it features the word 'reform' - because state house building apparently will simply 'happen' with reform.
Bullshit. All of it.
Time to admit the days of defending Starmer's positioning on policy is a shill. And Centrists will use the word unworkable because they like doing the heavy lifting for the right-wing because like the right they're not interested in solution. Just whinging about Tories.
The sad fact about all of this is Starmer could fix a whole load of things - but he's busy taking bad advice about macro-economics whilst making sure his short term positions are secured
Sad times.
Don't think anyone makes excuses for Starmer, just defends against daft accusations on here, as for your points, as the opposition party, they can't make promises like nationalisation when there's pretty much zero chance of being able to do it, financially and commercially, your accusations around centrists are that they stay within the realms of reality, where there is no magic money tree, sorry, MMT, or the ability for the opposition to make promises they have no chance of keeping.
The problem i see with the labour party is the far left believing that they are the majority, and that they can just state a policy and it will happen, same with the tories and the far right, the extremes on either side think they have more sway and public backing than they actually have.
The lefties in labour sit around the social democrats inmost of europe - ie a bit left of centre. Starmers position is centre to centre right - like the CDU in Germany
Nationalisation is of course possible and affordable - take railways - as franchises end take them into state ownership - zero cost. Or water - we all know the privitised water companies are taking huge sums out in profits while not meeting basic standards - so ramp up the standards and use huge fines to deal with the pollution and leakage issues. Thus water becomes unprofitable and the private owners simply give up . Zero cost.
there of course are other state owned models that are not traditional privitisation - mutuals, not for profits, companies limited by something or other.
See Scottish water or lothian transport for two such things
'Most Britons believe that trains, water and energy should sit within the public sector' YouGov
the rightwing of labour deliberately sabotaged Corbyn
I remember the day when Emily Thornberry said she'd slaughter six kittens for every day that Corbyn didn't present a phone-in show for Iranian state TV. Awful. And then when Ed Miliband said he'd put LSD in Middlesbrough's water supply if Corbyn didn't write a gushing foreword for an anti-Semitic book on economics!
How about the constant anti Corbyn briefings from the labour right? It happened - don't pretend it did not. did it make a difference? IMO yes as the labour right were feeding attack lines to the right wing press.
Its also true that the labour / tory pact in Scotland led to 10 tory MPs getting elected and that saved Mays government.
‘Most Britons believe that trains, water and energy should sit within the public sector’ YouGov
Yep, i do as well, but the actual cost for the country is horrific if it were to happen, privatisation was built with the foresight of making it too complex and too expensive to backtrack on, the only way of it working effectively would be to be like Russia, and just take back the utilities, maybe jail those who fight it, but i think the UK are a long way off this type of government.
argee - very simple and cheap to do with the political will for water and transport. See my post above. Energy would be harder but still not impossible
Don’t think anyone makes excuses for Starmer, just defends against daft accusations on here
Yeah you make excuses for Starmer everyday of the week. It is frankly staggering that you should even deny it.
And what are these "daft" accusations you speak of?
As far as I can see all the criticism levelled at Starmer centres on the fact that he has abandoned all ten pledges which he made to win the leadership election.
Is it really "daft" to insist that politicians don't lie when they stand for elections?
Its also true that the labour / tory pact in Scotland led to 10 tory MPs getting elected and that saved Mays government.
Get out of the echo chamber...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election-is-there-really-a-torylabour-pact-in-scottish-seats-1448328
As far as I can see all the criticism levelled at Starmer centres on the fact that he has abandoned all ten pledges which he made to win the leadership election.
That’s it for me: he lied to secure my vote, and the votes of thousands of people like me. We haven’t forgotten.
Yep, i do as well, but the actual cost for the country is horrific if it were to happen, privatisation was built with the foresight of making it too complex and too expensive to backtrack on
Yeah, true, only the fictional nation of Scotland, once again, could do any of that.
Sorry but is there a ****ing joke I'm not getting here? Are there folk out there that think Scotland is akin to Finland and doesn't exist?
We have nationalised water, always have.
We have nationalised rail.
We have nationalised ferries.
The only thing we don't have is energy and you know what? I bet a penny to a pound that most operators would welcome someone else stepping in to hold the liability whilst they run it on a contract or provide tech support once it's eventually built. It's not like we didn't have nationalised nuclear within the last 20 years.
It's not too hard or too expensive to do at all. Contracts run out and where they don't new infra can be built which is underwritten by the state, same as we did for 40odd years. It just needs the political will.
Politecameractuion - I saw the posts on the facebook page of Ian Murray asking folk to vote tory in some seats. We all saw the lack of campaigning in some seats where labour and tory both gave the other a free shot at the SNP.
We saw labour activists and elected reps cheering on tory wins at the count.
the Scotsman is hardly an unbiased source
Also pca that quotes a senior Tory as saying that both labour and tory only put up paoer candidate in some seats to give the other an easy run.
The problem i see with the labour party is the far left believing that they are the majority, and that they can just state a policy and it will happen, same with the tories and the far right, the extremes on either side think they have more sway and public backing than they actually have.
Odd since the problem seems more the right wingers buy into the hard right line about anything left of Thatcher as being "far left" as well as the idea that the "centrists" are the majority as opposed to just swing voters. Secretly most seem to accept this is false hence the cry of "who else will you vote for.
They are also often confused about believing that they are not as ideological as anyone else and often bleat out crap about "pragmatism" (something deployed by fans of Kissinger in the last few days).
Is it really “daft” to insist that politicians don’t lie when they stand for elections?
Its odd how they dont tend to extend the same courtesy to Johnson and the brexiteers.
I saw the posts on the facebook page of Ian Murray asking folk to vote tory in some seats.
This is totally nuts. You are taking posts on an MP's Facebook page and adding them to the fact that not every seat is winnable by every party, and concluding there was a Tory-Labour pact. It's completely untrue.
Only in Scotland would the party that's been completely dominant in government and parliament feel like the victim of a conspiracy!
politecameraaction
Free MemberGet out of the echo chamber…
In my seat Labour campaigned solely and aggressively against the SNP in 2017 and 2019 in the full knowledge they were going to be a distant third, with the tories first or second. It was demented- there was no "vote for us", it was entirely "get the SNP out" even though that could only mean Tories. In 2017 they declared their campaign a success because while they'd lost votes, the SNP lost more. The gap between the Tories and SNP narrowed to only a thousand votes and we could easily have flipped blue for the first time in the seat's history (a 13% tory surge, with Labour's dedicated help)
Having said that, I don't think this was a "pact", they just genuinely wanted the Tories to win the seat. No collusion! We did it all ourselves! I mean, that's worse but hey.
Only in Scotland would the party that’s been completely dominant in government and parliament feel like the victim of a conspiracy!
Which is clearly shite as a cursory look at the tories and their blaming of everyone but themselves for the current mess demonstrates.
PCA - no its you that is totally nuts. Ian Murrays staff were urging folk to vote tory in some seats and labour did not campaign at all in those seats - tories went the opposite way. In Your link the the Scotsman a senior tory states this as fact. Labour used to campaign inthese seats and have done so since but forthat 2017 election this is what happened.<br /><br />labour activists and staff were cheering tory wins. Utterly disgusting
Its real and it happened. Yes it was an informal non agression pact You may want to pretend it did not but thats your blindness. Open your eyesman<br /><br />You keep on forgetting I am not an SNP supporter. I have never voted for them. I am an observer of politics. Its not some massive conspiracy. Its labours tribal hatred of the SNP leading them to forget who the enemy is. they stopped being so blatent as they realised it cost them the westminster election. I supported labour all my life until they started working with the tories
this is not me inventing stuff. This is well known. Its real and it happened
Labour’s sole surviving MP, Ian Murray, said he supported tactical voting to defeat the SNP, but said that meant Tory and Lib Dem voters had to switch sides too if their primary objective was to block the SNP.
He said it would be ludicrous for Tory voters to think their party had any chance of winning his Edinburgh South seat, given that they were 12,000 votes behind Labour in 2015. “If people are saying we want to protect the union, the candidate in the best position is me,” he said.
Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, Douglas Ross said "where there is the strongest candidate to beat the SNP, you get behind that candidate."
( this was strong repudiated by london tories who did not want their voters voting labour)
Murray was the architect of this pact. If you really think this did not happen you really do have your eyes shut. this pact was in place for about 4 or 5 years and one westminster election - after the 2017 election they realised it backfired as the tories enough seats that Mays government did not collapse- thats why labour now claim they never did it
BTW - I do not live in an echo chamber - I get my news from a wide range of sources and most of my friends are not political at all.
remember I do not support the SNP
Anyway back to Keir Starmer.
Here is a much more convincing reason as to why Starmer dismisses nationalisation of rail and the utilities, despite very significant public backing....he is a big supporter of Thatcherism:
Keir Starmer praises Margaret Thatcher for bringing ‘meaningful change’ to UK
And something which the Starmer fans on here might be interested in:
Elsewhere in the article, Starmer criticised the government’s handling of Brexit, arguing it had wasted economic opportunities made possible by the split from the EU.
“They have squandered economic opportunities and failed to realise the possibilities of Brexit".
So when Keir Starmer is Prime Minister he won't waste the opportunities made possible by the split from the EU, he will realise all the possibilities of Brexit.
I look forward to hearing people's critique of that.
There are no opportunities of brexit.
That's not what Starmer is telling Daily Telegraph readers TJ.
And?
Oh ffs Kier, you really don't need to go pandering to the arseholes that read the telegraph...
I look forward to hearing people’s critique of that.
Easy. Its all Corbyns fault and those nasty left wingers who should be kept out of our pure centre right labour party (obv they are still required to vote for it though because if you dont you are a tory).
I see he still blabs out that iron clad fiscal rule showing he can out tory the tories even though after the 1997 election the tories admitted their iron clad rule which labour kept to wasnt one they were going to keep.
I would like to see some examples of this "natural entrepreneurialism" rather than her spaffing north sea oil up the wall and selling off utilities and housing cheap which are really hitting us now.
I see he is also regurgitating the hard right lies about some subjects being beyond discussion despite the minor ****ing detail they are headlined most days.
"That’s why we extend the hand of friendship to you, no matter where you are or who you have voted for in the past"
Well unless you are one of those nasty lefties in which case **** off.
Its sad really. I reckon he would have made a great tory leader to drag them back from the brink.
What else is there left now? He's gone full Tory arse hole.
There will be some crappy lines of defense in a few moments I'm sure.
Let's remind ourselves what lies she put in motion:
There is no such thing as public money. There is only taxpayers money
Apart from the all the spending that created the state that she dismantled and sold off.
Trouble is with capitalism you eventually need the state's money.
ts sad really. I reckon he would have made a great tory leader to drag them back from the brink.
He will make a great tory leader, he is just not technically in the correct party.
So when Keir Starmer is Prime Minister he won’t waste the opportunities made possible by the split from the EU, he will realise all the possibilities of Brexit.
I look forward to hearing people’s critique of that.
My critique of that is that he will say whatever he feels will maintain his lead and he is now saying what the Brexiters wanted, i.e. it would have been great but it was badly implemented. I would also like to see his list of the possibilities he will be realising and how he will implement them as surely he has some substance behind what he is saying this week doesn't he?
Many of us who were/are pro the UK being in the EU, thought he was the voice of reason on that subject in the leadership of Labour party in the Corbyn years. I think far too many of us are still desperately holding onto that belief in him made at that time, when it has long since become apparent that was just another lie he used to garner support from the labour base at the time, that he has now happily discarded into the waste bin of history as he moves onto his next populist lie.
Its labours tribal hatred of the SNP leading them to forget who the enemy is.
"Why is Labour being so beastly in opposing the SNP? Why are they so unreasonable as to keep on disagreeing?"
Your use of the word "enemy" is extreme and Daily Mail-ish. Labour is certainly right to oppose the corruption and ineptitude of the SNP today, and its long term magical thinking about independence. These three things are all counter to the interests of ordinary people, and all the time and money wasted on them is a lost opportunity for better governance.
It is simply nonsense to claim there was a Labour-Tory electoral pact based on some bullshit on Facebook.
Here is Keir Starmer's comment piece in full, with a great Daily Telegraph headline:
Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration. I stand ready to deliver
It is simply nonsense to claim there was a Labour-Tory electoral pact based on some bullshit on Facebook.
It wasn't some bullshit - it was on Ian Murrays facebook page from one of his staff and with his knowledge. It was quoted by the tory source in your link, It was explained by both Murray and Ross in the quotes I gave. Its well known this happened peaking at the 2017 GE. We saw the labour candidate in Banff cheering a tory win
and yes - if you are a decent human being the Tories are the enemy
And yes the tribal hatred the labour party have for the SNP is obvious - to the point that Scottish labour opposed policies in Scotland that werre london labour policies - simply because the SNP introduced them
Once again you seem to think i am an uncritical SNP supporter - I am not
Politicians being politicians is the way of life, the parties are at each other as well, the main reason the SNP raised that ceasefire vote was to cause mayhem in the labour party, they know their fight in Scotland is labour, with a secondary threat from the tories, so their entire campaign just now is 'labour are as bad as the tories', rather than what the benefits are of the SNP.
People expecting some type of saviour from politicians or political parties will always be disappointed, if you're lucky, you get the best of a bad bunch.
II agree Argee - especially your point about the ceasefire motion
However to me as a former lifelong labour supporter, labour working with the tories is a step too far. It ( along with the bain principle of automatically voting against any SNP proposal) is why labour support in Scotland collapsed. Betray your base and be punished for it.
I cannot vote for a labour party that works with the tories ever. Nor can I vote for a brexiteer party.
@argee; I'm finding some of your comments very offensive, and I'm saddened that you seem to blinkered that you fail to acknowledge what most other posters on this thread have so far. Even more so, considering that myself and others have posted information that would help you gain a more objective perspective. I'm saddened that you find the deaths of Gazan children amusing.
Maybe you will enjoy living in a brave neoliberal world. I hope it works out for you.
@argee; I’m finding some of your comments very offensive, and I’m saddened that you seem to blinkered that you fail to acknowledge what most other posters on this thread have so far. Even more so, considering that myself and others have posted information that would help you gain a more objective perspective. I’m saddened that you find the deaths of Gazan children amusing.
I find it offensive that you are trying to twist my comments to say i find the deaths in Gaza amusing, you are trying to justify your opinion through these weird statements, of course if you can list my very offensive comments and provide the backup for them, then i will be content for Mark et al at STW to ban me.
If you don't agree with me, i'm happy with that, but pushing some 'laughing at the deaths of kids' statement to try and justify your opinion is just mental.
What do you want an EU reentry to look like? I tihnk it's reasonable , and a good idea to have it as a middle term aspiration but you can't stick it in as a single term policy for practical , economic and 'political look' reasons. As a single term policy it would be pretty toxic
Anything to get back in. The majority of the UK population are in favour. We will have to beg and grovel but its one of the key things we need to regain some prosperity
there are absolutely no reasons why not apart from fear of the tory press. Economic wise its imperative
You can choose to ignore anything anyone else has said, if it doesn't fit with your own views. That's your prerogative. But unfortunately you don't get to dictate how your comments will be received, or the opinions others will have of you. If you chose to engage politely and with respect, then others might not have such a negative view of you. This is something within your control. Or you can just double down on your offensiveness. As I said; your choice.
"Anything to get back in."
Just as a reminder, it took 2 terms to leave, and that was
a) Within our control (whether we left, obviously terms were negotiated)
b) From a government that had already been in power for 6 years.
Seeking a first term in office whilst making a core pledge on something that is undeliverable within that term? Which at the same time is the most divisive issue in UK politics for decades? That would surely be electoral suicide. Hence why the Labour Party isn't doing it.
People expecting some type of saviour from politicians or political parties will always be disappointed.....
You don't expect Starmer's Labour Party to save us from the Tories? Welcome aboard!!
And I totally agree with you that we should expect politicians to be politicians, after all what else could anyone expect them to be - trapeze artists??
But anyway getting back to Keir Starmer's comment piece in the Daily Telegraph, what do you reckon, argee, about his claim of "the wasted economic opportunities made possible by the split from the EU"? True or not?
According to Starmer: "Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration. I stand ready to deliver"
Do you agree with him that he will deliver on those Tory promises? He seems convinced that he will.
they can’t make promises like nationalisation when there’s. . .
Unfortunately polling does not agree with you, 65% or more of those polled want:
Nationalised water, energy, buses, rail and mail.
Polling by Survation in August 2022
Failing to acknowledge this and seek to deliver will leave us with the current shower staying on. At this rate Starmer is the Kinnock of the 20's all we need is a triumphalist video the day before polling for the comparison to be complete.
EDIT changed electricity for energy. See the Sooz Kempner post on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/soozuk.bsky.social/post/3kfmmybr3hc27
they can’t make promises like nationalisation when there’s
Starmer can't make promises ... Is the only constant truth.
Nationalisation won't be an option eventually, it will be necessity. Delusion is the only thing that separates the two.
Its funny how Scotland manages to have state owned stuff that is within the remit of the Scots Parliament.
Starmer can’t make promises … Is the only constant truth.
Nonsense, Starmer is always making promises. He was elected leader of the Labour Party on the back of 10 "pledges". A pledge we all know is a solemn and binding promise.
This sounds like a promise too:
"Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration. I stand ready to deliver”
The question is can he be trusted to deliver on his promises to Daily Telegraph readers more than his previous promises to Labour Party members?
Thanks for the paywall busting link Ernie. That's a good read... they've really done the work over the last few years on what the British people want that Labour were not offering... and have moved there. Not the government I would most want, but one that the voters are likely to elect, and one that'll be a hell of a lot better than this one (not just for me, but for people who have been voting very differently to me all my life). They really have been listening. Well to the "right" of me on immigration on tone, but that's where this country is, especially outside the metropolitan areas. But picking on the nonsense policies of allowing lower wages for immigrants, and grandstanding on denying asylum without due process... plenty for those of us on the left to support there.
they’ve really done the work over the last few years on what the British people want that Labour were not offering
In what way? They have just repeated the shite the hard right rags pump out. Its popularism by the numbers. It might as well have just been a telegraph editoral.
Not the government I would most want, but one that the voters are likely to elect
Depends really. Plenty of the hard right wont vote for him because "labour" so he is heavily reliant on "if you dont vote for him you are voting tory" line. Which is deeply ironic considering he is offering tory policies.
So when Keir Starmer is Prime Minister he won’t waste the opportunities made possible by the split from the EU, he will realise all the possibilities of Brexit.
I look forward to hearing people’s critique of that.
Well it's true, look at all the EU rules about state aid, how can you nationalise things without falling foul of them?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....
Sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face, not when I'm talking about him.
But yes, there are probably a few things about state aid that could be taken advantage of but I'm struggling to
A) think of anything else
And
B) reconcile how that is in any way worth what we have given up since there are clearly workarounds anyway.
Which is deeply ironic considering he is offering tory policies.
They're allowing a ratchet where we head ever rightwards because no one has the stones to stand up and point out the journey is fraught with peril to the country.
how can you nationalise things without falling foul of them?
I very much doubt that Keir Starmer has that in mind when he now refers to "the opportunities made possible by the split from the EU".
I also very much doubt that Daily Telegraph readers thought of 'nationalisation' when they read his "I'm a better Tory than the other lot" comment piece.
I suspect that Daily Telegraph readers knew exactly what Starmer was referring to. The clue is in the word 'immigration', as in:
"Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration. I stand ready to deliver"
how can you nationalise things without falling foul of them?
Scots government did both in and out of the EU, Perfectly possible to put stuff into state ownership. vcommonplace allover europe
I'm thinking of the case where certain states were throwing legal challenges to the funding structure of HPC under the guise of illegal state aid.
Obviously there are work arounds as I said before.
Equally obvious I don't think for a minute this is what he was referring to either.
Well this is going to be a disappointment to Sunday Telegraph readers - it turns out Keir Starmer wasn't saying that he agreed with Thatcher when he praised her in his comment piece :
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House, he later said he had wanted to stress her "sense of purpose" - but it did not mean he agreed with her.
So Starmer believes that Thatcher effected "meaningful change" but not necessarily meaningful change that he agrees with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67604830
Although to be fair Starmer doesn't say that he disagreed with Thatcher either, just that it does not mean he agreed with her. This is obviously an important distinction.
So to sum up, in a nutshell, whatever it is that you believe in Starmer basically agrees with you.
Unless you are a leftie, in which case he hates you, as you would expect any proper Tory to.
Nonsense, Starmer is always making promises. He was elected leader of the Labour Party on the back of 10 “pledges”. A pledge we all know is a solemn and binding promise.
Okay what's the point of a promise if you can't keep it? It's just vapour.
how can you nationalise things without falling foul of them?
Well the bit that tickles me is we currently believe that falling foul of privatisation appears to be okay and just fine.
And, apparently more reform would fix that - scant evidence reform ever works in a meaningful way. You reform the hell out of things until they may as well be nationalised.
Other news:
Starmer tweaking his Thatcher boomer baiting response as it's gone down very well...
And more Starmer drama Tory love-in:
"Keir Starmer: Labour ‘won’t turn on spending taps’ if it wins election"
There is no point to a government that doesn't do this - especially if the objective is growth.
“Keir Starmer: Labour ‘won’t turn on spending taps’ if it wins election”There is no point to a government that doesn’t do this – especially if the objective is growth.
I'm sure people appreciate that there isn't a bottomless pit of money but the country desperately needs money spending on it. Proper infrastructure and a rapid switch to renewables, heat pumps etc.
It's like he's promising that when he inherits the ramshackle house that the Tories have left him, he'll then just do a bit of wallpapering to hide the cracks. 🙄
I’m sure people appreciate that there isn’t a bottomless pit of money but the country desperately needs money spending on it.
Not bottomless no - but whether you believe in MMT or classic keynes or pretty much any economic theory now is when the spending taps need to be opened to get money moving round the economy. Its called investment
It’s like he’s promising that when he inherits the ramshackle house that the Tories have left him, he’ll then just do a bit of wallpapering to hide the cracks
Whereas the sensible thing to do would be take out a mortgage on it to do it up - which then increases the value by more than what was spent
there isn’t a bottomless pit of money but the country desperately needs money <s> spending on it </s>
How about we invest in things that produce an asset rather than spend to fund lifestyles (being on benefits is a lifestyle of sorts but not one those in receipt would normally choose)?
If we were to refer to investment rather than spending I suspect that arguments about money supply would be somewhat muted as one would need to argue against community benefit and demonstrate that one is a selfish arse.
I’m sure people appreciate that there isn’t a bottomless pit of money but the country desperately needs money spending on it. Proper infrastructure and a rapid switch to renewables, heat pumps etc.
No but yeah.
The UK government has the access to all the money it needs. It is the currency issuer, and its bank the BoE is commited by law to fund all the things it requests through the Supply and Appropriation act.
A better question would be why is the BoE currently paying interest (if we are short of money!) to people with plenty of money when society/infrastructure is in dire needs of cash ?
After all it comes from exactly the same place. Reserves created by the BoE.
'Not turning on the spending taps' might make canvassing a little invidious, 'we'd like you to vote for no change.'
What's he offering, greater efficiency in austerity and privatising the NHS?
The only thing I can suggest he’s offering, as many have already said,
”Vote for us because… well, we’re not them…”
Which is kind of enough (for now) for a lot of people.
What’s he offering, greater efficiency in austerity and privatising the NHS?
Yes - Streeting is on record as saying he wants more privitisation
Good report by The Resolution Foundation here as to how far we fallen as a nation and how to drag ourselves out of it, needless to say the personal growth of the few % of those at the top of the food chain has continued (no surprise there then) but I’m sure starmer will sort everything out for us plebs.
It's those few per cent that are financing him, he'll be sorting everything out for them.
Weirdly enough Starmer is currently giving a speech to the Resolution Foundation
https://www.youtube.com/live/F2O1bwSdWbo?si=SmTuRum0we6jeEvG
”Vote for us because… well, we’re not them…”
Which is kind of enough (for now) for a lot of people.
Although he does seem to be doing his best to convince tories that "we're you but slightly more competent and less corrupt than the previous bunch".
Given his consistent 20 point lead in the polls, it's interesting that Starmer still has his foot to the floor on trying to attract tory voters. He clearly doesn't have any fear of losing significant numbers of voters from the left. Assuming that's the case (and I don't know if it will be) then it's probably the correct strategy to go for the tories jugular. Could mean the difference between a big/massive majority and a complete tory wipeout. I can easily ignore positive (and empty) words about Thatcher if it improves the chances of the tories being eviscerated.
PS that resolution foundation speech was surprisingly ok. Not radical by any means but he at least gives the impression that he wants to do stuff, and do it in the interests of the majority of working people.
(I am aware BTW that this goes against a lot of my previous comments about Starmer but I'm trying to keep an open mind)
Makes BJ look honest
PS that resolution foundation speech was surprisingly ok. Not radical by any means but he at least gives the impression that he wants to do stuff, and do it in the interests of the majority of working people.
I am sure that is right that that is his instict. I think he is a technocrat.
However I have real reservations about some of the advice he is getting and the folk around him like Streeting and Cooper who I think are much more about power and wealth for themselves and I think he is painting himself into a corner and his attitude towards Scotland stinks
He clearly doesn’t have any fear of losing significant numbers of voters from the left.
What's our alternative?
I can easily ignore positive (and empty) words about Thatcher if it improves the chances of the tories being eviscerated.
I can't.
I'm 54.
The mention of that woman's name makes me angry.
I cannot believe that I'll be voting for a less musically literate Ken Clarke through choice.
I think he is a technocrat.
Of course he is. It's the one thing we can be completely certain about. What we don't really know is his determination to do what he claims to want to do when faced with establishment inertia/opposition.
However I have real reservations about some of the advice he is getting and the folk around him like Streeting and Cooper
Reeves is the biggest problem. She represents the banking and economic establishment who will resist any significant change to the existing economic and financial status quo. Streeting and Cooper are bystanders, especially Cooper, who is only there because no one else wants the home office/immigration problem.
Cooper and streeting are thoroughly corrupt. Can't stand either of them
Given his consistent 20 point lead in the polls, it’s interesting that Starmer still has his foot to the floor on trying to attract tory voters. He clearly doesn’t have any fear of losing significant numbers of voters from the left.
Which is a pointless risk considering what he is very unrealistically hoping to gain.
The 25% of the electorate that are hardcore Tory supporters are not going to shift, no matter how right-wing he tries to convince them he is. They will vote Tory at next general election because that is what they always do.
In contrast there is a much more realistic risk imo that voters who were previously willing to vote Labour are so put off by Starmer's incessant lurch to the right that come the general election they stay at home or vote for another party.
In contrast there is a much more realistic risk imo that voters who were previously willing to vote Labour are so put off by Starmer’s incessant lurch to the right that come the general election they stay at home or vote for another party.
I guess the calculus comes down to whether left-inclined voters are more disgusted at Starmer's rightwing rhetoric or the fear of the tories continuing in govt. I think the vast majority will be more worried about the latter and Starmer/Labour clearly agree. Also not so sure about the number of died in the wool tories. I reckon there are huge numbers of traditional tory voters who will consider shifting due to the unique circumstances following the Johnson/Truss/Sunak chaos.
However I have real reservations about some of the advice...
It would appear that he is getting more than just advice, there is growing evidence that Morgan McSweeney is running the show (with probably some input from David Evans).
I suspect the deal is "do as we say and we'll make you PM".
Morgan McSweeney's influence over Starmer appears to predate Starmer becoming party leader. I suspect that Starmer's "10 pledges" were probably McSweeney's idea of how to secure the leadership election.
Starmer is a lawyer, offering arguments based not on what he believes to be true, but instead on his briefs, will come naturally to him.
I guess the calculus comes down to whether left-inclined voters are more disgusted at Starmer’s rightwing rhetoric or the fear of the tories continuing in govt.
The reaction doesn't have to be that strong imo to cost Labour votes. For a lot of people voting is an effort which they very often don't bother doing.
They are much more likely to get their sorry arses down to the polling station on election night if they feel inspired and energised by a political party. Pessimism and a feeling of pointlessness is much more likely to result in them not bothering to make the effort.
The reaction doesn’t have to be that strong imo to cost Labour votes. For a lot of people voting is an effort which they very often don’t bother doing.
True, but after the chaos of the last few years and the pandemic the next election is going to be much more in the minds of voters than previous ones, and that will motivate people to vote one way or the other. It's ironic that the tories stoking a culture war and polarising opinion could backfire on them by boosting the turnout. I'd put money on this election having the highest turnout in history.
It will also be very interesting to see what happens up here. I know its not of much interest to many of you but Starmer said labour need to take seats in Scotland to be legitimate. SNP are clearly working on the "two cheeks of the same arse" line and lets see how much it sticks. SNP look tired and out of ideas in Holyrood and are very vulnerable but I see zero enthusiasm for labour here at all. If there is enthusiasm for labour they could very well take 30 - 40 seats but it seems unlikely to me - but the polling is in such a place that the vagaries of FPTP means a few % either way will make a huge differnce to seats
I agree with Ernie it will not take a lot for labour voters to stay home - its always been an issue and here we do have alternatives to vote for other than Tory