Sir! Keir! Starmer!

Labour already have more progressive policies than the government, and we're still years out from a full published manifesto for government at a general election. But there's no point directing you to cases of Starmer explaining policies, because you'll just say...

...I don’t trust anything he says so I’m not going to take his words at face value.

But there’s no point directing you to cases of Starmer explaining policies

Well if you are going to post on this thread you might as well post the links where Starmer 'explains policies'.

To claim you won't because Daz says he doesn't trust Starmer is a poor excuse.

Mistrust of politicians is fairly widespread. Even if people don't trust politicians it is still reasonable for them to expect policies explained to them.

They can then judge whether to believe them or not.

Follow the link I posted for a few points of policy difference between Labour and the government. It's a start.

Mistrust is normal. I can't say if current Labour policies would survive contact with the reality of government, or even make it into a manifesto that is years away from being written, anything could happen in that space of time.

I can’t say if current Labour policies would survive contact with the reality of government

Surely any commitment and policies they make now has to be made with "the reality of government" in mind? Isn't that the point of offering the electorate fully costed commitments?

Would you accept "the reality of government" as an excuse for broken promises from a Tory leader?

Surely any commitment and policies they make now has to be made with “the reality of government” in mind?

There isn't a general election coming up, they won't be in government any time soon, by the time they are (or at least we get a chance to vote to put them in office) anything could have happened. God knows what semi-self-imposed hole the UK will be in by then. Never mind what will happen elsewhere in the world.

Isn’t that the point of offering the electorate fully costed commitments?

I hope that'll be in/with the next general election manifesto. Unlike the other UK wide parties, Labour had a good go at doing that at the last two general elections. The other parties don't even bother any more.

Would you accept “the reality of government” as an excuse for broken promises from a Tory leader?

Tory policies change near weekly.

There isn’t a general election coming up

Yes there is - in a couple of years time.

Do you think that the period between general elections should be treated as a holiday by opposition parties?

The government will use that period to pass legislation and provide governance. It is the role of the opposition to scrutinize and where they feel it is appropriate to offer alternative proposals.

They are not on a five year paid holiday.

Mistrust is normal.

Starmer only has himself to blame: he reneged on his leadership manifesto so why should we believe what he says,

Do you think that the period between general elections should be treated as a holiday by opposition parties?

The manifesto won't be fully formed 'till the election campaign. Otherwise, why not publish one now, and not revise or add to it all when it comes to the election?

Starmer looks pretty busy to me. I have no idea what your "holiday" thing is about.

Worth a read as regards tuition fees

He seems reticent to discuss the fact that tuition fees were both introduced and trebled during Tony Blair's leadership of the party. There's also the recent statement from Labour condemning the environmental protestors and calling for their prosecution, which is a huge red flag for me.

IMHO Kier Starmer is not the right person to lead the Labour Party, and I won't be voting for them while he's there. Right now if you voted Labour I think you'd get Tory Light, but with perhaps a little less incompetence.

I shall vote Green again at the next General Election, with a tactical Lib Dem vote in the upcoming local authority elections.

The manifesto won’t be fully formed ’till the election campaign.

Who is talking about "the manifesto"?

It is perfectly reasonable to expect Labour to have policies now which we can expect to be included in the next manifesto.

That firm commitment by Starmer to oppose student loans which I posted earlier on this thread thread was made 4 years before the next general election.

What are voters suppose to base their decisions on in local and by-elections if they are expected to know the policies of the government but not that of the opposition parties?

Starmer looks pretty busy to me.

Most people would disagree with you - go out and ask the average punter.

On many issues which might be seen as contentious the silence from Starmer is almost deafening. On the issues which the media are piling into the government/Johnson Starmer enthusiastically joins in after the media has done most of the critical reporting, and lazily offers no alternative - because the next general election is "years away" according to you.

None of your defence of Starmer stacks up Kelvin. But then we both know that what you are really providing is excuses for his obvious ineptitude.

a huge red flag for me

Very concerning, for sure. I agree with you on that one 100%.

Right now if you voted Labour I think you’d get Tory Light

Things might be different in your seat, but here, not voting Labour helps one of the Tory MPs with the worst of voting records to retain their seat. Again.

What are voters suppose to base their decisions on in local and by-elections

Neither can result in Labour being in a position to change student fees, or anything else decided by the UK government.

Once again, I have no idea what you want other than a very tedious and nebulous “debate”.

I only pointed to some policy comments by Starmer. I would hope they inform the next general election manifesto, which if Labour won would be mostly put into action. I can’t make promises on behalf of Labour.

Once again, I have no idea what you want other than a very tedious and nebulous “debate”.

There is no need to attempt to personalise this. It is not a question of what I want. Criticism of Starmer and his inability to offer alternative policies is widespread.

If you ask Joe Public they will typically tell you that they have no idea what Labour stands for. Which presumably helps to explain why all the opinion polls of the last couple of months suggest that Labour would fail to form a majority government if an election was held.

Although no doubt the Mets decision to issue Downing Street with fines will at least temporarily change that.

Btw Kelvin if you find criticism of Starmer on a thread about Starmer tedious just remember that you aren't obliged to make excuses for him. It is something which you choose to do.

>> Skipping over all the criticism of Starmer I’ve posted in this thread <<

Labour has policies. No, they don’t have a full manifesto. Yes, policies might change, even significantly, before the next election. No, I don’t think Starmer is the right person to lead Labour into the election, and I think he should be replaced with someone less lacklustre and forgettable. If he is replaced, Labour still won’t win an outright majority at the next election. Conservative support in England would have to completely collapse for that to happen. I want the UK to have a Labour PM rather than a Conservative one (the only two realistic options), and if by some miracle of good fortune Stramer got to be PM, I would welcome that. And Labour still has my vote while he is leader.

Flaperon
Free Member
Worth a read as regards tuition fees

He seems reticent to discuss the fact that tuition fees were both introduced and trebled during Tony Blair’s leadership of the party. There’s also the recent statement from Labour condemning the environmental protestors and calling for their prosecution, which is a huge red flag for me.

IMHO Kier Starmer is not the right person to lead the Labour Party, and I won’t be voting for them while he’s there. Right now if you voted Labour I think you’d get Tory Light, but with perhaps a little less incompetence.

The last, and current protests by Just Stop Oil aren't helping their cause, it's badly planned and badly timed unfortunately, 100% agree with what they want for the future, but in planning, to aim it at football games, or terminals to reduce the movement of fuel is only ending in one thing, disruption to the general public, the government rub their hands at this, they can look strong, and give the public a scapegoat.

Just now is the perfect time to get JSO and others to sit at the table, have the professors they link to provide data for the labour manifesto or planning, again, timing wise, Ukraine has put a lot of strain on this, and it could be used for future good, i.e. getting in deep with renewables and pushing the reduction in our oil usage.

As for voting for Starmer is tory lite, not voting for him is full fat tory, i just can't get my head around so many labour supporters, or tory haters having such a negative thing for Starmer, christ get into power first, then work out if he's the right man, otherwise it's another decade of sitting on the sidelines shuffling the pack every so often, with no threat of actually doing anything.

i just can’t get my head around so many labour supporters, or tory haters having such a negative thing for Starmer, christ get into power first, then work out if he’s the right man

Did you have the same attitude with regards to the previous Labour leader? Did you think "Jeezus stop criticising him because the alternative is full fat Tory, just get him into power first, then work out if he's the right man"?

If so you must have had an extremely low opinion of the PLP.

Did you have the same attitude with regards to the previous Labour leader? Did you think “Jeezus stop criticising him because the alternative is full fat Tory, just get him into power first, then work out if he’s the right man”?

If so you must have had an extremely low opinion of the PLP.

Yeah, to be fair to you, that's a good response, Corbyn was a hard sell to me, but against a Boris, i would side with the less depressing side, and hope that the balancing would happen during parliament, as it would be there that a lot of the battles over the manifesto promises would happen.

Did you have the same attitude with regards to the previous Labour leader? Did you think “Jeezus stop criticising him because the alternative is full fat Tory, just get him into power first, then work out if he’s the right man”?

So many middle grounders own this.

It's also the idea that we were sold we couldn't trust a genuine Labour MP, and that now we should trust what I believe is a disingenous Labour MP that has been played as the right thing to do.

The bar is so low that anything slightly north of Monster Munch is considered a quality snack.

It’s also the idea that we were sold we couldn’t trust a genuine Labour MP, and that now we should trust what I believe is a disingenous Labour MP that has been played as the right thing to do.

I'd say if he was disingenuous then he'd be doing a lot more playing to the left, it would be an easy game to play to avoid all the fracturing going on with unions, MPs, etc.

 Right now if you voted Labour I think you’d get Tory Light

You live in a system that rewards FPTP, voting Green (and this is not aimed at you specifically) will get you a Tory govt because that's how the system is loaded to give you. Your choices are;

Tory -  You can hope for slightly right of centre, but their pressure groups are to the right of them

Labour - You can vote for slightly left of centre, their pressure groups are to the left of them -and have the policies you want to see enacted.

Those are your choices- anything else - any belief system you may think is better - is just pissing about.

it would be an easy game to play to avoid all the fracturing going on with unions, MPs, etc.

I am sure that Starmer feels confident that the more right-wing and indistinguishable from the Tories he becomes the more likely he is to get wealthy backers to bankroll him. So I doubt that he cares about upsetting trade unions. In fact all the evidence suggests that he doesn't.

I'm not sure what you mean about the fracturing going on with MPs, I can't remember a time when the PLP were so solidly behind their leader.

I have no idea what "etc" means so can't comment on that. You might be right on that one.

christ get into power first, then work out if he’s the right man

I base my opinion on the last few years of Starmer in opposition, where he's singularly failed to call out Johnson on his worst policies.

He needs to make a decision too on what he's going to do about the Speaker tolerating and supporting Johnson's lies and evasion in the Commons. A stronger person would have called this out.

You live in a system that rewards FPTP

I'm no longer convinced it's possible to oust the Tories whilst fptp is our system. I've voted against them every time since I was old enough to vote and they've yet to lose. There comes a time where you've got to say **** it if we can't get them out then we may as well send a message for what matters to us. So I probably will vote green next time too since net zero is the single biggest issue to me and we're not doing enough. It helps that I've moved from a marginal seat to a safe labour seat that's consistently voting in green councillors though

I’m no longer convinced it’s possible to oust the Tories whilst fptp is our system

Given that the Tories have enacted policies to make any regional elections that aren't already; FPTP, I'd tend to agree. BUT. Labour also support FPTP and aren't looking to change it (despite it's members wanting it, it was the Unions that killed it at conference last year)

So again, Our (if you don't want a Tory govt) choices are simple. Vote for the party with the strongest chance of defeating them nationally .- That's labour.

The only party that's even within sniffing distance of the policies most posters to this thread want is Labour.

End.

I’ve voted against them every time since I was old enough to vote and they’ve yet to lose.

Obviously I don't know how old you are but the Tories have only won 2 elections in the last 25 years.

I’m no longer convinced it’s possible to oust the Tories whilst fptp is our system.

Sorry but this is defeatist nonsense. labour came within a few thousand votes in marginal seats of unseating the tories in 2017. We've since found out that labour MPs and staffers spent a lot of time diverting resources from those constituencies as well as undermining the leadership so it's not difficult to imagine what a united labour party with bold transformational policies and an honest, compassionate and inspiring leader might achieve.

That's what Starmer offered when he stood for the leadership and is the main reason he's leader, but unfortunately he's shown that everything he said and promised back then was simply a ruse to gain the leadership and allow the right to purge anyone from the left from the party. If Starmer is going to unseat the tories he needs to focus attention on them rather than fighting the left of his party. I think we all know where his priorities lie though.

Tories have only won 2 elections in the last 25 years.

To correct my factually incorrect comment I have just realised that the Tories have only won 2 general elections since 1992, so that will be 30 years then.

Although I can fully understand why some people might feel that we have had Tory majority governments for the last 30 years.

It's almost as if we have.

Something changed in about 2010 though, didn't it... and we're still sliding... almost like having a Tory PM isn't such a good thing for the people who suffer most from Tory policies...

https://twitter.com/localnotail/status/1513583903814131713?s=20&t=ePVsu9tT7-smmJABbhbqiQ

That's probably a useless graphic to use as it shows how successful and widely used the Trussell Trust has become over that period through increased food banks, support via partnerships and donors, volunteers, etc.

Yes, the increases must be about something other than the increased need/demand created as a result of the policies Tory PMs have preceded over... put it down to anything else... any straw you can clutch onto... Rees-Mogg would...

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/908334935097868289?s=20&t=68mNyQAKX51-O2Y9r22cSA

Something changed in about 2010 though, didn’t it…

Yeah the LibDems totally discredited themselves by going into government with the Tories, helping them to implement appalling policies including vicious austerity which caused 50,000 extra deaths, thereby giving the Tories a leg up to form the first Tory majority government in 18 years five years later.

Whilst simultaneously overseeing the collapse of LibDem electoral support in every election since 2010.

That was good plan by the "centrists", wasn't it?

Yes, the increases must be about something other than the increased need/demand created as a result of the policies Tory PMs have preceded over

It's just using the actual data supporting the graphs you provided, the Trussell Trust has become a success for what it does and increased food banks, sponsors/partners, volunteers, etc, etc over the last 15 years, to point a graph like that and make it political is just not a good thing to do, it's easily ripped apart as there is absolutely no correlation with the year on year data.

The data that would better support the argument would be areas like the poverty line across several metrics, as there is good data and correlation of this data over the years.

the Trussell Trust has become a success for what it does and increased food banks, sponsors/partners, volunteers

True, but they're not "creating need" in doing so, they (and their volunteers) are stepping in to help people let down by a succession of Tory PMs. God knows how bad it's going to get under this one, as inflation, especially for the essentials of life, shoot upwards much faster than the pay of the less well off or the benefits available to them.

True, but they’re not “creating need” in doing so, they (and their volunteers) are stepping in to help people let down by a succession of Tory PMs. God knows how bad it’s going to get under this one, as inflation, especially for the essentials of life, shoot upwards much faster than the pay of the less well off or the benefits available to them.

Having it available creates as much need as any other factor, simple supply and demand, a decade ago what were people doing to feed their families without the simple availability of Trussell Trusts, were they borrowing from friends and family, local authorities, shoplifting or whatever,

The actual percentage of those below the poverty line hasn't really moved dramatically over the last 20 years, events have caused some fluctuations, COVID is having a huge impact, same with inflation, there's a lot more metrics available that cause concern just now for the foreseeable future than some dafty on twitter throwing up a couple of charts without any context.

Having it available creates as much need as any other factor, simple supply and demand

What do the Trussell Trust have to say about recent government action (and non-action)…

“Today the Chancellor has failed to create any security for people on the lowest incomes by failing to bring benefits payments in line with the true cost of living in the Spring Statement. This decision has created a real-terms cut to social security payments, which remain dangerously insufficient.

“People are already making impossible decisions between heating and eating, and we know people are skipping meals, unable to afford to run cookers and fridges and taking on debt to buy the essentials. This is not right.

“This decision will mean many more people will have no option but to use a food bank. By failing to make benefits payments realistic for the times we face, the government is risking turning the cost of living crisis into an emergency. People cannot afford to wait another year for this to be reviewed. Action to rectify this situation and strengthen our social security system needs to happen immediately.”

[ Trussell Trust ]

Increased use of food banks is being driven by government policy that is hitting the least well off. It is not driven by the Trussell Trust’s provision of help.

That was good plan by the “centrists”, wasn’t it?

I've absolutely no idea where we are going politically at the moment to be honest.

Everything is such a mess.

It used to be cold hard Tories v Labour working class stereotypes. Now it's so messed up we have forgotten what makes a country worth living in.

I fear I will never see what I deem to be a progressive government in my lifetime.

Got to be a lot of damage caused by constant exposition on social media, carving up thought processes.

However when things turn hugely bearish, that is often when the bulls take charge.

Increased use of food banks is being driven by government policy that is hitting the least well off. It is not driven by the Trussell Trust’s provision of help.

She's stating the current climate rather than the historical usage for the trust, those current issues are what i am pointing to as being better backed by factual data and can be correlated to the current government.

It's one of my pet peeves when i see someone throwing up a graphic, or quote out of context to suit their argument, it's how someone like Boris manages to win people over, remember £350 million a week on the side of a bus, those graphs have as much reality as his quote.

The context is... increased use of food banks. We all agree this has happened, yes?

My view (and that of the person using that graph) is that this is the result of government policy where the incomes (wages and benefits) of less well off people has not kept up with the cost of living (that has increased faster for that group than for those that are better off).

Your view is that the increase is is due to the "success" of groups like the Trussell Trust in meeting a need which you claim was already there, and need isn't really increasing... the increase in use is due to increased "supply", it's not supply being increased to try and meet increased demand.

I think that is summarised fairly. Is it not? Trussell Group also say it's the former. Rees-Moog agrees with you. Nothing to do with buses.

Need isn't increasing? The Gini coefficient shows that inequality has increased by 30% since 1979 and that has accelerated with current inflation and, for most people, austerity supported by both the Tories and Labour. Even the Mail and the Times etc are saying this. People can't live off platitudes.

Well I almost had an extremely close encounter with Sir Keir Starmer today.

Earlier I popped into the Italian deli at the bottom of my road, which I do almost daily. As I walked in the deli owner Giorgio instantly declared that I had just missed Starmer, apparently he had been in his shop for over an hour and a half.

Giorgio's deli is very near Croydon's trade union centre and he has quite strong links with the Labour Party which often use his deli as it has a few tables and chairs where you can have a coffee or a plate of pasta.

Today unexpectedly Starmer turned up with the local MP Sarah Jones, the Labour mayoral hopeful Valerie Shawcroft, a few others, and the press.

I am so glad that I missed Starmer. Giorgio is a good friend and he would have been mortified if I had had an altercation with Starmer in his shop.

I really don't think I could have resisted, or indeed that I should not have, pointed out to Starmer how hypocritical it is for him to call Johnson a hypocrite and a liar when he himself has broken every single solemn promise that he made when he stood to be Labour leader.

Furthermore two of Giorgio's customers have been expelled from the Labour Party. One for calling the council leader to resign over a £67M fraud scandal, and another for supporting the Palestinian cause on social media about 10 years ago. Obviously no one has been expelled from the Labour Party for their involvement in all those Croydon council scandals which have hit the headlines.

The only article I can find online about Starmer's visit to Croydon today is this badly written one. I have no idea why they call it a "cheese shop". Val Shawcross is standing for mayor, don't know why they say leader. The photo of Starmer is him standing in the deli doorway...... I walked through that door a little while later!

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/keir-starmer-we-need-earn-23696736

The context is… increased use of food banks. We all agree this has happened, yes?

My view (and that of the person using that graph) is that this is the result of government policy where the incomes (wages and benefits) of less well off people has not kept up with the cost of living (that has increased faster for that group than for those that are better off).

Your view is that the increase is is due to the “success” of groups like the Trussell Trust in meeting a need which you claim was already there, and need isn’t really increasing… the increase in use is due to increased “supply”, it’s not supply being increased to try and meet increased demand.

I think that is summarised fairly. Is it not? Trussell Group also say it’s the former. Rees-Moog agrees with you. Nothing to do with buses.

No, i was pointing at the actual data points, and towards the actual real data that has been correlated over the same period (like https://www.jrf.org.uk/data), to provide a better understanding, rather than the usual facebook/twitter poster using some data point fit their agenda.

If you read the previous stuff, it all points to increased usage of things like food banks, credit facilities, etc, etc by those already trapped in poverty, with noted irregular increases becoming more regular with COVID, Inflation and so on.

I'm just tired of seeing daft twitter rants using one data point to try and sum up an entire argument, then wonder why the right then use phrases like 'fake news'.

I would also note i use the Trussell Trust as a success in the way that they have been able to actually show some positives within this country, where they have so many people volunteering their time, companies and organisations providing goods and services and that there are positives when it comes to fighting for things across the political spectrum.

Bit quiet in here seeing as it's been quite a week for Starmer. I see he's adopted the Corbyn press strategy of preparing PMQs soundbites for posting on social media. Binners will be happy.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1516765823905550337?s=20&t=0p4eoyIZcYCPlko3Z4TySg

Pfft!

No ranting there, and he actually looked up from his notes.

The Tweet is also seriously short of creepy cult-like replies telling him that he's the greatest human being ever to walk the earth, if not actually technically a God

A poor effort

If course it’s quiet here, the thread is toxic. I’ve done a leaflet drop for a very good Labour councillor that’s standing for re-election. Met lots of friendly people on doorsteps, all in all a far more worthwhile experience. Fingers crossed people get onboard and vote in the local elections, for whoever they prefer, rather than chewing on their own bile with like minded malcontents on the internet.