Forum menu
Are there any Starmer apologists still willing to defend this
Not a Starmer apologist, but looking at this in more detail, the story is one of internal party arguing, It's clear the RMT have been used as a prop to force the Labour leadership the result that occurred. neither Tarry or Starmer come out of this looking like grown ups IMO
Petty internal squabbling gets in the way of looking after the interests of people again.
Nah, it's Starmer's take on unions and industrial action. It's now the Hard Labour Party.
Petty internal squabbling gets in the way of looking after the interests of people again
Nah - not even close. The issue is about supporting normal working people in a cost of living crisis and against the tide of increasingly poor employment practice. RMT is just the initial skirmishes - teachers and nurses (even the RCN!) are balloting for strike action. private sector employers like the airports have already met worker demands because of the threat of industrial action.
Is Labour seriously not going to support striking nurses?
Nah, it’s Starmer’s take on unions and industrial action.
Oh, don't misunderstand me, I think Labour's stance about not supporting the RMT (or unions in general) is unhinged. No arguments. But Tarry is no innocent either, he's used the RMT for his own purposes here.
But Tarry is no innocent either, he’s used the RMT for his own purposes here.
Possibly especially with the talk about the deselection. However it was Starmer who created the scenario which could be used in his hope of making the daily heil like him.
Tarry is a former national officer for TSSA, which presumably played a part in his position as shadow transport minister. TSSA btw is currently in dispute with rail companies.
The idea that a Labour politician, and former full-time official of a transport trade union, would not openly and publicly lend their support to a transport union demanding a cost of living wage rise, in face of strong opposition from a Tory government which is determined that once again ordinary working people should make all the sacrifices, is frankly ridiculous.
I can't see how Tarry even had a choice. Abstaining or keeping silent or prevaricate on important headline issues might seem like a reasonable choice for Starmer but many people expect far more from the official party of Opposition.
We spend a lot of time on here taking apart Starmer's shitty right-wing twitching - when was the last time he did something good that we could applaud? ...
And that's the point.
Everything in this thread has been about the disintegration of the Labour party with Centrists queuing up to find the value of crumbs in Starmer and there isn't any. The tiny positive crumbs have been stolen by the Tories.
The Centrists have left the thread because they can't defend him any longer.
The concept of him upsetting the right wing does not wash. When he's in power he's going to be exactly the same for fear of losing an election. It will be this constant excuse from the Centrists.
Progressive polices will upset the establishment. You just need to defend them like Lynch does.
We seriously need this coward gone.
Hard to defend Starmer here.
It reminds me of when Corbyn sacked Owen Smith for suggesting a confirmatory referendum on Brexit would be a good idea. Sacked him for not towing the party line.
There are lots of great points in that.
I think you could be a centrist and have bold, ambitious or at least practical ideas of how to improve the UK. SKS has nothing. It's a real shame.
I actually remember him saying that they will have ambitious/radical policies before the next election.
I think you could be a centrist and have bold, ambitious or at least practical ideas of how to improve the UK
I don't think you can, centrism is by definition sitting on the fence. It is the political philosophy equivalent of allowing climate scientists and a denier equal footing in a debate.
Centrism is an "Instagram picture of compassion" that hides the reality, it is engaging the right wing culture wars so you can be seen to be on the good side, without actually wanting the economic changes that would bring equality and greater wellbeing to society. It is accepting that climate change is an existential threat to life on earth, but not willing to commit to solution because the "markets" still want short term greed as a higher priority. Centrism is indecisiveness and fear of change masked as balance.
Centrism is indecisiveness and fear of change masked as balance.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's political cowardice, plain and simple. It's also a direct result of a political culture where the acquisition of power and the development of a political 'career' is the primary concern of politicians. Starmer is a perfect example of that, along with many in the shadow cabinet. Liz Truss, Johnson and Sunak too. They all represent a system where the needs of the electorate are secondary to the careers of politicians, and all the people who have careers which feed on that system such as journalists, lobbyists, commentators etc.
Nah you can offer stuff from the centre. A centrist can offer further devolution, reform of the Lords, smaller class sizes, better GP appointments, controls on MPs 2nd jobs, free university education etc
But yes Keir is offering nothing and saying nothing which is political cowardice.
Give us a clue SKS! Or is the next manifesto just going to be blank?
It's incredible. His alternative to the far right anti-woke pantomime playing out is to hide away until it all blows over. Mick Lynch is a braver interviewee than the leader of the opposition.
Lynch has just one thing to care about, know all about and defend it. An MP, especially would be leader of a party, has to pretend to care about everything while knowing little about most of it and always having the voters and media response on their mind.
Always worth remembering Centrism is not the centre of anything.
It's the endorsement of current market forces but with a bit more taxation here and there.
It also follows and criticises the right constantly with no answers of its own.
I also find the other difference with Centrists over the loon right is they tend to believe the EU is the absolute answer to all economic problems. You've only got to read Dunt or O'Brien's material.
Lynch has just one thing to care about, know all about and defend it.
I think you might have missed the point concerning the praise the Mick Lynch [blessings be upon him] has been receiving.
What impresses people is how Lynch [blessings be upon him] answers direct questions in a direct manner. Where a question is clearly a ridiculous question he exposes it as such. There is absolute clarity in his position and no prevarication.
And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why Keir Starmer cannot handle media interviews in the same manner. He needs to make up his mind where he stands on issues and clearly communicate that in interviews.
It really shouldn't be too much to expect from the leader of a political party.
I think you might have missed the point concerning the praise the Mick Lynch [blessings be upon him] has been receiving.
Not missed the point at all and I think Mick Lynch is great. But again he can easily answer straight with no repercussions as his sole job is representing a single group of people on one subject rather than trying to make a country, a party and the media happy across many, many areas.
I would rather have Lynchs job than Starmers.
Starmer is still shit at it though so no argument from me there.
But again he can easily answer straight with no repercussions
What "repercussions" do you think Keir Starmer [pain and misery be upon him] might face if he gave straight answers?
People might know where he stood on issues and criticise him?
I completely agree that he won't give a straight answer because he is worried about the repercussions.
But ffs is really too much to expect from a politician? Most people appear to think it isn't.
Edit: And to get back to the point that was being made, Lynch [blessings be upon him] is showing him how to do it.
I think it is the contrast between the two which strikes people and reminds them that straight answers to straight questions in media interviews is actually possible.
Starmer is ultimately hiding behind fiscal rules which restrict giving sensible answers on pay rises by the state.
If you take his economic line of logic then there will never be adequate pay rises as tax will always be too low for a wage rise whilst inflation is high. Because unlike all the thick brained Tories reasoning for a wage price spiral we have a wage price contractiom currently. That can only be fixed by the state or huge growth.
But because we really know tax doesn't pay for spending then we know he's incompetent and a liar, and not befitting of a Labour leader to talk like this.
Fiscal rules will utterly ruin the Labour party in periods of low or no growth.
So looks like Starmer has had to back down on his picket line ban. Nice one Keir. Picking a pointless fight with your own side to keep the Daily Mail happy. Pathetic.
Tories not embarrassed about sticking up for capital ...
Lisa Nandy went to a picket line today with the looks of it.
Lmfao
Truss ahead of Starmer. Look below 2 weeks ago Starmer was ahead by 12pts!
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1554139397209182208?t=c0ph6EStmIcpVweuVzQFzA&s=19
Lmfao
Truss ahead of Starmer. Look below 2 weeks ago Starmer was ahead by 12pts!
It's what you'd expect, nothing is happening at Labour HQ just now, Starmer is not in the news really, it's all about the tory leadership elections, so the poll is just feeding off that.
The actual facts show that Liz Truss, who has been in positions of power is pretty much a disaster, turning anything that should be simple diplomacy or political discussions into an awkward exchange.
Starmer blames retreat from nationalisation pledge on post-pandemic debt
Presumably a Labour government was able to create a national health service in 1948 because WW2 hadn't left the UK with any debt.
Starmer blames retreat from nationalisation pledge on post-pandemic debt
Not factually correct is he?
BoE bought the 400 billion debt with Q/E. Because they can. To make it look like the government needed to borrow.
It's not 'owed' to the private sector.
It's all bollocks.
While total borrowing between March 2020 and July 2021 was £413bn, the Bank of England’s total purchase of government debt was £412bn, or 99.5%.
They need to look at the big bank the government owns.
Biggest lie going.
(I reckon it's closer to 450billion but there's pockery going on.)
So what the hell is he talking about?
This info is on the BoEs website.
Presumably a Labour government was able to create a national health service in 1948 because WW2 hadn’t left the UK with any debt.
And it's even less of problem now because we operate a fiat currency.
It’s what you’d expect, nothing is happening at Labour HQ just now, Starmer is not in the news
Well if you call a very major speech a week ago in which Starmer attempted to communicate his vision for the UK "nothing" then I guess so.
But I think the real problem is that when Starmer occasionally decides to say something it is invariably meaningless uninspirational waffle.
If you feel otherwise here is his entire instantly forgettable speech from a week ago, which you presumably didn't know about or have forgotten. Enjoy
https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-speech-on-labours-mission-for-economic-growth/
No worries, thought you might be interested!
'Growth' means 'I'll pay you a little bit more if you increase my profits a great deal more', it's a redescription of trick-le down which we all know means trickle up. They could just as well campaign around 'Jam Tomorrow', 'Suffer to Save the Rich' or 'Now Is Not the Time'. At least the Tories are upfront about attacking living standards, sacking people and reducing workers' rights whilst they party, Labour is much more insidious.
JRM has broken cover! Be interesting to see if any journalists test other MPs on it.
Surely the issue is if they come out admitting it, the illusion is shattered and all monetary policies based upon austerity and being frugal with economy which really did a **** number on a fair few people would be plain to see as a complete fabrication would result in society being just a tad annoyed?
We could then keep everyone out of poverty, homeless off the streets, loads of training for positions we desperately need to fill, debtless society and warm hugs all round. Or is it just no, small government is better, we will manufacture division and animosity to keep the cycle repeating?
George Osborne admitted that austerity had nothing to do with reducing the national debt. It was about, as Thatcher put it, 'rewarding the wealth creators' (trickle up).
I've been saying for some time that the brexiteer tories are closet MMTers. Seems they now feel comfortable admitting it. Labour are so far behind on economics it's laughable. They've somehow manoevred themselves into a position where they are now the party preaching austerity. That's quite an achievement!
I've no doubt about how monetary operations currently work and how we've been misled.
The detail is all there just read Warren Mosler (previously a Bond salesman), Kelton, Bill Mitchell, Richard Murphy.
Getting classical mainstream economists to accept it is hard work.
James Meadway - McDonnell's previous senior financial advisors still believes currently we borrow from the private sector.
That's why Labours stuffed.
It's a shame because the Tories will cause havoc with it.
Labour are so far behind on economics it’s laughable.
But the story that's told to the public (by both parties) is a believable and understandable one to millions of folks who are used to hearing it, and understand what politicians actually mean when they talk about it, it's not a message about economics, it's a message about trust. Labour always have to have policies that are "paid for" the Tories always have to say that the NHS is "safe in their hands " these are messages about trust, not money.
I doubt you'd be able to gather up 10 people who'd be able to guess at all accurately how much the Army costs or the NHS or anything, people aren't really interested.
Labour always have to have policies that are “paid for” the Tories always have to say that the NHS is “safe in their hands ” these are messages about trust, not money.
Yeah I agree with this but they could just rewrite the narrative with fairly logical facts.
Instead of being push-overs.
If you have to claim something is costed - you open yourself up to analysis. The debate becomes about how it's afforded.
Labour did this in 2017/2019. Mistake.
but they could just rewrite the narrative with fairly logical facts.
They could certainly try, but in a political world where folks are free to pick their "own facts" these days I'm not sure that it wouldn't just be easily dismissed as just changing the goal posts.
I agree with you that we badly need a new 'conversation' about finances and spending and taxation, but I'm not certain that politicians are the best folks to lead that.
but I’m not certain that politicians are the best folks to lead that.
JRM seems to disagree. What harm would it do Labour to agree with him? Instead they'll be backing themselves into the pro-austerity corner while the tories pretend to be the party on the side of working people. Instead of promising to 'balance the books' Labour should be pushing the simple message that government money is going to the top 5% instead of the bottom 50%. Why is that so hard for them?
What harm would it do Labour to agree with him?
Really? Given his current performance, you want Starmer to be seen by the wider party to be agreeing with JRM of all people. You can’t see the issue with that?
sorry wromng thread!
you want Starmer to be seen by the wider party to be agreeing with JRM of all people.
No I want Starmer to point out that JRM is correct in that we don't have to pay back the national debt, and that a large part of it is fictional. These two facts as voiced by JRM should be used by Starmer in every economic debate to hammer home the message that it's not the level of spending that needs to change, but the destination of the money. He won't do that though will he? Instead he'll shoot his own feet by restricting his ambitions to do something that even right wing tories admit is not required.
you want Starmer to be seen by the wider party to be agreeing with JRM of all people. You can’t see the issue with that?
JRM is wrong just about everything but he's correct on that even if he's using it for his own ends.
No I want Starmer to point out that JRM is correct in that we don’t have to pay back the national debt, and that a large part of it is fictional.
You must have missed my post about trust. JRM can say those things because he has no measure of trust to gain or keep. Agreeing with a loon like JRM does not increase people's trust in Starmer, saying that debts don't need to be paid off does not increase people's trust in Starmer, it would just give the RW press an easy hammer with which to beat him constantly.