It’s not so hard to become a Tory MP… we have hundreds of examples of this in parliament right now. Hopefully they’ll be far fewer of them come the election. If that happens, it’s obvious that those that have done nothing by moan for three **** years on this thread about Starmer won’t credit him for that success at all. Because getting Labour into office is so damn easy… isn’t it…
Fewer Tory MPs but many more right-wing MPs.
Seriously what's the point at all?
Seems to me people are so so desperate for the Tories to go they're failing to analyse the direction of travel for the country in terms of not fixing problems that a Starmer government will offer.
It's not good enough.
Fewer Tory MPs but many more right-wing MPs.
Ok hun. Whatever.
And just to add to this comment:
the Conservatives are no longer conservative, they are Nationalist
Apparently Sir Keir Starmer believes that the Tories aren't just not good conservatives but also not very good nationalists. Presumably unlike him - he is now both a conservative and proper nationalist.
According to the i link above:
Sir Keir will offer a personal view of his own patriotism, based on understanding the “true worth of service, respect and stability” and criticise those who harbour “patronising contempt for those who fly our flag”.
Gawd bless him and his love of the flag - hopefully we will see him publicly hugging the flag Trump-style.
Make Britain Great Again!
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1657362009761935362?t=5QbIRe4xK1AaUgz-vr0clA&s=19
A dalek makes more sense.
It’s not so hard to become a Tory MP
Actually it is. That you use "hundreds" contradicts your claim. Thats a pretty narrow job market.
You are confusing the final stage of the process which is often outside of the candidates control, especially when first trying to get elected, with the hard part of the process namely getting given a seat where a donkey with a red/blue/yellow ribbon, okay maybe not the latter, will get elected.
It is worth reading "why we get the wrong politicians". Whilst I am not convinced by all the arguments it is pretty good at explaining the process.
Apparently Sir Keir Starmer believes that the Tories aren’t just not good conservatives but also not very good nationalists.
To be fair he has a point there. Its just the answer isnt to turn Labour into the new tories but join the tories and fix them instead (if you are that way inclined that is, I am not but I do believe in having a good party which represents the tory side of things).
” he has had a life gifted with opportunity...he thinks that poor people are poor because they don’t work hard enough
I find Starmer's "make GB great again" routine fairly dispiriting. But you're portraying him as some kind of personal privilege-encrusted elitest, and that's just not true.
He could just be doing a Cameron "hug a hoody/husky" type thing to get votes & will come back to centre left as soon as he gets into power.
He's going so far to the right I'm struggling to believe it.
He could just be doing a Cameron “hug a hoody/husky” type thing to get votes & will come back to centre left as soon as he gets into power.
Even if that was true (as you say it is becoming increasingly hard to believe) its still something I couldnt support.
Lie to get power is something which should be opposed even if I agree with the end results. It undermines trust in politicians and just makes it a guesswork as to what you will get.
Agreed
But I can see why affluent middle-class voters with right-wing tendencies would be attracted to New Labour on steroids
I probably qualify Ernie but he leaves me cold. He's offering nothing for those that protest voted in 2016 due to being left behind. An opportunity spurned and wasted by the 'Labour' leader.
Well if Starmer leaves you cold for offering nothing to those left behind then it doesn't really suggest right-wing tendencies Sandwich.
But you’re portraying him as some kind of personal privilege-encrusted elitest, and that’s just not true.
No I am not, I am portraying him as someone who's life has just always worked out for him, someone who thinks his luck is down to his hard work and intelligence, someone who doesn't understand that most people don't get the breaks he has. Like baby boomers riding a wave of asset inflation, telling the following generations to work harder.
He is not alone in that disconnect from "normal life" in the political classes, but it is disappointing to see it so clearly in the labour party, and even being worn as a badge of honour by the labour leader.
If Trump said something this rambling, the liberal press would whinge about it for days, but it’s someone they like so it’s very clever & meaningful!
I have only just watched that video clip, Starmer really is shameless.
It is obvious designed to commit to nothing whilst nevertheless giving an impression of a deep commitment.
But how he can stand there before an audience and talk about "my values and my political core" when no one, including apparently himself, has any idea what they are, beggars belief.
He certainly has a trump-like lack of self awareness.
I know that some Labour party members feel betrayed by Starmer, feeling that he should have been more honest with his leadership bid and as a consequence has no mandate but here's the thing...
Nobody else gives a s***. In fact, the majority of the public is sick to the back teeth with the membership of both major parties, (having delivered us both Corbyn and Truss). As far as most of us are concerned party members can take their 'special' vote and stick it where the sun don't shine.
And I really don't give two hoots about 'principles' either. Getting it right is more important than being right. The moral high ground is so much easier to occupy than Downing Street.
Nobody else gives a s***.
I think quite a few people do, which is precisely why the Tories will exploit to the maximum the fact that Starmer has and is constantly contradicting himself.
You might personally not give a shit whether or not Starmer can be trusted, but many voters do
Nobody else gives a s***. In fact, the majority of the public is sick to the back teeth with the membership of both major parties, (having delivered us both Corbyn and Truss). As far as most of us are concerned party members can take their ‘special’ vote and stick it where the sun don’t shine
Of course people give a shit. Or they will as the squeeze continues.
And using examples of Truss and particularly Corbyn means to me you're simply ignoring the bigger problem of generally rubbish politics passing for the status-quo.
Corbyn offered the change that we need - instead we have all of this. Excellent.
It's not the membership that's the problem it's the nutters driving neoliberalism down your throat as the correct and only way to run a country.
Deeper damage has been done by successive Tory leaders than Truss ever did. All Truss did is reveal the flimsy parameters of over-leveraged financial assets and a deeply speculative currency system - and the bonkers way we generate pension profits. All unnecessary - and raises questions of the markets control over what is good for all of us (even if we hate crazy Tax cuts.)
I'm far from defending her but you can't hold Truss and Corbyn up as political ogres when the rest of the political establishment have pursued devastating policies for years that have enecated real damaged.
And I really don’t give two hoots about ‘principles’ either. Getting it right is more important than being right. The moral high ground is so much easier to occupy than Downing Street
There are no examples of him getting anything right other than moving to the right.
That's not a good thing.
It's so much easier being a right wing loon - they don't have to fix things and set out progressive agendas or be bothered by that guff.
Just keep the country steeped in private debt and low wages, drive inequality and applaud home ownership - whilst at the same time watching your economy contract, state stripped and services ruined.
Well done with being right.
It's called giving in - just to be in power. It's not healthy or going to solve any of our actual immediate problems.
To much is being built around personality politics rather than good ideas.
rone,
I said people don't give a s*** about what party memberships (of both parties) think, I was quite specific.
"To much is being built around personality politics rather than good ideas."
I thought we'd established that Starmer doesn't have a personality?
Has Starmer moved to the right? Yes... This might be because he looked at the numbers and realised that Labour was haemorraging votes to the Conservatives. Either that or he's realised that over the last three election cycles, the further Labour moved left, the lower the number of seats were won.
EDIT:
I think you're a bit confused about the being right and getting it right thing...
Getting it right - increasing your vote share.
Being right - appeasing the membership.
I'm very much on the pragmatic, win power to change lives wing of the Labour Party. But I don't think you win power in this country at this point in time by promising you won't change much and appealing to conservatism. I think that was why the Scottish independence referendum failed.
To much is being built around personality politics rather than good ideas.
Oh, Jeremy Cor-byn,
Oh, Jeremy Cor-byn...
"You might personally not give a shit whether or not Starmer can be trusted, but many voters do"
That might be the case but on the flip side, I'm sure many voters see Starmer as someone who has regained control of his party and is quite ruthless.
I fully accept that that infuriates many Labour supporters, to them it must seem that as soon as anyone steps out of line they're for the chop. For the electorate as a whole however, that might not be such a bad thing. He may have a charisma deficit and no clearly defined vision but at least he's got his own party in line, something the Tories haven't had for years.
So do the public trust him to stick to his manifesto pledges? Probably not. Would they trust him to assemble a cabinet that didn't have to be reshuffled on a weekly basis in order to appease whatever faction within his own party? Probably yes.
It's horrible I know but every time Starmer purges someone from the party or is attacked by the left it makes him look a little bit stronger. It might not be reflected in his popularity rating but if you were to ask the public who is more likely to assemble a stable and competent cabinet? (rather than one of curiosities) then I reckon Starmer would get the nod.
doesn’t really suggest right-wing tendencies Sandwich.
I'm that rare beast an older chap who has become progressively more Socialist as I've aged. I subscribe to bit of Marx like;
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
and also the Star Trek;
"the needs of the many, outweigh those of the few."
It’s horrible I know but every time Starmer purges someone from the party or is attacked by the left it makes him look a little bit stronger. It might not be reflected in his popularity rating...
Yeah there is no evidence of that, as you actually point out yourself. You seem to be basing your conclusions on hope and faith.
The Welsh Labour Party leader doesn't appear to have been disadvantaged by being honest about his socialist convictions:
"The frontrunner to become the next Welsh first minister is describing himself as a “21st-century socialist” and making clear his solidarity with the UK Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn."
And the latest polls suggest that he still remains more popular than the Starmer does in Wales:
Labour leader Keir Starmer’s net approval rating in Wales stands at -7%.
First Minister of Wales Mark Drakeford receives a net approval rating of +2%.
Starmer the conservative doesn't appear to be hugely more popular than a self-confessed socialist. Obviously there is the possibility that Welsh voters are massively different than voters in the rest of Britain, but I doubt that they are.
Not for me, it's simply the concept that Starmer is somehow correct in his approach when it's a continuation of the politics that led us here.
Why is that right? Or proper or good for the country?
And yes I deliberately conflated right with right.
Oh, Jeremy Cor-byn,
Oh, Jeremy Cor-byn…
Not really relevant.
Liked the policies.
I’m very much on the pragmatic, win power to change lives wing of the Labour Party
How's that gone down?
Started with Centrist sing-song of pragmatism - ended up ideologically rightwards.
Pragmatism is code for continuation of shit politics when you don't have the balls to come up with something - and my god are there plenty of open goals.
Actually the writing was on the wall when Starmeroid kept giving the Tories his support to make a mess of Covid.
I do wonder when Starmer supporters get off and say I've had enough of this junk?
Well that's Scottish Labour gubbed for another election cycle. Say what you like about the SNP, if they come out with "vote Labour get Tory" they won't be far wrong.
Catering to English votes is all well and good until you realise that it only strengthens the case of the nationalists.
Wales is a devolved country isn't it? So it's hardly surprising that Welsh voters have a different take on things than English voters, otherwise there would have been no need for devolution in the first place?
If a Corbynist agenda gets Labour elected in Wales then great but that's not going to work in England.
With the SNP in disarray, Starmer could go a bit more Corbyn and perhaps pick up a few more seats there but I'm guessing he's worked out that it would be at the expense of seats in England.
I'm not a Starmer supporter btw, I'm just an 'anyone but the Tories' and a 'by any means neccessary'.
"You seem to be basing your conclusions on hope and faith."
Not hope or faith, just a gut feeling.
So it’s hardly surprising that Welsh voters have a different take on things than English voters, otherwise there would have been no need for devolution in the first place?
That's a strange logic. Devolved power wasn't introduced to allow a "different take on things". It was to increase democracy and allow people to have more control over things which directly affect them.
You could have the Labour Party in government in London, Scotland, and Wales, and it wouldn't undermine the need or importance of devolution one iota.
I don't believe that Welsh voters are vastly different to voters in the rest of Britain, although they are very likely to understand the issues which directly affect them better than voters in the rest of Britain.
There is no evidence that English voters are gagging for a Labour leader who claims to be a better Conservative than the Tories. There is however considerable evidence that voters throughout the UK want an end to Conservative policies.
It feels like panic stations, they've realised that they could stick a face on a wheeliebin and win the next election, so now Starmer's frantically redecorating and making himself into Tony Blair Max, ie, David Cameron so that once he wins they can go back to saying "Only new labour can win elections" With an open goal on their hands now it's all about deciding exactly what that goal looks like, for the next 20 years. The most important thing is to defeat their own party.
****s. Once again needs Undead John Smith to come back and pull some limbs off.
With an open goal on their hands now it’s all about deciding exactly what that goal looks like, for the next 20 years. The most important thing is to defeat their own party.
That is a very plausible argument and one that I hadn't thought of.
I do see the hand of Peter Mandelson behind some of the stuff that has been coming out of Starmer recently.
Last week Starmer, obviously deliberately, echoed Peter Mandelson when he said that he was relaxed about people being rich:
Then yesterday he said that the Tories were no longer conservative and suggested that he held conservative values.
My first reaction was "well saying that is going to piss off a lot of Labour voters". But then I remembered that Peter Mandelson famously told Peter Hain early in the first Blair government that working-class people “had nowhere else to go”.
Starmer clearly shares that Mandelson attitude that faithful Labour voters have nowhere else to go, well not in England anyway.
It not only gains Tory votes but helps to permanently defeat the left within the Labour Party I see the appeal of that to both Starmer and Mandelson.
Mandelson despises the left far more than he does the Tories, whom he probably quite likes - he has certainly tried to help them win elections.
Starmer clearly shares that Mandelson attitude that faithful Labour voters have nowhere else to go, well not in England anyway.
Nor in Scotland, basically if you vote Labour it's unlikely you're going to switch to SNP unless you can get over the nationalism question, you're definitely not going to vote Tory and everyone else is either absent (Libs), variations on a theme, hopeless or a combination thereof.
So what you end up with is disenfranchisement, resentment and ultimately full on rejection.
Then yesterday he said that the Tories were no longer conservative and suggested that he held conservative values.
I'm probably making stuff up in my head but I hope eventually - what with things getting financially worse on a personal level (latest rate rises yet to kick in) - this could all back fire for both major parties.
I've no idea what shap or form that would come in (hung Parliament, split votes, difficult questions) - but somewhere along the way no solutions will not be appealing.
What does the political landscape look like if neither party offers solutions?
If a Corbynist agenda gets Labour elected in Wales then great but that’s not going to work in England
It's not a Corbynist agenda - it's a progressive agenda to push back against right-wing ideals.
That's good for most of us.
Otherwise what the hell are we doing?
I’m not a Starmer supporter btw, I’m just an ‘anyone but the Tories’ and a ‘by any means neccessary
We're all desperate but that logic could include poor outcomes. We need better than the Tories and better than the actual agenda that this form Capitalism has delivered.
That means having solutions or you will just get taken for ride when the new party takes hold.
You've had years of an idealism that has failed unless you're pretty asset rich - why on earth would you not want something better?
I can't get my head around 'pragmatism' that fails to acknowledge reversing the damage of the right.
There's no point getting annoyed at the Tories if your solution is - the status quo just needs doing better. The policies are the problem.
What does the political landscape look like if neither party offers solutions?
It continues to look as it has for last 40 years. That is what the voters want.
I’m probably making stuff up in my head but I hope eventually – what with things getting financially worse on a personal level (latest rate rises yet to kick in) – this could all back fire for both major parties.
I think that Starmer claiming to be a better Conservative than the Tories could definitely backfire spectacularly.
There was of course a lot of truth in Peter Mandelson's claim that traditional Labour voters had nowhere else to go, no matter how right-wing Labour became, however it wasn't entirely that easy.
Between 1997 and 2010 New Labour lost about 5 million votes. Many people simply didn't bother voting but about a million and a half switched to the LibDems.
And now unlike 1997 the trade unions, which bankroll the party so that it can pay for election campaigns, are at the end of their tether - more and more affiliated trade unions are talking about disaffiliating from the Labour Party.
There is a gathering opinion, shared by many voters, that the three main parties have nothing to offer. Starmer emphasing that he is a better Conservative than the Tories might help the push for the trade unions to help fund a fresh new party, one that actually has something to offer working people.
It continues to look as it has for last 40 years. That is what the voters want.
Jeez do you actually believe this nonsense? What's more likely, that the voters want to be poorer, have shit public services and work in shit jobs for little reward, or that the system is rigged in favour of the interests of the top 1%? The only thing holding back the voters from demanding real change is the consensus between the labour and tory leadership to keep everything as it is so that they don't upset their media and financial industry backers.
It continues to look as it has for last 40 years. That is what the voters want.
The downward trajectory will likely sort that out at some point.
I think that Starmer claiming to be a better Conservative than the Tories could definitely backfire spectacularly.
I ****ing hope so or we won't see change in our lifetimes.
The only thing holding back the voters from demanding real change is the consensus between the labour and tory leadership to keep everything as it is so that they don’t upset their media and financial industry backers.
Yeah this - and they're not actually being offered better. The UK is country of put up or shut up (unless its Brexit then we're all scowling maniacs) Alastair Campbell was shameful recently in his Brexit debate with Victoria Derbyshire (and the other lady?) - how to look like an oaf.
Double post
nickc
Full Member^ fantasy
More reality than fantasy. One trade union has already disaffiliated from the Labour Party because of Starmer's leadership, and other trade unions such as Unite are closer than they have ever been before.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/unite-could-break-historic-link-26438884#amp-readmore-target
Unite has around 1.3m members and is the UK's most powerful trade union.
News of the deepening split comes after it emerged the train drivers' union ASLEF will debate a motion to disaffiliate at its conference in May. Bakers' union BFAWU cut ties with Labour last September.
That was a year ago and ASLEF didn't vote to disaffiliate but that was before Starmer claimed that he was a more flag-shagging conservative than the Tories are, and he had spent a further year failing to support working people in their dispute with a Tory government.
The RMT disaffiliated from the Labour Party during the Tony Blair years. It is the belief that the trade unions will always bankroll the Labour Party, no matter how Tory they become, which is fantasy.
As is the claim that anti-Tory voters will never have anywhere else to go. Despite the massive collapse of public support for the Tories the Labour Party's performance was less than stunning in the local elections 10 days ago. In contrast the Green Party had its best ever result winning majority control of its first council and ending up the largest party in two further councils.
Neither is the fact of widespread voter dissatisfaction with the three main parties a fantasy. It is precisely that sort of denial which opens the door for parties such as Reform UK.
There is a crying need in UK politics for a party which offers a real alternative to the three main neoliberal parties. And Starmer is significantly helping to make that point.
Edit: Just to be clear....... this is not 1997
I bet he's gutted about the Arsenal result yesterday
There is a crying need in UK politics for a party which offers a real alternative to the three main neoliberal parties..
Most likely way that will happen is Lab/Lib coalition > PR ref > elections under PR > party realignment as per most Euro countries, with far right, centre right, centre left, green, long way left (the new party I'm guessing you want).
And then continue as per other euro countries with coalition govts into the future. I'd like this, and I'd probably vote for the leftiest. But assume we'd not get anything terribly different to France, say.
You may say I'm a dreamer...
And Starmer is significantly helping to make that point
If he did, the above would be less likely to happen
Everything wrong with Starmer in a clip.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1658027700391485440?s=20
And no - before anyone jumps in (Kelvin) I'm not expecting him to get tehnical with government finances and explain MMT to a nation - but he could say - "We're on our knees as country - we need to build a robust infrastructure and fix the problems created by the Tories - we have the capacity to do that. History demonstrates that well targeted Government investment in times of crisis such as the Pandeminc - World War II. We can't afford to not do it - otherwise there will be no economic growth and things will deteriorate even more. "
Or something better.