Kelvin the whole point is that Starmer and his McCarthyite stooges do not tolerate any dissent, whereas Corbyn tolerated an awful lot (clearly an enormous mistake in hindsight). As I said, the standards and expectations for labour MPs to support their own party's campaign to be in govt in the 2017 and 2019 elections were extremely low. The labour party didn't need to change to win those elections (certainly the 2017 one), it's MPs just needed to show the minimum required of them in their jobs as labour MPs.
And yet now you tell us labour has to change into the tories to win? No, they don't. It's yet another rightwing lie portrayed as fact to maintain a status quo which acts against the interest of working people, and the labour leadership, and most of it's MPs, are active participants in that lie. Quite simply, the PLP is as much an enemy of working people as the tories.
And yet now you tell us labour has to change into the tories to win?
Not my claim.
Not my claim.
"Labour has changed. It had to."
"Policies had to change."
They haven't changed into the Tories. Other people claim that, I don't. The changes proposed are far more meagre than those outlined in 2017 and 2019 though. For both the reasons I outlined above (2019 manifesto rejected at the ballot box and the new circumstances and state of the country thanks to the last 5 years of shit).
You were never voting Labour anyway. Such an opportunity wasted in 2019.It’s a shame you couldn’t vote with us.
Despite your best intentions this thread isn't about me, it is about Keir Starmer. But how about you tell how I voted, since apparently you know my track record so well?
They haven’t changed into the Tories.
The only thing they haven't changed is the name. Can you name a single policy or area where they haven't moved towards a more rightwing position, or which traditional moderate tories couldn't support? In many respects they're further to the right than many of the policies of the Thatcher and Major governments, and in complete agreement with the Cameron govt on the need for austerity (including 'cutting the green crap'). So please, don't tell me they're not the tories when a simple cursory look tells anyone who isn't in deluding themselves that that's the case. If you vote for this labour party, you're voting for tory policies, that is the simple truth.
But how about you tell how I voted
I said at the top of the page... you didn't vote Labour at the general election in 2019. Just tell me I'm wrong, and then we can put you down as someone Labour has lost since 2019, rather than someone they had already lost before Starmer even became leader.
on which traditional moderate tories couldn’t support
There is a lot of truth to that. Or at least policies that traditional moderate Tory voters don't mind. I still don't know anyone who voted Tory in 2019 who says they'll vote Labour next time (they must be out there, but I know of none in person), but I do know a fair few who say they won't vote, and don't mind if Labour win next time... even if they can't bring themselves to support them with a positive vote.
The labour party didn’t need to change to win those elections (certainly the 2017 one), it’s MPs just needed to show the minimum required of them in their jobs as labour MPs.
Don't fall into Kelvin's trap Daz, changing policies and U-turns are two separate issues. Kelvin is deliberately pretending that U-turns are no different than changing policies because most people accept that changing policies is sometimes necessary for all manner of reasons.
People however take a rather dim of politicians who constantly preform U-turns on their stated policies, it often means that they are hypocritics, liars, and untrustworthy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/04/u-turns-labour-keir-starmer-tuition-fees-income-tax
You will note that the headline in that^^ article is:
What are the main U-turns Labour has made under Keir Starmer?
Not:
What are the main changes Labour has made under Keir Starmer?
Well Danny I am trying to explain the reasons for people like you, who has proudly announced on here that you won't be voting Labour following Starmer's brexit U-turn, is apparently so unimpressed by Starmer.
Or have you also done a U-turn Danny and now you are back to supporting Labour? What is it this week?
Give up and leave them to it.
Exactly what Starmer did to the left.
Now imagine being critical of a party that's supposed to push back against the right only to find out they add Red top 'sensibility' to their ideas daily.
Anyone still supporting Starmer at this point has simply chosen to ignore the wrong-doing involved just because being right-wing is okay as long as your anti-Tory.
Give up and leave them to it.
???
Danny we're having a lively discussion about whether the Starmer has turned the labour party (the PLP at least) into the tories so I don't really understand your daft attempt to shut it down (where's the picture BTW??).
I'll still be voting labour (probably) for reasons I've stated many times before, but I won't do so happily, and I at least know exactly what I'm voting for, which is moderate tory policies and more austerity. If there was a realistic alternative to beat the tories in my and Kelvin's constituency I'd vote for them, as I'm sure Kelvin would too. We may disagree on how much we forgive Starmer's march to the right or whether it is necessary, but we agree that having a tory MP is still the worst of all worlds.
whereas Corbyn tolerated an awful lot
He had to really given that he'd been disloyal to the PLP more or less his entire parliamentary career. He could hardly go around demanding everyone express fealty with his voting record could he?
I’ll still be voting labour (probably) for reasons I’ve stated many times before
Daz, Danny no longer supports voting Labour, and yes it is because of Starmer:
moimoifan
Free MemberThe regular posters in here need to relax.
It’s OK – a lot of folk like me won’t be voting for Labour/Starmer at the next GE. In my case it is because of his shameful parroting of the lie that Brexit can somehow be made to work rather than his non-adoption of MMT-based economics.
But the effect is the same. Lots of us are realising we can’t vote Labour at the next GE. For various reasons we agree that Starmer is not what we want him to be.
You heard it here first – don’t vote Labour.
Posted 4 days ago
At least that was the situation last week who knows what it will be next week. Or what his username will be. Although moimoifan seems to have lasted a lot longer than the other half a dozen usernames he has had this year.
He had to really given that he’d been disloyal to the PLP
Quite a difference between voting with your conscience in parliament and calling a fellow MP a f**** racist. Also can never remember him telling people not to vote labour or that he wouldn't want a labour PM. Yes he couldn't demand fealty, but that's not what was required or asked of his MPs in order to win in 2017 and 2019.
Daz, Danny no longer supports voting Labour,
Yes I'm aware of that. It would be understandable if it was for the right reasons, but all he's going to achieve is getting the people who will give him more of what he hates (assuming he lives in a tory/labour seat). 🤷♂️
He had to really given that he’d been disloyal to the PLP more or less his entire parliamentary career.
Had he?
For voting results that were recorded it is rather curious how few times he voted with the tories against Labour.
That is because he would have had the Labour whip removed.
If there was a realistic alternative to beat the tories in my and Kelvin’s constituency I’d vote for them, as I’m sure Kelvin would too.
Yep. I've voted for both LibDem and Green candidates in this constituency before. Made me all warm and self righteous for a few hours both times. Fully accept that the mess of the last decade or so is down to people like me throwing away our votes under FPTP and letting the Tories rule with the support of a minority of voters. The 2017 Labour manifesto gave me the first chance to vote for someone with a realistic chance of becoming our MP here, and also vote for a raft of policies close to my own wishes at the same time. Everything weighed up, it was an easy vote to cast in the end, despite at the time Labour offering no escape from the obvious national self own of Brexit. Now, The next manifesto will be far further from me policy wise... but hopefully closer to far more people in key seats across England... because more people voting to unseat the Tories is what is needed before talk of any bigger change... the first step towards change is to unseat enough Tory MPs for a change of governing party. Then the hard work starts... it's the start not the end... but without it we're stuck with what we have.
Yes he couldn’t demand fealty, but that’s not what was required or asked of his MPs in order to win in 2017 and 2019.
Leadership and being a team player sort of go hand in hand, and Corbyn was never (still isn't) a team player It was partly the problem why he couldn't command any loyal from his MPs - because he'd never been loyal to them. Voting with your conscious is fine when you're a back bench MP that noones ever heard of. It;s another matter when you're trying to get your major policy initiative over the line, and your own MPs are thinking, "Well, you wouldn't vote for my bill..."
Had he?
Yes over 400 times during the Blair and Brown leaderships, he never had the whip withdrawn AFAIK
and calling a fellow MP a f**** racist.
Top tip for Corbyn is if you don't want to be regarded as a racist and anti-semite, then don't take money from the Iranian regime to present a phone-in, don't lay flowers at a PLO graveyard when you don't speak Arabic and aren't savvy enough to know you're being manipulated, don't write gushing forewords to an anti-semite's book without mentioning the anti-semitism, don't defend anti-semitic caricatures, don't call Hamas your friends, and don't be so tolerant of anti-semites.
Top tip for MPs that aren't Corbyn - austerity kills.
if you don’t want to be regarded as a racist and anti-semite, then don’t take money from the Iranian regime to present a phone-in
How exactly does that make anyone a racist?
Or for that matter "laying flowers at a PLO graveyard"? If you believe that supporting the Palestinian people against a nasty racist right-wing apartheid regime makes someone a racist then you need to check out the meaning of the word racist. You could probably also do with checking what Semite means too, I get the impression that you don't know.
Is being all chummy with the Saudi regime, which one former Labour leader very clearly is, also racism in your book, or are they the correct sort of Arabs?
Btw:
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/bidens-open-door-palestinian-authority
"The Biden administration is contemplating reopening the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) mission in Washington and restoring direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), both previously shut down by the Trump administration."
Presumably you believe that Jo Biden must be a racist for even considering allowing the PLO to have offices in Washington. How does it feel to be on the same side as Donald Trump over this issue?
https://twitter.com/JonAshworth/status/1678524808781348865?t=8Qt3Ovl35fqlvLcvVV_qzA&s=19</p>
Proper toss.
I'm all for tech advances but you've got to have an economy that offers decent jobs in the first place.
New Labour New Vapour.
Yes over 400 times during the Blair and Brown leaderships, he never had the whip withdrawn AFAIK
Possibly because it was a tad awkward that the tories were voting with Blair and Brown the majority of the time.
Proper toss.
Presumably they'll be working in sprints, conducting agile ceremonies and failing fast?
Yes over 400 times during the Blair and Brown leaderships, he never had the whip withdrawn AFAIK
Possibly because it was a tad awkward that the tories were voting with Blair and Brown the majority of the time.
And possibly because when asked to check the claim Channel 4 News FactCheck could only find 7 examples of Corbyn voting with the Tories, not over 400.
FactCheck verdict
We’ve found seven examples of parliamentary votes where Mr Corbyn, while still a backbencher, voted with the majority of Conservatives and against the majority of Labour MPs.
Presumably there wasn't a three-line whip on any of the 7 occasions otherwise Corbyn would almost certainly have lost the party whip, which as far as I know he never has (apart from obviously the current situation).
The idea that Jeremy Corbyn backs the Tories in parliament is of course as absurd as the claims that he backs Putin or is a racist.
But apparently if you are going to lie in politics go for a big lie.....a lie which is so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously (not my words btw).
of Corbyn voting with the Tories
You know that article you've linked to says that it's a matter of public record that Corbyn has voted over 400 times against the Labour whip? My point was that Corbyn has never shown loyalty to the Labour party, and that then to go on and lead that same party presents him with difficult leadership issues when MPs confront him about his own record.
I haven't made the argument that Corbyn votes with the Tories, I didn't say anything about the Tories, you've pretended that I have in order to have a different argument - Something you do all the time, that's very tedious, and makes it pointless trying to have a discussion with you.
and makes it pointless trying to have a discussion with you.
And yet there you are again doing precisely that. I could also turn every political discussion into a personal attack but that would be very pointless and tedious.
The allegation that Corbyn rebelled over 400 in parliament against Labour is often repeated, which is precisely why Channel 4 fact checked it, they could only find 7 examples.
If Corbyn had ignored a three-line whip he would have had the Labour whip removed. Your claim of disloyalty, with regards to voting, is false because it would not have been tolerated.
Virtually all the stuff that about Corbyn turns out to be bogus, or fraught with interpretation.
Yet Starmer clearly lies/back tracks all the time - mostly within a space of a couple of years.
We live in the upside down.
Any news on the Starmer hates Tree huggers story? Lol
You know that article you’ve linked to says that it’s a matter of public record that Corbyn has voted over 400 times against the Labour whip
It says they cant be sure whether it was whipped or not.
My point was that Corbyn has never shown loyalty to the Labour party,
You seem to be confusing "labour party" with "labour leadership".
you’ve pretended that I have in order to have a different argumen
No its pointing out that this 400 mantra isnt proof of disloyalty to labour although it does show a disagreement with the new labour government. Since it does beg the question what the labour government was proposing that the tories were happy to support and whether labour party members would have supported it.
The revolts site no longer seems to work but from memory a large number were based around the Iraq war and then limiting any inquiry into it.
What is the Labour party for ? I don't think it is a social democratic party any more.
It really should change it's name as it is not what it is supposed to be at the moment. The Green party is more aligned to Labour values than the Labour party
What is the Labour party for ? I don’t think it is a social democratic party any more.
It's the party of the business establishment. I've been watching Succession again on Sky and there's one phrase that Logan Roy uses which is relevant here, when he calls his kids 'not serious people'. Starmer is now firmly regarded as a 'serious' person in FTSE 100 baordrooms and private members clubs, and that's why he's getting such an easy ride.
There are few people whom I genuinely like and respect in the depressing and sterile world of UK politics, Andrew Fisher is one of them.
The party will go into the next election highlighting that the Tories have trashed the economy, pointing to the cost of living and failing public services, yet all the while bizarrely committing to stick to the economic strategy of the people who have made the mess.
The point of the Labour Party is not just to get into government, but to do something useful and lasting while it’s there. Otherwise what is the point? Of course, it’s true to say ambition without power is futile, but the reverse is equally true: power without ambition is useless too.
Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting recently wrote that “the only thing worse than no hope is false hope”, implicitly defending Labour’s new offer of “no hope”, as at least being better than “false hope”.
The point of the Labour party seems to be to give the tories a chance to get their shit together after slowly falling apart over 10 years and the voters slowly working out that the tory party is not very good for them. A term or two of Labour and they forget how shit the tories were and vote them back in for another 10+ years and the cycle continues.
Labour give a period away from the madness of the tories and society is slightly better for it. The 'better' will clearly be marginal with Starmer's Labour Party.
There's a long history of 'socialist' organisations from the Christian Socialists onwards whose real function is to quell and suppress labour unrest and currently it seems the establishment sees the LP as being more successful in doing that than the Tories. Starmer, Streeting and Reeve are rising to the challenge. The 'No Hope Party'?
whose real function is to quell and suppress labour unrest
And in the press that role has traditionally been left to the Guardian - which was launched by a wealthy business tycoon to replace the much persecuted and radical Manchester Observer.
Better to own a newspaper that can manipulate the reform movement demanding votes for the working-classes than to leave it to radicals over which you have no control.
And the Guardian has never wavered from its role, consistently taking a more right-wing and conservative position than its readership as it attempts to subdue their radicalism.
From opposition to the creation of the NHS and urging its readers to vote Tory in the 1951 general election, through to supporting the United States bloody Vietnam War, to more recently opposing the radical previous Labour leader.
All in defiance of its own readers but relying on the old "there is no other newspaper/political party" argument.
A survey in 2015 revealed that almost a quarter of the Guardian's readers were either Labour Party members or registered Labour Party supporters, so it would be wrong to be totally dismissive of the newspaper's influence.
<p style="text-align: left;">I read the Andrew Fisher piece too, couldn't agree more.
The establishment serves itself and not its people, that unfortunately nets a lot of gullible voters of political margin.</p>
Also Kerley, spot on.
Labour have become so desperate to gain power absolutely nothing else seems to matter. The argument will be as long as it's not Tory in name it's good enough - but the landscape politics can remain.
We will see.
I'm still thinking an Autumn G.E.
And today's crappiest word salad goes to....
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1679038406049820673?t=U_aJsGS4bW52iKQ1tZb9BQ&s=19
It's impossible for this weasal, and Reeves to talk with clarity in terms of financial help.
Tough choices? I think people are sick of tough choices and bearing the brunt.
£1.9bn has been "handed back" to the treasury from the leveling up funds for building affordable homes.
Why can't Starmer just state that money was handed back because it was never intended to build homes, it was intended to subsidies corporate house builders. And when they stopped building the channels to funnel that subsidy to the corporations dried up.
It really isn't a tough choice to invest Government money in affordable housing instead of corporate profits, or it shouldn't be for anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance to Labour principles.
It really isn’t a tough choice to invest Government money in affordable housing instead of corporate profits
And it is totally self-financing. Money was borrowed in the 1950s to build 300,000 council homes a year because the government knew that it would all be paid back through rent.
Whether it is for rent or sale house building always pays for itself. It is never "wasted" or lost money.
It makes perfect sense, the only reason for opposing it imo would be for idealogical reasons.
I agree with Ernie, right to buy done properly should also always be a winner as long the proceeds, rent and purchase price exceed the cost to build and the money goes straight back into new houses. Hreat way for wealth to be more distributed as well as a great opportunity to ensure social housing stock is well maintained and to the highest standards of sustainability.
I actually find that story quite scary as it undoubtedly offers a reasonable assessment of the mindset of those who will in power probably some time next year.
These are very ruthless people with very little if any commitment to justice.
An appeal process with a 100% rejection rate is what I expect from perhaps a dodgy regime like the Saudis. Quite apart from the fact that most of the accusations are for extraordinarily minor infringements such as supporting a comment made by a LibDem or Green Party member.
These people will be in power soon, who will hold them to account? Certainly not the Tories!
At the beginning of lockdown Starmer was quick to jump to the defence of landlords and the banks. That won't change.