Forum menu
i’d say labour just now suffer from not following the populist route.
I'd say their primary concern is to avoid taking a strong position on anything.
You're confusing populist with popular.
The former tends to be a load of unattainable nonsense (or comes with a heavy debt), the latter is attainable.
Populism is sticking with the Tories policies and rhetoric to chase votes, being popular would be the result of actually offering a decent alternative.
They seem to be taking a strong position on continuing with the neoliberal agenda. Reeves is governed by 'rules' so austerity is not up for debate, it's what we're going to get.
If Starmer wanted to be a populist he’d have been banging on about ceasefires in interviews to gain the popular opinion at the time
You are not following events very closely.
“The levels of death and destruction over the past weeks has been intolerable. Far too many innocent Palestinians, including women and children, have been killed as part of military operations. There must be full accountability for all actions.
As fighting sadly resumes, Israel must not besiege or blockade Gaza. They must comply with international law by protecting innocent lives and civilian infrastructure like schools and hospitals." - Keir Starmer
So Starmer has shifted from 100% unqualified support for Netanyahu and his far-right government to a position where he now criticises blockades and talks about the need to comply with international law.
Although to be fair this changing position is no doubt more connected to the crisis within the Labour Party (which you claim doesn't exist) than a need to chase votes - Labour's huge lead over the Tories remains totally solid.
They seem to be taking a strong position on continuing with the neoliberal agenda.
I meant not taking a strong position on anything challenging the status quo. You're right of course, but it won't be seen that way. Overton window...
100% unqualified support for Netanyahu and his far-right government
Only in your head.
talks about the need to comply with international law
The Labour Party forced a debate in parliament to say that international law should be applied to Israeli actions. The government did not back it, and ministers spoke against it. Current UK and a series of USA governments continue to block ICC investigations where Israel is concerned.
Never had these problems with Jeremy Corbyn .... (unless you're jewish)
Didn't work out so well in UK elections though, but no point learning from the past it seems in some quarters
Edit - that's prettty mean, but you can pin a lot of the entire sihtshow from Brext -> Boris -> Liz Truss -> Rishi Sunak on Corbuyn and his inability to take a firm position on Brexit (well he e did, he supported it ), then failing to provide an electable , effective opposition. But don't let that bother you
Only in your head.
Yes of course..... Starmer has been criticising Israel from the very start of the current conflict!
That's why the Labour Party is in a crisis!!
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/
Starmer has been calling for humanitarian pauses since the start of the conflict, an actual ceasefire is almost unworkable, hence why that wording was not used for the last pause, there are a lot of countries and people pushing for further pauses, withdrawals, etc as we speak, the UK may be involved in those one way or another, one of those is the push for UN peacekeeping forces to be deployed to Gaza, and also provision of aid.
Edit – that’s prettty mean, but you can pin a lot of the entire sihtshow from Brext -> Boris -> Liz Truss -> Rishi Sunak on Corbuyn
You could but you would be wrong and, frankly, dodging that the lunatic "moderates" with their hatred of the left did far more to enable the hard right. I can see why those "moderates" are unwilling to accept the outcome of their actions though and, copying the hard right, seek to blame anyone but themselves.
As for learn from previous elections. Perhaps you could do so yourself and particularly brexit. Sadly though I expect we will just get "wahhhh Corbyn" and "who else can you vote for" as democracy gets further screwed.
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.