Forum menu
So why not go the progressive route? Better optics – much better outcomes
Well yes and I agree in theory but on the other hand, the polls are hard to ignore. They are currently as good as it's possible to be and from that standpoint it's hard to argue for a change in tactics.
I didn't read beyond the headline:
PETER HITCHENS: Revolutionary past that gives the lie to the notion Keir Starmer is a harmless moderate
As a public school educated revolutionary, Peter Hitchens's "revolutionary past" includes being a member of an ultra-leftist Trotskyite organisation.
Which might or might not explain why Peter Hitchens is not a harmless moderate.
They are currently as good as it’s possible to be and from that standpoint it’s hard to argue for a change in tactics.
If the polls are as good as it is possible to be why is Sir Keir Starmer moving the Labour Party evermore to the right with each passing week?
His declared admiration for Thatcher is just the latest.
I think Starmers only concern is getting the top job, he will say whatever he thinks people want to hear.
Good question. If the Tories are so unpopular why is he emulating them?
I think he did a deal some years ago with his big business sponsors about who would be allowed in the shadow cabinet, what they would have to sign up to, who would operate his IT monitoring and control of the party, who would be expelled, what his foreign policy views would be etc. His contradictory statements and sometimes look of terror would suggest he's not his own man. It's difficult to see it any other way.
If the polls are as good as it is possible to be why is Sir Keir Starmer moving the Labour Party evermore to the right with each passing week?
His declared admiration for Thatcher is just the latest.
This and this.
It's not his tactics that are superior - it's the backdrop of a failed state and current government.
He could easily offer some progressive cookies and still do okay. Who knows he might pick up my vote?
Good question. If the Tories are so unpopular why is he emulating them
For sure - Centrists spend all their time hating on Tories yet put all their eggs in a Starmer shaped Conservative basket.
Because - personality!
Technocrat bore is apparently the way to go; and somehow is seen as a competent way of delivering the same Tory programme.
Country needs and deserves more.
His declared admiration for Thatcher is just the latest.
I think you're overstating that. Perhaps.in purpose to give yourself yet more ammo against Starmer when it's not really necessary.
That kind of insinuation in place of actual debate is an enormously damaging aspect of politics and it drives me up the wall.
That kind of insinuation in place of actual debate is an enormously damaging aspect of politics and it drives me up the wall.
Oh poor you. Try to deal with it though as Starmer's praise for Margaret Thatcher has been widely been interpreted in the media as admiration.
The Tories have certainly used his comments as such:
Downing Street has insisted Rishi Sunak is not worried about Sir Keir Starmer's new found admiration of Margaret Thatcher, saying the Labour leader is not "fit to lace Baroness Thatcher's boots".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-67640828
The barrister with famed 'forensic skills' should be perhaps be more careful in the words he uses if the point his trying to make is lost on everyone (it no doubt wasn't lost on Telegraph readers)
in place of actual debate
Go on then - debate it. Don't let me stop you. I am fascinated to hear why you think a Labour Party leader "praising" Thatcher is such a great idea.
Hang on - it's perhaps on Starmer to not bring this up? It's not really needed is it?
We on the left are bound to react in this way. And we don't want to hear the architect of handing over the state to the few called meaningful change. Or this toss about boosting entrepreneurialism!
If you sold off your neighbours assets for knock down prices is that entrepreneurship?
He's supposed to be on the left.
This whole pretence that Thatcher was anything other than a thief of State resources at the expense of inequality, knockdown sell-offs and wealth concentration - is ridiculous.
At some point the state will need to refill its boots so Capitalism can thrive again. It's a magic show.
A tip for you Starmer - just don't bring it up. Leave it at your advisors door.
Starmer also neatly sidesteps many massive innovations come from the state and companies merely package the tech.
Look - it's great to have a thriving private sector, but that's not what we've actually ended up with.
We on the left are bound to react in this way.
In what way? I for one welcome the fact Starmer feels the need to publicly "praise" Thatcher in the Telegraph.
It should at least make it less ambiguous as to where he stands politically. Which is, whatever your political views he pretty much agrees with them.
The supreme irony is that Starmer was actually using Thatcher as an example of a 'conviction politician' in an attempt to suggest that he is also a 'conviction politician'. Which is of course laughable.
I am fascinated to hear why you think a Labour Party leader “praising” Thatcher is such a great idea.
See, this is why I dislike your contributions here Ernie. You seem to want to polarise everything. No I know you understand nuance but for some reason you come.out with crap like this just to start a row. Life is better when you don't do this, trust me.
Hang on – it’s perhaps on Starmer to not bring this up? It’s not really needed is it?
Indeed. I think it's a pretty daft thing to say since reactions like Ernie's should have been anticipated. But again, perhaps they did the calculus and they thought making centrist comments would gain them more votes than it would lose.
See, this is why I dislike your contributions here Ernie.
Yeah I get that you don't like my contributions molgrips, God only knows you mention it often enough, it's clearly an obsession of yours. But how about not focusing on your personal feud with me and discussing Starmer instead? I'm loving the irony of you claiming that I want to start a row btw!
So instead of engaging in pointless pedantics concerning whether Starmer was admiring Thatcher or praising her, in an apparent desperate attempt to start an argument, how about explaining why you believe "it's a pretty daft thing to say", beyond the disapproving reaction of some geezer on a MTB forum?
For the record I do actually admire the commitment that Thatcher had to the super wealthy class which she married into, it was unflinching. And I only wish that we had Labour leaders with that same level of commitment.
But that's where my admiration for Thatcher ends, I certainly wouldn't want to praise her in any way at all, as Starmer felt able to do, according to you - I believe you are willing to accept that Starmer "praised" Thatcher?
Edit: And in reference to this:
You seem to want to polarise everything.
I absolutely polarise everything. I oppose Tory policies whether they are espoused by Conservative politicians or Labour politicians. I don't support Tory policies simply because they have been repackaged by Labour. But I will support Starmer when I believe he is right, eg, I very much supported Starmer's 10 pledges and I currently support his position on Brexit.
I reckon you might agree with some of the points raised in this editorial rone:
"British governments are unusually free to overhaul the country’s economy, but electoral support is the crucial precondition for such changes."
And
"Politicians know they can’t win an argument without making it".
Just had a quick run through that.
The whole thing about this 28bn is its now become a figure to be challenged on.
The Tories have seized it. Which has caused Starmer to shit himself as usual.
Originally the argument was about 'Pay-fors' - we will tax non-doms , green wealth funds etc, this always leads to trouble.
28bn is nothing. And nowhere near enough to be transformative anyway - but it's a start. Just appears to me no one actually wants to do anything- like the article says make the arguments.
As one of the comments says Thatcherite dogma is in the way of common sense. Until this changes we are boxed in.
The correct narrative is - do we need to do, can we do it and do we have the resources to do it? But Labour made such a noise about unfunded tax cuts that they're now stuck with this problem. You see the Truss budget has backfired on just about everyone, not because she was daft but because everyone is terrified of the market position when it comes to spending, and it shouldn't be that way around in a democracy. Absolute lack of understanding.
(Just looking at growth for a moment - Labour ought to look to the USA- they're killing it with macro numbers because of all the damn money they've spent. (GDP Q3 5% ) This has all happened in a high interest environment, smacking monetarist views that high interest rates dampen growth. Well, MMT proponents pointed out that the evidence was it added interest income to the economy, and fuelling it. So was doing the opposite to the neoclassical view.)
Oh, and going for independent green energy production should be in everyone's face if we want anything like a strong economy with little inflation, and be free from troubling geopolitical concerns.
Should be an easy sell to the centre/right that one. Just mention Putin and create turbines with UK flags on.
Nowhere near rocket science.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1733844858400333996?s=20
Liz Kendell has always been a right-wing robot.
Liz Kendall says that Labour want to make it harder for people in lower paid jobs to live with their foreign partner in the UK
I assumed that was an exaggeration but according to the clip that is exactly what she is saying, ie, people on lower income should not be allowed to bring their partners into the UK.
I really need to stop being surprised from the things that people who claim to be Labour politicians say these days.
I still expect them to say different things to Tory politicians, God only knows why.
And just to make clear what this policy actually means :
Observers have commented the rules are a de facto ban on Brits marrying foreign nationals, with 73% of the population unable to meet the income threshold.
This is a good example of why Labour is sometimes actually worse than the Tories - they can get away doing things which the Tories would have much more trouble doing.
If this policy was posted on the Rishi Sunak thread it would be met with an avalanche of criticism with accusations that it was desperate attempt to appeal to stupid senile old racist Brexiteers.
But because this policy is apparently backed by Starmer it receives no comment.
But because this policy is apparently backed by Starmer it receives no comment
Because it hard to defend. Why bother ? Easier to screech about the Tories all day long.
It pains me a thousand times more that my "team" are an embarrassing Tory tribute act - way more than the official article (because I expect it from them.)
When Starmer comes to power the Centrists will no longer be able to police Sunak only type threads and will have to deal with the critique in hand.
It will be at least interesting.
And actually there is a bit of me that wants to be wrong about Starmer - several Centrist friends insist he will swing left when in power but that doesn't really ever happend, and he's gone further to the right.
I'm sure they will give him an easy time either way.
Meh, every time i read something it's misquoted, such as the labour stance on immigration, they are not putting a monetary limit on it like the tories have, they say it needs to be reviewed, but as they're not in power, or even close to putting legislation like that on the table, it's just rhetorics on current affairs by the opposition party.
As for 'centrist' stuff, do people on here really believe the UK will shift way left in one election, i'm struggling to note anything seismic that has been done in the last 40 years through the tories 18 years of Thatcher, new labours 13 years and now the tory debacle we've had over the last 13 years, the only time we saw someone try to make huge changes it sank the country and she and her cohort were out on their ear in record time!
every time i read something it’s misquoted, such as the labour stance on immigration
No one quoted anyone. It was a link to a video clip.
There was no need to quote Liz Kendall because her spoken answer to a very specific question could clearly be heard https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1733844858400333996?s=20
No I didn't like what I heard either agree but unlike you I am not going to pretend that I didn't hear it.
I heard her clearly, she is talking of an increase, not in line with the tories, but against the evidence that would be provided via the Migration Advisory Committee, who i believe are the experts in this area.
What the increase is i have no clue, neither does labour by the sounds of it, and rightly so if they've not actually liaised with the experts on the matter, again, politics being politics, this may be something or nothing, it might be a push to the MAC assessment being way less than 38k, haven't a clue, or something else, no clue, but i am not hearing her backing the tory assessment either, unless i add lots of assumptions and bias in there.
I heard her clearly, she is talking of an increase
Exactly. So where is the "misquote"??
Liz Kendall very clearly agrees with the Tories that the threshold is too low and she wants it increased to reduce immigration.
The fact that she won't, very typically, commit herself to a specific figure does not mean that Labour are opposed to the policy. It still means that they support it.
A policy which will deny British people on lower incomes the legal right to live with their foreign partners.
A clear class-based and bigoted-fueled injustice which you should not expect from a political party which calls itself "The Labour Party".
And actually there is a bit of me that wants to be wrong about Starmer – several Centrist friends insist he will swing left when in power but that doesn’t really ever happend, and he’s gone further to the right.
That is all we can hope for as he is clearly the only chance we have of not having the tory party any longer. What/who is going to make him swing left though?
Is he (and his cabinet) dishonest enough to say a whole load of things during election campaign and then do the opposite once in power?
What/who is going to make him swing left though?
The voters. By not voting for people who spout Tory policies.
Vote for people who don't spout Tory policies.
Vote for people who don’t spout Tory policies.
But as has been pointed out on numerous occaisions there arent that many people in that camp that wont already be voting Labour. For Labour to get into power they need large numbers of middle ground Tories to swell the Labour vote and reduce the Tory vote. Nicking votes from the Lib dems or Greens is not going to do the pattern and won't make a lot of impact on the former.
People in this country as a whole are centre right. You can only work with what you've got and much as it may upset all the class warriors on here you're pretty irrelevant electorally, Starmer doesn't need your tiny number of votes and moving leftward to try and pick them up would lose a lot more from the centre..
If the polls are to be believed he's getting it right, or at the very least not getting it wrong and long may it continue. You may not like Starmer but at least he's not talking about taking us out of international human rights treaties. Again I know the resident lefties don't accept this but Starmer and Labour are not the Tories, they may not be the left wing socialist party you want but unfortunately for you not many other people seem drawn to that set of political ideals either. If they were I'd expect a left wing disruptor party to be out dragging Labour leftwards in the same way UKIP dragged the Tories to the right and into loony land.
I don't believe that most people are centre right, IMO if you canvased peoples positions on individual policy matters then aggregated the results into a general political position it would be quite far left of the current offerings by the main political parties.
I also don't believe that chasing the mythical centre is the only option for winning an election, it just grows the ignored and disenfranchised section of society that actually outnumber the "centrist swing voters".
It is the marketing of hate and blame culture that swings the electorate towards the right in elections, if labour realy want to break that cycle they need to continually make positive arguments against it over multiple election cycles, and have policies that actually improve the lives of the majority, just being a less bad Tories continuing to run the economy for the minority benefit, is only going to work when the Tories implode as they are now.
People in this country as a whole are centre right.
And is drifting ever further rightward to the point where Starmer is a poor man's Cameron tribute act.
And that drift is being caused by people refusing to vote Tory because the Tories aren't rightwing/batshit crazy enough. This drags the Tories right, which drags Labour right, which drags the whole country right.
Voting Labour just shows them that they are on the right track and should continue moving right.
The current incarnation of Labour is just the Tories of 10 years ago before they were taken over by UKIP. 10 years ago there were plenty of Tory voters on here so Labour is the natural home for them.
Don't try to tell the rest of us that voting for this Labour government is in any way in our interests, any more than voting Tory was in our interests 10 years ago.
You can write UKIP/Reform off all you want but they are the single most influential political party/movement of this century. You can either accept that and look at how they achieved this or you can say, 'Well, the UK is just a right wing country now so let's make the best of it, eh?'
I don’t believe that most people are centre right, IMO if you canvased peoples positions on individual policy matters then aggregated the results into a general political position it would be quite far left of the current offerings by the main political parties.
There's always been that thinking, but reality is that we've been under a tory government for over a decade and suffered Brexit, it's also worth remembering that we're probably the most liberal we've ever been in the UK these days, we focus on the negatives a lot, but we continue to change with the times in the main.
Economically it's a complete mess though, centre left is easy to sell, but hard to put in place due to years of neglect, contractual nightmares and so on, same with benefits, immigration is the big talking point just now, but it's being replicated everywhere just now, in the EU it's a huge issue, with a lot of countries going more right than the UK just now, and it's spreading.
You really are in a fantasy land if you think a big portion of Labour voters are going to vote Green (the only actual left wing party with any number of candidates). For various reasons people mostly pick from the two ‘main’ parties.
The Greens suffer from the fact they've never held any power, so can promise lots, without having to worry about delivering. It reminds me of the Lib Dems, they could provide policies and manifesto's that were brilliant, but the minute they actually got any power, it destroyed the party, because they had to partially govern within the bounds of government, they've never recovered from this.
I heard her clearly, she is talking of an increase, not in line with the tories, but against the evidence that would be provided via the Migration Advisory Committee, who i believe are the experts in this area.
Just general observation, and I don't mean to be rude but every time someone says Starmer is not going to do that it must be a misquote/misrepresentation etc, he usually ends up going far worse than expected for the Centrists. Then they shift their narrative further right too. Just follow the start of this thread!
There is right-shifting track here as long as my arm (but not as long as the Tory outrage threads )of Starmer firming up the move to the right every time someone makes an risible excuse for a watering down of possible progressive policy.
Brexit, climate, migration, utilities, spending have all followed a path a Tory would be proud of.
What gives? When will said person wake up about his obvious trajectory?
You really are in a fantasy land if you think a big portion of Labour voters are going to vote Green (the only actual left wing party with any number of candidates).
Well, if no one ever challenges the idea that there is such a thing as a 'wasted' vote then that will always be true.
What we have seen from UKIP/Reform is that there is no such thing as a wasted vote. Even if you are not voting for a team to win, you are voting to register your opinion. If enough people share your opinion and share their opinion by voting for a party that actually represents their view to a reasonable extent then things will change because the parties you didn't vote for will start chasing your vote.
The only way to waste your vote is to vote for a party you fundamentally don't agree with, purely because you you view politics as a football game where who wins matters.
It doesn't matter who wins. What matters is who is driving the direction of the country.
also don’t believe that chasing the mythical centre is the only option for winning an election, it just grows the ignored and disenfranchised section of society that actually outnumber the “centrist swing voters
Totally this.
Encapsulating lousy logic for delivering more status-quo failure.
The narrative has to be changed, and it's lazy thinking that has got Labour to this point.
Courting the centre with right-leaning policies is just more of the same crap.
Make stronger arguments - people will get behind them.
There are loads for crying out loud.
Make no mistake - the centre is now the right. That's what's happened with the lack of arguments and letting establishment/markets call the shots.
If that's a good route to follow then people aren't paying attention at all.
Well, if no one ever challenges the idea that there is such a thing as a ‘wasted’ vote then that will always be true.
You believe there's no such thing as a wasted vote under first past the post? It would be lovely were it so.
There is right-shifting track here as long as my are
So are you shifting right? Or does it not work on you just on what you're calling centrists who need to "wake up"? I think you'd call me a centrist but I'm not. I'm a lefty who thinks it's better to have a labour govt. And if you find "wake up" is your line of argument when people can't just see what's obvious to you, maybe examine your own thinking?
You believe there’s no such thing as a wasted vote under first past the post? It would be lovely were it so.
I think it's sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. If people voted (say) Green, then first time around for sure it would just put the Tories in government, but if a lot of people did it, then next time maybe more will vote for what they actually believe in, or maybe Labour would see that there are a lot of votes to be had by supporting better policies than simply trying to be the soggy left of the Tory party.
People in this country as a whole are centre right.
So why then Starmer's determination to follow the current Tory hard-right agenda?
All I hear on the stw political threads is how far-right and racist, practically fascist, the current Tory Party is. And yet the centrists want to minimise the distinction between Labour and the Tories.
That comment is nothing more than an apology for Keir Starmer/Liz Kendall supporting a policy which both disadvantages people on lower incomes and has bigotry at its very heart.
And furthermore it is very clear that on some issues Keir Starmer is absolutely determined to remain firmly on the right of public opinion, issues such as the common ownership of the utilities and calling a halt to the current genocide in Palestine.
Why is Labour so careful not appear too vocally liberal when it comes to immigration?!? Is that really a question at this point? Have you been asleep since 2016? This is all about winning over those Brexit voters in key seats.
I think it’s sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. If people voted (say) Green, then first time around for sure it would just put the Tories in government, but if a lot of people did it, then next time maybe more will vote for what they actually believe in, or maybe Labour would see that there are a lot of votes to be had by supporting better policies than simply trying to be the soggy left of the Tory party.
Great point.
And this is the reason why we play politics ping-pong. Everyone despises the Tories and perhaps Labour - but the Greens are the real crazies, apparently.
The whole thing is a multi-layered problem. We've gotten used to this system, and it's rubbish butno one seems to want change when it's offered.
I still think things have got to get way worse and they will.
Scary thought.
Neolibralism is good at slowing the decline. You can keep tinkering just enough.
Why is Labour so careful not appear too vocally liberal when it comes to immigration?!? Is that really a question at this point? Have you been asleep since 2016? This is all about winning over those Brexit voters in key seats.
Perhaps - but why not make progressive noises in other areas instead. You know talk up the NHS etc?
I could cope with the Brexit stance alone but it's surrounded by many other right-leaning noises too.
So are you shifting right? Or does it not work on you just on what you’re calling centrists who need to “wake up”? I think you’d call me a centrist but I’m not. I’m a lefty who thinks it’s better to have a labour govt
But what type of Labour government works for you?
There appears to be different versions. I want progressive push back not market economics etc.
Labour alone means nothing really to me currently.
'Wake-up' is aimed at Centrists that don't recognise their position is Neoliberal: ergo to the right. And an admission that Starmer has shifted policy to the right - instead of making excuse for his lies.
We have a powerful state with all the money it needs to do things for the good of everyone. Centrism doesn't accept that, it believes the myth of wealth creation starts in the private sector. Factually wrong.