Forum menu
ransos Free Member
Care to expand on why you believe this is occurring?
The absence of an opposition worth the name.
Sorry... my irony-meter just exploded 😀
Will you still vote Labour, or are you one of the “no real difference” people?
Both.
Sorry… my irony-meter just exploded 😀
Sooner or later, even you will realise that the conversation isn't about Corbyn.
Both.
Fair enough. I’d go for "not enough difference", perhaps.
The public don’t give a damn about “centrism”
And they don't give a damn about left or right either. What they do give a damn about is that they have politicians who serve them and not a tiny few people at the top, and who can be trusted and transparent in doing so. That's why Corbyn won the labour leadership, and surprised everyone in 2017, because despite his devisive history and 'lefty' politics people trusted him. It's also why he tanked in 2019, because he lost that trust after two years of the media and his own MPs calling him a racist and compromising himself on brexit, which made him look like every other lying politician. It's also why Starmer is failing. People look at him and see another machine politician, who inherently can't be trusted to serve their interests instead of those of the elite.
And they don’t give a damn about left or right either.
Not true. "Left" is a bogeyman term for many people (including those who support many left wing policies). Especially if you can put "Far" in front or it (justifiably or not). Get actual communists put into the mix, and the public can increasingly lose trust fast. As they did between 2017 and 2019, for sure.
Now both you and Bill have tried to pull this back to "a witch hunt"... (check out his list of people of "the left" he claims were run out of the party... and your "MPs calling him a racist")... I'm going to take a break from this thread. Starmer will keep trying to reframe Labour to have a wider appeal... he'll fail, or at least be outflanked by a government who can actually do things, not just talk about them... some of the Left will feel vindicated... others will just despair about it.... around in circles it will go.
I think you're over-thinking this, mate.
That’s why Corbyn won the labour leadership, and surprised everyone in 2017, because despite his devisive history and ‘lefty’ politics people trusted him.
You need to ease off on the crack during the day mate, seriously. Tusted him? Absolutely nobody apart from a bunch of sixth formers and trots ever trusted Corbyn. Even natural labour voters had to hold their noses to vote for him. It was just Theresa May being stupefyingly awful and running the worst election campaign in human history that delivered that result. He still lost! Quite an achievement
People look at him and see another machine politician, who inherently can’t be trusted to serve their interests instead of those of the elite.
The vaccination programme and absolutely nothing else is responsible for the Tories bounce in popularity. It's all thats presently registering with anybody. The light at the end of the tunnel. Do you seriously believe that even his most enthusiastic supporters look at Boris and think 'theres a man we can trust who is definitely serving my interests'?
Don't be daft 😀
Plenty of people are grateful for the NHS vaccination roll-out but they understand it's success is in spite of Johnson not because of him. Even when this phase is over and there's a return to a semblance of normality I don't see the LP elevating itself out of terminal decline under its present leadership. In a society massively divided by class inequality you can only back one side or the other and Starmer has come out on the side of business and lost votes.
and Starmer has come out on the side of business and lost votes.
I know I've asked this before, without any of you providing an answer, but I'll give it another go' eh?...
Can you list specific examples of Starmers supposed representation of the agenda of corporate interests please?
Off you go...
It was just Theresa May being awful
The vaccination programme and absolutely nothing else is responsible for the Tories bounce in popularity
Convenient excuses to fit your opinion. The main reason Corbyn won the labour leadership wasn't his fondness for 70s bennite socialism, it was his authenticity as a representative and advocate of normal people rather than being a professional politician representing the elite. That's why he tanked in 2019 because he stopped being that.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">DO you seriously believe that even his most enthusiastic supporters look at Boris and think ‘theres a man we can trust’?</span>
Why do you even doubt it? Turn on the tv, radio, read a newspaper. Everyone thinks he's a straight up bloke trying his best despite the shadowy bureaucrats trying to stop him.
you can only back one side or the other
Failed.
[ shut up Kelvin, leave it... stay away]
The main reason Corbyn won the labour leadership wasn’t his fondness for 70s bennite socialism, it was his authenticity as a representative and advocate of normal people rather than being a professional politician representing the elite.
The only reason he won the Labour leadership was that Ed Milliband changed the leadership election rules to allow an unholy alliance of old marxists and opportunistic Torys to join in and elect the most useless Labour leader imaginable
That’s why he tanked in 2019 because he stopped being that.
For the real reason he lost that election and the one before, see above
If you really think the wave of support for Corbyn came exclusively from old marxists you have zero clue what you are talking about. I used to photograph student-y reggae/dub club nights where the MCs were mostly black British older guys maybe 30-50, and I more than once heard some of them make little speeches about JC and how they don't normally bother voting but they would vote for him. Can you imagine that happening with any other politician?
Call it a populist fad if you want but don't just talk utter mince about trots. How many trots do you think there are out there exactly?
The only reason he won the Labour leadership was that Ed Milliband changed the leadership election rules to allow an unholy alliance of old marxists and opportunistic Torys to join in and elect the most useless Labour leader imaginable
Good grief, not this old cobblers again. He won the two leadership elections decisively across the three segments of electors. Those are the facts, however inconvenient they may be to your narrative.
If you think that was achieved by "old marxists and opportunistic Torys" then please take more water with it.
Anyway, the Corbyn thread is ------->. We're here to talk about Starmer's success.
Corbyn brought people to Labour, no question about that. More and different people need to join them, and the tricky part for Starmer is getting them under an umbrella big enough for all of them.
an unholy alliance of old marxists and opportunistic Torys to join in and elect the most useless Labour leader imaginable
Sorry but that's a fantasy. You'd have a point if he squeaked in with a tiny majority, but it was massive and can't be explained by a tiny number of ex-socialist workers and tory trolls. Even if you were anywhere near correct, then how do you explain the second, even larger victory which didn't have the 3 quid supporters? I do wonder why you're in the labour party when you have an almost pathological dislike of almost everyone in it apart from a few careerist MPs.
Anyway, back to Starmer. As I've said on your point about his support for corporations, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that he's different to all the centrists who came before him and that he'll uphold his leadership campaign promises. Perhaps you'd like to present some evidence on his behalf?
kelvin, LEAVE IT, IT'S NOT WORTH IT 😛
It's weird looking at the 10 pledges on his website, it almost seems like something he left up by mistake.
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
kelvin, LEAVE IT, IT’S NOT WORTH IT
I know, sorry.
The not-very-leftwing Keynes' ideas could be used to 'back both sides'. You support business by increasing the income of the people who (because they don't have a lot of it) spend it all plus maybe a bit they've borrowed and this is multiplied around the system of exchange. Maybe Biden had similar ideas. So Starmer should be arguing for 'trickle up' policies, will he though?
Maybe. I'd go much further... "security" of income allows people to spend (or invest) more freely.... in a way slightly more income does not. Universal Basic Income. Labour won't go for it though. I'd have it as a central policy. I'd be shocked if Starmer backed it near the next general election... it would be politically risky... I'd push for it if I was a member though. Perhaps I should take your place Bill...
Universal Basic Income. Labour won’t go for it though. I’d have it as a central policy.
Never have I agreed with you more. UBI is the single most progressive, transformative and effective policy that could be implemented, and that's why they won't do it, because it's nothing short of revolutionary. It is however inevitable, because short of culling millions of people, how are we going to keep people occupied and provide them with security in the face of automation? The response to the destruction of industry was to create millions of pointless bullshit jobs, but that's not goinig to work in future, because it's the bullshit jobs which automation will replace.
If the labour party can't support and promote policies like UBI then there's really no point in it, and they should make way for others who will. If they carry on as they are then I'm pretty certain the voters will decide for them, because they're going to fade into irrelevant obscurity like other political movements and parties before them which refused to adapt to future challenges.
The response to the destruction of industry was to create millions of pointless bullshit jobs, but that’s not goinig to work in future, because it’s the bullshit jobs which automation will replace.
It's not just the bullshit jobs that will be replaced: doctors, lawyers and architects are all predicted to be vulnerable to automation also.
Not a bad article from Rachel Reeves MP:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/03/our-search-national-story
Totally agree with what she's saying about how Starmer and co. need to reconnect, a bit light on the 'how' though.
The widening gap between rich and poor leads to a crisis of overproduction so assets go off in pursuit of rent-seeking (or even 'waste' expenditure on Bezos-style space adventures). It's the inefficiency arising from the unequal allocation of resources and underemployment of productive capacity that produces the bullshit jobs. It's not just technology driven, someone has to make those machines, it's about the chaos and inefficiency of capitalism.
It's the same system just different conditions. Wilson went on about 'the white-hot technological revolution', pure flannel.
Not a bad article from Rachel Reeves MP:
I disagree. It only reinforces the point on where labour are currently going wrong. It's a long and simple history lesson for anyone who pays attention to these things, with a small amount of hollow rhetoric about what labour should do, and absolutely no clue on how they propose to do it.
We don't need the likes of Rachel Reeves (or more likely some oxford educated intern) to write a couple of thousand words telling us what's wrong, we already know. What we need to know is what the **** they're going to do about it? Do they not understand that it's time they stopped going on about the past and start looking to the future?
Did she pinch this from a John Major speech?
"Labour will champion common decency and togetherness so that we can forge a new path for Britain. We want this to be the best country to grow up in and the best country to grow old in. For all of us, however we vote and wherever we come from, rebuilding a stronger and fairer society as we emerge from the pandemic must be a national undertaking. "
Where are you planning on setting up your first re-education camps Daz?
Where are you planning on setting up your first re-education camps Daz?
If you actually properly read even half of the stuff I go on about on here you'd know that I don't think people need re-educating. They know what's wrong and know what the solutions are, they just don't have anyone in the political class who are prepared to put their careers on the line and start talking about real solutions.
Once again mate, I think you're massively overestimating what people know and don't know and their desire for your 'real solutions'
The majority of the electorate just voted for the greatest act of financial stupidity that the world has ever seen so that they can have different coloured passports.
Even the politicians who delivered this couldn't quite believe that a majority of voters in this country really were that thick. They were banking on being saved from themselves by the electorate.
After all.. surely theres no way the majority were that dense, right?
Well, we all know how that went...
So good luck with getting the labour party into power by Starmer standing up and explaining universal basic income and how we can just print money
Just printing money is exactly what all governments do, particularly this one. Don't get distracted by that household budget analogy, it's nonsense.
Austerity is not about 'paying back the debt' it's about restoring or increasing profits.
I think you’re massively overestimating what people know
The only thing they know is that the current system doesn't work, which is why they voted to change it. It speaks volumes that it didn't matter what that change was, they were so desperate for something different they were willing to try anything. So I'm pretty sure the bland recipe of more of the same failed policies you seem to support are not what people want. They do however need someone to lead them towards the future, and there's no sign that Starmer and his band of don't-rock-the-boat 90s clones are going to do that.
Brexit was a vote against change... a retraction from the ever quicker developing of a modern interconnected world that people fear. It was a call to stop the world, we want to get off. It is HIGHLY optimistic to translate that desire into a willingness to accept the kind of policies that you and I would love to see a UK government adopt.
It is HIGHLY optimistic to translate that desire into a willingness to accept the kind of policies that you and I would love to see a UK government adopt.
I didn't say there was a willingness for specific policies, only an openness for something different to the failed status quo. Whether you like it or not, brexit was a massive leap of faith, and a nihilistic 'none of the above' f*** you to the establishment. If labour can't or are not willing to recognise and exploit that then they need to step aside for those who are.
How?
That's just word salad. "Something different"... "change"... "anti-establishment"... what's the policies?
The tories made theirs clear... remove rights and opportunities from foreigners (at all costs)... be anti European integration and cooperation (at all costs)... stand against this new fashionable wokeness and political correctness...
What does Starmer go for policy wise that would be a marked change from the past? And why does he do it now, not closer to an election?
Daz - seriously, you're absolutely off your head if you think that Brexit was anything other than a desire to return to the 1950's where the were less... you know... of 'them'
Its not fuelled by a desire for radical economic alternatives, its fuelled purely by racism and sepia-tinted nostalgia for the days where being gay was still illegal, you could hang murderers (guilty or not) and the police could beat people to death with impunity if they were the wrong colour or had the wrong accent (that last bit might still apply, actually)
How?
Well they could start by following through on the promises Starmer made in his leadership campaign which got people like me to vote for him. That's just the bare minimum though, ultimately we need solutions fit for the 21st century not the 1990s. As Rachel Reeves shows in her pointless NS piece, they're still looking backwards, not forwards.
its fuelled purely by racism and sepia-tinted nostalgia
And that's how populism works. When the established parties and sytems fail to serve the people, the people look to snake oil salesmen who offer easy solutions. The stuff we all hate about brexit was made possible by politiicans, and in particular those on the labour side, who stopped working for the people. It's the lesson of every fascist state that has ever existed, and yet we never learn.
seriously, you’re absolutely off your head if you think that Brexit was anything other than a desire to return to the 1950’s where the were less… you know… of ‘them’
Aside from its pretty clear that is complete rubbish. Whilst there were a subset who clearly did think that way to try claiming that was the same for all is clearly rubbish.
As a casual example just look at the Bangladesh Caterers Association position on the matter.
You can look at all those people saying how things hadnt improved and how they were voting for a change as another example.
stopped working for the people
Which means?
What new policy do you want Starmer to adopt that will signal he would "work for the people"? One that they would believe? One that they would change their vote for?
the same for all
There is no one reason. That's still true. So, those that did vote for Brexit as a retreat... what new policy does Starmer adopt to appeal to them? What's the change that people who voted Brexit (not because of lies about curry chefs) and then voted for Johnson to get Brexit done would move their vote to Labour to get?
You can look at all those people saying how things hadnt improved and how they were voting for a change as another example.
So.. what is the "change" that Starmer hangs his coat on? Does it need to be as nebulous and undefinable as Brexit was, to appeal to all those different hopes and intentions (I'd argue that yes, yes it does), or specific detailed new policies years out from a general election that can be examined and pulled apart?
When the established parties and sytems fail to serve the people, the people look to snake oil salesmen who offer easy solutions.
So your masterplan is to counteract populism offering simple solutions is by getting everyone to sit down and pay attention while you give them a lecture on what most people would regard as really, really complicated economics
Mate.. all everyone wants to know at the moment is when the pubs are going to be open again so they can go out and get leathered with their mates
The racism involved in Brexit is also to a large degree about economics. It's easy to convince lots of people in shitty forgotten places with no good jobs left, crap public services and a broken sense of community that 'foreigners' are the reason why.
And scare them that more foreigners are coming to make it even worse. Vote Leave literally claimed Turkey was about to join the EU and 'flood the country' with millions of Muslims.
So a vote to keep Iraqi and Syrians out who couldn't come here anyway... that's a vote for change? What does Starmer present the voters as reason to change the party of government that will resonate with people who voted based on that kind of stuff?
Meanwhile, a right-wing populist continues to hoover up votes from a supposedly centrist electorate.
No, they hoovered up a load of red wall votes who certainly wouldn't describe themselves as centrists. I hope folk aren't trying to steer away from the uncomfortable truth that some working class people who just happen to vote for labour, share views with those on the right.
The outcome of the next few elections will fall on a small number of tory voters who are unhappy with the direction of the tory party, yet can't bring themselves to vote labour particularly from 2015-2019, and won't vote libdem as they view that as a wasted vote.
Meanwhile the tories will concentrate on those former red wall seats, because those people are their kind of people.
The outcome of the next few elections will fall on a small number of tory voters who are unhappy with the direction of the tory party, yet can’t bring themselves to vote labour particularly from 2015-2019, and won’t vote libdem as they view that as a wasted vote.
Bingo. Many people will see Labour as "selling out" as they try to look "safe*" enough for those possible Tory defectors. But it is absolutely who they need to convince, in England. There is no Labour government without taking votes from the Tories in these seats.
[ *yes, I know, it's joke that "this lot" are safer than what Labour offered at the last election... well it is to me... but that's not how enough voters saw it... the next election (or as I suspect, the following one with two new leaders) can only be won by reversing that... a safe, secure, prosperous England needs to seem more likely with a swap to a Labour government... in the eyes of people who simply have not believed that for years, if ever ]
The outcome of the next few elections will fall on a small number of tory voters who are unhappy with the direction of the tory party, yet can’t bring themselves to vote labour particularly from 2015-2019, and won’t vote libdem as they view that as a wasted vote.
I would have thought that that was glaringly obvious. A few of us have been saying exactly this for a while. Labour should be courting the Tory voters - and there must be plenty of them - who are horrified at the Brexity, populists that are presently masquarading as the Tory Party
I'm sure serious business people would be very supportive of a more business friendly party, but apparently labour aren't allowed to talk to them as that would amount to fascism, or something
No, they hoovered up a load of red wall votes who certainly wouldn’t describe themselves as centrists.
Ah, so when you said:
The centre are where the votes required to become a Government are.
Did you mean something else?
But it is absolutely who they need to convince, in England.
Aside from they also need to keep convincing the existing labour voters to keep voting for them as well.
So your masterplan
I don't have a masterplan. I'm actually fairly ambivalent towards party politics and think it's largely a waste of time, especially with people like Starmer at the top of the labour party. I'm actually more interested in economics and other societal dynamics which really drive change. What puzzles me though is why you get so animated, as you appear to have almost no interest in any of it. It's very odd.
Which means?
You know what it means. I'm not indulging in any of your pedantic debating society nonsense. 🙂
but apparently labour aren’t allowed to talk to them as that would amount to fascism, or something
So exactly what is your plan here? Aside from anything else what do you mean by "business" since just using "business" is pretty meaningless as various business groups have massively different and often opposed interests.
No, they hoovered up a load of red wall votes who certainly wouldn’t describe themselves as centrists.
Ah, so when you said:
The centre are where the votes required to become a Government are.
Did you mean something else?
Yes, and they said they meant something else. Johnson has swept working class right wing thinking people with him, away from Labour (many going via Farage and his parties on the way). Some can be won back, many can't. There are others who vote Conservative because they fear a Left Wing class war focused government that they think won't act in their interests... but aren't swept up in all the anti-immigrant strong bluffing leadership of Johnson and his Vote Leave team. They have to be given the confidence that Labour is ready to run the UK for them, for all.
Aside from they also need to keep convincing the existing labour voters to keep voting for them as well.
Absolutely. And that is the hardest part in all this. Labour are failing at that... there is currently a drift to the Greens... and people saying that they will not vote at all. And I don't think that's all down to the leadership. Far from it. Every social media post by a front bencher criticising the government is flooded with replies complaining that they are supporting the government too much... the feeling that Labour have left the Left behind is strong... but it's just a feeling... drummed up by constant complaining about Starmer's approach. There is a battle on to stop Labour becoming a wider party... and Starmer is the main target in that... has been ever since his decision as regards Corbyn and the party whip. That battle includes people splitting away from the Labour party in huge numbers... and we all know who that really benefits.
From a few pages back...
You’re right – just look at the success of Change UK and the lib Dems.
Are we not understanding how politics and the voting system works? Its not supposed to be, but in reality its a TWO PARTY SYSTEM. Believe it or not, People actually want their vote to count, so most liberals/centrists will vote for labour, not a party that will have little chance of winning, or split the vote.
But its not enough, hence the Labour party has to appeal to others as well.
Aside from they also need to keep convincing the existing labour voters to keep voting for them as well.
That's easy for any people that truly believe in Labour. I don't care who the leader is or the exact in and outs of every policy, Labour are the only party I will vote for given a choice between Labour and Conservative.
Anyone that swings from a lifetime of Labour voting to Conservative was never truly a Labour believer in the first place and trying to get them back is not going to be easy. Likewise getting long time Conservative voters to vote Labour is not easy as the Conservative party will always be closer to their "principles"
Aside from anything else what do you mean by “business” since just using “business” is pretty meaningless as various business groups have massively different and often opposed interests.
I thought our resident lefties had already established, beyond any doubt, that anyone who runs a business is basically a ruthless capitalist bastard who's sole motivation is the oppression and exploitation of the working man, and probably eats babies too
Are we not understanding how politics and the voting system works? Its not supposed to be, but in reality its a TWO PARTY SYSTEM. Believe it or not, People actually want their vote to count, so most liberals/centrists will vote for labour, not a party that will have little chance of winning, or split the vote.
But its not enough, hence the Labour party has to appeal to others as well.
The lib dems had 47 seats and a quarter of the vote, and now they have chuff all. Is it just possible that their politics has been rejected rather than support for a two-party system. Hmmm...
Shouty caps don't make your argument less weak.
Are we not understanding how politics and the voting system works?
I am sure you will enlighten us.
Believe it or not, People actually want their vote to count, so most liberals/centrists will vote for labour
An interesting claim and I will be fascinated to see your supporting evidence for it. Might I remind you that the Libdem vote increased in 2019 (despite the drop in seats) which doesnt really support your position.
I thought our resident lefties had already established
I dont suppose you would care to answer the question rather than giving us insights into how you fail to understand other people?
I thought our resident lefties had already established, beyond any doubt, that anyone who runs a business is basically a ruthless capitalist bastard
Binners man for once stop playing the reactionary gammon persona and be half serious for a second. No one on the left (certainly not here anyway) is anti-business. I work for one FFS and have done very well out of it. It's hysterical nonsense.
Johnson has swept working class right wing thinking people with him, away from Labour (many going via Farage and his parties on the way). Some can be won back, many can’t.
Quite. What isn't talked about is there will also be a number of people who have grown up in labour families/constituencies, who didn't experience the turmoil of the 80's for instance, so have no empathy or identity with it.
As said, they may not be coming back, Labour may have to find even more votes from elsewhere. 2019 was possibly a watershed moment, so its important to all those involved in that debacle to understand the possible consequences of their actions.
Labour may have to find even more votes from elsewhere.
Perhaps they should encourage more city dwelling hipsters to have more babies? By the time they have a chance again they'll be able to vote.
An interesting claim and I will be fascinated to see your supporting evidence for it. Might I remind you that the Libdem vote increased in 2019 (despite the drop in seats) which doesnt really support your position.
I hope you are not operating under the illusion that most people who voted labour were on the left?
I am sure you will enlighten us.
I already have. But since we are dealing with those on the left who shall remain inflexible to it, I suppose we would be doomed to at least another twenty years of tory rule if you once again get to run the other major party in the country.
Perhaps they should encourage more city dwelling hipsters to have more babies? By the time they have a chance again they’ll be able to vote.
Having more Children who grow up and stay in the cities will do little to change the vote under the current fptp system.
Maybe they could spread out and breed with the locals to widen the gene pool?
I already have.
No you havent you have simply made claims. So lets see the evidence for your claims which isnt the same thing.
I hope you arent operating under the illusion that you are part of the centrist silent majority?
rather than support for a two-party system
You confuse "support" with... "vote with an understanding of it"...
Might I remind you that the Libdem vote increased in 2019 (despite the drop in seats)...
Sorry... I thought you were trying to convince us that the voting system doesn't push people towards the two main parties?
I'd have voted Green at the last General Election if I had a way of that actually meaning something, rather than helping the seat stay blue. General Elections pull people back to the big two parties. It's why the LibDems persist with their "winning here" line... people will not vote for them if they are a distant third... even if they support their policies and the candidate... it's as good as eating your ballot paper as a protest.
No one on the left (certainly not here anyway) is anti-business.
Just against Labour saying they are pro-business. This thread is now littered with examples of people claiming that Labour saying they pro-business means that they are saying they won't support workers. A complete blindness to the fact that businesses come in all shapes and sizes, owned and run by all kinds of different people, with different motivations, and different effects on the society they touch. There was an example today in fact.... "Starmer has come out on the side of business"... ...as a negative thing... so no need to page back much.
Sorry… I thought you were trying to convince us that the voting system doesn’t push people towards the two main parties?
Was I? There I thought I though I was addressing El-bent's claims about centrists/liberals voting for labour. It demonstrates a belief that the liberal/centrist vote is rather large which I think does require some supporting evidence.
Since they then double down with an apparent belief that apparently Labour consists mostly of centrists/liberals which begs the question why they dont vote lib dem since it would rapidly make them the largest party.
I would suggest the reason is that the centrists/liberals are actually a minority group who mix up being swing voters with actual overall voting numbers.
Is a liberal and a centrist the same thing? Anyway, yes, there are people who the left would describe as "liberal" or "centrist" that vote for Labour in their millions, especially at General Elections. What was the last national election we can look at that wasn't FPTP... oh yes...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48403131
I'll wager that a huge proportion of those LibDem and Green voters went on to vote Labour at the General Election. The FPTP system, and the idea that there is "more at stake" at a general election, pulls voters back to the two main parties. To argue otherwise is nonsense. Everyone is trying to avoid a "wasted vote" in these circumstances.
But since we are dealing with those on the left who shall remain inflexible to it
It's like talking to Binners' twin. Again, the size of Starmer's victory shows pretty convincingly that the left is prepared to be flexible and pragmatic. The very qualities so sorely lacking in the centrists who were more interested in ousting the previous leader.
And, what's happening with the current leader now? Flexible and pragmatic support for him? Or trying to oust him? Looks like much of the same, just with roles reversed. And then voters think... How could they lead a country, when they can't lead their party?... and the tories do a little dance.
To argue otherwise is nonsense.
sigh I am not arguing that. I am specifically addressing El-Bent and their claim that "the illusion that most people who voted labour were on the left?".
So do you agree with that claim of theirs. If so lets discuss it but if not lets not demand I defend something I am not saying.
And, what’s happening with the current leader now? Flexible and pragmatic support for him?
Support for what, exactly? Nearly a year in, and I still have no idea what he's for. Apart from more flags, obvs.
The very qualities so sorely lacking in the centrists who were more interested in ousting the previous leader.
I think pretty much everyone, regardless of political persuassion, was united in that.
Apart from the Tory's, obviously
I am specifically addressing El-Bent and their claim that “the illusion that most people who voted labour were on the left?”.
So do you agree with that claim of theirs.
I would say nearly all Labour voters are on the left... but most of those people would be describes as centrists and liberals by those that don't want a broad church Labour. But then I mean, to me, there is no way Starmer is a "centrist"... he absolutely is on the left. As are all the current Labour MPs.
There is no way on this good earth Starmer is on the left.
He supports a neoliberal model. But occasionally mentions the health service
If you think that Starmer is not on the left, then that is also true of many many voters who supported Labour in 2019, 2017… well all years…
This is why I hate terms like centrist, it’s sometimes a label for “not left enough”, as I “think” you are using it, and at other times in means something akin to a one nation Tory. It’s an utterly junk term and should be dumped.
It’s an utterly junk term and should be dumped.
So what do you want to use?
There did seem to be a liking for "moderate" but that is a rather leading term and pretty inaccurate in many cases.
Are you equally opposed to the use of hard left etc?
Are you equally opposed to the use of hard left etc?
Well, I’m not sure it’s helpful. Happy to use communist for people who say they are. I often used Straight Left to describe those that were part of that movement, especially when so many suddenly appeared at the heart of Labour in recent years.
The problem is, that all these ideas and identities blur. If you are happy to see someone as a liberal, and a centrist, and on the left, then a reasonable discussion can be had. If there’s to be an imaginary line between them all, then it’s just name calling, and pointless.
If one person says Starmer is a not on the left, that he is a centrist “instead”, and another is claiming that most Labour voters are on the left, then it all falls apart. Because Starmer is indeed to the left of many Labour voters.
Which left wing polices must you vocally support to not be labelled a centrist? What if there is no consensus on those policies? What marks me out as being on the left or not? What is the purity test?
Just against Labour saying they are pro-business.
To paraphrase Michael Foot, labour don't need to be pro-business, because business is perfectly capable of looking after itself. Labour need to be pro-people. That's their USP. Who votes based on whether a party will be good for their employer, especially when the vast majority are unhappy in their jobs? People will vote for labour when they have the confidence to stand up for what they believe in. At the moment they're a long way from doing that.
I would say nearly all Labour voters are on the left…
If you define leftwing as supporting collective action, collaboration and mutual aid over survival of the fittest competition, then most people in this country, bar a small number of rich people are on the left, they just don't identify themselves as such. The only reason people don't identify as being on the left is because it's seen as a political thing rather than behavioural, and it's because politiicians of all colours have proven themselves to be the opposite of what they claim to be, people don't want to be associated with politics. Instead of left vs right, it makes more sense to describe people as being pro or anti politics.
because business is perfectly capable of looking after itself
I guess you missed the whole of the last 12 months then, didn’t you.
Instead of left vs right, it makes more sense to describe people as being pro or anti politics.
Or anti left vs right. But then they’d be called a centrist, or lacking conviction.
I guess you missed the whole of the last 12 months then, didn’t you.
Sigh, more pendantry. I'm talking in general terms, in times of non-crisis. Clearly the normal rules are suspended in times like these. Or do we now have to caveat everything we say within the context of pandemic or non-pandemic?
Okay, in “normal times”, the “normal rules” set out by government, what and how it takes funds, trading arrangements with other countries, recruitment restrictions… just about everything every business does is touched, controlled, limited, supported, financed, subsidised, taxed, regulated, promoted, banned… everything business does is touched by government. And all are lives are touched, every single second of every day by those businesses. They are not just employers… they are at the heart of everything we do, from having a beer, to life saving drugs, to making bikes, to selling us toilet rolls. Everything is business, and everything in business is touched by government policy and governance.
But then they’d be called a centrist, or lacking conviction.
Nope, I know loads of people who define themselves as being anti-politics. They just get on with their lives and try to ignore it all. In fact most people I know fall into this category. They're not lacking conviction or 'centrist', and instead are almost perfect examples of what I described above as being on the 'left'. These are the people who labour could be targeting, who would stand to gain the most and support a labour party committed to the things they believe in. But labour ignores them in favour of chasing the votes of people who are diametrically opposed to them. It's bizarre.