Forum menu
Johnson's majority cut eh?
It's good to live in hope innit?
Wishful thinking, I know.
for obvious reasons I have not been following as closely as usual but I am glad to see Starmer getting rid of all the useless diddies like Raynor and Nandy
Labour need a professional setup not ignorant no nothing ranters
'Bloody lefties and your idealogical (sic) purity. You might be a useless ****-wit but you share my opinions on Palastine (sic) so the jobs (sic) yours' and btw Labour is a proper noun (that means a big L).
Is this some kind of attempt at left behind white working class inverted snobbery? Would it have also been 'idealogically pure' to have opposed apartheid in SA?
I’m starting to hope there is a snap election
What makes you think that?
A snap election is the tories preffered tactic. they need one before the covid bills come in and before the brexit damage becomes separte and obvious from the covid damage.
Ill bet my house the fixed term parliament act is scrapped in the next westminster session and that there is an election in a year or so
This nails it. No one will vote for a party which doesn’t believe in itself.
What makes you think that?
Think what? That there might be a snap election? Or that Labour would lose if there was one? Or that I no longer see a snap election as such a wholly negative thing, despite assuming Johnson and his party would still have a majority after it?
This nails it. No one will vote for a party which doesn’t believe in itself.
You don't support Starmer's cunning strategy of telling voters that Labour are shit?
What could possibly go wrong?
And just to drive the point home he's gone out of his way to be a shit Opposition Leader.
It's obviously a strategy which the Parliamentary Labour Party fully backs as there are barely any murmurings of moves to oust him. The PLP won't hesitate to mount a coup against a leader that they don't support.
Would it have also been ‘idealogically pure’ to have opposed apartheid in SA?
No. What's your point? My point is that opinions shouldn't be a reason to give someone a job. It should be based on competency
What we have here is somebody being dismissed because he worked in Blairs press office. I'd say thats quite a good thing to have on your CV, as it suggests he was rather good at his job.
But no, apparently
You don’t support Starmer’s cunning strategy of telling voters that Labour are shit?
Not only is the strategy to repeatedly tell voters how shit labour are, but also to drive away the last remaining core supporters by calling them anti-semites. The AS joker card worked so well on Corbyn now they're using it on their own voters. I'm beginning to think the crazy lefties on twitter who say Starmer is a tory agent are right.
It's all pretty irrelevant anyway.
'It shows that, if you were born before the early 1970s, then a plurality of your cohort have won almost every election you have ever voted in. If you were born after the mid 1980s, a plurality of voters in your age group have lost almost every election you have ever voted in. For those born after 1990, that “almost every” drops to “every”.'
Boomers...
Which is what I have been pointing out many times on various posts on here.
The biggest voting population are older people
Older people vote Tory more than anything else
If voting age was cutoff at say 55 then Labour would be winning the elections.
He’s not actually an MP. He’s not writing policy. He’s head of communications. You know… the actual practical stuff
And yet you're so scathing of other party employees Seumus Milne Cummings etc.
Centrists balance on such a tight rope of logic that they're bereft of an actual idealogical position.
This fascistic Government needs to thank the liberals for their constant support. They sure know how to hand their lack of idealogical values straight to the right.
Think what? That there might be a snap election?
Yes just interested in the comment.
(A while back I thought that was plausible too.)
And yet you’re so scathing of other party employees Seumus Milne Cummings etc.
What were Seamus Milne's qualifications for the job? He once wrote a few Guardian articles? He was there purely for his beliefs ie: 'I agree with Jeremy about absolutely everything' rather than any actual aptitude for the position.
In fact, he was absolutely terrible at the job. If your job is to communicate, you're probably best not immediately starting a massive spikey confrontation with all of the media, bar the Canary and the Morning Star, then locking yourself in a bunker.
And say what you like about Cummings, he was devastatingly effective at his job, but he had no particular ideological attachment to the Tory party. Far from it. He hated most of them and they hated him right back, but put up with him because they knew he could deliver. Which he did. Repeatedly. Mainly, it seems, just to show how clever he is.
Obviously now he's served his purpose, he's been dropped like a hot turd.
Let's just scrap this idealogical purity vapid nonsense now.
It's called having a vision Binners - that pushes back against 40 years of decay.
Without it you end up exactly where Starmchair is going - nowhere.
For the many not the few was a damn good thing to be on-side with.
How many times are current Labour going to rebrand with their awful PR?
"Stronger Together" is at least a step in the right direction.
What were Seamus Milne’s qualifications for the job? He once wrote a few Guardian articles? He was there purely for his beliefs ie: ‘I agree with Jeremy about absolutely everything’ rather than any actual aptitude for the position.
He was bang on with the "Enemy within."
Jezza was correct about lots of things so I'm not having your nonesense.
(A while back I thought that was plausible too.)
Well, I still think a snap election is highly unlikely, but that the government will make sure that they can call one if need be. If anything, I think it’s become less likely, but am far more sanguine about one then I was. There could be benefits to be gained from one for the opposition parties (it would bring Starmer’s term as leader to an end though, unless they repeated the mistake made after the 2017 election and pushed on with someone just because they increased support and lost by fewer seats).
He was there purely for his beliefs
Whereas Starmer and his now former top team were there purely for their 'competence' and absence of any ideological constraints. How's that going?
If there's one thing that Starmer and his catastrophic 'strategy' have proved, it's that managerial competence is massively less important in the running of a political party than having a vision that people can get behind. Or in other words, an actual ideology. Someone might want to tell Starmer that he's a politician, leading a political party, and not the CEO of a small to middling consultancy.
Pretty telling that binners admires Dominic Cummings and hates Seamus Milne.
Correct
They both bear as much responsibility as each other for Brexit, then a Tory election victory delivering a huge majority
One ensured those things through his competence, the other through his incompetence
Hate and admiration aren't mutually exclusive though. You can admire how effective someone is while intensely disliking what they're doing and the reasons why they do it
I feel the same way about Jurgen Klopp 😉
Pretty telling that binners admires Dominic Cummings
I've always been a fan of Cummings. I disagree with his politics to the extent I understand them, but admire his willingness to try new things and reject tradition and entrenched and established practises. Labour could do with some people like him, and in fact I wouldn't be outraged if labour employed him. They won't of course, because they are as attached and dependent on the old school establishment as the tories are, and that's the central problem.
Hate and admiration aren’t mutually exclusive though. You can admire how effective someone is while intensely disliking what they’re doing and the reasons why they do it
Yep, like how effective Hitler was (which we would all agree he was) yet was pure evil (which I hope we would also all agree on)
Starmer is unfortunately not very effective and I don't think many like him.
Labour could do with some people like him, and in fact I wouldn’t be outraged if labour employed him.
Agree. He could be of use to actually getting Labour elected although I would have to hold my nose while employing him as he is morally bankrupt.
Are you saying that Jurgen Klopp is worse than Hitler?
He will never be as effective
I see the racist Burnham is making a complete clot of himself again with stupid attacks on Sturgeon and Scotland. His statements make it clear that like most of London labour he has no idea about what the constitution is and how Scotland operates
I wonder if this is going to be a labour tactic - make spurious attacks on Scotland
I wonder if this is going to be a labour tactic – make spurious attacks on Scotland
It's hardly spurious. I think that in this case he has some justification.
I like Sturgeon but you can't complain about a Westminster government imposing remote decisions without consultation with regional authorities, then go and do exactly the same thing yourself.
Which is exactly what she's done. It's absolute hypocrisy
I see the racist Burnham
The who now?
Burnham the racist. Made a series of disgraceful racist statements to get elected Mayor.
If there’s one thing that
Starmer and his catastrophic ‘strategy’BoJo and Trump have proved, it’s that managerial competence is massively less important in the running of a political party than having a vision that people can get behind.
...is the problem
Made a series of disgraceful racist statements to get elected Mayor.
Like?
(and I'll be honest, given the demographics of his mayoral constituency and how racist statements would go down there, I'm sceptical)
It’s hardly spurious. I think that in this case he has some justification.
I like Sturgeon but you can’t complain about a Westminster government imposing remote decisions without consultation with regional authorities, then go and do exactly the same thing yourself.
Apart from its non of Burhams buisness what happens in Scotland - Sturgeon has no power over him
did he ask for compensation from all the countries that refused entry to brits or has he demanded compensation from the netherlands which has the UK on a no fly list?
He simply does not understand the constitutional arrangements and is simply looking for someone to attack to make him look good
His intervention was crass, without any merit and ignorant.
Apart from its non of Burhams buisness what happens in Scotland
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it's his business if a decision taken in Holyrood has an impact on his constituents and is taken without any consultation at all.
If it was Scotland that was making the same complaint about Westminster, you'd be up in arms and claiming it was entirely justified.
You can't have it both ways
He simply does not understand the constitutional arrangements and is simply looking for someone to attack to make him look good
He does understand them, and he's doing what he does... he's an opportunistic weathervane of a politician who will use anything to gain support. Some might say that's what the next Labour leader should be like. But I still don't trust him one bit. What he's working on here is that a large segment of the English vote can be mobilised by attacking the SNP. He's not stupid. He knows his stuff. But he's the kind of politician that makes my skin crawl.
IHN
Its was a load of anti immigrantnt doq whistle racism. I cannot see the quotes now but it was racist doqwwhistle of the most blatant kind.
It was a constant theme in his first mayoral campaignb
He said immigration undermines community cohesion. He called for less aslyum seekers to be placed in Manchester. He also blamed "asian communities" for the spread of covid IIRC
some of the most blatent bits of dogwhistle racism
Sturgeon would not make the same complaint because she would know it to be nonsense. Its precisely non of his business. There is no relationship. did he ask the netherlands for compensation?
Demanding compensation? he has no idea even if this did cost anything?
the man is a racist ignorant creep. and a opportunist wethervane
Its was a load of anti immigrantnt doq whistle racism. I cannot see the quotes now but it was racist doqwwhistle of the most blatant kind.
You always bring this up. You've been repeatedly asked to provide examples, but haven't.
He said immigration undermines community cohesion. He called for less aslyum seekers to be placed in Manchester. He also blamed “asian communities” for the spread of covid IIRC
He's done none of those things. If you think he has, then provide some examples. It's hardly the first time you've been asked.
This is what Burnham said on Asylum seekers, I am not sure it is racist.
Mr Burnham told MPs that places such as Greater Manchester “continue to take in the vast majority of the country’s asylum seekers and refugees and largely they do so without any strife or difficulty. I don’t want to hear anyone claim that people in places like Leigh that voted to leave are in any way xenophobic or racist.
“They are welcoming, generous people but they also want fairness and they don’t think it’s fair that the country’s least well-off communities should experience pressure on wages, on housing, on public services… without any help to manage it.”
He goes on to say,
Mr Burnham, who is MP for Leigh, stood by his comments, today telling Sky News: “I believe we’ve got to have a system that is more linked to people coming to fill a specific job in the labour market rather than speculative free movement, which has actually caused some difficult challenges in parts of Greater Manchester. We’ve seen downward pressure on wages.”
Is that racist or xenophobic?
I found this, and it was when he was in parliament, not his mayoral campaign, and about the same time as cultsdave's quote above:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/16/take-back-control-immigration-debate-labour
*EDIT - apologies, it may have been during his campaign. Anyway, I found this too:
I think it's more along the lines of "people have concerns about immigration, so we need to be able to talk about those concerns without being labelled as racist for doing so", which is difficult to disagree with
Apologies for paraphrasing, but it's basically... "we can pat ourselves on the back for being a welcoming nation, while also stopping those foreigners coming here and driving down our wages and damaging our public services". All lovely proud British heartwarming comments about "others", while making sure they're kept well away. We'll control those immigrants for you, because you'll vote or us if we promise to save you from them.
It's hardly 'disgracefully racist' anyway is it. You can argue it gives fuel to nationalists etc but actually people should be able to discuss these things without it being blown up into a massive drama.
Apologies for
paraphrasingmaking up my own version that sounds much worse, but it’s basically…
Is that racist or xenophobic?
If you ask our brexit thread colleagues it's bordering on being a goose-stepping nazi. 😄
I don't much like Burnham for his bandwagon jumping tendencies and his childish flounce after he lost to Corbyn, but one thing he does have going for him is he knows how to connect with the public, and appears to be sincere in his dealings with them. Like Rayner, he doesn't set himself apart or above normal people, and that's exactly what labour needs right now. He's wasted as Manchester mayor, and needs to get back on the national scene.
He's not a racist. He is an opportunist. If he can work out how to gain support of your back, he'll do so. Do not trust this man. Many would love this kind of "I can be whatever you want me to be" politician to lead the Labour party... and I'm sure he could briefly get Labour polling higher... but if you want a "value lead party", don't let him anywhere near it.
Find me a successful politician that isn't an opportunist.
We’ll control those immigrants for you, because you’ll vote or us if we promise to save you from them.
You do talk some utter mince kelvin but this straw man over Burnham is really raising your game.
Well, lucky for me, if Starmer does go anytime soon, Burnham can't become leader. Because voting for him would stick in my throat. And I would still vote for Labour if he was leader, because I really want to kick out our Tory MP here. Replacing Johnson with Burnham would be a huge improvement for the UK... but there are loads of Labour MPs I'd rather see as PM than him.
but there are loads of Labour MPs I’d rather see as PM than him.
Whether you like it or not he probably has the highest profile of any labour politician outside of Starmer and Corbyn, with Rayner not far behind. The voting public see him as someone who will fight for their interests and not be afraid to speak his mind, and that's all that is required right now of a labour leader. If he had stuck to his principles in 2015 instead of flirting with the blue labour rubbish he'd be PM now, so hopefully he's learned his lesson. They should dump Starmer now and put Rayner in for the next election and bring Burnham back into parliament with a senior shad-cab post ready to step up if/when Rayner fails. With a bit of luck he could be PM within 5-6 years.
Well, lucky for me, if Starmer does go anytime soon, Burnham can’t become leader.
I'd say that not only 'could' he become leader, I can't see it being anyone else. And for the Labour parties sake I hope that's the case.
Daz nailed it:
but one thing he does have going for him is he knows how to connect with the public, and appears to be sincere in his dealings with them. Like Rayner, he doesn’t set himself apart or above normal people, and that’s exactly what labour needs right now. He’s wasted as Manchester mayor, and needs to get back on the national scene.
And I say that as one of the 70% of voters in Greater Manchester who seem to agree. I know people of all political persuasions who admire the job he's doing on their behalf. He's so popular here, particularly after the last years shenanigans, that it was hardly worth the other parties putting up candidates
He was very astute at removing himself from Westminster the way he did, just as the Labour party entered the car crash years its still mired in - call that opportunism if you like - but I don't doubt for a second that he'll be back when the time is right. Thankfully. That's not yet though.
Oh, he's "astute" alright. Few Labour politicians come close to his level of cunning and political manipulations... he's one politically smart cookie. He can't be the next leader if Starmer goes soon though, no matter how popular he is. The rules don't allow it. Even once he's an MP again (step 1) I can't see him getting through both rounds of a leadership election anyway. He's creepy, slippery, opportunistic and self serving in a way that many MPs and those party members with long memories will still be aware of.
he’s one politically smart cookie.
Something that's been woefully absent at the top of the Labour party for quite some time now.
I can’t see him getting through both rounds of a leadership election anyway. He’s creepy, slippery, opportunistic and self serving in a way that many MPs and those party members with long memories will still be aware of.
In your opinion. His enormous majority in Greater Manchester would prove it's not one that's prevalent amongst voters, and that's what matters.
Maybe the majority of Labour MP's, members and voters, if the've got any sense, will be clocking that as being the most important element about who should be leader. Let's hope so anyway. Otherwise its permanent opposition and permanent Tory rule.
I can't see anyone who even comes close to him for being the next Labour PM. But then I've been saying that for 10 years
What's his path to the leadership position then? I can see one if there's a snap election, but otherwise...?
What’s his path to the leadership position then?
I just outlined one above.
Daz nailed it:
Careful we're in danger of agreeing with each other again. At this rate we might be able to talk about it in the pub. 😂
And when do I ever not nail it??
Raynor as leader? Really?
Binnwers - actually I gave you the exact quotes a couple of years ago and you agreed they were disgraceful
I don't think he is a racist but he knew damn well what he was doing with the dogwhistle racist comments.
He was very astute at removing himself from Westminster the way he did, just as the Labour party entered the car crash years its still mired in – call that opportunism if you like – but I don’t doubt for a second that he’ll be back when the time is right. Thankfully. That’s not yet though.
He'd just lost an arse-kicking contest to a one-legged man. Very astute.
No shit he removed himself from Westminster - you'd need a long lie down after that level of humiliation.
Credit to him for coming back as a serious political voice - He probably has learnt some lessons on triangulating and how momentum can shift very quickly in politics.
he’s one politically smart cookie.
If you call using dogwhistle racism politically smart. it probably did get him more votes.
At this rate we might be able to talk about it in the pub.
Perish the bloody thought, mate! I don't see why we should start that nonsense now. 😉
You out on Monday night? I'm going to book us a table in the beer garden at the dogs for when we're done. We can talk about anything else but politics then.
If you call using dogwhistle racism politically smart.
Nobody is calling it that, though, other than you.
He's most definitely not a racist and there is nothing racist about the statements people have posted above
I'd actually suggest that in you labelling him a racist merely for bringing up the subjects he has and making perfectly reasonable comments on the matter, you're more of the problem than he is.
These things need to be discussed. You could say that people screaming 'RACIST' at anyone who dares to broker these issues has been a large contributory factor into getting this country to where it is now
You keep insisting he's a racist while saying you can't find any specific examples of him actually being racist
Raynor as leader? Really?
Absolutely. Labour's problems right now are not the things identified in the wake of Corbyn such as a lack of professionalism, humility, seriousness or experience. Starmer answers all those, and look where he is. No, their two major problems are their complete lack of confidence in putting forward any vision or ideas, and their perceived insincerity, aloofness and elitism. They look like a party which has run out of energy and is feeling sorry for itself. Rayner and/or Burnham would answer all these and more. Labour don't need academics or city professionals, they need fighters, people willing to get dirty, take a few risks and play the tories at their own game. What've they got to lose?
You out on Monday night?
Absolutely. Rose and Crown?? 😂
You know what... I'm sorely tempted 😂
Careful we’re in danger of agreeing with each other again.
Me too 🥺
So... assuming there's no snap election... when and where will Burnham stand to become an MP, ready to be part of a leadership contest...?
take a few risks and play the tories at their own game.
Trouble is the game is now identity politics not policy politics. and the Tories are much better at it. Labour also have to appeal to both swing Tory voters and the SNP at the same time.
I'm not sure that's entirely possible
I’d actually suggest that in you labelling him a racist merely for bringing up the subjects he has and making perfectly reasonable comments on the matter, you’re more of the problem than he is.
These things need to be discussed. You could say that people screaming ‘RACIST’ at anyone who dares to broker these issues has been a large contributory factor into getting this country to where it is now
I'm having to agree with binners here. This forum really has gone to the dogs.😱
By being unable to even mention the genuine issues that immigration can cause, that debate became totally polarised at the extremes, and contributed to the Leave vote.
I remember Burnham used to use the age old trick of putting the words "low wages" and "immigration" together as often as possible, without ever directly blaming low wages on immigration. As TJ says, it was dog whistle stuff, he's just very smart with his language.
So, if the golden boy is going to be party leader... where is he going to stand to be MP, and when?
Burnham very much played down attempting leadership on Owen Jones' channel that I saw today.
He said twice was enough of a defeat.
But you never know.
No point talking up a leadership challenge when you can't actually mount one, because you're not an MP, or even going to try and get elected as one any time soon. But also... he would say that, wouldn't he... Dead Ringers got this very right this week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000x1gn ( at 4:30 )
No but you can ask the question. And that was his response.
You can guage sentiment. But yeah you're right he would say that.
He also thinks that his Manchester world view doesn't translate to Westminster.
If he is going to try again, it won't be right now. Or even soon. Anyone wanting Starmer to step aside in the near future need to look elsewhere for his replacement. All the man-love for Burnham stepping into Starmer's shoes is just fantasy politics right now. Rayner has it all but nailed on if she wants it. I still think she'd rather wait for a few years... but not going for it if the opportunity arises might weaken her future chances. I don't know, she's played it very right setting herself up so far.
WHAT WAS CLAIMED
Mass immigration has depressed wages, especially on the low skill level.
OUR VERDICT
Studies find that immigration affects low-waged workers the most negatively. They disagree on whether it has been good or bad for wages overall but tend to show that the effect is small and also short-term.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-wages/
Has the Starmer thread gone back to talking about everyone in the Labour Party bar Starmer? Jolly good.
Yep, like how effective Hitler was (which we would all agree he was)
LOL. Hitler was shit!
The Germans would probably have won WW 2 if it wasn't for Hitler.
Thangam Debbonaire told female party members at a meeting last weekend that introducing free social care for disabled and older people would “give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with”, Disability News Service (DNS) has been told.
She apparently claimed that such a policy would cost “£100 billion” and would cost more than the annual budget of the NHS.
She also said that right-wing newspapers would attack the policy and that it would lose Labour the next election.
Idealogically unpure...
You know the Government can always afford things don't you lass?
She also said that right-wing newspapers would attack the policy
So the Labour Party is scared to do anything the Daily Mail won't like - sounds about right.
she’s played it very right setting herself up so far.
Not bad for a council state thicko! 😏
She needs to be careful though. She could quite easily end up like Burnham (as in losing to a lesser candidate) if she allows herself to be sucked in by all the politicking and forgets that her biggest strength is her connection to the voters.
Or like David Miliband, who made the exact opposite mistake. Who’d be a politician, eh?
Thangam Debbonaire told female party members at a meeting last weekend that introducing free social care for disabled and older people would “give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with”, Disability News Service (DNS) has been told.
She also said that right-wing newspapers would attack the policy and that it would lose Labour the next election.
So there you have it, the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons sums up Keir Starmer's Labour strategy.
Firstly, don't suggest any policy radically different to the Tories as it will "give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with”,
And secondly, don't suggest any policy which might upset right-wing newspapers because they will attack it and Labour will loose the next election.
I think that's all pretty clear. What Thangam Debbonaire doesn't explain is why this strategy doesn't appear to be working.
Starmer out. Burnham in.
Replace one grisly weathervane politician with another one.
Yep, that'll fix it. Well done Labour people. Well done.
She apparently claimed that such a policy would cost “£100 billion” and would cost more than the annual budget of the NHS.
You know the Government can always afford things don’t you lass?
Been avoiding this thread for a while but jeez, there's a lack of vision there. Not least a failure to see the connection between health and social care, and how investment in one offers savings to the other.
I see why my increasingly disillusioned Tory voting parents feel that there is no coherent alternative to voting Conservative