Fair play he almost sounds passionate in that clip
Lets see if his passion is real and translates to supporting the RCN and their talk about industrial action. I think we probably know the answer to that. It's very easy to say they should get a pay rise, quite another to do something which might achieve it.
Yes budget and this NHS non pay rise is massive for Labour.
It's what you might call an "open goal", and I'm glad the front bench are all going for it... but I fear we're currently at the stage where Johnson and Sunak can just scoff all the half time oranges, then go down the pub, and the papers will print the half time score tomorrow, ignoring any battering the government goal net receives... they are all glowing with the half story told on Wednesday... that and the vaccine roll out. The wasted money and lives... and the untold story and lies as regards the immediate imposition of austerity in public services in the budget... aren't the news they want to print... or most of the public want to hear.
Fair play he almost sounds passionate in that clip
An error I feel. He's listened to everyone telling him to "show more passion", and he just sounds peeved and powerless. It's like when Brown tried smiling.
It’s very easy to say they should get a pay rise, quite another to do something which might achieve it.
This government is longing for nurses to strike, or teachers, or anyone... and to get a "Labour movement verses the people" narrative going in the press again. They'd love it. The only way to achieve sorting out pay, conditions... and importantly training and recruitment... in the NHS, health care, teaching, and elsewhere in the public services... is to get the Tories out.
Anyway... NHS pay is the right battle to pick... because the government won't properly back down on this (they might do one of their headline pay increase announcements that turns out to spread over years, and not start yet, and not be available to huge numbers of the workforce anyway) so it's something that can run and run up to the elections that matter. And, you'd hope, a reasonable chunk of the voters will support NHS staff (and therefore the Labour line)... although not nearly as many as were willing to clap for them and support the government making them little badges.
Channel 4 News covered this well… played a little Starmer clip, followed by a statement that most of the public agree with him… and then voxpops from staff and public saying just that. No “balancing” opinion. Who will the BBC get on to say that nurses and others shouldn’t get a bigger rise, given the pandemic? Someone let us know… I won’t be watching…
Sock it to 'em Clive.
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/1367892199816462338?s=19
(The government doesn't need to borrow but it's half-way there!)
Sock it to ’em Clive.
He’s doing his best. Always got time for him.
And, of course, the ‘BofE’ has changed the terms that money is borrowed on, to make paying the interest more expensive once rates climb again.
🤷🏻♂️
this bbc?
We are ****ed, aren’t we.
When it comes to the details, I want them to say that they support the freezing of the higher band only… and not bring more low paid workers into paying income tax. Let’s see what happens.
Well... looks like they aren't supporting either freeze... so it's about protecting the "low and middle earners" from the stealth income tax increase. I'm disappointed in that... feels like a return to the "squeezed middle" focus... when there was an opportunity to show that helping the lowest earners should be a priority.
Why not take them up on their points, rather than wasting your time being rude?
They can't Kelvin, I've pointed out their plan...its the only one they have, people must think like them and come to their brand of socialism, no compromises or change from their end, everyone else must change. What they forget is when change is mentioned in elections, people want change, they just don't want it for themselves.
I sound anti-socialist, I'm not, I just recognise that for Labour to win, it not only needs those red wall seats back, it may need SNP and Libdem support, but most importantly, it will need actual tory seats to swing to Labour.
This is what happens when fewer and fewer constituencies become pivotal in elections, to win, an awful lot of pandering to them has to occur.
I’m disappointed in that… feels like a return to the “squeezed middle” focus… when there was an opportunity to show that helping the lowest earners should be a priority.
The middle is where you are going to pick up votes from. Lowest earners aren't a priority, like immigrants they have been vilified, even more vilified if they are using benefits and foodbanks.
To be seen to be supporting them over the middle will have the hard of thinking believing that Labour will spend 'their hard earned tax money' on these 'undeserving' people, while totally missing that the reason these people are on benefits and going to foodbanks is because the taxpayer is subsidising a workforce that isn't being paid properly by their employers.
The whole health worker pay debate is another one. I wouldn't be surprised that the Government do a u-turn and pay the health workers more...at the expense of some other public workers. Resentment is a powerful weapon. It could backfire. Of course it depends which half of the tory party wins out, the true conservatives, or the brexit party spend, spend, spend part of it.
And so we are back to political purity. The above is the symptom's of a country turning against itself, infighting and division, demonstrated clearly by the labour party, All I would ask is that the left come down off the mountain and compromise...that will be difficult if you believe that a doomsday event will usher in a socialist utopia.
I suppose talk of “low and middle earners” could be seen as trying to do the same as “for the many”… counter the dividing up of voters into the imaginary groups of those the state supports, and those that support the state… we are all (apart from a small group that are rich enough and choose to opt out… by buying an Island or offshoring themselves in some other way) both. Convincing voters that Labour is for all, not just those that need a Labour government most, has to be behind everything that happens on the run up to the next election. I suppose this fits with that, doesn’t it. Like many though, I’d like a sign that the truly “left behind” will be a priority for Labour.
All I would ask is that the left come down off the mountain and compromise
The problem is the centrists have shown absolutely no interest in doing so themselves and, indeed, have spent the last several years doing anything but. Just look at Binners first comment on this thread where he wants the nonbelievers purged and only the ideologically pure to remain.
Back to Starmer. I didnt realise until I read the latest private eye that his great war bonds rubbish was actually proposed in the daily hate a couple of weeks earlier.
Binners’ comments on page one were aimed at the personnel running the party at the time… not left wing people in general, or any left wing policies in particular. As regards picking Richard Burgeon to symbolise what he meant in terms of who should and should not be on the front bench… he couldn’t have chosen better. Distance between the new leadership and him, and many others, was, and is, essential.
And also, even if Binners is a “Centrist”… did he still vote Labour at the last General Election? Or spit his dummy out and help his seat go blue? I believe the former.
All I would ask is that the left come down off the mountain and compromise
The left are constantly derided as naive 1970s Trotskyite idealogues and blamed for every ill of the Labour party, despite being the people who actually go out and campaign in real life and actually believe in the principles the Labour party was founded on.
Lots of people on the left thought Starmer would be a good compromise candidate, which he pretended to be to get elected, then changed his agenda to suit his wealthy backers. All the people who blethered on about Corbyn's supposed Stalinist purges have gone remarkably quiet now that Starmer is doing much worse.
'Come down off the mountain' and compromise? Is kicking the former leader out of the party completely for very little part of the compromise? Funny how it's always the left that have to compromise with the centre, as the centre chases the Tories further and further right.
Lots of people on the left thought Starmer would be a good compromise candidate, which he pretended to be to get elected, then changed his agenda to suit his wealthy backers
Well, quite. He was my second preference and I admit that I was duped. Meanwhile, the purge of the left doesn't seem to be doing him much good.
Is there any evidence that the poll bounce to the Tories is down to a “purge of the left” ?
Genuine question
Looking at the polling over the last few months you can quite easily correlate voting intentions with vaccine rollout
I think basically, if Starmer doesn't go absolutely all in on this, and make it count, he's done. Not immediately, but it'll be the end of any credibility. This is an issue that's even dividing the Tory party and where the NHS have incredible support, and it's absolutely a centre ground issue that'll draw people from the centre right and even has a lot of media support. There'll never be a better issue and there may never be a better time so IMO if he doesn't, right now, then he's basically signalling that he never will- that he'll "keep the powder dry" forever.
if Starmer doesn’t go absolutely all in on this
Are you referring to NHS pay? If so, I agree.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1368585690091511813?s=20
https://twitter.com/JonAshworth/status/1368517739749507072?s=20
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1368139329671991304?s=20
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1368182727565017090?s=20
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1367926284106534918?s=20
Is there any evidence that the poll bounce to the Tories is down to a “purge of the left” ?
Did I say there was? The point is that we're constantly told about the left's inflexibility and immaturity, and the need to compromise in order to be electable. Having done that, our reward is to be shut out of the party as the Tories disappear over the hill.
It shouldn't be forgotten that some 'left' policies are near enough universally popular.
Did I say there was? The point is that we’re constantly told about the left’s inflexibility and immaturity, and the need to compromise in order to be electable. Having done that, our reward is to be shut out of the party as the Tories disappear over the hill.
I didn’t say that you said there was. It’s a genuine question. Is there evidence beyond correlation?
It shouldn’t be forgotten that some ‘left’ policies are near enough universally popular.
Absolutely. There's a reason the Vote Leave team (now in government) used the NHS badge/logo so prominantly in 2016. Starmer needs (and this is far from simple) to get more of the public to see that those now in power only use the language of "all in this together" and "fairness"... they have no interest at all in supporting and strengthen the institutions, policies and laws that deliver the benefits of "left" thinking and governance... but he has to avoiding talking about them in an abstract way as belonging to "the left"... I think you will see him continue to use "British" as a short hand for "the left policies/institutions/values/ways that are near enough universally popular across Britain".
I didn’t say that you said there was. It’s a genuine question. Is there evidence beyond correlation?
No idea. It's not a claim I've made.
£37bn to Serco equates to £28k for each of the NHS staff and nurses are being offered the equivalent of a supermarket sandwich. Starmer should be making a meal out of this.
The problem is the centrists have shown absolutely no interest in doing so themselves
Why would they? The centre are where the votes required to become a Government are.
‘Come down off the mountain’ and compromise? Is kicking the former leader out of the party completely for very little part of the compromise?
No compromise at all. It was finally recognised the after the election that the leader was detrimental to the cause, supporting a perceived centralist as a new leader has the advantage of 'proving' that he and 'centralism' is not good either, leading to the current attacks by the left. The post of mine you declared as nothing pointed out the problems an opposition leader has with the current circumstances, but that's just inconvenient for you.
What you want is a clone of the former leader with all the policies that go with it. So no compromise at all really. At least he/she would make the news I suppose. For all the wrong reasons.
£37bn to Serco equates to £28k for each of the NHS staff and nurses are being offered the equivalent of a supermarket sandwich. Starmer should be making a meal out of this.
To who? The NHS staff derisory pay offer is news now, but no one is going to broadcast or put in one of the populist papers a story highlighting Government corruption. As I've said in an earlier post, its not a problem to them if they don't talk about it.
It can also be seen as an attack on the Government at this time when there is a crisis...We know its about competence, but the Government would love to play that to the gallery.
I really can't emphasise enough how much the client media and this Government are joined at the hip, the BBC to a lesser degree...at the moment.
A degree of patience is required.
Why would they? The centre are where the votes required to become a Government are.
You're right - just look at the success of Change UK and the lib Dems.
The only success story at the last election, in England, was the Tories. Many voters went to them to stop Labour. Others went to them to claim the Brexit they were promised. Other voters did what they had to do in their seat to beat one of the top two candidates. “Wasted votes” (be it for anyone from the Greens at one end, to the Brexit Party at the other) were not an option many were willing to take. Voters pulled back to the main two parties… many more towards the Conservatives than Labour. Some of that was Brexit, some of it was very much about Corbyn… he was seen by voters as a threat, even in areas where Labour have often been strong before. Starmer has to neuter both of those ideas before the next election. Brexit needs to no longer associated with party politics… and Corbyn needs to be small in the rear view mirror. Most depressingly, Starmer must make Labour unequivocally British… a process that I’m fully expecting to rub me up the long way… a lot… along with others who don’t want to see every Labour communication emblazoned with flags, and everything Labour stands for being described as ‘British’ at every opportunity. It’s grubby… but the Vote Leave team now in office didn’t concern themselves about looking grubby… they just did what they had to. And they keep on doing it. Relentlessly. Starmer can’t pretend that isn’t the case, and settle for winning the argument… he needs to win over voters in England to shifting their party allegiances at the next general election. Good luck to him. I don’t think it’s doable.
What you want is a clone of the former leader with all the policies that go with it. So no compromise at all really.
I've never said anything of the kind. I'd just like a leader who doesn't completely change his tune as soon as he's won a leadership campaign and isn't so blatantly ruled by focus groups and wealthy backers. I honestly had no idea Starmer would turn out to be this bad.
All the flag-waving stuff isn't convincing anyone IMO. When Boris is 'patriotic'/jingoistic he's much more of a natural at it.
His Britishness appeal doesn't sit very comfortably with recruiting a foreign 'intelligence officer' to police the party membership. I suppose the UK just can't produce IT people with quite that set of skills, attitudes or front line experience. Does he really imagine all his associations and alliances will be popular with the 'Red Wall'?
His backers were simply keen to keep out Corbyn and Starmer's failure to impress wouldn't be a concern to them. Starmer's dutifully played his part already. Crossword fans can look forward to years of cryptic clues, semantics and debates about what he really means or meant to mean or how it was understood or reported. His 'Looking back, I can see behind me' speech was blow me down the apotheosis of the preposterous. 'The future will be different', blimey I never would have guessed. Any mathematicians know how to put a percentage on the term 'fair pay'? No, me neither.
His backers were simply keen to keep out Corbyn and Starmer’s failure to impress wouldn’t be a concern to them.
What does this mean? Starmer never stood against Corbyn.
To be honest, most of your post makes little sense to me I’m afraid Bill. My steady culling of anti-Labour leadership ranters on social media must mean I’m missing out on the latest hot conspiracy takes.
That is not a prerequisite when donors are choosing their man.
That is not a prerequisite when donors are choosing their man.
I still don’t get it. Do you think Starmer became leader to stop Corbyn returning as leader at some point in the future? Please say what you mean, I genuinely don’t know what you’re implying.
I think that Starmer has been far too slow to express his solidarity with the farmers of India
#fingeronthepulse
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1369026672536793098?s=20
To be honest, most of your post makes little sense to me I’m afraid Bill.
You are not alone there
Not just me then?
I still don’t get it. Do you think Starmer became leader to stop Corbyn returning as leader at some point in the future?
Bill has a point. I thought the point of centrist 'pragmatism' was to win power by any means necessary, even if they don't intend to do anything with it. Within the labour party however it doesn't even seem to be that any more. Instead it would appear that being in control of the labour party is enough of a prize for these centrist empty vessels. They don't care about winning, they don't care about helping working people, they don't care about changing society for the better, all they care about is being at the top of the pile so they can boost their egos and feather their nests. They've redefined career success as being at the top of the labour party, rather than in government.
There evidence points towards are conscious effort to shift the LP to the right, expel socialists (like Moshe Machover, Jackie Walker, Chris Williamson) at the expense of membership numbers (and widespread subscriptions), cancelling elections and now you've got the unpopularity with the voters. The 'Red Wall' idea is a convenient justification for all the obfuscatory speeches and right wing positions. It's a nonsense. if you have an area with a load of fascists, do you become or appear to become a fascist to 'win them over'? Not many people could convincingly argue that and there's certainly no historical evidence of it ever having happened. The LP needs to flag up demands that people will campaign and fight for not just 'elect me in n years' time' but he is threatened by extra-parliamentary action and the right of the party seem to spend more time spewing bile about the left than attacking the Tories (you don't need to look far to find evidence of this). The LP may well find themselves in a very difficult place when the economic dislocation hits many's lives and Starmer is waving a flag on the sidelines squeaking about Britishness and fair values.
They don’t care about winning
Complaining that they are chasing voters rather than acting as existing supporters/members want, for pages, and then saying they only care about leading the party, not trying to win power. No internal logic there at all.
expel socialists (like Moshe Machover, Jackie Walker, Chris Williamson)
Starmer wasn’t the party leader when those people were expelled, someone else was. And none were expelled for being socialists.
I know we've been under lockdown for nearly a year now, but you lot really need to take your tinfoil helmets off from time to time and get some fresh air
I still don’t get it. Do you think Starmer became leader to stop Corbyn returning as leader at some point in the future? Please say what you mean, I genuinely don’t know what you’re implying.
It's not about Corbyn, it's about what he represents, and the desire of Starmer's backers to keep it very far from the levers of power. The problem with this supposed pragmatism is that in the rush to confirm what they're against, they seem to have forgotten to think about what they're for.
Meanwhile, a right-wing populist continues to hoover up votes from a supposedly centrist electorate.
Meanwhile, a right-wing populist continues to hoover up votes from a supposedly centrist electorate.
Care to expand on why you believe this is occurring?
It’s not about Corbyn, it’s about what he represents
It's about Cuban doctors?
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1368302868080435203?s=20
Well, that’s just bullshit, plain and simple.
It's really not. If you take an honest look at Starmer, Rayner, Nandy etc all you see is careerist politicians being very careful not to say anything which will annoy the corporate and media establishment. Everything they say or do is framed within the narrow parameters which they deem to be good for their careers. It's very illustrative that those who don't have realistic leadership ambitions such as Lewis, Miliband, Burnham etc are much more outspoken about what's going on in our society and what needs to happen to change it. The tragedy is that the things Lewis et al are saying are the things that would inspire people to vote for labour and enable them to counter Johnson's populism. At the moment under Starmer Labour look like a much more establishment party than the tories.
Sorry Dazh, I deleted that, as I felt I was being unnecessarily rude.
At the moment under Starmer Labour look like a much more establishment party than the tories.
Is that not the plan? Look like a party of government. One that would run the UK for everyone in the UK, not one special interest group or the other. That's what they're trying to do, yes? I don't think it's "enough", but it's not happening by accident.
My word, in a GLOBAL pandemic, a massive issue over TRADE into Europe, international cooperation over vaccines, concern re international travel, and you still get ethno-centric half-witted bluster about do we care about Indians, Cubans? How about attacking the Tories with the 70s light entertainment and bum-clenching jokes? Nope?
How about attacking the Tories with the 70s light entertainment and bum-clenching jokes? Nope?
He does that in the other threads ... all the time ... the ones about about the Tories, the government, their Brexit, their pandemic response.. etc. You brought up Starmer being put in place to "keep out Corbyn" ... he's literally just quoting Corbyn in response... not making any jokes at all.
