And the LibDems did indeed sellout which is precisely why 12 years later their support is still half of what it was before the sellout.

Nick Clegg and the LibDems enabled a Tory government, they enabled and enthusiastically supported austerity, with all its devastating consequences. They could have joined a grand anti-Tory coalition government but because they objected so strongly to Gordon Brown being PM they decided to cosy up with the Tories instead.

We certainly agree on that. The damage they willingly inflicted is there for all to see.

I’m not going to argue against the above few points, because that would be a waste of time.

But they do illustrate quite nicely why the Conservatives might well win the next gerneral election, whenever that comes.

So you feel that it might well be a widespread view which could result in the Conservatives winning the next election. That’s great. But why hasn’t the message apparently got across to Starmer?

This is the problem with labour, they are least two factions, center left and far left, the far left hate starmer and will abstain, rather than vote lib dem

The problem is the “far left” are actually the “left”. Its just when the centrists got their hands on power they dragged everything hard right so mildly left wing policies are now claimed to be “far left”.
The left gave starmer the benefit of the doubt initially, unlike the centrist nutters with Corbyn, but have just lost patience with him. Just look back through the thread to see those evolving views.
As for vote libdem dont you recall what happened last time? They would need to purge the orange book brigade to make it worth the risk.

It is fascinating how keen some people are to provide lectures now on the chances of the tories winning. Were you as keen when binners and his fellow nutters were doing their best to help the tories out?

Wasn’t that what you don’t like about starmer?

What do you like about Starmer?

The left gave starmer the benefit of the doubt initially, unlike the centrist nutters with Corbyn, but have just lost patience with him.

This is absolutely me. Whilst I liked Corbyn’s manifestos, I could see that the writing was on the wall with him from an early stage. A career of being an idealistic but somewhat naive chancer was not a good foundation for a Leader, and gave his enemies all the ammo they needed to destroy him. I spotted SKS’s political ambitions early on, long pre Corbyn, and kind of knew he was going to be the party leader at some point. I was cautiously optimistic about him; human rights lawyer and champion of the underdog through his legal career made me feel like he’d be someone that people can get behind.

But I’ve become more and more disappointed with him. He’s rowed back on commitment after commitment and now it feels like you’d be hard pushed to tell the difference between him and David Cameron, except maybe Cameron was a bit more exciting and clearer on what he stood for. SKS’s vacuum of intent feels disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

His behaviour in relation to the RMT strikes has been appalling for a Labour leader; talk about walking away from the working people base. It comes across as calculated and cynical. I feel very disenfranchised by him.

His behaviour in relation to the RMT strikes has been appalling for a Labour leader; talk about walking away from the working people base. It comes across as calculated and cynical. I feel very disenfranchised by him.

But not surprising to those who knew what motivates Starmer. In fact it was very much predicted as a clear possibility almost two and a half years ago, a couple of months before Starmer became Labour Leader, by David Renton QC. Quote:

“Starmer’s enthusiasm while DPP for using mundane news events to feed the press with rightwing talking points is a possible concern for Labour members. If such a leader was faced with news of an injustice in the future – the consequence of a change to immigration rules, say, or of a strike in public services – Starmer’s approach to the press as DPP might raise worries that he would not give a principled defence of the victims but would tell the press whatever it wanted to hear”

Scarily accurate.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/keir-starmer-past-scrutiny

So you would still rather have de Pfeffel than Starmer in here?

‘Man of the people’ Boris and the ‘men not so much of the people’ behind him, is still better than some sort of ‘Tory-lite’ Starmer Government?

This is why we can’t aspire to nice things.

This is why we can’t aspire to nice things.

Not likely with either current party as they’re following an economic model that won’t offer it – or pay decent wages to provide a good standard of living.

We’d quite like better than both.

Centrists doing their best to force everyone to accept a lower standard of Labour party, and standard of living because they think that is the route to power.

What’s embarrassing is that lower standard of Labour party still ain’t that close to delivering the goods against this disasterous backdrop.

You lot of have been so dumbed down by the establishment’s offerings you will never have nice things.

This is why we can’t aspire to nice things.

What would they be? What is labour offering that will be better than the tories? Serious question, because I haven’t a clue.

Aren’t they encouraging us to vote for non-material be happy benefits like ‘respect’ and ‘security’? I can’t wait.

What is labour offering that will be better than the tories? Serious question, because I haven’t a clue.

I think you will find the answer that you are looking for in the Boris Johnson thread.

Johnson is so utterly evil that it doesn’t matter what Labour are offering.

No further explanation is required.

is still better than some sort of ‘Tory-lite’ Starmer Government?

How do you think we ended up with Johnson, brexit and the hard right loons to begin with?
Thats the flaw with this seize the centre approach. The centre then shifts to the side and you end up with mildly left wing policies being called far left and policies which Thatcher wouldnt have touched with someone elses bargepole being considered centrist.

Starmer says they’re putting the earlier manifesto to one side and wiping the slate clean for the new one.

Absolutely can’t wait for this shiner when it appears.

I’m guessing it will be a couple of pages about tax cuts and insulation grants; peppered with photos of NHS workers largely from different ethnic backgrounds but no real wage commitments for them as times are tough – and no more EU.

Photos – I’m assuming pictures of Starmer clapping, couple of shots of terraced houses with skinheads stood outside and maybe some wind turbines in the background faded to red/green.

And a big wash of flag.

The Guardian: David Lammy apologises for getting facts wrong about BA strike.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/29/david-lammy-apologises-for-getting-facts-wrong-about-ba-strike

I am unconvinced that he “misheard”. I struggle to believe that he didn’t know the very basic facts behind a dispute on which he publicly expressed very strong opinions.

It sounds like the sort of pathetic excuse which we have come to expect from the current Prime Minister.

He has been making the point that however worthy a claim might be unions should not resort to the only genuine weapon they have available and take industrial action.

Instead, Lammy claims, they should only “negotiate”, whilst totally ignoring the very likely possibility that an employer might have absolutely no intention at all of negotiating with a trade union which it feels won’t strike.

I suspect that Lammy and the Starmer team were taken back by the predictable backlash to Labour’s callous Tory-inspired position towards working people involved in dispute with employers, hence the backtracking and the claim of “misheard”.

He has been making the point that however worthy a claim might be unions should not resort to the only genuine weapon they have available and take industrial action.

He has?!? I’d think far less of him if those turn out to be his words, not yours.

Engaging with you is probably a mistake but anyway:

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/national/20236461.lammy-says-will-not-support-ba-strikes-defends-labours-stance/

Pressed on whether he supports the proposed strike by check-in staff, he said: “No, I don’t. No I don’t – it is a no, it’s a categorical no.”

Asked why, he said: “Because I’m serious about the business of being in government and the business of being in government is that you support negotiation.”

He couldn’t have made it clearer that he didn’t support the proposed strike but did support negotiations.

Despite his so-called apology he still hasn’t come out in support of the proposed strike.

Now argue that he didn’t mean what he actually said and that he in fact meant something completely different. Like when you claimed that Starmer didn’t actually mean “the best Labour have had in Wakefield” when he himself wrote : “the best we have had in the constituency”.

You are very good at pretending that people don’t mean what they actually say, when it suits your agenda. Obviously it’s a whole different ball game when it comes to the Tories.

I’ll leave others to decide if Lammy’s words there mean what you said.

As to your other point, I didn’t argue the point you’re making at all about the Wakefield result. But others can page back and see what I said for themselves. You just carry on making things up.

I too am losing faith in SKS. It doesn’t feel like he’s yet managed to unite enough of the Labour party to win an election. Too many of his own party are prepared to undermine him to push their version of Labour through to the top, fair enough, but voters can see when there isn’t unity within the party and that feels unstable and fractious, something the electorate must be very much ready to move on from.

Too many of his own party are prepared to undermine him to push their version of Labour

I don’t see that. Starmer appears to enjoy the overwhelming support of the PLP. I see very little criticism from within the party – he seems to have kept criticism in check by either expelling or withdrawing the Labour whip, or threatening to do so.

The only criticism I am aware of recently was when Starmer himself claimed that shadow cabinet members were accusing him of being boring.

Do you have any examples of him being seriously undermined by members of his own party?

It doesn’t feel like he’s yet managed to unite enough of the Labour party to win an election.

What made you come to that conclusion? Was it the unrelenting war of attrition against anyone in the party who didn’t do, say or think what they were told? Or was it the explulsion of members based on flimsy evidence from years ago such as a stray tweet or attendance at the wrong meeting which Starmer decided was unacceptable? A leader who constantly goes on about ‘my party’ is not a unifier. He’s the very opposite.

Johnson is off on the G7 international stuff because it’s an easy win that.

We need more weapons, future security getting worse etc. The old fashioned war on terror recycled.

This will leave Starmer with nothing. I mean he could be ripping into him over all sorts of stuff but Starmer island is a lonely place.

Johnson is the perfect deflector and matters at home look insignificant when you’re on the NATO trail.

As for above comments on Starmer – seems to me people happy to blame other stuff for coming to terms with Starmer not performing as expected.

In other news I see Starmer and Khan disagreeing over the single market today. Interesting punch up.

seems to me people happy to blame other stuff for coming to terms with Starmer not performing as expected.

They just blame the lefties don’t they? Which is highly ironic seeing as the lefties put him in the job and have on the whole been extremely quiet and unwilling to stick their heads above the parapet.

Yeah I really don’t get the defence of him he’s offering nothing to get remotely excited about.

There was talk about being boring is exactly what you need. Ugh. That’s the why to inspire people for sure.

Old Rodney is invisible.

They just blame the lefties don’t they?

Not really. There is very little criticism of Starmer for “under preforming” by those on the right. They appear fairly satisfied with his performance.

But if push comes to shove and they have to accept that Labour isn’t preforming quite as well as it should be then they usually manage to somehow blame Corbyn. Or Johnson. Or the right-wing press. Or when everything else fails, voters – stupid racist voters.

My local MP is Jacob Rees Mogg’s niece.

The fact that she is Jacob Rees Mogg’s niece probably had no bearing whatsoever on her selection to what is well on its way to becoming a safe seat in the Shires.

So what some of you seem to be saying is that i may as well vote to keep her as my MP, because the alternative is more of the same?

Centrist my arse, i was happy to vote for a Corbyn headed Labour Party – as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?

as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?

Agree in general but that doesn’t mean we can want a better alternative than Starmer/Lib Dems (don’t know what the difference would actually be other than Ed Davey is probably more memorable than Starmer)

Centrist my arse, i was happy to vote for a Corbyn headed Labour Party – as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?

If that was the priority for Starmer – why is he doing such a poor job?

The two go together – change the country and get elected. Maybe convincing the electorate goes hand in hand with inspiring them?

Why are Labour supporters so willing to accept a shoddy version of Labour that they think is super electable?

If that was the priority for Starmer – why is he doing such a poor job?

It’s not like Starmer is intentionally boring, he just is!

Even tho hes polling much better than Corbyn or milliband, he still looks awkward in interviews, just as they did, (tho milliband these days seems far more comfortable in his own skin)

tho milliband these days seems far more comfortable in his own skin

He does but then he is not trying to be the Prime Minister anymore. The role clearly needs a lot of self confidence and BS.

I’m assuming even the Beeb is giving up on Starmer going by the length of the R4 interview they gave to Blair just now.

Centrist my arse, i was happy to vote for a Corbyn headed Labour Party – as a realist my first focus is on ousting Tories. Everything else is secondary, no?

I think the worry for some of us is, if I can explain with an analogy. Boris has built a garish shoddy palace for oligarchs. If Starmer then just fixes the foundations and plumbing and makes the oligarchs palace less shody it becomes more permanent, and that appears to be the direction he is taking.

So I am starting to think that a Starmer lead labour government will only give some small steps of improvement while cementing into permanence the damaging swing of neoliberal economic policies that will be felt for generations.

So I am starting to think that a Starmer lead labour government will only give some small steps of improvement while cementing into permanence the damaging swing of neoliberal economic policies that will be felt for generations.

So much this.

The idea that if they got in power they would suddenly unleash dramatic changes is for the fairies too.

They’d want to not rock the boat.

The argument would be – they need to stay in power to enact change so we can’t upset anyone.

Lammy’s apology for his comments about BA must reflect that there is a realisation in the PLP that Mick Lynch is very very popular and that strikes will get considerable support and that Starmer’s direction of travel will create much hostility.

@billMC definitely – for the time being Starmer has read this situation incorrectly.

The more people are squeezed the more the straight talking Lynch will get public support.

It’s only when ‘everyone’ thought we were doing okay that unions were just a pain.

If Lynch and Starmer were on a panel together you would assume that Lynch was leader of the Labour party and Starmer was a moderate tory MP

The idea that if they got in power they would suddenly unleash dramatic changes is for the fairies too.

It’s more than that. A Labour government can often introduce or massively expand right-wing policies, without any effective opposition, precisely because it is a Labour government – a Tory government doing the same would likely face constant opposition which would either stop or slow down their ability to push through right-wing policies.

A good example of this is PFI, introduced by the Tories, massively expanded by Labour.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/nhs-hospital-trusts-to-pay-out-further-55bn-under-pfi-scheme

Privatisation is generally much easier for a Labour government as they can invariably count on support from the Tories. This extends to other areas of policy such as welfare, foreign policy, etc.

A Labour government going to war is always going to face less parliamentary opposition than a Tory government going to war.

If Lynch and Starmer were on a panel together you would assume that Lynch was leader of the Labour party and Starmer was a moderate tory MP

Now that panel I would pay to see.

A Labour government can often introduce or massively expand right-wing policies, without any effective opposition, precisely because it is a Labour government – a Tory government doing the same would likely face constant opposition

…by which analysis it would seem things are working out brilliantly for you. That or you’re just very wrong.

All these votes over industrial action will reveal the fault lines very quickly as shown marvellously by Munira Wilson and Baaaa Lammy. Shadow FB and other TU leaders will be taking note particularly when the proletarianised middle class starts thinking and behaving like a proletariat. Not sure if they’ll get away with a clap this time.