Sir! Keir! Starmer!

Starmer said, exactly what needed to be said last night, exactly what CCHQ didn’t want him to

Seems pretty likely that he will be facing Gove/Sunak/Raab ? at next election, which will be both easier (none as populist as johnson) and harder (not as useless & unprepared as Johnson)

Are you suggesting a revolution or maybe a military coup?

I think he may be alluding to Farage/UKIP et al. They succeeded by providing a home for racists who would previously have voted Tory. The schtick was “give us what we want and you can have your racists back – on loan”.

But this isn’t about a splinter group pulling a main party’s policy in a given direction by using their extreme elements.

This is about making Labour electable against a background of hostile right wing press and an electorate who largely have the attention span of a goldfish.

Starmer is off to a good start. He is creating an impression of quiet competence. He isn’t rising to the bait and looking like he’s about to spontaneously combust whilst losing bladder control like Corbyn did. He is not as easy to caricature as Grandpa. Quiet competence. Whispering “have you had enough of this pain/shitshow yet?”.

I agree he is obviously going to have to get proactive soon, but letting Johnson dig his own hole is the most effective thing. For now.

“The leave/remain argument is over” he said. Oh really. So you think all the remain at all costs PLP lot wasted their time sabotaging their own party.

There is nothing Johnson would like more than to re-enact the great triumph against the evil forces of remain. It’s literally all he has to show for his tenure.

Where’s the benefit to Starmer or Labour to set himself up as a cheap punchbag for an ailing PM? Johnson knows he’s cocked it up, needs to share the blame, and would like nasty remainers’ ‘obstruction of Brexit’ to be billed alongside ‘bullying EU technocrats’ as the reasons for this shitshow.

Starmer is focusing on the things that Johnson promised, and which he is spectacularly failing to deliver.

Are you suggesting a revolution or maybe a military coup?

eh? That’s quite a leap from wanting a labour party which challenges a corrupt system to armed insurrection. There are some things in between you know.

All I want is for a labour govt to stand on a platform of and then enact labour policies which eliminates the corruption and unfairness which infects almost every aspect of our political and economic system. Once that’s done that it can then turn to practical problems like tackling climate change and poverty. I don’t think that’s particularly radical or unachievable.

All I want is for a labour govt to stand on a platform of and then enact labour policies which eliminates the corruption and unfairness which infects almost every aspect of our political and economic system. Once it’s done that it can then turn to practical problems like tackling climate change and poverty. I don’t think that’s particularly radical or unachievable.

Worst My Fair Lady lyrics eva.

All I want is for a labour govt to stand on a platform of and then enact labour policies which eliminates the corruption and unfairness which infects almost every aspect of our political and economic system. Once that’s done that it can then turn to practical problems like tackling climate change and poverty. I don’t think that’s particularly radical or unachievable.

Errrrrr.

I think there is a bit of work to do there.

‘All’ I want is an end to world poverty, hunger, disease, environmental damage and a secure and prosperous future for us all. One that doesn’t degrade the planet in the process.

Then I’m going to move onto more ‘practical’ goals like the ability to change base metals into gold, but in an environmentally sustainable way.

There, that’s the difficult bit done – just saying it. The practicalities are a piece of piss. I’ll leave them to a mere functionary to figure out.

😇

All I want is for a labour govt to stand on a platform of and then enact labour policies which eliminates the corruption and unfairness which infects almost every aspect of our political and economic system. Once that’s done that it can then turn to practical problems like tackling climate change and poverty. I don’t think that’s particularly radical or unachievable.

How do they enact labour policies without being in power? You stated you don’t need to be in power to change things and have now said you need to be in power to change things haven’t you?

So outside of a revolution or military coup how would you enact labour policies (while not being in power)?

So outside of a revolution or military coup how would you enact labour policies (while not being in power)?

By screwing your eyes up really tight and wishing hard enough.

Keep the ideology pure and the electorate will come to you. They just don’t realise it yet.

🤣

That has to be one of the silliest posts I’ve ever read.

I agree – it was a daft thing for you to say.

I agree he is obviously going to have to get proactive soon

It’s interesting that you say that, because it seems that when I or others make the same point we’re accused of juvenile ideological purity destined for permanent opposition.

There was an article in the Guardian today saying essentially the same thing: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/09/labour-starmerism-movement

And before the lefty-baiters get revved up, the article cites Thatcher and Blair as successful examples.

So outside of a revolution or military coup how would you enact labour policies

Stop being a pedantic arse, I already answered your question. If labour can’t win an election on a platform of removing endemic corruption and unfairness from our political and economic system then there really is no point.

then there really is no point

Obviously there is. Perfect being the enemy of good, and all that. And we don’t currently have anything close to “good” when it comes to our government, do we. I’ll take a much better government, with the aim to make things better for us all, thank you very much. I’d love it to be my perfect government, but I’m happy to accept that it has to be a government for all, voted for by enough people to get into power, rather than act just for me… and just win over people like me… there aren’t enough of us… and that’s democracy.

It’s about timing. You’d have to be insane to try and set out some kind of ‘vision’ at the moment.

When the furlough scheme ends we’re going to see mass unemployment last seen in the late 80’s. Maybe far worse

With a second Covid wave hitting at the same time as a likely no deal Brexit, the country is going to be plunged into absolute economic turmoil, and the disaster capitalists are waiting in the wings to seize the opportunities’ this affords them. We could also have attained ‘Rogue State’ status, just for good measure.

This country is going to look a very very different place in 6 months time. All for the worse. If you think the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism has failed most of society (it has)… you ain’t seen nothing yet!

That’s going to offer up a world of opportunities for a credible and competent-looking opposition. Maybe even getting the electorate onside for the radical policies Daz thinks we should be pursuing.

I live in hope, anyway. Because, god knows, that’s been in short enough supply for the last few years

It’s interesting that you say that, because it seems that when I or others make the same point we’re accused of juvenile ideological purity destined for permanent opposition.

Soon means weeks/months. He has to go as long as possible with the shit and pain building up and no one in the spotlight other than the fly-tipped sofa himself.

Of course the press and the usual suspects are going to try to drag something out of him so they can attack it, and he will have to have something to say. I would go with a policy of only addressing each bit in isolation (don’t set out the full roadmap).

The basic idea is for him to say “Look at what this oaf is doing. Look at the damage it is doing. There will have to be some pride-swallowing soon if we aren’t going to ruin this country for decades”.

He should also be pointing out that not all the people who voted for Brexit are full scale flag-waving frothing gammony maniacs. He should emphasise the point that if the referendum question had referred specifically to No Deal and WTO trading terms, Leave would not have won. A nice bit of divide and conquer. Consensus building. And don’t forget that De Pfeffel will also be busy embarrassing himself and by extension the UK with every move he makes.

If Johnson’s rabble push for a full roadmap he should say “No, you show yours first, you are the ones who have the power”.

Keep knocking the ball back over so the camera keeps panning to the utter shambles that is ‘our’ Prime Minister.

I’d love it to be my perfect government

Who’s talking about perfect? I’m simply talking about bringing back some honesty and fair dealing where the government doesn’t hand out multi-million contracts to their mates, holds public suppliers to account, doesn’t break it’s onw laws, doesn’t break international law, doesn’t routinely lie to parliament and the electorate and doesn’t hand out peerages to its cronies. That’s basically the bare minimum we should expect so if that’s not achievable then we might as well give up.

I live in hope, anyway. Because, god knows, that’s been in short enough supply for the last few years

Me too. Logic dictates that eventually this disaster will be so obvious that the Tories (or should I call the The Brexit Party) are chased down Whitehall in their socks.

If this isn’t the case then I might well end up saying to the Missus that even the strong family ties on her side can’t be enough to keep us here and we have to go somewhere that doesn’t hold idiocy up as a virtue.

Who’s talking about perfect? I’m simply talking about bringing back some honesty and fair dealing where the government doesn’t hand out multi-million contracts to their mates, holds public suppliers to account, doesn’t break it’s onw laws, doesn’t break international law, doesn’t routinely lie to parliament and the electorate and doesn’t hand out peerages to its cronies. That’s basically the bare minimum we should expect so if that’s not achievable then we might as well give up.

But an hour or two ago you were describing your basic requirements as ‘world peace, zero emissions, free puppies for everyone and the eradication of poverty’.

Now it is ‘bare minimum’.

Gymnastics that Olga Korbut would struggle to emulate going on right here.

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Soon means weeks/months. He has to go as long as possible with the shit and pain building up and no one in the spotlight other than the fly-tipped sofa himself.

Which seems to be pretty much what I was saying: “sooner or later”. So it seems we’re agreed that Starmer should be about more than electibility in purely reductionist terms, which is why I’m at a loss why discussions about what that should entail invariably lead to a heap of opprobrium. Other than it presenting an opportunity for baiting.

But an hour or two ago you were describing your basic requirements as ‘world peace, zero emissions, free puppies for everyone and the eradication of poverty’.

No you said that, not me. I said we needed a govt which changed the system to remove the endemic corruption and unfairness. Once that was done then then they could think about the big ticket problems. And by ‘change’ I mean real change, as in prosecuting corruption, full transparency, banning MPs from having outside jobs, regulating lobbying, changing party funding, breaking up monopolies, tighter regulation of suppliers, fair competition rules in public procurement, democratic accountability of senior public employees, closing of tax loopholes and making tax avoidance much more difficult/impossible etc.

Here’s a thought–

During the 1970s Thatcher and tge Tory party took an economic opportunity and used it to put the Unions and the working class “back in its box” by destroying its powerbase in industry they then went on to reshape the country to reflecg their needs and create huge opportunities for the Tory electorate. They left nothing behind and created no opportunity for the disenfranchised working class. Thatcherism.

So is brexit “New Thatcherism” is the enemy the new working well educated middle class? Boris has had to seek new support as his heartlands are literally dying of old age? He needs to nuture that new powerbase to reshape the country just like Thatcher?

Boris has had to seek new support as his heartlands are literally dying of old age?

Constituency politics doesn’t work like that, though. If the populace of an area is 60+ in age, as they die off another group is ‘coming of age’ to replace them. With the same attitude of what I have now I must hold onto, no pinko is going to take it off of me.

There is a reason that the likelihood of voting Tory goes up with age.

Nah, Johnson’s strategists (Cummings and his mates with all their lovely data) identified certain tendencies amongst certain groups who might have been traditionally considered ‘Labour’. They then fed those people their own prejudices back to them as ‘news’ via Facebook. Turns out it was fertile ground.

Using social media is good too, because you can tell different lies to different people and they are none the wiser.

dazh five hours ago (near the top of this page)

All I want is for a labour govt to stand on a platform of and then enact labour policies which eliminates the corruption and unfairness which infects almost every aspect of our political and economic system. Once that’s done that it can then turn to practical problems like tackling climate change and poverty. I don’t think that’s particularly radical or unachievable.

dazh around 1 hour ago

Who’s talking about perfect? I’m simply talking about bringing back some honesty and fair dealing where the government doesn’t hand out multi-million contracts to their mates, holds public suppliers to account, doesn’t break it’s onw laws, doesn’t break international law, doesn’t routinely lie to parliament and the electorate and doesn’t hand out peerages to its cronies. That’s basically the bare minimum we should expect so if that’s not achievable then we might as well give up.

The first is very different from the second.

If the sentiment behind them is the same, you need to be more careful with your wording.

The first is about addressing deep-seated structural unfairness/corruption as well as something hugely worldwide (poverty/climate).

The second is about not actually being crooks on a day to day basis.

Exactly, the second would be Starmer’s government, the first would be the government that got voted in on that platform/policies and if it doesn’t get voted in on that then people clearly don’t care about it as much as some do.

I’d settle for vaguely competent and not actually crooks right now.

These are well below minimum standards in normal times, but frankly they are both in stark contrast to the abomination of a ‘government’ we currently have.

Boris. Brought to you by Brexit.

The first is about addressing deep-seated structural unfairness/corruption as well as something hugely worldwide (poverty/climate).

The second is about not actually being crooks on a day to day basis.

They’re the same. The reason they act like crooks is because the system enables and encourages it. You change that by implenting the things I listed. Once you have that you have the basis for tackling bigger problems like climate change and poverty. You certainly can’t do the latter until you solve the former, and that has been proven many times over.

The reason they act like crooks is because the system enables and encourages it.

I disagree totally. No matter what has gone on before, even the expenses scandal and celebrated examples of more individual corruption, this current ‘government’ is on a totally different level.

They are breaking the law in plain sight, admitting it in plain sight and basically telling every normal citizen they are a mug if they follow rules/laws.

At least they used to have the decency (fear of consequence, at least) to try to keep their dirty dealing a secret.

Indeed. There is now absolutely NOTHING that is actually regarded as a reason to resign by this lot. Or as a reason to be sacked.

They are completely without shame

Robert Jenrick took a bung to then illegally grant planning permission to one of his cronies. Still in a job.

They’ve all spent this crisis chucking billions of public money at their mates for untendered contracts, without any real attempt to even cover it up

And let’s remind ourselves that a government minister stood at the despatch box in parliament yesterday and announced his intention to break international law.

This is proper Banana Republic stuff.

Would be nice if there was some visible opposition.

There is. The SNP.

this current ‘government’ is on a totally different level.

So just because the current government has raised the bar for corruption we should lower our expectations and ambitions for how we should fight it? Honestly I’ve never heard such defeatist nonsense. The current govt prove more than any other that the system is totally f****. This shouldn’t even be possible, if Starmer can’t make the case to change it *and* win an election then he shouldn’t be leader. Yet you lot seem to be content with having someone competent to manage the corruption rather than expecting them to eliminate it.

I disagree totally. No matter what has gone on before, even the expenses scandal and celebrated examples of more individual corruption, this current ‘government’ is on a totally different level.

They are breaking the law in plain sight, admitting it in plain sight and basically telling every normal citizen they are a mug if they follow rules/laws.

At least they used to have the decency (fear of consequence, at least) to try to keep their dirty dealing a secret.

I am not at all sure that is true. It seems to be assumed that the internet and the changes it has forced onto traditional media has created a new new breed of opportunistic power grabbers.

Personally I suspect that it has just revealed what has always been, it is still the same incompetent privately educated oxbridge club running the country for their own benefit as has ever been. In the old days that would have been the polticions, media moguls, police chiefs and senior civil servants all looking out for one another and applying pressure to keep the hegemony going. Now the internet has created a new branch, some might try to game it for a while, but it isn’t controlled in the same way.

Look at the expenses scandal, the traditional media didn’t want to touch it, they had all turned it down, 20 years previous the whistle blower would have just ended up in prison, and life and corruption would have continued as normal. What changed was that rumours started to circulate on the internet, the information was out there and the traditional medias hand was forced. The establishment couldn’t cover it up the way they once had.

Now we are in such an information rich connected world the bullshit is obvious (although demonstrably not to a majority) in the past the bulshit was supported by the media, and there was no alternative information available to challenge it.

So just because the current government has raised the bar for corruption we should lower our expectations and ambitions for how we should fight it? Honestly I’ve never heard such defeatist nonsense.

Daz.

We’ve had some run-ins on the past. I have also let my standards slip on the odd occasion, and I have apologised.

But you really must stop talking bollocks. You are trying to characterise my asking that the principle opposition party make themselves more electable by becoming more centrist and less easy to caricature as a willingness to accept sleaze, so long as it is just less sleazy.

That is shite and it betrays your world view that if anyone is in any way more centrist than Trotsky they must be embracing some kind of crookery as a result. Utter bollocks. What I am starting to suspect is that you are akin to Corbyn. Half dedicated to a doctrine out of belief and half because you are actually afraid of the responsibility of being in power to then have the Wolfie Smith stuff challenged.

Your desired world will actually happen at some point in the next few decades. Climate change, finite resources and population growth will eventually force there to be some kind of world government. Or there will be a big **** off war that either kills everyone or its aftermath prompts the adoption of massive international cooperation.

But whichever way you cut it, there will end up being a lot more international cooperation required. In the meantime the UK seems determined to be such an arsehole that cooperating with us is impossible.

But this is all in the future. If you want a Labour government you are going to need to be electable. Corbyn was not electable. How do I know? Because he had his arse handed to him by a pissed up chump who hid in a fridge. If he had lost more narrowly then it would have been more acceptable, but he lost northern labour heartlands to a cod-Latin speaking old Etonian shyster who has never done a decent day’s work in his life.

You don’t see why you should compromise your revolutionary principles one iota to make Labour electable. What are you going to do? Wait for the electorate to come around to your way of thinking? It has been a while since ‘unicorns’ did the rounds, but you seem to want to wait for one to show up. Enjoy the wait. Don’t hold your breath, though.

Pmq’s yesterday, what are the thoughts here?
Hammering testing right now looks like an odd tactic when you consider the gov have transformed testing from one end of the scale to the other🤔 is it purely through fear of discussing leaving the EU?
I also caught a bit of Peston and Jess Phillips completely silent on WA

Starmer organising monthly televised question and answer sessions could be interesting 👍

Look at the expenses scandal, the traditional media didn’t want to touch it, they had all turned it down

Not entirely true.
The Sun and Times didnt want to spend the amount requested for it, for whatever reason.
The Telegraph by all accounts was happy to buy and publish.
It doesnt seem to have been offered to anyone else.

It is also worth noting the reason the data was readily available to be sold was because the Guardian, Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph had all been pursuing the story for several years including legal action. This resulted in a requirement for it to be released although anonymised. Which meant it all had to be gathered together in a usable format.

Hammering testing right now looks like an odd tactic when you consider the gov have transformed testing from one end of the scale to the other🤔 is it purely through fear of discussing leaving the EU?

The world (and by that I mean people across the world) are making it clear that the WA manoeuvring is damaging to the UK… but Cummings will be itching to make it something he can use to paint Labour as the enemy of the people… a series of interviews have made it clear that Labour appose the move, and why they do… and the shadow NI spokesperson asked the questions that needed asking in the commons… sticking to the pandemic “preparation” at PMQs seems a wise move to me… and that preparation is a mess, and that you think otherwise is interesting… I’d advise you to check out the most recent BBC “More or Less” episode, to make sure you’re being careful when digesting the figures around it… https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mb06

I note that Binners failed to come on here with a rant about how the labour leader failed to mention brexit in yesterday’s PMQs. Strange.

Morning comrade. It’s not strange at all. Starmer didn’t mention it because he’s not that daft. It was an elephant trap with a big illuminated neon sign saying ‘ELEPHANT TRAP’ pointing at it. The ones his predecessor would blunder headlong into every time

Johnson wants the conversation moved from this governments shambolic test and trace debacle and onto Brexit so that he can be back in his comfort zone of nationalist populist anti-EU posturing. That’s a major reason they’ve done it in the first place. Because the ERG headbangers, the right wing press and his core support lap it up

Starmer wasn’t playing ball. A smart move. There’s no point getting involved anyway. We’ve left the EU. It’s over. The Vote Leave Party own this shambles now. He’s sensibly leaving them to keep digging.

John Crace in the Guardian sums it up better than I can

Boris Johnson lets rip another demented monologue in Commons

Would a spittle-flecked 10 second rant to be tweeted out on The Canary have made you happier? Maybe a couple of questions about funding for local rural bus services?

Would a spittle-flecked 10 second rant to be tweeted out on The Canary have made you happier?

Not at all, I completely agree he should stay away from brexit. Maybe Corbyn was on to something when he did the same? 🙂

Start a thread about Corbyn?

Again, it’s all about timing.

The trouble was that Corbyn decided to stay off the subject of Brexit the day that Dave announced the referendum.

Mind you, given his decades old hatred of the EU, it’s probably just as well.

The only time I can remember him addressing the issue with any passion was in June 2016 when he returned from his 2 month sabbatical on the allotment and furiously demanded article 50 be triggered immediately!

Seems like the good old days that, now, doesn’t it? A happier, more innocent time?

Anyway… back on topic… Johnson was clearly livid that he was outmanoeuvred yet again by Starmer at PMQ’s

Yet you lot seem to be content with having someone competent to manage the corruption rather than expecting them to eliminate it.

Ok, let’s assume Starmer will simply be merely competent. Our next choice come election time is, what…

Blue – utter, utter, unwashed balls, in every way.
Red – competent.

Anything over and above competent looks like a massive bonus, from where the UK is sitting.