Sir! Keir! Starmer!

They may not have it in their campaign but the Tory party are very good at delivering insecurity and unfairness, which is his point.

Keep the rats in the sack fighting amongst themselves. That way they are too busy scrabbling over each other to realise that a better idea might be a concerted attack on the sack itself.

Thank god we have binners here to give us the authentic voice of working class labour voters, speaking as a graphic designer who lives in Ramsbottom.

To be fair, the last election was won by what amounts to a semi scripted reality show character with 3 word slogans and a prediliction for vodka on his cornflakes.

And ‘Binners’ is my working class alter-ego I use to post on’t’internet. Graphic Designer seemed like something a poor person would do. A sort of modernist coal miner.

I actually own a grouse shooting moor and live in a huge stately pile. I’m coining it in at the moment 😃

It may be a slow change… but it’s definitely going the right way…

Which, if any, of the following people do you think would be the best prime minister?

Keir Starmer: 36% (+4)
Boris Johnson: 32% (-1)

Via @OpiniumResearch, 23-25 Sep.
Changes w/ 9-11 Sep.

— Election Maps UK (@ElectionMapsUK) September 26, 2020

I’d say that swinging a -26 point result to a +3 in 6 months is pretty ****ing impressive, but I await my comrades correcting me and informing us all that it’s a betrayal of the socialist future and actually a terrible, terrible thing that the entire labour movement should be absolutely ashamed of

It may be a slow change… but it’s definitely going the right way…

I think it’s fine at this stage, but I can well imagine the reaction if the previous leader was “only” managing neck-and-neck with the blond buffoon.

Seeing as he was -26 points down to the blond buffoon by the time grandad finally, belatedly ****ed off, I think that’s a hypothetical that we needn’t concern ourselves with eh, comrade?

QED.

Still talking about Corbyn. It’s hard letting go isn’t it?

Maybe we should think of his departure as ‘Year Zero’?

I’m finding it difficult to keep up: you were flouncing from the thread, then refusing to talk about Corbyn. An impressive number of u-turns that would serve you well in the Tory government.

It’s not that difficult, surely?

6 months ago the Labour Party was dead in the water.

Now it isn’t

Which bit are you struggling with?

You, again, do seem determined to prove my point.

Eh?

There’s a point?

You still here? I thought you were leaving.

Get a room.

Are you not enjoying the homoerotic tension?

I try not too, but it’s quite flattering

You never know. One day he might actually address the subject of the thread instead of just flirting with me 😃

Still here, then. Until the next flounce.

You can message me, you know? You don’t have to do this publicly? It’d spare everyone else having to read it.

The attention/obsession is awfully sweet of you, but I’m happily married and not that way inclined.

“Sisters and brothers
What have we done
We’re fighting each other
Instead of the Front
Better get it together
Big trouble to come
And the odds are against us
About twenty to one
But we ain’t gonna take it
Ain’t gonna take it
They’re keeping us under
But we ain’t gonna take it no more”

“I don’t think I could stand another ten years of this fighting
All this stabbing and wounding – only getting my own back”

– now that’s a tune

Is any one of the usual suspects going to admit that Starmer has already made Labour more electable?

He patently has.

Any attempt to deny this is just wilful sophistry and doublethink.

We need to distinguish between making yourself ‘more electable’ and having a set of socialist policies to campaign for and deliver.

Considering who is being lined up to take charge of the BBC and Ofcom I’m more concerned about the left being even more stitched up than it is already before worrying about specific policies you want to give the Torys to beat you Over the head with for the next 4 years.

We need to distinguish between making yourself ‘more electable’ and having a set of socialist policies to campaign for and deliver

Why exactly do ‘we’ need to do that?

The Tories won a huge majority at the last election on a ‘manifesto’ that consisted of 3 words.

The Labour Party went into the election manifesto of ‘socialist policies’ as thick as a phone book and suffered its worst election result since 1935

I’d suggest that it’s rather important that ‘we’ might actually learn a few lessons from that. At the moment it looks like ‘we’ have, and the polls are reflecting that

Because making yourself more acceptable to the establishment just means proving that you pose no threat. Sir has moved so far to the right even some centrists are beginning to look radical. He states his ‘unconditional support’ for zionist apartheid, once elected he reversed Labour policy to back the landlords and not the renters and the bankers against the mortgagees. Do we really want to elect another tory party? Do you really think this man represents your interests?

I’m sorry, but that’s utter cobblers

The left need to get away from this ridiculous idea, once and for all, that making yourself electable means becoming the Tory party, as:

1. It’s complete nonsense

2. It will only lead to the electoral wilderness. The one Grandad marched the party into

Do we really want to elect another tory party?

Sadly, at this point I’d be over the moon with a ‘traditional Tory’ government of people like Ken Clarke and John Major.

Zionist apartheid?

Christ on a bendybus! Have you heard yourself?

Yeah… that’s right up there with most voters concerns at the moment? People are talking of little else

Banging on about stuff like that may appeal to Red Labour twitter groups, but everyone else simply hears it, thinks immediately of the Daily Mail caricature of the ‘loony’ left, rolls their eyes then votes Tory

As they did in huge numbers in December

Do you really think this man represents your interests?

considerbly more so than the present occupant of number ten, yes

A good analysis, as ever, on Starmers speech, by Andrew Rawnsley in this mornings Observer

Keir Starmer’s praise for Labour’s winners reveals a leader serious about power

Voters’ concerns? That was one of his first statements. It clearly is one of his major concerns.

A good analysis, as ever, on Starmers speech, by Andrew Rawnsley in this mornings Observer

An analysis which directly contradicts your repeated assertion that there’s no evidence of Starmer softening on his pledges to maintain the radical policy agenda. This is exactly my concern. A labour PM who refuses to enact policy which returns power to the people isn’t really a labour PM. I see little evidence so far that Starmer intends to do that. It doesn’t mean I won’t prefer him to the tories, but it will be another missed opportunity. Labour’s traditional problem is not that they don’t want to win, it’s that they don’t have the ruthless amibition to press home their advantage when they do.

“Some backers from the left voted for him because they thought he would put a more competent face on Corbynism, a belief that he encouraged by issuing “10 pledges”, committing himself to a lot of the Corbynite policy platform. Soft leftists and centrists voted for him in the contrary hope that he would extinguish Corbynism. At the time, I suggested that he would not be able to please these very different groups forever. Someone was going to be disappointed. Someone was going to feel betrayed.

We now know who. He is not going to be Corbynism dressed in a smarter suit.”

Meanwhile, back in the real world…

David Lammy has been on Marr this morning and how refreshing it is to see a competent minister ripping into the government on an issue that most voters are actually concerned about.

The middle classes, who’s votes the Labour party needs if it is ever to gain power, have sent their darling sons and daughters back to university and are now watching the latest government fiasco unfold on the countries campuses, in the continued absence of an effective track and trace system

If the government doesn’t have a test, track and trace system in place to get students back with their families by Christmas, it has got to be described as pathetic #Marr pic.twitter.com/yJaGJIEG1S

— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) September 27, 2020

I suspect the illegal occupation of the West Bank is somewhat lower down their list of priorities

A labour PM who refuses to enact policy which returns power to the people isn’t really a labour PM.

The trouble is that we’ve read the script here, and would rather not repeat the mistakes of the last two elections

If a labour leader, as Corbyn did, stands up and makes the statement ‘ we want to return power to the people’ everyone immediately and cynically thinks “when you say ‘the people’, who exactly do you mean?”

And, correctly or incorrectly (and you can rail against it all you like), the right wing press and the Tories are more than happy to point out that a lot on the left, when they say ‘the people’ theymean…

So making the statement, in itself, provides your enemies with an open goal. And god knows, the labour party has spent the last five years gift-wrapping enough of them!

I think that already one of the massive advantages of Starmers leadership is that those types of clowns, after a brief hissy fit, have been put well and truly back in their box

And that can only be a massively positive thing in ensuring the electability of the Labour Party, because nothing scares the middle England horse like Red Len and his comrades

‘Returning power to the people’ is a long way down peoples wish lists right now. At the moment, in the middle of a global pandemic, the economy collapsing, test and trace in chaos, and a no-deal Brexit looming, most people will prioritise having a government that actually looks like it knows what it’s doing, isn’t headed by a total buffoon and isn’t completely and utterly corrupt

There’s time for the nice fluffy things once that lot’s out of the way.

Don’t hold your breath. It might take a while. Can you not put the revolution on hold for a bit?

returns power to the people

Labour has never given power to the people, it’s always wanted to control society, the Left of the party more so.

Your little experiment in going back to seventies failed and had disastrous consequences for everyone else. A moderate Tory government or centrists Labour administration is the best we can hope for and don’t think the former is on the cards.

Sod your left wing group think ideology, this country is in crisis, stability is what we need not ideological purity comrade.

Sadly, at this point I’d be over the moon with a ‘traditional Tory’ government of people like Ken Clarke and John Major.

Yep. Not a choice between a pantomime alcoholic Poundshop Trump who hides in a fridge to avoid scrutiny and a faded Michael Foot tribute act.

A moderate Tory government or centrists Labour administration is the best we can hope for and don’t think the former is on the cards.

And it is probably what most people want (Brexit seemed to create a temporary chaos with people voting for that above all else)
Those that want a “real” socialist state need to look around them and see what the UK has wanted for the last 60 years and it is not a socialist state (as much as I would like to try the experiment)

Starmer may turn off the hard core socialists but so what – I would rather have a Starmer government that any of the governments we have had in my lifetime.

You can message me, you know? You don’t have to do this publicly? It’d spare everyone else having to read it.

You could take your own advice, as you don’t have to respond to my posts.

Anyway, do you have another journalist to cite who’s making the opposite point to you?

Is any one of the usual suspects going to admit that Starmer has already made Labour more electable?

He absolutely has, in the same way that Kinnock did.

What Kerley said. That.