4 ms·

The question is whether his backbone will grow back once he's in power. I'm in two minds. In our house I'm of the opinion that Labour should go "Full Left" and

by dmje 2y ago

The question is whether his backbone will grow back once he's in power. I'm in two minds. In our house I'm of the opinion that Labour should go "Full Left" and be strong and confident about it; my wife thinks they should get in using whatever means possible (including the slightly pathetic not-very-left agenda they're currently sporting) and then hope they'll make proper changes once in. Let's see what 4th July brings. At least it'll be the end of the current horrorshow.

GordonS 2y ago
I'm sorry, but I find this kind of ridiculous - Starmer is being pretty clear about the kind of man he is. Fervent capitalist, previous member of the CIA-linked Trilateral Commission, notorious U-turner, War on Drugs(TM) supporter, outright liar, genocide supporter, and absolutely completely beholden to Israel (he has even said he'll put Israel lobbiests into the highest echelons of gov - he's practically a foreign agent at this point). He's telling you who he is, so please believe him - the idea that this man will become PM and then suddenly turn into Jeremy Corbyn is, frankly, delusional. I can understand why someone would want to believe that, but in all likelihood we're just getting more of the same.
- Closi 2y ago
  People on the whole don't want a Jeremy Corbyn anyway - he led his party to the biggest labour defeat since 1935. Don't know why the labour party would want to replicate that shit-show.
  - GordonS 2y ago
    He was smeared with false antisemitism claims, hence the massive defeat. One of those involved in the smearing was... Starmer. Corbyn was never going to be "allowed" to be Prime Minister. Also, listen to his recent interview where he says he was asked by a committee if he would guarantee to be 100% behind any military action instigated by Israel.
    - fathyb 2y ago
      If anybody is interesting in learning more about that smearing campaing: https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files > An investigation based on the largest leak of documents in British political history. The Labour Files examines thousands of internal documents, emails and social media messages to reveal how senior officials in one of the two parties of government in the UK ran a coup by stealth against the elected leader of the party.
      - Closi 2y ago
        Politician smeared during election? Shock horror, it happens during every election. Leader of the party can't unite their own party so there is a plan to oust them? That's politics. Jeremy couldn't particularly unite the party, didn't take the center ground, and while I don't think he was a true antisemite there were enough mis-steps there that it meant that the claim could stick (along with the IRA sympathizer claims).
  - vidarh 2y ago
    People on the whole want the policies, though. That even Corbyn - the most vilified British politician of a generation - got that close to a win is a strong demonstration of that. Since then the Tory party support has collapsed to historic lows. A win on a program close in ambition to the 2017 manifesto - which was not in any way radical - should be a walk in the park for someone like Starmer in current conditions if he actually had dared try.
    - GordonS 2y ago
      I think you're right - people are desperate for anything other than the Tories. We have a political environment where the Greens are smeared as "crazies", people remember the Lib Dems for their deception, and mass media has many believing Reform will win if they don't vote for Labour. A Labour win is all but guaranteed, so Starmer doesn't need to be the other cheek of the Monoparty arse - he chooses to be.
      - lambertsimnel 2y ago
        But would the media have abandoned the Conservatives if Labour were offering something much different?
- holbrad 2y ago
  >Fervent capitalist That isn't the own you think it is. It's the position of every single successful modern state. >genocide supporter Sigh... >suddenly turn into Jeremy Corbyn is, frankly, delusional. Brillant, people voted for him for exactly this reason.
  - GordonS 2y ago
    You're being pedantic; we obviously live in a capitalist world, but Starmer is fully inboard with taking orders from corporate overlords (lobbyists) in the same way as the Tories. More balance is needed.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    > That isn't the own you think it is. It is, however, a condition of membership under the rules of the UK Labour Party that you are a democratic socialist, and in favour of goals that include democratic socialism. Whether or not you think that is right, it is what Starmer signed up to when he joined. > Brillant, people voted for him for exactly this reason. His pledges when he was elected leader was to largely be "continuity Corbyn". A lot of the Labour membership voted for him for that reason. The extent to which he has been willing to lie and deceive his own party membership to get his position is quite scary given he'll likely be PM soon.
- dralley 2y ago
  > genocide supporter If Starmer is a "genocide supporter" for being tepidly pro-Israel, then Corbyn is a genocide supporter for his pathetic Russian apologism on Syria and Ukraine. If that's where your line is, then there's no chance Corbyn hasn't crossed it either.
  - GordonS 2y ago
    This is pure whataboutism, but to call Starmer - a rabid member of Labour Friends of Israel who has parachuted an Israel lobbyist into a safe seat, and who plans to staff his new government with pro-Israeli stooges - "tepidly pro-Israel" is beyond disingenuous. I'd ask you to consider that the situations in Syria and Ukraine are not nearly as straightforward as the US would have us believe; indeed, the US and Israel are, as usual, the main instigators. Regardless, Corbyn hasn't "crossed any lines" - he certainly hasn't publicly stated that it's OK to cut a civilian population's water supply as collective punishment, for example. Corbyn takes a more considered, nuanced, sensible view on world politics, which unfortunately doesn't play well with our right-wing press's simplistic "good guy, bad guy" gov-sponsored narrative. This is why Corbyn was smeared - he stands up for what's right, even if it means going against the US and Israel.
    - dralley 2y ago
      >he certainly hasn't publicly stated that it's OK to cut a civilian population's water supply as collective punishment, for example neither has Starmer... also this never happened...
      - GordonS 2y ago
        If you're going to rewrite history, and ask me to ignore what I've seen and heard with my own eyes, then this thread has reached it's end. I bid you adieu.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      > I'd ask you to consider that the situations in Syria and Ukraine are not nearly as straightforward as the US would have us believe; indeed, the US and Israel are, as usual, the main instigators. OK, you've sounded mostly reasonable in this thread so far, but that came to an abrupt halt here.
Closi 2y ago
Going 'full left' is the exact reason Labour hasn't been in power for 14 years. You are describing the recipe for a one-term government IMO - Elections are won from the center, and moving Left will open a center gap for someone else to claim. The last time a 'full left' Labour government ruled was probably just after the war (i.e. Clement Attlee).
- vidarh 2y ago
  Firstly Labour went mildly social democratic, offering policies to the right of Nordic conservative parties in some areas. Just to contextualise what "full left" means in this respect. (A concrete example is parental leave, where the Norwegian conservative party is fine with far higher statutory pay than Labour would even dare suggest even under Corbyn) Secondly, I see this, but at the same time Corbyn was the most vilified politician in the UK in a generation and he still got close to a win with that program. Suppose Corbyn could do that at a point where the Tories were not historically unpopular. In that case, it's clear Starmer could have stuck to his pledges to be "pragmatic continuity Corbyn" and walked this election - most of the actual policies in the 2017 manifesto were highly popular when polled, including with conservative voters.
  - dmje 2y ago
    Agree. I mean - from my point of view there are two glaring issues in this election that are just being coughed aside in a deeply disingenuous way, by all parties (with maybe the exception of the LibDems, a bit): 1) Brexit. For this not to be on the agenda when it has been the most ruinous decision made in the last 10 years of our political history is just ...well, weird at best, totally surreal at worst. Widely recognised [even by many? most?] of those who voted for it as now being a mistake, it just seems insane to leave any discussion off the table. 2) Tax rises. Everyone knows that for our UK standard of living to continue (or even - lol - rise), the money has got to come from somewhere. And that place can only really be taxes. All of the parties seem to be pulling out a magic hat full of magic money - an honest conversation would have all the parties in a room agreeing that someone, somewhere has got to pay for all this stuff. Anyway, wow, gone well off topic. Sorry Dang!
Nursie 2y ago
> In our house I'm of the opinion that Labour should go "Full Left" and be strong and confident about it Unfortunately the UK public doesn't seem to buy into that sort of thing. Sure, a large, vocal minority does, but enough to win an election against the hoards of basically-tory-supporting middle-englanders? Not as far as I can see. Labour has to claim the middle ground to win, at least if it wants to win more than once. The next session is probably in the bag either way.
- n4r9 2y ago
  We've also never before had a party like Reform splitting the right-wing vote in two.
holbrad 2y ago
I really hate this line of thinking. Your blatently encorauging politicians to lie to voters. Campaign on a platform of comprimise and sensible polices to attract moderate voters... And then just completely ignore everything you said you would do... This is the exact opposite of what we should encourage from politics.
- lordnacho 2y ago
  We're constrained by the electoral system. The UK desperately needs PR, and so does a certain former colony.
tim333 2y ago
I'm not sure "get in using whatever means possible" and then switch to policies the voters dislike is terribly democratic.

by dmje 2y ago

GordonS 2y ago

I'm sorry, but I find this kind of ridiculous - Starmer is being pretty clear about the kind of man he is. Fervent capitalist, previous member of the CIA-linked Trilateral Commission, notorious U-turner, War on Drugs(TM) supporter, outright liar, genocide supporter, and absolutely completely beholden to Israel (he has even said he'll put Israel lobbiests into the highest echelons of gov - he's practically a foreign agent at this point). He's telling you who he is, so please believe him - the idea that this man will become PM and then suddenly turn into Jeremy Corbyn is, frankly, delusional. I can understand why someone would want to believe that, but in all likelihood we're just getting more of the same.

Closi 2y ago
People on the whole don't want a Jeremy Corbyn anyway - he led his party to the biggest labour defeat since 1935. Don't know why the labour party would want to replicate that shit-show.
- GordonS 2y ago
  He was smeared with false antisemitism claims, hence the massive defeat. One of those involved in the smearing was... Starmer. Corbyn was never going to be "allowed" to be Prime Minister. Also, listen to his recent interview where he says he was asked by a committee if he would guarantee to be 100% behind any military action instigated by Israel.
  - fathyb 2y ago
    If anybody is interesting in learning more about that smearing campaing: https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files > An investigation based on the largest leak of documents in British political history. The Labour Files examines thousands of internal documents, emails and social media messages to reveal how senior officials in one of the two parties of government in the UK ran a coup by stealth against the elected leader of the party.
    - Closi 2y ago
      Politician smeared during election? Shock horror, it happens during every election. Leader of the party can't unite their own party so there is a plan to oust them? That's politics. Jeremy couldn't particularly unite the party, didn't take the center ground, and while I don't think he was a true antisemite there were enough mis-steps there that it meant that the claim could stick (along with the IRA sympathizer claims).
- vidarh 2y ago
  People on the whole want the policies, though. That even Corbyn - the most vilified British politician of a generation - got that close to a win is a strong demonstration of that. Since then the Tory party support has collapsed to historic lows. A win on a program close in ambition to the 2017 manifesto - which was not in any way radical - should be a walk in the park for someone like Starmer in current conditions if he actually had dared try.
  - GordonS 2y ago
    I think you're right - people are desperate for anything other than the Tories. We have a political environment where the Greens are smeared as "crazies", people remember the Lib Dems for their deception, and mass media has many believing Reform will win if they don't vote for Labour. A Labour win is all but guaranteed, so Starmer doesn't need to be the other cheek of the Monoparty arse - he chooses to be.
    - lambertsimnel 2y ago
      But would the media have abandoned the Conservatives if Labour were offering something much different?
holbrad 2y ago
>Fervent capitalist That isn't the own you think it is. It's the position of every single successful modern state. >genocide supporter Sigh... >suddenly turn into Jeremy Corbyn is, frankly, delusional. Brillant, people voted for him for exactly this reason.
- GordonS 2y ago
  You're being pedantic; we obviously live in a capitalist world, but Starmer is fully inboard with taking orders from corporate overlords (lobbyists) in the same way as the Tories. More balance is needed.
- vidarh 2y ago
  > That isn't the own you think it is. It is, however, a condition of membership under the rules of the UK Labour Party that you are a democratic socialist, and in favour of goals that include democratic socialism. Whether or not you think that is right, it is what Starmer signed up to when he joined. > Brillant, people voted for him for exactly this reason. His pledges when he was elected leader was to largely be "continuity Corbyn". A lot of the Labour membership voted for him for that reason. The extent to which he has been willing to lie and deceive his own party membership to get his position is quite scary given he'll likely be PM soon.
dralley 2y ago
> genocide supporter If Starmer is a "genocide supporter" for being tepidly pro-Israel, then Corbyn is a genocide supporter for his pathetic Russian apologism on Syria and Ukraine. If that's where your line is, then there's no chance Corbyn hasn't crossed it either.
- GordonS 2y ago
  This is pure whataboutism, but to call Starmer - a rabid member of Labour Friends of Israel who has parachuted an Israel lobbyist into a safe seat, and who plans to staff his new government with pro-Israeli stooges - "tepidly pro-Israel" is beyond disingenuous. I'd ask you to consider that the situations in Syria and Ukraine are not nearly as straightforward as the US would have us believe; indeed, the US and Israel are, as usual, the main instigators. Regardless, Corbyn hasn't "crossed any lines" - he certainly hasn't publicly stated that it's OK to cut a civilian population's water supply as collective punishment, for example. Corbyn takes a more considered, nuanced, sensible view on world politics, which unfortunately doesn't play well with our right-wing press's simplistic "good guy, bad guy" gov-sponsored narrative. This is why Corbyn was smeared - he stands up for what's right, even if it means going against the US and Israel.
  - dralley 2y ago
    >he certainly hasn't publicly stated that it's OK to cut a civilian population's water supply as collective punishment, for example neither has Starmer... also this never happened...
    - GordonS 2y ago
      If you're going to rewrite history, and ask me to ignore what I've seen and heard with my own eyes, then this thread has reached it's end. I bid you adieu.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > I'd ask you to consider that the situations in Syria and Ukraine are not nearly as straightforward as the US would have us believe; indeed, the US and Israel are, as usual, the main instigators. OK, you've sounded mostly reasonable in this thread so far, but that came to an abrupt halt here.

Closi 2y ago

Going 'full left' is the exact reason Labour hasn't been in power for 14 years. You are describing the recipe for a one-term government IMO - Elections are won from the center, and moving Left will open a center gap for someone else to claim. The last time a 'full left' Labour government ruled was probably just after the war (i.e. Clement Attlee).

vidarh 2y ago
Firstly Labour went mildly social democratic, offering policies to the right of Nordic conservative parties in some areas. Just to contextualise what "full left" means in this respect. (A concrete example is parental leave, where the Norwegian conservative party is fine with far higher statutory pay than Labour would even dare suggest even under Corbyn) Secondly, I see this, but at the same time Corbyn was the most vilified politician in the UK in a generation and he still got close to a win with that program. Suppose Corbyn could do that at a point where the Tories were not historically unpopular. In that case, it's clear Starmer could have stuck to his pledges to be "pragmatic continuity Corbyn" and walked this election - most of the actual policies in the 2017 manifesto were highly popular when polled, including with conservative voters.
- dmje 2y ago
  Agree. I mean - from my point of view there are two glaring issues in this election that are just being coughed aside in a deeply disingenuous way, by all parties (with maybe the exception of the LibDems, a bit): 1) Brexit. For this not to be on the agenda when it has been the most ruinous decision made in the last 10 years of our political history is just ...well, weird at best, totally surreal at worst. Widely recognised [even by many? most?] of those who voted for it as now being a mistake, it just seems insane to leave any discussion off the table. 2) Tax rises. Everyone knows that for our UK standard of living to continue (or even - lol - rise), the money has got to come from somewhere. And that place can only really be taxes. All of the parties seem to be pulling out a magic hat full of magic money - an honest conversation would have all the parties in a room agreeing that someone, somewhere has got to pay for all this stuff. Anyway, wow, gone well off topic. Sorry Dang!

Nursie 2y ago

> In our house I'm of the opinion that Labour should go "Full Left" and be strong and confident about it Unfortunately the UK public doesn't seem to buy into that sort of thing. Sure, a large, vocal minority does, but enough to win an election against the hoards of basically-tory-supporting middle-englanders? Not as far as I can see. Labour has to claim the middle ground to win, at least if it wants to win more than once. The next session is probably in the bag either way.

n4r9 2y ago
We've also never before had a party like Reform splitting the right-wing vote in two.

holbrad 2y ago

I really hate this line of thinking. Your blatently encorauging politicians to lie to voters. Campaign on a platform of comprimise and sensible polices to attract moderate voters... And then just completely ignore everything you said you would do... This is the exact opposite of what we should encourage from politics.

lordnacho 2y ago
We're constrained by the electoral system. The UK desperately needs PR, and so does a certain former colony.

tim333 2y ago

I'm not sure "get in using whatever means possible" and then switch to policies the voters dislike is terribly democratic.