Is Keir really credible?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Don't have a vote in the UK - my daughter does though - she is in Croydon North and won't be voting for the Blairite MP in the constituency.

Does she plan to vote conservative, or waste her vote on a fringe candidate who cannot possibly win? Either way that would be a vote for the conservatives.

You lot remind me of religious devotees, who instead of wading to sea to save the drowning man (nation) elect to kneel and pray. I do not approve. Not that you'll mind what I think. No compromise with the electorate, and all that.

A shame, because I imagine we agree on 99% of what constitutes being a good person.

 

[Weststander]

It doesn't though - the reason the LP is currently so high in the polls is because the Tories are imploding - not because of Starmer.

As I already pointed out - a majority of the people in the UK support the left-wing polices advocated by Corbyn - not the polices advocated by Starmer. All you have to do is look at the LP conference last week where Starmer attempted to out-Tory the Tories by hyping up monarchism and British nationalism.

On that very last point the LP conference was just paying respect to a person/constant admired by the majority of Brits. For obvious reasons, you’ll never understand that quirk of culture here, let’s respect that difference. Looking specifically at Starmer’s Labour doing that, it was a prudent act. To win general elections in conservative England specifically, the average voter isn’t interested in class war gestures and is gently patriotic (which nation isn’t?). Instead voters think about household finances, the NHS, schools.

The generic Corbyn/McDonnell shopping list they polled in autumn in 2019 was popular on a item by item basis, but then people also said that they didn’t believe it was affordable as a whole and they didn’t want tax rises. They didn’t believe that only those earning more than £123k would face greater taxes to pay for the shopping list.

This votable LP is 27 months away from gaining power, we don’t have any idea of the manifesto yet, where’s the certainty coming from that they’ll be ‘Red Tories’?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Seriously - a pro-Blairite Zionist paper - and the article only refers to people expelled for allegedly holding anti-semitic views. I personally know more than 300 people that have been expelled from the LP since Corbyn was shafted (some for the crime of attending a public meeting). Through much of 2021 more than 1,000 members were being expelled every week. Entire groups like @Resist', 'Socialist Appeal', Labour Against the Witchhunt' etc were proscribed and their supporters summarily expelled.


I don't have a problem with people holding different political views to myself and I am willing and able to debate with any opposing political view - but to accuse me of 'giving succour to the Tories' because I point out that Starmer is a pale pink tory in New Labour clothing is nonsense.

Furthermore - to accuse me of having a 'twisted and partial world view' without ever presenting evidence to prove your accusation - really is a bit much. If I hold such a view then it should be easy for you to demonstrate such - instead of just tossing insults around.


I have been accused of worse - see above

Here is the problem - the evidence contradicts your assertion - and I notice that you refer to 'England' and not the UK (a bit of English nationalism coming through there perhaps)

'England' voted for a Labour landslide in 1945 when the LP put forward a radical left-wing programme that led to the establishment of the NHS, free education and the welfare state. 'England' didn't vote for a 'left of centre LP' during the height of the deeply unpopular Thatcher years - 'England' voted for the Blair governments because the Tories were so mired in scandal, corruption and a collapsing economy that Screaming Lord Sutch could have beaten them - and then the Blairites became mired in the same corruptiona dn scandal (as well as engaging in war crimes) that they allowed the Tories back in.

Left-wing LP candidates have a long tradition of increasing the LP vote when the so-called 'left of centre LP' candidates were losing votes to the Tories. The Corbyn led LP won more votes than any other labour leader since 1966 with the exception of the first election win by Blair in 1997 (when - like I said - Screaming Lord Sutch could have beaten the Tories if he was leading the LP) - and this was despite the Blairites, including Starmer, doing everything in their power to sabotage the LP election campaign. Furthermore - the left-wing policies put forward by Corbyn are increasingly popular among a majority of the British population - renationalisation of energy supply - renationalisation of water - renationalisation of the railways - renationalisation of the Royal Mail - increased minimum wage - increased taxation of those earning more than £100K - a wealth tax - reduction of inequality - increased spending on public servies - scrapping of student debt - etc - indeed many of these policies are supported by a majority of Tory voters (see YouGov reports)

I do not want to see a Tory government in power - in part because of the potential damage it could do to Ireland - and by Tory I mean the Starmer version of pale pink toryism as well as the Truss version. Indeed - it could not be ruled out that the tories could completely implode and 'New Labour' could become the main political representative of the rich elites and oligarchs in British society.



I think you should try reading what I actually wrote - and clearly you have no idea about the reaction of Kyle's comments in the North and the reaction in the different communites on the ground in Belfast and elsewhere.

And by 1951 it was voted out despite the great work it had done. It would be another 13 years until Labour got into government again, which was ended by 1970. The longest Labour has ever held power was 97 to 2010.

We’ve been ****ed by the LP not defeating Cameron in 2015 - on a manifesto not too dissimilar to Corbyn’s in 2017. Where was this electorate flocking to these policies then?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The LP membership went from 190K to almost 600K after Corbyn was elected leader - the current LP membership is 'officially' 417K - and falling rapidly - as has been linked, the membership has fallen by 90,000 in the past 12 months - with many of those actually being expelled because they hold left-wing views - for example, the expulsion of 71-year-old Audrey White (a lifelong activist and trade unionist who I know personally) who was expelled for daring to challenge Starmer publicly over his expulsion of LP members while he was on a visit to Liverpool - she was 'expelled' four days later by letter from the LP NEC without any hearing, any appeal etc (i.e. against the LP's own rules). Starmer's leadership had previously attempted to expel her over false calims of anti-semitism in the Jewish Chronicle, who subsequently paid her substantial damages over the false accusations - this time they didn't even give an excuse, simply informing her that she had been expelled six months earlier (even though they still continued to deduct her membership dues from her bank account).


Oh bullsh*t


I don't want to impose anything on anyone - I have campaigned my entire life to convince people of the necessity for a democratically planned socialised economy


Effectiely Britain has a dictatorship in policy terms - there is little to distinguish a Starmer government from the Tories (with the exception of the nuttier soundbites from Truss) - the best thing Starmer could do is keep his mouth shut - but he is not capable of doing that.


Starmer isn't winning any election - just like with Blair, the Tories are self-imploding and there is nothing left on the political landscape except the pale pink Tories. That is why Corbyn throwing his weight being the Enough is Enough campaign would have a major impact. a political party based on Enough is Enough with Corbyn as leader would grow to a membership of 250K within weeks because working class people would see it as a real alternative. Instead working class people are likely to stay away from the polls in droves.

If Corbyn was so good, it’s astounding that Johnson won the last election with such a stunning majority!

Your dismissing of the Jewish News as “Zionist” hints at anti-semitism.

(Edit: PS I have no idea of the stance of the Jewish News on anything - but having scanned the article, it looked fairly straightforward.)

And yes, the Tory Party is imploding, but Starmer is also being accepted as a credible leader. Anybody who listened to his Conference speech on Monday can surely not say that he doesn’t have any policies. And there is a stark contrast between the disappearance of the levelling-up agenda from the Tory agenda, which BoJo only toyed with anyway, and the commitment to do things for the people of this country under a potential Labour government.

Whatever anybody thought of Blair, the country was a better place and people had more chance under him. Starmer is a good and serious operator with experience of actually doing and achieving things, while Corbyn is just a serial protester who would not have known what to do had he got in to power.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It doesn't though - the reason the LP is currently so high in the polls is because the Tories are imploding - not because of Starmer.

As I already pointed out - a majority of the people in the UK support the left-wing polices advocated by Corbyn - not the polices advocated by Starmer. All you have to do is look at the LP conference last week where Starmer attempted to out-Tory the Tories by hyping up monarchism and British nationalism.

You seem to be a lot angrier than most of NSC's most ardent Johnson/Truss supporting Conservatives, that Labour are doing so well in the polls

 

[Barnet Seagull]

Truth is we can never really know how good Corbyn would have been. For most moderates he was a step too far despite policies which werent actually that far left. Unfortunately he was tarnished by being an activist and having strong beliefs. A strange slur given the lack of integrity and authenticity of the conservatives but MSM went after him and his responses didnt inspire confidence especially amongst the older generations.

On Starmer, yes he is a centrist but this is what is needed to change the conversation. If he and Labour can manage the economy and deliver changes to voting there may well be no way back for the Torys. This ought to provide a mandate to deliver some of the more left wing policies.

Evolution, not revolution is the answer.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

On that very last point the LP conference was just paying respect to a person/constant admired by the majority of Brits. For obvious reasons, you’ll never understand that quirk of culture here, let’s respect that difference. Looking specifically at Starmer’s Labour doing that, it was a prudent act. To win general elections in conservative England specifically, the average voter isn’t interested in class war gestures and is gently patriotic (which nation isn’t?). Instead voters think about household finances, the NHS, schools.

The generic Corbyn/McDonnell shopping list they polled in autumn in 2019 was popular on a item by item basis, but then people also said that they didn’t believe it was affordable as a whole and they didn’t want tax rises. They didn’t believe that only those earning more than £123k would face greater taxes to pay for the shopping list.

This votable LP is 27 months away from gaining power, we don’t have any idea of the manifesto yet, where’s the certainty coming from that they’ll be ‘Red Tories’?

Don't imagine you can derail a perverse narrative with so-called facts.

Look, Corbyn and his policies are the most successful and popular in the history of politics. They had the biggest haul of votes ever.

Er, there are many complex reasons why we ended up with a tory government, why Corbyn resigned, and why Starmer became leader. It is all very complicated, yet simple, and JRG has explained it many many times.

Israel and red tories were behind it all. Those pesky Jews, many, many of whom actually back Corbyn, were mostly behind the plot to overthrow Corbyn. It is all completely logical and if you can't understand it, this is a reflection of how you have been brainwashed by the conspiracy.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Truth is we can never really know how good Corbyn would have been. For most moderates he was a step too far despite policies which werent actually that far left. Unfortunately he was tarnished by being an activist and having strong beliefs. A strange slur given the lack of integrity and authenticity of the conservatives but MSM went after him and his responses didnt inspire confidence especially amongst the older generations.

On Starmer, yes he is a centrist but this is what is needed to change the conversation. If he and Labour can manage the economy and deliver changes to voting there may well be no way back for the Torys. This ought to provide a mandate to deliver some of the more left wing policies.

Evolution, not revolution is the answer.

Quite.

He could have been good. Clean slate and all that. But he would have needed to have had some nous.

The two big issues he had to deal with in the minds of a skeptical element, mostly right of centre, are these.

1. He needed a strong, confident and consistent explanation why he and others, when powerless opposition back benchers, made a point of meeting members of the IRA shortly after the Brighton bombing. I could have written a script for him. But, no, he was patronizing and tetchy when asked about this. The rat started to whiff.

2. He needed to condemn antisemitism by name and not use the 'I abhor all forms of discrimination' mantra, and not stare people in the eye like they were fools when he was tackled on this. And act when necessary, not sit on his hands while Momentum went around burning the Israeli flag (metaphorically).

But no. As the weeks went by I started thinking 'hang on. What's wrong with the man? Is he hell bent on alienating middle Britain? He's weird. I'm OUT!'.

I should add that the Israel/Jewish issue is most peculiar. I resigned from my union when, a year ago, it passed its one and only major motion, to boycott Israel, Israel universities, Israeli good, Israeli publications, and anyone who deals with Israel. My union has over 1000 local members. The motion was passed by a vote of around 25 to 3. That's 30 people voting, not a percentage. The motion was sponsored by a Palestinian 'academic' who does research on the mistreatment of Palestinians by Jews. Meanwhile, in Iran, China, Zimbabwe, Russia and elsewhere, the leaderships are not singled out for criticism, let alone boycott, by my union. If singling out and picking on Israel is not antisemitism, with or without it being underwritten by an anti Jewish and Pro-Palestine narrative, I don't know what is. Well, it smells like antisemitism, even if it is merely extreme naivety. But who wants an extremely naive leadership?

If these people were genuinely even-handed and condemned the disgusting behaviour elsewhere, including in the 'Muslim' world, one wouldn't think that the Corbyn left isn't a petty, antisemitic, terrorist supporting rabble of former polytechnic lecturers. Where is the condemnation of the woman recently murdered by the Islamic thought police in Iran? My former union is keeping a 'dignified' silence.

Luckily the commy left in Labour are now a powerless anachronism. They squeal about Starmer expelling 'hundreds of people I know'. Well, good. Ta ra!

 

[Gwylan]

Truth is we can never really know how good Corbyn would have been. For most moderates he was a step too far despite policies which werent actually that far left.

Yes, that's the thing about the last election: the Labour policies were broadly popular (and as I pointed out at the time, far from being far left, were not dissimilar to those adopted by the centre-right CDU in Germany).

The election hinged on two things. First, the popularity of the leaders and here Corbyn's activist image counted against him, while Johnson was seen as a bit of a laugh (I'm not sure why that is seen as a good thing for a PM, but I appear to be in the minority there).
Second, there was Brexit, which massively distorted the vote. The supreme irony here was that Corbyn was a long term Eurosceptic, while Johnson broadly supported the EU and had written articles saying why we should be in it.

It was a very strange election, one that political scientists will ponder over for some time. The question is: was that election an outlier and things will revert to the status quo and has it permanently changed things and have Labour 'safe seats' now become marginals (and could Tory safe seats go the same way)?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Here is the problem - the evidence contradicts your assertion - and I notice that you refer to 'England' and not the UK (a bit of English nationalism coming through there perhaps)

.

Incorrect - no nationalism from me - I specifically referred to England as Scotland certainly would (and currently have) elected a socialist Govt.

 

[Berty23]

I don’t understand those quoting membership numbers. The last time I checked you won an election by getting votes from the general population. Did I miss the bit where it became about the number of members? The very left wonder why centrist people would not support corbyn but then without any irony think it’s okay to abuse starmer. Who is it that calls him Keith? Might it be that centrists are that. They have a grey view rather than a black and white one? It doesn’t mean they should be attacked for it. The worst stuff I ever see on Facebook about starmer is from former labour members who say they could never vote for him. They attack him more than they attack the tories. They don’t appreciate that a vote for someone with no chance might as well be a vote for the tories. Starmer might not be perfect for them but surely he is better than Truss?

To win an election as a labour leader you have to be pragmatic and win the centre ground. I find it incredible that otherwise intelligent people would rather labour lose than them have to compromise on their view.

Yes starmer is pretty boring and a serious person but it is a serious job.

 

[Bozza]

It should be a tap-in from here that even someone utterly incompetent couldn't miss.

Then we remember this is the Labour Party. Possibly the greatest election losing machine the world has ever seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdK2sZjMnw

 

[Giraffe]

I think Keir is very good, my concern is for those behind him which is what ultimately let Blair down in the end.

However I think Labour missed a trick not getting Andy Burnham involved. He has the perfect combination of old and new labour with a huge and very believable conviction. Keir's failing is he is very London centric and comes across as such. Burnham would really move people I think.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think Keir is very good, my concern is for those behind him which is what ultimately let Blair down in the end.

However I think Labour missed a trick not getting Andy Burnham involved. He has the perfect combination of old and new labour with a huge and very believable conviction. Keir's failing is he is very London centric and comes across as such. Burnham would really move people I think.

Andy Burnham unfortunately appears to have been unlucky with timing. Not enough known about him in 2010, too much association with previous leaderships by 2015. His political gravitas has been greatly increased as Mayor of Manchester and being 'King of the North', but unfortunately that also means he's no longer an MP.

 

[stewart12]

whatever you think of Starmer, and I'm quite indifferent....he's taken a party who got absolutely hammered in an election TWO YEARS AGO...to the point where numerous posters on here labelled them "done" and "irrelevent"

regardless of how he's achieved it they are now almost nailed on to win an election

quite impressive

 

[rogersix]

I think Keir is very good, my concern is for those behind him which is what ultimately let Blair down in the end.

However I think Labour missed a trick not getting Andy Burnham involved. He has the perfect combination of old and new labour with a huge and very believable conviction. Keir's failing is he is very London centric and comes across as such. Burnham would really move people I think.

so you're voting labour next time?

 

[Super Steve Earle]

I think Keir is very good, my concern is for those behind him which is what ultimately let Blair down in the end.

However I think Labour missed a trick not getting Andy Burnham involved. He has the perfect combination of old and new labour with a huge and very believable conviction. Keir's failing is he is very London centric and comes across as such. Burnham would really move people I think.

Is that the Burnham who said something along the lines (no pun intended) that Manchester needed more support and money for it's rail issues than Brighton, when Brighton commuters were on their knees? He lost me again at that point. Support your constituency, but don't talk bollocks!

 

[Machiavelli]

whatever you think of Starmer, and I'm quite indifferent....he's taken a party who got absolutely hammered in an election TWO YEARS AGO...to the point where numerous posters on here labelled them "done" and "irrelevent"

regardless of how he's achieved it they are now almost nailed on to win an election

quite impressive

Fair enough. I'd add that he's had some help in this turnaround.

 

[stewart12]

Fair enough. I'd add that he's had some help in this turnaround.

he undoubtedly has yes

 

[Bold Seagull]

Is that the Burnham who said something along the lines (no pun intended) that Manchester needed more support and money for it's rail issues than Brighton, when Brighton commuters were on their knees? He lost me again at that point. Support your constituency, but don't talk bollocks!

Are you an expert on the issues of Manchester railways then?