[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Gwylan]

Agree, the extremes on both sides are dangerous however this current period is the first that I can recall of the far right of the conservatives dominating the party as much as this. It'll come home to roost at the next election. Problem for Labour will be if the far left then try to undermine Starmer's government from day 1 with unrealistic demands.

There are a couple of big differences though. Firstly, there's no-one who could be called far left in the ranks of the shadow cabinet, so they're a long way from the sphere of influence. That's in sharp contrast to the Tories, who have promoted the likes of Braverman to the front bench and where 30p Lee is a vice-chairman.

Secondly, the Labour party has centralised selection of candidates and has over-ruled many who have been too centrist. Again, this is in sharp contrast to the Tories who expelled many of their more moderate MPs. Politicians like Grieve, Gauke and Stewart would probably be an asset in attracting the middle ground but they're in the wilderness.

There is one area of uncertainty and that's the potential large swing to Labour. That could mean a lot of candidates who weren't expected to win becoming MPs. That's how we've ended up with the likes of 30p Lee, Gullis, Bradley, Clarke-Smith, Benton and others. There may well be a few oddballs who end up as Labour MPs but I'm not there'd be enough to make a difference.

 

[Brian Fantana]

I'd say his route to Number 10 is pretty wide open. Taking at a look at the current voting intentions, according to published opinion polls, if there was a General Election tomorrow then Labour would win a majority of c250.

 

[Weststander]

Try growing up with two TV channels, both in black and white. Telephones were on a cord, in a home, if you were lucky, or a public phone box, which usually stank of something unspeakable or had been vandalised. Families had one car, if they could afford it and the husband usually took that to work, leaving the wife to get around by foot or public transport. There was no self-service. In garages, a mechanic ( proper bloke in a boiler suit, carrying an oily rag ) came out and filled up your car. He would also ask if you wanted your oil and water checked. Grocery stores had marble counters and people in white aprons serving you. Shoppers carried wicker baskets, which had to hold a few days worth of provisions. Sugar was loose in a sack. Butter cut off a large pat and wrapped in greaseproof. Bacon sliced off a whole side. A lot of homes had no refrigeration. Pantries, with air bricks. Some more remote areas were served by mobile grocery vans.
Kids made their own way to school. Lots of walking. Bit of bus. Bit of train. No instant reference points ( google etc ) The public library was where you found things out. No calculators. No computers. No credit cards. No credit ( unless you bought on tic and paid weekly on the doorstep ) A lot of youngsters couldn't afford a car. If you didn't have the cash saved, you went without.
Workers had a two week summer break plus bank holidays, almost always spent in the UK. 70 degrees F was considered lovely warm weather. A lot of homes had no heating ( no radiators ) An open fire or a warm kitchen. That was it. In school holidays, kids left the house after breakfast and came back at tea-time. There were no search parties out looking for them.
Political leaning was fairly clearly defined. There were 240 pennies in a pound and the cheapest sweets cost one farthing....a quarter of an old penny....1/960th of a pound. Five years of current BHA season ticket prices would buy you a decent house.
There were men and women, boys and girls and footballers had greased down hair with centre partings. Things were different. Not better or worse just different. The advancements have been spectacular and amazing. We have to think less. More is provided and done for us now, although many still feel they are hard done by.
I hanker for some of the past. I relish some of the present and I definitely worry about some of the future.

 

[Weststander]

Agree, the extremes on both sides are dangerous however this current period is the first that I can recall of the far right of the conservatives dominating the party as much as this. It'll come home to roost at the next election. Problem for Labour will be if the far left then try to undermine Starmer's government from day 1 with unrealistic demands.

 

[jcdenton08]

Starmer has done a superb job of managing the far left out. It’s why they’re in such a superb position and going to absolutely walk the next election. Let’s be honest, Corbyn was unelectable and even with the current shitshow from a corrupt Tory government, he’d likely still lose if he was running.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Starmer has done a superb job of managing the far left out. It’s why they’re in such a superb position and going to absolutely walk the next election. Let’s be honest, Corbyn was unelectable and even with the current shitshow from a corrupt Tory government, he’d likely still lose if he was running.

Far from being 'managed out' there are 30 or so in the Socialist Campaign Group biding their time.

Whatever the majority Starmer wins, he shall rely upon these types despite them not being in the Cabinet.

 

[Gwylan]

Far from being 'managed out' there are 30 or so in the Socialist Campaign Group biding their time.

Whatever the majority Starmer wins, he shall rely upon these types despite them not being in the Cabinet.

What utter nonsense. 30 MPs will have absolutely no effect. In fact, I'd doubt whether 130 would have any effect (and certainly wouldn't with the majority that's being mooted).

As i pointed out earlier, there's been a huge difference in the way the two major parties have treated MPs out of line with leadership: the Tories have been booting out the centrists, who may have sided with Labour and LDs on some issues, while Labour has been sidelining those on the left. A rump of far-left MPs will not be teaming up with right-wing Conservatives to cause problems to a Labour government.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Try growing up with two TV channels, both in black and white. Telephones were on a cord, in a home, if you were lucky, or a public phone box, which usually stank of something unspeakable or had been vandalised. Families had one car, if they could afford it and the husband usually took that to work, leaving the wife to get around by foot or public transport. There was no self-service. In garages, a mechanic ( proper bloke in a boiler suit, carrying an oily rag ) came out and filled up your car. He would also ask if you wanted your oil and water checked. Grocery stores had marble counters and people in white aprons serving you. Shoppers carried wicker baskets, which had to hold a few days worth of provisions. Sugar was loose in a sack. Butter cut off a large pat and wrapped in greaseproof. Bacon sliced off a whole side. A lot of homes had no refrigeration. Pantries, with air bricks. Some more remote areas were served by mobile grocery vans.
Kids made their own way to school. Lots of walking. Bit of bus. Bit of train. No instant reference points ( google etc ) The public library was where you found things out. No calculators. No computers. No credit cards. No credit ( unless you bought on tic and paid weekly on the doorstep ) A lot of youngsters couldn't afford a car. If you didn't have the cash saved, you went without.
Workers had a two week summer break plus bank holidays, almost always spent in the UK. 70 degrees F was considered lovely warm weather. A lot of homes had no heating ( no radiators ) An open fire or a warm kitchen. That was it. In school holidays, kids left the house after breakfast and came back at tea-time. There were no search parties out looking for them.
Political leaning was fairly clearly defined. There were 240 pennies in a pound and the cheapest sweets cost one farthing....a quarter of an old penny....1/960th of a pound. Five years of current BHA season ticket prices would buy you a decent house.
There were men and women, boys and girls and footballers had greased down hair with centre partings. Things were different. Not better or worse just different. The advancements have been spectacular and amazing. We have to think less. More is provided and done for us now, although many still feel they are hard done by.
I hanker for some of the past. I relish some of the present and I definitely worry about some of the future.

I grew up with my grandmother. Her "what the world used to be like when I was a child" stories included running to a bomb shelter with her baby brother in her arms while explosions were going off all around.

Seriously though, bar a few details what you describe was still the same world I was born into, and vaguely remember in the first few years of my life.
The internet and mobile phones etc. have totally altered how we live and how our brains work. I have absolutely no idea what it's like growing up now, while my upbringing was broadly comparable to somebody born 30-40years earlier, with a few mod-cons tacked on.

 

[Is it PotG?]

What utter nonsense. 30 MPs will have absolutely no effect. In fact, I'd doubt whether 130 would have any effect (and certainly wouldn't with the majority that's being mooted).

As i pointed out earlier, there's been a huge difference in the way the two major parties have treated MPs out of line with leadership: the Tories have been booting out the centrists, who may have sided with Labour and LDs on some issues, while Labour has been sidelining those on the left. A rump of far-left MPs will not be teaming up with right-wing Conservatives to cause problems to a Labour government.

Quite a complacent view when you look at the grief caused to May by ERG and DUP.

Let's see how large the majority is, and how long it holds together.

 

[Gwylan]

Quite a complacent view when you look at the grief caused to May by ERG and DUP.

Let's see how large the majority is, and how long it holds together.

You're now changing the situation. All governments that try to govern without a majority are going to have some sort of difficulty, that was the case with the Callaghan government as well as May's.

But you were talking about a Labour majority not a minority - they're not remotely comparable.

However, if May had got a majority, she'd still have struggled because she was governing a Eurosceptic party in a house that was broadly pro-European. Which is why she was eventually voted out.

There's no comparison with Starmer. For the third time: the Tories have moved steadily rightwards, removing the centrist members; Labour has done the reverse so Starmer is not leading a party where he's at odds with the membership.

If he doesn't get a majority, then he's going to be in some difficulty - but I don't think it would be from the left - but any majority should see him safe. What can left wingers do? Push for more immigration? More nationalisation? HIgher taxes? How on earth do you see Tory MPs rushing to support measures like that?

 

[A1X]

Far from being 'managed out' there are 30 or so in the Socialist Campaign Group biding their time.

Whatever the majority Starmer wins, he shall rely upon these types despite them not being in the Cabinet.

This is only true if the majority is around 60, the further above 60 it goes the less influence they will have

 

[Gwylan]

This is only true if the majority is around 60

But how? What common cause will they have with a Tory party that's moved increasingly right? What issue will unite the likes of Burgon and Abbott with Braverman and Truss?

 

[A1X]

But how? What common cause will they have with a Tory party that's moved increasingly right? What issue will unite the likes of Burgon and Abbott with Braverman and Truss?

The awkward squad will always find a way to justify it to themselves. No non-Conservative MP has ever voted with the Conservatives as often as Jeremy Corbyn .

 

[Gwylan]

The awkward squad will always find a way to justify it to themselves. No non-Conservative MP has ever voted with the Conservatives as often as Jeremy Corbyn .

Yes, that's true. But he's also had the whip removed - an indication of the much tougher policy under Starmer.

Of course, it's true that an MP who has had the whip removed can still cause problems. And if you look at his votes against, they are nearly all on terrorism and/or security issues, where he's not so much siding with the Tories as being completely at odds with them (ie measures are too extreme when Tories say they're not extreme enough).

And yes, it's a fair point that issues like that could cause difficulties but they didn't for Blair/Brown because they had thumping majorities. If Starmer has a thumping majority then it won't cause an issue but if it's a slim one then the vote will be managed better. They will either take on board the Tories' concerns or the left-wingers' and modify the Bill accordingly. I know which way I'd bet.

 

[Weststander]

Yes, that's true. But he's also had the whip removed - an indication of the much tougher policy under Starmer.

Of course, it's true that an MP who has had the whip removed can still cause problems. And if you look at his votes against, they are nearly all on terrorism and/or security issues, where he's not so much siding with the Tories as being completely at odds with them (ie measures are too extreme when Tories say they're not extreme enough).

And yes, it's a fair point that issues like that could cause difficulties but they didn't for Blair/Brown because they had thumping majorities. If Starmer has a thumping majority then it won't cause an issue but if it's a slim one then the vote will be managed better. They will either take on board the Tories' concerns or the left-wingers' and modify the Bill accordingly. I know which way I'd bet.

As well as voting against finance bills and repeatedly against pro-EEC/EC/EU bills, for example: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/oliver-huitson/jeremy-corbyn-eu_b_9689982.html

 

[Gwylan]

As well as voting against finance bills and repeatedly against pro-EEC/EC/EU bills, for example: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/oliver-huitson/jeremy-corbyn-eu_b_9689982.html

Starmer has repeatedly said that there are no plans to rejoin the EU. Have you been asleep for the past two years?

As for Finance Bills, there won't be any common cause with Tories. He'd have been voting for more taxation/higher public spending, not something that the Tories will be supporting.

Besides, Corbyn won't be an MP in the next parliament

 

[Is it PotG?]

Starmer has repeatedly said that there are no plans to rejoin the EU. Have you been asleep for the past two years?

As for Finance Bills, there won't be any common cause with Tories. He'd have been voting for more taxation/higher public spending, not something that the Tories will be supporting.

Besides, Corbyn won't be an MP in the next parliament

Serious question, do you really think that the hard left have just disappeared, or are keeping their powder dry for a later date?

How important do you think Starmer regards the Unions support?

 

[Weststander]

Starmer has repeatedly said that there are no plans to rejoin the EU. Have you been asleep for the past two years?

As for Finance Bills, there won't be any common cause with Tories. He'd have been voting for more taxation/higher public spending, not something that the Tories will be supporting.

Besides, Corbyn won't be an MP in the next parliament

My point is that the EU we (almost) all loved, was attacked by Corbyn throughout. His anti Labour voting record was just confined to social security and anti terrorism legislation, he was no Frank Field.

Personally, I wasn’t talking about him ever aligning with Tories.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Far from being 'managed out' there are 30 or so in the Socialist Campaign Group biding their time.

Whatever the majority Starmer wins, he shall rely upon these types despite them not being in the Cabinet.

Over the years, even on NSC, there really hasn't been many better examples of how fine the line is between 'desperate' and 'ridiculous'

 

[Gwylan]

Serious question, do you really think that the hard left have just disappeared, or are keeping their powder dry for a later date?

How important do you think Starmer regards the Unions support?

I think that question depends on a variety of factors - this will be a long answer.

First of all, how do you define hard left? The Socialist Campaign Group? Momentum? Or what?
It's a very fluid definition. I've seen Lloyd Russell Moyle, one of our local MPs, described as far left. He's a member of the Open Labour group, which certainly wouldn't be seen as far left by the likes of Momentum but would be seen as raging Marxists by many Tory members. In fact, if you read the Telegraph, Starmer himself is well on the far left.

Then there are changes over time. The Tribune group in Labour was always seen as the far left of the party but Starmer is a member, so the idea that it's any sort of far left group is for the birds.

And do you include groups like Socialist Appeal, which used to be in the Labour Party but have been expelled for anti-semitism. Do they still have an influence?

It's also idealistic to think that these groups work together. Once upon a time, I was an elected union official and the grief I got from different left wing factions acting against each other far exceeded anything I got from employers. The Monty Python Judean Popular Front sketch has it bang on.

What do you mean by "keeping their powder dry"? These groups are always agitating on various issues. Sometimes they'll have success but only if it's been picked up by a mainstream group. I don't see how they've disappeared: these groups have always been here but never really influential. There was a lot of talk about Momentum but even at their peak, they accounted for about 9 to 10% of the Labour Party. The two groups that have had some influence were the aforementioned Tribune and the Militant faction - now expelled.

As for unions. They're often (but not always) seen as on the right of the party. It's fanciful to think of unions as being in the vanguard of revolution - they're looking after the members and that's always at the forefront of union leaders' minds. If they can effect political change: great, but members' pay and conditions come first. Starmer knows that. And the Labour Party is certainly not going to get heavy with its paymasters.

And to go back to the idea that they can cause grief to a government with a low majority. I'm not convinced that they can - they wont' always have the same view and, even if they do, they may not consider it the same way. Some people may think it's worthwhile voting against policy x, some may think it's not worth getting heavy about it and abstain; some may agree with the policy and vote for it.

Consider this: the second Major government had a wafer thin majority but lost only six votes in five years (the last two, when it had lost its majority). The four votes it lost as a majority party were all on Europe. Starmer is keen to neutralise Europe as a bone of contention, if he does that, I can't see where a Labour government will lose a vote - what other issue is going to unite the Tories and the likes of Burgon and Abbott?