| Labour/Starmer 13:32 - Jul 23 with 8595 views | DJR |
The last thread about Labour got pulled but it didn't run its course, so fingers crossed.
The comments below the line on this article are overwhelmingly hostile to Labour/Starmer, and these are Guardian readers.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/23/labour-stumble-uxbridge-sh
I read in the Times today that Labour's Director of Strategy, Deborah Mattinson is behind the volte face on ULEZ, but she is a polling/PR guru with an apparent obsession with the Red Wall, having written a book about it. And it looks like she is behind the rightward drift of Labour more generally.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-tensions-labour-
My view is that the loss in Uxbridge was down more to a lack of enthusiasm for Labour, rather than ULEZ (something Ben Kentish on LBC thought too) but it is convenient to blame ULEZ, and throw Sadiq Khan under a bus, because it takes the heat off any inadequacies of Labour, whether in relation to its campaign in Uxbridge or the Labour offering more generally. I might add that Mattinson has, according to the Times, been at war for some months with Khan over ULEZ, so is no doubt seizing on this as the reason for defeat to strengthen her side of the argument.
The problem it seems to me is that pursuing the Red Wall to the point of obsession merely ends up with voters in other parts of the country, or in other demographics, feeling totally underwhelmed by Labour, which brings with it the risk of apathy and low turnout for Labour, something that a voter in Uxbridge suggested was the case. After all, it is very surprising, after all that Johnson has done, for there not to have been a much bigger backlash there against the Tories.
[Post edited 23 Jul 2023 13:37]
|  | | |  |
| Labour/Starmer on 21:56 - Jul 23 with 1919 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Labour/Starmer on 21:17 - Jul 23 by Mullet |
I think there's little saving Sadiq Khan from the bus as it were. The levels of bile, racism and outright lies he's tarred with over everything means the noise around him is deceptive. In the same way we are told Londoners absolutely loved Boris, when the reality was much of the commentary came from non-Londoners etc.
Starmer has to appeal to those who might not vote Labour every time. The petulance and division of the self-proclaimed "left" of the supporters who still can't accept Corbyn was a sh1t leader are very tedious.
Whilst I don't think KS has played a blinder at every turn, he's dealing with an opposition who are so genuinely unhinged it's hard to entirely know what to make of them. What he has done which is incredibly clever is not give them too many soundbites or sound footholds with which to attack him with any credibility.
For all the "smear" crybabying done by the Corbynistas, it's laughable they don't recognise Keir has been smart enough not to play into the hands of the media and the cranks and become easily dismissed or styled as the "hard left" threat like Jezza was. People couldn't dream of a non-Tory dynasty for decades after 2019, yet he's been there picking at threads every PMQ as the Boris sh1theap came tumbling down.
Just having a Labour government will be massive for this country. Hurtling from the far-right Tory mess we are in to the exact opposite would be a disaster. It will need managing carefully and bridgebuilding across the electorate thanks to all the robbery and corruption allowed in the past decade and a bit. |
You looking forward to a Starmer/Reeves pay rise? |  |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 23:50 - Jul 23 with 1872 views | BlueBadger |
| Labour/Starmer on 19:13 - Jul 23 by GlasgowBlue |
Yep. At best he was thought of as a Kinnock type figure. Now he has gone from Kinnock, John Smith to Tony Blair in just two years.
On a side note, rumour has it your new boss is going to be Michael Gove. Bet you're thrilled. |
Gove is too much of a self obsessed weasel to take up health because he knows it would basically rule him out of ever becoming PM because 1 - no-one likes Tory health ministers and 2 - no-one likes him in general. |  |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 00:55 - Jul 24 with 1841 views | Oldsmoker |
Somehow, the Tory Transport minister Grant Shapps has convinced everyone that Sadiq Khan is a bad,bad man as he is expanding the ULEZ zone.
Shapps seems to have glossed over the TfL deal that was done during Covid where Shapps insisted that the ULEZ zone was expanded. There's a letter and everything. Khan is just carrying out his part of the deal that got TfL funding through the Covid years where numbers travelling on Tube and Bus was severely reduced.
https://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2021/10/27/transport-secretary-criticises-u
So it's the evil Tories to blame for ULEZ not Khan.
Oh, by the way. the initial ULEZ scheme was proposed by Mayor Johnson when he was in office and mandated by his zero-carbon policy when he was PM.
So, ULEZ is 100% Tory policy and Khan is just carrying out his orders.
It baffles me why Starmer, Khan and Labour never mentioned it. |  |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 07:23 - Jul 24 with 1793 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Labour/Starmer on 15:14 - Jul 23 by DJR |
They did in Selby and Somerton and Frome, where they each got about 3.4% of the vote.
I imagine they are the sort of people who once voted for UKIP, and supported Johnson, and they may be a bit peed off at the moment, so less inclined to vote. But I imagine they would vote Tory, if they voted at all, and could well be stirred up to vote Tory again at the next election, unless the Tories completely self-destruct. |
Well yes, obviously if you just completely ignore the polls and actual election results and instead make up your own results, then Labour are doing awfully and are on course to get absolutely smashed in the next GE |  |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 07:29 - Jul 24 with 1775 views | Mullet |
| Labour/Starmer on 21:42 - Jul 23 by Pinewoodblue |
Next election for London Mayor is less than 10 months away can you see anyone other than Khan being the official Labour candidate?
Don't believe Starmer needs to appeal anyone other than traditional Labour voters. Corbyn failed because he scared too many traditional Labour voters away and just as importantly unintentionally persuade waivering Tory voters they had to vote out of fear of a Corbyn government.
The winners next time will be the Party that get their support to vote, the losers will be the party that fails to do so. |
Thanks to FPTP he will definitely need to appeal to floating voters and anyone who has realised the Tories are not for them. Traditionally, Labour end up in opposition based on core support alone.
I think it was Campbell who said recently in interview that the 1997 lot couldn't be persuaded to employ PR. They were so drunk on the landslide they'd won they couldn't think long term or risk sharing power.
Hopefully, this is the moment we see that changed but I'm doubtful. |  |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 07:40 - Jul 24 with 1757 views | DJR |
| Labour/Starmer on 21:56 - Jul 23 by BanksterDebtSlave |
You looking forward to a Starmer/Reeves pay rise? |
This (and extra spending on public services more generally) would appear to be some way off. Why do you think they are so keen to stop Labour MPs going on picket lines?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/no-more-money-public-services-082758024.html?guccounte
Of course, their argument is there is no more money left, but there could be with tax rises on the wealthy (a 50% tax rate band). But, ideologically I think, Labour just don't want to go there. And having ruled out tax rises in advance of the election, they won't be able to go there after the election. [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 8:15]
| | | |
| Labour/Starmer on 08:11 - Jul 24 with 1701 views | DJR |
| Labour/Starmer on 21:17 - Jul 23 by Mullet |
I think there's little saving Sadiq Khan from the bus as it were. The levels of bile, racism and outright lies he's tarred with over everything means the noise around him is deceptive. In the same way we are told Londoners absolutely loved Boris, when the reality was much of the commentary came from non-Londoners etc.
Starmer has to appeal to those who might not vote Labour every time. The petulance and division of the self-proclaimed "left" of the supporters who still can't accept Corbyn was a sh1t leader are very tedious.
Whilst I don't think KS has played a blinder at every turn, he's dealing with an opposition who are so genuinely unhinged it's hard to entirely know what to make of them. What he has done which is incredibly clever is not give them too many soundbites or sound footholds with which to attack him with any credibility.
For all the "smear" crybabying done by the Corbynistas, it's laughable they don't recognise Keir has been smart enough not to play into the hands of the media and the cranks and become easily dismissed or styled as the "hard left" threat like Jezza was. People couldn't dream of a non-Tory dynasty for decades after 2019, yet he's been there picking at threads every PMQ as the Boris sh1theap came tumbling down.
Just having a Labour government will be massive for this country. Hurtling from the far-right Tory mess we are in to the exact opposite would be a disaster. It will need managing carefully and bridgebuilding across the electorate thanks to all the robbery and corruption allowed in the past decade and a bit. |
I am not a Corbynista,. I also do not think that Corbyn is relevant to this discussion because I would imagine virtually all of those who joined the party under Corbyn will have now left.
It is also certainly the case that only a minority of Guardian reader are Corbynistas but as I mentioned in the OP there appears to be a fair degree of despair from Guardian readers about the current position.
The problem it seems to me with Labour (and I think this is a feeling shared by people of all political persuasions) is that there is no vision or hope, it is not clear what they stand for and they have a reputation for U-turns.
Now to me, that is very bad politics. Indeed, I was a very enthusiastic supporter of Blair in his early years, but he had vision, hope and bold policies (eg. the minimum wage), as well as facing a very unpopular government. In contrast, the Labour Party these days appear to be relying purely on the fact that the Tories are unpopular.
Now if Blair was selling what Starmer is offering things would be different, because with his preacher-like qualities, he would be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But Starmer just doesn't have those qualities.
Of course, it is looking likely Labour will end up the largest party, but whether they will end up with an absolute majority is another matter given, for example, that their lack of distinction from the Tories may well not go down well in Scotland, whatever the current travails of the SNP.
In addition, given the lack of vision, it seems unlikely that Labour will enter government with much in the way of a honeymoon period, which is a very unusual state of affairs, and does not augur well.
Anyway it is not just me that feels there is something lacking with the Labour offering because as I have said above both Andrew Rawnsley and Alastair Campbell believe Labour need to be doing more than merely relying on Tory unpopularity.
Incidentally, I suppose you could say the £28 billion Green New Deal does offer some vision, but they have already backtracked on this, and who's to say they won't backtrack further following the Labour backlash against ULEZ, which only plays into the Tories' hands. I might add that, even though I believe the bulk of the £28 billion will come from the private sector, I imagine the Tories nearer the election will portray it as uncosted spending putting further pressure on Labour to backtrack.
EDIT: this from Neal Lawson (no Corbynista) in today's Guardian puts it well.
"Most political projects end up in a bunker; this one’s starting in a bunker. What culture does this take into government? If they’re like this now, they’re going to be like this in government, with stilts on." [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 9:09]
| | | |
| Labour/Starmer on 09:11 - Jul 24 with 1655 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Labour/Starmer on 07:40 - Jul 24 by DJR |
This (and extra spending on public services more generally) would appear to be some way off. Why do you think they are so keen to stop Labour MPs going on picket lines?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/no-more-money-public-services-082758024.html?guccounte
Of course, their argument is there is no more money left, but there could be with tax rises on the wealthy (a 50% tax rate band). But, ideologically I think, Labour just don't want to go there. And having ruled out tax rises in advance of the election, they won't be able to go there after the election. [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 8:15]
|
In my opinion the 50pc tax band is a complete irrelevance. It’s such a small group of people that it raises a pitiful amount of tax which will make no difference to public services. I get that it should be increased for optics, (just for clarity I’m not in this income bracket!) but the constant debate about it from both main parties seems a distraction.
Real progressive wealth taxes are what are needed, and would affect the actual 1pc, the billionaires, the property barons, the landowners who do not ‘earn’ a salary. CGT increases, inheritance tax, mansion tax etc will raise far more and should be where the discussion is focussed. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Labour/Starmer on 09:20 - Jul 24 with 1624 views | DJR |
| Labour/Starmer on 09:11 - Jul 24 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
In my opinion the 50pc tax band is a complete irrelevance. It’s such a small group of people that it raises a pitiful amount of tax which will make no difference to public services. I get that it should be increased for optics, (just for clarity I’m not in this income bracket!) but the constant debate about it from both main parties seems a distraction.
Real progressive wealth taxes are what are needed, and would affect the actual 1pc, the billionaires, the property barons, the landowners who do not ‘earn’ a salary. CGT increases, inheritance tax, mansion tax etc will raise far more and should be where the discussion is focussed. |
I agree entirely, although my focus would be the top 5pc: I just used the 50pc band as an example.
But all of this has either already been ruled out by Labour or is just somewhere they won't go.
And, if nothing else, why couldn't they add a few more council tax bands to properly tax £130 million homes? [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 9:24]
| | | |
| Labour/Starmer on 09:26 - Jul 24 with 1604 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Labour/Starmer on 09:20 - Jul 24 by DJR |
I agree entirely, although my focus would be the top 5pc: I just used the 50pc band as an example.
But all of this has either already been ruled out by Labour or is just somewhere they won't go.
And, if nothing else, why couldn't they add a few more council tax bands to properly tax £130 million homes? [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 9:24]
|
Don't be silly, they'll all leave!! | |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 09:35 - Jul 24 with 1579 views | DJR |
| Labour/Starmer on 09:26 - Jul 24 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Don't be silly, they'll all leave!! |
I know your comment is tongue-in-cheek, but the top rate of council tax in Westminster is just over £1,800. With the cache of owning property in London, I can't see anyone leaving if it was increased to, say, £5,000. Indeed, many who own expensive properties in such areas don't even live here. | | | |
| Labour/Starmer on 10:06 - Jul 24 with 1541 views | Ryorry |
| Labour/Starmer on 15:12 - Jul 23 by Zapers |
Thank goodness for your common sense Ryorry, enjoy your soup, sounds delicious! |
Ta. Hope you're feeling a lot better & are on the road to recovery from the lurgy? |  |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 10:18 - Jul 24 with 1531 views | Ryorry |
| Labour/Starmer on 15:22 - Jul 23 by DJR |
That's fair enough, Ryorry, but I started a new thread because the previous thread was deleted when, in the light of three by-elections it still had some legs in it.
I suppose my amazement with things is that Labour have turned three very good election results into internecine warfare, which just plays into the hands of the Tories. I also hadn't fully appreciated the role of a little-known pollster in all that is going on.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/23/sadiq-khan-to-press-ahead-wi
Finally, my view is that the general thread would be a dull place if we can't discuss political developments, and I suppose I have more skin in the game, and reasons to be disappointed, as a party member.
But in future, I'll rein it in, and only respond to threads that others raise, if I feel inclined, rather than starting them. After all, the recent pulling of a thread, did make me seriously consider whether I should just give up commenting at all.
And maybe my time would also be better spent making soup. [Post edited 23 Jul 2023 15:26]
|
Please don't feel that my take has to be yours - feel free to post away on politics to your heart's desire if you have time, energy & inclination!
Veg chopping can be both therapeutic & tedious, depends what's on TV/radio :) | |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 10:53 - Jul 24 with 1499 views | Ryorry |
| Labour/Starmer on 15:45 - Jul 23 by BanksterDebtSlave |
You are letting all of your multi tasking sisters down Ryorry. |
Don't think Blueas would agree - he reckons I'm a "cranky middle-aged woman" as it is - not sure posts from me with an 8-inch kitchen knife in my hand would improve that situation 😂 | |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 11:49 - Jul 24 with 1461 views | DJR |
| Labour/Starmer on 10:18 - Jul 24 by Ryorry |
Please don't feel that my take has to be yours - feel free to post away on politics to your heart's desire if you have time, energy & inclination!
Veg chopping can be both therapeutic & tedious, depends what's on TV/radio :) |
You will see from my subsequent posts that I haven't followed through on my threat.
I suppose I can't resist commenting, if I see something which I feel strongly about and have a different view.
If nothing else, I think it keeps my mind alert. | | | |
| Labour/Starmer on 12:52 - Jul 24 with 1426 views | Darth_Koont |
| Labour/Starmer on 08:11 - Jul 24 by DJR |
I am not a Corbynista,. I also do not think that Corbyn is relevant to this discussion because I would imagine virtually all of those who joined the party under Corbyn will have now left.
It is also certainly the case that only a minority of Guardian reader are Corbynistas but as I mentioned in the OP there appears to be a fair degree of despair from Guardian readers about the current position.
The problem it seems to me with Labour (and I think this is a feeling shared by people of all political persuasions) is that there is no vision or hope, it is not clear what they stand for and they have a reputation for U-turns.
Now to me, that is very bad politics. Indeed, I was a very enthusiastic supporter of Blair in his early years, but he had vision, hope and bold policies (eg. the minimum wage), as well as facing a very unpopular government. In contrast, the Labour Party these days appear to be relying purely on the fact that the Tories are unpopular.
Now if Blair was selling what Starmer is offering things would be different, because with his preacher-like qualities, he would be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But Starmer just doesn't have those qualities.
Of course, it is looking likely Labour will end up the largest party, but whether they will end up with an absolute majority is another matter given, for example, that their lack of distinction from the Tories may well not go down well in Scotland, whatever the current travails of the SNP.
In addition, given the lack of vision, it seems unlikely that Labour will enter government with much in the way of a honeymoon period, which is a very unusual state of affairs, and does not augur well.
Anyway it is not just me that feels there is something lacking with the Labour offering because as I have said above both Andrew Rawnsley and Alastair Campbell believe Labour need to be doing more than merely relying on Tory unpopularity.
Incidentally, I suppose you could say the £28 billion Green New Deal does offer some vision, but they have already backtracked on this, and who's to say they won't backtrack further following the Labour backlash against ULEZ, which only plays into the Tories' hands. I might add that, even though I believe the bulk of the £28 billion will come from the private sector, I imagine the Tories nearer the election will portray it as uncosted spending putting further pressure on Labour to backtrack.
EDIT: this from Neal Lawson (no Corbynista) in today's Guardian puts it well.
"Most political projects end up in a bunker; this one’s starting in a bunker. What culture does this take into government? If they’re like this now, they’re going to be like this in government, with stilts on." [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 9:09]
|
“If they’re like this now, they’re going to be like this in government, with stilts on."
I think that’s the real issue here. There’s a lot of people projecting that Labour need to be like this in order to get into power but then they can effect change.
I understand the logic — the Overton window is centre-right to hard right certainly in terms of our media even if there’s clearly a greater appetite outside our media for progressive change and a shift towards the many in our politics.
But it misses the key point that what we’re seeing isn’t just electioneering and triangulation, this IS the ideology of the Labour right. A low-tax, low-spend belief that “growth” and the “market” should fill the gaps and not the state. It’s an opportunity for all outlook in the Thatcherite tradition that largely ignores the inequality of outcome we’ve seen from this approach over the years.
I fear that we’re giving up the possibility of change and hope by assuming they’ll be somehow different in power and somehow different from the Tories in practice. Certainly feels like we could be throwing the poor, the young, the elderly, minorities and other marginalised groups under the bus to keep the right-leaning status quo and its interests intact. |  |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:28 - Jul 24 with 1384 views | Mullet |
| Labour/Starmer on 08:11 - Jul 24 by DJR |
I am not a Corbynista,. I also do not think that Corbyn is relevant to this discussion because I would imagine virtually all of those who joined the party under Corbyn will have now left.
It is also certainly the case that only a minority of Guardian reader are Corbynistas but as I mentioned in the OP there appears to be a fair degree of despair from Guardian readers about the current position.
The problem it seems to me with Labour (and I think this is a feeling shared by people of all political persuasions) is that there is no vision or hope, it is not clear what they stand for and they have a reputation for U-turns.
Now to me, that is very bad politics. Indeed, I was a very enthusiastic supporter of Blair in his early years, but he had vision, hope and bold policies (eg. the minimum wage), as well as facing a very unpopular government. In contrast, the Labour Party these days appear to be relying purely on the fact that the Tories are unpopular.
Now if Blair was selling what Starmer is offering things would be different, because with his preacher-like qualities, he would be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But Starmer just doesn't have those qualities.
Of course, it is looking likely Labour will end up the largest party, but whether they will end up with an absolute majority is another matter given, for example, that their lack of distinction from the Tories may well not go down well in Scotland, whatever the current travails of the SNP.
In addition, given the lack of vision, it seems unlikely that Labour will enter government with much in the way of a honeymoon period, which is a very unusual state of affairs, and does not augur well.
Anyway it is not just me that feels there is something lacking with the Labour offering because as I have said above both Andrew Rawnsley and Alastair Campbell believe Labour need to be doing more than merely relying on Tory unpopularity.
Incidentally, I suppose you could say the £28 billion Green New Deal does offer some vision, but they have already backtracked on this, and who's to say they won't backtrack further following the Labour backlash against ULEZ, which only plays into the Tories' hands. I might add that, even though I believe the bulk of the £28 billion will come from the private sector, I imagine the Tories nearer the election will portray it as uncosted spending putting further pressure on Labour to backtrack.
EDIT: this from Neal Lawson (no Corbynista) in today's Guardian puts it well.
"Most political projects end up in a bunker; this one’s starting in a bunker. What culture does this take into government? If they’re like this now, they’re going to be like this in government, with stilts on." [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 9:09]
|
I didn't say you were. But as with your Khan point, those making the most noise and presenting themselves as "leftier than thou" are the rainbow nation of Corbynistas from the young and gullible to the middle aged and guilt-ridden it seems.
It has had a massive impact on boosting the Tories through spreading division and creating this bizarre sense of authenticity that no one can live up to if they actually want pragmatism first.
I wouldn't dispute the U-turn perception, but there's always the supposedly Keynesian retort of "the facts changing" as justification. When your opposition has no regard of facts it also makes it difficult to stand against with certainty as they will simply deny away and blame. That's possibly the drawback of KS being a legal eagle as it hinders his strategy as well as making it all too often.
Being lacklustre when we've had the biggest perpetrator of style and little else isn't much of a drawback though is it? Showboating has cost us billions and left us with nothing after all. | |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:35 - Jul 24 with 1374 views | DJR |
| Labour/Starmer on 12:52 - Jul 24 by Darth_Koont |
“If they’re like this now, they’re going to be like this in government, with stilts on."
I think that’s the real issue here. There’s a lot of people projecting that Labour need to be like this in order to get into power but then they can effect change.
I understand the logic — the Overton window is centre-right to hard right certainly in terms of our media even if there’s clearly a greater appetite outside our media for progressive change and a shift towards the many in our politics.
But it misses the key point that what we’re seeing isn’t just electioneering and triangulation, this IS the ideology of the Labour right. A low-tax, low-spend belief that “growth” and the “market” should fill the gaps and not the state. It’s an opportunity for all outlook in the Thatcherite tradition that largely ignores the inequality of outcome we’ve seen from this approach over the years.
I fear that we’re giving up the possibility of change and hope by assuming they’ll be somehow different in power and somehow different from the Tories in practice. Certainly feels like we could be throwing the poor, the young, the elderly, minorities and other marginalised groups under the bus to keep the right-leaning status quo and its interests intact. |
It is also my view that ideology plays a big part in the "project". Indeed, this probably tells you all you need to know about, for example, Wes Streeting.
"Streeting supported university tuition fees as President of the National Union of Students, consistent with UK government policy during the New Labour years. As The Independent pointed out, Streeting's decision put the NUS position on student fees to the right of the Liberal Democrats who had just committed to a policy of free education for all."
You couldn't really make that up. [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 13:38]
| | | |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:40 - Jul 24 with 1365 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:35 - Jul 24 by DJR |
It is also my view that ideology plays a big part in the "project". Indeed, this probably tells you all you need to know about, for example, Wes Streeting.
"Streeting supported university tuition fees as President of the National Union of Students, consistent with UK government policy during the New Labour years. As The Independent pointed out, Streeting's decision put the NUS position on student fees to the right of the Liberal Democrats who had just committed to a policy of free education for all."
You couldn't really make that up. [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 13:38]
|
But free university is probably not a policy that necessarily universally popular. Obviously it plays well with the student vote, but then you end up with low earners subsidising those who go on shall we say ‘more vocational courses’ as well as those who will go on to earn more.
Personally, having been to uni I think only STEM subjects should be ‘free’ and everything else subsidised and capped at a much lower level than it is now (say £2k a year). | | | |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:40 - Jul 24 with 1366 views | Darth_Koont |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:28 - Jul 24 by Mullet |
I didn't say you were. But as with your Khan point, those making the most noise and presenting themselves as "leftier than thou" are the rainbow nation of Corbynistas from the young and gullible to the middle aged and guilt-ridden it seems.
It has had a massive impact on boosting the Tories through spreading division and creating this bizarre sense of authenticity that no one can live up to if they actually want pragmatism first.
I wouldn't dispute the U-turn perception, but there's always the supposedly Keynesian retort of "the facts changing" as justification. When your opposition has no regard of facts it also makes it difficult to stand against with certainty as they will simply deny away and blame. That's possibly the drawback of KS being a legal eagle as it hinders his strategy as well as making it all too often.
Being lacklustre when we've had the biggest perpetrator of style and little else isn't much of a drawback though is it? Showboating has cost us billions and left us with nothing after all. |
I think that’s a harsh characterisation.
After all, weren’t you also promoting Enough is Enough a while back? I see almost nothing in those demands that the current Labour Party would put their weight behind in government. Perhaps some of the energy cap stuff but only as a one-off.
https://wesayenough.co.uk/demands/
I mean the “pragmatic” approach is to keep things roughly as they are because that’s what suits the status quo, the vast majority of the press and even Labour’s own donors and backers now that they’ve taken a step away from the unions. | |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:45 - Jul 24 with 1347 views | Mullet |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:40 - Jul 24 by Darth_Koont |
I think that’s a harsh characterisation.
After all, weren’t you also promoting Enough is Enough a while back? I see almost nothing in those demands that the current Labour Party would put their weight behind in government. Perhaps some of the energy cap stuff but only as a one-off.
https://wesayenough.co.uk/demands/
I mean the “pragmatic” approach is to keep things roughly as they are because that’s what suits the status quo, the vast majority of the press and even Labour’s own donors and backers now that they’ve taken a step away from the unions. |
Weren't you also saying I wasn't left wing enough recently? By all means you can get personal again, but I actually want progress not posturing. | |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:48 - Jul 24 with 1337 views | DJR |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:40 - Jul 24 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But free university is probably not a policy that necessarily universally popular. Obviously it plays well with the student vote, but then you end up with low earners subsidising those who go on shall we say ‘more vocational courses’ as well as those who will go on to earn more.
Personally, having been to uni I think only STEM subjects should be ‘free’ and everything else subsidised and capped at a much lower level than it is now (say £2k a year). |
Of course there are arguments for and against student loans, but the point is he was arguing for them as president of the NUS because he clearly supports the marketisation education.
It's a bit like Mick Lynch arguing for pay cuts. [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 14:02]
| | | |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:53 - Jul 24 with 1323 views | Darth_Koont |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:45 - Jul 24 by Mullet |
Weren't you also saying I wasn't left wing enough recently? By all means you can get personal again, but I actually want progress not posturing. |
Your active promotion of Enough is Enough seems at odds with what you’re saying here.
I don’t see progress at all. The Labour right just don’t believe in this stuff so where is it going to come from?
Basically, I’m trying to understand. | |
| |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:56 - Jul 24 with 1300 views | Blueschev |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:35 - Jul 24 by DJR |
It is also my view that ideology plays a big part in the "project". Indeed, this probably tells you all you need to know about, for example, Wes Streeting.
"Streeting supported university tuition fees as President of the National Union of Students, consistent with UK government policy during the New Labour years. As The Independent pointed out, Streeting's decision put the NUS position on student fees to the right of the Liberal Democrats who had just committed to a policy of free education for all."
You couldn't really make that up. [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 13:38]
|
I was an NUS delegate when Wes Streeting was campaigning to be President. He and his ilk were awful, you could tell they were politicians in training and believed in little else than becoming a politician. |  | | |
| Labour/Starmer on 14:01 - Jul 24 with 1263 views | DJR |
| Labour/Starmer on 13:56 - Jul 24 by Blueschev |
I was an NUS delegate when Wes Streeting was campaigning to be President. He and his ilk were awful, you could tell they were politicians in training and believed in little else than becoming a politician. |
Interesting.
Too be honest, I can't stand the bright young (mainly) men in suits in both parties who tend to be on display at key speeches and the like.
This was the point that Johnny Mercer was making a couple of days ago about the 25 year old Labour MP, albeit in a possibly clumsy way. [Post edited 24 Jul 2023 14:05]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
