Keir Starmer - FoM now a red-line

[BoroFur]

Are you going to get your credentials out and wave them at us next BoroFur? I tried to give you a bit of sensible grown up politics with that stuff about the moon and Valhalla and you just laughed at it. I though that centrists loved that kind of thing? They don't care about believing in things and having principles- we know that. It's win at all costs. Become The Tories to beat The Tories. That seems pretty crazy to me.

I laughed at it because it was humorous or was I missing the point?
Nice of you say that I don't have principles and that I want to be a Tory though.
Go for a lie down.

 

[Andy_W]

Or they could have accepted the result of the referendum and taken remain off the table.

They could have, but clearly, JC, the MP's and a lot of Labour supporters didn't want that.

Most of the UK would have liked to have had a say in the type of deal we should have had though, but of course this would never have been offered by the hardcore brexit lot, as they didn't want 48% having any say. Which ultimately ended up with the worst option of the lot, which even a load of the brexiters didn't want. Ended up being the version which about 10-20% wanted, what **** up all round.

 

[BoroFur]

You can't recognise a result that hasn't happened yet.

You mean the one in June 2016?

Each time I heard Corbyn speak, it was clear that the referendum result would be respected.

I'll ask you again, which one?
The one where the British public voted 52/48 or the one he wanted where he would be neutral?

Then he too was duped, or lying. The man was no fan of Corbyn, that's why Starmer parachuted him into Hartlepool.

How bitter you are. He was a remainer as were many others in the Party. He sought guidance and direction but got rubbish back in return.

 

[SuperStu]

Crikey do SuperStu, Bumface and BBG know that?

I've said similar myself on here more than once. In some ways Corbyn of course wasn't weak. To withstand the personal character assassination he did must have taken a lot.

In other ways, I agree he was too easily led. E.g. by the media screaming "Stalinist purge" when he wanted to make the party more democratic with mandatory reselection.

Forget all that though, I know for you centrist geezers the imaginary version of what people have said is more important!

 

[bumface]

I laughed at it because it was humorous or was I missing the point?
Nice of you say that I don't have principles and that I want to be a Tory though.
Go for a lie down.

I was making one of those sweeping generalisations, just Like you did the other day when you said that everyone on the left was deluded and then started banging on about The Tooting Popular Front.

 

[Scrote]

At Dr Paul Williams 2019 campaign launch me and others asked him what we should say to people on the doorstep when they asked what was Labour's position on Brexit. Dr Paul honestly did not know how to answer because the messages coming from the leadership were so wishy-washy and confusing. He basically suggested that we change the subject. Great eh?

I asked you to state the reasoning he gave today. Then we could have a discussion as to whether it's a reasonable position to take.

So in 2019 you weren't prepared to discuss the reasoning behind the position or articulate what that meant to people you spoke to on the doorstep but you now expect 'us' to go beyond the headlines with regards Starmer's ridiculous statement that being in the SM/CU isn't better for the economy.

Can you see why I keep banging on about the compromise only being expected from one direction?

The Brexit position under Corbyn was crystal clear. It just wasn't a "you're with us or against us" binary choice. Politics without nuance is what gets us where we are. Maybe everyone that didn't understand needs to step away from politics and leave it to the grown-ups*.



*this bit isn't meant to be overly serious but I'll add an emoji just in case

 

[Andy_W]

The right wing press have not, and will not attack Starmer with anything like the same vigour that they did Corbyn for the simple reason that he doesn't worry them.

Corbyn didn't really worry them, as they know he wouldn't win, just like I know he wouldn't when I voted for him twice. It doesn't mean they would stop going after him though, as they have to write some crap to sell papers. Corbyn was an easy target for them, they basically played the man, not the ball, as the man was the easier target.

Starmer's a much harder target as a man, they don't even really know where the ball is, they've not got a great deal to go at in either way. It's hard to go after him when their own party is such a mess and public opinion is in such large support of Labour (which Starmer is leading), and against the Tories.

The tide has turned to Labour now, the press will realise that a lot of their income/ readers will have gone back to Labour now we're out, or jumped ship from the Tories because they're ****. They will still want to sell papers, so won't be specifically aiming their sites at the types of people who will remain Tory voters, they will need others too. I don't expect them to go against the Tories, not much anyway, but don't see them putting as much pressure on labour, I think it would be more gradual. It will probably ramp up when the manifesto's come out/ in the lead in to the election.

 

[BoroFur]

Forget all that though, I know for you centrist geezers the imaginary version of what people have said is more important!

You'll have to be a bit clearer, I'm confused remember.

 

[SuperStu]

Saying he would be neutral in a 2nd referendum was absolutely pathetic.

If we do ever have another referendum - on any topic, not just Brexit - I think it'd be good for the PM or equivalent to not be involved.

It's silly having these questions put to the public if there's a chance many will vote a certain way to punish a particular figure. E.g. Clegg in the AV referendum, Cameron in the Brexit one.

 

[BoroFur]

I was making one of those sweeping generalisations, just Like you did the other day when you said that everyone on the left was deluded and then started banging on about The Tooting Popular Front.

Never called you Tory though did I?
The ultimate insult.

 

[BoroFur]

If we do ever have another referendum - on any topic, not just Brexit - I think it'd be good for the PM or equivalent to not be involved.

It's silly having these questions put to the public if there's a chance many will vote a certain way to punish a particular figure. E.g. Clegg in the AV referendum, Cameron in the Brexit one.

Well at least we agree on that but it would require a new kind of politics, one that I'm far from convinced we'll ever get.

 

[bumface]

Never called you Tory though did I?
The ultimate insult.

I think that you have accused me of being Tory at some point on here. Or maybe you just accused me of being a Tory enabler because I won't back Starmer. It isn't pleasant, is it? I agree with you. It is the ultimate insult.

 

[SuperStu]

Well at least we agree on that but it would require a new kind of politics, one that I'm far from convinced we'll ever get.

Well yeah we definitely won't be getting it now. No real public figures even advocating for any changes to business as usual now. As I said on another thread a few weeks ago there was 24 years between Attlee and Foot leading the party, and 32 years between Foot and Corbyn. At this rate we may get another chance to shift left ~2059.

 

[MolteniArcore]

Yeah, but you are only about fifteen years old and you clearly don't have any involvement with the party or talk to anyone who is involved in it. Either that or your ears need fixing.

I wish I was 15 again (and why do you get so snarky lol).

Na, I don't talk to people involved with the party but in all fairness that is a bit of a daft point - party members voting at elections doesn't make a party win. You need to win over the floaters. And if you look at the polls Starmer is getting the job done. And I'm speaking to people who wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Corbyn but now will probably stick their cross in the red box. And it is these people you need to win over to win an election.

I know it's hard that some people in the party feel pushed out but you will get your chance again. We just need the Tories out. If that upsets a load of Tories and a few Labour party members then so be it.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Corbyn didn't really worry them, as they know he wouldn't win,

This is totally wrong. The establishment feared Corbyn because the saw their gravy train coming to an end and they (The press, the Tories and many of his own party) did their utmost to ensure he was defeated. The attack on Corbyn was unprecedented in its intensity. They threw everything at him in an attempt to destroy a good man who couldn't be bought. No other leader has been subjected to such an onslaught in my lifetime and they still fear him now. Sunak can't open his mouth without mentioning his name.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

You mean the one in June 2016?


I'll ask you again, which one?
The one where the British public voted 52/48 or the one he wanted where he would be neutral?


How bitter you are. He was a remainer as were many others in the Party. He sought guidance and direction but got rubbish back in return.

There has only been one referendum.

 

[Andy_W]

So in 2019 you weren't prepared to discuss the reasoning behind the position or articulate what that meant to people you spoke to on the doorstep but you now expect 'us' to go beyond the headlines with regards Starmer's ridiculous statement that being in the SM/CU isn't better for the economy.

This is what he said:

“No, at this stage I don’t think it would, and there’s no case for going back to the EU or going back into the single market. I do think there’s a case for a better Brexit. I do think there’s a very good case for making Brexit work.”
“Trade has gone down because the deal we have got is not a very good deal,” he said. “I think we could move from getting Brexit done, which is all that we have managed at the moment, to making Brexit work. And I do think there is a better deal.

“But do I think that going back into years of wrangling, years of uncertainty, is going to help our economy? No, I don’t. I spent many years post-2016 talking to businesses who said to me over and over again, the thing that’s hardest for us is all the uncertainty. That really, for many years, held us back, and I don’t want to go back to that.

“But I do think that we can move forward to a better deal, because I do not think this one is working.”

If he said he was going to rejoin the SM and CU (effectively reverse Brexit), then Labour could lose the next GE, especially if they said that now, and giving the Tory press 2 years to bang the drum about it. I'm not sure if it would mean Labour losing a GE mind, I think Labour could still win, and I think rejoining would probably win a referendum, but it's a massive risk of losing, and things getting even worse.

To go back in would of course need another referendum, so even if Labour did push for that, then when would that be, 2027/28?
I suppose it's a case of whether 5 years of additional uncertainty then going back in the club is better than just getting a better deal and accepting that where we are is where we are. We could get a deal with closer ties and maybe paying for SMA, or become aligned to it, which of course the Tories won't do. If the Tories stay in then we end up sticking with the crap we have now.

I'm probably as much of a remainer/ rejoiner as there is or ever was, but there needs to be a voting path to get to that, and I don't think its there, not without another 5 years of companies not having a clue what they're going to be dealing with. It's a tough one either way.

 

[BoroFur]

So in 2019 you weren't prepared to discuss the reasoning behind the position or articulate what that meant to people you spoke to on the doorstep but you now expect 'us' to go beyond the headlines with regards Starmer's ridiculous statement that being in the SM/CU isn't better for the economy.

I didn't understand the position therefore I wasn't able to articulate it on the doorsteps. And I wasn't alone but it appears that the only half a dozen or so people in the whole country who did understand it all post on the FMTTM message board.

If you are unable to read 'beyond the headlines' then that's your problem.
Although I would say that there's a world of difference between unable and unwilling and I would guess you probably fall into the 2nd category.

Can you see why I keep banging on about the compromise only being expected from one direction?

Why is your compromise any more valid than the compromises I and others made in 2017 and 2019?

The Brexit position under Corbyn was crystal clear. It just wasn't a "you're with us or against us" binary choice. Politics without nuance is what gets us where we are.

To you it may have been. To the overwhelming majority of voters in 2019 it wasn't. In fact, far from being crystal clear it was more like ditchwater.

Maybe everyone that didn't understand needs to step away from politics and leave it to the grown-ups*.



*this bit isn't meant to be overly serious but I'll add an emoji just in case

Not meant to be overly serious but you managed to get it in in that patronising and condescending way we've all come to admire.

 

[BoroFur]

There has only been one referendum.

But he wanted to renegotiate the Brexit deal and put it to a second referendum. A second referendum in which he would remain neutral despite him being the one to renegotiate the deal. How on earth is that respecting the outcome of the first one?

 

[Andy_W]

This is totally wrong. The establishment feared Corbyn because the saw their gravy train coming to an end and they (The press, the Tories and many of his own party) did their utmost to ensure he was defeated. The attack on Corbyn was unprecedented in its intensity. They threw everything at him in an attempt to destroy a good man who couldn't be bought. No other leader has been subjected to such an onslaught in my lifetime and they still fear him now. Sunak can't open his mouth without mentioning his name.

I disagree, about the fear, they will just attack what is there to attack (or makeup) and they will grab hold of any bone you give them. They found a lot of bones to go after Cobyn with, so yes he was easier to attack than Miliband for example. We know most of the stories are crap, and beyond reality, but that's what they do.

Blair and Brown got an onslaught too, especially towards the end.

Not been watching much TV since Sunak came in, but what's he been saying? Makes zero sense to go after the former leader (who currently doesn't even have the whip), but if it means they're not going after the current one, then great, and JC's doing Labour a favour by taking it.