Keir Starmer - FoM now a red-line

[Laughing]

I think there's a lot of truth in this. If the staff at number 10 hadn't been partying like a bunch of lunatics all through lockdown, then we'd likely still have a pretty popular Boris Johnson gov now unfortunately.

I suppose there's some credit to Starmer that he's neutered the Labour party so much that tories don't feel any need to give the Conservative party their support. Starmer's plan was clearly to say as little as he could and cross his fingers for the tories to f*ck everything up enough that he wins by default and it looks like it's paid off for him.

Oh dear me. Like or loath starmer Johnson would still be in post if not for him.

 

[Laughing]

What starmer actually said about tagging of immigrants

Asked whether he supported the policy during an interview on Sky News, Sir Keir said: “I think there's a case for tagging in particular cases.

“But I’ll tell you what I would do, which I think is more likely to fix the problem and it's two things. One, I’d put resources into the National Crime Agency so we could bust the trafficking gangs upstream, because these gangs are making huge amounts of money.

Starmer opponents are using one part of the quote. He says there is a case in some instances for tagging, but then goes on to say what he would do, which doesn't include tagging. Lets be honest in our debate, shall we?

 

[SuperStu]

My way is to target winning (comfortably), and then seeing what you can change from there.
Your way is to target ideals, which hasn't won since I've been alive.

No, but I'd vote for KS in a leadership election, and I'm happy to trust that he knows what he's doing. Labour members chose the rough direction, by voting for Starmer (he got more than half the vote in a 3 way race), which was even when the Labour membership was full of Corbyn supporters. Starmer had/ has to move with the times, and seemingly he's doing alright at that in the eyes of the voters, as he's appealing to millions more of them. Not sure what the current membership approval is, but my guess is it's even higher than it was than the percentage who voted for him.

Labour members, no matter how long they've been members are not the priority though, the public are and the makeup of these numbers which largely dictate which path Labour head down. My point is to try and strike a balance between all of those voters, there is likely to be an equal number to the left and to the right of me, voting for Labour, and I expect something balanced around where I sit, which will likely be marginal to the right of me (we'll see when the manifesto comes out). Yes there may be some things left and some things right, but I'm not bothered. If the Tories win, it's 100% to the right of me, by a considerable margin, which is where it has been since Brown, Milliband and Corbyn (twice) lost.

Labour have to appeal to the centre to get votes, and win, the sooner you realise this the better. Not everyone who votes for Labour thinks like you, and not like me either, and if they had only people like you or me they would never win, as proven in the last few elections when we both voted for JC (and he lost the to biggest bunch of far-right clowns we've ever had).

What a load of waffle. Andy my question was what exactly are you "promising"? It's not something that's yours to give is it?

Of course Starmer's support will be higher in the party now, anyone who disapproves of him gets purged.

 

[MolteniArcore]

For some reason when I am out an about people like to talk to me about politics - probably because they know I am interested in it. What I have observed is:

- Pre 2019 people with centre views would tell me Corbyn (the man, not the policies) wasn't to be trusted and they would never vote for him.

- Pre 2019 you would tell people a 'Corbyn policy' and they would agree with it. When they discovered it was a Labour policy they would tell me that they still wouldn't vote Labour.

- Over the last year the same people are now telling me they can't vote Tory and would very much consider voting Labour, or they would certainly be voting Labour. They all say Starmer is boring but that is what the country probably needs. He feels like safe pair of hands. These same people aren't really bothered about policies, they just want change.

These are people in Kent, Cheshire, North Yorkshire, Leeds, York, Scotland (they hate the SNP but it's only 2 people lol). It's not a poll, it's just what I hear.

The press did a job on Corbyn. He had some great ideas. It's a shame that we find ourselves in this mess now. I honestly think that the mood is changing and Starmer will be PM regardless of what happens between now and the next GE.

 

[SuperStu]

Oh dear me. Like or loath starmer Johnson would still be in post if not for him.

I'm not sure about that tbh. It was mostly the interventions from his own side that sent Boris packing in my opinion.

I mean suppose Lisa Nandy had won the 2020 Labour leadership election. I think she'd have probably lead the party in a pretty similar to way to how Starmer is - i.e. drag to the right, expel the left, appeal to the lowest common denominator media, etc, etc. Why would Boris cancelling Christmas 2020 for everyone else, then revealing his staff had to buy an extra fridge for all the booze they were necking at their parties have got any less of a reaction with her as Labour leader than Starmer?

 

[SuperStu]

These same people aren't really bothered about policies, they just want change.

I never know what the point of these posts is meant to be. Your friends who aren't interested in politics just think whatever the press have told them to think. So what?

 

[Andy_W]

You don't get it. You are confusing the policies with "Corbyn's policies". They don't have to be associated with Corbyn. They were left of centre but not communist. Corbyn was the problem for voters. He was hated by the right of his own party and he was an easy target for the media because he had so much history. It was all bull **** but throw enough and it sticks and that is what happened. Starmer could use Corbyn's manifesto and it wouldn't be called marxist because it wasn't. People liked his policies (all people, not just Labour). The individual policies in the manifesto all polled very highly across the whole spectrum. The whole schtick about the manifesto being rejected is nothing but centrists (and the right wing media) conning people so they get their own way. I can't believe you can't see it which means you just don't care because you are getting what you want.

Think about it the other way around. Boris won because he was Boris. He didn't even have any policies except for Brexit. He could have put anything in his manifesto and people wanted to vote for him. Most voters don't care about policies that much.

Labour haven't gained voters by appealing to the centre at all. Labour haven't gained any voters, the Tories have just stopped voting Tory. When Tory voters don't want to vote Tory they will just not vote, they won't vote Labour. Some people in the middle flip-flop but they are running from the Tories, not to Labour. Labour are offering nothing to attract voters. They are just benefiting from the Tories shooting themselves in the face (repeatedly).

I do get it, but I agree with most of what you're saying, but Iike I say, if you vote Labour you get Corbyn, who was made a target of because of his position on the political spectrum, but also because of who he was. I know most of that was crap, but some of it wasn't, and he wasn't strong enough to fight it off. I'm not sure who would have been either, I never said it was easy. It's not easy, the Tories win ~70% of the time. The further the left the person (leader) is, largely the more they will be targetted, it's just a basic fact, largely as the media are controlled by the right. They're naturally going to go harder against those who are furthest from them, it's basic.

Boris won as the press bigged him up, as he was willing to push through the far right version of Brexit. The press can pretty much make the person whoever they want, and this is not going to change until the press changes. Over time the lies get found out, but it does take time, but equally the more time they have to dig against Labour the more the pressure will build, especially if they're in power.

We'll see how many voters Labour gain. It's not about raw numbers though, as you now full, well, it's about seats, and Labour are going to gain a lot of them. Having Corbyn in certainly seemed to get a quite a few Tories out of their comfy sofas.

They'll gain more with a leader closer to where the voters are coming from. Do you think they would have gained the same numbers with Corbyn, or anyone else with a labour-left ideology (who the media would target with everything they had)?

We know specifically that the centre, right and far-right disliked Corbyn (largely driven by the media). Starmers a hard target to hit, as they've got next to nothing on him. Equally, they might have had nothing on someone further left (who less labour members voted for), but they would have just made a load of crap up, like they always do.

 

[Redwurzel]

Most Labour MPs didn't support and protect Corbyn, certainly before the 2017 election, and it was not the right wing press creating the story. You could see in Parliament on BBC Parliament channel on his struggles to form a cabinet. The bloke got nearly 60% first vote amongst members twice, no one as ever been that popular with Labour members since Keir Hardie. Labour got nearly 41% of the National vote in 2017, despite losing most of Scotland. Starmer has been picked because he is much harder to be criticised. Starmer with Corbyn policies as Nano says is the way forward. Putting on a wish to join the Single Economic Market - Norway model would have at least 60% of the UK population behind it. If Labour offer real and clear regeneration policies for the Redwall and similar seats, those voters will come back.

 

[MolteniArcore]

I never know what the point of these posts is meant to be. Your friends who aren't interested in politics just think whatever the press have told them to think. So what?

We can all argue about what was going on in the PLP or in the media but I'm just commenting on what I was hearing amongst people I came into contact with. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Nano]

I do get it, but I agree with most of what you're saying, but Iike I say, if you vote Labour you get Corbyn, who was made a target of because of his position on the political spectrum, but also because of who he was. I know most of that was crap, but some of it wasn't, and he wasn't strong enough to fight it off. I'm not sure who would have been either, I never said it was easy. It's not easy, the Tories win ~70% of the time. The further the left the person (leader) is, largely the more they will be targetted, it's just a basic fact, largely as the media are controlled by the right. They're naturally going to go harder against those who are furthest from them, it's basic.

Boris won as the press bigged him up, as he was willing to push through the far right version of Brexit. The press can pretty much make the person whoever they want, and this is not going to change until the press changes. Over time the lies get found out, but it does take time, but equally the more time they have to dig against Labour the more the pressure will build, especially if they're in power.

We'll see how many voters Labour gain. It's not about raw numbers though, as you now full, well, it's about seats, and Labour are going to gain a lot of them. Having Corbyn in certainly seemed to get a quite a few Tories out of their comfy sofas.

They'll gain more with a leader closer to where the voters are coming from. Do you think they would have gained the same numbers with Corbyn, or anyone else with a labour-left ideology (who the media would target with everything they had)?

We know specifically that the centre, right and far-right disliked Corbyn (largely driven by the media). Starmers a hard target to hit, as they've got next to nothing on him. Equally, they might have had nothing on someone further left (who less labour members voted for), but they would have just made a load of crap up, like they always do.

You are still missing the point. Starmer could use Corbyn's manifesto and they wouldn't consider it to be far-left. Where as Corbyn would have been labelled a marxist if he had used Johnson's manifesto. There is a difference between the leader and their manifesto. Starmer is considered to be a centrist and he hasn't even published a manifesto. He had some pledges which got him elected which were obviously popular enough for him to win and they've been abandoned. There is no reason to ideologically impose a centrist manifesto when he could include left-wing policies. No reason whatsoever other than ideology.

Seeing how many voters Labour gain isn't the same as people wanting to vote Labour. There are many people that no longer want to vote Tory and they know the only change is Labour. Corbyn got people to vote Labour. People actually wanted what he was offering and they weren't just voting for not-Tory. Starmer doesn't have that. He'll get votes because he's the only option.

Stop talking about what might have happened with Corbyn. He has gone. We are talking about Starmer. Corbyn won't be around at the next election. Starmer has already got the perception from the public of not being Corbyn or left wing so he's not going to get any anti-Starmer votes from the Tories so you can dismiss that point. It is up to him what policies are in his manifesto and he could do something that will actually change people's lives or he could conserve the status quo which benefits the people that are already benefiting. There will be no levelling up, no increases to NHS wages or other public services, no increased taxes on the wealthy and no transfer of wealth from rich to poor. It'll just be the same old carry on and hope the people really suffering is a low enough number to keep them quiet.

 

[Laughing]

I'm not sure about that tbh. It was mostly the interventions from his own side that sent Boris packing in my opinion.

I mean suppose Lisa Nandy had won the 2020 Labour leadership election. I think she'd have probably lead the party in a pretty similar to way to how Starmer is - i.e. drag to the right, expel the left, appeal to the lowest common denominator media, etc, etc. Why would Boris cancelling Christmas 2020 for everyone else, then revealing his staff had to buy an extra fridge for all the booze they were necking at their parties have got any less of a reaction with her as Labour leader than Starmer?

And that was exposed by Starmer. He tied Johnson in knots and invited him to lie over and over again. It was the upcoming privileges investigation that did for Johnson, not the parties. That investigation was down to Starmer. Another leader may have done the same, but that wasn't your point.

Labour have a huge lead, in no small part, due to Starmer not despite him.

 

[SuperStu]

We can all argue about what was going on in the PLP or in the media but I'm just commenting on what I was hearing amongst people I came into contact with. Nothing more, nothing less.

Okay sure. I suppose it just makes it seem to me that you and Andy and a few others aren't getting the point being made.

The folk on the left that don't like Starmer dragging the Labour Party to the right, without a mandate to do so, in an attempt to persuade tory voters - aren't against all that because they anecdotally don't think it's working. I'm sure it's working a treat. The guy goes about talking about making Brexit work, not raising corporation taxes, tagging asylum seekers. Of course he's going to appeal to tories. The problem we have is he'll probably end up winning an election and going even further right when he's in power!

 

[SuperStu]

And that was exposed by Starmer.

What? No it wasn't. It started with that leak of the video of the tory press officer person practicing answering journalists questions, and her and her staff laughing about what could they possibly say in response to whether Boris had held parties.

He tied Johnson in knots and invited him to lie over and over again.

What in PMQs? Again surely any leader would hammer the PM over such behaviour. I don't think that's unique to Starmer.

Labour have a huge lead, in no small part, due to Starmer not despite him.

I don't think I said despite him? I just don't think Labour's poll lead is much to do with Starmer specifically.

 

[Laughing]

What? No it wasn't. It started with that leak of the video of the tory press officer person practicing answering journalists questions, and her and her staff laughing about what could they possibly say in response to whether Boris had held parties.



What in PMQs? Again surely any leader would hammer the PM over such behaviour. I don't think that's unique to Starmer.



I don't think I said despite him? I just don't think Labour's poll lead is much to do with Starmer specifically.

I think you miss the point I made entirely. He wasn't kicked out because of parties he was kicked out because of the lies.

 

[Andy_W]

Being on the membership card was the "front and centre" I was referring to. Not that it was the front and centre OF the membership card. That would be overkill...

If the centre-left aren't currently SDP then we really have travelled so far right that there is no chance of a comeback in my lifetime.

But that again leads onto how far the Overton window has been allowed to shift and is the very reason why Starmer and Labour should be taking this opportunity to roll it back as far as possible (Blair had a similar opportunity and managed to mess it up (more conspiratorial people than me would suggest that Starmer was encouraged to stand for Labour to explicitly prevent this)).

Not having full support is a lot different to having MPs actively working against you. The Tories have spent the past decade in-fighting but they don't undermine in anything like the same damaging way (even with Truss, they knew there was a quick way out whilsy maintaining power).

As for the Lib Dems, in a functioning society people would be able to vote for the party that best represents them and then expect to see (even without PR) some of the proportional 'wants' of the population enacted by government. The fact we are practically in a party-dictatorship is one reason the country is so badly bent out of shape.


Clever people have done the maths. The numbers aren't open to debate. The possible ramifications and coalition problems are fair game though. It may have taken more than 3500 to get the right people in the right seats to form a government but the ~3500 was all that was mathematically required.


What didn't Corbyn offer that you wanted? What bone didn't he throw? (Or are you back to without winning there are no bones?)

Ok, I tend to take things literally

I think the manifesto will be largely centre left, we will see when it comes out. The problem isn't Labour, the problem is the makeup of all of the voters, it's a bad situation, so will ultimately end up in a non ideal situation for the labour left, or centre left (that's going to cover us both). But, what we end up with will be far better than the Tory alternative, or the last 15 years of Tory rule, I'm certain of that. If it's not then I'll be as miffed at that also.

I get your point about shifting left, I wouldn't have been against this in theory, if there was a vote today. But we're not voting today, the vote will be in two years' time, and things should have picked up a bit by then, even with these clowns. I don't really see how it can get much worse over that timeframe, but they Tories never fail to surprise me.

I disagree with actively working against the leader to the degree what you probably think at least, and against the party less than that. But even if not these case, if the leader does not suit the direction needed (or can't handle the press) and is going to lose by a landslide (and then lost by a landslide) then he had to go. Not ideal, but we've not been in an idea situation for a very long time.

Totally agree on the parties, most people don't vote for the party which reflects the reality of the position they're in, was the same with brexit too. I'd prefer a total reset on that, but it's not going to happen, we're going to be stuck in a two-party system as the winning party (Labour in this case) won't want to change things whilst they're winning, or expected to win. Tory's wont want it as they win most of the time, it's like a catch 22.

I'd be interested to read about the 3500, I'm not saying it isn't;'t the case but it doesn't seem a lot. Then you also have to factor that by getting those 3500, what are you going to lose, never mind what the coalition terms would be and how long that would last. Coalitions don't tend to last that long.

Corbyn didn't offer something which would win, which is a combination of policies, the party, how the media portray them, what the current situation is, who they're against etc. It's complex, but yes you get nothing for second.

 

[MolteniArcore]

Okay sure. I suppose it just makes it seem to me that you and Andy and a few others aren't getting the point being made.

The folk on the left that don't like Starmer dragging the Labour Party to the right, without a mandate to do so, in an attempt to persuade tory voters - aren't against all that because they anecdotally don't think it's working. I'm sure it's working a treat. The guy goes about talking about making Brexit work, not raising corporation taxes, tagging asylum seekers. Of course he's going to appeal to tories. The problem we have is he'll probably end up winning an election and going even further right when he's in power!

I totally get that point. It's pretty obvious that folk on the left aren't happy.

 

[SuperStu]

I think you miss the point I made entirely. He wasn't kicked out because of parties he was kicked out because of the lies.

He wasn't actually kicked out. He survived his VONC and then called the leadership contest voluntarily. I don't really know what you're arguing about here. Yeah of course the lies were damaging. But equally of course having a bunch of parties during lockdown would be a massive knock to his support regardless. And also of course any other opposition leader would (and they did - the other leaders in the HoC) make a point of asking the PM to confirm or deny rumours of lockdown parties during lockdown.

What I meant, and I think Nano meant was it's not that Starmer's winning support from other parties based on any policy announcements, or any big speech he's done, or anything to do with him personally.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. If the staff at number 10 hadn't been partying like a bunch of lunatics all through lockdown, then we'd likely still have a pretty popular Boris Johnson gov now unfortunately.

Oh dear me. Like or loath starmer Johnson would still be in post if not for him.

Here's a question. I said if the staff at number 10 hadn't been partying - which logically would have meant there wasn't parties for Boris to lie about - Boris probably would still be PM now. You're saying Boris not being PM now is down to Starmer. How are you saying Starmer would have engineered a situation where Johnson had to resign like he did if the scandal of those parties didn't exist? What am I missing?

 

[Laughing]

He wasn't actually kicked out. He survived his VONC and then called the leadership contest voluntarily. I don't really know what you're arguing about here. Yeah of course the lies were damaging. But equally of course having a bunch of parties during lockdown would be a massive knock to his support regardless. And also of course any other opposition leader would (and they did - the other leaders in the HoC) make a point of asking the PM to confirm or deny rumours of lockdown parties during lockdown.

What I meant, and I think Nano meant was it's not that Starmer's winning support from other parties based on any policy announcements, or any big speech he's done, or anything to do with him personally.




Here's a question. I said if the staff at number 10 hadn't been partying - which logically would have meant there wasn't parties for Boris to lie about - Boris probably would still be PM now. You're saying Boris not being PM now is down to Starmer. How are you saying Starmer would have engineered a situation where Johnson had to resign like he did if the scandal of those parties didn't exist? What am I missing?

Really? He was told he had to go to avoid a second VONC. Let's keep to the facts. Johnson was kicked out

 

[Andy_W]

For some reason when I am out an about people like to talk to me about politics - probably because they know I am interested in it. What I have observed is:

- Pre 2019 people with centre views would tell me Corbyn (the man, not the policies) wasn't to be trusted and they would never vote for him.

- Pre 2019 you would tell people a 'Corbyn policy' and they would agree with it. When they discovered it was a Labour policy they would tell me that they still wouldn't vote Labour.

- Over the last year the same people are now telling me they can't vote Tory and would very much consider voting Labour, or they would certainly be voting Labour. They all say Starmer is boring but that is what the country probably needs. He feels like safe pair of hands. These same people aren't really bothered about policies, they just want change.

These are people in Kent, Cheshire, North Yorkshire, Leeds, York, Scotland (they hate the SNP but it's only 2 people lol). It's not a poll, it's just what I hear.

The press did a job on Corbyn. He had some great ideas. It's a shame that we find ourselves in this mess now. I honestly think that the mood is changing and Starmer will be PM regardless of what happens between now and the next GE.

I get the same thing with a lot of people, could have wrote that nearly word for word!

Loads of my ex-military mates used to share countless posts on facebook which were anti Corbyn (and Abbott), not really anti-labour. Any time we met back up for drinks or whatever it was always about the people, not the party, when it boiled down to it.

This does make me think that labour could be more left, but the leader would need to be untouchable but the press would likely then make them touchable, and they seemingly have more interest in this when the person is less like the right, as they are.

 

[SuperStu]

Let's keep to the facts. Johnson was kicked out

I don't know what to say to this. You say let's stick to the facts and then immediately go off them.

Yes the 1922 committee were threatening to change the rules so they could re-run the VONC. Yes the political context was he had to go because he'd completely tanked his own and the party's support. But the facts are a VONC failed and then he announced his resignation.

Anyway my point was you can't just write off the lockdown parties he and his staff were having as being the root of Johnson's demise. You were claiming he was kicked out because of lying and not because of the parties. I'm just clarifying it's not like that's something you can point to and say it's 100% this. It's not like he lost the leadership on a technicality or a rule breach or something.