Keir Starmer

SuperStu said:
You don't think this is a bit insulting?



Just asking for a bit of consistency from the folks who declared it abuse when people simply quoted Cols own words back to him? I mean you've both replied the same thing to me now, does that constitute a pile on? As in:
Click to expand...
I'm sure if Roofie took it that way,and I guess he did, I cant say he didnt really can I ?

However if that's now the benchmark that's the benchmark we look to, we have to careful what we say on here and I take your point. It will have to be looked at accordingly by whoever is in the debate.

Perhaps just the question is valid or I thought so, but as you pointed out it looked insulting to you.
Although it doesn't really matter if an answer is received, as we cant demand anything from one another. I think Roofies heart in the right place, but so is LOTL.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
So is the reality is that he praised her in one interview but not in another?
Click to expand...
He didn't praise her at all BBG. The telegraph article had a disengenous headline. The article was aimed at people who thought government couldn't make a difference. Starmer was simply saying that governments can bring change.

He mentioned thatcher in a very nuetral manner in a single sentence of the article.
 
For clarity, I'm reposting this because my first cack handed attempt had the wrong quote (sorry finny) attached to it.

LessoftheLip said:
Mental gymnastics again. In that case why didnt he just say change in 1945 was good but change in 1979 was bad?

Why do you and others manage to find explanations for what Corbyn said (or didn't say on this occasion) yet you hold Starmer to a much highe
degree of scrutiny?
Click to expand...


The mental gymnastics is all yours if you are offering your quote as an example of praise. Corbyn's point is no more specific than the dates themselves, which he obviously offers up as times of significant political shift in order to illustrate the size of the opportunity we had at the time of the speech. He doesn't praise or condemn any of the changes that happened in those examples, not even the 1945 one.
 
SuperStu said:
Can't agree there, as you've alluded to in the rest of your post Blairs first time in office was a lurch to the right compared to what was being promised while in opposition. Voting reform, house of lords reform, nationalising rail was all dropped when in power.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant he should learn from Blair's mistake. Ditto with PR

Ref the praise point. Of course you don't need to use the word.
It's all a bit nuanced and we make a case of 'praise or not' on where we stand with KS - we can't be definitive.

Well, we can but that's a different conversation.
 
1finny said:
Sorry, I meant he should learn from Blair's mistake. Ditto with PR

Ref the praise point. Of course you don't need to use the word.
It's all a bit nuanced and we make a case of 'praise or not' on where we stand with KS - we can't be definitive.

Well, we can but that's a different conversation.
Click to expand...
so where are Labour right now on PR? Is it a dead duck because it looks like they will win a sizeable majority OR is the policy to radically change the democratic process. If it's the latter, I'm in!
 
SuperStu said:
I'd love it if he lurched to the left. It's nothing personal about him as an individual for me. It's purely transactional and strategic.

There was a 30+ year gap between Attlee and Foot leading Labour, and then another between Foot and Corbyn. If we have to wait that long before the next opportunity to vote for a party that want to socialise the economy I'll be in my 60s.

If Starmer gets a stonking majority and does naff all with it we'll be back to another garbage tory government before we know it with nothing gained that can't easily be reversed... again.
Click to expand...
Fair point, but I'll be nearly in my 90s - and that's probably where the difference between us lies. I have lived through the British public, time and again, voting conservatively and rejecting anything which smells of socialism. I don't expect an incoming Starmer government to "socialise the economy" but I do expect social policy to become more compassionate; affordable housing and more equal regional development to be made priorities; more devolution at local level; more joining of public procurement to sustainable social good; the state to be far more muscular with regard to industrial policy; reform in education away from 'gradgrind'; some sort of National Care Service; a sustained squeeze on 'wealth', albeit stealthily; a signally 'closer' relationship with the EU etc. If most of that is set in train in the first term, a/ I'll take it, and b/ I'm prepared for Starmer to tickle shy Tories'/natural Tories' tummies enough in order that it happens (he needs to do this, alas, because there remains a large rump of left-wing voters perpetually determined to deny the only viable centre-left alternative their votes unless they get their precise personalised utopias promised/implemented whatever the economic constraints). Yes, I'd like to see things like PR, for instance, to lock in the centre-left majority that exists in this country, and see us renationalise utilities, but I'm not, sadly, hopeful, at least not in a first term. That's life. At nearly 60, like I say, and having lived 30 of my 40 adult years under the Tories, I'm prepared to take whatever Labour Government is available.

One thing which would make me break with a Starmer Government would be if we followed a President Trump into some ill-advised foreign war. God help us all if a UK Goverment has to make that call...
 
Wiseman_Vaughn said:
so where are Labour right now on PR? Is it a dead duck because it looks like they will win a sizeable majority OR is the policy to radically change the democratic process. If it's the latter, I'm in!
Click to expand...

It’s a wait and see to understand if its in the manifesto but they did have a positive vote on it at the conference.

I’ve said all along, the best election result is a hung parliament with Labour having to rely on SNP and Lib Dems.
The cost of that?
Freedom of movement, closer economic ties with the EU and PR.
 
Scrote said:
LOTL is a troll account set up about two weeks ago. The idea that his/her heart is in the right place is absurd. The account has specifically targeted left-wing posters and dragged up previous quotes in some bizarre attempt at provoking controversy. Best ignored.
Click to expand...
You know who it is or what his former user name was Scrote? He had been on here a lot of years. especially on the old board.
 
Scrote said:
LOTL is a troll account set up about two weeks ago. The idea that his/her heart is in the right place is absurd. The account has specifically targeted left-wing posters and dragged up previous quotes in some bizarre attempt at provoking controversy. Best ignored.
Click to expand...
No it's not a troll account at all. If you'd be prepared to listen I'll happily PM you at some point today to explain.
 
equaliser said:
he needs to do this, alas, because there remains a large rump of left-wing voters perpetually determined to deny the only viable centre-left alternative their votes unless they get their precise personalised utopias promised/implemented whatever the economic constraints
Click to expand...
Most of the post I can agree with but you can't seem to get past the fact that the left exists and has a political position.

I'm guessing I'm about 10 years younger than you given what you've posted. The shift to the right in the past decade or so is much different to anything that has come before in my lifetime - and probably in the UK since Cromwell.

Having a line in the sand that I won't cross doesn't mean I'm trying to deny a viable centre-left party. It means I won't follow a centrist party into the centre-right and beyond. If the electoral-math makes that a winner for Labour then they're on the right track. If it means we end up with another five years of not much difference then the opportunity will have been wasted. I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
You know who it is or what his former user name was Scrote? He had been on here a lot of years. especially on the old board.
Click to expand...
I neither know nor care. The MO is the same as the few usual suspects (who might all be the same person for all I know).

Just click on ignore and it goes away. That's not something I do lightly as discussing things with people you disagree with is what makes the board great. Obvious troll accounts just become time sinks though as they aren't interested in answers or furthering the debate.
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
You know who it is or what his former user name was Scrote? He had been on here a lot of years. especially on the old board.
Click to expand...
Don't listen to him fella. I've been posting on this board and the one before that for a number of years. He was probably still in short trousers when I first started posting. I post as much about Boro, beer, travel and music as I do about politics. I have a different view to him on politics but he has an air of superiority that grates. Other posters will vouch for me, there's just 3 or 4 who don't think I'm entitled to an opinion.
 
LessoftheLip said:
Don't listen to him fella. I've been posting on this board and the one before that for a number of years. He was probably still in short trousers when I first started posting. I post as much about Boro, beer, travel and music as I do about politics. I have a different view to him on politics but he has an air of superiority that grates. Other posters will vouch for me, there's just 3 or 4 who don't think I'm entitled to an opinion.
Click to expand...

“New to the board but I think I'm going to enjoy it with threads like this.”

“I’ve been posting on this board and the one before that for a number of years.”

Make your mind up fella.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top