Starmer: No to a Second Referendum

[Andy_W]

This is how the Starmer fans work. The guy never says anything so they just make up their own policies and assume he's secretly planning the same. Its become such a habit that now when he does say something, e.g. "a Labour government won't rejoin the single market or a customs union", they still just ignore it and assume the reverse is right. He's not left wing though so of course don't call it a personality cult.

I've been saying the same thing since KS came in, with this Tory government in place the best thing to do is to let them set their own house on fire, and watch them burn it down. Just go against almost everything they propose, in a relatively quiet manner, and don't make a big deal about it. Don't tell the "new" Tory voters they were wrong, as all it will do is get their backs up. Don't give the Tories anything to shoot you down on.

Why are you against him, if he's not said anything? Would you rather he just said a lot of things and completely alienated loads of voters? He's made quite a few comments at PMQ's and he's got comments in the papers every day.

Aye you unhappy with the change in direction of where the UK seems to be voting, or do you want another massive loss to the Tories?

I've been saying for ages (even at the Tory vaccine roll out peak) that Labour need to get those centre votes/ new tory votes/ tory brexit votes back from the Tories to win, which they're doing by erm.....being central.....that's the point.

How can you claim KS tactics are wrong, when votes are clearly shifting away from Tories, which should be priority no 1.

Even if we've all been wrong with our assumptions, then it still doesn't mean the tactics are wrong (whatever they are), as the numbers don't lie, Tories are jumping ship, and it doesn't really matter where they jump, as long as they jump.

 

[Nano]

There won't be support any time soon for freedom of movement. The Tories implementation of Brexit (like their implementation of everything else) is far from optimal. There is no way that anyone else couldn't do a better job. Maybe a new government without all of the previous bad blood between them and the EU can improve relations a bit. Negotiate with the EU to get single market excluding freedom of movement (or as close to) and there is then no reason that Brexit can't be successful. We don't need freedom of movement to increase immigration numbers. We are in charge of our borders. If we need more people we can allow more people and change the criteria.

We shouldn't be changing it to allow the industries that are struggling because they are refusing to pay the correct pay levels though. If farmers don't want to pay a proper wage for fruit pickers or airports for baggage handlers and security staff etc then we shouldn't be helping them. This is where not having FoM should be improving things for the lowest paid by increasing the wages of jobs that people don't want to do. They can't be allowed to continue to underpay. If they haven't even attempted offering a living wage then they shouldn't be helped.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

He wasn't in power then, it was a different time then, and Labour had zero hope of getting in power back then. He could see the Tory version of brexit was going to be an absolute disaster (like anyone could), so going against that then was probably the right call. Had he supported leave (or backed the Tories), then all it would have done is made him look like he agreed with the farce to come, it wouldn't have increased their chances of winning the 2019 election and it would have stopped them from being able to say "you got us into this mess" from 2019-2024 now, which is clearly working (hence the Tory decline).

Wanting a second referendum (or a vote on the deal) in 2018 was the right thing to want, then, now it isn't. We already have 6 years of damage baked in, there's nothing turning that ship around.

KS stance has been to control the centre, when the centre moves, move with it, it's the only way for Labour to win.

Corbyn's version of brexit had already been welcomed by the EU when Starmer went off script and backed a second referendum.

EU parliament chiefs welcome Jeremy Corbyn’s new Brexit plans

Theresa May told that backstop and withdrawal agreement cannot be reopened

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Nano]

I've been saying the same thing since KS came in, with this Tory government in place the best thing to do is to let them set their own house on fire, and watch them burn it down. Just go against almost everything they propose, in a relatively quiet manner, and don't make a big deal about it. Don't tell the "new" Tory voters they were wrong, as all it will do is get their backs up. Don't give the Tories anything to shoot you down on.

Why are you against him, if he's not said anything? Would you rather he just said a lot of things and completely alienated loads of voters? He's made quite a few comments at PMQ's and he's got comments in the papers every day.

Aye you unhappy with the change in direction of where the UK seems to be voting, or do you want another massive loss to the Tories?

I've been saying for ages (even at the Tory vaccine roll out peak) that Labour need to get those centre votes/ new tory votes/ tory brexit votes back from the Tories to win, which they're doing by erm.....being central.....that's the point.

How can you claim KS tactics are wrong, when votes are clearly shifting away from Tories, which should be priority no 1.

Even if we've all been wrong with our assumptions, then it still doesn't mean the tactics are wrong (whatever they are), as the numbers don't lie, Tories are jumping ship, and it doesn't really matter where they jump, as long as they jump.

The problem is that being centrist to win an election means we go in cycles of centre and right-wing. The left never get a chance to implement any left policies because the centre of Labour would rather win than actually help people. The right want Labour to be centrist because it means that even when they lose they are still not losing, just drawing for a few years until they can get back into power.

This is why Corbyn got so much support from the left. Finally a left-leaning leader of the party and what happened? The centrists in the party did everything they could to destroy him. They didn't listen to their members. They just repeatedly shot themselves in the foot. Corbyn already had all of the right-wing media against him. He might have had a chance if the centrists had backed him instead of agreeing with them. It just undermined him at every opportunity.

Now that a centrist is in charge the Starmer fans are massive hypocrites and telling everyone that they should support him as it is the only chance to beat the Tories. It's true but it also was under Corbyn. A lot of the left wonder what the point is if that is the best we can hope for. If not being the Tories is enough to win an election then why can't we do that with someone from the left? Starmer doesn't really offer anything so it's hard to support him. I don't believe he is just letting the Tories hang themselves, I think he genuinely doesn't know what to do. He'll get my vote if he's there at the next election because he's not a Tory but he doesn't make me want to vote Labour.

 

[Andy_W]

Corbyn's version of brexit had already been welcomed by the EU when Starmer went off script and backed a second referendum.

EU parliament chiefs welcome Jeremy Corbyn’s new Brexit plans

Theresa May told that backstop and withdrawal agreement cannot be reopened

www.independent.co.uk

Of course it was welcomed, why wouldn't it be, but the EU would have preferred us not to leave than leave with CU, SM and FOM, and if we were leaving with that then, then there would have been no point in leaving and it could have been reversed back then, with far less damage. May was open to a weaker version too, but the Tories weren't up for that (and leavers still hadn't woke up to the damage of brexit) so they got shot of her.

Starmer was the shadow brexit minister back then, so it's unlikely he didn't have a say in what Corbyn was saying in regards to brexit, when he did say something, and the 2019 manifesto included having a second referendum, albeit it was announced late, and by then the ship had largely sailed, even moreso when they got BJ in.

 

[SuperStu]

Interesting how many on the thread seem totally untroubled by the idea of governments needing a mandate to carry out policies.

If Starmer goes in to an election saying no working with the SNP, no rejoining the EU, no single market, no customs union, no nationalisation, no electoral reform, no house of lords reform, and then once he's in office he tries to reverse all of those positions (all of which people on here have at different times told me they believe he will do) then how long is he going to stay in power for?

Don't you all think the media and opposition parties might point out his deception? Don't you think some of his backbenchers might actually intend on sticking to the manifesto they get elected on?

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

albeit it was announced late

Yes, many tories were against May's plans and it was Starmer's job to help win the argument but instead he totally undermined his leader with an announcement that was off script and did not have the backing of Corbyn. He had no right to do that and should have been sacked. That he wasn't was a weakness on Corbyn's part.

 

[Andy_W]

The problem is that being centrist to win an election means we go in cycles of centre and right-wing. The left never get a chance to implement any left policies because the centre of Labour would rather win than actually help people. The right want Labour to be centrist because it means that even when they lose they are still not losing, just drawing for a few years until they can get back into power.

This is why Corbyn got so much support from the left. Finally a left-leaning leader of the party and what happened? The centrists in the party did everything they could to destroy him. They didn't listen to their members. They just repeatedly shot themselves in the foot. Corbyn already had all of the right-wing media against him. He might have had a chance if the centrists had backed him instead of agreeing with them. It just undermined him at every opportunity.

Now that a centrist is in charge the Starmer fans are massive hypocrites and telling everyone that they should support him as it is the only chance to beat the Tories. It's true but it also was under Corbyn. A lot of the left wonder what the point is if that is the best we can hope for. If not being the Tories is enough to win an election then why can't we do that with someone from the left? Starmer doesn't really offer anything so it's hard to support him. I don't believe he is just letting the Tories hang themselves, I think he genuinely doesn't know what to do. He'll get my vote if he's there at the next election because he's not a Tory but he doesn't make me want to vote Labour.

That's the unfortunate nature of the UK (England's) make up though, there's just more people far right, than far left. The centre/ votes which can be swayed 100% control who gets into power, it's like why DC only concentrated on the "leave/ remain" centre, as they were all that mattered in the run in to the vote.

A centre Labour helps the people and public services more than a Tory government does, and having a "left" labour opposition does absolutely zero, as it won't ever get enough votes to win, or enough MP's to move policy, until all the old tories/ boomers die off. The left/ young are just too heavily outnumbered, but that will change over time.

With a centre Labour in power it also pulls the Tories further left, as they have to do that to get those centre votes back. Going further right won't get the Tories back in, around 2029 (assuming they lose 2024), they'll have to be much further left than how they are now. Leaving the Tories in power for three elections just lets them dig in further and further right, as the media fuels the hate.

Effectively the best hope we have is swaying from one to the other, unless the population really shifts their political stance, but that takes decades.

Centre Tories won't vote for JC though, as he appeared too far left for them and the Tory media made an easy target of him. We've not had a "left" labour in power since I was born, and in the last 100 years the Tories have been in power for around 2/3rds of it.

Labour going further left just hardens the left voters, but you don't need to do that, as they're never going to vote Tory anyway, we need to get the Tories to stop voting Tory, then if we can do that for two election cycles then a difference can be made. As much as the left now claim they didn't like Blair, they didn't seem to be as vocal at the time, when he was winning elections. Even the Tories couldn't pin much on him other than the Iraq war (retrospectively), but back then all the Tory MP's voted for the war anyway!

 

[Andy_W]

Yes, many tories were against May's plans and it was Starmer's job to help win the argument but instead he totally undermined his leader with an announcement that was off script and did not have the backing of Corbyn. He had no right to do that and should have been sacked. That he wasn't was a weakness on Corbyn's part.

I think you're making JC out to be far clearer than he was back then, even as a Labour voter I wasn't convinced by what he wanted or what he was saying. Even the brexit "script" he was peddling was like it wasn't even his own script, it just seemed like someone reading a line which he was being forced to read.
But yes, he was weak, and there's no swaying the centre (and certainly not the right) by being weak. Hard to sack someone when they're right though, and when you go an make that policy in the next GE.

Like I always say though, I didn't mind JC's policies and voted for him, but I knew he had no hope in hell of winning, as he made himself to be a too easy target for our scumbag media. It shouldn't matter, but it really does. The good thing now is the media has turned on BJ, and he's the new scumbag in town, and they've very little on KS which they can go at, which I think was one of the main reasons he got picked for Labour (and why I always said he was the best choice).

 

[Andy_W]

Interesting how many on the thread seem totally untroubled by the idea of governments needing a mandate to carry out policies.

If Starmer goes in to an election saying no working with the SNP, no rejoining the EU, no single market, no customs union, no nationalisation, no electoral reform, no house of lords reform, and then once he's in office he tries to reverse all of those positions (all of which people on here have at different times told me they believe he will do) then how long is he going to stay in power for?

Don't you all think the media and opposition parties might point out his deception? Don't you think some of his backbenchers might actually intend on sticking to the manifesto they get elected on?

They don't have a manifesto yet, they don't need one yet, and having one now just makes a target to shoot at. All they need is words, and to navigate the ship through the centre, and be there to pick up voters who have jumped ship from the Tories. Lib Dems will pick up the other stragglers and those who don't get picked up won't vote. They likely won't get back on the Tory ship though, and that will likely be under water anyway.

Wait till the manifesto comes out, then see if you prefer that, the greens, LD or the Tory one? I think Labour will largely stick to theirs (will only know if they win mind, or Tory's don't win etc), and it will be set based on where a good chunk of the centre voters are sat at that point.

 

[BoroMart]

If Starmer goes in to an election saying no working with the SNP, no rejoining the EU, no single market, no customs union, no nationalisation, no electoral reform, no house of lords reform, and then once he's in office he tries to reverse all of those positions (all of which people on here have at different times told me they believe he will do) then how long is he going to stay in power for?

I don't think that will happen, I think if he improves the current scenario then for a second term he would go in on those things

 

[1finny]

This could turn out to be a pretty good political move by Starmer.
Lib Dems sweep up in the South as voters who want to return to the EU pile across from Labour and Con.
Tory’s and Labour fight the North on an equal footing apart from the fact one party has been around for 12 years and firked everyone over.

Hung parliament where Labour and Lib Dem have to rely on SNP.
Labour only get to lead if they compromise on their Brexit stance.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

I think you're making JC out to be far clearer than he was back then, even as a Labour voter I wasn't convinced by what he wanted or what he was saying. Even the brexit "script" he was peddling was like it wasn't even his own script, it just seemed like someone reading a line which he was being forced to read.

This of course is only your interpretation and can't be applied to every party member at the time. I and others on here have always maintained that we understood Corbyn's brexit plans.

Hard to sack someone when they're right though, and when you go an make that policy in the next GE.

How was he right? He undermined his leader, called for a 2nd referendum which was not party policy, and panicked the red wall. He has now reversed that call and said that there will be no 2nd referendum, and people on here are saying it's good policy.

 

[Nano]

This could turn out to be a pretty good political move by Starmer.
Lib Dems sweep up in the South as voters who want to return to the EU pile across from Labour and Con.
Tory’s and Labour fight the North on an equal footing apart from the fact one party has been around for 12 years and firked everyone over.

Hung parliament where Labour and Lib Dem have to rely on SNP.
Labour only get to lead if they compromise on their Brexit stance.

Even in a Hung Parliament Labour don't need to compromise in order to lead. Lib Dems and SNP have been calling for anyone but the Tories for so long that they can't do anything but back Labour.

 

[Andy_W]

This of course is only your interpretation and can't be applied to every party member at the time. I and others on here have always maintained that we understood Corbyn's brexit plans.

How was he right? He undermined his leader, called for a 2nd referendum which was not party policy, and panicked the red wall. He has now reversed that call and said that there will be no 2nd referendum, and people on here are saying it's good policy.

Fair enough, I suppose I'm more central than you though, and didn't get what he wanted early doors, until it was far too late, seemed there were many others who felt the same way as me.

Corbyn wasn't exactly a great leader on their brexit situation, and Starmer was shadow brexit minister, so you would think he had a fair idea of policy, and seeing as that policy was in the manifesto a few months later, you could say he was more in tune with what labour wanted, and more ahead of the game than Corbyn was. He might have been right as Corbyn changed stance to match KS's, rather than stick with his own stance which wasn't working.

End of the day though, it's largely irrelevant, Corbyn wasn't getting in, and the Tories increased their vote share in 2017 and 2019, despite having been in power for 7 years already which could have been a great opportunity to get them out. We'll never know if a more central stance would have won it, but I think it would have had a better chance.

Changing stance based on the current situation is right, if the current situation dictates it. Not moving with the voters is the absolute worst thing you can do, and is the biggest problem that the far left won't acknowledge. You can have the best intentions and policies in the world for the left (which I want too), but as the country isn't left/ far left it just becomes a pipe dream. People need to get passed the denial phase, it's as bad as the brexit lot thinking that the sun lit uplands are coming.

There are only two ways to win:
1: Win (or don't lose) the centre - can be done short term
2: The population shifts to match up to your stance - takes decades, but even then still may not work

 

[Andy_W]

Even in a Hung Parliament Labour don't need to compromise in order to lead. Lib Dems and SNP have been calling for anyone but the Tories for so long that they can't do anything but back Labour.

Exactly, when it comes to key votes it's not like SNP and LD will jump into bed with the tories. Some policies LD and SNP will align with Labour on, some they won't, some they will be bought, some they won't. I'm fine with that, it's better than Tories doing what they like, when they like.

Labour are currently predicted 310 seats, to the Tory 247, it would take both LD (17) and SNP (51) to overturn a 310 labour vote, which is extremely unlikely.

 

[Ziggy]

The only reason for the existence of any political party is to gain power, exercise that power and then hold on to it.
During PMQ’s since Johnson’s win at some point he use will the accusation about Starmer wanting a second ref. I can understand, without totally agreeing with it, his stance on the EU.
He’s a pragmatist, dyed in the wool. He’s trying to park the bus, also maybe hoping to make some impact in the red wall. Even any idea of constitutional changes will have no place in a manifesto.
The think his most stupid idea is wanting to win the the next election anyway. There’s going to be nothing left when these vandals have finished with it. Let them have it, and suffer the consequences.
Which I realise, of course we would suffer most. But it would finish them completely.

 

[Andy_W]

I don't think that will happen, I think if he improves the current scenario then for a second term he would go in on those things

I'm not so sure, they might be able to pay for SMA, rather than join the SM and there may be a solution to the CU if we adjust some policies.

Would be more about taking a read on what the people want in 2027-2028, and seeing if there's an appetite for it, or if it's necessary. After a few years the country may soften on brexit, so would be a good call in that case, but if not they would probably look to be more aligned, but less bound.

 

[Andy_W]

The think his most stupid idea is wanting to win the the next election anyway. There’s going to be nothing left when these vandals have finished with it. Let them have it, and suffer the consequences.
Which I realise, of course we would suffer most. But it would finish them completely.

This was one of the things I was thinking about the other day, but I don't think it's losable now for labour, or a Tory majority is even possible.

I think most of the house will have burned down by 2024, and there won't be much left to burn after that, and what is left will have largely burned by 2027 and Labour can pick up from there, so have some momentum going into 2029.

We're probably heading for around two years of economic pain anyway (the whole world is), as the hangover from covid, balancing out the stimulas and war would do that anyway, but brexit is going to add fuel to that.

 

[BiggEggo]

I think that we need to make the best we can of the current situation.

That starts with ditching the current government.

It will take time to see of if we can agree something workable with the EU on trade.

If we can then I think that will have to suffice until all of the old age dodgepots either shuffle off or have time to actually process what they voted for.

At that 'once in a generation ' point we can decide as a nation how close we should be to our neighbours. Hopefully all the tory idiots will have dried up and blown away by that point