Starmer's 5 Missions for Labour

BoroFur said:
Yes I do because the comment was made by Starmer in the context of the EHRC having just confirmed that it was content with the actions taken by the Labour Party.

Actions necessary in response to the EHRC having served an unlawful act notice after its investigation into antisemitism found the Labour Party responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination.

Look I can't help you or others on here in coming to terms with how you see the Labour Party currently.

I have to hold my nose on some issues just as I had to when Jeremy Corbyn was leader.
Click to expand...
I see the Labour Party not just currently, but historically as the only viable alternative to the Tories, so there are no terms to come to, so I don't really need any help with how I see the Labour Party currently, thanks . I too have to hold my nose on some issues ( Maybe a few more than you), as I have had to in the past, but it seems we will both be voting for Labour at the next elections. But you will not get people who are currently saying they will not vote Labour to change their minds by attacking them, whether that is your intention or not. We need as many votes as we can get, across the whole possible spectrum of potential Labour supporters. Right, left or centre, I don't care, I want the Tories and UKIP and the Brexit party and whatever bunch Farage decides to pin his grubby coat tails to, to be wiped out, I want Labour to get not just a parliamentary majority, but a majority of the vote for only the second time, so every vote is crucial.
 
It never ceases to amaze me why people who are so hell bent on ridding the country of this current shower (and rightly so) become so entrenched in putting down the only credible alternative party leader to other potential voters that could end up in retaining the status quo were floating voters to read their utter negative views.

This country will never elect a truly socialist party with radical change at its heart. Change has to be undertaken slowly but surely, change needs to be affordable, realistically achievable and prove to benefit the day to day lives of ordinary everyday folk that just want a fair days pay for a fair days work, public services to deliver safety, security and look after their needs so they can live a reasonable life and provide for their family.

Every stick used to beat Starmer with is a help to the tories. Why anyone would do such a thing before he has even had the keys to number 10 and an opportunity to effect his changes is potentially an act of self harm as well as an act of harm to others. The tories would love nothing more than the more vocal and militant on the left to open old wounds.

The tories are doing their best to run the country into the financial ground so that Labour has its hands tied financially as much as possible so that they either hike taxation (so they can say we told you so) or that they have to limit their plan for change due to funding. The tories are planning for reclaiming power in the 2029 election, not the 2024 election which even the most blue rinsed tory knows is lost.

To effect the long term changes most want to see can not happen overnight. We live in a global world, we are affected by global events and have to respond to these as they hit our economy. We can not live in isolation, we need a stable country, a stable Europe and a stable world. Some on here think major change has to be achieved overnight, you can’t do that and carry the nation with you into your eutopia.

Anyone on here currently opposing Starmer is all mouth and no trousers, largely spouting from a position of weakness. Do you have a clue on how to win an election? If you do, rise up and stand for election with a personal manifesto or support someone who stands for similar visions and see how far you get. The reality is unlikely to be very far. If not, then all you can really do is think about how you can use your vote WISELY to bring about change, in doing so, be mindful of what you say and type, as words do influence others, and can have unintended consequences. This nation, in the short term will have 4 credible potential outcomes at the next election (not in any order):
1. A tory government re-elected
2. A Labour government newly elected
3. A Labour led coalition
4. A tory led coalition

I see option 2 as a necessity personally, but option 3 as the next most likely as things stand. If people value ridding the country of the tories, you should be doing all you can to make option 2 happen first and foremost and keep your ideology powder dry for now otherwise all you do is cloud the path to change and risk it happening at all. Once Labour gain power, by all means see how you can then influence them locally by engaging with the local party moving forwards.

Labour (imho) will need a minimum of 3 terms to turn things around in a truly meaningful way, one term will never be enough, it will be a tough challenge and people need to avoid calling for Starmers head too soon, as Boro fans in 2016/17 look at how the call for a new leader went then and the several years that followed, be careful what you wish for.
 
gregorgregorovich said:
I don't really need any help with how I see the Labour Party currently, thanks .
Click to expand...
I didn't offer you any help.

gregorgregorovich said:
But you will not get people who are currently saying they will not vote Labour to change their minds by attacking them, whether that is your intention or not.
Click to expand...
I support the leader of the Labour Party. He's regularly called a c*nt by one particular poster on here. About half a dozen others call him Keith for some reason only they know why. One poster describes anyone sho supports the Labour leader a 'fanatic'. If I ever have tried to change anyone's mind on here then 1) I failed miserably and 2) I've now given up and quite frankly I couldn't care less anymore.
 
The difference between centrists/right of Labour and the left of Labour is that when the left have a problem they will probably still vote for Labour or they will protest and vote elsewhere only when it is safe to do so. The centrists/right of Labour will vote for another party to keep the left out, even if that means the Tories getting in. The centrists/right of labour are the ones that cause Tory governments and those of us on the left are sick of the hypocrisy of being told to suck it up and support when it suits them while they **** off and vote for the Lib Dems or Tories when there's a leader they disagree with.

So, we are happy to have these discussions and outwardly show our dissatisfaction with the current leadership but we will either vote for Labour anyway or it won't matter if we don't because they'll win comfortably anyway. If we don't let it be known that we are not happy with the leadership now then when will be a good time? I am expecting a comfortable Labour win but sadly I am not expecting any major improvements for anyone. The current leadership will happily just coast along and continue as we are. I expect it to be better than the Tories, I expect less corruption, more competence and better/less confrontational relationships with our neighbours but I don't expect major improvements to the long term future of the citizens of this country.
 
coluka said:
Do you have a clue on how to win an election? If you do, rise up and stand for election with a personal manifesto or support someone who stands for similar visions and see how far you get. The reality is unlikely to be very far.
Click to expand...

Agree. But of course the logical end point of that is that the only route for left wing people to get a government they actually want is to try and influence change within the Labour party. If you accept the above, I don't get why you'd expect there to be no pushback aimed at Starmer.

coluka said:
If people value ridding the country of the tories, you should be doing all you can to make option 2 happen first and foremost and keep your ideology powder dry for now otherwise all you do is cloud the path to change and risk it happening at all.
Click to expand...
coluka said:
Change has to be undertaken slowly but surely, change needs to be affordable, realistically achievable and prove to benefit the day to day lives of ordinary everyday folk that just want a fair days pay for a fair days work, public services to deliver safety, security and look after their needs so they can live a reasonable life and provide for their family.
Click to expand...

As I said to Dybuk in post #100, this isn't evidenced in British politics over the last few years. People have thrown support behind parties/groups offering big changes - not the parties/groups saying slow and steady status quo. Gradualism just doesn't work. 🤷‍♂️
 
Nano said:
Highest Growth in the G7
Clean energy superpower
Improve the NHS
Reform the justice system
Raising education standards


Nothing radical, nothing that will change anything for the good in the long run. No public ownership of energy or infrastructure. No re-distribution of wealth. Nothing to tackle the housing crisis. It's just more of the same, maintain the status quo but don't be as bad at the job as the Tories have been.

Could be written by any political party.
Click to expand...
1677249017514.png
 
This is not the Labour Party I joined but I will vote for it always because there is no realistic alternative to form a government. Anything left of centre is an improvement. Let's hope that the party moves further left when in government.
 
BoroFur said:
Sorry mate that's absolute tosh.
Click to expand...
Is it? Who was everyone voting for then when Corbyn was "unelectable"? If it wasn't Labour, then it was a vote for the Tories (either directly or indirectly). We know it wasn't Labour because they were way behind so it was one of the other parties or they didn't vote at all.
 
coluka said:
It never ceases to amaze me why people who are so hell bent on ridding the country of this current shower (and rightly so) become so entrenched in putting down the only credible alternative party leader to other potential voters that could end up in retaining the status quo were floating voters to read their utter negative views.
Click to expand...
It never ceases to amaze me that people who pretend to want a better country need so many caveats and clauses before they'll actually back an alternative.

Starmer was voted in by many on the left who thought he looked like a credible alternative and believed his election pledges.

Starmer has since put the boot in.

Not just to the 'hard left' but also to any socialist Jews who happen to question the antisemitism narrative and more.

If Starmer wants my vote he needs to earn it. If he'd rather get the vote of some mildy irritated Tory then he can try to earn that. I won't be buying any of what he'll then be selling though.
 
El Guapo said:
Economically left-wing (pro-central planning)

Economically right-wing (pro-free market)

Socially left-wing (pro-social reform)

Socially right-wing (pro-social tradition)

I’d suggest for a fair country benefitting all you’d want a government promoting a combination of 1, and 2 above (utilities, infrastructure (essentials) by government but with a regulated free market for other businesses) and a strong dose of 3. Very little of 4 a beyond robust justice system.

You have to allow growth and profit but it has to be administered to benefit the whole of society I.e. taxes have to be paid not avoided. Capitalism with a conscience.

So fairly central - a bad thing? 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
There isn't a magical centre-point where these things co-exist. Sometimes you have to pick a side.

Centrism is just a handy device to allow Liberal types to vote for Tory policy without feeling too guilty.
 
newyddion said:
View attachment 53545
Click to expand...
Personally well behind every single one of those.

Suppose the question is, would enough of the electorate be. 2 and 4 I think would be safe enough.

The others you can see the right wing media going into overdrive on them "anti-democratic", "brexit betrayal", "Marxist nonsense" etc. I wouldn't necessarily back the "great British public" not to fall for it all. Again.
 
festa5 said:
Personally well behind every single one of those.

Suppose the question is, would enough of the electorate be. 2 and 4 I think would be safe enough.

The others you can see the right wing media going into overdrive on them "anti-democratic", "brexit betrayal", "Marxist nonsense" etc. I wouldn't necessarily back the "great British public" not to fall for it all. Again.
Click to expand...
We are stuck in an undemocratic trap with the super weathly able to step in and siphon off public funds as they see fit. From dodgy contracts to life long peerages.. nothing seems to be done with the best interests of the British public.

The NHS is suffering right now., surely those banging pots and pan can muster up some sense.

The House of Lords being replaced with an elected chamber.. surely had to be more democratic than putting Boris Johnson’s pals in there with Russian Oligarchs.

Nobody is bringing anything to the table right now. The main issues still remain and the will of the people is still there.. yet we are not being represented. Just done daft game between old friends at eton.
 
newyddion said:
View attachment 53545
Click to expand...
Labour will never go for Proportional Representation. As evidenced by their willingness to just become Tories to win votes they have no principles. They'd rather the guarantee of winning and being in power every decade, and profile raising shadow jobs when not winning, than doing what is best for people.

Abolishing the HoL is a weird one. I definitely disagree with the way it is run but I don't have a suggestion for a better model. I would prefer non-party affiliated temporary positions based on expertise than actually elected representatives otherwise you end up with a duplicate of the Commons which makes it less useful or a weird protest situation like when we kept sending anti-EU parties to represent us in the EU parliament. Maybe some sort of jury service style summons to serve rather than the same faces always filling it.

Green energy but publicly owned is a no brainer. We give far too much power (pun intended) to energy producers using our natural resources. Look how much better off Norway are with their sovereign wealth fund thanks to oil production.

Privatisation of the NHS, as long as it doesn't result in people paying for services, isn't as big an issue as it sounds. Some of the private services are rubbish and should be taken back in-house (and they often are once trusts find out they aren't up to scratch) but some of them are really good and it doesn't make sense to undo it.
 
Nano said:
Is it? Who was everyone voting for then when Corbyn was "unelectable"? If it wasn't Labour, then it was a vote for the Tories (either directly or indirectly). We know it wasn't Labour because they were way behind so it was one of the other parties or they didn't vote at all.
Click to expand...
The single topic 2019 GE?
Take a wild guess.
 
Scrote said:
There isn't a magical centre-point where these things co-exist. Sometimes you have to pick a side.

Centrism is just a handy device to allow Liberal types to vote for Tory policy without feeling too guilty.
Click to expand...
What a load of bull regarding centrism, you really are blinkered if you believe that. As a self stated centrist, I have yet to vote tory and most people I know in a similar position rarely, if ever, have. Clearly some will naturally, but to refer to it as a ‘handy device’ to somehow avoid feeling guilty is truly pathetic and shows a lack of understanding.
 
See this is the problem with calling Tories scum. A lot of people have Tory values but don't want to be thought of as scum. And so want to vote for the labour party. The labour party therefore shifts to pick up these people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top