.

I
But there's only a mis-match in messaging because Starmer has consistently avoided telling the truth (as per the criticism from Martin Forde last week).

If Corbyn was going out of his way to be awkward (George Galloway springs to mind as someone ploughing their own furrow) then I'd understand it.

The problem is the truth regarding Corbyn is easily available for anyone that cares and that makes Starmer (and by extension the Labour party) look crooked.

This isn't 'good politics' - it's petty vindictiveness.
I agree but the problem with Corbyn politically is the right wing media twist or lie about what he says, they’ve done a job on him since he nearly won in 2017. For that reason he has become a liability for Labour as a party trying to win an election.
 
I agree but the problem with Corbyn politically is the right wing media twist or lie about what he says, they’ve done a job on him since he nearly won in 2017. For that reason he has become a liability for Labour as a party trying to win an election.
So when the press lie about Starmer do we remove him from the party?

And then the next leader and so on..?

You know this is ridiculous.

Starmer has backed himself into a corner (not for the first time) and is flailing about making the Labour party less and less appealing to the people he needs to vote for it.

The floating voters won't help if the core support disappears.
 
Ive always thought of corbyn as a dieing breed of a politician someone with with integrity and principles he must be deeply hurt by the direction labour party is going. Absolute shambolic treatment is he really such a threat to starmer. Its utter paranoia from starmer to me its like cracking a nut with a cruise missile. I hope labour win with starmer but as soon as possible his own party turn on him and demand real social change

Sadly, you are misguided about JCs integrity…
Anti House of Lords - gives his mate a perrage
CND supporter - wouldn’t fight for getting rid of nuclear weapons
Brexiteer - never had the balls to say it out right
 
Anti House of Lords - gives his mate a perrage
Is this Chakrabarti? Wasn't the reasoning that she was pro-HOL reform and that you can't change anything without being involved?

I don't understand the rest. He clearly wasn't a Brexiteer and as far as I'm aware he has always campaigned for restrictions on nuclear weapons. The Labour party voted to endorse Trident but Corbyn was always against it personally. Are you suggesting he should have resigned when 100% of what he wanted wasn't approved or that he should have just ridden roughshod over the Labour party's processes?
 
Is this Chakrabarti? Wasn't the reasoning that she was pro-HOL reform and that you can't change anything without being involved?

I don't understand the rest. He clearly wasn't a Brexiteer and as far as I'm aware he has always campaigned for restrictions on nuclear weapons. The Labour party voted to endorse Trident but Corbyn was always against it personally. Are you suggesting he should have resigned when 100% of what he wanted wasn't approved or that he should have just ridden roughshod over the Labour party's processes?

I guess its about an interpretation of integrity.

If you hold fundamental beliefs (CND for instance) and decide that leading a party that endorses Trident is more important than your beliefs - I think it’s fair to question someone’s integrity.
If it was me - I would have resigned.

After all - Starmer is making all sorts of compromises in order to get elected but he is labelled disingenuous/lacking integrity et al.

He is clearly a eurosceptic but never voiced that during the Brexit discussions.

Your view of the Chakrabarti peerage is at odds with mine - but either of us (or, indeed neither) could be right.

For the record - I don’t like what Starmer has done ref JC but I also like to hold a debate openly and fairly.

Polarisation - For instance ‘Starmer bad… Corbyn good’ or vice versa is just about dogma and doesn’t help anyone.,
 
He is clearly a eurosceptic but never voiced that during the Brexit discussions.

I've read on here before that Corbyn didn't express EU support strongly enough during the referendum. That his 7/10, there's loads of problems but we need to stay in answer wasn't good enough. A certain Coats and Jackets obsessive recently told me Corbyn is solely to blame for Brexit happening.

Now the problem is that he didn't express Brexit support strongly enough?

Sounds like Corbyn was the centrist all along. 😇
 
After all - Starmer is making all sorts of compromises in order to get elected but he is labelled disingenuous/lacking integrity et al.

This bits absurd. If you can't see the difference between putting decisions he party has made on a democratic basis in the manifesto even when you don't personally believe them, and pretending your left wing to gain the leadership before completely overruling the democratic processes of the party to enforce your hidden tory economics agenda then there's no helping you.
 
The problem isn't alienating people who would vote for Corbyn. The problem is treating the truth as an inconvenience and just wanting power for the sake of it.

It's coming across as very much "it's our turn" rather than "we need to change things". Without meaningful change the Labour party will do well to last a term and certainly won't get another.

Blair - love him or loathe him - understood this. Starmer and his fanboys don't.

The right-wing press will bring up every single example that the left have uncovered to show why Starmer is unfit to lead the country. He, personally, will become unelectable very quickly. The next election might be won due to the Tories recent record. The one after that will be much harder. Abandoning everything that kept the left vote onside for a very short term gain is idiotic. The floating voters will leave on a whim. The left will never come back.

Why do you assume that "we need to change things" does not apply? Why do you think a party which gets a predicted 400+ seats would not hold onto a second term? It's more chance of a second term than 200-250 seats gets, as that doesn't even tick the first term box.

I'll bet you my house that Labour (under Starmer) will do more for the left and centre than the Tories, and will change things for the better, rather than making or allowing things to get worse. I'll also bet my house he does more than Corbyn too. Corbyn couldn't do anything as he lost, twice, and was apparently on the "pro remain" side (although weakly), when that lost also.

Having policies which don't secure you a win, are pipe dreams, and the longer you lose the further those dreams drift away.

I didn't mind Blair, he did a lot more right than wrong, and also stopped the Tories being in power for ~13 years, and making things worse. Starmer will do similar, there's zero evidence he won't, and we know the current Tories are the most destructive crop we've known.

Blair also beat Major, who he himself was a lot more reasonable than the clowns who Corbyn lost too, and who Starmer will have to beat.

The press have tried to bring things up on Starmer, they effectively have next to nothing on him, which is another reason why he was such a good appointment, and he won't help paint a target on his own back.

It's not abandoning the left vote, it's choosing to try and get the centre back on side, which it has done. If you don't get the centre, like Corbyn didn't, you lose and there's zero prize for second place.
 
Why do you assume that "we need to change things" does not apply? Why do you think a party which gets a predicted 400+ seats would not hold onto a second term? It's more chance of a second term than 200-250 seats gets, as that doesn't even tick the first term box.

I'll bet you my house that Labour (under Starmer) will do more for the left and centre than the Tories, and will change things for the better, rather than making or allowing things to get worse. I'll also bet my house he does more than Corbyn too. Corbyn couldn't do anything as he lost, twice, and was apparently on the "pro remain" side (although weakly), when that lost also.

Having policies which don't secure you a win, are pipe dreams, and the longer you lose the further those dreams drift away.

I didn't mind Blair, he did a lot more right than wrong, and also stopped the Tories being in power for ~13 years, and making things worse. Starmer will do similar, there's zero evidence he won't, and we know the current Tories are the most destructive crop we've known.

Blair also beat Major, who he himself was a lot more reasonable than the clowns who Corbyn lost too, and who Starmer will have to beat.

The press have tried to bring things up on Starmer, they effectively have next to nothing on him, which is another reason why he was such a good appointment, and he won't help paint a target on his own back.

It's not abandoning the left vote, it's choosing to try and get the centre back on side, which it has done. If you don't get the centre, like Corbyn didn't, you lose and there's zero prize for second place.
is it the centre though?

even in 2019 working-age people voted more for Labour than the Tories. Young people voted in their droves for Labour. It's the older generations, the retired, the rich and comfortable that swung ridiculously to the Tories.
 
You can be in favour of abolishing something but still use that sytem whilst it is in place.

Are you suggesting Corbyn should have allowed the second level our legislature chamber to be filled with Tories and Lib Dems? 🤔

And I thought Labour under Corbyn would have kept nuclear weapons.

I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories that Corbyn was a secret leaver unless you back it up with evidence

And starmer is now a brexiteer. Not conspiracy. Not opinion. Fact!

Honestly Starmer doesn't have integrity and people know he's dishonest

Hopefully IF Labour loose the next election people blame Starmer for literally showing voters "the door"

I wasn't making any comment on Starmer's integrity

I was challenging the assertion that Corbyn had integrity. I don't believe that and have provided evidence to the contrary,
Labour under Corbyn would have kept nuclear weapons. That' my point - he is a CND zealot yet was happy to ditch his principals to lead a party - that is lacking integrity in my book.
This bits absurd. If you can't see the difference between putting decisions he party has made on a democratic basis in the manifesto even when you don't personally believe them, and pretending your left wing to gain the leadership before completely overruling the democratic processes of the party to enforce your hidden tory economics agenda then there's no helping you.

I am not comparing JC's integrity credentials to Starmer's integrity credentials. I think its pointless.
All that happens is
If you are a Starmer fan you will compare him favourably to Corbyn and vice versa.

They both have flaws IMO
 
For those who still say Corbyn wasn't appealing

2005 - 9,552,436 (Blair) - 355 v 198 (against Howard, who nobody even remembers)
2010 - 8,609,527 (Brown) - 258 v 306 (against Cameron, who was a tosser, but quite strong)
1015 - 9,347,273 (Milliband) - 232 seats v 330 (against Cameron, who was a tosser, but quite strong)
2017 - 12,877,918 (Corbyn) - 262 seats v 317 (against May, who was weak)
2019 - 10,269,051 (Corbyn) - 202 seats v 365 (against BJ, the worst ever)

After Labour MPs pushed for a second referendum 52 seats lost were in leave areas, 6 were remain Scotland seats and 2 remain England

61% of Labour MPs represented leave seats

🤔
Not appealing enough, he lost, and due to this we ended up with May, BJ, Truss and Sunak, all of who are less competent than any of those who the others faced, and will go down in history as such.

Blair in 2005 had to deal with the war, which all the Tories voted for and Brown/ Labour had a worldwide recession pinned on them, due to our great press.
How many votes did the Tory alternatives get? I've put the seat numbers, and who they were up against. Turnout was up from 2005>20010>2015>2019, which partially explains Corbyns increase in voter numbers etc.

Corbyn was also up against some weak "leaders", if he couldn't beat those, then you need a better leader pushing those ideas, as Corbyn clearly wasn't it, unfortunately.

Corbyn was in power for about year before the leave vote, he could and should have done more to be seen as pro-eu, but like the rest of the remain campaign, they were flat, and assumed they had it in the bag anyway. Then as this lost it caused a big problem for Cameron, so he quit, and caused a problem for labour as their seats blamed the EU for their problems, not the Tories. Cobyn could have done more to show these were tory issues, not EU issues.

It's factual that Corbyn lost and it's also factual that he enacted zero policies as he lost. You have to win, and then you can start to change things (like Blair did), you can't change anything if you don't win first, and then retaining it helps also.
 
Johnson convinced a lot of people he was their favourite uncle and would look after them with Brexit sunlit uplands and levelling up. He had a solid base of 17 million leave voters to gather in. On top of that the Tories have been collecting the pensioners vote on the back of triple lock and anti immigration policy. That’s why they won by appealing to enough peopke.
 
is it the centre though?

even in 2019 working-age people voted more for Labour than the Tories. Young people voted in their droves for Labour. It's the older generations, the retired, the rich and comfortable that swung ridiculously to the Tories.
It's the centre of the population, but may not be the centre on the political spectrum, it's unfortunate it has to be that way, but you need the centre of the population, or to win back the labour lost seats (who were conned into leaving, or not informed enough to be remainers).

The problem is it takes time to move people on the political spectrum, and the leave vote shifted the population right, very quickly, as remain didn't do enough to show the current government were the problem, and not the EU. Of course the Tories were not going to hold a flag up, saying we're to blame for everyone's hardship, so all they would do is say "it will be better in the EU", but it didn't explain why as they (and the press) would have to point a gun at themselves.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top