Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Elmo!]

Would Labour get anything substantial passed in a Minority government. what are the chances of a left wing leader like Corbyn compromising with the Lib Dems for 5-10+ yrs.
Maybe am wrong but ive heard no counter arguments, PR would help to restrain the Torys but it would result in permanent minority governments, the Parties who were able to form coalitions would be in power. think it's a matter of being careful of what you wish for.

A Labour minority government that got absolutely nothing done would be a huge improvement on what we have....

[TepidT2O]

A Labour minority government that got absolutelynoyhing done would be a huge improvement on what we have....

Yes..  I don’t  think it’s going to happen though (sadly)

[killer-heels]

Nothing wrong with a unruly conference. Should be having a good bust up in those things anyway.

[Welshred]

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1442555117182537728?s=20

Look at this utter shitshow of a thread, honestly is there a meeting where there'll be speakers more useless than the ones here?

[OOS]

Nothing wrong with a unruly conference. Should be having a good bust up in those things anyway.

The right of the party send their spies to the left events, the left send thier spies to the right events. Find it funny me.

[oldfordie]

I suspect that what's really 'got' the Corbynite faction is not the minimum wage or any other policy, but the constitutional change.

If you look at the history of the last 50 years the constitution of the Labour party is by far and away the most important issue for the Hard Left. It isn't workers' control or public ownership, it isn't taxation or pensions, it isn't full employment, education or even the NHS. What has really galvanised men like Corbyn, McDonnell, Lansman and even Tony Benn in his day, are questions like 'Who gets to elect the NEC?', 'How are local MPs selected and how can they be deselected?', 'How is the leader of the Labour party elected'?', 'Who gets a license to have a stall at the Labour Party Conference'. This is the stuff that gets them out of bed in the morning. The other stuff about the NHS etc pales into insignificance compared with these epochal questions.

The exception to this constitutional navel-gazing is of course international policy. Palestine, NATO, Cuba, Venezuela. Limitless amounts of time are traditionally spent discussing these issues - a sign not of any commitment to Labour's traditional internationalism but rather of the Far Left's morbid feeling that socialism in the West will never happen and therefore it's nicer to think of faraway places where it might. Defeatism in other words.

With Starmer on the offensive now over the very issue that means most to them they have decided to go for broke. I'm starting to think that Starmer understood this and is simply pushing their buttons, hoping to spark a battle royale. Certainly nothing would make him more popular with the country at large than a Kinnock-like slaying of the Hard Left at party conference.

Like banging your head against a brick wall. I would give Corbyns name a mention when it comes to Benn and the s,, Labour went through during the 80s, back again and history repeats itself.  it's not just the effect this has had on the Labour party that upsets me. Labour are going to face a new generation throwing the same old s..at them. a new generation who only know one thing when it comes to politics, Labour are just as bad as the Torys, no point in voting. another 20-30yrs and people wonder why they are having to work for min wage in crap conditions etc etc.
Labour may still win the odd election but things could be so much better.

[Red-Soldier]

Would Labour get anything substantial passed in a Minority government. what are the chances of a left wing leader like Corbyn compromising with the Lib Dems for 5-10+ yrs.
Maybe am wrong but ive heard no counter arguments, PR would help to restrain the Torys but it would result in permanent minority governments, the Parties who were able to form coalitions would be in power. think it's a matter of being careful of what you wish for.

Under the current system, Frottage got us out of the EU without a single MP.

I guess we can always stick to the current system that is stacked in the Tories favour and renders many a vote pointless.

[Circa1892]

Thick?  I don’t know.
Woman? Who cares?

Nasty piece of work? Difficult to tell.

Let’s just settle with wrong.

Worded horribly I’ll give you that. But I’ve worked on things she’s been involved in and she’s arrogant, unpleasant and ill informed.

[oldfordie]

Under the current system,Frottage got us out of the EU without a single MP.

I guess we can always stick to the current system that is stacked in the Tories favour and renders many a vote pointless.

It still doesn't answer the point I made. the current system of FPTP isn't stacked against Labour, Gerrymandering stacks the system against Labour. no problems with any fight to change this but arguing for a system that will probably make things worse isn't the way to go.

[Sangria]

It still doesn't answer the point I made. the current system of FPTP isn't stacked against Labour, Gerrymandering stacks the system against Labour. no problems with any fight to change this but arguing for a system that will probably make things worse isn't the way to go.

I suspect that supporting a change to the voting system whilst in the opposition would give the Tories ammo for a campaign against Labour's anti-democratic credentials, and fuel more active voting for the Tories against this. PR or any other change to the democratic system has to be proposed whilst in government. Propose it whilst in opposition, and the arguments about sour grapes write themselves.

Cf. the demographics of the votes in 2017 and 2019. When it looked like a tide towards Labour in 2017, the oldest age group, the most anti-Labour, went up. When it looked like Labour would lose comfortably in 2019, the oldest aged group went down. Give them something to fight against, and the anti-Labour vote will surge.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Don't think a call for a pay deal for a specific sector can be read as the same as a universal call to increase the minimum wage to above the median wage, but then I never thought procedural votes would ever be portrayed as statements of policy either.

Its bizarre to campaign for people working in a burger place to earn more than large sections of society

he looks a fucking fool now

[Bobsackamano]

It still doesn't answer the point I made. the current system of FPTP isn't stacked against Labour, Gerrymandering stacks the system against Labour. no problems with any fight to change this but arguing for a system that will probably make things worse isn't the way to go.

If the argument about the voting system is based around 'is it good for Labour or not' then what's the difference in principle between that and so called gerrymandering by the Tories? Surely the argument around a voting system should focus on higher ideals or how can Labour effectively argue against any changes the Tories make to the voting system.

The current system benefits the 2 main parties at the expense of the other smaller parties, effectively both main parties have colluded in long term gerrymandering against the other parties but because it has gone on for so long both main parties don't view it as such. Just like the aristocratic lords and ladies who view their inherited privileges as the natural order of things. If something is wrong or unfair it should be changed no matter if it's perceived to be against one's own interest.

That's not to say it automatically means PR is the right system (my position is it is) to replace FPTP however surely people of a progressive mindset should elevate the debate to be one about fairness.

Also it's very telling whose actual interest is more closely served by FPTP by the Tories trying to bring in FPTP to more elections in this country if you did wish to only view it in mercenary terms.

[Zeb]

Its bizarre to campaign for people working in a burger place to earn more than large sections of society

he looks a fucking fool now

I don't think it's a bonkers demand for a local rate in Wandsworth, to be honest, given cost of living - gives you a bit of flex to come back down to living wage. Possibly a bit much in Hull, but maybe not by the end of the next 7 to 10 years. It's a bit weird to try and make something so easily promised the core distinguishing point. Although it was lifted directly from the $15 demands in the US... Those who've decided this is the key issue need to go truly hog wild. £50 an hour minimum wage or bust.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I don't think it's a bonkers demand for a local rate in Wandsworth, to be honest, given cost of living - gives you a bit of flex to come back down to living wage. Possibly a bit much in Hull, but maybe not by the end of the next 7 to 10 years. It's a bit weird to try and make something so easily promised the core distinguishing point. Although it was lifted directly from the $15 demands in the US... Those who've decided this is the key issue need to go truly hog wild. £50 an hour minimum wage or bust.

have you seen the banner hes holding up Wandsworth isnt mentioned?

[Zeb]

have you seen the banner hes holding up Wandsworth isnt mentioned?

I did. That's in fact why I mentioned the contextual information missing.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I did. That's in fact why I mentioned the contextual information missing.

https://waronwant.org/our-work/mcstrike?gclid=Cj0KCQjw18WKBhCUARIsAFiW7JyQTc8U64sutqyErMU18yiBQGe_CfeX2uG1keVd0BDNu3yqBg82zTsaAgiaEALw_wcB

Wandsworth isnt mentioned on  the website

[Zeb]

https://waronwant.org/our-work/mcstrike?gclid=Cj0KCQjw18WKBhCUARIsAFiW7JyQTc8U64sutqyErMU18yiBQGe_CfeX2uG1keVd0BDNu3yqBg82zTsaAgiaEALw_wcB

Wandsworth isnt mentioned on  the website

That's where the picture was taken, as the site says the strike was in 6 South London branches. I don't think their demands for higher pay and better conditions were mad. I also don't think that translates to a national minimum wage.

[thaddeus]

I may have read this wrong but the "McStrike" was targeting a global fast food chain that makes $bns and could afford to pay its staff more.  There's a difference between that and a £15/hour minimum wage which would be unaffordable for many smaller businesses and public sector bodies.

As I've said many times I'm luke-warm towards Starmer but I don't think being in favour of one and against the other makes him the hypocrite some are painting him to be.

£15 also just seems like an arbitrary amount that sits well on a protest banner but I'm not sure it's got any place in a grown-up policy.

[Kenny's Jacket]

That's where the picture was taken, as the site says the strike was in 6 South London branches. I don't think their demands for higher pay and better conditions were mad. I also don't think that translates to a national minimum wage.

Ive found the Wandsworth section but its not clear the demands are regionally specific. Unless you had the specific knowledge that you did then you wouldnt know. 

The bigger point is the asthetics- it doesnt look good

McDonald’s makes billions every year, but fails to give back to the communities where it operates. It doesn’t pay living wages or it’s fair share of taxes. In 2017, workers in the McStrike made history when they joined the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union (BFAWU) and went on strike for the first time. They won McDonald’s workers across the UK the biggest pay rise in over ten years.

McDonald’s workers are now calling for a New Deal: a real living wage of £15 an hour, guaranteed hours, and recognition of their trade union.


EDIT - The London living wage is 10.85

[Welshred]

It only doesn't look good if your purposefully looking for holes to pick and it's only circulating around those who are. I've not seen a single other person outside of the Labour left who give a shit about him standing by that banner.

[Kenny's Jacket]

It only doesn't look good if your purposefully looking for holes to pick and it's only circulating around those who are. I've not seen a single other person outside of the Labour left who give a shit about him standing by that banner.

if that aimed at me you're wrong I want to support him, but he makes it hard


he still looks a hypocrite regardless of whos pointing it out

why does he provide the ammunition

[Welshred]

Of course it's aimed at you as you're purposefully looking for holes to pick all the time. It's not just aimed at you though it's aimed at everyone who does the same. Literally the only reference I've seen of it is from the Labour left, the types who've spent the night slagging off the Labour Party at the Tribune meeting instead of actually doing something worthwhile. No one else gives a shit or they realise the context to it Zeb has pointed out. Its non-news, especially when the guy who started the shitstorm was the person  who wrote the fucking green paper advocating a £10 minimum wage, that's of course if you really want to talk about hypocrites...

[Kenny's Jacket]

Of course it's aimed at you as you're purposefully looking for holes to pick all the time. It's not just aimed at you though it's aimed at everyone who does the same. Literally the only reference I've seen of it is from the Labour left, the types who've spent the night slagging off the Labour Party at the Tribune meeting instead of actually doing something worthwhile. No one else gives a shit or they realise the context to it Zeb has pointed out. Its non-news, especially when the guy who started the shitstorm was the person  who wrote the fucking green paper advocating a £10 minimum wage, that's of course if you really want to talk about hypocrites...

then dont stand behind a banner asking for 15 p/h then go against it

its not difficult not to be that shit , especially against such am awful government

[oldfordie]

If the argument about the voting system is based around 'is it good for Labour or not' then what's the difference in principle between that and so called gerrymandering by the Tories? Surely the argument around a voting system should focus on higher ideals or how can Labour effectively argue against any changes the Tories make to the voting system.

The current system benefits the 2 main parties at the expense of the other smaller parties, effectively both main parties have colluded in long term gerrymandering against the other parties but because it has gone on for so long both main parties don't view it as such. Just like the aristocratic lords and ladies who view their inherited privileges as the natural order of things. If something is wrong or unfair it should be changed no matter if it's perceived to be against one's own interest.

That's not to say it automatically means PR is the right system (my position is it is) to replace FPTP however surely people of a progressive mindset should elevate the debate to be one about fairness.

Also it's very telling whose actual interest is more closely served by FPTP by the Tories trying to bring in FPTP to more elections in this country if you did wish to only view it in mercenary terms.

FPTP favours the most popular parties but it's not organising particular voters into different seats to gain a mathematical advantage in another seat.
If I thought PR was beneficial for the people of this country I would support it. 2 out of the last Tory governments since 2010 have been coalitions, I would think any system that makes minority governments far more likely must favour the Torys. I did think it might be a good idea in the past to keep some control over the Torys, hasn't worked the last few yrs.
There's also the AV system if the aim is getting rid of FPTP,  it's very annoying to see very close votes seat lost to the Torys in seat after seat, they never won the majority of voters who took part in the vote only the most votes. that could be a better way forward if the aim is being fair.

[Welshred]

then dont stand behind a banner asking for 15 p/h then go against it

its not difficult not to be that shit , especially against such am awful government

You're own agenda is blinding you to the context here and you're just ignoring it for the sake of having a go.

[Sangria]

FPTP favours the most popular parties but it's not organising particular voters into different seats to gain a mathematical advantage in another seat.
If I thought PR was beneficial for the people of this country I would support it. 2 out of the last Tory governments since 2010 have been coalitions, I would think any system that makes minority governments far more likely must favour the Torys. I did think it might be a good idea in the past to keep some control over the Torys, hasn't worked the last few yrs.
There's also the AV system if the aim is getting rid of FPTP,  it's very annoying to see very close votes seat lost to the Torys in seat after seat, they never won the majority of voters who took part in the vote only the most votes. that could be a better way forward if the aim is being fair.

What would happen is the Tories will get the biggest share of the vote, and as such will get first go at forming a coalition. When the other parties fail to reach an agreement to join a coalition, the Tories will return to the ballot box, decry the other parties for denying the country's clear vote favouring the Tories, and get a bigger share the second time round. See 2019 and the vote to get Brexit done. "Get a Conservative government done."

A change in the voting system, if it has to be done, has to be proposed whilst in government. Not whilst in opposition.

[Zeb]

Ive found the Wandsworth section but its not clear the demands are regionally specific. Unless you had the specific knowledge that you did then you wouldnt know. 

The bigger point is the asthetics- it doesnt look good

McDonald’s makes billions every year, but fails to give back to the communities where it operates. It doesn’t pay living wages or it’s fair share of taxes. In 2017, workers in the McStrike made history when they joined the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union (BFAWU) and went on strike for the first time. They won McDonald’s workers across the UK the biggest pay rise in over ten years.

McDonald’s workers are now calling for a New Deal: a real living wage of £15 an hour, guaranteed hours, and recognition of their trade union.

Yeah, the national walkouts were a big thing. I went down to show support to the Manchester staff and chip into the solidarity fund. £10 p/h national minimum wage they asked for is now Labour policy. (And will need revision the moment Labour next enter government whether in 2 years or 20.)

Don't know. I can obviously see where the slant from the hard left is, and why they've chosen that picture, not really seeing the damaging part of Starmer being able to turn round and say, "Yes, I think workers deserve to be paid a living wage."

[oldfordie]

What would happen is the Tories will get the biggest share of the vote, and as such will get first go at forming a coalition. When the other parties fail to reach an agreement to join a coalition, the Tories will return to the ballot box, decry the other parties for denying the country's clear vote favouring the Tories, and get a bigger share the second time round. See 2019 and the vote to get Brexit done. "Get a Conservative government done."

A change in the voting system, if it has to be done, has to be proposed whilst in government. Not whilst in opposition.

Yep. the implications of arguing for the PR system have to be seriously considered before campaigning for them. you might be right about the Torys always going back to the country, not sure if that's how things would work to be honest.
 I wouldn't say it would result in a Tory coalition just because they had the most seats, it would be that way because they would offer up what other parties want just to get into power, Labour especially under the left are less likely to compromise, as I say. 2 Tory coalitions in just the last 6yrs.

[Circa1892]

Is the £15 an hour policy basically just copying the $15 policy that Bernie Sanders and co campaign for, and forgetting that pppunds and dollars aren’t the same thing? (Although Tbf give brexit a few years and it might be…)

[No666]

It's an easy slogan, granted, but ignores the complexity of the issue -- that £15 an hour will put some people out of a job, and will fuel inflation decisively - which hits the poor, and especially the unemployed, hardest. Whereas if there were a proper, strategic push for social housing in areas like Wandsworth, the cost of living versus wage equation the unskilled worker is constantly negotiating would be eased. Of course, 'let's build on brownfield sites'; 'let's hammer developers who are banking land' doesn't have the same ring.

[PaulF]

Is the £15 an hour policy basically just copying the $15 policy that Bernie Sanders and co campaign for, and forgetting that pppunds and dollars aren’t the same thing? (Although Tbf give brexit a few years and it might be…)

Does £15/hr get close to £30K a year ,for a forty hour week. That's more than the national average at the moment (I believe).
That's more than a teacher starting too I'd think.  Can't see that flying.
Reducing living cost as No666 is a longer , more strategic approach to the issue.  The five year electoral cycle doesn't help that.

[Kenny's Jacket]

You're own agenda is blinding you to the context here and you're just ignoring it for the sake of having a go.

'


My agenda is to see KS as Prime minister

[Kenny's Jacket]

Yeah, the national walkouts were a big thing. I went down to show support to the Manchester staff and chip into the solidarity fund. £10 p/h national minimum wage they asked for is now Labour policy. (And will need revision the moment Labour next enter government whether in 2 years or 20.)

Don't know. I can obviously see where the slant from the hard left is, and why they've chosen that picture, not really seeing the damaging part of Starmer being able to turn round and say, "Yes, I think workers deserve to be paid a living wage."

but when that Living wage is 15p/h  it looks daft in light of his current stance against it

[Zeb]

but when that Living wage is 15p/h  it looks daft in light of his current stance against it

Sorry, I'm just not seeing this one.  There's no stance to take on a £15 national minimum wage because it's not Labour policy to fix a number above the minimum of £10, and that's a totally different thing to supporting a specific pay dispute. I am fascinated by how this has shifted from £10 p/h to £15 p/h over the course of a couple of years without even the MPs now backing it seeming to notice. GMB is supposedly preparing the evidence to support care workers receiving £15 p/h (I think it's by linking to NHS paygrades but waiting to see) so I look forward to Unite sharing their's and am open to persuasion. Otherwise it may just look like an arbitrarily chosen number dreamed up by bampots and remind everyone they're no longer in charge of the party.

[RainbowFlick]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-revives-blairs-policy-on-crime-jsv5vhv0n

channeling their inner Priti Patel, nice.

[Sangria]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-revives-blairs-policy-on-crime-jsv5vhv0n

channeling their inner Priti Patel, nice.

Is there anything wrong with "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"?

[Zeb]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-revives-blairs-policy-on-crime-jsv5vhv0n

channeling their inner Priti Patel, nice.

Lot of that is continuation of policy. Labour playing up how tough, how many, how fast at the Home Office is something which seems impossible to change (and obvious reasons for it are obvious but still). Find a Roy Jenkins willing to move things forward or burn the Home Office down and start again.

[JerseyKloppite]

Being tough on crime is a pre-requisite for winning an election in the UK.

[Red-Soldier]

Being tough on crime is a pre-requisite for winning an election in the UK.

Exactly.  Why do you think they are readopting the policy.

[Nobby Reserve]

Is there anything wrong with "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"?

Absolutely nothing.

It's a policy that I can fully get behind - and thought it brilliant in that 96/97 era when Blair and Labour were pushing it.

Sadly, they failed on both counts IMO.

Punishing crime - especially crime against the individual - is a policy area I'm pretty right-wing on. I think the majority of sentences are too soft (apart from things like white collar crime - multiple cases of, say, a bank employee getting 3/5/7 years for nicking a couple hundred grand that the bank makes in profit in the blink of an eye, yet someone who beats another to a pulp in an unprovoked attack would get far less, often not even a custodial sentence)