Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Nobby Reserve]

Since the Labour Party's fledgling days, there's been a battle between the left and not-so-left over who should run the party and what policies it should follow.

The not-so-left seem convinced the Labour Party should be the sole preserve of them and them alone, and there's been periods of expulsions of people from the left for not fitting the desired narrow political profile that the not-so-left want.


My own view is that this country needs fundamental change to its socio-economic core. But all the not-so-left ever advocate (or follow if in power) is the fitting of a slightly padded glove to the cruel, iron fist of corporate-capitalism; a few policies to mitigate the chronic economic inequality that corporate-capitalism inevitably leads to.

[Sangria]

Since the Labour Party's fledgling days, there's been a battle between the left and not-so-left over who should run the party and what policies it should follow.

The not-so-left seem convinced the Labour Party should be the sole preserve of them and them alone, and there's been periods of expulsions of people from the left for not fitting the desired narrow political profile that the not-so-left want.


My own view is that this country needs fundamental change to its socio-economic core. But all the not-so-left ever advocate (or follow if in power) is the fitting of a slightly padded glove to the cruel, iron fist of corporate-capitalism; a few policies to mitigate the chronic economic inequality that corporate-capitalism inevitably leads to.

What have you got against freedom and choice?

[Nobby Reserve]

What have you got against freedom and choice?

You'll have to be less cryptic.

[Sangria]

You'll have to be less cryptic.

That's a winning political discourse, post-Thatcher. If you go back to the old political dialogues about capitalism and exploitation of the masses, all the Tories need to do is repeat those two terms and they'll win. If you reckon that accepting that discourse is betraying the cause of the left, perhaps you'll have to win your fights in another country, because that base is where the British people start from. If you want to win the political fight in Britain, you'll have to accept that as the base, and not think of it as betraying the left.

[oldfordie]

Since the Labour Party's fledgling days, there's been a battle between the left and not-so-left over who should run the party and what policies it should follow.

The not-so-left seem convinced the Labour Party should be the sole preserve of them and them alone, and there's been periods of expulsions of people from the left for not fitting the desired narrow political profile that the not-so-left want.


My own view is that this country needs fundamental change to its socio-economic core. But all the not-so-left ever advocate (or follow if in power) is the fitting of a slightly padded glove to the cruel, iron fist of corporate-capitalism; a few policies to mitigate the chronic economic inequality that corporate-capitalism inevitably leads to.

A lot of things need changing but it will only happen with the blessing of the country. it will also take many years to bring about this change which is one of the main reason I think Labour have always approached the problem in the wrong way, I think Labour could bring about profound change for the better for 10s of millions but the public judge them every 5 years or so and vote them out when they fall for right wing propaganda.
 Sadly it will never happen, people have deep rooted flawed opinions on politics and the Labour party.
Labour can bang on about policies as much as they want and they might win a few elections doing it but they will never be in power long enough to do the good they are capable of given time.
Ive said it a few times on here as I think it's probably the biggest problem, it's about educating the public on politics. the average person doesn't understand why we use the words Left and right wing. they are incapable of listening to a politician and judging whether that politician is left or right wing. they believe having left wing views is a static position. if you are a left winger in the UK then you must have the same views as a left winger in the US. not to mention the difference between left wing politics in the 60s//70s and today,  you have to be a extreme left winger who bangs on about Nationalizing everything before they can judge on whether you are left or right wing.

The cost of this to the UK +US is enormous. people were so terrified of the left in both countries they were clueless on the extreme right threat destroying their futures. the extreme right won in both the UK+US. Biden +time may over come the damage in the US but the damage is done in the UK.
It reminds me of how people view Thatcher, am sure there are many sitting in crap accommodation earning min wage with no union backing or pension to look forward too who think Thatcher never affected their lives as she was in power decades ago, maybe some of those people think she was a fantastic PM. the same thing will probably apply to Johnson+Corbyn in the future, praising politicians who have done tremendous damage to their families future.

[Sangria]

A lot of things need changing but it will only happen with the blessing of the country. it will also take many years to bring about this change which is one of the main reason I think Labour have always approached the problem in the wrong way, I think Labour could bring about profound change for the better for 10s of millions but the public judge them every 5 years or so and vote them out when they fall for right wing propaganda.
 Sadly it will never happen, people have deep rooted flawed opinions on politics and the Labour party.
Labour can bang on about policies as much as they want and they might win a few elections doing it but they will never be in power long enough to do the good they are capable of given time.
Ive said it a few times on here as I think it's probably the biggest problem, it's about educating the public on politics. the average person doesn't understand why we use the words Left and right wing. they are incapable of listening to a politician and judging whether that politician is left or right wing. they believe having left wing views is a static position. if you are a left winger in the UK then you must have the same views as a left winger in the US. not to mention the difference between left wing politics in the 60s//70s and today,  you have to be a extreme left winger who bangs on about Nationalizing everything before they can judge on whether you are left or right wing.

The cost of this to the UK +US is enormous. people were so terrified of the left in both countries they were clueless on the extreme right threat destroying their futures. the extreme right won in both the UK+US. Biden +time may over come the damage in the US but the damage is done in the UK.
It reminds me of how people view Thatcher, am sure there are many sitting in crap accommodation earning min wage with no union backing or pension to look forward too who think Thatcher never affected their lives as she was in power decades ago, maybe some of those people think she was a fantastic PM. the same thing will probably apply to Johnson+Corbyn in the future, praising politicians who have done tremendous damage to their families future.

The problem is that what you describe as the demonised view of the left is what wins the argument within the left, even as it loses nationally. So any representative of the left that does not do what you described is castigated by the left for betrayal. And with that section of the left having recently been given its lead, the country has decided that this is why they can't trust the Labour party. Even at a time when Brexit was the biggest political argument seen in generations, the representative of the left was still the single biggest reason why people didn't vote Labour.

(Not addressed to oldfordie) Hate her all you want, but recognise that Thatcher is by some distance the most influential politician in Britain post-war, and don't pretend that the Britain we live in is still the pre-Thatcher world. Try to ignore this, and you're just giving the Tories a guaranteed win whatever they do.

[Nobby Reserve]

(Not addressed to oldfordie) Hate her all you want, but recognise that Thatcher is by some distance the most influential politician in Britain post-war, and don't pretend that the Britain we live in is still the pre-Thatcher world. Try to ignore this, and you're just giving the Tories a guaranteed win whatever they do.

She certainly was.

After several decades where the whip had been gradually removed from the hand of the employers, she rewrote the rules and placed the whip firmly back in the hand of the employers and implored them to use it to make even more money for the already-rich.

[Sangria]

She certainly was.

After several decades where the whip had been gradually removed by the hand of the employers, she rewrote the rules and placed the whip firmly back in the hand of the employers and implored them to use it to make even more money for the already-rich.

What have you got against freedom and choice?

[Nobby Reserve]

What have you got against freedom and choice?

Just explain what point you're trying to make because you've lost me.

[Yorkykopite]

Since the Labour Party's fledgling days, there's been a battle between the left and not-so-left over who should run the party and what policies it should follow.

The not-so-left seem convinced the Labour Party should be the sole preserve of them and them alone, and there's been periods of expulsions of people from the left for not fitting the desired narrow political profile that the not-so-left want.

I prefer using the term 'right' and 'left' to describe the differing socialist tendencies inside the Labour party. It's much clearer - at least for the period when right and left were understood in economic terms (ie up to the mid 1980s).  So what you call the "not so left" is better understood as "right". 

The "periods of expulsions" you refer to fall into three main periods I suppose (four of you include what Starmer is hoping to do today). The first was between 1921 and 1926, the second between 1945-50, and the third in the mid-1980s. Each time, interestingly, the initiative came from a left-leaning leadership (MacDonald, Attlee, Kinnock). The periods of right-leaning leadership were not accompanied by many expulsions (Clynes, Gaitskell, Callaghan, Blair.)

Were people expelled because, as you claim, they did not fit "the desired narrow political profile" that the leadership wanted? I'd say definitely not. Any political party that can embrace Jimmy Thomas and James Maxton and the ILP-ers (in the 1920s), or Herbert Morrison and Nye Bevan (between 1945-51) or John Golding and the Bennites (in the 1980s) cannot be called "narrow". The idea is bonkers!

Each time the expulsions were about authority. Whose authority should Labour members accept? Should it be the authority of the Labour party or should it be the authority of another party, operating secretly or in direct opposition to Labour at the polls? In the early 1920s those expelled preferred to accept the authority of the new Communist Party of Great Britain (or, in reality, the authority of Moscow). They had to go. Between 1945 and 1950 it was the same problem. Some members, including a handful of sitting Labour MPs, were booted out of the party because they preferred to take their instructions from Stalin and the Politburo. They obviously had to go too. In the 1980s, of course, the members who were expelled largely came from Militant. These expellees claimed Militant was just a newspaper, but it was a political party with its own annual conference and executive committee, policy committee and local branches. They had to go.

There's nothing "narrow" about the Labour party, either then or now. It has always been a broad church. It still is. Plenty of room for everyone who believes in a parliamentary road to socialism.   

[Sangria]

Just explain what point you're trying to make because you've lost me.

I already explained it above.

That's a winning political discourse, post-Thatcher. If you go back to the old political dialogues about capitalism and exploitation of the masses, all the Tories need to do is repeat those two terms and they'll win. If you reckon that accepting that discourse is betraying the cause of the left, perhaps you'll have to win your fights in another country, because that base is where the British people start from. If you want to win the political fight in Britain, you'll have to accept that as the base, and not think of it as betraying the left.

I'll explain it again, in the context of Labour, and in the context of your complaint above, which I'll quote again.

My own view is that this country needs fundamental change to its socio-economic core. But all the not-so-left ever advocate (or follow if in power) is the fitting of a slightly padded glove to the cruel, iron fist of corporate-capitalism; a few policies to mitigate the chronic economic inequality that corporate-capitalism inevitably leads to.

My point is that Thatcher has reframed political discussion in this country where freedom and choice are fundamentals to society and every individual. I doubt that you disagree with their desirability, such is the extent to which they are embedded in how we see things.

Blair and Brown accepted this reality, and sought to work within its lines. Their government did a hell of a lot of good things in practice, by having certain things they wanted to do and saw as beneficial to society, and doing it as efficiently as they could. Sure, they may not have fitted their actions within the classical Marxist discourse of the employer and the employee, but they had one hell of a list of good achievements.

But this did not satisfy you, as you described these achievements as "the fitting of a slightly padded glove to the cruel, iron fist of corporate-capitalism; a few policies to mitigate the chronic economic inequality that corporate-capitalism inevitably leads to". Even though what you dismiss was still way more than any other government has done in generations, and certainly within my lifetime, it still didn't satisfy you because it was ideologically insufficient.

So let's imagine (we don't actually have to imagine, because we've actually seen it) that you get your left wing flagship pushing your anti-capitalist argument. And all the Tories have to do is frame everything in Thatcherite terms: freedom and choice. And the Tories will guarantee a win for as long as the left refuses to accept the post-Thatcher political reality.

[Nobby Reserve]

It has nothing to do with 'ideological sufficiency' but everything to do with outcomes.

Many poster on here will complain about the devastating impacts of Tory policies on ordinary people, yet oppose (demonise) those wanting to see real change, whilst supporting policies that only - to reuse the phrase - fit a slightly padded glove over the iron fist of corporate-capitalism.


But I'm a pragmatist, too. It's hard to keep track of the individual positions of a big range of posters having their say, but I've said several times in the past that Labour need to be cute in how they present their manifesto.

You don't see the Tories include plans to ramp up piecemeal privatisation of the NHS, or slash local authority budgets, or underfund schools. They focus on what doesn't scare voters away and leave those sorts of detail out. Then enact them anyway when elected.

Labour need to do the same. Focus on policies that are both popular and don't scare away floating voters. But then, if elected, implement the policies they want.

I don't give a flying fuck about ideological purity. I've spent time with far-left groups during my union activism days and they drove me fucking nuts. I'll agree with you and anyone else who says that large parts of 'the hard left' see winning the ideological/moral argument as crucial, and it's an immature position (like being in a 6th Form debating contest).

Elections are solely about getting elected. And then implementing the policies you want to implement. It's a lesson the Tories instinctively know. But 'the left' can't seem to grasp.

[Sangria]

It has nothing to do with 'ideological sufficiency' but everything to do with outcomes.

Many poster on here will complain about the devastating impacts of Tory policies on ordinary people, yet oppose (demonise) those wanting to see real change, whilst supporting policies that only - to reuse the phrase - fit a slightly padded glove over the iron fist of corporate-capitalism.


But I'm a pragmatist, too. It's hard to keep track of the individual positions of a big range of posters having their say, but I've said several times in the past that Labour need to be cute in how they present their manifesto.

You don't see the Tories include plans to ramp up piecemeal privatisation of the NHS, or slash local authority budgets, or underfund schools. They focus on what doesn't scare voters away and leave those sorts of detail out. Then enact them anyway when elected.

Labour need to do the same. Focus on policies that are both popular and don't scare away floating voters. But then, if elected, implement the policies they want.

I don't give a flying fuck about ideological purity. I've spent time with far-left groups during my union activism days and they drove me fucking nuts. I'll agree with you and anyone else who says that large parts of 'the hard left' see winning the ideological/moral argument as crucial, and it's an immature position (like being in a 6th Form debating contest).

Elections are solely about getting elected. And then implementing the policies you want to implement. It's a lesson the Tories instinctively know. But 'the left' can't seem to grasp.

I'll agree with all of the above. I'll only add one thing: Labour needs to form a political argument that includes freedom and choice as given, that does not hark back to pre-Thatcher arguments. My keyword of choice is "sustainable".

[Fromola]

It feels as though the Tories are starting to implode (recess coming at the right time for them) but can Starmer build up any real surge in support? Can he provide a vision?

He seems a weak leader and it risks losing Labour another election. He reminds me a bit of Ed Milliband 10 years ago, nice enough fella, harmless, but he doesn't inspire people and has an image problem as a leader. Labour ended up losing the 2015 election which was winnable and the result was the referendum, Brexit and all the shit that resulted.

I don't know if he could win an election or not, but if Burnham had been leader over the last year he'd have had Boris on toast and Labour wouldn't be miles behind in the polls despite all the incompetence and corruption from the government.

[filopastry]

It feels as though the Tories are starting to implode (recess coming at the right time for them) but can Starmer build up any real surge in support? Can he provide a vision?

He seems a weak leader and it risks losing Labour another election. He reminds me a bit of Ed Milliband 10 years ago, nice enough fella, harmless, but he doesn't inspire people and has an image problem as a leader. Labour ended up losing the 2015 election which was winnable and the result was the referendum, Brexit and all the shit that resulted.

I don't know if he could win an election or not, but if Burnham had been leader over the last year he'd have had Boris on toast and Labour wouldn't be miles behind in the polls despite all the incompetence and corruption from the government.

I find the sudden Burnham enthusiasm all very odd, he entered the 2016 contest as the heavy favourite, and obviously unluckily faced off against Corbyn who ended up matching the mood of the time, but I think pretty much everyone though he ran a pretty awful campaign.

Still don't have much of an idea as to what he stands for, I've always thought of him as a bit of a weathervane (maybe unfairly).

Being a metropolitan mayor is a hell of a lot easier than trying to lead Labour nationally  at present, where you are trying to somehow stitch together an electoral coalition, which needs to appeal to people with radically different views. I don't think the media environment has ever been worse as well, good luck getting BBC news output onside these days

[Fromola]

I find the sudden Burnham enthusiasm all very odd, he entered the 2016 contest as the heavy favourite, and obviously unluckily faced off against Corbyn who ended up matching the mood of the time, but I think pretty much everyone though he ran a pretty awful campaign.

Still don't have much of an idea as to what he stands for, I've always thought of him as a bit of a weathervane (maybe unfairly).

Being a metropolitan mayor is a hell of a lot easier than trying to lead Labour nationally  at present, where you are trying to somehow stitch together an electoral coalition, which needs to appeal to people with radically different views.

As I say, how he'd get on in an election is another matter, but I think he'd excel at exposing a charlatan like Boris because it takes a strong personality.

Also, the way Johnson has been able to rip up the red wall up north. Burnham would have got the message over that the Tories aren't the friend of the working man, whereas Starmer is written off as another 'metropolitan London elite', while Johnson has managed to avoid that label and cast himself as an outsider. He's probably the kind of opposition leader Labour have needed during this pandemic.

I'm not a major fan of Burnham either, but he's acknowledged he ran a bad campaign in 2016.

[oldfordie]

The problem is that what you describe as the demonised view of the left is what wins the argument within the left, even as it loses nationally. So any representative of the left that does not do what you described is castigated by the left for betrayal. And with that section of the left having recently been given its lead, the country has decided that this is why they can't trust the Labour party. Even at a time when Brexit was the biggest political argument seen in generations, the representative of the left was still the single biggest reason why people didn't vote Labour.

(Not addressed to oldfordie) Hate her all you want, but recognise that Thatcher is by some distance the most influential politician in Britain post-war, and don't pretend that the Britain we live in is still the pre-Thatcher world. Try to ignore this, and you're just giving the Tories a guaranteed win whatever they do.

The problem is if the Labour party had the confidence of knowing the public will back them at the next election then they could do far more, a lot has happened since the Thatcher days and I know the damage she did, most people will point to smashing the unions and thats true of course, she smashed the unions with the blessing of the country which shouldn't be forgotton as she implemented many policies that destroyed lives in the future, policies Labour found it impossible to fight against for years, hiding massive unemployment by signing long term sick notes for many, how do you fight that, sign every body off who was fit to work and then get dumped out of office when the unemployment figures spiral.  subsidize low paid workers to make sure they are classed as working rather than unemployed, again how do you fight that. stop those subsidizes and people will go apeshit, sell off council houses while passing a law to stop councils building replacement homes. I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of any of these schemes but they should still understand what happened and how this effected future generations, Thatchers period still has a big influence on todays world. the problem now is the problems became extreme when the subsidies were cut.

[Elmo!]

I find the sudden Burnham enthusiasm all very odd, he entered the 2016 contest as the heavy favourite, and obviously unluckily faced off against Corbyn who ended up matching the mood of the time, but I think pretty much everyone though he ran a pretty awful campaign.

Still don't have much of an idea as to what he stands for, I've always thought of him as a bit of a weathervane (maybe unfairly).

Being a metropolitan mayor is a hell of a lot easier than trying to lead Labour nationally  at present, where you are trying to somehow stitch together an electoral coalition, which needs to appeal to people with radically different views. I don't think the media environment has ever been worse as well, good luck getting BBC news output onside these days

I have doubts about Burhams temperament. When he kicked off about the Scottish Government banning travel from Manchester, he did an interview on Radio Scotland, where he was asked about whether he had informed Anas Sarwar he was about to launch his attack on Sturgeon (he hadn't), and he lost his rag a bit and started calling the BBC bias.

[Fromola]

I have doubts about Burhams temperament. When he kicked off about the Scottish Government banning travel from Manchester, he did an interview on Radio Scotland, where he was asked about whether he had informed Anas Sarwar he was about to launch his attack on Sturgeon (he hadn't), and he lost his rag a bit and started calling the BBC bias.

Fight fire with fire? The Tories do it all the time. About time Labour got some bollocks back. The nicey nice approach under the last few leaders hasn't worked.

[Elmo!]

Fight fire with fire? The Tories do it all the time. About time Labour got some bollocks back. The nicey nice approach under the last few leaders hasn't worked.

I don't think losing your temper and calling the media bias in an interview is a vote winner (and before anyone points it out, I know plenty on my 'side' have done it).

[Fromola]

I don't think losing your temper and calling the media bias in an interview is a vote winner (and before anyone points it out, I know plenty on my 'side' have done it).

The Tories try every shithousery trick in the book and get elected all the time.

The only time Labour could match that were when they had Campbell and Mandelson running their communications.

Politics is a dirty business and we've got a terrible media. Being nice gets you nowhere unfortunately. The last few Labour leaders, including the current one, always played nice.

[Elmo!]

The Tories try every shithousery trick in the book and get elected all the time.

The only time Labour could match that were when they had Campbell and Mandelson running their communications.

Politics is a dirty business and we've got a terrible media. Being nice gets you nowhere, so a leader who flies off the handle once in a while can work in your favour.

There's a difference between a calculated attack, and losing your rag because you were asked an awkward question.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I find the sudden Burnham enthusiasm all very odd, he entered the 2016 contest as the heavy favourite, and obviously unluckily faced off against Corbyn who ended up matching the mood of the time, but I think pretty much everyone though he ran a pretty awful campaign.

Still don't have much of an idea as to what he stands for, I've always thought of him as a bit of a weathervane (maybe unfairly).

Being a metropolitan mayor is a hell of a lot easier than trying to lead Labour nationally  at present, where you are trying to somehow stitch together an electoral coalition, which needs to appeal to people with radically different views. I don't think the media environment has ever been worse as well, good luck getting BBC news output onside these days

I think he will have more appeal for the working class than starmer. looking at the last election style over substance is a vote winner

[Yorkykopite]

There's a difference between a calculated attack, and losing your rag because you were asked an awkward question.

Do you have a link to this? Not the calculated attack on the Scottish government for hypocrisy, which was fair and effective, but Burnham 'losing his rag.'

[Elmo!]

Do you have a link to this? Not the calculated attack on the Scottish government for hypocrisy, which was fair and effective, but Burnham 'losing his rag.'

Apologies Yorky, can't find a clip of it, and the only source I've got is The National but they quote him here: https://www.thenational.scot/news/19388540.burnham-didnt-tell-sarwar-attack-nicola-sturgeon-travel-ban/

The program doesn't go back that far on BBC Sounds.

[Yorkykopite]

Apologies Yorky, can't find a clip of it, and the only source I've got is The National but they quote him here: https://www.thenational.scot/news/19388540.burnham-didnt-tell-sarwar-attack-nicola-sturgeon-travel-ban/

The program doesn't go back that far on BBC Sounds.

I don't think that tells us very much at all to be honest. Maybe he did lose his temper. But maybe not. It's hard to tell.

I agree with you that if he was lashing out, hitting the messenger not the message, that would be very poor form. But no one seemed to report it.

On here, he's all smiles, sweet reasonableness and flinty determination.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-57544665

I kind of like that approach. And he got the apology finally from Sturgeon I think.

[Elmo!]

I don't think that tells us very much at all to be honest. Maybe he did lose his temper. But maybe not. It's hard to tell.

I agree with you that if he was lashing out, hitting the messenger not the message, that would be very poor form. But no one seemed to report it.

On here, he's all smiles, sweet reasonableness and flinty determination.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-57544665

I kind of like that approach. And he got the apology finally from Sturgeon I think.

My point wasn't really about the whole Covid travel restrictions thing. We can agree to disagree on that.

It was about his temperament, and I thought it showed a little weakness under not even very tough questioning.

I'm trying to comment on this as a semi neutral observer, so the subject matter in this particular instance doesn't really help in that regard! 

[Yorkykopite]

My point wasn't really about the whole Covid travel restrictions thing. We can agree to disagree on that.

It was about his temperament, and I thought it showed a little weakness under not even very tough questioning.

I'm trying to comment on this as a semi neutral observer, so the subject matter in this particular instance doesn't really help in that regard! 

My point too. The Covid restrictions imposed by Edinburgh wee iniquitous obviously. I already knew that. But I was curious to see how Burnham acted under media pressure, for the simple reason that I think he's become an interesting politician. It wouldn't destroy me to see him behave badly.  But the only evidence available suggests he behaved very well.

[Elmo!]

My point too. The Covid restrictions imposed by Edinburgh wee iniquitous obviously. I already knew that. But I was curious to see how Burnham acted under media pressure, for the simple reason that I think he's become an interesting politician. It wouldn't destroy me to see him behave badly.  But the only evidence available suggests he behaved very well.

But I think if you are going to accuse the BBC of being bias it has to have some credibility. Accusing BBC Scotland of having an SNP bias is one the most hilarious things I have ever heard.

As usual though when it comes to these things, whether you see his actions there as succesful depends on your perspective. I think SCotland saw through his shenanigans like the bullshit it was. Does he care though? Was he just doing it for his local electorate or for future leadership credentials? Even if it was, I suspect he thought the benefits outweight the downsides of making himself look like an idiot up here if it plays well down south.

Also you are very relaxed about Burnham accusing the BBC of bias compared to Salmond.

[Yorkykopite]

But I think if you are going to accuse the BBC of being bias it has to have some credibility. Accusing BBC Scotland of having an SNP bias is one the most hilarious things I have ever heard.

As usual though when it comes to these things, whether you see his actions there as succesful depends on your perspective. I think SCotland saw through his shenanigans like the bullshit it was. Does he care though? Was he just doing it for his local electorate or for future leadership credentials? Even if it was, I suspect he thought the benefits outweight the downsides of making himself look like an idiot up here if it plays well down south.

"Doing it for his local electorate" is probably what he was indeed doing. Not a bad thing to be accused of! Hardly "bullshit" anyway.

Also you are very relaxed about Burnham accusing the BBC of bias compared to Salmond.

It's hard for me to judge the veracity of your claim since you haven't been able to post an actual link. But, in any case, I doubt that Andy Burnham has made 'BBC bias' a main policy plank of a campaign, as Salmond did. Nor encouraged his supporters to barrack BBC journalists. Whatever else Burnham is, he isn't a populist demagogue.

[Elmo!]

"Doing it for his local electorate" is probably what he was indeed doing. Not a bad thing to be accused of! Hardly "bullshit" anyway.

It was the content of what he was saying that was bullshit.

[Crumble]

There's nothing "narrow" about the Labour party, either then or now. It has always been a broad church. It still is. Plenty of room for everyone who believes in a parliamentary road to socialism.

I agreed with nearly all of your post, but not this last paragraph. Although the Labour party claims to be a democratic socialist party, I think that many, perhaps even most MPs, don't really want to go far down any road to socialism. The previous leader, when he was first elected, tried to pull together a cabinet that represented all wings of the party, but unfortunately most of the not-so-left took off to the back benches to await a non-socialist leader. It took him days to fill his first cabinet and they really looked like the B team because of the lack of support from more talented MPs outside the socialist wing.

To his credit, Mr Starmer accepted an important role in the shadow cabinet despite some (it seems now) fundamental disagreements with Mr Corbyn on the direction of travel. But now he's in charge he seems to be pushing anyone with a hint of a socialist mindset as far away from influence as he can.

I voted for the Starmer + Rayner. So far I'm disappointed that so many of the 2019 manifesto commitments seem to be taking a back seat. But Mr Starmer is the leader, we need to back him to go about the job of getting Labour elected in whatever way he thinks will work best. Perhaps the simple strategy of not scaring the electorate with anything radical will work out for him and us. But a broad church? If it ever was, it isn't now and hasn't been for many years.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I have been watching PMQT for a while and I find it interesting that no matter what the blather, excuses, bullshit in absolute inbred chin wobbling that comes out of shaggy heads gob, he always ends on the script piece with an angry justified summing up that always gets recorded and always gets reported.

[idontknow]

Twitter videos seem to have gone, otherwise I'd post links

 

[Dr. Beaker]

I have been watching PMQT for a while and I find it interesting that no matter what the blather, excuses, bullshit in absolute inbred chin wobbling that comes out of shaggy heads gob, he always ends on the script piece with an angry justified summing up that always gets recorded and always gets reported.

Always saves it for the last of Starmer's six questions, so Starmer can't come back on it.

[bornandbRED]

He’s completely at odds with the rest of his party, it seems.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

 

I found it strange rather than hilarious, but each to their own.

Can't find any now.

To be honest I don't venture on Twitter much as it's full of absolute c*nts.

[filopastry]

He’s completely at odds with the rest of his party, it seems.

Who, Starmer?

[oldfordie]

It has nothing to do with 'ideological sufficiency' but everything to do with outcomes.

Many poster on here will complain about the devastating impacts of Tory policies on ordinary people, yet oppose (demonise) those wanting to see real change, whilst supporting policies that only - to reuse the phrase - fit a slightly padded glove over the iron fist of corporate-capitalism.


But I'm a pragmatist, too. It's hard to keep track of the individual positions of a big range of posters having their say, but I've said several times in the past that Labour need to be cute in how they present their manifesto.

You don't see the Tories include plans to ramp up piecemeal privatisation of the NHS, or slash local authority budgets, or underfund schools. They focus on what doesn't scare voters away and leave those sorts of detail out. Then enact them anyway when elected.

Labour need to do the same. Focus on policies that are both popular and don't scare away floating voters. But then, if elected, implement the policies they want.

I don't give a flying fuck about ideological purity. I've spent time with far-left groups during my union activism days and they drove me fucking nuts. I'll agree with you and anyone else who says that large parts of 'the hard left' see winning the ideological/moral argument as crucial, and it's an immature position (like being in a 6th Form debating contest).

Elections are solely about getting elected. And then implementing the policies you want to implement. It's a lesson the Tories instinctively know. But 'the left' can't seem to grasp.

Brilliant post

[Yorkykopite]

The pile on I’m presuming (or is it assuming? I can never remember).

Ha, the fear of two people contradicting.