Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[oldfordie]

It had the feel of a Kinnockian exorcism. Let's hope this potters wheel of a Tory disaster gives him the opportunity to parade a bit of competency in front of our bewildered nation and bring about a historic victory.

Yes. am sure he will keep hammering the decency justification for all Labour policys, for a reason, he means it, nothing else is more important to him. something we've needed for years.

[Clint Eastwood]

Great speech and an exciting insight into what Labour can be. The only thing holding Labour back, and keeping the Tories in power, is the section of Labour who are unwilling to move on from Corbyn.

[oldfordie]

The biggest progressive change in our lifetime was achieved by a government that many so-called progressives decry as conservative in nature. Maybe, rather than achieve great change through revolution, we can achieve it by all of us changing a little in a common direction. Less dramatic, but if we sustain it, we can do it for years rather than bemoan its absence.

Also, thinking about Pidcock, and Sultana in particular, I wonder if the working class they espouse is the one they've read about in authors of choice. It would explain why they have such consistent and unbending principles, as the working class in their mind is one that exists, uniform and unchanging, in books. Rather than the complex population that often doesn't regard itself as an underclass, and which rarely sees itself as a collective.

I think that was the problem with Labour. all the good things they did went unnoticed. all done with a sweep of the pen, real power can be boring for many but what's it about, rally's and protests which catch supporters attention or improving lives and living standards.

I suppose the more people hear how Labour improved lives rather than listening to Sultana comparing them to Thatcher the better, that is the worry I have, a new generation telling voters Labour were no better than the Torys for 4yrs 10 months then shouting vote Labour just before a general election. Piddock has been left in no doubt how voters felt about her. she knew she was in trouble weeks before the election.

If I had to pick one left wing MP to give a example to show them putting control over the party above everything else( the point Yorkies raised the other day) then it would be Richard Burgon answering a question given by Kate Burley before the 2019 general election. arguing Labour are ready and waiting, no problem with that at all but Burely tells him. "The polls say you won't win"  Burgeon instantly reply's, " The polls said we wouldn't win at the last election" Burley replies. " You didn't win" Burgeon looked at the 2017 election as a victory, millions were still at the mercy of the Torys after they formed a coalition with the DUP but they still had the leader they wanted and were still in charge of the party so it was a victory in his eyes.

[Zeb]

Co-Chair of Open Labour (main formal grouping of soft left members) shared a short video of Margaret Beckett talking about Kinnock's lesser talked about changes at the start of the conference day, and dealing with a heckler who didn't want to know...

https://twitter.com/KeiranON/status/1443241078380011520

(Twitter video sorry)

I suppose its necessary preconditions starting to be met. Apparently Hammond (Tory former chancellor under May) has been telling his after dinner circuit that the Tories have already begun candidate selection for the next election which perhaps explains why Shabana Mahmood was so adamant that some of the changes had to happen this conference.

[thaddeus]

[Deleted a poll from Sky News done by Opinium because it is not even close to a like for like comparison with Johnson nor Corbyn as all polling was done on clips shown either this week or today. Only thing of use to it is that Starmer has the potential to have broad appeal to the electorate.]

I think the most important of those will be the 62% thinking he's competent against the 23% thinking he's incompetent.  I've no reason to believe we're not going to lurch from one crisis to another over the next few years and by the time of the next election people will be desperate for some basic competency within government.

[stewil007]

But take away the contrariness and you'd miss it. And if you said you missed it you might become of interest to the police.

Isn't that the way things work in places like China where the Party Congress is broadcast without any 'contrariness'?

ive no idea what youre going on about, but you carry on.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

If he has to say it, he has to say it, but....

It's an interesting point though isn't it. I kind of feel like because I am so angry at this right-wing government that it's hard to feel 'proud' or 'patriotic' about the UK at the moment.

It's even more difficult after stuff like Brexit, us cutting foreign aid, the way we treat immigrants and asylum seekers and the like.

I think he's actually right - if you are a Socialist and your country is doing the right thing and behaving properly then why not feel proud of it? At the moment, sadly, we appear to be a rouge banana republic.. But if that could change..

[Nobby Reserve]

is the section of Labour who are unwilling to move on from Corbyn.

I think you misunderstand their motivations. They don't have allegiance to Corbyn; he's just the accidental figurehead due to him being elected leader (because it was 'his turn' to stand as the token lefty in the 2015 leadership election)

There's a sizeable contingent of people in this country who are in that traditional mid-left-to-hard-left area on the spectrum, who in the 90's saw the only left-of-centre party of any size - the Labour Party - move from an economically soft-left-to-mid-left party, to one following a centre-right-to-slightly-left-of-centre economic framework (even adopting some Thatcherite & corporate-capitalist policy from the 80's & early 90's as non-negotiable)

In know so many people that felt that the only election options they had were reduced to a hard version of corporate-capitalism that pandered to the already wealthy and big business, or a milder version that sought to mitigate some of the worst impacts.

The election of Corbyn came out of nowhere. But it was driven by people wanting a change in the econo-political direction of the UK.

Those people have not gone away.

There's a compelling argument made by many that Labour is only electable if it embraces that economically centre-right-to-soft-left political space, that the party should adapt to fit what it thinks will win elections. That people should very much lower their sights in terms of what Labour could achieve.

But there's also an argument that political parties should stand for something core. And their objective is to try to convince enough of the electorate of their policies and arguments.


In reality, though, all that needs to be put into the context of many of the loudest voices in the current leftist movement are annoying idiots, with too many in that section of politics motivated by their zealous devotion to identity politics and extreme social justice issues. In their present incantation, 'the left' (if we characterize that by the Corbynistas and Momentum lot) are incapable of winning an election.

[Nobby Reserve]

It's an interesting point though isn't it. I kind of feel like because I am so angry at this right-wing government that it's hard to feel 'proud' or 'patriotic' about the UK at the moment.

It's even more difficult after stuff like Brexit, us cutting foreign aid, the way we treat immigrants and asylum seekers and the like.

I think he's actually right - if you are a Socialist and your country is doing the right thing and behaving properly then why not feel proud of it? At the moment, sadly, we appear to be a rouge banana republic.. But if that could change..

When I'm wrestling with the whole 'patriotism' thing, I always end up coming back to "what exactly is 'the country'"?

If it's the physical land - the coastlines, the lakes and rivers, the mountains to rolling hills and fields, etc... then it's beautiful and I love it.

If it's the people, then it's a real mixed bag, from some of the best on the planet, to the absolute worst. As you say, Brexit; the fact that for all but 18 of my 49 years people have voted for Tory scum governments; the flagshagging clinging onto the reflected glories of 'empire' and 'we won two world wars' bullshit; down to the violence of nights out; the reaction of a large number of people to Hillsborough; etc

If it's the history, the pomp & ceremony, the culture, then again, it's some good mixed with a lot of shite.

[Sangria]

When I'm wrestling with the whole 'patriotism' thing, I always end up coming back to "what exactly is 'the country'"?

If it's the physical land - the coastlines, the lakes and rivers, the mountains to rolling hills and fields, etc... then it's beautiful and I love it.

If it's the people, then it's a real mixed bag, from some of the best on the planet, to the absolute worst. As you say, Brexit; the fact that for all but 18 of my 49 years people have voted for Tory scum governments; the flagshagging clinging onto the reflected glories of 'empire' and 'we won two world wars' bullshit; down to the violence of nights out; the reaction of a large number of people to Hillsborough; etc

If it's the history, the pomp & ceremony, the culture, then again, it's some good mixed with a lot of shite.

Jerusalem is the ultimate patriotic song of England. How you view the song is probably reflective of how you view patriotism.

[Yorkykopite]

Also, thinking about Pidcock, and Sultana in particular, I wonder if the working class they espouse is the one they've read about in authors of choice. It would explain why they have such consistent and unbending principles, as the working class in their mind is one that exists, uniform and unchanging, in books.

That's an intriguing thought. I think it's fairly clear that Pidcock and Sultana (and Corbyn too, though you have probably been intimidated into not mentioning him!) have a very poor grasp of who the 'working class' are that they fetishise. But I'm definitely intrigued by the idea that it comes from book knowledge.

So which books?  Anything by Lenin I would think since he has a notoriously poor sense of what working-class people are like and projects on to them all sorts of weird fantasies. Then any history that has emerged out of the Trotskyist canon since Trot historians move the 'working class' on to their pages like a stage army ("Enter stage left, shout in unison for revolution, become divided by lick-spittle social-democratic politicians, exit stage right").

[Yorkykopite]

ive no idea what youre going on about, but you carry on.

That says more about you than me comrade.

[Lusty]

Oh God he's calling for a female James Bond 

It was all going so well

[Nobby Reserve]

Oh God he's calling for a female James Bond 

It was all going so well

Just... why?

 

He can promise 'former Labour voters' everything they want from an economic policy perspective, but utter bollocks like this just makes them (and most other people) recoil and think 'fuck that'.


Why the hell should there be any requirement for a male fictional character to be female?

[Bobsackamano]

Just... why?

 

He can promise 'former Labour voters' everything they want from an economic policy perspective, but utter bollocks like this just makes them (and most other people) recoil and think 'fuck that'.


Why the hell should there be any requirement for a male fictional character to be female?

Agreed. Poor response from Starmer. He should have told them he's leader of the Labour party not a fucking casting director.

Lammy's response the other day to these niche culture wars issues was perfect

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19611945.labour-conference-david-lammy-attacks-bbc-trans-rights-questions/

Starmer needs to take heed and rehearse some similar answers over and over so he's prepared as these shite questions will not stop.

[Zeb]

I think you misunderstand their motivations. They don't have allegiance to Corbyn; he's just the accidental figurehead due to him being elected leader (because it was 'his turn' to stand as the token lefty in the 2015 leadership election)

There's a sizeable contingent of people in this country who are in that traditional mid-left-to-hard-left area on the spectrum, who in the 90's saw the only left-of-centre party of any size - the Labour Party - move from an economically soft-left-to-mid-left party, to one following a centre-right-to-slightly-left-of-centre economic framework (even adopting some Thatcherite & corporate-capitalist policy from the 80's & early 90's as non-negotiable)

In know so many people that felt that the only election options they had were reduced to a hard version of corporate-capitalism that pandered to the already wealthy and big business, or a milder version that sought to mitigate some of the worst impacts.

The election of Corbyn came out of nowhere. But it was driven by people wanting a change in the econo-political direction of the UK.

Those people have not gone away.

There's a compelling argument made by many that Labour is only electable if it embraces that economically centre-right-to-soft-left political space, that the party should adapt to fit what it thinks will win elections. That people should very much lower their sights in terms of what Labour could achieve.

But there's also an argument that political parties should stand for something core. And their objective is to try to convince enough of the electorate of their policies and arguments.


In reality, though, all that needs to be put into the context of many of the loudest voices in the current leftist movement are annoying idiots, with too many in that section of politics motivated by their zealous devotion to identity politics and extreme social justice issues. In their present incantation, 'the left' (if we characterize that by the Corbynistas and Momentum lot) are incapable of winning an election.

If it helps give some perspective, Corbyn's core support came from a group of maybe 10% of the electorate (you can guess where they live and who they are in the general terms, and I should say I fall within the group so you can see why generalisations are just that ). And that is defined by left wing but also very, very socially liberal in comparison to the rest of the country. (Reference for this is Paula Surridge, again, this time her work on value clans - Global Green Community is her term for where Corbyn was consolidating support.) It was one of the weird things to watch play out when internal discussion of freedom of movement had to be turned into a loyalty vote for Jeremy to win. But more salient to your specific point, the idea of uniting by economics is what Labour try to do every election because of how the coalition is formed from the left by trying to play on shared values on the left while downplaying differences in social values. Question I have to the hard left playing a different tune is are they willing to change from seeing it in binaries? It would seem as essential to them as the narcissism which prevents them from reflecting on failure and projecting it onto the voters etc. instead.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Oh God he's calling for a female James Bond 

It was all going so well

I don't actually mind this.

Making Doctor Who female was just total bollocks. Made no sense within the context of the decades of canon. Doctor who was the character. 'The Doctor' was the same person - there was no one behind the character, it wasn't a role that was picked up or dropped - he regenerated but was essentially the same being.


James Bond is clearly a bloke. Bringing 'James Bond back as a women' is just as stupid an idea as making Doctor Who female. Just stupid.

But. 007 is a code for an agent. I have absolutely no problem seeing James Bond (The person) retire and his double-oh number being given to a female. That makes perfect sense and is entirely within the canon of the series. In fact, we have seen agents killed and then reassigned numbers in films as we went along.


As long as a decision like this doesn't break canon then it's entirely reasonable.

[Dr. Beaker]

Media desperation here. Obviously refused the bacon sarny when he turned up at the studio.

[Dr. Beaker]

The whole thing about James Bond is that there isn't one aspect of it that is believable so who gives a fuck.

[Nobby Reserve]

Media desperation here. Obviously refused the bacon sarny when he turned up at the studio.

He was actually asked who his favourite Bond was.

He replied that he didn't have one but [unpressed] said the next one should be female.

[Nobby Reserve]

I don't actually mind this.

Making Doctor Who female was just total bollocks. Made no sense within the context of the decades of canon. Doctor who was the character. 'The Doctor' was the same person - there was no one behind the character, it wasn't a role that was picked up or dropped - he regenerated but was essentially the same being.


James Bond is clearly a bloke. Bringing 'James Bond back as a women' is just as stupid an idea as making Doctor Who female. Just stupid.

But. 007 is a code for an agent. I have absolutely no problem seeing James Bond (The person) retire and his double-oh number being given to a female. That makes perfect sense and is entirely within the canon of the series. In fact, we have seen agents killed and then reassigned numbers in films as we went along.


As long as a decision like this doesn't break canon then it's entirely reasonable.

A female being given the code 007 would be justifiable (yet totally unnecessary) but that wasn't what he said.

[SP]

I’ve never watched Doctor Who but I was always under the impression that the Doctor was an alien of some sort, no?

They tried to change that in 1996.

[Sangria]

I’ve never watched Doctor Who but I was always under the impression that the Doctor was an alien of some sort, no?

Does Pritti Patel know this? She loves deporting aliens.

[Hedley Lamarr]

James Bond is a character, make an equivalent female character.  This doesn’t seem difficult.

[Lusty]

I don't actually mind this.

Making Doctor Who female was just total bollocks. Made no sense within the context of the decades of canon. Doctor who was the character. 'The Doctor' was the same person - there was no one behind the character, it wasn't a role that was picked up or dropped - he regenerated but was essentially the same being.


James Bond is clearly a bloke. Bringing 'James Bond back as a women' is just as stupid an idea as making Doctor Who female. Just stupid.

But. 007 is a code for an agent. I have absolutely no problem seeing James Bond (The person) retire and his double-oh number being given to a female. That makes perfect sense and is entirely within the canon of the series. In fact, we have seen agents killed and then reassigned numbers in films as we went along.


As long as a decision like this doesn't break canon then it's entirely reasonable.

I don't really care about James Bond, more that it's a completely pointless culture war argument that he's waded into without even being prompted.

If he was cornered then he could have just given the stock answer that Phoebe Waller Bridge gave the other day about writing better characters for women, but he wasn't even asked about a female Bond.

[Dench57]

Favourite Briton? I'd have to say the history of the Armed Forces, which should be played by a woman next time.

[oldfordie]

Media desperation here. Obviously refused the bacon sarny when he turned up at the studio.

Reminds me of Obama taking the p... out of Trump over his Apprentice TV series, these are the decisions that must keep him awake at night.
He should have had a prepared answer for trivial questions like this and I imagine he's learned the lesson, I very much doubt he's done any damage though. imagine someone telling you they don't think Starmers good or he's not in touch with the man in the street because he wants a female James Bond, they will get some weird looks.

[Red Beret]

James Bond is a character, make an equivalent female character.  This doesn’t seem difficult.

Easier to just appropriate a male character. No need to build up a fan-base.

Bond has become so OTT it's probably just better to come up with something entirely new anyway. (Yeah, he was ALWAYS OTT, but audiences have changed. If I want OTT I'll watch Guardians of the Galaxy, not something that's pretending to exist in the real world.)

[Kenny's Jacket]

A female being given the code 007 would be justifiable (yet totally unnecessary) but that wasn't what he said.

2 steps forward 1 step back

[Nobby Reserve]

On Her Majesty's Secret Cervix

[Zeb]

Disagree with points in this but it's an interesting assessment by ex-Tory minister David Gauke.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2021/09/now-is-the-time-for-keir-starmer-to-take-on-the-hard-brexiteers

Spoiler

The charge of timidity is frequently made against Keir Starmer. He does not appear to be, by nature, a naturally confrontational person. He does not rush to judgement and seeks to avoid boxing himself in.  This may be as a consequence of a desire to weigh up the evidence in a considered manner or it may be that he fears that clear positions are bound to upset people which he does not want to do.  He is cautious and risk averse.

Starmer’s handling of Covid-19 is an illustration. He recognised that further restrictions were necessary in September and called for a “circuit-breaker” lockdown. If anything, this was too mild a response (the experience in Wales suggested that a circuit breaker provided only temporary respite).  On the Christmas easing, he raised objections but late in the day. On closing schools in January, he advocated this but only at the point at which it was inevitable that the government would follow suit.

The charge of “Captain Hindsight” is unfair – particularly over the situation in September – but the fear of being a Christmas Grinch or being seen as an enthusiast for the closing of schools meant that he did not risk making his calls earlier. His judgement was better than that of the Prime Minister but he lacked the courage of his convictions to truly take the lead.

These episodes are worth recalling in the context of two issues that have been prominent at the Labour Party conference, where there has been a conflict between Starmer’s caution and his convictions. 

The first is party management. The left have spent the week complaining that focusing on various internal rule changes was a distraction. It is true that these are not issues at the forefront of the minds of voters but, to the extent that these rule changes can be seen as “taking on the left”, they are essential. 

For the first few days of the conference, the Labour leadership appeared to duck the confrontation and waffled about reconnecting with the trade unions but the noisy backlash from the left did the job for Starmer. They heckled him; the majority applauded him vigorously in response. This was not quite a Neil Kinnock in 1985 moment but it was a start. The far left has not yet been vanquished but it is losing.

The second issue is Brexit. Starmer’s approach since winning the leadership has been to say as little about the subject as possible but, in the light of the fuel shortages, the issue has returned to prominence.

It is not all about Brexit but public confidence in the robustness of our supply chains is diminished in large part because of our leaving the EU and the ending of freedom of movement. If tighter immigration restrictions were not part of the problem (as some Brexiteers argue), it is hard to explain why the government’s response is, in part, to loosen existing immigration rules, albeit in a way (three-month visas for 5,000 HGV drivers) that is likely to be ineffective.

The Starmer line that it is a “failure of planning” is carefully calibrated not to offend Leave voters or enable the government to accuse Labour of wanting to reverse Brexit. It is not clear, however, precisely what plan could have been followed that would have prevented significant labour shortages in a range of sectors, short of a lengthy transition before ending freedom of movement.

One could describe this as strategic discipline. As someone who campaigned for Remain in the EU referendum, blocked a Brexit deal that ended freedom of movement in 2019, who campaigned for a second referendum at the last general election and fought the Labour leadership on a platform of maintaining freedom of movement in 2020, Starmer must be struggling to suppress the desire to say “I told you so”.  Obviously, that would be the wrong tone but the fear of upsetting Red Wall Leave voters means that his criticisms of the government lack clarity and directness.

His conference speech briefly touched on our departure from the EU, describing it as “a botched Brexit” and stating that “it is not enough to Get Brexit Done, you need a plan to Make Brexit Work”.  What that plan might be was less clear in his speech other than a series of policies – “investing in our people and our places”, “deploy technology cleverly” and “build affordable homes” – that has little to do with Brexit.

Just as Starmer belatedly concluded that a confrontation with the left was inevitable, he will eventually have to take on the hard Brexiteers. He might want to avoid being accused of wanting to reverse Brexit but Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson will make that charge in any event. Come the next general election, the flaws in Brexit will be apparent to Brexit-sceptics while Johnson will still appeal to Brexit-enthusiasts. Brexit will not be behind us and Labour needs something coherent and powerful to say.

There is a case for waiting, for allowing the public to come to its own conclusions about Brexit and only then make the argument. But a prime minister should be able to lead public opinion, to be prepared to provoke disagreement and to take calculated risks in the national interest. Starmer was too cautious to do that on Covid-19, but he has started to do it in the case of the far left. He must also show his leadership credentials on Brexit.

[close]

His conclusion suggests the case for waiting is there to be made, and I think it has been so far although you could argue cause and effect. If you take the starting point that the Brexit divisions completely screw over Labour whichever stance it takes on it then the optimal position is to fudge so long as you're not pissing everyone off by fudging (2017 vs 2019). The question boils down to the often raised 'To lead or to follow?', which is really about whether your assessment is that the leading will lead to a more successful result than the wait and follow one.

One little point I'd make about Gauke's suggestion too is the idea that Labour's focus is purely on the seats lost in 'the Red wall'. I don't believe it is because the whole point of the idea of the Red Wall was that these were seats which by any categorisation should already have been voting Tory but for other reasons (cultural etc.) hadn't up until 2017/19. Of 125 most likely target seats outside of Scotland, only 41 of them were lost in the three elections from 2015 to 2019. Pdf. The battleground does shift - seen a lot of quiet fume from some in Labour at where the BBC were doing vox pops because it's been in places Labour would enter government on a 100 seat landslide to win.

[wampa1]

I don't actually mind this.

Making Doctor Who female was just total bollocks. Made no sense within the context of the decades of canon. Doctor who was the character. 'The Doctor' was the same person - there was no one behind the character, it wasn't a role that was picked up or dropped - he regenerated but was essentially the same being.


James Bond is clearly a bloke. Bringing 'James Bond back as a women' is just as stupid an idea as making Doctor Who female. Just stupid.

But. 007 is a code for an agent. I have absolutely no problem seeing James Bond (The person) retire and his double-oh number being given to a female. That makes perfect sense and is entirely within the canon of the series. In fact, we have seen agents killed and then reassigned numbers in films as we went along.


As long as a decision like this doesn't break canon then it's entirely reasonable.

[Welshred]

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-changed-as-starmers-wife-is-jewish-says-partner-of-woman-kicked-out/

Why does anti-semitism always follow these fucking nutcases?!

[So… Howard Philips]

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-changed-as-starmers-wife-is-jewish-says-partner-of-woman-kicked-out/

Why does anti-semitism always follow these fucking nutcases?!

Because they are Jew haters? Pretending to support Palestinians gives them a fig leaf for a bit of good old fashioned Jew baiting.

[Nobby Reserve]

Because they are Jew haters? Pretending to support Palestinians gives them a fig leaf for a bit of good old fashioned Jew baiting.

Oh, do fuck off

[killer-heels]

The Labour leader should be a woman.

[Zeb]

The Labour leader should be a woman.

I think it will be next time. Combination of rule changes and additional provisos (must have a female candidate). Those wishing Starmer gone should hold off on it though, Yvette Cooper is where the membership is at right now.

[Nobby Reserve]

Burnham will be the next leader as it stands.

IMHO

[Zeb]

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-changed-as-starmers-wife-is-jewish-says-partner-of-woman-kicked-out/

Why does anti-semitism always follow these fucking nutcases?!

It's infuriating and desperately sad at the same time. Vice chair of a CLP. Where Labour is at. Reading Daniel Randall's book on it at the moment (and if anyone's short right now and wants a copy, happy to do a few if you drop me a DM). Obviously I don't follow his politics (he's a Trot who's a Labour member and I'm less organised than that in my politics) but it's him putting the case for education and modelling better ways to show solidarity (and ones which might actually make a difference) as well as trying to trace why parts of the left have this particular problem. Think there's room for what he suggests but at the same time Labour has a legal obligation to not allow shit to happen and I'm not sure some even want to take on a worldview which isn't wrapped in conspiracism. Was just watching a video where it was seriously suggested Starmer was part of a CIA related top secret international ebil society. Inclined to think that the education can be done out of Labour spaces if people want it.

[Sangria]

https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-changed-as-starmers-wife-is-jewish-says-partner-of-woman-kicked-out/

Why does anti-semitism always follow these fucking nutcases?!

Is this the case that Bastani tweeted this about?

New: Told Labour is now suspending members it accuses of heckling Starmer. Multiple cases at moment - party claims suspensions are for more serious offences than that.

Unclear how protest within party is an offence so may be more. What’s clear is some of hecklers suspended.

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1443613585968705549