Topic: Labour Thread * No Gaza *

[Elmo!]

Yeah I find it tiresome these attempts to shut down any and all criticism of Starmer and Labour and paint it all as coming from the "hard left". There are plenty of people posting perfectly reasonable criticisms while still agreeing that Labour need to win.

That said, those just calling them Tory Lite without any sort of reasoned argument are deserving of criticism, it's just silly.

I appreciate some might take this with a pinch of salt as it's coming from one of the few people on here who isn't actually really a Labour supporter (but I still want them to win... a plurality at least). 

[TepidT2O]

This labelling of everyone who disagrees with the current direction of the Labour party as 'hard/far left' is so tiresome. Out of interest, I wonder which of the below are 'hard/far left' policies?

I think opposition from within the Labour Party is from what might be called the far left of the Labour Party, or what was once called the Bennites

Obviously not everyone fits into terms, but they are useful as shorthand

[Jiminy Cricket]

This labelling of everyone who disagrees with the current direction of the Labour party as 'hard/far left' is so tiresome. Out of interest, I wonder which of the below are 'hard/far left' policies?

As I see it, the problem more Starmer (and Starmer's labour party) being labelled as 'Tory Lite' or 'Red Tories' and the like.

Starmer is Tory lite.Significant change won't be coming from him. . He needs to be ousted. Hopefully that Feinstein chap comes in as a viable alternative.

[koptommy93]

Labour aren't what many of us would like ideally, but will a properly "left" labour party ever win a general election in this country? For a number of reasons I doubt it, to be honest.

[TepidT2O]

Labour aren't what many of us would like ideally, but will a properly "left" labour party ever win a general election in this country? For a number of reasons I doubt it, to be honest.

Have they ever?

[Red-Soldier]

As I see it, the problem more Starmer (and Starmer's labour party) being labelled as 'Tory Lite' or 'Red Tories' and the like.

How many times does that happen, though.  The regular posters in here, who are sometimes critical of Labour (and Starmer), never say stuff like that.

[koptommy93]

Have they ever?

1945 maybe, but that's so far from today it has zero relevance.

[cornishscouser92]

Labour aren't what many of us would like ideally, but will a properly "left" labour party ever win a general election in this country? For a number of reasons I doubt it, to be honest.

They're restricted by the economic realities as to what they can do, unfortunately.

[Red Beret]

People seem to have the same unrealistic expectations of Labour as they do of LFC sometimes.

[koptommy93]

They're restricted by the economic realities as to what they can do, unfortunately.

regardless of how well the economy might be doing I think the realities of class and the way the media is configured in this country make it impossible

[Circa1892]

Starmer is Tory lite.Significant change won't be coming from him. . He needs to be ousted. Hopefully that Feinstein chap comes in as a viable alternative.

 

Lol

[cornishscouser92]

regardless of how well the economy might be doing I think the realities of class and the way the media is configured in this country make it impossible

Most people are in the centre, either slightly to the left or right. Going full left or right wing just reduces your voter base.

[Red Beret]

Lol

I thought that was a whoosh of some sort. I don't know what the current definition of "significant change" is given the current state of the country.

I long for the naive days of 2008 when we thought a global financial crisis was the worst thing that could possibly happen to us.

[TheShanklyGates]

People seem to have the same unrealistic expectations of Labour as they do of LFC sometimes.

Why did he make those pledges if they were 'unrealistic'? Maybe his slogan should have been 'another future isn't possible'.

Interesting that nobody has been yet been willing to stick their neck out and label any of them 'hard left'.

[koptommy93]

Why did he make those pledges if they were 'unrealistic'? Maybe his slogan should have been 'another future isn't possible'.

Interesting that nobody has been yet been willing to stick their neck out and label any of them 'hard left'.

He made them so he could become leader, cynical as hell but it worked.

[jDJ]

This labelling of everyone who disagrees with the current direction of the Labour party as 'hard/far left' is so tiresome. Out of interest, I wonder which of the below are 'hard/far left' policies?

Be critical all you like just shut the fuck about it until after July 4th.

[Elmo!]

Be critical all you like just shut the fuck about it until after July 4th.

You're just proving TSG's point. No one willing to answer his point, just saying to shut up.

[TheShanklyGates]

He made them so he could become leader, cynical as hell but it worked.

Which of course leads to the follow up question of how can you trust anything he says in this election when he has form for making cynical promises just to win.

You're just proving TSG's point. No one willing to answer his point, just saying to shut up.

Quite.

[koptommy93]

Which of course leads to the follow up question of how can you trust anything he says in this election when he has form for making cynical promises just to win.

Quite.

All we can do is wait and see, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt given his track record

[Bobsackamano]

Which of course leads to the follow up question of how can you trust anything he says in this election when he has form for making cynical promises just to win.

Quite.

He had to tell a pack of lies to get elected. The alternative if I remember correctly was the utterly mediocre Rebecca Long Bailey and we could have been staring down the barrel of 5 more years of the Tories. He did what he had to do to prevent that and I'm thankful he did as he's going to cook the Tories.

[jDJ]

You're just proving TSG's point. No one willing to answer his point, just saying to shut up.

I really don't care what his point is and I couldn't care less what the fck Diane Abbott is playing at, what I do care about ensuring this is as large a labour victory as possible.  So, I repeat, shut the fck up until after July 4th.  Thank you.

[Circa1892]

I think Abbott will end up standing for Labour and the lower profile ones they’re trying to get rid of (that awful Lloyd Mole etc) will be quietly canned.

[TepidT2O]

He made them so he could become leader, cynical as hell but it worked.

It suspect he totally believes in them…. But is pragmatic to relocalise that if he doesn’t get elected then he wil guarantee to do none of any of them

[Terry de Niro]

Never liked Starmer and never will, but I'm still voting Labour.
We need to get these Tory bastards out and Labour is the only alternative in doing this.

[Elmo!]

I really don't care what his point is and I couldn't care less what the fck Diane Abbott is playing at, what I do care about ensuring this is as large a labour victory as possible.  So, I repeat, shut the fck up until after July 4th.  Thank you.

I think (TSG can correct me if I'm wrong) the point is that if they are not hard left policies, then those criticising him for breaking them, are not necessarily of the hard left as is claimed.

And I'll shut up if the mods tell me to, not you. 

[Yorkykopite]

Why did he make those pledges if they were 'unrealistic'?

He obviously made the pledges to win the Labour Party leadership election. That's what the insane system for electing party leaders demanded he did. But what appeals to a small minority of committed socialists is not necessarily going to be appealing to an electorate of 50 million. So he trimmed. Very sensible.

The Tories are discovering this now. What appeals to a small minority of fully committed Tory members is anathema to the rest of us.

Starmer understood what was needed. Sunak and Truss (and Corbyn) didn't.

[TheShanklyGates]

I think (TSG can correct me if I'm wrong) the point is that if they are not hard left policies, then those criticising him for breaking them, are not necessarily of the hard left as is claimed.

And I'll shut up if the mods tell me to, not you. 

Correct. And I never mentioned Diane Abbott...

He had to tell a pack of lies to get elected. The alternative if I remember correctly was the utterly mediocre Rebecca Long Bailey and we could have been staring down the barrel of 5 more years of the Tories. He did what he had to do to prevent that and I'm thankful he did as he's going to cook the Tories.

If you're looking for one reason why politicians get branded as 'all the same' or 'just as bad as each other' look no further than this post. Telling a pack of lies to win is fine when my side do it but beyond the pale otherwise...

[Red Beret]

Why did he make those pledges if they were 'unrealistic'? Maybe his slogan should have been 'another future isn't possible'.

Interesting that nobody has been yet been willing to stick their neck out and label any of them 'hard left'.

Maybe his slogan should have been "doubters to believers?"

As long as Labour aren't disappearing up their own arse as they did under Corbyn, they'll always be a better option than the Tories for me. People just seem to be straining tea leaves.

[killer-heels]

Been as critical of Starmer as anyone prior to this election but right now its game faces on and all that and we need the Tories out. We will have 5 years in power to criticise Starmer and the party. Right now its time to kill some Tories.

As for Diane Abbott, i dont care if she isnt allowed to stand, she is a joke and an embarrassment.

[TheShanklyGates]

Maybe his slogan should have been "doubters to believers?"

As long as Labour aren't disappearing up their own arse as they did under Corbyn, they'll always be a better option than the Tories for me. People just seem to be straining tea leaves.

The Labour party is not a football club although it's clear to me from reading this thread that many do see them in the same way. They are not owed my unconditional and unquestioning support, they should have to earn it.

I feel I should reiterate that I will be voting for the Labour candidate in my seat because they are the only option to get the incumbent Tory out. I fully understand the realities of our FPTP electoral system and I'm not about to cut off my nose to spite my face. But being better than the Tories is such an incredibly low bar to clear that I don't think it's fair to dismiss criticism as 'straining tea leaves'.

[Red Beret]

I'm not arsed about Abbot. She seems to be kicking up a fuss and desperate to be the centre of the attention. All of this could have been dealt with behind closed doors, and it's indicative of how Labour was under the previous leadership that people chose to air this dirty linen in public.

I don't know if someone has done this without Starmer's knowledge, or whether Abbot has jumped the gun, but it's negative publicity the party doesn't need, and if Abbot had a brain cell between her ears she would pipe down and remember what's at stake here is more than her own personal future.

[oldfordie]

Labour aren't what many of us would like ideally, but will a properly "left" labour party ever win a general election in this country? For a number of reasons I doubt it, to be honest.

You can judge left wing in many ways, the way most people judge is more about the real life impact of policys, Poverty in general, taking millions of kids and pensioners out of poverty, Care. NHS+ Welfare, Housing. Education. theres absolutely no way Labour can be classed as not proper Labour on these issues, it's the economic arguments that upset the hard left and even then it's more about seeing Capitalism and big business as evil. I actually agree with some of the points made but I never let myself lose sight of the big picture of what Labours purpose is. to improve lives. I could make a argument that proves the far left are willing to allow millions to suffer in poverty if they can change the economic system but that would derail the thread, point is more about what left wing is all about. if this Labour government can come in and repair the damage this Tory government have done, improve standard of living and all the other good things then they should be acknowledged as proper Labour, I will be long gone as this is going to take a long time, I just hate the thought of Labour going through all this shit again and I hope people remember when they are criticised, it will happen, that's certain.

[Red Beret]

The Labour party is not a football club although it's clear to me from reading this thread that many do see them in the same way. They are not owed my unconditional and unquestioning support, they should have to earn it.

I feel I should reiterate that I will be voting for the Labour candidate in my seat because they are the only option to get the incumbent Tory out. I fully understand the realities of our FPTP electoral system and I'm not about to cut off my nose to spite my face. But being better than the Tories is such an incredibly low bar to clear that I don't think it's fair to dismiss criticism as 'straining tea leaves'.

No it's not a football club, but people seem to be acting like it is. Everybody seems to know better than the people actually running the party and can't wait to disagree, complain or criticise about the slightest thing that doesn't unfold how they think it should. A quick look through the history of this board shows that LFC - even Klopp's LFC - has hardly enjoyed "unconditional and unquestioning support" from anyone, no matter how many times it clearly has been earned. Supporters will throw their toys out the pram at the drop of a hat.

It's a sad sight that so many people of the left appear to be only voting Labour to stick it to the Tories, rather than feeling it is a pathway to genuine change. Politicians lie; it's just a question of degree. But for me, that doesn't make them all the same. I can't subscribe to this supposition that Labour only seem to be marginally better than the alternative, which seems to be what you're implying.

Being better than the Tories is indeed a low bar to clear, but I don't agree with the idea that Labour only just clear that bar.

[Elmo!]

To me, the Labour party are a means to an end. The real goal is better governance for the betterment of the population. It does feel to me like some do view the party like a football team, especially now they have their man in charge. It's too tribal.

My concern with the approach of the Labour Party - which I totally get the reasoning for - is the opportunity cost. As many on here have said, the cards have fallen perfectly for Starmer with the shambolic collapse of the Tories and the SNP's woes. It's always going to be a tough balancing act, but I think the Labour party has to consider longer term strategy, the movement of the overton window, and making the most of what is a once in a generation opportunity, instead of sacrificing everything to secure a record breaking majority. And for all those saying let's see what he actually does in power, you have to realise that if stuff isn't in the manifesto, you're going to end up with trouble getting stuff through the House of Lords, and face criticism of their mandate to push through these changes.

[TheShanklyGates]

No it's not a football club, but people seem to be acting like it is. Everybody seems to know better than the people actually running the party and can't wait to disagree, complain or criticise about the slightest thing that doesn't unfold how they think it should. A quick look through the history of this board shows that LFC - even Klopp's LFC - has hardly enjoyed "unconditional and unquestioning support" from anyone, no matter how many times it clearly has been earned. Supporters will throw their toys out the pram at the drop of a hat.

It's a sad sight that so many people of the left appear to be only voting Labour to stick it to the Tories, rather than feeling it is a pathway to genuine change. Politicians lie; it's just a question of degree. But for me, that doesn't make them all the same. I can't subscribe to this supposition that Labour only seem to be marginally better than the alternative, which seems to be what you're implying.

Being better than the Tories is indeed a low bar to clear, but I don't agree with the idea that Labour only just clear that bar.

A football club is not a democracy. Governing the country is (in theory, anyway!).

[Red Beret]

A football club is not a democracy. Governing the country is (in theory, anyway!).

Hey, I'm just pointing out that Labour supporters aren't acting too dissimilar to Liverpool fans. Everybody and their dog has an opinion on what they think the people in charge should be doing and how.

You don't have to like the comparison; but in this modern, social media driven age, it is a fair one in my opinion.

[TheShanklyGates]

Hey, I'm just pointing out that Labour supporters aren't acting too dissimilar to Liverpool fans. Everybody and their dog has an opinion on what they think the people in charge should be doing and how.

You don't have to like the comparison; but in this modern, social media driven age, it is a fair one in my opinion.

It's a modern, social media driven phenomenon for people to have opinions on how politicians should run the country? We're going to have to agree to disagree on that

[Red-Soldier]

Been as critical of Starmer as anyone prior to this election but right now its game faces on and all that and we need the Tories out. We will have 5 years in power to criticise Starmer and the party. Right now its time to kill some Tories.

As for Diane Abbott, i dont care if she isnt allowed to stand, she is a joke and an embarrassment.

This is where I'm at, currently.  Going to put my poster up soon, and do some leaflet drops.

Can't believe Labour actually have a shot in my constituency. 

[Red-Soldier]

To me, the Labour party are a means to an end. The real goal is better governance for the betterment of the population. It does feel to me like some do view the party like a football team, especially now they have their man in charge. It's too tribal.

My concern with the approach of the Labour Party - which I totally get the reasoning for - is the opportunity cost. As many on here have said, the cards have fallen perfectly for Starmer with the shambolic collapse of the Tories and the SNP's woes. It's always going to be a tough balancing act, but I think the Labour party has to consider longer term strategy, the movement of the overton window, and making the most of what is a once in a generation opportunity, instead of sacrificing everything to secure a record breaking majority. And for all those saying let's see what he actually does in power, you have to realise that if stuff isn't in the manifesto, you're going to end up with trouble getting stuff through the House of Lords, and face criticism of their mandate to push through these changes.

I agree with this.

There's real opportunity to do some real transformational stuff, currently.  People and the country are begging for a change! 

If they can't promise some big stuff, with a 20 point lead, then when.........??

The country fucking hates the Tories!

[Bobsackamano]

I agree with this.

There's real opportunity to do some real transformational stuff, currently.  People and the country are begging for a change! 

If they can't promise some big stuff, with a 20 point lead, then when.........??

The country fucking hates the Tories!

Maybe with the current state of the country they can't afford much big stuff and they are now being totally honest and promising only what they can realistically deliver or maybe for a change the winning party will set expectations low and over deliver setting themselves up for a second term. The big lead allows them to be truthful?