Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[TepidT2O]

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1233680321289256960?s=20

aged well

To be honest the leadership election process has been a total and unmitigated disaster.

[RainbowFlick]

One change which I would favour is restricting the vote in a leadership election to people who were members for a certain number of months before the election was called, I don't think the entryism that the current system encourages is particularly helpful.

but why? there was hysteria around Tories and bad actors joining the Party to sabotage things but whether that made any tangible difference seems unlikely.

people join to vote when they feel a leader that is engaging and speaks to what they're looking for - whether you've been a member a month or ten years your vote should still matter.

[Nobby Reserve]

One way or another, democracy fails when people insist on exercising their democratic right to be idiots. Democracy is an effective bulwark against tyranny. But tyranny is no longer a threat in the liberal democratic west. Idiocy is the main threat, and the democratic right to vote for whatever idiocy they feel like, with the moral force of democracy backing their choice.

And your definition of 'idiocy' being 'a political group that differs from my own opinions'?

[Nobby Reserve]

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1233680321289256960?s=20

aged well

He'll unite the Party by expelling those on the left. It's not hard to understand 

[RainbowFlick]

One way or another, democracy fails when people insist on exercising their democratic right to be idiots. Democracy is an effective bulwark against tyranny. But tyranny is no longer a threat in the liberal democratic west. Idiocy is the main threat, and the democratic right to vote for whatever idiocy they feel like, with the moral force of democracy backing their choice.

hilarious as always mate

[filopastry]

but why? there was hysteria around Tories and bad actors joining the Party to sabotage things but whether that made any tangible difference seems unlikely.

people join to vote when they feel a leader that is engaging and speaks to what they're looking for - whether you've been a member a month or ten years your vote should still matter.

I have no problem with more recent members getting a vote, I have more of an issue with the vote of a member counting for the same as someone who literally just joins to vote in a leadership election and pisses off immediately afterwards, would like to think people had somewhat more of a commitment to the party than that before having a say in its leadership.

[Sangria]

And your definition of 'idiocy' being 'a political group that differs from my own opinions'?

See the fetishisation of Brexit as the epitome of democratic idiocy. As long as a group passes the vote, they have carte blanche to do whatever they like, as long as they identify with that group. They can break any promises the like and it's still democratic, because they belong to the winning group. Public questioning, which is the bedrock of our democratic system, can be disregarded because they belong to the winning group. What you say and promise does not matter, because you belong to the winning group, and thus you are backed by democracy.

That is what we're up against. I care not a jot what method Labour has to use to turn this round. Few people care how the function of democracy works within the Labour party. What matters is how the democracy works in the UK.

[Yorkykopite]

One way or another, democracy fails when people insist on exercising their democratic right to be idiots. Democracy is an effective bulwark against tyranny. But tyranny is no longer a threat in the liberal democratic west. Idiocy is the main threat, and the democratic right to vote for whatever idiocy they feel like, with the moral force of democracy backing their choice.

That's a very strange post.

Tyranny no longer a threat in the liberal democratic west? Do you not remember Donald Trump? Have we already forgotten Geert Wilders and Le Pen? Have you looked at Italian politics lately?

As for the right to be an idiot, that is one of the liberal rights you are elsewhere (and rightly) keen to protect. Would you now like to take that right away?

Clearly liberal democracy is about more than just the right to vote. It implies protection from arbitrary power, an independent judicial system, a free press, and the robust defence of minority rights too. These things are indeed entrenched in the democratic western countries. But they wouldn't be if you took away the 'idiots' right to vote "for whatever....they feel like."

[Wild Romany Boy]

And your definition of 'idiocy' being 'a political group that differs from my own opinions'?

Haha, didn't expect to read a comment like that but, I think, I understand the point, even if I do disagree.

Oh well, on it goes.

[Sangria]

That's a very strange post.

Tyranny no longer a threat in the liberal democratic west? Do you not remember Donald Trump? Have we already forgotten Geert Wilders and Le Pen? Have you looked at Italian politics lately?

As for the right to be an idiot, that is one of the liberal rights you are elsewhere (and rightly) keen to protect. Would you now like to take that right away?

Clearly liberal democracy is about more than just the right to vote. It implies protection from arbitrary power, an independent judicial system, a free press, and the robust defence of minority rights too. These things are indeed entrenched in the democratic western countries. But they wouldn't be if you took away the 'idiots' right to vote "for whatever....they feel like."

I'll admit that I don't pay so much attention to politics in the west (by which I don't include eastern Europe) as to think that tyranny of the kind that democracy mitigates against is an active threat. By that, I mean violence to intimidate non-conformers, laws to exclude non-conformers, and the rest. What I see is winning politicians disregarding scrutiny, which has traditionally been the way governments have been kept in check. I see winning voters glorying in their side winning, and dismissing scrutiny as anti-democratic.

[oldfordie]

Thing is some people argue for voting to be compulsory, the last 6 yrs has shown this is the last thing we should want. the ignorant and the apathetic undecided voters swing elections in favour of the lying selfish politicians.
The docu drama Brexit. The uncivil War has a scene were Cummings meets someone from Cambridge Analytica who tells him there are  if memory serves me right 3 mill people who never vote or follow politics, how we can reach these people personally and motivate them to vote to leave the EU. job done.

[Jiminy Cricket]

The PLP have to have the ability to say NO.

But I’m not sure it should be divorced from everyone else.

I understand from where you are coming. But the PLP vetoing the leader selected by the membership would cause huge upset and problems. Let the PLP vote for the leader and be done with it. The PLP are likely to take into account the feelings of membership - but likely will ignore obvious idiocy.

[Nobby Reserve]

I understand from where you are coming. But the PLP vetoing the leader selected by the membership would cause huge upset and problems. Let the PLP vote for the leader and be done with it. The PLP are likely to take into account the feelings of membership - but likely will ignore obvious idiocy.

I disagree wholeheartedly. It creates a closed-club of 'Gov&Pol graduates' trapped in a Westminster bubble.

Especially if we return to the autocratic central control of policy and candidate selection of the New Labour era.


The election of Corbyn was IMO in no small part a reaction by grassroots members to that New Labour time.

[Sangria]

I disagree wholeheartedly. It creates a closed-club of 'Gov&Pol graduates' trapped in a Westminster bubble.

Especially if we return to the autocratic central control of policy and candidate selection of the New Labour era.


The election of Corbyn was IMO in no small part a reaction by grassroots members to that New Labour time.

I think the reforming process, if any, should ask these questions.

1. What's the best way of kicking out the Tories?
2. What conditions are necessary for the above?
3. Implement these conditions.

It matters little whether the democratic arguments are consistent or whether it involves u-turns here and there. Do the above. Once the Tories are out, we can start discussing the nature of democracy. The Tories, who are in power, care little for the nature of democracy as long as they win.

[Yorkykopite]

The election of Corbyn was IMO in no small part a reaction by grassroots members to that New Labour time.

That's part of the story certainly.

But there are two other fundamental parts as well. The first and obvious one is that loads of new people were invited to join the Labour party (for a peppercorn membership fee) simply to vote for Corbyn. Many of these evidently were people from other political parties (mainly on the Left) who had traditionally been hostile to Labour.

The second, less acknowledged, part is that Labour's individual members throughout its history have always been much further to the left than a) Labour voters b) the party's trade-union membership c) the PLP d) Labour cabinets and shadow cabinets. If Labour's leaders had always been elected by the suicidal method that saw Corbyn win the party would never have been led by Clem Attlee and Harold Wilson, let alone Tony Blair.

In fact Tony Benn would have led it to oblivion many decades ago. It's even possible that a clown like Derek Hatton might have won a leadership contest.

[Circa1892]

Absolutely insane this Party.

Absolutely nobody cares how Labour elects it’s leader. The majority of the country don’t know who it is anyway.

They’re going to waste their entire conference on this. The self absorption and desire from the various factions to continue their Uni Labour Club squabbles with each other is insane.

[Zeb]

I see what you mean about rabbit holes, Zeb, but also can appreciate that it's better to get this out of the way now and not be seen to be fiddling with the small print closer to an election.

True. Been listening to arguments that not having systems which allow the party to get into the mess it got into the past few years is a priority. There's precious little learning gone on in some parts of the party.

eg. compliance with the EHRC's recommendations is needed by some changes to procedures but a chunk of the NEC refused to pass them to be voted on in conference, instead trying to push a series of proposals so poorly thought through that agreeing to them would have meant Labour having to reject Short money for funding and various other outcomes which hadn't crossed the minds of the proposers.

I suppose it's the stuff which is always going to bubble up until the source is either removed or is diverted into more constructive debate. Even so, urgh.

[Zeb]

Well 14,000 words on what he believes shuts up those of us who were asking.

https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The-Road-Ahead-FINAL_WEB-fri.pdf

It's actually not bad, in the sense that it's readable and even if I disagree with some things I can broadly get behind the direction of travel. The outlines of the attack on the Tories for the next election are there too - an argument that they piss money away wastefully rather than improving things. It's also worth reading it alongside Chris Curtis' thoughts from the Progress commissioned polling work as it does all dovetail quite neatly together. All very soft left. All very past decade in some ways, trying to find the right tone and message, for better and worse.

[Yorkykopite]

Well 14,000 words on what he believes shuts up those of us who were asking.

https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The-Road-Ahead-FINAL_WEB-fri.pdf

It's actually not bad, in the sense that it's readable and even if I disagree with some things I can broadly get behind the direction of travel. The outlines of the attack on the Tories for the next election are there too - an argument that they piss money away wastefully rather than improving things. It's also worth reading it alongside Chris Curtis' thoughts from the Progress commissioned polling work as it does all dovetail quite neatly together. All very soft left. All very past decade in some ways, trying to find the right tone and message, for better and worse.

Thanks for that Zeb.

I bet you that's the first time a Labour party leader has quoted a professional footballer in his personal manifesto.

[Sangria]

Well 14,000 words on what he believes shuts up those of us who were asking.

https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The-Road-Ahead-FINAL_WEB-fri.pdf

It's actually not bad, in the sense that it's readable and even if I disagree with some things I can broadly get behind the direction of travel. The outlines of the attack on the Tories for the next election are there too - an argument that they piss money away wastefully rather than improving things. It's also worth reading it alongside Chris Curtis' thoughts from the Progress commissioned polling work as it does all dovetail quite neatly together. All very soft left. All very past decade in some ways, trying to find the right tone and message, for better and worse.

Exclusive: Starmer ‘essay’ revives ‘striver v skiver’ rhetoric and uses ‘Vichy France’ language

https://skwawkbox.org/2021/09/22/exclusive-starmer-essay-revives-striver-v-skiver-rhetoric-and-uses-vichy-france-language/

If you want to see what the Labour left looks like, have a look at this thread on AV forums. They're pretty much a homogenous bloc, informed by social media and their chosen media sources (such as skwawkbox).

https://www.avforums.com/threads/keir-starmer-a-big-disappointment.2352985/page-443#post-29656515

[Zeb]

Thanks for that Zeb.

I bet you that's the first time a Labour party leader has quoted a professional footballer in his personal manifesto.

Interesting choice too. The quote from Marmot next to it is what sold me on it to be honest. We all know how influential Marmot's work has been on Labour thinking for much of the past decade so it's reassuring to see it so central to Starmer's thinking around equality of opportunity etc.

---

@Sangria - has Steve Walker just made up a three word slogan for Starmer and then said 'Look, look, it's just like another three word slogan we didn't make up for him'? Big brained stuff which nearly cost him everything he owns going on there.

[Sangria]

@Sangria - has Steve Walker just made up a three word slogan for Starmer and then said 'Look, look, it's just like another three word slogan we didn't make up for him'? Big brained stuff which nearly cost him everything he owns going on there.

No idea. But you've obviously read through the Starmer original, or at least a precis of it as well as browsing through it, and commented on its content. Then you have the skwawkbox take which is rather different. And like I said, you have the above thread, with dozens of whatever you want to call them (Labour left although not all of them have been consistently Labour, although all of them hate the Labour right and centrists and all hold Corbyn as a man wronged) following exactly the same line as a monolithic bloc.

Since it's forbidden to refer to them by the above despite it being a clear common identity, maybe an alternative term is social media left, as they clearly take their politics from a common social media direction. But if you read through a few pages of the above, you'll see why I shake my head at them, and why I'm convinced that part of the left isn't as insignificant as I'm told here.

[RainbowFlick]

Sangria's talking about Corbyn again guys at nearly 2am, do we have the sense that he holds a personal grudge yet

stop dismissing us as 'social media left' or whatever other ignorant take you want to have. we just want equality and a bit of a less shite future to look forward to? the existing structures haven't exactly done us well. many of us are marginalised groups, it's actually nasty that you keep dismissing us like we're unimportant.

you talk about infighting like it's not you blabbering all day about the left. are you ok?

[Red-Soldier]

If you want to see what the Labour left looks like, have a look at this thread on AV forums. They're pretty much a homogenous bloc, informed by social media and their chosen media sources (such as skwawkbox).

https://www.avforums.com/threads/keir-starmer-a-big-disappointment.2352985/page-443#post-29656515

Starmer has his own thread on the Audio Video Forum 

[Red-Soldier]

Sangria's talking about Corbyn again guys at nearly 2am, do we have the sense that he holds a personal grudge yet

stop dismissing us as 'social media left' or whatever other ignorant take you want to have. we just want equality and a bit of a less shite future to look forward to? the existing structures haven't exactly done us well. many of us are marginalised groups, it's actually nasty that you keep dismissing us like we're unimportant.

you talk about infighting like it's not you blabbering all day about the left. are you ok?

Sangria could stub his toe on a kitchen door and blame "the Left" for it!

[Sangria]

Sangria's talking about Corbyn again guys at nearly 2am, do we have the sense that he holds a personal grudge yet

stop dismissing us as 'social media left' or whatever other ignorant take you want to have. we just want equality and a bit of a less shite future to look forward to? the existing structures haven't exactly done us well. many of us are marginalised groups, it's actually nasty that you keep dismissing us like we're unimportant.

you talk about infighting like it's not you blabbering all day about the left. are you ok?

I want a left that's not going for a lunatic take on mainstream opinion such as the above which I quoted. It's not Corbyn, it's that group which does indeed swallow that lunatic take whole and is unfortunately numerous enough to sting the left as a whole, as seen in that article and the dozens of people who wholeheartedly support that take in that thread (a large majority of respondents in that thread, in a forum that's not set up as a left wing site).

[Sangria]

What is the acceptable term for skwawkbox and people who take their politics from sites like them? Since we're not allowed to use what I'd have thought were precise descriptive terms. Or do we pretend that they don't exist, despite clear evidence, and attack those who post such evidence?

[Yorkykopite]

I must admit I'm tickled by the idea that people will read Starmer's manifesto and think "Oh my God, it's Vichy France all over again".

[Zeb]

Sangria's talking about Corbyn again guys at nearly 2am, do we have the sense that he holds a personal grudge yet

stop dismissing us as 'social media left' or whatever other ignorant take you want to have. we just want equality and a bit of a less shite future to look forward to? the existing structures haven't exactly done us well. many of us are marginalised groups, it's actually nasty that you keep dismissing us like we're unimportant.

you talk about infighting like it's not you blabbering all day about the left. are you ok?

Think the thing to what Sangria's saying there is that parts of the Corbynite media ecosystem have jumped the shark in pretty wild ways. Drawing links between something you'll hear at any meeting of the Soft Left and Vichy France is pretty bizarre, try hard political analysis looking for 'Blue Labour' to distinguish from themselves after five years of promising many of the very same policies. At times it's almost like the racist left have spent all that time in committees pretending to be policy wonks without understanding a thing about the policies they were hoovering up indiscriminately. It's really weird to see the Soft Left, the mainstream of the Labour party, painted as being the same as fascists whenever they want to talk about things which matter to people like patriotism and a sense of place, and that painting being done by people who helped mainstream antisemitism in the Labour party at that. Or stuff like talking about people having aspirations for themselves and their kids should somehow be forbidden for Labour politicians. I can see what's in it for those publishing it, but less so why anyone would want to associate themselves with it without benefiting financially from squatting down and pushing it out.

----

Somewhat reassuring to see Stephen Bush thinking along similar lines to the broad strokes of what Starmer is saying:

Good morning. Keir Starmer has written a 35-page essay setting out his political vision and laying out the broad outlines of the Britain he’d like to build: the big idea is the so-called ‘contribution society’, in what is, in essence, a long trailer for his conference speech next week in Brighton.

As with so much of Starmer’s appproach, much of it is reminiscent of Ed Miliband’s approach: capitalism should be reformed, not removed, the climate crisis is the biggest one facing our country and our species, and what Miliband called “the British dream”: that “hard work should pay” no longer exists.

What’s different about it? One important difference of tone is just about age - Starmer, at 59, is born right at the end of the postwar baby boom and is probably the last baby boomer who will lead a major British political party, and, for all he warns Labour against “sepia-tinged nostalgia” about its own past, a core part of Starmer’s essay is his belief that the opportunities afforded to him are increasingly unavailable to a child of his background and upbringing. Those who, like his parents, “work with their hands” face insecure work - those who, like him, go onto to university, face insecure living conditions and high costs.

The other is in how Starmer talks about business: the essay is rhetorically warmer towards business than anything Miliband ever said. Whether that represents an ideological difference between Starmerism and Milbandism is up for grabs: it could simply be that a great and growing number of businesses are saying and doing pretty Miliband-y things, and that, with British businesses in particular chafing against the consequences of Brexit and other government policies, Starmer is simply trying to seize an opportunity that wasn’t available to Miliband.

What Starmer wants is for the ‘contribution society’ to be the thing that every policy announcement is framed around and for it to provide a definition that his leadership has thus far lacked.

But one thing that is missing from the pamphlet is a sense of what this society’s enemies are. We don’t, as far as Starmer is concerned, live in a contribution society in 2021. Are its opponents solely the Conservatives and austerity, or do they also reside elsewhere, whether in businesses or in households? Part of providing definition to a political project is describing what it’s for, and you can see how Starmer’s ‘contribution society’ can provide Labour with that. And with what’s happening in the British energy and labour markets at the moment, you can see how this stuff about work not rewarding people and the cost-of-living is going to get a fresh boost by events in the coming weeks and months. But the other part of describing a political project is setting out what it is against, who and what is out of that society’s bounds and who stands in the way of its creation: and that will have to form part of Starmer’s conference speech just as surely as further policy detail will, too.

(Morning Call email so no link at the moment.)

[Wild Romany Boy]

Sangria's talking about Corbyn again guys at nearly 2am, do we have the sense that he holds a personal grudge yet

stop dismissing us as 'social media left' or whatever other ignorant take you want to have. we just want equality and a bit of a less shite future to look forward to? the existing structures haven't exactly done us well. many of us are marginalised groups, it's actually nasty that you keep dismissing us like we're unimportant.

you talk about infighting like it's not you blabbering all day about the left. are you ok?

Is right.

I'm not sure what to make about Starmer's essay. It is not well written, I am not encouraged to get behind most of the stuff in it, and even Hodges isn't up for it, but it comes at a time where depth, of any kind, is needed, even wanted, and at the exact time Johnson has never looked more foolish. Might help polling, might help present the vision they look to going forward.

I am increasingly aware that my instincts for what works are often wrong. So, it'll be interesting to see if this works because they cannot afford another relaunch.

[Snail]

Is right.

I'm not sure what to make about Starmer's essay. It is not well written, I am not encouraged to get behind most of the stuff in it, and even Hodges isn't up for it, but it comes at a time where depth, of any kind, is needed, even wanted, and at the exact time Johnson has never looked more foolish. Might help polling, might help present the vision they look to going forward.

I am increasingly aware that my instincts for what works are often wrong. So, it'll be interesting to see if this works because they cannot afford another relaunch.

It appears to be getting torn apart literally left, right and centre.

[Dench57]

No idea. But you've obviously read through the Starmer original, or at least a precis of it as well as browsing through it, and commented on its content. Then you have the skwawkbox take which is rather different. And like I said, you have the above thread, with dozens of whatever you want to call them (Labour left although not all of them have been consistently Labour, although all of them hate the Labour right and centrists and all hold Corbyn as a man wronged) following exactly the same line as a monolithic bloc.

Since it's forbidden to refer to them by the above despite it being a clear common identity, maybe an alternative term is social media left, as they clearly take their politics from a common social media direction. But if you read through a few pages of the above, you'll see why I shake my head at them, and why I'm convinced that part of the left isn't as insignificant as I'm told here.

Hi Sangria, any thoughts at all on the 14,000 word essay that Starmer released yesterday laying out his vision for the future of the party? It does it seem like a fairly significant moment to talk about, surely it's worth engaging with?

I have to say I'm shocked that your immediate reaction to it last night was to go trawling through Skawkbox and various left-wing social media sites to come in here and complain about Corbynites and the "lunatic/social media left"!

[lobsterboy]

We can't remove capitalism as much as we might wish to. Anyone pushing for that will be crucified by the media and establishment and will have no chance of getting elected. 
Reform is the next best option. Nothing wrong with aspiration and betterment either, as long as it benefits everyone.
I look at Starmer and his Labour party and think however "blue left" they may be (that's debatable) they are much, much more preferable to Johnsons crooks.

[Zeb]

Sienna Rodgers this morning seeing what almost everyone else is.

When I interviewed Fabian Society general secretary Andy Harrop recently, I asked whether he considered Keir Starmer to be a very Fabian Labour leader. “Yes. In many ways, yes,” he replied. “Keir's political backstory, his political life, is about doing and practicality, rather than about intellectual big ideas in the seminar room. So I think that makes him a bit different from central casting Fabian. But I think in terms of political positioning within the party, and the fact he's got that very senior professional experience inside of government and Whitehall, that makes him feel like sort of a traditional Fabian.” He compared Ed Miliband, “an intellectual and an ideas man”, to the current Labour leader, who has a “slightly administrative approach to politics” and is more “practical”. This is the conversation I thought about when reading Starmer’s Fabians pamphlet.

While the Labour leader is mostly but not entirely Fabian, his essay is very much in keeping with the Fabian tradition, I think. The Road Ahead frames its ideas under the banner of a “contribution society”, and proposes ten principles for this approach, including an emphasis on “hard-working families”, the need to be “rewarded fairly” if you “work hard and play by the rules”, government being a “partner to private enterprise”, a rejection of “waste” in public spending, and the importance of being “proudly patriotic” but not engaging in “the divisiveness of nationalism”. These are Starmer’s lessons from the pandemic (a reaction to Tory failures during Covid), combined with a response to what he has heard from voters (a bid to improve Labour’s reputation on spending and security), plus a critique of the Scottish Nationalists.

What is new in the essay? Not a huge amount considering it is around 12,000 words long: it is really just an expanded version of Starmer’s first (online) conference speech. But repetition is not a problem, because there are only a few of us who read, watch and listen to Starmer’s views every day and therefore already know what he likes to talk about. There are many references to existing party policy, from a ‘new deal for working people’ and replacing Universal Credit to a long list of measures to tackle violence against women and girls. His rejection of a “narrow focus on university education” is to be expected but it is paired with a new, personal explanation of why all young people need the “soft skills” taught in private schools. Perhaps most of interest to readers is that he restates a commitment to “eliminate the substantial majority of carbon emissions by 2030”.

(LabourList email so no link currently, sorry.)

It's fascinating seeing where the criticism is coming, and the perceived grounds, and how out of step it is from mainstream Labour politics.

[Sangria]

Hi Sangria, any thoughts at all on the 14,000 word essay that Starmer released yesterday laying out his vision for the future of the party? It does it seem like a fairly significant moment to talk about, surely it's worth engaging with?

I have to say I'm shocked that your immediate reaction to it last night was to go trawling through Skawkbox and various left-wing social media sites to come in here and complain about Corbynites and the "lunatic/social media left"!

I don't have the knowledge to give a proper take on manifestos, so I rely on those that do to digest it for me. Zeb's reading would have been one of these, and I will be on the lookout for others. I didn't trawl through skwawkbox. I know that the AV forums are a habitat for the (insert your preferred term here in case I offend you) left, so I went to that thread to see if they have any constructive criticism (since I look for digests from people who are more knowledgable than me). The skwawkbox article I posted was on the page I landed on, and a number of posts from these (insert your preferred term here in case I offend you) left posters supporting it.

[Yorkykopite]

It appears to be getting torn apart literally left, right and centre.

So there is a hard copy too? I thought it had only been published online. 

[Wild Romany Boy]

It appears to be getting torn apart literally left, right and centre.

Yeah, I must admit that I find the support for it in some places here to be very different from the responses I am getting. I appreciate that we all have different views and get our information from different places though, and I really don't know where it stands. At a time when Johnson looks hopeless - energy crises, the Kermit speech - instead of affably foolish, it might not be such a bad time for it to appear.

I just wish I had worked on my essay instead of reading it. Whether it is going to be the bedrock of Labour's short and medium term future or not, I really should be doing something more productive.

[Red-Soldier]

I've read the essay, and, although lacking in some points I'd like to see, there are a few I can get behind.  It is aspiring for quite a broad, unoffensive appeal I think (centrist you might say).

[Nobby Reserve]

I think Starmer's vision lacks any kind of imagination. It's insipid and uninspiring.

That said, I also think all factions of the party should get behind whoever the current leader is, and not do the Tory scum's job for them by undermining the leader (and since 2015, both 'sides' are as guilty as each other)

[Zeb]

It's the 2017 and 2019 manifestos as filtered through 'what can we actually achieve in one Parliament?'. My personal gripe is that means doing no more than laying foundations for universal services, although I appreciate the focus is really going to be on the economy and environment, and we're still at the 'how, practically, do we replace Universal Credit?' stage years after deciding it needs to be replaced (although that's not purely on Starmer, or Reynolds). It's generic in a lot of ways, although many of the policies are the same as Corbyn grabbed hold of, and I'd question some of the stuff around localism for all the 'look at Preston!!!' stuff which goes on. There are limits to devolving power which the soft left (generally) don't want to acknowledge - think of what happened when crisis loans were moved to local councils overseeing them. It's the old critique that it's mistaking something very different for people being well disguised communitarians. So it's no surprise Starmer somewhat glosses over just how that giving power to local communities is going to happen.

So, yeah, I'd agree it's a bit milquetoast and a bit staid. Worthy and things in there which are worth pursuing - following through on Marmot's work in particular is where a Labour government is going to be able to do a lot of good things. Against that criticism of it hardly being a revolutionary tract, it's worth pointing out that overpromising and a perceived inability to manage the economy appropriately are two things Labour has to convince the electorate they've sorted out. edit: And it's definitely worth highlighting that the audience for Starmer's message here isn't just the Labour membership, and he's not trying to make them (us) feel all moral and virtuous for voting Labour and having a revolution or whatever, he's clearly modeling how to approach ex-Labour voters who switched to the Tories and doing it in a very different way to how we saw in the past election.