Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Elmo!]

Could you expand? I've not been following the debate on PR, how it works out in practice with the UK electorate, and in particular how it relates to the HoL.

So reading back you previous statement which I skipped over too quickly:

As I've stated in previous pages, with the electorate we have, how is democracy a fundamentally reliable principle in ensuring competent government? See the mayoralty of Liverpool. Over the past decade, the Commons has failed progressivism over and over, while the Lords has defended the checks and balances.

What are you suggesting as an alternative to democracy? 

My point was that FPTP leads to things like Joe Anderson. I don't want to speak with any authority on Liverpool politics as I am an outsider, but it seems to me that PR, and the ingrained hatred of the Tories, leads to anything in a red rosette getting elected. PR allows alternative to Labour when they putup a shit candidate who aren't the Tories that people can safely vote for without the fear of letting the Tories in.

The same applies to the commons.

[Yorkykopite]

What are you suggesting as an alternative to democracy? 

I too boggled at that - as I tend to do when reading Sangria's posts. Is there anything more to your credo, Sangria, than 'democracy is great so long as the electorate behave themselves'? Or, to put it even less charitably, 'democracy is great so long as the electorate agrees with me'.

[Sangria]

So reading back you previous statement which I skipped over too quickly:

What are you suggesting as an alternative to democracy? 

My point was that FPTP leads to things like Joe Anderson. I don't want to speak with any authority on Liverpool politics as I am an outsider, but it seems to me that PR, and the ingrained hatred of the Tories, leads to anything in a red rosette getting elected. PR allows alternative to Labour when they putup a shit candidate who aren't the Tories that people can safely vote for without the fear of letting the Tories in.

The same applies to the commons.

We already have an elected house, and an appointed house. We're not going to stop electing the elected house. But how does replacing the appointed house with another elected house improve things, when the it has outperformed the elected house consistently over the past decade? Are we going to change the electorate which will be electing this second house?

Try reading Tory Brexiteers, and reflect on the fact that their Tory government and all their abuses has more of a democratic mandate than my griping about their abuses and incompetence.

[Sangria]

I too boggled at that - as I tend to do when reading Sangria's posts. Is there anything more to your credo, Sangria, than 'democracy is great so long as the electorate behave themselves'? Or, to put it even less charitably, 'democracy is great so long as the electorate agrees with me'.

I believed in democracy when politicians believed in responsibility and voters believed in accountability. Do they still believe in these things? The last Tories to believe in these things were kicked out in the last election, and the voters gave a landslide to a Tory government that resolutely opposed these things.

NB. You'll find that I've said lots of good things about the old school One Nation Tories. They don't exist now. The voters overwhelmingly voted for Thatcherites that don't believe in responsibility and accountability.

[Elmo!]

We already have an elected house, and an appointed house. We're not going to stop electing the elected house. But how does replacing the appointed house with another elected house improve things, when the it has outperformed the elected house consistently over the past decade? Are we going to change the electorate which will be electing this second house?

Try reading Tory Brexiteers, and reflect on the fact that their Tory government and all their abuses has more of a democratic mandate than my griping about their abuses and incompetence.

Honestly I'm open to suggestions on an upper chamber. Some sort of technocratic chamber based on experts or something could work. It's also too simplistic to just look at the US senate and say that's not working so an elected upper chamber cannot possibly work.

Appointments for life based on what suits the parties at the time, representatives from one church and (still) hereditary peers? No thanks.

[Sangria]

Honestly I'm open to suggestions on an upper chamber. Some sort of technocratic chamber based on experts or something could work. It's also too simplistic to just look at the US senate and say that's not working so an elected upper chamber cannot possibly work.

Appointments for life based on what suits the parties at the time, representatives from one church and (still) hereditary peers? No thanks.

I don't mind leaving a few church and hereditary peers in there for tradition's sake. But I'd like to phase out political appointees, and replace them with experts in the fields that we need to focus on. The Commons will still have the power to direct the country. But I'd like the second house to be able to say, don't be stupid, and be listened to. That's what the Lords has been doing, over and over, this past decade.

IIRC the Lords, undemocratic though it may be, had seen quite a lot of cross-party workings during the post-Brexit period when I paid more attention to these things.

[oldfordie]

As I've stated in previous pages, with the electorate we have, how is democracy a fundamentally reliable principle in ensuring competent government? See the mayoralty of Liverpool. Over the past decade, the Commons has failed progressivism over and over, while the Lords has defended the checks and balances.

I know how you feel, I do think the extreme politicians have gone too far this time but nothing good will come from doubting a democratic system, the whole system does need reforming drastically. the HOL is underrated by many people. the Lords is full of very experienced clever ex politicians but sadly it's got more of it's share of shameless money grabbers. signing in, showing their face. collect Ł300 and out the door in waiting taxi. am against ditching the Lords but 100% behind serious reform.
We are still not facing facts, it's not the voters who got us in this mess, they maybe stupid and naďve but that's always been the case. the thing that changed was the complete contempt for truth by many of our politicians, the media also need to take their share of blame but it's the politicians who have let us down badly, this should not be forgotten but sadly I think it has by many, there doesn't seem to be the will to change the system, the liars will still be able to lie with impunity and the gullible will believe them. we could at least do something simple to help, delay all TV political debates for fact checking, it would be a start but it won't happen, we will go into the next election listening to the same old s..,
The voters will get sick of it for the odd election and vote for Labour and something good will happen for a few years then the cycle will repeat for another 30yrs or so, I had hoped we could have moved on from the 70s and 80s but nope ,history is repeating itself. it's not that we never learn it's more about a new generation repeating the same mistakes.

[Sangria]

I know how you feel, I do think the extreme politicians have gone too far this time but nothing good will come from doubting a democratic system, the whole system does need reforming drastically. the HOL is underrated by many people. the Lords is full of very experienced clever ex politicians but sadly it's got more of it's share of shameless money grabbers. signing in, showing their face. collect Ł300 and out the door in waiting taxi. am against ditching the Lords but 100% behind serious reform.
We are still not facing facts, it's not the voters who got us in this mess, they maybe stupid and naďve but that's always been the case. the thing that changed was the complete contempt for truth by many of our politicians, the media also need to take their share of blame but it's the politicians who have let us down badly, this should not be forgotten but sadly I think it has by many, there doesn't seem to be the will to change the system, the liars will still be able to lie with impunity and the gullible will believe them. we could at least do something simple to help, delay all TV political debates for fact checking, it would be a start but it won't happen, we will go into the next election listening to the same old s..,
The voters will get sick of it for the odd election and vote for Labour and something good will happen for a few years then the cycle will repeat for another 30yrs or so, I had hoped we could have moved on from the 70s and 80s but nope ,history is repeating itself. it's not that we never learn it's more about a new generation repeating the same mistakes.

I want us to work the current democratic system to a point where a Labour/non-Tory government is elected, and have one term of undeniably competent government where they're not attacked by their own side for not being radical enough. Once that's done, we can work on reforms of the Commons and Lords in a second term manifesto, boosted by a successful first term. But a campaign for democratic reform by an opposition party? Do we want the Tories to be in power forever?

[Yorkykopite]

I believed in democracy when politicians believed in responsibility and voters believed in accountability. Do they still believe in these things? The last Tories to believe in these things were kicked out in the last election, and the voters gave a landslide to a Tory government that resolutely opposed these things.

NB. You'll find that I've said lots of good things about the old school One Nation Tories. They don't exist now. The voters overwhelmingly voted for Thatcherites that don't believe in responsibility and accountability.

No, I understand you exactly. Your commitment to democracy is conditional. You'll support it if it behaves in ways you approve.

There's nothing in that credo that separates you from fascism or communism, both of which have taken the same instrumental view of democracy. "We'll support it so long as it delivers the verdicts we want. If it doesn't then we are no longer democrats."

Obviously your wants are different to theirs and clearly you have no time for either fascism or communism. But your approach to democracy is basically the same.

[Sangria]

No, I understand you exactly. Your commitment to democracy is conditional. You'll support it if it behaves in ways you approve.

There's nothing in that credo that separates you from fascism or communism, both of which have taken the same instrumental view of democracy. "We'll support it so long as it delivers the verdicts we want. If it doesn't then we are no longer democrats."

Obviously your wants are different to theirs and clearly you have no time for either fascism or communism. But your approach to democracy is basically the same.

Nice of you to tell me what I believe, rather than take my explanation or ask for clarification. I want politicians to accept responsibility for the nation rather than use their mandate to do whatever they like. If they do that, then whoever wins won't be actively looking to screw over the country, in particular their opponents who lost. I want voters to hold politicians accountable. If politicians do not do their mandate justice, voters should hold them accountable for their failure.

Have you read the views of Tory Brexiteers? Have you encountered those who do not care what their Tory government does, but care only that they won and that those who lost should have their noses rubbed in it? Am I a fascist in believing that a functional democracy should have checks and balances, and that if they are removed, what remains is no longer a functional democracy?

[the 92A]

I believed in democracy when politicians believed in responsibility and voters believed in accountability.

From your own mouth. this is a totally outrageous statement, Democracy needs defending, it's not conditional

[Yorkykopite]

From your own mouth. this is a totally outrageous statement, Democracy needs defending, it's not conditional

That's exactly it.

[Sangria]

From your own mouth. this is a totally outrageous statement, Democracy needs defending, it's not conditional

From my own mouth, I also said that I want Labour to win under the current democratic system. And that reforms of the two houses must wait until after a successful first term, with a second manifesto. I have little confidence in the current democracy. But I see no alternative until a reforming government has been given a mandate by the current democracy.

[oldfordie]

I want us to work the current democratic system to a point where a Labour/non-Tory government is elected, and have one term of undeniably competent government where they're not attacked by their own side for not being radical enough. Once that's done, we can work on reforms of the Commons and Lords in a second term manifesto, boosted by a successful first term. But a campaign for democratic reform by an opposition party? Do we want the Tories to be in power forever?

One term isn't enough, it's also not about wanting great change when you know that great change might get you the boot at the next GE. so yeah it's absolutely vital for all Labour supporters to not only support them but to fight the bulls and defend them. this is the only reason why so many people live in poverty, why lives aren't far better for millions. if Labour had the confidence of knowing the public will back them even when they make the odd mistake then am certain Labour would move far more to the left, it would never be against Capitalism, they day it did then I wouldn't be the only one not voting Labour. Labour would be decimated leaving the Tory's to do as they please unopposed.
Nothing will change while we have a big majority Tory government and it's 4yrs till the next GE, Brexit. the Covid debt and the National Debt all have to be paid for, knowing the Torys they will want that done as quickly as possible while making it worse for the country and the people. so how do you fight them when we look back in 2024 and compare the country to 2010 and 2019. what got us here, back to my point on fighting to change the system. bringing scrutiny and accountability to our politician's, they let us down badly. it has to stop.
Don't get me wrong. am not saying it will happen, it won't. the country is in a worse state politically than it was 10yrs ago.
 

[Sangria]

One term isn't enough, it's also not about wanting great change when you know that great change might get you the boot at the next GE. so yeah it's absolutely vital for all Labour supporters to not only support them but to fight the bulls and defend them. this is the only reason why so many people live in poverty, why lives aren't far better for millions. if Labour had the confidence of knowing the public will back them even when they make the odd mistake then am certain Labour would move far more to the left, it would never be against Capitalism, they day it did then I wouldn't be the only one not voting Labour. Labour would be decimated leaving the Tory's to do as they please unopposed.
Nothing will change while we have a big majority Tory government and it's 4yrs till the next GE, Brexit. the Covid debt and the National Debt all have to be paid for, knowing the Torys they will want that done as quickly as possible while making it worse for the country and the people. so how do you fight them when we look back in 2024 and compare the country to 2010 and 2019. what got us here, back to my point on fighting to change the system. bringing scrutiny and accountability to our politician's, they let us down badly. it has to stop.
Don't get me wrong. am not saying it will happen, it won't. the country is in a worse state politically than it was 10yrs ago.
 

The first term is to show itself competent enough to secure enough support for another term, this time with the House reforms stated in a manifesto. The second term I specified is the quickest it can happen, with the above timeline. What many have suggested, that the Labour party in opposition should make these proposals whilst in opposition, only guarantees the Tories will win under the banner of the Labour party denying democracy. Using the current numbers wouldn't work, as voters will only vote more in favour of the Tories in order to keep these democracy deniers out (see the upturn in over-65s voting in 2017 to keep Corbyn out when the younger pro-Corbyn vote looked like going up).

If there are to be reforms of the Houses, first a Labour government that does not propose these reforms must be elected. Then it must gain or keep popularity while it proposes these reforms, without the accusation of gerrymandering the vote, as it's doing so without needing to do so.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

People having a go at Starmer here seem to be avoiding the idea that Corbyn was absolutley and hilariously shit at his job.

It seems to be a super easy/barely invonvientient movement from people with an axe to grind with a politican around that was absolutely shite at their job.



Weirdly with a free arguments from onr of the Corbynista they urged me to read 'left out' with the idea that it would show Mr 'vote with the Tories over 500 times' in a good light


It didn't.

[oldfordie]

The first term is to show itself competent enough to secure enough support for another term, this time with the House reforms stated in a manifesto. The second term I specified is the quickest it can happen, with the above timeline. What many have suggested, that the Labour party in opposition should make these proposals whilst in opposition, only guarantees the Tories will win under the banner of the Labour party denying democracy. Using the current numbers wouldn't work, as voters will only vote more in favour of the Tories in order to keep these democracy deniers out (see the upturn in over-65s voting in 2017 to keep Corbyn out when the younger pro-Corbyn vote looked like going up).

If there are to be reforms of the Houses, first a Labour government that does not propose these reforms must be elected. Then it must gain or keep popularity while it proposes these reforms, without the accusation of gerrymandering the vote, as it's doing so without needing to do so.

Ive no idea why Labour lost the Competency argument in the first place considering the Torys record on debt and running the country, slashing services, lack of funding for our NHS +Police yet still putting us in far more debt than any Labour government ever did. if people knew how to judge competency then the Torys would struggle to win the odd election.
The HOL shouldn't really be needed if we had a competent decent government. the Lords scrutinises and amends many laws but they are not controversial, they just point out the flaws and Parliament agrees. I agree with you about the opposition to Corbyn by older voters, ive heard people who have always voted Labour and did so at the last 2 elections say they can't blame people for voting Tory to keep Corbyn out. ive disagreed with them. leave it at that, there is a new generation who are taking us down the same road, it's not something ive read, young people who never talked about politics now coming out with embarrassing stuff. a lot of self indulgent political arguments.

[Sangria]

Ive no idea why Labour lost the Competency argument in the first place considering the Torys record on debt and running the country, slashing services, lack of funding for our NHS +Police yet still putting us in far more debt than any Labour government ever did. if people knew how to judge competency then the Torys would struggle to win the odd election.
The HOL shouldn't really be needed if we had a competent decent government. the Lords scrutinises and amends many laws but they are not controversial, they just point out the flaws and Parliament agrees. I agree with you about the opposition to Corbyn by older voters, ive heard people who have always voted Labour and did so at the last 2 elections say they can't blame people for voting Tory to keep Corbyn out. ive disagreed with them. leave it at that, there is a new generation who are taking us down the same road, it's not something ive read, young people who never talked about politics now coming out with embarrassing stuff. a lot of self indulgent political arguments.

I've gone on forever about the first bit, so I won't add any more to it. However, on the last bit, my view that we can't calculate using current numbers is based on the demographics recorded by one of the most respected polling companies, and a specific detail. In the 2017 election, which is held by some as a Corbyn triumph, the older vote went up, and lest we forget, May had an even bigger share of the vote. While the pro-Corbyn vote went up, the anti-Corbyn vote went up too. In the 2019 election, when it looked like Corbyn was going to lose handily, the youth vote went up, but the older vote went down. So when they see a threat that they want to vote against, their vote increases. But when they don't see a threat, their vote decreases.

Hence we can't just tally all the anti-Tory votes and say that, under PR, they would outweigh the Tory vote, and thus Labour should support PR in order to win the next election. If there is a convincing argument that there is a threat, which was Corbyn in 2017, and would be gerrymandering in an opposition manifesto supporting PR, then the anti voters will turn out in numbers. The last election isn't a precise model of the next election.

[oldfordie]

I've gone on forever about the first bit, so I won't add any more to it. However, on the last bit, my view that we can't calculate using current numbers is based on the demographics recorded by one of the most respected polling companies, and a specific detail. In the 2017 election, which is held by some as a Corbyn triumph, the older vote went up, and lest we forget, May had an even bigger share of the vote. While the pro-Corbyn vote went up, the anti-Corbyn vote went up too. In the 2019 election, when it looked like Corbyn was going to lose handily, the youth vote went up, but the older vote went down. So when they see a threat that they want to vote against, their vote increases. But when they don't see a threat, their vote decreases.

Hence we can't just tally all the anti-Tory votes and say that, under PR, they would outweigh the Tory vote, and thus Labour should support PR in order to win the next election. If there is a convincing argument that there is a threat, which was Corbyn in 2017, and would be gerrymandering in an opposition manifesto supporting PR, then the anti voters will turn out in numbers. The last election isn't a precise model of the next election.

There's pros and cons in every democratic system, am not sure whether PR would bring the change needed, PR would lead to coalition governments, would that work in the UK. would that work better for Labour, not so sure myself.
Ive been wondering whether a US closed Primary system for choosing the candidates who stand in elections might work in the UK, it could mean the end of extreme politics in the UK if the voters in each constituency voted for the candidate they wanted for the party they wanted to vote for in a election. it would have to be a law that applied to all political parties. then again I look at the US and am not so sure but I very much doubt it would happen in the UK.

[Sangria]

There's pros and cons in every democratic system, am not sure whether PR would bring the change needed, PR would lead to coalition governments, would that work in the UK. would that work better for Labour, not so sure myself.
Ive been wondering whether a US closed Primary system for choosing the candidates who stand in elections might work in the UK, it could mean the end of extreme politics in the UK if the voters in each constituency voted for the candidate they wanted for the party they wanted to vote for in a election. it would have to be a law that applied to all political parties. then again I look at the US and am not so sure but I very much doubt it would happen in the UK.

I think the key isn't the method of choosing the candidates. I said I believed in democracy back when politicians believed in responsibility and voters believed in accountability. They key is to make politicians believe in responsibility, or if they can't be made to do so, then making voters, who have the ultimate whiphand, believe in accountability. Ie. the political media. I have no idea how that would be done, but I strongly think that just changing the method of choosing our government would not do the job of improving our functional democracy. But the end should be making our politicians believe in one and the voters believe in the other, and the means is the political media.

[Elmo!]

People having a go at Starmer here seem to be avoiding the idea that Corbyn was absolutley and hilariously shit at his job.

It seems to be a super easy/barely invonvientient movement from people with an axe to grind with a politican around that was absolutely shite at their job.



Weirdly with a free arguments from onr of the Corbynista they urged me to read 'left out' with the idea that it would show Mr 'vote with the Tories over 500 times' in a good light


It didn't.

The only criticism of Starmer (if you can call it that) in the last few pages of this thread was by Elmo. Maybe they can correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I’m almost certain said criticism was not fuelled by a previous support for Corbyn.

You're right Ljycb. I've said many times of here Corbyn was fucking terrible.

AAm I allowed to criticise Starmer now Andy?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You're right Ljycb. I've said many times of here Corbyn was fucking terrible.

AAm I allowed to criticise Starmer now Andy?

Everyone can have a go where it's warranted.

The proof of the pudding will be if he loses two elections. I have always seen Starmer as a stop-gap - someone with the bollocks to stand up and be counted when 'better people' ran and hid.

The mammoth task he has to even get any approval shows how fucked Labour is. Most of the 'leftist social media' stuff I see is siding with the Tories at every turn with not even a hint of irony. They do this because Labour is apparantly 'too right-wing'

[Elmo!]

Everyone can have a go where it's warranted.

The proof of the pudding will be if he loses two elections. I have always seen Starmer as a stop-gap - someone with the bollocks to stand up and be counted when 'better people' ran and hid.

The mammoth task he has to even get any approval shows how fucked Labour is. Most of the 'leftist social media' stuff I see is siding with the Tories at every turn with not even a hint of irony. They do this because Labour is apparantly 'too right-wing'

So wy bring up Corbyn? You and Sangria are the same, you keep bringing up Corbyn, and the Corbyn Loyalists etc, when no one else is talking about them. And then complain about infighting.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

So wy bring up Corbyn? You and Sangria are the same, you keep bringing up Corbyn, and the Corbyn Loyalists etc, when no one else is talking about them. And then complain about infighting.

Because I'm seeing it every day.

I can't see much of a reason to be slagging Starmer off at the moment. He's not set the world on fire, but he's also been holding the Tories to account.

There are clearly some people that didn't even give him a chance before day one even ended. The whole thing is pointless. I'm in my 50s now and I fully expect Labour never to be elected again in my lifetime.

As I said, I've been given a few book titles to read as I'm interested in Politics and 'Left Out'  ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Left-Out-Inside-Labour-Corbyn/dp/1847926452 ) shows just what a shitshow it all is. My Corbynista mates were hoping that I'd see the tyranny of those opposed to Corbyn - and that certainly features but also shows just show stupid and incompetent that branch of the Party is.

The Tories might be shithouses, but they go about their shithousary in a professional way with a goal to get elected.

Labour are just squabbling amongst themselves like dickheads while the Tories laugh.

Seriously depressing stuff. I mention Corbyn because that's always the fucking elephant in the room. In twenty years it'll still be the fucking elephant in the fucking room. No way I can see Labour ever coming back from that.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I’m not sure if Andy just hasn’t read the last twenty or so posts in this thread before posting himself and is working on the presumption that people must have been “having a go” at Starmer and therefore must be Corbyn supporters, or if he is deliberately trying to goad Corbyn supporters into coming out of the woodwork and having an argument with him. Either way, he is one of the main culprits in these Labour threads for taking the mostly civil discourse between the vast majority of us and dragging it down to the gutter.

I've been reading Just Elmo's stuff and there is a lot in here with unwarranted digs. Stuff like 'It's just yet again we have another leader who just doesn't get it and resorty to infantile arguments that have never shown any sign of working.' shows this thread is already in the gutter.

[Elmo!]

I've been reading Just Elmo's stuff and there is a lot in here with unwarranted digs. Stuff like 'It's just yet again we have another leader who just doesn't get it and resorty to infantile arguments that have never shown any sign of working.' shows this thread is already in the gutter.

How about you actually address it Andy, rather than moan about Corbyn supporters - which I am not.

Remember Andy, I'm coming from a position of not being a Labour voter.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

How about you actually address it Andy, rather than moan about Corbyn supporters - which I am not.

Remember Andy, I'm coming from a position of not being a Labour voter.

Ok.

Infantile. Talk me through that. This is a fella that has excelled in school, excelled in college, excelled in University and excelled in life.

And you believe that he is infantile compared to your mental ability. I'd probably want to ask what your qualifications are - you must have an IQ in the 200s I'm guessing?

[Elmo!]

Ok.

Infantile. Talk me through that. This is a fella that has excelled in school, excelled in college, excelled in University and excelled in life.

And you believe that he is infantile compared to your mental ability. I'd probably want to ask what your qualifications are - you must have an IQ in the 200s I'm guessing?

So you are complaining about the thread being in the gutter and yet you have resorted to personal attacks?

[Wild Romany Boy]

Ok.

Infantile. Talk me through that. This is a fella that has excelled in school, excelled in college, excelled in University and excelled in life.

And you believe that he is infantile compared to your mental ability. I'd probably want to ask what your qualifications are - you must have an IQ in the 200s I'm guessing?

You can resort to infantile arguments without being an infantile person.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

So you are complaining about the thread being in the gutter and yet you have resorted to personal attacks?

It's a personal attack disagreeing with what someone said? What personal attack was there?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You can resort to infantile arguments without being an infantile person.

I can see why someone might disagree with Starmer on this, but calling it infintile is, er, infantile.

You don't get to have a free pass on that without explaining your reasoning. Just sounds like a cheap dig to me.

[Elmo!]

It's a personal attack disagreeing with what someone said? What personal attack was there?

I'll leave you to it Andy. This discussion isn't going anywhere productive.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I'll leave you to it Andy. This discussion isn't going anywhere productive.

So you aren't going to defend your infantile comment? Why is that?

If it's infantile then it should be literally childs play for you to provide your analysis and superior argument.

[Elmo!]

So you aren't going to defend your infantile comment? Why is that?

If it's infantile then it should be literally childs play for you to provide your analysis and superior argument.

I had a fairly nice debate with Yorky and Sangria last night. Then you come in this morning ranting about Corbyn, and making sarcastic comments about my IQ. Forgive me if I pass.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I don’t blame him for not bothering considering the basis for your argument is “Starmer has achieved so much in life. What have you done?”

I say that because if I came along and called Stephen Hawking infantile (or what he's said infantile) then I think I'd have to defend that.

But of course I wouldn't be able to.

[Snail]

For fuck's sake.

[Welshred]

Its funny because this thread had some nice debate until Andy popped up...

I've been reading Just Elmo's stuff and there is a lot in here with unwarranted digs. Stuff like 'It's just yet again we have another leader who just doesn't get it and resorty to infantile arguments that have never shown any sign of working.' shows this thread is already in the gutter.

Pretty sure Elmo isn't limiting it to just Corbyn though. At the very minimum it means Starmer, Corbyn and Miliband but I'm pretty sure he'd include Brown and possibly the late Blair years in his criticism. His opinion, I think, is of the Labour party as a whole over the last 15 years or so.

I can't see much of a reason to be slagging Starmer off at the moment.

I do. He's not exactly calming things down internally is he? His proposed changes to the leadership election process is not only going to piss a lot of people off, including the unions, as he seems to be going ahead regardless but whoever the next leader is will be under immense pressure to change it again or keep it as it is from the various factions within the party. Its just creating future problems further down the line.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Its funny because this thread had some nice debate until Andy popped up...

Pretty sure Elmo isn't limiting it to just Corbyn though. At the very minimum it means Starmer, Corbyn and Miliband but I'm pretty sure he'd include Brown and possibly the late Blair years in his criticism. His opinion, I think, is of the Labour party as a whole over the last 15 years or so.

I do. He's not exactly calming things down internally is he? His proposed changes to the leadership election process is not only going to piss a lot of people off, including the unions, as he seems to be going ahead regardless but whoever the next leader is will be under immense pressure to change it again or keep it as it is from the various factions within the party. Its just creating future problems further down the line.

All I can say mate is read that book I mentioned 'Left out'

It's quite an eye-opener. It shows the uphill (and unwinnable) battle that Starmer or, indeed anyone from the left, centre or right would have to win.

Which is, of course, impossible at the moment. The Party isn't just dysfunctional. It's had its chips. It has to split. There is no other way around it.

Give that book a read. It'll change your whole perspective (I'm sure that clued up types like Yorkie are aware of most of the content, but for laypeople like me, it's incredible and quite sad to read

Starmer was fucked before he stepped up. Anyone would have been. No wonder Burnham and Rotheram shit out and ran away

[Welshred]

I don't see what relevance that book has to the debate in this thread you threw a grenade at last night Andy

[Jiminy Cricket]

Honestly, I think it is revealing the difference in what you are seeing to what is happening up here.

Gordon Brown lost all credibility in Scotland when he lied to the pensioners. When he promised near-fedralism, then spent the last 7 years trying to claim he didn't.

He is a spent force. He may still carry some political weight down south, but he is a parody, a laughing stock now.

A proper, federal system, is what I think is needed for the UK to survive. Not that I expect it to happen. There are huge historical reasons for the four nations to remain within some kind of Union. But only for so long as the inhabitants of each country wish to remain.

A federal system, for example, would allow for things like Nuclear Subs to remain within the UK. It is an odd state of affairs when there is talk of the France or the US as alternative locations.