Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Welshred]

Can't disagree with any of that Jersey, it's a great post!

Starmer is making changes though, Louise Ellman has rejoined the party and it looks like the faith in the Jewish community is bring restored.

[Zeb]

The key parts of Corbyn's platform which have shifted are a rejection of the two campism in foreign policy, the 'socialism in one country' ideals which feed into Lexiter ideology (if you're still out there give us a wave!), and a rejection of the populist and conspiratorial framing of everything being rigged. There's not much else which has changed whatsoever (cynics would say that's because everything else was what Corbynism borrowed to flesh out its domestic policies). The audience being targeted has changed, which is difficult for some I know, but that's part of winning people over to the ideas. And there's also been a lot of thinking around how to present ideas which can be delivered by a Labour government rather than presenting a wishlist to the electorate. But beyond surface presentation, this isn't really a huge shift at all in where Labour is coming from. It's the best of what Corbynism offered (think 'Our Town' ads) but without the baggage inherent to having those people running a political party. I think people like Andrew Fisher are slowly coming to recognise that too, in fairness to him.

edit: eg worth a read of James Mills (one of Corbyn and McDonnell's advisors) realising what Reeves is up to: https://twitter.com/JamesMills1984/status/1442106981674717193

[JerseyKloppite]

I think it's quite scary if you think that there hasn't been an outwardly left-wing government in the UK since 1979.

The Labour party decided to modify their politics and rebrand in order to cosy up to the establishment media and ensure a sufficiency of backing under Blair. And this was on top of a disastrous and deeply unpopular Tory Government between 1992 and 1997. I don't want to get into a debate about the merits of Blair's government but you can see the uphill battle that any Labour leadership embracing a genuinely left-wing approach takes. The UK (and England in particular) is right-leaning. In the last 100 years you have:
-two Labour minority governments in the 1920s, a total of about 3 years;
-Attlee's government in the postwar period, a a total of about 6 years;
-Wilson's government 1964-1970, a total of 6 years;
-Wilson/Callaghan's government 1974-79, a total of 5 years;
-Then Blair/Brown.

If you discount the latter, that's 21 years of left-wing Labour government in 100 years, vs 52 or so years of Tory government, with the remainder being Blair/Brown (however you interpret that) plus national governments in the war/postwar periods. It doesn't give one much optimism if you're left leaning for the future, especially if Scotland leaves the UK.

[Zeb]

Most of the 2019 Tory vote was economically left wing. It's a riddle for anyone seeking to define 'the left' any particular way outside an objective measure.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Most of the 2019 Tory vote was economically left wing. It's a riddle for anyone seeking to define 'the left' any particular way outside an objective measure.

Could you expand on that Zeb?

[Nobby Reserve]

I think it's quite scary if you think that there hasn't been an outwardly left-wing government in the UK since 1979.

The Labour party decided to modify their politics and rebrand in order to cosy up to the establishment media and ensure a sufficiency of backing under Blair. And this was on top of a disastrous and deeply unpopular Tory Government between 1992 and 1997. I don't want to get into a debate about the merits of Blair's government but you can see the uphill battle that any Labour leadership embracing a genuinely left-wing approach takes. The UK (and England in particular) is right-leaning. In the last 100 years you have:
-two Labour minority governments in the 1920s, a total of about 3 years;
-Attlee's government in the postwar period, a a total of about 6 years;
-Wilson's government 1964-1970, a total of 6 years;
-Wilson/Callaghan's government 1974-79, a total of 5 years;
-Then Blair/Brown.

If you discount the latter, that's 21 years of left-wing Labour government in 100 years, vs 52 or so years of Tory government, with the remainder being Blair/Brown (however you interpret that) plus national governments in the war/postwar periods. It doesn't give one much optimism if you're left leaning for the future, especially if Scotland leaves the UK.

I wouldn't put the 74-79 government as left-wing - especially so at the latter end under Callaghan, who sought to drag the Labour Party to the right.

Economically, Labour were a total shambles throughout the 70's and before.

In terms of actual policy (using today's definitions) I think the only effectively left-wing government was the post-war Atlee government - but that's more to do with how far right the Overton Window has moved*

* economically speaking; socially speaking, it's moved a long way to the left

[Nobby Reserve]

Could you expand on that Zeb?

I think it relates to polling done on specific policy areas, which supported policy positions that are left-of-centre (like strong and properly-funded public services, the NHS remaining a public service, taxation that is in essence redistributionist, etc)

I wouldn't say 'a majority', but certainly a majority of those who have switched from Labour to Tory since the 00's.

[Zeb]

Could you expand on that Zeb?

Electorate as a whole (so general terms) is economically left wing on the scales used by surveys done to monitor the electorate through the decades. They're also socially conservative (same thing - but clear trend from 90s into becoming more socially liberal (think gay marriage as one issue which has shifted)). So if you're trying to define the left then you do have to take a very broad view of who the left are, and that the issues which shape how they vote may not actually be solely along left/right or liberal/conservative lines. Under our system you need to make a coalition within the Labour party which spans that broad view and then some more again because if you reduce 'the left' down to a purity test then you end up with the tiny hard left party of other European democracies wondering why it can't form a government all by itself.

[Sangria]

Electorate as a whole (so general terms) is economically left wing on the scales used by surveys done to monitor the electorate through the decades. They're also socially conservative (same thing - but clear trend from 90s into becoming more socially liberal (think gay marriage as one issue which has shifted)). So if you're trying to define the left then you do have to take a very broad view of who the left are, and that the issues which shape how they vote may not actually be solely along left/right or liberal/conservative lines. Under our system you need to make a coalition within the Labour party which spans that broad view and then some more again because if you reduce 'the left' down to a purity test then you end up with the tiny hard left party of other European democracies wondering why it can't form a government all by itself.

All the polls suggest the sensible course of action is to set out a broadly economically left agenda with a focus on building up UK industry, and avoid talking about social and cultural issues. The opposite of what the right are doing, which is to enact an economically right agenda, and talk about social and cultural issues every chance they can.

[Zeb]

All the polls suggest the sensible course of action is to set out a broadly economically left agenda with a focus on building up UK industry, and avoid talking about social and cultural issues. The opposite of what the right are doing, which is to enact an economically right agenda, and talk about social and cultural issues every chance they can.

It's not just to avoid talking about it, it's about presenting Labour as a unifying force and seeking to earn trust and demonstrate competence (expect metro mayors and Drakeford to feature a lot for what can be done by Labour in power etc.). It's small 'c' conservative in some ways? Not promising a revolution but getting to a similar place more steadily. Fabians. Heh.

[Sangria]

It's not just to avoid talking about it, it's about presenting Labour as a unifying force and seeking to earn trust and demonstrate competence (expect metro mayors and Drakeford to feature a lot for what can be done by Labour in power etc.). It's small 'c' conservative in some ways? Not promising a revolution but getting to a similar place more steadily. Fabians. Heh.

Exactly.

[Red-Soldier]

Andy McDonald’s resignation was intended to overshadow the moderate message in Rachel Reeves’ speech.

McDonald says Labour 'more divided than ever' under Starmer

Here are extracts from Andy McDonald’s resignation letter.

    McDonald says Keir Starmer has made his position as shadow secretary of state for employment rights “untenable” because Starmer told him to oppose raising the minimum wage to £15 an hour. He says:

    Yesterday, your office instructed me to go into a meeting to argue against a national minimum wage of £15 an hour and against statutory sick pay at the living wage. This is something I could not do.

Labour is committed to raising the national minimum wage to £10 an hour. Currently the national living wage for people age 23 and over is £8.91.

A £15 minimum wage is fantasy.

[TepidT2O]

Whether or not £15 an hour is fantasy or not, this was designed to do maximum damage.


I sometimes wonder how many Labour MPs actually have any interest in being elected to government.

Also difficult to have a broad church when those on the left repeatedly exclude themselves from any proper politics.

[Zeb]

Exactly.

See how it goes, can see where he's reading and who he's consulting even if he hadn't brought Mattinson in directly. He's a couple of years maybe. And minimum acceptable result will give him another parliament after that if he wants it but he's on borrowed time already to demonstrate he offers more than the 'not a bampot' bonus.

[Dr. Beaker]

Andy McDonald’s resignation was intended to overshadow the moderate message in Rachel Reeves’ speech.

McDonald says Labour 'more divided than ever' under Starmer

Here are extracts from Andy McDonald’s resignation letter.

    McDonald says Keir Starmer has made his position as shadow secretary of state for employment rights “untenable” because Starmer told him to oppose raising the minimum wage to £15 an hour. He says:

    Yesterday, your office instructed me to go into a meeting to argue against a national minimum wage of £15 an hour and against statutory sick pay at the living wage. This is something I could not do.

Labour is committed to raising the national minimum wage to £10 an hour. Currently the national living wage for people age 23 and over is £8.91.

A £15 minimum wage is fantasy.

Starmer's Degsy?

[Yorkykopite]

I think it's quite scary if you think that there hasn't been an outwardly left-wing government in the UK since 1979.

The Labour party decided to modify their politics and rebrand in order to cosy up to the establishment media and ensure a sufficiency of backing under Blair. And this was on top of a disastrous and deeply unpopular Tory Government between 1992 and 1997. I don't want to get into a debate about the merits of Blair's government but you can see the uphill battle that any Labour leadership embracing a genuinely left-wing approach takes. The UK (and England in particular) is right-leaning. In the last 100 years you have:
-two Labour minority governments in the 1920s, a total of about 3 years;
-Attlee's government in the postwar period, a a total of about 6 years;
-Wilson's government 1964-1970, a total of 6 years;
-Wilson/Callaghan's government 1974-79, a total of 5 years;
-Then Blair/Brown.

If you discount the latter, that's 21 years of left-wing Labour government in 100 years, vs 52 or so years of Tory government, with the remainder being Blair/Brown (however you interpret that) plus national governments in the war/postwar periods. It doesn't give one much optimism if you're left leaning for the future, especially if Scotland leaves the UK.

There are some people who are still able to look at this history of Conservative domination in Britain and conclude that Labour isn't Left-Wing enough.

[Gili Gulu]

Sometimes I think that Momentum would rather go through another ten years of the Tories, than have a Labour government led by the right of the party, so they can have a lovely time organising protests and discussing policy platforms where everyone agrees with other.
You don't get good politicians emerging from a culture where there is no compromise, no deals made, and everyone thinks alike. You get campaigners like Jeremy Corbyn.

Some of the Labour left have re-invented the "stab-in-the-back" theory, that the only reason that Jeremy Corbyn is not Prime Minister is because of the disloyalty of the right wing of the party, which given how deeply unpopular and incompetent he was is arrant nonsense, and incredibly hypocritical given how disloyal Corbyn and large numbers of his fellow travellers were right through the Blair and Brown years, and once again now that Keir Starmer is the leader.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Whether or not £15 an hour is fantasy or not, this was designed to do maximum damage.


I sometimes wonder how many Labour MPs actually have any interest in being elected to government.

Also difficult to have a broad church when those on the left repeatedly exclude themselves from any proper politics.

Is Andy Mcdonalld to the left of the party?


Social media now sharing photos of KS holding up a 15 p/h for Maccies workers  banner

he doesnt help himself does he

[Dr. Beaker]

Is Andy Mcdonalld to the left of the party?


Social media now sharing photos of KS holding up a 15 p/h for Maccies workers  banner

he doesnt help himself does he

Maybe it's a bit greasy for him.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Maybe it's a bit greasy for him.

  

[CHOPPER]

I think RAWK has a broad spectrum of left-wingers so just curious what peoples' thoughts are at this stage.

He’s a dickhead, Loretta.

[Zeb]

Is Andy Mcdonalld to the left of the party?


Social media now sharing photos of KS holding up a 15 p/h for Maccies workers  banner

he doesnt help himself does he

Blairite (descriptive sense, not perjorative) who shifted to the hard left. Looks like a hard left bunfight to see who'll try to get the votes to challenge Starmer. They know after next election it'll be beyond them.

Don't think a call for a pay deal for a specific sector can be read as the same as a universal call to increase the minimum wage to above the median wage, but then I never thought procedural votes would ever be portrayed as statements of policy either.

[Welshred]

So can someone help me with this please? Andy McDonald wrote the green paper on raising the minimum wage to £10ph and one that he claims he's proud of in his resignation letter, had it voted on and accepted at conference then wanted to immediately contradict that by going to a meeting to argue for a £15ph minimum wage, was told not to by the leaders office and has then publicly resigned firing shots at the leaderships direction. Yet he's accusing Starmer of causing further division within the party?

[Welshred]

He's left that part open to interpretation hasn't he? I read it as he was already going to a meeting to argue for a £15 minimum wage, anyway its set the left of the party off on one about 'Starmer the Tory' again and given John McDonnell something to sound off about so mission accomplished.

[TepidT2O]

If you’re Starmer, you can try to round  this by saying, yes we believe in higher wages, but we also believe in supporting businesses …or something


£15ph seems a bit of a hike in one go, but I think the principle that decent wages should be paid by companies rather than by the tax payer (though benefits) is important too.

[Welshred]

Zahra Sultana is currently attacking 'Blairites' at a fringe meeting. 


There really seems to be only one side trying to stoke division here

[Zeb]

To be fair, Starmer's been jumping on their favorite sandcastles all this weekend. And likely with one eye to provoking the reaction.

[JerseyKloppite]

You do wonder what it will take for those on all spectrums of the Labour party to have sensible discussions about electioneering, because at the rate they're going they'll be in opposition for decades.

When you're already fighting an uphill battle given the political make up of so much of the population AND the media, you need to be savvy, conciliatory and above all pragmatic. A coalition within the Labour party is no different from a coalition between two political parties - there has to be some give and take, but once you have an agreed position everyone has to basically get on board and accept that they can't get EVERYTHING they want, but better to win an election, be in power and achieve some of your key policy goals, rather than spending eternity in opposition.

The Scottish issue is even more burning. Before the rise of the SNP Labour were winning 50-55 seats out of 70 in Scotland with tiny numbers for the Tories. Turns an uphill struggle into an almost impossible challenge if they go their own way.

[OOS]

It's been a good conference so far. Positive signs.

[TepidT2O]

Bizarrely,  corbyn is now attacking Starmer for “propping up the wealthy and powerful” by sticking with £10ph.

Remind me who lead with this as a key policy in their manifesto not 18 months ago?

Oh yes, Corbyn himself… so his own policy is seen as propping up the wealthy and powerful

[Yorkykopite]

Time for the Corbynites to leave I think. Show a bit of courage for once.

[Robinred]

You do wonder what it will take for those on all spectrums of the Labour party to have sensible discussions about electioneering, because at the rate they're going they'll be in opposition for decades.

When you're already fighting an uphill battle given the political make up of so much of the population AND the media, you need to be savvy, conciliatory and above all pragmatic. A coalition within the Labour party is no different from a coalition between two political parties - there has to be some give and take, but once you have an agreed position everyone has to basically get on board and accept that they can't get EVERYTHING they want, but better to win an election, be in power and achieve some of your key policy goals, rather than spending eternity in opposition.

The Scottish issue is even more burning. Before the rise of the SNP Labour were winning 50-55 seats out of 70 in Scotland with tiny numbers for the Tories. Turns an uphill struggle into an almost impossible challenge if they go their own way.

Indeed.

But as has been said on here ad nauseam, the broad church that once existed, and submitted to the need to act along the lines of the bit in bold, has been eroded to the point where the ‘enemy’ is perceived to be something other than the Tories, and the aim something other than winning elections.

[Welshred]

Time for the Corbynites to leave I think. Show a bit of courage for once.

I don't think I've been more convinced than I am that the party needs to split. The two sides are so far apart and the infighting is just going to continue regardless of who is the leader.

[west_london_red]

If you’re Starmer, you can try to round  this by saying, yes we believe in higher wages, but we also believe in supporting businesses …or something


£15ph seems a bit of a hike in one go, but I think the principle that decent wages should be paid by companies rather than by the tax payer (though benefits) is important too.

Yeah, you water it down a bit and say £15 by the end of our term, it’s not something that has to be done day one. And like you say, tax payers having to top up the wages of working people so that they can actually live on their wages is just insane.

[Red-Soldier]

You do wonder what it will take for those on all spectrums of the Labour party to have sensible discussions about electioneering, because at the rate they're going they'll be in opposition for decades.

When you're already fighting an uphill battle given the political make up of so much of the population AND the media, you need to be savvy, conciliatory and above all pragmatic. A coalition within the Labour party is no different from a coalition between two political parties - there has to be some give and take, but once you have an agreed position everyone has to basically get on board and accept that they can't get EVERYTHING they want, but better to win an election, be in power and achieve some of your key policy goals, rather than spending eternity in opposition.

The Scottish issue is even more burning. Before the rise of the SNP Labour were winning 50-55 seats out of 70 in Scotland with tiny numbers for the Tories. Turns an uphill struggle into an almost impossible challenge if they go their own way.

Yet, you have the unions voting against PR:

Unions vote down local Labour parties’ call to axe first past the post

Motion to back switch to proportional representation in elections fails at Labour conference

During a debate on the main conference stage, a series of local delegates backed the motion, with one saying first past the post was creating a generation of “apathetic” young people.

“I see so few of my friends, of my generation, engaged in political activity, even if they’re passionate about the issues. So many never show up to vote,” one said. “We need to ensure that every voter, not just those in swing seats, feels heard.”

The only speaker against the idea was Margaret Clarke, of the GMB union, who called the motion an “attempt to commit the Labour party to an unnecessary distraction in backing proportional representation”.

She said of PR: “It’s unpopular. Voters rejected it overwhelmingly in a referendum in 2011. It’s less accountable, breaking the vital constituency links between hundreds of Labour MPs and their voters across the UK. It also risks handing power to the far right in our parliament.”

However, other speakers pointed out that the 2011 referendum on a change to the voting system, run as part of the Liberal Democrats’ requirements to join a coalition with the Conservatives, was about the alternative vote system, which is not proportional.

The motion argued that first past the post creates “electoral deserts” and “widespread disenfranchisement, disillusion and disengagement in politics”.

It said: “A voting system in which every vote counts equally is needed to address the worrying levels of alienation, division and mistrust in British politics. Labour in government played a leading role in introducing forms of PR to the UK’s devolved government.

“There are systems of PR that retain a strong constituency link between MPs and their electorates, while ensuring that all votes count equally and seats match votes.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/27/unions-vote-down-local-labour-parties-call-to-axe-first-past-the-post

Perhaps she missed Johnson getting an 80 seat majority and Frottage shaping the future of the country without a MP.

[Welshred]

She's also wrong about the 2011 referendum as that was on alternative vote not proportional representation

[Circa1892]

Zahra Sultana is currently attacking 'Blairites' at a fringe meeting. 


There really seems to be only one side trying to stoke division here

Thick as pigshit that woman and a really nasty piece of work.

[TepidT2O]

Thick as pigshit that woman and a really nasty piece of work.

Thick?  I don’t know.
Woman? Who cares?

Nasty piece of work? Difficult to tell.

Let’s just settle with wrong.

[oldfordie]

Yet, you have the unions voting against PR:

Unions vote down local Labour parties’ call to axe first past the post

Motion to back switch to proportional representation in elections fails at Labour conference


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/27/unions-vote-down-local-labour-parties-call-to-axe-first-past-the-post

Perhaps she missed Johnson getting an 80 seat majority and Frottage shaping the future of the country without a MP.

Would Labour get anything substantial passed in a Minority government. what are the chances of a left wing leader like Corbyn compromising with the Lib Dems for 5-10+ yrs.
Maybe am wrong but ive heard no counter arguments, PR would help to restrain the Torys but it would result in permanent minority governments, the Parties who were able to form coalitions would be in power. think it's a matter of being careful of what you wish for.

[Yorkykopite]

I suspect that what's really 'got' the Corbynite faction is not the minimum wage or any other policy, but the constitutional change.

If you look at the history of the last 50 years the constitution of the Labour party is by far and away the most important issue for the Hard Left. It isn't workers' control or public ownership, it isn't taxation or pensions, it isn't full employment, education or even the NHS. What has really galvanised men like Corbyn, McDonnell, Lansman and even Tony Benn in his day, are questions like 'Who gets to elect the NEC?', 'How are local MPs selected and how can they be deselected?', 'How is the leader of the Labour party elected'?', 'Who gets a license to have a stall at the Labour Party Conference'. This is the stuff that gets them out of bed in the morning. The other stuff about the NHS etc pales into insignificance compared with these epochal questions.

The exception to this constitutional navel-gazing is of course international policy. Palestine, NATO, Cuba, Venezuela. Limitless amounts of time are traditionally spent discussing these issues - a sign not of any commitment to Labour's traditional internationalism but rather of the Far Left's morbid feeling that socialism in the West will never happen and therefore it's nicer to think of faraway places where it might. Defeatism in other words.

With Starmer on the offensive now over the very issue that means most to them they have decided to go for broke. I'm starting to think that Starmer understood this and is simply pushing their buttons, hoping to spark a battle royale. Certainly nothing would make him more popular with the country at large than a Kinnock-like slaying of the Hard Left at party conference.