Keir Starmer Labour Leader

The Labour left isn't going to leave the party because -

.The current electoral system of the UK

.The ideology of labourism

.The history and founding of the party(It's roots are in labour and socialist politics, it's not a liberal party).
 
balaks said:
You are making assumptions about my own views unnecessarily. I'm a realist - whether I support socialist type policies or not I can see that they are never going to win an election.
Click to expand...

A realist wouldn't be gleeful at the prospect of a split so i really doubt you deserve that self identified tag.
 
Smores said:
A realist wouldn't be gleeful at the prospect of a split so i really doubt you deserve that self identified tag.
Click to expand...

I'm not gleeful about it - I want Labour to win elections. If that means dumping people who are resolutely committed to stopping that from happening then so be it.
 
balaks said:
That is what I find so odd about all of this - they know for a fact that they can never get into power on a hard left socialist platform - that just is not possible in the UK yet they still push for it knowing it will never get them into power. Surely common sense would tell you that you need to focus on winning an election first to get into power to affect change - it may need to be a watered down version of what you really want but surely that is infinitely better than to hand power to the Tories again and again. Perhaps they are hoping the Tories will do so much damage to the country that people will rebel against them strongly enough to let a hard left Labour government get in. Guess what, that has never happened and it never will. The fact is, like it or not, the Tories remain the most powerful and well supported party in the UK - why else do they keep winning?
Click to expand...

This is the centre left pragmatic view, broadly the approach that saw Labour get into power under Blair for three terms. The hard left wing ideologues do believe that they'll get in power though. Ideologues are often irrational by definition.

I posted this in another thread, roughly only 26% of the UK voting age population actually voted Tory in 2019. In terms of raw numbers their support is a minority in this country but because of political disengagement and FPTP they are able to return a significant majority with those numbers.
 
Smores said:
A realist wouldn't be gleeful at the prospect of a split so i really doubt you deserve that self identified tag.
Click to expand...

I'm not gleeful about it - I want Labour to win elections. If that means dumping people who are resolutely committed to stopping that from happening then so be it. Are you gleeful about the Tories being in power for decades?
 
What Starmer did to Corbyn yesterday was his clause 4 moment.

basically he beat up someone the electorate loathes, in public.People will notice and I bet he sees poll gains.Expect to see much more of the same in future if that happens.
 
balaks said:
I'm not gleeful about it - I want Labour to win elections. If that means dumping people who are resolutely committed to stopping that from happening then so be it.
Click to expand...

Agreed let's get rid of everyone who has publically worked to undermine a leader. There might not be too many MPs left then mind you.

At least the left are honest that ideology rules their approach, centrists oddly need to self-ascribe how smart their approach is to pretend they're not as ideological..hence your need to praise yourself as a realist.
 
Smores said:
Agreed let's get rid of everyone who has publically worked to undermine a leader. There might not be too many MPs left then mind you.

At least the left are honest that ideology rules their approach, centrists oddly need to self-ascribe how smart their approach is to pretend they're not as ideological..hence your need to praise yourself as a realist.
Click to expand...

Good grief will you listen to yourself. Tell me then, do you believe a socialist, hard left Labour can win an election in the UK?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
This is the centre left pragmatic view, broadly the approach that saw Labour get into power under Blair for three terms. The hard left wing ideologues do believe that they'll get in power though. Ideologues are often irrational by definition.
Click to expand...
As someone said elsewhere this morning, if you discount this approach, there is no other recent model for labour winning and retaining power. Discount Blair and you have nothing else.
 
Ultimately politics is about compromise and the ability to moderate your positions to appeal to a sufficiently broad section of society. If you think about it, the whole point of democracy is to enact governance that reflects something like the effective middle of the current sentiment of the population.

In a practical sense, for politicians that inevitably means having to abandon/conceal/postpone some of your deepest held beliefs. For example, we know Blair was a committed Christian and it was central to his identity, but Alistair Campbell wisely managed to convince him to never speak of it publicly as it would hinder his electoral chances. Hence the famous quote from Campbell: "We don't do God."

I genuinely believe if some hypothetical genie descended from the sky and offered Corbyn a similar deal that involved compromise on some deeply held belief - let's say something along the lines of 'you can win the general election but in exchange you can never mention Israel or speak publicly about middle-eastern politics again' - he would find it intolerable and reject it on principle.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Ultimately politics is about compromise and the ability to moderate your positions to appeal to a sufficiently broad section of society. If you think about it, the whole point of democracy is to enact governance that reflects something like the effective middle of the current sentiment of the population.

In a practical sense, for politicians that inevitably means having to abandon/conceal/postpone some of your deepest held beliefs. For example, we know Blair was a committed Christian and it was central to his identity, but Alistair Campbell wisely managed to convince him to never speak of it publicly as it would hinder his electoral chances. Hence the famous quote from Campbell: "We don't do God."

I genuinely believe if some hypothetical genie descended from the sky and offered Corbyn a similar deal that involved compromise on some deeply held belief - let's say something along the lines of 'you can win the general election but in exchange you can never mention Israel or speak publicly about middle-eastern politics again' - he would find it intolerable and reject it on principle.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this - politics, like it or not is about compromise and finding a centre ground to a certain degree. To utterly discount this and reject any watering down of your policy goals, although admirable, is a total disaster if you ever hope to genuinely gain power and enact those policies. This is the reality of the situation.
 
balaks said:
Good grief will you listen to yourself. Tell me then, do you believe a socialist, hard left Labour can win an election in the UK?
Click to expand...

Why hard left? Why have you jumped to hard left why not just go further and say communism? Maybe go back to realism.

Can Labour win/gain coalition on a left socialist platform with a united party and a leader not falsely accused of institutional anti-semtism? Absolutely, especially given the growing demographics and changing culture.

However i voted Starmer because he's the unity candidate. Maybe i should throw in some self-praise here too to show how smartz i am :lol:
 
Smores said:
Why hard left? Why have you jumped to hard left why not just go further and say communism? Maybe go back to realism.

Can Labour win/gain coalition on a left socialist platform with a united party and a leader not falsely accused of institutional anti-semtism? Absolutely, especially given the growing demographics and changing culture.

However i voted Starmer because he's the unity candidate. Maybe i should throw in some self-praise here too to show how smartz i am :lol:
Click to expand...


That is pathetic and childish. Not only that you appear to be utterly deluded.
 
Last edited:
MikeUpNorth said:
Ultimately politics is about compromise and the ability to moderate your positions to appeal to a sufficiently broad section of society. If you think about it, the whole point of democracy is to enact governance that reflects something like the effective middle of the current sentiment of the population.

In a practical sense, for politicians that inevitably means having to abandon/conceal/postpone some of your deepest held beliefs. For example, we know Blair was a committed Christian and it was central to his identity, but Alistair Campbell wisely managed to convince him to never speak of it publicly as it would hinder his electoral chances. Hence the famous quote from Campbell: "We don't do God."

I genuinely believe if some hypothetical genie descended from the sky and offered Corbyn a similar deal that involved compromise on some deeply held belief - let's say something along the lines of 'you can win the general election but in exchange you can never mention Israel or speak publicly about middle-eastern politics again' - he would find it intolerable and reject it on principle.
Click to expand...
I think you've perfectly described why a lot of people see politicians as slimy, conniving shits.

Compromising your own deeply held beliefs in order to win power might make you a good politician, but it also makes you a cnut of a human. In my opinion.
 
balaks said:
That is utterly pathetic.
Click to expand...

Apologises if I've touched a nerve but quite a few of you could do with taking the lesson on board. People make their political choices and the little pep talks calling yourselves realists or pragmatists is just an insult to those with different views, the reason you feel the need seems to be self-praise.

It's the equivalent of the Momentum lot saying they side with Corbyn because it's the only moral choice. That's equally ascribing all others as immoral, conflating fact with opinion.

But anyone claiming to be realist and then wishing the party to split really needs to reevaluate.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...


I am not sure suspending Corbyn for not accepting the report is undermining his human rights. People really need to get grip of reality. The party leader doesn't have the right to allow or encourage anti-Semitic behavior. He does have the right to suspend an MP for cause. If he started just suspending black MP's for example then you would have a point.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I am not sure suspending Corbyn for not accepting the report is undermining his human rights. People really need to get grip of reality. The party leader doesn't have the right to allow or encourage anti-Semitic behavior. He does have the right to suspend an MP for cause. If he started just suspending black MP's for example then you would have a point.
Click to expand...

He explicitly got suspended for discussing the scale of anti-semitism in the party. Also the leader doesn't have a right for any of what you listed, that's rather the point of most of the report.
 
Smores said:
Apologises if I've touched a nerve but quite a few of you could do with taking the lesson on board. People make their political choices and the little pep talks calling yourselves realists or pragmatists is just an insult to those with different views, the reason you feel the need seems to be self-praise.

It's the equivalent of the Momentum lot saying they side with Corbyn because it's the only moral choice. That's equally ascribing all others as immoral, conflating fact with opinion.

But anyone claiming to be realist and then wishing the party to split really needs to reevaluate.
Click to expand...

I think you have completely misunderstood not only what I was saying but my own motives and political background. I'm not sure if that is because what I said wasn't clear or if its down to your own view blinding you.
 
Mogget said:
I think you've perfectly described why a lot of people see politicians as slimy, conniving shits.

Compromising your own deeply held beliefs in order to win power might make you a good politician, but it also makes you a cnut of a human. In my opinion.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I would suggest that when you're looking at traits someone needs to lead a successful political party, being a good politician should be high on the list.
 
nickm said:
What Starmer did to Corbyn yesterday was his clause 4 moment.

basically he beat up someone the electorate loathes, in public.People will notice and I bet he sees poll gains.Expect to see much more of the same in future if that happens.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it will be a popular move outside the party. But internal party dynamics carry a lot of weight too and obviously this is a divisive move.

I also don't get why Corbyn said what he said having (reportedly) been forewarned of the contents of Starmer's speech. It further harms his reputation outside the party, so he must surely have thought there was some political gain to be made internally? Else he has just hurt his reputation while bringing Labour divisions to a head for no reason I can see.
 
balaks said:
I agree with all of this - politics, like it or not is about compromise and finding a centre ground to a certain degree. To utterly discount this and reject any watering down of your policy goals, although admirable, is a total disaster if you ever hope to genuinely gain power and enact those policies. This is the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

I think it may have been Ken Clarke who said that a political party was like managing a coalition, a coalition of views, stances, and ideologies. It’s the same for the Tories, as it is for labour. Managing those different interests, getting compromise and working in the same direction gets you a mostly cohesive party (always likely to fall apart at any moment), but that’s what you need to be electable.

Blair did that brilliantly, and that’s why He hit elected. It’s why Corbyn was never electable, he didn’t compromise his views, he simply was never a leader. You still see that today. He doesn’t understand what leadership and sacrifice is. He’s the prefect back bench MP who will always stand up for what he believes in, and that’s respectable whether you agree with him or not.

the Tory party are as much of a coalition of ideas as the Labour Party, but at the moment they are doing a far better job at being (to an extent) United.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Ultimately politics is about compromise and the ability to moderate your positions to appeal to a sufficiently broad section of society. If you think about it, the whole point of democracy is to enact governance that reflects something like the effective middle of the current sentiment of the population.

In a practical sense, for politicians that inevitably means having to abandon/conceal/postpone some of your deepest held beliefs. For example, we know Blair was a committed Christian and it was central to his identity, but Alistair Campbell wisely managed to convince him to never speak of it publicly as it would hinder his electoral chances. Hence the famous quote from Campbell: "We don't do God."

I genuinely believe if some hypothetical genie descended from the sky and offered Corbyn a similar deal that involved compromise on some deeply held belief - let's say something along the lines of 'you can win the general election but in exchange you can never mention Israel or speak publicly about middle-eastern politics again' - he would find it intolerable and reject it on principle.
Click to expand...
So now not publicising the fact that your a Christian and commenting on an ongoing genocide are the same thing? Also as leader of a country, presuming he took the deal and gained power, with its finger in many middle eastern pies, would that not make him an incompatible leader?

Get a clue.
 
@ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg - I think that's a huge misapprehension of the challenge leading Labour poses compared to leading the Tories.

Leading the Tories is leading a group of people who all want the same thing (maintaining and strengthening the status quo) but can't agree how to achieve it and for whom the price of losing an internal battle is relatively low as no Tory's ideal future is ever going to involve significantly damaging the interests of the wealthy, else they wouldn't be Tories*. Leading Labour is leading groups of people who want very different things, where one factions ideal future would be a real disaster for another (e.g - the left's opposition to privatisation or landlordism vs. establishment figures who benefit hugely off both).


* the only thing the Tories have noticeably fractured over is Brexit, because it pits two aspects of the status quo against each other (economic stability vs. traditional power structures). Other than that, policy-based resignations are incredibly rare in the Tory Party, even during periods of huge ideological upheaval such as the rise of Thatcher.
 
Last edited:
sullydnl said:
I'm sure it will be a popular move outside the party. But internal party dynamics carry a lot of weight too and obviously this is a divisive move.

I also don't get why Corbyn said what he said having (reportedly) been forewarned of the contents of Starmer's speech. It further harms his reputation outside the party, so he must surely have thought there was some political gain to be made internally? Else he has just hurt his reputation while bringing Labour divisions to a head for no reason I can see.
Click to expand...

Fits with the burn everything to the ground and start again mentality of a closet Brexiteer. Forever chasing an unattainable socialist utopia. Going all in on an idealistic very long term goal without any consideration of collateral damage while he’s chasing his dream.
 
esmufc07 said:
Click to expand...


It amazes me looking at that report that people still have the Tories over Labour for handling the pandemic.

Huge gains on handling unemployment for Labour which i think must be the Rashford effect.

Analysis of the last polls showed gains were in southern areas of little use but i think we may just begin to see some northern gains over the next few months as sentiment appears to have shifted.
 
Mogget said:
I think you've perfectly described why a lot of people see politicians as slimy, conniving shits.

Compromising your own deeply held beliefs in order to win power might make you a good politician, but it also makes you a cnut of a human. In my opinion.
Click to expand...

Don't think it need be as black/white as that.

Rather depends on the level of compromise and how close it gets you to your goal. Just because new labour didn't eliminate child poverty doesn't mean the progress they made towards that end was pointless or cnutish.
 
I've consistently struggled to work out what I think with the various anti-semitism rows. Trying to put it all down, I believe;
  • It's clear that this is a problem in the Labour party - there are too many examples of anti-semitic incidents with members to think anything else.
  • This has been handled completely incompetently by the party beauraucracy, an issue that pre-dates 2015.
  • Cobyn's team interfering in cases is clearly a major problem. As covered by yesterday's report, mentions in 'Left Out', it appears this was done in cases to protect friends of the project, and JC himself. Clearly, this deserves punishment.
  • I can't believe that this issue is worse for the Labour party, than the racist views held by, or racist actions made by, members and supporters of the Conservative party, or UKIPers/ Brexiteers.
  • The issue has been politically weaponised by enemies of Labour, and of the Corbyn project.
  • BUT, the handling of this by the Corbyn LOTO team has been atrocious, and consistently made matters worse, or poured fuel on the fire when they could have worked constructively with the Jewish community to address their concerns.
  • Jeremy Corbyn himself, has a clear blind spot when it comes to anti-semitism. See the mural Facebook comment, the wreath, the 'irony' comments. My theory would be that this is due to views around 'hierarchies of racism', and an incredibly impressive history of anti-racist campaigning, which has made him too stubborn to acknowledge the existence of this blind spot.
  • Starmer had to suspend JC from the party given his comments in response to the report yesterday. Politically, I imagine this will give him in a (short-term?) boost in national polls. But, he's in trouble of destroying the relationship with the left of the party, leaving a 2005-2015 style ceiling to the party's vote. I'm not sure how they can address that, particularly if Corbyn is kicked out of the party. Though at the same time, I think it's going to be very difficult to bring Corbyn back into the PLP without a great deal of toxic press attention. Effectively, his stubborn response yesterday has made a whole new mess of this, and shown exactly why he was ill-suited to be leader in the first place.
Not really sure if there's a conclusion to all this, but yeah, what a stupid mess.
 
Mockney said:
Pretty close to my sentiments

Kind of happy to draw a line under Corbynism, but also in no mood for a smug Centrist victory lap that seems like just another antagonistic cog in the long mechanical grinding down and disenfranchisement of a growing (and largely fecked) younger generation, or indeed anyone on the left who was naive enough to hope for actual change (or at least good faith engagement)

Corbyn was absolutely the wrong person to lead them to that, but they’ve been offered nothing but scorn and bad faith intransigence from his opponents. I certainly don’t feel sorry for him, but i do for some of his supporters. It was an optimistic youth driven movement at one point, that was immediately treated with illegitimacy and contempt by the party establishment... and attempts to gleefully purge his support will only cement that as the lingering legacy for some. Just tentatively worth pointing out before we all get too giddy about becoming the party of landlords and luvvies again.

Hopefully Starmer finds a way in the next 4 years of enthusing them again. Because upwardly mobile, home owning centre-leaning liberals who love establishment professionals aren’t exactly a growing voter base anymore. At least he has good hair... young people like good hair. And a car.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you and @Fingeredmouse have mostly captured my current disenchantment with the prospect of a progressive left government implementing social and economic change any time soon.

Yesterday was always going to be a tough day for the left of the Labour Party, but the way it played out with the abrupt suspension of Corbyn and the deepening of party divisions was particularly sad to see.

Having processed the day's events im going to post my ramblings below, but the takeaway will be similar to you guys... an inevitable but depressing unceremonious end to any hope of left progressive electoral politics for the near future and the best day in ages for the Tory party.
 
ThierryHenry said:
I've consistently struggled to work out what I think with the various anti-semitism rows. Trying to put it all down, I believe;
  • It's clear that this is a problem in the Labour party - there are too many examples of anti-semitic incidents with members to think anything else.
  • This has been handled completely incompetently by the party beauraucracy, an issue that pre-dates 2015.
  • Cobyn's team interfering in cases is clearly a major problem. As covered by yesterday's report, mentions in 'Left Out', it appears this was done in cases to protect friends of the project, and JC himself. Clearly, this deserves punishment.
  • I can't believe that this issue is worse for the Labour party, than the racist views held by, or racist actions made by, members and supporters of the Conservative party, or UKIPers/ Brexiteers.
  • The issue has been politically weaponised by enemies of Labour, and of the Corbyn project.
  • BUT, the handling of this by the Corbyn LOTO team has been atrocious, and consistently made matters worse, or poured fuel on the fire when they could have worked constructively with the Jewish community to address their concerns.
  • Jeremy Corbyn himself, has a clear blind spot when it comes to anti-semitism. See the mural Facebook comment, the wreath, the 'irony' comments. My theory would be that this is due to views around 'hierarchies of racism', and an incredibly impressive history of anti-racist campaigning, which has made him too stubborn to acknowledge the existence of this blind spot.
  • Starmer had to suspend JC from the party given his comments in response to the report yesterday. Politically, I imagine this will give him in a (short-term?) boost in national polls. But, he's in trouble of destroying the relationship with the left of the party, leaving a 2005-2015 style ceiling to the party's vote. I'm not sure how they can address that, particularly if Corbyn is kicked out of the party. Though at the same time, I think it's going to be very difficult to bring Corbyn back into the PLP without a great deal of toxic press attention. Effectively, his stubborn response yesterday has made a whole new mess of this, and shown exactly why he was ill-suited to be leader in the first place.
Not really sure if there's a conclusion to all this, but yeah, what a stupid mess.
Click to expand...

Good post. Agree with all of that. A question in regards to your first point though about members. Are we talking about any old Tom, Dick or Harry that can sign up for a few quid a month (as you can also for the Conservatives). How do you police all these social media accounts?
 
CassiusClaymore said:
Good post. Agree with all of that. A question in regards to your first point though about members. Are we talking about any old Tom, Dick or Harry that can sign up for a few quid a month (as you can also for the Conservatives). How do you police all these social media accounts?
Click to expand...
Yeah we are. You can't I suppose - which means you have to have a clear code of conduct, and an effective complaints body that can kick out any of those members who have been found guilty of any behaviours that are in breach of the CoC. It won't be the party's job to search through each member's social media accounts to find this evidence, but if there's a complaint they have to be able to respond quickly, with clarity, and without political interference, none of which seem to have been happening with the current (or just pre-2018?) system at Labour.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Fair enough. I would suggest that when you're looking at traits someone needs to lead a successful political party, being a good politician should be high on the list.
Click to expand...
Why? I'd say this current Conservative party is a successful political party and full of morally bankrupt individuals who are "good" at being politicians and staying in power. Look where that's got us.

Wanting Labour to emulate them just so they can get in power sort of defeats the purpose of having Labour in power. What's the point if they're basically trying to be Tory lite?
 
ThierryHenry said:
Yeah we are. You can't I suppose - which means you have to have a clear code of conduct, and an effective complaints body that can kick out any of those members who have been found guilty of any behaviours that are in breach of the CoC. It won't be the party's job to search through each member's social media accounts to find this evidence, but if there's a complaint they have to be able to respond quickly, with clarity, and without political interference, none of which seem to have been happening with the current (or just pre-2018?) system at Labour.
Click to expand...
It's not just bog standard members though. As Frosty's posts in this thread show, unfortunately some lunatic antisemites have managed to get official positions within local parties due to a lack of vetting and desire to push forward Corbyn supporting candidates, regardless of their suitability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.