Keir Starmer Labour Leader

MoskvaRed said:
I find Starmer deeply uninspiring but the economic conditions are very different to 1997. Blair inherited a growing economy while Starmer is taking over a wasteland.
Click to expand...

Well, exactly. The economic climate is set up perfectly for a more forthright Labour party. They should be cynically attacking the Tory party and blaming them for the economic wasteland (much as the Tories attempted to blame the 2008 crash on Labour), and promising better standards of living and opportunities for regular people. If a Labour leader can't extol the virtues of left leaning policies at a time when ordinary people are suffering, when can they? And is there a worse time to try and emulate the Tories than now?

If I tried to remove my own ideological beliefs, and tried to objectively assess which of Labour and Conservatives could manage the economy or benefit regular people, based solely on what they are currently advocating for, I'm not even sure I'd back Labour. I know the Tories would make small cuts to things like National Insurance, probably raise the tax free threshold slightly at some point, which would mean a slight higher take home pay for me. I just don't get what Labour are even offering, beyond SAYING they will manage the budget carefully. How? Why? What are their priorities? What do they stand for? What choices will they make? I'll only be voting Labour out of principle, but if I was a swing voter, I can't see what would motivate me to vote Labour beyond voting against the Tories, but then why vote Labour instead of Lib Dems, Reform, UKIP or some other protest vote? The strategy Labour are going for is "look, we're not Corbyn anymore", which I suppose might win back a few voters, but I don't think it's compelling enough to voters now. Starmer isn't competing against Corbyn, he's competing against the current Tory party, in an economic wasteland.
 
Trequarista10 said:
Well, exactly. The economic climate is set up perfectly for a more forthright Labour party. They should be cynically attacking the Tory party and blaming them for the economic wasteland (much as the Tories attempted to blame the 2008 crash on Labour), and promising better standards of living and opportunities for regular people. If a Labour leader can't extol the virtues of left leaning policies at a time when ordinary people are suffering, when can they? And is there a worse time to try and emulate the Tories than now?

If I tried to remove my own ideological beliefs, and tried to objectively assess which of Labour and Conservatives could manage the economy or benefit regular people, based solely on what they are currently advocating for, I'm not even sure I'd back Labour. I know the Tories would make small cuts to things like National Insurance, probably raise the tax free threshold slightly at some point, which would mean a slight higher take home pay for me. I just don't get what Labour are even offering, beyond SAYING they will manage the budget carefully. How? Why? What are their priorities? What do they stand for? What choices will they make? I'll only be voting Labour out of principle, but if I was a swing voter, I can't see what would motivate me to vote Labour beyond voting against the Tories, but then why vote Labour instead of Lib Dems, Reform, UKIP or some other protest vote? The strategy Labour are going for is "look, we're not Corbyn anymore", which I suppose might win back a few voters, but I don't think it's compelling enough to voters now. Starmer isn't competing against Corbyn, he's competing against the current Tory party, in an economic wasteland.
Click to expand...

If only there were some haves to tax to help the have-nots.
 
Trequarista10 said:
Well, exactly. The economic climate is set up perfectly for a more forthright Labour party. They should be cynically attacking the Tory party and blaming them for the economic wasteland (much as the Tories attempted to blame the 2008 crash on Labour), and promising better standards of living and opportunities for regular people. If a Labour leader can't extol the virtues of left leaning policies at a time when ordinary people are suffering, when can they? And is there a worse time to try and emulate the Tories than now?

If I tried to remove my own ideological beliefs, and tried to objectively assess which of Labour and Conservatives could manage the economy or benefit regular people, based solely on what they are currently advocating for, I'm not even sure I'd back Labour. I know the Tories would make small cuts to things like National Insurance, probably raise the tax free threshold slightly at some point, which would mean a slight higher take home pay for me. I just don't get what Labour are even offering, beyond SAYING they will manage the budget carefully. How? Why? What are their priorities? What do they stand for? What choices will they make? I'll only be voting Labour out of principle, but if I was a swing voter, I can't see what would motivate me to vote Labour beyond voting against the Tories, but then why vote Labour instead of Lib Dems, Reform, UKIP or some other protest vote? The strategy Labour are going for is "look, we're not Corbyn anymore", which I suppose might win back a few voters, but I don't think it's compelling enough to voters now. Starmer isn't competing against Corbyn, he's competing against the current Tory party, in an economic wasteland.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with everything you've written here. Their stance is baffling.
 
Trequarista10 said:
Well, exactly. The economic climate is set up perfectly for a more forthright Labour party. They should be cynically attacking the Tory party and blaming them for the economic wasteland (much as the Tories attempted to blame the 2008 crash on Labour), and promising better standards of living and opportunities for regular people. If a Labour leader can't extol the virtues of left leaning policies at a time when ordinary people are suffering, when can they? And is there a worse time to try and emulate the Tories than now?

If I tried to remove my own ideological beliefs, and tried to objectively assess which of Labour and Conservatives could manage the economy or benefit regular people, based solely on what they are currently advocating for, I'm not even sure I'd back Labour. I know the Tories would make small cuts to things like National Insurance, probably raise the tax free threshold slightly at some point, which would mean a slight higher take home pay for me. I just don't get what Labour are even offering, beyond SAYING they will manage the budget carefully. How? Why? What are their priorities? What do they stand for? What choices will they make? I'll only be voting Labour out of principle, but if I was a swing voter, I can't see what would motivate me to vote Labour beyond voting against the Tories, but then why vote Labour instead of Lib Dems, Reform, UKIP or some other protest vote? The strategy Labour are going for is "look, we're not Corbyn anymore", which I suppose might win back a few voters, but I don't think it's compelling enough to voters now. Starmer isn't competing against Corbyn, he's competing against the current Tory party, in an economic wasteland.
Click to expand...

Some cracking last few posts from you. People don't realise that Blair wasn't a 'centrist' or 'tory in disguise;' he was simply better at managing the media whilst enunciating his aims. Prescott, Brown, etc can hardly be considered centrists. I'll too vote labour because I'd never vote tory, but your core point is correct, there's nothing between them. Hopefully its just electoral posture and they'll swing left once winning, but you don't get that feeling with Starmer. You just get the feeling he wants power, to govern in the same way as the Tories are now. I think you're wrong on the last bit though; the population as a monolith are nowhere near as perceptive or analytical as you are, they simply see a disaster and train wreck of a government, and think Starmer may be more like an adult in the room.

About the economic wasteland, we need to address productivity first and foremost (in my opinion.) This means a customs union and free movement for exports - bold choices he wont make, a culling of trashy middle management, and a strategic review to see why our productivity in some other sectors like the nhs is so low.
 
There’s also a video of him being called out on his arrival in Scotland. Dunno how to share as I have it on WhatsApp.
 
The Corinthian said:
There’s also a video of him being called out on his arrival in Scotland. Dunno how to share as I have it on WhatsApp.
Click to expand...
I saw that posted elsewhere. Very happy he got called out on this issue!

Have to say he looked like he didn't give a shit.... :(
 
Trequarista10 said:
I'll only be voting Labour out of principle, but if I was a swing voter, I can't see what would motivate me to vote Labour beyond voting against the Tories, but then why vote Labour instead of Lib Dems, Reform, UKIP or some other protest vote? The strategy Labour are going for is "look, we're not Corbyn anymore", which I suppose might win back a few voters, but I don't think it's compelling enough to voters now. Starmer isn't competing against Corbyn, he's competing against the current Tory party, in an economic wasteland.
Click to expand...

What are you basing this on?
 
Well to paraphrase and confirm my understanding; You believe Labour's current strategy to get elected is not the right way to attract swing voters.

All of the opinion polls indicate that voters have swung back to the Labour Party using this policy. You might think the polls are misleading, or you might mean something else that I'm missing?
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
This one?
Click to expand...

Wasn't this one either - there's a video of him on the train platform at Glasgow station. I think there's a few videos flying about all in essence of the same thing.
 
DanH said:
Well to paraphrase and confirm my understanding; You believe Labour's current strategy to get elected is not the right way to attract swing voters.

All of the opinion polls indicate that voters have swung back to the Labour Party using this policy. You might think the polls are misleading, or you might mean something else that I'm missing?
Click to expand...

No, I am not saying the polls are misleading (although they do tend to underestimate the Conservative vote). I think it's inevitable swing voters would vote against the Tories in the current climate, and they are not doing so as a result of Labour's cautious, Tory-lite campaigning. It's a golden opportunity to have a strong campaign that, whilst including some tactical Tory-lite messaging, pushed for genuine left wing policies such as taxation/wealth redistribution, adequate funding for public services, etc.
 
DanH said:
Well to paraphrase and confirm my understanding; You believe Labour's current strategy to get elected is not the right way to attract swing voters.

All of the opinion polls indicate that voters have swung back to the Labour Party using this policy. You might think the polls are misleading, or you might mean something else that I'm missing?
Click to expand...

Which policy has swung back voters to the Labout Party?
 
DanH said:
Deciding asylum claims more quickly is perfectly sensible.
Click to expand...

The problem, like so much wrong with the country, was caused by austerity.

As long as the system is fair and the pace of deciding doesn't undermine the quality of analysis and lead to vulnerable people being deported incorrectly...
 
Drainy said:
The problem, like so much wrong with the country, was caused by austerity.

As long as the system is fair and the pace of deciding doesn't undermine the quality of analysis and lead to vulnerable people being deported incorrectly...
Click to expand...

Obviously, but there is nothing wrong with putting resource into deciding claims more quickly, and if it can save money on things like hotel stays then it would be a good policy.
Leaving people in a state of suspense and temporary living accommodation is both costly and unfair on them.
 
DanH said:
Obviously, but there is nothing wrong with putting resource into deciding claims more quickly, and if it can save money on things like hotel stays then it would be a good policy.
Leaving people in a state of suspense and temporary living accommodation is both costly and unfair on them.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The Labour Party should be committed to funding services properly, and it saves 'emergency' spending. Maybe that's the point though for the Tories, spend a tonne of money on private services and have a wedge issue.
 
Drainy said:
Agreed. The Labour Party should be committed to funding services properly, and it saves 'emergency' spending. Maybe that's the point though for the Tories, spend a tonne of money on private services and have a wedge issue.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It's horrible politics over an issue where serious thought is needed about how to achieve fair outcomes for all involved.
 
DanH said:
What would you do with asylum claims? Do you think the time for a decision to be made should stay the same, or maybe longer?
Click to expand...

I happen to think of aslyum claimants as human beings worth empathy, not a problem to remove 'more quickly'.
 
I'm not saying they aren't human, or not worthy of empathy. That's just a silly point.
 
DanH said:
I'm not saying they aren't human, or not worthy of empathy. That's just a silly point.
Click to expand...

Rebuilding a functioning asylum system is a fine goal. "Removing people" rather than "deciding people's claims" seems pretty pointed language though.
 
Frosty said:
I won't buy another one of those mugs until Labour can prove it was made through the forced labour of asylum seekers held on that floating prison in the Channel.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Don’t give them any ideas!


villain said:
But we have to vote for him because... lesser evil or something
Click to expand...
Tbf thats labour voters argument. Starmer argument is we are just like the tories but more effective!
 


When the tories say it then it’s incoming fascism but with Labour it’s called winning “traditional” voters.
 
Fresh after she burnt whatever left of the charade of a two state solution to the ground, Starmer poses for a photo with Tzipi Hotovely.

I'm sure he'll be arguing this meeting never happened by lunchtime tomorrow.

 
Frosty said:
Let's be fair, every major politician in the US and UK are parroting that line. But if Biden tomorrow changed that line, Starmer would immediately follow.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make him / them any less of a clown.
 
Frosty said:
Let's be fair, every major politician in the US and UK are parroting that line. But if Biden tomorrow changed that line, Starmer would immediately follow.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the whole issue, we shouldn't be waiting for our politicians to be following America's line. Even other nations who have close ties with the US are calling for a ceasefire.
 
He doesn't even know what working class means. Any time he's asked a question that he doesn't have a script written for, he's like a rabbit in the headlights.
 
Badunk said:
He doesn't even know what working class means. Any time he's asked a question that he doesn't have a script written for, he's like a rabbit in the headlights.
Click to expand...
I agree with Keir. When I look at the Labour Party I get a nagging voice that says this isn’t for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.