Keir Starmer Labour Leader

nickm said:
Not so sure about that. Phone scams and related fraud are a massive problem. According to Ofcom, 45 million people in the UK were targeted by scammers in the summer of 2021. 45 million!
Click to expand...
Oh yeah it’s definitely a problem but given everything else that is happening. Also I wouldn’t expect a hour long breakdown on how Labour plan to crackdown on scam calls but it did seem very vague.
 
Last edited:
FireballXL5 said:
Way to go Keir...

Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters

Results show campaign caused more harm to Keir Starmer’s party than a Tory poster accusing Labour leader of being soft on crime

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
Click to expand...
Since they’ve been moving further and further to the right, their polling figures have been moving closer and closer to the Tories and yet every new poll that comes out with the gap closing seems to illicit the response “we’re losing ground on them, suggest that most migrants are transgender and need to be neutered!”
 
Pexbo said:
Since they’ve been moving further and further to the right, their polling figures have been moving closer and closer to the Tories and yet every new poll that comes out with the gap closing seems to illicit the response “we’re losing ground on them, suggest that most migrants are transgender and need to be neutered!”
Click to expand...
that's not why the gap is narrowing, labours numbers have stayed at around 44%. The Tories are coming off a flat lining number because Tory don't knows / reform types are moving back.to them.
 
Sweet Square said:
Sums up the current Labour Party



Click to expand...


This sums up a total lack of understanding of negotiating. No one expects 35% and it isn't realistic, the initial ask is so high so that's there room to compromise. There's nothing wrong with saying a 35% raise isn't affordable or realistic because it isn't, that's the point of an opening number
 
jm99 said:
This sums up a total lack of understanding of negotiating. No one expects 35% and it isn't realistic, the initial ask is so high so that's there room to compromise. There's nothing wrong with saying a 35% raise isn't affordable or realistic because it isn't, that's the point of an opening number
Click to expand...

Surely you can see the irony in that first line? How do you think the Labour Shadow Health Secretary rubbishing the union's demands live on television will impact their negotiating position? It was basically free PR for the Tories - "Even Labour think the union demands are unreasonable!"

The issue isn't necessary that Streeting wouldn't give the junior doctors the 35% rise, it's that he's desperate to come across as anti-union (because it's "electable" or whatever) and doesn't really care if he helps the Tories feck the junior doctors over in the process.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Surely you can see the irony in that first line? How do you think the Labour Shadow Health Secretary rubbishing the union's demands live on television will impact their negotiating position? It was basically free PR for the Tories - "Even Labour think the union demands are unreasonable!"

The issue isn't necessary that Streeting wouldn't give the junior doctors the 35% rise, it's that he's desperate to come across as anti-union (because it's "electable" or whatever) and doesn't really care if he helps the Tories feck the junior doctors over in the process.
Click to expand...

It's more that Labour don't want to be seen endorsing these strikes because if anyone dies as a result of them, the media will frame it as "Labour's strikes killed these people."
 
jm99 said:
It's more that Labour don't want to be seen endorsing these strikes because if anyone dies as a result of them, the media will frame it as "Labour's strikes killed these people."
Click to expand...

All I see is a party inceasingly fearful of saying anything progressive in case it is framed negatively.

I'm lucky in that my seat is Labour held with a 15k+ majority.

But I cannot vote for them in the upcoming locals, not least for the rampant bigotry and transphobia.

I do not know what I would do in a GE if my vote was important.

The party's strategy has been to move to the centre and right knowing the left have nowhere else to go. I understand. This country is not left wing and never has been.

But if they lose they cannot turn round and hold progressive voters responsible for the loss if we cannot vote for them.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Surely you can see the irony in that first line? How do you think the Labour Shadow Health Secretary rubbishing the union's demands live on television will impact their negotiating position? It was basically free PR for the Tories - "Even Labour think the union demands are unreasonable!"

The issue isn't necessary that Streeting wouldn't give the junior doctors the 35% rise, it's that he's desperate to come across as anti-union (because it's "electable" or whatever) and doesn't really care if he helps the Tories feck the junior doctors over in the process.
Click to expand...
Well, also that when Labour get into power they will be faced with the same basic problem that there isn't any money. If you think Starmer is disappointing now, wait until they have to deal with the legacy of shite bequeathed by the Tories.
 
Frosty said:
All I see is a party inceasingly fearful of saying anything progressive in case it is framed negatively.

I'm lucky in that my seat is Labour held with a 15k+ majority.

But I cannot vote for them in the upcoming locals, not least for the rampant bigotry and transphobia.

I do not know what I would do in a GE if my vote was important.

The party's strategy has been to move to the centre and right knowing the left have nowhere else to go. I understand. This country is not left wing and never has been.

But if they lose they cannot turn round and hold progressive voters responsible for the loss if we cannot vote for them.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. People who refused to vote for Labour at the last election were responsible for the tories win, and people who refuse to vote for them this time will also be responsible.
 
nickm said:
Well, also that when Labour get into power they will be faced with the same basic problem that there isn't any money. If you think Starmer is disappointing now, wait until they have to deal with the legacy of shite bequeathed by the Tories.
Click to expand...

Frankly, this is exactly the kind of myopic, short-term logic which has gotten us into this situation. Low pay in the public sector costs the government more in inefficiencies and disruption (inability to retain quality people, worse working environments and conditions, delay/duplication/lower quality of work due to staff turnover, the cost of constant recruitment and training campaigns, having to bring in additional resource from the private sector to cover skills/resourcing gaps) than it would cost to fix. One of the reasons there is no money is because we are constantly wasting money on inefficiencies and desperate short-term fixes which we could have avoided by stumping some up in the first place.

If the Labour Party were serious about governing well and in the interests of the country, and if they had any real substance or vision, they'd back themselves to put these arguments to the electorate and get us out of this vicious cycle. Instead, they concede the argument and parrot this financially illiterate back-of-a-napkin shit which guarantees more of the same.
 
Frosty said:
So it wasn't Corbyn's fault but the voters who couldn't vote for him?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you consider yourself left wing and didn't vote for corrbyn you enabled a Johnson government, the problem is corbyn just wasn't electable, starmer might convince people in the centre or soft tories to vote for him, and in this country that matters, I'm actually far closer politically to corbyn than starmer on most issues, but that's irrelevant if you can't get into power with those positions
 
jm99 said:
Yes you can. People who refused to vote for Labour at the last election were responsible for the tories win, and people who refuse to vote for them this time will also be responsible.
Click to expand...

jm99 said:
Yes, if you consider yourself left wing and didn't vote for corrbyn you enabled a Johnson government, the problem is corbyn just wasn't electable, starmer might convince people in the centre or soft tories to vote for him, and in this country that matters, I'm actually far closer politically to corbyn than starmer on most issues, but that's irrelevant if you can't get into power with those positions
Click to expand...

Hmm.

I know this sounds revolutionary but maybe have a leader who is electable, who has some charisma, have policies that benefit both the voters and the country as a whole. A leader who can convince the electorate of those things and not offer the same thing under a different packaging.

Having probably the easiest chance ever for Labour to win, they choose Starmer, who seems as charismatic as a 20W lightbulb and just as dim, as leader who wants to chase after the wrong voters.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Hmm.

I know this sounds revolutionary but maybe have a leader who is electable, who has some charisma, have policies that benefit both the voters and the country as a whole. A leader who can convince the electorate of those things and not offer the same thing under a different packaging.

Having probably the easiest chance ever for Labour to win, they choose Starmer, who seems as charismatic as a 20W lightbulb and just as dim, as leader who wants to chase after the wrong voters.
Click to expand...

Corbyn supporters always remind me of that Brecht poem about dissolving the people to elect a new one.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Hmm.

I know this sounds revolutionary but maybe have a leader who is electable, who has some charisma, have policies that benefit both the voters and the country as a whole. A leader who can convince the electorate of those things and not offer the same thing under a different packaging.

Having probably the easiest chance ever for Labour to win, they choose Starmer, who seems as charismatic as a 20W lightbulb and just as dim, as leader who wants to chase after the wrong voters.
Click to expand...

When was the last time we had a leader in this country significantly to the left of starmer actually take power?

And those statements aren't contradictory, I said if you consider left wing and didn't vote for corbyn you enabled a boris Johnson government, the same way you'd be enabling another sunak government if you don't vote for starmer. The problem for corbyn wasn't the left wing vote it was that nobody in the middle or slightly right of middle would vote for him, this isn't a left wing country and we've not had a proper left wing government for a long time, you actually need to win to be able to do anything so compromise is necessary
 
jm99 said:
When was the last time we had a leader in this country significantly to the left of starmer actually take power?

And those statements aren't contradictory, I said if you consider left wing and didn't vote for corbyn you enabled a boris Johnson government, the same way you'd be enabling another sunak government if you don't vote for starmer. The problem for corbyn wasn't the left wing vote it was that nobody in the middle or slightly right of middle would vote for him, this isn't a left wing country and we've not had a proper left wing government for a long time, you actually need to win to be able to do anything so compromise is necessary
Click to expand...

I'm going under the presumption that more than 50% of the UK electorate aren't xenophobic Brexiters which seem to be the people Starmer is trying to win over. Nothing he has said would convince me to vote for him. Making Brexit work and we'd make sure we'd stop the boats would turn me right off immediately. It's the same rubbish as the Tories but Labour will supposedly do it better. The NHS will work because we are going to start training doctors and nurses who don't want to be trained. In ten years time assuming nobody has left the profession there may be enough. Starmer sounds as if he's just crawled out from under a gooseberry bush and has no clue how the real world works.

Change the leader and the policies and Labour may win. It's their fault if they don't get voted in, not the people who don't vote for them.
 
jm99 said:
Yes you can. People who refused to vote for Labour at the last election were responsible for the tories win, and people who refuse to vote for them this time will also be responsible.
Click to expand...
It's local council elections this time, so we won't be handing the Tories any more seats in Parliament regardless of who we vote for.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I'm going under the presumption that more than 50% of the UK electorate aren't xenophobic Brexiters which seem to be the people Starmer is trying to win over. Nothing he has said would convince me to vote for him. Making Brexit work and we'd make sure we'd stop the boats would turn me right off immediately. It's the same rubbish as the Tories but Labour will supposedly do it better. The NHS will work because we are going to start training doctors and nurses who don't want to be trained. In ten years time assuming nobody has left the profession there may be enough. Starmer sounds as if he's just crawled out from under a gooseberry bush and has no clue how the real world works.

Change the leader and the policies and Labour may win. It's their fault if they don't get voted in, not the people who don't vote for them.
Click to expand...
Being realistic, we need to make brexit work as we are unlikely to rejoin the EU for a while. Stopping the small boats is important, those people should not be risking life and limb to get here, nor should they be reliant on people smugglers. There are more humane ways of stopping the boats, some of which Labour have already mentioned in terms of working closer with France and going after the gangs. They have also talked about safe routes, all of this would be far better and probably more cost effective than the dog whistle Rwanda scheme.
 
Mart1974 said:
Being realistic, we need to make brexit work as we are unlikely to rejoin the EU for a while. Stopping the small boats is important, those people should not be risking life and limb to get here, nor should they be reliant on people smugglers. There are more humane ways of stopping the boats, some of which Labour have already mentioned in terms of working closer with France and going after the gangs. They have also talked about safe routes, all of this would be far better and probably more cost effective than the dog whistle Rwanda scheme.
Click to expand...

All I've heard from Starmer on Brexit is that he thinks he can renegotiate a deal and that the Labour can do Brexit better than the Tories. It's been pretty clear to me that since I first came across him in 2016 that he has no real understanding of the EU or what has been voted for in Brexit. He has expressly said that the Uk would not rejoin the SM or the CU.

There is no deal to negotiate other than slightly improving the Trade deal which will hardly make any difference. There is only one way out and that is to start realigning with the EU asap and eventually many years down the line have a chance to rejoin. Being part of the CU and SM is essential but few people seem to understand this.

Regarding the boats, there is only one solution. Make safe routes available and for the UK to take their fair share. Everything else is dog whistling for the xenophobes and racists. You seriously think that the politicians worry about the safety of people crossing the channel. That could stop virually overnight if there was a will. The gangs are based throughout Europe, including in the UK not just in France.

Starmer is clueless and either very stupid or dishonest or both.

The Uk now have a choice of the vile Tories or a clueless Starmer. It doesn't have to be this way. Who do the sensible people vote for , those who know Brexit can't ever work and who aren't xenophobes and don't want the same rubbish packaged another way. That's millions and millions of people who can only vote LibDems or Greens who everyone know will never get to power under the current system. When is enough, enough?
 
Anyone who thinks Labour won’t mention the £50-60bn Covid ‘losses’ when the GE comes is at best naive. They’ll go after Tory economic record and strike actions and say how even a 50% recovery could pay public sector rises.

People attacking Streeting for confirming they couldn’t give 35% is just daft. That’s why things are called negotiations! You don’t agree to the opening demands but, in good faith, you agree to discuss and negotiate a deal. I’d imagine 15-17.5% would be accepted in a heartbeat. It’s just about how it’s funded.


That said I really do wish they have the balls to go full Rejoin. Polls suggest it’s becoming a winner & when you can use it to strengthen economy, plug gaps in labour market etc, it becomes an even bigger winner.
 
Many on the left consider that opposing the Tories to be fundamental to their political identity without acknowledging the fact that by default it always assumes Tory government. And in the last 44 years we've had Tory rule for 34,
so you can see why that's taken hold.

There is a significant faction of the left that are far more at ease in their own skin opposing Tory rule than feel partially responsible for the actions of a Labour government. Labour is handicapped in someway but an entire generation of left wingers embracing opposition almost as a preferred political choice. Starmer looking like he might oust the Tories makes these people jittery
 
Last edited:
stw2022 said:
Many on the left consider that opposing the Tories to be fundamental to their political identity without acknowledging the fact that by default it always assumes Tory government. And in the last 44 years we've had Tory rule for 34,
so you can see why that's taken hold.

There is a significant faction of the left that are far more at ease in their own skin opposing Tory rule than feel partially responsible for the actions of a Labour government. Labour is handicapped in someway but an entire generation of left wingers embracing opposition almost as a preferred political choice. Starmer looking like he might oust the Tories makes these people jittery
Click to expand...

This is complete nonsense.

Some people eager for Corbyn to take control are not eager for Starmer to do so. Some people who are eager for Starmer to take control were not eager for Corbyn to do so. Your assertion makes just as much sense in the inverse. All you are doing is demonstrating that factions within labour have different policy and leadership preferences.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Imagine having actual policies.

Imagine sticking to the pledges that got you elected.

Crazy.
Click to expand...

By definition the opposition are there because the electorate rejected, at least in part, what they stood on at the last election.

It would be absurd for a party to keep the exact same policies in a new parliament after losing an election
 
Ekkie Thump said:
This is complete nonsense.

Some people eager for Corbyn to take control are not eager for Starmer to do so. Some people who are eager for Starmer to take control were not eager for Corbyn to do so. Your assertion makes just as much sense in the inverse. All you are doing is demonstrating that factions within labour have different policy and leadership preferences.
Click to expand...
No the anti-Corbyn criticism was rooted in fears he wasn't likely to win. The anti-Starmer criticism is grounded by the fear that he might.

The Corbyn fear was well founded. Despite that bizarre 'win-loss' of 2019 where the biggest public proponents of Corbyn's candidacy were dancing with joy at an exit poll that suggested a continuing of Tory rule.

Or the ridiculous assertion that narrowly losing an election was a bigger or comparable achievement to winning 3 on the basis of the popular vote. As if losing a CL final 3-2 is actually better than winning 1-0 on the basis that even though you lost, you scored more goals
 
stw2022 said:
By definition the opposition are there because the electorate rejected, at least in part, what they stood on at the last election.

It would be absurd for a party to keep the exact same policies in a new parliament after losing an election
Click to expand...
Are you aware of Starmers 10 pledges? Because that is what I was referring to.

If he had no intention of sticking to them, he shouldn't have made them.
 
stw2022 said:
No the anti-Corbyn criticism was rooted in fears he wasn't likely to win. The anti-Starmer criticism is grounded by the fear that he might.

The Corbyn fear was well founded. Despite that bizarre 'win-loss' of 2019 where the biggest public proponents of Corbyn's candidacy were dancing with joy at an exit poll that suggested a continuing of Tory rule.

Or the ridiculous assertion that narrowly losing an election was a bigger or comparable achievement to winning 3 on the basis of the popular vote. As if losing a CL final 3-2 is actually better than winning 1-0 on the basis that even though you lost, you scored more goals
Click to expand...

All these strawmen just because you can't accept that left wing criticism could possibly be centred on principle. We are talking about voting here, not criticism. Lots of actual lefties voted for Corbyn didn't they? It was the centre that evacuated. You telling me that fear of losing kept the centrists at home? Seems unlikely. Seems like policy and leadership preferences kept them at home/motivated them to vote for Boris.

I oppose Starmer because I'm sick of voting for a Labour content to stagger vaguely leftwards on a rightward moving train. I'll schlepp to the polls and vote for them (as will most) with a great sense of hopelessness and misery. I have absolutely no belief he will make the country better or fairer or anything else. He'll just be slightly less bad.

That's the meal the leftist always gets to eat, but there's no way we have to pretend to enjoy it lest we be accused of cowardice.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Did you expect him to make a 180 degree U turn on nearly all of them?

Do you like that trait in politicians you vote for?
Click to expand...

This is the bit where I can smugly say I voted for Nandy.

I honestly expected him to find any reason to jettison a number of the pledges, which I assumed would happen swiftly after an economic downturn rather than a global pandemic. I don't like that trait, no, but I was much more pragmatic in 2020 assuming there was an inkling of a master plan.

I did not expect U-turns on all of them, and I foolishly expected him to have learned from Blair and have a number of big centrist policies ready to sell to the electorate. Actually U turns is kind, as it presumed you have endorsed the opposite. There is nothing to replace them with.

I am aware that there hasn't even been the behind the scenes work with unions and economists and policy wonks (like there was with Miliband and Corbyn) which suggests the formulation of big ideas is not being done.
 
Frosty said:
This is the bit where I can smugly say I voted for Nandy.

I honestly expected him to find any reason to jettison a number of the pledges, which I assumed would happen swiftly after an economic downturn rather than a global pandemic. I don't like that trait, no, but I was much more pragmatic in 2020 assuming there was an inkling of a master plan.

I did not expect U-turns on all of them, and I foolishly expected him to have learned from Blair and have a number of big centrist policies ready to sell to the electorate. Actually U turns is kind, as it presumed you have endorsed the opposite. There is nothing to replace them with.

I am aware that there hasn't even been the behind the scenes work with unions and economists and policy wonks (like there was with Miliband and Corbyn) which suggests the formulation of big ideas is not being done.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I didn't mean you voted for him in the leadership contest but meant do you like those traits in a political you could vote for in a GE.

I'm not a Labour member so didn't vote in the leadership election. But I gave Starmer a clean slate when he started as leader, I hoped he would stick to the majority of his pledges. I now see him as unelectable, for my vote.
 
Frosty said:
This is the bit where I can smugly say I voted for Nandy.

I honestly expected him to find any reason to jettison a number of the pledges, which I assumed would happen swiftly after an economic downturn rather than a global pandemic. I don't like that trait, no, but I was much more pragmatic in 2020 assuming there was an inkling of a master plan.

I did not expect U-turns on all of them, and I foolishly expected him to have learned from Blair and have a number of big centrist policies ready to sell to the electorate. Actually U turns is kind, as it presumed you have endorsed the opposite. There is nothing to replace them with.

I am aware that there hasn't even been the behind the scenes work with unions and economists and policy wonks (like there was with Miliband and Corbyn) which suggests the formulation of big ideas is not being done.
Click to expand...

I think Nandy is rank as well but at least she has a personality. Thornberry was the only good choice on offer for me. Competent, likeable, forthright, left enough to be worthwhile, right enough to not upset the liberal capitalist types when coming up against rancid opponents like Boris and Sunak. Great shame nobody wanted her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.