Keir Starmer

[mexico1970]

Momentum to hijack the vote in 5...4...3...2...

The death of Labour in one picture.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Didn't realise it was a thing or a discussion point.

It wasn't till she mentioned it.
I think she mentioned it as part of her "equal rights for the disabled" policy stance, again something that I agree with her on.

 

[The perfect fumble]

How did that even come up?

It isn't difficult to find out.

 

[blueinsa]

The death of Labour in one picture.

Puppets whose strings are well and truly pulled by momentum, McCluskey and to a large extent, Corbyn and McDonnell still.

 

[The perfect fumble]

It wasn't till she mentioned it.
I think she mentioned it as part of her "equal rights for the disabled" policy stance, again something that I agree with her on.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-limit-should-not-be-different-for-disability

(She) defended the right of people with anti-abortion views to hold elected office and said she would play a part in ensuring the views of the Catholic church were heard in any Labour consultation on new laws and regulations on abortion.

She also wrote about how her Catholic faith motivated her and taught her that “the only society we should be striving for is one based on love”.

“In those dark times, when I wonder if I am making the right decisions, my faith is often the only thing that keeps me going. In those quiet moments before sleep every night, I always pray for help and strength in doing the right thing, making the right decisions and making my time worthy of helping those around me as I truly want to,”

 

[Ban-jani]

Don't agree with that mate.

People see no sense nor value in wholesale nationalisations. They may be in favour of rail re-nationalisation but that is honestly because most people don't understand the core reasons as to why the train services are currently how they are. (it's because the subsidy the government puts in, is not enough (if we want cheap, high quality rail services) and because Network Rail - which is already government owned and run - is a shambles. Train companies being privately owned, or not, has fuck all to do with it - they only make 3% profit, so they are hardly "fat cats").

But renationalising the water companies? The electricity companies? People couldn't give a toss and those who do think about it, think what an enormous waste of money that would be and couldn't that money be much better spent.

Similaraly people are not in favour of whacking up tax rates, for the rich or for anyone else for that matter. The thinkers reaiise that there are not enough rich people to pay for everything and understand that huge public spending increases would either not be deliverable or would have to be funded by everyone paying more tax, not just a few. And people don't want to pay more tax. They have aspirations to be higher earners themselves one day, if they are not higher earners already.

They do not regard businesses - and most of all their employers - as "the enemy" against which we should try to get one over and punish with punitive taxes. They understand the need for thriving private sector businesses and want to see policies to encourage that, not the opposite.

Hard left, or even middle left, policies are no longer appealing to a majority of people in this country. That is why Labour keep losing. And as long as they keep on with their position - overt or otherwise - of wanting to tax more so they can spend more - then they will keep losing.

I was talking specifically about the working class heartlands that have been Labour for a very long time. I think they do like left policies but many think the latest manifesto went too far, I mean every broadband expert in the country thought making it free would be a disaster.

I think Brexit did play a huge part, I think their socially liberal policies did too and the fact everyone hates Corbyn, due to his let’s say - chequered background. I think left policies that don’t reach the extremes are what enough people want in these areas, it’s why they voted Labour for so long, just not all smashing it in at once, doing it gradually.

 

[hilts]

Momentum to hijack the vote in 5...4...3...2...

Come a long way from deb ‘n’ hair and Morrison’s

 

[Chippy_boy]

The responsibility for rail failure needs much more attention. TOCs say 75% (?) of lateness is down to network failure.
TOCs tend to overbid for franchise and are shambolic in the face of major change e.g. timetable, but generally they perform ok.
I am old enough to have commuted and travelled intercity under BR and EVERYTHING was much worse: rolling stock, reliability, customer services etc.
Under nationalization, investment in rail was cut by 30% to paltry levels. Hardly surprising: no votes in it. We are now paying the price for years of underinvestment. On the day of privatisation, UK was 25th in the table of electrification, just behind Roumania.
I dont care politically who runs the railway, but the idea that renationalization is a cure is the triumph of hope over experience.

Spot on. Absolutely spot on. If we want better rail services, then *someone* needs to pay for it - either through higher ticket prices, or by higher government subsidy funded by taxation. Or both. But to imagine simply changing ownership will fix anything, is pure fantasy. Who owns it, is not the issue, so changing who owns it, won't change anything. Actually it would probably make it worse since once under government ownership, no-one would give a toss about poor performance.

 

[Mike D]

There's many would probably disagree with your view and your analysis mate. You may have noticed the 80 seat Tory majority.

Didn't know he was actually Boris Johnson

 

[Chippy_boy]

I was talking specifically about the working class heartlands that have been Labour for a very long time. I think they do like left policies but many think the latest manifesto went too far, I mean every broadband expert in the country thought making it free would be a disaster.

I think Brexit did play a huge part, I think their socially liberal policies did too and the fact everyone hates Corbyn, due to his let’s say - chequered background. I think left policies that don’t reach the extremes are what enough people want in these areas, it’s why they voted Labour for so long, just not all smashing it in at once, doing it gradually.

Maybe.

I don't doubt there's some truth in much of what you say, and the Corbyn factor was certainly a part of it. Millions of people regard him as an loathesome twat they could never bring themselves to vote for.

But I wonder also the extent to which the entire country has simply steadily, gradually but continually and progressively, moved rightwards. No more shipbuilders, miners, very few steelworkers. The big smelly old factories are largely gone, and with them, very many "traditional Labour voters". Of course demographic changes and voting habits don't change overnight, but has this not been happening for 50 years? We are not yet at peak "Tory Britain" and that being the case there will still be *some* Labour heartland. I just don't think there's as much of it as there used to be. And one by one, individuals from long-standing Labour voting families, are not voting Labour any more.

That's why IMO for Labour to have any chance they need to be much more moderate. A moderate centre-ground Labour party such as that led by Blair, can still appeal to those disaffected and who consider that "Old Labour" doesn't offer them anything any more. Labour can carry on being "Old Labour" for sure, but the pool of voters to appeal to on that basis, dwindles smaller by the day.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

It isn't difficult to find out.

"Help the many, not the few" but can't even provide a link where someone's kindly asked.

 

[Hoghead]

Spot on. Absolutely spot on. If we want better rail services, then *someone* needs to pay for it - either through higher ticket prices, or by higher government subsidy funded by taxation. Or both. But to imagine simply changing ownership will fix anything, is pure fantasy. Who owns it, is not the issue, so changing who owns it, won't change anything. Actually it would probably make it worse since once under government ownership, no-one would give a toss about poor performance.

Shortly after the rail network was renationalised by the council clerk, the company I worked for at the time were recruiting commercial staff (quantity surveyors etc). The number of applicants that we received from the rail industry was significant and of a younger age than expected. When asked why they wanted to leave a safe and secure Job, the majority said lack prospects, opportunity etc primarily due to those with the years in got promoted and were never challenged and never changed. With the renationalisation most felt this would get only worse. Over the last 18 years, I don't think network rail has achieved any target and is responsible for over 60% over train delays.
Though I have no issue with a nationalised rail structure if heads are on the block for failure, I think the running of the rolling stock and stations would be better served with a mixture of state and private enterprise. The state is pretty good at capital projects but crap at maintenance and running them, in my humble opinion.

 

[Ban-jani]

Maybe.

I don't doubt there's some truth in much of what you say, and the Corbyn factor was certainly a part of it. Millions of people regard him as an loathesome twat they could never bring themselves to vote for.

But I wonder also the extent to which the entire country has simply steadily, gradually but continually and progressively, moved rightwards. No more shipbuilders, miners, very few steelworkers. The big smelly old factories are largely gone, and with them, very many "traditional Labour voters". Of course demographic changes and voting habits don't change overnight, but has this not been happening for 50 years? We are not yet at peak "Tory Britain" and that being the case there will still be *some* Labour heartland. I just don't think there's as much of it as there used to be. And one by one, individuals from long-standing Labour voting families, are not voting Labour any more.

That's why IMO for Labour to have any chance they need to be much more moderate. A moderate centre-ground Labour party such as that led by Blair, can still appeal to those disaffected and who consider that "Old Labour" doesn't offer them anything any more. Labour can carry on being "Old Labour" for sure, but the pool of voters to appeal to on that basis, dwindles smaller by the day.

You are right and maybe I was a little too willing to say they’d have won adopting SDP’s position. There is no real evidence a left wing majority is possible in this country but the key question for me is - is it economics or is it social? - we’ve not had a socially conservative left wing party since, well, Labour prior to the 70’s.

That’s the fundamental question in 2020 for me politically. Why isn’t there social conservativism? Peter Hitchens, a man worth listening to in my opinion, is in the Mail calling Johnson a Blairite. He does have a point, well until you realise Patel is Home Secretary.

The point I’m waffling about is - could Labour win going to the right socially, whilst maintaining leftist economics?

I don’t think it’s clear but they’d certainly do better.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Momentum to hijack the vote in 5...4...3...2...

Sorry, I got confused...I thought you were just counting Labour's seats at the next General Election.

"Only 12 seats for Labour and Momentum said to me...

12 MPs
11 Lib Dems
10 years of Boris
9 investigations
8 money trees
7 percent swings
6 more suspensions
5 years of Corbyn
4 day weeks
3 quid membership
2 Corbynistas
And a Tory as PM

 

[Chippy_boy]

Sorry, I got confused...I thought you were just counting Labour's seats at the next General Election.

"Only 12 seats for Labour and Momentum said to me...

12 MPs
11 Lib Dems
10 years of Boris
9 investigations
8 money trees
7 percent swings
6 more suspensions
5 years of Corbyn
4 day weeks
3 quid membership
2 Corbynistas
And a Tory as PM

Is that all your own work?

I have to say, it's VERY good :-)

 

[The perfect fumble]

"Help the many, not the few" but can't even provide a link where someone's kindly asked.

I'm one of them champagne socialists.

 

[robbieh]

You are right and maybe I was a little too willing to say they’d have won adopting SDP’s position. There is no real evidence a left wing majority is possible in this country but the key question for me is - is it economics or is it social? - we’ve not had a socially conservative left wing party since, well, Labour prior to the 70’s.

That’s the fundamental question in 2020 for me politically. Why isn’t there social conservativism? Peter Hitchens, a man worth listening to in my opinion, is in the Mail calling Johnson a Blairite. He does have a point, well until you realise Patel is Home Secretary.

The point I’m waffling about is - could Labour win going to the right socially, whilst maintaining leftist economics?

I don’t think it’s clear but they’d certainly do better.

There are plenty of socially conservative countries out there we could take a lead from. Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, but I don't think you'd like it much.

 

[Ban-jani]

There are plenty of socially conservative countries out there we could take a lead from. Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, but I don't think you'd like it much.

Well thank you for the patronising tone and the respect shown to my views, it’s a wonder why your politics are so unpopular with your friendly approach.

For the record the likes of Attlee and Bevan had many socially conservative views. You know the guys the left hold up as gods? Both voted to keep the death penalty throughout their lives, even after they lost power.

All three of those countries you’ve named aren’t proper democracies, which is totally at odds with British conservatism, two of them have their leadership based on religious fundamentalism, a religion the conservative movement in the UK rejects and the other is ruled by a former KGB thug.

British Conservatism, based on our traditions, has very very little in common with those three regimes and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about.

 

[AlgarveBlu]

Maybe.

I don't doubt there's some truth in much of what you say, and the Corbyn factor was certainly a part of it. Millions of people regard him as an loathesome twat they could never bring themselves to vote for.

But I wonder also the extent to which the entire country has simply steadily, gradually but continually and progressively, moved rightwards. No more shipbuilders, miners, very few steelworkers. The big smelly old factories are largely gone, and with them, very many "traditional Labour voters". Of course demographic changes and voting habits don't change overnight, but has this not been happening for 50 years? We are not yet at peak "Tory Britain" and that being the case there will still be *some* Labour heartland. I just don't think there's as much of it as there used to be. And one by one, individuals from long-standing Labour voting families, are not voting Labour any more.

That's why IMO for Labour to have any chance they need to be much more moderate. A moderate centre-ground Labour party such as that led by Blair, can still appeal to those disaffected and who consider that "Old Labour" doesn't offer them anything any more. Labour can carry on being "Old Labour" for sure, but the pool of voters to appeal to on that basis, dwindles smaller by the day.

this all day long! As you’ve rightly pointed out the very Dynamics of the UK’s employment structure and industries has changed considerably and moved away from Heavy manufacturing to the services sector, moving forward the future keeps pointing in that direction with the UK looking to become leaders in the bio tech sector, Artificial intelligence and of course the finance sector - but let’s see how a post Brexit UK fairs with the eu on this sector as this could easily go either way if handled badly, the EU have always disliked London’s global prominence in finance and would dearly love to take chunks of it.

this 70s trade union like mentality with multiple re-nationalization programs they want to bring in is just not compatible with the world we live in today or even this century and couple that with their economic illiteracy they become simply unelectable. Yet labors puppet masters incredibly believe that the architect of the last manifesto is a gateway to future victory and power! The mind truly boggles and they live in a parallel dimension to reality.

 

[robbieh]

Well thank you for the patronising tone and the respect shown to my views, it’s a wonder why your politics are so unpopular with your friendly approach.

For the record the likes of Attlee and Bevan had many socially conservative views. You know the guys the left hold up as gods? Both voted to keep the death penalty throughout their lives, even after they lost power.

All three of those countries you’ve named aren’t proper democracies, which is totally at odds with British conservatism, two of them have their leadership based on religious fundamentalism, a religion the conservative movement in the UK rejects and the other is ruled by a former KGB thug.

British Conservatism, based on our traditions, has very very little in common with those three regimes and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Just finished reading a book about a post war murder. Two things are perhaps relevant to this thread. You are quite correct Attlees government did not abolish capital punishment because most Labour voters were in favour of it. This accords with what you said earlier that there is a strong streak of social conservatism running through working class Labour support.
Secondly the author of the book a child of the late 40s was grateful to the socialist policies of Attlee's government. Free school fees, fares, textbooks, public library card, spectacles, braces on her teeth, concentrated orange juice and cod liver oil.
My comment to you was tongue in cheek, and I didn't intend to patronise.