Keir Starmer

[Ban-jani]

I’ve longed for both major parties to eat themselves and collapse but that’s not going to happen as the Tories are too hell bent on winning at all costs, even employing a man like Cummings to keep them in power.

With that in mind the best case scenario is a strong opposition that holds them to account and keeps standards high. Every single citizen in this country should want a strong Labour Party whatever your political views.

Starmer is infinitely more electable than any other candidate and Corbyn.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I’m content with any economic policy in between the latest Tory manifesto (ignoring the pandemic that’s seen it go out the window) and Ed Miliband’s.

I actually voted for Miliband and quite liked him.

My economic views have always hovered around the centre ground, I’d maybe be right of centre if I was in power.

It’s social views where I differ from the majority.

Its probably easier to herd cats than to write policies that work for enough of the electorate to get elected and not run at a deficit.

 

[Ban-jani]

Its probably easier to herd cats than to write policies that work for enough of the electorate to get elected and not run at a deficit.

That is absolutely true.

I thought Cameron’s austerity was too harsh and it changed society for the worse but then we had to get that deficit down.

Somewhere around Blairism is my economic position.

I think he kept the balance between the two well, if not slightly over egging the spending.

Oh and it’s worth pointing out the financial crash wasn’t his fault or anything to do with New Labour.

Where Blair falls down for me is social policy.

 

[urban genie]

Absolutely. Capitalism is important, but we need the heads of the corporations to be more philanthropic rather than Uber cunts like Bezos and Branson.

A truly enlightened society should not need to rely on philanthropy or charity.

But we are still decades if not centuries from such.


But that is a completely different topic.


Back to Starmer, the appointments tomorrow will be interesting, with us in the middle of a crisis do you change the shadow ministers already working with government on solutions or keep them in place

 

[The perfect fumble]

One of weakest DPPs of recent times according to some of his Labour colleagues. Also denounced as spineless and susceptible to pressure as shadow Brexit minister by the same group. Anybody is an upgrade on Corbyn and he must improve our electoral prospects to some extent a least .

"Our"?

You a member George?

 

[George Hannah]

"Our"?

You a member George?

I've just rejoined now Jezzer's gone along with the succession candidate.

 

[Ban-jani]

How do you socialists feel about it?

@urban genie you’re a reasonable fellow and good poster.

Are you happy with Starmer?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

A truly enlightened society should not need to rely on philanthropy or charity.

But we are still decades if not centuries from such.


But that is a completely different topic.


Back to Starmer, the appointments tomorrow will be interesting, with us in the middle of a crisis do you change the shadow ministers already working with government on solutions or keep them in place

A truly enlightened society will never happen. Humans aren’t clones of each other. Every single one of us has a different view on everything.

The appointments will be interesting and very important.

 

[urban genie]

How do you socialists feel about it?

@urban genie you’re a reasonable fellow and good poster.

Are you happy with Starmer?

I am fine with it, and with raynor but as I said his shadow cabinet will tell what direction he will go in.

I would be a bit concerned with rachel reeves getting chancellor, she is more conservative economically than the last two chancellors and was very pro austerity.

 

[Ban-jani]

I am fine with it, and with raynor but as I said his shadow cabinet will tell what direction he will go in.

I would be a bit concerned with rachel reeves getting chancellor, she is more conservative economically than the last two chancellors and was very pro austerity.

I often wonder why people like that aren’t in the LibDems.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

That is absolutely true.

I thought Cameron’s austerity was too harsh and it changed society for the worse but then we had to get that deficit down.

Somewhere around Blairism is my economic position.

I think he kept the balance between the two well, if not slightly over egging the spending.

Oh and it’s worth pointing out the financial crash wasn’t his fault or anything to do with New Labour.

Where Blair falls down for me is social policy.

I think Blair/New Labour would have been fine if he'd have used the 'peace dividend' from pulling out of Northern Ireland to fund spending and not got into Iraq /Afghanistan. Had this been the case we may well have weathered the financial storm of 2008 a little better and not spent the last decade being governed by cunts.

 

[west didsblue]

Just checked his background, he was brought up in Oxted, a leafy Surrey town, in the top 20 wealth stakes.
A bit like Jezza then.

Totally irrelevant but no doubt what those on the right and equally those on the far left will use as ammunition against him. Ordinary people don’t give a shit where he’s born.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That is absolutely true.

I thought Cameron’s austerity was too harsh and it changed society for the worse but then we had to get that deficit down.

Somewhere around Blairism is my economic position.

I think he kept the balance between the two well, if not slightly over egging the spending.

Oh and it’s worth pointing out the financial crash wasn’t his fault or anything to do with New Labour.

Where Blair falls down for me is social policy.

It’s the seesaw effect. Lurching too far one way always means a lurch the other way to counterbalance.

We had that with Thatcher, although her policies did fix the economy at a time it needed it badly, to the detriment of the working class north. We then had Major, who began to bring it back to the middle, but in the most dreary way imaginable.

Blair brought youthful energy and galvanised our collective mood and did well for about 6 years. Being able to spend more in a period of relative wealth was obviously a major boost to his popularity. He stayed too long and the job wore him down. Iraq, PFI hospitals plague him as a result.

Then the financial crash happened and we then needed some austerity. Brown wasn’t a good leader. A good man with good morals, but didn’t have the charisma needed to get people on his side.

Then came the Tories. The first 5 years they were held in check somewhat by the Lib Dems. The second 5 years brought deeper austerity and people were getting tired of penny pinching. They became disillusioned and saw Brexit as a way to stick two fingers up at the government and vote against them.

Now we have a pandemic, the Tory equivalent of the banking crash.

The next election is going to be very interesting.

 

[Ban-jani]

I think Blair/New Labour would have been fine if he'd have used the 'peace dividend' from pulling out of Northern Ireland to fund spending and not got into Iraq /Afghanistan. Had this been the case we may well have weathered the financial storm of 2008 a little better and not spent the last decade being governed by cunts.

There’s probably a few things he could have done to put us into a better position but I don’t think it’s reasonable to blame them for not knowing the crash was coming.

Many things Blair did determined the following decade though, you’re right there.

I think overall it was a bit of a disaster.

 

[west didsblue]

That is absolutely true.

I thought Cameron’s austerity was too harsh and it changed society for the worse but then we had to get that deficit down.

Somewhere around Blairism is my economic position.

I think he kept the balance between the two well, if not slightly over egging the spending.

Oh and it’s worth pointing out the financial crash wasn’t his fault or anything to do with New Labour.

Where Blair falls down for me is social policy.

What social policies of Blair’s didn’t you like?

 

[The perfect fumble]

I've just rejoined now Jezzer's gone along with the succession candidate.

You joined to vote for Starmer?

 

[Ban-jani]

It’s the seesaw effect. Lurching too far one way always means a lurch the other way to counterbalance.

We had that with Thatcher, although her policies did fix the economy at a time it needed it badly, to the detriment of the working class north. We then had Major, who began to bring it back to the middle, but in the most dreary way imaginable.

Blair brought youthful energy and galvanised our collective mood and did well for about 6 years. Being able to spend more in a period of relative wealth was obviously a major boost to his popularity. He stayed too long and the job wore him down. Iraq, PFI hospitals plague him as a result.

Then the financial crash happened and we then needed some austerity. Brown wasn’t a good leader. A good man with good morals, but didn’t have the charisma needed to get people on his side.

Then came the Tories. The first 5 years they were held in check somewhat by the Lib Dems. The second 5 years brought deeper austerity and people were getting tired of penny pinching. They became disillusioned and saw Brexit as a way to stick two fingers up at the government and vote against them.

Now we have a pandemic, the Tory equivalent of the banking crash.

The next election is going to be very interesting.

I totally agree but I think Brexit was a mixture of that but also the last grasp away from globalisation.

Blair and Straw ran a campaign to radically change Britain and a key area was immigration.

The Tom Bower book, Broken Vows, which was critiqued as more comprehensive than the Chilcot Enquiry, goes over the immigration policy in a lot of detail. Blair and Straw literally banned the word from Cabinet meetings and ripped down every single hurdle migrants needed to get through.

People who weren’t refugees could essentially come to Britain under that status and Straw and Blair knew it.

I recommend the book highly.

I think the working class are opposed to the amount of immigration that happened and I think Brexit was leveller for that too.

Of course there are many who don’t want us in another political union, which is I just admit, seeming my becoming more and more federal and that’s a fair position.

 

[Ban-jani]

What social policies of Blair’s didn’t you like?

I think his purposeful goal to radically change Britain by mass immigration was a disaster for many reasons.

Immigration is a natural and healthy thing but I believe doing it so such scale and without adequate policy on integration, causes lots of social issues and often gives oxygen to the extremes.

There’s nothing wrong with encouraging immigration when it’s needed for specific jobs or there’s a lack of people but Blair’s policy was to tear down every obstacle possible, that controlled immigration.

100,000’s of people came as refugees who weren’t, as a specific example.

I think that eventually fed into a part of Brexit and why immigration became the main policy debate in the 2015 election.

If you’d have given the British public a referendum on mass immigration, it would have got a resounding no.

 

[Shaelumstash]

He is about as electable as dead fish . Labour are truly fucked as a political force

Do you fancy a wager he’ll do better at the next election than Corbyn did at the last one?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

So did Keir, but he’s a champagne socialist, whilst you seem more of an Eton mess.

weird how people shouldn’t be judged on how they were brought up.

Secondary modern for me Alan, so yet again you are wrong. You do like to try and belittle someone with your cheap jibes dont you? Starmer will always be labelled a champagne socialist because he is one. A rich man living in London telling the rest of us how he can emphasise and be in touch with northern working class people. He showed how good he is at that with his self righteous views on Brexit. Those views went down really well with the northern labour voters last December didn't they? I dont dislike the bloke, hes seems nice enough but his main problem is he is out of touch with a large section of his natural voters and will be seen as champagne socialist by many many people including the sections of the press whether you like it or not. Nandy would have been more of a clean break imo.