Keir Starmer

[union city blue]

Yeah agree, but basically he wanted to be leader of a group of people who did not want him to be leader. Having become leader he does nothing to try to bridge that gap. Is it on the MPs to give him a chance, maybe but it all just feels inevitable to me, because of his style. He was never going to even try, in fact I suspect they hoped that the moderate wing would leave in droves - that never happened. What a shit show.

I think you’ve unwittingly stumbled on the crux of the issue with your “basically he wanted to be leader of a group of people who did not want him to be leader.”

The issue is that he had a democratic mandate from hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members for the approach he took. Labour HQ staff had no such mandate. They simply didn’t like his politics and the report is fairly clear that they acted in a factional manner against Corbyn to undermine him and his team, even diverting Party funds during an election to a secret campaign fund to support their favoured MPs. That, for me, is unforgiveable.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I think one reason he put up with starmer and Watson was he was trying to retain some balance - if momentum did totally take over it may have got too close to the days of militant for the electorate to tolerate (imho)

I think Starmer advised him well, it was the other big ticket items he had no control of, which all stemmed from the change of voting that kept him in power.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Whether you agree with his politics or not this is worth a watch and raises some questions about our democracy

 

[bluenova]

I think you’ve unwittingly stumbled on the crux of the issue with your “basically he wanted to be leader of a group of people who did not want him to be leader.”

The issue is that he had a democratic mandate from hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members for the approach he took. Labour HQ staff had no such mandate. They simply didn’t like his politics and the report is fairly clear that they acted in a factional manner against Corbyn to undermine him and his team, even diverting Party funds during an election to a secret campaign fund to support their favoured MPs. That, for me, is unforgiveable.

Their argument is that they were continuing to support a list of candidates that had been agreed, and that the LOTO staff told them to divert funding away from candidates that were anti-Corbyn to a different group who were pro-Corbyn, many of whom were in safe seats. The whole report is full of he said/she said, and doesn't reflect well on anayone. Frankly it's all a huge shit show, and there's a strong argument to expel anyone involved on either side - those that went behind Corbyn's back, and those that leaked the report.

It's ironic that the Peter Mandleson quote about working every day to stop Corbyn is a mantra of some on the left of the party, when we've seen since some of the his biggest fans campaigning every day against the Labour party.

I campaigned in 2017 for Labour, in 2019, in a Jewish area, where I got shouted at in the street, on one occasion when I was out delivering leaflets with my 4 year old son, and I'll be out campaigning at the next election.

When the Tories are ripping themselves apart, it's a shame that so many people who should be supporting Labour (and I'm not directing this at the poster I replied to) are screaming for blood and trying to refight these factional battles.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Starmer has given Labour a genuine chance at winning the next election - for that I’m grateful for him

 

[mat]

Their argument is that they were continuing to support a list of candidates that had been agreed, and that the LOTO staff told them to divert funding away from candidates that were anti-Corbyn to a different group who were pro-Corbyn, many of whom were in safe seats. The whole report is full of he said/she said, and doesn't reflect well on anayone. Frankly it's all a huge shit show, and there's a strong argument to expel anyone involved on either side - those that went behind Corbyn's back, and those that leaked the report.

It's ironic that the Peter Mandleson quote about working every day to stop Corbyn is a mantra of some on the left of the party, when we've seen since some of the his biggest fans campaigning every day against the Labour party.

I campaigned in 2017 for Labour, in 2019, in a Jewish area, where I got shouted at in the street, on one occasion when I was out delivering leaflets with my 4 year old son, and I'll be out campaigning at the next election.

When the Tories are ripping themselves apart, it's a shame that so many people who should be supporting Labour (and I'm not directing this at the poster I replied to) are screaming for blood and trying to refight these factional battles.

To me it's done.

Corbyn was shafted and it's been more than proven. However Starmer has to show he's got a pair and remove the cunts who were slated in the report and start rebuilding faith with the members whom he'd rather suspend/expel for having the audacity of asking questions he doesn't like about the leadership and the direction of the party.

 

[Summerbuzz]

I think you’ve unwittingly stumbled on the crux of the issue with your “basically he wanted to be leader of a group of people who did not want him to be leader.”

The issue is that he had a democratic mandate from hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members for the approach he took. Labour HQ staff had no such mandate. They simply didn’t like his politics and the report is fairly clear that they acted in a factional manner against Corbyn to undermine him and his team, even diverting Party funds during an election to a secret campaign fund to support their favoured MPs. That, for me, is unforgiveable.

But this is exactly what's happening with the Tories. Boris was a membership favourite - Tory MPs then had little truck with him. A bunch resigned, and he got rid of dozens of others before the last election to secure his position. He's still getting rid of them now!

Look what it leads to. Those MPs ALL had democratic mandates - the only mandate with any real legal standing, that of ALL of their constiuents. They were kicked out by the new breed that swept the party.

We are dallying with variants of populism. It's a fucking disaster, because it is deeply at odds with the legal and historic basis of our democracy. It always WILL be a tension.

I give a FUCK about party members in any direction. Mandate, schmandate. Their having their own choice of leader is a wholly modern phenomena. It is open to abuse, because membership to the parties is open. Anyone with a top class social media operation has a chance to take over by swelling the membership to people loyal to them. That stuff costs money and can be hidden from a population completely out of touch with what the Web actually is, and who is paying for you to see their shit. Crucially, it remains largely unregulated.

It's absolute horseshit, and it makes our politics far more like America. Which is the last thing this country ever was about.

This is where it has lead. Boris fucking Johnson! Sabotaging EU membership. Unprecedented cuts and an economic crisis.

Fuck party members. They are nothing compared to the constiuencies of this country. But they've taken over.

Hence, Tory Members will have Liz Truss as PM.

And Labour members would have Corbyn in power. As a face for various people, some of whom are great, others who really don't need serving. At all.

Just like we had Boris in power, who turned out to be there to serve himself, having been handed the crown by others who do not need serving.

 

[The perfect fumble]

To me it's done.

Corbyn was shafted and it's been more than proven. However Starmer has to show he's got a pair and remove the cunts who were slated in the report and start rebuilding faith with the members whom he'd rather suspend/expel for having the audacity of asking questions he doesn't like about the leadership and the direction of the party.

More chance of making ice cubes in my garden.

For Starmer the party is the problem.

 

[mat]

More chance of making ice cubes in my garden.

For Starmer the party is the problem.

Like B.Liar; Whom he admits he talks to for "advice." Sir Keir wants the Labour Party to be mould of the US Democratic party. Saying the right things but rarely acting on them whilst happily joining the neo liberal train.

 

[union city blue]

Their argument is that they were continuing to support a list of candidates that had been agreed, and that the LOTO staff told them to divert funding away from candidates that were anti-Corbyn to a different group who were pro-Corbyn, many of whom were in safe seats. The whole report is full of he said/she said, and doesn't reflect well on anayone. Frankly it's all a huge shit show, and there's a strong argument to expel anyone involved on either side - those that went behind Corbyn's back, and those that leaked the report.

It's ironic that the Peter Mandleson quote about working every day to stop Corbyn is a mantra of some on the left of the party, when we've seen since some of the his biggest fans campaigning every day against the Labour party.

I campaigned in 2017 for Labour, in 2019, in a Jewish area, where I got shouted at in the street, on one occasion when I was out delivering leaflets with my 4 year old son, and I'll be out campaigning at the next election.

When the Tories are ripping themselves apart, it's a shame that so many people who should be supporting Labour (and I'm not directing this at the poster I replied to) are screaming for blood and trying to refight these factional battles.

Like you I’ve retained my membership and continued to campaign for Labour but days like today really test my resolve to remain.

I will take issue with your comment about Corbyn ordering funding away from candidates who were anti-Corbyn. It’s simply not true. The reverse happened, and Labour staffers at HQ set up a secret fund, without authority, to support anti-Corbyn candidates at the expense of putting resources into winnable seats. I’ll give you an example: I know for an absolute fact that people were directed by the Party machine to support Alison McGovern, a prominent member of Progress, in Wirral South which was far safer than Wirral West, held by Corbyn supporter Margaret Greenwood. Her seat was marginal and Alison’s wasn’t, but one supported Corbyn and the other didn’t and so the one that didn’t had money and people directed to her constituency. It was factional and it waswrong.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Isn't redirecting (party) funds without authorisation a criminal offence (fraud)?

 

[johnnytapia]

I want to know what differentiates Labour from the Tories, right now. What’s Labour offering on:
Public Pay
Rail dispute
NHS funding
Tax
Northern Ireland
Education
Transport
Electoral laws
House of Lords reform
Pensions
Care for the elderly
University tuition
Climate
Brexit
Immigration

What are they offering that is significantly different on the above and all points in between? Cos I ain’t hearing it.

If I take one example, education, what is Kier offering that I, as a dad and as a teacher can see is significantly different from the bollocks dished up by Truss, Sunsk etc?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I want to know what differentiates Labour from the Tories, right now. What’s Labour offering on:
Public Pay
Rail dispute
NHS funding
Tax
Northern Ireland
Education
Transport
Electoral laws
House of Lords reform
Pensions
Care for the elderly
University tuition
Climate
Brexit
Immigration

What are they offering that is significantly different on the above and all points in between? Cos I ain’t hearing it.

If I take one example, education, what is Kier offering that I, as a dad and as a teacher can see is significantly different from the bollocks dished up by Truss, Sunsk etc?

Not sure if anything has changed but their manifesto pledge was quite clear.

Labour Education Manifest

Labour’s schools policy will be built on the following four foundations:

1. Investment – we will make sure schools are properly resourced by reversing the Conservatives’ cuts and ensuring that all schools have the resources they need. We will introduce a fairer funding formula that leaves no school worse off while redressing the historical underfunding of certain schools. Labour will also invest in new school buildings, including the phased removal of asbestos from existing schools
2. Quality – we will drive up standards across the board, learning from examples of best practice, such as Labour’s London Challenge, to encourage co-operation and strong leadership across schools. We trust in teachers and support staff professionalism to refocus their workload on what happens in the classroom
3. Accountability – Labour will ensure that all schools are democratically accountable, including appropriate controls to see that they serve the public interest and their local communities. We will require joined-up admissions policies across local schools to enable councils to fulfil their responsibilities on child places, to simplify the admissions process for parents and to ensure that no child slips through the net
4. Inclusion – Every child is unique, and a Labour-led education system will enable each to find their learning path through a wide choice of courses and qualifications. We will invest in measures to close the attainment gap between children from different backgrounds

 

[bluenova]

Like you I’ve retained my membership and continued to campaign for Labour but days like today really test my resolve to remain.

I will take issue with your comment about Corbyn ordering funding away from candidates who were anti-Corbyn. It’s simply not true. The reverse happened, and Labour staffers at HQ set up a secret fund, without authority, to support anti-Corbyn candidates at the expense of putting resources into winnable seats. I’ll give you an example: I know for an absolute fact that people were directed by the Party machine to support Alison McGovern, a prominent member of Progress, in Wirral South which was far safer than Wirral West, held by Corbyn supporter Margaret Greenwood. Her seat was marginal and Alison’s wasn’t, but one supported Corbyn and the other didn’t and so the one that didn’t had money and people directed to her constituency. It was factional and it waswrong.

That's not what I said though. I said they're claiming they were asked to do the opposite but didn't. The Forde report says this was also wrong, but couldn't be verified as he was told the pressure to change was verbal - and given that Corbyn and others on his side wouldn't answer questions from Forde, he would have found that harder to dismiss. Whether it's true or not, we genuinely don't know. Forde clearly doesn't, despite all that time investigating, and the likes of Novara, Owen Jones etc., appeared happy with the job he'd done - so I don't think we can say something isn't true.

As for the Wirral seats, if you remember, there were local elections AFTER Theresa May had called the general election. These were a disaster for Labour, and supported the poor polling at the time. So when funding was allocated, they were expected to lose seats. Wirral West, which was a wafer thin would have been written off as unwinnable. Given the polling and the actual local election results, putting money into Wirral South would have been the right decision AT THE TIME.

I was also in a seat which was considered marginal, but ended up quite a safe win, but the MP was genuinely worried throughout the campaign, and Labour internal polling was backing up all the national pools, and telling him that it was neck and neck.

Ultimately, Theresa May turned out to be about the worst election campaigner possible, and Corbyn, on his beat behaviour played a blinder (I think most people thought he had horns and a trident and were surprised to find that he was actually pretty normal), and it turned out to be a lot closer than most polling, and the actual local elections predicted.

If they'd been more positive in 2017, they might have got closer to May, but then you could also argue that in 2019 they should have been more defensive.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Not sure if anything has changed but their manifesto pledge was quite clear.

What has changed and why Starmer is in a difficult place is the Tories/Brexit has totally fucked the economy. We already have the highest tax burden in living memory and are running on a massive deficit while infaltion is driving key workers in to poverty and the NHS is at breaking point.

I remember David Cameron banging on about fixing the roof when the weather was good. Well Johnson has dismantled the roof and burnt the wood.

So Starmers offering will be a bit lighter weight than the last manifesto. But there are good reasons for that.

 

[bluenova]

I want to know what differentiates Labour from the Tories, right now. What’s Labour offering on:
Public Pay
Rail dispute
NHS funding
Tax
Northern Ireland
Education
Transport
Electoral laws
House of Lords reform
Pensions
Care for the elderly
University tuition
Climate
Brexit
Immigration

What are they offering that is significantly different on the above and all points in between? Cos I ain’t hearing it.

If I take one example, education, what is Kier offering that I, as a dad and as a teacher can see is significantly different from the bollocks dished up by Truss, Sunsk etc?

There was an interesting interview with Rachel Reeves recently, where she was clear that they didn't want to make that case yet.

They were happy with the windfall tax being picked up by the Tories, but if you look at the detail of the Tory version, it's a very different beast. Labour don't want to put out a full list of commitments now, and see the Tories pick off the best ideas, and present right wing versions of them which would make it more difficult to differentiate.

She was certain that they had the ideas in place to fight an election, but when you're fighting a populist government which has a very loose relationship with ethics, they needed to be more clever with when they presented ideas.

Could be a load of bollocks, and she's bluffing, but it does make sense. It's also pretty much what every other opposition has done over the years.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

...

Could be a load of bollocks, and she's bluffing, but it does make sense. It's also pretty much what every other opposition has done over the years.

It's what I'd assumed was the case. The Conservatives have adopted various other policies put forward by Labour last time around, and I'm sure they would pick and re-tool what they could.

Currently, the govt don't seem to have much planned that is popular rather than punishment, and the election is not for 2 years, and maybe 2 1/2 years, I'd just let them stew and argue with themselves, and see what Zahawiism brings (if indeed it survives past early September).

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The very fact that people are unaware of starmers policy ideas is the more immediate problem than what they actually are. He can have the best manifesto in the world, but unless it is communicated and resonates it may as well not exist. He seems to have quietly abandoned the 10 pledges he used to grab the labour leadership and to be hoping he gets in at the next few by default just because he isn't Boris

 

[BlueHammer85]

brilliant from Starmer that

quoting all the Tory candidates arguments from the other night

 

[johnnytapia]

Not sure if anything has changed but their manifesto pledge was quite clear.

Labour Education Manifest

Labour’s schools policy will be built on the following four foundations:

1. Investment – we will make sure schools are properly resourced by reversing the Conservatives’ cuts and ensuring that all schools have the resources they need. We will introduce a fairer funding formula that leaves no school worse off while redressing the historical underfunding of certain schools. Labour will also invest in new school buildings, including the phased removal of asbestos from existing schools
2. Quality – we will drive up standards across the board, learning from examples of best practice, such as Labour’s London Challenge, to encourage co-operation and strong leadership across schools. We trust in teachers and support staff professionalism to refocus their workload on what happens in the classroom
3. Accountability – Labour will ensure that all schools are democratically accountable, including appropriate controls to see that they serve the public interest and their local communities. We will require joined-up admissions policies across local schools to enable councils to fulfil their responsibilities on child places, to simplify the admissions process for parents and to ensure that no child slips through the net
4. Inclusion – Every child is unique, and a Labour-led education system will enable each to find their learning path through a wide choice of courses and qualifications. We will invest in measures to close the attainment gap between children from different backgrounds

Not a criticism of you, but most of that is just generalised, twee bollocks. “Every child is unique.” And most, if not all of those “policies” could be lifted direct from Tory HQ.