Keir Starmer

[Rascal]

I think you may misunderstand how the Overton window shifts. "Politicians respond to the public’s definition of the window, not the other way around."

I am sorry that is not how it works, politicians shift public perceptions by moving the window, They may try and push very right wing policies that result in the public shifting to the right as they become acceptable, it moves in increments as politicians move one way or another and test what is acceptable in the public discourse.

Public perceptions may influence politicians, but the harder say Patel gets on immigration, the further rightwards the window goes because it becomes acceptable. Politicians can therefore exaggerate the end point as they hope to shift the window by fractions EG immigration will be limited to the 10s of thousands, never achieved but it shifted the window on immigration so controls were made more acceptable to the electorate.

 

[west didsblue]

Not as laughable as claiming the GFA as a legacy of Blair.
Dont want to derail the thread further but for balance...

Exclusive: #Corbyn – Mowlam’s ENVOY, met IRA AND loyalists

Word reached the SKWAWKBOX during the writing of this article that the Sun has been trailing that it’s ‘going big’ on Jeremy Corbyn at 10pm this evening. If it’s preparing a…

skwawkbox.org

Even Paisley saw him as an honest broker

Even the Corbyn fanzine you've provided the link to doesn't say anything other than Ian Paisley's widow said he knew him and liked him as a bit of an afterthought after talking about Tony Benn. No mention of him being an honest broker and no mention of him in the newspaper clips in the article. Putting Corbyn at the same level as Mowlam in the peace process is fantasy even if he did play a small part in setting the scene for the negotiations at some point in the 15 previous years. If there was any documented real contribution made by Corbyn that fanzine would have been all over it.

 

[Postman Pep]

Our system seems to be coupled with the US system where we have a choice of a hard right or a progressive one. Nobody wants a left wing structure and some are getting angry as they had a voice which has now been diminished. So, what do we do?

Although my posts may not suggest it, I am very much a socialist who wants our money to go to looking after our society. I find the governments stance on many issues abhorrent and those of Corbyn to be a real voice within the most. However, I’m also a realist and understand that the people will not always vote with integrity, being blown by their personal situation.

What is the choice? Vote for things like nationalisation and our own circumstances, or vote for a change that would really make a change for those who need it most?

I know where my vote is going.

If we are not already there yet we are on a way to a mirror image of the US for sure. The idea that the alternative on offer to right wing populism is progressive is laughable.

 

[inbetween]

Our system seems to be coupled with the US system where we have a choice of a hard right or a progressive one. Nobody wants a left wing structure and some are getting angry as they had a voice which has now been diminished. So, what do we do?

Although my posts may not suggest it, I am very much a socialist who wants our money to go to looking after our society. I find the governments stance on many issues abhorrent and those of Corbyn to be a real voice within the most. However, I’m also a realist and understand that the people will not always vote with integrity, being blown by their personal situation.

What is the choice? Vote for things like nationalisation and our own circumstances, or vote for a change that would really make a change for those who need it most?

I know where my vote is going.

This coupling is solely because of the polarisation brought about by the media, social media and the various partisan camps surrounding the parties. It's a time where centrists who vote Lib Dem are considered right-wing by Labour and left-wing by Tories. Generally though the country doesn't give a toss and is not engaged at all in politics. If anything the stupidity of Boris and this government will force people to disengage even further.

The Lib Dem vote for me is the most important in the country because neither party can win without it. Labour have to appeal to the centre or they just cannot win. They've never come close without Scotland and they'll never get Scotland back.

The Tories meanwhile have to massage the remain centre-right type group and I suppose that explains their recent voyages into more progressive policies around climate etc. The reality is they're far more likely to win because generally the country will keep the status quo unless a strong opposition exists.

Either way, the fringe voices of the hard-left and hard-right are dead and that's perhaps not a bad thing. The problem really is if we had an election tomorrow then there would be a hung Parliament so now it all depends on what alliances can be formed.

The problem again for Labour is they'll have two choices, do they take the risk of using policy to essentially become and replace the Lib Dems or do they take the risk of aligning themselves to potentially join them in coalition. The Tories always push towards the centre near an election so they'll always be a natural coalition option.

 

[Postman Pep]

Putting Corbyn at the same level as Mowlam in the peace process is fantasy even if he did play a small part in setting the scene for the negotiations at some point in the 15 previous years.

Nobody was doing that. As you acknowledge the peace process didn't happen overnight and there were probably numerous people who helped lay the groundwork over the years before the force of Mowlam's personality helped get it over the line. The fantasy is claiming it as one of Blair's lasting achievements.

 

[blueinsa]

The fantasy is claiming it as one of Blair's lasting achievements.

His lasting achievement was no Tory government being elected in 97, 01 and 05.

Oh to have someone capable of delivering that again eh?

 

[The perfect fumble]

I’m fairly sure that Starmer would not be aiming for an agreement with our European neighbours that benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, and would reverse the most damaging aspects of Brexit. There’s the first difference in the ends of a potential Starmer led government.

I’ll name four things that were implemented by Blair that have stood the test of time. There was the minimum wage, the GFA and devolution of powers to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Also there were constitutional changes including the House of Lords Act 1999 which removed any powers from all but a few hereditary peers that had to be elected to remain. Not sure how you can say there is no legacy.

He was also responsible for huge investment in health and education, and presided over a prosperous period for the country. Of course he could have done more but it’s unfair to say he did nothing that hasn’t stuck.

Blair was not without political skills. Blair and Brown are political giants compared to this shower of shit, which makes the disappointment of the New Labour years even more bitter. Great politicians refashion society, Attlee did it, Thatcher did it, there is a before and after with them. There is no before and after with New Labour.

Imagine for a moment Starmer makes it to No 10, will this country be a fairer more equitable place when he leaves, will the north south divide have been tackled, will there be greater social mobility, less poverty, less crime, less income inequality, more houses, better jobs, better schools, dignity in old age, will the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Will any of these things happen? The answer is almost certainly no.

New Labour was in power for 13 years and until the crash there was eleven years of GDP growth. There was minuscule improvement on some of the above, but on most it was abject failure, because the structural reasons why these things persist were never tackled, because to do so would've required radical change to the established order and New Labour is the established order. New Labour is the cosy alternative to the Tories because it is the Tories, and that's why so many Tories in here are in favour of it.

 

[west didsblue]

Nobody was doing that. As you acknowledge the peace process didn't happen overnight and there were probably numerous people who helped lay the groundwork over the years before the force of Mowlam's personality helped get it over the line. The fantasy is claiming it as one of Blair's lasting achievements.

Mat put Corbyn in the same sentence as Mowlam as being responsible for the donkey work.
We're not going to agree on Blair's contribution or legacy so I'll leave it there.

 

[west didsblue]

Blair was not without political skills. Blair and Brown are political giants compared to this shower of shit, which makes the disappointment of the New Labour years even more bitter. Great politicians refashion society, Attlee did it, Thatcher did it, there is a before and after with them. There is no before and after with New Labour.

Imagine for a moment Starmer makes it to No 10, will this country be a fairer more equitable place when he leaves, will the north south divide have been tackled, will there be greater social mobility, less poverty, less crime, less income inequality, more houses, better jobs, better schools, dignity in old age, will the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Will any of these things happen? The answer is almost certainly no.

New Labour was in power for 13 years and until the crash there was eleven years of GDP growth. There was minuscule improvement on some of the above, but on most it was abject failure, because the structural reasons why these things persist were never tackled, because to do so would've required radical change to the established order and New Labour is the established order. New Labour is the cosy alternative to the Tories because it is the Tories, and that's why so many Tories in here are in favour of it.

This debate about Blair's legacy has been done to death loads of times and we're never going to agree. I personally think he achieved a lot and it's unfortunate that many people just think of Iraq when he gets mentioned as if a different choice would have affected the outcome as Bush was going ahead anyway whatever we did.

 

[The perfect fumble]

This debate about Blair's legacy has been done to death loads of times and we're never going to agree. I personally think he achieved a lot and it's unfortunate that many people just think of Iraq when he gets mentioned as if a different choice would have affected the outcome as Bush was going ahead anyway whatever we did.

You're having this conversation in your head with yourself.

It does not relate in any way to my post.

I bid you a hearty adieu.