Keir Starmer

[Kevinblue10]

You're getting into semantics about what's considered far left. If you class yourself as someone who tends towards Communist ideology, then it's pretty likely your definition of what you consider to be far left or centrist is very different from the electorate's definition.

I'm loosely using the definition of centre ground as based on the average view of the electorate. Based on election results of the last 30 years, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn were too far to the left for the electorate.

I appreciate they were not too far to the left for you, but perhaps the centre ground of the UK electorate is further to the right than you realised.

Blair won 3 elections, Starmer is 10 points ahead in the polls, Brown, Ed Milliband and Corbyn all got trounced in elections, that tells you all you need to know. It can't all be the Daily Mail's fault. They absolutely slaughtered Blair, but he still managed 3 healthy majorities.

I come back to my point, it's a binary choice at the next election - centre left Starmer or Liz fucking Truss.

Those prior elections were when times were good
Guarantee if Corbyn was Labour leader now Labour would be well ahead

 

[mat]

Anyone who pretends Starmer is a Tory in disguise is lying.

Yet he's blocking the selection of a good local candidate with socialist principles being selected to run for a seat and parachuting in Eddie Izzard to it.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Those prior elections were when times were good
Guarantee if Corbyn was Labour leader now Labour would be well ahead

Possibly, who knows?

The only thing I'm arsed about now is getting these cunts out.

 

[Rascal]

Yet he's blocking the selection of a good local candidate with socialist principles being selected to run for a seat and parachuting in Eddie Izzard to it.

We really do need a new party of the left. Let the centrist mugs do there thing, sadly it may well mean more years of the Tories but I am hoping an annilihation of the centrist mugs at the next election finally condemns them to the dustbin of history just like there SDP and Liberal forbears.

Starmers refusal to call for nationalisation of the basic needs industries is the final blow for me.

LABOUR’S road to election victory would be more certain if it presented a raft of policies which tackle the real-life problems faced by the many millions whose living depends on their wages, their pensions or the benefits they have earned and deserve.

Unite’s Sharon Graham has done us a service by pointing out as sharply as she did on BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House programme that the issue is “abhorrent profits” and “what is happening with the cost of living.”

In the face of a self-induced paralysis of government — occasioned by the inability or unwillingness of the two contenders for the leadership of the Tory Party to say what are their proposals for dealing with the energy price crisis — Labour has an open goal.

With its latest proposal, Labour has sent the ball in the right direction but missed the goal mouth.

The fact is that Labour’s £29 billion energy bills scheme is not ambitious enough to cover the anticipated increase in the energy price cap, because it fails to take account of the average consumer’s increased energy in the winter.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates argues that Labour’s scheme to freeze the price cap would cost at least £8 billion more than Labour estimates.

Sir Keir Starmer’s £29bn scheme calls for the government to freeze household energy bills at the springtime 2022 price cap until April next year, rather than letting it shoot up in October 2022 and January 2023.

Labour is silent on whether households should be directly funded to pay bills or the energy companies directly subsidised. Either way this will be our money going to shareholders. Nationalisation is a better option.

Those on the left who have always opposed the privatisation of energy production and distribution can take some satisfaction from the fact that substantial majorities of opinion — encompassing even a majority of Conservative voters — are in favour of public ownership of utilities, rail and mail.

Ownership is key and with the entire sector publicly owned a government, if it so willed, could take such steps as are necessary to ensure continued supplies at reasonable cost.

The French government has increased its majority stake in the national energy enterprise EDF and thus is able to shield the French people from the speculators’ global energy cartel.

We can speculate on the factors that induced the impeccably neoliberal big business-friendly ex-banker who sits in the Elysee to devise this scheme but it seems improbable that President Emmanuel Macron was simply moved by concern for the French people, a majority of whom did not vote for him.

Perhaps he is frightened that to the “gilets jaune” who mobilised against the government when he put the petrol price up might be joined once gain by the “gilets rouge” of the Confederation Generale du Travail.

We have to ask ourselves why, in the face of such broad support for public ownership and the proven value of this in dealing with the energy price crisis, Labour does not attack the Tories where they are weakest.

If Labour is not careful, whoever wins the Tory leadership will come out with a policy that is more radical than Labour’s.

It would be ridiculous if, during a massive wave of pay strikes, Labour remains committed to a minimum wage policy less generous than the Tories’ and at risk from being outflanked on the main issue which shapes the political and economic views of the British people

Just fucking go Starmer, you are fucking useless.

 

[Octavian]

You're getting into semantics about what's considered far left. If you class yourself as someone who tends towards Communist ideology, then it's pretty likely your definition of what you consider to be far left or centrist is very different from the electorate's definition.

I'm loosely using the definition of centre ground as based on the average view of the electorate. Based on election results of the last 30 years, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn were too far to the left for the electorate.

I appreciate they were not too far to the left for you, but perhaps the centre ground of the UK electorate is further to the right than you realised.

Blair won 3 elections, Starmer is 10 points ahead in the polls, Brown, Ed Milliband and Corbyn all got trounced in elections, that tells you all you need to know. It can't all be the Daily Mail's fault. They absolutely slaughtered Blair, but he still managed 3 healthy majorities.

I come back to my point, it's a binary choice at the next election - centre left Starmer or Liz fucking Truss.

Brown wasn’t too far left, he was blamed incorrectly for the dire situation the country was in during the financial crash, when he probably made the best decision of anyone around that time, in bailing out the banks.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

We really do need a new party of the left. Let the centrist mugs do there thing, sadly it may well mean more years of the Tories but I am hoping an annilihation of the centrist mugs at the next election finally condemns them to the dustbin of history just like there SDP and Liberal forbears.

Starmers refusal to call for nationalisation of the basic needs industries is the final blow for me.

LABOUR’S road to election victory would be more certain if it presented a raft of policies which tackle the real-life problems faced by the many millions whose living depends on their wages, their pensions or the benefits they have earned and deserve.

Unite’s Sharon Graham has done us a service by pointing out as sharply as she did on BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House programme that the issue is “abhorrent profits” and “what is happening with the cost of living.”

In the face of a self-induced paralysis of government — occasioned by the inability or unwillingness of the two contenders for the leadership of the Tory Party to say what are their proposals for dealing with the energy price crisis — Labour has an open goal.

With its latest proposal, Labour has sent the ball in the right direction but missed the goal mouth.

The fact is that Labour’s £29 billion energy bills scheme is not ambitious enough to cover the anticipated increase in the energy price cap, because it fails to take account of the average consumer’s increased energy in the winter.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates argues that Labour’s scheme to freeze the price cap would cost at least £8 billion more than Labour estimates.

Sir Keir Starmer’s £29bn scheme calls for the government to freeze household energy bills at the springtime 2022 price cap until April next year, rather than letting it shoot up in October 2022 and January 2023.

Labour is silent on whether households should be directly funded to pay bills or the energy companies directly subsidised. Either way this will be our money going to shareholders. Nationalisation is a better option.

Those on the left who have always opposed the privatisation of energy production and distribution can take some satisfaction from the fact that substantial majorities of opinion — encompassing even a majority of Conservative voters — are in favour of public ownership of utilities, rail and mail.

Ownership is key and with the entire sector publicly owned a government, if it so willed, could take such steps as are necessary to ensure continued supplies at reasonable cost.

The French government has increased its majority stake in the national energy enterprise EDF and thus is able to shield the French people from the speculators’ global energy cartel.

We can speculate on the factors that induced the impeccably neoliberal big business-friendly ex-banker who sits in the Elysee to devise this scheme but it seems improbable that President Emmanuel Macron was simply moved by concern for the French people, a majority of whom did not vote for him.

Perhaps he is frightened that to the “gilets jaune” who mobilised against the government when he put the petrol price up might be joined once gain by the “gilets rouge” of the Confederation Generale du Travail.

We have to ask ourselves why, in the face of such broad support for public ownership and the proven value of this in dealing with the energy price crisis, Labour does not attack the Tories where they are weakest.

If Labour is not careful, whoever wins the Tory leadership will come out with a policy that is more radical than Labour’s.

It would be ridiculous if, during a massive wave of pay strikes, Labour remains committed to a minimum wage policy less generous than the Tories’ and at risk from being outflanked on the main issue which shapes the political and economic views of the British people

Just fucking go Starmer, you are fucking useless.

I suppose I’m classed as a centrist mug. No reason to read any further.

 

[Rascal]

I suppose I’m classed as a centrist mug. No reason to read any further.

Are you, i have no idea what your politics are.

 

[blueinsa]

We really do need a new party of the left. Let the centrist mugs do there thing, sadly it may well mean more years of the Tories but I am hoping an annilihation of the centrist mugs at the next election finally condemns them to the dustbin of history just like there SDP and Liberal forbears.

Starmers refusal to call for nationalisation of the basic needs industries is the final blow for me.

LABOUR’S road to election victory would be more certain if it presented a raft of policies which tackle the real-life problems faced by the many millions whose living depends on their wages, their pensions or the benefits they have earned and deserve.

Unite’s Sharon Graham has done us a service by pointing out as sharply as she did on BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House programme that the issue is “abhorrent profits” and “what is happening with the cost of living.”

In the face of a self-induced paralysis of government — occasioned by the inability or unwillingness of the two contenders for the leadership of the Tory Party to say what are their proposals for dealing with the energy price crisis — Labour has an open goal.

With its latest proposal, Labour has sent the ball in the right direction but missed the goal mouth.

The fact is that Labour’s £29 billion energy bills scheme is not ambitious enough to cover the anticipated increase in the energy price cap, because it fails to take account of the average consumer’s increased energy in the winter.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates argues that Labour’s scheme to freeze the price cap would cost at least £8 billion more than Labour estimates.

Sir Keir Starmer’s £29bn scheme calls for the government to freeze household energy bills at the springtime 2022 price cap until April next year, rather than letting it shoot up in October 2022 and January 2023.

Labour is silent on whether households should be directly funded to pay bills or the energy companies directly subsidised. Either way this will be our money going to shareholders. Nationalisation is a better option.

Those on the left who have always opposed the privatisation of energy production and distribution can take some satisfaction from the fact that substantial majorities of opinion — encompassing even a majority of Conservative voters — are in favour of public ownership of utilities, rail and mail.

Ownership is key and with the entire sector publicly owned a government, if it so willed, could take such steps as are necessary to ensure continued supplies at reasonable cost.

The French government has increased its majority stake in the national energy enterprise EDF and thus is able to shield the French people from the speculators’ global energy cartel.

We can speculate on the factors that induced the impeccably neoliberal big business-friendly ex-banker who sits in the Elysee to devise this scheme but it seems improbable that President Emmanuel Macron was simply moved by concern for the French people, a majority of whom did not vote for him.

Perhaps he is frightened that to the “gilets jaune” who mobilised against the government when he put the petrol price up might be joined once gain by the “gilets rouge” of the Confederation Generale du Travail.

We have to ask ourselves why, in the face of such broad support for public ownership and the proven value of this in dealing with the energy price crisis, Labour does not attack the Tories where they are weakest.

If Labour is not careful, whoever wins the Tory leadership will come out with a policy that is more radical than Labour’s.

It would be ridiculous if, during a massive wave of pay strikes, Labour remains committed to a minimum wage policy less generous than the Tories’ and at risk from being outflanked on the main issue which shapes the political and economic views of the British people

Just fucking go Starmer, you are fucking useless.

That’s a really good post mate and I agree with the bulk of it and I am a centrist mug.

Things have to change in society drastically. Current policy and the way of things is letting us down with increasingly disastrous effect.

Westminster as a whole is seemingly bereft of any idea as to how to change things it seems.

Nationalisation of key industries like energy, rail etc, an end to abhorrent profiteering by the few at the expense of the many and fair working conditions and pay for the millions of us that go out each and every day to make the whole thing work is not too much to expect imo.

 

[metalblue]

We really do need a new party of the left. Let the centrist mugs do there thing, sadly it may well mean more years of the Tories but I am hoping an annilihation of the centrist mugs at the next election finally condemns them to the dustbin of history just like there SDP and Liberal forbears.

Starmers refusal to call for nationalisation of the basic needs industries is the final blow for me.

LABOUR’S road to election victory would be more certain if it presented a raft of policies which tackle the real-life problems faced by the many millions whose living depends on their wages, their pensions or the benefits they have earned and deserve.

Unite’s Sharon Graham has done us a service by pointing out as sharply as she did on BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House programme that the issue is “abhorrent profits” and “what is happening with the cost of living.”

In the face of a self-induced paralysis of government — occasioned by the inability or unwillingness of the two contenders for the leadership of the Tory Party to say what are their proposals for dealing with the energy price crisis — Labour has an open goal.

With its latest proposal, Labour has sent the ball in the right direction but missed the goal mouth.

The fact is that Labour’s £29 billion energy bills scheme is not ambitious enough to cover the anticipated increase in the energy price cap, because it fails to take account of the average consumer’s increased energy in the winter.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates argues that Labour’s scheme to freeze the price cap would cost at least £8 billion more than Labour estimates.

Sir Keir Starmer’s £29bn scheme calls for the government to freeze household energy bills at the springtime 2022 price cap until April next year, rather than letting it shoot up in October 2022 and January 2023.

Labour is silent on whether households should be directly funded to pay bills or the energy companies directly subsidised. Either way this will be our money going to shareholders. Nationalisation is a better option.

Those on the left who have always opposed the privatisation of energy production and distribution can take some satisfaction from the fact that substantial majorities of opinion — encompassing even a majority of Conservative voters — are in favour of public ownership of utilities, rail and mail.

Ownership is key and with the entire sector publicly owned a government, if it so willed, could take such steps as are necessary to ensure continued supplies at reasonable cost.

The French government has increased its majority stake in the national energy enterprise EDF and thus is able to shield the French people from the speculators’ global energy cartel.

We can speculate on the factors that induced the impeccably neoliberal big business-friendly ex-banker who sits in the Elysee to devise this scheme but it seems improbable that President Emmanuel Macron was simply moved by concern for the French people, a majority of whom did not vote for him.

Perhaps he is frightened that to the “gilets jaune” who mobilised against the government when he put the petrol price up might be joined once gain by the “gilets rouge” of the Confederation Generale du Travail.

We have to ask ourselves why, in the face of such broad support for public ownership and the proven value of this in dealing with the energy price crisis, Labour does not attack the Tories where they are weakest.

If Labour is not careful, whoever wins the Tory leadership will come out with a policy that is more radical than Labour’s.

It would be ridiculous if, during a massive wave of pay strikes, Labour remains committed to a minimum wage policy less generous than the Tories’ and at risk from being outflanked on the main issue which shapes the political and economic views of the British people

Just fucking go Starmer, you are fucking useless.

The last thing the left need is further dilution of the left vote with yet another party. If they spent less time being ideological snobs rather than creating a new party - they might actually get somewhere. A great example of this left snobbery is how the left always cite those who don’t hold identical views that are far enough left as [insert insult here] - your post starts with that same tried and tested philosophy. I actually agree with the notion of nationalising our core infrastructure - yet I’m one of those centrist mugs. I have historically voted Tory, I accept there is no perfect party out there for me - I don’t disagree a new party would be great but not one wedded to political ideologies but one wedded to decency and common sense. The left seem so determined to want to discuss decades old ideologies and putting people into boxes they ignore the fact that very few voters fit those boxes. It’s like an Oxford Union debating society. Carry on, it’s intriguing to watch the left tear themselves apart about how left they are whilst simultaneously insulting the centrist/left leaning electorate.

Just on this point: The French government has increased its majority stake in the national energy enterprise EDF and thus is able to shield the French people from the speculators’ global energy cartel.

The french are largely powered with nuclear power - to cap energy bills at 4% has cost them around £8bn… our intervention so far has cost over £9bn. We are where we are, the French had the good sense to opt for nuclear in the late 70s when we had the last energy crisis… we didn’t, few did. Although they now face an expensive refit/replacement cycle which will cost between £400-500bn and the French government is now acquiring that obligation on behalf of the tax payers (assuming a program of 50% renewables and 50% nuclear). Ouch.

 

[mat]

Keith should follow the Biden on route by calling the Tories extremists intent on destroying the country.

The polling would go through the roof.