Keir Starmer

[The perfect fumble]

If we’d had Starmer as Labour leader during the referendum, we’d have had a stronger opposition leader‘s voice on the remain side of the debate.

Now, I recognise you, and the rest of the harder left, wanted to leave the EU, but having Starmer as leader in 2016 would have meant we probably wouldn’t have voted to leave the EU, Cameron would still be in charge and the lunatics sidelined.

And if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle, though not necessarily.

 

[Rascal]

Not sure which Miliband you’re referring to, but the way David was screwed by McCluskey and your mates was an absolute fucking disgrace, and a major turning point in modern politics in this country.

Ed didn’t get in partly because of his policies, partly because he a strange, awkward **** who couldn’t lead a dog around a park.

Ed won a legitimate democratic mandate, nobody was screwed over as the Unions had the right to vote for who they considered the best candidate. Why voting for the best candidate is disgraceful is beyond me.

The right wing of the Labour party doesn't like Democracy as they showed when they turned on Corbyn who had twice been elected leader by the membership. They have also showed they are willing to do almost anything to control the party including gerrymandering votes for the NEC by booting out left wing members on spurious grounds.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

And if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle, though not necessarily.

Of course it’s conjecture as it didn’t happen, but the final result was marginal, so it’s likely to have been the case.

 

[Rascal]

If we’d had Starmer as Labour leader during the referendum, we’d have had a stronger opposition leader‘s voice on the remain side of the debate.

Now, I recognise you, and the rest of the harder left, wanted to leave the EU, but having Starmer as leader in 2016 would have meant we probably wouldn’t have voted to leave the EU, Cameron would still be in charge and the lunatics sidelined.

And the cosy neo-liberal consensus would have remained intact. That is exactly what the Labour right want, they do not want Democratic Socialism, they want Neo Liberalism with all that entails dosed with small bits of social justice to appease the working class.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

And the cosy neo-liberal consensus would have remained intact. That is exactly what the Labour right want, they do not want Democratic Socialism, they want Neo Liberalism with all that entails dosed with small bits of social justice to appease the working class.

Absolutely, but the changes you want made you vote with those that want to destroy workers’ rights.

For every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction.

 

[Rascal]

Absolutely, but the changes you want made you vote with those that want to destroy workers’ rights.

For every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction.

Only because the Tories won the election. If Labour had not been sabotaged it could have enhanced workers rights which is of course why the Labour leadership was so denigrated.

Starmer FFS wont even attend a picket line, he has no interest in workers rights, he is a neo lib.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Only because the Tories won the election. If Labour had not been sabotaged it could have enhanced workers rights which is of course why the Labour leadership was so denigrated.

Starmer FFS wont even attend a picket line, he has no interest in workers rights, he is a neo lib.

I’m not a Starmer sycophant. I’d love for our country to be run similar to that in Scandinavia.

Sadly, we don’t have the numbers to get there yet and a vote for Brexit was always going to mean a lurch to the right, rather than the left.

Maybe you’re playing the long game and hoping that as the country burns, a new socialist approach will rise like a phoenix.

 

[hilts]

If we’d had Starmer as Labour leader during the referendum, we’d have had a stronger opposition leader‘s voice on the remain side of the debate.

Now, I recognise you, and the rest of the harder left, wanted to leave the EU, but having Starmer as leader in 2016 would have meant we probably wouldn’t have voted to leave the EU, Cameron would still be in charge and the lunatics sidelined.

I'm not agreeing with this thinking and we will never know but I don't think the red wall voters would have listened to Starmer any more than the plenty of other politicians who championed remain.

We cannot rewrite history and claim things were skewed to one side. Which campaign had the deepest pockets? People listened to both sides because it was impossible not to and voted accordingly.

Its as near to true democracy as we have had for decades but the irony is it only happened because of our current political system which the majority seem to vote for over and over again.

When the game changes from the haves vs the have nots then it puts parties in an difficult situation. Labour had really no idea how to approach it. Mainly because there wasn't a winning outcome for them.


The Tories are in the same boat now in that they will have to bring in measures they don't like to help the poor because that group is expanding into their demographic.

 

[hilts]

I’m not a Starmer sycophant. I’d love for our country to be run similar to that in Scandinavia.

Sadly, we don’t have the numbers to get there yet and a vote for Brexit was always going to mean a lurch to the right, rather than the left.

Maybe you’re playing the long game and hoping that as the country burns, a new socialist approach will rise like a phoenix.

It's not a bad ploy to be fair.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I'm not agreeing with this thinking and we will never know but I don't think the red wall voters would have listened to Starmer any more than the plenty of other politicians who championed remain.

We cannot rewrite history and claim things were skewed to one side. Which campaign had the deepest pockets? People listened to both sides because it was impossible not to and voted accordingly.

Its as near to true democracy as we have had for decades but the irony is it only happened because of our current political system which the majority seem to vote for over and over again.

When the game changes from the haves vs the have nots then it puts parties in an difficult situation. Labour had really no idea how to approach it. Mainly because there wasn't a winning outcome for them.


The Tories are in the same boat now in that they will have to bring in measures they don't like to help the poor because that group is expanding into their demographic.

Sure, it’s moot, but I can’t help thinking what the country would have been like had it been 52/48 the other way.

We we’re likely screwed anyway due to the fact we’ve not had a long term strategy on anything for a very long time.

At some point, hopefully we’ll have political parties that want the best for the country, not just to say stuff to get into power.