I'd be interested if the further left leaning people disagree with this in a policy context...
Keir Starmer is a husband, father, and former lawyer who has fought for fairness his whole working life. He is now Labour Party leader.
keirstarmer.com
It doesn't seem as tory-lite as he's being slagged for to me.
Its whether you believe his pledges or not. He lied over party unity to start with and now the Party has succumbed back to the days of New Labour, i cant see them lasting long and they will be dropped because the donors will want them dropping.. The pledges i believe were a tactic to get elected.
Luke Akehurst newly elected to the NEC in a dodgy ballot wrote
"The “Hard Left” is a self-definition adopted by the Bennite left in the mid-1980s to differentiate themselves from the older “Soft Left” which they saw as making too many compromises with people like us. We in Labour First believe the "Hard Left" would damage national security through their opposition to nuclear deterrence and their ambivalent stance towards
NATO; that they are reluctant to address issues around immigration in any meaningful way; and their economic stance is not credible as it veers towards a command economy."
Lets dissect what he says.
He is claiming the "soft" left are somehow older than the "hard left" , what he is trying to do here is make out the soft left have claim to the party and they are not like US...making a claim they are the face of the party. Here he is mixed up with the difference between Democratic Socialist and Social Democrat. Akehurst is a Social Democrat, the Labour parties origins lie in Democratic Socialism. He is right i am defo not like him and i hope i never will be, i am only a **** on occasion, he lives the life of a **** full time.
Labour first had echoes in Starmer saying Britain first, the influence is clear and Starmer is from the right of the party like Akehurst.
Now the hard left damaging National Security because of opposition to nuclear deterrent is a strange point to make, the soft left or social democratic nations that have no nuclear deterrent would wonder what the fuck is the lunatic going on about, they haven't been invaded by nuclear powers, he is using the point to justify attacks on the Democratic Socialists. He is doing the same with NATO, I am NATO sceptic, I believe its original mission has been corrupted and it is no longer a defensive alliance needed to defend against a malevolent enemy its now an Imperialistic organisation doing the bidding of western corporate interests. His point on immigration is sheer nonsensical, the Democratic Socialists want controlled immigration and want in general to leave the EU, Akehurst here in his typical lefty liberal manner has no answer but to blame the left for immigration whilst being Pro-EU and for freedom of movement. He is one mixed up little puppy, pretty much the same as Starmer was on the EU issue. Then to end with the gobsmacking command economy line is blatent Marxist scaremongering atypical of the liberal elite and their love of Hayekian economics. He is as right wing on this issue as the Lib Dems Orange Bookists. Therefore why is he using Labour as a vehicle, its because he knows the Lib Dems have got less chance than Labour of winning an election.
Akehurst is the type of person who Starmer wants in his party, comfortable with neo-liberal economics, comfortable with the free market, at ease with sale of arms to dictatorships, happy to be in the EU capitalist club. They are not representative of the working class and are at odds with the old red wall. Social democracy is naturally liberal in outlook, it overlooks that many working class people are by nature small C conservatives and patriotic, which was always a key proponent of Democratic Socialism. The Social Democrats in Labour have history in there stance, in the early 80s they left and formed the SDP and ended up in a love affair with the Liberals. That failed and now they are trying to take over the party from the inside by pushing the Democratic Socialists out of the party.
The end game will be similar to what we see in the USA, two parties of the right contesting elections with the gilded elites and corporate monoliths only concerned with who they can buy influence with to protect their own status in society. One will offer the plebians scraps to get votes, the other will offer different scraps to get votes and the status quo will remain whoever is in power and the sanctity of the ruling elites is safe in that knowledge that no harm can be done to their treasure chests.