Keir Starmer

[mat]

Thanks for the replies. Jeremy Corbyn was completely unelectable, so the only real choice was Boris. Brexit may now be done, so I’d expect to see the polls favouring Labour after the disastrous last 18 months we have all been through. I agree that another party may not have done any better, but I don’t think that they could have done any worse! It’s a big question that Keir and Labour need to address in the next couple of years to get the electorate back on side.

2017 General Election says otherwise. The arguments about 2019 have been constantly recycled on here and don't need doing so again.


Starmer needs attractive and, I dare say boring, but effective policies to attract voters that just want a rest from the daily bullshit currently being churned out.

 

[Vic]

2017 General Election says otherwise. The arguments about 2019 have been constantly recycled on here and don't need doing so again.


Starmer needs attractive and, I dare say boring, but effective policies to attract voters that just want a rest from the daily bullshit currently being churned out.

I'm not sure how Corbyn could have become PM in 2017. Coalition of the unwilling?

But "No more bullshit". That's the election manifesto right there.

 

[Vic]

So what's your take? That spontaneously we all went mad?

That seems to be the international consensus.

 

[The perfect fumble]

That seems to be the international consensus.

That's a cop out.

A consensus politics, which is what you want, has to be willing and able to identify competing groups in society, ascertain what these groups really want, and actively create a consensus whereby each of these groups gets, if not all that it wants, or even most, at the very least something significant to them out of the political offering, enough to satisfy their wider membership. At a minimum it must generate enough support for an incoming government whereby the electorate, including these key groups, grant it enough political capital for the short to medium term.

No government has even tried this since Harold Wilson in the mid 60s and Callaghan, with the Social Contract, in the late 70s.

 

[Vic]

That's a cop out.

A consensus politics, which is what you want, has to be willing and able to identify competing groups in society, ascertain what these groups really want, and actively create a consensus whereby each of these groups gets, if not all that it wants, or even most, at the very least something significant to them out of the political offering, enough to satisfy their wider membership. At a minimum it must generate enough support for an incoming government whereby the electorate, including these key groups, grant it enough political capital for the short to medium term.

No government has even tried this since Harold Wilson in the mid 60s and Callaghan, with the Social Contract, in the late 70s.

We seem to have a non-consensual government with a large majority.

Some cop out.

 

[west didsblue]

So what's your take? That spontaneously we all went mad?

The wrong brother won the Labour leadership contest in 2010. He effectively was installed by the unions because the PLP and the members voted for David but the union bloc vote swung it. This made it easy for the right wing media to paint Ed as a bit of a lefty, and hence a bit of a risk to the economy slowly recovering from the global financial crisis. After his defeat in 2015 the Labour Party compounded the mistake by going further left with Corbyn who was fairly ambivalent to the EU. This set the scene for a Tory Brexit, Johnson and all the shit that’s happened since, and leaves us still without an effective opposition and a shambolic government that does whatever it wants.

 

[The perfect fumble]

We seem to have a non-consensual government with a large majority.

We do.

Some cop out.

I was referring to your reply.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The wrong brother won the Labour leadership contest in 2010. He effectively was installed by the unions because the PLP and the members voted for David but the union bloc vote swung it. This made it easy for the right wing media to paint Ed as a bit of a lefty, and hence a bit of a risk to the economy slowly recovering from the global financial crisis. After his defeat in 2015 the Labour Party compounded the mistake by going further left with Corbyn who was fairly ambivalent to the EU. This set the scene for a Tory Brexit, Johnson and all the shit that’s happened since, and leaves us still without an effective opposition and a shambolic government that does whatever it wants.

That's effect not cause.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The wrong brother won the Labour leadership contest in 2010. He effectively was installed by the unions because the PLP and the members voted for David but the union bloc vote swung it. This made it easy for the right wing media to paint Ed as a bit of a lefty, and hence a bit of a risk to the economy slowly recovering from the global financial crisis. After his defeat in 2015 the Labour Party compounded the mistake by going further left with Corbyn who was fairly ambivalent to the EU. This set the scene for a Tory Brexit, Johnson and all the shit that’s happened since, and leaves us still without an effective opposition and a shambolic government that does whatever it wants.

Lol, the wrong brother! 2010 wants it's tired and rejected argument back. New labour had totally lost its credibility by then and if the country wanted another Blair the old one would have hung around longer. Of course Iraq had a bearing, but Blair jumped not because of that but because he was a shrewd enough operator to realise the financial good times were over.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I'm not sure how Corbyn could have become PM in 2017. Coalition of the unwilling?

But "No more bullshit". That's the election manifesto right there.

My understanding is that it was only our wierd electoral system that prevented Corbyn from becoming pm rather than a lack of democratic support? This is why the dark forces of the right ( including within labour) and their media mates were assembled against him from then until 2019. If he wasn't a credible electoral threat they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble.

 

[west didsblue]

That's effect not cause.

The electoral college outcome was distorted by the Union bloc vote, which was based on a turnout of just 9% of Union and other affiliated organisations’ members, whereas member and PLP votes were much higher (80%+). This effectively amplified each union member vote by a factor of around 10, and most union members didn’t pay much attention leaving it to the activists on the left.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The electoral college outcome was distorted by the Union bloc vote, which was based on a turnout of just 9% of Union and other affiliated organisations’ members, whereas member and PLP votes were much more higher (80%+). This effectively amplified each union member vote by a factor of around 10, and most union members didn’t pay much attention leaving it to the activists on the left.

You may be right, but this is how the deed was done, it was not why the deed was done.

What is it you want?

 

[west didsblue]

Lol, the wrong brother! 2010 wants it's tired and rejected argument back. New labour had totally lost its credibility by then and if the country wanted another Blair the old one would have hung around longer. Of course Iraq had a bearing, but Blair jumped not because of that but because he was a shrewd enough operator to realise the financial good times were over.

Rejected by those that don’t agree with it.
There’s no way of proving it one way or another. It’s just an opinion but one I happen to hold.

 

[west didsblue]

You may be right, but this is how the deed was done, it was not why the deed was done.

What is it you want?

I want the Labour Party membership, PLP and unions to get over their squabbling and unite behind Starmer or a compromise candidate such as Burnham, and start to provide an effective opposition to the shambolic frauds in power with an eye on winning the next election.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Rejected by those that don’t agree with it.
There’s no way of proving it one way or another. It’s just an opinion but one I happen to hold.

Fair enough. UK politics at the time was very different to now with the main gripe being there being a cigarette paper between new labour and the moderate conservatives. The 'right' Milliband brother being perceived as very much part of that and a poor imitation of Blair.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I want the Labour Party membership, PLP and unions to get over their squabbling and unite behind Starmer or a compromise candidate such as Burnham, and start to provide an effective opposition to the shambolic frauds in power with an eye on winning the next election.

That's not likely to happen, certainly not in the short term, if ever.

 

[west didsblue]

That's not likely to happen, certainly not in the short term, if ever.

Nope, so we’re stuck with this lot who will do what needs to be done to win the next election.

 

[mat]

Newscast - Strictly Starmer - BBC Sounds

The Labour Leader in a ballroom with 12 ex-Labour voters.

www.bbc.co.uk

The differences in reporting by Tory K in this special where Starmer is talking to voters compared to her TV persona is staggering. Still gets the anti corbyn digs in mind.

Probably get broadcast on News24 at 3am.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Nope, so we’re stuck with this lot who will do what needs to be done to win the next election.

On that we agree.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I want the Labour Party membership, PLP and unions to get over their squabbling and unite behind Starmer or a compromise candidate such as Burnham, and start to provide an effective opposition to the shambolic frauds in power with an eye on winning the next election.

Tbf this was the brilliance of Blair, to bring about that unity in a way that was also supported by the actual left.