Keir Starmer

Rascal said:
The shite aimed at momentum was disgusting, they were a grass roots campainging organisation that supported Corbyn, it was not full of Marxists that is just fucking nonsense created by the likes of the Mail. Momentum tried to rally support to stop that obnoxious Blairite LFI **** Luke Akehurst getting on the NEC. Thats that they did.

All this kow-towing to the RW media pisses me right off. As for the orthodox left rehashing Marxist Leninist crap, what do you mean by orthodox and what crap do they rehash?

Was the last Labour manifesto boring or did it come up with the idea of the radical new green deal?

I know for fucking sure Starmer and his band of nobodies has not got a radical idea between them, they are trying to move Labour away from its Democratic Socialist roots to be a party like the American democrats,
Click to expand...
7D698F79-7D9A-4BDA-BDBC-4C2680E2CC5E.jpeg

Here’s a list of what the “Blairite cunts” achieved in 13 years to help make ordinary people’s lives better.

Compare that to the shit show we’ve had for the last 12 years and tell me which you’d prefer, because they are the only two legitimate choices that exist.
 
Shaelumstash said:
No, here we are...
Click to expand...

We swapped heaven for hell?

We were always ending up here, there's no Boris without Blair and there ain't neither of them without Thatcher.

All those superficially nice things Blair and Brown did, few have survived, good while they lasted, but most have gone. Because it was tinkering, the powers that be remained because Blair was the powers that be. What little good he did got washed away when ordinary folk got angry in their powerlessness and right wing bastards told them who to blame.
 
The perfect fumble said:
We swapped heaven for hell?

We were always ending up here, there's no Boris without Blair and there ain't neither of them without Thatcher.

All those superficially nice things Blair and Brown did, few have survived, good while they lasted, but most have gone. Because it was tinkering, the powers that be remained because Blair was the powers that be. What little good he did got washed away when ordinary folk got angry in their powerlessness and right wing bastards told them who to blame.
Click to expand...
Record investment in education, the NHS, the shortest waiting times in history, the longest period of economic growth and low inflation in history are not "superficial nice things".

That's real people's lives. Their families lives, their health, the health of their loved ones. Better education leading to more opportunities so people can lead better lives. A stable, prosperous country.

That's not superficial. Health, eduction and the economy are the three most important things in improving a society. Whatever end of the political spectrum you sit on.

If all of those things improve at a huge rate, how on earth can you have the gaul to call it "superficial"?

What on earth do you want out of politics if it's not to improve those 3 things? Absolutely bizarre.

It's an inevitable cycle of a democracy that when a big change comes, the next big change will be the opposite. You wouldn't have Clinton without Reagan, you wouldn't have Trump without Obama, you wouldn't have Blair without Thatcher, you wouldn't have the abomination of the last 12 years without Blair.

But it doesn't mean we should stop wanting better than this.
 
^^ Please Christ don't break this cycle with without Boris Johnson no Truss.....(being facetious but I take your point!).
 
somapop said:
^^ Please Christ don't break this cycle with without Boris Johnson no Truss.....(being facetious but I take your point!).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, Truss is going to be more of the same as Boris Johnson, but with a bit more Thatcher fancy dress thrown in!

She's actually talking about making striking illegal today. We really are through the looking glass at this point.

 
Shaelumstash said:
Unfortunately, Truss is going to be more of the same as Boris Johnson, but with a bit more Thatcher fancy dress thrown in!

She's actually talking about making striking illegal today. We really are through the looking glass at this point.

Click to expand...

That‘s not just here talking, that’s the view of over 60% of her party members.

The UK has gone mad.
 
The problem with Starmer is he is a lying **** as much as the tories are and backtracks just as much on his pledges.

Even though labour need to get in to stop these right wing loons staying in charge, the country will go back to cameron levels of giving a shit about the poorest, soft conservatism or neo liberalism.


Anyone hoping of a left leaning administration and the reigning in of big business putting profits before people of renationalisation of any of pur utilities and transport will be sadened at what we will get, the **** will probably carry on selling off the ports too.
 
Last edited:
Shaelumstash said:
Record investment in education, the NHS, the shortest waiting times in history, the longest period of economic growth and low inflation in history are not "superficial nice things".

That's real people's lives. Their families lives, their health, the health of their loved ones. Better education leading to more opportunities so people can lead better lives. A stable, prosperous country.

That's not superficial. Health, eduction and the economy are the three most important things in improving a society. Whatever end of the political spectrum you sit on.

If all of those things improve at a huge rate, how on earth can you have the gaul to call it "superficial"?

What on earth do you want out of politics if it's not to improve those 3 things? Absolutely bizarre.

It's an inevitable cycle of a democracy that when a big change comes, the next big change will be the opposite. You wouldn't have Clinton without Reagan, you wouldn't have Trump without Obama, you wouldn't have Blair without Thatcher, you wouldn't have the abomination of the last 12 years without Blair.

But it doesn't mean we should stop wanting better than this.
Click to expand...
Starmer isn't blair or brown though, even though one was neo lib and the other soft left, they still moxed it up cabinet wise and had those still arsed abput labour values.

The generation that came after straight in a interns and pps were devoid of any of that working or lower middle class understanding of peoples struggles, that's why you ended up with the likes of ed balls, chuka unnuman and david milliband.

Those achievements you list cannot be denied, but it won't happen this time round under starmer, unless his actions are just a ruse to get power and once in No10 he reverts back to soft left thinking
 
Shaelumstash said:
View attachment 50943

Here’s a list of what the “Blairite cunts” achieved in 13 years to help make ordinary people’s lives better.

Compare that to the shit show we’ve had for the last 12 years and tell me which you’d prefer, because they are the only two legitimate choices that exist.
Click to expand...
Past achievements are no guarantee of future performance though. Of course I would much rather have Blair than Johnson but that isn't going to be the choice.

I disagree completely regarding 2 legitimate choices. There are other perfectly legitimate options and while those other options are very unlikely to win a majority, they could certainly end up playing a part in governing this country.
 
urban genie said:
Starmer isn't blair or brown though, even though one was neo lib and the other soft left, they still moxed it up cabinet wise and had those still arsed abput labour values.

The generation that came after straight in a interns and pps were devoid of any of that working or lower middle class understanding of peoples struggles, that's why you ended up with the likes of ed balls, chuka unnuman and david milliband.

Those achievements you list cannot be denied, but it won't happen this time round under starmer, unless his actions are just a ruse to get power and once in No10 he reverts back to soft left thinking
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean about "Labour values".

A well funded and organised NHS, a well funded education system and a stable economy are Labour values to me.

Blair and Brown shared those values, as did the party and the millions who elected them.
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
Past achievements are no guarantee of future performance though. Of course I would much rather have Blair than Johnson but that isn't going to be the choice.

I disagree completely regarding 2 legitimate choices. There are other perfectly legitimate options and while those other options are very unlikely to win a majority, they could certainly end up playing a part in governing this country.
Click to expand...
As things stand, the choice at the next GE is between Liz Truss or Kier Starmer as PM.

Barring some extraordinary event, that will be the choice people make.

The will be no magic unicorn Corbyn / Bernie Sanders / Jesus option.
 
Shaelumstash said:
Record investment in education, the NHS, the shortest waiting times in history, the longest period of economic growth and low inflation in history are not "superficial nice things".

That's real people's lives. Their families lives, their health, the health of their loved ones. Better education leading to more opportunities so people can lead better lives. A stable, prosperous country.

That's not superficial. Health, eduction and the economy are the three most important things in improving a society. Whatever end of the political spectrum you sit on.

If all of those things improve at a huge rate, how on earth can you have the gaul to call it "superficial"?

What on earth do you want out of politics if it's not to improve those 3 things? Absolutely bizarre.
Click to expand...

What is tediously bizarre is when posters go on about how great Blairism was, yet don't comprehend that changes that do not last, no matter how good at the time, are by their very nature superficial, because they're not rooted in a substantial power shift and consequently wither with the political cycle.

Perhaps one generation benefits? No more.

After the 2008 crash and then the 2010 election all that Blairite progress you bleat about turned to dust, because Blair did not tackle the root causes of the problems, the power imbalances in our society, consequently when the political mood changed what he did was blown away.

I retired with a nice house, mortgage paid, final salary pension scheme! Life's good for us post war baby boomers! God bless Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson!

As for Blair...

dn9uo6pbp4g41.png


And they did........For a bit.
 
Last edited:
Shaelumstash said:
As things stand, the choice at the next GE is between Liz Truss or Kier Starmer as PM.

Barring some extraordinary event, that will be the choice people make.

The will be no magic unicorn Corbyn / Bernie Sanders / Jesus option.
Click to expand...
Not really much of a choice! Some people (myself included) will not choose either of them. That is a perfectly legitimate choice.
 
Shaelumstash said:
It depends what you mean about "Labour values".

A well funded and organised NHS, a well funded education system and a stable economy are Labour values to me.

Blair and Brown shared those values, as did the party and the millions who elected them.
Click to expand...
I believe I respectfully acknowledged blair/browns achievements and what they did in office, something thqt was then

But as this is the starmer thread I am giving my my opinion on him and now so what has happened in the past is irrelevent tbf.

All that I need to be discussing is, though a better option than the tories, will starmer deliver for those that need it most, or will he pander and leave people with a more and more privatised health service, mail, water, rail being owned by people ripping off the public and bring about a more equal society.

I am not convinced personally, he is a necessary change, but don't expect 1997 levels of improvement to peoples lives
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
What is tediously bizarre is when posters go on about how great Blairism was, yet don't comprehend that changes that do not last, no matter how good at the time, are by their very nature superficial, because they're not rooted in a substantial power shift and consequently wither with the political cycle.

Perhaps one generation benefits? No more.

After the 2008 crash and then the 2010 election all that Blairite progress you bleat about turned to dust, because Blair did not tackle the root causes of the problems, the power imbalances in our society, consequently, when the political mood changed what he did was blown away.

I retired with a nice house, mortgage paid, final salary pension scheme! Life's good for us post war baby boomers! God bless Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson!

As for Blair...

dn9uo6pbp4g41.png


And they did........For a bit.
Click to expand...
This is true, while improving what was underfunded public services, there was no real regenration of areas and comunities ravaged by the grantham witch.
 
The perfect fumble said:
What is tediously bizarre is when posters go on about how great Blairism was, yet don't comprehend that changes that do not last, no matter how good at the time, are by their very nature superficial, because they're not rooted in a substantial power shift and consequently wither with the political cycle.

Perhaps one generation benefits? No more.

After the 2008 crash and then the 2010 election all that Blairite progress you bleat about turned to dust, because Blair did not tackle the root causes of the problems, the power imbalances in our society, consequently, when the political mood changed what he did was blown away.

I retired with a nice house, mortgage paid, final salary pension scheme! Life's good for us post war baby boomers! God bless Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson!

dn9uo6pbp4g41.png


And they did........For a bit.
Click to expand...
There's an important change that you seem to have completely overlooked.

Blair reset the political landscape in this country to where the majority of the electorate hold left of centre views.

They know it's achievable, and they know it works with capable people in charge.

Even looking at Johnson's "landslide" victory, the anti-Tory, progressive vote was bigger share of the electorate.

The biggest mistake Labour (more specifically the unions) ever made was appointing Ed Milliband instead of David. If David was appointed (as he should have been based on the democratic vote) there would have been another decade of Labour rule.

But by going down the hard left route of Ed and Corbyn, it allowed 12 years of Tory rule, no wonder they ripped up all of Blair's good work, they didn't have a viable opposition for 12 years!

Even if Blair had been as radical as you seem to have wanted, 12 years is plenty of time to completely rip apart anything he did.

The difference with Attlee and Wilson is, while they might have made drastic changes in a short time, they were just blips where people wanted a change from the Tories, but quickly went back to them after one term.

Whereas they may have effected bigger structural changes like the NHS and better pensions, they didn't shift the political positions of the general public in the same way.

With Labour's first left of centre leader since Blair, they look on course for victory again. That wouldn't have happened without him.

Hopefully if Starmer gets in to power, the last 12 years will be a sobering lesson for Labour that things can get better, and stay better, if they stick to the strategies and policies that can effect tangible change in people's lives, instead of pie in the sky wishful thinking.
 
urban genie said:
I believe I respectfully acknowledged blair/browns achievements and what they did in office, something thqt was then

But as this is the starmer thread I am giving my my opinion on him and now so what has happened in the past is irrelevent tbf.

All that I need to be discussing is, though a better option than the tories, will starmer deliver for those that need it most, or will he pander and leave people with a more and more privatised health service, mail, water, rail being owned by people ripping off the public and bring about a more equal society.

I am not convinced personally, he is a necessary change, but don't expect 1997 levels of improvement to peoples lives
Click to expand...
I agree, it's a different time and it's unlikely he'll inherit the economic conditions to be able to have as big an impact as 1997.

People can say what they like about Starmer, he's a bit stiff and a bit awkward, he's not got the charisma of a Blair, or even a Johnson.

But no one could dispute he's a good man. A capable man. A man of integrity and moral fibre and someone who wants what's best for ordinary people. That's very much what we need right now as a country imo.

He might not make every decision you agree with regards to mail, water, rail etc. He clearly believes in private enterprise and having a growing economy in order to properly fund public services, and that's where the similarities with Blair come from.

I've been pretty underwhelmed with Starmer (other than when he was filleting Johnson when the HOP were empty due to Covid), but I thought he came across really well on this podcast, I'd really encourage you to listen to it (it's actually the number one podcast in the country and isn't partisan to either side).

He comes across a lot more relaxed and you can see he's not a self-serving dick head like the rabble in charge at the moment.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top