Has Keir Starmer’s honeymoon period ended?
More and more people on the left of the Labour Party are calling Starmer out as a liar. Some prominent member (none politicians) are leaving to join other parties such as the Greens.
They argue he is a liar.
He called Corbyn a friend and said he (Corbyn) was done badly by the press, and then later said he didn’t say Corbyn was a friend.
He gave a list of 10 things he would do as leader and has gone against every one of then. In Fact gone too far to the right.
During his bid to be leader he told the main group for electoral change that we needed to get rid of the First Past The Post system for something more openly democratic. His spokesperson recently said that Kier was pro First Past The Post. And more things could be added. This indicates that he has not just changed his opinion but out and out lied to get the leadership.
In our social media age inconsistencies are going to show. You can no longer say one thing to one group and something else to another.
What do we think?
[corrected spelling mistake in thread title - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host]
They argue he is a liar.
He called Corbyn a friend and said he (Corbyn) was done badly by the press, and then later said he didn’t say Corbyn was a friend.
He gave a list of 10 things he would do as leader and has gone against every one of then. In Fact gone too far to the right.
During his bid to be leader he told the main group for electoral change that we needed to get rid of the First Past The Post system for something more openly democratic. His spokesperson recently said that Kier was pro First Past The Post. And more things could be added. This indicates that he has not just changed his opinion but out and out lied to get the leadership.
In our social media age inconsistencies are going to show. You can no longer say one thing to one group and something else to another.
What do we think?
[corrected spelling mistake in thread title - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host]
Comments
I think I'm sick of the whole thing. The only thing Starmer has in his favour is he wouldn't have the fash end of the Tory party to placate by being given jobs like Home Secretary.
We're fecked politically. Anyone promoting an actual progressive programme gets absolutely slaughtered by the press, so funnily enough we don't get progress. If the Stop Leopards Eating People's Faces party can't get into power without cosying up to the leopards and promoting face eating, despite their name, then leopards will carry on eating people's faces.
The leopards meanwhile ensure there are enough people who other people want to see having their faces eaten and keep reminding the latter that the Stop Leopards Eating People's Faces people want to stop leopards eating people's faces full stop.
This is the context behind the Tories "Labour won't be utter bastards to asylum seekers" campaign. The comments on their FB campaign about that are evidence for the total depravity of humanity. There are enough people out there who are very sure whose faces need eating and will ensure whoever is in power will allow the face eating to continue.
A plague on the lot of 'em. But we do need to vote!
I would but unfortunately only LibDems have a chance of removing Eastleigh Tory MP
I have an excellent Labour MP. But the local Labour councillors are terrible, while the Tory councillors are really proactive and get local things done. In addition the local CLP campaigned against the MP so shockingly (bricks through her office window, shouting out "dyke" in public meetings) that Labour Central Office instructed them not to meet for a couple of years and had an enquiry into it all.
I might just vote Green this time. It will be the first time in over 50 years that I haven't voted Labour.
If this is the MP I think it is there's a lot of dispute about the allegations made against the CLP.
Indeed there is. But after the investigation the central party under Corbyn suspended the CLP. They obviously thought there were sufficient reasons.
Leaving personal opinion to a side; it's obvious that Labour's polling figures enjoyed a boost following the debacle of Truss et al prior to which they were running 6-8% points ahead, and have been on a slow slide ever since.
Personally, I think the UK is facing multiple crises than need fairly drastic policy interventions and Starmer's Shadow Cabinet show little sign that they understand the problems, let alone are able to offer solutions. A single term Labour government followed by another spell of the Conservatives (ratcheted further right) doesn't seem unlikely.
The party machinery was controlled by the General Secretary, Iain McNicol, who we now know was actively working against Corbyn. Recall also that the alleged events occurred during an open revolt by the right of the party against the leadership, so Corbyn's influence over events was further limited. The suspension was about preventing the CLP passing a motion of no-confidence in their MP.
(BTW, could some kind Host correct the slight typo in the thread heading? It's Keir, not Kier).
Done - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
And honestly how can we expect anything for the NHS if we get Wes Streeting as Health Secretary?
Thanks
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
It's a strange person that gives this anecdote to the Economist thinking it reflects well on them:
What is the CLP?
Thanks!
The lesser of two evils, maybe, but I'd rather have (say) Angela Rayner as (say) Home Secretary than Braverman, or Patel...
The thing is that the event horizon has shifted so far and in such a short space of time that May now seems like a committed Trot compared to Braverman. Starmer has also made it clear that he's ready and willing to fire Rayner for some bizarre reason when she's basically the only reasonable person in his cabinet.
I wasn't aware of that. God help us all...
For some reason, I'm reminded of a possibly apocryphal comment allegedly made by a small girl, on the occasion of the Queen's funeral. It went something like this *Never mind, Mummy - the Queen's dead, but the King will look after us now!*.
Which, in turn, brings to mind:
Psalm 146:3
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
The rumour is that she will be stripped of her employment role so Starmer can drop his pledge to repeal anti union legislation.
Hopefully (yes, I know), it's only a rumour...
If we were in a Jack Chick tract, isn't this about the time when the Deus ex Machina occurs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
Unfortunately it's Yvette Cooper, who puts nicer language and a "make the trains run on time" veneer of competence over the same racist crap. This is the same ideological stable that gave us the Yarl's Wood detention centre.
Is there no hope? Is all lost?
To prayers, to prayers!!!
I remember Wes from his NUS days (not personally but by reputation) and people didn't have anything good to say about him back then either.
Or Labour has a new leader in the next 18 months. Hey, a chap can dream.
Rishi seems to be a nice chap so why do you think he can't win against Starmer?
I follow the opinion polls.
I don't think that the tories changing leader yet again, for whatever reason, would do them any good at all.
The late Dawn Foster had his number.
Others have doubts about Starmer but feel they need to support him to ensure a Labour victory in 2024.
Others insist that Labour is no longer a left-wing party and that it's all going to Hell in a hand-cart.
From the outside, and pragmatically, such hand-wringing surely plays into Conservative hands and gives them more scope for a come-back than they might otherwise have.
A house divided and all that ...
Hereabouts, in a very Conservative area, many Tories are branding themselves as 'Local Conservatives' as though this distances them from Westminster. But as a Labour wag put it to me, 'If you are a Local Bubonic Plague Carrier, you are still a Bubonic Plague Carrier.'
Don't get me wrong, I can understand the Labour left's reservations about Starmer, but call me naive, shouldn't this be a time to unite in pursuit of a fleeing foe rather than turning on one another?
If the Tories are on the ropes, press home the advantage. Don't squander it by mauling one another over issues of ideological purity. I keep getting sneered at for saying so here, but I've seen that happen to Labour friends time and time again.
Each time I mention it I'm either told I'm reactionary myself or that these disillusioned Labourites weren't quite socialist enough - or there was something wrong with them in some way or other.
It all sounds very 'La la la la la, I'm not listening' to me but what do I know?
It gets very irksome and frustrating after a while. Like warning a friend to buy a TV licence lest they get fined or to turn up at the station on time lest they miss the train when, lo and behold ...
Most Labour left will hold their nose and vote Labour as it is a way to get the Cons out. Your pragmatic post has its merits but, if Labour is not the party of the left anymore how can lefties vote with integrity. The main problem is that Starmer said he would keep left but swerved right. If I ask for a strawberry milkshake and get chocolate but it is still called strawberry something is wrong.
Starmer has been quite clear that he doesn't want the support of the left, and it's on people who think the left should ignore that to explain themselves.
1. That the traditional Conservative voters are driven by ideology and not loyalty to the party they've always voted for - effectively that they won't hold their noses and vote Conservative despite not liking the far right swing, and instead vote for a Labour Party that's ideologically closer to their position.
2. That traditional Labour voters will hold their noses and vote Labour to keep the Tories out despite not liking the swing to the right. Anyone spot a bit of irony there?
Of course, these have various additional caveats. Are there enough traditional Conservative voters that their defection will cost Conservatives a lot of seats, or does the far right have sufficient support to hold onto large numbers of seats? Is there a viable left-wing alternative to Labour that will suck away left wing votes in such numbers that, especially when combined with a strong far right Conservative support, Labour doesn't get enough seats to lead to a large majority? Can Labour get the "anyone except the Tory" vote to swing behind them or do too many see them as just Tories with a red rosette?
Why's it always the left's job to go running after the Labour leadership? Starmer was elected with the votes of many on the left of Labour, including me, who wanted to see a united party fighting the tories with a clear vision for what would be done differently. Starmer has forced out people like me from the party (I'm too insignificant but I'm reasonably sure they'd find some excuse if they felt the need) on the most ludicrous trumped up charges, and attempted the same to the former leader of the party. He's also rigged the leadership election rules to prevent the party membership ever being able to change the direction of the party. Starmer had the choice to lead a united Labour Party but, either of his own volition or poison being dripped in his ear by Mandelson et al, he chose to split it. How long are socialists supposed to put up with being driven out of their own party by people opposed to Labour values before telling them to get tae fuck and voting for something worthwhile? Because it's not just about this election, it's about the next election, and the one after that. We've had 40 years of society circling the drain because the right have been able to get away with sabotage when the left have been in charge of Labour, and the left have gritted their teeth and got on with it whenever the right have been in charge (which has been most of the time because, when it comes down to it, those willing to join Labour are pragmatists rather than ideologues, despite what the media would have you believe). At some point you say "enough is enough" because haggling with the tories over how quickly you cut services for the poor and taxes for the rich is the road to ruin. That's why we have a housing crisis. That's why we have food banks. That's why life-expectancy has stalled. All right wing Labour governments do is slow the descent of the UK into what has been called "a poor country with some very rich people in it". Say we hold our noses, bite our tongues, grit our teeth and whatever else it is we have to do to put Starmer in office, what then? What happens 10 years down the line? The tories are back, there might be a shiny new hospital or two to show for the last decade. NHS waiting times might even be down from awful to merely bad. But then the tories will just slash and burn again, because the right of Labour has lost the ability to effect real change, to embed things in a way that makes them hard to destroy quickly.
God I can only imagine the fury coming out of Dawn's pen these days. I hope she's haunting him frequently.
Did you see her Greenbelt talk?
I have to say that I find it extremely weird that you're a Lib Dem and yet caping so hard for Starmer, especially when Ed Davey is actually demonstrating that he gives a shit about other people rather than seeing people's value solely in terms of their votes. Do you think the Lib Dems are somehow wrong for talking about sewage rather than gleefully detailing how they're going to deprive asylum seekers of their rights?
Ok. I get the pragmatic thing and yes, I agree that the 'Labour are all ideologues' trope is trotted out all too readily. And yes, the Tory 'slash and burn' will return unless something is done to embed change.
The Conservatives have only themselves to blame for their current woes. His Majesty's loyal opposition have an opportunity to press home an advantage but somehow seem unable to do so - and I count all opposition parties in that including my own.
Labour seem to be losing good people around here that it can ill afford to lose - and no, I don't think it's as simple as an internal left/right civil war. There are all sorts of factors in play.
Starmer may not be the right person to lead the charge but someone needs to.
Possibly, but not in the form in which we know and love them today - far more right-wing and authoritarian than ever before, I fear...
I disagree. Their policies will be ones which they think will be popular with the voters
Meanwhile, in other news, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran has come in for some stick for promoting tactical voting.
Lib Dem HQ don't like that. Myself and one or two other Lib Dems locally have raised eyebrows for making similar suggestions. And yes, I know the arguments for and against.
What relevance does that have on a thread about Keir Starmer?
Only in the broad sense of the premise that any opposition however diverse must be a better proposition than the Conservatives. The argument then descends into accusations that anyone other than the Labour left aren't really an opposition but simply different flavours of 'Tory.'
It all sounds very binary to me.
But there we go.
But it's the far-right and authoritarian views and policies which are popular with the public - or with a gammon-flavoured portion of the public, at any rate.
But nobody has said that tactical voting is wrong so not sure of the relevance. I will be voting Lib Dem where I live to get the Tories out as I live in a Tory-LD marginal, and tbh I'm glad Layla Moran is being open and honest about tactical voting which we all know is how many people vote.
And that’s the problem for socialism in the UK, right there. It’s just not popular enough at the moment to win an election, even against the shower of shit that is the modern day Conservative Party.