His position surprised me but I still wouldn't dismiss him as a cruel and callous Daily Mail reader. Misguided, yes. The sort of person who 'gets off' on other people's misfortunes - no, most certainly not.
I'm suggesting that he, and Starmer, is supporting the policy to appeal to that group. If I may appropriate an analogy from The West Wing, they're not Satan, they're the guy who runs down to the 7-11 to get Satan a pack of cigarettes.
I understand that, but one might suggest it is in itself a 'tabloid' or caricatured response. I can't speak for Starmer but my friend certainly wouldn't see himself as appealing to the kind of Daily Mail demographic you describe.
As I said, I was bewildered by his stance on this and probed him on it to some extent. The conversation moved on.
It's always a tricky thing to assign motives to people we don't know or haven't met. That appears to be what you are doing here. You are demonising a Labour friend of mine you don't know, haven't met nor heard speak on why he saw fit to support Starmer's stance on this issue.
I don't happen to agree with him either but I don't impugn his motives.
His argument was that sometimes hard decisions need to be made. The way to handle that is to look at the priorities and look at the sums. To 'do the math' and convince him otherwise, rather than automatically assume he's out to sup with the Devil and the Daily Mail demographic.
But what do I know?
You obviously know better than I do never having met the bloke.
There is no excuse for a decent, well-informed person to support this policy. As you seem certain your friend is decent I shall do him the courtesy of believing him ill-informed.
His argument was that sometimes hard decisions need to be made. The way to handle that is to look at the priorities and look at the sums. To 'do the math' and convince him otherwise
It may be, but that tends to depend on what faulty notions he's absorbed and how motivated his reasoning is - how might he - for instance - react to a 'hard decision' that impacted his own lifestyle.
As it is, you've just provided an anecdote that's impossible to query and interrogate in any way, and as you haven't provided enough detail it's impossible to know how representative he is of any wider tendency.
Sure, and I certainly wouldn't claim to know what's going on in his mind nor his reasoning - save that he clearly isn't out to court favour from Daily Mail readers.
Whether Starmer is doing so is a more pertinent point, I think.
As I've said, I was surprised that he held this view but he did defend it. The comment formed part of a wider conversation and we moved on to other matters.
I wasn't presenting his views to any way suggest it represents a body of thinking within the Labour Party.
Rather I was simply making the observation that Starmer doesn't appear to be the only person within the Labour tent to do so.
As to whether he would make 'hard decisions' in terms of his own lifestyle, I think that question could apply to all of us.
All I can say, is that whilst I don't share his views on everything - and certainly not this issue - the guy has overcome some pretty serious 'demons' as it were and survived some pretty heavy shit.
Whether that has any bearing on this matter, I don't know.
Sure, and I certainly wouldn't claim to know what's going on in his mind nor his reasoning - save that he clearly isn't out to court favour from Daily Mail readers.
Whether Starmer is doing so is a more pertinent point, I think.
..
Rather I was simply making the observation that Starmer doesn't appear to be the only person within the Labour tent to do so.
Well yes, but the question isn't whether you can find a single person in favor of a particular u-turn, but the composition of the electoral coalition Starmer is trying to build in the round - which is definitely one that panders prejudices right wing tabloids. We know this based on both what he's said and who he's picked to run his strategy (Deborah Mattinson)
There is a question about whether in forming a particular electoral coalition that appears to pander to the right wing tabloids, has Starmer lost support that previous Labour electoral coalitions have been able to count on? And, I would emphasise the "appears", because when it comes to securing votes that's often more important than actual policies described in the manifesto and explained in lengthy TV interviews.
In many ways the main economic policies of Starmer aren't that different to Blair, well to the right of traditional socialism. It was Blair who introduced PFI, giving private business hand-outs to make money from schools and hospitals, increasing costs to the public purse. But, Blair held onto the votes of those who saw Labour as the party that would protect workers. Starmer has not only taken on right of centre economic policies (as Blair did) but also playing the culture war cards that the Tories have owned recently, and in the process created a popular conception that he's turned Labour into a slightly less nasty version of the Conservatives.
Yesterday I was out speaking to voters in Rutherglen (with a by-election that's there for Labour to win). When people are talking about wages not keeping pace with inflation, energy bills and the general cost of living ... has Starmer done enough to sell Labour as the party that will look after workers, ensuring they get paid fairly and aren't subject to exploitative contracts?
Or maybe Starmer calculates he doesn't need traditional working class votes as much, as he can snuggle up to Daily Mail readers. Granted, this is risky, I guess their focus groups will tell all.
FWIW my guess would be that my pal would ditch his current support for Starmer if this particular trajectory continues.
I must reiterate that I was surprised at his stance on this one.
He doesn't tend to tell me much about internal Labour debates but he doesn't have a great deal of time for Islington style North London middle-class socialists. Which perhaps makes his support for apparently Blair items style policies the more surprising.
Like most of us I suppose, he's a pretty complex character and can be a mass of apparent contradictions.
There are compromises in politics, that's the reality of it all. But there are some compromises that seem very counter-intuitive.
For myself, I can't weigh Starmer up at all. Not much 'there' there.
I do think a more stable and unified Opposition is what's needed but can understand the tensions when proposals are put forward that seem to fly in the face of what the Labour Party traditionally stood for.
I'm afraid I don't think it augurs well. The Conservatives left an open goal but currently any shot at it looks likely to go wide.
Islington style North London middle-class socialists.
This seems to be a well-used trope but seems to mean different things depending on the user. In some uses, of course (and obviously not this one) it's an anti-semitic dog whistle.
Sure. My friend is a Londoner of Irish heritage. Think Kilburn and also south of the river.
I have little knowledge of London - I just had to Google Kilburn to see if it was an area of London or a town in Ireland. What meaning were you attaching to Islington et al in this instance?
Islington tends to be popularly associated with Guardian reading middle class lefties.
My friend doesn't like them. He sees himself as traditional Labour. Irish. Working class.
I see him as a middle class intellectual with a background in the working class.
Which is fine. I'm rather similar although his working class credentials may be stronger than mine. My family were more mixed in socio-economic and social class terms.
One could argue that this makes his support for Starmer on the benefit cap issue all the more surprising.
It's caused more discussion and analysis on this thread than I thought it might. But perhaps not ...
I said 'popularly associated' and when I used to knock around in London - admittedly some years ago now - it was very much the demographic there.
You have to appreciate that my friend is of a certain age ... fairly close to mine.
Again, a few anecdotal remarks about a Labour friend's support for Starmer on this particular issue - surprising though it might be - is attracting a fair bit of analysis.
Perhaps I shouldn't have specified a location and simply said, 'He doesn't like middle class socialists or students.'
It is an 'issue' with him but he's generally fairly tongue in cheek about it.
Or perhaps I should have said, 'part of the demographic.'
Islington was a Borough of very sharp contrasts back when I first knew it, as was Camden. There were certainly plenty of middle class lefties around, but probably not a major proportion of the population.
Starmer has not only taken on right of centre economic policies (as Blair did) but also playing the culture war cards that the Tories have owned recently, and in the process created a popular conception that he's turned Labour into a slightly less nasty version of the Conservatives.
The problem is that Blair inherited an economy that was finally starting to recover after the missteps earlier in the decade, and his first two terms were in the early part of the Great Moderation. State capacity was greater than it is now post-austerity, and there were spending levers that could be pulled to increase it. PFI could be used to effectively bring investment forward without realising the entire cost immediately.
The situation now is quite different; wages and productivity have been stagnant since the GFC and the ensuing austerity. Much of the state has been further eroded. The economic situation is far from benign, and the UK is outside a major trading bloc at a time when international trade is going into reverse. The UK missed out on infrastructure investment earlier in the decade when interest rates were historically low and that situation isn't going to reverse in the near term.
Besides Reeves ruled out any increase in spending in the latest piece in the Telegraph. Streeting seems to think he can fix the NHS by the sheer force of his personality. Starmer has pinned his hopes on 'growth' but has no ideas as to how this might be achieved.
Or maybe Starmer calculates he doesn't need traditional working class votes as much, as he can snuggle up to Daily Mail readers.
You seem to be assuming those are two completely different groups of people.
While there is no doubt some overlap, the Daily Mail target demographic (like that of the Guardian) is firmly middle class. Whether or not the Yes Minister claim that it's read by "the wives of those who run the country" holds water is left as an exercise for the reader.
Or maybe Starmer calculates he doesn't need traditional working class votes as much, as he can snuggle up to Daily Mail readers.
You seem to be assuming those are two completely different groups of people.
While there is no doubt some overlap, the Daily Mail target demographic (like that of the Guardian) is firmly middle class. Whether or not the Yes Minister claim that it's read by "the wives of those who run the country" holds water is left as an exercise for the reader.
Indeed. The Express targets the working class more. The Mail has always aimed itself firmly at Hyacinth Bucket types. The Express aims at her window cleaner.
Will Starmer make a good PM? Ok he is not that charismatic but does that matter? With he has changed and got rid of the left from his party, can be trusted
Will Starmer make a good PM? Ok he is not that charismatic but does that matter? With he has changed and got rid of the left from his party, can be trusted
He's as authoritarian as late-period Blair, and that's before taking office. You can hope that the human rights lawyer will win out over appeasing the tabloids but I wouldn't bet on it.
Will Starmer make a good PM? Ok he is not that charismatic but does that matter? With he has changed and got rid of the left from his party, can be trusted
He's as authoritarian as late-period Blair, and that's before taking office. You can hope that the human rights lawyer
Although both sides of a human rights case are normally represented by a human rights lawyer (and latterly he played the state rather than the other side).
I think the reality is that the current Labour front bench have very few ideas apart from the one that they can be more competent managers. They fundamentally don't believe in investment led growth, but will be forced to spend at least the bare minimum to stop the deferred maintenance of the last ten years catching up with the country. They are basically betting on the secular economic growth improving in the first two years of their term.
Will Starmer make a good PM? Ok he is not that charismatic but does that matter? With he has changed and got rid of the left from his party, can be trusted
He should be as good as Wilson and Callaghan and Brown. But he's no Atlee.
His supporters say he has moved right because that is what the voters want. Following voter opinion is not that great an idea. It varies from group to group. It changes. It causes party members to migrate to other parties, the Greens are picking up a good number of dissatisfied left leaning ones. It leaves certain voters with a decision to make. I think he will be PM but will not do quite as well as it looks at the moment. He may even get a bit of a bloody nose.
Will Starmer make a good PM? Ok he is not that charismatic but does that matter? With he has changed and got rid of the left from his party, can be trusted
He should be as good as Wilson and Callaghan and Brown. But he's no Atlee.
No, he'd be worse than any of them, including Blair, because of his support for child poverty. I finally caught up.
Following others isn't a good look for someone who claims to be a party leader. There is, of course, nothing wrong with seeking to understand the range of public opinion, but to slavishly follow public opinion (even if there's agreement by a large majority of the public, which in the majority of instances isn't the case) isn't leadership. Leadership requires putting forward your own ideas, and then convincing others that these are right so that they follow.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Nothing beats his supine cowardice on child poverty. I'm done with the Labour Party. To obtain power to achieve what on the backs of children? Cancelling membership now.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million as you move away from NW European culture. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
All it takes is one PM on a mission, probably one planning on retiring. Blair could have done it in 2006 had he not disappeared quite so far up his own rectum.
Electoral reform, to de-polarise politics, would also help.
But, democracy does require a free and (reasonably) unbiased press. When ownership and editorial opinions of the most widely read newspapers are linked to one political party (or, the policies thereof if they manage to maintain a "plausible deniability" for such links) then we don't have the press part of democracy working.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
All it takes is one PM on a mission, probably one planning on retiring. Blair could have done it in 2006 had he not disappeared quite so far up his own rectum.
Levenson 2 would have gone a long way towards addressing the issue. The problem is over-determined but at the very least proper regulation, diverse ownership and stopping the revolving door between media and politics would have helped.
The right wing papers, particularly the Sun have always tried to mock the left parties. I remember the Sun turning Neil Kinnock into a turnip.
They keep saying Starmer is dull. Dull maybe what the country needs right now. We had enough excitement with Boris and Truss
They keep saying Starmer is dull. Dull maybe what the country needs right now.
The UK requires policies that addresss the very real problems it faces including the economic and infrastructural. Dull is neither here nor there, nor is it automatically good because the Sun happens to use it as an insult.
But, democracy does require a free and (reasonably) unbiased press. When ownership and editorial opinions of the most widely read newspapers are linked to one political party (or, the policies thereof if they manage to maintain a "plausible deniability" for such links) then we don't have the press part of democracy working.
Are those who are more left-leaning banned from starting their own newspapers or TV channels?
The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million as you move away from NW European culture. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
Are you really wanting to suggest you believe that the genetics of the world population apart from NW European culture predisposes people to be Nationalistic/Fascist? I'd suggest a very clear statement of what you're trying to say here.
Because, if you don't want to imply such an opinion you should immediately retract your statement that seems to imply it, and be much more careful with your posts to avoid that implication in the future.
If you post something that implies such a deeply racist view again we'll be calling it under C1.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
All it takes is one PM on a mission, probably one planning on retiring. Blair could have done it in 2006 had he not disappeared quite so far up his own rectum.
Aye. Seriously, when was the last time a retiring PM or any of them did anything for social justice and not for the party? Gordon Brown never had a chance.
Electoral reform, to de-polarise politics, would also help.
But, democracy does require a free and (reasonably) unbiased press. When ownership and editorial opinions of the most widely read newspapers are linked to one political party (or, the policies thereof if they manage to maintain a "plausible deniability" for such links) then we don't have the press part of democracy working.
Absolutely agreed, take the fiscal out of politics; no move that improves public services can be reversed. That's the easy bit. Controlling... a free press is not.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
All it takes is one PM on a mission, probably one planning on retiring. Blair could have done it in 2006 had he not disappeared quite so far up his own rectum.
Levenson 2 would have gone a long way towards addressing the issue. The problem is over-determined but at the very least proper regulation, diverse ownership and stopping the revolving door between media and politics would have helped.
More please. I'm sure you're right, but in my ignorance, how? How would Levenson 2 have done that and how would it have been implemented? Why wasn't it? Covid?
But, democracy does require a free and (reasonably) unbiased press. When ownership and editorial opinions of the most widely read newspapers are linked to one political party (or, the policies thereof if they manage to maintain a "plausible deniability" for such links) then we don't have the press part of democracy working.
Are those who are more left-leaning banned from starting their own newspapers or TV channels?
The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million as you move away from NW European culture. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
Are you really wanting to suggest you believe that the genetics of the world population apart from NW European culture predisposes people to be Nationalistic/Fascist? I'd suggest a very clear statement of what you're trying to say here.
Because, if you don't want to imply such an opinion you should immediately retract your statement that seems to imply it, and be much more careful with your posts to avoid that implication in the future.
If you post something that implies such a deeply racist view again we'll be calling it under C1.
Alan Ship of Fools Admin
Of course I'm not. Their genetics are, i.e. their evolved human nature is, the same in this regard as in all others apart from trivial metabolic ones. It's a function of population size and other privileges of geography and history. Britain is a low end, i.e. fourth rate full democracy only just above the first rate flawed democracy of the US category. No NW European nation is as low as the UK. I have no racist views whatsoever. I'm not that ga-ga yet.
Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership
Can you define "fit and proper", preferably without any reference to political leanings?
No history of financial or electoral crime. No criminal convictions of any kind within the last 5 years. No use of offshore financial institutions within the last 5 years. No political donations above £1000 within the last 5 years. I could probably come up with a few others. Might also consider "has not been a candidate for election to national or local government within the last five years". Worth considering number and severity of regulatory breaches too.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
All it takes is one PM on a mission, probably one planning on retiring. Blair could have done it in 2006 had he not disappeared quite so far up his own rectum.
Aye. Seriously, when was the last time a retiring PM or any of them did anything for social justice and not for the party? Gordon Brown never had a chance.
Electoral reform, to de-polarise politics, would also help.
But, democracy does require a free and (reasonably) unbiased press. When ownership and editorial opinions of the most widely read newspapers are linked to one political party (or, the policies thereof if they manage to maintain a "plausible deniability" for such links) then we don't have the press part of democracy working.
Absolutely agreed, take the fiscal out of politics; no move that improves public services can be reversed. That's the easy bit. Controlling... a free press is not.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
All it takes is one PM on a mission, probably one planning on retiring. Blair could have done it in 2006 had he not disappeared quite so far up his own rectum.
Levenson 2 would have gone a long way towards addressing the issue. The problem is over-determined but at the very least proper regulation, diverse ownership and stopping the revolving door between media and politics would have helped.
More please. I'm sure you're right, but in my ignorance, how? How would Levenson 2 have done that and how would it have been implemented? Why wasn't it? Covid?
But, democracy does require a free and (reasonably) unbiased press. When ownership and editorial opinions of the most widely read newspapers are linked to one political party (or, the policies thereof if they manage to maintain a "plausible deniability" for such links) then we don't have the press part of democracy working.
Are those who are more left-leaning banned from starting their own newspapers or TV channels?
The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million as you move away from NW European culture. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
Are you really wanting to suggest you believe that the genetics of the world population apart from NW European culture predisposes people to be Nationalistic/Fascist? I'd suggest a very clear statement of what you're trying to say here.
Because, if you don't want to imply such an opinion you should immediately retract your statement that seems to imply it, and be much more careful with your posts to avoid that implication in the future.
If you post something that implies such a deeply racist view again we'll be calling it under C1.
Alan Ship of Fools Admin
Of course I'm not. Their genetics are, i.e. their evolved human nature is, the same in this regard as in all others apart from trivial metabolic ones. It's a function of population size and other privileges of geography and history. Britain is a low end, i.e. fourth rate full democracy only just above the first rate flawed democracy of the US category. No NW European nation is as low as the UK. I have no racist views whatsoever. I'm not that ga-ga yet.
If you wish to dispute a warning, take it to Styx.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
All it takes is one PM on a mission, probably one planning on retiring. Blair could have done it in 2006 had he not disappeared quite so far up his own rectum.
Aye. Seriously, when was the last time a retiring PM or any of them did anything for social justice and not for the party? Gordon Brown never had a chance.
Electoral reform, to de-polarise politics, would also help.
But, democracy does require a free and (reasonably) unbiased press. When ownership and editorial opinions of the most widely read newspapers are linked to one political party (or, the policies thereof if they manage to maintain a "plausible deniability" for such links) then we don't have the press part of democracy working.
Absolutely agreed, take the fiscal out of politics; no move that improves public services can be reversed. That's the easy bit. Controlling... a free press is not.
And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
All it takes is one PM on a mission, probably one planning on retiring. Blair could have done it in 2006 had he not disappeared quite so far up his own rectum.
Levenson 2 would have gone a long way towards addressing the issue. The problem is over-determined but at the very least proper regulation, diverse ownership and stopping the revolving door between media and politics would have helped.
More please. I'm sure you're right, but in my ignorance, how? How would Levenson 2 have done that and how would it have been implemented? Why wasn't it? Covid?
But, democracy does require a free and (reasonably) unbiased press. When ownership and editorial opinions of the most widely read newspapers are linked to one political party (or, the policies thereof if they manage to maintain a "plausible deniability" for such links) then we don't have the press part of democracy working.
Are those who are more left-leaning banned from starting their own newspapers or TV channels?
The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million as you move away from NW European culture. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
Are you really wanting to suggest you believe that the genetics of the world population apart from NW European culture predisposes people to be Nationalistic/Fascist? I'd suggest a very clear statement of what you're trying to say here.
Because, if you don't want to imply such an opinion you should immediately retract your statement that seems to imply it, and be much more careful with your posts to avoid that implication in the future.
If you post something that implies such a deeply racist view again we'll be calling it under C1.
Alan Ship of Fools Admin
Of course I'm not. Their genetics are, i.e. their evolved human nature is, the same in this regard as in all others apart from trivial metabolic ones. It's a function of population size and other privileges of geography and history. Britain is a low end, i.e. fourth rate full democracy only just above the first rate flawed democracy of the US category. No NW European nation is as low as the UK. I have no racist views whatsoever. I'm not that ga-ga yet.
If you wish to dispute a warning, take it to Styx.
Doublethink, Admin
I don't. I didn't think I was. I thought I'd made a very clear statement of what I'm trying to say here. What am I to do? OK I immediately retract any statement that seems to imply that I'm really wanting to suggest I believe that the genetics of the world population apart from NW European culture predisposes people to be Nationalistic/Fascist. Although I don't know what that statement is.
Comments
I'm suggesting that he, and Starmer, is supporting the policy to appeal to that group. If I may appropriate an analogy from The West Wing, they're not Satan, they're the guy who runs down to the 7-11 to get Satan a pack of cigarettes.
As I said, I was bewildered by his stance on this and probed him on it to some extent. The conversation moved on.
It's always a tricky thing to assign motives to people we don't know or haven't met. That appears to be what you are doing here. You are demonising a Labour friend of mine you don't know, haven't met nor heard speak on why he saw fit to support Starmer's stance on this issue.
I don't happen to agree with him either but I don't impugn his motives.
His argument was that sometimes hard decisions need to be made. The way to handle that is to look at the priorities and look at the sums. To 'do the math' and convince him otherwise, rather than automatically assume he's out to sup with the Devil and the Daily Mail demographic.
But what do I know?
You obviously know better than I do never having met the bloke.
It may be, but that tends to depend on what faulty notions he's absorbed and how motivated his reasoning is - how might he - for instance - react to a 'hard decision' that impacted his own lifestyle.
As it is, you've just provided an anecdote that's impossible to query and interrogate in any way, and as you haven't provided enough detail it's impossible to know how representative he is of any wider tendency.
Whether Starmer is doing so is a more pertinent point, I think.
As I've said, I was surprised that he held this view but he did defend it. The comment formed part of a wider conversation and we moved on to other matters.
I wasn't presenting his views to any way suggest it represents a body of thinking within the Labour Party.
Rather I was simply making the observation that Starmer doesn't appear to be the only person within the Labour tent to do so.
As to whether he would make 'hard decisions' in terms of his own lifestyle, I think that question could apply to all of us.
All I can say, is that whilst I don't share his views on everything - and certainly not this issue - the guy has overcome some pretty serious 'demons' as it were and survived some pretty heavy shit.
Whether that has any bearing on this matter, I don't know.
Well yes, but the question isn't whether you can find a single person in favor of a particular u-turn, but the composition of the electoral coalition Starmer is trying to build in the round - which is definitely one that panders prejudices right wing tabloids. We know this based on both what he's said and who he's picked to run his strategy (Deborah Mattinson)
In many ways the main economic policies of Starmer aren't that different to Blair, well to the right of traditional socialism. It was Blair who introduced PFI, giving private business hand-outs to make money from schools and hospitals, increasing costs to the public purse. But, Blair held onto the votes of those who saw Labour as the party that would protect workers. Starmer has not only taken on right of centre economic policies (as Blair did) but also playing the culture war cards that the Tories have owned recently, and in the process created a popular conception that he's turned Labour into a slightly less nasty version of the Conservatives.
Yesterday I was out speaking to voters in Rutherglen (with a by-election that's there for Labour to win). When people are talking about wages not keeping pace with inflation, energy bills and the general cost of living ... has Starmer done enough to sell Labour as the party that will look after workers, ensuring they get paid fairly and aren't subject to exploitative contracts?
I must reiterate that I was surprised at his stance on this one.
He doesn't tend to tell me much about internal Labour debates but he doesn't have a great deal of time for Islington style North London middle-class socialists. Which perhaps makes his support for apparently Blair items style policies the more surprising.
Like most of us I suppose, he's a pretty complex character and can be a mass of apparent contradictions.
There are compromises in politics, that's the reality of it all. But there are some compromises that seem very counter-intuitive.
For myself, I can't weigh Starmer up at all. Not much 'there' there.
I do think a more stable and unified Opposition is what's needed but can understand the tensions when proposals are put forward that seem to fly in the face of what the Labour Party traditionally stood for.
I'm afraid I don't think it augurs well. The Conservatives left an open goal but currently any shot at it looks likely to go wide.
This seems to be a well-used trope but seems to mean different things depending on the user. In some uses, of course (and obviously not this one) it's an anti-semitic dog whistle.
I'm not making him out to be some kind of 'movement' or tendency as such, simply bunging what he says into the pot to see what sizzles up.
I have little knowledge of London - I just had to Google Kilburn to see if it was an area of London or a town in Ireland. What meaning were you attaching to Islington et al in this instance?
My friend doesn't like them. He sees himself as traditional Labour. Irish. Working class.
I see him as a middle class intellectual with a background in the working class.
Which is fine. I'm rather similar although his working class credentials may be stronger than mine. My family were more mixed in socio-economic and social class terms.
One could argue that this makes his support for Starmer on the benefit cap issue all the more surprising.
It's caused more discussion and analysis on this thread than I thought it might. But perhaps not ...
The demographics of Islington make that a relatively unlikely combination.
You have to appreciate that my friend is of a certain age ... fairly close to mine.
Again, a few anecdotal remarks about a Labour friend's support for Starmer on this particular issue - surprising though it might be - is attracting a fair bit of analysis.
Perhaps I shouldn't have specified a location and simply said, 'He doesn't like middle class socialists or students.'
It is an 'issue' with him but he's generally fairly tongue in cheek about it.
Islington was a Borough of very sharp contrasts back when I first knew it, as was Camden. There were certainly plenty of middle class lefties around, but probably not a major proportion of the population.
The problem is that Blair inherited an economy that was finally starting to recover after the missteps earlier in the decade, and his first two terms were in the early part of the Great Moderation. State capacity was greater than it is now post-austerity, and there were spending levers that could be pulled to increase it. PFI could be used to effectively bring investment forward without realising the entire cost immediately.
The situation now is quite different; wages and productivity have been stagnant since the GFC and the ensuing austerity. Much of the state has been further eroded. The economic situation is far from benign, and the UK is outside a major trading bloc at a time when international trade is going into reverse. The UK missed out on infrastructure investment earlier in the decade when interest rates were historically low and that situation isn't going to reverse in the near term.
Besides Reeves ruled out any increase in spending in the latest piece in the Telegraph. Streeting seems to think he can fix the NHS by the sheer force of his personality. Starmer has pinned his hopes on 'growth' but has no ideas as to how this might be achieved.
You seem to be assuming those are two completely different groups of people.
While there is no doubt some overlap, the Daily Mail target demographic (like that of the Guardian) is firmly middle class. Whether or not the Yes Minister claim that it's read by "the wives of those who run the country" holds water is left as an exercise for the reader.
Indeed. The Express targets the working class more. The Mail has always aimed itself firmly at Hyacinth Bucket types. The Express aims at her window cleaner.
He's as authoritarian as late-period Blair, and that's before taking office. You can hope that the human rights lawyer will win out over appeasing the tabloids but I wouldn't bet on it.
Although both sides of a human rights case are normally represented by a human rights lawyer (and latterly he played the state rather than the other side).
I think the reality is that the current Labour front bench have very few ideas apart from the one that they can be more competent managers. They fundamentally don't believe in investment led growth, but will be forced to spend at least the bare minimum to stop the deferred maintenance of the last ten years catching up with the country. They are basically betting on the secular economic growth improving in the first two years of their term.
He should be as good as Wilson and Callaghan and Brown. But he's no Atlee.
No, he'd be worse than any of them, including Blair, because of his support for child poverty. I finally caught up.
What a spineless bastard.
Aye.
Nothing beats his supine cowardice on child poverty. I'm done with the Labour Party. To obtain power to achieve what on the backs of children? Cancelling membership now.
There wasn't a word from Novak or Rayner at the TUC conference either.
So fuck them too.
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Standing up for your principles is a good thing we’ll done
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million as you move away from NW European culture. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
All it takes is one PM on a mission, probably one planning on retiring. Blair could have done it in 2006 had he not disappeared quite so far up his own rectum.
But, democracy does require a free and (reasonably) unbiased press. When ownership and editorial opinions of the most widely read newspapers are linked to one political party (or, the policies thereof if they manage to maintain a "plausible deniability" for such links) then we don't have the press part of democracy working.
Levenson 2 would have gone a long way towards addressing the issue. The problem is over-determined but at the very least proper regulation, diverse ownership and stopping the revolving door between media and politics would have helped.
They keep saying Starmer is dull. Dull maybe what the country needs right now. We had enough excitement with Boris and Truss
The UK requires policies that addresss the very real problems it faces including the economic and infrastructural. Dull is neither here nor there, nor is it automatically good because the Sun happens to use it as an insult.
Are those who are more left-leaning banned from starting their own newspapers or TV channels?
Can you define "fit and proper", preferably without any reference to political leanings?
Because, if you don't want to imply such an opinion you should immediately retract your statement that seems to imply it, and be much more careful with your posts to avoid that implication in the future.
If you post something that implies such a deeply racist view again we'll be calling it under C1.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Aye. Seriously, when was the last time a retiring PM or any of them did anything for social justice and not for the party? Gordon Brown never had a chance.
Absolutely agreed, take the fiscal out of politics; no move that improves public services can be reversed. That's the easy bit. Controlling... a free press is not.
More please. I'm sure you're right, but in my ignorance, how? How would Levenson 2 have done that and how would it have been implemented? Why wasn't it? Covid?
Have many left-leaning billionaires do you know?
Of course I'm not. Their genetics are, i.e. their evolved human nature is, the same in this regard as in all others apart from trivial metabolic ones. It's a function of population size and other privileges of geography and history. Britain is a low end, i.e. fourth rate full democracy only just above the first rate flawed democracy of the US category. No NW European nation is as low as the UK. I have no racist views whatsoever. I'm not that ga-ga yet.
No history of financial or electoral crime. No criminal convictions of any kind within the last 5 years. No use of offshore financial institutions within the last 5 years. No political donations above £1000 within the last 5 years. I could probably come up with a few others. Might also consider "has not been a candidate for election to national or local government within the last five years". Worth considering number and severity of regulatory breaches too.
If you wish to dispute a warning, take it to Styx.
Doublethink, Admin
I don't. I didn't think I was. I thought I'd made a very clear statement of what I'm trying to say here. What am I to do? OK I immediately retract any statement that seems to imply that I'm really wanting to suggest I believe that the genetics of the world population apart from NW European culture predisposes people to be Nationalistic/Fascist. Although I don't know what that statement is.