Next Labour Leader: Keir Starmer

[Jim Audiomisc]

In fairness Facebook was never designed to be a political tool, just a place where social interactions between friends and various interest groups could take place. I’d argue most of its problems have occurred due to groups or entities attempting to manipulate and subvert it way, way beyond that initial concept. In no way has it ever set out to be a political platform.

Anyway, why does a communications business like Facebook have any requirement to facilitate a “cohesive and evidence-based society/politics” or whatever, and if so who gets to define exactly what that is?

Because we as a society require (often by law) companies and individuals to behave in a *responsible* manner and not simply do what 'sells' and makes them rich.

The problem has been the the owner(s) of FarceBook, etc, have consistently denied having any responsibility. For years they've hidden behind the claim that they aren't 'publishers', etc, and pretended it was nothing to do with them - as they raked in money and power and influence. They are now essentially monopolies.

In one sense this is no different to when a few moguls controlled businesses in, for example US rail/oil and then 'stacked the deck' against smaller competitors, suppliers and customers. e.g. Standard Oil cutting deals with railroads that gave them a lower price and *required* any oil competitors to pay *extra* which subsidised SO.

This was legal for years as the rich involved insisted it was both legal and OK. Until the US introduced 'anti trust laws'. History is littered with examples where those with the power and money shirk responsibility and just maximise their gains whilst damaging everyone else. It happens until the public pressure forces goverment to act, or those involved to actually change their behaviour.

FarceBook, etc, make *huge* profits and are effectively monopolies in their areas of operation. They can be expected to deal with these problems, and in the end we will have to enforce them doing so. Possibly by some form of breakup if they won't change their act.

 

[Tony L]

...and again we are back to nationalism. Do you trust your government to make the right decisions? How will those decisions sit with those made by other nations (obviously including dictatorships, authoritarian states etc)?

The internet is bigger than nations. It absolutely needs to be IMHO as nations can be such staggeringly dangerous and illiberal things. Facebook isn’t perfect by any stretch, it is really quite ugly in many ways, but I’ll take it over Dominic Raab or Theresa May any day of the week, and that’s before we factor the real murderous illiberal states like Saudi, Russia, Iran etc. I detest Zuckerberg, I really don’t like the guy at all, but his motives are fairly transparent and benign compared to the forces of national authoritarianism.

 

[jackbarron]

Listening to Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Office minister, Racheal Reeves, on Andrew Marr on being asked where Labour actually opposes the Tories, the only area Reeves could come up with was on Stamp Duty. Reeves also made it clear that Labour will not raise taxes for the richest.

In what respects are Labour now more to the left of the Tories? Does the Tory shift leave Labour standing to the right of the Tories?

Mmm, it wasn't quite as clear as that. Reeves didn't say Labour won't raise taxes on the rich. However, she didn't say they would, when Marr asked her a few times about people who earn more than £80,000. Instead she deferred and said she wouldn't make up a Labour manifesto on The Marr Show.

I thought Reeves was going to be competely and utterly crap on the Show. She wasn't quite as bas as that. The problem is Labour don't have a clear line of opposition against Johnson and the Tories. It is time they stopped being polite to them because of Covid-19. Starmer pulling Johnson apart during PMQs isn't enough. Most of the country don't watch or give a monkey's about it.

Labour should demolish the Tories whenever they can. It isn't quite as bad as Corbyn sitting on the fence about Brexit, but it's getting there.

Jack

 

[doctorf]

IMHO Starmer will get his chance, but for the moment he just needs to keep making an idiot out of Johnson.
Slowly but surely things will swing his way, and at that point Boris will be binned.
That's when Starmer will need to have a good team and electable policies.
No rush; an election is over 4 years away.

 

[Woodface]

Some people will never give Starmer a chance as their love for Corbyn is for ever undimmed.

I never really gave Corbyn a chance so it is interesting watching from the other side.

Plenty of time for Labour till the next election, probably best to keep BJ in power for a bit longer.

No one on her has a clue who will win the next election so pointless speculating

 

[ks.234]

Mmm, it wasn't quite as clear as that. Reeves didn't say Labour won't raise taxes on the rich. However, she didn't say they would, when Marr asked her a few times about people who earn more than £80,000. Instead she deferred and said she wouldn't make up a Labour manifesto on The Marr Show.

I thought Reeves was going to be competely and utterly crap on the Show. She wasn't quite as bas as I anticipated. The problem is Labour don't have a clear line of opposition against Johnson and the Tories. It is time they stopped being polite to them because of Covid-19. Starmer pulling Johnson apart during PMQs isn't enough. Most of the country don't watch or give a monkey's about it.

Labour should demolish the Tories whenever they can. It isn't quite as bad as Corbyn sitting on the fence about Brexit, but it's getting there.

Jack

You’re quite right about tax, but Marr asked a series of specific questions all of which posed the same general question, where does Labour oppose the Tories? All Reeves could do was trot out the ‘too little, too late’ mantra and I’m still left wondering in what respects Labour are now to the left of the Tories?

Starmer might be playing a clever, long term game aimed at winning the next election, but if the Tories are more left wing than Labour, what’s the point?

 

[droodzilla]

Mmm, it wasn't quite as clear as that. Reeves didn't say Labour won't raise taxes on the rich. However, she didn't say they would, when Marr asked her a few times about people who earn more than £80,000. Instead she deferred and said she wouldn't make up a Labour manifesto on The Marr Show.

I thought Reeves was going to be competely and utterly crap on the Show. She wasn't quite as bas as I anticipated. The problem is Labour don't have a clear line of opposition against Johnson and the Tories. It is time they stopped being polite to them because of Covid-19. Starmer pulling Johnson apart during PMQs isn't enough. Most of the country don't watch or give a monkey's about it.

Labour should demolish the Tories whenever they can. It isn't quite as bad as Corbyn sitting on the fence about Brexit, but it's getting there.

Jack

Starmer pledged to raise income tax for the top 5% of earners when he ran for leader:

https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/

It's the first item on the list. Has he changed his mind?

 

[jackbarron]

Starmer pledged to raise income tax for the top 5% of earners when he ran for leader:

https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/

It's the first item on the list. Has he changed his mind?

I guess Reeves hedged her bets because Starmer's pledge hasn't been rubberstamped by the Party at the Conference. Oh well. There'll be no proper opposition until then, if at all.

Jack

 

[Kirk]

Some people will never give Starmer a chance as their love for Corbyn is for ever undimmed.

I never really gave Corbyn a chance so it is interesting watching from the other side.

Plenty of time for Labour till the next election, probably best to keep BJ in power for a bit longer.

No one on her has a clue who will win the next election so pointless speculating

Sort of agree with that. Starmer needs time to rebuild Labour's credibility/competency - something that was totally shot post the election and Magic Grandpa. To do so, he needs at the very minimum to look and sound credible (as in time does his cabinet and the broader party). The polls suggest he is slowly doing just that. Once he's established his credentials as a leader/politician/decent human being etc, he can roll out policies and manifestos knowing that they will receive a much warmer welcome because voters rate him. Long way to go though, as Woodface says.

 

[SteveS1]

Starmer pledged to raise income tax for the top 5% of earners when he ran for leader:

https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/

It's the first item on the list. Has he changed his mind?

They are in opposition, one of the few advantages of which is that you get to see what your opponent does first in a situation like this. Personally, I would be waiting to see who the Tories are going to make foot the bill before I offered my alternative. Why give them and the media the chance to pick over something before then? Absolutely nothing to gain.

 

[ks.234]

Starmer pledged to raise income tax for the top 5% of earners when he ran for leader:

https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/

It's the first item on the list. Has he changed his mind?

TBH I can see the logic of keeping quiet on tax, even if he hasn’t changed his mind. Why give the Daily mail tomorrow’s ‘Tax bombshell’ headline?

However, there is much more to his 10 pledges that could and should provide a solid base from which to oppose the Tories. A commitment to a green economy and promoting new green jobs as a means to restart the wider economy. A commitment to tackling low pay and job insecurity as a means of promoting consumer confidence. Support for teachers. Create jobs in the regions by devolving ‘power, wealth and opportunity’.

It’s not just tax that Labour is keeping quiet about, it’s everything. If Labour is too timid to stand up for much needed alternatives to the Tories they are in danger of being left standing alone, isolated and looking lost and directionless.

 

[Joe Hutch]

A commitment to low pay and job insecurity as a means of promoting consumer confidence.

Hmm.

 

[ks.234]

Hmm.

Thank you. Post edited.

 

[Woodface]

Re: SteveS1 post, free-spending Tories might offer Labour the opportunity to improve their image


Sort of agree with that. Starmer needs time to rebuild Labour's credibility/competency - something that was totally shot post the election and Magic Grandpa. To do so, he needs at the very minimum to look and sound credible (as in time does his cabinet and the broader party). The polls suggest he is slowly doing just that. Once he's established his credentials as a leader/politician/decent human being etc, he can roll out policies and manifestos knowing that they will receive a much warmer welcome because voters rate him. Long way to go though, as Woodface says.

Exactly this, he’s been leader for just over 3 months. I think he has achieved a lot in this short time.

Now is not the time to launch new policy.

 

[ks.234]

Exactly this, he’s been leader for just over 3 months. I think he has achieved a lot in this short time.

Now is not the time to launch new policy.

It seems to me that Starmer’ 10 pledges are a decent basis on which to challenge the government right now when the government policy is in question and the media are getting critical. If Starmer is shy about highlighting his pledges now, when will he?

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

...and again we are back to nationalism. Do you trust your government to make the right decisions? How will those decisions sit with those made by other nations (obviously including dictatorships, authoritarian states etc)?

The internet is bigger than nations. It absolutely needs to be IMHO as nations can be such staggeringly dangerous and illiberal things. Facebook isn’t perfect by any stretch, it is really quite ugly in many ways, but I’ll take it over Dominic Raab or Theresa May any day of the week, and that’s before we factor the real murderous illiberal states like Saudi, Russia, Iran etc. I detest Zuckerberg, I really don’t like the guy at all, but his motives are fairly transparent and benign compared to the forces of national authoritarianism.

You are confusing the internet with the activities of some specific companies.

And since I wish behaviour in the UK to be regulated by a legal code we vote for, yes, I expect what happens in the UK to be delinieated by law which our governments (plural) enact as we, the electorate, prefer.

Indeed, in modern western capitalism, the mantra of big business tends to be that anything not explicitly forbidden is Ok for them to do if they wish. Or indeed, if they can simply get away with it by obfuscation, etc.

We can choose our government. We have no choice over who owns/controlls FarceBook, etc.

Z.s actions don't seem to square with his PR wrt his 'motives', or else it seems to be the case that what he 'wishes' isn't actually what we get from what he does, even if he is deluded enough to think otherwise.

Why assume he must be right in assuming/asserting that the behaviour of his company matches his stated 'motives'? is he not human and fallible? Or do we have to assume that if someone becomes an 'internet' billionaire they are supermench whose ideas must rule all us little people?

And it is, now, companies like FarceBook that *help* people like BloJo, and Trump to do well. They follow the money because that's the way to get rich and powerful.

 

[Tony L]

We seem to be going around in circles as you seem to be interpreting my position as defending Facebook. I’m not. I view it as hugely imperfect for all the reasons you do. I do however very firmly believe that we (the inhabitants of the planet earth) need a properly secure and easy to use communication network that exists well above the reach of petty nationalism and authoritarianism. Would I prefer to see this managed as an open collective? Yes, of course! Sadly the reality is the nearest to that at present is some shithole like 4Chan or wherever, so we have to take what is the best current option.

Anyway, please show your alternate! Explain how it is secure. Explain who defines and moderates it. Explain how it is safe and secure enough to, for instance, help the resistance get persecuted LGBT folk out of Chechnya or Iran and to asylum.

As soon as a genuinely safe, secure and user-friendly *global* non-corporate platform arrives I’m certain huge numbers will exit Facebook. It does need to be out of the reach of nation states though. That is absolutely essential.

 

[Seeker_UK]

As soon as a genuinely safe, secure and user-friendly *global* non-corporate platform arrives I’m certain huge numbers will exit Facebook. It does need to be out of the reach of nation states though. That is absolutely essential.

Is there any chance such a thing would ever be more than another 4Chan or 8Chan?

 

[Tony L]

Is there any chance such a thing would ever be more than another 4Chan or 8Chan?

I’d love to think so, but to be honest I can’t see it. Some open source software products are obviously stunningly good, e.g. Linux, Libre/OpenOffice, Gimp, Audacity etc etc, but they tend to be products rather than services, so can survive on a very different business model to something that needs huge numbers of complaint-handlers, content moderators, user support staff etc etc. It’s just too big and too fast-moving to expect it to work on say a (far more secure/confidential) Wikipedia basis, though that would be admirable.

I truly wish there was a better Facebook equivalent. It is a real shame that, and Twitter, is currently the best we can come up with as a species, but I’d hate for there not to be this kind of tool at all. We desperately need this kind of global communication tool given the ugly direction of politics in so many areas on this planet at present. It is absolutely essential people can safely communicate beyond borders, get their message out and speak truth to power.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

We seem to be going around in circles as you seem to be interpreting my position as defending Facebook. I’m not. I view it as hugely imperfect for all the reasons you do. I do however very firmly believe that we (the inhabitants of the planet earth) need a properly secure and easy to use communication network that exists well above the reach of petty nationalism and authoritarianism. Would I prefer to see this managed as an open collective? Yes, of course! Sadly the reality is the nearest to that at present is some shithole like 4Chan or wherever, so we have to take what is the best current option.

Anyway, please show your alternate! Explain how it is secure. Explain who defines and moderates it. Explain how it is safe and secure enough to, for instance, help the resistance get persecuted LGBT folk out of Chechnya or Iran and to asylum.

As soon as a genuinely safe, secure and user-friendly *global* non-corporate platform arrives I’m certain huge numbers will exit Facebook. It does need to be out of the reach of nation states though. That is absolutely essential.

You are still assuming that the internet is the same thing as the behaviour and use of it by a few big companies. They are not the same.

The internet existed before FarceBook, etc, and it can exist as and when FarceBook goes or changes. The internet is a tool, not our master.

Systems like usenet have been, and are, distributed arrangements not owned or controlled by anyone. Again, a method that runs on the 'rails' of the internet, but isn't the internet.

The problem that by their nature the 'big four' tend to have the the 'monopoly advantage' that lets them expoit the net and either kill or buy off alternatives. They also exclude from view alternatives because the driving motive of the big for is monopolistic *cash flow* and control.

That just replicates earlier 'trusts' etc of other kinds. Which eventually had to be dealt with by *democratic* means setting the rules and ensure diversity, responsibility.

Ask what fraction of people in the 'western world' use a search engine *other* than the obvious one, and if they even know alternatives exist. Hint: I use one, but I suspect someone wouldn't know it even exists if they simply 'g00gle' everything without thinking. How do you generate competition when the dominating platforms essentially hide even indicating they exist?