advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would some kind soul PM me when certain parties have stopped taking lumps out of each other, because I’m going to leave this thread alone until I can follow the discussion without the, er, punctuation.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Would some kind soul PM me when certain parties have stopped taking lumps out of each other, because I’m going to leave this thread alone until I can follow the discussion without the, er, punctuation.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's the intent i.e. to shut down any criticism of Starmer on here
 
SteveS1 said:
That's nonsense. As I said, you are clearly determined to be offended.
Click to expand...
You’ve gone from Insult, to denial, to deflection and dissembling to justification and back again to denial. Typical behaviour of a right wing Daily Mail reading Tory.
 
ks.234 said:
You’ve gone from Insult, to denial, to deflection and dissembling to justification and back again to denial. Typical behaviour of a right wing Daily Mail reading Tory.
Click to expand...

More nonsense, nor do I care about your passive/aggressive responses.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Would some kind soul PM me when certain parties have stopped taking lumps out of each other, because I’m going to leave this thread alone until I can follow the discussion without the, er, punctuation.
Click to expand...
We may have to PM you! There is inevitably going to be some argy-bargy while we establish what we’re prepared to put up with from one another while discussing inherently divisive issues, in a factional context, on the heels of a historic disaster the blame for which has not yet been assigned.

Personally I see no need to tolerate substantive criticism of Starmer being met with 1) sneering about joining the SWP if I want to maintain ideological purity 2) finger-wagging about the necessity of unifying behind the lesser evil 3) fact-free rumour-mongering about systematic wrecking campaigns 4) bizarre, unmotivated accusations of class prejudice.

People are welcome to indulge in all of that of course, but shouldn’t be surprised at the response. I’m sure the thread will become more civilised once they’ve learned to reign in their instincts a bit.
 
Seanm said:
We may have to PM you! There is inevitably going to be some argy-bargy while we establish what we’re prepared to put up with from one another while discussing inherently divisive issues, in a factional context, on the heels of a historic disaster the blame for which has not yet been assigned.

Personally I see no need to tolerate substantive criticism of Starmer being met with 1) sneering about joining the SWP if I want to maintain ideological purity 2) finger-wagging about the necessity of unifying behind the lesser evil 3) fact-free rumour-mongering about systematic wrecking campaigns 4) bizarre, unmotivated accusations of class prejudice.

People are welcome to indulge in all of that of course, but shouldn’t be surprised at the response. I’m sure the thread will become more civilised once they’ve learned to reign in their instincts a bit.
Click to expand...

Other than that, you're pretty objective then. You can just as easily swap the examples you chose with "Daily Mail readers", "Tories" etc., but I guess you didn't object to those.
 
SteveS1 said:
Other than that, you're pretty objective then. You can just as easily swap the examples you chose with "Daily Mail readers", "Tories" etc., but I guess you didn't object to those.
Click to expand...
What’s objectivity got to do with it? I was just listing a number of stock centrist responses to criticism of Starmer that I find infuriating, on the grounds that they don’t make any sense and require the last 5 years to be memory-holed. The accusation that criticism of Starmer demonstrates that the left are actually happier fighting themselves than the Tories is another one, thanks for the reminder.
 
Seanm said:
What’s objectivity got to do with it? I was just listing a number of stock centrist responses to criticism of Starmer that I find infuriating, on the grounds that they don’t make any sense and require the last 5 years to be memory-holed. The accusation that criticism of Starmer demonstrates that the left are actually happier fighting themselves than the Tories is another one, thanks for the reminder.
Click to expand...

OK but there are stock left wing responses to Starmer that are equally infuriating. You complained at sneering and then sneered about what you describe as "finger wagging at the need to unify behind a lesser evil" as if that isn't exactly what many people did last time, myself included.

I've never known a UK election that hasn't been a case of "least bad" option, but there we are. I'm afraid that last point is an unfortunate truth, taking "left" to mean everything left of centre. The Tories will unite to win even though they are at each other's throats over many issues. The left has never been as effective at that. It's uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it untrue. We have to try harder but that means all of us.
 
SteveS1 said:
OK but there are stock left wing responses to Starmer that are equally infuriating. You complained at sneering and then sneered about what you describe as "finger wagging at the need to unify behind a lesser evil" as if that isn't exactly what many people did last time, myself included.

I've never known a UK election that hasn't been a case of "least bad" option, but there we are. I'm afraid that last point is an unfortunate truth, taking "left" to mean everything left of centre. The Tories will unite to win even though they are at each other's throats over many issues. The left has never been as effective at that. It's uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it untrue. We have to try harder but that means all of us.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the point: it's not that it's untrue, it's that it's a universal law. It's not a meaningful response to a specific criticism. In fairness Steve, you've got a couple of modes. One is to address the specific point, but one is to say, "Well, you know eventually you'll have to get behind him, there's no point sniping from the sidelines!", maybe with some stuff about purity, SWP etc. to gild the lily. The left does not need to be told this, given that we've been hearing it all our lives, and we specifically don't need to hear it from your general direction, given how many in the moderate camp spent the last 5 years persuading themselves that actually, this law needn't apply to them.
 
Seanm said:
What’s objectivity got to do with it? I was just listing a number of stock centrist responses to criticism of Starmer that I find infuriating, on the grounds that they don’t make any sense and require the last 5 years to be memory-holed. The accusation that criticism of Starmer demonstrates that the left are actually happier fighting themselves than the Tories is another one, thanks for the reminder.
Click to expand...
Yes, as you say the responses to criticism of Starmer make no sense beyond ‘at least he”s not Corbyn’ and ‘It’s early days’. The response that criticising Starmer is infuriating is odd because those criticisms centre around evidence based concerns about Starmer going against his own election pledges.
 
tim_large2719.jpg
 
droodzilla said:
I'm not going to agree with everything you say in that post, but I appreciate the thoughtful reply. In particular, acknowledging the internal sabotage from the right during the 2017 election campaign goes a long way with me - it's a sign of good faith, and shows that someone is willing to accept facts that don't fit in with some pre-established version of events.

I don't see this as a narrow factional point. It ought to be a massive, scandalous story that a faction within the main opposition party deliberately tried to hobble its prospects, and even set up a shadow campaign to protect its favoured candidates in seats that were already safe. Thats £100K+ that could have been spent on campaigning to win marginal seats from the Tories. Who knows where we might be now, if that had happened. It seems to me that anyone who cares about progressive politics, or the state of British democracy, ought to feel some outrage about this. Yet, because it did not fit in with the "Corbyn is a loser" narrative, the story was pretty much buried in The Guardian (apparently, it turned down the exclusive) and has only received sporadic coverage since, always slanted in favour of the individuals named in the leaked report, and glossing over the details of the allegations (which, of course, are damning).

Furthermore, the unprofessional, hyper-partisan behaviour described in the report doesn't just exist in the past, but has implications for the future. The individuals named in the leaked report saw anyone to the left of Gordon Brown as "Trots" and it is their faction that was responsible for undermining Ed Milliband in a stream of anonymous briefings during his leadership. They also put pressure on Milliband to go against his soft-left instincts and sign up to an "austerity-lite" manifesto with a dash of anti-immigant sentiment. Now, I'm still prepared to take the optimistic view that Starmer's instincts are soft-left and that, ideally, he wants to go to the polls in 2024 with a manifesto somewhat to the left of Milliband's in 2015. If that's the case, it's hard to see how the people who (loudly and publicly) undermined Corbyn will not try to (subtly) undermine Starmer when he pursues soft-left policies.

Whatever Starmer's vision turns out to be, the leaked report shows a deeply dysfunctional party bureaucracy, seriously in need of a overhaul, and I hope Starmer is up to the challenge.

Regarding my vote, I'm lucky enough to have a decent socialist MP in Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) so, in reality, it would take an earthquake in the wider party for me not to vote Labour. If I had one of the useless MPs on the right of the party (e.g. Angela Smith, who argued against Labour's water privatisation policy, defected to the Lib-Dems, lost her seat and then promptly took a job with a private water company) and Labour tacked hard to the right, chasing socially conservative voters, that would cause me a lot of soul-searching and I'm not sure I could support Labour in those circumstances.
Click to expand...
Yes. The sabotage of the Labour Party by an internal right wing faction within should be a massive and scandalous story, not least because the faction is still there and is still manipulating behind the scenes to ensure a right wing policy direction that is showing itself to be anti union and anti immigration. It is important because it appears that it is this faction who are the real policy makers in Labour, not Starmer. It is important because at heart it’s corrupt.

The main reason that this isn’t a massive and scandalous story is precisely that it doesn’t fit with the anti Corbyn narrative that so many people outside the Labour party have bought into with such relish in the past.

Unfortunately, if pfm is anything to go by, there are still one or two people who still believe that concerns over Labour’s policy making process is ‘princess stuff’ and don’t, or won’t, care about policy until the next election. Not being interested in policy at all, or not until the next election is absolutely fine, but belittling those of us who do care is not

For some of us it is not possible to leave decision making for another 4 years, the build up to the next GE is already underway not least with organising for local elections. Those who are active members are donating, doing and being asked to volunteer for stuff right now.

I have to ask myself if want to continue spending time and money engaged in promoting a party that I have little idea about and that might be fatally corrupted? Other people might not be interested in such questions, which is fine, but that disinterest does not make the questions either invalid or the stuff of fairy tales.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top