Labour Leader: Keir Starmer III

[Joe Hutch]

If the bloody fist fights that break out on here between people of different party allegiances and none, people who would normally sit comfortably within the broad church of centre ground politics, is anything to go by, the problem is wider than the Labour Party. It’s a leftish problem. A problem that doesn’t seem to do the rounds in rightish circles

It's a problem which affected/afflicted non-Tory groups long before the Labour Party was even thought of. Though of course, the Tory party has had its own share of factionalism for just as long; the Tory party has split several times over the course of its history. But you're correct in saying that the Tories can usually get away with less damage because of their lack of an explicit ideology.

 

[maxflinn]

Are you in such a state of denial or internet warrior trolling that you can’t accept that Labour lost 60s seats (from an already losing position two years previous), leading to its worst defeat in living memory? You can google it easily enough. Labour lost. Terribly. To Boris Johnson of all people!

Labour would have won in 2017 were it not for the unprecedented smear campaign against its leader; a smear campaign without Foundation in which many Labour MPs took part.

It wasn't Corbyn's fault. The smear campaign would have carried on despite anything he might have said or done, and Labour would still have lost because of it.

Do you not understand this? It's pretty obvious.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Would Corbyn have done as well as he did against anyone less patently useless than May? All this counter-factualism stuff is a bit pointless, really. Any Labour leader has to assume that the media will be against him (Ed Miliband had just a bad a press as Corbyn did). Given that the press isn't going to change unless/until it's forced to, and that the Tories have no reason to want to intervene, Labour has to find a message that is attractive to voters, and a credible leader to present that message.

 

[maxflinn]

I don't believe there's any comparison between the press coverage of Miliband and Corbyn. The latter got it far worse, with many MPs in his own party coordinating with the media in orchestrated primetime resignations etc. The fake anti-Semitism scandal rarely left the news headlines for longer than a few days over years.

Not a peep about AS in Labour these days though....

 

[ks.234]

It's a problem which affected/afflicted non-Tory groups long before the Labour Party was even thought of. Though of course, the Tory party has had its own share of factionalism for just as long; the Tory party has split several times over the course of its history. But you're correct in saying that the Tories can usually get away with less damage because of their lack of an explicit ideology.

Yes, good point. Though the big splits in the Tory party were with a much narrower electorate. Was it only as the electorate widened and the needs of the many became a consideration that the few got in line? Was it that once the few had a common enemy in the many, they coalesced around as few public principles as possible in order maintain as much control as possible?

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Corbyn was the best prime minister we never had... yet. Nothing would please me more than Starmer to be deposed and replaced with Corbyn. They would then need to put all effort into what is really the only thing that matters.... getting control of the MSM,

 

[Seanm]

Would Corbyn have done as well as he did against anyone less patently useless than May? All this counter-factualism stuff is a bit pointless, really. Any Labour leader has to assume that the media will be against him (Ed Miliband had just a bad a press as Corbyn did). Given that the press isn't going to change unless/until it's forced to, and that the Tories have no reason to want to intervene, Labour has to find a message that is attractive to voters, and a credible leader to present that message.

As with the factionalism thing, the trouble with saying “The media will always attack Labour!” is that you miss the specifics of the situation: Corbyn in fact got *much* more negative coverage than Miliband - there’s a fair bit of empirical evidence on this if you’re interested. And that wasn’t the only difference in terms of the media either.

All this “‘twas ever thus” stuff is self-inflicted frog-boiling: we end up saying, Well of course the opposition’s bureaucracy will attempt to sabotage the party! Of course prominent Labour MPs will be given seats in the Lords in exchange for telling people to vote Conservative! Of course the BBC will repeat Conservative lies 24/7! Of course the Conservatives will be allowed to use dark money to flood social media with anonymous attack ads! Of course the Conservatives will conspire with the press to create pseudo-parties, to be deployed only when and where it suits the Conservatives! When really we ought to be registering the fact that this is actually all quite messed up, and not really compatible with what most people think of as democracy.

 

[Tony L]

I do think all the ‘Poor St Jeremy The Victim’ thing is a bit much. I accept the point about the BBC, that should unquestionably be impartial, but Labour’s MPs are 100% on Labour, they selected that crap themselves, and the Conservatives broke no laws I’m aware of with their campaigning. Momentum, AAV etc were absolutely all over social media, my feed was full of it, so again fair game if the Tories used it too. The UK tabloid press is unspeakably vile, right wing, and fundamentally racist, but it always has been. That is a constant for at least 100 years.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Yes, good point. Though the big splits in the Tory party were with a much narrower electorate. Was it only as the electorate widened and the needs of the many became a consideration that the few got in line? Was it that once the few had a common enemy in the many, they coalesced around as few public principles as possible in order maintain as much control as possible?

The issues that historically split the Tories sort of became irrelevant as time went on; for example, free trade versus protectionism, where free trade 'won' so convincingly that support for protectionism became limited to a small lunatic fringe on the very right of the Tory party. Similarly, the issue of religious freedom, particularly in Ireland, gradually became irrelevant as Ireland broke away from the UK, though obviously it's still an issue in Northern Ireland. More recently, of course there's been the issue of UK membership of the EU.

So 'public principles', for the Tories, have narrowed down to unthinking nationalism, and a vague notion of individualism vs state intervention.

 

[sean99]

It's a problem which affected/afflicted non-Tory groups long before the Labour Party was even thought of. Though of course, the Tory party has had its own share of factionalism for just as long; the Tory party has split several times over the course of its history. But you're correct in saying that the Tories can usually get away with less damage because of their lack of an explicit ideology.

The Tories and GOP suffer less from internal division because their mission is simple and shared; grift. The left, on the other hand, is trying to solve difficult social issues.

The right : United in grift.

 

[Seanm]

I do think all the ‘Poor St Jeremy The Victim’ thing is a bit much. I accept the point about the BBC, that should unquestionably be impartial, but Labour’s MPs are 100% on Labour, they selected that crap themselves, and the Conservatives broke no laws I’m aware of with their campaigning. Momentum, AAV etc were absolutely all over social media, my feed was full of it, so again fair game if the Tories used it too. The UK tabloid press is unspeakably vile, right wing, and fundamentally racist, but it always has been. That is a constant for at least 100 years.

It's not a question of playing the victim, those are objective advantages that the Tories hold over any opposition. And you need to understand some important differences: AAA, whatever you think of it, is not the same as a made-up organisation placing paid ads on Facebook that circumvent rules on electoral spending (story here if you're interested - I'm sure it's the tip of the iceberg: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/da...r-700000-without-declaring-a-single-donation/).

It really is remarkable how much system-stacking people are prepared to put up with if it means that people they dislike get pounded. Part of the problem I guess. In particular I find it weird that people just accept that the official opposition will systematically destroy itself whenever it gets in a position to offer a meaningful alternative: "That's Labour's problem!" Well it would be I suppose if we had a range of oppositions to choose from, but as things stand it's really a problem for all of us.

 

[ks.234]

Would Corbyn have done as well as he did against anyone less patently useless than May? All this counter-factualism stuff is a bit pointless, really. Any Labour leader has to assume that the media will be against him (Ed Miliband had just a bad a press as Corbyn did). Given that the press isn't going to change unless/until it's forced to, and that the Tories have no reason to want to intervene, Labour has to find a message that is attractive to voters, and a credible leader to present that message.

Sorry, but have to disagree here to one degree or another. First of all I’m not sure that May was anymore or less useless than any in a long line of Tory leaders. Second, I’m pretty certain Corbyn didn’t have it just as bad as Miliband

 

[Tony L]

It really is remarkable how much system-stacking people are prepared to put up with if it means that people they dislike get pounded. Part of the problem I guess. In particular I find it weird that people just accept that the official opposition will systematically destroy itself whenever it gets in a position to offer a meaningful alternative: "That's Labour's problem!"

I’d like nothing more to see the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Sun and Telegraph burned to the ground. I donate to and regularly publicise #StopFundingHate, who have done far more to fight these vile racist, sexist and homophobic propaganda entities than Labour, who’s usual response seems to be to write columns in them!

Labour is Labour’s problem, and an entirely self-created one. That is just a basic fact. It is not my fault it doesn’t provide any meaningful scrutiny, opposition or provide an ideology I can vote for. All that is in my power is where to put my ‘X’ and I’ll keep prioritising parties that stand up for electoral reform as that is the only logical way out of this mess. Until Labour grasp this they are just part of the problem we face.

PS Miliband got absolutely crucified by the tabloid press, e.g. eating a bacon sandwich all wrong (with its inherently anti-Semitic subtext), dragging his father and family onto every front page etc. The gutter press is what it is. Stop funding it!

 

[Seanm]

I’d like nothing more to see the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Sun and Telegraph burned to the ground. I donate to and regularly publicise #StopFundingHate, who have done far more to fight these vile racist, sexist and homophobic propaganda entities than Labour, who’s usual response seems to be to write columns in them!

Labour is Labour’s problem, and an entirely self-created one. That is just a basic fact. It is not my fault it doesn’t provide any meaningful scrutiny, opposition or provide an ideology I can vote for. All that is in my power is where to put my ‘X’ and I’ll keep prioritising parties that stand up for electoral reform as that is the only logical way out of this mess. Until Labour grasp this they are just part of the problem we face.

PS Miliband got absolutely crucified by the tabloid press, e.g. eating a bacon sandwich all wrong (with its inherently anti-Semitic subtext), dragging his father and family onto every front page etc. The gutter press is what it is. Stop funding it!

My point isn't a partisan one, and I'm not saying any of this is your fault. I just think that a disinterested observer would look at the fundamental structure of British parliamentary democracy, where two parties battle for control of the country, look at what happened within one party when it got close to winning control with a program that powerful people didn't like, and think, "Hmm..."

A reminder: internal sabotage on multiple levels, involving naked bribery. It's just obviously not good for anyone. Even if we say, OK that's a problem with the way that the party works, and not necessarily a problem with the broader democratic system (Hmm...) I think the fact that the media has just smoothed over the issue and refused to interrogate the party over it suggests that actually it *is* a problem with the system as such, given the role that media are traditionally supposed to play.

As for Miliband, yes he was vilified by the press (and undermined by the right wing of the party), but the fact is that the attacks on Corbyn's Labour were on another level entirely. This has been established by empirical research and isn't a matter of opinion (e.g. see here). I think this is a different issue, though, to the internal sabotage, the corruption, the illegally funded social media campaign and the Brexit Party fandango, which together put the UK in the managed democracy category, IMO.

 

[Tony L]

My point isn't a partisan one, and I'm not saying any of this is your fault. I just think that a disinterested observer would look at the fundamental structure of British parliamentary democracy, where two parties battle for control of the country, look at what happened within one party when it got close to winning control with a program that powerful people didn't like, and think, "Hmm..."

My main position is the whole system is broken, and I’m sorry, but I absolutely did not see Corbyn as the fix. I never once heard him mention electoral reform, the party he headed is rotten to its core, as is much of the trade union movement that backs it. It just wasn’t the answer. It never is.

Lets analyse what Labour has done over the years to implement a proper representative democracy and rein-in the right-wing tax exile press barons etc? To my eyes nothing. Pick up pretty much any nationalist gutter tabloid and you’ll find some Labour gammon writing a column somewhere inside. They actively endorse, enable and perpetuate the whole situation. Labour are nothing but a thin token veneer of opposition on an establishment career machine. 2019 was yet another irrelevant episode in a endless recursive loop Punch & Judy show. A status quo that has returned a Conservative government for something like 80% of the last 120 years, yet a system the Labour party still fully supports and actively resists any change.

 

[Fatmarley]

Labour would have won in 2017 were it not for the unprecedented smear campaign against its leader; a smear campaign without Foundation in which many Labour MPs took part.

It wasn't Corbyn's fault. The smear campaign would have carried on despite anything he might have said or done, and Labour would still have lost because of it.

Do you not understand this? It's pretty obvious.

The amount of times I heard or saw people say he was a terrorist sympathiser, a traitor that hates his country etc etc. People that I know well were saying this stuff, even my own mother said she didn't trust him.

It amazes me that anyone could think the smear campaign had nothing to do with him losing the election. It had everything to do with it.

 

[russel]

My main position is the whole system is broken, and I’m sorry, but I absolutely did not see Corbyn as the fix. I never once heard him mention electoral reform, the party he headed is rotten to its core, as is much of the trade union movement that backs it. It just wasn’t the answer. It never is.

Lets analyse what Labour has done over the years to implement a proper representative democracy and rein-in the right-wing tax exile press barons etc? To my eyes nothing. Pick up pretty much any nationalist gutter tabloid and you’ll find some Labour gammon writing a column somewhere inside. They actively endorse, enable and perpetuate the whole situation. Labour are nothing but a thin token veneer of opposition on an establishment career machine. 2019 was yet another irrelevant episode in a endless recursive loop Punch & Judy show. A status quo that has returned a Conservative government for something like 80% of the last 120 years, yet a system the Labour party still fully supports and actively resists any change.

If Labour think the only way they will gain any influence is by supporting PR, then it will support PR, that’s what politicians do.

 

[droodzilla]

My main position is the whole system is broken, and I’m sorry, but I absolutely did not see Corbyn as the fix. I never once heard him mention electoral reform, the party he headed is rotten to its core, as is much of the trade union movement that backs it. It just wasn’t the answer. It never is.

Lets analyse what Labour has done over the years to implement a proper representative democracy and rein-in the right-wing tax exile press barons etc? To my eyes nothing. Pick up pretty much any nationalist gutter tabloid and you’ll find some Labour gammon writing a column somewhere inside. They actively endorse, enable and perpetuate the whole situation. Labour are nothing but a thin token veneer of opposition on an establishment career machine. 2019 was yet another irrelevant episode in a endless recursive loop Punch & Judy show. A status quo that has returned a Conservative government for something like 80% of the last 120 years, yet a system the Labour party still fully supports and actively resists any change.

I think Sean's point is that the way Corbyn was smashed from all directions is a sign of how broken the system is. Even the mild, European style, reforms proposed by Corbyn had to be stopped, even if everything else was burned to the ground in the process.

I hope you'll read the Open Democracy article Sean linked to. Nearly a million quid splashed on social media ads hostile to Labour - funding opaque, and technically not counted as Conservative Party election expenditure. It's not at all comparable with AAV - that's just a bloke churning out stuff from his bedroom in Sheffield (not me, I hasten to add!), with a small number of paying supporters.

I sometimes wonder if Corbyn's cardinal sin was that he would not fall into line on foreign policy. He might even have pursued individuals for historic human rights abuses, had he gained power. I'm sure that must have been intolerable to some people in the political establishment and the security services. Starmer presents no such problem, obviously.

Whatever, the destruction of Corbyn (and the continuing attempt to delegitimise the left) is the darkest episode in politics I have ever witnessed. The UK has been irrevocably changed by it, and I no longer expect to see progressive change in my lifetime. As I said in another post, maybe the next generation will make a better job of it.

 

[Tony L]

Whatever, the destruction of Corbyn (and the continuing attempt to delegitimise the left) is the darkest episode in politics I have ever witnessed. The UK has been irrevocably changed by it, and I no longer expect to see progressive change in my lifetime. As I said in another post, maybe the next generation will make a better job of it.

I’m rather more positive about it as I never had any hope or belief in Labour as a vehicle for change. They are always continuation. The other type of same. My hope is, given time, something far younger and more modern will emerge which highlights just how fundamentally anti-democratic, corrupt and archaic the whole Westminster system (and the concept of monarchy that underwrites it) actually is. I can see younger folk becoming increasingly angry with a system that so actively and deliberately chooses not to represent their interests. An elderly man from 1970s Labour leading a tiny faction in his failing 120 year old party that has proven time and again to be authoritarian, nationalist and generally out of touch with public feeling was never the thing we were looking for. I was suckered for a very short while at the beginning, but it soon became clear this is systemic failure and institutional obsolescence. I’m personally far more encouraged by Extinction Rebellion, BLM etc, things that are coming up from the streets, not burped up from the past. That is the direction to a future, not another tired Labour government kneeling for some bloody Queen’s Speech in a token charade of democracy they have no spine to challenge let alone change. Hose the lot out!

The good thing is the Tories are making their corruption, incompetence and utter contempt for law and order quite staggeringly obvious. They aren’t even attempting to cover up the lies and syphoning of tax-revenue. I’m sure people far younger, cleverer, more agile and articulate than I have ever been will be taking note and I will happily pass the baton to them. It is their turn now. My suspicion is in time they will no longer need the tired old dying 20th century parties and concepts to achieve change. I’m bright enough to recognise systemic failure when I see it even if I’m personally out of ideas how to move forward to something modern and democratic. That will take younger less tainted minds.

To be honest I’m getting fairly close to the point where I no longer want to use my vote at all. I’m clearly disenfranchised/unrepresented, I always have been, but I’m beginning to think I should really just stand aside and let those far younger be counted. That is emotionally where I am anyway, from a practical perspective I may be able to help save a Green candidate’s deposit so I may do that as an act of charity!

 

[Darmok]

PS Miliband got absolutely crucified by the tabloid press, e.g. eating a bacon sandwich all wrong (with its inherently anti-Semitic subtext), dragging his father and family onto every front page etc. The gutter press is what it is. Stop funding it!

Do you remember seeing a picture of camoron eating outside in a pub garden using a knife and fork to eat a Hot Dog?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-dog-with-a-knife-and-fork-and-its-a-problem/

I’m rather more positive about it as I never had any hope or belief in Labour as a vehicle for change. They are always continuation. The other type of same. My hope is, given time, something far younger and more modern will emerge which highlights just how fundamentally anti-democratic, corrupt and archaic the whole Westminster system (and the concept of monarchy that underwrites it) actually is. I can see younger folk becoming increasingly angry with a system that so actively and deliberately chooses not to represent their interests. An elderly man from 1970s Labour leading a tiny faction in his failing 120 year old party that has proven time and again to be authoritarian, nationalist and generally out of touch with public feeling was never the thing we were looking for. I was suckered for a very short while at the beginning, but it soon became clear this is systemic failure and institutional obsolescence. I’m personally far more encouraged by Extinction Rebellion, BLM etc, things that are coming up from the streets, not burped up from the past. That is the direction to a future, not another tired Labour government kneeling for some bloody Queen’s Speech in a token charade of democracy they have no spine to challenge let alone change. Hose the lot out!

The good thing is the Tories are making their corruption, incompetence and utter contempt for law and order quite staggeringly obvious. They aren’t even attempting to cover up the lies and syphoning of tax-revenue. I’m sure people far younger, cleverer, more agile and articulate than I have ever been will be taking note and I will happily pass the baton to them. It is their turn now. My suspicion is in time they will no longer need the tired old dying 20th century parties and concepts to achieve change. I’m bright enough to recognise systemic failure when I see it even if I’m personally out of ideas how to move forward to something modern and democratic. That will take younger less tainted minds.

To be honest I’m getting fairly close to the point where I no longer want to use my vote at all. I’m clearly disenfranchised/unrepresented, I always have been, but I’m beginning to think I should really just stand aside and let those far younger be counted. That is emotionally where I am anyway, from a practical perspective I may be able to help save a Green candidate’s deposit so I may do that as an act of charity!

I quit voting aeons ago, disgusting how the one percent are allowed in plain sight to falsify legal documents and in spite of the "Red Book" on statutes the courts use before final judgements, they chose the opposite view and ignored the statute entirely.

F'in freemasons they were.

I dream of waking up one morning to watch the news and see the young have risen up and taken over...

A sweet dream I guess.