advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good article - as balanced an assessment of the state of the Labour Party as you're likely to find in The Guardian these days. That's not to say I agree with every word. In particular I think that "contribution society" is a terrible phrase - not just because it's clunky, but also because of the "striver vs skiver" worldview it insinuates.

The Guardian also assembled an uncharacteristically hostile panel to assess Starmer's big vision:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...armer-labour-road-ahead-centre-fabian-society

Even the centre-right Behr is unimpressed.

Makes me wonder if they know the jig's up with Starmer (probably after Labour lose the next election) and, if so, who will they throw their weight behind (Andy Burnham? Wes Streeting?...).

It's essentially about tearing up his election pledges and defining the "Road Backwards". Charlie Kimber's piece is a lot better:

"The word “police” appears more often than “climate”."

https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/52414/Starmers+vision+warmed+up+Blairism+and+empty+waffle
 
Equal
Good article - as balanced an assessment of the state of the Labour Party as you're likely to find in The Guardian these days. That's not to say I agree with every word. In particular I think that "contribution society" is a terrible phrase - not just because it's clunky, but also because of the "striver vs skiver" worldview it insinuates.

The Guardian also assembled an uncharacteristically hostile panel to assess Starmer's big vision:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...armer-labour-road-ahead-centre-fabian-society

Even the centre-right Behr is unimpressed.

Makes me wonder if they know the jig's up with Starmer (probably after Labour lose the next election) and, if so, who will they throw their weight behind (Andy Burnham? Wes Streeting?...).
Behr is so shameless. Starmer has every right to scream in his face that *this is exactly what he ordered*. Behr's not even asking for anything different now, just that the uninspiring dreck he keeps demanding should somehow be more inspiring.

The Beckett article's good, and I especially like that it nails the puritanism of the centre: nothing will ever be centrist *enough* for these guys. But the title is a bit misleading because it suggests that centrism has only just *now* run out of ideas, when it ran out of ideas 20 years ago, and anyone paying attention clocked that at least 10 years ago.

As with the Tories the problem is less the Labour centrists (right) themselves than the life support system they're plugged into. Without the likes of the Guardian running endless puff pieces on the next great centrist hope (get ready for articles following Streeting around his constituency), and waging war on any alternative, Blairism would just be another obscure revivalist cult, rather than the only possible alternative to the Tories.
 
"But anyone hoping that the centre left is finally modernising shouldn’t get too excited. Much of Starmer’s essay and Rebuilding Labour is devoted to wearily familiar centrist themes: the need for the party to be patriotic and pro-family,; to value community and “people who work hard”, and to be tougher on crime. Labour leaders have been saying these things, to diminishing electoral effect, for a quarter of a century. The Conservatives say them better."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tarmer-centrists-leader-essay-party-modernise

This highlights a major category definition issue I have with the ‘centrist’ definition bandied around within the various pro/anti-‘centrist’ camps with in Labour. As stated many times I view myself as a centre-left social democrat in political terms. I’m a capitalist; I believe just as much in business and personal opportunity to create and invest as I do in fair (i.e. progressive) taxation and funding high-quality state infrastructure on the broadest shoulders. I’m right in the middle there. I am however fundamentally anti-nationalist, anti-authoritarian and I couldn’t give the slightest crap about “family values”, religion or any other form of social conservatism. I actively fight against that kind of blinkered thinking. One of my biggest issues with Labour is I view them as even more socially conservative than the bloody Tory party. They are unbelievably rigid and blinkered to my eyes and just seem an extension of the Daily Mail, Express, UKIP or whatever in that regard. I don’t view that as ‘centrism’ at all. It is hard-right authoritarianism and blinkered conformity.
 
This highlights a major category definition issue I have with the ‘centrist’ definition bandied around within the various pro/anti-‘centrist’ camps with in Labour. As stated many times I view myself as a centre-left social democrat in political terms. I’m a capitalist; I believe just as much in business and personal opportunity to create and invest as I do in fair (i.e. progressive) taxation and funding high-quality state infrastructure on the broadest shoulders. I’m right in the middle there. I am however fundamentally anti-nationalist, anti-authoritarian and I couldn’t give the slightest crap about “family values”, religion or any other form of social conservatism. I actively fight against that kind of blinkered thinking. One of my biggest issues with Labour is I view them as even more socially conservative than the bloody Tory party. They are unbelievably rigid and blinkered to my eyes and just seem an extension of the Daily Mail, Express, UKIP or whatever in that regard. I don’t view that as ‘centrism’ at all. It is hard-right authoritarianism and blinkered conformity.

That rubbish from Starmer isn't from the centre, it's pure blue nose. Another failed barrister trying to redefine himself is the last thing we need.
 
This highlights a major category definition issue I have with the ‘centrist’ definition bandied around within the various pro/anti-‘centrist’ camps with in Labour. As stated many times I view myself as a centre-left social democrat in political terms. I’m a capitalist; I believe just as much in business and personal opportunity to create and invest as I do in fair (i.e. progressive) taxation and funding high-quality state infrastructure on the broadest shoulders. I’m right in the middle there. I am however fundamentally anti-nationalist, anti-authoritarian and I couldn’t give the slightest crap about “family values”, religion or any other form of social conservatism. I actively fight against that kind of blinkered thinking. One of my biggest issues with Labour is I view them as even more socially conservative than the bloody Tory party. They are unbelievably rigid and blinkered to my eyes and just seem an extension of the Daily Mail, Express, UKIP or whatever in that regard. I don’t view that as ‘centrism’ at all. It is hard-right authoritarianism and blinkered conformity.
I regard my self a a centrist, but that doesn’t stop some people calling me a far left Leninist! The political spectrum has been so skewed by the half century drift to the right demanded by the Blairites that what the centre actually stands for in political terms now is anyone’s guess!
 
Guys, guys, can't we just be grateful that we finally have a "functioning opposition"?

FACcSFSVEAgsNGG


And yes, this is real.
 
I regard my self a a centrist, but that doesn’t stop some people calling me a far left Leninist! The political spectrum has been so skewed by the half century drift to the right demanded by the Blairites that what the centre actually stands for in political terms now is anyone’s guess!

Do you watch A House Through Time? The current series is a house in Leeds nearby the University. Just a 100 years ago people believed in all sorts of twaddle from the Devil through to psychics. We still didn't even have universal suffrage!
 
Do you watch A House Through Time? The current series is a house in Leeds nearby the University. Just a 100 years ago people believed in all sorts of twaddle from the Devil through to psychics. We still didn't even have universal suffrage!
No, not seen that. Though I do think we’re are still a very superstitious species, we still believe in fairy tales about supra natural beings like Gods, Kings, and Queens and train our kids to do the same with stuff about Father Christmas and Tooth Fairies. For all the strides forward in technical advances we’ve made, at some levels we still haven’t learned to tie our own shoe laces
 
Andy Burnham was mentioned above (as was Wes Streeting). I wouldn't put any hopes in these people. Burnham is only marginally better than Streeting because of who he is, but his views are mired in New Labour values. I worked on his campaign when he replaced the outgoing Labour MP (which should tell you where I was living at the time, which has gone 'red wall' since 2019). I was sceptical then, because he was really bussed-in from what is essentially Merseyside to fill the role and because he was a New Labour foot soldier.

I'd like to address this from Tony L above though:
As stated many times I view myself as a centre-left social democrat in political terms. I’m a capitalist; I believe just as much in business and personal opportunity to create and invest as I do in fair (i.e. progressive) taxation and funding high-quality state infrastructure on the broadest shoulders.
You don't have to be specifically named a "capitalist" to want to operate a functioning monetary economy which serves its community. The very association of the concerns of economic 'reality' with the right or centre leads to this false dichotomy where people wanting to get "fairness" then think they must build a synthesis; taking on essentially right-wing economics (it's not) and merging it with a modicum of 'leftist' social values. Ergo the 'centrism'. This is exactly what has killed the Labour Party.

They refuse to address the failure of monetarist rhetoric residue which allows and leads governments to promote practises designed to make economic policy fail in its stated aims. And how can a party aim for things like 'reducing the gap between rich and poor' when it persists in making stupid statements such as in Starmers 'essay' where he talks about 'getting the finances order' which is code for 'fiscal rectitude'? Which Labour always has to do because of falsehoods about them 'bankrupting the country'. The rectitude entails silly talk about 'surpluses' 'deficit reduction', 'not maxing-out the public credit card' etc. Then putting forward things like "here's where we'll find the money for such and such..." Because the rhetoric insists that you have to confirm to people that you have worked out how to recycle taxes and 'borrow' responsibly and make cuts - even though the people up there in the Bank of England who organise this all know this doesn't happen! It's truly absurd.

There's little point in anyone supporting the rebirth of quality public infrastructure until they've accepted that this is not paid for by government reaping this money out of some separately existing pot of private sector financial wealth. This is what promotes and maintains the view that the public sector lives on a credit lifeline from business and the rich through their taxes. Maintains the battle of people complaining about funding other people, the lazy, those wanting handouts of other people's money. Thatcherism.
 
Examples of far left Labour policies from those 2 failed GE manifesto’s you refer to please?

Why on earth did you mention me in that post? I have very little to say about brexit and have never said much at all about brexit. We had a referendum and that’s that. Most of my comment is to do with hard remainers and their contribution toward a hard brexit.

By the way, I am not a right wing fundamentalist such as yourself. Perhaps you can offer some thoughts on the advantages of right wing authoritarianism over what was on offer in those 2 failed Labour manifesto’s?

Low intelligence post.

Not sure if you celebrate Christmas but if you do, I'd recommend asking a family member for a good book on modern democracy.
 
Low intelligence post.

Not sure if you celebrate Christmas but if you do, I'd recommend asking a family member for a good book on modern democracy.
Yes, I am low intelligence. I have two CSE grade 1’s to prove it. What’s your excuse?
 
Low intelligence post.

Not sure if you celebrate Christmas but if you do, I'd recommend asking a family member for a good book on modern democracy.
I'd give the same advice to you pal. You're not as clued-up as you seem to think.
 
Another good article about what's happening in the Labour Party:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2021/september/turning-a-little-blue

I think the author is, as usual, a little too generous to the right of the party, but maybe that's the price you pay to write for the LRB.

Meanwhile Starmer has dropped plans to get rid of one member, one vote for leadership elections:

https://labourlist.org/2021/09/reve...hange-package-with-electoral-college-dropped/
Rayner’s allies are furious. She was the broadcast voice this morning, wanting to talk about these policy proposals [on workers' rights], but most of her interviews were dominated by news of Keir Starmer’s party rule changes – or “being asked what the **** is Keir doing”, as an ally put it.
The focus now is on other rule changes to make leadership elections more restrictive, chiefly:

1. Raising the nomination threshold for potential leaders from 10% to 25% of the PLP (it was 15% when Corbyn was elected in 2015).

2. Making it much more difficult for local parties to replace Labour MPs (suggestion is that 50%+ of the local membership would have to vote for it).

The latter point might sound reasonable, but remember that no government in recent years (ever?) has come close to winning the votes of 50% of the total electorate.

I support neither change but, taken together, they would make Labour one of the least democratic parties in Europe. I believe that all the other major parties have some form of mandatory reselection for incumbents, even if it is rarely used in practice.

And I doubt that the electoral college idea is dead. Perhaps there will be a special conference to vote on it, which will be ruthlessly stage managed by the right to obtain the desired result. As the suspension of dozens of left-wing CLP delegates on the eve of this weekend's conference shows, the right of the Labour Party revels in corruption and vote-fixing.
 
Another good article about what's happening in the Labour Party:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2021/september/turning-a-little-blue

I think the author is, as usual, a little too generous to the right of the party, but maybe that's the price you pay to write for the LRB.

Meanwhile Starmer has dropped plans to get rid of one member, one vote for leadership elections:

https://labourlist.org/2021/09/reve...hange-package-with-electoral-college-dropped/

The focus now is on other rule changes to make leadership elections more restrictive, chiefly:

1. Raising the nomination threshold for potential leaders from 10% to 25% of the PLP (it was 15% when Corbyn was elected in 2015).

2. Making it much more difficult for local parties to replace Labour MPs (suggestion is that 50%+ of the local membership would have to vote for it).

The latter point might sound reasonable, but remember that no government in recent years (ever?) has come close to winning the votes of 50% of the total electorate.

I support neither change but, taken together, they would make Labour one of the least democratic parties in Europe. I believe that all the other major parties have some form of mandatory reselection for incumbents, even if it is rarely used in practice.

And I doubt that the electoral college idea is dead. Perhaps there will be a special conference to vote on it, which will be ruthlessly stage managed by the right to obtain the desired result. As the suspension of dozens of left-wing CLP delegates on the eve of this weekend's conference shows, the right of the Labour Party revels in corruption and vote-fixing.
Point 2 will be the killer. I very much doubt that a CLP would get a 50% turnout on a postal ballot for anything so getting a majority of membership rather than turnout will be nigh on impossible
 
God what a depressing thread.

This government should be an open goal to Labour but they insist on still be doing the Judean People's Front thing.

No disrespect to @Le Baron who is plenty smart and knows about these things but I don't imagine the average floating voter gives a monkeys about the "failure of monetarist rhetoric residue" - if they even know what that is (I don't).

Right now I'd settle for any government that wasn't massively corrupt, didn't punish people for being poor, was less xenophobic and was basically competent.

No chance sadly.
 
God what a depressing thread.

This government should be an open goal to Labour but they insist on still be doing the Judean People's Front thing.

No disrespect to @Le Baron who is plenty smart and knows about these things but I don't imagine the average floating voter gives a monkeys about the "failure of monetarist rhetoric residue" - if they even know what that is (I don't).

Right now I'd settle for any government that wasn't massively corrupt, didn't punish people for being poor, was less xenophobic and was basically competent.

No chance sadly.
Of course it's a desperate situation for a lot of people. Dig your heels in though because the type of Labour on offer is but a bridge back to Toryism, even if they don't mean it to be, and that's not going to help anyone in the longer term. There's also the thing that the major damage already wrought by Johnson & co can't be undone by just taking office. Any government now is stuck with the fallout of legal Brexit terms and right now it might be better to let those b'stards wrestle with it and make it even worse to make sure they are so hated they are out of office for a generation or more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top