Labour Leader: Keir Starmer II

[Joe Hutch]

I think the distinction is moot, either way the companies involved will want to avoid more regulation/higher taxation.

 

[Woodface]

I think the distinction is moot, either way the companies involved will want to avoid more regulation/higher taxation.

Well maybe, all business want to reduce their taxable liabilities, this will never change. We need an international consensus to achieve equitable taxation, a minimum level of business tax for example.

Always a chance that a few principalities will not tow the line & become tax havens.

There isn’t a valid argument against this but actually getting the tax is not easy.

 

[SteveS1]

I refer you to post #47 on page 3 - you have a history on this thread. I'm tired of this smokescreen that you're throwing to try to deflect from your behaviour.

I grow weary of your sanctimonious selectivity. Another response to one of your snide remarks. You like to dish it out, learn to take it.

 

[ks.234]

I said that in a general sense not specific to you, but you seem determined to be personally offended. In a thread littered with pejoratives and snide remarks aimed at those who some perceive as not left wing enough, I would say it's pretty small beer.

No, it was not general, it was a post aimed at 3 named people.

 

[gavreid]

I grow weary of your sanctimonious selectivity. Another response to one of your snide remarks. You like to dish it out, learn to take it.

That's just to justify your bullying. Starmer is a national figure who expects criticism it's a different thing altogether

 

[droodzilla]

I think it’s admirable that you flogged your guts out but I think it was always futile as the wave of public opinion was tearing away from Labour with unheard of ferocity. I voted Labour on principle and in a desperate attempt to stall the momentum of the Conservatives but I always felt uneasy and never found Corbyn convincing. I just couldn’t see him as a Leader.A passionate activist, yes.But leader, no. It’s appalling to hear of the unravelling gerrymandering within the party and I do have some sympathy for him and the battles he clearly had. The petty insults and arguments on this thread are often reminiscent of this infighting and a reflection of the confusion and chaos that emanated from the party at that time. But it’s pointless harking back and pointed to fully back Starmer’s campaign. No Leader is perfect but once in power Starmer may be able to lead change with a decency that we saw in Corbyn’s intent. We won’t know until he is there.His task now is to sweep up enough of the mess and create a coherence and a message. Look at the plunging Tories, the unfathomably hopeless Johnson and the necklace of Eton boys and network buddies that hang incompetently around his neck.Then look at the Labour change and charge. Nobody would have believed that Labour would be in this position a year ago. Give credit where credit is due and be positive about the possibilities. There’ a lack of optimism here and it depresses me.

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.

 

[SteveS1]

That's just to justify your bullying. Starmer is a national figure who expects criticism it's a different thing altogether

That's rich, your style is the epitome of bullying. What you don't like is people who are not intimidated by it.

 

[Woodface]

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.

Don’t forget Jared

The worst MP I can recall how he came through the selection process is beyond me.

Angela Smith was an odd one, Stocksbridge? Replaced by a Tory if I recall correctly.

 

[gavreid]

That's rich, your style is the epitome of bullying. What you don't like is people who are not intimidated by it.

Let's look at #47. I made a comment to drood, who is the op for the thread, and you steam in guns blazing with a personal insult. It might be your normal but, no, people should not have to learn to put up with it.

 

[Seanm]

I used the ‘?’ I don’t know the answer.

A few on here don’t like him, are they actively undermining him? As ever I am sure you have all the answers.

It’s happened quite a lot, I recall you accusing me of not caring about racism & a number of other things.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make so let’s just leave it there.

If you don’t know, I feel I should help, so we don’t have to go through the cycle again. The pattern is, you cast an aspersion on some member, public figure or general tendency, based on rumour or nothing at all, then you say, “What me? What do I know? I was just asking a question!” when you’re pulled up on it, then you accuse the person you’re addressing of being a know-it-all for expressing scepticism about whatever unpleasant accusation you’ve just released into the wild. Top it off by claiming someone just called you a Tory, and saying “Let’s leave it at that!”

 

[SteveS1]

No, it was not general, it was a post aimed at 3 named people.

Not true, you now seem to want to mislead. The comment in that post is general.

The whole thread is full of "oh woe is me if Starmer doesn't shape up - I can't vote Labour" princess stuff.

Is not aimed at three people exclusively. The reference to three people came in this exchange......

Contrast those of us who voted Labour with those now claiming they cannot

Who’s saying that?

Mr Reid, so many times. KS and Drood have suggested same.

Now you are entitled to feel offended if you think my reading of your position on Starmer is wrong, but I have a couple of your posts in mind where you strongly suggest that you may not vote Labour - am I wrong?

 

[Seanm]

Is he not allowed?

 

[thebigfredc]

Mainly because 80% of the press is pro-Tory, so any new leader can more or less bank on a favourable start. By contrast, a new Labour leader, either as PM or leader of the Opposition, is presumed guilty until proved innocent (by not being too un-Tory).

Not so in the case of the famous Brown Bounce.

 

[ciderglider]

There’s no evidence for this. Where did you read it? In contrast at leat one of the people involved in sabotaging the 2017 election has admitted the allegations are true (but claims it was the right thing to do). As a result some members are sueing the party for misuse of their fees.

I was incorrect regarding the year, it was 2017, not 2019. But the general point still stands. I read the story on Huffington Post. Corbyn's office wanted to reduce campaign funds for MPs seen as critical of JC, while increasing funding to more faithful MPs.

 

[SteveS1]

Is he not allowed?

Of course he is. But it's not insulting to point out that sort of contrast.

 

[thebigfredc]

Let's look at #47. I made a comment to drood, who is the op for the thread, and you steam in guns blazing with a personal insult. It might be your normal but, no, people should not have to learn to put up with it.

Fact is...

 

[Seanm]

I was incorrect regarding the year, it was 2017, not 2019. But the general point still stands. I read the story on Huffington Post. Corbyn's office wanted to reduce campaign funds for MPs seen as critical of JC, while increasing funding to more faithful MPs.

That was how it was spun. Leadership had a strategy based on the seats they felt were winnable, in need of defence etc., and because it didn’t prioritise the wreckers’ factional allies they...wrecked it, distributing funds secretly according to their own preferences, rather than the overall strategy.

They denied it entirely at first, then they spun it as he leadership pursuing a factional funding strategy, knowing that the press and many readers love a Both-sides take on things. Remarkably effective, but completely dishonest.

 

[ks.234]

Not true, you now seem to want to mislead. The comment in that post is general.
Is not aimed at three people exclusively. The reference to three people came in this exchange......
?

Nonsense....

Mr Reid, so many times. KS and Drood have suggested same. The whole thread is full of "oh woe is me if Starmer doesn't shape up - I can't vote Labour" princess stuff.

The insult of the second paragraph clearly links to the named people in the first. If that was not you’re intention, if there is supposed to be a distinction between the first and second paragraph, you should restate your meaning to make it clear and make the named people and the insult distinct.

Frankly, if was me, and it was not my intention to insult, I’d have apologised long ago

 

[Woodface]

If you don’t know, I feel I should help, so we don’t have to go through the cycle again. The pattern is, you cast an aspersion on some member, public figure or general tendency, based on rumour or nothing at all, then you say, “What me? What do I know? I was just asking a question!” when you’re pulled up on it, then you accuse the person you’re addressing of being a know-it-all for expressing scepticism about whatever unpleasant accusation you’ve just released into the wild. Top it off by claiming someone just called you a Tory, and saying “Let’s leave it at that!”

But that is not true.

I said that the people on SM moaning about Starmer may not even be Labour members or supporters. So, to be clear, I wasn’t necessarily saying that the left were actively undermining Starmer. I also said in an earlier post that I find the actions of those within the LP undermining Corbyn to be despicable. So I probably agree with some of the sentiments expressed on here by you & your mates.

Some on here don’t like Starmer, I understand this but personally think he is doing a good job given how early he is in his tenure.

Appreciate you have a personal issue with me so let’s just agree to ignore each other as life is just too short.

 

[SteveS1]

Nonsense....

The insult of the second paragraph clearly links to the named people in the first. If that was not you’re intention, if there is supposed to be a distinction between the first and second paragraph, you should restate your meaning to make it clear and make the named people and the insult distinct.

Frankly, if was me, and it was not my intention to insult, I’d have apologised long ago

That's nonsense. As I said, you are clearly determined to be offended.