Labour Leader: Keir Starmer V

[Tony L]

But I think the nature of the Labour right is key to understanding the bad place we're in, politically. The official opposition is controlled by people whose politics almost no one actually likes, and whose key objective is not to form a government but to maintain their positions in the party. How they came to be in this situation says a lot about our politics and media, so worth thinking about whether you intend ever voting for them again or not.

Agreed. This is the root of whether Labour can ever be fit for purpose as a political force and any spotlight that can be shone on it is a good thing. Corbyn is history now, an irrelevance, he’s not even got the party whip. Whether his catastrophic failure was due to focus groups, internal party pressure, or just being a bit crap doesn’t matter now. We are where we are. We need to get to the root of why Starmer is so useless, why the party is nodding through alt-right Tory/UKIP ideology pretty much on a daily basis.

PS I as stated many times I personally want to see Labour rendered obsolete and a new democratic alternative emerge. I will certainly never support the party again in any context with the one exception that I’d lend it my vote one time if it ever has a clear manifesto pledge for real proportional electoral reform. Beyond that I plan to vote against it just as hard as I do the Tories.

 

[Le Baron]

Agreed. This is the root of whether Labour can ever be fit for purpose as a political force and any spotlight that can be shone on it is a good thing. Corbyn is history now, an irrelevance, he’s not even got the party whip. Whether his catastrophic failure was due to focus groups, internal party pressure, or just being a bit crap doesn’t matter now. We are where we are. We need to get to the root of why Starmer is so useless, why the party is nodding through alt-right Tory/UKIP ideology pretty much on a daily basis.

PS I as stated many times I personally want to see Labour rendered obsolete and a new democratic alternative emerge. I will certainly never support the party again in any context with the one exception that I’d lend it my vote one time if it ever has a clear manifesto pledge for real proportional electoral reform. Beyond that I plan to vote against it just as hard as I do the Tories.

Interesting pov. I think it's fairly evident by now from the mountains of released documents, videos, 'secret' recordings, that Corbyn wasn't just 'a bit crap', but had the entire Labour right and centre - who all happily funding from dubious donors - working to destabilise him. Which was a great success for them. Labour at the top hasn't been a 'Labour' Party since about 1983, since the Kinnock turn which won the day.

Starmer is useless because he is ideologically identical to Blair, whilst having little of Blair's showbiz charisma to charm and hypnotise the electorate. The 'crisis' in the Labour Party is older than even Thatcher's victory, who arguably won that ideological battle. Now you have so-called Labour voters fighting tooth-and-nail against 'going back to the 70s' and 'spending into hyperinflation' and all the other brainless talking points the right-wing has succeeded in incorporating into the fixed discussion. Why was Corbyn such a 'crisis'? Because he represented a mistaken blip in the parade of monetarist Labour leaders (and the ones who ran and failed). They've done nothing in the interim to try and convince the electorate that the public discourse is false.

It doesn't even matter if PR voting is installed because the 'democratic alternatives', even when their social policy is humane, are demolished by their submission to monetarist ideology. PR is an open door for the Yellow Tories. Any 'democratic alternative' would need to drop the narrative of 'fiscal rectitude' and 'funding crises' and convince the public why this is so crucial.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Interesting pov. I think it's fairly evident by now from the mountains of released documents, videos, 'secret' recordings, that Corbyn wasn't just 'a bit crap', but had the entire Labour right and centre - who all happily funding from dubious donors - working to destabilise him. Which was a great success for them. Labour at the top hasn't been a 'Labour' Party since about 1983, since the Kinnock turn which won the day.

So in a way he managed to unite the whole party. Quite a feat it would seem. Chapeau to him.

 

[Le Baron]

So in a way he managed to unite the whole party. Quite a feat it would seem. Chapeau to him.

Somewhat in the way a random kid at school 'unites' irrational bullies against him.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Agreed. This is the root of whether Labour can ever be fit for purpose as a political force and any spotlight that can be shone on it is a good thing.

Alas, your problem as an LDP sympathiser is that they are akin to the LP in terms of what I outlined. i.e. another 'cabal' of 'insiders' who avoid any policies that might do us good but which mean real changes in economic/social terms. The only change they want is PR becuase they think it will strengthen their position, but can't then make the changes we *actually* need as a society/economy. And as with the LP their supporters can be wanting more, but would be sidelined or expelled or give up if and when they got any power. You only have to look at Clegg and Camaroon to see a glimpse.

 

[Seanm]

Agreed. This is the root of whether Labour can ever be fit for purpose as a political force and any spotlight that can be shone on it is a good thing. Corbyn is history now, an irrelevance, he’s not even got the party whip. Whether his catastrophic failure was due to focus groups, internal party pressure, or just being a bit crap doesn’t matter now. We are where we are. We need to get to the root of why Starmer is so useless, why the party is nodding through alt-right Tory/UKIP ideology pretty much on a daily basis.

PS I as stated many times I personally want to see Labour rendered obsolete and a new democratic alternative emerge. I will certainly never support the party again in any context with the one exception that I’d lend it my vote one time if it ever has a clear manifesto pledge for real proportional electoral reform. Beyond that I plan to vote against it just as hard as I do the Tories.

Well, you never know: here's an ex-Momentum big wig *and* right wing war pig Luke Akehurst calling for PR:

https://labourlist.org/2021/09/we-d...labour-but-we-agree-the-party-should-back-pr/

Have to admit that doesn't fit with my take on the right at all - I thought they'd never go fo PR for fear it would marginalise them - so either I'm way out, or Akehurst's an outlier, or they've calculated that PR wouldn't actually change much.

 

[Tony L]

Alas, your problem as an LDP sympathiser is that they are akin to the LP in terms of what I outlined. i.e. another 'cabal' of 'insiders' who avoid any policies that might do us good but which mean real changes in economic/social terms. The only change they want is PR becuase they think it will strengthen their position, but can't then make the changes we *actually* need as a society/economy.

I’m a centre-left social democrat/liberal, not a “LD sympathiser”. The times I’ve voted LD have been due to their manifesto pledge for PR and their being so obviously opposed to Labour’s authoritarianism and war-mongering. They are certainly not where I’d end up voting (I’m far closer to the Greens of available choices, but more would appear with a level playing field), but I firmly believe that in an obvious situation of systemic failure one needs to address the root of it, and that is the FPTP system.

I am not a socialist. I am not a communist. I just want a system where ugly trough-feeding bureaucracies like the Conservatives or Labour can’t obtain absolute power with just 40% of a turnout of about 70%. I stand firmly against such dictatorships. I’d far prefer never ending parliamentary deadlock than the extremism of either main party.

To put it another way I have only ever voted Lib Dem in order to do away with both Labour and Conservative minority rule. Obviously that hasn’t worked yet, but I’ll keep voting against both main parties and for those who believe in PR as long as I live.

 

[Tony L]

Have to admit that doesn't fit with my take on the right at all - I thought they'd never go fo PR for fear it would marginalise them - so either I'm way out, or Akehurst's an outlier, or they've calculated that PR wouldn't actually change much.

I suspect the brighter minds in Labour are starting to grasp the party will likely never see a majority under the FPTP system ever again, so to even be part of a future government they’ll need electoral reform. Scotland is lost, it has gone to the far more credible SNP. Votes are moving away from Labour in all directions, in England to the far right at one end and to the Greens and Lib Dems at the other. I’d argue PR was a basic survival instinct now!

 

[Le Baron]

but I firmly believe that in an obvious situation of systemic failure one needs to address the root of it, and that is the FPTP system.

But that's not the simple root of the problem. PR may favour a different outcome in electoral terms, but which party even within reach of being elected to power (or power sharing) is addressing the central falsehood of austerity economics? Not one.

PR is in effect here in the Netherlands and it has no effect in abating the core problem. Coalitions make deals and end up watering down everyone's policies. Or they choose people so close to their positions that you may as well have had just a single party in power. That happens because of the voter perceptions, not the voting system.

Centrism is perhaps the most useless position to take right now; not because it is indecent or wicked or anything, but because every iteration of it doesn't question the prevailing fundamental economic strategy - which is an incoherent ideology - and instead offers to construct its goodly intentions on a bed of quicksand.

 

[Seanm]

I suspect the brighter minds in Labour are starting to grasp the party will likely never see a majority under the FPTP system ever again, so to even be part of a future government they’ll need electoral reform. Scotland is lost, it has gone to the far more credible SNP. Votes are moving away from Labour in all directions, in England to the far right at one end and to the Greens and Lib Dems at the other. I’d argue PR was a basic survival instinct now!

But risky for the right, as it makes the emergence of a popular left alternative more likely. Anyway, interesting development.

 

[Kirk]

I agree it wasn’t at the grass-roots level, but by the 2019 election all credibility had evaporated with all the focus-group fence-sitting 5d ambiguity chess shit and resulted in an inevitable and well deserved electoral wipe-out.

John McDonnell, Milne and Murray were responsible for the 5d chess, 4 ds beyond Corbyn unfortunately (for him). Reminds me of Foot, Benn and 'Militant' - another raging electoral success story (though Foot did have a moment when he supported Thatcher's invasion of the Falklands). If they had done a better job, New Labour may never have been a thing which is ironic when you think about the amount of ink the left here waste on demonising them and the 'right' - which really isn't a thing but serves two purposes for the left - one: it's a convenient label for anything and anyone that doesn't agree with its worldview and two: it creates an 'us' and 'them' narrative. All part of the struggle. The comrades need that.

 

[Le Baron]

John McDonnell, Milne and Murray were responsible for the 5d chess, 4 ds beyond Corbyn unfortunately (for him). Reminds me of Foot, Benn and 'Militant' - another raging electoral success story (though Foot did have a moment when he supported Thatcher's invasion of the Falklands). If they had done a better job, New Labour may never have been a thing which is ironic when you think about the amount of ink the left here waste on demonising them and the 'right' - which really isn't a thing but serves two purposes for the left - one: it's a convenient label for anything and anyone that doesn't agree with its worldview and two: it creates an 'us' and 'them' narrative. All part of the struggle. The comrades need that.

I see this is also a thing for you too. Just a mere 'world-view', the arch-centrist one which pretends to be the one serious-faced, 'we're the adults getting on with the job, you squabbling children' sort of world-view, but entirely predicated on nothing more than weakly mitigating the ill-effects of a demented economic ideology; referred to as 'the circumstances as they are'. And it fails every time, because it can't mitigate them.

It's quite pathetic wheeling out that old 'oh Benn and the Militant Tendency (a media pejorative) were trapped in the 70s...yada yada...' The fact is though, things Benn said in the late 70s and early 80s have proved to be entirely true. Whilst the official chancellor, allegedly a trained economist, was led up the garden path by the IMF, Benn, an amateur economist, went to check up on these things like 'money supply control' finding out they are hokum.

Centrism, or 'centre-left' as they like to pretend they are, has become nothing but a withered, useless appendage of the right-wing's 40-year old economic experiment. Wittingly or unwittingly. Bereft of theoretical weight, no long-term vision, kneecapped and castrated into a position where it can only lodge weak and vacuous moral complaints and get angry over identity politics, but can't address the origin of them because it accepts the same fundamental economic basis causing them.

If you want to cast stones, get out of that glass-house.

 

[droodzilla]

<snip>

Centrism, or 'centre-left' as they like to pretend they are, has become nothing but a withered, useless appendage of the right-wing's 40-year old economic experiment. Wittingly or unwittingly. Bereft of theoretical weight, no long-term vision, kneecapped and castrated into a position where it can only lodge weak and vacuous moral complaints and get angry over identity politics, but can't address the origin of them because it accepts the same fundamental economic basis causing them.

If you want to cast stones, get out of that glass-house.

I would add: arrogant and condescending, as well as intellectually and morally bankrupt.

 

[droodzilla]

Now they're firing off random Notices of Investigation (NOIs) to their own MPs:

https://twitter.com/KateOsborneMP/status/1438926394701094913

And having to withdraw them when they get firm legal pushback.

There are loads of NOIs going out, and anecdotal evidence suggests that left-wing delegates to the Labour Party conference are being targeted.

Imagine being an ordinary member and not having the money to pay for a solicitor to fight this.

Imagine being an ordinary member with mental health issues having to deal with this stuff. The NOI thoughtfully includes The Samaritans phone number and I'm convinced that someone will eventually take their own life as a direct result of this crap.

And I know it's a cliche but, whether this is incompetence or deliberate harassment, imagine the uproar in the press if this shit was happening on Corbyn's watch.

The Labour Party is now controlled by authoritarian scumbags. It should be nowhere near power.

 

[ks.234]

And I know it's a cliche but, whether this is incompetence or deliberate harassment, imagine the uproar in the press if this shit was happening on Corbyn's watch.

Yes. Notable that the Blairite centrists who heap hatred on Corbyn for his supposed incompetence and lack of leadership are silent when the right engages in planned and organised mismanagement, harassment and deliberate attacks on fundamental party democracy.

Very weird to moan about the Tory corruption, cronyism and wrongdoing but not only turn a blind eye to it in Labour but to also pour vitriol on the only man who threatened to change it for the better

 

[Kirk]

I see this is also a thing for you too. Just a mere 'world-view', the arch-centrist one which pretends to be the one serious-faced, 'we're the adults getting on with the job, you squabbling children' sort of world-view, but entirely predicated on nothing more than weakly mitigating the ill-effects of a demented economic ideology; referred to as 'the circumstances as they are'. And it fails every time, because it can't mitigate them.

It's quite pathetic wheeling out that old 'oh Benn and the Militant Tendency (a media pejorative) were trapped in the 70s...yada yada...' The fact is though, things Benn said in the late 70s and early 80s have proved to be entirely true. Whilst the official chancellor, allegedly a trained economist, was led up the garden path by the IMF, Benn, an amateur economist, went to check up on these things like 'money supply control' finding out they are hokum.

Centrism, or 'centre-left' as they like to pretend they are, has become nothing but a withered, useless appendage of the right-wing's 40-year old economic experiment. Wittingly or unwittingly. Bereft of theoretical weight, no long-term vision, kneecapped and castrated into a position where it can only lodge weak and vacuous moral complaints and get angry over identity politics, but can't address the origin of them because it accepts the same fundamental economic basis causing them.

If you want to cast stones, get out of that glass-house.

The other thing about Labour hard left, as exemplified by the recent Corbyn experiment, is that they display a certain 'trait Leninism': fondness for conspiracy theories and cult leaders, blanket denunciations of opponents, and a slightly delusional belief that the worse life gets for the masses (or proletariat), the better their chances of winning power. I suspect Corbyn et al hoped Brexit would bring a sort of extreme chaos to Britain and with it an open door to power. He no doubt saw Brexit as a (self-serving) path to No.10 (as did his Brexit buddies on the right). I think this explains his reluctance to campaign for Remain and his premature trigger Article 50 interview on TV. So far, not so good for the hard left though. Every time the Labour Party shift left, electoral disaster follows. It can't dismantle all those hierarchies without power though, so how is it going to get itself into No.10? (now largely a rhetorical question on PF).

Re: your reply - my reference to Foot and co. was more about how he and the hard left laid the groundwork for New Labour (or: the more electorally successful side of Labour so in some ways he should be thanked - and he clearly understood that flags matter). I think I now have a better understanding the left's dislike of centrism in that it is not the left and that it is possibly too grey (or too blobby to misquote Cummings), but your post and subsequent posts only reaffirm the views of many today that the hard left really are an intolerant lot and continue to pin the blame for all their ills on everyone/everything but themselves (especially the media and dark forces, as did Donald). I take some heart from this though as it means it will remain powerless for the foreseeable future.

 

[Le Baron]

The other thing about Labour hard left, as exemplified by the recent Corbyn experiment, is that they display a certain 'trait Leninism': fondness for conspiracy theories and cult leaders, blanket denunciations of opponents, and a slightly delusional belief that the worse life gets for the masses (or proletariat), the better their chances of winning power. I suspect Corbyn et al hoped Brexit would bring a sort of extreme chaos to Britain and with it an open door to power. He no doubt saw Brexit as a (self-serving) path to No.10 (as did his Brexit buddies on the right). I think this explains his reluctance to campaign for Remain and his premature trigger Article 50 interview on TV. So far, not so good for the hard left though. Every time the Labour Party shift left, electoral disaster follows. It can't dismantle all those hierarchies without power though, so how is it going to get itself into No.10? (now largely a rhetorical question on PF).

Re: your reply - my reference to Foot and co. was more about how he and the hard left laid the groundwork for New Labour (or: the more electorally successful side of Labour so in some ways he should be thanked - and he clearly understood that flags matter). I think I now have a better understanding the left's dislike of centrism in that it is not the left and that it is possibly too grey (or too blobby to misquote Cummings), but your post and subsequent posts only reaffirm the views of many today that the hard left really are an intolerant lot and continue to pin the blame for all their ills on everyone/everything but themselves (especially the media and dark forces, as did Donald). I take some heart from this though as it means it will remain powerless for the foreseeable future.

So much wrong in this untutored diatribe. Where to begin? It's difficult because it mostly relies on simplistic empty pejoratives like 'hard left' and 'Leninism'. On the question of Brexit, the non-monetarist section of the Labour Party was always Eurosceptic. Maybe you're just not that observant? Or just too young to remember or too lazy to check? In that respect Corbyn's position maintained absolutely a consistent position. As did Dennis Skinner, whatever anyone may think of their view. No doubt this did not chime with the New Labour contingent and their gaggle of economically clueless (and historically clueless) supporters. Hardly surprising.
The fact a left party doesn't gain traction in British elections is not an argument against rightness/wrongness, truth/falsity of their view or position, but as always in elections on who can better 'persuade'. Or in clearer terms: whose propaganda is best. And since right-wing propaganda appeals in a broad way to emotional and simplistic views far better (and has better funding), we have what we have.

You clearly have understood nothing in appointing yourself a cheerleader for the economically impotent centre-left. You think Blair and co gained 'power' by merely shifting itself away from 'the hard left' into so-called practical modernisation? Think again. He merely made friends with the holders of actual power and influence by conceding political power. Dinner with Rupert Murdoch got him to be championed by The Sun. Concession to corporate Britain got him to be supported by corporate Britain. What you got with New Labour is a party that gained office, but not power. And office for whom? Very big difference there amigo, upon which you might like to ponder for a while.

 

[ks.234]

The other thing about Labour hard left, as exemplified by the recent Corbyn experiment, is that they display a certain 'trait Leninism': fondness for conspiracy theories and cult leaders, blanket denunciations of opponents, and a slightly delusional belief that the worse life gets for the masses (or proletariat), the better their chances of winning power. I suspect Corbyn et al hoped Brexit would bring a sort of extreme chaos to Britain and with it an open door to power. He no doubt saw Brexit as a (self-serving) path to No.10 (as did his Brexit buddies on the right). I think this explains his reluctance to campaign for Remain and his premature trigger Article 50 interview on TV. So far, not so good for the hard left though. Every time the Labour Party shift left, electoral disaster follows. It can't dismantle all those hierarchies without power though, so how is it going to get itself into No.10? (now largely a rhetorical question on PF).

Re: your reply - my reference to Foot and co. was more about how he and the hard left laid the groundwork for New Labour (or: the more electorally successful side of Labour so in some ways he should be thanked - and he clearly understood that flags matter). I think I now have a better understanding the left's dislike of centrism in that it is not the left and that it is possibly too grey (or too blobby to misquote Cummings), but your post and subsequent posts only reaffirm the views of many today that the hard left really are an intolerant lot and continue to pin the blame for all their ills on everyone/everything but themselves (especially the media and dark forces, as did Donald). I take some heart from this though as it means it will remain powerless for the foreseeable future.

That extraordinary outburst of unsustainable ill-informed nonsense demonstrates quite clearly that you have no interest in a proper discussion about the left and that your past questions on the topic have not been asked in good faith.

What is difficult to understand is that as a right winger, you have what you want. You have a political environment in which right wing ideology is dominant and set to rule the near future at least. You’ve got what you wished for, so why the anger? Or is it just trolling?

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

SOn the question of Brexit, the non-monetarist section of the Labour Party was always Eurosceptic.

That chimes with my experience. The main MEP I got to know was Alex Falconer. He and some others was 'de-selected' by Blair. Alex was very Eurosceptic, but having been a good convener at Rosythe was also a hard-working MEP. Mind like a steel trap for details.

 

[monkfish]

Labour has (yet again) abstained on a parliamentary vote on a Tory cut – waving through the Tories plan to scrap the ‘triple lock’ on UK pensions without even a token attempt to resist it.