Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VI

[kensalriser]

He only took the seat with a margin of 400 votes. It must be one of the highest risk Red Wall seats for the Tories. Maybe he’s made a smart personal move.

Exactly this was my first thought. He wants to keep the gig. No doubt that the Tories will be losing many of the so called red wall seats at the next election.

 

[TheDecameron]

Exactly this was my first thought. He wants to keep the gig. No doubt that the Tories will be losing many of the so called red wall seats at the next election.

Also at the last GE, the Labour incumbent stood as an independent and got 1,400 votes which he would have taken off the Labour candidate. The Tory coach and horses came through the middle and took it.

 

[Seanm]

Iraq was the breaking point for me. 1997 was the last time I voted Labour*. They are just unfixable to me; authoritarianism, nationalist, cowardly and corrupt. Inviting a xenophobic benefit-cutting climate-science denying Tory arsehole into the ranks is just a logical continuation of Iraq, Brexit, flags, nodding through Tory authoritarianism etc. Labour’s gonna Labour.




*Aside from one misguided tactical vote more recently as I was afraid our disgraced and deselected expenses-fiddling ex-Labour sex-pest standing as an independent would split the vote and let UKIP in. Turned out the seat was so safe it was a waste of my time and I really should have voted Green for the national figure or just wiped my arse on the ballot sheet.

It looks a hell of a lot worse from the inside, IME. When I was a member it looked like it was all open to change and it really seemed inconceivable that it could go back to the way it had been, but it’s worse than ever now: all the parts of the machine that supported some measure of democracy and accountability dismantled either officially, through rule changes, or unofficially through stitch-ups. I know lots of people who’ve stayed very active and spend all their time campaigning only to get routinely shafted locally and vilified as antisemites and lunatics by the leadership. Fair play to them for plugging away but really.

 

[droodzilla]

There are some tasty morsels in Rachel Reeves' latest interview with the FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/ac897020-d165-46c3-8cb9-a76bcde5c2f7

She said her party would anchor its economic policies in fiscal rules that — like chancellor Rishi Sunak’s own framework — would eliminate borrowing for day-to-day spending and put debt on a downward path.

But Reeves’s plan would leave more scope for growth-promoting capital spending, particularly on a £28bn a year “climate investment pledge”. She said capital spending could exceed Sunak’s “arbitrary cap” of 3 per cent of GDP per year.

John McDonnell, shadow chancellor under Corbyn, had also pledged to borrow to invest and said that he could account for every penny the party planned to spend, but Reeves said: “Not many people compare me to John McDonnell.”

She laughed when talking about commitments made by the party under Corbyn, including spending £58bn on pensions for women approaching retirement and an offer of free broadband to everyone.

Reeves also made it clear that Labour would not reverse Brexit. Asked if she could see Britain rejoining the EU or single market in the next 50 years, she replied: “No, I can’t see those circumstances.”

She said she would “make Brexit work” by improving on the EU-UK trade deal signed by Johnson, and endorsed by Labour, by seeking to widen access to the single market for professionals, the cultural industry and the City.

But she does not want to see a return to free movement, arguing that voters in Leeds, where she is an MP, were “rightly angry” that new jobs in the city were being directly advertised in eastern Europe.

“I don’t want to go back to a system of free movement — it was the biggest reason people voted to leave and I don’t want to go back to that model,” she said.

Meanwhile Reeves said that a drop in Labour membership, which has reduced the party’s income, was a price worth paying for shedding unwelcome supporters and removing the “stain” of anti-Semitism from the party.

“Membership in my constituency is falling and that’s a good thing,” she said. People had left “who should never have joined the Labour party. They never shared our values,” she added.

So, thousands of activists who devoted their lives to fighting for a Labour government, and people like me who have voted Labour all their lives (and occasionally campaigned) don't share Labour values but the Tory scumbag who was welcomed with open arms today does?

I've no idea where we go from here but I will never vote for this rotten party, as long as these lying, amoral ghouls are in charge.

 

[Brian]

@droodzilla

There isn’t a centre left party for you, and certainly not a far left one for some of the other fella’s here, so form a new party.

Everything has to start somewhere. Set up a facebook group and a tw*tter group if such things exist there. Get those young people onboard and it could take off. If the party becomes a serious challenger to displace the tories, I’ll vote for it. In the meantime, I’ll vote for the best chance of taking a seat from the tories because the tories and Labour are not the same. Not that there is much chance where I live, it has never failed to return a tory, it’s never been close to returning a ‘rotten ghoul’.

In general, the real killer blow and a big reason why we are where we are in such a mess today goes back to 2010 and the sell out LibDems. PR would have changed everything and that was the one and only chance. It is one of the biggest political failure of my lifetime and is unforgiveable. Progressive, my arse. Now that is a real bunch of amoral rotten ghouls.

 

[Nick_G]

There are some tasty morsels in Rachel Reeves' latest interview with the FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/ac897020-d165-46c3-8cb9-a76bcde5c2f7



So, thousands of activists who devoted their lives to fighting for a Labour government, and people like me who have voted Labour all their lives (and occasionally campaigned) don't share Labour values but the Tory scumbag who was welcomed with open arms today does?

I've no idea where we go from here but I will never vote for this rotten party, as long as these lying, amoral ghouls are in charge.

"Be More Tory."

 

[Spraggons Den]

New
@droodzilla

There isn’t a centre left party for you, and certainly not a far left one for some of the other fella’s here, so form a new party.

Greens?

 

[PsB]

Despite being an economist and ex Bank of England, Ms Reeves doesn't sound 100% sold on MMT.

 

[Dave H.]

Despite being an economist and ex Bank of England, Ms Reeves doesn't sound 100% sold on MMT.

One does not have to be sold on MMT to consider such deficit talk to be misleading the public and damaging to the economy.

MMT may be niche, but opposition to what’s sometimes called deficit deceit (eg by Simon Wren Lewis, who’s an emeritus professor if you’re keeping up with top trumps) is much more widespread among economists.

 

[Tony L]

I've no idea where we go from here but I will never vote for this rotten party, as long as these lying, amoral ghouls are in charge.

Welcome to the club!

PS They are always in charge of Labour. Certainly for the entirety of my voting life.

 

[droodzilla]

New
@droodzilla

There isn’t a centre left party for you, and certainly not a far left one for some of the other fella’s here, so form a new party.

Greens?

Yes, maybe.

The Greens are a weird one though. They ought to be surging in the polls as young voters desert Labour and the climate crisis becomes the defining issue of our time.

And yet...

Maybe they should appoint a "loveable buffoon" as their leader and get him/her a regular slot on HIGNFY?

 

[Tony L]

The Greens are a weird one though. They ought to be surging in the polls as young voters desert Labour and the climate crisis becomes the defining issue of our time.

I suspect most grasp they are destroyed by the Tory/Labour FPTP system and just join the huge swathes of disenfranchised. It is always worth noting that the number of people who for whatever reason decline to vote always outnumbers that polled by the “winning” party. Realising ones vote is pointless is a legitimate justification not to use it.

FWIW I do turn out, but only so my vote is counted on national statistics. I know I will never receive representation under this system. I am certain the Green vote would grow hugely if we lived in a functioning democracy.

 

[ks.234]

Yes, maybe.

The Greens are a weird one though. They ought to be surging in the polls as young voters desert Labour and the climate crisis becomes the defining issue of our time.

And yet...

Maybe they should appoint a "loveable buffoon" as their leader and get him/her a regular slot on HIGNFY?

The Greens are the only party with a radical agenda to transform society and the environment but they are hamstrung because as much as most people would agree with their objectives and promise for change, they will always come up against the question floating in the back of most voters minds, which will be; how do you pay for it? The question will be exploited by images of hyperinflation and wheelbarrows of cash being needed to buy everyday goods.

For the Greens to be able to transform society they will need to first transform the current economic orthodoxy. Perhaps by putting the economy on a war footing.

Declare war on Climate Change!!

 

[doctorf]

It looks a hell of a lot worse from the inside, IME. When I was a member it looked like it was all open to change and it really seemed inconceivable that it could go back to the way it had been, but it’s worse than ever now: all the parts of the machine that supported some measure of democracy and accountability dismantled either officially, through rule changes, or unofficially through stitch-ups. I know lots of people who’ve stayed very active and spend all their time campaigning only to get routinely shafted locally and vilified as antisemites and lunatics by the leadership. Fair play to them for plugging away but really.

I’m feeling more reassured by the minute.

 

[Spraggons Den]

Yes, maybe.

The Greens are a weird one though. They ought to be surging in the polls as young voters desert Labour and the climate crisis becomes the defining issue of our time.

And yet...

Maybe they should appoint a "loveable buffoon" as their leader and get him/her a regular slot on HIGNFY?

Is the reason for the Green Party not growing down to the mainstream parties including at least some of the green agenda into their manifestos?

The other point that comes to mind is they could be construed as a one issue party although arguably the environment affects every aspect of our lives. Anyway just a thought.

 

[ks.234]

Is the reason for the Green Party not growing down to the mainstream parties including at least some of the green agenda into their manifestos?

The other point that comes to mind is they could be construed as a one issue party although arguably the environment affects every aspect of our lives. Anyway just a thought.

The Green Party isn’t a one issue Party though, it promises to ‘usher in a revolution…that will transform society for the benefit of all’. I think the Green Party is being held down by two things. One is the inbuilt dominance of the two parties who now coalesce around narrow issues and the other is an economic ideology that puts artificial constraints on government spending.

The Green Party will have to smash two well established orthodoxies to achieve recognition. A very tall order.

Of course, the more people who join the Green Party, the more momentum for real change will be gained!

 

[Tony L]

I’m feeling more reassured by the minute.

Do you still openly back the sleaze, criminality, racism and incompetence of Johnson’s Conservative Party?

 

[Joe Hutch]

My political memory stretches way back to Wilson's first term. Few on here seem to have much time for Thatcher or Blair, which leaves us with 'one term or less' PMs such as Heath, Callaghan, Major and Brown, til we get to Cameron and May.

I think there's an element of distance lending enchantment to the view for some past leaders; for example I've seen Wilson's first two terms (1964-66 and 1966-70) described as if they were a kind of Golden Age of politics. They weren't; Labour was as riven by internal strife as it is now, and the Tories contained plenty of nutjob racists. In terms of corruption, Wilson had some very dodgy business friends, and local government was also home to a number of crooks. Major is now seen as a serious politician, but back when he was actually in power he was a figure of fun.

So I guess my question is, who of these past leaders would shine in todays politics? Do you have to be a bit of a bastard to get to the top and stay there?

 

[Seanm]

There are some tasty morsels in Rachel Reeves' latest interview with the FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/ac897020-d165-46c3-8cb9-a76bcde5c2f7



So, thousands of activists who devoted their lives to fighting for a Labour government, and people like me who have voted Labour all their lives (and occasionally campaigned) don't share Labour values but the Tory scumbag who was welcomed with open arms today does?

I've no idea where we go from here but I will never vote for this rotten party, as long as these lying, amoral ghouls are in charge.

They do this quite strategically in an effort to drive out left wing members and it’s on balance probably a reason to stay. They recognise that the left will probably get another shot at some stage, given that their own politics are ultimately as unappealing as they were when they were last in charge, and are working hard to lock things down before then.

 

[IanW]

One does not have to be sold on MMT to consider such deficit talk to be misleading the public and damaging to the economy.

MMT may be niche, but opposition to what’s sometimes called deficit deceit (eg by Simon Wren Lewis, who’s an emeritus professor if you’re keeping up with top trumps) is much more widespread among economists.

Exactly:

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/10/27/the-tories-deficit-deceit/

Posted on October 27 2020

I think this from Simon Wren-Lewis, written yesterday, is very good:

[The suggestion is] that Sunak, like Osborne, only pretends to misunderstand the nature of government debt. I used to say this deficit deceit was really a pretext to reduce the size of the state, but I think we need to be more precise in the current climate. Many Conservative MPs today seem quite happy about the state paying too much money out to corporations who have previously or will subsequently give Conservative politicians seats on the board, and/or have given the party financial support. What they fear is government money going to the wrong people, people who are not their friends, donors or the very rich, and who are unlikely to vote for them.

Corruption, in other words, under the guise of deficit concern.

There is not really a lot to add to that.