Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VI

[ks.234]

Well done....you managed an entire post without using the words 'monetarism' or 'Centrist'

Thank you so much for raising important issues.

You do realise that although I didn’t mention it by name, I was referring to the monetarist orthodoxy that prevails today and that it is this ideology that I was referring to as being the cause of unemployment and it’s more modern transition to underemployment.

And as it is the current orthodoxy it is subscribed to by the Tories, Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the SNP which makes it pretty Centrist

But you knew all that really, eh?

 

[ks.234]

Helped enormously by an opposition focused more on internal battles than on fighting the real enemy.

Yeah, bloody centrists again

 

[droodzilla]

An update

Owen Jones is claiming the whole of the Wakefield Constituency Labour Party has just resigned over Starmer enforcing candidates (Twitter).

Yes. The entire executive committee of the constituency has resigned. They accuse regional HQ and the NEC of a stitch-up:

Par for the course with this lot, but it's another reminder of Starmer's profound dishonesty:

It could backfire since neither of the two imposed candidates have local connections and both are known to be remainers, while the constituency was 66% Leave.

It's reminiscent of the Hartlepool debacle but the Tories are more unpopular than they were a year ago, so Labour might get away with it this time.

 

[dave charlton]

This is exactly how fascism works. A right-wing government promises security and basic needs to its base, scapegoats and blames others for failings/“moral decline”, and quietly burns human rights and civil liberties in the background. This is where we are right now.

Walking into town with Mrs. the other day we spotted a discarded syringe. Occasionally there is a smell of wacky and folk gather in the minster square drinking tinnies. Community police are spotted now and again conversing. Did see a lad walking through our indoor shopping centre wearing one of those electronic bracelet things round his ankle, he stopped to pick up something that fell out of his pocket (looked like folded banknotes). The other side of life I suppose and I'm guessing things you wouldn't see if we did indeed live in a fascist state.

 

[ks.234]

PS Properly implemented progressive taxation and a Universal Basic Income is the answer IMHO, so I’m not just railing at venal hateful Tory shit, I do have a vaguely credible solution!

Creating an economy in which government spending comes from the deficit rather than taxation would be less confrontational and less problematic than raising tax on the rich.

Also, a Job Guarantee would be better than UBI because paying people to be productive has to be better than paying people to be unproductive. It would also act as counter to inflation and drive the economy.

 

[Tony L]

Creating an economy in which government spending comes from the deficit rather than taxation would be less confrontational and less problematic than raising tax on the rich.

To be honest I don’t give a crap about being controversial when it comes to the top couple of percent who obtain most of the wealth and even then go to great lengths to avoid paying their way. I’d dramatically cut or even do away with VAT entirely as that just batters the poorest disproportionately, and then close all the loopholes shit like Rees Mogg, Sunak etc use to evade paying what they owe. I don’t think the actual tax rates need much altering, it is just the behaviour of an entirely parasitic rich that is the issue. It is the avoidance schemes that are the issue be they “legal” or illegal. Same with corporations, I’m sick of pork-barrel politics on both sides allowing them to get away with massive profits and no taxation. They need holding to the same laws little people on PAYE have to play by. I have no issue with the basic concept of taxation though I do understand the role deficit etc plays in spending. I just believe in fair taxation and decriminalising personal innovation in poverty with UBI.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Yeah, bloody centrists again

Yebbut back then the centrists were actually Marxists.

 

[ks.234]

I just believe in fair taxation and decriminalising personal innovation in poverty with UBI.

The whole notion of taxation is built on Thatcher’s famous lie, we will never have fair taxation while that lie forms the basis of constraining government spending on public services.

I agree that UBI would enable some people to explore their creativity, but the Job Guarantee would have far wider application and benefit to society. There is no reason why we can’t have both.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Everything is an echo chamber if you choose it. Unless you read absolutely everything from the far-right right through to the far-left you are choosing your bubble. Reading Private Eye or the New Statesman is no different to reading the Daily Mail or Telegraph, it is just an echo chamber, one of your choice.

In large part I agree. Thats why just reading *one* (or two) sources isn't sufficient. Hence my tendency to 'look over the fence' and search for other sources that may give a different view or clash. Scientific Method again. You look for things that *don't* fit your initial assumptions.

The problem is that many people *don't* do that. They tend to pefer to find that other people "agree with them". Twerper, etc, are based on the *emotion* of 'likes'. Because they aren't selling you information. They are selling someone else your eyeballs and attention span and have a very powerful set of examples, algorithyms, etc, tailoring adaptively to the individual to maximise that. Plus giving people the quick 'hit' of finding others agree with them. Boosts the feeling that the user is clever or one of the 'in crowd', etc.

Again, I confess I used to prefer being the "awkward squad" at meetings, etc. You can find examples of that in the field of academic science on my biog pages. I had an antipathy to 'old boys clubs' for reasons that parallel the above.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Lower than the 1920s, higher than the 1950s.

Though I guess it also depends how it's measured. If I'm one of the 900k people on a zero hours contract but I'm not offered any work this month it looks like I still count as being employed.

As per your comment. There are lies, damn lies, and Government statistics. 8-]

cf More or Less, ad naus.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Agreed. There's no doubt whatsoever selling off council housing was part of a wider effort (broadening share ownership being the other part) to make the electorate more right wing. I'm sure many here will remember the huge national TV and poster campaigns (the biggest ad campaigns of their day) pushing shares in the various privatisations. "Tell Sid" and so forth.

Mind you I don't think these things had anything more than a small effect. The share ownership thing certainly never took off. I think there were factors that turned out to be far bigger. De-industrialisation, demonisation of the unions, mortgage deregulation, extreme house price inflation, globalisation, fragmentation and colonisation of the opposition etc.

A set of parts designed to combine and yield the consequences we now face. Based on the neo-liberal conventional economics as a cover story 'justification'.

 

[Tony L]

The problem is that many people *don't* do that. They tend to pefer to find that other people "agree with them". Twerper, etc, are based on the *emotion* of 'likes'.

I find this hugely patronising to a lot of people. There is an (likely unintentional) implication of intellectual superiority along with what looks like an implicit trust in established systems and rituals that are to my mind in most respects failed and obsolete. Last century’s media today.

You keep attacking Twitter and similar modern peer information platforms, but it is exponentially better than the sources most folk had access to previously such as the tabloid and broadsheet press, even TV news, where pretty much everything you read or watch is preselected, diluted and filtered by a wealthy white English middle-aged largely male conservative public school/Oxbridge elite and/or multi-millionaire offshored press-barons. Last century we had little choice to kick against this power-base, but now we do as the internet has reduced their power exponentially. We can actually largely ignore them. I certainly do!

The more you engage with modern social media the less work any selection algorithm does, e.g. I see very little I have not very actively selected to follow or has been shared with me by these people, groups or organisations. If I choose to follow say Ian Hislop, The Guardian or whatever they become just another voice without preference or priority in the hundreds I have chosen to follow. They are no longer editors imposing absolute control over one of maybe two or three publications I would have bought to read in the past, they are just another voice in a crowd. They are divorced from their power. This is a huge democratisation of media. It may not be perfect, but as someone who really doesn’t want everything I read shaped by an ageing wealthy white UK-centric conservative elite it is one hell of an improvement! I realise this freedom comes with much danger, but so does a state imposing its morality, suppression and censorship.

PS FWIW I probably follow at least as much US and international stuff as I do things in the UK. Again this was exponentially harder in the pre-internet darkness. Especially for those of us with limited education and resources.

 

[Seanm]

I find this hugely patronising to a lot of people. There is an (likely unintentional) implication of intellectual superiority along with what looks like an implicit trust in established systems and rituals that are to my mind in most respects failed and obsolete. Last century’s media today.

You keep attacking Twitter and similar modern peer information platforms, but it is exponentially better than the sources most folk had access to previously such as the tabloid and broadsheet press, even TV news, where pretty much everything you read or watch is preselected, diluted and filtered by a wealthy white English middle-aged largely male conservative public school/Oxbridge elite and/or multi-millionaire offshored press-barons. Last century we had little choice to kick against this power-base, but now we do as the internet has reduced their power exponentially. We can actually largely ignore them. I certainly do!

The more you engage with modern social media the less work any selection algorithm does, e.g. I see very little I have not very actively selected to follow or has been shared with me by these people, groups or organisations. If I choose to follow say Ian Hislop, The Guardian or whatever they become just another voice without preference or priority in the hundreds I have chosen to follow. They are no longer editors imposing absolute control over one of maybe two or three publications I would have bought to read in the past, they are just another voice in a crowd. They are divorced from their power. This is a huge democratisation of media. It may not be perfect, but as someone who really doesn’t want everything I read shaped by an ageing wealthy white UK-centric conservative elite it is one hell of an improvement! I realise this freedom comes with much danger, but so does a state imposing its morality, suppression and censorship.

PS FWIW I probably follow at least as much US and international stuff as I do things in the UK. Again this was exponentially harder in the pre-internet darkness. Especially for those of us with limited education and resources.

I think you can find this patronising, or you can routinely accuse people you disagree with of living in echo chambers, being taken in by uncredentialed Twitter accounts etc., but you can’t really do both.

 

[Tony L]

I think you can find this patronising, or you can routinely accuse people you disagree with of living in echo chambers, being taken in by uncredentialed Twitter accounts etc., but you can’t really do both.

Agreed. Ones viewpoints are hopefully always fluid and alter with time/additional knowledge. Mine certainly do and thankfully I lack the arrogance or tribalism to become entrenched in any corner as new information emerges. I assume you are primarily alluding to Momentum, as yes, I certainly called that one wrongly. Still not for me, but I have much respect for it.

To be honest it is only in the past 12 months or so that I’ve really started deep-diving modern social media as it was becoming obvious I was out of touch with several generations of younger people. It is one of the reasons I’m having a gentle dig at Jim as I nearly fell down the same hole. I realised this years ago with new music, so learned how to find what was happening there, I’m just learning to do the same with everything else.

 

[Seanm]

An update

Yes. The entire executive committee of the constituency has resigned. They accuse regional HQ and the NEC of a stitch-up:

Par for the course with this lot, but it's another reminder of Starmer's profound dishonesty:

It could backfire since neither of the two imposed candidates have local connections and both are known to be remainers, while the constituency was 66% Leave.

It's reminiscent of the Hartlepool debacle but the Tories are more unpopular than they were a year ago, so Labour might get away with it this time.

The mistake lefties make is to treat politics as a matter of democratic deliberation, rather than a management issue:

https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1525071789688332288?s=21&t=FMZHQtGcsAllrlKGD4-ldw

It’s just a question of finding someone with the right skills and experience, and tasking them with finding people with the right skills and experience.

Middle management all the way down.

 

[paulfromcamden]

The mistake lefties make is to treat politics as a matter of democratic deliberation, rather than a management issue:

https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1525071789688332288?s=21&t=FMZHQtGcsAllrlKGD4-ldw

It’s just a question of finding someone with the right skills and experience, and tasking them with finding people with the right skills and experience.

Middle management all the way down.

The local candidate is linked to Momentum, has called for Corbyn to be reinstated and tweeted that Labour adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism would be “disastrous”.

I'm sure he's well-intentioned and sincere but it's no great surprise that the NEC didn't want him selected for a high profile by-election.

 

[droodzilla]

The local candidate is linked to Momentum, has called for Corbyn to be reinstated and tweeted that Labour adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism would be “disastrous”.

I'm sure he's well-intentioned and sincere but it's no great surprise that the NEC didn't want him selected for a high profile by-election.

There were two or three local candidates. None of them were chosen.

The candidate you mention is correct on all three counts. Sadly he capitulated and disowned his old tweets, but a fat lot of good it did him. Some people never learn that trying to appease fanatics only makes them bolder.

 

[Seanm]

The local candidate is linked to Momentum, has called for Corbyn to be reinstated and tweeted that Labour adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism would be “disastrous”.

I'm sure he's well-intentioned and sincere but it's no great surprise that the NEC didn't want him selected for a high profile by-election.

None of those things is intrinsically extreme: Momentum is simply a left wing organising group, equivalent to Labour First, Progress and Labour to Win on the right (except popular); almost everyone on the left thinks Corbyn should be reinstated; and many people think that the adoption of the IHRA definition *has* been disastrous, for Palestinians and for public debate. To justify the overruling of democratic process on the grounds that the preferred candidate holds these views is simply to say that the left have no legitimacy within the party and should have no voting rights.

I’m actually a bit shocked at how easy it’s been to shrink the bounds of acceptable political opinion. And at the instinctive authoritarianism.

 

[paulfromcamden]

None of those things is intrinsically extreme

I'm not suggesting they are Sean. Simply an observation, made without prejudice, that it comes as no surprise that the party big knobs would seek as uncontroversial a candidate as possible for a by-election that may be quite high profile.

 

[Seanm]

I'm not suggesting they are Sean. Simply an observation, made without prejudice, that it comes as no surprise that the party big knobs would seek as uncontroversial a candidate as possible for a by-election that may be quite high profile.

Well of course, none of it’s surprising. This is what the right of the party do. It’s just I thought there was a bit of a suggestion that it’s reasonable.