advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
matthewr said:
Point of order: the Lesser Evil strategy is specifically to do with US presidential elections when you have a literal binary choice. And more specifically 2016 when the choice was between a corporate centrist and an authoritarian racist game show host and 'Lesser' was doing an awful lot of work in allowing people to ignore the literal fascist and indulge in a lot of pearl clutching about Hilary Clinton. The other good example of Lesser Evil is Chirac vs Le Pen in 2002.

The political calculus when voting for MPs in the UK is obviously different as it's not a zero sum, binary choice and so tactical voting has a lot more scope for being worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Logically this may be so but practically speaking it’s been used to blackmail people into voting for Labour for as long as I remember. It’s a conscious part of the Labour right’s electoral strategy (Mandelson’s “nowhere else to go”) and it remains the beginning and end of politics for many centrist voters, as a browse of this thread will demonstrate.

It’s not wrong exactly as we’re a de facto 2 party system and we don’t in reality vote for MPs but for a party. (And tactical voting is a kind of mirage IMO.) But as a progressive voting strategy it’s been tested to destruction. People also really need to revisit the assumptions that underwrite it: there was a time when it was possible to believe that the Labour right *really* believed in redistribution etc. but understood that it was necessary to compromise in order to get anything done. Anyone who still believes that has slept through the last 30 years. Authoritarianism, means testing and marketisation is the whole of the Labour right's politics: it's what they believe in, it serves their interests, it's not a sop to middle England.
 
Spraggons Den said:
Technically speaking of course Starmer is actually 0 out of 10 because he has to have been PM for a reasonable amount of time before we can determine whether or not he has satisfied the criteria of the pledge.
Click to expand...
Now that is ridiculous. We are talking about Starmer’s own self professed “Core Principles”. Many of which he has broken already. Do you seriously believe that having broken them already, he will re-implement them if the becomes PM?

Core Principles are for life, not just Leadership contests.
 
wacko said:
Who is going to pass those laws ? Shall we ask Blair how much $ he got for after dinner speeches in USA for supporting the illegal Iraq war ?
Click to expand...

Yes Blair has cashed in on being a war criminal, I hate him more than Thatcher because despite electoral success he destroyed the Labour party as a force for good.

We don't need new laws passing, we need old ones on corruption, treason, money laundering, insider dealing, workplace bullying, etc to be enforced.
 
TheDecameron said:
Ruth Davidson too. All the big hitters then.
Click to expand...
It’s just completely bizarre. Only about a hundred people in the country think that Blair, Macron and Davidson are fantastic, popular politicians but they all work for Labour or the broadsheet press/BBC so here we are.
 
ks.234 said:
Now that is ridiculous. We are talking about Starmer’s own self professed “Core Principles”. Many of which he has broken already. Do you seriously believe that having broken them already, he will re-implement them if the becomes PM?

Core Principles are for life, not just Leadership contests.
Click to expand...

Nope, I was talking about the economic pledge Starmer made - I cut and pasted it from his website - and the clue is in the word "pledge" which is different from a "core principle" but I am sure you knew that anyway.
 
Spraggons Den said:
Nope, I was talking about the economic pledge Starmer made - I cut and pasted it from his website - and the clue is in the word "pledge" which is different from a "core principle" but I am sure you knew that anyway.
Click to expand...
Spraggons Den said:
This is the economic pledge Starmer made during his campaign for the LP leadership:

Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles.

Some good stuff in there surely which I can’t imagine BJ saying.
Click to expand...

perhaps you should read your own cut and pasted quote again?
 
Seanm said:
It’s just completely bizarre. Only about a hundred people in the country think that Blair, Macron and Davidson are fantastic, popular politicians but they all work for Labour or the broadsheet press/BBC so here we are.
Click to expand...
I loved it when Tory courtiers / “Conservative Home” et al were touting Davidson as a future leader of the Party (as if). It was reminiscent of their tipping Andrea Leadsom as a future Chancellor because she was a “merchant banker” when the reality was that she was office manager in her husband’s back street hedge fund.

Both in their way are every bit as barking as Guido Fawkes and The Spectator lionising “Fabbers” as national treasure/ representative of what the man in the street is thinking-

3gbufi9.jpg

The Member for Lichfield, who likes dressing up.

https://www.expressandstar.com/edit...fab-by-nature-the-world-of-michael-fabricant/
“His glowing follicly 'enhanced' golden mop, mischievous if not risqué antics on Twitter, and perpetual self-mockery are just a few of the splatters that make his personality a Monet's pallete of colour”.

Now you know.
 
ks.234 said:
perhaps you should read your own cut and pasted quote again?
Click to expand...

Yeahbutt the extract was one of a group of pledges on a pledge list entitled “My Pledges to You”. All of the pledges on the pledge list are quite specific about carrying out an action or achieving a goal(s) which in the case of the economic one are increasing the top rate of tax, increasing corporation tax and reducing tax avoidance. And like I said the LP have to be in government to be able to that.
 
Spraggons Den said:
Yeahbutt the extract was one of a group of pledges on a pledge list entitled “My Pledges to You”. All of the pledges on the pledge list are quite specific about carrying out an action or achieving a goal(s) which in the case of the economic one are increasing the top rate of tax, increasing corporation tax and reducing tax avoidance. And like I said the LP have to be in government to be able to that.
Click to expand...
There are three issues here. First, in his first promise Starmer’s pledges “no stepping back from our core principles”. He doesn’t promise to implement them in some kind of maybe future and row back on them in the meantime, he promises “no stepping back”. But stepping back is precisely what he has done.If they were pledges about core principles any person with a modicum of integrity would be speaking up for them long and strong at every opportunity, not diluting them with political evasion and linguistic wriggling.

Second, as you’ve decided to circle back round to all 10 pledges we have to look at Starmer’s other pledges that include those on Human Right and Immigration, both issues close to heart of any individual with social justice among their core principles. Starmer does not need to be in power to back these core principles, what he does need to do is oppose the Tories when they introduce legislation attacking human rights and the rights of asylum seekers. But rather than opposing the Tories on these core principles, Starmer has ordered his MPs not to oppose, for example, the Overseas Operations Bill and sacked Labour MP’s who actually had the courage and integrity to vote against Tory legislation

Finally, Starmer promised, sorry, pledged, to unite the party but he has done the complete opposite.

The evidence that Starmer cannot be trusted to keep to his pledges and cannot be trusted to stand by his core principles is there for anyone with eyes to see.

If you wish to close your eyes and support Starmer regardless, that’s up to you.
 
He lied to get elected and then boasted about it, to the rapture of the Sensible pundits currently gnashing their teeth about Johnson. The logic is that it’s OK to lie to people who don’t count, and OK to lie for the purposes of getting elected. It doesn’t occur to his supporters that this is exactly the logic deployed by Johnson or that it leaves Starmer a hostage to fortune.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-conference-pledges-b1928605.html

A lying sack of shit and proud of it.
 
ks.234 said:
There are three issues here. First, in his first promise Starmer’s pledges “no stepping back from our core principles”. He doesn’t promise to implement them in some kind of maybe future and row back on them in the meantime, he promises “no stepping back”. But stepping back is precisely what he has done.If they were pledges about core principles any person with a modicum of integrity would be speaking up for them long and strong at every opportunity, not diluting them with political evasion and linguistic wriggling.

Second, as you’ve decided to circle back round to all 10 pledges we have to look at Starmer’s other pledges that include those on Human Right and Immigration, both issues close to heart of any individual with social justice among their core principles. Starmer does not need to be in power to back these core principles, what he does need to do is oppose the Tories when they introduce legislation attacking human rights and the rights of asylum seekers. But rather than opposing the Tories on these core principles, Starmer has ordered his MPs not to oppose, for example, the Overseas Operations Bill and sacked MP’s who had the courage to vote against such Tory legislation

Finally, Starmer promised, sorry, pledged, to unite the party but he has done the complete opposite.

The evidence that Starmer cannot be trusted to keep to his pledges and cannot be trusted to stand by his core principles is there for anyone with eyes to see.

If you wish to close your eyes and support Starmer regardless, that’s up to you.
Click to expand...

On your first point, and as I have already mentioned, Reeves doesn’t say anything in the link you posted which is contrary to Starmer’s economic pledge.

Looking at everything in the round, I can see how pledges might come out of and indeed be underpinned by principles or core principles.

Lastly, you knew when you gave him your vote in the leadership contest that he was not the kind of old school Socialist that Corbyn was and differences overtime would surely surface. It was the same in the era when Labour was winning elections - 97, 2001, 2005 - when the hard left element was constantly grumbling at the policies of the Blair/Brown government. And of course the situation was reversed during Corbyn’s tenure!
 
Seanm said:
He lied to get elected and then boasted about it, to the rapture of the Sensible pundits currently gnashing their teeth about Johnson. The logic is that it’s OK to lie to people who don’t count, and OK to lie for the purposes of getting elected. It doesn’t occur to his supporters that this is exactly the logic deployed by Johnson or that it leaves Starmer a hostage to fortune.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-conference-pledges-b1928605.html

A lying sack of shit and proud of it.
Click to expand...
It’s the hostage to fortune thing as much as the lies that will make this country
slide even further into social and economic chaos..

It was noticeable during the parliamentary debate on the Sue Gray report (remember that?) that the Tories were taunting Starmer for being high tax and bid on spending, and worse, Starmer has had no answer either then or since.

If Starmer does get into power, he will be hamstrung by his own last of opposition to Tory social and economic principles that raising tax or public spending will be heavily constrained by fear of Daily Mail headlines. The irony is that if we do want higher tax and higher spending, the Tories are now that only party capable, in practical terms, of delivering it.

Such is the logic of Labour’s election strategy
 
Last edited:
Spraggons Den said:
On your first point, and as I have already mentioned, Reeves doesn’t say anything in the link you posted which is contrary to Starmer’s economic pledge.

Looking at everything in the round, I can see how pledges might come out of and indeed be underpinned by principles or core principles.

Lastly, you knew when you gave him your vote in the leadership contest that he was not the kind of old school Socialist that Corbyn was and differences overtime would surely surface. It was the same in the era when Labour was winning elections - 97, 2001, 2005 - when the hard left element was constantly grumbling at the policies of the Blair/Brown government. And of course the situation was reversed during Corbyn’s tenure!
Click to expand...
“No stepping back” was the pledge. Reeves stepped back.

If you wish to turn a blind eye to that rather obviously broken pledge that’s up to you.

if you wish describe someone like me who believes in the core principles of social and economic justice as ‘hard left’, and those ‘core principles’ as something that it is OK to jettison for electability, then that’s also up to you.

But it was you that raised Starmer’s pledges on core principles as some kind of virtue. Now you appear to be saying that it’s ok to ditch pledges and the virtues they represent. You have lauded Starmer’s pledge on No Stepping Back on Our Core Principles, yet when it is demonstrated that Starmer has in fact stepped back, you then say that’s OK because for one reason or another, they weren’t worth standing up for

Either core principles are a virtue worth standing up for, or, if you don’t stand up for them, they are not.

You can’t have it both ways
 
Last edited:
ks.234 said:
“No stepping back” was the pledge. Reeves stepped back.

If you wish to turn a blind eye to that rather obviously broken pledge that’s up to you.

if you wish describe someone like me who believes in the core principles of social and economic justice as ‘hard left’, and those ‘core principles’ as something that it is OK to jettison for electability, then thats up to you.

But it was you that raised Starmer’s pledges on core principles as some kind of virtue. Now you appear to be saying that it’s ok to ditch pledges and the virtues they represent. You have lauded Starmer’s pledge on No Stepping Back on Our Core Principles, yet when it is demonstrated that Starmer has in fact stepped back, you
then say that’s OK.

Either core principles are a virtue worth standing up for, or, if you don’t stand up for them, they are not.

You can’t have it both ways
Click to expand...
Precisely. SD's politics are his own business but I object to being told that black is white.

Contrast this exchange on Twitter yesterday:
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1530251190956597250
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1530251190956597250
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1530266931793739776

The gist of it: Paul Waugh is one of Starmer's biggest cheerleaders. He initially frames the story as Labour ditching Corbyn's 2019 manifesto commitment to raise income tax on higher earners. When some rando points out that this was Starmer's pledge during his leadership claim, Waugh accepts the point (and then ignores it).

This is also highly illuminating (from 8:30 to around 10:00):


McTernan (hardcore Blairite) says straight out that Starmer lied to Labour Party members to get elected and that any member who believed him probably shouldn't be in politics. It's a morally depraved position but at least he has the intellectual integrity to acknowledge Starmer's deception.

So, admit the deception and embrace it. Or quit lecturing us about "honesty" and "integrity".

Anyone who defends Starmer's leadership campaign is endorsing deliberate dishonesty, in the name of winning power. In this respect they are no better than the supporters of Boris Johnson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top