Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

[Spraggons Den]

Institutional Stockholm Syndrome.......As a party they are psychologically damaged.

I agree there is something in this. Despite being scarred though people/institutions can recover and this is what I hope for Labour. I am sure a long period in government would be the best treatment.

 

[Seeker_UK]

In fairness there won’t be much of an economy or concept of decency in public life left to shit on by that time. Labour will have to offer something a little different than just being the Tory dumpster fire continuity party.

AFAICT, offering the nationalised green energy company and reintroducing the 45p rate of tax is a little different from the Tories. Of course, until the manifestos are launched we won't know how else different.

Labour is promising to increase government spending and pay down the deficit and the debt. You can have one or the other, you can’t have both.

Smarter spending of public money, like not paying over the odds for stuff like PPE, might be one approach.

On the one hand, this is reasonable - focus on appealing to the centre. It is clear that Labour needs to win the next election.

On the other hand, such strategy has led to a 'ratchet effect' of denuded public provision. We see the Tories in office (Thatcher, Austerity, Truss) aggressively take the country rightwards, attacking trade unions, reducing access to employment tribunals, shrinking or diverting into private pockets the money that is spent on public services, privatising, academising, centralising power. Then Labour come in. They make small steps leftward, but they don't undo any privatisations, and they don't undo the marketisation of public services, in fact they like some of this stuff - they introduce student loans, PFI, and 'light touch regulation' of the banks. And at the end of their term, things are better than when the Tories left power. That will do for now; but the underlying position is still further right than before the Tories were last in power.

And then the Tories get back in, and do radical stuff (Universal Credit, Austerity, Hard Brexit, Royal Mail etc). Labour get in and timidly dial back a few policies (they can't afford more, because the tax base has been squeezed). We end up still further right. The 'ratchet effect' continues. And the voting system ensures that the Labour Party have less time in power than the Tories.

At some point, Labour has to realise that even voters in the centre want some left-wing policies: people want publicly owned rail and utilities; people want an NHS that is not market-driven and stuffed with managers. Labour will not lose votes if they promise these things. Look at Philip Oppenheim's letter to the FT this week (Twitter), calling for a raft of reforms. Wherever left-wing policies are popular, Labour needs to be bold, or it loses even when it wins.

You agree then that the only plan for change is for Labour to win and then make the changes? The only logical alternative, to not support Labour until it changes to be *exactly* in line with what you want, increases the risk of another five years of Conservative Government?

 

[laughingboy]

You agree then that the only plan for change is for Labour to win and then make the changes? The only logical alternative, to not support Labour until it changes to be *exactly* in line with what you want, increases the risk of another five years of Conservative Government?

Yes, I want Labour to win. My reservations won't cloud my view - there's too much poverty, deprivation and desperation to be addressed. And climate change. Labour won't do all that I'd wish, but the alternatives to the Tories are either a Labour majority or a Labour-led coalition. So, Labour are the only realistic agent of change.

On the ground, I'm in a safe Tory seat and will be voting tactically - against the chap with the blue rosette.

 

[Seanm]

Another alternative view is that they're building a strategy to win the election. As awful as you may think the current system is, this is the only way of winning the next GE, playing the Conservatives at their game. Now, whether that is a cynical ploy or a genuine attempt to offer a different set of policies, I and many other could not care less; it will be better than the current set. That will do for now.



That's what running a country is all about. The only time a 'cake and eat it' approach was tried ended very badly and got us Liz Truss.

Sure, but that’s not an alternative explanation: I’m suggesting they understand that there is a lot of support for these (left wing) policies, but that they don’t really want to do them - they’ll weasel out if they can.

As for tradeoffs, again, yes, governance involves balancing different interests. But we are due a substantial re-balance, and what I meant is that Labour will want to minimise that: their instincts will be to overcompensate for any constraints they introduce on corporate power such that the balance barely shifts. And I also meant to suggest that they will want to compensate themselves, personally, for any damage they do to their post-political careers by going against corporate interests.

It really does matter whether their policies are a "cynical ploy" or not, because it speaks to the likelihood of them ever being implemented in any meaningful way. I'm not decrying the opportunism or the lack of authenticity, I'm just making a calculation. Their promises are at odds with their actions as well as their vehemently stated beliefs and principles, so I expect them to welch unless they're forced to do otherwise.

I don't meant that to be negative, I just mean, let's not kid ourselves: if you want anything good from these guys you'll have to keep the pressure on.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Sure, but that’s not an alternative explanation: I’m suggesting they understand that there is a lot of support for these (left wing) policies, but that they don’t really want to do them - they’ll weasel out if they can.

As for tradeoffs, again, yes, governance involves balancing different interests. But we are due a substantial re-balance, and what I meant is that Labour will want to minimise that: their instincts will be to overcompensate for any constraints they introduce on corporate power such that the balance barely shifts. And I also meant to suggest that they will want to compensate themselves, personally, for any damage they do to their post-political careers by going against corporate interests.

It really does matter whether their policies are a "cynical ploy" or not, because it speaks to the likelihood of them ever being implemented in any meaningful way. I'm not decrying the opportunism or the lack of authenticity, I'm just making a calculation. Their promises are at odds with their actions as well as their vehemently stated beliefs and principles, so I expect them to welch unless they're forced to do otherwise.

I don't meant that to be negative, I just mean, let's not kid ourselves: if you want anything good from these guys you'll have to keep the pressure on.

I remain unconvinced that a Labour government would not offer a better alternative to what we have today. Let's hope they win and then we can see who's right.

 

[palindrome]

Yes, I want Labour to win. My reservations won't cloud my view - there's too much poverty, deprivation and desperation to be addressed. And climate change. Labour won't do all that I'd wish, but the alternatives to the Tories are either a Labour majority or a Labour-led coalition. So, Labour are the only realistic agent of change.

On the ground, I'm in a safe Tory seat and will be voting tactically - against the chap with the blue rosette.

I'm in exactly the same position, and as such will be voting tactically.

John

 

[Seanm]

I remain unconvinced that a Labour government would not offer a better alternative to what we have today. Let's hope they win and then we can see who's right.

I’m really not saying they wouldn’t: I’m saying that once they get in they’ll need some encouragement.

 

[ks.234]

Sure, but that’s not an alternative explanation: I’m suggesting they understand that there is a lot of support for these (left wing) policies, but that they don’t really want to do them - they’ll weasel out if they can.

As for tradeoffs, again, yes, governance involves balancing different interests. But we are due a substantial re-balance, and what I meant is that Labour will want to minimise that: their instincts will be to overcompensate for any constraints they introduce on corporate power such that the balance barely shifts. And I also meant to suggest that they will want to compensate themselves, personally, for any damage they do to their post-political careers by going against corporate interests.

It really does matter whether their policies are a "cynical ploy" or not, because it speaks to the likelihood of them ever being implemented in any meaningful way. I'm not decrying the opportunism or the lack of authenticity, I'm just making a calculation. Their promises are at odds with their actions as well as their vehemently stated beliefs and principles, so I expect them to welch unless they're forced to do otherwise.

I don't meant that to be negative, I just mean, let's not kid ourselves: if you want anything good from these guys you'll have to keep the pressure on.

Yes, let’s not forget that Labour and Tories come from the same ideological and economic mould and will therefore face the same constraints. One would hope that Labour would spend borrowing on public services rather than the Truss tax cuts for the rich, but at the end of the day, both will face the same imperative to balance the books.

Labour voters will also need to remember that Labour ideology is now at least as much pro corporate power as it is pro public services, therefore, as you say, it will not be enough to put a cross in the Labour box on Election Day and sit back and hope, they will need to keep the pressure on through CLPs. (Anyone agitating for Labour who is not a member of the Party is not serious)

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Arguably, perhaps, we should join / rejoin the Labour Party as members, so as to do our bit to ensure this pressure is applied from within, too?

 

[ks.234]

Arguably, perhaps, we should join / rejoin the Labour Party as members, so as to do our bit to ensure this pressure is applied from within, too?

Absolutely.

 

[monkfish]

Arguably, perhaps, we should join / rejoin the Labour Party as members, so as to do our bit to ensure this pressure is applied from within, too?

Not going to happen in Scotland, we're all grubby tory enablers up here.

 

[Seanm]

Arguably, perhaps, we should join / rejoin the Labour Party as members, so as to do our bit to ensure this pressure is applied from within, too?

Would probably be sensible for those who can stand it, although I think the pressure is most likely to come from outside. The Labour right are just too good at fighting the left in their own party: it’s what they live for. But for all the gloating they’re doing over Truss’ misfortunes, she’ll be bequeathing them not only a ruined economy and state but also a lot of angry, desperate people, ready to strike and protest.

 

[ks.234]

Would probably be sensible for those who can stand it, although I think the pressure is most likely to come from outside. The Labour right are just too good at fighting the left in their own party: it’s what they live for. But for all the gloating they’re doing over Truss’ misfortunes, she’ll be bequeathing them not only a ruined economy and state but also a lot of angry, desperate people, ready to strike and protest.

Mmmmm….pretty poor turn out at Southampton Enough is Enough yesterday, local paper reckons 100 which seemed about right

Were events elsewhere better attended?

 

[Seanm]

Mmmmm….pretty poor turn out at Southampton Enough is Enough yesterday, local paper reckons 100 which seemed about right

Were events elsewhere better attended?

That does look a bit forlorn but I don't know how much we can read into it, especially given that there were 50 events (?) yesterday. I think the important thing is that these organisations exist now, before we head into the really difficult times.

 

[Seanm]

One thing about the hard centre, unlike the soggy centre and the left, but very much like the right, is that they never stop making demands of their own side. Starmer's given them 99% of what they want and they’re still squealing about being oppressed:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...quality-it-wouldnt-shut-down-the-trans-debate

Awful people, the worst. But you've got to hand it to them. You'll never hear them say to each other, "That's enough! it's all we deserve! Let's not be puritanical about this!"

 

[droodzilla]

A glimpse into the mind of Andrew Rawnsley in today's Observer and it's a ****ing weird place:

I mean, I get why Rawnsley might be awed by smart suits and neat haircuts, but what does he have against lanyards?

Some of the most "solid citizens" I know wear lanyards.

 

[paulfromcamden]

One thing about the hard centre, unlike the soggy centre and the left, but very much like the right, is that they never stop making demands of their own side. Starmer's given them 99% of what they want and they’re still squealing about being oppressed:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...quality-it-wouldnt-shut-down-the-trans-debate

Awful people, the worst. But you've got to hand it to them. You'll never hear them say to each other, "That's enough! it's all we deserve! Let's not be puritanical about this!"

I'm not sure who you're referring to as awful people in this context Sean. The article just seems like more 'TERF Wars'.

The article wrongly implies the Mermaids charity are being investigated by the Charity Commission for promoting puberty blockers. In the wake of a series of transphobic 'investigative' articles by The Torygraph, the commission received several complaints about the charity supplying breast binders to trans teenagers. The commission is clear that they have opened a regulatory compliance case as they are obliged to in response to complaints and there is no implication of wrongdoing at this stage.

 

[Seanm]

I'm not sure who you're referring to as awful people in this context Sean. The article just seems like more 'TERF Wars'.

The article wrongly implies the Mermaids charity are being investigated by the Charity Commission for promoting puberty blockers. In the wake of a series of transphobic 'investigative' articles by The Torygraph, the commission received several complaints about the charity supplying breast binders to trans teenagers. The commission is clear that they have opened a regulatory compliance case as they are obliged to in response to complaints and there is no implication of wrongdoing at this stage.

The author is a supporter of Starmer and the Labour right, and a terf, and is demanding that Starmer make Labour more terf-friendly.

 

[Ted-M]

"What should be a calm conversation about how to balance a conflict of rights has been turned into a culture war" , eg calling women TERFs everytime they raise a point.

 

[paulfromcamden]

The author is a supporter of Starmer and the Labour right, and a terf, and is demanding that Starmer make Labour more terf-friendly.

Ah OK thanks. I couldn't quite see how it fitted into Labour left/centre etc. It really is a dreadful article. She seems to regularly churn this sort of stuff out.

On a similar tangent I see Father Ted writer Graham Linehan has explained that since taking up hating on trans people as a full time vocation he's also started to question the reality of covid and climate change.

I'm not saying these people are all nuts but...