advertisement


Next Labour Leader: Keir Starmer

Status
Not open for further replies.
The interview that Corbyn did with Laura K was toe curling wasn’t it? ‘People just didn’t understand me, my style of leadership’. Anyway, time to move on.
 
PPS I forgot I had joined the Labour party and didn't vote. I think this makes me not just a Centrist Enterist but a failed one.
Never mind. I joined the Tories just to vote against Pyjama Bag and failed in my mission (obviously.) Perhaps we could form a comedy double act. Matthew & Marchbanks - a laugh, a smile and an utter inability to influence leadership elections in any way whatsoever? “To you Matthew, to you...!”
 
A video watermarked with the name of the director of an organisation called Oppose Corbynism? Nah, sorry, not going to bother with that. Anyway, this is just going back into unproductive old ground. I’ve said my piece.



I actually think that Nandy could have been the best bet going forwards. All I can do (as a semi-outsider) is hope Starmer provides some good surprises.
I must admit she was a bit of an unknown quantity and better I think than her vote percentage suggests. She did well in the circumstances and certainly arrived on the scene ready for one of the main roles. Long Bailey I thought was unconvincing and failed to shake off the Corbyn Choice mantle.Really glad she didn’t come close despite th3 unwarranted support.
 
Never one to stand out to me just seems an ordinary bog standard politician. Which was confirmed with his winning speech. Pre-wrot polished usual. Why not address the Camara's with straight no nonsense speech. When this virus goes away change is needed huge change. I'm not confident he or any of the front runners are up for what is needed.
 
I think you’ll find Starmer will turn out to be an awful antisemite as soon as that becomes necessary.

I’m glad though that people are finding ways to reconcile themselves with the left’s program, even if it requires this kind of memory holing.

I have never quite understood this ‘anti-semite’ thing.
A great number of people have nothing again the Jews, but don’t like the way Israel conducts itself on
the world stage.
 
In the last five years, during which the left wing of the Labour Party has been dominant, there’s been a refusal to recognise what actually happened in domestic policy under the Blair/Brown governments.

Between 1997 and 2010 NHS spending rose from c. £70bn to c. £130bn. The result was shorter average waiting times for operations and in A&E, better facilities, more nurses and doctors etc. Above all NHS spending helps people on middle and lower incomes, i.e. those who don’t have private health insurance.

The years 1997-2010 saw a significant reduction in child poverty, from over 30% to under 20%. Arguably reducing child poverty is the single most progressive thing a government can do.

Support for pensioners increased considerably. Between 1997 and 2010 tax credits for pensioners rose by £11bn. As a result poverty among pensioners dropped from 25% to 17%.

And one foreign policy initiative: At the G8 in Gleneagles 2005, following an agenda set by the UK govt, it was agreed to write of £40bn of debt for the world’s 18 poorest countries.

I'd argue that this wasn't enough. But the idea that Blair and Brown only acted in the interests of the rich and big business is a myth.
 
I'd argue that this wasn't enough. But the idea that Blair and Brown only acted in the interests of the rich and big business is a myth.

It was demonstrably insufficient, the gap between rich and poor continued to grow. They did drop a few crumbs from the table along the way as you say, but look at the numbers of councillors they lost in local elections if you want to chart the history of their unpopularity. They also lost control of the scottish parliament to the SNP.

1998 88
1999 1161
2000 568
2001 0
2002 334
2003 833
2004 464
2005 114
2006 319
2007 665
2008 331
2009 291

Total during Blair's 'popular' years 5168.
 
It was demonstrably insufficient, the gap between rich and poor continued to grow.

Please do demonstrate it, preferably with facts. And maybe, for the sake of balance, set these in the context of longer-term trends, e.g. since 1980.

They did drop a few crumbs from the table along the way as you say, but look at the numbers of councillors they lost in local elections if you want to chart the history of their unpopularity. They also lost control of the scottish parliament to the SNP.

I didn't say "a few crumbs from the table".

But I don't expect to persuade you.

P.S. in my previous post I forgot to mention the minimum wage.
 
In the last five years, during which the left wing of the Labour Party has been dominant, there’s been a refusal to recognise what actually happened in domestic policy under the Blair/Brown governments.

Between 1997 and 2010 NHS spending rose from c. £70bn to c. £130bn. The result was shorter average waiting times for operations and in A&E, better facilities, more nurses and doctors etc. Above all NHS spending helps people on middle and lower incomes, i.e. those who don’t have private health insurance.

The years 1997-2010 saw a significant reduction in child poverty, from over 30% to under 20%. Arguably reducing child poverty is the single most progressive thing a government can do.

Support for pensioners increased considerably. Between 1997 and 2010 tax credits for pensioners rose by £11bn. As a result poverty among pensioners dropped from 25% to 17%.

And one foreign policy initiative: At the G8 in Gleneagles 2005, following an agenda set by the UK govt, it was agreed to write of £40bn of debt for the world’s 18 poorest countries.

I'd argue that this wasn't enough. But the idea that Blair and Brown only acted in the interests of the rich and big business is a myth.
Get your bingo card ready;)
 
Please do demonstrate it, preferably with facts. And maybe, for the sake of balance, set these in the context of longer-term trends, e.g. since 1980.

Very high in the context of the EU throughout
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-gap.htm

I see you declined to comment on the councillors. 1999 at the height of their 'popularity' they were already failing - 1161 councillors, an eye watering number in the context of local election history - and that with the largest parliamentary majority imaginable.
 
Starmer has made a good start. In his victory statement, he already sounds more convincingly prime ministerial than the current incumbent.
Did he just stand there holding his johnson?

Nandy needs to be shadow Health Secretary.
 
What if he actually was an anti-semite?
Starmer or Corbyn? I don't know what you want me to do with this in either case. If he does or says antisemitic things then he should be denounced. If he keeps it hidden in his dark dark heart I don't see that there's anything that can or should be done about it.
 
The essence of Corbyn-era policies + Starmer's organisational ability & sharper comms is something I could get behind.

By way of justification, here's a snippet from today's Financial Times editorial:

EUt9IUMWoAEaE74


Yes, that's the Financial Times. Attitudes are changing fast.

My fear is that Starmer might be too cautious to make the bold decisions that are needed, but I hope Im wrong.
 
You won't find me saying the poverty gap isn't a huge problem. But the widening of the poverty gap in the UK mainly happened in the 1980s, when Labour wasn't in power.
I see you declined to comment on the councillors. 1999 at the height of their 'popularity' they were already failing and with the largest majority imaginable.

I didn't comment on it because I was talking about poverty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top