UK Politics: Striking at the heart of the nation

[Spockydog]

57 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Your view that broken promises is a betrayal of those fundamental commitments is not universally shared; the unease with the Starmer project is much broader (but shallower) than that.  

No, it's not just that. His autocratic, non-democratic approach is ringing all kinds of alarm bells. 

In 2020, we had Starmer the Unifier. Corbynism without the Corbyn was the promise. And by that, he presumably meant policies to help the people, not the CEOs and Bankers.

Since then we've had a complete volte face. And Starmer has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for actual democratic process.

We've already heard today how shadow cabinet was cowed into silence over the two child issue. Apparently not one word of dissent was uttered in that room. When you read stuff like this, it's easy to understand why. Blocked for casting a vote. Fucking lovely stuff, Sir Keir.

 

 

 

 

[kiko]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

That's easy.

The choice that's going to be offered isn't going to be "Labour under Kier Starmer, or Labour under ANOther?" It's going to be "Labour under Kier Starmer, or Conservatives under Rishi Sunak (currently)?" for which there's only one viable answer, howver pissed off any individual may be about Starmer, he's orders of magnitude better than the alternative we'll actually be offered.

The hope for me as - a non brit is - when was he lying about his position more? Now or then? Assuming that his team has identified his current course of action as a vote winner, wouldn't it be possible they are lying to the electorate now more than ever? In general the morons who cheerfully vote for the likes of BJ somewhat deserve that treatment to trick them into not voting for the worst possible choice.

But yeah in general doesn't sound very positive.

 

[Spockydog]

3 minutes ago, kiko said:

The hope for me as - a non brit is - when was he lying about his position more? Now or then? Assuming that his team has identified his current course of action as a vote winner, wouldn't it be possible they are lying to the electorate now more than ever? In general the morons who cheerfully vote for the likes of BJ somewhat deserve that treatment to trick them into not voting for the worst possible choice.

But yeah in general doesn't sound very positive.

 

All of Labour leader Keir Starmer’s screeching U-turns in one place

This is pretty grim reading. The cognitive dissonance required from so-called socialists to excuse all this must be off the fucking charts.

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Spockydog

[BigFatCoward]

The labour party have won 3 elections out of the last 11, and that was when they were New Labour.  What makes you think there is an appetite for an actual socialist government?  It seems you would rather be in perpetual idealistic opposition.  

If Labour do win, they need to have a degree of restraint as its going to be a shitshow trying to put this all right, and it can't be turned around in one parliament so they need to not alienate the middle to get at least a second term.  Its not palatable, its necessary. 

[Gaston de Foix]

53 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

No, it's not just that. His autocratic, non-democratic approach is ringing all kinds of alarm bells. 

Right.  Your original critique of Starmer is logical and accurate.  If he had run on his current platform he wouldn't have won the Labour leadership.   Honestly, most people (including me) weren't paying attention to the scale of his broken promises.  If you hadn't been bringing it up on this forum (and I think it came up on one PMQs), it would have escaped my notice.  

But is it the most effective critique? No.  Same with his management of the Labour Party quoted above.  I will say he is (rightly) getting plenty of push-back on this policy from outside the cabinet.  But Tony Blair was hardly any kind of democrat, and Starmer has a much harder path to tread.  

But if the Labour party doesn't stand for the poor and the vulnerable, then what is its point? Being marginally better than the Tories will not motivate anyone. 

It sure as shit wasn't how Tony Blair won in 1997.  And actually the disasters of the later Labour governments from 2003-2010 can be chalked to Blair's commitment to promising all things to everyone.  

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Gaston de Foix said:

But if the Labour party doesn't stand for the poor and the vulnerable, then what is its point? Being marginally better than the Tories will not motivate anyone. 

It might. A level of competence and not being totally shit, whilst not coming across as soft and beholden to southern lefties and remoaners will be enough to get him elected. 

[Spockydog]

What about all the other stuff? Jamie Driscoll, for instance. He has done amazing things for your people, and Starmer bans him for sitting on a panel discussing the films of Ken Loach. They talked about films. I mean, what in the actual fuck. 

Starmer himself shared a platform with Loach on Question Time. What, is he going to ban himself now?

 

[Gaston de Foix]

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The labour party have won 3 elections out of the last 11, and that was when they were New Labour.  What makes you think there is an appetite for an actual socialist government?  It seems you would rather be in perpetual idealistic opposition.  

If Labour do win, they need to have a degree of restraint as its going to be a shitshow trying to put this all right, and it can't be turned around in one parliament so they need to not alienate the middle to get at least a second term.  Its not palatable, its necessary. 

There's no appetite for a socialist government but there is one for a government that cares marginally about the people. 

Amazing statistic: 1 out of 10 flights leaving the UK is a private jet: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/30/uk-is-worst-private-jet-polluter-in-europe-study-finds

How about a government that actually cracks down on rich entitled polluters and reverses the disasters of austerity?: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/21/children-raised-under-uk-austerity-shorter-than-european-peers-study#:~:text=Children raised under UK austerity shorter than European peers%2C study finds,-Average height of&text=British children who grew up,for average height aged five. 

[Gaston de Foix]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It might. A level of competence and not being totally shit, whilst not coming across as soft and beholden to southern lefties and remoaners will be enough to get him elected. 

I doubt it, but my point is that electability is not the sole or most important criterion.  I don't doubt Starmer's burning passion for making Starmer PM, but what's in it for the rest of us?

[Liffguard]

Public ownership of essential utilities has supermajority support amongst conservative voters, let alone the wider electorate. On economic terms the "middle" is well to the left of where the labour party is currently being positioned.

Regarding the child benefit cap in particular; society is going to end up paying for those children one way or another. If they don't get support now, they don't just stop existing, and the total costs in ten or twenty years time will be much greater. That's the thing with austerity, it saves a little bit of money now and costs a whole lot more down the road. Which is why I find the arguments about what policies we can or can't afford specious. Austerity is the thing we can't afford. The entire trajectory of the country post-2010 demonstrates that.

[Spockydog]

Starmer says 'things have changed' since he made all those promises. 

Aye, he's fucking right about that. One of the things that has changed is corporation profits have gone through the roof, and the rich just keep getting richer and richer and richer. 

This country was wrecked by Brexit. While the criminals behind it made billions. Fucking billions. And because of this, we are uniquely unprepared for this post-Covid landscape.  

We live in a country that has been absolutely trashed by the ruling class. As if a decade of austerity, fuelled by the greed and hubris of bankers, wasn't bad enough, they topped it off by literally stealing hundreds of millions of pounds from us during Covid.

And now Sir Keir Starmer decrees that it is the people, the plebs, the poor, who are expected to make all the sacrifices in order to get the country back on its feet. 

Fuck that noise. Tax the rich. 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Spockydog

[Gorn]

42 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I doubt it, but my point is that electability is not the sole or most important criterion.  I don't doubt Starmer's burning passion for making Starmer PM, but what's in it for the rest of us?

Exactly. If the voters have to squint really really hard to see any difference between a Tory government and a Labor government, why bother voting?

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

What makes you think there is an appetite for an actual socialist government?

Depends on who you ask.

Britain's predominately right wing media?

Or the people, many of whom can barely afford to live these days?

Starmer ran for election on a decidedly socialist ticket. That is an undeniable fact. And that's why he won.

Did you see the crowds turning out for Jeremy Corbyn at the peak of his popularity? I have never seen anything like it. So I'd say there is a very large appetite for a government with socialist values. A government that puts the interests and the safety of its people over that of its donors. And if Corbyn had been given a fair shake of things in the media, he would have won a fucking landslide.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Spockydog

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

The labour party have won 3 elections out of the last 11, and that was when they were New Labour.  What makes you think there is an appetite for an actual socialist government?  It seems you would rather be in perpetual idealistic opposition.  

If Labour do win, they need to have a degree of restraint as its going to be a shitshow trying to put this all right, and it can't be turned around in one parliament so they need to not alienate the middle to get at least a second term.  Its not palatable, its necessary. 

C'mon there's surely a middleground between socialist goverment and vote for me I am actually a functionally sane tory.

While I find spocky's rage boner about Starmer to be sorta annoying, but Starmer is atm given very little reason to actually vote for him, other than that the Tories are fucking bonkers.

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

The labour party have won 3 elections out of the last 11, and that was when they were New Labour.  What makes you think there is an appetite for an actual socialist government?  It seems you would rather be in perpetual idealistic opposition. 

I think the main takeaway is that Labour have only won 3 elections out of the last 11 with a leader who is literally the godfather of Rupert Murdoch's kid. And I think that says more about the state of British democracy than it does about the Labour party per se.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I doubt it, but my point is that electability is not the sole or most important criterion.  I don't doubt Starmer's burning passion for making Starmer PM, but what's in it for the rest of us?

Well it is the most important criteria. You can't do anything if you are in opposition.

 

23 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Exactly. If the voters have to squint really really hard to see any difference between a Tory government and a Labor government, why bother voting?

I think that has been true in the past, which is possibly one of the reasons that led to a more populist movement as there was so little choice between parties.

At the moment I don't think that is quite true though, there is probably a bigger movement of 'anyone but the tories' than before and even conservative voters are wiping their hands with the party. Hoovering those voters up by not appearing to be everything they don't want in government seems a decent strategy. 

52 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Public ownership of essential utilities has supermajority support amongst conservative voters, let alone the wider electorate. On economic terms the "middle" is well to the left of where the labour party is currently being positioned.

The old adage about the British public being left of economics but right on social policy is probably true in a lot of cases, though not everything. That's why even the conservatives have generally moved pretty far left on economics over time but really pushed the right on social issues. It is harder for Labour to go right socially as it will just piss factions of their party off, the two child policy is an example of that.

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

While I find spocky's rage boner about Starmer to be sorta annoying, but Starmer is atm given very little reason to actually vote for him, other than that the Tories are fucking bonkers.

It's okay. I remember getting tarred and feathered in early 2020 for suggesting that facemasks should be mandated in indoor spaces. A lot of very intelligent people used an awful lot of words to tell me that because people couldn't be trusted to put on face masks in the proper fashion, any mandate would be pointless. LOL. 

Anyway, I'm sure, in time, Starmer will be fully recognised for the charlatan he is. 

[Spockydog]

OBAMA 2008: YES WE CAN! 

STARMER 2023: NO WE CAN'T! 

[Gaston de Foix]

18 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I think the main takeaway is that Labour have only won 3 elections out of the last 11 with a leader who is literally the godfather of Rupert Murdoch's kid. And I think that says more about the state of British democracy than it does about the Labour party per se.

The British people had the chance to make Jeremy Corbyn PM, twice.  They declined, twice.  If the Labour party was foolish enough to offer Corbyn a third time, they would have declined again.  Some of that was Corbyn as a person rather than his politics, but a lot of it was his politics.  

Some triangulation is inevitable in politics.  It is both necessary and wise.  That doesn't mean you should end up like Tony Blair sucking the biggest dicks in the room. 

Starmer's soulless, rather mechanical, calculations fall short of Blair's incredible-in-retrospect contortions.  Wherever you look in British politics you see the price we paid for his shortcomings.  Despite enacting the Human Rights Act, he spent much of 2004-2007 attacking his own government's achievements.  The Tories followed suit and we have ended up with the Migrant Bill and the Rwanda policy. 

His failure to enact meaningful press regulation has haunted British politics.  To fix the Lords.  Cash-for-honours.  And that's before we even talk about Iraq.  

Starmer seems much more motivated by these institutional-side reforms and they are important.  But he needs to sell the British people on his ideas to do more for the poor and vulnerable and ordinary Britons.  And he actually has to show that he cares.  You turn people off as soon you start talking about your five or seven priorities.   Who, exactly, loves memorizing lists?

[Gaston de Foix]

30 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

It's okay. I remember getting tarred and feathered in early 2020 for suggesting that facemasks should be mandated in indoor spaces. A lot of very intelligent people used an awful lot of words to tell me that because people couldn't be trusted to put on face masks in the proper fashion, any mandate would be pointless. LOL. 

Anyway, I'm sure, in time, Starmer will be fully recognised for the charlatan he is. 

Is there anything that Starmer could do, once in office, that would persuade you that his premiership was worth all the compromises? Higher taxes for the rich?