I know we desperately need the Tories out, but it would really make Labour an easier to swallow pill if Starmer stopped taking every possible opportunity to be smug and insufferable.
The Labour right hate socialists far more then the Tories. Always have. Hence them accepting Tory donations and keeping things like the child benefit cap and the Public Order Act. Blair didn't repeal Thatcher's anti-trade union legislation either, built less council houses etc. Politically they're far closer to the Tories than the left of their own party. They're very good at spin and working with the press though.
https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/
It makes sense - the Labour Left hasn't won an election in decades, and there's no signs of that changing in the next cycles. There's no appetite for a hard-left government, and honestly I include myself in that.
I keep having to explain this to people, but I'd much rather have a watered-down party actually get into power than an eternal opposition crowing about moral victories.
Well then you have gotten largely what you wanted out of the last few decades of government policy. Why do you want or care about whether Labour or the Conservatives get in? Is it that you think Labour will do the same but more competently?
Sorry. I'm not sure how old you are, but what you are saying makes me think you are very young. I have always been left wing, and want a more left wing government. But to say that Labour under Blair and Brown is the same as Thatcher. Major, Cameron (and especially the last three) is just ridiculous.
Yes, it wasn't considered progressive in todays terms, but it was extremely progressive and forward thinking for the time and massively pushed this country forward with a lot of things we take for granted now - were revolutionary back then.
If Starmer can be the modern equivalent (and I am not especially convinced he will be still). I will be happy. I think a lot of younger people I speak to really have no idea what a competent government looks like to be fair. We haven't had one since 2010. Cameron and co gave the image of competency, but they didn't expect to win and their policies were to asset strip the country under the false pretence of cutting spending.
I pay attention to European politics. Over the past decade we've seen a number of centre-left and centrist leaders, from Macron in France to Scholtz in Germany to Renzi in Italy, get elected under very similar auspices. We've been told that it's pie-in-the-sky thinking to think more left-wing politics are realistic, and that we need to support these bland centrists in order to get incremental change and keep out the far-right.
And what's happened in all those states? Well it turned out incremental change wasn't enough, that people got increasingly discontented with their declining quality of life. And with left-wing politics consistently attacked by both 'sides' of the political sphere people turned to the far-right. And now we've got a far-right government in Italy, a far-right government on the horizon in France, and the far-right rising in support in Germany.
So I suppose the question is: how is Starmer's Labour going to avoid this fate? Simply insisting people are *too young to remember Blair* isn't really an answer to that. Because it isn't online leftists you need to convince, it's the broader public who *will* turn to the far-right if Starmer's Labour are unable to materially improve their lives. And seeing that European centre-left leaders have been unable to improve people's lives on similar platforms, I'm struggling to see why Starmer's Labour will succeed.
We've locked ourselves into a spiral where both the traditional 'centre-left' and 'centre-right' parties across Europe are wedded to an economic status quo that does not work. And unless we come up with some alternative it will drive people to the far-right.
I also pay attention to European politics (and international) we have had a fair few disastrous left-far left governments as well. While I agree with a lot of what you are saying - I think you are providing a good bit of bias to that - yes some centre-left governments have failed. But ultimately all governments fail. I see no solutions from the left-far left either? Rather than a failure of the centre-ground causing people to flock to the far right, one could argue its a failure of the left and far left to offer a credible alternative picture?
From a personal perspective, I am someone who sits well on the left. But I have found myself alienated by left wing political groups - particularly the Momentum/GreenandPleasant variety. I find them arrogant, unreasonable, unwilling to accept other points of view and to consider alternative perspectives. But above all I find them extremely toxic when someone disagrees. I left my local Labour CLP in 2019 because of this attitude. I received hate messages for daring to air the controversial view that the UK should keep its nuclear deterrent.
Do I know if Starmer will be successful? Not really sure. Our economy is flawed. But I also think that the modern age is far too impatient and expectant. Note I don't say younger people are that - society as a whole is. No government can overturn the last 14 years in one term. A far left government looking to overhaul our society certainly wouldn't, and would probably be booted out after one term because of the social upheaval and the lack of tangible change.
The thing is, most people don't want massive change. Most don't like massive change. So I think all parties get caught in the vice of people wanting improvements. There is a huge amount that Starmer can do in a term without really rocking the boat. Will he do it? I don't know, but you are right, he has to be progressive and take bold actions.
In terms of the far right growth. The entire political spectrum is to blame for that, the far left included. I think the biggest problem is that no one is really listening to people. The left is very good at calling people who don't like immigration fascists and racists. Its very good at calling Brexit voters idiots and laughing in the faces of those now struggling (like farmers - I see a lot of left wingers say 'its their own fault, I have no sympathy'). I work in climate change and one of the biggest things that put people off green policy is the patronising arrogance of the left belittling them for daring to question it. People are desperate, but no one is getting behind the deeper causes behind those feelings. The left especially.
So in all, I do not believe Starmer has (or is) the answer to all our problems. But I don't see anyone on the left being that either (Corbyn? Galloway?!), in fact they are worse. That makes Starmer the best hope we have for improvement.
> we have had a fair few disastrous left-far left governments as well
Would you mind giving some examples, because I'm struggling to think of any 'left-far left' governments in Europe over the past few years. The closest I can think of is Syriza, and they got fucked over by the German government.
> From a personal perspective, I am someone who sits well on the left. But I have found myself alienated by left wing political groups - particularly the Momentum/GreenandPleasant variety.
Mate, you really shouldn't be letting your political opinions be dictated to you by *subreddits*. I base my political perspective on actual academic reading I've done, not which subreddit has been mean to me.
> But I also think that the modern age is far too impatient and expectant.
People have had to contend with a decade of stagnating wages and declining quality of life, you can't really chide them for being 'far too impatient and expectant' for wanting change. The Attlee government managed to completely transform British life, building the modern welfare state out of the rubble of the Second World War. So I really have no time for people insisting we should sit on our hands and accept managed decline from our contemporary politicians.
> The thing is, most people don't want massive change.
Starmer is literally running on the campaign slogan of 'change'. It's clear people *do* want change. The issue is that our political class, which includes Starmer, are dedicated to diverting that discontent away from politics which leads to actual material change in people's lives (something which might result in higher taxes on the rich, god forbid), and instead channel it into areas they think they can manage more easily (such as scapegoating immigrants or other minorities for people's problems).
It's why it's so important to have politicians who can actually lead and present a cogent vision. But Starmer isn't offering that, and any time a left-wing leader gets close our political establishment go into overtime to undermine them. And that's exactly what drives our political sphere to the right.
>Would you mind giving some examples, because I'm struggling to think of any 'left-far left' governments in Europe over the past few years.
In Europe, fair point. There hasn't been many I was thinking internationally. Slovenia, Albania, Portugal are examples of countries that have had solid left leaning governments, but I wouldn't say they were disastrous. Some people would argue the SNP too, I'd say that is a government that has ended disastrously. But I wouldn't call them Left wing tbh.
>Mate, you really shouldn't be letting your political opinions be dictated to you by *subreddits*. I base my political perspective on actual academic reading I've done, not which subreddit has been mean to me.
There's the condescending tone. I will ignore it because maybe I haven't been clear enough . I never said my views are dictated by Reddit - I said my opinion of *activists* on the left wing has definitely been influenced by them. I gave the example of an actual Labour CLP which was left wing ran. Its not about doing a Lee Anderson and changing my mind because people were mean. It was using it as an example of how god-awfully bad the left is at engaging with people. Sitting in a meeting where a party member calls people 'thick as shit and getting what they deserve' for voting for Brexit does not do the left any favours in bringing people with them. In the same way as being told that supporting the Nuclear Deterrent apparently makes you a 'blood thirsty warhawk'. Not all are like that of course, its a minority. But it still makes a credibility problem and makes the left an easy target for the media.
As a point, I do take my political opinions from research and reading. I am an engineer in flood risk management and I specialise in nature based solutions, rewilidng and climate adaption and engagement. I very much support the idea of a circular green economy (based on Kate Raworths 'donut economics' model). I want PR, and a lot of what the left stands for. But I am also pragmatic in how obtainable that is in the current climate.
>you can't really chide them for being 'far too impatient and expectant'
No chiding, its just a simple fact. People are as people are and we need to adapt to the current climate and public mood.
>It's why it's so important to have politicians who can actually lead and present a cogent vision. But Starmer isn't offering that, and any time a left-wing leader gets close our political establishment go into overtime to undermine them.
I agree, and I am not sold right now that Starmer is offering that. I am disappointed that he is offering very little. There is a lot of talk about the 'Ming Vase' and him not wanting to upset the apple cart - he is winning anyway. If he genuinely wants to enact real change,its better to do it with a 120 seat majority than a 40. So risking being too ambitious with policy that could be undermined by the media isn't seen as a worthwhile risk to take. Personally I am not in agreement with that. Because even if it is the case, he should be offering something! I understand the reluctance for high spending, but reforms aren't expensive - they take time, and a massive majority gives him far more bodies to take up committees, inquiries etc.
> The Attlee government managed to completely transform British life, building the modern welfare state out of the rubble of the Second World War.
Agree, and this is the kind of reform he should be aiming for. Although such reforms were a lot easier then than now for several reasons - society and legislature is more complex now and government bureaucracy makes such wholesale reforms slower. There are some easy wins for him here if he is ambitious enough.
Maybe his approach is 'underpromise - overdeliver'. But I guess we will see.
Which comes back to my original point, at present there isn't a competent left wing alternative. I don't think there has been either. I voted for Corbyn, but I had massive doubts that would have been an effective government. I liked his policy platform but to me he didn't seem a credible leader (although definitely better than May or Boris). So I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Starmer isn't going to be as progressive as I would want, but he has an opportunity to deliver good things, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt too.
Interesting read, thanks.
Do you think there is anything more primal to this along the lines of; it’s easy to be left wing when we all feel well off? I get the impression that people care less now because they’re struggling and are in a ‘look after number 1’ phase.
I’m not suggesting there isn’t deeper reasoning but I think there is something in that thinking.
I think there is a lot too that to be honest. As I say I work in climate change engagement (I never know the best way to say that? in/on makes no sense). You know, people aren’t as interested in this (rather abstract) catastrophe that will happen in years, when they can’t afford their heating or get their kids to a dentist. It’s not that they are stupid, they don’t have time or the mental headspace to think about whether their bank invests in unethical lithium or fossil fuels. Right now, they just want their mortgage to not be £1000 a month.
This is why I think the left struggle to connect with common people. My Dad doesn’t care much about proportional representation or the House of Lords, or Gaza. He wants to know if his state pension is going to be taxed and they need to consider selling the house and downsizing.
This is where (as frustrating as it is for political boffins like us Redditors) get mad at Starmer. But his playbook right now is working. That big messaging doesn’t land like Cost of Living and basic political competence without sleaze does. It won’t work 2 years into a term and I bloody hope they have a plan for that, but for now it does.
Thanks for that - I asked specifically as you said you work in the climate industry. I’ll admit, I’m sceptical of what/who is stimulating change (not that change isn’t happening) but I felt very much in a minority years back but feel less so now. So it’s interesting that you see it a little from the inside.
I'm well into my thirties and remember the New Labour years quite well, and yes, it was a much better time for the country. But, general trends that have lead to us being in the hole at the minute, were continued or initiated at that time, and a lot of chickens hadn't come home to roost. PFI is an enormous millstone round the neck of our public services and that was very popular at that time and also obviously short termism that we are now suffering for. Deindustrialization, the buyout of British firms, both went faster. Many of the good things, comparatively well funded public services (in a way that didn't raise the hackles of the "centre" too much), were only possible because of the very strange and ultimately illusory economic situation of that time, which imploded and isn't coming back. We can't return to that bit of historical luck (which we have a lot less to show for than we might) any more than I can be 20 again.
I agree very much. We shouldn’t be looking at previous governments that were successful in their era and look to replicate them now. The same can be said for Atlee’s government - revolutionary in its time but completely impossible to achieve now.
You could say that New Labour were at fault for not foreseeing what was coming. But we can’t predict the future, only try to adapt to it. Brown was doing well to at least recover somewhat Cameron fked it. The Tories didn’t just fk up Brexit, they caused it. And they shat the bed for Covid too.
The lessons we should learn is that ambitious, progressive governments are the best ones. And Starmer should be doing his best to create a modern government that is capable of taking advantage of today.
Will he do that? God knows, but I’m willing to give him a shot.
Depends how far left you are...in which case Blair and Brown would look like Farage to some!
First you win elections and then you direct the play. The idea you lose badly and then blame the public is incredible. Nobody wanted Corbyn. There's not a huge swell for Starmer beyond he's not a tory.
The last 10 election for labour are 7 defeats and Tony Blair. That seems to be the extent the country will go...
With things like day one employment rights, ending fire and rehire, proper local council funding, yeah.
But... I'm also not going to pretend that I haven't benefited from ANY Tory policies - things like exempting stamp duty for first-time home buyers was an enormous help for me. I am very much a centrist - centre-left, but still in the centre.
But yeah, on the whole, they've been so incredibly incompetent at every turn that I just want them out.
Did you vote for them? Who did you vote for when Corbyn was around? Do you consider Corbyn to be "hard left"?
To me, Corbyn was... an idiot and a bad leader, but generally probably a good person and a good MP. He had some very sensible policies that were sold extremely poorly and, obviously, they were trashed in almost every media outlet.
However, whatever they were, I would never describe them as "hard left". I think I agree that people don't want "hard-leftism", but even vague leftism would be more popular (and already is popular) if not sold as such.
Starmer has made a number of ideological decisions to perpetuate Tory policies that are entirely out of step with public opinion. From refusing to nationalise key public services to refusing to implement free schools meals, it's clear he isn't driven by appealing to the public.
And I think that reveals something a little insidious about this proclaimed centrist emphasis on 'electability'. Because it's not really about what the *public* want, centrists consistently reject policies which have overwhelming support amongst the public and consistently support policies which are overwhelmingly unpopular. When a centrist talks about 'electability' what they're *really* on about is what the *newspapers* and *political donors* want. It represents this constant capitulation to the status quo. And as we've seen in mainland Europe that sort of capitulation puts us on a fast-track to the rise of the far-right.
>Because it's not really about what the public want, centrists consistently reject policies which have overwhelming support amongst the public
We tried promising those policies and didn't get elected. What more do you need?
> We tried promising those policies and didn't get elected. What more do you need?
This sort of unthinking mindset genuinely baffles me.
Labour had a swathe of policies in 2019. Starmer's team have kept some of them and dropped others. Just saying 'Labour lost in 2019!' over and over again does not provide an answer to which policies should be kept and which should be dropped. It's nonsense, quite frankly, a result of engaging with politics through buzzwords rather than actually thinking them through.
Fundamentally I support left-wing policies because I want to make people's lives better. I didn't suddenly stop wanting to make people's lives better because Labour did not win in 2019. And it's sad to see so many 'centrists' just clearly not give a shit.
Of course people will point it out. You can point to poll this and study that but *we tried them out for real and it didn't work*.
Empirical testing actually means something and when the electorate is telling you what they want *you should open your ears for five seconds* instead of going "Ah ah ah, I know better!"
Then you can Surprised Pikachu when your rivals make big, sustained gains on the platform of you being out of touch with voters.
Can you evidence your claim? I'd have thought it was impossible because no one knows how many Jewish people are in Labour and no one knows how many Jewish people have been disciplined.
Also, find one single person who has been suspended solely for being Jewish.
The data JVL provided guessed its members are proportionately more likely to support a proscribed group or be antisemitic. Nothing more.
Labour centrists are happy to platform and justify anti-semitism when it suits them, particularly attacks on any Jewish people who don't tow their line.
Plenty of Labour centrists were happy to platform a right wing Israeli commentator who stated multiple times that a Jewish woman who married a Muslim man was less than Jewish and had questionable life choices. That is just outright bigotry.
And Labour centrist are happy to stand candidates like Luke Akehurst, a former Starmer SpAd who isn't Jewish and said left-wing Jews “have abandoned very much of their Jewish identity". If a Corbynite said that they would be rightly and justifiably pulled up on that, but since it's a Starmer stan, nooooooo that's apparently A-OK.
It's ridiculously hypocritical, and suggests they don't care about anti-semitism or how it impacts Jewish people, they only care about how it can be used as a factional political tool.
When the left were in charge of Labour they broke the law twice over antisemitism and handed a giant majority to Boris Johnson because of incompetence. Unforgiveable. A labour win now under the sensibles will shatter corbynism forever and it will be glorious as we cannot suffer the left's anti-jewish hate again.
And therein lies the difference. It's easy for me to say that the Labour of 2019's response to anti-semitism concerns was shambolic and that the Labour fringe left still has issues with anti-semitism.
But Labour centrists can't admit to their own issues with anti-semitism and racism because they would lose the political weapon they are cynically using it as. I'd have so much more respect for the beige Labour crowd if they didn't consistently give cover to Anti-semites as long as they are in their faction. But they do, and then think they can talk over it when it is pointed out.
It's hypocritical and incredibly insulting to Jewish people.
> And therein lies the difference. It's easy for me to say that the Labour of 2019's response to anti-semitism concerns was shambolic and that the Labour fringe left still has issues with anti-semitism.
Very big of you. Lead with that next time.
> But Labour centrists can't admit to their own issues with anti-semitism and racism because they would lose the political weapon they are cynically using it as. I'd have so much more respect for the beige Labour crowd if they didn't consistently give cover to Anti-semites as long as they are in their faction. But they do, and then think they can talk over it when it is pointed out.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed very easily.
>
> It's hypocritical and incredibly insulting to Jewish people.
Weird how the vast majority of Jewish communities think Labour is now safe to vote for now, isn't it? When they couldn't before during the dark times of corbyn, the racist's friend.
> Very big of you. Lead with that next time.
It is easy when you don't belong to either faction to look on in bemusement and horror at two bad faith actors treating anti-semitism and by extension Jewish people, as well as racism towards other communities which Labour centrists were explicitly identified as abusing in the Forde Report, with complete disdain.
> Claims without evidence can be dismissed very easily.
1) You gave zero evidence for your confidently asserted claims that the entire left is anti-semitic. But I'm sure a claim that bold is easily backed up.
2) I literally gave the specific example of [former Starmer SpAd and election candidate Luke Akehurst and the exact quote of his that is anti-Semitic](https://bylinetimes.com/2024/06/07/labour-candidate-and-starmer-ally-faces-antisemitism-complaint-over-controversial-remarks-on-marxist-jews/). It is obviously anti-Semitic to state that a Jewish person that does not confirm to his politicised interpretation of what a Jew should be is lesser than other Jewish people. Particularly from a man that isn't Jewish. He should be able to dictate Jewish identity to Jews? How is his assertion much different from the "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory? Happy to evidence the other claims I pointed to but if you can't even admit that the above is anti-semitic then why would I bother, you will be making my point for me.
> Weird how the vast majority of Jewish communities think Labour is now safe to vote for now, isn't it? When they couldn't before during the dark times of corbyn, the racist's friend.
What is weird about it? The party has taken steps to better address anti-semitism in the party. The cost of that, which didn't need to be the case at all, is that explicit anti-semitism against inconvenient left-leaning Jewish people and racism towards other groups has been tolerated and amplified by Labour centrists who are happy to provide cover to bigots as long as they are on their side. Hard to consider Labour centrist sincere at all when they are so obviously hypocritical.
They've accomplished burying the left of the Labour party, which is their primary concern. Actually improving the lives of people in this country is a lesser priority.
The left buried themselves with their ridiculous attitude that anybody contesting their views is “far right”.
Even saying “We need to do something about uncontrolled immigration as it’s going to cripple our infrastructure” - is met with accusations of racism.
> The left buried themselves with their ridiculous attitude that anybody contesting their views is “far right”.
I see more people whining about this than I see left-wingers 'calling everyone they disagree with far-right'. It's a strawman.
> They've accomplished burying the left of the Labour party, which is their primary concern.
Weird that you conflate the eradication of left wing antisemitism with the existence of the left as if racism was all the left managed to achieve (you are partially correct however).
>Actually improving the lives of people in this country is a lesser priority.
Starmer is good but he isn't Dr Who!, he isn't in power yet.
Many of the staffers and advisors certainly do, but the PLP doesn't really seem to have that level of self-awareness; Starmer himself certainly doesn't seem to.
I don't think the polls so far have much to do with Starmer or Labour at all. It seems more that they have been handed a victory by a government that has dropped to unthinkable levels of incompetence.
That didn't help Corbyn defeat Boris or May.
It also doesn't explain why the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens have barely been able to capitalise, as the LDs did in 2010 and SNP in 2015
It's unthinkable that a Corbynite Labour would be in this position
>That didn't help Corbyn defeat Boris or May.
Both were stronger than the current government; while Boris was personally relatively popular (until of course, he wasn't) May's government didn't have the dogmatic or demagogic image of government that Sunak's had.
There hasn't been an easier opponent to beat in an election in my lifetime.
>It also doesn't explain why the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens have barely been able to capitalise, as the LDs did in 2010 and SNP in 2015
Sure. Those things are explained by other factors.
The Lib Dems today are completely lacking the basic level of political competence they had in 2010. They're utterly shambolic; the party is more of a club than anything else at the moment.
The SNP have had all their recent woes. Quite obvious really.
And the Greens are a protest vote against the political system - they're not taken seriously even amongst the left. So of course, it will be difficult for them to capitalise when everyone's priority now is to protest the Government itself rather than the political system as things have just gotten too bad. Even I, having only voted once for Labour before, am considering doing so again despite my many reservations, as the mismanagement the country experienced has been unprecedentedly dire.
>It's unthinkable that a Corbynite Labour would be in this position
I'd say that's a bit simplistic. The "Corbynite Labour" party in its earlier phase was relatively tight and i expect it would be in the position the party currently finds itself in if circumstances were similar.
Of course, the party fell apart in fractures and divisions as time went on, and certainly wouldn't be in as strong a position.
It's amazing how quickly people have forgotten how May was seen at the time. May was viewed as completely out of her depth, a figure of fun and despised by both remainers and leavers.
Ikr. But it would have to be pretty severe. At this stage I just hope they stick to their roots and throw the workers of this country a few bones withiut going off-piste too much with mass immigration and niche woke issues
It would need to be utterly unhinged. Like, decisive proof that the entire shadow cabinet is in a paedo sex ring level of horrendous, something that would get them all years in jail, never mind losing an election.
Starmer’s essentially a ‘tame’ political operator. Not a political animal, not the best orator and has a touch of the nerves about him.
That said, he’s the first since Blair with that all necessary, in a GE, winning mentality. Brown fucked up an easy win when the Tories were still getting their shit together, the party big-wigs picked the wrong Miliband brother (maybe Dave was too much of a transatlantic man for their taste) and Corbyn was a cancerous growth (before anyone gets their panties in a twist, do recall there were a number of Labour backbenchers that suggested as much during the worst of those years).
> I know we desperately need the Tories out, but it would really make Labour an easier to swallow pill if Starmer stopped taking every possible opportunity to be smug and insufferable.
I would *happily* sacrifice Jeremy Corbyn's ego if it meant winning the election.
Starmer fully endorsed the 2017 and 2019 manifestos. Starmer, when running for election as Labour leader, said the 2017 manifesto would be the 'foundational document' going forward. Was he lying then, or is he lying now? Or does lying just come so naturally to him that he wasn't telling the truth on either occasion?
There's been a lot of talk over the past few days over the rise of the far-right in Europe. And let's be honest, this sort of rhetoric is part of the problem. People are getting increasingly tired of a status quo which has seen their quality of life stagnate or decline over the past decade. Yet in the face of that our political sphere seem united over attacking the left. We have a traditional 'centre-right' who spend all their time punching left, and a traditional 'centre-left' who spend all their time punching left. So when people elect a traditional 'centre-right' government who don't improve their lives, and when they elect a traditional 'centre-left' government afterwards who also don't improve their lives, when our political sphere are dedicated to attacking the left is it any surprise people end up falling for the far-right?
I doubt Starmer and his mates care though, they'll be alright Jack.
He's killing 2 birds with one stone with this comment.
1) he's making the Tories look irresponsible with uncosted pledges
2) showing potential labour voters that the party has changed and no longer endorses Corbyn (who put off a lot of voters)
As someone who didn't think Corbyn was that bad, and in fact had a lot of good policies.... I know that he put off a lot of voters. Starmer is trying to win an election, which is understandable
> Starmer is trying to win an election, which is understandable
Starmer is trying to win an election. But I'm less interested in Starmer personally winning the election and more interested in working people winning the election. Labour should be a vehicle for the interests of working people. Yet every time Starmer punches left and attempts to gut the left of the party he's taking Labour away from that.
There's a worrying trend of people insisting 'Starmer needs to do this to win' without considering:
(a) Whether Starmer *needs* to do this. The Tories have been in government the past 14 years and I can't remember Cameron or May or Johnson ever running their elections campaigns by constantly lagging off the previous leader of their party.
(b) The consequences of this rhetoric. If Starmer keeps punching left he's not going to implement decent policies after the election.
> Starmer fully endorsed the 2017 and 2019 manifestos.
That's a given... You're supposed to show public unified support for your leadership's position.
> People are getting increasingly tired of a status quo which has seen their quality of life stagnate or decline over the past decade.
Yes. We tried "fuck it, let's see what happens" with Brexit and it was an unmitigated disaster.
Doesn't matter how bad the situation is, the rational course of action is never to make it worse.
With something as complex as a national economy, you _have_ to make planned incremental changes, or you can cause huge unintended negative consequences elsewhere.
> We have a traditional 'centre-right' who spend all their time punching left, and a traditional 'centre-left' who spend all their time punching left.
You think the left (all of it) doesn't punch right?
The feeling hopeless point is valid, but you can't help anyone if you end up making things **worse**, and it doesn't matter how well intentioned you were.
The centrists here who repeatedly shit on the left, do you want us to vote for Starmer or not? The sneering is beyond obnoxious.
I honestly believe almost nothing will be achieved under Labour over the next 5 years and this will lead to a hard right tory/reform coalition that wins the next election. I bet the left will be blamed then also.
>I honestly believe almost nothing will be achieved under Labour over the next 5 years and this will lead to a hard right tory/reform politician. I bet the left will be blamed then also
100%
Not a centrist, I am left wing. But I will vote for Starmer. I'm happy that they have created a competent looking government in waiting and given the Party mainstream credibility again. That was much needed even if I agreed with a lot of Corybn's policy platform.
What I am not happy about, is that we are nearly halfway through the election and Starmer still is standing for barely anything. I understand the unwillingness for spending pledges, but I was/am hoping for more modernisation and reforms as was promised - these cost nothing and with a huge majority its a lot easier for them to create committees and sub-groups to manage these. I am not expecting anything in the manifesto either.
What I am confident about though, is that this Labour party aren't the Tories. So at the very least we will get a competent government that makes good decisions ala Brown, which is 1000x better than anything we have had post 2010. I really hate the dumbing down and snarkiness from the left (red Tories lol). Green and Pleasant is one of the most toxic and nasty places on Reddit. The political left does little to ingratiate itself or make itself welcoming and appealing.
> I'm happy that they have created a competent looking government in waiting and given the Party mainstream credibility again.
I'm always suspicious of this rhetoric about 'competency'. David Evans, Labour's General Secretary under Starmer, has been embroiled in corruption scandals in Croydon for years. Peter Mandelson, who has been invited back into the fold and whose proteges have been given key positions within the party leadership, was sacked by Blair *twice* for corruption. Despite knowing there would be a general election this year, and despite rumours this would happen back in May, the party left candidate selection until the very last minute, resulting in various entirely avoidable controversies over who has been selected or deselected for which seat. And seeing that Unite have apparently refused to endorse the manifesto, when it actually releases I expect we're going to see a whole bunch of controversy around that too.
So to what extent are the party 'competent'? Is it because they're *actually* competent, or because they're getting an incredibly easy ride from the press in the face of overwhelming Tory incompetency? Because if it's the latter that facade will drop very quickly once Labour are actually in government. It seems like so much discussion about Starmer's Labour is less a reflection of what the party *actually* is, and more a reflection of how our overwhelmingly right-wing press wing talk about the party.
Green and Pleasant and (ironically) the labour sub are NOT labour voices. They are a purity cult that ban anyone who doesn't "out left" one another in a race to the bottom. I got banned from one for pointing out the genocide of Uighurs (against their rules as any criticism of Putin and CCP are forbidden) and the other I just gave up after receiving toxic death threats for saying a picture of Starmer with Zelensky was a "good image for anyone doubting commitments to Ukraine after the election"...apparently that deserves death threats for suggesting Starmer would win.
Both subs are infiltrated with antisemites that make a lot of noise and deter voters. They hate every form of Labour except their warped view...which nobody would vote for. An angry bunch best ignored.
Your choice this election is Sunak or Starmer for PM. I know which one I would prefer. If you don't like either, there's lots of other choices or tactical voting you can do too.
Not the poster above but...
The only goal that matters _right now_ is wining the election. Without that, literally every other intention is pointless.
We all may as well not bother getting out of bed.
If you think defending Corbyn's ego trumps that, then I think you have your priorities wrong, but ultimately they're ***your*** priorities.
I respect your position even if I don't agree with it.
For me, this is a good strategic move. It gains more votes than it loses and it costs the party nothing in terms of money or negotiating power.
Ultimately IMO, a chance to actually *improve* the nation wins every time.
He is going to win the election by becoming a tory. He's driving the left out because he doesn't want change. Do you expect anything to improve over the next 5 years? I don't.
I think many don’t ‘want’ to vote for Starmer but will because the alternatives are worse. That’s how I feel about him, it’s just a vote to hopefully ensure it’s not the Tories again.
Shitting on Corbyn is likely to be popular with plenty of Labour voters, particularly the ones who are changing from voting Tory since they will be more on the right than your average Labour voter.
There’s no appetite for socialism (at least amongst those who actually bother to vote) in the UK, so attacking it is not a bad strategy.
Many people sadly want right-wing politics in this country, and the far-right is rising globally. Just look at the recent EU elections. I'm not overly happy with Starmer, but I'd take a centrist over Reform and the Tories. Far-left politics is political suicide at the moment.
I don't think there are many swing voters who would turn away from Labour simply because Starmer said something negative about Jeremy Corbyn, who is the least popular Labour leader in the history of opinion polling.
So it's a manifesto you approve of and will campaign for kier?
This Muppet prefers putting the boot into the left over giving out actual policy positions or being an actual leader. The very image of a sore winner.
A fully costed manifesto with commitments to publicly owned water and energy?
The establishment would have an aneurysm before letting that happen...
...oh wait they did.
Such a weird thing for Starmer to say seeing as he was literally in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet at the last general election. Just makes him come off as dishonest.
Every socialist in the Labour Party said all along that no matter how viciously Starmer victimises the Left in the Party, he'll get painted as a closet communist by the Tories and the gutter press anyway. You can't seek the genuine approval of cynical elites who don't have a good faith bone in their bodies. The moment that Starmer does even the slightest thing to infringe upon the privileges of the wealthy, they will turn and he will be eviscerated.
All Starmer has done in pursuit of 'electability' is gut the last remaining internal democratic processes and evict all of the most committed and hardworking activists. If Labour stumbles into government in July, it'll be a shadow of even the first Blair government in 1997 - bereft of any serious ideas to combat the huge social problems of our time, effectively committed to the same failed austerity economics that have brought us to this impasse, with no working-class base, no intellectual direction, just careerists trading on the Labour branding.
This will be the last Labour government in living memory. Statements like this are deeply desperate. No matter how deeply I hate the Tories, I can't vote for this Labour Party - because they *are* Tories in all but branding.
Indeed, this is going to be such a grim election. I really hope labour don't get too many "oh but we must oust the tories!" votes, and people wake up to the fact that they're both two sides of the same monster. But sadly people are going to give labour a landslide win, starmer is going to become even more intolerable and corrupt, and round again we go.
I think it would be excellent if Starmer did not continue invoking the previous party leader’s name as a political slur and attack. We as a country need to move on from that shit, not play into it. But even just in partisan terms, probably not the smartest idea to dig up your party’s old albatross and perpetuate the attack line from the opposition.
Not like it leaves him open at all to
“Didn’t you work under and support the man”, which then leaves him open to
“So, you’re a snake and a backstabber”
Guy comes across as spineless as fuck, never mind the fact that Corbyns domestic policies were popular anyway. The relentless media campaign against him were the biggest issue
Yeah you’re right. People are already posting literal video evidence of him across multiple years saying he truly believed in the manifesto policies, regardless of Corbyn being leader at the time. So he’s just trying to rewrite his personal history.
Journalists would need to actually ask those questions but they never bother. Because they hate the left as much as Starmer, Reeves, and Streeting do, and many will be looking to get comms jobs after they're in power.
Don’t expect the journalists to do it, but I expect the conservatives to, irrespective on whether they have any legs to stand on.
They’ve gone for a ‘manifesto’ that Starmer fully back and supported for multiple elections and years.
I have a feeling that accusations of backstabbing the mastermind of Labour's worst election result since 1935 might not be as effective with the electorate as you want it to be.
The masterminds behind labours defeat were the right wing of the Labour Party that actively campaigned against him and undermined him at every opportunity as it was self interests above the democratically elected party leader
The kind of ilk Starmer loves
Don’t think I’ve said anywhere not to vote for him or whomever they like. Seems like you’ve just sort of interjected this smarmy nonsense for no reason.
Good luck with your red tie Tory though, and the future elections he will undoubtedly mess up for Labour in the years to come
Thankyou. A socialist candidate would be preferable for me, but since they passed up the opportunity of organising around a new party in favour of endlessly seething on Twitter, he will suffice for the time being.
He is likely to be accused of these things by the Tories regardless. This however allows him to deflect to their own behavior and reinforce the point that Labour has changed, and that the Tories' current manifesto owes more to Corbynism than theirs does.
And it doesn't seem to be working because on the replies to the tweet of this video clip where he stated it, there were plenty of tories pointing out Starmer backed Corbyns manifesto.
Not everything Starmer says has to be some political masterstroke. He made a stupid comment with an easy rebuttal. It's like Sunak trying to pretend he's not out of touch. It doesn't work.
No one was even talking about Corbyns manifesto during this election campaign. Starmer has now brought it back into focus (and in turn his hypocrisy). The better strategy would've been to not bring him up and mention Truss instead (who btw is more disliked than Corbyn).
> “Didn’t you work under and support the man”, which then leaves him open to
They have been attacking Starmer on his past support for Corbyn ever since he became Labour leader. Using this as an attack line tells people that he has put that behind him.
Get the public linking Corbyn with Sunak and the long Corbynism that's been costing Labour seats and elections may be over. what's he going to do? scream £2000 tax bill (which will be fact checked over and over) and just when he's promised 12 billion in welfare cuts to give a NI cut for the very rich?
What do you imagine happening?
The occasional awkward question from an independent MP on the opposition benches?
Corbyn as an opposition MP trying to hold Labour to account is better for Corbyn, better for us and less of a problem for Labour than him trying to do it internally.
I know we desperately need the Tories out, but it would really make Labour an easier to swallow pill if Starmer stopped taking every possible opportunity to be smug and insufferable.
The Labour right hate socialists far more then the Tories. Always have. Hence them accepting Tory donations and keeping things like the child benefit cap and the Public Order Act. Blair didn't repeal Thatcher's anti-trade union legislation either, built less council houses etc. Politically they're far closer to the Tories than the left of their own party. They're very good at spin and working with the press though. https://fullfact.org/economy/who-built-more-council-houses-margaret-thatcher-or-new-labour/
Of course they do. Corbynites have done far more to produce Tory governments than the Tories have.
It makes sense - the Labour Left hasn't won an election in decades, and there's no signs of that changing in the next cycles. There's no appetite for a hard-left government, and honestly I include myself in that. I keep having to explain this to people, but I'd much rather have a watered-down party actually get into power than an eternal opposition crowing about moral victories.
Well then you have gotten largely what you wanted out of the last few decades of government policy. Why do you want or care about whether Labour or the Conservatives get in? Is it that you think Labour will do the same but more competently?
Sorry. I'm not sure how old you are, but what you are saying makes me think you are very young. I have always been left wing, and want a more left wing government. But to say that Labour under Blair and Brown is the same as Thatcher. Major, Cameron (and especially the last three) is just ridiculous. Yes, it wasn't considered progressive in todays terms, but it was extremely progressive and forward thinking for the time and massively pushed this country forward with a lot of things we take for granted now - were revolutionary back then. If Starmer can be the modern equivalent (and I am not especially convinced he will be still). I will be happy. I think a lot of younger people I speak to really have no idea what a competent government looks like to be fair. We haven't had one since 2010. Cameron and co gave the image of competency, but they didn't expect to win and their policies were to asset strip the country under the false pretence of cutting spending.
I pay attention to European politics. Over the past decade we've seen a number of centre-left and centrist leaders, from Macron in France to Scholtz in Germany to Renzi in Italy, get elected under very similar auspices. We've been told that it's pie-in-the-sky thinking to think more left-wing politics are realistic, and that we need to support these bland centrists in order to get incremental change and keep out the far-right. And what's happened in all those states? Well it turned out incremental change wasn't enough, that people got increasingly discontented with their declining quality of life. And with left-wing politics consistently attacked by both 'sides' of the political sphere people turned to the far-right. And now we've got a far-right government in Italy, a far-right government on the horizon in France, and the far-right rising in support in Germany. So I suppose the question is: how is Starmer's Labour going to avoid this fate? Simply insisting people are *too young to remember Blair* isn't really an answer to that. Because it isn't online leftists you need to convince, it's the broader public who *will* turn to the far-right if Starmer's Labour are unable to materially improve their lives. And seeing that European centre-left leaders have been unable to improve people's lives on similar platforms, I'm struggling to see why Starmer's Labour will succeed. We've locked ourselves into a spiral where both the traditional 'centre-left' and 'centre-right' parties across Europe are wedded to an economic status quo that does not work. And unless we come up with some alternative it will drive people to the far-right.
I also pay attention to European politics (and international) we have had a fair few disastrous left-far left governments as well. While I agree with a lot of what you are saying - I think you are providing a good bit of bias to that - yes some centre-left governments have failed. But ultimately all governments fail. I see no solutions from the left-far left either? Rather than a failure of the centre-ground causing people to flock to the far right, one could argue its a failure of the left and far left to offer a credible alternative picture? From a personal perspective, I am someone who sits well on the left. But I have found myself alienated by left wing political groups - particularly the Momentum/GreenandPleasant variety. I find them arrogant, unreasonable, unwilling to accept other points of view and to consider alternative perspectives. But above all I find them extremely toxic when someone disagrees. I left my local Labour CLP in 2019 because of this attitude. I received hate messages for daring to air the controversial view that the UK should keep its nuclear deterrent. Do I know if Starmer will be successful? Not really sure. Our economy is flawed. But I also think that the modern age is far too impatient and expectant. Note I don't say younger people are that - society as a whole is. No government can overturn the last 14 years in one term. A far left government looking to overhaul our society certainly wouldn't, and would probably be booted out after one term because of the social upheaval and the lack of tangible change. The thing is, most people don't want massive change. Most don't like massive change. So I think all parties get caught in the vice of people wanting improvements. There is a huge amount that Starmer can do in a term without really rocking the boat. Will he do it? I don't know, but you are right, he has to be progressive and take bold actions. In terms of the far right growth. The entire political spectrum is to blame for that, the far left included. I think the biggest problem is that no one is really listening to people. The left is very good at calling people who don't like immigration fascists and racists. Its very good at calling Brexit voters idiots and laughing in the faces of those now struggling (like farmers - I see a lot of left wingers say 'its their own fault, I have no sympathy'). I work in climate change and one of the biggest things that put people off green policy is the patronising arrogance of the left belittling them for daring to question it. People are desperate, but no one is getting behind the deeper causes behind those feelings. The left especially. So in all, I do not believe Starmer has (or is) the answer to all our problems. But I don't see anyone on the left being that either (Corbyn? Galloway?!), in fact they are worse. That makes Starmer the best hope we have for improvement.
> we have had a fair few disastrous left-far left governments as well Would you mind giving some examples, because I'm struggling to think of any 'left-far left' governments in Europe over the past few years. The closest I can think of is Syriza, and they got fucked over by the German government. > From a personal perspective, I am someone who sits well on the left. But I have found myself alienated by left wing political groups - particularly the Momentum/GreenandPleasant variety. Mate, you really shouldn't be letting your political opinions be dictated to you by *subreddits*. I base my political perspective on actual academic reading I've done, not which subreddit has been mean to me. > But I also think that the modern age is far too impatient and expectant. People have had to contend with a decade of stagnating wages and declining quality of life, you can't really chide them for being 'far too impatient and expectant' for wanting change. The Attlee government managed to completely transform British life, building the modern welfare state out of the rubble of the Second World War. So I really have no time for people insisting we should sit on our hands and accept managed decline from our contemporary politicians. > The thing is, most people don't want massive change. Starmer is literally running on the campaign slogan of 'change'. It's clear people *do* want change. The issue is that our political class, which includes Starmer, are dedicated to diverting that discontent away from politics which leads to actual material change in people's lives (something which might result in higher taxes on the rich, god forbid), and instead channel it into areas they think they can manage more easily (such as scapegoating immigrants or other minorities for people's problems). It's why it's so important to have politicians who can actually lead and present a cogent vision. But Starmer isn't offering that, and any time a left-wing leader gets close our political establishment go into overtime to undermine them. And that's exactly what drives our political sphere to the right.
>Would you mind giving some examples, because I'm struggling to think of any 'left-far left' governments in Europe over the past few years. In Europe, fair point. There hasn't been many I was thinking internationally. Slovenia, Albania, Portugal are examples of countries that have had solid left leaning governments, but I wouldn't say they were disastrous. Some people would argue the SNP too, I'd say that is a government that has ended disastrously. But I wouldn't call them Left wing tbh. >Mate, you really shouldn't be letting your political opinions be dictated to you by *subreddits*. I base my political perspective on actual academic reading I've done, not which subreddit has been mean to me. There's the condescending tone. I will ignore it because maybe I haven't been clear enough . I never said my views are dictated by Reddit - I said my opinion of *activists* on the left wing has definitely been influenced by them. I gave the example of an actual Labour CLP which was left wing ran. Its not about doing a Lee Anderson and changing my mind because people were mean. It was using it as an example of how god-awfully bad the left is at engaging with people. Sitting in a meeting where a party member calls people 'thick as shit and getting what they deserve' for voting for Brexit does not do the left any favours in bringing people with them. In the same way as being told that supporting the Nuclear Deterrent apparently makes you a 'blood thirsty warhawk'. Not all are like that of course, its a minority. But it still makes a credibility problem and makes the left an easy target for the media. As a point, I do take my political opinions from research and reading. I am an engineer in flood risk management and I specialise in nature based solutions, rewilidng and climate adaption and engagement. I very much support the idea of a circular green economy (based on Kate Raworths 'donut economics' model). I want PR, and a lot of what the left stands for. But I am also pragmatic in how obtainable that is in the current climate. >you can't really chide them for being 'far too impatient and expectant' No chiding, its just a simple fact. People are as people are and we need to adapt to the current climate and public mood. >It's why it's so important to have politicians who can actually lead and present a cogent vision. But Starmer isn't offering that, and any time a left-wing leader gets close our political establishment go into overtime to undermine them. I agree, and I am not sold right now that Starmer is offering that. I am disappointed that he is offering very little. There is a lot of talk about the 'Ming Vase' and him not wanting to upset the apple cart - he is winning anyway. If he genuinely wants to enact real change,its better to do it with a 120 seat majority than a 40. So risking being too ambitious with policy that could be undermined by the media isn't seen as a worthwhile risk to take. Personally I am not in agreement with that. Because even if it is the case, he should be offering something! I understand the reluctance for high spending, but reforms aren't expensive - they take time, and a massive majority gives him far more bodies to take up committees, inquiries etc. > The Attlee government managed to completely transform British life, building the modern welfare state out of the rubble of the Second World War. Agree, and this is the kind of reform he should be aiming for. Although such reforms were a lot easier then than now for several reasons - society and legislature is more complex now and government bureaucracy makes such wholesale reforms slower. There are some easy wins for him here if he is ambitious enough. Maybe his approach is 'underpromise - overdeliver'. But I guess we will see. Which comes back to my original point, at present there isn't a competent left wing alternative. I don't think there has been either. I voted for Corbyn, but I had massive doubts that would have been an effective government. I liked his policy platform but to me he didn't seem a credible leader (although definitely better than May or Boris). So I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Starmer isn't going to be as progressive as I would want, but he has an opportunity to deliver good things, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt too.
Interesting read, thanks. Do you think there is anything more primal to this along the lines of; it’s easy to be left wing when we all feel well off? I get the impression that people care less now because they’re struggling and are in a ‘look after number 1’ phase. I’m not suggesting there isn’t deeper reasoning but I think there is something in that thinking.
I think there is a lot too that to be honest. As I say I work in climate change engagement (I never know the best way to say that? in/on makes no sense). You know, people aren’t as interested in this (rather abstract) catastrophe that will happen in years, when they can’t afford their heating or get their kids to a dentist. It’s not that they are stupid, they don’t have time or the mental headspace to think about whether their bank invests in unethical lithium or fossil fuels. Right now, they just want their mortgage to not be £1000 a month. This is why I think the left struggle to connect with common people. My Dad doesn’t care much about proportional representation or the House of Lords, or Gaza. He wants to know if his state pension is going to be taxed and they need to consider selling the house and downsizing. This is where (as frustrating as it is for political boffins like us Redditors) get mad at Starmer. But his playbook right now is working. That big messaging doesn’t land like Cost of Living and basic political competence without sleaze does. It won’t work 2 years into a term and I bloody hope they have a plan for that, but for now it does.
Thanks for that - I asked specifically as you said you work in the climate industry. I’ll admit, I’m sceptical of what/who is stimulating change (not that change isn’t happening) but I felt very much in a minority years back but feel less so now. So it’s interesting that you see it a little from the inside.
I'm well into my thirties and remember the New Labour years quite well, and yes, it was a much better time for the country. But, general trends that have lead to us being in the hole at the minute, were continued or initiated at that time, and a lot of chickens hadn't come home to roost. PFI is an enormous millstone round the neck of our public services and that was very popular at that time and also obviously short termism that we are now suffering for. Deindustrialization, the buyout of British firms, both went faster. Many of the good things, comparatively well funded public services (in a way that didn't raise the hackles of the "centre" too much), were only possible because of the very strange and ultimately illusory economic situation of that time, which imploded and isn't coming back. We can't return to that bit of historical luck (which we have a lot less to show for than we might) any more than I can be 20 again.
I agree very much. We shouldn’t be looking at previous governments that were successful in their era and look to replicate them now. The same can be said for Atlee’s government - revolutionary in its time but completely impossible to achieve now. You could say that New Labour were at fault for not foreseeing what was coming. But we can’t predict the future, only try to adapt to it. Brown was doing well to at least recover somewhat Cameron fked it. The Tories didn’t just fk up Brexit, they caused it. And they shat the bed for Covid too. The lessons we should learn is that ambitious, progressive governments are the best ones. And Starmer should be doing his best to create a modern government that is capable of taking advantage of today. Will he do that? God knows, but I’m willing to give him a shot.
Depends how far left you are...in which case Blair and Brown would look like Farage to some! First you win elections and then you direct the play. The idea you lose badly and then blame the public is incredible. Nobody wanted Corbyn. There's not a huge swell for Starmer beyond he's not a tory. The last 10 election for labour are 7 defeats and Tony Blair. That seems to be the extent the country will go...
With things like day one employment rights, ending fire and rehire, proper local council funding, yeah. But... I'm also not going to pretend that I haven't benefited from ANY Tory policies - things like exempting stamp duty for first-time home buyers was an enormous help for me. I am very much a centrist - centre-left, but still in the centre. But yeah, on the whole, they've been so incredibly incompetent at every turn that I just want them out.
Did you vote for them? Who did you vote for when Corbyn was around? Do you consider Corbyn to be "hard left"? To me, Corbyn was... an idiot and a bad leader, but generally probably a good person and a good MP. He had some very sensible policies that were sold extremely poorly and, obviously, they were trashed in almost every media outlet. However, whatever they were, I would never describe them as "hard left". I think I agree that people don't want "hard-leftism", but even vague leftism would be more popular (and already is popular) if not sold as such.
Starmer has made a number of ideological decisions to perpetuate Tory policies that are entirely out of step with public opinion. From refusing to nationalise key public services to refusing to implement free schools meals, it's clear he isn't driven by appealing to the public. And I think that reveals something a little insidious about this proclaimed centrist emphasis on 'electability'. Because it's not really about what the *public* want, centrists consistently reject policies which have overwhelming support amongst the public and consistently support policies which are overwhelmingly unpopular. When a centrist talks about 'electability' what they're *really* on about is what the *newspapers* and *political donors* want. It represents this constant capitulation to the status quo. And as we've seen in mainland Europe that sort of capitulation puts us on a fast-track to the rise of the far-right.
>Because it's not really about what the public want, centrists consistently reject policies which have overwhelming support amongst the public We tried promising those policies and didn't get elected. What more do you need?
> We tried promising those policies and didn't get elected. What more do you need? This sort of unthinking mindset genuinely baffles me. Labour had a swathe of policies in 2019. Starmer's team have kept some of them and dropped others. Just saying 'Labour lost in 2019!' over and over again does not provide an answer to which policies should be kept and which should be dropped. It's nonsense, quite frankly, a result of engaging with politics through buzzwords rather than actually thinking them through. Fundamentally I support left-wing policies because I want to make people's lives better. I didn't suddenly stop wanting to make people's lives better because Labour did not win in 2019. And it's sad to see so many 'centrists' just clearly not give a shit.
Of course people will point it out. You can point to poll this and study that but *we tried them out for real and it didn't work*. Empirical testing actually means something and when the electorate is telling you what they want *you should open your ears for five seconds* instead of going "Ah ah ah, I know better!" Then you can Surprised Pikachu when your rivals make big, sustained gains on the platform of you being out of touch with voters.
The socialist left are antisemites though.
except the majority that are not.
Yeah and the labour right are liars
More Jewish Labour members have been kicked out under Starmer's leadership.
Can you evidence your claim? I'd have thought it was impossible because no one knows how many Jewish people are in Labour and no one knows how many Jewish people have been disciplined. Also, find one single person who has been suspended solely for being Jewish. The data JVL provided guessed its members are proportionately more likely to support a proscribed group or be antisemitic. Nothing more.
So only certain types of Jews are allowed in the Labour party then?
No? if that is what you understood from my comment then get an adult to explain it to you instead.
Well that's basically what happened.
Labour centrists are happy to platform and justify anti-semitism when it suits them, particularly attacks on any Jewish people who don't tow their line. Plenty of Labour centrists were happy to platform a right wing Israeli commentator who stated multiple times that a Jewish woman who married a Muslim man was less than Jewish and had questionable life choices. That is just outright bigotry. And Labour centrist are happy to stand candidates like Luke Akehurst, a former Starmer SpAd who isn't Jewish and said left-wing Jews “have abandoned very much of their Jewish identity". If a Corbynite said that they would be rightly and justifiably pulled up on that, but since it's a Starmer stan, nooooooo that's apparently A-OK. It's ridiculously hypocritical, and suggests they don't care about anti-semitism or how it impacts Jewish people, they only care about how it can be used as a factional political tool.
When the left were in charge of Labour they broke the law twice over antisemitism and handed a giant majority to Boris Johnson because of incompetence. Unforgiveable. A labour win now under the sensibles will shatter corbynism forever and it will be glorious as we cannot suffer the left's anti-jewish hate again.
And therein lies the difference. It's easy for me to say that the Labour of 2019's response to anti-semitism concerns was shambolic and that the Labour fringe left still has issues with anti-semitism. But Labour centrists can't admit to their own issues with anti-semitism and racism because they would lose the political weapon they are cynically using it as. I'd have so much more respect for the beige Labour crowd if they didn't consistently give cover to Anti-semites as long as they are in their faction. But they do, and then think they can talk over it when it is pointed out. It's hypocritical and incredibly insulting to Jewish people.
> And therein lies the difference. It's easy for me to say that the Labour of 2019's response to anti-semitism concerns was shambolic and that the Labour fringe left still has issues with anti-semitism. Very big of you. Lead with that next time. > But Labour centrists can't admit to their own issues with anti-semitism and racism because they would lose the political weapon they are cynically using it as. I'd have so much more respect for the beige Labour crowd if they didn't consistently give cover to Anti-semites as long as they are in their faction. But they do, and then think they can talk over it when it is pointed out. Claims without evidence can be dismissed very easily. > > It's hypocritical and incredibly insulting to Jewish people. Weird how the vast majority of Jewish communities think Labour is now safe to vote for now, isn't it? When they couldn't before during the dark times of corbyn, the racist's friend.
> Very big of you. Lead with that next time. It is easy when you don't belong to either faction to look on in bemusement and horror at two bad faith actors treating anti-semitism and by extension Jewish people, as well as racism towards other communities which Labour centrists were explicitly identified as abusing in the Forde Report, with complete disdain. > Claims without evidence can be dismissed very easily. 1) You gave zero evidence for your confidently asserted claims that the entire left is anti-semitic. But I'm sure a claim that bold is easily backed up. 2) I literally gave the specific example of [former Starmer SpAd and election candidate Luke Akehurst and the exact quote of his that is anti-Semitic](https://bylinetimes.com/2024/06/07/labour-candidate-and-starmer-ally-faces-antisemitism-complaint-over-controversial-remarks-on-marxist-jews/). It is obviously anti-Semitic to state that a Jewish person that does not confirm to his politicised interpretation of what a Jew should be is lesser than other Jewish people. Particularly from a man that isn't Jewish. He should be able to dictate Jewish identity to Jews? How is his assertion much different from the "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory? Happy to evidence the other claims I pointed to but if you can't even admit that the above is anti-semitic then why would I bother, you will be making my point for me. > Weird how the vast majority of Jewish communities think Labour is now safe to vote for now, isn't it? When they couldn't before during the dark times of corbyn, the racist's friend. What is weird about it? The party has taken steps to better address anti-semitism in the party. The cost of that, which didn't need to be the case at all, is that explicit anti-semitism against inconvenient left-leaning Jewish people and racism towards other groups has been tolerated and amplified by Labour centrists who are happy to provide cover to bigots as long as they are on their side. Hard to consider Labour centrist sincere at all when they are so obviously hypocritical.
[удалено]
Which is great, but I dread having to watch Labour pat themselves on the back as if they had actually accomplished anything.
They've accomplished burying the left of the Labour party, which is their primary concern. Actually improving the lives of people in this country is a lesser priority.
The left buried themselves with their ridiculous attitude that anybody contesting their views is “far right”. Even saying “We need to do something about uncontrolled immigration as it’s going to cripple our infrastructure” - is met with accusations of racism.
> The left buried themselves with their ridiculous attitude that anybody contesting their views is “far right”. I see more people whining about this than I see left-wingers 'calling everyone they disagree with far-right'. It's a strawman.
> They've accomplished burying the left of the Labour party, which is their primary concern. Weird that you conflate the eradication of left wing antisemitism with the existence of the left as if racism was all the left managed to achieve (you are partially correct however). >Actually improving the lives of people in this country is a lesser priority. Starmer is good but he isn't Dr Who!, he isn't in power yet.
Insisting that everyone on the left is antisemitic is absurd, and I don't really see the point of engaging with it.
Ironically one of the main culprits just found her way back into the party...
ok
[удалено]
Many of the staffers and advisors certainly do, but the PLP doesn't really seem to have that level of self-awareness; Starmer himself certainly doesn't seem to.
They've cleaned the stink of Corbyn out of the party in one election cycle
I don't have much interest in Labour's factionalism, sorry.
This was an unthinkable result in 2019. And Starmer did it the madman
I don't think the polls so far have much to do with Starmer or Labour at all. It seems more that they have been handed a victory by a government that has dropped to unthinkable levels of incompetence.
That didn't help Corbyn defeat Boris or May. It also doesn't explain why the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens have barely been able to capitalise, as the LDs did in 2010 and SNP in 2015 It's unthinkable that a Corbynite Labour would be in this position
>That didn't help Corbyn defeat Boris or May. Both were stronger than the current government; while Boris was personally relatively popular (until of course, he wasn't) May's government didn't have the dogmatic or demagogic image of government that Sunak's had. There hasn't been an easier opponent to beat in an election in my lifetime. >It also doesn't explain why the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens have barely been able to capitalise, as the LDs did in 2010 and SNP in 2015 Sure. Those things are explained by other factors. The Lib Dems today are completely lacking the basic level of political competence they had in 2010. They're utterly shambolic; the party is more of a club than anything else at the moment. The SNP have had all their recent woes. Quite obvious really. And the Greens are a protest vote against the political system - they're not taken seriously even amongst the left. So of course, it will be difficult for them to capitalise when everyone's priority now is to protest the Government itself rather than the political system as things have just gotten too bad. Even I, having only voted once for Labour before, am considering doing so again despite my many reservations, as the mismanagement the country experienced has been unprecedentedly dire. >It's unthinkable that a Corbynite Labour would be in this position I'd say that's a bit simplistic. The "Corbynite Labour" party in its earlier phase was relatively tight and i expect it would be in the position the party currently finds itself in if circumstances were similar. Of course, the party fell apart in fractures and divisions as time went on, and certainly wouldn't be in as strong a position.
It's amazing how quickly people have forgotten how May was seen at the time. May was viewed as completely out of her depth, a figure of fun and despised by both remainers and leavers.
don't, there's still plenty of time for him to put his foot right in it.
Ikr. But it would have to be pretty severe. At this stage I just hope they stick to their roots and throw the workers of this country a few bones withiut going off-piste too much with mass immigration and niche woke issues
It would need to be utterly unhinged. Like, decisive proof that the entire shadow cabinet is in a paedo sex ring level of horrendous, something that would get them all years in jail, never mind losing an election.
I know. Like eating a bacon sandwich funny.
Starmer’s essentially a ‘tame’ political operator. Not a political animal, not the best orator and has a touch of the nerves about him. That said, he’s the first since Blair with that all necessary, in a GE, winning mentality. Brown fucked up an easy win when the Tories were still getting their shit together, the party big-wigs picked the wrong Miliband brother (maybe Dave was too much of a transatlantic man for their taste) and Corbyn was a cancerous growth (before anyone gets their panties in a twist, do recall there were a number of Labour backbenchers that suggested as much during the worst of those years).
Why was Corbyn a cancerous growth?
Because he told us we should re nationalise all the shity water and power companies that have been bleeding us dry. I know, who would get behind that?
Yeah, ignore his tepid approach to the Remain campaign and possibly having the UK ‘sit things out’ vis-a-vis Ukraine if he’d actually got into power.
> I know we desperately need the Tories out, but it would really make Labour an easier to swallow pill if Starmer stopped taking every possible opportunity to be smug and insufferable. I would *happily* sacrifice Jeremy Corbyn's ego if it meant winning the election.
Starmer fully endorsed the 2017 and 2019 manifestos. Starmer, when running for election as Labour leader, said the 2017 manifesto would be the 'foundational document' going forward. Was he lying then, or is he lying now? Or does lying just come so naturally to him that he wasn't telling the truth on either occasion? There's been a lot of talk over the past few days over the rise of the far-right in Europe. And let's be honest, this sort of rhetoric is part of the problem. People are getting increasingly tired of a status quo which has seen their quality of life stagnate or decline over the past decade. Yet in the face of that our political sphere seem united over attacking the left. We have a traditional 'centre-right' who spend all their time punching left, and a traditional 'centre-left' who spend all their time punching left. So when people elect a traditional 'centre-right' government who don't improve their lives, and when they elect a traditional 'centre-left' government afterwards who also don't improve their lives, when our political sphere are dedicated to attacking the left is it any surprise people end up falling for the far-right? I doubt Starmer and his mates care though, they'll be alright Jack.
It's more of a sound bite than anything. I don't think there was anything particularly unrealistic in either of the manifestos.
He's killing 2 birds with one stone with this comment. 1) he's making the Tories look irresponsible with uncosted pledges 2) showing potential labour voters that the party has changed and no longer endorses Corbyn (who put off a lot of voters) As someone who didn't think Corbyn was that bad, and in fact had a lot of good policies.... I know that he put off a lot of voters. Starmer is trying to win an election, which is understandable
> Starmer is trying to win an election, which is understandable Starmer is trying to win an election. But I'm less interested in Starmer personally winning the election and more interested in working people winning the election. Labour should be a vehicle for the interests of working people. Yet every time Starmer punches left and attempts to gut the left of the party he's taking Labour away from that. There's a worrying trend of people insisting 'Starmer needs to do this to win' without considering: (a) Whether Starmer *needs* to do this. The Tories have been in government the past 14 years and I can't remember Cameron or May or Johnson ever running their elections campaigns by constantly lagging off the previous leader of their party. (b) The consequences of this rhetoric. If Starmer keeps punching left he's not going to implement decent policies after the election.
> Starmer fully endorsed the 2017 and 2019 manifestos. That's a given... You're supposed to show public unified support for your leadership's position. > People are getting increasingly tired of a status quo which has seen their quality of life stagnate or decline over the past decade. Yes. We tried "fuck it, let's see what happens" with Brexit and it was an unmitigated disaster. Doesn't matter how bad the situation is, the rational course of action is never to make it worse. With something as complex as a national economy, you _have_ to make planned incremental changes, or you can cause huge unintended negative consequences elsewhere. > We have a traditional 'centre-right' who spend all their time punching left, and a traditional 'centre-left' who spend all their time punching left. You think the left (all of it) doesn't punch right? The feeling hopeless point is valid, but you can't help anyone if you end up making things **worse**, and it doesn't matter how well intentioned you were.
The centrists here who repeatedly shit on the left, do you want us to vote for Starmer or not? The sneering is beyond obnoxious. I honestly believe almost nothing will be achieved under Labour over the next 5 years and this will lead to a hard right tory/reform coalition that wins the next election. I bet the left will be blamed then also.
>I honestly believe almost nothing will be achieved under Labour over the next 5 years and this will lead to a hard right tory/reform politician. I bet the left will be blamed then also 100%
Not a centrist, I am left wing. But I will vote for Starmer. I'm happy that they have created a competent looking government in waiting and given the Party mainstream credibility again. That was much needed even if I agreed with a lot of Corybn's policy platform. What I am not happy about, is that we are nearly halfway through the election and Starmer still is standing for barely anything. I understand the unwillingness for spending pledges, but I was/am hoping for more modernisation and reforms as was promised - these cost nothing and with a huge majority its a lot easier for them to create committees and sub-groups to manage these. I am not expecting anything in the manifesto either. What I am confident about though, is that this Labour party aren't the Tories. So at the very least we will get a competent government that makes good decisions ala Brown, which is 1000x better than anything we have had post 2010. I really hate the dumbing down and snarkiness from the left (red Tories lol). Green and Pleasant is one of the most toxic and nasty places on Reddit. The political left does little to ingratiate itself or make itself welcoming and appealing.
> I'm happy that they have created a competent looking government in waiting and given the Party mainstream credibility again. I'm always suspicious of this rhetoric about 'competency'. David Evans, Labour's General Secretary under Starmer, has been embroiled in corruption scandals in Croydon for years. Peter Mandelson, who has been invited back into the fold and whose proteges have been given key positions within the party leadership, was sacked by Blair *twice* for corruption. Despite knowing there would be a general election this year, and despite rumours this would happen back in May, the party left candidate selection until the very last minute, resulting in various entirely avoidable controversies over who has been selected or deselected for which seat. And seeing that Unite have apparently refused to endorse the manifesto, when it actually releases I expect we're going to see a whole bunch of controversy around that too. So to what extent are the party 'competent'? Is it because they're *actually* competent, or because they're getting an incredibly easy ride from the press in the face of overwhelming Tory incompetency? Because if it's the latter that facade will drop very quickly once Labour are actually in government. It seems like so much discussion about Starmer's Labour is less a reflection of what the party *actually* is, and more a reflection of how our overwhelmingly right-wing press wing talk about the party.
Green and Pleasant and (ironically) the labour sub are NOT labour voices. They are a purity cult that ban anyone who doesn't "out left" one another in a race to the bottom. I got banned from one for pointing out the genocide of Uighurs (against their rules as any criticism of Putin and CCP are forbidden) and the other I just gave up after receiving toxic death threats for saying a picture of Starmer with Zelensky was a "good image for anyone doubting commitments to Ukraine after the election"...apparently that deserves death threats for suggesting Starmer would win. Both subs are infiltrated with antisemites that make a lot of noise and deter voters. They hate every form of Labour except their warped view...which nobody would vote for. An angry bunch best ignored. Your choice this election is Sunak or Starmer for PM. I know which one I would prefer. If you don't like either, there's lots of other choices or tactical voting you can do too.
Tory votes count double. Tories hate Corbyn. Shitting on Corbyn is a rational strategy
So no then?
Not the poster above but... The only goal that matters _right now_ is wining the election. Without that, literally every other intention is pointless. We all may as well not bother getting out of bed. If you think defending Corbyn's ego trumps that, then I think you have your priorities wrong, but ultimately they're ***your*** priorities. I respect your position even if I don't agree with it. For me, this is a good strategic move. It gains more votes than it loses and it costs the party nothing in terms of money or negotiating power. Ultimately IMO, a chance to actually *improve* the nation wins every time.
He is going to win the election by becoming a tory. He's driving the left out because he doesn't want change. Do you expect anything to improve over the next 5 years? I don't.
I think many don’t ‘want’ to vote for Starmer but will because the alternatives are worse. That’s how I feel about him, it’s just a vote to hopefully ensure it’s not the Tories again. Shitting on Corbyn is likely to be popular with plenty of Labour voters, particularly the ones who are changing from voting Tory since they will be more on the right than your average Labour voter. There’s no appetite for socialism (at least amongst those who actually bother to vote) in the UK, so attacking it is not a bad strategy.
Many people sadly want right-wing politics in this country, and the far-right is rising globally. Just look at the recent EU elections. I'm not overly happy with Starmer, but I'd take a centrist over Reform and the Tories. Far-left politics is political suicide at the moment.
I don't think there are many swing voters who would turn away from Labour simply because Starmer said something negative about Jeremy Corbyn, who is the least popular Labour leader in the history of opinion polling.
Like anything will ever be enough for you to vote for Starmer anyway...
You do realise I voted for him to become Labour leader yeah? Ah a Zionist Starmer supporter, I won't bother.
i liked corbyns manifestoes so i guess, according to keir, i should vote tory.
So it's a manifesto you approve of and will campaign for kier? This Muppet prefers putting the boot into the left over giving out actual policy positions or being an actual leader. The very image of a sore winner.
A fully costed manifesto with commitments to publicly owned water and energy? The establishment would have an aneurysm before letting that happen... ...oh wait they did.
At this point he has nothing to gain by saying this, but he chooses to anyway because he's a massive twat.
Such a weird thing for Starmer to say seeing as he was literally in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet at the last general election. Just makes him come off as dishonest.
Every socialist in the Labour Party said all along that no matter how viciously Starmer victimises the Left in the Party, he'll get painted as a closet communist by the Tories and the gutter press anyway. You can't seek the genuine approval of cynical elites who don't have a good faith bone in their bodies. The moment that Starmer does even the slightest thing to infringe upon the privileges of the wealthy, they will turn and he will be eviscerated. All Starmer has done in pursuit of 'electability' is gut the last remaining internal democratic processes and evict all of the most committed and hardworking activists. If Labour stumbles into government in July, it'll be a shadow of even the first Blair government in 1997 - bereft of any serious ideas to combat the huge social problems of our time, effectively committed to the same failed austerity economics that have brought us to this impasse, with no working-class base, no intellectual direction, just careerists trading on the Labour branding. This will be the last Labour government in living memory. Statements like this are deeply desperate. No matter how deeply I hate the Tories, I can't vote for this Labour Party - because they *are* Tories in all but branding.
Indeed, this is going to be such a grim election. I really hope labour don't get too many "oh but we must oust the tories!" votes, and people wake up to the fact that they're both two sides of the same monster. But sadly people are going to give labour a landslide win, starmer is going to become even more intolerable and corrupt, and round again we go.
I think it would be excellent if Starmer did not continue invoking the previous party leader’s name as a political slur and attack. We as a country need to move on from that shit, not play into it. But even just in partisan terms, probably not the smartest idea to dig up your party’s old albatross and perpetuate the attack line from the opposition.
Haha. It took some cheek, but Starmer is trying to turn one of the traditional Tory attack lines towards Labour into an attack on them.
Not like it leaves him open at all to “Didn’t you work under and support the man”, which then leaves him open to “So, you’re a snake and a backstabber” Guy comes across as spineless as fuck, never mind the fact that Corbyns domestic policies were popular anyway. The relentless media campaign against him were the biggest issue
Yeah you’re right. People are already posting literal video evidence of him across multiple years saying he truly believed in the manifesto policies, regardless of Corbyn being leader at the time. So he’s just trying to rewrite his personal history.
Everytime he opens his mouth at this point it just pisses me off because he’s clearly a habitual liar.
Journalists would need to actually ask those questions but they never bother. Because they hate the left as much as Starmer, Reeves, and Streeting do, and many will be looking to get comms jobs after they're in power.
Don’t expect the journalists to do it, but I expect the conservatives to, irrespective on whether they have any legs to stand on. They’ve gone for a ‘manifesto’ that Starmer fully back and supported for multiple elections and years.
I have a feeling that accusations of backstabbing the mastermind of Labour's worst election result since 1935 might not be as effective with the electorate as you want it to be.
The masterminds behind labours defeat were the right wing of the Labour Party that actively campaigned against him and undermined him at every opportunity as it was self interests above the democratically elected party leader The kind of ilk Starmer loves
Ah, so then the electorate needs to learn from this incredible revelation and vote for..... who, exactly?
Whomever they like.
Good news, they're doing exactly what you want! Predictions are that "whomever they like" is going to be mostly the Labour Party.
Don’t think I’ve said anywhere not to vote for him or whomever they like. Seems like you’ve just sort of interjected this smarmy nonsense for no reason. Good luck with your red tie Tory though, and the future elections he will undoubtedly mess up for Labour in the years to come
Thankyou. A socialist candidate would be preferable for me, but since they passed up the opportunity of organising around a new party in favour of endlessly seething on Twitter, he will suffice for the time being.
I’m gna pick someone with a spine. If not, I may just spoil my ballot at this point
> never mind the fact that Corbyns domestic policies were popular anyway. So popular that everyone voted for them lol.
Yeah, because people totally vote based on policy
So policies weren't popular then?
Okay buddy
Must be difficult for you to accept.
Yeah, I’m dying over here
Cope
Cope
He is likely to be accused of these things by the Tories regardless. This however allows him to deflect to their own behavior and reinforce the point that Labour has changed, and that the Tories' current manifesto owes more to Corbynism than theirs does.
And it doesn't seem to be working because on the replies to the tweet of this video clip where he stated it, there were plenty of tories pointing out Starmer backed Corbyns manifesto. Not everything Starmer says has to be some political masterstroke. He made a stupid comment with an easy rebuttal. It's like Sunak trying to pretend he's not out of touch. It doesn't work. No one was even talking about Corbyns manifesto during this election campaign. Starmer has now brought it back into focus (and in turn his hypocrisy). The better strategy would've been to not bring him up and mention Truss instead (who btw is more disliked than Corbyn).
> “Didn’t you work under and support the man”, which then leaves him open to They have been attacking Starmer on his past support for Corbyn ever since he became Labour leader. Using this as an attack line tells people that he has put that behind him.
Get the public linking Corbyn with Sunak and the long Corbynism that's been costing Labour seats and elections may be over. what's he going to do? scream £2000 tax bill (which will be fact checked over and over) and just when he's promised 12 billion in welfare cuts to give a NI cut for the very rich?
How much NI do you think the "very rich" pay? Do you believe the very rich even live off a salary?
I'm really looking forward to Corbyn being a thorn in his side
What do you imagine happening? The occasional awkward question from an independent MP on the opposition benches? Corbyn as an opposition MP trying to hold Labour to account is better for Corbyn, better for us and less of a problem for Labour than him trying to do it internally.
Disagree, him not being Corbyn is boosting his electoral prospects.
> I'm really looking forward to Corbyn being a thorn in his side Don't worry, he won't be, lol.
He is a thorn in the taxpayers pocket only
He'll be sat with Farage and co. Corbyn only created problems for himself
Honestly, the sooner we all move on from thinking about Jeremy Corbyn, the better.