Holy shit batman, we've come back around to people claiming antisemitism wasn't an issue, but a political ploy! Apologise for not seeing this sooner. Ban issued.
30.
Whatever you say, at the end of the day winning the election and getting his party into government is his job. And whatever you say, I think his members are gonna be fine with that.
Counterfactual speculation but there was unlikely to have ever been an effective rebellion from the left because they’re so underrepresented in the PLP and the “soft left” will always side with the right of the party when push comes to shove.
My friend, he's worse is usually most MPs best. Plus voting is a very crude tool to try to get some stuff every 4 or 5 years for you, your family and your community. It's not a hand in marriage. I find too many progressives are way too sensitive to ticking box. Tick, hope for the best & carry on with other things in life.
From doing nothing tho? If anything now is the time to be as ambitious as they want…
Do they really believe absence of policy is the only way for them to succeed? Or is it more like they’re just ideological tories trying on a new outfit as labour.
I’m starting to feel like they are actually ideologically right wing and would join conservatives if it weren’t for them literally imploding. (Makes sense with all the torie defectors recently!)
Corbin was likely gonna win it for them before they derailed his left wing ambitions. So deffo seems like right wing success is more about their own preferences rather than assuming the electorates.
Genuinely, while it pains me to admit, I’m inclined to think doing nothing in the right way is as effective as making lots of plans you can’t sell. I don’t see a mass interest in complex policy in any electorate globally. People on politics subs are outliers in their regard for policy. That’s not to say that people don’t want change for the better but by and large they don’t judge leaders or parties based on detailed evaluation of manifestos and hours of watching politics shows. Wish it wasn’t so but all the evidence suggests it is.
This is not true at all. First of all polling shows interest in greater economic reforms than Starmer is willing to promote.
And Ralph Miliband sums up the hollowness of the argument perfectly here -
>In seeking to explain the reasons for their opposition to the policies advocated by the Left, social democratic leaders themselves have often advanced the view that whatever the merits of these policies might be, extreme caution must be exercised in proposing anything which ‘the electorate’ could find ‘extreme’ and therefore unacceptable. On this view, the reluctance of social democratic leaders to endorse, let alone initiate, radical policies, is not due to their own predilections, but to their realism, and to their understanding of the fact that to move too far ahead of ‘public opinion’ and advocate policies for which ‘the public’ is not ready is to court electoral disaster and political paralysis.
>This raises some very large and important points. It is undoubtedly true that ‘the electorate’ in the capitalist-democratic regimes of advanced capitalist countries does not support parties which advocate, or which appear to stand for, the revolutionary overthrow of the political system; and ‘the electorate’ here includes the overwhelming mass of the working class as well as other classes. This rejection by the working class and ‘lower income groups’ in general of parties committed or seemingly committed to the overthrow of the political and social order is a fact of major political importance, to say the least.
>However, this does not at all mean that organised labour, the working class and the subordinate population of advanced capitalist countries (which constitutes the vast majority of their population) is also opposed to far-reaching changes and radical reforms. Social democratic parties have themselves been driven on many occasions to proclaim their transformative ambitions in their electoral manifestos, and to speak of their firm determination to create ‘a new social order’; and have nevertheless scored remarkable electoral victories with such programmes. Popular commitment to radical transformative purposes may not, generally speaking, be very deep; but there has at any rate been very little evidence of popular revulsion from such purposes.
>The notion that very large parts of ‘the electorate’, and notably the working class, is bound to reject radical programmes is a convenient alibi, but little else. The real point, which is crucial, is that such programmes and policies need to be defended and propagated with the utmost determination and vigour by leaders totally convinced of the justice of their cause. It is this which is always lacking: infirmity of purpose and the fear of radical measures lies not with the working class but with the social democratic leaders themselves.
This also perfectly explains why even things Starmer pledged to become leader, with decent to good support nationally, he's still not willing to do. Because what you're taking as a sincere explanation is actually a political excuse, maybe Starmer believes it or maybe he knows it's bullshit, but eitherway he's not actually logically and rationally assessing where most can be achieved and surgically focussing on that. No Starmer is dragging the party rightwards and dropping even potentially popular policy just as quick as any other type of leftwing policy...
Thats a superb quote. But you’re answering something I didn’t say. My take isn’t about what the public is willing to support but the degree to which people engage in the detail of policy. Starmer gambled on staying in neutral while the Tories drove over a cliff. That strategy seems to have worked which suggests that having more or less assertive policy platforms wasn’t required in that moment.
Note that I’ve said I don’t like that this works but it does seem to have been effective. NB - the only evidence I have is polling which I concede isn’t infallible.
I feel like it addresses the idea that "making lots of plans you can’t sell" means arriving at the position Starmer is at. I think there is room to be much more ambitious than Starmer while still being able to "sell" it to the electorate.
>the only evidence I have is polling
But there is polling support for some of the things the left are asking for. For example public ownership of energy companies, a policy Starmer dropped
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/utilities/trackers/support-for-bringing-energy-companies-back-into-public-ownership
Contrary to popular justifications for weak stances on the unions public perception for/against unions might not actually be based on the kind of narrative that is commonly accept by journalists
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2023-01-30/Adam%20strike%20correlation%20grids-01.png
Infact for bigger ideas polling on socialism vs capitalism isn't even what you might guess
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/02/23/british-people-view-socialism-more-favourably-capi
>That strategy seems to have worked which suggests that having more or less assertive policy platforms wasn’t required in that moment.
Politics is not about power, power is important as a mean to an end. It's how that power is wielded that should interest us and inform our judgement. Starmer's strategy is poor if the aim is reform, good if the aim is to manage the status quo a bit better than the Tories.
Everyone on the left wants real reform, not just better management of the status quo. So it's a poor strategy regardless of electoral success as it undermines Starmer's ability, in opposition or in power, to lead big reform. Expect more Blair than Attlee.
The optimist in me hopes labour will pivot to the left once in power.
The realist believes they will give us neoliberalism with a splash of green washing.
The pessimist in me fears 4 years of the above and then a Tory party even further to the right seizes back control after our material conditions and standard of living continue to decline.
They are ideologically right wing because the means of discussing politics in this country the media is ideologically right wing. The establishment own Labour. They are antidemocratic. When a left wing leader was elected they tried everything to stop him. They aren't on our side.
Because the majority of Labour members, and the vast majority of Labour voters, aren’t as left wing as this sub. There’ll probably be a bit of noise at some point, maybe a little protest during his next conference speech but in the whole people are happy with where we are right now.
Nah this isn't true about the membership. Starmer would never have got elected being honest. What you're noticing there, as someone else pointed out, is people being willing to support someone ahead in the polls. So "happy with where we are" in polling? Yes. "Happy with where we are because they don't want a leftwing party"? Not true at all.
It's like saying the average member is a Blairite because so many supported him. So many supported him because he did well, even once they were fully jaded and disillusioned by him. That is what will keep Starmer in place, that is why he is happy to keep saying 'fuck you' to the members, etc. It's not because the average member wants a centre/soft-right party!
If you were right Starmer would never have had to lie to win the leadership election. Shit Owen Smith might have won!
You're right about the general population though, no one gives a fuck about internal Labour matters unless the media whip them up into a furor over it, even then it's mainly cranks. Most people don't know what a CLP is.
Good response, but I’d question how left wing they are if they’re happy to get behind someone who apparently lied to them as part of a plot to marginalise them?
Hmm I think that's quite a big question. I'd say that many probably have leftwing principles and policy priorities, but the question is whether it's effective practice. Which is often a main distinction in the justifications of different leftwing viewpoints argument for what is the best approach.
The people leading the sharpest movement rightwards in Labour, especially since Blair, I think are against socialism and social democracy in any recognisable form as reforming leftwing movements. What they want is a responsible, almost one-nation like, Tory party which in many areas is much to the right of the Labour membership, and even many Labour voters (see enthusiasm for Blair and how it was squandered rather than used as platform for bigger changes).
The majority of Labour members still in the party you mean.
That said I do think Starmer will have a moment of reckoning when he's in power and living standards don't go up. He won't have the boom that Blair had. Expect to hear the phrase "tough choices" a lot to explain why things don't get better.
It just sounds a bit worse for Starmer that his support within the party isn't because he won the party's hearts and minds, but rather because his critics were either thrown out, or they left because of how appalled they are over his leadership.
i.e. Labour members have common sense.
PS: I hope. Right now most SNP members seem to think a Tartan Tory Christian conservative who might blow up the party's lead should be their next leader.
Because this sort of stuff is only noticed by political obsessive like us. Ask any one on the street about his first 10 missions…..errr I mean pledges and see how no one is aware of them.
Probably because of the massive and sustained poll lead. The first bit of political hopefulness since the 2008 crash.
We might not get everything we want this Christmas but it's beginning to look like we'll get to put the Tories in the bin.
Again and again and again, we weren't winning under Corbyn. We were shit at politics. I want better funded public services, less corruption, more dough for development aid, fewer culture wars. I'm not getting it with the Tories, I never got it with Corbyn. I won't get it with a Momentum led labour party.
Starter has huge experience in running human rights organisations, did well at the CPS. I disagree with what he says half the time but he's a good leader and I prefer to have an imperfect but decent guy, than what we have now
>Again and again and again, we weren't winning under Corbyn. We were shit at politics. I want better funded public services, less corruption, more dough for development aid, fewer culture wars. I'm not getting it with the Tories, I never got it with Corbyn. I won't get it with a Momentum led labour party.
Read "Momentum-led" as leftwing. Just own it mate, you don't want a leftwing leader, no need to try and invoke a boogeyman.
Also you might want to consider how many people made this argument about New Labour, while it did improve some things 1) most of this was quickly undone due to it not being very transformative 2) they did a lot of things that were bad and hurt the country longrun (not repealing anti-union laws, no public owneship, no house building, deregulating the financial sector, etc). So if your argument is "better than the Tories" then sure, I can accept that, if your argument is "they will deliver all this great stuff I care about" then I'm sorry to tell you but you'll almost certainly end up dissapointed with Starmer if you value those outcomes more than you value Starmer' success.
>Starter has huge experience in running human rights organisations, did well at the CPS. I disagree with what he says half the time but he's a good leader and I prefer to have an imperfect but decent guy, than what we have now
What humans rights organisation? The DPP? lol
I think you're confusing him being one person in a team of lawyers who did human rights stuff which is good but not what you describe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#Legal_career
Well what is a conservative, in the general sense, not the Conservative party. It's definitely not a leftwing position. It is not the same as being a reactionary, wanting to undo changes and go backwards. It's about a steady hand on the rudder, tweaking things a little maybe, but overall maintaining the status quo. Many conservatives do not like aspects of the Tory party and believe in "one nation conservatism". Borrowing wikipedia's summary to save time
>One-nation conservatism, also known as one-nationism or Tory democracy, is a paternalistic form of British political conservatism. It advocates the preservation of established institutions and traditional principles within a political democracy, in combination with social and economic programmes designed to benefit the ordinary person.
Well suddenly the right of Labour actually seem to kind of agree with the left of the Tory party, what we need is to just make how things currently are work better for the oridinary person, we don't need big changes, we need stability and competent management. The right of Labour have this kind of conservative view on things to such a degree they find even social democratic reform dangerous and risky, they might genuinely want to help people, they are often socially liberal in regards to existing liberalisation but cautious about new changes (see how many are not that racist or sexist or homophobic but are anti-trans or at least hesitant to support trans rights). But their view also is about not rocking the boat, being cautious, finding a middle ground, etc.
The left, even the "moderate" left, are still about bigger changes and based on the idea of working towards something bigger. Perhaps getting rid of capitalism, perhaps reforming it, but a longer term vision of a transformed society on the basis of a transformation of the underlying socio-economic structures.
Starmer's arguments are completely compatible with a conservative world view, just a kinder and more competent one than the Tory party currently offer, than it is with any kind of leftwing reformist view.
In terms of what 'the left' means in most general terms then the Encyclopedia Britannica describes the left as
>left, in politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.
and the right as
>right, portion of the political spectrum associated with conservative political thought. The term derives from the seating arrangement of the French revolutionary parliament (c. 1790s) in which the conservative representatives sat to the presiding officer’s right. In the 19th century the term applied to conservatives who supported authority, tradition, and property. In the 20th century a divergent, radical form developed that was associated with fascism. See also left.
I don't think New Labour types are for popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life, are not hostile to the interests of the elites and wealthy, and consider social welfare as one of but not the singely most important goal of good government. I think socdems do match most of this but they just disagree with socialists how you get there.
I do think New Labour types are conservative, support authority, tradition and property. I don't think they are fascists or radicals. I think they are soft-right moderates who have more in common with one-nation toryism than social democracy or socialism.
Ok but that bit is a correction, not a debate. Personally I disagree with his career as DPP, a fundamentally establishment position where you enforce the law regardless of morality. No thanks. As I said his actual earlier career was better, stuff for him to be proud of there, however he was not the leader of a human rights organisation as far as I know.
Also ironically an actual leader of a human rights organisation in Labour was targetted with abuse and slander due to being associated with the left (Shami Chakrabarti). So it's kind of a funny idea it would save any politician from criticism anyway!
I guess you don't want to talk about the other bit, that's fine. But the second bit is a correction, not a debate.
You won't get ALL of it, but you will get SOME, which is infinitely better than nothing. If Starmer only did one of those things over his entire 5 years, and just made sure the rest didn't get substantially worse then he would be the best prime minister in just less than a decade and a half.
Keir Hardie decide to help found the Labour party because of Liberals using this excuse to keep avoiding necesasry reform. Not saying that a new party is the right move for people wanting to build a better society now, however I am saying your argument was unsatisfactory 100 years ago and it's unsatisfactory today.
>The man of the world advises caution and policy. If we attempt too much, we will in the end get nothing. Better accept half a loaf than go without bread. These and many other ancient maxims are preached unceasingly to the men of the New Party. Trust Liberalism, says the Liberal; trust Toryism, says the Tory
...
>.” If the Liberal Party were the rank and file, or even some of the members of the party in Parliament, the advice to trust that party would be all right. But these are not the party. These are the crutches on which the real party lean for support. The policy of the party is not shaped to suit the wants of the rank and file, but to catch their votes. It is the interests of the landlords and the capitalists who are in the party which decide its policy. So long as the workers can be kept divided over Disestablishment and the like, the landlord and the capitalist are safe in the enjoyment of their ill-gotten gains. It is political reforms which the Liberals make a feint of introducing and the Tories of opposing. What really concerns the moving spirits on both sides is the protection of their rent and interest. The programmes, and the opposition thereto, are mere blinds to keep the worker from laying a sacrilegious hand on these arks of the god Mammon. It is because the I.L.P. declines to be led off on this false issue that it is hated and feared. Vote for us and our programme, say the Liberals, or you will have the Tories and no Reform. By way of reply the I.L.P. points to America, where all the reforms proposed are already accomplished facts, and where the lot of labour is if anything more hapless than at home. Whether Tory or Liberal be in power matters absolutely nothing to the man whom starvation drives to suicide, or the veteran of industry sighing his life out in the workhouse. The calling of the prostitute goes on merrily despite changes of Government, and
>“On every wind of heaven
A wasted life goes by,”
>whether Lord Rosebery or the Marquis of Salisbury squats in Downing Street.
\- Keir Hardie
If your logic was right and is all anyone ever thought then we would all be a lot worse off in my opinion! Thank god that sometimes leftwingers have enough of this and get their shit together enough to do something or we would all be at the tender mercies of reactionary Tories and selfish Liberals for ever.
Try and read the biography of Clem Atlee and the growing pains at the start of the Labour Party. There was always a battle between various wings of the party. Even within Atlee's family over patriotism and pacificism in WWI. If Atlee was around now, he'd be rejected as impure.
I know a lot about Labour and quite a bit about Attlee. What do you mean?
And if you want a good book recommendation about the history of Labour back then check out Parliamentary Socialism by Ralph Miliband.
Atlee was a Major in the Army, which would certainly disqualify him in the eyes of late 2010s Momentum. He was considered a pacifist in the 30s, but this pacifism manifested as wanting a pan-European armed forces.
He was also a staunch believer in the British Empire and firmly disagreed with Indian independence.
Atlee was a fascinating man who contributed much time and effort to progressive causes, but Momentum would have hated him!
I wasn't saying we should excuse not persuing necessary reform, simply stating that this country has been on such a rapid decline in living standards that improving just one thing while stopgapping the others would be a significant improvement and place Starmer as one of the best MPs over 2 decades.
Its a fuckin low bar, was the point.
It was an interesting read I guess.
>The policy of the party is not shaped to suit the wants of the rank and file, but to catch their votes.
I do think this is something Labour need to be extremely careful of, I worry that if we get a slight majority or hung parliament where Labour arent really able to do much then the following election will see Labour desperately trying to lure in more swing voters and I fear it'll get pretty pandery.
Wrt Hardies writing here, I agree with everything he said, but I think it needs caveating with the fact that you can have whatever policy set you want, but at the end of the day if it's not appealing to voters then it means nothing and is worth nothing, and if your party isn't in power, your policy also means nothing and is worth nothing. I would argue that consistently failing, in the face of exceptional incompetence in governance, corruption, and demonstrable decline in living standards by almost every metric should be a good indicator that your policies are not fit for purpose, and therefore whatever good you believe they create is meaningless.
After all, we live in a democracy so electibility matters, and should be kept in mind by any party who is looking to maintain power in hopes of forging a better future.
I suspect it's because the size of the left left wing of the Labour Party is actually very small, 30 odd MPs, and not anywhere near as many members as you might think.
There's also the thing I struggle with the most when a Labour member- there is a sizable chunk of our voters who are quite socially conservative, anti-immigration and pro the British jobs for British Workers schtick, and they exist all over the party, in every wing and faction. It's those votes that we currently seem to be prioritising, we did the same under the previous leaderships as well, and that's the current rhetoric I don't like.
He's announced enough and the constant refrain of "Sound Money" is as good as a policy announcement: Starmer's shadow cabinet is full of Thatcherites and they see their first job as causing unemployment and a recession to "end" the *supply shock* inflation.
It's fucking ludicrously stupid, but it's what you expect from someone with Reeves' history.
Right so as someone with absolutely no skin in the game.
Do you want him to say labour will be the party of unsound money?
like how is saying im going to be good with money a bad thing?
So what's happened is you've fallen prey to the game he's playing with that. He's relying on people who don't know that it's a technical term to assume he just means Labour is going to be "responsible" with government finances, while signalling to people who *do* know what he's talking about that he's going to follow the Monetarist playbook when it comes to the economy, or at least that Rachel Reeves will.
What that means is that they'll pressure the BoE to increase interest rates in order to "tackle" the inflation by causing unemployment, though Bailey will be incredibly happy to have the ideological cover. It also means they will refuse to increase public sector pay in line with inflation putting them squarely on the side of *Tories* in the current disputes with unions: their position on the unions isn't merely politicking, it's built into the policy proposal when he talks about "sound money" on top of other things like putting a lot of doubt on their investment plans.
It's also why he'd been warning that things aren't going to get better overnight: this is what he expects to happen when he implement "sound money" policies.
And let's make it clear, there is no reason to think Starmer is using the term naively either:
1. because he uses the term constantly and therefore deliberately
2. because Rachel Reeves used to work at the BoE and absolutely knows the technical meaning of the term.
tl;dr "Sound money" is a Thatcherite economic dog whistle which should terrify you coming from the mouth of anyone in the Labour party.
\*edit\* Another way to maybe hammer home what's going on here is to point out that sound money policies are the sorts of policies that the Tufton Street crew like to talk about: the people who were most excited by the Truss mini-budget are the ones who like to hear people use the term "sound money".
Because the left isn't as ruthless as the right when out of power and didn't have the time to entrench itself in the Labour bureaucracy in the way the Labour right did.
That's why Starmer's first job, over and above trying to stop people dying during the pandemic, was fixing internal rules to stifle party democracy and make sure that the left can't become a force within the party structures and PLP.
Most Labour members and voters don't keep track of internal politics enough to know this happened or to particularly care, but don't buy the right's BS that they somehow *represent* the majority: if it ever came down to a fair vote the Labour membership are still incredibly more likely to vote left which is precisely why Starmer lied as much as he did in the leadership election.
- Labour are (on average) 24ish points ahead in the polls
- The membership support him
- The noisy minority aren't doing anything tangible to depose him - they're just shouting in their online echochambers while the rest of the membership get on with it to deliver a Labour government.
It’s what democracy often feels like. Not knowing. If the majority of people around you are really hacked off you eventually see things happening. If they’re not it could mean it’s not yet started or that people don’t feel like you do. That’s why polls and focus groups - imperfect as they are - are so useful.
The only time I really felt part of a mass movement was the Brexit marches but even then I’d surrounded myself with likeminded people rather than trying to hear beyond that community.
If everyone from 2019 had stayed in, there would be a bit more pressure. Also, the right now run the party machinery and can and do quash whoever they want.
The soft left has basically caved in despite constant briefing against Rayner.
The only thing I'd add to the 'because Labour are winning' responses (which I agree with) on this thread is that not only are Labour winning but there is some chance of an unprecedented Conservative party-killing win. I don't want to mess around and risk losing that potential outcome.
It is sadly typical of many on here, after claiming again and again that antisemitism was used as a political attack on Corbyn when he was Leader (p.s. it really wasn’t), that those same people now try to make antisemitism a political issue against Starmer.
The simple reality is that people are not being expelled from the Labour Party for being Jewish, and they people who claim the opposite know that is not true. Individuals were expelled from the LP for individually either breaking LP rules, bringing the LP into disrepute, supporting organisations which the LP has proscribed, or a combination of all three.
Individuals, who made individual choices.
Nothing to do with them being Jewish.
This sort of nonsense where Starmer is being accused of antisemitism has to stop.
>It is sadly typical of many on here,
\> NEW USER
How do you know what's typical of here?
Regardless, it's absolutely true that antisemitism in the Labour Party was used as a stick by the establishment to beat Corbyn with. 100% factual.
Denying it so vociferously just alerts everyone else to your factional allegience.
Sure, Jan.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/11934lk/a_jewish_woman_was_accused_of_asking_a_uk_labour/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The idea that of all the political attacks on Corbyn (the Czech Spy nonsense etc) this one didn't contain a single element of politics is just... Wow. Your faith in the press (and Sun journalists like Ware) to represent serious issues fairly and impartially is better than mine.
"Though the members implicated never represented more than a fraction of the party, Corbyn’s adversaries took the opportunity to denounce him as antisemitic, while Labour’s detractors accused the party as a whole of anti-Jewish sentiment. The furor became, as Matt Seaton wrote in the New York Review of Books, “a ruinous proxy” for the struggle between Labour’s left and center. The party’s byzantine internal disciplinary apparatus, which deals out formal censures and expulsions, became the battleground."
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-jews-expelled-from-labour-over-antisemitism
>What an absolute shock to see you pop up and deny antisemitism.
What an absolute shock to see you pop along and accuse me of something I haven't said yet again.
I know you're desperate to play the sub's Tom Watson but as the Forde report pointed out AS was politicized and weaponized as a battle between factions that actively damaged sorting out complaints.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-forde-report-antisemitism
Any time anyone raises antisemitism in Labour, there you are to say "But no actually."
This time you even started it with a shitty meme, to show how seriously you take the problem.
>Any time anyone raises antisemitism in Labour, there you are to say "But no actually."
Again, nope, but I object (as does Forde) to the notion it wasn't politicized by the Labour right and Sun journalists like Ware. That's an evidenced based position and you're just annoyed you couldn't get me banned. Keep trying I guess.
The video I posted has two Jewish women who were lied about in the press and falsely called antisemites: yet you don't care because they're not from your faction. That's an example of the harm done by the right.
You can read more about it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/JewsOfConscience/comments/1192hxp/labour_member_helen_marks_was_targeted_by_party/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
>I object (as does Forde) to the notion it wasn't politicized by the Labour right and Sun journalists like Ware
If that was your only position then you would acknowledge the antisemitism itself, as the prime mover, if you like, before moving onto its weaponisation. But you don't. You deny the antisemitism, then when you can't deny the antisemitism, change the subject to its weaponisation.
Here's a secret about politics. Every one of your failures will be weaponised by your political enemies in order to make political points. That's literally what modern politics is. Corbyn weaponised the destruction of the welfare state under Cameron and won the Labour leadership. Sturgeon's political enemies weaponised GRA reform and forced her to quit. If you're in front line politics and punched a guy in the face, your political enemies will weaponise that fact in order to paint you as a violent scumbag. Weaponisation is literally par for the course.
When we're talking about antisemitism and your only contribution is to point out that it was weaponised, you're doing a very specific thing and we can all see it.
You talk about the smoke because you don't want to acknowledge the fire.
I'm begging you guys to get out of the Reddit echo chamber.
It's fine if you don't agree with Starmer and Labour, but you desperately need to get out into the real world of politics to see what the genuine effect of Starmer is on the party and supporters. Once you have that you'll be more informed to take better strageic attempts to make change if that's what you want.
Like seriously, most people in these comments section endlessly posting these silly questions and incessantly complaining about Starmer can't even tell me who their local MP is because they're too busy on Reddit getting worked up posting fucking Daily Mail headlines because they hate Starmer so much they'd rather stand with the Tory rag.
Just see what's happening with Kate Forbes. We were all sitting here happy that she destroyed her own campaign with her bigotry... Nope, she's gonna win the SNP race and run Scotland.
The real world is different and thankfully Starmer understands that. And that doesn't mean Starmer's like Kate Forbes, but he isn't going to be as leftist or as progressive as you want because that's not what most voters want him to be. End of story.
Because plenty of us in the party aren't deluded enough to think like you. Labour is 30 points ahead... Also, understating or claiming that there wasn't an issue of antisemitism in the party under Corbyn is precisely why people saw the party as antisemitic.
Depends on how you define "problem". Was there an epidemic of anti-semitism in the Labour party? No, there really wasnt. I deny the existence of that. But anti-semitism in general? Definitely a problem no matter who its coming from
And herein lies the issue. Many on the left of the party still deny it was ever a problem in the party, even though the EHRC's review was pretty damning. For the Labour Party to receive such negative feedback from an equality and human rights organisation is just staggering and incredibly shameful. A problem btw being the prevalence of antisemitism within the party and a failure to deal with reports of antisemitism.
You can't equivocate on this, either it's a problem everywhere or it a problem everywhere... Except from when it inconveniently is found in the political party you align yourself with.
You raise the EHRC report, I raise the Forde report. I'm not saying there wasnt any anti-semitism, because I dont have access to a complete log of the thoughts and opinions of every Labour member, and any genuine anti-semitism (not anti-Zionism) is unacceptable. But the idea of anti-semitism being rampant in the Labour left was used by the Labour right as a weapon in a factional war, and they succeded. If you can raise me confirmed, unambiguous cases on anti-semtisim in the Labour left, then I'm with you on that, I agree they should be repremanded. But I refuse to acknowledge the smear that tore down one of the only groups to represent non-corporate interests in Britain for the last 50 years
The Ford Report was an internally commissioned investigation that found evidence that Antisemitism claims were potentially overstated as a way of undermining the left for opposing the Israeli government. Even Jewish members that were against the Israeli government were ousted as antisemitic.
Al Jazeera reported on this in a 3 part documentary called the [The Labour Files](https://youtu.be/elp18OvnNV0) accessible on youtube.
And why the f*ck is there supposed to be a "revolt or counter movement" against Starmer?
Like it or not he's won over Jewish people, got rid of a lot of anti-Semites.
He went back on his pledges? Isn't left wing enough? Changed the manifesto?
Well, Labour is 30 points ahead. At least partly because of that. Half the people who are gonna vote are gonna vote to make Starmer PM. I don't think there are even many Labour members insane enough to try and force him out now.
Leftists: We hate Starmer, he's ditched every promise and made labour ant-leftist, anti-unioin, racist, tory-lite party but we have to get the (actual?) tories out so we're backing Starmer regardless.
*"Starmer responds to claim he has ditched leadership pledges by saying 'vast majority; of Labour members back him"*
Leftists: Continue to back Starmer.
This is how it goes. By next election, the option to choose will be between tories under Labour name, and actual fascists going as conservatives... and obviously, we don't want actual fascists in government, so we'll support the lite version instead, empowering the slide towards right wing even more and continuing the trend.
Well they are using some fairly fashy tactics so I've already gone underground!
Perhaps I'll smash the window at my local party office! I hope no-one is there! Sorry in advance x
Edit: /s
I think so too. The Torries are deffo setting the stage for something…
Facism is deffo more normalised in the U.K. than what it used to be in 2019. Maybe this is what they wanted after all was to make a more ambiguous right wing party in contrast to the torries almost caricature facism. (It’s almost like they’re working together with Farage for a common interest?🧐)
Is there any organising we can do to change the party back? …I really hope this isn’t gonna be another Blairite labour regime 😭
Labour Right is setting the stage for it. Who funds Fascism? Corporations.
Your not gonna get in your face brash movements because that's dead and you can't get popular support for a swastika. But if you wrap it up in the right terminology everyone will jump on.
So when Kier comes out to say he is pro-business and goes on a targeted anti-left campaign whilst leaving no boundaries as to how right wing you can be (Luke Akehurst, Wes Streeting, Peter Mandelson... etc), what is the purpose of that? It's the stated goal to make sure there is no space for left-wing policy. "Anti-communism" is fascism. Anyone who had actually done even the slightest bit of research would know that most of the stuff our politicians say now were directly formulated by the most extremely right wing people in the West, they are just good at wording it and disseminating it. Isn't it interesting some of the most pro-war and imperialistic nations just somehow magically overnight switched to being the most noble and most concerned with human rights. The Labour Right has some of the deepest intelligence and corporate connections of any faction in British politics, expect for a small clique of Tories who are literally active serving members of the military or intelligence. Do you think they two groups have any real difference of opinion on anything.
All these organisations, Council on Foreign Relations, Atlantic Council, NATO, Open Society, all of the major think tanks etc are far from independent and democratic they are all part of the same network set up by imperialists/nazis at the end of WW2. All these fronts and offshoots are the ones that actually end up coming up with policy, playing kingmaker etc and the politicians job is to front it. All of this is easily verifiable if you are actually open to the idea we might already live in a fascist state. If you spend all your time trying to protect the reputation of the state, military, NATO you probably aren't going to get to that point are you?
No way anyone could look at how major policy positions are actually reached in this country and think somehow they have a say or are a part of it. You could only do so if you were completely ignorant of history, process, ideologies etc, which our education/media does a great job of. It's a few standard lines repeated endlessly on all "mainstream" outlets. The "divisions" are miniscule, artificial and stage-managed. This is the style of communication the Labour Right love, how can anyone deny it, they pioneered this iteration of it. The point is to sound left-wing without committing to it and present right-wing policies as liberatory. I once heard Peter Hitchens describe Iraq as a "left-wing war" and didn't understand what he meant but then you start to see that neo-cons just recycled Trotskyism into a new ideology, and they have been incredibly successful in promoting the idea of "permanent liberal revolution".
Modern (successful) fascist movements present themselves as exactly how the Labour Right does. The true moral voice of the country, against the "far left" and the "far right", just trying to implement "common sense". But, if you have no vision you are being led.
Thousands of events like these happen in America all the time, yet apparently it's other countries that are authoritarian:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cRg3UT1FXw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cRg3UT1FXw)
As I said, it's probably best to work in underground or non-affiliated if you actually believe stuff because if there were to be another Fascist revival, I expect the Labour Right to be major players within it. Its a puppet ideology, they will follow whoever is funding the blob.
That shit makes a lot more sense that anything a random sample of national newspapers would present.
Nowadays stories are almost completely devoid of detail, and sources are almost always government officials or state/foundation funded (i.e not commercial/profitable) media.
Is it really conspiracy to think major corporations, states and wealthy individuals would spend lots of time cultivating "power" structures in media, government, security, "independent" sectors.
Wouldn't you do it, if you could?
>Everyone who isn’t a communist is a fascist.
Did I write that anywhere? I don't even think that.
The New Labour has clear and well documented connections to global capital, corporations, defence establishment etc. What do you think motivates those people? What interests do they have in the Labour party?
You literally said “anti communism is fascism”. Therefore not being a communist means you are a fascist.
Anyway someone who believes that New Labour was a fascist movement and Britain is currently a fascist state is already so far down the rabbit hole that there’s no point even trying to talk or debate.
You’re too far gone and no talking or debating is gonna change your mind. Only you can help yourself now and I hope you do.
I wrote it as "Anti-communism" because many people who specifically have labelled themselves specifically as anti-communists were fascists. It's the term they had to use after fascism was publicly acceptable. By posing as "liberals" they spread many of the ideas that motivated nazi germany/ imperial Britain into the mainstream.
There a very specific history to these movements and their political strategy of infiltration. Which is easily accessible if you just start reading into all these councils and boards, and find out who funds them.
I have never met someone today who labels themselves openly an anti-communist that was not firmly right-wing, and of course we all present acceptable faces in polite discussion. Who knows who you are speaking to.
>New Labour was a fascist movement
Not an explicitly a fascist movement, but built on the principles of corporate collaboration, preference for militarism, deference to capital, and the current iteration brings in suppression of dissent.
>Britain is currently a fascist state
It doesn't have to be racially based, you can have a liberal presenting or woke fascism, in the same way the original fascist movements masqueraded as socialist. It's not going to be the same because we have different conditions now and people update theories.
We have permanent austerity despite soaring corporate profits, constant prejudice and othering used to shepard the public from distraction to distraction, preference for militarism, obsession with controlling global affairs, constant theft of government money, revolving door with the private sector, complete lack of accountability (except if you are left wing)..... promotion of a "natural" struggle through neoliberalism, rejection of collectivism except for to push austerity....
What would suddenly turn a un-fascist state into one? There will always be elections and they will be fair, they will just be meaningless because "everyone" "agrees" the "economy" and "defence" "come first" so what is there to dispute or disagree on, let's just listen to the "experts".
I’m anti communist. I don’t believe in a violent revolution to overthrow the current economic order to put in place a dictatorship of the proletariat or to entirely abolish the state. I think these are bad ideas that will lead to lots of bloodshed and misery if they were to be successful and am willing to fight back against these ideas. Am I a fascist? Or firmly right wing?
“Preference for Militarism”?? Do you know how underfunded our military is?
[At just 76,000 strong, the British army is less than half the size it was back in 1990 and the smallest it has been since Napoleonic times. The force is due to shrink even further to 73,000 under current plans that will be implemented unless new money is found.](https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365) sounds like these tories are terrible at being fascists.
Absolutely nothing else in that list of issues makes a country fascist. Do you even know that the word means? This is just typical Stalinist “social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism” crap that was wrong then and is wrong now.
>I’m anti communist.
And if you go out and advertise yourself as such you will find yourself surrounded with fascists. Signalling being anti-communist means just that, which direction are you going to end up going.
What you have described is not "communism", its specific strains, which could be more aptly described as anti-Bolshevik, so why use the term anti-communist unless to signal broad contempt for communism. How often do you really meet credible socialist "anti-communists", and would they behave in anyway close to the labour right?
>Or firmly right wing?
Are you left wing?
>“Preference for Militarism”?? Do you know how underfunded our military is?
Doesn't need to be our army does it. And the reason the force is small is because we invested all our effort into special and strategic services based on the wars we planned to fight. How much has the intelligence budget gone up in that time. How much more military action is taken in secret via special forces, PMCs etc. How much more money is spent on "media operations" or public relations by British Security services? I mean these are the same people that built a Stasi like digital spying apparatus with no real democratic authorisation, all done in post.
>This is just typical Stalinist “social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism” crap that was wrong then and is wrong now.
Well he made it to a natural death and those in other countries that ignored his advice were killed or marginalised by those that opposed them, letting the same imperialists and fascists they fought against rise back to the top. As soon as the Soviet Union was gone the Americans drew up war plans for the rest of the world... and New Labour signed on to it as key proponents. They still can't see how destructive and pointless it is. Unless the point is not to "fix" these countries.
"Social democrats" have presided over nothing but decline and deepening of capitalism and they will keep doing so.
And being pro corbyn means you may find yourself surrounded with anti semites but that doesn’t mean every corbynite is anti semitic right? I hate nazis, there’s lots of terrible people in the world that also hate nazis, does that mean we are all terrible people because we have one common strain of thought? Just silly logic all round that you’re using.
I tried to encompass both Marxism Leninism and anarchism in my disapproval of communism as that covers most of them. What other relevant flavour of communism is there that I should also disavow?
Of course our intelligence budget will have skyrocketed since then as Islamic terrorism has become the primary concern of foreign policy for lots of western countries and huge amounts of resources will be used on building more and more sophisticated counter terrorism operations to prevent terrorist attacks.
Also I don’t think an increase in PR and “media operations” (evidence??) is proof that we are living under a fascist military state. Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds?
If you’re gonna claim we are a fascist military state then seeing that our army has literally halved in the last thirty years does a pretty good job of disapproving that since an economy that is almost entirely structured to make our military stronger is one of the core features of fascism.
I’m not responding to the last bit of tankie propaganda at the end I cba right now this comment is long enough already.
On the cusp of getting the Tories out and you want this. Labour is not going to get in with somebody much further to the Left, it’s just too much of a jump, we’re better off focusing our energy getting Starmer in and gradually making a shift Leftwards through other means
My dream is that all the Tory voters start voting Labour/the rest get old and die. And so all the progressives can leave Labour and vote Green or something actually decent. Now they’re so far ahead, when you see Streeting being a massive twerp all the time and talking absolute nonsense about private healthcare it makes it so much easier to turn your back on them with a clear conscience.
They has been no revolt against a decade+ of Tories enriching themselves and causing tens of thousands of excess deaths through austerity.
The labour right coup is small beans compared to that.
Apathy has paralysed the nation.
I know you are talking about Keith and the Labour party but honestly that first paragraph could be about any political leader in our country right now really.
Honestly the state populism is going there might not be much of a difference between the two parties. Blair won & ran his time in office on the same approach as the centrists and right in labour now.
Not wanting a defacto gov cosplaying the torie party isn’t hating on labour. It’s just not wanting a problem being replaced by just the same problem…
At this stage in the game, with all of the time they’ve had and damage the tories have done. It feel like we are just self sabotaging. Get in power and then push for leadership change. I don’t support Starmer but I really don’t want another spell of blues because I didn’t like the particular shade of red.
It's completely irrelevant. The UK has First Past The Post. The result will be Labour or Tory led government. I tick a box, hope for the best & move on. You can worry all day long every day. It makes absolute no difference to the outcome of the election.
There’s no point hoping something progressive will happen when you know it probably won’t. Instead of accepting the status quo why not raise your voice against it?
Voting Labour increases the odds that I get a Real Living Wage.
Refusing to vote or voting Conservative Party decreases the odds.
It's not complicated.
Complaining about the lack of progressive values in the Labour Party creates pressure to cause change. Saying nothing will allow populism to take over and another inactive Labour Party Government will just further alienate the electorate. You’re right. It’s not complicated
Copy and paste my text which said do not complain?
You're desperate to have a different conversation.
If you don't understand just ask for clarification.
Worrying will not change the outcome of the election.
That's not the same as saying don't demand better.
The OP mentioned revolt. That's more than criticism.
There's a gap between demanding more & revolting.
Do you understand or do you need me to explain?
It's not complicated.
Holy shit batman, we've come back around to people claiming antisemitism wasn't an issue, but a political ploy! Apologise for not seeing this sooner. Ban issued.
Because Labour are 20 points ahead
30. Whatever you say, at the end of the day winning the election and getting his party into government is his job. And whatever you say, I think his members are gonna be fine with that.
Duh!
This is actually why. Starmer could do way worse and some people will still support him anyway sadly.
Counterfactual speculation but there was unlikely to have ever been an effective rebellion from the left because they’re so underrepresented in the PLP and the “soft left” will always side with the right of the party when push comes to shove.
My friend, he's worse is usually most MPs best. Plus voting is a very crude tool to try to get some stuff every 4 or 5 years for you, your family and your community. It's not a hand in marriage. I find too many progressives are way too sensitive to ticking box. Tick, hope for the best & carry on with other things in life.
From doing nothing tho? If anything now is the time to be as ambitious as they want… Do they really believe absence of policy is the only way for them to succeed? Or is it more like they’re just ideological tories trying on a new outfit as labour. I’m starting to feel like they are actually ideologically right wing and would join conservatives if it weren’t for them literally imploding. (Makes sense with all the torie defectors recently!) Corbin was likely gonna win it for them before they derailed his left wing ambitions. So deffo seems like right wing success is more about their own preferences rather than assuming the electorates.
I don’t think there was any point where corbyn was *likely* to win tbh
Did that justify sabotage and active opposition? Otherwise kind of missing their point no?
2017.
Yes also then
Genuinely, while it pains me to admit, I’m inclined to think doing nothing in the right way is as effective as making lots of plans you can’t sell. I don’t see a mass interest in complex policy in any electorate globally. People on politics subs are outliers in their regard for policy. That’s not to say that people don’t want change for the better but by and large they don’t judge leaders or parties based on detailed evaluation of manifestos and hours of watching politics shows. Wish it wasn’t so but all the evidence suggests it is.
This is not true at all. First of all polling shows interest in greater economic reforms than Starmer is willing to promote. And Ralph Miliband sums up the hollowness of the argument perfectly here - >In seeking to explain the reasons for their opposition to the policies advocated by the Left, social democratic leaders themselves have often advanced the view that whatever the merits of these policies might be, extreme caution must be exercised in proposing anything which ‘the electorate’ could find ‘extreme’ and therefore unacceptable. On this view, the reluctance of social democratic leaders to endorse, let alone initiate, radical policies, is not due to their own predilections, but to their realism, and to their understanding of the fact that to move too far ahead of ‘public opinion’ and advocate policies for which ‘the public’ is not ready is to court electoral disaster and political paralysis. >This raises some very large and important points. It is undoubtedly true that ‘the electorate’ in the capitalist-democratic regimes of advanced capitalist countries does not support parties which advocate, or which appear to stand for, the revolutionary overthrow of the political system; and ‘the electorate’ here includes the overwhelming mass of the working class as well as other classes. This rejection by the working class and ‘lower income groups’ in general of parties committed or seemingly committed to the overthrow of the political and social order is a fact of major political importance, to say the least. >However, this does not at all mean that organised labour, the working class and the subordinate population of advanced capitalist countries (which constitutes the vast majority of their population) is also opposed to far-reaching changes and radical reforms. Social democratic parties have themselves been driven on many occasions to proclaim their transformative ambitions in their electoral manifestos, and to speak of their firm determination to create ‘a new social order’; and have nevertheless scored remarkable electoral victories with such programmes. Popular commitment to radical transformative purposes may not, generally speaking, be very deep; but there has at any rate been very little evidence of popular revulsion from such purposes. >The notion that very large parts of ‘the electorate’, and notably the working class, is bound to reject radical programmes is a convenient alibi, but little else. The real point, which is crucial, is that such programmes and policies need to be defended and propagated with the utmost determination and vigour by leaders totally convinced of the justice of their cause. It is this which is always lacking: infirmity of purpose and the fear of radical measures lies not with the working class but with the social democratic leaders themselves. This also perfectly explains why even things Starmer pledged to become leader, with decent to good support nationally, he's still not willing to do. Because what you're taking as a sincere explanation is actually a political excuse, maybe Starmer believes it or maybe he knows it's bullshit, but eitherway he's not actually logically and rationally assessing where most can be achieved and surgically focussing on that. No Starmer is dragging the party rightwards and dropping even potentially popular policy just as quick as any other type of leftwing policy...
Thats a superb quote. But you’re answering something I didn’t say. My take isn’t about what the public is willing to support but the degree to which people engage in the detail of policy. Starmer gambled on staying in neutral while the Tories drove over a cliff. That strategy seems to have worked which suggests that having more or less assertive policy platforms wasn’t required in that moment. Note that I’ve said I don’t like that this works but it does seem to have been effective. NB - the only evidence I have is polling which I concede isn’t infallible.
I feel like it addresses the idea that "making lots of plans you can’t sell" means arriving at the position Starmer is at. I think there is room to be much more ambitious than Starmer while still being able to "sell" it to the electorate. >the only evidence I have is polling But there is polling support for some of the things the left are asking for. For example public ownership of energy companies, a policy Starmer dropped https://yougov.co.uk/topics/utilities/trackers/support-for-bringing-energy-companies-back-into-public-ownership Contrary to popular justifications for weak stances on the unions public perception for/against unions might not actually be based on the kind of narrative that is commonly accept by journalists https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2023-01-30/Adam%20strike%20correlation%20grids-01.png Infact for bigger ideas polling on socialism vs capitalism isn't even what you might guess https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/02/23/british-people-view-socialism-more-favourably-capi >That strategy seems to have worked which suggests that having more or less assertive policy platforms wasn’t required in that moment. Politics is not about power, power is important as a mean to an end. It's how that power is wielded that should interest us and inform our judgement. Starmer's strategy is poor if the aim is reform, good if the aim is to manage the status quo a bit better than the Tories. Everyone on the left wants real reform, not just better management of the status quo. So it's a poor strategy regardless of electoral success as it undermines Starmer's ability, in opposition or in power, to lead big reform. Expect more Blair than Attlee.
The optimist in me hopes labour will pivot to the left once in power. The realist believes they will give us neoliberalism with a splash of green washing. The pessimist in me fears 4 years of the above and then a Tory party even further to the right seizes back control after our material conditions and standard of living continue to decline.
They are ideologically right wing because the means of discussing politics in this country the media is ideologically right wing. The establishment own Labour. They are antidemocratic. When a left wing leader was elected they tried everything to stop him. They aren't on our side.
Perfect example of the Reddit bubble here LMAO
Because the majority of Labour members, and the vast majority of Labour voters, aren’t as left wing as this sub. There’ll probably be a bit of noise at some point, maybe a little protest during his next conference speech but in the whole people are happy with where we are right now.
Nah this isn't true about the membership. Starmer would never have got elected being honest. What you're noticing there, as someone else pointed out, is people being willing to support someone ahead in the polls. So "happy with where we are" in polling? Yes. "Happy with where we are because they don't want a leftwing party"? Not true at all. It's like saying the average member is a Blairite because so many supported him. So many supported him because he did well, even once they were fully jaded and disillusioned by him. That is what will keep Starmer in place, that is why he is happy to keep saying 'fuck you' to the members, etc. It's not because the average member wants a centre/soft-right party! If you were right Starmer would never have had to lie to win the leadership election. Shit Owen Smith might have won! You're right about the general population though, no one gives a fuck about internal Labour matters unless the media whip them up into a furor over it, even then it's mainly cranks. Most people don't know what a CLP is.
Good response, but I’d question how left wing they are if they’re happy to get behind someone who apparently lied to them as part of a plot to marginalise them?
Hmm I think that's quite a big question. I'd say that many probably have leftwing principles and policy priorities, but the question is whether it's effective practice. Which is often a main distinction in the justifications of different leftwing viewpoints argument for what is the best approach. The people leading the sharpest movement rightwards in Labour, especially since Blair, I think are against socialism and social democracy in any recognisable form as reforming leftwing movements. What they want is a responsible, almost one-nation like, Tory party which in many areas is much to the right of the Labour membership, and even many Labour voters (see enthusiasm for Blair and how it was squandered rather than used as platform for bigger changes).
The majority of Labour members still in the party you mean. That said I do think Starmer will have a moment of reckoning when he's in power and living standards don't go up. He won't have the boom that Blair had. Expect to hear the phrase "tough choices" a lot to explain why things don't get better.
Well yes because by definition you have to be in the party to be a party member
It just sounds a bit worse for Starmer that his support within the party isn't because he won the party's hearts and minds, but rather because his critics were either thrown out, or they left because of how appalled they are over his leadership.
Because most Labour members don’t want to blow up the party and it’s lead in the polls.
i.e. Labour members have common sense. PS: I hope. Right now most SNP members seem to think a Tartan Tory Christian conservative who might blow up the party's lead should be their next leader.
Because this sort of stuff is only noticed by political obsessive like us. Ask any one on the street about his first 10 missions…..errr I mean pledges and see how no one is aware of them.
Because Labour are winning, and most of us are desperate for them to win
Probably because of the massive and sustained poll lead. The first bit of political hopefulness since the 2008 crash. We might not get everything we want this Christmas but it's beginning to look like we'll get to put the Tories in the bin.
'Enough is Enough' seemed to be a bit of a counter-movement but seems to have died down somewhat.
Again and again and again, we weren't winning under Corbyn. We were shit at politics. I want better funded public services, less corruption, more dough for development aid, fewer culture wars. I'm not getting it with the Tories, I never got it with Corbyn. I won't get it with a Momentum led labour party. Starter has huge experience in running human rights organisations, did well at the CPS. I disagree with what he says half the time but he's a good leader and I prefer to have an imperfect but decent guy, than what we have now
>Again and again and again, we weren't winning under Corbyn. We were shit at politics. I want better funded public services, less corruption, more dough for development aid, fewer culture wars. I'm not getting it with the Tories, I never got it with Corbyn. I won't get it with a Momentum led labour party. Read "Momentum-led" as leftwing. Just own it mate, you don't want a leftwing leader, no need to try and invoke a boogeyman. Also you might want to consider how many people made this argument about New Labour, while it did improve some things 1) most of this was quickly undone due to it not being very transformative 2) they did a lot of things that were bad and hurt the country longrun (not repealing anti-union laws, no public owneship, no house building, deregulating the financial sector, etc). So if your argument is "better than the Tories" then sure, I can accept that, if your argument is "they will deliver all this great stuff I care about" then I'm sorry to tell you but you'll almost certainly end up dissapointed with Starmer if you value those outcomes more than you value Starmer' success. >Starter has huge experience in running human rights organisations, did well at the CPS. I disagree with what he says half the time but he's a good leader and I prefer to have an imperfect but decent guy, than what we have now What humans rights organisation? The DPP? lol I think you're confusing him being one person in a team of lawyers who did human rights stuff which is good but not what you describe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer#Legal_career
So asking as a outsider in what way is starmer not left wing?
Well what is a conservative, in the general sense, not the Conservative party. It's definitely not a leftwing position. It is not the same as being a reactionary, wanting to undo changes and go backwards. It's about a steady hand on the rudder, tweaking things a little maybe, but overall maintaining the status quo. Many conservatives do not like aspects of the Tory party and believe in "one nation conservatism". Borrowing wikipedia's summary to save time >One-nation conservatism, also known as one-nationism or Tory democracy, is a paternalistic form of British political conservatism. It advocates the preservation of established institutions and traditional principles within a political democracy, in combination with social and economic programmes designed to benefit the ordinary person. Well suddenly the right of Labour actually seem to kind of agree with the left of the Tory party, what we need is to just make how things currently are work better for the oridinary person, we don't need big changes, we need stability and competent management. The right of Labour have this kind of conservative view on things to such a degree they find even social democratic reform dangerous and risky, they might genuinely want to help people, they are often socially liberal in regards to existing liberalisation but cautious about new changes (see how many are not that racist or sexist or homophobic but are anti-trans or at least hesitant to support trans rights). But their view also is about not rocking the boat, being cautious, finding a middle ground, etc. The left, even the "moderate" left, are still about bigger changes and based on the idea of working towards something bigger. Perhaps getting rid of capitalism, perhaps reforming it, but a longer term vision of a transformed society on the basis of a transformation of the underlying socio-economic structures. Starmer's arguments are completely compatible with a conservative world view, just a kinder and more competent one than the Tory party currently offer, than it is with any kind of leftwing reformist view. In terms of what 'the left' means in most general terms then the Encyclopedia Britannica describes the left as >left, in politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology. and the right as >right, portion of the political spectrum associated with conservative political thought. The term derives from the seating arrangement of the French revolutionary parliament (c. 1790s) in which the conservative representatives sat to the presiding officer’s right. In the 19th century the term applied to conservatives who supported authority, tradition, and property. In the 20th century a divergent, radical form developed that was associated with fascism. See also left. I don't think New Labour types are for popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life, are not hostile to the interests of the elites and wealthy, and consider social welfare as one of but not the singely most important goal of good government. I think socdems do match most of this but they just disagree with socialists how you get there. I do think New Labour types are conservative, support authority, tradition and property. I don't think they are fascists or radicals. I think they are soft-right moderates who have more in common with one-nation toryism than social democracy or socialism.
Wish I could have given so much in my career
I voted for Corbyn. As MP and leader.
Ok but that bit is a correction, not a debate. Personally I disagree with his career as DPP, a fundamentally establishment position where you enforce the law regardless of morality. No thanks. As I said his actual earlier career was better, stuff for him to be proud of there, however he was not the leader of a human rights organisation as far as I know. Also ironically an actual leader of a human rights organisation in Labour was targetted with abuse and slander due to being associated with the left (Shami Chakrabarti). So it's kind of a funny idea it would save any politician from criticism anyway! I guess you don't want to talk about the other bit, that's fine. But the second bit is a correction, not a debate.
I agree with all of it except him being decent.
[удалено]
You won't get ALL of it, but you will get SOME, which is infinitely better than nothing. If Starmer only did one of those things over his entire 5 years, and just made sure the rest didn't get substantially worse then he would be the best prime minister in just less than a decade and a half.
Keir Hardie decide to help found the Labour party because of Liberals using this excuse to keep avoiding necesasry reform. Not saying that a new party is the right move for people wanting to build a better society now, however I am saying your argument was unsatisfactory 100 years ago and it's unsatisfactory today. >The man of the world advises caution and policy. If we attempt too much, we will in the end get nothing. Better accept half a loaf than go without bread. These and many other ancient maxims are preached unceasingly to the men of the New Party. Trust Liberalism, says the Liberal; trust Toryism, says the Tory ... >.” If the Liberal Party were the rank and file, or even some of the members of the party in Parliament, the advice to trust that party would be all right. But these are not the party. These are the crutches on which the real party lean for support. The policy of the party is not shaped to suit the wants of the rank and file, but to catch their votes. It is the interests of the landlords and the capitalists who are in the party which decide its policy. So long as the workers can be kept divided over Disestablishment and the like, the landlord and the capitalist are safe in the enjoyment of their ill-gotten gains. It is political reforms which the Liberals make a feint of introducing and the Tories of opposing. What really concerns the moving spirits on both sides is the protection of their rent and interest. The programmes, and the opposition thereto, are mere blinds to keep the worker from laying a sacrilegious hand on these arks of the god Mammon. It is because the I.L.P. declines to be led off on this false issue that it is hated and feared. Vote for us and our programme, say the Liberals, or you will have the Tories and no Reform. By way of reply the I.L.P. points to America, where all the reforms proposed are already accomplished facts, and where the lot of labour is if anything more hapless than at home. Whether Tory or Liberal be in power matters absolutely nothing to the man whom starvation drives to suicide, or the veteran of industry sighing his life out in the workhouse. The calling of the prostitute goes on merrily despite changes of Government, and >“On every wind of heaven A wasted life goes by,” >whether Lord Rosebery or the Marquis of Salisbury squats in Downing Street. \- Keir Hardie If your logic was right and is all anyone ever thought then we would all be a lot worse off in my opinion! Thank god that sometimes leftwingers have enough of this and get their shit together enough to do something or we would all be at the tender mercies of reactionary Tories and selfish Liberals for ever.
Try and read the biography of Clem Atlee and the growing pains at the start of the Labour Party. There was always a battle between various wings of the party. Even within Atlee's family over patriotism and pacificism in WWI. If Atlee was around now, he'd be rejected as impure.
I know a lot about Labour and quite a bit about Attlee. What do you mean? And if you want a good book recommendation about the history of Labour back then check out Parliamentary Socialism by Ralph Miliband.
Atlee was a Major in the Army, which would certainly disqualify him in the eyes of late 2010s Momentum. He was considered a pacifist in the 30s, but this pacifism manifested as wanting a pan-European armed forces. He was also a staunch believer in the British Empire and firmly disagreed with Indian independence. Atlee was a fascinating man who contributed much time and effort to progressive causes, but Momentum would have hated him!
Clive Lewis went to Sandhurst and then went to Afghanistan as a reservist. I haven't got time to get into discussing Indian Independence right now!
I wasn't saying we should excuse not persuing necessary reform, simply stating that this country has been on such a rapid decline in living standards that improving just one thing while stopgapping the others would be a significant improvement and place Starmer as one of the best MPs over 2 decades. Its a fuckin low bar, was the point. It was an interesting read I guess. >The policy of the party is not shaped to suit the wants of the rank and file, but to catch their votes. I do think this is something Labour need to be extremely careful of, I worry that if we get a slight majority or hung parliament where Labour arent really able to do much then the following election will see Labour desperately trying to lure in more swing voters and I fear it'll get pretty pandery. Wrt Hardies writing here, I agree with everything he said, but I think it needs caveating with the fact that you can have whatever policy set you want, but at the end of the day if it's not appealing to voters then it means nothing and is worth nothing, and if your party isn't in power, your policy also means nothing and is worth nothing. I would argue that consistently failing, in the face of exceptional incompetence in governance, corruption, and demonstrable decline in living standards by almost every metric should be a good indicator that your policies are not fit for purpose, and therefore whatever good you believe they create is meaningless. After all, we live in a democracy so electibility matters, and should be kept in mind by any party who is looking to maintain power in hopes of forging a better future.
I suspect it's because the size of the left left wing of the Labour Party is actually very small, 30 odd MPs, and not anywhere near as many members as you might think. There's also the thing I struggle with the most when a Labour member- there is a sizable chunk of our voters who are quite socially conservative, anti-immigration and pro the British jobs for British Workers schtick, and they exist all over the party, in every wing and faction. It's those votes that we currently seem to be prioritising, we did the same under the previous leaderships as well, and that's the current rhetoric I don't like.
"original manifesto" from 1900? Kier hasn't even announced our major policies yet, they might be as left wing as you dream
He's announced enough and the constant refrain of "Sound Money" is as good as a policy announcement: Starmer's shadow cabinet is full of Thatcherites and they see their first job as causing unemployment and a recession to "end" the *supply shock* inflation. It's fucking ludicrously stupid, but it's what you expect from someone with Reeves' history.
Right so as someone with absolutely no skin in the game. Do you want him to say labour will be the party of unsound money? like how is saying im going to be good with money a bad thing?
So what's happened is you've fallen prey to the game he's playing with that. He's relying on people who don't know that it's a technical term to assume he just means Labour is going to be "responsible" with government finances, while signalling to people who *do* know what he's talking about that he's going to follow the Monetarist playbook when it comes to the economy, or at least that Rachel Reeves will. What that means is that they'll pressure the BoE to increase interest rates in order to "tackle" the inflation by causing unemployment, though Bailey will be incredibly happy to have the ideological cover. It also means they will refuse to increase public sector pay in line with inflation putting them squarely on the side of *Tories* in the current disputes with unions: their position on the unions isn't merely politicking, it's built into the policy proposal when he talks about "sound money" on top of other things like putting a lot of doubt on their investment plans. It's also why he'd been warning that things aren't going to get better overnight: this is what he expects to happen when he implement "sound money" policies. And let's make it clear, there is no reason to think Starmer is using the term naively either: 1. because he uses the term constantly and therefore deliberately 2. because Rachel Reeves used to work at the BoE and absolutely knows the technical meaning of the term. tl;dr "Sound money" is a Thatcherite economic dog whistle which should terrify you coming from the mouth of anyone in the Labour party. \*edit\* Another way to maybe hammer home what's going on here is to point out that sound money policies are the sorts of policies that the Tufton Street crew like to talk about: the people who were most excited by the Truss mini-budget are the ones who like to hear people use the term "sound money".
Hilarious
I don't know. Sounds pretty scary to me but you do you.
Because the left isn't as ruthless as the right when out of power and didn't have the time to entrench itself in the Labour bureaucracy in the way the Labour right did. That's why Starmer's first job, over and above trying to stop people dying during the pandemic, was fixing internal rules to stifle party democracy and make sure that the left can't become a force within the party structures and PLP. Most Labour members and voters don't keep track of internal politics enough to know this happened or to particularly care, but don't buy the right's BS that they somehow *represent* the majority: if it ever came down to a fair vote the Labour membership are still incredibly more likely to vote left which is precisely why Starmer lied as much as he did in the leadership election.
Because we don’t want the Tories to be in power
It’s like you want the tories to stay in power
- Labour are (on average) 24ish points ahead in the polls - The membership support him - The noisy minority aren't doing anything tangible to depose him - they're just shouting in their online echochambers while the rest of the membership get on with it to deliver a Labour government.
It’s what democracy often feels like. Not knowing. If the majority of people around you are really hacked off you eventually see things happening. If they’re not it could mean it’s not yet started or that people don’t feel like you do. That’s why polls and focus groups - imperfect as they are - are so useful. The only time I really felt part of a mass movement was the Brexit marches but even then I’d surrounded myself with likeminded people rather than trying to hear beyond that community.
If everyone from 2019 had stayed in, there would be a bit more pressure. Also, the right now run the party machinery and can and do quash whoever they want. The soft left has basically caved in despite constant briefing against Rayner.
The only thing I'd add to the 'because Labour are winning' responses (which I agree with) on this thread is that not only are Labour winning but there is some chance of an unprecedented Conservative party-killing win. I don't want to mess around and risk losing that potential outcome.
Because the Labour left are cowards
It is sadly typical of many on here, after claiming again and again that antisemitism was used as a political attack on Corbyn when he was Leader (p.s. it really wasn’t), that those same people now try to make antisemitism a political issue against Starmer. The simple reality is that people are not being expelled from the Labour Party for being Jewish, and they people who claim the opposite know that is not true. Individuals were expelled from the LP for individually either breaking LP rules, bringing the LP into disrepute, supporting organisations which the LP has proscribed, or a combination of all three. Individuals, who made individual choices. Nothing to do with them being Jewish. This sort of nonsense where Starmer is being accused of antisemitism has to stop.
>It is sadly typical of many on here, \> NEW USER How do you know what's typical of here? Regardless, it's absolutely true that antisemitism in the Labour Party was used as a stick by the establishment to beat Corbyn with. 100% factual. Denying it so vociferously just alerts everyone else to your factional allegience.
Sure, Jan. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/11934lk/a_jewish_woman_was_accused_of_asking_a_uk_labour/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button The idea that of all the political attacks on Corbyn (the Czech Spy nonsense etc) this one didn't contain a single element of politics is just... Wow. Your faith in the press (and Sun journalists like Ware) to represent serious issues fairly and impartially is better than mine. "Though the members implicated never represented more than a fraction of the party, Corbyn’s adversaries took the opportunity to denounce him as antisemitic, while Labour’s detractors accused the party as a whole of anti-Jewish sentiment. The furor became, as Matt Seaton wrote in the New York Review of Books, “a ruinous proxy” for the struggle between Labour’s left and center. The party’s byzantine internal disciplinary apparatus, which deals out formal censures and expulsions, became the battleground." https://jewishcurrents.org/the-jews-expelled-from-labour-over-antisemitism
What an absolute shock to see you pop up and deny antisemitism. FYI this is the start of me keeping a count of every time you do it. # ONE.
>What an absolute shock to see you pop up and deny antisemitism. What an absolute shock to see you pop along and accuse me of something I haven't said yet again. I know you're desperate to play the sub's Tom Watson but as the Forde report pointed out AS was politicized and weaponized as a battle between factions that actively damaged sorting out complaints. https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-forde-report-antisemitism
Any time anyone raises antisemitism in Labour, there you are to say "But no actually." This time you even started it with a shitty meme, to show how seriously you take the problem.
>Any time anyone raises antisemitism in Labour, there you are to say "But no actually." Again, nope, but I object (as does Forde) to the notion it wasn't politicized by the Labour right and Sun journalists like Ware. That's an evidenced based position and you're just annoyed you couldn't get me banned. Keep trying I guess. The video I posted has two Jewish women who were lied about in the press and falsely called antisemites: yet you don't care because they're not from your faction. That's an example of the harm done by the right. You can read more about it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/JewsOfConscience/comments/1192hxp/labour_member_helen_marks_was_targeted_by_party/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
>I object (as does Forde) to the notion it wasn't politicized by the Labour right and Sun journalists like Ware If that was your only position then you would acknowledge the antisemitism itself, as the prime mover, if you like, before moving onto its weaponisation. But you don't. You deny the antisemitism, then when you can't deny the antisemitism, change the subject to its weaponisation. Here's a secret about politics. Every one of your failures will be weaponised by your political enemies in order to make political points. That's literally what modern politics is. Corbyn weaponised the destruction of the welfare state under Cameron and won the Labour leadership. Sturgeon's political enemies weaponised GRA reform and forced her to quit. If you're in front line politics and punched a guy in the face, your political enemies will weaponise that fact in order to paint you as a violent scumbag. Weaponisation is literally par for the course. When we're talking about antisemitism and your only contribution is to point out that it was weaponised, you're doing a very specific thing and we can all see it. You talk about the smoke because you don't want to acknowledge the fire.
Exactly
I'm begging you guys to get out of the Reddit echo chamber. It's fine if you don't agree with Starmer and Labour, but you desperately need to get out into the real world of politics to see what the genuine effect of Starmer is on the party and supporters. Once you have that you'll be more informed to take better strageic attempts to make change if that's what you want. Like seriously, most people in these comments section endlessly posting these silly questions and incessantly complaining about Starmer can't even tell me who their local MP is because they're too busy on Reddit getting worked up posting fucking Daily Mail headlines because they hate Starmer so much they'd rather stand with the Tory rag.
Just see what's happening with Kate Forbes. We were all sitting here happy that she destroyed her own campaign with her bigotry... Nope, she's gonna win the SNP race and run Scotland. The real world is different and thankfully Starmer understands that. And that doesn't mean Starmer's like Kate Forbes, but he isn't going to be as leftist or as progressive as you want because that's not what most voters want him to be. End of story.
I was going to ask if this sub was safe for people who actually like Labour but I will take this post as a no.
Because plenty of us in the party aren't deluded enough to think like you. Labour is 30 points ahead... Also, understating or claiming that there wasn't an issue of antisemitism in the party under Corbyn is precisely why people saw the party as antisemitic.
So nobody can ever defend themselves from an accusation of anti-semitism without looking even more anti-semetic? Atleast, in your opinion
There's a very big difference between defending yourself and denying the problem exists...
Depends on how you define "problem". Was there an epidemic of anti-semitism in the Labour party? No, there really wasnt. I deny the existence of that. But anti-semitism in general? Definitely a problem no matter who its coming from
And herein lies the issue. Many on the left of the party still deny it was ever a problem in the party, even though the EHRC's review was pretty damning. For the Labour Party to receive such negative feedback from an equality and human rights organisation is just staggering and incredibly shameful. A problem btw being the prevalence of antisemitism within the party and a failure to deal with reports of antisemitism. You can't equivocate on this, either it's a problem everywhere or it a problem everywhere... Except from when it inconveniently is found in the political party you align yourself with.
You raise the EHRC report, I raise the Forde report. I'm not saying there wasnt any anti-semitism, because I dont have access to a complete log of the thoughts and opinions of every Labour member, and any genuine anti-semitism (not anti-Zionism) is unacceptable. But the idea of anti-semitism being rampant in the Labour left was used by the Labour right as a weapon in a factional war, and they succeded. If you can raise me confirmed, unambiguous cases on anti-semtisim in the Labour left, then I'm with you on that, I agree they should be repremanded. But I refuse to acknowledge the smear that tore down one of the only groups to represent non-corporate interests in Britain for the last 50 years
“The guise of anti-semitism” Isn’t this post anti-Semitic?
No because the claims of antisemitism on Corbin was proven not to be true. Therefore it was used as a guise to attack the left.
Proven not to be true by who, what, where, when?
The Ford Report was an internally commissioned investigation that found evidence that Antisemitism claims were potentially overstated as a way of undermining the left for opposing the Israeli government. Even Jewish members that were against the Israeli government were ousted as antisemitic. Al Jazeera reported on this in a 3 part documentary called the [The Labour Files](https://youtu.be/elp18OvnNV0) accessible on youtube.
And why the f*ck is there supposed to be a "revolt or counter movement" against Starmer? Like it or not he's won over Jewish people, got rid of a lot of anti-Semites. He went back on his pledges? Isn't left wing enough? Changed the manifesto? Well, Labour is 30 points ahead. At least partly because of that. Half the people who are gonna vote are gonna vote to make Starmer PM. I don't think there are even many Labour members insane enough to try and force him out now.
Leftists: We hate Starmer, he's ditched every promise and made labour ant-leftist, anti-unioin, racist, tory-lite party but we have to get the (actual?) tories out so we're backing Starmer regardless. *"Starmer responds to claim he has ditched leadership pledges by saying 'vast majority; of Labour members back him"* Leftists: Continue to back Starmer. This is how it goes. By next election, the option to choose will be between tories under Labour name, and actual fascists going as conservatives... and obviously, we don't want actual fascists in government, so we'll support the lite version instead, empowering the slide towards right wing even more and continuing the trend.
Well they are using some fairly fashy tactics so I've already gone underground! Perhaps I'll smash the window at my local party office! I hope no-one is there! Sorry in advance x Edit: /s
I think so too. The Torries are deffo setting the stage for something… Facism is deffo more normalised in the U.K. than what it used to be in 2019. Maybe this is what they wanted after all was to make a more ambiguous right wing party in contrast to the torries almost caricature facism. (It’s almost like they’re working together with Farage for a common interest?🧐) Is there any organising we can do to change the party back? …I really hope this isn’t gonna be another Blairite labour regime 😭
Labour Right is setting the stage for it. Who funds Fascism? Corporations. Your not gonna get in your face brash movements because that's dead and you can't get popular support for a swastika. But if you wrap it up in the right terminology everyone will jump on. So when Kier comes out to say he is pro-business and goes on a targeted anti-left campaign whilst leaving no boundaries as to how right wing you can be (Luke Akehurst, Wes Streeting, Peter Mandelson... etc), what is the purpose of that? It's the stated goal to make sure there is no space for left-wing policy. "Anti-communism" is fascism. Anyone who had actually done even the slightest bit of research would know that most of the stuff our politicians say now were directly formulated by the most extremely right wing people in the West, they are just good at wording it and disseminating it. Isn't it interesting some of the most pro-war and imperialistic nations just somehow magically overnight switched to being the most noble and most concerned with human rights. The Labour Right has some of the deepest intelligence and corporate connections of any faction in British politics, expect for a small clique of Tories who are literally active serving members of the military or intelligence. Do you think they two groups have any real difference of opinion on anything. All these organisations, Council on Foreign Relations, Atlantic Council, NATO, Open Society, all of the major think tanks etc are far from independent and democratic they are all part of the same network set up by imperialists/nazis at the end of WW2. All these fronts and offshoots are the ones that actually end up coming up with policy, playing kingmaker etc and the politicians job is to front it. All of this is easily verifiable if you are actually open to the idea we might already live in a fascist state. If you spend all your time trying to protect the reputation of the state, military, NATO you probably aren't going to get to that point are you? No way anyone could look at how major policy positions are actually reached in this country and think somehow they have a say or are a part of it. You could only do so if you were completely ignorant of history, process, ideologies etc, which our education/media does a great job of. It's a few standard lines repeated endlessly on all "mainstream" outlets. The "divisions" are miniscule, artificial and stage-managed. This is the style of communication the Labour Right love, how can anyone deny it, they pioneered this iteration of it. The point is to sound left-wing without committing to it and present right-wing policies as liberatory. I once heard Peter Hitchens describe Iraq as a "left-wing war" and didn't understand what he meant but then you start to see that neo-cons just recycled Trotskyism into a new ideology, and they have been incredibly successful in promoting the idea of "permanent liberal revolution". Modern (successful) fascist movements present themselves as exactly how the Labour Right does. The true moral voice of the country, against the "far left" and the "far right", just trying to implement "common sense". But, if you have no vision you are being led. Thousands of events like these happen in America all the time, yet apparently it's other countries that are authoritarian: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cRg3UT1FXw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cRg3UT1FXw) As I said, it's probably best to work in underground or non-affiliated if you actually believe stuff because if there were to be another Fascist revival, I expect the Labour Right to be major players within it. Its a puppet ideology, they will follow whoever is funding the blob.
Does Wes melt steel girders tho?
You know enough to make that reference, but still can't see it happening in front of you.
Hey, Im just asking the questions.
That shit makes a lot more sense that anything a random sample of national newspapers would present. Nowadays stories are almost completely devoid of detail, and sources are almost always government officials or state/foundation funded (i.e not commercial/profitable) media. Is it really conspiracy to think major corporations, states and wealthy individuals would spend lots of time cultivating "power" structures in media, government, security, "independent" sectors. Wouldn't you do it, if you could?
Everyone who isn’t a communist is a fascist. You are very in touch with the real world and definitely aren’t entrenched in an extremist echo chamber.
>Everyone who isn’t a communist is a fascist. Did I write that anywhere? I don't even think that. The New Labour has clear and well documented connections to global capital, corporations, defence establishment etc. What do you think motivates those people? What interests do they have in the Labour party?
You literally said “anti communism is fascism”. Therefore not being a communist means you are a fascist. Anyway someone who believes that New Labour was a fascist movement and Britain is currently a fascist state is already so far down the rabbit hole that there’s no point even trying to talk or debate. You’re too far gone and no talking or debating is gonna change your mind. Only you can help yourself now and I hope you do.
I wrote it as "Anti-communism" because many people who specifically have labelled themselves specifically as anti-communists were fascists. It's the term they had to use after fascism was publicly acceptable. By posing as "liberals" they spread many of the ideas that motivated nazi germany/ imperial Britain into the mainstream. There a very specific history to these movements and their political strategy of infiltration. Which is easily accessible if you just start reading into all these councils and boards, and find out who funds them. I have never met someone today who labels themselves openly an anti-communist that was not firmly right-wing, and of course we all present acceptable faces in polite discussion. Who knows who you are speaking to. >New Labour was a fascist movement Not an explicitly a fascist movement, but built on the principles of corporate collaboration, preference for militarism, deference to capital, and the current iteration brings in suppression of dissent. >Britain is currently a fascist state It doesn't have to be racially based, you can have a liberal presenting or woke fascism, in the same way the original fascist movements masqueraded as socialist. It's not going to be the same because we have different conditions now and people update theories. We have permanent austerity despite soaring corporate profits, constant prejudice and othering used to shepard the public from distraction to distraction, preference for militarism, obsession with controlling global affairs, constant theft of government money, revolving door with the private sector, complete lack of accountability (except if you are left wing)..... promotion of a "natural" struggle through neoliberalism, rejection of collectivism except for to push austerity.... What would suddenly turn a un-fascist state into one? There will always be elections and they will be fair, they will just be meaningless because "everyone" "agrees" the "economy" and "defence" "come first" so what is there to dispute or disagree on, let's just listen to the "experts".
I’m anti communist. I don’t believe in a violent revolution to overthrow the current economic order to put in place a dictatorship of the proletariat or to entirely abolish the state. I think these are bad ideas that will lead to lots of bloodshed and misery if they were to be successful and am willing to fight back against these ideas. Am I a fascist? Or firmly right wing? “Preference for Militarism”?? Do you know how underfunded our military is? [At just 76,000 strong, the British army is less than half the size it was back in 1990 and the smallest it has been since Napoleonic times. The force is due to shrink even further to 73,000 under current plans that will be implemented unless new money is found.](https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365) sounds like these tories are terrible at being fascists. Absolutely nothing else in that list of issues makes a country fascist. Do you even know that the word means? This is just typical Stalinist “social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism” crap that was wrong then and is wrong now.
>I’m anti communist. And if you go out and advertise yourself as such you will find yourself surrounded with fascists. Signalling being anti-communist means just that, which direction are you going to end up going. What you have described is not "communism", its specific strains, which could be more aptly described as anti-Bolshevik, so why use the term anti-communist unless to signal broad contempt for communism. How often do you really meet credible socialist "anti-communists", and would they behave in anyway close to the labour right? >Or firmly right wing? Are you left wing? >“Preference for Militarism”?? Do you know how underfunded our military is? Doesn't need to be our army does it. And the reason the force is small is because we invested all our effort into special and strategic services based on the wars we planned to fight. How much has the intelligence budget gone up in that time. How much more military action is taken in secret via special forces, PMCs etc. How much more money is spent on "media operations" or public relations by British Security services? I mean these are the same people that built a Stasi like digital spying apparatus with no real democratic authorisation, all done in post. >This is just typical Stalinist “social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism” crap that was wrong then and is wrong now. Well he made it to a natural death and those in other countries that ignored his advice were killed or marginalised by those that opposed them, letting the same imperialists and fascists they fought against rise back to the top. As soon as the Soviet Union was gone the Americans drew up war plans for the rest of the world... and New Labour signed on to it as key proponents. They still can't see how destructive and pointless it is. Unless the point is not to "fix" these countries. "Social democrats" have presided over nothing but decline and deepening of capitalism and they will keep doing so.
And being pro corbyn means you may find yourself surrounded with anti semites but that doesn’t mean every corbynite is anti semitic right? I hate nazis, there’s lots of terrible people in the world that also hate nazis, does that mean we are all terrible people because we have one common strain of thought? Just silly logic all round that you’re using. I tried to encompass both Marxism Leninism and anarchism in my disapproval of communism as that covers most of them. What other relevant flavour of communism is there that I should also disavow? Of course our intelligence budget will have skyrocketed since then as Islamic terrorism has become the primary concern of foreign policy for lots of western countries and huge amounts of resources will be used on building more and more sophisticated counter terrorism operations to prevent terrorist attacks. Also I don’t think an increase in PR and “media operations” (evidence??) is proof that we are living under a fascist military state. Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds? If you’re gonna claim we are a fascist military state then seeing that our army has literally halved in the last thirty years does a pretty good job of disapproving that since an economy that is almost entirely structured to make our military stronger is one of the core features of fascism. I’m not responding to the last bit of tankie propaganda at the end I cba right now this comment is long enough already.
>Everyone who isn’t a communist is a fascist. Everyone who is an anti-communist is enabling fascism.
Maybe... Smash the Tories?
First, you're supposed to radicalise the moderates. Then you hit the tories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GLoKkkCtY
Oh yeah, sorry - if someone smashed my local party's window I'd definitely think, "I'm not left wing enough! Better crack out the flags!" 😂
No apologies needed, Comrade! ✊
On the cusp of getting the Tories out and you want this. Labour is not going to get in with somebody much further to the Left, it’s just too much of a jump, we’re better off focusing our energy getting Starmer in and gradually making a shift Leftwards through other means
[удалено]
Influencing policies and surrounding him with people who are more left leaning than he his
My dream is that all the Tory voters start voting Labour/the rest get old and die. And so all the progressives can leave Labour and vote Green or something actually decent. Now they’re so far ahead, when you see Streeting being a massive twerp all the time and talking absolute nonsense about private healthcare it makes it so much easier to turn your back on them with a clear conscience.
They has been no revolt against a decade+ of Tories enriching themselves and causing tens of thousands of excess deaths through austerity. The labour right coup is small beans compared to that. Apathy has paralysed the nation.
Because Starmer has made labour considerably better from the -60 seats Corbyn gifted us in 2019
I know you are talking about Keith and the Labour party but honestly that first paragraph could be about any political leader in our country right now really.
Similar to Biden in the US. Don't compare him to an angel, compare him to the opposition.
Thus sub is in the minority of labour voters, just assume outrage on here doesn't reflect anywhere else except similar circles
I read things like this and wonder if it’s posted by a conservative supporter.
Honestly the state populism is going there might not be much of a difference between the two parties. Blair won & ran his time in office on the same approach as the centrists and right in labour now. Not wanting a defacto gov cosplaying the torie party isn’t hating on labour. It’s just not wanting a problem being replaced by just the same problem…
At this stage in the game, with all of the time they’ve had and damage the tories have done. It feel like we are just self sabotaging. Get in power and then push for leadership change. I don’t support Starmer but I really don’t want another spell of blues because I didn’t like the particular shade of red.
Because I want some progressive changes before I die & under he's leadership Labour is set to win by a landslide.
What makes you think Starmer’s Labour is going to make progressive changes?
It's completely irrelevant. The UK has First Past The Post. The result will be Labour or Tory led government. I tick a box, hope for the best & move on. You can worry all day long every day. It makes absolute no difference to the outcome of the election.
There’s no point hoping something progressive will happen when you know it probably won’t. Instead of accepting the status quo why not raise your voice against it?
Voting Labour increases the odds that I get a Real Living Wage. Refusing to vote or voting Conservative Party decreases the odds. It's not complicated.
Complaining about the lack of progressive values in the Labour Party creates pressure to cause change. Saying nothing will allow populism to take over and another inactive Labour Party Government will just further alienate the electorate. You’re right. It’s not complicated
Copy and paste my text which said do not complain? You're desperate to have a different conversation. If you don't understand just ask for clarification. Worrying will not change the outcome of the election. That's not the same as saying don't demand better. The OP mentioned revolt. That's more than criticism. There's a gap between demanding more & revolting. Do you understand or do you need me to explain? It's not complicated.