Jump to content

What is the point of Labour ?


pawpar

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Willow Rosenberg said:

Lisa Nandy is playing to a certain gallery here. Which would probably work to get votes AFTER she became leader if she ever got there. Can't help feeling that anyone that matters at the moment will really give a shit about this though.

No one in England will give a toss and she'll get more votes from Scottish members by playing the Unionist card than not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit I was totally wrong when I predicted Starmer wouldn’t win the Labour leadership.

Some will say that the membership is being pragmatic, others will say they are more interested in power than what they will do with that power once in office.

I predict that if he ever becomes PM Starmer will lead a Tory Lite government; curbing the worse excesses of Toryism but making no fundamental changes to the structure of society in favour of the most vulnerable and doing nothing to mitigate the power of big business.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I have to admit I was totally wrong when I predicted Starmer wouldn’t win the Labour leadership.

Some will say that the membership is being pragmatic, others will say they are more interested in power than what they will do with that power once in office.

I predict that if he ever becomes PM Starmer will lead a Tory Lite government; curbing the worse excesses of Toryism but making no fundamental changes to the structure of society in favour of the most vulnerable and doing nothing to mitigate the power of big business.

 

Ah Granny, I too am nostalgic for the days of Clause iv but don't see it as a campaign winner.  For better or worse pragmatism is the starting point. Baby steps and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starmer’s vacuous, stiff, associated with Remain and will sell out the left of the party the second the melters start giving him grief. Which is class. It’s only bores who listen to James O’ Brien and think PMQs remotely matters that rate him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DrewDon said:

It's difficult to see how Starmer can lose from here. Everything, barring an unlikely late surge from either Nandy or Long-Bailey, points to him winning. He's even been nominated by Corbyn's CLP. 

 

There will be far fewer members voting on the CLP nominations than voting in the actual election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is correct, but basically every remotely meaningful indicator at the moment is pointing to him winning. Starmer clearly has a decent amount of support amongst pro-Corbyn members, too. He has run a technically very good, if deliberately vacuous, campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is correct, but basically every remotely meaningful indicator at the moment is pointing to him winning. Starmer clearly has a decent amount of support amongst pro-Corbyn members, too. He has run a technically very good, if deliberately vacuous, campaign. 


The biggest worry is the CLP nominations give him a sense of invulnerability when it’s not as cemented as appears. Can only speak to mine and several other CLPs up here but he’s won a few nominations in the final round of voting and even then has snuck through with a single point victory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

That is correct, but basically every remotely meaningful indicator at the moment is pointing to him winning. Starmer clearly has a decent amount of support amongst pro-Corbyn members, too. He has run a technically very good, if deliberately vacuous, campaign. 

I've heard Tories boasting about how they joined Labour for £3 to get Corbyn in, not sure who they'd go for this time. I don't get the Starmer love, maybe it's hoping for a boring clerk type like Atlee who actually got things done despite extreme adversity. Long-Bailey seems robotic but well prepared. Nandy has a sense of realpolitik about her, like totally discounting any wavering non lodge Scottish voters as inconsequential in pursuit of the main prize, and has a human touch that might help in the North of England. I could see the actual members vote throwing up all sorts of surprises, we don't have a clue who's voting or why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 


The biggest worry is the CLP nominations give him a sense of invulnerability when it’s not as cemented as appears. Can only speak to mine and several other CLPs up here but he’s won a few nominations in the final round of voting and even then has snuck through with a single point victory.

 

You will be better placed than me as a Labour member, and CLP attendee (what's wrong with you?), to know. It's just that pretty much every indicator I see, including but not limited to CLP nominations, has Starmer in a really good position.

There was a report on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago that most CLPs have seen their membership increase by about 25% (I think) since the election, and much of that seems to be to vote for Starmer - I think it was said that these people don't actually get to vote in the CLP nominations, but obviously do in the actual election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thane of Cawdor said:

Ah Granny, I too am nostalgic for the days of Clause iv but don't see it as a campaign winner.  For better or worse pragmatism is the starting point. Baby steps and all that.

The baby steps metaphor is not really applicable though is it?  It suggests achieving an objective through slow progress; I don’t believe Labour’s goal under Starmer will be looking to achieve that objective.

Maybe the U.K. as a whole is in a place where they will only accept two options of right-of-centre politics but I think the left are really shit at getting their message across and enthusing a large part of what should be their base.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

I predict that if he ever becomes PM Starmer will lead a Tory Lite government; curbing the worse excesses of Toryism but making no fundamental changes to the structure of society in favour of the most vulnerable and doing nothing to mitigate the power of big business.

There seem to be plenty of folk who think that's exactly what opposition parties should do - look at what the government's doing and improve the presentation.

I appreciate the idea is to get into power by any means necessary, but I don't understand why any voter would care who wins in that situation. To b*****dise Monty Python, just give it to the girl with the biggest metaphorical tits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

The baby steps metaphor is not really applicable though is it?  It suggests achieving an objective through slow progress; I don’t believe Labour’s goal under Starmer will be looking to achieve that objective.

Maybe the U.K. as a whole is in a place where they will only accept two options of right-of-centre politics but I think the left are really shit at getting their message across and enthusing a large part of what should be their base.

 

Well I don't believe that Starmer wants the aspirations of Clause iv, but to make any serious progress Labour must be electable. If, in order to achieve this, Labour has to start from marginally to the left of the Tories then that's an unfortunate truth. A credible leader and even slightly more progressive policies is at least a start. Maybe The Fabians knew something after all. Fortunately, Scotland may eventually get another shot at freeing itself from being chained to a lunatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The English press are more obsessed with the provos than the Green Brigade are.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7982601/Has-Keir-Starmer-REALLY-spent-lifetime-seeking-justice-powerless.html

A banter when Starmer is elected and made out to be some Britain hating, terrorist loving pinko.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s pretty much zero evidence Starmer is electable isn’t there other than he wears suits and impresses the same people who thought David Miliband and Hilary Clinton would be leading the G8 summits.
You can't write him off for wearing a certain suit or impressing a certain group of people.

He's more left wing than most of the plp and he handles details very impressively. Sounded good anytime i heard him interviewed on brexit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...