Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
Sorry but he's a fecking weasel ! The more I hear/see him the more I despair.

View: https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1551609923011837953?t=GZW-5rmjQEGSpZyDwNEhbg&s=19
 
newfhouse

newfhouse

pleb
Richard Murphy has it about right, I think.

There are occasions when politicians baffle me. I will exclude Tories from that comment: their very existence is hard to explain. I refer instead to those from other parties. Like Keir Starmer, in particular.

Starmer has three jobs. He has to lead the Labour Party. If he has not noticed it, this was and is rooted in the labour movement, as represented by trade unions. As such it is his job to represent the political interests of working people.

Second, the has to oppose the government. This is a necessary part of holding the title of Leader of the Opposition - for which he does receive an official salary. The key to this role is also in the name: the job is to oppose the government by pointing out its failing.

Third, and to fulfil the objectives of the first two roles, has job is to win the next general election and then form a government. Again, without wishing to point out the obvious, this requires that in a two party system he wins mass popular support.

Right now Keir Starmer is being assisted by three things. The first is that working people are united in their concern about a cost of living crisis that can only be addressed through fair pay rises to ensure that people can continue to pay their bills as they fall due. There is nothing especially difficult to understand about this. If costs rise - as energy will - by more than £2,000 in a year and many other expenses, such of those on food, are also rising rapidly then either people without savings (which is most people in the country) get a fair pay rise or they will fall into debt, go hungry, go cold or go bankrupt and lose their homes. This is the reality of life. There is no avoiding it. That is what is going to happen. As a result there is an extraordinary unity amongst working people demanding action, including now a call for a general strike.

Second, the Tories are in total disarray, with the two leadership election candidates suggesting that their task is to get the country out of the mess that the governments of which they were members have gotten us into.

Third, as a result getting people to agree that we need a different government should be easy.

But then we have to take the Starmer factor into account. Let’s just look at yesterday. The rail unions are on strike, led by the extraordinary Mick Lynch, who has an innate ability to explain economics (and other realities) which almost no interviewer knows how to handle. That is helped by the fact that his case is a simple one. He is saying a 4% pay rise is inadequate when the cost of living is increasing by 10% or more, and prices will not go down again even if inflation does sometime in 2023. And he is right, of course.

Lynch is also right to ask questions about why it is that working people are being picked on when rents, profits and interest are all still being paid, without question arising as to why they too should not be squeezed.

If Starmer was seeking to represent labour as leader of the Labour Party you would have thought these might be positions that he should support. But no. He says it’s his job as prime minister in waiting to support the management in disputes and not to side with labour, because he will be the manager if he (ever) secures office.

It’s a crass argument. Firstly, that ignores the fact that he has to win office. At this moment that means he has to show he is on the side of those who are going to be crushed by the coming winter. They are his voter base. He cannot afford to alienate them.

Second, it’s a crass argument because part of his pitch should be that the current management have got their negotiating position wrong and that he would not in any way have supported the offer now being made to the rail workers, which is so obviously unfair. Saying so is exactly what his job should involve.

And third, what this reveals is a man who thinks he can only become prime minister by appealing to small-minded right-wingers. He is indifferent about representing anyone from the left, or what they stand for. Maybe, as a lot of Labour MPs and some Labour peers are saying, that is because he really does not know what life is like for anyone but those who are on the right wing of politics. Or maybe it’s because he really does think that all politics is now on the right anyway, and the left does not matter. And maybe it is because he just does not care as he wants to govern from the right, come what may. To be honest, I can’t tell.
But what I do know is that a leader of the Labour Party who has forgotten what the party is meant to represent, just as he has forgotten that it is his job to oppose. He also seems intent on alienating a great many of those who might support him. That makes him look a pretty dismal failure at his job.

No wonder the Labour Party has no one out on the morning media round as I write this. Starmer’s actions are indefensible. I suspect his shadow cabinet know it. It’s hard to see how he can continue like this.
What a mess.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/
 
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
Maybe if he actually had a argument in him about wages and what Labour would do to support unions.Instead he seems to be saying “Let us not say anything to p1ss off the Daily Mail and Telegraph readers” which on here a lot seem to be happy with.
Id say a hell of a lot of Labour voters,leave and remain if you want to go there.Basically want left wing policies....
As in workers rights,fair pay,healthcare,affordable rent, nationalise rail,water,energy etc.
It's what he won his fecking leadership election on !

View: https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1551486324703694855?t=zXGxhVi4Bv4EYIfs7mSHLw&s=19
 
Rusty Nails

Rusty Nails

Country Member
theclaud said:

View: https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1554388376706600961?t=YvEVNn8rQYXNBAgD5fLpzw&s=19


Forensic. Or something.
Click to expand...


Just a further symptom of the dysfunctionality and apparent self-destructive tendency of the Labour Party.

They should be taking political advantage of the disastrous economy and the sh*t-show that is the Conservative party leadership election instead of adopting their fall-back position of in-fighting. After three dud leaders in a row the party needs to elect a leader who can make a decent job of unifying the party or accept it as an impossible task and accept their role of yelling from the wings until they get lucky again one year.

The main problem with splitting into two parties is that without the word Labour in the party name they will lose a lot of votes from voters who have automatically put a cross against them come election time, so there would be a huge fight for the name.
 
All uphill

All uphill

Well-Known Member
I am not a Tory or Labour voter so I come to this without a position to promote.

With the Tories having moved to the populist right does it not make electoral sense for the other major party to move to a central position?

The usual media will still scream that Labour are nation-destrying commies, and people committed to class struggle will hate what they see as abandoning their fundamental purpose, but in a FPTP system it makes electoral sense to help the Tories marginalise themselves.

Starter is not saying this, but is it what he is trying to do?
 
All uphill

All uphill

Well-Known Member
newfhouse said:
If it is it doesn't seem to be working too well, does it?
Click to expand...

I don't know.

Maybe not for those of us who follow politics - maybe more so for those who don't.

I'd like to see him take a clear position, probing the government's awful record and actions and puttingforward a clear alternative, but understand that might trigger an almighty internal feud.
 
Rusty Nails

Rusty Nails

Country Member
All uphill said:
I don't know.
Maybe not for those of us who follow politics - maybe more so for those who don't.
I'd like to see him take a clear position, probing the government's awful record and actions and putting forward a clear alternative, but understand that might trigger an almighty internal feud.
Click to expand...
It's the Labour Party, internal feuds are a way of life. He'll get attacked for saying nothing and he'll get attacked for saying something and I'd be happier if he just says what he believes in and takes the consequences. His current stance is just not working, and meanwhile the Tory press is just getting ready to annoint PM Maggie II who is trying hard to appear even tougher than Maggie to please the Tory blue rinse brigade.
He cannot just wait to rely on her cocking things up somewhere down the line.
 
FishFright

FishFright

Well-Known Member
All uphill said:
I don't know.

Maybe not for those of us who follow politics - maybe more so for those who don't.

I'd like to see him take a clear position, probing the government's awful record and actions and puttingforward a clear alternative, but understand that might trigger an almighty internal feud.
Click to expand...

With the government in shambles, mired in slime and Truss looking favourite to be leader Starmer should be streets ahead in the poles .

But he's not due to his track record in opposition , his sucking up to the Mail et al, ostracising Labours core voters and basically trying to more Tory than Blair .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

the snail
Badenoch's vision quest
Replies
6
monkers
4B, or not 4B, that is the question
Replies
12
Milzy
Questioning a problem with MP’s?
Replies
6
winjim
Keir Starmer and Parties
Replies
0
Top Bottom