Starmer's vision quest

[cookiemonster]

That's weird, because this morning you said this...



Besides, I've already dealt with your post. You've had all morning to craft something worth reading rather than the utter blather you posted earlier, and you've failed.

You haven’t dealt with my post. You admitted that you haven’t read it all. You’ve failed to deal with the any of the points I made. You chucked childish comments around while refusing to answer my points.

So don’t bullsh’t me.

I’ll come back when you grow up.

 

[fozy tornip]

Leaving tool to tuck into another plate of his own cold vomit, might people's misgivings about Starmer be that to vote for him is pretty much to guarantee that another dorm of cruel, deranged and damaged old Etonians will accede to power sometime in the not too distant future?

 

[theclaud]

Sorry, been out on bike.

Where are we up to? Are we still berating the Labour leadership for winning? Or are we still all humpty because nasty Mr Starmer won't commit to the sort of spending plans that we'd all love even though we can't explain how they will be funded because we think there is an endless supply of money with no consequences on inflation or sterling?

Are we still skewering ourself on the awkward conundrum that Starmer hasn't got enough personality, whilst Johnson had too much? Perhaps we are still harrumphing that Starmer has no "radical", "bold" plans, even though we haven't quite managed to describe what those radical, bold plans might be, beyond taxing the wealthy.

Talking of which...have we even done our sums yet on whether "taxing the rich" rather than everyone will deliver the sums of money we need for our bold and radical plans?

Maybe we are still hooked on this notion that an opposition leader can single-handedly change the media by being obstructive, whilst still needing the media to be onside.

Or are we just contemplating our bizarre use of the word "technocrat" to describe Starmer even though he didn't go from a PPE degree straight into the party machine. Maybe we are trying to reconcile his experience as a barrister and Director of CPS with our use of the word "technocrat" and still working out how to make it fit.

Maybe we are thinking of re-heating the "forensic" gag for the n-th time, hoping that the readership has forgotten that it was a series of "forensic" questions at PMQs that forced Johnson into lying to the House, which later caused him to resign.

Perhaps, really, all we want is Magic Grandpa back. The career protestor who told us we could have everything we wanted, and somebody else apart from us would pay for it.

Of course, MG's biggest achievement was to deliver the biggest loss to the Tories for nearly a century.

Way to go, my MG.

His apparent failing was to not stand up to the media in the way Mick Lynch modelled. Had he done so he would have won and everything would have been perfect.

Reductive, misrepresentative nonsense, Multz, and you know it. Not many of us are buying the ideology of Austerity, and banging on about "Magic Grandpa" or behaving as if perfectly well-understood words have no meaning isn't going to sell it to us. And that's before you get to the rampant authoritarianism. How would you describe Starmer, if "technocrat" bothers you so much? He's clearly not any kind of democrat. He clearly thinks he's landed a job as CEO of the Labour Party, and if you imagine he's not going to view the country in the same way, I've got a bridge you might be interested in.

It's your call if you want to pursue a scorched-earth approach to forum discourse, but (parking issues of goodwill and fairness for the moment), it doesn't even look like it's much fun.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

And that's before you get to the rampant authoritarianism

Give it a couple of years and Tool will be extolling Keith's success in getting the trains to run on time.

 

[multitool]

Reductive, misrepresentative nonsense,

I thought it was a reasonable precis of your input actually.

Thus far, I'm seeing barely little more depth in your critique that that of the undisputed bumgravy Cookiemonster posts on the topic.

You've a short memory. When Blair came to power he stuck to Tory spending plans too. In fact, disgruntlement arose by 1999 with the state of the NHS, and it was only then that the spending taps opened. Of course he didn't manage to achieve the depth of change that Corbyn promised, but at this point its worth remembering that what Corbyn actually achieved was a big fat nothing.

You still haven't reconciled your analysis of the politico-media interface with the apparent success of Starmer's movements therein, especiallyin the light of the disaster of his predecessor. Nor have you adequately explained your flippant use of the word 'technocrat', preferring instead what is fast becoming a trademark diversion.

I'm going to the pub now with a friend with a gargantuan taste for beer. If I manage to post later I daresay our posts will complement each other in terms of relative incoherence.

 

[theclaud]

You've a short memory. When Blair came to power he stuck to Tory spending plans too.

You've got such a short memory that you seem to imagine I regard the Blair government as a success.

 

[Rusty Nails]

You still haven't reconciled your analysis of the politico-media interface with the apparent success of Starmer's movements therein,

What exactly is Starmer's success with those "movements therein"? If that success is measured by not giving the generally Tory supporting media anything to make his Labour differ too much from the Tories is that really a success or capitulation to the power of the right-wing media?

it doesn't look very inspiring for a future PM, and especially lacklustre against a government with an abysmal record and one that is in freefall, but I can reluctantly accept this approach if it avoids snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory like that against the hapless Theresa May in 2017.

One positive (albeit cynical) about not offering too many specifics in the run-up to the election is that it does not tie his hands when the time comes to actually make policy decisions.

 

[multitool]

You've got such a short memory that you seem to imagine I regard the Blair government as a success.

I never said you did.

However, it was a success on many levels (cue: Cookiemonster wailing about Iraq). But the point of mentioning Blair's years was that we have been here before.

If you asked me for how I think Starmer's govt will go, I'd say it'll be a muted version of Blair's but at some point he will shake the money tree.

He can't do that unless elected. I know you've this fantasy about some sort of idealised govt, but it is a fantasy. You decry the power of the media and you rightly link it in to vested interests, but so far your remedy is limited to a suggestion of just 'not playing along'.

Pure genius.

 

[multitool]

What exactly is Starmer's success with those "movements therein"? If that success is measured by not giving the generally Tory supporting media anything to make his Labour differ too much from the Tories is that really a success or capitulation to the power of the right-wing media?

it doesn't look very inspiring for a future PM, and especially lacklustre against a government with an abysmal record and one that is in freefall, but I can reluctantly accept this approach if it avoids snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory like that against the hapless Theresa May in 2017.

What is power, Rusty, and what are the constraints of somebody trying to negotiate the their way around it?

 

[theclaud]

snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory like that against the hapless Theresa May in 2017.

It's that memory hole again!

 

[Rusty Nails]

What is power, Rusty, and what are the constraints of somebody trying to negotiate the their way around it?

In this sense power is the power to influence the people who vote, and by extension those they vote in. The constraints are clear if you are a politician who needs large numbers of votes...but boil down to confront or use. Confronting is easier from a position of strength and in this case Starmer is using them by not giving them open targets.

All this, of course will be worse than useless if he doesn't, when in power, offer a big improvement on the Tories.

 

[Rusty Nails]

It's that memory hole again!

View attachment 5727

Was May useless? It needed just a small number of seats more for Labour to win. Was it a glorious failure or a wasted opportunity for the Labour Party?

 

[multitool]

In this sense power is the power to influence the people who vote, and by extension those they vote in. The constraints are clear if you are a politician who needs large numbers of votes...but boil down to confront or use. In this case Starmer is using them by not giving them open targets.

All this, of course will be worse than useless if he doesn't, when in power, offer a big improvement on the Tories.

The point being that Starmer has to make deals. Compromises have to be made. Other people's interests cannot be ignored, especially if they hold power. The 'government' is very far from omnipotent.

Claudine's argument seems to be that these vested power interests can be opposed from a position of weakness, but she is at a loss as to suggest how.

"Being better than the Tories" is not a simple equation. How would you judge it given that not everyone shares the same interests. For example the young want housing, the old want a functioning health service and social care which the young do not need. And yet, very soon, the majority of voters will be 55+.

Those same people will cease to be economically active, and it is the young who will pay for their care, health costs and state pensions. None of this is easy, and the expectations of previous generations are no longer relevant.

What I would say in favour of the incoming Labour government is that they appear to want to try and address some issues rather than trying to distract the public with ridiculous stunts like Rwanda flights, horror barges for asylum seekers and trying to present minority groups like trans women as some sort of existential threat to women.

 

[fozy tornip]

What is power, Rusty, and what are the constraints of somebody trying to negotiate the their way around it?

What does this even mean?
Clotted, bungling, obfuscatory syntax isn't wisdom.
Constraints on, surely?
Starmer is negotiating his way around power, rather than seeking to be elected to it, are you saying?
Does power lie elsewhere than our elected government then; other than with the electorate, the people?
In which case democracy is a game 'power' permits us to play in the margins, to amuse ourselves?
Why are you comfortable/stroppily defensive about such a shite status quo?
Why so relentlessly, offensively scornful towards those who'd like something better? Yes, better.
Wind it in, you bilious twat.

 

[multitool]

What does this even mean?
Clotted, bungling, obfuscatory syntax isn't wisdom.
Constraints on, surely?
Starmer is negotiating his way around power, rather than seeking to be elected to it, are you saying?
Does power lies elsewhere than our elected government then; other than with the electorate, the people?
In which case democracy is a game 'power' permits us to play in the margins, to amuse ourselves?
Why are you comfortable/stroppily defensive about such a shite status quo?
Why so relentlessly, offensively scornful towards those who'd like something better? Yes, better.
Wind it in, you bilious twat.

Bob, can you pop back and shut the farm gate, please.

Looks like another one has got out.