Keir Starmer - FoM now a red-line

All I'm saying is that when posts like that are made without clarification, people may believe it and SuperStu may have thought you also believed it.
SuperStu doesn't know what day it is today. On one hand he's saying he knew it was a joke but on the other he's calling me rambling and confused. He really needs to make his mind up.
 
You can beg to do whatever you like mate. You have no answers.

I don't need answers when there isn't a question.

You can't take people disagreeing with you, and then you have a bit of a hissy fit

Never about politics because I'm very comfortable with my position.

Scrote knows his stuff. You should maybe try to listen to him.

Is he the poster boy of the left or something? You're being patronising and condescending, again. My opinion is as relevant as anyone's.

Do me a favour. Stay ***ed off but put me on ignore.
 
SuperStu doesn't know what day it is today. On one hand he's saying he knew it was a joke but on the other he's calling me rambling and confused. He really needs to make his mind up.

See someone who wasn't quite so rambling and confused would probably notice those things aren't mutually exclusive. 😅😜
 
I don't need answers when there isn't a question.



Never about politics because I'm very comfortable with my position.



Is he the poster boy of the left or something? You're being patronising and condescending, again. My opinion is as relevant as anyone's.

Do me a favour. Stay ***ed off but put me on ignore.
You're having a hissy fit again. Stop it. I won't put you on ignore. I won't put anyone on ignore. Calm the flip down mate. I'm not your enemy.
 
See someone who wasn't quite so rambling and confused would probably notice those things aren't mutually exclusive. 😅😜
I won't take the bait.

"I mean look at this thread. You've got confused guys rambling on about Corbyn wearing IRA tshirts."
 
Is this one of the situations where context matters or where we can't deny whatever your opinion is?

Basically the same thing :unsure: you don't think Corbyn saying a referendum which he'll stay neutral on and Starmer saying a referendum in which the Labour party would campaign for remain (and therefore against their own renegotiated deal) is a pretty important one?

Corbyn stated Labour's position in the same way Starmer did, the only difference was that he himself would remain neutral as to not fall into the same mistake as Cameron.

“A Labour government would secure a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated, including a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections,” he said. “We would then put that to a public vote alongside remain. I pledge to carry out whatever the people decide, as a Labour prime minister.”

“Labour is the only party determined to bring people together. Only a vote for Labour will deliver a public vote on Brexit. Only a Labour government will put the power back into the hands of the people. Let’s stop a no-deal Brexit – and let the people decide.”

Versus...

"
So, I have a very simple message today: If you want a referendum – Vote Labour. If you want a final say on Brexit – Vote Labour. If you want to fight for Remain – Vote Labour. Labour will let the people decide.

Conference, you know where I stand on the question of Remain: I’ve said many times that I will campaign for it. But I profoundly respect those who take a different view. And Conference, let’s go into this with our eyes open.

In 2016 Labour campaigned for Remain. We did so because we are internationalists. We stand in solidarity with our friends and neighbours in Europe. We profoundly believe in peace, reconciliation, human rights and collaboration across borders. Socialist values. Our values. Then and now. And let those values guide us on the road ahead."

"We have to beat them, and we will. We have to defeat Johnson, and we shall. And defeat his politics, to show that decency can triumph. We have to deliver a radical Labour government and give the people the final say on whether we Remain in the EU."

Also according to that article I linked, McDonnel was one those pushing for Labour to campaign on remain...

- At the annual gathering in Brighton, some members will attempt to force a conference vote on the issue, with the aim of getting a promise to campaign for remain in the party’s next general election manifesto. Senior shadow cabinet figures – John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry, Tom Watson and Nick Brown – have all said they would want to campaign to stay in the bloc regardless of any Brexit deal negotiated by Labour.
 
L


It’s not just Len McCluskey who has said Starmer it

Plenty others have stated that Starmer also refused to negotiate with Theresa May on a SM/CU deal even though she was prepared to accept it as he was so obsessed with a second referendum

Plenty of people even argue Starmer is more responsible than any other politician for the hard brexit we have

Maybe so, but he was not alone in deciding Labour's Brexit policy, which is what is being stated.

Labour did not lose the Red Wall because of Keir Starmer.
 
Maybe so, but he was not alone in deciding Labour's Brexit policy, which is what is being stated.

Labour did not lose the Red Wall because of Keir Starmer.
They've lost the left and the unions because of Starmer. They're skint. You can tell by the crappy graphics that they put out with empty, meaningless slogans on them. Clearly designed by talentless, unpaid, sixteen year old interns. Embarrassing stuff.
 
Chris, Starmer wanted to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement from scratch. Something the EU ruled out. There’s his first lie

He then wanted to negotiate a deal that includes everything that remain entailed and put it to a referendum against remain 🤦‍♂️

Btw, there is only one single market. You are either in it and accept it’s 4 freedoms or you are out

And then the silly buggers wanted to campaign against the deal Starmer and Thornbury would have negotiated 🤦‍♂️

It’s an embarrassment and was the main reason Labour lost in 2019

But Starmer didn’t care as he was making links to the people’s campaign

Maybe some of you should buy Starmers biography for Xmas.
It’s only about 170 pages and will show what really happened

The Labour policy around Brexit going into the 2019 election was a mess, and Starmer was culpable in playing a part in that, as was Corbyn as the Leader. I'm not arguing that.

What I am arguing against is the claim that Starmer made all this up by himself and announced it at the 2019 conference unbeknownst to Corbyn, McCluskey and McDonnel and stating that Labour would campaign for remain. Which, as I've linked, is not true.

With the above having the effect of losing the red wall, effectively blaming Starmer for the Labour election defeat and absolving Corbyn.
 
And what about there being multiple sources who have gone on record saying Starmer repeatedly refused to even consider a SM/CU deal with May because he wanted to gamble everything on a second referendum

That went well 🤦‍♂️

Maybe that was a mistake?

You blame Corbyn if you want it's nearly 2023 and what's Starmers stance now?

I'm not blaming Corbyn, you're ignoring what my point is to continue another attack line.

Did Starmer make up a Brexit policy at the 2019 party conference without the knowledge of Corbyn, Yes or No?
 
Starmtroopers are just like Brexiteers. They'll never admit that they backed the wrong horse.
Normally it's a good idea to back a horse which can win you something, even if it might not be the 100-1 payout you want.

It's not an each-way bet either, you get absolutely zero for coming second.

All you get for coming second is a 100% guarantee that practically everything you want will get worse and worse.

In an ideal world you could back a horse which will win you that 100-1, and give you everything you want, but that's not a horse, it's a unicorn, unfortunately, and I wish it wasn't. That horse (unicorn) has never won, or been close to winning, as long as I've been alive.

Some people need to get realistic about where the voters are in each seat, and what it would take to win that seat, and get enough seats for a majority. The Tories will be targeting the voters in the centre who could sway the tide back to them, just enough to win (like vote leave did with Brexit), you can bet your house on that. A big majority this time, greatly increases the likelihood of a win for the second term too. The second term is the biggest opportunity to make some real changes, but the first will largely be a recovery job.

It would be unwise to start pushing voters back out to sea now, or giving them an easy reason to jump ship. By the time the next election comes the war will probably be over, the energy crisis will probably largely be over, inflation will likely be down to 2% (which the middle and upper class will adjust to) and GDP may have picked up a touch, this could move some voters back if they think Rishi isn't as bad as May, BJ, Truss etc. The base rate won't be down though (will probably be up another 2%), so more and people's mortgages will be screwed, as fixed deals end in this time. This could lead to a price drop, which may help some get on the ladder, but it also may not, as people could end up being forced to downsize.
 
Labour have their speeches written in advance and checked and from sources close at the time state Starmers speech did not include any mention of a second referendum

So when he mentioned a people's vote at the 2018 Conference it wasn't agreed or known that he would go off script at such a crucial time on such a important policy. That's my understanding

So yes


2019...So rather than answer my actual question, you make up another and answer that.

Great, and that concludes my involvement in this thread.
 
2019...So rather than answer my actual question, you make up another and answer that.

Great, and that concludes my involvement in this thread.

Exiled is right, it's the 2018 conference speech where Starmer went off script about remain still being an option.



 
Look Corbyn's history, he's never coming back so you and those who are likeminded really need to get over it.
I'm not sure where this fascination with Corbyn comes from. The manifesto that Corbyn's Labour put out is what we want more of (or even some of). Starmer promised to keep the bulk of it as is. Starmer has since back-tracked on almost all of it. I don't want Corbyn back. I want what was promised to secure the leadership vote.

I don't know how many times I've said on here I'm just Labour. I've supported every leader since 1983. Centre, Centre Left, Centre Right means nothing to me they're just 'labels'.
This is just falling into the old football team analogy - once a red, always a red. Those different 'labels' carry meaning. Maybe you don't care about that but others do. The labels come from the proposed policies and actions of politicians. They don't spring up from a vacuum. We all have red-lines with our politics but rarely get anywhere near them whilst voting for our traditional 'side'. Starmer has already crossed a number of lines that make me feel very uneasy about voting for his Labour Party (in so far as the leader defines the direction of travel).

The current guy has the biggest movement to labour that I've probably ever seen, and I don't see many going the other way.
They might not be going the other way but the membership has been decimated under Starmer. Labour's own figures show that.

The influx under Corbyn was significantly higher and I'm presuming you're old enough to have seen that..?

Anyone can Google it but who's actually in the establishment? Give me some names or actual organisations, companies etc.
It's complicated because there are people in traditionally establishment positions (e.g. House of Lords) who are clearly not establishement figures.

However, with that caveat in mind, the establishment is essentially the long-standing people, houses/families and companies that have maintained a position at the top tables and who influence the running of the country (and the direction it runs in) wihtout ever having to stand for election - usually through civil service of some sort. Parts of the City of London, for instance. Most of the nobility. Generational army families where there are successive high ranks etc.

The people are almost exclusively educated via the public school system. It isn't a massive secret. It also isn't hard to find information if you really want to.

And Starmer's part of it and is 'their man'?
Starmer in on the periphery and is highly likely to have had 'favours' from 'sponsors' (essentially patronage). He was head of the CPS. He will know the people mentioned above intimately.

I agree the country is on it's harris but I tend to think the worse it gets the more people will want a change of leadership so will give Labour a big majority. I don't think we'll see voter apathy and swathes stay at home.
So why not take that opportunity to really make a difference instead of trying to pacify the people who are least likely to bother moving to Labour if they don't vote Tory?

Once again you miss the point by poking at the detail (without wishing to offend, you are worse than some of the closet Tories on here for that) a truly right wing country would not have an NHS of any description or a system which gives access to world class higher education for everybody.

Do you think if the Tories were given a free choice we would have an NHS or higher education for anybody other than the wealthy at all?
No offence taken. The point was that the country has moved right over the past x years (40 was mentioned). You can't argue that it hasn't moved right because there's an NHS on it's knees when the movement to the right is WHY it's on it's knees. Yes, there would be no NHS under a Tory government where the NHS didn't already exist, but it does (at time of writing).

Same with education (and most of the other points on your list). If the argument is we need Labour to give us back the things we've had taken away, then I agree. If the argument is we need Starmer's Labour to keep things as they are right now then I disagree. We should be able to provide care and education (and a whole host of other things) without any major economic problems. If we choose not to then we fail at basic humanity.

Again on a costed manifesto, how were waspie women costed, for the second time?
The WASPI women weren't costed. For the same reasons that Covid and the War in Ukraine weren't costed by the Tories. It was something that came up after the manifesto and costings were published (I think it had been bubbling for some time but wasn' t a major talking point).

It was a bad political move to announce funding without sorting out the costing first. It was the correct moral position though and the WASPI women deserve to be treated with dignity. If that adds costs to the economy due to the inept actions of government then so be it.

As with the public sector pay rises that are being discussed now, it wouldn't be an issue if it had been dealt with properly at the correct time.

Normally it's a good idea to back a horse which can win you something, even if it might not be the 100-1 payout you want.
So why didn't this apply to Centrists in 2019? Again, why does it only ever apply to the left?

Scrote knows his stuff. You should maybe try to listen to him.
My opinion is as relevant as anyone's.
I agree with both these points. Especially Bumface's ;)
 
Back
Top