Keir Starmer - FoM now a red-line

SuperStu said:
Well I suppose that just backs up what I was saying about peoples view of "what is" being different. I don't see how you could possibly disagree that we've moved to the right. There's been a continuous movement of industries from nationalised to privatised and we're approaching the point where there's not a lot left to go.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure ownership of industries makes the difference in terms of left v right, I’m more looking at over the last 40 years irrespective of government-

workers rights - holidays, paternity, maternity etc much improved

government spending - massively increased

NHS spend - increased

state pensions triple lock - is an improvement

personal taxation at a 40 year high, company taxes increasing

lot of state schools rebuilt or newly established

loan system so everybody can access university education if they choose

These are just a few, off the top of my head, a right wing country would not have had any of the above.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
"...this potential coalition however had the demand that a strong remain candidate be installed as the leader of said coalition and would become temporary PM until Brexit was negotiated."

The coalition was Corbyn's proposal, he contacted leaders of the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Green party and Tory rebels, "outlining his plan to oust the government through a vote of no confidence and form a “strictly time-limited”, caretaker government to prevent a no-deal Brexit."

As the leader of the main opposition and proposer of the move, the task was his, but those who were against Corbyn couldn't let that happen, regardless of how damaging it would be to the country.
Click to expand...

Coalition's are about compromise, he refused to compromise. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant, he could've agreed and help nominate a temporary coalition leader but didn't.

Regardless of how you try and frame it, it was a choice.

Again and hopefully for the last time, there was an *option* to avoid an election and the obvious Tory trap but it was not taken, this lead to the SNP and Lib Dems bypassing Labour in pushing for a General Election which was my original point in response to an earlier post.
 
SuperStu said:
Aha. Glad we're (all?) in agreement that this is what ultimately happened now. Not sure why it's important to clarify totally different things that happened before the election but yes fair enough. (y)
Click to expand...

Because context is always important, you tried to absolve Labour of their part in the reasons that ultimately forced a General Election that the Tories desperately wanted.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Coalition's are about compromise, he refused to compromise. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant, he could've agreed and help nominate a temporary coalition leader but didn't.
Click to expand...

Come on don't be naive. Anyone Corbyn would nominate wouldn't have been acceptable to Swinson. And the Lib Dem leader overruling the democratic decision of the Labour party membership would be outrageous.

At that point it clearly wasn't about negotiating a coalition. Just about getting rid of Corbyn/the left by hook or by crook.
 
There is still a very tight line to walk on matters of immigration, controlled or otherwise.

The volume of voters that voted to leave the EU lent votes to tories and eventually found them selves shafted from every angle including immigration. If Labour cannot draw their vote back then you have Farage on the sidelines again readying himself to relaunch UKIP for gullible or ill-advised old racists, to 'take back control' of our borders.

It's going to take a while yet for the generation where racism is most prevalent to fade away.

At that point the 🐘 of brexit can be unwound, and we can negotiate proper free trade access to our closest and biggest trade partner. It makes sense for all parties.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Coalition's are about compromise, he refused to compromise. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant, he could've agreed and help nominate a temporary coalition leader but didn't.
Click to expand...
From Barry Gardiner in The Guardian at the time:

"The natural constitutional process was that the leader of the opposition was called on by the Queen to lead a new government when an old one failed. If Jo Swinson wants to propel Her Majesty into a constitutional crisis where, instead of inviting the leader of the opposition to form a new government, she invites somebody else who is not the leader of a political party, then that would be forcing the monarchy into a very embarrassing and difficult judgment call that they would have to make.”

Why on earth should Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of HM's opposition and the architect of the no confidence vote, be expected to compromise when Chuka Umunna and Jo Swinson, the deluded fool who had convinced herself that she was running for No.10 wouldn't?
Remember that this was only ever going to be a temporary arrangement but the wish to deliver the best brexit for the British people was secondary to them. There first priority was to damage Corbyn. That's why his lot and five of her lot voted down a Customs Union which lost by only three votes.

I agree with part of your point though; somebody had to compromise.
 
Boroboyyo said:
It’s not even demographics, it’s more the fact we’re the smallest in terms of land mass compared to Italy , France , Germany

Yet our population is predicted to reach 75 million . That is more mouths to feed, more pollution and more housing needed to build on green land

70% of our country is farmland , 10% urban and the rest Green land . Which one is going to be reduced to cope with the population increase . Not the first two
Click to expand...
Not the point I was making.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Coalition's are about compromise, he refused to compromise.
Click to expand...

BlindBoyGrunt said:
I agree with part of your point though; somebody had to compromise.
Click to expand...

Which is where the question I asked about why the Left are always the ones that have to compromise came from.

If one side always has to capitulate then it's not a compromise. It's a victory for the other party.

Corbyn couldn't politically survive if he made way for Ken Clarke (or anyone else). That was the calculation from the centrists. Any reading of the situation that ignores that reality is not being made in good faith.

Brexit concerns were secondary to removing Corbyn. Which is why Starmer can so easily drop all pretence at caring. He never did.
 
Last edited:
HolgateCorner said:
NHS spend - increased

loan system so everybody can access university education if they choose

a right wing country would not have had any of the above.
Click to expand...

NHS spend is a lot less per capita and has been on a year by year basis which means just to break even with 25 years ago the amount needs to be massively increased.

University access was free 25 years ago.

Just two of those points. There's problems with the others but I'm sure you know that already...
 
Scrote said:
NHS spend is a lot less per capita and has been on a year by year basis which means just to break even with 25 years ago the amount needs to be massively increased.

University access was free 25 years ago.

Just two of those points. There's problems with the others but I'm sure you know that already...
Click to expand...
The university point was the one that made me giggle out of that list. Yeah. It's way better now that people have to get in to debt if they want to go to university and they don't have rich parents. It was terrible that I got a grant and didn't have to pay back a load of student loans. It's much fairer now.
 
Scrote said:
Just two of those points. There's problems with the others but I'm sure you know that already...
Click to expand...

You're right there. Workers rights improved 👀 is he for real? The restrictions on trade unions are brutal now.

HolgateCorner said:
personal taxation at a 40 year high
Click to expand...

But not progressive. The top rate of income tax in 1979 was 83%. The top rate of tax on investment income was 98%!
 
Laughing said:
Well his policies were all over the place...
Click to expand...
There was very clear manifesto with everything costed (apart from the WASPI pensions which came later. I agree that was a mistake politically, but it was definitely the correct call from a moral point of view).

Laughing said:
He wasn't strong enough to contain the infighting in his own party...
Click to expand...
Had Corbyn controlled the infighting what would you be saying now? That he was overly-authoritarian. He couldn't win playing that game and didn't want to anyway. This is the fundamental problem. If 'good' people are unelectable because of their goodness' how do we take the system out of the hands of the psychopaths?

Laughing said:
He wasn't strong enough to apologise for anti semitism in the party, also a fact. It doesn't matter how much or how deep that went.
Click to expand...
He was strong enough not to capitulate in the face of manufactured outrage.

Of course it matters how much and how deep it went. Especially when it didn't exist (statistically).

If you've read the Forde Report and watched the Al Jazeera documentary and checked all the other freely available sources of information, you'd know that the 'antismitism crisis in the Labour Party' just wasn't a thing. Even more so that it wasn't a thing that could be in any way tied to Corbyn. The level of antisemitism actually uncovered (in one of the most forensic political investigations we've had) was a tiny fraction of the UK average per capita (based on the Governments "Anti-Semitism in the UK" report). It was also vastly lower than the incidents reported against Tory members/supporters - not that it should matter as any is unacceptable. Pushing the lie that Corbyn enabled antisemitism would be libellous if it wasn't for the fact the UK legal authorities have already ruled that because the libel is so widely spread it can no longer be counted. Read into that whatever you will...
 
Scrote said:
There was very clear manifesto with everything costed (apart from the WASPI pensions which came later. I agree that was a mistake politically, but it was definitely the correct call from a moral point of view).


Had Corbyn controlled the infighting what would you be saying now? That he was overly-authoritarian. He couldn't win playing that game and didn't want to anyway. This is the fundamental problem. If 'good' people are unelectable because of their goodness' how do we take the system out of the hands of the psychopaths?


He was strong enough not to capitulate in the face of manufactured outrage.

Of course it matters how much and how deep it went. Especially when it didn't exist (statistically).

If you've read the Forde Report and watched the Al Jazeera documentary and checked all the other freely available sources of information, you'd know that the 'antismitism crisis in the Labour Party' just wasn't a thing. Even more so that it wasn't a thing that could be in any way tied to Corbyn. The level of antisemitism actually uncovered (in one of the most forensic political investigations we've had) was a tiny fraction of the UK average per capita (based on the Governments "Anti-Semitism in the UK" report). It was also vastly lower than the incidents reported against Tory members/supporters - not that it should matter as any is unacceptable. Pushing the lie that Corbyn enabled antisemitism would be libellous if it wasn't for the fact the UK legal authorities have already ruled that because the libel is so widely spread it can no longer be counted. Read into that whatever you will...
Click to expand...
Had he ousted his detractors I wouldn't have said he was authoritarian. I would have said he was a strong leader. I am not sure I would agree with his actions, but that wasn't your question.

Again on a costed manifesto, how were waspie women costed, for the second time?

I think I am done here lads it's going round and round. Enjoy your Friday fellas and welcome to the weekend
 
Scrote said:
NHS spend is a lot less per capita and has been on a year by year basis which means just to break even with 25 years ago the amount needs to be massively increased.

University access was free 25 years ago.

Just two of those points. There's problems with the others but I'm sure you know that already...
Click to expand...
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 chance.

Can you wake up please?
 
SuperStu said:
You're right there. Workers rights improved 👀 is he for real? The restrictions on trade unions are brutal now.



But not progressive. The top rate of income tax in 1979 was 83%. The top rate of tax on investment income was 98%!
Click to expand...
Workers rights are different to trade Union rights, not everybody is in a union.

A right wing country would have very low taxation and minimal public spend.

You are arguing about the detail of it, I’m talking about the overall principles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top