Starmer ditches his 10 Pledges

Billy Horner

Well-known member
At least 5/6 of those principles could (and probably have at some point) feature in a Tory election manifesto. Also, blinding piece of politics to not even mention climate change, giving up that entire ground (and votes) to the Greens.

I don’t buy this “win back the Blair voters” argument as a feasible path to victory. That was 20 years ago and they’re all in or nearing retirement now. You don’t win them back by making bland platitudes about “hard working families”.

There’s a generation (or 2 now) who can’t get decent, secure jobs despite being graduates, can’t get on the housing ladder, are discriminated against in the welfare system and are being told they’ll have to work until they’re 80. They see a system currently that works entirely against their interests whilst nothing is done about the one thing they all care about, climate change.

The LP needs to speak directly to them and provide them with an alternative vision for their futures. Then it needs to speak to their parents and grandparents and explain that the LP doesn’t expect them to pay for it all.
 

Wiseman_Vaughn

Well-known member
It's largely in the way you sell it too. Many of Corbyn's policies were completely acceptable in fact favourable to the public, even more so Millibands policies.

What Blair managed to do was get the message across well. Simple, some cheap slogans, some good PR, a dash of spin, and persistently highlight the utter corruption of the sitting government. It was Tory sleeze and a moderate Labour that got the Tories out for a decade and it's what we need now.
We've been here before re: Blair.

He captured the moment perfectly. The feel good factor around that time was tangible. On top of that Blair had Charisma and was backed up by Brown who was seen as a brilliant chancellor. Blair also had radical new ideas and policies - He also had a brilliant strategic team behind him. The stars aligned for TB.
 

Nero

Well-known member
Scrapping neoliberalism has to be a priority. The Conservative Party has ripped off the people of this country for long enough.
 

bear66

Well-known member
"The role of government is to be a partner with private enterprise"

He's going to struggle to argue against private companies becoming a part of the NHS decision making process with that one.

This is the real problem with these principles. Virtually all of them could be written by Johnson and just as he had 'forensic' thrown back at him from the 10 pledges, everyone of the principles will be used against him if he attempts to challenge any government policy.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
We've been here before re: Blair.

He captured the moment perfectly. The feel good factor around that time was tangible. On top of that Blair had Charisma and was backed up by Brown who was seen as a brilliant chancellor. Blair also had radical new ideas and policies - He also had a brilliant strategic team behind him. The stars aligned for TB.
They did, he was also extremely good at what he did. He was more charismatic than Starmer. But I'm not sure charisma is what we need right ow. And yes the mood was one that the country was totally ready for change. I think we are nearing that point again. For poll tax protests and riots in London and Liverpool see protests for 'freedom' and trouble brewing in most regional towns and cities. The zeitgeist is certainly darker today, and more fractured than it was then, but it's approaching as anti-tory as it was in the early to mid 90s
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
"The role of government is to be a partner with private enterprise"

He's going to struggle to argue against private companies becoming a part of the NHS decision making process with that one.
sorry but you can't look at one principle on it's own without misinterpreting them like that. They are a hollistic set of principles when you look at this one with the one about not surrendering to market forces, then clearly it's about balance something like the NHS. Yes let private enterprise win cleaning contracts, but not surrendering to market forces means that core services such as health cannot be sold off because it will break that other rule.
 
Last edited:

Wiseman_Vaughn

Well-known member
They did, he was also extremely good at what he did. He was more charismatic than Starmer. But I'm not sure charisma is what we need right ow. And yes the mood was one that the country was totally ready for change. I think we are nearing that point again. For poll tax protests and riots in London and Liverpool see protests for 'freedom' and trouble brewing in most regional towns and cities. The zeitgeist is certainly darker today, and more fractured than it was then, but it's approaching as anti-tory as it was in the early to mid 90s
Labour could do a lot worse than TB being in charge right now. Unfortunately he is tainted with the Iraq war
 

bear66

Well-known member
sorry but you can't look at one principle on it's own without misinterpreting them like that. They are a hollistic set of principles when you look at this one with the one about not surrendering to market forces, then clearly it's about balance something like the NHS. Yes let private enterprise win cleaning contracts, but not surrendering to market forces means that core services such as health cannot be sold off because it will break that other rule.
Shame he's given Johnson such an easy ride then.

The market forces statement is about 'the economy'.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
Shame he's given Johnson such an easy ride then.

The market forces statement is about 'the economy'.
If Johnson has had an easy ride, it's because the press have been bought, and westminister principles have been torn up. the controls over good governance have been tested and failed.

not surrendering to market forces is about not letting market forces decide what services should be delivered, i.e. not pushing everything out to the private sector and letting 'market forces' create the best services. It doesn't work in many areas like healthcare, we've seen this around the world. It's very much about deciding what is in the private space and what is in the public space and not subject to 'market forces'
 

bear66

Well-known member
not surrendering to market forces is about not letting market forces decide what services should be delivered, i.e. not pushing everything out to the private sector and letting 'market forces' create the best services. It doesn't work in many areas like healthcare, we've seen this around the world. It's very much about deciding what is in the private space and what is in the public space and not subject to 'market forces'
He could have said that. He didn't. He equated partnership to government (public services).

He equated not surrendering to market forces with the economy. That could mean nationalisation, which I don't think is on his agenda. It probably means minimum wage etc.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
He could have said that. He didn't. He equated partnership to government (public services).

He equated not surrendering to market forces with the economy. That could mean nationalisation, which I don't think is on his agenda. It probably means minimum wage etc.
I think it is both those things. It's a generic anti-neo-capitalist statement. So it covers both your view and mine. Not selling off nationalised services (and probably looking at bringing failing privatised services back under government ownership), AND not allowing corporates to drive wages down. It's a macro and micro view of economics not specifically one or the other.
 

newyddion

Well-known member
Starmer wants rid of the hard lefties - to get into power he needs to capture most the ground that Blair did and this is impossible with the hard left.

He's taking a page from Johnson's playbook - don't back down - he'll chop off the diseased part of the party that is stopping Labour becoming electable or get outed trying.

And if you haven't worked it out yet, he's chopping off the Corbyn luvvies who despite what they say will never change their mind or compromise on their direction or policies.

Labour need to be in power. No matter what they come up with it will be better than what Johnson is doing. But again, the Corbynites would rather remain in opposition, in fight and stand by their principles whilst the country goes to the dogs.
the thing is most people want 'hard left' policies - they just wont vote for someone actively speaking out against them. 'better the devil you know' so to speak

people have cottoned on to this 'new labour' and would rather vote for a wolf rather than one in sheep's clothing.

Lets not forget that Tony Blair got in off the back of John Smith, he's popularity started waning and eventually Gordon Brown was ousted on the back of a very left of centre lib dem manifesto.. more so than what labour were offering up. Labour made up a MASSIVE amount of ground in 2017 despite a mainstream media smear campaign aimed at Corbyn and right wing MPs from his own party trying to oust him and undermine him at every opportunity. Just think of what they could have done if they had backed their members and actual labour policies and principles. Labour were hit hard in 2019 over Brexit MPs saying they would actively campaign against leaving the EU despite their constituents voting heavily to leave. Keir Starmer even went so far to paint Labour as 'the party of remain'

Now where are we? Sir Keir Starmer the man the Conservatives were calling for to be Labour leader, the main who resigned in 2016 to undermine the leader (he himself was only voted in as an MP in 2015)


'Ode to Keith'

a grass, a snitch, a total f*cking creep,
a paper crowned lackey of the ruling elite
you're a Thatcherite, you talk *****, make me out as an anti Semite..
how do you sleep at night?
you're a sell out, a lemon, a busted flush,
you're the Kengate tapes and the big hush hush
you're a pain, a main vain, you're just a f*cking tory who talks like Michael Cain
"don't you throw those bloody spears at me" you blew the doors off,
you blew off another offshore toff to get your nose in the trough,
cheering for the opposition before kick off,
at best a self harmer, no Barack Obama, you're sheer drama
and a peer palmer you've retrained as a fear farmer,
a scab, a black leg, a waggy finger with fifty thousand dead
i've had enough, i'm out, f*ck you Starmer
 

bear66

Well-known member
I think it is both those things. It's a generic anti-neo-capitalist statement. So it covers both your view and mine. Not selling off nationalised services (and probably looking at bringing failing privatised services back under government ownership), AND not allowing corporates to drive wages down. It's a macro and micro view of economics not specifically one or the other.
It should be but it's an open goal to the Tories to throw his words back at him. I'll have to read the 40 odd pages to see if nationalisation is something he's for or the way he's showing he's different to Corbyn.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
Tony Benn - who served under Harold Wilson, the original labour centrist

Wilson may have been a centrist at the time but he'd be considered hard left within the party these days for not taking the country in to Vietnam with the US.

Na, the Unions will stay with him. As will most of the left. Only a few will go.

You were calling the left a disease two posts before this! Now it turns out the plan all rests on them still voting Labour?! 🤣

It was Tory sleeze and a moderate Labour that got the Tories out for a decade

Labour in 1997 were promising devolution, House of Lords reform and voting system reform. 3 constitutional changes. And nationalising the rails was in the manifesto. I find it very hard to imagine Starmer offering anything so bold.

Fair enough they didn't follow through with all of those, but prior to them being elected people wouldn't know that. My point is the party was "moderate" then by dropping some left wing positions and adopting some centrist/right positions. Not by Starmer's approach of offering nothing to anyone.
 

MolteniArcore

Well-known member
Now where are we?

I tell you where we are. The worst Tory Government in years in power and Labour are infighting (again) because a load of Corbyn luvvies can't get their head around the fact that they had their chance and failed.

Time to get behind the new man or leave. TBH by your lovely poem it looks like you are leaving.
 

Colin Warnek

Well-known member
At least 5/6 of those principles could (and probably have at some point) feature in a Tory election manifesto. Also, blinding piece of politics to not even mention climate change, giving up that entire ground (and votes) to the Greens.

I don’t buy this “win back the Blair voters” argument as a feasible path to victory. That was 20 years ago and they’re all in or nearing retirement now. You don’t win them back by making bland platitudes about “hard working families”.

There’s a generation (or 2 now) who can’t get decent, secure jobs despite being graduates, can’t get on the housing ladder, are discriminated against in the welfare system and are being told they’ll have to work until they’re 80. They see a system currently that works entirely against their interests whilst nothing is done about the one thing they all care about, climate change.

The LP needs to speak directly to them and provide them with an alternative vision for their futures. Then it needs to speak to their parents and grandparents and explain that the LP doesn’t expect them to pay for it all.
Most Blair voters who were there in 97 now vote Tory. Because they copied him.
 

MolteniArcore

Well-known member
It should be but it's an open goal to the Tories to throw his words back at him.

As would any Starmer policy that Labour publishes. Yet people to his left keep asking for them as they are not sure what he represents.

This seems to be a half way house at least.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
the thing is most people want 'hard left' policies - they just wont vote for someone actively speaking out against them. 'better the devil you know' so to speak
I think that most people at election get convinced to conflate moderate left policies with hard ones.

Did Corbyn have anything that was really bordering on full on socialism or communism? He didn't want to remove citizen ownership of property for example, he did want to bring some rail networks and franchises under government control.....considering how disenfranchised people are with trains, and how many countries that are not far left own their rail networks, then it's nothing but moderate left, if left at all. I'd say Corbyns schtick was a rejection of neo-liberal capitalism (which is an extreme ideology in itself) but not a rejection of capitalism in totality.
 
Top
X