Starmer ditches his 10 Pledges

SuperStu

Well-known member
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

But it's not because of "Corbyn luvvies" (?) is it? Starmer's the one who's decided to try and change the leadership rules so that MPs get more say and members get less. So the infighting happening now has been caused by him.

Again, he must be planning to leave. I can't see any other reason leadership election rules would be such a priority.
 

MolteniArcore

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

I doubt the majority of Labour supports will act on my speaking metaphorically on here. The fact is Starmer will call their bluff and ultimately the majority of the Unions and the majority of the hard left of the party will vote for Labour as anything else is voting Tory.
 

MolteniArcore

Well-known member
But it's not because of "Corbyn luvvies" (?) is it? Starmer's the one who's decided to try and change the leadership rules so that MPs get more say and members get less. So the infighting happening now has been caused by him.

Again, he must be planning to leave. I can't see any other reason leadership election rules would be such a priority.

The infighting hasn't just started this week, it's been there for the last 18 months.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
I doubt the majority of Labour supports will act on my speaking metaphorically on here.

Of course they won't, I'm not saying they will. I just think it's a good demonstration of a really odd mindset some people seem to have. Where they're knocking about referring to people as a disease while at the same time they're convinced that they themselves are "moderate".

The fact is Starmer will call their bluff and ultimately the majority of the Unions and the majority of the hard left of the party will vote for Labour as anything else is voting Tory.

I don't think they will. I realise that's worked for Labour in the past but I think times have changed too much. The internets a game changer. People feeling disenchanted with Labour can now so easily make contact with likeminded people I don't think they'll feel the same pressure to just back down and go along with whatever's offered.

My guess is Labour's votes will drop at the next election. The party will be reliant on the tories vote dropping even more.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
The infighting hasn't just started this week, it's been there for the last 18 months.

Only 18 months? Been going for about a century hasn't it?

Irrespective of what's been going on for 18 months, it was Starmer's decision to start a fight over internal processes days before conference. He can't palm that off to Corbyn or anyone else. He's the one putting an internal process on the agenda this weekend.
 

newyddion

Well-known member
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.
Yeah, rolling back corporation tax to 2010 levels was seen as pretty extreme and marxist and terrorist and anti semitic

1632405476273.png
British Railways had been in state ownership since 1948 it only begun being privatised in 1994 as it was deemed "a privatisation too far" by Thatcher herself.

Jeremy Corbyn far from being a raving loony backed only by Trots, Rabble, Dogs, Cranks, Nazi Stormtroopers, Thugs, Antisemites, Bullies, Cultists & Terrorist sympathisers was actually.. well quite conservative.
 

BlindBoyGrunt

Well-known member
The infighting hasn't just started this week, it's been there for the last 18 months.
Just 18 months? It wasn't there when actual Labour MP's and the NEC were conspiring to lose the 17 election and celebrating when he lost? I'm not talking about supporters here, but actual sitting MP's
 

jonny_greenings_sock

Well-known member
I agree with everyone’s views here that Starmer’s not made a hell of an impression and that this conference statement is weak.

But does anyone honestly think that Keir Starmer, a man who was knighted because he was so good at his last job and is a totally decent human being, would be worse at running a government than Boris F***ing Johnson, the prince of privilege, corruption and lies, with 160,000 deaths on his hands from the last two years? Honestly?

Sometimes it’s a question of competence, not ideology, and the Conservative party at the minute are beyond a shambles.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
Yeah, rolling back corporation tax to 2010 levels was seen as pretty extreme and marxist and terrorist and anti semitic

View attachment 24871
British Railways had been in state ownership since 1948 it only begun being privatised in 1994 as it was deemed "a privatisation too far" by Thatcher herself.

Jeremy Corbyn far from being a raving loony backed only by Trots, Rabble, Dogs, Cranks, Nazi Stormtroopers, Thugs, Antisemites, Bullies, Cultists & Terrorist sympathisers was actually.. well quite conservative.
I'd like to think that Major today realises what a monumental FU he made with the railways.
 

MolteniArcore

Well-known member
He may be better at running a government (we'll never know) but the debate is about what kind of government.

I think we should get him into Government on the first place and then the infighting can resume over policy. Much better than having Johnson run it into the ground eh?
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
But does anyone honestly think that Keir Starmer, a man who was knighted because he was so good at his last job and is a totally decent human being, would be worse at running a government than Boris F***ing Johnson, the prince of privilege, corruption and lies, with 160,000 deaths on his hands from the last two years? Honestly?

The trouble with this is Starmer has refused to ever tell us where he'd do something differently to Boris re: covid.

"I don't just want children back at school, I expect it" etc.

So I can't honestly say I'd bet on him having a massively different death toll to Boris.
 

jonny_greenings_sock

Well-known member
The trouble with this is Starmer has refused to ever tell us where he'd do something differently to Boris re: covid.

"I don't just want children back at school, I expect it" etc.

So I can't honestly say I'd bet on him having a massively different death toll to Boris.
He did call a few lockdowns a few weeks in advance, to be fair.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
I think Starmer wants out.

The rule changes for leadership elections he's bringing to Labour conference this weekend. Why would you do that if your intention/plan/assumption is that you'll stay on as leader for the next 7-12 years (2 years until a general election, which you'd plan to win and then a term or two as PM). What's the big rush? Why is this worth picking yet another fight with the membership? Why is this worth plastering Corbyn's name all over the media? It could only be if you're expecting a leadership election in the near future.

So then what's the point of an 11,500 word essay you may ask? Reputation/legacy management. He won't want to skuttle off mocked as a cowardly loser who didn't dare go to the polls. He's trying to position himself as a schorlarly wise old owl IMO. Hence the essay having no actual policies - that makes it timeless. It's the old quote about going from rising hope to elder statesman with no interim.

Why would he want out you may ask? Cause he's sh*t at this says I. Looking at his career he's probably never felt sh*t at something before. I bet he never expected to be sh*t at this. But here we are. The members are leaving. The party is skint. He's stuck in a weird trap with party discipline where his cronies are constantly alleging that Jewish Labour members are antisemitic. Because of the parliamentary arithmetic he had no chance of forming a government back when he was polling well. But now he's been polling badly for nearly a year. Why wouldn't he want out?

Seen quite a few journos just now saying Starmer is preparing his exit and the leadership rules change is being pursued with the intention of installing Wes Streeting.
 

Trug

Well-known member
The trouble with this is Starmer has refused to ever tell us where he'd do something differently to Boris re: covid.

"I don't just want children back at school, I expect it" etc.

So I can't honestly say I'd bet on him having a massively different death toll to Boris.
PPE contracts would not have gone to mates for a start, they would have gone to UK companies that were ready to manufacture the PPE, having disrupted their own businesses to help out so enabling care homes and NHS staff to be properly protected. The Indian variant would not have been allowed into the country. The Madrid match with Liverpool would not have gone ahead nor would the Cheltenham festival, allowing 100,000 people to mix together- all before Johnson allowed the first lockdown. There would have no "Eat out to help out" scheme.
 

SuperStu

Well-known member
PPE contracts would not have gone to mates for a start, they would have gone to UK companies that were ready to manufacture the PPE, having disrupted their own businesses to help out so enabling care homes and NHS staff to be properly protected.

Perhaps. (y)

The Indian variant would not have been allowed into the country.

Not sure about that. Couldn't see a hypothetical Starmer gov being more ruthless than the tories about borders.

The Madrid match with Liverpool would not have gone ahead nor would the Cheltenham festival, allowing 100,000 people to mix together- all before Johnson allowed the first lockdown.

Interesting that one. Corbyn was still Labour leader until April. He and McDonnell really harangued the tories in to lockdown one and the furlow scheme. Obviously we can't know what a Starmer gov would have done at the time, but a Starmer style "we will support whatever actions the government chooses to take" opposition 1 or 2 months earlier could have made the crisis even worse.

There would have no "Eat out to help out" scheme.

Yeah probably fair.
 
Last edited:

r00fie1

Well-known member
I doubt the majority of Labour supports will act on my speaking metaphorically on here. The fact is Starmer will call their bluff and ultimately the majority of the Unions and the majority of the hard left of the party will vote for Labour as anything else is voting Tory.
"Hard left" ?
 

Johnny Vincents Motorbike

Well-known member
Just thinking: when Corbyn was the Labour leader, he managed to force Cameron into U-turns on tax credits in 2016, and later on £4bn in cuts to disabled people's personal independence payments. Whereas Starmer has not only failed to force the Government to change its mind on universal credit, the triple lock or national insurance rises, he's also failed to effectively campaign about these issues.
So instead of removing the whip from Corbyn, perhaps Starmer might be better off ringing him for some advice.


©️Mark Brown




nothing 'hard left' in those Corbyn policies - just defending the interests of the british people - middle ground i would call that.
 
Top
X