Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

[RobbieTheTruth]

Riff Raff said:

crankedup5 said:

Starmer would have held the U.K. in covid lockdown longer than Tories managed. Our debt would have been even higher under his lot.

I’m having difficulty in deciding whether that is speculation, supposition or conjecture. I think I’ll just go with bks.

As someone else said, they voted against the easing of restrictions every single time.

[Wombat3]

RobbieTheTruth said:

Riff Raff said:

crankedup5 said:

Starmer would have held the U.K. in covid lockdown longer than Tories managed. Our debt would have been even higher under his lot.

I’m having difficulty in deciding whether that is speculation, supposition or conjecture. I think I’ll just go with bks.

As someone else said, they voted against the easing of restrictions every single time.

amongst the worst of this was that it wasn't really founded on anything but opposition for opposition's sake.....which is all that has been at the heart of Labour's playbook for years.

Vacuous.

[Riff Raff]

Wombat3 said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

Riff Raff said:

crankedup5 said:

Starmer would have held the U.K. in covid lockdown longer than Tories managed. Our debt would have been even higher under his lot.

I’m having difficulty in deciding whether that is speculation, supposition or conjecture. I think I’ll just go with bks.

As someone else said, they voted against the easing of restrictions every single time.

amongst the worst of this was that it wasn't really founded on anything but opposition for opposition's sake.....which is all that has been at the heart of Labour's playbook for years.

Vacuous.

OK. Humour me. Cranked made his statement without speculating, supposing or using conjecture. So it's a factual statement. You can prove or disprove facts.

The problem I have is that you can't prove something that didn't happen. We never had a Labour government. We do know that there were lots of wrong decisions taken early on in the pandemic - that will no doubt become clear as the Covid Inquiry progresses. Who is to say that a Labour government would have made the same mistakes? If the first lockdown had happened sooner, who can say if it would have lasted as long? Would a Labour government have got test and trace to work? Would that have impacted the timing and extent of the second lockdown? Would they have implemented a half baked, open to fraud, income support scheme that has cost the country a shed load of money? Would they have lined the pockets of their cronies via dodgy procurement deals? Would we overall have been worse or better off?

I don't know. Neither do you. You can suppose all you like, but that's all it is. Supposition. Which I don't have a problem with. Until you start labelling it as fact.

[2xChevrons]

Riff Raff said:

The problem I have is that you can't prove something that didn't happen. We never had a Labour government. We do know that there were lots of wrong decisions taken early on in the pandemic - that will no doubt become clear as the Covid Inquiry progresses. Who is to say that a Labour government would have made the same mistakes? If the first lockdown had happened sooner, who can say if it would have lasted as long? Would a Labour government have got test and trace to work? Would that have impacted the timing and extent of the second lockdown?

In the brief time that the pandemic was in play and Corbyn was Labour leader, Labour's initial stance on the matter was that border controls needed to be more stringent and proactive (inc. quarantine and testing for those coming in from affected regions) and that a functional track/trace/alert system was needed with meaningful support (financial and material) for those pinged by it so they could self-isolate and weren't pressured into going to work or the shops. The idea being to keep the transmission of the virus to a minimum and to keep the need to isolate and restrict movement/activities to those actually with Covid or in close contact with it.

As things progressed and the government's ability to prevent the initial spread of Covid diminished, the stance shifted to the wider, more severe measures and the when Starter took over it became the familiar "same policy as already happening but more, longer and stricter."

[turbobloke]

2xChevrons said:

Riff Raff said:

The problem I have is that you can't prove something that didn't happen. We never had a Labour government. We do know that there were lots of wrong decisions taken early on in the pandemic - that will no doubt become clear as the Covid Inquiry progresses. Who is to say that a Labour government would have made the same mistakes? If the first lockdown had happened sooner, who can say if it would have lasted as long? Would a Labour government have got test and trace to work? Would that have impacted the timing and extent of the second lockdown?

In the brief time that the pandemic was in play and Corbyn was Labour leader, Labour's initial stance on the matter was that border controls needed to be more stringent and proactive (inc. quarantine and testing for those coming in from affected regions) and that a functional track/trace/alert system was needed with meaningful support (financial and material) for those pinged by it so they could self-isolate and weren't pressured into going to work or the shops. The idea being to keep the transmission of the virus to a minimum and to keep the need to isolate and restrict movement/activities to those actually with Covid or in close contact with it.

As things progressed and the government's ability to prevent the initial spread of Covid diminished, the stance shifted to the wider, more severe measures and the when Starter took over it became the familiar "same policy as already happening but more, longer and stricter."

Good points, and I won't dwell on a typo...as that should be non-Starter.

[anonymoususer]

It's no coincidence that this is page 666
For those that don't know it is the sign of the beast
Satanic circles are circling and it wouldn't surprise me to find that some members of the shadow cabinet have satanic leanings and are actually very evil people.

[Riff Raff]

anonymoususer said:

It's no coincidence that this is page 666
For those that don't know it is the sign of the beast
Satanic circles are circling and it wouldn't surprise me to find that some members of the shadow cabinet have satanic leanings and are actually very evil people.

Well, change your page length and it will be 333. Which solves the problem.

[SpeckledJim]

Just wait a day or two and we’ll be on 668. Which is the neighbour of the beast.

[Murph7355]

Riff Raff said:

Well, change your page length and it will be 333. Which solves the problem.

If only political solutions were really that simple.

[Vanden Saab]

Keir now saying 99 9% of women do not have a Penis, nearly off the fence then keir. So close and yet so far.

[anonymoususer]

Vanden Saab said:

Keir now saying 99 9% of women do not have a Penis, nearly off the fence then keir. So close and yet so far.

I am concerned that the 0.01% is that Sue Gray and it's a honeytrap

[ZedLeg]

Just playing into that "what is a woman" game is pretty embarrassing for him. Does really seem to be determined to disassociate himself from any progressive politics.

[swisstoni]

Riff Raff said:

Wombat3 said:

RobbieTheTruth said:

Riff Raff said:

crankedup5 said:

Starmer would have held the U.K. in covid lockdown longer than Tories managed. Our debt would have been even higher under his lot.

I’m having difficulty in deciding whether that is speculation, supposition or conjecture. I think I’ll just go with bks.

As someone else said, they voted against the easing of restrictions every single time.

amongst the worst of this was that it wasn't really founded on anything but opposition for opposition's sake.....which is all that has been at the heart of Labour's playbook for years.

Vacuous.

OK. Humour me. Cranked made his statement without speculating, supposing or using conjecture. So it's a factual statement. You can prove or disprove facts.

The problem I have is that you can't prove something that didn't happen. We never had a Labour government. We do know that there were lots of wrong decisions taken early on in the pandemic - that will no doubt become clear as the Covid Inquiry progresses. Who is to say that a Labour government would have made the same mistakes? If the first lockdown had happened sooner, who can say if it would have lasted as long? Would a Labour government have got test and trace to work? Would that have impacted the timing and extent of the second lockdown? Would they have implemented a half baked, open to fraud, income support scheme that has cost the country a shed load of money? Would they have lined the pockets of their cronies via dodgy procurement deals? Would we overall have been worse or better off?

I don't know. Neither do you. You can suppose all you like, but that's all it is. Supposition. Which I don't have a problem with. Until you start labelling it as fact.

Here’s a fact; Starmer was all about the EU vaccine development effort and criticised the UK’s decision to go it alone.

The same EU who initially rubbished the UK developed vaccine but then threatened legal action to get hold of it.

[williamp]

The problem with Starmer and labour is that they oppose everything without stopping to think..

..apart from all the controls realting to Covid, where they went along with everything without stopping to think.

..and now Kier thinks one woman in every thousand has a penis.

[AstonZagato]

ZedLeg said:

Just playing into that "what is a woman" game is pretty embarrassing for him. Does really seem to be determined to disassociate himself from any progressive politics.

Article in the Times today saying that Labour strategists have decided Starmer has to win over "Stevenage Woman" in order to win the next election. This is a catch-all descriptor for "socially conservative mother[s] working full time but struggling with the cost of living and disillusioned by politics". I suspect that this archetype has a strong view on what constitutes a woman. Expect therefore to hear less progressive stuff in the future.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-sir-keir...

[2xChevrons]

williamp said:

The problem with Starmer and labour is that they oppose everything without stopping to think..

..apart from all the controls realting to Covid, where they went along with everything without stopping to think.

..and now Kier thinks one woman in every thousand has a penis.

That last one is typical of Starmer's crippling inability to actually hold a position based on principle rather than electoral and factional posturing.

The black/white version of the gender identity debate is: On one side is the idea that man/woman are terms for gender and male/female are terms for sex, that gender is a social construct and can be adopted as a matter of personal identity, ergo women can have penises. The other end is that gender and sex are synonyms, men are male and women are female. There is grey area between those views that people can adopt (that, say, a man can't take on the social identity and privileges of a woman just by declaring themselves to be one but can do after a certain level of hormone therapy, surgery etc., for instance).

By plugging for the 99.9% figure Starmer has managed to ps off virtually everyone - rather like the Brexit policy he agitated for in 2019. The biological essentialists/gender critics won't be happy with the notion that any percentage of women can have a penis, while the trans rights/pro-LGBT side will see it as essentially throwing trans people under the bus. And for both viewpoints it raises the obvious question of "who makes up the 0.1% of people who do have a penis but you consider to be women, Sir Keir? If it's not a matter of simplistic biology or free individual identity, where do you draw the line?"

Answering that question (which he entirely begged himself) would force SKS to actually commit to a position. You can just imagine the furrowed brow, the blinking, the "Let me be perfectly clear..." leading into a load of meaningless waffle if he was ever actually asked that question. You have to wonder how
he ever made it as a barrister if he keeps setting his own traps.

More broadly, I'm not sure Labour really did or does ever 'oppose for opposition's sake'. This morning Keir was doing the rounds on LBC and backing the government's plans to house migrants in camps on military bases, refused to nationalise the water supply because it was unaffordable, urged the teachers to accept the government's pay offer and refused to commit to any pay increase for junior doctors. Just in one hour on one morning radio phone in. More broadly, his entire leadership (once the pledges that won him that position had been ditched, at least) has been characterised by criticising only the competence of the Conservatives, not their actual positions.

We're really into John Jackson v. Jack Johnson territory:

"Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!"

Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 3rd April 11:52

[Murph7355]

2xChevrons said:

That last one is typical of Starmer's crippling inability to actually hold a position based on principle rather than electoral and factional posturing.
...

Much as I ever can, I actually feel sorry for him and other politicians on this topic.

As you note, it's pretty divisive at each end of the spectrum, and the deliciousness socially is that mutual exclusivity comes into play.

With our broken political system, based upon two camps of thinking, party leaders end up in this predicament and tie themselves in knots....much like those arguing for social "rights" do on this topic and others. Whose rights trump whose?

[Hants PHer]

2xChevrons said:

<edited for brevity>
This morning Keir was doing the rounds on LBC and backing the government's plans to house migrants in camps on military bases, refused to nationalise the water supply because it was unaffordable, urged the teachers to accept the government's pay offer and refused to commit to any pay increase for junior doctors. Just in one hour on one morning radio phone in. More broadly, his entire leadership (once the pledges that won him that position had been ditched, at least) has been characterised by criticising only the competence of the Conservatives, not their actual positions.

I too listened to "Call Keir" on Nick Ferrari's LBC show this morning, All of what you report is true, and I was struck by two things:

1) how SKS appeared to endorse current Conservative policies (as you say). This leads him into confused positions - for example he said that he opposed privatisation of the NHS but then advocated using private healthcare to reduce NHS waiting lists.

2) he is desperate not to upset anyone, nor admit to any changes of mind. He said that Jeremy Corbyn had never been a friend, despite having described Corbyn as a friend and colleague in 2020. Why not just say "I once regarded him as a friend, but now I don't, because of XYZ"?

I suppose those are the knots he ties himself in when he doesn't appear to have any strong principles in the first place. He does seem to be a very decent person (unlike Boris) but a leader with a clear vision and strategic plans to deliver that vision?

[AstonZagato]

Hants PHer said:

..snip...

I suppose those are the knots he ties himself in when he doesn't appear to have any strong principles in the first place. He does seem to be a very decent person (unlike Boris) but a leader with a clear vision and strategic plans to deliver that vision?

I'm not sure he's morally that different to Boris. I suspect he is just rather better at hiding his naked ambition and lack of principles.

[turbobloke]

AstonZagato said:

Hants PHer said:

..snip...

I suppose those are the knots he ties himself in when he doesn't appear to have any strong principles in the first place. He does seem to be a very decent person (unlike Boris) but a leader with a clear vision and strategic plans to deliver that vision?

I'm not sure he's morally that different to Boris. I suspect he is just rather better at hiding his naked ambition and lack of principles.

They're both politicians, not male incarnations of Mother Theresa.

John Major's grey suits and peas gave way to a spicy curry. Wedgie Benn embraced tax avoidance after all.

It's like watching Stingray decades ago, anything can happen in the next half hour...as per a week in politics (a long time).