Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

[anonymoususer]

When Jonathan Ashworth comes out criticising it's going to be serious

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report is due to be published on Thursday after an 18-month investigation into claims of anti-Jewish racism in the party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

Asked if the investigation was the most shameful moment in the party’s history, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, agreed that “it probably was, yes”.

Speaking on Times Radio on Wednesday morning, Ashworth said: “A lot of this was about the fact that there was just a refusal to acknowledge the issue.

This is the chap that during the election had a jokey chat with a mate saying that they were facing a drubbing
Then started to wriggle when it was leaked
I think today may be interesting

[Garvin]

It is interesting that there is so little to talk about Starmer that Boris now dominates Starmer's thread. It is said that there is only one thing worse than being talked about . . . . . . . . .

[amusingduck]

markyb_lcy said:

Tories have had two female PMs / leaders. Ok, it’s two more than Labour, but it’s not exactly a groundbreaking difference. One of them was thrown under a bus in pretty spectacular fashion. Actually they both kind of were.

That's precisely what I like about it. Can't speak about Thatcher, but May didn't get there because of her genitals. If/when we see a BAME conservative PM, they won't have gotten there because of their skin.

I don't think Raynor would be where she is if she was a bloke. Perhaps Abbot could have as a white bloke, I hear she used to be an intelligent/impressive woman, but her shelf life wouldn't have lasted anywhere near as long as it did IMO.

[Derek Smith]

anonymoususer said:

When Jonathan Ashworth comes out criticising it's going to be serious

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report is due to be published on Thursday after an 18-month investigation into claims of anti-Jewish racism in the party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

Asked if the investigation was the most shameful moment in the party’s history, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, agreed that “it probably was, yes”.

Speaking on Times Radio on Wednesday morning, Ashworth said: “A lot of this was about the fact that there was just a refusal to acknowledge the issue.

This is the chap that during the election had a jokey chat with a mate saying that they were facing a drubbing
Then started to wriggle when it was leaked
I think today may be interesting

It's too soon from the tory point of view and very convenient from labour's. If the tories go in hard now then all Starmer's got to do is say something along the lines of, 'That was then, this is now. We have to build bridges, mend bridges, paint the trusses,' whatever. It's difficult to maintain the attack for four years. Labour can prostrate itself, or rather, throw the previous labour mob to the wolves, and come away smiling, smelling of roses, and on Starmer's christmas card have, with unconscious irony, a Menorah candelabra by the window.

They've got four years to get a significant proportion of the Jewish vote back on side. Some won't forgive, but it's doable.

[jakesmith]

Derek Smith said:

anonymoususer said:

When Jonathan Ashworth comes out criticising it's going to be serious

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report is due to be published on Thursday after an 18-month investigation into claims of anti-Jewish racism in the party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

Asked if the investigation was the most shameful moment in the party’s history, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, agreed that “it probably was, yes”.

Speaking on Times Radio on Wednesday morning, Ashworth said: “A lot of this was about the fact that there was just a refusal to acknowledge the issue.

This is the chap that during the election had a jokey chat with a mate saying that they were facing a drubbing
Then started to wriggle when it was leaked
I think today may be interesting

It's too soon from the tory point of view and very convenient from labour's. If the tories go in hard now then all Starmer's got to do is say something along the lines of, 'That was then, this is now. We have to build bridges, mend bridges, paint the trusses,' whatever. It's difficult to maintain the attack for four years. Labour can prostrate itself, or rather, throw the previous labour mob to the wolves, and come away smiling, smelling of roses, and on Starmer's christmas card have, with unconscious irony, a Menorah candelabra by the window.

They've got four years to get a significant proportion of the Jewish vote back on side. Some won't forgive, but it's doable.

I can tell you from an admittedly very limited anecdotal perspective of friends, family and community, that a huge proportion of Jews will be looking to flock back to Labour. There is little concept of the sort of enduring hatred of a political party of the likes of which you see against the Torys in say Liverpool.

The ones I know are deeply concerned with social justice and saw the issue as a Corbyn issue. Many are already good to vote Labour again. Unlike what a few deeply offensive posters on here have maintained throughout this shameful episode, they are not obsessed with money or Israel. No conspiracy against Corbyn, just a dislike of the very real racism that festered under his watch.

It has been distressing seeing and being told that the racism is a media smear and conspiracy but I guess today will put paid to that in the main.

[JagLover]

jakesmith said:

Derek Smith said:

I'm quite impressed by Sunak. I'd bet on him against Starmer, but not by much. That's if the voters are ready for an Asian PM. I think so. They said Thatcher didn't stand much of a chance being a woman, and look how that turned out. Is the tory party ready for an Asian leader? More problematical.

I assume you are being deiberately understated when you suggest a head-to-head between them would merely be interesting.

Torys would love a Muslim PM ... not the old duffers but the normal ones... whilst Labour, the party of diversity, gets castigated for racism whilst being led by another old white man, the only demographic that they have ever chosen as their leader.

I very much doubt they would.

The vast majority of the party would be quite happy with an Asian PM though. There are deepening ties between the Hindu and Sikh communities and the Tory party. Middle class voters of Indian descent are probably a more reliable voting block for the Tories than middle class whites these days. There is also a rising number of politicians from such communities in the party, four of the current cabinet.

[swisstoni]

Sunak’s only issue will be the tax rises he’s going to have to introduce to pay for all this.
So far he’s been Father Christmas, handing out goodies.

Not something he can’t overcome obviously.

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

markyb_lcy said:

Tories have had two female PMs / leaders. Ok, it’s two more than Labour, but it’s not exactly a groundbreaking difference. One of them was thrown under a bus in pretty spectacular fashion. Actually they both kind of were.

That's precisely what I like about it. Can't speak about Thatcher, but May didn't get there because of her genitals. If/when we see a BAME conservative PM, they won't have gotten there because of their skin.

I don't think Raynor would be where she is if she was a bloke. Perhaps Abbot could have as a white bloke, I hear she used to be an intelligent/impressive woman, but her shelf life wouldn't have lasted anywhere near as long as it did IMO.

Aren’t these just pointless tribal cliches about the parties as though they’re somehow fixed in stone with their ideals and behaviour.

The conservatives that elected thatcher are very different to the conservatives under Cameron or May and again now under Boris and Cummings.

Same with labour comparing Blair’s labour to Corbyn’s or Starmer’s

Has everyone forgotten “Blair’s babes” when he was criticised and praised by others for the amount of female cabinet members and MPs he had?

All parties are guilty of the same tokenism and putting and keeping people in roles (Patel Abbott etc) due to reasons other than competence.

Making out one party is more into equality or fair is just polarised tribal nonsense. The parties just meander around a similar distance apart influenced mainly by whatever society accepts. Sometimes the gap widens a bit but elections are usually won by the party that appeals to the middle ground voters the most.

In the U.K. these differences get focused on and become part of core voters identity but they’re mainly imaginary stories to make us feel more linked to one team and dislike the other.

Conservatives = mean and selfish, trash social services and want kids to go hungry, corruption and sleaze. jingoistic and racist. Old people. The individual over the group.

Labour = always trash the economy, jealous of success, sneering and militant, taking your stuff, anti semitism, angry students, liberal fascists, champagne socialists, hypocrisy, Dragging everyone down.

It’s all just cliches that help people identify with one group and dislike the other.

Under all parties since the 80s investment and general taxation has broadly increased, crime has decreased and nobody has dealt with the problems that everyone recognises like inequality or people feeling disenfranchised or neglect of certain groups and uncontrolled immigration etc because they’re just difficult.

The U.K. has most of these things broadly right though and that’s why people end up arguing over all this identity politics and ever changing woke causes all the time.

If we lived in Venezuela or N Korea or Somalia does anyone think we’d give a toss about most of these issues.

[amusingduck]

El stovey said:

Aren’t these just pointless tribal cliches about the parties as though they’re somehow fixed in stone with their ideals and behaviour.

It very well might be, I began taking an interest in politics less than 10 years ago, so don't have anywhere near the experience you have. I'd give any party my vote if I found them appealing, although admittedly there's some baggage for Labour/Libdems to overcome. If other parties offer cannabis legalisation and the Conservatives don't, they'll almost certainly get my vote regardless of baggage

[Murph7355]

markyb_lcy said:

...
Tories have had two female PMs / leaders. Ok, it’s two more than Labour, but it’s not exactly a groundbreaking difference. One of them was thrown under a bus in pretty spectacular fashion. ...

The one you're referring to threw herself under the bus due to her stupid approach/actions.

There might be an argument to say they both did.

[Murph7355]

anonymoususer said:

When Jonathan Ashworth comes out criticising it's going to be serious

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report is due to be published on Thursday after an 18-month investigation into claims of anti-Jewish racism in the party during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

Asked if the investigation was the most shameful moment in the party’s history, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, agreed that “it probably was, yes”.

Speaking on Times Radio on Wednesday morning, Ashworth said: “A lot of this was about the fact that there was just a refusal to acknowledge the issue.

This is the chap that during the election had a jokey chat with a mate saying that they were facing a drubbing
Then started to wriggle when it was leaked
I think today may be interesting

Ashworth would be on my hit list generally if I were Starmer.

But quite a few senior people in that party should be in for uncomfortable times if the report says what they're expecting.

They have been Labour luminaries for a long time. Indignation now when they quite evidently did nothing material before is going to result in them getting a big kicking I would think. I totally agree that it will be interesting to see what happens.

[jakesmith]

El stovey said:

Aren’t these just pointless tribal cliches about the parties as though they’re somehow fixed in stone with their ideals and behaviour.

It is a minor non-point but mildly amusing irony that the so-called party of equality has the least diverse leadership

Conservatives - 2 female PMs
Conservatives in Scotland - female leader
SNP - female 1st Minister
DUP - female leader
Plaid - female leader
Greens - female leader (one of 6 so far)

Labour, party of diversity - male leaders only

[Lotobear]

jakesmith said:

It is a minor non-point but mildly amusing irony that the so-called party of equality has the least diverse leadership

Conservatives - 2 female PMs
Conservatives in Scotland - female leader
SNP - female 1st Minister
DUP - female leader
Plaid - female leader
Greens - female leader (one of 6 so far)

Labour, party of diversity - male leaders only

Indeed, and generally male, pale and stale as the accolytes would have it!

[markyb_lcy]

El stovey said:

Making out one party is more into equality or fair is just polarised tribal nonsense.

When it’s used to score points with the likes of “we’ve had two female PMs and you’ve had none”, it really is playground-level stuff.

[markyb_lcy]

Garvin said:

It is interesting that there is so little to talk about Starmer that Boris now dominates Starmer's thread. It is said that there is only one thing worse than being talked about . . . . . . . . .

Boris?

I’ve no idea which thread you’re reading but he’s barely been mentioned on here recently. It’s all been about

- raves
- antisemitism
- female leaders
- alternative leaders for the Tories

[markyb_lcy]

jakesmith said:

El stovey said:

Aren’t these just pointless tribal cliches about the parties as though they’re somehow fixed in stone with their ideals and behaviour.

It is a minor non-point but mildly amusing irony that the so-called party of equality has the least diverse leadership

Conservatives - 2 female PMs
Conservatives in Scotland - female leader
SNP - female 1st Minister
DUP - female leader
Plaid - female leader
Greens - female leader (one of 6 so far)

Labour, party of diversity - male leaders only

You’re still completely ignoring Harriet Harman, then? This, despite me pointing it out to you, what, less than 12 hours ago.

[jakesmith]

markyb_lcy said:

El stovey said:

Making out one party is more into equality or fair is just polarised tribal nonsense.

When it’s used to score points with the likes of “we’ve had two female PMs and you’ve had none”, it really is playground-level stuff.

If only I had started off by saying something like

jake said:

It is a minor non-point but mildly amusing irony

Also... criticism has been leveled at things like the Greenfel enquiry for not having anyone leading it that was representative of the affected local demographic... a fine principle.

You say tribal nonsense. A lot of other people see Labour talking the talk but not walking the walk.

[Derek Smith]

jakesmith said:

It is a minor non-point but mildly amusing irony that the so-called party of equality has the least diverse leadership

Conservatives - 2 female PMs
Conservatives in Scotland - female leader
SNP - female 1st Minister
DUP - female leader
Plaid - female leader
Greens - female leader (one of 6 so far)

Labour, party of diversity - male leaders only

To be fair to the labour party, of the two female tory pms, one was about as divisive as any pm has ever been, before or since, whereas everyone seemed to have contempt for the other, so showing a lack of divisiveness, so a good thing for the woman.

The female leader of the Scottish tories was quite impressive. Where is she now?

Our lovely SNP leader. I don't know enough to comment. Not universally praised by those who profess to be SNP inclined.

DUP - where to start?

Plaid - again little knowledge of that powerhouse.

Greens - I've met her. I don't want to go through that again.

Female radicals seem to be thin on the ground. Harman was a bit of an idiot, but then, compared to Abbott. . . There was Shirley Williams. I've seen her speak and she was impressive - that was gang of three and Owen days. She spoke a lot of sense and left the labour party - make much of that.

Labour has a higher percentage of female mps than the tories, but there's obviously something blocking them going to the top. I get images of blokes sitting around tables in darkened rooms working out ways to frustrate their ambitions.

I've just looked it up on Wiki. Labour has 51% females compared to the tory's 24%. Only the libdems beat labour (if one ignores Lucas' party). So something for Starmer to work on there and praise himself for so doing.

[SpeckledJim]

markyb_lcy said:

...
Tories have had two female PMs / leaders. Ok, it’s two more than Labour, but it’s not exactly a groundbreaking difference. One of them was thrown under a bus in pretty spectacular fashion. ...

It's a pretty dramatic difference, IMO.

As an illustration, even if a leader only lasts 5 years, and Labour break the habit of a century and alternate male and female leaders, it'll still be 2035 before they 'catch up' with the party of gammon and inequality and public schoolboys and vested interests and anti-progress.

And even that's not looking likely.

[Murph7355]

markyb_lcy said:

You’re still completely ignoring Harriet Harman, then? This, despite me pointing it out to you, what, less than 12 hours ago.

Wasn't she just asked to keep the seat warm while the blokes went down the pub?

( - just in case).