Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
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).She’s done it twice though! Does that mean Labour get 2 points, or 1 point (on a “leaderboard” where no party of relevance has more than 2 points).
This is all a bit silly in my opinion. As Jake originally said himself, it’s a non-point.
Gogoplata said:
It's going to be like post-war France today, everyone in Labour claiming they didn't collaborate and were actually in the resistance.....Gogoplata said:
Can't wait to hear the response from Baroness Chakrabartijakesmith 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
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.
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.
^ Reality.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.
hoagypubdog said:
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
Gogoplata said:
Hopefully Starmer will use it to flush out the radicals and get some normal people in so Labour can go back to being a more useful opposition on behalf of the normal working person rather than a 'trans rights advocacy student union' type affair led by a few thousand Twitterati. Hell, they might even win an election, or at least be a credible opposition.markyb_lcy said:
She’s done it twice though! Does that mean Labour get 2 points, or 1 point (on a “leaderboard” where no party of relevance has more than 2 points).
This is all a bit silly in my opinion. As Jake originally said himself, it’s a non-point.
Anyway I wonder what Sir Keir is going to do in the 6 weeks he has to respond to the EHRC findings. I can hardly believe it has come as a surprise to him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54730425
3 breaches of the equality act
Political interference in anti-Semitism complaints
Failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints
Harassment
And shamefully, Labour managed to act fast against sexual harassment during this time proving they were capable of acting decisively when they had the will to do so
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54730425
3 breaches of the equality act
Political interference in anti-Semitism complaints
Failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints
Harassment
And shamefully, Labour managed to act fast against sexual harassment during this time proving they were capable of acting decisively when they had the will to do so
markyb_lcy said:
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
Garvin said:
markyb_lcy said:
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
I suggest less froth and more reading.
Haven't seen or heard much other than BBC and LBC but it sounds utterly damning especially around the leadership.
Apparently Corbyn has said today that it was overstated for "political reasons" or something?
Serious WTF is that all about
What will be interesting is seeing how Starmer handles this as I assume quite a few of those people in the report still have a role within the party.
Struggling with how Corbyn can remain in the party as if he isn't kicked out how the hell can anyone remain after being in charge of that.
Apparently Corbyn has said today that it was overstated for "political reasons" or something?
Serious WTF is that all about
What will be interesting is seeing how Starmer handles this as I assume quite a few of those people in the report still have a role within the party.
Struggling with how Corbyn can remain in the party as if he isn't kicked out how the hell can anyone remain after being in charge of that.
Hereward said:
Vanden Saab said:
This thread today
Where are all the white knights condemning the shocking events revealed by todays report.
The rational people already knew the result and the Corbynistas will utterly reject it. Nothing new to report.Where are all the white knights condemning the shocking events revealed by todays report.
Corbyn has made a statement in which he said he doesn't accept all the findings, and that those with political motivations greatly exaggerated the scale of the problem
No surprises there then
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Apparently Corbyn has said today that it was overstated for "political reasons" or something?
Serious WTF is that all about
Jesus. The guy doesn’t know when to just shut up.Serious WTF is that all about
I don’t believe Corbyn and his inner team were antisemitic themselves, but they clearly swept some antisemitism from under the carpet, understating it, for ... wait for it ... political reasons
markyb_lcy said:
Jesus. The guy doesn’t know when to just shut up.
I don’t believe Corbyn and his inner team were antisemitic themselves, but they clearly swept some antisemitism from under the carpet, understating it, for ... wait for it ... political reasons
I've just been listening to Starmer on LBC.I don’t believe Corbyn and his inner team were antisemitic themselves, but they clearly swept some antisemitism from under the carpet, understating it, for ... wait for it ... political reasons
My gut reaction is that he (Starmer) is sincere but he sounds a bit shaky when pushed on the obvious questions around why he didn't do more.
Feel like he's walking a tightrope on quite how far to go because of whatever the internal politics of Labour are right now.
jeremy said:
As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism,” a statement said.
“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.”
Mr Corbyn added: “I do not accept all of its findings”,
Here is a phot of Corbyn at a meeting with the board of British Deputies. If that’s not the body language of determination then I don’t know what is. “One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.”
Mr Corbyn added: “I do not accept all of its findings”,
Edited by jakesmith on Thursday 29th October 11:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff