Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
Garvin said:
BigMon said:
Garvin said:
Wombat3 said:
<snip>
Starmer was in the Shadow cabinet right till the end of Corbyn. If he'd had even a scintilla of a problem with what was going on & any principles at all he should have resigned to the back benches till Corbyn was gone. Instead of which he was espousing Corbyn's virtues right up till polling day.
The man is a two faced t
t.
This in spades. Starmer exposed has having no principles just like most other politicians. Although there are some weak, straw clutching excuses emerging to try and explain away this lack of any principles.Starmer was in the Shadow cabinet right till the end of Corbyn. If he'd had even a scintilla of a problem with what was going on & any principles at all he should have resigned to the back benches till Corbyn was gone. Instead of which he was espousing Corbyn's virtues right up till polling day.
The man is a two faced t
t.He's firmly lit a fire within the Labour party - now we'll see if he has any leadership potential. Boris and Gove probably can't believe their luck and I see Gove is already twisting the knife . . . . . front and centre as well.
All the accusations you've levelled at him could equally be levelled at Boris, or most other politicians on all sides.
It's certainly a blow if you're one of the cabal on here who joined Labour just to vote in Corbyn and make Labour 'unelectable for generations' to see Starmer starting the purge to pull the party back from the far left brink.
Some young 'uns may not appreciate who and what John Smith was. Pity he left us so soon.
El stovey said:
Garvin said:
This in spades. Starmer exposed has having no principles just like most other politicians. Although there are some weak, straw clutching excuses emerging to try and explain away this lack of any principles.
He's firmly lit a fire within the Labour party - now we'll see if he has any leadership potential. Boris and Gove probably can't believe their luck and I see Gove is already twisting the knife . . . . . front and centre as well.
Gove’s a two faced Machiavellian gimp who can’t wait to stab Boris in the back again. All he’s concerned with is becoming PM and trying to avoid all the covid and brexit blame.He's firmly lit a fire within the Labour party - now we'll see if he has any leadership potential. Boris and Gove probably can't believe their luck and I see Gove is already twisting the knife . . . . . front and centre as well.
A classic example of keeping your enemies even closer by Boris.
The minute Boris looks shakey and the coup starts Gove won’t initiate it but will be in the wings waiting for his moment. Hopefully leading to another failed leadership bid.
Garvin said:
Why yes, I agree Gove is a slimy, two faced, Machiavellian gimp. However this is the Starmer thread and nice try at some whataboutism and a deflection from Starmer’s woes. Must be painful to be faced with the fact that Starmer is no better than the rest.
It’s not painful at all. I’m afraid if you’re looking for some kind of tribal argument then you’ve come to the wrong place, If an election was tomorrow I’d vote conservative. I think Starmer would be a better PM than Boris but labour still lets him down and I wouldn’t vote for them at the moment.
In 2024 I’ll look at all the options and make a decision based on policies and who will be enacting them if they win,
I don’t think Starmer is experiencing woes though, looks to me like he’s on the up and finally getting to rid labour of the spectre of Corbyn and make them, a more electable party again.
Most floating voters will be glad to see more positive options available in 2024.
Seems like there’s only a few of you guys that think this is bad for Starmer.
Garvin said:
Not quite. Reincarnate John Smith back as Labour leader and you’d have me seriously interested.
What did you particularly like about John Smith? He was a radical, more so than most labour leaders until Corbyn. He was a tax and spend believer, and a strong supporter of union influence in parliament, although he hamstrung them by doing away with the block vote. Blair's road to success was down to him, and to a certain extent, Kinnoch as well, both of whom focussed on reform of labour.I was a fan, but I'm wondering why you are.
El stovey said:
Garvin said:
Why yes, I agree Gove is a slimy, two faced, Machiavellian gimp. However this is the Starmer thread and nice try at some whataboutism and a deflection from Starmer’s woes. Must be painful to be faced with the fact that Starmer is no better than the rest.
It’s not painful at all. I’m afraid if you’re looking for some kind of tribal argument then you’ve come to the wrong place, If an election was tomorrow I’d vote conservative. I think Starmer would be a better PM than Boris but labour still lets him down and I wouldn’t vote for them at the moment.
In 2024 I’ll look at all the options and make a decision based on policies and who will be enacting them if they win,
I don’t think Starmer is experiencing woes though, looks to me like he’s on the up and finally getting to rid labour of the spectre of Corbyn and make them, a more electable party again.
Most floating voters will be glad to see more positive options available in 2024.
Seems like there’s only a few of you guys that think this is bad for Starmer.
El stovey said:
Looks like it’s kicking off already with Len demanding Corbyn gets reinstated and Starmer saying those that deny there’s a problem are part of the problem.
Len is retiring next year so I’d expect quite a lot of mischief from him over the next few months. Not that clued up on Unite so not sure who’s in the running to replace him but I can’t see them no longer supporting the Labour Party any time soon.El stovey said:
Seems like there’s only a few of you guys that think this is bad for Starmer.
Corbyn's only suspended, isn't he? If he actually goes I'd see it as a positive act for Labour, overlooking Starmer's participation in it over the years. But it may just be the first battle in a war that could go either way.768 said:
El stovey said:
Seems like there’s only a few of you guys that think this is bad for Starmer.
Corbyn's only suspended, isn't he? If he actually goes I'd see it as a positive act for Labour, overlooking Starmer's participation in it over the years. But it may just be the first battle in a war that could go either way.I think Starmer has done all he can by suspending him and removing the whip.
Derek Smith said:
Garvin said:
Not quite. Reincarnate John Smith back as Labour leader and you’d have me seriously interested.
What did you particularly like about John Smith? He was a radical, more so than most labour leaders until Corbyn. He was a tax and spend believer, and a strong supporter of union influence in parliament, although he hamstrung them by doing away with the block vote. Blair's road to success was down to him, and to a certain extent, Kinnoch as well, both of whom focussed on reform of labour.I was a fan, but I'm wondering why you are.
valiant said:
You can’t actually sack an MP though, can you? Don’t they have to be deselected by their local party officials or summat?
I think Starmer has done all he can by suspending him and removing the whip.
Yeah, he can't sack him as an MP but Labour can kick him out of the party. Starmer won't be involved AIUI so I'd imagine Corbyn will remain a Labour member - it'd be an odd result if that happened and they didn't give him the whip back at some point.I think Starmer has done all he can by suspending him and removing the whip.
valiant said:
768 said:
El stovey said:
Seems like there’s only a few of you guys that think this is bad for Starmer.
Corbyn's only suspended, isn't he? If he actually goes I'd see it as a positive act for Labour, overlooking Starmer's participation in it over the years. But it may just be the first battle in a war that could go either way.I think Starmer has done all he can by suspending him and removing the whip.
You cannot also resign as an MP technically. At least, not without some hoops being jumped through. This is because an MP has a duty to represent their constituents.
An MP can lose their seat if they’re convicted of a crime.
wikipedia said:
Members of Parliament (MPs) sitting in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom are technically not permitted to resign their seats.[1] To circumvent this prohibition, MPs who wish to step down are instead appointed to an "office of profit under the Crown", which disqualifies them from sitting in Parliament. For this purpose, a legal fiction is maintained where two unpaid offices are considered to be offices of profit: Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds and Steward of the Manor of Northstead. Although the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 lists hundreds of offices that are disqualifying, no MP has lost their seat by being appointed to an actual office since 1981, when Thomas Williams became a judge.[2]
markyb_lcy said:
An MP can lose their seat if they’re convicted of a crime.
Oh yes, like that loony jesus freak 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
bbc said:
Fiona Onasanya said she found interrupted sleep, "measly meals like spaghetti hoops" and a lack of almond milk hard during her month behind bars.
She recalls her naivety about the legal high Spice, claiming she told a prison officer she used it "all the time", after assuming he meant "seasonings like salt and pepper".
During her first breakfast at HMP Bronzefield in Middlesex she claims she was ridiculed by another inmate, who shouted "This ain't Costa" after she asked for almond milk or "soya if there's no alternatives".
She recalls her naivety about the legal high Spice, claiming she told a prison officer she used it "all the time", after assuming he meant "seasonings like salt and pepper".
During her first breakfast at HMP Bronzefield in Middlesex she claims she was ridiculed by another inmate, who shouted "This ain't Costa" after she asked for almond milk or "soya if there's no alternatives".
amusingduck said:
markyb_lcy said:
An MP can lose their seat if they’re convicted of a crime.
Oh yes, like that loony jesus freak https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
bbc said:
Fiona Onasanya said she found interrupted sleep, "measly meals like spaghetti hoops" and a lack of almond milk hard during her month behind bars.
She recalls her naivety about the legal high Spice, claiming she told a prison officer she used it "all the time", after assuming he meant "seasonings like salt and pepper".
During her first breakfast at HMP Bronzefield in Middlesex she claims she was ridiculed by another inmate, who shouted "This ain't Costa" after she asked for almond milk or "soya if there's no alternatives".
She recalls her naivety about the legal high Spice, claiming she told a prison officer she used it "all the time", after assuming he meant "seasonings like salt and pepper".
During her first breakfast at HMP Bronzefield in Middlesex she claims she was ridiculed by another inmate, who shouted "This ain't Costa" after she asked for almond milk or "soya if there's no alternatives".
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Good to see that he's had time to reflect and gets it 
The battleground has been picked. Anti-semitism v anti-semitism. I'm confused, but once the tactics are revealed, I expect to also be bewildered.This shows the schism in sharp relief, but it also might settle who's in charge for some time. It's likely to run and run, but neither side can afford early significant damage. This is similar to the early 80s, and the 'Gang of Four'. That was tragic for labour, ensuring 15 or so years in the wilderness. It took tory infighting to give Blair a free ride into #10.
The SDP spoke a lot of sense. Williams was a catch. They had great results in the polls, but it all fizzled out. It's a warning for anyone wanting to split a party, but as with all warnings, most people ignore them.
The centre is open, just asking to be dominated by a single party, the New, New Labour someone posted earlier. That's not Corbyn of course.
Everyone suggests that Corbyn has the support of only a minority. Is it wishful thinking? We'll know in time, but probably not for a while.
valiant said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Good to see that he's had time to reflect and gets it
Bloody hell, they simply do not get it do they?Momentum are just like Socialist Worker before them, they simply exist to protest. No matter how altruistic a policy may seem, they’ll find something to crow about it.
4 more years looks more like 9 as the days go by, and without a JohnSmithalike maybe more. With one it would matter less.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff