Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?

[biggbn]

survivalist said:

At the beginning of the thread I thought is was unlikely, but possible that KS could at least create some change in the Labour Party.

Now I just think we should re-name the thread “who will be the next leader of the Labour Party”.

He’s become an irrelevance.

Agreed, he is dreadful and I no longer know what Labour stands for

[Stigproducts]

biggbn said:

Agreed, he is dreadful and I no longer know what Labour stands for

Coming soon. Labour pretends to stand for whatever will get them elected so they can then do exactly what they want irrepsecptive of what they said before, while all getting themselves rich and their mates cushy jobs and peerages. Copyright - Tony Blair /David Cameron/Boris Johnson

[biggbn]

Stigproducts said:

biggbn said:

Agreed, he is dreadful and I no longer know what Labour stands for

Coming soon. Labour pretends to stand for whatever will get them elected so they can then do exactly what they want irrepsecptive of what they said before, while all getting themselves rich and their mates cushy jobs and peerages. Copyright - Tony Blair /David Cameron/Boris Johnson

Sadly, this has a ring of truth to it.

[turbobloke]

biggbn said:

Stigproducts said:

biggbn said:

Agreed, he is dreadful and I no longer know what Labour stands for

Coming soon. Labour pretends to stand for whatever will get them elected so they can then do exactly what they want irrepsecptive of what they said before, while all getting themselves rich and their mates cushy jobs and peerages. Copyright - Tony Blair /David Cameron/Boris Johnson

Sadly, this has a ring of truth to it.

Agreed, except perhaps for theLabour getting elected bit (any time soon).

[98elise]

biggbn said:

98elise said:

2xChevrons said:

98elise said:

State taking 10% of all equities. I have my life savings and pension cash in equities.

The state was never going to take 10% of all equities. The plan was to require joint stock businesses with over 250 employees to transfer 10% of share capital to an ownership fund at the rate of 1% per year over a decade. The fund would be jointly owned by all employees, with dividends capped at £500/year/employee being paid out. The state never had any ownership of the affected businesses.

It's a policy that was badly under-developed and under-detailed when it was announced, with loads of practical pitfalls and obvious scope for unintended negative consequences. But it wasn't "the state appropriating 10% of all businesses" as some people deliriously put it.

You can dress it up however you want to, but the state taking 10% of something, and giving it to someone else is the state confiscating it.

I wouldn't be giving up 10% of my pension pot voluntarily.

Mmm...so it wasn't as claimed then? Am getting confused now?

Not sure what you mean? 10% of stock is going to be taken by Labour and given to someone else. No matter what words are used to describe it, that's the plan.

No extra value is created, so the current owners will be 10% down.

[Murph7355]

biggbn said:

Agreed, he is dreadful and I no longer know what Labour stands for

You are in a long queue there...with The Labour Party at the front of it.

Early nuggets that he was going in the right direction were rapidly snuffed out.

Zero policies, very clear that the unions and more extreme parts of the party effectively run it. They are screwed.

Which basically means we all are for a while.

[biggbn]

Murph7355 said:

biggbn said:

Agreed, he is dreadful and I no longer know what Labour stands for

You are in a long queue there...with The Labour Party at the front of it.

Early nuggets that he was going in the right direction were rapidly snuffed out.

Zero policies, very clear that the unions and more extreme parts of the party effectively run it. They are screwed.

Which basically means we all are for a while.

To be honest, it has worked out exactly as I feared. I did not think Starmer was the man for the job but was willing to give him a chance. I know this will not be popular but the party needs a combination of someone with genuine traditional Labour policies, like Corbyn (who was the reason I joined, and left the party) and someone like Blair or Boris with popular all things to all men appeal. Starmer doesn't even fall between those two stools he doesn't know where they are or how to sit on them.

[Northernboy]

Ecosseven said:

Page 60 of the manifesto.

"We will give workers a stake in the
companies they work for – and a share
of the profits they help create – by
requiring large companies to set up
Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up
to 10% of a company will be owned
collectively by employees, with
dividend payments distributed equally
among all, capped at £500 a year,
and the rest being used to top up the
Climate Apprenticeship Fund. The cap
will rise to ensure that no more than
25% of dividends raised by IOFs are
redistributed in this way "

No matter how you dress that up it’s the state expropriating 10% of the company. What previously was owned by the shareholders now is not.

[633Squadron]

Northernboy said:

Ecosseven said:

Page 60 of the manifesto.

"We will give workers a stake in the
companies they work for – and a share
of the profits they help create – by
requiring large companies to set up
Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up
to 10% of a company will be owned
collectively by employees, with
dividend payments distributed equally
among all, capped at £500 a year,
and the rest being used to top up the
Climate Apprenticeship Fund. The cap
will rise to ensure that no more than
25% of dividends raised by IOFs are
redistributed in this way "

No matter how you dress that up it’s the state expropriating 10% of the company. What previously was owned by the shareholders now is not.

And it is all directly taxable income.

[turbobloke]

Northernboy said:

Ecosseven said:

Page 60 of the manifesto.

"We will give workers a stake in the
companies they work for – and a share
of the profits they help create – by
requiring large companies to set up
Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up
to 10% of a company will be owned
collectively by employees, with
dividend payments distributed equally
among all, capped at £500 a year,
and the rest being used to top up the
Climate Apprenticeship Fund. The cap
will rise to ensure that no more than
25% of dividends raised by IOFs are
redistributed in this way "

No matter how you dress that up it’s the state expropriating 10% of the company. What previously was owned by the shareholders now is not.

Has Starmer openly rejected that nonsense and the rest of the manifesto nonsense as yet... there's a lot of nonsense to reject.

[Northernboy]

turbobloke said:

Has Starmer openly rejected that nonsense and the rest of the manifesto nonsense as yet... there's a lot of nonsense to reject.

I've not seen anything. it, but I suppose that even if he was against it he doesn't need to come out and say it yet.

I've seen little from Labour on the forced break-up of the pharmaceutical companies recently either. I wonder if they've maybe decided that having some major producers of vaccines and medicines based in the UK is less shameful than it once was.

[paulrockliffe]

turbobloke said:

Has Starmer openly rejected that nonsense and the rest of the manifesto nonsense as yet... there's a lot of nonsense to reject.

How can he reject it? 18 months ago he said it was what the Country needed and that we should elect Jeremy Corbyn as the man to deliver it.

[633Squadron]

turbobloke said:

Has Starmer openly rejected that nonsense and the rest of the manifesto nonsense as yet... there's a lot of nonsense to reject.

I think the problem is that it is the party members that vote to make the policy.
Corbyn is gone. The party members have not.

[SpeckledJim]

633Squadron said:

turbobloke said:

Has Starmer openly rejected that nonsense and the rest of the manifesto nonsense as yet... there's a lot of nonsense to reject.

I think the problem is that it is the party members that vote to make the policy.
Corbyn is gone. The party members have not.

He's stuck. It almost doesn't matter whether he knows what he needs to do to become electable.

If you're trying to lead an obstreperous donkey to somewhere the donkey doesn't want to go, then you'll find out how strong an obstreperous donkey can be.

It's also very difficult to persuade, tempt, cajole, threaten, or coerce an obstreperous donkey. They don't get it. He aw, he aw....he awways struggles with that.

[anonymous-user]

633Squadron said:

I think the problem is that it is the party members that vote to make the policy.
Corbyn is gone. The party members have not.

It does seem weird how labour works, the leader looks like they have far less power than with the conservatives.

Amazing Blair managed to change so much and get them all onside. Maybe that’s part of the problem now where those lot (making it difficult) think their values were compromised under Blair or something?

That’s assuming Starmer is actually trying to make change and it’s being resisted. I haven’t seen much evidence that’s happening myself.

[98elise]

turbobloke said:

Northernboy said:

Ecosseven said:

Page 60 of the manifesto.

"We will give workers a stake in the
companies they work for – and a share
of the profits they help create – by
requiring large companies to set up
Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up
to 10% of a company will be owned
collectively by employees, with
dividend payments distributed equally
among all, capped at £500 a year,
and the rest being used to top up the
Climate Apprenticeship Fund. The cap
will rise to ensure that no more than
25% of dividends raised by IOFs are
redistributed in this way "

No matter how you dress that up it’s the state expropriating 10% of the company. What previously was owned by the shareholders now is not.

Has Starmer openly rejected that nonsense and the rest of the manifesto nonsense as yet... there's a lot of nonsense to reject.

No. He commited to continue with Labours radical plans.

[Hereward]

turbobloke said:

Labour manifesto - pdf at this link which is posted for the many not the few.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...

The new longest suicide note in history, replacing the 1983 one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_longest_suicide_...

[MiniMan64]

biggbn said:

To be honest, it has worked out exactly as I feared. I did not think Starmer was the man for the job but was willing to give him a chance. I know this will not be popular but the party needs a combination of someone with genuine traditional Labour policies, like Corbyn (who was the reason I joined, and left the party) and someone like Blair or Boris with popular all things to all men appeal. Starmer doesn't even fall between those two stools he doesn't know where they are or how to sit on them.

Is it even possible to sit on both those stools? I don't think it is which is the main crux of Labor's issues.

[Six Potter]

El stovey said:

633Squadron said:

I think the problem is that it is the party members that vote to make the policy.
Corbyn is gone. The party members have not.

It does seem weird how labour works, the leader looks like they have far less power than with the conservatives.

Amazing Blair managed to change so much and get them all onside. Maybe that’s part of the problem now where those lot (making it difficult) think their values were compromised under Blair or something?

That’s assuming Starmer is actually trying to make change and it’s being resisted. I haven’t seen much evidence that’s happening myself.

Yes it does seem that Starmer has little if any power to affect Labour policy, which is apparently determined by the National Policy Forum (NPF) which consists of over 200 members from various groups affliliated with the party.

There does/did seem to be a prevailing school of thought in Labour that it was Corbyn personally that was the cause of Labour's election defeats and bad polling, as opposed to the policies themselves. I do see why this was/is the view given that most of the manifesto consisted of spending give-aways which on an individual basis were quite populist and polled well. It seems that voters thought that all together there was a bit too much in the manifesto and it looked like something unaffordable.

So they inserted Starmer into the party leader role as someone who seemed to appear credible and didn't have the baggage of Corbyn, but it's not worked has it. From what I've seen he's not really done much to stick his neck out and try to make a name for himself, I've seen more from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown on various topics than the leadership in recent weeks/months.

I think Starmer is seen as a remainer which is bound to hurt Labour popularity in the northern brexit voting areas, Labour could probably do with a figure who is more of a left-wing nationalist type who embraces the post-brexit zeitgeist, but there doesn't seem to be any of those on offer.

Edited by Six Potter on Monday 7th June 14:55

[turbobloke]

Hereward said:

turbobloke said:

Labour manifesto - pdf at this link which is posted for the many not the few.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/R...

The new longest suicide note in history, replacing the 1983 one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_longest_suicide_...

The way Starmer is (or isn't) going, there may well be more competition ahead when the next one is published.