Time for a new thread
Last edited:
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Weird name
Strong name and isn’t a skinny old guy so hopefully those who can’t look past that can get behind him. Wonder what the Tories will come to with about him.
Doubt he’ll get the following Corbyn got from those that did love him but perhaps his less idealistic views are what’s needed for the self-harming working class populace.
Doubt he’ll get the following Corbyn got from those that did love him but perhaps his less idealistic views are what’s needed for the self-harming working class populace.
Named after Labour's first MP
Is there any information on how nationalisation of energy, etc. would work in reality? I have a few shares in Centrica (unfortunately) so I'm curious how they would be bought off me if it ever became a reality. Can the government dictate it's own price? Presumably I can't refuse to sell?
Thought he might unite the party, but some of the hard left are out in force on Twitter bemoaning that this is a return to New Labour.
Which is mostly bullshit, he's more radical than Blair or Brown but for some momentum types, he's too far from the hard left.
Which is mostly bullshit, he's more radical than Blair or Brown but for some momentum types, he's too far from the hard left.
He's got most MPs onside, strong union support and had more members vote for him than Corbyn in 2015. There'll always be criticism, but his backing is widespread so it shouldn't be too much of an issue in the short term.
But tell us how you really feel.
Nah sorry I thought for second it was Kier not Keir as per thread title. Thought had it wrong this whole time.
Two points on Labour under Starmer:
1) His victory seems to have been read as a win for the centre of the party over its left wing. If that's the case then the centre has shifted quite a lot to the left over the last decade or so, as Starmer's policy promises are still left-wing, particularly by pre-Corbyn standards. Saying "we should treat the 2017 manifesto as our foundational document" doesn't signal the break from Corbyn-era policies that some people seem to be anticipating. Though it's hard to see a downside to people perceiving Starmer as a cleaner break from the disastrous Corbyn reign than he actually is. Perhaps presenting left-wing policies as moderate, modern, mainstream, common-sense centerism is the way forward.
2) His leadership of Labour will encompass the rest of this Covid-19 crisis and its economic fallout. At a time when the Financial Times are already calling for "radical" reforms like basic income and wealth taxes, it may been that left-wing economic ideas will be adopted more and more by the centre in the coming years anyway.
1) His victory seems to have been read as a win for the centre of the party over its left wing. If that's the case then the centre has shifted quite a lot to the left over the last decade or so, as Starmer's policy promises are still left-wing, particularly by pre-Corbyn standards. Saying "we should treat the 2017 manifesto as our foundational document" doesn't signal the break from Corbyn-era policies that some people seem to be anticipating. Though it's hard to see a downside to people perceiving Starmer as a cleaner break from the disastrous Corbyn reign than he actually is. Perhaps presenting left-wing policies as moderate, modern, mainstream, common-sense centerism is the way forward.
2) His leadership of Labour will encompass the rest of this Covid-19 crisis and its economic fallout. At a time when the Financial Times are already calling for "radical" reforms like basic income and wealth taxes, it may been that left-wing economic ideas will be adopted more and more by the centre in the coming years anyway.
Oh right. Nah, that was just a typo. Knew it was Keir but typed it as if it was the start of Kieran.
Already being accused of the failure of cps to prosecute Saville. And by the far left too, Tories dont even need to lift a finger.
Big one for Nandy, that was rumoured to be going to Jo Stevens. Would be smart to keep Long-Bailey in the shadow business & energy role given she based a lot of her leadership bid around green policy.
Giving Rachel Reeves the shadow version of Oswald Mosley's old job is a nice touch.
A shadow cabinet when the next election is five years away? Is this standard practise in the UK? What is the point of that?
Concerned about his article in the Times is behind the paywall.
The irony that to see the Labour Party leader’s outline for the future of the Party you have to (a) pay at all and (b) pay Rupert Murdoch!
The irony that to see the Labour Party leader’s outline for the future of the Party you have to (a) pay at all and (b) pay Rupert Murdoch!
Basically sets the stall out in terms of party direction before a manifesto is drawn up. For example Reeves doesn't want Labour to be the party of the out of work and thinks immigration must be curbed or communities will explode, so you can expect an attempt to win back the North through thinly veiled racism and attacks on scrounging benefit claimants.
Yeah this is normal - basically the Shadow is responsible for providing the opposition's take on issues in the remit of the ministry they are shadowing, and then critiquing, scrutinising the minister etc. So you can sometimes get a feel for where the opposition is steering towards politically by the sort of person they put in these roles as they will be setting the agenda.
It's standard
Corbyn's candidates got 27% and 17% in the first round.
Long-Bailey got just 650 votes (5%) and Nandy's 2,128 (16.3%) to Starmer's 10,228 (78.6%)
And yet ...
On what planet do Momentum think they have any mandate 'to hold Starmer to account' or that Starmer mandate is to 'build upon Corbyn's mandate'?!
Utter delusion from these idiots who got their asses spanked by Labour members.
At some point, I think Starmer should officially divorce Labour from Momentum. Let them start another party if they must, but I personally don't want them to have any influence going forward.
Long-Bailey got just 650 votes (5%) and Nandy's 2,128 (16.3%) to Starmer's 10,228 (78.6%)
And yet ...
On what planet do Momentum think they have any mandate 'to hold Starmer to account' or that Starmer mandate is to 'build upon Corbyn's mandate'?!
Utter delusion from these idiots who got their asses spanked by Labour members.
At some point, I think Starmer should officially divorce Labour from Momentum. Let them start another party if they must, but I personally don't want them to have any influence going forward.
Last edited:
Their relevance is diminished but their numbers aren't insignificant.
Although there are some on Twitter suggesting Momentum should just merge with the Respect Party now.
I thought Respect is finished? Galloway founded another party right after his abysmal performance in December.
Sorry, my mistake it's his new 'Worker's party' that I was referring to actually. Although I don't think anybody seriously thinks Momentum will split from Labour.
Now are people like Chuka going to try to come back to the Labour Party?
A massive chunk of Momentum-aligned people (in this case I'm using that to mean people who backed Corbyn in previous leadership elections) will have voted Starmer for leader on the grounds that he promised to use the 2017 manifesto as a basis for the party's direction under his leadership. Throughout the last 5 years there's been a tendency for people to view Momentum as a closeknit homogenous bloc of people all pulling the same way but the reality is that for most Labour-left people Momentum is just another Facebook page they subscribe to because they like the content, or because it's a way to get involved in campaigning. Momentum never had the power to decide a leadership election, they gained support because they backed Corbyn, not the other way around. The big difference between this election and 2015 or 2017 was that in this election you had multiple candidates that someone with left-wing views could countenance voting for.
I think Kier will treat them respectfully and continue to engage with them. But it seems unlikely they'll have influence at the highest level any more. "Holding Starmer to account" sounds awfully like an excuse for the endless carping that the (latter day) LRC and others have been engaging in for decades while achieving nothing. Momentum need to find a new raison d'être or they'll slowly diminish into irrelevance. Trouble is, its pretty hard to see what that could be.
That would involve them being put to the back of certain queues and not just Tesco
A big part of Corbyns failure was not having the balls to deselect the Blairites and the voices of dissent against him. If Starmer can't handle Momentum ruthlessly - he'll go the same way.
That would involve them being put to the back of certain queues and not just Tesco
If he got rid of the centrists from his Shadow Cabinet, they would have done even worse. Corbyn didn't come across as electable, he was surrounded by ultra left wing like Momentum and Ian Lavery which didn't help. Labour need to find a way to balance centre and left. Corbyn's shadow cabinet - McDonnell, Abbot etc didnt inspire confidence and now his supporters look for excuses instead of his own failures.
Hopefully Starmer can get them on a better footing.
I find him endearing in some sort of way but he seems to live in his own little world and has become a figure of ridicule because of it.
Anyone else feel electing a Labour leader this early is going to play to the Tory advantage? That's 5 full years of a smear campaign against him.
Nobody in Starmer's Labour is going to be talking about 'smears', given their reaction to that word for the last 4 years.
the conservatives can just ignore the Labour Party - they have huge majority and labour are in complete disarray. The Tories will get on with the job on running the country and only need to think about an election in 3.5 years time. Will labour have got their shit together by then? Doubtful.