It were the 40s what done it.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Curious that you’re focused on the debt a hypothetical Corbyn government would create rather than the actual one the past decade of Conservative government has.
We’re literally seeing the tragic effects of what a decade of Tory austerity has done right now, with frontline NHS workers having to use binbags (and dying as a result) to protect themselves against the coronavirus. Focus on that maybe?
...and none of that spending would have been on the health infrastructure which is creaking under the pressures of massive underinvestment, as but one example in your criticism of hypothetical spending policies of a non existent Government? I suppose if you're just making it all up you can create any fiscal scenario that suits your position.
Because we were discussing Corbyn, therefore I focussed on Corbyn. The Tories austerity measures clearly haven't worked, but that doesn't mean Corbyns would by default, does it?
If you want it talk about how shit the last 10 years have been, then be my guest. It's such a pity we didn't have a competent opposition leader for the last 5.
Yeah, if only we had a competent leader of the opposition who could have taken away the Conservative majority in an election in 2017.
Yes of course it would have been. Seriously, why do you feel the need to assume my position to be the extreme opposite? Is it so hard to consider his policies on their own merit, as opposed to addressing it in based on what the Tories have or haven't done, and then assuming I support those actions? I'm not the one who brought up this crisis as evidence that Corbyn was right, I'm responding to that.
Would have been nice have someone who could answer the most basic questions when his policies came up scrutiny, yes.
It was as much people turning away from May than going towards Corbyn, if not more.
How can anyone judge Labour when they've had to clean up the mess Disraeli left behind?
Rumour has it that some of the money trees Atlee planted in the late 40's are now taller than most buildings in Britain.
As opposed to the person who got voted in, who under even a hint of scrutiny would just mumble ‘get Brexit done, oven ready’. As for grasp of detail about their party’s policies, Corbyn was miles ahead of Johnson. So I don’t believe Labour’s performance in 2019 really hinged on its leader’s ability to answer basic questions, as you put it, because it certainly didn’t harm the Conservatives. Johnson knew slogans and a couple of statistics and that was it.
No, he was shit too. How are you not getting this? I think they are both incompetent and in my humble opinion, unelectable. Why must ant scrutiny of one or the other hinge in his opposite number?
imagine having opinions proven this extremely wrong and still maintaining them
You made the point that Corbyn suffered as he couldn’t answer basic questions. I think it’s rather pertinent to point out how his opposite number fared - a figure who barely even pretends to have a grasp of all the detail, and evades scrutiny at every opportunity.
Imagine taking that statement literally, as opposed to it's obvious intent, just because you're a bit of an arse. I don't believe either of them are competent or should be elected. You got anything else to say or are you just going to continue to be pissy?
That’s just a lazy and simplistic interpretation of a result by people who cannot possibly consider the fact that people actually could vote for Corbyn because it kind of shatters everything they’ve spent the past five years shouting about.
Likewise, Corbyn supporters should be cautious about attaching too much significance to his role in 2017. But he undoubtedly had a positive influence in depriving the Tories of their majority, to argue otherwise is laughable.
one of them won the biggest majority in ages less than just months ago, how far up your own arse do you have to be not to change your mind, like, a little bit
Lets be honest here, the real reason this country is asking kink sex websites for protective NHS clothing isn't because of a decade long under funding political project or cuts to health services but because the good honest folks of Britain are still dealing with the fallout from great crash of AD 369 when the Roman Empire overspent on clay pots and grapes.
Bloody Commander Theodosius!
Last edited:
So let me get this straight. You think because he won a massive majority that makes him competent? Speaking of heads in arses...
Neither was great on detail. But Corbyn on Andrew Neil was as bad as I’ve seen from a party leader in terms of knowing their own policies. Corbyn flat out refused to believe Andrew Neil when he explained that many middle and low earners would lose income under Labours plans (which was true), not just the top 5 percent. And that bit about how Labour would pay for the waspi pledge was absolute cringe, he had no idea whatsoever.
speaking of 2017, it's going to be a real sight when labour loses the next election, gaining a few seats, and the party has the exact same debate about electoralism as in 2017 but with people on different wings of the party switching positions
I haven’t watched it so I can’t comment, but on the whole campaign Corbyn had a better grasp of his policies and detail. Johnson didn’t even bother pretending that he did. So my point stands that when it comes to winning/losing votes its influence is, sadly, negligible (or was in 2019).
As for it being true that middle/low earners would lose income, I’m pretty certain that was essentially debunked at the time. Wasn’t it just the case that some married couples would lose out a small tax allowance of a couple hundred pounds, but such a small loss would be far more outweighed by gains from other policies so to say they ‘lost’ out was not true overall.
i thought you said electable my badno, you did, electable...
Don’t be silly, Labour only lost because Corbyn was a hard left Communist. The voters in Bolsover are already rejoicing at Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership victory.
Who is?
And you've chosen to take that literally, as opposed to my personal views on their competency because you could make a cheap joke out of it? You know when people said Jose wasn't fit to lace Fergies boots, they aren't calling into question Jose's stamina, right...
Yup I think in 2017 he had a positive effect - young voters were energised, and middle ground voters weren't turned off. It undoubtedly helped that the Tories ran the worst campaign in living memory, but Labour ran a very good one. They managed to take a conversation that had previously been about how to save money, and turn it into one about where it needed to be spent.
In 2019 he was unquestionably a liability, and as a party they'd not managed to gain the public trust on the economy that was necessary to promise such a massive spending increase.
Labour also need to acknowledge that whilst 2017 was a great result compared to expectations, it was still a loss that saw the Tories increase their vote share (after 7 years of austerity government) and put in a lot of the heavy moving in the midlands and north that led to the 2019 minor landslide. Votes need to be taken from the Tories in huge numbers, and this can't be done without some compromise.
if those people had said after a jose title win it would be the same, he didn't, it's not
Why the hell did he bung Jess Philips back into the limelight? Jeez...
as opposed to when he got appointed? Hmmm nah.
those voters left because either they wanted harder brexit than labour offered, or for a smaller portion of those voters no brexit at all and went LD/green, and in typical, let's all compromise and get along centrist fashion, keir is arguing for a Norway style agreement that will appeal to almost nobody
Imagine being so Tory that you think paying private companies for water - something humans literally can't live without - is a good thing
She's not brilliant when pushed to explain her own solutions but on the attack I think she's one of the best Labour have. She's a natural opposition spokesperson as far as I can see, it would be a waste not to use her.
you can’t do without food either. Do you think that should be free as well?
just imagine being so left wing that you think everything should be given to you free of charge.
The available evidence shows that most people who voted Labour in 2017 and didn't in 2019 did so in largest numbers because of the Corbyn leadership, not brexit. The next election, whenever that may be, is probably not going to be fought on which Brexit model the public prefers.
Ignoring some of the tedium and nonsense above, I highly recommend the New Statesman’s (long) profile of Starmer, which I found to be exceptionally balanced:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/03/keir-starmer-sensible-radical
To me, I think he’s deeply moral, likeable (good to see another gooner leading the party), a pretty dull speaker, but vastly intelligent and likely to bring competence back to British politics, which has long been missed. The shadow cabinet appointments and moves to unity are a part of that - no-one controversial in a senior job, and not obviously alienating one wing of the party over another.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/03/keir-starmer-sensible-radical
To me, I think he’s deeply moral, likeable (good to see another gooner leading the party), a pretty dull speaker, but vastly intelligent and likely to bring competence back to British politics, which has long been missed. The shadow cabinet appointments and moves to unity are a part of that - no-one controversial in a senior job, and not obviously alienating one wing of the party over another.
Can you show me where anyone's argued for everything to be given to people free of charge?
I just found your "what next - free water?!" comment hilarious.
the eu negotiations aren't going to be over even if the next election is in 2024, the LDs will be arguing to rejoin and tories will still be making sure they don't lose votes to UKIP. Labour will again try and walk the tightrope and fall off, being accused both of being too racist and not being racist enough
They are the same thing or at the very least play into each other. If people dislike Labour Brexit policy(Or anything other policy) that will then play into their view of the labour leadership and vice versa.
It's depressing that the only reason people like @ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg aren't for privatised air is because some company hasn't figured it out yet.
Didn't the same research break down the reasons people had given Corbyn as their reason for not supporting Labour and the main one (or at least, a major one) was his Brexit stance?