I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

[Doucas]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

I'm sorry but if nobody can tell me how he's different from the tories, or how the specifics about how he will help workers or the vulnerable I simply can't vote for him. To me he is a tory.

[JamesWales]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

Despite Claude and myself having polarised views on Jeremy Corbyn and my general views being much more aligned to yours it seems I must agree with Claude on this issue.

At this moment in time the objective of the vast majority of the country, apart from the cosseted rich, is to get rid of this dreadful Tory government. As much as I adored Jeremy Corbyn and would love to see radical left wing policies put in place, unfortunately I can see that the general public won't buy into that (at the moment).

To be honest Starmer's tacit mandate is to appear as distanced from JC and left wing philosophy as possible just to unseat the Tories. To my mind, considering the catastrophically bad administration we've suffered for too long it is priority number one to oust these Tories and unfortunately you have to play them at their own game.

It's morally wrong and repulsive to me that Starmer doesn't publically stand with the strikers but this is a time for pragmatism not principle I'm afraid. Starmer is a poor Labour leader in my opinion but if he can at least allow the party to get a foothold in government I'm prepared to grit my teeth and cut him some slack. Hopefully, if we can get into power we can begin the process of educating the public to accept policies more conducive to their own well being.

This sounds a bit sinister..

Wales has been Labour run since 1999. What is better here? How far down the line of being educated are we?

"Hopefully, if we can get into power we can begin the process of educating the public to accept policies more conducive to their own well being."

[jon1959]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

Re: the 10 pledges. There iittle point in being a socialism idealist, you need to be a pragmatist too. Many socialist cannot reconcile this. It's all well and good wanting socialist policies but they are only relevant if you get elected. We've seen time and again the UK electorate doesn't want socialism

Starmer is a pragmatist social democrat and has amended his direction of travel because the world today is very different than in 2020.

Albert Einstein said insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get different results. Foot and Corbyn led labour to their worst ever election results, whilst Blair is the only Labour politician to win an election in nearly 50 years. This tells you which policies win elections.

You can be part of driving some of the change you want, or you can ignore the reality on the ground and carry on with a tory government.

You seem to be agreeing with Claude's view of the 10 Pledges as 'nonsense', and that it was smart politics by Starmer to tell the party one thing - only 30 months ago - and then renege on every one of his promises. I disagree. It is just dishonest and unprincipled. It is perfectly possible to be pragmatic and principled at the same time.

The 10 Pledges were not some radical socialist programme that would lead to failure at the ballot box. They were all about social democratic mainstream policies, uniting the party, and (as he elaborated on his pitch) using the 2017 election manifesto as the starting point for a Labour programme for government.

The 2017 manifesto was popular. Its individual policy offers scored well in opinion polls and focus groups. When 'blind tested' most people backed them. Corbyn failed in 2017 (Labour 40% to Tories 43%) but secured the highest Labour GE vote in 51 years. Instead of building on that Starmer has taken Labour back to the worst of Blair - without the charisma, the energy or the worked through policies.

[Claude Blue]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

You seem to be agreeing with Claude's view of the 10 Pledges as 'nonsense', and that it was smart politics by Starmer to tell the party one thing - only 30 months ago - and then renege on every one of his promises. I disagree. It is just dishonest and unprincipled. It is perfectly possible to be pragmatic and principled at the same time.

The 10 Pledges were not some radical socialist programme that would lead to failure at the ballot box. They were all about social democratic mainstream policies, uniting the party, and (as he elaborated on his pitch) using the 2017 election manifesto as the starting point for a Labour programme for government.

The 2017 manifesto was popular. Its individual policy offers scored well in opinion polls and focus groups. When 'blind tested' most people backed them. Corbyn failed in 2017 (Labour 40% to Tories 43%) but secured the highest Labour GE vote in 51 years. Instead of building on that Starmer has taken Labour back to the worst of Blair - without the charisma, the energy or the worked through policies.

Come off it Jon, you're old enough to know how politics works. Just like Truss and Sunak now, Starmer had to appeal to a selectorate in order to win the leadership. That mean't having to go along with a lot of the 2017 and 2019 manifestos, despite the party losing both elections. He may or may not apply them to the party's manifesto next time. Hopefully the party draws up that manifesto based on what is relevant and practical for that time - not x number of years ago.

I do get fed up of the nonsense about the 2017 GE. The facts are simple, the Labour party lost. The Tories got, if memory serves, a million more votes than Labour. Theresa May ran the worst Tory campaign in living memory and still Corbyn lost to her. Stacking up votes in already safe seats will not give you a majority, nor will targeting certain high profile Tory MP's seats for vanity and attention seeking reasons c.f. the ridiculous Owen Jones "flash bombing" Boris Johnsons Uxbridge constituency.

WRT the popular policies narrative, you will, I'm sure, be aware that whilst popular individually that popularity diminishes when they're all put together as voters start to question practicalities and, above all, the cost.

The 2019 manifesto was the 2017 one on steroids with further spending commitments added during the campaign and the party was humiliated.

[Feedback]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

You seem to be agreeing with Claude's view of the 10 Pledges as 'nonsense', and that it was smart politics by Starmer to tell the party one thing - only 30 months ago - and then renege on every one of his promises. I disagree. It is just dishonest and unprincipled. It is perfectly possible to be pragmatic and principled at the same time.

The 10 Pledges were not some radical socialist programme that would lead to failure at the ballot box. They were all about social democratic mainstream policies, uniting the party, and (as he elaborated on his pitch) using the 2017 election manifesto as the starting point for a Labour programme for government.

The 2017 manifesto was popular. Its individual policy offers scored well in opinion polls and focus groups. When 'blind tested' most people backed them. Corbyn failed in 2017 (Labour 40% to Tories 43%) but secured the highest Labour GE vote in 51 years. Instead of building on that Starmer has taken Labour back to the worst of Blair - without the charisma, the energy or the worked through policies.

I'm not agreeing that the 10 pledges were nonsense, and i dont believe CB was either. I'm saying that a manifesto defined pre covid may not be relevant today. You don't have to be blessed with too much intelligence to understand this.

You would prefer to stick with your ideals and that's your prerogative. But ideals don't win elections, policies and manifestos have to be grounded in realism if you want to win over the electorate

[jon1959]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

The 2019 manifesto was the 2017 one on steroids with further spending commitments added during the campaign and the party was humiliated.

The 2019 manifesto was the 2017 one buried under an incoherent 'cop out' Brexit 'policy'.

It was balanced in that it pissed off Remainers and Leavers equally. Remind me who was the author of that policy? Not the Shadow Brexit Secretary, surely? That nice Keir Starmer? Corbyn has to take final responsibility as leader, but as is clear from the Forde Report amongst other sources, he was not in control of the PLP or Labour officials.

And whilst we're throwing the 'on steroids' label about - it certainly applies to the media abuse of Corbyn. There is no way that his treatment by the media was the norm for Labour leaders - it was on steroids and more.

He may have brought some of that on himself - although I doubt we will agree on when and how that happened - but it was way off the scale of what any other Labour leader ever got. I suppose the world has changed with the arrival of mass social media, but a simple comparison of newspaper front pages makes it clear enough.

[Swiss Peter]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

The 2019 manifesto was the 2017 one buried under an incoherent 'cop out' Brexit 'policy'.

It was balanced in that it pissed off Remainers and Leavers equally. Remind me who was the author of that policy? Not the Shadow Brexit Secretary, surely? That nice Keir Starmer? Corbyn has to take final responsibility as leader, but as is clear from the Forde Report amongst other sources, he was not in control of the PLP or Labour officials.

And whilst we're throwing the 'on steroids' label about - it certainly applies to the media abuse of Corbyn. There is no way that his treatment by the media was the norm for Labour leaders - it was on steroids and more.

He may have brought some of that on himself - although I doubt we will agree on when and how that happened - but it was way off the scale of what any other Labour leader ever got. I suppose the world has changed with the arrival of mass social media, but a simple comparison of newspaper front pages makes it clear enough.

Who would you like to see at the helm, Jon?

[jon1959]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

Who would you like to see at the helm, Jon?

If the Labour Party remains a 'broad church social democratic party' with organisational, political and financial roots in the trade union movement, I would be happy to see a unity leader who could draw support from all sides like Andy Burnham. He is of the 'soft left' as I think it was once called, is experienced in Westminster (Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet), refused to take part in the Chicken Coup against Corbyn, and has shown the scope for local/regional political and social action as Mayor of Greater Manchester. I think he has credibility, experience and the skills needed to hold the PLP and wider Labour Party together.

Burnham can't stand at the moment under the current rules as he isn't an MP. I would also prefer to see Labour finally electing a woman as leader. But I think he is the best bet.

The Labour left don't have any obvious candidates. Some have the same strengths and weaknesses as Corbyn (great campaigners and communicators with live audiences, but poor as party managers or at the Westminster ritual). I like Clive Lewis, Dawn Butler and a wider group of younger (often black and female) Campaign Group MPs - but they don't tick enough boxes to survive.

If the FPTP system is dumped for PR, and at the same time Labour cuts its ties to the trades union movement, my automatic support for Labour would be gone. In that situation I would back the British Melenchon - whoever that might be.

[Swiss Peter]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

If the Labour Party remains a 'broad church social democratic party' with organisational, political and financial roots in the trade union movement, I would be happy to see a unity leader who could draw support from all sides like Andy Burnham. He is of the 'soft left' as I think it was once called, is experienced in Westminster (Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet), refused to take part in the Chicken Coup against Corbyn, and has shown the scope for local/regional political and social action as Mayor of Greater Manchester. I think he has credibility, experience and the skills needed to hold the PLP and wider Labour Party together.

Burnham can't stand at the moment under the current rules as he isn't an MP. I would also prefer to see Labour finally electing a woman as leader. But I think he is the best bet.

The Labour left don't have any obvious candidates. Some have the same strengths and weaknesses as Corbyn (great campaigners and communicators with live audiences, but poor as party managers or at the Westminster ritual). I like Clive Lewis, Dawn Butler and a wider group of younger (often black and female) Campaign Group MPs - but they don't tick enough boxes to survive.

If the FPTP system is dumped for PR, and at the same time Labour cuts its ties to the trades union movement, my automatic support for Labour would be gone. In that situation I would back the British Melenchon - whoever that might be.

Thanks for the response. Interesting to read.

[Feedback]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

I would also prefer to see Labour finally electing a woman as leader.

I have to ask why? Surely you want the best person for the role, and that may be a man or woman.

[Claude Blue]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

The 2019 manifesto was the 2017 one buried under an incoherent 'cop out' Brexit 'policy'.

It was balanced in that it pissed off Remainers and Leavers equally. Remind me who was the author of that policy? Not the Shadow Brexit Secretary, surely? That nice Keir Starmer? Corbyn has to take final responsibility as leader, but as is clear from the Forde Report amongst other sources, he was not in control of the PLP or Labour officials.

And whilst we're throwing the 'on steroids' label about - it certainly applies to the media abuse of Corbyn. There is no way that his treatment by the media was the norm for Labour leaders - it was on steroids and more.

He may have brought some of that on himself - although I doubt we will agree on when and how that happened - but it was way off the scale of what any other Labour leader ever got. I suppose the world has changed with the arrival of mass social media, but a simple comparison of newspaper front pages makes it clear enough.

I agree with you on the Brexit policy, it was a mess. The party was totally cornered by Brexit with the majority being remainers but a hardcore of hard left members supporting a ridiculous and fanciful "Lexit." IMHO this last group included Corbyn, who I believe was disingenuous in his support of remain. As you have alluded to, Corbyn had no control over the party and any party lacking strong leadership is doomed to fail.

Yes, Corbyn was treated appallingly by most of the media but he did bring a lot on to himself with documented comments and associations. Often clipped and exaggerated but that's what happens to Labour leaders. His recent comments about Ukraine shows clearly that he was never fit to lead the Labour Party or be PM. WTF is he doing speaking to a Lebanon TV station with links to Iran and the Assad regime in Syria?

[Doucas]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

I'm sorry but if nobody can tell me how he's different from the tories, or how the specifics about how he will help workers or the vulnerable I simply can't vote for him. To me he is a tory.

I'm still waiting for this, I'd genuinely love to be wrong so please educate me!

[Dorcus]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

I'm still waiting for this, I'd genuinely love to be wrong so please educate me!

I'll give it a shot. You're right he is no different from a Tory and the fact he hasn't ditched the silly handle "Sir" really grates with me. He would fit in to any moderately centre left Tory administration.

However, the overriding objective for the good of the vast majority of the country is to get rid of the present fascist government. Starmer's only job is to make Labour electable again and as we found with Blair and Brown the only possible way to do that is to tack to Tory lite.

Starmer isnt doing a bad job of things if you consider the polls are showing lukewarm support for Labour, largely due to the disaster the present administration has shown itself to be. Starmer doesn't have to be spectacular to improve Labours election chances. He just needs to distance himself from Corbyn as far as possible. I personally detest it but I would settle for anything but the Tories at the moment and then try to get the Left Wing doctrine across when we have a foothold in power.

Despite Starmer's many weaknesses any change of leadership campaign now might set our ambitions back much further. There will be a more opportune time for that in the future.

Hasta la victoria sempre!

[Doucas]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

I'll give it a shot. You're right he is no different from a Tory and the fact he hasn't ditched the silly handle "Sir" really grates with me. He would fit in to any moderately centre left Tory administration.

However, the overriding objective for the good of the vast majority of the country is to get rid of the present fascist government. Starmer's only job is to make Labour electable again and as we found with Blair and Brown the only possible way to do that is to tack to Tory lite.

Starmer isnt doing a bad job of things if you consider the polls are showing lukewarm support for Labour, largely due to the disaster the present administration has shown itself to be. Starmer doesn't have to be spectacular to improve Labours election chances. He just needs to distance himself from Corbyn as far as possible. I personally detest it but I would settle for anything but the Tories at the moment and then try to get the Left Wing doctrine across when we have a foothold in power.

Despite Starmer's many weaknesses any change of leadership campaign now might set our ambitions back much further. There will be a more opportune time for that in the future.

Hasta la victoria sempre!

Thanks, but what does he stand for and how would he help workers and the vulnerable?

[life on mars]

Re: I Hate Keir Starmer - Tom Whyman - Gawker

It actually saddens me to read this Jon.

Again I've no desire to fall out with you but to accuse Starmer of being "an apologist and enabler of racists" whilst ignoring the behaviour of Corbyn and his acolytes is quite shocking.

I don't believe Starmer is incompetent, although the next GE will decide that.

As for being a liar - I assume because of the 10 pledges nonsense - we all need to accept that the world has moved on and that the priorities of 2020 may not be the same as now. None of us know how many of these pledges will be in the next manifesto - who knows, you maybe pleasantly surprised.

On the other hand maybe try some pragmatism and accept you wont get everything you want from any political party.

What turned me away for Labour was this idea that what they say is the only way , withing its ranks there is some serious nastiness ,now that exists in every party its however when a party runs on a ticket of equality , inclusiveness , not for the few but the many , no bullying , no harassment , female opportunities in the top job, not racist etc etc its best they are that ????????????..

I don't won't to fall out with anyone but being pragmatic and balanced is a wonderful skill and being able to say how one feels without being called some pathetic name or a Tory , Right wing , Gammon face, and other slurs , I do note as well that the Tories are not so insulting of others in such a direct or insulting way , or carrying placards that on occasions are very offensive and of a violent nature ..