Did you vote for Starmer?

[treelover]

Maybe, but remind us of those great minds that missed the cut.

Slightly surprised nothing for Clive Lewis or Yvette Cooper given their prominence. And I thought Hilary Benn would re-emerge also.

RLB’s position an important gesture towards unity.

if Cooper was in, I and many other disabled and sick members would be out, architect of much of the brutal welfare reforrms, ATOS, WCA, etc.

We(people i know) are tolerating Liam Byrne, due to his apologising/contrition, nothing from Ms Cooper.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Yes, see edit.

Fine but don't pretend that supporting a LP that is backing an attack on people via austerity but not supporting a LP that challenged austerity doesn't say something about your politics. Let's be real, you are well to the right of the centre of gravity of the LP both at present and past. I mean contrast your views of Blair, MacDonald with the majority of current members.

MacDonald?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Why is it irrelevant though? Is it irrelevant that many people want a Labour party that's a genuinely electable alternative to the Tories? It's not the Labour party that perhaps you, Squirrel, Tidy, and a handful of others want though. Maybe you lot wouldn't even call it socialist, in which case voters don't seem to want your version of socialism which only really exists on internet forums and in dingy back rooms of pubs where the comrades have been banging tables and organising for the last 50 years to no effect. The furthest left leaning Labour Party in terms of leadership that the country's had in its modern history has just been absolutely obliterated by the most venal Tory Party since Thatcher's. Many people don't want right wing politics but don't want hard-left politics either. They believe, not unreasonably, that there will never be a Labour government of the type redsquirrel et al want. Many others don't want that party anyway and feel that a soft or centre left party is more aligned with them or simply the only way to get the Tories out. Squirrel can shout them down as 'non-socialists', Liberals, Tories, cunts, or whatever but at the end of the day those are just different terms for 'not what I want'. The poll on here is also unrepresentative of views as it tells us little. A lot of people won't have voted for Starmer because they wanted a woman party leader or for other reasons, not because he's not left-leaning enough. The other candidates were hardly raving Commies.

In a nutshell.

It is simple really, you can have Corbyn, or left of Corbyn, or, you can have someone who has a decent chance of winning the next election.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I think those who voted for Starmer did so largely on his promise ‘not to oversteer’. Most Labour Party members seem willing to make a compromise between idealism and electability (though many will consider it an ultimately flawed compromise). People dream of hitting the mythical sweet spot.

What they didn’t vote for is Macron by the back door. Starmer didn’t run on being a liberal, though his manner often suggests it. If he now dishonestly steers towards a completely market based approach he will split the Party and probably lose to Johnson, shamefully so, because the Tory will likely be offering ordinary people more.

So early signals are going to be seized upon and the shadow cabinet is a bit disappointing in that respect.

I know the old adage is 'Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer' but I should imagine that RLB and Lansman are already plotting the demise of Starmer.

 

[belboid]

if Cooper was in, I and many other disabled and sick members would be out, architect of much of the brutal welfare reforrms, ATOS, WCA, etc.

We(people i know) are tolerating Liam Byrne, due to his apologising/contrition, nothing from Ms Cooper.

But you’re happy to have Rachel “the Labour Party is not the party for those on benefits” Reeves?!

 

[redsquirrel]

MacDonald?

Ramsay

 

[Mation]

No, I didn't vote for him or any of the candidates. Cancelled my subs when JC said he was stepping down.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Ramsay

Even I'm not quite old enough to remember him.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Why is it irrelevant though? Is it irrelevant that many people want a Labour party that's a genuinely electable alternative to the Tories? It's not the Labour party that perhaps you, Squirrel, Tidy, and a handful of others want though. Maybe you lot wouldn't even call it socialist, in which case voters don't seem to want your version of socialism which only really exists on internet forums and in dingy back rooms of pubs where the comrades have been banging tables and organising for the last 50 years to no effect. The furthest left leaning Labour Party in terms of leadership that the country's had in its modern history has just been absolutely obliterated by the most venal Tory Party since Thatcher's. Many people don't want right wing politics but don't want hard-left politics either. They believe, not unreasonably, that there will never be a Labour government of the type redsquirrel et al want. Many others don't want that party anyway and feel that a soft or centre left party is more aligned with them or simply the only way to get the Tories out. Squirrel can shout them down as 'non-socialists', Liberals, Tories, cunts, or whatever but at the end of the day those are just different terms for 'not what I want'. The poll on here is also unrepresentative of views as it tells us little. A lot of people won't have voted for Starmer because they wanted a woman party leader or for other reasons, not because he's not left-leaning enough. The other candidates were hardly raving Commies.

Why are you and others banging on about socialism. This is about the labour party for fucks sake.

 

[Mr Moose]

if Cooper was in, I and many other disabled and sick members would be out, architect of much of the brutal welfare reforrms, ATOS, WCA, etc.

We(people i know) are tolerating Liam Byrne, due to his apologising/contrition, nothing from Ms Cooper.

Fair enough and not advocating she should be, just noting the name.

 

[Mr Moose]

I know the old adage is 'Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer' but I should imagine that RLB and Lansman are already plotting the demise of Starmer.

Yes, that’s probably what they are up to when they take a break from twiddling imaginary moustaches and going muhahahahaha.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I find it interesting that Lansman is always plotting. In the shadows. Plotting.

 

[killer b]

I find it interesting that Lansman is always plotting. In the shadows. Plotting.

Careful now, if you find things like that interesting about sas's posts he goes proper radge.

 

[The39thStep]

Why are you and others banging on about socialism. This is about the labour party for fucks sake.

Reminds me I must ask Spymaster after the corona lockdown has finished for the address of this pub that he was reccomending

 

[Gramsci]

SNP is a difficult one. Sturgeon is basically soft left Labour with added nationalism. Plus, even if Scottish people want to vote Labour, if it’s snp v tories they’ll have to vote tactically, so not sure about that.

I see no reason why a competent shadow cabinet not sunk by antisemitism or corbyn’s perceived “anti-western” views, putting forward progressive policies wouldn’t necessarily appeal to the working class & young alike though. Corbyn sure as hell did not appeal to the working class! After 5 years of Johnson, people might want “boring” starmer.

You and I both come from inner London. I dont understand how you can make a sweeping statement like this. The working class in my area Loughborough Junction did vote Labour. Most of the people I worked with ( in my working class job) did find Corbyn appealing. They all came from inner London.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

You and I both come from inner London. I dont understand how you can make a sweeping statement like this. The working class in my area Loughborough Junction did vote Labour. Most of the people I worked with ( in my working class job) did find Corbyn appealing.

I’m talking about the north. And I’m not making this up - it’s from loads of stuff I’ve read.
(Also I live in London but I’m from Scotland).

 

[Gramsci]

I’m talking about the north.

No you said working class. What I dont get about you is we are from same area. Can you not see that Corybn did appeal to sections of the working class?

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

No you said working class. What I dont get about you is we are from same area. Can you not see that Corybn did appeal to sections of the working class?

I apologise and clarify then: northern working class areas.

 

[Spymaster]

Bit of an aside but there cannot be a LP "I want" because the LP I would want would not be a LP anymore it would be a totally different beast, and 'm perfectly aware that my politics are not shared by many other people.

But the second part (that these are just different terms for 'not what I want') is nonsense isn't it. If socialism (or any other political ideology) is going to mean anything it has to mean subscribing, via ones actions, to a set of principles that distinguish socialism from other political ideologies. This is not some sort of insistence on ideological purity it's a simple acknowledgement that that there are different political ideologies, and that our actions are key to our place us within those political ideologies.

Lets take the example of Polly Toynbee, who declares herself a socialist, despite this she was at one time an active member of a party that was opposed to the LP, then she supported a LP that backed austerity and attacking workers and she recently actively worked against a move in the LP for move to the left and opposition to austerity. Now lets compare her against Tolly Poynbee, who was also a member of the SPD, who also worked to get Copper and Smith elected, who opposed Corbyn, who in short took exactly the same actions as Polly Toynbee but declares herself a liberal. Are we going to say the Polly is a socialist and Tolly a liberal simply because in their heart of hearts they consider themselves as such, nevermind that their actions are identical?

Do you remember Shevak, the Lib Dem who insisted that they were some type of anarchist? Are we to conclude that they were an anarchist because they felt agreement with anarchist ideals in some way (despite their actions being utterly inconsistent with such principles)? Is there as much validity in the argument that Blair was a socialist as that he was a neo-liberal? If someone is a member of the Conservatives or LibDems but only because they think this is the best way to support socialism are we to take them seriously. Such positions would be absurd.

If someone is going to argue and actively take measures to push the LP to the right, to take up positions that accord more with liberalism than socialism then it is not ideologically purity to point out that they are, to a greater or lesser extent, a liberal.

-----

With respect to the more important issue of engaging with comrades in the LP.
There are people in the LP I absolutely recognise and am proud to call comrades, I don't agree with the decision they've made politically, strategically or tactically but I can understand their viewpoint that the LP is the best way to advance class warfare while not agreeing with it. But that certainly does not apply to all in the LP, there are a fucking ton of shits in the LP that I don't consider my comrades.There's a lot of talk about Tory austerity but the LP signed up for attacking workers under the banner of austerity. Are attacks on workers less bad if the person doing them wears red rather than blue, bollocks they are. I don't consider my comrades those that are currently attacking library/museum workers in Bradford, I don't consider those that support scabbing comrades, I don't consider those that smeared the IWCA as comrades. I might understand their political decisions, I may even forgive them, but when it counted they put themselves on the wrong side of the line. They picked Labour over labour.

Yeah, if you're arguing that an electable LP is not a fundamental socialist party I've no issue with that.

 

[Gramsci]

I apologise and clarify then: northern working class areas.

So as we are in South London what is your opinion of Lambeth Council? I see the leader Jack Hopkins is chuffed that Corbyn is out and his favourite for the job Starmer is in. New Labour Lambeth policies on housing / libraries/ sell of land aren't popular. The new influx of members ( young people and old peope who rejoined) have been at loggerheads with the ( now old) New Labour lot. How is Starmer going to unite people with opposing views?

 

[David Clapson]

When I voted it was obvious Starmer would win, so I voted for Nandy because I would prefer her to succeed Starmer, rather than RLB. If RLB and Starmer had been neck and neck I would have voted Starmer. I want someone electable and I'm not sure RLB is.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

So as we are in South London what is your opinion of Lambeth Council? I see the leader Jack Hopkins is chuffed that Corbyn is out and his favourite for the job Starmer is in. New Labour Lambeth policies on housing / libraries/ sell of land aren't popular. The new influx of members ( young people and old peope who rejoined) have been at loggerheads with the ( now old) New Labour lot. How is Starmer going to unite people with opposing views?

Don’t have an opinion on Lambeth council. Starmer is NOT new labour though. Why do you think he is?

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Why do you want someone who achieved the worst labour election result in 85 years?

 

[Gramsci]

Don’t have an opinion on Lambeth council. Starmer is NOT new labour though. Why do you think he is?

How can you not have an opinion on the activities of the local Labour Council? These are bread and butter issues like housing. Surely someone interested in Labour pary would have a view of how the party works locally.

I didnt say Starmer is New Labour.

What I said was , based on my actual experience of local communiy politics, is how Starmer is going to unite a party when what I see is opposing sides.

 

[belboid]

Why do you want someone who achieved the worst labour election result in 85 years?

it wasn't really tho, was it? Still got a higher vote than Blair in 2005, only just behind the 2001 numbers.

Starmer and co will need to do rather more than be competent technocrats to win. Unless, of course, the tories fuck this up sooooo badly, in which case it makes hardly any difference who leads labour.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

How can you not have an opinion on the activities of the local Labour Council? These are bread and butter issues like housing. Surely someone interested in Labour pary would have a view of how the party works locally.

I didnt say Starmer is New Labour.

What I said was , based on my actual experience of local communiy politics, is how Starmer is going to unite a party when what I see is opposing sides.

it wasn't really tho, was it? Still got a higher vote than Blair in 2005, only just behind the 2001 numbers.

Starmer and co will need to do rather more than be competent technocrats to win. Unless, of course, the tories fuck this up sooooo badly, in which case it makes hardly any difference who leads labour.

I don’t think that’s a great argument because 1) more people voted overall in 2017/2019 2) the only way for Blair was down given his mammoth landslides in 97 3) in any event number or percentage of votes is irrelevant under FPTP because it’s based on number of seats. Sweeping up huge number of seats in labour strongholds like London doesn’t help win elections.

to gramsci - I’m not involved in local party politics. I just have a vague interest in politics and really want a labour government. I think & hope keir starmer might be able to deliver.

 

[The39thStep]

Yeah, if you're arguing that an electable LP is not a fundamental socialist party I've no issue with that.

Tbh I dont think the Labour Party has ever been a fundemental socialist party and I can live with that. I went out with mates the night the Blair led Labour party was elected and despite the fact i thought the manifesto was tepid and not in a million years socialist celebrated with them as the Tories were out. t I can understand and see how Blair got elected then but dont believe that there is no way back for Blairism to be an electable force now. The issue for who ever leads the Labour Party now is ,barring a Tory implosion ,they have to win seats back in Scotland, the Midlands and the North simply to be in the running never mind electable . I havent seen a strategy from those who think Starmer is more electable that tackles that issue yet.

 

[belboid]

I don’t think that’s a great argument because 1) more people voted overall in 2019 2) the only way for Blair was down given his mammoth landslides in 97 3) in any event number or percentage of votes is irrelevant under FPTP because it’s based on number of seats. Sweeping up huge number of seats in labour strongholds like London doesn’t help win elections.

that's true - ish, but also misses a major point. He was only 3% lower than Blair in 2005, but the tories weren't split over Europe any more, which was hardly Corbyn's fault. That's not to say tere were no issues with Corbyn's leadership, of course, but blaming everything on him misses the point by miles.

Most of Johnsons's new found northern support is very shallow, whether it survives cv and whatever happens with brexit now is all to be seen. Scotland is a different matter, and while Labour is an officially unionist party, it will have great difficulty pulling back support there. And shifting to an pro-indie position wouldn't do that much good unless definitely not a rapist Salmond succeeds in tearing them apart (which is possible).

 

[Gramsci]

to gramsci - I’m not involved in local party politics. I just have a vague interest in politics and really want a labour government. I think & hope keir starmer might be able to deliver.

I thought that one of the reasons given for Labour defeat is that it was not imbedded in local communities enough. So even if one has a vague interest an opionion of how the local Labour Council works would I thought be very relevant.

I thought you said on previous thread that you had manned the phonelines for Starmer?

Im not a full time politico. I do some community stuff when I have time. So I have some knowledge of how the local party in my area works and deals with the community.

Which I have been posting up here every now and then. You dont seem to take any of it on board as relevant. Im not making up what Im saying.

Starmer - Im giving him the benefit of the the doubt for now. He made a lot of promises to get the left leaning members to vote for him. Im going to see ho that goes.

I also think in areas like mine the New Labour/ Blairite side of the party never went away. Chuka made big mistake leaving the party. My local Cllrs agreed with everything he said except for leaving. They now call it - like Chuka- "Progressive" politics instead of New Labour.

The New Labour wing of the local party control who gets to be a Council candidate. They are as ruthless and as organised as they have been for years.

So as you voted for Starmer - how is he going to reconcile the different sides in the party? As Ive pointed out to you in our area the workig class did not reject the Corbyn led party at the ballot box.

An ex New Labour acquaintance of mine did say to me perhaps in the Blair years the party should have built and supported the idea of Counci housing. Which given the New Labour hostiliy to the idea of Council housing was quite a change of heart imo. But he is just one ex Cllr.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Gramsci Yep I manned the phone lines for starmer. I was volunteering on his leadership campaign. I have really liked starmer ever since I watched McLibel when I was 19, about 15 years ago. I wanted him to be leader.

I think Starmer’s attempt to reconcile is to appoint mainly so-called soft-left Figures and avoid controversial appointments on both sides of the Labour right/left. I don’t know if it will work but so far he seems to have hit the right notes. obviously not everyone will be happy.
I don’t know how that will work at a local council level, sorry. Didn’t mean to ignore anything you said.