Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Keir Starmer's time is up

Fair points. I still think that nobody could have survived the daily antisemitism accusations though.

Which supporters do you mean by the way? There was Livingstone but Corbyn actually intervened to suspend him because the GLU didn't, ironically enough leading to accusations by EHRC and others that Corbyn was interfering with the complaints procedure and so hinting at his even greater antisemitism.

Corbyn wasn't responsible for the complaints procedure until he appointed someone (whose name I can never remember) to actually progress them because the wreckers in the GLU didn'at. The people doing this on the GLU actually seem to me to have been real antisemites by blocking the lack of action that Corbyn was blamed for.

Also many of the accusations of antisemitism of his supporters seemed to come from criticisms of Israel with a push to label any criticism of Israel as antisemitic - which we've seen recently to defend the slaughter in Gaza,
 
Last edited:
Pickman's model said:
the daft decision to launch a new policy every day of the campaign then corbyn would have done much better in 2019, even if he might not have won. but bringing a second referendum proposal to the get brexit done election was always going to end poorly.
Click to expand...
The new policy every day was daft. I only skim read the policy documents but 2017 seemed to give the core policy and then it looked like they let a committee loose on the fucking thing in 2019.
 
two sheds said:
The new policy every day was daft. I only skim read the policy documents but 2017 seemed to give the core policy and then it looked like they let a committee loose on the fucking thing in 2019.
Click to expand...
johnson for all his faults ran a great campaign in 2019. but in no year would the lp one have seemed even competent, it was a really shitty campaign for which to my surprise john mcdonnell and karie murphy were in charge https://www.ft.com/content/8610dc48-0148-11ea-b7bc-f3fa4e77dd47
 
Interesting, ta, webpage archive https://archive.md/l4koR

Corbyn did himself no favours when he repeatedly avoided answering questions with a couple of journalists, and it would have been good if he'd contributed to the Forde Report although I'd imagine he was expecting another stitch-up.
 
Chz said:
As for 2017, the internal party politics weren't external at that point. It didn't affect the vote any. Corbyn did very well, I think, but a united Labour Party would still have lost that election.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Labour Party was putting up a totally unified external face in 2017, as long as you ignore, for instance, the fact that the previous year half the Shadow Cabinet had resigned and triggered a leadership contest in an attempt to unseat Corbyn. I think that might have tipped external observers off to the fact that there were a few wee divisions inside the Labour Party.
 
hitmouse said:
Yes, the Labour Party was putting up a totally unified external face in 2017, as long as you ignore, for instance, the fact that the previous year half the Shadow Cabinet had resigned and triggered a leadership contest in an attempt to unseat Corbyn. I think that might have tipped external observers off to the fact that there were a few wee divisions inside the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

That link has reminded me of Angela 'Aaargh' Eagle's campaign launch, which still makes me laugh eight years later. :D
 
two sheds said:
Could anyone with his policies have managed the press? The Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph etc would have found something to froth at the mouth about just about any "left-leaning" Labour leader (as we've seen).

Enough Labour MPs seemed happy enough to play along with the antisemitic accusations just to stuff him, and I don't think many people would have predicted that the GLU who were actually responsible for handling the antisemitic complaints would screw them up and delay them so thoroughly to make Corbyn out as the antisemitic one. (That's what happened isn't it? I'm not up to that part of the Forde Report yet).

With that lot stacked against him I don't think it was a sign of weakness that he failed. He was largely fucked because he was keeping to Labour party procedures because he believed in being democratic about it.
Click to expand...

The handling the press issue just harks back to the stereotype of the Blair years, Campbell, Mandelson etc, and The Thick of It. Slick 1990s managerialism, bleepers and the rise of PR /Communication consultancies. Every Labour leader has been taken to the cleaners by the press and the media.

One of the things about Corbyn's nomination for leader is that it was initially pretty much a case of someone should stand otherwise what's the point of the left in the Labour Party? There was no formal faction machinery or indeed much factional experience and it was a case of Corbyn volunteering. The expectancy was that after Milliband , Labour would return to its Blairite legacy. The left in the Labour Parliamentary group was very weak ( Corbyn got around 10% of the Mp's vote as I reacll), little connection with Trade Unions and Corbyn's leadership campaign didn't come in a rise in mass protest or strike action. No Labour leader was in the same situation as Corbyn he was an outsider not backed by the TUC, the Labour party machinery, local government. many constituency parties or the Parliamentary Party.

It's hardly surprising that Corbyn lacked leadership skills , he'd been a back bencher and good constituency MP for decades, an enthusiastic supporter of progressive causes and not afraid to put his head above the parapet however he had never led anything. He turned out to be a very hard working, hands on type with tremendous conviction, and enthusiasm, tougher than he looked and had good oratory skills but as a leader in an idealised political sense probably not. However, his deficiencies in leadership could have been compensated by those around him and in my opinion that's where the real weakness was in collective decisive political leadership.
 
I think someone else linked to the Owen Jones article:

After George Galloway’s triumph in Rochdale, urgent questions loom for Keir Starmer – and the left, too

Labour’s leader has left Muslim supporters disenchanted. And the left must think hard about what happens when his approach unravels

As well as pointing out the significance of Gaza in this particular by-election, Jones also comments more widely on Starmer's failings, opining why more than half of voters say they think Starmer's doing badly as Labour leader.

Screenshot_20240304-115148~2.png

And Jones sums up with a final, scary, thought.

"Labour’s support is soft and superficial, driven almost entirely by revulsion at the Tories’ calamitous spell in office. We can see in Germany and the US how similar political projects came to power with the promise of offering stability, but both countries face acute political crises. And so the left – hounded by the Labour leadership as it is – needs to make tough decisions. Does it wait for either the likes of Galloway or the far right to fill the vacuum when mass disillusionment with Starmer’s government inevitably kicks in? Better to start asking some tough questions about what to do next."

Because that's what this boils down to: Starmer (and the centrist/right-wing of the Labour Party) are betting the house on appealing to Conservative voters, trying so hard not to alienate them, vowing to keep the two-child cap on child benefits, (all the better to punish those feckless single mums popping out kids to get council houses!), cracking down on benefits claimants, disabled people, immigrants, etc. (But not bankers or privatisation or disaster capitalism.) Because they continue to take the electorate in their traditional heartlands for granted. Because who else are they going to vote for?

Jones nails it on the head. The far right, that's who. If Starmer's going to deploy the rhetoric and policies of the nasty party, you know who can do nasty policies and politics even better (ie worse) than either Labour or the Conservatives? The far right.

Because if people are disillusioned with the Conservatives and if Labour is offering more of the same, (rather than something completely different, something to vote for) - Vote against the Tories, vote for Labour, because we're offering you more of the same things that won the Tories the last elections, but you don't like them anymore so vote for us! Then who will people vote for if they want something different? Far right parties who eg blame immigrants for all their woes, such as housing crisis, NHS waiting lists, low wages, etc.

I mean, some voters will figure they need to blame someone for their woes, right? And those who voted Conservative don't want to blame themselves for voting Conservative. And many who've traditionally voted Labour will be looking at Starmer and thinking there's barely a cigarette paper between Labour and Tory policies, and wanting to vote for something.
 
two sheds said:
Could anyone with his policies have managed the press? The Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph etc would have found something to froth at the mouth about just about any "left-leaning" Labour leader (as we've seen).

Enough Labour MPs seemed happy enough to play along with the antisemitic accusations just to stuff him, and I don't think many people would have predicted that the GLU who were actually responsible for handling the antisemitic complaints would screw them up and delay them so thoroughly to make Corbyn out as the antisemitic one. (That's what happened isn't it? I'm not up to that part of the Forde Report yet).

With that lot stacked against him I don't think it was a sign of weakness that he failed. He was largely fucked because he was keeping to Labour party procedures because he believed in being democratic about it.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
The39thStep said:
The handling the press issue just harks back to the stereotype of the Blair years, Campbell, Mandelson etc, and The Thick of It. Slick 1990s managerialism, bleepers and the rise of PR /Communication consultancies. Every Labour leader has been taken to the cleaners by the press and the media.

One of the things about Corbyn's nomination for leader is that it was initially pretty much a case of someone should stand otherwise what's the point of the left in the Labour Party? There was no formal faction machinery or indeed much factional experience and it was a case of Corbyn volunteering. The expectancy was that after Milliband , Labour would return to its Blairite legacy. The left in the Labour Parliamentary group was very weak ( Corbyn got around 10% of the Mp's vote as I reacll), little connection with Trade Unions and Corbyn's leadership campaign didn't come in a rise in mass protest or strike action. No Labour leader was in the same situation as Corbyn he was an outsider not backed by the TUC, the Labour party machinery, local government. many constituency parties or the Parliamentary Party.

It's hardly surprising that Corbyn lacked leadership skills , he'd been a back bencher and good constituency MP for decades, an enthusiastic supporter of progressive causes and not afraid to put his head above the parapet however he had never led anything. He turned out to be a very hard working, hands on type with tremendous conviction, and enthusiasm, tougher than he looked and had good oratory skills but as a leader in an idealised political sense probably not. However, his deficiencies in leadership could have been compensated by those around him and in my opinion that's where the real weakness was in collective decisive political leadership.
Click to expand...
i've said before that after so many years as an mp corbyn had seen a range of leadership styles. i felt at the time that it was a pity he hadn't learnt from them. but i am no longer so sure that's the case. perhaps he sought a more collegial style, rather than the managerialism which he might have used. i think he tried to be inclusive and open - he tried to be reasonable with the host of unreasonable people in the plp. there were both political and personal differences which he couldn't overcome. any leader would have struggled in corbyn's position and few more competent leaders would have lasted as long or done as well as he did - he felt that the labour party was there for working people, and this obviously put him at odds with a great number of his colleagues who felt and feel differently. the notion that he was some sort of dangerous lefty propelling the party and possibly the country towards a socialist hellhole was so risible that it's astonishing so many people fell for it. as you say, he had few allies in the broader labour movement. but compared to shammer he was a giant of a politician.
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
I think someone else linked to the Owen Jones article:

After George Galloway’s triumph in Rochdale, urgent questions loom for Keir Starmer – and the left, too

Labour’s leader has left Muslim supporters disenchanted. And the left must think hard about what happens when his approach unravels

As well as pointing out the significance of Gaza in this particular by-election, Jones also comments more widely on Starmer's failings, opining why more than half of voters say they think Starmer's doing badly as Labour leader.

View attachment 414615

And Jones sums up with a final, scary, thought.

"Labour’s support is soft and superficial, driven almost entirely by revulsion at the Tories’ calamitous spell in office. We can see in Germany and the US how similar political projects came to power with the promise of offering stability, but both countries face acute political crises. And so the left – hounded by the Labour leadership as it is – needs to make tough decisions. Does it wait for either the likes of Galloway or the far right to fill the vacuum when mass disillusionment with Starmer’s government inevitably kicks in? Better to start asking some tough questions about what to do next."

Because that's what this boils down to: Starmer (and the centrist/right-wing of the Labour Party) are betting the house on appealing to Conservative voters, trying so hard not to alienate them, vowing to keep the two-child cap on child benefits, (all the better to punish those feckless single mums popping out kids to get council houses!), cracking down on benefits claimants, disabled people, immigrants, etc. (But not bankers or privatisation or disaster capitalism.) Because they continue to take the electorate in their traditional heartlands for granted. Because who else are they going to vote for?

Jones nails it on the head. The far right, that's who. If Starmer's going to deploy the rhetoric and policies of the nasty party, you know who can do nasty policies and politics even better (ie worse) than either Labour or the Conservatives? The far right.

Because if people are disillusioned with the Conservatives and if Labour is offering more of the same, (rather than something completely different, something to vote for) - Vote against the Tories, vote for Labour, because we're offering you more of the same things that won the Tories the last elections, but you don't like them anymore so vote for us! Then who will people vote for if they want something different? Far right parties who eg blame immigrants for all their woes, such as housing crisis, NHS waiting lists, low wages, etc.

I mean, some voters will figure they need to blame someone for their woes, right? And those who voted Conservative don't want to blame themselves for voting Conservative. And many who've traditionally voted Labour will be looking at Starmer and thinking there's barely a cigarette paper between Labour and Tory policies, and wanting to vote for something.
Click to expand...
This week Owen Jones might be sound: next month not, and so on: I counted 5 flip-flops on Brexit, and while this month he is sound on Gaza in the past he has spoken at a conference of the Jewish Labour Movement (conclusively shown by Asa Winstanley to be an Israeli Embassy front) and in his book on Corbyn very weak on the anti-semitism charges vs Corbyn. So if you wait another OJ flip-flop will be along shortly
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
And Jones sums up with a final, scary, thought.

"Labour’s support is soft and superficial, driven almost entirely by revulsion at the Tories’ calamitous spell in office. We can see in Germany and the US how similar political projects came to power with the promise of offering stability, but both countries face acute political crises. And so the left – hounded by the Labour leadership as it is – needs to make tough decisions. Does it wait for either the likes of Galloway or the far right to fill the vacuum when mass disillusionment with Starmer’s government inevitably kicks in? Better to start asking some tough questions about what to do next."

Because that's what this boils down to: Starmer (and the centrist/right-wing of the Labour Party) are betting the house on appealing to Conservative voters, trying so hard not to alienate them, vowing to keep the two-child cap on child benefits, (all the better to punish those feckless single mums popping out kids to get council houses!), cracking down on benefits claimants, disabled people, immigrants, etc. (But not bankers or privatisation or disaster capitalism.) Because they continue to take the electorate in their traditional heartlands for granted. Because who else are they going to vote for?

Jones nails it on the head. The far right, that's who. If Starmer's going to deploy the rhetoric and policies of the nasty party, you know who can do nasty policies and politics even better (ie worse) than either Labour or the Conservatives? The far right.
Click to expand...
Ah, Owen 'finger on the pulse' Jones discovers 'filling the vacuum'. If they say a week is a long time in politics, 30 years must count as an eternity. :thumbs::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I dunno where he stands on the big talcum powder question, but whatever he's saying now I bet he'll have reversed it by the time he comes to power.
 
Pickman's model said:
i've said before that after so many years as an mp corbyn had seen a range of leadership styles. i felt at the time that it was a pity he hadn't learnt from them. but i am no longer so sure that's the case. perhaps he sought a more collegial style, rather than the managerialism which he might have used. i think he tried to be inclusive and open - he tried to be reasonable with the host of unreasonable people in the plp. there were both political and personal differences which he couldn't overcome. any leader would have struggled in corbyn's position and few more competent leaders would have lasted as long or done as well as he did - he felt that the labour party was there for working people, and this obviously put him at odds with a great number of his colleagues who felt and feel differently. the notion that he was some sort of dangerous lefty propelling the party and possibly the country towards a socialist hellhole was so risible that it's astonishing so many people fell for it. as you say, he had few allies in the broader labour movement. but compared to shammer he was a giant of a politician.
Click to expand...

I think the great tragedy of his time in office was that he clearly believed that emboldened bit himself, even though looking back at it now it could well have been the same sort of political orthodoxy that said he'd never win in 2015, would be thrown out in 2016 and would get steamrollered in 2017.

Him believing that meant that, 2017 aside, he never really pushed against it and instead retreated into the comfort of his own unexplained opinions. One of the most annoying examples was his post-2017 policy around the military, which if he'd actually engaged with the issues affecting the lower ranks - shoddy and exploitative privatized housing, people being sacked just to avoid paying them the full pensions they'd earned, crap equipment etc - would both have gained votes and offset the idea of him being a traitor. However he couldn't be arsed to do that.
 
for those who have not encountered them before, streatham rovers are an internet joke and don't really exist. a few years ago, one of their tweets got in to the national press, and in turn on to 'have i got news for you' (this was the one where they were complaining to the league after their opponents re-arranged their team's shirt number order so that the players' surnames on the team sheet spelled out SRFC ARE SHIT)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

krtek a houby
King William’s time is up
Replies
7
Views
513
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
Kid_Eternity
David Lammy’s time is up
Replies
10
Views
491
Karl Masks
K
Larry O'Hara
Chancellor Rachel Reeves: Her Time Is Up!
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
3K
Larry O'Hara
Larry O'Hara
JimW
Jon Benjamin's time is up
Replies
6
Views
525
Chz
Chz
steveseagull
Luke Akehurst's time is up
2 3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
7K
Larry O'Hara
Larry O'Hara
Back
Top Bottom