Keir Starmer's time is up

[ddraig]

e2a to JTG
Leanne has always been pro decriminalisation, they used to work in probation and are more realistic than most politicians imo/e

 

[mojo pixy]

Why do people keep calling Starmer Keith? Are they just illiterate or not paying attention to Autocorrect?

Quite right. It's Kieth.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The should be for sir Kieth as he dug that particular hole all by himself. He’s had months to get a vaguely coherent line.

Outmanoeuvred by Johnston...that takes some doing.

Starmer could be outmaneuvered by a concrete bollard.

 

[vanya]

Burying Corbynism

Keir Starmer's economy speech then. It's fair to say it wasn't overwhelming, and few but the usual loyalists gave it a buoyant reception....

averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com

Keir Starmer's economy speech then. It's fair to say it wasn't overwhelming, and few but the usual loyalists gave it a buoyant reception. The left, as you might have guessed, weren't full of praise. But neither were the centrist hacks. On this James Ball offered an infrequent insight, noting Dear Keir was acting as if he was in government not opposition, and this is fatal. A rare confluence of opinion between him and the left he affects to despise.

I'm not going to go through all the criticisms as they're ten-a-penny on Twitter. There are three aspects worth noting. The first was the eye-catching original policy (albeit half-inched from Thatcherite think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies). I.e. The Covid recovery bonds. The plan proposes to raise billions from voluntary subscriptions to go into community investment. In practice, one would assume rebuilding local infrastructure and public services gutted by Tory cuts is where this money is destined. The bonds themselves would be long maturing, and are designed to soak up the savings large numbers of (mainly middle class) people have built up over the course of the pandemic.

This might be too vague to capture the public imagination, but in principle it is a sound policy. For middle class people, there's the promise for a better return on their savings than the negligible fractional interest bank deposits currently attract, and with a preponderance of profitible opportunities for investment unlikely in the immediate future, the bond scheme might appeal to those uninterested in tying their savings up in strings-attached investment vehicles and ISAs. Second, it ties these investments into the health of the public realm and community building. In other words, it offers a secure and stable alternative to the usual form of petty middle class investment. I.e. Property. Given the political toxins our ageing cohorts of property owners have showered on us this last decade, this is designed to move the locus of material interest away from individuated petit bourgeois landlordism to building up what the centrist wonks call the foundational economy. In other words, by socialising the investment behaviour of millions the hope is they see their economic interests tied up with the general interest. Hey presto, the selfishness and scapegoating that have powered the Tories in recent decades is gradually engineered out of the voting population. Including among those who might otherwise be predisposed toward them.

I've said my positive piece, what about the rest? Offering support to business is nothing new, and comrades will recall John McDonnell often spoke of policies appealing to its better nature. As a centrist, of course Keir Starmer is going to say positive things about business. And this about sums up the tone of the pitch. This wasn't aimed at winning back leftists or, for that matter, those drifting to other parties. This was, just like the patriotism stuff, calibrated at wooing sections of small business, soft Labour/soft Tory swing voters of means, and the odd home-owning former Labour voter who went Tory in 2019. It sounded plodding and boring because the "SLT" believe this is what these people want. By avoiding public spending commitments and offering a prospectus that, at first glance, is little different to the new Tory statism, let's just say the horses are in their stables and all is calm. If the aim was to offer a vision of a better Britain to a narrow demographic, then this is exactly what Keir achieved. No one's frightened. No one's gnashing their teeth.

At the same time this is a step back from Corbynism. Indeed, it constitutes a break with it. Starmerism as a political current is virtually indistinguishable from Fabianism. This is a politics in which popular participation is entirely a matter of voting for a Labour government, and then the Keirists are left to their difficult business of introducing the right policies for everyone's betterment. As such it tends toward centralisation and authoritarianism, a point celebrated by useful idiots and dim bulbs craving preferment. On paper, when the full Starmerist programme emerges blinking into the light it's going to involve industrial activism on state's part, more investment in public services, the integration of health and social care, the abolition of tuition fees, and quite a few things you might find in Labour's last two manifestos. What, however, will be conspicuous by its absence is democratisation.

Central to the Corbynist programme was what our much-missed comrade Ed Rooksby referred to as structural reforms. Whereas Keir's policies are about making British capitalism fairer and more functional, Corbynism wanted to use the levers of the state to introduce democratic decision-making where it is anathema to capitalist relations of production: in the workplace. The discussions around and positions taken on alternative models of ownership, democratic nationalisation of the utilities and rail, and the break up and socialisation of the media were about empowering workers, of creating a toehold from which the democratisation of economics could flow and with it a fundamental challenge to capital. This radical content of Corbynism is not just absent from Starmerism, it is entirely alien to the Fabian tradition itself.

We now know a little bit more about Starmerism today than we did yesterday. It is capable of taking on new, interesting, and innovative policy ideas. But strategically, this was no departure from what we've seen up until now and was, explicitly, a divorce from the Corbynism it happily gestured to a year ago. Yes, this is better than the Tories. But so, as a general rule, are the programmes put out by the Liberal Democrats. Try as he might, he cannot avoid the issue. Keir Starmer either locates Labour in the interests of the rising generation and sticks up for its core vote, as Corbynism partially managed, or he loses. The political calculus is that simple.

 

[ska invita]

Starmer could be outmaneuvered by a concrete bollard.

 

[JTG]

Quite right. It's Kieth.

SIR Kieth

 

[a_chap]

SIR Kieth

 

[Johnny Vodka]

He's an utterly useless cunt. Who are you meant to vote for south of the border now? (I'd probably vote Green. slowly backs away )

 

[steeplejack]

After the weekend's media tour and Sir Kieth's serially pisspoor performance on, well, multiple issues, conclusion:

a) if you're minded to vote Tory you will continue to do so as Sir Kieth looks like a weak imitation of the real thing
b) if you want to vote for a genuine change in direction and live in England, you'll either i. ignore Sir Kieth as he offers a re-branded version of exactly the same as we have already or ii. sit on your hands and wait until he goes away.

At the very time Westminster desperately needs a robust and competent opposition it has found this opportunist mollusc quivering on the riverbank of oblivion. What a fucking embarrassment.

 

[hitmouse]

I think Sir Kieieieth's instructions would probably be that you should should abstain for fear of seeming too divisive if you voted for anyone other than the tories.

 

[brogdale]

After the weekend's media tour and Sir Kieth's serially pisspoor performance on, well, multiple issues, conclusion:

a) if you're minded to vote Tory you will continue to do so as Sir Kieth looks like a weak imitation of the real thing
b) if you want to vote for a genuine change in direction and live in England, you'll either i. ignore Sir Kieth as he offers a re-branded version of exactly the same as we have already or ii. sit on your hands and wait until he goes away.

At the very time Westminster desperately needs a robust and competent opposition it has found this opportunist mollusc quivering on the riverbank of oblivion. What a fucking embarrassment.

Exposure doesn't seem to be helping him:

 

[steeplejack]

There'll be an oily stain where he used to be, once the right wing tabloids have worked him over before the 2024 GE. If he makes it that far. Jury's out at the moment.

 

[kabbes]

He's an utterly useless cunt. Who are you meant to vote for south of the border now? (I'd probably vote Green. slowly backs away )

Yeah, it’s a real problem. Fortunately, I have three years to not have to think about it.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Today he has refused to hold the govt to account over Matt Hancock. Utterly useless, unless his objective is to help the tories.

 

[BobDavis]

So who else then ? Lisa Nandy ? I think she is ok.

 

[splonkydoo]

Sir Keir Starmer QC - Quisling Cunt

 

[DotCommunist]

So who else then ? Lisa Nandy ? I think she is ok.

theres a similar void where any real convictions should be tbf.

 

[steeplejack]

So who else then ? Lisa Nandy ? I think she is ok.

quoting with approval violent crackdown in Catalonia and trying to be oh so clever in re-packaging "common sense" small-town right wing shit as some sort of social democratic agenda. Shifting the problem rather than solving it IMO.

 

[BobDavis]

I was looking more at personality & she comes across well in interviews imo. I haven’t looked closely at what she stands for. So who then ? Any suggestions ?

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Jeremy Corbyn

 

[two sheds]

Could we have Laura Pidcock back? KickStarmer out and have her stand in the by election?

I don't know much about her tbh just remember the statement about not supping with tories.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Could we have Laura Pidcock back? KickStarmer out and have her stand in the by election?

I don't know much about her tbh just remember the statement about not supping with tories.

She seems decent. I follow her on Facebook.

 

[two sheds]

Skwarkbox is somewhat breathless but they seem to be pushing Jon Trickett Trickett blasts Starmer’s sickly speech – with a 10-point plan of actual policies

 

[steeplejack]

John Trickett is the Geoff Holhurst in this potential race.

 

[steeplejack]

I was looking more at personality & she comes across well in interviews imo. I haven’t looked closely at what she stands for. So who then ? Any suggestions ?

Long-Bailey would have made a much better fist of it. The trouble is the media hated her before she even started, so she got nowhere. Too closely associated with Corbyn for them.

Starmer is like a minor television actor playing the Prime Minister, in a walk-on part in a soap opera. Nandy's just awful.

 

[BobDavis]

Could we have Laura Pidcock back? KickStarmer out and have her stand in the by election?

I don't know much about her tbh just remember the statement about not supping with tories.

Yes I have been hoping she gets back in a safeish seat in a by election. Are posters saying if they cannot get the Labour government they want they don’t want a Labour government ? I wanted Corbyn as pm but not enough others did but I would still rather have a Labour government than a Tory government.

It depends if you want to win at all costs. It was pretty obvious that Boris Johnson would be a piss poor pm but still the Tories got in. Maybe Labour would have done well enough to have got a hung parliament if they had a leader that voters saw as a pm. Tbf though when Corbyn done rather better in 2017 than anybody thought the right wing press did set about to do a monumental hatchet job on him.

I think to get in Labour will have to plan like Blair & co did before ‘97 but then that will probably not be the Labour government that urban wants.

 

[two sheds]

Not watched The Thick of it. Does he swear a lot? I'd like that in a leader of the party. I quite liked this from that article though.

 

[two sheds]

Full on attack mode has worked well for the tories - might be a good approach for labour too. There's no shortage of targets and no shortage of ammunition - tory corruption, billionaire spivs building up their wealth while their employees are below minimum wage, hypocrite media barons in the pocket of the tories.

The media's going to be against labour anyway so there's no use trying to suck up to them - make it clear by the next election why they're against the party because they have something to hide.

 

[kabbes]

Are posters saying if they cannot get the Labour government they want they don’t want a Labour government ?

I’d rather a Tory government facing an effective, fierce left-wing opposition backed up by grassroots anger than a soft-Tory neoliberal Labour government facing no opposition other than a Tory opposition pulling them ever further rightwards.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Yes I have been hoping she gets back in a Safeish seat in a by election. Are posters saying if they cannot get the Labour government they want they don’t want a Labour government ? I wanted Corbyn as pm but not enough others did but I would still rather have a Labour government than a Tory government.

I'm a floating voter so will vote for whatever party best represents me at the time. My voting issues are wealth inequality, the environment, drug policy and various other things. I have the privilege of living in Scotland so currently it's the SNP for me. They are our (as in the Scottish people's) only way out of Brexit and Nicola is a far better opposition leader than Starmer is (though I've neither been in love with her or Scottish independence historically).