Labour: The Keir Starmer years (2 Viewers)

Sir Keir's won - are you happy with this outcome?

  • Total voters
    40
I would move to Sheffield to elect a pink beret-wearing left-wing comedian trans MP just to wind people up. I can imagine the Daily Mail readership fucking COMBUSTING at the headlines.
 
Sir Keith is a gigantic fucking idiot who has been very lucky to go up against even bigger twats in parliament so far. he is LINO (Labour in Name Only :eyes:)
 
I'm going to do my usual Starmer apologist stance here and point out that this is entirely consistent with his über-careful approach not to give the Tories anything to work with. If he said anything softer on immigration, every PMQs and every right wing election-era headline would be eaten up with 'Labour will open our borders'. Same about the climate protesters. Judge him by what he actually does when the time comes, not by what he says now.
 
VoR said:
I'm going to do my usual Starmer apologist stance here and point out that this is entirely consistent with his über-careful approach not to give the Tories anything to work with. If he said anything softer on immigration, every PMQs and every right wing election-era headline would be eaten up with 'Labour will open our borders'. Same about the climate protesters. Judge him by what he actually does when the time comes, not by what he says now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this. It's been an exercise in avoiding bad headlines, which has worked pretty well. Regardless of recent polling, they still need a lot of support from idiots.

Let's get them into power and then we can critique.
 
Aren’t we against protestors *gluing* themselves to the road? Or is the problem that Just Stop Oil have already stopped doing this?
 
he has a 35 point lead in the polls and Labour have never been likelier to regain power. now is the time to set out his agenda and make it clear what Labour stands for beyond not being the Tory party.

the opposition is supposed to... oppose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KNT
ZenGiraffe said:
Imagine having the temerity to judge someone for what they say.
Click to expand...
I will, when they've overcome the hurdle of getting into power. There's a bigger picture here, about getting the public and media onside and it seems to be working. If his immigration policies, when in power, look like that, I'll be appalled.

As for the protestestor, they're utter dickheads. Blocking roads is dangerous and irresponsible.
 
Jark said:
he has a 35 point lead in the polls and Labour have never been likelier to regain power. now is the time to set out his agenda and make it clear what Labour stands for beyond not being the Tory party.

the opposition is supposed to... oppose.
Click to expand...
I don't think they're there YET. Still a good two years and as we've seen, things move fast.
 
Ag said:
As for the protestestor, they're utter dickheads. Blocking roads is dangerous and irresponsible.
Click to expand...
Meh, a couple of middle-aged protesters closing one road is nothing compared to shutting down entire sections of a city to parade around an old lady's corpse in a box.

It doesn't justify heavy-handedness from the law at all.
 
Please file MY MOTHER IS STUCK IN AN AMBULANCE DYING WHILE YOU PROTEST TO SAVE THE PLANET alongside A BANK HOLIDAY MEANS LOSING £300m IN PRODUCTIVITY and THEY BRING IN MORE MONEY THAN THEY COST as astonishing NOT SEEING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES British establishment excuses to NOT EVER rock the boat.
 
Last edited:
The point remains, despite these distractions, you can only get progressive policies through, by electing a Labour government with a centre left PM. He's positioning himself in the centre, because that's how he'll get the votes to do it. It's a shame that's how it is, but, well that's how it is.

I can assure you Corbyn or anyone similar will never become PM. He did as well as he can do.

And I'm not anti protest, I thought the attacks on the artworks were far more interesting and effective, but you tend not to garner support by ruining people's day.
 
Wondering how many of these so called mopsy pro protestors would actually go and lay down in a motorway themselves, or do they just enjoy clapping the idiots who do it :D
 
funky said:
Wondering how many of these so called mopsy pro protestors would actually go and lay down in a motorway themselves, or do they just enjoy clapping the idiots who do it :D
Click to expand...
protest is essential in democracy. not being the person to go out there and do it does not mean you can't applaud others who do.

and being a centre left leader of the opposition does not mean you have to say you'd take a tough line with protestors. what is even the LOGIC.
 
Ag said:
you tend not to garner support by ruining people's day.
Click to expand...
THIS EXACTLY

However I do like to ensure that they garner death stares and dirty looks and then I like to pop empty plastic bottles in the wrong part of the bin to serve them right :disco:
 
You don’t need to literally *glue* yourself to road to make it impossible for ambulances to get through. I’ve seen more recent videos of protests where they don’t do this, they let ambulances past, and then they resume their protest. It seems a reasonable balance.
 
It really doesn't matter in this context, because Starmer is emphatically not going to start locking up protestors. He's just refusing to walk into an obvious trap by the Tory press.

I mean let's be real, if there's one thing we can probably all agree on it's that he's not exactly famous for being a 'my word is my bond' kind of guy. :D
 
Jark said:
protest is essential in democracy. not being the person to go out there and do it does not mean you can't applaud others who do.

and being a centre left leader of the opposition does not mean you have to say you'd take a tough line with protestors. what is even the LOGIC.
Click to expand...

I think the logic is what has been highlighted already - you have a choice really. Either accept a Labour leader in the middle to get the Tories out, or push for a lefty leader and accept that you’re stuck with the Tories forever. There are no other options (well except in Scotland, but I think they’re working on that)

I’d love an idealist Labour leader too. I agree with what everyone else says - in theory. But what’s the point when it’s never going to happen.
 
being pro protest is not being lefty. that's the point. people in general are not outraged by protest, Sir Keir does not need to take a hard stance on it to get voted into number 10.
 
Starmer is playing a blinder as far as I’m concerned. Regardless of what he says, you have to look at the people who’d make up his potential cabinet. There are a lot of senior MPs in the Labour Party with a highly functioning social conscience, they absolutely aren’t going to be Tory-lite.

All he’s doing is avoiding any sort of negative press which might give some fleeting advantage to the Tories. Remember, in three years of Tory scandal the worst the press could dig up about him as a counterpoint is that he had a curry at work.

Why would he say any more about immigration, for example, than ‘our borders need to be managed but we won’t send people to Rwanda’? And why would he allow himself to be pressed on rejoining the EU even if he was desperate to do so? Disenfranchised Tories will be the tastemakers at the next election; there may not be enough ardent Brexiteers to win another referendum, but there may well be enough to scupper a Labour majority if they don’t like what they’re hearing.
 
Jark said:
being pro protest is not being lefty. that's the point. people in general are not outraged by protest, Sir Keir does not need to take a hard stance on it to get voted into number 10.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Well, there’s different degrees and forms of protest I guess. But in the political narrative (the only one that matters from a voting perspective) most people don’t support those sort of protests. Not from my book of stats anyway. Marches and so forth, yes. Disruption to transport and events? Nope. Remember that guy who tied himself to a goalpost? He was absolutely crucified in every corner of the media and social media.

Now if he’s wrapping it all up and supporting the criminalisation of more protesting, I get it. But if he’s just saying these unorganised disruptors need to be called to account, then he’s simply playing politics. So then it comes back to this - do you want a political Starmer or another Tory government. I agree with what’s been said that he HAS to be careful. Not because we want him to, but the larger audience does. Remember Labour’s massive bump right now is from the Tory defectors who supported Cameron and Boris’s mandate. They’re not going to vote Labour easily. They’re angry right now, who knows where they’ll be in 2 years.
 
ButterTart said:
Why would he say any more about immigration, for example, than ‘our borders need to be managed but we won’t send people to Rwanda’?
Click to expand...
I don't want to get too personal and I mean this with respect, but it's obvious that you're not an immigrant. If you were, you'd want someone in number 10 who doesn't 'tolerate' immigration but that actually puts a positive light on it, because it IS a force of good overall and it IS needed in this country, and people need to be told that.

The fact that he is tip-toeing around it and pandering to the centre-right on this topic in the hope that they will vote for him is pathetic, disheartening and an INSULT to people like me. One of the FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of Labour parties is internationalism. If he can't get that right, or won't get it right because it's politically expedient, he can frankly FUCK OFF. Immigrants in this country don't need to be TOLERATED, they deserve to be APRECIATED or at the very least RESPECTED.

You may think that being moderately cool on immigration is a vote winner - what I see is the two main political parties in this country setting the tone on immigration so far into the NET NEGATIVE that we can't even begin to demand RESPECT for immigrants because we're having to fight PEOPLE BEING DEPORTED TO RWANDA in the first place.

If people knew what a horrible effect this kind of attitude can cause in an immigrant's psyche day in and day out, perhaps they'd think twice about brushing off his appalling attitude towards the whole thing.
 
funky said:
I disagree. Well, there’s different degrees and forms of protest I guess. But in the political narrative (the only one that matters from a voting perspective) most people don’t support those sort of protests. Not from my book of stats anyway. Marches and so forth, yes. Disruption to transport and events? Nope. Remember that guy who tied himself to a goalpost? He was absolutely crucified in every corner of the media and social media.

Now if he’s wrapping it all up and supporting the criminalisation of more protesting, I get it. But if he’s just saying these unorganised disruptors need to be called to account, then he’s simply playing politics. So then it comes back to this - do you want a political Starmer or another Tory government. I agree with what’s been said that he HAS to be careful. Not because we want him to, but the larger audience does. Remember Labour’s massive bump right now is from the Tory defectors who supported Cameron and Boris’s mandate. They’re not going to vote Labour easily. They’re angry right now, who knows where they’ll be in 2 years.
Click to expand...
Remember, the attitudes of the population of England and the population of Scotland are not significantly different. Yet we vote for an internationalist (with one obvious exception), openly pro-europe and pro- immigration party. You English need to realise that you deserve better, and demand better, of Labour.

The SNP does not have the media on their side, but are able to resist having the agenda set by it. A competent, confident leader could absolutely have more left wing policies and back then up in interviews and go on to succeed. Angela Rayner is probably entirely up to that task.
 
Peekaboo said:
I don't want to get too personal and I mean this with respect, but it's obvious that you're not an immigrant. If you were, you'd want someone in number 10 who doesn't 'tolerate' immigration but that actually puts a positive light on it, because it IS a force of good overall and it IS needed in this country, and people need to be told that.

The fact that he is tip-toeing around it and pandering to the centre-right on this topic in the hope that they will vote for him is pathetic, disheartening and an INSULT to people like me. One of the FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of Labour parties is internationalism. If he can't get that right, or won't get it right because it's politically expedient, he can frankly FUCK OFF. Immigrants in this country don't need to be TOLERATED, they deserve to be APRECIATED or at the very least RESPECTED.

You may think that being moderately cool on immigration is a vote winner - what I see is the two main political parties in this country setting the tone on immigration so far into the NET NEGATIVE that we can't even begin to demand RESPECT for immigrants because we're having to fight PEOPLE BEING DEPORTED TO RWANDA in the first place.

If people knew what a horrible effect this kind of attitude can cause in an immigrant's psyche day in and day out, perhaps they'd think twice about brushing off his appalling attitude towards the whole thing.
Click to expand...
In fairness I've not heard him say much about immigration one way or the other. I've never come across any instance of him treating migrants as an encumbrance but if he has then, obviously, he needs to do better. From a non migrant perspective I see that he has prominent MPs like Lammy and Phillips who are very openly, enthusiastically in favour of multiculturalism which, to me, indicates the overall attitude of the party much better than a leader who's playing his cards perhaps a touch too closely to his chest.
 
funky said:
But if he’s just saying these unorganised disruptors need to be called to account, then he’s simply playing politics. So then it comes back to this - do you want a political Starmer or another Tory government.
Click to expand...
:D I could not agree any less.

but you're right, labour's bump right now is because of the Tories' self-implosion. that's why it's imperative that Starmer sets out what HE believes in. tells the country what HIS party stands for. you can only benefit so much from being "not the worst option". at some point people will expect Starmer to lay out a positive and hopeful vision for the country. and he won't WOO swing voters by taking a hard line on protestors. that's rightwing rhetoric, that's negative messaging. he'll get them by saying this is what we'll do for YOU.
 
ButterTart said:
In fairness I've not heard him say much about immigration one way or the other. I've never come across any instance of him treating migrants as an encumbrance but if he has then, obviously, he needs to do better. From a non migrant perspective I see that he has prominent MPs like Lammy and Phillips who are very openly, enthusiastically in favour of multiculturalism which, to me, indicates the overall attitude of the party much better than a leader who's playing his cards perhaps a touch too closely to his chest.
Click to expand...
Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has said many things clearly indicating that she's an immigration hardliner. if Keir is not on that page he should rein her in.
 
Jark said:
Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has said many things clearly indicating that she's an immigration hardliner. if Keir is not on that page he should rein her in.
Click to expand...
Aye, she's a fly in the ointment. At least Cooper as shadow home secretary has been consistent in her attitudes to migration and asylum seekers.
 
good to know Labour and Starmer are focused on the really important stuff like, uh, censoring and threatening to remove the whip from their own MPs.



I'm sure it's all part of his genius plan to be seen as electable etc etc.
 
It's a bit excessive (I very much doubt she'll actually lose the whip), but antisemitism was literally the biggest stick used to beat them under Corbyn, so I'd say yes, making a public show of cracking down on anything that could remotely be perceived as anti-Indian sentiment probably is all part of his plan! :eyes:

It's a smack on the wrist that she seems to be complying with, she'll live.
 
I agree he needs to crack the whip but she’s not being racist in the slightest is she?

Or maybe she is if you look at it from other side; maybe not for me to say. But she’s referring to privilege and his inability to represent a wider culture or community. As a British Asian in Parliament she’s probably earned the right to say it.
 
I agree, I think it's all a bit silly and she had every right to say what she did. But he's incredibly cautious about optics, I don't see why we constantly treat this like it's a brand new revelation!
 
I've seen a ton of asian heritage folk on LinkedIn sharing this sentiment, so its not wild, but yeah, its all part of the safe game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top Bottom