Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[DynamicSpirit]

It seems Labour have suspended a councillor (and candidate in the upcoming elections) in Wandsworth who tweeted that Rishi Sunak should go back to India. Councillor Peter Carpenter of West Hill ward, Wandsworth, tweeted, "Rishi Sunak is a complete waste of space. He should go back to India with his billionaire wife." Cllr Carpenter has since deleted his Twitter account, but not before a screenshot of his Tweet got very widely shared. Report by On London

A Labour councillor in Wandsworth has been suspended by the party and prevented from seeking re-election on 5 May after writing on Twitter that Chancellor Rishi Sunak “should go back to India with his billionaire wife”.

Peter Carpenter, who currently represents the West Hill ward, has deleted his Twitter account, but not before the tweet, which also described Sunak, who was born in Southampton to Indian parents, as “a complete waste of space”, attracted a complaint.

 

[permarquis]

It seems Labour have suspended a councillor (and candidate in the upcoming elections) in Wandsworth who tweeted that Rishi Sunak should go back to India.

The amateurism of some professional politicians never ceases to amaze me.

 

[brad465]

It seems Labour have suspended a councillor (and candidate in the upcoming elections) in Wandsworth who tweeted that Rishi Sunak should go back to India. Councillor Peter Carpenter of West Hill ward, Wandsworth, tweeted, "Rishi Sunak is a complete waste of space. He should go back to India with his billionaire wife." Cllr Carpenter has since deleted his Twitter account, but not before a screenshot of his Tweet got very widely shared. Report by On London

Interesting considering that sort of view is, at least stereotypically, more what you'd expect from a UKIP member. He probably won't be re-elected, either because this remark has damaged his credibility, and/or because his resultant suspension presumably means he can't stand as a Labour candidate and thus won't get votes from those who just vote for the party, even if they've never heard of the councillor/candidate, which will be the overwhelming majority of local election voters.

 

[brad465]

Starmer has said Corbyn's remarks on NATO recently make him being re-admitted into the Parliamentary Labour party "very difficult to see":

Labour: Difficult to see Jeremy Corbyn return after Nato remarks - Starmer

The ex-Labour leader suggested the alliance be disbanded, sparking further ire from the current boss.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said it is "very difficult to see" how his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, could re-join the party in the Commons after his comments about Nato.
Mr Corbyn was suspended from Labour in 2020 over his response to a report into anti-Semitism in its ranks.
But while he was reinstated as a Labour member, Sir Keir refused to let him return to the party's backbenches.
Last week, the former leader suggested Nato be disbanded to "bring peace".
Mr Corbyn - a long-standing critic of the transatlantic military alliance - said while he accepted the group was not going to be scrapped immediately, people should re-examine it after the conflict in Ukraine ends.
He told Times Radio: "Do military alliances bring peace? Or do they actually encourage each other and build up to a greater danger?
"I don't blame Nato for the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine. What I say is look at the thing historically, and look at the process that could happen at the end of the Ukraine war."
Mr Corbyn also described the choice to remove the Labour whip from him as a "totally unjustified decision".

Asked whether his predecessor could be readmitted to the parliamentary party after his comments, Sir Keir told the BBC's Sunday Morning programme: "It is very difficult to see how that situation can now be resolved."
He added: "[Mr Corbyn] lost the whip because of his response to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in relation to anti-Semitism, but I made it very clear, the first thing I said as party leader was that I was going to tear out anti-Semitism by its roots in our party.
"I've also made it clear that our position in the Labour Party is not to accept the false equivalence between Russian aggression and the acts of Nato."
The current Labour leader insisted the party's stance under both his leadership and Mr Corbyn's was pro-Nato and that was not going to change.
Mr Corbyn remains in the Commons, sitting as an independent MP for Islington North.

Based on this I cannot see him being able to stand as a Labour candidate in the next election (although expect an awful lot of noise from his core supporters in the run-up to it trying to get him reinstated), and he may even decide to stand down as an MP at that point. Altogether this would very much demonstrate to the wider public that Starmer has well and truly broken off from Corbyn's leadership of the party, likely strengthen the party's approval from swing voters as a result, and further disprove Johnson's attempts to try and link Starmer and Corbyn.

 

[DarloRich]

Based on this I cannot see him being able to stand as a Labour candidate in the next election

Good - get the cranks out and back in the SWP where they belong.

 

[nw1]

Corbyn was an ineffectual leader of the opposition, and in addition to the above, he is partly to blame for the mess we are in right now regarding Brexit, in which he colluded with the government to push through Article 50. Aside from the fact that Brexit is primarily associated with the right, surely the role of the Leader of the Opposition is to oppose - not to nod through controversial Government policy. Also I seem to remember (and it's behind a Telegraph paywall so can't check) that a quote was made in which him and Theresa May "both wanted to end free movement". So he had a lot more in common with the Tories than he made out.

I know Keir Starmer isn't perfect but I am glad he is leading Labour rather than Corbyn. For one thing there is half a chance of them winning the next election.

 

[Bevan Price]

Corbyn was an ineffectual leader of the opposition, and in addition to the above, he is partly to blame for the mess we are in right now regarding Brexit, in which he colluded with the government to push through Article 50. Aside from the fact that Brexit is primarily associated with the right, surely the role of the Leader of the Opposition is to oppose - not to nod through controversial Government policy. Also I seem to remember (and it's behind a Telegraph paywall so can't check) that a quote was made in which him and Theresa May "both wanted to end free movement". So he had a lot more in common with the Tories than he made out.

I know Keir Starmer isn't perfect but I am glad he is leading Labour rather than Corbyn. For one thing there is half a chance of them winning the next election.

Corbyn won the last election -- for the tories. Many voters deserted Labour, or abstained, rather than risk him becoming P.M.

 

[GS250]

Corbyn was an ineffectual leader of the opposition, Aside from the fact that Brexit is primarily associated with the right, surely the role of the Leader of the Opposition is to oppose - not to nod through controversial Government policy.

I know Keir Starmer isn't perfect but I am glad he is leading Labour rather than Corbyn. For one thing there is half a chance of them winning the next election.

I always had the feeling Corbyn was an EU sceptic. Any leader claiming to want to protect the wages of the 'working' class would surely have been against FOM from the former Eastern Bloc Nations? Back in the day, the Unions would have in uproar at the obvious potential for wage suppression. It also has to be said...an awful lot of 'red wall' constituencies voted for Brexit and also gave Corbyn their vote in 2017. Naturally, this was overturned in 2019.

As for current Labour, absolutely, I think the electorate wants them to become a party worth voting for. It is no good for anyone when her majesty's official opposition seems overly influenced by a vocal few.

Come on Labour....your country needs you.

 

[gg1]

I always had the feeling Corbyn was an EU sceptic.

He was.

Don't forget in the 70s it was the Tories who supported joining the EEC as it was then and Labour who opposed it. Labour switched to a pro EU position under Kinnock but the far left of the Labour party along with the likes of the SWP were still opposed to EU membership well into this century.

It did leave us with the rather odd situation running into the 2019 election of a Brexit supporting Tory party and a anti-Brexit Labour party with leaders who had spent most of their political careers opposing what was now the party line.

 

[Butts]

He was.

Don't forget in the 70s it was the Tories who supported joining the EEC as it was then and Labour who opposed it. Labour switched to a pro EU position under Kinnock but the far left of the Labour party along with the likes of the SWP were still opposed to EU membership well into this century.

It did leave us with the rather odd situation running into the 2019 election of a Brexit supporting Tory party and a anti-Brexit Labour party with leaders who had spent most of their political careers opposing what was now the party line.

It's far more nuanced than that !!

I seem to remember Harold Wilson the Labour Prime Minister seeking accession to the EEC in 1967.

 

[nw1]

I always had the feeling Corbyn was an EU sceptic. Any leader claiming to want to protect the wages of the 'working' class would surely have been against FOM from the former Eastern Bloc Nations? Back in the day, the Unions would have in uproar at the obvious potential for wage suppression. It also has to be said...an awful lot of 'red wall' constituencies voted for Brexit and also gave Corbyn their vote in 2017. Naturally, this was overturned in 2019.

Though IMO the solution to this is to legislate against paying immigrants lower wages, not restrict immigration from neighbouring countries.

As for current Labour, absolutely, I think the electorate wants them to become a party worth voting for. It is no good for anyone when her majesty's official opposition seems overly influenced by a vocal few.

Come on Labour....your country needs you.

But are they (current Labour) influenced by a "vocal few" now we have Starmer and not Corbyn? I would say Starmer is pretty moderate. Granted that, perhaps, they were a bit too pro-restriction during the latter phases of Covid, but that's not going to be a primary issue in the next two years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2022 ==

Corbyn won the last election -- for the tories. Many voters deserted Labour, or abstained, rather than risk him becoming P.M.

That's true. "Boris" didn't win actively, Corbyn lost and "Boris" won by default. My dislike of "Boris" and Brexit was so intense that I was prepared to take a chance on Corbyn as the least-worst realistic option, but appreciate that many thought otherwise.

 

[brad465]

For the 25th anniversary of Labour's 97 landslide, they've released a campaign video fronted by Blair talking about how Labour delivered during their time in power and an endorsement for Starmer at the end:

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1520659285163794432

25 years ago, the Labour Party celebrated a landmark victory. When the Labour Party is in power, we deliver for Britain.

This may well be the first time since leaving office that Blair has been used in such a way, which suggests the party thinks he is not as toxic as previous leaders made him out to be, and if you want to win power again, then using a proven winner is certainly important. Of course given some of Blair's other work their hope is this doesn't backfire too much.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

For the 25th anniversary of Labour's 97 landslide, they've released a campaign video fronted by Blair talking about how Labour delivered during their time in power and an endorsement for Starmer at the end:

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1520659285163794432

This may well be the first time since leaving office that Blair has been used in such a way, which suggests the party thinks he is not as toxic as previous leaders made him out to be, and if you want to win power again, then using a proven winner is certainly important. Of course given some of Blair's other work their hope is this doesn't backfire too much.

It's certainly interesting that they've chosen to use him. Also interesting that most of the narrative towards the end is not so much about why you should vote Labour, but about Labour how can win if it adopts a similar approach to 1997. That's a message that seems designed as much to persuade activists to tolerate a rightward shift in Labour as to persuade members of the public to vote Labour. It does seem though that the Labour Leadership are trying to be more positive about Tony Blair's Government than most of the Labour Party has been over the last 10 years.

btw on a trivial and rather amusing note, at 00:12 there's a brief flash of someone drinking in a pub - who on a very quick glance looks quite similar to a certain Mr. B. Johnson. (It's obviously not him if you look more closely). I had to do a double take when I saw that.

 

[AviationFR]

in my opinion as a labour voter, there needs to be more of an appeal to Labour rather than just "the tories are bad". the Liberal Democrats seem to be offering solutions, Labour tend to reject the government's. Criticising the Tories does appear to be working for both parties though, and I've spoken to many Tories who have left to join us

 

[LittleAH]

in my opinion as a labour voter, there needs to be more of an appeal to Labour rather than just "the tories are bad". the Liberal Democrats seem to be offering solutions, Labour tend to reject the government's. Criticising the Tories does appear to be working for both parties though, and I've spoken to many Tories who have left to join us

True, but in this country, governments don't change due to appeal, it's usually that the incumbents are the root of their own failures. There's still two years to the next GE and no opposition has ever gone out that far ahead with manifesto commitments.

 

[brad465]

in my opinion as a labour voter, there needs to be more of an appeal to Labour rather than just "the tories are bad". the Liberal Democrats seem to be offering solutions, Labour tend to reject the government's. Criticising the Tories does appear to be working for both parties though, and I've spoken to many Tories who have left to join us

Labour are offering solutions, but not all of them are cutting through. The windfall tax on oil companies proposal, regardless of how effective it would be, is a definite example of them going beyond just rejecting Tory actions.

 

[AviationFR]

Labour are offering solutions, but not all of them are cutting through. The windfall tax on oil companies proposal, regardless of how effective it would be, is a definite example of them going beyond just rejecting Tory actions.

This is true. I think the windfall tax is an excellent idea, but it's only really supported by Labour supporters, and mainly those further to the left. It's not something that can appeal to swing voters

 

[DelayRepay]

This is true. I think the windfall tax is an excellent idea, but it's only really supported by Labour supporters, and mainly those further to the left. It's not something that can appeal to swing voters

I'm not sure. It will appeal to those further left because it'll be seen as dealing with the 'fat cats' who've got rich at the public's expense.

It may appeal to some swing voters if it's presented as a reduction in gas/electricity bills rather than a windfall tax.

 

[birchesgreen]

You have to be wary of offering alternative policies too far ahead of an election, if its a good enough idea then you opponents can nick it for themselves!

 

[Kite159]

Labour are offering solutions, but not all of them are cutting through. The windfall tax on oil companies proposal, regardless of how effective it would be, is a definite example of them going beyond just rejecting Tory actions.

The windfall tax which could reduce bills by 'up to' £600 for that single year.

Yes it might reduce the bill of a millionaire living in a mansion by £600, but for most it will be £60 if that. But what happens the year after, will they go after the energy companies for more money?

Which will be wiped out by the impact on pension funds which have investments in energy companies.

 

[ainsworth74]

The windfall tax which could reduce bills by 'up to' £600 for that single year.

Yes it might reduce the bill of a millionaire living in a mansion by £600, but for most it will be £60 if that. But what happens the year after, will they go after the energy companies for more money?

Which will be wiped out by the impact on pension funds which have investments in energy companies.

Though it isn't as if the Government are covering themselves in glory with this issue. "We'll give you £200, but then you have to give it back". Lovely, big help.

 

[Kite159]

Though it isn't as if the Government are covering themselves in glory with this issue. "We'll give you £200, but then you have to give it back". Lovely, big help.

Indeed, made worse by it being a levy on the bills so if someone moves out to become a new bill payer (ie divorce) they will pay back the £200 even though they didn't benefit from it.

Even the way the £150 council tax rebate is laughable at how it's been rolled out.

 

[Typhoon]

The windfall tax which could reduce bills by 'up to' £600 for that single year.

Yes it might reduce the bill of a millionaire living in a mansion by £600, but for most it will be £60 if that. But what happens the year after, will they go after the energy companies for more money?

Which will be wiped out by the impact on pension funds which have investments in energy companies.

Surely it depends on how the windfall tax is used. The government are targeting the council tax rebates towards homes in bands A to D, rather than dole it out universally. Have Labour indicated how it would use the money raised from the windfall tax? (I don't know.)

No Pension Fund should have a large holding in stock in any commodity; I understood the whole point was to spread risk by investing across a whole range of sectors. Also these are excess profits, profits that were not expected.

BP's profits for the first three months of this year have more than doubled after oil and gas prices soared. The energy giant reported an underlying profit of $6.2bn (£4.9bn) compared to $2.6bn in the same period last year - ahead of expectations.

If the profit had been a modest increase, I would agree with you, but it is much more than double. And pensions are a long term investment, so a 'one off' shouldn't make too much impact.

Quote from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61304001

Indeed, made worse by it being a levy on the bills so if someone moves out to become a new bill payer (ie divorce) they will pay back the £200 even though they didn't benefit from it.

Even the way the £150 council tax rebate is laughable at how it's been rolled out.

Now I agree with that. There is a fair chance that more people will pay back the 'loan' than will benefit from it. A nice little earner. Energy Minister Greg Hands was given a hard time when he said on Question Time that it was not a loan but he was dead right. The £40 a time will be lumped on your bill whether you received the initial sum or not. Big losers will be young people, either at Uni or living at home now, who get a place of their own.
Also, all the donkey work for the rebate is done by cash strapped councils. Apparently all the money should be paid out by September. What happens if it isn't?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surely it depends on how the windfall tax is used. The government are targeting the council tax rebates towards homes in bands A to D, rather than dole it out universally. Have Labour indicated how it would use the money raised from the windfall tax? (I don't know.)

The problem with a windfall tax isn't how it might be used. It's the fact that you can't sensibly or ethically run a country that supposedly has rule of law by arbitrarily saying to an organisation, Oh, it seems you made lots of money this year. We'll just retrospectively change the tax rates we'd previously announced so we can unexpectedly take it all off you.

Of course you could change the tax rates for future years (although if you change them by very much, that will inevitably hit investment decisions and could end up causing more economic harm than good), but that would be pointless because it wouldn't capture the profits that are being made now.

It's a total non-solution being peddled by the left as if it was a solution. Typical Labour/left tactics: To propose something totally flawed and then accuse the right of being callous for not following the flawed idea.

 

[brad465]

The problem with a windfall tax isn't how it might be used. It's the fact that you can't sensibly or ethically run a country that supposedly has rule of law by arbitrarily saying to an organisation, Oh, it seems you made lots of money this year. We'll just retrospectively change the tax rates we'd previously announced so we can unexpectedly take it all off you.

Of course you could change the tax rates for future years (although if you change them by very much, that will inevitably hit investment decisions and could end up causing more economic harm than good), but that would be pointless because it wouldn't capture the profits that are being made now.

It's a total non-solution being peddled by the left as if it was a solution. Typical Labour/left tactics: To propose something totally flawed and then accuse the right of being callous for not following the flawed idea.

What would help is if the windfall tax proposals were actually put to some serious scrutiny to the point that Labour dropped it and/or adapted it into something more realistic. The Government don't seem to be doing very much at all about the cost of living concerns, if they were doing more with some more realistic proposals then Labour would struggle to maintain this proposal, which they've been able to maintain for pretty much all of 2022 now.

But I think the main grey area on this subject, and in general, is the complete state the mainstream media in this country is in, for failing to scrutinise both Labour and Tory ideas on this subject properly, and a whole bunch of others over many years that has contributed to the wider energy crisis. Perhaps if journalists could be asked to do some proper reading and investigation, and not report on WAGs suing each other or one actor assaulting another, when the world has far more pressing issues to care about, we'd be in a much better place. Furthermore if the media hadn't hyped up covid so much then its knock-on effects wouldn't have been so bad, including the current cost of living problems (I wouldn't mind windfall taxing media corporations who've profited from sensationalism, even if just to punish them).

 

[MattRat]

The problem with a windfall tax isn't how it might be used. It's the fact that you can't sensibly or ethically run a country that supposedly has rule of law by arbitrarily saying to an organisation, Oh, it seems you made lots of money this year. We'll just retrospectively change the tax rates we'd previously announced so we can unexpectedly take it all off you.

Of course you could change the tax rates for future years (although if you change them by very much, that will inevitably hit investment decisions and could end up causing more economic harm than good), but that would be pointless because it wouldn't capture the profits that are being made now.

It's a total non-solution being peddled by the left as if it was a solution. Typical Labour/left tactics: To propose something totally flawed and then accuse the right of being callous for not following the flawed idea.

And the right's solution to the problem is....?

Both sides think they are better than the other, when if they actually looked inwards, they'd find many things they could improve on. On topic, if Labour did this, then maybe they could win an election.

 

[Gloster]

Starmer is a lawyer. He almost certainly read the lockdown rules when they were issued, although possibly with more of an eye to asking questions in the Commons than how he should react to them personally. (I am not suggesting that he was paying no attention to the rules, just that while most people read them and assessed how they were going to act, that was only a secondary factor to him.) However, he will (unless he is so grossly irresponsible as to be unfit for high office) have since read them carefully and reflected on whether his actions are in accordance with them. He has made a number of statements and none of them seem (to me) to be cleverly phrased or misleadingly ambiguous. If he did try and get out of even a very minor infraction by clever use of words, he must realise that he would be finished.

 

[daodao]

While there are some Labour gains in Londonopolis, in the rest of England, they show little signs of the major gains that would normally be expected of the main opposition party in the middle of a parliamentary term. It does not augur well for Labour at the next general election, given that polyglot London is as unrepresentative of the rest of England as Paris is of La France profonde. IMO, the choice of Sir Keir Starmer as the Labour leader was a mistake.

In the recent local elections, Labour made a net gain of just 29 seats in England with 145 out of 146 councils fully declared, an appalling result for the main opposition party mid-term. Even in London, their net gain of councils was only 1 (+3, -2). It is going from bad to worse for Labour outside Wales, where they made a net gain of 66 seats in a country with about 6% of the population of England.

And now Starmer is likely to be forced to resign if he is fined because of the social gathering he, his deputy and other key Labour politicians attended in spring 2021 in Durham in breach of the Covid regulations. Even the former Labour shadow home secretary made that clear in the last 48 hours. Unlike Bojo, as a former DPP Starmer has to be seen to be whiter than white, and not like the pot calling the kettle black. Starmer deserves to fall on his sword given how Brutus-like he stabbed Corbyn in the front with his anti-Brexit stance at the last general election.

 

[nw1]

Regarding the alleged Starmer incident, if it proves to be illegal, Starmer would be in a stronger position if he had taken a more lockdown-sceptical line. For one thing, he would be presenting an alternative line to the Government, for another there could be no charges of hypocrisy levelled if this incident was in fact illegal.

 

[oldman]

Even the former Labour shadow home secretary

Very coy of you not to mention her name, but I suppose 'veteran corbynista Diane Abbott' sounds a little less neutral.