Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[Typhoon]

It probably says more about the competence of the commentators if they came to report on a major UK state event without checking what the UK Prime Minister looked like

(To be clear, I think there are lots of things Liz Truss has done recently that suggest she's not very competent. But it seems a bit excessive to make out it's somehow Liz Truss's bad if someone in Australia didn't recognise her from her time as foreign secretary. I mean - how many people in the UK would be able to recognise the Australian foreign secretary or even know who the Australian foreign secretary currently is? Would you say the Australian foreign secretary is incompetent just because most of us don't know who she/he is?)

My point really was not particularly about Truss, she just happens to be the most recent, there are a whole range of them, Cleverley and Raab are/ were just as anonymous. probably Hunt too. Hammond I can remember but Aussies won't have a clue. Johnson was only known as a clown, that was all. Hague had a bit of a presence. It is an indication to me that we have stopped taking the post as seriously as we should, the Foreign Secretary is our representative to the world. Going back, even Douglas-Home was recognised as a statesman (although a useless PM), several of Thatcher's Foreign Secretaries, like Carrington and Hurd, would have carried weight, Owen and Milliband in their way were effective. We used to make our presence felt in the world. I fear, no longer.

You are unlucky with the Aussie Foreign Minister (I followed the Australian elections), she was one of the first appointed by Albanese*, I think she is of Malaysian descent (if not, somewhere similar). I want to say Issy Wong but that is the cricketer, it is something like that. I gather she is pretty effective.
* - he obviously thinks the role is important.

 

[edwin_m]

I take your point re energy policy. However, I’m not sure how Russia would benefit that much from fracking as that would reduce wholesale prices and increase independence from Russian sources? (I absolutely do not support fracking btw). I also don’t think it’s as granular as individual policy issues or immediate treats of instability, but much about how we can sow discord over time. For example China’s ‘support’ of Barry Gardiner had been going on for at least 13 years, through at least one Labour PM and four different leaders. The country has moved from one political crisis to another since at least 2014. I don’t want to sound like I’ve got a tin foil hat on but even looking back at the 2010 general election it could have resulted in huge turmoil if it wasn’t for the coalition agreement which somehow stuck and gave us a few extra years of relative stability.

Fracking will take years to deliver anything, if it ever does, and exploration licenses for the North Sea even longer. Neither is a solution to the short term energy crisis, and in the longer term they just bake in fossil fuel dependency. However, even in similar timescales, I doubt the West will be buying Russian fuel - even if international relations miraculously resolve they've shown themselves to be an unreliable partner where investment can vanish. So I doubt Russia cares whether the UK adopts fracking or not.

I do agree with you it's a long term strategy by the Russians, so individual policies that come and go may not be very important. But at the moment Russia's interests are served by the UK having a Tory government rather than Labour.

 

[HullRailMan]

The LibDems will be taking many, many votes again from people who voted Tory in the last three General Elections, people who neither consider themselves on the left nor indeed are. The Tories are only going to appeal to people who are either (a) very well off, (b) believe all the Truss/Kwarteng b.s. and/or (c) are deficient in brainpower and/or education as per the Trump cult supporters in the USA. Hopefully, many will just stay away from the polling stations altogether. Expect the Russians to get behind the Tories through fake websites, etc, though, because they know from experience they can be bought, bigtime, when the time comes.

So, if you vote Conservative at the next election you’re either very rich or thick. Charming.

 

[Yew]

Corbyn should have been barred from holding any Government office on the basis that he is a risk to national security. There will be a filing cabinet with his name on it in the Security Services.

Unfortunately for you, we live in a democracy.

 

[edwin_m]

So, if you vote Conservative at the next election you’re either very rich or thick. Charming.

Can you suggest any other reasons why anyone would want to vote for the current lot?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can you suggest any other reasons why anyone would want to vote for the current lot?

I can think of loads of other reasons why someone might choose even in current circumstances to vote Conservative. For example:

• The thing that's most important to that person might be some issue that the Conservatives have done reasonably well on (War in Ukraine, for example, or some overriding local issue).
• They might believe Labour / any alternative would be even worse
• They might view the current problems as teething issues with a new Government which will be resolved
• They might believe that tax cuts and a short term large deficit, for all the short term pain, are the correct long-term thing for the economy
• They might feel that Labour are inevitably going to win an unhealthily large landslide and it's better to make sure the opposition to them is as strong as possible
• They might object to what Liz Truss is doing, but feel that is outweighed by a general belief in Conservative principles
• They might feel that their own Conservative MP is personally good, and want to vote for the individual

etc. etc.

The point is obviously, that someone who votes differently from you is not necessarily 'thick' or 'rich', and it's patronising and unpleasant to make out that they are.

Or do you think everyone who voted for Labour when Corbyn was leader was 'thick'?

 

[edwin_m]

I can think of loads of other reasons why someone might choose even in current circumstances to vote Conservative. For example:

• The thing that's most important to that person might be some issue that the Conservatives have done reasonably well on (War in Ukraine, for example, or some overriding local issue).
• They might believe Labour / any alternative would be even worse
• They might view the current problems as teething issues with a new Government which will be resolved
• They might believe that tax cuts and a short term large deficit, for all the short term pain, are the correct long-term thing for the economy
• They might feel that Labour are inevitably going to win an unhealthily large landslide and it's better to make sure the opposition to them is as strong as possible
• They might object to what Liz Truss is doing, but feel that is outweighed by a general belief in Conservative principles
• They might feel that their own Conservative MP is personally good, and want to vote for the individual

etc. etc.

The point is obviously, that someone who votes differently from you is not necessarily 'thick' or 'rich', and it's patronising and unpleasant to make out that they are.

Or do you think everyone who voted for Labour when Corbyn was leader was 'thick'?

I was actually asking the previous poster, who originated the "thick or rich" quote.

 

[Busaholic]

You also seemed to have missed the point that because of the support the UK (and everyone else) has given Ukraine they are actually beating the Russians. While we don’t know what will happen this winter it’s clear the Russians are running low on supplies and are in big big trouble.

You really believe that? Literally nothing on earth would gladden my heart more than that were true, but it patently isn't, regardless of how short the Russians are on certain supplies. All the talk a few weeks ago was how Russia, starved of revenue from providing gas to Europe, would be on iron rations, whereas the reality is that the gas will just go to the cynical countries like China and India who'll pay them well for it:in the meantime, Russia has chosen to withdraw it from those European countries who were still reliant on it, despite what some of their politicians wished or claimed.

I'll put it this way just to establish reality. Suppose Russia invaded the U.K. in the same sort of way as they have Ukraine (forget NATO, no land borders,etc, because they're not germane to my point) and had annexed Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, held phoney referendums and declared them part of its territory. Then they stated if the English part of the U.K. made any attempt to retake those countries they'd not hesitate to use nuclear missiles, a Severn road crossing got blown up, and Putin made even more dire warnings. London had remained largely unscathed, though Bristol, Plymouth and Newcastle had been largely destroyed. Would you say the U.K. were winning the war against Russia? The Russian 'mainland' remained utterly untouched by British armaments and the only Russian casualties (though many) were the poor bloody, conscripted infantry. Hundreds of thousands of U.K. citizens had been killed or wounded, with countless others losing their homes. Would you really in those circumstances claim that the U.K. was beating the Russians? If you were to say so......

 

[Cloud Strife]

whereas the reality is that the gas will just go to the cynical countries like China and India who'll pay them well for it

How will the gas get there? Russia's entire gas export infrastructure is orientated towards the West and has been since the 1970s. There are no pipelines or anything going towards China, and it's entirely in China's interest for Russia to continue weakening. A very weak Russia will have no choice but to become completely dependent on China, and China is in no hurry because they view history in terms of thousands of years, not an election cycle.

Would you really in those circumstances claim that the U.K. was beating the Russians?

Yes. When you look at the facts on the ground, Ukraine is inflicting a terrible amount of damage on the Russian forces, and it's showing no signs of stopping. Ukraine lost badly in the opening phases of the war, but now, they've turned the tables. Even today, a handful of missiles are causing carnage in Belgogrod, while a barrage of Russian missiles has failed to have any tangible impact on Ukraine.

Russia is losing, and these conscripts are heading straight for the meat grinder. It's not inconceivable that we'll see 100,000 Russian deaths by the end of the year.

 

[JamesT]

How will the gas get there? Russia's entire gas export infrastructure is orientated towards the West and has been since the 1970s. There are no pipelines or anything going towards China, and it's entirely in China's interest for Russia to continue weakening. A very weak Russia will have no choice but to become completely dependent on China, and China is in no hurry because they view history in terms of thousands of years, not an election cycle.

There is a pipeline to China - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_Siberia
They also export LNG in tankers to various countries, including China.
The majority may well be exported West, but they can get at least some more exports going East. (And the suspicion is at least some of that will then be re-exported to countries that refuse to buy from Russia)

 

[HullRailMan]

Can you suggest any other reasons why anyone would want to vote for the current lot?

You might believe in the principles of low taxation, small state, individual freedom and personal responsibility. These are traditional conservative values, though I’m not suggesting the current government are delivering these. You might just feel there is more chance of the party delivering what you want, compared to the other choices.

Basically, and I can’t believe I have to point this out, there are an infinite number of reasons why people vote they way the do, be they historical, moral, ideological, financial or other. However, suggesting that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are voting on the basis of poor intelligence is as patronising as it is laughable. Dismissing those at the other end of the political spectrum from you as stupid is just a sign of how polarised politics is today.

 

[Noddy]

You really believe that? Literally nothing on earth would gladden my heart more than that were true, but it patently isn't, regardless of how short the Russians are on certain supplies. All the talk a few weeks ago was how Russia, starved of revenue from providing gas to Europe, would be on iron rations, whereas the reality is that the gas will just go to the cynical countries like China and India who'll pay them well for it:in the meantime, Russia has chosen to withdraw it from those European countries who were still reliant on it, despite what some of their politicians wished or claimed.

I'll put it this way just to establish reality. Suppose Russia invaded the U.K. in the same sort of way as they have Ukraine (forget NATO, no land borders,etc, because they're not germane to my point) and had annexed Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, held phoney referendums and declared them part of its territory. Then they stated if the English part of the U.K. made any attempt to retake those countries they'd not hesitate to use nuclear missiles, a Severn road crossing got blown up, and Putin made even more dire warnings. London had remained largely unscathed, though Bristol, Plymouth and Newcastle had been largely destroyed. Would you say the U.K. were winning the war against Russia? The Russian 'mainland' remained utterly untouched by British armaments and the only Russian casualties (though many) were the poor bloody, conscripted infantry. Hundreds of thousands of U.K. citizens had been killed or wounded, with countless others losing their homes. Would you really in those circumstances claim that the U.K. was beating the Russians? If you were to say so......

You do realise there’s no finished pipelines between Russia and China or India?

Your analogy is frankly ludicrous.

 

[Yew]

You might believe in the principles of low taxation, small state, ... These are traditional conservative values,

So as a thought, have some of these values been taken to more extreme interpretations based on the situation in the USA? The majority of Conservative governments in the UK over the last 100 years have had higher taxation and larger states than we see currently?

 

[Darandio]

You do realise there’s no finished pipelines between Russia and China or India?

Yes there is, Russia to China anyway.

*Seems you changed to 'finished' just as I quoted.

 

[Noddy]

Even today, a handful of missiles are causing carnage in Belgogrod, while a barrage of Russian missiles has failed to have any tangible impact on Ukraine.

And, on topic for this forum, they hit a railway in Novy Oskol.

​

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Oct 2022 ==

Yes there is, Russia to China anyway.

*Seems you changed to 'finished' just as I quoted.

Indeed but it’s still not finished and doesn’t solve the problem of getting the huge quantities of gas formally destined to Europe from western Russian fields to eastern Russia and into China. Other than by train or ship.

 

[HullRailMan]

So as a thought, have some of these values been taken to more extreme interpretations based on the situation in the USA? The majority of Conservative governments in the UK over the last 100 years have had higher taxation and larger states than we see currently?

Not sure I’d agree with this, the tax burden is currently higher than it has been for around 70 years so is an exception, and the tax burden has risen from a low in the late 1980s. Government spending as a proportion of GDP was also lower in the 1990s than now.
Don’t really see what the USA has to do with it. I’d venture that the current government is a shabby version of New Labour, and isn’t conservative in the slightest.

 

[Yew]

Not sure I’d agree with this, the tax burden is currently higher than it has been for around 70 years so is an exception, and the tax burden has risen from a low in the late 1980s. Government spending as a proportion of GDP was also lower in the 1990s than now.
Don’t really see what the USA has to do with it. I’d venture that the current government is a shabby version of New Labour, and isn’t conservative in the slightest.

How about under say, Anthony Eden?

 

[Herefordian]

You might believe in the principles of low taxation, small state, individual freedom and personal responsibility. These are traditional conservative values, though I’m not suggesting the current government are delivering these. You might just feel there is more chance of the party delivering what you want, compared to the other choices.

Basically, and I can’t believe I have to point this out, there are an infinite number of reasons why people vote they way the do, be they historical, moral, ideological, financial or other. However, suggesting that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are voting on the basis of poor intelligence is as patronising as it is laughable. Dismissing those at the other end of the political spectrum from you as stupid is just a sign of how polarised politics is today.

This is, sadly, why we can't have sensible, reasonable political debates any more.

A vocal minority would rather belittle, rather than accept and try to understand, others with different political beliefs.

I vote Labour, but understand and accept why others vote Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, etc.

My Dad, until recently, voted Conservative. That didn't stop us getting along.

It's a shame a minority is turning political debates into childish mud-slinging matches.

 

[brad465]

Corbyn should have been barred from holding any Government office on the basis that he is a risk to national security. There will be a filing cabinet with his name on it in the Security Services.

By that logic Boris Johnson should have been barred for his dealings with Lebedev against security advice, something he admitted to in the Liaison Committee just before stepping down, and whoever of Cameron or May (or both) decided to "actively avoid" investigating Russian interference in elections in this country, as revealed in the Russia report in 2020.

We could have avoided Corbyn becoming Labour leader if Labour under previous leaders had a rule around withdrawing the Labour whip from anyone who repeatedly defied it, something he did.

 

[JamesT]

How about under say, Anthony Eden?

https://www.independent.co.uk/money/uk-s-tax-burden-what-do-the-figures-show-b2097564.html shows the tax burden dropping fairly quickly during the 50s, so during Eden’s term it would have been lower than now.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-spending-to-gdp has spending just over 35% in Eden’s time, a level it has only got close to at the end of Thatcher’s reign and the start of Blair’s.

 

[317 forever]

As a wavering voter, I just feel that the Tories are going in the wrong direction and Labour have no direction.
It seems that Labour are just gaining from the Tory demise rather than their own popularity.
Why don’t Labour start fighting the next election now? Tell us what they would do now rather than after the next election. Any good ideas may well get snapped up by the Tories but that would only fuel further Labour support.
U turns to me are not necessarily a bad thing as it corrects mistakes. When the opposition claim a victory on a U turn by the Govt but don’t have the solution in the first place it becomes very tedious.
The Government is not likely to change enough to gain votes.

This is less surprising than it sounds, for 2 reasons.

Firstly, we are a broadly conservative (with a small c) country, meaning that the Conservatives (with a big C) will usually form our government anyway

Secondly, in the last few decades the attitude by floating voters has tended to be Better the devil you know, unless the government appears to have lost control, in which case it is time for a change

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Looks like we have another by-election coming up: Labour MP Chris Matheson has resigned after the Independent Expert Panel parliamentary watchdog recommended his suspension from Parliament for 'serious sexual misconduct'. BBC News report

Two allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr Matheson by a former member of his staff have been upheld.
The MP for Chester allegedly invited her on a private trip abroad, which was found to be "sexually motivated".
He admitted he had committed a minor breach of the code and tendered his resignation with "great sadness".

His City of Chester seat doesn't have a huge majority, but given the current political situation, it's probably a shoo-in for Labour to hold the seat. I would imagine Labour will be keen for the by-election to take place as soon as possible.

 

[Busaholic]

You do realise there’s no finished pipelines between Russia and China or India?

Your analogy is frankly ludicrous.

India and China now account for more than half of Russia's seaborne oil exports.

China's imports of liquified natural gas from Russia have more than tripled since January. The contract signed between Russia and China in September will mean the former becomes China's main supplier of quite soon. The Russians wouldn't have turned off the taps to Europe and sabotaged the Baltic pipelines if they hadn't secured alternative customers.

I've never been described as ludicrous before by an Enid Blyton character!

 

[brad465]

Looks like we have another by-election coming up: Labour MP Chris Matheson has resigned after the Independent Expert Panel parliamentary watchdog recommended his suspension from Parliament for 'serious sexual misconduct'. BBC News report



His City of Chester seat doesn't have a huge majority, but given the current political situation, it's probably a shoo-in for Labour to hold the seat. I would imagine Labour will be keen for the by-election to take place as soon as possible.

The majority might be low but it was close to 50% vote share, at a time when Labour were in dire straightst, so I think the only way is up from that point. That said the manner of the incumbent's departure won't help, as usually scandals weigh negatively, even where the same person isn't standing again.

There is also a very small chance a general election is called before the by-election occurs, which could lead to it being cancelled.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

You do realise there’s no finished pipelines between Russia and China or India?

Your analogy is frankly ludicrous.

There is Power of Serbia pipeline which was commissioned in 2020 although seems uncertain what capacity its running at.

 

[Noddy]

There is Power of Serbia pipeline which was commissioned in 2020 although seems uncertain what capacity its running at.

Indeed, but this pipeline only runs from the Chayanda and Kovykta gas fields in the far east of Russia and the problem they have is there’s no connection from this pipeline across Russia to the west. So any gas from the gas fields in western Russia which supply(ied) Europe, can’t reach China via a pipe and would have to go via boat (or train).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Indeed, but this pipeline only runs from the Chayanda and Kovykta gas fields in the far east of Russia and the problem they have is there’s no connection from this pipeline across Russia to the west. So any gas from the gas fields in western Russia which supply(ied) Europe, can’t reach China via a pipe and would have to go via boat (or train).

OK see where your coming from. Russia does have big LNG liquefaction capacity up in Artic but thats a long way for boats to get to China compared to importing from M.East or Australia.

 

[GS250]

I see Labour have proposed ending the House of Lords.

What mechanisms are there to do this out of interest? They have always divided opinion depending on what is at stake. During Brexit they were seen by brexiteers as an unelected but visible dinosaur that was possibly going to scupper the whole thing. At other times they have been seen as the saviour by the same people.

I'd say the concept of the House of Lords is right to be questioned. But...they are visible. Given Sir Keir's background, is he not effectively going to transfer this particular role to those legal types who lurk in the shadows and have an awful lot of influence over our way of living? Or is this going to be a clear removal of governance where the elected government has the final say?

 

[jfollows]

Labour is, of course, having to navigate a fine line.
This morning Keir Starmer said

Today programme: "Would membership of the single market boost economic growth?" @BBCr4today
Keir Starmer: " No at this stage I don’t think it would and there’s no case for going back to the EU or going back into the single market."

I find that insults my intelligence. I don't believe that Keir Starmer believes what he's saying, I don't believe what he's saying, but he's saying it to buy the votes of the "Blue Wall" voters who defected to Boris Johnson in 2019, which politically is something he has to do.
Jonathan Portes (https://twitter.com/jdportes) went on to say

Obviously, Starmer doesn't believe a word of this (any more than Jeremy Hunt does). There are, of course, good (and bad) reasons for the UK not to seek to rejoin the Single Market, but not for denying economic reality.

and that's my feeling too.
What it comes down to is that our politicians need to lie to us and say things which they themselves don't believe to be true in order to win elections.
In the spirit of balance, just as David Cameron did in 2016 when he promised to stick around and implement whatever result of the referendum on leaving the EU, we all knew he was lying at the moment he said this and - sure enough - when he lost the referendum he ran away at full speed instead. But he probably couldn't have said "if I lose the referendum I'll run away" beforehand, although that would have been more honest.

 

[ainsworth74]

What mechanisms are there to do this out of interest?

Something along the lines of:

An Act to make provision for the abolition of the House of Lords...

Passed by a majority of the House of Commons and either by a majority of the Lords or, if need by, forced through via the Parliament Act (though by convention the Lords will not vote down something that is a manifesto commitment) would do the trick I believe.

But...they are visible. Given Sir Keir's background, is he not effectively going to transfer this particular role to those legal types who lurk in the shadows and have an awful lot of influence over our way of living? Or is this going to be a clear removal of governance where the elected government has the final say?

My understanding, but I've not read the detail of the report or any news coverage, was that a new elected body would be created to replace the Lords rather than us becoming a unicameral system.