Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[GS250]

Which is why the Tories are more likely to win. The right vote goes to the Tories, bar tiny minority parties. The left vote is split between Labour, LD and Green, plus again a few tiny minorities.

I'd still say Labour will win as the largest party come the next election. I don't think they are particularly attractive as a proposition but the Tories deserve something of a kicking.

The more you look back at the landslide by Blair in 1997 the more a remarkable achievement it was. A country in generally okay health but with a dull and uninspiring set of Tories leading the country. Major was pretty much goose cooked midway through his first term but refused to stand down. However, Blair and co knew how to win people over even if the sums didn't add up.

I do think we have to get away from left v right though. That was last decades battle.

 

[Busaholic]

I'd still say Labour will win as the largest party come the next election. I don't think they are particularly attractive as a proposition but the Tories deserve something of a kicking.

The more you look back at the landslide by Blair in 1997 the more a remarkable achievement it was. A country in generally okay health but with a dull and uninspiring set of Tories leading the country. Major was pretty much goose cooked midway through his first term but refused to stand down. However, Blair and co knew how to win people over even if the sums didn't add up.

I do think we have to get away from left v right though. That was last decades battle.

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.

 

[ainsworth74]

Erm, how long did the Social Democrats survive as a centre-left alternative to Labout before merging with the Liberals? More recently, and with an even shorter timescale before becoming nothing more than a sidenote in history: Chuka Umanna and Change UK.

Given multiple flavours of left-of-centre, voters tend to stick with what they know.

Under the existing electoral system absolutely. First Past the Post basically encourages the formation of two major parties with maybe a couple of other smaller ones nipping at their heels (the Lib Dems historically and more recently the SNP). Alternative systems however are less likely to punish smaller parties and will instead reward them and their voters with seats in the legislature from which a government can form accordingly. It would likely be considerably better for everyone if people were actually able to vote for the people they wanted to represent them rather than the least worst option.

All that being said we had a lengthy thread on the electoral system in the UK (see here) but I'm more than happy to re-open it if anyone would like to make more comments in this direction

 

[edwin_m]

Erm, how long did the Social Democrats survive as a centre-left alternative to Labour before merging with the Liberals? More recently, and with an even shorter timescale before becoming nothing more than a sidenote in history: Chuka Umanna and Change UK.

Given multiple flavours of left-of-centre, voters tend to stick with what they know.

That was under "first past the post", which effectively enshrines two-party dominance and each of those parties has to encompass widely disparate viewpoints, so your local Labour candidate could be an ultra-Blairite or an ultra-Corbynite. It's entirely different with a proportional system.

 

[Falcon1200]

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.

There are many reasons to criticise the Tories, but the support from the Tory Government for Ukraine in their struggle against Russian aggression shows that your statement is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Busaholic]

There are many reasons to criticise the Tories, but the support from the Tory Government for Ukraine in their struggle against Russian aggression shows that your statement is complete and utter nonsense.

Hahaha. London and British controlled territories like the Cayman Islands were the destination for 90% of the wealth stolen from the Russian people after the collapse of Communism, escalating after the 2010 General Elaction. Educate yourself before attacking me!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Hahaha. London and British controlled territories like the Cayman Islands were the destination for 90% of the wealth stolen from the Russian people after the collapse of Communism, escalating after the 2010 General Elaction. Educate yourself before attacking me!

Assuming your 90% 'after the collapse of Communism' figure is true, that relates to a period of just over 30 years - during 13 years of which Labour was in power in the UK. You also cite the Cayman Islands as an example, but a quick check shows that the Cayman Islands has its own Government, its own elections, and its own political parties, so as far as I can tell it has not at any time during that 30 years been ruled by the British Conservative Party. I would surmise that the same is probably true of many of the other territories that are included in your 90% figure.

I'm struggling to see how that amounts to any kind of evidence for your claim that the Russians can be expected to 'get behind the Tories', especially when faced with the counter-evidence of the huge support the Tories in Government have provided to Ukraine.

 

[Busaholic]

Assuming your 90% 'after the collapse of Communism' figure is true, that relates to a period of just over 30 years - during 13 years of which Labour was in power in the UK. You also cite the Cayman Islands as an example, but a quick check shows that the Cayman Islands has its own Government, its own elections, and its own political parties, so as far as I can tell it has not at any time during that 30 years been ruled by the British Conservative Party. I would surmise that the same is probably true of many of the other territories that are included in your 90% figure.

I'm struggling to see how that amounts to any kind of evidence for your claim that the Russians can be expected to 'get behind the Tories', especially when faced with the counter-evidence of the huge support the Tories in Government have provided to Ukraine.

British Overseas Territory, like the British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, etc. 'Londongrad' was perhaps the first, certainly the best known book on the subject, followed by so many others, including by Bill Browder, who must have to take extraordinary measures to avoid being murdered by the Russians. The War on Truth podcast, first broadcast in March and now being repeated on Radio Four, is very interesting listening for the open-minded individual.

As for support to Ukraine, I've just been trying to read a Telegraph article online from May suggesting that the UK may have announced the most but asks 'do the figures add up?': unfortunately, I was unable to read the rest of the article without subscribing.

 

[Falcon1200]

Educate yourself before attacking me!

Could say the same to you; If, as you believe, Russia has the Tories in its pocket, explain the support the UK has given Ukraine. Unless;

As for support to Ukraine, I've just been trying to read a Telegraph article online from May suggesting that the UK may have announced the most but asks 'do the figures add up?':

You genuinely believe that our support has been exaggerated ? (And BTW May was 5 months ago).

 

[Noddy]

British Overseas Territory, like the British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, etc. 'Londongrad' was perhaps the first, certainly the best known book on the subject, followed by so many others, including by Bill Browder, who must have to take extraordinary measures to avoid being murdered by the Russians. The War on Truth podcast, first broadcast in March and now being repeated on Radio Four, is very interesting listening for the open-minded individual.

As for support to Ukraine, I've just been trying to read a Telegraph article online from May suggesting that the UK may have announced the most but asks 'do the figures add up?': unfortunately, I was unable to read the rest of the article without subscribing.

You do realise May was months ago?




There are many many MANY reasons to criticise the current (and previous) government but support on Ukraine is not one. To accuse them of being in the pockets of the Russians is even more stupid than Kwasi’s mini-budget.

 

[GS250]

You do realise May was months ago?

View attachment 122010


There are many many MANY reasons to criticise the current (and previous) government but support on Ukraine is not one. To accuse them of being in the pockets of the Russians is even more stupid than Kwasi’s mini-budget.

To be fair though....it depends on exactly what section of Russia is apparently trying to influence affairs. There's a clear divide between its oligarchy and it's leadership. Its oligarchy are clearly hurting as far as this war goes. If it had the power to stop it I'm sure it would.

 

[Busaholic]

Could say the same to you; If, as you believe, Russia has the Tories in its pocket, explain the support the UK h thatas given Ukraine. Unless;



You genuinely believe that our support has been exaggerated ? (And BTW May was 5 months ago).

The financial and logistical support this country and others can be understated by a factor of ten and it will still only represent a sticking plaster to what might be needed to retain Ukraine as a sovereign nation, even the parts that Russia hadn't annexed years ago. Russia's not-so-veiled threat to use nuclear weapons will almost certainly insure that the recently acquired by force regions subjected to sham referendums will not return to Ukrainian control without disastrous consequences. The West will never be the first to use the nuclear option, as the tyrant Putin knows well. An 'accident' at one of the nuclear power plants is more likely than not to occur as time goes on too.

You've absolutely failed to grasp my point about Russia's attempted and actual interference in the next General Election. As with the USA in 2016, and to a lesser extent 2020, they are focussed on getting the least competent party elected to further their world view of Russian domination, though having to accept they'll have to share with China. On that basis, Trump's Republican Party played into their hands in a way unimaginable before, and now we have a Tory clique quite happy to lead our country into economic disaster so long as a few at the top make fabulous fortunes in the process. The Russians will be unbelievably happy should that occur.

 

[Noddy]

You've absolutely failed to grasp my point about Russia's attempted and actual interference in the next General Election. As with the USA in 2016, and to a lesser extent 2020, they are focussed on getting the least competent party elected to further their world view of Russian domination, though having to accept they'll have to share with China. On that basis, Trump's Republican Party played into their hands in a way unimaginable before, and now we have a Tory clique quite happy to lead our country into economic disaster so long as a few at the top make fabulous fortunes in the process. The Russians will be unbelievably happy should that occur.

I have no doubt that the Russians have attempted to meddle with every UK election since the Scottish independence election in 2014 and probably earlier (2010 general election?). Many more internationally including the US.

That is totally different to:

because they [the Russians] know from experience they [the Tories] can be bought, bigtime, when the time comes.

 

[Busaholic]

I have no doubt that the Russians have attempted to meddle with every UK election since the Scottish independence election in 2014 and probably earlier (2010 general election?). Many more internationally including the US.

That is totally different to:

Because it's a totally different scenario!! Once the Tories got re-elected, under the plan, and the part of the world which had sided with Ukraine had conceded de facto that China, India, Saudi Arabia, etc etc would put their own interests before worrying a jot about the Ukrainian people, there'd be, at best, a stalemate there and European politicians would in the main convince themselves that they had more pressing uses for the cash being sent to Ukraine in order to deal with cost of living and fuel crises at home. Then the multiple UK bankers, lawyers, accountants et al who'd had such agreeable relations with the plunderers of the Russian people in the recent part would find their smartphones springing back to life facilitating the untapped needs of the many oligarchs whose wealth was scarcely touched by the paltry, largely ineffective measures brought in belatedly for symbolic PR reasons, and our benighted courts will be full once again of loathsome individuals of Russian ancestry squabbling over hundreds of millions in stolen money.

On the other hand, if sense prevails and crookedness doesn't cause the election result to be skewed, Labour will be in charge with or without other parties and there's a chance that Putin or his successor will turn their attention esewhere.

 

[Noddy]

So just to be clear, you’re saying that if the

Tories got re-elected, under the plan, and the part of the world which had sided with Ukraine had conceded de facto that China, India, Saudi Arabia, etc etc would put their own interests before worrying a jot about the Ukrainian people, there'd be, at best, a stalemate there and European politicians would in the main convince themselves that they had more pressing uses for the cash being sent to Ukraine in order to deal with cost of living and fuel crises at home.

But if Labour gets elected this won’t happen, Europe doesn’t get bored and Putin turns his attention elsewhere? That’s some political dogma right there that you are being blinded by.

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.

If you want to accuse the Tories of being in someone’s pocket it’s quite clear that the current leadership is ‘owned’ by the fossil fuel industry. Rather than allowing companies to build cheap renewables, insisting on building properly insulated new homes and investing in battery storage technology, they seem intent on us burning dead dinosaurs that little bit longer even though everyone knows that industry is as dead as the dinosaurs.

I will be delighted when the current imbeciles at number 10 are booted out in spectacular fashion. As I and others have pointed out there are many many many reasons to criticise them. Support in Ukraine is not one.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't see the UK support for Ukraine as depending on which party is in power - there's a high degree of political unity on this, bar a few voices on the extremes of both sides. But looking at the other policies of the two main parties, it's in Putin's interests to support the Tories.

 

[GS250]

I don't see the UK support for Ukraine as depending on which party is in power - there's a high degree of political unity on this, bar a few voices on the extremes of both sides. But looking at the other policies of the two main parties, it's in Putin's interests to support the Tories.

At least Labour now know that maintaining this country's nuclear deterrent and a credible armed force is a given. Even Germany, who have totally failed to invest in their own armed forces have now reconsidered. There were some parts of Corbyn's manifesto that I actually found quite attractive. However, when he withered on about Britain just being 'some part of North West Europe' of which had no enemies... that was confirmation that he wasn't fit for office on that alone.

Didn't Kinnock want to scrap our deterrent at the height of the cold war too? Or maybe he just never gave a straight answer on it.

 

[JamesT]

At least Labour now know that maintaining this country's nuclear deterrent and a credible armed force is a given. Even Germany, who have totally failed to invest in their own armed forces have now reconsidered. There were some parts of Corbyn's manifesto that I actually found quite attractive. However, when he withered on about Britain just being 'some part of North West Europe' of which had no enemies... that was confirmation that he wasn't fit for office on that alone.

Didn't Kinnock want to scrap our deterrent at the height of the cold war too? Or maybe he just never gave a straight answer on it.

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35371074

Then Labour leader Michael Foot, a founder member of CND, was a unilateralist, who also vowed to remove US nuclear weapons from British soil. His successor Neil Kinnock, was also a unilateralist, although he would drop the policy after losing the 1987 election, arguing that the best way to achieve a nuclear-free world was through negotiation between nuclear-armed nations.

Kinnock had united the party behind scrapping nuclear weapons by arguing that the money spent on Trident - the replacement for Polaris - should go towards bolstering Britain's conventional forces instead, but he still faced accusations from the Conservatives that he was "soft" on defence and would make Britain a target for Soviet invasion.

So out on that side of the argument, though not quite as far as Corbyn.

 

[Yew]

At least Labour now know that maintaining this country's nuclear deterrent and a credible armed force is a given. Even Germany, who have totally failed to invest in their own armed forces have now reconsidered. There were some parts of Corbyn's manifesto that I actually found quite attractive. However, when he withered on about Britain just being 'some part of North West Europe' of which had no enemies... that was confirmation that he wasn't fit for office on that alone.

Didn't Kinnock want to scrap our deterrent at the height of the cold war too? Or maybe he just never gave a straight answer on it.

It’s worth looking at the track record of the parties, despite the tories being the party of “Law and Order” they’re often much more likely to introduce defence spending cuts than labour.

 

[brad465]

Corbyn was/is anti-NATO, but the wider party was able to moderate him on certain issues, and one of them was NATO membership being supported in both the 2017 and 2019 manifestos.

 

[Noddy]

But looking at the other policies of the two main parties, it's in Putin's interests to support the Tories.

Hmm possibly but I don’t think Putin/Russian leadership agenda really cares about policy. I think it’s more driven by creating political instability internally within western countries or institutions such as NATO/EU etc, thereby reducing the standing and effectiveness of said government/country/institution internationally. So in the UK for example ‘supporting’ those on the both the right and left, as well as nationalists in Scotland (eg Salmond) and Northern Ireland, thereby driving political instability. In Germany you can clearly see how they cosied up (or tried to) to both the right and left. China is doing exactly the same-they seem to have targeted Barry Gardiner (Labour) for example. I expect there are examples from every major (and minor) UK party if you looked hard enough. However, that doesn’t mean that the Tories are soft on Ukraine or that the Russians can ‘buy them when the time comes’

 

[DarloRich]

At least Labour now know that maintaining this country's nuclear deterrent and a credible armed force is a given

We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it. (Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Labour MP for Wandsworth Central 8th January 1947)

( The same Eenie Bevin who helped set up NATO)

 

[spyinthesky]

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.

 

[edwin_m]

Hmm possibly but I don’t think Putin/Russian leadership agenda really cares about policy. I think it’s more driven by creating political instability internally within western countries or institutions such as NATO/EU etc, thereby reducing the standing and effectiveness of said government/country/institution internationally. So in the UK for example ‘supporting’ those on the both the right and left, as well as nationalists in Scotland (eg Salmond) and Northern Ireland, thereby driving political instability. In Germany you can clearly see how they cosied up (or tried to) to both the right and left. China is doing exactly the same-they seem to have targeted Barry Gardiner (Labour) for example. I expect there are examples from every major (and minor) UK party if you looked hard enough. However, that doesn’t mean that the Tories are soft on Ukraine or that the Russians can ‘buy them when the time comes’

That may have been so in 2016, when it was necessary to have Labour well out to the left, as well as the Tories in fear of being outflanked to the right, to create the conditions for Brexit and the instability that followed. At present the immediate threat of destabilisation from the left looks remote. From the right it's very much a reality with the government crashing the currency and markets, and lukewarm on renewable energy which is the best way in the long term of loosening Putin's grip on Western economies.

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.

I think this is changing. For example windfall taxes on energy suppliers were a Labour idea that Sunak implemented in a watered-down form, but Truss has decided to borrow to preserve their profits instead. That and the non-abolition of the 45p tax rate were examples of the government U-turning to adopt something Labour was already proposing, and there are likely to be more of these as the Truss "administration" desends further into chaos. Setting up a state energy company is a cunning way to reduce the dominance of those suppliers without buying them out. Rail re-nationalisation by just letting contracts lapse is similarly a low-cost policy, not a silver bullet for the industry's problems, but looking more sensible than anything the Tories have proposed.

The problem with making lots of promises now is that circumstances could have changed a lot in the next couple of years. For example public opinion might have shifted further against Brexit by then, as the consequences become even more obvious. If that is so then Labour can take a more pro-European line, but if they do it now the Mail and their ilk will start tarring them as trying to undermine a Brexit that a lot of people still think was a good idea.

 

[spyinthesky]

The problem with making lots of promises now is that circumstances could have changed a lot in the next couple of years. For example public opinion might have shifted further against Brexit by then, as the consequences become even more obvious. If that is so then Labour can take a more pro-European line, but if they do it now the Mail and their ilk will start tarring them as trying to undermine a Brexit that a lot of people still think was a good idea.

I completely understand these points and changing circumstances is when you change your plans rather than promises, any opposing party should err on the side of caution on what is deemed as a promise. Strong leadership should be able to justify changes having years to delve through scenarios.
The biggest problem I see is that public opinion is not necessarily a majority opinion as whatever decisions/plans are made only the aggrieved voice themselves.

 

[Typhoon]

We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it. (Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Labour MP for Wandsworth Central 8th January 1947)

(The same Ernie Bevin who helped set up NATO)

Largely forgotten, Labour (and the country) could do with someone with Bevin's presence right now. Not as leader, necessarily. but someone with standing, whose ability to get things done demanded respect, within the country and worldwide. Now it seems that leaders think anyone is up to the job. Australian commentators not recognising Truss when she had been Foreign Secretary (and negotiating trade deals) says a lot about her. Bevin was not someone you easily failed to recognise (you certainly wouldn't mistake him for a 'minor Royal').

 

[GS250]

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.

Well put. Sums it up completely.

That may have been so in 2016, when it was necessary to have Labour well out to the left, as well as the Tories in fear of being outflanked to the right, to create the conditions for Brexit and the instability that followed. At present the immediate threat of destabilisation from the left looks remote. From the right it's very much a reality with the government crashing the currency and markets, and lukewarm on renewable energy which is the best way in the long term of loosening Putin's grip on Western economies.

The problem with making lots of promises now is that circumstances could have changed a lot in the next couple of years. For example public opinion might have shifted further against Brexit by then, as the consequences become even more obvious. If that is so then Labour can take a more pro-European line, but if they do it now the Mail and their ilk will start tarring them as trying to undermine a Brexit that a lot of people still think was a good idea.

Brexit....great idea...could have been good for the UK with the right leadership, motivation and expertise. Sadly, its execution has been sub par.

I don't see any great desire to re join the EU at present. Not even the pro EU establishment are banging that drum. Nor are they even suggesting re entering the single market (of which was chiefly responsible for the brexit vote in the first place). And given the context of this thread, it was Labour's refusal to have a clear position on brexit that cost them so many votes in its former heartlands last time around.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Largely forgotten, Labour (and the country) could do with someone with Bevin's presence right now. Not as leader, necessarily. but someone with standing, whose ability to get things done demanded respect, within the country and worldwide. Now it seems that leaders think anyone is up to the job. Australian commentators not recognising Truss when she had been Foreign Secretary (and negotiating trade deals) says a lot about her.

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?)

 

[43096]

At least Labour now know that maintaining this country's nuclear deterrent and a credible armed force is a given. Even Germany, who have totally failed to invest in their own armed forces have now reconsidered. There were some parts of Corbyn's manifesto that I actually found quite attractive. However, when he withered on about Britain just being 'some part of North West Europe' of which had no enemies... that was confirmation that he wasn't fit for office on that alone.

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.

 

[Noddy]

That may have been so in 2016, when it was necessary to have Labour well out to the left, as well as the Tories in fear of being outflanked to the right, to create the conditions for Brexit and the instability that followed. At present the immediate threat of destabilisation from the left looks remote. From the right it's very much a reality with the government crashing the currency and markets, and lukewarm on renewable energy which is the best way in the long term of loosening Putin's grip on Western economies.

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.