Posted without Comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/30/keir-starmer-detached-labour-party-jon-cruddas

 

He's totally beige and stands for nothing' and if the tories weren't such a complete train wreck he would be miles behind in the poles' he will get in but he will be the luckiest politician ever.

 

Personally despite not liking Starmer myself I think there are a lot of Tory scum politicians it's more worthwhile trying to pull down than it is the labour leader.

We had that with Corbyn, everyone focusing on pulling him down instead of the Tories and it got us into this corrupt mess.

 

No it didn't, him being totally unelectable by the voters did that

 

Because the media with a lot to lose made him so. And again it led to us being governed by the corrupt bent racist tories

 

And so it has started attacking Starmer we will get this up to the next election by the right-wing media.

 

Bingo. Got to keep the Tories in power so those in the media can keep getting their money and privileges

 

Are you suggesting the Guardian / Observer group are the Right wing media?

Are you suggesting that centrist Labour MPs like John Cruddas are part of the right wing media?

Huge if true but id need to see your working out.

 

Labour is lost.

Growing up in Barnsley and even up to some point 7 or 8 years ago, it was easy to understand and support the traditional left - primarily based around a form of economic socialism, and a concern that the poorest in society were treated fairly. The tenet of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is an amazing guiding principle for life but also for what the traditional Labour party was and what it meant to ordinary people of all classes, and particularly those from Scotland, the North and Wales.

Increasingly though 'the left' that i grew up with has got dragged into a culture war where every issue simply has a 'left and right' and therefore by extension a 'right and wrong', and the basic principles of looking after those with the greatest need have become utterly lost on the way. They have a total lack of understanding of nuance or tolerance for complex issues, coupled with a totally unjustified intellectual and moral superiority (when actually a lot of Labour's Parliamentary representatives are painfully, spectacularly thick as mince) and instead it's the lowest common denominator and woke/left = good and populism = bad. Therefore Palestine = good and any concerns about the actions of Hamas in November = you are a bigot. Trans rights = 'left' and therefore good and any concerns about safe spaces for women or the sanctity of women's sports = you are a bigot. Lockdown = good and any concerns about the devastating effects on the poorest and the education of the poorest = you are selfish (or even worse, 'right wing'). Remain = good and any concerns about Parliamentary sovereignty or even worse uncontrolled immigration = you are a racist. So you have an increasingly noisy element of the party taking the moral high ground on issues where there is extreme complexity and nuance. I never ever thought that i would see a Labour party actively opposed to womens rights. If Emily Davison were alive today she'd be viewed by some on the Left with the same anger and contempt as Rowling.

I've said several times before on here that i've only ever voted Labour in my life, but there's zero chance of me doing so in the next general election. I'll most likely vote Lib Dem or if not abstain. There is no current party that gets close to representing my world view as an economically socialist moderate.

 

With that in mind are you happy knowing that your abstinence would aide the Tories in retaining power? Because that's the reality of the situation

 

Been saying the same thing about Starmer as that article for a while myself but some people think I'm a left-wing loony. I've also said that if a Starmer government effectively does nothing to improve peoples' lives through lack of vision Labour will be letting the Tories back in in 5 years time.....Sad but I can see it happening at the moment.

 

I guess fortunately for me i'm in a constituency where its either going to be Lib Dem or Tory so it won't apply, but even if it was there's no way in any sort of moral conscience i could ever vote for a Starmer led party after what he campaigned for during Covid, so it would be an unfortunate consequence of following basic moral guiding principles.

 

Hardly the first time Cruddas has opposed the leadership, is it? And he's standing down.

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/p...ctically-at-the-next-general-election-365945/

For balance.

 

Yes - same report carried in the Sunday Times this morning.

 

Having worked with John in the dim and distant past he is a thoroughly honest guy. I don’t share his centre Brown(ish) politics but he is definitely a sensible voice to listen to.

 

Can't really argue with this. There has been a dumbing down of debate on all sorts of things with a venal response (usually from what is generally identified as the left -but often actually isn't) on all sorts of things. A lot of people think that just shouting the loudest is winning a debate. Starmer will be elected because he's not Sunak and the SNP meltdown and red wall return will see him home. We desperately need rail and possibly utility re-nationalisation but I fear, a bit like Blair we end up just doing what focus groups tell us, rather than a clear vision. I do think though there are some decent people in the Labour Party, like Jess Phillips and Stephen Kinnock, interested to see if they get anywhere near cabinet and for some strange reason I do think Angela Rayner might grow into the right job

 

He wasn't that honest when he was driving around with no MOT or insurance

 

As is Keir, apparently:

In A Century of Labour, a book published to mark 100 years since the formation of the first Labour government on 22 January 1924 under Ramsay MacDonald, Jon Cruddas says that Starmer – while clearly a “decent” and “principled” man – “remains an elusive leader, difficult to find”.

Must say, while Cruddas hints that Keir's lack of political back history is a disadvantage, I take the opposite view. I think he's come to politics without some of the political baggage and that that has enabled him to cut through some of the party crap that prevents Labour from being elected. Should he be elected though, I think Keir is far more likely to be a Wilson than a Blair.

 

Yeah I think that was a bit of balance from John to head off the criticism for criticism sake line. I’d say not understanding or being representative of the party you lead would be an issue which I’m glad you acknowledge but happy to see how it plays out.