Starmer v Corbyn

Is that a serious question?

In 2017, he very nearly was. I believe that if Brexit had not been a thing, he would've - people saw it as something the Tories needed to complete and he had been lukewarm on the issue (for the record, I'm not saying he's the perfect leader, just that I'm sick of the continuous 'make do with what you're given' approach delivered to anyone under almost 40 unhappy with tepid Labour policy).

Hence, the collective UK press drive (Guardian and Independent excepted) to paint him as some form of demon, the Tories (and Murdoch, the Barclays and Viscount Rothermere) went all out to show that his projected nationalisation was essentially communism in action and needed to be cut off at source.

Plus there was still Brexit as an issue at the time, and in 2019 he was up against 'lovable character' Boris Johnson (before the nation realised he was a Jeremy Hunt). Even the BBC went for him, the 'red square infographic' as they discussed Salisbury.

You have to consider demographics as well. Given the argument I just made about being sick of things, how would levels of eligible voters changed 2017-now, and of those, how many do you think voted Tory and are no longer around versus would have voted Labour and were not eligible to vote in 2017? If the 2017 GE were to take place in May, but with the only thing to have changed being the UK's demography, do you still think he'd have lost?

And in answer to my first question, I think you're being quite facetious. It's quite possible to be a Labour supporter and not want bland centrism aimed at the middle-aged floating voter in order to consolidate power, or to not be particularly hopeful that if that's the electoral platform, not much else will materialise in your benefit.

 

What you want, and what it is possible to achieve are two different things. "The art of the possible..." and all that. Has the electorate changed much since 2019? If the answer to that is no, then it would be delusional to go to them with the same offering. Yes, the media will always be against whoever is in charge of Labour. That's just a fact of life. Starmer has had some terrible press. But he doesn't scare them as much. I agree with you about FPTP and PR btw, but no party that achieves power under the present system will ever agree to change it.

 

Why is your generation so patient (or apathetic)?

My generation (50s) and the ones that went before and after it, have systematically and and knowingly destroyed your present, your future and your children's future. Moreover we are going to continue on that path until stop us. Kier Starmer is simply our latest poster boy. We're now giving you the real choice of a right wing Govt or .......a slightly less right wing Govt (and I mean slightly). What's the problem?

 

If people really think a Labour government under Starmer would only be ‘slightly’ less right wing than the current incumbents then this country is in big trouble and we as an electorate deserve exactly what we will get.

What the Labour Party needed was a bland, vanilla leader who wouldn’t be publicly radical and just let the mess at the other side of the house govern itself out of power with their inadequacy. They just about have.

Problem being it’s another eighteen or twenty months before the election.

We can’t let talk like this thread manifest over the coming months otherwise the tories stay in. Electing them repeatedly has been an act of self harm almost as ridiculous as the brexit vote.

Allowing them to be elected again next time out just because Starmer doesn’t publicly position himself far enough left to your taste would personify cutting your nose off to spite your face.

We all might want something different and more radical ideologically. But please be realistic. It is either baby steps and change for the better, probably in instalments - or more of the same, cruel, elitist regime.

Long term electoral change is all well and good but what about the next ten to fifteen years? Can we afford to let it go that far?

I don’t think so.

I left the Labour Party. I’m not a huge fan currently. But I feel myself a realist. If we don’t elect Labour we will get the tories. Vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the Tory in every constituency in the country. In fact Labour and Lib Dem should volunteer to not stand against eachother in marginals they might allow tories in otherwise. Get them out before we lose everything.

 

Pontification.

If what's possible is A or B, where B is A-0.00001, what's the point?

 

Oh dear! Pontification as well as facetiousness now?

Never mind! I don't accept there is such little difference between Tory and Labour. Even if the policies were similar (and I don't accept that they are) just think about the personalities the Tories have brought us (Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Cruella, Raabid, Priti Vacant). I'm not really seeing that on the Labour front bench?

 

Nothing you’ve said there is anything to do with been favourable towards Putin. He didn’t trust our government over Salisbury, has he not been proven right that our Government are completely untrustworthy over pretty much anything?

His views on NATO are nothing to do with Putin. They’re long standing issues from Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.

In terms of the war in Ukraine. I support the arming of the Ukrainian army but ultimately we’ve no idea how the war ends. If we get a couple of years down the line & Russia end up annexing the east & south of the country & there’s hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainian’s then in hindsight the best thing might well of been conceding to the Russians. We don’t know. I hope they win but we never hear how many soldiers the Ukrainian’s are losing so we’ve no idea how the war is really going for them.

 

Who is your MP?

 

I think the big issue with the left isn’t that Starmer isn’t on the left, it’s that he’s gone out of his way to attack people on the left. Remember, many on the left got behind Starmer initially. He’s created this mess. He’s gone out of his way to cause division in the Labour Party. He lied claiming he wanted to unite the party & then did the complete opposite.

Corbyn could’ve easily faded into the background as an MP for Islington & no one would’ve been concerned with him whilst Covid was happening, whilst a war was going on, whilst Tory corruption was been exposed & whilst there was an ongoing cost of living crisis but Starmer has deliberately kept Corbyn relevant by his side of the party continuing to attack him.

 

Seriously? Hand the Salisbury evidence over to Russia and let them tell us if they did it? Mate!

Which organisation does Putin regard as his lifelong sworn enemy?

 

Major Dan.

 

Who’s your MP?

 

Apologies that was meant for Sestren

 

But the difficulties kicked off again when Corbyn cast doubt on the EHRC report - despite being specifically asked not to.

 

For those saying that they can't vote labour. What would you suggest I do, in a constituency that is currently held by a Tory MP, and Labour being the only party to get anywhere near them in previous elections?

What is the most likely vote I can do, that can lead to something meaningful? Who is this political party that's going to bring about radical change? Or would voting anyone but Labour just make another 5 years of Tory / UKIP Government more likely?

As it is, I don't buy into this 'slightly less tory' idea. Labour won't nationalise BP or Shell, or take us back into the Single Market within 5 years. But no party will. It would be an impossible task. But I'd be surprised if, when manifestos come out, Labour's isn't vaguely aligned with Lib Dem, albeit with some headline making differences. In isolation, I'd probably be happy to vote for either of them, or the Green Party. (Essentially anyone not Tory, UKIP, Brexit Party etc...), so tactical voting comes into it.

How is a vote that makes a Tory seat win more likely going to help?

 

Everything he’s said about the EHRC report has been proven to be correct.

 

Well at least he'll have freedom to express his views as an Independent MP!

 

I’m pretty sure he didn’t tell the Russians to investigate the case themselves. He said for them to have copies of the evidence.

My memory was that he didn’t want to cast judgement until it’d been investigated & that once he did he condemned the Russians.

Putin / NATO has nothing to do with Corbyn. He’s been critical of NATO since at least as far back as 2003.

He’s also been critical of Putin dating as far back as Chechnya in the late 90’s.

Just because you’re critical of NATO doesn’t mean you’re in agreement with every other person critical of NATO.

You can be anti-Putin & anti-NATO

 

Do you genuinely think that Starmer’s led Labour Party, which I accept is more centrist than left on the public face of it, is really that close to the far right nastiness we have currently? There is a big difference between not being the red flag waving socialist regime that many, perhaps you (and if I’m honest I) would like - and just being the same right wing gobshites as the other side of the house. They really aren’t that.

And as for those that write Starmer off as a liar - really? As opposed to the sitting government?

Anyway, there is one thing for a fact here. The prime minister after the next general election will be either the leader of the Tory party or the leader of the Labour Party. It won’t be anyone else.

Neither party seem likely at the moment to change the current incumbent. So the government will likely be Sunak, aided by Braverman, Raab, Hunt, Gove Barclay etc - and with the chance of Johnson returning when they get him off of his charges, and Rees-Mogg in the background - or Starmer, with Rayner, Dodds, Cooper, Lammy and so on. Those are the choices. There aren’t any others. We can moan about it and want more, but those are the choices. One or the other as we aren’t getting PR anytime soon. We have the FPTP system. Whilst i’m not a huge fan of FPTP, PR has its issues too. I’m not convinced of the ability of our politicians to be mature enough to work together on anything in what would inevitably be a constantly split and ‘hung’ parliament. PR will give fair representation but also unstable government that might often be unworkable, and probably lead to a regular stream of elections. Under FPTP and majority governments at least decisions can be made. The decision we didn’t want or perceive to be the wrong one is often not as bad has having decided or done nothing at all. I’m not 100% sold on PR. It appears likely to create as many problems as it solves, were it adopted.

Moot point. We aren’t getting PR anytime soon. So it comes down to which of the two do you want?

If the answer is neither, then the following questions are who do you want least? Who is the most dangerous and who is the most likely to do the most damage? It isn’t difficult for me to answer that. I’m amazed that there is even a discussion.

For the biggest, staunchest Starmer hater who is traditionally a Labour voter - and there are clearly some on this thread - do you honestly want the sitting government to continue? Would Starmer as prime minister be so bad you’d sacrifice getting the sitting government out by not electing him? Do you really want to prove the point that he’s not radical enough to your taste by empowering the Conservative Party to continue to veer further right and to erode even more than we’ve already lost?

 

It can’t and wont. If you have a sitting Tory and the likeliest candidate to beat them is Labour, vote labour. If it’s a Lib Dem, Lib Dem. If it’s the sausage from the masked singer standing for the monster raving loony party, then them.

Please. Two of my three kids reach adulthood in the next government. Give them a bloody chance.