A Dark Period in British Life

Moving away from a Norway style arrangement and rejecting FOM and the SM mean it’s the hardest of Brexit stances however you slice it. Pretend otherwise is very naive.

why do you think Brexit is a closed book when polls now show 55% + that people think it was a error. Starmer presented himself as representing those people now no party represents the majority of people in the country

 

So, a recap. Keir Starmer…

- is a bigger liar than Boris Johnson, the most untrustworthy PM we’ve ever had
- is more right wing than the most right wing government this country has ever had
- forced an anti-Brexit stance on Jeremy Corbyn that lost him the red wall seats
- but despite that, and recently saying we need closer ties with the EU, is a hard Brexiteer

I’ve heard he was also the VAR ref at Wembley and told the ref he was doing a cracking job. And I’m only a couple of episodes into this Jill Dando documentary, but one cannot help but suspect…

 

Norway/FOM isn't presently on offer, and couldn't be embraced without another referendum. Otherwise all the brexit trolls are reawakened and start screaming "Betrayal! Undemocratic!" And let's face it, 55% from 49% isn't exactly seismic movement. I reckon no sane leader would touch it unless strongly-tested public opinion demonstrated 75%-80% were favouring re-entry. Much of the problem with the first vote was that constitutional change was idiotically on offer in return for a bare majority of those voting in the referendum. Opening it up again on the back of a 55-45 split in the polling would undoubtedly resurrect all the old arguments and waste another five years in introspection and division. I don't think Keir likes being out (nor do I) but I think he sees the reality of the situation. Meanwhile he has a very hostile Tory media machine to overcome to get this vile government out. That's first and paramount to me, however much he adapts stances sensibly to boost Labour's prospects (my words) or lies (your words). Lawyers are usually pragmatic!

 

Remember people we don’t like lie, people we do like ‘row back on commitments’

 

Could have sworn I made a post on this topic yesterday, but bu*****d if I can see it today.

 

That's a bit cheap and petty mate. JV has a view which he tries to explain in spite of regular criticism from some on here and he's worthy of a better response than that. If you disagree with him do so as you have done in the past - in a mature, well-argued way.

 

Things like this have been happening since Gally made Starmer one of the moderators

 

I actually agree with quite a bit of your comment here (unusual for me I know). However, the failure of Starmer to come out and have the balls to say 'Brexit, particularly leaving the single market, has been a **** up' is not showing good leadership. He is a leader and he needs to lead and inform people that the debate about the SM at least, needs reopening. Sitting on the fence and refusing to address issues that need addressing is weak. If he believes in stronger links with Europe he should be forthright, specific and tackle the criticism from the Tory right head on. The public should be told by our political leaders why aspects of brexit are bad and need addressing. Hiding from the issue in an attempt to get into power is as I said weak leadership and will, in any case, even if elected, come back to bite.

 

I don’t mean to offend. Jimmy is a long-time mate of mine. I’m just taking the piss to try to bring all this to an end, because sometimes the Starmer hatred can be a tad OTT. We both want the same thing really and neither of us is happy with Starmer, but whilst there’s lots to criticise Starmer for, some of the things he gets labelled with are a bit silly. I guess I’m more accepting that we’re never going to get exactly what we want, so I’m more willing to compromise to get shut of the Tories. Maybe that’s not the right way to put it. I’m more scared that the Labour infighting will allow the Tories to sneak back in and I’m more optimistic that Labour will move in the right direction (‘right’ as in ‘correct’, not ‘right’ as in the direction!) once elected, because as I see it, realistically, that’s the only option we really have. If, by chance, there needs to be a Lab-Lib coalition, Starmer IIs still going to be PM.

The biggest problem with Corbyn was that he gave us a taste of the ideal, even though it was never really going to happen, so now every Labour leader that follows will never live up to that ideal.

 

Sorry if I over-criticised, I didn't know you were mates.
It does look as though Starmer will win the election in some form at the moment though, love him or hate him.

 

But we went into the last election with Labour taking a stance against Brexit and wanting closer ties with the EU and look what happened up here. We even have a Tory MP in Barnsley. They obviously see it as too much of a risk, trying to educate people in 12 months before the voting, as the press and the Tories will be all over it and Labour’s campaigning will be tied up with fighting the misinformation that will be getting thrown about. I have no doubt that we will improve relations and trade with the EU and they will then have 5 years to get it through to people, whilst simultaneously being able to demonstrate how the closer ties are improving the country.

 

No, you were right, I was being flippant.

 

Nobody needs telling. Everyone can see for themselves what a s**t shower brexit is. Starmer has already said explicitly he favours a closer releationship with the EU. If he raises that to talking about rejoining the SM he loses the election. Smarter thinking is required.

 

I know for a fact that the EU would be very much open for closer alignment as does Labour.

Again Labour have a very difficult job to placate it’s city based base and let’s face it the more reactionary base. It’s not easy. It wasn’t easy for Corbyn and in the middle term won’t be easy for Starmer.

Labour talk of growth without any explanation of how you get the missing 5% of GDP back that we lose by not being part of the SM. It’s either pie in the sky or a direct lie. Possibly a combination of both. To grow the economy to that extent + then a similar amount to qualify as actual growth is pretty unprecedented and they have shown no ‘working out’ as to how it will be achieved

Leaders need to lead or not lead. Starmer needs to clear and honest and put it in peoples minds that there can be no growth. No investment. No improvement in standards of living an end of the NHS and only continuing austerity without a dramatic shift in the relationship with Europe. All day every day. That needs to be the message. As Starmer said “the same old rhetoric is not enough for the challenges we face”.

We need political parties that can actually lead and change things not desperately aim for power by ditching every one if their principles.

I was in a meeting earlier this week with our JV partners French & Germany and they basically see us as a third world country with a very rich crust. We are pitied not laughed at.

As for the lying / pragmatic argument Starmer is going to get that all day every day in the election build up. Given he’s pretty poor at thinking on his feet and gets irritable quickly I don’t think it’ll be pretty

 

Well I'm back to disagreeing with you. His comments about the relationship with the EU are cloudy and at the moment do not address the failings of the current economic relationship. Being willing to explain to people, a majority and growing, of the necessity of getting access to the SM may actually win him more seats (Lib Dem voters may vote Labour and the cohort of remain Tories may do so, not to mention people who are thinking they may have been lied to and are umming and aaahing). A well argued case may further swing other voters who may now be able to appreciate the advantages. So, he may actually gain votes rather than lose them. This is yet another example of his duplicitous character however as he refuses to stand up for anything. If, rather when, Labour form the next government a sudden decision to join the SM then will really give ammunition to the Tories and may actually contribute to defeat at the subsequent election as Starmer can be painted as someone not to be trusted. He isn't to be trusted of course but that's a well-worn theme

 

I think you have him wrong, but we shall see. At any rate, no semblance of a challenge to his leadership this side of the election. If he doesn't win I would expect he will stand down thereafter.

 

It would appear that not many in the party share your view given the lack of any hint of a challenge to him?

 

Hints of challenges aren't really relevant in this context. Doesn't really matter what he says on the subject because any alternative voice is stifled and/or excluded from the party, excluded from standing, excluded from shortlists or excluded from shadow positions. He's an stalinesque, lying bully. If he wins the next election as seems likely he'll still be a stalinesque, lying bully. There will be problems down the line within the party because of this dictatorial attitude though. Mark my words.

 

What's the membership. 400,000? And he's subdued all of them? And does not the NEC determine the shortlists? And is not the NEC democratically elected from the membership? (Genuine questions, because I'm not a Labour Party member, and I don't really understand these structures in any detail.)

 

Dunno what the membership is and don't know about the NEC voting rules either as I'm not a member either. And no, he's not subdued them all as you well know. Individual members of the party are unlikely to get censured or banned as their profile is marginal. To quote/summarise part of your previous posts 'its naive to think otherwise'. It really is that simple!!
Edit: Sorry for the poor english