Beware the liar Starmer

[Sheepy]

Well I did want Brexit and I do see how it benefits the UK  . I too believe in private enterprise and limited state intervention which it no way fits with supporting the move to a European super state  .
I dont know what prejudices you are thinking of posty but not taking UKIP policies is why the conservatives have made a hash of leaving the EU

But yes we do need a strong opposition  , that the labour party have now confessed to (what we knew all along ) their pro EU stance they may as well be lib dims . Speaking of which the liberals may as well be the opposition , they couldn't make a worse job of it than a labour party led by the wet blanket that is Kier Starmer

Well, that's alright because once the Scots feck orf and do their own thing they won't be a stick to beat us with, they can no longer tell the EU as long as they run Westminster, they can manipulate the British public and we get our country back and you can vote on each major policy decision and as a UKIP supporter you will know what it is like to win and lose. Which is never such a bad thing.

[Streetwalker]

I didn't want Brexit. I still can't see it benefits the UK. But I believe in private enterprise and limited state intervention. What I don't want is a Far Right government espousing Ukip's prejudices and policies. That's why I want a credible and strong opposition that's able to keep the nutcases in check.   


And I'm prepared to vote for a popular incompetent in the hopes it will help to keep both extreme Left and Right out of power.   


I have to admit that I find voting for a no-hoper who's no chance of affecting anything, just because I agree with a couple of their principles and can brag I've done so, as pointless as peeing down the inside of my trouser leg to get a momentary nice warm feeling...

Well I did want Brexit and I do see how it benefits the UK  . I too believe in private enterprise and limited state intervention which it no way fits with supporting the move to a European super state  .
I dont know what prejudices you are thinking of posty but not taking UKIP policies is why the conservatives have made a hash of leaving the EU

But yes we do need a strong opposition  , that the labour party have now confessed to (what we knew all along ) their pro EU stance they may as well be lib dims . Speaking of which the liberals may as well be the opposition , they couldn't make a worse job of it than a labour party led by the wet blanket that is Kier Starmer

[Sheepy]

How it evolves does matter for the long term,i'm past my sell by date but I'd hate to see my country go wrong in  an attempt to put things right.

Well, that's true you old goat, in my defence your honour, I would like to point out that if the Westminster party hadn't spent decades being pure fantasists and telling the electorate one thing then doing the opposite while manufacturing a crisis to cover for themselves while their minions argue the toss as loyal and opposition pretending to be disloyal, we probably would have had the place sorted long before now between us. most likely we wouldn't be so reliant on others just for survival and they would have less control over ones very being. Careful whose hands you put your life and future in might be a good start. From what I have read the last couple of days it isn't a thought anyone is considering.

[Nick]

But Keir Starmer's performance yesterday, and the support it got, shows Labour to be on track to becoming a credible alternative.

That has got to be offset against the car crash that was the week as a whole? Angela Rayner has called all Tory voters Scum, the red wall that 'lent' their vote to the Conservatives are now scum. How many are realistically going to say she didn't mean me and go back?

Like I always say, Labour are doing the work for us!!

[patman post]

I didn't want Brexit. I still can't see it benefits the UK. But I believe in private enterprise and limited state intervention. What I don't want is a Far Right government espousing Ukip's prejudices and policies. That's why I want a credible and strong opposition that's able to keep the nutcases in check.   


And I'm prepared to vote for a popular incompetent in the hopes it will help to keep both extreme Left and Right out of power.   


I have to admit that I find voting for a no-hoper who's no chance of affecting anything, just because I agree with a couple of their principles and can brag I've done so, as pointless as peeing down the inside of my trouser leg to get a momentary nice warm feeling...

[cromwell]

Yes, the unpopularity of Corbyn was a problem with some. But the actual policies were popular and I have shown you evidence that proves that. We lost in spite of them and not because of them. Besides the unpopularity of Corbyn himself, Brexit and a divided party were also an issue.

You seem to be ok with someone lying to get elected as long as you think their cause suits you. You have still not responded to my question about the quite obvious fact that someone prepared to lie to one electorate can lie to another. What makes you think he will not lie to you? Especially in regards to the EU?.

In the unlikely event of him getting elected, when he drags us back into the orbit of the EU in spite of promising you he would not do that in order to get elected, don't say I didn't warn you.

Of course, whilst you seem to have no problem with proven liars of any ilk, you are buzzing about the prospects of a Blairite Labour party. After all, as a right winger yourself you will naturally welcome two right wing cheeks of the same arse that don't threaten the Thatcherite status quo. And you don't care about whether either lie to the electorate to achieve it.

But don't be a fool. The Starmerite wing is massively pro EU though will quite happily lie about that fact to get elected. If you value your precious Brexit you'd be an idiot to trust them.

That's the problem the trust is evaporating and that's bad all round whether you voted leave or remain,whilst such disinterest and lack of belief in democracy just means they'll lose seats it's who replaces that matters.

Democracy and the system in this country despite all its faults was fought for in a long hard slog over hundreds of years.

How it evolves does matter for the long term,i'm past my sell by date but I'd hate to see my country go wrong in  an attempt to put things right.

[srb7677]

You're living in cloud cuckoo land. Leaked policies against non-policies way before an election is a no brainier. But when it came to the ballot box "get Brexit done" and the tousled-headed clown won. Even May came in ahead earlier.


Now the main obstacle to Labour's chances of victory is out the way (it's still Corbyn), for the country's sake, let's hope Starmer can resurrect Blairism enough to get Labour's loins stirring...

Yes, the unpopularity of Corbyn was a problem with some. But the actual policies were popular and I have shown you evidence that proves that. We lost in spite of them and not because of them. Besides the unpopularity of Corbyn himself, Brexit and a divided party were also an issue.

You seem to be ok with someone lying to get elected as long as you think their cause suits you. You have still not responded to my question about the quite obvious fact that someone prepared to lie to one electorate can lie to another. What makes you think he will not lie to you? Especially in regards to the EU?.

In the unlikely event of him getting elected, when he drags us back into the orbit of the EU in spite of promising you he would not do that in order to get elected, don't say I didn't warn you.

Of course, whilst you seem to have no problem with proven liars of any ilk, you are buzzing about the prospects of a Blairite Labour party. After all, as a right winger yourself you will naturally welcome two right wing cheeks of the same arse that don't threaten the Thatcherite status quo. And you don't care about whether either lie to the electorate to achieve it.

But don't be a fool. The Starmerite wing is massively pro EU though will quite happily lie about that fact to get elected. If you value your precious Brexit you'd be an idiot to trust them.

[patman post]

Insofar as the policies were concerned they were popular and I told you I could produce evidence of that if you doubted. But you did anyway, so here you are....

https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-huge-public-support-for-jeremy-corbyns-manifesto-promises-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

Corbyn himself was not popular with certain demographics, particularly older tabloid readers and this was a factor in Labour's defeat. But the policies themselves were liked by a large majority.

The obvious conclusion is that we lost in spite of those popular policies and not because of them.

Of course, those such as yourself who are amongst the minority who hated it all are desperate to believe most others did too, in order to argue that the public oppose them. You want to believe that. Are desperate to believe that. But it is not what the polling tells us.

And you seem to have no issue with someone who lies to get elected, and cannot see that he is just as likely to lie to you for the same ends. I ask you again, would you trust him with your precious Brexit? Instead of dodging the question with a load of obfuscation and cherished assumptions.

You're living in cloud cuckoo land. Leaked policies against non-policies way before an election is a no brainier. But when it came to the ballot box "get Brexit done" and the tousled-headed clown won. Even May came in ahead earlier.


Now the main obstacle to Labour's chances of victory is out the way (it's still Corbyn), for the country's sake, let's hope Starmer can resurrect Blairism enough to get Labour's loins stirring...

[srb7677]

He will never be elected .

I am sure you are right about that. And I will be doing by bit to that end by not voting for him or his party either.

[Streetwalker]

Dont worry srb  , Im sure enough of us are quite happy for  Starmer to continue as Labour leader . He will never be elected .

[srb7677]

And either the policies Momentum pushed Corbyn through on, or Corbyn himself, were not liked by an even greater majority of the electorate. 

Insofar as the policies were concerned they were popular and I told you I could produce evidence of that if you doubted. But you did anyway, so here you are....

https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-huge-public-support-for-jeremy-corbyns-manifesto-promises-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

Corbyn himself was not popular with certain demographics, particularly older tabloid readers and this was a factor in Labour's defeat. But the policies themselves were liked by a large majority.

The obvious conclusion is that we lost in spite of those popular policies and not because of them.

Of course, those such as yourself who are amongst the minority who hated it all are desperate to believe most others did too, in order to argue that the public oppose them. You want to believe that. Are desperate to believe that. But it is not what the polling tells us.

And you seem to have no issue with someone who lies to get elected, and cannot see that he is just as likely to lie to you for the same ends. I ask you again, would you trust him with your precious Brexit? Instead of dodging the question with a load of obfuscation and cherished assumptions.

[patman post]

You're ignoring the answer to your own question about what was liked and what was not liked. The politicies the union-imposed Miliband offered were not liked by the majority of the electorate. And either the policies Momentum pushed Corbyn through on, or Corbyn himself, were not liked by an even greater majority of the electorate. 


You may protest all you like that you won't sully the voting pencil in your hand by supporting a Labour Party that contains  — or is led by — people who modify their positions and views, as circumstances change. But there are currently only two parties capable of forming a UK government, and neither of them can fully satisfy more than a small percentage of the electorate. So most people choose a party they feel is most aligned to their beliefs (or maybe will do the least harm).   


Therefore, unless you revel in wallowing in a slough of despond with the rest of the hair-shirted Socialist saints, you're simply disenfranchising yourself and passing up the chance of making a change...

[srb7677]

Someone here often posts that repeating mistakes in the hope of a different outcome is foolish. My view exactly — why let the Momentum caucus ruin a credible party?   


Blair got Labour into power and kept it there. Seems to me sensible to apply his thinking to the current party to make it more acceptable to more voters. Unless Labour wins power — or even looks capable or near to winning power — it's not likely to get any of its policies adopted of have much influence on government...

Attlee got Labour into power too. Gladstone got the Liberals into power. Does that mean Labour needs to do the same as those? You see, times change. The circumstances today are very different to those of 1997, the electorate likewise. Starmer and those around him are like a bunch of French World War 2 generals looking to fight with the same aims and tactics as 25 years previously because it worked back then. They are stuck in a time warp. And they will be defeated by others who have moved with the times.

And no one says Labour should keep repeating what it did in 17 and 19. But what it ought to do is recognise what was liked and what was not liked, change the latter and offer the former in a more credible way. Instead, they are ditching the only things people liked about them.

And you still have not addressed the fundamental question of this thread. How can a man demonstrably proven to have lied to get elected, be trusted to run the country. And you haven't answered my other question. Would you trust someone so willing to brazenly lie to get elected with maintaining Brexit? When every fibre of his being and of those around him is pro EU? He is just as capable of lying to you as he did party members.

[patman post]

Someone here often posts that repeating mistakes in the hope of a different outcome is foolish. My view exactly — why let the Momentum caucus ruin a credible party?   


Blair got Labour into power and kept it there. Seems to me sensible to apply his thinking to the current party to make it more acceptable to more voters. Unless Labour wins power — or even looks capable or near to winning power — it's not likely to get any of its policies adopted of have much influence on government...

[srb7677]

I guess it's difficult for Corbyn supporters to see their hero being jettisoned by the party they thought they'd taken over. But Keir Starmer's performance yesterday, and the support it got, shows Labour to be on track to becoming a credible alternative. Learning from New Labour's success is a good start.   


As someone who would have been mostly an ardent Thatcher supporter had I been voting at the time, I can see considering the potential Labour party as a useful tactical vote (without the current soul searching) should there be a danger of a LibDem or other unscrupulous or weird party candidate getting in locally...

The fact remains that he lied to his electorate to get elected. Would you trust anything he said about Brexit at the next electiuon?

As for the support he got in the hall, even the politically hostile Newton-Dunn of the Sun encountered numerous members outside who'd been allowed to attend the conference for the rest of the week being denied entry on the day. Members who just happened to be less than positive about him. This lends the suspicion that the hall was deliberately packed with his supporters.

And if you think I used to be a member of Labour and a Labour voter because of Corbyn, you are kidding yourself about me. I was a member and supporter because I have long believed in the need for much more social housing, security of tenure for tenants, rent control, restrictions on buy to let and on right to buy, a much higher minimum wage, better workers' rights that you don't have to wait two years for, abolition of tuition fees, abolition of excessively exploitative and excessively crap work contracts, a green new deal, and lowering the voting age to 16. My support for most of that long pre-dated Corbyn and remains true today. I joined Labour under Corbyn because it was clearly espousing these sorts of policies that I believe in. I have left now because it clearly no longer does.

And just to head you off at the pass because I know you will say this, yes Labour did not win with such policies. But that was not because the policies were unpopular. Most of them were liked by a large majority of voters, and if you don't believe me I can show you the polling evidence. We lost because of a party seen to be divided, the personal unpopularity of Corbyn amongst some demographics, and a massive lack of trust on the Brexit issue. And we lost for these reasons in spite of popular policies, not because of them.

But Starmer and those fools around him are effectively doubling down on many of the reasons we lost whilst ditching the only things people liked about us to make Labour somehow more "electable". There is an obvious failure of logic there.