Keir Starmer

[Hamble]

Major election promise? Which one?

Corbyn was never a populist. Currently Populism is the mark of the Trumps, Johnsons, Orbans, and Bolsonaros (and Farages) of this world. It's an anti-liberal policy, a threat to the well-being of the country. It's worked for the first four, though Farage is now whoring himself around on pay-per-view sites, so it didn't work out too well for him. Though Farage won't end up in court, whereas I'm certain the others will. Eventually.

I voted for Corbyn because of his manifesto. I still say it was the best I'd seen in a while. And it was definitely for the good of the country. For the many, and all that. Both times.

I voted for Starmer in the leadership election. I thought he was the best on offer at the time. I still say on paper he's the best of the bunch. Long -Bailey was just a continuity candidate, and in the end it was pretty much all there was on offer. Though my first choice would have been Thornberry.

For me there's a middle ground between the economy and the welfare state / NHS, worker's rights, and nationalised industries such as rail, water, power. Mainly because we don't have much choice in those anyway.

After that, when it comes to actual candidates, I'd vote for someone with the good of the country at heart. Someone decent. Though that's a bit of a stretch when it comes to politics. I'd say that those party leaders I mentioned (with the exception of Johnson), with slight variations in policy, do have that.

And yes, if they'd move the Scottish border to somewhere around Cheshire, then the SNP would get my vote

1. Brexit.

2. Corbism was officially populist.
"The tragedy of Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, like so many populist movements, is that it does identify areas that genuinely need fixing."

https://www.ft.com/content/1b35a81e-...6-9bf4d1957a67

[Hamble]

It will be a coup from within, he will be stabbed right between the shoulder blades.

Shouldn't you be more worried about Starmer the charmer?

[local]

Corbyn wasn't a populist of course not.


Populism,
First, it has a disdain for elites and experts of all kinds, especially political ones. Second, it supposes that the purpose of politics is simply to put into action the will of the people, who are seen as homogenous and united in their goals. Third, it proposes straightforward, simple solutions to what are in fact complex problems.

Corbyn was a populist to his core.


*Guardian.

Corbyns election bribes were classic some one else will pay Socialism.


For the many from the few.

[sandGroundZero]

Keir Starmer had been correctly identified as the Guardian commentariat's (2019) first choice for Labour leader. He is somewhat deficient in ease and fluency (except perhaps in the context of a 'forensic ' cross-examination). Oddly, an excess of barristers populate the Commons. Most are probably better at politicking than they are at the law.

Happily, the Conservative party is cultivating a crop of young oiks and yobs to balance out its side of the aisle.

[Hamble]

Keir Starmer had been correctly identified as the Guardian commentariat's (2019) first choice for Labour leader. He is somewhat deficient in ease and fluency (except perhaps in the context of a 'forensic ' cross-examination). Oddly, an excess of barristers populate the Commons. Most are probably better at politicking than they are at the law.

Happily, the Conservative party is cultivating a crop of young oiks and yobs to balance out its side of the aisle.

?

As if we did not know how Starmer was was chosen?

Quote
"When Starmer was running for leader, many of his supporters expressed how important it was that he looked like a prime-minister-in-waiting. “For the first time in ten years we’ve got a leader who looks like a prime minister,” said one Labour MP after his election. And indeed, in the latter months of 2020, Starmer performed impressively in polls that asked voters who would make the best prime minister. Having started 24 points behind Johnson in April, he rose to be 1 point ahead on average by September."

https://novaramedia.com/2021/03/31/i...s-that-by-ten/


Contrast that with the Tory's who have plenty of leadership options.

[Hamble]

Major election promise? Which one?

Corbyn was never a populist. Currently Populism is the mark of the Trumps, Johnsons, Orbans, and Bolsonaros (and Farages) of this world. It's an anti-liberal policy, a threat to the well-being of the country. It's worked for the first four, though Farage is now whoring himself around on pay-per-view sites, so it didn't work out too well for him. Though Farage won't end up in court, whereas I'm certain the others will. Eventually.

I voted for Corbyn because of his manifesto. I still say it was the best I'd seen in a while. And it was definitely for the good of the country. For the many, and all that. Both times.

I voted for Starmer in the leadership election. I thought he was the best on offer at the time. I still say on paper he's the best of the bunch. Long -Bailey was just a continuity candidate, and in the end it was pretty much all there was on offer. Though my first choice would have been Thornberry.

For me there's a middle ground between the economy and the welfare state / NHS, worker's rights, and nationalised industries such as rail, water, power. Mainly because we don't have much choice in those anyway.

After that, when it comes to actual candidates, I'd vote for someone with the good of the country at heart. Someone decent. Though that's a bit of a stretch when it comes to politics. I'd say that those party leaders I mentioned (with the exception of Johnson), with slight variations in policy, do have that.

And yes, if they'd move the Scottish border to somewhere around Cheshire, then the SNP would get my vote

You voted for Corbyn despite the sleaze on antisemitism?
Thank fully many did not.

[Toodles McGinty]

Here we go. Can't have a political thread without the usual suspects clinging desperately onto Corbyn again.

I'm not going through another 3 pages of Corbyn. I've stated my opinion on his manifesto. That's it. He's gone. Get over it.

As far as 'officially' populist is concerned, who exactly declares the 'official' definition? With most political concepts, there's accepted wisdom. Nobody officially declares anything. The Wiki page (though not, admittedly, the fount of all knowledge) has several definitions. The one which most strikes a chord with me is:

'it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.

That describes those I've named as the current batch of global populists to a tee. But of course, you can choose your own.

Back on topic, whether Starmer succeeds or fails remains to be seen. While he may usually reduce Johnson to a screeching, blustering, finger-jabbing, angry toddler at PMQs, the electorate aren't sufficiently politically engaged for that to land. He's had a year to make an impression. Seemingly that impression isn't great. I've been both disappointed and occasionally impressed. I guess he'll have another year or so, then if he's still pretty much a grey man, a new leader will be elected.

As I've mentioned, I don't expect Labour to do well in the elections today. I do follow politics to a degree, possibly more than the average voter, and I don't have much of a clue what the policies are. So what people are meant to vote Labour for, I'm not really sure. While only a dribbling idiot or besotted simpleton would choose Johnson himself as a political hill to die on, there isn't a great deal of choice left to the electorate.

I suppose, as has been noted, it's a case of whichever candidate is going to best serve your area.

[Hamble]

Here we go. Can't have a political thread without the usual suspects clinging desperately onto Corbyn again.

I'm not going through another 3 pages of Corbyn. I've stated my opinion on his manifesto. That's it. He's gone. Get over it.

As far as 'officially' populist is concerned, who exactly declares the 'official' definition? With most political concepts, there's accepted wisdom. Nobody officially declares anything. The Wiki page (though not, admittedly, the fount of all knowledge) has several definitions. The one which most strikes a chord with me is:

'it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.

That describes those I've named as the current batch of global populists to a tee. But of course, you can choose your own.

Back on topic, whether Starmer succeeds or fails remains to be seen. While he may usually reduce Johnson to a screeching, blustering, finger-jabbing, angry toddler at PMQs, the electorate aren't sufficiently politically engaged for that to land. He's had a year to make an impression. Seemingly that impression isn't great. I've been both disappointed and occasionally impressed. I guess he'll have another year or so, then if he's still pretty much a grey man, a new leader will be elected.

As I've mentioned, I don't expect Labour to do well in the elections today. I do follow politics to a degree, possibly more than the average voter, and I don't have much of a clue what the policies are. So what people are meant to vote Labour for, I'm not really sure. While only a dribbling idiot or besotted simpleton would choose Johnson himself as a political hill to die on, there isn't a great deal of choice left to the electorate.

I suppose, as has been noted, it's a case of whichever candidate is going to best serve your area.

Quote TM
"I voted for Corbyn because of his manifesto. I still say it was the best I'd seen in a while. And it was definitely for the good of the country. For the many, and all that. Both times."

?
You brought it up!

What peeked my ire was the many posts after Corbyn was outed as running a racist ship was your assurances you voted for the party not the dastard himself.

You object to my voting 'party first' and for Boris.
This is one doodle you cannot undo.

Boris had one job-get Brexit done.

Starmer was not populist like Corbyn and his dire list of niche populist
manifesto promises.
His one job is to get Labour elected into power.

We shall see how this go's today.

[local]

It is very important that we don't forget the people who supported Corbyn which includes Starmer and the thankfully smaller section of the electorate.
People with this appalling lack of judgment have clearly got to be considered with great care.

[Toodles McGinty]

Quote TM
"I voted for Corbyn because of his manifesto. I still say it was the best I'd seen in a while. And it was definitely for the good of the country. For the many, and all that. Both times."

?
You brought it up!

What peeked my ire was the many posts after Corbyn was outed as running a racist ship was your assurances you voted for the party not the dastard himself.

You object to my voting 'party first' and for Boris.
This is one doodle you cannot undo.

Boris had one job-get Brexit done.

We shall see how this go's today.

No, I didn't.

Add to this that Starmer's performing the fairly thankless undertaking of ridding his party of the toxic influence and legacy of Corbyn, and the earlier he gets at that the better.

I stated I liked his manifesto, then didn't mention it again until you brought him up again on post #136.

I'm not interested in discussing Corbyn. He's been done to death on here.

I don't vote party first. I'm not a member of any party, as I suspect most of the blue-rinse brigade (referring to affiliation, not age) on here aren't. I'm critical of Labour. I think anyone who votes party first is an idiot. They have a blinkered view of politics that doesn't take a broad view of the country into consideration.

But most of all, I think anyone who votes for Boris Johnson because they actually consider him a politician at all is completely deluded. Though unless you're a party member or live in his constituency, I doubt anyone on here did vote for him. I don't need to list the reasons. They are myriad and they are well documented. Again, I'll not enter any discussion about it with anyone, unless it was a factual discussion, not an emotive fanboy rant, because I won't waste my time interacting with fools. And the reasons will take up pages and pages of links alone. As you quite rightly say, there is only a single purpose to him existing as leader of his party. Whether or not you think he's done that successfully and to the benefit of the country is a matter for your own conscience.

Starmer...His one job is to get Labour elected into power.

No, his job is the Leader of the Opposition. His job is to scrutinise the government and hold them to account. As is the duty of all of the opposition. In 3 years time, his job will be to get Labour elected, but he cannot do that job now. He's been LOTO for 12 months of the current government's first 15 months incumbency. Whether or not he'll achieve election success in 3 years is anyone's guess. Whether he'll still be leader then is anyone's guess.

But I wouldn't put any gains or losses today as a snapshot of how voters will act in 3 years.

[Hamble]

[QUOTE=Toodles McGinty;6770595]No, I didn't.



I stated I liked his manifesto, then didn't mention it again until you brought him up again on post #136.

I'm not interested in discussing Corbyn. He's been done to death on here.

You 'liked' this post from DR post 125
"Add to this that Starmer's performing the fairly thankless undertaking of ridding his party of the toxic influence and legacy of Corbyn, and the earlier he gets at that the better."

Then followed it up with this reply in your post 130
".............
For me, both had something to offer. I thought Corbyn's manifesto was a breath of fresh air, and one the country, as it turned out, would have benefitted from. Yet the man himself didn't help. I think Starmer offers a centre left path that isn't toxic to the electorate. He's intelligent, measured and a should present a version of social democracy that is palatable to business....."

I mentioned Corbyn on post 136 in reply on the subject of Boris and voting populism.

Clearly you are wrong.

Quote
...................."Populism is not defined by right and left, nor even by the virtue of its goals: think Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain. Populism is rather a way of doing politics that has three key features. First, it has a disdain for elites and experts of all kinds, especially political ones. Second, it supposes that the purpose of politics is simply to put into action the will of the people, who are seen as homogenous and united in their goals. Third, it proposes straightforward, simple solutions to what are in fact complex problems.The campaign to re-elect Corbyn is populist to its core. It is based on the absoluteness of the “democratic mandate” given by Labour members and supporters, which renders null and void any dissent from Labour’s “elites” in Westminster or Brussels. It means that Corbyn does not even need the support of the MPs he is supposed to be leading in the House of Commons. To do anything other than “get behind the leader” is to thwart the will of Labour’s people. Corbyn warmly talks of “reaching out”, but those who take his hand must be willing to be led by it.

This is populism in its purest form, with the people as the final and best judges. Its simplistic purity obscures the complex messiness of real political problems, the greatest of which is that an effective opposition leader needs to command the support of the party in parliament. Corbyn’s supporters do not entertain the possibility that those who dedicate their lives to serving their party and the country might have good reason to believe their man is not up to the job. Rejection of Corbyn is taken as proof that they are traitors, to be replaced by people who will do what their electorate tells them without daring to question its judgment. The party members and supporters are always right, so any of its MPs who disagree must be wrong.

'Representative democracy balances giving the electorate a direct say and elected politicians the power to run things'
Like all populists, Corbyn’s supporters believe they are simply upholding pure democracy, based on one person, one vote. This way of understanding democracy reduces it to a simple matter of the people speaking and their leaders acting accordingly. This tears up a basic principle of democracy, that MPs are not delegates who follow instructions blindly, but autonomous representatives with the responsibility of making up their own minds.

Our tradition of representative democracy rests on a rejection of all three pillars of populism. It accepts that a well-run society needs specialists and full-time politicians whose judgments often carry more weight than those of voters who put them into power. It accepts that the “will of the people” is diverse and contradictory, and that the job of politics is to balance competing demands, not simply to obey them. It follows that there are few, if any, easy solutions and that anyone who promises them is a charlatan. Making the case for representative democracy therefore means telling the electorate it doesn’t always know best, a truism that populism has turned into an elitist heresy.

Not even the EU referendum was as populist as Corbyn’s new politics. Representative democracy balances giving the electorate a direct say and elected politicians the power to run things. It has always allowed for the possibility of major constitutional issues on which the electorate should be entirely sovereign. The leave campaign certainly capitalised on what is often termed “populist sentiment”, meaning disillusionment with elites. The nadir of this was Michael Gove’s comment that “people in this country have had enough of experts”. But we need to distinguish between the drivers of populism and populism itself. Some disdain for mainstream politics is justified, as is the demand for greater accountability from those who govern us. The task of democratic parties is to listen to these grievances and try to come up with credible solutions. The task of populism is to offer the pseudo-solution that if only politicians did exactly what the people demanded, all would be well.

Corbynite populism is destroying the Labour party by pitting the membership against the PLP and making effective opposition, let alone government, impossible. This is no way to defeat Corbyn’s “five ills” – inequality, neglect, prejudice, insecurity and discrimination.

That Labour could be transformed from a democratic movement into a populist one is deeply troubling. If Corbyn wins, previous populist successes would pale in comparison. Ukip’s rise was bad enough, but it was clearly a populist insurgency against the mainstream. Corbyn’s re-election would mean populism had conquered one of the bastions of British representative democracy."

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-democracy-mps

[Toodles McGinty]

No, I didn't.



I stated I liked his manifesto, then didn't mention it again until you brought him up again on post #136.

I'm not interested in discussing Corbyn. He's been done to death on here.

You 'liked' this post from DR post 125
"Add to this that Starmer's performing the fairly thankless undertaking of ridding his party of the toxic influence and legacy of Corbyn, and the earlier he gets at that the better."

Then followed it up with this reply in your post 130
".............
For me, both had something to offer. I thought Corbyn's manifesto was a breath of fresh air, and one the country, as it turned out, would have benefitted from. Yet the man himself didn't help. I think Starmer offers a centre left path that isn't toxic to the electorate. He's intelligent, measured and a should present a version of social democracy that is palatable to business....."

I mentioned Corbyn on post 136 in reply on the subject of Boris and voting populism.

Clearly you are wrong.

Quote
...................."Populism is not defined by right and left, nor even by the virtue of its goals: think Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain. Populism is rather a way of doing politics that has three key features. First, it has a disdain for elites and experts of all kinds, especially political ones. Second, it supposes that the purpose of politics is simply to put into action the will of the people, who are seen as homogenous and united in their goals. Third, it proposes straightforward, simple solutions to what are in fact complex problems.The campaign to re-elect Corbyn is populist to its core. It is based on the absoluteness of the “democratic mandate” given by Labour members and supporters, which renders null and void any dissent from Labour’s “elites” in Westminster or Brussels. It means that Corbyn does not even need the support of the MPs he is supposed to be leading in the House of Commons. To do anything other than “get behind the leader” is to thwart the will of Labour’s people. Corbyn warmly talks of “reaching out”, but those who take his hand must be willing to be led by it.

This is populism in its purest form, with the people as the final and best judges. Its simplistic purity obscures the complex messiness of real political problems, the greatest of which is that an effective opposition leader needs to command the support of the party in parliament. Corbyn’s supporters do not entertain the possibility that those who dedicate their lives to serving their party and the country might have good reason to believe their man is not up to the job. Rejection of Corbyn is taken as proof that they are traitors, to be replaced by people who will do what their electorate tells them without daring to question its judgment. The party members and supporters are always right, so any of its MPs who disagree must be wrong.

'Representative democracy balances giving the electorate a direct say and elected politicians the power to run things'
Like all populists, Corbyn’s supporters believe they are simply upholding pure democracy, based on one person, one vote. This way of understanding democracy reduces it to a simple matter of the people speaking and their leaders acting accordingly. This tears up a basic principle of democracy, that MPs are not delegates who follow instructions blindly, but autonomous representatives with the responsibility of making up their own minds.

Our tradition of representative democracy rests on a rejection of all three pillars of populism. It accepts that a well-run society needs specialists and full-time politicians whose judgments often carry more weight than those of voters who put them into power. It accepts that the “will of the people” is diverse and contradictory, and that the job of politics is to balance competing demands, not simply to obey them. It follows that there are few, if any, easy solutions and that anyone who promises them is a charlatan. Making the case for representative democracy therefore means telling the electorate it doesn’t always know best, a truism that populism has turned into an elitist heresy.

Not even the EU referendum was as populist as Corbyn’s new politics. Representative democracy balances giving the electorate a direct say and elected politicians the power to run things. It has always allowed for the possibility of major constitutional issues on which the electorate should be entirely sovereign. The leave campaign certainly capitalised on what is often termed “populist sentiment”, meaning disillusionment with elites. The nadir of this was Michael Gove’s comment that “people in this country have had enough of experts”. But we need to distinguish between the drivers of populism and populism itself. Some disdain for mainstream politics is justified, as is the demand for greater accountability from those who govern us. The task of democratic parties is to listen to these grievances and try to come up with credible solutions. The task of populism is to offer the pseudo-solution that if only politicians did exactly what the people demanded, all would be well.

Corbynite populism is destroying the Labour party by pitting the membership against the PLP and making effective opposition, let alone government, impossible. This is no way to defeat Corbyn’s “five ills” – inequality, neglect, prejudice, insecurity and discrimination.

That Labour could be transformed from a democratic movement into a populist one is deeply troubling. If Corbyn wins, previous populist successes would pale in comparison. Ukip’s rise was bad enough, but it was clearly a populist insurgency against the mainstream. Corbyn’s re-election would mean populism had conquered one of the bastions of British representative democracy."

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-democracy-mps

Yes, I 'liked' DR's post. It was a fair assessment of the current situation.

And as I already stated, I mentioned I like Corbyn's manifesto. Yes, that is exactly what I said.

I also said I'm not going through the dire, pointless 'Corbyn is good / evil' nonsense. It's been, again, done to death.

I'm not obsessed with him. He's past. Irrelevant. You can rant forever on the subject, go for it. I'm not interested.

As for Mr Baggini's description of populism, I'm with the comment BTL:

...the article seems to suggest that when democracy gives the wrong result (according to the pundits and "betters") then democracy is at fault and that it would be so much better if only the elites actually had a say in anything.

Its also clever in that any counter argument, that the members positions don't matter, is counter counter argued by excluding that view point as a valid argument. It is a reductive article that neatly prohibits any response by arguing that that response is the problem before its even made...This is populism in its purest form, with the people as the final and best judges.

Baggini supposes the electorate are idiots and need experts to lead them by the nose. But populism rejects experts?

I prefer my earlier definition:

'it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.

But, as always, your opinion is as valid as anyone's. You counter the general idea of populism, I'd assume as you are devoted to a corrupt lying populist, with an alternative. That's fine. As I said, your opinion is as valid as any.

[Hamble]

[QUOTE=Toodles McGinty;6770617]Yes, I 'liked' DR's post. It was a fair assessment of the current situation.

And as I already stated, I mentioned I like Corbyn's manifesto. Yes, that is exactly what I said.

I also said I'm not going through the dire, pointless 'Corbyn is good / evil' nonsense. It's been, again, done to death.

I'm not obsessed with him. He's past. Irrelevant. You can rant forever on the subject, go for it. I'm not interested.


Quote TM
"Here we go. Can't have a political thread without the usual suspects clinging desperately onto Corbyn again."

It took a Corbyn cartoon
A 'liked' post discussing Corbyn
A reply discussing Corbyn from yourself
Before you objected to Hamble joining in the discussion?


The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's moaning.

[Toodles McGinty]

[QUOTE=Hamble;6770633]

Yes, I 'liked' DR's post. It was a fair assessment of the current situation.

And as I already stated, I mentioned I like Corbyn's manifesto. Yes, that is exactly what I said.

I also said I'm not going through the dire, pointless 'Corbyn is good / evil' nonsense. It's been, again, done to death.

I'm not obsessed with him. He's past. Irrelevant. You can rant forever on the subject, go for it. I'm not interested.


Quote TM
"Here we go. Can't have a political thread without the usual suspects clinging desperately onto Corbyn again."

It took a Corbyn cartoon
A 'liked' post discussing Corbyn
A reply discussing Corbyn from yourself
Before you objected to Hamble joining in the discussion?


The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's moaning.

I welcome you to any discussion, you never fail to liven the place up.

The Corbyn cartoon was nothing to do with me.
A 'like' isn't a comment.
I did say I liked his manifesto, which was the first mention of Corbyn from me.
I'm just not doing the eternal back and forth about Corbyn until one of us dies of boredom. Which is what usually happens.

Until, if ever, he returns to the party or makes some contribution of note to the political process, he's irrelevant. If for some reason you want to pick over the minutiae of the 2017 or 2019 Labour manifesto, I'll go along with it. But we've attacked or defended your bete noire so many times, there's nowhere to go.

I'd never object to you joining any discussion. Or anyone else, for that matter. I'm just not going down the Corbyn road again.

[Hamble]

[QUOTE=Toodles McGinty;6770639]

I welcome you to any discussion, you never fail to liven the place up.

The Corbyn cartoon was nothing to do with me.
A 'like' isn't a comment.
I did say I liked his manifesto, which was the first mention of Corbyn from me.
I'm just not doing the eternal back and forth about Corbyn until one of us dies of boredom. Which is what usually happens.

Until, if ever, he returns to the party or makes some contribution of note to the political process, he's irrelevant. If for some reason you want to pick over the minutiae of the 2017 or 2019 Labour manifesto, I'll go along with it. But we've attacked or defended your bete noire so many times, there's nowhere to go.

I'd never object to you joining any discussion. Or anyone else, for that matter. I'm just not going down the Corbyn road again.

Fingers in ears Friday then.