That Starmer fella...

Are you saying that if you can't see that the "old regime" (whatever that means) was antisemitic you are therefore an antisemite? Because if so, we're back to the claim that left is antisemitic.

Quite clearly I'm not saying that. There's a difference between saying that the party leadership is inherently racist (what bleakrefs was inferring when he said the left) and 'all leftwingers are racist' (a inference that is clearly not meant as literally as that in the sentence that u quoted, if it was it would be completely ridiculous) I understand why there is this hysteria on the left of the party and I (and I think bleakrefs) am saying that it doesn't bear any relationship to the reality of things. Look at the substance of his speech today. As many people on here have said it is promising and actually quite left wing. So far not antisemitic. Let's hope that the rumblings of racism against BAME people in the party are properly dealt with and that the current regime deal with it clearly,effectively and transparently.

The 'old regime' is the leadership of corbyn.

The argument is that Starmers main public actions against the leftwing of the party, sidelining RBL (because of her unapologetic antisemitic statements) and kicking corbyn out of the party (because of his unapologetic minimising of racism in the party) has got nothing to do with their socialism and everything to do with their racism. That statement is clearly referring to this and he illustrates that with the RBL and Corbyn points.

That's what I was going for, but clearly it didn't land.

I don't personally think that socialism and antisemitism are the same thing. I think they're very different things. But if those who sit on that side of the party want to interpret a long overdue zero-tolerance for antisemitism as an unjustified attack on socialism, how else are those of us on this side of the argument to interpret it?

Stuff like this I guess
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/24/how-would-labour-plan-to-give-workers-10-stake-in-big-firms-work
Obviously a number of businesses are owned by very rich people so there is a blurring between anti-business and anti-very rich people.

Genuine question; why did the businesses think corbyn/mcdonnell were anti-business?

McDonnell's initial approach to the economy wasn't too far off what Starmer proposes this morning (a kind of hand in hand, consent based relationship with business, but one based on businesses paying their taxes and treating employees fairly as part of a social contract with workers), but the broadband policy was extremely hostile to business. The idea of buying Openreach for a quarter of market value, then improvising doing the same thing on the hoof to Sky, Talk Talk, etc on Radio Four, was extremely damaging and actually counter productive (many ISPs halted their full fibre rollout as a result of that interview). I think John McDonnell is a good guy and had a good plan, but when we torpedoed our credibility with the 2019 manifesto, we did so comprehensively.

Also if this was a speech for budget why did the shadow chancellor not present it?

Didn't you watch it? It's not a speech for budget, it's a speech for big vision, which includes elements from social policy, budgetary approach, etc. As it happens the shad chancellor HAS been saying this stuff for a month or so to the financial papers so this is really not an announcement so much as a promotion.

I can put up with a lot of things on here that I disagree with but 'shad' is too much.

I am basically keeping this thread going on my own at this point and therefore believe I have earned a cntrction.

Not "leftists" tho, so y'know...

the inference that subscribing to socialist / leftist ideals makes you an anti-semite is fucking atrocious.

A particular highlight of that was Starmer booting the wrong type of jews out (for holding left wing views and questioning Israel's foreign policy).

The most important line in that speech is the line about how inequality isn't just a moral failure, but also economic stupidity.

We've been great at pointing out the moral failings involved in Tory policy. But that only convinces people who think emotionally, compassionately - people on our side, in short.

Framing it as economic stupidity - something which fiscally damages us, our potential as a country, the success of our children, the tax revenue of our treasury - is not only true, it's an expansion of the argument into new areas.

There's no point us making a moral case against the Tories. We've already convinced anyone we're going to on that one. We now need to make a broader case against them if we want to change minds and regain power, one which takes in the economy, patriotism, the social contract, family support, development, the lot. That was the starting point for it.

A particular highlight of that was Starmer booting the wrong type of jews out (for holding left wing views and questioning Israel's foreign policy).

Could you tell us who specifically you're talking about here?

The most important line in that speech is the line about how inequality isn't just a moral failure, but also economic stupidity.

And yet he's proposing exactly the same bullshit austerity, along with "British Recovery Bonds", which no one is able to explain the purpose of.

Dismal.

And yet he's proposing exactly the same bullshit austerity

I can see why you might want what he proposed to be bolder but I don't think anyone can in good faith characterise it as austerity:

• A post-1945 style reevaluation of society en large, and calls for Government to have a bigger role in society

• Proposals to create 100,000 small businesses across the UK in the next five years by boosting funding for start-up loans by £1bn - focusing outside of London and the South East.

• Attacks the Conservative's for creating an "insecure and unequal economy" that has been "cruelly exposed by the virus", adding there could be "no return to business as usual" of "failed Conservative ideology".

• Calls to extend the weekly £20 increase to universal credit benefits, introduced last year, beyond its scheduled end-date on 31 March

• Extend the business rates holiday and VAT cut offered to firms in the leisure and hospitality sectors beyond April

• Give local councils "the funding they need" to avoid having to use new powers to raise council tax by up to 5%.

“Yes but apart from that, what have the Roman’s ever done for us?”

Not a member of a political party but thought today was impressive, credible and well thought out. I’m assuming this is the launch of the vision ahead of the summer elections and that it’s the start of campaigning up to GE which is still years away.

Will see what the reaction is over next few days but as a non-Labour party member it did make me take interest and that there was the start of a credible vision/agenda. Liked that it was built on hope with detail rather than platitudes and sound bites (or at least that’s what I’ve taken from it at a surface level).

^Which is precisely the reaction Labour needs, we shouldn't be preaching to the converted (members), but persuading 'normal' people. This is how elections are won.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1362377275380015108?refsrc=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1362377275380015108%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rllmukforum.com%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fpoliticsforali%2Fstatus%2F1362377275380015108%3Fs%3D21

Starmer personal approval rating not following the Labour polling. Perhaps with any other leader they may be 20pts ahead?

Here's a thought - would the Tories be doing better or worse with a different leader? Is the problem for Labour not the Tories but Boris Johnson? With all the usual caveats about how the two are treated by the right wing press.
Don't @reply me.

Johnson was damaged by the Cummings affair but he is still one of the most popular and charismatic leaders the Tories have ever had. Any leader would struggle against him.

Rishi Sunak has excellent instincts and he's a sharp guy, but I don't think he has the charisma of Johnson, and I'm not sure if Tories will accept him given that he's not white. Gove is an enormous weirdo and I see him becoming a Maybot-esque figure of fun if he's daft enough to get the big job, much more of a liability for the Tories.

Starmer will do better against Sunak than he will against Johnson, but if they're dumb enough to field Gove we're talking about 2017 - the Tories almost begging to lose.

No, given that Starmer’s approval ratings have more people disapproving than approving, I think the problem lies with him.

Approval ratings are fickle and Starmer's been out of the public's eye. I suspect a large portion of the population know very little about him or his politics. Actually, that's probably true for a large portion of Labour supporters (which some may say is a fault in itself). But I wouldn't count him out of the game.

I find all this interesting, particularly because Starmer still seems to be more popular (net favourability) than Johnson, yet Johnson wins better PM (would expect it to be the other way round).

Also odd that Starmer is getting such a criticism for being the wrong leader despite having net favourability that is much higher than Corbyn, whose favourability stats were terrible - yet his supporters seemed to make excuses for that, while being really quick to blame Starmer.

1 Attachment

Do you think Hunt would win a leadership bid? Been sniping a bit from the sidelines for months.

I suspect Starmer is one of the only Labour politicians that a lot of the public can name (other than those like Abbott who are viewed negatively). It's not a party blessed with recognisable talent.

That depends on what you think politicians should do

He said don't @ him bro

Yeah, and weirdly, he seems much more reasonable out of cabinet, despite his gutting of the NHS before a national pandemic. I think he's positioning himself as the last remaining One Nation Tory (something I find much easier to digest than Johnson's post-truth populism) but I don't see the Tories going back to that approach unless they experience a full electoral wipeout - which doesn't seem likely atm.

Guess it shows how everything has shifted further to the right.