-
I think you are painting a picture here based upon a very negative interpretation.
Another perspective might be that Starmer can’t afford to expose anything that the fervently right wing press in this country would pick up and run with.
Corbyn era anti-semitism furore would be a lifeline to the Tories and their courtesans in the press to hammer Labour with.
Is it fair? No. Is the single most important thing to focus on for the team at Labour “how to win”? Within reasonable moral boundaries, yes.
Starmer has very much learned the lesson here- he’s echoing the Tory line on for example tax, Brexit and so on, which means the RWNJ’s are running on “Rayner- we fucking hate her”, and Sunak is bringing out banger after banger with National Service, quadruple lock for pensioners and only the children of the 1% get to go to Uni.
-
Clearly all this blocking/suspending of the prominent left leaning Labour candidates is going to piss a lot of people off - but will it make for more effective government? I could really do with our governing party not tearing itself to shreds and instead focus on trying to make things a bit better all round.
I'm generally sympathetic to Starmer in both policy and strategy, and I think his arguable overcorrection to the centre is (almost) entirely justified by the 2019 GE results. So don't mistake what I'm about to say for ideological or factional disagreement. Because to me what's more important is principle, and the principle should apply to everyone.
But the process of parachuting ideological allies into safe seats is very rarely done with good governance in mind. It's done to create allies for the leader of the party, to make their life easier when they want to get stuff done, votes passed, etc. You could argue that's the same thing - I'm sure that's what the leader would argue - but it isn't, not really, and I'll explain why in a moment. That was the case when Corbyn did it, and it's the case now Starmer is doing it.
And the problem when leaders consider ideological allyship - before whether or not a person is the best candidate for the job - is that you end up giving seats to liabilities. And those liabilities end up damaging the party, and party unity, and our reputation, sooner or later.
Luke Akehurst is on the opposite side of the party to Claudia Webb, but they're both liabilities who would never have been chosen had factionalism not been front and centre in the process. Neither belong anywhere near a safe seat. Both betray bad judgement (imo) and their behaviour amounts to more of a risk for the party than the value of the allyship to the leadership. This is the key problem with factionalism, and every Labour leader has it, to one extent or the other. Some are better at it than others, that's all.
You are reading a single comment by @Scrabble and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Dammit
ReekBlefs
@Scrabble
Is it not just Starmer just trying to get his party as centrist as possible?
He's bricking it that a big majority will empower the left, and put him in the same situation as the Tories after Boris got them their 80+ majority. Different factions will feel they can rebel - because votes will get through anyway - but it will undermine him and the press will lap it up.
He's trying to get the party as streamlined as possible around a bang dead centre policy position - to try and avoid the messyness of a big majority with a broad range of views.
Clearly all this blocking/suspending of the prominent left leaning Labour candidates is going to piss a lot of people off - but will it make for more effective government? I could really do with our governing party not tearing itself to shreds and instead focus on trying to make things a bit better all round.
Centrist dad out.