Keir Starmer - new Labour leader

boltonbonce wrote:Dinosaurs couldn't adapt to change. I'm probably a dinosaur myself, but what can I do?

If you're a believer in God, when others think you're a fool for doing so, do you 'adapt' by going with the flow?

I'm a socialist. Like I'm a Wanderer. I won't be dying out. If people don't want us, so be it. I've already left the party, so I've no dog in this fight.

I'd thought you rejoined, must have misread something you posted I guess?

I think maybe you've drawn red lines sometime in the past that you simply won't cross.

But what if the context in which you drew them and become so meaningful to you has over time changed - should they still remain 'hard' red lines, or could you not adapt and change them to still fulfil your beliefs but now within a modern framework?

You no doubt want equality and fairness for all - but if you die out like the dinosaurs then you nor anybody else will achieve that will you/they?

Wouldn't it be more meaningful if come to terms that perhaps some of things you might believe to be sacred can no longer be achieved by how they might have been in the past?

It doesn't mean there can't be new ways to achieve your beliefs though does it?

There's more than one way to skin a cat - or so they say.

One way of doing it if you will is to look around and get a feel for what is actually happening now and not what you believe should be happening, make your plans (policy/manifesto promises, etc) once you have read the people/society correctly (and not the longest suiside note in history - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_longest_suicide_note_in_history - or the second longest - https://labour.org.uk/manifesto-2019/ ) then put your plan into action, then reflect on the effects and follow the four stages again.

It's better explained here -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

The thing I guess I'm saying is don't give up the fight but simply change how you fight because the cause is worthy but the traditional means of delivery as to what you want has simply over the years become obsolete - ie nationalisation.

What a surprise eh!

I did happen to tell you all what his game was when he refused to go in to lockdown when Covid was running rampant in Greater Manchester - all just to gain a higher political profile for himself!

Election results: 'Party should get in touch if they need me' - Labour's Andy Burnham does not dismiss future leadership bid

https://news.sky.com/story/election-results-party-should-get-in-touch-if-they-need-me-labours-andy-burnham-does-not-dismiss-future-leadership-bid-12300272

I did rejoin, Sluffy, but quit again after a rather heated meeting.

Sorry to see Count Binface didn't make London Mayor.

But to hell with politics, nothing will wipe the smile off my face today.

boltonbonce wrote:I did rejoin, Sluffy, but quit again after a rather heated meeting.

Sorry to see Count Binface didn't make London Mayor.

But to hell with politics, nothing will wipe the smile off my face today.

The preface to Treasure Island is rather apt, I think.



If sailor tales to sailor tunes,
   Storm and adventure, heat and cold,
If schooners, islands, and maroons,
   And buccaneers, and buried gold,
And all the old romance, retold
   Exactly in the ancient way,
Can please, as me they pleased of old,
   The wiser youngsters of today:
—So be it, and fall on! If not,
   If studious youth no longer crave,
His ancient appetites forgot,
   Kingston, or Ballantyne the brave,
Or Cooper of the wood and wave:
   So be it, also! And may I
And all my pirates share the grave
   Where these and their creations lie!

I meant to post this on Friday - but better late than never.

(Fwiw I identified these comments straight a way with TROY off here)

Labour MP Khalid Mahmood quits Keir Starmer’s frontbench, warning party taken over by ‘woke social media warriors’

Labour MP Khalid Mahmood has quit Keir Starmer’s frontbench, warning that the party has been taken over by “a London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors”.

Mr Mahmood had served as a shadow defence minister since Starmer’s arrival in office, but said he resigned because Labour had “lost touch with ordinary British people”.

The Birmingham Perry Barr MP announced his decision in the wake of the party’s crushing defeat in the former safe seat of Hartlepool, and made clear that he expected Labour also to lose the election for West Midlands mayor.

In an article for the Policy Exchange think tank, Mr Mahmood said that Labour had moved away from working-class voters’ priorities under the leaderships of not only Starmer, but also Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband.

“In the past decade, Labour has lost touch with ordinary British people,” he said.

“A London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors, has effectively captured the party.

“They mean well, of course, but their politics – obsessed with identity, division and even tech utopianism – have more in common with those of Californian high society than the kind of people who voted in Hartlepool yesterday.

“The loudest voices in the Labour movement over the past year in particular have focused more on pulling down Churchill’s statue than they have on helping people pull themselves up in the world.

“No wonder it is doing better among rich urban liberals and young university graduates than it is amongst the most important part of its traditional electoral coalition, the working class.”

Mr Mahmood quoted Peter Mandelson’s account of a former Labour voter who told him on a Hartlepool doorstep: “Sort yourselves out. You picked the wrong brother and you ended up with Corbyn so that’s goodbye to you. When you’ve sorted yourselves out, we’ll look at you again.”

And he said: “It would be easy for Labour MPs and members to whinge about the unfairness of this summary of the past decade.

“But we must recognise that is how we are seen by so many people in the places that were once unfailingly loyal to us – as a party that has lost its way.

“It is only by engagement on a local level, meeting eye to eye with voters and hearing their concerns, that we will fix that. I will be doing so not from the Labour front bench, but walking the streets of my constituency as a backbencher and talking face to face with the people I have the honour to serve.”

Mr Mahmood warned that “superficial flag-waving” by the party leader would not convince voters that the Labour Party shares their sense of patriotism.

“They are more alert to rebranding exercises than spin doctors give them credit for,” he warned. “Their patriotism is about historic pride in their places, the heritage and stories of those places, and the Britishness and Englishness of the people and families that call them home.”

And he said voters’ priorities were job security, a bright future for their children and grandchildren, a well-functioning NHS, and investment in infrastructure and transport.

“There is a need for humility, to begin with,” he said.

“If Labour is to win back seats like Hartlepool it will have to change the minds of people who yesterday chose to vote Conservative.

“Is there a danger that our party, in its opposition and confusion over Brexit, has veered towards an anti-British attitude? I certainly worry that some of our previous supporters will see it that way.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/khalid-mahmood-quit-labour-frontbench-starmer-b1843967.html


Or if you want all that in plain English - the rank and file voters wanted Brexit and job security/a better life - and Labour didn't give them a lead on getting Brexit done (whereas the Tory Party did!) and were up it's own arse on political ideology and wokism from middle class, woke concerned, London based, rich twats, when their voters were bothered about their jobs, standard of living and the future for their kids.

In short the party no longer represented what the people wanted but instead gave them a manifesto that had absolutely no relevance at all to them in their daily life's and a party led by people they either could not stand or identify with - or both!

Is it any wonder Labor lost so badly under the wrong brother, Corbyn and now Starmer (who to be fair has been saddled with 'Long Corbyn' up to this reshuffle)?

Ten Bobsworth wrote:"brigades of woke social media warriors”. Not very different to Nuts then, Sluffy.

It does seem like that at times.

Probably a good example in microcosm really of what has gone so badly wrong for the Labour Party in that you have a few on here with clearly their own way (dare I say ideological) of viewing what Labour politics SHOULD be and can't accept/understand why others - the electorate - don't see it the same way too.

Wanderlust had banged on constantly (along with others such as Bread) since the referendum about Brexit - even though clearly most of the country - particularly Labour constituencies - had voted overwhelmingly for it.

Indeed even Wanderlust voted for it himself although he can't admit to ever being wrong!

The point being though that the London centric Labour leadership didn't care much about what their voters wanted - and basically did not fight for the views of the people they represented.

Same with the party leadership - the wrong brother was elected (mainly because the big union leaderships had him as their man and cast their block votes to get him) and when the Party changed the system to ensure that didn't happen again, they inadvertently allowed the marginalised nutjob Corbyn and his mates to seize power - which may have been a high point for their followers (and the woke minded) but was a massive slap in the face for a vast majority of normal traditional Labour voters).

It seemed blindingly obvious to me that there was a massive mismatch between what those in control of the party were heading compared to what the normal Labour voter in the street actually thought.

Labour in Scotland lost power dramatically because the voters got sick of being taken for granted by the Party and left in droves when another party - the SNP - did want to represent their views.

In effect exactly the same thing has now happened in the rest of Great Britain in that the Conservatives clearly wanted to deliver Brexit - and had a leader that at least the electorate could in someway identify with - and Labour took the voters for granted as per usual and elected 'Ed' and then Corbyn - when David and Burnham were clearly more electable to people to vote for.

It really isn't rocket science but unfortunately for Labour, there are many like Wanderlust who can ever bring themselves to believe they were ever wrong in the first place - hence the left wing now begining to fix Starmer in their sights.

There are so many non sequitors in your attempt at logical coherence I've decided to let you disappear up Bobs arse in your ever diminishing circle of one friend - although perhaps too late to save the decline of the site. But I have to take issue with you declaring time on the Brexit discussion as the ramifications of that decision are still to come when the tax bill arrives. Unless you're a Brexit voting fisherman or creeping price increases and diminishing choice and quality of produce and services affect you already of course.

As an aside, the woke social media centrism thing worked very well for Tony Blair over a long period but I can't see how the left v centre thing in the Labour party has anything to do with their current decline in popularity. That may just be down to the traditional swing cycle of British politics but I suspect their problems lie in their toothless opposition due to a failure to construct telling arguments and overcoming antipathy from the media.

I've met quite a few Hartlepool folk over the years. All staunch Labour supporters but none of 'em shoppers at Dobber Clobber.

wanderlust wrote:There are so many non sequitors in your attempt at logical coherence I've decided to let you disappear up Bobs arse in your ever diminishing circle of one friend - although perhaps too late to save the decline of the site. But I have to take issue with you declaring time on the Brexit discussion as the ramifications of that decision are still to come when the tax bill arrives. Unless you're a Brexit voting fisherman or creeping price increases and diminishing choice and quality of produce and services affect you already of course.

As an aside, the woke social media centrism thing worked very well for Tony Blair over a long period but I can't see how the left v centre thing in the Labour party has anything to do with their current decline in popularity. That may just be down to the traditional swing cycle of British politics but I suspect their problems lie in their toothless opposition due to a failure to construct telling arguments and overcoming antipathy from the media.

What the hell are you talking about???

First there is absolutely no need for your abuse.

Second I've said nothing of the sort of "declairing time on the Brexit discussion"???  What I did say was the Labour vote left in droves at the 2019 General Election and the first by-election since at Hartlepool - and analysis of both shows that "Brexit was the defining issue" as to why that was.


Analysis: Labour's electoral mountain - (The Miliband Review of Labours General Election defeat in 2019)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53096238

Elections 2021: Labour insiders on Starmer, what went wrong and how to fix it

But the means by which Williams [The Labour candidate] was picked has given critics of Starmer's office added ammunition. Williams was chosen from a one-person shortlist. He campaigned for Remain in the referendum and lost in a nearby seat in the last general election.

Several Labour MPs - from different wings of the party - are blaming Starmer's political secretary, Baroness Chapman, for the decision. One told us: "He is her mate but putting him in was a mind boggling decision since Hartlepool is the centre of Planet Brexit."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57024995

Thirdly as for Tony Blair, he was elected PM in May 1997, long before the concept of 'Wokeism' was ever invented - so how could it have worked well for him???

Fourthly I refer you again to Labours own analysis as to it's failure in the 2019 election (link above) which states in respect of "the left v centre thing"...

New leader, old problems

The report paints a portrait of a party riven by "factionalism", "internal arguments" and "division".

But it issues a stark warning to those who believe a change in both the party leadership and the political landscape will necessarily bring Labour much closer to power.

"It would be a mistake to believe that a different leader, with Brexit no longer the defining issue, would in itself be sufficient to change Labour's electoral fortunes," it says.

And this is perhaps the true value of the report for the new leadership.

It serves as both a reality check for activists and an opportunity for the new regime to argue that a break from the past is necessary.

And lastly the report was damning about many things but did not consider "overcoming antipathy from the media" even to be an issue at all!!!

So in summary to your post above it is abundantly clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

Not for the first time too I may add!

Angela Rayner, who was locked in a dispute with Sir Keir over her role in the party at the weekend, told the BBC the two had "robust conversations".

However, she also said she believed in him "100% because I wouldn't still be working with him if I didn't."

She said the party now had to "connect with voters we've lost".

Ms Rayner was removed as the party's campaign coordinator on Saturday evening but the following day was given a job shadowing Michael Gove at the Cabinet Office and also became Labour's spokesperson for the future of work.

Ms Rayner did not deny she had been sacked from the position but said they had agreed she should take on a more "front-facing" role.

She said she had "a very frank relationship" with her leader, adding: "I have always been a bit fiery... and Keir's a very measured person so actually we work incredibly well... because we bounce off each other."

Ms Rayner said she would use her new job to "get out there and really sock it to the government" but also to address questions from "the doorstep" about "what does Labour stand for?"

Reflecting on Sir Keir's time as Labour leader, Ms Rayner said it was "right that we came together" during the coronavirus pandemic but that now was the time for "a fundamental rethink" and "real change in our communities".

"The taxpayers of tomorrow will be paying off coronavirus for decades to come - I don't want them in low paid insecure work where they can't bring up their family and own their own home.

"I want to do something that tackles insecure work, tackles low pay, and delivers on high skilled jobs."

She also said she wanted to see green jobs go to areas that "for decades haven't had any industry".

Ms Rayner sought to distance herself from briefings by her supporters in the last few days saying, "I say we pull together, like any family we have our fallouts and we do that in private'.

She warned, "if we fight each other, then people don't think we're on their side and I want people to know that we are on their side - and that's what we are focused on."

[Clearly she doesn't know what she's talking about because Wanderlust tells us "the left v centre thing in the Labour Party" doesn't effect people voting for Labour.

Yeah right...

 ]




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57079985

There you go again.

In post 101 you cite the Miliband review. There is no evidence whatsoever that the miliband review came to the right conclusions. In fact it’s unlikely it did given the self introspective nature of the review.
Like a bloke with body odour and halitosis blaming his choice of shirt for not being able to pull - just avoiding uncomfortable truths.
Strategic analysis has been a major failing of the Labour Party for years and the primary reason for not being able to come up with successful strategies and campaigns that appeal to the public.

In post 102 you cite Angela Rayner’s press release as being “proof”. Not only is there a huge question over her ability to analyse the situation but she also has a vested interest so there’s little chance of her telling it like it is even if she knew (probably also  true of the Miliband report to some extent although I suspect that was mainly due to incompetence)

If that is what passes as critical analysis these days you might as well admit here and now that everything I’ve ever written is true - because I wrote it and that’s  the evidence.

wanderlust wrote:There you go again.

In post 101 you cite the Miliband review. There is no evidence whatsoever that the miliband review came to the right conclusions. In fact it’s unlikely it did given the self introspective nature of the review.
Like a bloke with body odour and halitosis blaming his choice of shirt for not being able to pull - just avoiding uncomfortable truths.
Strategic analysis has been a major failing of the Labour Party for years and the primary reason for not being able to come up with successful strategies and campaigns that appeal to the public.

In post 102 you cite Angela Rayner’s press release as being “proof”. Not only is there a huge question over her ability to analyse the situation but she also has a vested interest so there’s little chance of her telling it like it is even if she knew (probably also  true of the Miliband report to some extent although I suspect that was mainly due to incompetence)

If that is what passes as critical analysis these days you might as well admit here and now that everything I’ve ever written is true - because I wrote it and that’s  the evidence.

Hahahaha!!!!

You surpass even your normal self with this utter bollocks trying to pretend the world is wrong and you are right - as always!!!

Internal reviews are always wrong then are they - if so why do most if not every organisation in the world do them then???

I've only put up the above links for ease of reference and simple explanation but if you don't care to accept them (because you can't face admitting being wrong) then knock yourself out with analysis and surveys from multiple independent sources such as these -

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/13/five-reasons-why-labour-lost-the-election

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/23/their-own-words-why-voters-abandoned-labour

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/political_party/Labour_Party

https://electionreview.labourtogether.uk/

http://isj.org.uk/why-did-labour-lose/

...in fact the are whole pages of links to independant analysis -

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=analysis+why+did+labour+lose+the+election+2019&ei=jqybYKHXEvyV1fAP88awmAs&oq=analysis+why+did+labour+lose+the+election+2019&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAxQwFRYwFRg_WdoAHAAeACAAWKIAaQBkgEBMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwih1vmt9sPwAhX8ShUIHXMjDLMQ4dUDCA4

...but obviously they've all wasted their time because you know better and are never wrong!

Yeah right...!

You're an utter joke mate, I feel sorry for those who have to put up with you in real life.

To be honest Norpig you could play a big part in putting an end to all this.

You KNOW that Wanderlust posted that he voted FOR Brexit, maybe if you cared to back me up on that and shown to others on here that he lies in order not to admit he appears wrong in any way then others might see him differently than they have done.

In fact most now have seemingly sussed him and actually don't post to back him up much any more apart from yourself and one or two others who seem to have made up their minds that I'm the bad guy on here.

Maybe if instead of sticking by your mate all the time you'd called things truthfully then much of this repetitive bullshit that has blighted the site for years would finally stop?

Just a thought.

Whoa hold on a minute don't drag me into this! What makes you think i know Lusty voted for Brexit? 

You've always said he had said that on WW but i haven't been on there for months and only posted a handful of times on there.

No one is a bad guy on here, it's just you two who don't like each other and constantly wind each other up. 

For what it's worth i wish you would BOTH cut it out as it doesn't look good to people who were thinking of joining or posting more. You are both to blame for how things are between you so please don't try and involve me and take sides, we are all grown men for Gods sake!

Norpig wrote:Whoa hold on a minute don't drag me into this! What makes you think i know Lusty voted for Brexit? 

You've always said he had said that on WW but i haven't been on there for months and only posted a handful of times on there.

No one is a bad guy on here, it's just you two who don't like each other and constantly wind each other up. 

For what it's worth i wish you would BOTH cut it out as it doesn't look good to people who were thinking of joining or posting more. You are both to blame for how things are between you so please don't try and involve me and take sides, we are all grown men for Gods sake!

Very good, Norpig. 

My solution to avoid being incited to respond has been to put Bob on "Ignore", and to decline to read anything from Sluffy. 

Wanderlust's intelligent, articulate, thought-provoking posts are worth reading, even when they can be seen as controversial.

 I've found that policy to be soothing for my peace of mind.

I endorse what you say about people who might have joined or posted more.

okocha wrote:
Very good, Norpig. 

My solution to avoid being incited to respond has been to put Bob on "Ignore", and to decline to read anything from Sluffy. 

Wanderlust's intelligent, articulate, thought-provoking posts are worth reading, even when they can be seen as controversial.

 I've found that policy to be soothing for my peace of mind.

I endorse what you say about people who might have joined or posted more.

The last time Okocha's thoughts were provoked he followed a muck cart and thought it was a wedding.

'Kinell!

First Glos and now you Okocha. You just know that phrases like "intelligent, articulate, thought-provoking" are going to light a fuse somewhere

I may just take your advice, but first I'd like to reiterate the point that Rayner made that seems to have been edited out above.

She said that in his first year, Starmer did the right thing in supporting and cajoling the Government to act on Covid, that he rightly wanted the Government to succeed in their efforts and had little choice but to go along with them as Covid transcends politics and it was not the right time to argue.

...therefore, if Starmer is seen to be supporting the Government and is not taking issue at every turn, what is their to differentiate him and the Labour party in the eyes of the electorate?

Answer: Nothing - which is why voters have questioned what he/they do stand for.

That of course will change once Covid is no longer centre stage.