Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[YorkRailFan]

Unsurprisingly, Labour gained Blackpool South in a by-election from the Tories.

Labour has taken Blackpool South from the Conservatives in a by-election as Sir Keir Starmer's party makes gains in polls across England.
Sir Keir said the Blackpool result - a massive 26% swing to Labour - sent "a direct message" to Rishi Sunak from voters that "we want change".
The Tories were expected to have a bad night at local council elections and so far have lost around half the seats they were defending.
Many results are still to come.
Speaking in Blackpool, Sir Keir said it was a "seismic win" and "the most important result of the night".
He said: "That wasn't just a little message, that wasn't just a murmur, that was a shout from Blackpool - we want change.
"And Blackpool speaks for the whole country - it's saying that we've had enough now."

Bad night for Tories as Labour wins Blackpool South and makes local gains

Labour leader hails huge by-election win as party continues to gain ground in polls across England.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Ianigsy]

Not unusual- Bill Clinton’s autobiography mentions that during his presidential campaign, his advisers were convinced that John Major was going to lose the 1992 election, so it wouldn’t be worth setting up any contacts.

Some zero hours contracts have a place - supply teaching agencies wouldn’t be able to function without them and anything related to seasonality or specific events needs people who can come in before the event, be there on the day and clear up afterwards, but you can’t pay somebody an a minimum wage all year round if they’re only working on a dozen weddings in the summer.

 

[JamesT]

Well they might be in charge next year so its prudent to make contact beforehand just in case, but i wouldn't take any notice about what someone in Team Trump says.

Indeed, given how vindictive Trump can be, what would be the repercussions if Labour didn't make contact and he wins?

 

[dosxuk]

There would be less need for legitimate zero-hours contracts if the Government hadn't cracked down on freelance work - pushing companies with irregular work towards employing people rather than contracting them for individual jobs.

 

[The Ham]

You could apply the same criticism to Labour's original plan to ban zero-hours contracts. Hey it's a 10 hour-a-year contract therefore not zero hours therefore legal You would hope though that the people in the civil service who write new legislation would be capable of thinking through how to make the law robust and avoid having such an obvious loophole. (Perhaps by setting a threshold that requires a reasonable number of hours each week, maybe with a couple of bands, though I'm sure there are other ways of working around the problem).

It wasn't a point in defence/attack of any political parties, rather something which a business could do.

 

[Bantamzen]

Something which I found very disturbing in the "i" front page this morning.

Apparently Labour are holding talks with "Team Trump", as it puts them and one of the Trumpists considers the shadow foreign secretary more cooperative than Cameron.

To me this seems very worrying indeed. Why are Labour holding talks with a group of people who are basically hard-right yobs (thinking of the storming of the Capitol here, particularly) before the US election has even been decided?

It won't stop me voting against the Tories, in fact due to the nature of my constituency, I will be voting Lib Dem - but it won't be an enthusiastic vote for Labour. Probably of all three main parties, in fact, the Lib Dems are the closest to my own views but sadly they won't get in.

I just get the impression that the UK political establishment, on both sides, has a vision for the UK which is very different to my own.

Frankly Labour should be keeping as much distance from "Team Trump" as they can. Because Trump is going to want something for any co-operation, and you know damn well it won't be something that benefits us as a country. This is an incredibly poorly judged move, and will only serve to bite us on the backside should the giant neurotic Umpla Lumpa get back in to power.

 

[HullRailMan]

should the giant neurotic Umpla Lumpa get back in to power.

There’s no danger of this - John Prescott has retired.

 

[Gloster]

There’s no danger of this - John Prescott has retired.

Ah, the great Thump a Mulleta.

 

[nw1]

There’s no danger of this - John Prescott has retired.

I think you know full well who was being referred to.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think you know full well who was being referred to.

Indeed, Prescott couldn't never match the orange-ness of Trump...

But being serious again, anyone with a pulse should know by now that Trump can never be trusted and should never be cozied up to. All Labour have to do at this stage is say they will work with whatever administration wins in November. Actively seeking his team's attention almost a year out just doesn't feel like a good thing to do, plenty of time for them to place Labour firmly in Trump's pocket, and that's exactly where we do not need an incoming government to be. Because trump works only for Trump, and pretty much everyone else around him gets screwed, thrown under the bus, or ends up in jail.

We have to remember here, this is the guy that admires Putin, Xi & Jong Un, and has all but stated that he wouldn't mind being a dictator so that he could deal with all his opponents. He's also made it clear that he wants totally immunity to literally anything he does, and is very brazen about that. So why Labour think for even a second its a good idea to associate with the Trump Mafiosa I have no idea, but it is plain stupid. Maybe Starmer wants some lessons on being a dictator, who knows....?

 

[birchesgreen]

I think y'all reading too much into it, you've still go to deal with reality even if you don't like it so that means dealing with Trump. I doubt Labour are cosying up to them, the party is aligned with the Democrats in any case.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think y'all reading too much into it, you've still go to deal with reality even if you don't like it so that means dealing with Trump. I doubt Labour are cosying up to them, the party is aligned with the Democrats in any case.

But that could be done after November if he does avoid jail and makes the White House again. Do you really think anything Team Trump say will stick if they do win?

 

[birchesgreen]

But that could be done after November if he does avoid jail and makes the White House again. Do you really think anything Team Trump say will stick if they do win?

They might be a bit busy after November, as will Labour over here most likely, you are reading too much into what was probably pretty routine and bloodless. As for them apparently preferring Labour to Cameron, the Trumpists HATE Cameron especially that idiot MTG.

 

[Bantamzen]

They might be a bit busy after November, as will Labour over here most likely, you are reading too much into what was probably pretty routine and bloodless. As for them apparently preferring Labour to Cameron, the Trumpists HATE Cameron especially that idiot MTG.

Well I'm not convinced its a good idea, Trump is the last person anyone should be looking to deal with unless they absolutely have to, especially at the moment when his focus is on raising money for his legal bills. Even if they've gone over there just to establish a working relationship they are wasting their time. The moment he gets back into power anything and everything thing talked about previously will get ripped up, unless of course it means a gain for Trump. Far, far better just to stand back and let US politics sort it's future out from a distance.

 

[birchesgreen]

I know you don't but if ends up (hopefully unlikely though Biden really isn't helping himself) POTUS again then we'll have no choice but to deal with him.

 

[Bantamzen]

I know you don't but if ends up (hopefully unlikely though Biden really isn't helping himself) POTUS again then we'll have no choice but to deal with him.

Then if that happens deal with him after his inauguration, no need to deal with him before because we can't trust that he will stand by anything he says now.

 

[JamesT]

Then if that happens deal with him after his inauguration, no need to deal with him before because we can't trust that he will stand by anything he says now.

And then he turns round and decides to treat the UK harshly because what is now our government wouldn't talk to him before he was elected?

As well as Trump's team they're talking more widely to Republicans in Congress whose support would be needed for future foreign policy.

A little cordiality now might go a long way.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Then if that happens deal with him after his inauguration, no need to deal with him before because we can't trust that he will stand by anything he says now.

But as I understand it, they weren't meeting Trump personally: They were meeting members of his team. Sure, you can't trust Trump himself not to change his mind/lie/betray you/etc. but it's a reasonable guess that people in his team are more reliable, and it does make sense to be on good terms with some of them if there's any chance of him being back in power next year since they'll be the people advising him. It'll be easier for a Labour Government to deal with the US if they are already on reasonable terms with members of his Government/advisory team.

I think on this one, @birchesgreen is correct.

 

[Bantamzen]

And then he turns round and decides to treat the UK harshly because what is now our government wouldn't talk to him before he was elected?

As well as Trump's team they're talking more widely to Republicans in Congress whose support would be needed for future foreign policy.

A little cordiality now might go a long way.

He could do that anyway. He can turn on anyone at any time, in fact he does all the time. The only way to keep in his favour is to keep massaging his ego and of course support his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. That is not a position we want to be in regardless of what party gets into power. Mark my words, this will not end well if he somehow regains power.

But as I understand it, they weren't meeting Trump personally: They were meeting members of his team. Sure, you can't trust Trump himself not to change his mind/lie/betray you/etc. but it's a reasonable guess that people in his team are more reliable, and it does make sense to be on good terms with some of them if there's any chance of him being back in power next year since they'll be the people advising him. It'll be easier for a Labour Government to deal with the US if they are already on reasonable terms with members of his Government/advisory team.

I think on this one, @birchesgreen is correct.

Honestly do you believe for one second his team don't have a strict brief from the orange one? Given how many advisors and people in his team he's been through since he first came down the escalator at Trump Tower, I think by now its a knocking bet that those working for him are not going to be reliable. Terrified of Trump for sure, but I wouldn't trust them to get coffee for me.

 

[renegademaster]

I don't understand the outrage over this either. As long as the labour team are sensible theirs no  harm of mmassaging Trump's ego a bit and getting on good terms with his advisors. It might not work but its better than sticking your head in the sand

 

[nw1]

I don't think any UK politicians should be attempting good relations with Trump at this stage (i.e. before a theoretical win) - Conservative, Labour, or anyone else.

It just sends the wrong message, that we tolerate Trump and all he stands for.

 

[D6130]

I don't think any UK politicians should be attempting good relations with Trump at this stage (i.e. before a theoretical win) - Conservative, Labour, or anyone else.

It just sends the wrong message, that we tolerate Trump and all he stands for.

Agreed.

 

[edwin_m]

You have to deal with who is there (or might be), not who you'd like to be there. We still have diplomatic relations with Russia for example.

 

[nw1]

You have to deal with who is there (or might be), not who you'd like to be there. We still have diplomatic relations with Russia for example.

We'll come to that next January if we have to; I don't think anyone is suggesting completely breaking diplomatic relations. In the meantime, we should keep Trump well at arms' length. If Labour (or indeed, the Conservatives) wish to visit the USA for political purposes, they should go there to help the Democrats win.

 

[D6130]

You have to deal with who is there (or might be), not who you'd like to be there. We still have diplomatic relations with Russia for example.

Agreed also....but whether or not we like them, the Russian government are there now and we have to deal with them. I would prefer not to have to deal with Trump until - and if - he gets into power. After all, I doubt that American foreign policy is going to change overnight in that event.

 

[edwin_m]

We'll come to that next January if we have to; I don't think anyone is suggesting completely breaking diplomatic relations. In the meantime, we should keep Trump well at arms' length. If Labour (or indeed, the Conservatives) wish to visit the USA for political purposes, they should go there to help the Democrats win.

Agreed also....but whether or not we like them, the Russian government are there now and we have to deal with them. I would prefer not to have to deal with Trump until - and if - he gets into power. After all, I doubt that American foreign policy is going to change overnight in that event.

Trump is also there now to the extent that there is a strong possibility that he will be in power in January, and he's talked about making various non-trivial changes very quickly such as stopping aid to Ukraine and even pulling out of NATO. Seems to me it's worth a few days of somebody's time behind closed doors to understand and perhaps even to influence, while making no public comment. Compare and contrast he May government being apparently wrong-footed by his election in 2016 and her rushing to be the first to pay homage and be publicly humiliated.

It can also be counter-productive to openly endorse a candidate in another country's elections, and Biden in 2024 probably doesn't have much to learn from a party that hasn't won since 2005. Any Labour campaigning expertise would best be applied at home.

 

[dgl]

Maybe a little chat to his team to tell them that if he does anything stupid then he better like a whole ton of trade tariffs imposed on America, or threaten them that they have an agreement with McDonalds to cut off his supply!

 

[The Ham]

Personally the story of Labour taking to Trump sounds very like something which is always done but because of who it is the story is made bigger than normal by certain groups as a way of making Labour look bad to those who are likely to think that Trump is bad news and may not wish to support a party who is seen as cozying up to him.

A bit like a Non Dom getting upset that a Labour MP may or may not have a £1,500 tax liability and writing about it in their book about the Labour MP.

 

[Bantamzen]

Personally the story of Labour taking to Trump sounds very like something which is always done but because of who it is the story is made bigger than normal by certain groups as a way of making Labour look bad to those who are likely to think that Trump is bad news and may not wish to support a party who is seen as cozying up to him.

A bit like a Non Dom getting upset that a Labour MP may or may not have a £1,500 tax liability and writing about it in their book about the Labour MP.

I'm sure under normal circumstances a prospective government might want to talk to other leaders. However this is not normal circumstances. The team they are talking to represent a former president who is currently in court in multiple cases against him, led a protest that almost caused absolute chaos and insurrection in Washington, has stated that he wants total immunity to do what he likes, practically stated he was going to be a dictator on / from day one, admires other dictators, and has threatened allies if he thinks they aren't paying enough. I could go on but it would take all night, and I should have made my point.

Both colour ties should be staying far away from Trump's team, who increasingly are just becoming members of his extended family anyway, and have no interest in anything other than Donald J Trump. If he somehow dodges jail time and fools the US into voting him on, then and only then should our leaders take a deep breath and talk to him. Because there is nothing he will offer that will be of benefit to our country, and he certainly won't listen to little old Britain. He probably sees us a one giant golf course opportunity.

 

[oldman]

Western liberal democracy doesn't have a lot of friends in the modern world and it's enemies are increasingly brazen. Keeping in with our main alliance partner seems like a good idea, even if it may have a despicable leader. Not all Republicans support all Trump's notions - though sadly too many hold their noses and vote for him - and having links with their Party is not a bad idea.