Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[Typhoon]

The Mail on Sunday had a report claiming 3 Labour MPs are/were considering defecting to the Tories over dissatisfaction over Starmer's leadership. This has been suspected as being nonsense/a dead cat, especially given the timing on the morning of the Tory party conference and a need of a distraction from the shortages going on.

While Starmer isn't riding high at the moment, I don't see how recent news from him would cause 3 defections that way; if he was staying aligned with Corbyn it would make more sense, but even under Corbyn the furthest someone defected from Labour to was into Change UK.

Absolutely; they are just trying to knock Labour because, I suspect, they think next week will be all talk and no substance. We have got Johnson wittering on about 'high wage, high skilled jobs' (so who will clean hospitals, stack supermarket shelves, empty the bins, etc?) and Truss crowing 'We will also be tough on those who don’t share our values and don’t play by the rules' (yeah right, and what is the big stick you are going to wield?).

I was hoping the headline was true and it was Burgon, O'Donnell. McDonald, Abbot (with luck, they can't count).

The article goes on about Lloyd Russell-Moyle complaining about Starmer's 'goddamn awful leadership'. He'd be no great loss - but his natural home is closer to whatever Galloway's party is called nowadays than the Tories.

Unfortunately, some people will believe such drivel.

 

[birchesgreen]

Truss crowing 'We will also be tough on those who don’t share our values and don’t play by the rules' (yeah right, and what is the big stick you are going to wield?).

Ah good i look forward to us severing ties with Saudi Arabia.

 

[MattRat]

We have got Johnson wittering on about 'high wage, high skilled jobs' (so who will clean hospitals, stack supermarket shelves, empty the bins, etc?)

Well, you can pay British people to do those jobs, but I guess that would require them paying people a living wage....

 

[birchesgreen]

That would be good however that would mean either the executives / shareholders getting paid less or everyone else paying more in prices / tax.

Hmm i wonder which one it would be.

 

[edwin_m]

Well, you can pay British people to do those jobs, but I guess that would require them paying people a living wage....

Osborne had started to move towards that in 2015-16 with significant increases to the minimum wage - unfortunately too little too late to stop the Brexit bandwagon, which he was indirectly but significantly responsible for setting in motion through his unnecessarily draconian austerity policies. So now the economy is going to be that much less prosperous and less able to afford such things without starting an inflationary spiral.

 

[Typhoon]

Ah good i look forward to us severing ties with Saudi Arabia.

I suspect they will be flexible when it suits them or maybe we are going to change our rules. We have already done trade deals with Nicaragua (President branded a dictator by US following the arrest of 3 opposition leaders), Tunisia (parliament suspended following protests against police brutality and economic hardship), Vietnam (one party 'socialist' republic), Egypt (President came to power initially in a military coup, last 'election' obtained 97% of the vote, all opposition leaders 'withdrew', only opponent was pro-government), Cote d'Ivoire (last election: multiple polling stations did not open, tales of violence and intimidation, president re-elected 95% of vote). That's before I look at Turkey and Zimbabwe. Saudi Arabia fits right in with that crowd.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ah good i look forward to us severing ties with Saudi Arabia.

I've long maintained that you can forget about climate change (if you want) and Saudi Arabia itself still provides all the reasons you could ever want to embrace renewable energy and oil alternatives. Not having to deal with that awful regime (and plenty of other oil based ones) should be motivation enough!

 

[DarloRich]

I have been watching the Blair/Brown documentary on Iplayer and reading Heroes or villains (The Blair Government reconsidered) and it is so sad to see what has been lost and how damaged Labour have become under the Corbyn/SWP regime. It is enough to make you weep.

Serious people committed to winning elections and making things better versus utter clowns committed to stupid student politics. The infection has to be burnt out before Labour can start the road back to power.

 

[GusB]

I have been watching the Blair/Brown documentary on Iplayer and reading Heroes or villains (The Blair Government reconsidered) and it is so sad to see what has been lost and how damaged Labour have become under the Corbyn/SWP regime. It is enough to make you weep.

Serious people committed to winning elections and making things better versus utter clowns committed to stupid student politics. The infection has to be burnt out before Labour can start the road back to power.

Much as I hated Blair for the whole war thing, I tend to agree. I sat and watched the Blair & Brown documentary* too, and it brought back a few memories. 1997 was the first general election in which I was able to vote (I turned 18 in 1992, but a few months too late for the election) and I remember that I had high hopes at the time. I hadn't done too well at university and ended up dropping out after repeating my first year, discovering quite quickly just how rubbish the world of work could be if you were at the lower end of the payscale. Policies such as the minimum wage, 10p tax rate and working tax credit actually made a huge difference to me at the time.

* Link to the first episode is here, for the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen it:

Blair & Brown: The New Labour Revolution - Series 1: Episode 1

Two young MPs, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, set out to modernise the Labour party.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[DynamicSpirit]

* Link to the first episode is here, for the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen it:

Blair & Brown: The New Labour Revolution - Series 1: Episode 1

Two young MPs, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, set out to modernise the Labour party.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thanks for the link - I just watched the first episode and it was interesting. One thing though puzzled me though: For about the first two thirds of the program, it seemed to be consistently presenting Tony and Gordon as quite isolated - to some approximation, as almost the only two people who understood the need for Labour to modernize in policy as well as image, with just a few supportive friends but mainly surrounded by old-Labour 'dinosaurs'. And then all of a sudden, there was Tony Blair getting 57% of the vote in Labour's leadership election, and for me that left the question, what changed? How did they suddenly change the minds of most of the Labour party who, if the impression of the documentary is to be believed, had right up to that point believed, like apparently John Smith, in old Labour, with perhaps just some image tweaks.

 

[Typhoon]

How did they suddenly change the minds of most of the Labour party who, if the impression of the documentary is to be believed, had right up to that point believed, like apparently John Smith, in old Labour, with perhaps just some image tweaks.

I haven't seen the programme but as someone who tended to vote Labour unless there was a good reason not to (useless or obnoxious candidate, no chance of winning, other candidate - including sitting MP - actually getting things done for the constituency) so took an interest in politics I would say that was an over simplification. I would say Smith's approach was to change slowly (sometimes imperceptibly) while taking most of the party with him (bar Militant, obviously). Smith always came across as fiscally conservative, not your typical left wing diehard. Blair was not the first to encourage a radical approach to gain power. the first I noticed was Bryan Gould, who was in Kinnock's shadow cabinet some years before Blair. He came a cropper over Europe. I suspect that the initial opposition to the Blair-Brown agenda amongst some high profile figures on the Labour benches was their dislike of those putting it forward rather than the content itself.

As an aside, an interesting (but long) transcript of an interview with Gould after Smith's death at BBC Online - On The Record - Interviews

 

[brad465]

I have been watching the Blair/Brown documentary on Iplayer and reading Heroes or villains (The Blair Government reconsidered) and it is so sad to see what has been lost and how damaged Labour have become under the Corbyn/SWP regime. It is enough to make you weep.

Serious people committed to winning elections and making things better versus utter clowns committed to stupid student politics. The infection has to be burnt out before Labour can start the road back to power.

I've seen some people, even those who never voted for new Labour, watching this and realise how far our politician's capabilities/calibre has fallen since, regardless of political party.

I do hope Starmer has watched it, even if the same policies can't be used/effective this time, the same principle/strategy structure for improving the party still applies.

 

[DarloRich]

I've seen some people, even those who never voted for new Labour, watching this and realise how far our politician's capabilities/calibre has fallen since, regardless of political party.

That is the key point. We are now not a serious nation.

I do hope Starmer has watched it, even if the same policies can't be used/effective this time, the same principle/strategy structure for improving the party still applies.

The problem is that Starmer has to re do all of the work Kinnock had to do in cleaning out the loonies

Much as I hated Blair for the whole war thing,

I believed then and still do that removing Sadam was the right thing to do. The aftermath was a complete and unmitigated disaster. That's where the criticism should be aimed.

Thanks for the link - I just watched the first episode and it was interesting. One thing though puzzled me though: For about the first two thirds of the program, it seemed to be consistently presenting Tony and Gordon as quite isolated - to some approximation, as almost the only two people who understood the need for Labour to modernize in policy as well as image, with just a few supportive friends but mainly surrounded by old-Labour 'dinosaurs'. And then all of a sudden, there was Tony Blair getting 57% of the vote in Labour's leadership election, and for me that left the question, what changed? How did they suddenly change the minds of most of the Labour party who, if the impression of the documentary is to be believed, had right up to that point believed, like apparently John Smith, in old Labour, with perhaps just some image tweaks.

There was a fairly small group involved in delivering change in Labour: Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Campbell, Powell. ( although behind them was a large party machinery especially after Blair became leader) They benefited from the work that had been going on since Kinnock became leader in 1983. It didn't happen overnight and was quite a slow process. The key point is that Brown and Blair held key positions in the shadow cabinet and were able to drive the change they wanted. If they had been backbenchers or not a team I don't think it would have happened in such a radical manner. Most impressive was the management of the media, image and the message Blair wanted to give and getting that to land with the electorate.

Most importantly, however, is that after 1994 Blair looked like a winner and the party wanted, badly, to beat the Tories.

 

[Busaholic]

I haven't seen the programme but as someone who tended to vote Labour unless there was a good reason not to (useless or obnoxious candidate, no chance of winning, other candidate - including sitting MP - actually getting things done for the constituency) so took an interest in politics I would say that was an over simplification. I would say Smith's approach was to change slowly (sometimes imperceptibly) while taking most of the party with him (bar Militant, obviously). Smith always came across as fiscally conservative, not your typical left wing diehard. Blair was not the first to encourage a radical approach to gain power. the first I noticed was Bryan Gould, who was in Kinnock's shadow cabinet some years before Blair. He came a cropper over Europe. I suspect that the initial opposition to the Blair-Brown agenda amongst some high profile figures on the Labour benches was their dislike of those putting it forward rather than the content itself.

As an aside, an interesting (but long) transcript of an interview with Gould after Smith's death at BBC Online - On The Record - Interviews

To my mind Bryan Gould was a huge loss to the Labour Party, just as the death of Robin Cook was a few years later. Gould would have made a far better leader than John Smith imo (we never found out about either, really) but the contest was a foregone conclusion. Gould and Cook, totally the opposite of each other in character, are just the sort of left wing politicians we are now missing in our politics, formidably intelligent and hardworking but also determined to gain power without compromising all their idealism. Blair never had any idealism to lose, of course, while Brown's lack of Emotional Intelligence was always going to find him out as a serious politician. Mandelson (Labour's Jeffrey Archer in many ways) should have been jettisoned at the first opportunity, never to return.

 

[brad465]

Jeremy Corbyn is rumoured to be wanting to start a new party over frustration of not having the Labour Whip restored. For the wider Labour party, this has good and bad results: the bad is obviously the hard left vote would go with Corbyn, and a number of hard left MPs would likely defect to join him, splitting the Labour vote. The good I can see is if he does this, and other hard left MPs join him (the maximum I reckon is 35), then the rest of the party will appear much more united, and at the same time potential swing voters who voted Tory in the last election will believe the hard left are not in control or in the party altogether, making them more likely to vote Labour in future.

Jeremy Corbyn debates launching new party to rival Starmer if he's not reinstated as Labour MP

Such a move could split the Labour vote and prevent Sir Keir Starmer from winning the next General Election

inews.co.uk

Jeremy Corbyn is considering launching a new political party as he fears he may never be reinstated as a Labour MP, despite being leader of the party for nearly five years.

The Islington North MP could upgrade his Peace and Justice Project charity into a political party and run on the ticket at the next election, according to the Telegraph.

Such a move could wreak havoc within the Labour ranks, as the new party could tempt the defection of Left-wing MPs who are frustrated by the direction Sir Keir Starmer is taking the party.

According to the paper Mr Corbyn has been urged by many within his inner circle, including his wife Laura Alvarez, to establish the new party and accept his time within Labour has come to a close.

Mr Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party in 2015, following Ed Miliband’s defeat in the General Election of that year.

He presided over two elections, successfully leading the party to make significant gains in the 2017 election but resigned after Boris Johnson’s landslide victory in December 2019.

But Mr Corbyn’s five years at the top were plagued with allegations of anti-Semitism and in October 2020 he sparked anger for responding to a formal inquiry into Labour’s unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination against Jewish people by saying allegations of anti-Semitism were “dramatically overstated for political reasons”.

The comments led to him being kicked out of the party.

He has since been reinstated as a Labour member, but Sir Keir has said he will only readmit his predecessor to the parliamentary party if he apologises publicly for his comments.

Mr Corbyn has refused to apologise for the comments but has insisted he is “determined to eliminate all forms of racism”.

Now he and his insiders believe it is unlikely he will be readmitted to Labour before the next election, despite representing the party in the Commons since 1983.

If the Labour whip is not restored, Mr Corbyn will be forced to run as an independent candidate in the next election and run against a Labour candidate.

Mary Creagh, a former MP who blames Mr Corbyn for the loss of her seat in 2019, could run against him at the next election if he stood as an Independent.

But allies of Mr Corbyn believe he has enough of a “personal vote” to win the London seat without Labour’s backing, having won the seat in 2019 with a majority of 63 per cent, the paper reports.

 

[Typhoon]

Jeremy Corbyn is rumoured to be wanting to start a new party over frustration of not having the Labour Whip restored. For the wider Labour party, this has good and bad results: the bad is obviously the hard left vote would go with Corbyn, and a number of hard left MPs would likely defect to join him, splitting the Labour vote. The good I can see is if he does this, and other hard left MPs join him (the maximum I reckon is 35), then the rest of the party will appear much more united, and at the same time potential swing voters who voted Tory in the last election will believe the hard left are not in control or in the party altogether, making them more likely to vote Labour in future.

Absolutely. Labour united but Conservatives potentially disunited (Lord Frost's intervention).

 

[Busaholic]

Jeremy Corbyn is rumoured to be wanting to start a new party over frustration of not having the Labour Whip restored. For the wider Labour party, this has good and bad results: the bad is obviously the hard left vote would go with Corbyn, and a number of hard left MPs would likely defect to join him, splitting the Labour vote. The good I can see is if he does this, and other hard left MPs join him (the maximum I reckon is 35), then the rest of the party will appear much more united, and at the same time potential swing voters who voted Tory in the last election will believe the hard left are not in control or in the party altogether, making them more likely to vote Labour in future.

Jeremy Corbyn debates launching new party to rival Starmer if he's not reinstated as Labour MP

Such a move could split the Labour vote and prevent Sir Keir Starmer from winning the next General Election

inews.co.uk

Remember when Nigel Farage was primed to announce 'dozens' of Tory MPs who were going to announce their defection to UKIP, that in the end only saw Douglas Carswell, a man of some principle, and Mark Reckless, a man of none, move. The rest is decidedly not history. Corbyn could only be frontman, as he's incapable of running a bath. I'd be amazed if more than a dozen current Labour MPs defected to it, probably fewer than half that. Add, maybe, Ken Livingstone, Piers Corbyn, George Galloway and, dark horse, Alex Salmond and you have a Mad Hatter's Tea Party to rival Sarah Palin's (remember her?) or even the Orange Master's himself.

 

[MattRat]

Remember when Nigel Farage was primed to announce 'dozens' of Tory MPs who were going to announce their defection to UKIP, that in the end only saw Douglas Carswell, a man of some principle, and Mark Reckless, a man of none, move. The rest is decidedly not history. Corbyn could only be frontman, as he's incapable of running a bath. I'd be amazed if more than a dozen current Labour MPs defected to it, probably fewer than half that. Add, maybe, Ken Livingstone, Piers Corbyn, George Galloway and, dark horse, Alex Salmond and you have a Mad Hatter's Tea Party to rival Sarah Palin's (remember her?) or even the Orange Master's himself.

Except Corbyn's party is more likely to be urged to go into a coalition, to create the an anti-Conservative coalition.

 

[Acfb]

I reckon Corbyn could feasibly get around 30-35% as an independent rather like Dick Taverne or Dave Nellist. I think it is preferable that Corbyn stands down and that his CLP has a fair choice of local/left wing candidates to replace him.

I'm pretty sure that the Lee Harpin story about Mary Creagh in the Mail on Sunday is complete garbage but if the party hierarchy does try to stitch things up I would not surprised to see it backfire rather like Blaenau Gwent in 2005.

 

[edwin_m]

Except Corbyn's party is more likely to be urged to go into a coalition, to create the an anti-Conservative coalition.

Which would probably do Labour's chances no good at all. The Tories and their acolytes in the press would immediately come out with "vote Labour, get Corbyn" stories.

 

[nw1]

Remember when Nigel Farage was primed to announce 'dozens' of Tory MPs who were going to announce their defection to UKIP, that in the end only saw Douglas Carswell, a man of some principle, and Mark Reckless, a man of none, move. The rest is decidedly not history. Corbyn could only be frontman, as he's incapable of running a bath. I'd be amazed if more than a dozen current Labour MPs defected to it, probably fewer than half that. Add, maybe, Ken Livingstone, Piers Corbyn, George Galloway and, dark horse, Alex Salmond and you have a Mad Hatter's Tea Party to rival Sarah Palin's (remember her?) or even the Orange Master's himself.

George Galloway? He'd be more likely to join forces with whatever Farage's project this month is

 

[birchesgreen]

Most MPs won't defect to a new party unless they have a big personal following (or feel like standing down anyway), without the party machine behind them and the name (many people vote for a party not the person) it will be difficult for them to win re-election.

 

[nw1]

Most MPs won't defect to a new party unless they have a big personal following (or feel like standing down anyway), without the party machine behind them and the name (many people vote for a party not the person) it will be difficult for them to win re-election.

Yes, it surprised me in the past election how so many people voted for the party, not the name even when the (usually ex-Tory) MP was relatively well respected and it wasn't an especially pro-Brexit part of the country. Grieve and Gauke, and also Wollaston (ISTR south Devon being one of the few areas of the West Country with a slight majority for Remain) are good examples.

 

[DarloRich]

Jeremy Corbyn is rumoured to be wanting to start a new party over frustration of not having the Labour Whip restored. For the wider Labour party, this has good and bad results: the bad is obviously the hard left vote would go with Corbyn, and a number of hard left MPs would likely defect to join him, splitting the Labour vote. The good I can see is if he does this, and other hard left MPs join him (the maximum I reckon is 35), then the rest of the party will appear much more united, and at the same time potential swing voters who voted Tory in the last election will believe the hard left are not in control or in the party altogether, making them more likely to vote Labour in future.

Good. Let him and the cranks go. What happened to Chris Williamson is what will happen to these clowns.

 

[gg1]

Yes, it surprised me in the past election how so many people voted for the party, not the name even when the (usually ex-Tory) MP was relatively well respected and it wasn't an especially pro-Brexit part of the country. Grieve and Gauke, and also Wollaston (ISTR south Devon being one of the few areas of the West Country with a slight majority for Remain) are good examples.

I don't find it surprising at all. The identity of the party/parties sitting on the government benches in the commons has a far greater impact on your life than your constituency MP therefore the party rather than the individual is more important for the majority of voters.

 

[Busaholic]

Except Corbyn's party is more likely to be urged to go into a coalition, to create the an anti-Conservative coalition.

That lot hate Liberals more than they do Tories, so doubt it,

 

[deltic]

Not a great fan of Kier Starmer but his speech today on the Sue Gray report had all the gravitas that Boris Johnson lacks.

 

[MattRat]

Not a great fan of Kier Starmer but his speech today on the Sue Gray report had all the gravitas that Boris Johnson lacks.

You mean the non-report that doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know? Isn't speaking about it with gravitas just politicking?

 

[Busaholic]

You mean the non-report that doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know? Isn't speaking about it with gravitas just politicking?

It's the drip-drip-drip effect though. Even the drippiest of Tory MPs will realise in time that most of them will lose their seats unless this charlatan is forced from office, not that I care if they do.

 

[DaveHarries]

Replying as somebody who has no membership of any political party I think that dispensing with Corbyn as Labour leader was a good move: he, like Trump (if I'd had voting rights in the USA at the last presidential election) would never have persuaded me to vote for him. I am not a fan of Boris, however, and I don't have much reason to doubt that Sir Keir will win the next general election.

Dave