I mean, this isn't really surprising after another news cycle focused on Labour's failures on antisemitism. Suspending Corbyn a broadly popular move so Starmer's dip could just as easily be attributed to the fact that he ran over a cyclist a few days ago.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
UK: Sir Keir Starmer is the new Labour Party leader, replacing Jeremy Corbyn
- Thread starter Deleted member 16516
- Start date
I mean, this isn't really surprising after another news cycle focused on Labour's failures on antisemitism. Suspending Corbyn a broadly popular move so Starmer's dip could just as easily be attributed to the fact that he ran over a cyclist a few days ago.
The problem is Labour can't lose support from it's side unless you imagine a load of tories will cross over and support the party, do the grass roots stuff etc. It's far better if Corbyn backs down after he's been looked into and the dust is allowed to settle.
It's the labour party dip that's more concerning but to be honest some of yougov opinion polling can be very temperamental in the short term with 7 point swings one way and another 7 point swing another so i'd give it at least a good week or two get an idea of the actual state of affairs.
His problem was he got defensive, on behalf of himself and the party. He could have just kept quiet. But nothing he said was untrue. It's not just about this country though is it, and it isn't for most leftists. New Labour destablilised an entire region of the planet my dude.
If the party dives into infighting then it will become a big turn off for the electorate and then i expect polling to go down(it's all a bit up in the air still), but Starmer hasn't really offered much so far to keep the left of the party keen and on board. i've been grinning and bearing some of his choices so i get it.
The metric that's most interesting here is that, among those who think that the party is stronger without him, there's an almost clean split among people who voted to Remain and those who voted to Leave.
It should highlight just how much Corbyn's total refusal to take a clear stance on Brexit damaged Labour in the last election. He should have took a clear side, rather than have sat on the fence.
Does it? I'm not sure that suspensions should be justified by popular approval, but by an established framework.
I agree with the suspension, but its justification shouldn't come from overall support IMO - same with any such case
His problem was he wasn't defensive enough. He tought pandering to the media and elites would make them stop them demonizing him. He should have been stronger with saying Zionism is evil and criticize of Israel isn't racism.
Popular among Kool-aid drinking voters not among party members.
In response to his party being found to have been unlawful and discriminatory- that'd be one way to increase the yikes factor.
It's popular with both, but in any case, one of these groups is way more important than the other.
What? Those are not party members, they are voters. There is a difference. Corbyn won the election twice because of members.
Yeah that's fair. I got that wrong.
I still don't understand why you're saying that stuff about kool-aid drinking voters though, since there's way more voters than there are Labour members, we need vastly more Labour voters than we do Labour members and in what way they are drinking the kool-aid when it's Corbyn die-hards who are willing to die on this stupid fucking hill of defending the honour of one stubborn old man while the Tories are running rampant.
What's more important? Proving that this one guy isn't as bad as everyone says, even though the definitively true shit is bad enough (defending the anti-semitic as fuck mural, blaming the "Hand of Israel" on Press TV with no evidence while talking about terrorist attacks in Egypt, saying that "zionists don't understand English irony" which is pretty fucking racist when talking about British Jews), or getting the fucking Tories out?
Last edited:
From my personal perspective, as someone who has lived under Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May and Johnson. My life has been generally shit, doesnt matter who's in government.
I dont have any faith in electoralism and just think it's disgusting that throwing minorities under the bus to get power is seen as good optics.
I can't take people seriously if they claim to be against antisemitism but are perfectly fine for Labours shit handling of black people, muslims, trans people, the GRT community etc. because dunking on these people is good politics.
I dont have any faith in electoralism and just think it's disgusting that throwing minorities under the bus to get power is seen as good optics.
I can't take people seriously if they claim to be against antisemitism but are perfectly fine for Labours shit handling of black people, muslims, trans people, the GRT community etc. because dunking on these people is good politics.
If there turns out to be a report that says that Labour has acted unlawfully and in an discriminatory way towards BAME and/or the LGBT community the situations will be comparable or if there turned out to be some past comments made by Keir against those communities then it would be comparable. I do think Labour as a whole needs to ensure that they maintain and don't take for granted the confidence of these communities(I come from a BAME background) and especially do a better job in standing up for the Trans community in particular. If Starmer does start going in the wrong direction when it comes to race issues I expect people like David Lammy who are in his cabinet to speak up. When Starmer makes a mistake, he'll apologise and correct it, for example, the BLM being a moment slip up he had, he apologised, made clear what he meant and also took unconcious bias training.
Keir Starmer faces backlash from Labour's ruling committee after party defends 'racist, sexist and abusive' WhatsApp messages
Statement prepared by party lawyers said criticism was ‘po-faced’ and that officials had an expectation of privacy
www.independent.co.uk
There may be exceptions, but I don't think there are any pro-Starmer people in this thread who care about antisemitism to the exclusion of all other forms of racism. Starmer got criticism from all sides for his BLM comments, for example. There certainly do appear to be people who don't care about antisemitism at all, though.
Last edited:
Starmer going in hard, from the Guardian Liveblog: -
Starmer's speech to CBI - Summary
Here is the full text of Sir Keir Starmer's speech to the CBI conference. And here are the main points.
Starmer's speech to CBI - Summary
Here is the full text of Sir Keir Starmer's speech to the CBI conference. And here are the main points.
- Starmer said that the government's decision to delay the lockdown had cost lives. (See 11.58am.) Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, had failed to show leadership, Starmer said.
- Starmer singled out Sunak for particular blame, accusing the chancellor of being the person who blocked an earlier lockdown. He said:
Sunak is in for a rough ride anyway, he's popular for handing out goodies, he's barely been a politician for five minutes and they want to give him the top job and the task of cleaning all the shit up from Brexit and the pandemic.
The relationship between state and private business looks ok to me, Sir Keith.
Serco profits surge thanks to Covid-19 test-and-trace contract
Shares rise 18% for firm heavily criticised for its role in contact-tracing system
www.theguardian.com
The relationship between state and private business looks ok to me, Sir Keith.
Serco profits surge thanks to Covid-19 test-and-trace contract
Shares rise 18% for firm heavily criticised for its role in contact-tracing system
He really needs to stop putting the little digs in about Corbyn, he wouldn't have won the leadership with this kinda shit.
Just tickle the CBI's belly and stop being a twat.
The relationship between state and private business looks ok to me, Sir Keith.
Serco profits surge thanks to Covid-19 test-and-trace contract
Shares rise 18% for firm heavily criticised for its role in contact-tracing system
The last year has highlighted how essential functional internet is for modern society, and these people are still trying to treat free Broadband like it was some weird joke.
Fucking vile cunts.
It was a very transformative policy but the press portrayed it as "broadband communism, free netflix and porn for the proels."
It wasn't BT anyway but Openreach. Amazing how such a simple idea morphs into Labour wanting to nationalise Champions League coverage.
Nationalising BT would be a stupid idea, glad Starmer has moved away from it. Nationalising OpenReach would be the smarter route if they wanted to go down that road. If Labour wants to get into nationalising parts of the economy it has to convince the population. I say start with Water and Transport, OpenReach would be more of a 2nd or 3rd term thing.
Yeah people conflate the two. BT the ISP was never on the cards.
As said above it was actually supposed to be Openreach, so they can't even get the policy right when trying to mock it.
Nationalising broadband is one of those ideas that probably would be good, but should be so far down on the priority list that we shouldn't even really be talking about it. Especially given how out of touch the idea can seem.
I've read it many times before and it still blows my mind every time that Water is privatised in England.
I believe it was this part that was mocked on the BBC as "what next, will you be nationalising sausages?". Months later we're into a pandemic with literal internet outages due to demand.
Do you think the right needlessly worry about what order shit like this happens in? A British government with a majority has basically unfettered executive power, and you're already compromising on imaginary nationalisations into a 2nd or 3rd term when the public broadly supports nationalisation. If you believe it will be a public good then you make the case for it and then do it like you said you would, you don't act like you're ashamed of it and allow it to be defined by right wing narratives.
When I talk about priorities, I'm talking about us trying to run and win an election. Prioritising issues we choose to speak about when trying to win an election is one of the most important things. Best believe one of the reasons the tories won the last election is that they prioritised speaking about an issue that they thought made them look best, and we should do the same. I don't want to hear a labour leader come election time talking about nationalising broadband. I don't think that moves voters in our favour in the same way that other issues do.
Yes, ensuring the country has universal access to broadband is massively out of touch for a modern country with a largely services / information based economy.
Come the fuck on. If anything, given the current lurch to working from home it was surprisingly forward thinking for Corbyn (I'm not his biggest fan).
Edit - Oh, I see you're of the "I want them to play the game" school. I'm more about substance over soundbites, though both are most definitely required.
Brits support free broadband, but split on nationalising BT Openreach | YouGov
Six in ten support Labour’s policy of free broadband for all, but only half that figure support the means by which it would be provided
yougov.co.uk
It definitely comes across as out of touch when you consider other things you could be spending that political capital and money on, such as, child poverty, the housing crisis, the NHS, schools, benefit reform, climate change. That's why it comes across as out of touch, because people generally have bigger problems. Focusing on a relatively small problem, when people have loads of bigger problems comes off as out of touch.
Brits support free broadband, but split on nationalising BT Openreach | YouGov
Six in ten support Labour’s policy of free broadband for all, but only half that figure support the means by which it would be provided
Per your own source, the plan literally has 30% support. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
Politics is about winning power, you can have an amazing idea that will be a good thing for people but if they don't buy into it, it means nothing, if they like the idea but don't trust you to implement it competently, it means nothing.
Edit: Corbyn had a lot of policies that I liked but I didn't think he would get round to implementing all of them if he had won power and also I honestly didn't trust him to implement them effectively.
Edit: Corbyn had a lot of policies that I liked but I didn't think he would get round to implementing all of them if he had won power and also I honestly didn't trust him to implement them effectively.
As YouGov has pointed out previously, Labour's economic policies tend to be popular, and this one is no exception. Fully six in ten Britons (62%) support such a move, almost three times the number who are opposed (22%).
"However, when it comes to the way in which Labour say they will deliver free broadband – by nationalising BT Openreach – Britons become much more unsure. Just under a third (32%) support this portion of the plan, with an almost identical 31% opposed. Both groups are marginally outnumbered by the 37% who answered "don't know".
Did you miss the above?
My big takeaway was that nationalising Openreach would have been more sensible about 5-10 years ago, when outside of Virgin they were the only real national player, and they pretty much won every public rollout contract by default (they still mostly do, judging from discussions with colleagues that are involved in this stuff). The decision at the time to go with Fibre-to-the-Cabinet, while easier to pull off, has led to a ton more work to get full-fibre to homes and businesses when other countries are way ahead of us.
The thing is, now there actually are a ton of new players in the market, big and small, which has also caused Openreach to get a move on with their FTTP rollout.
The thing is, now there actually are a ton of new players in the market, big and small, which has also caused Openreach to get a move on with their FTTP rollout.
You said the idea of free broadband was unpopular, yet it isn't.
The method might be unpopular but that can be worked on.