A year of Starmer What do you think?

MaizieD None of them should scare the voters although many will see some of them as extreme left. For me, they are centre or slightly left of. Nothing to be scared by and everything to be approved of. Much much better than anything the current govt is actually doing.

I also recognise them, fwiw.

All that does is raise more question in my mind, Maisie. One I keep asking (not the right people - obviously) but is it right that we are taxed individually but any benefit is worked out by household? It may be - I don't know but it seems unbalanced.

I am someone who has more questions than answers, sadly.

£15 minimum wage (includes raising sick pay to the living wage, free childcare and family-friendly rights in the workplace, sectoral collective bargaining)
I think this is a good idea, but would want more detail about 'family-friendly rights' I would probably support it, but I never sign anything I haven't read .

Time for proportional representation (change to general election voting system)
I would need to see more detail before deciding on this. Where I live is sparsely populated, and I fear that places like it might lose what little representation we have if PR came in.

*Global climate justice (includes rapid decarbonisation by 2030, legal recognition of climate refugees’ right to asylum,
cancellation of all low-income country debt held by UK institutions, bringing the banking and financial system into democratic public control*
This is too big, vague and mixed up to comment sensibly, but on the whole I am in favour with caveats as above.

Build council housing and end homelessness (includes building 150,000 social rent homes each year including 100,000 council homes, scrapping right to buy, giving councils the power to requisition the 250,000 long-term empty homes with minimal compensation, repealing the 2012 anti-squatting legislation
I am in favour of all of this, but would want more detail about the squatting.

Green jobs revolution (includes creating millions of well-paid, unionised green jobs with publicly owned entities, retrofitting all homes by 2030, universal basic services, universal free broadband, repealing all anti-trade union laws
Again, this is too vague and too broad, but I can't see anything there that scares me. Again, the devil is in the detail.

Build back fairer: attack poverty and inequality (includes increasing Universal Credit to £260 a week, extending and strengthening the furlough and self-employment schemes, abolishing the ‘no recourse to public funds’ immigration policy
I hate the slogan 'Build Back Fairer', and would want to know what a 'self-employment scheme' actually means, but otherwise, ok.

Reject integrated care systems, renationalise England’s NHS and social care (includes repealing the Health and Social Care Act 2012)
100% yes.

A four-day week (32-hour working week with no loss of pay)
In theory, maybe. I'm not a great fan of 'one size fits all' policies, though.

I'm afraid I do recognise them, so I'm not going to comment.

P.S if anyone recognises them & their source please don't say where they've come from until people have had a chance to respond.

If we actually had a democracy, where a majority government could only gain power with the support of the majority of voters, we would most likely have coalition governments, which do work well in many democracies. The defenders of FPTP always point to the few which do not.

As we have an undemocratic electoral system, we have confrontational politics (reflected in the layout of the HoC) which has caused so much damage.

I think the Adrian Phillips letter contains a lot of sense. Those of us who are politically active should not behave like the Judean People's Front refusing to co-operate with the People's Front of Judea which seems to happen all to often within the Labour Party.

It has long seemed to me that although there are all sorts of nuances of principles and policies to be argued about, under our adversarial system you just had to decide whether you were pro-Tory or anti-Tory.

Now that the former Tory Party has been usurped by the Vote Leave ultra-right wing English National Party, that decision is even more stark . Are you for them or against them?

Casdon

Okay MaizieD you did ask, this is my opinion. Most of the voting public distrust what they would class as ‘extremism’ in any form, they are essentially conservative with a small ‘c’. Many support socialist principles in a watered down form, but they don’t trust pacifists, they don’t espouse measures which make sweeping steps towards the elimination of unfairness in society even when they are themselves victims because it’s not how they see the world or themselves, although incremental change is palatable, and they value leaders who they perceive to be articulate and principled - but they also want some charisma. Many believe press and social media reports, they don’t care enough to delve beneath the headlines. It’s pointless railing at the press and social media, they are what they are - lies can be challenged, but once said mud sticks. It’s far more effective to try to win them over.

There are many people who are very passionate about politics, but they aren’t, and won’t ever be in the majority, in fact they turn other people off. That’s what Starmer has recognised and is using to develop a slightly left of centre agenda - it’s the only way to challenge the Tories that has a chance of succeeding.

Thanks, for responding, Casdon.

What would be your judgement of proposed policies on this list? Hard left, mildly socialist, left of centre (or any other description one might care to use)?

I'd be interested in people's opinions, maybe a 'leftiness score' for each one Or, which ones would scare the horses voters

£15 minimum wage (includes raising sick pay to the living wage, free childcare and family-friendly rights in the workplace, sectoral collective bargaining)

Time for proportional representation (change to general election voting system)

Global climate justice (includes rapid decarbonisation by 2030, legal recognition of climate refugees’ right to asylum,
cancellation of all low-income country debt held by UK institutions, bringing the banking and financial system into democratic public control

Build council housing and end homelessness (includes building 150,000 social rent homes each year including 100,000 council homes, scrapping right to buy, giving councils the power to requisition the 250,000 long-term empty homes with minimal compensation, repealing the 2012 anti-squatting legislation

Green jobs revolution (includes creating millions of well-paid, unionised green jobs with publicly owned entities, retrofitting all homes by 2030, universal basic services, universal free broadband, repealing all anti-trade union laws

Build back fairer: attack poverty and inequality (includes increasing Universal Credit to £260 a week, extending and strengthening the furlough and self-employment schemes, abolishing the ‘no recourse to public funds’ immigration policy

Reject integrated care systems, renationalise England’s NHS and social care (includes repealing the Health and Social Care Act 2012)

A four-day week (32-hour working week with no loss of pay)

The last time Labour won a GE, it had a couple of dozen Scottish MPs, whom it's now lost. If Labour is going to win again, it's going to have to rely on English seats with a handful of Welsh ones. Constituency border changes are going to make that even more difficult. It needs to win back not only the "red wall" seats but quite a few seats which haven't been Labour for many years. It needs to find a niche somewhere, although I'm not sure where that is.

Having read Adrian Philips letter, I suggest he should continue authoring history books as I doubt he'd ever make a politician, too much naivety in evidence. Coalitions are like putting dogs, cats and mice in the same room and expecting them play nicely.
Starmer has an impossible task, whilst we are in the middle of a pandemic many voters don't want to hear constant criticism of government, they find it unnerving, they want to think we are doing OK, that we'll all be alright in the end. Morale is important and Starmer gets that, I think. The best way IMHO to stop the constant drift to the right is to have an electable LP, which is basically one that takes the centre and holds it. I'm not a member of the LP (or of any party for that matter, just a wishy washy white liberal, but many of my friends left the LP when Corbyn was leader and have since rejoined. when this pandemic is over, labour needs to have clear policies and be more unified or it will never be re-elected. If I were Starmer, and thank goodness I'm not, that would be my priority.

I wasnt criticising you Pippa, I just didnt agree with the letter. To be fair whenever I see the word MSM I get twitchy as it's been used for so long to imply people arent very bright.
The lib dems vote has collapsed, I wouldnt advise anyone wanting electoral success to join with them. I would do pretty much anything to have a labour party in power, but I dont think a coalition even a temporary one will achieve that.
I apologise for the word breathtaking, I was probably being a bit arsy there

Casdon

Okay MaizieD you did ask, this is my opinion. Most of the voting public distrust what they would class as ‘extremism’ in any form, they are essentially conservative with a small ‘c’. Many support socialist principles in a watered down form, but they don’t trust pacifists, they don’t espouse measures which make sweeping steps towards the elimination of unfairness in society even when they are themselves victims because it’s not how they see the world or themselves, although incremental change is palatable, and they value leaders who they perceive to be articulate and principled - but they also want some charisma. Many believe press and social media reports, they don’t care enough to delve beneath the headlines. It’s pointless railing at the press and social media, they are what they are - lies can be challenged, but once said mud sticks. It’s far more effective to try to win them over.

There are many people who are very passionate about politics, but they aren’t, and won’t ever be in the majority, in fact they turn other people off. That’s what Starmer has recognised and is using to develop a slightly left of centre agenda - it’s the only way to challenge the Tories that has a chance of succeeding.

Thank you for writing this. It would be interesting to know just how many agree with you. I would, for one. Am I allowed, now time has passed, to admit I thought Tony had a good understanding of all this. I am sorry he went into an illegal war but probably even sorrier that this is all that is said about what was a very reasonable premiership imo.

Apologies for my misunderstanding.

Grany

A piece by Jonathan Cook an award winning journalist

www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/keir-starmer-cautious-tearing-uk-labour-party-apart

I suppose Starmer's poll ratings could improve

This appears to be a view from the old far-left with which I would not agree and, indeed, if this is what Starmer is doing it might make me more keen to vote Labour.

Survation

Hartlepool Poll Warns Of Shock For Keir Starmer

Good letter PippaZ

Starmer should attack the Tories defend our democracy not the left in his Labour Party. And maybe a temporary colalition would work or contfront the Tories himself. But he isit doing that.

In a situation where the government was culpable for thousands upon thousands of unnecessary deaths, a man with a prosecutorial background should have been ideally placed to draw up the indictment. But Starmer has done nothing of the sort. The chief goal of the Starmer leadership has not been to land blows on the Conservative government. Factional warfare against the Left has been their overriding objective.

He spent time telling everyone I am not Jeremy Corbyn People are rightly asking Well what are you then.

I don't think the letter did suggest we "persuade people they were stupid to vote for Brexit." growstuff and I don't think Galaxy did either. I read the post that she had misread the letter and then expressed what she thought she had read and called it "Breathtaking". However, when it comes to understanding what people mean by what they write it is easy to be wrong.

I would not have shared the letter if I had thought that was what he was saying what you suggested. It appeared to me that what he was saying was that we should learn from the way this no-longer-Conservative party ran Brexit - which was that "a matter of marginal interest to most people before 2016" but was "skilfully manipulated into becoming the defining issue and fault line in UK politics".

He then offers a three-word slogan ‘Defend our Democracy’. This could then be used to hang all the smaller issues. We don't need politicians to go into minute detail about these issues (a failing of Labour). It could be something else but I have not heard any other three-word slogan's suggested that could cover many people's concerns

And finally (I thought it was all so clear when I read it ) on the coalition idea. He does say "This may be no more than reaching agreement before the next election on the need for a Royal Commission on a written constitution and on a few principles for a new voting system based on Proportional Representation (PR) rather than First Past the Post (FPTP)."

They were ideas. They appealed to me and I felt they might appeal to other centre-left voters for discussion- but we can all be wrong.

It's not a personal attack. I disagree with his views on what the labour party should do. He thinks there is an attack on democracy (which I agree with) whilst stating that the democratic decision made by the public on Brexit was due to manipulation, etc etc. The only democracy he seems to be interested in is one that reflects his own views. The lib dems stood on a platform of overturning the Brexit vote ( I am a remainer with a parent who is European and has had to go through the process to remain) that's an attack on democracy. I think he also makes the mistake of thinking that the lib dems and labour are similar, nothing could be farther from the truth in my view. To be fair that's an easy mistake to make, I think lots of mps who left the labour party made that error.

To get the support of older people, Labour could get rid of the means tests on social care, which plunges those who have saved into poverty whilst those who have not are given the same care free.

They could make sure that people who have paid NI contributions are guaranteed higher pensions than those who have not, and ensure that employers have to pay contributions for employees whose hourly rate is too low. It is wrong that someone working a full week is excluded from pensions and benefits because their wages are too low, and also wrong that people who have worked all their lives are no better off in retirement than those who have not.

They could stop the closure of local NHS units (and re-open the ones which have been systematically sold off) that used to provide nursing care and rehabilitation for patients who no longer need clinical care (so-called 'bed blockers') so that they can recover from falls, strokes etc before going home, instead of being discharged from hospital into care homes which cost them their life savings if they have any.

None of the above is 'sexy' or headline grabbing, but they are all measures which would provide older people with security and level the playing field for people who have worked all their lives, and would appeal to the 'JAM' people in later life.

Casdon

Okay MaizieD you did ask, this is my opinion. Most of the voting public distrust what they would class as ‘extremism’ in any form, they are essentially conservative with a small ‘c’. Many support socialist principles in a watered down form, but they don’t trust pacifists, they don’t espouse measures which make sweeping steps towards the elimination of unfairness in society even when they are themselves victims because it’s not how they see the world or themselves, although incremental change is palatable, and they value leaders who they perceive to be articulate and principled - but they also want some charisma. Many believe press and social media reports, they don’t care enough to delve beneath the headlines. It’s pointless railing at the press and social media, they are what they are - lies can be challenged, but once said mud sticks. It’s far more effective to try to win them over.

There are many people who are very passionate about politics, but they aren’t, and won’t ever be in the majority, in fact they turn other people off. That’s what Starmer has recognised and is using to develop a slightly left of centre agenda - it’s the only way to challenge the Tories that has a chance of succeeding.

This
And to this the accurate comments by many on this thread about the JAM who see neighbours living on benefits, whilst they work insecure, minimum wage jobs.

Don't know what they call transmen.

I think we will agree to differ, I have no idea who to vote for, and I liked Keir Starmer before he made the statement that TWAW.

Gossamerbeynon1945

Were you aware that the Green Party call women "non men", and Plaid Cymry agree!

Does that mean they call transmen "non women"? I think it shows a distinct inability to recognise how important equality is, and that is how patriachy prospers. In Apartheid systems black people were termed "non-white"

Actually it is 14% of over 70s. 22% of those between 60-69 voted Labour.
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

When Tony Blair was PM he had Alistair Campbell as his spokesperson and press secretary. By all accounts, if there were factual errors in the press he would be banging on the doors of the erroneous newspaper's offices. I think he was known as a bit of a bully at the time.

The LP doesn't stand up for itself. Last night my OH watched the LP party political broadcast with KS sitting on a bench talking about how wonderful the NHS had been during the pandemic. What he should be saying is that the Tories never wanted the NHS, voted against it several times and that even Thatcher wanted it privatised. She didn't do that because her minister told her that the public wouldn't stand for it.

The other untruth is that Gordon Brown's policies caused the financial crash. As everybody should know it had its origins in the US with the sub-prime mortgage crisis, which followed on from the unregulated use of derivatives (ie futures, options, forwards and swaps).

By October 2008 the world's financial system was on the verge of a systematic crash. All the indices were crashing - everywhere, not just the UK. By 10 October major depositors were threatening to withdraw all their funds from RBS and other British banks despite the threat of severe financial penalties.

Treasury officials confirmed that RBS and HBOS would be unable to open their doors the following Monday morning. There would be a chain reaction leading to most other British banks which would in turn affect nearly everyone in the UK. Cash machines wouldn't work, Cheques would be valueless, credit cards would be useless. People would not be able to buy food.

If you don't believe me, cast your minds back to September 2007 and the collapse of Northern Rock. Remember the queues outside its offices all over the country as people tried to take their money out? It so happened that we had over £250k on deposit with them left over from the sale of our house. I was certain that the govt would bail them out but my OH, not being the financial half of our marriage was extremely worried. I tried to transfer the funds on the Friday evening but couldn't get through. At 7.55am the next morning I sat at my computer and dead on the dot of 8.00am I was able to transfer our funds. I was right - the government did bail them out but it was the first British bank to fail in decades.

That weekend GB was touring the country explaining why the banks were being supported. Alastair Darling (Chancellor) was in America with Mervyn King (B of E) for a meeting of the G7 finance ministers. Darling spent the weekend persuading the finance ministers and GB persuading the European heads of state that recapitalising the banks with public money was the only way out. And they succeeded.

The UK was saved a devastating financial crash and GB was vilified by the Tories who used it as an excuse to bring in 10 years of austerity when they came to power. The LP should be shouting about this from the roof tops.

If anyone is interested, there is an excellent film, Margin Call, about the actions taken by a bank over one weekend in New York during the sub prime crash. It was filmed over about 2 weeks in the recently vacated offices of a collapsed trading company

I agree with you Casdon and have saved me writing yet another post.

Some people in the Labour Party have recognised that voters don't want to be linked to a party which associates itself with benefits, unemployment and a so-called "woke" agenda. They want positivity and hope and that's what Johnson is currently dishing out.

Whitewavemark2

Labour members asked if Starmer was better or worse than Corbyn

Better 61%
Worse 29%
You gov Mch 2021

The trouble is that most voters aren't Labour members.

In the last general election, only 14% of over 60s voted Labour - and they're the people most likely to vote and currently the biggest population group. How does Labour win some of them back?