Why is Keir Starmer trying to put so many voters off?

Keir Keir Starmer's associates, Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting have deliberately alienated some Labour voters though, by saying that they are glad that those who supported the policies of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have left the party.
Keir Starmer was elected as leader on a left wing manifesto and on ten pledges that he made which he has not kept to.
So maybe one answer to the question posed in the OP, is because he only wants the votes of Conservatives or small "c" conservatives.

I notice that Labour are now saying that they will introduce a national social care policy. This is a very good idea which was in the previous manifesto. It is not a new idea that Keir Starmer should take credit for.

paddyann54

The Labour party doesn't know who it represents anymore .In Scotland Anas Sarwar has siad he wont have a coalition with the SNP even if that means labour wont get power in the next GE ....but he's in coalitions with tories across Scotland in councils ! They have joined with the tories and in one case have put a tory woman, who was expelled from a teaching authority, in charge of Education in th e area ?

So in Scotland vote Labour get tory ? I'm not sure that will win them votes ,they have only ONE MP at Westminster at present their worst result since the 1930's .
They may lose him next time around

Isn’t it in the best interests of the SNP to have a permanent Conservative government, though, because that is more likely to result in the Scottish people voting for independence?

Corbyn gave Labour the worse general election defeat since 1935

It was KS who would not except May's soft Brexit He was saying during 2019 election an option is to remain going against labour. And labour very neatly won 2017 Annie if it wasn't for the Blairites in the party who would rather loose than win election.

Grany

It was KS who would not except May's soft Brexit He was saying during 2019 election an option is to remain going against labour. And labour very neatly won 2017 Annie if it wasn't for the Blairites in the party who would rather loose than win election.

He’s a pragmatist.

My understanding is that if KS said there would be a coalition with the SNP it would be yet another reason for the right wing press to attack him.

They will attack him whatever and however much he courts them, unless they decide he is right wing enough for them.

Grany

It was KS who would not except May's soft Brexit He was saying during 2019 election an option is to remain going against labour. And labour very neatly won 2017 Annie if it wasn't for the Blairites in the party who would rather loose than win election.

A loss is a loss. Corbyn should have stood down after the first defeat.Most party leaders do. Starmer was against Mays brexit because he was still, at the time, helping us fight for a peoples vote. Corbyn always wanted brexit. In fact he asked for article 16(?) to be triggered immediately. Keir was on the peoples vote marches on which people were chanting ‘where’s Jeremy Corbyn’.

So Corbyn was wrong because he wouldn't reverse Brexit but Starmer is right because he won't reverse brexit?

The EU referendum was advisory.

The courts found that it had been won by illegal means so that if it had been mandatory it would have been annulled.

The overwhelming majority of polls over the last six years have shown a clear lead for Remain.

All of the damaging consequences of this hard brexit are now becoming more apparent by the day.

Kier Starmer is an intelligent man and must see how disastrous this is. I previously thought he was also a principled politician who would promote the policies he truly believed were best for the country.

The majority of Labour MPs, Labour Party members and two thirds of Labour voters are pro-Remain.

So why on earth is Kier Starmer willing to inflict further damage on our country by pandering to the one third of Labour voters who voted Leave?????

Corbyn was just wrong, as the 2019 election showed. By then the electorate had seen the disaster that was Corbyn as leader

Starmer doesn’t have magical powers. No one can unite the sp called d treme left with the less noisy, more balanced majority of part members. Their darling Long-Bailey impressed no one during the leadership campaign. Lisa Nandy was a contender and is an asset to the party.

I am as puzzled as you varian
Today is the anniversary of the introduction of the NHS . Can anyone seriously imagine Keir Starmer and his closest allies coming up with a transformative and radical and wonderful policy like that?

varian

The EU referendum was advisory.

The courts found that it had been won by illegal means so that if it had been mandatory it would have been annulled.

The overwhelming majority of polls over the last six years have shown a clear lead for Remain.

All of the damaging consequences of this hard brexit are now becoming more apparent by the day.

Kier Starmer is an intelligent man and must see how disastrous this is. I previously thought he was also a principled politician who would promote the policies he truly believed were best for the country.

The majority of Labour MPs, Labour Party members and two thirds of Labour voters are pro-Remain.

So why on earth is Kier Starmer willing to inflict further damage on our country by pandering to the one third of Labour voters who voted Leave?????

He’s a pragmatist varian. Railing against leaving the EU is pointless now because that horse has bolted. It will take a long time to rebuild trust after the shambolic mess we are in now, and the best way to do that is to accept we won’t be rejoining the EU at any point in the near future and make the best of where we are now, rebuilding links and trust. That’s the immediate priority - and to do anything he has to win the next election.

Ilovecheese

So Corbyn was wrong because he wouldn't reverse Brexit but Starmer is right because he won't reverse brexit?

Corbyn was wrong because we all know that, deep down he believed in brexit. Starmer didn’t, he was an out and out supporter of being in the EU) but, having failed to get a peoples vote to reject it has had to accept it. Even if we tried to rejoin it would still take a long time so we have to make it work for now. And, if we did rejoin we’d probably have to accept (I think: correct me if I’m wrong) Schengen and the euro.

And, let’s not forget that, in 2008 Nick Clegg called for an EU referendum. Now, I joined the LibDems and campaigned for them to reverse brexit, but was shocked to read that the party had called for a referendum. So, much as I hope that people will vote tactically to get the Conservatives out, no party is totally squeaky clean when it comes to the journey that took us to where we are now.

Please can we be clear that rejoining the EU and aligning ourselves with the single market and the customs union are NOT the same thing. The horse which has bolted is rejoining the EU.

Grany Corbyn refused to take part in the party leaders debate re the referendum , he went on holiday

Glorianny

Some transwomen have said lesbians should be open to relationships with them.

No-one - absolutely NO-ONE - should be "open" to have a relationship with anyone because they belong to a particular demographic.

Sex is not a duty, it's not obligatory. You have a relationship with someone because you like / 'fancy' them.

It's like being told (by a Guardian journalist) that you are inherently racist because you haven't had sex with a black person - the assumption being that you haven't included this demographic on your list of 'preferred' partners.

Human attraction to another human doesn't work like that. You cannot proscribe who should be attracted to whom.

Dickens

Glorianny

Some transwomen have said lesbians should be open to relationships with them.

No-one - absolutely NO-ONE - should be "open" to have a relationship with anyone because they belong to a particular demographic.

Sex is not a duty, it's not obligatory. You have a relationship with someone because you like / 'fancy' them.

It's like being told (by a Guardian journalist) that you are inherently racist because you haven't had sex with a black person - the assumption being that you haven't included this demographic on your list of 'preferred' partners.

Human attraction to another human doesn't work like that. You cannot proscribe who should be attracted to whom.

I don't think being open to something is the same as insisting someone has sex with anyone or denigrating them because they haven't. It's simply saying you could try it. Just as someone else might say try sex with another woman you might like it .
Quite how that translates as it being a duty I don't know. Nor is it proscribing anything.
If I say "you should try Xs chocolate it's delicious." you don't have to do it.

If I say "you should try Xs chocolate it's delicious." you don't have to do it

But that implies someone ought to try it.
In fact, if someone told me I should try something it would come across as an attempt to control, not something offered as a choice I might like to consider.

the SNP dont want a coalition with labour ,its the hypocrisy of Sarwar saying no coalitions when his councils are joining forces with the tories who are supposed to be their polar opposites .Labour is dead here ,ONE MP in WM for now ,the tories haven't had a majority vote since 1955 that IS Nineteen Fifty Five Its the areas like the borders that still return a tory ,maybe the English inhabitants to blame?

Callistemon21

^If I say "you should try Xs chocolate it's delicious." you don't have to do it^

But that implies someone ought to try it.
In fact, if someone told me I should try something it would come across as an attempt to control, not something offered as a choice I might like to consider.

So are we never going to recommend anything to anyone because they might construe it as meaning they had to do it? Honestly it's ridiculous. Are you really saying when we find something good we have to say to our friends . "There's this chocolate and I think it's really nice and there is a strong possibility that you might like it, but don't think I am trying to influence you" ? instead of "God! this chocolate's good, Try some"

You obviously have no idea what I mean!

If you don't understand the difference then it's no good anyone trying to explain.

Callistemon21

You obviously have no idea what I mean!

If you don't understand the difference then it's no good anyone trying to explain.

I doubt if anyone else does and if it's so difficult you can't explain it then the majority of people won't get it either, so it would seem to be a purely personal viewpoint. You may feel like that, it doesn't mean the majority do.

And does anyone ever recommend something but not intend you to try it? After all isn't that the whole purpose of a recommendation? Are we not to recommend anything to anyone?