Starmer's speach this morning

Gloryannie, those of us campaigning, canvassing for Labour in this red wall seat weren’t these people yiu accuse of working against Corbyn. We were fine with the policies until every morning brought something new the electorate would challenge/ask us about. These new policies weren’t dreamt up by moderates to undermine Corbyn, he did it himself.
The other key theme was being greeted by ‘I’ll never vote Labour again with yon mon in charge’. Many had children in the military, and didn’t trust him on defence.
If course the daily Mail did all it could to undermine Corbyn. They’re doing it now with Starmer.
Blair - Iraq = awful
Blair’s - surestart etc etc etc - brilliant

After nearly 13 years of Tory rule in England do you mean what’s left Glorianny? Or do you want the things that have continued and been introduced in the last 13 years in Wales? Or do you want the schemes that the last UK Labour Government introduced that have been dismantled but are now major gaps in service provision? Or demonstration of the levels of investment in public services under the last Labour government compared with current levels of investment. Whichever, it’s all available.

MaizieD

^So why is Starmer not pursuing policies which are at least slightly left leaning?^

I suspect that it is because he saw what the media did to Corbyn in 2019. The 2017 result terrified them so they went all out to demonise in the ensuing two years.

(And Corbyn wasted the opportunity offered by the chaos in Autumn 2019. He should never have gone for an election then)

From my position, looking down both sides from the middle, Starmer is left-leaning - just not at the farthest left. Surely, anyone looking down from the far left will see everything as right of what they believe? It needs someone who can challenge their personal thinking to see that Starmer's views must be "to the left" as they are to the left of the centre.

More important is democracy. If the majority of the party prefers to position their party as less than approaching communism (farthest left), then the majority must have a right to stand at that point on the left. Or was the Labour Party set up only to meet this extreme socialist/communist target? I thought they saw themselves as democratic socialists.

The difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is compatible with democracy while communism relies on authoritarianism (just as the far-right does) to create their view of "equality" (or inequality in the case of the far-right). There is the suggestion of authoritarian moves quite often on GN. Maybe we simply have a lot of bossy members, but it does come over as much more than that.

I'm not a Corbynista, DaisyAnne. I didn't think the Labour manifesto in 2019 was particularly far left.

But that election should never have been fought. Corbyn blew it.

Perhaps one day you'll give us your definition of 'communist'; then we can see what your thinking is based on...

MaizieD

I'm not a Corbynista, DaisyAnne. I didn't think the Labour manifesto in 2019 was particularly far left.

But that election should never have been fought. Corbyn blew it.

Perhaps one day you'll give us your definition of 'communist'; then we can see what your thinking is based on...

Possibly. As I think I have brought it in on several occasions which you obviously haven't bothered to read I do wonder if there is any point.

I have never thought you were a Corbynista by the way and I found it interesting to hear what he had to say when he was first elected. But you know that. My reply at Sun 26-Feb-23 19:17:08 was joining your reply to Glorianny, rather than a direct reply to anything you had said.

I know that Wes Streeting has said he want more private health companies involved in the NHS, supposedly just to bring down waiting lists. But I think this is just so wrong, like the PFIs it will just lead to more money going into private profits, not benefiting the public.

What I don’t see above is any questioning of the influence of the unions on the Labour Party agenda.
We’ve seen various MPs, mostly Labour, support the recent disruption caused by strike action. I’d suggest affecting mostly people on low wages with no option to work from home, perhaps on zero hour contracts where no attendance means no pay.
Little happens in Labour policy without ‘conference’ agreeing. I increasingly understand the growing disenfranchisement with the Tory party. But do you want to have strings pulled by union officials?
It’d be interesting to see what wage demands would be if Labour get to power. They can hardly say a no, can they?

But do you want to have strings pulled by union officials?

A) I don't think that union officials pull the strings; that is such a hackneyed old right wing trope...
(Some of the unions currently leading strikes aren't even affiliated to Labour)

B) Is it any worse than having strings pulled by wealthy donors from the financial world and big business?

Possibly. As I think I have brought it in on several occasions which you obviously haven't bothered to read I do wonder if there is any point.

Refresh my senior memory, then DaisyAnne

(Perhaps you could point me to a relevant past post?)

The LP isn’t in the pockets of the unions though of course there are strong long lasting links. I was a union member for forty years and if I was working now I’d be in a union
The tories are bank rolled by business. Look at the millions handed over to useless schemes started up by eg the landlord of a conservative ministers local pub

Personally, I don’t think I was far off the mark. Unions still have a say in Labour Party activities. Plus I accept that recent Conservative behaviour appears not the best. But who are any of us to say. Who really knows what goes on, behind the public face?
What is needed is a radical change in how politics is done to us. They’re there to serve us and I think that is long forgotten.

Personally, I don’t think I was far off the mark. Unions still have a say in Labour Party activities.

I don't see much wrong with unions having an input; they've achieved a great deal for working people over the years. Society encompasses all citizens, not just the ones with wealth and influence.

You sound as though you don't care for all sections of society having some input into how it is organised.

Iam64

Gloryannie, those of us campaigning, canvassing for Labour in this red wall seat weren’t these people yiu accuse of working against Corbyn. We were fine with the policies until every morning brought something new the electorate would challenge/ask us about. These new policies weren’t dreamt up by moderates to undermine Corbyn, he did it himself.
The other key theme was being greeted by ‘I’ll never vote Labour again with yon mon in charge’. Many had children in the military, and didn’t trust him on defence.
If course the daily Mail did all it could to undermine Corbyn. They’re doing it now with Starmer.
Blair - Iraq = awful
Blair’s - surestart etc etc etc - brilliant

Sure start was a brilliant concept unfortunately the system is so decimated it is hardly big enough to call a legacy. Most of the places still operating are funded by Labour councils, so it can scarcely be called a government legacy.

There will be young adults who benefitted from the Sure Start initiative, Gloryannie. Isn't that a 'legacy'?

As the tories set about demolishing as much of Labour's achievements as they possibly could, I think it's hardly fair to then talk about the Blair/Brown governments as though they did nothing at all while in office. It was good while it lasted...

Glorianny

Iam64

Gloryannie, those of us campaigning, canvassing for Labour in this red wall seat weren’t these people yiu accuse of working against Corbyn. We were fine with the policies until every morning brought something new the electorate would challenge/ask us about. These new policies weren’t dreamt up by moderates to undermine Corbyn, he did it himself.
The other key theme was being greeted by ‘I’ll never vote Labour again with yon mon in charge’. Many had children in the military, and didn’t trust him on defence.
If course the daily Mail did all it could to undermine Corbyn. They’re doing it now with Starmer.
Blair - Iraq = awful
Blair’s - surestart etc etc etc - brilliant

Sure start was a brilliant concept unfortunately the system is so decimated it is hardly big enough to call a legacy. Most of the places still operating are funded by Labour councils, so it can scarcely be called a government legacy.

I don’t get your point. Do you think it’s likely, or even possible for a government of the opposite persuasion to embrace a policy which isn’t in accordance with their values? Do you envisage a Labour government embracing Tory policies which have worked wholeheartedly and adopting them as their own 13 years down the line?

Who decimated the surestart policy? David Cameron when he announced austerity and stated Surestart was not needed. He said it wasn’t used by the people it was aimed at but by families like his.
Of course, he’d no idea and cared less about the families in the areas I worked in who used and benefitted hugely.
No surprise the few that remain are in Labour run councils. The same councils that get less financial support than Kensington and Chelsea. The same councils that struggle to meet statutory duties because of unnecessary austerity.

The same Labour councils who will be supporting the LP at the next election.

I know were the middle classes mixing with the working class tut tut.
Sure start worked in so many different ways, absolutely some of the families with the most complex problems didnt go to the sing and rhyme groups, but sure start employed staff specifically to engage with those families.

Galaxy

I know were the middle classes mixing with the working class tut tut.
Sure start worked in so many different ways, absolutely some of the families with the most complex problems didnt go to the sing and rhyme groups, but sure start employed staff specifically to engage with those families.

My DIL was at one time a manager of a Sure Start centre until it got sold off by Cameron and then went into liquidation.

It was the centre fore all things for young children, babies and parents.

The social services had a presence there and help for families struggling financially or in all other ways, parenting classes, schooling for the under 5s, nursery for the babies and tots.

All gone.

So what I am arguing (for all those who think I am in some way slagging off Starmer for no reason) is that unless a labour government has behind it some real policies that will change things and be difficult to eradicate easily, what you will effectively get is 5-10 years of some improvement (as with Blair) but then a slip back to worse things.
Perhaps you don't think that the position for poor families and children is worse now than when Blair became PM, I think it is.
If the few years of SureStart provided a base that enabled children to prosper later in life, given the cuts to education and social services, I would very much doubt.
But the point is had Blair introduced measures to combat accepted Tory philosophy and practises, like for example funding a good council house building scheme using money from house sales we would at least have had some decent housing for poor families.
Tinkering is all very well, but it shouldn't be all a Labour government does.

I was based in a sure start centre about 20 years ago, we were running a service for home play for pre school children with disabilities, the centre was full of people with extensive experience in their field, they knew how to offer targeted support to the hard to reach, and also to the parents who might materially be fine but who had needs just the same.

Sure start wasnt tinkering, it was a fundamental belief system if you like. The thing you seem to be saying Starmer doesnt have. Actually I agree with you a little about Starmer but not in a way you would like.

I still don’t get your point Glorianny. The longer a government is in power the more ability it has to make changes. We have a Labour Government and are building council houses in Wales, and we still have Flying Start and Communities First. That is the long term ambition, not a quick fix. Nobody is denying that Blair and Brown made some mistakes, but the last Labour Government overall was a huge power for good. You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the Tories have been in power for so long and much has been dismantled in England.
I think where you struggle is tempering your desire for change with a degree of realism about how complex it is to change systems and laws, a five year term is just not going to be long enough to get the country back on an even keel, put right the greatest horrors caused by this government and start huge new initiatives.

So what I am arguing (for all those who think I am in some way slagging off Starmer for no reason) is that unless a labour government has behind it some real policies that will change things and be difficult to eradicate easily, what you will effectively get is 5-10 years of some improvement (as with Blair) but then a slip back to worse things.

I don't think that anything is 'difficult to eradicate easily' if the the party in power is determined to change it and has a determined leader. Look at the way that Thatcher destroyed the post war consensus. And embedded right wing ideologies as 'truths'.

I didn't say Surestart was tinkering I said introducing things which are easily over turned is tinkering. Of course there are beliefs behind Surestart. The way it was introduced was so wrong. The US Head Start programme on which it was based has been going since 1965. It has behind it legislation which makes it permanent, someting Blair never did.

Casdon

I still don’t get your point Glorianny. The longer a government is in power the more ability it has to make changes. We have a Labour Government and are building council houses in Wales, and we still have Flying Start and Communities First. That is the long term ambition, not a quick fix. Nobody is denying that Blair and Brown made some mistakes, but the last Labour Government overall was a huge power for good. You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the Tories have been in power for so long and much has been dismantled in England.
I think where you struggle is tempering your desire for change with a degree of realism about how complex it is to change systems and laws, a five year term is just not going to be long enough to get the country back on an even keel, put right the greatest horrors caused by this government and start huge new initiatives.

But a commitment to doing something would at least be a start.
Building council houses would be a great example. Can you or anyone tell me Starmer's stance on this?