Will Starmer be "fine" or "fined" ?

[Colemans Left Hook]

Let's see if he lasts the year out - on top of that he has his "rebellious juniors" to sort out after todays "antics" he might just throw the towel in

[danumdon]

Id like to think that Starmer has a bit for steel about him than allowing these issues to sway his judgment, I can't see him being fined by the police investigation into his late night work and booze bash so he won't have that small issue to allow him to resign and walk away.

The fact that he's been made to look impotent by his front benchers in the railway strike is a more serious issue for him, i understand why he's very loath to get dragged into this spat with the union because he doesn't want to detract from and have the heat taken off  Johnson whilst he's still on fire, this is understandable but for a Labour leader to sit on his hands whilst working people are having to take strike action and for no push back to come from him towards the government is astonishing in its lethargy. Its almost as if he can't be seen to be looking after the interests of these working people.

Comes across as very arrogant and aloof, when coupled with his extreme lack of any suggested solution to these issues shows him up for the weak leader that he is.

If i was a Labour activist i'd be very worried that this fella is looking like he could work the oracle and allow a Johnson led government to take the play away from him and demonstrate to the nation that he's a London centric, metropolitan elitist, who has his eyes on the middle class Liberal vote and does not give two hoots for working class oiks.

This is what his Liberal focus groups have been telling him for long enough. All the red wall voters saw through the bloke straight away, i wonder how many more present and future red wall voters will he alienate?

[scawsby steve]

He's a neo-liberalist. He'll never have the interests of working class people at heart.

[BillyStubbsTears]

He's a neo-liberalist. He'll never have the interests of working class people at heart.

What does that even mean?

[scawsby steve]

He's a neo-liberalist. He'll never have the interests of working class people at heart.

What does that even mean?

I never had you down as someone who struggles with semantics.

If you can't see Keith's disconnect from the North and North-East, in pursuit of the liberalist middle class metropolitan voters of London and the South, then no wonder you're so enamoured with him.

Just what is it that makes you think he's a good Labour leader?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I meant, what do you mean by "neo-liberal". Only it seems to me to have become one of those terms thrown around that seems to mean "someone I don't like."

[Glyn_Wigley]

Scawsby seems to be equating Starmer with Reagan.

[albie]

Here is a definition of neo-liberalism for starters;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

The dominant political and economic belief system for all my time, followed in various branded versions by Reagan to the Labour Party.

Surprised you need a primer BST, as you are the main proponent on here of this strange cult.

[danumdon]

SS has a point, Starmer has found it very hard to ingratiate himself with the Labour working class vote, I get the impression he's allowed a few Labour left mps to be seen to be having some sort of say in the party(bit ironic as at this moment in time Labour dare not utter a word about anything they stand for) Only to be jettisoned if and when he gets the top gig.

I'll wait to see if i'm proved wrong but i get the distinct impression that Starmer would look very much in position alongside many centre left Tories who managed to find a way into the wrong nest.

Tell me if i'm wrong,but Labour should be setting their stall towards their historic hinterland and their best interests rather than trying to steal the fat emperor's clothes..

[BillyStubbsTears]

Here is a definition of neo-liberalism for starters;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

The dominant political and economic belief system for all my time, followed in various branded versions by Reagan to the Labour Party.

Surprised you need a primer BST, as you are the main proponent on here of this strange cult.

"I" don't.

And it really, really was NOT the approach followed by the last Labour Govt. Unless you're lazily chucking it around as an insult. Maybe YOU need a primer.

[BillyStubbsTears]

SS has a point, Starmer has found it very hard to ingratiate himself with the Labour working class vote, I get the impression he's allowed a few Labour left mps to be seen to be having some sort of say in the party(bit ironic as at this moment in time Labour dare not utter a word about anything they stand for) Only to be jettisoned if and when he gets the top gig.

I'll wait to see if i'm proved wrong but i get the distinct impression that Starmer would look very much in position alongside many centre left Tories who managed to find a way into the wrong nest.

Tell me if i'm wrong,but Labour should be setting their stall towards their historic hinterland and their best interests rather than trying to steal the fat emperor's clothes..

See what the result is in Wakefield in a couple of days time.

[albie]

Oh dear me, BST.

The Wakefield result will tell little of value towards the next GE.
Labour will win, despite the candidate imposed by Starmer.

Neo liberal, well like this:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/labour-leadership-election-neoliberalism/

You are a great man for re-inventing the wheel when it suits.

[Colemans Left Hook]

SS has a point, Starmer has found it very hard to ingratiate himself with the Labour working class vote, I get the impression he's allowed a few Labour left mps to be seen to be having some sort of say in the party(bit ironic as at this moment in time Labour dare not utter a word about anything they stand for) Only to be jettisoned if and when he gets the top gig.

I'll wait to see if i'm proved wrong but i get the distinct impression that Starmer would look very much in position alongside many centre left Tories who managed to find a way into the wrong nest.

Tell me if i'm wrong,but Labour should be setting their stall towards their historic hinterland and their best interests rather than trying to steal the fat emperor's clothes..

See what the result is in Wakefield in a couple of days time.

As you know Labour are now 100 to one ON to win - a month ago i told you they were a mere 9/1 on

Apparently you can also get 100/1 AGAINST that "since-1961" makes a positive post on here.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

You make my point for me with that article, which has been posted in here before and reads no better now than it did then.

The article sets out clearly that neo-Liberaism is the move, driven by Hayek and Friedman in the mid 20th century, to embrace the principles of the free market and the minimisation of Govt involvement in the economy. What it skilfully avoids is any mention of what that was a reaction against - the overwhelming triumph of Keynesian economics. He doesn't mention Keynes once. Which is simply ridiculous in any critique of neo-Liberaism.

Keynes embraced the role of Government in guiding the economy through fiscal policy. Hayek and Friedman, and the Chicago School that worships them, were viscerally against that. They wanted the Government out of the picture.

Now look at the record of the last Labour Govt. Brown's approach was committedly Keynesian on fiscal policy. A world away from the Chicago School. In the biggest test of all, when the GFC hit, Brown led the world in driving Keynesian defecit spending to save us from a neo-liberal Great Depression.

It was Cameron and the Tories who embraced the neo-liberal approach with Austerity, with disastrous consequences.

Your man is doing precisely what I said. He's using the term neo-liberal as a catch-all insult to  suit his ideogical argument. It's on a par with Trump calling Biden "socialist" or Rik in the Young Ones calling everyone who disagreed with him "fascist". It's a lazy debasement of language, but it sticks, unfortunately, because it tells some people what they want to hear. It's the sort of utter rubbish that confirms some people's belief that Brown was no better a choice than Cameron in 2010.

As for Wakefield, well, yeah you'll dismiss that. For precisely the same reason. Because it doesn't support the argument you want to make. For what it's worth, in two canvassing sessions I've done there, I haven't heard a single person say they are voting Labour because of the previous Tory MP's conviction. But of course that will be the Left's argument, and as usual, they'll hear nothing to the contrary.

[danumdon]

SS has a point, Starmer has found it very hard to ingratiate himself with the Labour working class vote, I get the impression he's allowed a few Labour left mps to be seen to be having some sort of say in the party(bit ironic as at this moment in time Labour dare not utter a word about anything they stand for) Only to be jettisoned if and when he gets the top gig.

I'll wait to see if i'm proved wrong but i get the distinct impression that Starmer would look very much in position alongside many centre left Tories who managed to find a way into the wrong nest.

Tell me if i'm wrong,but Labour should be setting their stall towards their historic hinterland and their best interests rather than trying to steal the fat emperor's clothes..

See what the result is in Wakefield in a couple of days time.

Come on BST, if Labour stuck a red rosette on an Aardvark and it ran in Wakefield next week it would win, it's not a great example. Labour in opposition should be absolutely wiping the floor with this type of seat in a bye election at this point in the election cycle.

The real test will be when the next GE is called. Bye elections have always been fertile ground for mid term disquiet, done in the knowledge that in most cases it proves nothing, lets hope in this case it puts the required pressure on the Tories to Jettison Johnson, i would imagine that's probably the last thing this current Labour party wants for the next 24months.

[albie]

BST,

As I have said before, Wakefield is mainly about Johnson, his record in office and his mendacity.
It tells you next to nothing about Labour under Starmer, because there is no policy framework to discuss.
You said yourself that there is no enthusiasm for the Labour offer, or an imposed candidate.

If you are saying that Brown was less neo liberal than Blair, then I would agree.
Blair is on record saying his project was a continuation of Thatcher's reforms.

That said, as Chancellor under Blair, Brown championed giving autonomy to the Bank of England, and sought to influence high finance with a "light touch regulation" approach. I would say these are not true Keynesian principles. These are trademark positions aimed at selling continuity in economic policy, by limiting government ability to act agaist city interests, and they failed lamentably.

Reluctance to challenge vested interests marked this period leading up to the 2008 crash, and bailing out the banking sector without conditionality was an epic error. Where did the public monies injected into the finance sector end up?

You know the answer as well as I do....in property, in inflated salaries and share buy-backs. The poor baled out the wealthy, Robin Hood in reverse.

The idea that Keynes, writing in the 1930's, should act as a guide to managing the modern economy is a sentimental nostalgia.
The world is a different place, political centers of gravity have shifted, economic relationships are very different.

Pre-digital and before the emergence of China as a superpower, the nature of the modern economy is rapidly changing the power relations between different interests. The next challenge of climate change is a gamechanger for the possible economic development pathways, and I don't see received wisdoms from nearly a century ago being a key player.

[SydneyRover]

Starmer and labour got bashed for losing Hartlepool, now they are getting bashed because they will win Wakefield, go figure

[SydneyRover]

Those that complain about Starmer that want to thread the needle with a camel need to talk to each other and get the story straight before tabling it, as your champion Steve, Andy Burnham is on the list of neo liberals as bst pointed to long ago.

[BillyStubbsTears]

"The idea that Keynes, writing in the 1930's, should act as a guide to managing the modern economy is a sentimental nostalgia."

And with that bit of nonsense, I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion.

[albie]

BST,

But its not nonsense is it?

China is going to be the dominant economic force in the mid term going forwards.
The American period of leading the world economy is in decline, and the dollar will cease to be the reference currency in the rising markets.
Do you see the Chinese Communist Party following the Keynesian playbook in that transition?

Alongside the rise of China, the impact of climate change will be the driver of political and economic development as it kicks in.
What does the neo liberal market approach, or the privatisation of service provision, offer to a solution to the issues the climate crisis will bring?

All the shadow front bench team are immersed in the ideology of the market, and have a neo liberal world view to a degree.

Rachel Reeves is a classic example, announcing at the 2021 Labour conference a significant sum allocated to climate related events (without explaining how that money will be spent). She then went on to focus on the business as usual economy, without the slightest understanding that once climate kicks ass, that economy will collapse.

We are facing climate breakdown meaning crop failure and ecosystem disruption. Refugees from climate catastrophe will grow year on year.

The solutions of the past do not consider these matters.
You either see it, or you don't!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes it is absolute nonsense. You are dismissing a theory of economics that has broadly proven to be the way that economies work. God alone knows what you base that dismissal on other than that it is old. Do you dismiss Isaac Newton's theory of gravity because it is old?

The issue we were discussing before you veered off at 90 degrees is what neo-liberal means and whether it can be used as a genuinely suitable label for the last Labour Govt. I set out the fact that the whole premise of neo-Liberaism was a rejection of Keynesian economics and a wish to return to the status quo ante. Whereas the last Labour Govt based its whole macroeconomic policy on Keynesian ideas.

You've gone off in another direction altogether, showing a deep lack of understanding of economic fundamentals on the way. Fill your boots, but that's got sod all with the point we were discussing. So I'm done.

[danumdon]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/22/labour-frontbenchers-who-joined-rail-strike-pickets-pressed-to-apologise-by-keir-starmer


It now seems that Labour frontbench MP's have to personally account why they ventured onto picket lines in support of striking rail workers.

Are we now living in a parallel universe, where the Tories are now the spendthrifts and Labour are the conserved ones?

This just gets weirder and weirder, what next, self flagellation for daring to say Keith's a boring old fart?

And they wonder why people can't bare the thought of having to vote for these shyster's.

[phil old leake]

Let’s not kid ourselves. The one thing that’s a certainty is he will do exactly what’s best for him and his future.

[Ldr]

Unsubstantiatied rumour

https://twitter.com/d5_rss/status/1544240775311106049?s=21&t=n4D8Un8QvDxOHGgAHHcwMQ

[SydneyRover]

quite

[phil old leake]

If that’s true then let’s see where his principles lie along with A Raynor if she gets one as well

[Bentley Bullet]

Starmer will get away with it. He'll plead he has never arranged an illegal party, in fact, he's incapable of organising any party.

[SydneyRover]

If that’s true then let’s see where his principles lie along with A Raynor if she gets one as well

If what's true phil?

[MachoMadness]

First of all, lol GB News.

Secondly, you can't "appeal" an FPN can you as it's not a conviction? You can choose not to pay it and take your chances at the prosecution stage.

Maybe he will get fined. But anyone taking anything on Gbeebies at face value has worms in their brain. It's British Qanon.

[Colemans Left Hook]

First of all, lol GB News.

Secondly, you can't "appeal" an FPN can you as it's not a conviction? You can choose not to pay it and take your chances at the prosecution stage.

Maybe he will get fined. But anyone taking anything on Gbeebies at face value has worms in their brain. It's British Qanon.

obviously caused by a "diet of worms"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Worms