Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
Starmer is barely near the centre imo with all the pandering about immigration, defence and his own take on Rivers of Blood. I'll never vote for them again. It's not that relevant where I am anyway (military town, so very blue) but I think I'm Greens for life now
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
Starmer is barely near the centre imo with all the pandering about immigration, defence and his own take on Rivers of Blood. I'll never vote for them again. It's not that relevant where I am anyway (military town, so very blue) but I think I'm Greens for life now
Agreed, that's how I feel about the parties now. But Starmer could go and Labour could get more left wing (best hope is Clive Lewis, I think), so I haven't completely given up on them. In fact, despite Starmer's heavy lean to the right, I think Labour is (under different leadership) the only realistic hope for left wing government in the UK.
Till then though, Greens. And if the Greens ever looked like they had a real shot or we had PR I'd probably always vote for them.
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?
I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?
I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.
He was? I thought he was quite active/key in the way Corbyn got booted?
I’m finding the things Starmer says to mean little in terms of what he actually believes or what action he’ll take.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 2:45 pm
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?
I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.
He was? I thought he was quite active/key in the way Corbyn got booted?
I’m finding the things Starmer says to mean little in terms of what he actually believes or what action he’ll take.
Look back at the 2019 ge and his job in shadow cabinet The fact he then unseated Corbyn says much about his principles.
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?
I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.
I don't understand your 'Corbyn's yoof' point.
With Starmer there is always uncertainty because he doesn't have principles. That amorphous nature (and short political history) allowed him to lie to the Labour party in 2020 and present himself as left wing. NB I wouldn't read too much into him being 'happy' to serve under Corbyn - that's just a very ambitious man doing whatever it takes. Since then, a lot more evidence has come in. The people he's surrounded himself with are on the rightmost wing of the Labour party - that's no accident. If he was a truly politics-free human being he'd have a range of politiçal flavours surrounding him. So his instincts are to the right of centre (at least). Most things he's done since 2020 have been just a little to the left of Sunak's Tories, and since the election he's steered further right, at times into far right. Taking all this into account IMO that makes him approximately centre-right but with no principles or ethics preventing him from steering a lot further right.
As for his plans for government, although it seems difficult to believe, yes, he may well have had only the sketchiest ideas for what to do on day one. Maybe he really is so goal-focused and convinced of his own genius-level management ability that he really did give no thought to what happened after election. It fits the facts. He did say there is no such thing as Starmerism, he would just make one decision after another (based on no principles, just his miraculous ability to manage). It really is that bad.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 2:45 pm
Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?
Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.
Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.
The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?
I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.
I don't understand your 'Corbyn's yoof' point.
With Starmer there is always uncertainty because he doesn't have principles. That amorphous nature (and short political history) allowed him to lie to the Labour party in 2020 and present himself as left wing. NB I wouldn't read too much into him being 'happy' to serve under Corbyn - that's just a very ambitious man doing whatever it takes. Since then, a lot more evidence has come in. The people he's surrounded himself with are on the rightmost wing of the Labour party - that's no accident. If he was a truly politics-free human being he'd have a range of politiçal flavours surrounding him. So his instincts are to the right of centre (at least). Most things he's done since 2020 have been just a little to the left of Sunak's Tories, and since the election he's steered further right, at times into far right. Taking all this into account IMO that makes him approximately centre-right but with no principles or ethics preventing him from steering a lot further right.
As for his plans for government, although it seems difficult to believe, yes, he may well have had only the sketchiest ideas for what to do on day one. Maybe he really is so goal-focused and convinced of his own genius-level management ability that he really did give no thought to what happened after election. It fits the facts. He did say there is no such thing as Starmerism, he would just make one decision after another (based on no principles, just his miraculous ability to manage). It really is that bad.
The cheap membership that enabled Corbyn's election. As I said, I don't know where he sits, and we are all guessing, because as you said, as I did, he'll say and do anything to get into power, and seemingly now to avoid any bad press. Evidence points one way, but equally could shift with the wind.
Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 4:41 pm
The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?
I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.
I don't understand your 'Corbyn's yoof' point.
With Starmer there is always uncertainty because he doesn't have principles. That amorphous nature (and short political history) allowed him to lie to the Labour party in 2020 and present himself as left wing. NB I wouldn't read too much into him being 'happy' to serve under Corbyn - that's just a very ambitious man doing whatever it takes. Since then, a lot more evidence has come in. The people he's surrounded himself with are on the rightmost wing of the Labour party - that's no accident. If he was a truly politics-free human being he'd have a range of politiçal flavours surrounding him. So his instincts are to the right of centre (at least). Most things he's done since 2020 have been just a little to the left of Sunak's Tories, and since the election he's steered further right, at times into far right. Taking all this into account IMO that makes him approximately centre-right but with no principles or ethics preventing him from steering a lot further right.
As for his plans for government, although it seems difficult to believe, yes, he may well have had only the sketchiest ideas for what to do on day one. Maybe he really is so goal-focused and convinced of his own genius-level management ability that he really did give no thought to what happened after election. It fits the facts. He did say there is no such thing as Starmerism, he would just make one decision after another (based on no principles, just his miraculous ability to manage). It really is that bad.
The cheap membership that enabled Corbyn's election. As I said, I don't know where he sits, and we are all guessing, because as you said, as I did, he'll say and do anything to get into power, and seemingly now to avoid any bad press. Evidence points one way, but equally could shift with the wind.
I agree with your last para.
Yep. The only hope is for Starmer to walk (or to be removed under the party's vague rules) . . . but there's not much hope of than any time soon.
