Keir Starmer at it again..

[EpsomWolf]

You don't extend an olive branch to those who think asylum seekers should be tagged.

I think that’s a very blinkered view, it fits an unhelpful narrative that the left can be guilty of to their own detriment.

Starmer is simply saying ”there is a case” for GPS tagging “some” asylum seekers. He recognises having individuals simply disappear is unacceptable, and that tagging in certain circumstances could be a useful tool.

The olive branch is to those with reasonable concerns - that he’s listening to them - reassuring them that a Labour vote would be safe and balanced and you wouldn’t be handing it to an ideologue and enduring the potential chaos that goes with that. It’s a very damaging leap when wanting to shut the tagging discussion down altogether because it might be appeal to some of the radicals on the other side, that ultimately that does the left no good whatsoever.

If you believe there is absolutely no need for the tagging of asylum seekers, at any time, on practical, moral or other grounds then I apologise - that would be a separate argument and one I’d like to hear your rationale for. But as far as Starmer’s specific comments on this occasion go, I think he was right to have said what he did.

 

[Derby Wolf]

Genuine question : were the unions behind Blair or did they consider him too centre?

Can't answer it definitively as I was only 10 in 1995 but given Blair reworked Clause IV from the Labour 'constitution' away from common ownership you'd think there would have been a reaction from Trade Unions.

Although - like now - it ought to have been a case of everybody uniting to ensure a Labour victory when they got to 1997.

 

[Johnny75]

You don't extend an olive branch to those who think asylum seekers should be tagged.

You need to let your bitterness over Corbyn losing the leadership go.

 

[Tony Towner]

Can't answer it definitively as I was only 10 in 1995 but given Blair reworked Clause IV from the Labour 'constitution' away from common ownership you'd think there would have been a reaction from Trade Unions.

Although - like now - it ought to have been a case of everybody uniting to ensure a Labour victory when they got to 1997.

I was just finishing Uni when John Smith died and there was outrage amongst the left once it became clear that Blair was going to be leader. The big difference between then and now is the amplification in a social media age. I'm sure the likes of TP, EP et al all had similar feelings about Blair at the time as they do about Starmer now there just wasn't the platform outside of their own echo chamber to show it and had to make do with ranting in Student Unions.

 

[PuntsWolf]

I’m not as well read about this stuff as you guys but from the outside I do find the “I’d prefer the Tories to Starmer/Blair” weird, which is essentially what is being said

 

[Templeton Peck]

The alternative is...?
The electoral one, not the policy

There isn't one. Hence we are royally fucked. He's already well ahead in the polls which means he doesn't have to talk about tagging asylum seekers. Just moves the narrative further right which is very dangerous.

 

[Johnny75]

There isn't one. Hence we are royally fucked. He's already well ahead in the polls which means he doesn't have to talk about tagging asylum seekers. Just moves the narrative further right which is very dangerous.

Corbyn could start his own party with the rest of the left

 

[Templeton Peck]

I was just finishing Uni when John Smith died and there was outrage amongst the left once it became clear that Blair was going to be leader. The big difference between then and now is the amplification in a social media age. I'm sure the likes of TP, EP et al all had similar feelings about Blair at the time as they do about Starmer now there just wasn't the platform outside of their own echo chamber to show it and had to make do with ranting in Student Unions.

I was at Uni 97-99 and there was a lot of excitement when Blair won. I think a lot of students were then shocked at how timid he was politically. Oh and the introduction of tuition fees didn't help. I was under no illusions - expected a nicer version of Thatcherism and that's pretty much what he delivered.

 

[Tony Towner]

There isn't one. Hence we are royally fucked. He's already well ahead in the polls which means he doesn't have to talk about tagging asylum seekers. Just moves the narrative further right which is very dangerous.

I disagree, he's ahead by default as a result of Tory failings not because of any particular public warmth towards him. Outside of a scandal the one thing that could see that collapse is being seen as weak on immigration. That's unpleasant but the reality.

 

[Derby Wolf]

I’m not as well read about this stuff as you guys but from the outside I do find the “I’d prefer the Tories to Starmer/Blair” which is essentially what is being said

Indeed.

The thing is, we haven't gotten to this point with rabid right wingers on our front benches overnight, it's been an incremental process and the same thing will need to occur to take both Labour and the country back towards the centre ground and then more towards the left.

Cameron and May both get an easy ride but that dishfaced pigfucker facilitated the lurch to the right by pandering to that wanker, Farage. Mainstreaming UKIP has done huge damage to the political discourse in the country which he only did out of self interest.

May was a despicable cunt when in the Home Office and enabled the sociopathic Patel and Braverman to ramp up the hostile environment rhetoric to unimaginable levels.

If an attempt to lurch back to even 2009 Labour is made it would be far to unpalatable for a large majority of casual/swing voters who rely on their political news consumption from a compromised and/or complicit media. The result would be a hung parliament, at best.

It's unpalatable to hear Starmer talking as he has about tagging immigrants - I wholly believe he doesn't subscribe to it as a Human Rights barrister but he's having to work within the parameters set by a media that has way too much power and so is appealing to that readership.

Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Genuine question : were the unions behind Blair or did they consider him too centre?

There was quite a lot of "partnership working" between public sector unions and the Blair government. Had its pros and cons, generally suppressed wage rises but there was meaningful trade union engagement in terms and conditions.

Outside the public sector, industrial unrest was generally quite low...but until 2007 the economic situation was quite stable.

Then came the Tories. Although I accept an element of prejudice...austerity, brexit, a corrupt Johnson government, a Conservative Party more interested in serving its own interests over the country and a depressed economy with high inflation....did anyone really expect the unions to roll over and say fair enough, fuck our members?

I despair that people call the unions militant when you consider the extremism that has been at the centre of government pretty much since 2010. Austerity, hard brexit, vip lanes for mates....this government makes Thatcher look like a raving socialist.

 

[EpsomWolf]

There isn't one. Hence we are royally fucked. He's already well ahead in the polls which means he doesn't have to talk about tagging asylum seekers. Just moves the narrative further right which is very dangerous.

Can‘t see how those comments are very dangerous. Sounds like desperation to keep everything far left and a touch of paranoia to me.

There’s no harm in being empathetic and responsible, but you have to be firm and in control too and people need to see that. He’s distancing himself from the perception that Corbyn would’ve stood teary-eyed on a beach in Dover hugging everyone getting off a rubber boat whilst apologising for the British government’s dreadful failings.

I guess it depends what compromise you are willing to accept in pursuit of a GE victory. You are not going to be able to have it both ways that is for sure.

 

[Tredman]

Good to see:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1611356835583254528

 

[darlowolf64]

Corbyn will not stand for reelection at the next GE.

One "problem" removed for Starmer

 

[Tony Towner]

That's not exactly the case. He won't be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate, very good chance he will as an Independent

 

[Sniffer]

That's not exactly the case. He won't be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate, very good chance he will as an Independent and hold his seat.

FIFY

I can't see Labour throwing much resource into trying to win the seat from him.

 

[Paul]

That's not exactly the case. He won't be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate, very good chance he will as an Independent

And who will that ultimately damage?

 

[Tredman]

No one really, yesterday's chip paper - convenient fig leaf for KS to say 'look we've changed' perhaps

 

[Del Woppio]

Won't damage anybody, he's by all accounts a very good constituency MP, so they'll be happy, and he'll also have been disassociated from the PLP which helps their electability

 

[Tony Towner]

What do you think about the Sue Gray appointment? Personally I think it's an unnecessary own goal which will feed a narrative of his own making