DannyL

Wild Horses
I don't think his "strategic" expanation for failing to challenge this legislation holds up - he's post-rationalising, due to having zero mobility to take a principled position
I don't think I agree though I'm not sure - agree he's got next to no mobility, that's being in opposition for you. I do think he has a deep understanding of the law and is interpreting the Bill in this way. legalistic. More like a lawyer's summing up than something that'll garner popular support. I would guess he's probably right as well - he knows his shit but I don't think that leads to effective *popular* communication.
 

boxedjoy

Well-known member
It's just dismal though. A bill that would allow Are Boys to go undercover and commit crimes in the name of the state, not to mention all that business where they father children while operating under an assumed identity, it's not exactly the kind of thing that taking a position on should be difficult.
 

sufi

lala
The problem with this is then you just get shouty shit. I mean, that's happened in the US. This is Trump.
Not necessarily
and the TV/parliament show is so crap anyway, popularised shit that constantly misses any point. Especially at the top of the system where it's all about publicity. I'd be prepared to concede that maybe some junior politicians and political operators are quietly achieving worthwhile outcomes at lower levels ... if i'd never encountered the atrocious bad faith morass of the Home Office

Trump goes along with Johnson and Starmer as part of the cesspool
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
It's just dismal though. A bill that would allow Are Boys to go undercover and commit crimes in the name of the state, not to mention all that business where they father children while operating under an assumed identity, it's not exactly the kind of thing that taking a position on should be difficult.
Yeah, it seems like a no-brainer for a progressive party to oppose this, even in practice they'd be unlikely to be able to stop it. Especially when so much of the membership is worried about a big swing back to the right.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
It's just dismal though. A bill that would allow Are Boys to go undercover and commit crimes in the name of the state, not to mention all that business where they father children while operating under an assumed identity, it's not exactly the kind of thing that taking a position on should be difficult.
I don't disagree tbh.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Not necessarily
and the TV/parliament show is so crap anyway, popularised shit that constantly misses any point. Especially at the top of the system where it's all about publicity. I'd be prepared to concede that maybe some junior politicians and political operators are quietly achieving worthwhile outcomes at lower levels ... if i'd never encountered the atrocious bad faith morass of the Home Office

Trump goes along with Johnson and Starmer as part of the cesspool
This Home Office is something else though. A new low. Priti Patel? FFS. She's being driven by populism and trolling - emotive headline grabbing shit that upsets and outrages people. The Trumpian reflex. I much prefer someone intensely boring who's going to lull me to sleep talking about tax credits, though I accept the moment for that may have passed.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Trump goes along with Johnson and Starmer as part of the cesspool
Starmer's fundamentally different to those two. There's no populist reflex there at all. There was with Corbyn, he's much closer to those two. Easy answers, mass appeal.
 

sufi

lala
Starmer's fundamentally different to those two. There's no populist reflex there at all. There was with Corbyn, he's much closer to those two. Easy answers, mass appeal.
Sure, he's not interesting enough to be populist, too technical, but because he's so intimately tied into the disgusting political system, he's a just another careerist waste of space, not even an effective irritant like the populists
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
Starmer's fundamentally different to those two. There's no populist reflex there at all. There was with Corbyn, he's much closer to those two. Easy answers, mass appeal.
I think Corbyn did a good job of looking like he was right, even when he wasn't, but was a figure of fun for the Tories at PMQs, while Starmer is sort of the opposite. It's a position that goes down well with people who write about parliamentary proceedings but could cost him a lot of popular support.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Starmer and his team will know better than I will what will secure him an electoral victory in 2024. It's piss easy for me to sit on the sidelines and say that what they do doesn't coincide with my values - because that was always going to happen.

But having said that it is a bit galling that Sir Keir's original pitch of leader included all his legal work for campaigns including McLibel. In which McDonalds sued a London Greenpeace (not the same as Greenpeace) for their "What's Wrong With McDonalds" leaflet - which had been written by a spycop. London Greenpeace subsequently figured out that at some of their meetings, the majority of people present had been spycops or private spies from McDonalds. One of the McLibel Two, Helen Steel, later faced the trauma of her long term partner disappearing after having a mental breakdown. Turns out he had been a spycop all along.

It looks to me that a decision was made to jettison this particular issue as it was too close to "human rights gone mad", "Starmer will not fight ISIS", "campaigning lawyers" etc.

I think there is a sliding scale between clinical technocrat and populist lunatic and I think we can all agree that whilst the latter is undesirable it is definitely what the punters are lapping up right now. It has always been a mistake to be too rational and @DannyL has read his Wilhelm Reich so he knows all about that. For all his faults there was an energy about Corbyn that we have yet to see with Starmer.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Can't disagree with any of that tbh.

The appetite for populism may be tempered by the pandemic I suspect, or more likely it'll mutate into a new even more weird and horrible form. The spycops thing is shitty - I think I mentioned above how disappointed I was that Labour have said sweet FA about the refugees crossing the channel and the resulting populist argy bargy.

I would say two things though - I'll accept nearly any fucking compromise, no matter how disappointing if it gets them fucking elected. That's what I want, that's the end goal and I'm not that worried about them selling out. I'm certainly not bothered that it upsets the Left of the party - I welcome it, after the pandering that's gone on for the last few years. The Left of the party have seen every leader whose been elected as PM as a sellout including Atlee! People are always going to want fantasy politics as this thread shows. Also I do think the rules of the game are a bit different now, against Johnson. They're so desperate for any way to attack and smear as that's kinda all they've got. They're certainly not going to run an election campaign based on merit.

You mention his past - McLibel. It's precisely this that gives me a bit of faith he might be decent when and if he gets to exercise power. He's had a career in public service, and a record of actually getting things done (unlike his predecessor). The work against capital punishment in the Caribbean stands out as a highpoint. He was (is?) a director of this organisation - not exactly Tony Blair.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Sadly I think what he does now is a better indicator of what he would be like in power than what he did in the 1990s.

Putting compromise above principle is how you win elections and how you end up with Blair. But someone has to push things to the left and hold people to account.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
He went to Taiwan in 2018 to lobby their government against the death penalty so it's not exactly in the past. But I take your point.
 
Top