Sir Keir Starmer

[gringo]

.

I watched the first video. I can remember at the time that Angela Eagle came across as thoroughly disingenuous. I found it hilarious that successive attempts to challenge Corbyn for the leadership failed miserably. It was blatantly obvious that the 'anti-semitism' card was an all out  last throw of the dice to get rid of him. It's a great shame that he was undermined in his campaign Vs May. If he had been backed we could have seen genuinely new UK, ran along lines that benefited the majority.

    Your first impression of Angela Eagle is on the money. The "anti-semitism" card has been so overplayed by now that everyone except the wilfully blind and biased has seen through it.
    More Jewish members have been expelled for "anti-semitism" under Starmer than all other Labour leaders combined.
    That he came so close despite overwhelming opposition from the entire media and political class, including the right wing of his own party machinery and MP's shows how much of a threat he was to the establishment and corporate class.
     In my opinion, Roch, the new UK benefiting the majority, that could have been, has only been postponed, not cancelled. Corbyn's policies are not unique to Corbyn, his election as leader came about because an increasing number of people are demanding a fairer system. Corbyn was, and still is to some extent, the public face of those demands. The demands will only grow louder and aren't going away. Getting rid of Corbyn is only a sticking plaster for the broken system.
     
   

[ngb1066]

    Your first impression of Angela Eagle is on the money. The "anti-semitism" card has been so overplayed by now that everyone except the wilfully blind and biased has seen through it.
    More Jewish members have been expelled for "anti-semitism" under Starmer than all other Labour leaders combined.
    That he came so close despite overwhelming opposition from the entire media and political class, including the right wing of his own party machinery and MP's shows how much of a threat he was to the establishment and corporate class.
     In my opinion, Roch, the new UK benefiting the majority, that could have been, has only been postponed, not cancelled. Corbyn's policies are not unique to Corbyn, his election as leader came about because an increasing number of people are demanding a fairer system. Corbyn was, and still is to some extent, the public face of those demands. The demands will only grow louder and aren't going away. Getting rid of Corbyn is only a sticking plaster for the broken system.
     
   

Very well put.

[Cambridgecutie]

    Your first impression of Angela Eagle is on the money. The "anti-semitism" card has been so overplayed by now that everyone except the wilfully blind and biased has seen through it.
    More Jewish members have been expelled for "anti-semitism" under Starmer than all other Labour leaders combined.
    That he came so close despite overwhelming opposition from the entire media and political class, including the right wing of his own party machinery and MP's shows how much of a threat he was to the establishment and corporate class.
     In my opinion, Roch, the new UK benefiting the majority, that could have been, has only been postponed, not cancelled. Corbyn's policies are not unique to Corbyn, his election as leader came about because an increasing number of people are demanding a fairer system. Corbyn was, and still is to some extent, the public face of those demands. The demands will only grow louder and aren't going away. Getting rid of Corbyn is only a sticking plaster for the broken system.   

We've only ever had 6 lab pm's and none have been of the JC variety so what makes you think its about to change? 

[Steve_uk]

    Your first impression of Angela Eagle is on the money. The "anti-semitism" card has been so overplayed by now that everyone except the wilfully blind and biased has seen through it.
    More Jewish members have been expelled for "anti-semitism" under Starmer than all other Labour leaders combined.
    That he came so close despite overwhelming opposition from the entire media and political class, including the right wing of his own party machinery and MP's shows how much of a threat he was to the establishment and corporate class.
     In my opinion, Roch, the new UK benefiting the majority, that could have been, has only been postponed, not cancelled. Corbyn's policies are not unique to Corbyn, his election as leader came about because an increasing number of people are demanding a fairer system. Corbyn was, and still is to some extent, the public face of those demands. The demands will only grow louder and aren't going away. Getting rid of Corbyn is only a sticking plaster for the broken system.
     
   

There were too many own goals, including the anti-semitic mural and the refusal to disclose his real position on Europe, namely that like all the other left-wingers such as Tony Benn he was against the Common Market in principle. The fact that unlike Tony Benn he was tongue-tied without the aid of an autocue did not further his cause. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/antisemitism-open-your-eyes-jeremy-corbyn-labour

[Cambridgecutie]

There were too many own goals, including the anti-semitic mural and the refusal to disclose his real position on Europe, namely that like all the other left-wingers such as Tony Benn he was against the Common Market in principle. The fact that unlike Tony Benn he was tongue-tied without the aid of an autocue did not further his cause. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/antisemitism-open-your-eyes-jeremy-corbyn-labour

The beard for one!  The allotment for two! Having a sexual relationship with Dianne Abbott for three!  Need I go on 

Gringo/NGB1066/Roch are you guys for real?   

[gringo]

Very well put.

    "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" as someone once said, I imagine.
     Corbyn let the genie out of the bottle and it won't be put back in. Union leaders like Mick Lynch, Eddie Dempsey et al. are taking up the fight for a fairer system and are resonating with many previously, more or less, apolitical working class people.
     My better half, as one example, in the last year along with three other of her work colleagues have joined a Union and are currently embroiled in a minor spat with their employer. She thinks Mick Lynch is the bees knees. Although my better half did become more politicised when Corbyn became leader, her three colleagues were still apolitical.Young and "not as young" women, previously not interested in "politics" all finding a voice and causes to rally round. Mick Lynch and others are now at the forefront of what will become a deafening chorus.
      The post war Labour government of Clement Attlee was, in the opinion of my own father and my maternal grandfather, the best government in their lifetimes. I bring this up because I believe there are parallels to be drawn between then and now and what led to the election of Attlee.
      Many returning servicemen, such as my grandfather, far from seeing Churchill as the hero that he is painted as now, were demanding of a better deal for working people and had no good words to say about Churchill. They had fought for their country and the political aspects were far more prominent to them than are given credit. They were now demanding, through the ballot box, more equality and fairness. The media, establishment, business class were predictably, backing Churchill. Attlee's plans were "magic money tree" thinking. How could war-torn Britain afford nationalising railways, coal, electricity, creating the NHS and welfare state? The propaganda didn't work on such a now awake, aware working class and Attlee won in a landslide. Britain did afford and do all of those things in one term of government. A remarkable transformation of the country. Something like 20% of the economy was nationalised.
     There is a quote by G Michael Hopf( I know nothing else about him), "Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times". It kind of sums up the post war period in the UK and "collective west". I would add that I read "weak" in this case  as a euphemism for complacent, distracted, apathetic and apolitical. The complacency and distractions being a cause of the apathy and lack of political views.  "Men" could easily be replaced with "people" too. It is applicable to men and women alike.
      Anyway back to the returning servicemen and women, the women that had taken on the previously men's roles in the factories, had seen and knew of better ways of sharing the wealth of a country and were demanding their fair share after their efforts and sacrifices. The "post war settlement" remained untouchable for many decades. No Conservative government would ever have been elected if it had proposed dismantling the welfare state, privatising coal, electricity, railways. As such, Attlee's mark on UK politics and lives of working class and middle class people is and was huge. It became an untouchable legacy for many successive UK governments.
      The gradual but increasing dismantling of this "post war settlement" began with Thatcher, and has accelerated ever since. The acceleration of this dismantling has led to massive inequalities in society and has led us back to a period akin to the post WW2 era in terms of wealth inequality, health inequality, housing inequality etc.
     The same issues are back to the fore again. Lack of access to affordable and secure housing being one of many parallels that could be drawn. The young, particularly, are affected massively by this and it is a huge issue to millions of them. Nothing gets peoples attention better than being personally affected.
     So we are, in the terms  G Michael Hopf's quote either at, or approaching, the hard times created by comfortable, distracted, apathetic and apolitical people. Those same "comfortable, distracted, apathetic and apolitical people are becoming the strong people that will demand and get better times.
    Corbyn's policies were very similar to Attlees transformative government. The British public back nationalisations and most of the policies proposed by Corbyn's labour as shown in poll after poll. That is why the media demonise the man rather than any policies. Playing the man rather than the ball. People are being awoken to these truths because things are getting harder, if not for them, their own offspring.
    The dismantling of the social contract that existed post war is, in my view, approaching its demise. A new one is being, increasingly loudly, demanded.
     
     
     
     

[Roch]

I have changed the spelling of Sir Starmer's name in my original post from Kier to Keir.

[Cambridgecutie]

    "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" as someone once said, I imagine.
     Corbyn let the genie out of the bottle and it won't be put back in. Union leaders like Mick Lynch, Eddie Dempsey et al. are taking up the fight for a fairer system and are resonating with many previously, more or less, apolitical working class people.
     My better half, as one example, in the last year along with three other of her work colleagues have joined a Union and are currently embroiled in a minor spat with their employer. She thinks Mick Lynch is the bees knees. Although my better half did become more politicised when Corbyn became leader, her three colleagues were still apolitical.Young and "not as young" women, previously not interested in "politics" all finding a voice and causes to rally round. Mick Lynch and others are now at the forefront of what will become a deafening chorus.
      The post war Labour government of Clement Attlee was, in the opinion of my own father and my maternal grandfather, the best government in their lifetimes. I bring this up because I believe there are parallels to be drawn between then and now and what led to the election of Attlee.
      Many returning servicemen, such as my grandfather, far from seeing Churchill as the hero that he is painted as now, were demanding of a better deal for working people and had no good words to say about Churchill. They had fought for their country and the political aspects were far more prominent to them than are given credit. They were now demanding, through the ballot box, more equality and fairness. The media, establishment, business class were predictably, backing Churchill. Attlee's plans were "magic money tree" thinking. How could war-torn Britain afford nationalising railways, coal, electricity, creating the NHS and welfare state? The propaganda didn't work on such a now awake, aware working class and Attlee won in a landslide. Britain did afford and do all of those things in one term of government. A remarkable transformation of the country. Something like 20% of the economy was nationalised.
     There is a quote by G Michael Hopf( I know nothing else about him), "Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times". It kind of sums up the post war period in the UK and "collective west". I would add that I read "weak" in this case  as a euphemism for complacent, distracted, apathetic and apolitical. The complacency and distractions being a cause of the apathy and lack of political views.  "Men" could easily be replaced with "people" too. It is applicable to men and women alike.
      Anyway back to the returning servicemen and women, the women that had taken on the previously men's roles in the factories, had seen and knew of better ways of sharing the wealth of a country and were demanding their fair share after their efforts and sacrifices. The "post war settlement" remained untouchable for many decades. No Conservative government would ever have been elected if it had proposed dismantling the welfare state, privatising coal, electricity, railways. As such, Attlee's mark on UK politics and lives of working class and middle class people is and was huge. It became an untouchable legacy for many successive UK governments.
      The gradual but increasing dismantling of this "post war settlement" began with Thatcher, and has accelerated ever since. The acceleration of this dismantling has led to massive inequalities in society and has led us back to a period akin to the post WW2 era in terms of wealth inequality, health inequality, housing inequality etc.
     The same issues are back to the fore again. Lack of access to affordable and secure housing being one of many parallels that could be drawn. The young, particularly, are affected massively by this and it is a huge issue to millions of them. Nothing gets peoples attention better than being personally affected.
     So we are, in the terms  G Michael Hopf's quote either at, or approaching, the hard times created by comfortable, distracted, apathetic and apolitical people. Those same "comfortable, distracted, apathetic and apolitical people are becoming the strong people that will demand and get better times.
    Corbyn's policies were very similar to Attlees transformative government. The British public back nationalisations and most of the policies proposed by Corbyn's labour as shown in poll after poll. That is why the media demonise the man rather than any policies. Playing the man rather than the ball. People are being awoken to these truths because things are getting harder, if not for them, their own offspring.
    The dismantling of the social contract that existed post war is, in my view, approaching its demise. A new one is being, increasingly loudly, demanded.   

You said it!

Britian has moved on since the 40's/50's to the extent its unrecognisable in every conceivable way so comparing governments/pm's of the day then and now isn't at all helpful or relevant. 

Lack of access to secure and affordable housing was brought about by the Blair government handing over interest rate setting to BoE thus creating cheap money, private landlords and second homeowners.  Look at where interest rates have been since 1997, and even more worringly since the financial crisis of 2007/08, compared with historic averages.  It has caused a distortion between average income v average house price v the amount lenders are prepared to lend and a superbubble of epic proportion which is about to burst! 

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Bank-Rate.asp

I've got a file going back to 1600's but have to work out a way to upload.  This is even more telling.  Never in its history have interest rates been anywhere near as low as they have been since 2007/08.

[Cambridgecutie]

I have changed the spelling of Sir Starmer's name in my original post from Kier to Keir.

His parents named him after:

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

At least KS has dispensed with the beard! 

[gringo]

You said it!

Britian has moved on since the 40's/50's to the extent its unrecognisable in every conceivable way so comparing governments/pm's of the day then and now isn't at all helpful or relevant. 

Lack of access to secure and affordable housing was brought about by the Blair government handing over interest rate setting to BoE thus creating cheap money, private landlords and second homeowners.  Look at where interest rates have been since 1997, and even more worringly since the financial crisis of 2007/08, compared with historic averages.  It has caused a distortion between average income v average house price v the amount lenders are prepared to lend and a superbubble of epic proportion which is about to burst! 

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Bank-Rate.asp

I've got a file going back to 1600's but have to work out a way to upload.  This is even more telling.  Never in its history have interest rates been anywhere near as low as they have been since 2007/08.

    You are all over the place. The 40's and 50's not relevant, moved on but you have a file going back to 1600.
     I drew the direct parallels between the post war Britain and now. The relevance of the issues is obvious to anyone and is undoubtedly being increasingly voiced.  The housing superbubble is not the only bubble about to burst. The Reaganite/Thatcherite privatisation and de-regulation of banks is what led to today. Blair was a placeholder merely carrying on the policies now seemingly set in stone. Your own failure to recognise lessons from history within the lifetime of people you know and waving issues away by saying we have "moved on" in the absence of any real rebuttal of the points raised is telling.
     The crises that are about to and are beginning to hit Britain and Europe make the post war period and the political upheaval following those crises extremely relevant. The parallels are obvious, housing, health and wealth inequalities are rising as pre and post war, which led then to a huge awakening of the masses and upheaval of the political system.
     The Western system of rampant unregulated corporate capitalism has reached it's final crisis. This one breaks the system. There is no possibility that the economy as it is structured now survives. Keep your blinkers on by all means, but with the huge crises will obviously come huge changes. Wishing it away by listing a few incohesive and incoherent events and Prime Ministers won't work. Reality is finally catching up with the ponzi scheme of unregulated US/UK western corporate and financial capitalism.

[lookout]

Good post Gringo. I can't add anything to that except that I agree.

[Steve_uk]

Good post Gringo. I can't add anything to that except that I agree.

Where are the morals lookout, not just from those who should set the example but the working classes who   lived in poverty in the 1920s and 1930s but had dignity and pride, went to church and would rarely commit crime?  Nowadays it seems a large minority of youth know more about the Devil than Jesus Christ, they pester parents for toys, children whose antecedents had nothing comparable to show, the Welfare State now accommodating dependency as well as genuine need.

[gringo]

Good post Gringo. I can't add anything to that except that I agree.

  Your agreement is the the only validation I require, Lookout. Perhaps you can add to the following.

We've only ever had 6 lab pm's and none have been of the JC variety so what makes you think its about to change? 

    This made up opinion is so false that it must be corrected. The six Labour PM's are in order,
    Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

    Ramsey Macdonald should not be included, in my opinion, given that he headed a minority government. Then a National government, again with a minority during the depressed 1920's early 1930's.
     Attlee was the first Labour PM with a majority and therefore the first Labour government with a mandate and a majority for their program. It is ludicrous to claim that Attlee and Corbyn are not of the same variety. Take a look at Attlee's Labour manifesto and the issues being addressed and their solutions. Next take a look at Corbyn's Labour manifesto. Then describe how they are not the same "variety", by which I assume you mean Socialist.
      The second Labour PM, Harold Wilson, was by any measure Socialist and the same "variety" as Corbyn. What is your measure for this "variety"?
      Callaghan, who took over from Wilson, was seen as from the left of the party.
      Basically all the Labour PM's prior to Blair were advocates and enablers of the policies that Corbyn's Labour stood on.
      There has never been the choice of anyone offering Corbyn's policies since Michael Foot, largely because of the fifth columnist subterfuge inside the Labour Party aided and abetted by their helpers in the media and establishment.
      From this subterfuge and sabotage another commonly held "truth" is established. It is, to me, one of my litmus tests to establish how capable of critical thought a person is. That "truth" that everybody knows, it is so often repeated is that,
      "Britain will never elect a socialist government."
      It's bollocks, of course, but it is a carefully crafted misrepresentation. If ever a socialist alternative to the barely regulated crony corporate capitalism that has existed since Thatcher/Reagan became available, then that candidate will be smeared, lied about and sabotaged.
     In the UK, Michael Foot was the first recipient of the full on "Corbyn treatment". Sabotage from within his own party (Gang of four, formation of SDP)) split the left wing vote. Media blitz lying and misrepresenting to paint him as some sort of traitorous, disrespectful fool. (Donkey Jacket at the Cenotaph and other lies).
     The above is the same playbook used to prevent Corbyn's election.
     Noticeably the attacks are on misrepresentations of their character, not the policies. Why might this be? Could it be because in poll after poll, the British public are massively in favour of exactly the socialist policies advocated for by Foot, Corbyn etc.?
     There is little question, in truth, that the British public support re-nationalisation of the utilities, railways, council/social housing building, wealth/asset taxes etc. That is why socialist voices are smeared and lied about.
     Foot didn't get elected because the media smeared his character and fifth columnists within his own party sabotaged the party. The reason for his non election was not because of his socialist policies. His stance on UK nuclear weapons was unacceptable to those who write the pay-cheques of Britain's fifth columnists.
     Corbyn's anti Imperialist views were the main driver, in my view, for the no holds barred destruction of his character and electoral chances.
     Both Foot's and Corbyn's detractors are not fit to lace either of their their boots.
     And that the British will never elect a socialist government is a lie.
     
       

[Steve_uk]

I don't really know where to start on this and #35. The only point on which we probably will agree is that politicians who stand for election should have principles, whether they are Margaret Thatcher or Keith Joseph on the right or Michael Foot and Tony Benn on the left. Your hero Clement Attlee spent the Marshall Aid money on building council houses on a ravaged Britain and the NHS, but austerity measures came in 1947 freezing workers' pay, along with the PM desiring nuclear weapons and the formation of NATO. Labour scraped in in 1950 with a majority reduced from 146 to 5, losing the subsequent General Election in 1951, out of power for 13 years.

In 1964 Harold Wilson promised the "white heat of the technological revolution", which never materialized, and by the 1970s the country was labelled "the sick man of Europe." There was demand, as attested by the roaring inflation, but this was filled by German and Japanese products, not British goods, which few people wanted to buy.

The only way your system can conceivably work gringo is you impose import controls, you force Brits to buy goods they don't want to buy and have waiting lists for products they do. Your tax increases would force the talent to emigrate to USA, Canada and Australia. The £ sterling would buy 50 US cents.

I could go on: the nationalized industries were making heavy losses in the 1970s, so you're throwing good money after bad. In other words, the private sector which manages to make a profit is subsidizing those workers who don't.

James Callaghan was on the right of the party, not the left as you assert, and defeated Michael Foot for the Premiership legitimately. Labour did not recover its share of the vote in the 1979 election for 18 years.

I have sympathy with politicians of principle, though Jeremy Corbyn lost his when he failed to reveal his true feelings on Europe. The last thing I would say for the moment is it's all very well having principles, but you have to do the spadework and campaign on television, in parliament and on the doorstep, not pass resolutions at the NEC and expect the British public to fall in line.

[gringo]

Where are the morals lookout, not just from those who should set the example but the working classes who  lived in poverty in the 1920s and 1930s but had dignity and pride, went to church and would rarely commit crime? 

     This sums up how much your opinion is worth. Is it just the homogenous mass of the working class who are lacking in the necessary moral fibre, dignity and pride? Not like the old working class. going to church and doffing their cap. Do you hear yourself?
     The lack of morals is entirely at the feet of the amoral political and media class. The working class people that I am surrounded by on a daily basis are not lacking in any of the qualities that you seem to imagine they are. Very few of them go to church but manage to avoid crime, help each other out and generally be decent.
     You make too many assumptions.
    "The only way your system can conceivably work gringo is you impose import controls, you force Brits to buy goods they don't want to buy and have waiting lists for products they do. Your tax increases would force the talent to emigrate to USA, Canada and Australia. The £ sterling would buy 50 US cents."
    Such as the above. Reads more like a bunch of Mail Headlines, warning of impending doom if we allow the plebs their fair share, cobbled together in an attempt to look like critical thought, rather than indoctrination.
Your hero Clement Attlee spent the Marshall Aid money on building council houses on a ravaged Britain and the NHS,
   
   Attlee's achievements and impact on UK life can be recognised without having to bestow hero status on him or anyone. All of your "opinions" are recycled headlines from right wing rags.

   James Callaghan was on the right of the party, not the left as you assert,   
   Fair point. The right of the party then however, was some distance from the right of the party now. The privatisation of the nationalised industries would not have happened under the right of the party in 70's and early 80's. If he was around now, he would be considered the left of the party.

    Your views on the nationalised industries again read as if it is a bunch of Mail and Express headlines cobbled together. It is just repeating "accepted truths" from elsewhere. As previously mentioned, "accepted truth" is a mere euphemism for an often repeated lie.
     The now privatised utilities are subsidised to a huge degree by both government and the public(customers) directly by way of larger bills/fares. How do you think the Board members and management get such grotesquely high remuneration packages. Standards, safety sacrificed at the expense of others for higher profits. Wages cut, redundancies. Who tops up the now inadequate wages or unemployment caused by cost cutting. We do, by way of benefits, via taxes paid to the government.
     This amounts to an extra hidden subsidy to the privatised monopoly utilities. Extra costs to everybody else because of the cost cutting of greedy corporate giants controlling water, sewage, electricity, gas, rail transport. The public do not support this.
     Privatising public utilities (natural monopolies) is obscene. Companies profiting from and exploiting the necessities of dignified human existence is not moral in any way.
     I would question your morals if you believe it is acceptable for corporations to profiteer via their control of a natural monopoly that is also a basic human requirement. Maybe apply some deeper thought of your own and see what you think.
    Who do you think should control the supply/provision of utilities that are a basic human need in a modern society?