Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 12:07:47 GMT
4. Promote Peace and Human Rights-Act for Prevention of Military Intervention (I have no idea what this actually means, sounds on shaky ground here) and review all arms sales. Not 100% sure, but one word sprung to mind almost instantly. Iraq. I think Starmer is attempting to put some distance between himself and certain former Labour Prime Minister who clung to the leg of a US President like a dog in heat and dragged us into a regime change in another country without planning for the consequences of such an act. Likewise Libya, where a certain Tory Prime Minister dragged us into a regime change in another country without planning for the consequences of such an act. The reviewing of all arms sales though ...that has to be because of Yemen. A place where we tut disapprovingly over the horrific casualties inflicted on the Yemeni by the Saudis whilst selling the Saudis the very weapons that have inflicted the horrific casualties. I'm sure I've read somewhere that this country is the second largest arms exporter in the world and that we are cheerfully arming oppressive regimes, so if Starmer is suggesting what I think he is then I take my hat off to him. It would be a mountain to climb.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 12, 2020 12:14:49 GMT
4. Promote Peace and Human Rights-Act for Prevention of Military Intervention (I have no idea what this actually means, sounds on shaky ground here) and review all arms sales. Not 100% sure, but one word sprung to mind almost instantly. Iraq. I think Starmer is attempting to put some distance between himself and certain former Labour Prime Minister who clung to the leg of a US President like a dog in heat and dragged us into a regime change in another country without planning for the consequences of such an act. Likewise Libya, where a certain Tory Prime Minister dragged us into a regime change in another country without planning for the consequences of such an act. The reviewing of all arms sales though ...that has to be because of Yemen. A place where we tut disapprovingly over the horrific casualties inflicted on the Yemeni by the Saudis whilst selling the Saudis the very weapons that have inflicted the horrific casualties. I'm sure I've read somewhere that this country is the second largest arms exporter in the world and that we are cheerfully arming oppressive regimes, so if Starmer is suggesting what I think he is then I take my hat off to him. It would be a mountain to climb. Yep this is almost definitely to distance himself from Iraq. What’s unclear is what this proposed Act would do; banning military intervention without UN authorisation essentially gives China and Russia a veto on UK military action (as they command a veto on UN Security Council) which I hope isn’t what Starmer’s suggesting. I guess it could be codifying Parliament’s right to have a vote on military action, but then that doesn’t really prevent military intervention. It’s a bit of an enigma, and given Corbyn was bombarded with accusations of being weak on security I don’t think this is a battle that Labour needs.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 12, 2020 12:39:23 GMT
*Boris sees Labour policy wishlist, starts planning policies for his third term*
Seriously, I'm not sure even lidar's comparison with Kinnock holds up. Quite a bit of that policy list is well to the left of where Labour were by the late 80s/early 90s and that was a losing platform. I do understand that many in Labour really don't like the memory of Blair, but who was the last Labour leader who won an election before him? It took the Tories almost two terms to come to terms with 1997, this looks very much the same in reverse.
(Last year in England, the Conservatives won more seats and vote share than Labour did in the 1997 landslide and more seats than even Labour 1945. (Scotland is lost to the unionist parties for any forseeable future and Wales has limited possible gains even if Labour took every seat.) I can't see this policy platform appealing to enough English voters, including as it would have to, winning many seats which never even voted Labour for Blair - unless Brexit is a total disaster, in which case all bets are off.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 12:48:31 GMT
Not 100% sure, but one word sprung to mind almost instantly. Iraq. I think Starmer is attempting to put some distance between himself and certain former Labour Prime Minister who clung to the leg of a US President like a dog in heat and dragged us into a regime change in another country without planning for the consequences of such an act. Likewise Libya, where a certain Tory Prime Minister dragged us into a regime change in another country without planning for the consequences of such an act. The reviewing of all arms sales though ...that has to be because of Yemen. A place where we tut disapprovingly over the horrific casualties inflicted on the Yemeni by the Saudis whilst selling the Saudis the very weapons that have inflicted the horrific casualties. I'm sure I've read somewhere that this country is the second largest arms exporter in the world and that we are cheerfully arming oppressive regimes, so if Starmer is suggesting what I think he is then I take my hat off to him. It would be a mountain to climb. Yep this is almost definitely to distance himself from Iraq. What’s unclear is what this proposed Act would do; banning military intervention without UN authorisation essentially gives China and Russia a veto on UK military action (as they command a veto on UN Security Council) which I hope isn’t what Starmer’s suggesting. I guess it could be codifying Parliament’s right to have a vote on military action, but then that doesn’t really prevent military intervention. It’s a bit of an enigma, and given Corbyn was bombarded with accusations of being weak on security I don’t think this is a battle that Labour needs. Or perhaps it's something as simple as suggesting a considering of all alternatives before rushing into conflict and repeating the mistakes of the past, and a rethinking of our arms exporting obsession. A 21st century equivalent of Macmillan's "jaw jaw is better than war war" if you will. Truth be told I'm speculating like mad over what it actually all means and while I hope I'm right you've raised some valid points to throw into the mix. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 12, 2020 13:11:57 GMT
Yep this is almost definitely to distance himself from Iraq. What’s unclear is what this proposed Act would do; banning military intervention without UN authorisation essentially gives China and Russia a veto on UK military action (as they command a veto on UN Security Council) which I hope isn’t what Starmer’s suggesting. I guess it could be codifying Parliament’s right to have a vote on military action, but then that doesn’t really prevent military intervention. It’s a bit of an enigma, and given Corbyn was bombarded with accusations of being weak on security I don’t think this is a battle that Labour needs. Or perhaps it's something as simple as suggesting a considering of all alternatives before rushing into conflict and repeating the mistakes of the past, and a rethinking of our arms exporting obsession. A 21st century equivalent of Macmillan's "jaw jaw is better than war war" if you will. Truth be told I'm speculating like mad over what it actually all means and while I hope I'm right you've raised some valid points to throw into the mix. Thanks for that. Sidenote: Good work on attributing the quote properly! Churchill's line (said a few years earlier) was 'meeting jaw to jaw is better than war'. Same sentiment and as true now as then.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,789
|
Post by lidar2 on Feb 12, 2020 13:48:50 GMT
*Boris sees Labour policy wishlist, starts planning policies for his third term*
Seriously, I'm not sure even lidar's comparison with Kinnock holds up. Quite a bit of that policy list is well to the left of where Labour were by the late 80s/early 90s and that was a losing platform. I do understand that many in Labour really don't like the memory of Blair, but who was the last Labour leader who won an election before him? It took the Tories almost two terms to come to terms with 1997, this looks very much the same in reverse.
(Last year in England, the Conservatives won more seats and vote share than Labour did in the 1997 landslide and more seats than even Labour 1945. (Scotland is lost to the unionist parties for any forseeable future and Wales has limited possible gains even if Labour took every seat.) I can't see this policy platform appealing to enough English voters, including as it would have to, winning many seats which never even voted Labour for Blair - unless Brexit is a total disaster, in which case all bets are off.) I wasn't so much comparing him to Kinnock in policy terms, more in terms of his likely political fortunes
The 2 main parties seems to go through a similar pattern in opposition
1. Things go rapidly downhill once they leave government and enter opposition and they end up with a totally unelectable leader (Michael Foot, Iain Duncan Smith, Jeremy Corbyn) and a party at war with itself. They either move straight to this point or move indirectly via another unpopular but-not-quite as-bad leader (Hague, Miliband). 2. Things pick up a bit with a more competent leader who restores a bit of professionalism to the party, deals with some of the more glaringly obvious problems, restores a bit of unity, does most of the heavy lifting, increases the number of MPs but fails win over enough voters to win the election (Kinnock, Howard, probably Starmer) 3. They then get a fresh, appealing, centrist leader who goes on to win the next election (Blair, Cameron, hopefully whoever comes after Starmer)
I had hoped Starmer might have tried to jump straight to stage 3 but the recent policy announcement suggests Labour will follow the standard opposition pattern. Unless of course he is just saying it to protect his left flank against RLB and win the leadership, but will quietly drop some of it once he becomes leader. Here's hoping!
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 12, 2020 14:03:30 GMT
*Boris sees Labour policy wishlist, starts planning policies for his third term*
Seriously, I'm not sure even lidar's comparison with Kinnock holds up. Quite a bit of that policy list is well to the left of where Labour were by the late 80s/early 90s and that was a losing platform. I do understand that many in Labour really don't like the memory of Blair, but who was the last Labour leader who won an election before him? It took the Tories almost two terms to come to terms with 1997, this looks very much the same in reverse.
(Last year in England, the Conservatives won more seats and vote share than Labour did in the 1997 landslide and more seats than even Labour 1945. (Scotland is lost to the unionist parties for any forseeable future and Wales has limited possible gains even if Labour took every seat.) I can't see this policy platform appealing to enough English voters, including as it would have to, winning many seats which never even voted Labour for Blair - unless Brexit is a total disaster, in which case all bets are off.) I wasn't so much comparing him to Kinnock in policy terms, more in terms of his likely political fortunes
The 2 main parties seems to go through a similar pattern in opposition
1. Things go rapidly downhill once they leave government and enter opposition and they end up with a totally unelectable leader (Michael Foot, Iain Duncan Smith, Jeremy Corbyn) and a party at war with itself. They either move straight to this point or move indirectly via another unpopular but-not-quite as-bad leader (Hague, Miliband). 2. Things pick up a bit with a more competent leader who restores a bit of professionalism to the party, deals with some of the more glaringly obvious problems, restores a bit of unity, does most of the heavy lifting, increases the number of MPs but fails win over enough voters to win the election (Kinnock, Howard, probably Starmer) 3. They then get a fresh, appealing, centrist leader who goes on to win the next election (Blair, Cameron, hopefully whoever comes after Starmer)
I had hoped Starmer might have tried to jump straight to stage 3 but the recent policy announcement suggests Labour will follow the standard opposition pattern. Unless of course he is just saying it to protect his left flank against RLB and win the leadership, but will quietly drop some of it once he becomes leader. Here's hoping!
Buzzfeed has done a in-depth look at Starmer’s past, and honestly I get the impression his moderate credentials have been exaggerated. These policies might be more true to him than people think. www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/keir-starmer-profile
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 14:14:57 GMT
Thanks for sharing the link sherlock. I've bookmarked it for a little 'light' reading this weekend..
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 12, 2020 17:49:55 GMT
*Boris sees Labour policy wishlist, starts planning policies for his third term*
Seriously, I'm not sure even lidar's comparison with Kinnock holds up. Quite a bit of that policy list is well to the left of where Labour were by the late 80s/early 90s and that was a losing platform. I do understand that many in Labour really don't like the memory of Blair, but who was the last Labour leader who won an election before him? It took the Tories almost two terms to come to terms with 1997, this looks very much the same in reverse.
(Last year in England, the Conservatives won more seats and vote share than Labour did in the 1997 landslide and more seats than even Labour 1945. (Scotland is lost to the unionist parties for any forseeable future and Wales has limited possible gains even if Labour took every seat.) I can't see this policy platform appealing to enough English voters, including as it would have to, winning many seats which never even voted Labour for Blair - unless Brexit is a total disaster, in which case all bets are off.) I wasn't so much comparing him to Kinnock in policy terms, more in terms of his likely political fortunessaid a few years earlier
The 2 main parties seems to go through a similar pattern in opposition
1. Things go rapidly downhill once they leave government and enter opposition and they end up with a totally unelectable leader (Michael Foot, Iain Duncan Smith, Jeremy Corbyn) and a party at war with itself. They either move straight to this point or move indirectly via another unpopular but-not-quite as-bad leader (Hague, Miliband). 2. Things pick up a bit with a more competent leader who restores a bit of professionalism to the party, deals with some of the more glaringly obvious problems, restores a bit of unity, does most of the heavy lifting, increases the number of MPs but fails win over enough voters to win the election (Kinnock, Howard, probably Starmer) 3. They then get a fresh, appealing, centrist leader who goes on to win the next election (Blair, Cameron, hopefully whoever comes after Starmer)
I had hoped Starmer might have tried to jump straight to stage 3 but the recent policy announcement suggests Labour will follow the standard opposition pattern. Unless of course he is just saying it to protect his left flank against RLB and win the leadership, but will quietly drop some of it once he becomes leader. Here's hoping!
Sorry lidar, my comment wasn't clear - I did get what you meant and I agree with most of the above, but I think with today's policy lineup he's unlikely to get Labour as close to reelection as Mr. Kinnock did. It could be the next leader who does even that and the current membership is very different from that of the 80s when they expelled the relatively few hard-left entryists.
Here's a finding that illustrates their difficulty in moving to the centre, even if a potential leader wants to:
Of those members who voted for Corbyn as leader, 90% say the antisemitism issue was invented or wildly exaggerated by Corbyn’s opponents. 73% of all members.
I'll admit that the 90% and 73% figures really surprised me; this doesn't sound like the Labour party of the 70s or 80s, let alone the 90s/00s. (And I don't think it represents the views of Labour voters.)
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,789
|
Post by lidar2 on Feb 15, 2020 1:03:03 GMT
And then there were 3.
Emily Thornberry out.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 15, 2020 1:16:44 GMT
And then there were 3. Emily Thornberry out. Just 2 CLPs short, so she had a good go. Best she can hope for is the other candidates’ talk of building a team is serious and she gets a place there.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Feb 15, 2020 12:34:33 GMT
Out of who's left, i think it'll be Starmer
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 15, 2020 13:19:13 GMT
Out of who's left, i think it'll be Starmer Agree. I wish it was going to be Lisa Nandy though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2020 13:49:32 GMT
And then there were 3. Emily Thornberry out. Good. Now we need to get rid of Rebecca Long-Bailey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2020 14:59:00 GMT
Out of who's left, i think it'll be Starmer Unintentional pun there - he's not "left" enough for some. Maybe we should say "Out of who's remaining.." Well, wait...remain is also a no-no.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,789
|
Post by lidar2 on Feb 15, 2020 15:03:17 GMT
Out of who's left, i think it'll be Starmer Agree. I wish it was going to be Lisa Nandy though.
I agree she is the best of the 3 and if I had a vote it would be for her, but I doubt she'll win. Starmer is the best bet to see of RLB and the Corbynites
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Feb 17, 2020 12:44:16 GMT
Out of who's left, i think it'll be Starmer Unintentional pun there - he's not "left" enough for some. Maybe we should say "Out of who's remaining.." Well, wait...remain is also a no-no. Hahahahaha
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,789
|
Post by lidar2 on Feb 20, 2020 13:04:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 20, 2020 13:36:58 GMT
That's OK, he certainly did. One revealing moment that stayed with me from 'Broken Vows' (fascinating read) was reading of Blair, after he left office, introducing himself as “Britain’s most successful prime minister”.
There are no words. (Well there are, but this is a polite forum )
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 24, 2020 10:37:37 GMT
Voting’s opened today for Labour members, still over a month before the results though.
|
|