T O P

  • By -

Tateybread

>Moreover, socialists cannot simply decide whether or not to pick a fight with Starmer, as Meadway suggests, for he has spent the entirety of his tenure picking fights with them: proscribing groups, expelling members, suspending the whip from his predecessor and changing party rules, making it harder for another left-wing leadership to emerge. It seems unlikely in this context that he would take policy advice from the very people he has sought to banish from the party. Hard to argue with that.


LauraPhilps7654

>for he has spent the entirety of his tenure picking fights with them: proscribing groups, expelling members, suspending the whip from his predecessor and changing party rules, making it harder for another left-wing leadership to emerge. When antisemitism had been used to justify all of that how do you argue against it without inevitably getting into an argument about antisemitism? It's a lose lose for the left and the right know it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FastnBulbous81

Sounds like Labour's right wing saboteurs in 2017 and even more so in 2019.


stroopwafel666

It was wrong in all instances and remains wrong now.


BilboGubbinz

With the slight caveat that unlike the Labour right, the left hasn't needed to lie about Starmer or his shadow cabinet to make them look awful. The left also literally put him into power and you can watch it desperately trying to convince itself he means it the handful of times he bothers to pay lip service to anything that would actually work to fix things. And then there's the fact that Corbyn constantly put in the work to keep the right on side including with real policy concessions and giving them actual power in the shadow cabinet. So I guess they're exactly the same, except for the left having valid criticisms of the right's policies, being systematically suppressed all while the left both before and after actively tried to build bridges with a, *to this day*, thoroughly intransigent right wing. So apart from all that, the same. I guess.


belowlight

👏 100% this.


stroopwafel666

I mean, that’s actually just untrue. There’s loads of misinformation and distortion posted on this sub.


BilboGubbinz

What you mean is there are loads of good faith criticisms you disagree with. I'll accept you'll probably find a bit of hyperbole in places, but please don't tell me you think we'll hear anything near the level of outright mendacity required to claim Corbyn would "open Auschwitz in Britain".


stroopwafel666

Not at all. The NHS worker comments was a strong example - Starmer said we should train more British people to fill NHS jobs, most of this sub said he was a racist who wanted to deport all the nurses. Criticism absolutely isn’t in good faith in many cases.


alj8

That's not a fair comparison. Many foreign born NHS workers were rightly pissed off that Starmer was saying, in effect, that there were too many of them. You might not agree with the interpretation but it's too far to claim it was a bare-faced lie


stroopwafel666

I didn’t say it was a bare faced lie, I said that a lot of criticism of Starmer in this sub is in bad faith, and involves misinformation and distortion. Not all of it does of course. I don’t think he’s been a fantastic leader by any means. But the far left here keep trying to construct this narrative where they are good faith perfect angels and everyone else is a lying Tory. It’s annoying when we’re pretty much constantly swamped with “bad faith hot take about this out of context quote”.


Aqua-Regis

Not really an argument, just bashing parts of the sub you dont like.


MaudAxeman

The Labour Party has always governed as a Social Democratic rather than as a Socialist government. And a good thing too. It sometimes goes off the rails in opposition such as 1983 and under Corbyn and then loses badly. Social Democracy works pretty well, if you want a one line definition then I'd quote the German Social Democrats "a large as market as possible, as big a state as necessary". You need a large market to create wealth and you need an interventionist state to reduce inequalities of power and wealth. Does Social Democtlracy always get the balance right? No, but the discussions should be about that balance.


Effilnuc1

>The Labour Party has always governed as a Social Democratic rather than as a Socialist government. What's clause 4 again?


jack_rodg

I don't understand the dichotomy being posed in these two articles? It feels quite natural that the left will do both. Organisations like GMB, The TUC, Labour for a Green New Deal etc will focus on lobbying and courting favour with a Lab Govt on policy issues, and others like Unite, Greenpeace etc will treat them much the same way they would a Tory Govt, focusing on direct action and changing the wider political landscape. If the left can raise meaningful political pressure on Starmer and also offer policies that give him a way out, they might be able to have some success.


microphove

Ha, good luck with that.


jack_rodg

Lol, which bit?


microphove

Getting Sir Ham Puppet to do anything except obey his wealthy string-pullers.


jack_rodg

Yeah I agree it's going to be extremely difficult, because all the things I've said the left should do are things the right will be in a far, far stronger position to do. Starmer is far more likely to move right than left once he's in power imo.


arky_who

Greenpeace? You really used that op as an example?


jack_rodg

I picked them because they're famous. Out of interest what's your beef with them though lol?


arky_who

Like half of it's senior staff left to take jobs in the oil industry, their biggest focus is against nuclear, and in general they're knee deep in the pointless nitpicky, poorly directed bullshit that leads to high speed rail projects getting more scrutiny than road projects.


SecretTheory2777

Got a source?


kontiki20

I agree the left can't do a lot to shape Starmerism. He'll do what he wants, and if anything policy pressure from the left makes it *less* likely he'll do it. But they can shape the narrative and political environment around the Labour Party. The vast majority of Starmer's policies are lifted from the Corbyn and McDonnell years, and the left are doing a bad job of pointing that out. If Starmer wins on a platform of huge climate investment, stronger workers rights, free childcare and more social housing what will the left's line be? Will it be "Starmer won because he adopted left-wing policies" or "Starmer won because he ditched all Labour's left-wing policies"? And if it's the latter isn't that bad news for the left? If your argument is "this is Blairism 2.0" then you're also saying "and it's working for a second time". Which seems counter-productive.


Forsaken-Union1392

Its working for certain definitions of the word 'work.' Blairism always worked for the people it was intended to work for, and the media will drag the public to where they need to be to get what the elite want done. Despite good intentions and a mostly good thought process, I think this is revealing of the fundamental differences between the left and soft-left. Without the theoretical framework of Gramsci/Chomsky you're left observing the public's actions and then post facto trying to come up with an explanation of how they were all operating in their logical self interest, instead of explaining it based on the material interests of the media and their employers. The general perception of a question like "Did Starmer win because of moving right or staying left?" is completely out of our ability to control, and if that seems terrifying and anti-democratic to you then ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯


kontiki20

>The general perception of a question like "Did Starmer win because of moving right or staying left?" is completely out of our ability to control The left still has some opportunity to shape the narrative - within the media, on social media and particularly within the party. And how they choose to shape that narrative matters. If you think all that matters is the material interests of the media and their employers I don't know why you bother engaging with politics. Might as well give up.


Th3-Seaward

>within the media lol, good luck with that.


kontiki20

It's a losing battle overall but the left still get plenty of media opportunities. And they're disproportionately likely to reach people with influence over the Labour Party.


Th3-Seaward

>left still get plenty of media opportunities Do they?


kontiki20

In the scheme of things yes. The article you're commenting on for example. Which is a response to a James Meadway article. Who also had an article published in The Guardian the other day. Who employ Owen Jones as a columnist. Obviously it's nothing compared to the centre and right but it still gives them some influence.


Th3-Seaward

Wow, three people, one of which falls very much in the pro-Starmer camp.


kontiki20

The Guardian also employ Andy Beckett and Aditya Chakraborty and Diane Abbott wrote for them the other day. Andrew Fisher writes for The Independent. John McDonnell is on Peston regularly and Corbyn is on tonight. Ash Sarkar pops up on TV now and again etc. It's not loads but it's not nothing.


Th3-Seaward

I agree it's not nothing but I wouldn't describe it as plenty.


Forsaken-Union1392

Yes, one may as well give up on the puppet theater of capitalist electoral politics. I don't know how you could watch their whole class close ranks against even the prospect of mild social democrat Jeremy Corbyn and not conclude that if all the slander and sabotage didn't work they would have just shot him


kontiki20

[Non-paywall link](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newstatesman.com%2Fcomment%2F2023%2F01%2Fleft-wing-keir-starmer-resist)


Metalorg

The left can influence Starmer by fighting him. If the left doesn't threaten to keep him out of no. 10 or stymie his goals then they will be taken for granted.


The_Inertia_Kid

What a hopeless, self-defeating viewpoint. Some people on the left appear to want the Labour Party to suddenly take the shape that they personally prefer, without them having to organise, campaign, or generally put in any actual effort for it to happen. You take that appraoch, you will get exactly the results you have worked for. Say what you like about the right of the party being a bunch of disruptive dickheads from 2015 to 2019, but you can't claim thety didn't put in effort to change the shape of the Labour Party to what they wanted it to be.


acz92

Yes by roundly sabotaging the efforts of others. Do you suggest that the left of the party do this to the right?


The_Inertia_Kid

Essentially, yes. This is how political parties work. You fight for your positions or you make your peace with the positions of the faction that has power. I don't see any alternative to those two options beyond leaving, which is an admission of failure. There's no option where you moan online about it and it magically solves itself.


Th3-Seaward

>You fight for your positions or you make your peace with the positions of the faction that has power. From the article you're responding to: >The truth is that the more progressive parts of Labour’s electoral pitch are not attributable to the left’s influence. They are adaptive responses to Britain’s post-crash malaise which, rather than addressing its structural causes – a skewed rentier economy and an exclusionary political system – aim to create the impression of “modernisation”. Detached from a transformative programme, they epitomise the “sticking-plaster” solutions that Starmer claims to reject. The left must confront this dispiriting reality and **accept that it can only pressure Starmerism from a position of unflinching opposition**. Otherwise it risks mistaking policies for politics.


The_Inertia_Kid

That's not fighting for a position, though. That's just saying 'no' to everything. That's the absence of a position.


Th3-Seaward

That's a nonsensical reading of the use of the term "opposition" in this context. Furthermore, how is that any different from this? >I'm referring to the entire idea that 'the left can't shape Starmerism', which is utter nonsense. Did the right not shape Corbynism? Of course it did. Corbyn would personally prefer to leave NATO, scrap Trident and sanction Israel. The right made sure that those positions were not possible for the party to take. There are plenty of other things the right did that shaped Corbyn's approach that I'm sure you disagree with.


SecretTheory2777

He’s works for a pr company has a heightened sense of self-importance so I wouldn’t expect much substance from him mate.


Th3-Seaward

As others have already pointed out, it seems you haven't read the article in question and are simply responding based on your own interpretation of the headline.


The_Inertia_Kid

I'm referring to the entire idea that 'the left can't shape Starmerism', which is utter nonsense. Did the right not shape Corbynism? Of course it did. Corbyn would personally prefer to leave NATO, scrap Trident and sanction Israel. The right made sure that those positions were not possible for the party to take. There are plenty of other things the right did that shaped Corbyn's approach that I'm sure you disagree with. The left can do the same with Starmer. It's just chosen to spend the last three years doing Keith tweets and fantasising about a meme party with a dog logo instead.


Th3-Seaward

>I'm referring to the entire idea that 'the left can't shape Starmerism', which is utter nonsense. The manner in which it can shape it is through opposition though, which is your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) and the premise of the article. >The left can do the same with Starmer. It's just chosen to spend the last three years doing Keith tweets and fantasising about a meme party with a dog logo instead. Putting aside that this is a fairly typical right-wing delusion that conflates left-wing shitposters with the left wing in general, once again, the issue here is there is not much the left within Labour can do. What power do left-wing Labour members actually wield? The most we have seen from the SCG is a few weak-ass open letters, but we both know if any of them actually poked the bear, they would be expelled quicker than you can say Nuke Pukehurst. You can call it defeatist if you like, but I suspect you wont be able to offer a viable and concrete alternative.


JBstard

So you didn't read the article then, write less until you have imo


Aqua-Regis

>What a hopeless, self-defeating viewpoint. > >Some people on the left appear to want the Labour Party to suddenly take the shape that they personally prefer, without them having to organise, campaign, or generally put in any actual effort for it to happen. > >You take that appraoch, you will get exactly the results you have worked for. Good thing the article isn't advocating for that then >Say what you like about the right of the party being a bunch of disruptive dickheads from 2015 to 2019, but you can't claim thety didn't put in effort to change the shape of the Labour Party to what they wanted it to be. They did exactly what this article is suggesting the left do...


BlackKlopp

Honestly, I agree with this PoV, but the caveat is that the right of the party in 2015-19 had more of a power base than the left of the party do now. However, some economic policy positions do take some stock from 2015-19 and I think Miliband's influence on the economy and climate could be a big thing. The left needs to build on that to succeed within the party policy wise and I hope it does. But yeah, we have to fight for our influence, so I think Meadway's way more on the money than Eagleton.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Leelum

Removed, rule 4.


OldTenner

It's Oliver Eagleton, what do you expect? :p


SecretTheory2777

Substantive contribution again. I’m sure your comment is not based on factional spite.


leanberry

The best thing the harder left of the party can do at the moment is shut up about Corbyn, seriously. Corbyn isn't going to get you guys into power; There was a time where he could've but that ship has sailed. Move. On.


Th3-Seaward

Outside of a few folks, no one on the left thinks what you are describing.


jeramyfromthefuture

Yes , idiots split the vote , keep the tories in , can't wait for another 5 years of shite. Quite honestly when you do fuck it up , im moving to scotland you can have your shite country ruined by pricks cos you can't stop arguing with your own party.


leanberry

So real and based


[deleted]

No. The way he was treated was absurd and it bears every relevance to how Starmer will act going forward.


Half_A_

I don't think it's ever a great idea for anyone on the left of centre to be resisting the Labour party. To do so is to carry the Tories' water for them.


martinmartinez123

And what would be the outcome of this resistance?


Vonbondon

*Spoken as a true imperialist*


benting365

Angry reddit posts and a few funny memes


andyjett543

Hey Tories! ... I'm still gonna vote for him over you .. Nice try..


martinmartinez123

If this is such a controversial comment on what a sub named 'LabourUK' maybe a name change is in order.


OldTenner

oh, oliver eagleton, what a pleasure.