Sunlit Uplands

[Delinquent]

It wasn’t a fake line though - Corbyn had as many nutters running around and was the Tories greatest asset - so great, Sunak still practically mentions him every week at PMs Questions.

I don’t get the Starmer hate - he’s boring and certainly on the right side of the Labour spectrum, but he at least looks like he has some integrity and cares without having views that absolutely anyone could call pungent.

He has to play the game to avoid giving the right leaning media the ammunition they need to get the Tories re-elected - they’re struggling to get any sort of coherent attack line going against him.

It’s either Starmer or you’ll see Boris back in power before you know it.

The anti-semitism 'crisis' was very obviously fabricated by the right to topple Corbyn, not least by those within the Labour Party, Starmer among them. Suggesting that he has integrity shows how far removed you are from Bristish politics. He's a very sinister individual with very little in the way of values. The reason he seemingly 'doesn't have any views that anyone could call repugnant' is because he avoids having a position on anything until he can see which way the wind's blowing. His interest is being in power and he will take whatever steps he deems necessary to get there, including evoking and weaponising racism, and making vast swathes of people feel threatened and unsafe.

 

[keniget]

The anti-semitism 'crisis' was very obviously fabricated by the right to topple Corbyn, not least by those within the Labour Party, Starmer among them. Suggesting that he has integrity shows how far removed you are from Bristish politics. He's a very sinister individual with very little in the way of values. The reason he seemingly 'doesn't have any views that anyone could call repugnant' is because he avoids having a position on anything until he can see which way the wind's blowing. His interest is being in power and he will take whatever steps he deems necessary to get there, including evoking and weaponising racism, and making vast swathes of people feel threatened and unsafe.

It wasn't fabricated. Exaggerated, perhaps.

 

[doctor_mac]

The anti-semitism 'crisis' was very obviously fabricated by the right to topple Corbyn, not least by those within the Labour Party, Starmer among them. Suggesting that he has integrity shows how far removed you are from Bristish politics. He's a very sinister individual with very little in the way of values. The reason he seemingly 'doesn't have any views that anyone could call repugnant' is because he avoids having a position on anything until he can see which way the wind's blowing. His interest is being in power and he will take whatever steps he deems necessary to get there, including evoking and weaponising racism, and making vast swathes of people feel threatened and unsafe.

I think I disagree, perhaps out of hope more than anything. I think Starmer avoids expressing any strong opinions because he knows that the Great British public are mainly petty minded, slightly racist, and more often than not, conservative in their thinking. He knows, like Blair did, that for the Labour party to get in power they need to play dead on things like the strikes, on Brexit, and especially on immigration, because these are all vote losers for Labour if they express a strong opinion. Blair gets a bad press (mainly down to the war), but I knew people who worked with asylum seekers, and other parts of the social support networks (with disabled kids), and they said things never worked so well, and with a more positive attitude of how to get things done (as compared with the begrudging, fight for every concession, that is true of working within and around social support systems now). People paint Blair like he was a Tory in disguise, but seeing the Tories and how they have acted ever since they got in, we really should see how manifestly ridiculous that is.

My hope is that it is the same with Starmer-- his speech at the Labour conference gave me hope that he has a proper vision. As I say, this is out of hope, but I'm not judging him on what he is saying, or not saying now. If he sounded like a Labour leader he would have zero chance of being elected.

 

[StevieM]

The anti-semitism 'crisis' was very obviously fabricated by the right to topple Corbyn, not least by those within the Labour Party, Starmer among them. Suggesting that he has integrity shows how far removed you are from Bristish politics. He's a very sinister individual with very little in the way of values. The reason he seemingly 'doesn't have any views that anyone could call repugnant' is because he avoids having a position on anything until he can see which way the wind's blowing. His interest is being in power and he will take whatever steps he deems necessary to get there, including evoking and weaponising racism, and making vast swathes of people feel threatened and unsafe.

Well, take me through all that sinister stuff Starmer has been up to - I’d love to know more.

I‘m not sure I agree with you at all on Starmer - I just think he has relatively vanilla values that are likely shared by most people - he doesn’t really need to have particular staunch views - I don’t really know what people expect.

Who’s Starmer making fell unsafe & threatened?

If you’re saying he practical, pragmatic or opportunistic, I don’t see that, in itself, as a problem because it’s not as if he’s harbouring populist and or despotic tendencies.

I’ve always wondered why, let’s call it, “old school” labour had such an aversion to securing power - is it easier to take “principled” positions when you’re in opposition.

I never got the Blair hate either - not that I particularly liked him (weirdly I preferred Brown).

I didn’t think Corbyn was particularly sinister either, for that matter, just a bit weird and creepy.

I don’t think Starmer a great politician - I think he’s decent and better than anything in the current Tory party and more likely to improve things for the country than Corbyn, by simply being electable.

 

[Atlas]

20 years pretty much to the week since the Iraq war. That's the reason for the Blair hate.

 

[StevieM]

20 years pretty much to the week since the Iraq war. That's the reason for the Blair hate.

Which is fair enough.

It seems Blair is disproportionately hated for that though . I mean that in the sense that the UK we’re not the only nation to join the US - but Blair gets get more hatred than anyone else over it, even Bush.

 

[Delinquent]

It wasn't fabricated. Exaggerated, perhaps.

Funny how the media went quiet about it after Corbyn stood down, isn't it? Almost as if antisemitism, which remember was 'rife within the party', just dried up. And now you don't hear anything about it. All fixed in record time for an organisation consisting of hundreds of thousands of people. Does that all sound legit to you?

Don't get me wrong, any amount of racism is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. The point is, this issue was not created or inflamed by the arrival of Jeremy Corbyn. What did start to accelerate, as Larry alluded to, was the conflation of solidarity with the Palestinians with antisemitism. This was a strategy very deliberately orchestrated by the right, and adopted by Starmer and his allies in the Labour Party. It's also been widely used and promoted by Israel to distract from its crimes against the Palestinian people. It's incredibly effective, because if you question its veracity or the motives of the accusers then it's seen as proof of racism. A perfect, self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Athens]

Which is fair enough.

It seems Blair is disproportionately hated for that though . I mean that in the sense that the UK we’re not the only nation to join the US - but Blair gets get more hatred than anyone else over it, even Bush.

I think Blair gets more hatred because he followed Bush like a lost puppy into Iraq, even though we all knew it was bullshit. Then there's the story with the dude who ended up dead in a field.

 

[Atlas]

I suppose Brit and US will always get more hatred and heat for some decisions over say Canada or Aus.

Re disproportionately v Bush. Bush kept his mouth shut, walked out of public office and largely public life, apart from his Ukraine/Iraq gaff a while back.
Spends his time painting apparently.
While Blair jumped around the world as a Middle East Peace Envoy.. rubbing it in everyones face. Various speaking engagements and kept jumping into the public life

 

[Athens]

It wasn't fabricated. Exaggerated, perhaps.

I remember that unfunny fucker Baddiel complaining about the way Corbyn pronounced Eipstein. Baddiel, the guy who has blacked up and used various other racial slurs complaining about how someone pronounced the name of a famous sex fiend.

 

[keniget]

Funny how the media went quiet about it after Corbyn stood down, isn't it? Almost as if antisemitism, which remember was 'rife within the party', just dried up. And now you don't hear anything about it. All fixed in record time for an organisation consisting of hundreds of thousands of people. Does that all sound legit to you?

Don't get me wrong, any amount of racism is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. The point is, this issue was not created or inflamed by the arrival of Jeremy Corbyn. What did start to accelerate, as Larry alluded to, was the conflation of solidarity with the Palestinians with antisemitism. This was a strategy very deliberately orchestrated by the right, and adopted by Starmer and his allies in the Labour Party. It's also been widely used and promoted by Israel to distract from its crimes against the Palestinian people. It's incredibly effective, because if you question its veracity or the motives of the accusers then it's seen as proof of racism. A perfect, self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sorry, but I disagree.

I'm not going to bother getting into it point by point because I've been around long enough to know it's pointless.

I'm Jewish. I read the Guardian (though some claimed that the Guardian also had an anti-Corbyn agenda) so not exactly the most right-wing out there. Almost every Jew I spoke to - right wing or left wing - felt like it was something rather than nothing.

Perhaps all Jews are stupid and are naively led by right-wing media. That'd at least allow us to put to bed a common anti-semitic trope.

Next time another minority group, perhaps people of colour, feel like there are negative attitudes and behaviours exhibited towards them, we can tell them not to worry, it's all in their heads and find out how that goes down.

 

[rubans]

Sorry, but I disagree.

I'm not going to bother getting into it point by point because I've been around long enough to know it's pointless.

I'm Jewish. I read the Guardian (though some claimed that the Guardian also had an anti-Corbyn agenda) so not exactly the most right-wing out there. Almost every Jew I spoke to - right wing or left wing - felt like it was something rather than nothing.

Perhaps all Jews are stupid and are naively led by right-wing media. That'd at least allow us to put to bed a common anti-semitic trope.

Next time another minority group, perhaps people of colour, feel like there are negative attitudes and behaviours exhibited towards them, we can tell them not to worry, it's all in their heads and find out how that goes down.

Man, these people of colour groups have it so good compared to these other minority groups.
We always get pulled up by those worse off 😉

Anyway, this has been happenin for years anyway.

How do you think people like Jim Davidson still get rolled out by GBNews for his view on Corbyn led BBC.
There is no universal thing such as paedo register for racists, actually very few are. Just ask some of the police…

 

[Delinquent]

Sorry, but I disagree.

I'm not going to bother getting into it point by point because I've been around long enough to know it's pointless.

I'm Jewish. I read the Guardian (though some claimed that the Guardian also had an anti-Corbyn agenda) so not exactly the most right-wing out there. Almost every Jew I spoke to - right wing or left wing - felt like it was something rather than nothing.

Perhaps all Jews are stupid and are naively led by right-wing media. That'd at least allow us to put to bed a common anti-semitic trope.

Next time another minority group, perhaps people of colour, feel like there are negative attitudes and behaviours exhibited towards them, we can tell them not to worry, it's all in their heads and find out how that goes down.

I'm sorry for what you and other Jewish people had to go through. The point isn't that 'it was all in your heads'. The crisis was a real one that made many Jewish people feel threatened and unsafe. And it no doubt gave confidence to antisemitics all around the country. But it wasn't Jeremy Corbyn making you unsafe - it was those who were so terrified at the prospect of him getting into power that they were happy to weaponise antisemitism and Jewish trauma to bring him down. Think about that before you put a cross next to Starmer's name.

 

[Richey]

Which is fair enough.

It seems Blair is disproportionately hated for that though . I mean that in the sense that the UK we’re not the only nation to join the US - but Blair gets get more hatred than anyone else over it, even Bush.

I don’t think that is the only reason people hate him. Remember that the comfortably won an election after the Iraq invasion.

I would take a guess that there is more Blair hate from those on the left than from the centre or the right. They hate him because they feel he threw away all kinds of Labour principles to get them into power, and because it actually worked! And it worked so well that he didn’t even need the left of the party when he was in power. What can be more marginalising for the left than that?

 

[StevieM]

I don’t think that is the only reason people hate him. Remember that the comfortably won an election after the Iraq invasion.

I would take a guess that there is more Blair hate from those on the left than from the centre or the right. They hate him because they feel he threw away all kinds of Labour principles to get them into power, and because it actually worked! And it worked so well that he didn’t even need the left of the party when he was in power. What can be more marginalising for the left than that?

I’d probably agree with you - something similar appears to be happening to Starmer.

It’s very familiar - the further away from the centre you go the more “pure” your politics seem to have to be and if you’re not “pure” then you’re part of the problem - because there is no compromise.

 

[Richey]

Yes it kind of is happening with Starmer, except that some on the left are even angrier with him.

Unlike in the 90s, the left were actually running the Labour Party when Starmer took over. He lied to then about his priorities/pledges, and he got a lot of their votes to become leader.

Now he's abandoned those pledges. He's also kicked out Corbyn and made no secret of his aim to move the Labour Party to the centre. So he'll not only be hated for doing that, but also for his dishonesty - which by the way is a very fair charge. He has been dishonest. One may think he has been dishonest for the right reasons, to make Labour electable, but still.

 

[Woland]

I haven't got any love for Starmer but I would definitely vote for any party that got rid of this gang of corrupt and / or incompetent self serving weirdos and psychos. Not doing so because it's not as left wing a project as you'd like doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Richey]

I haven't got any love for Starmer but I would definitely vote for any party that got rid of this gang of corrupt and / or incompetent self serving weirdos and psychos. Not doing so because it's not as left wing a project as you'd like doesn't make sense to me.

And the Labour Party know that! That’s the point. For example, barely a day goes by without Owen Jones tweeting or making a video on how dishonest Starmer is, but he will still vote Labour and so will most other former Corbyn supporters. Some will switch to the Greens or other lefty parties but the majority will stick with Labour because they want the Tories out.

It’s a weapon that Labour have that the Tories don’t have. Loads of people who vote Labour would never, ever vote for the Tories and really hate them. There aren’t anywhere near as many Tory voters who hate Labour.
So if you think about it, Labour have most of those voters in the bank already, even if they are there rather grumpily. Therefore going after Tory voters is the sensible strategy.

 

[Woland]

As for Blair, personally there's no way I'd have been able to move from being a techno dj to having an IT career and running businesses if it wasn't for a couple of his early policies actually levelling things up a bit. I honestly don't know what I'd have done with a young family with zero training options, like it is again now. And the whole tax credit thing let me take junior roles where I could learn more at work. Getting rid of the tories in the 90s saved my life.

I mean it killed millions in the middle east, but the tories would have done that too.

 

[Woland]

And the Labour Party know that! That’s the point. For example, barely a day goes by without Owen Jones tweeting or making a video on how dishonest Starmer is, but he will still vote Labour and so will most other former Corbyn supporters. Some will switch to the Greens or other lefty parties but the majority will stick with Labour because they want the Tories out.

It’s a weapon that Labour have that the Tories don’t have. Loads of people who vote Labour would never, ever vote for the Tories and really hate them. There aren’t anywhere near as many Tory voters who hate Labour.
So if you think about it, Labour have most of those voters in the bank already, even if they are there rather grumpily. Therefore going after Tory voters is the sensible strategy.

Labour's problem will always be the infighting, because it's got everyone from David Icke believing conspiracy theorists to the winner of the Cambridge debating team who only joined to piss daddy off. The labour parties that win elections are the ones who best shield all that noise and offer something better than what's going on. The first bit is hard, the second bit easy.

 

[StevieM]

Yes it kind of is happening with Starmer, except that some on the left are even angrier with him.

Unlike in the 90s, the left were actually running the Labour Party when Starmer took over. He lied to then about his priorities/pledges, and he got a lot of their votes to become leader.

Now he's abandoned those pledges. He's also kicked out Corbyn and made no secret of his aim to move the Labour Party to the centre. So he'll not only be hated for doing that, but also for his dishonesty - which by the way is a very fair charge. He has been dishonest. One may think he has been dishonest for the right reasons, to make Labour electable, but still.

I dunno mate - in the world Boris created, I can’t say I’ve noticed Starmer being particularly dishonest - or is pragmatism being portrayed as dishonesty.

Its’s a fine line - the world has changed a fair bit - so I’d expect sone pledges to be open for a bit of movement.

I don’t mind that he kicked Corbyn out - but I do think it was a bit brutal.

The left will always be angry - or they’ll find something to be angry about (justified in many cases).

I’d expect Starmer wouldn’t have gotten near being PM if Boris hadn’t done such a bang-up job of fucking both the Tories and the country.

Co-ordinating his own downfall is probably the only thing Boris has managed to do successfully in his life.

 

[tomasjj]

Oh, the right are also angry, but rather more inclined to pragmatic solutions.
Here in Norway, the farmed salmon industry, which is huge, have been lobbying and ranting for a while about a new taxation that the government wants to impose.
Go after the money, and they will be seething too.

 

[StevieM]

Oh yeah - I know the right are irate as well.

It’s horseshoe theory of politics - it isn’t a straight line between right and left, it’s shaped more like a horseshoe where the ends are closer each other than the middle.

 

[Richey]

I dunno mate - in the world Boris created, I can’t say I’ve noticed Starmer being particularly dishonest - or is pragmatism being portrayed as dishonesty.

Its’s a fine line - the world has changed a fair bit - so I’d expect sone pledges to be open for a bit of movement.

I don’t mind that he kicked Corbyn out - but I do think it was a bit brutal.

The left will always be angry - or they’ll find something to be angry about (justified in many cases).

I’d expect Starmer wouldn’t have gotten near being PM if Boris hadn’t done such a bang-up job of fucking both the Tories and the country.

Co-ordinating his own downfall is probably the only thing Boris has managed to do successfully in his life.

I don’t find him offensively dishonest either, but then I wasn’t one of the people who can feel that they were lied to. It’s the Labour members (some) who call him dishonest, and on their terms they are right. He was.

As I said, and you say, it could well be justified. I expect even those on the right in Labour know perfectly well that Starmer has been dishonest, but they don’t care, because he has ultimately done what they hoped someone would do. Hell, even you have said in the past that you would like Starmer to join the single market, or the customs Union or whatever, but he has stated that he won’t. So you are holding out on him being dishonest, because it is something that you want!

That certainly isn’t a criticism of you, and it isn’t even a criticism of Starmer. You can’t do anything as a politician without power, and you can’t stick rigidly to pledges and plans because as you rightly say, things change.

 

[StevieM]

I don’t find him offensively dishonest either, but then I wasn’t one of the people who can feel that they were lied to. It’s the Labour members (some) who call him dishonest, and on their terms they are right. He was.

As I said, and you say, it could well be justified. I expect even those on the right in Labour know perfectly well that Starmer has been dishonest, but they don’t care, because he has ultimately done what they hoped someone would do. Hell, even you have said in the past that you would like Starmer to join the single market, or the customs Union or whatever, but he has stated that he won’t. So you are holding out on him being dishonest, because it is something that you want!

That certainly isn’t a criticism of you, and it isn’t even a criticism of Starmer. You can’t do anything as a politician without power, and you can’t stick rigidly to pledges and plans because as you rightly say, things change.

I hear what you’re saying, but there’s a bit of a difference in wanting someone to change their mind or their view on something and “holding out” on him being dishonest.

Equally there’s a world of difference in changing your position on something if there are reasonable reasons for the change.

It would, not in a good way I’ll add, have been fascinating to see how Corbyn would have dealt with the Ukrainian situation had he been in power.

There’s a lot of time and effort going into portraying Starmer as “dishonest” at the moment - the only people who’ll benefit from that are the Tories.

I don’t know whether it’s an attempt to portray all politicians as dishonest liars to lessen the more obvious dishonesty prevalent in the current Tory party or just to just discredit Starmer.

 

[LarryHagman]

Say what you like about Brown and Blair, the obvious critique being Blair's Iraq 'crusade'. But, in terms of personal progression, public well-being and feel-good, level of public service and practically anything else that moves the country forward, the years 1996-2008 (GFC) were halcyon days.

How will history judge 2010-2024? I think we all know the answer to that one.

I have a certain (very small) amount of sympathy for Sunak. Here's a progressive Tory who hates Johnson, would rather Brexit had never happened (same for Hunt but neither would ever admit it), is looking to move the country in a certain direction ... but is also a man who was complicit in a lot of the BS that enveloped the country since 2016. Trying to convince people that his administration is a clean slate and the decimation of the country is nothing to do with him is complete bollocks. But, you know, some (lots) will buy it.

 

[dogboy]

Say what you like about Brown and Blair, the obvious critique being Blair's Iraq 'crusade'. But, in terms of personal progression, public well-being and feel-good, level of public service and practically anything else that moves the country forward, the years 1996-2008 (GFC) were halcyon days.

How will history judge 2010-2024? I think we all know the answer to that one.

I have a certain (very small) amount of sympathy for Sunak. Here's a progressive Tory who hates Johnson, would rather Brexit had never happened (same for Hunt but neither would ever admit it), is looking to move the country in a certain direction ... but is also a man who was complicit in a lot of the BS that enveloped the country since 2016. Trying to convince people that his administration is a clean slate and the decimation of the country is nothing to do with him is complete bollocks. But, you know, some (lots) will buy it.

Although Sunak did vote for and advocate Brexit.

 

[StevieM]

Although Sunak did vote for and advocate Brexit.

Yeah - Sunak was dreaming about Brexit since he was a teenager.

How do you quantify it - all the Tories are now are a psycho drama about Europe & Refugees - what - they’re an empty husk of a party that’s left with nothing other than a cash grab for themselves while they still can.

 

[darkstarexodus]

 

[LarryHagman]

Sunak either (1) pretended to be a Brexiter to further his career, or (2) was a Brexiter and now realises it's shit but can't say/do anything.

There's no way he and Hunt wish we'd done it, whether that's hindsight with Sunak or not.