I posted this on Twitter as an honest response to Starmer's speech in Downing Street, which I felt remarkably uninspired:
Note the number of responses. This is a flavour of them:
I have chosen to ignore some of the more abusive ones - but it's fair to say the Labour troll bot machine was definitely out in force.
So, too, are those who want nothing from a politician and who think Starmer will deliver that. I think they will be bitterly disappointed.
What I can be sure of are three things, all of which I can control.
The first is that I will speak truth to power.
The second is that if this means I criticise Labour, I will.
And, third, I will do so even if that upsets people.
In this case, the likes and retweets considerably exceed the number of comments: that's a positive measure on Twitter.
But if people think that I will change my tone just because we have a new government that is intent on delivering the same old failed mantras in new, dull, and boring ways, they are seriously mistaken.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
How did you stay awake? More interesting speak your weight machines.
I will keep a copy of the list and suggest we revisit in Oct/Nov to see where things stand. LINO didn’t win – the Tories lost. Be interesting to see what the Lib-Dems do. As for me & the Indy’s – focus on localism and next year’s county council elections. I suspect LINO will get a good drubbing.
I don’t stay awake
But I can last for long periods of apparent wakefulness if I get occassional 20 minute naps. I have done three of them since 3am so I guess I have had 4 hours sleep in all, in four instalments
I will be tired tomorrow though
However lukewarm one feels about Starmer as leader of Labour, he might, just might display a greater willingness to be more progressive than conservative in his role as PM. Unlikely but possible. But the risks are high if he and his administration fails to deliver improvements in State services or, perish the thought, cuts back and imposed austerity in order to “balance books”. Failure to deliver will likely make far-right the only alternative. Instead, social democracy is the way to go – universal essential services, higher taxes from those who can and should contribute more, fairness and less inequality. Labour have 5 years to deliver.
Agreed
Off topic. I thought this might interest you, Richard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRb5vI_da4U
Later….
Thanks
“I posted this on Twitter as an honest response to Starmer’s speech in Downing Street, which I felt remarkably uninspired:”
Oh look! The Labour Party has just won a thumping majority after 14 years out of power. Giving it a chance to try and do things for the ordinary people of this country. So of course you don’t like Starmer’s Downing Street speech!
Rejoice at a Labour Party victory? Can’t have that, can we? All right thinking left wingers would prefer if Labour went down to yet another ‘glorious’ and record breaking defeat.
As it stands of course I oppose Labour
Despite the label it is at least as right-wing as Cameron’s Tory Party
I would not have celecbrated them winning. Why should I celebrate this lot doing so?
Yes quite why would anyone celebrate – one party that espouses conservative policies replaced by another one!
“Giving it a chance to try and do things for the ordinary people of this country.”
Is that what it is trying to do? It doesn’t look like it to me.
I am 100% chuffed to see the Tories lose 7m votes and a Labour government emerge from their ashes..
However, that speech writer needs to be sacked.
It was 6 minutes of very tedious and poor quality oratory and SKS deserved better.
The delivery was actually better than the content, but that was a low bar.
No one cares who you criticise. What you say is meaningless outside your ego and small echo chamber.
It isn’t
I know that, because if it wasn’t htting targets you would not comment
This is the result of my test (stats are a mix of wikipedia and bbc):
MPs who voted for Còrbyn to be on the 2015 leadership ballot
2024 2019
Diane Abbott 59.5 70.3
Rushanara Ali 34.1 72.7
Richard Burgon 47.2 49.8
Dawn Butler 51.2 64.7
Sarah Champion 45.1 41.3
Neil Coyle 44.8 54.1
Clive Efford 44 47
Louise Haigh 55.2 50.3
Rupa Huq 46.8 51.3
Imran Hussain 37.9 63
David Lammy 57.5 76
Clive Lewis 47.6 53.7
Rebecca Long-Bailey 53.2 56.8
John McDonnell 53.3 55.8
Grahame Morris 48.9 45.5
Chi Onwurah 45.6 57.6
Kate Osamor 50 65
Tulip Siddiq 48.3 48.9
Cat Smith 44.9 46.8
Gareth Thomas 43.8 52.4
Emily Thornberry 53.7 56.3
Jon Trickett 47.5 37.5
Catherine West 58.7 57.5
Average: 48.6 55.4
That’s against a backdrop of a tiny increase in support for Labour generally. If there was any reason to think Còrbynism and the policies of the people who participated in the campaign to have Còrbyn elected as Labour leader have traction, then that is busted.
While gathering the data I did notice the increase in support for communists, people who would support confiscation of property without compensation, and identity politicians. There was also a major desire to be rid of Conservative MPs.
But there is no broad increasing support for those who cheered the Còrbyn horse.
Ouch
I think this is your last post
I do not trust your pseodonym
And your conclusion from your data looks to be wrong to me
“No one cares who you criticise”. Mr Casper, clearly you do, or you wouldn’t be sufficiently bothered to waste your time commenting. Which merely makes you appear very, very silly. There is something profoundly sad about trolling.
Why do the trolls make their presence so obvious?
Because they’re not very clever?
Or maybe they want to make the thread tedious so that people do not engage with it.
I think you are being a bit harsh. You and I are both “policy wonks” and would have loved some policy red meat….. but the speech was not aimed at us. Rather, at the ordinary folk most of whom were just fed up with the Tories. So, a “sermon” (as you put it) probably WAS required.
He…
was generous to is opponent
spoke of “politics as public service”
said he would treat everyone with respect
do more than just “clap” our health (and other) workers.
How is that disappointing?
Now, will he deliver? Who knows…. and it is our job to hold him and his ministers to high standards but let that wait until tomorrow.
It was delivered in a way that appeared to klack all conviction
Sure, he was tired
But it felt like there was no substance
That was what was disappointing
He seemed to mention “country” and “nation” quite a lot but didn’t make it clear which one he was talking about.
I’m guessing England because he’ll do nothing positive for Scotland.
I too will be judging him on what happens over the next 18 months or so, not how he presented his admittedly rather wooden speech, that just seems to be his style, so what? Policies are what affects us, not who implements them, I know we are somewhat in the dark on this, but lets face it promises before the event are pretty much fantasy and have been as long as I can remember, I know it stinks but that is the game we have to play. It may only be a very small step but IMHO it is at least in the right direction.
Never mind the predictable speech. Starmer, Streeting and Reeves will have to put their money where their mouths are when faced with the junior hospital doctors’ strike.
Fall at the first fence? Anyone want to put a bet on that one?
Martin Hime
I didn’t see the acceptance speech, so far Starmer seems to be… very turgid…who knows if that’s a good thing or not. A couple of maybe positive things, I understand he is/was a human rights lawyer and his wife is Jewish so if he should actually decide to stand up for human rights he will not be able to be accused of anti-Semitism. So lets hope he uses that advantage re Gaza war/2 state solution.
But he stands against Palestinian rights
It’s a bit late for that. Besides if he stood up for the rights of Palestinians he would be accused of antisemitism even if he were Jewish himself.
I know this might be off-topic atm (sorry!) but I wonder whether you could give your opinion on the very first Economics lesson that I, and others, had back in 1964. The teacher was born in the South Wales Valleys, the son of a collier, and clearly remembered the 1926 General Strike, but he and all his siblings were ‘educated’ and became teachers, served in the forces during the World War and returned to jobs and council houses. I remember reading somewhere that the Sandfields housing estate in Port Talbot where I grew up, was the largest in Western Europe- I felt so proud……
His first lesson was to tell us that Economics is all about: ‘choice in a world of scarcity’. We then went on to study all the delightful graphs about supply and demand, ‘rational’ consumers/ marginal utility, elastic versus inelastic demand etc… My God , I even got an A at a level, though to be fair in those days 50% of the marks were for Economic History!
Obviously, since then we have been made much more aware of the finite world in which we live so that the scarcity is even more of a dilemma .but I wonder whether his initial comments do hold true?
I have no problem with saying economics is abut scarcity – because to some degree it is
But, there is scarcity and non-scarcity in most economies i.e. there are those who can have whatever they like and those who do not have enough
And that is the real problem
To that extent the lesson was wrong – and economics still is
I sense a subject for a video…
Corbyns manifesto in 2017 was exactly what the country needed for real change .
Corbyn took a larger share of the vote than Starmer. The policies were NOT Far Left. They were very similar to the Attlee policies which I and others of my age (84} benefitted from during the first 40 years of my life.
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It says so on the membership card.
The Corbyn policies were endorsed by 130 economists. Doable and affordable.
Corbyn was the victim of a political assassination. There are those who are still prepared to lie about him. To call him antisemitic is laughable. We can see the truth now about the Israelis. The problem is the Labour Party is in hock to the Israelis who supply massive funding. The Palestinian atrocity will be trouble for Labour . If they continue support for these crimes they could find themselves in the Hague.
This potential problem is drowned out by domestic issues but it is enormous and will haunt Starmer especially if the conflict widens .