Is Keir Starmer right?

[AdamRyan]

Today he called the Conservatives "the political wing of the flat earth society" following Liz Truss' comments about the deep state in the US.

I am a big starmer fan, so want to sanity check my opinion, which is that the Conservatives seem to have bought into a lot of conspiracy theories recently, such as "no go" areas in Birmingham, London being "controlled by Islamists", the civil service being run by transactivists as well as Truss' comments.

Or do you think this is a smear and the Conservatives are being reasonable?

If I had a third option I'd also include a "meh - not interested" option for people

Video for people who want to listen to what Starmer said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68418502?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=65df29c746578322549bdd92%26Watch%3A%20Starmer%20says%20Tories%20are%20%E2%80%98political%20wing%20of%20flat%20earth%20society%E2%80%99%262024-02-28T12%3A52%3A33.349Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:091e6916-4b3d-4198-adef-cf8a7b9e76bb&pinned_post_asset_id=65df29c746578322549bdd92&pinned_post_type=share

YABU - the Conservatives are not getting sucked into conspiracies, this is a smear

YANBU - the Conservatives need a large consignment of tin foil ASAP

I think if the Tories are complaining about British society and the civil service then they need to remember that they have been the ones in power for the last 13 years.

I think that there’s quite a few Tory MPs who are more Reform UK than Conservative. I think we’ll see defections before the General Election.

Starmer rattled Sunak today I thought - and probably because Sunak knows he’s right about the mad behaviour and beliefs of many of his MPs and party members.

I think rather than Starmer dismissing these as "conspiracy theories" I would rather he explained clearly and concisely why this is not actually the case and that the conservatives are wrong.

Both political parties engage in saying things that are somewhat questionable.

But shouting blanket "conspiracy theory" or maybe "fake news" is not the correct solution to counter them.

I would like to see genuine discussion in the mainstream media about why the speaker took the actions he did last week. It has been blanket coverage of 'is Lee Anderson racist?'

If the speaker was trying to protect Labour MPs from potential attacks over Gaza, why is this not being discussed?

I think you have to take everything said at PMQs with a pinch of salt. It's the slightly grown up equivalent of a playground fight.

It’s election run up posturing. There are people with niche and extreme views in and supportive of all political parties. The vast majority of politicians, party members, and the general public are moderates with a range of views which don’t necessarily toe the party line - think of those political quizzes where you select which statements you agree with most etc and are given often surprising results because you agreed with a lot of statements which are in the manifesto of a party you thought you’d never support etc.

I think rather than Starmer dismissing these as "conspiracy theories" I would rather he explained clearly and concisely why this is not actually the case and that the conservatives are wrong.

The thing is, there may or not may be some truth in some of these things ... but even if there is, why are the Tories implying it's Labour's fault, when the Tories have been in power for 13 years?

Ditto the whole "what is a woman" thing - I am no fan of gender ideology (though I have no problem with trans individuals) but again the Tories are acting like all the issues with this are Labour's fault, when actually it has all happened under a Tory government and they've done very little to address it (none of the parties have, but the Tories are the ones in power).

Personally I think Hoyle was trying to finesse an outcome that represented the majority view of the House, which I believe is a call for a ceasefire while condemning Hamas.
The SNP bill didn't condemn Hamas.
The Conservative amendment didn't call for a ceasefire.

Under normal rules the Labour amendment, which did both, wouldn't have been heard so I think he wanted it heard to get to that position.

There was also the added complexity that a lot of Labour MPs were under pressure from constituents to back a ceasefire and maybe he thought it wasn't fair to put them in a position where they had to either rebel against their party to vote for a ceasefire, or go against their constituents and abstain.

I don't know why the SNP wouldn't accept Labour's need for condemnation of Hamas, I can only assume they were playing politics to try to trap Labour by forcing a rebellion. I'm not in Scotland so that's kinda frustrating for me.

They do have a number of prominent tin hat wearers!

Tbf to the Tories I think the majority of Tory MPs don't share these views. But Sunak has generally been very happy for Anderson and co to say the kind of unsavoury things he would never say (and doesn't evenbelieve). These comments do appeal to a certain chunk of the electorate that they would like to attract. Especially now it's pretty desperate measures.

The Tories are going to have to work v hard in opposition to become a united party again.

Tbf Labour was also very divided in the recent past. Starmer has done a decent job at bringing them together again.

Explain why thinking the Mayor of London has ‘given London to his mates’ is wrong?
Explain why agreeing when someone says ‘Tommy Robinson is a hero’ is wrong?
(Just to pick 2 things from this week).
Are you serious?

Indeed!

I had high hopes when Starmer came in as I thought we might have a strong, ethical political candidate. Instead he seems to flip flop all over the place and seem unsure of what he's saying.

The conservatives have always seen themselves as a broad church and happy to be so as it is better at holding onto power. It’s why we have one mainstream right wing party (Tory) rather than arguably 3/4 mainstream left wing parties.
The problem is with by only really giving those on the right on option is you do end up with the loony fringe- but I think there are just as many crazies on the left - they just might not be so tied to Labour giving Starmer to confidence to throw a few stones here.

Yes, or claiming transactivists run the civil service

That's kinda my problem. Some of this stuff is so bonkers that the Conservatives should have applied a bullshit filter before it hit the public. I think its actually pretty irresponsible and dangerous, but maybe I've been listening to too much Jon Ronson lately.

See also Bravermans "protect the cenotaph" idiocy

Most of the Tory party believe that, whatever they say or do between now & the next election, they are going to lose, and lose badly. They don’t say this publicly, obv, but anyone who follows politics knows it’s the reality.

When they do lose, most of them assume that Sunak will resign as leader immediately so there will be a leadership election and a massive battle within the party not just for the leadership, but for its future direction & policies. That battle has already started among the right-wing populist wing of the party, with people who are not currently in government like Truss, Braverman, Jenrick etc etc and their supporters setting out their stalls. Farage may also be a player, he certainly sees himself as one.

@AdamRyan except that's not his job. Pressure from constituents shouldn't alter longstanding Parliamentary rules, particularly not on the hoof.

I think the reality is that the pressure is more akin to death threats rather than annoyed emails.

I was pleased to see Plaid Cymru signed up for honest campaigning and mentioned it in PMQs - would be great if Labour followed suit. I'm in England so can't vote Plaid but if I was Welsh this would be persuasive for me.

It is ridiculous though that parties have to pledge to do this!

https://fullfact.org/blog/2024/jan/major-parties-commit-to-standards-for-honest-politics-for-next-election/

It is his job. If you read the advice he had from Tom Goldsmith, it was very clear that the speaker has full discretion over the amendments to be read, and the order of them.

He broke precedent, but in his role as speaker he can absolutely choose to do that.

Anyway, the Conservatives may have shot themselves in the foot as its going to cost them more to have a speaker who's not confident to assert the rules. It means the speaker is less likely to challenge when MPs are pointing out inconsistencies and implying opponents are lying, an allegation which is far more often made against the Tories.

I won't reply about the speaker any more because its a bit of a derail

Key point: these are not the beliefs of the Conservative Party. They're beliefs held by many of their less-cognitively-blessed supporters, who at this point are the only ones guaranteed to vote for them.

Because, surprisingly, not everything that happens under a national government is the national governments' fault.

A lot of government is devolved to local councils for example. If a local council completely mismanages its own finances is that the fault of the national government ?

Or if the Scottish government implements poor policy is that miraculously the fault of the national government too ?

Or is it simply that local governments can do no wrong and everything is the fault of the national one ?

Good point.

It’s the elephant in the room. Everyone knows that it’s not supporters of Israel who are threatening democratically elected British politicians & their staff. But everyone is too intimidated to point out who is doing it. Because to do so would be seen as ‘inflammatory’. So we have this entirely spurious mud-slinging, because nobody is prepared to speak the truth.

I think niche views and conspiracy theories are held by people of all political leanings. If you venture into the guardian political comments there are some quite bonkers theories that crop up regularly there.