To conclude Starmer's Labour is no longer in any way "left"?

[windowframer]

Labour shadow ministers now use "lefty" as a term of abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/08/middle-class-lefties-wont-stop-labour-using-private-sector-to-cut-nhs-backlog-wes-streeting-says

How can they make it any more clear what they do and don't stand for? Can you imagine the Tories fulminating about how they won't be lectured to be "middle class Conservatives", or Farage slagging off "working class Brexiteers"?

This post is not about "Labour good / Tories bad" OR the opposite. Just clarity about what "Labour" actually is.

Whatever it is . . . . . .

Urgh that’s depressing

Don’t know why you’re quoting Corbyn@Clavinova. He hasn’t been the Labour leader for more than four years. Regardless of any three year old quotes you might dredge up, self ID isn’t current Labour policy.

This is a lie and you know it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66299705

You said that Labour has never proposed Self ID.

That is untrue.

They have had to back track because it is politically unpopular not because they don't want to introduce it.

So it’s not currently Labour policy. Exactly the same as the Tories backtracked on it from political expedience.

You said 'Labour has never proposed' self ID.

That is untrue.

It may not be current policy because Labour has seen it is not in their political best interests but you have misrepresented the fact that this has only ever been a Tory proposal which is untrue, isn't it?

When people say that "the far left and far right are the same" I don't really understand what that means, except perhaps in terms of authoritarianism. Both Stalin and Hitler were so confident of the correctness of their ideology that they were willing to commit authoritarian atrocities to maintain it. I'm not sure of the relevance of that though. Corbyn was not Stalin and Sunak is not Hitler. Edited

Because both sides are authoritarian and driven by ideological purity. They both end up doing the same thing, which is saying ' people don't know what's good for them, so I'll just do what I think is right. The ideology is the authoritarianism. Both extremes always ends ip with someone saying they should get rid of democracy because people arent voting correctly. I agree that politics is circular. The centre right and centre left at the top have some crossovers on the economy etc. I would say the Hard Left of Corbyn is very far away from the hard Right of Reform on the opposite sides of the circle I don't think Sunak is hard right- more a bit right of centre. But the more extreme each of the hard left/right become, the closer they go to the other side.

Because both sides are authoritarian and driven by ideological purity. They both end up doing the same thing, which is saying ' people don't know what's good for them, so I'll just do what I think is right.

Well that's the authoritarian aspect that I admitted. But "what they think is right", in terms of the economy and distribution of resources, is poles apart. Stalin and Mao used their authoritarian power to enforce massive collectivisation of industry and agriculture, taking things out of private hands and making everybody a direct employee of the state. Hitler used his to enforce a rigid social and class system in which the means of production were still owned privately.

And when this subject is raised in relation to the UK currently, it's usually based on typifying Corbyn etc. as far left and Farage etc. as far right. I agree that trying to make such a connection between them is ridiculous. For one thing, there was absolutely nothing authoritarian about Corbyn, in fact his record within the Labour party as leader was actually the direct opposite of that, attempting (against huge vested interest resistance) to strengthen grass roots democracy. Starmer is far more authoritarian than Corbyn ever was.

I would say the actual economics of how they want the state to be run ends up as secondary to the ideology. 'State run' still ends up in the hands of a small group of people who hold all the wealth. They never, ever bother with the 'redistribution equally to the people' bit of communist theory. On the Right, the wealth is also held by a small group of people, normally agents of the dictatorship.

I agree Corbyn was not authoritarian, but I think that's mainly because he was a weak politician who loved rabble rousing from the sidelines but was not strong enough or principled enough (despite his telling everyone how principled he was) to appeal to a broad enough range of people to win an election. Talking to people who already agree with you is not enough to 'promote grassroots democracy' because he was just promoting democracy amongst his own grassroots. YOu have to win elections to make a change. He didnt appeal to a broad enough range of people to be able to win an election. Unfoprtunately, thats democracy.

Would it be too much to ask that politicians simply act with probity in their dealings with ordinary people (constituents); honourably in their relationships with facts, information and business relationships, and tell the truth when asked?

You’re right

It's all relative. Labour are more left than the current Tories.
Also don't take one bad soundbite to represent all that labour stands for.

Also due to our unfair electoral system where left wing parties always lose out. If we had proportional representation he might have won

Apparently yes. If the last 14 years are any indication.

Ah OP you work tirelessly for Tory HQ. I hope they recognise your effort.

YAWN.
The potshots at Labour on here are getting tiresome.
We’re still going to vote them in at the next election y’know.
No matter how imperfect one may believe Labour to be (and I actually happen to think they have an impressive shadow cabinet of eminently qualified grown-ups) they’re still far and away the best choice given the shower of incompetent twunts currently in charge.

Corbyn is not far left any way. He's a socialist not a communist. His economic position is similar to the governing parties of much of modern Europe. His social position is probably similar.

Sunak is further right economically than most European countries. However Hitler wasn't that right wing economically- it was his social policies that were extreme right. We are seeing unpleasant hints of that from the current Tories in the Rwanda thing and the "hostile environment" but it's a very long way from Hitler.

Stalin and Hitler were both dictators who killed loads of people. That's what is meant by extreme left and right are similar. All of sunak starmer and Corbyn are pretty central really.

Exactly this. I don’t understand why people can’t grasp the fact that having nice policies whilst not being in power is completely pointless. Starmer has to win an election and taking a centrist position is the only chance he has of doing that. We will never have a hard left government in this country again, people just won’t vote for it. The sooner people wrap their heads round this indisputable fact, the sooner we can get rid of the tories.

Also the reason you are able to claim that there’s a lack of concrete difference between parties is because Starmer isn’t going to release his manifesto early - or the Tories will nick all his policy ideas! As has already happened several times.

The Tories have been revealed as total incompetents and have resorted to adopting Labour positions over and over again.

People did actually like Corbyn a lot. He increased the party membership massively, I think it became the biggest party in Europe under him. He appeared at Glastonbury... He did really well until he became seen as an actual feasible threat to capitalism and then the press/think tank machinery swung into action to destroy him with the antisemitism thing.

Can't get excited about Starmer but wouldn't vote anything other than Labour.

Lol, as if Corbyn was any kind of threat to capitalism! Tickets to Glasto are at the bare minimum £200 a pop! The people who go are pretty wealthy. As if they would be cheering on the fall of Capitalism if it ever became a reality. The ' largest party in Europe' was 500,000 people. Some Tory entryists who paid £3 to vote for Corbyn, and a load of people who just decided to join Labour yes, because of JC because he was something different, and didn't bother paying their £3 subsequently. 500,000 people ( especially when concentrated amongst a very narrow Glastonbury going demographic) don't win elections, as seen in 2017 and 2019, when he didn't win elections.

Corbyn was an absolute disaster for Labour but still the party membership was at an all time high 🙄 and the comrades could celebrate this but how was that useful to the general public. It wasn’t

thankfully the left have been kicked back to the sidelines to plan their revolution there is no doubt at some point in the future they will kick back again to make sure Labour are kept in opposition

They are a gift to the Tories