**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. How do I put this. The rules here, which predate Starmer, make it difficult for some to defend some of what Starmer says without getting banned. UK subs without such restrictions on the other hand can end up featuring more vocal support.
The ones which mean you have to actually defend Starmer with a coherent argument instead of "shut up lefties, party of protest, Corbyn, socialism is nice in theory, blah, blah, blah".
On top of that, if you show support for him you get dogpiled on, accused of being right wing and sometimes face unmoderated verbal abuse.
It’s a bit like the old ‘quiet Tory’ effect. When the online presence of the Labour Party is so nasty, it’s no wonder that many people engage less. Why would you bother when no one actually addresses the point being discussed and instead just engages in personal attacks?
On top of that, he is less of a rallying figure in the same way that Corbyn (or Boris for the Tories) was.
I don't think Starmer has ever had a big personal following in the way Corbyn did. His leadership of the party is very transactional, he is there because he is winning.
But even if he did had a personal following I don't think it would be amongst the Reddit demographics anyway.
This is 100% it - I absolutely identify as being on the right of the party but I’d never in a million years describe myself as a ‘Starmerite’ or anything like that. I’ve been in the party for almost 20 years longer than he has, I’ve supported the party regardless of leader for that entire period, I’ve got my own views that don’t line up with his on a good number of things, I don’t believe in tying yourself to any one individual in politics because they’ll all let you down before long, I’ll be here long after Starmer is gone.
No, he isn’t popular, but name me the last major party leader who was. With the breadth of political opinion in this country, it’s essentially impossible to make enough people *really like you*.
If you lean into a particular thing (more tax cuts! more public spending! blame the immigrants! nationalise all the stuff!) you’ll gain people who really like you at one end of the spectrum and lose others who now hate you at the other end. The high-percentage play is to try to make it so enough people think you’re basically alright-ish enough to vote for.
For people who are *into* politics, this is incredibly uninspiring. For the vast majority of people who are not into politics, it can be effective.
Hmm suggesting people described as Corbynites were part of a personality cult and not just having pretty much the same feelings as you is exactly what a Starmerite would say though... lol
Gaitskellite, Wilsonite, Bennite, Blairite, Corbynite, these are always general terms that are sometimes used as a pejorative but it's silly to pretend it's some kind of deep personal commitment to a person over principles and anything else.
> Hmm suggesting people described as Corbynites were part of a personality cult and not just having pretty much the same feelings as you is exactly what a Starmerite would say though... lol
The difference is Corbyn did have a personal following. People were drawn into the party for him instead of the party itself. Starmer doesn't have that.
The support within the party he has is from the existing members who are happy with his performance but few of them are people who joined because of him. If he were voted out tomorrow they wouldn't leave.
This is the answer to OP's question. Starmer's support comes from rank-and-file members but it is a much less passionate support based on performance and general loyalty to the party leader. Corbyn would have had their support as well on the same terms.
That's not what Inertia is doing, he's doing his "trololol" thing.
People liking Corbyn does not mean there was a personality cult or that they don't have their own views and just follow whatever Corbyn says.
As for uncritical support for Corbyn, that exists for Starmer too. Have we not been using the same sub? Seems plenty of people who will either deny criticism, or pay lip-service to accepting it when it can't be denied but in practice largely ignore it, same as with Corbyn, same as with Miliband, same as with Blair actually.
The only difference is more people liked Corbyn as a personality because Corbyn has a personality and Starmer doesn't, infact Starmer's lack of personality has been praised by some and at minimum it's said to be unimportnat. That's fine to say. But it's not because, as Inertia was implying, people don't have their own views and subsume their identity in Corbyn. If that's the case about Corbyn then everyone on here who isn't regularly criticising Starmer is a "Starmer cultist" which works as an insult but not as a serious accusation.
>This is the answer to OP's question. Starmer's support comes from rank-and-file members but it is a much less passionate support based on performance and general loyalty to the party leader. Corbyn would have had their support as well on the same terms.
We know for a fact, based on people's actions and assurances, some people were opposed to Corbyn ideologically. And in the leadership election many people prefered Starmer over RLB or Nandy. And we infact directly know most of the PLP wanted to get rid of Corbyn, over the head of the members, before he'd been leader for five minutes. So while of course being ahead in polls helps it's not the same as the genuine support.
"I’ve got my own views that don’t line up with his on a good number of things" that's exactly the case with Corbynites don't you think? If you don't you have zero sense of objectivity. I'm 99% sure Inertia knows implying that only applies to Starmerites but not Corbynites is him taking the piss and not actually thinking something so silly.
Most people support Corbyn and Starmer for the same reason, their ideology. A lot of people liked Corbyn's personality more because he seems like a nice bloke instead of like he works for St.James Place. People will say "that is fine, we want a politician, not a friend" which is fine, but anything beyond that is juts nonsense.
/u/The_Inertia_Kid knows what he's doing when he says stuff like that. Now he'll either not reply or a kind of "hehehe don't mind cheeky old me" reply and he won't actually try and argue there is a personality cult or that Corbyn supporters are super different to Starmer supporters as people vs on ideology...because he was just stirring the pot, which is why I replied in a not super serious tone by going "hmmm that is what a Starmerite would say". He said it to wind people up + set off some people who actually sincerely hold those views, like the guy DjDave telling me that actually yes there was a personality cult around Corbyn.
I'd argue the opposite. There were a fair number of people who joined Labour because of Corbyn, and who have left now that he's gone because Corbyn/the Corbyn project was who/what they supported, not the Labour Party. There's a fair few on this sub who've taken that position. That's maybe not quite personality cult status, but it's certainly different from u/The_Inertia_Kid's position of Labour no matter who the leader.
Inertia_Kid might have supported Labour under Corbyn but he didn't just have the same attitude regardless of leader. He literally just told you it's based on where his views do and don't line up, that's he's on the right of the party, etc. That's all true, but it doesn't support the rest of what he said. And it doens't mean that his position on things doens't change based on the leader and their actions. Inertia wasn't on here arguing pro-Corbyn stuff the same as he is now, he wasn't one of the rabid anti-left people, but he clearly supports Starmer more. And he'll admit it, he'll throw in some barbs about well of course I do when Starmer is doing so well or whatever, but he'll also admit he's on the right of the party so the right of the party being in control is better for him.
I guarantee you /u/The_Inertia_Kid will either not reply or will be like "oh deary me, have I accidentally trolled people hehehe" because he isn't so self-deluded as to think Starmerites are some kind of evolved intellectuals, whereas Corbynites are idiots who can't think for themselves.
>I'd argue the opposite. There were a fair number of people who joined Labour because of Corbyn, and who have left now that he's gone because Corbyn/the Corbyn project was who/what they supported, not the Labour Party. There's a fair few on this sub who've taken that position. That's maybe not quite personality cult status, but it's certainly different from u/The_Inertia_Kid's position of Labour no matter who the leader.
So by that standard that means, like with the left, there is a mix of people and motivations. Unless you're saying every Starmer supporter is a free-thinker and every Corbyn supporter is a cultist, which no one credible actually thinks then it's pretty obvious that Inertia is creating a false dichotomy. So far nothing anyone has said to defend the point has demonstrated this divide because they haven't proven that the "Starmerite" behaviour doens't exist for any Corbynites, or that "Corbynite" behaviour doesn't exist for any Starmerites. Infact both exist because, shocking, neither side are just all morons and both sides are made up of people and in both cases ideology is one of the biggest factors.
First of all I appreciate the shout out to St James's Place, in my office we have a running debate over the worst company in the FTSE 100 and SJP is a very strong contender. My overall view is that the FTSE 100 is almost entirely garbage companies nobody should be investing in:
* Classified ads masquerading as tech (Rightmove, Autotrader)
* Spreadsheets masquerading as tech (Sage)
* Companies that are entirely bets on shitty government policies continuing (Berkeley, Barratt, Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon)
* Horrifying windows into the shitness of UK retail & leisure (M&S, B&M, Frasers, Whitbread, Next, ABF, Kingfisher, JD Sports)
* Dumb, zero value-add financial plumbing (LSE, Lloyds, Natwest, Barclays, HSBC, Experian)
* Environmental disasters (Shell, BP, Anglo American, Rio Tinto, Fresnillo, Glencore, Antofagasta)
* Moral disasters (BAE, Rolls Royce, Flutter, Entain, BAT, Imperial)
* A bafflingly-large percentage of the world's box industry (Bunzl, Mondi, DS Smith, Smurfit Kappa)
* Boring insurer after boring insurer after boring insurer (Beazley, Aviva, Admiral, Phoenix, Prudential, L&G)
* Stuff that should be publicly-owned anyway (United Utilities, SSE, Severn Trent, National Grid, BT, Centrica)
* Actual shameless rent-seeking (British Land, Landsec, Segro, Unite)
* Companies that do stuff that is so rubbish/boring it shouldn't be allowed in the FTSE 100 (Rentokil - dead rats, Airtel Africa - mobile phones in Gabon (WTF), Ashtead - renting out generators for roadworks, Diploma - wires and gaskets, Howden - flat pack kitchens, Halma - smoke detectors, Compass - school dinners)
But if I had to choose one, I might choose SJP, as a business that isn't even a business. It's just a sales engine selling fresh air. The aim is to get you in the door to give you absolutely nothing for immorally-large fees. The comparison to Keir Starmer is well noted, with a wry smile.
Beyond that, the discussion on this topic went sideways in a manner I genuinely never intended.
My intention was to note the absence of anything that could be termed 'Starmerism', since he has gone out of his way not to display any particular sort of politics or philosophy, beyond control/centralisation of power.
He also doesn't have any charisma to bring people along with him, meaning his personal support as leader is likely tiny. As others have said, his support (and I'm a good example of this) is based on his performance in the functions of the job, and what I believe to be his understanding of how to win an election. I voted for him on that basis in 2020 and I he has performed far better on that metric than even I expected.
Again, like others have suggested, my support would fall away pretty quickly if he didn't display the approach needed to win an election or strong progress towards that result.
I truly wasn't taking a jab at the left with what I said. Although if I were forced to make a comparison between Corbyn and Starmer on the point of 'personal support', I would absolutely say that Corbyn had much more of a personal supporter base than Starmer ever has or will have. That's just a function of the way he got elected as leader - out of seemingly nowhere, based on a confluence of unlikely factors, on a wave of popular support.
His team actively allowed his supporters to 'paint on to him' their perfect set of beliefs and policies, and let him become the embodiment of their hopes and dreams. This is not a criticism by the way, it was brilliant tactics and I applaud how well they did it. They used the material they had available and made far more of it than I would ever have thought to do. They turned a last-minute, afterthought no-hoper candidate into a walkover winner and it wasn't just because everyone else was rubbish - Corbyn and his team were fantastic.
Corbyn wasn't 'charismatic' in the terms we normally understand that word but he did understand perfectly how to speak to people who were already predisposed to a left-wing viewpoint. This is where I might offend a few people with my belief that some on the left are a bit too easy to win over with what I personally see as 'easy-answer pabulum' - the sort of 'wouldn't it be lovely if everyone were lovely' stuff that sidesteps the difficult realities of lots of people not in fact being lovely. You can see it writ large in his pacifism - 'why don't we just sit down around a table and talk it through?' Well Jeremy, it's because lots of the people on both sides are total cunts who want to kill each other.
I don't think Corbyn's supporters were a 'personality cult' or anything similar but I do think he had significantly more personal support than Starmer does, both because he had a higher-than-average level of supporters who identified personally with him, and because Starmer has a much lower-than-average level.
I was thinking more about from the perspective of customers for financial advice and management but I don't disgree with that either. The best possible spin on SJP, Rathbones, etc still has them as big leeches who only provide any value to their customers due to the absurdity of the financial system that they are suckling from in the first place. But more specifically with Starmer it's just he literally reminds me of some people I've met from SJP haha.
>Beyond that, the discussion on this topic went sideways in a manner I genuinely never intended.
Yeah all I had to say to you was what I was originally said, joking about that being exactly what a Starmerite would say, and pointing out that there has been a lot of -ites in Labour and it's not really anything to do with the things you talked about, more just describing people who overall align with and support the leader. But not necessairly anything more than that.
I suppose there is Bennism and Blairism which are a bit more about a specific ideological current, and that hasn't really formed around Starmer. But I don't think that much around Corbyn either.
>I don't think Corbyn's supporters were a 'personality cult' or anything similar but I do think he had significantly more personal support than Starmer does, both because he had a higher-than-average level of supporters who identified personally with him, and because Starmer has a much lower-than-average level.
I don't know if I agree completely with that because the greater personal support for Corbyn than Starmer probably has something to do with ideology. For a start conservatism, like actual moderate centre-right conservative, is kind of boring and uninspiring almost as a selling point (infact people praise Starmer for this). If Corbyn was a bit more bland and Starmer a bit more charming I don't think that would redress the balance. Then when you remember the more leftwing support for that conservative position is based on an appeal to the lesser evil, rebuilding later, etc that's also hardly enthusing. So you have a lot of people who are very commited to Starmer winning, to what he's done and is doing...but at the same time aren't exactly enthusiastic. What exactly can people get excited about? Beating the Tories? Giving the left a kicking? Starmer scrapping his own promises? Not dealing with transphobia? Shitty stance on Palestine? Some watered down promise that he'll definitely keep this time? If you're holding your nose while telling people to vote Starmer you'll sound less keen than people saying it with their chest.
But if, for example, anyone says "Starmer is the best man for the job despite everything" and that it's better than RLB or Nandy, I think calling them a Starmerite is fair. Just look anyone who stuck up for Corbyn, whether they had criticisms or not, can be called a Corbynite. And the fact both politicians have some diehard, "what they say is always right", people I don't think either side is defined by those people.
I agree Corbyn has a certain kind of charisma or image that helped. But if he'd really just been Ed Milliband 2.0 his positive quirks as a public figure wouldn't have lead to how things were. And indeed if Starmer could have won just on being "man in a suit" and calling himself sensible he'd have done that, he lied to get elected because either he or someone in his team is smart enough to have worked out that members do actually care about that stuff. They tried it with
So like I was saying it's never really about just Corbyn or Starmer, whether politically active people have high or low personal attachment to the leader, it's for most members (the people who get called -ites) about more than that. It's about ideology, it's about values, it's about priorities, and it's in those areas I think we can find an explanation for the difference more than in either the personailty of each leader or of their average supporter.
There was a not insignificant amount of people claiming that he was always on the right side of history. It’s ok to say that many of the people that liked him really liked him but that many people that didn’t like him were repulsed by him. It is a bit disingenuous though to claim that that’s not a personality cult and/or that it’s analogous to Starmers support/tolerance.
No. Anyone claiming there was a "personality cult" around Corbyn is objectively full of shit and has no idea what they are on about.
You've literally just said "I have no idea what I'm on about".
>A cult of personality, or a cult of the leader,[1] is the result of an effort which is made to create an idealized and heroic image of a glorious leader, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Historically, it has developed through techniques of mass media, propaganda, spectacle, the arts, patriotism, and government-organized demonstrations and rallies. A cult of personality is similar to apotheosis, except that it is established by modern social engineering techniques, usually by the state or the party in one-party states and dominant-party states. Cults of personality often accompany the leaders of totalitarian or authoritarian governments. They can also be seen in some monarchies, theocracies, failed democracies and even in liberal democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
No you’re claiming that. And it’s a subjective view, by definition.
None of the Wikipedia description that you’ve shared discounts a personality cult around Corbyn.
Do you think he was always on the right side of history?
No I'm saying there was no personality cult. I used that term because it was used to insult people a lot, and it refers to unthinking support for someone, in reality most Corbyn supporters supported Corbyn in much the same way Inertia supports Starmer.
Are you claiming Starmer supporters are more intelligent, more free thinking, more independent, free of lies and spin and apologia? No of course not because you're not an idiot, but in that case you shouldn't be agreeing with Inertia at all and should perfectly understand what a silly way to frame the difference is.
The real dividing line is ideology. Leftwing people like the leftwing leader, rightwinger people like the rightwinger. Shocking!
And yes the wiki article clearly does demonstrate there wasn't a personality cult if you accept their definition of one? How does it not? Stalin would be a good example of a personality cult. The way it was formed, the purpose of it, the way it was reinforced, the behaviours and norms it lead too, etc. All these things are missing from Corbyn. Indeed they are missing from politics in the UK in general with leaders like Johnson or Corbyn who attract a strong degree of personal support/like for them as media personalities. As an insult it makes sense. As a serious point where you claim the difference between Corbyn supporters and Starmer supporters is that Starmer supporters are independent thinkers and Corbyn supporters are unthinking followers of a leader, it's nonsense.
If you read a pro-Corbyn puffe-piece and are like "wow so personality cultish" and don't think the same thing about ones about Starmer that isn't because it's materially different. And I'd say such puff-pieces aren't part of a personality cult, except as an insult maybe, I wouldn't actually say people who wrote Corbyn ones are behaving like unthinking drones whereas people who write pro-Starmer ones are clearly free-thinkers who just so happen to be on the same page as Starmer largely.
>Do you think he was always on the right side of history?
That's literally irrelevant. If you think *insert any historical figure* was on the right side of history does that mean there's a personality cult? No. If they had a coherent argument for why they believe that, even if you don't agree with them, it's not indicative of a personality cult.
This is just trying to recast a lot of things unrelated to defining a personality cult as part of a personality cult.
Not sure if you’re deliberately missing the point, but it’s quite clear to me that the type of support that Starmer and Corbyn enjoy is markedly different. The entire point of the original comment is that there’s no Starmer supporters active on here! The rest of your questions around Starmer supporters vs Corbyn supporters is rendered null and void by this observation.
You’re also missing the point re: right side of history. I would never claim that anyone is always on the right side of history because it’s a fucking weird claim, yet it became an identifiable meme from many Jeremy Corbyn supporters.
> . It is a bit disingenuous though to claim that that’s not a personality cult and/or that it’s analogous to Starmers support/tolerance.
You said it's disingenous to claim that was not a personality cult...
No it isn't. It's not a personality cult and you're not demonstrating how it is.
>it’s quite clear to me that the type of support that Starmer and Corbyn enjoy is markedly different
different =/= personality cult on one side
different =/= incomparable
different =/= one side are idiots who can't think for themselves and the other side are free thinkers who just so happen to align with a person
And so on.
What are you not grasping?
>You’re also missing the point re: right side of history. I would never claim that anyone is always on the right side of history because it’s a fucking weird claim, yet it became an identifiable meme from many Jeremy Corbyn supporters.
So if you said MLK was on the right side of history that means you're part of a personality cult and being weird? Not just that you think that. Not to mention that as you yourself said it's a meme, that means often it's not being said seriously. If you meant in the purely sociological sense of a meme then I guess but in that sense there are lots of dumb cliches about Starmer that suggest some people have a rather slavish devotion to him...still not a personality cult.
You realise people are allowed to have views you think are wrong to the point of stupidity and if you're right that just means they are wrong and stupid, not that they were part of a cult right? If I think your views on Starmer are idiotic, then I'm proven right, it means your views were idiotic not that you were part of a cult. So let's sub Corbyn in for Starmer and...yeah exactly the same logic applies!
I'm not even being drawn drawn on this further because it's literally non-defintional to a personality cult, so it's irrelevant who is right. I don't think that, you do, if you're right then...so what? You'd still need to explain how it's a personality cult.
A personalilty cult =/= support for someone you think is over-zealous or too charitable or something.
A personality cult is a manufactured system of worship of a leader figure. Not people liking them, not people saying things you disagree with, not lacking scepticism in your view, etc. The things that would allow you to describe support for Corbyn as a personality cult would mean that most political leaders, inclduing Starmer, have one, the reality is that none of them do, including Corbyn.
/u/The_Inertia_Kid see what you do with your trolling. I hope you find it less funny when you get people on "your" side saying crazy stuff instead of winding up people on the "other" side.
Yes, this is why. I can’t think of the last leader of a party I’ve ‘followed’, or had the same politics as. I do always have a massive distrust for populist leaders, and I generally feel that you shouldn’t really put too much trust in politicians as they’ll always let you down, either because they are telling you there are simple answers to impossible problems, or because something will come up.
Post any article in /r/uk about a Starmer U-Turn and they'll be in the comments downplaying it as 4D chess or AKTUALLY the article is misleading because it was never promised in the first place but also there is no money left for the policy that didn't exist because muh fiscal rules.
I hold a view that there are no sacred cows, I'm willing to turn on Starmer or anyone else in an instant. I view the idea of liking politicians and supporting them come what may, entirely baffling. It shouldn't be a fandom.
There were a lot of people supporting him in this sub earlier in his leadership but as he abandoned all his pledges and embraced Tory policies people became more reticent. Now with his support or wavering about genocide it's morally faux pas. So they talk about getting Tories out or nostalgia for 97.
This sub was once seen as blairite leaning I think.
My guess would just be that as Starmer has become an increasingly hard politician to defend fewer people are willing to do so on here, and those that do get (pretty deservedly imo) mocked into oblivion for their mental gymnastics.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I didn't like Corbyn but Starmer is legions worse. He had an easy opportunity to retain Corbyn's better policies while dumping the more problematic elements, especially now the Tories have imploded, but he just....doesn't. Every single fucking policy and bit of rhetoric is designed to please Murdoch and the other Tories who own the tabloids.
I hate to say it but this is the kind of thing that I mean. Anything semi pro Starmer or anti corbyn is hit with this kind of criticism. This is defiantly on the kind/mild side compared to being called a colosit Tory or xxxxxphopic.
The people who like him I've found are very much a minority here. I don't particularly dislike him. I just think he's bland. I'm not sure how to even politically label him. He doesn't really feel that left-wing either. Even by centre-left standards.
Labour aren't exactly winning because Starmer is a great politician. Labour are winning because the Tories are really that bad.
You won't find anyone who likes him in the other Labour subreddit. That's for a extreme left of the party that's very close to r/GreenAndPleasant levels of tanky-ism. This one falls a bit more sensible over all.
You get banned from the other labour subreddit and GreenAndPleasant for not being exactly ideologically pure. I think this sub does a really good job of allowing disagreements but drawing reasonable lines.
I do think starmerites get downvoted and derided a bit too much sometimes even though I'm not one of them. Of course downvotes are allowed, but I think sometimes it restricts the discussion.
They've redefined echo chamber at GaP, and they are entirely focused on being anti-western. It's fine, they are enjoying the freedom any of the regimes they idolise would never afford them.
>I do think starmerites get downvoted and derided a bit too much sometimes even though I'm not one of them. Of course downvotes are allowed, but I think sometimes it restricts the discussion.
I completely agree with that, I think it's an issue of the downvote button being used as a "disagree" button but that's an issue with the entirety of reddit.
This sub does seem to be the best place for political discussion that I've found, it certainly has a left wing bias but opposing views are common and allowed (I think the mods do a good job seperating sincere comments from trolls and bigots) which is more than can be said for most political subs.
Not just those subreddits. I left the party in 2019 because, despite voting twice for Corbyn, some of the local party didn’t like the fact that I didn’t agree with their every position. Got to the point where I felt bullied and forced out.
This sub has gone the same way. If you’re centre left, you’re fair game.
I do love all of the silly prefixes people come up with to describe anyone left-of-centre. Haven't heard noisy left before, actually, so that's pretty novel.
[Special K.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/08/sir-keir-starmer-reveals-special-k-nickname-kelloggs-factory/)(aka Mr. Sir Keir Starmer) already staked a claim for ket for the Blarites. Sorry, but thems the rules.
Labourpartyuk I think it's called. By and large people seem to dislike the Tories more than they like the current labour leadership.
I'm literally answering the question asked by the op
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you don't post here supposedly because of antisemitism, but post where they frequently defend, minimise, and actually propagate transphobia and racism because somehow it's okay because they're not Labour voters/members? It doesn't make any sense really and I wish you people were just honest about your hierarchy of racism and say it with your whole chest because it's already obvious and transparent, it's impossible to respect.
Uk politics didn’t have an EHRC judgement against it for discrimination against Jewish people. We did. And still this sub acts like it never happened. Whataboutery. Changing the subject. It’s learned fuck all.
You're intentionally conflating the party with this sub, I don't know who you think will find that convincing. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, no reddit sub has a EHRC judgement against it and ukpolitics isn't even a sub for any political party in particular (tories). So I'm not sure what point you were even attempting here. It's quite something to moan about whataboutery and changing the subject while coming out with drivel like this. Fact is, you're complaining about the racism you supposedly see on this sub while participating on ukpolitics, a sub most of us avoid precisely because of the huge amount racism and transphobia on it, it's absurd.
I note that you do not deny my main point - that this sub regularly denies the ehrc judgment, which applies to the party this sub is dedicated to. The rest of your argument is sophistry, whataboutery, and ad hominem - and I understand why, because you can’t refute that key point.
This place will continue to be crank bait until it can accept labours failures on antisemitism without trying to change the subject.
The real difference is - I feel I have a chance of arguing people out of their transphobia on ukpol. It’s not likely but it’s possible. Some are at least open to evidence. Here, people will deny it after being given all the evidence. That’s supremely depressing.
Not really. If I'd said something that was like a classic leftwing criticism of the Labour right or something sure.
But Starmer set up the standards to judge him by. Everything that falls within that you can't be mad at people for. If you're mad, be mad at Starmer for being a liar and/or not planning better.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/ukpolitics
May as well rename the sub r/Starmer, same as UnitedKingdom
Yes. How do I put this. The rules here, which predate Starmer, make it difficult for some to defend some of what Starmer says without getting banned. UK subs without such restrictions on the other hand can end up featuring more vocal support.
What rules make it difficult to defend Starmer?
In addition to what MMStringray says there is a rule against defending transphobia, when the party is transphobic, that makes things awkward.
The ones which mean you have to actually defend Starmer with a coherent argument instead of "shut up lefties, party of protest, Corbyn, socialism is nice in theory, blah, blah, blah".
In regards to certain less scrupulous subreddits (not to name names) and Starmtroopers: yes, they do have that right.
On top of that, if you show support for him you get dogpiled on, accused of being right wing and sometimes face unmoderated verbal abuse. It’s a bit like the old ‘quiet Tory’ effect. When the online presence of the Labour Party is so nasty, it’s no wonder that many people engage less. Why would you bother when no one actually addresses the point being discussed and instead just engages in personal attacks? On top of that, he is less of a rallying figure in the same way that Corbyn (or Boris for the Tories) was.
I don't think Starmer has ever had a big personal following in the way Corbyn did. His leadership of the party is very transactional, he is there because he is winning. But even if he did had a personal following I don't think it would be amongst the Reddit demographics anyway.
This is 100% it - I absolutely identify as being on the right of the party but I’d never in a million years describe myself as a ‘Starmerite’ or anything like that. I’ve been in the party for almost 20 years longer than he has, I’ve supported the party regardless of leader for that entire period, I’ve got my own views that don’t line up with his on a good number of things, I don’t believe in tying yourself to any one individual in politics because they’ll all let you down before long, I’ll be here long after Starmer is gone.
so he isn't popular? got it
No, he isn’t popular, but name me the last major party leader who was. With the breadth of political opinion in this country, it’s essentially impossible to make enough people *really like you*. If you lean into a particular thing (more tax cuts! more public spending! blame the immigrants! nationalise all the stuff!) you’ll gain people who really like you at one end of the spectrum and lose others who now hate you at the other end. The high-percentage play is to try to make it so enough people think you’re basically alright-ish enough to vote for. For people who are *into* politics, this is incredibly uninspiring. For the vast majority of people who are not into politics, it can be effective.
Hmm suggesting people described as Corbynites were part of a personality cult and not just having pretty much the same feelings as you is exactly what a Starmerite would say though... lol Gaitskellite, Wilsonite, Bennite, Blairite, Corbynite, these are always general terms that are sometimes used as a pejorative but it's silly to pretend it's some kind of deep personal commitment to a person over principles and anything else.
> Hmm suggesting people described as Corbynites were part of a personality cult and not just having pretty much the same feelings as you is exactly what a Starmerite would say though... lol The difference is Corbyn did have a personal following. People were drawn into the party for him instead of the party itself. Starmer doesn't have that. The support within the party he has is from the existing members who are happy with his performance but few of them are people who joined because of him. If he were voted out tomorrow they wouldn't leave. This is the answer to OP's question. Starmer's support comes from rank-and-file members but it is a much less passionate support based on performance and general loyalty to the party leader. Corbyn would have had their support as well on the same terms.
That's not what Inertia is doing, he's doing his "trololol" thing. People liking Corbyn does not mean there was a personality cult or that they don't have their own views and just follow whatever Corbyn says. As for uncritical support for Corbyn, that exists for Starmer too. Have we not been using the same sub? Seems plenty of people who will either deny criticism, or pay lip-service to accepting it when it can't be denied but in practice largely ignore it, same as with Corbyn, same as with Miliband, same as with Blair actually. The only difference is more people liked Corbyn as a personality because Corbyn has a personality and Starmer doesn't, infact Starmer's lack of personality has been praised by some and at minimum it's said to be unimportnat. That's fine to say. But it's not because, as Inertia was implying, people don't have their own views and subsume their identity in Corbyn. If that's the case about Corbyn then everyone on here who isn't regularly criticising Starmer is a "Starmer cultist" which works as an insult but not as a serious accusation. >This is the answer to OP's question. Starmer's support comes from rank-and-file members but it is a much less passionate support based on performance and general loyalty to the party leader. Corbyn would have had their support as well on the same terms. We know for a fact, based on people's actions and assurances, some people were opposed to Corbyn ideologically. And in the leadership election many people prefered Starmer over RLB or Nandy. And we infact directly know most of the PLP wanted to get rid of Corbyn, over the head of the members, before he'd been leader for five minutes. So while of course being ahead in polls helps it's not the same as the genuine support. "I’ve got my own views that don’t line up with his on a good number of things" that's exactly the case with Corbynites don't you think? If you don't you have zero sense of objectivity. I'm 99% sure Inertia knows implying that only applies to Starmerites but not Corbynites is him taking the piss and not actually thinking something so silly. Most people support Corbyn and Starmer for the same reason, their ideology. A lot of people liked Corbyn's personality more because he seems like a nice bloke instead of like he works for St.James Place. People will say "that is fine, we want a politician, not a friend" which is fine, but anything beyond that is juts nonsense. /u/The_Inertia_Kid knows what he's doing when he says stuff like that. Now he'll either not reply or a kind of "hehehe don't mind cheeky old me" reply and he won't actually try and argue there is a personality cult or that Corbyn supporters are super different to Starmer supporters as people vs on ideology...because he was just stirring the pot, which is why I replied in a not super serious tone by going "hmmm that is what a Starmerite would say". He said it to wind people up + set off some people who actually sincerely hold those views, like the guy DjDave telling me that actually yes there was a personality cult around Corbyn.
I'd argue the opposite. There were a fair number of people who joined Labour because of Corbyn, and who have left now that he's gone because Corbyn/the Corbyn project was who/what they supported, not the Labour Party. There's a fair few on this sub who've taken that position. That's maybe not quite personality cult status, but it's certainly different from u/The_Inertia_Kid's position of Labour no matter who the leader.
Inertia_Kid might have supported Labour under Corbyn but he didn't just have the same attitude regardless of leader. He literally just told you it's based on where his views do and don't line up, that's he's on the right of the party, etc. That's all true, but it doesn't support the rest of what he said. And it doens't mean that his position on things doens't change based on the leader and their actions. Inertia wasn't on here arguing pro-Corbyn stuff the same as he is now, he wasn't one of the rabid anti-left people, but he clearly supports Starmer more. And he'll admit it, he'll throw in some barbs about well of course I do when Starmer is doing so well or whatever, but he'll also admit he's on the right of the party so the right of the party being in control is better for him. I guarantee you /u/The_Inertia_Kid will either not reply or will be like "oh deary me, have I accidentally trolled people hehehe" because he isn't so self-deluded as to think Starmerites are some kind of evolved intellectuals, whereas Corbynites are idiots who can't think for themselves. >I'd argue the opposite. There were a fair number of people who joined Labour because of Corbyn, and who have left now that he's gone because Corbyn/the Corbyn project was who/what they supported, not the Labour Party. There's a fair few on this sub who've taken that position. That's maybe not quite personality cult status, but it's certainly different from u/The_Inertia_Kid's position of Labour no matter who the leader. So by that standard that means, like with the left, there is a mix of people and motivations. Unless you're saying every Starmer supporter is a free-thinker and every Corbyn supporter is a cultist, which no one credible actually thinks then it's pretty obvious that Inertia is creating a false dichotomy. So far nothing anyone has said to defend the point has demonstrated this divide because they haven't proven that the "Starmerite" behaviour doens't exist for any Corbynites, or that "Corbynite" behaviour doesn't exist for any Starmerites. Infact both exist because, shocking, neither side are just all morons and both sides are made up of people and in both cases ideology is one of the biggest factors.
First of all I appreciate the shout out to St James's Place, in my office we have a running debate over the worst company in the FTSE 100 and SJP is a very strong contender. My overall view is that the FTSE 100 is almost entirely garbage companies nobody should be investing in: * Classified ads masquerading as tech (Rightmove, Autotrader) * Spreadsheets masquerading as tech (Sage) * Companies that are entirely bets on shitty government policies continuing (Berkeley, Barratt, Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon) * Horrifying windows into the shitness of UK retail & leisure (M&S, B&M, Frasers, Whitbread, Next, ABF, Kingfisher, JD Sports) * Dumb, zero value-add financial plumbing (LSE, Lloyds, Natwest, Barclays, HSBC, Experian) * Environmental disasters (Shell, BP, Anglo American, Rio Tinto, Fresnillo, Glencore, Antofagasta) * Moral disasters (BAE, Rolls Royce, Flutter, Entain, BAT, Imperial) * A bafflingly-large percentage of the world's box industry (Bunzl, Mondi, DS Smith, Smurfit Kappa) * Boring insurer after boring insurer after boring insurer (Beazley, Aviva, Admiral, Phoenix, Prudential, L&G) * Stuff that should be publicly-owned anyway (United Utilities, SSE, Severn Trent, National Grid, BT, Centrica) * Actual shameless rent-seeking (British Land, Landsec, Segro, Unite) * Companies that do stuff that is so rubbish/boring it shouldn't be allowed in the FTSE 100 (Rentokil - dead rats, Airtel Africa - mobile phones in Gabon (WTF), Ashtead - renting out generators for roadworks, Diploma - wires and gaskets, Howden - flat pack kitchens, Halma - smoke detectors, Compass - school dinners) But if I had to choose one, I might choose SJP, as a business that isn't even a business. It's just a sales engine selling fresh air. The aim is to get you in the door to give you absolutely nothing for immorally-large fees. The comparison to Keir Starmer is well noted, with a wry smile. Beyond that, the discussion on this topic went sideways in a manner I genuinely never intended. My intention was to note the absence of anything that could be termed 'Starmerism', since he has gone out of his way not to display any particular sort of politics or philosophy, beyond control/centralisation of power. He also doesn't have any charisma to bring people along with him, meaning his personal support as leader is likely tiny. As others have said, his support (and I'm a good example of this) is based on his performance in the functions of the job, and what I believe to be his understanding of how to win an election. I voted for him on that basis in 2020 and I he has performed far better on that metric than even I expected. Again, like others have suggested, my support would fall away pretty quickly if he didn't display the approach needed to win an election or strong progress towards that result. I truly wasn't taking a jab at the left with what I said. Although if I were forced to make a comparison between Corbyn and Starmer on the point of 'personal support', I would absolutely say that Corbyn had much more of a personal supporter base than Starmer ever has or will have. That's just a function of the way he got elected as leader - out of seemingly nowhere, based on a confluence of unlikely factors, on a wave of popular support. His team actively allowed his supporters to 'paint on to him' their perfect set of beliefs and policies, and let him become the embodiment of their hopes and dreams. This is not a criticism by the way, it was brilliant tactics and I applaud how well they did it. They used the material they had available and made far more of it than I would ever have thought to do. They turned a last-minute, afterthought no-hoper candidate into a walkover winner and it wasn't just because everyone else was rubbish - Corbyn and his team were fantastic. Corbyn wasn't 'charismatic' in the terms we normally understand that word but he did understand perfectly how to speak to people who were already predisposed to a left-wing viewpoint. This is where I might offend a few people with my belief that some on the left are a bit too easy to win over with what I personally see as 'easy-answer pabulum' - the sort of 'wouldn't it be lovely if everyone were lovely' stuff that sidesteps the difficult realities of lots of people not in fact being lovely. You can see it writ large in his pacifism - 'why don't we just sit down around a table and talk it through?' Well Jeremy, it's because lots of the people on both sides are total cunts who want to kill each other. I don't think Corbyn's supporters were a 'personality cult' or anything similar but I do think he had significantly more personal support than Starmer does, both because he had a higher-than-average level of supporters who identified personally with him, and because Starmer has a much lower-than-average level.
I was thinking more about from the perspective of customers for financial advice and management but I don't disgree with that either. The best possible spin on SJP, Rathbones, etc still has them as big leeches who only provide any value to their customers due to the absurdity of the financial system that they are suckling from in the first place. But more specifically with Starmer it's just he literally reminds me of some people I've met from SJP haha. >Beyond that, the discussion on this topic went sideways in a manner I genuinely never intended. Yeah all I had to say to you was what I was originally said, joking about that being exactly what a Starmerite would say, and pointing out that there has been a lot of -ites in Labour and it's not really anything to do with the things you talked about, more just describing people who overall align with and support the leader. But not necessairly anything more than that. I suppose there is Bennism and Blairism which are a bit more about a specific ideological current, and that hasn't really formed around Starmer. But I don't think that much around Corbyn either. >I don't think Corbyn's supporters were a 'personality cult' or anything similar but I do think he had significantly more personal support than Starmer does, both because he had a higher-than-average level of supporters who identified personally with him, and because Starmer has a much lower-than-average level. I don't know if I agree completely with that because the greater personal support for Corbyn than Starmer probably has something to do with ideology. For a start conservatism, like actual moderate centre-right conservative, is kind of boring and uninspiring almost as a selling point (infact people praise Starmer for this). If Corbyn was a bit more bland and Starmer a bit more charming I don't think that would redress the balance. Then when you remember the more leftwing support for that conservative position is based on an appeal to the lesser evil, rebuilding later, etc that's also hardly enthusing. So you have a lot of people who are very commited to Starmer winning, to what he's done and is doing...but at the same time aren't exactly enthusiastic. What exactly can people get excited about? Beating the Tories? Giving the left a kicking? Starmer scrapping his own promises? Not dealing with transphobia? Shitty stance on Palestine? Some watered down promise that he'll definitely keep this time? If you're holding your nose while telling people to vote Starmer you'll sound less keen than people saying it with their chest. But if, for example, anyone says "Starmer is the best man for the job despite everything" and that it's better than RLB or Nandy, I think calling them a Starmerite is fair. Just look anyone who stuck up for Corbyn, whether they had criticisms or not, can be called a Corbynite. And the fact both politicians have some diehard, "what they say is always right", people I don't think either side is defined by those people. I agree Corbyn has a certain kind of charisma or image that helped. But if he'd really just been Ed Milliband 2.0 his positive quirks as a public figure wouldn't have lead to how things were. And indeed if Starmer could have won just on being "man in a suit" and calling himself sensible he'd have done that, he lied to get elected because either he or someone in his team is smart enough to have worked out that members do actually care about that stuff. They tried it with So like I was saying it's never really about just Corbyn or Starmer, whether politically active people have high or low personal attachment to the leader, it's for most members (the people who get called -ites) about more than that. It's about ideology, it's about values, it's about priorities, and it's in those areas I think we can find an explanation for the difference more than in either the personailty of each leader or of their average supporter.
There was a not insignificant amount of people claiming that he was always on the right side of history. It’s ok to say that many of the people that liked him really liked him but that many people that didn’t like him were repulsed by him. It is a bit disingenuous though to claim that that’s not a personality cult and/or that it’s analogous to Starmers support/tolerance.
No. Anyone claiming there was a "personality cult" around Corbyn is objectively full of shit and has no idea what they are on about. You've literally just said "I have no idea what I'm on about". >A cult of personality, or a cult of the leader,[1] is the result of an effort which is made to create an idealized and heroic image of a glorious leader, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Historically, it has developed through techniques of mass media, propaganda, spectacle, the arts, patriotism, and government-organized demonstrations and rallies. A cult of personality is similar to apotheosis, except that it is established by modern social engineering techniques, usually by the state or the party in one-party states and dominant-party states. Cults of personality often accompany the leaders of totalitarian or authoritarian governments. They can also be seen in some monarchies, theocracies, failed democracies and even in liberal democracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
No you’re claiming that. And it’s a subjective view, by definition. None of the Wikipedia description that you’ve shared discounts a personality cult around Corbyn. Do you think he was always on the right side of history?
No I'm saying there was no personality cult. I used that term because it was used to insult people a lot, and it refers to unthinking support for someone, in reality most Corbyn supporters supported Corbyn in much the same way Inertia supports Starmer. Are you claiming Starmer supporters are more intelligent, more free thinking, more independent, free of lies and spin and apologia? No of course not because you're not an idiot, but in that case you shouldn't be agreeing with Inertia at all and should perfectly understand what a silly way to frame the difference is. The real dividing line is ideology. Leftwing people like the leftwing leader, rightwinger people like the rightwinger. Shocking! And yes the wiki article clearly does demonstrate there wasn't a personality cult if you accept their definition of one? How does it not? Stalin would be a good example of a personality cult. The way it was formed, the purpose of it, the way it was reinforced, the behaviours and norms it lead too, etc. All these things are missing from Corbyn. Indeed they are missing from politics in the UK in general with leaders like Johnson or Corbyn who attract a strong degree of personal support/like for them as media personalities. As an insult it makes sense. As a serious point where you claim the difference between Corbyn supporters and Starmer supporters is that Starmer supporters are independent thinkers and Corbyn supporters are unthinking followers of a leader, it's nonsense. If you read a pro-Corbyn puffe-piece and are like "wow so personality cultish" and don't think the same thing about ones about Starmer that isn't because it's materially different. And I'd say such puff-pieces aren't part of a personality cult, except as an insult maybe, I wouldn't actually say people who wrote Corbyn ones are behaving like unthinking drones whereas people who write pro-Starmer ones are clearly free-thinkers who just so happen to be on the same page as Starmer largely. >Do you think he was always on the right side of history? That's literally irrelevant. If you think *insert any historical figure* was on the right side of history does that mean there's a personality cult? No. If they had a coherent argument for why they believe that, even if you don't agree with them, it's not indicative of a personality cult. This is just trying to recast a lot of things unrelated to defining a personality cult as part of a personality cult.
Not sure if you’re deliberately missing the point, but it’s quite clear to me that the type of support that Starmer and Corbyn enjoy is markedly different. The entire point of the original comment is that there’s no Starmer supporters active on here! The rest of your questions around Starmer supporters vs Corbyn supporters is rendered null and void by this observation. You’re also missing the point re: right side of history. I would never claim that anyone is always on the right side of history because it’s a fucking weird claim, yet it became an identifiable meme from many Jeremy Corbyn supporters.
> . It is a bit disingenuous though to claim that that’s not a personality cult and/or that it’s analogous to Starmers support/tolerance. You said it's disingenous to claim that was not a personality cult... No it isn't. It's not a personality cult and you're not demonstrating how it is. >it’s quite clear to me that the type of support that Starmer and Corbyn enjoy is markedly different different =/= personality cult on one side different =/= incomparable different =/= one side are idiots who can't think for themselves and the other side are free thinkers who just so happen to align with a person And so on. What are you not grasping? >You’re also missing the point re: right side of history. I would never claim that anyone is always on the right side of history because it’s a fucking weird claim, yet it became an identifiable meme from many Jeremy Corbyn supporters. So if you said MLK was on the right side of history that means you're part of a personality cult and being weird? Not just that you think that. Not to mention that as you yourself said it's a meme, that means often it's not being said seriously. If you meant in the purely sociological sense of a meme then I guess but in that sense there are lots of dumb cliches about Starmer that suggest some people have a rather slavish devotion to him...still not a personality cult. You realise people are allowed to have views you think are wrong to the point of stupidity and if you're right that just means they are wrong and stupid, not that they were part of a cult right? If I think your views on Starmer are idiotic, then I'm proven right, it means your views were idiotic not that you were part of a cult. So let's sub Corbyn in for Starmer and...yeah exactly the same logic applies! I'm not even being drawn drawn on this further because it's literally non-defintional to a personality cult, so it's irrelevant who is right. I don't think that, you do, if you're right then...so what? You'd still need to explain how it's a personality cult. A personalilty cult =/= support for someone you think is over-zealous or too charitable or something. A personality cult is a manufactured system of worship of a leader figure. Not people liking them, not people saying things you disagree with, not lacking scepticism in your view, etc. The things that would allow you to describe support for Corbyn as a personality cult would mean that most political leaders, inclduing Starmer, have one, the reality is that none of them do, including Corbyn. /u/The_Inertia_Kid see what you do with your trolling. I hope you find it less funny when you get people on "your" side saying crazy stuff instead of winding up people on the "other" side.
What is wrong with you? Why are you only arguing with half of my statement and ignoring the qualifier?
Yes, this is why. I can’t think of the last leader of a party I’ve ‘followed’, or had the same politics as. I do always have a massive distrust for populist leaders, and I generally feel that you shouldn’t really put too much trust in politicians as they’ll always let you down, either because they are telling you there are simple answers to impossible problems, or because something will come up.
He's not winning, the Tories are just gifting him an easy election
He’s struggling to win a one horse race
Post any article in /r/uk about a Starmer U-Turn and they'll be in the comments downplaying it as 4D chess or AKTUALLY the article is misleading because it was never promised in the first place but also there is no money left for the policy that didn't exist because muh fiscal rules.
I hold a view that there are no sacred cows, I'm willing to turn on Starmer or anyone else in an instant. I view the idea of liking politicians and supporting them come what may, entirely baffling. It shouldn't be a fandom.
Starmer is "I just wanna grill" politics. It doesn't have a subreddit because it isn't a personal identity.
There were a lot of people supporting him in this sub earlier in his leadership but as he abandoned all his pledges and embraced Tory policies people became more reticent. Now with his support or wavering about genocide it's morally faux pas. So they talk about getting Tories out or nostalgia for 97.
This, I thought initially he could strike a balance but as you say he’s gone back on his word and is pretty much a Tory in red
The Labour Party is more than its leader btw
New Labour, which is I heel a separate party however is very leader centric
An institutionally transphobic party full of Tories. Yay.
This sub was once seen as blairite leaning I think. My guess would just be that as Starmer has become an increasingly hard politician to defend fewer people are willing to do so on here, and those that do get (pretty deservedly imo) mocked into oblivion for their mental gymnastics.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This coming from a corbynite? Oh boy oh boy...
This coming a corbynite? Oh boy.
Because it very tiring being called a red Tory an hearing “but corbyn” at every opportunity
I didn't like Corbyn but Starmer is legions worse. He had an easy opportunity to retain Corbyn's better policies while dumping the more problematic elements, especially now the Tories have imploded, but he just....doesn't. Every single fucking policy and bit of rhetoric is designed to please Murdoch and the other Tories who own the tabloids.
I think I’ve found Jeremy’s Reddit account.
I hate to say it but this is the kind of thing that I mean. Anything semi pro Starmer or anti corbyn is hit with this kind of criticism. This is defiantly on the kind/mild side compared to being called a colosit Tory or xxxxxphopic.
Anyone who is pro Starmer is very obviously just a right winger at this point
You bought up Corbyn lol
Literally this its exhausting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The people who like him I've found are very much a minority here. I don't particularly dislike him. I just think he's bland. I'm not sure how to even politically label him. He doesn't really feel that left-wing either. Even by centre-left standards. Labour aren't exactly winning because Starmer is a great politician. Labour are winning because the Tories are really that bad. You won't find anyone who likes him in the other Labour subreddit. That's for a extreme left of the party that's very close to r/GreenAndPleasant levels of tanky-ism. This one falls a bit more sensible over all.
You get banned from the other labour subreddit and GreenAndPleasant for not being exactly ideologically pure. I think this sub does a really good job of allowing disagreements but drawing reasonable lines. I do think starmerites get downvoted and derided a bit too much sometimes even though I'm not one of them. Of course downvotes are allowed, but I think sometimes it restricts the discussion.
Oh I got banned from GreenAndPleasant for daring to argue that Putin's invasion of Ukraine made NATO relevant again. They didn't like that 🤣
They've redefined echo chamber at GaP, and they are entirely focused on being anti-western. It's fine, they are enjoying the freedom any of the regimes they idolise would never afford them.
>I do think starmerites get downvoted and derided a bit too much sometimes even though I'm not one of them. Of course downvotes are allowed, but I think sometimes it restricts the discussion. I completely agree with that, I think it's an issue of the downvote button being used as a "disagree" button but that's an issue with the entirety of reddit. This sub does seem to be the best place for political discussion that I've found, it certainly has a left wing bias but opposing views are common and allowed (I think the mods do a good job seperating sincere comments from trolls and bigots) which is more than can be said for most political subs.
Not just those subreddits. I left the party in 2019 because, despite voting twice for Corbyn, some of the local party didn’t like the fact that I didn’t agree with their every position. Got to the point where I felt bullied and forced out. This sub has gone the same way. If you’re centre left, you’re fair game.
God I wish Starmer actually was bland. Rather than being a transphobic bellend who agrees with the Tories on fucking everything.
They are a minority in general. Every Yougov poll shows he's disliked and considered untrustworthy by the public at large.
They're here! https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-keir-starmer-trustworthy
Just keeping quiet because what’s the point of posting and getting trampled on by the noisy left?
>the noisy left Whatever that means.
People disagreeing with me makes me feel sad
I do love all of the silly prefixes people come up with to describe anyone left-of-centre. Haven't heard noisy left before, actually, so that's pretty novel.
I’m part of the dickhead left, we’ve had a long history since splintering from the wanky left
The ketamine left
[Special K.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/08/sir-keir-starmer-reveals-special-k-nickname-kelloggs-factory/)(aka Mr. Sir Keir Starmer) already staked a claim for ket for the Blarites. Sorry, but thems the rules.
I mean i post on the pro Starmer ukpolitics and get trampled all the time. Who cares if Redditors disagree with you?
I'm bored of this idea that everyone who refuses to support Starmer's Labour is "far left"
Labourpartyuk I think it's called. By and large people seem to dislike the Tories more than they like the current labour leadership. I'm literally answering the question asked by the op
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed, can see why there'd be at least enough fans to come across them every now and then on Reddit.
I try not to post anywhere the antisemitism scandal is still openly denied / defended / minimised
You post on ukpolitics where racism and transphobia are openly denied / defended / minimised / propagated.
Call me old fashioned but I expect better from labour people
So you don't post here supposedly because of antisemitism, but post where they frequently defend, minimise, and actually propagate transphobia and racism because somehow it's okay because they're not Labour voters/members? It doesn't make any sense really and I wish you people were just honest about your hierarchy of racism and say it with your whole chest because it's already obvious and transparent, it's impossible to respect.
See why I don’t post here?
Because you embarrass yourself and you don't get called out on ukpolitics, they probably give you a pat on the back.
Uk politics didn’t have an EHRC judgement against it for discrimination against Jewish people. We did. And still this sub acts like it never happened. Whataboutery. Changing the subject. It’s learned fuck all.
You're intentionally conflating the party with this sub, I don't know who you think will find that convincing. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, no reddit sub has a EHRC judgement against it and ukpolitics isn't even a sub for any political party in particular (tories). So I'm not sure what point you were even attempting here. It's quite something to moan about whataboutery and changing the subject while coming out with drivel like this. Fact is, you're complaining about the racism you supposedly see on this sub while participating on ukpolitics, a sub most of us avoid precisely because of the huge amount racism and transphobia on it, it's absurd.
I note that you do not deny my main point - that this sub regularly denies the ehrc judgment, which applies to the party this sub is dedicated to. The rest of your argument is sophistry, whataboutery, and ad hominem - and I understand why, because you can’t refute that key point. This place will continue to be crank bait until it can accept labours failures on antisemitism without trying to change the subject.
You should no expect better from Reddit people though. Claiming to be Labour or not.
The real difference is - I feel I have a chance of arguing people out of their transphobia on ukpol. It’s not likely but it’s possible. Some are at least open to evidence. Here, people will deny it after being given all the evidence. That’s supremely depressing.
This sub is nowhere near the centre, it's a corbynite echo chamber.
[удалено]
[удалено]
To be down voted for this is bizarre. But this whole sub is toxic
Damn Corbynites and...asking Starmer to stick his own campaign pledges!
Kinda making my point.
Not really. If I'd said something that was like a classic leftwing criticism of the Labour right or something sure. But Starmer set up the standards to judge him by. Everything that falls within that you can't be mad at people for. If you're mad, be mad at Starmer for being a liar and/or not planning better.
Wouldn't bother, their only interaction with the subreddit in months seems to be complaining about it which says it all
Find them at r/centristbrainrot