Starmer's 3 Controversial Changes to Labour - TLDR News

Since entering office Starmer has tried to make some big changes to shift how Labour works and... well some it hasn't gone down well. So in this video we take a look through the history and see if the changes he's making are likely to help or hurt the party.

TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.

TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!

[rosastarbuxemburg]

The key difference in my eyes between Blair and Starmer is that Blair actuallly had the charisma to carry him to victory, especially against "the grey man" of John Major. Starmer is boring and uncharismatic and this is worsened by being faced with Boris Johnson, who is nothing but spectical and "charisma".

[Khalil-bgsj]

Good video but unfortunately there's one error. Corbyn needed 10% (not 5%) of Labour MPs to nominate him for the leadership race, which in 2015 amounted to 35 MPs. Starmer has recently doubled this to require 20% of MPs (not 10%).

[andrewalston]

We must remember that although 2019 was Labour’s worst result in terms of seats Corbyn still achieved 32% and won more votes than Milliband, Brown and Blair’s third election. Bring on PR please!

[zernebock]

People seem to forget that Labour's 1997 manifesto included radical policies on reform of Westminster:

"End the hereditary principle in the House of Lords
Reform of party funding to end sleaze
Devolved power in Scotland and Wales
Elected mayors for London and other cities
More independent but accountable local government
Freedom of information and guaranteed human rights"

They were not afraid to offer significant change. Something sadly lacking with Sir Starmer's slightly tepid tory tactics.

[Cringeage]

One big question is: How palatable is Labour’s manifesto to the tabloid and Murdoch press? That’s how Blair got in.

[lazutovlad]

Without its Left-wing, labour party won't be any different than neoliberal right-wing. Without trade-unions, no left-wing can be legitimate.

[patrickbarrett]

Starmer has shown himself to be downright adversarial against the left of the party, which is doing him no favours at all... I do also find it interesting that people call his position as 'modernising' even though it is falling back to politics that are over 20 years old. Many would argue that Corbyn was too radical, but many of his policies do seem to have been taken on by the Tories since 2017, so the idea that his manifesto was not serious as Starmer seems to be claiming could be seen as disingenuous...

[adamdavis]

Talk about Starmer putting electability over principal, and Corbyn "Ideology over electability", but even after crisis after crisis after scandal they're 11 points behind. We all know how the Corbyn years ended but from June 2017 to early 2019 they were often ahead in the polls -- 45%, 8pts ahead of the Tories in December 2017. Starmer has abandoned ideology and electability equally

[shanisheppard]

Things will never change while we've got the same two parties

[jim-esqk]

The neo liberal era is over. People don't want another Blair clone. They want a character whos a socialist like Corbyn or a nationalist like Boris. Labour have a habit of not listening.

[neilfletcher]

To even call this party Labour is stretching credibility....

[calumwatt]

Two slight but important corrections:

1. I'm not sure when the change was made but by the time I cast my ballot in the 2010 Leadership election, the Unions (+affiliated socialist societies) had 33% of the vote in the electoral college - it certainly was not a 50/50 vote between MPs and Members as implied here.

2. The change at Labour Party Conference this year was to alter the required number of nominations from 10% to 20% of MPs, not 5% to 10%.

[StephMcAlea]

I'm a corbynite so take this with a pinch of salt but Starmer is hopeless. He's the John Major of Labour. Dull, samey, uninspiring, and corporate.

[clarabatty]

On Michael foot, when the manifesto was published in 1981 he actually had a 20 point lead over Thatcher. The formation of the SDP that split the party and meant a lot of seats were lost for Labour

[pencilfangs]

The reason why Labour has to choose between leftists and being more appealing to the voters is because fighting for things like Worker's Rights isn't appealing to the capitalists who are in control of the media, and they will use the media to tank any candidate who challenges them. So instead Labour tries to be as inoffensive as possible and they don't get voted for because they're not going to change anything.

[juliuskresnik]

My impression Is that Keir wants a Centre-left party as that seems more appealing to the average voter. However, the conflict with more firmly left-wing elements is causing discord within the party and that is reflected in the polls. No one knows what this version of Labour stands for at the moment and thus, the Conservative party leads, purely because they're in charge and the country hasn't completely collapsed.

If Labour can present a more agreeable front to the average voter while still keeping to their left principles, they'll finally present a legitimate challenge to the Conservatives again.

[gnwzfec]

moving to the centre was only considered modernisation due to the recent collapse of the left to thatcher's financialization in the 1990's. Moving back to new labour strategies is outdated and doesn't take into account the current context . Labour has been bleeding red wall seats since 1997 and furthur ignoring working class voters in favour of buisness is just away to not get them back .

[rehurekj]

Yea, I cant see how it can be controversial to block left wing candidates from becoming leaders of party nominally representing left side of spectrum, first eliminate labour unions from influencing party they established to represent them, now factually barring left wing politicians to lead the party. 
Gee, why that would be controversial move for Labours traditionally left leaning voters. So basically Labour is abandoning all and every principle the party been built on and represented which leaving them being basically identical to generic Tories only using more traditionally left vocabulary in their manifesto. And they hope becoming more like Tories will help them defeat Tories cos it gets them more new votes while somehow keeping them the old Labour electorate they no longer represent.
UK is truly becoming more and more like US- in US theres already no diff among policies they vote for and support in Congress among Dems and Republicans as they only fight in TV debates over slogans but in fact they are funded by same companies.
Well the only question thats left unanswered is the name of the new party representing left policies and left leaning voters in UK thats gonna replace Labour once they disappear just like Whigs before them cos its sure it wont be Lib Dem.

[olavsantiago]

"The worse election defeat for labour since the war" is a misleading and inaccurate due to the "Representation of the People Act 1948" for abolishing plural voting, the abolition of the twelve separate university constituencies; and increasing the number of members to 613. The Labour Party got 10, 269, 076 votes in 2019, they had less votes in 2015with 9, 347, 273. So that statement you say is inaccurate. You require more fact checking and keeping to facts.

[koalasquare]

A choice between Boris and Starmer is barely a choice at all