Keir Starmer Labour Leader

Yes, the demographic change is stark.

wL8Wfiq.png

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2019/10/Ageing-fast-and-slow.pdf

F0D5nBB.png

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/01/Live-long-and-prosper.pdf

The Resolution Foundation has done a lot of fascinating research on this phenomenon. The years 1985 - 2005 were roughly the sweet spot demographically as the working age population was huge due to the Baby Boomer wave growing up... now they've got to retirement and we've got to pay for them.

Taxes are only going up further from here, I'm afraid.
I often discuss this, but it is very interesting to see these projections. Thanks for sharing.
 
still not a direct repudiation! "unresolved". i think he needs to publicly and directly burn the left - and young people and what they suppport- to have a chance with the base he targeting.
True although there's no way he is going to win enough of that older home owner reactionary base to pull out a election win. Also I'm sure there is the same level of commitment to the labour party as there is the the democratic party in the US. In the next election I can see people repeating what happened in 2015 and simply stay home and not voting.

But yeah going more to the right is now his only option.
 
Taxes are only going up further from here, I'm afraid.
Yes, but there is some scope for that considering the number of retired people with a relatively high disposable income, and assets to boot. The problem is getting people to vote for a party that will do that, which means a party that is trusted to run the economy as a whole and do it fairly, and not out of envy or prejudice. I cringe every time I hear 'wealth tax', it's a terminology with failure built in.
 
How would we know, when exactly did we have any semblance of unity?

The closest would be when Starmer first took over and his polling was well above the 20% favourability that he's currently sitting at.

You centrists can't keep calling out your mythical silver bullet centrist electability when it's currently not working and hasn't worked for any other leader since Blair.
You say that but large parts of the Blair playbook have worked extremely well for the Tories, who have been totally unafraid to apply it.

But hey, both Blair and the Tories are evil, which means morally, lessons must not be learned, or something equally soft headed.
 
Last edited:


One could argue that unity leads to a better chance of winning

Unity is essential, the electorate hates a divided party, but it has to be the right kind of unity. The electorate can see right through the kind of armed truce that pretends to be unity and I'm afraid that's what we've had since Corbynism got murdered at the last election.
 
Starmer won’t win a GE… on his current course, he will alienate as many people as disaffected Tories he might win over. All whilst turning the younger generations away from politics.

Listening to him chat to Kuennsberg now. He keeps saying the only important thing is Labour winning. Most voters think he should resign according to today’s polling. If he only cared about Labour winning, he’d surely step aside for the good of the party?

It’s a real shame Burnham isn’t an MP as he’d walk a leadership challenge now assuming he could get enough nominations to be on the ballot. He’s light years ahead of Starmer and would win over far more voters even with a much more radical policy platform.
 
Starmer won’t win a GE… on his current course, he will alienate as many people as disaffected Tories he might win over. All whilst turning the younger generations away from politics.

Listening to him chat to Kuennsberg now. He keeps saying the only important thing is Labour winning. Most voters think he should resign according to today’s polling. If he only cared about Labour winning, he’d surely step aside for the good of the party?

It’s a real shame Burnham isn’t an MP as he’d walk a leadership challenge now assuming he could get enough nominations to be on the ballot. He’s light years ahead of Starmer and would win over far more voters even with a much more radical policy platform.
Not away from politics, towards Greens.

Current Labour are like the worst of the Lib Dem’s 10 years ago.
 
What's the point of supporting this party who won't change the electoral system, thereby dooming the UK to endless Tory or right-shifted Labour governments. Pathetic cretins the lot of them.
Surely changing the electoral system means basically lib-lab coalitions for eternity - so you won't be getting what you want there either, altough I agree with you that FTP has to go
 
Surely changing the electoral system means basically lib-lab coalitions for eternity - so you won't be getting what you want there either, altough I agree with you that FTP has to go
I disagree - I think there would be large shifts in voting if we weren't shackled by constituencies.
 
I'm just confused as to whether Starmer thinks his advisors expect him to be electable. It seems fairly obvious they'll off him when they've got what they needed.
 
I'm just confused as to whether Starmer thinks his advisors expect him to be electable. It seems fairly obvious they'll off him when they've got what they needed.
I've always assumed he's in on it. I don't think he's naive enough to actually think picking these fights helps him win an election. Not the next one, at least. Maybe he thinks he can scrape by with a creditable defeat and then win 5 years later but I imagine his main aim is to do the dirty work for the person who takes over on an identical platform after the election defeat is blamed on Starmer's lack of personality.
 
As an outsider he appears as unelectable as Corbyn

No he's electable. Didn't you hear him say how he's serious about winning and that he's going focus on the things that lead to a win?

How you ask? Easy, he's going to avoid doing the stuff that doesn't lead to a win. Smarts see.

Only a winner would focus on winning. It's a completely genius concept that is obviously above your intellectual capacity see.