Yet voter turnout can fluctuate massively. It jumped from 59% in 2001 to 69% in 2017. In 1997 it was nearly 72%.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Everyone knows what the triangulation is FFS. You’d have to be a barely functioning organism not to. No one is a fecking astute political genius for pointing it out, but thanks again guys.
The issue is that if it fails to win because it’s alienated left wing/young people, then it’s a failure of the leadership and strategy, not of ideological left wingers for not voting.
Not unless it was also ideologically arrogant uncompromising Centrists who wouldn’t vote for Corbyn who were solely at fault for our present Tory governments, rather than Corbyn or the left?
Because if you believe one, you should believe the other. Otherwise you’re just openly admitting that people who have slightly different politics to you are lesser, non-legitimate people who don’t deserve the same kind of political representation as you, or the ability to decide for themselves what’s important? That comprise should only happen towards you - the most important and righteous voter that exists *(which tbf I’m sure plenty of people actually do think!)
The whole point of the gambit is to alienate enough of the left that it brings round more of the right. If it works, it’s a legitimate and successful strategy, but if it doesn’t, then it isn’t. And left wing people have as much right and agency to reject it as the people who spent 5 years loudly complaining about Brexit and Corbyn making them “politically homeless” did, because otherwise, you’re functionally admitting that you’ve no tollerance for any political agency except your own.
The whole point is to make the left angry. What do you expect them to do? Just shut up and ignore the platform being pushed rightwards so you don’t feel bad about it? You should be delighted it’s working, you ghouls!
*similarly, if you spent much of the Corbyn years calling on his opponents to compromise or be responsible for the Tory’s etc etc, you should probably suck it up.
The issue is that if it fails to win because it’s alienated left wing/young people, then it’s a failure of the leadership and strategy, not of ideological left wingers for not voting.
Not unless it was also ideologically arrogant uncompromising Centrists who wouldn’t vote for Corbyn who were solely at fault for our present Tory governments, rather than Corbyn or the left?
Because if you believe one, you should believe the other. Otherwise you’re just openly admitting that people who have slightly different politics to you are lesser, non-legitimate people who don’t deserve the same kind of political representation as you, or the ability to decide for themselves what’s important? That comprise should only happen towards you - the most important and righteous voter that exists *(which tbf I’m sure plenty of people actually do think!)
The whole point of the gambit is to alienate enough of the left that it brings round more of the right. If it works, it’s a legitimate and successful strategy, but if it doesn’t, then it isn’t. And left wing people have as much right and agency to reject it as the people who spent 5 years loudly complaining about Brexit and Corbyn making them “politically homeless” did, because otherwise, you’re functionally admitting that you’ve no tollerance for any political agency except your own.
The whole point is to make the left angry. What do you expect them to do? Just shut up and ignore the platform being pushed rightwards so you don’t feel bad about it? You should be delighted it’s working, you ghouls!
*similarly, if you spent much of the Corbyn years calling on his opponents to compromise or be responsible for the Tory’s etc etc, you should probably suck it up.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...y-join-pickets-starmer-faces-test-party-unity
Look we can’t support striking workers in case we get voted into government and are expected to do something about low wages.
Probably more the mass murder tbf.
Yes and in 2019 when lets be honest Labour took a pounding with a hard left socialist as there leader it was 67.3% the second highest turn out of this century in general elections, beaten only by 2019's 69% which Labour also lost with a left wing socialist in charge.
Rather ironically labour won the election of 2001, perhaps Labour might be better of dis engaging people?
The Tories are fecking the corpse and Starmer is saying we won't stick it in but some light frottage is needed to get it back on it's feet and let's also try to appeal to the voting public that want more corpse fecking. The problem with the left is that they won't accept a pragmatic level of defilement because they are married to political purity.
“Why are the left so darn ideological and divisively attack people on their own side!” I say as I campaign to make them disappear from public life for the sake of optics.
Last edited:
In our system Labour needs Scottish votes to win, nothing (i.e. Labour Government at Westminster) will follow until that happens.
Being a war criminal doesn’t help
Didn't you also vote for the Starmer campaign ?
Starmer couldn’t of won the leadership without a very big chunk of the left vote, most of them just believed the snake oil he was selling at the time. But it would be odd if a left wing person knew the actual goals of Starmer yet still to voted for him.
I did. Partly cos I didn’t feel Long Baily could win a GE (still don’t) and that Starmer might (TBD) though not out of any great enthusiasm. I compromised (as I have at pretty much every election in some way, despite apparently being hard left extremist ideologue) And yes, I hoped he could be held to his pledges. It’s been disappointing to see his naysayers fears realised regarding this. However even if I’d voted in a purely cynical way and only cared about the endgame, I’d still be annoyed at people who wouldn’t compromise with a more left wing party insult left wing voters for doing the exact same thing with a centrist/right one. They’d still be hypocrites. And so would people who now suddenly don’t care about it.
Voter blaming is not it. It’s the politicians job to win people round, and if they fail, or renege on their promises they should be accountable for it. If the triangulation works, fair fecks. If it doesn’t, it’s all on him.
Last edited:
Surveys show that every time the electorate is presented with green and/or socialy liberal or 'fair' policies, in a sort of blind taste test, they overwhelmingly support them. People are, in general, very fair-minded and socialist in attitude. It's only a small percentage that will consistently choose 'cruel' or 'selfish' policies without knowing which party has put them forward. Therefore, as you have highlighted, they choose right wing, selfish parties because that is the message that is rammed down their throat by the right wing media. So the answer, to me anyway, is not to try to be 'centre-right' but to highlight how successful we could be as a country if we stopped voting in the tories and advocated the renationalisation of those areas of the economy that have been privatised. And, right now, with the damage already done by Brexit, with the huge spike in the cost of living, there's never been a better time to go on a full-out offensive and hammer home the failures of 'the market' to give us more choice and cheaper prices.
Yeah RLB was and is still shite. It will interesting to how Labour polling continues to go, atm a bunch of tories have moved but it’s more due a dislike of the current Boris leadership rather than anything Labour is offering and Starmer personal polling is awful.
So if the tories start to regain the support they’ve lost(Which given the incoming crisis, it’s very possible), Starmer will only have the type of centre left labour members/voters who believed his social democratic shtick. And while granted it just online, so it’s almost meaningless there have a surprising amount of always vote labour types who are very pissed about him not supporting the current strike wave. Although as a full time naysayer, I’m not expecting it to lead to much.
Agree in part about the voter blaming. It’s the job of politicians to win people over and to present their plan to the public but the chances are if Starmer loses the next election it will be for same reason Corbyn did - Labour voters are less likely to vote, they bunch together in the cities and once again getting done in by reactionary home owners.
Imo giving some much weight to the leadership has on election outcomes leads to what we’ve seen in the Labour Party. Massive leaps that aren’t really grounded in anything, one minute it’s let’s all be kind to each and have socialism to then well we need a knighted sir because electable suit(The fact Starmer has gone all fat and red is clearly another pledge broken).
Last edited:
Look, I’m always trying to be pragmatic, but the biggest issue I have with centrists (or at least the kind of centrists who handwave compromise with the right as sensible but balk at popular lefty policies as populist) is that their idea of “practical” always seems to lead back to a version of centrism that existed 30 years ago, and won an election in a very different - and very specific - landscape. Economically the gap is massive from the relatively good economy Blair inherited in 1997, which allowed him to promise high public spending without any massive formative change to the way things worked, or how people were taxed… He also wasn’t up against a huge demographic age shift to the left, as the liberal boomers were still in their 40s and Gen X could still plausibly afford houses.
Plus Blair actually had policies and positive optics. And rode a wave of burgeoning popular culture and Cool-Britainia national pride that, actually, all pretty much occurred under Major (Gazza, Cantona, Britpop, the Young British Artists et al had all arguably peaked by ‘97… the same year Be Here Now came out!)
He actually seemed quite progressive to the average normie voter. As did the only Democrats who’ve managed to break the similar right wing Hegemony in America. Obama and Clinton ran as young idealistic candidates, and even Corbyn (failure that he was) massively increased the vote share. So absolutely nothing “sensible” points to some beige war of attrition as the best route to power for ostensibly progressive candidates… except in the minds of middle aged bores who can’t get over the 90s. Fukuyama was wrong. And clinging to that seems way more “naive” than the “student politics” of actually having some interesting politics that probably wouldn’t pass fully formed in a Scotland-less minority government anyway!
There IS a ‘practmatic’ kind of centrism that could work, but it’s not this by a long shot. Its a modern, optimistic one that uses the best leftist ideas - as it has always done. Some cnut said the left claim Atlee when he was a moderate, but he was a moderate socialist who implemented a fecking socialist health system! My nan was his personal private secretary for a time, he wasn’t just some suit who promised not to rock the boat. He beat a fecking War hero the year the war ended! And if he was a Centrist, then centrism has fallen the feck off… failing to hold ourselves to the standards of moderates from 80 years ago is fecking bleak!! Even Blair didn’t run on being just like Harold Wilson had been 30 years earlier, and the idea 97 can just be repeated wholesale is as blinkered and regressive as Brexiters who thought they could just vote themselves back into a mythical 1950s!
Bah, humbug!
Anyway, Friday innit? Whose got the bag?
Last edited:
i agree with basically all of your post but this is the most important part really. many political types have yet to understand it. and inasmuch as they do they grasp for the wrong solutions.
Doubly ironic as Fukuyama admitted himself that he was wrong.
Agree with all that @Mockney.
If you were to ask someone to put together a policy package for today's Britain which was as progressive and radical as New Labour's offer was in 1997 it would probably look at lot like what Corbyn ran on in 2017. The fact that the PLP had to be dragged along behind that manifesto kicking and screaming says a lot about the current state of the party.
If you were to ask someone to put together a policy package for today's Britain which was as progressive and radical as New Labour's offer was in 1997 it would probably look at lot like what Corbyn ran on in 2017. The fact that the PLP had to be dragged along behind that manifesto kicking and screaming says a lot about the current state of the party.
I also think Starmer needs reminding that Blair had policies.
Starmer is digging a hole for himself here. There's going to be more and more of these strikes and when those October energy bills kick in the country could well shut down. What will his position be then?
Yep, proper 'Sliding Doors' moment that 2017 election.
The 2017 manifesto was not so detached from Labour history: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/corbyns-labour-agenda/
Which makes me wonder how much of the PLP's hatred was because they put Corbyn on the ballot and he beat them, and this led to an ongoing campaign whereby everything he did was wrong by default.
If Burnham was leader and had that manifesto I bet the PLP say next to nothing (although he likely would not have cut through to the electorate in the same way)
Also where has this idea that voting in a boring establishment moderate and then hoping they go (or can be pushed) left once in power come from? When has that actually ever happened? ‘Cos as far as the evidence goes, it a been pretty much the complete opposite. Clinton, Obama, Blair (Macron if you wanna go that far at a push!) may have been moderate to the left of their parties but they ran as transformative inspirational candidates to the wider electorate - as Starmer did in his own leadership battle - and then turned out to be disappointingly moderate and occasionally hawkish in practice when the actual grind of the job took hold…So all the evidence points to Starmer’s Labour being actually less progressive than they promise to be if elected (which isn’t much!)
So where have all the grown up sensible centrists got this idea that the other way around is the smart ticket from? Nothing backs that up. What is it based on? Because at worst it seems wholely disingenuous from the “we’re basing our stance on the historical evidence” contingent.
So where have all the grown up sensible centrists got this idea that the other way around is the smart ticket from? Nothing backs that up. What is it based on? Because at worst it seems wholely disingenuous from the “we’re basing our stance on the historical evidence” contingent.
Exactly. This is just a myth that the centrists tell us to get our lefty votes so they can get the Red Tories in, keep their property prices rising and feel good about themselves all at the same time.
This is the horn of Labours' dilemma.
No guarantee those votes will be where they are needed to flip Tory seats to labour.
Did he though, when he was in opposition? My recollection is that Blair had positions rather than policies. He didnt unveil policies until the election campaign.
Digging a hole with who though? Only with people who think that labour looking like an undisciplined rabble, doesn't matter.
Last edited:
Labours offer in 1997 wasn't that radical, Brown was criticised for excessive caution especially on public spending. It was a soft left of centre of package carefully calibrated to voter concerns. It was costed, a lot of positioning work had been done to prepare the public for each policy proposal and each of the key ones had a target and timeframe attached (the pledge card thing). There was a lot of focus on not over promising, in building public trust in labours ability to deliver. Frankly a level of care taken there that was a zillion miles from Corbyns c- grade approach.
People have been saying they like labour ideas - or to put it another way, lying - and then voting Tories, for YEARS. I remember the same thing when Thatcher was PM. Blair's approach was 1) get the media onside yes BUT also 2) act in a disciplined way and build trust in labours ability to deliver. Because his view was part of the reason people balked at voting labour even though they apparently "liked" the policies, is because they didn't think labour was up to the job of actually realising them. Similar thing sank Corbyn proving labour just wont learn that lesson.
Last edited:
If dis engaging people is the current Labour leadership strategy it is certainly working!
I assume the second year you are referring to is 2017 with 68.8%. I wonder what the turnout would've been in 2017 if we didn't have Labour's own staff diverting funds away from winnable seats.
I also assume when you refer to the "second highest turn out of this century" you are only referring to the last 22 years. A little bit of a spurious claim?
That's my recollection as well
Alistair Campbell was on a podcast last week saying starmer should have one or two key policy aspirations and areas of focus but avoid detailed policies ... so logically that's probably what he did with Blair as well
Education education education springs to mind
A little bit spurious maybe, but its the second highest in 25 years, thats a whole generation, if you like we can compare it to the average since 1974 which is 69.5. So just below the average, I dont belive the issue is voter turnout, there is no saying that even if those funds weren't diverted that there would of been more turnout or the extra turnout would of resulted in more labour votes.
One of Labours biggest mistakes of the corbyn era was believing that they could convince everyone they came across to vote for them and not understanding why people had reservations putting it down to them being brainwashed calling them sheeple etc rather than actually engaging with people.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/b...veals-SHOCK-plan-run-Prime-Minister-2030.html
Tyson will be our saviour.
Tyson will be our saviour.
Majority of the people who'd vote for him probably can't even register to votehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/b...veals-SHOCK-plan-run-Prime-Minister-2030.html
Tyson will be our saviour.
Just because Fukuyama was wrong doesn't mean Marx was right.
The labour party isn't a revolutionary socialist party. It seeks and occasionally gets power the revolutionary socialists only dream about. The occasional extreme left attempt to steal the brand in the hope they get elected only ever sees mainstream voters turn their back on the Labour party leaving it in disarray. Peak Blair and Brown would struggle to get the current party elected and would never make it to leadership roles anyway. They were both hated by the left as modernizers in the 80/90's.
Harping back to the 80's is a dumb thing to do but I doubt harping back to the 70's is anything to cheer on either.
So the centrists didn't vote for our guy so if we don't vote for the centrists guy its his fault right? The truth is he will trade the loony lefty vote for the two he might get from moderate voters but there is no guarantee he gets those votes just a certainty that the price of holding on tight to the Corbynistas is certain defeat.
Also,
Conservatives get elected whether people own their own homes or not. They get elected even if the Labour party is united and they get elected generation after generation despite the youth voters consistently saying they support labour and its policies. To some people voting Labour is like wearing a ponytail, there comes a time when it just doesn't suit you anymore. So please can we stop with the variations on the youth quake Corbyn was before his time and everyone loved him.
I really don't like him.
But his Labour will still be 100 times better an option than the tories.
But his Labour will still be 100 times better an option than the tories.
Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. Not just a slogan, a position. Easy to understand, hard to attack, and enabled him to state labours distinctive and socially minded position in a key area of voter concern (and traditional Tory strength), and make an intellectually coherent argument, and all without making a single policy promise until he had to. This kind of thing is at the core of how Blair won 3 elections.
Last edited:
Not true I'm afraid. The 1994 conference speech Blair did a couple of months after he became leader announced a bunch of policies which ended up in the manifesto for 1997 including devolution, the minimum wage and the Freedom of Information Act. Funnily enough, he also announced that the railways and the postal service would be publicly owned under a Labour government.
As i said to @sun_tzu when he made a similar point yesterday, that speech was made further before the 1997 election than we currently are from the latest possible date the next election could be.
Edit: just realised you were specifically referring to the crime example with the bolded, so pretend I quoted the post sun was agreeing with which made the general point about Labour having few solid policies before the election period in 1997
I am comparing Blair's announcements to Starmer's here. Blair was elected in July 1994 and the 1994 conference was held in October.
In 1994 the conference speech led on Clause IV: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1994/oct/05/speeches.michaelwhite
But even in that speech there was a commitment to a national minimum wage and full employment (with a caveat that would be the end point, not in any way immediate).
From the article:
The 1995 conference speech included an appeal to the 'decent, good, patriotic' majority, but there was a series of specific policy initiatives.
He went on:
Style, yes. Values, certainly. But there was substantial policy too.
A full manifesto was published in 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour,_New_Life_for_Britain
In addition there was a veritable avalanche of policy materials being churned out. I will give one example.
At the end of June 1995 the Labour Party's Economic Policy Commission presented a consultation document called ‘A New Economic Future for Britain: Economic and Employment Opportunities for all’. This document sketched out giving the Bank of England Independence, the national minimum wage, vocational training and life long learning with proposals on how it could be paid for, opting into the Social Charter of the Maastricht Treaty, amongst others, as well as asking British pension funds and insurance companies to invest in longer-term assets to increase investment in the British economy.
There is this from December 1995:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo951208/debtext/51208-07.htm