I see what you're getting at. Hard to explain whatever one's view to be fair. Thanks.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
But what is seen as realistic, achievable, worthwhile and competent will be completely down to someone social relations. Anyone under 40 will have seen the last decade as anything but competent and anyone over 50 will have seen it as a mostly steady ride.
The same goes for policy imo, improved workers rights and universal programs are vital for the non unionised young work force, yet will be seen by the older generation as a return to 70's. One group needs mass social housing and the other lives off rising house prices. Younger people view climate change as threat to human civilisation while older folks struggle with concept of planting a billion trees over a few decades(The idea of free broadband could go here aswell).
The end result is the more you appeal to one group you start to alienate the other. Only a real shift in people's material conditions will change this for better or worse (Which Covid might bring tbh). I hope your right that a simpler message and a better campaign can be the answer but I'm very doubtful.
Last edited:
I think people are a bit more nuanced than that
Sadly not
Sun_Tzu in 2019 - Labour going treetacular
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/uk-...y-majority-of-80.450424/page-131post-24984047
Sun_Tzu in 2019 - Make them plant some of these 2 billion trees Corbyn has pledged?
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/uk-...y-majority-of-80.450424/page-136post-24986307
So you can assume everybody over 50 or under 40 all think the same??
How about saying every BAME person thinks a certain way
or your sexuality governs how you think about the economy
or all jews think a certain way?
I'm talking about a generational divide in people economic status and in certain social relations(Towns vs cities as one example among many)which results in different outlooks on the world and different voting patterns.
Also lets never talk again to each other. It's brain rot of the lowest quality.
Last edited:
I was looking forward to a chat when the ehrc report dropped
Labour didn’t present themselves as a strong Remain option and ended up with a historical landslide defeat. Yet apparently them running as a leave supporting party (a position about 80% of the party opposed) would have won it for them?
Oh fecking Hell. Given you've written the posts already, can't you just start now and spread the load so as not create an unmanageable spike in shitposting related suicide attempts? Protect the NHS.
it's amazing how few people who were shocked by antisemitism understand how systemic racism works
we're going to have to put sunny on suicide watch considering his expectations, he's more hyped than game of thrones fans circa 2016
That was uncalled for, I'd just about forgotten about the show.
The grown ups are back in charge.
52/60 seats Labour lost were Leave constituencies. The one gain from the Tories was Putney, an area where 72% voted Remain in 2016. It’s a very crude snapshot of the result and the way people voted but even so, to conclude from that that “if only Labour had ran on a strong-Remain platform” just screams of delusion. It’s akin to a Corbyn fan pretending he had nothing to do with the result.
Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Blyth Valley, Workington, Stoke-on-Trent etc all lost, and you’re seriously arguing that could have been prevented by a strong pro-Remain platform. These voters have been turning away from Labour for over a decade and it’s not because they want close ties with the EU.
When did I ever suggest if only Labour had campaigned on a Leave platform they’d have won? I think Labour were screwed either way - issues ran deeper than Brexit, and I think Brexit is better understood as more of a proxy for a wider cultural battle Labour has been losing for a while and which Corbyn, sadly, was ill-suited to face.
She was the party's Home Secretary whilst Labour were selling those immigration mugs. The only people she dislikes more than immigrants are the disabled.
The last election defeat is clearly Corbyn's fault. No one forced him to stand for leader and feck up the Labour party did they?
Said it from the very beginning, he is useless, was useless and those who supported him were self deluded. Probably still waiting for the youth quake to bring him to power.
How even he thought given his past record that he was suitable to run the organisation I will never know. Even at its best it is a difficult beast to manage and lets face it, the party wasn't at its best. He put his name in the hat knowing he had little to no support from the MP's and would be eviscerated by the press.His own past record gave any appeal to loyalty the feel of an in joke.
The leadership and presentational qualities required were obviously missing and then you have to restrict your shadow cabinet to unarguably the dumbest feckers to ever sit. Yes, lets leave it at sitting because they were virtually incapable of standing, with say the correct matching shoes on their feet.
You can't spend years calling your base supporters stupid, racist, gammon and then turn around and say vote for me I'll give you free broadband and expect to win.
If Starmer is smart he will stop listening to the socialist workers party opportunists and start listening to more intelligent people who know what it takes to form a broad coalition and win an election.
Said it from the very beginning, he is useless, was useless and those who supported him were self deluded. Probably still waiting for the youth quake to bring him to power.
How even he thought given his past record that he was suitable to run the organisation I will never know. Even at its best it is a difficult beast to manage and lets face it, the party wasn't at its best. He put his name in the hat knowing he had little to no support from the MP's and would be eviscerated by the press.His own past record gave any appeal to loyalty the feel of an in joke.
The leadership and presentational qualities required were obviously missing and then you have to restrict your shadow cabinet to unarguably the dumbest feckers to ever sit. Yes, lets leave it at sitting because they were virtually incapable of standing, with say the correct matching shoes on their feet.
You can't spend years calling your base supporters stupid, racist, gammon and then turn around and say vote for me I'll give you free broadband and expect to win.
If Starmer is smart he will stop listening to the socialist workers party opportunists and start listening to more intelligent people who know what it takes to form a broad coalition and win an election.
Last edited:
You give him far too much credit, he needs to wait until Guido Fawkes has published his opinion before he can share it with us.
proper opposition apparently
To be fair appears she defied the party whip. This looks more like a case of Yvette Cooper doing Yvette Cooper things.
Yeah this isn't something that reflects on Starmer so much as it does the reasons why Corbyn got voted in as leader in the first place.
conference would have been fun but i presume it wont happen?
I suspect that part of Corbyn's legacy in the medium-term will be that Labour's positions on things like immigration, welfare and public spending wont be as morally bankrupt as they were pre-2015. Not that it'll help them with this electorate.
Bang on correct.
If bang on correct means myopic and ill-informed, sure. He's somehow written a 250 polemic about Corbyn without managing to touch on any of the things Corbyn actually deserves criticism for, which I guess is impressive in itself.
I don't doubt that blaming Corbyn for everything is probably very satisfying and comforting for those who didn't like him, but it's not a substitute for analysis. If Labour want to win going forwards they have to identify and find solutions to all the issues that contributed to them losing in 2019, not just the ones that have an easy fix or which fit your preferred narrative. That goes equally for those on the left who are blaming it all on Starmer's Brexit policy intervention as well.
Blaming Corbyn has nothing to do with satisfaction. At least not in my mind.
It is a fact that he was deeply unpopular as a leader.
I spoke to a number of people who knocked on my door in both elections campaigning for Labour and even they were saying that Corbyn was the problem.
Examples were his aledged links with Hezbollah and anti semitism. But mainly he was seen as weak and indecisive.
He may have been a nice man but he was never going to popular enough to lead Labour to winning.
Just for context, I have am a life long Labour supporter and I was very close to not voting for my party.
Corbyn's legacy is five years of Tory government. That's not a suspicion, it's a fact.
Tit
From my own time canvassing in 2019, it was clear that he was putting off significantly more voters than he was attracting, to say the least. It's not in question whether Corbyn was a factor in the scale of the loss - he definitely was. The question is whether he alone was the decisive factor between Labour winning or losing. Frankly, anyone who thinks that getting rid of Corbyn has solved all Labour's problems and that if they'd done it earlier 2019 would have delivered a Labour government is delusional. That kind of thinking will see Labour sleepwalk into losing the next couple of elections.
Unfortunately, Labour has a lot of issues to resolve which are far more intractable than an unpopular leader. The first is that the electoral coalition Labour has traditionally needed to hold together to have a chance of winning has found itself split 65-35 by the culture war which has emerged around Brexit, immigration, identity politics, Britain's colonial history etc., with the 35% largely in vulnerable seats. Whilst the core Tory vote has almost universally fallen on one side of the divide, Labour's straddles it and any position they take on an issue is guaranteed to alienate part of their base. Their best chance of winning power in this situation is trying to steer the focus of the election as far clear of these emotive issues as possible, which they did very successfully in 2017 but utterly failed to do in 2019.
The second, more worrying one, is that the demographics and electoral landscape which made a massive Labour majority possible in 1997 simply don't exist anymore. FPTP rewards parties whose key demographics are distributed in such a way that they constitute a plurality in as many constituencies as possible. The last 20-30 years have seen two demographic trends that have hit Labour hard in that respect, and worked in the Tories' favour. Firstly, as small towns have declined and the economy has become more weighted towards the cities, younger voters have become more concentrated in urban constituencies where Labour already hold significant majorities. Secondly, affluent commuters and retirees have moved the opposite way, leaving cities to spread across the semi-rural fringes of small-town England and taking their Tory votes with them. And then on top of that you have the rise of the SNP. Ultimately, even if Labour managed to somehow put unite their base and played a blinder with the floating voters, they'd still need a vote share higher than anything Blair or Thatcher achieved, or an absolutely unprecedented collapse in the Tory vote, to have a chance of a majority.
I cannot disagree with any of that.
All I would say is that both political parties fortunes have been on the floor and both have managed to bounce back.
And the demographics of the traditional Tory voters was equally biased to the older ages.
To win an election you need one party to have a very clear message. In the case of Boris, it was get Brexit done.
Labour was unfortunately sending mixed messages. And had a highly unpopular leader.
Only a fool would expect to win on that basis.
Good post
oh good
The debate about where Corbyn would leave the Labour party should he be elected started on on Red-cafe five years ago or there abouts. My views on his inadequacies have remained consistent and I think they stand as proven correct. So myopic, meaning short sighted or lacking insight, is probably the most inaccurate summation you could make of it.
Then again you go on to say I don't touch on any legitimate points so here they are again.
1. I think Corbyn deserves criticism for standing as leader in the first place. I think that is a fair criticism of him and its in the first post.
2. I think he is also responsible for selecting a really poor shadow cabinet, his choices were limited because of his past in the PLP but who else can you blame if so few of the people who know you well will follow you? So again I think its fair and in my first post.
3. He is responsible for the cultural split in the party widening. He gave too much profile to a group of hard left metropolitan elitists who spent more time calling Northern labour voters racist, ignorant, stupid etc especially during the Brexit campaign which was also a disaster.
The post doesn't say all is well and we are set for a cracking Labour victory next election. Nor does it say all that is ill with the party was down to Corbyn in fact it says the party wasn't at its best before he took over.
Unless Starmer stops listening just to the people inside London, inside the labour activist circle and starts reconnecting with the working people that it was set up to help and represent then it doesn't have a base anyway and it doesn't have a future and think it wouldn't deserve one either. He has a small window of opportunity to define himself while the Tories are distracted with the virus. Get a message which resonates with current labour voters and the previous labour voters. They are not totally exclusive and you never know how quickly things can go well. Some times especially times like we are facing at the moment voters are more up for grabs than people who do all the supposedly clever analysis think.
If the last few years have shown anything, it how volatile electorates are not how fixed and how often polls are wrong.
Left-wing MPs put Starmer’s weak response to the Cummings scandal to shame
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...ak-response-to-the-cummings-scandal-to-shame/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...ak-response-to-the-cummings-scandal-to-shame/
So a group of unimportant MPs tweet that Cummings should be sacked, and that’s meant to be leadership! Add Ian Blackwood to that list as well.
I am no labour supporter, but quite frankly he’s doing the right thing here and letting the government get themselves in all sorts of knots. Boris doesn’t look like he’s getting rid of Cummings, Starmer tweeting that he should adds nothing to the argument - far better to save himself for a more worthwhile fight.
I am no labour supporter, but quite frankly he’s doing the right thing here and letting the government get themselves in all sorts of knots. Boris doesn’t look like he’s getting rid of Cummings, Starmer tweeting that he should adds nothing to the argument - far better to save himself for a more worthwhile fight.
He's totally left wing though guys!
Buzzing to see the UKIP bridge building policies.
Buzzing to see the UKIP bridge building policies.
Another step towards being more electable