This thread is mind-numbingly repetitive. I don't know why anyone (on either side) is bothering.Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
This thread is mind-numbingly repetitive. I don't know why anyone (on either side) is bothering.
Most threads in the CE are thus.
Read the Churchill one if you need to doze off quickly.
Be interesting to read the full report when it’s released, especially for its prognosis on how Labour can win in the future. Seems to suggest, which I mentioned the other day on here, that it’s going to have to focus chiefly on economic policy to unite its disparate bases of support now. The most damning part I think is Labour’s failure to recognise the threat to its seats like Bolsover and to target them accordingly. Seems like a big dose of complacency.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this part though. A Labour voter turned away on a triumvirate of lies, perversion and conspiracy.
I'm always skeptical of these reports as they have a tendency to measure class in a very useless way but it will be interesting enough to see the what answers are put forward.
I will say that it's almost impossible to win over that women in her 50's, Labour have been losing these type of voters for well over a decade and really any economic policy that would win them over will alienate Labour younger city core support(Labour need a mass housing plan yet it will be seen as the possibility of a "Marxist government".)
We've got a generational divide in Britain that is now a class divide. There are a ton of the over 50's who basically have the same social relations as French peasants which results in them having dog shit views.
I will say that it's almost impossible to win over that women in her 50's, Labour have been losing these type of voters for well over a decade and really any economic policy that would win them over will alienate Labour younger city core support(Labour need a mass housing plan yet it will be seen as the possibility of a "Marxist government".)
We've got a generational divide in Britain that is now a class divide. There are a ton of the over 50's who basically have the same social relations as French peasants which results in them having dog shit views.
Last edited:
Nothing too surprising there. Basically everything that people cited as a factor was a factor. Which makes sense. A disaster on that scale will rarely be down to one thing.
Important that it highlights that the 2017 result only masked pre-existing issues though. This is the culmination of many years of problems, not just one bad election cycle.
Good luck sorting that out.
Some key lines for me
1. "The report finds a paradox: individually, most of Labour’s policies were popular, but as a package they were seen as unrealistic, with voters not trusting the party to deliver them."
My gut feeling is the same happened to a lesser extent with Bernie 2020. Focus on the fundamentals (M4A for Bernie for example), not on the rest. But for neither Bernie nor Corbyn would a more focused campaign have been enough, it might have helped the margins.
2. "The views of one 52-year-old woman who voted Labour in 2017 are summarised in the report as: “Frightened at the possibility of a Marxist government. Disgusted at Corbyn being a terrorist sympathiser. Most disturbed about plan to nationalise BT as I fear it would allow a Labour government to spy on internet users.”"
First lines match everything said in this perfectly accurate thread from early Dec. First and last line speak to ability of media to cover false stories (Marxist govt) and to not cover real ones (existing GCHQ surveillance).
1. "The report finds a paradox: individually, most of Labour’s policies were popular, but as a package they were seen as unrealistic, with voters not trusting the party to deliver them."
My gut feeling is the same happened to a lesser extent with Bernie 2020. Focus on the fundamentals (M4A for Bernie for example), not on the rest. But for neither Bernie nor Corbyn would a more focused campaign have been enough, it might have helped the margins.
2. "The views of one 52-year-old woman who voted Labour in 2017 are summarised in the report as: “Frightened at the possibility of a Marxist government. Disgusted at Corbyn being a terrorist sympathiser. Most disturbed about plan to nationalise BT as I fear it would allow a Labour government to spy on internet users.”"
First lines match everything said in this perfectly accurate thread from early Dec. First and last line speak to ability of media to cover false stories (Marxist govt) and to not cover real ones (existing GCHQ surveillance).
Its sort of encouraging to see that the report pulls out pretty much all the issues that ive seen floating around over the last 6 months, everything from the long term structural change in the party vote to the terrible ground campaign in 2019. It would have been easy to blame it all on Brexit and/or Corbyn. Equally, spotting the issues is one thing, solving them is another. The short term issues aren't too hard, they flow from the well discussed toxic culture, dysfunctional structures and poor leadership. They're no different from any other organisation and can be solved in a year or two. The long term stuff though is much harder and far from easy to solve. Some of the issues are beyond politics and relate to how the country is changing more generally. Its not obvious how to solve such a problem, or whether a solution even exists, from a party political perspective.
Agreed. It will need much more than luck.
Agreed.
Any report needs to look at why voters developed these views. If we are already in the position as a country where a biased media elect our governments, there is not much point in calling it a democracy.
Yes, I can hear the calls for Labour to adapt and mould themselves and policies for media approval. But the point in my previous paragraph would still remain.
And yet whether those details were accurate or not they paint a picture about Labour that rung broadly true to a lot of people - it was run by its extreme wings, it was soft on terror, and it had a tendency to ideological solutions.
I say it again but Labours obsession with shooting the messenger rather than the marketability of its message is half the problem.
But it was not run by its ‘extreme’ wings any more than you can say the Blairites represent an ‘extreme’ center. We really need to drop this idea that Labour’s politics from 2015-2019 was anything other than predominantly centre-left politics.
How was it soft on terror? I’ll grant Corbyn has his own history which was easy to exploit and demonise though. But please do elaborate on this in regards to Labour policy.
A tendency to ideological solutions is just a totally meaningless statement. All politics is ideological, you just presumably regard the ideology behind what is considered centrist or commonplace since the entrenchment of neoliberalism as invisible. It’s another silly notion we have where people who think they sit in or close to the centre on either side only pursue ‘sensible’ and ‘rational politics’ and everyone else is blindly pursuing ideological goals.
There is a tendancy to simultaneously believe that things are broken and also that there is no other way. The 'defund the police' being an obvious example. They aren't saying we don't need some police. Simply that as different problems have grown, they have been foisted upon the police rather than fund the fluffy leftist type services, which are normally more appropriate.
Corbyn and McDonnell were Bennites. That group has been on the extreme margins of Labour politics since Kinnock. (I'd have to say that 50 year woman quoted above would likely have remembered that too).
Who recalls what Labour's policy was really? But the impression given by its leader was one of weakness.
Shoot to kill.
Shortened prison sentences.
Skripal poisoning (not terror but close enough, and it's one that really did cut through with the public).
You say that but there was certainly a sense, for example, that Labour would nationalise first and figure out why later.
People hated Labour so much they voted for Johnson. Unbelievable.
Unfortunately your view is naive at best. If the messenger was neutral the current government would not be getting away with half of the things they are doing.
Imagine Corbyn had refused to publish a report into his links with Russia prior to an election. The press would not have let it go, day after day.
Good news guys, climate change has promised to not be an issue until 4-5 years time.
Thank goodness for those heartfelt pledges.
Thank goodness for those heartfelt pledges.
Last edited:
And so the solution is to complain about how unfair the press is VIA the press and hope they report that in a way that convinces people?
If you set achievable targets for 10 years in the future and then lose 4-5 years when you can actually act on those, wouldn’t it be wildly irresponsible to just claim you can make up the difference in half the time?
I'd probably just not put "There is no issue more important to our future than the climate emergency" as part of one of my leadership election pledges if I was going to kick that issue 4-5 years down the road the very first time it was brought up.
It can be the single most important issue on the planet, and he still can’t actually act on it until he he’s in office.
"we lost, we can't do anything until we win" really isn't great messaging a week after rashford managed to change government policy over twitter, you're sounding a lot like the people who were criticised for overlooking all of jezzas dumb shit. what dobba said with an added "we will continue to pressure the government and will continue to work towards zero emissions" isn't hard and doesn't completely deflate people who might actually want to vote or volunteer for the party
Ah come on, of course he can beat the drum on climate change but there is a difference between being in power and being in opposition. Just to remember what Keir's spokesperson actually said, they were asked about a specific election platform target date and said they'd have to look at that again later given that they didn't win the election. There is literally nothing about that that is either untrue, ideologically unsound or not completely logical.
Yes they could have said something like 'Climate change is the most important issue facing our planet!' but you know what, it would have been a meaningless soundbite that didn't actually answer the question they were being asked. I actually like politicians answering questions and not just trying to blow them off to look good.
it's all meaningless soundbites, it's a spokesperson, there's also no need to deflate the base the way keir and his team are doing
I'm not feeling deflated, I'm super happy with how Keir is running the party. Could it be perhaps that you're just feeling the same thing many of us did when Corbyn was running things?
that's not exactly a great argument or a sign that he's doing well "he's making my section of the party happy" like that's not most of labours problem
At some point supporters have to also make some effort too. Corbyn largely didn’t bother trying to bring the more centrist people along, and it cost him dearly. Starmer is at least trying to accommodate both wings. If people are just going to attack him every time he doesn’t give them 100% of what they want though, then it’s just going to result in another landslide loss next time. I’m tired of watching people throw away the good in a pointless demand for the perfect.
If that's how you see it, fine. All I'm seeing is the slow mindless march to a world I can't even survive in and being told to vote for policies that might postpone that world by a decade. If that's demanding too much, or "perfect" (as if the left doesn't hate most of their public faces) then I'm going to keep demanding it.
So if you can’t get radical improvement you’d rather than fast decline? How exactly is Starmer’s Labour not an improvement? It might not be as fast or as dramatic an improvement as you’d like, but is it really a continuing decline from where we are now after a decade of Tory rule?
this is a massive misrepresentation of what I think and we've interacted here enough that you know it. there's no point in even engaging it.
It wasn’t intentional, I genuinely thought that’s what you were saying, which confused me. Apologies for misunderstanding you.
criticising labour, especially from the left, is in no way shape or form explicit or implicit support for the tories
That depends how far it goes. If it causes constant internal ruptures that lead to Labour going into the next election campaign divided, then in a way yes its a form of unintentional support for the Tories. There's plenty of time and room for disagreements on policy in the years to come of course, but when the election rolls around again it becomes binary. Even now there are going to be repurcussions if people aren't careful, the public image of Starmer is likely to be formed over these early months and very hard to change later. If he's continually under attack from his own party, then it may well brand him as a liability in the public mind.
if Keir is unable to stop the infighting then maybe he's not up to the job, these are problems that leaders solve not expect to be solved for them
his whole thing was "unite the party with left wing politics minus the baggage of prominent leftists"
Did Kier Fcuk you and never call again?
Its like you disregard the most sensible framing, and use your jilted lover lens instead.
this is unironically what the 2020 labour leadership election felt like
Touche.
I don’t get it. I really don’t. Perfect won’t happen. Good enough is going to have to be good enough.
It was all so much easier when the Lib Dems did some of the ‘nutty’ policy heavy lifting.
I'll vote for labour if they don't go too far to the right, but it's going to be in the same way a lot of people voted for Corbyn's labour. It's going to be a feck the tories vote, not because I think it will lead to the policies I most want. And let's face it "feck the tories" only goes so far.