If you are happy about having the choice between a party where policy is up for sale to private interests and the Conservative Party then go wild.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
If you are happy about having the choice between a party where policy is up for sale to private interests and the Conservative Party then go wild.
What time is Blair on radio tomorrow saying he should be 15-20 points ahead?
I really don't understand the negativity here. Labour has always won elections from the centre ground. That's never not been the case.
You can make the argument that Corbyn and austerity have moved the Overton window to the left - that would be a positive if so, but history does not support the idea that the Labour Party can provide a socialist's wish list in policies and approaches and be elected. The British public just are not that left wing.
You can make the argument that Corbyn and austerity have moved the Overton window to the left - that would be a positive if so, but history does not support the idea that the Labour Party can provide a socialist's wish list in policies and approaches and be elected. The British public just are not that left wing.
I should have said, it is the ending of a purge!
the "lesser of two evils" argument may certainly apply. It is hardly a compelling argument. But I may well be pragmatic when the time comes.
There was the Labour victory in 1945.
I do largely agree with your points and it is a particularly good one about Corbyn moving the Overton Window to the Left, or at least halting its move to the Right. I was not a supporter of Corbyn, I think his leadership was largely terrible. I do think Starmer can steer a course that is more to the left of New Labour, something more in keeping with the roots of the party. Labour is supposed to be coalition of the Left, not just left centrists.
After they sabotaged the last few years for Labour it is the least they can do.
But if you mean getting into power, but then doing the exact same as the Tories would do, it doesn't give any benefit.
Don't get me wrong, it would be near impossible to be as bad as the current Tory government, but the politics of the two parties seems to be more closely aligned, at what point is there enough of a difference...
It’s the whole perfect not being the enemy of the good, I’m hoping they can get in and the slowly start changing things in the right direction.
That's what the world needs. Slow change. The slower the better.
The 1945 victory is often cited, and I think it should not be underplayed.
However, there are a few reasons why I think it is often thought that the 1945 manifesto was more radical than it was at the time.
All three parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal) pledged to create a National Health Service in 1945 (although the exact details were vague and differed between the parties). Also, all parties pledged to implement the Beveridge Report (written by a Liberal).
The Overton window after the war meant that Labour's views were not viewed as far-left (and aided by Churchill running a ridiculously bad campaign).
Then there are the Attlee Government's achievements which have been (at best) glossed over by those on the left in the Labour Party today:
- building a nuclear bomb
- helping found the State of Israel
- helping found NATO
- austerity due to excessive governmental spending
- strike breaking
- wage freezes
- ration cuts
- maintaining the Empire
- the partition of India and Pakistan and the deaths that resulted
- you could also add letting Nye Bevan set up the NHS in secret and not tell anyone else how much over budget it was - that led to the UK having to go cap in hand to the USA for a loan, which led to austerity, which led (in part) to the electoral defeat of 1951, but that may be nitpicking
Attlee did a lot of good and is revered, but even during the period of his Government there were plenty on the left who fiercely criticised him.
Frosty, I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, you make some good points.
I would point out that committing to the Beveridge Report and implementing it, or how it is implemented, are two different things. Would the Tories or Liberals have developed the Wefare State to the extent Labour did?
Obviously Attlee was PM during a different time. But to me he is an example of what I would like in a Labour leader - he may have had to make some difficult decisions, some decidedly unLabourlike decisions at times - but I think, in general, he remained true to the principles of the party.
Can we drop the idea that Starmer has made the party ‘electable’ again based purely on polls because I shouldn’t need to remind people of polling under Miliband or even Corbyn albeit for a shorter period -
This is true, polling of the leaders is actually far more predictive.
I agree with all of that to be honest. Attlee's temperament and personality, business-like as it was, surely played a part in making changes to the UK which have stood the test of time.
I would also like to give a positive reference to Harold Wilson's governments, as they oversaw a lot of changes which made the country better in the long-term (expansion of Universities and university places, founding The Open University, passing the Race Relations Act and Abortion Act, decriminalisation of homosexuality, reforming divorce laws, building motorways, keeping the UK out of Vietnam, free contraception on the NHS, expanding numbers of GP surgeries, 1.3 million new homes, other details here)
Considering the abyss we were left in last December the fact we are ahead in the polls is a minor miracle. Whether we stay there is to be seen, but this is a major positive.
I think the 2017 result and subsequent polling was also a minor miracle given the internal sabotage Corbyn was subject to. I wonder how he’d have fared with the machinery of the party fully behind him from the start.
This is an example of people buying and selling a narrative at the expense of facts, enabled by the machinations of our woeful electoral system. People talk as if 2019 represents the least popular Labour have ever been at an election - actually, it's the 3rd lowest share of the vote Labour have achieved in the six elections contested in 21st century (both Brown and Milliband did 'worse', but the demographics were more in their favour). To put it into perspective, Labour's share of the vote in 2019 (32%) falls almost exactly halfway between Blair in 2005 (35%) and Brown in 2010 (29%).
Not that it isn't a positive, it's just not the miracle people want it to be, especially given that this government is the most shambolic for decades.
Remember, Corbyn getting the largest increase in vote share since Attlee while his own party despised him and worked against him = bad because he didn’t win the election, shows how unelectable the left is.
Starmer taking a poll lead over the Tories (as his two predecessors did) = excellent, a minor miracle that signifies his electability compared to his predecessors.
You think he isn't more electable than Corbyn then ?
This discussion just goes round in circles
Left posters: Starmer is taking the party to the right and even if he get's elected (which we doubt) will do nothing to tackle the structural issues within British society
Starmer supporters: Ahhh but he is more likely to get elected to do nothing. Checkmate.
Left posters: Starmer is taking the party to the right and even if he get's elected (which we doubt) will do nothing to tackle the structural issues within British society
Starmer supporters: Ahhh but he is more likely to get elected to do nothing. Checkmate.
It certainly does, it has been doing that more or less since just after WW2 ended...most of my lifetime.
The Labour Party may survive, after a fashion, but the Labour movement has finally and possibly irrevocably lost the trust of the working class, or the 'red wall' voters. It is true that given the main age profile (and the impact of Covid 19) on this group, some may die off before the next election, but perhaps more likely the election after that, or, some may, in their dotage, even return to the fold, if Starmer can 'hold the ring' long enough.
However, just what is 'long enough' and in any case who knows what the world will look like in 3/4 years, if Covid is still wrecking the economy, if the pessimistic results of Brexit come true, if Donald T wins the election in Nov, and/ or he refuses to move from the Whitehouse? We could be approaching the next election with none of the existing parties having anything to offer the great British Public, except perhaps 'blood, sweat and tears'.
The country desperately needs someone with a vision, which isn't all about gloom and doom, and the world ending, and we are all off to hell in an 'extinctionist' hand cart (spatial distancing maintained of course! ). Can Sir Keir Starmer provide that? Does he have the charisma, intellect, strength of personal will and the ruthlessness necessary, can he separate 'do-able' policy, from the hair-brained kind, can he inspire and motivate not only those who agree with him, but those who might do or who at least would 'lend him their vote'?
When will Sir Keir start his journey of a thousand miles.... has he taken his first step yet?
Pretty much. It's this until the end of time.
Labour is currently a party full of groups who have fundamentally different politics, if Starmer does lose in the next election then the conversation will be the exact same as the one in 2015. The reasons for this imo is on both sides there's somewhat lacking reading of the changes in the UK and the why "left"(Almost a meaningless term these days)can't seem to win state power.
Left - Corbyn lost because of going for remain, the media, the party infighting, liberal guardian writers on twitter etc etc.
Centre Left - Labour lost because Corbyn brought the party to the "far left" and Britian is a naturally a conservative country etc etc.
All of this is possibly true but it points to a way of seeing politics as a sub culture. The arguments above are really no different than arguing over why LVG was sacked or why the 90's band Slowdive failed to break into the main stream(Bloody up tight NME reviewers!). Which is fine for us lot(It's something I fall into all the time tbh). Both rather worrying when you this stuff pop up in main figures in both the Corbyn leadership and now Starmers.
Go vote Tory then, you ideologues are all the same really...
The difference is, I never thought Corbyn could win an election, because his brand of politics never does. So any poll bounce he got was always bound to be temporary.
I think it is less likely with Starmer, who reflects a more mainstream labour tradition although I accept if the tories junk Johnson that might make his task more difficult.
Not my field, but isn't Ainsley's theory pretty much consistent with Matthew Goodwin's? Don't they both suppose the reason Labour has lost so much of their former voters is that the values they are percieved to stand for no longer match those voters' value priorities and sometimes conflict? If these *experts* are writing books about it, I would assume that this is a prominent theory in political science.
*Don't know their credentials but they both seem influential.
What you say is of course absolutely right, and I am not trying to spin things just by looking at the number of seats won (which was my reference point). Of course - how the vote is distributed around the country and how many votes we win in comparison to the Tories are crucial reference points. The reason we won in 2005 and gained such a large majority on such a small vote share was due to the very targeted campaign run by HQ (and the fact that the Lib Dems racked up such a large vote share - it really was a three-way fight, as opposed to last year's election).
However, I would be saying this regardless of the leader now - the hole Labour is in electorally is huge.
The Red Wall was meant to stand up to a Tory victory. It did in 1983, when Labour only won 209 seats.
It didn't last year, and this is the most significant part of the Election for me. The Conservative Party did not just win in these seats - they won convincingly.
To illustrate, here were Labour majorities in red wall seats in 1997:
- Bolsover: 27,149 (created in 1950, never elected a Tory)
- Sedgefield: 25,143 (last elected a Tory MP in 1931, and Tony Blair's old seat)
- North West Durham: 24,754 (created in 1885, never elected a Tory)
- Leigh: 24,496 (created in 1885, never elected a Tory)
- Bishop Auckland: 21,064 (created in 1885, never elected a Tory)
- Redcar: 21,664 (last elected a Tory MP in 1959)
- Stoke on Trent Central: 19,924 (created in 1950, never elected a Tory)
- Workington: 19,656 (created in 1918, never elected a Tory at a General Election)
- Blyth Valley: 17,736 (last elected a Tory MP in 1931)
- Bassetlaw: 17,460 (last elected a Tory MP in 1910)
- Stoke on Trent North: 17,392 (created in 1950, never elected a Tory)
- Great Grimsby: 16,244 (last elected a Tory MP in 1924)
- Darlington: 16,025 (last elected a Tory MP in 1983)
- Wakefield: 14,604 (last elected a Tory MP in 1931)
- West Bromwich West: 13,584 (last elected a Tory MP in 1931)
- West Bromwich East: 11,355 (from 2001, was the Speaker's seat in 1997 - last elected a Tory MP in 1931)
Mansfield was lost in 2017, having not elected a Tory for 80 years, and now the walking libel suit Ben Bradley has a 17,000 majority. Other Labour seats lost in 2017 and 2015 are similar - we are running in fourth place in Scottish seats, for example.
Not only have we lost seats, we will have to get a major swing just to recoup our losses.
What is more, Labour are in a worse position today than the Tories were in 1997. (sorry that this is information you are well aware of - just illustrating where I am coming from)
In 1997, the Conservative Party received its worst election result since 1832.
They ended up with 9.6m votes, 30.7% of the vote, and only 165 seats. In the 2019 Election, Labour's figures were better on all counts. However, I think that this result is much worse for Labour.
Here is the electoral map from 1997:
Importantly for the Conservative Party, the seats it hanged on to were generally very safe, and provided a base for the long rebuilding in the elections to follow. Likewise, their voting base in 1997 was stable and could be relied upon for future votes.
Now, here is 2019:
Unlike 1997, Labour does not have the same solid base as the Conservative Party did. In addition, many of the seats we did hang on to (for example, Dagenham and Rainham, ), were secured with razor thin majorities and would be vulnerable to minor swings at a constituency level. This means we are vulnerable to losses in 202 on very regional minor swings.
The electoral map has been redrawn permanently in my view. This image from The Times illustrates the swings both toward Labour in 2017, and the simply massive swing away from Labour yesterday:
These swings have meant that the Conservative Party now either holds traditional Labour seats, or is running them very close in our old heartlands. In short, the Conservative Party in 1997 could effectively follow the old rules and approaches to politics in rebuilding. The Labour Party does not have this luxury, even if the Conservative vote fell in Remain areas.
I don't expect Starmer to win in 2024 given this maths. The fact Labour is being considered less toxic now is a big win.
MacNicol and Head Office ran a lot of the campaign, directing funds and resources to defend a lot of seats which would have been lost otherwise. This was done allowing Corbyn and the left to (very successfully) focus on messaging and mass rallies which undermined the piss poor campaign run by May.
There is no stab in the back, no more than Tony Blair being undermined by Gordon Brown and the Treasury on a daily basis, Brown being undermined by David Miliband and pals, Ed Miliband being undermined by the Blairites and so on.
I will say this - if McDonnell had been in charge rather than Corbyn, Labour would have done a lot better. There were far too many unforced errors and too much political naivety by JC; McDonnell actually wanted to win. Corbyn seemed more concerned with transforming the party so the Left could control it going forward (which he did succeed in doing prior to the 2019 election), than winning elections.
Overall I think your post was an excellent comment on things as they stand and where they might go for Labour.
The old Labour movement is over, I very much doubt if the 'red wall' will ever rise again. The Labour party will remain, but as someone once said " not as we know it Jim"
The toxicity you refer to will eventually go but it will be replaced, (already has in many ways) by an overt liberal tendency, of middle class sentiments', which may see a way forward in linking with some of the existing Liberal Democrats.
The fact is the 'red wall' of Labour voters were never 'liberal' in any sense, they saw themselves not as a working class (the word 'class' is a leftwing ideology in this context) as others defined them, but simply as working people and they did have some vestige of wanting to improve themselves, or as we tend to refer these days to be 'aspirational in personal outlook. The Trade Unions had also been at the heart of these 'working people', standing up for their political rights yes, but more important to the 'rank and file' being able to negotiate with employers for better wages, better perks, (like the bosses's had!) but these eventually sold out them out (even before Blair)when the lunatic left took over and tried to use working (Class) people as a battering ram against the right wing politicos.
The Industrial Relations Act 1970 was the way-in for the Tories to eventually decimate the working people by using their own so called TU leaders willingness to throw themselves and their people head first into a series of impossible to win conflicts, out of which eventually a neutered Trade Union movement stumbled along, with much lower memberships, lower expectations, but still some crazy idea they could influence Government.
In my lifetime the working people who built the 'red wall' have been let down by their Trade Unions, their Party and others who should have known better.
It will never return.
Thanks for the reply, and I do think (sadly) that you are correct.
On the trades unions, I think the thing that struck me the most was the recent announcement by the GMB in Scotland that they had no opinion on the leadership of Richard Leonard because the vast majority of their members are SNP voters. The traditional link to the Labour Party has been broken, or, at least, is soon to be formally broken.
If the Red Wall is lost, and Scotland for that matter, then it could be argued that Starmer is making a category mistake by trying to speak to those voters that have left Labour. I did read some polling analysis that those first-time 2019 Conservative voters have not yet returned to Labour - they made a momentous decision and want to see where it leads and it would take a lot for them to switch back and admit that they were wrong.
It is also a risk that in appealing to the Red Wall the voters Corbyn attracted in 2017 - the student votes and those in the cities - may not remain loyal.
The million pound question is where does Labour find 326 seats for a majority, if we except Scotland and the Red Wall. Labour will have to find more seats like Kensington and Canterbury, where we have to win them for the first time ever. I am not sure I can find the numbers on the electoral map at the moment though....
Another factor is the Liberal Democrats crumbling under Swinson, while targeting their campaign in Labour constituencies, splitting votes between the parties rivalling the Tories didn't help either in 2019.What you say is of course absolutely right, and I am not trying to spin things just by looking at the number of seats won (which was my reference point). Of course - how the vote is distributed around the country and how many votes we win in comparison to the Tories are crucial reference points. The reason we won in 2005 and gained such a large majority on such a small vote share was due to the very targeted campaign run by HQ (and the fact that the Lib Dems racked up such a large vote share - it really was a three-way fight, as opposed to last year's election).
However, I would be saying this regardless of the leader now - the hole Labour is in electorally is huge.
The Red Wall was meant to stand up to a Tory victory. It did in 1983, when Labour only won 209 seats.
It didn't last year, and this is the most significant part of the Election for me. The Conservative Party did not just win in these seats - they won convincingly.
To illustrate, here were Labour majorities in red wall seats in 1997:
All are now Blue.
- Bolsover: 27,149 (created in 1950, never elected a Tory)
- Sedgefield: 25,143 (last elected a Tory MP in 1931, and Tony Blair's old seat)
- North West Durham: 24,754 (created in 1885, never elected a Tory)
- Leigh: 24,496 (created in 1885, never elected a Tory)
- Bishop Auckland: 21,064 (created in 1885, never elected a Tory)
- Redcar: 21,664 (last elected a Tory MP in 1959)
- Stoke on Trent Central: 19,924 (created in 1950, never elected a Tory)
- Workington: 19,656 (created in 1918, never elected a Tory at a General Election)
- Blyth Valley: 17,736 (last elected a Tory MP in 1931)
- Bassetlaw: 17,460 (last elected a Tory MP in 1910)
- Stoke on Trent North: 17,392 (created in 1950, never elected a Tory)
- Great Grimsby: 16,244 (last elected a Tory MP in 1924)
- Darlington: 16,025 (last elected a Tory MP in 1983)
- Wakefield: 14,604 (last elected a Tory MP in 1931)
- West Bromwich West: 13,584 (last elected a Tory MP in 1931)
- West Bromwich East: 11,355 (from 2001, was the Speaker's seat in 1997 - last elected a Tory MP in 1931)
Mansfield was lost in 2017, having not elected a Tory for 80 years, and now the walking libel suit Ben Bradley has a 17,000 majority. Other Labour seats lost in 2017 and 2015 are similar - we are running in fourth place in Scottish seats, for example.
Not only have we lost seats, we will have to get a major swing just to recoup our losses.
What is more, Labour are in a worse position today than the Tories were in 1997. (sorry that this is information you are well aware of - just illustrating where I am coming from)
In 1997, the Conservative Party received its worst election result since 1832.
They ended up with 9.6m votes, 30.7% of the vote, and only 165 seats. In the 2019 Election, Labour's figures were better on all counts. However, I think that this result is much worse for Labour.
Here is the electoral map from 1997:
Importantly for the Conservative Party, the seats it hanged on to were generally very safe, and provided a base for the long rebuilding in the elections to follow. Likewise, their voting base in 1997 was stable and could be relied upon for future votes.
Now, here is 2019:
Unlike 1997, Labour does not have the same solid base as the Conservative Party did. In addition, many of the seats we did hang on to (for example, Dagenham and Rainham, ), were secured with razor thin majorities and would be vulnerable to minor swings at a constituency level. This means we are vulnerable to losses in 202 on very regional minor swings.
The electoral map has been redrawn permanently in my view. This image from The Times illustrates the swings both toward Labour in 2017, and the simply massive swing away from Labour yesterday:
These swings have meant that the Conservative Party now either holds traditional Labour seats, or is running them very close in our old heartlands. In short, the Conservative Party in 1997 could effectively follow the old rules and approaches to politics in rebuilding. The Labour Party does not have this luxury, even if the Conservative vote fell in Remain areas.
I don't expect Starmer to win in 2024 given this maths. The fact Labour is being considered less toxic now is a big win.
The Tories had a pact with the Brexit party but also, effectively, with the Lib Dems too. This part of the narrative seems to be being forgotten, as was Swinsons terrible leadership.
On another note, I can't see Starmers leadership winning back Scotland. Which would mean he is no more electable than Corbyn.
So you're finally admitting Corbyn wasn't electable, rather than blaming everyone but him for Labour's failings?
You’ve just started another circular argument !
It's basically impossible without Scotland, it would need something like 97-esque swing. Not happening in this environment. So any putative Labour government would have to be in some sort of deal with the SNP, which brings its own problems (see 2015). Even to get level on vote share with the Tories, you need a Tory-Labour swing bigger than Thatcher and Cameron managed.
Or, more likely, both are equally electable.
Although, if winning back Scotland is the key, then Corbyn is more likely to achieve that than Starmer. So...
If you are left wing, vote Labour. Always.
When they are in power, drag them further left.
Any other voting strategy sees a Conservative government.
No amount of mental gymnastics gets around this.
You are not going to drag the party further Left while they sit in opposition, abstaining from a voting cycle sees the Conservative Party win more seats.
Grow up. Live in the real world. Or just stop blathering on. Especially when all of your backwards looks have swathes of Red in Scotland. That’s gone now. Labour fcuked it.
There is no path to a Labour victory that sees centrists vilified and antagonised.
Take a shit or get off the toilet.
DISCLAIMER : I am pretty far left on almost all issues. I do not like the above either. I see it as a cancer of our society. But I am a realist. Chemotherapy beats Homeopathy I’m afraid.
When they are in power, drag them further left.
Any other voting strategy sees a Conservative government.
No amount of mental gymnastics gets around this.
You are not going to drag the party further Left while they sit in opposition, abstaining from a voting cycle sees the Conservative Party win more seats.
Grow up. Live in the real world. Or just stop blathering on. Especially when all of your backwards looks have swathes of Red in Scotland. That’s gone now. Labour fcuked it.
There is no path to a Labour victory that sees centrists vilified and antagonised.
Take a shit or get off the toilet.
DISCLAIMER : I am pretty far left on almost all issues. I do not like the above either. I see it as a cancer of our society. But I am a realist. Chemotherapy beats Homeopathy I’m afraid.
I agree in that it's pointless looking at polls until we start getting into the mix of an election. You also need to drop the idea that he's not electable on the basis of polls, I don't need to go through this thread to pull up your posts referencing opinion polls again.
How can I drop an idea I never had? Please show me where I’ve claimed Starmer is unelectable.
The issue is, this standard only applies to the left. The centre are fine to trash the party when it has a left-wing leader to the benefit of the Tories, but when it’s the other way round the left is supposed to support Labour and vote regardless, or they’re the bad guys? After seeing the efforts many MPs and pundits went to to drag Labour’s reputation through the mud lest Corbyn get in power, the idea the left should now get behind the party irrespective of its policies is going to be treated with the contempt that it deserves.