Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
BigMon said:
Anyone who thinks Starmer and Labour is going to lead the UK into sunlit uplands is going to be bitterly disappointed.
It'll be more or less same s
t, different coloured tie.
The issue is that current crop of Tories have and are rendering themselves unelectable so ushering SKS in through the back door with a fanfare.
As I have said many, many times I don't buy into Labour Project Fear being trumpeted on here, mainly due to the thought that another Sunak led government would be no better.
So the hope is that the Tories are capable of regrouping on the backbenches and presenting an electable alternative next time round. If the membership decide to oust Sunak and elect the 'Blue Corbyn' (Braverman) as leader than god help us all.
Having said all that there is still plenty of time for Labour to cock all this up, it's only a poll lead at the moment, but I see nothing on the Conservative benches to persuade me to vote for them again or that they have any idea how they can pull themselves around.
Agree, Nothing to fear from SKS other than mediocrity and whipsawing u turns.It'll be more or less same s
t, different coloured tie.The issue is that current crop of Tories have and are rendering themselves unelectable so ushering SKS in through the back door with a fanfare.
As I have said many, many times I don't buy into Labour Project Fear being trumpeted on here, mainly due to the thought that another Sunak led government would be no better.
So the hope is that the Tories are capable of regrouping on the backbenches and presenting an electable alternative next time round. If the membership decide to oust Sunak and elect the 'Blue Corbyn' (Braverman) as leader than god help us all.
Having said all that there is still plenty of time for Labour to cock all this up, it's only a poll lead at the moment, but I see nothing on the Conservative benches to persuade me to vote for them again or that they have any idea how they can pull themselves around.
Whilst this is the SKS thread, the Tories are hamstrung by the leadership election rules. Their members love a demagogue on the right wing of the party. How they could have thought Truss was a good idea, I have no clue. They will make a similar mistake next time, if given a chance.
AstonZagato said:
the Tories are hamstrung by the leadership election rules. Their members love a demagogue on the right wing of the party. How they could have thought Truss was a good idea, I have no clue. They will make a similar mistake next time, if given a chance.
I wouldn't like to use the term "batst crazy", but....MC Bodge said:
AstonZagato said:
the Tories are hamstrung by the leadership election rules. Their members love a demagogue on the right wing of the party. How they could have thought Truss was a good idea, I have no clue. They will make a similar mistake next time, if given a chance.
I wouldn't like to use the term "batst crazy", but....Gecko1978 said:
MC Bodge said:
AstonZagato said:
the Tories are hamstrung by the leadership election rules. Their members love a demagogue on the right wing of the party. How they could have thought Truss was a good idea, I have no clue. They will make a similar mistake next time, if given a chance.
I wouldn't like to use the term "batst crazy", but....S600BSB said:
MC Bodge said:
From conversations with people (interested sorts, admittedly, of centre left or centre right leaning) about this, most seem to think that Labour should have politely turned her down, rather than appearing to abandon their principles.
I'm not sure how it will play with Joe Average or the few remaining Tory supporters (if they are still Tory supporting at this point, there is unlikely to be much that could persuade them otherwise)
Whether or not it will provide a net positive impact to Labour's support at the GE, who knows?
Completely understand why she wanted to get away from the Cons asap, but Sir Kier could perhaps of suggested that she sit as an independent for a period before coming over to Labour. I'm not sure how it will play with Joe Average or the few remaining Tory supporters (if they are still Tory supporting at this point, there is unlikely to be much that could persuade them otherwise)
Whether or not it will provide a net positive impact to Labour's support at the GE, who knows?
I'm sure Starmer could probably rationalise it though. Afterall, he's gone from supporting Corbyn & his Manifesto all the way to welcoming Elpicke in to his party!)
[Anonymoususer] We are truly going to be blessed to have such a steadfast man of firm convictions and unwavering principles to be Prime Minister of our country and represent us on the world stage! [/Anonymoususer]
Edited by Wombat3 on Sunday 12th May 23:46
2xChevrons said:
It is hyperbolic, but the nub of truth under all the hyperbole is that Starmer has a track record, going right back to 2020, of being a pretty awful and especially short-term political strategist.
When ever he has/chooses to do things that aren't "Nothing, while the Conservatives destroy themselves" and "Be publicly stty to the Left" then he, more often than not, has fallen flat on his face. The word after the slash in the last sentence is especially key, because one constant trend is that, after months of weird inaction and not shooting at yawning open goals, he'll suddenly decide to do something that lands him in a PR problem entirely of his own making.
The poll and electoral results Labour have been getting rather mask this and have led certain people to breathlessly insist that Starmer is a master political operator. There is certainly validity in not interrupting your enemy when he is making a mistake, but it's not really a strategy, and certainly not one that holds up when, for whatever reason, the spotlight turns on you.
Starmer is doing what he needs to do to win power. The old adage that the right looks for recruits & the left looks for traiitors as true as it ever was. While Labour under Keef is morphing into a Lab/Con combo, the Tories have turned into UKIP. The downside is it pisses off the left but on the other hand, 45% of the country votes for you. Something like 800 polls now since the Tories held a lead, hard to argue he's pursuing a losing strategy.When ever he has/chooses to do things that aren't "Nothing, while the Conservatives destroy themselves" and "Be publicly s
tty to the Left" then he, more often than not, has fallen flat on his face. The word after the slash in the last sentence is especially key, because one constant trend is that, after months of weird inaction and not shooting at yawning open goals, he'll suddenly decide to do something that lands him in a PR problem entirely of his own making. The poll and electoral results Labour have been getting rather mask this and have led certain people to breathlessly insist that Starmer is a master political operator. There is certainly validity in not interrupting your enemy when he is making a mistake, but it's not really a strategy, and certainly not one that holds up when, for whatever reason, the spotlight turns on you.
Meanwhile, the Elphicke thing in the real world won't penetrate into the average Sun reader inspite of Harry Coles' best efforts & the howling in here but I am surprised that she lobbied Buckland to shift her husbands sex nonce trial, fairly clear evidence of a criminal act & he sat on it for four years until it became politically convenient to leak it. Hard to see how Buckland remains an MP im the circumstances, or at least it would be in a normal country.
President Merkin said:
Starmer is doing what he needs to do to win power. The old adage that the right looks for recruits & the left looks for traiitors as true as it ever was. While Labour under Keef is morphing into a Lab/Con combo, the Tories have turned into UKIP. The downside is it pisses off the left but on the other hand, 45% of the country votes for you. Something like 800 polls now since the Tories held a lead, hard to argue he's pursuing a losing strategy.
Meanwhile, the Elphicke thing in the real world won't penetrate into the average Sun reader inspite of Harry Coles' best efforts & the howling in here but I am surprised that she lobbied Buckland to shift her husbands sex nonce trial, fairly clear evidence of a criminal act & he sat on it for four years until it became politically convenient to leak it. Hard to see how Buckland remains an MP im the circumstances, or at least it would be in a normal country.
I know. That's my entire problem with him and the direction he's taken Labour.Meanwhile, the Elphicke thing in the real world won't penetrate into the average Sun reader inspite of Harry Coles' best efforts & the howling in here but I am surprised that she lobbied Buckland to shift her husbands sex nonce trial, fairly clear evidence of a criminal act & he sat on it for four years until it became politically convenient to leak it. Hard to see how Buckland remains an MP im the circumstances, or at least it would be in a normal country.
The obvious riposte to that is "You mean, 'into power after 14 years in opposition and so forming only the second Labour government in much of the electorate's lifetimes?'"
If you see the primary purpose of politicians and political parties is to 'gain power' then Starmer is being highly successful (although you have to wonder how successful it would appear if he did exactly the same actions and the Conservatives weren't in a four-year long death spiral).
If you think politics should be about principled government delivering meaningful change and improvement, then you'll forgive me for being stingy with the credit for Project Starmer, because it seems that his winning strategy has been to explicitly say "we won't change anything, but we'll just manage it better." As if the basic ideologies, assumptions and policies of the status quo are fine, but the only problems being the competence and tie colour of the people in charge.
Elphick's crossing-over is part of that problem, demonstrating that either Labour's party values are so close to the Conservatives' that she can cross the floor without, apparently, changing her politics, or they're so craven in their pursuit of power that they don't really care who they let carry their name so long as it makes the government look bad and might possibly reassure Mike from Mansfield and Sharon from Stevenage that they can hold (small-t)ory values and vote Labour. See also Christian Wakeford, who somehow managed to get away with crossing the floor while literally saying that his values and beliefs hadn't changed - therefore begging the conclusion that it's Labour that has changed to meet him.
It could be said that principles are nothing without power, and power has to be gained before any change can be enacted. I don't believe that's remotely true.
I don't necessarily disagree with much of that, save to say you're coming from a principled position, which isn't given anywhere near enough credit in public discourse whereas my view is obviously more prosaic, and could be boiled down to the principles without power aren't much use that you elucidate. I would like to spend more time in your position than mine, believe it or not however, I am nothing if not a pragmatist & an adherent of campaign in poetry, govern in prose.
Starmer has all the vibes of a classic technocrat, arguably that is no bad thing in the context of nine years of accelerating ideological government & will still be subject to the pressue of his PLP & in any event hamstrung by the mess he inherits. For me, it will look like a Blair tribute act and I used to think it's wasn't sufficient for Labour simply to not be the Tories, I'm not so sure of that now.
Starmer has all the vibes of a classic technocrat, arguably that is no bad thing in the context of nine years of accelerating ideological government & will still be subject to the pressue of his PLP & in any event hamstrung by the mess he inherits. For me, it will look like a Blair tribute act and I used to think it's wasn't sufficient for Labour simply to not be the Tories, I'm not so sure of that now.
Merkin and Chev, I salute you both. Sensible words. I'll go one further and suggest that Starmer could be the man who puts the fin nail in the coffin of the Labour Party as we have known it, and christ, few have missed an opportunity to get the hammer out for that job over the years. His Labour will be a pale, insipid Vanilla version of 'new' Labour, which although ot was a copy of the more middle lane Tories at least had a bit of vibrancy about it...and some real talent, and because the opposition are so weak, those pale, insipid Labour members and members of the public who value power over, well, everything, will ensure that this kind of vacuous, shuffling, tribute to a tribute will become the norm for both parties as they bat the ball back to each other in an interminable rally of mediocrity. I'll take principles over power, if your principles are strong enough and you are a strong enough 'leader' you can convince others of their merit, and power will come. Sell out your principles for power and everything you subsequently say is tainted. I like a poem me....
There's a reason it's been something like Conservative Conservative Conservative Blair Blair Blair Conservative Conservative Conservative though.
Don't get me wrong I want to live in a principled world.
But there's also a degree of reality that you don't get to do anything you want if you're in opposition because the public won't and don't vote for your principles in great enough numbers.
Don't get me wrong I want to live in a principled world.
But there's also a degree of reality that you don't get to do anything you want if you're in opposition because the public won't and don't vote for your principles in great enough numbers.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: There's a reason it's been something like Conservative Conservative Conservative Blair Blair Blair Conservative Conservative Conservative though.
Don't get me wrong I want to live in a principled world.
But there's also a degree of reality that you don't get to do anything you want if you're in opposition because the public won't and don't vote for your principles in great enough numbers.
That's democracy Stewie. If Starmer's stall is that he's not that different to the Tories but he will be more competent, more of a safe pair of hands, that's cool. It's not my bag, but that won't matter. He has not come out of this well though as he has appeared as supportive of a genuine left wing socialist but is now a Tory in a different suit...in other words just another career politician playing a game he wants to win by any means. Don't get me wrong I want to live in a principled world.
But there's also a degree of reality that you don't get to do anything you want if you're in opposition because the public won't and don't vote for your principles in great enough numbers.
An interesting article on how things could go wrong for SKS by Laura Kuenssberg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68995187
Summary
What could possibly go wrong for him?
A lot, actually. The general election is still months away and there are plenty of potential pitfalls between Starmer and the shiny black door of No 10.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68995187
Summary
What could possibly go wrong for him?
A lot, actually. The general election is still months away and there are plenty of potential pitfalls between Starmer and the shiny black door of No 10.
- Don't get complacent - conversations across the Labour Party suggest the danger of taking victory for granted is the number one risk.
- Don't get rattled - while the Tories have been stuck in the doldrums in the polls for months, Labour cannot predict or control much of what happens before the election.
- Don't stretch too far - to win, it helps if you look like a winner but overstretch yourself, and it could all go wrong (e.g. 1992, when Neil Kinnock's Sheffield rally showed him prematurely triumphant).
2xChevrons said:
President Merkin said:
Starmer is doing what he needs to do to win power. The old adage that the right looks for recruits & the left looks for traiitors as true as it ever was. While Labour under Keef is morphing into a Lab/Con combo, the Tories have turned into UKIP. The downside is it pisses off the left but on the other hand, 45% of the country votes for you. Something like 800 polls now since the Tories held a lead, hard to argue he's pursuing a losing strategy.
Meanwhile, the Elphicke thing in the real world won't penetrate into the average Sun reader inspite of Harry Coles' best efforts & the howling in here but I am surprised that she lobbied Buckland to shift her husbands sex nonce trial, fairly clear evidence of a criminal act & he sat on it for four years until it became politically convenient to leak it. Hard to see how Buckland remains an MP im the circumstances, or at least it would be in a normal country.
I know. That's my entire problem with him and the direction he's taken Labour.Meanwhile, the Elphicke thing in the real world won't penetrate into the average Sun reader inspite of Harry Coles' best efforts & the howling in here but I am surprised that she lobbied Buckland to shift her husbands sex nonce trial, fairly clear evidence of a criminal act & he sat on it for four years until it became politically convenient to leak it. Hard to see how Buckland remains an MP im the circumstances, or at least it would be in a normal country.
The obvious riposte to that is "You mean, 'into power after 14 years in opposition and so forming only the second Labour government in much of the electorate's lifetimes?'"
If you see the primary purpose of politicians and political parties is to 'gain power' then Starmer is being highly successful (although you have to wonder how successful it would appear if he did exactly the same actions and the Conservatives weren't in a four-year long death spiral).
If you think politics should be about principled government delivering meaningful change and improvement, then you'll forgive me for being stingy with the credit for Project Starmer, because it seems that his winning strategy has been to explicitly say "we won't change anything, but we'll just manage it better." As if the basic ideologies, assumptions and policies of the status quo are fine, but the only problems being the competence and tie colour of the people in charge.
Elphick's crossing-over is part of that problem, demonstrating that either Labour's party values are so close to the Conservatives' that she can cross the floor without, apparently, changing her politics, or they're so craven in their pursuit of power that they don't really care who they let carry their name so long as it makes the government look bad and might possibly reassure Mike from Mansfield and Sharon from Stevenage that they can hold (small-t)ory values and vote Labour. See also Christian Wakeford, who somehow managed to get away with crossing the floor while literally saying that his values and beliefs hadn't changed - therefore begging the conclusion that it's Labour that has changed to meet him.
It could be said that principles are nothing without power, and power has to be gained before any change can be enacted. I don't believe that's remotely true.
President Merkin said:
Starmer has all the vibes of a classic technocrat, arguably that is no bad thing in the context of nine years of accelerating ideological government & will still be subject to the pressue of his PLP & in any event hamstrung by the mess he inherits. For me, it will look like a Blair tribute act and I used to think it's wasn't sufficient for Labour simply to not be the Tories, I'm not so sure of that now.
See, I don't think Starmer remotely has the vibes of a technocrat. He is without principle, but he's certainly not without ideology. I don't object to ideology. I'm not someone who thinks it's a dirty word or who confuses it for dogma. It's impossible to have politics without ideology. Pure technocracy (in the sense it has come to mean - 'choosing the optimal policy for a given situation on its own merits') isn't really possible because there is no optimal policy or 'right answer' to most political issues without defining what the desired methods and outcomes are - and that's what ideology is.
I think Starmer is deeply ideological, and that ideology is basically the same Blair/Cameron neoliberal mush that has been the UK's status quo for the better part of 30 years. Capitalist economics, private profit, market forces, a nation of consumers rather than citizens, globalism, individualism etc. etc.
If Starmer was a genuine technocrat he wouldn't be blathering on about how nothing's going to change and basically agreeing with all the socio-economic principles that the Conservatives have governed with for the past 14 years. Every vaguely independent, non-partisan, academic and outcome-focused study, think tank, interest group and policy body is banging its fist on the table calling for more proactive government investment and intervention in the economy, infrastructure and services and radical reform of the UK's civic settlement to address the various sorts of inequality that are acting as our collective millstone.
But Starmer keeps ruling out anything like that.
He's not even an empty windsock. If he genuinely just wanted power over anything else, he'd just spin up the populist machine and pledge to nationalise rail, water, buses, energy and mail. Which are things that even a majority of Conservative voters want to happen. Same for increased spending and reduced privatisation for the NHS. Or increased taxes on corporations and 'the rich'.
So Starmer isn't without ideology. He has his ideas of what 'the right way' to do things is.
What he lacks is any principle or morals about espousing these. Obviously party and parliamentary politics means that politicians can't always just be their own masters, and it would be foolish to expect them to be. But there's following the party line as a backbencher, bowing to the collective opinion of your party at conference and even following the principle of cabinet responsibility...and then there's serving in a cabinet under Corbyn, resigning from that cabinet on principle, then coming back and campaigning in a general election under Corbyn.
A cynic would say that Starmer returned (overturning his 'principled objection') to ensure he had a seat near the top of things to serve as a springboard for the leadership election after the inevitable defeat. An even greater cynic would say that he came back so he could ensure that defeat happened by, for instance, passionately advocating for Labour to adopt a second referendum policy and warning of electoral disaster if it didn't, having that policy go down like a cup of cold sick with the entire electorate and then declaring Brexit a 'settled issue' once in the leader's chair. Both cases are entirely in keeping with how he's acted since becoming leader - always working an angle to achieve the goal of getting Sir Keir Starmer into No.10 at the head of a Labour Party that has been neutered as a means for change.
Or telling the party that he would espouse the 'ethical case for socialism' and retain Labour's 2015-2019 radicalism while presenting a more competent and media-savvy face, and making a list of generally progressive and well-received policy pledges...then almost immediately purging the left of the party from its internal positions and reneging on all those pledges one by one...then brazenly, openly and proudly saying that yes, he lied, he's proud to do so in order to get Labour to power and would do so again.
Tony Blair said in 2015 (or was it 2016? Early Corbyn years, anyway) that he'd rather Labour lose on a right-wing platform than win on a left-wing one. I genuinely respect that intellectual honesty. Blair genuinely believes that his sort of Third Way neoliberalism is the optimal way to 'do politics' and is certainly better than a more full-bore socialist one - both because of what socialism produces as outcomes when it wins and (as Blair saw it) because it's so unpopular electorally that it just ensures unchallenged Conservative government. I don't agree with that politically, but I basically hold the same view with the descriptors swapped. I'd rather Labour lose with a left-wing platform than win on a right-wing one. But I respect the honesty.
Equally, if Starmer had been as honest and forthright with the Labour Party as that (and, generally, as Blair was in the mid-1990s when he was shaping New Labour) I would still disagree with him and almost certainly not be minded to support the party and platform that would result, but I would respect the integrity. But he didn't do that. He has lied, obfuscated, evaded, back-tracked and been two-faced at every point where he has needed to be so.
You can follow the thread of Starmer's genuine beliefs through the past four years of his leadership. While he has been dishonest and rude to the left, refused to support the unions, stood back from any firm moral decisions about progressive social issues etc. etc. he has been consistent in horrific toadying towards the CBI, has proudly bragged about how Labour now gets big corporate donors rather larger totals from millions of single individuals, keeps sending Reeves in front of the cameras to lube us up for Austerity 2.0 and Streeting to look sad about how the Conservatives have broken the NHS so badly that it's beyond the ability of government to save.
There is no unbiased technocracy here. Just ardent belief and servitude to the same tired, fruitless, degrading ideology that we all know and 'love'.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: There's a reason it's been something like Conservative Conservative Conservative Blair Blair Blair Conservative Conservative Conservative though.
Don't get me wrong I want to live in a principled world.
But there's also a degree of reality that you don't get to do anything you want if you're in opposition because the public won't and don't vote for your principles in great enough numbers.
That's a simplistic way of looking at it. It doesn't account for our electoral system, for one. In which the Conservatives have always been out-voted (in pure numbers) by parties to their left (to varying degrees). Or that progressive/socialist policies are consistently popular with very large portions of the electorate. Don't get me wrong I want to live in a principled world.
But there's also a degree of reality that you don't get to do anything you want if you're in opposition because the public won't and don't vote for your principles in great enough numbers.
One advantage of a switch to a PR-like system would be that each party would be free to be more genuine, since the need for broad-tent parties and for those parties to then triangulate a position to capture the key percentage of the 'other side's' vote is reduced.
When I say "I'd rather principles with power", that's a pithy summation of where I stand on the power/principles issue. But as I said, I don't think they are dichotomy. You can have power and principles, and you can enact change without power (UKIP/EU-scepticism being the most obvious recent example but there are others from political history from across the spectrum).
In reality I agree with biggbn:
biggbn said:
if your principles are strong enough and you are a strong enough 'leader' you can convince others of their merit, and power will come.
When I say that'd rather a party lose on a left-wing platform than win on a right-wing one, people often retort "so you're effectively saying you want perpetual right-wing government!?" But, like biggbn, I believe that if there was a party in Britain that continually espoused and embodied a left-wing platform (some sort of social democracy/progressive democratic socialism - I don't mean communism or revolutionary anarchism or anything like that) then it would eventually build its support base up to form a government, or (in a different electoral system) a major partner in one.
The same goes for a 'harder' (Thatcherite) Tory-esque party.
AstonZagato said:
An interesting article on how things could go wrong for SKS by Laura Kuenssberg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68995187
Summary
What could possibly go wrong for him?
A lot, actually. The general election is still months away and there are plenty of potential pitfalls between Starmer and the shiny black door of No 10.
It barely scratches the surface of the risks to Labour but it is all true https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68995187
Summary
What could possibly go wrong for him?
A lot, actually. The general election is still months away and there are plenty of potential pitfalls between Starmer and the shiny black door of No 10.
- Don't get complacent - conversations across the Labour Party suggest the danger of taking victory for granted is the number one risk.
- Don't get rattled - while the Tories have been stuck in the doldrums in the polls for months, Labour cannot predict or control much of what happens before the election.
- Don't stretch too far - to win, it helps if you look like a winner but overstretch yourself, and it could all go wrong (e.g. 1992, when Neil Kinnock's Sheffield rally showed him prematurely triumphant).
2xChevrons said:
(some sort of social democracy/progressive democratic socialism - I don't mean communism or revolutionary anarchism or anything like that)
Only a minority of social media warrior activists will actually support and vote for anything 'progressive' in the UK and I laugh at the concept at 'democratic socialism' as something that has never been possible and will never actually exist apart from inside Owen Jones' head.After the 'progressive' mess that's been made of Brighton, Wales, Scotland, Sweden, Canada, France and pretty much anything else 'progressive' and then seeing 'democratic socialists' like the SQUAD in the U.S.A, I would expect the polling to be pretty much where the Green/Lib Dem party currently sits - on the fringes.
Nobody is going to get a broad, stable, governing majority offering people a deal like Humza Yousaf did, apart from maybe, Wales.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff