Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)

[biggbn]

bhstewie 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.

[AstonZagato]

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.

• 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).

[Murph7355]

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.

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.

Totally agree.

[2xChevrons]

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:

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.

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.

[Mr Penguin]

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.

• 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).

It barely scratches the surface of the risks to Labour but it is all true

[Carl_VivaEspana]

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.

[turbobloke]

Carl_VivaEspana said:

After the 'progressive' mess that's been made of Brighton, Wales, Scotland, Sweden, Canada, France and pretty much anything else 'progressive'<snip>

They still won't learn, won't change, they know best y'see and think they're morally superior too.

[President Merkin]

HI from ten miles down the road from Brighton. Just popping by to note you're both talking garbage.

Again.

For a change.

[paulrockliffe]

Mr Penguin said:

It barely scratches the surface of the risks to Labour but it is all true

Yes, but I think it's under-pricing how little control Labour have over things. They have shed support all over the place, going back to when Starmer positioned himself as the Shadow Minister for Begging the EU, to the treatment of the left, then to pissing off the lunatics over Gaza, but ultimately they lead in the polls because the Tories have lost more support and more firmly because they stood on a manifesto, then did the opposite and lied about it.

The stand-out risk to Labour is that the Tories pull together a manifesto of things that the public want, last time they did that the public rowed in behind them. But the probability of that is miniscule because the party doesn't actually want to do anything the public wants them to and the public doesn't trust them to do it anyway.

Labour will waste their money campaigning, they will win by miles as the tory vote stays at home anyone arguing different is either has a filing deadline or simply doesn't understand the strength of feeling across a huge range of issues where the Tories have simply not delivered what they said they would.

[768]

Carl_VivaEspana said:

Only a minority of social media warrior activists...

President Merkin said:

HI

[2xChevrons]

Carl_VivaEspana said:

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.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this rather disjointed mess.

There were over 10 million people who voted for a solid-left Labour Party at the last general election (we can try and split hairs and decide where Labour fell on the social democracy/democratic socialist scale, but it was undoubtedly radical, left-wing and progressive). Very nearly a third of the votes cast. Before that it was 12.8 million.

Not a plurality or a majority, but all of those people "social media warrior activists"?

And if not, and they were just voting because of affiliation to the Labour name or to KTTO or because they really wanted a second EU referendum or whatever, then my whole point is that a PR/similar system would allow both parties and voters to be more 'genuine' - parties could stand for what they choose to stand for and voters could vote for what/who they actually want. Then the chips can fall where they may. As I said a few posts ago, I'd rather have a system where parties (of all shades) were more able to plant their flag and stand their ground rather than the triangulation and chasing that goes on now.

That you think there's political correlation between France, Sweden, Wales and Canada is incredible. Or that 'The Squad' have much in political/ideological common with European socdem parties.

And, most amazingly of all, that you think I have any political similarities or sympathies with someone like Humza Yousaf. If you think my ideal party or government remotely resembles Yousaf or the SNP in general then, well, I don't know what to say.

turbobloke said:

They still won't learn, won't change, they know best y'see and think they're morally superior too.

Poor effort, TB. Am I supposed to change my political stances just because they're unpopular? Is that how it works?

Have I ever said that I am inherently 'right' or morally superior? Have I said or implied that anyone with differing views are wrong?

[Randy Winkman]

Carl_VivaEspana said:

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.

It's debatable whether those places are more of a mess than the UK.

[Mr Penguin]

France sounds like it is teetering on the edge. The impression I get is it is a lot like England in 1978 but with racial issues causing a dividing line and the Olympics adding extra risk and potential for embarrassment.

I asked a few French colleagues if they had heard of the winter of discontent. Most said no but when I told them to read the Wiki article they all said it sounds like France today.

[S600BSB]

Mr Penguin said:

France sounds like it is teetering on the edge. The impression I get is it is a lot like England in 1978 but with racial issues causing a dividing line and the Olympics adding extra risk and potential for embarrassment.

I asked a few French colleagues if they had heard of the winter of discontent. Most said no but when I told them to read the Wiki article they all said it sounds like France today.

Dear oh dear.

[Mr Penguin]

S600BSB said:

Dear oh dear.

What?

[turbobloke]

Mr Penguin said:

S600BSB said:

Dear oh dear.

What?

Costs increased?

[anonymoususer]

Knowing that soon you will be able to carry one of these in your wallets will be fantastic
I think it will really make Sir Keir one of the family and be a reassuring visual reminder that Keir is on your side



Politics is a funny thing and it reminds me of Ed Milliband and his famous "Ed Stone"
If only Ed had decided to put his pledges on a card that folk could keep in their wallets/ purses etc things may have been different.
There would have been a connection between the Labour leader and the people.
It would have been a readily available, always to hand thing folk could relate to. Instead it looked like a gravestone you see in the posh part of a cemetery .
Sir Keir has clearly learned from Ed's mistake
It's not often I say this but today I will: Sir Keir has done well to learn from past mistakes and I for one salute him

[JagLover]

Also looks like Sunak's pledges and in fact many of them are, just reworded.

Lacks ambition as well of course, but then neither of the main parties has any plan to improve matters significantly so that at least is being honest. Restore economic stability?, yes that can be done to resume the virtual stagnation seen since the early 2000s. Assuming another somewhat dangerous pandemic does not come along that can, allegedly, only be countered by taking a sledgehammer to the economy.

[turbobloke]

anonymoususer said:

Knowing that soon you will be able to carry one of these in your wallets will be fantastic
I think it will really make Sir Keir one of the family and be a reassuring visual reminder that Keir is on your side



Politics is a funny thing and it reminds me of Ed Milliband and his famous "Ed Stone"
If only Ed had decided to put his pledges on a card that folk could keep in their wallets/ purses etc things may have been different.
There would have been a connection between the Labour leader and the people.
It would have been a readily available, always to hand thing folk could relate to. Instead it looked like a gravestone you see in the posh part of a cemetery .
Sir Keir has clearly learned from Ed's mistake
It's not often I say this but today I will: Sir Keir has done well to learn from past mistakes and I for one salute him

It's good to know S'Keir will Make Energy Great Again, the MEGA slogan is cool and will catch on.

[Garvin]

anonymoususer said:

Knowing that soon you will be able to carry one of these in your wallets will be fantastic
I think it will really make Sir Keir one of the family and be a reassuring visual reminder that Keir is on your side



Politics is a funny thing and it reminds me of Ed Milliband and his famous "Ed Stone"
If only Ed had decided to put his pledges on a card that folk could keep in their wallets/ purses etc things may have been different.
There would have been a connection between the Labour leader and the people.
It would have been a readily available, always to hand thing folk could relate to. Instead it looked like a gravestone you see in the posh part of a cemetery .
Sir Keir has clearly learned from Ed's mistake
It's not often I say this but today I will: Sir Keir has done well to learn from past mistakes and I for one salute him

Will it be accompanied by a tome explaining who, why, where, what, when and how?