Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
turbobloke said:
anonymoususer said:
I didnt think I would say this but Poor David Lammy
If you wanted some evidence of just how divided Labour are then spare a minute to think about Mr Lammy
He is getting it from the Labourites who support the strikes
Has he been labelled a Tory yet? If not, give it time.If you wanted some evidence of just how divided Labour are then spare a minute to think about Mr Lammy
He is getting it from the Labourites who support the strikes
techguyone said:
Vanden Saab said:
Welshbeef said:
Riff Raff said:
It’s Scotland. Back when I were a lad, Labour could count on 50 odd seats there.
These days you can count the number of seats on the fingers of one hand. With most of the fingers amputated.
Yes 50 odd seats no longer Labour’s. These days you can count the number of seats on the fingers of one hand. With most of the fingers amputated.
One thing not yet considered is boundary changes which will help the Tory’s. When is it happening , and if that is then applied to the Wakefield result how would a GE result look like?
However there are a few things to consider:
1: Andy Burnham in the Guardian this week writing an article on why Labour should support PR.
2: Tactical voting was instrumental in the last two by-elections
3: PR being likely to be carried as Labour policy at the next Labour conference
It is likely that the only way Labour can win either an outright majority or a workable coalition with the Liberals will be with some sort of unofficial pact. The cost of this will be moving to a PR system after the next election.
Personally I think if the SNP don't get another indy ref before 2024 PR may have the impact of greatly reducing their power. At the moment the SNP do well with FPTP as their support is concentrated, with PR not only do their numbers of MP half but it is also likely that their actual vote will go down as more Scottish people start voting for national parties on national issues as their vote is now more important.
Personally I think Labour should embrace PR, historically FPTP has given us Conservative governments most of the time even though only a plurality of the electorate vote for them. In general the British public are more left leaning than the politicians they elect so as a Labour supporter I would suggest asking which do you prefer "pure" Labour policies and being in government for 39% of the time or being in government most of the time and having to adopt some Lib-Dem/Green proposals?
Practically PR should result in some better longer term government as 1: At least 50% of the electorate should have somebody they voted for in government. 2: Divisive politics doesn't work very well because throwing red meat to your own supporters at the expense of pissing off a majority of others doesn't help electorally and said policies would get filtered out in any government forming negotiations.
Talksteer said:
techguyone said:
Vanden Saab said:
Welshbeef said:
Riff Raff said:
It’s Scotland. Back when I were a lad, Labour could count on 50 odd seats there.
These days you can count the number of seats on the fingers of one hand. With most of the fingers amputated.
Yes 50 odd seats no longer Labour’s. These days you can count the number of seats on the fingers of one hand. With most of the fingers amputated.
One thing not yet considered is boundary changes which will help the Tory’s. When is it happening , and if that is then applied to the Wakefield result how would a GE result look like?
However there are a few things to consider:
1: Andy Burnham in the Guardian this week writing an article on why Labour should support PR.
2: Tactical voting was instrumental in the last two by-elections
3: PR being likely to be carried as Labour policy at the next Labour conference
It is likely that the only way Labour can win either an outright majority or a workable coalition with the Liberals will be with some sort of unofficial pact. The cost of this will be moving to a PR system after the next election.
Personally I think if the SNP don't get another indy ref before 2024 PR may have the impact of greatly reducing their power. At the moment the SNP do well with FPTP as their support is concentrated, with PR not only do their numbers of MP half but it is also likely that their actual vote will go down as more Scottish people start voting for national parties on national issues as their vote is now more important.
Personally I think Labour should embrace PR, historically FPTP has given us Conservative governments most of the time even though only a plurality of the electorate vote for them. In general the British public are more left leaning than the politicians they elect so as a Labour supporter I would suggest asking which do you prefer "pure" Labour policies and being in government for 39% of the time or being in government most of the time and having to adopt some Lib-Dem/Green proposals?
Practically PR should result in some better longer term government as 1: At least 50% of the electorate should have somebody they voted for in government. 2: Divisive politics doesn't work very well because throwing red meat to your own supporters at the expense of pissing off a majority of others doesn't help electorally and said policies would get filtered out in any government forming negotiations.
Consider the AV referendum result.
turbobloke said:
Those PR machinations will provide a strong incentive for floating voters to vote Conservative.
Consider the AV referendum result.
Where do you come to that opinion from other than your pre-existing strong intention to vote Conservative.......Consider the AV referendum result.
So far we have seen "floating voters" come out specifically to kick the conservatives by voting tactically, which indicates that people disinclined to vote conservative 1: can see a flaw in the system 2: are prepared to do something about it.
If Labour was to have PR in their manifesto it would be something along the lines of a commitment to improve the fairness of the UKs democratic system. PR isn't a hot button issue and its not remotely scary to most voters, other than highly partisan conservatives. It's also hard to argue against making the system fairer and more representative using a system that has been used in the UK devolved assemblies.
There isn't even a requirement to put it to a referendum, that was done by the Conservatives to kill AV and even if you did put it to referendum it would be a very different proposition to the AV referendum where a compromised system that even PR proponents didn't like was put on the ballot while parties representing 90% of the MPs in the house campaigned against it.
Talksteer said:
turbobloke said:
Those PR machinations will provide a strong incentive for floating voters to vote Conservative.
Consider the AV referendum result.
Where do you come to that opinion from other than your pre-existing strong intention to vote Conservative.......Consider the AV referendum result.
So far we have seen "floating voters" come out specifically to kick the conservatives by voting tactically, which indicates that people disinclined to vote conservative 1: can see a flaw in the system 2: are prepared to do something about it.
If Labour was to have PR in their manifesto it would be something along the lines of a commitment to improve the fairness of the UKs democratic system. PR isn't a hot button issue and its not remotely scary to most voters, other than highly partisan conservatives. It's also hard to argue against making the system fairer and more representative using a system that has been used in the UK devolved assemblies.
There isn't even a requirement to put it to a referendum, that was done by the Conservatives to kill AV and even if you did put it to referendum it would be a very different proposition to the AV referendum where a compromised system that even PR proponents didn't like was put on the ballot while parties representing 90% of the MPs in the house campaigned against it.
Vanden Saab said:
You want politicians to be able to change the way we vote to suit themselves... Amazing... Why not just come up with policies that the majority actually like and will vote for? You know, like we do at the moment...
If Labour committed to a proper change in the current voting system, it might actually be something that would make me consider them as an option, albeit temporarily.The current system is a busted flush. The AV vote was deliberately pitched to kill the topic. As I'm typing that, I wonder if the smart arse Cameron thought he could do the same thing on Brexit...
I doubt Labour would ever go for it though. The current system favours them as much as the Tories.
Vanden Saab said:
Talksteer said:
turbobloke said:
Those PR machinations will provide a strong incentive for floating voters to vote Conservative.
Consider the AV referendum result.
Where do you come to that opinion from other than your pre-existing strong intention to vote Conservative.......Consider the AV referendum result.
So far we have seen "floating voters" come out specifically to kick the conservatives by voting tactically, which indicates that people disinclined to vote conservative 1: can see a flaw in the system 2: are prepared to do something about it.
If Labour was to have PR in their manifesto it would be something along the lines of a commitment to improve the fairness of the UKs democratic system. PR isn't a hot button issue and its not remotely scary to most voters, other than highly partisan conservatives. It's also hard to argue against making the system fairer and more representative using a system that has been used in the UK devolved assemblies.
There isn't even a requirement to put it to a referendum, that was done by the Conservatives to kill AV and even if you did put it to referendum it would be a very different proposition to the AV referendum where a compromised system that even PR proponents didn't like was put on the ballot while parties representing 90% of the MPs in the house campaigned against it.
However, a certain type of politician thinks they know better than the electorate, and knows what the electorate wants and needs better than the electorate does. Dogmatic, ideologically hidebound, controlling, that'll be the listening tolerant illiberal left. They should command and control just like that, because they know what's best for us. That makes it fine for them to do this kind of thing because if they think it's OK it must be OK. Their supporters, being of a similar mindset, will lap it up.
Clearly it's dangerous in the extreme to allow them power as they can then either secure it for themselves, or at least prevent a single opposing Party From entering office, long into the future by changing the rules.
https://twitter.com/freddiejh8/status/154172221442...
The slate may be clean (of policies). But surely you need some?
said:
NEW: Keir Starmer confirms he has ditched the 2019 manifesto in a move that will enrage his critics on the left of the party:
“What we've done with the last manifesto is put it to one side. We're starting from scratch. The slate is wiped clean."
I thought he was "building on the 2019 manifesto"?“What we've done with the last manifesto is put it to one side. We're starting from scratch. The slate is wiped clean."
- NSPoliticsLive
The slate may be clean (of policies). But surely you need some?
johnboy1975 said:
https://twitter.com/freddiejh8/status/154172221442...
The slate may be clean (of policies). But surely you need some?
OK SKS. .. we're listening. said:
NEW: Keir Starmer confirms he has ditched the 2019 manifesto in a move that will enrage his critics on the left of the party:
“What we've done with the last manifesto is put it to one side. We're starting from scratch. The slate is wiped clean."
I thought he was "building on the 2019 manifesto"?“What we've done with the last manifesto is put it to one side. We're starting from scratch. The slate is wiped clean."
- NSPoliticsLive
The slate may be clean (of policies). But surely you need some?
johnboy1975 said:
https://twitter.com/freddiejh8/status/154172221442...
The slate may be clean (of policies). But surely you need some?
This isn't really news. said:
NEW: Keir Starmer confirms he has ditched the 2019 manifesto in a move that will enrage his critics on the left of the party:
“What we've done with the last manifesto is put it to one side. We're starting from scratch. The slate is wiped clean."
I thought he was "building on the 2019 manifesto"?“What we've done with the last manifesto is put it to one side. We're starting from scratch. The slate is wiped clean."
- NSPoliticsLive
The slate may be clean (of policies). But surely you need some?
In a non-partisan sense, every party effectively ditches its manifesto from one election to the next. A victorious party will be looking ahead to new issues and (hopefully) building on the implemented parts of the previous manifesto. For the losing parties, the moment the new PM kisses hands then - whether it's stated directly or not - the manifesto they fought on is in the bin.
For Labour the question is about whether their new manifesto maintains the same broad direction, vision and ideas as the 2017 and 2019 ones, or goes for something else (more in the 1997-2015 line, perhaps?). Again, this isn't really news. SKS has already said that he's willing - and proud - to break the pledges he made to get elected as leader, and that campaign also included a statement (not a pledge, granted) that he would maintain the spirit of the 2019 platform. Nothing whatsoever that he's done since he won the leadership election has shown any willingness to hold to that statement and he has broken (or watered down, or introduced rhetorical room to maneuver) every one of his pledges. In their place has simply come an ever-changing parade of three-word mission statements, a document that was lauded as the Beveridge Report for the 2020s which promptly sank without trace and 15,000 word essay which said nothing and which no one read.
I don't really need to state that I disagree with Labour's self-flagellating and stroppy dismissal of its 2015-2019 social democratic platform under Starmer. But if you are going to drive away your reinvigorated left-wing voter base (while gleefully pointing out that you're doing so to anyone who will listen) then you at least have to have some sort of policy structure to win over a new voter base that you think will get you a GE win. Starmer's Labour don't seem to have that - they seem to operating purely on the basis of kicking out the lefties, but with no Step 2 in that plan. Maybe (probably...) they think that if they can be seen to reject the left then they'll walk into power on the basis of Not Being The Conservatives, but that doesn't really seem to be bearing fruit and rests heavily on Not Being Led By Boris Johnson, which may change before the next election. As it is, Starmer seems to be prostrating himself before a voter base consisting of seven 50-something blokes living in Glossop who own small businesses and BTL portfolios...and who are all quite happy to vote Conservative anyway.
Murph7355 said:
Vanden Saab said:
You want politicians to be able to change the way we vote to suit themselves... Amazing... Why not just come up with policies that the majority actually like and will vote for? You know, like we do at the moment...
If Labour committed to a proper change in the current voting system, it might actually be something that would make me consider them as an option, albeit temporarily.The current system is a busted flush. The AV vote was deliberately pitched to kill the topic. As I'm typing that, I wonder if the smart arse Cameron thought he could do the same thing on Brexit...
I doubt Labour would ever go for it though. The current system favours them as much as the Tories.
https://labourlist.org/2021/12/how-labours-elector...
The current systems favours Labour as the official opposition. Which is fine if that is what you want to be most of the time.
A PR system would likely put them into office much more frequently as senior partner in a coalition.
That said any prediction about who would be in office after PR is difficult as a lot of people vote (or don't vote) a certain way precisely because of FPTP.
Murph7355 said:
OK SKS. .. we're listening.
I just clicked on this website: https://labour.org.uk/I can't see any mention of policies; it all seems to be about donations, membership or SKS's profile.
I think they (Labour) have a National Policy Forum, but I'm amazed that they've dumped the 2019 manifesto and yet haven't got a replacement. It seems odd that they're still trying to figure out what they believe in.
People (including me) complain that Boris is a populist with no sincere beliefs, so I'd have thought this was a good time for SKS to be saying "here are our policies, this is what we'll do if elected." Like you Murph, I'm listening, but it's all rather quiet.
Vanden Saab said:
You want politicians to be able to change the way we vote to suit themselves... Amazing... Why not just come up with policies that the majority actually like and will vote for? You know, like we do at the moment...
Show me the UK government who has captured more than 50% of the electorate?Our current system is unrepresentative and this frequently results in bad policy. As stated by many if labour were to support PR it would probably impact their share of the MPs negatively, at least when they are "Popular" and make it unlikely that they would ever hold a clear one party majority.
Ergo it would be taking one for the team to make UK politics more representative and long term focused.
turbobloke said:
Exactly. Lab-lib politicians are currently unelectable because of their faults, not the electorate's.
However, a certain type of politician thinks they know better than the electorate, and knows what the electorate wants and needs better than the electorate does. Dogmatic, ideologically hidebound, controlling, that'll be the listening tolerant illiberal left. They should command and control just like that, because they know what's best for us. That makes it fine for them to do this kind of thing because if they think it's OK it must be OK. Their supporters, being of a similar mindset, will lap it up.
Clearly it's dangerous in the extreme to allow them power as they can then either secure it for themselves, or at least prevent a single opposing Party From entering office, long into the future by changing the rules.
PR would give power to the block of parties that actually earned more than 50% of the vote. Not the one party that managed to optimise the geographic position of 35-40% of the vote.However, a certain type of politician thinks they know better than the electorate, and knows what the electorate wants and needs better than the electorate does. Dogmatic, ideologically hidebound, controlling, that'll be the listening tolerant illiberal left. They should command and control just like that, because they know what's best for us. That makes it fine for them to do this kind of thing because if they think it's OK it must be OK. Their supporters, being of a similar mindset, will lap it up.
Clearly it's dangerous in the extreme to allow them power as they can then either secure it for themselves, or at least prevent a single opposing Party From entering office, long into the future by changing the rules.
The net effect of PR is that a more moderate position tends to win because most systems have ranked choice which means that parties that turn off a great deal of the electorate don't get second and third preference votes.
Talksteer said:
Show me the UK government who has captured more than 50% of the electorate?
Our current system is unrepresentative and this frequently results in bad policy. As stated by many if labour were to support PR it would probably impact their share of the MPs negatively, at least when they are "Popular" and make it unlikely that they would ever hold a clear one party majority.
Ergo it would be taking one for the team to make UK politics more representative and long term focused.
the fptp system has served us well so I don’t agree that ‘..this frequently results in bad policy.’ you can’t just state that as if it’s fact. I’m sure there’s whole legions of gov & pol students out there who could give lots of pros and cons.Our current system is unrepresentative and this frequently results in bad policy. As stated by many if labour were to support PR it would probably impact their share of the MPs negatively, at least when they are "Popular" and make it unlikely that they would ever hold a clear one party majority.
Ergo it would be taking one for the team to make UK politics more representative and long term focused.
From my point of view pr would probably results in d
heads like lib dems holding the voting cards and controlling policy. IMO not good.Talksteer said:
turbobloke said:
Exactly. Lab-lib politicians are currently unelectable because of their faults, not the electorate's.
However, a certain type of politician thinks they know better than the electorate, and knows what the electorate wants and needs better than the electorate does. Dogmatic, ideologically hidebound, controlling, that'll be the listening tolerant illiberal left. They should command and control just like that, because they know what's best for us. That makes it fine for them to do this kind of thing because if they think it's OK it must be OK. Their supporters, being of a similar mindset, will lap it up.
Clearly it's dangerous in the extreme to allow them power as they can then either secure it for themselves, or at least prevent a single opposing Party From entering office, long into the future by changing the rules.
PR would give power to the block of parties that actually earned more than 50% of the vote. Not the one party that managed to optimise the geographic position of 35-40% of the vote.However, a certain type of politician thinks they know better than the electorate, and knows what the electorate wants and needs better than the electorate does. Dogmatic, ideologically hidebound, controlling, that'll be the listening tolerant illiberal left. They should command and control just like that, because they know what's best for us. That makes it fine for them to do this kind of thing because if they think it's OK it must be OK. Their supporters, being of a similar mindset, will lap it up.
Clearly it's dangerous in the extreme to allow them power as they can then either secure it for themselves, or at least prevent a single opposing Party From entering office, long into the future by changing the rules.
The net effect of PR is that a more moderate position tends to win because most systems have ranked choice which means that parties that turn off a great deal of the electorate don't get second and third preference votes.
CoolHands said:
Talksteer said:
Show me the UK government who has captured more than 50% of the electorate?
Our current system is unrepresentative and this frequently results in bad policy. As stated by many if labour were to support PR it would probably impact their share of the MPs negatively, at least when they are "Popular" and make it unlikely that they would ever hold a clear one party majority.
Ergo it would be taking one for the team to make UK politics more representative and long term focused.
the fptp system has served us well so I don’t agree that ‘..this frequently results in bad policy.’ you can’t just state that as if it’s fact. I’m sure there’s whole legions of gov & pol students out there who could give lots of pros and cons.Our current system is unrepresentative and this frequently results in bad policy. As stated by many if labour were to support PR it would probably impact their share of the MPs negatively, at least when they are "Popular" and make it unlikely that they would ever hold a clear one party majority.
Ergo it would be taking one for the team to make UK politics more representative and long term focused.
From my point of view pr would probably results in d
heads like lib dems holding the voting cards and controlling policy. IMO not good.As for the Lib-dem whip hand, the coalition government was evidence that junior partners didn't get a disproportionate share of power. The conservatives got the vast majority of their policies enacted.
Vanden Saab said:
So, you would be happy with a Tory and Reform party coalition? or a Labour, SNP and Green coalition. You only have to look at Scotland or France to see what a complete mess can result from PR. In France now the far left and far right parties hold all the power. It is very far from the moderate choice.
France doesn't have PR it has a two round runoff election for single member constituencies. They also have separation of powers with the potential for gridlock.You also make the assumption that parties vote shares would remain similar as would their policy positions.
1: As parties moves closer to power they tend to moderate. The German greens for example aren't even pacifists any more.
2: In many systems the extreme parties just get ignored and the mainstream parties come up with deals to exclude the impact of their votes.
3: Larger parties are likely to break up rather than try to do deals with extreme parties. The current election system is what holds the two main parties together. It also moderates who can lead those parties, someone like Johnson or Corbyn leading one of the parties would just see half their MPs defect and a new coalition get formed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff