Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
REALIST123 said:
So who else is there?
That’s why I wonder if we wouldn’t all be better off seeing the end of the current Labour Party and allow a completely new opposition to develop.
I’m just not sure they’re recoverable from where they now are.
Have too hope someone new comes along but you could well be right and a split is needed.That’s why I wonder if we wouldn’t all be better off seeing the end of the current Labour Party and allow a completely new opposition to develop.
I’m just not sure they’re recoverable from where they now are.
Johnnytheboy said:
As I said up thread to deafening silence, it's not Starmer that is toxic to the heartlands (e.g. old Labour predominantly white working class seats).
It's not even the Labour Party really.
It's centre left parties in general; across Europe their vote shares are in rapid decline.
Put simply, their old core vote look at them tying themselves in knots over things like whether feminism is better or worse than transgender rights, and think "that offers me nothing, I'm more worried about having a job, and controls on immigration".
Meanwhile, if said parties try and move one iota to address their core vote's concerns, they alienate their other constituency: the 'right on Left' so to speak, who then defect to parties like the Greens.
I wouldn't want to be planning a long career as a centre Left politician.
The fact is that Labour have been losing 'traditional' (white working class in the Midlands/North/Scotland) voters for nearly 20 years. New Labour shed millions of votes from these demographics in 2001, 2005 and 2010. Although the parliamentary arithmetic torpedoed Labour back in December, they still got more votes by both share and raw numbers than they did in 2015 and 2010 and they got more votes (and only 3% less share) than they did in 2005. It's not even the Labour Party really.
It's centre left parties in general; across Europe their vote shares are in rapid decline.
Put simply, their old core vote look at them tying themselves in knots over things like whether feminism is better or worse than transgender rights, and think "that offers me nothing, I'm more worried about having a job, and controls on immigration".
Meanwhile, if said parties try and move one iota to address their core vote's concerns, they alienate their other constituency: the 'right on Left' so to speak, who then defect to parties like the Greens.
I wouldn't want to be planning a long career as a centre Left politician.
This was not some sudden collapse brought on solely by the Corbyn era. The heartlands have been shedding Labour votes for decades. If you take out the surge that produced the landslide in 1997 a lot of those heartlands have been in steady decline for Labour since the late 1970s.
[What follows is mostly 'IMHO']
This is partly due to the utter failure of New Labour to do anything obvious and meaningful for those heartlands during their years in power, especially in their first term with a stonkingly huge majority and a lot of public goodwill. Instead they oversaw (in no particular order) massive cost-of-living rises, tax increases, increased transport costs, the stripping out of much of the remaining manufacturing/semi-skilled jobs in the regions, a generally submissive and pathetic attitude to big business, a huge bubble in housing costs, a continued shortage of council housing, a reduction in employee's rights, an all-too obvious focus on London, SE England and the services sector therein when it came to government favours and spending, and the enthusiastic embracing of immigrant labour. Yes, the public services were better-funded than they had been in the 1990s, there was the minimum wage, Sure-Start and so on but this was incremental, long-term and relatively 'hidden' improvement that did not counteract the very obvious failures. The heartlands had voted Labour and got nothing in return, whether they were aspirational centrists who believed in Blair or more old-school socialists who were giving New Labour the benefit of the doubt. This led to the historically low voter turnout in the 2000s, particularly in the apparent Labour heartlands.
The loss of the 'Red Wall' also has a lot to do with demographics. The neglect of those places means that opportunities and prospects for young people in much of the Midlands and the North of England (and elsewhere in the UK) are pretty dire. So a lot of those constituencies are suffering a 'youth drain' as younger people move out to the cities and the south, taking their Labour votes with them and leaving behind an increases proportion of older voters who would either vote Conservative anyway or are more small-c-onservative 'trade union-style' Labour who would not be on board with the 2019 manifesto. Workington lost over 28% of its 18-24 voters between 1981 and 2019, and gained 14% more over 65s. Bishop Auckland lost nearly a quarter of its 18-24s and gained nearly 35% more >65s. Redcar lost 24.3% under 24s while over 65s went up by 29.6%. And so on and on.
A lot of those remaining in those constituencies, be they Conservative voters or 'traditional' Labour voters, simply are not a particularly 'Labour' demographic anyway. If they were to be teleported back to the 1970s with their current situation and finances they would not be Labour voters - they're upper-middle age or retired, their income comes from pensions or self-employment, they're home-owners etc.
This brings up the fundamental question of whether Labour should nail its colours to the mast of socialism and try and collect a voter base around that or whether it should chase the views and desires of the electorate as it exists.
I know anecdote is not the plural of data, but I'm going to give one. My father-in-law encapsulates the dilemma. In the run-up to the 2019 GE we got into a discussion and he did the familiar "I'm Labour through and through but I'll never vote for them as they are now. I didn't leave the party, the party left me" talk. Further discussion revealed that he didn't vote at all in the 1970s, voted for Margaret Thatcher in '83 and '87, didn't vote in '92, voted for Blair in '97, '01 and '05, voted Conservative in 2010, didn't vote in '15, voted Leave in '16, didn't vote in '17 and intended to vote Conservative in '19. So that's four ticks in the blue box, three in the red box (and for a decidedly weak or even blue-tinged shade of red) and five no-votes. From a man who insists that he's a 'Labour bloke from a Labour family'. It's because he sees himself as an average, salt-of-the-earth, backbone-of-Britain working class bloke from a Midlands town who didn't go to university and has worked either blue-collar or public-service jobs. He sees himself as the demographic Labour ==should== be catering to and it's the party's job to fit in with his belief. Except that his beliefs are not at all left-wing. He wants to pay as little tax as possible, wants the hardest Brexit imaginable, wants very strict immigration rules, has no time for any pandering to 'the genders' (as he puts it...), he owns his house and rents out two others, thinks people should pick up litter and mend roads for their benefits and has general social views and a sense of humour right out of a working men's club circa 1974.
This is but one case, and a very particular one, but as I said it encapsulates the dilemma. My father-in-law is not going to vote Labour unless they basically cease to be a left-wing party. In which case, what's the point of the party existing? More broadly, should Labour try and reclaim the so-called heartlands by giving them what they want when the Conservatives are already given them that but moreso? Ed Miliband tried the 'Tories but not so much' approach in 2015 and it absolutely flopped. It also showed that even the good stuff acheived by a centrist Labour party can be mostly undone by a couple of Conservative governments that are still pitched further to the right. It doesn't acheive anything meaningful in the long term and doesn't address the factors at the root of people's concerns.
It's often said (and was said in the quote at the top of this post) that 2015-2019 Labour didn't listen to the concerns of the 'traditional working class' and got hung up on 'woke-ness'. There was plenty of 'woke-ness' in the 2019 manifesto. But there was also a huge amount about housing, public services, creating and sustaining skilled and secure jobs, providing education, improving communities and local environment and so on. These are the issues that everyone keeps saying matter. But it comes down to the fact that Labour did not message or articulate them well (and the media reporting on those policies was dire) and the voters (for a variety of reasons, some much more valid than others...) didn't trust Labour to deliver them. Partly because of the team in place at Labour last year, partly due to the way the manifesto was pitched, partly due to the on-going media narrative and partly because of the complete lack of trust in the Labour name caused by the past 25 years.
Sir Keir has a lot of room to manoeuver when it comes to policy. It's quite possible to keep a lot of the core ideas in the 2017 and 2019 manifestos (nationalisation of services and utilities, municipalisation of local services, increased employee rights, public housing provision, no-fee education at all levels, reform to the tax system to properly capture wealth rather than income etc.) while planing away the stuff that created the idea of 'too much, too fast' or was simply outside the spectrum of acceptability for most of the country - 10% workers shares in companies, 'free broadband' [a decent policy terribly, atrociously articulated], the four-day working week and so on. Whether he'll try that or go back to the (busted) Milliband approach of implementing Tory-lite policy with a sad face (he's certainly already got the facial expression down...permanently, it seems) remains to be seen.
Good post.
OK I'll respond in brief.
1. If Labour chase the non-heartland seats as I think you are suggesting, the problem they have is that their voters are (I suspect) too concentrated in the university towns and inner cities. So they would win some seats with a big majority but none of the rest.
2. Corbyn's manifestos were indeed 'proper left wing' to summarise what you said, but (IMHO) they offered very little to what politicians call 'hard working families'. Plenty for recipients of state support but little for taxpayers. Most people aren't dumb enough to think that if they pay tax that broadband really will be free.
Both points concern people who most likely will be swing voters.
OK I'll respond in brief.
1. If Labour chase the non-heartland seats as I think you are suggesting, the problem they have is that their voters are (I suspect) too concentrated in the university towns and inner cities. So they would win some seats with a big majority but none of the rest.
2. Corbyn's manifestos were indeed 'proper left wing' to summarise what you said, but (IMHO) they offered very little to what politicians call 'hard working families'. Plenty for recipients of state support but little for taxpayers. Most people aren't dumb enough to think that if they pay tax that broadband really will be free.
Both points concern people who most likely will be swing voters.
catweasle said:
I watched that film last night as well 
Which is?Nice to see that KS is already taking the "opposition at all costs" position and saying that the Gov have made mistakes with CV.
No s
t sherlock! No country in the world has got this spot on. But keep trying to score revisionist points that NOBODY with a brain in the public think have merit!As above, had Brexit not been dragged on and on through Westminster, who knows what we could have seen coming down the tracks and prepared for (See Cummings blog from 1 year ago!)
S1KRR said:
catweasle said:
I watched that film last night as well
Which is?Nice to see that KS is already taking the "opposition at all costs" position and saying that the Gov have made mistakes with CV.
No s
t sherlock! No country in the world has got this spot on. But keep trying to score revisionist points that NOBODY with a brain in the public think have merit!As above, had Brexit not been dragged on and on through Westminster, who knows what we could have seen coming down the tracks and prepared for (See Cummings blog from 1 year ago!)
Somebody should remind him that BJ has already outflanked him by ‘inviting’ him into the inner circle in the first place!?!? To reply by b
hing and slagging off everything immediately is almost Corbyn like? Imagine the goodwill if he had stepped back, taken a breath, listened to all the experts etc and THEN come back with constructive criticism??Slaav said:
I’m pretty certain the KS has started as he means to go on.... he told Marr that he has requested/insisted on seeing and meeting all the experts and opinion himself etc etc.
Somebody should remind him that BJ has already outflanked him by ‘inviting’ him into the inner circle in the first place!?!? To reply by bhing and slagging off everything immediately is almost Corbyn like? Imagine the goodwill if he had stepped back, taken a breath, listened to all the experts etc and THEN come back with constructive criticism??
Well Krankie couldn't help herself and announced secret stuff before Boris did and as a result wont be invited back.Somebody should remind him that BJ has already outflanked him by ‘inviting’ him into the inner circle in the first place!?!? To reply by b
hing and slagging off everything immediately is almost Corbyn like? Imagine the goodwill if he had stepped back, taken a breath, listened to all the experts etc and THEN come back with constructive criticism??I can quite imagine KS getting the same treatment if he carries on
2xChevrons said:
I know anecdote is not the plural of data,
It's "...data is not the plural of anecdote.."PH. Pedantry matters..!
I think that the immediate challenge facing Keir Starmer is people. He will need a credible and capable top team around him to get anywhere. Corbyn failed MISERABLY at this, and at bringing on new talent. Starmer does not have a deep pool to fish in I'm afraid. That said, I wish him well. Our system works best when there is effective opposition.
S1KRR said:
Nice to see that KS is already taking the "opposition at all costs" position and saying that the Gov have made mistakes with CV.
No st sherlock! No country in the world has got this spot on. But keep trying to score revisionist points that NOBODY with a brain in the public think have merit!
As above, had Brexit not been dragged on and on through Westminster, who knows what we could have seen coming down the tracks and prepared for (See Cummings blog from 1 year ago!)
KS has obviously done the back of an envelope calculation that could suggest that, if we can somehow produce 1-million units of vaccine per week, then with a population of 60-million, it’s gonna take 5-years to inoculate everyone. BUT THATS WAY TOO LONG!No s
t sherlock! No country in the world has got this spot on. But keep trying to score revisionist points that NOBODY with a brain in the public think have merit!As above, had Brexit not been dragged on and on through Westminster, who knows what we could have seen coming down the tracks and prepared for (See Cummings blog from 1 year ago!)
You have one chance to create a good first impression and he blew it with that cheap jibe. Mind you his deputy is no better claiming that because Matt Hancock is posh, it’s OK for him and his family to lounge around the house all day. Poor people just can’t do that.
Given her only qualification is caring - that was not a carefully considered remark. WE NEED TO PROTECT THE NHS. It’s really not that complicated.
rdjohn said:
KS has obviously done the back of an envelope calculation that could suggest that, if we can somehow produce 1-million units of vaccine per week, then with a population of 60-million, it’s gonna take 5-years to inoculate everyone.
Won't it take about a year and a quarter? Unless you mean 1 million per month?
Johnnytheboy said:
rdjohn said:
KS has obviously done the back of an envelope calculation that could suggest that, if we can somehow produce 1-million units of vaccine per week, then with a population of 60-million, it’s gonna take 5-years to inoculate everyone.
Won't it take about a year and a quarter? Unless you mean 1 million per month?
I would imagine an antibody test will be developed before a vaccine is proven safe by which point we will be on the way to herd immunity.
gruffalo said:
On another note i may have to avail myself of your services, just getting another 25bhp or so released from my car and then when all this virus is behind us I need to get back on track
Me too! This is going to be the longest I’ve gone without track time in 25 years!unident said:
The fact you think what you’ve written is funny says a lot about you.
When do you think we’ll “return to something like normal”? There’s already talk of this clampdown lasting for another 6 months and social distancing for 2 years. We’ve got an economy that’s effectively non-existent, we’ll have millions unemployed, industries that were considered strong will be virtually extinct, others will be a fraction of what they were. I know there will be opportunity as a result, but your Average Joe isn’t an entrepreneur despite what many claim.
Few will be sitting there demanding Brexit in whatever form, they will be demanding a job, a way to pay their mortgage, a way to feed themselves etc. That’s what the next few years are going to look like, not some flag waving, about some petty bickering in Brussels.
Starmer has today been clear about not scoring political points while we’re going through this, I’m not convinced that will hold true throughout, but the fact he’s questioned our exit strategy and the admission has been that we don’t have one is a decent start. However, as has been said on here, it doesn’t matter what he does, he’s not who you’ll be voting for no matter what he does.
Membership of the EU was a faux-problem, based around the idea that foreign people were taking advantage of the UK, that we have wasted a lot of time arguing about for no gain. When do you think we’ll “return to something like normal”? There’s already talk of this clampdown lasting for another 6 months and social distancing for 2 years. We’ve got an economy that’s effectively non-existent, we’ll have millions unemployed, industries that were considered strong will be virtually extinct, others will be a fraction of what they were. I know there will be opportunity as a result, but your Average Joe isn’t an entrepreneur despite what many claim.
Few will be sitting there demanding Brexit in whatever form, they will be demanding a job, a way to pay their mortgage, a way to feed themselves etc. That’s what the next few years are going to look like, not some flag waving, about some petty bickering in Brussels.
Starmer has today been clear about not scoring political points while we’re going through this, I’m not convinced that will hold true throughout, but the fact he’s questioned our exit strategy and the admission has been that we don’t have one is a decent start. However, as has been said on here, it doesn’t matter what he does, he’s not who you’ll be voting for no matter what he does.
The current situation is a real problem.
As you say, people will have bigger things to worry about than whether we are "going out bravely alone to find new opportunities" from God knows where or part of an administrative group of neighbouring nations.
Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 5th April 19:55
2xChevrons said:
This brings up the fundamental question of whether Labour should nail its colours to the mast of socialism and try and collect a voter base around that or whether it should chase the views and desires of the electorate as it exists.
good post but I thought I'd zero in on this pointSocialisms done in my eyes, the failure of the USSR showed the western working classes it wasn't for them, and now we have this hateful post modernism masquerading as benevolent while using tired old divide and conquer tatics, that most people can see through (e.g. Brexit = racism)
What is true is we face a lot of challenges as a country and world at large, we're running society on outdated ideas on everything such as pensions and retirement to the fact we can't seem to afford to maintain infrastructure we could afford to build yesterday, every problem is tinkered with and kicked forward, and no-one has the balls or the ideas to step up - we have few pioneers, small wonder the socialists sniff an opportunity, something, anything different right?
I dunno what the answer is either but like I said before the welfare state is not inexorably tied to socialist doctrine, use that as your starting block.
Johnnytheboy said:
rdjohn said:
KS has obviously done the back of an envelope calculation that could suggest that, if we can somehow produce 1-million units of vaccine per week, then with a population of 60-million, it’s gonna take 5-years to inoculate everyone.
Won't it take about a year and a quarter? Unless you mean 1 million per month?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff