Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: He's been disappointing.
Devil's advocate which naturally makes me a card carrying socialist.
What did people actually expect a year after picking up that mess in those circumstances?
Stewie, I think your advocacy makes a lot of sense, however to answer some of your observations...Devil's advocate which naturally makes me a card carrying socialist.
- He's been in charge for a year.
- With a party divided between Corbynism and actually wanting to be fit to govern.
- With the stain of anti-semitism to deal with.
- In the middle of a global pandemic.
- Which has made doing half the stuff you'd want to do impossible like just going places in person.
- With three years to go before an election.
- Which people were always pointing out when the polls looked bad for Boris.
What did people actually expect a year after picking up that mess in those circumstances?
1.He's been in charge for a year.
Agreed...but a year is a long time. I am still no clearer what his vision is, where he wants to take the party, how he wants to form a cogent opposition that is a credible alternative. He has made a few 'off set' noises but has done, in my opinion, nothing of note other than his dealing with RLB, which he did act upon...but what were his options, he HAD too.
2.With a party divided between Corbynism and actually wanting to be fit to govern.
He did back Corbynism as many call it, and at least that gave the party a clear vision, whether you agree with the policies or not. Is Starmer backing this type of Labour...or is he going to take them down the centrist Blair route. As you said, it's been a year...and I still don't know....
3.With the stain of anti-semitism to deal with.
He has done what he can re the anti semitism issue, he acted swiftly re RLB, but then he had no alternative (this does not negate the fact that he did act unlike his predecessor who would have vacillating and sat on his hands)
4.In the middle of a global pandemic.
This should be a blessing. The spotlight is on the government, and, to a degree, he has played this card well, backing the government as the opposition should do to get us through this. His criticisms of the government when they have been valid though have however been largely negated by his subsequent support. The public view him as somewhat unreliable as a consequence...see the opinion polls for examples...when he was regularly holding Boris to account eloquently at PMQS on many issues, he was seen as a genuine leader and the polls reflected this, now nobody knows what he, or Labour really stand for now, or in the future, his popularity, and his party's has dropped significantly.
5. Which has made doing half the stuff you'd want to do impossible like just going places in person.
Agreed, but this affects all politicians some of whom have maintained a more visible presence online and in other forms of media rather than dropping off the radar.
6. With three years to go before an election.
I don't get this point. You get one chance to make a first impression and if we think Starmer is suddenly going to pull it all together for a far off election, if that is his plan, he will find out the British public have a long memory, and the impression he has built over this time will take a long time to shake.
7. Which people were always pointing out when the polls looked bad for Boris.
I agree we cannot put to much faith in polls yet we do...and so do the public. Polling badly and claiming they are an irrelevance is a rather simple and politically backward thing to do, essentially it is laying the foundation for failure. Starmer needs to be more visible, he needs to put in the hours on the floor v Boris as he was GOOD at this and it made for good television, a tangible difference for the public to see week in week out, but the system now seems to have ground him down and he seems happy to be viewed as an irrelevance for now. $hit sticks and I think he has dug his own comfortable plot of mediocrity from which he will find it hard to jump up from when called. I hope I am wrong.
Edited by biggbn on Sunday 11th April 12:05
98elise said:
Why is there a divide between Corbynism and being fit to govern?
Sir Kier stood alongside Corbyn and backed his manifesto to the hilt. In the Leadership contest he promised to continue with Labours radical plans. Since becoming leader he's not distanced himself from those views.
I'd say the electorate pretty comprehensively made their opinion clear on that divide didn't they?Sir Kier stood alongside Corbyn and backed his manifesto to the hilt. In the Leadership contest he promised to continue with Labours radical plans. Since becoming leader he's not distanced himself from those views.
As for standing alongside Corbyn not sure what people honestly expect him to have done there?
biggbn the 3 year thing is simply because when Boris is or was getting hammered in the polls we were told polls don't matter there's three years until an election to turn things around which presumably works two ways.
biggbn said:
Stewie, I think your advocacy makes a lot of sense, however to answer some of your observations...
1.He's been in charge for a year.
Agreed...but a year is a long time. I am still no clearer what his vision is, where he wants to take the party, how he wants to form a cogent opposition that is a credible alternative. He has made a few 'off set' noises but has done, in my opinion, nothing of note other than his dealing with RLB, which he did act upon...but what were his options, he HAD too.
2.With a party divided between Corbynism and actually wanting to be fit to govern.
He did back Corbynism as many call it, and at least that gave the party a clear vision, whether you agree with the policies or not. Is Starmer backing this type of Labour...or is he going to take them down the centrist Blair route. As you said, it's been a year...and we still don't know....
3.With the stain of anti-semitism to deal with.
He has done what he can re the anti semitism issue, he acted swiftly re RLB, but then he had no alternative (this does not negate the fact that he did act unlike his predecessor who would have vacillating and sat on his hands) If he's going to ditch Corbynism - He's had a year to purge his enemies via the anti semitism route - A lost opportunity for the political fighting to be hidden behind the daily Covid news - For quietly a new more central Labour to emerge vitalised and vocal after the Covid pandemic subsides ... continuing to heap pressure on Boris
4.In the middle of a global pandemic.
This should be a blessing. The spotlight is on the government, and, to a degree, he has played this card well, backing the government as the opposition should do to get us through this. His criticisms of the government when they have been valid though have however been largely negated by his subsequent support. The public view him as somewhat unreliable as a consequence...see the opinion polls for examples...when he was regularly holding Boris to account eloquently at PMQS on many issues, he was seen as a genuine leader and the polls reflected this, now nobody knows what he, or Labour really stand for now, or in the future, his popularity, and his party's has dropped significantly.
5. Which has made doing half the stuff you'd want to do impossible like just going places in person.
Agreed, but this affects all politicians some of whom have maintained a more visible presence online and in other forms of media rather than dropping off the radar. Kier 'the invisible man' the Tag is sticking
6. With three years to go before an election.
I don't get this point. You get one chance to make a first impression and if we think Starmer is suddenly going to pull it all together for a far off election, if that is his plan, he will find out the British public have a long memory, and the impression he has built over this time will take a long time to shake.
7. Which people were always pointing out when the polls looked bad for Boris.
I agree we cannot put to much faith in polls yet we do...and so do the public. Polling badly and claiming they are an irrelevance is a rather simple and politically backward thing to do, essentially it is laying the foundation for failure. Starmer needs to be more visible, he needs to put in the hours on the floor v Boris as he was GOOD at this and it made for good television, a tangible difference for the public to see week in week out, but the system now seems to have ground him down and he seems happy to be viewed as an irrelevance for now. $hit sticks and I think he has dug his own comfortable plot of mediocrity from which he will find it hard to jump up from when called.I hope I am wrong.
1.He's been in charge for a year.
Agreed...but a year is a long time. I am still no clearer what his vision is, where he wants to take the party, how he wants to form a cogent opposition that is a credible alternative. He has made a few 'off set' noises but has done, in my opinion, nothing of note other than his dealing with RLB, which he did act upon...but what were his options, he HAD too.
2.With a party divided between Corbynism and actually wanting to be fit to govern.
He did back Corbynism as many call it, and at least that gave the party a clear vision, whether you agree with the policies or not. Is Starmer backing this type of Labour...or is he going to take them down the centrist Blair route. As you said, it's been a year...and we still don't know....
3.With the stain of anti-semitism to deal with.
He has done what he can re the anti semitism issue, he acted swiftly re RLB, but then he had no alternative (this does not negate the fact that he did act unlike his predecessor who would have vacillating and sat on his hands) If he's going to ditch Corbynism - He's had a year to purge his enemies via the anti semitism route - A lost opportunity for the political fighting to be hidden behind the daily Covid news - For quietly a new more central Labour to emerge vitalised and vocal after the Covid pandemic subsides ... continuing to heap pressure on Boris
4.In the middle of a global pandemic.
This should be a blessing. The spotlight is on the government, and, to a degree, he has played this card well, backing the government as the opposition should do to get us through this. His criticisms of the government when they have been valid though have however been largely negated by his subsequent support. The public view him as somewhat unreliable as a consequence...see the opinion polls for examples...when he was regularly holding Boris to account eloquently at PMQS on many issues, he was seen as a genuine leader and the polls reflected this, now nobody knows what he, or Labour really stand for now, or in the future, his popularity, and his party's has dropped significantly.
5. Which has made doing half the stuff you'd want to do impossible like just going places in person.
Agreed, but this affects all politicians some of whom have maintained a more visible presence online and in other forms of media rather than dropping off the radar. Kier 'the invisible man' the Tag is sticking
6. With three years to go before an election.
I don't get this point. You get one chance to make a first impression and if we think Starmer is suddenly going to pull it all together for a far off election, if that is his plan, he will find out the British public have a long memory, and the impression he has built over this time will take a long time to shake.
7. Which people were always pointing out when the polls looked bad for Boris.
I agree we cannot put to much faith in polls yet we do...and so do the public. Polling badly and claiming they are an irrelevance is a rather simple and politically backward thing to do, essentially it is laying the foundation for failure. Starmer needs to be more visible, he needs to put in the hours on the floor v Boris as he was GOOD at this and it made for good television, a tangible difference for the public to see week in week out, but the system now seems to have ground him down and he seems happy to be viewed as an irrelevance for now. $hit sticks and I think he has dug his own comfortable plot of mediocrity from which he will find it hard to jump up from when called.
Permission to slightly edit
"discontent with the Labour leader’s cautious approach is spreading to all wings of the party"
Somehow I can't see that meaning he should be incautiously centrist; the 'turn left' lights are flashing.
This will please the Wrong Daileys and student activists but ensure Labour remains unelectable per se.
Somehow I can't see that meaning he should be incautiously centrist; the 'turn left' lights are flashing.
This will please the Wrong Daileys and student activists but ensure Labour remains unelectable per se.
turbobloke said:
"discontent with the Labour leader’s cautious approach is spreading to all wings of the party"
Somehow I can't see that meaning he should be incautiously centrist; the 'turn left' lights are flashing.
This will please the Wrong Daileys and student activists but ensure Labour remains unelectable per se.
The 'Manager' epithet seems appropriate. The Labour website lists 88 members in the Shadow Cabinet!!Somehow I can't see that meaning he should be incautiously centrist; the 'turn left' lights are flashing.
This will please the Wrong Daileys and student activists but ensure Labour remains unelectable per se.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'd say the electorate pretty comprehensively made their opinion clear on that divide didn't they?....
My gut feel is to agree with you on this as I would definitely prefer it to be so...but...He won considerably more votes in 2017 than Labour had won since 1997 under Blair. And only lost that 2017 election by a relatively small amount (which just goes to show how awful May was).
The votes he got in 2017 would have seen him win the elections in 2015, 2010, 2005, 2001 and come a reasonably close second to Blair in 1997 and Major in 1992.
The votes he got even in 2019 beat Labour's showing back to 2001.
Now of course elections don't work that way. It's the opposition that you're up against that will drive much of the result I suspect. But I reckon Corbyn could put up a reasonably robust argument to suggest his policies weren't all vehemently disliked. His biggest issue, IMO (wrt winning an election) was their fence sitting stance on Brexit.
(This from someone who vehemently disliked most/all of his policies
).Murph7355 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'd say the electorate pretty comprehensively made their opinion clear on that divide didn't they?....
My gut feel is to agree with you on this as I would definitely prefer it to be so...but...He won considerably more votes in 2017 than Labour had won since 1997 under Blair. And only lost that 2017 election by a relatively small amount (which just goes to show how awful May was).
The votes he got in 2017 would have seen him win the elections in 2015, 2010, 2005, 2001 and come a reasonably close second to Blair in 1997 and Major in 1992.
The votes he got even in 2019 beat Labour's showing back to 2001.
Now of course elections don't work that way. It's the opposition that you're up against that will drive much of the result I suspect. But I reckon Corbyn could put up a reasonably robust argument to suggest his policies weren't all vehemently disliked. His biggest issue, IMO (wrt winning an election) was their fence sitting stance on Brexit.
(This from someone who vehemently disliked most/all of his policies
).biggbn said:
From someone who liked a genuinely left wing Labour party, I agree. Corbyn's vacillating on Brexit was the main problem. He/they judged the mood of the country totally wrongly on that front. At least we knew what he/they stood for, unlike now.
Not to absolve Corbyn of responsibility - as the leader, the decision rested ultimately with him - for the 2019 Brexit policy, but it was formulated on the basis of a report prepared by Sir Keir in his role as Shadow Secretary of State for Leaving the EU, which laid out the dilemma of Labour's voting base being uniquely (and dangerously) split between Leave and Remain, and in the final analysis said that the party was at greater risk of losing more voters if it continued with its current stance (Brexit, but not the Conservative's Brexit) via the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens than risked losing them to pro-Brexit parties if it tilted to a more anti-Brexit stance. The report essentially said that the Labour heartlands would take voting Labour and getting a confirmatory referendum over voting Conservative and Getting Brexit Done. That report - which Starmer put his name to - was what critically and fundamentally misjudged the reality. It's all the more ironic because Corbyn was (probably still is) a Eurosceptic of the old Bennite sort, and has been criticising the EU as an organisation and its actions all the way through the Blair years when Eurocentrism was key to Labour's refreshed, modern, vibrant image. Virtually the one time the fellow was chivvied into giving way on his personal principles in the name of greater electoral success (having been happy to be unpopular/wrong/deluded/however you want to put it but principled for the entirety of his political career up to that point) and it was completely the wrong time and the wrong direction.
2xChevrons said:
biggbn said:
From someone who liked a genuinely left wing Labour party, I agree. Corbyn's vacillating on Brexit was the main problem. He/they judged the mood of the country totally wrongly on that front. At least we knew what he/they stood for, unlike now.
Not to absolve Corbyn of responsibility - as the leader, the decision rested ultimately with him - for the 2019 Brexit policy, but it was formulated on the basis of a report prepared by Sir Keir in his role as Shadow Secretary of State for Leaving the EU, which laid out the dilemma of Labour's voting base being uniquely (and dangerously) split between Leave and Remain, and in the final analysis said that the party was at greater risk of losing more voters if it continued with its current stance (Brexit, but not the Conservative's Brexit) via the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens than risked losing them to pro-Brexit parties if it tilted to a more anti-Brexit stance. The report essentially said that the Labour heartlands would take voting Labour and getting a confirmatory referendum over voting Conservative and Getting Brexit Done. That report - which Starmer put his name to - was what critically and fundamentally misjudged the reality. It's all the more ironic because Corbyn was (probably still is) a Eurosceptic of the old Bennite sort, and has been criticising the EU as an organisation and its actions all the way through the Blair years when Eurocentrism was key to Labour's refreshed, modern, vibrant image. Virtually the one time the fellow was chivvied into giving way on his personal principles in the name of greater electoral success (having been happy to be unpopular/wrong/deluded/however you want to put it but principled for the entirety of his political career up to that point) and it was completely the wrong time and the wrong direction.
I quite like Starmer in terms of personal appeal. His oratory skills are quite impressive and he seems quite sincere and honest. Likewise I have few problems with the majority of Labour MP's outside of London.
But, the London based wing of Labour scares the life out of me, and thus writes off any chance of me voting for Starmer or the party. Lammy, Thornberry, Abbott, Butler, Corbyn etc are all completely abhorrent to me.
But, the London based wing of Labour scares the life out of me, and thus writes off any chance of me voting for Starmer or the party. Lammy, Thornberry, Abbott, Butler, Corbyn etc are all completely abhorrent to me.
Trackdayer said:
I quite like Starmer in terms of personal appeal. His oratory skills are quite impressive and he seems quite sincere and honest. Likewise I have few problems with the majority of Labour MP's outside of London.
But, the London based wing of Labour scares the life out of me, and thus writes off any chance of me voting for Starmer or the party. Thornberry, Abbott, Butler, etc are all completely abhorrent to me.
You say abhorrent I say wow lets go ladies whose first But, the London based wing of Labour scares the life out of me, and thus writes off any chance of me voting for Starmer or the party. Thornberry, Abbott, Butler, etc are all completely abhorrent to me.
anonymoususer said:
What one needs to understand is that the Tories only have a 45% share of the poll admittedly Labour only have 36%
Neither party have more than 50% of people expressing delight with them
Therefore I think that can be interpreted as a moral victory for Sir Kier and a great starting point for when Jess takes over.
A woman of her standing will unit the country and I believe she will secure a comfortable working majority of around 40 MBPS
Very funny Neither party have more than 50% of people expressing delight with them
Therefore I think that can be interpreted as a moral victory for Sir Kier and a great starting point for when Jess takes over.
A woman of her standing will unit the country and I believe she will secure a comfortable working majority of around 40 MBPS
2xChevrons said:
on the basis of a report prepared by Sir Keir in his role as Shadow Secretary of State for Leaving the EU, which laid out the dilemma of Labour's voting base being uniquely (and dangerously) split between Leave and Remain
And do you know why? Labour voters are one of two sterotypes:1) The working class who hated Thatcher
2) The London, Brighton and Cambridge brigade (BLM, students, champagne socialists etc)
- 1 will eventually stop voting for Labour because they are nationalist/pro-British. This is the Red Wall Labour lost in 2019.
aston80 said:
- 1 will eventually stop voting for Labour because they are nationalist/pro-British. This is the Red Wall Labour lost in 2019.
Which rather implies that the Red Wall collapsed because its voters wanted Brexit and weren't happy with being treated like chumps, not because Labour was being led by a bunch of people from north London constituencies.
2xChevrons said:
aston80 said:
- 1 will eventually stop voting for Labour because they are nationalist/pro-British. This is the Red Wall Labour lost in 2019.
Which rather implies that the Red Wall collapsed because its voters wanted Brexit and weren't happy with being treated like chumps, not because Labour was being led by a bunch of people from north London constituencies.
Ask any normal working class ex Labour voter in the previous Labour heartlands what they thought about Kier Starmer and Crayons kneeling before the BLM. They were both disgusted and outraged. They also remember how they felt betrayed with the Brexit position. It will take a long time for Labour to get them back, especially as Boris has parked his tanks on the Labour turf.
I've no idea how Labour can ever recover, as I would really like Boris to get off Labours lawn and go and reclaim his own. If I wanted Labour and Liberal policies I would have voted for them. Perhaps its up the more conservative wing of the Tory party to pull it back to its normal position, thus enabling Labour itself to move back to its safer and more fertile ground, and regain the conservative voters that are being ostracized by the new, Boris led, Tory party. I.E, can we please get normal service to resume.
2xChevrons said:
Then why did the Red Wall see a surge in the Labour vote share in 2017? If you believe Labour is 'internationalist/anti-British' and otherwise off-putting to its heartlands it was just as much so in 2017 as it was in 2019. The only thing that changed was the party's Brexit policy.
Which rather implies that the Red Wall collapsed because its voters wanted Brexit and weren't happy with being treated like chumps, not because Labour was being led by a bunch of people from north London constituencies.
Because in 2017 Labour appeared to support Brexit and the Tories still had Remainer Thersea May.Which rather implies that the Red Wall collapsed because its voters wanted Brexit and weren't happy with being treated like chumps, not because Labour was being led by a bunch of people from north London constituencies.
In 2019 Labour were backtracking on Brexit and the Tories went the other way, getting Boris.
Between 2017 and 2019 the parties diverged on Brexit, a huge nationalist policy, suggesting Labour wasn't pro-British and the Tories were.
Edited by aston80 on Tuesday 13th April 02:19
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff