Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
I had to go to page four for this thread below 'Macron gets a slap' 
Yet more forensic mediwokecrity from Keith at PMQs today and following on from supporting the release of Pitchfork, I would not be surprised to see his poll ratings fall below those of Corbyn. If Labour lose the by-election on the 1st July will he survive?
Yet more forensic mediwokecrity from Keith at PMQs today and following on from supporting the release of Pitchfork, I would not be surprised to see his poll ratings fall below those of Corbyn. If Labour lose the by-election on the 1st July will he survive?
Yes this by-election result looks bad for Sir Keir, 1.6% of the vote with only 622, that's down at Monster Raving Loony party vote share levels.
Quite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
Quite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
Six Potter said:
Yes this by-election result looks bad for Sir Keir, 1.6% of the vote with only 622, that's down at Monster Raving Loony party vote share levels.
Quite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
I cannot see him leading Labour into the next election.Quite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
Six Potter said:
I don't disagree with the assessment of economic class there.
I think the main thing that's changed regarding the social class system is that the so called working class are no longer deferential to those who would like to think that they are "higher" or "better". That said, there are plenty of that group and of the benefits class who perhaps more than ever don't seem to want to persue social mobility and appear accepting of their socioeconomic position.
I do think though that one-upmanship and snobbery are still alive and well in the UK, there are certainly some out there that think that those they perceive to be of lower class than them ought to be more deferential to there supposed betters.
I still see folks here on PH going on about "chav's" and what have you, which I see as a something of a social class judgement, not in relation to any actual anti-social behaviours but to what is seen as uncouth tastes and appearances.
I think "betters" mentality is very rare now, what you do get is a level of resentment from the better off at the burden placed upon them in order to support others and mechanisms of state. This is firmly a problem the government has caused. Think of it like this, as your income rises your lifestyle will change but there is a limit to that change even for large changes in income where you are a paye worker. So you get to 50k and suddenly no child benefit, its not much but you are paying towards it, get to 100k and suddenly your no longer entitled to a tax free allowance....yet your contribution is large if your income risese further then you are subject to greater taxes but will likely consume very little directly from the state. Free school meals is one that sticks in my mindx I genuinely don't want to pay to feed othere kids, I want the parents to be able to feed their kids if they are working. This means I want them to get paid a decent wage, I want them to pay a little tax, I want them to feel like working actually had merit. Instead we have a tax credit system which subsidises low wages, means people don't contribute and are dependent on the state intervention. In effect the state enskaves them an drives a wedge between those who cobtribute and those who do not. This cannot be a healthy and sustainable way of runnng a society and I think its why we have the BS conspiracy about the great reset etc. Why else would governments create a group who resented another, your rich you should pay for me, your poor you are leachig off me. An of course the truely wealthy elite are immune from all of this via a tax system that allows them to avoid these things (though likely in monetary terms they will still contribute to society).I think the main thing that's changed regarding the social class system is that the so called working class are no longer deferential to those who would like to think that they are "higher" or "better". That said, there are plenty of that group and of the benefits class who perhaps more than ever don't seem to want to persue social mobility and appear accepting of their socioeconomic position.
I do think though that one-upmanship and snobbery are still alive and well in the UK, there are certainly some out there that think that those they perceive to be of lower class than them ought to be more deferential to there supposed betters.
I still see folks here on PH going on about "chav's" and what have you, which I see as a something of a social class judgement, not in relation to any actual anti-social behaviours but to what is seen as uncouth tastes and appearances.
I believe people should keep most of what they earn and what they earn should be sufficient to put food on the table and a roof over there heads as a minimum. The state should not intervene. But when you have a large public sector its hard to see how we could change that.
Six Potter said:
Yes this by-election result looks bad for Sir Keir, 1.6% of the vote with only 622, that's down at Monster Raving Loony party vote share levels.
Quite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
Gone by August Bank Holiday weekendQuite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
anonymoususer said:
Six Potter said:
Yes this by-election result looks bad for Sir Keir, 1.6% of the vote with only 622, that's down at Monster Raving Loony party vote share levels.
Quite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
Gone by August Bank Holiday weekendQuite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
At this point it surely doesn't matter who fronts the party, they've lost the confidence of voters and those who look at policies before voting will see no reason to vote for them when they previously didn't ?
The only thing I see they have going for them is they aren't the nasty Tory party / don't have bojo at the helm.
Unless a new leader manages to change the direction of the party I can't see how anything will change.
The only thing I see they have going for them is they aren't the nasty Tory party / don't have bojo at the helm.
Unless a new leader manages to change the direction of the party I can't see how anything will change.
Gecko1978 said:
anonymoususer said:
Six Potter said:
Yes this by-election result looks bad for Sir Keir, 1.6% of the vote with only 622, that's down at Monster Raving Loony party vote share levels.
Quite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
Gone by August Bank Holiday weekendQuite a lot of talk about the Tory's losing the seat obviously but this is supposedly the worst ever Labour by-election result, looks like the Lib Dem's hoovered up all their votes. I imagine it's at least in part due to tactical voting.
Its looking like Starmer has the double whammy of both failing to win over Tory voters and not being able to enthuse and mobilise the Labour base either. How long do they give the guy?
The problem with Starmer, as I see it, is that he seem to be something of a half way house between these two options which doesn't seem to satisfy anyone. I think the Labour plan seemed to be that they would have liked a proportion of the electorate to see him as someone who has broken away from Corbynism and isn't a Corbynista, while in actual fact he seems to have been a continuity figure who's basically maintaining the Corbyn policies.
There were some good Blairite MP's but they seem to have been marginalised in recent years or generally have been keeping their heads down. Maybe Andy Burham as a high profile Labour figure could be the strong non-momentum type leader when the time is right. I think it's probably more likely at this stage that the next leader will be from the Corbynista wing, Long-Bailey or someone of the ilk. I think that still needs to be worked through before the party is willing to accept a more centrist leader and policies again.
Six Potter said:
The way it looks to me is Labour either need 1. A Corbynite leader, who looks and talks the part, to try and build on and refine the left wing policy platform in the hope of winning over more of the electorate. Or 2. they need a Blair part deux character who will do a New Labour type overhaul and break the party away from the Corbynistic/momentum paradigm that they appear to be stuck in.
The problem with Starmer, as I see it, is that he seem to be something of a half way house between these two options which doesn't seem to satisfy anyone. I think the Labour plan seemed to be that they would have liked a proportion of the electorate to see him as someone who has broken away from Corbynism and isn't a Corbynista, while in actual fact he seems to have been a continuity figure who's basically maintaining the Corbyn policies.
There were some good Blairite MP's but they seem to have been marginalised in recent years or generally have been keeping their heads down. Maybe Andy Burham as a high profile Labour figure could be the strong non-momentum type leader when the time is right. I think it's probably more likely at this stage that the next leader will be from the Corbynista wing, Long-Bailey or someone of the ilk. I think that still needs to be worked through before the party is willing to accept a more centrist leader and policies again.
Good post, agreed. Starmer is stuck in the middle with himself such are the divisions. The problem with Starmer, as I see it, is that he seem to be something of a half way house between these two options which doesn't seem to satisfy anyone. I think the Labour plan seemed to be that they would have liked a proportion of the electorate to see him as someone who has broken away from Corbynism and isn't a Corbynista, while in actual fact he seems to have been a continuity figure who's basically maintaining the Corbyn policies.
There were some good Blairite MP's but they seem to have been marginalised in recent years or generally have been keeping their heads down. Maybe Andy Burham as a high profile Labour figure could be the strong non-momentum type leader when the time is right. I think it's probably more likely at this stage that the next leader will be from the Corbynista wing, Long-Bailey or someone of the ilk. I think that still needs to be worked through before the party is willing to accept a more centrist leader and policies again.
Six Potter said:
The way it looks to me is Labour either need 1. A Corbynite leader, who looks and talks the part, to try and build on and refine the left wing policy platform in the hope of winning over more of the electorate. Or 2. they need a Blair part deux character who will do a New Labour type overhaul and break the party away from the Corbynistic/momentum paradigm that they appear to be stuck in.
This is, I think, correct. Whether you, I or anyone else prefers either course 1. or 2., they're the only remotely viable options open if Labour want to remain a relevant and significant force in parliamentary politics. Six Potter said:
The problem with Starmer, as I see it, is that he seem to be something of a half way house between these two options which doesn't seem to satisfy anyone. I think the Labour plan seemed to be that they would have liked a proportion of the electorate to see him as someone who has broken away from Corbynism and isn't a Corbynista, while in actual fact he seems to have been a continuity figure who's basically maintaining the Corbyn policies.
This strikes me as the opposite of reality, though. Starmer's leadership bid (pitched to the party and unions, not the electorate) was to maintain Labour as a 'radical left' party, trim off some of the more radical/bats
t bits of the 2019 platform and be a slicker, more professional, less inherently controversial figure to promote them. In the very rare occasions when Starmer has actually articulated anything approaching a policy or position they have either been explicit reversals of his leadership pledges or something complete irrelevant and separate to them. And those moments have been vanishingly rare. In general he (and Labour as a whole) have come up with absolutely nothing beyond bland, over-focus-grouped platitudes about how they want good things, don't want bad things and how the Conservatives are basically doing a good job but they could probably do a better one. I'll absolutely grant that there hasn't been the full-throated, 'tear it all down, put it on the ash-heap of history' repudiation of the Corbyn-era policies than many in this thread want(ed), but neither has there been any explicit continuation, support, development or mention of them, beyond some mealy-mouthed self-flagellation about how the party needs to listen to people again. All of Starmer's actions, and most of his rhetoric, make the idea that he's somehow a secret Corbynite or in hock to the shadowy forces of Momentum (lol!) ludicrous.
Within the machinery and institutions of the party itself, Starmer's leadership has been wholly about removing or excluding the Corbyn-ite left from positions of influence and power (except where this can't be done due to the party's internal democracy), shutting down dissention and debate from the left, sacking lefties from roles and every now and occasionally suspending them from the party ("pour discourager les autres...") and generally ignoring, criticising and belittling the left whenever possible. With the (entirely predictable and, as far as the leadership and the Labour right are concerned, desirable) result that many of the left are leaving their roles in the party and taking their membership and votes with them.
The problem with that is that a) a lot of these people are key 'movers and shakers' in terms of actually drumming up support and votes on the ground and in the grassroots (see the recent fiasco in Bristol and how Labour HQ made a large part of its electoral campaign team redundant just before the Hartlepool by-election because they were a legacy of the Corbyn era) and b) Starmer et. al. have absolutely nothing and no-one to replace these people and their ideas with. It's all very well purging your party, in a raw politick-ing sense, but only in service to some overall goal. Blair 'put the left back in its box' because he had an alternative vision for what Labour should be and people to help him carry it through. Starmer doesn't. He's pissed off virtually all of the people who actually voted for Labour last time round and done absolutely nothing to win back or convince the people who didn't.
Useless. Utterly useless.
Six Potter said:
There were some good Blairite MP's but they seem to have been marginalised in recent years or generally have been keeping their heads down. Maybe Andy Burham as a high profile Labour figure could be the strong non-momentum type leader when the time is right. I think it's probably more likely at this stage that the next leader will be from the Corbynista wing, Long-Bailey or someone of the ilk. I think that still needs to be worked through before the party is willing to accept a more centrist leader and policies again.
Burnham is an interesting fellow to me. I remember him mostly as a tedious empty suit from the tail-end of the New Labour era but, reading up on him and getting an overview of his more recent utterances, positions, actions and policies (especially as Mayor of Greater Manchester) I think he's actually much more of a genuine social democrat than I gave him credit for. I get the impression that at heart he has some fairly solidly left-wing (by which I mean actually socialist, not Blairite) convictions, but not to a wholly dogmatic or 'preserved in aspic in 1975' sense - a politician of broad aims rather than treasured policies. Up in Manchester he seems to have either shed his Blairite skin and gone back to what his biography would claim are his lefty roots or he's an astute enough politician to realise than the electorate of Manchester go for a bit of chippy firebrand rhetoric and to understand the huge value of a few high-profile populist policy stands. He could be exactly the experienced, savvy, media-friendly 'bridge' candidate that Labour needs or a complete weathervane who's just very good at swivelling as the political wind changes and using that to his own benefit. He's certainly saying a lot of (what I would deem) good things at the moment...but they're often the complete opposite of things he's said and done last time he was in a government.
As I said, interesting and I think he's one to watch. I also think he's astute enough to stay well clear of the burning trash fire that is Labour this side of any future general election. I reckon he'll try and be the one to ride in (as a relative outsider) to save the party after the inevitable 2024 defeat.
Firstly, cards on the table, I'm a Conservative voter.
I was a radical voter back in the day (anything different to my parents)! I did all the 'lefty stuff I could think of including the dastardly communists!
Raised two children - my view was open door to politics but always look at all sides to the story mantra.
Both daughters, as students, Labour, Green Peace, Friends of the Earth as 18, 19 , 20 year olds.
As graduates at 21, 22, 23 years etc became (as soon as they pay taxes) Brexit, Conservative, (and a last ditch smattering as Veganism).
Daughters state (as they research and become a little more savy), 'Sir Keir, didn't he F^$£ up the CPS?'
I welcome a strong opposition to Conservative, it's healthy. Alas isn't happening. Best thing labour could possibly do at the mo is to entice the 'other' Miliband bro' (David) back from his US gravy train lecture tours to take the reins?
I was a radical voter back in the day (anything different to my parents)! I did all the 'lefty stuff I could think of including the dastardly communists!
Raised two children - my view was open door to politics but always look at all sides to the story mantra.
Both daughters, as students, Labour, Green Peace, Friends of the Earth as 18, 19 , 20 year olds.
As graduates at 21, 22, 23 years etc became (as soon as they pay taxes) Brexit, Conservative, (and a last ditch smattering as Veganism).
Daughters state (as they research and become a little more savy), 'Sir Keir, didn't he F^$£ up the CPS?'
I welcome a strong opposition to Conservative, it's healthy. Alas isn't happening. Best thing labour could possibly do at the mo is to entice the 'other' Miliband bro' (David) back from his US gravy train lecture tours to take the reins?
Ortega56 said:
Firstly, cards on the table, I'm a Conservative voter.
I welcome a strong opposition to Conservative, it's healthy. Alas isn't happening. Best thing labour could possibly do at the mo is to entice the 'other' Miliband bro' (David) back from his US gravy train lecture tours to take the reins?
What is it about David Miliband that means he has some sort of mythical 'king asleep under the mountain' aura for some people (often people who aren't or never have been Labour voters)? What has he ever said or done to make so many people dream of the day when he will return from across the sea, risen anew from misty Lyonesse, to rescue Albion and usher in a new age of...whatever it is he stands for. I welcome a strong opposition to Conservative, it's healthy. Alas isn't happening. Best thing labour could possibly do at the mo is to entice the 'other' Miliband bro' (David) back from his US gravy train lecture tours to take the reins?
I was still a Conservative supporter in 2010 so didn't play close attention to the Labour leadership election hustings that year but what was he offering? A review of the assessment regime in schools, no charitable status for private schools, increased powers for local government, an increase in social housing provision, a one per cent 'mansion tax' and a renewal of the party's existing commitment to halve the fiscal deficit in five years.
What's so unique and inspiring about this? Can anyone really say that this would have done any better than 'the wrong Miliband' in 2015? It's basically unchanged from Labour's 2005 and 2010 platforms.
I know that for a certain sort of self-described centrist the election of the 'wrong Miliband' is the start of a causal chain that led us to the current state of British politics, but these are the same sort of myopic folk who think that the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony was 'Peak Britain'.
David Miliband seems mostly favoured by people whose idea of 'strong opposition' is a badge-engineered version of the Conservative Party that they can vote for one general election in every four to keep the real Conservatives in check but the status quo intact.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff