Topic: Doesn't matter who you vote for as long as it's for the right reasons!

[Cpt_Reina]

Whats your take on that?

Starmer and Labour are polling poorly right now. Ashburton above has done (IMO) a very good breakdown of the situation as he/she see's it. What do you think are the fundamental underlying factors behind the poor polling?

Starmer appears to have no political instincts which cut through, along with a distinct lack of charisma to be able to deliver a message even if he had one.

But mostly as ever it's largely because Labour don't get the same favourable coverage that the Tories do. Johnson has entire media conglomerates making him look more likable, competent, stronger than he actually is. Labour don't.

Swap those two men around in terms of which party they're representing and the numbers would soon find themselves in Starmer's favour despite as mentioned above how useless he is.

[diggerling!]

What do you think are the fundamental underlying factors behind the poor polling?

I agree with what Ashburton said about leftists being held to a higher standard than those on the right, and the inherent hypocrisies of politicians of all colours, but I think fundamentally the way people vote is based on how they feel their personal priorities are served. In most cases that will mean economic factors although, as we see increasingly, particularly for the economically comfortable, it is not unusual for people to vote against their own class interests. (I deliberately don't use the example of former redwall voters doing the same because I think they genuinely do feel that the Tories offer them better economic opportunity so they don't believe they are voting against their class interests).

Voters of all persuasions have always had to hold their noses when voting. Labour had it in the 70s with CND and gay rights which were not policies that were popular in the heartlands, and the Tories have had it with gay marriage, hug a hoodie and that sort of 'PC' stuff which is not traditionally part of the conservative landscape and would, without other overiding factors, put the natives off.

I think the tittle-tattle is a bit overblown.

[Kenny's Jacket]

It's probably the Jason Lee sketch from yonks back. Unfortunately there is a certain kind of person, who knows nothing about Treblinka and cares less, who would be outraged to the point of incontinence over a comedy sketch like that. (They probably thought the Waddle one was ok though). 

Thanks for the tips about Baddiel's book and show guys.

im not aware of the waddle sketch tobe honest
AS I mentioned to jillc i have not seen the objections and was offereing a sgestion as to why baddiel who has been racist in the past may not be an ideal person to spread an anti racist message

and you dontd  need to know details of the Treblinka death camp to come to that conclsion



judge Rinder would have been a better choice

[Red Raw]

Returning briefly but importantly to the discussion on lies a page or so back (when I started writing this!)

There is a still much to admire in the Scott Chambers cartoon that has been circulating online in different forms for over 10 years now.



David Allen Green too has been vocal on the topic of lies and December 2019 he surmised that the problem is not that politicians lie, it is that people don't mind that they are being lied to. In fact he goes further to say many who claim they value honesty in politicians are in fact lying themselves.  In a blog post he describes how complacency over the truth and the tyranny of the 'will-of-the-people' are key ingredients in the rise of authoritarianism.
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/12/the-l-word-the-f-word-and-contemporary-uk-politics/

For a while Peter Oborne attempted to track Johnson's lies online (https://boris-johnson-lies.com/) and though he seems to have been exhausted by the end of 2019, his findings have now made it into print (https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/The-Assault-on-Truth/Peter-Oborne/9781398501003).  David Leigh provided a review for Open Democracy (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/why-truth-too-weak-stop-liar-boris-johnson/).

The lies and propaganda come at us so thick and fast that we become overwhelmed and our capacity to resist objectively is weakened, until eventually the accuracy of a statement becomes less important than the emotional, tribal response that it can generate. The reduction of all arguments to 'Us' against 'Them' maintains a perpetual state of outrage which serves as a breakwater against incoming waves of truths. Ultimately the 'will-of-the-people' becomes another arm of the state.

Trump's Big Lie, that he won the election, has required a considerable amount of buy-in but is now sufficiently entrenched in the mainstream GOP and the gun toting, conspiracy theorising branch of its followers that it provides ample opportunities for further grifting and will fuel the presidential run in 2024, regardless of who stands.  Meanwhile in the UK the BBC regularly trots out the lie that Brexit is 'Done' and thus provides a credible backdrop against which all of our ills can continue to be blamed on the EU and immigrants.

We may hope that events eventually overtake the capacity to come up with fresh lies and that the perpetrators are shamed out of office but who is to say how long this will take or what the collateral damage will be to our politics, our economy and the fabric of our society. Brexit clearly is not 'Done' and will continue to be presented as 'Done' for the foreseeable future, even as it continues to unravel. At the same time evidence of election theft in the US will continue to be disproved, but neither will matter while the lies continue to serve their purpose so well.

Oborne says: 'At the heart of the new politics is the nightmare assumption that emotion is more important than thought'. Leigh agrees and adds that while this remains the case the solution is not to come up with truer facts but to come up with better (and more decent) emotions.

I like Starmer and hoped that by now his legal background and agile mind would have been sufficient to expose in Johnson the truly ugly core that lies beneath the charlatanism, that lies beneath the buffoonery and bluster. While I don't relish the continued degradation of political discourse I can't help feel it is time for some judicious anger at what is being done in our name.  There is no room here for manufactured outrage (it is as transparent as it is phony) because we have the receipts, indeed Starmer quite possibly has them filed away like case notes to be drawn on at the appropriate time. Time though is short and the damage is real and ongoing.

[Bobsackamano]

I agree with what Ashburton said about leftists being held to a higher standard than those on the right, and the inherent hypocrisies of politicians of all colours, but I think fundamentally the way people vote is based on how they feel their personal priorities are served. In most cases that will mean economic factors although, as we see increasingly, particularly for the economically comfortable, it is not unusual for people to vote against their own class interests. (I deliberately don't use the example of former redwall voters doing the same because I think they genuinely do feel that the Tories offer them better economic opportunity so they don't believe they are voting against their class interests).

Voters of all persuasions have always had to hold their noses when voting. Labour had it in the 70s with CND and gay rights which were not policies that were popular in the heartlands, and the Tories have had it with gay marriage, hug a hoodie and that sort of 'PC' stuff which is not traditionally part of the conservative landscape and would, without other overiding factors, put the natives off.

I think the tittle-tattle is a bit overblown.

Strongly agree with most of your analysis there. I actually think that accepting the genuine nature of the vote in places like Hartlepool is the starting point for winning them back.

If we just go "they're thick and stupid, they dont know what they are doing, poor things" then its not a good look. Patronising and talking down to people is always a terrible look.

If i was going to boil down the rights economic offer to these places it would be "we're going to cut the numbers of immigrants coming into the country to reduce competition at the bottom end of the jobs market and we will invest money into your local areas to create jobs"

Its simplistic and if you got a bunch of eggheads round a table they could easily pick that apart. However there is a certain logic to it (even if i disagree) and its easy to understand, and importantly its optimistic, it promises change, improvement in their lives.

Labour needs to come up with a easy to understand offer to counter that, just criticizing the Torys offer will not do anymore.

[diggerling!]

Returning briefly but importantly to the discussion on lies a page or so back (when I started writing this!)

There is a still much to admire in the Scott Chambers cartoon that has been circulating online in different forms for over 10 years now.



David Allen Green too has been vocal on the topic of lies and December 2019 he surmised that the problem is not that politicians lie, it is that people don't mind that they are being lied to. In fact he goes further to say many who claim they value honesty in politicians are in fact lying themselves.  In a blog post he describes how complacency over the truth and the tyranny of the 'will-of-the-people' are key ingredients in the rise of authoritarianism.
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/12/the-l-word-the-f-word-and-contemporary-uk-politics/

For a while Peter Oborne attempted to track Johnson's lies online (https://boris-johnson-lies.com/) and though he seems to have been exhausted by the end of 2019, his findings have now made it into print (https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/The-Assault-on-Truth/Peter-Oborne/9781398501003).  David Leigh provided a review for Open Democracy (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/why-truth-too-weak-stop-liar-boris-johnson/).

The lies and propaganda come at us so thick and fast that we become overwhelmed and our capacity to resist objectively is weakened, until eventually the accuracy of a statement becomes less important than the emotional, tribal response that it can generate. The reduction of all arguments to 'Us' against 'Them' maintains a perpetual state of outrage which serves as a breakwater against incoming waves of truths. Ultimately the 'will-of-the-people' becomes another arm of the state.

Trump's Big Lie, that he won the election, has required a considerable amount of buy-in but is now sufficiently entrenched in the mainstream GOP and the gun toting, conspiracy theorising branch of its followers that it provides ample opportunities for further grifting and will fuel the presidential run in 2024, regardless of who stands.  Meanwhile in the UK the BBC regularly trots out the lie that Brexit is 'Done' and thus provides a credible backdrop against which all of our ills can continue to be blamed on the EU and immigrants.

We may hope that events eventually overtake the capacity to come up with fresh lies and that the perpetrators are shamed out of office but who is to say how long this will take or what the collateral damage will be to our politics, our economy and the fabric of our society. Brexit clearly is not 'Done' and will continue to be presented as 'Done' for the foreseeable future, even as it continues to unravel. At the same time evidence of election theft in the US will continue to be disproved, but neither will matter while the lies continue to serve their purpose so well.

Oborne says: 'At the heart of the new politics is the nightmare assumption that emotion is more important than thought'. Leigh agrees and adds that while this remains the case the solution is not to come up with truer facts but to come up with better (and more decent) emotions.

I like Starmer and hoped that by now his legal background and agile mind would have been sufficient to expose in Johnson the truly ugly core that lies beneath the charlatanism, that lies beneath the buffoonery and bluster. While I don't relish the continued degradation of political discourse I can't help feel it is time for some judicious anger at what is being done in our name.  There is no room here for manufactured outrage (it is as transparent as it is phony) because we have the receipts, indeed Starmer quite possibly has them filed away like case notes to be drawn on at the appropriate time. Time though is short and the damage is real and ongoing.

Obviously the lies are a Bad Thing but are they actually that influential in forming opinion as opposed to just reinforcing opinion? How many US liberals have had their minds changed by the Trumpists' election claims?

They definitely do serve to entrench positions but I'm not sure they really have traction as opinion-formers to the degree that people think. A lot of it is just echo chamber, preaching to the choir rabble rousing.

[Yorkykopite]

and you dontd  need to know details of the Treblinka death camp to come to that conclsion

I think it certainly helps. Not because it means you are sympathetic to the Jews (though that might be a consideration). But because it allows you to get some perspective and keep things in proportion.

I've yet to see the book or the show but I would Baddiel to be a brilliant choice. A genuine thinker who has studied the problem and has a large fund of historical knowledge. A very decent broadcaster too.

[diggerling!]

Labour needs to come up with a easy to understand offer to counter that, just criticizing the Torys offer will not do anymore.

Fully agree although I have absolutely no faith in their ability to do so because the right of party is taking over again and Starmer has nothing to offer in terms of the structural changes that are needed in society. He's not even winning the redistribution/levelling-up debate within the confines of neoliberalism!

[Dr. Beaker]

In what way?

Sorry. I was quoting from Ashburton's post above but I was in a hurry.

[Bobsackamano]

Fully agree although I have absolutely no faith in their ability to do so because the right of party is taking over again and Starmer has nothing to offer in terms of the structural changes that are needed in society. He's not even winning the redistribution/levelling-up debate within the confines of neoliberalism!

Your previous post i strongly agreed with. This one i barely understand 🤣🤣. Maybe im showing my own ignorance.

What does this mean?

"He's not even winning the redistribution/levelling-up debate within the confines of neoliberalism!"

[Sangria]

Your previous post i strongly agreed with. This one i barely understand 🤣🤣. Maybe im showing my own ignorance.

What does this mean?

"He's not even winning the redistribution/levelling-up debate within the confines of neoliberalism!"

You're not supposed to understand it. You're supposed to whoop and holler at each memeword as it's read out.

[Ashburton]

Strongly agree with most of your analysis there. I actually think that accepting the genuine nature of the vote in places like Hartlepool is the starting point for winning them back.

If we just go "they're thick and stupid, they dont know what they are doing, poor things" then its not a good look. Patronising and talking down to people is always a terrible look.

If i was going to boil down the rights economic offer to these places it would be "we're going to cut the numbers of immigrants coming into the country to reduce competition at the bottom end of the jobs market and we will invest money into your local areas to create jobs"

Its simplistic and if you got a bunch of eggheads round a table they could easily pick that apart. However there is a certain logic to it (even if i disagree) and its easy to understand, and importantly its optimistic, it promises change, improvement in their lives.

Labour needs to come up with a easy to understand offer to counter that, just criticizing the Torys offer will not do anymore.

There are a couple of arguments which Labour may struggle with, especially considering they need to get on the right side of the Union (re indyref2) as well as putting the Brexit debate to bed and realising they need to be a strong advocate for British interests.  One significant aspect being that they need to figure out how to win over the nation to make everyone believe they will do the best thing for the UK's interests rather than a somewhat sneering attitude to anyone who waves a flag around and likes to have a traditional beef roast dinner on a Sunday.  There are some cracking Labour politicians out there who love to call anyone who puts a flag on their house a 'simpleton', or for 'fascists or racists'.  You only need to look at the image posted above to see the huge disparity in belief that Johnson represents the interests of the UK and seems proud to do so.  This appears to have started with Starmer appearing in a US-style message next to a flag (although admittedly he doesn't look happy about it):



It's deeply ironic because you would think that any party vying for political leadership of a country would at the minimum feel they need to convince voters that they are passionate about that country rather than a nervousness about the union flag.  It reminds me of the Orwell quote:

England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals 
are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always 
felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman 
and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse 
racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably 
true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of 
standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a 
poor box.

The interesting aspect of this 'sneering' is that it's pushing Labour away from those members of the public who are proud to be English and proud of the monarchy.  Indeed the latest Queen's Speech appears to be matching that 'levelling up' agenda Boris is so fond of parroting with a significant section on promoting lifelong adult learning - surely policies which should be quintessentially Labour; not least because the working class absolutely are going to be vulnerable to automation and globalisation - particularly as Labour need to understand they aren't going to win elections by dragging along droves of dependents or students, no matter how passionate they are about electric bikes (or in Ed Miliband's case, faux-passionate).  Labour's position in the recent council elections appears to be not to announce policy but to try and straddle both election blocs, however with Starmer moving on Rayner from the campaign strategy side it appears he understands the need to play up this nationalism - to go against the traditional vulnerability of the left.  It'd seem fantastic for the Greens and Lib Dems were it not also rather worrying for the country by embedding Johnson's advantage, as this 'about turn' feels like it's going to be a little like turning a supertanker around - you might be off-course for quite a while before you get straightened up again.

[diggerling!]

What does this mean?

"He's not even winning the redistribution/levelling-up debate within the confines of neoliberalism!"

The tories have been campaigning on the promise that they intend to 'level-up' regional inequality. That is, to channel funds away from the affluent areas where they have typically done well, into less affluent areas which they have so gleefully fucked over in the past.

They will do this within the currently prevailing economic paradigm of neo-liberalism: capitalism.

Starmer came to be leader on the promise that he would continue the 'radical' agenda pursued by the previous leadership but give it a more polished face. Make it, in his words, more 'electable'. The problem was that the previous agenda was too left wing for the centrists in the Labour Party, of which he is one, let alone the soft left, who helped get him elected. It also doesn't really appeal to the large corporate donors who he wants to attract.

So he's wedded to capitalism but somehow has to redistribute income to less affluent areas. Capitalism and downward redistribution are, of course, unhappy bedfellows, and he's currently scratching around for a policy that will appeal to his various factions.

Traditionally, the Labour Party would be more critical of capitalism and favour a different way of organising society (such as socialism), or at least call for the heavy regulation of capital, but for the reasons outlined above, that paradigm-shift is not understood to be under consideration.

[killer-heels]

Are there many things that damaged the Labour brand as much as Thornberry's tweet with the image of a white van parked outside a house with a St George's cross draped from the window?

[diggerling!]

You're not supposed to understand it. You're supposed to whoop and holler at each memeword as it's read out.

That is rich in irony coming from a stands-for-nothing liberal.

[Bobsackamano]

The tories have been campaigning on the promise that they intend to 'level-up' regional inequality. That is, to channel funds away from the affluent areas where they have typically done well, into less affluent areas which they have so gleefully fucked over in the past.

They will do this within the currently prevailing economic paradigm of neo-liberalism: capitalism.

Starmer came to be leader on the promise that he would continue the 'radical' agenda pursued by the previous leadership but give it a more polished face. Make it, in his words, more 'electable'. The problem was that the previous agenda was too left wing for the centrists in the Labour Party, of which he is one, let alone the soft left, who helped get him elected. It also doesn't really appeal to the large corporate donors who he wants to attract.

So he's wedded to capitalism but somehow has to redistribute income to less affluent areas. Capitalism and downward redistribution are, of course, unhappy bedfellows, and he's currently scratching around for a policy that will appeal to his various factions.

Traditionally, the Labour Party would be more critical of capitalism and favour a different way of organising society (such as socialism), or at least call for the heavy regulation of capital, but for the reasons outlined above, that paradigm-shift is not understood to be under consideration.

Must be me then as im none the wiser from reading that!

I was interested in your post about matching up to peoples priorities in places like Hartlepool. Are you saying Labour should go to places like Hartlepool and tell them we are going to get rid of capitalism and have that as our easy to understand offer?

[Ashburton]

The tories have been campaigning on the promise that they intend to 'level-up' regional inequality. That is, to channel funds away from the affluent areas where they have typically done well, into less affluent areas which they have so gleefully fucked over in the past.

They will do this within the currently prevailing economic paradigm of neo-liberalism: capitalism.

Starmer came to be leader on the promise that he would continue the 'radical' agenda pursued by the previous leadership but give it a more polished face. Make it, in his words, more 'electable'. The problem was that the previous agenda was too left wing for the centrists in the Labour Party, of which he is one, let alone the soft left, who helped get him elected. It also doesn't really appeal to the large corporate donors who he wants to attract.

So he's wedded to capitalism but somehow has to redistribute income to less affluent areas. Capitalism and downward redistribution are, of course, unhappy bedfellows, and he's currently scratching around for a policy that will appeal to his various factions.

Traditionally, the Labour Party would be more critical of capitalism and favour a different way of organising society (such as socialism), or at least call for the heavy regulation of capital, but for the reasons outlined above, that paradigm-shift is not understood to be under consideration.

It would also seem that this would suffer from the society cohesiveness argument?  That is to say that social redistribution is far more popular with societies who have high levels of national pride as well as high levels of social cohesion.  For example the Nordic countries traditionally have high homogeneity, low levels of immigration and therefore were able to stomach a high tax bill and social redistribution (as well as high levels of welfare) due to the understanding that there aren't huge ideological chasms in society and that makes the population happy paying for programmes which they could see someone like themselves using.

When social homogeneity breaks down this almost seems to need a counter-push to allow national identity to override social or racial identity, hence the flag waving.
 Without this it can cause tension as the 'undeserving' are seen to profit from social redistribution, which is why immigration is such a powerful (and evocative) policy which many politicians struggle to get their head around - particularly when some immigration subsets are only especially valuable to the individuals within the country once they become 2nd generation and before that act as an electoral liability.

[Ashburton]

Are there many things that damaged the Labour brand as much as Thornberry's tweet with the image of a white van parked outside a house with a St George's cross draped from the window?

I had that exact image in mind when I wrote the post on political hypocrisy over the page, think it was a singular moment (a bit like Gordon Brown's "bigoted woman" comments) which whilst may be understandable upon reflection on the issues and their views of them, undoubtedly showed this contempt for some of the traditional voter base.

[diggerling!]

Are you saying Labour should go to places like Hartlepool and tell them we are going to get rid of capitalism and have that as our easy to understand offer?

I’m not in the Labour Party but if I was I would pursue an economic agenda, similar to the one pursued in 2019 that, despite the media narrative, was pretty popular with the electorate.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I think it certainly helps. Not because it means you are sympathetic to the Jews (though that might be a consideration). But because it allows you to get some perspective and keep things in proportion.[/b]

I've yet to see the book or the show but I would Baddiel to be a brilliant choice. A genuine thinker who has studied the problem and has a large fund of historical knowledge. an  very decent broadcaster too.

if your point is that lacking up and ridicluing someones appearance isnt as bad ad the holocaust then thsts fair enough but shouldnt we higher the bar a little?
 Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is seen by many as a great commnicator and charming and likeable but I wouldnt hire hin to deliver a lecture on integrity

[Bobsackamano]

I’m not in the Labour Party but if I was I would pursue an economic agenda, similar to the one pursued in 2019 that, despite the media narrative, was pretty popular with the electorate.

I don't fundamentally disagree with most of those but how do you frame that in a simple, easy to understand offer to people that will give them hope if change and improvement in their lives like the tories do. The example i gave was...

"we're going to cut the numbers of immigrants coming into the country to reduce competition at the bottom end of the jobs market and we will invest money into your local areas to create jobs"

[Nobby Reserve]

but I think fundamentally the way people vote is based on how they feel their personal priorities are served. In most cases that will mean economic factors although, as we see increasingly, particularly for the economically comfortable, it is not unusual for people to vote against their own class interests. (I deliberately don't use the example of former redwall voters doing the same because I think they genuinely do feel that the Tories offer them better economic opportunity so they don't believe they are voting against their class interests).

I agree to an extent that people generally vote based on how they feel their own priorities are best served, but I disagree that 'redwall' voters genuinely feel the Tories 'offer them better economic opportunity'.

I rather think that they - and increasing numbers of people in the C1/D/E 'social classes' across England - don't believe there would be sufficient difference made by either Tory or Labour in terms of their economic fortunes. And so they make their voting decision based on other issues. Thanks in no small part to a predominantly right-wing biased media, and the echo chambers/fake news and BOTs of social media, this has come to mean voting for the party/ies that are against those demonised bête noires that they have become convinced are things they should hate as root causes of why their lives are shitty - the EU, benefit 'scroungers', immigrants. And additionally, believe that 'liberals' are only concerned with pandering to minorities and demanding ever-more niche/bizarre concessions/'rights' for said minorities.

[TepidT2O]

I’m not in the Labour Party but if I was I would pursue an economic agenda, similar to the one pursued in 2019 that, despite the media narrative, was pretty popular with the electorate.

Yes they will be popular. But that doesn’t mean people will actually vote for them.

See 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019 for details. 

Labours policies are always popular in polls like this.

[diggerling!]

social redistribution is far more popular with societies who have high levels of national pride as well as high levels of social cohesion.  For example the Nordic countries traditionally have high homogeneity, low levels of immigration and therefore were able to stomach a high tax bill and social redistribution (as well as high levels of welfare) due to the understanding that there aren't huge ideological chasms in society and that makes the population happy paying for programmes which they could see someone like themselves using.

Well the nordic countries grew from a base of small (mostly family) farming enterprises that faced similar challenges to each other. Citizen collectives of one kind or another are part
of their cultural fabric and they trust the process of community representation. This has nothing to do with racial identity and everything to do with class interest.

We are much less cohesive, of course, and have had higher levels of immigration up until recently, but it's telling that areas that are culturally diverse (inner cities, for example) tend to be less antagonistic towards immigrants than those who have no real-life experience of diversity.

Here too, the key to a fairer politics seems to be capturing that sense of collectiveness. Which is why, as you say, the divisive wedge of 'national pride' is so powerful.

 

[diggerling!]

I agree to an extent that people generally vote based on how they feel their own priorities are best served, but I disagree that 'redwall' voters genuinely feel the Tories 'offer them better economic opportunity'.

I rather think that they - and increasing numbers of people in the C1/D/E 'social classes' across England - don't believe there would be sufficient difference made by either Tory or Labour in terms of their economic fortunes. And so they make their voting decision based on other issues. Thanks in no small part to a predominantly right-wing biased media, and the echo chambers/fake news and BOTs of social media, this has come to mean voting for the party/ies that are against those demonised bête noires that they have become convinced are things they should hate as root causes of why their lives are shitty - the EU, benefit 'scroungers', immigrants. And additionally, believe that 'liberals' are only concerned with pandering to minorities and demanding ever-more niche/bizarre concessions/'rights' for said minorities.

Fair point, although most of the feedback I've seen from Hartlepool seems to be that they want a piece of what they're getting in Richmondshire. There also seems to be some evidence that the Labour councils who did well elsewhere are those that have been pursuing what might be called fairly leftist agendas despite the more 'populist' campaigns of their opponents..

[diggerling!]

Yes they will be popular. But that doesn’t mean people will actually vote for them.

See 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019 for details. 

Labours policies are always popular in polls like this.

They only became policy from 2017 and they had a much improved election on the back of them. In 2019 they lost because of Corbyn and Brexit.

In the local elections we've just had the only Labour candidates doing well seem to be the ones pursuing a leftist agenda, from what I understand

[Yorkykopite]

I’m not in the Labour Party but if I was I would pursue an economic agenda, similar to the one pursued in 2019 that, despite the media narrative, was pretty popular with the electorate.

Two questions for you.

1) Why did the popularity of the programme in 2019 not translate into popularity for the party that wrote it? (I'm being kind here. The party that wrote it suffered its worst election result since the war).

2) How has Labour's economic programme changed since 2019?

[Yorkykopite]

if your point is that lacking up and ridicluing someones appearance isnt as bad ad the holocaust then thsts fair enough but shouldnt we higher the bar a little?
 Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is seen by many as a great commnicator and charming and likeable but I wouldnt hire hin to deliver a lecture on integrity

Johnson also looks like a big fat Toby jug.

(I have opinions on his policies and integrity as well).

[TepidT2O]

They only became policy from 2017 and they had a much improved election on the back of them. In 2019 they lost because of Corbyn and Brexit.

In the local elections we've just had the only Labour candidates doing well seem to be the ones pursuing a leftist agenda, from what I understand

Evidence for this claim?

It’s odd that where things have gone badly it’s down the party policies (which you don’t understand).  And where they’ve gone well it’s down to leftists candidates (even though they are still promoting Labour Party  policies).

[Kenny's Jacket]

Johnson also looks like a big fat Toby jug.

(I have opinions on his policies and integrity as well).

classic way to end the discussion 

[Garrus]

You're not supposed to understand it. You're supposed to whoop and holler at each memeword as it's read out.

[B0151?]

I don't know. I feel like most parties go into elections with policies they think will win them votes (with that backed up with research too)

Maybe they liked those policies but clearly they cared more about what the Tories were offering

It should be more about what are the most important things to voters than do they like the sound of this or not

[filopastry]

I don't know. I feel like most parties go into elections with policies they think will win them votes (with that backed up with research too)

Maybe they liked those policies but clearly they cared more about what the Tories were offering

It should be more about what are the most important things to voters than do they like the sound of this or not

Also a lot of people actually pay little attention to the campaign, unless something is repeated endlessly it doesn't tend to cut through with a lot of voters. "Get Brexit Done" cut through in the last campaign, I'm not sure Labour's long list of policy announcements really did (in a apositive way at least).

And yes I agree that generally policies should pretty much always poll well, that is pretty much what they are designed to do, in isolation at least. Well unless you were Theresa May anyway

[diggerling!]

how do you frame that in a simple, easy to understand offer to people that will give them hope if change and improvement in their lives like the tories do. The example i gave was...

"we're going to cut the numbers of immigrants coming into the country to reduce competition at the bottom end of the jobs market and we will invest money into your local areas to create jobs"

The level of immigration into the UK reflects the economic need for cheap labour, or labour with a specific skillset that we don’t have enough of. In other words it’s driven by capital’s need for cheap labour.

The problem is that migrants are willing to put up with pay and conditions that local people cannot get by on, so they in effect create a race to the bottom for everyone.

Once people understand that is how the system operates, they will see that the problem is not migration, it’s poor working conditions. You just don’t find the same level of hostility towards migrants in well paid sectors, for example amongst doctors or dentists, as you do amongst low paid workers such as those on the factory floor. That’s because they understand the need for migrants (skills shortage) and are sufficiently comfortable to not resent the conditions they are forced to live with.

So to answer your question: instead of looking for a neat slogan to counter the Tory one, the answer is to get out there into the community, build networks and educate people in the same way the unions once did. Demand better pay and conditions and use immigration to prevent skills shortages rather than to drive down wages.

[Jiminy Cricket]

They only became policy from 2017 and they had a much improved election on the back of them. In 2019 they lost because of Corbyn and Brexit.

In the local elections we've just had the only Labour candidates doing well seem to be the ones pursuing a leftist agenda, from what I understand

Evidence for this claim?

Good luck with your request there, Tepid.

[diggerling!]

Two questions for you.

1) Why did the popularity of the programme in 2019 not translate into popularity for the party that wrote it? (I'm being kind here. The party that wrote it suffered its worst election result since the war).

2) How has Labour's economic programme changed since 2019?

1. Because of Brexit and because of Corbyn.
2. I don't think there has been an official change yet but I think everybody knows that Starmer's heart wasn't really in it. Hence the appointment of Reeves.

https://www.ft.com/content/7c20fb21-b4c3-40ee-98c2-713646e5ffed

[Yorkykopite]

Just a little historical sidelight on the Labour party and the working class......

The rise of Labour in Britain was often accompanied by the most incredible insult and vituperation directed towards working-class voters, especially when they voted Conservative (which they often did). 'Hare-brains', 'idiots', 'fools', 'catspaws', 'mindless beasts', the lot. All were used by frustrated Labour leaders who couldn't understand why trade-unionists, in particular, voted for men who owned the factories they worked in and were exploited in. For many years the Labour party's daily newspaper, the Daily Herald (1915-1962) ran a cartoon strip called 'Henry Dubb - Proletarian Fool' in which Henry got the wrong end of every stick, loved a Lord, voted Tory and fell for every trick in the book. You get the picture.  And anyone who's ever read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' will know what an incredibly low opinion Owen (the socialist) has for his bookless, brainless, ignorant workmates.

I'm not saying that Keir Starmer should start calling the working-class voters of Hartlepool idiots. (Though I would surely allow him to do so in private.) But to start flattering their stupidity, and listening to their woeful misconceptions about economics, is not going to be easy either - and there's very little in the socialist tradition that can give him guidance on that. 

[Yorkykopite]

1. Because of Brexit and because of Corbyn.
2. I don't think there has been an official change yet but I think everybody knows that Starmer's heart wasn't really in it. Hence the appointment of Reeves.

https://www.ft.com/content/7c20fb21-b4c3-40ee-98c2-713646e5ffed

Well done for answering the first question correctly.

And also for your honesty in admitting that the programme hasn't changed.

But, I say again, this rather undermines your belief (stated several times now) that Labour has lost votes by moving right on the economy. It has neither lost votes, nor moved right.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Well done for answering the first question correctly.

And also for your honesty in admitting that the programme hasn't changed.

But, I say again, this rather undermines your belief (stated several times now) that Labour has lost votes by moving right on the economy. It has neither lost votes, nor moved right.

Yeah. I was pleasantly surprised by his answer to #1. But he then reverted to type with his #2.

[filopastry]

1. Because of Brexit and because of Corbyn.
2. I don't think there has been an official change yet but I think everybody knows that Starmer's heart wasn't really in it. Hence the appointment of Reeves.

https://www.ft.com/content/7c20fb21-b4c3-40ee-98c2-713646e5ffed

I was reading that Andrew Fisher had actually wanted to bring Reeves onboard during the Corbyn years, as apparently she had become more open to areas like wealth taxes etc.

I still don't think there is any reason to say that economically Starmer will drift a great deal to the right.