Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Nobby Reserve]

Are we allowed to talk about the good things the last Labour government did yet? Because I am fairly certain that not doing so helps the Tories pretend to be a vehicle for positive change.

You frequently rake this up, and I don't think it makes anything like as much difference as you think.

I'll say now that I think the UK as a whole was substantially in a better place in that 97-10 period (or at least until the GFC happened). I personally look back on it as a good time, one of both social progression (as in, the diminishing of societal acceptance of bigotry) and economic contentment.

But there are millions in this country who didn't feel like they reaped the benefit during that time - or [and I think this is important] didn't perceive themselves to reap the benefits anything like as much as certain other sections. They ended up feeling left behind and a bit disenfranchised and disaffected; economically sure, as the McJobification continued (ZHC's, agency work & temp contracts, warehouse picking replacing 'proper jobs', etc) but also some socially (those that hold 'cultural traditionalism' dear). Whether their feelings were justified is another point*. The crucial part is that they felt left out of this 'boom' (which was itself largely funded by cheap consumer credit) that was taking place all around them.

They'd been being told by the RWM for years that the EU was holding the UK back, was imposing all manner of crazy rules and red tape, and letting in millions of Eastern Europeans undercutting their wages, stealing their jobs and clogging up the NHS and schools and roads (so that's why they couldn't get to see a GP, or had to wait a year for that operation, and couldn't get their kid into the best local school, etc). After 2014, this ramped up, with new actors entering the fray, financed by dubious sources, and the propaganda that all their problems were down to the EU (and, of course, to lefties and a 'metropolitan liberal elite' and unions and benefit scroungers). They pinned their hopes on Leaving the EU and then saw the politicians bicker about how this should be done, until the affable toff with mad hair came along with a simple message and the backing of those few MPs who'd always sounded serious about 'just getting Brexit done' without bothering with all that irrelevant nonsense about deals and the Customs Union and other crap that they didn't really understand.

So they voted for him, and he 'got Brexit done' and although experts (who needs experts, eh?) warned of problems, they believed the Tories and the RWM telling them that these were just trying to steal Brexit from them and cause problems like sore losers. Their social media echo chambers backed all this up, so it must be true.

I appreciate I've gone off on several tangents that I really didn't mean to, so apologies.

But my point is that a lot of these people didn't see the 97-10 Labour government in the same positive light that you and others do. Not because they're lefties who felt they were too right-wing and wasted the opportunity to reverse much of the damage to society and widening wealth gap that the previous Tory governments had inflicted, but because they believed that the benefits that that Labour government brought in hadn't reached them.




* I don't think they were, really, but the consumerist culture and the glamourisation of 'celebrity' and wealth, with advertising delivering a message of the dark side of aspiration, which is basically: you're only a success if you can have all this shiny stuff and a if you can't afford it, you're a failure. Look, even these no-mark reality TV wankers can have nice things, created a false reality.

[Zeb]

if you dont think not being able to pick up votes from those who now see through Boris isnt really  fucking poor then you must have low expectations

hes a long way from victory

Im suprised hes polling the same as Brown, Brown didnt lose by much and Cameron didnt achieve a majority

we wont be that close this time under easier circumstances

My expectations of Labour at the moment are about 30 seats higher than the electorate's opinion was in 2019. Labour are currently polling in the range of winning 30 to 50 seats. I don't have great expectations of Starmer (or in fact any leader) making up 120+ seats in one election. There's tons of criticism I agree with about Starmer, he's a nerd's anti-politician for a start with some good and a lot of bad to that lack of political sense, just don't think the one about him polling the worst ever etc etc is one which is really supported by the evidence so far. The election will likely be at the lower end of the range of my expectations because the Tories won't call one unless they see the signs of the gap widening again rather than narrowing as it has been. You raised the question about him convincing voters to switch and the seats which will be won will mainly be because of him doing that, there's a noticeable shift in seats which went Tory after being long term Labour back to Labour. And most of us will agree it's not because of Starmer's charismatic style and coherent message cutting through, it's because of who he isn't and the perceived change that makes to who Labour are perceived to be. So, yeah, my expectations are low at the moment. Little misery raincloud. This is all the necessary preconditions being met before Labour can move onto figuring out the harder questions beyond 'why does the electorate hate us?'.

[Sangria]

You frequently rake this up, and I don't think it makes anything like as much difference as you think.

I'll say now that I think the UK as a whole was substantially in a better place in that 97-10 period (or at least until the GFC happened). I personally look back on it as a good time, one of both social progression (as in, the diminishing of societal acceptance of bigotry) and economic contentment.

But there are millions in this country who didn't feel like they reaped the benefit during that time - or [and I think this is important] didn't perceive themselves to reap the benefits anything like as much as certain other sections. They ended up feeling left behind and a bit disenfranchised and disaffected; economically sure, as the McJobification continued (ZHC's, agency work & temp contracts, warehouse picking replacing 'proper jobs', etc) but also some socially (those that hold 'cultural traditionalism' dear). Whether their feelings were justified is another point*. The crucial part is that they felt left out of this 'boom' (which was itself largely funded by cheap consumer credit) that was taking place all around them.

They'd been being told by the RWM for years that the EU was holding the UK back, was imposing all manner of crazy rules and red tape, and letting in millions of Eastern Europeans undercutting their wages, stealing their jobs and clogging up the NHS and schools and roads (so that's why they couldn't get to see a GP, or had to wait a year for that operation, and couldn't get their kid into the best local school, etc). After 2014, this ramped up, with new actors entering the fray, financed by dubious sources, and the propaganda that all their problems were down to the EU (and, of course, to lefties and a 'metropolitan liberal elite' and unions and benefit scroungers). They pinned their hopes on Leaving the EU and then saw the politicians bicker about how this should be done, until the affable toff with mad hair came along with a simple message and the backing of those few MPs who'd always sounded serious about 'just getting Brexit done' without bothering with all that irrelevant nonsense about deals and the Customs Union and other crap that they didn't really understand.

So they voted for him, and he 'got Brexit done' and although experts (who needs experts, eh?) warned of problems, they believed the Tories and the RWM telling them that these were just trying to steal Brexit from them and cause problems like sore losers. Their social media echo chambers backed all this up, so it must be true.

I appreciate I've gone off on several tangents that I really didn't mean to, so apologies.

But my point is that a lot of these people didn't see the 97-10 Labour government in the same positive light that you and others do. Not because they're lefties who felt they were too right-wing and wasted the opportunity to reverse much of the damage to society and widening wealth gap that the previous Tory governments had inflicted, but because they believed that the benefits that that Labour government brought in hadn't reached them.




* I don't think they were, really, but the consumerist culture and the glamourisation of 'celebrity' and wealth, with advertising delivering a message of the dark side of aspiration, which is basically: you're only a success if you can have all this shiny stuff and a if you can't afford it, you're a failure. Look, even these no-mark reality TV wankers can have nice things, created a false reality.

Does it hurt to at least have a significant movement towards highlighting Labour's achievements, without the explicit soundbites from the leader? All the significant grassroots movements on this front have been to dismiss and ridicule such notions. Every suggestion that maybe the left could talk about Labour's achievements is shot down, while there is a neverending appetite for dismissing the last Labour government.

How much noise is there about all the things the voters claim to care about, which the last Labour government did rather better than the 11 years of Tory government since? How much noise is there about how the last Labour government are no different from the Tories? AFAICS, very little of the former, copious amounts of the latter.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

^^
" I don't know who to vote for, do you? I don't really follow it. I don't like Corbyn and my dad was saying that last time Labour were in they bankrupted the country, so I think I'll vote Conservative. My dad does"**

**Not my words but pretty much a direct quote from a person who looked to be late 20's early 30's, that we heard on a train before one of the recent elections. This was just outside Birmingham, they got off in probably Selly Oak/Northfield which I always thought of as Labour areas. Me and my wife just looked at each other because we both knew that it summed up what Labour are up against.

They had a leader many saw as unelectable.
They are up against deep seated media narratives that are echoed on social media.
They are trying to influence people that quite frankly don't want to spend the time and effort engaging with politics and understanding what's going on.
They are now up against a buffoon who is a very good politician, in that he understands the type of sloganeering and populism that many in this country lap up.

It wont be lies or incompetence or corruption that do for this lot, it'll be high fuel bills, or empty shelves. Something that affects people in the here and now.

[Nobby Reserve]

Does it hurt to at least have a significant movement towards highlighting Labour's achievements, without the explicit soundbites from the leader? All the significant grassroots movements on this front have been to dismiss and ridicule such notions. Every suggestion that maybe the left could talk about Labour's achievements is shot down, while there is a neverending appetite for dismissing the last Labour government.

How much noise is there about all the things the voters claim to care about, which the last Labour government did rather better than the 11 years of Tory government since? How much noise is there about how the last Labour government are no different from the Tories? AFAICS, very little of the former, copious amounts of the latter.

I spent an age trying to explain that, whilst we political geeks can appreciate the good things that the last Labour government did, many of those who have since voted Leave and switched to Tory, have done so because they didn't perceive themselves to have particularly benefited [enough?] from those Labour years. And subsequently came to believe the shite peddled by both the RWM and social media campaigns (augmented by bots) to blame the EU and Labour and lefties, etc for the reason their lives aren't as good as they think they should be (in comparison to others)

What we say about the last Labour government on a small subsection of a football club fan forum makes cack-all difference, neither does hard-leftists whining at Labour meetings.

[oldfordie]

You frequently rake this up, and I don't think it makes anything like as much difference as you think.

I'll say now that I think the UK as a whole was substantially in a better place in that 97-10 period (or at least until the GFC happened). I personally look back on it as a good time, one of both social progression (as in, the diminishing of societal acceptance of bigotry) and economic contentment.

But there are millions in this country who didn't feel like they reaped the benefit during that time - or [and I think this is important] didn't perceive themselves to reap the benefits anything like as much as certain other sections. They ended up feeling left behind and a bit disenfranchised and disaffected; economically sure, as the McJobification continued (ZHC's, agency work & temp contracts, warehouse picking replacing 'proper jobs', etc) but also some socially (those that hold 'cultural traditionalism' dear). Whether their feelings were justified is another point*. The crucial part is that they felt left out of this 'boom' (which was itself largely funded by cheap consumer credit) that was taking place all around them.

They'd been being told by the RWM for years that the EU was holding the UK back, was imposing all manner of crazy rules and red tape, and letting in millions of Eastern Europeans undercutting their wages, stealing their jobs and clogging up the NHS and schools and roads (so that's why they couldn't get to see a GP, or had to wait a year for that operation, and couldn't get their kid into the best local school, etc). After 2014, this ramped up, with new actors entering the fray, financed by dubious sources, and the propaganda that all their problems were down to the EU (and, of course, to lefties and a 'metropolitan liberal elite' and unions and benefit scroungers). They pinned their hopes on Leaving the EU and then saw the politicians bicker about how this should be done, until the affable toff with mad hair came along with a simple message and the backing of those few MPs who'd always sounded serious about 'just getting Brexit done' without bothering with all that irrelevant nonsense about deals and the Customs Union and other crap that they didn't really understand.

So they voted for him, and he 'got Brexit done' and although experts (who needs experts, eh?) warned of problems, they believed the Tories and the RWM telling them that these were just trying to steal Brexit from them and cause problems like sore losers. Their social media echo chambers backed all this up, so it must be true.

I appreciate I've gone off on several tangents that I really didn't mean to, so apologies.

But my point is that a lot of these people didn't see the 97-10 Labour government in the same positive light that you and others do. Not because they're lefties who felt they were too right-wing and wasted the opportunity to reverse much of the damage to society and widening wealth gap that the previous Tory governments had inflicted, but because they believed that the benefits that that Labour government brought in hadn't reached them.




* I don't think they were, really, but the consumerist culture and the glamourisation of 'celebrity' and wealth, with advertising delivering a message of the dark side of aspiration, which is basically: you're only a success if you can have all this shiny stuff and a if you can't afford it, you're a failure. Look, even these no-mark reality TV wankers can have nice things, created a false reality.

I wonder who brought in the policy's and services the Torys keep chopping? I find it annoying to hear people arguing Labour did nothing for us then praising someone on the left when they make speeches about all the hardship etc the Tory cuts are bringing and how we should fight them, same with the voters who think the Torys are the answer, who do they think brought in all the services and policy's the Torys are chopping. there's probably someone walking to work this morning as their bus service has been chopped thinking Labour did nothing for me, bleedin council chopping all these buses. bleedin council chopping bin collections and local services. we know it's all down to Torys chopping council funding. do these people know it though?
NHS neglect, GP appointments, hospital appointments, services chopped. welfare chopped, care chopped, homeless rise, more people living on the street etc etc, all these things were certain to happen from the moment this Tory government was elected. if people still think Labour did nothing for them then I wonder why they keep moaning every time the Torys chop funding to something.
I do agree, people do feel they never gained under the 97-2010 Labour government, many people also feel the EU never did anything for them where they live, I would think those same people wouldn't be able to tell you anything the last Labour government or the EU brought in as they have never even researched for info.

[Nobby Reserve]

I wonder who brought in the policy's and services the Torys keep chopping? I find it annoying to hear people arguing Labour did nothing for us then praising someone on the left when they make speeches about all the hardship etc the Tory cuts are bringing and how we should fight them

Fordie, that's not my point at all.

I do agree, people do feel they never gained under the 97-2010 Labour government, many people also feel the EU never did anything for them where they live, I would think those same people wouldn't be able to tell you anything the last Labour government or the EU brought in as they have never even researched for info.

This is closer to what I'm trying to say. And I agree that there's a lot of ignorance around the matter with these people.

I'm just trying to understand how people have drifted from pretty solidly Labour voters to Brexit/Tory zealots.

As I tried to explain, it's the perception they have that either they didn't benefit under Labour, or they missed out on most of the benefit in comparison with many others who did better. I've tried to expand on wider factors (consumerism culture, advertising creating a false expectation, etc) that could influence this, but I'm no expert.

They've then become susceptible to the anti-EU/anti-immigration rhetoric of the RWM

There's other reasons as well, mind, but I was responding to Sangria's specific point.

[Kenny's Jacket]

My expectations of Labour at the moment are about 30 seats higher than the electorate's opinion was in 2019. Labour are currently polling in the range of winning 30 to 50 seats. I don't have great expectations of Starmer (or in fact any leader) making up 120+ seats in one election. There's tons of criticism I agree with about Starmer, he's a nerd's anti-politician for a start with some good and a lot of bad to that lack of political sense, just don't think the one about him polling the worst ever etc etc is one which is really supported by the evidence so far. The election will likely be at the lower end of the range of my expectations because the Tories won't call one unless they see the signs of the gap widening again rather than narrowing as it has been. You raised the question about him convincing voters to switch and the seats which will be won will mainly be because of him doing that, there's a noticeable shift in seats which went Tory after being long term Labour back to Labour. And most of us will agree it's not because of Starmer's charismatic style and coherent message cutting through, it's because of who he isn't and the perceived change that makes to who Labour are perceived to be. So, yeah, my expectations are low at the moment. Little misery raincloud. This is all the necessary preconditions being met before Labour can move onto figuring out the harder questions beyond 'why does the electorate hate us?'.

sorry, does this  mean you think they will go back to Labour not too endorse Starmer but because hes not Boris ?
not putting words in your mouth, just seeking clarity?

[Sangria]

Fordie, that's not my point at all.




This is closer to what I'm trying to say. And I agree that there's a lot of ignorance around the matter with these people.

I'm just trying to understand how people have drifted from pretty solidly Labour voters to Brexit/Tory zealots.

As I tried to explain, it's the perception they have that either they didn't benefit under Labour, or they missed out on most of the benefit in comparison with many others who did better. I've tried to expand on wider factors (consumerism culture, advertising creating a false expectation, etc) that could influence this, but I'm no expert.

They've then become susceptible to the anti-EU/anti-immigration rhetoric of the RWM

There's other reasons as well, mind, but I was responding to Sangria's specific point.

One point that should be looked at is Gallup's list of issues deemed by pollees to be the most important facing the country. Up until and including January 2016, the top 3 were always the NHS, economy and immigration in varying orders. Europe was nowhere. Only in the last few months of the campaign did Europe become a top issue, with immigration dropping down the list (the numbers were practically equivalent). That might offer a clue as to how the narrative came to be.

The last I looked, which was a year or so ago, Europe has been the top one or two issues ever since that point. Prior to that turning point in early 2016, it struggled to reach 5%.

[Zeb]

sorry, does this  mean you think they will go back to Labour not too endorse Starmer but because hes not Boris ?
not putting words in your mouth, just seeking clarity?

The evidence so far is that it's because he's not Corbyn. (I know that's an argument which is contentious on the fringes of the party but it's solidly evidenced from all the work done on 2019 which doesn't derive from them. Corbyn was very, very unpopular by 2019's election.) Not being either Johnson or Corbyn is a potential reason for some of the switching which is happening among voters who lean the Lib Dem side of Tory. Did you have a look at the New Statesman thing I quoted in reply to you the other page? That's a pretty fair summary so far as what I'm reading from those who study the polls (academic and pollsters themselves). Starmer is demonstrating a more acceptable Labour party and that will have electoral benefits all other things being equal, but it's still a long long way off from Labour forming a government themselves. That said, forcing a minority Conservative government is very possible and that will in turn boost Labour's ability to set the news. And one can also see scenarios where a rainbow coalition might be possible although that's off another tangent.

[Nobby Reserve]

One point that should be looked at is Gallup's list of issues deemed by pollees to be the most important facing the country. Up until and including January 2016, the top 3 were always the NHS, economy and immigration in varying orders. Europe was nowhere. Only in the last few months of the campaign did Europe become a top issue, with immigration dropping down the list (the numbers were practically equivalent). That might offer a clue as to how the narrative came to be.

The last I looked, which was a year or so ago, Europe has been the top one or two issues ever since that point. Prior to that turning point in early 2016, it struggled to reach 5%.

That's absolutely right.

The huge amount of propaganda through both the mainstream right-wing media and through heavily-targeted social media (the funding of which was external to the limited official campaign to Leave) tipped those over.

But these people weren't hypnotised. They were already disillusioned and disaffected, and therefore susceptible to the messaging.

[RAWK Meltdown #1]

I don't wish serious hardship of the masses, civil-strife, or dysfunctional government upon my country.....but realistically, this is the ONLY way the current Labour party will be handed the keys to Downing Street IMHO.

I realise that at any given time, there are always identifiable "pockets" of these elements, but the sheer scale which these things need to occur at for an entire electorate to feel uniformly jaded and angry at a standing government is not within sight at present.

In my lifetime, 1997 was the last time I saw a wholesale "flip" of the electorate which gave majority power to the opposition practically overnight.

Labour are currently just looking to recoup influence and then achieve steady "gains" for a chance to be dealt back into the reckoning as I read it, but Brexit and their failure to "read the room" on this has really damaged them.

Whether it should have ever become a "forefront" electoral issue or not....IT DID....and their divisions and apathy to the issue made them look bad.

That's why I genuinely believe that their only (current) chance for government is as a "rescue" party....should the national situation seriously deteriorate, but I don't WANT them to just be a "rescue" party. That's the problem I personally have. I'd rather they grew into a well-oiled, highly electable outfit, which...even if things remain stable....can still tempt the electorate into a mood of good faith with them.

Am I just being ridiculously "naive" about this?

[oldfordie]

Fordie, that's not my point at all.




This is closer to what I'm trying to say. And I agree that there's a lot of ignorance around the matter with these people.

I'm just trying to understand how people have drifted from pretty solidly Labour voters to Brexit/Tory zealots.

As I tried to explain, it's the perception they have that either they didn't benefit under Labour, or they missed out on most of the benefit in comparison with many others who did better. I've tried to expand on wider factors (consumerism culture, advertising creating a false expectation, etc) that could influence this, but I'm no expert.

They've then become susceptible to the anti-EU/anti-immigration rhetoric of the RWM

There's other reasons as well, mind, but I was responding to Sangria's specific point.

Sorry Nobby, I was thinking about the people who feel/perceive Labour let them down, the people who felt ignored maybe. I wasn't thinking you thought Labour did nothing for them.
I think people look to others for opinions when it comes to politics. saw it many times over the years but it's gone mad the last 6ys as there are millions of people who have only recently taken a interest in politics . there's a long list of arguments people make against Labour and remain politicians, from stop calling leave voters idiots to there's no difference between Labour today and the Tory's, how Starmer would fit in well with the Tory party. it's embarrassing really but dangerous as people think they hold a valid opinion as others will agree with them.
Point I was making was if these same people think the Torys are evil as they are making cruel cuts all the time then did it ever cross their minds who brought in these policys and services they are furious over being cut. it's as if they think these services etc have always been something we've enjoyed all our lives, nope, it's the vicious circle just repeating once more, the Torys get in chop everything to the bone while putting us in more debt, Labour come in and clean the mess up, spend more to improve lives right across society, services etc, the Torys jump on  some divisive political issue, hype it up as a political issue, people start telling us they feel strongly about the issue without realising they've been manipulated by Tory propaganda, Labour get kicked out and the s.. storm repeats. they have gone too far this time though, recovery will take money we won't have. I agree with your argument of looking at tax evasion, what happened though, what did the people who this would benefit most do, the left behind fell for the bull. again and voted Brexit which is exactly what the tax evaders wanted.

[Zeb]

I don't wish serious hardship of the masses, civil-strife, or dysfunctional government upon my country.....but realistically, this is the ONLY way the current Labour party will be handed the keys to Downing Street IMHO.

I realise that at any given time, there are always identifiable "pockets" of these elements, but the sheer scale which these things need to occur at for an entire electorate to feel uniformly jaded and angry at a standing government is not within sight at present.

In my lifetime, 1997 was the last time I saw a wholesale "flip" of the electorate which gave majority power to the opposition practically overnight.

Labour are currently just looking to recoup influence and then achieve steady "gains" for a chance to be dealt back into the reckoning as I read it, but Brexit and their failure to "read the room" on this has really damaged them.

Whether it should have ever become a "forefront" electoral issue or not....IT DID....and their divisions and apathy to the issue made them look bad.

That's why I genuinely believe that their only (current) chance for government is as a "rescue" party....should the national situation seriously deteriorate, but I don't WANT them to just be a "rescue" party. That's the problem I personally have. I'd rather they grew into a well-oiled, highly electable outfit, which...even if things remain stable....can still tempt the electorate into a mood of good faith with them.

Am I just being ridiculously "naive" about this?

Don't think it's naive but I wonder whether looking to history gives evidence that our system treats what you suggest there as the precondition to entering power and still needing a major crisis (usually economic) on top of that. So if a party is not in that highly electable state, if it isn't trusted to manage the economy competently as one indicator which seems to matter a lot, then the country can be on fire and people will still trust a failing government they do perceive as being at least more competent than the alternative (think the large slice of Conservative voters who voted Remain, didn't want Brexit, but still turned out to put Johnson into power because their perception of Johnson and Brexit wasn't as bad as the potential alternatives).

I don't think history determines the future but there is a pattern linked to our system of governments getting their large majority and then slowly losing it over time. Sometimes the large majority comes an election in as a vote of confidence in the government and reduces from there. Apart from the early 70s disrupting it a bit, we've had the two main parties alternating lengthy periods in power since Attlee's landslide in 45. (6 years Labour, 13 Tory, 6 Labour, 4 Tory, 5 Labour, 18 Tory, 13 Labour, 11 and counting Tory.) I suppose where I'm kind of thinking on this is that a party has to build trust in its competency and ability to govern and that is very difficult to do and even harder to maintain when the last memory of the party in office is the economic crisis which tipped the scales to it losing an election. So what you're suggesting is really the place where parties need to get to after a defeat, although perhaps it's perfectly human to think 'but maybe it's the electorate who are wrong' - Howard, IDS, and Hague as Tory leader for instance - before doing the reflection on how to get to the starting point.

[RAWK Meltdown #1]

Don't think it's naive but I wonder whether looking to history gives evidence that our system treats what you suggest there as the precondition to entering power and still needing a major crisis (usually economic) on top of that. So if a party is not in that highly electable state, if it isn't trusted to manage the economy competently as one indicator which seems to matter a lot, then the country can be on fire and people will still trust a failing government they do perceive as being at least more competent than the alternative (think the large slice of Conservative voters who voted Remain, didn't want Brexit, but still turned out to put Johnson into power because their perception of Johnson and Brexit wasn't as bad as the potential alternatives).

I don't think history determines the future but there is a pattern linked to our system of governments getting their large majority and then slowly losing it over time. Sometimes the large majority comes an election in as a vote of confidence in the government and reduces from there. Apart from the early 70s disrupting it a bit, we've had the two main parties alternating lengthy periods in power since Attlee's landslide in 45. (6 years Labour, 13 Tory, 6 Labour, 4 Tory, 5 Labour, 18 Tory, 13 Labour, 11 and counting Tory.) I suppose where I'm kind of thinking on this is that a party has to build trust in its competency and ability to govern and that is very difficult to do and even harder to maintain when the last memory of the party in office is the economic crisis which tipped the scales to it losing an election. So what you're suggesting is really the place where parties need to get to after a defeat, although perhaps it's perfectly human to think 'but maybe it's the electorate who are wrong' - Howard, IDS, and Hague as Tory leader for instance - before doing the reflection on how to get to the starting point.

I appreciate this analysis...thanks.

I think the Labour "reflection" period....akin to that of the Tory reflection period you cited....has been greatly hampered by a lot of unforeseen moving parts against the backdrop. It kind of feels like Labour were determined to use their own reflection period to settle internal beefs and have factional wars within the party....and all other external realities be damned whilst they focus on this. At least the Tories only had the single issue of the recession to weave into their recovery period, but could at least put focus on this for those who wanted "clear message" about it.

Labour on the other hand, appear to have totally buried their heads in the sand when it comes to all issues "current" and have simply pressed on with their factional battles regarding just how socialist the party ought to be....when really, the electorate wasn't looking for idealistic shake-ups within the Labour party, it was just looking for a party that could check and balance Tory ambitions....be that Brexit or whatever. The same can be said for the pandemic. Brexit and the pandemic are not the kind of things that an opposition party can get away with indulging in too much reflection and in-fighting.

These situations require Labour to be united and on task. To be viewing these things through the prism of employment, social-care, and working-class welfare and leaning hard on those themes. No matter what "anomaly" or "curved-ball" arrives within society (Brexit, Pandemic) Labour values should remain consistent and the electorate should know that Labour will always adapt to prioritise those things... no matter what the anomaly is.(I.E Zombie attack, meteor from space)

Amongst some of my own Labour voting friends and associates....there's also an increasing concern that Labour values have become more representative of the "woke, liberal left"...(their terms) than of the "everyman" and "everywoman" upon which the party was founded. That it's no longer a party focused on fiscal equalities, but has adopted "identity equalities" as a far more pressing variant of its values and aims. Might sound unsavoury, and somewhat Frottage-esque....but that's what "some" folk are thinking.

My own personal take is that Labour has become caught up trying to be "all things to all people" to the point where it's now become fractured and ineffective as an opposition party. The fact that Labour voters have even entertained the notion of lending their vote to the Tories in order to press home a mandate that Labour refused to support is itself indicative (to me) that there's certain factional values within Labour supporters, that Labour has absolutely NO intention of supporting or courting.

As I see things, the societal battle is no longer about "wealthy" versus "impoverished." I think we've now entered hard-left versus hard-right (and all stages in-between)....but the standing parties still have life-long, loyal adherents from the battle as it once was....rather than what its now become.

This means that there are likely Labour supporters in possession of certain "right wing" beliefs and values who no longer feel represented by Labour, and who by rights....ought to be casting their votes where they better resonate.

I don't WANT it this way...it's just what I personally believe I'm seeing currently.

Anyway...just my two cents!!

 

[Zeb]

I appreciate this analysis...thanks.

I think the Labour "reflection" period....akin to that of the Tory reflection period you cited....has been greatly hampered by a lot of unforeseen moving parts against the backdrop. It kind of feels like Labour were determined to use their own reflection period to settle internal beefs and have factional wars within the party....and all other external realities be damned whilst they focus on this. At least the Tories only had the single issue of the recession to weave into their recovery period, but could at least put focus on this for those who wanted "clear message" about it.

Labour on the other hand, appear to have totally buried their heads in the sand when it comes to all issues "current" and have simply pressed on with their factional battles regarding just how socialist the party ought to be....when really, the electorate wasn't looking for idealistic shake-ups within the Labour party, it was just looking for a party that could check and balance Tory ambitions....be that Brexit or whatever. The same can be said for the pandemic. Brexit and the pandemic are not the kind of things that an opposition party can get away with indulging in too much reflection and in-fighting.

These situations require Labour to be united and on task. To be viewing these things through the prism of employment, social-care, and working-class welfare and leaning hard on those themes. No matter what "anomaly" or "curved-ball" arrives within society (Brexit, Pandemic) Labour values should remain consistent and the electorate should know that Labour will always adapt to prioritise those things... no matter what the anomaly is.(I.E Zombie attack, meteor from space)

Amongst some of my own Labour voting friends and associates....there's also an increasing concern that Labour values have become more representative of the "woke, liberal left"...(their terms) than of the "everyman" and "everywoman" upon which the party was founded. That it's no longer a party focused on fiscal equalities, but has adopted "identity equalities" as a far more pressing variant of its values and aims. Might sound unsavoury, and somewhat Frottage-esque....but that's what "some" folk are thinking.

My own personal take is that Labour has become caught up trying to be "all things to all people" to the point where it's now become fractured and ineffective as an opposition party. The fact that Labour voters have even entertained the notion of lending their vote to the Tories in order to press home a mandate that Labour refused to support is itself indicative (to me) that there's certain factional values within Labour supporters, that Labour has absolutely NO intention of supporting or courting.

As I see things, the societal battle is no longer about "wealthy" versus "impoverished." I think we've now entered hard-left versus hard-right (and all stages in-between)....but the standing parties still have life-long, loyal adherents from the battle as it once was....rather than what its now become.

This means that there are likely Labour supporters in possession of certain "right wing" beliefs and values who no longer feel represented by Labour, and who by rights....ought to be casting their votes where they better resonate.

I don't WANT it this way...it's just what I personally believe I'm seeing currently.

Anyway...just my two cents!!

 

Where Labour and the Tories greatly differ is that the whole purpose of the Tory party, seen from those within it, is to be in power. Clause I of the Labour constitution doesn't ever seem to have had the same appeal across the Labour 'movement'. The Tories see no problem in performing a full 180 when required to suit the circumstances whereas Labour struggle to make changes which join where the membership wants to go and where the electorate are at.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but your observations remind me a lot of one made by the likes of Piketty - that the left has become the politics of the graduate and post-graduate, and driven towards value judgements not shared by key parts of their former electorate. Or, in essence, a reversal of where the politics of the 'educated elite' are coming from. And it also links into what you're arguing about the 'identities' rather than the 'economics' driving divisions.

A distinction I think is worth making is between left and right, and then liberal vs social conservative, and all of those things existing at the same time in different ways in different people. eg Kippers aren't predominantly right wing Thatcherites up for privatising the NHS. Labour's 'traditional' base has always been more socially conservative than its membership and activists and I don't think friction there is anything new. Whether Labour can bridge that gap is what we're going to find over the next few years, I suppose. In terms of what you call 'right wing' beliefs and I'd label 'social conservative', Deborah Mattinson was employed by Starmer not so long back and she's done a lot of work on where the differences and common ground are at. Personally, I'm a bit more optimistic than some seem to be about being able to find common ground which works rather than always rushing in to find something to fight about. Interview with Mattinson here, if anyone's interested in her thoughts: https://audioboom.com/posts/7735975-beyond-the-red-wall-interview-with-deborah-mattinson

[oldfordie]

I appreciate this analysis...thanks.

I think the Labour "reflection" period....akin to that of the Tory reflection period you cited....has been greatly hampered by a lot of unforeseen moving parts against the backdrop. It kind of feels like Labour were determined to use their own reflection period to settle internal beefs and have factional wars within the party....and all other external realities be damned whilst they focus on this. At least the Tories only had the single issue of the recession to weave into their recovery period, but could at least put focus on this for those who wanted "clear message" about it.

Labour on the other hand, appear to have totally buried their heads in the sand when it comes to all issues "current" and have simply pressed on with their factional battles regarding just how socialist the party ought to be....when really, the electorate wasn't looking for idealistic shake-ups within the Labour party, it was just looking for a party that could check and balance Tory ambitions....be that Brexit or whatever. The same can be said for the pandemic. Brexit and the pandemic are not the kind of things that an opposition party can get away with indulging in too much reflection and in-fighting.

These situations require Labour to be united and on task. To be viewing these things through the prism of employment, social-care, and working-class welfare and leaning hard on those themes. No matter what "anomaly" or "curved-ball" arrives within society (Brexit, Pandemic) Labour values should remain consistent and the electorate should know that Labour will always adapt to prioritise those things... no matter what the anomaly is.(I.E Zombie attack, meteor from space)

Amongst some of my own Labour voting friends and associates....there's also an increasing concern that Labour values have become more representative of the "woke, liberal left"...(their terms) than of the "everyman" and "everywoman" upon which the party was founded. That it's no longer a party focused on fiscal equalities, but has adopted "identity equalities" as a far more pressing variant of its values and aims. Might sound unsavoury, and somewhat Frottage-esque....but that's what "some" folk are thinking.

My own personal take is that Labour has become caught up trying to be "all things to all people" to the point where it's now become fractured and ineffective as an opposition party. The fact that Labour voters have even entertained the notion of lending their vote to the Tories in order to press home a mandate that Labour refused to support is itself indicative (to me) that there's certain factional values within Labour supporters, that Labour has absolutely NO intention of supporting or courting.

As I see things, the societal battle is no longer about "wealthy" versus "impoverished." I think we've now entered hard-left versus hard-right (and all stages in-between)....but the standing parties still have life-long, loyal adherents from the battle as it once was....rather than what its now become.

This means that there are likely Labour supporters in possession of certain "right wing" beliefs and values who no longer feel represented by Labour, and who by rights....ought to be casting their votes where they better resonate.

I don't WANT it this way...it's just what I personally believe I'm seeing currently.

Anyway...just my two cents!!

 

I think the adverse effect of this is being underestimated right now.
It's a delicate subject, I can understand people thinking the Labour party is now indulging itself in identity politics, I don't think that's how things are, Labour politicians including Starmer have been attacked for remarks most people have no problem with, those Labour MPs have had to defend themselves so this might come across as being woke to some. sadly I think he and other centre left Labour politicians are banging their heads against a brick wall.

[RAWK Meltdown #1]

Where Labour and the Tories greatly differ is that the whole purpose of the Tory party, seen from those within it, is to be in power. Clause I of the Labour constitution doesn't ever seem to have had the same appeal across the Labour 'movement'. The Tories see no problem in performing a full 180 when required to suit the circumstances whereas Labour struggle to make changes which join where the membership wants to go and where the electorate are at.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but your observations remind me a lot of one made by the likes of Piketty - that the left has become the politics of the graduate and post-graduate, and driven towards value judgements not shared by key parts of their former electorate. Or, in essence, a reversal of where the politics of the 'educated elite' are coming from. And it also links into what you're arguing about the 'identities' rather than the 'economics' driving divisions.

A distinction I think is worth making is between left and right, and then liberal vs social conservative, and all of those things existing at the same time in different ways in different people. eg Kippers aren't predominantly right wing Thatcherites up for privatising the NHS. Labour's 'traditional' base has always been more socially conservative than its membership and activists and I don't think friction there is anything new. Whether Labour can bridge that gap is what we're going to find over the next few years, I suppose. In terms of what you call 'right wing' beliefs and I'd label 'social conservative', Deborah Mattinson was employed by Starmer not so long back and she's done a lot of work on where the differences and common ground are at. Personally, I'm a bit more optimistic than some seem to be about being able to find common ground which works rather than always rushing in to find something to fight about. Interview with Mattinson here, if anyone's interested in her thoughts: https://audioboom.com/posts/7735975-beyond-the-red-wall-interview-with-deborah-mattinson

Ok thanks. The Piketty link was an interesting read and certainly resonates with my own beliefs and observations.

Especially the diminishment of the traditional working class, and the observations that the modern residue of this are not an easy group to mobilise towards any particular banner...even though they're still courted by assorted parties etc.

As for the "educated elite"...well I suppose that there is always going to be a "second stage" to the thought patterns of those who emancipate themselves through education, and yes.....those thought-patterns definitely tend to "bear left" in modern parlance. The Brahmins and the Merchants was a good way of expressing it I thought.

Because we're seeing first-world political progression in "real time" as it were....observing what occurs when the likes of "education for ALL" actually begins to occur....it shouldn't really surprise us that there are some seismic shifts afoot. It's a hitherto unploughed furrow I suppose and marks the transition from industrial/economic age politics into socio/cultural politics. I often muse that if the planet Earth had a twin planet, which was about 500 years ahead of us in it's development, then it's commentators would be saying to us:

"Yes, this is precisely what happens....it looks like upheaval at the time, but it's just people re-aligning their values and concerns because you've finally got a society where this can begin to happen..."

With that said, I suppose it just behoves our political parties to supply catchment for as many people as they can.

Sticking my neck out as a soothsayer....I think that ONE of our main parties will eventually have to take the lead and evolve into something that will "future proof" itself for the generations which are yet to arrive, and I honestly think that this could be either of them as things currently stand. I'm talking about neither Labour nor the Tories currently being "fit for purpose" at present because their core values are still predicated on a world which has (or is about to) move on. I'm not saying there needs to be abandonment of their core values, merely that both parties must find agreement on the kind of values that future "educated" generations will demand as a given before they'll invest.

I'll listen to that Mattinson interview when I get a moment.

Many thanks for the link.

 

[RAWK Meltdown #1]

I think the adverse effect of this is being underestimated right now.
It's a delicate subject, I can understand people thinking the Labour party is now indulging itself in identity politics, I don't think that's how things are, Labour politicians including Starmer have been attacked for remarks most people have no problem with, those Labour MPs have had to defend themselves so this might come across as being woke to some. sadly I think he and other centre left Labour politicians are banging their heads against a brick wall.

Well yes, it is a delicate subject.....and we're living in turbulent times in this regard.

It takes a level-head to make an evaluation, and there is much to become diverted by nowadays.

 

[Zeb]

Mentioned my belief that some of the polls being used to try to set a narrative seemed to be pretty clear outliers. I think this one from Deltapoll (for Mail on Sunday) will be the reverse of those. Things are somewhere in between, closer than some would seem to want and too far apart for others. Would think things will narrow over the winter and into the Spring but it seems pretty clear Sunak is preparing the illusion of an economic bounce for 2023 (eg fixing the OBR's numbers so he can cut this year to then do tax cuts and 'increased' spending next, see the FT's reporting on that).

Westminster Voting Intention:

CON: 38% (-3)
LAB: 37% (+4)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 6% (-1)
SNP: 4% (+1)
REF: 2% (-1)
UKIP: 2% (-1)

Deltapoll, 13-15 Oct (changes to 3rd September), https://deltapoll.co.uk/polls/voteint211016 (pdf download)

[Red-Soldier]

Labour needs big ideas to win voters back, report warns

Study finds party’s former supporters now see Tories as having
a ‘record of delivery’

Labour will fail to win back voters who deserted to the Tories at the last election until it is much clearer about its core identity and driving purpose, according to a new report based on detailed interviews with former supporters.

The analysis by Renaissance, a new group chaired by the frontbencher and MP for Aberavon, Stephen Kinnock, finds that people who had voted Labour previously, but switched to the Conservatives in 2019, will not be convinced to return to the fold by new Labour policies, but instead want big ideas and themes spelling out what the party actually stands for.

Referring to in-depth investigations of the views of its lost voters, said Kinnock: “We found that specific policy proposals did little to break through the cycle of cynicism, because politicians are assumed to break policy promises and they don’t address the fundamental issue of the voter needing to understand Labour’s identity and wider motives before they give the party a hearing.”

The report, while praising Keir Starmer’s recent party conference speech, found that among those ex-Labour backers who had switched to Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson in 2019, the Conservatives were now seen to have “a record of delivery” on issues such as Brexit, the furlough scheme, vaccinations and running the economy since 2010.

Also, alarmingly for Labour, the interviews showed that the party’s regular criticisms of the Tories for their record on the NHS and for following an austerity agenda were not hitting home with the lost voters. “Traditional attack lines are having little effect,” the report found.

Austerity was seen by many switchers as an unfortunate but necessary economic policy, while higher taxes on the those earning high salaries were viewed as punishing hard work and success.

The report – based on discussions with 60 switchers from different parts of the country, of different ages, backgrounds and views on Brexit – comes amid renewed anxiety in the party over its failure to make inroads into the Conservatives’ lead in the polls, despite the succession of crises that have engulfed the government in recent months. These include continued criticism of its handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, Afghanistan, the cost of living and labour shortages.

In the latest Opinium poll for the Observer today the Tories retain a four-point lead after a party conference season that Labour MPs hoped might see a revival of their party’s and Starmer’s fortunes.

While Johnson’s approval ratings have dropped to their lowest levels since the last election, the Tories are still up two points on a fortnight ago on 41%, while Labour, also up two, lags behind on 37%. The Conservatives and Labour are each holding on to the vast majority of their respective general election voters: 86% of 2019 Conservatives and 85% of 2019 Labour voters.

While voters blame the government for many domestic problems, there is little sign that their frustration is benefiting Labour. The poll found that two-thirds think the government has responded badly to the shortage of HGV drivers and the knock-on effects for the energy market and the economy, while only a quarter (26%) think it has responded well. Even among Tory voters, 42% think the government response has been bad compared with 47% who think it has been good.

Despite this, Starmer remains six points behind Johnson when voters are asked who would make the best prime minister (26% for Starmer and 32% for Johnson). The figures are little changed since August.

Those questioned by Renaissance said Labour needed to be clearer about its central messages if it was to get them back, convince them it was a party of working people and good jobs, that it could manage the public finances sensibly, and that it had a positive story to tell about the future of Britain after Brexit.

Ruth Smeeth, MP for Stoke-on-Trent North from 2015-2019 and a Renaissance advisory board member, said: “Renaissance’s report gives an important insight into how Labour can rebalance the scales reaching out to former voters in Stoke, with a focus on good jobs, security and building a more resilient, proud Britain. If Labour is to rebuild that coalition and to recast itself as a whole nation party of government then it must re-establish itself as the natural party of places like the Potteries.”

The report calls on Keir Starmer to prioritise three of his major conference speech themes – good jobs, value for money, and security. It also calls for Labour to champion a more resilient Britain – building on Rachel Reeves’s “make, sell and buy more in Britain” policy – in order to tell a wider story about how the Conservatives have left businesses, supply chains and critical national infrastructure vulnerable and exposed to hostile capital.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/17/labour-needs-big-ideas-to-win-voters-back-report-warns

[RAWK Meltdown #1]

..snip

Deborah Mattinson was employed by Starmer not so long back and she's done a lot of work on where the differences and common ground are at. Personally, I'm a bit more optimistic than some seem to be about being able to find common ground which works rather than always rushing in to find something to fight about. Interview with Mattinson here, if anyone's interested in her thoughts: https://audioboom.com/posts/7735975-beyond-the-red-wall-interview-with-deborah-mattinson

Having interviewed many, she says that:

"one aspect of red-wall opinion was that Labour had been taken over by a bunch of middle-class, snooty graduates who looked down on people like them."

She posits that they're:

"not wrong there"

...and that whenever she tweets anything about the red wall, she tends to get replies from people saying things like:

"bunch of racists"

"they just need educating.."

"if only they knew the clever things I know.." she says, paraphrasing the sense of hubris she detects.

Etc etc...

"..which really sums up the problem." she says.

"Let's blame the electorate, let's make it all their fault..." she concludes, again paraphrasing the disconnect she's discovered.

Yes, this fits in very well with the attitudes and responses I was alluding to amongst some of my own Labour voting peers who decided to withhold their Labour vote during the last election.There seems to be increasing feeling that "Southern Labour" holds a large swathe of it's own Northern membership in contempt, and that this contempt became utterly palpable throughout (and after) the last election.

As I also stated, it seems as though there is absolutely NO genuine or sincere intention to support or court the feelings and concerns of these red-wall voters, whereas the Tories....were at least able to offer them "something" which they believed to be an act of progress.

There's no point arguing whether or not "Brexit" is or isn't an act of progress at this point. If enough red-wall voters "feel" that it is...combined with them also being insulted for feeling that way, then there's your red-wall gone....or at least seriously "breached."

 

[oldfordie]

Having interviewed many, she says that:

"one aspect of red-wall opinion was that Labour had been taken over by a bunch of middle-class, snooty graduates who looked down on people like them."

She posits that they're:

"not wrong there"

...and that whenever she tweets anything about the red wall, she tends to get replies from people saying things like:

"bunch of racists"

"they just need educating.."

"if only they knew the clever things I know.." she says, paraphrasing the sense of hubris she detects.

Etc etc...

"..which really sums up the problem." she says.

"Let's blame the electorate, let's make it all their fault..." she concludes, again paraphrasing the disconnect she's discovered.

Yes, this fits in very well with the attitudes and responses I was alluding to amongst some of my own Labour voting peers who decided to withhold their Labour vote during the last election.There seems to be increasing feeling that "Southern Labour" holds a large swathe of it's own Northern membership in contempt, and that this contempt became utterly palpable throughout (and after) the last election.

As I also stated, it seems as though there is absolutely NO genuine or sincere intention to support or court the feelings and concerns of these red-wall voters, whereas the Tories....were at least able to offer them "something" which they believed to be an act of progress.

There's no point arguing whether or not "Brexit" is or isn't an act of progress at this point. If enough red-wall voters "feel" that it is...combined with them also being insulted for feeling that way, then there's your red-wall gone....or at least seriously "breached."

 

Right bunch of moaners these Red wall voters, thick as 2 short planks the lot of them.

I think many of those views were formed a few years back

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Having interviewed many, she says that:

"one aspect of red-wall opinion was that Labour had been taken over by a bunch of middle-class, snooty graduates who looked down on people like them."

She posits that they're:

"not wrong there"

...and that whenever she tweets anything about the red wall, she tends to get replies from people saying things like:

"bunch of racists"

"they just need educating.."

"if only they knew the clever things I know.." she says, paraphrasing the sense of hubris she detects.

Etc etc...

"..which really sums up the problem." she says.

"Let's blame the electorate, let's make it all their fault..." she concludes, again paraphrasing the disconnect she's discovered.

Yes, this fits in very well with the attitudes and responses I was alluding to amongst some of my own Labour voting peers who decided to withhold their Labour vote during the last election.There seems to be increasing feeling that "Southern Labour" holds a large swathe of it's own Northern membership in contempt, and that this contempt became utterly palpable throughout (and after) the last election.

As I also stated, it seems as though there is absolutely NO genuine or sincere intention to support or court the feelings and concerns of these red-wall voters, whereas the Tories....were at least able to offer them "something" which they believed to be an act of progress.

There's no point arguing whether or not "Brexit" is or isn't an act of progress at this point. If enough red-wall voters "feel" that it is...combined with them also being insulted for feeling that way, then there's your red-wall gone....or at least seriously "breached."

 

Well if someone does something clearly stupid - like sticking their head in a lion or something then if someone says "Ey mate - you're stupid doing that" then are you saying that this isn't fair comment?

Brexit was clearly stupid for people that weren't hiding millions in offshore accounts/gaming the system/betting against the pound - so why shouldn't it be OK to say "Ey. You're all stupid for doing that if it doesn't actually do you any good"


Seems fair enough calling stupid people stupid

[TSC]

There's no point arguing whether or not "Brexit" is or isn't an act of progress at this point. If enough red-wall voters "feel" that it is...combined with them also being insulted for feeling that way, then there's your red-wall gone....or at least seriously "breached."

 

Given the current crisis there’s every point in looking at Brexit impacts.  Meanwhile Dominic Raab now trying to scrap EU Human Rights laws with respect to it’s application in the UK

https://www.thejusticegap.com/raab-promises-to-end-nonsense-of-human-rights-act/

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/ill-curb-european-judges-power-6072160

[Zeb]

Counterargument is that throwing Brexit into the mix is just reigniting an old debate which has its lines already clearly formed up. Focus on the effects of Brexit and seek a mandate to improve them instead and a party in government (Labour may have a chance this side of 2030) can cheat code it as dull technical detail to make the food get onto the shelves on time. It won't be a mandate to reverse Brexit but then I suspect even the Lib Dems realise that's gone for a generation too.

----

Would just caution against reading Mattinson thoughts as being solely about Brexit. It was a part but not the most significant part of 2019's result. But it has become a useful proxy for all sorts of things on a longer term trend accelerated by other things from 2015 to 2019. Where all this research leads to is another thing again because pulling random focus groups together is one thing and getting people to being willing to reverse a major decision to vote Tory is another. Some of these voters are not going to be voting Labour again in their lives so it's prioritising those who are open to being 'wooed' and moving on from there.

[Red-Soldier]

Given the current crisis there’s every point in looking at Brexit impacts.  Meanwhile Dominic Raab now trying to scrap EU Human Rights laws with respect to it’s application in the UK

https://www.thejusticegap.com/raab-promises-to-end-nonsense-of-human-rights-act/

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/uk-world-news/ill-curb-european-judges-power-6072160

Back in 2009, Mr Raab stated: ‘I don’t support the Human Rights Act and I don’t believe in economic and social rights.’

[oldfordie]

Well if someone does something clearly stupid - like sticking their head in a lion or something then if someone says "Ey mate - you're stupid doing that" then are you saying that this isn't fair comment?

Brexit was clearly stupid for people that weren't hiding millions in offshore accounts/gaming the system/betting against the pound - so why shouldn't it be OK to say "Ey. You're all stupid for doing that if it doesn't actually do you any good"


Seems fair enough calling stupid people stupid

It's the same old story. which Labour MPs said they were stupid, which Labour MP even hinted they were stupid, these opinions were given to them a few years back and they trot it out to defend their view on Brexit.
Labour have moved on, it's not about fighting Brexit and it's also not about calling leve voters stupid in the hope they change their opinions, it's about scrutiny. it's about raising problems UK companies face due to leaving the EU, we should all want to know the answers and solutions to these problems rather than ignoring them, ignoring them gave us the problems we have today, ignoring them has led to companies closing, lost jobs. the list goes on and on. the point is Labour are not raising these issues to convince leave voters to re -join the EU because they think they made a stupid decision. they are speaking to ALL voters whether they voted remain or leave.
I think Starmer knows what the problem is, there's no point arguing to re-join the EU right now, the Torys have a majority and there's sod all Labour can do to change our direction on Brexit. the time to make that argument will come naturally when attitudes change.
That's just brexit. trust on the economy is another battle, fighting long held opinions which are hard to change.
Corbyns left have gone back to the luxery of being on the back benches, saying anything they think there supporters will cheer knowing they don't have the pressure of the hot seat of being the leaders of the opposition. knowing they won't be in the hot seat being grilled trying to justify there policy's.
£15 min wage. Labour would be torn apart. why didn't we hear these arguments when they were in the hot seat? they knew they would be torn apart.

[Alan_X]

Stephen Collins in yesterday's Guardian:

[TepidT2O]

[Shankly998]

Stephen Collins in yesterday's Guardian:

So true its tragic, if only the labour party was as good at fighting elections as it is at fighting itself...

[Nobby Reserve]

Having interviewed many, she says that:

"one aspect of red-wall opinion was that Labour had been taken over by a bunch of middle-class, snooty graduates who looked down on people like them."

So they switched their votes to a bunch of upper-class, snooty public schoolboys/girls who looked down on people like them.


Makes absolutely perfect sense.

[Zeb]

*stares hard at who was running the Labour party in 2019* Imagine what they thought of Labour. And there's fair grounds of criticism before then with the Oxbridge to SPAD to safe seat conveyor belt within Labour prior to then, think Mattinson raises that in the interview too. But it's about perception of being responsive to the voters' needs/wants and a competency to do a job as much as reality, eg Andy Burnham's hardly struggling with all his disadvantages (!) in being parachuted into Leigh after that career path. Sense I get from those I know who've been accepted onto candidate training is that the aim is in bringing forward local candidates so far as that's possible and I'd be surprised if it turned into parachuting them from eg Islington to Leicester.

[Nobby Reserve]

*stares hard at who was running the Labour party in 2019* Imagine what they thought of Labour. And there's fair grounds of criticism before then with the Oxbridge to SPAD to safe seat conveyor belt within Labour prior to then, think Mattinson raises that in the interview too. But it's about perception of being responsive to the voters' needs/wants and a competency to do a job as much as reality, eg Andy Burnham's hardly struggling with all his disadvantages (!) in being parachuted into Leigh after that career path. Sense I get from those I know who've been accepted onto candidate training is that the aim is in bringing forward local candidates so far as that's possible and I'd be surprised if it turned into parachuting them from eg Islington to Leicester.

Burnham may have been parachuted, but Leigh was the neighbouring seat to where he grew up - the border is literally about a 10/15 walk from his childhood home. Not many MPs in seats more local to them.

[Zeb]

Burnham may have been parachuted, but Leigh was the neighbouring seat to where he grew up - the border is literally about a 10/15 walk from his childhood home. Not many MPs in seats more local to them.

There is usually some sort of link to justify it, yeah, candidates are often asked to give a list of seats they have links to for them to be considered for. Think the change of approach is in the PPC having been visibly active in the community prior to standing. Won't always be possible either so there will be counterexamples when it comes round to choosing. Think too much is made of Johnson's public persona, and it's probably unhelpful to propagate it as it usually ends up absolving him of responsibility for not actually delivering. There's a weird gap for many in a carefully prepared show being treated as authenticity.

-----

edit: Thought this was really interesting given some of the attempts at a narrative over the past few weeks.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/10/15/how-britain-voting-autumn-2021



It basically boils down to a 5.5% swing to Labour since 2019 among those who voted 'Leave' in 2016. But no swing at all among those who voted 'Remain'. The 'Remain' question is pretty fascinating because of the amount of the 'don't knows' (1 in 5) who could change and also because the 'net' change to Labour isn't that it's a reflection of no change at all just the net result of changes both to and from. Yougov has a house effect which seems to pick up on Labour to Green switchers but there's a question there on how many of those potential Green voters won't be swayed to vote Labour for a general election. Does suggest that things are tightening in the polls, although we're a long way out from an election for it to matter for anything but the political commentary's background noise.

[Nobby Reserve]

edit: Thought this was really interesting given some of the attempts at a narrative over the past few weeks.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/10/15/how-britain-voting-autumn-2021



It basically boils down to a 5.5% swing to Labour since 2019 among those who voted 'Leave' in 2016. But no swing at all among those who voted 'Remain'. The 'Remain' question is pretty fascinating because of the amount of the 'don't knows' (1 in 5) who could change and also because the 'net' change to Labour isn't that it's a reflection of no change at all just the net result of changes both to and from. Yougov has a house effect which seems to pick up on Labour to Green switchers but there's a question there on how many of those potential Green voters won't be swayed to vote Labour for a general election. Does suggest that things are tightening in the polls, although we're a long way out from an election for it to matter for anything but the political commentary's background noise.

That doesn't seem a very good prognosis for Labour.

Whether voting Remain or Leave, then Labour in 2019, only ~77% say they would vote for Labour in a GE now (compared to ~84% of the 2019 Tory vote staying Tory)

Like you say, very early in the electoral cycle, and YouGov do overestimate the Green vote, but the most concerning stat is that 9% of voters who voted Leave in 2016 and Labour 2019 would now vote Tory.

Actual leftists who no longer choose to vote Labour wouldn't switch to Tory (they'd go Green or not vote), and you'd think any centrist would be more attracted to Labour under the soft-left Starmer than under further-left Corbyn.

[Zeb]

That doesn't seem a very good prognosis for Labour.

Whether voting Remain or Leave, then Labour in 2019, only ~77% say they would vote for Labour in a GE now (compared to ~84% of the 2019 Tory vote staying Tory)

Like you say, very early in the electoral cycle, and YouGov do overestimate the Green vote, but the most concerning stat is that 9% of voters who voted Leave in 2016 and Labour 2019 would now vote Tory.

Actual leftists who no longer choose to vote Labour wouldn't switch to Tory (they'd go Green or not vote), and you'd think any centrist would be more attracted to Labour under the soft-left Starmer than under further-left Corbyn.

I put some text below to explain the swing in absolute terms, rather than the relative ones, in the hope the difference would be clearer. In absolute terms, among 2016 Leave voters the Tory share is down 10 points and the Labour share is up 1 point, or a 5.5% swing to Labour. So it's good in those terms. Wonderful? Nah but it's not that the electorate are fixated on voting Tory regardless of circumstances. Obviously looking only at those retained and those leaving from 2019 isn't ever going to present a winning picture for Labour. Even retaining 100% of those voters would still give the Tories a landslide.

[Dr. Beaker]

The big question is, will Johnson get through his tribute to Amess without mentioning the brilliant vaccination roll-out.

[TSC]

The big question is, will Johnson get through his tribute to Amess without mentioning the brilliant vaccination roll-out.

Well he’s afforded Southend ‘city’ status as a tribute.

[Dr. Beaker]

Well he’s afforded Southend ‘city’ status as a tribute.

I suppose that means a load of Tory voters get more public money lavished on them.