Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It isn't. The Tory Party haven't passed 50% of the vote since 1931. Even at their 1979 peak, they only got 43.9%

It's just that for almost all that time, the Tory Party has been the only party positioning itself right-of-centre. When it was threatened on the right by UKIP campaigning on an anti-EU ticket (which took almost as many Labour-leaning voters), it threw the entire country under the Brexit bus to lance that boil of a threat to its electoral position.

Labour have had the Lid Dems nibbling at them from the centre (and from a position to Labour's left in that 01-10 era), whilst the SNP have battered them in Scotland from the left, and increasingly there's the Greens increasing support from the environmental-left.

I'd say that the country are generally conservative (With a small c) and many don't really care about politics unless it affects them directly.

So when Corbyn (Not picking on him, just using an example) talks about Palestine (Which to him and the left is a very important topic) then many voters can't see what it's got to do with them and generally don't care.

This is why popularism is gaining traction I think - because they make everything seem relevant and make everything seem easy. When you're a lying grifter like Johnson or Cameron or Trump or Frottage then there is no expectation that you're telling the truth or that the truth even matters - the expectation is that what they are saying is somehow relatable to your situation and that you're somehow affected.

Corbyn has a long history of opposing the Labour Party and has a long history of projects that the 'bubble' he's in see as very important and I'm not knocking that, but things that are being promised have to be relatable to enough people to get you across the line.

Tories are (Somehow!!!?!) seen as 'a safe pair of hands' that 'don't rock the boat' and 'keep things like they are' - when in reality, they are far worse with the economy than Labour - they leave a mess whenever they leave. They are worse with public services, they are worse with all the things that matter to people, but the spin is that they 'spend more' and 'do more' and 'can be trusted'

People don't really seem to trust Labour any more - they think they're a bunch of fucking loons from interviews I've seen of 'the average people' on the TV.

This is why I think Starmer might be more important than you think. He's serious, he's sensible, he's professional and he's clearly not a loony (loony left) - he's a bit like a bank manager and some peopel may not 'love' him, but he's fairly bland and I think that's what Labour needs at the moment.

The Tories are coming across as absolutely nutjobs. Someone calm, composed, factual and 'normal' might go a long way to getting the Party back to being trusted..

[Sangria]

True. Labour will have to spend far more to clean up the mess the Torys leave as well.
The Torys will wind up the gullible over Labour spending too much, many will be angry without considering if the money spent actually improved their lives, in come the Torys again, slash every improvement Labour made while spending even more than Labour did. yet the same people who were angered at Labour overspending don't even give it a second thought.
Any tosser can make cuts, actually making cuts and saving money are two different things, the Torys cuts have cost this country more than the services they cut.

That's why I think "sustainable" is the most workable theme for Labour to use, to contrast with the Tories. It sidesteps most of the existing political discussions and focuses on how the Tories are mismanaging the country. It's also agreeable enough to the non-batshit centre-right that there's a realistic chance of getting some of them to vote for it.

[hide5seek]

Not sure what people expect from him?
Covid he's sat between a rock and hard place. If he tells the gov to pull their finger out etc he's not patriotic/using unavoidable deaths as a means to attack the gov. What do they call it? Weaponising the pandemic (were in a don't believe experts and I don't believe the truth age), not Starmer's fault.

Thousands upon thousands dead and people think as a country we couldn't do better? Those in charge during the pandemic have convinced people they've done a good job and couldn't have done any more to save lives, how is that Starmer's fault? Pretty sure if that many had died and Labour had been in charge they'd be slaughtered in the polls.
It seems to be a case of the vaccination is good (funny how the press aren't telling us how the EU is catching us up on that point?), furlough gave millions a giant paid holiday (not for all though) and a "don't piss on my chips as I get ready for freedom" attitude seems to prevalent among the population (sod that the virus has not gone away and the gov allows it to run through the people new variants could pop up and hey presto back to the start we go).

Many people (looking at you red-wallers) believe the Tory lie that austerity was needed and that it was a different Tory party (haha fucking ha).

It's not Starmer's fault so many people are gullible (trying not to say thick)and actually believe Johnson gives a shit about them. They'll have to learn and suffer the hard way as they see public services ruined (somewhere eventually the idiots will realise they need the public services to have a decent life, well you'd think?)

It's pretty pointless Starmer talking policy too early as most aren't listening (we're going to have our freedom) and anything good the Tories steal as their own and anything else is Marxist bullshit.

I think it really could be a case of seeing how the next 2 years pans out and how much suffering (or more suffering I should say) and see if that moves the polling dial? I mean, any Tory/Boris lie/corruption/smear seems to be good enough for the public...who'd have thought we had so many racist/homophobe knob heads in the country?

[Nobby Reserve]

I'd say that the country are generally conservative (With a small c) and many don't really care about politics unless it affects them directly.

You'll have the define 'conservative' because it's become a bit of an adaptable phrase, depending on who'd using it.

I don't think the current population is, overall, conservative. It increases with age obviously - but id this a symptom of becoming more bitter and cantankerous with age? Or the fact that those in their 70's and above were born in the 30's/40's when social oppression with a puritanical stain were the norm?

So when Corbyn (Not picking on him, just using an example) talks about Palestine (Which to him and the left is a very important topic) then many voters can't see what it's got to do with them and generally don't care.

Most of the older ones who express support for the Palestinian cause were also active in the anti-Apartheid movement, which was a popular movement generally in the country (even when The Thatcher was praising it and branding those who fought against it as terrorists, before jumping on the Mandela bandwagon)

I appreciate it's not exactly the same, but in terms of an indigenous population being subjected to atrocities and treated as second class citizens by an invading and occupying group, there are parallels.

This is why popularism is gaining traction I think - because they make everything seem relevant and make everything seem easy. When you're a lying grifter like Johnson or Cameron or Trump or Frottage then there is no expectation that you're telling the truth or that the truth even matters - the expectation is that what they are saying is somehow relatable to your situation and that you're somehow affected.

This particular brand of right-wing, nationalist populism has become entrenched because many people have an instinctive mistrust of 'strangers', and the British psyche has an arrogance with its foundations in Empire and two world wars, which has been exploited by the right-wing media to gaslight them into demonising the EU & immigrants for all the ills afflicting their lives (the cause of which are more the corporate-capitalist economic model that has resulted in an ever-increasing share of the national income being hoarded by a relatively tiny number of super-rich owners of capital)

Corbyn has a long history of opposing the Labour Party and has a long history of projects that the 'bubble' he's in see as very important and I'm not knocking that, but things that are being promised have to be relatable to enough people to get you across the line.

Corbyn was a disastrous choice for leader.

The groundswell of support that propelled him to the leadership was for his politics and principles, and for a marked change in the political direction. But he was just fucking wank at the leadership thing and the flip side of him being seen as outside 'the establishment' and sticking to his principles was the entire baggage train he brought with him.

As a result, leftist econo-politics have been dumped in the naughty corner for another generation.

I do wonder if Corbyn had had the sort of charisma, eloquence, 'star appeal' and political agility of, say, Blair, and had a good team behind him, how different things would have turned out.

Tories are (Somehow!!!?!) seen as 'a safe pair of hands' that 'don't rock the boat' and 'keep things like they are' - when in reality, they are far worse with the economy than Labour - they leave a mess whenever they leave. They are worse with public services, they are worse with all the things that matter to people, but the spin is that they 'spend more' and 'do more' and 'can be trusted'

Agreed. It's an eternal puzzle. But again, the predominantly right-wing media helps massively to set the untrue narrative.

People don't really seem to trust Labour any more - they think they're a bunch of fucking loons from interviews I've seen of 'the average people' on the TV.

Labour don't help themselves by very publicly micro-focusing on issues that just aren't important to the vast majority of the population. 'Minority rights' are massively important, and should never be abandoned (strengthened if anything) but they also shouldn't be given absolute prominence within policy manifestos.

This is why I think Starmer might be more important than you think. He's serious, he's sensible, he's professional and he's clearly not a loony (loony left) - he's a bit like a bank manager and some peopel may not 'love' him, but he's fairly bland and I think that's what Labour needs at the moment.

He's coming across as an irrelevant sideshow.

He's not helped by Hoyle being a pathetic Speaker who lets Bozo evade answering anything and lie through his back teeth.

But the forensic approach isn't working. Maybe a 'good cop, bad cop' approach would be better - having a trusted lieutenant throwing the headline-grabbing punches at Bozo and his corrupt government. But they all seem far too nice and timid. Labour in that pre-97 period had people like Prescott, Cook, Straw, Blunkett and more all landing heavy blows, in a variety of styles, on Major's government.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

But the forensic approach isn't working. Maybe a 'good cop, bad cop' approach would be better - having a trusted lieutenant throwing the headline-grabbing punches at Bozo and his corrupt government. But they all seem far too nice and timid. Labour in that pre-97 period had people like Prescott, Cook, Straw, Blunkett and more all landing heavy blows, in a variety of styles, on Major's government.

Yeah I meant conservative (small c) rather than Conservative (Tory)


That lad that stood up today in PMQT and gave Johnson both barrels up the arse could be a good second in command (Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi )

Looks like he's not afraid to call them for what they are.

[hide5seek]

Of course, if your on the TV a lot (Boris) a lot of people will vote for you because they know you.

Pretty sure Corbyn did better polling is in 2017 after the election started because he was a TV more.

[Nobby Reserve]

Yeah I meant conservative (small c) rather than Conservative (Tory)

I know that.

But the interpretations of 'conservative' and 'liberal' have come to mean different things to different people.

I've always though of conservative (small 'c') as leaning toward the puritanical, pro-nuclear family, pro-monarchy, pro-censorship, pro-church, anti-drugs, anti-LBGT, varying degrees of racism. A scale on which Mary Whitehouse would sit.

But I know others view it as more nationalism/patriotism (two sides of the same shitty coin, IMO) and protecting the 'national culture'

[Wild Romany Boy]

Of course, if your on the TV a lot (Boris) a lot of people will vote for you because they know you.

Pretty sure Corbyn did better polling is in 2017 after the election started because he was a TV more.

Another reason was rules of purdah came in. When he got the chance for fair coverage the discrepancy with what he was portrayed as and what he actually was became stark.

[filopastry]

Another reason was rules of purdah came in. When he got the chance for fair coverage the discrepancy with what he was portrayed as and what he actually was became stark.

Labour ran a good campaign in 2017, but its hard to know how much that influenced opinion vs the bloody terrible campaign the Tories ran, incl May putting policies like the "dementia tax" out there that were loathed by her core voters (and the group of voters most likely to actually vote)

The 2019 campaign on the other hand didn't seem to move the dial much apart from the early days where Labour consolidated some of the LD vote (which is kind of why they had to jump on the second ref policy)

[Nobby Reserve]

Labour ran a good campaign in 2017, but its hard to know how much that influenced opinion vs the bloody terrible campaign the Tories ran, incl May putting policies like the "dementia tax" out there that were loathed by her core voters (and the group of voters most likely to actually vote)

The 2019 campaign on the other hand didn't seem to move the dial much apart from the early days where Labour consolidated some of the LD vote (which is kind of why they had to jump on the second ref policy)

In 2017, whether by accident or design, a Labour policy of 'deliberate ambiguity' on the Brexit/second Ref question was in place.

A lot of Remainers that would never ordinarily vote for a Corbyn-led Labour 'lent' them their vote, as they perceived Labour to be the best chance of stopping the hard-Brexit the Tories were already trying to get through.

But most/many Labour-Leavers hadn't yet become convinced that Labour were soft on Brexit and wanting to 'overturn it'.

The manifesto was also nowhere near as hard-left as some had been forecasting.


By 2019, Labour had adopted a confirmatory referendum as policy and lost the Labour-Leave vote. Their manifesto had more hard-left policy - and in the campaign, they were throwing new policy after new policy into the fray to try to buy votes.

Also, Bozo was giving out a clear commitment to a hard Brexit and people were suckered by his 'oven ready deal' lies.

[oldfordie]

Labour ran a good campaign in 2017, but its hard to know how much that influenced opinion vs the bloody terrible campaign the Tories ran, incl May putting policies like the "dementia tax" out there that were loathed by her core voters (and the group of voters most likely to actually vote)

The 2019 campaign on the other hand didn't seem to move the dial much apart from the early days where Labour consolidated some of the LD vote (which is kind of why they had to jump on the second ref policy)

There should never have been a 2019 General Election, it was irresponsible to give Johnson the election he desperately needed to achieve power. Corbyn went into auto pilot demanding a election without ever stopping to think whether this was in his or the countries best interest. it was unforgivable, the damage will be felt for decades to come.

[filopastry]

In 2017, whether by accident or design, a Labour policy of 'deliberate ambiguity' on the Brexit/second Ref question was in place.

A lot of Remainers that would never ordinarily vote for a Corbyn-led Labour 'lent' them their vote, as they perceived Labour to be the best chance of stopping the hard-Brexit the Tories were already trying to get through.

But most/many Labour-Leavers hadn't yet become convinced that Labour were soft on Brexit and wanting to 'overturn it'.

The manifesto was also nowhere near as hard-left as some had been forecasting.


By 2019, Labour had adopted a confirmatory referendum as policy and lost the Labour-Leave vote. Their manifesto had more hard-left policy - and in the campaign, they were throwing new policy after new policy into the fray to try to buy votes.

Also, Bozo was giving out a clear commitment to a hard Brexit and people were suckered by his 'oven ready deal' lies.

The bit that is often ignored on the policy change though is they didn't have much choice, the debate had hardened into Second ref/Remain v Hard Brexit, the constructive ambiguity wasn't working anymore for Labour, the European election disaster effectively ended that and in national polling for Westminster elections they were running pretty much neck and neck with the LDs.

By 2019 Labour had run out of good options with regards to Brexit policy

[Andy @ Allerton!]

The bit that is often ignored on the policy change though is they didn't have much choice, the debate had hardened into Second ref/Remain v Hard Brexit, the constructive ambiguity wasn't working anymore for Labour, the European election disaster effectively ended that and in national polling for Westminster elections they were running pretty much neck and neck with the LDs.

By 2019 Labour had run out of good options with regards to Brexit policy

SO decided to go for it and fuck off all the Remain voters (Which was the vast majority of the Labour voters)

[Nobby Reserve]

SO decided to go for it and fuck off all the Remain voters (Which was the vast majority of the Labour voters)

They actually adopted the confirmatory referendum (with an option to Remain) as party policy.

[Dr. Beaker]

That lad that stood up today in PMQT and gave Johnson both barrels up the arse could be a good second in command (Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi )

Not the first time he's done that.

[Wild Romany Boy]

They actually adopted the confirmatory referendum (with an option to Remain) as party policy.

Yeah. Not sure anyone can say it was a bone to the leavers by adopting that referendum.

[Linudden]

If the second ref would've been EEA vs the deal then I think Labour would've done a lot better. That being said, having Corbyn and McDonnell around was never going to help once the novelty factor of 2017 had been worn off.

[Zeb]

It was a slow grinding process to get there on Labour's shift of policy, and only because McDonnell eventually saw what Starmer and others were pointing out from the polling that Labour were heading for a result much, much worse than the one they did get in 2019. Ian Lavery, nominally in charge of running the 2019 election campaign, was convinced that the polls were a Tory plot right through it all and right up to the end of the 2019 campaign. If you're looking for things Starmer has got right, it's that he's put people in who understand that running a defensive campaign in a seat isn't a Blairite plot and that the polling Labour pays for and the analysis of it isn't a secret Tory one. So much of it all sounds so basic but Parliament's homeopathy lobby weren't very good at understanding anything which conflicted with their prebaked ideology that there was mass movement going to sweep them into power and hostile to learning anything which conflicted with their view that 2017 was a glorious success.

[petecolonia]

Just a complete shell of a thinking, feeling person, typical barrister scum to be conservative about it. Mach 2 of Maggie's greatest greatest achievement in New Labour and war criminal Tony Blair.

Bonus Israel Apartheid shilling and the traditional purge of any real left whilst they're at it. The Green Party leader was on Owen Jones and she's actually really, really good! Better than C Lucas even. Strong and principled leader.

Abandon Labour now, build the Greens, get involved with the unions, support the Progressive International agenda. Not nearly perfect, but our best shot.

[Sangria]

Just a complete shell of a thinking, feeling person, typical barrister scum to be conservative about it. Mach 2 of Maggie's greatest greatest achievement in New Labour and war criminal Tony Blair.

Bonus Israel Apartheid shilling and the traditional purge of any real left whilst they're at it. The Green Party leader was on Owen Jones and she's actually really, really good! Better than C Lucas even. Strong and principled leader.

Abandon Labour now, build the Greens, get involved with the unions, support the Progressive International agenda. Not nearly perfect, but our best shot.

Bingo!

[Wild Romany Boy]

Just a complete shell of a thinking, feeling person, typical barrister scum to be conservative about it. Mach 2 of Maggie's greatest greatest achievement in New Labour and war criminal Tony Blair.

Bonus Israel Apartheid shilling and the traditional purge of any real left whilst they're at it. The Green Party leader was on Owen Jones and she's actually really, really good! Better than C Lucas even. Strong and principled leader.

Abandon Labour now, build the Greens, get involved with the unions, support the Progressive International agenda. Not nearly perfect, but our best shot.

She came across really, really well. Probably the most informative one he's done on his channel.

[oldfordie]

Just a complete shell of a thinking, feeling person, typical barrister scum to be conservative about it. Mach 2 of Maggie's greatest greatest achievement in New Labour and war criminal Tony Blair.

Bonus Israel Apartheid shilling and the traditional purge of any real left whilst they're at it. The Green Party leader was on Owen Jones and she's actually really, really good! Better than C Lucas even. Strong and principled leader.

Abandon Labour now, build the Greens, get involved with the unions, support the Progressive International agenda. Not nearly perfect, but our best shot.

Ive heard arguments like this before on here in the past. would the campaiging switch to vote Labour if a extreme left winger led the party again.?
Ive no problem with you supporting the Greens but why are you campaigning to get Labour supporters to switch votes to Green.?  you are actually making 2 arguments here, vote for the Green party, don't vote Labour.  the realty is it's a argument for a Tory majority government.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Ive heard arguments like this before on here in the past. would the campaiging switch to vote Labour if a extreme left winger led the party again.?
Ive no problem with you supporting the Greens but why are you campaigning to get Labour supporters to switch votes to Green.?  you are actually making 2 arguments here, vote for the Green party, don't vote Labour.  the realty is it's a argument for a Tory majority government.

It's small price to pay for some non-specified (but surely) barking-mad principle.

[oldfordie]

It's small price to pay for some non-specified (but surely) barking-mad principle.

Is that principle about wanting to improve lives and creating a decent caring society? am sure many think it is, I doubt it.
Only 1 principle guides my views, supporting and defending people who do want to improve lives. if 10s of millions of people thought the same then we would have a permanent Labour government in power with the confidence to actually improve lives.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Is that principle about wanting to improve lives and creating a decent caring society? am sure many think it is, I doubt it.
Only 1 principle guides my views, supporting and defending people who do want to improve lives. if 10s of millions of people thought the same then we would have a permanent Labour government in power with the confidence to actually improve lives.

I think it is something more esoteric, 'pure', unachievable, and would not work in practice anyway.

When in Government, it is inevitable that the winning party will be unable to deliver on all their promises. They will compromise - always. So, may as well get your compromises in early (before voting) to help secure victory. Then you can deliver on at least some of your aims.

I am not advocating for pure pragmatism either (and stand for nothing). Rather, lead where you can, but understand that the electorate are extremely diverse and individually will seek all manner of things. Purists never understand this, see comprise as betrayal, and would rather die fighting for their 'ideals'.

[Bobsackamano]

However its the poor who do the dying while they fight for their ideals.

[Sangria]

However its the poor who do the dying while they fight for their ideals.

Does it matter to them? All they want to do is win the argument on the left. See them object to Starmer raising issues with Johnson's wide-ranging opening up of restrictions, by pointing to a picture of Starmer without a mask watching the football (more than likely a PR piece) and calling him a hypocrite. Sure, they may have won the argument on the left against Starmer. But it neutralises a line of attack against Johnson.

And yeah, most of those calling out Starmer on this supported Galloway in the recent by-election.

[ToneLa]

He'll do. No point wanting Corbyn back. I back Starmer cause he's leader.

I'd back any leader and vote for any Labour leader because Labour are the only chance to get the Tories out.

Feel Starmer gets a bad rep by those hung up on Corbyn but then I also think Keir is a slightly-Blairite style fella and I wish he'd trade in his analyctical style for just outright torture of Boris, pull no punches mate, choose a few hard lines - the NHS - and absolutely go after them.

Still rather Starmer than anyone else right now. That's not an optimum state of affairs but that's politics for you.

[Mutton Geoff]

 clever very forensic but lacks any passion or the ability to really inspire voters in my opinion , but i still think he is a stop gap trying to steady the ship till a better choice comes along

[TepidT2O]

clever very forensic but lacks any passion or the ability to really inspire voters in my opinion , but i still think he is a stop gap trying to steady the ship till a better choice comes along

Probably agree..

[hide5seek]

clever very forensic but lacks any passion or the ability to really inspire voters in my opinion , but i still think he is a stop gap trying to steady the ship till a better choice comes along

If losing public services, rights, benefit cuts doesn't inspire voters then there's not a lot Starmer can do.
Starmer will make a good PM.

[Yorkykopite]

Average.

Though, compared to the previous bloke, absolutely sensational.

Although the previous bloke did know a lot more about manhole covers.

[Zeb]

Thought this was a good attempt at a critique. It's by Simon Fletcher, who's on the left of the party to the extent he could manage Corbyn's leadership campaign, who recently moved out from Starmer's office where he was working on the strategy for the next general election. Obviously, agree with bits, disagree with other bits, and it's fairly clear (without being snide) where the disagreement over strategy was in the office.

Spoiler

The leader of the opposition and their staff occupy a suite of offices in the Norman Shaw South building on the parliamentary estate. Historic Labour posters line the walls of the corridors, many of them unchanged since the tenures of Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn, and now Keir Starmer. It is a privilege to work there. It is a listed building with stunning views of the Thames and across to County Hall, right at the heart of Westminster politics.

But Labour’s presence in these offices also reflects a failure. Its leaders have now been working from here for too long. If there is one thing that every Labour person ought to have in their minds when they enter that office, it’s that we’ve got to get out of this place.

I have been fortunate enough to work in Norman Shaw South under three Labour leaders. As I am no longer there, it seems appropriate that I should try to make a contribution to the conversation about how Labour improves its position, drawing on my recent experiences in the leader’s office.

The Conservatives have cornered the market in he-said-she-said exercises in self-justification by former aides. If you have come here for that, I am afraid you will be disappointed.

***

Keir Starmer’s election constituted the strongest possible mandate for an incoming Labour leader. In the one-person, one-vote election, he secured a convincing majority among party members and affiliated supporters having already won the backing of a majority of Labour MPs. Unlike his two predecessors, Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband, he enjoyed an enviable mandate from all sections of the party’s electorate. With that unusually strong position came a reservoir of goodwill.

Of course it was never going to be a breeze. Starmer became leader in the most unusual circumstances imaginable. The Covid-19 lockdown changed not only the context of conventional politics but even how politics is done: how meetings happen, how speeches take place, how parties speak to voters and campaign.

The reason it is so often said that being leader of the opposition is one of the most difficult jobs in politics is because it is true. I’ve seen how thankless a task it can be for whoever occupies the position. You control relatively few events yourself. You are defined to a great degree by how you respond to an agenda set by others.

For all this, in the early months of Starmer’s leadership, voters responded well to Labour’s navigation of the Covid crisis. This strong start ought to have been a foundation for the revival of a beleaguered and defeated party.

Yet Labour now once again trails the Tories by a double-digit margin in the polls. A great part of the goodwill that was secured by Starmer’s victory has been eroded. And Labour is still seen as divided.

These things are connected. Central to a great deal of these problems is the leadership’s failure to secure its base – both internally and externally – and to define itself. If neither members nor voters have a strong sense of what Labour stands for, the party is inherently vulnerable.

***

So what has happened to Labour’s position? The Conservatives are undeniably enjoying a vaccine bounce. Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley has dated the beginning of Labour’s present woes from when the UK’s Margaret Keenan became the first patient in the world to receive the Pfizer vaccine on 8 December 2020. But the vaccine bounce cannot explain everything. In particular, in England, it does not explain the loss of votes and support to the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. It cannot explain the decline of Keir Starmer’s ratings among Labour supporters. And despite the vaccine bounce, on 18 June the Lib Dems won the Chesham and Amersham seat from the Tories on a swing of 25 per cent.

If we chart the course of the polls since Starmer became leader, we see that Labour made impressive and steady advances during 2020, at times moving ahead of the Conservatives. Given the tendency for electorates across the world to give incumbent leaders the benefit of the doubt at times of national crisis, this represented a solid recovery by Labour.

Starmer’s net approval rating was similarly impressive and remained positive in 2020. But throughout this period, negative sentiment steadily rose and eventually surpassed positive opinion in the spring of this year. As the polling expert Chris Curtis tweeted in January, “one trend that has stood out... is that Starmer’s approval rating has been declining fairly consistently.”

Crucially, at this stage a major factor was dissatisfaction among Labour voters. Polling by Opinium found that among 2019 Tory voters, Starmer’s approval rating fell from -2 in June 2020 to -17 in January 2021. Among 2019 Labour supporters, it fell from +78 to +35.

The base was not secure. Labour could not rely on approval from its core vote – people who stuck with the party in 2019. It is considerably harder to advance in politics if people who don’t support you believe that you can’t or won’t win. You have to be an attractive prospect and losing support from your own base resonates beyond it.

***

The voters who returned to Labour in the aftermath of the 2020 leadership election were primarily those who voted Labour in 2017 but then defected to the Lib Dems or the Greens in 2019.

At first, for some of these voters, that Labour had started afresh under a new leader was enough to win them over. Politics, however, is not static. It is a process. Retaining the support of these voters, and of core Labour voters, required more work – particularly as the party had to simultaneously pursue the harder-to-reach voters who deserted Labour for the Tories or the Brexit Party in 2019.

Labour Together’s report into the 2019 election addresses this tension between retention and expansion. It is a fair-minded document and its findings have been presented and discussed at shadow cabinet meetings a number of times.

As it says, “Labour needs to build a winning coalition of voters which spans generations, geographies and outlooks. This requires holding on to our current voter base (which should not be taken for granted), mobilising and inspiring more younger voters to turn out for Labour, as was achieved in 2017, while at the same time building a bridge with former Labour voters who are very distant from Labour presently, and attracting more swing voters.”

Labour Together repeats its point that to win, voters cannot be taken for granted: “Many city-based and academic seats were lost by Labour to the Liberal Democrats and even the Conservatives in 2005 and 2010. High levels of switching and tactical voting among these electorates mean Labour cannot take for granted advances it has made in these areas over recent elections.”

It further emphasised that “too often Labour has taken for granted the support of BAME voters.”

All of this is correct. One hazard for Labour during the second half of 2020 was that the charge that we were only interested in one group of voters – former Labour voters who opted for the Tories or the Brexit Party in 2019 – began to stick. Some also began to believe that we were focus group-led and inclined to abstain rather than take a position.

We had the worst of all worlds: failing to win over Tory and Brexit Party voters while losing support among Lib Dem and Green voters and, at the same time, seeing satisfaction decline among core voters.

We have to be honest that one of the biggest causes of this quandary was a lack of definition. There are many things that have to be done between now and a general election, some of them tactically very difficult, but without more definition the voters will find it hard to form an opinion.

An early bush fire over what Labour stands for came in the case of tax in the summer of 2020. The party’s line was that nothing should be done to take demand out of the economy, either through spending cuts or tax rises.

But it is one thing to say there should be no tax rises during an economic crisis and another to be unable to signal the progressive values that will shape your long-term approach. Faced with questions last July over whether Labour would support tax increases on higher earners – such as those earning over £80,000 – frontbench MPs struggled to defend the principle that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden.

Among the consequences of this were reports that Starmer’s leadership campaign commitments had been jettisoned. In situations such as this, consequences flow: members and strong Labour supporters react with dismay or at least irritation; the wider public cannot work out where Labour is coming from.

The most common complaint, raised repeatedly, is that people do not know what the party stands for. It follows that the way to drive Labour’s support back up is to grab people’s attention and provide more definition so that they know the party stands for something – and for something big and relevant. This is necessary both to secure Labour’s base and to forge a wider electoral coalition.

***

Labour has gone from Ed Miliband to Jeremy Corbyn and now to Keir Starmer. It is reasonable in these circumstances for voters to be uncertain where the party stands and to want to know more.

If there has been a question mark over where Labour stands, then the party’s right has sought to fill the vacuum. One of the most inexplicable features of Labour in 2021 is the failure to dispel the notion that Peter Mandelson is a guru for the party leadership. The Tories have grandees; in rather less colourful language, Labour has stakeholders. The party inevitably engages with senior stakeholders of all types who have experience and ideas to contribute. But the Mandelson story has taken on a life of its own: each of his highly newsworthy interventions sticks like a barnacle to the leadership, whether it reflects their thinking or not. Wherever Mandelson’s comments go, a phrase such as “it is understood that the New Labour ‘spin doctor’ has been advising the current leadership” quickly follows.

In his lively talk to students at King’s College London, Mandelson recently elaborated his view that 2010 was the crucial moment when New Labour was delegitimised: “The defeat of David Miliband by Ed Miliband was then an absolutely pivotal moment in the breeding and fostering of the negative associations [about New Labour].”

He continued: “Ed saw it as his political mission, and still does, to reinject traditional ‘socialist values’ as he saw them, and to validate the sort of ideological outlook he learnt at his father’s knee.”

This is all very well and very interesting but Labour is hardly likely to unite if it is still fighting, among other things, the “wrong brother” wars, particularly when Miliband is now a leading member of Starmer’s shadow cabinet. 

In Tony Blair’s case, he argued in this magazine that Labour “needs total deconstruction and reconstruction. Nothing less will do.” His is really an argument for the break-up of Labour as a social democratic party connected to the labour movement. A “total” deconstruction is not a small matter. If pursued, it would be a confrontational folly. It is not something you could do, even if you wanted to, and still have time to fight an election anytime soon.

There are of course those who want Labour to spend this parliament replaying all the old tunes: “Now That’s What I Call Labour 1985”. But the old playbooks aren’t going to work. It is not possible to spend four years fighting each other mercilessly and then expect the public to see us as a vote-worthy prospect. The next general election could be as soon as 2023. If so, we may well have just two annual conferences before facing the country – Labour doesn’t have time for a civil war.

***

Of course the most high-profile cases of conflict with the left have been in relation to its leading figures: first Rebecca Long-Bailey’s removal from the shadow cabinet and then, even more dramatically, the removal of the whip from Jeremy Corbyn. But the question of the left’s place runs deeper than these instances.

As 2020 wore on, decisions on votes in the House of Commons, such as the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) “spy cops” bill and the overseas operations bill, resulted in rebellions that caused left-wing MPs to depart the front bench. Consequently, Starmer’s team was narrowed by default. Talented younger MPs from left-wing and trade-union backgrounds such as Dan Carden, Sarah Owen and Nadia Whittome were lost (although Owen has now returned). Difficulty was not limited to the Socialist Campaign Group but extended to the Tribune Group.

Each individual decision that leads to a narrowing can always be justified on its merits, but the real question is the accumulated position. The gradual salami-slicing of a broad left from the frontbench is not purely a question of political management or parliamentary tactics. What happens in parliament is connected to wider developments in society. As Labour’s support has narrowed among voters, that has been reflected and reinforced by the composition of the front bench. A winning coalition with the public is related to a politically vibrant and inclusive internal coalition.

***

Not oversteering from Labour’s recent past was the top line of Starmer’s leadership bid, even prior to his candidacy being formally announced. It ran as a thread throughout the campaign: we would not trash the last Labour government, nor would we trash the last four years.

The package on offer fused Starmer’s reputation for competence with the members’ desire to retain their values and promised unity after a period of fractious divisions. The offer he made was broadly the correct one. Keir Starmer argued that the case for a “radical Labour government” is as strong as it has ever been.

The centre of gravity in the Labour party is internationalist in outlook, pro-public services, anti-privatisation, for equality and increasingly focused on climate change. It is my contention that the solutions to most of Labour’s problems can be found within the party’s centre of gravity – if they are combined into a strategy for building a coalition of voters. 

Politics cannot simply be reduced to economics. But the economy is the key. Voters who have different views across social questions can and should be addressed through a vision for the economy that resonates with the majority.

Liberal and left debate understandably devotes much time to the question of how Labour advances as the Tories exploit “culture war” issues and steal the opposition’s clothes for the purpose of “levelling up”. Yet the very fact that the Conservatives took positions on public services and infrastructure designed to appeal to Labour voters in Leave seats is a tacit acceptance that many of these voters lean towards a more interventionist approach – one that is to the left of where their newly-elected Tory MPs would usually be.

There is a strong argument to be made that the voters Labour needs to win, who backed the Tories or the Brexit Party in 2019, are in fact economically somewhat to the left on a left-right scale, including those who would be considered more socially authoritarian on an open-closed scale. There may appear to be few ways to build a coalition that spans core Labour voters, Greens, Lib Dems and former Labour voters that were lost to the Tories, but a bold, progressive position on the economy – including higher taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest – is the strongest potential route.

On entering the White House, Joe Biden proposed a first budget plan of $6trn of spending alongside tax rises for the richest, including a dramatic expansion of infrastructure, investment in broadband, and measures to tackle the climate crisis. The scale of what he proposed was enormous, a radical departure from neo-liberalism and trickle-down economics. Biden now faces the challenge of winning Congressional approval but his ambition and urgency cannot be ignored. It is this scale of change that the UK economy also needs. British politics – and Labour’s position within it – would be transformed if we could turn political debate to the need for an era-defining change in how our economy works.  Labour now needs to create dividing lines that put the Tories on the defensive. Building common ground with voters over the economy has the potential to unite large numbers of people across the spectrum. 

***

The Hartlepool by-election defeat hangs heavy – not simply the result and its causes, or the arguments about party management and shortlists, but a framing question that Labour has to resolve.

The reshuffle that began while results were still coming in reinforced the charge that Labour is focused on one set of voters against others. Significant victories in Wales and in the south-east and south-west of England do not compensate for the defeats in the North and the Midlands but they tell a more nuanced and interesting story.

In the wake of the Hartlepool defeat, Starmer emphasised that the party had changed but that it had not changed enough, and vowed to use the summer to conduct a major listening exercise. Labour, from the shadow cabinet down, does need to spend concerted, dedicated time in the areas it needs to win at the next election. It needs to be organised in those communities and it does need to listen to them.

But Labour must avoid creating the impression that it has fallen into a pit of self-loathing. That will only aggravate existing Labour voters and it will repel potential ones. People do not like to associate with parties that send a negative message about themselves.

And what if the issue is in fact that what people want to hear is that Labour stands for something with conviction? During the Hartlepool by-election and other recent contests, voters’ uncertainty over what the party stands for was undoubtedly a factor – it is also an opportunity. If Labour is not to be left permanently stranded in opposition, it must now be bolder and leave people in no doubt about its intentions.

[close]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/06/keir-starmer-s-labour-desperately-needs-stand-something

[Red-Soldier]

Average.

[Bobsackamano]

Good

[Nobby Reserve]

Thought this was a good attempt at a critique. It's by Simon Fletcher, who's on the left of the party to the extent he could manage Corbyn's leadership campaign, who recently moved out from Starmer's office where he was working on the strategy for the next general election. Obviously, agree with bits, disagree with other bits, and it's fairly clear (without being snide) where the disagreement over strategy was in the office.

Spoiler

[close]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/06/keir-starmer-s-labour-desperately-needs-stand-something

I think it's a very good and astute article.

I also agree with pretty much all that he says.

If you look back to that period leading up to the 1997 GE, Blair and 'New Labour' weren't considered any massive deviation from traditional Labour values, but rather a modernised version of the soft-left. Their message was cohesive and believable.

They also had a united front in terms of the key figures, even though those politicians spanned all corners of the party - Blair from the 'third way' camp; Brown from a 'moderate-left-but-with-economic-savvy' position; Robin Cook an intellectual-leftist; Straw from the more socially-conservative left; Prescott from the working-class left; etc, etc.

Neither Brown nor Milliband had anything like a cohesive narrative to sell to the electorate, and whilst Corbyn was more a representation of an ideal (to young and/or progressive people) he was too divisive, and dithered over the main issues.

The one thing that unites all three is that none of them had any real leadership ability.

Unfortunately, Labour seem to have made the same mistake with Starmer: no leadership ability, lacks charisma, unable to weave a strong and simple narrative for the party.

[bigbonedrawky]

clever very forensic but lacks any passion or the ability to really inspire voters in my opinion , but i still think he is a stop gap trying to steady the ship till a better choice comes along

I remember thinking Corbyn was the stalking-horse / stopgap untill the Brexit thing was sorted. Labour were going to lose votes over it and the more traditional candidates, didn't want to be at the helm when it happened.
As for Starmer he's burned too many bridges among the left and because of how toxic and divisive the Brexit "debate" became he's still suffering from that too.

[Nobby Reserve]

I think one of Starmer's problems is the keeping Labour out of the Brexit debate.

I can understand not wanting to be viewed as involved with the eventual shape of Brexit, but now the ink is dry on the exact version that Bozo and his shady backers wanted.

Labour should be majoring on every negative, on every difficulty, on the shittiest aspects of every trade deal. They should say now that they wouldn't hold another referendum on rejoining, but they would revisit the terms of our arrangement with the EU in order to secure the best arrangement for the people of the UK - not just the millionaire and billionaire funders of Brexit who want to be able to slash protections for workers, the environment and consumers to make more money for themselves.

That will inevitably provoke accusations of wanting to sign back up to the CU and/or SM, but so what? The people who have such a psychotic hatred of any aspect of the EU that they won't countenance any concession aren't going to vote Labour anyway.

Repeated opinion polls showed in that 2016-2020 period that a clear majority of people lean more favourably toward the EU, and a large proportion of those who still support leaving were never averse to a pragmatic arrangement that kept aspects of the CU/SM (like a 'Norway arrangement').

Target these people, not the radicalised Brexit fundamentalists.

[Zeb]

I think it's a very good and astute article.

I also agree with pretty much all that he says.

If you look back to that period leading up to the 1997 GE, Blair and 'New Labour' weren't considered any massive deviation from traditional Labour values, but rather a modernised version of the soft-left. Their message was cohesive and believable.

They also had a united front in terms of the key figures, even though those politicians spanned all corners of the party - Blair from the 'third way' camp; Brown from a 'moderate-left-but-with-economic-savvy' position; Robin Cook an intellectual-leftist; Straw from the more socially-conservative left; Prescott from the working-class left; etc, etc.

Neither Brown nor Milliband had anything like a cohesive narrative to sell to the electorate, and whilst Corbyn was more a representation of an ideal (to young and/or progressive people) he was too divisive, and dithered over the main issues.

The one thing that unites all three is that none of them had any real leadership ability.

Unfortunately, Labour seem to have made the same mistake with Starmer: no leadership ability, lacks charisma, unable to weave a strong and simple narrative for the party.

I think it's someone acting as an honest broker for sure, and some of the perceptions are interesting regardless of their actual accuracy (as he implies, in fairness). Where I'd disagree is in the direction he's suggesting, or at least as the easily immediate point Labour should be at in terms of announcing huge spending plans. The argument I think he lost is that there needs to be an intermediate step, and which is where Starmer has kind of fallen into a bit of a hole, to build trust in Labour's ability to make promises like that and be taken seriously/be believed. My sense of it is Starmer's not a charismatic 'follow me to paradise' figure so he has to have that 'I am competent. This lot aren't' narrative to play on and to contrast to. Would disagree a bit on some of the MPs he mentions, purely because if you can't take up the option to abstain on a vote when sat on the front bench or leave to return (as Owen did) then you really aren't going to be able to function under the government whip as a minister. Which is a shame because I have a lot of admiration (in with disagreements) with Whittome and think she could be a fine minister one day if she were able to stop treating even procedural votes as some sort of morality test. If she can't, fair enough, but can't then complain about her not being usable as part of Labour's future.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Just openly called Johnson a racist c*nt in PMQT