Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Sangria]

Can you detail why you thought bringing Corbyn into this convo had any relevance? Would genuinely like to know the logic behind that.

Reports are Corbyn just farted in his sleep. Shit, must mean we’re going to lose to City. Am I doing it right?

You said writing in the s*n has to be done to persuade people - but I’ll reiterate two of the last election winners didn’t (although the paper supported them in the election - this can be achieved without writing direct addresses).

My point is simple really: there are sufficient alternative methods other than this, which you know is flirting with the anthesis of your party. I can completely empathise with the many who feel this is a dig in the ribs.

Once again, scum readers tend to vote Tory. That's the status quo. Unless you persuade them otherwise, they will vote Tory. That's 2.6 million of them from a brief google, more than the margin Brexit won by. You want Labour to not talk to them, and would rather leave them to continue to vote Tory.

BTW, you mention that you don't support a mainstream party. So which party do you support, that entirely fits your code of ethics?

[bornandbRED]

Once again, scum readers tend to vote Tory. That's the status quo. Unless you persuade them otherwise, they will vote Tory. That's 2.6 million of them from a brief google, more than the margin Brexit won by. You want Labour to not talk to them, and would rather leave them to continue to vote Tory.

BTW, you mention that you don't support a mainstream party. So which party do you support, that entirely fits your code of ethics?

That's the point. There are many, many other ways of messaging to these people. This isn't 1980 where people get their news exclusively from the morning paper or 6 o' clock news. The absolute opposite for anyone under 50. You could argue quite strongly that endorsing the s*n is actually a legitimisation of the views the paper has propagated over the years. The paper will continue to spout its toxic bullshit - Starmer or not. Is that what he/you want the brand and dynamic of the party to be associated with?

I've voted Labour in every election I've had the chance to vote in and perhaps you could describe me as centre-left, although I find the left/right method of grouping political leaning incredibly binary and flawed. Currently, I won't be voting for them in the next election and I do not associate with them anymore, primarily due the infantile division (Corbyn vs Starmer narrative as you highlighted nicely for us), and the incompetence of a huge amount of its MPs.

The lack of objectivity in the Labour party is actually bonkers. Everything is reduced to a left vs centre left narrative. Absolute no hopers.

It's who reads it, and the size is still important enough. One day it won't be and I'll celebrate it going the way of Murdoch's original Sunday rag. You can argue it any way you please on when to introduce yourself to parts of the electorate who probably wouldn't recognise a picture of you but earlier is probably better if you're trying to attract people's attention to the government fucking things up as you're writing something. There's a really interesting study though which looks at the boycott in Liverpool and Merseyside and argues very persuasively that it's not only the boycott which alters attitudes but also when the rag (and other parts of the press) get a free run to push a political policy without anyone arguing the opposite on their pages. It's a shite state of affairs though.

There comes a stage where you have to ask how far are you willing to go? There are infinitely more effective contemporary methods of introducing yourself to the electorate  than trying to do a Winston Churchill routine on the front of the s*n. It's an out of touch 1990s manoeuvre.

[Zeb]

There comes a stage where you have to ask how far are you willing to go? There are infinitely more effective contemporary methods of introducing yourself to the electorate  than trying to do a Winston Churchill routine on the front of the s*n. It's an out of touch 1990s manoeuvre.

There are complementary ways, but not wholly alternative. What's interesting about the Liverpool boycott study is that it uses the Brexit referendum when one would expect social media to be much more of a factor than it turned out to be. So I don't know you can argue that it can be replaced just yet. I think the line is fuzzy in places (eg Spectator) but clearer in others (eg Press TV). Although split between business and pleasure is also there.

[Sangria]

That's the point. There are many, many other ways of messaging to these people. This isn't 1980 where people get their news exclusively from the morning paper or 6 o' clock news. The absolute opposite for anyone under 50. You could argue quite strongly that endorsing the s*n is actually a legitimisation of the views the paper has propagated over the years. The paper will continue to spout its toxic bullshit - Starmer or not. Is that what he/you want the brand and dynamic of the party to be associated with?

I've voted Labour in every election I've had the chance to vote in and perhaps you could describe me as centre-left, although I find the left/right method of grouping political leaning incredibly binary and flawed. Currently, I won't be voting for them in the next election and I do not associate with them anymore, primarily due the infantile division (Corbyn vs Starmer narrative as you highlighted nicely for us), and the incompetence of a huge amount of its MPs.

The lack of objectivity in the Labour party is actually bonkers. Everything is reduced to a left vs centre left narrative. Absolute no hopers.

There comes a stage where you have to ask how far are you willing to go? There are infinitely more effective contemporary methods of introducing yourself to the electorate  than trying to do a Winston Churchill routine on the front of the s*n. It's an out of touch 1990s manoeuvre.

I'm prepared to make compromises if enough Tory voters make the switch to Labour and end Tory government. Starmer writing in the scum is scarcely a concrete compromise, and is additionally not a compromise that I have to personally make. If enough of these compromises add up to ending Tory government, I'm ok with it.

So you've established that you won't be voting Labour any more. Which party do you see yourself voting for, that satisfies your ethical requirements? Presumably any contact with the scum will invalidate them in your view, given your arguments here.

[Sangria]

I would be very surprised if bornandbRED’s sole reasoning for not voting Labour is any form of association with a particular newspaper. How about you stick to what you are good at, which is putting across your consistent and clearly considered point-of-view, rather than trying to box other posters in.

It was their post that announced that Starmer was writing in the scum, and their post that further detailed why this tainted him.

[John C]

It's done because there's few other ways to reach the audience that rag has. Could whatabout the media appearances of various politicians but it's not really comparable. Some things are done because there's little alternative, not because people enjoy it. Someone on here once said that no-one with a life watches PMQs, and it's true - politics outside elections is for obsessives. This is the logical endpoint for those not boycotting the rag, of trying to reach non-graduate working age people who have barely a passing look at politics. The other way to do it is microtargetting on Facebook, and that's happening too. It's shit but there's a reason for it.

You're just pissing on peoples ability to be resentful there Zeb. They don't want an explanation.

Just to add to this, if Starmer fails to make huge ground he'll be accused of not getting his hands dirty, not doing enough work to penetrate the electorate.
We discussed so often on this forum how the country has an inclination to vote Tory, how are we going to prevent that?

[Fromola]

I don't get the Liverpool love affair with Labour. The national Labour party have always shown contempt for the place. It took them 20 years to have our back at all over Hillsborough (which took Andy Burnham and a few local MPs to get the ball rolling). Blair was only ever bothered about cosying up to Murdoch and Manchester has always been the golden child.

The local Labour party has always been extremely incompetent, especially at council level and pilfered the city.

But people will just blindly vote them in at any election, whether it be council, mayors or MPs.

[Zeb]

If everyone read the Mirror things would be much simpler, for all the reasons which would make that so. I know the facebook ads have been trying to make the case that the universal credit cuts are a choice by the government, or more specifically the local MP, but from what they said on Marr just then the piece in the rag is trying to make the case that the government is responsible for the fuel shortages. Which is because people are blaming each other for it right now. Wish there was another way all the same. Didn't realise Starmer was disliked on the rag because he helped prosecute some of their journalists for hacking phones. Shame he couldn't get more.

[Fromola]

If everyone read the Mirror things would be much simpler, for all the reasons which would make that so. I know the facebook ads have been trying to make the case that the universal credit cuts are a choice by the government, or more specifically the local MP, but from what they said on Marr just then the piece in the rag is trying to make the case that the government is responsible for the fuel shortages. Which is because people are blaming each other for it right now. Wish there was another way all the same. Didn't realise Starmer was disliked on the rag because he helped prosecute some of their journalists for hacking phones. Shame he couldn't get more.

Only Boomers actually still buy newspapers anyway, it's a dying medium. That generation have long been lost to the Right anyway (as a vast majority). Newspapers are a joke these days and only taken seriously because the governments pander to them and the news channels let them set the agenda with paper reviews, papers no fucker even buys these days.

Misinformation and fake news on Facebook/social media is the problem these days, as we've seen with things like the vaccines and conspiracy shit.

[Zeb]

Only Boomers actually still buy newspapers anyway. That generation have long been lost to the Right anyway (as a vast majority).

Misinformation and fake news on Facebook/social media is the problem these days.

It's not just the print, but I don't have recent figures to hand to see whether the rag still has more readers under 35 than the much bigger Mail operation and I'm not going to go looking today either. When last I looked some time back it was believed that it was mainly driven by sports (football in particular) just as the Mail's audience comes from its celebrity shitfest.

Think you're right on the assessment that many of some generations already voting Tory aren't going to switch. Ideal for Labour probably isn't getting them to vote Labour but to be pissed off enough with the Tories and comfortable enough with the idea of a Labour government that they just don't bother to turn out. Why Starmer's team will have been happy with the coverage in the Mail of his speech - make radical things sound like boring common sense and they've a far higher chance of being accepted. A while back, forgive me for not sourcing as I'd have to properly dig, I was shared some research based on the big BES surveys of the British electorate with people's newspapers of choice tied to a general/simplistic idea of where they were politically. The rag's readership were pretty much Labour's ideal target vote once you've run out of Lib Dems and Greens to persuade (which isn't enough anyway because of just numbers as well as where people live and vote). I believe Phillipson had/has had a column in there for all the reasons mentioned for a while, trying to put a Labour voice to people who might not hear one otherwise.

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

I don't get the Liverpool love affair with Labour. The national Labour party have always shown contempt for the place. It took them 20 years to have our back at all over Hillsborough (which took Andy Burnham and a few local MPs to get the ball rolling). Blair was only ever bothered about cosying up to Murdoch and Manchester has always been the golden child.

The local Labour party has always been extremely incompetent, especially at council level and pilfered the city.

But people will just blindly vote them in at any election, whether it be council, mayors or MPs.

But what is the alternative, under the current electoral system? I think that entirely explains the "love affair". The alternative is decades more Tory rule, which has been proven to be shit in a fantastic array of ways. I doubt there are many of us left who wholeheartedly support the policies of the Labour party or wouldn't rather see a more progressive alliance run the country, but it isn't going to happen under FPTP.

[oldfordie]

It's not just the print, but I don't have recent figures to hand to see whether the rag still has more readers under 35 than the much bigger Mail operation and I'm not going to go looking today either. When last I looked some time back it was believed that it was mainly driven by sports (football in particular) just as the Mail's audience comes from its celebrity shitfest.

Think you're right on the assessment that many of some generations already voting Tory aren't going to switch. Ideal for Labour probably isn't getting them to vote Labour but to be pissed off enough with the Tories and comfortable enough with the idea of a Labour government that they just don't bother to turn out. Why Starmer's team will have been happy with the coverage in the Mail of his speech - make radical things sound like boring common sense and they've a far higher chance of being accepted. A while back, forgive me for not sourcing as I'd have to properly dig, I was shared some research based on the big BES surveys of the British electorate with people's newspapers of choice tied to a general/simplistic idea of where they were politically. The rag's readership were pretty much Labour's ideal target vote once you've run out of Lib Dems and Greens to persuade (which isn't enough anyway because of just numbers as well as where people live and vote). I believe Phillipson had/has had a column in there for all the reasons mentioned for a while, trying to put a Labour voice to people who might not hear one otherwise.

It would take time but I think Labour have to look at the reasons why they think the Torys are the best party to run the country, it's why Labour need more than policys to win elections.
Many think the Torys economic handling of the economy is better than Labours.
Telling them Labours record on debt is far better than the Torys is met with disbelief. it's just bulls.. as far as they are concerned, everyone knows the Torys record is far better. anyone who thinks otherwise is either a left winger who is falling for the usual Labour excuses.
Fear. They believe the Torys priority is to keep the economy stable. the safe pair of hands option. Torys will keep inflation low and interests rates low. this opinion might be fading these days but I still think it cost Kinnock a election, ahead in the final 2 weeks, all changed when the Torys ran a all out campaign on fear. vote Labour and you will get high inflation and high interest rates, people were scared stiff of this at the time but I imagine that's still the same opinion they have of Labour, Labour bring a unstable economy.
If you want or need something then pay for it yourself is a horrible attitude but many still have it. far worse in the US but many still hold those views today.
I suppose a lot is down to personality, not giving a s,, about anyone else as long as it doesn't affect them. helping others costs money. tax payers money, shouldn't be over spending on giving people something they should be paying for themselves. Tory woman crying after getting her benefits stopped after voting Tory. all right if it happens to someone else but not her.

[John C]

I don’t disagree with the notion that Labour’s leader has a job which involves speaking to the electorate in its entirety, but come on now. I mean, “pissing on peoples rage” and “bitterness”? How on earth have we reached a point in which this is how we are talking about a reaction to that newspaper, on this forum of all places?

Hello ljy, there's no two groups in the country that despise that rag more than us, the entire city and the nation of LFC fans. We've all campaigned steadfastly for its demise but unfortunately, decades later, its still one of the most popular papers in the country. This isn't a matter of Starmer taking a weekly column its him doing what a Labour leader has to do (to do us all a favour) and reach every corner of the Tory support to get his message out. I wish people understood that rather than react in the way some have. So I personally think that people who don't regard it as Starmer trying to gain a political advantage are people who have chosen to criticise him simply because he's not or he's replaced you know who.
Does that explain it a bit mate?


And I've listened to you and edited my post mate 

[Fromola]

But what is the alternative, under the current electoral system? I think that entirely explains the "love affair". The alternative is decades more Tory rule, which has been proven to be shit in a fantastic array of ways. I doubt there are many of us left who wholeheartedly support the policies of the Labour party or wouldn't rather see a more progressive alliance run the country, but it isn't going to happen under FPTP.

Don't get me wrong i've held my nose and voted Labour myself at times, but it's this proud notion you get from Scousers of "I always vote Labour me" or "this is a Labour city". Labour are fucking shit and have been shit for the city. One left wing government in the 1940s doesn't change that.

Labour should not have been voted back into the council though after what Joe Anderson and his cronies did. That made the city look small time, whatever the alternatives were (including good independent candidates).

Make them earn your vote. Is it any wonder Starmer prioritises a S*n interview over Merseyside, when we'll just vote Labour anyway no matter what?

[Fromola]

It's not just the print, but I don't have recent figures to hand to see whether the rag still has more readers under 35 than the much bigger Mail operation and I'm not going to go looking today either. When last I looked some time back it was believed that it was mainly driven by sports (football in particular) just as the Mail's audience comes from its celebrity shitfest.

The S*n are clickbait when it comes to online, it's not serious journalism and nobody takes them seriously, so why would Starmer want to give them the respect like it's still 1992? The actual paper itself is a non entity, loads of free copies are circulated as well.

The Daily Mail paper is for middle England Boomers to get themselves angry over immigrants or benefit claimants. Mail Online is for people who no longer buy newspapers (i.e. anyone under about 50) to be able to read about celebrity nonsense, or to laugh at Scouse girls on Ladies Day.

Think you're right on the assessment that many of some generations already voting Tory aren't going to switch. Ideal for Labour probably isn't getting them to vote Labour but to be pissed off enough with the Tories and comfortable enough with the idea of a Labour government that they just don't bother to turn out. Why Starmer's team will have been happy with the coverage in the Mail of his speech - make radical things sound like boring common sense and they've a far higher chance of being accepted. A while back, forgive me for not sourcing as I'd have to properly dig, I was shared some research based on the big BES surveys of the British electorate with people's newspapers of choice tied to a general/simplistic idea of where they were politically. The rag's readership were pretty much Labour's ideal target vote once you've run out of Lib Dems and Greens to persuade (which isn't enough anyway because of just numbers as well as where people live and vote). I believe Phillipson had/has had a column in there for all the reasons mentioned for a while, trying to put a Labour voice to people who might not hear one otherwise.

The likes of the Mail do that when they aren't happy with the Tory government, or to put pressure on over an issue, (aside from Corbyn who they hated too much), it's nothing to do with Labour. When it comes to election year they'll still go to town on Starmer. Murdoch (who isn't party political) might go easy on him if he basically sells out on any principles (like Blair) but the S*n is nothing like what it was in the 80s or 90s. It's a fraction of the circulation, in what's a dying medium.

[Zeb]

It would take time but I think Labour have to look at the reasons why they think the Torys are the best party to run the country, it's why Labour need more than policys to win elections.

Just on that bit, I've seen partial explanations for Labour failure but never seen a comprehensive look at Tory success in doing it. Agree with your points, links back to what you were saying the other night, want to do some reading when I get chance to see if I've just missed the explanation.

----

The S*n are clickbait when it comes to online, it's not serious journalism and nobody takes them seriously, so why would Starmer want to give them the respect like it's still 1992? The actual paper itself is a non entity, loads of free copies are circulated as well.

The Daily Mail paper is for middle England Boomers to get themselves angry over immigrants or benefit claimants. Mail Online is for people who no longer buy newspapers (i.e. anyone under about 50) to be able to read about celebrity nonsense, or to laugh at Scouse girls on Ladies Day.

The likes of the Mail do that when they aren't happy with the Tory government, or to put pressure on over an issue, (aside from Corbyn who they hated too much), it's nothing to do with Labour. When it comes to election year they'll still go to town on Starmer. Murdoch (who isn't party political) might go easy on him if he basically sells out on any principles (like Blair) but the S*n is nothing like what it was in the 80s or 90s. It's a fraction of the circulation, in what's a dying medium.

I get the perception but 'not as big as' and 'not as important as' is relative to the past, not a comment on current value of putting an op-ed somewhere. As said, there's clear evidence from 2016 of how the established press can influence things so it's not as dead as one might imagine. Link here to it. I don't think anyone has argued he's trying to change editorial lines for an election, he's after making the attack lines harder to land and trying to influence how people perceive him over time.

[Sangria]

The S*n are clickbait when it comes to online, it's not serious journalism and nobody takes them seriously, so why would Starmer want to give them the respect like it's still 1992? The actual paper itself is a non entity, loads of free copies are circulated as well.

The Daily Mail paper is for middle England Boomers to get themselves angry over immigrants or benefit claimants. Mail Online is for people who no longer buy newspapers (i.e. anyone under about 50) to be able to read about celebrity nonsense, or to laugh at Scouse girls on Ladies Day.

The likes of the Mail do that when they aren't happy with the Tory government, or to put pressure on over an issue, (aside from Corbyn who they hated too much), it's nothing to do with Labour. When it comes to election year they'll still go to town on Starmer. Murdoch (who isn't party political) might go easy on him if he basically sells out on any principles (like Blair) but the S*n is nothing like what it was in the 80s or 90s. It's a fraction of the circulation, in what's a dying medium.

Simply appearing in these media does not (yet) involve any concrete compromises such as policy changes. If these non-concrete compromises result in the Tories losing a few thousand votes, I don't see why Labour shouldn't do so.

[Fromola]

I get the perception but 'not as big as' and 'not as important as' is relative to the past, not a comment on current value of putting an op-ed somewhere. As said, there's clear evidence from 2016 of how the established press can influence things so it's not as dead as one might imagine. Link here to it. I don't think anyone has argued he's trying to change editorial lines for an election, he's after making the attack lines harder to land and trying to influence how people perceive him over time.

Dark ads on Facebook made a big difference in Brexit referendum for example (or even recent general elections). 30 years of rabid anti-EU rhetoric from the right wing press made more of a difference than anything they printed during the campaign, it was drip-drip over such a long period of time.

The established press does still hold some influence because it's older people buying papers and it's older people (as a majority demographic) voting the Tories into power (or swinging the Brexit vote).

Older people don't buy the S*n though. He may as well do an interview in Nuts or FHM than a red top newspaper in 2020s.

[Sangria]

Dark ads on Facebook made a big difference in Brexit referendum for example (or even recent general elections). 30 years of rabid anti-EU rhetoric from the right wing press made more of a difference than anything they printed during the campaign, it was drip-drip over such a long period of time.

The established press does still hold some influence because it's older people buying papers and it's older people (as a majority demographic) voting the Tories into power (or swinging the Brexit vote).

Older people don't buy the S*n though. He may as well do an interview in Nuts or FHM than a red top newspaper in 2020s.

If that can shave off another few thousand Tory votes, I'd be up for him to do that too.

[Robinred]

Dark ads on Facebook made a big difference in Brexit referendum for example (or even recent general elections). 30 years of rabid anti-EU rhetoric from the right wing press made more of a difference than anything they printed during the campaign, it was drip-drip over such a long period of time.

The established press does still hold some influence because it's older people buying papers and it's older people (as a majority demographic) voting the Tories into power (or swinging the Brexit vote).

Older people don't buy the S*n though. He may as well do an interview in Nuts or FHM than a red top newspaper in 2020s.

Where’s your evidence for this Fromola? I know quite a few people of my generation who do, one lives next door.

[So… Howard Philips]

Where’s your evidence for this Fromola? I know quite a few people of my generation who do, one lives next door.

Doesn't he mean 'younger' people?

And imagine the furore if he did an interview in Nuts or FHM? In fact, do they still exist?

[Zeb]

Dark ads on Facebook made a big difference in Brexit referendum for example (or even recent general elections). 30 years of rabid anti-EU rhetoric from the right wing press made more of a difference than anything they printed during the campaign, it was drip-drip over such a long period of time.

The established press does still hold some influence because it's older people buying papers and it's older people (as a majority demographic) voting the Tories into power (or swinging the Brexit vote).

Older people don't buy the S*n though. He may as well do an interview in Nuts or FHM than a red top newspaper in 2020s.

That's the point the link I edited in made, there's a clear difference made by the print media and by its absence and that's both long term but also shorter (eg people not even born when the boycott started). We'd all be better off if the whole country boycotted the rag. And the Mail just on general principle. Just isn't so though so do you try to ignore them or have someone not on the boycott put an argument across to a readership? It's also not 'just' but 'also' - this is in combination with using at least one other method to try and reach the same/similar audience.

The idea that the audiences are mainly older, retired people isn't so though, even for print editions, it's still much broader than that even if not people in their early 20s. From what I can piece together of it, I reckon Starmer's team have figured that its hard yards to persuade 80 year old Doris to not vote Tory for a change and are instead going more for people earning less than the average wage, families where the parents are in their lates 20s and early 30s, maybe more likely to be in rented accommodation, and are trying to shift them to Labour. Wonder how closely it would resemble Unite members who vote Tory too.

[red_Mark1980]

This is a tough one.

I'm 41, in a well paid job for a large organisation with great benefits and pension.. oh and I'm a white male

By and large the Tories don't affect me that much. I hate them, but the difference it makes to me is minimal.

I'm also a Liverpool fan who grew up in Oldham in the 80's and 90's.

Let me shock you. There are a lot of people who still believe the S*n.

I'm not sure how I feel about a labour leader I don't believe in, writing in a paper I don't support or read.

Are they going to loose seats because of this? Almost certainly not.

Will they win some? Remains to be seen. But hes not one of us. He has no connection to the city. Burnham on the other hand can fucking rot the cowardly manc wannabe.

[So… Howard Philips]

Will they win some? Remains to be seen. But hes not one of us. He has no connection to the city. Burnham on the other hand can fucking rot the cowardly manc wannabe.

Why do you think that way? Just curious.

[12C]

Why do you think that way? Just curious.

The only interaction I have had with Andy Burnham came about through campaigning about Hillsborough.
I emailed him saying I was one of those who had booed him and didn’t believe him when he spoke at the memorial, but felt I had to thank him along with the other local politicians who had backed his calls for the independent panel.
I received a response which was clearly not automated as are most in those circumstances, but actually came from him. He reiterated his commitment to the campaign and said how he felt he had to do something after being confronted by the crowd.
Now I know politicians have a bad rep and all that, but I simply compare him to Jack Straw, whom I also wrote to regarding the Shields case. He never even sent an automated response. Not a thing.
I think Burnham is a political animal but I also think he gets a lot of bad press to discredit what he is trying to do in Manchester.

[Robinred]

The only interaction I have had with Andy Burnham came about through campaigning about Hillsborough.
I emailed him saying I was one of those who had booed him and didn’t believe him when he spoke at the memorial, but felt I had to thank him along with the other local politicians who had backed his calls for the independent panel.
I received a response which was clearly not automated as are most in those circumstances, but actually came from him. He reiterated his commitment to the campaign and said how he felt he had to do something after being confronted by the crowd.
Now I know politicians have a bad rep and all that, but I simply compare him to Jack Straw, whom I also wrote to regarding the Shields case. He never even sent an automated response. Not a thing.
I think Burnham is a political animal but I also think he gets a lot of bad press to discredit what he is trying to do in Manchester.

Interesting.

I didn’t think much of Burnham in the leadership campaign that saw Corbyn eventually become leader - but then nobody shone in that, including Cooper, who got my vote.

I have thought for some considerable time that one of the most problematic features of our political system is the relatively high number of ex-university entrants to the Westminster chumocracy who tread the well-worn path of student politics, researcher/apparatchik etc.. Burnham was at Oxford and I believe, read PPE, so perfectly fits that description.

I still regret that Alan Johnson, for personal reasons, decided against running at the time.

[Fromola]

Where’s your evidence for this Fromola? I know quite a few people of my generation who do, one lives next door.

Statistically speaking at least there's not that many, of course some do: https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-uks-most-read-newspaper-brand-under-35s-favour-sun/.  It's accelerated a lot more since 2015.

The S*n's readership tends to be younger but fewer and fewer younger people buy newspapers. Older people are a lot more likely to get the Daily Mail and the Express readership is pretty much exclusively old.

[Fromola]

That's the point the link I edited in made, there's a clear difference made by the print media and by its absence and that's both long term but also shorter (eg people not even born when the boycott started). We'd all be better off if the whole country boycotted the rag. And the Mail just on general principle. Just isn't so though so do you try to ignore them or have someone not on the boycott put an argument across to a readership? It's also not 'just' but 'also' - this is in combination with using at least one other method to try and reach the same/similar audience.

The idea that the audiences are mainly older, retired people isn't so though, even for print editions, it's still much broader than that even if not people in their early 20s. From what I can piece together of it, I reckon Starmer's team have figured that its hard yards to persuade 80 year old Doris to not vote Tory for a change and are instead going more for people earning less than the average wage, families where the parents are in their lates 20s and early 30s, maybe more likely to be in rented accommodation, and are trying to shift them to Labour. Wonder how closely it would resemble Unite members who vote Tory too.

Starmer's core strategy is to win back the red wall, so he's probably thinking 'how can I appeal to Workington Man'? And his advisor tells him he drives a white van and reads the S*n, so best give Rupe, or the editor, a call and get yourself a guest column.

Part of the problem with these places is the younger people have all moved out (or just never return after Uni) and it's just left with a lot of older home owners who overwhelmingly vote Tory, while the Tories on the ground convince them that it's the fault of Labour councils that the place is a state, rather than austerity and Tory governments.

[Zeb]

Starmer's core strategy is to win back the red wall, so he's probably thinking 'how can I appeal to Workington Man'? And his advisor tells him he drives a white van and reads the S*n, so best give Rupe, or the editor, a call and get yourself a guest column.

Part of the problem with these places is the younger people have all moved out (or just never return after Uni) and it's just left with a lot of older home owners who overwhelmingly vote Tory, while the Tories on the ground convince them that it's the fault of Labour councils that the place is a state, rather than austerity and Tory governments.

If you can be arsed/have toleration for searching for it there's probably a recent-ish publicly available demographic breakdown of the rag's readership done for advertisers. It's that which will be informing political parties too. It won't be based on stereotypes. The argument against touching the rag is a moral one which also has to be balanced against competing moral arguments for a national political party which needs to meet people where they are not where they'd ideally already be.

Agree with a lot of your points  but I'd also say that it's also got to be kept in mind that it's graduates who, largely, are the ones who move away and not everyone goes to university. It's one of the big dividing lines in how/if people vote and see things now. So if you're going to win back towns which are ageing then the voters you're chasing after are going to be those who don't have a fixed habit of always voting Tory. 'Red Wall' stuff is part of it but not the whole story, although it depends what you mean by it - original meaning was places which, by demographics etc, should already have been voting Tory as similar places elsewhere already were but weren't because (in large part) people never had voted Tory before. A cultural thing rather than a political one. Some of those seats aren't going back to Labour in a generation.

[oldfordie]

There's a lot of younger people who enjoy the left political rally talk, the comrades and the workers united will never be defeated, there's also a lot of younger people who have heard this many times before all around them, they grew up with it and it's become a bit of a turn off. a lot of the younger vox pops interviews I saw gave the impression that they felt previous generations never considered why they voted Labour,  they felt they were a bit smarter, I understand where they are coming from over the comrades talk but they were not being smarter, the days of Piddock and Skinner rally talk exciting local areas in the majority of northern traditional Labour voting seats are over.

[Snail]

Guess we just get it in Liverpool.

[daindan]

He probably thought he needs the scum readers in order to win, when there are better ways to win votes. The torys will win again and again until the elderly are all dead. What I find wierd is the likes of Theresa May doing more for Hillsborough than some labour MPs.

[Fromola]

He probably thought he needs the scum readers in order to win, when there are better ways to win votes. The torys will win again and again until the elderly are all dead. What I find wierd is the likes of Theresa May doing more for Hillsborough than some labour MPs.

They don't like us, or don't care. May was a bit more invested into it as Home Sec, especially after the inquest, but compare to how Jack Straw or Blunkett (a Sheffield MP) behaved towards us.

The line in the sand for me was Blair's New Labour going cap in hand to Murdoch and the Rag in the mid 90's. Once it was operation 'win over Murdoch' the Hillsborough Justice Campaign held no interest for the fuckers and the families had to wait 15 years more for any justice. Andy Burnham bore the brunt of that on the 20 year anniversary as a Labour spokesperson but then took the cause on along with other local MPs.

The Labour Party have always treated this city with disdain, yet the city blindly keep voting for them which is fair enough if you've got a good MP/council leader/Mayor and not so if you'll vote for any fucker just because it's Labour (which is the reality in this city region).

But that's the mentality in Liverpool. It's black and white and binary. Labour - good and Tories - bad and our political acumen pretty much starts and ends at that place. I hate the Tories but we're not as politically clued up in this city as we like to think. Voting Labour back in to control the council this year was a particular piss take. Labour leaders courting the Rag is nothing new. Blair did it, Brown did it and Starmer is doing it.

[Yorkykopite]

Guess we just get it in Liverpool.

Is it possible to love the banner, boycott the Sun and still think it's ok for the leader of the Labour party to write a column in the paper to reach out to their readers?

Hope so.

[Yorkykopite]

The Labour Party have always treated this city with disdain,

You're having a really bad day, even for you.

[TepidT2O]

Is it possible to love the banner, boycott the Sun and still think it's ok for the leader of the Labour party to write a column in the paper to reach out to their readers?

Hope so.

Yeah, that’s where I am

[Snail]

Is it possible to love the banner, boycott the Sun and still think it's ok for the leader of the Labour party to write a column in the paper to reach out to their readers?

Hope so.

No.

[Red Beret]

Yeah, that’s where I am

Yeah, unfortunately.  We don't have to like it though.

I don't think of it as ok, as much as a necessary evil.

[TepidT2O]

Yeah, unfortunately.  We don't have to like it though.

I don't think of it as ok, as much as a necessary evil.

Quite.  I wouldn’t do it, but I can understand why someone else might.

[idontknow]

Is it possible to love the banner, boycott the Sun and still think it's ok for the leader of the Labour party to write a column in the paper to reach out to their readers?

Hope so.

Fuck the Sun
Fuck the Sun
Fuck Murdoch
Fuck the Sun

Yorkykopite wants Labour to work with the Sun
To reach out to The Sun
Fuck off with that

Fuck off fuck off fuck off
Destroy the Sun
Destroy Murdoch

Fuck anyone putting Murdoch near our banners.

Even worse when it comrs from a professional writer so I must assume Yorkykopite knows what he is shifting in.

Fuck the Sun and Anyone who promotes it.