Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Elmo!]

I think the messaging has improved from that time it tried to let Russia determine whether it had or hadn’t tried to use nerve agents to assassinate someone.

Maybe just me?

Constantly comparing to Corbyn and setting such a low bar isn't really helpful though.

[TepidT2O]

Constantly comparing to Corbyn and setting such a low bar isn't really helpful though.

Progress though!

[Zeb]

I know he's supportive of them, but it took him far too long to make a statement on RNLI. I'm not really sure why it takes hours/days for him to find the 'right' messaging to make.

It always just feels he's far too late to react to certain things but there's no real reason why when he's clearly supportive of them?

Is the Labour Party just trying its hardest to get messaging 'right' that badly?

Big chunk of it is that Starmer's office isn't working to social media's sense of speed. It's not so much to get the message 'right' as to get a single message which goes out as a statement to all the press from all quotable parts of the Labour machinery. Social media is part of that, not the sole driver for it. It avoids some of the mess-ups seen in the more recent past as Shadow ministers will be consulted and take a brief. Could point to Corbyn's office being a mess on this but you can see it with the government at the moment too when they send whichever sap is sucking up to Johnson out to say one thing and then an hour later pull the rug from beneath them and totally reverse what they're saying (Hancock's resignation or whatever).

[Sangria]

Big chunk of it is that Starmer's office isn't working to social media's sense of speed. It's not so much to get the message 'right' as to get a single message which goes out as a statement to all the press from all quotable parts of the Labour machinery. Social media is part of that, not the sole driver for it. It avoids some of the mess-ups seen in the more recent past as Shadow ministers will be consulted and take a brief. Could point to Corbyn's office being a mess on this but you can see it with the government at the moment too when they send whichever sap is sucking up to Johnson out to say one thing and then an hour later pull the rug from beneath them and totally reverse what they're saying (Hancock's resignation or whatever).

See Starmer's office putting out a message, then having to deal with Long Bailey and Corbyn contradicting it immediately.

[Byrnee]

I think the messaging has improved from that time it tried to let Russia determine whether it had or hadn’t tried to use nerve agents to assassinate someone.

Maybe just me?

Is the correct answer.

Worrying about keeping up to speed on releasing statements on twitter isn't the point. If the Twitterati decided general elections then Corbyn would have won a landslide. He has to get his message out to the country at large using all media, old and new.

[TepidT2O]

Is the correct answer.

Worrying about keeping up to speed on releasing statements on twitter isn't the point. If the Twitterati decided general elections then Corbyn would have won a landslide. He has to get his message out to the country at large using all media, old and new.

Not entirely sure that’s happening, but taking 24 hours to tweets about the RNLI isn’t the issue.

[Wild Romany Boy]

See Starmer's office putting out a message, then having to deal with Long Bailey and Corbyn contradicting it immediately.

Sangria, buddy, it's not always about the left you know.

Though it is amusing how far you'll stretch it to make it appear that way 

[Sangria]

Sangria, buddy, it's not always about the left you know.

Though it is amusing how far you'll stretch it to make it appear that way 

You mean I misremembered when Long Bailey contradicted the leader's office shortly (within a day?) of Starmer setting out his position, followed by hours of refusing to take his calls and finally refusing to change her (contradicting) position?

Or did I misremember when Corbyn contradicted Starmer within minutes of the latter setting out the party's position on the anti-semitic allegations?

And now that Starmer tries to get the party on-message before setting out his position, he's accused of not doing so fast enough.

[ianburns252]

Sangria, buddy, it's not always about the left you know.

Though it is amusing how far you'll stretch it to make it appear that way 

It isn't but they are the two most high profile cases of LOTO tweet says "A has happened, we feel B..." followed by a minister saying "A has happened but we feel XYZ and also B is the wrong way to feel" that have happened under Starmer.

I can't say that I am particularly SM savvy so I maybe have missed some other ones.

To be fair, I have no doubt there were plenty under JC that happened in a similar vein but, again, not massively in to SM so I am not the person to know they off the top of my head.

Quite a few have beat me to it, but I think it is right to try and ensure a coherent brief and a single message without having to win the Twitter race to have the hottest take in the quickest manner.

That said, we do unfortunately live in a world where the news cycle is down to about 12 hours (remember when 24 was considered too quick?) and those who shout loudest and quickest on SM are the ones who people remember.

I like the fact that there is care being taken over the messaging but I think there does need to be something of a middle ground found - maybe a preparatory tweet that says "Labour condemns/supports X (X being whichever hot button topic Labour need to be seen to have an opinion on). KS will release a statement in short order however the business of wrestling the country back from the Tories means he isn't taking a shit with his phone in his hand right this second so can't tweet right now"

[RainbowFlick]

A Labour MP there, speaking to The S*n cos it reaches the 'target voters' they want. and they'll wonder why significant numbers of younger, Black and Asian voters have lost all interest. Maybe the Party needed to re-establish itself, but pandering for those voters is not a good look.

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1422295452943360006?s=20

[Welshred]

Discussed in the main politics thread, but what's your issue? Wes Streeting isn't a Liverpool fan (as far as I'm aware) and isn't a Liverpool MP, Labour should be trying to put their message out to as many people as possible and as much as you and I may not like it The S*n is the most read 'newspaper' in this country with it 'backing' every Prime Minister elected since the 70s.

Do we want an idealist Labour party in opposition or do we actually want a Labour government?

[RainbowFlick]

Discussed in the main politics thread, but what's your issue? Wes Streeting isn't a Liverpool fan (as far as I'm aware) and isn't a Liverpool MP, Labour should be trying to put their message out to as many people as possible and as much as you and I may not like it The S*n is the most read 'newspaper' in this country with it 'backing' every Prime Minister elected since the 70s.

Do we want an idealist Labour party in opposition or do we actually want a Labour government?

I want a Party that isn't writing in a right-wing rag that targets minorities, to start with? there's a distinct lack of integrity if you're saying your principles are one thing then you're writing in that paper.

It's not about being a Liverpool fan or Scouser, we're not the only people that abhor that rag? It's literally about being a decent human being, understanding of the poison that rag has spread across the board (not just Hillsborough).

I don't want to support a Labour government that is going to pander using The S*n. Sorry. It's not a football team you need to support at all times.

[Welshred]

Right. So you want an ideological Labour party that is forever in opposition. Gotchya.

[RainbowFlick]

Right. So you want an ideological Labour party that is forever in opposition. Gotchya.

You and the Labour Ultras on here are tiring. You constantly brush off peoples' genuine concerns because you want to just 'win an election' seemingly by whatever methods are necessary. Some of our principles aren't just red or blue.

[Welshred]

You and the Labour Ultras on here are tiring. You constantly brush off peoples' genuine concerns because you want to just 'win an election' seemingly by whatever methods are necessary. Some of our principles aren't just red or blue.

Fucking hell, imagine criticising someone for wanting a Labour government...priorities hey?

[RainbowFlick]

Fucking hell, imagine criticising someone for wanting a Labour government...priorities hey?

Boring. It's not a football team.

[Zeb]

I want a Party that isn't writing in a right-wing rag that targets minorities, to start with? there's a distinct lack of integrity if you're saying your principles are one thing then you're writing in that paper.

I do too. All we need do now is find a way to reach the same audiences so Labour doesn't have to engage with the things we don't like. One of the evergreen ideas which goes round Labour and the Union movement is to create a media alternative. Usually it ends up with a print alternative being set up and then, in fairly short order, going bust. Was a big part of the creation of the blogosphere currently lost in its own haze of clickbait. Another way of looking at is that the absolute repulsion some papers have for us, for the political lines which reflect as much as direct the views of their readers, is part of Labour's problem with finding a way to present a counterargument to the readers of those papers.

[Wild Romany Boy]

Boring. It's not a football team.

God bless you my friend. God bless you.

[Father Ted]

What if the readers of the rag turn to his article, see the words ‘Labour MP’ mutter “lefty c*nt” to themselves and just flick over without even bothering? What do you have to do to win over the Sun’s core readership anyway? Will the Sun repay you come election time or will they just do the usual ‘vote Tory to keep Britain great!’ headlines and stomp you anyway? How many of the people who actually do vote Labour, as opposed to might theoretically vote Labour if they see you writing in the Sun often enough, are you pissing off by doing so?

Is there some other way you can reach those people without hawking yourself in that paper?

I mean, I don’t know the answer to those questions. But asking them doesn’t automatically mean you want the Tories to win.

[RainbowFlick]

I do too. All we need do now is find a way to reach the same audiences so Labour doesn't have to engage with the things we don't like. One of the evergreen ideas which goes round Labour and the Union movement is to create a media alternative. Usually it ends up with a print alternative being set up and then, in fairly short order, going bust. Was a big part of the creation of the blogosphere currently lost in its own haze of clickbait. Another way of looking at is that the absolute repulsion some papers have for us, for the political lines which reflect as much as direct the views of their readers, is part of Labour's problem with finding a way to present a counterargument to the readers of those papers.

Fair, although my issue is also the audience being targetted. Of the issues I'm most interested in: immigration, welfare and healthcare, I can imagine much of that readership have significantly different views on the first two to most on the broad left. I don't feel comfortable with that personally.

There's definitely steps that need to be made in innovating better ways to reach voters including those that vote other left-wing parties. The Tories have been much better at that, as well as obviously having the benefit of traditional media too.

[TepidT2O]

Trouble is this…

You can’t complain about the biased MSM, and at the same time complain when Labour MPs get the chance to air their opinions in (say) the Mail

[classycarra]

A Labour MP there, speaking to The S*n cos it reaches the 'target voters' they want. and they'll wonder why significant numbers of younger, Black and Asian voters have lost all interest. Maybe the Party needed to re-establish itself, but pandering for those voters is not a good look.

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1422295452943360006?s=20

Have you got any details about voters from minority ethnic groups losing interest in Labour as a result of an MP writing in a tabloid rag? Seems unlikely to me.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

A Labour MP there, speaking to The S*n cos it reaches the 'target voters' they want. and they'll wonder why significant numbers of younger, Black and Asian voters have lost all interest. Maybe the Party needed to re-establish itself, but pandering for those voters is not a good look.

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1422295452943360006?s=20

I agree. Pisses me off when Labour leaders buy it too.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You and the Labour Ultras on here are tiring. You constantly brush off peoples' genuine concerns because you want to just 'win an election' seemingly by whatever methods are necessary. Some of our principles aren't just red or blue.

I've seen Starmer critisced on here quite a lot for 'not getting the message out'

The S*n is the most read paper in the UK. If you gib that then is that helping to 'get the message out'?

And you think Labour winning an election is not something you'd want unless it was done 'properly' ?

[Yorkykopite]

Trouble is this…

You can’t complain about the biased MSM, and at the same time complain when Labour MPs get the chance to air their opinions in (say) the Mail

Indeed.

If a Labour politician has a column in a newspaper we all hate, it doesn't mean that he or she supports the editorial line of that newspaper. It doesn't mean for example that it follows that the Labour MP in question must hate gays (to use an example that was suggested above).

Labour has always received un unfair press from tabloids of varying shittiness. But its leaders (bar Corbyn perhaps) have always grasped at the opportunity to use the shitty newspapers to disseminate their own political views. Rothermere's Daily Mail was a horrible newspaper which hated the Labour party, and yet Labour leaders from MacDonald to Attlee used its columns. Beaverbrook's Daily Express was just as bad, yet Labour people of every stripe (from Michael Foot to Barbara Castle) seized the opportunity to write for Beaverbrook's newspapers. Blair, of course, did all he could to get into the S*n.

The motive should be obvious, even to those lefties who dislike Attlee, Foot and Blair. It was to win votes to the cause of social democracy. That's what democratic politics involves (at least for those who intend to win). Taking your case to your opponents and enemies.

A little PS for the lefties who profess to hate the game. Corbyn may have kept his 'purity' by avoiding the S*n. But he was very happy to compromise it (and benefit financially) by hosting TV shows for the Ayatollahs in Iran and for Vladimir Putin in Russia. For obvious reasons which do not need spelling out, these are far more morally questionable actions. Plus they probably LOST the Labour party votes. A double whammy.     

[Robinred]

You and the Labour Ultras on here are tiring. You constantly brush off peoples' genuine concerns because you want to just 'win an election' seemingly by whatever methods are necessary. Some of our principles aren't just red or blue.

“These are my principles, and if you don’t like them, I’ve got others...”

Groucho Marx

[scatman]

Some Labour 'supporters' just want to be in opposition forever so they can complain. After all there's a lot of money in being in opposition. Being in power means being held accountable.

[Zeb]

Fair, although my issue is also the audience being targetted. Of the issues I'm most interested in: immigration, welfare and healthcare, I can imagine much of that readership have significantly different views on the first two to most on the broad left. I don't feel comfortable with that personally.

There's definitely steps that need to be made in innovating better ways to reach voters including those that vote other left-wing parties. The Tories have been much better at that, as well as obviously having the benefit of traditional media too.

Like you said though, it's not a football team. It's politics and it's whether Labour can build from the common ground between people rather than ignoring big chunks of the electorate cos they don't support the 'right' team.

I obviously haven't read what Streeting's wrote, nor any of Phillipson's columns even though I think she's one of the smartest MPs Labour have right now, but Labour can safely do law and order without being arseholes about it. Last couple of manifestos were all about reversing Tory cuts to police numbers, the same cuts they're now trumpeting as reversing themselves, and Labour can come over very 'tough on crime' just by promising to sort out the mess the Tories have left the criminal justice system in for people to see things getting to court in the first place. Putting the case for effective policing (eg use of stop and search being utterly fucked across police forces) should come as part of that, there's no point making changes and forgetting that Lammy's proposed reforms are there too.

edit: heh posted that and Steeting posted this just a few moments ago. It's not even pretending to be any different to a very old message. (Twitter video.)

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1422522446700335107

[Sangria]

Like you said though, it's not a football team. It's politics and it's whether Labour can build from the common ground between people rather than ignoring big chunks of the electorate cos they don't support the 'right' team.

I obviously haven't read what Streeting's wrote, nor any of Phillipson's columns even though I think she's one of the smartest MPs Labour have right now, but Labour can safely do law and order without being arseholes about it. Last couple of manifestos were all about reversing Tory cuts to police numbers, the same cuts they're now trumpeting as reversing themselves, and Labour can come over very 'tough on crime' just by promising to sort out the mess the Tories have left the criminal justice system in for people to see things getting to court in the first place. Putting the case for effective policing (eg use of stop and search being utterly fucked across police forces) should come as part of that, there's no point making changes and forgetting that Lammy's proposed reforms are there too.

edit: heh posted that and Steeting posted this just a few moments ago. It's not even pretending to be any different to a very old message. (Twitter video.)

https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1422522446700335107

The incompetent and corrupt Tory government have hamstrung our hardworking police force, etc...

[Dr. Beaker]

I don't think white-van-man scans through his chosen tabloid looking for well thought out articles with alternative political views. I don't think he looks for anything political at all. He looks at headlines. If they pander to his hate reflex he will read it. If the headline contains a good joke he may read it. A huge block of text written by an MP without a jokey headline, will not even get ignored. The damage has been done by decades of either jokey or hate-filled bile, that required two seconds of attention.
Tories revel in simple answers to complex problems. Only thick people think complex problems can have simple solutions, and the tories will always supply said answer. Labour take things too seriously and often try to lay out the problems with the 'simple' solution, but after the two second time slot the eyelids have come slamming down.

I imagine that one photograph at the BLM demo, where the black bloke was carrying the white gobshite* off for medical attention, did more good than a thousand well thought out articles in the tabloids.

*I know not if the bloke was a gobshite, but he seemed the bear all the hallmarks.

[Yorkykopite]

I don't think white-van-man scans through his chosen tabloid looking for well thought out articles with alternative political views. I don't think he looks for anything political at all. He looks at headlines. If they pander to his hate reflex he will read it. If the headline contains a good joke he may read it. A huge block of text written by an MP without a jokey headline, will not even get ignored. The damage has been done by decades of either jokey or hate-filled bile, that required two seconds of attention.
Tories revel in simple answers to complex problems. Only thick people think complex problems can have simple solutions, and the tories will always supply said answer. Labour take things too seriously and often try to lay out the problems with the 'simple' solution, but after the two second time slot the eyelids have come slamming down.

I imagine that one photograph at the BLM demo, where the black bloke was carrying the white gobshite* off for medical attention, did more good than a thousand well thought out articles in the tabloids.

*I know not if the bloke was a gobshite, but he seemed the bear all the hallmarks.

Who knows how it works Doc? The mere fact that Starmer (say) has an article in 'his' newspaper might be the key thing, even if the article remains unread. At the very least it might begin to correct an impression he's nursed for many years. It's certainly worth a go. Pitching for white-van man's votes is definitely better than taking the piss out of him as Emily Thornberry did several years ago.

[ianburns252]

Worth considering also that it isn't just Labour who court the other side.

More so under May than Johnson but it isn't that uncommon for a Tory minister to have an article in the Guardian from time to time - presumably with the same aim of trying to amend the perception of them if only by being seen to have written for the publication more so than any effect that the content might have on peoples opinions.

[Dr. Beaker]

Trouble with Labour is, it's such a broad church it can't even agree on the definition of the word 'bingo'. You can only make a church so broad, then the arches start collapsing.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Trouble with Labour is, it's such a broad church it can't even agree on the definition of the word 'bingo'. You can only make a church so broad, then the arches start collapsing.

Wrong thread (I think) - but you have a point!

[Dr. Beaker]

Wrong thread (I think) - but you have a point!

Ha! Good spot, and I can't be arsed moving it.

[Yorkykopite]

Trouble with Labour is, it's such a broad church it can't even agree on the definition of the word 'bingo'. You can only make a church so broad, then the arches start collapsing.

Bingo.

[Dr. Beaker]

Bingo.

I don't know whether to be pleased, disappointed, or amused. Maybe we need a bingo thread. Maybe I should have just deleted it!

[Yorkykopite]

I don't know whether to be pleased, disappointed, or amused. Maybe we need a bingo thread. Maybe I should have just deleted it!

I can't decide whether I agree with you, whether I nailed you, or whether I can tick you off my list. 

[Dr. Beaker]

I can't decide whether I agree with you, whether I nailed you, or whether I can tick you off my list. 

I think we should go to the accepted default position and verbally kick shite out of each other.

[Zeb]

Think Steve Richards' definition of Labour's 'broad church' was 'a place where everyone knows they hate other'.

Starmer in the FT. Not sure it's quite the same readership as it was there but it's still making a few waves for what he's said.

https://www.ft.com/content/34ec43b9-5dcd-46cd-b284-093e8f13714d

Spoiler

   Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to “turn the Labour party inside out” as he prepares for an autumn relaunch of his leadership, urging activists to embrace Tony Blair’s political legacy to help the UK’s main opposition party win the next election.

He said it was vital to demonstrate that Labour was not a party of protest but was serious about winning power — and that meant being “very proud” of what it achieved under Blair and his successor as prime minister Gordon Brown when it was last in office.

Since 2010, the party has lost four general elections in a row. In 2019 under Jeremy Corbyn, the hero of the party’s hard left, Labour slumped to its worst result since 1935 as Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s Conservatives won by a landslide.

Starmer, who won the leadership in April last year, told the Financial Times in an interview that he was determined to rebuild the party’s political culture and repair its battered reputation on the economy.

“I’m acutely aware that among my first tasks is rebuilding the relationship between the Labour party and business,” he said, during a visit to Scotland. He has one strategic vision: “To win the next election.”

He said his Labour conference speech in Brighton in September would be “a big moment”; his challenge is to persuade the British public that he has the character, vision and policies to become the next prime minister.

He admitted it has not been easy to talk about building a post-pandemic Britain. He has been unable to talk to people or large audiences — other than through the lens of a camera, adding that Covid-19 had “closed the space for political debate”.

But the excuses have been wearing thin for some in his party and had Labour lost last month’s by-election in Batley and Spen the criticism of Starmer would have been deafening.

Now the Labour leader, engaging in a summer tour of Britain, has some breathing space. “I recognise we need to step up to the plate and set out the change we want to see for this country,” he said. But he said the by-election had been “a pivotal moment”, when the party’s message of unity over division triumphed, albeit only narrowly.

Starmer said “Labour only ever wins if it glimpses the future” but for the party to convince voters it can transform their lives, it must “proudly remind” people of what it did the last time it was in office.

He said the 1997-2010 Labour administration tackled poverty, improved the prospects of children and began to tackle climate change. All governments made mistakes, he added, especially if they were in office for 13 years.

Many Labour activists despise Blair, notably because of his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2011 they booed his name at the Labour conference. But Starmer said: “We have to be proud of that record in government and not be arm’s length or distant about it.”

Starmer also wants to promote the records of Labour leaders such as Mark Drakeford in Wales, Andy Burnham in Manchester and Sadiq Khan in London to remind people — who may have forgotten — that the party actually runs things.

“We have to turn the Labour party inside out and that’s what we’ve been doing for the last 18 months,” he said. “Too many of our members and supporters think winning an internal argument in the Labour party is changing the world — it isn’t. We’ve got to get real.”

During his visit to Glasgow, the Labour leader displayed some hard-tackling passion in a five-a-side football match against a team led by Anas Sarwar, the new Labour leader in Scotland. But why was that not more visible in his politics?

“What you saw on the football pitch and what you see inside me in terms of the change we need to bring about for the United Kingdom is exactly the same passion,” he insisted. Starmer was delighted by his team’s narrow victory in a “32-goal thriller”.

But even members of Starmer’s shadow cabinet profess uncertainty about what really drives their leader. “What’s his north star?” asked one frontbencher.

Starmer said he was driven by a desire to boost security in an uncertain age — whether in education, work, in local communities or in tackling climate change.

On a visit to the vast Whitelee wind farm near Glasgow — the biggest of its kind in the UK — he claimed the prime minister was a “climate delayer” rather than a climate change denier, holding back vital investment to cut emissions.

As part of his new approach, he said Labour would develop an economic message based on reprioritising government spending — rather than making big additional commitments — and developing a “partnership” between business and an “active government”.

Brexit, for long a taboo subject, will also be back on the agenda, as Labour promises to rebuild EU relations and “improve the trade deal” Johnson struck with Brussels. “Yes, I think there’s space to talk about Brexit and the Brexit deal,” he said.

He dismissed talk of a “progressive alliance” of leftish parties to defeat Johnson, saying “that’s been talked about at every election I can remember”. He added: “Under our current system if you want a Labour government you have to vote Labour.”

Starmer also ruled out working with the Scottish National party to help him into Downing Street. “No deal going in, no deal coming out of the next election,” he said.


Scotland used to be a Labour heartland but was all but wiped out in 2015 in an SNP landslide. Again in 2019 it won only a single seat north of the border compared to the SNP’s 45. “We have a mountain to climb,” Starmer admitted.

He believes Britain would eventually tire of Johnson. “Over the last two or three months people have started to see the prime minister for who he is,” he said.

He claimed the public were infuriated by Johnson’s initial plan to sidestep Covid isolation rules. “One rule for them and another rule for everyone else is really cutting through,” Starmer said.

But above all, he insisted Johnson’s style of politics — including Brexit and the so-called “culture wars” — was running out of road, even if the polls still suggest otherwise. “I think the country needs bringing together,” Starmer said. “The best part of a decade has been defined by division. What I want to do and what the Labour party seeks to do is find the points of unity.”

[close]

Know internally there's a few of us, from various parts of the party to be fair, who've been pushing for some room to talk about the effects of Brexit and how to mitigate it so hopefully some room to work with ahead on shaping some solid promises on undoing some of the worst of the dickery of this government at least.