Some of you are confused as to what Labour’s current political strategy might be. I think I’ve figured it out - and I can summarise it in one sentence The blowback from the left and centre-left when Labour put out those recent attack ads on Sunak was nothing new. For a long time now, people on the left half of politics haven’t liked a lot of what Starmer has been doing. There’s been complaints about him not being radical enough, or clear enough in what he believes. Stuff like those attack ads make Starmer seem to many on the left like he’s unclear on what he’s trying to achieve, attempting to say or what he wants you to think about him or his party.
This is a v good analysis, but... there's always a but... it left me feeling -- You know, yes technocratic competence seems like a great idea but what about the corruption and lies we have and seen over the last (particularly) seven years? The lies about the EU, the dodgy funding of the Leave campaign, the lies about the behaviour of senior Tories and their mates during covid, the corruption and waste of all the dodgy PPE etc, the dodgy elevations to the HoL etc etc... Are we just going to say "Move on", which is a v New Labourish thing to say? At the very least we have to have a public enquiry with power to summon witnesses to look into the Brexit ref, and I would like to see criminal charges of misconduct in public office and perjury brought against those who lied and lied to us? Until and unless this poison is rooted out things will can only not get better...
I think now isn't the time for such a public inquiry or a full throated attack on how Brexit happened. You can do that after Labour wins and politics shifts massively as a result.
I completely agree. The abuses of the referendum especially are just too big to be ignored and I really can’t see how trust in politics gets even half way restored without it. That will take up a lot of oxygen and energy, though, and the problem for Labour is that any such process is also going to reveal its own failure to flag up the potentially catastrophic consequences - aka the state of Britain now - when Cameron was shouting his mouth off promising to honour the result of an advisory vote. They should name and shame Corbyn for that.
They also need to promise to go after all the dodgy Covid stuff - very, very aggressively. Hardly anyone would object to that. That should have been their first attack ad.
I think as a nation we are natural appeasers - which was what the 2109 election was all about -the Brexit crazies wanted it more - so we just rolled with them. But I tend to agree with you - if the nation was going to heal, it would have happened by now. This situation is too serious and fundamental to political and economic history to be appeased.
I’m not sure. If Labour is going for the one nation Tory vote then why would they go down the populist route? I have actually just left the Labour Party after forty four years of membership and for me, that first ad was the tipping point. Starmer is no Kinnock, he is as weak as his predecessor and has failed, again like his predecessor, to rebuild the party for the 21st century. The best he will manage is a minority government ; if he does, then he will have to form an alliance with the Libdems on the condition that PR is brought in (with no referendum). That is the only hope we have a halting the decline.
You think he won't once in power? He's a technocrat to his bones, which is a shame because with such an evocative personal family story, he should be WAY angrier with how the Tories have wasted the last thirteen years.
No, as Ian Leslie contends, he will torturously approach the peak only to find he'll have to share it with Davey and Humza, or find Sunak has just pipped him to the top.
Rosemary, this absolutely sums up the primary issue I have and many others have with Starmer. He has no set out vision, yet his quasi technocratic slant doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's as if he's saying he can't do the Blair vision thing, the Corbyn paradise thing, the Boris cakeism thing.
Unfortunately he can't also do the Wilson white heat of technology revolution thing (maybe CZero will be that in a limp form), or the Brown dour/evangelist trade off.
And he can't do the Kinnock wrenching Labour from Militant revolution.
So that leaves John Smith who had more charisma in one finger than Starmer and Ed Milliband whom I agree with Nick takes the wooden spoon.
So, neither a commited dull technocrat, nor anyone of devout principles, for me his selling out to the gender ideologues and refusing to talk to Rosie Duffield betrays his inherent unlikeable weakness.
Despite his family back story being so compelling.
Well, I’m a bi woman married to a woman, and I too think he needs to talk Duffield and stand up to her, but either way, hiding in the fridge doesn’t solve anything, does it?
Please understand that everyone I know in the gay community at its broadest supports trans people and we are all pretty convinced that we are the next target. It’s not your agreement I’m looking for, it’s an acknowledgment of what is.
Nick, I think the bigger consideration is whether Starmer is the new Blair. No, he's not even the new Kinnock, at least Neil took on the hard left, Starmer can't even face down the militant trans activist lobby in his party. He's more the new Ed Milliband.
Starmer, whatever he might be, is not the new Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband was a fundamentally unserious politician - you can see it in his resignation speech. He never cared that much about winning and I think he saw it all as a game. Starmer is deadly serious about winning. And no, he isn't Blair, but John Major never had anyone like Suella Braverman in his cabinet, and as I've said above, that's a glaring weakness.
I agree about Starmer's serious intent. I've read both Helen Lewis and Iain Leslie takes on his background and approach to gaining power. However Starmer seems deeply flawed in his "both sides-ism" approach to trans activism, and I fear it will at very least cost him serious votes from the gender critical women's consitituency that he can ill afford if he wants a big majority. I just cannot understand his tactics here.
As long as there is this anachronistic FPTP electoral system in the UK, no leader of either Labour or Conservative Party can ever be true to their beliefs. There will always be “both sides-ism”.
Go easy with all this personality-politics. When I look at the poll of polls and see 15% for LibDems/Greens that is shouting out right there is (one half of) Labour's problem. Those are not people put off by Keir Starmer, those are people who want policies or party competence or some sort of mix of the two.
Surely there are two parallel strategies to get the numbers over the line - technocrat for the people sick of the ukippy/pitchfork mob + attack dogs for the actual pitchfork mob? What else would explain the child sexual abuse topic of the first ad?
You risk ending up with a weird mix which a lot of people shrink from or at least find confusing. I don’t have a problem with Labour attack ads because the Tories fight so dirty but the first one was probably a misfire, although it has got a lot of attention.
This is a v good analysis, but... there's always a but... it left me feeling -- You know, yes technocratic competence seems like a great idea but what about the corruption and lies we have and seen over the last (particularly) seven years? The lies about the EU, the dodgy funding of the Leave campaign, the lies about the behaviour of senior Tories and their mates during covid, the corruption and waste of all the dodgy PPE etc, the dodgy elevations to the HoL etc etc... Are we just going to say "Move on", which is a v New Labourish thing to say? At the very least we have to have a public enquiry with power to summon witnesses to look into the Brexit ref, and I would like to see criminal charges of misconduct in public office and perjury brought against those who lied and lied to us? Until and unless this poison is rooted out things will can only not get better...
I think now isn't the time for such a public inquiry or a full throated attack on how Brexit happened. You can do that after Labour wins and politics shifts massively as a result.
Wouldn't that run the danger of being seen as "victor's justice" if it is only discussed and brought about after an election?
I completely agree. The abuses of the referendum especially are just too big to be ignored and I really can’t see how trust in politics gets even half way restored without it. That will take up a lot of oxygen and energy, though, and the problem for Labour is that any such process is also going to reveal its own failure to flag up the potentially catastrophic consequences - aka the state of Britain now - when Cameron was shouting his mouth off promising to honour the result of an advisory vote. They should name and shame Corbyn for that.
They also need to promise to go after all the dodgy Covid stuff - very, very aggressively. Hardly anyone would object to that. That should have been their first attack ad.
I think as a nation we are natural appeasers - which was what the 2109 election was all about -the Brexit crazies wanted it more - so we just rolled with them. But I tend to agree with you - if the nation was going to heal, it would have happened by now. This situation is too serious and fundamental to political and economic history to be appeased.
of course I meant 2019 !
Things could get VERY bad in 2109, lol.
I’m not sure. If Labour is going for the one nation Tory vote then why would they go down the populist route? I have actually just left the Labour Party after forty four years of membership and for me, that first ad was the tipping point. Starmer is no Kinnock, he is as weak as his predecessor and has failed, again like his predecessor, to rebuild the party for the 21st century. The best he will manage is a minority government ; if he does, then he will have to form an alliance with the Libdems on the condition that PR is brought in (with no referendum). That is the only hope we have a halting the decline.
What’s the first thing a technocrat would do? Move closer to Europe, at any rate in trade. Any sign Starmer is doing this? Nope.
You think he won't once in power? He's a technocrat to his bones, which is a shame because with such an evocative personal family story, he should be WAY angrier with how the Tories have wasted the last thirteen years.
No, as Ian Leslie contends, he will torturously approach the peak only to find he'll have to share it with Davey and Humza, or find Sunak has just pipped him to the top.
I think he won’t. He might slightly improve trade but I think no more
Rosemary, this absolutely sums up the primary issue I have and many others have with Starmer. He has no set out vision, yet his quasi technocratic slant doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's as if he's saying he can't do the Blair vision thing, the Corbyn paradise thing, the Boris cakeism thing.
Unfortunately he can't also do the Wilson white heat of technology revolution thing (maybe CZero will be that in a limp form), or the Brown dour/evangelist trade off.
And he can't do the Kinnock wrenching Labour from Militant revolution.
So that leaves John Smith who had more charisma in one finger than Starmer and Ed Milliband whom I agree with Nick takes the wooden spoon.
So, neither a commited dull technocrat, nor anyone of devout principles, for me his selling out to the gender ideologues and refusing to talk to Rosie Duffield betrays his inherent unlikeable weakness.
Despite his family back story being so compelling.
Well, I’m a bi woman married to a woman, and I too think he needs to talk Duffield and stand up to her, but either way, hiding in the fridge doesn’t solve anything, does it?
Worked for Boris. I guess we'll agree to disagree on Duffield and what Starmer's policy on all things trans should be.
The sooner the Tories sort the EHRC recommendations and Starmer falls in behind them, many of us can start considering to vote Labour.
Please understand that everyone I know in the gay community at its broadest supports trans people and we are all pretty convinced that we are the next target. It’s not your agreement I’m looking for, it’s an acknowledgment of what is.
Nick, I think the bigger consideration is whether Starmer is the new Blair. No, he's not even the new Kinnock, at least Neil took on the hard left, Starmer can't even face down the militant trans activist lobby in his party. He's more the new Ed Milliband.
Starmer, whatever he might be, is not the new Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband was a fundamentally unserious politician - you can see it in his resignation speech. He never cared that much about winning and I think he saw it all as a game. Starmer is deadly serious about winning. And no, he isn't Blair, but John Major never had anyone like Suella Braverman in his cabinet, and as I've said above, that's a glaring weakness.
I agree about Starmer's serious intent. I've read both Helen Lewis and Iain Leslie takes on his background and approach to gaining power. However Starmer seems deeply flawed in his "both sides-ism" approach to trans activism, and I fear it will at very least cost him serious votes from the gender critical women's consitituency that he can ill afford if he wants a big majority. I just cannot understand his tactics here.
As long as there is this anachronistic FPTP electoral system in the UK, no leader of either Labour or Conservative Party can ever be true to their beliefs. There will always be “both sides-ism”.
Tbh, I see the debacle of the Scottish Greens tail wagging the SNP dog, and pray we never get PR South of the border.
Go easy with all this personality-politics. When I look at the poll of polls and see 15% for LibDems/Greens that is shouting out right there is (one half of) Labour's problem. Those are not people put off by Keir Starmer, those are people who want policies or party competence or some sort of mix of the two.
Yes, unfortunately there is no edit button !
So what's your excuse for being an idiot ?
Are you saying we're all idiots naturally, or I'm an idiot in particular?
Surely there are two parallel strategies to get the numbers over the line - technocrat for the people sick of the ukippy/pitchfork mob + attack dogs for the actual pitchfork mob? What else would explain the child sexual abuse topic of the first ad?
You risk ending up with a weird mix which a lot of people shrink from or at least find confusing. I don’t have a problem with Labour attack ads because the Tories fight so dirty but the first one was probably a misfire, although it has got a lot of attention.