Why Starmer is succeeding and Sunak is failing - and it’s not for the reasons everyone is telling you The polls don’t lie, particularly over such a long period of time: Labour is succeeding and the Conservative party is failing. Rishi Sunak, in his first year as prime minister, has failed to close the gap between his party and Keir Starmer’s at all, which remains a yawning chasm at around 20%. Sunak has failed, that much is clear already.
I don't much like Starmer but I think your analysis here is correct. And I do give him credit for being able to do most of the things you discuss.
I think he'll become PM and will then struggle to be effective. Which of course means he'll still be much, much, much better than any of our recent PMs... just not good, visionary or inclusive enough to make the changes to the country that are needed to reverse the decline.
He's adapted (read: changed course wildly, albeit deliberately) before, so who knows?
Starmer had to say something sensible and restrained on Palestine and to look Prime Ministerial and in Britain that means falling in with our old allies across the pond by riding American coat tails as usual.
But I feel he has not gone far enough. It's a shade of Blair and the Iraq War again. Starmer needs to go at least as far as Layla Moran and as far as the LibDems on a 4 stage plan to re-join the Single Market, plus to make encouraging noises on constitutional reforms, primarily PR voting, but also a codified Written Constitution, which would apart from other things, tie the hands of a future De Peffel Johnson type, in attempting to concentrate power into any future wannabe world king.
Labour leaders are always called “strong” when they attack the Labour Party. For the commentators the real enemy is Labour and the most liked Labour leaders are ones that care little for the Labour Party.
Starmer got elected announcing that the foundational document in his leadership would be the 2017 manifesto. He got elected on 10 pledges that amounted to Corbyn with competence. He got elected as an enthusiastic pro-European.
He then removed everything about Corbyn. Reversed position on his 10 pledges. Defined himself as not-Corbyn. Left Labour members who voted for him feel betrayed.
Of course he will win. In a first past the post election people vote against what they don’t want.
Starmer will remain strong to commentators while he stands against his party. A party perceived to be illegitimate political operators in a world of Westminster.
Seeking that ill-defined centre ground. It exists as a repository of voters who vote for strong leaders.
Stephen, why not ask yourself this: why is this dislike of the Labour Party you speak of such a thing? I don't particularly like the Labour Party, I'll hold my hands up and admit that. The reason is, I have always found it a little snobby and up itself, as well as a little weird and cut off from the people it's supposed to represent. I don't feel like this opinion is formed by too little contact - I have worked in several Labour dominated NGOs at different points in my career, been to a dozen Labour Party conferences, spoken on numerous panels with Labour MPs and representatives, and have loads of friends who are Labour Party members. It's not like I have some deep-seated need to dislike the party - in fact, I have long wanted to like Labour. I have tried hard to do so. It's analogous for me to a band everyone you know likes and you desperately want to like it too in order to fit in - yet every time you listen to the music, you feel nothing but put off.
I could go on, but you get my point - why don't Labour people ever, ever think, "Why don't more people like us more?" instead of "Everyone is against us, everyone sucks"?
Dislike of the party is a thing for some kinds of Labour political operators. Lots of reasons.
Firstly, its because all political parties have members engaged in politics. Voters are not. They have little to no interest. It's about perception more than reality. Opinion is formed largely by a media hostile to Labour. The Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph etc. They have less direct influence but they set the agenda of the BBC, ITV and other media. Voters are then told which leaders are strong or weak. The terms are imprecise but hammered home.
Next, Labour is a party run by the middle class. They have candidates who, for a long while, came out of a route starting with a PPE degree, becoming a political adviser, working for an MP, then being put on a candidate list for a safe seat in a place they had never previously heard of. The history of Labour as a founded by trade unions matters little. The political party is almost irrelevant. If you want to get into Government you have to join Labour or the Conservatives. Labour don't represent ordinary people. They are just less cruel.
The current crop of Keir Starmer's office are worshippers at the alter of Blair. In the same way as successive Conservative leaders are unable to throw off Thatcherism. They want freedom from unions. Would prefer if there were few members. Would like money to come from corporate sponsorship to free the need of going to meetings and listening what members want. It's not evil. It's not dislike of people. It is simply that members are seen as unnecessary. Something to marginalise.
Labour leadership contests need the drama of an exchange of ideas. If you go to the members you have to say something to get elected. Once elected you can ignore members. Except for the money. Labour members want a Labour Government in preference to a Conservative one. They vote Labour anyway.
When a Labour leader is seen as strong by right wing columnists, newspapers and the BBC, it is all about facing down Labour and/or unions. The leader is seen as a victor in a titanic struggle. Purging Jeremy Corbyn. Controlling selection of candidates. It is both an act and substance. Labour is now attracting corporate money. Widely perceived to be on it's way to power.
I don't think you use the word "like" correctly. I mean like in the context of Labour leaderships who would prefer they didn't have any members. Members as an inconvenient barrier to Westminster party circle of corporate sponsorship, think tanks, and just doing what they want.
Most Labour members, in my experience, don't even think "why don't people like us?". They have ideas, locally and nationally, about what would make lives better. Everyone isn't against Labour. Ultimately, the class war has been over for a long, long time. The rich won. L:abour may get a few years in Government periodically to help ordinary people its an occasional respite care period. Until voters are persuaded that a "change" is necessary.
Starmer did win the election to Labour leader using slight of hand. With Labour captured by about 250,000 hard left people, such as ex members of members of Militant, SWP, old CP stalinists etc., it was probably the only way to do it. Was it morally wrong, probably in itself. But this is not the LibDems or Greens with archetypal open toed sandals. it is the Labour Party, partly born out of trade unions, taking power by grinding and crushing foes in their mandibles, with hints of Big Brother & Uncle Joe. The alternative was to leave this one other party; able to seriously take on and occasionally beat the Tories at national level; floundering in unelectability.
With a Corbyn type leader, even a weakened Tory Party as now, would probably still just about win against Magic Grandad and his promised worker take over of company boards (what would all the workers say?) and nationalised profits. He of much Jewish offence and a not so very secret Bennite Brexiter, punching the air and calling for the completely impractical signing of Article 50, the day after the stupid vote. With his inability to debate, to interview properly, to engage his own party, let alone in reaching out to others or having a clue on policy. Even his speeches to his inner circle of supporters, were virtually all the same. If Corbyn was a dog, he'd be the untrained mutt, incapable of any task, unmoveable and always there in the way ( Cor-byn......here Corbyn! ). A comment from one of his puzzled constituents I know: "He was alright as a local MP, but as leader of the Labour Party.....???
No party is ever really perfect to anyone and FPTP forces them to become larger internal coalitions that satisfy nobody. The Greens are split between fundamentalist leftists and pro business pragmatists, the LibDems between Cleggist centre right deregulatory Economic Liberals and the larger group of centre left Social Liberals hailing partly from the SDP. Labour have now put down their hard left Donkey Jacketed election losers and are back to a sort of Social Centrism, to avoid saying the "B" word.
Much as I loath and detest this government and populism in general, I know that when Labour are in power and into about half way through the second term, they will start to annoy me. Last time there was the Iraq War and the £30bn I.D Database & Card. The database would have wiped away any freedom that remained in this country, criminalised people without carrying it, or marginalised groups unable or anyone unwilling to tell the government where they were for the night. It would have highly inconvenienced people with it's queues outside of government information centres and it offered hackers the biggest "come and get me" target in the world, while adding nothing that couldn't be done already. Once you start building government and commercial information around people's eyeballs and finger prints, then people's gait (walk), once that information is compromised, wrong, or misread, you will get wrongful arrests and you can't issue people with a fresh set of eye balls. This is a terrible idea which some of the front bench have hinted at they will re-visit. This alone would stop me from voting Labour in a General Election. To give Clegg his due, he said he would personally refuse to co-operate with it. Brown said the Liberals should merge with Labour and Labour's stars did originate from the Liberal's Labour Representation Committee, with LibDems born out of the ex Labour SDP. But in coalition talks in 2010, Brown refused to drop the ID database, such was his level of extreme control freakery. That says enough for me.
It's as if people making the claims have already forgotten how much Corbyn and his approach tanked Labour before Johnson, and how even Johnson polled (far too) well with Tory fans.
Good thing that there's finally an alternative to the nasty party that voters can accept.
"Why then does Sunak keep her [Braverman] in the Home Office...?"
The answer is simple; he shares her views. For both, democratic rights and freedoms are luxuries that they should be able to remove at will.
This may be an under-appreciated reason for the low popularity of Sunak. Nobody is discussing this point, but it may be seeping into the subconscious of voters in the UK. Britons pride themselves that the UK is a bastion of democracy and freedom. It must be disheartening (and perhaps a source of cognitive dissonance) to openly hold these views personally while witnessing a Prime Minister and cabinet who happily make statements and initiate laws denigrating what the Conservatives once hailed as British rights and freedoms.
This is the perspective from a Spaniard that doesn't know Labour history and has an opinion formed only after getting into politics after Brexit.
I like Starmer, I think he's doing a fantastic job and I find him a man of integrity and honour. I don't understand why so many people dislike him for very strange reasons. I think of myself as a moderate conservative that is represented best by politicians like Ken Clarke or Lord Heseltine
And I believe he did very well for all the reasons Nick mentions. He is a labour politicians that can capture conservative votes from moderate right wingers that believe Brexit is insane. Corbyn couldn't
His promotion by Cummings to Chancellor was ridiculous given he had been a junior minister the year before.......when you think the likes of David Gauke were kicked out of the party...........
Boris Johnson was never very popular, it's a well touted myth pushed by his fans. He was less popular with the country in 2019 than May was in 2017.
However, Jeremy Corbyn was infinitely less popular & was thus Johnson's best card. I must admit I underestimated Corbyn's lack of support, which was a key factor in the LibDems (I'm a member) getting big swings & coming close, but not winning a number of Tory held seats eg Winchester, Cheltenham, Cheadle etc.
Am not overly impressed by Starmer and my view of him has gone down over time, but at least he doesn't worry small c soft Tory voters in Lib-Con marginals.
I don't much like Starmer but I think your analysis here is correct. And I do give him credit for being able to do most of the things you discuss.
I think he'll become PM and will then struggle to be effective. Which of course means he'll still be much, much, much better than any of our recent PMs... just not good, visionary or inclusive enough to make the changes to the country that are needed to reverse the decline.
He's adapted (read: changed course wildly, albeit deliberately) before, so who knows?
Starmer had to say something sensible and restrained on Palestine and to look Prime Ministerial and in Britain that means falling in with our old allies across the pond by riding American coat tails as usual.
But I feel he has not gone far enough. It's a shade of Blair and the Iraq War again. Starmer needs to go at least as far as Layla Moran and as far as the LibDems on a 4 stage plan to re-join the Single Market, plus to make encouraging noises on constitutional reforms, primarily PR voting, but also a codified Written Constitution, which would apart from other things, tie the hands of a future De Peffel Johnson type, in attempting to concentrate power into any future wannabe world king.
Labour leaders are always called “strong” when they attack the Labour Party. For the commentators the real enemy is Labour and the most liked Labour leaders are ones that care little for the Labour Party.
Starmer got elected announcing that the foundational document in his leadership would be the 2017 manifesto. He got elected on 10 pledges that amounted to Corbyn with competence. He got elected as an enthusiastic pro-European.
He then removed everything about Corbyn. Reversed position on his 10 pledges. Defined himself as not-Corbyn. Left Labour members who voted for him feel betrayed.
Of course he will win. In a first past the post election people vote against what they don’t want.
Starmer will remain strong to commentators while he stands against his party. A party perceived to be illegitimate political operators in a world of Westminster.
Seeking that ill-defined centre ground. It exists as a repository of voters who vote for strong leaders.
Stephen, why not ask yourself this: why is this dislike of the Labour Party you speak of such a thing? I don't particularly like the Labour Party, I'll hold my hands up and admit that. The reason is, I have always found it a little snobby and up itself, as well as a little weird and cut off from the people it's supposed to represent. I don't feel like this opinion is formed by too little contact - I have worked in several Labour dominated NGOs at different points in my career, been to a dozen Labour Party conferences, spoken on numerous panels with Labour MPs and representatives, and have loads of friends who are Labour Party members. It's not like I have some deep-seated need to dislike the party - in fact, I have long wanted to like Labour. I have tried hard to do so. It's analogous for me to a band everyone you know likes and you desperately want to like it too in order to fit in - yet every time you listen to the music, you feel nothing but put off.
I could go on, but you get my point - why don't Labour people ever, ever think, "Why don't more people like us more?" instead of "Everyone is against us, everyone sucks"?
Dislike of the party is a thing for some kinds of Labour political operators. Lots of reasons.
Firstly, its because all political parties have members engaged in politics. Voters are not. They have little to no interest. It's about perception more than reality. Opinion is formed largely by a media hostile to Labour. The Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph etc. They have less direct influence but they set the agenda of the BBC, ITV and other media. Voters are then told which leaders are strong or weak. The terms are imprecise but hammered home.
Next, Labour is a party run by the middle class. They have candidates who, for a long while, came out of a route starting with a PPE degree, becoming a political adviser, working for an MP, then being put on a candidate list for a safe seat in a place they had never previously heard of. The history of Labour as a founded by trade unions matters little. The political party is almost irrelevant. If you want to get into Government you have to join Labour or the Conservatives. Labour don't represent ordinary people. They are just less cruel.
The current crop of Keir Starmer's office are worshippers at the alter of Blair. In the same way as successive Conservative leaders are unable to throw off Thatcherism. They want freedom from unions. Would prefer if there were few members. Would like money to come from corporate sponsorship to free the need of going to meetings and listening what members want. It's not evil. It's not dislike of people. It is simply that members are seen as unnecessary. Something to marginalise.
Labour leadership contests need the drama of an exchange of ideas. If you go to the members you have to say something to get elected. Once elected you can ignore members. Except for the money. Labour members want a Labour Government in preference to a Conservative one. They vote Labour anyway.
When a Labour leader is seen as strong by right wing columnists, newspapers and the BBC, it is all about facing down Labour and/or unions. The leader is seen as a victor in a titanic struggle. Purging Jeremy Corbyn. Controlling selection of candidates. It is both an act and substance. Labour is now attracting corporate money. Widely perceived to be on it's way to power.
I don't think you use the word "like" correctly. I mean like in the context of Labour leaderships who would prefer they didn't have any members. Members as an inconvenient barrier to Westminster party circle of corporate sponsorship, think tanks, and just doing what they want.
Most Labour members, in my experience, don't even think "why don't people like us?". They have ideas, locally and nationally, about what would make lives better. Everyone isn't against Labour. Ultimately, the class war has been over for a long, long time. The rich won. L:abour may get a few years in Government periodically to help ordinary people its an occasional respite care period. Until voters are persuaded that a "change" is necessary.
Starmer did win the election to Labour leader using slight of hand. With Labour captured by about 250,000 hard left people, such as ex members of members of Militant, SWP, old CP stalinists etc., it was probably the only way to do it. Was it morally wrong, probably in itself. But this is not the LibDems or Greens with archetypal open toed sandals. it is the Labour Party, partly born out of trade unions, taking power by grinding and crushing foes in their mandibles, with hints of Big Brother & Uncle Joe. The alternative was to leave this one other party; able to seriously take on and occasionally beat the Tories at national level; floundering in unelectability.
With a Corbyn type leader, even a weakened Tory Party as now, would probably still just about win against Magic Grandad and his promised worker take over of company boards (what would all the workers say?) and nationalised profits. He of much Jewish offence and a not so very secret Bennite Brexiter, punching the air and calling for the completely impractical signing of Article 50, the day after the stupid vote. With his inability to debate, to interview properly, to engage his own party, let alone in reaching out to others or having a clue on policy. Even his speeches to his inner circle of supporters, were virtually all the same. If Corbyn was a dog, he'd be the untrained mutt, incapable of any task, unmoveable and always there in the way ( Cor-byn......here Corbyn! ). A comment from one of his puzzled constituents I know: "He was alright as a local MP, but as leader of the Labour Party.....???
No party is ever really perfect to anyone and FPTP forces them to become larger internal coalitions that satisfy nobody. The Greens are split between fundamentalist leftists and pro business pragmatists, the LibDems between Cleggist centre right deregulatory Economic Liberals and the larger group of centre left Social Liberals hailing partly from the SDP. Labour have now put down their hard left Donkey Jacketed election losers and are back to a sort of Social Centrism, to avoid saying the "B" word.
Much as I loath and detest this government and populism in general, I know that when Labour are in power and into about half way through the second term, they will start to annoy me. Last time there was the Iraq War and the £30bn I.D Database & Card. The database would have wiped away any freedom that remained in this country, criminalised people without carrying it, or marginalised groups unable or anyone unwilling to tell the government where they were for the night. It would have highly inconvenienced people with it's queues outside of government information centres and it offered hackers the biggest "come and get me" target in the world, while adding nothing that couldn't be done already. Once you start building government and commercial information around people's eyeballs and finger prints, then people's gait (walk), once that information is compromised, wrong, or misread, you will get wrongful arrests and you can't issue people with a fresh set of eye balls. This is a terrible idea which some of the front bench have hinted at they will re-visit. This alone would stop me from voting Labour in a General Election. To give Clegg his due, he said he would personally refuse to co-operate with it. Brown said the Liberals should merge with Labour and Labour's stars did originate from the Liberal's Labour Representation Committee, with LibDems born out of the ex Labour SDP. But in coalition talks in 2010, Brown refused to drop the ID database, such was his level of extreme control freakery. That says enough for me.
Very good points, thanks for making that.
It's as if people making the claims have already forgotten how much Corbyn and his approach tanked Labour before Johnson, and how even Johnson polled (far too) well with Tory fans.
Good thing that there's finally an alternative to the nasty party that voters can accept.
"Why then does Sunak keep her [Braverman] in the Home Office...?"
The answer is simple; he shares her views. For both, democratic rights and freedoms are luxuries that they should be able to remove at will.
This may be an under-appreciated reason for the low popularity of Sunak. Nobody is discussing this point, but it may be seeping into the subconscious of voters in the UK. Britons pride themselves that the UK is a bastion of democracy and freedom. It must be disheartening (and perhaps a source of cognitive dissonance) to openly hold these views personally while witnessing a Prime Minister and cabinet who happily make statements and initiate laws denigrating what the Conservatives once hailed as British rights and freedoms.
This is the perspective from a Spaniard that doesn't know Labour history and has an opinion formed only after getting into politics after Brexit.
I like Starmer, I think he's doing a fantastic job and I find him a man of integrity and honour. I don't understand why so many people dislike him for very strange reasons. I think of myself as a moderate conservative that is represented best by politicians like Ken Clarke or Lord Heseltine
And I believe he did very well for all the reasons Nick mentions. He is a labour politicians that can capture conservative votes from moderate right wingers that believe Brexit is insane. Corbyn couldn't
His promotion by Cummings to Chancellor was ridiculous given he had been a junior minister the year before.......when you think the likes of David Gauke were kicked out of the party...........
There are many reasons I’ll never vote for Starmer but his stance of supporting the massacre in Palestine is the chief of them.
Boris Johnson was never very popular, it's a well touted myth pushed by his fans. He was less popular with the country in 2019 than May was in 2017.
However, Jeremy Corbyn was infinitely less popular & was thus Johnson's best card. I must admit I underestimated Corbyn's lack of support, which was a key factor in the LibDems (I'm a member) getting big swings & coming close, but not winning a number of Tory held seats eg Winchester, Cheltenham, Cheadle etc.
Am not overly impressed by Starmer and my view of him has gone down over time, but at least he doesn't worry small c soft Tory voters in Lib-Con marginals.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/polling/2022/01/boris-johnson-was-never-truly-popular