If a Labour candidate can point to specific good things that the party has helped achieve in the community it will carry gravitas. It would show that the party does care about them and is willing to put time, effort and money in to making their lives better whilst out of power, imagine what they can do when in power.
No quarrel with that but at a local level *all* the capable councillors, independent or party members will be doing exactly this. So there's no differential between party there unless you think party makes a difference to individual councillor's performance at a local level. (Which I can tell you from personal experience it doesn't.)
I *do* know, Starmer has 100pc learned the lessons that needed to be learned and is doing *exactly* the right things
And what is that, exactly?
And what is that, exactly?
Keeping his head down. Not getting typecast as a moaner. Opportunistically opposing and criticizing where he can (which right now isn't often). Doing painstaking market research to make sure he's doing and saying the right stuff. He's telling the party a few home truths. He's got rid of a few wasters and he has a few more in his sights. He's drawn a very clear line between the party and the Campaign Group. He wins on PMQs most weeks and *always* picks the right topic to go with.
Boris has two years to trip up big style. He's going to have landed us with crippling debt. Unless you think he's supremely capable he's highly likely to trip up over the next two years or some random event could overtake them. Now is a terrible time to be in opposition. Two years time is going to be a great time to be I opposition and that's (probably) when the GE is.
When you're opponents are mocking your leader for putting too much effort and emphasis on winning the next GE you know he's got it about right!
Best Labour leader since Blair, and one of the two overwhelmingly best party leaders in the UK. The last three leaders have been holding the party back. (Two of them didn't even want the job!!!) This time it's the party holding the leader back and that can change with a decent example.
flood resistance/ prevention/ mitigation … amazing stuff going on locally, including by some very good Labour folk, but they can’t do anything to encourage change of land use by the largest property owners
No quarrel with that but at a local level *all* the capable councillors, independent or party members will be doing exactly this. So there’s no differential between party there unless you think party makes a difference to individual councillor’s performance at a local lever. (Which I can tell you from personal experience it doesn’t.)
Yes I agree, but no other party has the membership numbers that Labour do. If Starmer could tap into that with say 10 high profile but achievable projects a year, as well as funding from the membership (even £1 for each project from every member would be a huge amount to work with, probably around £400k.)
In Kelvins example, what if Labour bought the land with money from the membership and built the flood defence (as a pure example, I've no idea on the scale etc.) with the help of large numbers of members from outside that constituency it's something that no other party or individual councilors could achieve.
Doing something like that would be easy to promote locally, would unite the membership as it's not a left or right thing it's just the Labour party doing what it exists to do as well as basically being bulletproof from criticism from the Torys. It would also then open channels of dialog between Labour and the community away from the attacks about being Remainers,wokist urban elite or whatever.
what if Labour bought the land with money from the membership
I don't see the owners of the grouse moors selling to Labour for a good price anytime soon.
Yes, lots of young first time voters turned out
Wasn't this shown to be largely a myth?
Well, if that’s the motivation then there’s a clear win for Labour right there. Boris has already given everyone in Hong Kong the right to immediate UK residency and then (after 5 years) citizenship. Literary millions, vastly more than ever came here from the EU.
Some foreigners are considered more palatable than others, and 'sticking it to China' plays well.
Brexit was always going to result in more immigration from non-EU countries, but most Brexiters didn't/don't want to hear it.
Yes I agree, but no other party has the membership numbers that Labour do. If Starmer could tap into that with say 10 high profile but achievable projects a year, as well as funding from the membership (even £1 for each project from every member would be a huge amount to work with, probably around £400k.)
In Kelvins example, what if Labour bought the land with money from the membership and built the flood defence (as a pure example, I’ve no idea on the scale etc.) with the help of large numbers of members from outside that constituency it’s something that no other party or individual councilors could achieve.
Doing something like that would be easy to promote locally, would unite the membership as it’s not a left or right thing it’s just the Labour party doing what it exists to do as well as basically being bulletproof from criticism from the Torys. It would also then open channels of dialog between Labour and the community away from the attacks about being Remainers,wokist urban elite or whatever.
You've changed my mind, that would be incredible. Mind you, £400k doesn't get you far with public works, but yeah, call it a tenner each and surely that would win a marginal with the right project.
I don’t see the owners of the grouse moors selling to Labour for a good price anytime soon.
Pick another project then, there must be things that need to to be done in marginal seats somewhere.
Funding professional representation to oppose development would win you a marginal seat in some places - whatever. The specific project isn't important, the point is mass membership gives you substantial budget that can be focussed on one or two marginals and none of the other parties have that.
Keeping his head down. Not getting typecast as a moaner. Opportunistically opposing and criticizing where he can (which right now isn’t often). Doing painstaking market research to make sure he’s doing and saying the right stuff. He’s telling the party a few home truths. He’s got rid of a few wasters and he has a few more in his sights. He’s drawn a very clear line between the party and the Campaign Group. He wins on PMQs most weeks and *always* picks the right topic to go with.
Ah, so nothing actually effective then. Thanks for clarifying.
Ah, so nothing actually effective then. Thanks for clarifying.
What's your definition of effective?
He wins on PMQs most weeks
People keep going on about this, I think it might have mattered 20 years ago...
The electorate have shown quite clearly they don't want a bloodless barrister pedantically picking apart government policy, they want someone to tell them what they want to hear.
as well as funding from the membership (even £1 for each project from every member would be a huge amount to work with, probably around £400k.)
What you're proposing is illegal I think. It's pretty much why Johnson is in trouble with the electoral commission.
Brexit was always going to result in more immigration from non-EU countries
Of course, plenty of people were saying that on the Brexit Thread five years ago and frequently since, including me.
If increased non-EU immigration is a problem then it's an opportunity for Labour, if it's not a problem then what's the problem?
The electorate have shown quite clearly they don’t want a bloodless barrister pedantically picking apart government policy, they want someone to tell them what they want to hear.
And they don't want to hear what Labour have to tell them. If they did then Starmer would have an easy job. However, he has to get them to hear stuff they don't want to listen to and even more than that get them to actually vote. Outside of blatant lying I am not sure how he can get them.
If increased non-EU immigration is a problem then it’s an opportunity for Labour, if it’s not a problem then what’s the problem?
It would be considered a problem for most Brexiters if they lived in the world of reality, but they don't. I don't think Labour going down the road of saying 'hey Brexiters look there's actually going to be more differently-pigmented people here now, not less like you wanted' is really a good thing, do you?
However, he has to get them to hear stuff they don’t want to listen to and even more than that get them to actually vote.
It would be nice if he'd at least try.
Funding professional representation to oppose development would win you a marginal seat in some places – whatever.
For me the important thing isn't so much the funding but the having the membership take part enmasse to work on a project that helps that community.
What you’re proposing is illegal I think. It’s pretty much why Johnson is in trouble with the electoral commission.
If it is, then side step that by getting the membership to donate to charities or local groups who are working on some issue locally and then flood them with bodies on the ground to work on it.
For me something like this would ignite the party and really get people to see Labour in a different light. It would help with the "they are all the same" mindset people have of politicians but most importantly it would bring people together within communities and rebuild bonds that both left/right remain/leave whoever would benefit from.
Yep PMQs rarely cut through. Cameron being rude to Corbyn was one that did. I wonder if Keir/Labour could play a bit dirty eg
Could someone bring up Bojo's injunctions in PMQs? &Ask questions like: "Does the Conservative Party still believe in family values?". "Have you ever been sacked for lying" etc etc etc
What you’re proposing is illegal, I think.
Not my idea but yeah, I picked it up. On reflection even if it's legal it would be so transparent as to be counter productive. I was wrong.
It’s pretty much why Johnson is in trouble with the electoral commission.
Not sure I agree with this, Boris is in trouble for doing a Mandleson - effectively getting a bridging loan via the party. (Mandleson had to resign, sounds like Ben Elliot of "Quintessentially" will carry the can for Curtain-Gate.) Nothing to do with committing too much resource to a constituency campaign which I suspect is what you're saying would be illegal about the "projects for votes" scheme.
People keep going on about this, I think it might have mattered 20 years ago…
I confess I was struggling for ideas by the time I got to that one. 😁
He’s going to have landed us with crippling debt.
FFS no he’s not. Even the tories and the right wing economic think tanks have given up on the myth of the deficit and the debt yet the centrists are still banging on about it.
Even the tories and the right wing economic think tanks have given up on the myth of the deficit and the debt
No, they haven’t. Start another thread and we can post clips and quotes from government ministers preparing the public for restrictions on spending and increases in taxation using debt/deficit/affordability language. I wish I lived in your world. And that’s before we get to how the media and press cover these issues. You can just look at debates about continuing the small increase in universal credit, or NHS pay, or the financial help for self employed during the pandemic, or…
dazh
Full MemberEven the tories and the right wing economic think tanks have given up on the myth of the deficit and the debt
Well, no, they haven't. They don't believe it, but of course that doesn't really matter, they haven't believed in their own economic policies for years.
But they've certainly not given up on the myth. And since when was the reality ever actually important? The myth is what really counts.
the myth of the deficit and the debt yet the centrists are still banging on about it.
Come on then. Let's hear about Rishi's economic masterstroke.
I vaguely heard servicing this borrowing will cost us roughly an extra 1pc of National spending for the next 35 years. So what's the real number, with a source please.
Also, can you cite some other countries that have borrowed big style over covid and are opening saying it's nothing to worry about because MMT?
Frankly if the Torys have promptly vaccinated everyone *and* borrowing for Covid is going to be self financing, then it's doesn't really matter what Keir does over the next two years, he's gonna lose by a landslide.
Come on then. Let’s hear about Rishi’s economic masterstroke.
It’s got bollocks all to do with Sunak, he’s not doing anything different to anyone before him, but it is nonsense to say he’s accumulating ‘crippling’ debts. The point is that when we need to spend money, we can, at very little long term cost. The tories and their dark money thinktanks have accepted that, and so should labour. Labour could do far more by embracing debt and the resultant investment than the tories ever will, so they should stop being shy about it.
The tories may have accepted it but they won't ever tell the public that (and Labour don't ever seem to either)
They will still punish the least able to afford it over the next 10 years for no other reason that hatred of them and greed for themselves.
'Paying back the debt' is used to justify deregulating the labour market and cutting pay to restore or boost profits. The full impact has not yet hit the labour market and the housing market will be walloped by the coming evictions and homelessness. I've only heard Armrest make pronouncements on behalf of the landlords and the banks, it'd help if he had some policy ideas to challenge the tsunami of ordure cascading down. Once you do deals with your rich sponsors, the bosses, you expel the socialists from the party, you get gonged but you've got very little room for manoeuvre. Hence not supporting the nurses' pay claim, giving out charity and always looking a bit hunted. Greed, capitalism and the pub landlord have not got us out of this crisis and the LP need to present an alternative perspective but that won't come from focus groups of first-time Tory voters. I'm sure there are good people wanting to see an egalitarian change in society but smashing standards of living are much more likely and the LP will abstain or make revolutionary demands like 'get a grip'.
Again, who has been expelled from the party? Your last example was a councillor who was campaigning for the NIP candidate against the Labour one, and before that a list of people expelled while Corbyn was leader, before Starmer was elected.
Walker, Williamson, Corbyn, Greenstein, Machover are just a few
Walker - expelled while Corbyn was leader, suspended back in, what 2017?
Williamson - suspended in 2019?
Greenstein - was it 2018?
Machover - 2017?*
And this is down to Starmer, how? That all predates his election.
Or is this all about Corbyn losing the whip?
EDIT: *after googling, it looks like Machover has been in and out of the party a few times since then, including being suspended last year, for working with the other names on your list, and refusing to answer questions as part of Labour’s disciplinary process about... well.. you know more than me about this than me no doubt... what was he refusing to answer questions about?
And since when was the reality ever actually important? The myth is what really counts.
This to me is absolutely the biggest problem facing Starmer - a sizeable percentage of the electorate support a party of amoral fantasists who refuse any responsibility for the shitshow they're in charge of. How do you convince working class Tory voters that they're in a politically abusive relationship that they need to get out of?
Not often I say this these days but there's been a couple of reasonably decent (or at least interesting) articles in the guardian about Labour's issues.
@kelvin here's a couple of examples
How do you convince working class Tory voters that they’re in a politically abusive relationship that they need to get out of?
How do you convince folks that that mirage that telly offers them of empty roads in your brand new car, jetting off to a empty beach while a smiling supermodel hands you a coke...is just a fantasy, and that really, want you want is a council owned house, an electric car, a bit of free broadband and a slightly less-crappy pension...(maybe, terms and conditions apply)
Tongue in cheek, but really, it's not hard to see why the Tories are so popular.
@grum, I read those as well, pretty spot on, this:
It doesn’t help that Labour is also battling a perception in its former heartlands that the party has been captured by snooty metropolitans, far-left fanatics or both.
Particularly
want you want is a council owned house, an electric car, a bit of free broadband and a slightly less-crappy pension
That's not really an accurate view of Socialism though.
But you may have at least hit the nail on the head with bob-eyed perception of what it might be.
What we currently have is a model built on house prices out of whack and cheap private debt, and low wages. It won't last forever. And when it goes boom we will need the Government to make it right again.
What we currently have is a model built on house prices out of whack and cheap private debt, and low wages. It won’t last forever. And when it goes boom we will need the Government to make it right again.
And that will be the tory party as the voters who vote tory will still think they are the best party to deal with it. The abusive relationship comparison is a good one.
It doesn’t help that Labour is also battling a perception in its former heartlands that the party has been captured by snooty metropolitans, far-left fanatics or both.
Indeed. The first is due to Labour's catastrophic second referendum policy and the persistent attempts by the party between 2017 and 2019 to frustrate the brexit decision despite the fact that northern MPs were screaming that they were losing it's working class base. The second is a direct result of the weaponisation of anti-semitism to portray anyone who was against Israeli policy as a dangerous anti-semitic extremist. Now someone remind me which wing of the party were responsible for those two things?
a sizeable percentage of the electorate support a party of amoral fantasists who refuse any responsibility for the shitshow they’re in charge of.
Yeah but that's not the problem. The problem is the Labour Party, not the Tory Party.
There is no evidence to show that the Tories are particularly popular. The last 3 opinion polls all put support for the Tories at 40%.
Which is less than the 42% the Tories got in the 2017 general election when Theresa May lost the election and failed to get a majority.
What the polls do show however is that the Labour Party is extremely unpopular, relatively speaking.
It is a mistake, and not at all useful, to mistake Labour's unpopularity for Tory popularity.
As I've said before, the Tories will be blamed for Labour doing badly when the responsibility actually lies with the Labour Party
As I’ve said before, the Tories will be blamed for Labour doing badly when the responsibility actually lies with the Labour Party
The fundamental issue is that everyone knows what the purpose of the Labour party is, which is to represent and fight for the interests of working people in parliament. The trouble is that for most of the past 25 years, the Labour party haven't done this. When they did for a brief period in 2015-2017 they saw their vote share recover and their membership increase massively. Since then they've gone back to doing what they were pre-2015 and their vote share and support has gone back to what it was before. It's not rocket science is it?
When they did for a brief period in 2015-2017 they saw their vote share recover and their membership increase massively
the lowest increases in Labour’s 2017 support came from the working class, with a 9-point increase among the skilled workers outweighed by the 11-point increase enjoyed by the Conservatives. The facts don't support your assertions. More working class voters voted for conservatives in both 2017 and 2019. Labour's increase in votes in 2017 came from Students (see Canterbury) and professionals (AB social class).
The facts don’t support your assertions.
That's not what I said though. I didn't say their gains came from the working class, only that once they returned to doing what voters understood to be their traditional purpose, their vote share recovered accordingly.
The fundamental issue is that everyone knows what the purpose of the Labour party is, which is to represent and fight for the interests of working people in parliament.
Actually to be more precise the Labour Party was founded by working people to represent themselves in parliament.
The Liberal Party, a party dominated by well-meaning affluent professionals, who without doubt provided important social reforms, ultimately proved to be an unsatisfactory vehicle for that.
Today we are actually in a very similar situation - history repeats itself first as a tragedy, second as a farce.
Up until Tony Blair become leader out of the 15 previous Labour leaders 10 could be said to have a working class background. Since then the chance of that are close to zero. Even on the back benches there is almost no working class representation. People like Dennis Skinner no longer exist in the parliamentary Labour Party.
For me the important thing isn’t so much the funding but the having the membership take part enmasse to work on a project that helps that community.
Do you mean 'activism'? Because that is already happening, as I described briefly earlier. There are/were countless groups affiliated with Labour, who actively get together to help out in the 'community', to achieve positive change. This is the kind of grassroots activism that saw a massive surge under Corbyn's leadership, yet under Starmer, has seen many groups no longer want to be associated with Labour. Losing these is disastrous for Starmer, as is losing union support, because it will leave him with even less support of the very people Labour is supposed to represent; the labour force.
The fundamental issue is that everyone knows what the purpose of the Labour party is, which is to represent and fight for the interests of working people in parliament. The trouble is that for most of the past 25 years, the Labour party haven’t done this. When they did for a brief period in 2015-2017 they saw their vote share recover and their membership increase massively.
This. Labour has become little more than a shell to represent corporate interests, under the guise of being 'for the people'. It clearly no longer is, and increasing numbers of people are realising this, and becoming disillusioned with politics altogether. Making things even easier for the ruling elites. That not a single Starmerite on here has given any meaningful answer as to how Starmer is going to reverse this, shows just how utterly useless he really is, for the people that need to be represented. He may well, however, be very useful for those ruling elites, if they decide they need a new puppet*, if and when Boris outlives his usefulness to them. But he's not going to actually change anything.
*Stand by to see accusations of Anti-Semitism from those who've been taken in by the right...
Sure, but the people that Labour are supposed to represent; "The workers" turned back to them in less numbers in 2017 than those people turned towards the Conservatives. In fact a bigger slice of their support came from greens, students and the middle classes.
Personally I don't think that's necessarily a problem. I think Labour could do worse than appeal to the same groups of people that made it's success in 2017 so astonishing. While everyone's fixated on Hartlepool, the fact that Labour will again overwhelming win in London goes almost un remarked upon. A quick look at the way London has voted in the past (as recently at the 70's London was totally controlled by the Tories.) shows was a remarkable domination it is. This is hurdle that Labour has to overcome. It's support now is in high density cities, and university towns, and not in socially conservative northern towns any longer. How you translate that to national support is for some-one with better ideas than me.
