My understanding is that the majority already vote labour, the current infighting just sheds votes
Is there any research on what motivates people to vote Labour other than "I hate the ****ing Tories"? Which is a perfectly valid reason but not very useful in formulating policy. You can either have model/manifesto/philosphy and hope people ashere to it and/or you can take positions on topical/controversial subjects and hope people take sides.
I generally vote for what conforms to my view of social justice but I realise that is rare and it's easier to get votes with meaningless slogans such as "take back control".
Why do people vote Labour other than hating the Tories?
Why do people vote Labour other than hating the Tories?
Well traditionally it was because they knew that Labour served their best interests and that the Tories didn't.
Great reforms such as the creation of the NHS, decriminalisation of homosexuality, race relations, equal pay, etc, reinforced that perception.
In recent times however it's all become rather blurred and the distinction less apparent. Labour politicians declaring that they are "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" doesn't quite strike the same chord.
Labour and Starmer have got to decide what they want to be. It feels like a straight choice to me:
1. Become the party of sensible folk who want a prosperous country and who don't drink Carling. Outward-looking, positive and worldly.
2. Become a workers' Nationalist party and try to win back their Red Wall Racists. Introspective, negative and parochial. Drink of choice = Carling.
Starmer has had long enough. The Tories are useless but he hasn't got the balls to do one thing or the other. His 'lost' support don't respond much to anything other than tub thumping nationalism. His potential 'new' support still don't trust Labour with their economy.
I know which option I'd go for, but it ain't my calculation to make.
So why isn’t Starmer doing it?
Why is he focusing on fighting alleged antisemitism and expelling members?
Because he is crap, have we not agreed that already.
I think it's blatantly obvious now, that the real problem with Labour isn't after all the 'lefties', or Corbyn, or anti-Semitism, but Neoliberalism. Which is a failed project (see: the Environment and Capitalist Imperialism). Yet had the neoliberals in the party actually got behind Corbyn in 2017, after it was apparent that there WAS support for his policies, instead of being hypocritical duplicitous ****s, and united behind the democratically elected leader, then we might actually be in a situation where things might not be perfect, but they'd be a darn sight better than they are now, as we might not have a ****ing tory government. Yet some people are obviously still deluded or naive enough to believe it's all Corbyn's fault. So crack on; that approach is working well for you, isn't it?
When you have 326+ you can legislate, make the laws, change people’s lives for the better.
And how do you think, even if Armrest did become PM, he'd actually achieve that? Have you any ideas? Do you really think he'd enact the kind of fairly radical changes needed, to steer the UK back in the right direction? And if so; in the face of overwhelming evidence he wouldn't do anything like that, that he hasn't got the balls to be able to stand up to corporate power and interests, why do you keep placing your faith in what is clearly a lame duck?
Become a workers’ Nationalist party and try to win back their Red Wall Racists. Introspective, negative and parochial. Drink of choice = Carling.
Ha a direct snub to Marxist Vegetarians against Carling.
So why isn’t Starmer doing it?
Why is he focusing on fighting alleged antisemitism and expelling members?
He's probably being told that Boris will steal any policy that looks in any way popular
And possibly he's playing wack-a-mole with the "good socialists" who take the Palestine issue to heart and start getting carried away with the rhetoric
Plus settling the claims from JC's time coming out from mishandling of reports and personal data
As I've said earlier, his conference matters, it's his first proper platform both for the party and nationally
Do you really think he’d enact the kind of fairly radical changes needed, to steer the UK back in the right direction?
He will be far more able with 326+ than without. I also think you highlight the left's problem, everything seems to have to be done immediately, Blair/Brown had three terms in office, the left operate like they'll have one. You can build support with positive change rather than destroying it with upheaval, losers are always louder than winners.
And if so; in the face of overwhelming evidence he wouldn’t do anything like that, that he hasn’t got the balls to be able to stand up to corporate power and interests, why do you keep placing your faith in what is clearly a lame duck?
Some people will never be happy with Starmer, he isn't pure enough for them, ever.
For the pragmatists he's the only game in town, no-one has a alternative to Starmer that doesn't have considerable baggage, attract similar levels of opprobrium just from different people, and won't melt in the hot seat as LOTO
As for corporate interests, I think he's more likely to take them on and win (again) than most. It's useless taking them on and losing.
Or are you suggesting the resurrection of the secular saint.......
no-one has a alternative to Starmer that doesn’t have considerable baggage, attract similar levels of opprobrium just from different people, and won’t melt in the hot seat as LOTO
This is still key. The who, the when and the how, when it comes to replacing Starmer. I've not seen any realistic answer to this yet. No, he's not good enough to win the next election... but at the moment, as during his election campaign, perhaps he's still the best on offer in the parliamentary party. Not the best politician, but the best MP to have as party leader right now. A depressing thought, and I'd love to hear suggestions to the contrary.
Ha a direct snub to Marxist Vegetarians against Carling.
I forgot that faction.
The fact is that Tory support is more amorphous than traditional Labour support. If you can convince enough people to vote out of pure self interest, then the Tories will always win. Even better when you can tell different groups different lies via targeted social media. Throw in a bit of cheap racism (it's a secret ballot, remember, indulge your inner prejudices).
I would like to see a party emerge that just had "**** off if you're stupid, you won't fit in here" as it's main slogan. Everyone else, who has half an inkling how the world really works is welcome.
Leave the Red Wall to dig their own graves.
It is interesting that the reason given for not challenging Starmer's leadership of the party is that there is no one remotely capable of doing a better job.
It's interesting for two reasons. Firstly what happened to the Labour Party which has led to a situation that the very best they have is someone who is so clearly totally incompetent?
And secondly why did this same consideration not stop the Parliamentary Labour Party from throwing their weight behind Owen Smith, a monstrously appalling candidate, when he challenged Corbyn for the leadership?
They were happy to challenge Corbyn when he was leader, despite the obvious damage and bad publicity it would cause the Labour Party, and yet now not the slightest hint of challenging Starmer.
All the opinion polls of the last few months have placed Labour share of the vote firmly in the low 30s, which is exactly what Labour achieved in the last general election. And yet the Parliamentary Labour Party's attitude is 'let Starmer crack on'.
It is clear, if ever there was any doubt, that the Parliamentary Labour Party's opposition to Corbyn had nothing ever to do with poor poll ratings, as they claimed, but instead his determination to challenge the status quo, his determination not to act like a Tory, his determination fight austerity and not let the Tories screw the British people and their social services with lies about needing to have a budgetry surplus.
It’s interesting for two reasons. Firstly what happened to the Labour Party which has led to a situation that the very best they have is someone who is so clearly totally incompetent?
Well, partly, many capable MPs voluntarily left the parliamentary party under the last leader. And others lost their seats. But Starmer is not "the very best they have", I didn't mean to claim that, but he still might be the best person to be in the post right now. There are many better politicians in the parliamentary party, in my opinion, who I would love to see become leader with less than 18 months 'till an election, but not right now.
He will be far more able with 326+ than without.
You're really not understanding the question. WHAT is he going to do, to reverse the situation we have currently, where we have a tory government sliding towards right-wing fascism, aided by the increased corporatisation and privatisation of essential public services, where we are seeing homelessness and deprivation increasing at alarming rates, where access to legal services is becoming increasingly more difficult, and where human rights are being eroded? WAHAT is he going to do to reverse a trend started by Thatcher, and continued by BLair, then subsequent tory governments? WAHAT? That's the question I'm asking you; so answer THAT.
Some people will never be happy with Starmer, he isn’t pure enough for them, ever.
It's got nothing to do with 'purity'. Armrest has nothing to be pure about. He's just ****ing useless. So why are you still backing him? Even most of the other former Armresters on here have deserted him. Why are you still in his thrall?
Leave the Red Wall to dig their own graves.
Trouble is, there's far too big a Blue Wall round London, that needs breaking down if Labour are going to win over a majority. Ignoring that for decades has left Labour far too reliant on the so-called Red Wall, most of whom have forgotten about Thatcherism and the damage it did. Which is why they voted tory; all about 'taking back control', wasn't it? That's worked out well for them. Trouble is, for al the racists and ignorant narrow-minded ****s, there's also lots of decent people too. They just don't drink in the Rose and Crown, Ramsbottom...
The PLP reaction to Corbyn says more about Corbyn than the PLP. He singularly failed to build a network outside his fellow travellers and did nothing as a legislator. Then when elected leader told everyone to step into line and essentially not do a Corbyn.
As for the "why are we here?" analysis, it's arguably not Starmer's fault, he is a late entry into the PLP and as far as I know didn't hold a senior party position before that. If I'm wrong I'm sure you'll correct me
As for
It is interesting that the reason given for not challenging Starmer’s leadership of the party is that there is no one remotely capable of doing a better job
Open to your suggestions, any mention of Richard Burgon will be taken as humorous.
Labour needs to either go with Starmer or oust him with someone with more talent asap, whichever way it goes they need to have a clear message that cuts through otherwise it's another cycle of opposition
My understanding is that the majority already vote labour, the current infighting just sheds votes
Yes, taking large blocks of votes for granted has worked out really well for Labour hasn't it.
Some people will never be happy with Starmer, he isn’t pure enough for them, ever.
We'd just like him to be what he pretended to be to get elected, ie a more competent, slicker presentation of the government he was a part of previously.
Labour needs to either go with Starmer
And what would be the point? He's nothing more than an establishment corporate stooge! Have you really not seen that yet??? He's not going to change anything; you'd just be stuck with a tory with a red rosette instead of a blue one. But you don't seem to think there's much wrong with UK society, so perhaps Starmer is perfect for you. Trouble is; you need people like me to vote Labour. And we won't. So whatcha gonna do now?
WAHAT? That’s the question I’m asking you; so answer THAT.
Mute point unless he has 326+, you aren't legislating unless you are in government
As labour is likely to move in your desired direction in any case the discussion revolves around the speed of implementation and whether it's iterative change or big bang.
You are the one missing the point completely, without 326+ it's all virtue signalling and "winning the argument". 326+ gets you legislating.
But keep raging that he's a red Tory and establishment etc etc. You are clearly "winning the argument"
And what would be the point? He’s nothing more than an establishment corporate stooge! Have you really not seen that yet??? He’s not going to change anything; you’d just be stuck with a tory with a red rosette instead of a blue one.
Trouble is; you need people like me to vote Labour. And we won’t. So whatcha gonna do now?
Labour need people not like you to vote for them, the ones who held their noses and voted conservative for the first or second time in the most recent elections. The ones labelled as Tories, racists, bigots, selfish, uncaring etc etc
Mute point unless he has 326+
It's 'moot'.
You are the one missing the point completely, without 326+ it’s all virtue signalling and “winning the argument”. 326+ gets you legislating.
Legislating for what? you really believe Armrest is going to challenge the status quo? Is he bollocks; he doesn't have the balls.
But keep raging that he’s a red Tory and establishment etc etc. You are clearly “winning the argument”
You need our votes. So how's YOUR argument holding up?
Labour need people not like you to vote for them
Labour need all the votes they can get, if they are to win an election. I'm sure I'm not alone in not wanting to vote Labour at the moment. So how are you going to win us over? By telling us we're not wanted? Great strategy!
If you don't understand, or can't answer the question, just say so, instead of making yourself look silly by trying to appear intelligent. 'Mute'. Lol! 😀
You are the one missing the point completely, without 326+ it’s all virtue signalling and “winning the argument”. 326+ gets you legislating.
Ironically it is you that is missing the point, banging on about 326+
I have lost count how many times you have mentioned 326+. Do you not realise that nothing Starmer is doing suggests that 326+ will be achieved?
Midterm a Tory government should be trailing the Opposition. Instead, if there was an election tomorrow all the overwhelming evidence is that the result will be the same as last general election.
If you don’t understand, or can’t answer the question, just say so, instead of making yourself look silly by trying to appear intelligent. ‘Mute’. Lol!
I bow to your superior spelling and intelligence. I salute your indefatigability.
I look forward to hearing your choice for the leadership of Labour after Starmer
Do you not realise that nothing Starmer is doing suggests that 326+ will be achieved?
I agree, I look forward to hearing your choice for the leadership of Labour after Starmer
I bow to your superior spelling and intelligence. I salute your indefatigability.
It wasn't actually the spelling, spelling mistakes I don't care about, I do it myself all the time I'm sure; it was the lack of actual understanding of what the word 'moot' actually means. I'm embarrassed for you.
Some (hopefully) enlightening and interesting reading for you:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/jan/16/mind-your-language-moot-point
Top tip: if you're going to a knife fight, take a gun. Not a spoon.
Just a small point but I've noticed some of this type of language popping up from time to time
he doesn’t have the balls.
Now I'm sure we all agree Keith is manly and his behaviour reflects his manliness adequately, using this sort of language perpetuates the myth that real men are strong/brave/principled or not manly if they don't behave as you demand which we know is a sexist nonsense
It's not just one poster and I appreciate it's societal habit rather than deliberate sexism.
Could we stop or at least mix it up a bit between our diverse society👍
I’m embarrassed for you.
I'm sure you are not, but if you are I'm sure it confirms your views.
I still look forward to hearing your choice for the leadership of Labour after Starmer
Care to enlighten us with your pick to take labour into power?
Now I’m sure we all agree Keith is manly and his behaviour reflects his manliness adequately, using this sort of language perpetuates the myth that real men are strong/brave/principled or not manly if they don’t behave as you demand which we know is a sexist nonsense
It’s not just one poster and I appreciate it’s societal habit rather than deliberate sexism.
Could we stop or at least mix it up a bit between our diverse society
Fair enough. I hadn't stop to consider that, and you're right.
He's still a gutless coward though.
I agree, I look forward to hearing your choice for the leadership of Labour after Starmer
Are we back to that ffs?
"Don't point out how useless Starmer is and how disastrous the polls, there's no one better"
Don't rock the boat, eh?
The Blairites were more than happy to rock the boat when Corbyn was leader, and the best they could come up with was Owen Smith ffs.
And the damage they inflected on the Labour Party was unimportant to them, in fact damaging the chances of Corbyn becoming Prime Minister was a definite goal of theirs.
The level of double standards and hypocrisy in British politics today is truly staggering.
Jess Phillips would get my vote.
Are we back to that ffs?
“Don’t point out how useless Starmer is and how disastrous the polls, there’s no one better”
Don’t rock the boat, eh?
The opposite, it's about looking for someone who can mobilise labour to provide an alternative to the conservatives that has a chance of being elected in the future
It's about the people to watch, Starmer clearly isn't winning the left over, they'll never be his fans. So who can they get behind who could get broad electoral support and offer a decent chance of getting into office. Who are the thinkers from the left in the labour PLP who can be credible to a broad spectrum of voters and party activists? Can they enthuse a party and an electorate?
Or is the challenge a generational one and labour need to rebuild the PLP and prevent the farce of people like Jared O'Mara getting on a ballot paper to create a PLP that has talent throughout?
If you cannot name a successor in the PLP now it's likely that unless the conservatives really stuff it up that it's going to be another 8 years in opposition for Labour at least.
Jess Phillips would get my vote.
But not many votes from anyone else unfortunately. She would put even more people off than Starmer has. I don't personally think she is bad, but can't see her being successful.
I would probably go with Clive Lewis but I don't think he would be successful either.
That is the problem, as far as leader goes, the Labour party have.
He’s still a gutless coward though.
Some people won't even name their preference for the successor to Starmer as LOTO
I guess there are different standards for bravery in public office than on an internet forum
So who can they get behind who could get broad electoral support and offer a decent chance of getting into office.
Much as I think Starmer is useless and pulled a fast one to get elected leader, I think the problem is much deeper than that. The Labour Party is kind of an anachronism, and doesn't know what it's supposed to be/stand for in a mostly post-industrial society. The Tories have completely stolen their thunder with their hard right culture war and their lefty economic policies (talking about tax rises, handing out billions to support people, etc),
The Labour Party is kind of an anachronism, and doesn’t know what it’s supposed to be/stand for in a mostly post-industrial society.
Nothing stopping an inspiring leader changing the direction, who is your best pick?
Starmer clearly isn’t winning the left over, they’ll never be his fans.
You say that but to my utter amazement many on the left of the party did indeed vote for him to become party leader, with his 10 socialist pledges scam. Despite Starmer's concerted attempts to oust the former leader which they had twice overwhelmingly voted for.
It's frankly staggering how clueless the metropolitan left can be.
Who are the thinkers from the left in the labour PLP who can be credible to a broad spectrum of voters and party activists? Can they enthuse a party and an electorate?
Part of the problem, and it's a huge one, is the legacy of New Labour where control freakery and being on-message was the order of the day. The sort of people which you describe would not have thrived in New Labour. Any independent thinker with a vision would have been seen as a threat to Blair/New Labour and would not have been selected for a winnable seat, or simply wouldn't have wasted their time and not bothered.
New Labour produced clones, on-message clones.
I think you are right to ask if it is a generational problem BnD, imo it is at least a generational problem.
The Labour Party needs to reconnect with ordinary voters in the way that it once did. It needs to not only represent them but they need to be part of the struggle. If and how that can be achieved is a whole different debate imo.
Trouble is, there’s far too big a Blue Wall round London, that needs breaking down if Labour are going to win over a majority.
Which is why you have to appeal to intellect (or flatter people that you are) whilst painting the New Tories (accurately) as the party of the Carling-drinking, cash-in-hand, oi oi saveloy, mouth-breathing brigade. Unfortunately, the Blue Wall in the Home counties suspect (rightly) that Johnson and his ilk have no intention whatsoever of 'levelling up' and are laughing their tits off at the Red Wall Racists and can't believe their luck in conning them.
The New Tory trick has been to dupe dupes.
I think you are right to ask if it is a generational problem BnD, imo it is at least a generational problem.
Can be fixed quicker with good leadership
The Labour Party needs to reconnect with ordinary voters in the way that it once did. It needs to not only represent them but they need to be part of the struggle. If and how that can be achieved is a whole different debate imo.
Is there such a thing as an ordinary voter anymore? We are increasingly balkanising into separate identity groups so "our" interests are getting heard. Is there someone who can reinvigorate the concept of the "the common weal" on the left?
Yeah, the overwhelming majority of people are just ordinary voters. Whatever their colour, sexual preferrences, creed, whatever.
Unfortunately, the Blue Wall in the Home counties suspect (rightly) that Johnson and his ilk have no intention whatsoever of ‘levelling up’ and are laughing their tits off at the Red Wall Racists and can’t believe their luck in conning them.
I disagree in part, I think that there is some effort, treasury jobs and DIT are moving to Darlington for example, the waiting King in the North Rishi wants an easy commute home. The issue is that to appease the south they are trying to do it on the cheap. All that means is no-one is happy and they get flak from everyone
Yeah, the overwhelming majority of people are just ordinary voters. Whatever their colour, sexual preferrences, creed, whatever.
So do Labour "de-balkanise" their approach and go for a broad offer to voters and avoid the rabbit holes of contentious issues until they are in power? Can the party hold together if they try that? Or does it need to reform from its current state into this new "ordinary decent people" party (being ODP isn't dependent on race, sexuality, gender identity, or even voting history )?
Who could lead this reform, without leadership it's a pipedream surely?
So do Labour “de-balkanise” their approach and go for a broad offer to voters and avoid the rabbit holes of contentious issues until they are in power?
Yes, simple slogans or even polices that people can understand the intent of. If you can see what a party intends to do at a high level you should be able to either agree with that and vote for them or vote for another party.
Who says the Tories are selfish and lacking in compassion eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/03/labour-tory-councils-asylum-seekers
Who says the Tories are selfish and lacking in compassion eh?
Possibly due to labour running councils in areas with lower housing costs and more available housing, Scotland seems an anomaly with low numbers which are probably concentrated in Glasgow
It would be something you would have thought you could campaign with.... Positively, I.e. labour councils step up showing what is best about Britain etc etc
and avoid the rabbit holes of contentious issues until they are in power?
And then what?
We know for a fact that Starmer will say whatever he feels he needs to say to get elected.
Then once elected will simply ditch any commitments which he felt necessary to make.
Is that an acceptable way to achieve power? No of course not. It is an attack against democracy, and it should be illegal despite the fact that it isn't.
The ends justify the means has been used by every junta that has seized power and trampled on democracy.
Anyone who knocks on people's doors in a general election urging them to vote Labour with Starmer as leader will be part of a scam as far as I'm concerned. There is absolutely no way of knowing how Starmer would behave as prime minister once elected. Any Labour manifesto would of course be completely worthless.
The only thing we can be truly sure of is that he can't be trusted.
The only thing we can be truly sure of is that he can’t be trusted.
I think he is more trustworthy on the personal integrity front than any of the New Tory Party (aka the ENP).
Starmer's problem is that he needs his racists back.
Possibly due to labour running councils in areas with lower housing costs
I reckon it's probably simpler than that. Recently arrived refugees (I hate the term asylum seekers) have a tendency to be accommodated in large cities. Labour disproportionately controls more large cities than the Tories.
I guess there are different standards for bravery in public office than on an internet forum
Lol! There's a slight difference between running a country, and not bothering to respond to a clear failure to answer a simple question on an internet forum. Just to help you out there, because you appear not to know that...
Which is why you have to appeal to intellect (or flatter people that you are) whilst painting the New Tories (accurately) as the party of the Carling-drinking, cash-in-hand, oi oi saveloy, mouth-breathing brigade. Unfortunately, the Blue Wall in the Home counties suspect (rightly) that Johnson and his ilk have no intention whatsoever of ‘levelling up’ and are laughing their tits off at the Red Wall Racists and can’t believe their luck in conning them.
Yep. The Blue Wall are sitting pretty, have more or less everything they need, and no intention of giving that up for 'scroungers' etc. Which is why the tories appeal so much to them. Which is why the tories pump so much more money into such areas. The irony being, that those who have the least to fear, seem to fear the most.
What happened with the Red Wall, is that instead of driving on with 'Education, Education, Education', Blair actually made education a lot more difficult to access for millions of working class people (keep the plebs ignorant, and they'll be more pliable and docile, and easily manipulable). If traditional jobs are disappearing, then people need to be educated and trained in new areas and skills. NeoLabour and the tories didn't bother with that. Blair wasn't bothered that that would impact on Labour's traditional support, as he'd already long made his own plans for life after politics. He's done ok for himself. And what we've ended up is a load of mushrooms; kept in the dark and fed on shit. And a Labour party full of Neoliberals.
Starmer’s problem is that he needs his racists back.
Problem being, that he doesn't know how to turn those racists into decent members of society, because he doesn't actually have a plan to create that better society. He hasn't got a clue how to help enable people to re-educate themselves, and understand things better. So instead, he resorts to flag-shagging. Clueless useless ****.
The only thing we can be truly sure of is that he can’t be trusted.
Word.
We know for a fact that Starmer will say whatever he feels he needs to say to get elected.
The perceived breach of trust when he backtracked from renewing his 10 commitments runs really deep clearly. It seems to be a wound that cannot heal.
Is that an acceptable way to achieve power? No of course not. It is an attack against democracy, and it should be illegal despite the fact that it isn’t.
I think the strong convention is that you only put things in the queen's speech that were in the manifesto. If he is establishment then he'll surely stick to that, otherwise the premise (of being a establishment stooge) is false. The easy way to have flexibility to tackle some of the important long standing issues is to give yourself room to manoeuvre in the text of the manifesto (the bury it on page 53 strategy). So what you want might not be explicit but implied to give the opportunity to do something without a stupid row before the election
The problem is no matter what he puts in large parts of the left don't trust him and never will, having a radical manifesto won't be enough (you will believe he won't implement it), actually getting in and legislating won't be enough (you will want more).
The logic is surely as the left clearly can't come up with an alternative to Starmer (still waiting Bridges, you know you want to say the name (unless it's Burgon)), they either suck it up as get behind him and bury their misgivings or Starmer disconnects from the left and remodels labour his way with people who will campaign for him.
Blair actually made education a lot more difficult to access for millions of working class people
Citation needed for this statement
He hasn’t got a clue how to help enable people to re-educate themselves, and understand things better.
I thought all that was needed was to send you on a tour of pubs and you'll help their re-education of racists etc
