Forum menu
That worked a treat for Corbyn at the last election.
What chasing the right wing vote?
I am sure the "wahhhhhh corbyn" made sense for you but I do have to caution you that Binners will be along to thread police
I didn't realise the by-elections were today!
Going to be another late night for me then.😁
I'm in a bit of a weird place with Starmer. I don't believe he's as right of centre as his current positioning is placing the party, specifically on crime and the economy. I see it as a courtship of the moderate conservatives who've been left in the cold by the lunatics in charge at the moment and Boris's purge of the centre-right remainers.
My hope is if labour get in and they can reduce some of the austerity then the resultant economic growth will put some of his earlier manefesto pledges back on the table.
He has some progressives around him (Rayner, Lammy, Thornberry, etc.) who are towing the party line at the moment because they see that's how they will get elected. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they become the cabinet
Courting the left of the party/electorate won't get labour elected and i'd love to see some more radical/progressive policies, specifically on investment and bringing it closer to 15% of GDP than the 10% it is at the moment
One of the hardest things Starmer et al. have to do right now is hold their cards close their chest. Anything worthwhile they announce will just be brazenly robbed by the Tories
Courting the left of the party/electorate won’t get labour elected
They will catch a hard time on here though, so there's that.
I’m in a bit of a weird place with Starmer. I don’t believe he’s as right of centre as his current positioning is placing the party, specifically on crime and the economy
His enthusiastic purging of the none believers would tend to indicate this is being hopeful. So far all his words and actions indicates he is rather right wing.
Courting the left of the party/electorate won’t get labour elected and i’d love to see some more radical/progressive policies,
Incorrect he does need need to court the left as well. If he continues on his apparent path of wanting to turn the labour party into the new tories then he is going to struggle to get votes. Something acknowledged by his fanclub with their continuous shouting about "not voting for the glorious leader is voting for the tories".
Anything worthwhile they announce will just be brazenly robbed by the Tories
Nah we know this doesnt happen since it is the mantra of his fanclub that "you have to be in power to have influence".
That worked a treat for Corbyn at the last election.
What worked a treat for Corbyn?
Corbyn's radical policies didn't seem to be much of a problem for voters. In Corbyn's first general election Labour's vote increased by a greater percentage than any other time since 1945.
It is widely assumed that it was due to his manifesto. In fact the polls showed a sudden change in favour of Labour after the manifesto was first leaked to the press.
Corbyn's second general election was a huge disaster, despite more or less the same manifesto.
It is widely assumed this is because, unlike the previous manifesto, Labour were calling for a second EU referendum, and also because leading members of the Parliamentary Labour Party were publicly denouncing him as incompetent and a racist.
The lesson for Starmer is don't call for a second EU referendum and don't upset the self-serving careerists who didn't join the Labour Party to implement radical policies.
Anything worthwhile they announce will just be brazenly robbed by the Tories
Then that would be good for us wouldn't it?
Then that would be good for us would it?
Short term yes, until the election is won, then it's back to austerity on steroids once more.
How depressing that a Tory peer is having to say all the things which the Leader of the Labour Party should be saying over the issue of islamophobic bigotry and racism.
Baroness Warsi:
"The Labour party too after years of taking that vote for granted, having received over 80% of the Muslim vote, found itself failing to respond to anti-Muslim racism being experienced by its members.”
She warned that the lack of action over the issue could lead to devastating outcomes, citing recent government figures on hate crime showing that “once again Muslims are the most targeted religious group”.
Warsi called on Britons to join the Muslim community’s demand to be “treated equally under the law, to have the right to be heard, for our citizenship to be worth the same as everyone else’s”.
Starmer again raised his concern about rising anti-muslim and anti-palestinian sentiment and action in the UK after recent events in the Middle East, this time at the dispatch box. It was in the PMQs clip I posted yesterday (and has been removed twice) in response to claims about what Starmer is/isn't saying. Here's an even shorter clip, about the rise in racist incidents in the UK:
[ mods : if people can post claims and opinion about what Starmer is/isn't saying on this, surely posting evidence of what he is actually saying in response is fair, no? ]
Anyone reading the article can see that
Sayeeda Warsi isn't referring to the events of the last couple of weeks in Palestine but how Muslims are treated differently by both the Tories and Labour.
She makes this perfectly valid point:
Sayeeda Warsi criticised Labour for strongly advising its councillors not to attend pro-Palestine demonstrations last weekend, “despite having spent months before the recess fighting the government to protect the right to protest in the public order act”.
And she goes on to say:
Describing the treatment of British Muslim communities in politics, she said: “There is a particular irony to this political struggle because on the one hand the government insists on the observance of ‘fundamental British values’ but when Muslims challenge actions that … undermine respect and tolerance by calling out institutional Islamophobia … when Muslims apply these fundamental British values in their participation in wider society, they are demonised, marginalised, excluded from political arenas and treated as outcasts.”
The rights and wrongs of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is quite separate to the issue of the treatment of British Muslims by politicians of both main parties.
That is the point that Sayeeda Warsi is making. And Starmer has been repeatedly criticised for not tackling islamophobia sufficiently, long before event of the last couple of weeks.
It needs more than mealy-mouthed comments whenever a crisis occurs.
Look at the date of this article. It's got nothing to do with the events of the last couple of weeks.
I hope the proposed housing policy is not a complete disaster like the last Labour governments lip service. They did produce a lovely shiny corporate brochure about it! The token gesture of a few bedsits in luxury apartment blocks and a handful of smaller units on executive housing estates, weren't affordable, nearly always ended up in rental portfolios, amounted to a drop in the ocean of targets missed by a country mile and never met any year since!
Private sector developers and/or large landowners (powerful lobbies, extremely shrewd and slippery bastards) will always opt to do what is most profitable. Affordability and allocation based upon need is never a consideration. Past threats/stipulations were met with poor quality token gestures, land banking and lobbying for a free-for-all in planning then we might consider being more helpful 😀
Something has changed in the demeanor of Starmer, whether it's training or he's just more comfortable in the job, or confidence he's going to be the next pm, but seems a little less "severe" ?
For the tories to actually have 20 seats would be ****ing brilliant
Sounds like, from the recent by-elections, that the way to get Labour in is to actively persuade Tory voters to vote for Reform, and split the Tory vote.
Incorrect he does need need to court the left as well. If he continues on his apparent path of wanting to turn the labour party into the new tories then he is going to struggle to get votes
The left should be behind him anyway, and this approach worked pretty well for Blair.
Last night seems to show that his master plan big manifesto pledge of Not Being The Tories, is well on track.
Last night seems to show that his master plan big manifesto pledge of Not Being The Tories, is well on track.
It goes beyond just last night. Labour's massive lead over the Tories for the last couple of years has, undisputedly, shown just how deeply unpopular the Tories are with voters.
Any candidate without the baggage of having the "Conservative Party Candidate" label obviously has a huge advantage.
The problem with the "Not Being The Tories" master plan is that whilst it might be excellent for winning elections it is not a master plan for governing the country.
this approach worked pretty well for Blair.
The Tony Blair/Gordon Brown premiership years turned Tamworth a very safe Labour seat in 1997 into a very safe Tory seat in 2010.
Until last night obviously..... ultimately voters judge politicians by how they preform, not how their opponents preform.
And just to emphasis how effective "Not Being The Tories" is for a candidate in a by-election under the current climate, Labour mopped up in Tamworth yesterday with the Liberal Democrat vote falling to just 417, whilst in Mid Bedfordshire the Liberal Democrat vote increased by almost as much as Labour's.
Why such a difference for the Liberal Democrats on the same day? Presumably voters in Tamworth were much more certain who they should back to show their opposition to the Tories than the voters in Mid Bedfordshire were.
The left should be behind him anyway, .
errmm, why? If he doesnt offer policies to appeal to them but instead chases the centre right why should he get votes?
and this approach worked pretty well for Blair
It worked for a time but the problem with that sort of trick is it stops working as is evident from the voting turnout from 1997 to 2005 and then the longer term damage.
Blair knew that and walked away to leave the mess and blame to Brown.
From what I remember Blair was actually offering something though, wasn't he? Or was it a vague CHANGE! narrative but with few actual policies to back it up?
From what I can see Starmer isn't even offering a vague CHANGE! strategy. He's literally just offering to do the same as the Tories but in a less shit way.
The left should be behind him anyway, and this approach worked pretty well for Blair.
I personally need to see more policy that shows a plan to mend the country else I'll be voting leftwards. However since the last two elections where I voted labour, I've moved from a marginal seat to a safe labour seat so maybe that gives me more confidence to switch
The obvious difference between 1997 and next year's general election is that in 1997 the economy was preforming relatively well, and that's what Blair inherited, Starmer definitely won't be.
In 1997 voters wanted a change because 18 years is a long time for any party to be in power and Tory sleaze was constantly hitting the headlines.
Ironically once Tony Blair was installed in Number 10 Labour became quickly mired in sleaze themselves.
@kelvin I had a post saying similar deleted with a “stay on topic” knuckle rap from the mods. Bit weird, eh?
He’s literally just offering to do the same as the Tories but in a less shit way.
I think that's what he's saying now, because he doesn't want to say anything that could be pulled apart by opposition and jeopardise the huge poll lead. Right now, a main policy of not being the Tory party is working well. If that starts to change, then they will have to start doing more and I'm sure they will. Make no mistake - the current tepid output is NOT because they can't be bothered. It's a calculated strategy.
I think that’s what he’s saying now, because he doesn’t want to say anything that could be pulled apart by opposition and jeopardise the huge poll lead.
It's not that he's saying nothing. He's saying he's going to continue doing the same as the Tories but less shit.
The trouble is if they get into power and continue with the same failed Tory policies you can hardly complain they didn't say they were going to do that.
The main hope offered by his supporters seems to be that he is lying will do completely different things once in power.
He’s saying he’s going to continue doing the same as the Tories but less shit.
To get into power Blair promised that he'd stick to Tory spending pledges for a year. Which at the time, had everyone frothing equally loudly as people are now at Starmer now for his "don't scare the horses" plan.
To get into power Blair promised that he’d stick to Tory spending pledges for a year. Which at the time, had everyone frothing equally loudly as people are now at Starmer now for his “don’t scare the horses” plan.
So Blair's government is now considered the Gold Standard? Or even an overall good thing?
That explains a lot in terms of what people are prepared to accept.
Blair promised that he’d stick to Tory spending pledges for a year. Which at the time, had everyone frothing equally loudly
I don't remember everyone frothing loudly. I would be genuinely interested in any links from that period which illustrates this.
As I remember it there was no vocal opposition to Tony Blair in the run-up to the 1997, as many on the left were so desperate to end 18 years of Tory government that they were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt as they desperately wanted to believe that Blair was some sort of closet socialist.
And to be fair they had some reason to believe that. For example throughout the Thatcher-Major years Blair opposed every single bit of Tory privatisation.
It was only when Blair became Prime Minister that he decided that the Tories hadn't privatised enough and embarked on his own privatisation programme.
In stark contrast to Blair's false hope Labour are currently offering "no hope" because according to Starmer's team it is better than "false hope"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/09/labour-promises-tory-mismanagement-public-finances
Can you place the bar any lower than "no hope"?
So Blair’s government is now considered the Gold Standard? Or even an overall good thing?
Who said that? It was just an observation on the lengths Labour has to go through to get to power even after years of Tory administration
would be genuinely interested in any links from that period which illustrates this.
I'm sure you'd be able to find something if you wanted to look for it.
Voting for Labour is not going to deliver PR. As long as it’s Labour’s turn to wear the Captain’s hat they would never change the voting system.
Apart from when they introduced PR in Scotland. And Wales. And Northern Ireland. And London. But apart from all those times, Labour would never change the voting system!
It’s a calculated strategy
😂
Can you place the bar any lower than “no hope”?
It’d be hard ernie wouldn’t it?
Who said that? It was just an observation on the lengths Labour has to go through to get to power even after years of Tory administration
And hence the problem.
In my 40-odd years only 13 of them have been under anything but a Tory government. Most people born post-war will be round about the same proportion. With the current system Tory governments are the norm and there's no reason to expect it to be anything but the norm.
Voting for Labour is just a vote to continue living 3/4 of our lives under a Tory government. And the other 1/4 under a Tory-lite government.
Starmer again raised his concern about rising anti-muslim and anti-palestinian sentiment and action in the UK after recent events in the Middle East, this time at the dispatch box. It was in the PMQs clip I posted yesterday (and has been removed twice)
Don't understand why it was removed. It's completely on topic and doesn't contravene any forum rules. It's all very well the mods wanting to prevent abusive and offensive posts on the subject we're not allowed to talk about but really I think a more adult approach is required. It's too big an issue to ignore and it will inevitably pop up on other threads like this one when relevant. How about the mods just punish the offenders rather than put the whole class on detention like naughty school children? 🙄
Apart from when they introduced PR in Scotland. And Wales. And Northern Ireland. And London. But apart from all those times, Labour would never change the voting system!
All those places still use FPTP.
Or do you mean the parliaments that both Labour and Tory are currently trying to undermine?
How's reforming the HoL going, by the way? Starmer seemed quite keen on it not so long ago.
How about the mods just punish the offenders
I'd imagine the mods just wanted a weekend off without having to monitor it and just took the obvious solution. Seems legit to me. Couple of folks seem to have been given a time-out off the back of it anyway. I'm not sure there's an absolute burning requirement for it to be discussed on here as well as just about everywhere else anyway. Its quite nice to have a break from it really.
The main hope offered by his supporters seems to be that he is lying will do completely different things once in power.
Which is odd considering how many of them go on about the 350 million and Johnson being a lying turd.
Not really the best approach excusing lies just because it suits their side for once.
Voting for Labour is just a vote to continue living 3/4 of our lives under a Tory government
And a vote for one of the fringe parties is a vote for 100% Tory governments.
The main hope offered by his supporters seems to be that he is lying will do completely different things once in power.
I don't think he's lying, he's just not saying things.
And yes, a Starmer government might be just a bit less shit, but that is all we can get at the moment. A brilliant left wing progressive inclusive government that will do all the wonderful things is simply not on the menu right now, no matter how much we all wish it were (including me).
And a vote for one of the fringe parties is a vote for 100% Tory governments.
Nope its not. Its a vote for a party which is closest to the voters views.
Labour could, of course, stop chasing the right wing vote and try to appeal to those people instead.
... and have another 5 years in opposition.
Like it or not, both sides of the Atlantic know that to get elected you need to slide up to the edge of the other party, not move further away from it. It worked for Bill Clinton in 1992, Blair in 1997. When Labour go to the left (Foot, the wrong Milliband, and Corbyn) we get a Tory gov.
The reality is a lot of people are in the middle - but given a Liberal vote is often a wasted vote for 3rd place in the UK (England really) in a FPTP system, then by Labour moving too far left, many of those in the middle go to the right rather than far left. That's why Corbyn was unelectable. Twice. And as a result have this shambolic Gov.
Its quite nice to have a break from it really.
I agree. I shouldn't have joined in. Was just confused that several of us had our replies removed, but the original posts going back to that subject stayed up.
That’s why Corbyn was unelectable.
It's been nice to have a break from this as well! 🤣 Can we keep it that way?
And a vote for one of the fringe parties is a vote for 100% Tory governments.
Literally the only case for Labour that can be made.
I forgot so many people treat politics as a sport where the most important thing is your team wins. As opposed to actually changing the country.
The country isn't out of the EU and being run by a UKIP tribute act because people voted Tory. It's because people refused to vote Tory and instead voted UKIP.
If you want to see improvements in the country, vote for parties that are actually offering improvements. They won't win but they will drag Labour in your direction.
UKIP had a sympathetic press, they couldn't have achieved what they did without them. Progressive parties need MPs to affect change, or even just to get media coverage for their views to be aired. It's why I agree with you about the need for PR so that everyone is represented in parliament. In the meantime, we need to use our votes to shape the next government. If the Tories squeak it again, we're ******, and probably deserve to be.
UKIP had a sympathetic press, they didn’t couldn’t achieve what they did without them.
Well, if it's so far fetched that there is no point in even trying then clearly the only option remaining is a campaign of terrorism.
Or do you think maybe people should at least try the voting thing first?