I personally would choose Starmer but I realise to most of the voters he is another faceless politician.

I don’t agree. He’s a ‘Sir’ and his past employment plays right in to what the public seem to want. I need to see a bit more of him to be convinced but his past plays right in to what the public subconsciously want in a way Corbyn never could. In the same way I don’t think a black or female candidate would stand a chance unless they were so central they may as well be Tory.

Agreed,

I’ve said before, if you were trying to design a Labour Leader with broad appeal, who actually might also be good at being PM (unlike our current one) you’d be hard pressed to do better than Stamers CV.

He’s a Sir, and got his stripes for actual achievement under a Tory Government, not as some kind of backhander for a favor. That’s the Middle-Enlanders, Middle-Classes happy, even if they don’t like the colour of his rosette.

But he’s a self-made Man, son of a Tool Maker and a Nurse, he wasn’t born into the Elite classes, he wasn’t at Eton, this makes him popular with Working Class people, but it’s also basically pure old-school Tory Dogma.

He was named after the first ever Labour MP, the Labour party is in his blood, and he’s not a career politician, he’s had real proper, hard jobs, no he’s never swung a pickaxe down a mine but he was 52 when he first stood for office.

Yeah, the Momentum Ultras won’t like him, he won’t offer to radically change the UK and make it a Socialist Utopia, but this is the real point of him – they will ALWAYS vote labour.

In fact half of them are above average intelligence.

Not quite – the bell curve distribution of intelligence and the range of values considered ‘average’ due to the difficulty measuring it, means that a smaller % of the population, perhaps 25%, would fall clearly into the ‘above average’ range, and vice versa for the intellectually-challenged.

The difference between 90 and 110 on your IQ test is not particularly significant in real terms, and the bulk of the population sits within this range.

Any election campaign which is aimed only at bright, economically and socially literate people is likely to reach far fewer people than is needed to produce a majority. Put simply, you have to go for the full range of ‘average’ as well.

Yup, the electorate is pushing 70 million. By definition voters are, on average, not idiots, they are the average intelligence for the UK

Being of average intelligence does not mean they are not idiots. Go and speak to people of average intelligence and ask them what they base their vote on. I think you will come away thinking they are an idiot…

What surprises me is all the incredibly intelligent people on the left who think the voters are idiots are unable to convince said idiots of the errors of their way and to get them to vote for them.

Give me the ownership of Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Facebook etc,. for the next 4 years and I would easily be able to get the idiots to vote for whoever I wanted.

oob – you have overstated size of electorate by about 22 million.
UK population is c67 million; electorate c48 million.

Thanks for the correction.

I’ve said before, if you were trying to design a Labour Leader with broad appeal, who actually might also be good at being PM (unlike our current one) you’d be hard pressed to do better than Stamers CV.

He’s a Sir, and got his stripes for actual achievement under a Tory Government, not as some kind of backhander for a favor. That’s the Middle-Enlanders, Middle-Classes happy, even if they don’t like the colour of his rosette.

But he’s a self-made Man, son of a Tool Maker and a Nurse, he wasn’t born into the Elite classes, he wasn’t at Eton, this makes him popular with Working Class people, but it’s also basically pure old-school Tory Dogma.

Agree with all of the above, with the minor quibble that, although he didn’t go to Eton, he did go to Reigate Grammar which is a fee paying school – a serious one – not in the struggling bottom end of the sector. Maybe he won a scholarship of some kind. If not I’d want to dig into the rags to riches story a bit. [1] Either way makes no odds to me he’s exactly what the party and country need and what the electorate want.

[1] eg Tool maker? Perhaps the owner of a substantial tool making business?

… either way, more people voted lab,libdem, green than voted Tory. So abysmally shite as the current labour leadership demonstrably is, in a PR system there’s still a progressive majority. Just.

We should really be like other European countries with a properly left wing party (where everyone can feel ideologically pure and which I might vote for fwiw), social democrats, Christian democrats/centre right, and proper dodgy right-wing nutters. And greens. Governments would be coalitions, meaning the less centrist parties would have to negotiate to get a few of their policies implemented.

Pre-80s, with fptp, these coalitions have been within the big parties. Then, with the Bennite takeover of labour, the SDP/resurgent libs gave Thatcher huge majorities whilst most folk voted against her. We’re seeing similar now*. Until the party within a party realises it’s better to be a bit less pure and get some of their policies implemented, this will continue.

(*Main diff being that Corbyn oversaw a lab collapse unaided by a liberal resurgence.)

Give me the ownership of Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Facebook etc,. for the next 4 years and I would easily be able to get the idiots to vote for whoever I wanted.

People don’t buy left wing papers, if they did there would be a significant number/circulation.

Plus the actual circulation of the dead tree press is plummeting.

As for Facebook, the people who want you to think that Facebook targeted ads work are people selling them.

I would be asking how many WASPI women didn’t vote labour. They had been offered a direct cash incentive of £20-30k. If a direct commitment to give cash to a group isn’t working to get you votes you need to understand why.

Give me the ownership of Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Facebook etc,. for the next 4 years and I would easily be able to get the idiots to vote for whoever I wanted.

People don’t buy left wing papers, if they did there would be a significant number/circulation.

Yup, if you take the editorial style away from your reader’s preference you lose sales. In the same way if you move your party away from the voter’s preference you lose voters.

Forming opinion is impossible or at least very difficult. (As the STW political threads show – nobody ever seems to change their mind in spite of reading thousands of words of disagreement.)

Agree with all of the above, with the minor quibble that, although he didn’t go to Eton, he did go to Reigate Grammar which is a fee paying school – a serious one – not in the struggling bottom end of the sector. Maybe he won a scholarship of some kind. If not I’d want to dig into the rags to riches story a bit. [1] Either way makes no odds to me he’s exactly what the party and country need and what the electorate want.

I have reason to believe that his Dad Rod, is this chap.

Rod Starmer – Surrey Ravens

If he is, (all the data fits) he’s pretty much STW material.

People don’t buy left wing papers, if they did there would be a significant number/circulation.

You are forgetting how stupid the people are. They would still buy the Mail/look at Mail online for example. And if the stories were just as hateful but aimed at the Tories, with lots of lies about how great the Labour party are . It is all in the way it is written as they will be easy to fool.

If he is, (all the data fits) he’s pretty much STW material.

I reckon you’re right and it’s him, seems like a top guy.

A roadie though!!!! That’s a step too far. Rebecca Long Bailey gets my vote now….

As for Facebook, the people who want you to think that Facebook targeted ads work are people selling them.

Based on?

A roadie though!!!! That’s a step too far. Rebecca Long Bailey gets my vote now….

Ha ha, I thought the majority of STW road Gravel / Road bikes now.

I have reason to believe that his Dad Rod, is this chap.

As well as cycling, Rod was a keen fell walker and an important figure in the Wainwright Society and was friends with Alfred Wainwright himself. He was a toolmaker by trade and used his engineering skills to help his wife, Jo, when her mobility became impaired, creating a modified wheelchair in which he could push her up the lake district climbs.

He was an animal lover who took in rescue dogs – normally great danes – and he also kept a small donkey sanctuary. Jo and the dogs often accompanied him to events and, on one occasion, to Buckingham Palace.

Rod was a family man, acting as carer for his wife Jo until she passed away in 2015. He had four children, 10 grandchildren and 3 great grandchildren.

He sounds like he was a proper ace chap.

Based on?

Ignoring all available data.

They would still buy the Mail/look at Mail online for example.

Weird how editors are under such intense pressure to make sure they provide content that maintains readership [1] yet the entire political slant could be reversed and it wouldn’t cost readers.

Newspaper readers are well aware of the political slant they’re getting. If they wanted left wing content they’d just buy the Mirror or Guardian – and some of them do.

[1] Maintains, not grows. The growth ship has long since sailed for this declining industry.

[1] eg Tool maker? Perhaps the owner of a substantial tool making business?

Jesus wept.

And if the stories were just as hateful but aimed at the Tories, with lots of lies about how great the Labour party are . It is all in the way it is written as they will be easy to fool.

Wasn’t that exactly what happened in ’97 with “The Sun Backs Blair”.

Agree with all of the above, with the minor quibble that, although he didn’t go to Eton, he did go to Reigate Grammar which is a fee paying school – a serious one – not in the struggling bottom end of the sector. Maybe he won a scholarship of some kind. If not I’d want to dig into the rags to riches story a bit. [1] Either way makes no odds to me he’s exactly what the party and country need and what the electorate want.

[1] eg Tool maker? Perhaps the owner of a substantial tool making business?

Jesus wept.

Eh?

Wasn’t that exactly what happened in ’97 with “The Sun Backs Blair”.

No, that was the opposite, that was the Labour party moving towards the electorate and making it viable for the Sun to get behind them. Not the papers moving away from the electorate and trying to convince the electorate to change.

“I would be asking how many WASPI women didn’t vote labour. They had been offered a direct cash incentive of £20-30k. If a direct commitment to give cash to a group isn’t working to get you votes you need to understand why.”

I’d suggest people don’t like blatent bribes. The pension thing was an uncosted bribe not in the manifesto. Plus people recognise the inequality of different pension ages. Plus changes were signalled for the last 2 decades.

I’d suggest people don’t like blatent bribes.

Agree. Nor was it credible. LBC ran a 1 hour show on the bribe for WASPI women. From all the WASPI women who called in they didn’t get a single call from someone who beleived it to be true.

I was in a similar situation in 2015 with the free childcare which would have saved me over 12 grand a year. Firstly, it’s not credible that any government would give me 12 grand a year, but secondly if it was really true, is that good use of the money? There must be people who need it more than me.

The pork barrel has to be sane.

Wasn’t that exactly what happened in ’97 with “The Sun Backs Blair”.

No, that was the opposite, that was the Labour party moving towards the electorate and making it viable for the Sun to get behind them. Not the papers moving away from the electorate and trying to convince the electorate to change.

Yep, the sun would really like it’s readership to think it, at worst can predict things with great accuracy, or at best can galvanise them to change the course of history for the better.

The truth it they blow with the wind, Blair was pretty much unbeatable by March 97 (6 weeks before the GE) when they stopped putting the boot in. They’re previously ran front pages “If Labour win tomorrow, would the last person out of Britain turn out the lights” when Kinnock was running and called Blair “the most dangerous man in Britain” in 1996.

Doesn’t matter so much now, in 1997 they had a circulation of over 10m, now it’s just over 1m. Looking at the demographics of ‘newspaper’ readership by the next election (assuming Boris can make a full term) they would likely be gone, they can’t give them away these days.

Yep, the sun would really like it’s readership to think it, at worst can predict things with great accuracy, or at best can galvanise them to change the course of history for the better.

The truth it they blow with the wind, Blair was pretty much unbeatable by March 97 (6 weeks before the GE) when they stopped putting the boot in. They’re previously ran front pages “If Labour win tomorrow, would the last person out of Britain turn out the lights” when Kinnock was running and called Blair “the most dangerous man in Britain” in 1996.

Yup, this. Better post than mine.

Doesn’t matter so much now, in 1997 they had a circulation of over 10m, now it’s just over 1m. Looking at the demographics of ‘newspaper’ readership by the next election (assuming Boris can make a full term) they would likely be gone, they can’t give them away these days.

This. We’re told papers are influential yet they are unable to influence people to buy papers! 🙂

Editors choose content to appeal to readers.

outofbreath

Member

Agree, FPTP doesn’t impede the Labour party in any way at all,

Even a casual look at the last few election results proves this wrong. FPTP has massively favoured the tories in recent years.

Even a casual look at the last few election results proves this wrong. FPTP has massively favoured the tories in recent years.

More detail please, looks to me like Labour, the Tories and the SNP do well out of PR. Everyone else gets shafted.

AFAIK FPTP hinders parties with support with large geographical spread such that then can win large(ish) vote share spread over wide areas like Greens/Libdems/BP and helps parties with high vote in a tight geographical area like the SNP.

BTW, I distinctly remember you arguing forcefully against PR in the past. I’m glad you’ve seen the light!

In the last election, the tories got 1 seat per 38,300 votes, while Labour got 1 seat per 50,817.

The biggest winners are the SNP in terms of seats per vote but the Tories are the second biggest. But the biggest winners overall are the Tories because they get to form majority governments with minority support, and coalition governments with little effort.

The election before this went 42%/40% but 330 seats to 232. Labour had no chance of forming a government while the Tories only needed the easily-bought DUP. The one before gave Cameron a majority with 37% of votes and put Labour in a small minority with 30%.

And of course in this one Johnston has a huge majority despite getting 45% of votes, while the Lib Dems and Labour combined have basically the same number of votes but less than 2/3ds as many seats.

You can’t assume voters would vote the same under a less broken system but if you do, then the last 3 governments would have been Labour-led coalitions, and instead 2 have been Tory majorities.

BTW, I distinctly remember you arguing forcefully against PR in the past. I’m glad you’ve seen the light!

I don’t think anyone’s surprised to find that you can “distinctly remember” things that never happened tbh.

The problem with PR of course is it requires the party that got into power via FPTP to want to change it.

We have a 2 party system because of FPTP and we have FPTP because of the 2 party system.

Those of us who can still bare thinking about referendums will remember we actually all voted on changing FPTP back in 2011 of course you might argue that the Tories chose the worst possible version of PR to back in their deal with the Libs, and then campaigned against it.

Labour, possibly foreshadowing where we are now, completely sat on the fence.

Labour’s “inefficiency” in vote only arose in 2015 when they lost their hegemony in Scotland to the SNP, prior to that FPTP was advantageous to them. In 2010 Labour needed 33.3K votes per seat compared to 35K for the Tories, in 2005 they only needed 26.9K compared to 40.2K. The figures for Blair’s landslides were even more in their favour.

Whilst it is difficult to see them recovering in Scotland at the moment, it certainly isn’t impossible.

Whilst it is difficult to see them recovering in Scotland at the moment, it certainly isn’t impossible.

Probably needs another referendum, the referendum to fail again and the SNP to accept they are not going to get independence just to start with.

In the last election, the tories got 1 seat per 38,300 votes, while Labour got 1 seat per 50,817.

That’s not bias against Labour, that’s the result of Labour deciding to retreat into their hyper-core vote in super-safe seats while the Torys reached out to new voters with a broader geographical spread. With different decisions personnel/policy decisions on each side things could have gone the opposite way as it has in the past where Labour were the party reaching out.

You can’t assume voters would vote the same under a less broken system but if you do, then the last 3 governments would have been Labour-led coalitions, and instead 2 have been Tory majorities.

No chance because nobody would have worked with Corbyn/Momentum, they’re toxic. But as you say people wouldn’t have voted in the same way under PR. Given how many people voted Labour purely to keep the Tory’s out Labour would have haemorrhaged even more voters. (As would the Torys.) FPTP is good for both big parties, and that includes Labour.

I think the best way to determine which parties do badly out of FPTP is to look at which parties want PR, and that suggests Lab/Con/SNP all think FPTP benefits them – and it does.

I don’t think anyone’s surprised to find that you can “distinctly remember” things that never happened tbh.

So, just to be clear, you’re claiming you have never argued against PR on STW forums?

The problem with PR of course is it requires the party that got into power via FPTP to want to change it.

We have a 2 party system because of FPTP and we have FPTP because of the 2 party system.

True, but I do wonder if 15 years of the sort of chaos we’ve just been through with no party winning a usable outright majority might cause everyone to think “Sod this, we’ve already got the disadvantages of PR, lets also have the advantages.”. Having said that, that would be at least 20 years down the line…

Wilst Rod Starmer might have made a good Labour leader I don’t think Keir will. Too many contradications He doesn’t like titles but accepted a peerage. He was director of public prosections and yet wants to represent the unions politically. He’s the wrong man for the job unless you want two Tory parties to choose between.

Of course neither Labour or the Tory’s want PR, due to their institutionally engrained ‘is it our turn now?’ Mentality, which totally alienates most voters, and the complacency of which has lead us to where we are now

The next labour leader, whoever they are, must take a different view of that though, because the law of diminishing returns is now in full effect for the party in its former ‘strongholds’

If they just arrogantly assume that those voters will simply ‘return to the fold’ at the next election then they’re in for an even more severe thumping next time out

As for that membership polling showing a clear lead for Kier Starmer, I just don’t believe it. Never underestimate the desire for idealogical purity above all else (particularly pragmatism or economic credibility) of the Momentum/PFJ/common room lot

I could still see them doing something absolutely mental like electing the walking 1970’s throwback, union-bogeyman cliche, Ian Lavery as leader. This continuing the corbynite march into placard-waving, irrelevant ‘Resistance’

As for that membership polling showing a clear lead for Kier Starmer, I just don’t believe it.

I was also suspicious and turns out I was right to be:

The YouGov poll does not include trade union members and registered supporters, both groups which heavily backed Corbyn for leader in 2015 and 2016 and might be expected to favour a candidate fro the left of the party this time around.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-latest-poll-keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-vote-jess-phillips-a9267201.html

Earlier optimism was misplaced. 🙁

Too many contradications He doesn’t like titles but accepted a peerage. He was director of public prosections and yet wants to represent the unions politically

I think he dislikes people calling him ‘Sir’ or ‘Director’ when he was in that role as it was at odds with him doing the best job he could.

I don’t know why being a former Director of Public Prosecutions means he unsuitable to represent union members?

They’re going to elect Ian Lavery, aren’t they?

And the nation will ring to the sound of champagne corks popping in every Tory constituency office in the country as they cheer in their new one-party state and permanent unopposed future in government with majorities that would make Robert Mugabe or Vladimir Putin blush

I don’t know why being a former Director of Public Prosecutions means he unsuitable to represent union members?

In that role he was at the heart of the authoritarian institution, the status quo. A system of injustice which favours the rich and powerful and holds the poor in contempt. In his period in office the rich tax evaders went unchallenged as he applied the corrupt laws that rich and powerful had devised to allow the morally unacceptable to be somehow legal. No true socialist can accept being a part of a system so at odds with socialist values. He shouldn’t have been DPP he should have been campaigning for radical change of the legal system.

Being even vaguely left wing or socialist means wanting change at the very heart of the system of justice and government to make the system fair. Under Starmer petty crime was severly punished (rahter than a system based on rehabilitation) whist the rich and powerful rode roughshod the legal loopholes to ever greater wealth and power.

He was the figure head of a system used to dismantle union power, to impose injustice on humble citizens and minorities in his own country. having had the cheek to mess in other countires affairs whithout first having a long hard look at what is happening in his own back yard. He was and is part of the problem, not the solution.

As for opposing Brexit and then accepting the job of shadow Brexit bod, he was pathetic in the role, so pathetic that no-one voting Labour really had a clue whether they were voting for a Lexit/red Brexit or the “promise” of a second referendum, maybe.

He’s an expert with his lawyer speak fence sitting impotence going through the motions of doing the right thing whilst propping up the evil types really running a rotten to the core system of governance.

Ineffectual institutionalised lawyer ***** IMHO.

Give me some passion not a besuited lawyer.

Edit: besuited mawyers can be passionate, it’s just that whenever I see Starmer he isn’t. He’s not an Obama.

In that role he was at the heart of the authoritarian institution, the status quo. A system of injustice which favours the rich and powerful and holds the poor in contempt.

Should have run for the Tory leadership really. Either way, the kind of person we’ll vote in.

Never underestimate the desire for idealogical purity above all else (particularly pragmatism or economic credibility) of the Momentum/PFJ/common room lot

90% of the membership is not Momentum. Corbyn was not elected because of Momentum.

So who’s your favoured Progressbot this time? And will you actually bother to join so you can cast your vote?