Sorry. But not a chance. Doesn't matter what he said, he was disliked by too many of the electorate.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Why would you say that was?
Primarily based upon the results of the last 2 elections.
As well as a cross section of those traditional Labour voting friends of mine.
And I have to say that my own position was that, for the very first time, I had considered voting for the Green Party as opposed to Labour.
In the event, I did not do that as I just couldn't bring myself to vote for any other candidate that Labour.
The biggest issue for me was that the election campaign was totally shambolic.
He certainly wasn't honest about being a Brexiter. Or McDonnell. The biggest issue of the day.
I asked why you think he was disliked, not why you said that.
Ok.
Primarily because he didn't come across as a leader of this country. Indecisive, weak, too left wing and not appealing to a wide enough cross section.
But surely that shouldn't lead to being arguably the most hated politician in British history, should it? Surely there was something more?
Why do you say that he was the most hated in history?
Because there's a genuine hatred for him, unlike I've seen for any other politician. Would you disagree?
Thatcher by a country mile, not even debatable.
I said one of the most in fairness.
Why was that? What should a leader of the UK be? Someone like Boris Johnson? Go and bomb countries left and right and lie to the public day in and day out?
He didn't appeal to a wide cross section because of the hatchet job done on him by the media and his own party members who are right wing. If he had said to hell with the Palestinians and let's bomb the hell out of everyone and Tony Blair is what I aspire to be, the press and the right wing of the party would never say anything against him.
Not sure about a genuine hatred. Mistrust about the policies and more a dislike of the man as a potential leader.
I mean, you could say exactly the same about Boris and many do including me.
But for some reason, he seems to be able to cut through all that and retain his popularity.
It seems today that you have to possess that celebrity culture.
Anyway, very interesting discussion. Thank you.
Interestingly, the cross section of traditional Labour voting friends of mine almost voted Labour for the first time in decades because of him and I was almost tempted to not vote Green.
Really?
Thatcher
Tebbit
Fowler
Blair
Balls
Brown
Campbell
Mandelson
Osborne
Gove
Francois
Rees-Mogg
Patel
Hancock
oooh...how could I forget Hunt.
I must have missed that
. Maybe you could have said most hated Labour politician, although I'm not sure hated is the right word, unless you're just using it in the internet sense. Derek Hatton was genuinely disliked, but as a national figure, I don't know? . Diane Abbott is up there, but more as a figure of fun, or caricature, than hated.Imagine if Corbyn gave a prime time TV interview to boost his ailing ratings to someone who had very recently been sacked from his main job for being the ringleader of a sustained harassment campaign against a Jewish woman.... I’m sure everyone would be very sensible about it
In fairness, you did say "Because there's a genuine hatred for him, unlike I've seen for any other politician. Would you disagree? "
Now you are exaggerating about Tony Blair aren't you.
I have already said on a number of occasions that I do not get the Boris appeal. But millions do, whether you or I like it. He seems to have that X factor that allows him to get away with things no other politician would.
And if Labour are to win the next election, which I seriously hope they will, but doubt it, they will need to modernise and field a leader who can capture the enthusiasm of the voters. And unfortunately, Starmer has zero charisma.
Zero charisma and also doesn't come across as having conviction or beliefs about anything, whether he actually has or not.
I try and imagine what the Labour party conference in September will be like and it's mind-boggling. I can't see Starmer coming out of it intact, but then again I can't decide what's likely to happen either. I would offer no odds on anything.
It's worse than just charisma issues, which Corbyn had in a different way, but the seeming absence of a belief system or set of values. What does he care about? What is his vision for Labour?
Yeah, which is true. I wasn't alive when Thatcher was I power but he's certainly been by far the most hated in my life time. He's was painted as a terrorist communist trying to bring back gulags and death camps. I remember speaking to my grandad before the 2019 election and he was convinced Corbyn had thugs going around battering and intimidating people. The hate and fear was as ridiculous as it was(and still is) relentless.
Honestly? He was undoubtedly slaughtered and demonised for reasons it's not worth going into here but "He's was painted as a terrorist communist trying to bring back gulags and death camps. I remember speaking to my grandad before the 2019 election and he was convinced Corbyn had thugs going around battering and intimidating people." is extraordinary to me? Who was saying this? Why the feck was your Grandad or anyone else believing it?
Edit: Also, what is even meant by "bring back Gulags and death camps"? Were these phased out under Major or something?
Perhaps my view is skewed because of Corbyns ratings, which as far as I'm aware were record lows or maybe it's the fact that I know and socialise with an awful lot of conservatives but in my experience, he's far more hated than Boris or his cronies and he's less popular than I ever remember Blair/Brown being. The only genuine contender I've seen is Maggie.I must have missed that
That genuinely happened. I don't talk politics with them because they always come out with something fecking ludicrous. What I can tell you is that they read the Daily Mail religiously and generally subscribe to whichever narrative their spinning. The problem for me is that there was so much propaganda on the matter that people like my grandad are just overwhelmed and fit different parts of different lies together to create some weird mutant lie.
The gulags/death camps narrative is far easier to pin down because many political commentators made those claims on some pretty prominent platforms.
I could literally go on for days about the ways in which Corbyn was fecked over but the point that I was initially making was that the reason those policies failed wasn't because everyone hated Corbyn to begin with. The reason Corbyn failed was because of those policies and the people and organisations they threatened. Kier would get the same treatment if he wasn't a Tory.
Oh, I don't doubt you. I'm just shocked.
When I was working, there were a number of similar circumstances involving DM Tory readers.
That paper sells well and is clever in their it appeals to people with a highly negative attitude, cup is always more than half empty. Everything is a disaster. There is little or no positive news, not that anything it prints is actually news.
And come election time, it goes into a complete war footing with wall to wall propaganda against Labour. The majority of it being complete lies.
Having said that, Corbyn gave them plenty of ammunition.
Personally, I detest that so called newspaper and everything it stands for and I completely understand your point.
It is what it is and Labour is going to have to be significantly better at getting its message over.
Unfortunately Starmer has demobilised many active Labour campaigners.
Other posters have referred to the UK as basically 'Conservative' (with a small 'c') and that's right IMO. Even after centuries of 'immigration' of one kind or another, people who settled here eventually acted liked the rest of the inhabitants and took on the small 'c' conservative ethos of an 'island race', and as much as anything else, the traditional Labour voters in the 'red wall 'areas would/could fit this description.
The Labour party (as we all know) grew out of the trade unions, who were exactly that essentially, 'Trade organisations' set up to get a better deal for workers.However once the battle ground became political (as it inevitably would) the Unions helped form the Labour party as their political wing. This political wing then took on a life of its own and moved the organisation ever towards the left of politics, on a few occasions with Michael Foot and latterly Jeremy Corbyn to the extreme left, from where it always got a 'spanking' from the small 'c' electorate, at GE's.
The Conservatives always choose a leader who can win across the Country, sail with the prevailing winds etc.regardless of what 'wing' within the party he/she comes from. With perhaps the exception of Harold Wilson and Tony Blair the Labour party never did use this as a basis for choosing its leader. The argument was/is that Sir Keir Starmer is someone once again in that Wilson/Blair pattern; but is he Wilson and Blair and could either or both of them now 'front' the Labour Party? These days it seems doubtful and in particular at this time, that Sir Keir, can take on that role either.
The Labour party is now so far away from its traditional voters and is 'blowing in the wind' (to use the 60's phrase) its doubtful any party leader can bring it back to its roots. So what happens next?
The Labour party (as we all know) grew out of the trade unions, who were exactly that essentially, 'Trade organisations' set up to get a better deal for workers.However once the battle ground became political (as it inevitably would) the Unions helped form the Labour party as their political wing. This political wing then took on a life of its own and moved the organisation ever towards the left of politics, on a few occasions with Michael Foot and latterly Jeremy Corbyn to the extreme left, from where it always got a 'spanking' from the small 'c' electorate, at GE's.
The Conservatives always choose a leader who can win across the Country, sail with the prevailing winds etc.regardless of what 'wing' within the party he/she comes from. With perhaps the exception of Harold Wilson and Tony Blair the Labour party never did use this as a basis for choosing its leader. The argument was/is that Sir Keir Starmer is someone once again in that Wilson/Blair pattern; but is he Wilson and Blair and could either or both of them now 'front' the Labour Party? These days it seems doubtful and in particular at this time, that Sir Keir, can take on that role either.
The Labour party is now so far away from its traditional voters and is 'blowing in the wind' (to use the 60's phrase) its doubtful any party leader can bring it back to its roots. So what happens next?
I dunno
based on 2020 it accounts for around 15% of the newspapers sold... and less than 1 in 10 people buy a paper... so something like 1.5% of the population... perhaps on average a couple of people read the paper once its brought... 3% of the population ... i think its the digital footprint and clickbaity nature of its headlines that leads it to it having any impact beyond its very small echo chamber
I believe its currenly selling under a million a day (covid etc) so again whilst its print audience has fallen its probably online it is having an even bigger presence
Circulation of papers has halfed over the last 20 years and its a trend that will continue... the mail has suffered less largly due to the age demographic of readership but fundamentally the 3% of people who pick up the mail reading negative things about labour is not and never will be an issue - its a self selecting echo chaber... a bit like the people who read the canary and are convinced that a youthquake is coming ... the battle is to be had over the people who have little engagement in politics and reaching out to those in the middle rather than trying to battle with people at teh end of a spectrum
Progressive allience - all non conservative parties stand down candidates against each other leaving one candidate left agaist the conservatives... the allience pledges to electoral refirm and a true PR system... implements it and stands down
Pretty much all the parties then fragment... conservatives included probably as 1st past the post is pretty much all that keeps Labour and the conservatives together as it stands... just depends if labour will get on board with it - I hope they will (but suspect they wont) and a number of CLP's are now asking for PR to be a commitment.
I would reserve opinion until I knew what form of PR was put forward. I would only support it where one voted for a named person, and not a list. Even though I would love Labour to split, I couldn't go with any party list system.
You're right: Labour won't go for it.
Understand what you are saying, but that does not change the small 'c'' nature of the electorate.
Which ever new alliance gets on board with the prevailing wind in the small 'c' electorate, will still win, with perhaps even more sizeable majorities.
The main requirement surely is to dispel/eradicate the small 'c' ethos in the electorate, the 'island race' mentality; however the Brexit vote was an indication of how hard that will be, at least for a few years hence.
Perhaps the left has to start thinking like the Chinese and plan in 25 to 50 year cycles... oh yes and eradicate democracy, at least our current formats.
As always the devil is in the detail - I think the link to a local MP is an important link... equally i think its crazy that we have an unelected 2nd chamber... hopefully somebody can figure out a workable proposal to get enough people on board as I think some form of PR would ultimatley be better than FPTP - in my perfect scenarion this is also done in paralel woth looking at safe online voting options and perhaps compulsary voting (with an option something along the lines of none of the above as i believe if people had to work for the votes of those that dont currectly vote you would see a huge change in policy and comminucation from political parties and that would ultimatley be to the benefit of a healthy democracy)
Exactly its why past or currently proposed PR systems fail, especially with a small 'c' electorate, they want to vote for people not a parties, nor for that matter alliances, which either, get nothing done, forever arguing 'angels on the head of a pin' type, or 'cabals' form and eventually alliances crumble.
I think a properly representative system is the only way forward. The only other alternative is this constant dragging of Labour towards being the Democrat equivalent of the US dichotomy which, naturally, will cause a schism with the left of the party and a genuinely left wing party, for a variety of reasons, is unelectable in the UK.
PR and a proper set of political parties is the only way to escape nigh on perpetual Tory rule.
The 2nd chamber is a different issue, and I'm rather unusual on that, I'd scrap the Lords overnight, which a lot of people would of course, but I would not replace it. Everyone says there has to be a second chamber but not for me. Governments are elected to govern, commitee stages, second and third readings, fine, but no need for anything more.
I've always liked the idea of having half of our MP's elected via first past the post (ensuring local representation); but with the other half based on vote share (ensuring a more equitable distribution of seats).
So for example the Greens might only win one much larger Brighton constituency with Lucas representing that area, however they would then win a further 9~ seats based on their 2.7% vote that would represent the country and party at large. The Tories conversely might win 182~ of the larger constituencies but only 142 due to vote share (43.6% of 325 seats), meaning 324 seats instead of 365. Labour might win 101 constituencies, but 105 seats due to their 32.2% meaning an increased 206 seats.
I think this would also encourage people to vote especially in area's where their vote is currently almost meaningless, as it would still count towards the proporsional representation element of MP's. I'd imagine it would also have a positive effect of more parties appearing or splitting from existing parties as they'd need only 1 in every 325 votes across the country to gain a member of Parliament. This would mean more of the population had a choice of a party more aligned with their views.
yes - I think this is the kind of compramise that could work... and the 2nd chamber as there is no traditional link to a constituiency perhpas totally PR?