Keir Starmer Labour Leader

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I think conservatism is primarily about property ownership, whether buildings, land, money, shares, wife at one time, and the idea no one has the right to take any of that from you. Even the nationalism side of it is related to that, johnny foreigner would take it all from you if he could. Also the reason why conservative people don't want public spending for anything, they don't want to be taxed to pay for it. And they don't like change, any sort of change really, because that might threaten what they have one way or another, and that would never do.

Conservatism is smaller than that.

In a nutshell : “My life is ok, why would I change it”.

That’s it. Any change from how it is, impacts them. It’s not a philosophy, it’s a selfish attitude. ‘I am happy, I will not concede anything, even if it’s something I don’t need,
even if it helps others’

 

[Raven]

He was disliked due to the right wing media portraying him as Mao.

That’s beyond debate. He was a socialist. But the media in this country portrayed him as a guy that would reward the idle and punish the working class. Despite the fact he was their biggest supporter, and wanted to take from the super rich, and help working class Brits.

He was flawed, he wasn’t a great orator, he wasn’t a rallying force. But he was a force for good for anyone earning less than £75,000 a year.

The media caused the people he would help, to vote against him. That’s why he was disliked.

Exactly, it was a smear job that I've never seen the like of. I often wonder what would have been different had Corbyn won 2019 and led Britain through the pandemic.

 

[Zlatattack]

As a Muslim Labour supporter (ish) I'd like to say I had no idea Starmer had a wife - let alone that she was Jewish. Frankly it makes no difference to me at all. Bernie Sanders is Jewish and I'd vote for him all day long if I was an American.

The right wing media and the Labour Party is trying to spin thier next election loss on Muslims being anti semitic.

This kind of BS is exactly why Muslim voters increasingly hate the Labour Party.

 

[esmufc07]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

It’s ok I’ll rent forever.

 

[Foxbatt]

Now he is no longer calling the shots. It's that guy Mendelssohn or how ever you spell his name.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Labour has given the strongest sign yet that it has gone back on its new leader’s pledge that he would introduce free social care if his party won power, after a shadow cabinet member said such a policy would be too expensive.

Thangam Debbonaire told female party members at a meeting last weekend that introducing free social care for disabled and older people would “give the Tories a stick to beat Labour with”, Disability News Service (DNS) has been told.

She apparently claimed that such a policy would cost “£100 billion” and would cost more than the annual budget of the NHS.

She also said that right-wing newspapers would attack the policy and that it would lose Labour the next election.

This week, Labour failed to deny she had made the comments.

 

[Dobba]

Would be very unlike Starmer to just abandon something that was part of his leadership campaign.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

it's nbd really. old people are totally irrelevant and not the single section of the electorate which has cost labour it's previous 2 elections.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[nimic]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Loony left in shambles

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

A vision for the future. A clear direction. Worth ditching his leadership pledges for that.

 

[villain]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tell me you’re a Tory without telling me you’re a Tory

 

[UweBein]

He is in actually on the right path with that.
It's the only way Labour can win.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

He is in actually on the right path with that.
It's the only way Labour can win.

Become the Tories? Great.

 

[Boycott]

There seems to be a pipeline of left wingers who think the more left leaning party is not left wing enough so they team up with far right wing personalities. Mainly on on social media and fringe parts of US politics, but Galloway and Fox is not a partnership I envisioned.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Fox is the very definition of elitist and thinks Labour under Starmer is conducting some Marxist traits so what's the connection here. I guess when populism rots your brain whereby being "feck the establishment" is your personality you see Fox as an ally.

 

[Sweet Square]

There seems to be a pipeline of left wingers who think the more left leaning party is not left wing enough so they team up with far right wing personalities. Mainly on on social media and fringe parts of US politics, but Galloway and Fox is not a partnership I envisioned.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Fox is the very definition of elitist and thinks Labour under Starmer is conducting some Marxist traits so what's the connection here. I guess when populism rots your brain whereby being "feck the establishment" is your personality you see Fox as an ally.

Tbh if you're using that line of argument there's no reason to vote for Labour as Starmer has brought likes of Peter Mandelson on board.

People shouldn't vote for Galloway because he was the cat man from Big Brother.

 

[UweBein]

Become the Tories? Great.

Nah, don't think so. A left leaning party, with a social program and law & order approach is the way to go. (But, yes you are right, if you refer to BoJo. He is kind of heading that way.)

 

[esmufc07]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[sun_tzu]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Of all places...

 

[V.O.]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Fecking tories.

I thought those fake newspapers they were sticking through doors during the last GE cycle were bad.

 

[sun_tzu]

Fecking tories.

I mean throwing round baseless allegations is pretty much as bad as the leaflet itsef but yeah that seems about right for the current state of our politics

 

[esmufc07]

I reckon it was @Dobba

 

[Dobba]

I reckon it was @Dobba

With that font choice? How dare you.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Read that as Batley and Spain, and thought who would give a shite.

 

[Buster15]

He is in actually on the right path with that.
It's the only way Labour can win.

I do agree with you. But that is a far from popular thing to say.
I am beginning to sense that the wheels are starting to come off the Tory party popularity as the truth about them starts to open up.
And some will start to think about the alternative. Now, having recently given Labour under Corbyn a good kicking, it would be highly unlikely that they would suddenly want to vote for a left wing Labour.
But a left of center Labour would be much more likely to appeal to them.

 

[Drifter]

If that's the case ,why does it not appeal to them now.

 

[Boycott]

If that's the case ,why does it not appeal to them now.

Because they don't believe it is true. The unpopular position is Johnson has won over an electorally powerful bloc of people who consider themselves more economically left wing but also socially right wing. Given the choice of one or the other they value their social identity/status more. Hence why attacks on "wokeness" is being proliferated.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Once I'm voted in then I'll tell you what I believe in! Also she sounds like Theresa May

 

[esmufc07]

Why is Owen Jones suddenly everywhere again

 

[sullydnl]

It's absolutely true that to win the election Labour will need to appeal to people who don't see themselves as Labour voters. Which will by necessity mean taking positions on some issues that are unpleasant for a large chunk of Labour's core supporters to swallow, particularly those furthest to the left.

That said, another good way to attract voters is to not seem vaguely useless. Or to have some sort of vision beyond "we're not as bad as the Tories or Corbyn". Because even if you think Labour does have to shift to the centre, that isn't in itself an actual vision for the future. I have no idea what Labour are actually supposed to be offering and it doesn't appear their candidates are overly sure either.

 

[Boycott]

It's absolutely true that to win the election Labour will need to appeal to people who don't see themselves as Labour voters. Which will by necessity mean taking positions on some issues that are unpleasant for a large chunk of Labour's core supporters to swallow, particularly those furthest to the left.

That said, another good way to attract voters is to not seem vaguely useless. Or to have some sort of vision beyond "we're not as bad as the Tories or Corbyn". Because even if you think Labour does have to shift to the centre, that isn't in itself an actual vision for the future. I have no idea what Labour are actually supposed to be offering and it doesn't appear their candidates are overly sure either.

The issue with that is it is entirely a one way narrative. How do the Tories attract voters? What is the Tory vision for the future that gets the public to maintain their support? That "we're not Labour"?

If you're a 40 year old today then for 70% of your lifetime the Tories have been in charge. Yet their own messaging is that it was the Labour government representing the smaller period of 30% that is all to blame. And there is a significant chunk of people who say the country has been going to the dogs in the last 40 years who clearly buy into it. The Tories campaign as if they haven't been at the helm for most of the time and the voters accept it.

 

[Lebowski]

I do agree with you. But that is a far from popular thing to say.
I am beginning to sense that the wheels are starting to come off the Tory party popularity as the truth about them starts to open up.
And some will start to think about the alternative. Now, having recently given Labour under Corbyn a good kicking, it would be highly unlikely that they would suddenly want to vote for a left wing Labour.
But a left of center Labour would be much more likely to appeal to them.

Well it depends on which voters you're talking about.

I can see some tory / lib dem / Green voters in the South considering voting for Starmer's Labour. The socially liberal centrist dad FBPE types who don't like the current populist turn of the Tory party and engage with politics as a cultural morality play so care about a politician's personal infidelity and corruption.

Beyond that very particular cohort I can't see his appeal working. If you are socially or economically conservative why would you vote for Labour when you can have the real thing, and if you're economically marginalised, then why would you vote for the type of milquetoast neoliberalism that has left you behind when you have a populist Tory party who is promising to turn on the taps for investment in your region?

He might win a few more seats in the south thanks to liberals who find Johnson gauche, but that'll be at the cost of any chance of appealing to the rest of the country.

 

[Buster15]

Well it depends on which voters you're talking about.

I can see some tory / lib dem / Green voters in the South considering voting for Starmer's Labour. The socially liberal centrist dad FBPE types who don't like the current populist turn of the Tory party and engage with politics as a cultural morality play so care about a politician's personal infidelity and corruption.

Beyond that very particular cohort I can't see his appeal working. If you are socially or economically conservative why would you vote for Labour when you can have the real thing, and if you're economically marginalised, then why would you vote for the type of milquetoast neoliberalism that has left you behind when you have a populist Tory party who is promising to turn on the taps for investment in your region?

He might win a few more seats in the south thanks to liberals who find Johnson gauche, but that'll be at the cost of any chance of appealing to the rest of the country.

You could be right and perhaps I am basing my views on the huge swing that happened to New Labour and Tony Blair.
Admittedly, he had much more charisma than Starmer.
But it is my belief that as the general public turn away from the lying and cheating Boris, it might just be the time for a leader who is less about personality and more about the basics of running the country.
Time will tell.

 

[Boycott]

Well it depends on which voters you're talking about.

I can see some tory / lib dem / Green voters in the South considering voting for Starmer's Labour. The socially liberal centrist dad FBPE types who don't like the current populist turn of the Tory party and engage with politics as a cultural morality play so care about a politician's personal infidelity and corruption.

Beyond that very particular cohort I can't see his appeal working. If you are socially or economically conservative why would you vote for Labour when you can have the real thing, and if you're economically marginalised, then why would you vote for the type of milquetoast neoliberalism that has left you behind when you have a populist Tory party who is promising to turn on the taps for investment in your region?

He might win a few more seats in the south thanks to liberals who find Johnson gauche, but that'll be at the cost of any chance of appealing to the rest of the country.

Because it was the Tory party who turned off the taps in the first place? The Tory party that has been in charge for most of the time of the last 40 years? Because populism is a fraud of promising easy scapegoats to point fingers to and avoid hard questions? For example just a few weeks ago a coalition of opposition parties supported a motion to increase substantially investment towards young people (free school meals, school supplies, catch up resources for teachers/students, extracurricular activities, mental and physical well being etc). It was put forward after the government rejected the funding proposals put forward by an outside commissioner and instead made a proposal that in comparison is peanuts. Not a single tory bothered to vote on the motion sticking by the party line. Similarly when it comes to voting records on public investment this "populist" party still looks very Thatcherite whereas "centrist neoliberal" labour have been the ones backing the proposals as the minority party. It's the easiest thing in the world to adopt populist soundbites but examine the voting records and the tories do not match their words.

 

[Lebowski]

Because it was the Tory party who turned off the taps in the first place? The Tory party that has been in charge for most of the time of the last 40 years? Because populism is a fraud of promising easy scapegoats to point fingers to and avoid hard questions? For example just a few weeks ago a coalition of opposition parties supported a motion to increase substantially investment towards young people (free school meals, school supplies, catch up resources for teachers/students, extracurricular activities, mental and physical well being etc). It was put forward after the government rejected the funding proposals put forward by an outside commissioner and instead made a proposal that in comparison is peanuts. Not a single tory bothered to vote on the motion sticking by the party line. Similarly when it comes to voting records on public investment this "populist" party still looks very Thatcherite whereas "centrist neoliberal" labour have been the ones backing the proposals as the minority party. It's the easiest thing in the world to adopt populist soundbites but examine the voting records and the tories do not match their words.

So I don't necessarily disagree with your attribution of blame, but I think that attribution is mostly meaningless in today's political landscape.

For whatever reason (Starmer/Corbyn's inability to pin Johnson down, a supine media class being happy to act as Tory party propagandists etc), I don't think your average voter in say Sunderland or Hartlepool associates Johnson with the Tory party decade of austerity.

They've seen 40 years of steady decline under Thatcher, Blair and the coalition government so don't believe that any party has the will or the ability to improve their lives and restore their communities. They've also seen the very explicit offer of Johnson's authoritarian populism, which to some extent he's delivered on (or at least the facade of). I have canvassed for Labour in the last 2 elections and one of the most common responses in deprived areas in 'the red wall' was agreement with Corbyn's policy proposals but utter disbelief that they would actually deliver them. "I voted for Brexit 4 years ago and the politicians still haven't delivered that, why should any other policy be any different?".

What they've seen of Johnson is 'getting Brexit done' and what they've seen from their new Tory MPs and mayors is local people who have been able to persuade Westminster and the Treasury to turn the taps back on for regional investment. Of course most voters know it's cynical pork barrel politics, but why should they care? In their minds the choice is between the party they associate with their moribund council who has presided over the death of their community for the last 40 years (and a central party that they see as too liberal, metropolitan and out of touch) or a cynical bunch of poshos who may at least be prepared to bribe them into supporting them.

A good example for the above is the new Tory Mayor of Teesside. He's nationalised the local airport, removed parking charges at the local hospital and started a development corporation to supposedly bring industry back to the old steelworks and ports. Voters of Hartlepool think of him when they consider voting Tory, not Thatcher or Cameron.

Factors you mentioned like the motion for education funding (which I presume was an early day motion?) don't cut through to anyone not paying attention to politics, which is becoming an increasing number of people since they've lost any faith that politics as performed in Westminster will improve their lives. That attitude of course benefits the Conservatives and raises the barrier for any progressive party to persuade the public they will deliver. Especially when the current Labour party can't support a decent pay rise for nurses, opposed an increase in corporation tax and abstained on any remotely controversial bills like spy cops and overseas operations, so the public are rightly querying what the hell they actually stand for. I agree that Labour would be better for our NHS and public services, but the more progressive, concrete and popular policies of Corbyn weren't sufficient, so I don't see any evidence to think that being more progressive than the Tories on public services will get Starmer anywhere.

If you add to that the cultural signifiers which have become increasingly important as politics has moved away from anything material then it's a mix that I think is far too heady to be challenged by Starmer's woke 'competent' centrism.

The TLDR is that to if you're a homeowning white guy in the 'red wall', there's a triple lock on your pension and your home has increased in value. It's going to take a fairly convincing proposal to make you want to return to a party that currently represents very little of substance, aside from the sort of liberal identity politics you associate with the metropolitan liberalism that often forgets you exist.

If you're economically marginalised, then I don't see why you're going to vote for the bloke who isn't proposing anything to radically address your issues.

Hence why I think his appeal will be limited to liberal centrist dads who think Johnson is a bit too rude and racist for their tastes. And they don't win elections without the North and Scotland.

 

[esmufc07]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

By election tomorrow, looks like Labour are going to lose another seat. Huge pressure on Starmer at the moment.

 

[esmufc07]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Labour giving up the Batley election. Functioning opposition indeed

 

[sun_tzu]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

That would be interesting given starmer can't actually sack her from the deputy position... thats going to be super awkward if starmer wins and she's still his deputy

Not sure I see her as a credible option though... that said she is more credible than burgeon who I half expect to have a go if nobody else does

Nandy would be my guess if there is a new leader given Burnham isn't an mp

 

[nickm]

Well now, labour won and starmer can celebrate. That must be annoying for the Labour Party supporters on here.