advertisement


Next Labour Leader: Keir Starmer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker_UK said:
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that loss of two elections could be down to something as simplistic that; it was a more general observation of how a simple tool that was of some use is now seen as a panacea.

Remember, "strong and stable" was countered by "weak and wobbly" and like "take back control" tapped into a latent thought in many's mind and exploited it with that simple three word tool



Well, you highlight that, but ISTM that having him avoiding interviews where he was almost certainly going to drop a b*llock, paid dividends. So in terms of managing any risk to the campaign from the prospective PM's behaviour, more effective than Theresa May's where she shot herself in the foot several times.
Click to expand...
I agree that avoidance of scrutiny (especially in interviews) was strategic to the 2019 campaign.

Still... Boris Johnson hid in a fridge!

It reflects badly on the media that this (and other debacles in 2019) can be shrugged off as "Boris being a character".
 
droodzilla said:
I agree that avoidance of scrutiny (especially in interviews) was strategic to the 2019 campaign.

Still... Boris Johnson hid in a fridge!

It reflects badly on the media that this (and other debacles in 2019) can be shrugged off as "Boris being a character".
Click to expand...

So we end up back in the same old argument. We know that this swing to a 'presidential' campaign where it is the character of the leader that is the focus of the media, is bad for democracy. So what's the answer? You can try to shift focus purely on the ideas and fight an election on that but don't be surprised when it leads to defeat. Until you can change the narrative to one that's not all about who's going to be PM and what they're like (good luck on reversing that before 2024) you absolutely have to 'play the game' to win the election (however much it sticks in your craw).
 
droodzilla said:
Yes. Why not? By 2019, the political landscape, mood of the country etc. was very different to 2017.

Edit: The GBD slogan would not have worked so well, coming from Theresa May in 2019 since, by then, she was pegged as soft on the EU and maybe even "a secret remainer".
Click to expand...
The Conservatives knew that some were sickening of the seemingly unrelenting and endless Brexit juggernaut. I think they sensed that this disgruntled and growing minority just needed a nudge. Their whole campaign was to convince this minority to take the risk and their risk would encourage others to do so.
They kept the campaign lean and clean using the repetition of the slogan to drive people forwards. Domestic issues were discarded. They avoided anything that may pollute or corrupt their single aim, hence no controversial interviews etc. It was blunt, immoral and very effective. The confusion and chaos in the Labour Party provided a boost and the Cons. were first over the line a large margin. Where they are now I expected but it was a bold move and people were suckered to be honest, they probably couldn’t believe their eyes.
For the first time in many years Labour have a chance of wrestling back the ground that they lost.Starmer is dry, serious and perhaps pedantic but I think that’s exactly what they need at this time. Some nibble at him now but if he pulls this off what will they say then....I think he is underestimated and I’m pretty sure he is spending his time sorting internal tensions and shaving off those that may prove a hindrance as they did before(RLB). The crap he has to wade through at this time must be monumental.
 
Seeker_UK said:
So we end up back in the same old argument. We know that this swing to a 'presidential' campaign where it is the character of the leader that is the focus of the media, is bad for democracy. So what's the answer? You can try to shift focus purely on the ideas and fight an election on that but don't be surprised when it leads to defeat. Until you can change the narrative to one that's not all about who's going to be PM and what they're like (good luck on reversing that before 2024) you absolutely have to 'play the game' to win the election (however much it sticks in your craw).
Click to expand...

Essentially, Labour has to keep calm, avoid damaging internal disputes of interest only to itself, and wait for 'events', of which there will be plenty in the next few years, to demonstrate that the Tories are unfit to govern. Most people couldn't give a tinker's cuss about ideology, left v right, or any of that shite. They want a reasonably stable government that can deliver a sound economy, keep crime down and keep us on a reasonably good terms with as many other nations as possible.
 
Seeker_UK said:
So we end up back in the same old argument. We know that this swing to a 'presidential' campaign where it is the character of the leader that is the focus of the media, is bad for democracy. So what's the answer? You can try to shift focus purely on the ideas and fight an election on that but don't be surprised when it leads to defeat. Until you can change the narrative to one that's not all about who's going to be PM and what they're like (good luck on reversing that before 2024) you absolutely have to 'play the game' to win the election (however much it sticks in your craw).
Click to expand...
Or...the present system persists because you have to ‘play the game’. Further, it is the militant moderates who predominately insist on playing the game and join in the condemnation of anyone who doesn’t
 
Joe Hutch said:
Essentially, Labour has to keep calm, avoid damaging internal disputes of interest only to itself, and wait for 'events', of which there will be plenty in the next few years, to demonstrate that the Tories are unfit to govern. Most people couldn't give a tinker's cuss about ideology, left v right, or any of that shite. They want a reasonably stable government that can deliver a sound economy, keep crime down and keep us on a reasonably good terms with as many other nations as possible.
Click to expand...

That won't happen if Starmer won't honour his election commitments
 
Joe Hutch said:
Essentially, Labour has to keep calm, avoid damaging internal disputes of interest only to itself, and wait for 'events', of which there will be plenty in the next few years, to demonstrate that the Tories are unfit to govern. Most people couldn't give a tinker's cuss about ideology, left v right, or any of that shite. They want a man in a nice suit, no duffle coats or beards, a reasonably stable government that can deliver a sound economy, keep crime down and keep us on a reasonably good terms with as many other nations as possible.
Click to expand...
FIFY
 
Joe Hutch said:
I asked up-thread, but got no answer: can he declare those pledges as Party policy ahead of the Party Conference?
Click to expand...
He doesn’t have to declare them as policy, but he needs to stand by them or change them. He has undermined his own pledges in at least 2 of the 10 pledges leaving the questions of what he does actually stand for unanswered.
 
ks.234 said:
He doesn’t have to declare them as policy, but he needs to stand by them or change them. He has undermined his own pledges in at least 2 of the 10 pledges leaving the questions of what he does actually stand for unanswered.
Click to expand...

OK. I ask because the gap between what Corbyn wanted (eg on Polaris), and what he could get the conference to agree to, was damaging in presentational terms.
 
Seeker_UK said:
So we end up back in the same old argument. We know that this swing to a 'presidential' campaign where it is the character of the leader that is the focus of the media, is bad for democracy. So what's the answer? You can try to shift focus purely on the ideas and fight an election on that but don't be surprised when it leads to defeat. Until you can change the narrative to one that's not all about who's going to be PM and what they're like (good luck on reversing that before 2024) you absolutely have to 'play the game' to win the election (however much it sticks in your craw).
Click to expand...
I dislike the presidential style of politics, it's no secret. Policies matter because they reflect (or should reflect) what a party will do if it gains power: who will benefit, and who will be harmed. It grieves me that serious discussion of policy is virtually non-existent in the news and I think political debate is greatly diminished as a result. There's no quick fix for this - it requires serious media reform and, I think, a new approach to education that focuses much more on critical thinking skills (e.g. interpreting graphs, statistics, evaluating sources). It's a long-term project, that will require serious commitment, if a progressive alliance ever gains power again in the UK.

The most you can say about focusing on the leader is that it tells you something about a party's ability to deliver its manifesto, but I think even this point is over-egged. Which brings us to Boris Johnson...

My worry about Johnson's success (and Trump's, and Bolsanaro's...) is that the model of presidential politics is itself degrading. It used to be about assessing a candidate's competence, moral-seriousness and trustworthiness. Now it appears to be about whether a candidate makes us laugh, despite being fundamentally unserious and a known liar. Surely, it's not too much to ask for the media not to be complicit in this by exposing the lies, not reporting every dumb publicity stunt and so forth. What happened to the willingness and ability of our media to speak truth to power?
 
Joe Hutch said:
OK. I ask because the gap between what Corbyn wanted (eg on Polaris), and what he could get the conference to agree to, was damaging in presentational terms.
Click to expand...
The 10 pledges are what he got elected on, what he can get through conference when the time comes, might be very different. But right here, right now, his pledges are what people like me voted on and if he’s about to ditch them now that he’s got a sniff of power, he’ll be responsible for creating a sense of betrayal of Cleggish proportions.
 
The public has a serious appetite for lies and fantasy, if they sound better than reality. Not sure how you counter that. Witness yesterday's Brexit announcements, does it seem to matter that all of this is pretty much the opposite of what people were told? Doesn't seem to.
 
I think after the MPs' expenses scandal and the heel dragging on delivering Brexit a lot of people have such a low opinion of the political class that they think Johnson's misdemeanours to be small beer.
 
ks.234 said:
Or...the present system persists because you have to ‘play the game’.
Click to expand...

This suggests that you'd prefer not have 'your lot' in charge and 'their lot' out if you can't win your way.

There is an alternative: 'your lot' wins and has the moral fibre to change the system once in. Are you saying you couldn't trust someone who decides on this course of action to see it through? Or just "militant moderates"?

ks.234 said:
Further, it is the militant moderates...
Click to expand...

Semantics. I prefer to think of myself as a raging pragmatist. :)

ks.234 said:
...who predominately insist on playing the game and join in the condemnation of anyone who doesn’t
Click to expand...

As I say, you can try and change the system by banging your head on the wall from the outside; it'll be a long slog with lots of collateral damage as a result.

Same old arguments and no clear winner either way.
 
droodzilla said:
There's no quick fix for this - it requires serious media reform and, I think, a new approach to education that focuses much more on critical thinking skills (e.g. interpreting graphs, statistics, evaluating sources). It's a long-term project, that will require serious commitment, if a progressive alliance ever gains power again in the UK.
Click to expand...

During which time we'll keep getting the kind of leaders you identify as damaging for the UK. It surprises me that although you clearly dislike what's going on with the country, you seem prepared to accept 'collateral damage' while you struggle to get something perfect? It just makes it very easy to caricature this as an example of 'ideological purity and dogma' over 'pragmatism and 'realpolitik'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top