Labour Leader: Keir Starmer II

[gavreid]

Starmer has been totally quiet on schools receiving no addition budget for COVID protection, so keen is he to appear in favour of schools opening at all costs. Heads face a £2.5 bn shortfall apparently and can't employ additional cleaners since the covid special fund has been terminated.

Policy is a pipedream for me - he can't even manage the day job

 

[droodzilla]

Yes. The sabotage of the Labour Party by an internal right wing faction within should be a massive and scandalous story, not least because the faction is still there and is still manipulating behind the scenes to ensure a right wing policy direction that is showing itself to be anti union and anti immigration. It is important because it appears that it is this faction who are the real policy makers in Labour, not Starmer. It is important because at heart it’s corrupt.

The main reason that this isn’t a massive and scandalous story is precisely that it doesn’t fit with the anti Corbyn narrative that so many people outside the Labour party have bought into with such relish in the past.

Unfortunately, if pfm is anything to go by, there are still one or two people who still believe that concerns over Labour’s policy making process is ‘princess stuff’ and don’t, or won’t, care about policy until the next election. Not being interested in policy at all, or not until the next election is absolutely fine, but belittling those of us who do care is not

For some of us it is not possible to leave decision making for another 4 years, the build up to the next GE is already underway not least with organising for local elections. Those who are active members are donating, doing and being asked to volunteer for stuff right now.

I have to ask myself if want to continue spending time and money engaged in promoting a party that I have little idea about and that might be fatally corrupted? Other people might not be interested in such questions, which is fine, but that disinterest does not make the questions either invalid or the stuff of fairy tales.

The point about policy is that you have to prepare the way for it. It's no good pulling it out of nowhere at the last minute, and expecting people to lap it up (arguably, Labour made this mistake with some of their policies in 2019). For example, it will take years to shift public attitudes towards immigration, given where we are now, so best make a start because, you can be sure the far-right will weaponise the issue in 2024.

Maybe Labour could learn a thing or two from Merkel, who remains popular, despite welcoming immigrants into the country five years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/30/angela-merkel-great-migrant-gamble-paid-off

Come to think of it, Starmer's "boring but competent" approach could easily be modelled on Merkel's. I wonder if it will pay similar political dividends in the long run.

I'm old fashioned, and remain stubbornly attached to good and necessary policies rather than chimerical notions of "electability" and "leadership". If Starmer runs on a 2017 style manifesto, I'll be delighted to vote Labour and over the moon if they form a government. If Labour tacks hard to the right to win back socially conservative voters, I expect I'll still vote for them, but don't expect me to be popping the champagne.

This isn't a matter of "ideological purity", it's about the long-term prospects for the UK, as opposed to the immediate challenge of winning in 2024. Fundamental changes are needed to address the historic challenges of climate change, automation and a growing elderly population. The 2017 and 2019 Labour manifestos were pretty good blueprints of what's needed. Without those changes, I see the UK sliding inexorably to the far-right. If Starmer is elected in 2024 and merely "goes with the flow", it will at best be a temporary brake on the unravelling of social democracy in the UK - just as, for all Tony Bair's thumping majority, we now live in a world where the political agenda is set by fascists like Nigel Farage.

Of course, I'll breathe a sigh of relief if Labour win in 2024. But if Starmer squanders the opportunity to make big changes, it will be short-lived.

 

[Woodface]

The point about policy is that you have to prepare the way for it. It's no good pulling it out of nowhere at the last minute, and expecting people to lap it up (arguably, Labour made this mistake with some of their policies in 2019). For example, it will take years to shift public attitudes towards immigration, given where we are now, so best make a start because, you can be sure the far-right will weaponise the issue in 2024.

Maybe Labour could learn a thing or two from Merkel, who remains popular, despite welcoming immigrants into the country five years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/30/angela-merkel-great-migrant-gamble-paid-off

Come to think of it, Starmer's "boring but competent" approach could easily be modelled on Merkel's. I wonder if it will pay similar political dividends in the long run.

I'm old fashioned, and remain stubbornly attached to good and necessary policies rather than chimerical notions of "electability" and "leadership". If Starmer runs on a 2017 style manifesto, I'll be delighted to vote Labour and over the moon if they form a government. If Labour tacks hard to the right to win back socially conservative voters, I expect I'll still vote for them, but don't expect me to be popping the champagne.

This isn't a matter of "ideological purity", it's about the long-term prospects for the UK, as opposed to the immediate challenge of winning in 2024. Fundamental changes are needed to address the historic challenges of climate change, automation and a growing elderly population. The 2017 and 2019 Labour manifestos were pretty good blueprints of what's needed. Without those changes, I see the UK sliding inexorably to the far-right. If Starmer is elected in 2024 and merely "goes with the flow", it will at best be a temporary brake on the unravelling of social democracy in the UK - just as, for all Tony Bair's thumping majority, we now live in a world where the political agenda is set by fascists like Nigel Farage.

Of course, I'll breathe a sigh of relief if Labour win in 2024. But if Starmer squanders the opportunity to make big changes, it will be short-lived.

Yes, very good points, policy needs to be a long term proposition, however, it is probably quite difficult to achieve any cut through with medium term planning. There will be a lot of noise over the coming weeks re schools, ongoing Covid, economy etc.

A plan needs to be in place which can be implemented & thoroughly thought through.

The 2019 election campaign was blighted by needless ‘giveaways’ which scuttled the credibility.

I think there should be substantial policy in place 2 years out from the election.

 

[ciderglider]

Maybe Labour could learn a thing or two from Merkel, who remains popular, despite welcoming immigrants into the country five years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/30/angela-merkel-great-migrant-gamble-paid-off

Come to think of it, Starmer's "boring but competent" approach could easily be modelled on Merkel's. I wonder if it will pay similar political dividends in the long run.

The article shows that Merkel did not remain popular; her popularity declined during the influx of asylum seekers. But she has now regained her popularity because she is seen as having dealt with Covid competently.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Another good reason for supporting PR, I think, could be that it helps cut the dependence on short-termism in politics. Parties should be able to map out policies that play out over more than one term, because the makeup of Parliament is not likely to radically shift from one election to the next, so their policies can still be pursued even if they are not the party of power, if they can make the right Parliamentary alliances on them.

 

[gavreid]

Green confirms that Labour wants kids back at school - spending went almost completely unchallenged she asked when schools will get the support they need, which Willimson simply shrugged off by saying 1bn has already been spent. Pathetic I'm afraid in anyone's book. I wonder when we'll see the first teacher taken ill, the first parent death of the new term - quite honestly they couldn't give a t*ss.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...088598bc53728b#block-5f4e6e6b8f088598bc53728b

 

[ks.234]

While I'm more than disappointed with Starmer's response to kid, teachers, unions and immigrants, I can see the rationale of keeping a low profile while this government seems to be tripping over its trousers on a daily basis. Or missing open goals as it used to be called.

Also, when my red rage over the way Starmer has failed to support schools has died down a little more, I will probably settle for having a substantial idea of what Labour stands for in a couple of years time and if it keeps what was good about the 2017 manifesto still lend my support

But f*ck me, he needs to get a move on.

 

[droodzilla]

The article shows that Merkel did not remain popular; her popularity declined during the influx of asylum seekers. But she has now regained her popularity because she is seen as having dealt with Covid competently.

Sure but, if welcoming asylum seekers is really a political death sentence, her popularity ought never to have recovered. Put another way, it looks like it's possible to do the right thing by asylum seekers and remain popular if you deliver other stuff that matters to people. That's what Labour should aim for.

 

[ks.234]

Green confirms that Labour wants kids back at school - spending went almost completely unchallenged she asked when schools will get the support they need, which Willimson simply shrugged off by saying 1bn has already been spent. Pathetic I'm afraid in anyone's book. I wonder when we'll see the first teacher taken ill, the first parent death of the new term - quite honestly they couldn't give a t*ss.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...088598bc53728b#block-5f4e6e6b8f088598bc53728b

Yes, Covid has exposed how seriously underfunded schools are and how little they are consulted over what is best for the kids.

If Labour are going to stand up for basic standards in the workplace and listen to those who know most about what kids need, then this is an open goal?

 

[mandryka]

Green confirms that Labour wants kids back at school - spending went almost completely unchallenged she asked when schools will get the support they need, which Willimson simply shrugged off by saying 1bn has already been spent. Pathetic I'm afraid in anyone's book. I wonder when we'll see the first teacher taken ill, the first parent death of the new term - quite honestly they couldn't give a t*ss.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...088598bc53728b#block-5f4e6e6b8f088598bc53728b

The billion is for extra teaching support, not for making schools safer. I don’t know if health and safety came up (not had a chance to see the video yet.)

 

[gavreid]

The billion is for extra teaching support, not for making schools safer. I don’t know if health and safety came up (not had a chance to see the video yet.)

That's right. No it didn't - there's nothing for safety, that's what the NAHT has been saying.

 

[Seanm]

Sure but, if welcoming asylum seekers is really a political death sentence, her popularity ought never to have recovered. Put another way, it looks like it's possible to do the right thing by asylum seekers and remain popular if you deliver other stuff that matters to people. That's what Labour should aim for.

IMO, which in fairness has been proven not to be worth very much, this is very obviously the way to go: even actual, conscious racists will be prepared to let go of their hobby horse if something they care about more is offered to them in a convincing manner. (I think this is why Labour’s Brexit strategy was so disastrous: “socially conservative” Labour voters might have gone along with Labour’s socially progressive agenda, but not if the party was also going to take the piss WRT to their democratic rights - something they really cared about.)

My pet theory at the moment is that Starmer isn’t actually pandering to socially conservative voters: he’s pandering to centrist journalists who have invented a stereotype of the socially conservative working class voter and will wet their pants in public continuously unless politicians appease this imaginary figure with 24/7 racism and stupidity. If this is the case then I can see where Starmer’s coming from, because the last 5 years are a lesson in how much damage these clowns can do if they feel like you’re ignoring them. Here’s a good one, praising Starmer for giving credence to the completely fictitious Proms scam:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...on-the-right-side-of-britain-s-culture-divide

Such masterful complicity!

If Starmer can convince these people that he knows how to manipulate the racist working class voters of their imaginations, he may be able to shut them up long enough to deal with actual voters.

Long shot!

 

[h.g.]

The point about policy is that you have to prepare the way for it. It's no good pulling it out of nowhere at the last minute, and expecting people to lap it up (arguably, Labour made this mistake with some of their policies in 2019).

If the labour leadership were to declare tomorrow genuine policies to fix the flow of wealth and address the current imbalance what do you think would happen given 4 years to the next election?

Starmer would be declaring war on the rich and powerful wealth redistributors that are currently benefiting excessively to the extent they have been killing the host they feed off for the last decade and arguably two. Given how much of the UK infrastructure is now in poor shape and the economic decline accelerating the next government, whether labour or conservative, will have little option but to make major changes to the flow of wealth and possibly redistributing existing wealth if they are to have the ability to do anything. But would it be wise to announce policies to do this when perhaps 4 years before an election?

 

[kensalriser]

Policies are a great way to increase opposition to you, as people are generally more energised by things they're against over things they're for. Brexit is the great exception.

 

[Seanm]

Wasn’t drood talking about preparing the way for policies, rather than actually formulating them? Never really been a better time for softening people up for policies that rebalance the economy a little, given that banks are getting blank checks while the small businesses they’re supposed to support are not, landlords are getting mortgage holidays while their tenants are looking at evictions, corporations bailed out with tax payers’ money are handing out bags of cash to shareholders etc. No harm to point this stuff out, start joining some dots with the broader, broken system, so that in 2 or 3 years’ time you can say, “Remember that obvious economic injustice and the spivs that benefited from it? Here’s a sensible policy to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

The biggest obstacle to all this, I’m increasingly convinced, isn’t that people will think it’s mad and divisive, or that The Telegraph will write it up as the politics of envy, it’s that centrist pundits like John Rentoul and Rafael Behr, to say nothing of old ghouls like Blair and Mandelson, would interpret it as proof that the hard left was still in charge, and that would be that - 4 more years of Labour’s Actually More Extreme than Johnson articles, from the only media outlets that might be expected to actually cover Labour policies.

 

[droodzilla]

IMO, which in fairness has been proven not to be worth very much, this is very obviously the way to go: even actual, conscious racists will be prepared to let go of their hobby horse if something they care about more is offered to them in a convincing manner. (I think this is why Labour’s Brexit strategy was so disastrous: “socially conservative” Labour voters might have gone along with Labour’s socially progressive agenda, but not if the party was also going to take the piss WRT to their democratic rights - something they really cared about.)

My pet theory at the moment is that Starmer isn’t actually pandering to socially conservative voters: he’s pandering to centrist journalists who have invented a stereotype of the socially conservative working class voter and will wet their pants in public continuously unless politicians appease this imaginary figure with 24/7 racism and stupidity. If this is the case then I can see where Starmer’s coming from, because the last 5 years are a lesson in how much damage these clowns can do if they feel like you’re ignoring them. Here’s a good one, praising Starmer for giving credence to the completely fictitious Proms scam:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...on-the-right-side-of-britain-s-culture-divide

Such masterful complicity!

If Starmer can convince these people that he knows how to manipulate the racist working class voters of their imaginations, he may be able to shut them up long enough to deal with actual voters.

Long shot!

You are @flying_rodent and I claim my £5.

Yes, the UK's liberal pundits are truly awful. I only managed a paragraph of that article before giving up: self-serving drivel.

It's depressing that the media class has only just discovered the working class, but remains completely incapable of representing it as anything other than a bunch of racist cliches. Why not hang out with these people for a bit, and get to know them, as Jack Shenker tried to do in one of the finest, non-patronising pieces about Brexit I know:

http://www.jackshenker.net/special-features/tilbury-britains-brexiteer-town-at-the-worlds-end.html

There was also a good series of videos by a local film maker, about people in Hull that managed to portray even committed Leave voters as rounded, real people, much like the people I grew up with.

 

[ks.234]

Policies are a great way to increase opposition to you, as people are generally more energised by things they're against over things they're for. Brexit is the great exception.

Was Brexit an exception? It was driven by what it was against, and now it’s difficult to see what it’s for!

 

[gavreid]

In Scotland we have a clear example of Starmer's kind of Labour politics - Labour is sitting at whopping 14% in the polls for next years elections, and they're imploding

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...chard-leonard-pressure-quit-growing-rebellion

 

[Tony L]

In Scotland we have a clear example of Starmer's kind of Labour politics - Labour is sitting at whopping 14% in the polls for next years elections, and they're imploding

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...chard-leonard-pressure-quit-growing-rebellion

In fairness they had a catastrophic defeat last time and the time before. Their biggest conceptual differences to the SNP are they don’t have any coherent moral opinion on Brexit and they appear to think Scotland should be shackled to an increasingly ugly and right-wing England rather than cut itself free. Not the world’s greatest manifesto for an allegedly progressive party!

 

[gavreid]

In fairness they had a catastrophic defeat last time and the time before. Their biggest conceptual differences to the SNP are they don’t have any coherent moral opinion on Brexit and they appear to think Scotland should be shackled to an increasingly ugly and right-wing England rather than cut itself free. Not the world’s greatest manifesto for an allegedly progressive party!

Yes, they've not managed to break from the shackles of Blair in Scotland having supported the Tories in the referendum. They had long since been the minority party too. They're desparate for a set of policies, having opposed Corbyn's, so that they can stand out from the posturing of the SNP but it's 20 year late in coming I'm afaid so it'll be a long slog.