Next Labour Leader II

[Seeker_UK]

This is a leadership election, not a general election. Labour isn't likely to face the electorate for another 5 years. The leader will have an important role shaping the party organisationally and strategically over that time. The electorate might not care about how that happens but they are going to judge us on the results of the process.

Whilst I agree on your second point, I think you are making a mistake to prioritise party over electorate. I am willing to bet that very few people in Bassetlaw voted tory as a reaction to Labour's poor organisational structure or need for greater democratic process in its decision making. You can suggest that "Yeah, we get that sorted first and then worry about 2024", but that's only five years away and Labour really can't affort to waste any of that time putting a priority on internal matters over actually connecting with the voters it needs.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The media is what it's always been but has less power in absolute terms than it did 20 years ago.

This keeps being said, but I don’t see any evidence for it. Keep in mind that this meme is brought to you by that self same media.

 

[Del monaco]

Whilst I agree on your second point, I think you are making a mistake to prioritise party over electorate. I am willing to bet that very few people in Bassetlaw voted tory as a reaction to Labour's poor organisational structure or need for greater democratic process in its decision making. You can suggest that "Yeah, we get that sorted first and then worry about 2024", but that's only five years away and Labour really can't affort to waste any of that time putting a priority on internal matters over actually connecting with the voters it needs.

It was Corbyn. Mann saw it coming early on and scarpered. I spoke with him on the doorstep 2/3 years ago. Even then he was predicting what he saw as the inevitable.

 

[Del monaco]

The media is still relevant and social media is becoming a powerful persuader, even if its lies that's being peddled. I suppose that I am more concerned about the gullibility of voters around these lies. Lies will generate more lies. We're fast becoming Trumptown.

 

[Woodface]

This keeps being said, but I don’t see any evidence for it. Keep in mind that this meme is brought to you by that self same media.

The evidence is there if you look for it. Falling circulations, loss of market share in terms of advertising (a key form of revenue), Google/Facebook an effective duopoly, many titles facing a demographic cliff etc.

I get SM amplification but not exactly sure how effective this is compared to core readership consumption.

This has been debated at length but ultimately Labour needs a professional comms strategy, it is not insurmountable.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The evidence is there if you look for it. Falling circulations, loss of market share in terms of advertising (a key form of revenue), Google/Facebook an effective duopoly, many titles facing a demographic cliff etc.

I get SM amplification but not exactly sure how effective this is compared to core readership consumption.

Yet the media moguls continue to support their titles. These are astute businesspeople who would quickly ditch a declining prospect without a backward glance if they considered it a liability. The mistake is in gauging this stuff purely in terms of circulation and ad revenue. For the owners, the value has always been elsewhere: the influence.

 

[deanf]

You certainly get a better picture of someone in person than just on telly. Was he good?

Full speech available here, hosted by Doreen Laurence, mother of murdered Stephen Laurence. Personally, I thought he looked more comfortable working than socialising, there was none of that bouncing around and hugging people, moments of lightheartedness rather than jokes. He watches the room and people, it reminded me of a QC I had to work with in the past. Professional. He clearly adores his wife.

https://www.pscp.tv/Keir_Starmer/1kvJpRvpvjaKE

Six honorary doctorates. No mean feat, I’m sure, but not quite the same thing as six actual PhDs. He doesn’t have one of those, does he? And surely no one has six!?

The one from London School of Economics is for being "a leader amongst academics and practitioners in human rights law." Give them a ring Monday, see if you can get me one too.

 

[Woodface]

Yet the media moguls continue to support their titles. These are astute businesspeople who would quickly ditch a declining prospect without a backward glance if they considered it a liability. The mistake is in gauging this stuff purely in terms of circulation and ad revenue. For the owners, the value has always been elsewhere: the influence.

We've had Johnson press go under for example. You can't have it both ways, if they are astute businessmen then they will make cuts & close titles; it has always been about money. If you can't appreciate how much media has changed in the last 3 years, let alone 20 then I can't really say anything further.

The 'establishment' whatever that means will always adopt strategies of self preservation, this hasn't changed. Labour need to deal with how it is rather than how they wish it to be.

 

[Seanm]

So what's the answer then?

Feedback from the doorstep appeared to be negative towards Corbyn & that the policy 'rosta' was perhaps too long/undeliverable. Both of these can be addressed.

The media is what it's always been but has less power in absolute terms than it did 20 years ago. A coordinated professional comms strategy would go a long way.

Starmer is the best candidate IMHO but it is perhaps the next person who will win (whoever that may be).

I think local Labour councils need to significantly raise their game and we need an end to absentee MPs: they need to get much more involved in their constituencies. The party needs to revisit the Democracy Review they commissioned and actually do something about it. We also need to think seriously about PR and other constitutional reforms beyond the party itself. Better comms strategy of course but part of the failings of the last one grew out of deeper problems that can only be addressed by greater transparency and democracy within the party. Also there is only so much you can do in terms of managing a media which is almost monolithically set against you and that's part of the reason why, electorally, local engagement is much more important to Labour than the Tories.

 

[Seanm]

Whilst I agree on your second point, I think you are making a mistake to prioritise party over electorate. I am willing to bet that very few people in Bassetlaw voted tory as a reaction to Labour's poor organisational structure or need for greater democratic process in its decision making. You can suggest that "Yeah, we get that sorted first and then worry about 2024", but that's only five years away and Labour really can't affort to waste any of that time putting a priority on internal matters over actually connecting with the voters it needs.

There can be an argument about how we prioritise internal and external considerations but there's clearly a relation here, and Starmer's not acknowledging it yet.

 

[Tony L]

It's interesting that by far the most popular candidate, here and elsewhere, is offering least in the way of change. Starmer's pitch so far is that he'll keep the policies and he won't criticise Corbyn. Nothing else is really mentioned. Substantively, it's "One last push, but with better hair and forensic levels of detail." This might be correct but coming from people who've insisted that the policies appealed only to the base, that they constituted class war, that elections are only ever won from the centre, it's passing strange. Perhaps this is all they ever meant? That whatever you do, do it with someone who looks and acts the part?

When choosing any candidate you need to fully understand the job role. The role here is to provide the most forceful and articulate opposition possible to a vacuous lying/post-truth alt-right Conservative Party. Everything else is secondary as this phase lasts for four or five years. Whoever will do the most real damage to Johnson and his vile government is the person to choose. Now, given these parameters, do you really have a better candidate than Starmer?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

When choosing any candidate you need to fully understand the job role. The role here is to provide the most forceful and articulate opposition possible to a vacuous lying/post-truth alt-right Conservative Party. Everything else is secondary as this phase lasts for four or five years. Whoever will do the most real damage to Johnson and his vile government is the person to choose. Now, given these parameters, do you really have a better candidate than Starmer?

While I tend to agree with the underlying sentiment, I'm not sure I agree with this particular argument. There is a risk, as with the 'sabotaging our Brexit' faction, that relentless opposition designed to do most damage to the government could backfire. Opposition needs to be astute, forceful and effective, but carefully judged. It needs to happen in a way that takes the country along with it, not just continual attempts to hole the government below the waterline.

 

[Seeker_UK]

There can be an argument about how we prioritise internal and external considerations

Sean, here's the rub. Not many people care about LP machinations. This debate is only of real interest to, at best, 5-600k party members, not the remaining 99% of the voters.

but there's clearly a relation here, and Starmer's not acknowledging it yet.

Perhaps he's realised that to win back trust, today's effort has to be re-engagement and talking about dealing with their concerns in the 2019 GE not about d**king around with party internals. I think you'll find very few candidates adopting any other approach. Thank God.

 

[Del monaco]

When choosing any candidate you need to fully understand the job role. The role here is to provide the most forceful and articulate opposition possible to a vacuous lying/post-truth alt-right Conservative Party. Everything else is secondary as this phase lasts for four or five years. Whoever will do the most real damage to Johnson and his vile government is the person to choose. Now, given these parameters, do you really have a better candidate than Starmer?

I think this is correct. If he were to win the role he will need to make a clean break from the recent past and assert himself quickly so that potential voters see him as a more effective alternative. He needs to be decisive and convincing, building gradually and holding back on the pie in the sky prezzies they promised during the election. The party and people need a dose of reality and an honest party to combat the flimsiness of the opposition's arguments.

 

[lordsummit]

We’ve had a referendum on a form of PR, Labour have to focus on finding policies that resonate with the voters. Keep it simple. Whoever is in charge needs to ensure that the Labour Party does not spend its next five years navel gazing, but instead comes up with a few great policies that makes voters say ‘hell yes’. Part of this is the messenger has to be believable.

 

[gavreid]

If it ends up as Starmer against Phillips then obviously I want Starmer, but he needs to explain what it is that he believes in not just what he's against. Perhaps that's the same as finding policies, but I think it's deeper than that - I don't believe he's a socialist for example, so when push comes to shove he will always support big business interests over those who voted for him, much like Wilson.

 

[Seanm]

Sean, here's the rub. Not many people care about LP machinations. This debate is only of real interest to, at best, 5-600k party members, not the remaining 99% of the voters.



Perhaps he's realised that to win back trust, today's effort has to be re-engagement and talking about dealing with their concerns in the 2019 GE not about d**king around with party internals. I think you'll find very few candidates adopting any other approach. Thank God.

But that's the actual situation. This is a real puzzle to me. Here we have a situation that is literally all about internal party matters, in which only members can participate, and people keep insisting that none of this is of any interest to any one outside the party, and so we should stop it. I mean it's genuinely odd. I suppose it comes down to the weirdness of political parties in general, which are supposed to represent everyone but which are controlled by members of the club. Long term I'd like that to change, but for now, we've got some internal issues that need to be dealt with: that's not dicking around, it's facing up to the reality of the situation. Anything less is whistling past the graveyard. The candidates either don't recognise this (and so they shouldn't be leader), or realise this but are afraid to discuss their plans with the membership (in which case they shouldn't be leader), or they do have some plans and can talk about them, in which case they should be heard.

My concern is that many members are currently overwhelmed by the defeat and have effectively abdicated their responsibilities: they want to be spectators, and let daddy take care of everything. Enter Starmer.

 

[jackbarron]

I think you’re probably right about that. Starmer will come across as stiff and boring against Johnson, no matter his command of the facts.

I quite like Phillips, but have watched Starmer having a go at Johnson and he gives absolutely no quarter to the Tory. He is a lot brighter and can spike Johnson on his unending bullshit and lies.

The fact that he decided while DPP not to prosecute the police who killed Jean Charles de Menezes makes me wary of him though.

Jack

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The fact that he decided while DPP not to prosecute the police killers of Jean Charles de Menezes though makes me wary of him.

Jack

I'm sure that would be weaponised to some extent, but I'm also sure that it would have been a difficult, balanced and finely nuanced decision. Exactly the sort of decision which our current media (all forms) is spectacularly bad at handling appropriately. Largely because it doesn't lend itself to a snappy headline and three sentences of text to cover the essentials. Unless you know why he declined to prosecute, and why he came down on one side over the other, then wariness is not warranted. And if you do know, then wariness is only warranted if you think the reasons are unsound, or politically-motivated.

 

[Woodface]

If it ends up as Starmer against Phillips then obviously I want Starmer, but he needs to explain what it is that he believes in not just what he's against. Perhaps that's the same as finding policies, but I think it's deeper than that - I don't believe he's a socialist for example, so when push comes to shove he will always support big business interests over those who voted for him, much like Wilson.

Have you actually liked any Labour government?