Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[nw1]

So....in spite of the Tories being in a terrible state, it appears that projected opinion polls are pointing towards a Labour largest party.

Is that a glowing endorsement of Starmer or Labour?

A year ago the talk was of a Labour landslide.

Was it? Really?

During the Truss crisis, maybe. But that wasn't a year ago.

It's a glowing rejection of the Tories, that's for sure.

 

[MotCO]

So....in spite of the Tories being in a terrible state, it appears that projected opinion polls are pointing towards a Labour largest party.

Is that a glowing endorsement of Starmer or Labour?

A year ago the talk was of a Labour landslide.

I agree that the local election results were bad for the Conservatives, but the lost votes seem to have been split between Labour, Lib Dems and Greens, roughly split 45%, 35% and 20% respectively. That is, Labour only picked up half of the available seats, and to secure a commons majority, they need to do better than that.

I would suggest that one of the reasons for that could be a lack of clear policies - I have not seen anything substantial, but am willing to be corrected. But in fairness, the point of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account and tell them what they are doing wrong without having to say how they would do things differently. Also, they may just be holding their cards close to their chests and reveal their policies closer to the next General Election.

The other thng I just don't know if it plays into things is whether the Trans issue is significant. The older traditional Labour voters may have a problem with it, which may tip the balance if their views are at odds with Starmer's.

 

[Herefordian]

So....in spite of the Tories being in a terrible state, it appears that projected opinion polls are pointing towards a Labour largest party.

Is that a glowing endorsement of Starmer or Labour?

A year ago the talk was of a Labour landslide.

A landslide for Labour just isn't realistic. Not from 196 seats.

Anyway, I don't know why people take much notice of opinion polls.

The only opinion poll that matters is on polling day itself.

 

[Broucek]

So....in spite of the Tories being in a terrible state, it appears that projected opinion polls are pointing towards a Labour largest party.

Is that a glowing endorsement of Starmer or Labour?

A year ago the talk was of a Labour landslide.

Well, I think most people think Sunak is an upgrade over Boris and Truss...

And whilst Starmer is a much more electable candidate than Corbyn, I think people are starting to notice just how much he shifts his position - at what point does flexible become cynical?

 

[nw1]

Well, I think most people think Sunak is an upgrade over Boris and Truss...

And whilst Starmer is a much more electable candidate than Corbyn, I think people are starting to notice just how much he shifts his position - at what point does flexible become cynical?

Isn't that typical of politicians as a whole? Nothing new really. Cases in point: Mr A. B. de P. Johnson. Cuddly liberal Tory during his London Mayor years. Or even Ms. E. Truss, one-time Lib Dem, later Tory remainer.

I agree that a landslide seems unlikely, but a small majority is surely a plausible outcome.

One has to remember that weighed up against Starmer's fence-sitting, surely people will have had enough of 14 years of the Tories, and will not be willing to make that potentially 19, approaching 20.

Perhaps people are not that enthusiastic about Starmer, but I suspect that dislike of the Tories will get him in. Sunak is certainly no better than Starmer, put it that way, and, really, little better than Johnson.

 

[GS250]

A landslide for Labour just isn't realistic. Not from 196 seats.

Anyway, I don't know why people take much notice of opinion polls.

The only opinion poll that matters is on polling day itself.

Very fair point. And that includes the opinion polls that were suggesting a Labour landslide.

 

[Falcon1200]

Perhaps people are not that enthusiastic about Starmer, but I suspect that dislike of the Tories will get him in.

I agree but that does not say a lot for Starmer! However the deal-breaker stopping me voting Labour would be any hint of any form of alliance or accommodation with the SNP, should Labour not win an outright majority.

Sunak is certainly no better than Starmer, put it that way, and, really, little better than Johnson.

I disagree; Sunak is very different from and way better than Johnson, and while the latter's behaviour would have absolutely stopped me voting Conservative, for me the jury is still out on the former.

 

[brad465]

Opinion polls well out from a GE are not very useful; Labour had 30-odd point leads in the 90s, but won the GE with a 13 point lead, although still enough for a very large majority. Likewise, in the run-up to 2010, there were Tory poll leads in the 20s, but they went onto have to govern in a coalition with only a 7 point lead in the election itself.

 

[nw1]

Opinion polls well out from a GE are not very useful; Labour had 30-odd point leads in the 90s, but won the GE with a 13 point lead, although still enough for a very large majority. Likewise, in the run-up to 2010, there were Tory poll leads in the 20s, but they went onto have to govern in a coalition with only a 7 point lead in the election itself.

True but I would still say that, given the widespread dislike of them, the Tories being the largest party is unlikely and a Tory majority very much so.

Plus I think more people are wise to tactical voting these days, and will use it.

Also of course, the Tories winning again would mean almost 20 years in power, which I think will be off-putting.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2023 ==

I agree but that does not say a lot for Starmer! However the deal-breaker stopping me voting Labour would be any hint of any form of alliance or accommodation with the SNP, should Labour not win an outright majority.

Given the SNP seem to be going through a crisis, my feeling is that it's more likely to be a Labour-Lib Dem deal if anything, with the Lib Dems taking seats in the south and Labour regaining most of the red wall.

 

[MotCO]

Given the SNP seem to be going through a crisis, my feeling is that it's more likely to be a Labour-Lib Dem deal if anything, with the Lib Dems taking seats in the south and Labour regaining most of the red wall.

Or the SNP will yield seats. The Greens could pick up some, or Labour could pick them up which could allow them to have a majority in the Commons.

 

[WelshBluebird]

For those trying to predict general election results from the local elections, there's a couple of things that could well be downplaying how well Labour could do in a national GE:

1. People often vote differently in local elections than national ones. As a personal anecdote, I vote Green in local elections and Labour in national (depending on the effects of the boundary changes, living in Bristol I may be able to change to vote green nationally next time around mind you).
2. A lot of the more Labour leaning areas (Wales, Bristol, London) and some of the areas Labour have a decent chance at improving in (e.g. Scotland thanks to the SNP trying to do as much self harm as possible) didn't have local elections last week so won't be taken into account in terms of the percentage of vote figures.

 

[MotCO]

For those trying to predict general election results from the local elections, there's a couple of things that could well be downplaying how well Labour could do in a national GE:

1. People often vote differently in local elections than national ones. As a personal anecdote, I vote Green in local elections and Labour in national (depending on the effects of the boundary changes, living in Bristol I may be able to change to vote green nationally next time around mind you).
2. A lot of the more Labour leaning areas (Wales, Bristol, London) and some of the areas Labour have a decent chance at improving in (e.g. Scotland thanks to the SNP trying to do as much self harm as possible) didn't have local elections last week so won't be taken into account in terms of the percentage of vote figures.

3. The outcome of the Boundary Changes I thought actually favoured the Tories.

 

[Gloster]

3. The outcome of the Boundary Changes I thought actually favoured the Tories.

The opinion seems to be that if the new boundaries had been in force in 2019 the Conservatives would have won around five more seats. Labour and the SNP would have been about level, while the Liberal Democrats and Plaid would have lost.

 

[Falcon1200]

But in fairness, the point of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account and tell them what they are doing wrong without having to say how they would do things differently.

OTOH it is surely entirely reasonable to expect the opposition, when vehemently opposing and denouncing Government policies and performance, to say what they would do differently; If they they don't, or won't, perhaps they could not actually do any better?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

OTOH it is surely entirely reasonable to expect the opposition, when vehemently opposing and denouncing Government policies and performance, to say what they would do differently; If they they don't, or won't, perhaps they could not actually do any better?

Indeed. There is a principle, widely accepted across society, in both professional environments and in everyday life, that criticism needs to be constructive to be useful. You don't just say 'That's rubbish' - you say 'You'd get better results if you did X and Y' or 'You should try to improve your skills in Z' (where X, Y and Z are very specific). Indeed part of the recent complaints against a certain Dominic Raab appear to be that he gave criticism in a way that wasn't constructive.

Why should that principle not apply equally when the opposition parties are criticising the Government?

 

[MotCO]

OTOH it is surely entirely reasonable to expect the opposition, when vehemently opposing and denouncing Government policies and performance, to say what they would do differently; If they they don't, or won't, perhaps they could not actually do any better?

Indeed. There is a principle, widely accepted across society, in both professional environments and in everyday life, that criticism needs to be constructive to be useful. You don't just say 'That's rubbish' - you say 'You'd get better results if you did X and Y' or 'You should try to improve your skills in Z' (where X, Y and Z are very specific). Indeed part of the recent complaints against a certain Dominic Raab appear to be that he gave criticism in a way that wasn't constructive.

Why should that principle not apply equally when the opposition parties are criticising the Government?

But that assumes both parties are working in the interests of the country rather than their own personal or political objectives - i.e. to become the next PM. If Starmer has some ideas, why should he share them now when the Government can pinch them? Better to just criticise, and then come up with a plan or ideas in their manifesto. (Or Starmer may not have any ideas!)

Just for balance, this would be equally true whoever was in power and in opposition.

 

[edwin_m]

There's also the issue that if an opposition sets out detailed policies well before any election, circumstances may change before the campaign starts. If they then have to change their proposed policies they can be accused of being inconsistent.

 

[Typhoon]

For those trying to predict general election results from the local elections, there's a couple of things that could well be downplaying how well Labour could do in a national GE:

1. People often vote differently in local elections than national ones. As a personal anecdote, I vote Green in local elections and Labour in national (depending on the effects of the boundary changes, living in Bristol I may be able to change to vote green nationally next time around mind you).
2. A lot of the more Labour leaning areas (Wales, Bristol, London) and some of the areas Labour have a decent chance at improving in (e.g. Scotland thanks to the SNP trying to do as much self harm as possible) didn't have local elections last week so won't be taken into account in terms of the percentage of vote figures.

Exactly. Our Green candidate has a track record of getting things done locally so I voted for him - little chance of that for Parliament, they didn't even contest half of the wards. We had nothing from Labour and the Conservatives were only selected a couple of months ago (with several existing councillors deselected), no track record just what she will campaign on. I've voted UKIP once in the past, the candidate said he would sort out a road flooding issue and he was as good as his word. Councillors like that are worth keeping no matter what their label is. He couldn't even terminate the twinning operation with a couple of European towns, these links had been effectively cut years ago.

3. The outcome of the Boundary Changes I thought actually favoured the Tories.

That is my understanding too. In Kent we have an extra seat. I think they have an extra in Hampshire too - didn't the extra seat give Braverman the opportunity to move to a safer seat?

 

[jfollows]

That is my understanding too. In Kent we have an extra seat. I think they have an extra in Hampshire too - didn't the extra seat give Braverman the opportunity to move to a safer seat?

No, the opposite I think - Braverman had to fight for selection in an adjacent seat because the net number of seats in the area had been reduced. I used to live in the area. It's probably the case that her new seat is less "safe" but I don't think it's really "unsafe" - she's now down to represent "Fareham and Waterlooville" whereas she's currently MP for Fareham. Waterlooville is north of Cosham and slightly less "blue" I would expect.

However the boundary changes will give a benefit of about +10 seats to the Conservatives overall, it is generally agreed, assuming voting similar to 2019 (https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2023.html).

 

[Typhoon]

No, the opposite I think - Braverman had to fight for selection in an adjacent seat because the net number of seats in the area had been reduced. I used to live in the area. It's probably the case that her new seat is less "safe" but I don't think it's really "unsafe" - she's now down to represent "Fareham and Waterlooville" whereas she's currently MP for Fareham. Waterlooville is north of Cosham and slightly less "blue" I would expect.

However the boundary changes will give a benefit of about +10 seats to the Conservatives overall, it is generally agreed, assuming voting similar to 2019 (https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2023.html).
View attachment 134685

You are right - there are exactly the same number of seats in mainland Hampshire - one disappears ('Meon Valley') and a new one is created ('Hamble Valley') with the boundaries being shifted about. According to Electoral Calculus, Hampshire does gain one but that is by dividing the Isle of Wight in two. Besides Kent, West Sussex, Surrey, Herrtfordshire, Berkshire and Bucks all gain a seat.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Looks like Labour's likely policies for 2024 are getting firmed out. The party has now produced a draft policy platform. The full text is not available to the public, but a summary is, and has been published by LabourList here.

It's very comprehensive - way too long to quote in full, but to give some idea, I'll just quote the policy area most relevant to this forum:

Deliver 21st century transport​

• Bring our railways into public ownership as contracts with existing operators expire, consistent with our fiscal rules, putting passengers at the heart of our railways and investing in a world–class network
• Deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail and High Speed 2 in full…Deliver a long–term strategy for rail…give communities a greater say in local rail services
• Reform our broken bus system…Give communities the ability to take on powers to franchise local bus services… lift the ban on municipal bus ownership
• Support the principle of Clean Air Zones…However, they must be phased in carefully…and should be accompanied with a just transition plan
• Encourage more people to walk and cycle wherever possible by supporting local authorities to provide safe, accessible walking routes and cycling infrastructure

 

[Thirteen]

I wonder if Labour would have be better having a TfL style body in various regions rather than the DfT involved with running everything which leads to micromanagement. Something like the London Overground and Elizabeth Line model would work better nationally than bringing back British Rail.

Also, would Labour force railways owned by TfL, TfW, Merseyrail etc to come under public ownership or will they leave them

 

[gg1]

Looks like Labour's likely policies for 2024 are getting firmed out. The party has now produced a draft policy platform. The full text is not available to the public, but a summary is, and has been published by LabourList here.

It's very comprehensive - way too long to quote in full, but to give some idea, I'll just quote the policy area most relevant to this forum:

There's one more definitely worthy of mention here too:

• Ensure a rolling programme of electrification to improve services and decarbonise our transport system

 

[jfollows]

The problem is - the Conservatives promised Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2 in full and, if not a rolling programme of electrification, promises to electrify parts of the network which have not been turned into reality. So why would anyone believe Labour saying the same old guff? They are only saying it to get elected, after which they won't follow through on their promises with - at best - some guff about "circumstances have changed" if they get challenged on why they haven't.
I mean, I want to see the back of the Conservatives as soon as possible, tomorrow couldn't be soon enough, but believing claptrap like this from Labour isn't the way to do it. They presumably think that people are stupid enough to fall for it!

EDIT Yes, I know, I'm being negative. So if this makes into the final 80+ page document, and then in turn makes it into the Labour manifesto for the next election, I'll start being more hopeful, but even then I want to see something once elected which then demonstrates a real commitment to deliver rather than just a statement of intent.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

EDIT Yes, I know, I'm being negative. So if this makes into the final 80+ page document, and then in turn makes it into the Labour manifesto for the next election, I'll start being more hopeful, but even then I want to see something once elected which then demonstrates a real commitment to deliver rather than just a statement of intent.

I've read through the whole list now. To be fair to Labour, it's clearly a working set of proposals that they are thinking about a year or so out from the election, rather than a final manifesto, and I'm sure it'll get whittled down, as what's in there looks way too ambitious for 5 years in Government.

Looking through the list, I have to say there aren't that many individual proposals that I could disagree with much - the biggest problem that I see is that a lot of them seem to be coming from the usual Labour assumption of, The Government has to do everything and fix everyone's problems for them. It's also long on commitments ('Invest £28bn of public capital a year into the green economy') and short on where the money will come from. Some of the stuff is really good - particularly on transport (The "Ensure a rolling programme of electrification to improve services and decarbonise our transport system") that @gg1 pointed out. Some is clearly aspirational and gives no indication of how it could be delivered ("Within the decade we will halve the level of violence against women and girls").

I suspect quite a few Remainers in the the Brexit thread will be disappointed by "Have no return to freedom of movement", although to me that's a good sign that Labour under Keir Starmer is becoming more realistic.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect quite a few Remainers in the the Brexit thread will be disappointed by "Have no return to freedom of movement", although to me that's a good sign that Labour under Keir Starmer is becoming more realistic.

Return to the single market including freedom of movement is almost certainly unrealistic within a five year term in any case, so Labour would be foolish to promise that. There's also the problem that under FPTP the most influential voters in the next election are likely to be those in the "Red Wall" that voted Tory in 2019 with Brexit being one of the two main reasons. As the damage of Brexit becomes more and more clear, and the older cohort of Leave voters is replaced by younger people with a more cosmopolitan outlook, it is very likely that support will gradually grow for re-joining the single market and ultimately the UK itself.

Labour is aiming, if elected, to start strengthening ties with the EU which should reverse some of the Brexit downsides and also starts to prepare the ground for closer integration in the longer term, if public opinion is supportive at the time. But if they get ahead of the swing voters then they risk not winning and hence achieving nothing.

As a supporter in principle of rejoining, this is a disappointment to me but I can understand the reasons as above. My greater disappointment is the lack of any commitment to PR.

 

[jfollows]

The problem Labour has for me is that it's seeking to appeal to some of its old base of voters, many of whom are "socially conservative" to put it politely, so I don't think it likely that issues such as reforming the criminal justice system are likely to feature much. Labour seems to want to out-compete the Conservatives in many ways in areas of appearing to be "tough on crime", otherwise known as locking up far too many people and throwing away the key if possible. I'd like to see the effects of the Grayling changes to the parole system properly reversed, the prisoners locked up indefinitely under New Labour's IPP system treated fairly, and a proper attempt made to turn the prison service into one which properly attempts to reform prisoners. However I think I'm in the small minority.
I'd vote for a Labour party which was genuinely reforming in these areas, taking a leaf out of Roy Jenkins' book, but he went ahead with things he thought were right in spite of opposition, whereas I see Labour today as taking far more notice of voters' opinions. And maybe that's as it should be - they can't take the votes for granted. But I'd like to see a genuine left-leaning party which set out to do what it thought was right, not least because we've had a right-leaning party which has done the same for years.
So I'll probably still end up voting Labour because it's the least worst option at the next election - but a lot will happen between now and then.

 

[nw1]

I suspect quite a few Remainers in the the Brexit thread will be disappointed by "Have no return to freedom of movement", although to me that's a good sign that Labour under Keir Starmer is becoming more realistic.

Disappointed, yes, but I suppose he has to appeal to socially-conservative parts of the electorate to get the votes to win, so I can see why he's saying that because, sadly, there are too many potential Labour voters that don't want it at the moment and promising it would probably lead to yet another Tory victory. However if I was him I would have been non-committal on EU issues, saying something neutral such as "our priorities are to fix the NHS and public services, we will consider other issues as and when they arise".

Taking the healthy cynical vlew on this, Labour know they will not lose votes from Remainers who are desperate to see Sunak out. So they can afford to annoy remainers, as they will get their votes anyway. They need the votes from the economically-left-wing-but-socially-right-wing bloc, who could vote either Labour or Tory. So they have to avoid too many socially-liberal policies.

I'd hope that Starmer's real view is that he does want to get closer to the EU, but is pragmatically not stating that, in order to win the election, as stated above. (Even still, I think he could have afforded to be neutral, vague, and non-committal on the matter).

I disagree with the word "realistic" though. I would use "pragmatic" instead, in other words Starmer is using pragmatism to win the election. Having no FoM is not an absolute truth, in the way that the laws of science are. It's merely a political opinion, fashionable in the UK in recent years but unfashionable 20 or 30 years ago. And remember it's the UK which is the odd one out in our area of the planet, i.e Europe northwest of Serbia, on this matter. It's us that's odd - not the other European countries. And that includes Ireland, which is much more remote from the continent than we are, yet they have no particular desire to leave the EU.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2023 ==

The problem Labour has for me is that it's seeking to appeal to some of its old base of voters, many of whom are "socially conservative" to put it politely, so I don't think it likely that issues such as reforming the criminal justice system are likely to feature much. Labour seems to want to out-compete the Conservatives in many ways in areas of appearing to be "tough on crime", otherwise known as locking up far too many people and throwing away the key if possible. I'd like to see the effects of the Grayling changes to the parole system properly reversed, the prisoners locked up indefinitely under New Labour's IPP system treated fairly, and a proper attempt made to turn the prison service into one which properly attempts to reform prisoners. However I think I'm in the small minority.
I'd vote for a Labour party which was genuinely reforming in these areas, taking a leaf out of Roy Jenkins' book, but he went ahead with things he thought were right in spite of opposition, whereas I see Labour today as taking far more notice of voters' opinions. And maybe that's as it should be - they can't take the votes for granted. But I'd like to see a genuine left-leaning party which set out to do what it thought was right, not least because we've had a right-leaning party which has done the same for years.
So I'll probably still end up voting Labour because it's the least worst option at the next election - but a lot will happen between now and then.

I do think it's sad that governments always seem to pander, to a greater or lesser degree, to social conservatives but I suppose that's the nature of the FPTP system.

While I don't think that social conservatives form a majority of the UK population, they are perhaps the largest minority bloc in the UK, making up perhaps 30% (a guess) of the adult population, so under FPTP, they have to be pandered to, as this bloc will vote for whichever party gives them what they want to the largest degree. If a party can get the social conservative vote, it's only got to get another 10-15% on top of that to achieve a majority.

Another reason why FPTP must end, otherwise we're just going to get governments who pander to social conservatives time and time again.

 

[jfollows]

Taking the healthy cynical vlew on this, Labour know they will not lose votes from Remainers who are desperate to see Sunak out. So they can afford to annoy remainers, as they will get their votes anyway. They need the votes from the economically-left-wing-but-socially-right-wing bloc, who could vote either Labour or Tory. So they have to avoid too many socially-liberal policies.

I think that's generally right, and it leaves me as economically-right-wing-but-socially-left-wing in your terms with not much of a home. But I'm in a minority category I suspect, and my natural home would probably be the Conservative party of the past, up to Cameron-Osborne, but not the current one.
The main thing Labour appears to be getting right, in the main, is the realisation that the important thing is winning elections, if you're not in power then principles don't really count for a lot, and getting rid of the Corbyn nonsense has been the right thing to do.

 

[nw1]

As a supporter in principle of rejoining, this is a disappointment to me but I can understand the reasons as above. My greater disappointment is the lack of any commitment to PR.

Very true. After sorting out the mess that our public services are in, I would see electoral reform as a high prority. And ditching FPTP would mean Labour would have more power and influence for a greater percentage of the time. They wouldn't necessarily have a majority, but what use is a majority if you are completely out of power for 32 years out of 45?

The UK government (of whatever colour) needs to listen more to those of us who are liberals and centre-left. It's a depressing country to live in right now, mostly due to consequences of world events but the right-wing nature of the Sunak government doesn't help. Having a socially-liberal, left-of-centre voice in government, even if alongside more right-wing voices, would give many of us more hope that things will get better.