Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[gg1]

There are many reasons for not voting Tory, yet I find it, still, very hard to trust Keir Starmer, given that he believed Jeremy Corbyn was a suitable person to be Prime Minister, despite his actions since then.

Personally I don't think he ever thought that. I firmly believe he saw accepting a role on Corbyn's front bench as nothing more than a good long term career move. He knew he would need votes from all wings of the party, including some from the pro-Corbyn left, in any future leadership election. By serving under Corbyn and toeing the line for a while he made himself far more palatable to those member than other Labour centrists who either openly criticised Corbyn or quietly kept their heads down on the back benches.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Personally I don't think he ever thought that. I firmly believe he saw accepting a role on Corbyn's front bench as nothing more than a good long term career move. He knew he would need votes from all wings of the party, including some from the pro-Corbyn left, in any future leadership election. By serving under Corbyn and toeing the line for a while he made himself far more palatable to those member than other Labour centrists who either openly criticised Corbyn or quietly kept their heads down on the back benches.

A look at the 10 pledges that Keir Starmer used when campaigning to become Labour Leader is instructive. (https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/). Reading them 3 years later, they look distinctly Corbynistic in tone, and very unlike his general policy direction today. I think what he is saying today is much more sensible and responsible, but the discrepancy with what he said to Labour members 3 years ago does make you wonder what he actually believes.

1. Economic justice​

Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles.

2. Social justice​

Abolish Universal Credit and end the Tories’ cruel sanctions regime. Set a national goal for wellbeing to make health as important as GDP; Invest in services that help shift to a preventative approach. Stand up for universal services and defend our NHS. Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning.

3. Climate justice​

Put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do. There is no issue more important to our future than the climate emergency. A Clean Air Act to tackle pollution locally. Demand international action on climate rights.

4. Promote peace and human rights​

No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.

5. Common ownership​

Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.

6. Defend migrants’ rights​

Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl’s Wood.

7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions​

Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.

8. Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity​

Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.

9. Equality​

Pull down obstacles that limit opportunities and talent. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, Sure Start, BAME representation and the abolition of Section 28 – we must build on that for a new decade.

10. Effective opposition to the Tories​

Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament – linked up to our mass membership and a professional election operation. Never lose sight of the votes ‘lent’ to the Tories in 2019. Unite our party, promote pluralism and improve our culture. Robust action to eradicate the scourge of antisemitism. Maintain our collective links with the unions.

 

[nw1]

A look at the 10 pledges that Keir Starmer used when campaigning to become Labour Leader is instructive. (https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/). Reading them 3 years later, they look distinctly Corbynistic in tone, and very unlike his general policy direction today. I think what he is saying today is much more sensible and responsible, but the discrepancy with what he said to Labour members 3 years ago does make you wonder what he actually believes.

I guess he's just being the commensurate politician. Perhaps no different to Boris Johnson who was very different as Mayor of London compared to how he was as PM - because he was targeting different groups of people. Boris Johnson 2016.0 would never have become Mayor of London, unlike Boris Johnson 2008.0.

As for Starmer's actual beliefs, I'd hazard a guess at soft-left, socially liberal but not anti-business.

 

[Busaholic]

Manifesto:

Reopen Woodhead
Bring back the Great Central
Reintroduce the Class 442

Er, that’s it…

Wot. no covid policy?

 

[ainsworth74]

On the other side, I would imagine that if we had PR, something like ReformUK might grow into a significant party.

And, as much as I dislike them, that's not necessarily bad/wrong. Just as in 2015 it was barmy that that the 3.8m UKIP voters got one MP. It's not a healthy position to be in that people can vote, potentially by the millions, and win limited or even no representation at all of their chosen party. Quite apart from the issues at the other end of parties winning a minority of the popular vote gaining, in effect, dictatorial level powers for their time in office (in that as long as they have majority and all the government MPs vote for something they can basically do what they like). Labour 2005 for instance, 35% of the popular vote getting them a 30-odd seat majority (makes the Tories 43% in 2019 look quite respectable!). Bonkers.

 

[nw1]

Manifesto:

Reopen Woodhead
Bring back the Great Central
Reintroduce the Class 442

Er, that’s it…

Plus (and more realistically, perhaps):

New stock for XC, to enhance the fleet
Keep the remaining HSTs and hauled stock
Bring back peak extras
Remove evening peak restrictions
Abolish the Byelaws
Ensure each TOC has enough stock to meet demand
... plus quite a few others, I'm sure.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2023 ==

And, as much as I dislike them, that's not necessarily bad/wrong. Just as in 2015 it was barmy that that the 3.8m UKIP voters got one MP. It's not a healthy position to be in that people can vote, potentially by the millions, and win limited or even no representation at all of their chosen party. Quite apart from the issues at the other end of parties winning a minority of the popular vote gaining, in effect, dictatorial level powers for their time in office (in that as long as they have majority and all the government MPs vote for something they can basically do what they like). Labour 2005 for instance, 35% of the popular vote getting them a 30-odd seat majority (makes the Tories 43% in 2019 look quite respectable!). Bonkers.

I would tend to agree.

I detest UKIP/Brexit Party/Reform/whatever it's called this week with a passion, but it would arguably be fairer if they got a % of MPs to match their vote share.

This wouldn't necessarily be dangerous: remember they'd have to get the support of other parties to push through their more outrageous stuff.

 

[yorksrob]

Manifesto:

Reopen Woodhead
Bring back the Great Central
Reintroduce the Class 442

Er, that’s it…

And a National Bahncard, surely !

 

[edwin_m]

Personally I don't think he ever thought that. I firmly believe he saw accepting a role on Corbyn's front bench as nothing more than a good long term career move. He knew he would need votes from all wings of the party, including some from the pro-Corbyn left, in any future leadership election. By serving under Corbyn and toeing the line for a while he made himself far more palatable to those member than other Labour centrists who either openly criticised Corbyn or quietly kept their heads down on the back benches.

These sort of contortions are another consequence of FPTP. The two main parties have to appeal to a wide range of opinions to avoid splitting, which has always been electorally fatal to the breakaway group. Under PR there would be more parties representing more shades of opinion, it's unlikely Corbyn and Starmer would even have been in the same party and voters could choose between them rather than just voting Labour and getting whatever candidates and policies the party chooses to put forward.

 

[Gloster]

But getting back in topic, I will find myself very much in a quandary when the next elections come round; There are many reasons for not voting Tory, yet I find it, still, very hard to trust Keir Starmer, given that he believed Jeremy Corbyn was a suitable person to be Prime Minister, despite his actions since then. But if Labour are best placed to beat the SNP, they will probably get my vote.

An alternative is that Starmer accepted that the party had voted Corbyn in as leader and saw a victory for the party as best, whatever reservations that he might have about Corbyn. He wasn’t going to adopt the policy of many in the left of the party when they don’t get what they want: flounce off in a huff, don’t cooperate or contribute, and snipe from the sidelines.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Plus (and more realistically, perhaps):

New stock for XC, to enhance the fleet
Keep the remaining HSTs and hauled stock
Bring back peak extras
Remove evening peak restrictions
Abolish the Byelaws
Ensure each TOC has enough stock to meet demand
... plus quite a few others, I'm sure.

Policies on all other areas to be determined by votes in the General section of the forums

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2023 ==

Not so sure about that, 8% means of course that 92% did not vote for them, and therefore did not want, or expect to have them, anywhere near Government! But whatever voting system is adopted, there are pros and cons.

Agreed.

As an aside, I have sometimes wondered whether it would be possible to devise a workable system in which parties don't just get seats in Parliament but also some automatic Government responsibilities in proportion to their share of the vote - so, in such a system, it would be completely normal for the Scottish Greens to have some ministerial responsibilities based on their 8%. I imagine any workable system would very significantly change how politics functions, most likely making politics much less adversarial. It would also alleviate the 'tyranny of the majority' problem where any party (or - under PR - any stable coalition) that secures more than 50% of MPs ends up with near absolute power.

 

[edwin_m]

As an aside, I have sometimes wondered whether it would be possible to devise a workable system in which parties don't just get seats in Parliament but also some automatic Government responsibilities in proportion to their share of the vote - so, in such a system, it would be completely normal for the Scottish Greens to have some ministerial responsibilities based on their 8%. I imagine any workable system would very significantly change how politics functions, most likely making politics much less adversarial. It would also alleviate the 'tyranny of the majority' problem where any party (or - under PR - any stable coalition) that secures more than 50% of MPs ends up with near absolute power.

I think that would be absolutely unworkable. Imagine what would happen if the politicians running DfT and the Treasury had diametrically opposite views (or perhaps they do now?).

Power is much less absolute in PR, because any of the coalition parties can collapse the government, and are likely to do so if they see an electoral advantage in stopping something that their voters will dislike.

 

[Falcon1200]

Personally I don't think he ever thought that. I firmly believe he saw accepting a role on Corbyn's front bench as nothing more than a good long term career move.

An alternative is that Starmer accepted that the party had voted Corbyn in as leader and saw a victory for the party as best, whatever reservations that he might have about Corbyn.

So; Either Starmer believed Corbyn should have been Prime Minister, in which case he has no judgement; Or he did not but supported him anyway, in which case he has no principles. The honourable thing would have been to decline to serve in his Shadow Cabinet.

 

[edwin_m]

So; Either Starmer believed Corbyn should have been Prime Minister, in which case he has no judgement; Or he did not but supported him anyway, in which case he has no principles. The honourable thing would have been to decline to serve in his Shadow Cabinet.

The alternative to Corbyn was Boris Johnson - that worked out well didn't it? It's entirely reasonable to support an unattractive option if your view is that the alternative is even worse.

 

[Yew]

So; Either Starmer believed Corbyn should have been Prime Minister, in which case he has no judgement

Is this the same Jeremy Corbyn that got 40% of the vote-share in 2017, within 2.3 percentage points of having the majority of votes?

 

[MikeWM]

Is this the same Jeremy Corbyn that got 40% of the vote-share in 2017, within 2.3 percentage points of having the majority of votes?

And who knows what would have happened in 2019 if Labour's Brexit position hadn't been hijacked by, err, Kier Starmer, to give Labour probably the worst policy possible at that time of a second referendum, which would have led to more months or years of uncertainly at exactly the moment everyone was desperate to never have to think of the whole thing ever again, and hence losing most of the red wall.

(Or indeed if there hadn't been a relentless 4-year campaign to smear Corbyn, including from those who supposedly support the people a Corbyn government would have benefitted most - the wretched Guardian in particular).

 

[Falcon1200]

Is this the same Jeremy Corbyn that got 40% of the vote-share in 2017, within 2.3 percentage points of having the majority of votes?

Was it not actually the Labour Party that got 40% of the vote share, rather than Jeremy Corbyn personally? And yes, it wasn't necessarily much of a choice between Corbyn and Johnson. But since Starmer became leader, his the treatment of Corbyn tells me enough......

 

[ainsworth74]

Was it not actually the Labour Party that got 40% of the vote share, rather than Jeremy Corbyn personally?

I put my cross in the Labour box in spite of Corbyn rather than because. Indeed I havered over voting Labour because of Corbyn. Eventually I was won over because I liked my MP (who was Labour) and I trusted that she at least would have been sensible if Labour had won that election (she was no fan of the Corbynite wing of the party). Plus I felt that Boris was utterly unfit to be Prime Minister so in the end that was enough to make me hold my nose and vote Labour. In another election where the stakes didn't feel quite so high and I wasn't so keen on the Labour candidate I might well have gone Lib Dem whilst Corbyn was in charge. I imagine I was not alone in 2019 in that thought process or similar to it...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Was it not actually the Labour Party that got 40% of the vote share, rather than Jeremy Corbyn personally? And yes, it wasn't necessarily much of a choice between Corbyn and Johnson. But since Starmer became leader, his the treatment of Corbyn tells me enough......

To be pedantic, it was a choice between Corbyn and May in that election. And the sense I had was that Labour's 40% wasn't so much because Corbyn was popular as because the Conservative campaign totally imploded a couple of weeks before polling day, and the LibDems were still too unpopular to reap any benefit from that. Also, at that point, the Corbynites weren't yet in full control of Labour, and the right wing of Labour had therefore been able to exert some moderating influence on the 2017 Labour manifesto, which may have made some difference to the results.

 

[jfollows]

I imagine I was not alone in 2019 in that thought process or similar to it...

You were not; in 2017 the alternative was nowhere near as dire as DynamicSpirit observes but in 2019 I voted for Labour but not for Corbyn, although you could argue the actions were the same.

 

[ainsworth74]

You were not; in 2017 the alternative was nowhere near as dire as DynamicSpirit observes but in 2019 I voted for Labour but not for Corbyn, although you could argue the actions were the same.

Ha yes I'm getting my elections mixed up aren't I! In 2017 the choice was probably less dire than 2019 but the same logic broadly applied to my voting intention.

Also, at that point, the Corbynites weren't yet in full control of Labour, and the right wing of Labour had therefore been able to exert some moderating influence on the 2017 Labour manifesto, which may have made some difference to the results.

Though there is polling around that suggests that the majority of the 2019 manifesto wasn't especially toxic to voters. Corbyn however...

 

[birchesgreen]

Though there is polling around that suggests that the majority of the 2019 manifesto wasn't especially toxic to voters. Corbyn however...

I think a problem with the 2019 manifesto that it included too many good (and expensive) ideas and a lot of people didn't think it was feasible.

 

[MikeWM]

Also, at that point, the Corbynites weren't yet in full control of Labour, and the right wing of Labour had therefore been able to exert some moderating influence on the 2017 Labour manifesto, which may have made some difference to the results.

Bu also the right wing of Labour actually undermined the campaigning and strategy of the party leadership in the 2017 election campaign, allocating funding and resources to safe seats rather than competitive ones, which given the number of very close contests in that election almost certainly cost Labour seats.

Undermining Corbyn, and the relatively mild policies he wanted to implement, was more important to them than gaining power. Something to seriously consider before voting for these people who are now back in control of the party.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think a problem with the 2019 manifesto that it included too many good (and expensive) ideas and a lot of people didn't think it was feasible.

Oh yeah I'm not suggesting it was a faultless document by any stretch. It probably needed desperately to be more focused on some key issues (perhaps 5 pledges? ) but in terms of what was toxic to the electorate in 2019 the manifesto wasn't the problem or at least the main problem.

Undermining Corbyn, and the relatively mild policies he wanted to implement, was more important to them than gaining power. Something to seriously consider before voting for these people who are now back in control of the party.

"Undermining Starmer, and the relative mild policies he wanted to implement, was more important to them than gaining power." is a sentence that could very easily be written about the left-wing of the Labour party. Stones and glass houses come to mind. I suppose to answer the question posed way back at the beginning of the thread: "Where did it all go wrong for Labour"? The answer would seem to be the parties completely inability to ever actually rally around a leader and so many factions seemingly more interested in tearing strips off each other for perceived ideological failings rather than actually working to get a chance of implementing at least some of their policy ideas.

 

[MikeWM]

"Undermining Starmer, and the relative mild policies he wanted to implement, was more important to them than gaining power." is a sentence that could very easily be written about the left-wing of the Labour party. Stones and glass houses come to mind. I suppose to answer the question posed way back at the beginning of the thread: "Where did it all go wrong for Labour"? The answer would seem to be the parties completely inability to ever actually rally around a leader and so many factions seemingly more interested in tearing strips off each other for perceived ideological failings rather than actually working to get a chance of implementing at least some of their policy ideas.

Well, yes, the famous Monty Python sketch comes to mind, the left has always been liable to split into many different factions. But I'm not sure there is much of the Left left in the party. Most have either left of their own accord, such as myself, or been expelled.

(One interesting thing that has happened lately, and seems fairly novel, is that the same has happened to the right, who now have just as many minor splinter parties as the left.)

But under Corbyn this was particularly blatant and underhand, with the party machine openly defying what it was supposed to do. Eg. this article

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...17-election-forde_uk_5f46c61fc5b697186e304d21

which is largely anti-Corbyn in tone, but contains some fascinating insights, such as the 'secret unit' that was setup by the 'elections chief', 'other officials', and notoriously anti-Corbyn general secretary McNicol:

...the former elections chief admits that he defied the order to axe funds from the prominent MPs.
He further confirms that and other officials used a secret unit to keep cash and campaigns material going into the seats that internal polling suggested were at risk.
Heneghan defended the move because it was legally authorised by general secretary Iain McNicol...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Bu also the right wing of Labour actually undermined the campaigning and strategy of the party leadership in the 2017 election campaign, allocating funding and resources to safe seats rather than competitive ones, which given the number of very close contests in that election almost certainly cost Labour seats.

I can't recall the details of the allegations there, but it immediately crosses my mind that, even if true, that could've been totally innocent. Remember, in that election, the electoral landscape changed overnight when the Tory campaign fell apart over social care, at a point where most of the seat funding had probably already been allocated - and a 20%+ Tory lead evaporated within the space of a few days. So suddenly, almost all the seats that had looked competitive at the start of the campaign turned out to be ones that Labour held safely, while most of the seats that actually were in contention on polling day were ones that 3 weeks previously had looked rock solid safe for the Tories. So I wouldn't be surprised if what happened was that Labour strategists allocated funding correctly, based on what was known at the start of the campaign, but that got overtaken by events

 

[MikeWM]

So I wouldn't be surprised if what happened was that Labour strategists allocated funding correctly, based on what was known at the start of the campaign, but that got overtaken by events

Which may well be correct strategically, but it wasn't what the leadership were calling for, and as per my link above involved setting up 'secret units' to spend where they thought money should be spent, contrary to what the leadership were asking. If that wasn't, well let's say 'unusual', then it wouldn't have been 'secret' and they wouldn't have been seeking legal advice as to whether it was allowed.

Corbyn's strategy may well have seemed absolutely bonkers given the state of the polls at the start of the 2017 campaign, but he was the party leader and he should have been able to rely on those working for the party to implement it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And, as much as I dislike them, that's not necessarily bad/wrong. Just as in 2015 it was barmy that that the 3.8m UKIP voters got one MP. It's not a healthy position to be in that people can vote, potentially by the millions, and win limited or even no representation at all of their chosen party. Quite apart from the issues at the other end of parties winning a minority of the popular vote gaining, in effect, dictatorial level powers for their time in office (in that as long as they have majority and all the government MPs vote for something they can basically do what they like). Labour 2005 for instance, 35% of the popular vote getting them a 30-odd seat majority (makes the Tories 43% in 2019 look quite respectable!). Bonkers.

Who is going to have the gonads to change the electoral system though? Do you think Starmer might get the ball rolling? There is no question imho, that the current system is unfair.

 

[Howardh]

Who is going to have the gonads to change the electoral system though? Do you think Starmer might get the ball rolling? There is no question imho, that the current system is unfair.

Probably one of two demands by the Libdems when we get that hung parliament - Proportional Representation and, I hope, a referendum on the Single Market.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Probably one of two demands by the Libdems when we get that hung parliament -

And that is probably quite a strong possibility.

 

[ainsworth74]

Who is going to have the gonads to change the electoral system though? Do you think Starmer might get the ball rolling? There is no question imho, that the current system is unfair.

Nah he's far to conservative (small 'c'!) for something like that. The only chance of something like that is if it's a hung Parliament and they have to go into coalition with the Lib Dems. It'll almost certainly be the price of such a coalition. But I'm fairly convinced that his attitude in such a situation would be to, rather than go into formal coalition, dare the Lib Dems (and SNP) to vote down a Labour government, open the door to the Tories and wish them luck explaining that to their voters.

I hope, a referendum on the Single Market.

Not going to happen. It's going to be a decade long project fixing the issues with the Tory Brexit. But this is a subject better suited to the Brexit thread itself.