Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[edwin_m]

I care who represents my constituency. If they listen to their constituents, they are more likely to represent them, help drive party policy, stand up and be heard in the House, and most importantly influence other politicians around them.

Good politicians don't just tow the HQ line, they challenge it and influence. I vote for the best one in the race. If you vote based on the colour of their tie that's up to you, but you really aren't voting for anyone other than the MP for your constituency. So I think it's best to vote for the best one regardless of party. If everyone did that then the best party for the job would get in, because the best party would stand the best candidates up.

That's one of the problems of FPTP and single-member constituencies - the person who seems the better candidate may represent a party that a particular voter doesn't like. The same applies to some forms of proportional representation, like the party list system where the party leadership puts forward a list of candidates and a number are elected at the top of the list depending on the number of votes received. However, with PR there would probably be a larger number of smaller parties, so voters would have a choice between moderate or more extreme left or right instead of just one candidate from each of two main parties that have a chance of forming a government.

 

[Purple Train]

Good politicians don't just tow the HQ line

"Toe", I think.

---

This has all the hallmarks of a classic Labour pre-election mess-up. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Merle Haggard]

That's one of the problems of FPTP and single-member constituencies - the person who seems the better candidate may represent a party that a particular voter doesn't like. The same applies to some forms of proportional representation, like the party list system where the party leadership puts forward a list of candidates and a number are elected at the top of the list depending on the number of votes received. However, with PR there would probably be a larger number of smaller parties, so voters would have a choice between moderate or more extreme left or right instead of just one candidate from each of two main parties that have a chance of forming a government.

I think that P.R. might increase the votes for the smaller parties. At the moment, votes for parties that get up to around 10% of the total are wasted because it's clear that they will never win. Even so, people do vote for them, but there are also people who would support those parties, but vote for the party with a greater chance of success & with manifesto commitments that are nearest their wishes. Once P.R. is introduced (and obviously depending on its form) it might be the case that a lot more people would vote for those 'minority' parties because there was a real chance of influencing the result.

It seems to be the case that even the Lib Dems do not achieve the number of seats that their proportion of the vote ought to secure. On the other hand, the S.N.P. do disproportionally well (in terms of seats from votes) as recent elections have shown; I think that they represented less people than UKIP in the ?2016 election but got an infinitely larger number of seats (any positive number is infinitely larger than 0!)

 

[Ediswan]

(any positive number is infinitely larger than 0!)

6-0 = 6, not infinity
Being pedantic, 0!=1

 

[Merle Haggard]

6-0 = 6, not infinity
Being pedantic, 0!=1

Sorry meant proportion / percentage; in essence, how many noughts in 6.

Touche re mathematical symbol of '!' - my additional maths 'A' level stuff long forgotten

 

[507021]

As a Jewish member of the Labour Party, I genuinely can't understand why there seems to be a mindset within the leadership that criticising anything to do with Israel or its government is antisemitic. It absolutely isn't antisemitic to criticise the atrocious, callous policies of Netanyahu's government. It seems like the incumbent leadership is absolutely terrified of being tarred with the antisemitic brush again, so has decided to sit on the fence over the calls for a ceasefire in Gaza (I was pleased to see my MP rebelled and voted in favour). In reality, all this appears to have achieved is early signs of pre-election infighting, as well as potentially alienating the party's Muslim and pro-Palestine supporters, whose campaigning and votes will be needed to win an election. It's all well and good trying to appeal to the swing/undecided voters, but to do so at the expense of existing supporters is an extremely bad strategy.

Talk about snatching a defeat from the jaws of a victory, even if it'd be a default one.

 

[Purple Train]

As a Jewish member of the Labour Party, I genuinely can't understand why there seems to be a mindset within the leadership that criticising anything to do with Israel or its government is antisemitic. It absolutely isn't antisemitic to criticise the atrocious, callous policies of Netanyahu's government. It seems like the incumbent leadership is absolutely terrified of being tarred with the antisemitic brush again, so has decided to sit on the fence over the calls for a ceasefire in Gaza (I was pleased to see my MP rebelled and voted in favour). In reality, all this appears to have achieved is early signs of pre-election infighting, as well as potentially alienating the party's Muslim and pro-Palestine supporters, whose campaigning and votes will be needed to win an election. It's all well and good trying to appeal to the swing/undecided voters, but to do so at the expense of existing supporters is an extremely bad strategy.

Talk about snatching a defeat from the jaws of a victory, even if it'd be a default one.

Well said.

 

[edwin_m]

I think that P.R. might increase the votes for the smaller parties. At the moment, votes for parties that get up to around 10% of the total are wasted because it's clear that they will never win. Even so, people do vote for them, but there are also people who would support those parties, but vote for the party with a greater chance of success & with manifesto commitments that are nearest their wishes. Once P.R. is introduced (and obviously depending on its form) it might be the case that a lot more people would vote for those 'minority' parties because there was a real chance of influencing the result.

It seems to be the case that even the Lib Dems do not achieve the number of seats that their proportion of the vote ought to secure. On the other hand, the S.N.P. do disproportionally well (in terms of seats from votes) as recent elections have shown; I think that they represented less people than UKIP in the ?2016 election but got an infinitely larger number of seats (any positive number is infinitely larger than 0!)

It's to do with how the votes are concentrated. All SNP votes are in Scotland so a similar vote share to the LibDems across the UK translates to a higher proportion of the vote in Scottish seats and therefore a greater likelihood of winning them.

The opposite applies too. If their votes are too concentrated, as Labour's tend to be in urban areas, then a party will win by huge majorities in some seats, but the total number of seats won will under-represent the proportion of votes. This is the basis of "gerrymandering" - fiddle the boundaries so all your opponent's votes are corralled into a small number of districts and you have a smallish majority in a larger number.

There's also a tipping point effect, where a party that wins relatively narrowly in a lot of constituencies will lose large numbers of seats if their national popularity reduces. Hence a small change in vote share will have a big effect on seats won. I think we are approaching one such at the next election, where, assuming Labour doesn't mess up, they will pick up a lot of seats that the Tories previously considered safe.

 

[Merle Haggard]

It's to do with how the votes are concentrated. All SNP votes are in Scotland so a similar vote share to the LibDems across the UK translates to a higher proportion of the vote in Scottish seats and therefore a greater likelihood of winning them.

The opposite applies too. If their votes are too concentrated, as Labour's tend to be in urban areas, then a party will win by huge majorities in some seats, but the total number of seats won will under-represent the proportion of votes. This is the basis of "gerrymandering" - fiddle the boundaries so all your opponent's votes are corralled into a small number of districts and you have a smallish majority in a larger number.

There's also a tipping point effect, where a party that wins relatively narrowly in a lot of constituencies will lose large numbers of seats if their national popularity reduces. Hence a small change in vote share will have a big effect on seats won. I think we are approaching one such at the next election, where, assuming Labour doesn't mess up, they will pick up a lot of seats that the Tories previously considered safe.

Indeed, all strong arguments that FPTP serves only to reinforce the established largest 2 parties - that's why the Government (always one or the other) will never change it.

(my bold) also applies to Conservative rural constituencies - and in both cases may well depress the votes for the other major party that has no chance of winning on the 'why bother it won't make a difference?' so don't vote.
But the alternative may, in the event of a hung parliament, transfer the effective power to a minnow party with 'interesting' results, rather than a broad coalition - see Scotland.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As a Jewish member of the Labour Party, I genuinely can't understand why there seems to be a mindset within the leadership that criticising anything to do with Israel or its government is antisemitic. It absolutely isn't antisemitic to criticise the atrocious, callous policies of Netanyahu's government. It seems like the incumbent leadership is absolutely terrified of being tarred with the antisemitic brush again, so has decided to sit on the fence over the calls for a ceasefire in Gaza (I was pleased to see my MP rebelled and voted in favour). In reality, all this appears to have achieved is early signs of pre-election infighting, as well as potentially alienating the party's Muslim and pro-Palestine supporters, whose campaigning and votes will be needed to win an election. It's all well and good trying to appeal to the swing/undecided voters, but to do so at the expense of existing supporters is an extremely bad strategy.

Talk about snatching a defeat from the jaws of a victory, even if it'd be a default one.

I understand all that, and share your dissatisfaction with Starmer's unwillingness to criticise Israel's appalling actions (although it's unlikely that I'd vote Labour anyway, so makes no difference to my vote). But one minor quibble: While it's not good for Labour to lose any votes, I very much doubt that Labour needs the Muslim/pro-Palestine vote to win an election right now since the Tories are just too unpopular, and there just aren't enough people who will prioritise Palestine over domestic issues to make that much difference when Labour's lead is so large. Besides, who else will those people vote for? Certainly not the Tories, who are being even more pro-Israel than Labour. Maybe, outside Scotland, the LibDems - but that's not going to hurt Labour that much, and besides I doubt the LibDems' strong liberalism on social issues would be attractive to many Muslims. In Scotland, they could vote for the SNP, and that's possibly more of an issue as Labour can't really afford to lose votes to the SNP if it wants to become the main party in Scotland again.

 

[Cdd89]

I very much doubt that Labour needs the Muslim/pro-Palestine vote to win an election right now since the Tories are just too unpopular, and there just aren't enough people who will prioritise Palestine over domestic issues to make that much difference when Labour's lead is so large. Besides, who else will those people vote for? Certainly not the Tories, who are being even more pro-Israel than Labour

A counterargument is that there are conservative voters - 20% of them, in fact - who disagree with the Tories’ stance on the conflict and wish for a full ceasefire. However, since they are being offered mostly the same policy they have no reason to switch.

While not remotely the same issue, it reminds me of how the two parties took nearly identical positions on Covid-19 restrictions, with very minor variations and the differences largely performative.

 

[507021]

I understand all that, and share your dissatisfaction with Starmer's unwillingness to criticise Israel's appalling actions (although it's unlikely that I'd vote Labour anyway, so makes no difference to my vote). But one minor quibble: While it's not good for Labour to lose any votes, I very much doubt that Labour needs the Muslim/pro-Palestine vote to win an election right now since the Tories are just too unpopular, and there just aren't enough people who will prioritise Palestine over domestic issues to make that much difference when Labour's lead is so large. Besides, who else will those people vote for? Certainly not the Tories, who are being even more pro-Israel than Labour. Maybe, outside Scotland, the LibDems - but that's not going to hurt Labour that much, and besides I doubt the LibDems' strong liberalism on social issues would be attractive to many Muslims. In Scotland, they could vote for the SNP, and that's possibly more of an issue as Labour can't really afford to lose votes to the SNP if it wants to become the main party in Scotland again.

Labour should not be risking the votes of its existing and potential Muslim and pro-Palestine supporters over something the leadership is petrified of for no valid reason whatsoever. Or at all, in fact. Not only does the party risk losing votes in key areas (you've backed up my point by mentioning Scotland) now and in the future to the Greens, SNP or abstentions, but it also risks losing campaigners and financial contributions also needed to win elections. To say or think that Labour can risk not having the backing and votes from current and potential Muslim and pro-Palestine supporters for the next election because the party currently has a big lead in the opinion polls is absolutely absurd. More to the point, what makes you think they'd return to the fold to vote and campaign for Labour again in the future?

 

[quantinghome]

Labour should not be risking the votes of its existing and potential Muslim and pro-Palestine supporters over something the leadership is petrified of for no valid reason whatsoever. Or at all, in fact. Not only does the party risk losing votes in key areas (you've backed up my point by mentioning Scotland) now and in the future to the Greens, SNP or abstentions, but it also risks losing campaigners and financial contributions also needed to win elections. To say or think that Labour can risk not having the backing and votes from current and potential Muslim and pro-Palestine supporters for the next election because the party currently has a big lead in the opinion polls is absolutely absurd. More to the point, what makes you think they'd return to the fold to vote and campaign for Labour again in the future?

Yet a Savanta poll shows Labour at 64% support among Muslim voters, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ranked 4th in importance, behind cost of living, the NHS and the economy, and no discernable shift to the Greens (which is where you'd expect a decent proportion of the vote to move to, if it is moving).

Most Muslims say they'll vote Labour as Gaza ranks only fourth among priorities - LabourList

Some 64 per cent of Muslims in a recent poll said they plan to vote Labour, with the…

labourlist.org

Muslims Poll – Savanta – 16 November 2023 - Savanta

A poll of UK Muslims on their voting intention, and attitude to the political response to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

savanta.com

What can we conclude from this? That most British Muslims are largely aligned with the rest of the population in that they understand that the UK government's ability to influence the course of the conflict is limited, probably non-existent, and that although they may hold strong views about what position Labour ought to take, they will still vote Labour based on domestic considerations. Pro-Palestine supporters who rank the issue above anything else can certainly make their presence felt online and by marching. But as with most protests this doesn't translate to significant movement at the ballot box.

 

[507021]

Yet a Savanta poll shows Labour at 64% support among Muslim voters, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ranked 4th in importance, behind cost of living, the NHS and the economy, and no discernable shift to the Greens (which is where you'd expect a decent proportion of the vote to move to, if it is moving).

Most Muslims say they'll vote Labour as Gaza ranks only fourth among priorities - LabourList

Some 64 per cent of Muslims in a recent poll said they plan to vote Labour, with the…

labourlist.org

Muslims Poll – Savanta – 16 November 2023 - Savanta

A poll of UK Muslims on their voting intention, and attitude to the political response to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

savanta.com

What can we conclude from this? That most British Muslims are largely aligned with the rest of the population in that they understand that the UK government's ability to influence the course of the conflict is limited, probably non-existent, and that although they may hold strong views about what position Labour ought to take, they will still vote Labour based on domestic considerations. Pro-Palestine supporters who rank the issue above anything else can certainly make their presence felt online and by marching. But as with most protests this doesn't translate to significant movement at the ballot box.

That is encouraging and allays that particular concern of mine slightly, but I would be interested to see if that figure has changed since the vote, or if it changes in the near future. If it stays around the same sort of number going forward, then I'd be happy to admit that I was more concerned than I needed to be in this particular case.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think the house of commons vote was damaging for Labour. It showed Keir Starmer doesn't have control of the party especially the radical far left fraction.
To me he has a lot of work to do especially if he wants to attract votes from the conservatives in the southeast

 

[nw1]

A counterargument is that there are conservative voters - 20% of them, in fact - who disagree with the Tories’ stance on the conflict and wish for a full ceasefire. However, since they are being offered mostly the same policy they have no reason to switch.

While not remotely the same issue, it reminds me of how the two parties took nearly identical positions on Covid-19 restrictions, with very minor variations and the differences largely performative.

Interesting on that Yougov site that "ceasefire" is the preferred option in Palestine across UK adults and "scrap Rwanda" is the preferred option for that issue.

And the second preference on Rwanda is "some other third country". Not Rwanda and not the government changing the law to get what they want.

Sunak claiming that he is speaking for "the British people"? Bunkum! If he supports a ceasefire and scraps Rwanda, then he really is implementing the "will of the people". But of course, politicians are very selective about that term and will use it when it suits their ends, only.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2023 ==

I think the house of commons vote was damaging for Labour. It showed Keir Starmer doesn't have control of the party especially the radical far left fraction.

The Tories are scarcely united either. Watch the "Braverman faction" start to create mischief.

To me he has a lot of work to do especially if he wants to attract votes from the conservatives in the southeast

Except Sunak has done so much already to alienate Home Counties "liberal Tories" that I doubt they'll go for him.

They might go for Lib Dem rather than Labour, but the aim should be to minimise Tory seats, so a few Lib Dem gains in the SE will be good for Labour.

 

[Busaholic]

I think the house of commons vote was damaging for Labour. It showed Keir Starmer doesn't have control of the party especially the radical far left fraction.
To me he has a lot of work to do especially if he wants to attract votes from the conservatives in the southeast

I honestly don't think there are more than a handful of what might be described as the radical far left remaining on the Labour benches, especially now Corbyn and Abbot are gone. None of the potential new Labour MPs after the next election fit this bill either, as radical culling has gone on to ensure only toe-the-line potential robots get elected. The Tories go back to Cameron and Osborne (yes, really, just wait and see!) and Labour returns to Blair, Brown and Mandelson FFS.

 

[VauxhallandI]

As a Jewish member of the Labour Party, I genuinely can't understand why there seems to be a mindset within the leadership that criticising anything to do with Israel or its government is antisemitic. It absolutely isn't antisemitic to criticise the atrocious, callous policies of Netanyahu's government. It seems like the incumbent leadership is absolutely terrified of being tarred with the antisemitic brush again, so has decided to sit on the fence over the calls for a ceasefire in Gaza (I was pleased to see my MP rebelled and voted in favour). In reality, all this appears to have achieved is early signs of pre-election infighting, as well as potentially alienating the party's Muslim and pro-Palestine supporters, whose campaigning and votes will be needed to win an election. It's all well and good trying to appeal to the swing/undecided voters, but to do so at the expense of existing supporters is an extremely bad strategy.

Talk about snatching a defeat from the jaws of a victory, even if it'd be a default one.

My thoughts exactly

 

[75A]

My thoughts exactly

Let common sense prevail for once.

 

[nw1]

The Tories go back to Cameron and Osborne (yes, really, just wait and see!)

Interesting! Possible I guess, that they clear out the populist right and do a great reset. I suppose Cameron and Osborne are still relatively young (though the former seems to have aged massively in the past 7 years) - both still under 60 - so they still have potentially many years ahead of them. Wasn't a fan of that pair, but let's face it, it would be less bad than Sunak.

and Labour returns to Blair, Brown and Mandelson FFS.

Starmer does seem rather similar to Blair. There seems to be no room for the left in British politics, though even Blair would be a considerable improvement on the four years of Trump-lite we've had to endure until now.

 

[edwin_m]

Starmer does seem rather similar to Blair. There seems to be no room for the left in British politics, though even Blair would be a considerable improvement on the four years of Trump-lite we've had to endure until now.

Is there that much appetite for further-left policies among the general public - a view encouraged by much of the media? People might have liked the sound of what Labour was promising in 2019, but didn't believe it was deliverable. Equally there probably isn't that much call for the further-right policies being espoused by the current government. Labour in 2019 and the Tories still are captured by a membership that's much more radical than the general public, with many probably also in a filter bubble where most of the views they hear accord with their own.

 

[quantinghome]

Labour in 2019 and the Tories still are captured by a membership that's much more radical than the general public, with many probably also in a filter bubble where most of the views they hear accord with their own.

To an extent that's always going to be the case. Political activists are inevitably going to be more on the edges of the political bell curve than the centre. But problems arise when they forget that the rest of the population aren't, which is where the bubble comes in.

This doesn't preclude putting radical policies forward, but it does mean doing it in a way that appeals to the average non-ideological voter. It's the big difference between, for example, Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[Cross City]

I think the house of commons vote was damaging for Labour.

Nearly all polls over the last three days haven't shown any dip in support for Labour.

Who would've thought that the oppositions stance about a war we're not involved in 2000+ miles away is almost completely irrelevant in the minds of the electorate!

 

[nw1]

Nearly all polls over the last three days haven't shown any dip in support for Labour.

Who would've thought that the oppositions stance about a war we're not involved in 2000+ miles away is almost completely irrelevant in the minds of the electorate!

It's not necessarily irrelevant, but Sunak and the Tories are worse in their support for Netanyahu. So it's not going to cause anyone to move from Labour to Tory.

 

[birchesgreen]

It probably helps reassure many people that the evil Corbyn bogeyman has been vanquished for good.

 

[75A]

It probably helps reassure many people that the evil Corbyn bogeyman has been vanquished for good.

Let's hope.

 

[Falcon1200]

Let's hope.

I hope so too, but I can't help thinking, every time I see or hear Starmer, 'you thought Corbyn should be Prime Minister'.

 

[Cross City]

I hope so too, but I can't help thinking, every time I see or hear Starmer, 'you thought Corbyn should be Prime Minister'.

He was hardly going to endorse a Tory over Corbyn though was he?

 

[Falcon1200]

He was hardly going to endorse a Tory over Corbyn though was he?

Of course not. But he enthusiastically and unequivocally supported Corbyn, as a senior member of his shadow cabinet; He always had the option of resigning from that role. But he did not, and I will therefore never trust him.

 

[Cross City]

Of course not. But he enthusiastically and unequivocally supported Corbyn, as a senior member of his shadow cabinet; He always had the option of resigning from that role. But he did not, and I will therefore never trust him.

So Labour get criticised when they stick together and they get criticised when they appear disunited (Gaza resignations)?

No wonder the Tories keep getting elected.