Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[edwin_m]

Replying as somebody who has no membership of any political party I think that dispensing with Corbyn as Labour leader was a good move: he, like Trump (if I'd had voting rights in the USA at the last presidential election) would never have persuaded me to vote for him. I am not a fan of Boris, however, and I don't have much reason to doubt that Sir Keir will win the next general election.

Dave

After events in the UK, USA and elsewhere over the past few years, I struggle to be that optimistic.

 

[Western Lord]

The problem for Starmer is that some may think that he is just a respectable figurehead for Labour to regain power, after which he would be rapidly dumped for somebody more radical. This is, of course, exactly what happened in the 1981 Greater London Council election which Labour won under the moderate Andrew McIntosh, who was dumped within 24 hours in favour of Ken Livingstone.

 

[oldman]

The problem for Starmer is that some may think that he is just a respectable figurehead for Labour to regain power, after which he would be rapidly dumped for somebody more radical. This is, of course, exactly what happened in the 1981 Greater London Council election which Labour won under the moderate Andrew McIntosh, who was dumped within 24 hours in favour of Ken Livingstone.

Tories might try to spin that line, but if he won his position in the Labour Party would be unassailable.

 

[gg1]

The problem for Starmer is that some may think that he is just a respectable figurehead for Labour to regain power, after which he would be rapidly dumped for somebody more radical. This is, of course, exactly what happened in the 1981 Greater London Council election which Labour won under the moderate Andrew McIntosh, who was dumped within 24 hours in favour of Ken Livingstone.

I seem to recall elements of the Tory press saying the same thing about Labour in 1997.

 

[LittleAH]

The problem for Starmer is that some may think that he is just a respectable figurehead for Labour to regain power, after which he would be rapidly dumped for somebody more radical. This is, of course, exactly what happened in the 1981 Greater London Council election which Labour won under the moderate Andrew McIntosh, who was dumped within 24 hours in favour of Ken Livingstone.

Given the majority of those radical 'crank' lefties are leaving Labour, I don't think there's a chance of that happening at all.

 

[daodao]

The problem for Starmer is that some may think that he is just a respectable figurehead for Labour to regain power, after which he would be rapidly dumped for somebody more radical socialist and true to Labour values. This is, of course, exactly what happened in the 1981 Greater London Council election which Labour won under the moderate Andrew McIntosh, who was dumped within 24 hours in favour of Ken Livingstone.

Starmer stabbed the Labour party in the front in December 2019 as the Brexit shadow secretary undermining the previous Labour position on Brexit, which was to accept the democratic decision of 2016 and make the best job of it. He has since shown his true character in the despicable way that he has treated his predecessor and others such as Rebecca Long-Bailey and Ken Loach.

 

[edwin_m]

Starmer stabbed the Labour party in the front in December 2019 as the Brexit shadow secretary undermining the previous Labour position on Brexit, which was to accept the democratic decision of 2016 and make the best job of it. He has since shown his true character in the despicable way that he has treated his predecessor and others such as Rebecca Long-Bailey and Ken Loach.

Corbyn sank Labour's chances in 2019 by (among many other things) preventing them arguing the case for remaining, which was supported by a majority as evidenced by almost every opinion poll since autumn 2017.

 

[daodao]

Corbyn sank Labour's chances in 2019 by (among many other things) preventing them arguing the case for remaining, which was supported by a majority as evidenced by almost every opinion poll since autumn 2017.

If that was the case, why did a party with a key policy to "get Brexit done" win the 2019 general election convincingly, with a substantial majority?

 

[DarloRich]

He has since shown his true character in the despicable way that he has treated his predecessor and others such as Rebecca Long-Bailey and Ken Loach.

aka lobbed wrong un's out of the party. Fine with me. Lets get all the SWP/trots out.

 

[LittleAH]

Starmer stabbed the Labour party in the front in December 2019 as the Brexit shadow secretary undermining the previous Labour position on Brexit, which was to accept the democratic decision of 2016 and make the best job of it. He has since shown his true character in the despicable way that he has treated his predecessor and others such as Rebecca Long-Bailey and Ken Loach.

What utter drivel.

Ken Loach - repeatedly sided with antisemites. RLB - woefully over promoted and was happy sharing antisemitic slurs via RT. Both only have themselves to blame for the positions they found themselves in. Starmer's shown leadership in tackling antisemitism, which Corbyn never did - hence the whip being withdrawn.

Labour's position on Brexit, was passed by Labour conference. So how can you blame Starmer for that? Given the numbers who would've not voted on a different position on Brexit (see European elections) and Corbyn's rating was anywhere between -40 and -60... clutching at straws.

 

[edwin_m]

If that was the case, why did a party with a key policy to "get Brexit done" win the 2019 general election convincingly, with a substantial majority?

Because the alternative was Corbyn and all he represents. That would have put off a lot of people who didn't care that much about Brexit one way or the other, plus some more engaged Remainers who didn't think Labour would stop Brexit.

 

[MattRat]

If that was the case, why did a party with a key policy to "get Brexit done" win the 2019 general election convincingly, with a substantial majority?

Which then makes you question the accuracy of these so called polls. And people wonder why people are so untrusting of a lot of things....

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Corbyn sank Labour's chances in 2019 by (among many other things) preventing them arguing the case for remaining, which was supported by a majority as evidenced by almost every opinion poll since autumn 2017.

As I recall, at the time of or just after the 2019 election, there were a few polls that asked people about their reasons for voting the way they did/changing their votes, and those polls were showing that 'Corbyn' and 'Brexit' were both issues losing Labour votes, but that Corbyn was losing Labour a lot more votes than Labour's remain-ish stance. It wasn't however a case of being able to solely blame one or the other - both were factors in Labour's disastrous performance.

I very much doubt that a more pro-remain line would've helped Labour. You have to remember that Brexiters and Remainers were in a different situation: Brexiters had won the referendum and many of them would therefore have felt very angry towards any party that seemed to be disrespecting the referendum result - so they would have been strongly inclined to vote for the party offering to 'get Brexit done'. Remainers on the other hand knew they had lost the referendum - and many would therefore have been pragmatically inclined to accept Brexit as the democratic thing to do, even though they personally disagreed with it. For that reason, I'd expect to see Remainers voting for the pro-Brexit Tories in much greater numbers than Brexiters would be willing to vote for any party seeking to avoid Brexit - which IIRC is what happened.

 

[ainsworth74]

As I recall, at the time of or just after the 2019 election, there were a few polls that asked people about their reasons for voting the way they did/changing their votes, and those polls were showing that 'Corbyn' and 'Brexit' were both issues losing Labour votes, but that Corbyn was losing Labour a lot more votes than Labour's remain-ish stance. It wasn't however a case of being able to solely blame one or the other - both were factors in Labour's disastrous performance.

It's an interesting one isn't it? I think I probably read the same things and the 2019 performance was far more an outright rejection of Corbyn than it was the wider Labour policy platform. Which is not to say that everyone loved all aspects of the policy platform, they didn't, but Corbyn was loathed and most of the policy planks were either liked or at least weren't actively disliked. My personal opinion is that the remain-ish stance wasn't toxic enough that, in an alternate universe where someone else was leading (and assuming they weren't also as toxic as Corbyn!!), it leads to a the landslide that actually occurred in 2019. I suspect probably it would have been a modest but solid Tory majority. Perhaps 15 odd seats (similar to Cameron in 2015).

But we'll never know for sure because for better or worse (I'd argue considerably worse) we had Corbyn helming Labour straight into the rocks, onto the unexploded mine, which then exploded, before finally pouring petrol on the burning remnants.

 

[deltic]

The present problem for Labour is that it has no exciting vision of the future.

The Tories Levelling Up agenda for all its faults at least suggests they have a vision for left behind parts of the country.

 

[LittleAH]

The Tories Levelling Up agenda for all its faults at least suggests they have a vision for left behind parts of the country.

Problem is, they don't. As was evident yesterday and pulled to shreds by Lisa Nandy.

 

[deltic]

Problem is, they don't. As was evident yesterday and pulled to shreds by Lisa Nandy.

Electorate dont see that - they just see Ministers talking about levelling up and splashing some cash about - the fact it has been announced many times before is irrelevant as long as something happens

They dont see Labour setting out anything positive

 

[nw1]

It's an interesting one isn't it? I think I probably read the same things and the 2019 performance was far more an outright rejection of Corbyn than it was the wider Labour policy platform. Which is not to say that everyone loved all aspects of the policy platform, they didn't, but Corbyn was loathed and most of the policy planks were either liked or at least weren't actively disliked. My personal opinion is that the remain-ish stance wasn't toxic enough that, in an alternate universe where someone else was leading (and assuming they weren't also as toxic as Corbyn!!), it leads to a the landslide that actually occurred in 2019. I suspect probably it would have been a modest but solid Tory majority. Perhaps 15 odd seats (similar to Cameron in 2015).

But we'll never know for sure because for better or worse (I'd argue considerably worse) we had Corbyn helming Labour straight into the rocks, onto the unexploded mine, which then exploded, before finally pouring petrol on the burning remnants.

I personally think that a more definite remain stance would have been more successful for Labour. For one thing, if Labour and the Lib Dems were both definite remain parties, they probably wouldn't have done so much destructive Judean People's Front-People's Front of Judea style squabbling and they would have actually worked together. For another, you wouldn't have got so many remainers put off by Labour's ambiguous stance on Brexit. All those strongly Brexiter seats were lost anyway, I doubt more still would have been lost had Labour been more convincingly Remain. You'd have probably had no more Labour seats lost in the 'Red Wall', but, with an organised Lib-Lab pact, more seats going Labour in London and more going Lib Dem in the Home Counties.

I'm not convinced that the result of 2019 is a 'landslide' (unless the term is used for any non-marginal majority government), remember it was a sub-100 majority on 43% of the vote. Not exactly a convincing stamp of approval for Johnson, and one could argue that using such a term risks massaging Johnson's ego still further.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Feb 2022 ==

Because the alternative was Corbyn and all he represents. That would have put off a lot of people who didn't care that much about Brexit one way or the other, plus some more engaged Remainers who didn't think Labour would stop Brexit.

Yes, indeed, while I don't have too much of a problem with Corbyn (compared to Johnson at least) I can see that a lot of people didn't like him. So I'd probably put Corbynphobia as the main explanation of the result, rather than a love of Johnson and Brexit. Add to that first past the post, which distorts the result: as I've said before only 43% of people voted Johnson.

On a related matter, I don't understand the monumental stupidity in Labour and the Lib Dems not blocking Johnson's move to have that silly winter election. The SNP I can understand, as I suspect that they wanted to Get Brexit Done to drive support for independence (and later rejoining the EU as an independent Scotland), but not Labour and the Lib Dems. Perhaps the stupidest (in)action made by opposition parties in my lifetime.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Feb 2022 ==

Which then makes you question the accuracy of these so called polls. And people wonder why people are so untrusting of a lot of things....

See @edwin_m's response above. A lot of 'weak Remainers' (who are against, but not passionately against Brexit) may have been worried about Corbyn. The result in Winchester, a convincingly-remain city which re-elected Tory Steve Brine, is good evidence for that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not convinced that the result of 2019 is a 'landslide' (unless the term is used for any non-marginal majority government), remember it was a sub-100 majority on 43% of the vote. Not exactly a convincing stamp of approval for Johnson, and one could argue that using such a term risks massaging Johnson's ego still further.

In terms of share of the vote, it was a pretty clear landslide - the Tories were 11.5% ahead of Labour (43.6% to 32.1%). By historical UK standards, that's an extraordinary lead that's only been bettered twice since WWII - in 1983 (Thatcher) and 1997 (Blair). That kind of lead would normally easily give a >100 majority: The sub-100 majority this time is probably explained partly by the current constituency arrangement and geographical distribution of votes tends to favour Labour much more than the Tories, partly by tactical voting between Labour and LibDem supporters trying to oust the Tories, and partly by the SNP's dominance in Scotland making it much harder for either main party to get a strong overall majority.

(And yes, I do realise that under a proper proportional system 43.6% wouldn't be a majority at all - I'm comparing with what typically happens in UK elections)

 

[nw1]

The problem for Starmer is that some may think that he is just a respectable figurehead for Labour to regain power, after which he would be rapidly dumped for somebody more radical. This is, of course, exactly what happened in the 1981 Greater London Council election which Labour won under the moderate Andrew McIntosh, who was dumped within 24 hours in favour of Ken Livingstone.

I think people would need to be excessively worried to believe that. Labour have, during my remembered lifetime, generally not been a radical or extreme party at all. Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Miliband and Starmer - all very middle-of-the-road figures. Only Foot and Corbyn have offered something more radically left-wing. This Livingstone case (which I don't remember, I am aware he was leader of the GLC many years before becoming mayor, but was unaware of the above) is the exception to the rule and did come at a time when Labour were very left-wing anyway.

 

[MattRat]

In terms of share of the vote, it was a pretty clear landslide - the Tories were 11.5% ahead of Labour (43.6% to 32.1%). By historical UK standards, that's an extraordinary lead that's only been bettered twice since WWII - in 1983 (Thatcher) and 1997 (Blair). That kind of lead would normally easily give a >100 majority: The sub-100 majority this time is probably explained partly by the current constituency arrangement and geographical distribution of votes tends to favour Labour much more than the Tories, partly by tactical voting between Labour and LibDem supporters trying to oust the Tories, and partly by the SNP's dominance in Scotland making it much harder for either main party to get a strong overall majority.

(And yes, I do realise that under a proper proportional system 43.6% wouldn't be a majority at all - I'm comparing with what typically happens in UK elections)

Also, it doesn't mean they are for or against remain, it just means all of them were so bad, nearly 60% of people didn't vote. Think about that for a moment.....

 

[nw1]

Also, it doesn't mean they are for or against remain, it just means all of them were so bad, nearly 60% of people didn't vote. Think about that for a moment.....

And quite possibly a protest 'vote' against yet another election so soon after the last two, anyway, and one on a dark rainy day in the middle of winter to boot. The real winner of 2019 was 'None of the Above"; I do know some election systems have a 'RON' (Re-Open Nominations) system for outcomes like this, i.e "all the candidates are bad, please re-run the election with a new set of candidates".


(That's not to say I personally wouldn't welcome a fourth one this coming spring, of course...)

 

[MattRat]

And quite possibly a protest 'vote' against yet another election so soon after the last two, anyway, and one on a dark rainy day in the middle of winter to boot. The real winner of 2019 was 'None of the Above"; I do know some election systems have a 'RON' (Re-Open Nominations) system for outcomes like this, i.e "all the candidates are bad, please re-run the election with a new set of candidates".

(That's not to say I personally wouldn't welcome a fourth one this coming spring, of course...)

But of course the major parties wouldn't want that, becuase they might lose. Same with any sort of alternative vote system.

 

[gg1]

Also, it doesn't mean they are for or against remain, it just means all of them were so bad, nearly 60% of people didn't vote. Think about that for a moment.....

Turnout was 67%, the second highest of the 6 general elections so far this century.

 

[MattRat]

Turnout was 67%, the second highest of the 6 general elections so far this century.

I was replying to a comment that said it was 43%. Not necessarily my fault if they're wrong.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I was replying to a comment that said it was 43%. Not necessarily my fault if they're wrong.

The 43.6% was the Conservative's vote share, not the turnout. In other words, 43.6% of the people who voted voted Tory (and 32.1% of the people who voted voted Labour).

Also worth pointing out that you can't assume everyone who didn't vote chose not to vote because they thought all the parties were terrible. Doubtless some thought that (probably some who did vote thought that too), Others wouldn't have voted because they were ill/not-interested-in-politics/undecided-who-to-vote-for/away-from-home/unexpectedly-busy/etc.

 

[nw1]

I was replying to a comment that said it was 43%. Not necessarily my fault if they're wrong.

The 43% was Johnson's share of the vote. Sorry if this was misunderstood; I have to admit I did think that 40% turnout was lower than I remember.

Even still I think my point stands that none of the candidates were supported with any degree of enthusiasm, people were likely voting for the least-worst option for their own particular standpoint at that time in history.

 

[Busaholic]

The present problem for Labour is that it has no exciting vision of the future.

I absolutely disagree, in the sense that we are living in far too interesting times measured by the old Chinese curse. What most people long for, I believe, is a competent administration led by politicians with the best interests of the country at heart who might be able to far better tackle the pressing problems. There is no evidence that Johnson, Raab, Patel and Truss have a clue how to do anything other than founder, and Sunak has much less nous than is accorded to him. Starmer at least did a competent job as DPP and head of the CPS, and Lisa Nandy always seems to get to grips with her briefs. Labour's main problem in gaining power again is the traditional media's hostility, allied with the far right lies of so much of social media.

 

[MattRat]

I absolutely disagree, in the sense that we are living in far too interesting times measured by the old Chinese curse. What most people long for, I believe, is a competent administration led by politicians with the best interests of the country at heart who might be able to far better tackle the pressing problems. There is no evidence that Johnson, Raab, Patel and Truss have a clue how to do anything other than founder, and Sunak has much less nous than is accorded to him. Starmer at least did a competent job as DPP and head of the CPS, and Lisa Nandy always seems to get to grips with her briefs. Labour's main problem in gaining power again is the traditional media's hostility, allied with the far right lies of so much of social media.

Surely that leaves the door open for someone like Jeremy Hunt instead, since he re-imagined himself as the sensible one. And considering Johnson may soon be going, I don't think Starmer actually stands a chance if Hunt replaces Johnson.

 

[birchesgreen]

Labour had quite an exciting vision of the future at the last election, unfortunately exciting bold policies tend to be a bit expensive and need to be paid for (by us!)