Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[cactustwirly]

I think Rayner is a lot stronger than Starmer. But the problem is, not many people like her! I do think Starmer is a sensible man who may be able to lead Labour to a Victory but he entered the leadership at a poor time for the Party and hasn't had the chance to "shine" I guess apart from the 2022 council elections.

As for Conservatives, Truss will not last long 3 years tops. But I must admit I think Mordaunt will become next leader.


As for Marginal seats for conservatives, they'll all be lost eg. Kensington, living off a 150 CON majority. Labour and Lib Dem marginal seats will gain further majority I presume but I could be easily as wrong.



What is said "Blue Wall"
I would interpret it as Most of Southern England?

Depends if labour split the vote again or not.
In the last election, the Lib Dems could have made big dents into the blue wall if Labour withdrew candidates in seats they would have never won like Maidenhead, Esher etc

 

[WizCastro197]

Depends if labour split the vote again or not.
In the last election, the Lib Dems could have made big dents into the blue wall if Labour withdrew candidates in seats they would have never won like Maidenhead, Esher etc

Using the same logic, Labour could’ve also made significant dents in the Blue wall of Lib Dems withdrew candidates where they might not win in the foreseeable Future

 

[Gloster]

Depends if labour split the vote again or not.
In the last election, the Lib Dems could have made big dents into the blue wall if Labour withdrew candidates in seats they would have never won like Maidenhead, Esher etc

I do not think it is a good idea for one party to refrain from fielding a candidate in a constituency in order to give another challenger a good chance, except for in unusual cases like Tatton in 1997: it smells too much like a stitch up. However, there is nothing to stop the party that is likely to come third devoting its efforts to attacking the sitting party and spending little effort on criticising the main challenger.

 

[cactustwirly]

I do not think it is a good idea for one party to refrain from fielding a candidate in a constituency in order to give another challenger a good chance, except for in unusual cases like Tatton in 1997: it smells too much like a stitch up. However, there is nothing to stop the party that is likely to come third devoting its efforts to attacking the sitting party and spending little effort on criticising the main challenger.

Well Labour would be shooting themselves in the foot of they don't withdraw candidates and handing the seats to the Tories...

 

[nw1]

I do not think it is a good idea for one party to refrain from fielding a candidate in a constituency in order to give another challenger a good chance, except for in unusual cases like Tatton in 1997: it smells too much like a stitch up.

To me, it's a way of "playing" the broken first-past-the-post system. I say that in a good way, not a bad.

Because (in England at least) the main split appears to be right-wing versus non-right-wing, or small-c-conservative versus small-l-liberal, the Conservatives are always going to have an advantage with FPTP. By contrast, the non-right-wing votes are split between Labour and Lib Dem.

Thus if a seat has a vote of Tory 45%, Lib Dem 35%, Labour 20% the Tory will always get in, even though the seat is 55% 'liberal'. One of Labour or Lib Dem standing aside (the one least likely to win the seat) might end up with a different outcome.

So I would absolutely support all legal efforts to "play the system" to achieve an outcome of Labour as the largest party in the Commons.

 

[Yew]

Well Labour would be shooting themselves in the foot of they don't withdraw candidates and handing the seats to the Tories...

And if they did withdraw the tories would shout that they are weak, and don't even have enough supporters to run in all constituencies.

 

[nw1]

Well Labour would be shooting themselves in the foot of they don't withdraw candidates and handing the seats to the Tories...

Exactly. An outcome of Labour as the largest party is, in my view, very much more likely than a Labour majority and is what Labour need to be working towards. If that means helping the Lib Dems win southern seats, by withdrawing candidates, then it must happen.

Helping the Tories lose Esher by not standing there is more sensible than the ideological purity of standing a candidate in Esher who gets 5% of the vote and helps the Tories retain the seat. If Labour had withdrawn their candidate in Esher last time, I suspect we'd have seen the end of Raab as an MP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2022 ==

And if they did withdraw the tories would shout that they are weak, and don't even have enough supporters to run in all constituencies.

Or Labour and Lib Dems actually 'market' their electoral pact to the population, promising a 'soft-liberal' or 'soft-left' government with the policies of both parties mixed in, not dissimilar to the Democrats in the US - and critically, an alternative to the Tories.

If the USA had two 'liberal' parties constantly squabbling with each other, then Donald Trump would absolutely now still be president, and with a large majority. And the Republicans would completely dominate US politics, and I suspect, barely be out of power.

 

[edwin_m]

Or Labour and Lib Dems actually 'market' their electoral pact to the population, promising a 'soft-liberal' or 'soft-left' government with the policies of both parties mixed in, not dissimilar to the Democrats in the US - and critically, an alternative to the Tories.

Especially if they agreed that, if elected, they would change the voting system to avoid the same situation occurring ever again.

It's ironic how parties who support FPTP produce leaflets with voting figures and messages such as "if you vote for X you'll end up with Y". The LibDems do this too, but at least they are pledged to reform the system if they get the opportunity. Also there's more to it for an anti-Tory than voting for whoever came second to the Tories last time, as many potential Tory voters will consider LibDem as an alternative but not Labour, so LibDem will generally do better than expected in these contests.

 

[brad465]

There won't be any withdrawing of candidates, what will likely happen is what's been cited in the Lib-Lab non-aggression pact that has been publicly stated and seen in recent by-elections: a candidate is fielded in every constituency for the relevant party, but where they don't stand a chance and risk splitting the vote too much in favour of a Tory candidate, virtually no campaigning takes place by the weaker party in that seat.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There won't be any withdrawing of candidates, what will likely happen is what's been cited in the Lib-Lab non-aggression pact that has been publicly stated and seen in recent by-elections: a candidate is fielded in every constituency for the relevant party, but where they don't stand a chance and risk splitting the vote too much in favour of a Tory candidate, virtually no campaigning takes place by the weaker party in that seat.

Lets hope so but risk is Labour get over confident and believe they don't need such an informal arrangement and gift the Tories enough seats they can decide the outcome.

 

[Acfb]

Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) is standing down. Labour is so strong in Ormskirk as well as Skelmersdale these days that a by election should be a very easy Labour hold with 55-60% of the vote.

 

[Gloster]

Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) is standing down. Labour is so strong in Ormskirk as well as Skelmersdale these days that a by election should be a very easy Labour hold with 55-60% of the vote.

Which, I am afraid, makes it all the more likely that they will find a way of messing things up. I doubt they will lose, but anything less than a resounding victory will be seen as a failure by Labour, or at least be so portrayed in much of the media. Being a by-election, turn out is likely to be down and that, along with any other failings, will be laid at Starmer’s door. And one can then expect Momentum to then be emboldened to start causing upheaval in the run up to an election.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Which, I am afraid, makes it all the more likely that they will find a way of messing things up. I doubt they will lose, but anything less than a resounding victory will be seen as a failure by Labour, or at least be so portrayed in much of the media. Being a by-election, turn out is likely to be down and that, along with any other failings, will be laid at Starmer’s door. And one can then expect Momentum to then be emboldened to start causing upheaval in the run up to an election.

If the Liberals don't stand aside or at least not make an effort and replacement doesn't get over 50% then it show Labour will be pushed to turn over the red wall. They are up against Trussnomics here she is basically stealing all labours ideas on energy then adding in tax cuts potentially this Friday all designed to influence the middle ground shes not bothered about the poor as she can't change their minds or their lives much either so shes betting the house on the middle ground. If it doesn't work out and Tories get binned Labour will be backed into such a corner over the use of the magic money tree there will be nothing left so they will be left floundering around for upto five years only to let the Tories back in.

Labour are still tarnished with Corbyn have pretty well sold out the working classes by not supporting them over fairer wages so unless Starmer pulls the rabbit out the bag next week at the conference its by no means a done deal. As many of us have said Labour were better off with the court jestor and they way well rue the day they helped force him out.

 

[GS250]

Labour are still tarnished with Corbyn have pretty well sold out the working classes by not supporting them over fairer wages so unless Starmer pulls the rabbit out the bag next week at the conference its by no means a done deal. As many of us have said Labour were better off with the court jestor and they way well rue the day they helped force him out.

At the very least...Corbyn offered something different. I'd say in the current climate he may have be seen as a genuine protest vote against what is seen by many as a Tory reactivation of the old status quo.

Agreed, his reluctance to address the issues of 'White van man' and his now ridiculous looking stance on abandoning nuclear weapons cost him badly. Was interesting how the BBC gave him fairly good coverage leading up to the last election. However, with a week to go and with one established opinion poll suggesting a narrow labour largest party....cue the hatchet job by the beeb and other main stream news outlets.

 

[brad465]

The Guardian have reported leaked details of Gordon Brown's constitutional review, which includes major Lord's reform and extra power for devolved and local administrations:

Labour may abolish House of Lords if it wins next election, leaked report reveals

Exclusive: Constitutional review by Gordon Brown also recommends devolving economic powers

www.theguardian.com

Labour is considering abolishing the House of Lords and replacing it with an upper house of nations and regions, as well as handing sweeping new powers to local regions and devolved nations, a leaked report has revealed.

The constitutional review by the former prime minister Gordon Brown, which has been seen by MPs and shadow cabinet ministers, recommends devolving new economic powers, including over taxation, and creating new independent councils of the nations and for England.

The review, seen by the Guardian, recommends:

New tax powers for some devolved governments, which could include stamp duty.

• Powers for local people to promote bills in parliament via democratically elected bodies.
• A constitutional guarantee of social and economic rights.
• Powers for mayors on education, transport and research funding.

Brown also recommends a crackdown on standards in central government and parliament, including a jury of ordinary citizens – selected by ballot – being able to rule on complaints against MPs and ministers via a new integrity and ethics commission.

He recommends banning most second jobs for MPs, which the party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has already announced, as well as new codes of conduct to replace the ministerial code, and giving the electoral commission the power to hand out larger fines.

The review has been subject to intense internal debate and several shadow cabinet ministers have privately expressed scepticism about some of the proposals, which are radical and far-reaching.

The measures are not expected to be agreed in time for the Labour party’s conference and had been scheduled for a major launch later in the year.

Starmer hinted in his Liverpool speech earlier this year that the reforms would “allow devolved and local government to make long-term financial decisions. To reap the rewards of investment in their economy. That way you make sure every city, every town, every place takes ownership of their contribution.”

The House of Lords would be reformed as an assembly of regions and nations, with a remit of safeguarding the constitution and with power to refer the government to the supreme court. Labour peers are being consulted on the proposals.

Local democratically elected bodies will be able to promote bills in parliament for local purpose, which the review said would allow English regional devolution to grow over time.

At the heart of Brown’s recommendations is to give citizens a constitutional guarantee of social and economic rights, including a right to healthcare, education and social protection.

He recommends giving regions economic powers to be the centres of new industries, citing the examples of financial services in Canary Wharf, biopharma in Cambridge and video games in Dundee.

Mayors could get full powers over local training and further education budgets, as well as further powers over transport, infrastructure and planning. Local leaders could get the powers to allocate local investment for national research and development funding into local universities.

Local and devolved authorities would be given a minimum of three years’ funding to give them certainty for longer-term planning.

Brown was commissioned to undertake the review by Starmer in September last year and the work has undergone a number of revisions. Starmer said the plans would set out a “fresh and tangible offer” to voters who had turned away from the party, especially to the Scottish National party in Scotland and to the Tories in the north of England.

Starmer promised it would be “the boldest project Labour has embarked on for a generation and every bit as bold and radical as the programme of devolution that Labour delivered in the 1990s and 2000s”.

Brown has made significant interventions over the past few months on the cost of living crisis, including throwing down the gauntlet to Starmer to announce a freeze on energy bills, but going further and saying the government should nationalise energy firms that would not give consumers lower bills.

A Labour spokesperson said: “This refers to one of several early drafts. The commission has yet to take a view on all these issues.”

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The Guardian have reported leaked details of Gordon Brown's constitutional review, which includes major Lord's reform and extra power for devolved and local administrations:

Labour may abolish House of Lords if it wins next election, leaked report reveals

Exclusive: Constitutional review by Gordon Brown also recommends devolving economic powers

www.theguardian.com

Blair should have abolished the Lords but he didn't and has perpetuated and reinforced the establishment continuing to set the agenda in this country

 

[brad465]

Blair should have abolished the Lords but he didn't and has perpetuated and reinforced the establishment continuing to set the agenda in this country

I think his biggest let down was not bringing in PR, which was a 1997 manifesto pledge. I suspect anyone who gets 400+ seats suddenly likes the status quo as Blair did.

But yes, he should also have dumped the Lords. That said it probably wasn't a big issue back then, and no party will do things that are not of high importance to the electorate for obvious reasons. I suspect this is being proposed now because recent political events have made it more of an issue.

 

[Perthsaint]

Labour have been promising to abolish the House of Lords for over a century now.

 

[Broucek]

I feel rather sorry for Brown. A leak by the Guardian looks like a "friendly fire" incident...

Not sure how the nation benefits from this kind of reporting

 

[LittleAH]

I feel rather sorry for Brown. A leak by the Guardian looks like a "friendly fire" incident...

Not sure how the nation benefits from this kind of reporting

It's someone within Labour who has got wind of this and doesn't like it.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Is Labour, or rather Sir Keir in particular, trying to lose support? There was a big vote at conference in favor of PR, but he says he will not support it!

Could lose the votes of many people like me, but who else could we vote for?

 

[GS250]

Is Labour, or rather Sir Keir in particular, trying to lose support? There was a big vote at conference in favor of PR, but he says he will not support it!

Could lose the votes of many people like me, but who else could we vote for?

He's doing everything he can to distance himself from the more vocal sections of the left on social media.

 

[Senex]

Is Labour, or rather Sir Keir in particular, trying to lose support? There was a big vote at conference in favor of PR, but he says he will not support it!

Could lose the votes of many people like me, but who else could we vote for?

He seems to be sticking to the old line that it's got to be a pure Labour government or else better to leave the Tories in power. There seems to be no sense that the most important thing to be achieved is to get the Tories out. PR would probably involve collaboration with other parties (which is part of its attraction for some of us), but Starmer apparently wants to stick to the old all-or-nothing.

I do rather agree with your second paragraph!

 

[brad465]

Is Labour, or rather Sir Keir in particular, trying to lose support? There was a big vote at conference in favor of PR, but he says he will not support it!

Could lose the votes of many people like me, but who else could we vote for?

The problem is if Labour back PR now as a manifesto commitment, the tabloids opposed to Labour will hound it for 2 years until the next election, because PR is a threat to their influence.

 

[Gloster]

The problem is if Labour back PR now as a manifesto commitment, the tabloids opposed to Labour will hound it for 2 years until the next election, because PR is a threat to their influence.

You mean they weren’t going to hound Labour otherwise?

 

[Typhoon]

The problem is if Labour back PR now as a manifesto commitment, the tabloids opposed to Labour will hound it for 2 years until the next election, because PR is a threat to their influence.

Also, they then get tied up in the debate about what form of PR they actually want. If they don't say, the tabloids will make it up so instead of increasing food prices, mortgage rates, cuts in public spending (inevitable), massive government debt being on page 1 there will be some cloud-cuckoo-land version where Sturgeon, Corbyn, Drakeford and every other bogey (wo)man they can think of will hold sway in Westminster. The less controversial Labour is, the more the front-page news has to be this government and its risky (being generous) economic policy. There are already a few voices casting doubts on Kwartang's strategy, as it hits home that most people are going to be pennies better off in their monthly pay packet while bills are rising these will undoubtedly grow, unless there is a rapid improvement to people's lives, and backbenchers will be in their constituents firing line (figuratively speaking).

(People see actual money so a cap on future price rises and reversing a tax raise that hasn't happened are pretty invisible to voters.)

 

[edwin_m]

The right place for Labour to focus today is the plan to levy a windfall tax on energy suppliers and invest it in green energy. This addresses both the immediate cost of living concerns and the longer-term issue of the climate crisis, and throws the spotlight on how the Tories are protecting the unearned profits of the energy companies by passing the bill to future generations of taxpayers. I don't believe Starmer has actually ruled out PR, he's just saying it's not something they should commit to now.

In some ways it's unfortunate for Labour that their conference is this week, as they'd probably rather the headlines were dominated by the way the Tories are apparently sliding towards self-destruction.

 

[Yew]

Also, they then get tied up in the debate about what form of PR they actually want. If they don't say, the tabloids will make it up so instead of increasing food prices, mortgage rates, cuts in public spending (inevitable), massive government debt being on page 1 there will be some cloud-cuckoo-land version where Sturgeon, Corbyn, Drakeford and every other bogey (wo)man they can think of will hold sway in Westminster. The less controversial Labour is, the more the front-page news has to be this government and its risky (being generous) economic policy. There are already a few voices casting doubts on Kwartang's strategy, as it hits home that most people are going to be pennies better off in their monthly pay packet while bills are rising these will undoubtedly grow, unless there is a rapid improvement to people's lives, and backbenchers will be in their constituents firing line (figuratively speaking).

(People see actual money so a cap on future price rises and reversing a tax raise that hasn't happened are pretty invisible to voters.)

There is probably an aspect of “don’t interrupt your opponent whilst they’re making a mistake”

 

[GS250]

Sadly more blatant racism from the Labour party.....

"MP Rupa Huq has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation, after she was accused of making "racist" comments about Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng.

The MP for Ealing Central and Acton, made the remarks about the chancellor at a Labour conference fringe event on Monday entitled "What's Next for Labour's Agenda on Race?"

The Conservative Party chairman condemned Ms Huq's "vile" comments and urged Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, to remove the whip from her.

In audio posted online by the Guido Fawkes website, Ms Huq says: "Superficially he is a black man"

 

[brad465]

Sadly more blatant racism from the Labour party.....

"MP Rupa Huq has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation, after she was accused of making "racist" comments about Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng.

The MP for Ealing Central and Acton, made the remarks about the chancellor at a Labour conference fringe event on Monday entitled "What's Next for Labour's Agenda on Race?"

The Conservative Party chairman condemned Ms Huq's "vile" comments and urged Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, to remove the whip from her.

In audio posted online by the Guido Fawkes website, Ms Huq says: "Superficially he is a black man"

Yes this was completely stupid, but what other blatant racism has recently been said by someone in Labour (I'm not saying there isn't, but it doesn't immediately come to mind)?