Keir Starmer - FoM now a red-line

[Andy_W]

Firstly, Labour is a socialist party (democratic socialist to be more precise but it also covers other similar stylings). It's not even hidden away in the small print. It's front and centre on the membership card.

Secondly, if you have a political position which is derived from a set of principles then it DOES matter what the party stands for. If it no longer represents those principles then it isn't the same party - even if it has the same name.


The Labour Leaks and subsequent Forde Report both show that it wasn't being supported by people being paid expressley to support it. We don't know if it could have worked because it was undemined from within - whether you, personally, supported or not. No matter what else is said on the matter, the idea that the 'left' were given a fair crack of the whip is absurd.


And this leads to the crux of the problem. Labour isn't supposed to be the party of the centre (in historical terms and where you only look at politics along a single axis). The Lib Dems should be attracting those votes but due to the system being broken by human behaviour, this doesn't happen. If the country was permanently run by a coalition of Tory/Lib Dem for demographic reasons then so be it. The fact that a huge swathe of people who 'should' represent the Lib Dems have swamped the Labour party leaves us with just this two-party system and the centre clamouring for movement in their direction.


This is just untrue. Corbyn was ~3500 votes away from being able to form a government (as a coalition). That is a trivial number when held against the voting population. There was a breakdown of where those votes could/should have come from (Alex Nunn possibly?) and we know (from LL/Forde) that money was actively diverted away from important swing seats.


You've mentioned this a couple of times so I'll tackle it here. Who do you think creates the "stir"? It doesn't come from nothing. It's driven by the self-interested media owners and pushed as far as they think they can go. Just listen to the coverage of the strikes at the moment. Even the BBC are unbalanced in how they present it across news, current affairs and 'entertainment'.


So if the left are in control Labour can't win but those that want a leftist government will have to vote for the centrist control despite the same centrists not voting for the left?

Isn't that exactly what we've been saying - and keep being told isn't the reality?

If the centre can win without the left then why does anyone care where my vote goes? If the centre can't win without the left then why is there no room for compromise on policy to throw a few bones leftwards?

Fair post

Yes, Labour does cover social aspects (and is more socially democratic than the tories, and has been whoever has been in charge). It doesn't say that on the front or centre of my card mind, it says democratic socialist on the back though, in small writing, followed by "by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone". Key there being common endeavour, and if there are not enough people voting for that, then you end up with nothing, and may as well be voting on your own. Maybe the next time Labour wins we need to change the wording to suit the people who it is representing.



If you want pure democratic socialism and went all guns blazing with that, then Labour would never get into power. I get that you may think that Labour may not represent that, but when has it ever done, especially when it has won? Would you rather have a true SDP, and then the centre left and centre voting elsewhere?

It's the leaders job to keep harmony within the party, by reflecting the MP's and the voters. I can't recall any leader of any party having full support of all MP's and voters. I see the MP's as being paid to support their constituency, but ultimately they're also being paid to be a possible winning opposition to the Tories.

I see what you're saying about the Lib Dems, and largely agree with that, but they don't get the votes as they don't have a core in many areas. I liked Lib Dems position on the EU, it appeared far more pro-active, and was far more obvious to me than Labour, but didn't get the same air time as labour. I've voted Lib Dem in the past, then they sold out to the Tories, so they can go and whistle, and I've been back at Labour ever since. I suppose I'm one of your invaders, but I've voted Labour the vast majority of the time.

I don't buy that Corbyn was 3500 votes from a coalition.

The media is to the right, even the BBC when the Tories have control, they're naturally going to go after the left-sided leaders. We can't change who owns the media, especially when the public keep supporting them, but by god I wish we could.

I've voted for Corbyn twice, you don't need to get me on the side of the left, I would much prefer that than the right, or a lib dem/ tory coalition. You need to convince those to the right of me, but you won't get anything without them, not in this system. You might get some of that with PR, but you're also then going to be giving seats to the far right. Farage got nearly 4m votes in 2015, and they would get similar numbers again under PR, maybe even more.

To be fair the centre probably could win without the true far left, at the minute, but I wouldn't want that. They will throw a few bones, wait until the manifesto comes out. They will give you more bones than Corbyn did.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

BBG you are referring, I would guess to the poll of manifesto promises? I saw that at the time, I have no idea how that was set up and the size of the sample used.

True, I remember people at the time saying that Corbyn should have a 20 point lead. But the other side of your argument - Theresa May. She was pretty bad and it could be argued that just about anyone could and should have won that election - is pure speculation.
Let's not forget that after May, Tory party standards plummeted off a cliff, from taking Russian money, partying with Russian oligarchs (and making one a Lord) to blatantly profiteering from a pandemic, to partying through Covid whilst people died, to choosing Liz Truss as leader, followed by Sunak.Yet when socialists suggest that 'anyone could beat them at the next election' we get shouted down. It's all down to Kier Starmers skill and guile as a politician and nothing to do with the present state of the country or the government.

 

[hewielewie]

Jesus, that was 20 minutes of my life I will not get back!!

 

[SuperStu]

We can try your way again in the future, I promise.

What's this even supposed to mean? You get to personally choose the direction of the Labour Party do you Andy?

 

[Nano]

I don't necessarily disagree with your post Nano, but what I would say, is in 2017 when corbyn came close, he was up against Theresa May. She was pretty bad and it could be argued that just about anyone could and should have won that election.

I am not sure that the left leaning manifesto was the reason he came close. I suspect swathes of folks abandoning May helped a great deal.

Teresa May was bad but remember that she called the election herself when she already had a majority because she thought she was miles ahead. She was expecting to comfortably increase her majority. Brexit wasn't a huge deal at that election because both parties were still saying they would implement it and we hadn't got into the stalled negotiations. Corbyn had fairly recently fought off an internal coup from the centrists in the party so he wasn't only against May but half of his own party that were hoping he'd get beat so he would resign. What actually happened was he released the manifesto and everyone liked it and they got a massive jump in the polls. This was all while the constant negative stories about him from the press had been underway for several years at that point.

Labour gained 30 seats. (2.5m votes and 10% more of the vote share). It was a massive improvement and was almost entirely down to the manifesto.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

What's this even supposed to mean? You get to personally choose the direction of the Labour Party do you Andy?

People who say that Socialism can't win may possibly be correct now that it has been effectively dismantled in this country for the time being. However, Socialism is absolutely necessary if we wish to halt this Late Stage Capitalism before it's too late.

 

[Laughing]

True, I remember people at the time saying that Corbyn should have a 20 point lead. But the other side of your argument - Theresa May. She was pretty bad and it could be argued that just about anyone could and should have won that election - is pure speculation.
Let's not forget that after May, Tory party standards plummeted off a cliff, from taking Russian money, partying with Russian oligarchs (and making one a Lord) to blatantly profiteering from a pandemic, to partying through Covid whilst people died, to choosing Liz Truss as leader, followed by Sunak.Yet when socialists suggest that 'anyone could beat them at the next election' we get shouted down. It's all down to Kier Starmers skill and guile as a politician and nothing to do with the present state of the country or the government.

Of course my point about may is speculation, its why I prefaced it with, you could argue.

Equally stating that Corbyn would have won the 2017 election with full party support is also speculation. It's the nature of opinion, to a certain extent.

Would Corbyn have faired better or worse against Cameron? I don't know but think probably worse.

 

[HolgateCorner]

I don't necessarily disagree with your post Nano, but what I would say, is in 2017 when corbyn came close, he was up against Theresa May. She was pretty bad and it could be argued that just about anyone could and should have won that election.

I am not sure that the left leaning manifesto was the reason he came close. I suspect swathes of folks abandoning May helped a great deal.

Theresa May pulled in one of the biggest Tory votes ever, very similar to Johnson in 2019.

Corbyn attracted a huge Labour vote in 2017 but maybe also had the effect of mobilising the Tory vote as well, or maybe steady old May was just popular with the Tory heartlands.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Equally stating that Corbyn would have won the 2017 election with full party support is also speculation. It's the nature of opinion, to a certain extent.

This is true, but it would have been nice to find out. However, the shenanigans of McNichol and his cohorts, and Blairite MPs, eagerly backed by the right wing press assured that we never would. He did come within about 3000 votes though, and removed May's majority; not bad considering the unprecedented level of adversity.
The Labour Party would not countenance a truly transformative government then, so I see no reason why they will now given that the present leader took part in the attempted coup.

 

[SuperStu]

Of course my point about may is speculation, its why I prefaced it with, you could argue.

Equally stating that Corbyn would have won the 2017 election with full party support is also speculation. It's the nature of opinion, to a certain extent.

Would Corbyn have faired better or worse against Cameron? I don't know but think probably worse.

Fair enough but surely on the question of whether Corbyn would have fared better with or without internal sabotage by the party's most senior staff opinions will be pretty unanimous.

Take personal feelings about Corbyn out, would anybody leading anything be better off with or without saboteurs in their own team? Would Cloughie have been better off with or without boro defenders apparently taking bungs to throw matches? Obviously without.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Fair enough but surely on the question of whether Corbyn would have fared better with or without internal sabotage by the party's most senior staff opinions will be pretty unanimous.

Take personal feelings about Corbyn out, would anybody leading anything be better off with or without saboteurs in their own team? Would Cloughie have been better off with or without boro defenders apparently taking bungs to throw matches? Obviously without.

Just reminded of this on the German far right thread which demonstrates just how far the lies and defamation went.

German far right attempt coup

As reported in the title https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/25-suspected-members-german-far-right-group-arrested-raids-prosecutors-office-2022-12-07/ No surprise the Russians are potentially involved again . The bellends who even orchestrated it even admitted they wanted the Russians to...

fmttmboro.com

 

[Scrote]

Fair post

Yes, Labour does cover social aspects (and is more socially democratic than the tories, and has been whoever has been in charge). It doesn't say that on the front or centre of my card mind, it says democratic socialist on the back though, in small writing, followed by "by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone". Key there being common endeavour, and if there are not enough people voting for that, then you end up with nothing, and may as well be voting on your own. Maybe the next time Labour wins we need to change the wording to suit the people who it is representing.

View attachment 48973

If you want pure democratic socialism and went all guns blazing with that, then Labour would never get into power. I get that you may think that Labour may not represent that, but when has it ever done, especially when it has won? Would you rather have a true SDP, and then the centre left and centre voting elsewhere?

It's the leaders job to keep harmony within the party, by reflecting the MP's and the voters. I can't recall any leader of any party having full support of all MP's and voters. I see the MP's as being paid to support their constituency, but ultimately they're also being paid to be a possible winning opposition to the Tories.

I see what you're saying about the Lib Dems, and largely agree with that, but they don't get the votes as they don't have a core in many areas. I liked Lib Dems position on the EU, it appeared far more pro-active, and was far more obvious to me than Labour, but didn't get the same air time as labour. I've voted Lib Dem in the past, then they sold out to the Tories, so they can go and whistle, and I've been back at Labour ever since. I suppose I'm one of your invaders, but I've voted Labour the vast majority of the time.

I don't buy that Corbyn was 3500 votes from a coalition.

The media is to the right, even the BBC when the Tories have control, they're naturally going to go after the left-sided leaders. We can't change who owns the media, especially when the public keep supporting them, but by god I wish we could.

I've voted for Corbyn twice, you don't need to get me on the side of the left, I would much prefer that than the right, or a lib dem/ tory coalition. You need to convince those to the right of me, but you won't get anything without them, not in this system. You might get some of that with PR, but you're also then going to be giving seats to the far right. Farage got nearly 4m votes in 2015, and they would get similar numbers again under PR, maybe even more.

To be fair the centre probably could win without the true far left, at the minute, but I wouldn't want that. They will throw a few bones, wait until the manifesto comes out. They will give you more bones than Corbyn did.

Being on the membership card was the "front and centre" I was referring to. Not that it was the front and centre OF the membership card. That would be overkill...

If the centre-left aren't currently SDP then we really have travelled so far right that there is no chance of a comeback in my lifetime.

But that again leads onto how far the Overton window has been allowed to shift and is the very reason why Starmer and Labour should be taking this opportunity to roll it back as far as possible (Blair had a similar opportunity and managed to mess it up (more conspiratorial people than me would suggest that Starmer was encouraged to stand for Labour to explicitly prevent this)).

Not having full support is a lot different to having MPs actively working against you. The Tories have spent the past decade in-fighting but they don't undermine in anything like the same damaging way (even with Truss, they knew there was a quick way out whilsy maintaining power).

As for the Lib Dems, in a functioning society people would be able to vote for the party that best represents them and then expect to see (even without PR) some of the proportional 'wants' of the population enacted by government. The fact we are practically in a party-dictatorship is one reason the country is so badly bent out of shape.

I don't buy that Corbyn was 3500 votes from a coalition.

Clever people have done the maths. The numbers aren't open to debate. The possible ramifications and coalition problems are fair game though. It may have taken more than 3500 to get the right people in the right seats to form a government but the ~3500 was all that was mathematically required.

They will give you more bones than Corbyn did.

What didn't Corbyn offer that you wanted? What bone didn't he throw? (Or are you back to without winning there are no bones?)

 

[Laughing]

Theresa May pulled in one of the biggest Tory votes ever, very similar to Johnson in 2019.

Corbyn attracted a huge Labour vote in 2017 but maybe also had the effect of mobilising the Tory vote as well, or maybe steady old May was just popular with the Tory heartlands.

Or the tory media mobalises the electorate

 

[Laughing]

Fair enough but surely on the question of whether Corbyn would have fared better with or without internal sabotage by the party's most senior staff opinions will be pretty unanimous.

Take personal feelings about Corbyn out, would anybody leading anything be better off with or without saboteurs in their own team? Would Cloughie have been better off with or without boro defenders apparently taking bungs to throw matches? Obviously without.

Of course he would have fared better. Would it have been enough to form a minority government. That's my point. I liked Corbyn, I voted for him but don't think he would have ever formed a government, coalition or otherwise.

The 3500 vote thing that someone mentioned above may well be true at its root but it has to be so well targeted out wouldn't happen. Its estimated that as few as 150k voters select a government. Its not the entrenched voters its a handful of people who have no party affiliation but vote on manifesto.

 

[HolgateCorner]

Or the tory media mobalises the electorate

Fair comment, they certainly try to frighten the core Tory vote into the polling booth, no doubt about that.

 

[Andy_W]

I can't believe we are still having this conversation and you aren't getting it. Corbyn lost because of 2 reasons, Corbyn and Brexit. The rest of the manifesto was really positively received. The policies weren't rejected so to use it as an excuse to abandon any left wing policies and run back to the centre is just that, an excuse or justification for being a centrist party unnecessarily because that is the ideology of that side of the party.

Stop insisting that Labour have to pander to the right because they don't. Ordinarily they would just need a leader that the right don't mind like Starmer with policies that everyone wants like large parts of Corbyn's manifesto. In current circumstances they don't have to pander to them at all. Tories have dug themselves into such a deep hole that an ultra left wing manifesto could beat them and because of that Labour should be taking the opportunity to move everyone to the left instead of moving themselves to the right.

I do get it, the policies were fine to me and you, and well received by me and you. The problem is more people don't think like we do, than do. The policies and leader come hand in hand, and were not well received enough by the rest, or enough to overcome the media in some cases. Hence why he (and Labour) lost.

If you select Corbyn as leader, then you're going to get Corbyn up against the media, changing a leader does not change the media bias, ownership, or their readers, but it will change their level of response. We know the right-wing own the right-wing media, do you not think that the more you push left ideals they will throw back a disproportionate response against the policies/ leader? The last thing the right wing/far-right media is socialist/left-wing policies, never mind coupling that with a socialist/left-wing leader.

They don't have to pander to the right (or what you think is the right), but they need to take enough votes to win enough seats, which means controlling the centre, and they will possibly drag along some of the disillusioned centre-right too. Having one more vote won't cut it, Labour need 330 seats or whatever it is, to have the best chance of putting their policies into place.

We're not in an ordinary situation, we're probably in the most extraordinary situation I've ever known (Brexit, Covid, War, Inflation, Energy crisis, NHS wrecked, Strikes, low wage growth, house prices high etc etc etc).

A left-wing manifesto might beat them today, but that's not a given. We've gained voters by appealing to the centre, if we appealed to less of these then less would come over, it's not a light switch, it would be proportional in some way. In two years' time even a centre-left manifesto might not be enough to win. The Tories have dug a hole so deep, that it is practically impossible to dig it any deeper, and to dig that deeper you would have to assume that Sunak is worse than BJ or Truss, which is likely not going to be the case.

Over the next two years, inflation is going to drop, the war will probably be over, some of the post covid issues will be impacting less (energy demand down, probably bringing energy prices down, albeit not at as low as previous etc), and GDP will probably be on the rise (but not correct how we've gone behind). This will fool a hell of a lot of people, into thinking Sunak is doing a good job and "the Tories have changed". I of course (and yourself) know this is not actual reality, but you know full well the press will frame it that way. This will move some of those in the centre back to the Tories, no doubt about it, especially those who have the cash and learn to adapt to the new higher prices etc.

You've also got that brexit fear, which will play on leavers minds, no matter what Starmer (or anyone) says, you know full well the press are going to say he's going to cancel brexit, and they will stir up the hate again, even if their policy was identical to the Tories they would still do this. Most leavers will not want their baby taking away. Not many will give a toss or have the knowledge to realise brexit has already been a catastrophe, they're not bothered either. They would rather sit in the cold if it meant there were less immigrants. One thing which may help this is if Farage gets some movement with his party, it would hoover up a lot of leavers, away from the tories, but it will take vote share from everywhere.

 

[Andy_W]

Socialism doesn’t mean they’re social

Socialism means that society is run by and owned, and benefits the whole community

And if a leader (Starmer) says he’s going to change the fundamental essence of the Labour Party by lying to get elected it will bite him on the **** at some point

And Brexit hasn’t been a labour talking point for over 2 years! Maybe stop talking about it, yeah?

Yes, I know, I'm not against socialism either, but like I say it needs a balance to succeed and to get voters.

Blair changed the Labour party, it was the only time they have won power back in 45 years. I'd more than happily go back to that, after the 15-year **** show we will have had since Blair/ Brown left.

Brexit will always be a talking point for leavers though, especially as long as we have a right-wing press. It might help if people stop talking about it, but if people keep pointing out the reality of it then some may realise they were wrong. Most won't realise they were wrong mind, or they simply won't give a toss. Assuming people are logical is my problem, and I know full well they're not.

 

[Nano]

I do get it, the policies were fine to me and you, and well received by me and you. The problem is more people don't think like we do, than do. The policies and leader come hand in hand, and were not well received enough by the rest, or enough to overcome the media in some cases. Hence why he (and Labour) lost.

If you select Corbyn as leader, then you're going to get Corbyn up against the media, changing a leader does not change the media bias, ownership, or their readers, but it will change their level of response. We know the right-wing own the right-wing media, do you not think that the more you push left ideals they will throw back a disproportionate response against the policies/ leader? The last thing the right wing/far-right media is socialist/left-wing policies, never mind coupling that with a socialist/left-wing leader.

They don't have to pander to the right (or what you think is the right), but they need to take enough votes to win enough seats, which means controlling the centre, and they will possibly drag along some of the disillusioned centre-right too. Having one more vote won't cut it, Labour need 330 seats or whatever it is, to have the best chance of putting their policies into place.

We're not in an ordinary situation, we're probably in the most extraordinary situation I've ever known (Brexit, Covid, War, Inflation, Energy crisis, NHS wrecked, Strikes, low wage growth, house prices high etc etc etc).

A left-wing manifesto might beat them today, but that's not a given. We've gained voters by appealing to the centre, if we appealed to less of these then less would come over, it's not a light switch, it would be proportional in some way. In two years' time even a centre-left manifesto might not be enough to win. The Tories have dug a hole so deep, that it is practically impossible to dig it any deeper, and to dig that deeper you would have to assume that Sunak is worse than BJ or Truss, which is likely not going to be the case.

Over the next two years, inflation is going to drop, the war will probably be over, some of the post covid issues will be impacting less (energy demand down, probably bringing energy prices down, albeit not at as low as previous etc), and GDP will probably be on the rise (but not correct how we've gone behind). This will fool a hell of a lot of people, into thinking Sunak is doing a good job and "the Tories have changed". I of course (and yourself) know this is not actual reality, but you know full well the press will frame it that way. This will move some of those in the centre back to the Tories, no doubt about it, especially those who have the cash and learn to adapt to the new higher prices etc.

You've also got that brexit fear, which will play on leavers minds, no matter what Starmer (or anyone) says, you know full well the press are going to say he's going to cancel brexit, and they will stir up the hate again, even if their policy was identical to the Tories they would still do this. Most leavers will not want their baby taking away. Not many will give a toss or have the knowledge to realise brexit has already been a catastrophe, they're not bothered either. They would rather sit in the cold if it meant there were less immigrants. One thing which may help this is if Farage gets some movement with his party, it would hoover up a lot of leavers, away from the tories, but it will take vote share from everywhere.

You don't get it. You are confusing the policies with "Corbyn's policies". They don't have to be associated with Corbyn. They were left of centre but not communist. Corbyn was the problem for voters. He was hated by the right of his own party and he was an easy target for the media because he had so much history. It was all bull **** but throw enough and it sticks and that is what happened. Starmer could use Corbyn's manifesto and it wouldn't be called marxist because it wasn't. People liked his policies (all people, not just Labour). The individual policies in the manifesto all polled very highly across the whole spectrum. The whole schtick about the manifesto being rejected is nothing but centrists (and the right wing media) conning people so they get their own way. I can't believe you can't see it which means you just don't care because you are getting what you want.

Think about it the other way around. Boris won because he was Boris. He didn't even have any policies except for Brexit. He could have put anything in his manifesto and people wanted to vote for him. Most voters don't care about policies that much.

Labour haven't gained voters by appealing to the centre at all. Labour haven't gained any voters, the Tories have just stopped voting Tory. When Tory voters don't want to vote Tory they will just not vote, they won't vote Labour. Some people in the middle flip-flop but they are running from the Tories, not to Labour. Labour are offering nothing to attract voters. They are just benefiting from the Tories shooting themselves in the face (repeatedly).

 

[SuperStu]

Some people in the middle flip-flop but they are running from the Tories, not to Labour. Labour are offering nothing to attract voters. They are just benefiting from the Tories shooting themselves in the face (repeatedly).

I think there's a lot of truth in this. If the staff at number 10 hadn't been partying like a bunch of lunatics all through lockdown, then we'd likely still have a pretty popular Boris Johnson gov now unfortunately.

I suppose there's some credit to Starmer that he's neutered the Labour party so much that tories don't feel any need to give the Conservative party their support. Starmer's plan was clearly to say as little as he could and cross his fingers for the tories to f*ck everything up enough that he wins by default and it looks like it's paid off for him.

 

[Andy_W]

What's this even supposed to mean? You get to personally choose the direction of the Labour Party do you Andy?

My way is to target winning (comfortably), and then seeing what you can change from there.
Your way is to target ideals, which hasn't won since I've been alive.

No, but I'd vote for KS in a leadership election, and I'm happy to trust that he knows what he's doing. Labour members chose the rough direction, by voting for Starmer (he got more than half the vote in a 3 way race), which was even when the Labour membership was full of Corbyn supporters. Starmer had/ has to move with the times, and seemingly he's doing alright at that in the eyes of the voters, as he's appealing to millions more of them. Not sure what the current membership approval is, but my guess is it's even higher than it was than the percentage who voted for him.

Labour members, no matter how long they've been members are not the priority though, the public are and the makeup of these numbers which largely dictate which path Labour head down. My point is to try and strike a balance between all of those voters, there is likely to be an equal number to the left and to the right of me, voting for Labour, and I expect something balanced around where I sit, which will likely be marginal to the right of me (we'll see when the manifesto comes out). Yes there may be some things left and some things right, but I'm not bothered. If the Tories win, it's 100% to the right of me, by a considerable margin, which is where it has been since Brown, Milliband and Corbyn (twice) lost.

Labour have to appeal to the centre to get votes, and win, the sooner you realise this the better. Not everyone who votes for Labour thinks like you, and not like me either, and if they had only people like you or me they would never win, as proven in the last few elections when we both voted for JC (and he lost the to biggest bunch of far-right clowns we've ever had).