.

[Andy_W]

Johnson convinced a lot of people he was their favourite uncle and would look after them with Brexit sunlit uplands and levelling up. He had a solid base of 17 million leave voters to gather in. On top of that the Tories have been collecting the pensioners vote on the back of triple lock and anti immigration policy. That’s why they won by appealing to enough peopke.

Yup, he suckered people with the leave carrot, having been a remainer for a long time until the tide started to change. He somehow conned a load of folk that the worst deal (no deal) ever, was going to benefit the UK somehow, crazy.

The pensioner vote was (and is) massive, and a lot of pensioners have gained a massive amount of wealth from property values massively increasing. They will be eyeing up holding onto as much of that wealth as possible. This older vote will likely be less important as the decades move on, and the current crop of 30 and 40-year-olds end up pensioners with next to nothing to their name.

That change is going to be decades though, but the change of this is largely baked in already. It's a positive for the left in a way, but it's only positive as old people will also be skint and will vote for help, so it's a bit like a poisoned chalice.

The young will continuously shift further left too I think, and those in middle age, but it will take time. We might be at a turning point where if Labour can get in for two terms, it effectively kills the Tories off due to time, and the Tory pensioner nest egg wearing off.

 

[HolgateCorner]

It's the centre of the population, but may not be the centre on the political spectrum, it's unfortunate it has to be that way, but you need the centre of the population, or to win back the labour lost seats (who were conned into leaving, or not informed enough to be remainers).

The problem is it takes time to move people on the political spectrum, and the leave vote shifted the population right, very quickly, as remain didn't do enough to show the current government were the problem, and not the EU. Of course the Tories were not going to hold a flag up, saying we're to blame for everyone's hardship, so all they would do is say "it will be better in the EU", but it didn't explain why.

Yes and despite all the excuses a lot of that leave vote was to do with Jonny foreigner even for Labour voters.

 

[HolgateCorner]

So when the press lie about Starmer do we remove him from the party?

And then the next leader and so on..?

You know this is ridiculous.

Starmer has backed himself into a corner (not for the first time) and is flailing about making the Labour party less and less appealing to the people he needs to vote for it.

The floating voters won't help if the core support disappears.

I have a view that Labour leaders should stand down if they do not win an election for the very reasons you state. It’s hard for Labour because the right wing media is stacked against them although that might matter less in future as the old newspapers die out with their readers.

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

Or does he give them more ammunition?

"Mr Starmer you've made the decision not to allow Mr Corbyn to stand please can you say why?"
Followed by
"So why were you campaigning for him to be Prime Minister in 2019? How bad is your judgement?"

I think you wildly overestimate the interest of the average voter!

For a great many JC wasn't fit for PM, and whilst nearly all struggle to articulate why, his association to Labour is damaging.

Very unfair, but true.[/QUOTE]

 

[Nano]

I'll bet you my house that Labour (under Starmer) will do more for the left and centre than the Tories, and will change things for the better, rather than making or allowing things to get worse.

David Cameron would do as well but he's still a Tory. I bet my house and yours that Labour under Starmer oversees an increase in the gap between rich and poor while he is in office.

 

[r00fie1]

Their is no "centre" in politics.
Its a concept manufactured by wealthy oligarchs, powerful vested interests and those who benefit from it.
It`s an invention - and any discourse around politics using the "centre" as an anchor, in effect, reflects and maintains those vested interests.
Effectively, ["centre"] politics provides a safe perimitter in which the discourse can be controlled by those in power, including those abroad.
A gold-fish bowl.

 

[1finny]

I have a view that Labour leaders should stand down if they do not win an election for the very reasons you state. It’s hard for Labour because the right wing media is stacked against them although that might matter less in future as the old newspapers die out with their readers.

Hit the nail on the head for me.
We can try and articulate the reasons for success and failure in an election based on policy, integrity, personality et al.

In the end money talks, and those with financial might will find a way of persuading enough people that their ‘pick’ is right for them.
They control all media - not just traditional print.

 

[1finny]

What's this got to do with Brexit?

I just had a memory of this: his supporters are the most tedious people who stake their entire political identity on topping brexit whilst supporting Starmer when he backs the hardest brexit possoble

https://twitter.com/x/status/1564972365381083137

Nothing like a bit of balance.
This is the equivalent of putting up mad Nads as evidence that Johnson is just the best leader ever ever

 

[SuperStu]

I am not comparing JC's integrity credentials to Starmer's integrity credentials.

well, yes, you were.

If you hold fundamental beliefs (CND for instance) and decide that leading a party that endorses Trident is more important than your beliefs - I think it’s fair to question someone’s integrity.
If it was me - I would have resigned.

After all - Starmer is...

 

[r00fie1]

Owen Jones is just a nodding dog and a hypocrite.

 

[SuperStu]

I think you wildly overestimate the interest of the average voter!

For a great many JC wasn't fit for PM, and whilst nearly all struggle to articulate why, his association to Labour is damaging.

Very unfair, but true.

Not sure what you mean by this. I didn't say anything here or there about the interest of "the average voter" did I? Whoever that's supposed to mean.

 

[Redwurzel]

Starmer is certainly moving the Labour Party to the Right.

Getting rid of a long serving MP that wants more equality in UK society.
Staying neutral about strikes where employers are offering 3% pay increases in return for productivity gains and redundancies, in an enviroment of 10% inflation.
Giving TV speeches with a Union Jack hanging behind him.
Not interested in returning the UK to the Single Market.
Appearing not interested in levelling up the different UK regions.

 

[Redwurzel]

I think you wildly overestimate the interest of the average voter!

For a great many JC wasn't fit for PM, and whilst nearly all struggle to articulate why, his association to Labour is damaging.

Very unfair, but true.

[/QUOTE]

Jonny

Across the UK I don't think that was true, possibly in seats like Redcar it was true.

The evidence was that JC got 41% of the National Vote in 2017 which for Labour since 2005 is a high vote.

Wasn't the 2019 vote, a bit of a second Refendum vote?

 

[borolad259]

Starmer is like Blair without the effectiveness, or the Alistair Campbell.

 

[r00fie1]

 

[Laughing]

These threads go round in circles and nothing new is ever discussed. I could have summarised the main points at post #2 and not missed one.

 

[Andy_W]

David Cameron would do as well but he's still a Tory. I bet my house and yours that Labour under Starmer oversees an increase in the gap between rich and poor while he is in office.

Nobody could turn that around, it would take many terms. It's a big ship pointing in the wrong direction which is going to take time to turn around, as the country have been voting for full steam ahead (to the poor house) for 13 years. There's only so much you can do, with having our right-wing media, and a lot of the population sat right of centre, it's **** that it's this way, but that's the way it is. You have to accept that these people exist, and you should spend more time trying to turn them, than fighting those who are on your side who are being realistic.

Also, we've got ~10% inflation, and inflation hurts the poor, more than the rich, so that is hurdle number one, nothing gets fixed without fixing that.

You largely already need wealth to accumulate more wealth, it's always been this way and it's not a simple thing to fix, not when the rich have the power, and control over the media. The poor will never control the media, not in our lifetimes. People with spare cash can get a 8-10% return per year, which compounds, very easily. The poor are borrowing on -10% car loans and -20% credit cards etc, that's a ~20-30% difference per year, looking at it in basic terms. Sure, it may be possible to get people from -10% loans, to break even, although I'm not sure how without massive national debt, but the rich will still be making 10% per year on top, so the gap still gets wider.

The gap would get bigger if a Tory got in, just like how it's got bigger in the last 13 years when Labour were not in control.

What did Corbyn do to reduce the gap, or stop it from getting much bigger? If he (and Labour members) had realised what it had taken to get back in power, then the gap would be narrower.

We don't live in an ideal world, and it's the opposite of ideal in the UK, so we can't vote to expect to get ideal, it's not possible.

 

[Andy_W]

Yes and despite all the excuses a lot of that leave vote was to do with Jonny foreigner even for Labour voters.

100%, their hate is taking money out of their back pocket, and putting it directly into the hands of the rich, who then use that money to stir up more hate campaigns. It's a horrible feedback loop, but the people susceptible to it should decrease, but it will be slow.

 

[Andy_W]

Their is no "centre" in politics.
Its a concept manufactured by wealthy oligarchs, powerful vested interests and those who benefit from it.
It`s an invention - and any discourse around politics using the "centre" as an anchor, in effect, reflects and maintains those vested interests.
Effectively, ["centre"] politics provides a safe perimitter in which the discourse can be controlled by those in power, including those abroad.
A gold-fish bowl.

Of course there is, you can balance out anything on the political spectrum. To get to the exact centre is extremely difficult mind, but if you look at the centre as range, then a lot of people sit in there.

I mean more about where the centre sits with regards to where the centre of voters is, and the centre of voters sits closer to the tory side, than the Labour side, hence why they get in 2/3rds of the time. There is no way to make those people not exist, and unfortunately, you need some of them on your side to get some of what you want, or you get none of what you want.

The population should move left over time, but that will be a slow process.

 

[Andy_W]

Starmer is certainly moving the Labour Party to the Right.

Getting rid of a long serving MP that wants more equality in UK society.
Staying neutral about strikes where employers are offering 3% pay increases in return for productivity gains and redundancies, in an enviroment of 10% inflation.
Giving TV speeches with a Union Jack hanging behind him.
Not interested in returning the UK to the Single Market.
Appearing not interested in levelling up the different UK regions.

The population moved right, as Labour and the Tories (those who wanted remain) didn't do enough from 2015-2016 to stop leave from winning. This added a lot of fuel to a major fire which people didn't acknowledge existed.

You have to go and get those people back, to some degree, and change their line of thinking. Largely, if you just ignore they're there, then you lose, and you get no positive change until you win. The more you lose by, the worse it gets, the more you win by, the better you can do.

The MP replacing him will want more equality than the tory MP on the other side, and his party might win this time, so he can actually do something about it.

Neutral is the only play on strikes, not everyone works in the public sector, yet everyone pays for it. Strikes can rile up a lot of those who can't strike, especially those who don't understand what's caused it or blame the wrong thing for it.
You can be on the side of the strikers by not going against them (as the Tories are).
What happens if there are strikes when Labour are in power, do the MP's go on the picket line and strike against themselves? It's not possible to pay the public sector in line with current inflation, due to national debt, financing that, and then paying the private sector in line with inflation also. Then what happens if we go into deflation, will people be ok with getting an actual pay cut?
Sure, pay should have matched inflation for most of 2010-2020, but allowing the Tories in wrecks this, and puts people along way behind in the race.

He would want to return to the SM, or pay for SMA, but it's a political hot potato/ suicide vest, which you surely realise.

Nowhere get's "levelled up" whilst the whole UK is being screwed, the worse-off areas have a better chance when the Tories are not in overall power. Shouting at the tories from an opposition bench does absolutely zero for those in worse off areas, even those with a Labour MP, as their hands get tied, which we're a prime example of in the North East.