How much of that is due to the biased media that spouts lies to people?
It's hard to say. The right wing media is very good at finding the buttons to press and framing issues in such a way as to get a significant chunk of the population foaming at the mouth. I don't think I'm exaggerating much to say that the sort of rhetoric blasted from the right wing papers daily has only historically been matched on the left by the sort of rhetoric Pravda deployed against the Kulaks. On the other hand those buttons are there to press; some people have an instinctive suspicion and resentment of the "other" that is easily played upon. I suspect the most effective thing Starmer could do is complete the unfinished reform of the press, but even if he were so inclined he daren't say so publicly. The great unanswered question of 2017 is whether a more skilled left-wing leader with a united party would have won, and whether those things would be enough in the face of a less calamitous campaign than May's.
How much of that is due to the biased media that spouts lies to people?
I think the lies in themselves are not that important; far more pernicious is the framing they promote around certain issues; a good example being that of the Government as a Household, where opposing opinions are not so much not heard but cast as 'obviously' wrong in some sense.
Meanwhile, in other news, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran has come in for some stick for promoting tactical voting.
Lib Dem HQ don't like that. Myself and one or two other Lib Dems locally have raised eyebrows for making similar suggestions. And yes, I know the arguments for and against.
What relevance does that have on a thread about Keir Starmer?
Only in the broad sense of the premise that any opposition however diverse must be a better proposition than the Conservatives. The argument then descends into accusations that anyone other than the Labour left aren't really an opposition but simply different flavours of 'Tory.'
It all sounds very binary to me.
But there we go.
But nobody has said that tactical voting is wrong so not sure of the relevance. I will be voting Lib Dem where I live to get the Tories out as I live in a Tory-LD marginal, and tbh I'm glad Layla Moran is being open and honest about tactical voting which we all know is how many people vote.
Yes. What annoys me about some in my own party is that they are very pleased when Labour voters vote tactically for us but they won't countenance returning the favour.
I'm talking about a minority but it still rankles.
Anyhow, this thread is about Labour not opposition parties more generally...
If tactical voting is endorsed by party leaders then it's a small step from there to more formal "we'll stand down here to give you a clear run if you stand down there for us" pacts. That's a big step for two parties to take. Starmer, for a start, isn't going to play that game. A national party should be standing in every contest they can.
IIRC, some form of tactical voting was tacitly encouraged (or perhaps overlooked is a better word) by Labour and the LibDems in one or two of the Parliamentary by-elections of recent years, though I don't think it was *officially* approved.
@Gamma Gamaliel not trying to put you on the spot but you haven't responded to my comment re people like me being collateral damage for Starmer. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Well, quite - but hopes and expectations that, once in power as PM, he would reverse all the abominable, hateful policies, and laws, inflicted on us by the tories, seem to be receding...
Thanks Pomona, I hadn't noticed that comment. I've looked back up thread and seen it now.
My thoughts? Well, yes, I can understand your concern and why you've questioned me on what looks like a pro-Starmer line. An easy answer would be to claim that the Lib Dems have a better track record on all this ... but that would be glib even if it were true. I've certainly come across Lib Dems who are nowhere near as liberal as might be expected.
Starmer aside, I think I would be making similar comments about Labour Party unity whichever leader was at the helm, but certainly take on board the responses here from Chrisstiles and Arethosemyfeet that it is always the Labour left that is expected to adjust and never the right or centre.
As for the particular issue you've raised it's likely to lead to an Epiphanies thread. I met someone this last week whose husband has resigned from the Labour Party over what he sees as an 'obsession' over gender and identity issues at his local branch level.
I have never met the fella nor do I know what is or isn't going on in his particular branch.
But, yes, given what you've said I can understand your concerns about Starmer.
I hadn't noticed any honeymoon period for Starmer.
There was a period in 2020, after he had been elected leader, where there were a number of friendly profiles in the media; the theme mostly being 'the Adults are back in charge' of which a typical example was the write up in GQ :
"Starmer can chair a meeting. He can draft a minute. He can lead a team. He can hold a press conference. He can stay calm in an interview. Those skills look simple, but they’re not, and they’re vital.'
Of course, the first couple of years were overshadowed by Covid, and by 2022 press articles complaining about his approach had started to appear - sometimes Covid related, sometimes tied to the various bills on which he whipped to abstain (often being wrong footed by events such as the Sarah Everard protests).
By late 2022 they had been joined by articles where unknown senior members of his party expressed misgivings about his approach and lack of vision and suggesting a change might be needed. In that sense what gave him a second wind was the Johnson melt-down followed by the the Truss premiership.
@Gamma Gamaliel the thing is that it's not just trans issues. It's a bunch of things. How do you think immigrants and the children of immigrants are feeling about Starmer right now? What about nurses on strike? It just seems unbelievable to me that seeing these people as disposable could be characterised as anything like what Labour is supposed to be about.
I'm not a Lib Dem in terms of my own politics and I'm aware that they can be a diverse group, but to give credit where it's due Ed Davey is impressing me on his commitment to both human rights and the environment (and I realise that the LDs don't perhaps have much choice in terms of Shadow Cabinet but Tim Farron has a Shadow Cabinet position despite a more conservative view on sexuality for eg). I've said elsewhere that I don't understand why Labour doesn't use the environmental issues as an easy vote winner. Pretty much everyone objects to poo in waterways! It's then also easy to work in things like controlling greedy energy companies.
Not sure what it's been like in terms of water companies where you live (do you use Severn Trent around there?) but certainly around here here there is a great deal of anger with water companies, and I'm predicting big wins for the LDs in the Southeast and Thames Valley. Particularly ones with chalk streams in the area (my constituency is one of them and it is a genuine Hot Topic here).
Also on a slightly selfish note, I do wish that Andy Burnham would return to national politics.
Also, where the fuck are the English & Welsh Greens and what are they doing? I don't understand why they don't get in line with the other Green Parties as in eg the Scottish Greens. Right now they're just a more right-wing Lib Dems, so they may as well...just be Labour?
I've said elsewhere that I don't understand why Labour doesn't use the environmental issues as an easy vote winner. Pretty much everyone objects to poo in waterways! It's then also easy to work in things like controlling greedy energy companies.
One thing to bear in mind is that the Right of the Party were largely parachuted in by central office during the Blair-era, as such they were picked for their ability to be loyal junior ministers and hold a fairly unswerving policy line. Insofar as they have any animating principles it is to have a post political career that looks like the Blairs/Clintons.
Without serious pressure they are simply not going to deviate much from the late-Blairite script that the job of the government is to support markets, they don't have much of an appetite for government intervention, believe that its old-hat and irrelevant in policy terms.
Also, where the fuck are the English & Welsh Greens and what are they doing? I don't understand why they don't get in line with the other Green Parties as in eg the Scottish Greens. Right now they're just a more right-wing Lib Dems, so they may as well...just be Labour?
I've no idea. There doesn't seem to have been much of a reaction to the decision of the Scottish Greens, reluctantly taken, to sever formal ties with GPEW. It sometimes feels like they've caught the Brexit Bug and feel they can get on with things on their own without needing to concern themselves with cooperation with Greens in the rest of Europe. It's most bizarre.
And, it's not just on the issue of human rights. We look south and wonder how GPEW can justify having members in the House of Lords. Did they accept invitations to attend the coronation next week? Will anyone in GPEW march (as some in the SGP did yesterday) with a banner declaring "Environmentalism without Class Struggle is merely gardening"? Is it only SGP MSPs who are questioning the UK government on the receipt of a £20,000 donation to the Conservative Party from wine and spirits trade group days after ditching including glass bottles in the proposed bottle return scheme, or are the GPEW on that too?
One would hope that Keir would have a sufficiently good grasp of the law that he'd avoid proposing legislation that would break the law.
That will depend on the degree of gammon-courting he intends to engage in. Also, Blair had a decent grasp of the law but still chose to ignore it when he was (in his view) right. Starmer has demonstrated a nasty authoritarian streak.
One would hope that Keir would have a sufficiently good grasp of the law that he'd avoid proposing legislation that would break the law.
That will depend on the degree of gammon-courting he intends to engage in. Also, Blair had a decent grasp of the law but still chose to ignore it when he was (in his view) right. Starmer has demonstrated a nasty authoritarian streak.
I hope the ghost of Jean-Charles de Menezes gives him many sleepless nights.
Though we have courts to rule on whether the government is acting legally, it's surely far better if those proposals are passed by qualified civil servants first. Court actions take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money, and government must surely be better if it's not constantly fighting in court when that could have been avoided by listening to qualified experts at the start.
Though we have courts to rule on whether the government is acting legally, it's surely far better if those proposals are passed by qualified civil servants first. Court actions take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money, and government must surely be better if it's not constantly fighting in court when that could have been avoided by listening to qualified experts at the start.
Although I agree with you it's vital that the civil servants are totally neutral and are not influenced by their own political preferences.
@Pomona, yes, Starmer's stance on many issues isn't what one would expect from a Labour leader. Does that win me a Stating The Bleeding Obvious Award?
Sir Ed has gone up in my estimation recently. He seems to have shrugged off the long dark shadow of The Coalition to some extent. It'll always be the Mark of Cain though.
The Green issue is an interesting one. They've been jostling with the Lib Dems to become the 'third party' as it were, but hereabouts they seem to be siphoning off a few former Labourites, but I wouldn't say there's a great deal of momentum to that. Hey, see what I did there?
Someone said to me the other day that The Greens are the 'new Reds' but I'm not convinced.
There is, of course, no evidence that civil servants are anything other than entirely professional, and as such in their actions and advice totally neutral and uninfluenced by any political views they may hold in private (civil servants, of course, are not permitted to express political views in public - eg: by joining a political party - but everyone holds private views that they can express at the ballot box).
@Pomona, yes, Starmer's stance on many issues isn't what one would expect from a Labour leader. Does that win me a Stating The Bleeding Obvious Award?
Sir Ed has gone up in my estimation recently. He seems to have shrugged off the long dark shadow of The Coalition to some extent. It'll always be the Mark of Cain though.
The Green issue is an interesting one. They've been jostling with the Lib Dems to become the 'third party' as it were, but hereabouts they seem to be siphoning off a few former Labourites, but I wouldn't say there's a great deal of momentum to that. Hey, see what I did there?
Someone said to me the other day that The Greens are the 'new Reds' but I'm not convinced.
Watermelons have been around for at least a couple of decades in the UK.
@Pomona, yes, Starmer's stance on many issues isn't what one would expect from a Labour leader. Does that win me a Stating The Bleeding Obvious Award?
Sir Ed has gone up in my estimation recently. He seems to have shrugged off the long dark shadow of The Coalition to some extent. It'll always be the Mark of Cain though.
The Green issue is an interesting one. They've been jostling with the Lib Dems to become the 'third party' as it were, but hereabouts they seem to be siphoning off a few former Labourites, but I wouldn't say there's a great deal of momentum to that. Hey, see what I did there?
Someone said to me the other day that The Greens are the 'new Reds' but I'm not convinced.
Watermelons have been around for at least a couple of decades in the UK.
"Watermelon" was a word used to describe the Scottish Greens a few years back (an Edinburgh badge maker did well, as the entire Green MSP group and staff came in next day with watermelon badges). Has that ever been levelled at the Greens in England? It may just be that I'm not seeing reporting from England here, but how many Green councillors or members of either House in Westminster have been joining strikers on picket lines? How many would associate being Green with Class Struggle? Does the GPEW policy include bringing utilities and public transport into public ownership? (and if the answers to any of those questions is 'yes' do members of GPEW make that known?).
18 months (ish) back, SGP were described as "anti wealth, anti Britain, anti monarchy, eco-zealot Marxists" (and that was promptly put on T-shirts, Fair Trade fabric and sustainably printed by a local cooperative business of course, worn with pride by members). Would that label fit, and be owned by, GPEW?
Now, I need to get to the wine bar to help plot the revolution ....
Certainly when I was in Lancaster 20 years ago and it was (comparatively) a Green stronghold the party was the home of those on the left disillusioned with Blair's Labour. I think the first time I encountered "watermelon" it was aimed at the likes of George Monbiot.
Of course the Scottish Greens have their own issues, being particularly myopic on rural affairs.
(civil servants, of course, are not permitted to express political views in public - eg: by joining a political party - but everyone holds private views that they can express at the ballot box).
Not strictly true. They can be members, but once they reach a certain rank they’re forbidden from canvassing or standing for public office.
ETA: They aren’t allowed to be members of any extremist party such as The Communist Party or the BNP. I’m not sure whether UKIP would count though.
It doesn't change the fact that, especially senior, civil servants are professionals who would never let their political opinions colour advice they give Ministers.
@Gamma Gamaliel I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
I'm also interested in what people local to you think about the local water company and pollution issues. Is it an issue people care about around you?
(civil servants, of course, are not permitted to express political views in public - eg: by joining a political party - but everyone holds private views that they can express at the ballot box).
Not strictly true. They can be members, but once they reach a certain rank they’re forbidden from canvassing or standing for public office.
If it's anything like local government it's not even a matter of rank, it's as soon as you might be advising elected members on decisions they have to make and that can happen at pretty low levels.
@Pomona, concern about water pollution and the dumping of sewage is a national one of course. It's something the Lib Dems have raised locally. It's an issue around here as everywhere else but we haven't had as many high profile spillages as elsewhere.
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Scottish Greens are part of the Scottish government and the Greens in England and Wales is not part of the Westminster government or governing the Welsh Assembly at all. How's that for electability?
Is the Greens success in the Scottish Parliament largely due to the Additional Member Voting System? Also wondering if the fact that the Greens offer a way of voting for independence that is not the SNP plays a part. Asking as someone living well south of the border who is not well up on Scottish politics
Is the Greens success in the Scottish Parliament largely due to the Additional Member Voting System? Also wondering if the fact that the Greens offer a way of voting for independence that is not the SNP plays a part. Asking as someone living well south of the border who is not well up on Scottish politics
Both those things are true, I would say, but the fact remains that the comparative performances of the Green parties in different nations of the UK do not support an "electability" argument for the GP E&W being a bit shitty.
Greens currently hold 447 council seats on 141 councils in England and Wales - that's under a voting system that doesn't favour smaller parties. And, three London Assembly members under an additional member system.
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Scottish Greens are part of the Scottish government and the Greens in England and Wales is not part of the Westminster government or governing the Welsh Assembly at all. How's that for electability?
Don't forget that Greens in England do have one Member of Parliament - Dr Caroline Lucas - although AFAIK she has no major role in government:
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Scottish Greens are part of the Scottish government and the Greens in England and Wales is not part of the Westminster government or governing the Welsh Assembly at all. How's that for electability?
Don't forget that Greens in England do have one Member of Parliament - Dr Caroline Lucas - although AFAIK she has no major role in government:
Is the Greens success in the Scottish Parliament largely due to the Additional Member Voting System? Also wondering if the fact that the Greens offer a way of voting for independence that is not the SNP plays a part. Asking as someone living well south of the border who is not well up on Scottish politics
Both those things are true, I would say, but the fact remains that the comparative performances of the Green parties in different nations of the UK do not support an "electability" argument for the GP E&W being a bit shitty.
Plus internationalism is a key part of Green Party policies generally, so it seems strange for the GP E&W to water that down. Though to be fair, they're at least better than the US Green Party which is a huge disappointment.
I can't see why the Greens in England and Wales have separated themselves so far from the other European Greens and the Scottish Greens.
Because they seek electability?
The Scottish Greens are part of the Scottish government and the Greens in England and Wales is not part of the Westminster government or governing the Welsh Assembly at all. How's that for electability?
Don't forget that Greens in England do have one Member of Parliament - Dr Caroline Lucas - although AFAIK she has no major role in government:
Comments
It's hard to say. The right wing media is very good at finding the buttons to press and framing issues in such a way as to get a significant chunk of the population foaming at the mouth. I don't think I'm exaggerating much to say that the sort of rhetoric blasted from the right wing papers daily has only historically been matched on the left by the sort of rhetoric Pravda deployed against the Kulaks. On the other hand those buttons are there to press; some people have an instinctive suspicion and resentment of the "other" that is easily played upon. I suspect the most effective thing Starmer could do is complete the unfinished reform of the press, but even if he were so inclined he daren't say so publicly. The great unanswered question of 2017 is whether a more skilled left-wing leader with a united party would have won, and whether those things would be enough in the face of a less calamitous campaign than May's.
I think the lies in themselves are not that important; far more pernicious is the framing they promote around certain issues; a good example being that of the Government as a Household, where opposing opinions are not so much not heard but cast as 'obviously' wrong in some sense.
Yes. What annoys me about some in my own party is that they are very pleased when Labour voters vote tactically for us but they won't countenance returning the favour.
I'm talking about a minority but it still rankles.
Anyhow, this thread is about Labour not opposition parties more generally...
My memory may be at fault, of course.
My thoughts? Well, yes, I can understand your concern and why you've questioned me on what looks like a pro-Starmer line. An easy answer would be to claim that the Lib Dems have a better track record on all this ... but that would be glib even if it were true. I've certainly come across Lib Dems who are nowhere near as liberal as might be expected.
Starmer aside, I think I would be making similar comments about Labour Party unity whichever leader was at the helm, but certainly take on board the responses here from Chrisstiles and Arethosemyfeet that it is always the Labour left that is expected to adjust and never the right or centre.
As for the particular issue you've raised it's likely to lead to an Epiphanies thread. I met someone this last week whose husband has resigned from the Labour Party over what he sees as an 'obsession' over gender and identity issues at his local branch level.
I have never met the fella nor do I know what is or isn't going on in his particular branch.
But, yes, given what you've said I can understand your concerns about Starmer.
There was a period in 2020, after he had been elected leader, where there were a number of friendly profiles in the media; the theme mostly being 'the Adults are back in charge' of which a typical example was the write up in GQ :
"Starmer can chair a meeting. He can draft a minute. He can lead a team. He can hold a press conference. He can stay calm in an interview. Those skills look simple, but they’re not, and they’re vital.'
Of course, the first couple of years were overshadowed by Covid, and by 2022 press articles complaining about his approach had started to appear - sometimes Covid related, sometimes tied to the various bills on which he whipped to abstain (often being wrong footed by events such as the Sarah Everard protests).
By late 2022 they had been joined by articles where unknown senior members of his party expressed misgivings about his approach and lack of vision and suggesting a change might be needed. In that sense what gave him a second wind was the Johnson melt-down followed by the the Truss premiership.
The problem is that both him and Reeves often come across as very wooden, frequently resort to management speak and come across as the worst middle managers you've encountered: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fu6et_VWAAEhihl?format=jpg&name=large
I'm not sure who on his team thought that would reflect well on him.
I'm not a Lib Dem in terms of my own politics and I'm aware that they can be a diverse group, but to give credit where it's due Ed Davey is impressing me on his commitment to both human rights and the environment (and I realise that the LDs don't perhaps have much choice in terms of Shadow Cabinet but Tim Farron has a Shadow Cabinet position despite a more conservative view on sexuality for eg). I've said elsewhere that I don't understand why Labour doesn't use the environmental issues as an easy vote winner. Pretty much everyone objects to poo in waterways! It's then also easy to work in things like controlling greedy energy companies.
Not sure what it's been like in terms of water companies where you live (do you use Severn Trent around there?) but certainly around here here there is a great deal of anger with water companies, and I'm predicting big wins for the LDs in the Southeast and Thames Valley. Particularly ones with chalk streams in the area (my constituency is one of them and it is a genuine Hot Topic here).
Also, where the fuck are the English & Welsh Greens and what are they doing? I don't understand why they don't get in line with the other Green Parties as in eg the Scottish Greens. Right now they're just a more right-wing Lib Dems, so they may as well...just be Labour?
One thing to bear in mind is that the Right of the Party were largely parachuted in by central office during the Blair-era, as such they were picked for their ability to be loyal junior ministers and hold a fairly unswerving policy line. Insofar as they have any animating principles it is to have a post political career that looks like the Blairs/Clintons.
Without serious pressure they are simply not going to deviate much from the late-Blairite script that the job of the government is to support markets, they don't have much of an appetite for government intervention, believe that its old-hat and irrelevant in policy terms.
And, it's not just on the issue of human rights. We look south and wonder how GPEW can justify having members in the House of Lords. Did they accept invitations to attend the coronation next week? Will anyone in GPEW march (as some in the SGP did yesterday) with a banner declaring "Environmentalism without Class Struggle is merely gardening"? Is it only SGP MSPs who are questioning the UK government on the receipt of a £20,000 donation to the Conservative Party from wine and spirits trade group days after ditching including glass bottles in the proposed bottle return scheme, or are the GPEW on that too?
That will depend on whether those policies are legal or not, as it does for every government.
Given that Starmer apparently is unaware of Gillick competency, I wouldn't be so sure. So that's reassuring.
That will depend on the degree of gammon-courting he intends to engage in. Also, Blair had a decent grasp of the law but still chose to ignore it when he was (in his view) right. Starmer has demonstrated a nasty authoritarian streak.
I hope the ghost of Jean-Charles de Menezes gives him many sleepless nights.
Why would it. He did nothing wrong.
Sir Ed has gone up in my estimation recently. He seems to have shrugged off the long dark shadow of The Coalition to some extent. It'll always be the Mark of Cain though.
The Green issue is an interesting one. They've been jostling with the Lib Dems to become the 'third party' as it were, but hereabouts they seem to be siphoning off a few former Labourites, but I wouldn't say there's a great deal of momentum to that. Hey, see what I did there?
Someone said to me the other day that The Greens are the 'new Reds' but I'm not convinced.
Watermelons have been around for at least a couple of decades in the UK.
Watermelons, mangoes and bike Tories.
18 months (ish) back, SGP were described as "anti wealth, anti Britain, anti monarchy, eco-zealot Marxists" (and that was promptly put on T-shirts, Fair Trade fabric and sustainably printed by a local cooperative business of course, worn with pride by members). Would that label fit, and be owned by, GPEW?
Now, I need to get to the wine bar to help plot the revolution ....
Of course the Scottish Greens have their own issues, being particularly myopic on rural affairs.
Not strictly true. They can be members, but once they reach a certain rank they’re forbidden from canvassing or standing for public office.
ETA: They aren’t allowed to be members of any extremist party such as The Communist Party or the BNP. I’m not sure whether UKIP would count though.
It doesn't change the fact that, especially senior, civil servants are professionals who would never let their political opinions colour advice they give Ministers.
I'm also interested in what people local to you think about the local water company and pollution issues. Is it an issue people care about around you?
If it's anything like local government it's not even a matter of rank, it's as soon as you might be advising elected members on decisions they have to make and that can happen at pretty low levels.
Because they seek electability?
The Greens in Scotland are part of the government, so that's clearly not the issue.
The Scottish Greens are part of the Scottish government and the Greens in England and Wales is not part of the Westminster government or governing the Welsh Assembly at all. How's that for electability?
Both those things are true, I would say, but the fact remains that the comparative performances of the Green parties in different nations of the UK do not support an "electability" argument for the GP E&W being a bit shitty.
Don't forget that Greens in England do have one Member of Parliament - Dr Caroline Lucas - although AFAIK she has no major role in government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Lucas
One day, gods willing (should they exist), there will be more than one Green MP at Westminster.
I'm aware, but they still don't form part of the government.
Plus internationalism is a key part of Green Party policies generally, so it seems strange for the GP E&W to water that down. Though to be fair, they're at least better than the US Green Party which is a huge disappointment.
Yes, fair point. Pity, but there it is - maybe, one day, there will be Green ministers in England...
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-approval-rating
What gets you elected in England is not the same as what gets you elected in Scotland (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter).
But the Greens in England and Wales still only have one MP, so why does their current strategy make them more electable?
I wonder if Marvin is being a bit ironic here? What seems to make politicians electable in England is a hatred of foreigners, wokerati etc. etc.