My niece, her friends, along with my other younger relations, all vote - mostly Labour, or LibDem. She's 23.
As usual, a generalisation is, generally speaking, not a good idea.
That's a win for the Tories then.
How so?
The non-Tory vote is divided. Not the Tory vote. Which has won every election since 2015. And 5 years before. With a little help from the... treacherous bourgeois Lib-Dems.
My niece, her friends, along with my other younger relations, all vote - mostly Labour, or LibDem. She's 23.
As usual, a generalisation is, generally speaking, not a good idea.
That's a win for the Tories then.
No. As more millennials get to the age where they will regularly vote (the oldest millennials are in their 40s) they are not voting Cons and have no intention of voting Cons in the future. The Cons are doing nothing for them. They are giving them a reason to vote Con. The issues that are important to them are not generally important to Cons. So no the Cons are nit the natural party of power.
No. As their youthful idealism rapidly evaporates, they'll vote Tory. As is entirely natural.
No. As their youthful idealism rapidly evaporates, they'll vote Tory. As is entirely natural.
This is frequently stated as a truism but there's no evidence of it happening, possibly because most folk of my generation are a long way from achieving the personal prosperity that can lead to voting tory. That and my generation overwhelmingly find tory bigotry to be repulsive.
No. As their youthful idealism rapidly evaporates, they'll vote Tory. As is entirely natural.
This is frequently stated as a truism but there's no evidence of it happening, possibly because most folk of my generation are a long way from achieving the personal prosperity that can lead to voting tory. That and my generation overwhelmingly find tory bigotry to be repulsive.
Yep that is what is happening. It is very difficult to get on the property ladder, environmental issues are not very important to the Cons despite what they, and several others. The research done shows that things are changing and as @arethosemyfeet says bigoted attitudes are putting them off voting Con.
Though often stated that as people get older their politics move to the right, that's certainly not always the case - in my case, at university I was LibDem and over the last 30y I've shifted to the left, joined a union and I'm now active in the "anti-wealth, anti-Britain, anti-monarchy, eco-zealot, Marxist" party commonly known as the Scottish Green Party.
I think there's a stronger case for arguing that younger people tend to be more idealistic, as we get older we tend to get less involved in protests and the like and often start to bring a bit of realism into our voting decisions - both in the "who has a chance of being elected?" sense, but also thinking more about whether policies can be funded. That probably benefits all of the major parties, smaller (especially single issue) parties tend to be much more appealing to the idealists, larger parties almost have to have worked out a broad platform of policies with at least an outline of how these could be implemented.
but also thinking more about whether policies can be funded
With the caveat that it is unlikely that their understanding of economics has improved over that time, unless they made an effort to study it separately. It may even have deteriorated since they were at school.
but also thinking more about whether policies can be funded
With the caveat that it is unlikely that their understanding of economics has improved over that time, unless they made an effort to study it separately. It may even have deteriorated since they were at school.
Given that most people don't learn any economics at school the idea that their knowledge could have deteriorated is certainly troubling.
True. But, usually that assessment isn't something an individual makes - there's a tendency to accept (with or without critical thought) others views, which is why the Tories support in the media is so key to them holding onto the reigns of power.
It's thinking more about it than an idealists view of "we need to do this" without thought of practicalities. The very act of deciding there are practical issues to be considered (how to pay for it, impact on other policies etc) is a move from the "youthful idealism" - not that idealists, young or otherwise, don't think of practicalities but they do tend to think less about them.
It's thinking more about it than an idealists view of "we need to do this" without thought of practicalities. The very act of deciding there are practical issues to be considered
In the absence of actual understanding this is much more likely to lead to a form of confirmation bias (e.g people only ever trot out the 'household budget' line to argue against spending)
Instead of moving from Left to Right, I find that my politics has moved from Idealism to disillusionment as I have come to realise that politicians have very little power to change things because the hands on the steering wheel belong to multinationals etc.
It's thinking more about it than an idealists view of "we need to do this" without thought of practicalities. The very act of deciding there are practical issues to be considered
In the absence of actual understanding this is much more likely to lead to a form of confirmation bias (e.g people only ever trot out the 'household budget' line to argue against spending)
That is, of course, quite possible. But, it's still part of moving from idealism to something more considered ... even if the process is one that falls down logical holes into bias. And, without a level playing field there is a tendency to fall to the right, because that's the way the field slopes in most countries (because the field is set up by those who benefit from right-wing politics - maybe that's part of the disillusionment @Alan29 mentioned).
It's thinking more about it than an idealists view of "we need to do this" without thought of practicalities. The very act of deciding there are practical issues to be considered
In the absence of actual understanding this is much more likely to lead to a form of confirmation bias (e.g people only ever trot out the 'household budget' line to argue against spending)
That is, of course, quite possible. But, it's still part of moving from idealism to something more considered
How is it considered if people are mostly going down the path of least resistance by parroting what they see in the media ? That's just reaction against idealism.
Though often stated that as people get older their politics move to the right, that's certainly not always the case - in my case, at university I was LibDem and over the last 30y I've shifted to the left, joined a union and I'm now active in the "anti-wealth, anti-Britain, anti-monarchy, eco-zealot, Marxist" party commonly known as the Scottish Green Party.
I think there's a stronger case for arguing that younger people tend to be more idealistic, as we get older we tend to get less involved in protests and the like and often start to bring a bit of realism into our voting decisions - both in the "who has a chance of being elected?" sense, but also thinking more about whether policies can be funded. That probably benefits all of the major parties, smaller (especially single issue) parties tend to be much more appealing to the idealists, larger parties almost have to have worked out a broad platform of policies with at least an outline of how these could be implemented.
I've moved significantly more to the left than I was. The vast majority of my fellow students have moved way way to the right even those who once professed Labour or Socialist views.
Mind you it really was quite concerning back then listening to those from comfortable homes espousing left wing causes but decrying manual workers and having no clue at all (or any willingness to engage) with working class life. A bit like Kier and Rachel really - policies are one thing but they are proving they don't care about people.
I've lurched nearly 360 degrees right to left. It's only Genghis Khan that separates me from myself. I joined the Labour Party to vote for Jeremy. He made the 'left' central, core and electable. He mishandled the antisemitism claims is all. He is the only party leader bar none who approached land reform. Until a charismatic leader arises to rewild politics starting with single, land tax, choose your toilet side.
Somewhat amused by the new (New) Labour MP in Selby claiming they've got loads of people who never voted Labour before. He got fewer votes than the Labour candidate in 2017 so I suspect tories staying at home had a bigger impact.
Good performance from the Greens in Selby and excellent in Somerton and Frome. Also pleasing to see Laurence Fox lose his deposit in Uxbridge.
I've lurched nearly 360 degrees right to left. It's only Genghis Khan that separates me from myself. I joined the Labour Party to vote for Jeremy. He made the 'left' central, core and electable. He mishandled the antisemitism claims is all. He is the only party leader bar none who approached land reform. Until a charismatic leader arises to rewild politics starting with single, land tax, choose your toilet side.
360 degrees implies goes right round in a circle and finishing where you started? Is that what you mean?
The Conservatives have held Uxbridge & South Ruislip with a near 500 majority.
Laurence Fox beat the LibDems.
Yes, Lib Dems got only 526 votes. But add up all the small parties including UKIP, Climate Party, Let London Live, Independents etc etc and you get 1,885 votes
Tragic!
If the argument is that ULEZ penalises those who live in the zone (and, thus, pay the daily fee every day that they use a non-exempt car) then that argument applies to the current ULEZ introduced by Johnson as much as the expansion later this year. Because the current ULEZ includes a lot of residential areas. Costs to residents within a ULEZ are a valid argument against ULEZs, but not a valid argument against introducing or expanding a ULEZ.
OK when I lived I Acton what I said was being discussed. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.
As mentioned the ULEZ was started by Boris. As I gout out last night. Khan wanted to roll it out slowly but Boris when PM threatened to withdraw funding for things if khan didn’t roll it out quickly, by now in fact. So the Cons started the ULEZ and forced its roll out. So effectively it is a Con thing not a Lab thing
The Tories are naturals for doing something and saddling the blame elsewhere (cref tuition fees, Europe, etc..).
Yes, if Labour win the election they will immediately get blamed for small boats, in fact, they probably already are by the dingbats.
The Conservatives have held Uxbridge & South Ruislip with a near 500 majority.
Laurence Fox beat the LibDems.
Yes, Lib Dems got only 526 votes. But add up all the small parties including UKIP, Climate Party, Let London Live, Independents etc etc and you get 1,885 votes
Tragic!
And small votes for Labour and Lib Dems can indicate tactical voting. I notice the Tory chairman was scoffing at Labour's small vote in Frome, but Curtice (poll expert) commented this was bad news for Tories.
If the argument is that ULEZ penalises those who live in the zone (and, thus, pay the daily fee every day that they use a non-exempt car) then that argument applies to the current ULEZ introduced by Johnson as much as the expansion later this year. Because the current ULEZ includes a lot of residential areas. Costs to residents within a ULEZ are a valid argument against ULEZs, but not a valid argument against introducing or expanding a ULEZ.
It's a matter of density, surely? The suburbs within the Circular roads had higher pollution and congestion and better public transport. I used to cycle from Dulwich to Cricklewood and back every workday regardless. And there's summat not right there. If ULEZ resident cost is an argument against, that is an argument against introduction or expansion.
There has been an exodus of people from Labour. Starmer’s popularity rating is low. He seems to be playing the I’m not Tory game. Whilst being Tory and following their lead.
YouGuv polling currently show that Starmer is more untrustworthy than trustworthy. I am on my phone and I can’t keep the Ship open and create a link from the site at the same time. From what I can tell from commenters it is because he keeps changing his mind. He called out the two child benefit limit as cruel, but won’t change it. He has gone back in a lot of things he said (most reagent on jobs) people are unsure where he stands
There has been an exodus of people from Labour. Starmer’s popularity rating is low. He seems to be playing the I’m not Tory game. Whilst being Tory and following their lead.
Here we go. The old 'he's not on the left of the Labour Party so he must be a Tory' schtick.
That's not to let Starmer off the hook. I don't think he's particularly impressive but then I don't find the often reductionist approach that characterises some aspects of Labour politics that impressive either.
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that there's a lot more nuance within the Labour movement than this but posts like this don't foster that impression.
I think it's one thing to say, 'I wish Starmer was more left-wing,' or 'I have my doubts about Starmer's socialist credentials.'
Fine. A legitimate concern if one is coming from the left of the Labour Party.
It's quite another to claim he's a 'Tory.'
It'd be like saying, 'Pope Francis is a Protestant' when clearly he isn't.
It'd be a bit of a jump from saying, 'I wish Pope Francis would adhere more closely to traditional Catholic teaching as I understand it,' to 'Pope Francis isn't a Catholic at all.'
Alright, I'm being pedantic and I recognise there's a degree of hyperbole in @Hugal's claim that Starmer is 'being Tory'.
I can, of course see the point he's making. Some of Starmer's positions align more closely with Conservative policies than one might wish or expect. Interestingly, though, a Labour friend who is far from being on the right of the Party surprised me by expressing agreement with Starmer on the particular issue Hugal cites.
Does that mean that my friend is 'being Tory' too?
Or is only a very narrow interpretation of what it means to be Labour permitted these days?
Interestingly, though, a Labour friend who is far from being on the right of the Party surprised me by expressing agreement with Starmer on the particular issue Hugal cites.
Does that mean that my friend is 'being Tory' too?
That tends to turn on exactly which stance he was agreeing with.
At what point - either leftwards or rightwards - does someone topple out of Labour-ness into something else?
On the left, it's when you're no longer willing to engage in the democratic process and thus seek revolutionary solutions. On the right it's when you embrace performative cruelty as a valid form of public policy.
If you define Labourness as how the party originated then once you hit centre you out of Labourness.
If you look at Starmer’s approval ratings
they are not high in and of themselves. He appears not to be trusted by many people across the political spectrum. Saying one thing and pulling back from it on occasion is acceptable. Doing it all the time makes you look untrustworthy. You can’t roundly condemn a Con policy then say you are going to keep it.
He has moved the party very much to the centre. By my own definition he is not Labourish.
But people have always said these things about Labour, I'm old enough to remember Wilson and Callaghan being castigated for being right wing. I'm amazed people still see Labour as in any way on the left, although at local level they can be.
Or simply less left-wing than one might wish them to be?
A lot of people have a few issues where they instinct rather than via thinking through the fundamentals. I'd expect a professional politician to be more consistent.
In any case it's definitely not a 'left wing policy' in sense. In this case it's one that even moderate Tories disagree with (Freedman was one of Gove's advisors), and the actual amount spent a relatively tiny percentage of state spending. It was axed relatively recently and under UC, so possible to reverse at no extra administration cost.
In the case of Starmer it's of a piece with all his other reversals.
I'm not out to either attack or defend Starmer. I will, of course, agree on the unsettling flip-floppiness of his approach.
We've had this discussion before and I know it cuts both ways - from both the right and left wings of the Labour Party - but even as a non-Labour Party member (but a 'critical friend' as it were) I worry about the internecine strife that seems to be rife within the Party and which weakens its effectiveness and electability it seems to me.
Yes, we can blame the right-wing media and everything else but the only people who seem to benefit from Labour Party infighting are the Conservatives.
That doesn't mean Starmer's weather vane revolutions (as in revolving not in the political revolutionary sense) should pass unchallenged of course.
I'm seeing signs of a Conservative resurgence where I am and wonder whether a reversal in Labour's poor fortunes in my part of the world has reached a high water mark.
The local Labourites have worked hard to gain traction. I can see that dissipating if the Party continues to fight amongst itself.
Yes, we can blame the right-wing media and everything else but the only people who seem to benefit from Labour Party infighting are the Conservatives.
It depends on whether the goal is just to get ones team to win an election or actually push for political change, and the latter is going to be best done by holding people accountable and using leverage while one still has it.
I'm not out to either attack or defend Starmer. I will, of course, agree on the unsettling flip-floppiness of his approach.
We've had this discussion before and I know it cuts both ways - from both the right and left wings of the Labour Party - but even as a non-Labour Party member (but a 'critical friend' as it were) I worry about the internecine strife that seems to be rife within the Party and which weakens its effectiveness and electability it seems to me.
Yes, we can blame the right-wing media and everything else but the only people who seem to benefit from Labour Party infighting are the Conservatives.
That doesn't mean Starmer's weather vane revolutions (as in revolving not in the political revolutionary sense) should pass unchallenged of course.
I'm seeing signs of a Conservative resurgence where I am and wonder whether a reversal in Labour's poor fortunes in my part of the world has reached a high water mark.
The local Labourites have worked hard to gain traction. I can see that dissipating if the Party continues to fight amongst itself.
Thing is, Starmer is entirely to blame for the current "infighting". If he's worried about the damage it's doing all he has to do is... stop.
I'm afraid we do seem to be in a 'get my team elected at all costs' situation.
As I have remarked before, to win under the corrupt and outdated FPTP system you just need the largest minority - assuming the votes are spread in a way that helps you. (It is possible, in theory, to have some eccentric outcomes such as gaining the most votes and finishing second = Labour 1951, for example.)
Once you just want to win, all that matters is getting that minority, and you don't really care how it is made up. If you can attract a few fascist, racist bigots that's a help.
Cynical? Moi? Yes, cynical and despairing at the state of my beloved country, which has been ruined by 'populists' and abominable media tycoons who call themselves 'patriotic' while being careful to avoid UK tax.
I'm not out to either attack or defend Starmer. I will, of course, agree on the unsettling flip-floppiness of his approach.
We've had this discussion before and I know it cuts both ways - from both the right and left wings of the Labour Party - but even as a non-Labour Party member (but a 'critical friend' as it were) I worry about the internecine strife that seems to be rife within the Party and which weakens its effectiveness and electability it seems to me.
Yes, we can blame the right-wing media and everything else but the only people who seem to benefit from Labour Party infighting are the Conservatives.
That doesn't mean Starmer's weather vane revolutions (as in revolving not in the political revolutionary sense) should pass unchallenged of course.
I'm seeing signs of a Conservative resurgence where I am and wonder whether a reversal in Labour's poor fortunes in my part of the world has reached a high water mark.
The local Labourites have worked hard to gain traction. I can see that dissipating if the Party continues to fight amongst itself.
Thing is, Starmer is entirely to blame for the current "infighting". If he's worried about the damage it's doing all he has to do is... stop.
Generally speaking, in my limited 12 year experience of active political involvement, there are two sides to any internal party spat.
I've seen them occur within the Conservatives (as an outsider of course) and they certainly ain't pretty there.
I've seen them happen (repeatedly) within Labour and their spats often seem rather bewildering and arcane to an outsider. I've seen them happen, as an insider, within the Lib Dems where such things tend to be polite but still leave scars.
But what do I know?
This current turbulence must all be Starmer's fault. How could anyone possibly think otherwise?
I understand the charges of electioneering but my Labour pal who - to my surprise - supports Starmer on this one 🤔 tells me that it's not an issue of diluting a stance in order to gain votes.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
Rather, he sees it as an issue of fiscal responsibility. Which probably topples him over into Tory territory as far as you guys are concerned.
I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm baffled by Starmer's stance on this one.
I hope it can be resolved. Otherwise we face the very real prospect of another Conservative Government in 2024.
Other than expressing our disappointment with Starmer, what exactly do you think the left of Labour has done to justify the bothsidesism?
The idea that the 2 child cap is about "fiscal responsibility" is nonsense. The cost is small in the grand scheme of things and will pay for itself anyway with improved outcomes for children, reduced crime, less burden on the NHS and so on. It's deliberate cruelty masquerading as toughness and prudence. It's to satisfy (in the crudest sense of the term) Daily Mail readers who get off on being nasty to people they consider "lesser".
I didn't say anything about the left of the Labour Party being to 'blame' for the current spat.
The general point I was making was that by and large it takes two to tango and in my experience there are generally two (or more 😉) facets to any internal party political wrangle.
In this instance, yes, I would say Starmer is out of synch with the broad trajectory of his own Party. Which is why I expressed surprise about a Labour friend's support for Starmer over this particular issue on fiscal grounds.
You'd have to take that up with him rather than me as that's his view, not mine.
I'm not defending nor commending it as a viewpoint, simply saying that it's a view that a friend with strong Labour Party credentials espouses and defends. It's one that surprises me, I must admit but I certainly wouldn't have him down as a 'Daily Mail reader who gets off on being nasty to people he considers "lesser"'.
Perhaps I should introduce you and you could have it out with him.
I think you'd find his working class Irish roots Labour heritage pretty authentic however 'Daily Mail' you consider his position to be. If you knew him and his background and some of his struggles in life you wouldn't be so quick to play the 'Daily Mail' card.
I ain't saying I agree with him.
I am saying though, that a certain dualistic binaryness isn't healthy for the Labour Party.
Anyhow, on a micro level I've got issues with members of my own Party to resolve. I can't share those publicly right now but it may be the end of the road for my own involvement there.
I hasten to add that the 'issues' I refer to aren't ideological and are purely local and personal. They don't relate to the issues we are discussing in relation to Starmer.
It probably goes without saying that the Lib Dem position on this one is the opposite of Starmer's and the Labour pal I mentioned.
His position surprised me but I still wouldn't dismiss him as a cruel and callous Daily Mail reader. Misguided, yes. The sort of person who 'gets off' on other people's misfortunes - no, most certainly not.
Comments
The non-Tory vote is divided. Not the Tory vote. Which has won every election since 2015. And 5 years before. With a little help from the... treacherous bourgeois Lib-Dems.
No. As their youthful idealism rapidly evaporates, they'll vote Tory. As is entirely natural.
This is frequently stated as a truism but there's no evidence of it happening, possibly because most folk of my generation are a long way from achieving the personal prosperity that can lead to voting tory. That and my generation overwhelmingly find tory bigotry to be repulsive.
Yep that is what is happening. It is very difficult to get on the property ladder, environmental issues are not very important to the Cons despite what they, and several others. The research done shows that things are changing and as @arethosemyfeet says bigoted attitudes are putting them off voting Con.
I think there's a stronger case for arguing that younger people tend to be more idealistic, as we get older we tend to get less involved in protests and the like and often start to bring a bit of realism into our voting decisions - both in the "who has a chance of being elected?" sense, but also thinking more about whether policies can be funded. That probably benefits all of the major parties, smaller (especially single issue) parties tend to be much more appealing to the idealists, larger parties almost have to have worked out a broad platform of policies with at least an outline of how these could be implemented.
With the caveat that it is unlikely that their understanding of economics has improved over that time, unless they made an effort to study it separately. It may even have deteriorated since they were at school.
Given that most people don't learn any economics at school the idea that their knowledge could have deteriorated is certainly troubling.
But that's not 'thinking more about' that's 'uncritically repeating a set of cliches'.
In the absence of actual understanding this is much more likely to lead to a form of confirmation bias (e.g people only ever trot out the 'household budget' line to argue against spending)
How is it considered if people are mostly going down the path of least resistance by parroting what they see in the media ? That's just reaction against idealism.
I've moved significantly more to the left than I was. The vast majority of my fellow students have moved way way to the right even those who once professed Labour or Socialist views.
Mind you it really was quite concerning back then listening to those from comfortable homes espousing left wing causes but decrying manual workers and having no clue at all (or any willingness to engage) with working class life. A bit like Kier and Rachel really - policies are one thing but they are proving they don't care about people.
Laurence Fox beat the LibDems.
A gift from Siddiq. Labour.
As long as they only ever form a coalition with Labour. Which would have prevented Brexit of course.
Good performance from the Greens in Selby and excellent in Somerton and Frome. Also pleasing to see Laurence Fox lose his deposit in Uxbridge.
360 degrees implies goes right round in a circle and finishing where you started? Is that what you mean?
Yes, Lib Dems got only 526 votes. But add up all the small parties including UKIP, Climate Party, Let London Live, Independents etc etc and you get 1,885 votes
Tragic!
Definitely, we are the motorists' friend, bash trans people, anything else we can cobble together.
Meanwhile, there's some wry amusement to be had in watching the tories trying to put a positive spin on the results...
Yes, if Labour win the election they will immediately get blamed for small boats, in fact, they probably already are by the dingbats.
The discussion of ULEZ was rather taking on a life of its own, so I have split it off into a new thread.
Feel free to continue here with other issues related to Keir Starmer.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
And small votes for Labour and Lib Dems can indicate tactical voting. I notice the Tory chairman was scoffing at Labour's small vote in Frome, but Curtice (poll expert) commented this was bad news for Tories.
It's a matter of density, surely? The suburbs within the Circular roads had higher pollution and congestion and better public transport. I used to cycle from Dulwich to Cricklewood and back every workday regardless. And there's summat not right there. If ULEZ resident cost is an argument against, that is an argument against introduction or expansion.
Here we go. The old 'he's not on the left of the Labour Party so he must be a Tory' schtick.
That's not to let Starmer off the hook. I don't think he's particularly impressive but then I don't find the often reductionist approach that characterises some aspects of Labour politics that impressive either.
Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that there's a lot more nuance within the Labour movement than this but posts like this don't foster that impression.
Sorry. Neither wash with me.
Fine. A legitimate concern if one is coming from the left of the Labour Party.
It's quite another to claim he's a 'Tory.'
It'd be like saying, 'Pope Francis is a Protestant' when clearly he isn't.
It'd be a bit of a jump from saying, 'I wish Pope Francis would adhere more closely to traditional Catholic teaching as I understand it,' to 'Pope Francis isn't a Catholic at all.'
Alright, I'm being pedantic and I recognise there's a degree of hyperbole in @Hugal's claim that Starmer is 'being Tory'.
I can, of course see the point he's making. Some of Starmer's positions align more closely with Conservative policies than one might wish or expect. Interestingly, though, a Labour friend who is far from being on the right of the Party surprised me by expressing agreement with Starmer on the particular issue Hugal cites.
Does that mean that my friend is 'being Tory' too?
Or is only a very narrow interpretation of what it means to be Labour permitted these days?
That tends to turn on exactly which stance he was agreeing with.
I thought Hugal had alluded to it upthread but it must have been on a different thread. Whoops!
I must admit I was surprised at both Starmer and my friend for doing so.
Does that makes them 'Tory' in all but name?
Or simply less left-wing than one might wish them to be?
At what point - either leftwards or rightwards - does someone topple out of Labour-ness into something else?
On the left, it's when you're no longer willing to engage in the democratic process and thus seek revolutionary solutions. On the right it's when you embrace performative cruelty as a valid form of public policy.
If you look at Starmer’s approval ratings
they are not high in and of themselves. He appears not to be trusted by many people across the political spectrum. Saying one thing and pulling back from it on occasion is acceptable. Doing it all the time makes you look untrustworthy. You can’t roundly condemn a Con policy then say you are going to keep it.
He has moved the party very much to the centre. By my own definition he is not Labourish.
A lot of people have a few issues where they instinct rather than via thinking through the fundamentals. I'd expect a professional politician to be more consistent.
In any case it's definitely not a 'left wing policy' in sense. In this case it's one that even moderate Tories disagree with (Freedman was one of Gove's advisors), and the actual amount spent a relatively tiny percentage of state spending. It was axed relatively recently and under UC, so possible to reverse at no extra administration cost.
In the case of Starmer it's of a piece with all his other reversals.
I'm not out to either attack or defend Starmer. I will, of course, agree on the unsettling flip-floppiness of his approach.
We've had this discussion before and I know it cuts both ways - from both the right and left wings of the Labour Party - but even as a non-Labour Party member (but a 'critical friend' as it were) I worry about the internecine strife that seems to be rife within the Party and which weakens its effectiveness and electability it seems to me.
Yes, we can blame the right-wing media and everything else but the only people who seem to benefit from Labour Party infighting are the Conservatives.
That doesn't mean Starmer's weather vane revolutions (as in revolving not in the political revolutionary sense) should pass unchallenged of course.
I'm seeing signs of a Conservative resurgence where I am and wonder whether a reversal in Labour's poor fortunes in my part of the world has reached a high water mark.
The local Labourites have worked hard to gain traction. I can see that dissipating if the Party continues to fight amongst itself.
It depends on whether the goal is just to get ones team to win an election or actually push for political change, and the latter is going to be best done by holding people accountable and using leverage while one still has it.
Thing is, Starmer is entirely to blame for the current "infighting". If he's worried about the damage it's doing all he has to do is... stop.
As I have remarked before, to win under the corrupt and outdated FPTP system you just need the largest minority - assuming the votes are spread in a way that helps you. (It is possible, in theory, to have some eccentric outcomes such as gaining the most votes and finishing second = Labour 1951, for example.)
Once you just want to win, all that matters is getting that minority, and you don't really care how it is made up. If you can attract a few fascist, racist bigots that's a help.
Cynical? Moi? Yes, cynical and despairing at the state of my beloved country, which has been ruined by 'populists' and abominable media tycoons who call themselves 'patriotic' while being careful to avoid UK tax.
Generally speaking, in my limited 12 year experience of active political involvement, there are two sides to any internal party spat.
I've seen them occur within the Conservatives (as an outsider of course) and they certainly ain't pretty there.
I've seen them happen (repeatedly) within Labour and their spats often seem rather bewildering and arcane to an outsider. I've seen them happen, as an insider, within the Lib Dems where such things tend to be polite but still leave scars.
But what do I know?
This current turbulence must all be Starmer's fault. How could anyone possibly think otherwise?
I understand the charges of electioneering but my Labour pal who - to my surprise - supports Starmer on this one 🤔 tells me that it's not an issue of diluting a stance in order to gain votes.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
Rather, he sees it as an issue of fiscal responsibility. Which probably topples him over into Tory territory as far as you guys are concerned.
I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm baffled by Starmer's stance on this one.
I hope it can be resolved. Otherwise we face the very real prospect of another Conservative Government in 2024.
The idea that the 2 child cap is about "fiscal responsibility" is nonsense. The cost is small in the grand scheme of things and will pay for itself anyway with improved outcomes for children, reduced crime, less burden on the NHS and so on. It's deliberate cruelty masquerading as toughness and prudence. It's to satisfy (in the crudest sense of the term) Daily Mail readers who get off on being nasty to people they consider "lesser".
The general point I was making was that by and large it takes two to tango and in my experience there are generally two (or more 😉) facets to any internal party political wrangle.
In this instance, yes, I would say Starmer is out of synch with the broad trajectory of his own Party. Which is why I expressed surprise about a Labour friend's support for Starmer over this particular issue on fiscal grounds.
You'd have to take that up with him rather than me as that's his view, not mine.
I'm not defending nor commending it as a viewpoint, simply saying that it's a view that a friend with strong Labour Party credentials espouses and defends. It's one that surprises me, I must admit but I certainly wouldn't have him down as a 'Daily Mail reader who gets off on being nasty to people he considers "lesser"'.
Perhaps I should introduce you and you could have it out with him.
I think you'd find his working class Irish roots Labour heritage pretty authentic however 'Daily Mail' you consider his position to be. If you knew him and his background and some of his struggles in life you wouldn't be so quick to play the 'Daily Mail' card.
I ain't saying I agree with him.
I am saying though, that a certain dualistic binaryness isn't healthy for the Labour Party.
Anyhow, on a micro level I've got issues with members of my own Party to resolve. I can't share those publicly right now but it may be the end of the road for my own involvement there.
It probably goes without saying that the Lib Dem position on this one is the opposite of Starmer's and the Labour pal I mentioned.
His position surprised me but I still wouldn't dismiss him as a cruel and callous Daily Mail reader. Misguided, yes. The sort of person who 'gets off' on other people's misfortunes - no, most certainly not.