Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[Kite159]

Will step 5 basically involve roping in the likes of Carlisle Security to provide private street security services with people who couldn't become police officers targeting the 'easy' targets for 'anti social behaviour' leaving that group of feral youths dashing around on illegal off-road motorbikes as it's too much like hard work?

And have they worked out the cost of ending those 'wasteful contracts' might be more money than expected depending on how the contract is worded, some of those big companies will have lawyers working overtime to avoid loss of income.

 

[edwin_m]

I suggest that the problem here is that Labour needs to flip most or all of the "Red Wall" seats to win. Each such seat will depend on those voters who are undecided or prepared to change their choice, and I would expect Labour to have done some specific polling to find out what issues this group care about. Unfortunately, under our electoral system, this relatively small group decides the outcome - everyone else either already has a fixed preference or lives in a constituency that is already "safe" for one party or other.

This group is likely to have been put off by Corbyn, hence the suppression of any suggestion of radicalism. They are likely to be socially conservative to some degree, hence the wrapping in the flag. They were likely to be pro-Brexit in 2019, some may now be having second thoughts but they probably still remain more pro-Brexit than the national average. While most people now believe Brexit was a mistake, public opinion doesn't support major re-engagement with the EU, and anything beyond the small degree of closer alignment they are proposing isn't really possible within the next Parliament anyway. So say as little as possible about Brexit because doing so only has downsides.

 

[nw1]

I suggest that the problem here is that Labour needs to flip most or all of the "Red Wall" seats to win.

I think they will do that. I think they will also 'flip' places like Bournemouth, Worthing, Milton Keynes, Swindon etc.

The interesting question is, that if all Tory gains in 2019 flipped back, AND they took a few southern large towns: let's say both Bournemouth seats, the more left-leaning Worthing seat, both Milton Keynes seats, both Swindon seats and a few extra London seats - would that be enough?
Or do they also need the rather more Tory-leaning places that were only Labour in the Blair years, and in some cases went Tory in 2005; the Thurrocks, the Nuneatons, the Ketterings, the Medways, the Dovers, etc?

If they don't need the latter, arguably they can afford to be a little less socially-conservative.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I somehow suspect they do need all of the latter categories to being with a decent chance and while some of those areas I think could switch, there are others where they simply haven't got a chance now

 

[najaB]

How would tough spending rules helped us through Covid

Oh, that's way to easy. *cough*fast lane*cough*

 

[Thirteen]

I think they will do that. I think they will also 'flip' places like Bournemouth, Worthing, Milton Keynes, Swindon etc.

The interesting question is, that if all Tory gains in 2019 flipped back, AND they took a few southern large towns: let's say both Bournemouth seats, the more left-leaning Worthing seat, both Milton Keynes seats, both Swindon seats and a few extra London seats - would that be enough?
Or do they also need the rather more Tory-leaning places that were only Labour in the Blair years, and in some cases went Tory in 2005; the Thurrocks, the Nuneatons, the Ketterings, the Medways, the Dovers, etc?

If they don't need the latter, arguably they can afford to be a little less socially-conservative.

I suspect a lot of Tories losses will be to the Lib Dems like Esher, Sutton and Cheam, maybe Carshalton. Wimbledon I think may flip to Labour but could easily go to the Lib Dems.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Love him or hate him, Blair (the last Labour General Election 'winner') recognised that without power you can change NOTHING. I'm not suggesting he lied. He undertook to stick to Conservative budgets! The 'Delivery Unit' ensured delivery. Campbell and Mandelson were effective.
Brown was a better Chancellor than PM, lacking the PR skills of his predecessor.
Kinnock, with good support from those too close to him, got affected by hubris at the Sheffield rally, 'all right, ... ad infinitum.
Arguably the 'wrong Miliband' wrote his own 'Edstone- poorly advised, lacking perception.
Corbyn had attractive policies; sadly, IIRC, 'the media' picked on Shadow Chancellor McDonnell's 'slip' late in the campaign in supporting the worthy but unbudgeted claim of the Waspie women. On such matters do elections turn.
Starmer's caution is very understandable, based on evidence; his Shadow Chancellor, shadow cabinet and recent recruits are behind him and on-message.
Rayner is his Prescott, attracting fire and appealing to parts Starmer cannot reach.
No time for infighting now.

The trouble with being out of office for 13 years is that few of the Labour leadership has any experience of running a government department and delivering improvements to a budget.
To my mind Labour also lacks quality thinkers in tune with the leadership (ie a Mandelson figure).
I wouldn't want them to rely on old-time bruisers like Emily Thornberry to formulate policy.
Starmer and Reeves, and Streeting, can't do everything on their own.
Life will be very complicated if they don't get a workable majority in parliament.

 

[nw1]

I somehow suspect they do need all of the latter categories to being with a decent chance and while some of those areas I think could switch, there are others where they simply haven't got a chance now

What sort of locations would you say don't have a chance to flip Labour, incidentally?

I'd say the only places where Labour "don't have a chance" now are deeply rural constituencies, plus affluent Home Counties seats which might nonetheless be gained by the Lib Dems.

Everywhere else, given the Tories' unpopularity I think they have a chance.

It's just a question of whether gaining places like Thurrock is worth Labour surrendering some of their principles for. My own view is they could rely on the red wall plus the big towns of the kind I mentioned to become the largest party, certainly.

I suspect a lot of Tories losses will be to the Lib Dems like Esher, Sutton and Cheam, maybe Carshalton. Wimbledon I think may flip to Labour but could easily go to the Lib Dems.

I wonder if Wimbledon is the sort of place the Tories could come through the middle due to a split opposition vote?

If so, then one of Labour and Lib Dem really need to stand aside; in cases like this it is necessary to "play" the system.

 

[edwin_m]

My own view is they could rely on the red wall plus the big towns of the kind I mentioned to become the largest party, certainly.

I suggest the red wall is what is driving this - it's the area where enough voters switched Labour to Tory to flip large numbers of seats under Corbyn, and those Labour-Tory voters aren't going to be interested in policies that might be seen (fairly or unfairly) as Corbynite.

Yes it's entirely possible Labour will win a huge majority, and if it happens plenty will say "we told you so" and ask why they weren't more radical. But there's also the chance of something going wrong, in particular Reform UK coming to some sort of deal to pull out of Tory seats as the Brexit Party did last time. Labour is no doubt positioning for that to happen too, to attract any remaining centrist voters who are now thinking of voting Tory but might think again if they saw the party going even further right.

 

[Gloster]

Yes it's entirely possible Labour will win a huge majority, and if it happens plenty will say "we told you so" and ask why they weren't more radical. But there's also the chance of something going wrong, in particular Reform UK coming to some sort of deal to pull out of Tory seats as the Brexit Party did last time. Labour is no doubt positioning for that to happen too, to attract any remaining centrist voters who are now thinking of voting Tory but might think again if they saw the party going even further right.

I agree that the biggest threat to a Labour majority is a deal between the Conservatives and Reform UK. The Conservatives would sell their grannies to Reform if they thought it might get them another term, so grief knows what they would offer: withdrawal from the ECHR for a start, followed by most of the UN organisations, BBC to become the Tice mouthpiece, etc.

 

[nw1]

Incidentally, and this is supposed to be light-hearted: if you were the Labour leader what would your 6 priorities be?

Mine:

1. Fix the NHS and reverse the problems which have developed in the post-Covid years.
2. Ensure fair pay and conditions for all and listen seriously to the demands of those taking industrial action, offering them a reasonable compromise.
3. Fix public services, including but not limited to rail and bus services.
4. Crackdown on the 2020s "anti-wokery" trend, promote inclusivity and robustly fight blatant targeting of minorities. As part of this, bring an end to the hostile environment for immigrants and asylum seekers.
5. Restore good relations with the EU (before we get into this argument, I'm not suggesting attempting to rejoin, at least not yet. I'm just talking about restoring a good working relationship, with the EU being seen as a friendly entity rather than a hostile one).
6. Take a more objective and non-partisan view on the Middle East and demand, with sanctions against the Israeli government if deemed necessary, an end to violence directed towards Palestinians and anti-Arab rhetoric, while still robustly condemning terrorist organisations such as Hamas.

I'm probably out-of-step with your average 2020s Brit, but there you go..

Before you ask, I don't have the answer to "how?" for most of these - but these would be my starting points to work from, and then genuine experts could then figure out the "how".

 

[YorkRailFan]

Incidentally, and this is supposed to be light-hearted: if you were the Labour leader what would your 6 priorities be?

Mine:

1. Fix the NHS and reverse the problems which have developed in the post-Covid years.
2. Ensure fair pay and conditions for all and listen seriously to the demands of those taking industrial action, offering them a reasonable compromise.
3. Fix public services, including but not limited to rail and bus services.
4. Crackdown on the 2020s "anti-wokery" trend, promote inclusivity and robustly fight blatant targeting of minorities. As part of this, bring an end to the hostile environment for immigrants and asylum seekers.
5. Restore good relations with the EU (before we get into this argument, I'm not suggesting attempting to rejoin, at least not yet. I'm just talking about restoring a good working relationship, with the EU being seen as a friendly entity rather than a hostile one).
6. Take a more objective and non-partisan view on the Middle East and demand, with sanctions against the Israeli government if deemed necessary, an end to violence directed towards Palestinians and anti-Arab rhetoric, while still robustly condemning terrorist organisations such as Hamas.

I'm probably out-of-step with your average 2020s Brit, but there you go..

Before you ask, I don't have the answer to "how?" for most of these - but these would be my starting points to work from, and then genuine experts could then figure out the "how".

My plan would be:
1. Nationalise key public services such as rail, water, energy, bus, mail, telecoms, airports (not an exhaustive list)
2. Fund the NHS and Police and Fire services properly and benefits
3. Work on trade and migration pacts with the EU, with open trade and allowing migrants a safe way to enter the UK (not via dangerous boat crossings) even if they are illegal.
4. Invest in key infrastructure projects such as housing, HS2, green energy and more (not an exhaustive list)
5. Work on being inclusive to all people groups and prosecuting hate crimes
6. Position the UK as a negotiator on the global stage for peace, whether that be in the Middle East, Ukraine, Taiwan and more.

Like above, I don't have answers to how, these are just points I would put across to experts.

 

[najaB]

I'm probably out-of-step with your average 2020s Brit, but there you go.

You'd be surprised. That list is pretty close to what I (and most people I know) would come up with.

 

[HullRailMan]

You'd be surprised. That list is pretty close to what I (and most people I know) would come up with.

And probably a million miles away from most traditional working class Labour voters who do see high immigration as a problem, aren’t rabidly obsessed with Israel and reject many aspects of identity politics.

 

[najaB]

And probably a million miles away from most traditional working class Labour voters who do see high immigration as a problem, aren’t rabidly obsessed with Israel and reject many aspects of identity politics.

I don't see what any of the proposed list has to do with the level of immigration, it specifically states that we shouldn't be favouring either side in the Arab/Israeli conflict and promotes tolerance rather than making targets of any specific groups - most working class people are of the "live and let live" philosophy.

 

[The Ham]

I don't see what any of the proposed list has to do with the level of immigration, it specifically states that we shouldn't be favouring either side in the Arab/Israeli conflict and promotes tolerance rather than making targets of any specific groups - most working class people are of the "live and let live" philosophy.

Indeed, there's a big difference between ending the hostile environment for people from overseas and saying that there should be unlimited people coming here.

You could even have caps for certain visa types, but still be welcoming to those who come here using the visas issued.

As I've highlighted on the Tory thread, if we went to zero immigration by 2100 rather than there being 88 million people in this country (assuming business as usual) we'd have 45 million.

Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that we should be allowing people to come here at rates between none and the current rates - the discussion should be where in that range should we be aiming for?

 

[dosxuk]

The trouble with being out of office for 13 years is that few of the Labour leadership has any experience of running a government department and delivering improvements to a budget.
To my mind Labour also lacks quality thinkers in tune with the leadership (ie a Mandelson figure).
I wouldn't want them to rely on old-time bruisers like Emily Thornberry to formulate policy.
Starmer and Reeves, and Streeting, can't do everything on their own.
Life will be very complicated if they don't get a workable majority in parliament.

Sadly, most of this could be said about the incumbents too. They Tory front bench is very short of competent members who are/would be an asset to their country and the departments they head, and the whole party looks like it could descend into civil war at any moment.

I suggest the red wall is what is driving this - it's the area where enough voters switched Labour to Tory to flip large numbers of seats under Corbyn, and those Labour-Tory voters aren't going to be interested in policies that might be seen (fairly or unfairly) as Corbynite.

I don't think so many people will be put off by potential "Corbynite policies" - they were put off by the man himself.

 

[najaB]

I don't think so many people will be put off by potential "Corbynite policies" - they were put off by the man himself.

And likely in a lot of cases, by the media caricature of him.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think so many people will be put off by potential "Corbynite policies" - they were put off by the man himself.

Bit of both I suggest - a lot of Labour policies in 2019 gave the impression of being unfunded.

 

[Blindtraveler]

The policy list this time round also looks similarly sparse in the finance department but I'll grant them. Maybe a few more slightly realistic expectations, but I am quite alarmed at how many times they've spent the non-dom taxation money that is largely no longer going to be there anyway because that loophole has now been shut

 

[brad465]

These pledges are aimed at swing voters in swing seats. If you are not happy with them, there's a very good chance they are not aimed at you anyway, that's the nature of the beast that is FPTP. In any case they are not the only things Labour have said they plan to do in government.

The policy list this time round also looks similarly sparse in the finance department but I'll grant them. Maybe a few more slightly realistic expectations, but I am quite alarmed at how many times they've spent the non-dom taxation money that is largely no longer going to be there anyway because that loophole has now been shut

AIUI the loophole doesn't close until April 2025, the main differences are the Tories haven't closed it to the extent Labour have talked about closing it, and there are differences in how the two parties would use any money raised.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

These pledges are aimed at swing voters in swing seats. If you are not happy with them, there's a very good chance they are not aimed at you anyway, that's the nature of the beast that is FPTP. In any case they are not the only things Labour have said they plan to do in government.

While I totally agree with you about FPTP being awful, it's perhaps worth pointing out that, even if we had PR, parties would probably still be aiming at swing voters - because if you want to win, there's little point targeting those voters who have already firmly made up their minds. Parties would be thinking about swing voters everywhere, not just swing voters in swing seats, but I can't see that would make much difference in practice since they'd still be targeting people who have the same kinds of views. FPTP has many faults but I don't think you can blame FPTP for the tendency for parties to target specifically those voters who might change their minds.

 

[edwin_m]

While I totally agree with you about FPTP being awful, it's perhaps worth pointing out that, even if we had PR, parties would probably still be aiming at swing voters - because if you want to win, there's little point targeting those voters who have already firmly made up their minds. Parties would be thinking about swing voters everywhere, not just swing voters in swing seats, but I can't see that would make much difference in practice since they'd still be targeting people who have the same kinds of views. FPTP has many faults but I don't think you can blame FPTP for the tendency for parties to target specifically those voters who might change their minds.

With FPTP, instead of two big parties, there will be a larger number of smaller ones. Therefore, a party is more likely to be under attack from both sides, so it can't take its core vote for granted. The compromises are made when several of these parties try to form a coalition, and they have to find common ground but drop some of the things their partners disagree with.