At least Blair had the gumption to be a bit slick with the media to get them onside.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:56 pmPrediction: people who mocked Corbyn supporters (and putting-up-with-ers) for lamenting the role of the mainstream media in undermining the Labour leader will suddenly now notice it happening to their spick-and-span media-friendly guy.
Starmer
- discovolante
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4204
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm
Re: Starmer
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
Re: Starmer
Yeah, my problem with Corbyn, Milne et al, was that they didn’t appear to have any kind of strategy to get the media on side.
Blair and Campbell were masters of that.
Blair and Campbell were masters of that.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Starmer
Yes, the Sun, Mail etc will always be hostile to the leader of the Labour Party. The point is to make that difficult.discovolante wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:16 pmAt least Blair had the gumption to be a bit slick with the media to get them onside.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:56 pmPrediction: people who mocked Corbyn supporters (and putting-up-with-ers) for lamenting the role of the mainstream media in undermining the Labour leader will suddenly now notice it happening to their spick-and-span media-friendly guy.
Re: Starmer
Corbyn managed to mostly lose the Guardian. The f.cking Guardian for f.cking f.cks sake.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Starmer
I thought the Sun backed Blair?Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:32 amYes, the Sun, Mail etc will always be hostile to the leader of the Labour Party. The point is to make that difficult.discovolante wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:16 pmAt least Blair had the gumption to be a bit slick with the media to get them onside.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:56 pmPrediction: people who mocked Corbyn supporters (and putting-up-with-ers) for lamenting the role of the mainstream media in undermining the Labour leader will suddenly now notice it happening to their spick-and-span media-friendly guy.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Starmer
I thought the Sun backed whoever it thought had the best chance of winning, even if only by a small margin.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:22 pmI thought the Sun backed Blair?Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:32 amYes, the Sun, Mail etc will always be hostile to the leader of the Labour Party. The point is to make that difficult.discovolante wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:16 pm
At least Blair had the gumption to be a bit slick with the media to get them onside.
Some people call me strange.
I prefer unconventional.
But I'm willing to compromise and accept eccentric.
I prefer unconventional.
But I'm willing to compromise and accept eccentric.
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: Starmer
Well TBF this is the same Guardian that hailed the election of Cameron's spiteful and incompetent Coalition as "the Liberal Moment" and wrote a hagiography for IDS when he announced his plan to starve the poor and disabled unless they stacked shelves for free. They continued to go out to bat for the Coalition's shameful actions right up to the next election while the Guardian's leader writer also served as Cameron's chief speech writer.
The Guardian is liberal not leftwing and those are not synonyms but only occassional fellow travellers.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Re: Starmer
Without the Fellow Travellers Labour can’t win a GE.
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: Starmer
Yeah but you can't express apparent incredulity that the Guardian failed to support a left wing candidate when within recent memory they enthusiastically chose to back an openly right wing government over such hard left Labour leaders as Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
You may as well express incredulity that Corbyn didn't bring the Daily Mail with him either.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Starmer
Having lived abroad for yonks, the 'centre' or Overton window in the UK does seem incredibly far shifted to the right. Any genuinely leftist candidate is going to have an uphill battle trying to drag the entire establishment - from political parties to mainstream media outlets to public conversation - with it.Little waster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:44 pmYeah but you can't express apparent incredulity that the Guardian failed to support a left wing candidate when within recent memory they enthusiastically chose to back an openly right wing government over such hard left Labour leaders as Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
You may as well express incredulity that Corbyn didn't bring the Daily Mail with him either.
It's important that it happens, though, so I think people need to be patient when it doesn't work out perfectly.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Starmer
Yes, you’re right.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:22 pmI thought the Sun backed Blair?Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:32 amYes, the Sun, Mail etc will always be hostile to the leader of the Labour Party. The point is to make that difficult.discovolante wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:16 pm
At least Blair had the gumption to be a bit slick with the media to get them onside.
The Mail, Telegraph, Express will always be hostile.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7317
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Starmer
Here’s Eric Hobsbawm in the late 70s writing about the decline of the British labour movement (which he said started 30 years before). http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/m ... bsbawm.pdfBird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:51 pmHaving lived abroad for yonks, the 'centre' or Overton window in the UK does seem incredibly far shifted to the right. Any genuinely leftist candidate is going to have an uphill battle trying to drag the entire establishment - from political parties to mainstream media outlets to public conversation - with it.Little waster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:44 pmYeah but you can't express apparent incredulity that the Guardian failed to support a left wing candidate when within recent memory they enthusiastically chose to back an openly right wing government over such hard left Labour leaders as Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
You may as well express incredulity that Corbyn didn't bring the Daily Mail with him either.
It's important that it happens, though, so I think people need to be patient when it doesn't work out perfectly.
I’m wondering, as of 2020 what would we add to what was at the time a prescient analysis?
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8428
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Starmer
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Starmer
Given this, it is important that leftwing candidates try and communicate to the public how they will benefit from leftwing policies, and try to get that across via the media wherever possible. Appointing a stalinist who praised the taliban as director of communications wasn't the way to go.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:51 pmHaving lived abroad for yonks, the 'centre' or Overton window in the UK does seem incredibly far shifted to the right. Any genuinely leftist candidate is going to have an uphill battle trying to drag the entire establishment - from political parties to mainstream media outlets to public conversation - with it.Little waster wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:44 pmYeah but you can't express apparent incredulity that the Guardian failed to support a left wing candidate when within recent memory they enthusiastically chose to back an openly right wing government over such hard left Labour leaders as Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
You may as well express incredulity that Corbyn didn't bring the Daily Mail with him either.
It's important that it happens, though, so I think people need to be patient when it doesn't work out perfectly.
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: Starmer
Yes, I'd like to see a lefty leader who had a chance of winning. Corbyn wasn't ever it. He looks like a morris dancer.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
Re: Starmer
Are you now accusing Morris Dancers of having undermined Labor?El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:50 pm... Corbyn wasn't ever it. He looks like a morris dancer.
Re: Starmer
Labor, maybe, but that's Australian politics.bmforre wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:03 pmAre you now accusing Morris Dancers of having undermined Labor?El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:50 pm... Corbyn wasn't ever it. He looks like a morris dancer.
Re: Starmer
Ah, Morris Dancers, MP for Moonee Ponds North and Minister for Ignoring Aboriginal Culture under the Whitlam government. Tosser
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: Starmer
Did alright this morning. Good speech.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: Starmer
There seem to be two sorts of Starmer-critical voices within Labour: Those who are still throwing their toys out of the pram because he isn't The Blessed St Jeremy, and those who think he's probably the right man for the job, but want to see more "oomph" in his attacks on the Tories. The latter group point to the fact that Labour and the Tories are only about level-pegging in the polls.
I think this is misguided. With a Tory majority of 80, Starmer has only one job, which is to focus on winning in 2024(*). That needs two things to happen. First, the current government has to lose support. Then, Labour has to pick it up. I think those are two very different processes. The first is already happening (a poll this week has approval of the government at its lowest since Johnson became PM), but the second will require a long process of rebuilding trust. Leave the fireworks to the Tories (in the form of the factory exploding) and present Labour as the sane alternative.
(*) For Labour to win a majority in 2024 would be an extraordinary achievement. A general election at which the electors replace a working overall majority (10+) of one party with a working overall majority of the other is a once-in-a-generation thing. 1970 and 1997 are the only examples I can think of since WW2.
I think this is misguided. With a Tory majority of 80, Starmer has only one job, which is to focus on winning in 2024(*). That needs two things to happen. First, the current government has to lose support. Then, Labour has to pick it up. I think those are two very different processes. The first is already happening (a poll this week has approval of the government at its lowest since Johnson became PM), but the second will require a long process of rebuilding trust. Leave the fireworks to the Tories (in the form of the factory exploding) and present Labour as the sane alternative.
(*) For Labour to win a majority in 2024 would be an extraordinary achievement. A general election at which the electors replace a working overall majority (10+) of one party with a working overall majority of the other is a once-in-a-generation thing. 1970 and 1997 are the only examples I can think of since WW2.
Something something hammer something something nail
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: Starmer
Even 1997 wasn't particularly strong - the Tories had lost their overall majority by the time of the election, and only had 324 seats.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
Re: Starmer
But the Party of Government has only changed 7 times since the war (counting the coalition as Tory, they could have been a minority Government instead). So that's something that only happens every ~10 years. And is it useful to look at the past? The political landscape is all kinds of wonky at the moment.sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:13 pm(*) For Labour to win a majority in 2024 would be an extraordinary achievement. A general election at which the electors replace a working overall majority (10+) of one party with a working overall majority of the other is a once-in-a-generation thing. 1970 and 1997 are the only examples I can think of since WW2.
Anyway, I am someone who thinks Starmer could be giving it a bit more oompf, but I do see the logic in him not doing that. Mostly I don't like the way it makes it seem that Johnson is getting away with it. On the polls, I'm not sure people move parties, but move to don't know and aren't normally counted in the headline result, so a drop in Tory support might not be noticed till closer to the election.
Everyone knows Labour need to win back the deindustrialised towns that went Tory, but I reckon that should be fairly easy, and Starmer seems to be taking the easiest route of making Blue Labour noises (as much as I don't like Blue Labour). However, I don't think he'll get a majority without winning back Scottish seats, which is the harder task*. Labour is inherently split on Scottish independence. Many of their natural supporters in Scotland want a 2nd referendum, but any positive noises from Labour in that direction will lose them support in England (remember the reaction when McDonnell said Labour would allow a 2nd referendum a while back). This has been a problem for ages now, and I don't think they are any closer to solving it, especially with the factional shenanigans going on in the Scottish party at the moment. It's a similar problem to what Labour had with Brexit, which also split their supporters, but it's older and at least Brexit seems to be coming to a conclusion, for better or worse**.
*Labour would have been in Government without Scotland in the past, but it definitely makes things easier.
**It's worse, definitely worse.
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: Starmer
Is it just me, or were there more by-elections back then? You hardly hear about them these days, but I remember even in the 1980s when Thatcher had a decent majority, people would get rather exercised by them.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:41 pmEven 1997 wasn't particularly strong - the Tories had lost their overall majority by the time of the election, and only had 324 seats.
Something something hammer something something nail
Re: Starmer
I read it rather than watched it, and it seemed good on paper. I like that he's realised Labour don't need to preach to the converted.
On Labour & Scotland, the potential for Scottish Independence is the bigger problem than winning back their seats. A hung parliament with Labour as largest party would probably end up as a Lab/SNP coalition or confidence and supply deal, either of which put the SNP seats in the helpful* column for Labour (unless anyone thinks the Nats could cut a deal with the Tories?). But independence wipes these seats out and further entrenches the Tory majority in England.
On Labour & Scotland, the potential for Scottish Independence is the bigger problem than winning back their seats. A hung parliament with Labour as largest party would probably end up as a Lab/SNP coalition or confidence and supply deal, either of which put the SNP seats in the helpful* column for Labour (unless anyone thinks the Nats could cut a deal with the Tories?). But independence wipes these seats out and further entrenches the Tory majority in England.