Policy U-turns that the left interprets as surrender to a Blairite revanche are construed by the leader’s allies as rational choices by a man who wants to win an election, has looked at the evidence of how it can be done and will be ruthless in taking down obstacles in his path.
It is more we have a very biased Tory media. The UK’s media does not report the failings and lies of their Tory party: They absolutely jump on any chance to criticise Labour. If Labour does not do due diligence with the facts then they get hammered for it. A lot of the time the likes of the Mail and the Express tell outright lies. Media bias article here.
EDIT: Another article from open democracy here explaining UK media. 4 years old but still pertinent today.
This is definitely part of the equation. Lots of people were understandably confused/annyoed about Rachel Reeve’s recent promises about tax cuts but the point is that she got that interview into The Telegraph. The media strategy is at this point not so much to win over Tory voters as to reassure them that if they spoil their ballot, nothing ‘bad’ is going to happen.
A critic might describe that as Labour trying to win by default, to which the answer is: winning by default is still winning.
Winning and then doing almost nothing to fix the problems doesn’t really help the rest of us though.
What we’re banking on then is that they’re actually misleading everyone right now and are actually going to do quite at lot once in office. But the question is whether that’s actually likely or not…
Even if it was the case - it’s not exactly a symptom of a health democracy…
I don’t think they’re misleading anyone. I think the commitments are serious, as far as they go. Like any government, they’ll change strategy as events develop, but that’s a truism.
I also don’t think it’s true that they’re not going to do a lot in office or that they’re pretending that they won’t. Look at what they’re going to do on workers’ rights, for example, or housebuilding, or green energy. These are all big, serious commitments. They’re also quite clearly going to move closer to the EU on a lot of things (Europol is an example that came up today) and are not shy about that.
I also don’t think it’s true that they’re not going to do a lot in office.
I feel if you think this you’re in some kind of denial. They’ve rolled back on so much…
And the commitments (if that’s the right word) they do have are so wishy-washy and toothless. For example the housebuilding one is that they’ll let developers build on more green belt and increase housing targets, no talk of investment of any kind - I’m sorry that’s not a serious policy! That’s like homoeopathy for policies! Green energy is much the same now that they’ve postponed (i.e. canned) the £28 billion green investment plan.
I guess we’ll see on workers’ rights, but as said in the article you’ve linked, a lot of the unions are dissatisfied with labour on that front which isn’t really a good sign for a big, serious commitment.
They’ve changed plans because the circumstances have changed. And to some extent, they’ve changed message because the target audience has changed.
They haven’t canned the £28 bn. It was just a recognition that you can’t magic up a whole load of results just because the cash is available. That’s how you get disasters like unusable PPE, flammable clad ing or concrete that crumbles to dust.
Most unions back the proposals, as does the TUC. Sure, they want them to go further, but do you really think any group is going to go, ‘Yep, that’s everything we wanted. No further demands from us!’ It’s our job as trade unionists to demand more!
That’s how you get disasters like unusable PPE, flammable clading or concrete that crumbles to dust.
They were the result of not spending enough money, and going for the cheapest options available (then using them way beyond their intended lifespan in the case of RAAC), not overinvestment.
But I don’t want to draw out an argument, so let’s just agree to disagree. I hope you’re right though.
I don’t that’s true at all, I think that of the Tories and Labour because they clearly only have their own interest and those of the wealthier members of society in mind. The Greens on the other hand, I believe them because they are genuine, and have different goals, and don’t want a continuation of our broken, damaging system.
Look at the actual record of The Greens and you’ll see that’s not the case at all. They are just the NIMBY party. They oppose green development to win votes. They’re a single-issue party that opposes every effort to actually address their single issue. They could not be more useless.
Perhaps these things were true in the past but not in recent years. They’re the only socially progressive party we have.
I am talking about recent years. There’s a reason they pick up so many Tory and Lib Dem switchers, especially in local elections. It’s because they don’t threaten the status quo at all.
Was with you there until the Greens, while I also think they’re probably better than Labour and Conversistive atm they have much the same structural problems as any party. And more power and influence will likely exacerbate them imo. I think we have to somehow look beyond Westminister, and electoralism if we want to make a positive change in the country.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
That monumental disaffection, reported on the ground by Labour and Tory candidates alike, is resistant to the kind of visionary stump speeches that Starmer’s critics demand of him.
It is the craft of getting difficult things done without denying that there is a cost; managing trade-offs and competing interests without hunting scapegoats or vandalising institutions that uphold the rule of law.
Policy U-turns that the left interprets as surrender to a Blairite revanche are construed by the leader’s allies as rational choices by a man who wants to win an election, has looked at the evidence of how it can be done and will be ruthless in taking down obstacles in his path.
Speaking to a parliamentary committee in 2013, he explained how the likelihood of securing a conviction was paramount, trumping any public or political pressure to act in high-profile cases.
There is a lack of agility in Starmer’s method that could be punished by the relentless barrage of events that former prime ministers describe as the hardest part of the job, and the one for which they felt least prepared.
That is just one in a long and gloomy list of ways a Labour government, facing harrowing financial constraints, a disenchanted electorate and a hostile media, could come unstuck.
The original article contains 1,254 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I tend to agree with this, Starmer is entirely pragmatic to a fault. Hes created a machine that is going to win ugly, hes not going to bother with friendly fire unless the membership force him to, in which case he will hold his hands up. The honest response to the Cameron and May government’s cynical approach was actually Corbyn who laid out a red blooded forehand smash, and the natural follow on to a horrific defeat to a hyper cynical monster like Johnson and Cummings has been to play that game as well. Because, as much as I want a proper left wing reply, it just wont get it over the line. It can only be a protest until we get into power.
The best politicians for me are totally cynical bastards who are also somewhat left wing. So, I’m quite pleased with the current Shadow Cabinet, up to and including Starmer.
People keep believing in my lies when I lie… what to do… what to do…
Should I do what I say and restore confidence? Nah, I’ll just lie smaller next time and still not do it.
The world is in the midst of a fascist spasm so the only option is to pander to fascism.
Best wishes,
Labour
If this is the level of critical engagement Starmer’s opponents bring to the fight, it’s no wonder he’s bulldozed them so far.
