That Starmer fella...

Regardless of what they do they need to actually have a high enough profile that people will recognise and vote for them.

It's a nice idea that it should be all about substance and not style but you only have to look at our PM to see what the reality is.

Also odd that Starmer is getting such a criticism for being the wrong leader despite having net favourability that is much higher than Corbyn, whose favourability stats were terrible - yet his supporters seemed to make excuses for that, while being really quick to blame Starmer.

I'm not sure why people keep painting this as a two-sided, Corbyn vs Starmer, thing. Many people who supported Corbyn now support Starmer. In fact, they got Starmer into power.

And the differences you point out (ignoring one's low numbers, attacking another with high numbers) can probably be understood a bit better when things other than simply approval ratings are taken into consideration. I.e., perhaps there were reasons people excused Corbyn's low numbers when he was leader (i.e., policies people supported). Starmer, on the other hand, seems to only have his polls at the moment.

I think it becomes that way because Corbyn supporters seem to be his biggest critics - I've not really heard any criticism of Starmer (other than from actual Tories, who just criticise labour generally) other than from people who seem to be Corbyn supporters. But I'm not trying to suggest all Corbyn supporters are anti Starmer and sorry if it came across that way.

I get your point about reasons people might support Corbyn despite ratings, but it does jar to me that people are laying into Starmer for his, that's all.

For sure - the left of the party is where the harshest criticisms come from. I guess I find the constant Corbyn vs Starmer stuff problematic as it divides the party in an unhealthy way (leaders). Internal division around political ideas is completely different (imho), and ultimately necessary (if not healthy) less Labour become another neo-liberal pet project.

I'm on the left, and am currently a soft-supporter of Starmer. However, I love taking the piss out of him and think he's a bit of prick. It's a tough life.

Recognisable talent is different to profile. Where Labour have been left behind is the Tories have worked out marketing is more important than anything else, they are constantly in marketing mode with these short snappy campaigns, Labour just don't seem to be able to cut though with messaging in the same way.

They've already worked out what agenda to set post covid, you only have to look at the weird trying to kick off a culture war thing, they know that will split the vote for Labour. Whichever side Labour picks they lose votes.

For me I think it's a pretty standard thing for people to appear more reasonable outside the cabinet than they did inside it, because they're free to say more or less what they actually think rather than toeing the party line on whatever mad thing they've been tasked with delivering for the govt.

I think we mean the same thing, just different terminology. By recognisable talent I mean talent that the public recognises. The lack of profile/marketing means that regardless of whether they have talent, the majority of the public are unaware of them so don't recognise it.

I get your point about reasons people might support Corbyn despite ratings, but it does jar to me that people are laying into Starmer for his, that's all.

I think that's the only point I push back too. I've no problem with people recording their disappointment with Starmer - I only think he's doing OK at the moment, no better - but I do resent being told by people who have spent the last three years telling me to ignore Corbyn's personal approval rating that I should stop supporting Starmer on the basis of his (much better!) approval ratings. One is hypocrisy, one isn't.

they are constantly in marketing mode with these short snappy campaigns

I remember hearing an anecdote about Cummings related to this. Before he got into bed with Johnson, he had been courting a number of different Tory candidates for PM and providing communications advice. When it came time to launch their campaigns, they all facepalmed as they revealed their slogans and realised Cummings had fed each one of them a snappy three-liner, as has become his trademark.

Is he advising Labour now, too?

(Apologies if this has been covered. I only lurk this thread from time to time.)

1 Attachment

saw starmor doing the cameron thumb-point on the telly yesterday.

it all scans.

Starmer's job isn't to be personally popular, it's to persuade people to vote for the Labour Party. Voter intention numbers are, as you agreed a couple of days ago, not very different to how Corbyn's were for most of his leadership.

The other thing is we were told that if only Labour ditched the ambitious socialist policies and became more centrist it would be much more popular. If a Tory lite Labour party isn't actually more popular, then what's the point?

To some extent, isn't the point to actually try?

We've had two unsuccessful attempts with Corbyn. You say "what's the point" but what's the point of trying again with exactly the same and seeing how it plays out at an election?

Also dispute calling Starmer Tory lite. I'm not mad about the flags (or staying quiet on some human rights issues) but very clear economically distinct and quite progressive - this on the current policy is good https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/01/21/under-the-radar-labours-progressive-economic-agenda/

A Labour party that stands up for progressive policies and doesn't get into power at least still serves a purpose in keeping the Overton window from shifting ever rightwards.

A Labour party that's terrified of supporting anything more than half a millimetre left of the Tories and still doesn't get into power is a total waste of fucking space.

what's the point of trying again with exactly the same and seeing how it plays out at an election?

They tried the charisma-free leader and focus-grouped-to-death policies in 2015. How did that go?

They tried the charisma-free leader and focus-grouped-to-death policies in 2015. How did that go?

Better than the last election.

Eh? Don’t get your knickers in a twist ‘bro’? I didn’t @ him, I just replied to the post.

at least still serves a purpose in keeping the Overton window from shifting ever rightwards.

Do you think that's what's happened the past few years? As far as I can see it's moved wildly to the right

Exactly what I thought... Has been utterly ineffective, if that is the goal.

I also don't really see which of Starmer's policies are supposedly Tory lite anyway

And do you think that's going to continue slower or quicker with Mr Let's-Not-Offend-The-Bigots?

I think it'll occur slower if the Tories perceive labour as some sort of threat, to be honest

They'll have a hard time competing with popular leftist policies like... checks notes... loans for small businesses.

I don't really get your point. You disapprove of loans to small businesses as a policy?

Come on mate.

https://twitter.com/RichieG_LFC/status/1363433720926113792?s=20

Pretty torn by this tbh. On the one hand, I think Labour should be more clear in condemning the corruption on contracts.

On the other, calling for people to resign and being ignored every time looks weak - which I assume is his thinking

Being afraid to criticise beloved public figure Matt Hancock is a position of strength.

I'm not torn. NBD for rich dudes padding their pockets with public money during a pandemic. Poor people nicking shit? 24 hour courts!!

1 Attachment