That Starmer fella...

Its not possible to change the political rhetoric between now and the next general election. Especially with the media stacked in the Torys favour.

Genuinely amazed at the number of people mistaking careful consideration of what works and what does not for inaction and weakness. He's a sneering leftie elite lawyer after all...how dare he tell us that the policy we think is great is wrong!

number of people mistaking careful consideration of what works and what does not for inaction and weakness

It being quite impossible to take action in most cases, if you're not actually in government. Like the constituents who vote out opposition MPs seemingly because they aren't ministers or on the tellybox.

(tl;dr - I agree with you)

Whilst I quite like Kier Starmer (a little bit), and think he is significantly better than the dreadful Corbyn - he does seem to lack the essential qualities of leadership.

He can't help but qualify everything he says. In the BBC interview above, he is a pains to appear 'balanced' - to make sure everyone knows he's against organised people smuggling and uncontrolled immigration.

If he just came out and said shipping people out to Rawanda is a fucking idiotic idea, people would be able to relate to that. But he doesn't, he dithers.

If he just came out and said shipping people out to Rawanda is a fucking idiotic idea, people would be able to relate to that. But he doesn't, he dithers.

This is a trap though. A lot of folks - some of which will provide votes labour needs - don't think the Rawanda plan is a shit / unethical one.

As crazy as that may sound.

By slamming it he preaches to the converted, and risks alienating folks he, regrettably, needs.

It would be better if he could outline a policy that squares the circle, somehow.

Rwanda is a pure win for Tories. For their base to cheer and for the opposition to be able to say nothing. I dont think they 'actually' want it to happen. Everything happening right now plays into their narrative. Esp ECHR.

Rather than being for/against their trickery should be exposed a bit.

Funnily enough the net migration from outside EU is quite high at the moment.

Telling people they are wrong didn't work with leave/remain and it won't work for populist immigration policy either.

He doesn't have to tell them they are wrong, he can differentiate from the Tories by showing he understands their concerns but has a better policy/ position. If he doesn't have any better policies on anything then what is the point of the Labour party? If he does have better policies, the electorate don't know about them because he is so non-committal on everything.

I do wonder how carefully he's considered the fact those who think the policy is great are not going to vote for him anyway and those who believe he's being weak on it or not taking a strong enough stand against it might find they can't be arsed voting for something they believe is nary a Rizla paper away from what the Tories are offering anyway. Remains to be seen how well the powers that be in Labour have done their sums on this, but I fancy he's not going to be able to rely on everyone who voted Labour in 2o19 and 2017. They may be right in calculating the only people they need to appeal to are so-called Red Wall switchers and that everyone will be so royally pissed off with the Tories by then they'll vote for any alternative, but I'm not so sure.

If beergate tells us anything, it's that the press will go after him anyway and no amount of careful consideration of what works and what does not is going to change that.

Yvette Cooper doing a great job of saying why it is such a shit policy without having to say if you support it you are racist
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1537052385067016197

Speaking to someone last night who frustratingly agrees with it in principle and they said that they can't get behind it due to the ridiculous cost

Slaaaaaaaay!

At one point it seemed 20% of Labour supporters would support the Rwanda policy.

Some stats highlights here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61805819

If beergate tells us anything, it's that the press will go after him anyway and no amount of careful consideration of what works and what does not is going to change that.

If you genuinely believe that,, then it follows that the press is a hostile rump with whom there is no winning, and that therefore the only good strategy is a defensive one to minimise your interaction with them. And that was imo one of the key problems with the Corbyn administration. If you treat ALL the press as hostile you remove one of your key weapons in reaching people who might otherwise hear you. Moreover, it provides the opposition with the room they need to create an alternative narrative about you. It cedes the ground. It is a sure-fire way to lose an election.

Of course Labour will always have a harder time in the press than the Tories in the UK. That's an argument for us to be better with our engagement strategy, not one in favour of disconnecting altogether.

They may be right in calculating the only people they need to appeal to are so-called Red Wall switchers and that everyone will be so royally pissed off with the Tories by then

If this is the plan the Tories win. They might be better advised to be working with other opposition parties to form pacts with a view to ending adversarial politics once and for all.

I think Starmer's had an easy ride of it until Beergate, frankly. Principally because he's presenting himself as no danger to the status quo and offering little if any meaningful alternative to the current government beyond perhaps being more professional and 'competent' in carrying out policy. How far that is a winning electoral strategy is anyone's guess; I'm not convinced and by the looks of it, not many of those the current leadership says he needs to win over are either.

That we'll see certain sections of the media engage in the kind of furious, all-guns-blazing front-page horseshit we saw in the previous two elections is, I'm cynical enough to believe, a question of when rather than if. Beergate proved that without a shadow of a doubt. No amount of mealy mouthed non-positions and columns in The Sun are going to change that, sadly. It doesn't follow the press is a hostile rump and the only good strategy is a defensive one. He can engage all he likes, but at some point he's going to have to tell those people who need to hear him what he's about. And so far, he's only succeeded in telling people what he's not.

Of course, his real issue in the coming months is surviving the rumblings and briefings being initiated by 'The Worst People In PoliticsTM'. They've undermined the last three Labour leaders and they're sharpening the knives again.

Quite. I think they're wrong. But that appears to be the path they're pursuing.

The problem with trying to form pacts is they can't even keep a pact within their own party, so Christ knows how they'll manage with other parties.

Next week will be a big test. The Tories are hankering for what they will say is another ‘war’ with the unions (watch the media rhetoric in the next days and weeks) and want the strikes to bring the polls back to them.

If you genuinely believe that,, then it follows that the press is a hostile rump with whom there is no winning, and that therefore the only good strategy is a defensive one to minimise your interaction with them.

Well, yes? We've got a right wing press they will give you a column, but when push comes to shove they'll start printing stuff like Beergate. Sure Starmer will get an easier ride than Corbyn in sensible rags like the Graun, but even they seem to be happy with whoever in Labour is briefing them at that time (see the Stamer is boring articles).

I suppose it comes back to who you're chasing for a vote. If you're chasing older Tory voters, then by all means knock yourself out with the futility of chasing Daily Mail or Telegraph readers. Or alternatively, seek a different voter base and use different routes than the decaying husk of our right wing press.

The change mantle is up for grabs but Labour isn’t claiming it
Starmer must spell out what he is offering voters, not take them on a magical mystery tour

https://www.ft.com/content/ff893049-943f-43ee-9ffb-2a3858884fd0

Kier Starmer should take note on how to act in opposition. It’s been a while since I’ve someone tear into them like that.

Labour, imo, should start to box on the front foot and start pricing away at these scumbags. Find a way to cooperate with minority parties and set out a policy rather than being so half heartedly reactive to their failings. They’re there to be toppled, when they go down make sure they stay down for a couple of decades or implode outright.

Possibly a contrary opinion, and not one I'm wedded to, but...

... my experience of the last election in the office and much of my social group was that aside from hardcore BJ fanboys, the overwhelming majority thought it was a shit choice between the least worst option.

Idk how widely that extrapolates to the country, but if you assume it gives a snapshot of the voting centre ground then wouldn't "not as shit as Johnson" be a vote winner?

You can't really separate JC as a personality from Labour policies in the last election, but proposing a wide range of detailed and progressive policies didn't mitigate the personality.

Worth all those with advice for Keir Starmer looking at this

wouldn't "not as shit as Johnson" be a vote winner?

Also "wears a nice suit and looks like a prime minister should"

I think Starmer's had an easy ride of it until Beergate, frankly. Principally because he's presenting himself as no danger to the status quo and offering little if any meaningful alternative to the current government beyond perhaps being more professional and 'competent' in carrying out policy.

I think this is just warmed over 'they're all the same' cant but spoken eloquently and with a hint of 'the system always wins' 70s paranoia. The only people who benefit from such are genuinely unethical politicians like Johnson. There is a fundamental difference between politicians like Starmer and Rayner and Cooper, and politicians like Johnson and Raab and Patel. Competence is one of the metrics. But seriousness of purpose, ethics, and policy are equally important.

I think in the 90s it was a legitimate criticism to say that a politician stood for the status quo, because the status quo - by which I mean the rule of law, rational self-interest, an independent judiciary, a respect for the truth, a respect for our obligations on the world stage - was not under constant and fundamental attack by our government. I think now that kind of invective is pure self-indulgence.

'can tie his shoe laces'

I think you're, perhaps deliberately, missing my point here. So for the avoidance of that again, my point is that the press have largely given Starmer a free ride because they don't believe he'll do anything particularly radical and - as you yourself intimated - he has 'considered' what he says at every turn precisely to avoid antagonising them/giving them any ammunition. My assertion is that won't matter a jot come election time and he'll still be on the receiving end of insane amounts of horseshit from the media, as proven by Beergate. And so he might as well fucking grow a pair and stand for something. Like the status quo positives you list, for example, but also on things as fundamentally batshit and deeply unethical about shipping refugees to camps in Rwanda.

But seriousness of purpose, ethics, and policy are equally important.

So far, he's definitely got the face for the first one, failed dismally with the second and continues to prevaricate on the third. D+

"Any other leader would be 20 points ahead."

J. O'Brien. Smart politics understander.