That Starmer fella...

it will often feel impossible to rationalise why the tories seem to unify and labour seems to self immolate if the conversation continues to be free of material interests and class interests.

much with this example of the innocuous line about maggie, the line itself, to many is nothing, a throw away comment to help in the courting of more voters come next GE. it might even be a positive thing which makes them think of their own families prosperity in the time. to others it's a painful reminder of a woman who installed section 28, punished numerous working class families up and down the country in union busting and saw the grewatest destruction of social housing stock in our lifetime. it's why news papers like the tory rags select them out of what is otherwise a boring, nothing of a speech which does not rock the boat (country bad, stop small boats, migration bad, i will stop migration, handwaving about fixing this all, tone designed to appeal to your da').

people who respond this way occupy the same party thanks to our 2 party system, the measures needed to satisfy their material and class interests requeire different solutions and can often compete with each other. often the party feels like it has to choose between them to become electable. the tories do not have this issue, for they are organising around a base which is tighter in beliefs, one of "make my number get bigger, preserve the value of my current number". this will outweight any identiarian or morale concern one might have.

of course however, to many people labour is a 3rd option almost, it's a "stop the tories option", they feel neither incentivised by their offering or disparaged by it, especially in the face of the destructive tory premiership of the last decade. and it's commendable, this is their material hardline. if they wish to understand why some people might find not even this enough, maybe introspection into some of the hardlines the labour party have crossed which leaves them able to vote for them even in the face of this:

their actions around palestine in the shadow of the chilcott report
their actions around trans rights, thus lgbt rights, as their health minister and leader continues to say, quite frankly alarming statements
their attachment to 3rd way economics without criticism
their seeming inability to speak to people under 35, renters, and non asset owners
their close relationship with privatisation in key social areas
their inability to build a morale message for migration and seeming comfort to lean into tory set attack lines on refugess and migration from war torn areas of the globe

the immidiate response is to say "but the tories will be worse!" that they will, but people who are put off voting for labour know this, what they struggle with is knowing their only voice in this democracy is their vote, much like those felt with brexit or jeremy corbyns stances on antisemitism, the only thing they can do is withhold it. if they use it, without getting their voice heard then they simply validate their silencing, they disenfranchise themselves.

the question we should ask is why can the labour party not address these demands meaningfully, what assurances are there for these voters if they do vote trusting he will, in some cases, 180 on his public statements? the lesser evil chastise will only get people so far, but if we're truly interested in anyone but tories, these are conversations going to be had on the doorstep. especially in some cases, these are conversations if not had now, will manifest as interest groups not providing the organisational support they rely on in a GE, or even organise against them. an issue the tories will not be happening.

the inability to ask "why should people vote for us other than all other options are worse" has tripped up many a center left democratic party, many a time