That Starmer fella...

There doesn't seem to be an attempt to generate buy in or a relationship built between the labour party and the electorate.

This is what we used to call strategy. I may not have known in 1997 that - for example - Labour were going to make the bank of england independent of government in their first week, or start the beginning of the end of the Troubles. There was nothing about it in their manifesto.

But I did know that Blair and Brown were going to turn on the spending taps. I knew they'd have an interventionist stance on domestic policy. I knew they were promising change. I knew they were internationalist and pro business and pro meritocracy.

That's what's missing here. It's not policy. It's not even principle. It's narrative.

I don't think any party has blatantly ignored the electorate and is appealing directly to the media, establishment and business as much as Starmer's Labour.

I reckon they'll get two terms, though. The Tories will knee-jerk further right after this election, but it won't land without a populist leader. They'll have a sensible man in a suit in 2034 and Buggins' Turn it as Starmer is doing now.

The brand is detoxified

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

It should be made clear that I'm talking about the brand being detoxified in the minds of the electorate. I'm sure if you're a Stop The War adjacent Labour person, the brand is undeniably more toxic to you, but since what you like the electorate hates, and vice versa, I've no problem with that whatsoever.

What’s the electorate got to do with it?

But I did know that Blair and Brown were going to turn on the spending taps

This is nonsense. In 1997 Gordon Brown made a very well publicised pledge to stick precisely to existing Conservative spending plans for at least 2 years, alongside promising no tax rises. It was to head off the exact same public concerns about Labour that Starmer is worried about now.

They did of course massively increase investment in public services, but cautiously, over time, off the back of a growing economy and improving public finances

I may not have known

Mate, he's talking about his recollection of how he saw the New Labour brand at the time. Not denying that certain policies ever existed.

Look on the bright side, at least we’re not hearing noises about Mondeo Man again I suppose

I believe it's 'Deano' this time around. Supervisor in a call centre, lives in a new build etc.

The patrician disdain is fairly obvious.

Ok, but you don't think it's relevant that, far from trying to create a narrative that they were going to 'turn on the spending taps', they instead were making cast iron pledges that they wouldn't?

Yes.

I have no memory of it. But my understanding from people who've review info from the time was they were cagey AF and tried to keep their powder dry.

I'd put a fiver on very few people (even those here who voted) really caring about any of this level of nuance or giving it much thought. Blair was young and charismatic and everyone was sick of the tories, their bullshit and slease.

Interesting to read some contemporary reporting:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/1997/jan/21/economy.uk

Gordon Brown the self described 'Iron Chancellor'

'the burial of Labour's traditional tax and spend '

Brown setting himself 'masochistic targets' and going big on 'I will not make promises that I don't know I'll be in a position to deliver'

And even a leftwing MP saying

To say 'vote Labour and there will be no change' is hardly an election winning slogan.

Definitely agree with that. I remember thinking that Blair was cringy but his optimism and positivity came across as genuine: a refreshing change from the grey, Major years. It's a very different climate now, the Tories of the 90s, whilst sleaze ridden by the standards of the time were saints by comparison with today and the economy was already on an upswing. Starmer (and most of the Shadow cabinet) have little star power or dynamism. At best, they come across as steady technocrats, at worst, thin-skinned, paranoid, shape-shifters, with little substance.

Maybe winning on such diminished expectations amongst the electorate, will ensure that even modest victories, will be enough to secure a second term. More likely, I think a talented, media-savvy populist on the right will be able to rip into Starmer. He'll be perceived as authoritarian and institutionalist and carry the bag, rightly or wrongly, for many of the long term negative consequences of the polices of the current administration. Hope I'm wrong!

Starmer turned round labours election potential, I don't doubt the Tories could do the same so I worry about a single labour term

Starmer turned round labours election potential, I don't doubt the Tories could do the same

They totally just did turn around Labour's election potential. Well done them.

Bravo 👌

Choice.

This is nonsense. In 1997 Gordon Brown made a very well publicised pledge to stick precisely to existing Conservative spending plans for at least 2 years, alongside promising no tax rises. It was to head off the exact same public concerns about Labour that Starmer is worried about now.

There's the carnival bark and then there's the show. Labour ran with two competing narratives in that election - you're right that there was the 'you can trust us with the economy' narrative, which they sent (frankly) down the media pipes I wasn't aware of at the time, being an 18 year old lad with spunk in my eye and a song in my heart, who would rather get a sensible haircut than listen to the Today programme.

But there was also the 'things can only get better' narrative of optimism. Starmer doesn't need to copy that narrative - there's not much grounds for optimism right now - but he IS lacking an emotional direction of travel to allow me to contextualise the promises they make, to understand the basis on which they'll make their decisions. I'd even argue that for new Labour this strategic narrative was more prominent than the one you're referring to. They even put in their manifesto - the windfall levy on privatised utilities to fund work schemes, the promise to cut class sizes, the promise to cut NHS waiting lists. I knew less about politics then than I knew now but what that meant for my life was clear to me even at the time - Blair believed in hard work and reward but also fairness and reducing inequality.

I think the distinction between these two approaches is summarised by the distinction between Blair and Brown fwiw - Brown definitely wanted to push the iron chancellor image. Blair didn't. And Blair was who I was paying attention to.

I am a Labour man. I'm a treasurer for my local party, been a member for ages, and I'm a delegate. I'll be door knocking for Starmer. I'm in no way not going to vote for Labour. But I also see our weaknesses, and I don't think it harms us by discussing them.

am a Labour man. I'm a treasurer for my local party, been a member for ages, and I'm a delegate. I'll be door knocking for Starmer. I'm in no way not going to vote for Labour

This is the point, I feel.

Nothing that KS says in the next six months is, or should be, directed at you.

It should be directed at the much less committed, and therefore switchable Tory voter.

Labour have a once in a century opportunity to BURY the Conservatives. To give them real troubles forming a comeback for a long time. Whilst that is even remotely possible, they should be trying very hard to make it happen.

It is my strongly held opinion that absolutely nothing that is being said by KS and Labour right now, until a final manifesto at least, is indicative of post election intentions.

Good post, interesting perspective.

On this bit

Blair believed in hard work and reward but also fairness and reducing inequality.

I absolutely trust that Keir Starmer does too.

The fiscal discipline bit is an absolutely necessary precondition for a Labour government to get elected. Tories are permitted to act madly because the default media and public view of them is 'competent albeit cruel' (obvs competency is taking a well deserved reconsideration at the moment). Labour aren't, because the default view is 'heart in the right place but not businesslike enough'.

I hope that the manifesto does have some good things to offer the country. But it can be chock full of the things that everybody would want (cf free broadband, cancel tuition fees etc) and the effect is just that it isn't trusted, and Labour don't get into Government and get a chance to deliver.

It is my strongly held opinion that absolutely nothing that is being said by KS and Labour right now, until a final manifesto at least, is indicative of post election intentions.

I just don't understand this thinking. You say it's to convince swing voters but if he promises things and then goes back on it it's hardly going to bury the Tories in their eyes, just more fuel for the Labour can't be trusted fire, which will come back to bite him

This is a good point and also worth noting that - given the polls are where they are, the still undecided, swing voters are unusually right wing. Like, voted-Conservative-all-their-life-but-getting-fed-up types. Starmer has (CURRENTLY) got all of the normal swing voters - Labour half the time, Tories half the time - sewn up.

I am also in camp do and say whatever it takes to crush the Tories. They are a cancer and have been neglecting, stealing and poisoning everything good in the country for nearly 15 years. Before we can repair, we must make absolutely sure that they are eliminated.

Most people don't follow politics to this level of detail. They don't read manifestos or policies. They won't remember any of Starmer's promises. Maybe some of it filters through from watching the news but to nowhere near the extent that cozzy livs and COVID and Brexit has (which are all negatives for the Tories).

Simply being a member of any political party means you are already hopelessly unrepresentative of normal people. (I mean the generic you, not you personally)