That Starmer fella...

I guess its to please those in the red wall seats who bought into Bojo's levelling up premise.

I know a lot who were convinced that Johnson actually meant it and that leveling up would happen. Not sure what their view is now but I suspect plenty of them don't blame Johnson for it failing.

I'm in Tonbridge actually 😂

I can't see the concept of levelling up ever being a vote loser.

That's a good point, I'd not considered how this steals Tory ideas. It's something that that have historically done to labour so it's nice to see in reverse.

I mean isn't this an absolute gem of comms isn't it?

• praises ambition aka i. "ah, hun. At least you tried", ii. Tories can't actually do anything good, iii. I support ambitious goals
  
• backs leveling up agenda aka i. I support leveling up, ii. I am the son of a tool maker not a North London elitest
  
• blames Sunak for blocking it aka i. remember that time Sunak was Chancellor? Sure he gave you free money but he wasn't all good, ii. Sunak is part of legacy shit Tory govt, not the NKOTB he claims, iii. Suank is elite / out of touch / doesn't like the North.
  
  

All that messaging in a single BBC bullet.

I knew that - so am I, so knew the reference would be close to home...

I believe he's doing this not just to win the next election but to do it with a landslide, which will in all probability secure him and 2nd Labour a second term in office. I take it as a sign of confidence.

A few times this thread has referenced a landslide election/obliterating the Tories as being a means of securing a second term (often as an defense of KS policies/lack of policies), but surely 2019 showed us you can win a landslide and throw it all away in one term?

A lot of discourse aimed at Labour in December 2019 was that 'it will take a generaiton to get back into power' and yet here we are.

While this is true, I have been thinking about this a lot recently and I believe the circumstances which have set the Tories up for obliteration are quite unique to the election of 2019.

The electorate has not been keen on the Tories themselves throughout their 14 years. Since 2010 the only time the Conservatives have had a firm and independent grip on power was after the 2019 election when they won 365 seats. Prior to that, Tory PMs were playing wack-a-mole, fending off attacks from both their left and right flanks thanks to slim majorities which encouraged rebellion. The only issue which brought them electoral success was Brexit, which garned them their 330 seats in 2015 with Cameron's referendum promise and the current strong majority when Boris promised to 'get Brexit done'. By 2019 your opinion on Brexit defined who you would vote for above anything else, and with most voters sick of the endless spasms over the withdrawal agreement and Labour lacking any real stance, BoJo's pledge blew him to victory.

Once Brexit was finally done in 2021 and it had begun fading into the background, the Conservative's polling began fading with it. The party was floundering, no thanks to a hapless leader, as it now lacked a unifying mission. As voters were never that keen on central Tory policy to begin with, the increasingly rightwing rhetoric spewed from the front bench accelerated the alienation of younger (18-45) voters, who are either naturally reactionary to a government which has only taken away from them or who may remember Labour's time in power as the 'good old days'.

When Labour wins the coming election, it will be a broad and progressive coalition that brings it to power, one that is overwhelmingly youthful and urban. These voters are unlikely to forget the damage and divisiveness of the Conservative years, and unless the Tories make a hard tack back towards the centre to appeal to this growing pool of voters, their destiny is tied to their shrinking primary demographic - elderly voters. And unfortunately for the Tory party, it seems as though opposition will bring with it contortions over control- already begun - rather than clear direction; a tussel between the dominant right and a minority centre, similar to the chaotic Labour years 2015-2020.

All Labour have to do is appear sensible for five years, satisfy their franchise, and repeat "under the previous Conservative government...".

It's tricky isn't it. What would an accurate counterfactual be?

Johnson wasn't actually that popular. If Labour had had someone other than Corbyn, would it have been such a landslide? Or did the despair over Brexit push a lot of people into buying "get Brexit done", to the point that it would have largely been the same result?

Maybe I'll be proved wrong, but I don't think a Starmer government will have the same putrid stench and Benny Hill-esque haplessness. I'm sure there will be issues. I'm sure that the disenfranchised brexit/reform/etc. voters will still be ignored and bitter. But as long as it's not the same absolute fucking joke we have now, I think the majority of voters will give them the benefit of the doubt.

I do think Johnson was popular with a electorally significant group of people who previously hadn't voted Tory- although his personal popularity and promise of Brexit are entangled. Sunak definitely isn't popular with this group, but I'm not sure Labour have convinced them either.

When Labour wins the coming election, it will be a broad and progressive coalition that brings it to power, one that is overwhelmingly youthful and urban.

I don't think this is true. This group also voted for Corbyn (some through gritted teeth) in 2019. Labour's victory rests on the fact a majority of older One Nation Conservative voters can't face voting for Sunak and the nasty party.

I don't think the Tories are going to magic up another Cameron or Johnson to appeal to either of these demographics, and will hopefully flounder between a couple of leaders - but Keir's biggest problem long term is that he doesn't have the personal appeal either.

Edit: If I wanted to put a long bet on, I'd say Labour would likely win a second term, but it'll be much closer and both parties will elect new leaders afterwards. Hey, at least we're not in the US.

I entirely agree that the it's that older demographic which are the critical swing voters this time around. Don't discount the power of demographic change though - the last five years have only grown the base which supported Corbyn, while eating away at the core Brexit-y one that swept Johnson's Tories into power. This dual effect (growing Labour's support and cutting the Conservative's) will bring about an enduring shift in the relative strength of each party's 'natural' support - unless the Tories pivot strongly.

Also, on electoral geography; the Tory's previous great advantage of a broad base of support smeared across most constituencies (vs. Labour's highly concentrated supermajority urban seats) will contribute to its potential collapse. With Reform splitting the rightwing vote, it won't take much for many Conservative seats to change hands. Using Electoral Calculus's predictor and the latest polling from You Gov, the Lib Dems could gain 46 seats - 95% previously Tory held. Thinking of the fall of the Tory party, it will be a divided right wing vote and a centre-right Lib Dem coup that would ultimately deliver the death blow - even ignoring Labour's polling.

I do agree that a lack of charisma hurts Keir and a 'mid-term' leadership change is on the cards. Perhaps Andy Burnham will have a tilt in 2029.

I imagine that there being very little in the way of sensible moderates in the Tories these days would be magnified, having bad Enoch and suella as the big dogs at the next GE is likely less appealing than beige keir and co?

But yes, politics in the 2020s who fucking knows ..

It took a worldwide financial crisis to dislodge Gordon Brown.
Once people see and feel the benefits of a Labour government they give them a second/third term.

Bojo won an overall majority of 80. 80 isn't a Landslide in my opinion, landslides start at 100. So Starmer isn't overturning a Landslide but a big majority.

Why have the tories managed to destory a very healthy majority in 4 years? I'd start with them having 3 PM who were in various ways completely unsuited to being PM. Starmer isn't special he's mearly competent and honest, but in comparisonto Bojo, truss & sunak they make him look like the son of god!

If Labour get the 100-150 majority which looks possible, they only have to be competent, honest and with a bit of political luck able to have a second term in '28/'29.

Bojo won an overall majority of 80. 80 isn't a Landslide in my opinion, landslides start at 100.

This is a really good point and one I reflexively disagreed with until I had a look at the numbers.

I think it's also a good rebuttal to the idea that Johnson was popular, rather than not being Corbyn and seen as someone who'd crack on and finish Brexit one way or another.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/911008/leader-satisfaction-uk/

1 Attachment

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-68707225

Seems an odd thing to do.

Given the areas I'd say it is very likely related to Israel/Palestine. Plus it appears that the majority aren't up for election next month (maybe a dispute on candidates too) so it isn't much of a thing to go a month early.

Ian Dunt on who is Keir Starmer:

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/who-is-keir-starmer

Yes, Ian Dunt's stuff is well written and argued. I feel that we've had rhe shit kicked out of us for 14 long years. We now settle for anyone who appears to be vaguely competent and serious. Sadly, I fell that Starmer will be a Blairalike and that everything he can do will be undone by the Tories. The tragedy of Blair's time in power was that no other left of centre party in any advanced economy had 13 years of continuous power in order to transform our society forever. What a wasted opportunity!

no other left of centre party in any advanced economy had 13 years of continuous power in order to transform our society forever

To be fair, in a parliamentary democracy no parliament can ever make laws which constrain a subsequent parliament. By definition no change can be forever.

But I agree he had more latitude to make more positive change than most PMs and he didn't take the opportunity to build anything as legacy-orientated as the NHS or what have you.

Yes, I accept your point above. However, by transformational change, I refer to the dissolution of the Lords and its replacement with a democratically elected body. Also. the introduction of P.R. Blair had a democratic mandate for both based on a manifesto commitment.
He refused both. The tories would have no choice but to live with the resulting change. There would have been no return to the existing status quo.
To be a socialist in England is to accept disappointment. Hence my scepticism regarding Starmer. Although, I am prepared to be suprised.

I'm still not sure how an elected upper house is seen as some sort of panacea given what's happening in the US.

A checking body not up for elections and less influenced by special interests paying for stuff has appeal.

I'd like to see some detailed proposals before I support changes to the lord's (other than maybe shrinking it and limiting it's numbers, plus maybe age terms)

Watching all the Rwanda bill stuff doesn't convince me that an upper chamber more concerned about being re-elected is a good move.

It definitely needs improvement in terms of life peers and how people are nominated but a chamber of "experts" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I'm not sure about electing it either. I think removing life peers is fine. Rather than age limits I think replacing ⅓ of it every 7yrs (or some number that isn't 5) would remove those who are over the hill.