Snap General Election called

[Puja]

As ever it only seems to make them more popular, and yet the hope remains the incompetence and corruption eventually carry a price

It'll only carry a price when the Sun, Mail, Express or Telegraph starts complaining about it.

Pleased to see that at least some of those have paid attention to the current corruption scandal. And so the Tories have taken a hit in the polls.

I saw an article announcing the massive hit that the Tories have taken in the polls and opened it to discover that that means they're only 1% ahead of Labour now instead of 6%.

Like, what the fuck Britain. How, after everything, are we just getting to the idea that, maybe the other side might not be worse, rather than them being utterly unelectable?

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Like, what the fuck Britain. How, after everything, are we just getting to the idea that, maybe the other side might not be worse, rather than them being utterly unelectable?

A] Petty nationalism
B] My team, right or wrong
C] Get Brexit Done

[Sandydragon]

As ever it only seems to make them more popular, and yet the hope remains the incompetence and corruption eventually carry a price

It'll only carry a price when the Sun, Mail, Express or Telegraph starts complaining about it.

Pleased to see that at least some of those have paid attention to the current corruption scandal. And so the Tories have taken a hit in the polls.

Labour should be surging ahead though. Boris and his team keep on handing them the open goals.

[Sandydragon]

Like, what the fuck Britain. How, after everything, are we just getting to the idea that, maybe the other side might not be worse, rather than them being utterly unelectable?

A] Petty nationalism
B] My team, right or wrong
C] Get Brexit Done

Yes to all that and also the hangover from Corbyn. Labour hasn’t rebuilt trust yet.

[Digby]

Like, what the fuck Britain. How, after everything, are we just getting to the idea that, maybe the other side might not be worse, rather than them being utterly unelectable?

A] Petty nationalism
B] My team, right or wrong
C] Get Brexit Done

Yes to all that and also the hangover from Corbyn. Labour hasn’t rebuilt trust yet.

Labour has though got the government putting in place a number of Labour policies to try and ensure the government stay ahead in the polls. Labour might well deem them Labour Lite and think anyway they'd be more competent, but it's not nothing as an opposition to have the government trying to take your space, it's just boring and gains little traction given the mix of people voting their party and/or simply not paying any attention

[Puja]

A] Petty nationalism
B] My team, right or wrong
C] Get Brexit Done

Yes to all that and also the hangover from Corbyn. Labour hasn’t rebuilt trust yet.

Labour has though got the government putting in place a number of Labour policies to try and ensure the government stay ahead in the polls. Labour might well deem them Labour Lite and think anyway they'd be more competent, but it's not nothing as an opposition to have the government trying to take your space, it's just boring and gains little traction given the mix of people voting their party and/or simply not paying any attention

Getting some Labour-esque policies in is nice, but it's a condemnation of the opposition that the Government are widely acknowledged to be a collection of corrupt, useless, hoof-wanking bunglecunts, but are still favourites for the next election. No-one has an idea of what a Labour government would mean and what it would stand for - it's notable that the narrowing of the opinion polls is Conservative losing favour without Labour actually gaining it.

I'm hoping Starmer is keeping his powder dry and plans an all-out assault on the public consciousness close to the next election, but if that's the case, then this feels like a selection of open goals that he's looking at and saying, "Nah, there'll be a better one later."

Puja

[Which Tyler]

but if that's the case, then this feels like a selection of open goals that he's looking at and saying, "Nah, there'll be a better one later."

Now you mention it...

[Digby]

Yes to all that and also the hangover from Corbyn. Labour hasn’t rebuilt trust yet.

Labour has though got the government putting in place a number of Labour policies to try and ensure the government stay ahead in the polls. Labour might well deem them Labour Lite and think anyway they'd be more competent, but it's not nothing as an opposition to have the government trying to take your space, it's just boring and gains little traction given the mix of people voting their party and/or simply not paying any attention

Getting some Labour-esque policies in is nice, but it's a condemnation of the opposition that the Government are widely acknowledged to be a collection of corrupt, useless, hoof-wanking bunglecunts, but are still favourites for the next election. No-one has an idea of what a Labour government would mean and what it would stand for - it's notable that the narrowing of the opinion polls is Conservative losing favour without Labour actually gaining it.

I'm hoping Starmer is keeping his powder dry and plans an all-out assault on the public consciousness close to the next election, but if that's the case, then this feels like a selection of open goals that he's looking at and saying, "Nah, there'll be a better one later."

Puja

If the public want the incompetent and the venal that's their choice. And okay it's a FPP system, but incompetent and venal does seem to be a preference

Starmer does have some problems, the loss of some traditional labour voters (who the party have ignored for too long, maybe since Kinnock, certainly since Smith) to the easier trappings of nationalism, and the damage done by Corbyn, and that to address either of those problems without compounding the other is difficult, both to address within the party and to the public

Also Starmer still seems to think being factual and honest have more merit than they do and he needs to overcome that court style delivery, one might think it a shame but that's where the voters are.

I don't feel sorry for Starmer, he asked for the job and part of the reason he's struggling is him. He'll either get it done or get fired, which is really how it should be

[Sandydragon]

Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

[Digby]

Of course we often don't see who the rising forces in a party are, so maybe there's someone with a brain and personality yet to emerge.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The issue of corruption is perfect for Starmer to take up. He needs to do this and not let it go till the election. He needs to demand the 2nd jobs for MPs be banned (with some reasonable exceptions maybe), something which is easy to make a case for, should be popular and will have an obvious impact on corrupt lobbying. And that's just the start. The tragedy is that he needs someone like Alastair Campbell (although preferably not such a piece of shit) to advise him on the cut and thrust required.

[Zhivago]

Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

[Son of Mathonwy]

Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

But if that's true, how did Tony Blair manage to appeal to normal people?

[Zhivago]

Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

But if that's true, how did Tony Blair manage to appeal to normal people?

For starters, he was working off a different baseline opinion - that baseline opinion formed by John Smith. Secondly, Blair comes from an era where newspapers and TV dominated public opinion formation, which made it much easier for his PR team to influence the public.

[Which Tyler]

Added to which; Blair had a press machine that was friendly to him; and in the personality stakes, he was up against the Grey Man himself.

[Digby]

It wasn't an accident that Blair had friendlier press, they spent a lot of time end effort wrangling that. Others have spent a lot of time, they just haven't been able to wrangle anything other than maybe their own tits

[Puja]

It wasn't an accident that Blair had friendlier press, they spent a lot of time end effort wrangling that. Others have spent a lot of time, they just haven't been able to wrangle anything other than maybe their own tits

Much as I admire Corbyn's decision to tell the tabloids to fuck off and openly vow to defang them if he got power, there's no doubt that it was a massive tactical error and a huge part of his downfall. Impossible to win over the common people when a large chunk get their information from media sources that consider you an existential threat and have absolutely no qualms about bending the truth (or, in some cases, just reporting the truth and ignoring the mud on the other side).

Starmer hasn't gone as aggressively at them (that and the fact that he's been so dull and milquetoast that there's very little muck to rake), but he definitely hasn't courted them either, despite the fact that the likes of the Mail and Sun would definitely be willing to turn on Johnson for the right price. Again, points for moral standing (first time someone's said that about Starmer), but possibly not for political acumen. You'd've thought the best thing to do would be get them in your corner and then turn on them viciously once power had been achieved and hope you survived the bloodbath and it was forgotten about by the next election.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

But if that's true, how did Tony Blair manage to appeal to normal people?

For starters, he was working off a different baseline opinion - that baseline opinion formed by John Smith. Secondly, Blair comes from an era where newspapers and TV dominated public opinion formation, which made it much easier for his PR team to influence the public.

When you say 'Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people' you make it sound like it's something inherent to the man, not external. As a person, he's clearly more 'normal' than Blair - working class upbringing, state school, successful career outside of politics.

If it's about things that are external to him, then at least some if them can be changed, so I struggle to see how he can 'never' appeal to normal people. Newspapers and TV are still significant public opinion formers - the problem there is that Starmer's PR team (assuming he even has one??) has been pretty ineffective so far. But this could change.

You say 'Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu'. Surely Starmer is the closest thing to this as you could ever hope to find in a major party leader?

[Zhivago]

But if that's true, how did Tony Blair manage to appeal to normal people?

For starters, he was working off a different baseline opinion - that baseline opinion formed by John Smith. Secondly, Blair comes from an era where newspapers and TV dominated public opinion formation, which made it much easier for his PR team to influence the public.

When you say 'Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people' you make it sound like it's something inherent to the man, not external. As a person, he's clearly more 'normal' than Blair - working class upbringing, state school, successful career outside of politics.

If it's about things that are external to him, then at least some if them can be changed, so I struggle to see how he can 'never' appeal to normal people. Newspapers and TV are still significant public opinion formers - the problem there is that Starmer's PR team (assuming he even has one??) has been pretty ineffective so far. But this could change.

You say 'Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu'. Surely Starmer is the closest thing to this as you could ever hope to find in a major party leader?

CPS HQ is located in Westminster. Temple is next door in The City. So, no, I would hope we can do better.

Look at Mark Drakeford - a teacher in his previous life. Much more like it. Now that's what I call a normal person.

[Digby]

It wasn't an accident that Blair had friendlier press, they spent a lot of time end effort wrangling that. Others have spent a lot of time, they just haven't been able to wrangle anything other than maybe their own tits

Much as I admire Corbyn's decision to tell the tabloids to fuck off and openly vow to defang them if he got power, there's no doubt that it was a massive tactical error and a huge part of his downfall. Impossible to win over the common people when a large chunk get their information from media sources that consider you an existential threat and have absolutely no qualms about bending the truth (or, in some cases, just reporting the truth and ignoring the mud on the other side).

Starmer hasn't gone as aggressively at them (that and the fact that he's been so dull and milquetoast that there's very little muck to rake), but he definitely hasn't courted them either, despite the fact that the likes of the Mail and Sun would definitely be willing to turn on Johnson for the right price. Again, points for moral standing (first time someone's said that about Starmer), but possibly not for political acumen. You'd've thought the best thing to do would be get them in your corner and then turn on them viciously once power had been achieved and hope you survived the bloodbath and it was forgotten about by the next election.

Puja

Not sure what you mean by 'turn on them viciously'

I'd be hesitant to act in such fashion partly because I tend to think you should be telling people in advance how you'll act before they vote, and also because turning viciously on a free press just of itself sounds extremely dubious, no matter how much I dislike just how wasteful they are with their freedoms

If you mean engaging with them to try and establish some better standards in public life then that I'd be for

And as ever if Labour feel the current press aren't giving them a fair ride there's nothing stopping them writing and printing their own copy, though I'd like to think even the Labour Party might concede they couldn't run that in-house.

[Puja]

It wasn't an accident that Blair had friendlier press, they spent a lot of time end effort wrangling that. Others have spent a lot of time, they just haven't been able to wrangle anything other than maybe their own tits

Much as I admire Corbyn's decision to tell the tabloids to fuck off and openly vow to defang them if he got power, there's no doubt that it was a massive tactical error and a huge part of his downfall. Impossible to win over the common people when a large chunk get their information from media sources that consider you an existential threat and have absolutely no qualms about bending the truth (or, in some cases, just reporting the truth and ignoring the mud on the other side).

Starmer hasn't gone as aggressively at them (that and the fact that he's been so dull and milquetoast that there's very little muck to rake), but he definitely hasn't courted them either, despite the fact that the likes of the Mail and Sun would definitely be willing to turn on Johnson for the right price. Again, points for moral standing (first time someone's said that about Starmer), but possibly not for political acumen. You'd've thought the best thing to do would be get them in your corner and then turn on them viciously once power had been achieved and hope you survived the bloodbath and it was forgotten about by the next election.

Puja

Not sure what you mean by 'turn on them viciously'

I'd be hesitant to act in such fashion partly because I tend to think you should be telling people in advance how you'll act before they vote, and also because turning viciously on a free press just of itself sounds extremely dubious, no matter how much I dislike just how wasteful they are with their freedoms

If you mean engaging with them to try and establish some better standards in public life then that I'd be for

And as ever if Labour feel the current press aren't giving them a fair ride there's nothing stopping them writing and printing their own copy, though I'd like to think even the Labour Party might concede they couldn't run that in-house.

By "turn on them viciously" I'd take introducing a genuinely independent regulator with some actual teeth for a start. And enforcing stricter anti-monopoly rules on ownership. At the moment it's not "turning on a free press" because we don't currently have that - we have a megaphone for a few oligarchs.

Puja

[Digby]

That the market is dominated by a small number of providers isn't impeding a free press.

Nobody is stopping anyone running a fair and accurate newspaper, seemingly there's just no demand for one

[Son of Mathonwy]

For starters, he was working off a different baseline opinion - that baseline opinion formed by John Smith. Secondly, Blair comes from an era where newspapers and TV dominated public opinion formation, which made it much easier for his PR team to influence the public.

When you say 'Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people' you make it sound like it's something inherent to the man, not external. As a person, he's clearly more 'normal' than Blair - working class upbringing, state school, successful career outside of politics.

If it's about things that are external to him, then at least some if them can be changed, so I struggle to see how he can 'never' appeal to normal people. Newspapers and TV are still significant public opinion formers - the problem there is that Starmer's PR team (assuming he even has one??) has been pretty ineffective so far. But this could change.

You say 'Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu'. Surely Starmer is the closest thing to this as you could ever hope to find in a major party leader?

CPS HQ is located in Westminster. Temple is next door in The City. So, no, I would hope we can do better.

Look at Mark Drakeford - a teacher in his previous life. Much more like it. Now that's what I call a normal person.

You place a high important on physical proximity. So what if the CPS is located in Westminster? It's part of the civil service not part of government; it's non-political.

I'm sure Mark Drakeford is a good guy, but he's been actively involved in party politics from at least the mid 1980s, first locally, then in the Welsh government. Much of this ran alongside his academic work as a university lecturer till 2013, but by comparison Starmer has had much less to do with politics and government until recently. Which CV you consider to be more "real-world" is really a matter of opinion. I think if you compare Starmer with other Labour party leaders, you'll find he's far less of a career politician than most, which makes him more "normal" in my view.

Sure, Starmer has been disappointing, both in his political effectiveness and in he issues he seems interested in, but he really is the only hope for defeating the Tories at the next election. No doubt there would be different potential Labour leaders I'd prefer (although none made it to the voting stage of the leadership election) but he's what we've got, he's not going to stand aside. Given this, I just hope he starts getting some traction (the parties are neck and neck in the polls, at least).

[Son of Mathonwy]

That the market is dominated by a small number of providers isn't impeding a free press.

Nobody is stopping anyone running a fair and accurate newspaper, seemingly there's just no demand for one

Barriers to entry? There's enormous customer inertia and brand loyalty associated with newspapers. How easy do you think it is to set up a national newspaper?

Nobody is stopping me from starting one either. Unfortunately I don't have a billion quid to throw at the project.

[Digby]

That the market is dominated by a small number of providers isn't impeding a free press.

Nobody is stopping anyone running a fair and accurate newspaper, seemingly there's just no demand for one

Barriers to entry? There's enormous customer inertia and brand loyalty associated with newspapers. How easy do you think it is to set up a national newspaper?

Nobody is stopping me from starting one either. Unfortunately I don't have a billion quid to throw at the project.

Oddly you wouldn't start publishing a national newspaper.

But they've been complaining about this lack of balance in the press for decades, and all they do is wait for someone to fix the problem for them. Which also speaks as to why it's so easy to revile the left

There are actually some efforts to try and get something on the left up and running, they're just not very good and they spend more time arguing with themselves about what it means to be progressive. Until they do better they will not do better