Starmer Next Labour Leader

[hackneyfox]

Hopefully those inclined to believe such drivel were never inclined to vote Labour in the first place. Those I've seen quoting it are already beyond the pale.

I wish they were in a pail.

[Alf Bentley]

This is an interesting take on Johnson's personal ratings remaining quite high, even if Starmer has caught up on a net personal (not party) level: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/15/boris-johnson-votewinning-optimism-reality-ronald-reagan-half-truths

 

For anyone short of time, it compares Johnson to Reagan, another politician who remained popular partly through charisma and patriotic optimism.

That was despite Reagan having apparently major failings in personal performance, regime scandals and even economic performance - massive increase in public debt, when he'd promised to eliminate it.

 

The article implies that, while charisma and patriotic optimism clearly benefits a leader's popularity, such popularity can quickly disappear if the reality is at odds with the optimistic vision.

It implies that, in part, Reagan got lucky. Despite his failure on debt, the US economy had clear successes like the rise of Silicon Valley - and he was able to look strong internationally because of US power & the USSR falling to bits.

 

It then points out how voters can suddenly turn against govts they'd supported during a crisis if they start to blame the govt for the crap in their lives or their country's life.

It cites how the Labour Govt was still leading the polls for a couple of months into the 1978-79 "Winter of Discontent", before seeing their support collapse after they were blamed for the mayhem - so that Thatcher won a majority.

 

There's a warning in there for Starmer, too, though - that the calm, rational dissection of a leader's failures isn't necessarily enough. 

 

But is Boris going to get Reagan's luck?

Will he avoid blame for perceived Covid failings over the next 4 years?

Will he avoid blame for consequences of the economic downturn?

Will he look like a successful figure on the international stage via Brexit, a US trade deal or other actions?

[Guest MattP]

18 hours ago, Bilo said:

The trouble is that I'm not sure there are. A lot of the talent has been purged for not having the 'correct' Brexit position as their 2019 campaign was primarily predicated on exactly that. It's given the Tories a more unified party than they've had in years, perhaps even my lifetime, but also arguably its least talented. 

Very few were purged for having a position on Brexit, they were purged in the main for trying to overturn the result, I thought this was extremely harsh on guys like Ken Clarke and Rory Stewart as they never did that.

 

There are still over 100 MP's on the Tory benches who backed remain - they are far more diverse on the issue and representative of their membership than any other party in the house. 

 

How many leavers are left in Labour now? Can't be more than a handful can it?

 

15 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

Hopefully those inclined to believe such drivel were never inclined to vote Labour in the first place. Those I've seen quoting it are already beyond the pale.

I wish they were in a pail.

I'm sure it's the same for both sides, in the same way the idiots who fall for the "Boris is going to sell the NHS to Trump" will probably never be inclined to vote Tory.

 

If we can get a better politics with more debate, less lies and mudslinging then great, but Labour and it's supporters are the last ones who can pontificate on this after what they've done over the last five years, the fake news tweet and delete was a staple of half the last shadow cabinet when campaigning.

 

Better still MP's from all sides stop trying to be celebrities gaining a Twitter following, backbench MP's are so irrelevant now we have a majority government anyway, only about 100-150 of them need to be in the public eye, the cabinet and shadow cabinet.

 

Annoying we pay this money for five years now on what are effectively about 450 glorified cheerleaders or social workers.

[LiberalFox]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

This is an interesting take on Johnson's personal ratings remaining quite high, even if Starmer has caught up on a net personal (not party) level: 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/15/boris-johnson-votewinning-optimism-reality-ronald-reagan-half-truths

 

For anyone short of time, it compares Johnson to Reagan, another politician who remained popular partly through charisma and patriotic optimism.

That was despite Reagan having apparently major failings in personal performance, regime scandals and even economic performance - massive increase in public debt, when he'd promised to eliminate it.

 

The article implies that, while charisma and patriotic optimism clearly benefits a leader's popularity, such popularity can quickly disappear if the reality is at odds with the optimistic vision.

It implies that, in part, Reagan got lucky. Despite his failure on debt, the US economy had clear successes like the rise of Silicon Valley - and he was able to look strong internationally because of US power & the USSR falling to bits.

 

It then points out how voters can suddenly turn against govts they'd supported during a crisis if they start to blame the govt for the crap in their lives or their country's life.

It cites how the Labour Govt was still leading the polls for a couple of months into the 1978-79 "Winter of Discontent", before seeing their support collapse after they were blamed for the mayhem - so that Thatcher won a majority.

 

There's a warning in there for Starmer, too, though - that the calm, rational dissection of a leader's failures isn't necessarily enough. 

 

But is Boris going to get Reagan's luck?

Will he avoid blame for perceived Covid failings over the next 4 years?

Will he avoid blame for consequences of the economic downturn?

Will he look like a successful figure on the international stage via Brexit, a US trade deal or other actions?

A lot comes down to media doesn't it? Blair won the support of a lot of usually supporting Tory newspapers and that helped propel him to power. Also bear in mind that a lot of the population would rather the county be led by a bit of a clown that listens to them than well educated highly competent people who don't listen to them. Most people don't really care that much who is in No 10. Reagan and Johnson will never be popular with the majority of the educated middle classes but they didn't need to be.

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

A lot comes down to media doesn't it? Blair won the support of a lot of usually supporting Tory newspapers and that helped propel him to power. Also bear in mind that a lot of the population would rather the county be led by a bit of a clown that listens to them than well educated highly competent people who don't listen to them. Most people don't really care that much who is in No 10. Reagan and Johnson will never be popular with the majority of the educated middle classes but they didn't need to be.

 

The media will always have an impact - in its multiple forms these days. But I know some experts question how much the media leads popular opinion and how much it follows opinion. Blair certainly worked hard to win over the press while in opposition (dinner with Murdoch etc.) but there's also a theory that, as the press is mainly interested in sales, they tend to assess and follow popular opinion to some extent. By the time Blair became leader, the Major Govt was already getting a lot of stick after Black Wednesday, economic problems, internal divisions, scandals....and had been in power for 15 years by the time Blair took over, so he might have been pushing at a half-open door with the press.

 

What you say about a lot of people preferring to be "led by a bit of a clown that listens to them" might well be true at the moment - I'm sure that partly explains Johnson's fairly positive personal ratings. But that's partly what the article is asking: will that necessarily continue? If those voters start blaming Boris for the impact of Covid in the UK and/or for personal impacts if they lose their job, have less money, lose public services, have to pay more tax or whatever, will the appeal of a clown who seems to listen be enough? It might be, if such problems aren't too bad or the govt is deemed to have handled them well or they're viewed as an "act of God" for which the govt isn't to blame. But voters tend to blame govts for what happens on their watch, whether it's the govt's fault or not - Heath for the Three-Day Week, Callaghan for the Winter of Discontent, Major for Black Wednesday, Brown for the financial crash etc.

 

Yep, I'm always aware of how little interest most people have in politics. I've said it before myself: the likes of us in threads like this are highly untypical voters, probably in the 5% with the most interest in politics, wherever we are on the spectrum.

 

Yes again, Johnson doesn't need to be popular with the city-dwelling, liberal-minded educated middle classes. But if a significant proportion of those who voted for him in December end up blaming him for the scale of the Covid crisis in the UK or for declines in their standard of living, quality of life or prospects, the polls could turn against him. Anyone who thinks a few decent weeks by Starmer are a game-changer is being naive - but so is anyone who assumes that Boris is bound to win in 2024.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Very few were purged for having a position on Brexit, they were purged in the main for trying to overturn the result, I thought this was extremely harsh on guys like Ken Clarke and Rory Stewart as they never did that.

 

There are still over 100 MP's on the Tory benches who backed remain - they are far more diverse on the issue and representative of their membership than any other party in the house. 

 

How many leavers are left in Labour now? Can't be more than a handful can it?

 

I'm sure it's the same for both sides, in the same way the idiots who fall for the "Boris is going to sell the NHS to Trump" will probably never be inclined to vote Tory.

 

If we can get a better politics with more debate, less lies and mudslinging then great, but Labour and it's supporters are the last ones who can pontificate on this after what they've done over the last five years, the fake news tweet and delete was a staple of half the last shadow cabinet when campaigning.

 

Better still MP's from all sides stop trying to be celebrities gaining a Twitter following, backbench MP's are so irrelevant now we have a majority government anyway, only about 100-150 of them need to be in the public eye, the cabinet and shadow cabinet.

 

Annoying we pay this money for five years now on what are effectively about 450 glorified cheerleaders or social workers.

Exactly, I don’t agree with smears. I’m not keen on hatchet jobs either but the ones crying about this, didn’t exactly come to the fore when them edited clips of Leavers that portrayed them supporting a soft brexit, and subsequently spread like wildfire through remain MPs Twitter did they? In fact it was a long time before those fires were put out. 
Players complaining about being played.

[hackneyfox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Very few were purged for having a position on Brexit, they were purged in the main for trying to overturn the result, I thought this was extremely harsh on guys like Ken Clarke and Rory Stewart as they never did that.

 

There are still over 100 MP's on the Tory benches who backed remain - they are far more diverse on the issue and representative of their membership than any other party in the house. 

 

How many leavers are left in Labour now? Can't be more than a handful can it?

 

I'm sure it's the same for both sides, in the same way the idiots who fall for the "Boris is going to sell the NHS to Trump" will probably never be inclined to vote Tory.

 

If we can get a better politics with more debate, less lies and mudslinging then great, but Labour and it's supporters are the last ones who can pontificate on this after what they've done over the last five years, the fake news tweet and delete was a staple of half the last shadow cabinet when campaigning.

 

Better still MP's from all sides stop trying to be celebrities gaining a Twitter following, backbench MP's are so irrelevant now we have a majority government anyway, only about 100-150 of them need to be in the public eye, the cabinet and shadow cabinet.

 

Annoying we pay this money for five years now on what are effectively about 450 glorified cheerleaders or social workers.

All parties may have been involved but using Child Abuse is a new low.

[LiberalFox]

24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The media will always have an impact - in its multiple forms these days. But I know some experts question how much the media leads popular opinion and how much it follows opinion. Blair certainly worked hard to win over the press while in opposition (dinner with Murdoch etc.) but there's also a theory that, as the press is mainly interested in sales, they tend to assess and follow popular opinion to some extent. By the time Blair became leader, the Major Govt was already getting a lot of stick after Black Wednesday, economic problems, internal divisions, scandals....and had been in power for 15 years by the time Blair took over, so he might have been pushing at a half-open door with the press.

 

What you say about a lot of people preferring to be "led by a bit of a clown that listens to them" might well be true at the moment - I'm sure that partly explains Johnson's fairly positive personal ratings. But that's partly what the article is asking: will that necessarily continue? If those voters start blaming Boris for the impact of Covid in the UK and/or for personal impacts if they lose their job, have less money, lose public services, have to pay more tax or whatever, will the appeal of a clown who seems to listen be enough? It might be, if such problems aren't too bad or the govt is deemed to have handled them well or they're viewed as an "act of God" for which the govt isn't to blame. But voters tend to blame govts for what happens on their watch, whether it's the govt's fault or not - Heath for the Three-Day Week, Callaghan for the Winter of Discontent, Major for Black Wednesday, Brown for the financial crash etc.

 

Yep, I'm always aware of how little interest most people have in politics. I've said it before myself: the likes of us in threads like this are highly untypical voters, probably in the 5% with the most interest in politics, wherever we are on the spectrum.

 

Yes again, Johnson doesn't need to be popular with the city-dwelling, liberal-minded educated middle classes. But if a significant proportion of those who voted for him in December end up blaming him for the scale of the Covid crisis in the UK or for declines in their standard of living, quality of life or prospects, the polls could turn against him. Anyone who thinks a few decent weeks by Starmer are a game-changer is being naive - but so is anyone who assumes that Boris is bound to win in 2024.

You are right about the press and it is often claimed that the press leads the public but it is as you say more complex than that. But people's opinions rarely come from within themselves but are heavily influenced by the culture they are surrounded by. I don't think Boris will lose in 2024. It would need a sustained period of economic turmoil and a feeling that the government has lost control of the situation. Those people who voted for Boris months ago will have seen a man clapping the NHS, catching the virus himself and instigating a lockdown and furlough scheme. I don't think they are going to be at the stage where they've turned on him. On top of that I think it'll take at least an election cycle to repair the damage the Corbyn experiment has done to the Labour campaign machine. 

 

 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, hackneyfox said:

All parties may have been involved but using Child Abuse is a new low.

Is it? Tom Watson was quite apt at pointing the finger without due diligence.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

You are right about the press and it is often claimed that the press leads the public but it is as you say more complex than that. But people's opinions rarely come from within themselves but are heavily influenced by the culture they are surrounded by. I don't think Boris will lose in 2024. It would need a sustained period of economic turmoil and a feeling that the government has lost control of the situation. Those people who voted for Boris months ago will have seen a man clapping the NHS, catching the virus himself and instigating a lockdown and furlough scheme. I don't think they are going to be at the stage where they've turned on him. On top of that I think it'll take at least an election cycle to repair the damage the Corbyn experiment has done to the Labour campaign machine. 

 

 

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. I wouldn't like to predict anything.

 

Four years is a long time in which an awful lot can happen at the best of times. It's absolutely guaranteed that a lot more than usual will happen over the next 4 years - due to judgments made about the Covid crisis, its multiple ramifications for the economy, society, tax and spending, international relations.....then throw Brexit and possible trade deals with the USA, EU or others into the mix......it makes predicting events in 4 years almost like predicting events 20 years ahead would be in normal times...

 

Bringing things back to Starmer and given my liking for football analogies... As (broadly) a Labour supporter, I feel a bit like I did when Pearson had us challenging for the Championship play-offs in 2010 or 2012. I had no idea whether we'd end up in the PL, never mind Champions. But, after years in the doldrums as a near-laughing stock it felt good to have a team that was making progress, that was in contention and was winning some games against tough opposition. That's about where Labour are now, I think: long way to go, but showing promise and making progress, which is about the most that can be expected at this stage - and we've almost certainly got 4+ years to wait, regardless of what happens in politics. Even if Boris becomes the most unpopular PM of all time, the Tory party would just replace him and carry on until 2024, I presume. Hard to imagine them needlessly calling an early election after what happened to May in 2017.

 

What's happening with your lot, then? I was reading that Ed Davey and Baroness Brinton might carry on as joint caretaker leaders until 2021 due to the crisis - is that likely/wise/acceptable to members?

Makes it tough for the Lib Dems to get any traction or publicity, the dominance of this crisis, Labour having a competent leader again, heavy LD focus on opposing Brexit etc. How do you see them bouncing back, if you do? 

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Is it? Tom Watson was quite apt at pointing the finger without due diligence.

 

Piss-poor judgment by Watson (& by the Met) to unquestioningly back Carl Beech a few years ago and piss-poor judgment by these Tory MPs now. Can we agree on that?

[LiberalFox]

47 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. I wouldn't like to predict anything.

 

Four years is a long time in which an awful lot can happen at the best of times. It's absolutely guaranteed that a lot more than usual will happen over the next 4 years - due to judgments made about the Covid crisis, its multiple ramifications for the economy, society, tax and spending, international relations.....then throw Brexit and possible trade deals with the USA, EU or others into the mix......it makes predicting events in 4 years almost like predicting events 20 years ahead would be in normal times...

 

Bringing things back to Starmer and given my liking for football analogies... As (broadly) a Labour supporter, I feel a bit like I did when Pearson had us challenging for the Championship play-offs in 2010 or 2012. I had no idea whether we'd end up in the PL, never mind Champions. But, after years in the doldrums as a near-laughing stock it felt good to have a team that was making progress, that was in contention and was winning some games against tough opposition. That's about where Labour are now, I think: long way to go, but showing promise and making progress, which is about the most that can be expected at this stage - and we've almost certainly got 4+ years to wait, regardless of what happens in politics. Even if Boris becomes the most unpopular PM of all time, the Tory party would just replace him and carry on until 2024, I presume. Hard to imagine them needlessly calling an early election after what happened to May in 2017.

 

What's happening with your lot, then? I was reading that Ed Davey and Baroness Brinton might carry on as joint caretaker leaders until 2021 due to the crisis - is that likely/wise/acceptable to members?

Makes it tough for the Lib Dems to get any traction or publicity, the dominance of this crisis, Labour having a competent leader again, heavy LD focus on opposing Brexit etc. How do you see them bouncing back, if you do? 

It's Ed Davey/Mark Pack as acting co-leaders (the former being deputy leader under Swinson and the latter being elected party president shortly after the election). There was a decision to delay the contest until May 2021 (due to covid) but this was (rightly) unpopular so I forget what the official position is right now, I suspect it will happen before next May though.

 

I'd expect Layla Moran to win and a competent Labour leader massively helps us as a large part of our failure to capture south of England remain leaning Conservative seats was Corbyn. If the party gets it right we should be looking at making moderate progress next election cycle in terms of gained seats. Actually there is a 61 page report on the 2019 election just released today so I'm procrastinating reading it because I'm both interested and hesitant to read 61 pages .

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Piss-poor judgment by Watson (& by the Met) to unquestioningly back Carl Beech a few years ago and piss-poor judgment by these Tory MPs now. Can we agree on that?

Definitely, I just thought I’d join the point scoring game.

[CosbehFox]

On 14/05/2020 at 16:36, Leicester_Loyal said:

EDIT: Forgot to add, why do these MPs not check their sources before openingly retweeting and endorsing them, embarrassing.

Because a number of Tory PMs have conceded their twitter accounts to data analytic companies which are part bot, part person led. They map topics and certain accounts to focus on what to retweet or share. All it requires is one semi-serious account to tweet/share and it makes the thing look credible. 
 

There are occasions where the MPs are briefed what to say and you have mirror copy tweets published by a programme called hoot-suite.
 

It’s used by celebrities and footballers in a bid to boost their numbers (cos it increased matters when it comes to merchandise etc) but they have different filters and targets to map it all together. 
 

The increased tactic in politics is to release a lie, an edited truth or an edited image. It gets deleted within two hours but the topic gets discussed and it trends. By the time you have Chinese whispers, it becomes a ‘real’. 
 

People have felt I’ve been bonkers or conspiracy tinfoil bringing this up before. It works to alter opinion. It legitimatises bullshit.

[CosbehFox]

For some reason I can’t edit my post, but if you want a good example of an account using the support of data analytics. 
 

Christian Fuchs follows the weirdest accounts going. Like some really out there accounts on a whole range of subjects 

Edited 15 May 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Guest MattP]

22 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

All parties may have been involved but using Child Abuse is a new low.

 

21 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Piss-poor judgment by Watson (& by the Met) to unquestioningly back Carl Beech a few years ago and piss-poor judgment by these Tory MPs now. Can we agree on that?

We can, I just we could have all agreed this was completely wrong before we had some Tories do it as well.

 

What Tom Watson did was the most extraordinary abuse of parliamentary privilege ever seen, this moron stood up in the house and called innocent people the epitome of evil based on false allegations of paedophilia from a lunatic who turned out to be a peadophile himself.

 

His victims are unable to sue him and he just walks into another high paid job as soon as he leaves parliament.

[Mike Oxlong]

Crikey, this is turning into a which side has the biggest shitbag contest 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Crikey, this is turning into a which side has the biggest shitbag contest 

It was bound too wasn’t it? To pretend it was uniquely bad was bound to be met with opposition when it isn’t true.

Politics is a cess pit right now and it’s across the board but this kind of thing has gone on for years now, sadly.

[Alf Bentley]

43 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

We can, I just we could have all agreed this was completely wrong before we had some Tories do it as well.

 

What Tom Watson did was the most extraordinary abuse of parliamentary privilege ever seen, this moron stood up in the house and called innocent people the epitome of evil based on false allegations of paedophilia from a lunatic who turned out to be a peadophile himself.

 

His victims are unable to sue him and he just walks into another high paid job as soon as he leaves parliament.

 

Here's my post from 6th Nov. 2019 in the General Election Poll thread. So I did say Watson's actions were wrong long before the Tories did it. Whoever's playing "whataboutery", it isn't me.

 

It was in reply to a post by you - and you even repped me for it! 

 

Posted 6 November 2019

  On 06/11/2019 at 20:53, MattP said:

Good riddance to Watson, if he had any dignity he would have resigned after the Carl Beech affair - his attack on Proctor was the most outrageous use of parliamentary privilege I've seen and the pain the family must have felt I can't imagine. His wife died with the allegations still hanging over him.

 

I imagine his internal polling didn't look great in West Bromwich either, bookies had Tories slight favourites to unseat him.

 

Watson was badly tainted by the Carl Beech business. There would have been nothing wrong in passing on information received to the police or even in being fooled into believing Beech.

But using his position to publicly accuse people of the vilest of crimes, based only on Beech's claims, was reckless, possibly egotistical and certainly shamefully poor judgment. His failure to apologise properly leaves a sour taste.

 

Are you getting confused about Proctor, though? I know Leon Brittan died before he could be cleared, but Proctor is unmarried and gay, isn't he? Indeed, that's probably why Beech targeted him with his accusations - a sign of changing times - because in the 80s, Proctor was convicted of "gross indecency" and forced to stand down as a right-wing Tory MP after the tabloids revealed that he'd taken part in S&M sessions with young men in their late teens (at a time when the gay age of consent was still 21 - a policy then strongly supported by most Tories & upheld by the Thatcher Govt).

 

This Watson resignation is a bit odd as the resignation letters exchanged with Corbyn are superficially quite amicable - not even anything "veiled". Maybe Watson is just being loyal to the party and more will be revealed after the election?

Even if he thought that he was going to lose his seat (a possibility, but no racing certainty), I doubt he'd have stood down for that reason. Maybe he couldn't face the idea of potentially working in a Corbyn Govt (after all, he must know that Corbyn will probably be gone if Labour lose the election) or maybe there's some other reason? Would be nice to think that he felt guilty about the Beech business and went for that reason, but if so he surely wouldn't have brazened it out when Beech was exposed.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Fair play - I do think Watson should have been forced out though rather than resigned, it was as indefensible as parliamentary behaviour can be. 

 

I was right about his seat mind

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

It was bound too wasn’t it? To pretend it was uniquely bad was bound to be met with opposition when it isn’t true.

Politics is a cess pit right now and it’s across the board but this kind of thing has gone on for years now, sadly.

Who said it was “uniquely bad” ? 
 

I remember MattP rightly calling out Watson some time ago and others doing the same with Dorries and co a few days ago. 
 

The sins of Watson don’t make Dorries behaviour any more palatable. 

 

 

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Who said it was “uniquely bad” ? 
 

I remember MattP rightly calling out Watson some time ago and others doing the same with Dorries and co a few days ago. 
 

The sins of Watson don’t make Dorries behaviour any more palatable. 

 

 

A new low? 

[Mike Oxlong]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

A new low? 

Huh ? 

[Strokes]

53 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Huh ? 

Someone said it was a new low. I interpret that as uniquely bad.

[Mike Oxlong]

 

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

Someone said it was a new low. I interpret that as uniquely bad.

Ah, ok. So that’s how we get into a your scum is worse than our scum argument. I’ll pass on that one myself 👍

Edited 16 May 2020 by Mike Oxlong