Not The Politics Thread.

[Jimothy]

Opinions on this please. People talk about Labour, and Starmer not being electable, I just wondered how people think they get to that when they up against headlines like this.

 

 

 

He hasn't actually done anything of the sort. He said under the current rules he has to be released, but the rules need changing. Its in that article, and the Mail one too. But social media is full of people laying into Starmer because they've read the headline and nothing else. The headline is a blatant lie. So how does anyone become electable, and connect with voters with coverage like this.

[Corky]

Unlike The Sun to do that sort of thing.

 

I mean, Keir is not likely to shout "I HOPE BIG COL IS RELEASED" live on radio but clearly he's changed in the last few months. Almost as though he has a better understanding of the legal processes more than some little twat who writes for a rag and wants to rile up the morons who read that shite.

[Jimothy]

8 hours ago, Corky said:

Unlike The Sun to do that sort of thing.

 

I mean, Keir is not likely to shout "I HOPE BIG COL IS RELEASED" live on radio but clearly he's changed in the last few months. Almost as though he has a better understanding of the legal processes more than some little twat who writes for a rag and wants to rile up the morons who read that shite.

I'm not surprised at the Sun, my question is, how do Labour combat this if they want to become electable again? If you search "Starmer Pitchfork" on social media, it's full of people lapping up that headline, without reading the article. 

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I'm not surprised at the Sun, my question is, how do Labour combat this if they want to become electable again? If you search "Starmer Pitchfork" on social media, it's full of people lapping up that headline, without reading the article. 

Yep, it's a tricky thing to solve. Pushing for greater media accountability for stuff like this would be a start, but that's a problem in of itself.

[reynard]

22 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I'm not surprised at the Sun, my question is, how do Labour combat this if they want to become electable again? If you search "Starmer Pitchfork" on social media, it's full of people lapping up that headline, without reading the article. 

I don't think they can do much TBH. The printed press is largely pro Tory and has been for many years. I think their only hope is that over time the younger voters have more sway and they are more likely to be influenced by social media rather than main stream press. 

Our son is 26, he's a post grad so you might say well capable of reading and analysing etc but he doesn't watch the news on Tv and doesn't read any newspaper and he's far from alone, from what I can gather, in his age group. For Labour and indeed all parties it will be, I think, how they engage with more contemporary methods of influence in the future. The main stream press will have less influence in the future than it does now.

 

Right now the only way Labour can be elected is if the Tories become unelectable.

[Buce]

31 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I'm not surprised at the Sun, my question is, how do Labour combat this if they want to become electable again? If you search "Starmer Pitchfork" on social media, it's full of people lapping up that headline, without reading the article. 

 

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, it's a tricky thing to solve. Pushing for greater media accountability for stuff like this would be a start, but that's a problem in of itself.

 

4 minutes ago, reynard said:

I don't think they can do much TBH. The printed press is largely pro Tory and has been for many years. I think their only hope is that over time the younger voters have more sway and they are more likely to be influenced by social media rather than main stream press. 

Our son is 26, he's a post grad so you might say well capable of reading and analysing etc but he doesn't watch the news on Tv and doesn't read any newspaper and he's far from alone, from what I can gather, in his age group. For Labour and indeed all parties it will be, I think, how they engage with more contemporary methods of influence in the future. The main stream press will have less influence in the future than it does now.

 

Right now the only way Labour can be elected is if the Tories become unelectable.

 

This is clearly not something that just happens - the Tories and their supporters in the media are obviously using social sciences and psychology in their campaigning.

 

Labour needs to up its game to get its message across.

[reynard]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

This is clearly not something that just happens - the Tories and their supporters in the media are obviously using social sciences and psychology in their campaigning.

 

Labour needs to up its game to get its message across.

Absolutely it does. I'm just not sure what they can do via the traditional print newspapers. I'm not really engaged with social media but for me that is where they need to up their game the most.

[Dunge]

I think with regard to the situation with the Sun headline above, the important thing is not to dwell on it but to combat it. There will always be these stories and twisting of words around, be in print media or social media. What Boris Johnson does well - and you may not like him for it but it’s working right now - is to completely change the narrative rather than to debate or create a bigger hole. I know that’s not Starmer’s way, and it is right that he does things his own way. So perhaps an intermediate answer of generating his own snappy headline:

“Starmer: Change law now to PREVENT murderous Pitchfork release!”

Then clarify exactly what he says in the article for anyone who wants to read on, but make sure anyone who just wants to read the headline gets an emotional shot in the arm. Essentially, there are games afoot here. I think the trick for Starmer is to get in a position where he’s at the front of them rather than getting caught behind them and explaining all the time. I dislike Momentum with a passion but I think they understand this.

 

As for the grander question of how Labour become electable, I think Starmer has to get out into Britain and talk to people, over and over and over again, and be visible doing it. Go to the provinces, go to Leicester, to Hull, to Hartlepool, to Wigan. Go and ask people, genuinely, what concerns them. And then negotiate. Don’t tell them they’re wrong because they won’t like you. Don’t tell them they’re right because they won’t believe you. Tell them you’re listening and that you want to govern for them. I think it’s fine to have his own ideas, e.g., he wants to combat climate change and that’s non-negotiable. But also he wants to listen to them on other topics, e.g. immigration. And then reflect those views in your policies. Ultimately, people are saying again and again that they don’t know what Labour stands for anymore. So give them the opportunity to feel they have a stake in it. Reach out your hand to them and make a deal, and moreover be seen to do it. Make sure they feel part of it, that it is in some way their party again, that both has big ideas and is representing them.

 

I accept all that might sound dubious coming from someone who mostly votes Conservative, but that’s how I’d do it if I was Starmer.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

10 minutes ago, Dunge said:

As for the grander question of how Labour become electable, I think Starmer has to get out into Britain and talk to people, over and over and over again, and be visible doing it. Go to the provinces, go to Leicester, to Hull, to Hartlepool, to Wigan. Go and ask people, genuinely, what concerns them. And then negotiate. Don’t tell them they’re wrong because they won’t like you.

The vocal Corbyn-loving mob on Twitter spewed bile at anyone who didn't hero worship their dear leader and that didn't pay off.

If you tell people they're evil and wrong and scum etc etc - even those on the soft left and the middle ground floating voters - they're unlikely to get onside.

Labour need to learn how to listen and embrace people with different views of the world otherwise they'll remain a sixth form debating society permanently in opposition.

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

I'm not surprised at the Sun, my question is, how do Labour combat this if they want to become electable again? If you search "Starmer Pitchfork" on social media, it's full of people lapping up that headline, without reading the article. 

Two parts to this for me. 
 

Firstly the social media/printed media is a battle you aren’t going to win if you want to keep principles in place. Before the era of fake news, Blair wrestled the media off the Tories by getting pally with Murdoch. 
 

Second point - what the Tories are so good at now is analysing patterns in what ‘turns voters on’ and gets them going. Labour need to right or wrongly stop fcuking around about image and start looking at forwards rather than backwards. Some good policy about housing would go a long way - it speaks to everyone. Step away from just constantly hitting on the Tory errors and mistakes, no matter how right you are because it’s tiring, boring news. 
 

Start playing your own shots rather than returning the ball. 
 

As Cummings pointed out the other day, choose where your leader. There was a lot of huff about Johnson refusing an interview with Andrew Neil. They knew it would be a huge own goal 

[Sharpe's Fox]

10 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Opinions on this please. People talk about Labour, and Starmer not being electable, I just wondered how people think they get to that when they up against headlines like this.

 

 

 

He hasn't actually done anything of the sort. He said under the current rules he has to be released, but the rules need changing. Its in that article, and the Mail one too. But social media is full of people laying into Starmer because they've read the headline and nothing else. The headline is a blatant lie. So how does anyone become electable, and connect with voters with coverage like this.

Starmer's made his own bed on this. His comms team has been chasing tabloid headlines and columns for months but he'll never win these people over. Corbyn had the right approach on this; treat the print media with the contempt they deserve but you can go even further. Any headline like this then you release a statement calling out Murdoch or the Barclay Bothers or Rothermere. Reference phone hacking, Orgreave, Hillsborough, Stephenen Lawrence. Call the tabloids out as skidmarks on society. Do whatever to drown out the noise. Yes they'll be journalists saying you are "against a free press" (not a thing in Britain) but who cares what these people think? Starmer would never do that in a million years, though, since he counts these people in his social strata even as they are making things up about him.

[Voll Blau]

19 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Starmer's made his own bed on this. His comms team has been chasing tabloid headlines and columns for months but he'll never win these people over. Corbyn had the right approach on this; treat the print media with the contempt they deserve but you can go even further. Any headline like this then you release a statement calling out Murdoch or the Barclay Bothers or Rothermere. Reference phone hacking, Orgreave, Hillsborough, Stephenen Lawrence. Call the tabloids out as skidmarks on society. Do whatever to drown out the noise. Yes they'll be journalists saying you are "against a free press" (not a thing in Britain) but who cares what these people think? Starmer would never do that in a million years, though, since he counts these people in his social strata even as they are making things up about him.

 

You see, the problem with this is when people say "the print media" is they really just mean a handful of national tabloids. Corbyn did have some very valid points about those particular titles, but if you keep making the same points about them too often when you're getting bad press, it just comes across as whinging (not saying I agree with that analysis, but that's just the way it is). You had journalists being booed simply for asking him questions at times, which is a horrific look for any party that wants to be democratically elected.

 

One area Labour needs to get better at exploiting is the regional media. If you make the right points to the right people in enough areas of the country via a medium they access all the time, you'll give yourself a much better chance of winning a fair number the seats you need (see the LDs exploiting local issues well the other day). Some of the best political journalists in the country work for regional titles and, unlike many of their national colleagues, aren't biased one way or the other. Writing off an entire industry because of a few bad eggs who work for select national publications is an awful tactic if you're serious about winning elections.

[Guest Kopfkino]

18 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Opinions on this please. People talk about Labour, and Starmer not being electable, I just wondered how people think they get to that when they up against headlines like this.

 

 

 

He hasn't actually done anything of the sort. He said under the current rules he has to be released, but the rules need changing. Its in that article, and the Mail one too. But social media is full of people laying into Starmer because they've read the headline and nothing else. The headline is a blatant lie. So how does anyone become electable, and connect with voters with coverage like this.

Doesn’t seem at all difficult to me think as a politician first rather than a lawyer. Phrasing it as ‘He has to be released’ gives all the rope anyone needs to hang you especially when you accompany it with an ‘if’ rather than an actual viewpoint. ‘If we think that is wrong’ yet again gives nobody any idea what he would stand for or do/it suggests he isn’t that bothered otherwise he’d state the point.

 

He will be released because that’s the system but I think the system is wrong here and I would look to change that. Peak Tony Blair wouldn’t have had to whinge about an ‘unfair’ headline in this situation

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

The Cummings "bombshells" and Keith's interview with Piers don't seem to have cut through yet.

 

 

[Jimothy]

12 hours ago, reynard said:

Right now the only way Labour can be elected is if the Tories become unelectable.

They already should be. Problem is the Tories electablity is based on Labour's unelectablity. Labour electabilty is based on Labour's electabilty. Labour constantly has to proves itself, the tories just have to hope Labour fail to do that. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

Labours finished, better just get used to one party rule

[BenTheFox]

8 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Labours finished, better just get used to one party rule

I think you're right. If they are to stand any chance then they need to decide quickly what they actually are. 

[BenTheFox]

On 20/06/2021 at 17:39, doverfox said:

Nimbyism trumps what could be good for the nation as a whole. Everyone wants a mobile phone nobody wants a mobile phone mast. The problem with a lot of these national infrastructure schemes is they do nothing for those that live along side the route. HS2 is a waste of money but that is a different story.

Valid points. For instance we need to be building significantly more houses in this country but nobody wants new housing estates popping up where they live. Those opinions could potentially change if they were to improve transport links, schools, hospitals etc. around the area. The issue is they rarely do. 

 

The main issue with HS2 for me is that I don't believe that the country is big enough to justify it. High-speed rail generally works in large countries because it can compete with air travel. I'm not really sure who benefits from getting into Birmingham 20 minutes earlier. 

[Jimothy]

2 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

I think you're right. If they are to stand any chance then they need to decide quickly what they actually are. 

Where as the Tories don't have to decide what they are, they just play say whatever people want to hear, and if they say something they don't like, they quickly do a u turn. They have no idea what they stand for, but then again that's another double standard we have between the two parties.

[BenTheFox]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Where as the Tories don't have to decide what they are, they just play say whatever people want to hear, and if they say something they don't like, they quickly do a u turn. They have no idea what they stand for, but then again that's another double standard we have between the two parties.

I don't disagree with that at all. A statement which I find interesting is that it is easier for the right to move left on economics if they need to than it is for the left to move right on culture. I think the country is generally more socially conservative than many are willing to admit. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

12 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

I don't disagree with that at all. A statement which I find interesting is that it is easier for the right to move left on economics if they need to than it is for the left to move right on culture.

I think the country is generally more socially conservative than many are willing to admit. 

Labour have only had 13 of the last 42 years in power, and that was what many consider a right wing version of a left wing party.

[StanSP]

Sick. Fancy yacht is clearly their top priority. 

 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

51 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Sick. Fancy yacht is clearly their top priority. 

 

 

 

Sky's?  Yes possibly, and the Government are lapping it up.  Waste time talking about irrelevant amount of money on something useful instead of asking about actual policies which are impacting people's live right now.

[ealingfox]

32 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Sky's?  Yes possibly, and the Government are lapping it up.  Waste time talking about irrelevant amount of money on something useful instead of asking about actual policies which are impacting people's live right now.

 

The context is suggesting the money would be better spent on nurses.

[Jon the Hat]

17 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

The context is suggesting the money would be better spent on nurses.

Nonsense whataboutery.  For a start you can only pay for those nurses for a year for £200m.  You could say that about literally any other government spending no?  None of this furthers the debate at all.  The only real question on the business case for the yacht is how much do we spend on international trade meetings in for example snazzy hotels etc, what benefits does a boat have over and above that, and does this justify the net investment.  **** all to do with nurses.