[Bones McCoy]

If labour lose this by election should Starmer go? Last year it was won by a margin of 3500 so not huge. Tories also consistently 10pt ahead in polling. It's not looking good.

Makes sense if you think Starmer is the problem. Who should be leader to prevent the Tories hoovering up the UKIP vote; Paul Nuttal?

A labour Leader can't prevent the Tories hoovering up the UKIP vote, that's a done deal.

Labour should be asking whether they have another potential leader who can do all of these:
* Sustain a clawback against the "Tories who gave you the vaccine" past a new manager bounce.
* Deal with the inevitable party infighting that follows a change at the top.
* Keep Johnson on the back-foot in parliament with some degree of forensic scrutiny.

[MisterMuncher]

The problem with forensic scrutiny is that whilst some folk understand it and it's definitely a good thing, it's not going to penetrate the skulls of those view PMQs as a Punch and Judy show (when they view it at all) and the well paid columnists who ensure they keep thinking that way.

Sometimes, you almost think SKS would be better to respond to Johnson with "No. Your Mum"

[Boiler]

Sometimes, you almost think SKS would be better to respond to Johnson with "No. Your Mum"

And there, in a nutshell, is the BIG problem. Thanks to the presence of TV cameras and the Soundbite Culture, proper scrutiny is replaced by knockabout bantz.

[Arrowhead]

If labour lose this by election should Starmer go? Last year it was won by a margin of 3500 so not huge. Tories also consistently 10pt ahead in polling. It's not looking good.

I'd say no, because it's still far too soon and the overall circumstances right now are completely extraordinary. The last time we had this type of situation was probably during the afterglow of the Falklands conflict.

However, I do remember stating on the old forum that Labour should be more ruthless with misfiring leaders, in much the same way the Tories are with theirs. If Starmer is still failing to rattle enough cages by the Spring of 2023, then it might be time to press the panic button (but only once the leadership/membership rules have been tightened up to avoid another 2015 situation, if that hasn't happened already).

[Andy McDandy]

The problem with Johnson is that it's the misfires that people love. Anybody else would have been relegated and deselected a long time ago. And on the rare occasion that he actually approaches competence, they love him even more, as if standing by him through the bollocks has paid off.

I'm beginning to feel that the only way we'll see the back of him is if he gets sick of the job, or he gets poleaxed by his party.

[kettle]

If labour lose this by election should Starmer go? Last year it was won by a margin of 3500 so not huge. Tories also consistently 10pt ahead in polling. It's not looking good.

I'd say no, because it's still far too soon and the overall circumstances right now are completely extraordinary. The last time we had this type of situation was probably during the afterglow of the Falklands conflict.

However, I do remember stating on the old forum that Labour should be more ruthless with misfiring leaders, in much the same way the Tories are with theirs. If Starmer is still failing to rattle enough cages by the Spring of 2023, then it might be time to press the panic button (but only once the leadership/membership rules have been tightened up to avoid another 2015 situation, if that hasn't happened already).

That's quite the long leash you're giving him. By this point in his time in office, Corbyn had already undergone a leadership challenge. The local election results were uniquely terrible for Starmer's Labour (it wasn't just the Tories who picked up votes, the Greens took half of Bristol too). I genuinely don't see what would change if he was given another year, or even two years. Feels like Spring of 2023 is not going to give his replacement much time before a GE.

[mattomac]

Maybe that’s a good thing..

The way I see it is this, if these elections had been held at certain points throughout the last year they would have benefited Labour.

The vaccine has cut through that but that only buys so much time, businesses are already not fully committing even though the government assures them all will be fine.

I expect several festivals to Fall in the next week or so and is such a short time frame from election to leader to election such a bad thing. The more Miliband’s tenure dragged on the worse it got.

If he had gone to the polls in 2013 he probably holds the largest party. Oppositions don’t win elections but they need to seem competent enough to govern. I still think Labour will come 2025 but that might be under a new leader.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's quite the long leash you're giving him. By this point in his time in office, Corbyn had already undergone a leadership challenge. The local election results were uniquely terrible for Starmer's Labour (it wasn't just the Tories who picked up votes, the Greens took half of Bristol too). I genuinely don't see what would change if he was given another year, or even two years. Feels like Spring of 2023 is not going to give his replacement much time before a GE.

I was more worried by the panicked reaction by Starmer than the results themselves. There was a small swing from the 2019 general election. I appreciate people don't normally talk about this sort of swing, but I think it's fair enough here, given the deterioration up to December 2019. Bristol has a mayoral system, which Labour won, so they're still in by far the strongest position.

See how it goes from here when Johnson isn't the bloke who got Brexit done and procured the vaccine.

[kettle]

I suppose I just don't see what he's really doing. I don't know what he stands for or believes in. He's had some profoundly awkward moments recently, talking purely in soundbites. I'm sure everyone here saw that cringeworthy interview where he said "I will change the things that need changing, and that is the change I will bring about"? There's no substance or vision. Even John Ashworth this morning on GMB couldn't answer the simple question of what Labour stood for. The party seems utterly paralysed. I can only think of one policy Labour has put forward since 2019 which was some sort of government financial bonds for covid?

And blaming the circumstances is lazy imo. The Atlee government came out of WW2 with a manifesto and knocked the prime minister (who had lead the country to win WW2 no less) out immediately. Obviously not directly comparable, but the idea that exceptional circumstances preclude Labour from having a manifesto or policies is not credible.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The ground in 1945 had been prepared by the Coalition Government and Churchill ran what sounds like a worse campaign than May. And of course the route to social improvement was easy enough in its own way- military spending falling after the war ends. Attlee wasn't going to "Worcester Woman" or whoever and asking for a load of extra tax. So I don't think the 1945 comparison is much use.

I don't worry too much about "what does Labour stand for?" stuff. You're either going to sound cliched, long winded or dogmatic. My answer would be, "Can I give you some policies?" Normally oppositions don't need these this early in a Parliament, but this time I think it was a bad mistake not to have a couple of them (adult social care paid for mainly by general taxation would be the best politically.

I agree about the paralysis. Hopeful that Batley and Spen gives a chance to improve on this.

[Youngian]

Starmer and Ashworth's wooden performances are up for criticism but an opposition drawing up manifesto pledges at this point in the parliamentary cycle is dismal politics. Especially in this unprecedented economic and political environment. You'd be lucky for your policies to last the month without goalposts moving. Leaders are always on probation and Starmer doesn't have a Praetorian Guard of crank activists protecting him from walking the plank.

[kettle]

Perhaps setting a whole agenda in a rapidly shifting world could be seen as setting up for failure, but he needs to have *some* policy. I take your point, Tubby Isaacs, that "what do you stand for?" is a bit wishy-washy and really a difficult question to answer sincerely, meaningfully and interestingly. That said, people infer values by what your policies are (amongst other factors).

Recently the nurses' union were negotiating a pay rise. Government offered 1% (below inflation, insult). Union asked for 15%. Public very supportive of a pay rise for nurses. Starmer had a clear chance to draw water between Labour and Conservatives, and put himself on the side of nurses and the public. A clear open goal. What did he do? Settle for a 2% rise, with room to go up. Just really uninspiring stuff.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I think you are completely failing to understand how this works.

No party, ever, sets out its manifesto this far ahead of an election, with the exception of the 1945 Attlee government, which was a special case, due to the acceptance of the Beveridge Report. Because things change (don't promise what you may not be able to deliver), because it gives your opponent the chance to steal your policies (Johnson has form) and because the electorate has a short attention span and a poor memory. Shiny new policies go stale very quickly especially if you give the right-wing press a couple of years to ridicule them..

What the successful Blair government-in-waiting did was to set up policy development groups well in advance of 1997. That meant that fully-formed policies could be put into the manifesto, and they were ready to hit the ground running. The working-out was done and demonstrable (think of the Education Unit under Michael Barber). None of that could be said of Corbyn, and his half-baked and apparently random policy announcements which seemed to have no development work (think Broadband) before announcement.


BTW - you haven't yet taken advantage of the opportunity to introduce yourself in 'Introductions'.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Perhaps setting a whole agenda in a rapidly shifting world could be seen as setting up for failure, but he needs to have *some* policy. I take your point, Tubby Isaacs, that "what do you stand for?" is a bit wishy-washy and really a difficult question to answer sincerely, meaningfully and interestingly. That said, people infer values by what your policies are (amongst other factors).

Recently the nurses' union were negotiating a pay rise. Government offered 1% (below inflation, insult). Union asked for 15%. Public very supportive of a pay rise for nurses. Starmer had a clear chance to draw water between Labour and Conservatives, and put himself on the side of nurses and the public. A clear open goal. What did he do? Settle for a 2% rise, with room to go up. Just really uninspiring stuff.

Sturgeon went for 4% for nurses right before the election. It's very effective politically, though there are probably much better uses of the money.

Labour in Wales has gone for a cash bonus of £750. That's relatively speaking more progressive. Normally, if you're not in government, you don't have to have your own policies this early. But I think, given the vaccine advantage, the opposition had to set something out to keep itself in the game. The Wales policy would have been a good idea for Starmer, I think.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think you are completely failing to understand how this works.

No party, ever, sets out its manifesto this far ahead of an election, with the exception of the 1945 Attlee government, which was a special case, due to the acceptance of the Beveridge Report. Because things change (don't promise what you may not be able to deliver), because it gives your opponent the chance to steal your policies (Johnson has form) and because the electorate has a short attention span and a poor memory. Shiny new policies go stale very quickly especially if you give the right-wing press a couple of years to ridicule them..

What the successful Blair government-in-waiting did was to set up policy development groups well in advance of 1997. That meant that fully-formed policies could be put into the manifesto, and they were ready to hit the ground running. The working-out was done and demonstrable (think of the Education Unit under Michael Barber). None of that could be said of Corbyn, and his half-baked and apparently random policy announcements which seemed to have no development work (think Broadband) before announcement.


BTW - you haven't yet taken advantage of the opportunity to introduce yourself in 'Introductions'.

Do you think there's detailed, hit the ground running work going on now? I don't really get a sense of that. I haven't seen anybody say that, though you'd think they'd be keen to evoke that successful bit of Blair that basically the whole party would agree on now.

[kettle]

We just had a series of council elections. Yes this isn't a general election, but it was an opportunity for Labour to say something about what they want to do and why they want to have these council seats. I'm not convinced they took advantage of this.
Losing Hartlepool was similarly concerning. Looking at votes and turnout this wasn't just a matter of BXP and Cons votes converging into one, Labour's relative vote share was far lower than it should have been, which I think reflects apathy on the part of previous labour voters.
The fact they lost ground in council elections to the Greens as well suggests that this failing is a unique facet of Labour, how it's presented and how it's run. Their messaging is not attracting new voters, and seems to be putting off previous voters.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Do you think there's detailed, hit the ground running work going on now? I don't really get a sense of that. I haven't seen anybody say that, though you'd think they'd be keen to evoke that successful bit of Blair that basically the whole party would agree on now.

I think so. I'll have to dig further. But it's not as systematic as 1995-1997, no Mandelson, no Campbell, no Brown.
No Blair...

[Boiler]

... thank God.

Apparently GMB's viewing figures plummeted this week when (a) Campbell turned it into a soapbox and (b) Blair made an appearance.

Your yearning for Blair and Co. is reminiscent of Tories hankering after Thatcher.

Yesterday's men are not the solution to tomorrow's problems and you should know this - after all, someone with a desire to return Labour to the 70s with 1970s policies cost them at least one GE.

[Boiler]

Much as I live in a world of nostalgia within my four walls, it gets a bloody rude jolt when I open my front door - remember, I live amongst the ignorantly-called "Turnip Taliban" and it ain't all white Range Rovers and "ladies who lunch" - the flip side is a large East European immigrant workforce on minimum wage in agriculture and meat-packing plants.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

... thank God.

Apparently GMB's viewing figures plummeted this week when (a) Campbell turned it into a soapbox and (b) Blair made an appearance.

Your yearning for Blair and Co. is reminiscent of Tories hankering after Thatcher.

Yesterday's men are not the solution to tomorrow's problems and you should know this - after all, someone with a desire to return Labour to the 70s with 1970s policies cost them at least one GE.

You keep saying that with no proof, or apparent understanding of the differences.
I'm not so crushingly negative.

And don't insult or patronise me, please.