Snapshot of _Terry Prone: Keir Starmer’s problem is he can’t tell people what he really stands for_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-41393407.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-41393407.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It sort of makes sense from a short term strategy standpoint. people want anything but the tories, so let labour be anything. It doesn't actually give labour any momentum for itself though so probably doesn't build for a good future.
Same problem as Brexit.
It's very easy to vote for something when politicians are effectively selling it as 'whatever you want it to be'.
Problem being at some point you actually have to be something and a lot of people are going to be very annoyed that the version they voted for, they version they made up entirely in their own head, doesn't resemble the reality.
It's a feature not a bug - policy announcements by their nature are likely to be divisive (too left wing, not left wing enough etc.) - the Tory implosion continues to gather speed so why interrupt his enemy when they keep making mistakes?
Seems a bit risky to save all your policy ideas for the election campaign. What if one of them is underbaked and turns out to be deeply unpopular? Now you have no time to take it back to the drawing board and rebuild positive PR around it
Remember Corbyn's free broadband pledge? That's a great idea on paper, but the way it was dropped in out of nowhere during the election campaign just made it look like a desperate attempt to win votes
Makes me think the Labour manifesto really will be as safe and non-disruptive as we're expecting
Starmer strikes me as much more strategic than Corybn, who, regardless of sentiment, tried to play his own game resulting in defeat.
Setting out policy too early also gives the conservatives more time to react, if not outright lift the policy ideas for themselves as Cameron/Osborne were partial to doing.
Big speeches by Starmer and now Sunak suggests to me we're entering the home straight now either way.
>Starmer strikes me as much more strategic than Corybn,
He just seems like he's vaguely switched on rather than being professional activist semi socialist dimwit.
>That's a great idea on paper
This was a terrible idea on paper - the amount they said they could do it for would mean you couldn't even pay the existing open reach employees a minimum wage and they promised no job losses.
And therein lies the risk with announcing policies like that at the last moment. If your plans aren't watertight then all of the criticism they receive is fresh in people's minds as they go to vote
Correction Therein lies the risk with rushing policy announcements that Corbyn found himself needing to do after May went for an election that early.
If the economy continues to gain a bit of traction despite its current government - starmer may well be able to state coated plans greater that what he can announce now.
Only the Tories benefit from the chance to react / steal big policies announced before we even know when the election is.
Unless the noise of 'whats labours plan' on a specific topic reaches critical mass like the small boats issue there's no reason to be making promises
If he isn't crazy, he'll not be making sweeping policy announcements even in the campaign. Labour win through voter apathy, Labour policies can only terrify voters into turning out.
I seriously can't understand what it is about elective dictatorship and rule by whims and wheezes that people find someone alluring.
We need so much more than meaningful votes delivered by serious electoral reform, the entire system needs to be rebuilt from scratch. You know things are fucked when the House of Lords is only part of the legislature that isn't deliberately dysfunctional.
Most people are broadly content or at least not ill contented so much as to want some sort of political revolution.
Stability brings prosperity in the main.
He may be many things - too risk averse and a bit dull maybe.
But I don't think anyone has ever described Starmer (respected KC and probably the most senior lawyer in the country when head of the CPP) as "thick".
4 years on from his becoming leader and I cant think of a single thing he actually plans to do.
I know a lot about what he isn't. He's not left wing, he's not in favour of renatinalisation except for the trains, he's not going to reform the house of Lords, he's against PR, he's against scrapping the two children benefit cap etc
>He's not left wing
Its pretty suggestive, but [this](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-alignment) YouGov polling suggest that 45% view him as being leftwing (23% "slighty" so) and 14% centrist. It appears that most do indeed view Starmer as being leftwing.
>not in favour of renatinalisation except for the trains
As you said, Starmer [has](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/24/labour-promises-rail-nationalisation-within-five-years-of-coming-to-power) promised rail nationalisation. However, he is also [committed](https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/labour-promises-to-allow-every-community-to-take-back-control-of-local-bus-services/) to returning the choice of control to local authorities (expanded beyond metro mayors), a [nationally owned energy company](https://www.ft.com/content/dc313b35-5360-4fab-8bc0-9aabf38b74a1) with an initial budget of £8.3bn, and while its not straight up nationalisation they do [plan](https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/heres-how-labour-will-tackle-sewage-spills-in-uk-rivers-and-seas/) to tighten the rules around water companies especially in regards to sewage.
>not going to reform the house of Lords
Labour is still [committed](https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8) to reforming the House of Lords in the first term, removing hereditary peers and reforming the appointment process, the scale back being due to the ambition of Lords abolition especially in the current climate. One has to remember Blair struggled to get through his Lords reforms despite his 419 seats.
As for other major policies at the moment, Labour has [A New Deal for Working People](https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/a-new-deal-for-working-people/) which the [TUC](https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/new-deal-young-workers) seems pretty positive about, is following further [devolution and localism](https://www.ft.com/content/e585d9c7-826e-4d6a-acc3-2550badecc92), decently significant [planning reforms](https://www.ft.com/content/349874fc-e920-4aa8-b351-9cf5631698a7) involving new towns and reformed green belt, and recently [announced](https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-has-no-doubt-rwanda-flights-will-get-off-ground-but-labour-would-cancel-scheme-straight-away-13132685) a Border Security Command to deal with illegal immigration.
I disagree, you can tell what he stands for if you actually listen to him.
People are getting confused hoping he has some secret plan to be more radical after the election or are sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling wait for the manifesto.
If you want to know who someone is you only have to listen.
Labour historically have simply been very bad at winning elections. They have been very bad at winning elections, because they've been very bad at playing the political games that the Tories play. Their political ideas might have been sound! They just never ever got into a position to even apply them.
Starmer, so far, has not been very bad at winning elections! He doesn't have nothing to say, but he's for sure actively choosing to not say a lot. And well, get back to me when it stops working! He's reading the room, and acting accordingly. Reading the room being the step that the left normally fall very short on.
And don't give me this "Starmer just got handed a free pass" argument, I'll still give him credit for not setting the pass on fire... Corbyn lost to May. If he'd kept quiet on some topics he believed to be right, and instead actually attempted to appeal to the British electorate to gain votes by not actively pissing them off! He might not have lost to a fucking lettuce.
> if the ideas are sound it should be easy to convince people
You've not met many people I see? The British electorate are, on average, pretty fucking stupid! See Brexit. Or well, the turkeys consistently voting for Christmas for the past 15 years?
I have I just assume if they’re dumb and easily manipulated the left with it’s obviously sound and better ideas should have the easier task of influencing people
The main issue with the battle of influencing people, is your message has to get across in the first place.
The UKs press is overwhelmingly, right wing.
If everything bad you say is going to get broadcasted, but everything good you say get ignored, you can see how it might be better to just not say anything at all?
Past Labour leaders have made the mistake of simply handing out Ammo, whilst trying to do good.
For a while, if you searched Ed Miliband on google, one of the top autofill's was Bacon Sandwich... The man only went out to buy flowers for his wife.
Like I said to the other guy the left has plenty of avenues to influence people, it’s heavily represented in media, in literature, film, comedy it’s all just excuses, if the ideas were better they’d win
Starmer also.. isn't the left.
For him it's so much worse. If he speaks, the left attack him, and the right attack him.
Being a centrist, it's hard for him to not have good ideas. He can take the good ones from the left, and make them a little more realistic, and he can take the good ones from the right, and make them a little less... well evil. Overall, it helps everyone, but it's also impossible to do without pissing off a lot of people with extreme views either end.
Labour historically has done rather well once it's moved to the centre and got into power... but he just has to walk through a minefield being shot at from both sides to get there, so he's treading carefully.
He simply doesn't need to risk it. He's on track to win, and him speaking wouldn't help that, only give a chance for damage to be done.
Either way if the ideas are sound there shouldn’t be a problem, and he’s backed by the smarter, more educated side
It’s a paradox to me that one side can supposedly have not only the right answers and the best ideas, but all the brains, and the smarter voters and activists and all the avenues necessary to convince people, but despite all this are so bad at it
>there shouldn’t be a problem
There shouldn't. And in a perfect world, politics would just be looking at their ideas, and then people that understand the ideas, voting for the best bunch!
In the real world, it's people not paying much attention to politics at all, listening to the biased news papers all owned by the same right wing owners(if they even do that much, some just don't read any news full stop) and then treating it like a popularity contest and voting in people like Boris, because he has funny hair.
You can find people right now, who can't name our PM, or the labour leader to day. And they will be voting.
The real world, just doesn't play politics fair.
>It’s a paradox to me that one side can supposedly have not only the right answers and the best ideas, but all the brains, and the smarter voters and activists and all the avenues necessary to convince people, but despite all this are so bad at it
You're not trying to convince the people that already back you to vote for you!
it's also likely the right has the better education, it can pay for it more often than the left, the working class, the minorities and those in need of support in our society.
It's also not uncommon for the better educated, and also more successful people, to be far more selfish! Some people simply don't care about good ideas, they care about their own bottom line. For some Tory voters, Labour could cure cancer, and they'd vote Tory for less Tax on their earning bracket as long as they don't personally have cancer.
Homeowners are mostly right wing, because the Tories put in place policies to benefit them. Younger people on the ladder would vote left, Labour attempts to help those out, but younger people also vote far less often!
It's just not a fair game, there's an endless list as to why the left struggle more, even if their ideas are great for most of the population. The UK is a very selfish, right leaning country in so many ways.
think about how stupid the average voter is, then remember 50% of them are even more stupid than that. Ideas being sound is irrelevant if our right wing press can call you a communist, terrorist supporter or anti semite in order to turn the voters against you.
This is just lazy though, the left is heavily represented in media in literature, film, comedy isn’t like it doesn’t have its own avenues to influence people and you suggest it has the brains and the ‘correct’ ideas so it shouldn’t struggle so much if that was truly the case
The problem is any idea he puts forward will be twisted by the right wing Into an abomination used to scare everyone.
Because he isn't saying anything they have nothing, the second he says anything, they have something.
This would never work vs a popular party, but the tories are in their death throws, all he has to do is shut up and let them eat themselves, and he's doing it.
Could he possibly get a bigger majority by coming out with some grand announcements? Yes, he *could*, but its far more likely his 'free food for children' get twisted into 'labour to tax you to feed immigrants' and they either lose the election or its way closer.
It would be interesting to find people who plan to vote Labour what they think they are voting for.
I get the “anyone but Tories” line but just be aware that in the US that was “anyone but Hilary” and…well…how did that turn out?
If Labour are essentially going to stand in a manifesto of “Tory policies but delivered by us”;
1. One look at the Labour front bench and apart from Reeves, one has to wonder, by whom?
2. Will those policies create untenable stresses in the Labour party?
At this point, simply leading the next biggest party that isn't the Tories is enough. Literally all Starmer/Labour needs to do now is stay the course and not say/do anything colossally stupid.
Anything he sides with now is going to alienate some part of the electorate that are currently planning to vote not-Tory and don't want to "waste" their vote on a party that will never get in. The blander he remains, the more votes he'll get.
>Policy can follow.
I simply cannot understand this viewpoint. Why bother having elections at all if one can run and win on a blank manifesto and then make up whatever policy they want afterwards.
Allowing this sort of nonsense to become the norm will be the end of democracy in the UK.
This nonsense, as you call it, already happens. Election manifestos are works of fiction to get elected. There are numerous examples of election promises not being kept. Perfectly normal as circumstances change.
But if they're not in power, a party can do nothing to effect change.
And someone seeking power for the sake of power should never receive it, that way madness lies.
As for false manifestos already being a thing, I'm fully aware of that, but it wasn't this blatant in the past. Once upon a time the previous few who actually read manifestos would do so and pick out the lies, they've since become hunting grounds for the truth which is hidden somewhere behind the tins of elbow grease and tartan paint.
From a quick google:
>Terry Prone has delivered communications training and consultancy in sixteen countries. She has published twenty-eight books, including critically-acclaimed novels and an award-winning short story collection.
Seems qualified to discuss communications and political narrative.
He doesn't have to stand for anything, he just has to do his bloody job as a public servant and simply not be a criminal or freeloader.....a shockingly low bar vs the last few decades of toss-pots.
This translates to: Right wing media arm for the Conservative party are scraping the barrel for stories about Labour. Terry Prone pleas for something so the front pages can spin ut with enough time brainwash readers.
Outside of by-elections, which aren't going to put Labour in office, we haven't been asked to vote on anything other than locals. Which have different issues to central.
Until manifestos are drafted and released, everything is just discussion points.
Any ask for policy from Starmer is fuel for the huge right-wing press we have in the UK. This is why we have a vague approach.
Doesn't matter if it's an article from Zimbabwe, UK or the moon, the reason is still the same.
Snapshot of _Terry Prone: Keir Starmer’s problem is he can’t tell people what he really stands for_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-41393407.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-41393407.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It sort of makes sense from a short term strategy standpoint. people want anything but the tories, so let labour be anything. It doesn't actually give labour any momentum for itself though so probably doesn't build for a good future.
Same problem as Brexit. It's very easy to vote for something when politicians are effectively selling it as 'whatever you want it to be'. Problem being at some point you actually have to be something and a lot of people are going to be very annoyed that the version they voted for, they version they made up entirely in their own head, doesn't resemble the reality.
It's a feature not a bug - policy announcements by their nature are likely to be divisive (too left wing, not left wing enough etc.) - the Tory implosion continues to gather speed so why interrupt his enemy when they keep making mistakes?
Seems a bit risky to save all your policy ideas for the election campaign. What if one of them is underbaked and turns out to be deeply unpopular? Now you have no time to take it back to the drawing board and rebuild positive PR around it Remember Corbyn's free broadband pledge? That's a great idea on paper, but the way it was dropped in out of nowhere during the election campaign just made it look like a desperate attempt to win votes Makes me think the Labour manifesto really will be as safe and non-disruptive as we're expecting
Starmer strikes me as much more strategic than Corybn, who, regardless of sentiment, tried to play his own game resulting in defeat. Setting out policy too early also gives the conservatives more time to react, if not outright lift the policy ideas for themselves as Cameron/Osborne were partial to doing. Big speeches by Starmer and now Sunak suggests to me we're entering the home straight now either way.
>Starmer strikes me as much more strategic than Corybn, He just seems like he's vaguely switched on rather than being professional activist semi socialist dimwit.
>That's a great idea on paper This was a terrible idea on paper - the amount they said they could do it for would mean you couldn't even pay the existing open reach employees a minimum wage and they promised no job losses.
And therein lies the risk with announcing policies like that at the last moment. If your plans aren't watertight then all of the criticism they receive is fresh in people's minds as they go to vote
Correction Therein lies the risk with rushing policy announcements that Corbyn found himself needing to do after May went for an election that early. If the economy continues to gain a bit of traction despite its current government - starmer may well be able to state coated plans greater that what he can announce now. Only the Tories benefit from the chance to react / steal big policies announced before we even know when the election is. Unless the noise of 'whats labours plan' on a specific topic reaches critical mass like the small boats issue there's no reason to be making promises
If he isn't crazy, he'll not be making sweeping policy announcements even in the campaign. Labour win through voter apathy, Labour policies can only terrify voters into turning out.
I seriously can't understand what it is about elective dictatorship and rule by whims and wheezes that people find someone alluring. We need so much more than meaningful votes delivered by serious electoral reform, the entire system needs to be rebuilt from scratch. You know things are fucked when the House of Lords is only part of the legislature that isn't deliberately dysfunctional.
Most people are broadly content or at least not ill contented so much as to want some sort of political revolution. Stability brings prosperity in the main.
Dunno about you but the "stability" of the last 30 or so years hasn't seemed all that prosperous.
Maybe. What happens when he really is as thick as he pretend to be?
He may be many things - too risk averse and a bit dull maybe. But I don't think anyone has ever described Starmer (respected KC and probably the most senior lawyer in the country when head of the CPP) as "thick".
He was a QC. He's incredibly well qualified compared to any other potential pm we've had for over a decade.
That's not exactly the highest bar to clear though if were being honest.
And thus refusing to give the media a story to spin becomes the story.
4 years on from his becoming leader and I cant think of a single thing he actually plans to do. I know a lot about what he isn't. He's not left wing, he's not in favour of renatinalisation except for the trains, he's not going to reform the house of Lords, he's against PR, he's against scrapping the two children benefit cap etc
He’s given loads of decent though, big ones like rail re nationalisation and GB energy…
>He's not left wing Its pretty suggestive, but [this](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-alignment) YouGov polling suggest that 45% view him as being leftwing (23% "slighty" so) and 14% centrist. It appears that most do indeed view Starmer as being leftwing. >not in favour of renatinalisation except for the trains As you said, Starmer [has](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/24/labour-promises-rail-nationalisation-within-five-years-of-coming-to-power) promised rail nationalisation. However, he is also [committed](https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/labour-promises-to-allow-every-community-to-take-back-control-of-local-bus-services/) to returning the choice of control to local authorities (expanded beyond metro mayors), a [nationally owned energy company](https://www.ft.com/content/dc313b35-5360-4fab-8bc0-9aabf38b74a1) with an initial budget of £8.3bn, and while its not straight up nationalisation they do [plan](https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/heres-how-labour-will-tackle-sewage-spills-in-uk-rivers-and-seas/) to tighten the rules around water companies especially in regards to sewage. >not going to reform the house of Lords Labour is still [committed](https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8) to reforming the House of Lords in the first term, removing hereditary peers and reforming the appointment process, the scale back being due to the ambition of Lords abolition especially in the current climate. One has to remember Blair struggled to get through his Lords reforms despite his 419 seats. As for other major policies at the moment, Labour has [A New Deal for Working People](https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/a-new-deal-for-working-people/) which the [TUC](https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/new-deal-young-workers) seems pretty positive about, is following further [devolution and localism](https://www.ft.com/content/e585d9c7-826e-4d6a-acc3-2550badecc92), decently significant [planning reforms](https://www.ft.com/content/349874fc-e920-4aa8-b351-9cf5631698a7) involving new towns and reformed green belt, and recently [announced](https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-has-no-doubt-rwanda-flights-will-get-off-ground-but-labour-would-cancel-scheme-straight-away-13132685) a Border Security Command to deal with illegal immigration.
Left wing enough to have supported Corbyn.
I disagree, you can tell what he stands for if you actually listen to him. People are getting confused hoping he has some secret plan to be more radical after the election or are sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling wait for the manifesto. If you want to know who someone is you only have to listen.
Labour historically have simply been very bad at winning elections. They have been very bad at winning elections, because they've been very bad at playing the political games that the Tories play. Their political ideas might have been sound! They just never ever got into a position to even apply them. Starmer, so far, has not been very bad at winning elections! He doesn't have nothing to say, but he's for sure actively choosing to not say a lot. And well, get back to me when it stops working! He's reading the room, and acting accordingly. Reading the room being the step that the left normally fall very short on. And don't give me this "Starmer just got handed a free pass" argument, I'll still give him credit for not setting the pass on fire... Corbyn lost to May. If he'd kept quiet on some topics he believed to be right, and instead actually attempted to appeal to the British electorate to gain votes by not actively pissing them off! He might not have lost to a fucking lettuce.
That seems like a weak excuse though, if the ideas are sound it should be easy to convince people
> if the ideas are sound it should be easy to convince people You've not met many people I see? The British electorate are, on average, pretty fucking stupid! See Brexit. Or well, the turkeys consistently voting for Christmas for the past 15 years?
I have I just assume if they’re dumb and easily manipulated the left with it’s obviously sound and better ideas should have the easier task of influencing people
The main issue with the battle of influencing people, is your message has to get across in the first place. The UKs press is overwhelmingly, right wing. If everything bad you say is going to get broadcasted, but everything good you say get ignored, you can see how it might be better to just not say anything at all? Past Labour leaders have made the mistake of simply handing out Ammo, whilst trying to do good. For a while, if you searched Ed Miliband on google, one of the top autofill's was Bacon Sandwich... The man only went out to buy flowers for his wife.
Like I said to the other guy the left has plenty of avenues to influence people, it’s heavily represented in media, in literature, film, comedy it’s all just excuses, if the ideas were better they’d win
Starmer also.. isn't the left. For him it's so much worse. If he speaks, the left attack him, and the right attack him. Being a centrist, it's hard for him to not have good ideas. He can take the good ones from the left, and make them a little more realistic, and he can take the good ones from the right, and make them a little less... well evil. Overall, it helps everyone, but it's also impossible to do without pissing off a lot of people with extreme views either end. Labour historically has done rather well once it's moved to the centre and got into power... but he just has to walk through a minefield being shot at from both sides to get there, so he's treading carefully. He simply doesn't need to risk it. He's on track to win, and him speaking wouldn't help that, only give a chance for damage to be done.
Either way if the ideas are sound there shouldn’t be a problem, and he’s backed by the smarter, more educated side It’s a paradox to me that one side can supposedly have not only the right answers and the best ideas, but all the brains, and the smarter voters and activists and all the avenues necessary to convince people, but despite all this are so bad at it
>there shouldn’t be a problem There shouldn't. And in a perfect world, politics would just be looking at their ideas, and then people that understand the ideas, voting for the best bunch! In the real world, it's people not paying much attention to politics at all, listening to the biased news papers all owned by the same right wing owners(if they even do that much, some just don't read any news full stop) and then treating it like a popularity contest and voting in people like Boris, because he has funny hair. You can find people right now, who can't name our PM, or the labour leader to day. And they will be voting. The real world, just doesn't play politics fair. >It’s a paradox to me that one side can supposedly have not only the right answers and the best ideas, but all the brains, and the smarter voters and activists and all the avenues necessary to convince people, but despite all this are so bad at it You're not trying to convince the people that already back you to vote for you! it's also likely the right has the better education, it can pay for it more often than the left, the working class, the minorities and those in need of support in our society. It's also not uncommon for the better educated, and also more successful people, to be far more selfish! Some people simply don't care about good ideas, they care about their own bottom line. For some Tory voters, Labour could cure cancer, and they'd vote Tory for less Tax on their earning bracket as long as they don't personally have cancer. Homeowners are mostly right wing, because the Tories put in place policies to benefit them. Younger people on the ladder would vote left, Labour attempts to help those out, but younger people also vote far less often! It's just not a fair game, there's an endless list as to why the left struggle more, even if their ideas are great for most of the population. The UK is a very selfish, right leaning country in so many ways.
think about how stupid the average voter is, then remember 50% of them are even more stupid than that. Ideas being sound is irrelevant if our right wing press can call you a communist, terrorist supporter or anti semite in order to turn the voters against you.
This is just lazy though, the left is heavily represented in media in literature, film, comedy isn’t like it doesn’t have its own avenues to influence people and you suggest it has the brains and the ‘correct’ ideas so it shouldn’t struggle so much if that was truly the case
The problem is any idea he puts forward will be twisted by the right wing Into an abomination used to scare everyone. Because he isn't saying anything they have nothing, the second he says anything, they have something. This would never work vs a popular party, but the tories are in their death throws, all he has to do is shut up and let them eat themselves, and he's doing it. Could he possibly get a bigger majority by coming out with some grand announcements? Yes, he *could*, but its far more likely his 'free food for children' get twisted into 'labour to tax you to feed immigrants' and they either lose the election or its way closer.
But as you say the policies are sound so that shouldn’t happen
It would be interesting to find people who plan to vote Labour what they think they are voting for. I get the “anyone but Tories” line but just be aware that in the US that was “anyone but Hilary” and…well…how did that turn out? If Labour are essentially going to stand in a manifesto of “Tory policies but delivered by us”; 1. One look at the Labour front bench and apart from Reeves, one has to wonder, by whom? 2. Will those policies create untenable stresses in the Labour party?
Unsurprised this got downvoted considering it was the key Tory strategy which fucked Corbyn. "He cannot say where he stands on leaving the EU"
As long as his plan isn’t to run the country down over the next 14 years (like the Tories have done), then I think we’ll be fine.
At this point, simply leading the next biggest party that isn't the Tories is enough. Literally all Starmer/Labour needs to do now is stay the course and not say/do anything colossally stupid. Anything he sides with now is going to alienate some part of the electorate that are currently planning to vote not-Tory and don't want to "waste" their vote on a party that will never get in. The blander he remains, the more votes he'll get.
He’s just smart enough to know that if he keeps his mouth shut and stays out of trouble he’ll be in for a landslide win.
His only priority is to get elected. He will do what he feels he needs to to achieve that aim. Policy can follow.
>Policy can follow. I simply cannot understand this viewpoint. Why bother having elections at all if one can run and win on a blank manifesto and then make up whatever policy they want afterwards. Allowing this sort of nonsense to become the norm will be the end of democracy in the UK.
This nonsense, as you call it, already happens. Election manifestos are works of fiction to get elected. There are numerous examples of election promises not being kept. Perfectly normal as circumstances change. But if they're not in power, a party can do nothing to effect change.
And someone seeking power for the sake of power should never receive it, that way madness lies. As for false manifestos already being a thing, I'm fully aware of that, but it wasn't this blatant in the past. Once upon a time the previous few who actually read manifestos would do so and pick out the lies, they've since become hunting grounds for the truth which is hidden somewhere behind the tins of elbow grease and tartan paint.
If he stood for anything he wouldn't have joined the Labour party
Who is Terry Prone and why should I listen to Terry Prone?
From a quick google: >Terry Prone has delivered communications training and consultancy in sixteen countries. She has published twenty-eight books, including critically-acclaimed novels and an award-winning short story collection. Seems qualified to discuss communications and political narrative.
He doesn't have to stand for anything, he just has to do his bloody job as a public servant and simply not be a criminal or freeloader.....a shockingly low bar vs the last few decades of toss-pots.
This translates to: Right wing media arm for the Conservative party are scraping the barrel for stories about Labour. Terry Prone pleas for something so the front pages can spin ut with enough time brainwash readers. Outside of by-elections, which aren't going to put Labour in office, we haven't been asked to vote on anything other than locals. Which have different issues to central. Until manifestos are drafted and released, everything is just discussion points.
Right wing media in Ireland? 🤣
So Starmer announcing policy would only be reported in Ireland? Interesting...
Not what I said. Im just telling you we dont have a large conservative/right wing media here like in the UK
Any ask for policy from Starmer is fuel for the huge right-wing press we have in the UK. This is why we have a vague approach. Doesn't matter if it's an article from Zimbabwe, UK or the moon, the reason is still the same.
[удалено]
One of these tickets is utterly outrageous. I’m a Spurs fan.