Psamathe
Squire
Which was the nail in the coffin for Starmer, the move that gave Starmer no choice but to leave. And it was the short term commitment that was Healey's reason.
Labour's lost
- Thread starter briantrumpet
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
This ought to be an article really, but in pulling apart another article, it's quite a persuasive thread about Labour (and in keeping with the thread title). It has a few interesting ideas, not least that Labour has made a mistake in looking to the US and entrenched two-party politics for inspiration. Also:
"The persistent problem with Starmer's Labour: it lacked a clear philosophy. New Labour could be ruthlessly pragmatic because its leaders spent time working out a theory to explain the moment they faced, distilled it, then communicated it to the public. Starmer did not." His mention of New Labour and Blair isn't necessarily praise of the particular type of politics, but rather "how".
I think he also understands how trying to identify 'working class' and chasing only them at the expense of other people who would like to vote Labour is a bad choice "[...] a focus on material issues rooted in this sort of sentimentality about who counts as working class is a death sentence for Labour. As @jamesdaustin.bsky.social says, you can't hold your own voters in contempt then begrudge them for not voting for you."
https://skywriter.blue/@jack-bailey.co.uk/3mwgpevib7224
"The persistent problem with Starmer's Labour: it lacked a clear philosophy. New Labour could be ruthlessly pragmatic because its leaders spent time working out a theory to explain the moment they faced, distilled it, then communicated it to the public. Starmer did not." His mention of New Labour and Blair isn't necessarily praise of the particular type of politics, but rather "how".
I think he also understands how trying to identify 'working class' and chasing only them at the expense of other people who would like to vote Labour is a bad choice "[...] a focus on material issues rooted in this sort of sentimentality about who counts as working class is a death sentence for Labour. As @jamesdaustin.bsky.social says, you can't hold your own voters in contempt then begrudge them for not voting for you."
https://skywriter.blue/@jack-bailey.co.uk/3mwgpevib7224
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
David Henig, a self-professed trade wonk and EU bore (and journalist), has this to say about Labour, its conference, and the EU:
"Since I'm not going to Liverpool this year to discuss, a short state of play on UK EU relations and the Labour Party. The very short version - they're terrified. And trying to find ways to avoid the question none of which will work.
One has to remember that Labour is almost always cautious in office and still haunted as a party by the 1992 election. And for most, by the 2016 referendum, a disastrous campaign that many at senior levels were involved in. So no amount of polling showing freedom of movement or rejoin is popular is going to be believed by the cautious of the Labour Party, which is many of them at high levels. Added to which few of them know or care much about the EU, they just took it for granted.
"Second term issue" is classic Labour caution speak for "never". But unfortunately... all manner of domestic issues from manufacturing to immigration have an EU dimension. And this government is discovering what previous ones did, that there's no special deals. No change isn't an option then for Labour. No other trade deals will make up. In which position the default is becoming that Labour might drop red lines at the next election but nothing more. Meaning more drift presumably.
Meanwhile some Labour adjacent folk have been thinking about how to go further and talk about rejoin, but have recently gone quiet, which looks like being sat on by the usually cautious. Hence, not much sight of such discussions likely at Conference. I can't help thinking that EU relations is just one of many issues where Labour is stuck without good choices but reluctant to make a case for bold actions.
Perhaps the next days will say different, but I suspect caution will win out. And ultimately the UK is stuck while it can't honestly discuss relations with all of its neighbours. Which is the argument for change, but will any serious Labour folk be brave enough?"
"Since I'm not going to Liverpool this year to discuss, a short state of play on UK EU relations and the Labour Party. The very short version - they're terrified. And trying to find ways to avoid the question none of which will work.
One has to remember that Labour is almost always cautious in office and still haunted as a party by the 1992 election. And for most, by the 2016 referendum, a disastrous campaign that many at senior levels were involved in. So no amount of polling showing freedom of movement or rejoin is popular is going to be believed by the cautious of the Labour Party, which is many of them at high levels. Added to which few of them know or care much about the EU, they just took it for granted.
"Second term issue" is classic Labour caution speak for "never". But unfortunately... all manner of domestic issues from manufacturing to immigration have an EU dimension. And this government is discovering what previous ones did, that there's no special deals. No change isn't an option then for Labour. No other trade deals will make up. In which position the default is becoming that Labour might drop red lines at the next election but nothing more. Meaning more drift presumably.
Meanwhile some Labour adjacent folk have been thinking about how to go further and talk about rejoin, but have recently gone quiet, which looks like being sat on by the usually cautious. Hence, not much sight of such discussions likely at Conference. I can't help thinking that EU relations is just one of many issues where Labour is stuck without good choices but reluctant to make a case for bold actions.
Perhaps the next days will say different, but I suspect caution will win out. And ultimately the UK is stuck while it can't honestly discuss relations with all of its neighbours. Which is the argument for change, but will any serious Labour folk be brave enough?"
