Starmer's 3 Controversial Changes to Labour - TLDR News
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 10. 2021
- Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Since entering office Starmer has tried to make some big changes to shift how Labour works and... well some it hasn't gone down well. So in this video we take a look through the history and see if the changes he's making are likely to help or hurt the party.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Discord: / discord
TLDR Store: tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-sum...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
The key difference in my eyes between Blair and Starmer is that Blair actuallly had the charisma to carry him to victory, especially against "the grey man" of John Major. Starmer is boring and uncharismatic and this is worsened by being faced with Boris Johnson, who is nothing but spectical and "charisma".
He is also seen as weak and people don’t know what he stands for.
Although Tony Blair's foreign policy was a disaster, and he was too cosy with corporate interests, his economic policy was solid.
Also, the culture-war stuff which excites Twitter and student unions is very unpopular with the general public. Even those from minority groups it claims to represent.
Blair was a tory before Labour.
@@shibainu6087 Still was Tory when he led Labour.
@@littlebubbie726 yup
Good video but unfortunately there's one error. Corbyn needed 10% (not 5%) of Labour MPs to nominate him for the leadership race, which in 2015 amounted to 35 MPs. Starmer has recently doubled this to require 20% of MPs (not 10%).
Actually there is two errors. One of the slides spelt FAVOUR wrong
@@shedactivist There *are two errors.
Bruh they literally said that
Which will bite him in the ass since polling is showing him to be one of the least popular and effective Labour leaders in recently years. If conservatives weren't acting utterly incompetent rn this would be a cakewalk for them.
It's something they do, they always add a little mistake here and there to boost engagement in the comments
People seem to forget that Labour's 1997 manifesto included radical policies on reform of Westminster:
"End the hereditary principle in the House of Lords
Reform of party funding to end sleaze
Devolved power in Scotland and Wales
Elected mayors for London and other cities
More independent but accountable local government
Freedom of information and guaranteed human rights"
They were not afraid to offer significant change. Something sadly lacking with Sir Starmer's slightly tepid tory tactics.
Introduce a minimum wage too
But today's Labour membership can't forgive Blair for winning. He showed them up by showing it is permittable.
Most importantly, these policies were not just appealing to traditional Labour voters, but to centre and centre-right voters too.
You missed out all of the radical policies on reform that they failed to deliver on, such as electoral reform.
@@20quid they did the devolution bit. But did they actually put electoral reform in the manifesto ever? I can't find any evidence that they did (but only gave it a quick search). The UK had a referendum on the voting system in 2011 and the people voted to keep it the same, so the matter was eventually addressed a couple of years after Labour lost power.
It's still early to judge the next manifesto. But from his speech there is some good policies. Like 3% investment into new technologies, Installing more renewable energy sources and actually building them in britain, removing the charitable status from private schools. Some really good stuff there
Things will never change while we've got the same two parties
Getting rid of first past the post would be the best thing that could happen to the UK. Proportional representation would be for the best.
@@lookingforsomething the country is so divided on every single topic. No one can agree on anything because everyone thinks their idea is better than the next. PR jsut splits the vote even further into hundreds of smaller parties that then all have to agree on a topic to even get anywhere. PR is great when they agree, but in today's UK, its not really possible. It's one big hung parliament.
@@turb0m0nk3y That's literally why PR is better. When there is nuance, division also dwindles. Suddenly you don't gain much from berating the other side, since there are four others who can take their place, and they'll just end up looking scummy. Most notably we'll established PR systems are in the Nordic countries (Saint Lague and D'Hondt methods) but even Germany has a much better system on the Republic level (despite it being a closed list system). PR reduces division by a lot. Of course nothing happens over night, but without PR UK will keep on deteorating.
@@turb0m0nk3y Under the German/New Zealand system, parties would still need more than 5% party vote to have noticeable representation. In that way, there would be between 4 and 6 parties, not hundreds. Coalitions have always been made within weeks in New Zealand. Germany also does fine.
@@turb0m0nk3y Dude you are explaining precisely why PR is so important in a divided country. Right now the extremes swing things and dictate it, and we get years of one extreme, then eventually the scales tip and extremes of the other. Its fucking awful and is always leaving a large number miserable.
This spectre of a hung parliament shutting things down is a myth.
I live in the Netherlands these days, right now they can't even agree to form a Government. Shit still gets done and when we do have a Government (most of the time) a nice middle ground is reached, the extreme fringes have less power.
Whats even better is that the leaders are more accountable. When Boris has a scandal he just shakes it off and continues. Waits until people forget to call an election.
In NL the Government can collapse more easily which means, at the last scandal the leader lost his position and needed to get it back. I'd much rather that.
It sounds like the UK is more of an unstable wasteland with fuel and food shortages and massive discontent with this stable large Tory party. PR will make things better, stop listening to the propaganda against it.
One big question is: How palatable is Labour’s manifesto to the tabloid and Murdoch press? That’s how Blair got in.
Exactly, nobody wins who goes against the red tops. They have turkeys voting for xmas.
Certainly, more so than the previous one.
Labour could also try not having an insane shadow cabinet at election time. Just a thought.
@@0w784g What do you mean?
Not at all, ruperts son is taking a bigger role in running the family business and hes even more right wing than his father. Highly unlikely we will ever see another the sun won it moment under his control
We must remember that although 2019 was Labour’s worst result in terms of seats Corbyn still achieved 32% and won more votes than Milliband , Brown and Blair’s third election. Bring on PR please!
Fair point however we lost a lot of seats as well. Getting more votes is good but if you can’t transition it to seat gains it’s pointless.
Welcome to First Past the post where the amounts of votes don't really matter if you just get to draw the districts. One of the least democratic systems available really.
Also led us to become the largest party by membership in the EU!
Labour would be finished under PR. If people thought their vote for an alternative party would actually count for something, they would leave Labour in droves
@@FatRonaldo1 Yes you’re right. So would the Tories.
Starmer has shown himself to be downright adversarial against the left of the party, which is doing him no favours at all... I do also find it interesting that people call his position as 'modernising' even though it is falling back to politics that are over 20 years old. Many would argue that Corbyn was too radical, but many of his policies do seem to have been taken on by the Tories since 2017, so the idea that his manifesto was not serious as Starmer seems to be claiming could be seen as disingenuous...
And that all his policies such as nationalised public transport and power are standard in Europe.
To even call this party Labour is stretching credibility....
When the Tories are more willing to increase the minimum wage than Labour are, you know something's gone wrong.
tory party: everything labour can do we can do better.
It's now the Translabour party.
The problem is that labour's long-standing reputation as the "tax and spend" party really hampers what the public will believe. The conservatives can promise something and the public believes them, yet when labour propose the exact same thing the public starts asking about a magic money tree. It's completely irrational but people just don't trust labour not to spend beyond the country's means. So whenever labour want to spend any money whatsoever it seems to work against them in a way it doesn't for the Tories.
@@bassetts1899 true-- despite the £billions blown into tory & cronies' pockets.
Talk about Starmer putting electability over principal, and Corbyn "Ideology over electability", but even after crisis after crisis after scandal they're 11 points behind. We all know how the Corbyn years ended but from June 2017 to early 2019 they were often ahead in the polls -- 45%, 8pts ahead of the Tories in December 2017. Starmer has abandoned ideology and electability equally
Far from being 20 points ahead he's not even ahead
They were doing well because Theresa May was hopeless, and couldn't lead a horse to water. When the 2019 election came around, Boris was in charge and at the very least, looked like he knew what he was doing. Meanwhile, labour were offering free internet and another referendum, when the majority of the population wanted to get the Brexit business over and done with.
The problem being is vs. bojo they can no longer rely on being a good party but also need to be the charismatic party as well. If May was Major then Johnson is... I don't know, a more right-wing Blair? Thankfully there's not many like him
Bullsheeeeeiit
@@GuysOnGames since when could Boris be considered to look like "he knew what he was doing"? God forbid people have access to free broadband, still have no idea why people are opposed to this, it's nothing radical, just a nice thing to have. It's neccessary infrastructure that would pay off fairly quickly making things easier for businesses etc.
On Michael foot, when the manifesto was published in 1981 he actually had a 20 point lead over Thatcher. The formation of the SDP that split the party and meant a lot of seats were lost for Labour
You and your reality.
You'll be me tionimb Labour were ahead before the Blair "reforms".
The term, "longest suicide note in history" was used by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman to describe Foot's manifesto in 1983.
@@julianshepherd2038 It's true: Labour were well ahead in the polls in 1981 and Thatcher was the least popular Prime Mnister in History,. What changed was the Falklands war of 1982 and the formation of the SDP.
@@parastroika2393 Ah yes, the dishonourable Sir Gerald..."longest continuous expenses rip from the taxpayer in history".
@@Kidderman2210 what changed was an unelectable left win manifesto
Two slight but important corrections:
1. I'm not sure when the change was made but by the time I cast my ballot in the 2010 Leadership election, the Unions (+affiliated socialist societies) had 33% of the vote in the electoral college - it certainly was not a 50/50 vote between MPs and Members as implied here.
2. The change at Labour Party Conference this year was to alter the required number of nominations from 10% to 20% of MPs, not 5% to 10%.
Oooo your ard
Socialists will not rule the UK.
I've noticed in the past that TLDR make quite a few errors when talking about labour. They repeated the the falsehood that labour spends way more than the tories when in power and the tories come in and fix things.
However, history shows that the tory governments always spend much more than Labour ones and what is worse is that tory goverments put that extra spending in the pockets of their mates and donors instead of public services.
It's just the tories are good at PR.
Without its Left-wing, labour party won't be any different than neoliberal right-wing. Without trade-unions, no left-wing can be legitimate.
The trade unions aren't real trade unions anymore anyway. Labour itself has no real connection to its roots, its just middle class people now.
Welcome to the two party system. Electoral reform to any Condorcet method would be the best thing that could happen to the UK
I mean not really? New Labour was "right" of the Labour party and effectively side-lined unions but it still increased public spending by record amounts into services that the poorest in society rely on. The throwing around of terms such as right wing is meaningless at this point because it is just so often misused. That said PR is necessary to ensure parties are more competitive and have more pressure to implement their policies.
Labour without a leftwing is a Labour party signalling it's own destruction. It stands for literally nothing.
I don't think that first part is true at all, the EXACT opposite in fact unless you mean economics. If Left Wing Govts stick to Left wing ECONOMIC policies that benefit workers - Trade Unions, Making Co-Ops easier; Housing Affordability, Pensions, Healthcare - that is popular. IMO that can likely be done with also having a country as a decent place to do business (e.g. Big Corporations must have opt-out Unionized work force).
But the Culture War stuff, and support or being a Door-Matt for illegal immigration (Forced Entry & Settlement (FEAS)) is what understandably turns the rest of the Public away.
I'm Australian, not from UK, but I follow UK politics & it is the same in a lot of places. Left Wing people very often seem to have the self-defeating attitude of "I want everything that i feel good about & I demand it now".
But a lot of that is toxic to wider electorate. Instead it would be more successful to throw out culture war issues or support for FEAS, and focus on traditional progressive economic issues, which likely have wider support.
And to change Voting System to Ranked Choice, also broadly popular.
I'm a corbynite so take this with a pinch of salt but Starmer is hopeless. He's the John Major of Labour. Dull, samey, uninspiring, and corporate.
Stephanie McAlea but at least Starmer is not anti Jewish as Corbyn proved to be And Starmer has made a full apology to the Jewish community and promised to.implement in full all the recconrndations of the Jewish Board of Deputies. .
that's an insult to Jon Major lol
@@ronnieince4568 but Starmer has tries to disenfranchise the membership - blocked any chance to elect another left wing leader - rejected nationalisation - and goes which ever way the wind blows
I'll take it with a pinch of salt, Corbyn supporters think you can win elections by having the biggest party membership and worshipping the leader.
He lost twice and handed the Torys 80 seat majority.
@@ronnieince4568 I’m Jewish so im gonna tell you this since you appear to be politically illiterate, but saying Israel might not have a good track record with Palestine isn’t grounds for anti Semitism. It’s no coincidence that the Jewish board happen to be overwhelmingly tory
A choice between Boris and Starmer is barely a choice at all
How are they alike at all?
...especially on Brexit which Starmer wishes not to mention.
They ain't even similar m8
@@johnjephcote7636 exactly. There is no way to "make brexit work". He could have perhaps said to find a "work-around", but instead denied reality & lost credibility.
When you say, for example, at 02:50 "These policies were not looked on favourably by the public", you should really say that the small group of rich and powerful men who decide what will be printed in the newspapers and masceraded as "public opinion" didn't like the policies. Mostly because it would reduce profits in their various companies.
You know it could be possible that people just don't agree with the way you think? imagine being so arrogant to assume that people who vote for a different party to you were dupped because you cant rationalise why they don't follow your 'superior' views. This is the exact reason labour always loose
@@benjones6363 Well, first of all, I'm not a Labour supporter, and don't even live in the UK! I'm just saying that "public opinion" is a very difficult thing to actually determine. There is a very close coupling between what the papers print and what people think. Or even what they think about! I actually live in Germany where we currently have 6 parties in our parliament and will probably get 3 parties in our government. That's not to say that our public opinion is any more independant of the press than in the UK or the USA, but there are so many voices here, that they don't generally end in a shouting match of polarised opponents.
What gets ‘masqueraded as public opinion’ through the power of the rich-owned MSM. You really hit the nail on the head.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 I agree, opinion polls existed back then. But the chicken-and-egg situation still applies. Do people have an opinion because of what they read in the papers, or do the papers print articles about what appears to be in the public eye? It's not an easy thing to decide. This may be sophistic bs, but a lot of people from Chomsky to Göring have recognised the power of the press.
The reason why Labour has to choose between leftists and being more appealing to the voters is because fighting for things like Worker's Rights isn't appealing to the capitalists who are in control of the media, and they will use the media to tank any candidate who challenges them. So instead Labour tries to be as inoffensive as possible and they don't get voted for because they're not going to change anything.
This is true to a point. I saw a interview with Jeremy Corbyn where he pledged that Labour would reduce the working week to 4 days and got practically laughed off the stage. This is because he failed throughout his entire time as leader to get his message over to the public at large. Yes, he is good at campaigning to party members and people who turn up at rallies, but that is virtually preaching to the choir and doesn't reach most of the population. In the run up to the Brexit vote Corbyn might as well have been mute and invisible as far as the public was concerned.
What Labour need to do is to try and side-step the traditional media and its biases. Using platforms on the internet and other methods to get word around on what they are doing. This is something that an old leftist like Jeremy Corbyn is incapable of. In order to get policies heard by the population at large it will take a fresher outlook on how to reach people and that is the kind of person Starmer and his successor will need to get on side.
4 day work week and 6 hour days
@@jameslewis2635 true, and we know it can be done because bernie sanders managed to do it.
You are aware the that by far the biggest media organisation in the UK is the state-run BBC?
@@0w784g Yeah? So?
moving to the centre was only considered modernisation due to the recent collapse of the left to thatcher's financialization in the 1990's. Moving back to new labour strategies is outdated and doesn't take into account the current context . Labour has been bleeding red wall seats since 1997 and furthur ignoring working class voters in favour of buisness is just away to not get them back .
Not in favour of business, more like in favour of middle class progressive elites that believe in completely debunked academic nonsense like critical race theory and gender pay gaps.
@@stickman6217 please elaborate
@@thejfoshow1320 on what?
@@stickman6217 critical race theory and the gender pay gap being debunked
@@thejfoshow1320 nothing to elaborate on, they don't exist. The pay gap is to do with just about every factor other than gender not the actual gender itself. And race isn't a social construct.
the issue I see with forgoing ideology for the sake of winning brings a huge risk of devolving into American style politics where both parties are just as bad as each other with very little difference in terms of policy yet attack each other as though there were no similarities at all.
But you cannot have extreme left parties either as no majority will ever vote for communism in the 21st century. If would be good to have a solid Lib Dem too to give people a choice.
Hey don't insult our American politics. Especially when you're right!!!
The thing is their not the same democrats would’t destroy the health care system, slash tax, try and overthrow the goverment and fund things like child tax credits and pre care
@@TimesFM4532 the democrats refuse to implement universal healthcare and despite being in power they havent really improved homelessness or poverty, most of what you hear of is for show - supporting gay kids wont get gay kids who are on the streets indoors but it will get your average liberal to cream their pants.
They are literally the same except the branches of government, but labour and conservative translate to democrats and republican. UK also had its war on communism which pretty much made all parties right wing by default
I always felt the tory ad 'New Labour, New Danger' had the words 'They're turning into us' missing. I couldn't really see the difference between them and Majors government.
I remember both well and the difference was huge.
The differences were massive, minimum wage, sure start, windfall tax, civil partnerships, 750 000 instant jobs, 10 million out of poverty but no you're not even gonna read up on this.
@@Yourd4d and an economy ripe for a great recession just 11 years after they took government and a decade long pointless war in which hundreds of children, women, men, citizens and british and american soldiers died all so a few oil barons could make a fat stack of cash
@@bt3743 first of all the recession was caused by multiple things such as the Bank Run of 2008, when the media played up the support Northern Rock was receiving, then the American financial crisis worsened it. Yet the economic Policy stayed the same when Brown brought us out of the depths of recession when he organised a package for the global economy yet when Cameron comes to power he put us back into it when he changed the economic Policy 🤔 I wonder how that happened.
Yes Iraq was a mistake and should've been conducted better with a resolution, even though we couldn't control the US massacring 1 million civilians. But does this cancel out all the positives.
"The worse election defeat for labour since the war" is a misleading and inaccurate due to the "Representation of the People Act 1948" for abolishing plural voting, the abolition of the twelve separate university constituencies; and increasing the number of members to 613. The Labour Party got 10,269,076 votes in 2019, they had less votes in 2015with 9,347,273. So that statement you say is inaccurate. You require more fact checking and keeping to facts.
He got more votes, but lost a ton of seats, therefore making it a loss
@@awildpybro6018 I'm not disputing that it was a loss, but stating "worse election defeat" isn't accurate.
If it's well spoken, being impartial and freauently uses the word "controversial"; if you expect it to look closely, you're expecting too much; you get the broad strokes and you will be happy with them.
My impression Is that Keir wants a Centre-left party as that seems more appealing to the average voter. However, the conflict with more firmly left-wing elements is causing discord within the party and that is reflected in the polls. No one knows what this version of Labour stands for at the moment and thus, the Conservative party leads, purely because they're in charge and the country hasn't completely collapsed.
If Labour can present a more agreeable front to the average voter while still keeping to their left principles, they'll finally present a legitimate challenge to the Conservatives again.
Honestly? I think he’s centre right at this point. He’ll purge anyone left wing if they were anti-Semitic 30 years ago but will let outright and vocal transphobes stay. Then, when the Tories were talking about increasing corporation tax he was talking about keeping it the same. The Tories are worse, but not by much.
A compromise between these first two comments is what we're after.
The question isn´t really if it´s more appealing to the average voter in terms of electability. The question is if it is more appealing than the Tories to these voters.
@ger du If you want an irrelevant Labour party you could certainly boot out all the left wing elements.
@@evaahh9584 Yes, that's called being classically left. Being a "transphobe" isn't right wing, that's just being sensible.
They should use the Marmot Report 2020 (on health inequalities, deprivation, that sort of thing) as a springboard to advocate massive healthcare, education and poverty-solving reforms. Homage to Atlee - people will love it and it'll do the country so much good.
Many things they should, they won't.
Miliband's changes weren't just One Member One Vote; they allowed anyone to register as a supporter for £3 and get to vote in the leadership election. This made it easy for casual supporters to pay a pittance, vote and then walk away.
No mention that historically Scotland used to be large labour voters, that all gone to snp. Also a large increase in green party voters who recognise the importance of removing gdp (growthism) to save our world. These facts make it even more difficult if not impossible for labour.
Yes Corbyn hoovered up a lot of the Green voters from 2015, which is potentially 15% of the voters imo. But Starmer is prepared to lose all of those in the hope of gaining far more. Fine, but all those Tory voters won't come to you if you are no different from the Tories.
Very well put! You don't all that often see/hear people making mention of the green/GDP-removal ideal - well-researched.
there also bleeding the LGBT vote to the greens, his fence sitting in the whole internal civil war between the terf/lgb faction and the lgbtq+/ modern feminist faction has pissed of a lot and intern made them head to parties with more clearly defined loyalty's.
Labour is dead in Scotland they don't even come up in serious leadership conversation.
@@BadgerGirl I don't think the LGBTQIA+ Extra vote is the one he needs to worry about, it's the vote of actual women who make up 50% of the population and have been completely alienated by the "progressives" of the Labour party. Like really how many actual women do you know that didn't study a useless BA degree who think "yes anyone can have a cervix"?
Labour have been losing older working class voters for some time. Starmer going for the Blair strategy (which was to win over the middle class in 1997) will not win back those older voters and likely upset their new younger base.
Whoever is leading Labour in 2023 will lose but he will lose badly.
With the way things are going currently there wont be a working class anymore by 2023
@@SirBlade666 How so?
I doubt it'll be as bad as Corbyn's last loss. Getting rid of radicals is always a good PR move and the tories are a shambles right now. Anyone even remotely paying attention to politics should see that the tories are having a mare. Especially with the recent national insurance increase. No one likes taxes.
@@Gary-bz1rf Everyone besides the SNP lose badly in Scotland because of nationalism there. That's not where they should be looking for votes anyway. And yeah i agree they should focus on policy and push it hard. Also push to undo tory tax increases on National Insurance among other stuff.
@@theblackswordsman9951 Labour lost badly in England last election because of nationalism here. A lot of their left-wing policies were popular, but they couldn't work out where they stood on Brexit, so they lost. Nationalism is a growing force in our politics and labour need to find a coherent counter to it. Not just pretend it isn't happening and hope that some fluffy milk toast policies will win back the older labour brexitiers, or enthuse their young radical left-wing membership. They need to pick a side, not try to please everyone with policies that no one cares about
Yea, I cant see how it can be controversial to block left wing candidates from becoming leaders of party nominally representing left side of spectrum, first eliminate labour unions from influencing party they established to represent them, now factually barring left wing politicians to lead the party.
Gee, why that would be controversial move for Labours traditionally left leaning voters. So basically Labour is abandoning all and every principle the party been built on and represented which leaving them being basically identical to generic Tories only using more traditionally left vocabulary in their manifesto. And they hope becoming more like Tories will help them defeat Tories cos it gets them more new votes while somehow keeping them the old Labour electorate they no longer represent.
UK is truly becoming more and more like US- in US theres already no diff among policies they vote for and support in Congress among Dems and Republicans as they only fight in TV debates over slogans but in fact they are funded by same companies.
Well the only question thats left unanswered is the name of the new party representing left policies and left leaning voters in UK thats gonna replace Labour once they disappear just like Whigs before them cos its sure it wont be Lib Dem.
Doesn't the proposal to go back to the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 system give the unions more power? Not less.
A left candidate can occur. They just need to have more than a handful of their own co-workers think they are a competent candidate. Long-bailey would have still been proposed under the new & proposed rules
because Labour is a political party they exist to get elected and rule. and socialists are not going to win. Blair wins and Corbyn loses .
The traditional working class has long since abandoned Labour. Today Labour doesn't represent them, but rather all types of ethnic and sexual minorities, and as such they have become more and more radical in the wrong direction. Hopefully Labour will finally be more sensible and regain the votes they lost since Corbyn and friends.
@@arbendit4348 Actually older black people mostly vote for the Tories.
First past the post has the "spoiler effect" the more parties the worse it is for the people in first past the post. Electoral reform, any Condorcet method would be the best thing for the UK that could ever happen. D'Hondt or Saint Lague would be among the best options.
From what I see, Corbyn at the very least laid out a pathway in which we could win. Promote policies with clear direction, make the Conservatives look as rubbish as possible and very intentionally attract people who don't usually vote. Which is also how the Conservatives won such a massive victory.
Starmer, on the other hand, is aggressively pursuing a strategy which loses votes, doesn't appeal to anyone, doesn't energise anyone and banks on the idea soft Tories might vote Labour for a jolly. Which they are emphatically not doing. Starmer can purge as many voters as he likes, impose as many rule changes as he likes and talk until he is blue in the face about whatever oatmealy nothingness he likes. As long as The Sun have that picture of him taking the knee, he's a goner.
But but but Corbyn lost. So how were his policies the ones which could win?
@@ai-d2121 Good question! If we look at the nature of Corbyns losses we see that numbers aren’t his problem. He can get people out to vote. Even in 2019 he got more people to vote labour than 2001. The difficulty we have is that the Tories are phenomenally unusually popular and Starmer waltzes straight into their traps.
Since 2001 my bad
@@JowanCollier 2019 was still a big loss but people trying to blame Corbyn for that loss seem to be intentionally forgetting that it was a Brexit election through and through. Kier would have lost that race too and by a much wider margin.
@@mansonsacidtrip6862 sure, Brexit didn’t help. For me, Corbyn’s big draw was ‘we will end austerity and spend money to help poor people.’ In 2017 that worked because Theresa May would rather shit razor blades than spend money, though in 2019 Boris was like ‘we’ll spend too (on my mates)’ and suddenly Corbyns big draw wasn’t so distinct. That, and Brexit and the unfounded smears.
😬😬 from the perspective of looking over the Irish sea, the silence and disinterest about labour's internal party coup and media fanfare from 2018 onward in the middle of the Brexit drama series is staggering. More so staggering is that either PM and opposition leader are starting to be pressed/let down after such long honeymoon periods.
Why would foreigners care about internal politics of unelected parties in another nation? Only major news stories are typically broadcast overseas.
@@theblackswordsman9951
So what is it that you care?
I've heard the exact same retort in 2015/16 when the Northern Irish border was quickly brought up in the Brexit debate , and the response was "project fear" and bemoaning foreigners getting involved where the shouldn't...
There's no excuse for exclusivity in that sense. We only live on one earth, policies made by one nation (an imperial one at that too) can be of concern to others.
@@toyotaprius79 I care because im British lol. Most people don't even pay attention to the politcs of their own country let alone the details of another. Of course there is going to be disinterest in this outside of the UK. I wasn't saying it 'should' be exclusive as you are saying just replying to your remark about the disinterest. Oh yeah and we aren't an "imperial" nation anymore. Empire died a long time ago. I hoped they'd teach you that at school.
@@theblackswordsman9951 I'm English. It wasn't in the news over here either. Just quietly brushed under the carpet.
@@theblackswordsman9951 across the Irish sea could mean he's from NI
The neo liberal era is over. People don't want another Blair clone. They want a character whos a socialist like Corbyn or a nationalist like Boris. Labour have a habit of not listening.
I think it was important to mention one of the single most controversial aspects of Starmer's leadership is the complete reversal on all of the commitments he made in order to be elected leader. The majority of members that voted for Corbyn in the previous two leadership elections also voted for Starmer so the opposition to Starmer isn't a dogmatic, ideological or sectarian one. Starmer won the leadership election on a solidly Centre-Left platform, promising to heal the rifts within the party whilst continuing to argue for radical policies. He has deeply antagonised members by ditching all of that and instead immediately allying himself with the hard-right of the Labour party, trying to purge left-wing members where possible and change the rules so a genuinely radical platform will be impossible going forward. At a time when the country and indeed the world are facing some pretty terrifying challenges a technocratic and moderate response is precisely not what is needed but alas that is what is going to be offered at the next election.
His entire thing at the moment is supporting the opposite of what Boris Johnson supports, even if this means doing a 180. Honestly he lost my vote when he said he won't raise the minimum wage, that's like the bare minimum that workers need right now because cost of living is only getting higher.
What do you think raising the minimum wage will do to the cost of living?
@@stickman6217 Make it more affordable.
To be 100% honest with you, I have little to no faith in either the Labour party or the Conservative party. I've never supported the Conservatives in my life, their policies are totally unacceptable for me, so I've always voted labour. Now thought Labour seems to be a mediocre 'meh' party that wouldn't change much if put in power. I'd love to vote for one of the smaller parties but the FPTP system makes it almost impossible for them to win, people are essentially stuck voting for the 'lesser evil'.
British politics is old-fashioned, unchanging, problematic, and frankly, dangerous.
Exactly my thoughts
Really interesting that you're making Starmer sound like a moderniser. What is he modernising? You seem to have a clearer picture of Starmer's agenda than the public (or even he) does. You also didn't cover that some of the 'radical' policies Corbyn proposed are actually quite mainstream now, many being proposed by the Conservative Party.
The problem is that labour's long-standing reputation as the "tax and spend" party really hampers what the public will believe. The conservatives can promise something and the public believes them, yet when labour propose the exact same thing the public starts asking about a magic money tree. It's completely irrational but people just don't trust labour not to spend beyond the country's means. So whenever labour want to spend any money whatsoever it seems to work against them in a way it doesn't for the Tories.
@@bassetts1899 It´s the media in general, and the tabloid infestation in particular that gives this impression. As far as we can foresee, it´s more likely that a tory government will do some left wing stuff (like nationalisation or taxing the rich) than labour, since if they even give away the thought they will be called communists by the tabloid rags.
He's modernising the Labour party and plans to modernise the country in government.
@@adama-k2710 he's doing Jack shit!
@@DanRyzESPUK thanks to him the public now view the conservative party as more extreme which is modernising the Labour party and making it more electable for the mainstream voter.
I'm 27, I've voted Labour in every election I've been old enough to vote in. I liked Brown, Miliband and Corbyn. I will not be voting for Keir Starmer, for the first time I feel disillusioned with the party and I can't offer them my support. People can say this hands a vote to the Tories but at the end of the day I'm not going to vote for a party out of obligation
Plus if polling continues to show that Labour can only win with an alliance with the Lib Dems and Greens. It means it has to commit to offering Proportional Representation to stand any chance of power. This would be huge, as not only would it mean the Tories getting locked out of power for the foreseeable future. It also means the voting system is a lot fairer.
I hope you don't live in a marginal then, otherwise I hope you continue to enjoy this tory hellscape (rolling back electoral systems to FPTP to help themselves, engaging in voter suppression, introducing draconian anti-protest laws, scaling back workers rights - not to mention the rampant and brazen corruption). Voting Labour, Green or LD has always pretty much been a vote to stop the worst of the Tories. Until we get PR it's not about voting out of obligation but rather out of necessity for those who are detrimentally affected by Tory policy (for example 1.5 mill hit by unversal credit cut).
@@Red1Green2Blue3 I appreciate your point, I do live in one of the safest labour seats but even if I didn't - it's on Labour to win votes - I don't owe them my vote and if they can't convince undecided voters to vote Labour that's their own sorry fault. I'll vote Independent or Green as it stands, I'll see if Labour change course but as it stands I've cancelled my membership and I'm out
@@lukeneilson1897 agreed. I hate how the party won't back P.R as a policy currently or work with other parties. It's clear as day they've lost Scotland permanently, to not engage with the SNP who are avidly anti conservative is mind boggling at this point and to not discuss a cross party alliance to oust the Tory's is outlandish too given the damage caused by the current adminstration
@@SMKshaun it's lucky you live in a safe seat, like I said if you lived in a marginal it'd make you very selfish indeed. It's not about loyalty to the labour party. I live in a LD Tory marginal. I hold my nose and vote LD for the sake of others. Sacrificing people to the alter of "x party needs to win my vote" when you can see the devastation around you is sickening tbh.
This seems to me a case of fighting the next war with the last wars weapons. Back in the 90s neoliberalism was still in the ascendancy in the popular consciousness. Most people were on average kinda doing ok and no one was that motivated by politics. So far left ideas just didn't resonate with people, but for labour to seek a stance that was a lighter, fresher, more friendly seeming version of neoliberal without the stain of all the tory scandals was very successful for them.
But that isn't now. Post 2008 the tide started to turn. People started thinking that the neoliberal hegemony of the past 30 years had failed. And started seeking answers in more politically polarised places. Young people have become more and more left-wing and socially liberal, and people are no longer becoming more conservative as they grow older. While older people started turning ever further to the right, blaming all the problems caused by 2008 on the social changes that had happened concurrently. Like immigration, LGBTQ acceptance, Europe etc.
So now Starmer is trying to win over the middle ground again, the only problem being that there's hardly anyone there anymore. And the people who are there are pretty demoralised. I can see him wanting to return to the good old days of middle-ground politics and wanting to pull people back to the centre, but that's not what Blair did. When he won he did it by going to where the people already were. And while it's understandable for Keir to want to pull the country back to the politics he thinks is best like Boris undoubtedly pulled people over to the right, but Boris was asking people to swim with the tide and doing it very charismatically. While, with the best will in the world, Starmer doesn't have the charisma to pull a Christmas cracker let alone single-handedly pull a nation against the tides of history.
Really well said
You get it, unlike other people in this comment section. If Starmer wants to win an election, then he needs to stop spending all his time looking backwards at 2019, making assumptions about a mystic "moderate middle" that doesn't really exist, and look forwards.
Problem is, this young hard left contingent still controls a minority of the vote share, either through population or through low turnout at the ballot box (probably a combination of both). Even then millennials and gen z are probably not as left wing as some might perceive them to be, since social media amplifies the more extreme views.
@@Croz89 I'm not going off social media, I'm going off national polling. And when I say more left-wing I don't mean communists. I mean that far fewer young people see having a stable high paid career, owning a home, and ever retiring on a livable pension as a realistic possibility for their future than previous generations. And they see the government in the pocket of big business and landowners as the primary cause of their lack of prospects. Most younger people aren't engaged enough in politics to be radicalised, but their basic living conditions makes them naturally lean left. Meanwhile, the middle ground has been abandoned by much of the home-owning older generation too in favour of more right wing nationalism. They are never going to vote labour, no matter how much like the torys they try to look because they were opposed to brexit. So the middle ground is left denuded, and the more leftwing vote continues to grow as millennials enter the age where they start voting in serious numbers. Or at least they will if they have a party they think it's worth voting for.
@@WhichDoctor1 If you consider those issues in isolation, then perhaps there is a case to be made. But there's a lot of other left wing policies that are far less popular and are seen as the wishes of a noisy minority. Left wing social and environmental policies in particular.
Even then the "eat the rich" attitude can be off putting to left wing moderates, particularly those concerned about the economic instability radical redistributive policies could cause, and whether it would start the ball rolling on further attempts to curb the wealth of high income groups. Top 1% today, top 10% tomorrow. There's of cause also the concern that such income would be squandered by a spendthrift government.
Also important to remember many millennials are homeowners with families now, and have shifted at least towards the middle.
The labour party hasn't managed to abolish the smaller left leaning parties in the UK the same way as the conservatives have with the right....
With the green party, lib dems and snp the "left" vote is split between up to 4 parties.
The Conservatives have successfully removed ukip, the brexit party and kept that whole right of centre vote for themselves.
I do think the UK is traditionally slightly more right leaning, but its definatley an up hill battle for any left wing party with the vote split over so many parties.
The idea that greens or LIBERALS are LEFT makes me fall of my chair laughing!!
We really need to teach politics at school because this is embarrassing!
And what role do newspapers and especially online media narrative and public discourse have in this?
2019 election - Tories 42.3% of the vote - the UK is not and never has been "traditionally slightly more right leaning". I'm an author - I jotted this down recently:
The Conservative Party
The British Conservative party is a coalition of different privileged interests with the sole purpose of keeping that privilege for those people…
They get in power by offering just enough to just the right people and no more - they are constantly titrating how much they can remove from the people yet stay in power
Any action that may seem socialist is NOT, its self-preservation.
They have no principles beyond the preservation of their own privilege. So to not lose an election they will throw money at the people; only to increase taxes on them 2 months after the election.
Being called out on it would only matter to them if they HAD any principles or morals - they don’t - they know it's a bribe and they had no intention of ever keeping it. Scream about hypocrisy and broken promises all you want - they don’t care - they won the election.
It's all about maintaining power in order to maintain privilege, whilst giving away as little as possible. To them, if they lose power its not because their policies were unpopular, they know their real policies are deeply unpopular, it's because they got the calculation of bribes and lies V votes wrong.
--§--
In this instance [2021] to goal is to move assets [cos poor people are now utterly stripped dry of everything] from the lower level Tory voters to the higher level. I.e. smaller properties go to larger landlords, smaller farmland goes to the larger land owners, smaller companies go bust and their market share goes to the bigger companies.
It is a form of Feudal Capitalism, it eats the bottom and feeds money and more importantly, capital assets to the top. But when the peasants have nothing it eats the next level up, and then the next, and the next until eventually it is eating the middle and upper-middle class as is happening in 2021.
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart the UK couldn't even teach the histories of its empire or the Irish Famine accurately
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart I did politics at a- level, Liberals and Greens are left wing. Sorry but anybody who read their manifestos can see that.
A return to Blairite Centralism? Hopefully, if Starmer wins, he won't follow Blair in to becoming a war-criminal.
Get over it, Blair did nothing different to what any Tory leader would have, if they’d been in power. The Yanks lied!!! stating they had irrefutable evidence. You forget! all parliament voted and unanimously agreed to back the yanks. So yes, the Tories also voted for war. There was very little opposition. Hind sight is a beautiful thing.
@@user-op8fg3ny3j no they arent, thats just a lazy stupid argument to allow the worst ones get away with it. well done for swallowing more right wing propaganda.
hopefully he doesnt win and gets replaced
Great, just what we need another centrist status quo neoliberal party that does nothing for the working people.
@@rodd1000 I just can't get on board with that. Look at what New Labour did: Minimum wage, devolution, same sex unions, repeal of section 28, a peace deal in Northern Ireland, massive investment in public services, lifting millions of people out of poverty, reducing homelessness etc etc. To say the Tories would have done all of that is simply and demonstrably not true (they were in power for 17 years and did none of it). None of that is to excuse the crime of Iraq, but I just don't think interventionist foreign policy is baked in to centrist politics. Look at Germany, Angela Merkel is a centrist politician (although more right leaning than left), how many middle eastern countries has she invaded? She took in refugees on an unprecedented scale on humanitarian grounds. I'd be happy to vote for whatever works at this point, and Brexit Britain run by the current government is clearly not working.
There are more left leaning parties than right atm, I would've hoped they'd try and unite the left instead of flogging them off and going for people who last voted Conservative. Not voting for either Labour or Conservative either way though
It might still happen one day in the not-so-distant future. This Green Party leadership contest that has just wrapped up had this very issue among the most-debated topics between candidates. There's definitely at least some support for it on the left.
It is impossible to unite the left
Greens, SNP, and Labour together still don’t beat the conservatives in the popular vote- the Lib dems wouldn’t go with them if they shifted far left enough to appeal to the other parties.
@@schroederscurrentevents3844 I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'll take your word for it. I wonder, though, if the public at large were to see an alliance like that, it might gain more support than the three parties do separately, at present? Perhaps inspiring some people who would vote left, don't know where their vote is best placed, and/or feel that it's hopeless to place it anyway, if their natural allegiance would be with one of the lesser parties? Just a thought.
First past the post has the "spoiler effect" the more parties the worse it is for the people in first past the post. Electoral reform, any Condorcet method would be the best thing for the UK that could ever happen. D'Hondt or Saint Lague would be among the best options.
I can't even pay attention to Starmer's policies because all I see is a heartless lawyer.
Do you think that all lawyers are heartless?
He was a human rights lawyer
"close to victory in 2017"
It comes to something when your greatest win was a loss.
I was a labour member and I listened very closely to all the candidates after corbyn. I knew Long Bailey would be ripped apart, the media was already calling her corbyn in a skirt and Wrong Daily before she even announced she was standing and Corbyn might have had a great manifesto but the party itself was willing to lie, rip the party apart to get rid of him . She would have just been the same infighting and media attacks. But blah blah, I went through all of them. Starmer seemed to promise the same manifesto, a unity in the party and so on. So I voted for him as leader. I feel I was lied to by him. And if he lies to party members, I dont hold much hope. So I've left the party, as I feel the right of the party wanted. Right now? I think its Boris' job until he throws I the towel. Wake me up when someone like Andy Burnham is on the ballot paper.
Honestly, I think that the Conservative lead is too large to be overturned in a single election.
Starmer might be able to turn things around and start a recovery for Labour but he won't be able to outright win the next election.
To me the real question is whether he'll be allowed to continue on as Labour leader after failing to win the next election. I suppose the answer will depend on how much of a swing there is back towards Labour.
He cannot in reality ( ok theoretically ) win an election.
Tories could put Dianne bloody Abbott up ad PM and still scrape past the winning post.
Mr Sir Starmer is a dud and Labour are fractious to the point where he he general public don't know what they are all about.
Unless Keir of the Sir Starmer comes to an agreement with SNP he will win nothing.
Because he won't do this ! you should consign yourself to Tory governments for another 10 or more years as that's what we'll get !
Labour would be better off getting shot of him just now , or shortly before the Tories call the next GE, which may not be that far away according to rumour control.
You could argue the same for Corbyn.
Labour support had been going down since Blair’s first election.
After Brown it was at its lowest and Milliband made it worst.
Corbyn was the first leader in over a decade to increase vote share but got attacked for it.
Starmer tows the line with all the corrupt MP’s though. There are things he does that Corbyn used to be attacked for, but Starmer gets away with it.
The problem with Labour is their awful corruption and condesencion.
The need to cut out that cancer.
@@jonsmith5058 They need to shut up their voters.
They are the loudest most toxic set of arrogant self righteous dimwits on the internet.
@@lesserspottedmugwump.363 which voters are you talking about buddy?
Also don’t you think the voters should be heard…?
Why would people vote for you if you tell them to shut up as you don’t like what they say?
I mean a lot can happen. In Germany the SPD was polling at 15% a few months ago. Now they have the chancellorship.
starmer: *is the opposition*
starmer: we don't want to be an opposition!
It saddens me how Corbyns manifesto is still regarded as too radical. Radical change is needed. We won't get any real change under Starmer.
Biden's government is the most progressive government ever and it has descended into a hell hole. No one wants to live in the US now because of those exact policies.
I totally agree. I think Starmer is destroying Labour b/c more (anti-Tory) English ppl than ever before want to live north of the border.
Cornyn is not getting elected . no one likes socialists
@Charlie121 Massive tax increases and over legislation. Printing money like it’s going out of fashion.
It’s lead to massive inflation, a lot of empty stores and no one wanting to work.
Too many executive orders have led to states wanting to break away from the US.
Stop watching CNN, no I don’t watch muh Fox even though it gets rammed down my throat by YT.
@@lesserspottedmugwump.363 I feel like you have conflated some ‘reverse of previous policies’ to introducing any new ones. Too many excecutive orders is literally reversing Trump and some more with not much significance. The printing money thing already started since Trump while low interest rates were back in the Great Recession. Break away? You have been hearing worst news than MSM lol
It’s hard to see a future for both major parties in their current forms. Both Labour and Conservatives parties are being dragged to extremes (by British standards at least) by their fringes, leaving a huge chasm in the centre which is where most of the votes are. The Tories have already imploded, Labour are slowly tearing themselves apart, the LibDems were murdered by the Tories in the coalition government (and they got away with it too) so whichever party manages to regroup and secure the centre ground has a good chance of electoral success, rather like Blair enjoyed in 1997. It’s a mess at the moment, the B word has blown everything up.
The thing to remember about Starmer is that he is a Barrister. Unlike American TV dramas you don't win court cases with surprise witnesses, you build a case piece by piece hence why he is no rush. Secondly there is no point in Labour coming up with a list of plans now; as it will allow the Tories the maximum time to get the civil servants to discredit them.
What he needs to do as well as keep pressure on BoJo for current stuff is to make a list of all the shizzle that the Tories have done and simply bring it back up at the election.
I fear slow, calculated arguments are simply not going to win over Mr Johnson's 3 word slogans.
@@tgillson3093 Having seen the footage recently of the drivers interviewed in a petrol queue when asked if it was caused by brexit all said no I am inclined to agree, those slogans peddled by the white-van newspapers really do strike a chord with voters.
The great thing about 'Build back Better' is it implies it will take some time to do as anyone who has had an extension built will know, hence he can live out his fantasy to be in power longer than Thatcher.
To me the answer is to rally round Starmer, because he is the least worst option; and if the left don't shut up the tories will win de facto again.
I’m a life long Labour voter apart from the last two terms of Blair. I will never vote Labour while Starmer is leader, he’s the reason labour lost so bad in the last Election. He wanted to cancel the Brexit Referendum Results.
I'd personally have been very keen to have a centre left party and initially I figured Kiers would make a more legitimate front. I'm unsure his method of ostracizing the left side was sensible. If he had pushed to join to make a centre left party I think he would have reduced the divide and been able to crack on with the job in hand. Instead it's seemed to have further fractured labour and made it appear broken with endless infighting. It's a shame as I've lived most of my adult life with a conservative government.
First past the post has the "spoiler effect" the more parties the worse it is for the people in first past the post. Electoral reform, any Condorcet method would be the best thing for the UK that could ever happen. D'Hondt or Saint Lague would be among the best options.
mm, I really really miss Gordon Brown, competent government that went out of it's way to actually help people was kind of nice , Steir genuinely seems the closest to that I've seen, but we may really end up with 2 terms of Boris , guess we'll find out in 22 or 23, Cons will call an election when the economy seems to be on strong lines of recovery & the worst of the pandemic is past, guess that means we've got time to see labour sort itself out maybe.
Unless Kier can strongly unify the party and/or present a strong vision to the UK electorate I think his best path to power would ultimately be through coalition with the other parties. Something which will almost certainly pull Labour in the more centrist direction he wants through partnership with the LibDems for instance who they'd likely need to reach at the least to reach a majority, at least based on what I've seen of current polling and parliamentary makeup. The biggest issue is that Kier's stances don't electrify the leftward part of Labour's base and they are an important part of Labour. If Kier can't capture them or even loses them he's likely going to have to contend with voters who are more willing over time to change their vote if the party they usually vote for doesn't meet their wants. So simply put any party that appears to offer a more leftward vision, or even just candidates who can do so, could somewhat siphon away from Labour's leftward base or lead to greater polarization in the party if leftwing voters and candidates within Labour pull further to the left as Kier and his supporters pull more towards the center. An outcome which would risk longer term issues electorally. The future for Labour is, simply put, up in the air. The greatest issue I see for it is the question of if it can reconcile two sides of the party that are increasingly at odds. It may be a good time for Labour to bring back ideas of electoral reform again with that in mind. Maybe something more in line with how Ireland does things. STV is certainly good at both giving voters choice for local politicians they prefer and getting results that closely reflect voter preferences as a whole. I'll digress from that and end my comment here though cause that's a far diverging topic.
Could we get an analysis of how Johnson is ruling the Tories? How he is different from previous leaders, if at all
I don’t see Starmer as prime minister I see him as the transport minister or some other boring sounding positions that suits his personality
‘Whether this is a good move will depend on whether you think left wing leaders are a good thing for the Labour Party or not’ - actually it depends more on if you think democracy is good for the Labour Party
1) The Conservatives remain ahead in the polls, despite the numerous failings of the Tories under Johnson's leadership, despite the corruption, despite the incompetence, despite the lack of proper safeguards against the pandemic. Boris is seen as an amusing, slightly disorganised, loveable rogue.
2) Starmer, by contrast, is seen by many amongst the electorate as being boring, his character likened to a wet rag. Whilst this may be unfair, it is nonetheless true. Many are more drawn to Johnson, who is seen as entertaining, and also a champion of brexit, which large numbers of people voted for. People do not warm to Starmer, who in the eyes of the electorate has no charisma, and no vision.
3) Our First Past The Post electoral system seems strongly to favour the Tories, and with Scotland now mainly voting SNP, it is hard to see Labour winning the next election UNLESS a Progressive Alliance of opposition parties is formed in order to defeat the Tories. So, regardless of who leads Labour, they CANNOT win the next election UNLESS they enter into such an alliance.
The problem with a progressive alliance is that it would require SNP co-operation in Westminster. No doubt that such an alliance would come with the condition that if they win, then the SNP would get their second independence referendum. If granted, and the SNP actually won, then Labour would go down as the party that lost Scotland. Furthermore, without the potential seats in Scotland, there would be basically zero paths to victory for Labour. The best they would be able to hope for is a hung Parliament.
Labour's main opponent in the way of a Labour government is not the Conservatives, but the SNP.
The thing is Tim, Starmer has evidently not done the work to tackle the media. I blame him for not being ahead of the polls but I'll still vote Labour regardless.
My guess is that your assessment is shared by Keir Starmer, who I suspect will not be willing to enter into any such alliance. HOWEVER, in reality Scotland is already lost to Labour - probably forever - so in effect Scotland can be left out of this equation. An alliance between Labour, Plaid Cymru, the Lib Dems and the Greens would prevent opposition votes from being split in marginal constituencies, and would optimize Labour's chances of winning, albeit as part of a coalition government.
Do you live in a marginal constituency? Unless you do, it may not matter WHO you vote for. In my case, I live in a constituency with a truly massive Tory majority. Indeed, there has only EVER been a Tory MP for this constituency. If you happen to live in a marginal constituency, then you have to consider carefully to whom your vote should go (if like me you are desperate to rid the UK of the Tory Party, which is doing so much damage to our nation).
I don't think Starmer is the right person to lead Labour (nor was Corbyn, IMO). But what I think is irrelevant, because without electoral reform (PR with STV to replace FPTP) my vote counts for nothing. It's down to those living in marginal constituencies to determine the future of the nation...
The only way forward is to introduce mmp with a 5% threshold for new parties so that all new govts would have to get 50.1% to have a majority in parliament
The underlying problem is the FPTP electoral system that abhors coalition government. This creates a conflict between a party that wishes to represent its own constituency (e.g. the Labour party wishing to focus on a Trade Union agenda) and a party that needs to attract a wide vote to be able to single handedly form a government.
If we had a system that allowed more coalition governments, then it would also allow each party to represent a single constituency and then the final government to take representation from each of the parties (and so from each of the constituencies represented by those parties) without the parties themselves having to compromise their own relationships with their core constituencies.
Let's be fair, whilst I was a supporter of new labour, the glory stats quoted as success stories for the party were often made to look better than they were by changing the way the stats were calculated or changing systems to improve the stats. For example, they will quote amazing reductions in unemployment figures, but a lot of that was because people being moved onto the new job seekers allowance were not counted as being unemployed.
I was Labour all my life. Then they stabbed Corbyn in the back and they lost me. Completely. RIP Labour.
I am so utterly with you on this!
While my heart is with you, my head is not. My brain knows that even Blairite policies on healthcare and education while quietly changing course on Brexit (while dodging accusations of trying to reverse Brexit) would still be better than more Tories. I’m a doctor who works in the NHS. I’d rather Corbyn, but I’ll take Starmer, because another decade of Tory rule will destroy the NHS.
@@roryokane5907, I agree. I will always vote Labour, but there’s no joy in my heart now when I do so 💔
here here
Stabbed him in the back? It's called a vote of no confidence
I think labours chances of forming a government are directly related to wether or not they form an election pact with the other non-conservative parties. Labour is not going to win a majority. But, they could form a coalition government. It depends on wether they want power, or wether they truly believe the conservatives must go and are willing to do what it takes to achieve that.
At this rate , I don't think there's even a 10% chance of a labour government in 2024
Wait, how is abolishing the House of Lords seen unfavorably by the public? If it's anything like Canada's senate, it's a massively unpopular institution.
My guess is that it's grounded in centuries of tradition, just like the monarchy, so Brits want to keep it. Either way it should be reformed, at least. bicameralism>unicameralism.
Probably just the lords having power of the media to make it appear that the public aren't in favour of abolishment.
At the risk of being that guy, Militant weren't simply the left of the Labour Party. They were a separate organization which had systematically tried to take over the Labour Party.
Would you say it was similar to the DSA in the US?
@@mansonsacidtrip6862 I wouldn't.
Militant seem to have been significantly more authoritarian, both in beliefs and practice, as well as much more ideologically cohesive.
Militant were, effectively, a party within a party, requiring that all their members advocate for specific, detailed policies.
They were also secretive, generally playing down their existence.
@@goodlookingcorpse I knew their ideologies were quite different I just thought the "party within a party" dynamic sounded similar.
@@mansonsacidtrip6862 Militant was more like "a party secretly within a party". And I'm not sure that the DSA is "a party" in the European sense of requiring their members to advocate particular policies. Although obviously they have to their members on-side if they want to keep getting nominated, I'm talking about an official written rule and mechanisms to enforce that.
This video is really biased - Corbyn's policies are modest, centrist, and mainstream from the European perspective. Starmer is just there to take us backwards to serve powerful interests.
agree!
If you mean the European perspective excluding France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Italy and Germany then sure
What did the reference to Harold Saxon at the end mean? @tldr
Hello, please can you do an updated version of this video, pretty pretty please
I love that Starmer values 'electability' more highly than Corbyn, because it shows how empty that concept is. How's the Labour party doing in actual elections since the guy that supposedly really cares about how 'electable' people are got power, again?
then Corbyn shouldn't bother being in politics if he doesn't care about electability. Form a lobby group or a labour union if he wants. Politicians should aim for electability, if he doesn't, then he has no business being a political leader.
@@SirSX3 The point is that Starmer's abject failures at getting Labour elected, after caring ever so much about electability, show that he doesn't care about someone being capable of being elected, he cares about people that ascribe to his ideology and dressing it up in more acceptable language.
I like the Doctor Who reference at the end! To one of the best series finales. Interestingly, Tony Blair resigned in between the broadcasts of the Sound of the Drums and the Last of the Time Lords
This has been an interesting analysis as always.
In an old Doctor Who episode, an insane Dalek asked
"What am I, traitor or saviour?"
its commander replied
"Perhaps you are both."
As someone who joined Labour because of Corbyn and left after Starmer was elected, I dont see him anywhere near as badly as i used to
Polls aren't particularly useful outside of election campaigns. The shifts, if there are any, in the next GE will show if Starmer has at all been successful.
Completely agree.
But shh. Because most comments think the election results of 17 and 19 aren't important because opinion polls show those individual policies are popular.
If there's one consistent thread over the last 10 years of Anglophone politics, its that polls have been completely unable to predict anything
fun fact Keir has broken the following pledges:
1. not writing in the Sun
2. not making energy a goverment run company
3. fighting to rejoin the EU
4. providing a forensic opposition to the Tories
I mean this isn't even a debate is it? It's obvious!
i would like a reform of politics,but at the moment only johnson + starmer can win so i would go for starmer,voting for the greens etc because you don't like starmer is an indirect vote for the torys
Depends on your constituency. I'm in a Manchester constituency where people would rather commit mass suicide than vote conservative. So voting green here is safe. But I used to live in a Tory constituency where the main opposition was lib dem. Voting green there was basically a Tory vote.
The irony in Starmer putting alot of emphasis on "electoral credibility" is this: He has none.
He's not charismatic, he's not particularly well spoken, he has very little to offer in terms of either visions or concrete policy.
But more than anything it is clear that the man does not really have any principles. A willingness to break the promises on which one was elected and backstab the people who helped one win is rarely a way to increase ones credibility....
Also, you really, really cant compare the situations of 1979 and now without going into much, much more detail.
The left of labour back then was completely different from the current left. Not least because the whole party was much further left then than now. Something that would probably have been apparent if you had included any economic policies included in either the Foot or Kinnock manifestoes.
Edit: if a candidate wins the majority of the vote in a "one member one vote" election, that automatically means that they cannot be described as "fringe". By definition they and their political opinions represent and express the political opinion of the majority of the partys members. Even if a candidate does not win a majority but still a plurality, that automatically excludes them from being "fringe".
It is of course possible that they can be considered "fringe" in the context of the political landscape of the nation, but that is a different question.
Edit2: calling the 2019 election Labours worst defeat since 1935 is in my opinion questionable. Yes, they got absolutely hammered in terms of parliamentary seats, but they also got a slightly larger share of the popular vote than they did in 2015.
The reason they did so badly in terms of seats is more to do with the, ehrm, eccentric, way the UK allocates parliamentary seats.
Im not saying Corbyn did not fuck up that election big-style, but this analysis is really shallow.
Edit3: I take that back actually. This analysis is just bad. Corbyn had a larger share of the popular vote in 2019 than Kinnock did in 1987, and Corbyn was only like six seats behind Kinnocks result. You know, the result you present as an improvement And if you are going to compare 79-83-87 with 15-17-19 you have to acknowledge that Corbyn had a massive, almost ten point swing in 2017. Meaning his new manifesto did much better than Kinnocks, by these metrics.
Thank You
Hello, is anyone from TLDR on?
How can we suggest a video topic?
I mean, if you want Labour to win, or have a coalition of left-leaning parties (LibDems, Greens), you need to get the major party to seek electability to win. Only then could your policies be implemented, especially if you are in a mostly 2-party gridlock.
What does that mean exactly, "electability".
That's the problem - Green and the SNP refuse to compromise their ideals for electability. Labour would actually have to be tolerant, at least, of their main points to form an alliance. Since current Labour is unionist and far less interested in climate change and social justice than the Greens, they can't really coalesce. The Labour/Green/SNP bickering during the last election was incredibly petty and banal, but if Labour fears "unelectability", and the smaller parties only exist because of their shared goals, neither can compromise without changing their policies.
Edit: wrote that Labour was anti-EU instead of unionist. D'oh!
Winning elections should be number one priority! Vote red no matter the leader! Otherwise how long should they sit like impotents in the opposition.
@Zefram Cochrane so what? At least the needle will move in the left direction even if it's slowly... You are NEVER going to get a true leftist government in the present age.
Nice Doctor Who reference at the end with Harold Saxon..
Where have I heard this before, where the party thinks it should act more like the opposition but all that does is make people vote for the opposition party and drive away tue people who really hate the opposition party.
To be elected you have to be what the voters want. Given the fact Boris Johnson can usher in an age of famine and hardship and still retain popularity it's clear what the voters would want to vote for.
Famine and hardship lol, do you really think life is harder than it was 50 years ago? Or even 20?
@Zefram Cochrane alchohol in the uk isn't a good measuring stick, as alchohol is now taxed heavily, especially alchohol sold in pubs, that's the most expensive, & you can still buy over a half dozen bottles of good ale for an hours wage
@Zefram Cochrane that's a better example
Would be interesting to see how things would change if David Milliband became leader over Ed. I like Ed, and agree with many of his policies, but his brother is much more electable. And on a similar platform
I know a few people who said they chose the wrong brother.
Agree. Milliband is the only electable member of Labour
@@jeremybiggs8413 They both had very similar ideals but 1 had more union support and leaning. And a lisp which the press tore apart. Because the right wing press in the UK would do that. Wankers
Yes I agree even though I like Ed Miliband, I think they chose the wrong brother as labour leader it should have been David Miliband
His brother is a crook
There are a couple of problems here.
1) Corbyn may have been a "fringe" candidate, but he had, when first appointed leader, the vote of more of the party than even Blair did. This means that, at that time at least, he was more reflective of the party in general. I would argue then that, but reversing the democratisation of the party and returning the leadership selection to the MPs, the leadership is actually risking separating the PLP from the wider party. This, surely, cannot be seen as a good thing.
2) though Corbyn did lead the party at the time of a devastating defeat, its not as simple as saying it was down to Corbyn or the socialist policies. The 2019 elect was, like the two before it, hinged on Brexit. The difference between 2017 and 2019 for Labour was their pivot away from a "pragmatic Brexit" to a "Peoples Vote" stance. Its not a coincidence that the key losses (the so called "Red Wall") wher mostly strongly leave constituencies. This policy was one forced on the leadership by the wider party. Meaning that the failure of Corbyn was allowing the general party to push for a policy that was strategic suicide rather that excert his authority and keep the party on the same track as 2017.
Labour needs a way to be energizing and enthusiastic without being radical. Without both of those, they’ll keep losing.
What was radical about Corbyn's policies?
i disagree entirely that Starmer prioritises electability and Corbyn ideology, as much as the media woulld like to label him as a crazy ideologue. My basis for saying this is through looking at the incredibly popular policies that he has thrown in the bin, nationalisation has huge public support, as did much of the 2017 - 2019 platform, the idea the public found the policies untenable is just a lie, indeed they were so popular in 2017 Starmer and his gang had to take down their own leader for fear of him actually winning
It's a lie because....
They didn't vote for it. Twice.
They were so popular....
JC was a great PM following his 2017 win and got to implement all these policies
Or do you mean
They are popular.
When asked individually, not as a collective governing proposal.
With no consequences / costs attached.
And asked outside the privacy of the voting booth so social pressure to give the "nice" answer.
I'm a Labour man but I see Starmer as a bit of a dull corporate clone. I don't feel any love for the working class coming from him, that being said I don't hate him and would vote for him in a GE tomorrow as he's blatantly better than the alternative.
*Communism*
The intro music is so loud compared to your voice, I don't know if it's just for me but I feel that sometimes the volume for your voice is really low.
Holy shit guys, the audio, dear god.
The music loud as hell, but then I can't hear any of the talking.
Seems like the UK followed the US since the 80s with Thatcher/Reagan. As an outsider I really liked Corbyn, centralism at pivotal times is not good in the long run. If Starmer is more like Blair, who I just remember being Bush's biggest advocate, you're going the same path as the US, two parties that are more right than left under the guise of centralism. At least your Green or farther left parties can stand a chance in a parliamentary system in some sense, whereas they're doomed in the US. Maybe I'm way out of touch, but it was shame how poorly Corbyn did given his progressive policies.
Corbyn did extremely well, he got the most votes for Labour in decades.
What glue have you been sniffing, the build back better Tories are not right wing. They aren’t Conservatives.
There are about 5 Conservatives in the whole party.
@@lesserspottedmugwump.363 Just like New Labour weren't left wing. This country loves ideology-free centrists
@@catmonarchist8920 Ideology-free centrists like Thatcher?
@@aliasgharkhoyee9501 Labour left people without power, rubbish collection and the ability to bury their dead so the Tories could have stood anyone and won and the liberals and SDP split the left wing vote more. Even in '83 the Alliance and Labour took half the vote between them to the Tories 44%
Destroying! He's an absolute disaster.
Why is sound in all of your videos so inconsistent
I would have love it if someone shouted at Starmer when he was bragging about new labour statistics "and 460,000 casualties in iraq"
Lmao that would be perfect
I wish that "Keir" were a popular Usian name.
What does Usian mean?
USian. I.e. American.
Uzian
Destroying it, before I've even watched the video
There was a funny episode with Starmer during his leadership campaign. I heard he was going to visit Stevenage New Town, sort of to portray a classless non-metropolitan image. As it's nearby I nearly went to join the cheering throng, assuming he would be in the town centre. In the event I didn't go, which was just as well, as he actually visited Pin Green, a residential area. The news channels showed him striding along some muddy verges with a couple of Labour councillors in tow and... nobody else. At all.
love the doctor who reference at the end
Pandering to people who will already vote for you is silly. Labour needs to get people to switch from Conservative and other parties. Panderong to the left may have got new voters but not a large enough group to win an election amd seeked to fail in getting greens for example to switch to labour. Ultimately it comes to Math, if you get more from the Tories than you loose to the greens you win England
The other reason Labour loss was Scotland. Unless they claw back anything from the SNP, England alone won't win them power. Moving left done nothing for the Scottish vote. It would have been interesting to see where Stammer sits on comparison to LibDems, greens and SNP especially in the context of Scotland
Labour can't do that. Could you imagine what would happen if Labour took a more socially conservative stance on crime, immigration, integration, etc? The Right wouldn't believe them sincere, and the Left would tear them to shreds.
@@Sir_Gerald_Nosehairs. You bring up a good point that is absolute yet their stance should be looked at based on the individual policy. Personally I would be pretty far right in terms of capitalist free market support, but I do support the nationalisation of certain aspects, especially ones were competion isn't strong or it's in the piblics interest to either excel or provide the service. NHS, steel production and transport are areas that fall into that .
Back to your point I do think crime, immigration and social integration are areas that they shouldn't pull right in. However like everything it is a scale, it may be prudant to pull slightly right to attract needed votes and slowly drift left to where they want to be in 1-3-5-10 years time rather than setting absolute positions.
Without knowing the numbers, its hard to say what policies to run as people fall into different camps with different priorities. Basically its a leader vs manager, you have be anchored in realirlty of what people want while being strong enough to lead the country to where it needs to be. Crobin was a visionary leader, (a vision that rang as deluded to me backed up by some of the most incompetent people on earth) it was all or nothing and failed to deal with the underlying reason people drifted right. If stamer can win the torie voters over on other issues, he won't have to drift that far right, but at the same time he will jave to adopt policies simply based on what came before (management). He can then choose to drift left or further right depending on what the country wants (populist) or that thing thats been lacking in the UK for a very long time, drift on a direction that isn't popular but the right thing to do for the country (Be the leader the country is crying out for)
I think labour has destroyed itself. Too many factions. They’ve been divided and conquered.
So interesting!
It’s weird to think that leaving the EEC was considered a left-wing thing, but in the end it was the right-wing that actually voted us out of the EU.