I ran two polls on Starmer's six new pledges that are intended to bring swing voters into Labour's camp.
One was on Twitter:
The other was here:
The results differ in the scale of the emphaticness. But 'no' wins in both cases.
Of course, this is not scientific. But it's also not irrelevant either. Those with political awareness very clearly think that this strategy is not just poor but unlikely to work, whilst almost certainly alienating them.
Starmer shou;ld take note. People want substance, whatever his pollsters say.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Starmer is using the argument that if he engages in substance the mainstream media will savage him no matter how good the arguments for that substance and he will fail to gain office. The logical thing to do would be to attack the ownership and management structure of the mainstream for preventing calm and rational debate. Personally, I think Starmer is so right-wing in his views he is using the media attack dog syndrome deliberately to avoid scrutiny of his true political leanings.
Mr Schofield, do you think he has any? “true political leanings”? Or is he a programmed man – does what he is told by others, i.e. the flock of corps and their handmaidens (the big insultanacies) . Recent LINO love-ins with the same would seem to suggest that this is the case.
@ Mike Parr. Well probably another Boris Johnson in the sense he’ll work for anybody if the money’s good enough. We’ll have to wait and see how Starmer’s career unfolds. Hard to understand though why he left his Director of Public Prosecutions job.
Totally agree with Schofield’s outline of political cowardice.
Politics must involve differences that people are not content merely to agree to differ on. (Mouffe’s agonism)
Genuine political pluralism must accept, even relish, different positions that really are incompatible with one another. And politicians must be capable of making their case.
That we are in a position in 2024 where there is consensus between competing political groupings over the underpinning macroeconomic dogma, is incredibly dangerous for both practical democracy and political economy.
In the case of the current centre/right Labour party, the blind acceptance of tinkering with neoliberalism, instead of challenging it robustly, is anti-democratic.
Voters of all inclinations can see that only one agenda is being served by this, and the criticism that ‘they’re all the same’ is true.
Choosing a technocracy with different faces is not really politics as we know it Jim, but mere tick box HR.
Starmer, as the cuckoo, with his underlying Blairism, is both profoundly un-democratic and anti-democratic.
Despite these results, I fear, at least in Scotland, Labour will make gains, not because of any policies that benefit our country, but because of the incessant promotion of Starmer’s puppet, Sarwar, by the M.S.M, not least by both B.B.C/S.T.V. The reluctance of these organisations, along with the print media, to ask any meaningful questions regarding Labour Party policies, is a disgrace, and leads me to believe that they will gain seats to the detriment of the S.N.P.
Scotland has no answer to any question in Sctland, IMO
Richard , do you mean Scotland has no answer? or Sinwar has no answer?
Labour has no answer
What’s going on in the Observer and Guardian? Here’s Will Hutton stating the following today:-
“The UK has had the lowest top personal tax rate and lowest overall tax receipts as a proportion of GDP among leading European countries since 2000 – and a fat lot of good it has done us.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/19/weve-got-the-talent-and-the-tech-so-why-cant-britain-grow-its-own-world-beaters#comments
Can’t the editors of these two papers do the analysis and start arguing that Starmer is wrong to be saying the country’s not got the money or even worse “maxed out its credit card” one it doesn’t even operate on one!
Correction “when” not “one”
Agreed
Surely the point is that people will vote for Starmer in sufficient numbers regardless of whether his pledges are persuasive.
It almost as if what out politicians actually stand for is irrelevant, what matters is manufactured perception
I think Starmer’s position, refusing to say Labour would scrap the two child limit on child benefit, epitomises this. He says, yet again, that we can’t afford it. Yet another example of a false economy (the costs to society are much greater from the damage to children through living in poverty).
Obviously Starmer is petrified of being savaged by the media if a policy is not “costed”. Nevermind that not having that policy is immoral.
But there is a good, fiscal, argument to make that we should embrace scrapping the two child limit. Any rational business would look at future benefits versus current cost (investment). If the benefits outweigh the costs plus interest the policy/investment should be implemented/made. The government, of course, controls the interest rate and is not restricted by availability of funds (though tax may be needed to offset inflation). So there is absolutely no excuse for not implementing this, and many other, policies. There is no excuse for not unraveling the plethora of false economies foisted on us by this neoliberal Tory government.
What Starmer, and sadly previous Labour leaders such as Ed Miliband, lack is vision and leadership. From what I see many people are desperate for the change they know is possible (and which is not being offered). Starmer lacks the courage, and/or the ability, to present a rational, moral, and passionate argument for the many changes that we all know are needed. If he did so, I believe people would vote for him, despite the media, with some enthusiasm rather than just resignation. This is what has been lacking in politics for far far to long.
I saw this in the Guardian today.
Labour has faced criticism for not committing to ending the cap, but Streeting said this was unavoidable: “It is one of the consequences of the Conservatives’ disastrous handling of the economy that the public finances are in a mess, and there are hard choices to make. Unless and until I can sit on your programme and say, we will do x by funding it through y, that’s not a commitment I’m able to make today.”
Labour is still stuck in the household analogy of the economy where the state has no power to create money. Surely someone can tell them this is not how the economy works?
It raises a dark suspicion that they do know and pretend otherwise. That is even more worrying.
I have tried to tell them.
They haver heard.
And they refuse to listen. They would rather play to what the crowd think than have the courage to act as true leadership wouild require.
They are that stupid. And they are happy that people will suffer for it.
Richard, I agree with 99% of what you say. In this case, you (we?) are dealing with people that have been programmed. Col’ Smithers in the Ecofin example (& others) , showed how Brown gets his instructions. Ditto the current LINO crew. What you say to them goes against those instructions – so they don’t listen. I can imagine there might even be hints to them alongthe lines “remember what happened to Corbyn – well could happen to you”.
I don’t think they are stupid – perhaps not that bright, they lack curiosity and are surrounded by people that “keep them on track”. None of this is to excuse them for what they do/don’t do.
Furthermore, these types of people are rife throughout society. I have just looked at the public output of a UK Elec’ DNO (Electricity NorthWest). It is gibberish.
The abillity to step back and ask the question: “what are we looking at here” seems to have evaporated in the UK.
“They are that stupid. And they are happy that people will suffer for it.”
Same attribute has to apply to so called progressive mainstream media outlets!
Nothing surprising here Richard.
People (like me) who follow you are almost certain to want something more radical than Starmer is offering on public platforms, and they are likely to overestimate how many other people agree with them. The first is true, the second very doubtful.
But most of your respondents will vote Labour in the end anyway, and they are concentrated in constituencies where they weigh the Labour vote. His target is people who are cautious and not radically inclined. The Local elections show clearly that those are people he is winning – a small rise in vote in safe Labour seats, a much bigger one in more marginal places. Under FPTP that’s how you win.
I am not sure I agree with al your analysis
Bit it is what Labour is thinking, I suspect