Labour party rebranding

There is an interesting piece in the Guardian about Labours attempts at re-inventing itself as a party to focus on "flag and patriotism" to win back voters. I think at Labours behest an agency has looked at the party's standing with voters.  

It says the voters are confused about what or who the party stands for.

It quotes an ex-Labour voter from Grimsby saying they (the Labour party) are the voice of students. They have left the real people, taxpayers, behind.

Focus groups from Watford to Grimsby and nationwide polling, are being briefed to some Labour politicians and staffers, and the results already appear to be shaping Labours communication and policymaking. Earlier this week Keir Starmer presented a party political broadcast  beside a Union flag promising to rebuild "our country."

The presentation of the results of the focus groups and polling suggest that displays of patriotism, and communicating respect for the UK are needed. Apparently, Facebook ads have been commissioned urging the government to get tougher on border control.

The strategy accepts that Labour has excluded and ignored its once core voters, which the presentation appears to blame Corbyn for, under whose leadership the party became a protest party expressing unpatriotic sentiments with "arrogance and idealism."

Senior figures in the party said the presentation was a reality check of how the voting public think about Labour.

A Labour party spokesman said this was a presentation and its results by a third party rather than Labour officials, from September last year which deals with the pre-existing perceptions of the Labour party but although the leadership feels they have a mountain to climb, they are on the right track.


The above is a summary as I don't know how to share the article or the Guardians follow up piece about the best way forward for the Labour party, but I found it interesting that Labour finds itself at a crossroads.

The leadership seems to have come to the conclusion that the best way to claw some lost voters back, is to accept those voters are, in the main, patriotic, very proud of the UK and it's standing in the world; also, as Keir Starmer says Brexit is done, there is no going back over old ground.

Some in the party are afraid though that they then might lose the votes of the young and/or votes of ethnic minorities.

It is a bit of a dilemma for the Labour party for sure; should they splinter and allow a pure socialist party to be led by a Jeremy Corbyn type figure on one side, or should they continue their rebranding as a patriotic British party with the concerns and interests of the majority of hard-working, taxpaying public at the forefront of their thinking and stay together as one party?

Most Labour supporters I have encountered on social media certainly prefer the Jeremy Corbyn version; they are the ones who are most vocal in their opposition to anything a more middle of the road Grimsby voter would prefer, but it seems they are not winning over anybody to their cause meaning they will be out of power indefinitely unless they can compromise.

The Guardian's accompanying analysis does finish with the paragraph - "This raises one question for all progressives in the UK - if the main party of the left seeks to walk like the right and talk like the right, then what precisely is the point of the main party of the left?"

If you are a Labour supporter, what would you do?

Edit. If anyone can share the full article it would be good for posters to see it in full.

Labour were the party of the workers and Tories were the party of the bosses. All we have now is a middle ground of politics. I am not blaming Lew for his post as he did his best to summarise but not another rebranding of a rebranding of a rebrand.

In modern times Labour at it's best was probably John Smiths labour. Blair outstayed his welcome just like Maggie did for the Tories. Over the last decade all they have had is change, followed by change followed by err more changes.

This paragraph totally sums up the labour party:-

"This raises one question for all progressives in the UK - if the main party of the left seeks to walk like the right and talk like the right, then what precisely is the point of the main party of the left?"

It’s fundamentally what happened to the tories after Maggie outstayed her welcome and Blair got himself in to power.

Time will whether it’ll be successful; society has had the option of a Labour Party that has sat itself to the left and they rejected it. That’s not necessarily the fault of the party or it’s leader, more the shift in what society believes it wants.

We’ve all stood next to folk who vote without knowing much or wanting to find out much about the people they vote for. That’s their right and choice but it seems an odd attitude to have. Although great for those in power.

Social media will forever play a part in elections now and that can and probably is the biggest tool for forcing views without folk really knowing. If Brenda from Slough shares a lost dog post from Auckland she hasn’t read the actual post or Dave from Bognor Regis shares a Veterans support line but doesn’t read the article and realise it’s an American phone number, how easy is it to persuade them to vote this way or that way.

I’m not sure a rebrand can help or stop that. Politics has and is changing, some may argue for the worse.

Like I say, time will tell...

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

Edit. If anyone can share the full article it would be good for posters to see it in full.

Where it asks you to "Register for free and continue reading" just scroll down and click on "I'll do it later" to read the full article.

https://www.theguardian.com/po.....s-trust-leak-reveals

This might’ve been a worthwhile debate had people shown some willingness to actually consider the substantive issues, but it’s clear that a significant proportion of the population can’t look at the situation objectively and prefer to wallow in their own misguided preconceptions. This includes Sir Keith, who has seemingly dismissed the Labour Together Report, having already ignored 2019’s Northern Discomfort report (which warned against Keith’s 2nd referendum), and just paid a load of suits to tell them what they want to hear.

Quoted from promotion plaice

Where it asks you to "Register for free and continue reading" just scroll down and click on "I'll do it later" to read the full article.

https://www.theguardian.com/po.....s-trust-leak-reveals

Sorry, I meant how to get the full article onto this board, but you have done that now so thanks.

Quoted from DB

Labour were the party of the workers and Tories were the party of the bosses. All we have now is a middle ground of politics. I am not blaming Lew for his post as he did his best to summarise but not another rebranding of a rebranding of a rebrand.

In modern times Labour at it's best was probably John Smiths labour. Blair outstayed his welcome just like Maggie did for the Tories. Over the last decade all they have had is change, followed by change followed by err more changes.

This paragraph totally sums up the labour party:-

"This raises one question for all progressives in the UK - if the main party of the left seeks to walk like the right and talk like the right, then what precisely is the point of the main party of the left?"

A good summing up, The death of John Smith was a body blow for Labour, but momentum was key and Blair rode in on his coattails. We will never know how the country would have looked under Smith, maybe we wouldn’t of got involved in the Iraq war who knows? But I do think he maybe wouldn’t of lost the working class in the way it started under Blair, before
haemorrhaging under Brown and Corbyrn.

Political commentators and advisors pay far too much attention and kudos to the shrill on social media and not enough to the silent majority,  hence their pre election/referendum predictions in recent years - both here and further afield - being so woefully wide of the mark.

Quoted from Withnail

Political commentators and advisors pay far too much attention and kudos to the shrill on social media and not enough to the silent majority,  hence their pre election/referendum predictions in recent years - both here and further afield - being so woefully wide of the mark.

This is very much the case. I can never understand with the millions of pounds that are poured into electoral strategy they invariably are wide of the mark.

Politicians should give the public what the public want. For years the Labour party, in particular, has tried to sell the public something they have no intention of buying.

They are daft enough to think Twitter is real life, and the most vocal is a representation of the country, even though every election tells them otherwise. They boast more members of their party than any other in Europe, yet the general public, the voters, are not remotely bothered as they are selling them something they don't want.

I think with Labour strategists the penny has finally dropped. The bulk of the public is disinterested in a party which seems to spend so much of its time on fringe issues, does not seem to like the UK very much and seems to prefer to find ways of criticising the country whatever it tries to do.

The Labour party has a big decision. Does it, at last, remember and respect the views of the general public, the voters, or does it pander to its membership who are completely out of touch with mainstream thinking?  

Politicians should not give the public 'what they want' because the British public are pretty much wrong about everything:

https://theconversation.com/british-people-are-wrong-about-everything-heres-why-16018

It's the job of politicians to put out a convincing platform of policy measures and then to persuade people to vote for them by explaining how those policies will tangibly benefit their lives. Unfortunately this is quite difficult as as soon as you start doing that the disinformation campaigns by vested interests start kicking off, 'the public' succumbs to them and ends up 'demanding' policies that will actually be detrimental to their lives and economic well being. You only have to read the posts by boring old i'm alright jack illegitimates on here to realise how effective all that propaganda is.

The public only think they know what they want.

They actually think what they are told to think by very clever persuasion, and the people doing the persuading are the ones that control the means to do it. The ones with the vested interests in keeping the status quo.

Anyone that tries to present a different future is quickly shut down by disinformation and lies. This keeps the great unwashed happy in their ignorance, with low pay, low prospects and no social mobility. Happy and proud to be British, the fools.

Quoted from ginnywings

The public only think they know what they want.

They actually think what they are told to think by very clever persuasion, and the people doing the persuading are the ones that control the means to do it. The ones with the vested interests in keeping the status quo.

Anyone that tries to present a different future is quickly shut down by disinformation and lies. This keeps the great unwashed happy in their ignorance, with low pay, low prospects and no social mobility. Happy and proud to be British, the fools.

To a extent I agree with you. When I was at school there were many pink bits on a map, countries which we controlled. When it suits our politicians they call us Great Britain but with the pink bits gone we are no longer Great. Countries still look up to us as we still the N bomb and many more countries have joined the club.

We have 2 new aircraft carriers which can be sunk with a couple of missiles, total waste of money especially as we don't have the planes. We are told how much govt. (red or blue) spending is good for us. In transport when was the last multi billion infrastructure spent along the east coast. HST goes north west and central.

I could go on and on but at the end of the day all politicians tell us how good we are and treat us like mushrooms

I thought this Steve Bell cartoon was pretty apt:

https://www.theguardian.com/co.....ism-strategy-cartoon

Unfortunately, it seems that Starmer is in search of power for the sake of power but with no overarching aim or discernable target if he was to get it. 'Something a bit better' isn't a proper aim. No real direction to the Labour Party under his leadership as yet which is disappointing but isn't perhaps surprising as he's the candidate of the PLP which is still dominated by those who rose to prominence in the Blair/Brown era. They don't have any new ideas and they don't have the courage or awareness to move on from the centre-leftish nothingness which won't be enough to fix the wrongs inflicted on the country over the past decade. The world has moved on since 1997 and especially since 2010, much for the worse. Speaking of which, I see Gideon 'George' Osborne has decided to become a merchant banker now. Well, he's always been one of those, but now he's making it official. I suppose he became chancellor despite not having the first understanding of macroeconomics (or maybe he just didn't care?), then a newspaper editor without any experience of journalism so not a surprise he's becoming a banker with no knowledge of banking. The wealthy certainly look after their own. His £650k per annum working as an 'advisor' to BlackRock one day a week was small beans. The rich have done exceptionally well thanks to Osborne and now is his time to be properly rewarded.

Now as for Starmer, I'm not saying things wouldn't improve under a putative New Labour Mk. 2 government with him in charge with some mildly socially democratic policies, but that's not saying much! Unfortunately, he's not likely to win power with the establishment against him (as it tends to be against labour - note the small 'l') and without a vision to encourage the membership of the Labour Party to put in the legwork to give him a chance. The fact remains that the electorate disliked Corbyn, but not his moderate socially-democratic policies (which as I've noted many a time wouldn't have been much out of place in a Conservative Party manifesto before the mid-70s), so it seems odd that Starmer has moved so far to the right despite his promises otherwise when he was elected leader of his party.

It leads us to the situation where the Tory government have excrement the bed every other week over the past year with appalling errors made during the pandemic (no, they haven't just been 'following the science' as their various lockdowns have come weeks later than recommended by SAGE plus all the inept cronyism/corruption etc and U-turns a plenty), but he's barely laid a finger on them. Taking apart Johnson at PMQs doesn't count, especially as Johnson has realised he can get away with ignoring tricky questions or simply tell lies in his answers with absolute impunity.

It leads us to the incredible situation where the Tories are ahead in the polls because they actually managed to procure the vaccines (which amazed everybody). This, despite the ongoing shambles in government - it's certainly the least capable cabinet the country has ever had - and the terrible death toll which is pretty much the worst in the world because of the decisions made by the government.

Unfortunately, I think it's probably too late to turn things around, even this far away from the next election so my guess is that we'll have the Tories selling off bits of the country and running everything into the ground for most of the next decade. I'd imagine the Tories will manage to bluff their way past a proper public enquiry into the pandemic, or perhaps kick it into the long grass past the next election so they get away with their mistakes.

Starmer could have done much better and should have done much better, but doesn't have the political nouse or courage to do so. Hopefully, the New Labour coterie stuck 20 years in the past will finally take a back seat after the next defeat and something a bit more, well, left-wing, will be able to take shape. When Labour (or a coalition) get into power, I hope that the first thing they do is bring in a proper electoral system so we'll not be left choosing between two behemoth parties who don't properly represent most of the people in the country. It would be nice to join the grown ups.

Quoted from Maringer

I thought this Steve Bell cartoon was pretty apt:

https://www.theguardian.com/co.....ism-strategy-cartoon

Unfortunately, it seems that Starmer is in search of power for the sake of power but with no overarching aim or discernable target if he was to get it. 'Something a bit better' isn't a proper aim. No real direction to the Labour Party under his leadership as yet which is disappointing but isn't perhaps surprising as he's the candidate of the PLP which is still dominated by those who rose to prominence in the Blair/Brown era. They don't have any new ideas and they don't have the courage or awareness to move on from the centre-leftish nothingness which won't be enough to fix the wrongs inflicted on the country over the past decade. The world has moved on since 1997 and especially since 2010, much for the worse. Speaking of which, I see Gideon 'George' Osborne has decided to become a merchant banker now. Well, he's always been one of those, but now he's making it official. I suppose he became chancellor despite not having the first understanding of macroeconomics (or maybe he just didn't care?), then a newspaper editor without any experience of journalism so not a surprise he's becoming a banker with no knowledge of banking. The wealthy certainly look after their own. His £650k per annum working as an 'advisor' to BlackRock one day a week was small beans. The rich have done exceptionally well thanks to Osborne and now is his time to be properly rewarded.

Now as for Starmer, I'm not saying things wouldn't improve under a putative New Labour Mk. 2 government with him in charge with some mildly socially democratic policies, but that's not saying much! Unfortunately, he's not likely to win power with the establishment against him (as it tends to be against labour - note the small 'l') and without a vision to encourage the membership of the Labour Party to put in the legwork to give him a chance. The fact remains that the electorate disliked Corbyn, but not his moderate socially-democratic policies (which as I've noted many a time wouldn't have been much out of place in a Conservative Party manifesto before the mid-70s), so it seems odd that Starmer has moved so far to the right despite his promises otherwise when he was elected leader of his party.

It leads us to the situation where the Tory government have excrement the bed every other week over the past year with appalling errors made during the pandemic (no, they haven't just been 'following the science' as their various lockdowns have come weeks later than recommended by SAGE plus all the inept cronyism/corruption etc and U-turns a plenty), but he's barely laid a finger on them. Taking apart Johnson at PMQs doesn't count, especially as Johnson has realised he can get away with ignoring tricky questions or simply tell lies in his answers with absolute impunity.

It leads us to the incredible situation where the Tories are ahead in the polls because they actually managed to procure the vaccines (which amazed everybody). This, despite the ongoing shambles in government - it's certainly the least capable cabinet the country has ever had - and the terrible death toll which is pretty much the worst in the world because of the decisions made by the government.

Unfortunately, I think it's probably too late to turn things around, even this far away from the next election so my guess is that we'll have the Tories selling off bits of the country and running everything into the ground for most of the next decade. I'd imagine the Tories will manage to bluff their way past a proper public enquiry into the pandemic, or perhaps kick it into the long grass past the next election so they get away with their mistakes.

Starmer could have done much better and should have done much better, but doesn't have the political nouse or courage to do so. Hopefully, the New Labour coterie stuck 20 years in the past will finally take a back seat after the next defeat and something a bit more, well, left-wing, will be able to take shape. When Labour (or a coalition) get into power, I hope that the first thing they do is bring in a proper electoral system so we'll not be left choosing between two behemoth parties who don't properly represent most of the people in the country. It would be nice to join the grown ups.

Couldn't have put it any better.  If I may add to it in saying that we are led to believe that we have democratic parliament that speak for the people. We do have when a govt. majority is about 15 or less. The govt. have to listen to the people or they might lose a vote. However any majority above say20 means, unless they unleash the whips, the govt of the day will win a vote.

In other words any govt. can do what they like regardless of what we think or want. We cease to being a democratically run country in favour of being a dictatorship. Thatcher and Blair style.

Quoted from Maringer

I thought this Steve Bell cartoon was pretty apt:

https://www.theguardian.com/co.....ism-strategy-cartoon

Unfortunately, it seems that Starmer is in search of power for the sake of power but with no overarching aim or discernable target if he was to get it. 'Something a bit better' isn't a proper aim. No real direction to the Labour Party under his leadership as yet which is disappointing but isn't perhaps surprising as he's the candidate of the PLP which is still dominated by those who rose to prominence in the Blair/Brown era. They don't have any new ideas and they don't have the courage or awareness to move on from the centre-leftish nothingness which won't be enough to fix the wrongs inflicted on the country over the past decade. The world has moved on since 1997 and especially since 2010, much for the worse. Speaking of which, I see Gideon 'George' Osborne has decided to become a merchant banker now. Well, he's always been one of those, but now he's making it official. I suppose he became chancellor despite not having the first understanding of macroeconomics (or maybe he just didn't care?), then a newspaper editor without any experience of journalism so not a surprise he's becoming a banker with no knowledge of banking. The wealthy certainly look after their own. His £650k per annum working as an 'advisor' to BlackRock one day a week was small beans. The rich have done exceptionally well thanks to Osborne and now is his time to be properly rewarded.

Now as for Starmer, I'm not saying things wouldn't improve under a putative New Labour Mk. 2 government with him in charge with some mildly socially democratic policies, but that's not saying much! Unfortunately, he's not likely to win power with the establishment against him (as it tends to be against labour - note the small 'l') and without a vision to encourage the membership of the Labour Party to put in the legwork to give him a chance. The fact remains that the electorate disliked Corbyn, but not his moderate socially-democratic policies (which as I've noted many a time wouldn't have been much out of place in a Conservative Party manifesto before the mid-70s), so it seems odd that Starmer has moved so far to the right despite his promises otherwise when he was elected leader of his party.

It leads us to the situation where the Tory government have excrement the bed every other week over the past year with appalling errors made during the pandemic (no, they haven't just been 'following the science' as their various lockdowns have come weeks later than recommended by SAGE plus all the inept cronyism/corruption etc and U-turns a plenty), but he's barely laid a finger on them. Taking apart Johnson at PMQs doesn't count, especially as Johnson has realised he can get away with ignoring tricky questions or simply tell lies in his answers with absolute impunity.

It leads us to the incredible situation where the Tories are ahead in the polls because they actually managed to procure the vaccines (which amazed everybody). This, despite the ongoing shambles in government - it's certainly the least capable cabinet the country has ever had - and the terrible death toll which is pretty much the worst in the world because of the decisions made by the government.

Unfortunately, I think it's probably too late to turn things around, even this far away from the next election so my guess is that we'll have the Tories selling off bits of the country and running everything into the ground for most of the next decade. I'd imagine the Tories will manage to bluff their way past a proper public enquiry into the pandemic, or perhaps kick it into the long grass past the next election so they get away with their mistakes.

Starmer could have done much better and should have done much better, but doesn't have the political nouse or courage to do so. Hopefully, the New Labour coterie stuck 20 years in the past will finally take a back seat after the next defeat and something a bit more, well, left-wing, will be able to take shape. When Labour (or a coalition) get into power, I hope that the first thing they do is bring in a proper electoral system so we'll not be left choosing between two behemoth parties who don't properly represent most of the people in the country. It would be nice to join the grown ups.

Quoted from Maringer

I thought this Steve Bell cartoon was pretty apt:

https://www.theguardian.com/co.....ism-strategy-cartoon

Unfortunately, it seems that Starmer is in search of power for the sake of power but with no overarching aim or discernable target if he was to get it. 'Something a bit better' isn't a proper aim. No real direction to the Labour Party under his leadership as yet which is disappointing but isn't perhaps surprising as he's the candidate of the PLP which is still dominated by those who rose to prominence in the Blair/Brown era. They don't have any new ideas and they don't have the courage or awareness to move on from the centre-leftish nothingness which won't be enough to fix the wrongs inflicted on the country over the past decade. The world has moved on since 1997 and especially since 2010, much for the worse. Speaking of which, I see Gideon 'George' Osborne has decided to become a merchant banker now. Well, he's always been one of those, but now he's making it official. I suppose he became chancellor despite not having the first understanding of macroeconomics (or maybe he just didn't care?), then a newspaper editor without any experience of journalism so not a surprise he's becoming a banker with no knowledge of banking. The wealthy certainly look after their own. His £650k per annum working as an 'advisor' to BlackRock one day a week was small beans. The rich have done exceptionally well thanks to Osborne and now is his time to be properly rewarded.

Now as for Starmer, I'm not saying things wouldn't improve under a putative New Labour Mk. 2 government with him in charge with some mildly socially democratic policies, but that's not saying much! Unfortunately, he's not likely to win power with the establishment against him (as it tends to be against labour - note the small 'l') and without a vision to encourage the membership of the Labour Party to put in the legwork to give him a chance. The fact remains that the electorate disliked Corbyn, but not his moderate socially-democratic policies (which as I've noted many a time wouldn't have been much out of place in a Conservative Party manifesto before the mid-70s), so it seems odd that Starmer has moved so far to the right despite his promises otherwise when he was elected leader of his party.

It leads us to the situation where the Tory government have excrement the bed every other week over the past year with appalling errors made during the pandemic (no, they haven't just been 'following the science' as their various lockdowns have come weeks later than recommended by SAGE plus all the inept cronyism/corruption etc and U-turns a plenty), but he's barely laid a finger on them. Taking apart Johnson at PMQs doesn't count, especially as Johnson has realised he can get away with ignoring tricky questions or simply tell lies in his answers with absolute impunity.

It leads us to the incredible situation where the Tories are ahead in the polls because they actually managed to procure the vaccines (which amazed everybody). This, despite the ongoing shambles in government - it's certainly the least capable cabinet the country has ever had - and the terrible death toll which is pretty much the worst in the world because of the decisions made by the government.

Unfortunately, I think it's probably too late to turn things around, even this far away from the next election so my guess is that we'll have the Tories selling off bits of the country and running everything into the ground for most of the next decade. I'd imagine the Tories will manage to bluff their way past a proper public enquiry into the pandemic, or perhaps kick it into the long grass past the next election so they get away with their mistakes.

Starmer could have done much better and should have done much better, but doesn't have the political nouse or courage to do so. Hopefully, the New Labour coterie stuck 20 years in the past will finally take a back seat after the next defeat and something a bit more, well, left-wing, will be able to take shape. When Labour (or a coalition) get into power, I hope that the first thing they do is bring in a proper electoral system so we'll not be left choosing between two behemoth parties who don't properly represent most of the people in the country. It would be nice to join the grown ups.

Absolutely spot-on Maringer, a really good summing-up.

The state of Labour frustrates the hell out of me at the moment. I'm a Labour member, and can't be doing with the ridiculous partisanship over factions and hero-worshipping: the party is bigger than Corbyn or Starmer (or so it should be). Corbyn was rejected whole-sale by the electorate, and as much as Corbyn stans might cry 'the media!', sadly a hostile media is part of the job description of being a Labour leader - remember the Miliband bacon sarnie, and the attacks on Ralph Miliband 'hating Britain'?. He was politically naïve. He didn't use his allies in the media well enough, he thought he could get in without 'playing the game' (you've got the win the game to then change it) and he allowed people to speak in his ear about things where his judgement may have been better if he has stayed strong (Brexit stance, being a prime example). His team also seemingly mistook a surge in membership and packing student unions as being successful: but in FPTP voting, the people who chanted his name at rallies were in no way the people we needed to engage.

After leading us to our worst election defeat in 80+ years, it frustrates me that so much is still about him - his ego has got the better of him. If you lose an election and resign, the decent thing to do is be a quite and humble backbencher for a while. Miliband did, Brown did, even Theresa May did. In fact, the only person I can think who had the ego to pop-up and make himself still relevant where he wasn't, was Blair (I know he didn't lose an election, he just jumped ship before hand). And if Starmer loses and election, I'd expect him to pipe the intercourse down and let someone else step up also.

Now, onto Starmer. He wasn't my choice as leader, but just as I supported Corbyn with my misgivings, I gave Starmer a chance also (I don't by into this idea that you're in one camp or the other). But for all your points you've just made, I am losing all patience. I just don't know what he stands for, and I get that he is being cautious to not give 'open goals' to the press etc. - but you still have to have an ideology.

The things is, there's 4.2 million kids living in poverty in the UK. It's flipping appalling, and I would take a centre-left government as a step in the right direction, rest assured I'd prefer a much more left government, and would pressure a Labour government to move to the left - but if the choice is a right-wing Tory govt or a centre, centre-left Labour govt, pragmatically I would take the latter.

But I can't see it happening, I don't think Starmer is able to inspire, he is not leading us anywhere. I wouldn't know what he stands for and I'm a party member! I know that he is tightening the defences, but he has no attack (Arteta's first year at Arsenal is the best analogy I've heard), and that just makes us bland, uninspiring and a bit of a nothing-ness. It's also, at this point, not about polls - the election is too far off. It's important that the Government is properly held to account, that the messages are strong because that's what people need to hear - someone standing up for public services, the NHS, social care, keyworkers, the fact that 50,000+ people have been fined for breaking lockdown rules yet not one employer has been fined for unsafe practice (all the companies demanding their employees come into the office cos they aren't deemed quite as productive working at home with kids...).

If Labour do not back constitutional reform (including PR) then my membership would be cancelled. Meaningful devolution to regional assemblies is something huge. How the Tory government have the gall to profess they are the party of 'levelling up' - and why Labour haven't made it their mission to advocate for the North, the midlands... support was taken for granted. The North still votes Labour (yes some traditional seats went blue, but there are still many more Labour constituencies in the North than South, bar London) however I worry that if Labour don't inspire people with strong messages that more seats will go.

On the flag-waving stuff, it misses the point. I don't mind what I'd call 'progressive patriotism', but to me that's talking about 'The people of Britain deserve better than [x]' and 'it's not patriotic to dodge taxes and not contribute to the services which help us all' - 'noone left behind is a fundamental value of people in the UK, our Government is not recognising that value' etc.
When that's interpreted sticking a few jingoistic Union Jacks about it comes across as patronising and widely misinterpreting the image problem Labour has.

Fascinating debate, and to throw a further slant on things, nobody appears to have commented on the wholesale shift of Scotland from Labour to SNP over the last 15 years. To me, it appears that Labour have no strategy to regain votes in Scotland, and until they do so, I can’t see them ever being able to collect enough votes in England or Wales to rule through a majority.

Scotland has gone. The major English political parties are finished there - Scottish Labour have been even more incompetent than the English Labour Party for many years and the Tories have had nothing more tja  a toe hold North of the border for many years.

The SNP will continue to all but sweep the board at elections for as long as it takes for the Scots to gain independence. Just how much Sturgeon and her clique are keen on this remains to be seen, however. They've developed a political class much like the New Labour 'establishment' and the way they've attempted to set up Salmond is shocking. Not just because it has been so brazen but also because it has been so incompetent and it is so obvious they are trying to cover their arses. Due to the foibles of the way the Scottish legal process works, the SNP leadership (Sturgeon's husband is CEO of the party, incidentally), has got complete control of the legal process. They tried to set up Salmond with spurious claims of sexual assault and now the judiciary is refusing to call incriminatory information as evidence in their judicial review. Wouldn't surprise me to see Sturgeon defenestrated at some point, but I think the momentum towards independence is unstoppable.

Quoted from Maringer

Scotland has gone.

I think the momentum towards independence is unstoppable.

Perhaps this island needs to be 3 independent countries again. N Ireland and Ireland are headed towards unification which will return NI to the EU. Scotland wants to be in the EU. 70% of Scots voted AGAINST leaving. Wales is also looking more and more to independence.

Leave England to get on with what England wants, and that appears to be a tax haven for very rich Tories, a Pay as you Go Health system, and generally a belief that it can survive on it's own and with little interaction with anybody else.

A bit like North Korea I suppose.

Firstly as you know I'm not red or blue and have an axe to grind at all parties about most things.

As this thread is about the rebranding of labour I wondered about this I have just read in the Express, part of the Reach group which includes the Mirror.

https://www.express.co.uk/news.....ty-socialist-lawyers

https://www.independent.co.uk/.....tracts-b1805772.html

This is what Starmer should be doing, he seems frightened of doing or criticising anything or anyone at the moment, unless he starts leading and taking the fight to this inept Government he will need to go

Bloody hell who opened Corbo’s crypt 🙀

Labour has some serious problems.

They pander t the needs of migrants before their own, that has caused a huge rift in the public with the majority fed up with the far leaning woke leftism.
Also pandering to the lazy that wont work.

As as said before they tried to make people feel ashamed of being British.

All this needs to change.  call me rascist if you like, im not. these are the views of the majority. i will now probably get slated by the loud minority.

P.s was Labour most of my life but they gone to the dogs not supporting the real people of Britain.

This is a refreshing read, there are some good points made by all.

Speaking solely on how I feel towards Labour, they are in big trouble but I feel they are held between two barrels a little. Keir Starmer realises that clearly to win voters back and to go on to stand a chance of winning the next election he needs to appeal to the people who found Labour revolting under Corbyn.

As much as staying on middle ground is dangerous, I myself would say I'm a centrist so a centre stance Labour would appeal to me massively, I am a former Labour voter myself and would vote for them again if they were able to show they they can be a credible government. Before we carry on I may point out that I didn't vote Tory either. The problem is Labour as we all now are traditionally a socialist working mans party, but under Corbyn they shifted to represent almost a revolutionary type of socialism and most including myself found him polarising and divisive. He was loathed by a lot of media outlets, some unfair but some he deserved criticism and in the end he carried himself as what I would say is Anti-British. I don't read papers or take my opinion from what I'm told to believe, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote in a man who I found so abhorrent and for a political system I found to far to the left.

Now with Keir Starmer, for me he is playing a very clever but dangerous game, by alienating the left he's pushing away the vehicle that drove Corbyn to almost cult status, but he will win votes from the silent majority, people like me, people who don't buy into a single political standing, those who feel the Tory's are too far right and who thought a Corbynite Labour were too far left.

I would hazard a guess most of the UK are liberal but patriotic to a degree. Labour's biggest failing was to not realise that the working class in the most part don't allign themselves as left slanted socialists, certainly not these days. So despite Jezza telling us that's who he represented he couldn't have been further wrong.

That's just my opinion guys and I respect all of yours.

Cheers

Kieth currently polling 7 points behind the Tories, despite 130,000 people dead and the worst economic downturn in the G7, and about to be outflanked by the Tories to the LEFT in tax rises and the economy.

Sunak, meanwhile, is proposing almost exactly what Corbyn had since 2015. Quite remarkable from revolutionary socialist Sunak.

10 months in charge and Starmer’s personal ratings are going through the floor. Had his big speech last week and you’d struggle to find anyone who remembers a word of it. The bloke’s been playing politics throughout the pandemic and has been happy to watch people die and the economy tank in the hope that he’d sweep in and clean up the pieces. Well the vaccination programme’s gone better than anticipated and unless Boris fcks up over June, he’ll be polling 50%+. Best thing they can do is shuffle Burnham into a safe seat and send Starmer back off to his donkey farm.

Because we’ve got a naff two-party system, which FPTP ensures can never change, we always seem to end up with whichever party best entices the centrists. Labour under Corbyn was, in a sense, good because it had quite a definite identity, but that obviously turned off lots of people who were not interested in a more left-leaning Labour. Starmer now has an unenviable task of trying to reclaim the centrists yet also keep the leftists happy. I’ve no idea how doable that is, and at the minute I’ve frankly no idea what Starmer stands for. At least with Corbyn you knew where he stood and could either back him or forget about him (not that there was another viable centre-left party to vote for).

The most successful Labour leader in modern times was arguably Blair, and he was the definition of a centrist. Speak to people from Momentum and they describe him as a Tory in disguise!

Until we have a multi-party system which features parties from across the political spectrum, we’ll be stuck with centrist battleground politics. It’s tiresome and never representative of what the electorate want. At least with a multi-party approach you’d be forced into working coalitions which *could* result in a larger proportion of the electorate being a little bit happy, as opposed to the vast majority being unhappy.

Quoted from kafunanapar140909

Because we’ve got a naff two-party system, which FPTP ensures can never change, we always seem to end up with whichever party best entices the centrists. Labour under Corbyn was, in a sense, good because it had quite a definite identity, but that obviously turned off lots of people who were not interested in a more left-leaning Labour. Starmer now has an unenviable task of trying to reclaim the centrists yet also keep the leftists happy. I’ve no idea how doable that is, and at the minute I’ve frankly no idea what Starmer stands for. At least with Corbyn you knew where he stood and could either back him or forget about him (not that there was another viable centre-left party to vote for).

The most successful Labour leader in modern times was arguably Blair, and he was the definition of a centrist. Speak to people from Momentum and they describe him as a Tory in disguise!

Until we have a multi-party system which features parties from across the political spectrum, we’ll be stuck with centrist battleground politics. It’s tiresome and never representative of what the electorate want. At least with a multi-party approach you’d be forced into working coalitions which *could* result in a larger proportion of the electorate being a little bit happy, as opposed to the vast majority being unhappy.

The only problem being there would be a right old mish mash of party’s, take the 2015 election for example UKIP would have got 80+ seats! This would open the election up to all kinds of extreme party’s, first past the post isn’t ideal but i think it’s better than the alternatives.

Yes, but we wouldn’t have had a “UKIP government”. Having more of a multi-party option would mean that votes for, say, the Green Party are no longer “meaningless”. If a party from either end of the spectrum ends up with some kind of representation then that’s surely just a reflection of the political persuasion of the electorate at the time?

It would be down to the parties to negotiate among themselves a coalition which is a few parties strong (I’m not talking about the kind of Tory/Lib Dem debacle – anybody who thinks that was a working coalition is kidding themselves!). Therefore, through those negotiations, you would have a natural softening of any extreme policies – parties would cancel each other’s most extreme positions out.

The Netherlands works almost exclusively in coalitions. Being forced to work constantly with other parties which are not precisely politically aligned makes for an overall quite stable government. Instead of being at loggerheads with one another all the time like our main two, politicians over there have to work with one another for the betterment of their country.

I'm well up for some sort of proportional representation system rather than the first past the post set up. There was a referendum on it tagged onto a voting slip 10 years back or so, I forget if it was a general/local/council election but either way it was strongly voted against. People fear change and are sadly happy with just deciding red or blue.

Quoted from kafunanapar140909

Therefore, through those negotiations, you would have a natural softening of any extreme policies – parties would cancel each other’s most extreme positions out.

And that for me is one reason alone Why I wouldn’t vote for it, no voter would get what they voted for, you would have a parliament based on endless compromises between way too many party’s.

Quoted from Manchester Mariner

I'm well up for some sort of proportional representation system rather than the first past the post set up. There was a referendum on it tagged onto a voting slip 10 years back or so, I forget if it was a general/local/council election but either way it was strongly voted against. People fear change and are sadly happy with just deciding red or blue.

I think it was more likely because the version of PR we were presented with as an alternative to FPTP was a version created by a government that was in power because of FPTP and didn't want to change things.It was deliberately made to look awful and it was. I always feel that if a true version of PR had been suggested then we may well be using it now.

PR or FPTP makes little difference if the leader is weak. We need strong leadership and I'm struggling to remember one in my life time.

FPTP in reality provides a dictator and I think of Blair. Thatcher was also the same but provided strong leadership at the time of the Falklands war.

Today we have wimps in parliament, let out a "leak" too many don't object so we'll make it policy!!!

Johnson is in the perfect position to be a politician in 2021, in our fast food world of journalism and media. He is quotable, instantly recognisable, aesthetically flies in the face of your stereotypical politician.

Think of all the millions of people who do not really "do" politics in any real depth... if you turn up to cast your vote in an election with zero notion of what anybody's actual policies are, but are vaguely aware of who the main players are, Johnson stands head and shoulders above Starmer.

I'm not convinced Johnson has much drive in terms of ideology or policy, but simply likes power and knows how to play the game.

Quoted from kafunanapar140909

Johnson is in the perfect position to be a politician in 2021, in our fast food world of journalism and media. He is quotable, instantly recognisable, aesthetically flies in the face of your stereotypical politician.

Think of all the millions of people who do not really "do" politics in any real depth... if you turn up to cast your vote in an election with zero notion of what anybody's actual policies are, but are vaguely aware of who the main players are, Johnson stands head and shoulders above Starmer.

I'm not convinced Johnson has much drive in terms of ideology or policy, but simply likes power and knows how to play the game.

As opposed to being one of the 600+ politicians who do you think stands out as a statesman today, to lead the country

Quoted from DB

As opposed to being one of the 600+ politicians who do you think stands out as a statesman today, to lead the country

Crikey, that’s a tough one! Depends what you mean by a “statesman”, or “leader”.  

In my opinion it’s about time Labour had a woman in charge. Ardern has been impressive down in New Zealand so it’d be good to see a strong character like her emerge. In Labour Lisa Nandy has been quietly building up her reputation, did far better than anyone expected in the last leadership campaign, though I think it’ll be a while before she can seriously make a stand for leader – she’s a little young atm. Angela Rayner seems fairly popular and Emily Thornberry is quite a strong character, but can anyone realistically see Labour coming close in the next election? My favourite female MP is Caroline Lucas but being a Green she’s never going to wield any real power.

I’m far less impressed with the male politicians in Labour currently. I rate McDonnell and Corbyn more highly than the current lot. I know someone who’s mates with Richard Burgon (MP for Leeds East) who was supposedly highly rated as a promising one for the future, but he was in under Corbyn - Starmer kicked him out of his shadow cabinet.

Short answer is I don’t know!

Quoted from kafunanapar140909

Crikey, that’s a tough one! Depends what you mean by a “statesman”, or “leader”.  

In my opinion it’s about time Labour had a woman in charge. Ardern has been impressive down in New Zealand so it’d be good to see a strong character like her emerge. In Labour Lisa Nandy has been quietly building up her reputation, did far better than anyone expected in the last leadership campaign, though I think it’ll be a while before she can seriously make a stand for leader – she’s a little young atm. Angela Rayner seems fairly popular and Emily Thornberry is quite a strong character, but can anyone realistically see Labour coming close in the next election? My favourite female MP is Caroline Lucas but being a Green she’s never going to wield any real power.

I’m far less impressed with the male politicians in Labour currently. I rate McDonnell and Corbyn more highly than the current lot. I know someone who’s mates with Richard Burgon (MP for Leeds East) who was supposedly highly rated as a promising one for the future, but he was in under Corbyn - Starmer kicked him out of his shadow cabinet.

Short answer is I don’t know!

Red or blue I cannot see one politician who stands out as a statesperson (hope the grammar is ok) or strong dominant leader for the country.