Sifting through recent polling by Redfield and Wilton, Ben noted 39% of voters did not know what Labour stood for, and 37% don't yet know enough about Keir Starmer to make a judgement. And while we got excited over shadcab shenanigans, barely anyone knows who the Starmerist dramatis personae are - though Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper are better recognised. He adds that of those who didn't vote in 2019 some 65% haven't made their mind up. Ben concludes, "... voter uncertainty is high and many are actively unwilling to write him off. All of which means the Labour leader still has an opportunity to persuade them to vote Labour." Therefore Keir's unknowability is ... a bonus?
Let us assume a scenario. Labour more or less carries on in its current vein, and starts unveiling its policy menu which is an updated but overly statist Labourism. Come the general election it trades heavily on being the "change" party and the sole means of booting out the Tories. Could it work? Events dear boy, events would determine the outcome, but one thing the leader's office would bank on is the unknown quantity factor because the public might look upon Keir with fresh eyes, like what they see, and rally behind him. After all, that happened in 2017 - not that this election and its lessons ever existed as far as the Labour leadership are concerned. If this is the strategy, then Ben's observations might carry a frisson of optimism.
I'm less than convinced Keir could pull off such a feat at the moment. And that's because he's demobilising Labour's base. One of the key take homes of 2017, and why the party did unexpectedly well wasn't just an alignment between the party's programme and the inchoate desires and interests of a rising class of workers, but because the base were enthused and were able to act as force multipliers and attractors. It wasn't Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, or John McDonnell making the party's case that mattered so much, it was the hundreds of thousands of members and supporters agitating and persuading among their friends, families, workmates, and randoms on the train and at bus stops. It was the subterranean process and movement of masses that confounded expectations. It was a weapon the Labour right came to understand, and why they put a great deal of effort into blunting it for factional reasons. And lo, come 2019 it was nowhere near as effective.
But Labour needs this enthusiasm if the party is to stand a chance. The next election, like the last two, won't be fought over a centre ground that is fetishised all the more its imaginary quality is revealed. There is nothing wrong with trying to win over previous Tory voters, but this has to be done in conjunction with turning out those who stayed home in 2019, winning back people that have bled to the Liberal Democrats and Greens and the SNP, and increase the turnout among those layers who are well disposed toward Labour. This is a difficult task made all the more improbable by a leadership who is channelling Peter Mandelson of late 1990s vintage and thinks its strategically important component of left wing voters will snap to attention to get the Tories out, leaving it free to weigh in as the party of social conservatism with 1945 Labour characteristics to win over Brexit supporters. It won't work.
The only way the situation can be turned around is not by proclaiming socialism from the roof tops, but by recognising who Labour's core support is, look at how they were consolidated behind the party during the Corbyn era, and learning how appeals to economic radicalism, social justice, and fairness can keep them aboard while cutting through with the Tory types Starmerism is overly concerned with. Attacking the Tories on raising tax and trying to outflank them from the right will not cut the mustard. In the age of a politics made more conditional, Labour is going to have to start wooing and listening to the people it has spent the last year bashing, because if it doesn't there won't be a last minute ballot box surge, there won't be a Labour government, and the remainder if the decade is for the Tories to do with as they wish.
Image Credit
6 comments:
«Ben noted 39% of voters did not know what Labour stood for, and 37% don't yet know enough about Keir Starmer to make a judgement.»
As if that mattered that much! Apparently in 2017 only 15% of voters knew that T. May's slogan was "strong and stable", yet she got a landslide of votes.
«Labour more or less carries on in its current vein, and starts unveiling its policy menu which is an updated but overly statist Labourism. Come the general election it trades heavily on being the "change" party and the sole means of booting out the Tories. Could it work?»
My usual story is more about the determinism of material interests: the experience of 40 years is that as long as tory voters are satisfied with the Conservative as to housing costs, wages, taxes, they will continue to vote Conservative, and won't listen to promises of even more competent pushing up of housing costs, and pushing down of wages and taxes.
«Events dear boy, events would determine the outcome»
The notorious Polly Toynbee has described the hope that by 2024 the Conservatives will have screwed up yuuugely (
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/10/labour-johnson-keir-starmer-party-tories
“Labour’s chance will come when Johnson’s bogus promises start to crumble”
Not the explicit promises matter that much, what matters much more are the implicit ones on housing costs, wages, taxes.
«but one thing the leader's office would bank on is the unknown quantity factor because the public might look upon Keir with fresh eyes, like what they see, and rally behind him. After all, that happened in 2017»
As to that thesis I think that my usual "demented obsession" with material interests leads to a different impression: in 2017 the voters and members that the Militant Mandelsoncy had deliberately pushed away, the "trots" who are the losers from thatcherism, figured out that the un-thatcherite (and even anti-thatcherite) Labour Party was back and willing to represent them, and they voted to be represented by it (including the "Leaver"s who had switched to UKIP).
«Labour is going to have to start wooing and listening to the people it has spent the last year bashing, because if it doesn't there won't be a last minute ballot box surge, there won't be a Labour government, and the remainder if the decade is for the Tories to do with as they wish.»
Our blogger keeps repeating the argument that New Labour will need the help of the Labour movement to win elections so New Labour should be “wooing and listening” to those it labels as "trots, f*cking racists and antisemites” seems to be completely wasted because:
* The New Labour types look at the Conservatives, without any significant activist support, and the LibDems, which are supported by activists, and notice that the Conservatives keep winning elections.
* Regardless, between an election won by incompetent thatcherites like the Conservatives, and an election won by compromising New Labour's thatcherism with policies that appeal to "far left extremists", most New Labour people have a clear priority, as illustrated by Tony Blair himself: “I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”. How many people in the PLP would disagree with that?
What makes you think that Starmer wants to win the next election? A substantial surge in Labour support would bring undesirable people into the picture who might want to pursue Labour policies, which Starmer obviously doesn't want. Isn't it much more likely that Starmer wants to make sure that the people who win the next election are people who will implement the policies which Starmer likes without any interference from socialists, liberals or reformists?
In other words, Starmer probably votes Conservative himself.
Given the alternative is probably Burnham, I have my Starmer for PM Scarf and Rattle at the ready.
Burnham, that high priest of slimy opportunism, who would surely hoodwink every moronic 'socialist' under the sun, it would be Blairism dressed up as, well Blairism!
At least with Starmer you get what it says on the tin, i.e. Blairism.
But I am hoping the head of ISIS accepts the request to become leader of the opposition.
If Harold Shipman was still alive he would have been a great candidate for PM, though his old person extermination policy was a bit wishy washy for the electorate. I am sure he would have been practical though and willing to update his ideas for a modern Britain.
«Starmer probably votes Conservative himself.»
he is reported to have been a radical socialist when young. But now that he is quite rich and a successful pillar of the establishment, I doubt that he personally feels radical, and at the same time I doubt he feels tory. His current profile is rather that of classic "noblesse oblige" LibDem, though perhaps not quite to the left as Vince Cable, never mind Charles Kennedy.
I doubt that he has ever voted Conservative, but I would believe that he had voted LibDem in the past; in particular I could believe that he voted LibDem in 2017 and 2019 in his own constituency (utterly safe: 50 points on the second placed) to "save his conscience" :-).
I'm pretty sure that Keir will have voted for himself tbh.
Post a Comment