I’m a huge fan of Sonia but boy is she wrong about what Keir should do
There is no need for him to talk about the tough decisions until he’s in power, I lived through the 2019 Australian election once already, I don’t need to do it again
That may very well be sampling bias! But it does feel like an issue where everyone in politics knows there’s a problem, but the age split in voting (older voters are much more likely to be owner-occupiers) makes it very hard for the Tories to solve.
Yes re sampling bias, but even owner occupiers are very aware of this their children and grandchildren’s situation with buying or renting. Conservative members are so unrepresentative that I’m not sure it makes sense to bow to them - apart from their power to choose leaders of course!
Thank you for putting this together, it makes interesting reading. However, I'm afraid that it hasn't reassured me at all. There are two reasons for this, although they're linked. One is the fact that he's reneged on every one of his commitments, particularly taxing the super wealthy and the other is his focus on winning at any cost. Of course Labour need to win an election and govern, but what use is that if they're just going to give us Tory policies albeit with a bit more integrity and less corruption? I'm deeply suspicious of politicians whose prime, and in Starmer's case, seemingly sole objective is to gain power. Nick Clegg springs to mind. I didn't vote for Tony Blair in 1997 and I didn't share my friends' jubilation. I was happy that 18 years of Tory rule was over, but I was suspicious of Blair. I voted LibDem during the Blair years, I thought they were more left wing than Labour.. As far as I'm concerned, I was proved right and most of my friends thought so too. Margaret Thatcher said that Blair was her greatest achievement. Neither I, nor my friends consider ourselves to be left wing extremists, but Blair took the Labour party and consequently British politics as a whole, so far to the right that we're now seen as such. British politics has gone the way of US politics, our choice is centre right or right wing, there is no left wing party apart from the SNP. What seems to have been forgotten is that most, of not all of Corbyn's policies were actually very popular, as long as they weren't attributed to him (I'm referring to at least one poll were people were asked about such issues as renationalising the railways without being told they were Corbyn's policies where they had 60%+ approval).
At least Starmer is talking about housing, an issue I've long been concerned and passionate about. However, I'm not sure he won't back down on that either once he realizes that it's not such a politically neutral issue after all. I'm sure wealthy home owners won't be pleased if their assets diminish in value plus the fact that much of the UK's wealth lies in its hugely inflated housing market. The proof of the pudding remains to be seen. I sincerely hope that my misgivings prove to be unwarranted.
Nice thorough post so sorry to be a party pooper but none of this really matters much. Britain has let itself be marched down the Long Gramscian Road for far too long now for the Starmer/Sunak Show to be anything more than legacy media 'entertainment'. (Britain led the world into the Age of Democratic Liberalism and is now leading the way out of it,)
"We set great store by our pluralist party politics and such is the obsessive media coverage of its gladiatorial contests between elected politicians - before, during and after the event - that it can appear to represent more or less the whole story of how we are governed. But there is a worm in the apple of pluralist liberal democracy. The worm is the half a century and more of progressive radicalism in the Western academy that has taken root now, not just in the Civil Service, but in most graduate-entry professional walks of life. Electoral pluralism is no match against an academia-media-managerial establishment complex." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
I'm totally despondent about a Starmer govt. He's lost my trust over buckling to the trans activist wing in his party, and is already talking about a beefed up and enlarged/additional race relations act. I believe the only legacy he'll leave is greater micromanagement of the British people and a plethora of quotas to be filled. As things stand, he's nowhere close to getting the vote of this disillusioned Tory.
As an American center left voter I grew up in New York in the 1960s and 70s and watched the petty ideological battles among fellow liberals with utter disdain. I don't claim to know much about British politics but from 30,000 feet it would seem that Starmer has accomplished much, things I wish US liberals could have done. US liberals embarrassed themselves by flirting with fashionable causes that were rightly unpopular in the general electorate. Their fawning over violent black radicals (as opposed to the righteous non violent black activists) in the 1960s, helped elect Richard Nixon in 1968. I hope President Biden is not giving in to the even more pernicious antisemitc Palestine advocates. Starmer seems to have finessed these sorts of issues quite well, and good for him.
It would also seem, just from what I read here, that Starmer and Reeves need to deliver on some benefits to the electorate on housing and energy -- the kinds of infrastructure things that Biden is doing competently and for which he may yet get credit. Of course the US, with its reserve currency, can spend on these things in a way Britain may not, as Reeves is well aware, so the team of Reeves and Starmer may have to walk a finer line, on fiscal generosity. Still, increasing tax equity is the kind of justice that can sell -- while putting money in the pockets of lower income taxpayers who consume (and grow the economy) rather than sock it away.
It's my hope that the Starmer/ Reeves team can effect a solid start and be rewarded for that.
As an American whose knowledge of British politics comes almost exclusively from podcasts, I'm glad that we are finally getting answers to the question I was asking as early as 2017: Who IS this mysterious Kirostama?
I thought that's who you were referring to, but thought I should check rather than assume. I know that Corbyn has been photographed meeting a lot of people from "the left" (however defined) and frequently seems to be very forward in calling for peace negotiations e.g. in Ukraine he was one of the first to call for 'peace' (although the terms were unspecified), but I haven't followed his career as closely as some.
Out of curiosity, has he ever either ever been photographed meeting someone on the political 'right' (however defined) of a conflict, or taken a position which roughly translates as "the Government/Establishment side has a moral/ethical/legal right to defend itself"?
I’m a huge fan of Sonia but boy is she wrong about what Keir should do
There is no need for him to talk about the tough decisions until he’s in power, I lived through the 2019 Australian election once already, I don’t need to do it again
This is fascinating and really worth doing. Thank you Helen. Interesting how much agreement there is among them, especially on housing as number one.
That may very well be sampling bias! But it does feel like an issue where everyone in politics knows there’s a problem, but the age split in voting (older voters are much more likely to be owner-occupiers) makes it very hard for the Tories to solve.
Yes re sampling bias, but even owner occupiers are very aware of this their children and grandchildren’s situation with buying or renting. Conservative members are so unrepresentative that I’m not sure it makes sense to bow to them - apart from their power to choose leaders of course!
This is basically a compliation of other people whose Substacks I read. I need to get out more...
Trenendous compliment to HL to get such stimulating serious and thought provoking responses to her well-put questions.
Thank you for putting this together, it makes interesting reading. However, I'm afraid that it hasn't reassured me at all. There are two reasons for this, although they're linked. One is the fact that he's reneged on every one of his commitments, particularly taxing the super wealthy and the other is his focus on winning at any cost. Of course Labour need to win an election and govern, but what use is that if they're just going to give us Tory policies albeit with a bit more integrity and less corruption? I'm deeply suspicious of politicians whose prime, and in Starmer's case, seemingly sole objective is to gain power. Nick Clegg springs to mind. I didn't vote for Tony Blair in 1997 and I didn't share my friends' jubilation. I was happy that 18 years of Tory rule was over, but I was suspicious of Blair. I voted LibDem during the Blair years, I thought they were more left wing than Labour.. As far as I'm concerned, I was proved right and most of my friends thought so too. Margaret Thatcher said that Blair was her greatest achievement. Neither I, nor my friends consider ourselves to be left wing extremists, but Blair took the Labour party and consequently British politics as a whole, so far to the right that we're now seen as such. British politics has gone the way of US politics, our choice is centre right or right wing, there is no left wing party apart from the SNP. What seems to have been forgotten is that most, of not all of Corbyn's policies were actually very popular, as long as they weren't attributed to him (I'm referring to at least one poll were people were asked about such issues as renationalising the railways without being told they were Corbyn's policies where they had 60%+ approval).
At least Starmer is talking about housing, an issue I've long been concerned and passionate about. However, I'm not sure he won't back down on that either once he realizes that it's not such a politically neutral issue after all. I'm sure wealthy home owners won't be pleased if their assets diminish in value plus the fact that much of the UK's wealth lies in its hugely inflated housing market. The proof of the pudding remains to be seen. I sincerely hope that my misgivings prove to be unwarranted.
Nice thorough post so sorry to be a party pooper but none of this really matters much. Britain has let itself be marched down the Long Gramscian Road for far too long now for the Starmer/Sunak Show to be anything more than legacy media 'entertainment'. (Britain led the world into the Age of Democratic Liberalism and is now leading the way out of it,)
"We set great store by our pluralist party politics and such is the obsessive media coverage of its gladiatorial contests between elected politicians - before, during and after the event - that it can appear to represent more or less the whole story of how we are governed. But there is a worm in the apple of pluralist liberal democracy. The worm is the half a century and more of progressive radicalism in the Western academy that has taken root now, not just in the Civil Service, but in most graduate-entry professional walks of life. Electoral pluralism is no match against an academia-media-managerial establishment complex." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/carry-on-governing
I'm totally despondent about a Starmer govt. He's lost my trust over buckling to the trans activist wing in his party, and is already talking about a beefed up and enlarged/additional race relations act. I believe the only legacy he'll leave is greater micromanagement of the British people and a plethora of quotas to be filled. As things stand, he's nowhere close to getting the vote of this disillusioned Tory.
As an American center left voter I grew up in New York in the 1960s and 70s and watched the petty ideological battles among fellow liberals with utter disdain. I don't claim to know much about British politics but from 30,000 feet it would seem that Starmer has accomplished much, things I wish US liberals could have done. US liberals embarrassed themselves by flirting with fashionable causes that were rightly unpopular in the general electorate. Their fawning over violent black radicals (as opposed to the righteous non violent black activists) in the 1960s, helped elect Richard Nixon in 1968. I hope President Biden is not giving in to the even more pernicious antisemitc Palestine advocates. Starmer seems to have finessed these sorts of issues quite well, and good for him.
It would also seem, just from what I read here, that Starmer and Reeves need to deliver on some benefits to the electorate on housing and energy -- the kinds of infrastructure things that Biden is doing competently and for which he may yet get credit. Of course the US, with its reserve currency, can spend on these things in a way Britain may not, as Reeves is well aware, so the team of Reeves and Starmer may have to walk a finer line, on fiscal generosity. Still, increasing tax equity is the kind of justice that can sell -- while putting money in the pockets of lower income taxpayers who consume (and grow the economy) rather than sock it away.
It's my hope that the Starmer/ Reeves team can effect a solid start and be rewarded for that.
Great idea doing this. Thank you. Fascinating.
As an American whose knowledge of British politics comes almost exclusively from podcasts, I'm glad that we are finally getting answers to the question I was asking as early as 2017: Who IS this mysterious Kirostama?
Yes in my back yard
Go on, I'll bite. Who is the "someone" who "has done the right thing for forty years", and what is the right thing he or she has been doing?
I thought that's who you were referring to, but thought I should check rather than assume. I know that Corbyn has been photographed meeting a lot of people from "the left" (however defined) and frequently seems to be very forward in calling for peace negotiations e.g. in Ukraine he was one of the first to call for 'peace' (although the terms were unspecified), but I haven't followed his career as closely as some.
Out of curiosity, has he ever either ever been photographed meeting someone on the political 'right' (however defined) of a conflict, or taken a position which roughly translates as "the Government/Establishment side has a moral/ethical/legal right to defend itself"?