Keir Starmer

[Toodles McGinty]

Can anyone explain to me all this about people have to have had a working-class origin to be a Labour leader?

None of us have any influence on where we are born. Very few of us, at 11 years old , have any influence in what school we go to,

But apparently these are enough to disqualify someone from forming the view that society should be different...

Yet it is apparently no surprise when millions of working-class people vote for a party which champions an economy and society which deprives them.

I don't think they do have to. I don't think many have come from very poor backgrounds, not for decades anyway. Not graduates of Eton and Harrow either. Seems quite a few have had parents who've started poor, but educated their kids well and instilled socialist values.

In much the same way you can have working-class Tories. I don't think you need working-class credentials to be a Labour member, MP, leader, whatever.

No, it just started when SGZ mentioned Starmer was born with a silver spoon. Just chattering in a lockdown.

[sandGroundZero]

bensherman's post #29

"Can anyone explain to me all this about people have to have had a working-class origin to be a Labour leader?
None of us have any influence on where we are born. Very few of us, at 11 years old , have any influence in what school we go to,
But apparently these are enough to disqualify someone from forming the view that society should be different...
Yet it is apparently no surprise when millions of working-class people vote for a party which champions an economy and society which deprives them."

Keep in mind the context, that is recent posts in this plus one other thread. It is not the case that anyone has argued 'working class' is or should be a prerequisite for Labour party leadership.

There is an interesting question about the nature of the Labour party and in that other thread the impact PR could have on all the parties, though particularly Labour. I have argued that the Labour party as we have known it exists only because FPTP is how we elect representatives — versus of course, PR.

Politics in terms of organization and party allegiances has always, generally been discussed in abstracts — notably in the UK, in terms of social class. Such abstractions obscure detail in favour of general patterns. Recent decades have had Labour party theorists troubled by a gradual loss of support in its so-called heartland constituencies, and Scotland. In Scotland and in 2019 the north of England's constituencies Labour's support has collapsed; in contrast, in 2015 & 2017 the party did gain seats, somewhat unexpectedly, in the south.

The evidence seems to suggest that to the limited extent one can glean any trends based on social class allegiance, that Labour's reliable supporters are drawn from what you'd have to describe as aspirationally (if not in terms of occupational background of parents and grandparents) 'middle class'.

Looking at the list of Labour party leaders, how many fit the traditional 'working class' stereotypes? The Labour party is an odd confection.

[local]

The fact that high achieving parents send their children to high achieving schools shouldn't come as a suprise surely ?


That those schools should turn out high more high achievers is surely good for us all ?

Being jealous or bitter about success is probably well routed in low achieving frustrated people looking for excuses.

[sandGroundZero]

No, it was not just Jeremy Corbyn. Last week’s crushing defeat of the left was also caused by the Liberal Democrat party splitting the vote. Yet again, by offering itself as the vote launderer of British liberalism, it has served as merely the fellow traveller of British Conservatism. Boris Johnson owes it a huge debt of gratitude.
…With the exception of the Tony Blair era, Labour has been persistently vulnerable to moderate leftwing sentiment defecting to the Liberals. Somehow such voters feel they can exonerate themselves from guilt by association with socialism without overtly siding with conservatives. They can comfort themselves that they voted “a curse on both houses”. In reality they did not. They effectively voted Conservative, or in a very few Lib Dem seats, they voted “hung parliament”.
With the Lib Dems leaderless and in disarray, it must be time for them to do the honest thing and disband. They should reverse the old 1983 SDP marriage, and merge with a revivalist Labour. It would galvanise Labour’s moderate wing and dilute the influence of the Corbynites. Simon Jenkins, December 16, 2019

— The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband.

Lib Dem leadership hopeful Layla Moran

I would never say never [to a coalition with Labour], especially with a more centrist progressive Labour leader, as we’ve seen under Keir. We’ve still got a long way to go and I think Labour still has to revamp their own policy platform. I think top of the list of something I’d be looking for is electoral reform. Without it, actually, it would end up hurting the party potentially to do anything. So without seeing the small print, it’s hard to say one way or the other, but it’s not ruled out.

— Layla Moran hints at closer links with Labour July 26, 2020

This is what passes for reform in UK politics!

Proportional Representation is NOT enough!

.

[Toodles McGinty]

Lib Dem leadership hopeful Layla Moran

This is what passes for reform in UK politics!

Proportional Representation is NOT enough!

.

It's an indictment of our current system. The Lib-Dems gained over 1.3 million votes at the last election. The Tories gained just 279,000 votes. The Tories gained 48 seats, the Lib-Dems lost one.

I think a lot of tactical voting happened as people realised that the Lib-Dems were the only (English) pro-EU party. But to vote tactically, you really need a good seat-by-seat analysis, pointing voters in the right direction.

Also some boundary changes are being made, which could end up with millions of missing voters.

I don't know if coalitions will play any part in the future, but if that is what it takes to have a functioning opposition, then so be it. Though it seems control of the media means more than choice at the ballot box.

The system, as you've said before SGZ, needs a thorough root and branch overhaul.

Good video from George Monbiot here. While he's initially talking about the control that is used in social media, and how voters can be influenced, he goes on to discuss reform of the system from local level up, rather than top down. Because let's face it, top down is never going to happen.

[sandGroundZero]

I have discovered that pollsters and political wonks (in the United States and with respect of the 2016 presidential election) whose careers are spent categorizing voters' intentions and attitudes have identified a large portion of voters who are adamant in their dislike of the options they are offered, perennially. [Quite unsatisfactorily, they have been labelled 'haters. I prefer 'realists' — at least to the extent of realizing no candidates are minded to challenge an unsatisfactory status quo in any fundamental fashion.]

The UK's parliamentary system, with its weighty 'tradition' fails, somehow, to produce many willing to recognize the profundity of the system's shortcomings, much less elect them! It disheartens me to see PR presented as a remedy to our democratic deficit. It emphatically is not.

Is there a single individual in UK's parliament whose political rhetoric denotes any recognition that radical change — PR and an elected second chamber are NOT that — is required?

[sandGroundZero]

Starmer builds a narrative?

Keir Starmer plays long game to label Boris Johnson as incompetent

Guardian political editor Heather Stewart describes Labour's narrative:

…But Starmer’s allies are relaxed. “A thousand people on Twitter are just a thousand people on Twitter,” said one shadow cabinet member. “We know that from 2019.”
Instead of placating Starmer’s leftwing detractors, Labour strategists believe the party’s best hope of unseating the Tories at the next general election lies in hammering home the gap between Boris Johnson’s promises and reality – and convincing the public that Starmer would do a better job.
They know from their frequent focus groups that many voters find Johnson likeable – so rather than attack him personally, they are keen to demonstrate that he is not up to the job of being prime minister.

Interestingly, she frames the process in terms of the distinction between Labour's 'New Management' and their predecessors!

[said]

The fact that high achieving parents send their children to high achieving schools shouldn't come as a suprise surely ?


That those schools should turn out high more high achievers is surely good for us all ?

Being jealous or bitter about success is probably well routed in low achieving frustrated people looking for excuses.

Er - it is not always high achieving parents who give birth to brainy kids. Many of those parents are not around to help nor encourage their children. In most cases the offspring would only achieve an average score in secondary schools - however, money talks. No - it is not from jealousy nor bitterness for my response. Those private schools rely heavily on reputation. In order to maintain that reputation students are fed lesson material which is directly related to the exams and which is taught by rote. In Secondary schools, the classes are much larger and the lessons are taught to a given time, low achievers get left behind, which obviously affects the standing of the school. The greater number of low achievers there are, the lower the rating of the school. The lower the rating, the less likely high quality staff will choose to work there. It is the brighter secondary school students who make their own way in life, who are more suited to running a country, for they have a much broader outlook.

[said]

Starmer builds a narrative?

Keir Starmer plays long game to label Boris Johnson as incompetent

Guardian political editor Heather Stewart describes Labour's narrative:


Interestingly, she frames the process in terms of the distinction between Labour's 'New Management' and their predecessors!

A thousand people on twitter are just a thousand people on twitter..." Someone does not seem to know much. Many of the politicians follow twitter and also have their own page. They do so to understand the feelings of the people and to learn what the public is thinking.

[Hamble]

Er - it is not always high achieving parents who give birth to brainy kids. Many of those parents are not around to help nor encourage their children. In most cases the offspring would only achieve an average score in secondary schools - however, money talks. No - it is not from jealousy nor bitterness for my response. Those private schools rely heavily on reputation. In order to maintain that reputation students are fed lesson material which is directly related to the exams and which is taught by rote. In Secondary schools, the classes are much larger and the lessons are taught to a given time, low achievers get left behind, which obviously affects the standing of the school. The greater number of low achievers there are, the lower the rating of the school. The lower the rating, the less likely high quality staff will choose to work there. It is the brighter secondary school students who make their own way in life, who are more suited to running a country, for they have a much broader outlook.

Private schools can only survive if their reputation on exam results are as good or better than State Schools.

If a child struggles a parent could decide to end the fee paying contract.
It is in the schools best interest to use the exam success formula.

One thing you may not consider is the parents often have jobs/careers with long unsocial hours.
Private schools make time and allowance for extra tuition/help if needed particularly over homework standards.

[local]

Why do the professionals send their children to private schools ?

Maybe the state sector instead of whining should ask parents why they are effectively paying twice to educate their offspring.

What on earth is wrong with a Prime Minister going to Eton ?

Don't be bitter and envious of success learn from it.

[Toodles McGinty]

Starmer builds a narrative?

Keir Starmer plays long game to label Boris Johnson as incompetent

Guardian political editor Heather Stewart describes Labour's narrative:


Interestingly, she frames the process in terms of the distinction between Labour's 'New Management' and their predecessors!

Starmer won't be facing Johnson at the next general election.

Not even certain it'll be Starmer, but it certainly won't be Johnson.

As soon as 'no-deal' is inevitable, he'll resign. Probably on 'health grounds'. I said before he was elected, he won't see his Premiership out. His drink problem, his inability to keep it in his pants, and his complete ineptitude will see to that. What do bell tents, 28 year old violinists, super-injunctions and dead cats have in common?

[Toodles McGinty]

Private schools can only survive if their reputation on exam results are as good or better than State Schools.

They certainly tried to ensure that, last week.

[The PNP]

Why do the professionals send their children to private schools ?

Back in the day, before 'comprehensives' came in, there was one most definite advantage. If you failed your 11-plus you would end up only with CSE's.....By paying for a failed 11-plusser to go private, he/she would end up with GCE's. In other words, for 11-plus 'failures', it was a way for them to circumvent the system.

[Hamble]

Back in the day, before 'comprehensives' came in, there was one most definite advantage. If you failed your 11-plus you would end up only with CSE's.....By paying for a failed 11-plusser to go private, he/she would end up with GCE's. In other words, for 11-plus 'failures', it was a way for them to circumvent the system.

If the child passed them 4-5 years later after a good strong education they were jolly well deserved.

Some schools used to allow entry to Grammar aged 13.
Children develop and mature at different ages.