Sir Keir Starmer

robbieh said:
If your analysis is correct then Labour have a problem. They can pander to people who read this appalling excuse of a newspaper. This may increase electability although it's doubtful as large numbers of people who actually voted Labour last Friday would leave in droves. Unsubtle racism and attacks on the feckless not the way to keep their vote.

I'm sure most people on here don't read it. Whatever our political persuasion I get the impression we are engaged politically and get our information from other sources.
Click to expand...
I am sure @Ancient Citizen's analysis is spot on. I made the point a few days ago that the Murdoch press supported a Blair-led Labour government and that in fact some of the papers are amongst other things also inclined to back who they think will win.

You are right that the press is a dwindling force and that most people don't read newspapers, but they do read tweets of clips from newspapers. And retweets of those tweets and postings on forums like this one of the retweets etc. The printed circulation may be small, but overall impact of their output is not.

However, this is all fixable, should Labour choose to try to fix it. Which is where it gets tricky and indeed a big dilemma:

What do you do when the thing that you stand for, is not what people want? Do you have the courage of your convictions, only to lose election after election after election? Or do you accept that you need to abandon some of your principles? I do not mean to trivialise that - it is a question which Labour is doubtless going to struggle with.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
If Starmer wins labour won't win in 5yrs time, he is unelectable. If a momentum or a union candidate gets in again they won't win in 5yrs time. They are in denial that their policies are too extreme and unrealistic. Labour need a fresh centre left face with none of the baggage of the failed shadow front bench.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. They've sailed the good ship Socialism too far and now holed below the water-line it's time to abandon ship.

The timing is right for them to do what the Tories did not do back in the 1990's: Have a complete rebuild. Why is the timing right? Because pretty much no matter what they do, the 2024 General Election is already lost.

The 2017 GE saw the biggest swing to Labour since 1945: 9.6%. And that produced an extra 30 Labour seats. To win the next GE with a majority, Labour need an extra 123 seats. Even to prevent a Tory government, they need at least +40 seats, and that's assuming the get the backing of the DUP, the Lib Dems and all the others. The former possible outcome is completely impossible, the latter is extremely unlikely to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
Totally agree. They've sailed the good ship Socialism too far and now holed below the water-line it's time to abandon ship.

The timing is right for them to do what the Tories did not do back in the 1990's: Have a complete rebuild. Why is the timing right? Because pretty much no matter what they do, the 2024 General Election is already lost.

The 2017 GE saw the biggest swing to Labour since 1945: 9.6%. And that produced an extra 30 Labour seats. To win the next GE with a majority, Labour need an extra 123 seats. Even to prevent a Tory government, they need at least +40 seats, and that's assuming the get the backing of the DUP, the Lib Dems and all the others. The former possible outcome is completely impossible, the latter is extremely unlikely to say the least.
Click to expand...
If Brexit turns out to be the disaster you thought it would be and Johnson turns out to be the disaster I think he will be, then who knows what will happen in 5 years time.
 
robbieh said:
If Brexit turns out to be the disaster you thought it would be and Johnson turns out to be the disaster I think he will be, then who knows what will happen in 5 years time.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

However, I'm increasingly of the opinion that Brexit won't be that bad, if bad at all. And that buffoon Johnson may turn out to be not quite the buffoon everyone thinks he is. The Bank of England are talking about £400bn of inward investment that will now be unlocked and increased chances of a soft landing with Brexit.

And much humble-pie eating will need to be done by myself if this all proves correct.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I am sure @Ancient Citizen's analysis is spot on. I made the point a few days ago that the Murdoch press supported a Blair-led Labour government and that in fact some of the papers are amongst other things also inclined to back who they think will win.

You are right that the press is a dwindling force and that most people don't read newspapers, but they do read tweets of clips from newspapers. And retweets of those tweets and postings on forums like this one of the retweets etc. The printed circulation may be small, but overall impact of their output is not.

However, this is all fixable, should Labour choose to try to fix it. Which is where it gets tricky and indeed a big dilemma:

What do you do when the thing that you stand for, is not what people want? Do you have the courage of your convictions, only to lose election after election after election? Or do you accept that you need to abandon some of your principles? I do not mean to trivialise that - it is a question which Labour is doubtless going to struggle with.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the biggest mistake corbyn made threatening to break murdochs monopoly on the press. Should've got into number 10 first ans then started that fight.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Ironically they're allowed that much influence by the supposedly balanced TV media though. The Sun and Mail have less than 3 million readers between them. And you've got to assume there's some crossover there too. It's not insignificant but it shouldn't swing elections. What does swing elections is the TV news and current affairs programmes basically allowing them to set the news agenda. The rise of news about the news. So the Sun or Mail construct a scandal or spin a story and then gets discussed and repeated in terms they set on every news and current affairs programmes on TV. If the Daily Mail run a front page story about Ed Milliband's dad's secret commie past, even if it's completely ridiculous and irrelevant, it gets discussed on the BBC. Twitter also has a similar effect nowadays with outrage culture.
Click to expand...

You need to also factor in the online audience as well. The Sun and Mail between them are huge in terms of unique visitor numbers.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Perhaps the biggest mistake corbyn made threatening to break murdochs monopoly on the press. Should've got into number 10 first ans then started that fight.
Click to expand...

aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
I agree with this. Ultimately if the press fights dirty against you then you should do the same to them
Click to expand...

Or...

Maybe just maybe you could try to figure out why they are so against you and reflect upon whether you have the right policies?
 
meltonblue said:
You need to also factor in the online audience as well. The Sun and Mail between them are huge in terms of unique visitor numbers.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that's less of an issue because a lot of those hits will be people looking at very particular parts of the site. The Mail gets huge numbers for their celebrity sections, for example, from people who will never actually read their politics. The Guardian online is equally massive, and I'd guess that a greater percentage of their readership are reading it and sharing articles because of their political persuasion compared to Sun or Mail readers.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Yeah but that's less of an issue because a lot of those hits will be people looking at very particular parts of the site. The Mail gets huge numbers for their celebrity sections, for example, from people who will never actually read their politics. The Guardian online is equally massive, and I'd guess that a greater percentage of their readership are reading it and sharing articles because of their political persuasion compared to Sun or Mail readers.
Click to expand...

True. The guardian does tend to have a bit more of a spread in its editorials though. The telegraph and mail used to but they’ve cut back on it quite a bit the last few years.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Oh of course - lovely uncle Rupert is just doing what's best for the people. Lol.
Click to expand...
Who do you think he's doing what's best for exactly? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as to how he thinks screwing the country over, is in his best interests?

Words are cheap, but often nothing more than that.
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
Just me but I don't measure my politics against what the sun and the daily mail thinks.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but your success has very recently been measured by what they say. (So your side keeps telling me.)

Might it not be at least prudent to consider if they are so against you, why that is the case? A bit late for that I might add.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Maybe not, but your success has very recently been measured by what they say. (So your side keeps telling me.)

Might it not be at least prudent to consider if they are so against you, why that is the case? A bit late for that I might add.
Click to expand...
Tabloids owned by billionaires want to keep the current party in who maintain the status quo where the rich prosper and the poor are screwed, it's not hard mate.
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
Tabloids owned by billionaires want to keep the current party in who maintain the status quo where the rich prosper and the poor are screwed, it's not hard mate.
Click to expand...
Why would they want to do that? Serious question. Murdoch doesn't pay a bean in UK tax, irrespective of what the rate is - he's not resident here. Why would he give a shit about whether a top rate of tax is 45% or 50% when he isn't paying any?

He's concerned about the state of his business and the impact Labour policies would have on it. Nothing more.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Why would they want to do that? Serious question. Murdoch doesn't pay a bean in UK tax, irrespective of what the rate is - he's not resident here. Why would he give a shit about whether a top rate of tax is 45% or 50% when he isn't paying any?

He's concerned about the state of his business and the impact Labour policies would have on it. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Corporation tax? We're currently one of the lowest for corporation tax in the developed Western world as well under the conservatives, why would Murdoch and friends want that to change?

Always follow the money
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
Corporation tax? We're currently one of the lowest for corporation tax in the developed Western world as well under the conservatives
Click to expand...

Interesting you should say that, but we are not. Our headline rate is low, but the scope of what we tax is extensive and we are very mean with allowances compared to other countries. As I posted elsewhere, In France for example, although the headline rate is much higher (28% vs our 19%) they get a rebate of 7% of their payroll cost. And they get exceptions for R&D expenditure and more generous capital allowances. As as result, we are mid-table in the EU, in terms of corporation tax taken as a percentage of GDP.

Labour's proposals were to have the effect of lifting us to the top of the tax table.[/QUOTE]
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
If Starmer wins labour won't win in 5yrs time, he is unelectable. If a momentum or a union candidate gets in again they won't win in 5yrs time. They are in denial that their policies are too extreme and unrealistic. Labour need a fresh centre left face with none of the baggage of the failed shadow front bench.
Click to expand...

The names Nandy, Lisa Nandy.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Interesting you should say that, but we are not. Our headline rate is low, but the scope of what we tax is extensive and we are very mean with allowances compared to other countries. As I posted elsewhere, In France for example, although the headline rate is much higher (28% vs our 19%) they get a rebate of 7% of their payroll cost. And they get exceptions for R&D expenditure and more generous capital allowances. As as result, we are mid-table in the EU, in terms of corporation tax taken as a percentage of GDP.

Labour's proposals were to have the effect of lifting us to the top of the tax table.
Click to expand...
Source for being midtable in the EU? Never heard that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top