This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[afleitch]

I think Starmer is getting worse at interviews tbh. The only 'black swan' event that could upend the next election is placing him in front of a debate or an audience.

[Zinneke]

I'll propose the following hypothesis: He's getting worse at interviews because he no longer believes in the bullsh**t his Spads are telling him to say to attract Johnson 2019 voters, whereas before he did believe in what he was saying. But it works because it generates the right headlines.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I've commented before on Starmer's seemingly lacklustre performances at PMQs, and how surprising it is to me given his years of experience as a barrister.

I've started to wonder if his seeming overreliance on his notes, constantly flitting his eyes back down at them, is a deliberate understatement on his part, deflecting attention away from himself. It's a tactic that has basically defined his broader political strategy, so it would make sense for him to be deploying it at PMQs too. Sometimes I wonder if there's anything written on the paper he's looking at.

The consensus from those who knew him as a barrister was that he wasn't an exceptional courtroom performer - his skills were much more in terms of preparation and technical matters rather than in charismatic advocacy.

[Pulaski]

I've commented before on Starmer's seemingly lacklustre performances at PMQs, and how surprising it is to me given his years of experience as a barrister.

I've started to wonder if his seeming overreliance on his notes, constantly flitting his eyes back down at them, is a deliberate understatement on his part, deflecting attention away from himself. It's a tactic that has basically defined his broader political strategy, so it would make sense for him to be deploying it at PMQs too. Sometimes I wonder if there's anything written on the paper he's looking at.

The consensus from those who knew him as a barrister was that he wasn't an exceptional courtroom performer - his skills were much more in terms of preparation and technical matters rather than in charismatic advocacy.

But for a barrister of his note to not just lack it as a strength, but to be almost deficient in it, does strike me as a little odd. He seems almost shy at the despatch box.

[Pericles]

Huh I seem to remember he was quite good at interrogating Boris Johnson in his first PMQs, I wonder what changed.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The recent consensus is that he's won or at worst tied in pretty much all recent PMQs*, so I'm not sure anything has changed. He's not a great Commons performer, but it's not a major shortcoming either.

*Albeit that it's easier to win when things are visibly collapsing around the government.

[Pulaski]

*Albeit that it's easier to win when things are visibly collapsing around the government.

Yeah, I mean the table is set for him before he arrives at this point. Literally just has to read out the latest raft of quotes about Sunak given by those sitting behind him.

[CumbrianLefty]

Sunak has been demolished at several recent PMQs* (yes I know he is an easy target at the moment, but easy targets still have to be hit) so tbh I'm not sure where the OP that started this discussion is coming from exactly. As for interviews, as Starmer has moved into the ascendancy people have been more determined to catch him out with disingenuous "gotchas" - so it works both ways.

(*an almost invariably reliable indicator that the PM has been struggling is his wheeling out the lame "BUT CORBYN!!!!" gambit - even some of his own people must roll their eyes at that by now)

[Zinneke]

Starmer is still a poor media performer because he rarely displays iotas of sincerety, it all feels scripted and designed rather than off the cuff, which whether you like it or not, is what electorates are looking for over cookie cutter types. I've no doubt Starmer is a competent administrator,, but he's rolled back on radical institutional reform and gives extremely bland opinions and sometimes slips up because they are so rehearsed. That's why when he was asked about Gaza he sounded like a heartless freak when he said it was ok to starve Gaza to death.

[CumbrianLefty]

It is claimed that he realised he had "misspoke" over Gaza and wanted to issue a "clarification" soon afterwards - but the suits around Starmer talked him out of this, saying it would look "weak".

He should have trusted his instincts instead.

[Wiswylfen]

The issue with ‘the suits’ is often talked by the left as being the whole ‘briefcase’ bit. But that’s really not a problem at all except for the combination it invariably comes in. The issue is the false adoption of professionalism when, in reality, as we have been shown time and time again and most hilariously by the ‘Sue Gray orders staffers to stop briefing; issues with Andy Burnham instantly cease’ incident, they have nothing of the sort. As I’ve said before it’s not actually about ‘being professional’ or ‘winning elections’ it’s about LARPing because you want to be like Carlson Tucker from It Thick The Of on the teevee.

In reality there’s nothing wrong with wearing a suit—and please don’t take this as an attack on you, rather this is an attack on them and the complete misdiagnosis of the ‘briefcase’ discussion—and all that stuff except for it being part of a stupid LARP (see also: Twitter accounts claiming to be the ‘Last Blairite’ run by people who voted for Allin-Khan to be deputy leader with a mass audience including Labour MPs).

I don’t do it myself, mainly because I’m conscious of the associations at my age, but there is anecdotal evidence (good as any in a nation where ‘how places vote’ is one giant game of telephone) that it is actually one of those things that goes down rather well with the electorate: also surprisingly, the number-one issue in working-class areas is not the legalisation of dirt bike racing on pavements and the God-given right of dogs to take a dump on the miserable patch of grass that nobody allows their children to play on because it’s riddled with dog mess. (*Also*, anecdotally and tangentially, where those people do vote—generally they do not and those are not disengaged non-voters who can be won over with Corbynism—they are (alongside those who look down on the rest) the bedrock of ‘working-class’ (if we can call it such) support for the Conservatives and the parties to their right.)

And this complete lack of actual professionalism isn’t a phenomenon of the youngs. There is a former Labour member in my constituency (I am uncertain to what extent that ‘former’ is voluntary), previously a councillor and staffer, who does nothing but tweet about how Israel is so great and transgender people are a hard-left plot. Just one person, you say—but look on Twitter and there are tons of these people (to be fair where it is undeserved I assume most of them have a drinking problem). On Twitter, you say—but when the staffers (no, even Wes Streeting, by his own admission!) are giving advice based on what might piss off a Simpsons pfp, yes, on Twitter.

This is the fate of the ‘Labour right’. Aside from these children who talk about a foreign state a dozen times as much as they do England, I suppose—though there is significant overlap—we also have the people still trying to resuscitate the long-dead psychodramas of a project fundamentally of the soft left. But does anyone care if Lord Bloggs of Snith-le-Moor (prominent People’s Vote advocate who lost his 71% Leave seat in 2019 by 0.3%; blames Corbyn and nobody else) still hates Gordon Brown and thinks that, to win back the Red Wall and stop the Conservatives from winning the next election, Keir Starmer must privatise the civil service and pledge to rejoin the EU?

Labour First, supposedly the voice of the traditional right or whatever, is rather than a mass-membership organisation basically just one man living in Oxford who runs everything out of his house while searching his name on Twitter to get into fights with the Simpsons pfps over Israel bombing Gaza. I’d sooner break bread with the non-crank sections of the hard left than suffer another minute of this. ‘Labour to Win’ my foot.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The original version of Labour First back in the 1980s was run by one man in Bradford with access to an early computer printer and an enthusiasm for putting together newsletters, which is illustrative of how these things tend to be.* Similarly, the mighty Campaign for Labour Party Democracy was, in reality, never much more than a mailing list, which remains true of whatever is left of it, and also became true of Momentum very early on, for all its grander ambitions. Basically these groups exist to win seats on the NEC and for various Conference-related purposes (and to this extent do matter, especially when the Party is in opposition), but they aren't genuine grassroots factional organizations, which aren't really a thing in the Labour Party (which is probably why Party civil wars tend to be so clownish).

_{*David Warburton (no, not that one) who, many years later, represented Wyke ward on Bradford council for sixteen years, holding off a BNP challenge in his first election and a UKIP one a couple of terms later. One presumes that his enthusiasm for putting together newsletters was useful.}

[Wiswylfen]

The original version of Labour First back in the 1980s was run by one man in Bradford with access to an early computer printer and an enthusiasm for putting together newsletters, which is illustrative of how these things tend to be.* Similarly, the mighty Campaign for Labour Party Democracy was, in reality, never much more than a mailing list, which remains true of whatever is left of it, and also became true of Momentum very early on, for all its grander ambitions. Basically these groups exist to win seats on the NEC and for various Conference-related purposes (and to this extent do matter, especially when the Party is in opposition), but they aren't genuine grassroots factional organizations, which aren't really a thing in the Labour Party (which is probably why Party civil wars tend to be so clownish).

_{*David Warburton (no, not that one) who, many years later, represented Wyke ward on Bradford council for sixteen years, holding off a BNP challenge in his first election and a UKIP one a couple of terms later. One presumes that his enthusiasm for putting together newsletters was useful.}

They do, of course, matter. As do the staffers who kept stirring up trouble with Andy Burnham until Sue Gray put an end to it. In both cases it’s an ‘unfortunately’. Votes should not be up to Luke Akehurst—when not too busy fighting with fellow Marxists drawing attention to his baldness on Twitter dot com—and the hatchlings emerging from the carcass of Progress. That they are is, like the power of the staffers, a damning indictment of the party.

Factionalism is, as you say, generally not a thing at a local level (aside from the left-cranks and right-cranks who make it their mission to hate (a) each other, if possible or (b) everyone else, in the absence of that) and divisions that do exist within the party locally often have to do with completely esoteric matters. Even during Corbyn’s leadership this was true, let alone during the height of TB/GB (Blairite/Brownite) absurdity.

[Torrain]

Correct me if I've read the reports wrong, but - after a "crunch meeting" today, Labour *aren't* dropping the £28 billion green energy target, and the same staffers who spend their time briefing against green policies and Ed Miliband are now turning their sights on Sue Gray because she backed the policy?

Whoever this is - are they really useful enough that it's worth this constant sniping to journalists at the Times?

[EastAnglianLefty]

Ultimately, if you're briefing against Sue Gray and think this will work out for you then your receipt of a P45 is going to considerably improve the average intelligence of the workforce.

[CumbrianLefty]

Correct me if I've read the reports wrong, but - after a "crunch meeting" today, Labour *aren't* dropping the £28 billion green energy target, and the same staffers who spend their time briefing against green policies and Ed Miliband are now turning their sights on Sue Gray because she backed the policy?

Whoever this is - are they really useful enough that it's worth this constant sniping to journalists at the Times?

Don't be silly, some of the time they snipe to the Sun as well.

(even more ridiculous if anything)

It looks like "the plan stays, but it is subject to our fiscal rules" will be the line going forward.

[Blair]

John McDonnell has backed Paul Waugh and called him a socialist in his endorsement.

Interesting.

[Torrain]

It looks like "the plan stays, but it is subject to our fiscal rules" will be the line going forward.

That tracks - after all, it sounds like the response Reeves would give, and "what would Rachel do" seems to be the most efficent way to interpret Starmer's economic thinking in general.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A proper 'the Welsh Labour Movement!' story here, absolute classic.

The summary version is that both Gething and Miles attended hustings put on by Unite, after which a committee met to endorse a candidate. At which point it emerged that an apparently new procedural rule meant that Miles could not be endorsed as he had not 'held elected lay office as a representative of workers' and so Gething was endorsed unopposed. Miles is not very happy.

[Wiswylfen]

Correct me if I've read the reports wrong, but - after a "crunch meeting" today, Labour *aren't* dropping the £28 billion green energy target, and the same staffers who spend their time briefing against green policies and Ed Miliband are now turning their sights on Sue Gray because she backed the policy?

Whoever this is - are they really useful enough that it's worth this constant sniping to journalists at the Times?

It's like the £28 billion. They're not actually mad at Ed Miliband for that (idk maybe the securonomics true believers are) but rather because he spared David Miliband the ignominy of leading the Labour party to 220 seats. Likewise, they're mad at Sue Gray because she told them to stop acting like children with the briefing against Andy Burnham.

[Blair]

A proper 'the Welsh Labour Movement!' story here, absolute classic.

The summary version is that both Gething and Miles attended hustings put on by Unite, after which a committee met to endorse a candidate. At which point it emerged that an apparently new procedural rule meant that Miles could not be endorsed as he had not 'held elected lay office as a representative of workers' and so Gething was endorsed unopposed. Miles is not very happy.

Am I being dense in that even I don’t understand the rule- when I see lay I think of a Methodist!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You see, if rules are written in a sufficiently ambiguous manner, then you can use them to mean things like 'we do not want to endorse candidate X'.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

A proper 'the Welsh Labour Movement!' story here, absolute classic.

The summary version is that both Gething and Miles attended hustings put on by Unite, after which a committee met to endorse a candidate. At which point it emerged that an apparently new procedural rule meant that Miles could not be endorsed as he had not 'held elected lay office as a representative of workers' and so Gething was endorsed unopposed. Miles is not very happy.

What a victory for the Labour Movement of Wales over the Welsh Labour Movement in the long run that was.

[CumbrianLefty]

Correct me if I've read the reports wrong, but - after a "crunch meeting" today, Labour *aren't* dropping the £28 billion green energy target, and the same staffers who spend their time briefing against green policies and Ed Miliband are now turning their sights on Sue Gray because she backed the policy?

Whoever this is - are they really useful enough that it's worth this constant sniping to journalists at the Times?

It's like the £28 billion. They're not actually mad at Ed Miliband for that (idk maybe the securonomics true believers are) but rather because he spared David Miliband the ignominy of leading the Labour party to 220 seats. Likewise, they're mad at Sue Gray because she told them to stop acting like children with the briefing against Andy Burnham.

"DM would have done worse than EM in 2015" is definitely underpriced as a possibility by most.

I'm not sure how likely it actually is, but it is certainly more credible than the "Len McCluskey single handedly stymied our GREAT LOST LEADER who would have led Labour to a landslide in 2015" zombie myth still uncritically swallowed by much of FBPE/briefcase online ur-centrism.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Correct me if I've read the reports wrong, but - after a "crunch meeting" today, Labour *aren't* dropping the £28 billion green energy target, and the same staffers who spend their time briefing against green policies and Ed Miliband are now turning their sights on Sue Gray because she backed the policy?

Whoever this is - are they really useful enough that it's worth this constant sniping to journalists at the Times?

It's like the £28 billion. They're not actually mad at Ed Miliband for that (idk maybe the securonomics true believers are) but rather because he spared David Miliband the ignominy of leading the Labour party to 220 seats. Likewise, they're mad at Sue Gray because she told them to stop acting like children with the briefing against Andy Burnham.

"DM would have done worse than EM in 2015" is certainly underpriced as a possibility by most.

I'm not sure how likely it actually is, but it is certainly more credible than the "Len McCluskey single handedly stymied our GREAT LOST LEADER who would have led Labour to a landslide in 2015" zombie myth still uncritically swallowed by much of FBPE/briefcase online ur-centrism.

Would any Labour leader have won 2015?