>Starmer’s critics say the new process is creating identikit candidates, very few from working-class jobs and all loyal to Starmer’s wing of the party – as well as disempowering local activists.
Starmer not allowing left-wing / Corbynite candidates to stand for elections is one thing but the real issue here IMO is the fact that most of these, and by extension most Labour MPs in the next Parliament, are urban middle-class managerial types. Many of Labour’s problems stem from the party’s leaders and representatives moving away from its working-class roots and this problem looks like it will only get worse.
So many loose cannons. Loose drawbridges. Loose gates. Loose furniture. Loose doors. Loose royals.
Regardless of what you think of him, I don’t think it would be in any way controversial to say that Corbyn was not very good at message discipline while he was leader of the party – there could be arguments held forever about whose actual fault that was, but the practical upshot was that messaging was haphazard, often delayed or unclear, and any stance taken by the leadership was quite often contradicted almost immediately by someone else in the party, or vice versa.
I totally understand Starmer’s team’s desire not to fall victim to the same thing (and yes, I know many might counter that they were the ones largely responsible for it last time), but I think Starmer’s side dramatically overestimates the public appeal of slick New Labour types. The Tories get a pass for being out-of-touch and oily because they throw out the right kinds of red meat to their voters; I don’t think it’s likely that the same tactics will work for Labour.
The younger or less polished MPs on the party’s left – Angela Rayner, Zarah Sultana, and the like – may not always be as experienced, PR-friendly or broadly palatable as others, but they are very good at convincingly showing that they ‘get’ people, and they ‘get’ the issues that people face today, especially people on lower incomes or with other vulnerabilities. And bulldozing over local parties’ preferences to parachute in spin-friendly candidates, in addition to being entirely contrary to Starmer’s pledge on how to approach such issues, will be a breeding ground for resentment and possible undermining by local members.
The polls are good for Labour at the moment, but that lead is being propped up by egregious and highly-visible Tory incompetence. If Starmer’s new selection processes cannot provide MPs that the public feel understand them and their issues, then they will default back to the Tories, and the Tories being out of power for just one election cycle is not good enough to start repairing the damage they’ve done.
3 comments
>Starmer’s critics say the new process is creating identikit candidates, very few from working-class jobs and all loyal to Starmer’s wing of the party – as well as disempowering local activists.
Starmer not allowing left-wing / Corbynite candidates to stand for elections is one thing but the real issue here IMO is the fact that most of these, and by extension most Labour MPs in the next Parliament, are urban middle-class managerial types. Many of Labour’s problems stem from the party’s leaders and representatives moving away from its working-class roots and this problem looks like it will only get worse.
So many loose cannons. Loose drawbridges. Loose gates. Loose furniture. Loose doors. Loose royals.
Regardless of what you think of him, I don’t think it would be in any way controversial to say that Corbyn was not very good at message discipline while he was leader of the party – there could be arguments held forever about whose actual fault that was, but the practical upshot was that messaging was haphazard, often delayed or unclear, and any stance taken by the leadership was quite often contradicted almost immediately by someone else in the party, or vice versa.
I totally understand Starmer’s team’s desire not to fall victim to the same thing (and yes, I know many might counter that they were the ones largely responsible for it last time), but I think Starmer’s side dramatically overestimates the public appeal of slick New Labour types. The Tories get a pass for being out-of-touch and oily because they throw out the right kinds of red meat to their voters; I don’t think it’s likely that the same tactics will work for Labour.
The younger or less polished MPs on the party’s left – Angela Rayner, Zarah Sultana, and the like – may not always be as experienced, PR-friendly or broadly palatable as others, but they are very good at convincingly showing that they ‘get’ people, and they ‘get’ the issues that people face today, especially people on lower incomes or with other vulnerabilities. And bulldozing over local parties’ preferences to parachute in spin-friendly candidates, in addition to being entirely contrary to Starmer’s pledge on how to approach such issues, will be a breeding ground for resentment and possible undermining by local members.
The polls are good for Labour at the moment, but that lead is being propped up by egregious and highly-visible Tory incompetence. If Starmer’s new selection processes cannot provide MPs that the public feel understand them and their issues, then they will default back to the Tories, and the Tories being out of power for just one election cycle is not good enough to start repairing the damage they’ve done.