RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

But if that's true, how did Tony Blair manage to appeal to normal people?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

But if that's true, how did Tony Blair manage to appeal to normal people?

For starters, he was working off a different baseline opinion - that baseline opinion formed by John Smith. Secondly, Blair comes from an era where newspapers and TV dominated public opinion formation, which made it much easier for his PR team to influence the public.

Added to which; Blair had a press machine that was friendly to him; and in the personality stakes, he was up against the Grey Man himself.

It wasn't an accident that Blair had friendlier press, they spent a lot of time end effort wrangling that. Others have spent a lot of time, they just haven't been able to wrangle anything other than maybe their own tits

Digby wrote:It wasn't an accident that Blair had friendlier press, they spent a lot of time end effort wrangling that. Others have spent a lot of time, they just haven't been able to wrangle anything other than maybe their own tits

Much as I admire Corbyn's decision to tell the tabloids to fuck off and openly vow to defang them if he got power, there's no doubt that it was a massive tactical error and a huge part of his downfall. Impossible to win over the common people when a large chunk get their information from media sources that consider you an existential threat and have absolutely no qualms about bending the truth (or, in some cases, just reporting the truth and ignoring the mud on the other side).

Starmer hasn't gone as aggressively at them (that and the fact that he's been so dull and milquetoast that there's very little muck to rake), but he definitely hasn't courted them either, despite the fact that the likes of the Mail and Sun would definitely be willing to turn on Johnson for the right price. Again, points for moral standing (first time someone's said that about Starmer), but possibly not for political acumen. You'd've thought the best thing to do would be get them in your corner and then turn on them viciously once power had been achieved and hope you survived the bloodbath and it was forgotten about by the next election.

Puja

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote: This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

But if that's true, how did Tony Blair manage to appeal to normal people?

For starters, he was working off a different baseline opinion - that baseline opinion formed by John Smith. Secondly, Blair comes from an era where newspapers and TV dominated public opinion formation, which made it much easier for his PR team to influence the public.

When you say 'Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people' you make it sound like it's something inherent to the man, not external. As a person, he's clearly more 'normal' than Blair - working class upbringing, state school, successful career outside of politics.

If it's about things that are external to him, then at least some if them can be changed, so I struggle to see how he can 'never' appeal to normal people. Newspapers and TV are still significant public opinion formers - the problem there is that Starmer's PR team (assuming he even has one??) has been pretty ineffective so far. But this could change.

You say 'Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu'. Surely Starmer is the closest thing to this as you could ever hope to find in a major party leader?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: But if that's true, how did Tony Blair manage to appeal to normal people?

For starters, he was working off a different baseline opinion - that baseline opinion formed by John Smith. Secondly, Blair comes from an era where newspapers and TV dominated public opinion formation, which made it much easier for his PR team to influence the public.

When you say 'Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people' you make it sound like it's something inherent to the man, not external. As a person, he's clearly more 'normal' than Blair - working class upbringing, state school, successful career outside of politics.

If it's about things that are external to him, then at least some if them can be changed, so I struggle to see how he can 'never' appeal to normal people. Newspapers and TV are still significant public opinion formers - the problem there is that Starmer's PR team (assuming he even has one??) has been pretty ineffective so far. But this could change.

You say 'Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu'. Surely Starmer is the closest thing to this as you could ever hope to find in a major party leader?

CPS HQ is located in Westminster. Temple is next door in The City. So, no, I would hope we can do better.

Look at Mark Drakeford - a teacher in his previous life. Much more like it. Now that's what I call a normal person.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:It wasn't an accident that Blair had friendlier press, they spent a lot of time end effort wrangling that. Others have spent a lot of time, they just haven't been able to wrangle anything other than maybe their own tits

Much as I admire Corbyn's decision to tell the tabloids to fuck off and openly vow to defang them if he got power, there's no doubt that it was a massive tactical error and a huge part of his downfall. Impossible to win over the common people when a large chunk get their information from media sources that consider you an existential threat and have absolutely no qualms about bending the truth (or, in some cases, just reporting the truth and ignoring the mud on the other side).

Starmer hasn't gone as aggressively at them (that and the fact that he's been so dull and milquetoast that there's very little muck to rake), but he definitely hasn't courted them either, despite the fact that the likes of the Mail and Sun would definitely be willing to turn on Johnson for the right price. Again, points for moral standing (first time someone's said that about Starmer), but possibly not for political acumen. You'd've thought the best thing to do would be get them in your corner and then turn on them viciously once power had been achieved and hope you survived the bloodbath and it was forgotten about by the next election.

Puja

Not sure what you mean by 'turn on them viciously'

I'd be hesitant to act in such fashion partly because I tend to think you should be telling people in advance how you'll act before they vote, and also because turning viciously on a free press just of itself sounds extremely dubious, no matter how much I dislike just how wasteful they are with their freedoms

If you mean engaging with them to try and establish some better standards in public life then that I'd be for

And as ever if Labour feel the current press aren't giving them a fair ride there's nothing stopping them writing and printing their own copy, though I'd like to think even the Labour Party might concede they couldn't run that in-house.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:It wasn't an accident that Blair had friendlier press, they spent a lot of time end effort wrangling that. Others have spent a lot of time, they just haven't been able to wrangle anything other than maybe their own tits

Much as I admire Corbyn's decision to tell the tabloids to fuck off and openly vow to defang them if he got power, there's no doubt that it was a massive tactical error and a huge part of his downfall. Impossible to win over the common people when a large chunk get their information from media sources that consider you an existential threat and have absolutely no qualms about bending the truth (or, in some cases, just reporting the truth and ignoring the mud on the other side).

Starmer hasn't gone as aggressively at them (that and the fact that he's been so dull and milquetoast that there's very little muck to rake), but he definitely hasn't courted them either, despite the fact that the likes of the Mail and Sun would definitely be willing to turn on Johnson for the right price. Again, points for moral standing (first time someone's said that about Starmer), but possibly not for political acumen. You'd've thought the best thing to do would be get them in your corner and then turn on them viciously once power had been achieved and hope you survived the bloodbath and it was forgotten about by the next election.

Puja

Not sure what you mean by 'turn on them viciously'

I'd be hesitant to act in such fashion partly because I tend to think you should be telling people in advance how you'll act before they vote, and also because turning viciously on a free press just of itself sounds extremely dubious, no matter how much I dislike just how wasteful they are with their freedoms

If you mean engaging with them to try and establish some better standards in public life then that I'd be for

And as ever if Labour feel the current press aren't giving them a fair ride there's nothing stopping them writing and printing their own copy, though I'd like to think even the Labour Party might concede they couldn't run that in-house.

By "turn on them viciously" I'd take introducing a genuinely independent regulator with some actual teeth for a start. And enforcing stricter anti-monopoly rules on ownership. At the moment it's not "turning on a free press" because we don't currently have that - we have a megaphone for a few oligarchs.

Puja

That the market is dominated by a small number of providers isn't impeding a free press.

Nobody is stopping anyone running a fair and accurate newspaper, seemingly there's just no demand for one

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote: For starters, he was working off a different baseline opinion - that baseline opinion formed by John Smith. Secondly, Blair comes from an era where newspapers and TV dominated public opinion formation, which made it much easier for his PR team to influence the public.

When you say 'Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people' you make it sound like it's something inherent to the man, not external. As a person, he's clearly more 'normal' than Blair - working class upbringing, state school, successful career outside of politics.

If it's about things that are external to him, then at least some if them can be changed, so I struggle to see how he can 'never' appeal to normal people. Newspapers and TV are still significant public opinion formers - the problem there is that Starmer's PR team (assuming he even has one??) has been pretty ineffective so far. But this could change.

You say 'Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu'. Surely Starmer is the closest thing to this as you could ever hope to find in a major party leader?

CPS HQ is located in Westminster. Temple is next door in The City. So, no, I would hope we can do better.

Look at Mark Drakeford - a teacher in his previous life. Much more like it. Now that's what I call a normal person.

You place a high important on physical proximity. So what if the CPS is located in Westminster? It's part of the civil service not part of government; it's non-political.

I'm sure Mark Drakeford is a good guy, but he's been actively involved in party politics from at least the mid 1980s, first locally, then in the Welsh government. Much of this ran alongside his academic work as a university lecturer till 2013, but by comparison Starmer has had much less to do with politics and government until recently. Which CV you consider to be more "real-world" is really a matter of opinion. I think if you compare Starmer with other Labour party leaders, you'll find he's far less of a career politician than most, which makes him more "normal" in my view.

Sure, Starmer has been disappointing, both in his political effectiveness and in he issues he seems interested in, but he really is the only hope for defeating the Tories at the next election. No doubt there would be different potential Labour leaders I'd prefer (although none made it to the voting stage of the leadership election) but he's what we've got, he's not going to stand aside. Given this, I just hope he starts getting some traction (the parties are neck and neck in the polls, at least).

Digby wrote:That the market is dominated by a small number of providers isn't impeding a free press.

Nobody is stopping anyone running a fair and accurate newspaper, seemingly there's just no demand for one

Barriers to entry? There's enormous customer inertia and brand loyalty associated with newspapers. How easy do you think it is to set up a national newspaper?

Nobody is stopping me from starting one either. Unfortunately I don't have a billion quid to throw at the project.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:That the market is dominated by a small number of providers isn't impeding a free press.

Nobody is stopping anyone running a fair and accurate newspaper, seemingly there's just no demand for one

Barriers to entry? There's enormous customer inertia and brand loyalty associated with newspapers. How easy do you think it is to set up a national newspaper?

Nobody is stopping me from starting one either. Unfortunately I don't have a billion quid to throw at the project.

Oddly you wouldn't start publishing a national newspaper.

But they've been complaining about this lack of balance in the press for decades, and all they do is wait for someone to fix the problem for them. Which also speaks as to why it's so easy to revile the left

There are actually some efforts to try and get something on the left up and running, they're just not very good and they spend more time arguing with themselves about what it means to be progressive. Until they do better they will not do better

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:That the market is dominated by a small number of providers isn't impeding a free press.

Nobody is stopping anyone running a fair and accurate newspaper, seemingly there's just no demand for one

Barriers to entry? There's enormous customer inertia and brand loyalty associated with newspapers. How easy do you think it is to set up a national newspaper?

Nobody is stopping me from starting one either. Unfortunately I don't have a billion quid to throw at the project.

Oddly you wouldn't start publishing a national newspaper.

But they've been complaining about this lack of balance in the press for decades, and all they do is wait for someone to fix the problem for them. Which also speaks as to why it's so easy to revile the left

There are actually some efforts to try and get something on the left up and running, they're just not very good and they spend more time arguing with themselves about what it means to be progressive. Until they do better they will not do better

Did you read what I said? It's very hard to set up a new national newspaper, hence the existing newspapers have a stranglehold on the space. To acquire or set up a national newspaper requires a large amount of cash.

There doesn't need to be anyone stopping people setting up a fair newspaper, lack of money does the stopping.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: When you say 'Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people' you make it sound like it's something inherent to the man, not external. As a person, he's clearly more 'normal' than Blair - working class upbringing, state school, successful career outside of politics.

If it's about things that are external to him, then at least some if them can be changed, so I struggle to see how he can 'never' appeal to normal people. Newspapers and TV are still significant public opinion formers - the problem there is that Starmer's PR team (assuming he even has one??) has been pretty ineffective so far. But this could change.

You say 'Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu'. Surely Starmer is the closest thing to this as you could ever hope to find in a major party leader?

CPS HQ is located in Westminster. Temple is next door in The City. So, no, I would hope we can do better.

Look at Mark Drakeford - a teacher in his previous life. Much more like it. Now that's what I call a normal person.

You place a high important on physical proximity. So what if the CPS is located in Westminster? It's part of the civil service not part of government; it's non-political.

I'm sure Mark Drakeford is a good guy, but he's been actively involved in party politics from at least the mid 1980s, first locally, then in the Welsh government. Much of this ran alongside his academic work as a university lecturer till 2013, but by comparison Starmer has had much less to do with politics and government until recently. Which CV you consider to be more "real-world" is really a matter of opinion. I think if you compare Starmer with other Labour party leaders, you'll find he's far less of a career politician than most, which makes him more "normal" in my view.

Sure, Starmer has been disappointing, both in his political effectiveness and in he issues he seems interested in, but he really is the only hope for defeating the Tories at the next election. No doubt there would be different potential Labour leaders I'd prefer (although none made it to the voting stage of the leadership election) but he's what we've got, he's not going to stand aside. Given this, I just hope he starts getting some traction (the parties are neck and neck in the polls, at least).

Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions, answering to Tory MP Dominic Grieve. Before Grieve he was appointed by (and answered to) Dominic Grieve's predecessor, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Life Peer in the House of Lords, who was elevated to the Lords by Blair, and who appointed Starmer under Brown's watch. So I think given his boss was the Attorney General, he was working very closely with the politicians in power during his time as DPP. Before his time as DPP he was an advisor to the Foreign Office on the matter of the death penalty.

All in all, all credit to him for his successes, but over the course of his career he elevated himself above that of a 'normal' person. Maybe he was a 'normal' person a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that Keir Starmer belongs very much to the past. I dare say his transition out of 'normal' society, into elite society probably started with Oxford, continued at Middle Temple, and then even more so as he was exposed to the corridors of power.

As DPP he chose not to prosecute the police officers who shot dead that innocent Brazilian fella Jean-Charles de Menzies, and also initially chose not to prosecute the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson. He also caused the collapse of the trial of the corrupt police officers who got the Cardiff Three wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of Lynette White. He has a bit of an authoritarian steak in him if you ask me. Bit of a law and order type who has consistently sided with the law, even when the law has been in the wrong.

So I think Starmer is the wrong choice because he is a Blairite by dint of who he owes his DPP appointment to, and has an authoritarian side to him that puts me off massively. He is also no longer a 'normal' person who 'normal' people can relate to, he has been walking elitist corridors for far too long now. And he certainly isn't gonna win anyone over with his cold demeanor, impassive manner, and drab character.

Mark Drakeford is a great example of a 'normal' person so that we can compare with Starmer. When Drakeford was elected to the Welsh Assembly, he was a professor at Cardiff Uni. That's a world away from the Head of the CPS who answers daily to the Attorney General. But Mark Drakeford is no less intelligent. Professors are not stupid people by and large. So you can find a nice balance of smart and normal. You don't need to pick someone smart who has climbed up towards the corridors of power. And unlike Boris, although Drakeford studied Latin at university, he doesn't go on about it in order to show off to the plebs.

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote: CPS HQ is located in Westminster. Temple is next door in The City. So, no, I would hope we can do better.

Look at Mark Drakeford - a teacher in his previous life. Much more like it. Now that's what I call a normal person.

You place a high important on physical proximity. So what if the CPS is located in Westminster? It's part of the civil service not part of government; it's non-political.

I'm sure Mark Drakeford is a good guy, but he's been actively involved in party politics from at least the mid 1980s, first locally, then in the Welsh government. Much of this ran alongside his academic work as a university lecturer till 2013, but by comparison Starmer has had much less to do with politics and government until recently. Which CV you consider to be more "real-world" is really a matter of opinion. I think if you compare Starmer with other Labour party leaders, you'll find he's far less of a career politician than most, which makes him more "normal" in my view.

Sure, Starmer has been disappointing, both in his political effectiveness and in he issues he seems interested in, but he really is the only hope for defeating the Tories at the next election. No doubt there would be different potential Labour leaders I'd prefer (although none made it to the voting stage of the leadership election) but he's what we've got, he's not going to stand aside. Given this, I just hope he starts getting some traction (the parties are neck and neck in the polls, at least).

Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions, answering to Tory MP Dominic Grieve. Before Grieve he was appointed by (and answered to) Dominic Grieve's predecessor, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Life Peer in the House of Lords, who was elevated to the Lords by Blair, and who appointed Starmer under Brown's watch. So I think given his boss was the Attorney General, he was working very closely with the politicians in power during his time as DPP. Before his time as DPP he was an advisor to the Foreign Office on the matter of the death penalty.

All in all, all credit to him for his successes, but over the course of his career he elevated himself above that of a 'normal' person. Maybe he was a 'normal' person a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that Keir Starmer belongs very much to the past. I dare say his transition out of 'normal' society, into elite society probably started with Oxford, continued at Middle Temple, and then even more so as he was exposed to the corridors of power.

As DPP he chose not to prosecute the police officers who shot dead that innocent Brazilian fella Jean-Charles de Menzies, and also initially chose not to prosecute the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson. He also caused the collapse of the trial of the corrupt police officers who got the Cardiff Three wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of Lynette White. He has a bit of an authoritarian steak in him if you ask me. Bit of a law and order type who has consistently sided with the law, even when the law has been in the wrong.

So I think Starmer is the wrong choice because he is a Blairite by dint of who he owes his DPP appointment to, and has an authoritarian side to him that puts me off massively. He is also no longer a 'normal' person who 'normal' people can relate to, he has been walking elitist corridors for far too long now. And he certainly isn't gonna win anyone over with his cold demeanor, impassive manner, and drab character.

Mark Drakeford is a great example of a 'normal' person so that we can compare with Starmer. When Drakeford was elected to the Welsh Assembly, he was a professor at Cardiff Uni. That's a world away from the Head of the CPS who answers daily to the Attorney General. But Mark Drakeford is no less intelligent. Professors are not stupid people by and large. So you can find a nice balance of smart and normal. You don't need to pick someone smart who has climbed up towards the corridors of power. And unlike Boris, although Drakeford studied Latin at university, he doesn't go on about it in order to show off to the plebs.

Starmer and Drakeford are both highly successful people with some measure of normality offset by their time in politics and level of power. They're difficult to compare because they have had quite different paths. My take is that Starmer is more 'normal', but I can certainly accept that you disagree. There's not a lot in it.

Personally, I think when we compare Starmer with previous Labour Party leaders (rather than Welsh Assembly leaders), he comes out as unusually clean regarding political contamination in his past. You may disagree. But in the end, what can we do? Give up on getting rid of the Tories at the end of this term? Because Starmer is the only person who can actually make that happen. For all Starmer's flaws, I presume you'd prefer him to Johnson?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Barriers to entry? There's enormous customer inertia and brand loyalty associated with newspapers. How easy do you think it is to set up a national newspaper?

Nobody is stopping me from starting one either. Unfortunately I don't have a billion quid to throw at the project.

Oddly you wouldn't start publishing a national newspaper.

But they've been complaining about this lack of balance in the press for decades, and all they do is wait for someone to fix the problem for them. Which also speaks as to why it's so easy to revile the left

There are actually some efforts to try and get something on the left up and running, they're just not very good and they spend more time arguing with themselves about what it means to be progressive. Until they do better they will not do better

Did you read what I said? It's very hard to set up a new national newspaper, hence the existing newspapers have a stranglehold on the space. To acquire or set up a national newspaper requires a large amount of cash.

There doesn't need to be anyone stopping people setting up a fair newspaper, lack of money does the stopping.

And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: Oddly you wouldn't start publishing a national newspaper.

But they've been complaining about this lack of balance in the press for decades, and all they do is wait for someone to fix the problem for them. Which also speaks as to why it's so easy to revile the left

There are actually some efforts to try and get something on the left up and running, they're just not very good and they spend more time arguing with themselves about what it means to be progressive. Until they do better they will not do better

Did you read what I said? It's very hard to set up a new national newspaper, hence the existing newspapers have a stranglehold on the space. To acquire or set up a national newspaper requires a large amount of cash.

There doesn't need to be anyone stopping people setting up a fair newspaper, lack of money does the stopping.

And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: You place a high important on physical proximity. So what if the CPS is located in Westminster? It's part of the civil service not part of government; it's non-political.

I'm sure Mark Drakeford is a good guy, but he's been actively involved in party politics from at least the mid 1980s, first locally, then in the Welsh government. Much of this ran alongside his academic work as a university lecturer till 2013, but by comparison Starmer has had much less to do with politics and government until recently. Which CV you consider to be more "real-world" is really a matter of opinion. I think if you compare Starmer with other Labour party leaders, you'll find he's far less of a career politician than most, which makes him more "normal" in my view.

Sure, Starmer has been disappointing, both in his political effectiveness and in he issues he seems interested in, but he really is the only hope for defeating the Tories at the next election. No doubt there would be different potential Labour leaders I'd prefer (although none made it to the voting stage of the leadership election) but he's what we've got, he's not going to stand aside. Given this, I just hope he starts getting some traction (the parties are neck and neck in the polls, at least).

Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions, answering to Tory MP Dominic Grieve. Before Grieve he was appointed by (and answered to) Dominic Grieve's predecessor, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Life Peer in the House of Lords, who was elevated to the Lords by Blair, and who appointed Starmer under Brown's watch. So I think given his boss was the Attorney General, he was working very closely with the politicians in power during his time as DPP. Before his time as DPP he was an advisor to the Foreign Office on the matter of the death penalty.

All in all, all credit to him for his successes, but over the course of his career he elevated himself above that of a 'normal' person. Maybe he was a 'normal' person a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that Keir Starmer belongs very much to the past. I dare say his transition out of 'normal' society, into elite society probably started with Oxford, continued at Middle Temple, and then even more so as he was exposed to the corridors of power.

As DPP he chose not to prosecute the police officers who shot dead that innocent Brazilian fella Jean-Charles de Menzies, and also initially chose not to prosecute the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson. He also caused the collapse of the trial of the corrupt police officers who got the Cardiff Three wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of Lynette White. He has a bit of an authoritarian steak in him if you ask me. Bit of a law and order type who has consistently sided with the law, even when the law has been in the wrong.

So I think Starmer is the wrong choice because he is a Blairite by dint of who he owes his DPP appointment to, and has an authoritarian side to him that puts me off massively. He is also no longer a 'normal' person who 'normal' people can relate to, he has been walking elitist corridors for far too long now. And he certainly isn't gonna win anyone over with his cold demeanor, impassive manner, and drab character.

Mark Drakeford is a great example of a 'normal' person so that we can compare with Starmer. When Drakeford was elected to the Welsh Assembly, he was a professor at Cardiff Uni. That's a world away from the Head of the CPS who answers daily to the Attorney General. But Mark Drakeford is no less intelligent. Professors are not stupid people by and large. So you can find a nice balance of smart and normal. You don't need to pick someone smart who has climbed up towards the corridors of power. And unlike Boris, although Drakeford studied Latin at university, he doesn't go on about it in order to show off to the plebs.

Starmer and Drakeford are both highly successful people with some measure of normality offset by their time in politics and level of power. They're difficult to compare because they have had quite different paths. My take is that Starmer is more 'normal', but I can certainly accept that you disagree. There's not a lot in it.

Personally, I think when we compare Starmer with previous Labour Party leaders (rather than Welsh Assembly leaders), he comes out as unusually clean regarding political contamination in his past. You may disagree. But in the end, what can we do? Give up on getting rid of the Tories at the end of this term? Because Starmer is the only person who can actually make that happen. For all Starmer's flaws, I presume you'd prefer him to Johnson?

As it happens, no - but only because the Tories committed to scrapping the 15 year limit for expat voting. Labour's position is at best unclear, and probably is in favour of keeping it at 15 years. I live abroad and have done so for almost 9 years now, so that change is one that I'd very much appreciate, lest I become disenfranchised.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Did you read what I said? It's very hard to set up a new national newspaper, hence the existing newspapers have a stranglehold on the space. To acquire or set up a national newspaper requires a large amount of cash.

There doesn't need to be anyone stopping people setting up a fair newspaper, lack of money does the stopping.

And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: And I agree it's hard to start with a national, so don't. Start with something else and build.

Again it's the can't do attitude which makes it so easy for the right to offer something much more positive, no matter if what they're offering is bollocks

Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

While I do agree with the annoying whining, to an extent, I think you are glossing over bigger problems.

The press needs regulation, that much is clear. How much regulation is up for debate, but Conservative governments are happy to reduce the amount of regulation in exchange for political favours, yet the Labour party have not had power to increase regulation since Blair...who took the same view as the Tories.

So we're stuck with a press that helps one party over another because they know that they'll be treated well by that party. It's not a free press.

The 'left' has a big problem, though, in that they're often overthinkers without a clue that politics is basically marketing. Kind of difficult to get the press onside when you have that mindset, especially when it's often paired with a holier than thou attitude.

I was speaking to a politician friend recently about why they'd not been in touch with me, for instance. Why I'd not received a single letter. He responded that they sent email...so I said they needed to do direct mail. He immediately said it was too expensive. But that's the thing. They have access, as sitting mayor, to the list of every constituent. They are allowed to send out letters outlining policy changes or asking for input. They just believe they cannot because it costs too much and they should be doing everything digital. The price of sending those letters is miniscule, really. They have a franking machine, they don't need to pay excess postage, the printing costs are negligible. They're just incompetent. Because they have no idea that politics is marketing.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Okay, you accept that the market is dominated by a small number of providers and that it's hard to start a national newspaper to compete. Which makes it far from the ideal, free market, perfect competition situation. Do you think this is a problem?

Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

While I do agree with the annoying whining, to an extent, I think you are glossing over bigger problems.

The press needs regulation, that much is clear. How much regulation is up for debate, but Conservative governments are happy to reduce the amount of regulation in exchange for political favours, yet the Labour party have not had power to increase regulation since Blair...who took the same view as the Tories.

So we're stuck with a press that helps one party over another because they know that they'll be treated well by that party. It's not a free press.

The 'left' has a big problem, though, in that they're often overthinkers without a clue that politics is basically marketing. Kind of difficult to get the press onside when you have that mindset, especially when it's often paired with a holier than thou attitude.

I was speaking to a politician friend recently about why they'd not been in touch with me, for instance. Why I'd not received a single letter. He responded that they sent email...so I said they needed to do direct mail. He immediately said it was too expensive. But that's the thing. They have access, as sitting mayor, to the list of every constituent. They are allowed to send out letters outlining policy changes or asking for input. They just believe they cannot because it costs too much and they should be doing everything digital. The price of sending those letters is miniscule, really. They have a franking machine, they don't need to pay excess postage, the printing costs are negligible. They're just incompetent. Because they have no idea that politics is marketing.

The owners of the press certainly have access to money, but so do unions and left leaning parties, and it would be possible or organise through many other groups on the left centre-left. It is in effect either the left are bad at distributing (or marketing) news, or not enough people want to listen, and if people in a democracy don't want to listen to you then you probably shouldn't have much power

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
Yes. But I think the solution comes out of hard work to deliver something better, and if you don't work hard or your work isn't effective then you need to keep trying. And if you cannot sell your message it might just be not enough people want to listen, and that isn't to be overlooked

Again they've had decades to be working on an answer to this, and they've achieved not a sodding thing.

Just whining about the situation speaks to why so many think the left are losers

While I do agree with the annoying whining, to an extent, I think you are glossing over bigger problems.

The press needs regulation, that much is clear. How much regulation is up for debate, but Conservative governments are happy to reduce the amount of regulation in exchange for political favours, yet the Labour party have not had power to increase regulation since Blair...who took the same view as the Tories.

So we're stuck with a press that helps one party over another because they know that they'll be treated well by that party. It's not a free press.

The 'left' has a big problem, though, in that they're often overthinkers without a clue that politics is basically marketing. Kind of difficult to get the press onside when you have that mindset, especially when it's often paired with a holier than thou attitude.

I was speaking to a politician friend recently about why they'd not been in touch with me, for instance. Why I'd not received a single letter. He responded that they sent email...so I said they needed to do direct mail. He immediately said it was too expensive. But that's the thing. They have access, as sitting mayor, to the list of every constituent. They are allowed to send out letters outlining policy changes or asking for input. They just believe they cannot because it costs too much and they should be doing everything digital. The price of sending those letters is miniscule, really. They have a franking machine, they don't need to pay excess postage, the printing costs are negligible. They're just incompetent. Because they have no idea that politics is marketing.

The owners of the press certainly have access to money, but so do unions and left leaning parties, and it would be possible or organise through many other groups on the left centre-left. It is in effect either the left are bad at distributing (or marketing) news, or not enough people want to listen, and if people in a democracy don't want to listen to you then you probably shouldn't have much power

You have it all messed up. The media aren't favourable to the right because the right is good at marketing. How it works is business interests fund both the media and the right wing parties to get favourable policy. The profits (i.e. spare capital) of the sum total of the business interests of the country far far outweigh the resources of the left, even if you consider the unions in that estimation. The resources available to the left are peanuts in comparison.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
While I do agree with the annoying whining, to an extent, I think you are glossing over bigger problems.

The press needs regulation, that much is clear. How much regulation is up for debate, but Conservative governments are happy to reduce the amount of regulation in exchange for political favours, yet the Labour party have not had power to increase regulation since Blair...who took the same view as the Tories.

So we're stuck with a press that helps one party over another because they know that they'll be treated well by that party. It's not a free press.

The 'left' has a big problem, though, in that they're often overthinkers without a clue that politics is basically marketing. Kind of difficult to get the press onside when you have that mindset, especially when it's often paired with a holier than thou attitude.

I was speaking to a politician friend recently about why they'd not been in touch with me, for instance. Why I'd not received a single letter. He responded that they sent email...so I said they needed to do direct mail. He immediately said it was too expensive. But that's the thing. They have access, as sitting mayor, to the list of every constituent. They are allowed to send out letters outlining policy changes or asking for input. They just believe they cannot because it costs too much and they should be doing everything digital. The price of sending those letters is miniscule, really. They have a franking machine, they don't need to pay excess postage, the printing costs are negligible. They're just incompetent. Because they have no idea that politics is marketing.

The owners of the press certainly have access to money, but so do unions and left leaning parties, and it would be possible or organise through many other groups on the left centre-left. It is in effect either the left are bad at distributing (or marketing) news, or not enough people want to listen, and if people in a democracy don't want to listen to you then you probably shouldn't have much power

You have it all messed up. The media aren't favourable to the right because the right is good at marketing. How it works is business interests fund both the media and the right wing parties to get favourable policy. The profits (i.e. spare capital) of the sum total of the business interests of the country far far outweigh the resources of the left, even if you consider the unions in that estimation. The resources available to the left are peanuts in comparison.

Understanding the idea and concepts of marketing and PR would be a good start, though...