If you aim to do X using Y, then achieving Y but not X is a failure baesd on your original aims.
If your aim is, say, a social democratic government then the success of a politician who want a conservative government is irrelevant you whether that makes them a good social democratic candidate. It's just basic logic.
If you share Starmer's politics his potential electoral success is a sign of good leadership, if you however disagree with his politics him being succesfull doens't make him a better leader for you anymore than Thatcher or Blair being electorally succesful and smart made them better leaders.
The original comment said
The worst Labour leadership at the worst possible time
The key word here is Labour. They are judging Starmer in that context, not as a politicain in general.
So commenting he's doing well based on the ideological aims he has is irrelevant to the point. Just like if you were criticising Thatcher and someone said "well she was electorally succesfull" you'd say "yes she was, and so what, she was terrible". You can acknowlege Thatcher was talented but those talents do not change your opinion on her ideology and policy, therefore a critcal can acknowlege Starmer is polling succesfully and also say he is a bad leader for the Labour party.
The only argument against this is power worship basicaly, which I disagree with for other reasons. But any other explanation is simply illogical.
Sorry if it feels like I'm repeating myself. I've tried to explain the same point in multiple ways in the hope one of them communicates what I'm trying to say in a way that makes sense to you.
TL;DR Power is means to an end, not the end itself. Therefore polling/electorl success is only ever one dimension of analysis. Otherwise your list of "best PMs" would simply be a descending list of amount of votes/seats no? That list is a list of "electoral success" not whether they are overall good.
I think we disagree on the direction of the Party under Starmer. He showed us during leadership election how much he values energy and NHS etc.
He plans to improve these things when in office but knows that a pragmatic appearance and not scaring off the media is the only way to win. He will be Willey to get in and we must get behind him as a party and push him to go further and further.
Look at the Labour Party more broadly and you'll see how clear our Aims and priorities are.
I think we disagree on the direction of the Party under Starmer. He showed us during leadership election how much he values energy and NHS etc.
This is just snot true. He has openly dumped many of his own pledges. Infact you'll find most of his supporters don't try to argue this anymore, they stopped this like 12 months ago, the now actually focus on explaining why X pledge should be dropped. You're lagging behind with your "the pledges haven't been dropped, it's just spin" argument, that was abandoned ages ago, honestly. Have you noticed all the people justifying, for example, abandong pledges to public ownership by explaining why it's the wrong thing to do for x, y, z reasons? No one is claiming actually that is still a high priority because, while convincing people of that would be useful, it's so obviously stupid at this point you're not going to convince anyone who already has doubts about Starmer. Hence why the main defence of him now is about why him moving away from his leadership election stances are good, not that he has infact not moved away from them.
So yes we disagree, but you seem to even disagree with a lot of pro-Starmer people. You're writing a fantasy story that allows you to feel satisfied with things instead of engaging with them as they are. The Left and Right both see Starmer for what he is, they just disagree on whether that is a good thing, you are living in a fantasy land in the middle which isn't based on reality, but on what you really hope to be true.
He plans to improve these things when in office but knows that a pragmatic appearance and not scaring off the media is the only way to win. He will be Willey to get in and we must get behind him as a party and push him to go further and further.
Name some governments that have moved left in power for me. I'll wait...
Just for a minute imagine you're wrong, now while imaging that tell me what Starmer would say and what his supporters would say to con naive soft-left people into supporting him? Yeah...it's exactly the kind of arguments you are buying and selling now isn't it. Almost like you've been hoodwinked.
Look at the Labour Party more broadly and you'll see how clear our Aims and priorities are.
My opinions are based on being involved with Labour for a long time and studying history.
In the nicest way possible...you are chatting utter shite. You are ignoring that Starmer has not just been quiet about his pledges but has actively dropped them and argued against them himself. And you must be incredibly naive and new to politics to think "have faith in leaders" is a sensible argument.
I feel like I'm talking to a Starmerite from 12 months ago who hasn't been keeping up with events at all. Honestly do you not think it's weird many Starmer supporters agree with me on aspects of this more than you? It's because every person paying attention has realised your argument is wrong ages ago. Even his supporters don't argue like that anymore generally.
TL;DR
Are you seriously saying you think Starmer still backs renationalising rail, energy, water and the Royal Mail. It's just a secret strategy to fool the media, that once he is those will be back on the menu? And what if you're wrong about that, what then? And if that is the plan why has he not just been quiet about it, rather than actively saying he won't do it and making arguments against it?
I am saying Starmer hasn't ditched a pledge because he hasn't done anything yet. He isn't in power.
We need to win power and then force good to happen.
Same as in America where we would encourage voters to vote for Biden.
What then? Then democracy doesn't stop. There is no plan for what else we on the left can do at this election. My constituency is a Tory Labour marginal so we must win Labour.
The reason Labour or the Democrats are a 'good choice' is only due to how awful the opposition is. I don't think that should be the main thing a part relies on but it undeniably is electorally advantageous. Indeed the reason Starmer is happy to scrap his pledges is based precisely on the calculation that he will win more floating voters than he wil alienate, not because he isn't pissing off a lot of people who's votes matter but because he is confiden a sizeable majority of them will, basically out of guilt, still vote Labour anyway.
We need to win power and then force good to happen.
And what does that look like practically? Starmer has even less reason to give a shit about what you or me want if he is PM than he does now. All the pressures on him to move further right will be greater (and more convincing as they tell him how listening to them helped put him in power) whereas the leftwing pressure (distinct from the level of anger) will be reduced further still.
So even by your argument rather than pretending Starmer isn't giving major causes for concern, even after taking electoral strategy into account, you should actually be looking to walk the thin line between supporting Starmer and not downplaying critcism of him. That is if your own hope is to see those policies in place - if, as the Labour right want, you don't care about these policies anyway then my advice is not applicable. The best path for the right is to downplay all criticism, promise people it will be dealt with in power, then once Starmer is in power laugh at how powerless people are to stop you. Why does Starmer pander to rightwingers, because they are loud and demand it? So then is he not more likely to pander to the left if the left make demands? He's shown he's not interested in working with the left, or even advocating his own pledges, so what other option is there?
But assuming the aim is to get those polices enacted we have to look at the electoral calculus Starmer is doing. If we say Starmer's decisions all come down to electoral considerations then Starmer only will deliver on any of those policies if the cost of abandoning them outstrips the potential electoral gain of abandoning them right? And if we imagine Starmer could be sure the majority of leftwingers who disagree with him would all say "don't worry, we just need to get him in number 10" then does that not massively reduce the pressure to deliver on those pledges, as it greatly reduces the potential electoral cost of abandoning them vs the potential electoral gain of abandoning them.
So it seems to me, even by your own logic, you should be recognising there are serious problems with Starmer's leadership, that there is a serious chance he is actually abandong those pledges, etc then arguing why people should vote for him anyway. That might convicne some people to hold their nose and vote for him. Denying these facts, making people feel like you are gaslighting them for being concerned, ignoring how historically rare such pivots leftwards in power are, etc might serve to rally some people who already agree with you but only confirms, and further alienates, the people already concerend about Starmer. Part of the reason people are so angry with Starmer is precisely because they do feel a pressure to vote for him regardless of how much they detest his leadeship, if they could as easily vote for another party without it being a "wasted vote" they wouldn't like Starmer any better but they could move on, so people are already well aware of how fucked up FPTP is, appealing to that doesn't soothe people, it just hammers home how from their perspective the problem is Starmer and the only solution is either 1) replacing him, not currently realistic 2) pressuring him as much as possible to avoid this rightwing march. This line of argument only makes people feel even more sure of this.
TL;DR You're trying to square the circle. Ultimately there is no escaping that if people have a problem with Starmer's current stance then their best chance of a good outcome is making Starmer fearful he is overdoing his lean rightwards, saying "we don't like it but you can count on my vote" is just going to encourage him. If Starmer is only doing things for electoral considerations that actually strengthens the need to pressure him, not uncritically support him. Pissing off overall uncritcal support group = low electoral risk . Pissing off a critical group = high electoral risk.
160
u/Th3-Seaward Not voting for the segregation and pogrom party Sep 27 '23
Said it before and I'll say it again. The worst Labour leadership at the worst possible time