Starmer has never been able to emotionally connect . Those who know him constantly say what a good man he is , integrity , compassion . A man who cares . But he doesn’t know or isn’t able to convey that . He hasn’t got the power of rhetoric which is critical in todays political climate .
A PM can’t hide in the shadows anymore . This is the digital age and we have an analog PM and that will never do in a fragmented and toxic political landscape . Starmer is a builder but devoid of ideology and that isn’t enough when an electorate is divided , nervous and angry about the slow pace of change . It’s not enough to say ‘we know it’s tough for you but hang in there it will get better’ when the person telling you that shows as about as much feeling as an AI Avatar of a brick wall . Starmer can’t tell stories - at least to the general public .
Labour didn’t get it from the very beginning when they got elected that they were still the perceived problem as well as the possible solution . The voters just said ‘well we don’t particularly like you lot but we couldn’t stand the previous bunch . Deliver quick or else’ Well else has arrived .
Winning a landslide on 34% is hardly an endorsement and a gross distortion of reality . Labour were never a new broom they were just the old one in the publics mind with a quick wipe down .
I have just finished Tina Gaudoin’s The Incidental Feminist “ about Margaret Thatcher. A fascinating read but one thing stands out from that - the role played by Tim Bell et al in marketing Thatcher. She let them as well.
Starmer is not a difficult marketing proposition if you flip the comments against him and focus on not being an idealogue, not being political but being pragmatic. A story needs to be told but it is not. I wonder if Starmer, unlike Thatcher, resists being marketed?
Granted but that’s still not an easy proposition to re market him in the time frame left and when opinions are baked in for so many . If the marketing make over isn’t sufficient then you are screwed with getting the new one in and marketing them with the clock ticking .
The 2026 election Labour bloodbath was, arguably, McSweeney's final legacy - the roll out, in real time, of a country infuriated by Blue Labour's pathological hatred of the left and it's dogged truly vote-shedding move to the right. The price has been paid.
Actually watching the way Polanski is being brought down from all sides - the right-wing press and Labour - I’m now not sure the Green party will be able to continue prospering in the way it has since Polanski became leader. Apparently Polanski is - an antisemite, a dodgy actor/hypnotherapist dissembler, a social media narcissist, a tax dodger and an economic illiterate. Dirt will continue to be dug.
It’s a 360 degree assault along the same lines as the Corbyn assassination. Not a Corbyn fan but one can still see the gladiatorial process clearly. Now it’s happening again.
Thank you as always!! I'm a bit convinced that much of this may have been a very reasonable protest vote- to be respected. Partly because of current foreign issues, main consideration needs to be not to make an irrevocable decision too early. We may see it all very differently in six months time, then let loose opinions at that time. Yes we need big change, thankfully we have managed to avoid revolution so far. Let's just go gently, step by step!
The local bridgehead point about Reform and the Greens is one of the most important things written about the elections. The 1997 Lib Dem analogy is exact - they won 46 seats on a lower vote share than 1992 because the local groundwork had been done. The question for the gilt market is which of the two insurgents builds the more coherent parliamentary coalition. Reform on 284 seats in a hung parliament with no close coalition partners could be less fiscally dangerous than Reform + a collapsed Conservative party finding common ground. The scenario analysis needs to go one step further than vote share.
I say roll the dice - change leader, admit errors, go for some bold, big initial new policies. Voters are fickle and respond to simple narratives. Labour can turn this around if they have someone leading them that can speak human, offer a clear vision and be prepared to pick fights and take risks.
Starmer has never been able to emotionally connect . Those who know him constantly say what a good man he is , integrity , compassion . A man who cares . But he doesn’t know or isn’t able to convey that . He hasn’t got the power of rhetoric which is critical in todays political climate .
A PM can’t hide in the shadows anymore . This is the digital age and we have an analog PM and that will never do in a fragmented and toxic political landscape . Starmer is a builder but devoid of ideology and that isn’t enough when an electorate is divided , nervous and angry about the slow pace of change . It’s not enough to say ‘we know it’s tough for you but hang in there it will get better’ when the person telling you that shows as about as much feeling as an AI Avatar of a brick wall . Starmer can’t tell stories - at least to the general public .
Labour didn’t get it from the very beginning when they got elected that they were still the perceived problem as well as the possible solution . The voters just said ‘well we don’t particularly like you lot but we couldn’t stand the previous bunch . Deliver quick or else’ Well else has arrived .
Winning a landslide on 34% is hardly an endorsement and a gross distortion of reality . Labour were never a new broom they were just the old one in the publics mind with a quick wipe down .
I have just finished Tina Gaudoin’s The Incidental Feminist “ about Margaret Thatcher. A fascinating read but one thing stands out from that - the role played by Tim Bell et al in marketing Thatcher. She let them as well.
Starmer is not a difficult marketing proposition if you flip the comments against him and focus on not being an idealogue, not being political but being pragmatic. A story needs to be told but it is not. I wonder if Starmer, unlike Thatcher, resists being marketed?
Indeed
Granted but that’s still not an easy proposition to re market him in the time frame left and when opinions are baked in for so many . If the marketing make over isn’t sufficient then you are screwed with getting the new one in and marketing them with the clock ticking .
The 2026 election Labour bloodbath was, arguably, McSweeney's final legacy - the roll out, in real time, of a country infuriated by Blue Labour's pathological hatred of the left and it's dogged truly vote-shedding move to the right. The price has been paid.
As for what happens next, we could stay in a multiparty impasse resolved only with PR, or we could move towards a new duopoly as Peter intimates, something that, weirdly, I predicted back in Nov 25 - https://westenglandbylines.co.uk/politics/farage-vs-polanski-the-new-duopoly/
Actually watching the way Polanski is being brought down from all sides - the right-wing press and Labour - I’m now not sure the Green party will be able to continue prospering in the way it has since Polanski became leader. Apparently Polanski is - an antisemite, a dodgy actor/hypnotherapist dissembler, a social media narcissist, a tax dodger and an economic illiterate. Dirt will continue to be dug.
It’s a 360 degree assault along the same lines as the Corbyn assassination. Not a Corbyn fan but one can still see the gladiatorial process clearly. Now it’s happening again.
Thank you as always!! I'm a bit convinced that much of this may have been a very reasonable protest vote- to be respected. Partly because of current foreign issues, main consideration needs to be not to make an irrevocable decision too early. We may see it all very differently in six months time, then let loose opinions at that time. Yes we need big change, thankfully we have managed to avoid revolution so far. Let's just go gently, step by step!
The local bridgehead point about Reform and the Greens is one of the most important things written about the elections. The 1997 Lib Dem analogy is exact - they won 46 seats on a lower vote share than 1992 because the local groundwork had been done. The question for the gilt market is which of the two insurgents builds the more coherent parliamentary coalition. Reform on 284 seats in a hung parliament with no close coalition partners could be less fiscally dangerous than Reform + a collapsed Conservative party finding common ground. The scenario analysis needs to go one step further than vote share.
I say roll the dice - change leader, admit errors, go for some bold, big initial new policies. Voters are fickle and respond to simple narratives. Labour can turn this around if they have someone leading them that can speak human, offer a clear vision and be prepared to pick fights and take risks.
“Garbett” not “Garbutt”.
Interesting slip?
I think it simply illustrates the lack of knowledge that most mainstream journalists and commentators have of the Greens.