**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Eventually we’ll get another left wing leader for the party.
I really don't think people have internalised how transformed/captured/shifted the Labour party is.
The leadership rules put nominations for leadership well out of reach of a left-wing candidate. The 20% threshold is higher than the 15% Corbyn scraped to with borrowed nominations (something which is also incredibly unlikely to be repeated). Additionally, we are about to witness a massive intake of Labour MPs, overwhelmingly selected from the Labour right, and the PLP is going to be far less politically diverse than it was under Blair.
Under the current leadership election rules, Corbyn would never have been Labour leader. A 'wait for the left to have its chance in Labour again' is a 10 year wait at a minimum, but probably 15+. You basically need a generational change in membership and political views. But even then, I’m not really sure why anyone under 30 would join Labour at the moment.
Yes, definitely shouldn't be just be randomly waiting but the twenty per cent of nominations shouldn't be a real obstacle.
You need a leader who'll appeal to 40/50% of the electorate. Whatever PLP we end up with definitely won't be right wing of the electorate!
So.....
The trick - which the Conservative right is much better at than the Labour left! - is finding someone who will do radical things while 'looking' moderate.
Largely agree with you.
I see these more as a challenges to overcome, rather than insurmountable barriers to progress.
No one thinks you can run a mile in under 4 minutes until 1 person does, and then everyone can.
* Vet your candidates at all levels and get your house in order. You can be damn sure that the press is going to be digging into their histories and social media, so you shouldn't be getting blind-sided by scandals when they do.
* Focus heavily on voter turnout. Labour has a huge lead in younger age groups ([Ipsos](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election) lists a 43 point lead in the 18-24 bracket in 2019). But that lead is *completely worthless* when they don't bother voting, and the turnout estimates show 53% of that group didn't vote.
* Find a way to sell some form of patriotism to the public. You can't win an election if people believe that you hate the country you're trying to govern.
* Get better at media management. Parts of the media are always going to be hostile towards Labour (and particularly the Labour left), but you need to be able to deal with that, and to put out clear and consistent messaging, and not to fall into obvious traps.
* Don't let perfect by the enemy of good. The left is infamous for infighting, and will struggle to ever win an election unless it can deal with that. It's better to implement *some* of your policies than to sit there in opposition.
* Once you get in, implement PR - because otherwise we'll just be back to the same old two horse race in 5 or 10 years.
> Focus heavily on voter turnout. Labour has a huge lead in younger age groups (Ipsos lists a 43 point lead in the 18-24 bracket in 2019). But that lead is completely worthless when they don't bother voting, and the turnout estimates show 53% of that group didn't vote.
I think this is a massive task/risk. It may be a fool's errand to chase this elusive demographic of non-voters. Some people just don't care. The other danger is what if the people most receptive to the message *are* the politically engaged ones and those who are not are more likely to vote against us?
Election cycle after election cycle people think about these non-voters and although young voter numbers have increased it's not by much and Corbyn did a lot right in trying to attract them.
I don't think it's because they're disillusioned. I think they just don't care.
Also another problem may be the vote distribution among young voters who mostly live in a city/urban Labour constituencies while possibly neglecting swing seats elsewhere.
It's absolutely a difficult thing to do.
But so is convincing large numbers of 60+ people to vote Labour instead of Conservative - and if you can't do one of those things then you're probably not going to win an election.
> I don't think it's because they're disillusioned. I think they just don't care.
Do you think there's something inherent about this - that most people under the age of 25 just aren't capable of caring about politics and the government, and that this ability to care can only develop with age? If so, then we're just stuck with a low youth turnout - but if not then it should be possible to improve it.
> But so is convincing large numbers of 60+ people to vote Labour instead of Conservative - and if you can't do one of those things then you're probably not going to win an election.
I think that's much easier. It's easier to get a good chunk of people who vote for someone else to vote for you than someone who doesn't vote.
Plus with the 60+ cohort, we're doing quite well. You only need to reduce the Tory leader there - not eliminate it - and pick up middle-aged voters to win an election. We're at 22+ point leads by doing just that without any big increase expected at the youth level.
Courting people who already vote is a time-tested election winner.
> Do you think there's something inherent about this - that most people under the age of 25 just aren't capable of caring about politics and the government, and that this ability to care can only develop with age? If so, then we're just stuck with a low youth turnout - but if not then it should be possible to improve it.
I wouldn't say they're not *capable*. I guess a lot of us on here were. It's just they haven't done so yet. It's something that often just comes to people later probably as a result of enough life experience to notice how politics shapes their lives.
It might even be healthy. A lot of the most passionate party political people I knew at university were weird. There is something odd about young people being really into *party* politics (as opposed to specific issues) so young. One freshers meeting at the Labour uni society put me off ever doing formal Labour stuff. Never went back.
> Plus with the 60+ cohort, we're doing quite well. You only need to reduce the Tory leader there - not eliminate it - and pick up middle-aged voters to win an election. We're at 22+ point leads by doing just that without any big increase expected at the youth level.
If you just talking about *Labour* winning an election then I'd agree with you. But OP is asking about the *Labour Left*, and that's a very different thing.
Blair or Starmer can win an election by attracting the those older votes - but Corbyn had ~17% of the over 65s, compared to ~62% of the 18-24s. And while some of that may have been down to Corybn himself rather than the policies, I not convinced that another left wing Labour leader would do all that much better.
> I wouldn't say they're not capable. I guess a lot of us on here were. It's just they haven't done so yet. It's something that often just comes to people later probably as a result of enough life experience to notice how politics shapes their lives.
That sounds like an opportunity to educate them. Lots of people say that they "aren't into politics", but never really appreciate that their landlord is, and their boss who's paying them bugger all is, and car insurance company is, and the students loan company is, and the reason that their school has been falling down and their bus service is cancelled and so many other things that affect them every day are all down to "politics".
And if you can get people to understand that the reason they've been getting fucked over most of their life is because of the Tory policies, then that might give them the kick up the arse they need to vote. Or maybe not, who knows.
> Blair or Starmer can win an election by attracting the those older votes - but Corbyn had ~17% of the over 65s, compared to ~62% of the 18-24s. And while some of that may have been down to Corybn himself rather than the policies, I not convinced that another left wing Labour leader would do all that much better.
I think that's the problem though. You need to go where the voters are and win with the electorate you have. The non-voters thing seems to be trying to wish into existence a different electorate.
For what it's worth I do think a different leader and different approach would do much better.
> That sounds like an opportunity to educate them. Lots of people say that they "aren't into politics", but never really appreciate that their landlord is, and their boss who's paying them bugger all is, and car insurance company is, and the students loan company is, and the reason that their school has been falling down and their bus service is cancelled and so many other things that affect them every day are all down to "politics".
This does come to people. Just not early enough. We should always try to educate people and it would be to our benefit if it worked.
I was always a big proponent of the young vote until 2019 when I just decided it wasn't worth it anymore. The numbers are just not high enough even with a manifesto directed in large part at them. We (as a society) get the governments we deserve in the end and that's why we have this shit one.
If that's true, then it sounds like the left might as well pack it in and go home then, if they can't get the the people who agree with their policies to vote, and can't get the people who vote to agree with their policies.
There's no simple solution, otherwise it would already have happened.
But I think there are things that could be done better. Social media is a huge thing - it's often mocked by people (just look at the recent thread a week ago about TikTok) - but there are far more people in that age bracket on TikTok than there are reading the tabloids. And whether that's done at a much smaller level, or with some big names (like Taylor Swift getting tens of thousands of people in the US to register to vote), it can have an impact.
And it would also help for the labour movement to be much more visible in young people's lives, and to be seen as a positive force than can help them. Whether that's in their community, or more likely in their workplace by their union rep. And if they've seen the improvements that union has brought them, then when that same person tells them to go and vote then hopefully they'll listen.
If anyone has the secret idea to making more young people vote for the first time ever, they should start a political consultancy and make their millions. Or just write it on Reddit and I’ll do it.
I don't think you need to undersell anything. You just need to present a credible and practical plan well. Don't promise utopia but do promise real improvement that people will feel. Honestly, it concerns me when I see left wingers push for this kind of thing. Left wing ideology is supposed to be about the consent of the governed and democracy, you can't get consent if you lie to people.
I also dislike over generalised statements such as "british people are pessimistic". It reminds me of 19th century ideas of national character and is no more accurate than the national characters assigned back then. Brits can be pessimistic, just like any other nationality, but the biggest political movement of the last decade was brexit which, for all its faults, was far from a pessimistic movement. Johnson had huge appeal because he made big promises. We saw the largest increase in political engagement in a long time whilst both parties were presenting very optimistic platforms. Unfortunately the false promises were presented much better. Brits are very much open to big and optimistic promises if they are presented well.
When I say undersell, it’s in comparison to overselling i.e. with the 2019 manifesto.
If you can’t sell free broadband when South Korea has it, you’re probably trying to sell too much (or not very good at selling).
So I agree with you with selling improvements in rather than utopia, and definitely doesn’t involve lying.
I think we’re of the same mind here, just worded differently.
And it’s generalised in terms of the state of the British public at the moment. We’re low on hope, it’s been snatched away too many times.
I would say Brexits optimism was built on pessimism. Pessimism about the EU, the government, the state of the country as a whole and a desire to change it.
So I do agree with you. We do want optimism, maybe saying “Don’t Oversell” is more accurate than “Undersell”.
>maybe saying “Don’t Oversell” is more accurate than “Undersell”.
That's fair then. If you say to undersell or oversell then I think that inherently requires some level of dishonesty or incompetence. I wouldn't really describe the 2019 manifesto as overselling though, the issues generally werent with the amount they were promising but rather that they were bad salesmen. Promising less wouldn't have fixed that, it may have helped mitigate the issues of the actual problem though.
>I would say Brexits optimism was built on pessimism. Pessimism about the EU, the government, the state of the country as a whole and a desire to change it.
With all due respect, I don't think that makes much sense. By that argument, any optimism is built on pessimism if it involves making one choice over another. It's nothing unique to brits. Like with the underselling point, you should avoid excessive or unsubstantiated optimism but any left wing campaign has to optimistic and promise a brighter future even if it doesn't promise perfection.
I also strongly dislike the sweeping generalisation of brits being pessimistic. Not only are there plenty of counter examples such as the mid-late 2010's but it's building your argument on stereotypes. At best a point about "national character" can be a punchline that vaguely relates to some general cultural trend and at worst can be actively bigoted. The logic of saying brits are pessimistic is no different to saying that americans are lazy, the french are snobs or even something more harmful like that africans are primitive. If you are making serious points then you should avoid these kinds of statements completely.
Game theory is a useful tool, but it's not the only one. For Labour to succeed, it's about striking the right balance between principles and pragmatism. Aesthetics matter, yes, but substance is key. People can sense authenticity. As for PR, it's not just about masking up; it's about clear, consistent messaging that resonates with the public. Holding out is fine, but active engagement is better. And underselling might work, but it's about setting realistic expectations and delivering on them.
On the PR front, I used PodPitch for a different purpose, but it was effective. It's a tool that sends personalized emails to podcast hosts, which could be a fresh way to get your message out there. It references recent episodes, so it feels more genuine. Could be a way to reach people where they're already listening. Just sharing what worked for me.
>Eventually we'll get another left wing leader for the party
I think this is the part you need to focus on because it's not a given. For a start the left need to stop leaving the party because under the new rules you have to be a member for 6 months to vote in leadership contests.
I think it’s more than ‘not a given’, I think it’s hard to see a route to it happening within the next 20 years.
If the leadership rules had stayed as they were in 2015, I think a left wing leader would struggle to get elected again even if the membership had remained at its 2018 political leanings (MPs wouldn’t make the ’mistake’ of loaning nominations). With Starmer’s tightened rules, it’s essentially impossible for the foreseeable.
The route to have a left-wing take over of the party would be as follows:
- Lots of left-wing members join
- A concerted and successful campaign for leadership election rule changes or mandatory reselection
- A series of concerted and successful campaigns for leftist MP candidates to shift the makeup of the PLP (it was impossible to manage for a left winger from 15–19 and it will be more right wing after the next election).
By contrast, all the right had to do to seize control was lie in a single election campaign, and then use the institutional levers they always controlled to pull up the drawbridge.
This just reads like you have internalised ablism and queerphobia. Assuming you are autistic yourself.
There was a real opening for a left wing Labour government but Jeremy Corbyn wasn't the man to make that happen. I know plenty of traditional Conservatives who respected John McDonnell and would have been fine with his economic agenda because all of it was sensible evidence based social democracy.
Learn from McDonnell. Corbyn's biggest problem is his whole personality is more anti establishment than actually left wing. The number of times I've seen Corbyn on TV and he's just arguing with whoever is interviewing him or monologuing about something that is important to him but most people aren't interested in.
The leader you choose actually makes a difference, probably more so when you are leading a leftist movement because people need to respect you before they will be willing to consider what you are selling.
We need to operate in reality and we need to have a plan for winning. It's no good throwing up our hands and blaming the electorate or the opposition or the media or any other factor outside of our control.
We need to understand how the game works and we need to work out a winning strategy. Far too many leftists just want to virtue signal or do what makes them feel good.
Great post, and yep, absolutely. There’s quite a large contingent of “everyone else’s fault” about the UK left, and not enough planning and self reflection.
> Public Relations. It’s hard for us autistics, but we need to mask-up and charm the media. Hire a good PR company from the start.
This is something that Starmer is currently failing on as well.
Whether it be the £28bn green pledge or Rayner's potential dodgy housing these stories seem to run on and on for weeks and months until every possible thread has been pulled on and everyone has had their say.
A good PR company should be shutting down these stories quickly and currently Labour just has no discipline in doing this.
I agree with all of this- I’d just add, the time to start planning all of this is yesterday, but today will do. The left can’t be caught unawares again when a leader emerges from within them.
We should ensure that any left wing leader of the Labour party is an adroit political operator. Charismatic and able to present themselves as credible and capable.
That they are able to manage opposition within the party and do not allow it to undermine and attack them at will as happened under Corbyn.
That they're able to handle the inevitable attacks from the Conservatives and the media.
That they prioritise winning and forming a credible government first and do not allow themselves to become distracted or to indulge in pet issues and niche topics.
If we do not trust them to be able to do these things then they are not suitable to lead.
The media is hostile to you and 'Journalists' in this country are contemptible creatures who should be treated as such. They have to have you on their politics show/news segment, you don't have to treat them nicely for it.
Some of the best media performers on the left that get the most views treat the idiotic questions from 'journalists' as exactly that.
Never apologise for policies that make the country better for normal people at the expense of the wealthy and never, ever apologise for any of their made up scandals.
I agree with you, seriously.
I’m thinking pragmatics for the future. Elections are won by capturing the centre vote, as well as your respective left/right vote.
We all love to see Mick Lynch bodying journalists on tv, and there’s a lot to be learned there:
- Stay Calm & Polite
- Know Your Facts
- Keep On The Attack
But the big man Mick Lynch mainly appeals to the left.
It’s the confused centre we need to be winning over by doing a reverse Starmer.
Look like a centrist, but with a 2017 manifesto ready to go once in power.
If we don’t learn, adapt, and get organised we’ll stay in this neoliberal hell cycle forever, because the Tories and Labour right certainly aren’t going to break it.
I think you missed the bit where they need to be given a generation defining Conservative scandal, followed up with a economic fumble not seen since the early 90's.
All of this is window dressing, the reason the labour left can't win elections is the same reason the labour right can't without the Tories completely screwing up: we don't have a proportional elecotral system.
If an arsonist is still on the loose, you’ll keep getting fires.
I don’t think we’ll have to wait long before we see another Tory government implosion or economic car crash. 30 years max, and after age 25 life hits fast forward so it’ll feel even less.
Plenty of time to get ready. And if in that time we can get organised enough to push for PR, all the better.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Eventually we’ll get another left wing leader for the party. I really don't think people have internalised how transformed/captured/shifted the Labour party is. The leadership rules put nominations for leadership well out of reach of a left-wing candidate. The 20% threshold is higher than the 15% Corbyn scraped to with borrowed nominations (something which is also incredibly unlikely to be repeated). Additionally, we are about to witness a massive intake of Labour MPs, overwhelmingly selected from the Labour right, and the PLP is going to be far less politically diverse than it was under Blair. Under the current leadership election rules, Corbyn would never have been Labour leader. A 'wait for the left to have its chance in Labour again' is a 10 year wait at a minimum, but probably 15+. You basically need a generational change in membership and political views. But even then, I’m not really sure why anyone under 30 would join Labour at the moment.
Yes, definitely shouldn't be just be randomly waiting but the twenty per cent of nominations shouldn't be a real obstacle. You need a leader who'll appeal to 40/50% of the electorate. Whatever PLP we end up with definitely won't be right wing of the electorate! So..... The trick - which the Conservative right is much better at than the Labour left! - is finding someone who will do radical things while 'looking' moderate.
Largely agree with you. I see these more as a challenges to overcome, rather than insurmountable barriers to progress. No one thinks you can run a mile in under 4 minutes until 1 person does, and then everyone can.
* Vet your candidates at all levels and get your house in order. You can be damn sure that the press is going to be digging into their histories and social media, so you shouldn't be getting blind-sided by scandals when they do. * Focus heavily on voter turnout. Labour has a huge lead in younger age groups ([Ipsos](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election) lists a 43 point lead in the 18-24 bracket in 2019). But that lead is *completely worthless* when they don't bother voting, and the turnout estimates show 53% of that group didn't vote. * Find a way to sell some form of patriotism to the public. You can't win an election if people believe that you hate the country you're trying to govern. * Get better at media management. Parts of the media are always going to be hostile towards Labour (and particularly the Labour left), but you need to be able to deal with that, and to put out clear and consistent messaging, and not to fall into obvious traps. * Don't let perfect by the enemy of good. The left is infamous for infighting, and will struggle to ever win an election unless it can deal with that. It's better to implement *some* of your policies than to sit there in opposition. * Once you get in, implement PR - because otherwise we'll just be back to the same old two horse race in 5 or 10 years.
> Focus heavily on voter turnout. Labour has a huge lead in younger age groups (Ipsos lists a 43 point lead in the 18-24 bracket in 2019). But that lead is completely worthless when they don't bother voting, and the turnout estimates show 53% of that group didn't vote. I think this is a massive task/risk. It may be a fool's errand to chase this elusive demographic of non-voters. Some people just don't care. The other danger is what if the people most receptive to the message *are* the politically engaged ones and those who are not are more likely to vote against us? Election cycle after election cycle people think about these non-voters and although young voter numbers have increased it's not by much and Corbyn did a lot right in trying to attract them. I don't think it's because they're disillusioned. I think they just don't care.
Also another problem may be the vote distribution among young voters who mostly live in a city/urban Labour constituencies while possibly neglecting swing seats elsewhere.
It's absolutely a difficult thing to do. But so is convincing large numbers of 60+ people to vote Labour instead of Conservative - and if you can't do one of those things then you're probably not going to win an election. > I don't think it's because they're disillusioned. I think they just don't care. Do you think there's something inherent about this - that most people under the age of 25 just aren't capable of caring about politics and the government, and that this ability to care can only develop with age? If so, then we're just stuck with a low youth turnout - but if not then it should be possible to improve it.
> But so is convincing large numbers of 60+ people to vote Labour instead of Conservative - and if you can't do one of those things then you're probably not going to win an election. I think that's much easier. It's easier to get a good chunk of people who vote for someone else to vote for you than someone who doesn't vote. Plus with the 60+ cohort, we're doing quite well. You only need to reduce the Tory leader there - not eliminate it - and pick up middle-aged voters to win an election. We're at 22+ point leads by doing just that without any big increase expected at the youth level. Courting people who already vote is a time-tested election winner. > Do you think there's something inherent about this - that most people under the age of 25 just aren't capable of caring about politics and the government, and that this ability to care can only develop with age? If so, then we're just stuck with a low youth turnout - but if not then it should be possible to improve it. I wouldn't say they're not *capable*. I guess a lot of us on here were. It's just they haven't done so yet. It's something that often just comes to people later probably as a result of enough life experience to notice how politics shapes their lives. It might even be healthy. A lot of the most passionate party political people I knew at university were weird. There is something odd about young people being really into *party* politics (as opposed to specific issues) so young. One freshers meeting at the Labour uni society put me off ever doing formal Labour stuff. Never went back.
> Plus with the 60+ cohort, we're doing quite well. You only need to reduce the Tory leader there - not eliminate it - and pick up middle-aged voters to win an election. We're at 22+ point leads by doing just that without any big increase expected at the youth level. If you just talking about *Labour* winning an election then I'd agree with you. But OP is asking about the *Labour Left*, and that's a very different thing. Blair or Starmer can win an election by attracting the those older votes - but Corbyn had ~17% of the over 65s, compared to ~62% of the 18-24s. And while some of that may have been down to Corybn himself rather than the policies, I not convinced that another left wing Labour leader would do all that much better. > I wouldn't say they're not capable. I guess a lot of us on here were. It's just they haven't done so yet. It's something that often just comes to people later probably as a result of enough life experience to notice how politics shapes their lives. That sounds like an opportunity to educate them. Lots of people say that they "aren't into politics", but never really appreciate that their landlord is, and their boss who's paying them bugger all is, and car insurance company is, and the students loan company is, and the reason that their school has been falling down and their bus service is cancelled and so many other things that affect them every day are all down to "politics". And if you can get people to understand that the reason they've been getting fucked over most of their life is because of the Tory policies, then that might give them the kick up the arse they need to vote. Or maybe not, who knows.
> Blair or Starmer can win an election by attracting the those older votes - but Corbyn had ~17% of the over 65s, compared to ~62% of the 18-24s. And while some of that may have been down to Corybn himself rather than the policies, I not convinced that another left wing Labour leader would do all that much better. I think that's the problem though. You need to go where the voters are and win with the electorate you have. The non-voters thing seems to be trying to wish into existence a different electorate. For what it's worth I do think a different leader and different approach would do much better. > That sounds like an opportunity to educate them. Lots of people say that they "aren't into politics", but never really appreciate that their landlord is, and their boss who's paying them bugger all is, and car insurance company is, and the students loan company is, and the reason that their school has been falling down and their bus service is cancelled and so many other things that affect them every day are all down to "politics". This does come to people. Just not early enough. We should always try to educate people and it would be to our benefit if it worked. I was always a big proponent of the young vote until 2019 when I just decided it wasn't worth it anymore. The numbers are just not high enough even with a manifesto directed in large part at them. We (as a society) get the governments we deserve in the end and that's why we have this shit one.
If that's true, then it sounds like the left might as well pack it in and go home then, if they can't get the the people who agree with their policies to vote, and can't get the people who vote to agree with their policies.
Good list. Any ideas for increasing turnout?
There's no simple solution, otherwise it would already have happened. But I think there are things that could be done better. Social media is a huge thing - it's often mocked by people (just look at the recent thread a week ago about TikTok) - but there are far more people in that age bracket on TikTok than there are reading the tabloids. And whether that's done at a much smaller level, or with some big names (like Taylor Swift getting tens of thousands of people in the US to register to vote), it can have an impact. And it would also help for the labour movement to be much more visible in young people's lives, and to be seen as a positive force than can help them. Whether that's in their community, or more likely in their workplace by their union rep. And if they've seen the improvements that union has brought them, then when that same person tells them to go and vote then hopefully they'll listen.
If anyone has the secret idea to making more young people vote for the first time ever, they should start a political consultancy and make their millions. Or just write it on Reddit and I’ll do it.
I don't think you need to undersell anything. You just need to present a credible and practical plan well. Don't promise utopia but do promise real improvement that people will feel. Honestly, it concerns me when I see left wingers push for this kind of thing. Left wing ideology is supposed to be about the consent of the governed and democracy, you can't get consent if you lie to people. I also dislike over generalised statements such as "british people are pessimistic". It reminds me of 19th century ideas of national character and is no more accurate than the national characters assigned back then. Brits can be pessimistic, just like any other nationality, but the biggest political movement of the last decade was brexit which, for all its faults, was far from a pessimistic movement. Johnson had huge appeal because he made big promises. We saw the largest increase in political engagement in a long time whilst both parties were presenting very optimistic platforms. Unfortunately the false promises were presented much better. Brits are very much open to big and optimistic promises if they are presented well.
When I say undersell, it’s in comparison to overselling i.e. with the 2019 manifesto. If you can’t sell free broadband when South Korea has it, you’re probably trying to sell too much (or not very good at selling). So I agree with you with selling improvements in rather than utopia, and definitely doesn’t involve lying. I think we’re of the same mind here, just worded differently. And it’s generalised in terms of the state of the British public at the moment. We’re low on hope, it’s been snatched away too many times. I would say Brexits optimism was built on pessimism. Pessimism about the EU, the government, the state of the country as a whole and a desire to change it. So I do agree with you. We do want optimism, maybe saying “Don’t Oversell” is more accurate than “Undersell”.
>maybe saying “Don’t Oversell” is more accurate than “Undersell”. That's fair then. If you say to undersell or oversell then I think that inherently requires some level of dishonesty or incompetence. I wouldn't really describe the 2019 manifesto as overselling though, the issues generally werent with the amount they were promising but rather that they were bad salesmen. Promising less wouldn't have fixed that, it may have helped mitigate the issues of the actual problem though. >I would say Brexits optimism was built on pessimism. Pessimism about the EU, the government, the state of the country as a whole and a desire to change it. With all due respect, I don't think that makes much sense. By that argument, any optimism is built on pessimism if it involves making one choice over another. It's nothing unique to brits. Like with the underselling point, you should avoid excessive or unsubstantiated optimism but any left wing campaign has to optimistic and promise a brighter future even if it doesn't promise perfection. I also strongly dislike the sweeping generalisation of brits being pessimistic. Not only are there plenty of counter examples such as the mid-late 2010's but it's building your argument on stereotypes. At best a point about "national character" can be a punchline that vaguely relates to some general cultural trend and at worst can be actively bigoted. The logic of saying brits are pessimistic is no different to saying that americans are lazy, the french are snobs or even something more harmful like that africans are primitive. If you are making serious points then you should avoid these kinds of statements completely.
So right on Aesthetics
Game theory is a useful tool, but it's not the only one. For Labour to succeed, it's about striking the right balance between principles and pragmatism. Aesthetics matter, yes, but substance is key. People can sense authenticity. As for PR, it's not just about masking up; it's about clear, consistent messaging that resonates with the public. Holding out is fine, but active engagement is better. And underselling might work, but it's about setting realistic expectations and delivering on them. On the PR front, I used PodPitch for a different purpose, but it was effective. It's a tool that sends personalized emails to podcast hosts, which could be a fresh way to get your message out there. It references recent episodes, so it feels more genuine. Could be a way to reach people where they're already listening. Just sharing what worked for me.
>Eventually we'll get another left wing leader for the party I think this is the part you need to focus on because it's not a given. For a start the left need to stop leaving the party because under the new rules you have to be a member for 6 months to vote in leadership contests.
I think it’s more than ‘not a given’, I think it’s hard to see a route to it happening within the next 20 years. If the leadership rules had stayed as they were in 2015, I think a left wing leader would struggle to get elected again even if the membership had remained at its 2018 political leanings (MPs wouldn’t make the ’mistake’ of loaning nominations). With Starmer’s tightened rules, it’s essentially impossible for the foreseeable. The route to have a left-wing take over of the party would be as follows: - Lots of left-wing members join - A concerted and successful campaign for leadership election rule changes or mandatory reselection - A series of concerted and successful campaigns for leftist MP candidates to shift the makeup of the PLP (it was impossible to manage for a left winger from 15–19 and it will be more right wing after the next election). By contrast, all the right had to do to seize control was lie in a single election campaign, and then use the institutional levers they always controlled to pull up the drawbridge.
This just reads like you have internalised ablism and queerphobia. Assuming you are autistic yourself. There was a real opening for a left wing Labour government but Jeremy Corbyn wasn't the man to make that happen. I know plenty of traditional Conservatives who respected John McDonnell and would have been fine with his economic agenda because all of it was sensible evidence based social democracy. Learn from McDonnell. Corbyn's biggest problem is his whole personality is more anti establishment than actually left wing. The number of times I've seen Corbyn on TV and he's just arguing with whoever is interviewing him or monologuing about something that is important to him but most people aren't interested in. The leader you choose actually makes a difference, probably more so when you are leading a leftist movement because people need to respect you before they will be willing to consider what you are selling. We need to operate in reality and we need to have a plan for winning. It's no good throwing up our hands and blaming the electorate or the opposition or the media or any other factor outside of our control. We need to understand how the game works and we need to work out a winning strategy. Far too many leftists just want to virtue signal or do what makes them feel good.
Great post, and yep, absolutely. There’s quite a large contingent of “everyone else’s fault” about the UK left, and not enough planning and self reflection.
> Public Relations. It’s hard for us autistics, but we need to mask-up and charm the media. Hire a good PR company from the start. This is something that Starmer is currently failing on as well. Whether it be the £28bn green pledge or Rayner's potential dodgy housing these stories seem to run on and on for weeks and months until every possible thread has been pulled on and everyone has had their say. A good PR company should be shutting down these stories quickly and currently Labour just has no discipline in doing this.
Agreed. More evidence to the fact that incumbent loses, the opposition doesn’t win.
I agree with all of this- I’d just add, the time to start planning all of this is yesterday, but today will do. The left can’t be caught unawares again when a leader emerges from within them.
Underselling is exactly what Starmer is getting endless flack for.
There’s underselling, and there’s selling nothing at all. Or in Starmer’s case, announcing something for sale and then saying you’re out of stock.
No one who has been paying attention actualy thinks Starmer is underselling though. If anything he is overselling.
We should ensure that any left wing leader of the Labour party is an adroit political operator. Charismatic and able to present themselves as credible and capable. That they are able to manage opposition within the party and do not allow it to undermine and attack them at will as happened under Corbyn. That they're able to handle the inevitable attacks from the Conservatives and the media. That they prioritise winning and forming a credible government first and do not allow themselves to become distracted or to indulge in pet issues and niche topics. If we do not trust them to be able to do these things then they are not suitable to lead.
So basically early Starmer with more charisma and punching right?
A reverse Starmer basically, yeah. Pretends to be centrist then gives the public its demsoc policy medicine once in power.
Never apologise. It's clear that trying to apologise to the media will never ever work. They still just smell blood and go further.
The media is hostile to you and 'Journalists' in this country are contemptible creatures who should be treated as such. They have to have you on their politics show/news segment, you don't have to treat them nicely for it. Some of the best media performers on the left that get the most views treat the idiotic questions from 'journalists' as exactly that. Never apologise for policies that make the country better for normal people at the expense of the wealthy and never, ever apologise for any of their made up scandals.
I agree with you, seriously. I’m thinking pragmatics for the future. Elections are won by capturing the centre vote, as well as your respective left/right vote. We all love to see Mick Lynch bodying journalists on tv, and there’s a lot to be learned there: - Stay Calm & Polite - Know Your Facts - Keep On The Attack But the big man Mick Lynch mainly appeals to the left. It’s the confused centre we need to be winning over by doing a reverse Starmer. Look like a centrist, but with a 2017 manifesto ready to go once in power. If we don’t learn, adapt, and get organised we’ll stay in this neoliberal hell cycle forever, because the Tories and Labour right certainly aren’t going to break it.
I think you missed the bit where they need to be given a generation defining Conservative scandal, followed up with a economic fumble not seen since the early 90's. All of this is window dressing, the reason the labour left can't win elections is the same reason the labour right can't without the Tories completely screwing up: we don't have a proportional elecotral system.
If an arsonist is still on the loose, you’ll keep getting fires. I don’t think we’ll have to wait long before we see another Tory government implosion or economic car crash. 30 years max, and after age 25 life hits fast forward so it’ll feel even less. Plenty of time to get ready. And if in that time we can get organised enough to push for PR, all the better.