Starmer insults women’s intelligence to blame Sunak for judicial failures when it was Starmer’s CPS that failed to prosecute rapists

The polls suggest the lead is narrowing though. And the perception here is that the ads are a mess, and have been hidden from anyone who'd be likely to speak against them. Hardly any of the shadow cabinet has even retweeted or endorsed them

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/11/joe-biden-ireland-rishi-sunak-news-latest-stormont-starmer/

www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/96-hour-doctors-strike-bidens-bumpy-landing-starmer-sticks-to-his-guns/

@MarshaBradyo come on that may be true but unlikely. What I actually see, even from this thread, is that it's policy that people care about.

Labour will keep playing this card. In the battle of the technocrats, I don't see either major party candidate's personality being decisive. What will matter is perception of the party itself. Kier has to make Labour credible, Sunak has to say that the Conservatives have have more in the tank.

When you look at the polls, Labour have had the best of it. These attack ads are designed to develop against Sunak and his competence. Given the engagement on them, I think it's done well. It's attacked here because of inconsistency and flip flopping which I think is fair. But does that mean ineffective? No.

‘Perception is everything’

Sure and if people are talking about how crap they are, and Starmer is - which is the case not just on mn FWR - that’ll be what sticks.

@Datun - you are correct on those points but the purpose is to set a general narrative- that is usually much more successful in terms of communicating messages. Both parties use this tactic, and while you may be engaged, I'm willing to bet that this does land in the way it is intended.

Not including colleagues... well, par for the course. Johnson did the same on Savile. Did that finish him off or was it a much bigger perception that he was a liar?

Perception is everything- people forget the detail.

Except none of the shadow cabinet seems to have been consulted, and the person who is responsible for the adverts didn't realise that the very next day, Keir Starmer would look like a right twat as it was him not Sunak who was on the committee for sentencing.

There may be merit in building up a campaign of doubt over one of the Tories' policies, like crime, but this seems to have been drawn on the back of a fag packet and implemented without anyone else knowing.

And this is after an initial reaction of many thinking that these sort of tactics are just unworthy, cheap shots.

Until now I thought that Starmer was an untrustworthy weasel on self ID but otherwise a decent person who wanted to make people’s lives better. It sounds contradictory but that’s what I thought. Now he’s doubling down on the smearing of political opponents and basically lying about them I can’t convince myself he’s fundamentally decent anymore. As a pp pointed out, people aren’t surprised when the Tories do this but they feel let down when Labour do it, especially whilst still claiming the moral high ground.

I agree and I think part of the problem is that Starmer's position on self-ID is less clear than it used to be. It used to be in favour of self-ID but now it seems to be something different every day depending on who he's talking to. It's uncomfortably reminisent of his stance on Brexit in 2019 which, whether rightly or wrongly, was seen as unclear and flip floppy.

Thing about Blair is arguably the best thing he ever did (from an election-winning perspective, if not from an ideological one) was abolish Clause IV. I remember my step-dad going mad with rage about it at the time. But rightly or wrongly it was a very clear line in the sand that took Labour from a socialist party to a socially democratic one. Starmer's verion of the Clause IV moment is kicking Corbyn out of the party. Which is probably not enough to show that Labour has moved on.

Well... I would imagine that if I were Kier Starmer and I had made a right pigs ear of trans policy I would announce the following...

Self ID needs further thought to the implications for women's safe spaces

And then announce a Taskforce, commission or other wonk policy space to consider options.

That is, btw, about all the Conservatives will do if they amend the GRA on the basis that biological sex is the correct meaning of sex. If Labour matches that commitment (it should) then there will be next to no difference between the two main parties.

Btw I don't want to get too cynical but the use of a Taskforce or commission to tell you something is happening is so standard to politics that Suella Braverman has just done the same for grooming. She has all the knowledge already, but a Taskforce sounds... dynamic.

Why drop something you think is political suicide AFTER you have been elected? If you want it and are worried about elections you pass it straight away so it has years to bed down and (you hope) prove your critics wrong before the next election. Of at least hope that voters forget it was you and have other priorities by then.

Labour are going to have to say that before the election, then.

What? Women are going to vote Labour in the hope that they'll drop self ID once they're elected, despite them not even promising that and still wanging on about modernising the GRA and most women not having penises?

I was a Labour Party member during the Kinnock and then the Blair years and I can assure you that a lot of active members hated being in government. I know that was quite a long time ago but I see little evidence that this has changed. I believe that Starmer very much wants to win (just like Blair did) but I think a lot of activists - at least at grassroots level - are quite comfortable in permanent opposition.

Yes that's my perception too.

@EmotionalSupportHyena "And we’re the traditional Labour voters that Labour is likely to lose over IDPOL/being too focused on middle class graduates living in the south."

Snap! My family/circle I grew up with are all what I call tribal Labour voters - I remember my grandmother telling me as a child that "Labour are the party for us; Conservatives are for rich people". However since 2015 they have all switched to Tory, Lib Dem or Plaid Cymru.

@Flowerly - your view. My view is no! Political parties like power better than principle. That is a more significant rule than any principle the Labour Party have ever had.

If they can get rid of Clause IV, they can drop self ID like a stone.

He's already under pressure from Labour in Scotland. Scotland! Where self-ID just ended a political career. Note that Sarwar says he and Starmer agree on the "substance". We know what that means here. Self-ID. Labour will do it.

digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/1301/reader/reader.html?social#!preferred/0/package/1301/pub/1301/page/26/article/NaN

"SIR KEIR STARMER should pass a law to allow 16-year-olds to change their gender if he wins the next election, the Scottish Labour leader has suggested.

Anas Sarwar said his party must “learn the lesson from Scotland” and pursue gender reforms “over a longer period of time” while reassuring women and protecting single-sex spaces based on biological sex.

But he said while he and Sir Keir agree on “substance of the issue” on transgender rights, he has a “different view” on the age teenagers should be allowed to change their gender in law."

But he will do none of these things.

Neither the Conservatives nor Labour will implement trans self ID as it's a form of electoral suicide, so my vote will go on what I get for my money

Labour will introduce self id.

Those of us who have Labour police and crime commissioners/Metro Mayors won’t be trusting Labour to be tougher on crime though - we can see with our own eyes that they are shit at it.

And we’re the traditional Labour voters that Labour is likely to lose over IDPOL/being too focused on middle class graduates living in the south.

Well, he could always get rid of the brainless devotees of identity politics. He could promote some sensible MPs. If the Labour party has enough to fill the Shadow Cabinet.

And if he weren't terrified of losing the voters who are devotees of identity politics. Though a thorough review of how many of them actually vote, in what constituencies and what effect their votes would have on electoral results in a FPTP system might be a good idea.

Well it's a challenge that cuts both ways. The actual cabinet is impeccably third rate!

But it will be the squabble of the technocrats. A very dull election to come, punctuated by ads like these in an attempt to make it have narrative.

I personally don't give Sunak points for spending a lot of money during COVID. Is he better than Johnson or Truss then yea, but it's a low hurdle. Purely on what's in my pocket, I'm paying more tax and getting less, and I've got a new set of mortgage rates thanks to Liz Truss and her nutty policies. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour will implement trans self ID as it's a form of electoral suicide, so my vote will go on what I get for my money. At the moment, I'm paying for Conservative mess ups and not too happy about it.

Yes I think that Starmer might well be a different prospect if his shadow cabinet had half a brain between them and were not mired in identity politics.

I agree that Sunak and Starmer are both charisma-free zones but Sunak is rightly or wrongly seen as competent with the conomy. His popularity got a huge boost during Covid and still has benefits from that.

Starmer's best bet is to present himself as 'boring but competent'. After the shower of idiots Johnson, Truss et al, people want boring but competent.

Straw polls amongst my (Red Wall, trad working class, immigrant, conservative with small c) family and old friends suggest that Starmer is seen as decent but the rest of the front bench is seen as 'clowns', 'student politics', 'toytown politicians' (all direct quotes). I don't know what Starmer does about this tbh. Rayner, Streeting etc are simply nowhere near the level of Mo Mowlem, Robin Cook and the other heavyweights that Blair benefitted from in the mid-90s.

@potniatheron - the decency point is important. I don't think if I were advising Kier Starmer I'd be majoring on his personality! I would be going for "competent vs incompetent" and "understands doing the right thing vs gives mates money".

These are perceptions you can work with. Neither Sunak nor Starmer are very charismatic. They both have the same problem. But Sunak has thirteen years to account for. That's lots of "incompetence and not caring" to use.

Still, Labour will need some active policy to win.

I can't wait until KJK's POW starts doing ads like this about Starmer.

And unlike this ad, however incredible they seem (e.g. Starmer advocates for male rapists in women's prisons) they'll definitely be true and demonstrably so for anyone who scratches beneath the surface.

Has anyone looked at whether 'woke' police forces are worse at actual crime than 'non woke'? Because all this time spent on KJK's wrongthink is taken away from something else.

The Tories need to sort stuff out but SOME of the crap things that have happened are due to the fact the police have insufficient accountability and have enacted Labour policies (such as self ID) which are not currently law. It's the whole Stonewall policy capture within organisations 'getting ahead of the law' and being 'progressive' (whilst removing rights from 50% of the population). And I can't see how Labour being in power is going to do anything other than make that worse.

They are not after leftie women's votes

Many 'leftie' women will never vote Labour again - I am one of them. They are making a grave miscalculation here because they have managed to alienate women and will hopefully be punished for this in the polls.

There is always the sense that women's votes don't really matter but I think that they are starting to realise that they do and massively so. Fools.

But have the Conservatives got a poor record on crime then yes they do and voters do think this. And it is a bigger concern than Brexit.

Yes this is true but Labour is seen as too soft on what many voters believe are the 'causes of crime' currently ie too much immigration, police wasting their time on 'hate crimes', soft sentencing, stop and search etc.