As a Dutchie living in London I met Rob Jetten after he had just been voted in as party leader around 8 years ago, at age 31. He was invited on all the Dutch talkshows (there's many of them, the Dutch LOVE a talkshow...), and due to first-day nerves and repeating all the same talking points, got the nickname Robot Jetten. Yet when I met him in person at an event for Dutch people in the UK less than a week later, he came across as kind, warm and intelligent. Sometimes people just need a bit of time to get used to their roles, but even 8 years ago the media was quite unforgiving.
In many ways it is a good thing that they can express themselves in a more personal way on social media. I agree it's mindboggling that most UK politicians haven't grasped that yet. It's also incredibly frustrating that they still seem to concentrate on Twitter (I refuse to call it X) as their source for info and where they have their presence, given the state of it now.
Ian Ian Ian, you’ve just committed the gravest of sins, not only have you criticised 2 time election loser Jeremy Corbyn, but committed the ultimate sin of criticising 2 time election loser Jeremy Corbyn in very accurate ways, the supporters of 2 time election loser Jeremy Corbyn are going to make your replies a living hell for the next week or so
Why would they bother? Ian's refusal to accept Labour are a Conservative govt in all but name reveals a level of inflexibility and unwillingness to face facts that would do Corbyn proud. As for 'two time election loser', you mean the same as Kinnock, and in total 'centrist' Labour lost, um, four elections. Not only that, Kinnock could not point to being undermined by his own party, as could Gordon and Ed as well as Corbyn. They may not have been so ruthlessly undermined as the latter, but Blairs mob saw to it they wouldn't win as best they could.
And there it is, there’s a reason I repeated 2 time election loser again and again to bring this out of the woodwork, it’s always everyone else’s fault with Jeremy, plus not sure if you’re aware but the UK is a Westminster system, that means you govern via the support of parliament, which means at a minimum requiring the support of your own party, the fact Jeremy didn’t resign when well over half his own MPs made it clear they couldn’t stomach him as leader says everything you need to know about him and his supporters childish selfish view of how politics works, hell even Thatcher walked when she couldn’t get to 2/3 of her own caucus (and she had well over half)
And please for the love of God don’t dare mention the votes of members, it will just show you don’t understand how the Westminster system works, show you think you live in a Presidential system because you spend far too much time online and will get you instantly blocked
One final note, its also clear from your comments you neither have, nor want to, any idea of what was happening to the Labour party during the Corbyn years. The briefings given to the press by right wing Labour MP's that were a tissue of porkies, yet 'somehow' became BBC news main features, and the dirty tricks the right played at all levels to get their way (indeed, so petty were they, that they stripped the leaders office of all IT equipment, chairs and tables - despite being told the opposite was to happen). I know, as a party member, and one who saw our local MP tell outright lies to smear the CLP, lies which ended up with us having to hold meetings in private. Our local councillors, Blairite to a man and woman, as useless and self serving as their Tory predecessors, also staged a coup, ousting all the youngest new Labour council members, after smearing them as 'trotskyites'. I knew some of them, and they were no such thing. But serves them right for running on a ticket of ending local corruption eh? Still, at least the Greens are making inroads into our rotten borough, getting rid of Labour in the process. Having lived under, Tory, Liberal and Labour councils in this area, you couldn't get a fag paper between the useless lot of them. Alas, speaking to many CLP members across the UK, all this was commonplace, not an 'exception'.
As others have commented, centrists have been an utter menace in the UK, and elsewhere, shivering in their boots at the thought of govts that might force them to pay a bit more tax, and show a little bit more genuine concern for others. They resisted, along with the right, any attempt to introduce policies that would benefit communities in trouble, supported austerity over successful economic policies, and helped ensure the rise of the Far right by doing so. Yet, despite being the dominant voting bloc besides the right, turned round and blamed a left which has no power, and very little influence.
'slow handclap', so you were childishly attempting to goad people into a response? Err, well done.
Corbyn is by no means infallible, as the fiasco with Your Party has demonstrated so well. He is not a people person, has zero charisma, and is, as Ian rightly says, prickly when put under the spotlight, none of which endears him to the wider electorate or the media. However, no leader, ever, has succeeded in winning an election when the party haven't backed them. As for Corbyn resigning after the right orchestrated a walkout to force a leadership change to one they wanted, why would he when he won the vote of the members, and did it again shortly afterwards. I mention the members, because they voted for him, and gave him a vote of confidence again, shortly afterwards. Oh, and I do understand how Westminster works only too well, I worked in it for years, and yes, you do govern by dint of Parliament. However, last time I checked, Corbyn was not PM and thus had no cabinet and back benchers in govt to answer to. The shadow cabinet is not answerable to anyone but the leader, and backbenchers in opposition have no power whatsoever.
At least so centrists keep telling us? Or is that yet more empty spin from that quarter?
Then we have the nonsense about Thatcher... Thatcher walked because it was clear the party would not back her as Prime Minister, despite her proven success, and because they felt the next election could be won if she was ousted. They were proved right. Corbyn by contrast was still a newly elected party leader when the right tried its coup, and the election as far as anyone knew at that point was years away. There is no comparison, and anyone who knows how politics works would never compare the two situations.
Oh and by the way, love love LOVED the socialism episodes in Origin Story, my only comment would be, not sure if you’ve read Court of the Red Tsar (I’m guessing not as I’m sure it’s got parts of it you would have quoted from) but if not and even though you’re likely tired of reading about Stalin at this point, honestly mate can’t recommend it highly enough, I’ve read front to back three times and dipped in for a few chapters half a dozen more times, I’ll guarantee you’ll love it and possibly be slightly disappointed you didn’t read it before the podcast series
Interesting that your focus is on comparing Zohran Mamdani with Corbyn - spelling out Corbyn's weaknesses. But you give only a passing nod to Zack Polanski, and no mention of Starmer's weaknesses. Even more "interesting" when you consider that The Greens are now ahead of Labour in the polls. Are you not doing an inverted main-stream-media?
I've seen several Polanski interviews and I would say he has exactly the same potential as Mamdani. He is an easy watch; intelligent; and does not give way to interviewer pressure. Yes, he can learn a lot from Mamdani, (his Spanish video was a masterpiece), but of all the party leaders we have right now, Zack Polanski is the only one that has a chance of emulating that.
First of all, the opening couple of paragraphs were excellent. "Victories on the left are contingent and transitory while victories on the right are abiding and profound." Absolutely spot on.
But then you go on to say "Many progressives will ignore it [Mamdani's victory] too, out of a tribal hatred of either centrism on the one hand or socialism on the other." Where does 'centrism' fit into this? Surely 'centrists' are the very people who tried to stop Mamdani being a candidate, and poured cold water on him throughout his campaign? That he succeeded was against their worst efforts. Aren't the centrists precisely the people who point out the exceptional circumstances of any leftist win, and always, always exert their 'realism' gravity field to pull in anyone on the left towards the failed and dsicredited centre?
I had to smile when you started pronouncing on how to perform on social media. I guess you are a bit younger than me, but you are on the cusp between Gen X and Millennial, which means you were well into adulthood by the time social media even began - let alone TikTok. So for you to be lecturing us on what effective social media use for politicians is has to be some sort of satire.
Anyway. You tell us that Zack Polanski is OKish at this stuff, apparently. Perhaps you missed the fact that since he became leader the membership of the Green party has more than doubled, and overtaken both the Tories and Lib Dems. Most of this surge is from younger people - you know, the main consumers of things like TikTok and Instagram - which suggests that he is being remarkably effective in getting through. So, a little better than OK.
The rest of your 'analysis' amounts to 'Be Happy; Target; Novelty'. Here's the really weird thing, you say this "Joy and hope are powerful, even radical, in an era of doom." Agreed. Who among current UK political leaders most offers hope and joy and novelty? Farage? Starmer? Badenoch? Davies? Well, Badenoch offers some novelty value in that she is aiming to make Liz Truss look like a success, but otherwise the only one that is both new and positive, is Polanski.
You go on to say, apparently without any sense of irony, "We can learn all these things if progressives are prepared to learn from one another,". Yet you barely mention, and only then to criticise, the one politician we have who is making waves with younger people, and bringing a progressive, radical and hopeful message. There is a reason why many people who see the need for radical change are not keen on centrists like yourself - because centrists have consistently blocked any meaningful change, and attacked or derided those who try to offer it.
As for your comparison of Corbyn with Mamdani...seriously? Yes, both are democratic socialists, and both appealed to young, radical people desperate for someone to represent them. But, there were many clear differences beyond their propensity to exude joviality. One an elderly white man, an elected politician for 40 year, understandably wary of the media who, throughout his entire career, had sought to undermine, ridicule and dimsiss him. The other a young brown Muslim man, early in his political trajectory, fired up by the rise of fascism around him and the denied genocide of the Palestinians, who knew he needed to project positivity, and would have to overcome the bias and prejudice that his race would attract, without the long personal history of betrayal by those in the media, and the almost automatic self-protective caution that would induce to work against.
The idea that Corbyn could have won if he had smiled a bit more seems like a shallow and implausible take. Are you seriously suggesting that we could have had a genuinely leftwing government in 2017 if not for the fact that Corbyn was a bit grumpy with Sun journos?
Ah joy and hope. We really need both. Went to a meeting this week for progressives worried about democracy. Most of the speakers bashed labour to bits.. There’s no hope if progressives don’t work together.
Increase in living wage, taking railways into national ownership, free breakfasts for primary school children, closer working with the EU, more investment in housing & NHS, GB energy…
you can argue it’s not enough and there have been disastrous comms and poor choices as well, but against a terrible international backdrop, to say it’s no different isn’t correct either.
Perhaps that's because Labour are not progressives? The current govt is right wing Conservative, and its time the centrists finally admitted they backed the wrong horse for the wrong reasons. There is not one single policy area where Labour are any different from the Sunak govt, and increasingly sound more and more like Farage and Badenoch on key issues. Then of course there is the lies, the endless, wearying lies. Indeed, if I hear one more right wing politician say, 'welfare spending is out of control' (Badenoch, Farage, 30p and Reeves just this week) I swear I'll scream! Because, the ONS says - it isn't. Not by a long chalk. Indeed, its going to be a lot less as a % of GDP by 2030 (at current spending levels), not as we are constantly told, a lot more.
Indeed, currently there are zero positives from this govt (the TUC no longer believes a single element of the workers rights bills will be enforceable by the time it becomes official, the rail nationalisation isn't going to happen and so on), education is still a privatised, underfunded mess, with no change in sight, health is in a worse state due to Streetings more, not less, privatisation policies, infrastructure is getting a pittance spent on it (local economists have shown Reeves 'splurge' is spread so thin its a drop in the ocean once its doled out), and Welfare and Immigration are being used as a way of showing Labour can out right wing the far right. Please explain what, if any, evidence there is of Labour being 'progressive'?
The left in the UK isn’t as obsessed with Corbyn as you seem to think. There was a moment when as leader of the Labour party he had a slim but real chance of steering this country onto a different course from which we’ve found ourselves. People like you and other centrists who posture as progressives when there’s nothing at stake to you did all you could to prevent that (alongside the rest of the establishment media). Now we have a Labour Party that relishes in parroting the far right on immigration and welfare and only comes to life in the moments it is working to purge the left from itself. I hope one day you have the humility to recognise the part you played in that. Maybe the fact you keep bringing Corbyn up when the left has largely moved on is an indication of some latent guilt in there.
If Mamdani was a British political leader there is no doubt you would oppose him in the same way you oppose Zarah Sultana, Faiza Shaheen, Zack Polanski and basically any of the principled and impressive political figures of the actual left (hard left as you would call it). These are people who dedicate their lives to progressive change while you sneer from behind your keyboard. Don’t flatter yourself by claiming to be a progressive or of the left. You're not and never will be. You chose a route that gives you a nice cushy media career where you say very little of interest and nothing controversial and appeal to a milquetoast demographic of propertied white boomers. You’re a coward and a fraud and for the record a tedious swearing habit isn’t an adequate substitute for an actual wit.
Spot on. The same applies to the majority of Ian's followers. Like McSweeney, they'd rather see the UK under a far right bunch of lying imbeciles than even a moderately left wing govt.
As so often, a delight to read. Clear, thoughtful and well argued.
Your last point about Labour's communications strategy is the one that really puzzles me. As you say, their apparent obsession with the aging readers of the right wing press is baffling. I suspect that there is more to it than simple electoral calculus (our biggest threat is Reform ergo we need to be where many of their voters are). As you say, that falls down even on its own terms, especially given votes at 16. I wonder if there is some deeper psychological need for 'establishment' approval that is driving this approach - an approval that will (of course) never be forthcoming. And they wouldn't be the first Labour government to behave like that.
Their collective lack of confidence since winning their majority has been astonishing. Can you imagine the Tories governing in such a way with such a mandate? Just to pose the question shows how pusillanimous Starmer and co have been.
"The first and most important attribute we saw this week was joy. Mamdani seems to have smiled for so long, for his entire life, that there are these permanent dimples on his cheeks."
Just on your point about tailored electorates - it’s something I’ve been thinking about recently, and since you mention the American context I wonder if you’ve heard Ezra Klein recently saying things like Democrats should run pro-life candidates in “red” areas. He gets into it more in his interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates, who rejects the idea that we should sacrifice principles (and often marginalised people) for political gain. Coates is convincing to me, and he acknowledges his role as a writer and not a politician. I don’t know if the same ideas apply here in the UK, but I’m certain that Labour’s failure to appear to stand for any principles at all hasn’t helped them in any part of England.
Ian, nice to see my nation of birth the Netherlands mentioned as a useful place in the year 2025. No nonsense about windmills, flower bulbs and wooden shoes (klompen, just so you all know now), but a lively place where dramatic as well as good things happen and where some politically good choices to run the country have been made. As a result the holdups in traffic jams might be a mite aggravating, but one can always use the train. And oh yes; many thanks for the concise course of how to be successful as a politician in nations clinging to the two-party FPTP voting system.
You didn’t mention, incidentally that FPTP in fact is a very basic adversarial system that stands in the way of finding a widely acceptable route out of problematic issues. You don’t discuss things in positive terms to find mutually acceptable answers on problematic issues with someone you really want to be kicked out of the way of your aspirations to seriously couple up to the glory of being interviewed and taken seriously in the media, or have a place in the gravy train of alt-right politics.
Excellent piece, and plenty of sensible insights. The social media one seems obvious (though it still seems to escape Labour) but the optimism/jollity one is even more important. It worked for Barack Obama!
There are people who voted for Trump in 2024 and Mamdani in 2025. Some of that will be voting for anyone who seems like kicking the establishment; but some of it is also that element of ‘seems like a real human, a fun guy even!’
Why would they bother? Ian's refusal to accept Labour are a Conservative govt in all but name reveals a level of inflexibility and unwillingness to face facts that would do Corbyn proud. As for 'two time election loser', you mean the same as Kinnock, and in total 'centrist' Labour lost, um, four elections. Not only that, Kinnock could not point to being undermined by his own party, as could Gordon and Ed as well as Corbyn. They may not have been so ruthlessly undermined as the latter, but Blairs mob saw to it they wouldn't win as best they could.
I liked your joy take but then again it’s depressing how Tommy Robinson gains so much twitter traction and he sulks around with a face like a bag of smashed cups ..
Its not just Robinson though, and its not just X or whatever Musk is calling it these days. The BBC has become just as poisonous under its leadership of former Tory advisors, with never ending articles pushing immigration (evils of) LGBT (evils of) the disabled (evils of) and generally tacitily supporting Reform. But then, in fairness, the BBC did announce they would be 'seeking to tailor our programming to be more acceptable to Reform voters'. They weren't kidding. Unfortunately, while yes, social media is becoming more important in the propaganda war, in particular for the right (which is still easily winning it), the main stream media is where the majority of the UK's older voters get their information from - and they are the largest voting bloc. In the USA older voters have been successfully persuaded by online political debate (if you can call it that), but, despite claims to the contrary, data from the last three elections show its yet to happen here.
Here we go - "minutes of a meeting of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee in March show that BBC News CEO Deborah Turness gave a presentation “on plans to address low trust issues with Reform. In this presentation, she reportedly outlined plans to alter “story selection” and “other types of output, such as drama” to appeal to Reform voters." The 'story selection' bit is most troubling as I'm being bombarded on my feed by BBC stories putting anti migrant marchers, and anti migrant articles in the best possible light.
As a Dutchie living in London I met Rob Jetten after he had just been voted in as party leader around 8 years ago, at age 31. He was invited on all the Dutch talkshows (there's many of them, the Dutch LOVE a talkshow...), and due to first-day nerves and repeating all the same talking points, got the nickname Robot Jetten. Yet when I met him in person at an event for Dutch people in the UK less than a week later, he came across as kind, warm and intelligent. Sometimes people just need a bit of time to get used to their roles, but even 8 years ago the media was quite unforgiving.
In many ways it is a good thing that they can express themselves in a more personal way on social media. I agree it's mindboggling that most UK politicians haven't grasped that yet. It's also incredibly frustrating that they still seem to concentrate on Twitter (I refuse to call it X) as their source for info and where they have their presence, given the state of it now.
I want the clip of Ian saying ‘Cunting bastard, son of a Bitch!’ As my ringtone
Wow I'd pay good money for that!
Ian Ian Ian, you’ve just committed the gravest of sins, not only have you criticised 2 time election loser Jeremy Corbyn, but committed the ultimate sin of criticising 2 time election loser Jeremy Corbyn in very accurate ways, the supporters of 2 time election loser Jeremy Corbyn are going to make your replies a living hell for the next week or so
Why would they bother? Ian's refusal to accept Labour are a Conservative govt in all but name reveals a level of inflexibility and unwillingness to face facts that would do Corbyn proud. As for 'two time election loser', you mean the same as Kinnock, and in total 'centrist' Labour lost, um, four elections. Not only that, Kinnock could not point to being undermined by his own party, as could Gordon and Ed as well as Corbyn. They may not have been so ruthlessly undermined as the latter, but Blairs mob saw to it they wouldn't win as best they could.
And there it is, there’s a reason I repeated 2 time election loser again and again to bring this out of the woodwork, it’s always everyone else’s fault with Jeremy, plus not sure if you’re aware but the UK is a Westminster system, that means you govern via the support of parliament, which means at a minimum requiring the support of your own party, the fact Jeremy didn’t resign when well over half his own MPs made it clear they couldn’t stomach him as leader says everything you need to know about him and his supporters childish selfish view of how politics works, hell even Thatcher walked when she couldn’t get to 2/3 of her own caucus (and she had well over half)
And please for the love of God don’t dare mention the votes of members, it will just show you don’t understand how the Westminster system works, show you think you live in a Presidential system because you spend far too much time online and will get you instantly blocked
One final note, its also clear from your comments you neither have, nor want to, any idea of what was happening to the Labour party during the Corbyn years. The briefings given to the press by right wing Labour MP's that were a tissue of porkies, yet 'somehow' became BBC news main features, and the dirty tricks the right played at all levels to get their way (indeed, so petty were they, that they stripped the leaders office of all IT equipment, chairs and tables - despite being told the opposite was to happen). I know, as a party member, and one who saw our local MP tell outright lies to smear the CLP, lies which ended up with us having to hold meetings in private. Our local councillors, Blairite to a man and woman, as useless and self serving as their Tory predecessors, also staged a coup, ousting all the youngest new Labour council members, after smearing them as 'trotskyites'. I knew some of them, and they were no such thing. But serves them right for running on a ticket of ending local corruption eh? Still, at least the Greens are making inroads into our rotten borough, getting rid of Labour in the process. Having lived under, Tory, Liberal and Labour councils in this area, you couldn't get a fag paper between the useless lot of them. Alas, speaking to many CLP members across the UK, all this was commonplace, not an 'exception'.
As others have commented, centrists have been an utter menace in the UK, and elsewhere, shivering in their boots at the thought of govts that might force them to pay a bit more tax, and show a little bit more genuine concern for others. They resisted, along with the right, any attempt to introduce policies that would benefit communities in trouble, supported austerity over successful economic policies, and helped ensure the rise of the Far right by doing so. Yet, despite being the dominant voting bloc besides the right, turned round and blamed a left which has no power, and very little influence.
So, another big hand clap all round...
It’s hilarious to me you think I’d read past the second sentence
Not surprised in the slightest. When presented with reality the centrist tends to sulk off in the beemer to the nearest wine bar...
'slow handclap', so you were childishly attempting to goad people into a response? Err, well done.
Corbyn is by no means infallible, as the fiasco with Your Party has demonstrated so well. He is not a people person, has zero charisma, and is, as Ian rightly says, prickly when put under the spotlight, none of which endears him to the wider electorate or the media. However, no leader, ever, has succeeded in winning an election when the party haven't backed them. As for Corbyn resigning after the right orchestrated a walkout to force a leadership change to one they wanted, why would he when he won the vote of the members, and did it again shortly afterwards. I mention the members, because they voted for him, and gave him a vote of confidence again, shortly afterwards. Oh, and I do understand how Westminster works only too well, I worked in it for years, and yes, you do govern by dint of Parliament. However, last time I checked, Corbyn was not PM and thus had no cabinet and back benchers in govt to answer to. The shadow cabinet is not answerable to anyone but the leader, and backbenchers in opposition have no power whatsoever.
At least so centrists keep telling us? Or is that yet more empty spin from that quarter?
Then we have the nonsense about Thatcher... Thatcher walked because it was clear the party would not back her as Prime Minister, despite her proven success, and because they felt the next election could be won if she was ousted. They were proved right. Corbyn by contrast was still a newly elected party leader when the right tried its coup, and the election as far as anyone knew at that point was years away. There is no comparison, and anyone who knows how politics works would never compare the two situations.
It's hard to take anyone seriously once they've used the "Labour are Conservatives in disguise" line. It's patently untrue and a bit facile.
Oh and by the way, love love LOVED the socialism episodes in Origin Story, my only comment would be, not sure if you’ve read Court of the Red Tsar (I’m guessing not as I’m sure it’s got parts of it you would have quoted from) but if not and even though you’re likely tired of reading about Stalin at this point, honestly mate can’t recommend it highly enough, I’ve read front to back three times and dipped in for a few chapters half a dozen more times, I’ll guarantee you’ll love it and possibly be slightly disappointed you didn’t read it before the podcast series
Hmmm, OK!
Interesting that your focus is on comparing Zohran Mamdani with Corbyn - spelling out Corbyn's weaknesses. But you give only a passing nod to Zack Polanski, and no mention of Starmer's weaknesses. Even more "interesting" when you consider that The Greens are now ahead of Labour in the polls. Are you not doing an inverted main-stream-media?
I've seen several Polanski interviews and I would say he has exactly the same potential as Mamdani. He is an easy watch; intelligent; and does not give way to interviewer pressure. Yes, he can learn a lot from Mamdani, (his Spanish video was a masterpiece), but of all the party leaders we have right now, Zack Polanski is the only one that has a chance of emulating that.
#VoteGreen
First of all, the opening couple of paragraphs were excellent. "Victories on the left are contingent and transitory while victories on the right are abiding and profound." Absolutely spot on.
But then you go on to say "Many progressives will ignore it [Mamdani's victory] too, out of a tribal hatred of either centrism on the one hand or socialism on the other." Where does 'centrism' fit into this? Surely 'centrists' are the very people who tried to stop Mamdani being a candidate, and poured cold water on him throughout his campaign? That he succeeded was against their worst efforts. Aren't the centrists precisely the people who point out the exceptional circumstances of any leftist win, and always, always exert their 'realism' gravity field to pull in anyone on the left towards the failed and dsicredited centre?
I had to smile when you started pronouncing on how to perform on social media. I guess you are a bit younger than me, but you are on the cusp between Gen X and Millennial, which means you were well into adulthood by the time social media even began - let alone TikTok. So for you to be lecturing us on what effective social media use for politicians is has to be some sort of satire.
Anyway. You tell us that Zack Polanski is OKish at this stuff, apparently. Perhaps you missed the fact that since he became leader the membership of the Green party has more than doubled, and overtaken both the Tories and Lib Dems. Most of this surge is from younger people - you know, the main consumers of things like TikTok and Instagram - which suggests that he is being remarkably effective in getting through. So, a little better than OK.
The rest of your 'analysis' amounts to 'Be Happy; Target; Novelty'. Here's the really weird thing, you say this "Joy and hope are powerful, even radical, in an era of doom." Agreed. Who among current UK political leaders most offers hope and joy and novelty? Farage? Starmer? Badenoch? Davies? Well, Badenoch offers some novelty value in that she is aiming to make Liz Truss look like a success, but otherwise the only one that is both new and positive, is Polanski.
You go on to say, apparently without any sense of irony, "We can learn all these things if progressives are prepared to learn from one another,". Yet you barely mention, and only then to criticise, the one politician we have who is making waves with younger people, and bringing a progressive, radical and hopeful message. There is a reason why many people who see the need for radical change are not keen on centrists like yourself - because centrists have consistently blocked any meaningful change, and attacked or derided those who try to offer it.
As for your comparison of Corbyn with Mamdani...seriously? Yes, both are democratic socialists, and both appealed to young, radical people desperate for someone to represent them. But, there were many clear differences beyond their propensity to exude joviality. One an elderly white man, an elected politician for 40 year, understandably wary of the media who, throughout his entire career, had sought to undermine, ridicule and dimsiss him. The other a young brown Muslim man, early in his political trajectory, fired up by the rise of fascism around him and the denied genocide of the Palestinians, who knew he needed to project positivity, and would have to overcome the bias and prejudice that his race would attract, without the long personal history of betrayal by those in the media, and the almost automatic self-protective caution that would induce to work against.
The idea that Corbyn could have won if he had smiled a bit more seems like a shallow and implausible take. Are you seriously suggesting that we could have had a genuinely leftwing government in 2017 if not for the fact that Corbyn was a bit grumpy with Sun journos?
Ah joy and hope. We really need both. Went to a meeting this week for progressives worried about democracy. Most of the speakers bashed labour to bits.. There’s no hope if progressives don’t work together.
Increase in living wage, taking railways into national ownership, free breakfasts for primary school children, closer working with the EU, more investment in housing & NHS, GB energy…
you can argue it’s not enough and there have been disastrous comms and poor choices as well, but against a terrible international backdrop, to say it’s no different isn’t correct either.
Perhaps that's because Labour are not progressives? The current govt is right wing Conservative, and its time the centrists finally admitted they backed the wrong horse for the wrong reasons. There is not one single policy area where Labour are any different from the Sunak govt, and increasingly sound more and more like Farage and Badenoch on key issues. Then of course there is the lies, the endless, wearying lies. Indeed, if I hear one more right wing politician say, 'welfare spending is out of control' (Badenoch, Farage, 30p and Reeves just this week) I swear I'll scream! Because, the ONS says - it isn't. Not by a long chalk. Indeed, its going to be a lot less as a % of GDP by 2030 (at current spending levels), not as we are constantly told, a lot more.
Indeed, currently there are zero positives from this govt (the TUC no longer believes a single element of the workers rights bills will be enforceable by the time it becomes official, the rail nationalisation isn't going to happen and so on), education is still a privatised, underfunded mess, with no change in sight, health is in a worse state due to Streetings more, not less, privatisation policies, infrastructure is getting a pittance spent on it (local economists have shown Reeves 'splurge' is spread so thin its a drop in the ocean once its doled out), and Welfare and Immigration are being used as a way of showing Labour can out right wing the far right. Please explain what, if any, evidence there is of Labour being 'progressive'?
The left in the UK isn’t as obsessed with Corbyn as you seem to think. There was a moment when as leader of the Labour party he had a slim but real chance of steering this country onto a different course from which we’ve found ourselves. People like you and other centrists who posture as progressives when there’s nothing at stake to you did all you could to prevent that (alongside the rest of the establishment media). Now we have a Labour Party that relishes in parroting the far right on immigration and welfare and only comes to life in the moments it is working to purge the left from itself. I hope one day you have the humility to recognise the part you played in that. Maybe the fact you keep bringing Corbyn up when the left has largely moved on is an indication of some latent guilt in there.
If Mamdani was a British political leader there is no doubt you would oppose him in the same way you oppose Zarah Sultana, Faiza Shaheen, Zack Polanski and basically any of the principled and impressive political figures of the actual left (hard left as you would call it). These are people who dedicate their lives to progressive change while you sneer from behind your keyboard. Don’t flatter yourself by claiming to be a progressive or of the left. You're not and never will be. You chose a route that gives you a nice cushy media career where you say very little of interest and nothing controversial and appeal to a milquetoast demographic of propertied white boomers. You’re a coward and a fraud and for the record a tedious swearing habit isn’t an adequate substitute for an actual wit.
Spot on. The same applies to the majority of Ian's followers. Like McSweeney, they'd rather see the UK under a far right bunch of lying imbeciles than even a moderately left wing govt.
Surely it's those of your political persuasion who are less likely to vote Labour to keep Reform out, and instead vote Green???
As so often, a delight to read. Clear, thoughtful and well argued.
Your last point about Labour's communications strategy is the one that really puzzles me. As you say, their apparent obsession with the aging readers of the right wing press is baffling. I suspect that there is more to it than simple electoral calculus (our biggest threat is Reform ergo we need to be where many of their voters are). As you say, that falls down even on its own terms, especially given votes at 16. I wonder if there is some deeper psychological need for 'establishment' approval that is driving this approach - an approval that will (of course) never be forthcoming. And they wouldn't be the first Labour government to behave like that.
Their collective lack of confidence since winning their majority has been astonishing. Can you imagine the Tories governing in such a way with such a mandate? Just to pose the question shows how pusillanimous Starmer and co have been.
Honestly I read this article like a nodding dog. Brilliant analysis, and did indeed inspire a little hope.
"The first and most important attribute we saw this week was joy. Mamdani seems to have smiled for so long, for his entire life, that there are these permanent dimples on his cheeks."
Unrelated to this, his partner is quite hot
Great article, thanks Ian.
Just on your point about tailored electorates - it’s something I’ve been thinking about recently, and since you mention the American context I wonder if you’ve heard Ezra Klein recently saying things like Democrats should run pro-life candidates in “red” areas. He gets into it more in his interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates, who rejects the idea that we should sacrifice principles (and often marginalised people) for political gain. Coates is convincing to me, and he acknowledges his role as a writer and not a politician. I don’t know if the same ideas apply here in the UK, but I’m certain that Labour’s failure to appear to stand for any principles at all hasn’t helped them in any part of England.
Ian, nice to see my nation of birth the Netherlands mentioned as a useful place in the year 2025. No nonsense about windmills, flower bulbs and wooden shoes (klompen, just so you all know now), but a lively place where dramatic as well as good things happen and where some politically good choices to run the country have been made. As a result the holdups in traffic jams might be a mite aggravating, but one can always use the train. And oh yes; many thanks for the concise course of how to be successful as a politician in nations clinging to the two-party FPTP voting system.
You didn’t mention, incidentally that FPTP in fact is a very basic adversarial system that stands in the way of finding a widely acceptable route out of problematic issues. You don’t discuss things in positive terms to find mutually acceptable answers on problematic issues with someone you really want to be kicked out of the way of your aspirations to seriously couple up to the glory of being interviewed and taken seriously in the media, or have a place in the gravy train of alt-right politics.
Excellent piece, and plenty of sensible insights. The social media one seems obvious (though it still seems to escape Labour) but the optimism/jollity one is even more important. It worked for Barack Obama!
There are people who voted for Trump in 2024 and Mamdani in 2025. Some of that will be voting for anyone who seems like kicking the establishment; but some of it is also that element of ‘seems like a real human, a fun guy even!’
In my head I have this perfect image of Ian’s dog standing by the doorbell emitting a Muttley snigger.
Why would they bother? Ian's refusal to accept Labour are a Conservative govt in all but name reveals a level of inflexibility and unwillingness to face facts that would do Corbyn proud. As for 'two time election loser', you mean the same as Kinnock, and in total 'centrist' Labour lost, um, four elections. Not only that, Kinnock could not point to being undermined by his own party, as could Gordon and Ed as well as Corbyn. They may not have been so ruthlessly undermined as the latter, but Blairs mob saw to it they wouldn't win as best they could.
I liked your joy take but then again it’s depressing how Tommy Robinson gains so much twitter traction and he sulks around with a face like a bag of smashed cups ..
Its not just Robinson though, and its not just X or whatever Musk is calling it these days. The BBC has become just as poisonous under its leadership of former Tory advisors, with never ending articles pushing immigration (evils of) LGBT (evils of) the disabled (evils of) and generally tacitily supporting Reform. But then, in fairness, the BBC did announce they would be 'seeking to tailor our programming to be more acceptable to Reform voters'. They weren't kidding. Unfortunately, while yes, social media is becoming more important in the propaganda war, in particular for the right (which is still easily winning it), the main stream media is where the majority of the UK's older voters get their information from - and they are the largest voting bloc. In the USA older voters have been successfully persuaded by online political debate (if you can call it that), but, despite claims to the contrary, data from the last three elections show its yet to happen here.
I pretty much agree but would love to see a source for the BBC/Reform claim
Here we go - "minutes of a meeting of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee in March show that BBC News CEO Deborah Turness gave a presentation “on plans to address low trust issues with Reform. In this presentation, she reportedly outlined plans to alter “story selection” and “other types of output, such as drama” to appeal to Reform voters." The 'story selection' bit is most troubling as I'm being bombarded on my feed by BBC stories putting anti migrant marchers, and anti migrant articles in the best possible light.