As for Andy, me singing his praises is hardly anything new. The party would be in a very very different place now if we’d have had him instead of Grandad 6 years (which seems like an eternity) ago, very likely actually in power
Flipflop Burnham would have been Ed Miliband MK2. Any decent interviewer turned him inside out on his changing views. He's not even doing that well in Manchester, policing is a disaster under his watch. The spatial plan took ages, disappeared and then reappeared as a reduced effort. It's not all bad but he's not all that.
Well what do you reckon BnD? Since you asked this fascinating question.
He's average for me, not a snooze fest but not exciting, not energised by him, but no worse that the others that stood for leader.
Found this article with a quick Google and it sums up a lot of the issues Labour and Starmer have quite well
Now it’s Keir Starmer’s turn to face the heresy charges of the left. He takes his place in the lineage of Labour leaders who, upon assuming control of the party, find half of his own side loathe him. It’s all very confusing.
Burnham was out of his depth and bereft of ideas.
Agreed.
Any decent interviewer turned him inside out on his changing views.
Agreed.
He’s not even doing that well in Manchester
Don't agree. He's found his place, and is performing his role well, in Manchester, which I didn't expect at all. Glad to be wrong on that count.
Now it’s Keir Starmer’s turn to face the heresy charges of the left.
Importantly, any leader after Corbyn was going to face this. Even more than past leaders. But he absolutely should have been ready to deal with it, there's no surprises for him in that regards. To say he's not doing well, or that those attacking him from "the left" are being given an easy task, is to put it mildly.
He’s not even doing that well in Manchester
The 67% of voters in Greater Manchester who just re-elected him clearly don’t agree with you on that one
My point about Andy is that for the last god-know-how-long he’s the only Labour politician who looks like he’s in possession of a pair and is up for the fight.
Corbyn phoned-in the last election campaign and Starmer looks like he’d rather be doing anything else.
Now it’s Keir Starmer’s turn to face the heresy charges of the left. He takes his place in the lineage of Labour leaders who, upon assuming control of the party, find half of his own side loathe him.
They didn't at the start of his reign though, hence why loads of them voted for him.
Don’t agree. He’s found his place, and is performing his role well, in Manchester, which I didn’t expect at all. Glad to be wrong on that count.
What are the main mayoral roles?
Policing
The GMP is in special measures, Burnham extended the predecessor to the current CC. The new CC has dumped a core part of Burnham's policing message
Planning and housing
The spatial plan was ambitious but it's a mess, still to be resolved, leaves areas at high planning risk until it's in place. Manchester still building developments with no social housing.
Transport/Clean air
The metrolink is already at bursting point on some lines. Road charging is going to make that worse. Ordsall Chord not sorted. Northern Rail a joke. Buses aren't his fault. Good initiatives on Bee lines.
Waste
The GM waste PFI was a £500m disaster(not his fault) what's his strategy to replace it? Food waste has to be diverted from landfill from 2025 it has nowhere to go and not a lot of time to do it
Homelessness
Good work
Health
Not sure what he's done
TWITTER.COM Ouch
the 25% mark is significant, whatever policies come out of conference will be make or break but theres a mountain to climb (Johnson is on about 35%)
still hopeful things can be turned around, but it will take strong & clear (simple) policies to do that
The 67% of voters in Greater Manchester who just re-elected him clearly don’t agree with you on that one
It's a city and most of the local authorities are labour strongholds, Manchester in particular
I suspect it's more to do with the lack of an alternative with a sufficient profile to challenge than anything else.
I voted for him or green (can't remember), it doesn't mean he can't be held to account for his deficiencies.
He's not a leader on a national stage, it doesn't mean some of the points he makes aren't valid and important, nor does the sun shine out of his posterior
It’s a city and most of the local authorities
areused to be labour strongholds, Manchester in particular
FTFY
We now have a load of new Tory MP’s in areas that have been Labour since dinosaurs walked through Miles Platting (last one spotted in 2018)
Local authorities and MPs are not the same thing
The presence of the latter maybe due to the secular Saint....
Ouch
Ouch indeed. And it mirrors what a lot of people on this thread feel. High hopes at the start for someone sensible and experienced enough to deal with Johnson BS but turned out to actually be crap month over month.
If he could be honest with himself he would be going if he really wants a Labour party to have a chance.
The presence of the latter maybe due to the secular Saint…
Despite ‘winning the argument’ I think we all know at who’s door the blame lies
If he could be honest with himself he would be going if he really wants a Labour party to have a chance.
Trying to do his job in covid would have been hard. I would say Christmas is the cut-off to make some impact, gives him conference and a bit of time to get the show moving from that relaunch
I think we all know at who’s door the blame lies
That's a bit harsh on Owen Jones
It's not all his fault...
Despite ‘winning the argument’ I think we all know at who’s door the blame lies
Rent-free in your head.
Thanks for the link to the GQ article BnD, I didn't read it but later I will have a look at their fashion and grooming tips. Cheers
As for Andy, me singing his praises is hardly anything new.
Binners very little of what you say is ever new. Repeating the same thing over and over again is your speciality.
Starmer is furstrating his response to Johnsons NI rise & care plan today was right on every point, but the delivery was lacking in gravitas/charisma & his problem is that he is up against the king of bombastic bullshitters
I still think a decent policy platform come conference season could do it, that gives him 2 years to turn that into a vote winning party b4 the GE, ill reserve judgemnet until xmas, by then we should know what starmerism is
Is it too much to ask for Labour to have a leader that isnt just a nice person, but someone smart, likeable & authentic? Im not sure I ever remember them having someone like that since pre-iraq blair!
I still think a decent policy platform come conference season could do it
I don’t. Policy isn’t the problem. Connection with voters is. He has failed to do so. He will always fail to do so. I predict that his first proper conference and its aftermath will make that plain.
Good policies would help him connect with voters
I know Johnson proves you dont need them at all, but in opposition it matters more, hes got to offer something better
Im not convinced May for example was able to connect with voters, she was just seen a s a steadying hand after years of upheaval, yet the much more 'authentic' corbyn was still unable to beat her
Policy isn’t the problem.
Policy is the very problem, all other problems pale into insignificance in comparison.
In the 2017 general election Labour won 40% of the vote and robbed the Tories of their majority forcing them to form a minority government.
Two years later in 2019 Labour won just 32% of the vote and gave the Tories a thumping great majority of 80.
Same leader with the same personality and the same charisma or lack of charisma, so why the huge difference?
Well putting aside the fact that the Blairite faction had another couple of years to sabotage the party and attack its leader there was one big policy difference between 2017 and 2019. And it was of the most talked about and important issue of the day.
In 2017 Labour had a crystal-clear unambiguous policy of respecting the 2016 referendum result and delivering brexit. Two years later that policy had changed to 'constructive ambiguity' and a firm commitment to a second referendum in which the original question would be asked all over again.
The result of that policy shift was devastating for Labour, and the level of collapse of the Labour vote can be directly connected to how areas voted in the referendum.
Not so say the deniers, nothing to with Labour changing its position on brexit, appointing a utterly commited Remainer as Shadow Brexit Secretary and demanding a second referendum.
The difference, they will claim, between 2017 and 2019 was that in 2017 the Tories had a Leader who had absolutely no charisma and everyone thought was useless, obviously totally ignoring the fact that the only reason she called a completely unnecessary general election in the first place was because every single opinion poll right up to the day she called it predicted that she would win a staggering huge landslide.
In comparison, they will claim, in 2019 the Tories had as leader a great big bundle of blonde loveliness who the voters adored.
The reason the Tories did badly in 2017 was because no one liked May, the reason they did well in 2019 was because everyone loved Johnson and it had nothing to do with Labour except for the fact that it was all Corbyn's fault.
If you believe that binners has a Nigerian uncle who would like to have a word with you.
In 2017 the Tories received 42.4% two years later in 2019 that had only increased by 1.2%.
The Tories didn't go from minority government to massive majority government because of a huge increase in their share of the vote, they instead benefited from a collapse in the Labour vote.
The Tories gained 1.2% Labour lost 7.9%
So corbyn losing the election was not his fault it was the fault of labour not backing Brexit
If only we could find out who was in charge of labour when this policy shift occurred?
In 2017 Labour had a crystal-clear unambiguous policy of respecting the 2016 referendum result and delivering brexit. Two years later that policy had changed to ‘constructive ambiguity’ and a firm commitment to a second referendum in which the original question would be asked all over again
That's quite the rewriting of history
constructive ambiguity on brexit was Labours position precisely because no one had any idea of what brexit meant, into that vacuum we had endless indicative votes, eventually Labour had to take a position, they came down on the remain side, presumably because 60% of labour voters backed it.
A crystal clear ambiguous policy of respecting something as nebulous and ill defined as brexit was then was impossible.
'Respecting the result of the referendum' was as empty a phrase as May's 'Brexit Means Brexit'
At some point corbyn had to come off the fence, alienate the red wall voters (who'd really already left Labour) or the younger remain voters momentum had swept up in 2017
So corbyn losing the election was not his fault it was the fault of labour not backing Brexit
Absolutely it was his fault. He proved to be weak and easily bullied and manipulated. The policy of a second referendum was an electoral disaster for Labour. I hold Corbyn personally responsible for that, and John McDonnell.
Is it is you Kimbers who is attempting to rewrite history by pretending that Labour did not shift its policy on brexit and that it wasn't at the heart of the 2017-19 Labour vote collapse.
Your claim that the "red wall voters" had already left Labour is nonsense, but you know that anyway. In 2017 they remained loyal to Labour.
Corbyn due to his ineptitude and total lack of understanding of traditional Labour voters alienated people whose families had voted Labour for a hundred years. He chose to listen to Guardian reading liberals like yourself rather than them, hence his complete disconnection with the very people that Labour once represented.
Labour insulted the electorate by giving them the same leader to vote for again. Corbyn did well in 2017, and yes, that manifesto helped win voters over (myself included). He never should have stood at a second election, it was total folly obvious to everyone. He was a total personal turn off for voters by 2019.
Yes, Brexit was also a mess for Labour. They tried (and failed) to keep people onside. Any Brexit they proposed derided as “not real Brexit” by some, and “vague fantasy” by others… and eventually moved to a promise to return to the voters after any Brexit reality deviated further and further from the 2016 promises. That’s why the front bench tend to stay well away from it now, even though it’s pushing up taxes on working people, delivering chaos in many industries and services, and creating a mountain of red tape for small business that is only go to grow as grace periods come to an end.
Corbyn due to his ineptitude and total lack of understanding of traditional Labour voters alienated people whose families had voted Labour for a hundred years
Red wall voters had been leaving Labour for a generation, corbyns constructive ambiguity helped bring them back in 2017 (actually Blair also reversed the decline there in 2007)
I'd also argue clear policies: renationalising rail, ending austerity helped massivel
by 2019 election labour had announced over 200 policies 😳
The majority of labour’s voters now reside in cities, not the towns of the red wall, you can hark after the demographics of 200 years ago but they ain't coming back
What actually happened is that in 2017 when the UKIP vote collapsed the majority went to the tories, not Labour in the red wall, the rot was set
Brexit broke labours last grip on those seats, but support there had been wavering for years
So corbyn losing the election was not his fault it was the fault of labour not backing Brexit
If the stupid old Brexiteer dinosaur had actually reflected the views of the the vast majority of Labour Party members, MP’s and voters, and not decided to take a sabbatical for two months on his allotment during the referendum campaign, leaving the pitch free for Boris and Farage then Brexit wouldn’t have been an issue because it would never have happened
But no…. Jeremy was/is only ever interested in reflecting Jeremys view on an issue, as he seems to regard himself as omnipotent
Jus’ sayin’
He chose to listen to Guardian reading liberals like yourself rather than them,
If you think Corbyn represented the views of Guardian readers you must have been smoking crack.
Labour insulted the electorate by giving them the same leader to vote for again.
LOL! That's the first time I have heard that explanation for why Labour did unexpectedly well in 2017 and denied the Tories a majority, and then 2 years later were humiliated by a huge Tory majority!
Did you think that one up yourself, or did you pinch it from someone else?
LOL @ the thought that the first time they weren't too fussed but two years later they felt insulted!
Yeah that's how politics works. But only a truly analytical mind could have worked that out. Forensic even.
I’ve mentioned it many times. I’ve bored people with it. Corbyn got me voting Labour. He should have stood aside after the 2017 election. He stuck around too long and become the bogeyman. Most of what stuck to him was unfair, but the more the public saw of him, the more people didn’t want him as PM.
Timing matters. It’s why I want Labour to replace Starmer about a year out from an election (even though they don’t control the timing or replace their leader in a timely fashion, so would find it very hard to do so). Any new leader will be turned into the wrong man/women within 2 years.
Red wall voters had been leaving Labour for a generation, corbyns constructive ambiguity helped bring them back in 2017 (actually Blair also reversed the decline there in 2007)
Honestly I don't wish to be rude (unless it's binners) but that is so much nonsense that frankly I can't be arsed, I can't see any basis for a constructive discussion.
There's a reason you people call it a "red wall", think about it.
Ah yes binners' great insight that Corbyn should have ignored the red wall voters more and sided whole-heartedly with the urban remainers, but also that he was completely out of touch with the red wall voters, despite actually being in line with them on the issue that was most important to them. Makes a lot of sense 🥴
"You People" 😳
Anyway, yes it was assumed to be an unassailable wall? I didn't name it though
That was a false assumption and the red wall 😏 was crumbling in 2017, when
NE Derbyshire,
Walsall North,
Mansfield,Stoke-on-Trent South, Middlesbrough South
East Cleveland and Copeland
All flipped blue for the first time in 100 years....
Let's be honest at this point I can't see those seats coming back for some time
Yeah you people, I don't generally use the term, but it a very popular term used by people who aren't working-class.
I wasn't hearing of Labour losing "red wall" seats 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 20 years ago. It seems a completely new phenomenon which started 2 years ago. Tbh I hadn't even heard the term "red wall" until 2 years ago, at least I don't recall doing so. Despite shamefully reading the Guardian on numerous occasions.
it is you Kimbers who is attempting to rewrite history by pretending that Labour did not shift its policy on brexit and that it wasn’t at the heart of the 2017-19 Labour vote collapse.
Pretty much on the button whether you like it or not! TBF appeasing his younger (got trolleyed at a festival the night before and didn't bother) and older voters who actually turn up to vote was an impossible task.
The “Red Wall” is a 2019 political construct, it never existed as a term before then, so you wouldn’t have heard about it being lost before then. But the Conservatives have been taking votes of Labour in the towns and surrounding areas for decades, and Labour support has become more and more city focused. It’s only going to get more difficult for Labour with aging demographics in those areas Labour have lost ground.
It's just a now-commonly used shortcut for 'traditionally safe Labour seats in the north of England' isn't it? And there have been warnings that people in those areas have been taken for granted for years by Labour eg the discussion around Mandelson saying they had 'nowhere else to go'.
Brexit was the straw that broke the camel's back that drove people to UKIP then the Tories/ENP
Ah yes binners’ great insight that Corbyn should have ignored the red wall voters more and sided whole-heartedly with the urban remainers, but also that he was completely out of touch with the red wall voters,
Just about every Labour MP, bar Kate Hoey (who belongs in UKIP), 70% of Labour members and an overwhelming majority of Labour voters were all remain. So as party leader Corbyns job was to reflect that
But he was never going to do that as he’s a lifelong Brexiteer who couldn’t give a toss about anyone’s opinion other than his own, so he went AWOL for the duration of the referendum campaign instead
Once Brexit was a reality, The Red Wall racists who’s side he took would never give him any credit for this as rather than regarding him as a fellow traveller they regarded him as a traitorous, terrorist-sympathising communist, as the Sun had constantly informed them
So he got no credit for what he’d delivered, whereas Boris got the lot
Not a bright lad, politically, was he?
You’re not in Islington now Dorothy
Yeah you people, I don’t generally use the term, but it a very popular term used by people who aren’t working-class.
Oh Ernie you're gonna burst a blood vessel when you hear about the tungsten carbide drillbits were using down the mine now
You don’t count 2019 as a ‘massive collapse’?
2019 was a loss, a bad one, but not a collapse. I’m talking about something like has happened in Scotland, leaving them with with a few tens of MPs rather than a couple of hundred. Because that’s where they’re heading with their principle free, self-obsessed, morally bankrupt, cowardly, cynical machine politics.
Where’s Binners? 😀
Are they both just reading over Sturgeon’s shoulder?
[ you can’t blame them, I would be if I was I was in either of their positions ]
For those with longer memories…
Burnham helped write that. In 2010. And then the country kicked them out.
It’s just a now-commonly used shortcut for ‘traditionally safe Labour seats in the north of England’ isn’t it?
And according to Yougov it provides a false analysis.
"Our survey shows that rather than being a bastion of social conservativism within Britain, these constituencies up and down the North and Midlands contain a great diversity of opinions, and indeed widespread support for a range of what we might consider progressive policies and views.
Furthermore, where Red Wall voters do exhibit socially conservative attitudes, they are not significant stronger (or no more common) than the level of social conservativism which we see among the British public in general.
In other words, the Red Wall is no more socially conservative than Britain as a whole, and characterisation of voters in these areas as predominantly “small c” conservatives concerned about social liberalisation or culture wars is not supported by polling evidence."
YOUGOV.CO.UK There is some evidence that the whole "red wall" is latest political-speak created by the Tories and their supporters to undermine and demoralise the Labour Party. Think about that before you willingly parrot it.
It was made up in 2019, as I said, which is why you didn’t hear about it “being lost” before then.
I believe this is it's first use as a description of particular seats..
It was made up in 2019, as I said, which is why you didn’t hear about it “being lost” before then.
So you don't agree with grum's suggestion that it's a now commonly used shortcut for traditionally safe Labour seats in the north of England?
Or are you suggesting that pre-2019 everyone was talking about the losses in traditional safe Labour seats in the North of England?
Is it a new phenomena or not?
I have no idea what “everyone” was talking about, but what constitutes a “safe” Labour seat has been changing constantly since Thatcher. I agree with those that think it can get worse still outside the cities for Labour. Little dots of red on the map could well become the norm now, I wouldn’t assume either a bounce back or the avoidance of a further drop in Labour support in the big seats the Conservatives have been winning off them since 2010.
Also, yes, of course it is now a commonly used term, exactly as grum describes it. But the reason you didn’t hear about “Red Wall” loses before 2019 is because the term hadn’t been coined before then.
But the reason you didn’t hear about “Red Wall” loses before 2019 is because the term hadn’t been coined before then.
If that is the only reason then obviously we were all hearing about Labour losing traditionally safe Labour seats in the north of England.
Got any links? I would be interested in seeing the scale of these losses.
