In the Tees Valley Mayoral election the Tory candidate won with 73% of the vote! This is the poorest area in England. I heard him on the radio yesterday and he's promising freeports for the decrepit ports up there. He also said he thinks we should turn the whole of the UK into a freeport!
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I'm guessing he watched Tenet on Sky Cinema then.
Can someone explain how a person in their 20s, just out of uni, probably earning max £20,000 and being skint after rent is not the working-class but "woke metropolitan elites" if they live in a city, whereas someone maybe working a trade in a Northern town, comfortably paying off their mortgage with disposable income is the true working-class?
The fact Labour are repeating this stuff is braindead, you'll never win people round by just adopting the Tories language which is being created to undermine your own politics. Corbyn and his senior politicians were maybe deluded but give me a party with a bit of backbone ahead of this self-deprecating subservient Labour that publicly calls themselves crap in order to appear sensible.
Most of what you've outlined in bold was New Labour rhetoric in the 2000s. Patel's points-based immigration system originated in British politics as a Labour party policy. Blair listed being tough on asylum seekers as his top domestic priority on his re-election in 2001. They banged about it at every opportunity in a misguided attempt to satiate the reactionaries by outflanking the Tories to the right. Guess what, it didn't satiate the reactionaries, you can't satiate people who want unreasonable things for illogical reasons. It just emboldened them, shifted the discourse to the right to make the likes of Farage central figures in the immigration debate and alienated a generation of young voters, all whilst failing to win over the people it was targeted to impress because everyone knew the government had no ability to reduce immigration whilst we were in the EU.
What does a bit of rhetoric hurt? Labour ceding the immigration debate to the far right is one of the biggest reasons the country is in the position it is now. For about 15 years before the Brexit vote the only people consistently arguing the merits of immigration and multiculturalism were the Greens. By the time the referendum came round, after a decade of Labour shouting about controls on immigration, the argument for remaining was already lost.
EDIT: I agree Labour are thick though!
Last edited:
Sorry quoting the guardian, for me at least, doesn't mean its anymore relevant, because just like the Daily Express on the right, it has its own readship on the left to satisfy and its own 'spin' to put on things (lies, dam lies ..and statistics). Yes, of course Labour councils were hit (nominally) the hardest as they tended to be either more profligate, or had greater demand for services, either way it isn't rocket science .
The point is Labour does not even recognise the aspirations of the working class anymore, let alone do anything to attract improvements in the economic well-being of their areas. Except for a few notable Labour stalwarts (mostly of the past) the elitism of Labour leaders, (surfacing mainly in the Blair years) was to lecture their voters, pat them on the head, saying "its OK just vote for us...as you have always done", but all that changed was from intellectual liberalism, to Looney left subjects/ideology with Corbyn and Co. The Labour party's treatment of its 'red wall' voters never changed, the party never even blinked, even when it was clear former supporters were leaking to UKIP! (Nandy's still at it claiming there is no such thing as a the 'red wall')
That is why Boris's promise to 'level up' is so enticing for millions of people who have been hanging on by their finger tips for decades and have eventually lost faith in the Labour party, they wanted to hear something from their Government about doing things for their local economy. The have had scheme after scheme launched at them, some did worked reasonably well, but equally some didn't... but none of them were sustainable.
I agree Labour didn't bring certain matters to the fore as they might have done, but the reality was that the so called 'austerity' was inevitable, as it will be when Rishi has to repeat the dose (obviously late as possible and preferably when he becomes PM) due to Covid.
Labour for years squandered the goodwill and admittedly sometimes the understanding of their grass roots supporters, they are now paying for that profligacy and it will take a long time to get back to where they were, even if that is possible!
Labour councils tended to be harder hit because they tended to be in poorer areas. They already receive less money through council tax than richer areas and rely much more on government grants to provide local services. Even if grants were cut to a specific nationwide percentage it's obvious that the effects of those cuts would ultimately be felt more by those councils that relied the most on it.
Worst thing for labour to believe is substance-free analysis that their loss in places like hartlepool due to weasel words like “london metropolitan elite” and “woke”
Its also pretty insulting and downright erroneous to imply london labour voters arent working class. Many are renters, zero hours contracts, no where close to being on the property ladder. I have also literally never seen objective tangible evidence that labour are obsessed with wokeness or identity politics. Their policy platforms post corbyn(especially fiscal policies) have been a bit muddled but very centrist.
There’s a weird subtext to the suggestions that basically implies labour needs to be more conservative to win. Rather than going down the bernie sanders-ish route which is aggressive and effective advocacy of progressive politics to shift the overton window and win people over. By setting aside infighting, and clearly explain to people how them in leadership will improve lives.
Its also pretty insulting and downright erroneous to imply london labour voters arent working class. Many are renters, zero hours contracts, no where close to being on the property ladder. I have also literally never seen objective tangible evidence that labour are obsessed with wokeness or identity politics. Their policy platforms post corbyn(especially fiscal policies) have been a bit muddled but very centrist.
There’s a weird subtext to the suggestions that basically implies labour needs to be more conservative to win. Rather than going down the bernie sanders-ish route which is aggressive and effective advocacy of progressive politics to shift the overton window and win people over. By setting aside infighting, and clearly explain to people how them in leadership will improve lives.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
No worries.
From Milliband and his bacon sandwich to Corbyn and soon even "non offensive to the elites" Starmer. Labour will be slated in the press because the press is owned by billionaires whose interest aligns with the Tories.
Point is, Labour need to work 10x harder than the Tories to gain any media traction when criticising the Tory government. Although, as an aside, the Starmer strategy of generally agreeing with the government plans but making small criticisms is such a poor approach and will never work. It is self defeating. You have to shout about it gain traction with the public and even celebrities until it can't be ignored. E.g. Rashford and school meals.
You dismiss the source but then accept Labour councils had bigger cuts. Very strange.
The point you made was that Labour councils didn't look after their areas and "took people for granted". The irony is that the central Tory government have cut the potential for people in these areas to reach their aspirations, by cutting all council budgets by 30% - 50%. Compounded by Labour council budgets being cut disproportionately. Then you claim Labour "don't recognise the aspirations of the working class anymore.
It really is a facepalm moment. Or Stockholm syndrome at best.
FYI Here is another source.
Have the poorest councils had the biggest cuts?
By Reality Check team
BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47882478
"It's broadly true that many Labour-controlled areas have faced bigger cuts than Conservative-controlled ones."
You're right. Which is why I think the wording should always be positive and not negative.
Something like local houses for local people should focus on the need for affordable housing to keep communities together, rather than "screw jonny foreigner, we're going to put you first".
Similarly even immigration should be spun positively. We're going to focus on getting the best minds from around the world to boost British science and engineering,
we're going to take a multipronged approach to reduce the number of asylum seekers by leading an international effort to resolve conflicts and create safe zones within conflicts where UN peacekeepers can guarantee the safety of refugees.
It's a different way of saying "we're going to keep them away from our shores".
Foreign aid will be directed at creating economic opportunities and providing life changing support to the poorest communities in the world instead of traditional routes where its been misused.
Etc etc.
I keep seeing this or similar statements, but is it borne out by historical patterns? Didn't Thatcher win the 'young' vote, which means the current 50 year old was always likely to lean right?
Bravo.
I’ve not seen it. Nolan’s films don’t land with me at the best of times and this one is supposed to be bad. I’ve been avoiding it.It wasn't bad it was just kind of.......bleh. Like someone promising you the best three course meal of your life, serving an amazing starter but then offering you a middling main course and finishing off with a slice of dogshit cheesecake even though you were expecting a banana split.
I've never argued with that point, it still does not excuse the treatment by Labour of their grass root supporters for years. Labour have never listened, except to what comes back from their own 'echo-chambers' and they are now reaping the world wind of this neglect.
True, Tory cuts will have mitigated against many peoples aspirations, working class or middle class, but when in power nationally (and locally in my case) Labour never even acknowledge ordinary working people aspired to anything more than the first rung on Maslow's Hierarchy.
Of course they have listened. Did you not ever listen yourself to what Corbyn was saying? Granted, the bbc usually spoke over a picture of him looking menacing, so you'd probably need to find a clean source for his true words, but he spoke constantly of the needs of many. He outlined very clearly the problems the brexity areas were facing.
The game is simply rigged towards those with money. It doesn't matter what any left leaning leader says or does, they will be tarred into irrelevance.
Those with actual power will reluctantly lend some power to labour every decade or so, as long as it's not a leftie labour, simply to keep the pretence of democracy alive.
Hopefully Burnham takes over the leadership at some point. The only way that a Labour leader is going to stand a chance is if they're identifiable as a leader. Starmer and Miliband have both been non entities. Corbyn had the "celebrity" factor but was unfortunately too divisive and a poor communicator.
Welsh Labour vows to be ‘radical and ambitious’ following surprising result
Radical and Ambitious. Now there's an idea.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I’d love to know Binface’s second round total.
i know Khan won the first round in any case, but the two rounds really favours the incumbent.
i know Khan won the first round in any case, but the two rounds really favours the incumbent.
Khan had the issue of a lower turnout to deal with this time around as opposed to four years ago. The two rounds is a really good idea, allows people to show their support to a lesser party and not feel like they are wasting a potential vote.
there are positives and negatives.
When I entered the polling station, I wasn’t aware it was two votes - hence my second vote going to Binface.
as I said he won because he got the most votes in the first round, but most people wouldn’t have known who to vote for in the second round (my assumption obviously). Whether it favours someone or not, I suppose is a red herring. It’s not a system I like.
The main negative is that a lot of people don't seem to know how it works. I don't think it favours the incumbent. it did favour Khan here but that is because the voters of other parties such as Greens, Lib Dems and Binface would probably vote for Khan over Bailey.
In your case you would have been better off voting for Binface first and then either one of Khan or Bailey as only those two's second votes would have mattered.
I would say it's not a great system but it's a better one than we have.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Was there a specific reason the Mayoral elections were out of sync with the local elections? I.e should have been held last year. I assume the terms will now run in parallel with no return to a staggered term?
All elections were postponed last year and delayed until this year due to Covid. Presume the next ones will be 3 years from now to get back in sync although not sure.
It’s lazy reporting such as this which is the problem, I mean who referred to this as a hat-trick:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
No comment.
Damn you
Boris Johnson invites Nicola Sturgeon to a ‘Save the Union’ summit
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...r-keir-starmer-scotland-holyrood-b934042.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...r-keir-starmer-scotland-holyrood-b934042.html
i don’t know the answer, but I would have assumed they were 4 year terms, unless there were specific deacons for mayor and council elections to be staggered. It presumably makes sense for them to be held at the same time, as it may increase turnout and decrease costs.
...Really? You honestly believe that Labour has listened to its grass roots?
Yes, of course, everyone can outline the problems but so far (Boris included) haven't come up with any solutions. Many of Corbyn's apparent solutions would not pass muster in a country still predominantly Conservative (with a small 'c'). It paid no attention to the aspirations of ordinary people, in-situ, it basically was an exercise in talking down to people, "Jeremy knows best".
What most people who (previously) voted Labour wanted was something that addressed their specific problems even, if it was over time, they did not want some all singing all dancing solution, so called quick solution (short term schemes) that supposedly affected everybody but usually in the end helped nobody; they had years of this kind of 'mend and make do' from local Councils/Authorities that had been Labour since 'Adam was a lad'.
I have no doubt that many Labour politicians, especially local councillors 'hearts are in the right place' but collectively they lack ingenuity, and an economic vision that recognises and includes for ordinary people to 'get on in life', people whose aspirations are limited by many factors, some outside their own control. They needed some one to come along and try to 'level up' (now where have we heard that lately). This is not about social mixing or social advancement or fairness even, its about giving somebody a fighting chance. Unfortunately for Labour in the past Margaret Thatcher understood this only too well and used it to her and the Tory party's benefit, she did it remarkably in many areas and stole (not borrowed) the hearts/minds of traditional labour voters, even though her general political disposition was in another direction.... Boris is about to do the same and in someways he already has!
Labour does have people on board, ordinary wc people who have come through this 'pull myself up by the boots straps', e.g. in Angela Rayner. True Angela may have an accent that many (especially down South) laugh at, she also sometimes doesn't communicate her strengths as well as she might, but her 'life experience' is one the Labour party should study in detail looking for clues as to first off how to recognise people like Angela then work out real plans that such people can access. This isn't just about putting on new job creations schemes via local FE colleges, is about making FE post 16 Education, front and centre.
I am not sure what the current financing of Post 16 education is like, but for many years 2/3rds of the nations Post 16 budget went into Higher (University) Education, but only one third of the Post 16 students were in the Higher University Education sector. At the same time only 1/3 of the budget went into Further Education, but 2/3rds of the Post 16 students were enrolled in FE!
Ironically the Conservatives have the best record over time of putting resources into FE!
Its not a question of the Tories 'stealing Labour's clothes', Labour never had any clothes of this design, what it is, is a Tory excise in showing Labour they know more about WC aspirations than Sir Keir and his party does.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-voting-system-after-labour-mayoral-victories
Government to change English voting system after Labour mayoral victories
Switch to first past the post could make it easier for Conservatives to win future mayoral contests
winning mentality
Government to change English voting system after Labour mayoral victories
Switch to first past the post could make it easier for Conservatives to win future mayoral contests
winning mentality
years of lying politicians indulged by a compliant media
to be fair, i think the two vote system is pretty stupid. You should only need to vote for one person/ party.
It's all personal taste I guess, but I think first past the post is fundamentally flawed as it means that people are forced to vote for people who have a chance of winning under FPTP, but they don't necessarily like. This makes it impossible to get away from having two dominant parties which has been an issue in the UK for years.
If the two major candidates are labour and conservatives, but I like (for example) Count Binface it means I can vote for the latter and hope that other people do the same. If that doesn't happen I can put my 2nd vote as my other option out of the big two. First past the post suits the status quo, but that's pretty much all.