Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
Owen Jones gave some non-shampoo examples. As I posted yesterday they should talk about pay and conditions - specifically the gig economy stuff, lack of security and so on.
"You'll no longer be one pay cheque away from destitution and losing the roof over your head" is far more direct and promising than "we will tackle inequality wherever we see it & fight for social justice for all."
And stop banging on about how it is terrible that some people are rich. My experience of voters is they don't really care and just want to know whether their own lives will steadily improve rather than go backwards and especially whether their kids will be alright. Most don't sit around in spasms of jealously and angst that there are rich people in London.
As a related aside, Philip Gould always used to say one of Labour's problems was it never talked about people's aspirations.
So did Ken Livingstone.
Owen' central point is correct, but he is still cherrypicking.
If Corbyn is to blame, why did Hartlepool’s citizens vote Labour twice under his leadership and in higher numbers than in 2015? What does it tell us, comparing 2017 to this year’s election, that Tories won only 1,210 more votes while Labour has lost more than 13,000?
Jones is ignoring that Corbyn lost half of those votes in 2019.
Burnham is an impressive communicator... contrast his interview and starmer's...dear oh dear
If he was leader the Tories would be worried
Hmm, not sure. Comes across as a bit of a lightweight. Perhaps a good number 2. But, hey, what do I know, I thought Blair was a lightweight back in the day
BBC headline - SNP on course to win but without an overall majority.
Can someone explain to me what that means?
It means SNP will be the biggest party but not an overall majority.
Would win be used about any council elections when no party had 50% of the seats? A Westminster election that produced a hung parliament would not be described as a win for anyone. Call it petty but it suggests the BBC is craven when it comes to the SNP.
Zero change in Scotland at Holyrood from 2016 for the 2 main parties, BBC projects Sturgeon's SNP will get 63 seats, identical to its 2016 pre Brexit total, Ross' Tories will get 31 seats, exactly the same as Davidson got in 2016
Yes, its a better performance than I expected in all honesty although the loss of another 2 constituencies is disappointing. The Tory vote in Scotland is solid but small, high 20s. The priority for Unionists is to work together to bring the SNP government down. It can be done but it requires a bit more flexibility on the part of Sarwar and Rennie than we have seen to date.
Still too fastidious about gaming the system obvs. I'm sure they can be worked upon!
I think it will be a cold day in hell before Rennie works with any Tories after 2015.
Australia picking up COVID positive cases among the vaccinated in hotel quarantine - so I suspect hotel quarantine will continue until populations have been largely vaccinated, "vaccine passport" or no:
Do people seriously think less of Starmer because Hartlepudlians and their ilk voted Tory?
I remember when Labour Wolverhampton came out in their droves to support Enoch Powell followed by the dockers and porters who marched through London. There are some very illiberal people who vote Labour and if they prefer Tory/UKIP so be it
Starmer shouldn't be 'listening'. We know the sound of the 'Little Englanders' He should set out a vision of liberal inclusiveness and if Labour's traditional supporters don't like it then go for constituencies that do. Johnson's welcome to the his 'Red Wall'. They deserve each other.
Labour probably can't win an election without the votes of people like those in Hartlepool and similar areas.
That’s the thing. They want the votes of these people and these seats but they don’t want anything to do with them or to listen to what their issues are as they clash with the labour worldview.
It's a balance. Roger makes a good point in an unconventional catchy way. And the point is that Labour need to try and win WWC Leavers back, but not chase that vote to the exclusion of all else, in the process junking the core progressive values which keep their new base of urbane metropolitan Remainers onboard.
Edit: urban.
Haha - the mask slipped there 'urbane' - so very, very Roger - not a word you hear often up north eh?
I like a chuckle with you, Felix, you know that. But I'm not looking for laughs on this one, I'm interpreting Roger for you - serious work - and it's a serious point being made. So if you can just for a second replace woolly bonnet with thinking cap. Just this once please. Point is, there's a risk of chasing hardcore Leavers so hard that we piss off Remainers, yes? - Yes.
You shouldn't be 'interpreting' him you should be calling him out for his utter, unpleasant nastiness about ordinary voters in the north of England. All this crap about 'hardcore leavers' is just that. There was a vote. We all had a choice. I voted Remain. I lost. I moved on. I haven't spent the last 6 years despising and demonising those who took a different view.
Not the point I'm making. So iyo Labour going hell for leather to win the votes of people who voted UKIP in 15 and BXP in 19 and Tory now is a risk-free, no-brainer exercise, is it? I think that's an absurd view to hold. Sorry, I truly do.
Burnham is an impressive communicator... contrast his interview and starmer's...dear oh dear
If he was leader the Tories would be worried
Hmm, not sure. Comes across as a bit of a lightweight. Perhaps a good number 2. But, hey, what do I know, I thought Blair was a lightweight back in the day
Normally it is the heavyweights who you want as number 2 and the more lightweight charismatic leaders at number 1 eg Blair and Brown, Clinton and Gore, Cameron and Osborne.
The heavyweights are better on the detail, less good at selling the message, communicating and winning elections
Do people seriously think less of Starmer because Hartlepudlians and their ilk voted Tory?
I remember when Labour Wolverhampton came out in their droves to support Enoch Powell followed by the dockers and porters who marched through London. There are some very illiberal people who vote Labour and if they prefer Tory/UKIP so be it
Starmer shouldn't be 'listening'. We know the sound of the 'Little Englanders' He should set out a vision of liberal inclusiveness and if Labour's traditional supporters don't like it then go for constituencies that do. Johnson's welcome to the his 'Red Wall'. They deserve each other.
Labour probably can't win an election without the votes of people like those in Hartlepool and similar areas.
That’s the thing. They want the votes of these people and these seats but they don’t want anything to do with them or to listen to what their issues are as they clash with the labour worldview.
It's a balance. Roger makes a good point in an unconventional catchy way. And the point is that Labour need to try and win WWC Leavers back, but not chase that vote to the exclusion of all else, in the process junking the core progressive values which keep their new base of urbane metropolitan Remainers onboard.
Edit: urban.
Haha - the mask slipped there 'urbane' - so very, very Roger - not a word you hear often up north eh?
I like a chuckle with you, Felix, you know that. But I'm not looking for laughs on this one, I'm interpreting Roger for you - serious work - and it's a serious point being made. So if you can just for a second replace woolly bonnet with thinking cap. Just this once please. Point is, there's a risk of chasing hardcore Leavers so hard that we piss off Remainers, yes? - Yes.
You shouldn't be 'interpreting' him you should be calling him out for his utter, unpleasant nastiness about ordinary voters in the north of England. All this crap about 'hardcore leavers' is just that. There was a vote. We all had a choice. I voted Remain. I lost. I moved on. I haven't spent the last 6 years despising and demonising those who took a different view.
Not the point I'm making. So iyo Labour going hell for leather to win the votes of people who voted UKIP in 15 and BXP in 19 and Tory now is a risk-free, no-brainer exercise, is it? I think that's an absurd view to hold. Sorry, I truly do.
No need to apologise - keep on losing is fine by me.
Good interview from Rebecca Long Bailley on the BBC and now Andy Burnham. The natives are getting restless.
RLB has not spoken to SKS for "a very long time". This seems unwise.
She’s still sore at being called out for unthinking racism?
She fell in with a really bad crowd.
I think when we are judging Starmer for Labour’s dismal performance, we should just pause and remember when he became leader, Labour had just become the second legal political organisation in this country to be investigated for systematic anti-semitism.
Happening whilst he, the former DPP, sat in the Shadow Cabinet of the Leader of the Opposition who was allowing it to go on unchecked.
Just to get the top job so he could, er, root out antisemitism.
I have no time for the man.
Burnham, who has been touted as some form of messiah stood for the leadership twice iirc in 2010 and 2015. I don't recall much about 2010 but in 2015 he was hard noticeable and lost badly. Yvette was touted, same applies.. Labour need someone with real charisma. None of them have it and none of them can out Boris...Boris... their only hope is to force Boris to resign...
There are different types of charisma to the type that "Boris" has. Please don't fall for him so hard you start to equate charisma itself with the "BJ" brand.
If Andy Burnham becomes Labour leader, the Right will surely hang Stafford Hospital around his neck like a noose.
They can try, but
i) It will be well over a decade before by the time he does ii) it happened before he was Health Secretary iii) he announced an enquiry into it as Health Secretary
Do people seriously think less of Starmer because Hartlepudlians and their ilk voted Tory?
I remember when Labour Wolverhampton came out in their droves to support Enoch Powell followed by the dockers and porters who marched through London. There are some very illiberal people who vote Labour and if they prefer Tory/UKIP so be it
Starmer shouldn't be 'listening'. We know the sound of the 'Little Englanders' He should set out a vision of liberal inclusiveness and if Labour's traditional supporters don't like it then go for constituencies that do. Johnson's welcome to the his 'Red Wall'. They deserve each other.
Labour probably can't win an election without the votes of people like those in Hartlepool and similar areas.
That’s the thing. They want the votes of these people and these seats but they don’t want anything to do with them or to listen to what their issues are as they clash with the labour worldview.
It's a balance. Roger makes a good point in an unconventional catchy way. And the point is that Labour need to try and win WWC Leavers back, but not chase that vote to the exclusion of all else, in the process junking the core progressive values which keep their new base of urbane metropolitan Remainers onboard.
Edit: urban.
Haha - the mask slipped there 'urbane' - so very, very Roger - not a word you hear often up north eh?
I like a chuckle with you, Felix, you know that. But I'm not looking for laughs on this one, I'm interpreting Roger for you - serious work - and it's a serious point being made. So if you can just for a second replace woolly bonnet with thinking cap. Just this once please. Point is, there's a risk of chasing hardcore Leavers so hard that we piss off Remainers, yes? - Yes.
You shouldn't be 'interpreting' him you should be calling him out for his utter, unpleasant nastiness about ordinary voters in the north of England. All this crap about 'hardcore leavers' is just that. There was a vote. We all had a choice. I voted Remain. I lost. I moved on. I haven't spent the last 6 years despising and demonising those who took a different view.
Not the point I'm making. So iyo Labour going hell for leather to win the votes of people who voted UKIP in 15 and BXP in 19 and Tory now is a risk-free, no-brainer exercise, is it? I think that's an absurd view to hold. Sorry, I truly do.
No need to apologise - keep on losing is fine by me.
So iyo IS Labour going hell for leather to win the votes of people who voted UKIP in 15 and BXP in 19 and Tory now a risk-free, no-brainer exercise?
Yes, but not by anyone connected with this government. Notice that Andy Street ran his own show, and didn't even have blue leaflets.
One of the things that's becoming clearer is that we're returning to a Tories vs. Anyone Else dynamic. Look at the relative lack of Unionist to Conservative tactical voting in Scotland. Or the switching in Cambridgeshire. Small straws to be sure. But the Jez toxicity factor and distrust of the Lib Dems because of the coalition are fading.
Talking of which, the Lib Dem to Lab transfers are in from Cambridge. Goodnight Fenstanton, I reckon.
Burnham is an impressive communicator... contrast his interview and starmer's...dear oh dear
If he was leader the Tories would be worried
Hmm, not sure. Comes across as a bit of a lightweight. Perhaps a good number 2. But, hey, what do I know, I thought Blair was a lightweight back in the day
I seem to remember when Burnham last participated in a leadership election all I could think of him was that he had a face like a smacked bum. He seemed to be really wet and weedy. Now people are touting him as the new messiah. Obviously not a lot of talent to choose from.
Street still wins despite reallocation of 2nd pref votes of LD
314669 267626
Another failed Blairite well beaten
Apologies for my uncharacteristically nasty post but….
You appear more interested in ideological purity than putting together a coalition to actually win.
You and @roger are two cheeks of the same arse, IMO
I can’t see myself voting labour again, tbh.
That's not particularly nasty.
But it is incomprehensible. What I'm saying is Labour shouldn't blindly chase the WWC Leaver vote and forget their (much larger) base of Remainers. I offer this (imo) statement of the bleeding obvious as ballast to the many comments implying they should.
Kirsty Wark really pisses me off. Once more Labour than Labour, utterly partisan, now more SNP than Nicola. No hint of impartiality. No contra points (such as the small detail of the majority having voted against the second referendum) even put. Just agreeing that Cameron didn't have 48% when he made the referendum for Brexit.
The whole media in this country with few exceptions is a simple rewrite of press releases and party talking points. Sometimes not even a rewrite.
The very reason I come here for my news. A balance achieved by commentary a discussion not someone trying to hide their own views
Comments
Street 314,669
Byrne 267,626
Street elected
314669
267626
Another failed Blairite well beaten
I simply don't see it and I'll be in a major hole if I'm wrong.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/fully-vaccinated-travellers-test-positive-in-sydney-hotel-quarantine-20210507-p57pt4.html
Second preference votes:
Andy Street: 15,351
Liam Byrne: 23,617
Total votes:
Street: 314,669
Byrne: 267,626
Andy Street wins the West Midlands mayoral election, and significantly increases his majority.
https://twitter.com/HannahAlOthman/status/1391073298843381764?s=20
Stefan Boscia @Stefan_Boscia
Swing toward Tories in Greenwich and Lewisham for London mayor election, but Khan still wins the constituency
The heavyweights are better on the detail, less good at selling the message, communicating and winning elections
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Got it next Monday as availability was a bit low around these parts, I'm guessing because I'll get Pfizer or Moderna.
i) It will be well over a decade before by the time he does
ii) it happened before he was Health Secretary
iii) he announced an enquiry into it as Health Secretary
New Thread
You appear more interested in ideological purity than putting together a coalition to actually win.
You and @roger are two cheeks of the same arse, IMO
I can’t see myself voting labour again, tbh.
NEW THREAD
Khan -2.3
Bailey -2.6
Greenwich and Lewisham
Khan -5.6
Bailey +2.1
We've got massive wins for Houchen and Burnham, extended leads for Street, and totally unexpected Labour upsets in CPCA and West of England.
Greenwich and Lewisham
Len Duvall Lab 48.3 (-4.2)
Con 22.9 (+4)
Green 18.1 (+5.6)
Barnet and Camden
Anne Clarke (new) Lab 42.3 (-2.0)
Con 35.0 (-0.5)
Today's version would have won back then.
One of the things that's becoming clearer is that we're returning to a Tories vs. Anyone Else dynamic. Look at the relative lack of Unionist to Conservative tactical voting in Scotland. Or the switching in Cambridgeshire. Small straws to be sure. But the Jez toxicity factor and distrust of the Lib Dems because of the coalition are fading.
Talking of which, the Lib Dem to Lab transfers are in from Cambridge. Goodnight Fenstanton, I reckon.
https://twitter.com/PhilRodgers/status/1391077558347829248?s=19
But it is incomprehensible. What I'm saying is Labour shouldn't blindly chase the WWC Leaver vote and forget their (much larger) base of Remainers. I offer this (imo) statement of the bleeding obvious as ballast to the many comments implying they should.
What is your problem with it?