The Batley & Spen by-election

[birchesgreen]

In times of national crisis like Covid opposing the government is a no-win scenario. They could have done better but at times it would have been akin to crossing a minefield wearing clown shoes.

 

[LittleAH]

With their more than pathetic opposition to the covid measures which effectively threw a lot of the kind of people Labour have historically supported under the bus, and the sort of arrogance that Starmer displays (think the clash with the Bath pub landlord), Labour are once again chasing the Champagne Socialism that Blair perused, but without any kind of direction or momentum that he built. For all his faults, Blair at least galvanised the left and made it kind of work. Sadly for Starmer, there are bags of dead badgers that have more direction than he does.

Where to start with this. Are you saying that Labour should have gone against scientific advice and let Covid rip through the population more just for the sake of a very small percentage of voters who live in a dream world when it comes to dealing with a pandemic, the type of voters that probably won't vote Labour anyway? Are you saying that Startmer shouldn't have put a bloke in Bath who was spouting conspiracy nonsense in his place? Labour should abandon the NHS, its broken workers and those who've lost their lives fighting Covid in favour of people who don't give a toss about others?

I wasn't a fan of Corbyn by any means, but he was at least sincere and meant what he said. Starmer is just a walking, talking Spitting Image puppet.

Nobody knows, still, what Corbyn put on his Brexit ballot. Or if he's taken the Covid vaccine - how do you know if he meant what he says? And his reaction to the EHRC report was less than sincere, which got him the boot from The Labour party.

In times of national crisis like Covid opposing the government is a no-win scenario. They could have done better but at times it would have been akin to crossing a minefield wearing clown shoes.

Exactly.

 

[WesternLancer]

What I mean is that Labour should have been challenging the government on what they were doing to help those furloughed, losing their jobs, and yes they should have been challenging them on lockdowns & restrictions. Why? Because this is why we have an opposition, they are supposed to challenge the government to justify every decision they make. Labour's focus should have been on the economic impact of furloughing up to 9.6 million people, more than a million losing their jobs, the shoddy even dodgy procurement routes the government were using etc etc.

But most of all they should have been asking how all this was going to be paid for. Because as we all know, it will not be the one percenters that will pay the cost of covid, it will be the same people given up to 18 months of 20% pay cuts, or those people whose finances have been wreaked because businesses have been allowed to fall without comment who will have to pay. Even many of use lucky enough to keep working through it all have paid heavy costs will be made to pay.

Labour should have been there for all these people. Instead they perused the Zoom generation, happily sitting in their lovely homes with comfortable wages, telling everyone else why they should shut their lives down. There is a mural on the side of a building on the outskirts of Bradford's city centre that commemorates the formation of the Labour movement in the late 19th century. I can't help wonder what those founders would make of Labour today. I suspect they would be forming a new movement with haste.


It certainly does.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2021 ==


<sigh>

Would you care to explain why?

Thanks for expanding on your prev statement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2021 ==

No doubt, somebody will be along any second to quote 1945 and Attlee's government to try to disprove that the British electorate don't elect socialist governments - my response to that is very simple, since 1951 the British people have rejected a socialist offering each time it has been put to them. The 1974 Labour manifesto was pretty left wing, but Wilson, Callaghan and Healey were of the opinion they would simply disregard the bits they didn't agree with, ironically helped by the IMF on that one. In 1983, 2017 and 2019 Labour put forward a socialist manifesto - and lost.

Yes, and such posts seem to ignore that in 1945 there were plenty of critics who accused the then lab govt of not being socialist / left wing enough! It's just that those critiques are often lost to history now. But given this is railway forum, the way in which industries like rail and coal were nationalised was one of the strongest areas of criticism from the left at the time and in subsequent years.

 

[Bantamzen]

I guess it depends what you think or want the Labour party to be - it can either be a socialist party or it can be a social-democratic party - it can't be both.

The electorate have tended to reject Labour when it's offering a more socialist vision and been more inclined to accept it when it offers the latter.

No doubt, somebody will be along any second to quote 1945 and Attlee's government to try to disprove that the British electorate don't elect socialist governments - my response to that is very simple, since 1951 the British people have rejected a socialist offering each time it has been put to them. The 1974 Labour manifesto was pretty left wing, but Wilson, Callaghan and Healey were of the opinion they would simply disregard the bits they didn't agree with, ironically helped by the IMF on that one. In 1983, 2017 and 2019 Labour put forward a socialist manifesto - and lost.

The put forward a social-democratic one in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and won.

You do make a good point, certainly I was very much pleased to see Labour sweep into power in 1997. However I do feel that all too often its the grass roots, often those that support the unions that support the party that get forgotten. And I'm afraid this is how I see Labour under Starmer.

Where to start with this. Are you saying that Labour should have gone against scientific advice and let Covid rip through the population more just for the sake of a very small percentage of voters who live in a dream world when it comes to dealing with a pandemic, the type of voters that probably won't vote Labour anyway? Are you saying that Startmer shouldn't have put a bloke in Bath who was spouting conspiracy nonsense in his place? Labour should abandon the NHS, its broken workers and those who've lost their lives fighting Covid in favour of people who don't give a toss about others?

You are aware that science is not binary yes? What I would have liked Labour to do was to challenge the decisions made off of the advise of the scientists chosen to advise the government. For example when they recommended lockdowns, I would have liked for them to ask the government what the long term implications would be for those people, mostly low paid people forced into pay cuts, job losses and having to claim Universal Credit. I would also have liked for them to ask who the hell was going to pay for it, especially given that the cost is now counted in hundreds of billions, way more than the annual budget of the NHS which we were supposed to "save".

You know, I would have liked them to have been an effective opposition and not cheerleaders for even more restrictions.

 

[A0]

You do make a good point, certainly I was very much pleased to see Labour sweep into power in 1997. However I do feel that all too often its the grass roots, often those that support the unions that support the party that get forgotten. And I'm afraid this is how I see Labour under Starmer.

The unions aren't as important as once they were - in fact some reports reckoned as few as 1/3rd of Unite's members voted Labour in the 2019 General Election. I know alot of teachers and whilst no doubt some vote Labour, there are a good number that most certainly don't - and yet if you believed the NEU all teachers are left wing and want a Labour government.

The members is a trickier one - I'm back to re-quoting one of my earlier posts on this very subject: "The late Denis Healey summed it up on an excellent documentary about Labour's travails made in the 90's after John Smith's death - 'Your average Labour member or activist is not representative of your average Labour vote in the same way the 'blue rinse matrons' in the Tory party aren't representative of the average Tory voter'." - which I posted here > https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/where-did-it-all-go-wrong-for-labour.218244/page-5

The question is if the membership dictates the policies and they are rejected by the electorate then what ? The membership seem to keep blaming everyone else - the leadership for being too right wing or not bold enough, the media, the dumb electorate - these are all the things and much more besides that the left wing membership of the Labour party has done, repeatedly over the last 40 years. And expecting MPs to reflect the sole, narrow focus of Labour party members, rather than the much wider electorate that vote for them is a path to disaster.

 

[DarloRich]

In times of national crisis like Covid opposing the government is a no-win scenario. They could have done better but at times it would have been akin to crossing a minefield wearing clown shoes.

Absolutely - and to suggest otherwise is naïve in the extreme. Speaking of clown shoes, it is a good job we have a sensible adult in charge of Labour and not CocoCorbyn!

Imagine if this oppose at all costs line beloved of left wing cranks had been in place in 1940. Atlee, Greenwood, Bevin, Morrison and Cripps might have something to say about opposition working with Government during a national crisis!

<sigh>

Would you care to explain why?

Firstly: You seem angry Labour held this seat.

Secondly: You and many others live in a fantasy world whereby if you wish hard enough the British public will see the error of their ways and vote for radical, socialist, left wing, ( to say nothing of crank left) polices. They wont. They never have. Corbyn was rejected utterly by the electorate and managed to be even more useless at the polls than Foot! Corbs delivered an 80 seat majority for Johnson and all that has entailed. At least he did win the argument and was sincere about it. So that's nice.

The electorate might, just, vote for sensible, middle ground policies espoused by a democratic socialist party led by a mature adult. Starmer is the start of moving towards that position. BTW I actually don't think that Starmer will deliver electoral victory ( that 80 seat majority again), but that isn't really his job. He has to stop the ship sinking and try to repair some of the damage Corbyn did by driving the ship at full speed into the iceberg of electoral oblivion!

I am not going to engage with the obvious COVID denial aspect of your postings.

BTW - Could you clarify: does the 2 bed terrace I have been working in for 18 months class as "a lovely home"?

 

[ainsworth74]

For example when they recommended lockdowns, I would have liked for them to ask the government what the long term implications would be for those people, mostly low paid people forced into pay cuts, job losses and having to claim Universal Credit. I would also have liked for them to ask who the hell was going to pay for it, especially given that the cost is now counted in hundreds of billions, way more than the annual budget of the NHS which we were supposed to "save".

"Mr Speaker here we see yet again that when the country is in crisis the Labour party would rather have us navel gazing instead of taking the necessary actions to save our NHS! They talk a lot about the NHS and yet it is their party, Mr Speaker, who would rather risk the collapse of our NHS and all the deaths that would follow rather than taking the hard decisions now and saving lives!"

"Mr Speaker at the same time as we, in this biggest crisis since the Second World War, are making sure that people have the ability to stay at home to protect the NHS and save lives the Labour party would rather have us sitting down with spreadsheets and counting the pennies. Well Mr Speaker this Government will always be on the side of the British people and will always make sure that they are protected even if the cost of that is high we think it's price worth paying!"

Etc, etc, etc...

They were always in a no-win situation as far as I can tell when it comes to opposing or even questioning the lockdown. Which isn't to say I'm happy with Labours performance but I have a great deal of sympathy for it as I really don't think there was much they could have done last year. I do think it's beyond time for them to be gunning for the Government now however. There's plenty of meat for them to get at around the dodgy PPE contracts, the Test & Trace fiasco and so on. Quite apart from arguing about what restrictions should have been imposed/eased and when!

 

[brad465]

A lot of hard lefties simply refuse to hear a bad word about Galloway, and if the homophobia and antisemitism is brought up they'll insist it's all just a smear campaign. No doubt there will be some who were inspired to vote for GG because of those things, but most will have done so in spite of them.

There are reports that some Labour members who were found to have supported Galloway in one form or another on the campaign trail have recently been suspended from the party.

 

[DarloRich]

@ainsworth74 - spot on. it is so naïve to expect opposition at all costs at all times.

 

[WesternLancer]

There are reports that some Labour members who were found to have supported Galloway in one form or another on the campaign trail have recently been suspended from the party.

That would be appropriate action since it is a clear breach of the Party's rule book and thus a breach of the agreement you make when you join (and sign to say you agree to accept the rules of the Party). Fairly logical too - why would you pay to be a member of a Party but then engage in activity to support someone who is standing against that party's candidate (and therefore by definition seeks to a) beat that person getting elected and b) make it less likely that they are elected even if the person you have supported (in this case Mr Galloway) does not win either.

In fact I thought it is not grounds for suspension (which is what happens when your membership is suspended and the claim against you is investigated) but that it is grounds for automatic expulsion from the Party. esp the case if you were 'found to have supported Galloway' as opposed to someone alleging that you supported him with no evidence provided to support that claim.

 

[DarloRich]

There are reports that some Labour members who were found to have supported Galloway in one form or another on the campaign trail have recently been suspended from the party.

Good. Clear breach of membership terms. Get them out.

 

[Bantamzen]

The unions aren't as important as once they were - in fact some reports reckoned as few as 1/3rd of Unite's members voted Labour in the 2019 General Election. I know alot of teachers and whilst no doubt some vote Labour, there are a good number that most certainly don't - and yet if you believed the NEU all teachers are left wing and want a Labour government.

The members is a trickier one - I'm back to re-quoting one of my earlier posts on this very subject: "The late Denis Healey summed it up on an excellent documentary about Labour's travails made in the 90's after John Smith's death - 'Your average Labour member or activist is not representative of your average Labour vote in the same way the 'blue rinse matrons' in the Tory party aren't representative of the average Tory voter'." - which I posted here > https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/where-did-it-all-go-wrong-for-labour.218244/page-5

The question is if the membership dictates the policies and they are rejected by the electorate then what ? The membership seem to keep blaming everyone else - the leadership for being too right wing or not bold enough, the media, the dumb electorate - these are all the things and much more besides that the left wing membership of the Labour party has done, repeatedly over the last 40 years. And expecting MPs to reflect the sole, narrow focus of Labour party members, rather than the much wider electorate that vote for them is a path to disaster.

I agree that the unions aren't as important, although as a former union rep I'm sad to say that is in part because of the way unions are sometimes run. But nonetheless, unions represent workers and these often form a significant percentage of Labour's core support. I'm afraid there are many problems with not only the Labour party but the unions that back them. Both Labour and the unions have lost some sight of the people they have historically supported.

Firstly: You seem angry Labour held this seat.

Well you are wrong. I am angry at Starmer claiming this is some wonderful victory when they barely scraped what should be an easy win. If tomorrow England spend 89 minutes being battered by Ukraine but score a winner 5 minutes into extra time, I wouldn't expect Southgate to tell the press conference that this was an amazing victory. I would expect him to say we were lucky and need to learn. Frankly that is what he, and you need to learn. A 7.5% loss in vote resulting in a narrow victory is not something to crack open the champagne to.

Secondly: You and many others live in a fantasy world whereby if you wish hard enough the British public will see the error of their ways and vote for radical, socialist, left wing, ( to say nothing of crank left) polices. They wont. They never have. Corbyn was rejected utterly by the electorate and managed to be even more useless at the polls than Foot! Corbs delivered an 80 seat majority for Johnson and all that has entailed. At least he did win the argument and was sincere about it. So that's nice.

The electorate might, just, vote for sensible, middle ground policies espoused by a democratic socialist party led by a mature adult. Starmer is the start of moving towards that position. BTW I actually don't think that Starmer will deliver electoral victory ( that 80 seat majority again), but that isn't really his job. He has to stop the ship sinking and try to repair some of the damage Corbyn did by driving the ship at full speed into the iceberg of electoral oblivion!

I am not going to engage with the obvious COVID denial aspect of your postings.

BTW - Could you clarify: does the 2 bed terrace I have been working in for 18 months class as "a lovely home"?

I was about to engage with your points, but then saw your silly "covid denial" comment. I have had both jabs, so explain that. There is no talking to people who bring in silly, unqualified clichés like that.

"Mr Speaker here we see yet again that when the country is in crisis the Labour party would rather have us navel gazing instead of taking the necessary actions to save our NHS! They talk a lot about the NHS and yet it is their party, Mr Speaker, who would rather risk the collapse of our NHS and all the deaths that would follow rather than taking the hard decisions now and saving lives!"

"Mr Speaker at the same time as we, in this biggest crisis since the Second World War, are making sure that people have the ability to stay at home to protect the NHS and save lives the Labour party would rather have us sitting down with spreadsheets and counting the pennies. Well Mr Speaker this Government will always be on the side of the British people and will always make sure that they are protected even if the cost of that is high we think it's price worth paying!"

Etc, etc, etc...

They were always in a no-win situation as far as I can tell when it comes to opposing or even questioning the lockdown. Which isn't to say I'm happy with Labours performance but I have a great deal of sympathy for it as I really don't think there was much they could have done last year. I do think it's beyond time for them to be gunning for the Government now however. There's plenty of meat for them to get at around the dodgy PPE contracts, the Test & Trace fiasco and so on. Quite apart from arguing about what restrictions should have been imposed/eased and when!

I've always believed it is the opposition's job to challenge to ensure that governments are held accountable, and know that they are accountable. With respect to the various covid measures, it is often said that the government were following the science. And to a degree they were, however as I've said further up science is not binary. All the way through this pandemic there have been many scientists questioning the way governments around the world have handled it. So at the very least, I would expect a functional opposition to not simply take onboard the government's advice, but to seek their own outside of that scope. But Labour didn't. They went the easy, "the government aren't doing enough" route, despite the implications for millions of people, many of whom are / were their supporters.

I hope I am wrong, but I don't see Labour being in power for many, many years. And if this turns out to be true, it will be as much the fault of the ardent Labour supporters refusing to see there is a huge problem with the party as the leadership.

 

[quantinghome]

What I mean is that Labour should have been ... [snip]

Critics of Labour complete this sentence in three completely different, contradictory ways:

1. challenging the increasingly dictatorial government on overly repressive lockdown and restrictions (your view).
2. challenging the lethally incompetent government on ineffective lockdown and restrictions.
3. backing the government who are doing their best.

Clearly option 1 is what you want to see Labour doing but in the words of The Dude, that's just like, your opinion, man. Clearly your view is shared by some proportion of the population but it's far from a majority.

My view is that whatever position Labour takes it will inevitably attract some support and some criticism. But it needs to communicate its position a lot more strongly.

 

[Bantamzen]

Critics of Labour complete this sentence in three completely different, contradictory ways:

1. challenging the increasingly dictatorial government on overly repressive lockdown and restrictions (your view).
2. challenging the lethally incompetent government on ineffective lockdown and restrictions.
3. backing the government who are doing their best.

Clearly option 1 is what you want to see Labour doing but in the words of The Dude, that's just like, your opinion, man. Clearly your view is shared by some proportion of the population but it's far from a majority.

My view is that whatever position Labour takes it will inevitably attract some support and some criticism. But it needs to communicate its position a lot more strongly.

You are right, it is just my opinion. I just wish a few more people shared it, because it the years to come we are going to pay a heavy price for all of this.

 

[A0]

I agree that the unions aren't as important, although as a former union rep I'm sad to say that is in part because of the way unions are sometimes run. But nonetheless, unions represent workers and these often form a significant percentage of Labour's core support. I'm afraid there are many problems with not only the Labour party but the unions that back them. Both Labour and the unions have lost some sight of the people they have historically supported.

It's not a recent phenomenon though - even in Mrs Thatcher's first election the estimate is 33% of union members voted Conservative. That's a pretty sizeable chunk who didn't vote Labour.

The problem with the unions is not dis-similar to the Labour party itself - the people who end up in positions of power, be they shop stewards, regional officials or even General Secretaries are not representative of either their members or average voters. As the unions have consolidated this has got worse - back in the 80s for every 'hard left nutter' leading a union (see Arthur Scargill) you had a good number from the right (Frank Chapple then Eric Hammond of the EETPU, Bill Sirs of the steelworkers, Terry Duffy then Bill Jordan of the AEU). That's been lost, partly because *most* union members don't bother voting for their leadership and therefore those that do, tend to be the "politically" motivated - I've had this debate with my wife who's a member of the NEU, not because she particularly agrees with them, but because as a teacher you almost *have* to be in a union for the legal protection it affords. She has no interest in their political positions or campaigns and their members "magazine" goes in the bin unread and unopened.

If the unions want to be seen to be relevant, first thing they should do is walk away from political allegiances - and instead focus on their member's interests. Secondly, look to increase the legitimacy in the election of officials etc - a start would be to require a 50% turnout, then, at least, they might start to reflect their members, rather than the noisy minority they do at present.

 

[DarloRich]

I was about to engage with your points, but then saw your silly "covid denial" comment. I have had both jabs, so explain that. There is no talking to people who bring in silly, unqualified clichés like that.

No problem. I will just assume you cant rebut any of the points made.

Well you are wrong. I am angry at Starmer claiming this is some wonderful victory when they barely scraped what should be an easy win

Winning is what matters especially at this time. If you can win well so much the better. The press and polls told us that Labour were going to lose this seat. They didn't. Lots of the clown left new media told us labour were going to lose. They didn't. I thought Labour would lose. They didn't.

It is a good & solid, if unspectacular, result considering the narrative.

 

[quantinghome]

Well you are wrong. I am angry at Starmer claiming this is some wonderful victory when they barely scraped what should be an easy win. If tomorrow England spend 89 minutes being battered by Ukraine but score a winner 5 minutes into extra time, I wouldn't expect Southgate to tell the press conference that this was an amazing victory. I would expect him to say we were lucky and need to learn. Frankly that is what he, and you need to learn. A 7.5% loss in vote resulting in a narrow victory is not something to crack open the champagne to.

I expect him to give a pretty positive message after winning a by-election everyone expected Labour to lose (kicking myself for not putting some money on a Labour win tbh). If nothing else, for the sake of Kim Leadbeater and the hundreds of Labour supporters who expended their time and energy in one of the hardest, nastiest by-elections we've ever seen. It's his job to make the most of the party's victories; of course he's going to be upbeat about it.

 

[nr758123]

I agree, whilst is is technically a win for Labour, they need to act as if they had lost, and ask themselves why that is.

If they don't, they could well lose the seat, or its equivalent after the boundary changes, at the next election.

The proposed boundary changes see the seat losing Labour-leaning Heckmondwike and gaining extremely Tory Hipperholme.

 

[quantinghome]

I guess it depends what you think or want the Labour party to be - it can either be a socialist party or it can be a social-democratic party - it can't be both.

The electorate have tended to reject Labour when it's offering a more socialist vision and been more inclined to accept it when it offers the latter.

Labour is, and always has been, a coalition of socialist and social-democratic views. And there's a lot of overlap, exemplified by figures like Tawney. The 1945 Labour government was a classic mix of both - a government that formed both the NHS and NATO. What seems to have happened since the 1970s is an increasing oscillation between both wings.

Obviously the electorate are bound to be more centrist than either Labour or Tory, and that's where elections are won (mostly). Today's Tories are no less radical than their Socialist counterparts, they're just better at disguising their radicalism in centrist garb.

 

[Bantamzen]

I expect him to give a pretty positive message after winning a by-election everyone expected Labour to lose (kicking myself for not putting some money on a Labour win tbh). If nothing else, for the sake of Kim Leadbeater and the hundreds of Labour supporters who expended their time and energy in one of the hardest, nastiest by-elections we've ever seen. It's his job to make the most of the party's victories; of course he's going to be upbeat about it.

I disagree. To lose that much ground & only scrape it through is nothing to celebrate, even if they were expected to lose. A bit of humility and honesty at this point would go a long way, but Starmer says "Labour are coming home". Says it all really, like a team sinking through the leagues says "We are doing great" when what they actually doing is handing the league title to the opposition.

I'm sorry to say it but Labour, and a proportion of its supporters are stuck in a delusionary loop. The more they think they are great, the more they think they are great. Meanwhile in the polls they lose more & more ground.

 

[quantinghome]

I disagree. To lose that much ground & only scrape it through is nothing to celebrate, even if they were expected to lose. A bit of humility and honesty at this point would go a long way, but Starmer says "Labour are coming home". Says it all really, like a team sinking through the leagues says "We are doing great" when what they actually doing is handing the league title to the opposition.

I'm sorry to say it but Labour, and a proportion of its supporters are stuck in a delusionary loop. The more they think they are great, the more they think they are great. Meanwhile in the polls they lose more & more ground.

Sorry, but for the hundreds of Labour supporters who campaigned hard for weeks against some really vile opponents, and against all predictions, there is everything to celebrate. This isn't delusional back-slapping, it's celebration and relief at a narrow, hard fought victory. Keir Starmer is the leader of the party; of course he's going to talk the party up, it's literally his job to do so. Why on earth would you expect a dispassionate commentary from him to be given in public. A soundbite for the media is hardly evidence of his take on the overall situation.

Churchill's 'finest hour' speech was made on 18 June 1940 at the nadir of our fortunes in WW2. Imagine someone saying "pfff, he's delusional, acting like we've won the war or something, France has just surrendered and we've got no allies left and we've only narrowly escaped our entire army being captured at Calais. Churchill should show some humility and honesty rather than this ridiculous talk of victory".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2021 ==

If tomorrow England spend 89 minutes being battered by Ukraine but score a winner 5 minutes into extra time, I wouldn't expect Southgate to tell the press conference that this was an amazing victory. I would expect him to say we were lucky and need to learn.

If Southgate were to say that I imagine the players would start looking for another manager.

 

[Bantamzen]

Sorry, but for the hundreds of Labour supporters who campaigned hard for weeks against some really vile opponents, and against all predictions, there is everything to celebrate. This isn't delusional back-slapping, it's celebration and relief at a narrow, hard fought victory. Keir Starmer is the leader of the party; of course he's going to talk the party up, it's literally his job to do so. Why on earth would you expect a dispassionate commentary from him to be given in public. A soundbite for the media is hardly evidence of his take on the overall situation.

Churchill's 'finest hour' speech was made on 18 June 1940 at the nadir of our fortunes in WW2. Imagine someone saying "pfff, he's delusional, acting like we've won the war or something, France has just surrendered and we've got no allies left and we've only narrowly escaped our entire army being captured at Calais. Churchill should show some humility and honesty rather than this ridiculous talk of victory".

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this a constituency that should be a fairly easy win.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sorry, but for the hundreds of Labour supporters who campaigned hard for weeks against some really vile opponents,

Some really vile opponents? I assume George Galloway is the first one. Who else was Labour campaigning against that you consider to be really vile?

 

[AlterEgo]

Some really vile opponents? I assume George Galloway is the first one. Who else was Labour campaigning against that you consider to be really vile?

Anne Marie Waters is vile. Jayda Fransen was also standing. That’s two for you.

 

[quantinghome]

Some really vile opponents? I assume George Galloway is the first one. Who else was Labour campaigning against that you consider to be really vile?

The rogue's gallery of far-right candidates. Thankfully none of them made any impression.

From what I saw, the 'mainstream' parties (Tory, LD, Yorkshire) fought a clean campaign.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2021 ==

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this a constituency that should be a fairly easy win.

It's always been a marginal seat. In 2019 the Tory + local UKIP-adjacent party got 48% of the vote when combined, 6% ahead of Labour. That's why most commentators expected the Tories to win. And that's before throwing in Galloway, who has a long track record at splitting Labour's vote.

 

[Busaholic]

Guessing he will do that live on one of the broadcasting networks he regularly features on....
or maybe saving it to do in front of the judge at the court challenge he says he is going to bring? (I always thought that the left held no truck with the 'capitalist court system' but perhaps needs must...)

George Galloway and Robert Maxwell, both Labour MPs for part of their lives, between them mounted (or threatened to mount) legal challenges at the drop of a hat( ! ), possibly more than all other MPs combined over the last sixty years. Now what else can these two 'gentlemen' possibly have in common? Galloway might very well find himself in breach of electoral law by awarding himself an 'Hon.' prefix, should a recipient of the election email quoted on here say they were misled as to Galloway's credentials into voting for him!

 

[Typhoon]

I've had this debate with my wife who's a member of the NEU, not because she particularly agrees with them, but because as a teacher you almost *have* to be in a union for the legal protection it affords. She has no interest in their political positions or campaigns and their members "magazine" goes in the bin unread and unopened.

If the unions want to be seen to be relevant, first thing they should do is walk away from political allegiances - and instead focus on their member's interests. Secondly, look to increase the legitimacy in the election of officials etc - a start would be to require a 50% turnout, then, at least, they might start to reflect their members, rather than the noisy minority they do at present.

She is by no means alone in this. I was fairly active in my teaching union and would always encourage new entrants to the profession to join a union, any union, even if it was PAT (the Professional Association of Teachers, I think it stood for, now called something else) simply because I had seen how it could help members in potentially difficult situations (I was certainly helped through a potential redundancy process). The NEU is a result of a merger between the NUT and ATL, which was previously called the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association (as moderate as the name sounds). There are other education unions but even the NUT (National Union of Teachers) contained a significant proportion of primary school teachers who were usually well known for being pretty moderate.

You learnt pretty early that when it came to electing officers, you made sure you were at the back, sat on your hands and made yourself as small as possible; if you've got a couple of sets of exercise books to mark overnight the last thing you wanted is some meeting half way across the county, discussing motions for conference that you didn't understand. The lefties were well up on those sorts of things so you left them to it. They were the ones that went to conference (who else wants to waste half of their Easter holiday), and booed the Secretary of State (who, I suspect, welcomed it, more times than not). I'm going back a few years but I reckon that the average teacher was marginally left of centre, probably votes at the General Election but not always the same way and is not over interested in politics. The press caricature of the teacher (male, scruffy, bearded, jacket with patched elbows, stained shirt, tie not done up) is at least 40 years out of date and really the stuff of the Beano.

 

[37424]

The proposed boundary changes see the seat losing Labour-leaning Heckmondwike and gaining extremely Tory Hipperholme.

Interesting, it was always a fairly marginal seat when I was a kid but the boundaries were changed at one point not sure when and that resulted in it moving to a more of a reasonably safe Labour seat. Seems slightly odd to include Hipperholme being in Calderdale rather than Kirklees like the rest of the seat.

 

[LittleAH]

Some really vile opponents? I assume George Galloway is the first one. Who else was Labour campaigning against that you consider to be really vile?

Jayda Fransen...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The rogue's gallery of far-right candidates. Thankfully none of them made any impression.

OK fair enough. I agree the far-right candidates were pretty unpleasant. I think possibly you're over-egging your case a bit though when you tried to justify Keir Starmer's comments by saying, "Sorry, but for the hundreds of Labour supporters who campaigned hard for weeks against some really vile opponents": Given that, other than George Galloway, the 'vile' candidates were all fringe candidates who clearly (and, as you say, thankfully) made virtually no impression on the campaign, it seems to be stretching things a bit to be making out that Labour supporters were campaigning hard against them, in a way that would justify Starmer claiming Labour's lowest share of the vote ever in that constituency as some kind of stunning victory. But perhaps I'm being a bit too pedantic