The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Topological]

He is partly incompetent, his team are extremely incompetent (although getting rid of McSweeney has lessened the latter). On the world stage Starmer has done well, including, for now, actually not kissing Trump's behind on Iran, which suggests his foreign policy team is more competent than his domestic business team.

We will see on Iran.

So far everyone I know who has Iranian knowledge has been pro Trump (for once, because they normally really are not)

 

[AlterEgo]

We will see on Iran.

So far everyone I know who has Iranian knowledge has been pro Trump (for once, because they normally really are not)

Pro Trump as in they support the strategy of starting a regional war by trying to change the regime by air strike?

 

[Topological]

Pro Trump as in they support the strategy of starting a regional war by trying to change the regime by air strike?

There is a lot of support for regime change. Clearly, there are alternative ways of achieving it. I do not know what proportion want a full US invasion, or what proportion think the air approach is sufficient though.

I think most of us want everything wrapped up as quickly as possible and with as little civillian cost as possible.

Back on topic though, I was thinking more about Starmer. He probably has a lot of John Major about him. Spitting image would make Starmer in grey. Starmer is facing an external economic pressure of the type seen when we had to leave the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Like Major, Starmer is PM because the alternative was seen as worse. Major ultimately pushed through a few ideological policies (privatisations) before the wave of New Labour crushed him. It remains to be seen what the Starmer equivalents will be.

 

[Freightmaster]

Oh dear...

(image is a Telegraph cartoon showing KS unsure of which way to turn - in a car with no wheels!)



MARK

 

[Harpo]

Oh dear...

(image is a Telegraph cartoon showing KS unsure of which way to turn - in a car with no wheels!)



MARK

Better than turning nasty.

 

[DarloRich]

According to Trump apparently Kier Starmer is not Winston Churchill. I think my response to Trump would be:

I might not be Churchill but at least I am not Jimmy Carter

and

I would like an adult conversation about involvement in Iran but there is only one adult in the room!

 

[dgl]

I would say "I might not be Winston Churchill but at least I'm not trying to emulate the leader of the other side!"

 

[Peterthegreat]

I would say "I might not be Winston Churchill but at least I'm not trying to emulate the leader of the other side!"

Trump wouldn't understand "emulate".

 

[dgl]

Trump wouldn't understand "emulate".

Sorry I forgot that Trump likes compliments!

 

[edwin_m]

I might not be Churchill but at least I am not Jimmy Carter

I wouldn't compare him to Carter. More like Bush Jr on steroids. And numerous other medications.

One wonders who gets blamed when all the black and brown people are gone.

Go after the Canadians. Invade their country to do so if necessary. Then there's always Greenland and Panama.

 

[JamieL]

I see the bail conditions on Mandelson have been lifted and his passport returned. The fact this has been done so quickly suggests they would have struggled to defend their position.

Police have released Peter Mandelson from his bail conditions after deciding he was not a flight risk, the Guardian has learned.

Sources say the Metropolitan police have decided to drop the conditions they applied after arresting the former cabinet minister on suspicion of misconduct in public office last month, though he remains under investigation.

Peter Mandelson released from bail conditions

Police have decided former minister is not a flight risk, but he remains under investigation

www.theguardian.com

 

[brad465]

I see the bail conditions on Mandelson have been lifted and his passport returned. The fact this has been done so quickly suggests they would have struggled to defend their position.

Peter Mandelson released from bail conditions

Police have decided former minister is not a flight risk, but he remains under investigation

www.theguardian.com

I also suspect one of the prime places he could flee to if he was ever going to is not exactly the safe haven it once was (i.e. the Arabian Peninsula).

 

[styles]

Telling that this thread has gone to page 3 of the general discussion forum. Labour largely becoming irrelevant.

But as we turn over to Scottish Labour, here is their leader joking about looking like he's had a stroke in some of his photographs:

Charity demands meeting with Anas Sarwar over 'disgraceful joke about stroke victims'

ANAS Sarwar is facing calls to immediately apologise after a “disgraceful joke at the expense of stroke survivors” ...

www.thenational.scot

ANAS Sarwar is facing calls to immediately apologise and meet with a leading charity after a “disgraceful joke at the expense of stroke survivors”.

The moment came after the conclusion of a press conference on Scottish Labour’s plans to revamp cancer care in the NHS if they win the Holyrood elections on May 7.

A video feed from The Daily Record, using Press Association cameras, showed Sarwar wrapping up answering the media’s questions before addressing the photographers in the room.

READ MORE: Fire chief accuses Anas Sarwar of spreading ‘inaccurate’ information after fire

“You guys happy? Did you get my stroke pose, that you wanted?” he asked.

An off-camera journalist can be heard to reply “What?”, leading Sarwar to go on: “I’m winding … award-winning photographer Jane … a picture I saw online, it looked like I’d had a stroke.”

Look, I like dark humour as much as the next person, but you can't honestly expect to make jokes like this as a political party leader, even regionally, and get away with it.

Who is running Labour PR these days?

 

[The Ham]

If you want services - like NHS, Education, Defence, etc., then they have to be paid for -- and inevitably that means some form of taxation. There is a choice - who pays more and who pays less - the "average" worker - the "wealthy" - or "business" ?

Now the "wealthy" and "business" always seemed to get the best treatment from the Tories, and I suspect Reform would behave similarly. Whilst far from perfect, I think the "average" worker is always going to get the most favourable treatment from Labour. Nobody likes higher taxes - but I repeat - someone has to pay if we want good "services". Turning away from Labour to the far right will bring nothing but sorrow.

There is another economic view, that the government creates money and then applies taxes to stop inflation.

Given what happened in Germany after the first world war with hyper inflation, I can see why some people can think this is a valid view.

Also, it could also explain why we've got limited growth, stagnant (for a lot of people) wage growth, and yet inflation is fairly high (at least compared to the 2% target).

Truffle down economics have never been shown to work, unless governments make it more attractive to pay staff than save money.

The argument on this being, if you are going to pay a lot of tax on your income then it's better to give it to your staff, whilst if you're not paying much in tax then it's better to keep it for yourself (and therefore no new jobs are created).

Asylum and immigration is one very obvious area where there has been a rightward shift.

I would say "in the narrative", which has emboldened some to be more public in their views that they already held. Yes, some will have shifted their view that way, but I suspect that is still a vocal minority nationality.

Yes there's going to be pockets where that would result in high levels of support. However, that's less likely to result in a Reform election win to the extent that they are the party of government in their own right, unless a lot of voters stay home thinking that their vote won't make a difference.

As a car in point, whilst at the recent by-election Labour lost a lot of votes to the Greens, and got a lot of criticism from the Tories, the big losers in that election were the Tories who lost their deposit and only got a little more than 700 votes and wouldn't have materially changed the outcome of they all shifted to Reform (which is unlikely, more likely they would have gone to another party or not voted).

Whilst Labour came third, a small shift in vote share between Green and Labour could have seen Reform in third and still seen Green win. Even though support for Reform was much higher than the polls are indicating at a national level.

This means that in other areas support for Reform would be lower (to reach those national numbers being the average for the country) and yet other areas would be higher (and see a Reform MP), however that would mean even lower support across the rest of the country.

I suspect what Reform would like at the local elections, is a low turn out from the other political parties, whilst their support does turn out.

This would mean that with (say) 20% of voters (all of theirs turning out) and the others not bothering so much and so voter turn out is 43% they can get results like:
Reform 200
Labour 90
Green 65
Tory 45
Lib Dems 30

With a result like that going into the general elections they can claim that they are going to win and so attract more voters

However, if other voters turn out and turn out is 60% the result could be
Reform 200
Labour 220
Green 75
Lib Dems 55
Tory 50

(Even if 60% turn out isn't likely tactical cutting could still see Reform not do as well at winning seats).

As such, they would likely be seen as a potential party on the rise, but not likely to win many MP's and so more people would turn it to vote for other parties at the general election.

Whilst Starmar is boring and there is a lot of negative press coverage, he:

(personally) isn't in the Epstein files (another party leader is),
he doesn't want us involved in Iran (although defending our allies and the public don't want us running into a war in Iran (another party leader is disappointed we're not helping Trump with the war)
Is fairly positive on green energy and the recent oil price rises are highlighting how we can still be impacted by the price of oil and there's been a recent government report saying just one oil price spike would be the cost of getting to net zero (another party leader wants to keep us exposed to such oil price shocks)
Is fairly clear on messaging in elections (another party had messaging in local election material saying "lower taxes" and their leader is now saying that's national taxes - so not something a county councillor could impact, so why say it)
Whilst he does change, due to public pressure, for example the two child benefit cap - it's mostly for the benefit of the poorer in society and is in response to what "the people" generally want (another party, the one with the above campaign material saying about "lower taxes" have been putting up council taxes when they get in, which is nothing to do with public pressure)

Whilst the above isn't going to change some people's view, it does show that Labour are probably listening to the people more than at least one other party when it comes to the things which actually matter (small boats, whilst people may think it matters, isn't really that big an impact on most people and what the numbers are big consists to what most people earn, in government spending terms it's little more than a rounding error - and anyway is money going into the economy by paying hotels who employ staff who spend their wages, etc.)

 

[Topological]

That is a good analysis @The Ham . I do not agree with most of it, but it well structured.

I assume that the "other party" is Reform UK.

I think most of us agree a Reform government would be a disaster.

However, it is one thing giving Labour a bloody nose in the local elections, or by-elections, by voting Reform, but a whole different thing to do so in the General Election. For that reason, I fully expect the Tories to have a strong showing at the next General Election. Whilst Labour supporters would not agree, the likelihood of the UK going for a Reform party over the Conservatives is pretty low. There is not even a single issue for Reform to actually campaign on anymore (Brexit has been done).

Trying to extrapolate from Gorton and Denton about the Conservatives is quite adventurous. I doubt the Conservatives gave it a second thought.

 

[JamieL]

Good to hear some serious talk now about closer relations with the EU and Khan going as far to suggest campaigning to join the EU at the next General Election. The first sense to come out of this Labour administration. Let's put the Brexit disaster behind us and start down the long path to get back in.

“I think we need to lift our eyes to the distant horizon and think in a much bigger, more ambitious way about what is possible,” he said, highlighting the need for sectoral regulatory alignment, which could reboot exports for both sides in everything from medical devices to chemicals.

“This is the line that I’ve been telling everybody in the department since I got into post – the [relationship] with the EU is not a series of policy decisions, it is one great big decision, which is about how much do you want to align. And how do we achieve that?”

It was a line echoed by the UK chancellor, Rachel Reeves, later that day in London when she spoke of the “strategic imperative for deeper integration between the UK and the EU”. And, in the political equivalent of three buses coming at once, a third Labour figure, the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, on Wednesday called on his party to go into the next general election promising to rejoin the EU.

‘We need to think much bigger’: trade minister calls for greater ambition in UK-EU reset

Exclusive: Chris Bryant says policy agreements are being done in bits and pieces but a greater vision is needed by both sides

www.theguardian.com

 

[Topological]

Brexit will be incredibly divisive.

However, Labour would not be elected on a pro-EU ticket. They are conning themselves if they think otherwise. There is a piece on the BBC from John Curtice about Labour potentially losing more vote to the Greens than Reform:

Link: BBC In Depth

Data from the British Election Study and the National Centre for Social Research suggest that 80% of Labour's support came from people who said they would vote to rejoin the EU - only a little below the equivalent figure of 86% in 2019.
The party was much more successful at winning over 2019 Tory voters who backed rejoining the EU than they were those who wanted to stay out.
At the same time, Labour's advance among working-class voters was no stronger than among middle class voters - and may have even been somewhat weaker. As a result, and in line with what happened in 2019, working-class voters were no more likely than those in middle class occupations to give Labour their vote.
Now, nearly two years on, the party is in even more serious electoral trouble than in 2019. So far this month, the polls on average put the party's standing at just 19%.
It trails Reform, whose support comes predominantly from those who back Brexit, by eight points. One in 10 of those who voted Labour in 2024 are now supporting Nigel Farage's party.
But although one might assume Labour's efforts should focus on recapturing voters shifting to Reform, Reform's rise is not the principal source of Labour's electoral woes at present.
That is because for every voter who has switched since 2024 from Labour to Reform, almost twice as many (19%) have swung to the resurgent Greens. The party has also lost another 8% of its former voters to the Liberal Democrats.

 

[edwin_m]

Brexit will be incredibly divisive.

However, Labour would not be elected on a pro-EU ticket. They are conning themselves if they think otherwise. There is a piece on the BBC from John Curtice about Labour potentially losing more vote to the Greens than Reform:

Link: BBC In Depth

I don't see the article actually says that "Labour would not be elected on a pro-EU ticket". But it does make the point that Labour has little reason to chase pro-Brexit voters, and a majority of the electorate now has some degree of Bregret. But getting closer to the EU may be at least as much about generating some economic growth to help with the public finances and general prosperity.

My feeling is that 2029 will be driven by tactical voting against Reform, even more so than 2024 was against the Tories. Aping Reform policies such as Brexit and immigration restriction is unlikely to help them there, and after Gorton & Denton there does seem to be some movement towards a more progressive direction.

 

[Topological]

I don't see the article actually says that "Labour would not be elected on a pro-EU ticket". But it does make the point that Labour has little reason to chase pro-Brexit voters, and a majority of the electorate now has some degree of Bregret. But getting closer to the EU may be at least as much about generating some economic growth to help with the public finances and general prosperity.

My feeling is that 2029 will be driven by tactical voting against Reform, even more so than 2024 was against the Tories. Aping Reform policies such as Brexit and immigration restriction is unlikely to help them there, and after Gorton & Denton there does seem to be some movement towards a more progressive direction.

I said Labour will not be elected on a pro-EU ticket.

The BBC are trying to almost talk Labour into going back to pro-EU.

Labour would be much better keeping the EU away from the list of issues. Ultimately, the Conservatives will not be bringing the EU into the debate and there will be no angle for Reform on the EU. The only way the EU comes into play is if Labour bring it there. The Greens or Lib Dems chirping from the sidelines will not bring it in.

Labours main focus should be not slipping into anti-immigration rhetoric. Focus on delivering a vision for growth that is distinct from the one the Tories will put forwards.

Yes, a lot of people were Remain voters. Yes, there have been tough economic times since leaving the EU. It is easy for those two to become conflated into a case for rejoin.

However, there has also been a war in Ukraine and Covid-19 in the time. Now we have another war in the Middle East. There are so many things impacting the economy at the moment and there are major EU players (Germany in particular) doing worse than us. Trying to link poor performance in the UK to Brexit is no easy task. It would be unwise for Labour to make that task part of their core strategy.

 

[brad465]

Where we are in relation to discussing and rejoining the EU can be best summed up with this:

"I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet...

...but your kids are gonna love it."

 

[Topological]

Where we are in relation to discussing and rejoining the EU can be best summed up with this:

"I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet...

...but your kids are gonna love it."

Which has never been a good election strategy.

It might be better if people started to actually reflect on what Brexit could mean, instead of being obsessed with the splendid isolationism angle.

We are no longer constrained when dealing with non-EU nations. We can create an open economy based on a global community instead of being part of a highly restrictive block.

The very limits we see from being outside the EU need not apply to others when dealing with the UK.

The EU may be our closest geographic neighbour, but the world is getting smaller.

Sadly, our politicians are focusing on Brexit as a way to pull up the drawbridge. Not helped at all by the fact that Reform are given so much oxygen.

 

[edwin_m]

Which has never been a good election strategy.

It might be better if people started to actually reflect on what Brexit could mean, instead of being obsessed with the splendid isolationism angle.

We are no longer constrained when dealing with non-EU nations. We can create an open economy based on a global community instead of being part of a highly restrictive block.

The very limits we see from being outside the EU need not apply to others when dealing with the UK.

The EU may be our closest geographic neighbour, but the world is getting smaller.

Sadly, our politicians are focusing on Brexit as a way to pull up the drawbridge. Not helped at all by the fact that Reform are given so much oxygen.

Remind me what the total economic benefit was of all the non-EU trade deals that were struck? As against the UK economy being 4% smaller (conservative estimate) as a result of Brexit?

If we don't ally with Europe then who should we choose? Trump? Xe? Putin?

 

[weeklycommuter]

Labours main focus should be not slipping into anti-immigration rhetoric.

Labour MPs representing "red wall" constituencies have made clear that the immigration and asylum reforms announced by the Home Secretary are essential for them to hold their seats at the next general election and Labour cannot win a general election without them.

Red Wall Labour MPs Urge Government To Stick With Immigration Reforms

Labour MPs on the right of the party are urging Keir Starmer to stick with a planned tightening of immigration laws after Angela Rayner called the ...

www.politicshome.com

Red Wall Labour MPs Urge Government To Stick With Immigration Reforms
Tom Scotson and Harriet Symonds 18 March
Labour MPs on the right of the party are urging Keir Starmer to stick with a planned tightening of immigration laws after Angela Rayner called the reforms "un-British".
The chair of the party's Red Wall Caucus has told PoliticsHome that Labour will "never rebuild trust" in constituencies in her part of the country until it is seen as having tackled the issue.

Mahmood has today been backed by Labour MPs who say the reforms are key to defeating Reform in their areas.
Jo White, Labour MP for Bassetlaw and chair of the Labour Red Wall Caucus, told PoliticsHome: “My constituents tell me this is the most important issue that this government has to sort out. We can only move on when they have confidence that the government has done what's needed, whether it's the small boats or dealing with the high numbers who have come here in recent years.
“My constituents are calling for fairness, and diverting from this means we will never rebuild trust in constituencies like mine."
She added: "Recent history has already shown that Labour cannot win a general election without the Red Wall MPs, and seats on the opposition benches will mean that we will never deliver on the economic and social change that we all believe in and desire.”

Luke Akehurst, MP for North Durham on the right of Labour, said he was "extremely disappointed" by Rayner's public intervention on Tuesday night.
"All the polling shows these policies are popular across the electorate," he told PoliticsHome.
"They aren’t the cause of Labour's poll malaise, which is driven by the cost of living. Being credible on controlling immigration is critical to Labour’s ability to hold marginal red wall seats at the next elections.”
Henry Tufnell, Labour MP for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, said his colleague must "back Shabana" and her reforms, saying "the country wants it, and we need to deliver, otherwise Reform will do something much more extreme."

 

[ChrisC]

My feeling is that 2029 will be driven by tactical voting against Reform, even more so than 2024 was against the Tories. Aping Reform policies such as Brexit and immigration restriction is unlikely to help them there, and after Gorton & Denton there does seem to be some movement towards a more progressive direction.

This could very well be correct for constituencies similar to Gorton and Denton. Areas which are part of large city conurbations with younger populations especially students are more likely to vote for the Greens. These areas are also often quite multi cultural with large numbers of Muslim voters who also currently may vote for the Greens. There could indeed be lots of tactical voting to keep Reform out in places like these.

I don’t, however, think this is the case in many of the old traditional working class formally Labour voting areas which are now seen as ‘red wall‘ constituencies. I also have a feeling that this also not true in lots of traditionally Conservative voting rural areas. There could even be tactical voting to try to keep the Greens out.

Labour MPs representing "red wall" constituencies have made clear that the immigration and asylum reforms announced by the Home Secretary are essential for them to hold their seats at the next general election and Labour cannot win a general election without them.

I live very close to a number of these ‘red wall’ constituencies and fully understand their Labour MPs being concerned. People I have known all of my life and were absolutely staunch Labour voters voted Reform in the last local elections and have a real dislike for Keir Starmer and the current government. These people ought to still be Labour voters and I find it difficult to understand why they have turned to Reform. They are mostly good honest hard working formally traditional Labour voting people and despite what some people may say they are not ‘far right’ even if they do have serious concerns about the levels of immigration.

 

[Topological]

The problem in the red wall is that the government leaves them behind. They are not listened to, and not catered for. The one party that should represent them, Labour, became New Labour and chased Mondeo Man.

Dress it up any way, but the rot set in under Tony Blair. Since then, these seats have always voted in protest at the London dominance of politics. Let's not forget we had BNP successes in Burnley well before Brexit was on the agenda.

We are not talking about racists, or far-right voters. We are talking about people who want to see representation of the areas that never recovered from de-industrialisation.

The Tories never really represented these areas. But Boris offered something and "Levelling Up" may have done something had Covid not intervened.

These are areas crying out for investment and government-promoted growth. It is time Labour delivered.

Sadly, all the political classes go on about is how these areas were "stupid" and "ill-educated" for voting Leave. (Example quote from Independent in 2017. Full article HERE )

Britain would have likely voted to remain in the European Union were its population educated to a slightly higher level, a new study has found.

Researchers at the University of Leicester say that had just 3 per cent more of the population gone to university, the UK would probably not be leaving the EU.

The researchers looked at reasons why people voted Leave and found that whether someone had been to university or accessed other higher education was the “predominant factor” in how they voted.

Or in a piece that appears on the London School of Economics website: LINK

In 2017, on the BBC’s Sunday Politics programme, the Labour MP for Huddersfield argued that ‘The truth is that when you look at who voted to Remain, most of them were the better-educated people in our country.’ This observation provoked widespread debate, with at least one Tory MP claiming to be ‘astounded by this snobbery’.

And therein lies the problem for Labour. Without a change in that attitude it is hard to see how they can regain the votes.

Out reforming reform might seem easier, but it won't work. Both the Tories and Reform will always be tougher on immigration than Labour. Labour MPs are just being lazy at the moment.

I actually think the Conservatives will win in 2029 because Labour are unsure who they are now. However, I will admit to some nerves as time goes on.

(I should also add that I have published work on Brexit and on the subsequent issues of "left-behindedness")

 

[The Ham]

The problem in the red wall is that the government leaves them behind. They are not listened to, and not catered for. The one party that should represent them, Labour, became New Labour and chased Mondeo Man.

Dress it up any way, but the rot set in under Tony Blair. Since then, these seats have always voted in protest at the London dominance of politics. Let's not forget we had BNP successes in Burnley well before Brexit was on the agenda.

We are not talking about racists, or far-right voters. We are talking about people who want to see representation of the areas that never recovered from de-industrialisation.

The Tories never really represented these areas. But Boris offered something and "Levelling Up" may have done something had Covid not intervened.

These are areas crying out for investment and government-promoted growth. It is time Labour delivered.

Sadly, all the political classes go on about is how these areas were "stupid" and "ill-educated" for voting Leave. (Example quote from Independent in 2017. Full article HERE )



Or in a piece that appears on the London School of Economics website: LINK



And therein lies the problem for Labour. Without a change in that attitude it is hard to see how they can regain the votes.

Out reforming reform might seem easier, but it won't work. Both the Tories and Reform will always be tougher on immigration than Labour. Labour MPs are just being lazy at the moment.

I actually think the Conservatives will win in 2029 because Labour are unsure who they are now. However, I will admit to some nerves as time goes on.

(I should also add that I have published work on Brexit and on the subsequent issues of "left-behindedness")

I'm not sure how the Reform policies of cutting minimum wage for younger people and reintroducing the two child cap (probably amongst others) would benefit areas which need to see investment and they would likely lead to less money in those areas.

If you want to see investment in the North, especially in local businesses, the Green Party's policy of Local Procurement for local government would likely be very useful.

That's before you consider that they want to deliver more rail infrastructure in the North (yes some of that's HS2, but also includes Northern Powerhouse Rail) as well as improvements to existing public transport and new bus routes.

The.Green Party would still be a protest vote against the normal parties, especially as (unlike most other parties) they have no corporate funding (and so are less likely to be swayed by the demands of big business.

 

[edwin_m]

I also have a feeling that this also not true in lots of traditionally Conservative voting rural areas. There could even be tactical voting to try to keep the Greens out.

The LibDems could be the main beneficiaries here.

 

[JamieL]

I actually think the Conservatives will win in 2029 because Labour are unsure who they are now

The Tories are spent as a main political force. They have been filleted by Reform, lost all credibility with voters and have nothing to offer. I think the next election will see Reform as the head of the pack.

 

[PGAT]

The Tories are spent as a main political force. They have been filleted by Reform, lost all credibility with voters and have nothing to offer. I think the next election will see Reform as the head of the pack.

I disagree with this. While the prospect of winning a general election looks dead and done I do think they can recover some ground if they play their cards right.

Reform are already imploding in the polls for a long list of reasons and the Tories could be able to present themselves as the tactical Anti-Reform vote for progressives in many areas (as crazy as that sounds) and the “sensible” vote for those right of the centre lesser of two evils.

I would say though that Labour are spent and I don’t see how their position is salvageable. They chased Reform whilst gambling that they’re entitled to the left wing vote no matter what, only to get slapped in the face by the Greens. They have also failed to realise, despite two years of the most dreadful polling collapses in history, that people would rather vote for Reform than Reform-lite.

 

[Topological]

I'm not sure how the Reform policies of cutting minimum wage for younger people and reintroducing the two child cap (probably amongst others) would benefit areas which need to see investment and they would likely lead to less money in those areas.

If you want to see investment in the North, especially in local businesses, the Green Party's policy of Local Procurement for local government would likely be very useful.

That's before you consider that they want to deliver more rail infrastructure in the North (yes some of that's HS2, but also includes Northern Powerhouse Rail) as well as improvements to existing public transport and new bus routes.

The.Green Party would still be a protest vote against the normal parties, especially as (unlike most other parties) they have no corporate funding (and so are less likely to be swayed by the demands of big business.

Reform policies do not benefit anyone. Reform are a scourge on politics.

Reform simply give a very bloody nose to Westminster.

The Greens do offer what is needed from the investment perspective, but again badge it amongst all the "wokery" that is associated with the political classes. The Greens have an oppen borders policy which is unrealistic and far too far away from the managed immigration that 99% of the world targets. Ultimately, the Greens speak little to the white male who wants to work hard and not have to pay so much to "scroungers". The left-behinds have nothing dedicated to them in the Green agenda.

Labour of old is the party that is needed. Maybe Rayner will deliver it if the Labour executive finally wake up the failings of Starmer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2026 ==

The LibDems could be the main beneficiaries here.

They would be if they were not so pro-EU. We are talking about strong Brexit voting constituencies here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2026 ==

I disagree with this. While the prospect of winning a general election looks dead and done I do think they can recover some ground if they play their cards right.

Reform are already imploding in the polls for a long list of reasons and the Tories could be able to present themselves as the tactical Anti-Reform vote for progressives in many areas (as crazy as that sounds) and the “sensible” vote for those right of the centre lesser of two evils.

I would say though that Labour are spent and I don’t see how their position is salvageable. They chased Reform whilst gambling that they’re entitled to the left wing vote no matter what, only to get slapped in the face by the Greens. They have also failed to realise, despite two years of the most dreadful polling collapses in history, that people would rather vote for Reform than Reform-lite.

Agree.

If Labour continue to mismanage the taxation burden then you could genuinely see even Remain voting middle England going back over to the Conservatives. The Conservatives of 2024 were a tired government that people slapped primarily by not voting. The Conservatives of 2029 will be a much fresher force, with the deadwood having mostly gone to reform or lost their seats. People will not say they are going to vote Conservative this far out, but I suspect the "Quiet Conservative" vote to be very strong in 2029.

For all the criticisms of the Conservatives, they are still the "nasty" party that they have always been and are not actively trying to occupy any different ground. They remain the natural home for all of us who have had enough of seeing our incomes taxed to pay for others.

Labour desperately need a vision of what a post-2029 UK would be like. They need to start working towards that vision.