Starmer's wording about risking 'losing control of Greater Manchester' still stands out to me.
Which is actually more important politically, do you think - an MP (one of many, but with a vote in the HoC, and part of the count for government) or the Mayor of a city (symbolic which party they belong to, but doesn’t increase the party's power. Initiatives do make a concrete difference for the people living there, but usually not beyond the local)?
It seems to me that a national party should prioritise getting an extra MP, but perhaps I'm missing something. The article Emerald posted about the candidate for Birmingham Council worries me. There's a lot of territory-marking going on.