Angela Rayner sacked [shock]

[Youarecountingonme]

So Keir Starmer chooses the one shining light in the labour party. A single mother at sixteen, the most inspiring story to come out of the Labour party. Anyone that has listened to Angela about her struggles to obtain a degree and to better herself. Starmer chooses her as the whipping girl for his failures and has sacked her as co-ordinator. He can't remove her as deputy, but how much longer is that position tenable?
I am genuinely shocked and horrified. The failures of the labour party on are on HIM. He should be resigning.

Absolutely livid. What has the Labour party come to.

When you think of some of the women who’ve been labour MPs, the likes of Mo Mowlam, Tessa Jowell, Dawn Primarolo, Margaret Beckett, Gisela Stuart etc etc - even if you didn’t agree with them, they at least appeared competent.

I like Angela Rayner but the Hartlepool campaign was a terrible failure and of course whoever was in charge of it should be replaced. I suspect the 'sacked' headlines were the last thing Starmer will have wanted as Angela remains Deputy Leader and is an important asset but the Labour Party will insist on spending all its time fighting itself. No wonder it can't give voters a positive message! Take a look at Manchester where a strong mayor and 10 councils with a vision are making positive change - and Labour did very well at this week's elections.

'Localism' not 'Identity' is the political buzz word for 2021 and beyond.

The Tories get this. Labour don't.

The LDs should also take note. This is where they have traditionally down well and what they too are moving away from.

Where are Labour doing well? Where Burnham has heavily stood up for localism. Where Welsh Labour have heavily stood up for localism.

And Johnson has just beaten them to it where they aren't doing it.

Cansu not sure I agree about Annelise Dodds I'm afraid but Lisa Nandy is a great communicator. She's wasted in the Shadow Foreign Sec role - I'd like to see her as Shadow MHCLG and holding government to account on 'levelling up'.

"MPs were last night pointing out that Rayner, a former care assistant and union rep originally from Stockport, was chosen for her role because of her appeal to northern, working-class communities"

This highlights the stupid attitude of Labour - it is so patronising to those who live in the North (a hugely diverse place, economically and culturally) to say "oh yeah, all we need to do is shove someone like Raynor to shout a bit in northern town and these idiots will lap it up and vote for us!"

People don't care so much about people's "back story", they want good policies that they think will be good for them. Also as Boris shows (whatever the reality) being popular is not dependant on being of the same background as your voters.

I also totally understand that the conservatives have got this bang on. People want jobs, security and a sense of pride in their lives and country. Labour have had a tendency to constantly undermine both, and I do think people are tired of it. The endless agenda to remove/stifle and silence is really backfiring.

I don't see how sacking Rayner will address the deep rooted problems though, it will only serve to cause even more hostility in the party now. It feels like Labour is dead and buried to me. I don't see how they can come back from this. Particularly as Starmer decided on the campaign strategy himself, sacking Rayner proves he is looking to deflect rather than accept responsibility. He is completely out of touch.

Dh was mourning the loss of Chuka Umunna, maybe he could have turned things around - CU now works as an MD for JP Morgan!!

redtoothbrush totally agree about localism but I would argue that currently the Tories are talking it but not really doing it (yet?) whereas in places like Manchester and Liverpool it's happening on the ground. Of course devolution in Manchester makes localism almost automatic. Devolution had been promised to other areas too but seems to have been kicked into the long grass. It's been good for Manchester but bad for the Tories electorally and presumably that's why it's no longer on the agenda.

I actually am interested in Angela's background, I listened to her, she said she bullied her mother who I gather to this day is still not independent and has been left unable to read or write anything. I listened to Angela tell us about the men she feels lived by as a child. I listened to Angela tell us she has no friends left because they all died young. I listened to Angela tell us what she wants to do to children. I watched Angela's staff and what they did in Brighton to women meeting. I think Angela's background is significant actually.

Lisa Nandy is a great communicator.

Unfortunately not when it comes to communicating what a woman is.
Example here. Deflection, disingenuity, dismissal of biological science and women’s right not to have to compete against men in sport.

Dh was mourning the loss of Chuka Umunna, maybe he could have turned things around - CU now works as an MD for JP Morgan!!

I agree with your DH - he was exactly what Labour needed. Except they lurched to the far left, got rid of the centrists and confined themselves to the wilderness.

Labour needs to split into two parties - a centrist, "Blairite" party, and Momemntum.

I listened to Angela tell us about the men she feels lived by as a child.

Loved by. As a child Angela said she didn't feel loved by her illiterate incompetent mother and had to learn how to be a parent from others. Angela's as a 15 year old would feel loved by older men she said. Angela became pregnant at a young age. Angela is keen to keep her mother and certain children young and vulnerable apparently.

Angela was once a care worker. I understand that one of the biggest problems the government has is with encouraging care workers to take the vaccine. People cape on many ways.

@me4real

My parents were in local politics. It's not unusual for people involved in campaigns to have massiive fallings out if they lose.

The problem with getting rid of Rayner is it's arguably the opposite of the sort of thing Starmer/Labour should be doing.

Starmer is a millionaire toff who thinks he's superior to the people. They need to seem more like the party of the working class. Getting rid of Rayner won't help that maybe (unless she's been part of a lot of the 'political correctness' etc stuff which is a real turn off to a lot of people. But Starmer is more reknowned for that.)

There's part of Labour's problem. Sneering at wealth and 'posh' people. The reality is that voters really don't care about a party leader's background. You only have to look at the last election for proof of that. And going further back, there are countless further examples. The only recent example of success for Labour - Blair - was born into a wealthy family and went to private school.

If Labour sneer at wealthy people, sneer at the people whose votes they want to capture ('Tory scum') and sneer at the voters in northern cities who no longer vote for them, then who exactly do they want to represent?

@SmallPrawnEnergy

Whether you agree with her policies or not she was always going to be a Scapegoat. She was never going to be successful as campaign leader with Keef in charge.

Like trying to push shit up a hill.

He needs to take some responsibility for his failings.

From a few things I've read, it seems she was prevented from running the campaign in the way she thought best.

Seems a bit tough, if that's the case.

She was too much of a Blairite for my liking (I was surprised when Momentum backed her) but I think she was able and her rather rough edges were a breath of fresh air compared to all the grey suited yes-men. `

There's part of Labour's problem. Sneering at wealth and 'posh' people. The reality is that voters really don't care about a party leader's background.

But on other forums, I see Starmer slated for being educated at an independent school, having a knighthood and living in an expensive house.

It clearly does bother some people.

Never understood how she was appointed to a senior position in the first place, she’s a liability.

But on other forums, I see Starmer slated for being educated at an independent school, having a knighthood and living in an expensive house.

It clearly does bother some people.

But it's what people do on voting day that matters, not what's said on forums. And the evidence is clear that coming from a privileged background is not a hindrance when it comes to winning elections.

@RoseBearx

I think another issue with Labour is that all of their so-called ‘Northern Spokespeople’ seem to be concentrated in Manchester, and lesser so Liverpool. The North East can fuck off as far as anybody is concerned. No wonder they lost Hartlepool.

They could have selected Laura Pidcock for Hartlepool imo, but the leadership imposed a shortlist of one and that one wasn't her.

The local party should have been allowed to select a candidate, they know better who would be popular locally than the London-centric clique currently running the show.

@LakieLady The Laura Pidcock who lost her own "red wall" seat? Who was supposed to be anointed by Corbyn as her successor?

Aside from also being a poor speaker etc, she would have equally been destroyed in Hartlepool.

I thought it was interesting that John McDonnell waded in yesterday blaming Starmer

Interesting? Entirely predictable. Ousted left winger complains about Momentum favourite being sacked SHOCK

The fact that she is not refined and polished gives her more credence not less.

She lacks more than refinement and polish, as others have noted.

I don't think the LP have caught up yet in the seismic shift in political landscape post Brexit. The 2019 election should have clued them in, the concept of safe seats for both Labour and Tory has been turned on it's head in much of the country.

I was looking yesterday at the results for the town I grew up in, the ward which has long been known as the affluent area and consistently Tory over many decades was taken by Labour. At the other side of town, the considerably poorer ward and where the bulk of social housing and estates are has flipped from Labour to Tory. Even a decade ago this would have been unthinkable.

I see Starmer slated for being educated at an independent school, having a knighthood and living in an expensive house.

It wasn't an independent, it was a selective grammar.

He got his knighthood for his human rights work in norther ireland, his defense of capital cases in the caribbean, his defense of the McLibel case and his work for Liberty.

If, instead, he'd taken all private work he could be a lot richer.

He may lack charisma but for a working class lad to get where he got he must have serious brains. All the way up he's worked for others and (unlike most labour bods) he's got huge achievements under his belt.

Fixing Labour is a huge job. He hasn't earned my vote yet but I don't think it's his fault labour are a mess.

But on other forums, I see Starmer slated for being educated at an independent school, having a knighthood and living in an expensive house

Starmer was a working class boy made good. He was educated at a state Grammar school which became independent later.

@Youarecountingonme

You could be right sunflower Some people will never ever truly understand their own privilege raphaellas nor have you even the merest idea of how difficult it is to overcome years and years of piss poor teaching, lack of support, guidance or help. The fact you choose to call her illiterate says more about you than it does about her.

The fact that you blame Rayners lack of any kind of educational achievement on piss poor teaching says a lot more about you than it does about the poster you aimed it at. She chose to have a baby at 16 and leave school without achieving anything. She has made minimal steps to remedy that in the 25 years since - I can see no evidence she has this degree that people keep mentioning. She has achieved her position through the unions which is far more about who you know, who you are than any kind of skill or knowledge. Her lack of intelligence and educational achievement isn't down to circumstance it is down to her. Not that intellect is any indicator of being a decent politician there are clever people on both sides who are ghastly, but all other things being equal I would rather an educated MP than one who seems to have wilfully chosen to achieve nothing and considers that a selling point.