Wipeout for Labour in Hartlepool

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

Given the landslide in Hartlepool, will anything make Labour think again about the way in which they've alienated their core voters (including women)?

Can I just say that the North is not just one homologous blob. The NW and the NE are very different.

Absolutely bloodylutely.

It's quicker to get to London by train than Manchester from the NE for a start.

Ive seen something about KS wanting to move a Labour HQ to the NE; there is already a Labour HQ in Newcastle. (According to my Labour friend.)

@Flaxmeadow
No, this is complete and utter revisionist nonsense and very typical of the twisting of our history by leftist liberal progressives who do nothing but put this country and our history down.
I completely agree. Some time ago I read a popular history by an academic at a leading uni. I swallowed the lot, horrified by the actions of the UK. Then (for my own academic reasons) I did a lot of my own research into the place and time, including reading the same memoirs, government files and so forth that he had used. I was, and remain, horrified by the blatant cherry-picking, twisting of the truth and muddling of timings. There was just too much of it, all in one direction, for it to be nothing but a series of honest errors. Either the author went in with blinkers, or had a view and wasn't going to let the pesky facts get in the way, or had set out to write propaganda. Whatever, he has set the terms of the discourse in that field.

The whole experience has made me deeply cynical about any work produced by Leftist academics (probably unfairly). I say this as someone who used to be an avowed leftie, but has settled in the centre, possibly centre-left.

@Tealightsandd

The reason for Londoners is very simple that it's their home. Where are they're from, where their families live, where their support networks.

But it's not just Londoners though, is it? The ones in their twenties crammed into HMOs are often graduates from elsewhere in the UK (or even further afield).

I live around 35 miles South of London in a semi rural village. However, less than 5 miles away is a large group of towns, with high streets which are dying, high unemployment, poor ex council estates, knife crime, county lines drugs. There is a huge disparity between rich and poor all over the UK, not just London, the North East or North West. You only need to scratch the surface of towns on the Kent and Sussex coasts to find high unemployment and poverty.

@andyoldlabour

I live around 35 miles South of London in a semi rural village. However, less than 5 miles away is a large group of towns, with high streets which are dying, high unemployment, poor ex council estates, knife crime, county lines drugs. There is a huge disparity between rich and poor all over the UK, not just London, the North East or North West. You only need to scratch the surface of towns on the Kent and Sussex coasts to find high unemployment and poverty.

Yep.

The poor have paid a high price indeed for the last ten years of austerity that Labour has imposed on them. It's little wonder they want a change.

My point was only that the idea they lost because they are too far left, and they need to avoid being too far left, makes no sense when they recently won the seat twice with a much further left image, and now lost it with a more centrist one.

I'm just trying to be honest about the data here. All the time Corbyn was in power we kept hearing about how he was ruining Labour by taking it too far to the left. So now they've reversed that direction . . . and they're doing worse.

The problem with this is that there isn't really just one version of the right and left.

The kind of left that Momentum represented was very much the left of the middle classes - internationalist, high level state led stuff. And it had adopted identity politics as a really core part of it's approach to justice, and that displaced a lot of the class politics. More public services to keep stumbling communities afloat isn't the same as good jobs and strong communities.

And they disavowed some of the major concerns related to class - particularly their unwillingness to talk about immigration and calling the whole discussion racist and xenophobic - that's just not a leftist position.

Corbyn himself was more of a traditional leftist in some ways, but wasn't a strong enough leader to refocus the LP. People didn't feel he was up to it, and rightly so, he couldn't manage the party.

My feeling is there needs to be a re-emphasis on how local candidates are selected at the lowest level, Parachuting in candidates seems to work for the Tories, but their political culture is different. The LP has just cut of the leadership and even most of the candidates from the strength of the party, it's connection with the people.

Reposting my post from earlier because I still think that Brexit and the way in which it has been used for a conduit for frustration with the way things are going is key in Hartlepool. If the status quo isn't working for you - why would you vote 'yes' in a referendum to keep it?:

I think there's been a long drift away from Labour in post industrial areas where there's no longer a core vote galvanised by the union/s and where there's been an increasing disillusionment with the EU (encouraged by rapid social change in some places) and distance from a metropolitan party leadership. In Hartlepool specifically 69.9 % of voters backed Brexit - between 2017 & 2019 Corbyn managed to preside over a drop in support from a 52.5% vote for Labour to a 37.7% vote for Labour. Mainly accounted for by voters backing the pro Brexit independent, who was also quite right wing on crime etc. As has been pointed out by numerous commentators before the 2017 vote Labour promised to uphold the Brexit vote and by 2019 they were backing a second referendum and now they see the Tories as the party promising to get a positive Brexit done, restore pride, get Britain back on the front foot and money back in people's pockets.

Used as a conduit

Well, we'll soon find out if Labour 's learnt anything in the upcoming Batley by-election. With a majority of 3,500 did Brabin prefer to jump before the electorate pushed her?

Also, I do find Andy Burnham's efforts to be The Voice of the North comical - he nobly tuts from the sidelines and readies himself for a future leadership run.
Can only be a matter of time before he commiserates with Rayner and says he thought her leopardskin pants were just dandy (not like that nasty Kier...).

@AfternoonToffee

Can I just say that the North is not just one homologous blob. The NW and the NE are very different.

This. Although apparently not according to Flaxmeadow Who also thinks Grenfell was gentrification...

@Tibtom
Please don't accuse me of saying something I haven't. I have been very clear that I know deprivation and disadvantage is present across the UK. My posts yesterday were in response to Flaxmeadow's ignorant and actually quite offensive posts yesterday, pointing out that the Labour Party most definitely is not London centric, not for the actual people of London at least. I mean, she claims that Grenfell was gentrification!

But it's not just Londoners though, is it? The ones in their twenties crammed into HMOs are often graduates from elsewhere in the UK (or even further afield).

But in London, it's not just people in their twenties. It's people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and older. And, unlike people from elsewhere who came to make money out of London before fucking off back home or elsewhere, these Londoners stuck in HMOs, etc in their middle age and older, don't have a home town to be welcomed back as a local to go to.

As for average life expectancy. London has some super rich living there. A minority, they still they will artificially push up the average. In any case, quality is more important than longevity.

There's a lot to be said for having a stable home as part of an established community close to support networks. That is something still taken for granted in many parts of the UK but is denied to a significant proportion of Londoners. More than anywhere else in the country. Like I said, of families in temporary accommodation (so homeless), two thirds are in London.

I'm sorry for derailing this thread. I'm just sick to the back teeth of reading ignorant and divisive claims about "London centric".

I mean - if it was true, it wouldn't be so bad but Londoners most definitely are not being centred.

That doesn't mean it's great in other places. It just means it's also very very shit in London too. And as for Flaxmeadow and Tiptom to claim Grenfell was gentrification....

Why was Grenfell Tower cladded if not to try and improve its look?

As for average life expectancy. London has some super rich living there. A minority, they still they will artificially push up the average.

London is full of super rich living well past a hundred?

I am also bemused by the idea of a home town waiting with open arms to welcome back its prodigal sons.

@Tibtom

I am also bemused by the idea of a home town waiting with open arms to welcome back its prodigal sons.

Didn't know anywhere did that. Is that a thing in the UK? I was referring to the insularity directed at incomers - with particular bile and hostility reserved for Londoners.

Yes it's the daily mail, which some here don't like. There's a huge amount of information on Grenfell from all sections of the media. This is just something from today.

Here you go Tibtom Grenfell - what you think is an example of "London centric" policies. Yes, something to be envied....in the minds of Tibtom and Flaxmeadow

There's a big difference between London as a place, and Londoners the actual people of London. They have suffered more than most from the "London centric" policies.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9563103/Grenfell-Tower-landlords-reactive-approach-maintenance-inquiry-hears.html

To be clear. Like I've said before. I do not think problems of deprivation and disadvantage are solely a London issue. But equally, the policies of the last 30-40 years from all main political parties most certainly are not London centric.

@Tibtom

Why was Grenfell Tower cladded if not to try and improve its look?

For insulation. Exactly the same reason that similar blocks were similarly clad in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and every other place with tower blocks lacking decent basic insulation and heating.

Tealightsandd
This. Although apparently not according to Flaxmeadow Who also thinks Grenfell was gentrification...

I said part of why Grenfell happened was probably gentrification. I'm not sure why you are offended by my saying it?

Grenfell was a safe building until it was clad. One of the reasons for the cladding was to make the outside of the tower superficially appealing in the area. It's an absolute outrage that this was allowed to happen. To change a once very safe council tower block into something aesthetically pleasing for people who did not even live in it. I'm on the side of the council/social housing tenants and NOT on the side of the ones pushing for gentrification at the expense of tenants safety and lives !!

If that building had been left alone, in its original design, those people would still be alive today

@Flaxmeadow

@DdraigGoch

Thank you very much for your replies to the Message posted at 22:23 on 09 May

It is interesting that of all the examples given we seem to have alighted upon Mosley in the 1930s but to take the point

It may depend upon your definition of the phrase 'a lot'

It was really more of an allusion to the extent to which the opinions of Oswald Mosley and Fascism made an impression upon the political discourse in the 1930s and without works of reference being to hand it is a question of attempting to extract details from an unreliable recollection but whereas the membership of the British Union fluctuated throughout the decade it succeeded in electing local Councillors and in 1937 it received 25% or so of the vote at District and Ward Elections in London

It may be argued that it does not seem to be a very impressive record
and perhaps that is the case but the British Union of Fascists achieved electoral success within a couple of years of its foundation whereas the more vocal and visible National Front/Party of the 1970s had to wait until 1993 before it gained its first Councillor anywhere in the United Kingdom

It is not disputed that in major centres in northern England during the 1930s Sir Oswald Mosley and his band of Fascists encountered resistance but they ascribed violence to their opponents whereas the Blackshirts were well-behaved at all times and although there are individual accounts which contradict such a narrative there were equally statements praising their restraint

Assuming that the faculties are not providing figures relating to another matter, the membership of the British Union of Fascists at various times during the 1930s was perhaps 20% to 25% that of the Labour Party but it may be difficult at this stage in history to examine the lists to determine the class affiliation of the persons involved in either case

It would be difficult to say, however, that even if no more than 25% of the members of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s accepted that they were 'working-class', that did not constitute a significant number but perhaps it is 'very little support' if you happen to be the Mumsnet correspondent that can accommodate 10,000 - 12,500 people in your living-room

It cannot be denied that people of the Indian Sub-Continent and African-Caribbean communities voted for the United Kingdom to 'Leave' the European Union but why is that a surprise?

It is the case that first-generation immigrants from the Indian Sub-Continent and Caribbean nations have lived in many cases since the 1940s and for their descendants their homeland is the United Kingdom and perhaps they believed that its best interests were served by withdrawal from the European Union but again there are as many reasons as people for such a vote

It is the essential point that the Liberals in various guises and the Labour Party have received the support over many years of people who did not share the internationalism that these organisations espoused and the Referendum of 23 June 2016 revealed these differences

Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler were not hesitant in denouncing the system that existed in the USSR during the 1930s because it was 'Internationalist' and encompassed therefore all races and colours and ethnic groups on the basis of equality and were 'conspiratorial' as were so many similar philosophies

It would be enlightening to discover how seeking to withdraw the United Kingdom from a partnership with nations on the continent of Europe or trying to terrify people with the prospect of mass immigration from Albania or Turkey can be construed as 'Internationalist'

It is possible to discern trends as a consequence of the Local Council, Mayoral and Assembly Elections of 06 May 2021 but it is difficult to come to a conclusion because some larger Metropolitan areas around the United Kingdom continued to show support for Labour but medium to small conurbations and suburbs and rural areas were more inclined to the Conservatives

It would not serve any useful purpose for the Labour Party to eschew its internationalism and opposition to all forms of racism but it should reiterate its principles and let the cards fall where they may in terms of political support in future years

I don't really think, when people say the thinking of the LP is Londoncentric, that the implication is that everyone in London is well off, or even that they support the LP.

But there is a concentration of LP voters in London and certain other areas, like university towns, and I think it's probably fair to say that in some way relates to the demographics, or maybe the experience of living in, those places.

C8H10N402 has explained why the lethal on the cheap cladding was put on Grenfell. So no Flaxmeadow Nothing to with "making it look nice for gentrification".

For insulation. Exactly the same reason that similar blocks were similarly clad in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and every other place with tower blocks lacking decent basic insulation and heating.

But there is a concentration of LP voters in London
And in parts of the north too. Manchester, Liverpool, etc.

C8H10N402 has explained why the lethal on the cheap cladding was put on Grenfell. So no Flaxmeadow Nothing to with "making it look nice for gentrification

Even the more expensive cladding was been shown to be unsafe in tests carried out as part of emergency safety investigations after Grenfell. If the only reason was for cheap insulation, there are other and even cheaper ways to insulate a tower block without adding outside panels.

It absolutely was partly done to gentrify and why was that? So that wealthier people in the area could look out of their windows and not see an obvious council tower block. Some might think cladding, expensive or cheap, is an acceptable risk to take on a concrete building originally built abiding by strict safety codes, and to alter its whole original architecture beyond recognition with petrochemical panels. I don't.

That building was entirely safe until it became part of the regeneration scheme. A regeneration scheme partly intended to hide away council housing tenants from their rich neighbours.