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)?

I saw a Twitter post, in passing, by Labour Party Youth Sage Owen Jones which I completely agree with. He was commenting on a absence of any clear, coherent vision for the country on the part of Labour. Can't argue with that.

Boris Johnson came to power because of the red wall seats turning blue. Hartlepool voters have similar ambitions to press ahead with Brexit and view Britain in a positive light. This is another reason why the self flagellation involved in US cultural politics isn't playing well with voters. I didn't support Brexit, but it's happened and endless virtual shouting at each other isn't going to achieve much.

Margaret Thatcher was a woman, so no, I dont feel any better about a Tory woman getting elected in Hartlepool as I find Tory policies mainly heartless and repulsive. I understand that many felt let down by local Labour councils who had maybe been in too long and may have been affected by cronyism but also, were forced to make appalling cuts due to central government policy. Brexit had a huge impact on the last election as we all know. And I agree that patronising people or calling them stupid is not a good way to get votes. I believe many of Corbyns policies in terms of nationalisation and supporting public services plus increasing taxation on the wealthy were popular. Unfortunately, he managed to fuck up in other ways.

There's another thread about this in Chat:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/a4238228-Anyone-in-Hartlepool-what-on-earth-is-going-on

Reading through the comments about how the Tories fucked up the response to Covid makes me think that some people have picked up a narrative and are holding onto it. For many people they see that the Tories messed up, as did the leadership in most countries, but then they did engage with the problem and made things better, for example testing infrastructure and vaccination. Non-political people seem to live more in the present and to be more forward looking than people having firm political views.

People wont vote for you if you hate them. Telling people they're thick isn't a vote winner.

@Mollyollydolly

People wont vote for you if you hate them. Telling people they're thick isn't a vote winner.

astoundingly that doesnt seem to have sunk in yet with a worryingly large number of labour activists.....

I really think the Momentum thing is interesting, because it reveals people have such - ahem - binary thinking.

Like, you have Momentum which is far left, and then some sort of centrism like Blair embodied, and those are the two choices.

I think many people were interested in some of Corbyn's things, like nationalisation, funding public services properly, and so on. Part of the problem was they weren't sure if he'd be able to do it, but they supported those ideas in the abstract.

But most people don't want just a plan for social supports and then a notable silence on really beefing up economic opportunities and making communities viable places with good jobs. Not expecting everyone to move to London, get a $$$$degree, and work in an office. Not to mention when people try and talk about related core leftist ideas like movement of labour they get called bigots.

In that sense Momentum wasn't far left, and their voters wanted real leftist politics. If Corbyn had been allowed to be honest about his Brexit views - a real leftist position as opposed to supporting globalist trading blocks - that would have gone over well with traditional Labour voters.

And then identity politics - again, not leftist - but also people were not so keen on the cozying up to regimes that seemed, you know, pretty oppressive even if they were politically left.

All in all, it's not a problem of just be more or less left.

I do feel it was a major mistake by Corbyn not to 'own' his Lexiter beliefs from his campaign to be leader onwards. TBH if he'd done that he might never have been leader. But if he were, he'd have split the Labour Party and that might actually have been better than this - but he'd have been vilified if it had happened at the time. He'd never have had the sheer charisma, oomph, ruthlessness and backing to do it, which is why he was so obviously not leader material.

But most people don't want just a plan for social supports and then a notable silence on really beefing up economic opportunities and making communities viable places with good jobs.

Spot on. Voters don't want to buy into a narrative of decline, they want a narrative of opportunity.

I'm in my 30s in London and it was the first election I haven't voted for labour on any of the options.

In terms of "outside the fwr bubble" I can say I have had these discussions with all of my close family, most of whom aren't on social media of any form, and they are the same: all lifelong labour who either found someone else to vote for or spoiled their ballot.

I will not vote for a party that has such contempt for voters, and it's not just women. Their attitude that if you're an ethnic minority or working class then you're a traitor to not give them your vote is just plain offensive.

I would like to think they will get the message and change course but nothing in the last decade suggests any ability to critically assess their failings. I'm expecting holyrood to be SNP and Westminster to be Tory for another decade yet.

@JustSpeculation

I saw a Twitter post, in passing, by Labour Party Youth Sage Owen Jones which I completely agree with. He was commenting on a absence of any clear, coherent vision for the country on the part of Labour. Can't argue with that.

It's true that Labour has no clear, coherent vision. But I imagine that this is because the moment that Starmer dares to declare a policy on anything, he will have to deal with his factionalised party tearing itself to shreds over it. His energy seems to be entirely consumed with holding the party together.

Plus, the reaction on the left to the Tories centring the flag in TV appearances etc has been counterproductive. It is a symbol which says to people post Brexit - we believe in the country, and by extension we belief in you too. Because surprise, surprise, not everyone is ashamed to be British. Most people aren't up to speed on academic arguments around decolonising the curriculum or our national institutions - again a US import - so they'll read the headlines about statutes being taken down and street names being changed and see it as part of a thread from their communities changing demographic, pressure on local services/infrastructure etc and see it as part of an ongoing attempt to undermine their sense of who they are and what their country represents. This is why the nature of the current discourse is so dire and inane - shouting bigot at people means you never have to do the hard work of understanding them. Clearly - and it isn't my intention to get into the structural racism debate as I think it's a huge problem - when people go to the polls they're thinking about their future, their job, their kids and their family and for all of those things to be happy and secure they need to believe in their leadership and their country too (let's not even get into the fact that most people - including many leftists are also aspirational for themselves and their offspring).

I have read so many excellent replies on here, so on point.
From my point of view, as an ex Labour voter, I think many Labour politicians and activists actually despise the working class, consider their views ignorant or bigoted.
Well, you can only do that for so long. The last general election should have been a wakeup call for Labour (and the LibDems and Greens), but they are still in a very deep, woke slumber.

@PermanentTemporary

I do feel it was a major mistake by Corbyn not to 'own' his Lexiter beliefs from his campaign to be leader onwards. TBH if he'd done that he might never have been leader. But if he were, he'd have split the Labour Party and that might actually have been better than this - but he'd have been vilified if it had happened at the time. He'd never have had the sheer charisma, oomph, ruthlessness and backing to do it, which is why he was so obviously not leader material.

Yes, this is true, it's a more basic split.

Maybe this is why Starmer really has no hope of healing it. How do you bring together the divide? And it's three ways, I suspect - Momentum types with state programs and identity politics, Blairites who are Thatcher-light, and traditional anti-globalists looking out for the proletariat.

Starmer's role might be to get rid of dead wood, but I think it might require a pretty strong personality, both with a vision and maybe a little ruthless within the party, to take the next step.

@andyoldlabour

I have read so many excellent replies on here, so on point. From my point of view, as an ex Labour voter, I think many Labour politicians and activists actually despise the working class, consider their views ignorant or bigoted. Well, you can only do that for so long. The last general election should have been a wakeup call for Labour (and the LibDems and Greens), but they are still in a very deep, woke slumber.

It's the same in the US.

I just find it really difficult to understand the complete lack of ability to reflect.

It looks increasingly as though Labour and the LibDems are run by people who think politics consists of:

-posting correctly on Twitter (lots of rainbows and BLM)
-following the correct people on Twitter
-attending policy meetings, whilst checking Twitter
-reading some authors you already agree with
-going on a woke march wearing the correct badges

Every 4/5 years when there's an election they seem genuinely taken aback that they might actually have to speak to those awful poor people, you know who go to rough pubs and football matches and stuff. Because apparently they're all allowed a vote the same as you, and sometimes they don't vote how they're supposed to.

This extends to political journalists too (notable exception is John Harris of the Grauniad, who daringly leaves London and asks normal people in unglamorous towns about their lives).

I always find Matthew Goodwin interesting to listen to about the decline of Labour:

twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1390572411817431043

Here's his twitter: twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/with_replies

I left the LP quite a few years ago over self Id and the fact my CLP had become overrun by Momentum supporters who acted as self righteous "overlords", bullying long standing members if they didn't get in line (the people btw who instead of just acting as keyboard SJW's on FB and Twitter were the ones distributing campaign leaflets, speaking to the electorate and doing the party admin).

There was no debate or discussion allowed.

Frankly it had ceased to be a political party and had become an ideology.

I don't think at grass roots much has changed and that's a big problem.

A political party understands its support base and crafts policy that reflects its needs and aspirations.

The Conservative party has always been better at Labour than doing this. They are ruthlessly pragmatic.

If something isn't working they don't navel gaze about it - they change it (be it a leader, a policy or advisors).

By contrast Labour (and the Greens/Lib Dems), because they have always felt themselves to be on the side of "righteous" find it very difficult to re-boot a position once they've adopted it even if it's deeply unpopular with the electorate.

To do so would be an admission that they are the same as Conservatives in that at their core their "values" are mailable - making them not "values" at all.

But that's the difference between a political party and an ideology.

Parties should have policies, not values and those policies should be flexible to meet the needs of the country (are more specifically its support base) at any given time.

Labour is in crisis because it's been overtaken by a membership whose frankly middle class, champagne socialist "values" do not resonate with its former voting base.

Rather than acknowledging this, the response has been to believe the failure has been not one of policy but one of not "educating" the voters and that's a double whammy of not only failing to differentiate between values and policy but being simultaneously utterly patronising to the people you want to vote for you.

It's a wholly negative spiral that's further amplified by this determination to demonise anyone who thinks differently.

Former Labour voters who've switched aren't bad people (and frankly neither are regular Tory voters).

Those who've switched are frustrated and angry with a party they feel (quite rightly) has abandoned them in order to win approval from vocal middle class social justice warriors who for the most part have zero life experience of actual (or should I say literal) hardship, deprivation and inequality.

AfternoonToffee
My Twitter contribution is "If you voted Tory, unfollow me as we have nothing in common." This just shows the absolute tone deafness of the party and some of the voters, they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in listening to why people have stopped voting for Labour in droves. "If you don't agree with me, you're not worth knowing."

I have thought for a long time (pretty-much from its start) that social media had that effect; I watched someone I knew cease to be able to tolerate anyone who didn't agree with him until his account was entirely occupied by the like-minded, and he ended up no longer able to hear anything that didn't follow his particular party line when he met people face to face either. Ultimately I slowly and gently pouring a pint of beer over his head in a bar, which did at least get his attention.

In the election just past, I was lucky enough to have the number of candidates who were independent but not "Freedom Alliance" needed for all my votes, so I didn't have to vote for any of the parties. If I hadn't had that choice, I might have put a blank ballot into the box.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

AfternoonToffee My Twitter contribution is "If you voted Tory, unfollow me as we have nothing in common." This just shows the absolute tone deafness of the party and some of the voters, they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in listening to why people have stopped voting for Labour in droves. "If you don't agree with me, you're not worth knowing."

I have thought for a long time (pretty-much from its start) that social media had that effect; I watched someone I knew cease to be able to tolerate anyone who didn't agree with him until his account was entirely occupied by the like-minded, and he ended up no longer able to hear anything that didn't follow his particular party line when he met people face to face either. Ultimately I slowly and gently pouring a pint of beer over his head in a bar, which did at least get his attention.

In the election just past, I was lucky enough to have the number of candidates who were independent but not "Freedom Alliance" needed for all my votes, so I didn't have to vote for any of the parties. If I hadn't had that choice, I might have put a blank ballot into the box.

I agree with you.

Another phrase I saw thrown out with great regularity was "this needs to be a safe space for (insert whatever the issue of the day was)".

Obviously "safe space" meaning an environment where doctrine could not be challenged.

I could never get over the irony of the need for a "safe space" at the local CLP stacked with a majority of TRA's and allies to prevent "hurt feelings" whilst discussing proposals such as self id that denied women a physical safe space in places where they were incredibly vulnerable such as shelters, prisons and changing rooms.

Pro-Palestine discussions were a thin veil for anti-semitism in plain sight.

The echo chamber of social media was being played out in real life but instead of "blocking" people, any dissenting voices were bullied out of the room and eventually the party.

Interesting local pov.

www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/resentment-rules-changing-times-labour-20544157

Some great posts on this thread. Hope somebody in the Labour Party is reading them.

There's been a lot of discussion on Mumsnet on how to vote when it seems any vote is just enabling parties who are ignoring women's rights. But maybe the thing to do is to join a party (any party) and then contact the GC/women's rights group within it (I think they all have them). Then you can find out and vote for candidates who are GC locally and nationally, even if you don't want to get actively involved.

Locally, a few people can make a big difference.

I would love to think Labour’s unpopularity is caused by people waking up to the party’s misogyny. But it seems to be more than that

I think it all boils down to the same thing though: Labour not listening properly and writing off anyone who doesn't agree 100% with them as a bigot of some stripe. Be it Brexit, immigration, women's rights, antisemitism - it's always the same response.

@averylongtimeago

Labour have forgotten who their core voters are. It's really not a good look for them to complain that their voters are too stupid to understand their policies so that's why they all voted Tory.

I agree with this. So keen to chase the young demographic vote that they seem to not be arsed with the main proportion of their voters. They need to get back to basics and back to their philosophy, which wasn't this.

Small glimmer of hope:

"Councillor Declan Mulholland says The Labour Party needs to listen to voters.

He said: "I think the Labour Party needs to relate to middle and working class people a lot more. There has been a devastating result in Hartlepool and other councils around the country. It is very sad to see.

"The Labour Party needs to listen to voters very closely and needs to offer something tangibly different to the Conservative Party."