Labour Trades in a True Statesman for a Snake-oil Salesman

Sir John Major throws shade on the new prime minister in waiting. "Mr Burnham has had great success, I'm told, with buses," he says. "A little different from dealing with Xi, Putin, Trump, Macron, Merz."

Read more: https://t.co/MIGIjW42jj pic.twitter.com/LDaw6lOb2z

— The Independent (@Independent) June 26, 2026

The remarks John Major was referring to on June 26 were in Andy Burnham's Makerfield acceptance speech. He'd spent his campaign promising voters that they were his priority. Accusations had been flying around that he was using them as a stepping stone to Number 10 - which of course he was, but had constantly denied it. If he'd admitted it, he wouldn't have won.

Then he hit upon a clever idea, having majored in English at Cambridge. Poor underprivileged lad that he was. I digress. Back to Makerfield, in his acceptance speech he told his loyal voters that they weren't a stepping stone, they were a "touchstone". Ha! All government decisions and policies would have to pass the "Makerfield test," he said, to make sure places like Makerfield were finally treated fairly by that monster Westminster that had neglected them horrifically to date.

He would put his Makerfield Test at the heart of British policies. I'm sure it made them feel very important. Which is one of his primary skills that are utterly void of real commitment. This one is also transparently absurd.

Firstly, this is blatant exploitation of voters' expectations that change can be facilitated simply and should happen overnight. All voters round the world think that's how things happen. That's why the good leaders don't make false promises. Because it's impossible. Which Burnham knows full well. It's a conveniently seductive message, though. A favourite of Trump's.

Secondly, no two communities are the same, have the same voter dynamics or are influenced by the same forces. So what makes Makerfield happy might infuriate a poor community in say Liverpool, London, Cornwall or the South East. Take your pick. Their micro economies rely on different aspects, which require different policies. And helping poorer communities takes money, which means the economy has to be built, and my God there are a ton of conflicting interests there. Nothing simple at all. Further complicated by international instability.

As John Major pointed out, what about international relations with complications galore? Putin, Xi, Trump, the EU? Without a doubt Makerfield voters are going to understand the implications and consequences for their community and the country of policies and decisions made around foreign policy. They'll also understand that, in such an interconnected and disrupted world, foreign policy dictates local economies, right down to the price of fuel and bread. Of course they'll understand. Or not.

@Keir_Starmer understands it perfectly, and in two years has successfully navigated all the challenges with astonishing skill, admired, respected and liked by all leaders involved who have the best interests of the world at heart. 

Big global issues, that have a real impact back at home - that’s what these summits are all about. pic.twitter.com/OdrmscSr8S

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 17, 2026

Andy Burnham doesn't understand it at all. He thinks "strength at home is strength abroad". It's not a competition, mate. This is the guy who once vowed, in the deep dark recesses of the past that he was an EU man. 

Andy Burnham on why he’s for rejoining the EU…

…and why we need to call out Reform on Brexit. 👏👏👏👏 pic.twitter.com/n4DFRp6Mjb

— Mike Galsworthy (@mikegalsworthy) September 29, 2025

"Long term, I'm gonna be honest..." Right. Such a genuine guy. Of course he rolled that right back during his Makerfield campaigning, since he was running against Reform. So all the painstaking work Keir Starmer has been doing to take us closer and closer to the EU in a way that would build stability and acceptance couldn't be consolidated by Burnham if he was PM because Makerfield wouldn't like it.

In the UK, a snake-oil salesman has been foisted on us in place of a true statesman of the highest calibre in a high stakes palace coup.  

Andy Burnham's Ambition has given Racists & Bigots a Bigger Platform

 An angry, threatening racist confronted @AndyBurnhamGM recently on his rounds in Makerfield and the video was posted on Twitter by a bigot with 213K+ followers. It's had 655K views in 21 hours.

Something people aren't talking about is that, regardless of who wins in Makerfield, Burnham's ambition to get into Number 10 has given a huge platform to the racists and bigots. If @joshsimonsmp had stayed in Makerfield & Burnham had stayed in Greater Manchester, the bigots wouldn't have had the platform they have now in Makerfield and will have in Manchester if Burnham wins, forcing a mayoral by-election. They're stronger now, whatever the Makerfield result.

It's a no-win situation. If Burnham loses, Makerfield will go to Reform. If he wins, Greater Manchester will have to go through a mayoral by-election with massive Reform investment, & huge empowering of the racists & bigots. Reform would probably win. Any good work Burnham has done would be shredded. He'd have to kiss his legacy goodbye. And so would Manchester.

He'd be unpopular in Westminster and would have divided Labour even more, making it vulnerable to Opposition parties, especially Reform. We could soon end up with an unelectable Labour Party again, and Farage as PM.  

Internationally, Burnham would flounder. EU leaders and Zelensky would be distraught at losing such a strong ally in @Keir_Starmer, and his integrity, statesmanship and strategic skills would be missed enormously. All the good work he's done and is doing would be badly eroded. Ukraine would really suffer. Putin could gain the upper hand again.

And for what? I can't even see any upside for Andy Burnham. He should have seen this coming. Should have gone to Specsavers.

What does Stanley Chow's Image of Andy Burnham Represent Now?

Recently, in a predictably despicable stunt, Reform used illustrator Stanley Chow's 2020 portrait of @AndyBurnhamGM for an AI generated attack ad aimed at stirring up hatred of immigrants and clearly trying to garner Restore votes. Kudos to Chow, a second generation immigrant from Manchester, for standing up for his rights and threatening legal action. Reform has taken down the ad but could still face a lawsuit. That's the good news.

There's another side to the artwork and what it represents, though. Burnham seems to be misusing it too, for different reasons, and in a way that's unacknowledged. At least with Reform we all know who they are, because they don't try to hide it.

But Burnham is a different story. His words say he's one thing; a genuine, honest bloke caring deeply about the ills of society, but his actions offer a sharply contrasting picture. Chow said he created the portrait to "represent something positive about Manchester and Andy’s vision for the city". Back in 2021, everybody believed Burnham when he vowed that, “This is the job in politics I truly want. Why? Because, in a way I could never be in Westminster, this job brings out the real me.”

Asked if he'd ever run for Labour leadership again, he said, “I can’t see it happening, genuinely. I personally believe the longer you stay in Westminster the more it makes a fraud out of you.”

In 2024 when running for re-election as Mayor he said, "When it comes to the decency and warmth of the people, there is no better city region on Earth than this one that we live in. That is why being elected to represent for the third time means absolutely everything to me. I can honestly say I have never given anything less than my all to this job and I've tried to be there for all communities, and everyone who lives here – and I promise to do again."

When he was re-elected he said, "I am ready to fight harder than I have ever fought for anything before, for a Greater Manchester where people can live free from the fear of debt, hunger and eviction, and where everyone is set up to be part of the growing success story that is our city region today. Greater Manchester will continue to lead the way and we will do it together, thank you so much for your support. I look forward to getting on with the job again immediately, and I won't let you down."

Another time he said that he was “much happier” in his role as mayor compared to being in Westminster & wanted to “serve a full third term, because the stuff I want to do hasn’t been done yet. Being elected to represent for the third time means absolutely everything to me. Honestly, I’m here for a full third term." That's what Chow's image was meant to represent.

But Burnham casually abandoned his promises to the city when opportunity arose for him to use Makerfield to undermine the Labour Party and further his personal ambition to be PM, an ambition he's always disingenuously denied. And, he supports Shabana Mahmood's harsh immigration policies that have drawn a lot of angry criticism - including Burnham's, until he saw an opportunity to stab @Keir_Starmer and the Labour Party in the back but realised that to fulfill his ambition he'd have to sacrifice immigrants. Not to mention Josh Simons, who gave up his seat for Burnham, and Manchester, who would probably get a Reform mayor if Burnham won Makerfield.

Having said in 2021 that Westminster makes a fraud out of you, he's now embracing that fraud. Is this how Chow intended his artwork to be used? Representing fraud and betrayal, and all under the transparent guise of 'Andy the good bloke'?

Maybe Stanley Chow sees it differently and would be okay with it. I don't know. I haven't spoken to him. I admire his success as an illustrator. He was selling prints of the original portrait and donating the proceeds to charity. Again, kudos to him. But if I'd created that portrait, I'd be telling Andy Burnham he can't use it any more.

Andy Burnham, Working Man's Hero or Ambitious, Manipulative Egotist?

In February this year, Chris Saltmarsh - a climate activist calling for eco-socialism - wrote an interesting piece, "Your Party Can Realign the British Left" assessing Your Party, Andy Burnham, SCG, Greens and Zack Polanski. He had this to say about Burnham (Italics are mine):  

"For all the media intrigue, the demand for a Burnham ascendancy, limited to several dozen dissatisfied Labour MPs ... is an expression of elite machinations and not a reflection of popular political sentiment. Burnham is surely a very popular politician... However, the substance of his political project is an uninspiring combination of electoral reform and a “social” version of developmental capitalism... The elephant in the room is that, while the region’s buses may have improved, Burnham’s Greater Manchester experiences the same enduring social problems as the rest of Britain." 

Saltmarsh doesn't seem to whitewash for the sake of what he believes in - unlike Burnham, who whitewashes his own failures and bigs up his successes, keeping very quiet about the role played by others. Saltmarsh didn't say anything good about Polanski either, and wrote about how even Your Party, which garnered such a big membership at first, "got off to a troubled start". He did, at the time of writing, however, hold out hope for it. 

I don't agree, but I think his assessment of Burnham still holds good. Burnham can talk up a storm, but he always makes it about himself. He has a self-deprecating way of honouring himself as the conquering hero of society's ills that's positively nauseating. Worse, he flat out refuses to engage in any detail about how he would make good on all his grand promises. In conversation with Victoria Derbyshire he said of course he would follow the fiscal rules. But when she asked him what they were he said "I'm not going to go through...an exam on the fiscal rules". The absurdity of that reply beggars belief.

As does his response to her asking why he believed he would be a better prime minister than Keir Starmer. "I'm not getting into that," he said, chuckling disarmingly, "I am fully focused on this by-election." Then he went on a ramble about how dedicated he is to Makerfield and not thinking about what comes next. I guess he would have also been super-dedicated to Gorton and Denton if he'd been allowed to run.  

Just as he's been dedicated to Greater Manchester. Which he's quite happy to walk out on. He's giving up all that power and influence simply to be a Makerfield MP in a Westminster that he hates? Come on. 

The whole of the UK knows he's only doing this in the belief that he'll win and be able to muscle Starmer out of No. 10. And hasn't he offered Josh Simons a high paying job in government in exchange for his seat? Before Josh fell for the bait didn't Burnham's allies try to persuade others to do the same in exchange for seats in the House of Lords? And hasn't Burnham himself said he'll challenge Starmer? No, that's not it. He said he wouldn't. Then he would join in if Wes Streeting launched his own challenge. Sure, our Andy's not thinking about No. 10. 

Seems to me he's trying to please people in all camps in the belief that his charm will overwhelm their good sense and blot out what they see with their own eyes and ears. He seems oblivious to the obvious: that he's exposing himself as inauthentic, manipulative and insubstantial. The epithet snake-oil salesman is used a lot to describe him on social media. 

Can't say I disagree. 

The Truth, the Whole Truth etc. Or Not.

It's no surprise that the local elections have elicited widespread media coverage that's massively negative towards Keir Starmer, given that that's what's been happening since 2019 anyway. Very little mention is ever made of the support he has. Those of us who take a broader view and support him have become accustomed to headline after headline predicting his demise. But today's Guardian article by @jessicaelgot kind of takes the cake.

The headline reads: "Most Labour members think Starmer cannot revive party fortunes, poll finds." It's essentially a pitch for Andy Burnham, using his unidentified "allies" as sources. No Starmer allies are mentioned. 

It's an old story, one that the media capitalises on relentlessly, always presenting their version as truthful reporting, as Elgot does here. But we can't check the truthfulness. We don't know whether it's the same set of MPs who talk to all the media. We can't research them, find out anything about them at all. Which is convenient for a media that doesn't appear to be invested in truth or balance. 

Mostly importantly, Elgot doesn't mention that Compass, who did the poll and are cited throughout the article as the 'authoritative voice', is neither impartial nor non-partisan and nor is its analysis. It's an advocacy-driven, hard-left pressure group.  

At the end of the piece, Elgot cites some MPs who have called for Starmer to step down, but doesn’t clarify if they’re Burnham “allies”. Former transport secretary Louise Haigh is one. She 'resigned' when it was revealed that she a had a prior conviction for fraud - which she didn’t disclose to the government's propriety and ethics team when Starmer made her a Cabinet member in 2020. 

Which Elgot didn’t mention. Nor did she comment on Haigh’s hypocrisy in moralising at Keir Starmer when her conviction and non-disclosure were revealed, putting him in a difficult position, adding to the very negative narrative about him that the media had latched onto even in the run-up to the 2024 general election. Also not mentioned is that Haigh is co-chair of the Tribune Group, a caucus of Labour MPs that’s allegedly soft-left/centre-left but that advocates for socialist values. 

Elgot also cites Sarah Owens as calling for Starmer to step down. Owens has a long record in politics, like Haigh. In 2019 she won her constituency with 23,496 votes, a majority of 9,247. In 2024 she won again, but with far fewer votes – 14,667 and a majority of 7,510. Still a good win, but also a significant drop. So for her to be preaching at Keir Starmer is also questionable. 

Owens is co-Chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East and resigned from the Cabinet in 2023 in support of calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. We probably agree on a great deal over this issue. But so does Keir Starmer. At the UN Security Council in July 2024 the government called for an immediate ceasefire. The transcript of that speech is worth reading. 

I’d like to see the whole world stop supporting Netanyahu, who is a war criminal and belongs in jail for the rest of his life, but the point here is that getting rid of Keir Starmer doesn’t guarantee it. In fact a new Labour leader will destabilise the party. Kemi Badenoch has already said that if it happens, there must be another election. We could get a Reform government, which would back Netanyahu’s genocidal mania to the hilt and destroy UK democracy, just as Trump has tried to do in the US, and to an alarming extent, succeeded. 

Also, the rosy idea that a new Labour leader – like Burnham, for example – would escape savaging by the media is absurd. They’d get the same treatment, find their popularity plummeting, and have people plotting against them as is happening with Keir Starmer. Aided and abetted by media from all sides. Even if there wasn’t a general election straight away, Labour would be more divided and in a worse position by the time it did happen. 

None of this is mentioned by Elgot either. Am I expecting too much from her? No, I’m not. In fact, I expect more. For balance, she should have cited all the identifiable sources who say that now is not the time to replace Keir Starmer. It’s called journalism.

 @Guardian, you need to clean up your act. his happens too frequently on your watch. Elgot’s piece is sloppy and lazy at best, and at worst, it positively and transparently promotes getting rid of Keir Starmer, without a thought to the consequences. We all expect that from the Daily Mail, the Sun, and their counterparts with posh accents The Times and Telegraph, but the liberal media here is in danger of succumbing to the seduction of their template, completely losing its way in its lustful pursuit of an audience increasingly addicted to melodrama and bad news.

If at First...

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better."

 Samuel Beckett

As a young man, Abraham Lincoln went to war a captain and returned a private. Then he was a failure as a businessman. As a lawyer in Springfield, he was too impractical and temperamental to be a success.

He turned to politics and was defeated in his first try for the legislature, again defeated in his first attempt to be nominated for congress, defeated in his application to be commissioner of the General Land Office, defeated in the senatorial election of 1854, in his efforts for the vice-presidency in 1856, and in the senatorial election of 1858.

Winston Churchill failed sixth grade. He was subsequently defeated in every election for public office until he became Prime Minister at the age of 62. He later wrote, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never, Never, Never, Never give up." 

Sigmund Freud was booed from the podium when he first presented his ideas to the scientific community of Europe. He returned to his office and kept on writing.

Robert Sternberg got a C in his first college introductory-psychology class. His teacher commented that "There was a famous Sternberg in psychology and it was obvious there would not be another." Three years later Sternberg graduated with honors from Stanford University with exceptional distinction in psychology.. In 2002 he became President of the American Psychological Association.

Charles Darwin gave up a medical career and was told by his father, "You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat catching." In his autobiography, Darwin wrote, "I was considered by all my masters and my father, a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard of intellect."

Thomas Edison's teachers said he was "too stupid to learn anything." He was fired from his first two jobs for being non-productive. As an inventor, he made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

"Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall."
Confucius

Stephen Colbert for President!

(Photo from Obama / Colbert Wastepaper Basketball Rematch) 

Obama and Colbert had some fun in the Obama Presidential Centre Oval Office replica before they sat down to talk about the Centre opening in June. A lot of people ask Colbert if he's going to run for president. He and Obama laughed about it, although when Colbert said, how ridiculous is it, Obama's answer was a bit cryptic - that he'd certainly be a lot better than "some folks". 

He sure would. He'd be great at messaging, at reaching voters and connecting with them, at international relationships. He'd bring back quality jazz to the White House. And he'd pick a really good team to help with the hard stuff!

Let's not forget, Zelensky was a comedian and look at him now. The most powerful leader in the West. Loved and respected by millions. Seriously, it's doubtful that Colbert would want to do it. Whatever he does, he has a bright future ahead of him. It's painful to see him go, though, and to have witnessed him being sacrificed to CBS's sycophancy and greed. All these media giants who have bowed to Trump couldn't see past their noses. He's wildly unpopular now, in the US and round the world. People loathe him, and MAGA's finished. The dirt will rub off on whoever pandered to them.

It's good to see the inimitable Obama speaking out. The Presidential Center is an out-picturing of his unflagging commitment to social justice and equity. And it's non-partisan. Obama talked about how worried he is for the Republican Party, not just Democrats (1.16 in the clip). So many people around the world worship him, for good reason, but it's never gone to his head. Which is why everybody worships him, of course. That and the fact he's a very likeable, loveable fella and a class act through and through. 

Going back to the fun conversation between him and Colbert, there was an Interesting discussion about it on CNN. John King was on the panel. I always appreciate what he has to say. He pointed out that Mamdani was able to reach voters where they were at, and Democrats can do it everywhere. Obama’s advice was to talk to voters in their language, simple English. 

By the way, who's idea was it to put tweets up on the CNN screen during this discussion and to include Scott Jennings? He's a nasty piece of work. Manipulative, aggressive towards others. He used to come on The Context with Christian Fraser a lot and he was irritating even then; he criticised Trump quite a lot but never really committed himself to anything. And never offered any interesting insights. Then I guess he realised he could make real money if he switched sides and voila. He appeared on CNN. Put a lot of people off with his crude unqualified support for the man he once said was an authoritarian.

He's still trashing Trump behind his back, though, according to Miles Taylor, who worked in the 1st Trump administration but is now a passionate critic. 

Fortunately on this show Jennings' tweets were outnumbered and outsmarted. Which would be easy for a donkey. The others had something intelligent to say but as always Jennings was just vapid and petty. Of all the Republicans that CNN could have brought into their teams he's the most ridiculous choice. He's not insightful and he irritates everybody on panels. 

Maybe that's the idea. CNN top boss ordered a Republican to be included. Lower down the chain, whoever had to make the decision ground their teeth in frustration and decided to pick somebody who would put everybody off the GOP. Not that any help is needed really. Trump's doing that all on his own. 

Notwithstanding cheating and foreign interference, I’ll never understand fully how America could have gone from the Obamas in the White House to the Trumps. Twice. Maybe it was the cheating and the foreign interference, but why did anybody fall for it? The power of grooming, I suppose. What’s comforting is that the spell is broken. Trump, along with his sycophants, will end up in history’s trash bin, a shameful stain on America. 

But Obama's legacy is already cast in stone and it can only improve time as he gains in stature with his ongoing commitment to America's democracy.  Thank God. 

The Most Attacked - Physically - Politician of Modern Times. Right.

 

@Nigel_Farage has taken to protesting that he really, really, really needs the £5 million his mate Christopher Harborne gave him out of the goodness of his heart. "I've been the most attacked - physically - politician of modern times," said the doleful Mr. Farage. 

What, more than the politicians who were murdered? In case you've forgotten, Nige, that would be David Amess (2021), Jo Cox (2016), Ian Gow (1990), Anthony Berry (1984), Robert Bradford (1981), Airey Neave (1979). May they rest in peace. 

The delightful Mr. Farage, well known for his commitment to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, says the only way he can protect himself for the rest of his life is with the £5 million 'gift'. I'm confused. Didn't he get the money two years ago, before he decided to stand as a candidate in the GE? Was he the most attacked - physically - politician of modern times even back then? And Nige, didn't you decide to stand shortly after you got the money, having declared definitively up until then that you wouldn't?

Even Trump might have a problem with Nige's protestations, given that there have been 3 assassination attempts on his life and he thinks he's the most hardly done by person on the planet. Anyway, just doing the math, if Farage’s security detail costs him say £1,000 a day, he will have spent about £750,000, and the rest will be in his bank account, right? Then he's got about 11 or 12 years' worth of security.

Which can't be the 'rest of his life' can it? Hmm. It's all very puzzling. Nige. Nice friend you've got there, I must say. 

Sloppy Journalism from The Guardian - or Deliberate Distortion?

There are a lot of rumblings and outright disgust at how British media that purports to be unbiased or even liberal, has chosen to savage Keir Starmer and the Labour Party at every opportunity. Is that accurate? Here's a case in point. It's not outright savaging; it's creating a distorted narrative about Labour that is distinctly false.

The headline of this Guardian article reads "Nearly twice as many men as women standing in May elections in UK", which implies that all parties are at fault. Which is confusing, because it's own table shows that Labour stands out as the only party with near equity (42%) in the local elections, and full equity (50%) in all the other elections.

All other parties have lower figures, some of them dramatically. For example, Reform's figures are slightly above half those of Labour and they have no representation at all in the Mayoral races. The Green Party has 60% women in the Scottish elections, but less than Labour in all the others.

Paragraph 1: Women will be massively underrepresented on ballot papers across the UK next week, campaigners say, with research revealing that almost twice as many men as women are standing as candidates across the local, mayoral and devolved elections.

Fact: It's not the truth about Labour, whose aggregate across all 4 elections is 48% female representation. How is that in any way reflective of 'massive under-representation'? How many women, I wonder, for whom gender equity is a burning issue, would read the headline and the first paragraph and think, "Labour's just as bad as the rest of them, despite all their promises. I'm not voting for them. Hypocrites!"? Or maybe they'd read on a bit. 

Paragraph 2: Democracy campaigners say men of all political stripes are likely to dominate local government, with women’s views on issues from social care to bin collections sidelined by the huge gap between the numbers of male and female candidates. 

Fact: Except in the Labour Party. Maybe that's in the next paragraph. 

Paragraph 3: Across all elections taking place on 7 May, a third of candidates are women and two-thirds are men, with no party achieving gender parity, according to analysis by 50:50 Parliament and Democracy Club shared exclusively with the Guardian. 

Fact: Labour has total parity in the Scottish, Mayoral and Senedd elections, and 42% in locals. That gives it an aggregate of 48%. Ever hopeful for a glimmer of truth and balance, let's keep going. 

Paragraph 4: In local elections in England, which account for the largest number of candidates out of all elections next Thursday, 34% of candidates are female and no party is fielding an equal number of men and women. In the six mayoral elections taking place, 18% of candidates are women; in the Senedd elections, the figure is 38%; and in the Scottish parliament elections it is 36%. 

Fact: As I've pointed out and as the article's own table shows after the above paragraph, Labour has 42% female candidates in the locals. 50% in the mayoral, 50% in the Senedd, 50% in the Scottish parliament. It's only in the fifth paragraph that we get some hard truth. 

Reform UK has the smallest proportion of women on ballot papers in the local elections in England, at 23%. Labour is the closest to achieving gender parity, with 42% of its candidates women, followed by the Green party (41%), the Liberal Democrats (33%) and the Conservatives. That's great, but what about the fact that Labour is the only with full equity in all the other elections? The rest of the article has quotes: 

Lyanne Nicholl, the CEO of 50:50 Parliament, said: “Women are massively underrepresented on our ballot papers." Except in the Labour Party.

"Penny East, the chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said the analysis showed democracy was not working for women." Except in the Labour Party. 

East said online abuse and threats dissuaded women from standing. Except in the Labour Party, where female candidates are willing to fight and push beyond the abuse. 

"Men continue to dominate both locally and nationally, and without proper representation women’s views and perspectives will once again be sidelined,” Nicholl said. Except within the Labour Party. And for the record, there are 190 female Labour MPs, which is 46% of the total. It's the largest female representation in Labour's history.

[Nicholl continued;] "This isn’t about political point scoring, this is about women’s representation and how that has benefits for everyone."  

Nicholl may not be trying to score political points. But she also didn't bother to be clear about where progress is being made, and the question is, why? Or maybe she was clear, but the Guardian piece deliberately left it out. In reality, the piece is blatantly biased, which is about political points for somebody. Reform, the Conservatives, the Greens, the Lib Dems? Who knows. It's clearly not for the Labour Party. 

The Guardian had a choice of headlines, one of which would have reflected the stats in their own table: "Labour Female Representation in Upcoming Elections Surpasses that of All Other Parties." Or something like that. You get the drift. My question for the Guardian editors and the author of the piece, Lexy Topping, is, why wait until paragraph 5 to establish the plain facts? What's in it for you? Or do you even realise that you set the stage with the headline and the first 4 paragraphs, so the 5th doesn't resonate?

Is it sloppy journalism or deliberate? Either way, it's unconscionable.

The Dangers for Labour of Courting the Far Right

 

A while back I received an email from Shabana Mahmood inviting my feedback about her immigration policy. It made me think back to the origins of this Labour government and how, although I firmly support Keir Starmer, I’ve always been unhappy about what seems to me to be Labour’s courting of the far right, especially re Brexit and immigration.

For the record, I have great faith in Keir Starmer. I think he may have made mistakes, but he's had a phenomenally complex job so far, and he corrected mistakes as much as possible. Under his premiership, a lot has actually been accomplished by Labour. His international work has been absolutely sterling. In this time of massive upheaval I think we're very fortunate to have such an accomplished statesman at the helm. 

But when Labour started gearing up for the 2024 GE I was shocked at the nationalist approach it took, especially since I knew that Keir Starmer has always been an internationalist. It was what made me decide to support him when he was running for Labour leadership. Well, that and his patent integrity and lack of personal ambition. At a Labour event where all the candidates spoke, he didn’t like promoting himself, and ended his spiel by saying that all the candidates present would make excellent leaders. 

None of them said the same of him. He won that leadership contest on the first round, which I hope reflected appreciation of his obvious integrity and vision (which included, I thought, the importance of our relationship with the EU) and not of voter misogyny, given that he was up against two women; Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long-Bailey.

But then suddenly the British flag was everywhere, together with the words ‘patriotism’ and ‘the British people’. The nationalistic fervour that erupted was a continuation or perpetuation of the maniacal support for Brexit and had kind of vicious negative undertones. Suffocating. It’s dangerous playing with nationalism; it’s the number one tool for authoritarians, exclusionists, racists and those harking back to ‘better times’ when social dominance depended on the colour of your lily white skin. 

Keir Starmer blatantly ignored the huge swathe of supporters who opposed everything about the far right, including those of us who voted for him to be Labour leader. I began to doubt my judgement and his.

Because, make no mistake; strip away the superficial ‘love your country’ and you’re left with the core of what drives that far right. It’s not about ‘love your country’ at all. It’s about racism and intolerance that is deeply rooted here and elsewhere, underpinned by profound insecurity as the status quo shifts in society and your lily white skin doesn’t guarantee you any power at all. All of it relentlessly driven by the right wing media, which has a huge grip on the minds of so many. 

Over and over again Keir Starmer said we were never going to rejoin the EU. He could have kept quiet about it, particularly since Brexit was becoming increasingly unpopular as the devastating effects of it took root. But he did the opposite; he broadcast it far and wide, seemingly oblivious to how deeply offensive it was to those desperate to be part of the EU again and return to normalcy so that we could begin to repair the damage of Brexit to our economy and relations with European countries, severely decimated by Boris Johnson et al. Labour clearly didn't understand the danger of not just courting the far right, but having a full-blown sordid affair with it. 

The whole point of course was to win over the Red Wall and then hold onto them. Somebody in Labour must have believed they’d have the votes of British internationalists anyway because we wanted the Tories out. Again, it didn’t seem like Keir Starmer. I was sure he was being advised badly and didn’t have enough confidence in his own instincts.

I didn’t know much about Strategy Chief Morgan McSweeney then. When the Mandelson storm hit, and McSweeney was all caught up in it, I realised that they both seem to have believed that you counter the far right by getting into bed with them, no pun intended on Mandelson’s sordid friendship with Epstein.  It’s feasible that McSweeney directed Starmer’s decision to focus solely on the Red Wall and very publicly slam down a seemingly impregnable barrier to rejoining the EU. Labour won the election in a landslide because, caught between a rock and hard place, enough of us did vote to oust the Tories. 

Sure, it was a historic landslide, so the short term goal was achieved. But the problem with pursuing the far right in order to defeat them should have been self evident. You don’t win them over to your side, because Conservative opposition to Labour is deeply rooted, entrenched by years of consuming mindless right wing media (which was borne out by the 2024 GE when Labour’s vote share dropped 31 so-called Red Wall seats). What does happen, though, is that you give the intolerance and closemindedness more exposure and weight, reinforcing it and handing those who hold onto it reason to believe it’s justified. “If even Labour thinks it we must be right.” That lasts a long time and can be very damaging, not just to a Party, but to society.

Was it also McSweeney’s advice to focus on immigration as a massive problem here, which in reality it isn't? Starmer seemed to believe that Labour needed to pacify those who think it is, but all that was ‘achieved’ was a reinforcement of rabid far right, very emotionally driven belief that all immigrants are criminals and a detriment to society.  Starmer started to walk it back a little, and Yvette Cooper refrained from inflammatory comment about immigrants while working hard to reduce boat crossings.

But then Shabana Mahmood broke onto the scene. Her astonishingly punitive immigration policy seemed driven by a real rage against those who are as vulnerable as she and her parents once were, but not as fortunate. 

Most of her social media posts included bragging about herself and her unflinching policy, which to me stank, and still does, of an authoritarian, disciplinarian bent that makes her seem a good candidate for Reform. Mahmood has been blind to the arrant lack of wisdom in the strategy of wooing the far right and how  her widely publicised punitive attitude to immigrants has entrenched the widespread belief that they are the problem and are just hateful people. A belief promulgated by Conservatives and the rabid  Conservative media for generations.

Mahmood has been targeted brutally with anti-Muslim hate and general racism and for that she deserves wholehearted support and empathy. But that it drives her to want to punish other immigrants is unacceptable. 

Enduring hardship either makes people empathetic and understanding towards anybody who struggles, or it makes people harshly intolerant and judgemental of those who haven’t been able yet to overcome their own hardship. The argument is always “I did it so they can too,” which ignores that some have worse hardships and less support and are maybe dealing also with mental health issues.

Apart from the fact that they may be more vulnerable in a thousand ways than she and her parents were, Mahmood’s rhetoric tars all immigrants with the same brush and that’s the danger. Firstly, from a humanitarian perspective that is not supposed to be who Labour is. It’s Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Nigel Farage, but surely not us. Also, it’s strategically short-sighted and counterproductive, because tarring all immigrants is core to the far right and Reform. So Mahmood hasn’t done Starmer or Labour, or British society, or the human race, any favours at all. She’s helped the far right though, some of whom have applauded her.

She is in a position of enormous power and needs to take responsibility for her own blind spots and trigger points. When in opposition she usually voted against tougher immigration laws. Has power gone to her head in the worst of ways, as it did Priti Patel and Suella Braverman? 

Mahood has started to tone down her rhetoric and Keir Starmer is consulting now on her new policy measures, in the face of significant  opposition from amongst MPs, 100 of whom signed a letter in early March in opposition to some of her policies. Mahmood is not easy to sway though, and seems convinced that her plan will work. My only hope is that Keir Starmer will help see the light.