Andy Dowland

Category: Politics

  • Election Results in Southampton: A Comprehensive Overview

    PartyVotesVote shareSeats
    Reform UK15,36125.7%8
    Labour12,70921.3%2
    Green11,75019.7%4
    Conservative10,01316.7%0
    Liberal Democrats8,44714.1%3
    Trade Union and Socialist Coalition1,0701.8%0
    Independents4490.8%0

    Safest Seat – Coxford
    Philip Crook (Reform UK) majority of 743 over Paul Nolan (Conservative)

    Most Marginal Seat – Millbrook
    Ross Mould (Reform UK) majority of 24 over Jeremy Moulton (Conservative)

    Highest vote share – Thornhill
    Timothy Kiff-Munds (Reform UK) 41.6%

    Lowest winning vote-share – Bitterne Park
    Philip Webb (Labour) 27.1%

    Best Results for each party
    Reform UK – Sarah Powell-Vaughan (Sholing) 1,434
    Labour – Philip Webb (Bitterne Park) 1,290
    Green – Lorna-Marie Foster (Portswood) 1,432
    Conservative – Alexander Houghton (Peartree) 1,265
    Liberal Democrats – Sam Chapman (Bassett) 1,596
    TUSC – Nadia Ditta (Bevois) 739
    Independents – Andrew Pope (Redbridge) 365

    Party Efficiency
    Reform were the most efficient party. They won 8 seats, and in the wards they did not win they were mostly 3rd or 4th. Their vote was concentrated exactly where it needed to be.

    The Lib Dems were almost as efficient. They won 3 seats, had no second places, and only one third place, in Portswood. Everywhere else they were 4th, 5th or 6th. That is classic Lib Dem targeting: don’t waste votes everywhere, win where you’re organised.

    The Greens also targeted well. They won 4 seats and had one second place, in Swaythling. Everywhere else they were mostly 3rd or 4th. Their vote was less efficient than Reform’s or the Lib Dems’, but still converted well.

    Labour were spread all over the city: 2 wins, 8 runner-up spots, 5 thirds, one 4th in Swaythling and one 5th in Bassett. That is the profile of a party with residual support almost everywhere but not enough concentrated strength to win many places.

    The Conservatives had the worst conversion. They won no seats from 10,013 votes and 16.7% of the citywide vote, while the Lib Dems won 3 seats on 8,447 votes and 14.1%. The Tories had 7 runner-up spots, so they were often competitive, but not quite in the right places. That is a targeting failure as much as a vote-share failure.

    Finally
    Had the vote splits hurt either bloc, actually no, if you added up Labour, Lib Dem and Greens on one side and Reform, Conservatives on the other side, nothing would change, The Right Bloc would have 8 seats (all the ones Reform took) and the Left Bloc 9 (all the ones Lib Dems, Green and Labour held).

  • Why Keir Starmer Should Stay: Addressing Labour’s Deeper Issues

    Okay, May 7th 2026 was not the best day in Labour’s history.

    Losing 1,430 councillors1, 2 out of 19 seats in Plymouth, 2 out of 17 in Southampton2, 9 out of 57 in Hackney, 3rd in Birmingham3, 3rd in Manchester4, 5th in Newcastle5. I could be adding examples for days without mentioning Scotland or Wales. There were some glimmers of hope, only losing five seats in Oxford, only one in Barnet, gaining one in Merton but they are like candles in the abyss.

    Any Labour politician or activist will look at a 17% national equivalent vote and know that something has to change. Sir Keir Starmer is obviously under pressure and his tin-eared reaction so far makes it tempting to throw him overboard. But that doesn’t fix the problem.

    Starmer should stay not because he is good, but because Labour’s problem is deeper than him. Changing the salesman won’t fix a product nobody understands, trusts, or wants. Starmer is the correct leader for this Labour Government, managerial, cautious, negative, emotionally unavailable, obsessed with risk, unable to say what Labour is for except “delivery” and “stability”. Replacing him with someone warmer or cleverer might improve the packaging, but it could also let Labour dodge the harder question: what are we selling?

    Labour lost different places in different directions because different voters went looking for the missing bits of Labour elsewhere. Greens in Manchester, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Norwich, Hastings, Southwark: voters looking for moral urgency, housing, climate, civil liberties, Gaza, an actual progressive offer. Plaid in Wales: voters looking for rooted social democracy and national voice. Reform in Dudley, Hartlepool, Tameside, Newcastle, Essex/Suffolk: voters who feel abandoned. Lib Dems in Stockport, Portsmouth, Surrey and Sutton: voters looking for local competence and anti-chaos liberalism.

    Replacing Starmer now would let the party pretend this is a personality problem. It would create the illusion of renewal without forcing a reckoning. A new leader could produce a short polling bounce, a few warmer speeches or a different accent. But unless the product changes, Labour would still be selling austerity with regret, triangulation without purpose, and patience without hope.

    So what do we do about the product? It can’t be simply to spend more and tax less, it has to be realistic, but here’s three areas to work on:

    Patriotism:
    Labour should reclaim patriotism as seriousness about the national interest. Not flag-waving. Not culture-war nostalgia. Not mistaking obedience to Washington for strength. A patriotic government asks a simple question: what is in Britain’s best interest?

    On Iran, that meant not treating Donald Trump’s demand for support as an instruction. Badenoch’s Conservatives and Reform would have heard “jump” and asked “how high?” Polanski’s Greens would have said no almost by reflex, too suspicious of NATO to be trusted with hard choices. Labour did the right thing: looked at the facts, judged Britain’s interests, and refused to be bounced into someone else’s war. We did the right thing, supported by two-thirds of the public and then Starmer seemed apologetic for it. Don’t. Be proud.

    The same applies to Chagos. The only strategic reason Britain holds the islands is Diego Garcia. Securing the long-term future of that base while ending an indefensible colonial hangover is not anti-British. It is what a serious country does. Being America’s puppet is not patriotism. Making hard decisions in Britain’s interests is.

    Clean and Trustworthy Governance:
    Labour needs to rediscover clean government. That starts with an apology. Starmer should apologise for his freebies, and so should any minister who takes them. Not because a pair of spectacles is the same as Farage trousering millions, but because voters understand the spectacles in a way they do not understand the millions.

    Most people can imagine being given a free pair of glasses. They cannot imagine being handed £5m. And ordinary people do not spend £3,000 on spectacles. I paid £320 for mine and winced. So when Labour people say “but Farage is worse”, they may be right morally and legally, but they are missing why this lands. It looks like a governing class taking perks while telling everyone else to be patient.

    Mandelson is worse, because it is not just about gifts. It is about judgement. Starmer should refer the appointment to the Privileges Committee, publish what can be published, and accept the consequences. If Labour wants to be the party of clean government, it cannot investigate corruption only when it belongs to its enemies.

    The promise should be simple: no freebies, no favours, no jobs for mates, no donor class, no special rules for insiders. Public office is not a private club.

    Clean Governance is also about keeping promises. We were promised a conversion therapy ban in the manifesto6 the King’s Speech promised a draft bill by the end of the session7, it hasn’t happened. We were promised a Hillsborough Law but that’s been languishing at Report Stage since December8. We were promised a National Wealth Fund Bill to put the former UKIB on a statutory footing but apart from various comments from Reeves, Milliband and Reynolds, it’s missing in action. If you can’t or won’t do something you promised, say so and explain.

    Security:
    The third offer is security. Not the pseudo-security of blaming migrants, banning protests and pretending cruelty is competence. Real security: a home you can afford, work that pays and respects you, bills you can manage, a health service there when you need it, and a council that can do the basics. Labour should be the party that makes life less precarious. If it cannot say that, plainly and repeatedly, then it has forgotten one of the oldest reasons it exists.

    Beveridge named five giants: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. Labour does not need to invent a new moral language from scratch. It needs to remember that its purpose is to fight the things that make ordinary life insecure.

    Today those giants look familiar. Want is children going hungry and workers relying on food banks. Disease is waiting months for treatment or being unable to see a GP or a dentist. Ignorance is schools under strain and people left behind by a changing economy. Squalor is unaffordable rent, damp flats, homelessness and polluted rivers. Idleness is not laziness; it is the waste of people’s talents in insecure, low-paid work or communities where decent jobs have disappeared.

    And running through all of them is fear. Fear of eviction. Fear of debt. Fear of illness. Fear of being treated as disposable. Fear of being made into a target because you are a migrant, Muslim, Jewish, disabled, gay or trans. Labour should be the party that takes fear out of people’s lives. Not by feeding panic, but by building security.

    The voters that left Labour to vote Reform, Green or Plaid on Thursday listened to Labour once, but they don’t think Labour is listening to them. The Tories spent years changing the salesman while refusing to admit the product was broken, and the country paid for it. Labour should not repeat that mistake in bold.

    Keir Starmer may not be the person to lead Labour into the next election. He may not even be the person best able to rebuild the party now. But replacing him before Labour has worked out what it stands for would be an evasion, not a renewal. A new leader could give warmer speeches, tell better stories, look less pained in interviews and maybe even enjoy a short polling bounce. But if the offer remains the same, the voters still won’t vote for it.

    The question Labour must answer is not “who can sell this better?” It is “what are we selling?” If Labour is to recover, it needs a product worthy of the name, patriotic without being servile, clean without excuses, and committed to making people secure in their homes, work, health, communities and identities. It needs to fight fear without feeding it.

    Until Labour can say clearly what it is for, changing leader is just changing the person standing beside the empty shelf. Keir Starmer should stay, for now, not because he has earned the right to carry on regardless, but because Labour has not yet earned the right to pretend he is the whole problem.

  • Opinion: Why I’m Not (Yet) Joining Your Party

    Labour Manifesto Launch 2019, creative commons licence

    As someone firmly on the left side of politics, who voted for Jeremy Corbyn in both Labour leadership election, I should be exactly the kind of person Your Party is targeting. With reports of over 750,000 people signing up to the mailing list, clearly something’s resonating. And I’m still hesitant. Here’s why.

    First, who will Your Party actually be for?
    When the vote on decriminalising abortion came up, both Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana supported it. But three of the independent MPs linked to the Gaza coalition—Adnan Hussain, Ayoub Khan, and Iqbal Mohammad did not1. I cannot support any party that allows religious fundamentalism to shape its manifesto. And yes, I consider Islamic fundamentalism every bit as dangerous as the Christian variety. Will Your Party support human rights? If not then that’s a deal breaker for me.

    Second, will it be serious or amateur hour?
    Labour, for all its flaws, has a structure. It has people who know what they’re doing. Reform UK, for contrast, has struggled to build any meaningful branch network. Some of its candidates have turned out to have unpleasant pasts; others are barely known at all.2. They’ve only made the impact they have through ruthless centralisation.

    But Your Party is supposed to be grassroots. That’s great, but it also takes time, money, and a committed team of experienced organisers. My worry is that Your Party may be short of all three.

    And third, what if it actually works?
    If Your Party succeeds electorally, it could mark the end of the Labour Party as we know it. And while Labour has clearly drifted from its moorings under Starmer, I believe the party will long outlast his leadership. I’ve drifted in and out of Labour membership over the years, but I’ve always voted Labour at general elections. I remember the old guard at Yeovil CLP proudly boasting of voting Liberal in 1983; I had nothing but contempt for that attitude then, and I still do now. I’m not about to flounce off just because I don’t like the current direction. I still believe it’s possible to turn the ship.

    But if the serious soft left decides it’s time to abandon it3 then I’ll follow. That’s the heart of Labour for me.

    So I’m not saying never.

    But I am saying: not yet.

    1. The other member of the Independent Alliance, Shockat Adam abstained. ↩︎
    2. I will not go with the fanciful idea of Reform having AI candidates. Acting Returning Officers will have sniffed that out. But there were some that acted purely as paper candidates. ↩︎
    3. Thinking about Manchester that’s Burnham, Rayner, Long-Bailey and Powell. ↩︎

  • Canada’s Blank Ballot Experiment: A By-Election, 214 Candidates, and One Very Long Problem

    The ballot paper for Monday’s by-election. Image from Elections Canada

    Tomorrow, a federal by-election will be held in the Alberta riding1 of Battle River–Crowfoot. This should be a political non-event. The area is rock solid Conservative. The Liberals have surpassed 10% of the vote only once since 1980, and the New Democrats have never even got that much support.

    But what makes this by-election remarkable, possibly unprecedented in Canadian electoral history, and perhaps without precedent in British elections either, is that the ballot paper will be completely blank.

    The story begins with Kieran Szuchewycz, an Albertan citizen who sought to stand in Calgary Heritage against then Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the 2015 federal election. Elections Canada, however, required a $1,000 deposit—something Szuchewycz refused to pay. Instead, he sued the government.

    His argument hinged on Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.” A financial barrier, he claimed, infringed that right. In 2017, Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench agreed. Though the ruling applied only in Alberta, Elections Canada preemptively removed the deposit requirement nationwide, leaving only the need to gather 100 nominations.

    Enter the Longest Ballot Committee: an organisation that appears to exist solely to torment election officials though I could easily believe the printing industry may be quietly cheering them on2. The Committee exploited the new nomination rules, relying on the fact that electors may nominate as many candidates as they wish. All they needed were willing volunteers to stand.

    They began modestly enough in the 2022 Mississauga–Lakeshore by-election, fielding 34 candidates who collectively earned just 2% of the vote. That number rose to 42 in Winnipeg South Centre in 2023 (1.9%), and then to 73 in the 2024 Toronto–St. Paul’s by-election (2.4%). That last contest caused particular problems; the ballot paper was so long it delayed the declaration of results to eight hours after the polls closed.

    The Committee’s pièce de résistance3 came in the 2025 federal election, when they targeted Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s Carleton riding. With 74 candidates, their names spanning nearly a metre long, double columned ballot. The efforts didn’t affect the result, they won just 0.9% of the vote. But at the serious end of the counting Poilievre lost his seat.

    An actual ballot paper from the Carleton riding in the 2025 federal election. Photo Harry Kusumah Hidajat (CC-SA)

    That brings us to Battle River-Crowfoot. The Conservative MP Damien Kurek graciously resigned his seat to let Poilievre to return to the House of Commons. This time, the Longest Ballot Committee responded with 204 candidates. With the other mainstream and fringe parties, that’s 214 candidates. Even double columned, the ballot paper would be close to three metres long.

    In response, Elections Canada made an extraordinary decision: for the first time in Canadian history, every ballot paper will be blank. Voters must handwrite their chosen candidate’s name, aided by a 32-page booklet listing all 214 options.

    In one sense, this by-election is a safe testing ground. The seat is practically unlosable for the Conservatives, and Elections Canada has confirmed that voters won’t need perfect spelling, good news for Anglophone Albertans who might struggle with “Poilievre.”

    But beyond this peculiar episode lies a deeper question: how do we balance open democratic participation with the practicalities of electoral administration? The Longest Ballot Committee may be trolling for chaos—but they’ve also highlighted the fragility of systems designed for a more restrained age.

    Whether the blank ballot experiment becomes a one-off curiosity or a permanent solution remains to be seen. Either way, Canada will learn something tomorrow. Maybe Britain should be paying attention too?

    1. Riding is Canadian for constituency. ↩︎
    2. The LBC’s spokesperson is a Tomas Szuchewycz, I don’t know if he’s related. ↩︎
    3. See, French, because Canada. ↩︎

  • Kinnock myths

    There’s a meme going around that Jeremy Corbyn is somehow being obstructive by staying on as Labour Party leader while we get on with electing a new leader and deputy. So we get uninformed people like this pop up on Twitter.

    Lloyd’s entitled to his opinion, but not his own facts. I’m older than him and remember the 1992 election painfully well. The election was Thursday 9th April; Kinnock didn’t even announce his resignation until Tuesday 13th April so Jeremy’s already quicker off the marks. Kinnock then remained leader until John Smith won on Saturday 18th July, exactly 100 days later.

    It made sense for Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband to step down immediately because they both had a deputy who was willing and able to hold the fort during the leadership election. Now, the deputy post is vacant so if Jeremy did want to walk away now the NEC would have to meet to put one of the Shadow Cabinet in as acting leader. That could not be one of the leadership contenders as that would be unfair and who else would want that thankless job?

    Facing a triumphal Boris Johnson at the dispatch box for Queen’s Speech and weekly PMQs will be awful for Corbyn to deal with, we should be thankful to him for performing this last service to the Labour Party.

  • What do we do now?

    For some reason, I’m attending three meetings looking at what should the Labour movement do from here. We should be having a proper period of reflection but life doesn’t stop and neither can we. I’ll post considered thoughts from all three over the weekend but first thanks to Red Pepper for organising the first, attended by Zarah Sultana, newly elected Labour MP for Coventry South, Hilary Wainwright, Brian Eno and Dawn Foster.

  • A tiny swing?

    So Jess Phillips has penned an article for the Guardian/Observer on the lessons to learn from the election. It’s a thinly veiled launch of her leadership bid and to be honest there’s not that much there to disagree with, it’s all very generic. But one paragraph and one line in particular made me pause.

    My constituents don’t mind that we might disagree – they appreciate above all else a straightforward approach. I can’t help but think that the fact that we saw only a tiny swing away from Labour in my seat was because of our ability to disagree well, with good humour and a shared vernacular.

    Jess Phillips – The Guardian website 14th December 2019
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/14/working-class-voters-didnt-trust-labour-jess-phillips

    That’s a data claim and one that if true would elevate Jess Phillips’ claim to support. After all, I voted for Tony Blair in 1994 mainly because of his success in increasing the membership of Sedgefield CLP. So is it true?

    Screenshot from Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Yardley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

    Labour down 2.3% and Conservative up 10.0%, that’s a swing of 6.2% away from Labour to Conservative. Nationally the swing was 4.5% Labour to Conservative so 6.2% doesn’t seem too good. But then again the national swing was greater outside London, so maybe it’s good for Birmingham?

    Swings (Conservative to Labour) for Birmingham constituencies and the percentage for Leave in the EU Referendum 2016. Own work.

    So Birmingham Yardley was the second worst swing for Labour out of the ten Birmingham constituencies. But there is the Brexit factor here, the worst ones seem to have the highest Leave. So do they correlate and would that explain Yardley’s swing?

    Swings (Conservative to Labour) for Birmingham constituencies and the percentage for Leave in the EU Referendum 2016. Own work.

    Even on that basis, the swing was worse than you would expect for a 60% Leave constituency in Birmingham. There is a possible reason, John Hemmings, the previous Lib Dem MP for Yardley in 2005 to 2015 stood again in 2017 but didn’t in 2019. Some Conservatives who voted for him to stop Labour wouldn’t need to do that as the Conservatives are now second in the seat and that will have increased the swing to them.

    But even giving Jess Phillips the benefit of all doubt, there’s no evidence that the swing could be described as a tiny swing and some evidence that Jess did worse than the average MP would have in the same situation.

  • Early look at the odds

    With Jeremy Corbyn seeking to step down in the ‘early part of next year’ here’s my brief thoughts on the odds currently circulating. At this point there’s been no declared candidates but John McDonnell has ruled himself out and suggested the next leader should be from the next generation naming three of them (Long-Bailey, Rayner and Burgon). Odds are the best prices available at time of writing, Buy means I think the current odds offer good value not that I think that candidate will win, Sell means the opposite and Hold is where I think the odds are about right.

    Keir Starmer 10/3 Hold
    Policies are more centrist than the average member and with hindsight blamed in some corners as having bounced Jeremy into a more Remain position than he was comfortable in. It would be fun to watch him dismantle Johnson at PMQs every week but Hague outclassing Blair didn’t actually help at election time. Clearly would be a capable Leader, though is he even more ‘metropolitan elite’ than Jeremy is. Keir was part of the ‘chicken coup’ of 2016 which may diminish his support within the membership.

    Rebecca Long-Bailey 5/1 Sell
    It may just be me but I’m not sold on why RLB should be the considered favoured choice of the ‘Corbynite elite’. Rebecca nominated Jeremy in 2015 and one of few not to nominate Owen Smith in 2016 so I assume that her politics are socialist but haven’t got an idea of what she believes in. Performed well enough in the ITV leaders debate but still think she needs some more experience, could be a good Shadow Chancellor.

    Angela Rayner 7/1 Buy
    Probably the candidate that is closest to my particular politics. Nominated Andy Burnham in 2015 which is where I started that particular election campaign before switching to Jeremy. Angela seems like the only potential candidate who really knows what working in low paid jobs is like. She could wind up Tories into making stupid personal attacks on her which will sound like attacks on their new voter base.

    Jess Phillips 8/1 Sell
    I do not know anyone in the party, even those significantly more centrist than me, who likes her. She’s a gobshite, spent more of Jeremy’s leadership bullying him than campaigning for the Labour Party and was part of the ‘chicken coup’. She doesn’t even have integrity, saying that she would resign from Labour and sit as an independent MP if Jeremy was re-elected Leader. He was and she didn’t. How any Labour party member could vote for someone who so regularly throws their toys out of the pram I cannot fathom.

    Lisa Nandy 10/1 Sell
    Owen Jones wanted her to stand for Leader in 2015 so Lisa has to have some good qualities but her behaviour in 2016 taints her in this contest. Stabbing Jeremy in the back (resigning and then being chair of Owen Smith’s campaign team) is not the way to win this electorate’s hearts and minds.

    Yvette Cooper 16/1 Hold
    It is not required for a candidate to be a Jeremy supporter to do well or even win this election. But you have to have had integrity and Yvette has never pretended to like the 2015-19 leadership. Instead she has performed well in her role as Chair of the Home Affairs select committee and her cross party work in trying to stop Brexit. On her talents 16/1 is way too generous but there’s two problems stopping me saying Buy; her constituency marginal status and her connection with the membership. Yvette is emblematic of the so-called ‘red wall’, despite having no connection with the local area, she was parachuted in and installed as Labour MP without any say from the local membership. She’s just suffered a 13% swing against her in Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, having already suffered a 2% swing against in 2017 leaving her with a 1,276 majority. In 2015 she only received 17% of the vote from a Labour membership more supportive of her. Can she really do better?

    Final quick thoughts
    Emily Thornberry 20/1 – is she really the right person to rebuild the red wall?
    Clive Lewis 33/1 – possible but what has he been doing in the last three years?
    John McDonnell 50/1 – already ruled himself out, will be 73 next election.
    David Miliband 50/1 – Next!
    Dawn Butler 50/1 – should be shorter priced, she’s been very loyal to Jeremy, would she get the same support in return?
    Stephen Kinnock 66/1 – would rather have his dad back again.
    Hilary Benn 66/1 – would rather have his dad as well.
    David Lammy 66/1 – same problem as Emily Thornberry, seems like he would have no appeal outside the M25.
    Dan Jarvis 66/1 – reckon he might consider running – the Daily Mail would still paint a decorated army major as a traitor to the country though.
    Stella Creasy 100/1 – I rate her but think she should be back in the shadow cabinet first.
    Richard Burgon 100/1 – Odds will shorten after John McDonnell’s semi-endorsement but one of very few politicians that make me wish that I was able to answer his questions on his behalf.

  • The morning after the night before

    It is clear now that Britain has spoken and they want the Conservatives in power for the next five years. As a believer in democracy I respect that decision and because I have to live in this country I hope that Boris Johnson doesn’t make as much a pig’s ear of running the United Kingdom as I currently fear.

    History will judge Jeremy Corbyn kindly. His solutions for fixing Britain are the right ones and eventually we’ll get there. It will just take us longer to get to a society where everyone is valued, everyone plays their part and everyone shares in the rewards. That’s the socialism in my heart and the socialism that I will always fight for. It’s the socialism that Jeremy believes in too, that’s why I voted for him as leader in 2015 and 2016. It’s not a job or a game, it’s something he needs to do, to help people achieve more together than they are able to do individuals.

    Nearly a quarter of a century ago, I was involved in a local election in Scotland and tasked on election day with knocking up in a couple of council estates. Surprisingly I wasn’t given a list of which households to go to, “Just do every house, they all vote Labour there” was the message from the old-timer running the committee room. And they did, both wards returned Labour councillors with well over 70% of the vote. Maybe they moved to more modern campaigning but eventually in 2015, those estates stopped voting Labour and it came as a shock.

    In 2013, the tale being told about the South Shields by-election was that David Miliband had bequeathed his successor in the seat a contact rate of 1%. Such a pitiful connection to the constituents didn’t stop Emma Lewell-Buck winning the seat, but it allowed the rot to set into the floorboards. All across the country (not just in the Midlands and North) good working class people realised that Labour wasn’t speaking for them anymore. Even that was okay in terms of Labour getting elected because the Tories didn’t seem to speak for them either. But then Boris came along with his simple message, “Get Brexit Done”.

    It didn’t matter that the “Get Brexit Done” slogan didn’t mean anything. It was like the Underpants theory from South Park, the promise is that everything will be okay once the UK Brexits. It’s hope and it’s hope that can be distilled into a soundbite on the news and repeated to every interviewer’s question. Labour’s manifesto was well thought out, ambitious but the scale of the country’s problems demand that, but as the length of this piece shows it can’t be distilled into an easy explanation of how voting Labour would mean a better life for the 99%. Four years before the SNP had done the same trick by claiming that independence would be the panacea of all ills. Theresa May tried to sell the same message in 2017 but wasn’t convincing enough to do it as she was at heart a Remainer. Boris led the Leave campaign, he was better at his lines.

    Overall I don’t think this is Jeremy’s fault. No Labour leader would have got an easier ride from the press. Remember how much bad press Ed Miliband got? And I don’t think it’s the manifesto, the individual policies are popular. Maybe the fact we had so many of them crowded each other out. I can blame the lying Tory spin machine and the unwillingness of our state broadcaster to call them out on it but that’s like a sailor moaning about the sea. I admire Jeremy’s insistence of running a positive campaign. It probably wouldn’t have been effective running an equally dishonest one. But it did feel like a boxing match where one guy can punch below the belt while the other one isn’t allowed to punch back at all.

    But that’s not all past. What now then? Now Boris owns Brexit, he’s got a huge majority in the Commons, he can pass any Brexit he likes. There’s no-one he can blame if it all goes wrong although I’m sure that he’ll try. I want the Labour Party to stay united and be an effective, harrying opposition and not do what the Conservatives would love and become a circular firing squad. I have a couple of favourites for the soon to be vacant leadership but am genuinely open-minded. Even MPs from the pragmatic centre would be fine if they have integrity and positive ideas on Labour being a governing party of the left.

    There will be around 200 Labour MPs on the green benches by the looks of it, they must work together in the spirit of socialism. There is still half a million Labour members that will support them every step of the way if they do.

    The next general election is less than five years away, we can win it.