Hartlepool - Election result

[Mervyn and Trish]

To be fair all of that equally applies to the Tories - the only difference is that they are meant to have a policy, but anything they have seems to change more often than the weather.

The electorate don't seem to agree with you.

I wasn't aware that the electorate had been given the opportunity to specifically vote on these subjects. I was under the impression that the most recent election was a local election which will be related more towards local issues and I would suggest the vast majority of electorate never considered at least 2 of the options mentioned. However given past history I am sure immigration was probably the only issue on some peoples minds.

Nobody told Labour that. All their campaigning seemed to be based on Wallpapergate. Local Councils don't have a lot of power on that front.

In fact surely the most significant election to gauge national opinion was the Hartlepool by-election at which Labour were roundly thrashed, completely against normal mid term results.

And the biggest issue on most people's minds, I am sure, was Covid and the success of the vaccination programme.

[Gill W]

In Hartlepool Labour had let them down ... according to an old chap on BBC Breakfast ... he explained how their town was a wreck and that it had gone to the dogs due to a lack of funding. He then explained that his father had voted Labour because his Grandad did and then that he had done the same until now that is.

He then said " It is time for us to think for ourselves !!! "
.

I’d like to be a fly on the wall when the ‘thinking for himself’ process kicks in and he realises that the Conservatives have been in power for 10 years and all the things he was complaining about haven’t been improved one iota by the Conservative government!

[Gill W]

What is labors view on smart motorways, what are their views on immigration, what are their views on concreating over the countryside. all of these things people care about, and they have no answers that they are ready to discuss. I know that the opposition is not obligated to deciare all their hand. but they seem to have no opinion on anything other than wallpaper costs! they need to start caring about the British people and at least look as if they care about the country.

To be fair all of that equally applies to the Tories - the only difference is that they are meant to have a policy, but anything they have seems to change more often than the weather.

The only constant is this ‘Levelling Up’ thing. But it’s woolly, non-quantifiable and there’s nothing in place to measure what success would look like.

[towny44]

The only constant is this ‘Levelling Up’ thing. But it’s woolly, non-quantifiable and there’s nothing in place to measure what success would look like.

Time will tell Gill and Boris will be judged on whether the voters think he has made good on his promises, but best not to rely on the Westminster centric left wing media for a fair assessment. They really have egg all over their faces after their predictions that Tory sleaze claims by Labour would deal a body blow to Boris.

[oldbluefox]

I think if anybody cares to look at the picture in the north east, an area which has been decimated by successive governments there are signs that Boris is turning things around. He gained a lot of kudos from delivering on his promise to get us out of the EU and away from the interminable succession of delays. Sir Keir Starmer's role in that would not have gone down well.
However I would suggest the success of the vaccination program, the granting of Freeport status, the development of a Treasury outpost in Darlington and the development of Tyne Tees airport demonstrate a commitment to that part of the UK which has never been seen before. These initiatives could hardly be called woolly since they are in progress.

[Manoverboard]

... He then said " It is time for us to think for ourselves !!! "

I’d like to be a fly on the wall when the ‘thinking for himself’ process kicks in and he realises that the Conservatives have been in power for 10 years and all the things he was complaining about haven’t been improved one iota by the Conservative government!

The Tories may have been in power for that period of time but Labour MPs have represented Hartlepool since the year dot and for whatever reason they have supervised the stagnation of the town including the periods when Labour were in Office ... hence their collective choice to vote in a Tory Member.
.

[oldbluefox]

We had a similar situation up here in Workington. The town had always been a Labour seat since the year dot and for 15 years we had the same MP, most of that time the Labour party were in charge, and you would expect the fortunes of the town would change, having lost its mines and steelworks. His tenure made not one jot of a difference. He was knighted for his services to..... wait for it.................Africa. For all their fine words about looking after the working man this town had little to show for it. Since the last election there is a Tory MP in situ so once we get over the pandemic it is now up to them.

[Kendhni]

I wasn't aware that the electorate had been given the opportunity to specifically vote on these subjects. I was under the impression that the most recent election was a local election which will be related more towards local issues and I would suggest the vast majority of electorate never considered at least 2 of the options mentioned. However given past history I am sure immigration was probably the only issue on some peoples minds.

Ken, I know you claim loyalty to neither Tory or Labour, which I suppose being from NI is reasonable, but most of your posts seem to be more in favour of Labour than Tory.
However the English electorate seem to disagree with all your above points. There are lots of articles in the M on S today giving the electorates assessment of why they voted the way they did, one in particular by Joe Haines, Harold Wilson's press security, maybe you should study these in preference to wherever you're getting your current incorrect views.

That is a very interesting analysis because I have not made any real comment about Labour so your conclusion has no basis in fact. In the early days of this board I remember one poster throwing toys around because I dared to criticise his beloved labour party. I attack the deed using evidence and fact without any loyalty or bending the knee and kow towing to any party.

As far as disagreeing with my points. There was a chap in a report on Sky this morning that only talked about immigrants - so that was his reasoning. Not one person in the report mentioned motorways or concrete. However like MOB you missed my point. Gills point was that nobody understood Labours views on motorways, immigration and concrete - the only point I made was that the Tory's are equally unclear.

I suppose you are going to argue that every Tory voter wants to throw a load of concrete over the UK to build-build-build; every Tory voter wants more smart motorways; and every Tory voter wants to limit immigration. IN which case you would be making a valid point since that is basically their current position. But their position changes more often than Johnson changes girl friends.

You would have to explain away all those Tory voters that do not want smart motorways, some have been very vocal about that and want guarantees of keeping emergency lanes (for multiple reasons); you would have to explain why after 10 years the Torys have failed to meet promised building targets for new housing and why they are now trying to circumvent planning permission rules (maybe trying to stop all the NIMBY claims by removing due diligence (something they excel at)); Patel is making a fool of herself with immigration saying they will send illegal immigrants back to the EU ... er, no, the UKs ability to send immigrants back to the EU is no longer valid because of the very rules the UK helped create ... plus of course the deals made with the likes of HK and India that allows residents of those countries access to the UK. There isn't a single unanimous voice for Toryism and, since none of those topics were on the ballot paper, nobody has any idea which of the many current flavours of Toryism individuals voted for.

At the minute government policy on the 3 items mentioned is just as "muddy" as Labours policy on those items.

[towny44]

Ken, well that was a tirade and a half which lost me completely after the first few sentences, but I do hope you feel better now that you have got all that off your chest.

[Kendhni]

Ken, well that was a tirade and a half which lost me completely lost me

TO be honest that wouldn't surprise me at all

[towny44]

Ken, well that was a tirade and a half which lost me completely lost me

TO be honest that wouldn't surprise me at all

It only lost me Ken because it was so irrelevant to what had gone before, but I suppose I should be used to your selective reasoning by now.

[gilly88]

s far as disagreeing with my points. There was a chap in a report on Sky this morning that only talked about immigrants - so that was his reasoning. Not one person in the report mentioned motorways or concrete. However like MOB you missed my point. Gills point was that nobody understood Labours views on motorways, immigration and concrete - the only point I made was that the Tory's are equally unclear.


i do know what tory Grant Snapps thinks about smart motorways, he believes that they are safe and a few more safety refuges will be enough to stop people from dying on them...i disagree. I also disagree with a lot of what the conservative's say and do, but at least I know. but Labor policies I do not know much about, so I sit on the fence with Keir, until his party lets me know what is happening on his side of the fence.

[Kendhni]

Ken, well that was a tirade and a half which lost me completely lost me

TO be honest that wouldn't surprise me at all

It only lost me Ken because it was so irrelevant to what had gone before, but I suppose I should be used to your selective reasoning by now.

Your right, your posts have been irrelevant, but I am used to your selective and misleading interpretations.

[Kendhni]

i do know what tory Grant Snapps thinks about smart motorways, he believes that they are safe and a few more safety refuges will be enough to stop people from dying on them...i disagree. I also disagree with a lot of what the conservative's say and do, but at least I know. but Labor policies I do not know much about, so I sit on the fence with Keir, until his party lets me know what is happening on his side of the fence.

You are correct about Snapps, and generally I would fall in with the concept of stopping creating more and wider roads, however safety must be a primary concern ... I don't think they have hit the sweet spot yet. There are those for and opposed to smart motorways right across the political spectrum.

I also agree with you about Labour policy, but I really don't see that Tory policy is much different. They have a habit of saying they are going north, while leaking something about going south then they see what their media tell the people to think and end up going some other direction depending on which way the media wind is blowing and claim that is the direction they were intending to go. At the minute Tory housing and immigration policies are both in a mess with their stated policies possibly illegal (to be tested in the courts).

Sadly UK politics is stooping to new lows of standards and integrity. Even on this board I see people posting that it is just a manifesto, they expect it to be lies. Maybe I am loan voice saying that I expect government to deliver on the promises they make to get elected.

[Stephen]

How a Smart Motorway without a hard should can be claimed as safe is beyond me.

[Gill W]

You are not alone, Ken.

I expect a at least a modicum of adherence to manifesto pledges and for politicians not to be totally corrupt.

We are in a bad place when people shrug their shoulders and seem to think these things don’t matter, and even worse, are still willing to vote for these politicians.

[david63]

Whilst I would agree that any party manifesto should be the basis of a Government's policy it has to be accepted that circumstances will mean that changes, sometimes significant changes, will have to be made to a plan formulated some five years previously. I know that Covid is an extreme example but it will have totally changed whatever was in the Tory manifesto prior to the last General Election.

As for Labour the problem, as I see it, is that there are still factions within the party trying to cling on to the old concept of the "working man", whoever/whatever that is. It matters not one jot what policies Labour have as their diehards will vote for them in any case (the same applies to all parties).

Abbott coming out with there needs to be a return to the Corbyn policies shows that the hard left have not learnt any lessons - what was the reaction to the Corbyn policies?, certainly not a resounding acceptance. Labour are currently in a difficult position because they are unable to oppose the main Tory policy at the moment with the Covid pandemic - yes they can, ad do, pick around the edges but basically they are compliant.

[CaroleF]

The so called reshuffle of the Labour front bench seems to illustrate the trouble the party is having. First someone is sacked, then she isn't sacked but ends up with more jobs than she had in the first place. I may of course be totally wrong but to me it smacks of a leader who isn't strong enough to do what is really necessary to give his party a totally new outlook with new policies. I read an article this morning which said that it seemed that the Labour party activists and supporters, "openly scorn working-class voters who support the Tories, writing them off as uneducated, stupid or racist." I did wonder when I heard Andy Burnham speaking over the weekend whether he would be seen as a future leader - he admitted he would be interested. I don't know much about him but he certainly seems to me to have more charisma than Kier Starmer and I believe that in a leader charisma is important. It seems odd to me that an old-Etonian can command more of a following in the North of England than the Labour leader. One Labour MP at the weekend said that Keir Starmer is "..a former Director of Public Prosecutions with very little political experience or instinct.

Carole

[Mervyn and Trish]

Peter Mandelson sums it up brilliantly with his analysis of Labour's general election performance over the past:

'Lose, lose, lose, lose, Blair, Blair, Blair, lose, lose, lose, lose’.

A hard left Labour will never get into power ever again. The battle is not fought at the right or left fringes, it is fought on the middle ground. Tony Blair had his faults but he understood that. So did David Cameron who stole the middle ground. And now Labour have marched left. They have the choice of continuing to do so into the wilderness. Or turning to steal back that middle ground back. If they don't the Tories can do what they want for a very long time.

[Manoverboard]

Rather than copy over War and Piece Peace from Ken I will post thus ...
" However like MOB you missed my point ".

I wish to advise that I didn't miss it, I simply disagreed with it.

[Onelife]

I’ve wrote it so I’m posting it...nice to see Sir Merv agrees with me

If labour is to have a political future, then it needs to move away from the socialist values of old and move towards the centre ground of politics. Gone are the days where unions influenced how governments reacted to workers’ rights. This is not to say workers shouldn’t have representation but we have moved a long way forward in ensuring employers work within the legislation that protect workers’ rights.
Whilst Blair had his faults, he was one leader who tried to loosen the links of union influence, and it is in this direction that the labour party needs to go if it is to have a future. imo

As for Andy Burham, nice chap who wears his heart on his sleeve but very much of the old school of thinking to my mind.

[Kendhni]

I wish to advise that I didn't miss it, I simply disagreed with it.

I have no idea what you disagreed with, but it wasn't my point.

[Kendhni]

If labour is to have a political future, then it needs to move away from the socialist values of old and move towards the centre ground of politics.

The two main parties occupy that space at different times. When Blair came to power it was because he pushed Labour into the middle ground meaning the Cons got pushed to the right. Gordon Brown pulled the party to the left a bit which made space for the Cons to dabble a toe back into the middle ground. At the next election both parties tried to occupy the middle ground - I remember well all the reports that there was nothing to choose between. Due to the need for a coalition government the Cons/Libdems took control of the middle ground pushing Labour way out to the left (they tried hanging on but lost it).

At the minute the middle ground is looking a little bit bare with both parties actually sitting to the left/right of it. The last 2 general elections had very little to do with the normal UK politics. Whoever takes control of that middle ground will very likely win the next general election - it is there for the grabbing and could go to either of the two main parties.

[towny44]

Ken, not sure why you think the Cons have moved right, Boris's govt policies are the most socilaist of any tory govt for decades.

[Kendhni]

Ken, not sure why you think the Cons have moved right, Boris's govt policies are the most socilaist of any tory govt for decades.

I would disagree, I think the Cameron/Clegg government was pretty central drifting a little to the left and a little to the right. It's hard to tell with the current government because they are so variable but I would not consider them left wing ... I see them as being slightly right of centre (which I suppose for a Tory government could be called socialist ). What I would say though is that, at the minute, the Cons are closer to the middle than Labour.