Why has the Labour Party struggled so much in recent UK elections?

[Matt N]

You make a good point, as much as I think you are being naive.

I'll give you some examples. In Staffordshire, the council made the decision that they wanted to remove the Local Education Authority. As a result, pretty much every school in the county is now an academy - effectively out of LA control and extremely fragmented - even though the Westminster government made a U-turn on academies some years ago. But local councils are doing that bidding for them. Any schools that remain under the control of the LA are in the process of converting because the LA has no ability to support schools anymore. This sort of thing hasn't made much in the media, and so people don't realise it's happened. Other things include how some local parks have been sold off to the private sector, and the operation of many local services such as leisure centres, bin collections and more are now just contracted out - so you have public money going down into private enterprise. Private enterprise needs to make profit, or satisfy shareholders - so you have cash dipping out into shareholders pockets. You also see less litter collections. I wrote to the county council recently and have learned that, in recent years, the frequency of roadside litter picks have halved. Youth Centres have all closed in my area. And re: libraries - in my neck of the woods, many have closed (obviously some of library closures isn't just "cuts" - it's also changing habits). The Shire Hall Art Gallery has closed down in Stafford town centre. Car parks have been sold off to private companies like Euro Car Parks or Parking Eye. All of this kind of stuff is happening - but many are too naive to notice.

Out of interest @AstroDan; as someone in the teaching profession (based on some of your previous posts), what difference does being an academy actually make?

My school/sixth form centre is apparently an academy, and if I’m being honest, I’m not entirely sure what the difference is, from a student’s perspective; we still seem to follow all of the government syllabuses and school protocols. I’d be intrigued to see if a teacher or someone more knowledgeable could shed some light on it, as I’ll admit I’m struggling to see the difference and why academies are so controversial. All I know is that the Conservatives are very keen on them, and that teachers aren’t very keen on them.

 

[AstroDan]

Out of interest @AstroDan; as someone in the teaching profession (based on some of your previous posts), what difference does being an academy actually make?
.

It just makes schools operate more like "businesses" with powerful CEOs running trusts and has academy trusts competing against others. It also means that the "one stop shop" of support you would receive from the local authority goes, and you end up just going through a plethora of private firms. Not really what I want to see in the sector, to be honest. From an education standpoint, academies do no better than maintained schools. it's entirely an ideological decision to downsize the state and have more cash flowing into the private sector.

 

[Matt N]

It just makes schools operate more like "businesses" with powerful CEOs running trusts and has academy trusts competing against others. It also means that the "one stop shop" of support you would receive from the local authority goes, and you end up just going through a plethora of private firms. Not really what I want to see in the sector, to be honest. From an education standpoint, academies do no better than maintained schools. it's entirely an ideological decision to downsize the state and have more cash flowing into the private sector.

So from an actual in-school perspective, it doesn’t make a huge amount of difference?

 

[AstroDan]

So from an actual in-school perspective, it doesn’t make a huge amount of difference?

It has an effect on administration. There is a great deal more of it when you are an academy. But from a teaching and learning point of view, the only thing that makes a difference is good teaching.

 

[DistortAMG]

I think the reason why they have lost recently is pretty clear. I mean, look at the total state of who is running labour.

Total. Utter. Joke.

Kier Starmer was the head of the Crown Prosection service when the decisions were made in 2009 to not charge Jimmy Saville.

He is the man who let the most notorious and sick pedophile and necropheliac this planet has ever seen, off the hook. In the face of masses of daming evidence. Yet people actually entrust him with running a country, yeah, because his past actions really show he is full of integrity and has the countries interests and citizens at heart.

I mean if that alone is not enough to steer clear of Labour right now, then I do not know what is. I will not go anywhere near Labour while that ****** is head of it. Luckily it appears the majority of the country quite rightfully so, feel the same.

I mean the other sides are not much better right now, but the lesser of two evils so to speak.

Him being at the helm right now is almost directly responsible for the mass loss in the last few days in the local elections.

 

[AstroDan]

I don't think the above is why Labour have a problem right now. If you go knocking on doors, that won't be what the voters are all saying.

 

[DistortAMG]

I don't think the above is why Labour have a problem right now. If you go knocking on doors, that won't be what the voters are all saying.

I am inclined to agree. But, ive heard the sheer dislike for Kier Starmer brought up quite alot recently.

I've also heard alot of people expressing sheer dislike for both the Tories and Labour right now. With people voting Tory out of not wanting to change the status quo, as the other side is just as, if not worse in their eyes. So people have just wanted to keep with what they know, as they do not see the other side any better. I've heard that one broight up a hell of alot.

I am English first then i'm a Labour man through and through, but Labour will not get my vote while the brillcream king is head of the pack. First and foremost I have to vote as an English man and what i think is best for the country.

I cannot vote for someone with zero integrity and who's past actions have proven he does not have this country or it's citizens best interests at the forefront of what he does.

 

[Tom]

The main issue is Brexit, but also that Corbyn, and to a lesser extent Starmer, are strongly disliked by the public. Charisma is a large part of winning I'm afraid.

Left wing economic policy is more popular than the right - hence why the Conservatives have moved left of centre economically. Labour's policies of public ownership etc are popular, but with a toxic or even moderately disliked leader it is meaningless.

The only ground to be taken by Labour now would be one that is more anti immigration and harder on crime and other select social issues. However, given the London focus and membership profile they currently have, there is no likely way back for them any time soon.

It will however likely be a very long time before Labour are replaced as the main opposition to the Tories - if ever. This is due to the voting system, which has ensures two-party politics. The same voting system also detracts from the fact that Corbyn did fairly well on a popular level in the 2017 election (look at he votes not the seats). But by 2019, the Brexit narrative had consumed everything, and his wider public image was successfully portrayed as toxic and/or dangerous by the Tories.

 

[Matt N]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Corbyn actually get nearly the same number of votes as Theresa May in the 2017 election?

I guess that might prove that more left-wing policies can still be popular. I think the main things that made Corbyn unpopular were his controversial past and the fact that he didn’t really have a strong Remain or Leave stance in the Brexit debate.

 

[AstroDan]

The main issue is Brexit, but also that Corbyn, and to a lesser extent Starmer, are strongly disliked by the public. Charisma is a large part of winning I'm afraid.

Left wing economic policy is more popular than the right - hence why the Conservatives have moved left of centre economically. Labour's policies of public ownership etc are popular, but with a toxic or even moderately disliked leader it is meaningless.

The only ground to be taken by Labour now would be one that is more anti immigration and harder on crime and other select social issues. However, given the London focus and membership profile they currently have, there is no likely way back for them any time soon.

It will however likely be a very long time before Labour are replaced as the main opposition to the Tories - if ever. This is due to the voting system, which has ensures two-party politics. The same voting system also detracts from the fact that Corbyn did fairly well on a popular level in the 2017 election (look at he votes not the seats). But by 2019, the Brexit narrative had consumed everything, and his wider public image was successfully portrayed as toxic and/or dangerous by the Tories.

I think you are right to say that the Brexit narrative took over everything in English politics after 2019. Hopefully, the Brexit issue will gradually subside over the next few years. Maybe we'll end up with Andy Burnham in charge of Labour in a few years - that would definitely resonate with people on the ground. Charisma is so, so important - and Boris Johnson's "likeable buffoon" status is liked by a lot of people. Some of the Labour MPs involved with the previous Labour team under Corbyn were vilified and, at times, abused by the press. And that's from someone who isn't the biggest fan of one or two of those MPs...(I do like an M&S Mojito, though!) I think KS is going to get some of the more classic 'heavyweights' into his top team in the next 24 hours. I really hope Angela Rayner maintains a senior position, though.

 

[Matt N]

Out of interest @AstroDan, what sort of names are you referring to when you talk about “classic heavyweights”?

 

[Tom]

I think Angela Rayner could become a hate figure to rival Corbyn. The Tories won't do it publicly themselves, but they'll happily let the media present an image of stupidity/ugliness that I suspect could snowball. Equally important to charisma is aesthetics I'm sad to say - refer to Ed's bacon sandwich for details.

I'm not sure there is any Labour MP that could turn the tables on Johnson at this point.

 

[Matt N]

In an interesting turn of events, the Conservatives are now trying to get the mayoral elections changed to the FPTP voting system as opposed to the current preference-based system: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-voting-system-after-labour-mayoral-victories

 

[Tom]

Add to that the imminent regurgitation of the boundary review.

 

[BigT]

You make a good point, as much as I think you are being naive.

I'll give you some examples. In Staffordshire, the council made the decision that they wanted to remove the Local Education Authority. As a result, pretty much every school in the county is now an academy - effectively out of LA control and extremely fragmented - even though the Westminster government made a U-turn on academies some years ago. But local councils are doing that bidding for them. Any schools that remain under the control of the LA are in the process of converting because the LA has no ability to support schools anymore. This sort of thing hasn't made much in the media, and so people don't realise it's happened. Other things include how some local parks have been sold off to the private sector, and the operation of many local services such as leisure centres, bin collections and more are now just contracted out - so you have public money going down into private enterprise. Private enterprise needs to make profit, or satisfy shareholders - so you have cash dipping out into shareholders pockets. You also see less litter collections. I wrote to the county council recently and have learned that, in recent years, the frequency of roadside litter picks have halved. Youth Centres and many SureStart centres have all closed in my area. And re: libraries - in my neck of the woods, many have closed (obviously some of library closures isn't just "cuts" - it's also changing habits). The Shire Hall Art Gallery has closed down in Stafford town centre. Car parks have been sold off to private companies like Euro Car Parks or Parking Eye. All of this kind of stuff is happening - but many are too naive to notice.

I think I could be called many things but naive is not one of them.
I can understand your position and where you are coming from, you work in the public sector so are going to defend it as I quite rightly would as well if I worked in it with all the benefits it brings.
You could argue about those rewards against the rewards of the private sector but ultimately everyone has the choice to work in either public or private even teachers, independent schools are throughout Staffordshire, I know as my daughter goes to one in Staffordshire.

Also not all companies that run what were council run facilities are for profit, look up Freedom Leisure, and arguably Parking Eye do a good job of controlling parking even if I do think they are robbing so and so’s.
Councils also know how to rip off motorists, don’t worry about that.

I’m sorry if this comes across as I’m attacking you personally Dan, it’s not meant to and I’m trying to adjust my posting style of late, COVID has taught may things and life is too short to be negative all of the time so I’m trying to be positive.

 

[AstroDan]

To be clear, I wasn't talking about the independent sector, which is fee paying. That is different from academies, which are state schools being run by "private" institutions, so to speak. Different things if you get me. The vast majority of schools in England are now outside of local authority control run by an absolute plethora of organisations usually with a CEO at the top creaming off a six-figure salary (my school is converting later this year, as we've effectively been left with no choice as the county council no longer have the means to provide any services).

I am aware that councils are good at ripping off motorists - but they key difference is, they use the money to plug holes in the budget (which has seen huge cuts over the past decade). Private companies have shareholders and profits to attend to.

Irrespective, part of the Conservative ideology is to downsize the state, so it stands to reason that is what has happened over the past ten years. Some folk relish that, some don't. Ultimately, it's what English voters want.

 

[BigT]

Oh I know the difference between independent and academies and definitely all about the fees...
Wasn’t the point of academies to make them run more like independent schools?

 

[AstroDan]

Oh I know the difference between independent and academies and definitely all about the fees...
Wasn’t the point of academies to make them run more like independent schools?

The government headlines were that "academies were freed from the constraints of being in the LA, free to set their own curriculum, term dates, pay teachers what they wanted and have more autonomy".

Of course, in real terms, that doesn't work given that we have the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority setting national tests and that budgets are so tight, there's no way that schools can "pay good teachers more", as Gove once said.

Local Authorities were, in theory, able to get much better deals due to the scale of their operation. Now, we have dozens of Multi Academy Trusts, almost like little LAs, often run by private enterprise, such as Landau Forté. Rather than improving the Local Education Authority to support schools, academisation has almost entirely removed it as an entity.

 

[BigT]

I get the curriculum and the exam argument, even my daughters independent school broadly follows the curriculum although they do have some more flexibility on the exams, iGCSE for example.
Having dealt with local government purchasing I also get the argument that academies could get a better deal negotiating on their own.

Moving this discussion back to make it relevant before Craig kicks off, wasn’t it Tony Blair and the Labour government that introduced them unless I’m mistaken?

 

[AstroDan]

I get the curriculum and the exam argument, even my daughters independent school broadly follows the curriculum although they do have some more flexibility on the exams, iGCSE for example.
Having dealt with local government purchasing I also get the argument that academies could get a better deal negotiating on their own.

Moving this discussion back to make it relevant before Craig kicks off, wasn’t it Tony Blair and the Labour government that introduced them unless I’m mistaken?

Yes, academies were introduced as ONE solution under Labour for failing schools in deprived inner-city areas. There were very, very few prior to the coaltion government's arrival in 2010. Now, the majority of schools in England is one. It is patchy, though - for example in Staffordshire it's very high as the local authority has taken the decision to reduce its school improvement division to almost nil and therefore if the authority can't support schools, then it leave schools with little to no choice other than to convert (otherwise the top slice of their budget which the authority takes is basically money down the drain).