Read what people have been writing to our editor about this week. Find out how to share your own views here.
Labour campaign ideas
Greens are not green
*****
LabourList content and polling
Daniel Green’s article claims to reveal the progressive policies that Labour members want enacted. Apparently, these were identified by means of a poll which asked those surveyed ‘ to pick only one progressive policy for the government to enact. ‘ What Daniel fails to mention is that those polled were not asked to offer their own suggestions, but were required to select from policies presented by Labourlist. Would it not have been more revealing if Labourlist had asked the 1254 members, who, apparently, represent the Labour Party membership in this survey, to suggest their own priorities? I am sure the outcome, even following application of the complex weighting system, would have been a much more diverse response, which might have included such progressive policies as the alleviation of poverty, greater investment in the delivery of council housing and reversing the creeping privatisation of the NHS. Perhaps, though, those are not issues that editor Emma Burnell wants to include in her message to Rachel Reeves when she says. ‘Labour members have made clear what their priorities are – I hope the Chancellor is listening’
Carol Hayton
*****
*****
[Response from the Editor: It is important that we are as transparent as possible with our readers so I will try to address both of these questions.
Choosing questions and approaches for our polling can be a complicated process. This polling was trying to gauge ahead of the budget not just how Labour members are feeling on a range of issues but the strength of that feeling. We are really lucky in our partnership with Survation to be given access to ask a number of questions on a regular basis but we have to be clear on what our capacity is – and isn’t – when it comes to analysing that data.
If we had asked an open ended question, the data would be much harder to analyse. For example, we might get very similar proposals that are worded differently enough that they would have to be counted separately. This might then artificially undercount the strength of feeling on the broader issue.
The policies we chose were reflective of what we as a team were hearing about from Labour members and what our previous polling had revealed. They were also heavily (though not exclusively) focused on areas that have been debated in the run up to next month’s budget and that have been particularly contentious in recent months. However, we will continue to publish articles on every aspect of the debate on the NHS and I also happen to know we are publishing a piece this week from one of our columnists on social and council housing.
On publishing the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) article I want to separate the content from the source. There are some sources I wouldn’t take a piece from – Tory or Reform elected officials for example. The CSJ is an independent think tank that, while founded by Iain Duncan Smith, does cross party work and even has a Labour MP on its board. As such, I am happy for us to publish comment pieces from them whether I agree with them or not.
On the content I am always happy to publish content I agree with, disagree with and have no strong feelings about as long as it is interesting, well argued and on a topic of interest to our readers – even if only for them to passionately disagree. If anyone would like to pitch me a rebuttal article that fits these criteria, I would be delighted to publish it. Please email [email protected]]
County first?
It is on this very point where the Parliamentary Laeadership is woefully letting not only the membership, but also the whole country, down.
Instead of doing what is right for the country and the electorate living here we are led by a small group who appear to be totally besotted with whatever idiotic policy, priority, or issue which is currently being raised by an increasingly (true if difficult to believe this is true) right wing press plus the Musk platform.
There is almost zero real structural and fundamental change of the type needed to deliver positive (albeit long term) change required by the country.
The leadership hops from one more or less confected issue to another chasing popularity with readers of the Mail and followers of Musk when they should be showing real and bold leadership to bring about real change.
They seem to be doing this on the basis that keeping themselves, as individuals, in power is vastly more important than the party members (whether those inside or outside parliament) and with scarcely a thought for the benefit of the country.
They are far more interested in attacking internal debate in their rather sad and infantile attacks on those who think more progressively, wherever they come from.
The people who do speak positively and progressively on behalf of the country are either suspended (eg Rachael Maskell) or briefed against and attempts made to marginalise them (eg Burnham)
Sir Keir Starmer’s little leadership group is the very antithesis of the leadership of that of a “serious governing party”.
They should be working with Burnham and Maskell not vilifying them.
Their petty vindictive nature has now even extended to the sadly divisive attacks on Powell by Phillipson.
If Lucy Powell’s views are so unpalatable for the leadership then this is pretty much conclusive proof that they have no desire or inclination to prioritise anyone other than their own desire as individuals to cling onto power.
This will ultimately and inevitably be self destructive.
Yours in solidarity
John Dunn
Share your thoughts by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.
*****
Good morning,
First of all thank you so much for Labourlist.
I’m constantly angry/upset and frightened at how much Starmer’s government is controlling this country including Labour appointments when it comes to overriding local community’s wishes, ie Mayoral candidates, members standing for elections for MPs
But more so about their shocking picking away at our freedoms to demonstrate etc. George Monbiot wrote an excellent article about this recently.
How do we fight back? As Monbiot pointed out, if we are not allowed to demonstrate near any place of worship that knocks out most of the UK. But there is so much more.
Hugo Young (Guardian journalist) wrote about 40 years ago “Never take democracy for granted”. He went on to say that it is chipped away almost without our noticing it. But once it’s gone we can’t get it back. I refer again to George Monbiot’s article. This government if taking a wrecking bar to our country.
Judith Perks
Monmouth
(Labour member)
*****
- SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
- SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
- DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
- PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
- ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].
More from LabourList
WATCH NOW: LabourList interview with Dr Mbongiseni Buthelezi, Chief Executive of the Nelson Mandela Foundation.
‘Labour’s cultural turn is how and why Lucy Powell won’
Labour has a new deputy leader, but what does the result mean for Powell, the Party and the PM?