Lucas presents a compelling case encouraging the Greens to sit this one out. But, as one Green spox put it, which version of Burnham is going to turn up? For instance we hear that he's about to drop his bid to rejoin the EU, ostensibly to court and/or neutralise Reform support in Makerfield, while the Telegraph writes that he stands by his pledge. Which is which? Those with long memories might recall his being all over the place during the 2015 Labour leadership contest - has he changed?
There's going to be a lot of pressure on the Greens to stand down. For one, there's the usual vote-Labour-or-get-Reform "argument" that worked out so well in Gorton and Denton. Though, in this case, the Burnham factor means there's more heft to it. Then there are the expectations of the Greens' new members and voters, a good chunk of whom are effectively refugees from Labourism. Not a few of them will share Lucas's positive views of Burnham, as well as her diagnosis of the stakes. If a Green candidacy is seen costing Labour the seat under these circumstances there might be a price to pay.
In my view, if the local Greens are minded not to stand they shouldn't sell their cooperation cheaply. What Labour seem determined to learn the hard way is that its monopoly on left wing votes is long over. If the Greens are to cede them ground, then Labour needs to work to make it worth their while. Burnham should be challenged on Green priorities to make public promises on them. What springs to mind is the aforementioned electoral reform, but I would also add wealth taxes, action on low pay and precarity, more action on solar and wind, and ending the race to the bottom on immigration and asylum. If he cannot commit, then that suggests any Labour Party he ends up leading will be marked by the same rudderless malaise we've seen under Keir Starmer. Go on, Andy. If you want the Greens to stand down then give them a reason.
Image Credit
11 comments:
As everyone knows, this by-election is really about 2029. And that means more than just Burnham.
Everyone who maintains at least a passing touch with reality understands that a cordon sanitaire may be required at the next GE to keep the Trumpists out. Just like Trump, if allowed in, they will make themselves extremely difficult to get rid of, whilst setting the place on fire for their own enrichment and amusement. OTOH, the nature of their voting cohort in the UK means that they may only need to be kept out just the once to be seen off for good.
It's therefore imperative that the Green Party demonstrates that a cordon sanitaire is possible.
It's a fundamentally different occasion to Gorton and Denton, because Gorton and Denton has already happened - the "Reform or Labour" argument is already in its grave. It matters much less whether Burnham is really the saviour of Labour or not; the Greens don't have to promise that a pact on this occasion will be repeated at the GE, if Burnhamite Labour subsequently takes them for granted and fails to hold up its end of the bargain. They should be perfectly loud and clear about THAT.
I fear Burnham is the continuity Blairism candidate. He’s made progressive changes as mayor, though things like the bus reforms only came after third party campaigning. Labour has not rid itself of Mandelson, confirmed by the return of McSweeney to Number 10 and the efforts to cover up Mandy’s crimes and misdemeanours. It would be better if the party faded into insignificance if it refuses to shake off these awful people.
Yes. I also think that it’s basically up to Burnham to make this happen. The default is that Greens will stand. If he wants them not to, then he should ask to meet with the local party, if they agree, make an offer/an appeal, let them quiz him on what matters to them, and then, if they are so minded, let them vote on it. It seems to me that this could be a once in a generation chance at political system change, so I’d personally be pretty open to stepping aside, given the otherwise tough nature of the seat for Greens, but I basically think the ball is in Burnham’s court.
The promise of ra thorough investigation into Labour Together would go down very nicely too.
I agree they should ask for something in return and make sure that it is very specific with a time table.
It would be pig-headed of the Greens not to try and get some kind of concession from Burnham, considering their chances in that sear, but if they cannot trust him to, then they're very much putting experience over hope. It's a crisis of Labour's making, and whatever choice the Greens make, I'm sure that it'll somehow be all their fault and not years and years of Labour Party internal shenanigans.
It's an interesting point, Reform no longer stand aside to protect the Conservatives because they understand they have to stand as something different to just continuity Conservatism. They are unashamedly right-wing populists.
The boob whisperer has pursued an explicitly, unashamedly left-wing populist agenda to get momentum behind the Greens. If it turns out that when push comes to shove they'll ditch the populist fairytales for grown-up centre-left pragmatism what's the point of them?
If the Greens are not to stand they should require Burnham to commit to not standing Labour candidates in seats where they are the main opposition to the Tories or Reform. Too often parties to the left of Labourr are told they are spitting the vote. Labour needs to be taught it splits the vote in many constiuencies.
They should also bear in mind how it could be seen by people who have had enough of Labour and want to vote elsewhere - the Geens see themselves as secondary support who people vote for to teach Labour a lesson. If the Greens want to become a major party and believe they have a shot at winning in Makerfield in a 3 way fight with Labour and Reform then they should go for it. Labour needs to be learn some humility. It is after all a party thet looks like going the same way as PASOK.
There we go. Kamo is in favour of the Greens running a candidate. Ergo they should stand down.
Reform "understand they have to stand as something different to just continuity Conservatism"... LMAO! Reform no longer stand aside to protect the Conservatives because they are the ascendant of the two parties. But in 2019 (under a different name), they were still biding their time, and they made a pact to keep Corbyn out. Now here we are with the shoe on the other foot.
They don't really need to get Burnham to commit to that - they just need to publicly state that they expect it to happen. Electoral logic looks set to do the rest.
On present trajectory - which would take a miracle to alter - Labour will be faced with a very stark choice in 2029: to go to certain extinction with calamitous indignity, or to remain relevant for a few more years. The latter path is the one where they cooperate with the upstart party. The electorate will certainly punish them if they fail to.
So the Greens should stand aside for a party that viciously attacks them as extremists, antisemitic, drug suppliers to children, unpatriotic and full of Corbyn drop outs from Labour and warns the electorate that they will be the end of the UK? All so Burnham can try and revitalise the zombie that is the Changed Labour Party when there is no guarantee he will be elected.
I don't usually support conspiracy but the fact that it was an ex-Labour Together chair that has stood down for Burnham causes me to wonder what he is up to. Why would he facilitate a slightly left competitor to Starmer when his pal Akehurst is giving unwavering support to the PM? Has he worked out that Burnham will not win in Makerfield and his career will be ended?
As Kano says - after a dig at Polanski's past job - what is the point of the Greens if they stand down in a constituency where they could get a vote that helps their forward march?
Post a Comment