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
28 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?
I think we can safely ignore anyone who descends to ‘boob whisper’ comments.
Yes indeed, McIntosh. And lest we forget, this NuLabour government is an enabler , directly via weapons and intelligence data supply , of the most blatant genocide, in Gaza, of the 21st century. And the ever-escalating MI6 driven adventurist stunts carried out directly at the UK's behest by Ukraine (with UK and US satellite guidance and drones and UK army specialists) of ever-deeper strikes against Russian refineries and nuclear triad assets, and civilian areas, is increasingly very likely to lead to direct retaliatory missile strikes on the UK - and /or nuclear war.
No Left winger should help facilitate the continuation of this warmongering , corrupt, authoritarian, Labour government. Burnham is just a shape-shifting Blairite pseudo Leftish poseur . He'll be offering his own Starmer-like "Ten solemn Lefty Policy Pledges " next to fool gullible Lefties.
No public commitment from Burnham, no standing down. After the horrendous smear campaigns against the Greens conducted by Labour, if I was a voting Makerfield Green member, I'd vote go for it!
Phil I agree with what you outline. They are not an adjunct of the Labour Party. If they ever can get real power and influence be that in a real coalition or otherwise they cannot look weak now. They have a lot to do if this is ever going to become a reality nationally.
Well! That charade didn't last long, did it?
How naive to think that McSweeney's stench had ever left Number 10! Now the game is: loudly promise the EU to see Burnham off, backtrack once that's achieved, then threaten the electorate with Farage to force them to accept Streeting. Whichever way it falls, US corporates have a clear run to pillage the NHS. Genius - if those are his real clients.
And Burnham... good grief. Jumps with both feet on the first land mine that he sees. Not even caretaker PM material.
Unless the rest of Labour can pull a rabbit from the hat - and pack McSweeney off to somewhere where there is no postal service - it's all up to the Green Party now.
Unless the Greens have reason to think that they can genuinely take Makerfield, they now have a new reason to stand down: so that if Burnham is defeated, then it will be blamed upon McSweeney and Streeting instead of them.
The risk being that if he doesn't, then this might turn out to be what the Labour cordyceps crew really wanted. In that scenario, Burnham is subsequently revealed as entirely a continuity leader, and Labour's doomed plan for 2029 ("it's us or Reform") revealed as unchanged.
But what have the Greens really got to lose,if they can't actually take this seat?
I love Caroline but what a shocking position to take. It's not the Greens job to do CPR on the rotting corpse of the Genocide Party. They're in the Big Leagues now, no more Mr Nice Guy, no more " after you Maud". To not stand would be a betrayal of its new members and would be seen as an attempt to manipulate voters
It will be a long road for the Greens nationally. Good luck .
Reform are apparently "unashamedly right-wing populists" Kamo says approvingly, but the Greens are " explicitly unashamedly left wing populists" which somehow manages to be a bad thing. Probably that "explicitly" which while meaning they are open about it Kamo implies it is brazen and also dishonest. Amazing. Perhaps its the addition of "fairytales" juxtaposed with "grown-up centre-left pragmatism" that does the work. Are all populists fairy-tale spinners, or is it just the Lefty ones? Are all centrists "grown up" or just the pragmatic ones. Can a centrist be anything else? After all, they are fence sitters by definition. Isn't centrism what has got us into this mess? After all, we haven't had a populist or a genuine leftist government for...ever really, or at least not since 1945. Who are these grown ups we keep hearing about? 6 PMs in 8 years and 5 of them from Kamo's own beloved Tory party. Seems we are still searching.
And to come back to Mr Burnham's daily announcements on his platform - we now know he will support the continuation of the fiscal rules and so austerity, support Mahmood's Reform shadowing migration policies and keep wasting money on war machines. Still to hear his position on Gaza and Iran. It does seem Mrs Badenoch has a point in saying that all that Labour is seeking is a better salesman for bad policies. Surely the Greens wont stand down for this package. the only way to push him Leftish is to have a leftish candidiate with some prospects of winning votes.
" It's not the Greens job to do CPR on the rotting corpse of the Genocide Party."
100%. No more Mr. Nice guy, there's no civility coming from the BLP, and don't expect any under PM Burnham either.
After the entire Blair to present period, how many times do people want to be duped? BLP is not 'agreement capable' any more than the USA.
As is said many times in the 'Master & Commander' novels: NEVER MIND MANOEUVRES, JUST GO AT THEM."
I think Sean Dearg, might be infatuated with me, but yes I do think much of right-wing populism is fantasy. Not every populist policy, left or right, is fantasy, but populism tends to fantasy because it targets people (marks) incapable of second or third order thinking, people who don't understand basic economics. 'You shall have a free lunch' is an easier sell than 'there are no free lunches'. Polanski can promise free lunches because his marks will buy it without expecting him to deliver. The people who'd need to pay don't think he'll need to deliver any time soon either. But the closer he gets to power the more he will have to deal with realities. This is why we're seeing loads of guff about 'bond market vigilantes' (they don't actually exist), those who lend to Gov't want higher returns for higher risks, so the more likely a politician is to actually do batshit stuff, the more lenders want for the risks. This is what did for Truss, this is why a grown-up politician like Burnham knows he can't offer free lunches like Polanski. (Though to be fair a lot of left-populists are flirting with the magic money tree a.k.a. modern monetary theory, where we just print lots of money to pay for free lunches, well, until the money becomes worthless and the economy collapses, but on the bright side there's no bond market vigilantes to watch out for).
The comments above urging Greens to Stand against Burnham are short sighted and dispiriting. The Greens won't win in Makersfield. This is not a general election. Defeat of Burnham by Reform would be a massive propaganda victory for them and have a negative impact on civil society as a whole, and would actually discourage green voters in the long term. Burnham needs to win, as the space for the Green Party will being larger then. It is a different position at a general election.
Burnham does seem to really think that he can only win Makerfield by continuing Starmer's oh-so-successful strategy of positioning himself a hair's breadth to the left of Farage.
I think we can safely assume this is exactly what McSweeney intended when he told Simon to open up the seat. Either Burnham loses, dashing the hopes invested in him, or he thoroughly paints himself as being nothing but continuity Starmer. Or both.
Meanwhile, Streeting has been told to start breathlessly promising unicorns and rainbows, positioning himself to get the top job when the Party is reduced to abject desperation from Burnham's failure (whether it's failure to win Makerfield in the first place, or failure to be any more popular than Starmer, scarcely matters). Everyone here should know that these promises are complete lies, everyone in the PLP should know that too, but if the latter can be persuaded that the electorate appears fooled, then the long-planned swap of Starmer for Streeting will get the green light.
If this parasitic infestation of the Labour Party does succeed in seeing off the challenge to their dominion, then oblivion for the Party in 2029 beckons, and the Greens should prepare to fight the zombified corpse for every last vote.
Q'uelle surprise! A reactionary dullard patently fails to understand MMT, trotting out the tired old straw man that attributes to it the position that there are no constraints on state expenditure, rather than the position that constraints (at least as they pertain to nation-state governments with their own currency) come from limitations on real (as opposed to financial) resources!
Is it a day that ends in 'y'?
if Labour wanted the Greens to co-operate in an anti-Reform vote, they wouldn't tailor all their policies to imagined Reform voters and denigrate any party to their left at every opportunity. It's their mess and we don't owe them anything. Burnham will lose on his own terms, no one to blame but this corpse of a party.
Damn! I've been found out. It's true Kamo, I am infatuated. It's your sheer brilliance and the originality of your arguments. Take this example:
"populism tends to fantasy because it targets people (marks) incapable of second or third order thinking, people who don't understand basic economics." Unlike, of course, Kamo itself, who has a profound understanding of the dismal science.
It gives us a share of its insight with this, "there are no free lunches". The always unoriginal Friedman wrote a book of that name, but the phrase is an old cliche that he tried to claim for his own. Ironic, given that his particular take on economics involves a never ending buffet for asset holders subsidised by extraction from the rest of society. Neoliberalism in a nutshell. AKA reverse Robin Hood - take from the poor, give to the rich. And repeat. Not so much free lunch as free full bed and board.
I love the explanation of bond markets (by the way, ever heard of 'metaphor'?). It's almost believable. Tiny problem. It's wrong. No, they don't 'lend' to governments, they buy bonds - which is more like 'save with'. When you put your money into a fixed term ISA, are you 'lending' to the bank? Technically, perhaps, but really you are saving in a 'vehicle' that pays a decent and reliable rate of return. Which is what a gilt is. At the end, you get the money back. If you don't flog the bond to someone else. Which is what the market is all about. Buying and selling, or 'trading' as they like to fancifully call it, hoping that someone will pay more or returns will rise. It's speculation but done at minimal risk. So, here's the metaphor - vigilantes are those who vigilantly keep watch, looking for any sign of change of 'sentiment' among the others in the bond market community, then leaping in to action. Hence the term. They are trying to get ahead of everyone else and so anything the government does or says, or more significantly, the BoE, is seized upon in anticipation that others may move. The key is to be first, or, at least, early. Late is for losers. Look it up. They don't care what the action is, just how others in their fraternity will react to it. That is it. Its a system of second guessing among people whose entire focus is on getting ahead of the game.
Another old cliche - the magic money tree. Again the irony is weighty. Where does money come from? It literally is created out of thin air. It doesn't even need a tree. The value it has is all in the relationships with others in the same currency sphere. We trust it has value, so it does. If we stop believing in it, it becomes worthless. You could say, it disappears. A bit like faeries. They only exist if you believe they do. So, it is a sort of magic.
A lot of people who think they are very clever have this idea that money is a thing that has inherent value. It isn't. It only has value if someone else is prepared to accept it. Unlike, say, food, or water. Or a tree, that provides shade or fruit. Money is not a thing. It's a shared belief system. Imagine living on a remote, uncharted island with nobody else, just a huge box full of ££s. How much value would those ££s have to you?
Post a Comment