1. There's concern/exasperation among sensible politics understanderers that Zack Polanski is fighting the campaign as if Keir Starmer is still Prime Minister. Hasn't he noticed that there's been a change in Number 10? That Labour's polling recovery mean the Greens are finished? Let's consider the key issues the Green leader is running on. First, the cost of living crisis. Andy Burnham has emoted an understanding of the difficulties people are facing, but so far the action taken is around the edges. And as Sam Coates helpfully revealed last weekend, a lot of Burnham's new measures were in the grid ready for another Starmer relaunch. Second, in addition to bread and butter issues, the Greens are talking about the environment, climate change, and the government's shilly-shallying over North Sea oil. Has our new Prime Minister shifted on this? If anything, he's giving off the impression that more drilling is going to happen. That, and the fact it's in the Number 10 leak too - albeit linked to easing cost-of-living pressures. And finally, Polanski's message is vote Green to keep Labour honest. He says the Greens are responsible for pushing Labour to the left, and there's certainly a case for that following Labour's crushing in Gorton and Denton. Adding in Labour's pathetic failure to confront the far right politically, only a columnist whose windows on the world are other Westminster hacks and exclusive dinner party guests could think there's no market for what Polanski is selling.
2. Nor is Holborn and St Pancras a do-or-die election for Polanski. His leadership has taken the Greens to unprecedented heights, delivering its best ever local election results, its highest ever membership, and its first parliamentary by-election victory. There are moaners in the party who, as "senior sources", frequently leak their displeasure about his social media activity to a press only too happy to bury the Greens, but he's not going anywhere. If the party doesn't win, there will be future London by-elections. And by then, the sheen might have worn off Labour's new leader. But by the same token, a loss would hardly be fatal for Burnham. It would be a reminder that better polling does not mean the Greens have gone away, despite their obviously dropping support. And it could be spun as needing to go further on tackling living standards, rents, prices. In other words, confirming the direction of travel Burnham's initial speeches mapped out. It's not immediately obvious how, as per under Starmer, losing a turf war with the Greens on the grounds they're campaigning on can force Labour rightwards. Indeed, to keep up the recovery of its base, to undo the damage inflicted by the Starmer/McSweeney duumvirate, Labour has no choice but to avoid such idiocy. Assuming it's in the business of wanting to win the next general election.
Image Credit
5 comments:
Spot on.
One should always assume incompetence before malice, but "sensible politics understanderers" do often make a show of being very selective with their understanding, even demonstrating interpretations which seem very goal-directed.
Polanski is clearly doing exactly what I have opined that he should do, to anyone who would listen: force the media circus to remember that he exists (even though they would much rather he just conveniently stopped requiring them to notice him); and in doing so, keep up the pressure on Labour to avoid immediately backsliding into taking its left-leaning voters for granted.
Of course that's very inconvenient behaviour for the (still very much at large and gassing out the room) Morgan McSweeneys of this world, and their friends - who wish to simply swap in a new figurehead and then carry on just as before. They would like everyone to think that Polanski's stunts are silly and that we all should stop paying attention. Hence the selective understandings and goal-directed interpretations.
As each day goes by , including the Sky News revelations that all of the claimed "new policies" announced by Burnham were already on the cards for yet another bogus Starmer "relaunch " , just before he was booted out, the new frontman/puppet status of Andy Burnham becomes ever clearer. Labour under Burnham is simply business as usual, with Burnham steered by exactly the same "advisor/ handlers" as Starmer was. The polling "Burnham bounce" effect is fading already, so the Polanski Green candidacy may yet triumph in Starmers old seat.
Coming down the pike with ever greater menace of course is a huge winter European-wide and global fuel shortage from the ever widening Middle East war - and the inevitable accelerating inflation across all product ranges from this crucial , petrol. diesel, gas and related vital by products shortage. NuLabour under con man Burnham will be like rabbits in oncoming headlights when this crisis hits the UK. UK, and European , politics is going to hit extraordinary turmoil very soon, and we can quite possibly add in open war with the biggest nuclear power and now super experienced military power on earth, ie Russia, if events really run out of control. Needless to say the Greens have nothing to offer to stop this now fully in train process either. We are profoundly screwed indeed.
Topically related: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/9/23/europes-centrists-are-finally-paying-the-price-of-their-extremism
I would think there is only so far supporting Everton F.C. and speaking coherently can take you. The Labour recovery is still below 30% and Reform is only a point or two behind despite the mild barrage it has been under - and now has a few bob to spend.
And his most recent hints and statements suggest he is, what Mr Healey desribed as the Continuity candidate, Starmeism without the man himself. So we have the mildest crticism of Israel, talk of drilling in the North Sea, stepping bac on Chagos, stepping forward on war in Yemen and so on.
Why should we expect anything different. It took him 3 goes to become leader and he only managed when he had no opponent. He was a right wing candidiate in the previous 2 leadership election and he was the right wing candidate in his third.
It's yet another rerun of the famous Life of Brian scene, "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy". The idea that changing the face at the top will change the course they are set on is appealing but we have plenty of exerience that shows that it doesn't happen.
I am not quite as doommongering as Anon10:56 (that sounds like a Biblical reference from the Book Of Anon - possibly part of the Apocrypha), but it is difficult to see an end to the tunnel, let alone any light. That said, I think this hysteria over Russia and a war is just that. The real danger is that the number of countries with leaders that see war as a way to consolidate and perpetuate their position is growing. We have Yzrael, Yookrain, Rooshia and the YooEssAy all in that club. The only growth industry is armaments, and generating panic over possible attacks is great marketing.
What worries me more is the rising discontent that is being fanned into anger and even rage by those keen to divide and rule, or just maintain the current skewed economic/power distribution. The skew is causing it to overbalance, and it will eventually crash down, but on top of whom is the question. They are determined to ensure they are out of its way, but ready to scrabble over the ruins to take the summit for themselves and their backers.
Can anyone stop them?
The proble is that trying to prop up the tilting edifice is futile, but rebuilding the whole structure is seen as too radical, so we are stuck in this pause-rewind-fastforward-pause loop. Like hamsters in a wheel, but without the fun.
Post a Comment