The Socialist Squirrel

Socialist, Unite member, Labour Party member, Momentum member, former Parliamentary intern, politics graduate, MSc student and supply teacher. UK politics blog.

[keir-hardies-beard]

Anti-vaxxers are just scared of needles and don't want to admit it.

Spread the word.

[socialistsquirrel]

Sexual bullying of girls starts young

When I was 9, a few boys in my class would go up to girls and if they had a 'fish shop'. They meant it as a euphemism for vagina. Both yes and no answers were equally funny to them.

When I was 11, boys started openly talking about porn in the classroom.

When I was 12, two boys in my geography class repeatedly asked the young inexperienced student teacher if she was going to the local underage club night so they could "get with" her.

When I was 13, my friend was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a boy in the school corridor. Despite me trying to persuade her, she wouldn't go tell her tutor because she was too embarrassed.

When I was 14, a boy in my science class grabbed his genitals (thankfully still within his trousers) and thumped then on the bench in front of me and laughed at me when I instinctively glanced down.

By the time I was 14, boys had gone beyond openly talking about porn in the classroom, to trying to engage girls in that conversation - usually in order to try and embarrass them and make them feel uncomfortable.

When I was 14-15 a group of boys would squeeze the bums of girls in the year group. It was usually the quiet introverted girls who were more easily embarrassed by it. It happened to me once when I was going up the stairs and once when walking back to school, as a year group with teachers present, from the school's other campus.

I left school 8 years ago and these are just the snippets I can remember in detail, these are far from the only incidents. I also don't think that my experience was unusual.

What these sorts of incidents do is create an environment where girls don't want to be, or at least are made to feel uncomfortable in it.

[socialistsquirrel]

I’m 23, I’ve just become a homeowner, here’s how I did it

I guess you’re expecting this to be like every other article on young homeowners (I am so young, I don’t even appear on statistics that break home ownership down by age), that tells a story of how a young adult worked their socks off to buy a house at a stupidly young age, but manages to ignore all the factors that were out of their direct control that contributed to them being able to do it.  This is not going to be that. 1. There’s two of us. People are settling down at older and older ages, making buying a house a bit trickier. I was lucky that I found someone at my age that I did want to make that massive commitment with, most people in their early 20s don’t quite have that luxury. Technically, if I was on my own, I would have manged to buy something, but it wouldn’t be a nice 3 bedroom semi in an nice quiet cul-de-sack, it would have been a small 1-2 bedroom flat, likely in a worse area.  2. We both have full-time jobs.  Although neither of our jobs have the best pay in the world, we do have two full-time incomes from stable permanent jobs. More and more young people are working in the gig economy that doesn’t give that guaranteed income, making them a massive risk to mortgage lenders even if they do usually earn enough to be able to pay their mortgage.  3. We live in a cheap area. Although we have moved from an even cheaper area to where we are now, for the sake of halving the commute, house prices are still reasonable. Thank you North East of England! I remember after we’d had our offer accepted, my little brother had shown his southern university friends the house I was buying and asked them to guess how much they thought it was worth. One of them said in her area she would guess it would be three times what was paid, but guessed in the north east it would be cheaper. Her guess was still nearly double the asking price. A lot of young people do not have the benefit of living in a cheap region and moving away from friends, family and their support network for the sake of being able to buy really is not the best option for them. 4. My partner lived at home. Until about a year before we bought our house, my partner lived at home. He didn’t go to university, so he had about 6 years of working full-time and barely paying any board to his parents. Although his salary isn’t the highest, his living costs were incredibly low, allowing him to save at least 60% of his salary each month. 5. My parents saved for me. Although my parents didn’t give me a big lump of money when we started looking for a house to put towards a deposit, since I was born, my parents put £20 a month a way for me. My grandparents put away a similar amount, so when I turned 18 I had a good amount of savings. Part of it was used to live on at university, but a mixture of my parents contributing to my living costs, going to university in a cheap city and a scholarship I qualified for, all meant I didn’t have to dig into it too much. Then, towards the end of university, a relative died and I received some inheritance which partly replenished the savings I had spent at university.  6. Deposit contributions. Although between us we did have enough for a 10% deposit for house in our budget (based on what the bank would lend us), we got and additional £5,000 from my partner’s parents, £10,000 from my grandparents and my parents and his grandparents gave us another few thousand to pay for any work that needed doing. This meant our budget increased by that much, making a big difference to the type of houses we could afford and the option of taking on a house which wasn’t perfect because we knew we’d have the cash to sort things out. I can’t remember seeing any story of a young person buying their first home not ticking any of these boxes. It might be as simple as they lived with their parents until they moved into their new home, thus not paying extortionate private rents and making it much easy to save. It is not to belittle their achievement, but even that would be a luxury to many young people.  If you are young, don’t have family to help you out financially (e.g. deposit contributions, subsiding you while you save), and/or don’t live in a cheap area, and/or have to do it on your own, getting on the housing ladder is very very difficult.  I would much rather not be a novelty, I would much rather other people my age were able to buy their first home in their early 20s if they wanted to, but in order for that to happen, house prices need to come under control. 

[socialistsquirrel]

There are still questions that need to be answered RE: Dominic Cummings' trip to Durham:

1. Why was the ordinary childcare not available?

2. Why was it more appropriate to ask a 17 year old (a minor) to look after your child in Durham, but not members of your wife's family in London? You're the adult, you do not have to accept the offer from a 17 year old just because it's there, especially without checking what local options from adults are available first.

3. Why was it appropriate to even test drive when you weren't feeling 100%?

4. Why was it appropriate for you to take that test drive with your wife and child in the car, putting them both at risk?

5. Are the public expected to believe that it is just a coincidence that your trip to Barnard Castle was on your wife's birthday?

6. Why didn't your wife drive? She can drive and was ahead of you with your illness, so was likely feeling better than you.

7. Why could your son not manage Barnard Castle and back without needing the toilet but could manage all the way back to London?

[socialistsquirrel]

Well this is very sinister

[socialistsquirrel]

The case of Jessie Joe Jacobs shows we still have a long way to go before we can achieve gender equality in politics

In the autumn of last year, Jessie Joe Jacobs was selected as the Labour candidate for Tees Valley Mayor. If Jessie is a woman and mixed race, if she was elected, she would be the first metro mayor female and first ethnic minority metro mayor in the country. This would be historic, but that obviously does not stop people from taking issue with it. 

Firstly, there are the comments in online newspapers that state that she is being ‘forced’ on the electorate because she is a woman and/or because she is an ethnic minority. There is an assumption at play here which assumes that any candidate who is a woman, an ethnic minority, LGBT+, disabled or falls into any other minority category, must be in favour of ‘identity politics’ and therefore be a triggered snowflake, especially if they are standing for any centrist or left wing party.

Then there are the comments that suggest that the Labour Party is discriminating against men. This is particularly ludicrous in the Tees Valley. There are currently 3 Labour MPs - Alex Cunningham (Stockton North), Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) and Mike Hill (Hartlepool), all men. In December, 3 MPs did lose their seats in the Tees Valley - Jenny Chapman (Darlington), Paul Williams (Stockton South) and Anna Turley (Redcar). Adding all of these up, that’s still 4 men to 2 women, plus a third unsuccessful candidate in Lauren Dingsdale (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) - so still a majority of male candidates in the Tees Valley. 

To add to this, there’s the people who just refuse to see past their own biases even when facts are presented to them. In this case, a man adamant that there is definitely discrimination against men in the way Labour selects its candidates and there was in this case. In reality, there was no All Women Shortlist for the Tees Valley Mayoral election - it would have been illegal to do so. In order to be selected, candidates needed to be nominated by 3 local parties (and in some circumstances, a local party could nominate 2). Those successful candidates would go for shortlisting interviews and then to a membership ballot in the Tees Valley. In this case, there were 3 candidates who put their names forward - Mandy Porter, Dan Smith and Jessie Joe Jacobs. Jessie received nominations from all 7 local parties, Dan received 3 and Mandy was only nominated by her own local party, so was not able to go to the interview stage. The interview panel opted not to shortlist Dan, likely because some Facebook posts from a few years ago surfaced where he accused the Labour Council in Middlesbrough of corruption. Dan was not shortlisted for likely that reason, and certainly not because he’s a man. Despite being told there was no AWS, the response is that there was some sort of ‘subconscious’ All Woman Shortlist and women and minorities only get selected as candidates because the Labour Party are too obsessed with equality and diversity, so therefore it would be very difficult for a woman, half the population, to ever be the best candidate. There is never a question like this when a white man is selected. Nobody ever says “well I think it should be the best person for the job” when a white middle class  man is elected to anything, nobody ever questions whether they got there on merit, but there is always that question when it is a woman or minority. 

Then there are the people who just outright say they don’t want women in elected office. I have my issues with AWS, but to me, it’s undeniable that they were put there with the best of intentions. Women are discriminated against still and this is one method of levelling the playing field, but try telling that to someone who just assumes that a female candidate was selected because of AWS, when they weren’t. 

When there is an assumption that a woman, or an ethnic minority, or someone who is LGBT+ or has a disability has not achieved something on merit, it shows that there really is a long way to go, because it assumes that those people can never be the best person for the job. The default is that the best person is a white middle class man any candidate who doesn’t look like that can’t have been the best person. 

[socialistsquirrel]

Why the Americans have it kind of right on education (in theory)

I completed a PGCE last year and have taught in a couple of different settings, so I ended up researching exactly how the American education system works and how it differs to that of the UK. Statistically, America doesn’t do too well on international education leader boards, but I put that down to the content that is taught and the lack of access to higher education that many Americans face, as well as socio-economic factors that many states don’t tackle effectively.. However, there are three things they are doing right. 1. Middle Schools and High Schools In the UK, we have secondary schools that are generally 11-16 (with the exception of a handful of middle schools that exist, and schools with sixth forms attached - they’re 11-18), then Sixth Form and FE colleges that are generally 16-19, with most completing their studies in the academic year they turn 18. In the US, middle schools exist that are for 11-14-year-olds (so our year 7 to year 9), although in school districts, there are junior high schools. After Middle School they go to High Schools that are for 14-18-year-olds so our (Year 11 to Year 13/second year college). If we had this system, younger pupils who are not studying for any qualification or exams would not be in the same school as those who are GCSE and A Level students. That would make far more sense, but as is the case now, if a 16-year-old doesn’t want to study academic subjects that sixth forms offer, they can still go study at FE colleges instead - that option would still remain. Anyone who thinks back to starting their new secondary school as a terrified 11-year-old in Year 7 and remembering how big the scary Year 11s were, will hopefully see a system like this make more sense, even more sense for those who went to a secondary school with a Sixth Form attached where the oldest pupils were 18 and 19-year-old adults. 2. GPAs GPAs, or Grade Point Averages are a way of assessing how American school pupils are doing. It’s assessed by in-class tests by a teacher and on class work. Obviously there may be an issue in that this work is assessed by the class teacher themselves who may have a bias towards and against particular pupils, but this bias could be eliminated by teachers marking each other’s class’ work without names. This would be a system I would use until the age of 16. So no GCSEs and dozens of exams, no aim to get good grades in at least 5 subjects or your life is over, no teaching to an exam board’s spec. When they go on to further education at 16, the teacher would write a report for each pupil stating their GPA and progress in that subject in order to establish whether their choice for future education is a good fit for them. 3. SATs American school pupils typically sit standardised tests (SATs) when they are 17 or 18 in order to apply for university. There is one SAT exam that is three hours long and includes maths, writing and critical reading - a bit like a higher level of Year 6 SATs, but all in one exam. I wouldn’t impose it quite like the Americans do. Instead of it being done at 17 or 18, I would have Year 11s sit it, so wherever they go next and whatever they study, they have a basic qualification in English and Maths. Instead of one three hour exam that assesses English and maths, I would have two shorter exams, one for English, one for maths. However, there would be an option of a more numeracy-based maths exam for those not going onto study maths-based subjects where good numeracy skills will suffice . Essentially, instead of sitting dozens of exams in upwards of ten subjects, Year 11s would sit just two a maths/numeracy exam and an English exam to give them those two qualifications. 

However, post-16, I would keep the same system, 16-year-olds could choose to study more academic A Levels, go on to do apprenticeships or study vocational subjects at an FE college. Although when it comes to A Levels, I would return to modular exams and more coursework. 

[socialistsquirrel]

Stop mocking people’s spelling online

It’s something I see quite a lot, mainly  in comment sections on social media and online forums. Someone posts a comment, someone else disagrees with it and then that person corrects the first person’s spelling. In most cases, it seems to be I actually disagree with the first person, and if the second person made an actual counterpoint rather than “Haha you can’t spell, it’s their, not there”, I’d probably agree with their counterpoint. The first issue with those sorts of comments is simply they are petty and why would anyone resort to that level of pettiness so publicly when there is probably a decent counterpoint to whatever the misspeller has written? The people who write the “haha you can’t spell” comments clearly did not study AS Critical Thinking during their A Levels. The second issue is that these “haha you can’t spell” comments are largely from one stranger to another. The spelling mocker doesn’t know the misspeller. They don’t know their personal circumstances. They don’t know if they have a learning disability. They don’t know if they were let down by the education system when they were a kid. They don’t know if they had to leave school early for whatever reason. 5 million adults in the UK are functionally illiterate and even in 2018, 1 in 5 children left primary school without being able to read and write properly. I’m sure if the misspeller was in one of those circumstances and the spelling mocker knew it, the chances are, they would feel terrible about it. The issue is the spelling mocker rarely thinks that the misspeller could be in one of those circumstances. However, I have one exception for this anti-spelling mocking rule - people who complain about immigrants not speaking English well enough but then can’t spell in their own first language. To me, they’re fair game.  

[socialistsquirrel]

Reforming student finance: Looking beyond scrapping tuition fees

Every Labour leadership contender has backed the scrapping of tuition fees, which is great, and is absolutely the correct policy. Most other developed nations manage to have free higher education, so why not the UK as well? If we can afford to bail the banks out, build HS2 and a bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland, then surely we can afford to cover the cost of higher education for all. However, although the debt is somewhat off putting for many potential university students and so some will opt not to go at all, there is a cost that has a larger more practical impact. The absolute maximum a student living away from home outside of London can receive in a maintenance loan is £8,944. That amount is only for students whose household income is £25,000 or under, and so for every household income band above that, the figure students can receive goes down and down and down. The household income figure is usually based on the student’s parents’ income, if the student is under 25. This student maintenance would only not be based on the income of the student’s parents if they are categorised as an ‘independent student’. In order to be categorised as such, they would either have to have been supporting themselves financially for at least three years, be estranged from their parents, be married or in a civil partnership or have no living parents. So unless a student would go to the drastic measure of killing off their parents or marrying their best mate in order to get full maintenance, they’re a bit stuck.  However, what happens in most cases is students don’t receive the maximum loan - if a student comes from a two parent household, the household income is likely to be in the £40,000s, which leaves the student with between £6,000 and £7,000 to live on.  The reason why SFE sets the bands up in the way it has is it assumes students outside of London living independently will be able to live on £8,944. It then assumes that someone who comes from a household where the income is £25,000 or less will not be able to contribute towards their adult son or daughter at university. The next assumption is that as household incomes go up, their parents are willing and able to make up the difference so the student will still have that £8,944 to live on. There are clearly a lot of problems with the assumptions that SFE make and the information it uses to make these assumptions. It assumes that £8,944 is enough to live on. In some university towns/cities it probably is okay. But that’s only if the rent is cheap in the town/city (e.g. somewhere like Middlesbrough, Hull, Sunderland), the student can get a contract that only lasts the length of the academic year (or near enough) so they’re not paying for 3 months rent during the summer when they’re not there and they don’t have to pay board to their parents during the holidays The next wrong assumption is parents will make up the difference. The way SFE works out how much maintenance to give a student is purely income, not disposable income. For example, consider two students with two sets of parents both with household incomes of £40,000.  Both students will receive £7,019 for the year. Student A is an only child whose parents have already paid their mortgage off and they can afford to top their son/daughter’s maintenance up by an additional £3,000 a year. Student B has two younger siblings still at school and their parents are renting in London (SFE only takes into account where the student will be studying, not where the parents live). Student B’s parents can only contribute a little extra top-up here and there. This is far from hypothetical. My parents couldn’t afford to top me up to the full amount, but I was very lucky in that I only went to university in cheap cities and always got shorter rent contracts, so I managed. However, a student who was on my course dropped out purely because of financial reasons. Her parents were on high incomes, so she was in one of the lowest bands for student finance. However, she was also one of quite a few children (and one of the oldest) and her parents had very high mortgage repayments. Although I was in a more middle band, her parents could barely afford to top her up at all so she had far less than me to live on. We were going to live together for a placement year in a more expensive city, until she realised she literally could not afford to live there. She left our course and changed to a course without the placement year. “But you can get a job!” I hear some older people who went to university for free yell in the distance. Working while at university can be great for some people, it can help build their CV, it can help them get work experience, it can help them build skills. Getting a job whilst studying can be a really positive decision for some students. However, it shouldn’t be a choice that students are forced to make for financial reasons so they can afford to eat and pay the rent - student finance should cover that. Students who work on average receive lower grades than those who don’t work. If a student genuinely wants to work and thinks it will be beneficial to them beyond the financial, and so would be happy with getting a 2:1 at the end instead of scraping a 1:1, then that’s fine, but a student’s grades shouldn’t have to suffer because they needed to work.  To add to that, for some courses working really is not practical - courses with virtually full-time contact hours where they still have reading and assignments to do when they’re not physically in lectures/tutorials/labs. If they want to be able to attend university, complete all their reading and assignments and also occasionally sleep, there probably isn’t much time to get a job as well. Students with work placements also won’t have much time to hold down paid employment as well. Imagine a medical student working for free on placement at least 9-5 most days, slotting  university contact hours in and also ensuring they are read up on what they are meant to be, then also trying to work part-time alongside all of that for extra cash. It’s just not feasible, to the extent that many universities have banned students from taking on paid part-time jobs on some courses (e.g. medicine, nursing, veterinary) and Cambridge strongly advises against all students taking on part-time jobs during term time because terms are so intense - the argument from them being you’re not at university to work, you’re there to study. What the Labour leadership candidates need to do is look beyond just the scrapping of tuition fees and to the student finance system as a whole. Students are being let down once they are at university - it’s not the tuition fees that make it unaffordable for some, it’s the cost of living and SFE’s inability to cover that. Whether it’s a loan or a grant, or a mixture of the two, all students should receive a minimum which covers the cost of living. If wealthier parents then want to top it up, or students still want to take on part-time work, then so be it, but that finance should enable students to actually study.

[socialistsquirrel]

Kinnock could be an interesting deputy to long-bailey I think

I think, regardless of politics, a deputy leader needs to be someone who can be trusted, regardless of who the leader is. Kinnock is not that person.

[socialistsquirrel]

I feel like cabinet composition will be more crucial than leader for Labour, honestly. The big underlying failure has been centralisation of thinking in London and failure to understand regional factors and that's never something that one person can do; a cabinet that's more distributed regionally and pushing for devolving more power to councils would do a lot of work to fix that. I also love Lisa Nandy's idea to start moving conferences etc out of London and into towns

I'd like a northern leader and a shadow cabinet that geographically mirrors the country - both are important.

I remember knocking on doors pre-2017 election and I remember residents saying they didn't trust Corbyn to negotiate Bexit. My response would be it would be Keir Starmer, the Shadow Brexit Secretary, rather than Corbyn himself. They didn't have a clue who Keir Starmer was at that point. The leader themselves is still very important.

As for conferences being moved out of London - Labour doesn't have its annual conference in London. It seems to alternate, at the moment, between Liverpool and Brighton.

[socialistsquirrel]

Controversial idea: deputy should be explicitly someone who will clash with the leader, as long as it's in a constructive way. One of the criticisms of Labour and corbyn has been the closed-offness of the leadership and their refusal to listen to criticism, a deputy from a different faction in labour would help with that (case in point, just look at how much corbyn went against the whip)

If it's constructive, I can see an argument. A deputy leader who has different ideas and policy positions could be helpful, as long as they abide by collective responsibility and don't brief against the party and leadership in the press.

[socialistsquirrel]

It's a shame flack lost her seat, I feel she'd be the strongest candidate :/ I think nandy and long-bailey are the only two real candidates tbh (phillips might be strong but would alienate too much of the hardcore corbyn base imo)

Flack?

[socialistsquirrel]

Clive Lewis? It’s a no from me

I used to really like Clive Lewis. He was an early backer of Jeremy Corbyn and was one of the 36 MPs to nominate him. Jeremy Corbyn himself even credited Lewis with getting his nominations ‘off the ground’. He was also one of the MPs I had thought could be a successor to Jeremy Corbyn, but this time around I thought Deputy Leader might be better as a balance to Rebecca Long-Bailey. He is/was a very strong supporter of Remain and resigned from his post as Shadow Business Secretary in order to vote against triggering Article 50, for that reason I didn’t think he was the right person, this time, for the top job. Clive Lewis, has also done some, let’s say questionable things in the past few years, mostly during the 2017 Labour Party Conference. During a Novara Media fringe event, he told Sam Swan (a male actor) to “Get on your knees, bitch!”. He did apologise for what he said shortly after the video of the incident appeared online.

During the same party conference he was accused of groping a woman at a Momentum “The World Transformed” fringe event. On 12 December 2017, he was cleared by Labour's National Executive Committee sexual harassment panel. Then there was this incident:

Mocking suicide is really not a great look either, especially from the front bench. The kind of behaviour is the sort of thing I would expect from a 19 year old student at a sports society social, not from a politician who’s been on and off the front bench. But let’s say we ignore all of that. Lewis appologised for the “Get on your knees, Bitch” incident, he was cleared of sexual assault and doing one stupid action while the MPs on the  benches opposite were jeering, should not eliminate them from being able to stand for leader of the party. However, during an interview with Huck Magazine yesterday, the day he announced he was standing for the leadership, he said some very questionable things about his previous the sexual assault allegation. 

These comments show that he doesn’t really understand the issue of sexual assault. He seems to think it’s the norm that women make false allegations, so much so that male politicians should take precautions. He also doesn’t seem to understand what’s wrong with a male politician slapping the thigh of a female activist he’s never met in his life, and that’s just if he’s being honest about his recollection. 

When many have been talking about the need to elect a female leader (the Tories, Lib Dems, Green, SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP and Sinn Fein have all managed it), Labour can’t then go on to elect a male leader who doesn’t understand the ‘complexities’ around sexual assault, has been accused of sexual assault himself and thinks the phrase “get on your knees, bitch” is the height of hilarity. Labour’s antisemetism problem would turn into Labour’s sexism problem. It can’t manage to elect a female leader but manages to elect a leader who has what appears to be his own issues with women.

[socialistsquirrel]

It really is not the right time for Keir Starmer

In most other leadership elections, Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC, would be an ideal candidate for many. The son of a nurse and toolmaker, who became a successful defence barrister, specialising in human rights cases and taking plenty of pro-bono work, eventually becoming the Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service. However, this is really not Keir Starmer’s time. Labour have just lost an election and it’s important that we look at why that election was lost. Labour didn’t just lose a few more affluent marginals that are fought over every general election, it lost seats in what is meant to be its heartland. Labour did well in London and gained its only seat there, although it shouldn’t ever be taken for granted, that is not where the focus should be. 

The next leader needs to be someone who can win back the trust of northern and midlands working class Leave voting traditional Labour voters, voters who have just been taken for granted. Labour lost seats that the Tories would never have dreamed of turning blue. Laura Pidcock’s seat of North West Durham, Dennis Skinner’s seat of Bolsover, Anna Turley’s seat of Redcar and Ronnie Campbell’s old seat of Blyth Valley, to name but a few constituencies in this category. Some seats, such as Helen Goodman’s Bishop Auckland and Blair’s old seat of Sedgefield, had been gradually becoming more marginal over time and were also Leave voting so those losses were not entirely unexpected.

(All the seats in the north and midlands which turned blue) If Labour has any hope of winning a majority at any point in the future, it needs to regain the trust of voters in those seats. Ideally, a future leader would be one of them, northern, working class, someone who really ‘gets’ their everyday struggles. However, the worst quality a future leader could have, in terms of regaining that trust and therefore those seats, is a strong remain stance. Keir Starmer was the architect of what turned out to be Labour’s disastrous Brexit policy, he was the person, along with fellow Londoner Emily Thornberry, who pushed for a ‘People’s Vote’ with an option to Remain. This stance is born out of not really understanding how much Leave voters actually wanted to leave the EU. Yes, leaving the EU is probably a really bad idea, but people voted for it and that’s democracy. A far better stance would have been respecting what the electorate said in 2016 and supporting a softer Brexit that would minimise the damage, especially on the communities which voted for it. By the time the 12th December rolled around, voters in these seats were just as angry about seemingly being ignored by Labour as they were about Brexit itself. The Tories were the only ones actually listening to them. It might have been the only issue they agreed with the Tories on, but they were angry enough about it to be single issue voters - but that doesn’t automatically mean Labour will regain those votes once Brexit is over. 

As qualified, experienced and capable as Keir Starmer is, the last thing Labour needs is a leader who will be seen by what should be Labour’s core support, as another member of London’s elite metropolitan liberal bubble who just doesn’t ‘get them’.

[socialistsquirrel]

The Becky Long-Bailey - Angela Rayner joint ticket would be a mistake

I am currently supporting Becky Long-Bailey for Labour leader, although she has not formally announced she will stand yet, and supported her even when it was thought Angela Rayner would also stand. However, it is being reported that Rayner and Long-Bailey have come to an agreement of standing on a form a ‘joint ticket’, where Long-Bailey would stand for leader and Rayner would stand for deputy leader. Although, there is no such thing as a joint ticked under Labour Party rules, we’re not America, they can only endorse each other and hope members take their advice. I am of the belief that the next Leader of the Labour Party needs to be a northerner. We have lost the trust of so many traditional northern working class voters (especially in Leave voting seats) who feel ignored, taken for granted and betrayed over Brexit by Labour. We need a leader who can regain that trust and can resonate with those voters, someone who is ‘one of them’. For me that right person is Becky Long-Bailey, northern, working class (despite what the double-barreled surname may suggest) and she would be Labour’s first female leader as well. However, Labour shouldn’t make the same mistake with London as it did with the North of England. The leader and deputy leader should compliment each other, they should have differing qualities to ensure the leadership can appeal to as many voters as possible. If Labour has a northern leader, a southerner, preferably Londonner as deputy leader is necessary. They don’t necessarily need to be on the left of the party, as long as they can work with the leader, something Tom Watson seemed incapable of doing. Angela Rayner is still a massive asset to the Labour Party and has been very loyal to Jeremy Corbyn, so she should be in any future shadow cabinet. However, she is probably better placed remaining as Shadow Education Secretary, as she has done such a good job since 2016 and possibly Shadow First Secretary of State, so on occasions where Long-Bailey was unable to lead Prime Minister’s Question, by default that task would fall to Rayner.

[socialistsquirrel]

Rebecca Long-Bailey is the only person for the job

With Jeremy Corbyn standing down as leader by the end of March, the Labour leadership contest will soon be underway and there is a wide field of potential candidates who have either declared, or who are likely to. So far, likely contenders for the top job include Angela Rayner, Emily Thorberry, Keir Starmer, Yvetter Cooper, Lisa Nandy, Jess Philips and Becky Long-Bailey, with John McDonnell, Richard Burgon and Diane Abbott all ruling themselves out. Labour lost so many working class northern Leave voting seats, the next leader has to be someone who can regain the trust of those voters, many of whom have been Labour voters all their lives. The next leader has to be northern, have working class roots, preferably female and someone who was not obsessively pro-remain. That rules out Lodonners and big remain advocates Emily Thornerry and Keir Starmer, middle class and big remain supporter Yvette Cooper, middle class Lisa Nandy and middle class Brummie Jess Philips, leaving only Angela Rayner and Becky Long-Bailey. Angela Rayner was born in Stockport, Greater Manchester (northern box ticked) and left school at 16 having gained no qualifications after becoming pregnant. She went on to study part-time and qualified as a care worker (working class box ticked). Rayner was elected as a Unison rep in her workplace and went on to become convener of Unison North West, the most senior post in the region. In 2015, Rayner was elected as MP for Ashton-under-Lyme in Greater Manchester and was appointed as Shadow Education Secretary in 2016 by Jeremy Corbyn. She backed Andy Burhnam in the 2015 leadership election, but backed Jeremy Corbyn against challenger Owen Smith in 2016. Rebecca Long-Bailey was born in Stretford Greater Manchester (northern box ticked) to Irish immigrant parents and her father was a docker and trade union rep. Long-Bailey began her own working life in a pawn shop, call centres, a furniture factory and postal delivery (working class box ticked) before studying to become a solicitor by studying politics and sociology at Manchester Met and then completing part-time law conversion and solicitors’ courses. In 2015, Long-Bailey was elected as MP for Salford and Eccles and was appointed Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2016, then Shadow Business Secretary in 2017. She was one of the thirty-six MPs to nominate Jeremy Corbyn in the 2015 leadership election and also supported him. Long-Bailey also supported Jeremy Corbyn during the 2016 leadership elected. There are two main reasons I am supporting Becky Long-Bailey over Angela Rayner for leader. The first is politics. Long-Bailey is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, Rayner is not. Rayner describes herself as soft left and that is evidenced by her supporting Burnham over Corbyn in 2015. Although Rayner is very loyal to the leadership, she votes with the whip and backed Corbyn during the coup of 2016, that whip may moderate if she was leader herself. She’s soft left, as opposed to centrist, and she is clearly very loyal, so she should be in any Shadow Cabinet, preferably kept on in education. Long-Bailey is a safer bet in terms of her politics. The second reason is economics. I don’t think there is anyone of the potential contenders who is stronger on the economy than Long-Bailey, she’ll be able to run rings around Johnson at the dispatch box. The economy is also an issue that the public still don’t quite trust Labour on, so Long-Bailey is the perfect choice. As for deputy, the field is less clear, so it is a bit of a waiting game. Whoever it is, they have to balance out a northern leader. If the leader is a woman, there is no necessity to have a female deputy, but there’s nothing wrong with two women at the top of the party either. The deputy should probably be southern, preferably a Londonner. Labour have built a solid base in London and that should not be taken for granted, just as Labour had taken the north for granted. The deputy leader should be someone who can help unify the party and isn’t someone like Tom Watson who undermined the leadership at every opportunity. They don’t necessarily need to be someone on the left of the party, but it does need to be someone who is a team player.