Andy Burnham has plan to return to Westminster ‘within weeks’. Allies sayGreater Manchester mayor said to have identified seats where MPs would step aside to allow leadership bid.

The Labour Party membership is not reflective of the electorate though MaizieD, is it? The average voter cares more about potholes and immigration than about the nationalisation of water companies or even the NHS - and doesn’t recognise what a progressive tax regime is.

Are you intentionally rude, Casdon, or does it just come naturally?

Casdon

The Labour Party membership is not reflective of the electorate though MaizieD, is it? The average voter cares more about potholes and immigration than about the nationalisation of water companies or even the NHS - and doesn’t recognise what a progressive tax regime is.

Who is the average voter ?

I think you will find that there are swathes of the electorate who are deeply concerned about the state of England’s water ways and the companies running (or not running) them.

As for tax, anyone earning money is concerned about the tax they pay…

The average voter is somebody who isn’t deeply interested in politics GrannyGravy13, and who will vote for the party who they think will make the biggest difference for them personally, on the issues they care about. That’s not you, me, or most people who comment on these threads, we are the people who do care about the wider agenda. I’m all in favour of water being renationalised ultimately, and moves towards that being taken now - I just don’t think, forgive the pun, that’s it’s an issue which floats most people’s boats enough to determine an election result.

I’m all in favour of water being renationalised ultimately, and moves towards that being taken now -

What moves are they?

Water is one of the concerns that poll high among 'ordinary voters'. along with the NHS and the cost of living.

I just don’t think, forgive the pun, that’s it’s an issue which floats most people’s boats enough to determine an election result.

I think that if it were politically allied to the fact that water companies are performing badly, charging high prices yet borrowing in order to pay dividends to the wealthy (yes, I know that ,might include institutions such as pension funds), inequality being very much linked to the rising cost of living, that they wouldn't be indifferent to it.

I think it is a part of what's important, it would be difficult to convey that in political messaging I suspect.
People often mock things like pot holes etc, but change to peoples everyday life is key.

Casdon

The average voter is somebody who isn’t deeply interested in politics GrannyGravy13, and who will vote for the party who they think will make the biggest difference for them personally, on the issues they care about. That’s not you, me, or most people who comment on these threads, we are the people who do care about the wider agenda. I’m all in favour of water being renationalised ultimately, and moves towards that being taken now - I just don’t think, forgive the pun, that’s it’s an issue which floats most people’s boats enough to determine an election result.

I'm not so sure.

More and more people are having problems with the supply of water and are becoming increasingly annoyed with the huge salaries and dividends paid out to private water companies who have no actual interest in this country, just in profits. Many are concerned about the polluted state of our rivers too.

This is a national scandal and does affect many people directly on a daily basis so, if campaigning included this as an important issue, it could make a difference to voting intentions.

Thanks. *Allira^

Allira

Casdon

The average voter is somebody who isn’t deeply interested in politics GrannyGravy13, and who will vote for the party who they think will make the biggest difference for them personally, on the issues they care about. That’s not you, me, or most people who comment on these threads, we are the people who do care about the wider agenda. I’m all in favour of water being renationalised ultimately, and moves towards that being taken now - I just don’t think, forgive the pun, that’s it’s an issue which floats most people’s boats enough to determine an election result.

I'm not so sure.

More and more people are having problems with the supply of water and are becoming increasingly annoyed with the huge salaries and dividends paid out to private water companies who have no actual interest in this country, just in profits. Many are concerned about the polluted state of our rivers too.

This is a national scandal and does affect many people directly on a daily basis so, if campaigning included this as an important issue, it could make a difference to voting intentions.

I agree on a personal level, but I just don’t think that if Labour promised to renationalise water tomorrow it would win them the next election, or it would win any other party the election, because not enough people are motivated by it as a single issue. If you look at what a people care about the most, it’s not in their top 5.

I hoped New Labour would take steps to reverse the privatisation of water so voted for Blair and his party which promised so much but then went down the PFI route which has and still does cost us dearly over the years.

It was Margaret Thatcher who privatised water.

Well, I know that!!
(I'm not completely gaga yet.)

I hoped Blair and his Government would take steps to reverse it. Many of his MPs were keen for that too.

People might not be "interested in politics" particularly but they are interested in their lives. 60-65% of voting adults are likely to vote in a GE so their vote matters and needs to be captured.

I think people generally vote for the party they think might/will make things better, ie different.

People are all different and view the status quo from their lived experience. Someone who is concerned about water supply, quality, profit shares and the degradation of out rivers will be favourable to a party that seeks to privatise the water companies.

A person who is concerned about immigration, environmental policy direction and high taxes will be favourable towards Reform.

All will have other their individual lived experience and their own personal priorities that they would like an elected government to change and/or improve. Their imagination and vote will be captured by the party that best speaks to their concerns.

All political parties therefore need big ideas, for improvement and a good comms to get that message out- even if the media environment is not favourable to their party.



what they perceive to be the biggest problems in UK l

I didn’t think you were, but your post implied that you thought Blair was to blame. I would have preferred it to be renationalised then too, but there was a high cost involved, and at that point the sustained under-investment was a lot less obvious than it is now. The issues have got much worse over the last 10 years.

Burnham was to make a speech following the election results, just read he will not now make the speech

Casdon

I didn’t think you were, but your post implied that you thought Blair was to blame. I would have preferred it to be renationalised then too, but there was a high cost involved, and at that point the sustained under-investment was a lot less obvious than it is now. The issues have got much worse over the last 10 years.

your post implied that you thought Blair was to blame.

It didn't. I said I hoped that TB would reverse privatisation of water.
Yes, I was very disappointed with him when he decided to carry on down the privatisation route with such enthusiasm.

Re Blair and privatisation...
I thought the railways would be bought back - but there was manoeuvring just before the election that made that not economically viable.
We bought shares on the understanding Labour would buy back (at the price paid). Two of our friends did the same.

We were all disappointed. I now know why but at the time it wasn't really explained why they "seemed" to have changed their minds.
Actually they had already stopped saying it (prior to the election) and it wasn't in the manifesto.

People are all different and view the status quo from their lived experience. Someone who is concerned about water supply, quality, profit shares and the degradation of out rivers will be favourable to a party that seeks to privatise the water companies.

I agree, people are different and will have different priorities, but polling will always indicate what is priority among the greatest number of citizens and it makes complete sense to use this for a Big Idea.

While water doesn't feature high on polls about the importance of many situations, the economy, the NHS, immigration etc. (possibly because of the nature of the questions posed) but polling on water alone reveals a high level of dissatisfaction. I'm not a saleswoman for nationalising water, it's just something to use for an example and the fact that it can press several buttons and cover a range of interested citizens.

NotSpaghetti

Re Blair and privatisation...
I thought the railways would be bought back - but there was manoeuvring just before the election that made that not economically viable.
We bought shares on the understanding Labour would buy back (at the price paid). Two of our friends did the same.

We were all disappointed. I now know why but at the time it wasn't really explained why they "seemed" to have changed their minds.
Actually they had already stopped saying it (prior to the election) and it wasn't in the manifesto.

The railways are coming back to public ownership NotSpaghetti, by 2027. They were franchises, so there was no capital involved.
Capital payout to investors is the problem for buying back the water industry into public ownership though. It’s easy to criticise Blair for not bringing it back under public ownership, but that was then and it was a different situation because the infrastructure had not collapsed. I think criticism should be levelled at all the governments since Thatcher privatised the water industry, for the inadequate standard setting, infrastructure updating and regulation, but I don’t blame the Blair government specifically, all are culpable.

Anniebach

Burnham was to make a speech following the election results, just read he will not now make the speech

I think thats a considered calm, strategic and canny decision by Burham. Wait till all the immediate furore is over, not be seen to go against Starmer or any media or other party member attacks on Starmer's position as leader, as others might following the local election results.

Or he may know that Starmer has agreed to go. He will certainly know that he who wields the sword rarely wears the crown.

I can't see Starmer agreeing to go.

I’m not sure there is a seat safe enough, or even that the parliamentarians would vote for Burnham as their leader of choice, given his disloyalty to Starmer. The jury is definitely out still. I thought Starmer would go after the results today, but I’m not so sure now.

I never thought Starmer would quietly go if the local elections results today were bad for Labour.

He's shown often enough how determined and ruthless he can be. To be fair- as are most PMs.

It won't matter who Labour have as PM, they're finished.