I woz there! A balanced account though I picked up he theme that politics needs root and branch change, devolving power right down, including PR. Big disconnect between people and Westminster creating brexit, division, inequality, disaffection and minority tory governments that most voters don't want. Unless Labour bring in fair voting and challenge ownership of the billionaire press, nothing will change.
Cheers Liz! Yeah the PR vote was a big moment and probably the main thing that didn't go KS's way over the four days (plus the Rupa Huq comments). Lot of pressure now, especially with people like Andy Burnham pro-PR. Will be interesting to follow.
Nice well balanced piece and a very enjoyable read. Only time will tell if Starmer is fully accepted by Liverpool but if the Hillsborougb Law is his way of apologising for his extremely poor choice of rags to write for, then it’s a big step. Being a lefty myself ( in their eyes) I agree we have to be in power to make the changes we need to actually level up. If the polls are anything to go by we should win but Labour then needs the time to fix the last 12 years of destruction the Tory’s have caused. It’ll take longer than 12 to put it right, will people have the patience to give them the time.
Thanks Carolyn, yes the Hillsborough Law could be a turning point for a least some, especially given that it was right at the top of his address. And that point - needing power - was a refrain I heard over and over. I think people in general are more pragmatic and less staunchly ideological than is sometimes assumed.
Liverpool City Council HAS been Labour run for the last 13 years!
The Tories may be dismantling the social economic and political fabric of this country, but the red-suited Tories aka 'Labour' have done a damn good job of destroying the integrity of Liverpool with their maladministration malfeasance and brown-envelope brand of friendships!
It makes me smile when people criticise Starmer for betraying Liverpool because of his article in the Sun and yet still eulogise about Jeremy Corbyn. They have short memories when it comes to Corbyn's role as labour leader during the Brexit campaign. It is well know that Liverpool had more to lose than most by coming out of the EU, over many years we received hundreds of millions of pounds in aid, some of which went towards the regeneration of the waterfront where the Labour conference was held. It looks magnificent.
However during the Brexit campaign Corbyn led the most feeble defence of the argument to remain, giving the most embarassing interviews, including one where he said his desire to remain was "about 7 or 7.5 out of 10". If he had shown half the passion that the leave side had during that campaign, it might have been enough to convince enough people to vote remain and overturn the slim majority that in the end won it for the leave side. Jezza wasn't too concerned about Liverpool then was he?
Thanks for the comment Stevo. Unfortunately from the remain perspective, as you note, Corbyn simply wasn't very pro-EU. I'd guess that his 7/7.5 comments are probably still an exageration on the true number. Certainly the wrong leader for the moment from that POV, but I guess from his position he found it hard to fake something he didn't truly believe. Your point about Liverpool's waterfront regeneration is very a good way of illustrating it though, at least that got built in time!
For me, and this is my first post and I am not even sure this is the correct place to make the post. Why during this interview was the question not raised why Liverpool has such a poor turn out at elections. It is claimed that Liverpool is a labour city and I would argue that is only true because there is no opposition but when you get into power with a voter turn out of less than 50% Labour have no right to claim they represent the people because they don't. The represent the small amount that voted for them but the silent majority are still silent and in many ways labour, especially socialist labour have done a really good job at silencing the majority. There is a post below this where the poster say "a tory government that most voters don't want" well i would argue that Liverpool have a party in power that most people in the city did not vote for and do not enjoy the support of the city. It is similar with the Echo claiming to be the voice of the city, well it is more like the squeak of the city as it too does not carry a great deal of support. Will we ever get an investigation by the press as to why people don't vote or are those who write for papers to scared of the possible answer....
Thanks for reading and welcome Ian! You make a very good point about voter turnout. In terms of this piece, most of the interviews were conducted at the end of fringe events and only getting a few mins with each person, which doesn't allow for the best depth of conversation, but it would be interesting to look at a deeper analysis of the problem in a seperate piece, perhaps one that would be best after/before an election cycle. Also, when you say "this interview" was there someone in the piece in particular you'd want this put to, or just everyone? It's an issue, certainly, but one that we have all over the country too.
HI Jack (sorry could not resist). In reality as i look across elections I think the problem of voter turnout is a nation wide issue. It may also be true to be a world wide issue . However, I am looking at my own wee spot on the world. It is almost is if the "people" broadly speaking have stopped bothering because the people they voted for are not worth it. Neither is it a new issue. I recall growing up in the 60's and 70's in Walton when the late and much respected Eric Heffer was the local MP and my Dad once passed comment that in some areas of Liverpool you could put a red ribbon on a dead dog and it would be elected .
With "this interview" I think what i was driving at would be for the following question to be asked of all politicians really "you have been elected with x% of the vote and only x% turned out to vote why do you think your success represents the will of the people".
Is there an answer to low turn out. I would say yes and no. I think when candidates are taken from a defined list set by a specific group. In labours case momentum or all women lists is a mistake I think it is also wrong when you have MPs that have no soul, no oomph and your left wondering what they actually stand for.
Sorry to rant on but I think of all of those men and women of the past who gave so much to get the vote for the ordinary person on the street. The woman's suffrage movement as an example and I get annoyed that people don't turn out and vote even if it is to spoil their vote. My worry is that at some point the parties will gather so much power and the vote will be removed unless it is like a trade union vote and just to rubber stamp a political view and not to elicit change
My closing thoughts. I wonder if there is a long term plan by political parties to stop people voting and rather than get elected they become a nation run by commissars". I see that in the Labour and Lib Dems and there are germs of it in the conservatives as well
I seem to recall Tony Blair once passed a comment that "EU matters did not need to be voted on in the UK as he, as a politician would understand the issue and the people would not" (My paraphrase would have to look the quote up) and it is at that point I turned against the EU.
Interesting piece - and I'm glad to see you challenging the story that many like to tell of Liverpool being some sort of 'uniquely socialist' city. To quote a popular football song, if you know your history then you'll know that
a) Liverpool had a Conservative Council up to 1972 - and one of the largest other parties over the same period was the Protestant Party (the political wing of the Orange Order)
b) Between 1973 and 2010 control of the Council switched regularly between Labour and Liberal/Lib Dems.
c) There were Tory MPs in Liverpool until 1983 and a Lib Dem MP until 1997
So while it is true to say that Liverpool has been solidly Labour for the last 12 years or so, it's a complete rewriting of history to suggest that this has always been the case
Cheers Simon. Yes it's odd how these things get ignored/overlooked in branding Liverpool's image & politics, it's hardly ancient history. Obviously some seats are as Labour as anywhere in the country so I guess that has something to do with it, but it's strange nonetheless.
Oct 1, 2022·edited Oct 2, 2022Liked by Jack Walton
Can we please stop the socialism is everything and isn't Liverpool special stereotypes, I'm totally fed up with people telling me that as a Liverpudlian I have to be a Corbyn supporter... The failure to form a wide coalition of the left and centre has left the UK with so many years of conservative rule.
At a time when even some local MPs and councillors of his party are seeing him as far from the bee's knees of Labour Party leaderships, no doubt picking Liverpool as their Party conference venue was to test the water of scouse town and to find out if it was still true most Liverpudlians would vote for any life form if it was wearing a red rosette and can mumble a few lines from The Red Flag.
With Liz (Good Guy) Truss and her gang already made a hash of things big time within ten days of taking over Downing Street and Labour found themselves leading the Tories by 33 percent in the poll, Keir Starmer must be thinking the good times are rolling in ahead of schedule.
Not only two years is a long, long time to wait for another general election, but, if the conflict in Ukraine continued to escalate, will he be just as happy to take over the PM job if by then the country was in the middle of a nuclear war?
Thanks for the comment Rennie. Another point on the "two years" theme is that it seems extremely possible - if not likely - that Liz Truss won't be his opponent anyway in '24. Obviously the chaos of changing PM constantly will do the Tories further damage, but a lot of that can be forgotten in two years I'm sure.
Thank you. There are some interesting observations here. I'm so glad that the Corbyn era has passed. Labour Party members are entitled to be various shades of red, but that has led to the Party being ineffective. And look at the disastrous mess the country is in now.
Thanks for reading Anna. Suffice to say - regardless of what MPs like Esterson/Johnson say in this piece - the left feels extremely marginalised within Labour now.
I woz there! A balanced account though I picked up he theme that politics needs root and branch change, devolving power right down, including PR. Big disconnect between people and Westminster creating brexit, division, inequality, disaffection and minority tory governments that most voters don't want. Unless Labour bring in fair voting and challenge ownership of the billionaire press, nothing will change.
Cheers Liz! Yeah the PR vote was a big moment and probably the main thing that didn't go KS's way over the four days (plus the Rupa Huq comments). Lot of pressure now, especially with people like Andy Burnham pro-PR. Will be interesting to follow.
Nice well balanced piece and a very enjoyable read. Only time will tell if Starmer is fully accepted by Liverpool but if the Hillsborougb Law is his way of apologising for his extremely poor choice of rags to write for, then it’s a big step. Being a lefty myself ( in their eyes) I agree we have to be in power to make the changes we need to actually level up. If the polls are anything to go by we should win but Labour then needs the time to fix the last 12 years of destruction the Tory’s have caused. It’ll take longer than 12 to put it right, will people have the patience to give them the time.
Thanks Carolyn, yes the Hillsborough Law could be a turning point for a least some, especially given that it was right at the top of his address. And that point - needing power - was a refrain I heard over and over. I think people in general are more pragmatic and less staunchly ideological than is sometimes assumed.
Liverpool City Council HAS been Labour run for the last 13 years!
The Tories may be dismantling the social economic and political fabric of this country, but the red-suited Tories aka 'Labour' have done a damn good job of destroying the integrity of Liverpool with their maladministration malfeasance and brown-envelope brand of friendships!
It makes me smile when people criticise Starmer for betraying Liverpool because of his article in the Sun and yet still eulogise about Jeremy Corbyn. They have short memories when it comes to Corbyn's role as labour leader during the Brexit campaign. It is well know that Liverpool had more to lose than most by coming out of the EU, over many years we received hundreds of millions of pounds in aid, some of which went towards the regeneration of the waterfront where the Labour conference was held. It looks magnificent.
However during the Brexit campaign Corbyn led the most feeble defence of the argument to remain, giving the most embarassing interviews, including one where he said his desire to remain was "about 7 or 7.5 out of 10". If he had shown half the passion that the leave side had during that campaign, it might have been enough to convince enough people to vote remain and overturn the slim majority that in the end won it for the leave side. Jezza wasn't too concerned about Liverpool then was he?
Thanks for the comment Stevo. Unfortunately from the remain perspective, as you note, Corbyn simply wasn't very pro-EU. I'd guess that his 7/7.5 comments are probably still an exageration on the true number. Certainly the wrong leader for the moment from that POV, but I guess from his position he found it hard to fake something he didn't truly believe. Your point about Liverpool's waterfront regeneration is very a good way of illustrating it though, at least that got built in time!
For me, and this is my first post and I am not even sure this is the correct place to make the post. Why during this interview was the question not raised why Liverpool has such a poor turn out at elections. It is claimed that Liverpool is a labour city and I would argue that is only true because there is no opposition but when you get into power with a voter turn out of less than 50% Labour have no right to claim they represent the people because they don't. The represent the small amount that voted for them but the silent majority are still silent and in many ways labour, especially socialist labour have done a really good job at silencing the majority. There is a post below this where the poster say "a tory government that most voters don't want" well i would argue that Liverpool have a party in power that most people in the city did not vote for and do not enjoy the support of the city. It is similar with the Echo claiming to be the voice of the city, well it is more like the squeak of the city as it too does not carry a great deal of support. Will we ever get an investigation by the press as to why people don't vote or are those who write for papers to scared of the possible answer....
Thanks for reading and welcome Ian! You make a very good point about voter turnout. In terms of this piece, most of the interviews were conducted at the end of fringe events and only getting a few mins with each person, which doesn't allow for the best depth of conversation, but it would be interesting to look at a deeper analysis of the problem in a seperate piece, perhaps one that would be best after/before an election cycle. Also, when you say "this interview" was there someone in the piece in particular you'd want this put to, or just everyone? It's an issue, certainly, but one that we have all over the country too.
HI Jack (sorry could not resist). In reality as i look across elections I think the problem of voter turnout is a nation wide issue. It may also be true to be a world wide issue . However, I am looking at my own wee spot on the world. It is almost is if the "people" broadly speaking have stopped bothering because the people they voted for are not worth it. Neither is it a new issue. I recall growing up in the 60's and 70's in Walton when the late and much respected Eric Heffer was the local MP and my Dad once passed comment that in some areas of Liverpool you could put a red ribbon on a dead dog and it would be elected .
With "this interview" I think what i was driving at would be for the following question to be asked of all politicians really "you have been elected with x% of the vote and only x% turned out to vote why do you think your success represents the will of the people".
Is there an answer to low turn out. I would say yes and no. I think when candidates are taken from a defined list set by a specific group. In labours case momentum or all women lists is a mistake I think it is also wrong when you have MPs that have no soul, no oomph and your left wondering what they actually stand for.
Sorry to rant on but I think of all of those men and women of the past who gave so much to get the vote for the ordinary person on the street. The woman's suffrage movement as an example and I get annoyed that people don't turn out and vote even if it is to spoil their vote. My worry is that at some point the parties will gather so much power and the vote will be removed unless it is like a trade union vote and just to rubber stamp a political view and not to elicit change
My closing thoughts. I wonder if there is a long term plan by political parties to stop people voting and rather than get elected they become a nation run by commissars". I see that in the Labour and Lib Dems and there are germs of it in the conservatives as well
I seem to recall Tony Blair once passed a comment that "EU matters did not need to be voted on in the UK as he, as a politician would understand the issue and the people would not" (My paraphrase would have to look the quote up) and it is at that point I turned against the EU.
Interesting piece - and I'm glad to see you challenging the story that many like to tell of Liverpool being some sort of 'uniquely socialist' city. To quote a popular football song, if you know your history then you'll know that
a) Liverpool had a Conservative Council up to 1972 - and one of the largest other parties over the same period was the Protestant Party (the political wing of the Orange Order)
b) Between 1973 and 2010 control of the Council switched regularly between Labour and Liberal/Lib Dems.
c) There were Tory MPs in Liverpool until 1983 and a Lib Dem MP until 1997
So while it is true to say that Liverpool has been solidly Labour for the last 12 years or so, it's a complete rewriting of history to suggest that this has always been the case
Cheers Simon. Yes it's odd how these things get ignored/overlooked in branding Liverpool's image & politics, it's hardly ancient history. Obviously some seats are as Labour as anywhere in the country so I guess that has something to do with it, but it's strange nonetheless.
Can we please stop the socialism is everything and isn't Liverpool special stereotypes, I'm totally fed up with people telling me that as a Liverpudlian I have to be a Corbyn supporter... The failure to form a wide coalition of the left and centre has left the UK with so many years of conservative rule.
Seems to be the view of a fair few Labour supporters I spoke to, wanting to be more pragmatic about removing the Tories. Thanks for reading Ste!
At a time when even some local MPs and councillors of his party are seeing him as far from the bee's knees of Labour Party leaderships, no doubt picking Liverpool as their Party conference venue was to test the water of scouse town and to find out if it was still true most Liverpudlians would vote for any life form if it was wearing a red rosette and can mumble a few lines from The Red Flag.
With Liz (Good Guy) Truss and her gang already made a hash of things big time within ten days of taking over Downing Street and Labour found themselves leading the Tories by 33 percent in the poll, Keir Starmer must be thinking the good times are rolling in ahead of schedule.
Not only two years is a long, long time to wait for another general election, but, if the conflict in Ukraine continued to escalate, will he be just as happy to take over the PM job if by then the country was in the middle of a nuclear war?
Thanks for the comment Rennie. Another point on the "two years" theme is that it seems extremely possible - if not likely - that Liz Truss won't be his opponent anyway in '24. Obviously the chaos of changing PM constantly will do the Tories further damage, but a lot of that can be forgotten in two years I'm sure.
We all have to warm to him, and by ‘all’ I mean the UK, otherwise we’ll have more disastrous years of Tory rule…good article 👍
Thanks for reading Kev, certainly seems like 2024 is his to lose
Thank you. There are some interesting observations here. I'm so glad that the Corbyn era has passed. Labour Party members are entitled to be various shades of red, but that has led to the Party being ineffective. And look at the disastrous mess the country is in now.
Thanks for reading Anna. Suffice to say - regardless of what MPs like Esterson/Johnson say in this piece - the left feels extremely marginalised within Labour now.