Christabel Cooper

A senior Danish guy in the Social Democrats said to me that Denmark does not think of itself as a multicultural country whereas Britain does, which makes our situation very different.

They win only if the anti Reform voters catastrophically split the vote and/or don't turn out. Farage is a divisive and motivating figure for the anti Reform voters, I wonder if it's not actually a good move for him to stay away.

Getting shown up in the arena of elite impunity by *the British monarchy* is an incredible “America at 250!” achievement

Let Thames Water fail — Labour Together Thames Water is on the ropes. This paper argues that the easiest option – a fudged deal with creditors that softens pollution targets – would be a political mistake. Instead, Labour should let Thames ...

For a practical guide to how a swift administration for Thames might look, read the report. Water you waiting for!!
www.labourtogether.uk/all-reports/...

There is also a big political prize in allowing Thames Water to go into administration. It could reduce bills for 16m people and show Labour as on the side of ordinary people against a big business that really is an extractor, not a producer.

Instead we argue Thames Water should be allowed to go into administration. This may need some temporary £ from HMT. But it will be the senior creditor and can charge a premium rate of interest. So the taxpayer is almost guaranteed to be made whole. God made fiscal headroom for moments like this!

NEW PAPER from @labourtogether.bsky.social argues we should allow Thames Water to go down the drain.

The alternative is a fudged deal that softens pollution targets and sees large returns for hedge funds. This will fuel calls for nationalising the industry, and the uncertainty could push up bills.

Trade unions are pretty popular! The reluctance to make the case for strengthening them, seems to stem from a historic and now misplaced belief, that unions are still unpopular. Amazing how people who claim to guided by "what the people want" so often fail to look at actual public opinion.

Yes, but the PLP are largely socially liberal by instinct but are incentivised, through fear of Reform taking their jobs, to want a tougher line on immigration, in a way the membership aren't

The problem that Amy new leadership candidate has is that they need 80 nominations from a PLP who mostly face Reform as their challenger and many of whom (wrongly IMO) think being tougher on migration will help, but they also need to win the Labour membership who are very socially liberal.

Perhaps things will change after last week and the Greens get momentum behind them. Or the anti-Reform vote splits catastrophically and lets Reform through the middle. But I wouldn't write Labour off entirely until it's clear that on the ground, that the Greens are seen as the main challenger.

At the risk of looking foolish in 3 wks time, I think this gives Labour at least a chance of holding the seat, *if* they can maintain their position as the party with the best chance of beating Reform. Worth remembering the Greens were a poor third in GE2024 so they have a lot of ground to make up.

A big factor in Gorton & Denton is the significant number of voters who will be seriously scared about having a Reform MP. Imagine being Muslim and having to go to *Matt Goodwin* with your immigration casework. So they'll be highly motivated to vote for whoever is best placed to defeat Reform.

But if the Greens come ahead of Labour, then it strongly suggests that they - and not Labour - are the most effective opposition to Reform in a bunch of seats in England where they were previously in 3rd or 4th place. And that progressives should rally behind them and not Labour...

The most important thing about this by-election won't be who wins, it will be which of the anti-Reform parties comes first. If Reform win it will only be because the opposition has split catastrophically - if Lab come 2nd, it is a warning of what happens when Greens don't tactically vote.

Kemi therefore *does* have an opportunity to reposition the Tory party back to being a reasonably sensible small state, socially conservative (but not radically so) party, because those are her beliefs. But she's choosing not to do that.

I think the point about Reform is that they are *not* a radical right wing party in the same way Kemi is radically right wing - she is *economically* right wing, whereas Reform is more ambivalent on this, and it's anchor belief is around immigration, which is not her personal obsession.

True, but I guess they are motivated by observing the shift in power to Reform and wanting to follow it. If you're the actual leader of the Tories, you're more incentivised to fight to keep the Conservatives relevant

I don't think Kemi would join Reform. She's a culture warrior but not *obsessed* with immigration, eg had to be pushed into leaving ECHR. She's very right wing economically, but Reform has flirted with big state ideas (eg nationalising steel, lifting 2 child limit) which would be anathema to her.

A big problem is that it's so old. The founding fathers didn't foresee the current relationship between President and Congress and trying to imagine what they would made of many modern situations is completely subjective and gives the Supreme Court latitude to make policy without accountability.

But it's up to her to use this opportunity, otherwise all these defections will do is to establish even more firmly that Reform is the best choice for right-wing voters to defeat Labour.

A shift back to the centre-right certainly won't win back all or even most of the Con to Ref defectors, but it might convince more moderate waverers to think twice - and Kemi badly needs the momentum towards Reform to slow, to show that the Tories are still viable in some seats.

Without a clearly distinct identity from Reform, the Conservatives serve little purpose. In most seats they are no longer the most electorally viable party on the right, giving right-wing voters whose priority is defeating Labour little reason to back them.

Kemi could use these defections to cement the repositioning of the Conservatives as the party of “sensible(!)” right-wing economics, giving them a distinct identity from Reform and a stronger platform from which to challenge them, rather than futilely trying to out-Reform Reform on immigration.

I'm not convinced of (1) I think Farage's insurgent brand is strong enough to withstand the diluting effect of Tory defectors, particularly as they're largely from the more extreme wing.

But the interplay between (2) and (3) will be fascinating and could well determine the result of the next GE.

Former home secretary Suella Braverman defects to Reform UK Braverman becomes third sitting Conservative MP to join Nigel Farage’s party in little more than a week

These Tory to Reform defections could trigger 3 dynamics:
1. Blunt Reform's "insurgency" appeal
2. Convince Con/Ref waverers that Reform is the only viable party to beat Labour
3. OR push Con/Ref waverers back to the Cons as the only "sensible" option
www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

You would have to hope that the weight of public opinion found *some* way of exerting influence under these circumstances (or perhaps that is wishful).

A Reform majority would probably be won with little more than 30% of the vote with most British people opposed to PM Farage but having been unable/unwilling to organise themselves to stop it. It would be a government which has unrestricted power to make radical change yet no mandate to do so.

Instead I argue that the party should seek to build a coalition based around shared values - particularly the ambition for a fairer society delivered by an active state - to once again build up a core of voters willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for long enough to deliver.

Without the ballast of a core group of loyal voters, politics becomes volatile with voters inclined to repeatedly vote out incumbents who fail to immediately deliver.

Labour can't rebuild that ballast from its old working class coalition - there simply aren't enough voters.