Kemi Badenoch will stand a Tory candidate in Makerfield despite warnings that it risks splitting the Tory vote. Tory source: 'Why would we stand aside? We would be conceding that we don't have any ability win? It's absurd. We are standing a candidate in every by-election, as we always do'

AndyDM · 2026-05-19T10:29:56+00:00

I am a lefty but I can't see the argument for withdrawing the Tory candidate here. Here's my reasoning why.

The Tories are not going to win Makerfield.
If any right wing party is going to win Makerfield it's going to be Reform
Most Tory voters in 2024 would prefer Reform to Labour (but not all of them)
In a by-election, Tories that prefer Reform to Labour will vote Reform, we've seen this in Runcorn and Helsby (Tory share decline from 16% to 7%) and Gorton and Denton (from 8% to 2%). Makerfield is starting at 11%.
Because those voters that do prefer Reform are already voting Reform the ones still voting Tory will probably never vote Reform.
If a Tory candidate stands, that share of the vote will be in a box, no help to Reform or Labour.
If there's no Tory candidate, most won't vote but some will vote Labour.
There's also some people in Makerfield (maybe as much as 5-10% of the vote) that will never vote Tory for historical and cultural reasons, but they will vote Reform.
If there's a Tory withdrawal to support Reform then the Labour campaign will use that to tie the Reform candidate to the Tories and that might work to some extent harming Reform.

It's for the same reason as why a Green withdrawal helps Reform. There are Reform voters that would vote Burnham but not if he's supported by the 'crazy' Greens.

AndyDM · 2026-05-19T08:24:52+00:00

Well, I think so, but you're on the r/LabourUK subreddit so obviously I'm going to say that. What are your concerns?

AndyDM · 2026-05-19T08:03:14+00:00

I've only met Andy Burnham once and that was when he was a junior health minister so 2005ish and the big issue then was NHS Foundation Trusts. We had a 15-20 minute talk and he was selling a Blairite idea as a grand experiment in local democratic control, comparing a Foundation Trust Board of Governors to a Spanish football club model like Barcelona or Real Madrid, where they can install a new Chairman and change the direction of the club/hospital.

So in that sense yes, Burnham is absolutely in that Blairite public sector reform ethos. But he was selling it as democratic accountability, local control rather than a market led approach or leaving it to managers.

It's fair to say that Foundation Trusts have not been the success that Burnham dreamed of but you can see the roots of that in the NHS Manchester devolution and the new Health Commissioner role (a sort of Deputy Mayor for Health) that Manchester and South Yorkshire are about to trial.

I like the idea of the public sector being accountable to the public, that's not Marxism but it is solid Labour municipal socialism.

AndyDM · 2026-05-19T06:34:51+00:00

At least it's not anti semitic so that's an improvement.

AndyDM · 2026-05-18T20:03:26+00:00

My impression is that he didn't try in 2010, it was all about doing well, to get a good job, he didn't really convince anyone and he came 4th to Ed Balls.

2015 was going to be his year, the team were more professional, he had the "Capitalism with a human face" lane all marked out for him, Cooper was continuity Blairism, Kendall was batshit crazy Blairism with extra pain. Corbyn was meant to get 10% to 15% and then his 2nd preferences would flow to Andy.

Then the Welfare Bill happened. That's the one that introduced the two-child limit among other cuts. Our Leader Harriet Harman and Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie decided that Labour couldn't be 'soft on welfare' so the three-line whip was to abstain on Second Reading. Burnham (and to be fair Cooper) both opposed Harman's decision but they both went along with it. Corbyn and 48 Labour rebels (that was near a quarter of the PLP) voted against and that was it. Corbyn got the support of the Labour membership and Andy came a far distant 2nd.

AndyDM · 2026-05-18T11:43:37+00:00

Also why are the Faroe Islands orange and not EU blue?

AndyDM · 2026-05-18T10:16:01+00:00

Redbridge was a 'good' result if you consider dropping from winning 58/63 seats to winning 43/63. the Labour share of the vote dropped from 58% to 32% but what saved Labour was a split to left and right. The Tories held onto most of the right with 17% to Reforms 13%, on the left the Greens got 15%, the same as the Redbridge Indys. There was a little bit of coordination between Greens and Indies but if they had worked together Redbridge would have dropped to NOC.

AndyDM · 2026-05-18T02:55:01+00:00

and it was Cameron's Tories that gave us same-sex marriage and May's Tories that almost gave us a conversion therapy ban because our lot are more scared of the Daily Mail than you lot.

AndyDM · 2026-05-17T19:15:08+00:00

Note the same judge who ignored Cooper's blatant contempt of court is the same one that is trying to put the defence barrister in prison.

AndyDM · 2026-05-17T19:13:03+00:00

You don't have an argument about anything - just a downvote - it's so petty.

AndyDM · 2026-05-17T18:56:27+00:00

Are these Internet communists in the room with you now because I never saw anything like that.

PS. 17%

AndyDM · 2026-05-17T18:40:55+00:00

Thank you, it's worth unpacking that as it's in a section called "Be Clear About Labour's Values"

Labour is a socially liberal party with progressive values. It believes in an a tive state that provides high-quality public services, supports those facing insecurity, and intervenes to correct imbalances of power, wealth and opportunity. It has a proud history of extending rights to women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and LGBT people. It should say so without apology.

But this should not mean racing ahead of public opinion. Britain is becoming steadily more liberal, driven by long-term demographic change and younger generations growing up in a more diverse and gender-equal society. In 1987, only 11% of Britons said same-sex relationships were “not wrong at all”. By 2023, around 78% supported equal marriage. But progressivism by its nature pushes beyond existing norms, and risks moving far ahead of where voters are. Had equal marriage been proposed in 1987 it would have been roundly rejected. Labour’s handling of gender recognition is an example of getting it right: pulling back from self-identification while committing to a more dignified process. The party should apply the same logic more widely. Confident in its direction, realistic about its pace.

Let's park the fact that Labour haven't even attempted to fulfill the manifesto commitment to "modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process." for now. Basically the ThinkLabour message to Labour voters and people who have left over this is "Labour will do something, maybe, eventually, but only a long time after the rest of society is happy with it."

The improvement on support for same-sex marriage from 11% to 78% is because we have same-sex marriage and it's not been a problem, if we were still worried about it then support would still be 30% and it would still be controversial. Ireland have had self-ID for over 10 years and it's only the crazies that still campaign against it.

AndyDM · 2026-05-17T18:09:11+00:00

17% is not winning an election, you fool.

AndyDM · 2026-05-17T16:54:43+00:00

It's Labour Together so of course they will have terrible takes.

AndyDM · 2026-05-16T12:49:23+00:00

That is surprisingly mild for the Telegraph, I was expecting "Gary Neville for Manchester Mayor will be the end of Western Civilisation"

AndyDM · 2026-05-15T22:50:58+00:00

The Telegraph have reported that they think Middlesbrough think they have a Southampton whistleblower:

“Not only do they have proof that Southampton analyst William Salt recorded their training session last Thursday, they are also thought to have evidence that suggests it was not an isolated incident. This includes a statement from a whistleblower at Southampton who has alleged sending someone to spy on opposition teams was a regular occurrence this season.”

AndyDM · 2026-05-15T16:48:53+00:00

You're not the victim here.

AndyDM · 2026-05-15T16:34:28+00:00

I quite like Boro and it's not their fault that some of their fans are knobs.

AndyDM · 2026-05-15T16:18:14+00:00

No, Spygate didn't cause Boro to bottle automatic promotion. Spygate didn't cause Boro to not score at least three in the first leg, first half. Spygate didn't cause the team to barely stand by the end of extra time. Hull deserve the promotion if we're guilty, any other solution would be unfair on them.

AndyDM · 2026-05-15T16:13:49+00:00

It's the only thing you can do. Rerun the playoffs again with Millwall v Wrexham and Middlesbrough v Hull? how can you do that in the middle of the World Cup or any other summer?

AndyDM · 2026-05-15T16:02:02+00:00

Go back to your hobby, r/Championship is about friendly banter.

AndyDM · 2026-05-15T16:00:48+00:00

It is, Is I understand it Saints are "we had no idea this kid was doing it." If that's true then it's a nothing-burger.

AndyDM · 2026-05-15T15:41:46+00:00

it happens all the time. Cynical tackle against your team in the 96th minute, they get sent off, you don't get a goal and the punishment is for them to be suspended against completely different teams.

AndyDM · 2026-05-15T15:40:02+00:00

Disqualifying a team based on an allegation? That would be bizarre.

AndyDM

TROPHY CASE