Factionalism played a role in Labour's election defeat
Shaun Soper blames the Labour party's general election losses of 2017 and 2019 on Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell (Letters, 30 May).
With regard to the 2017 election, surveys found that the manifesto met with wide approval from the electorate. In terms of the ensuing loss, the independent Forde report (2020), commissioned by Labour, provided compelling evidence that the deep factionalism in the party between pro- and anti-Corbynites during the election campaign became a major hindrance to making a Labour-led government feasible.
Surely all members of the party who were involved in the factionalism during the campaign need to take responsibility for allowing the Conservatives to form a minority government to impose their baleful policies on the country. John MaherLiverpool
Shaun Soper sharply reminds John McDonnell that he and Corbyn lost two elections. Yet in 2017 Labour won 12,877,918 votes (a 40% share), whereas Keir Starmer won in a landslide with 9,708,716 (33.7%).Geoff BoothKnebworth, Hertfordshire
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Children could be banned from spending more than two hours on any one phone app and blocked from social media after 10pm in new anti-doomscrolling measures
The government is considering measures to ban children from spending more than two hours on any one mobile phone app at a time. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is mulling a move to cap the amount of time per app youngsters can spend on their phone as part of a swathe of measures designed to reduce 'doomscrolling'. The package could also include preventing children from accessing social media apps, such as TikTok or Snapchat, after 10pm and during school hours. 'My approach will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online, but also start to embrace those measures that deliver a much healthier life for children online,' Mr Kyle told the Mirror. 'That's what I want young people to have, a developmental safe and nourishing childhood online, just as we strive to for young people offline.' He is focused on exploring how curfews and restrictions on accessibility to apps as a starting point and is aware such measures may not solve the problem entirely. The MP for Hove and Portslade has reportedly held discussions with former and current employees of social media sites, who are open to the idea of preventing access to apps at night or during school. They are also said to be willing to restrict how long children can use an app for, by blocking access once they have reached a certain time limit. There have been suggestions this could be up to two hours. However, Mr Kyle has not yet made a decision on what age bracket these changes could apply to, according to The Mirror. He is also reportedly exploring raising the age at which children consent for their personal data to be processed by online sites. This currently applies to youngsters aged 13 and above, although ministers could raise this to 16. Mr Kyle has previously said that he has taken a keen interest in TikTok's recent introduction of various tools to limit screen time. These include a 10pm curfew for under-16s, which features the device screen being taken over and calming music played, although the tool can be dismissed to continue using the app. Another tool, Time Away, allows parents to set specific times that TikTok is available on their teen's devices. Children can request extra time to remain on the app, but their parents must approve it. Mr Kyle said he wanted to see evidence of how these tools are helping young people before implementing anything, but said he was especially interested in anything that will 'empower parents' to control how long their children are spending on social media platforms. Experts have long cited social media as a factor that can disrupt young people's sleep, relationships and socialisation skills. Data from the Millennium Cohort study, published last January, revealed 48 per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds felt they had lost control over how much time they spent online. A team at the University of Cambridge examined data from the study which tracks the lives of 19,000 Britons born in 2000-2002. When those in the cohort were aged between 16 and 18, they were asked about their social media use. The survey revealed 48 per cent of the 7,000 respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: 'I think I am addicted to social media.' Girls were most affected with 57 per cent agreeing, compared with 37 per cent of boys, according to the data reported by the Guardian.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Thousands gather for anti-austerity demonstration in London
Campaign group The People's Assembly said it expected trade unionists, campaigners and activists to attend the event in central London on Saturday. MPs Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott are among those expected to give speeches at a rally in Whitehall. The organisers accused the Government of making spending cuts that target the poorest in society. Representatives from the National Education Union, Revolutionary Communist Party, Green Party and the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union could all be seen at the march's start point in Portland Place. The large crowd then set off towards Whitehall shortly before 1pm. Many of the protesters were holding placards that read 'Tax the rich, stop the cuts – welfare not warfare'. Other signs being held aloft said 'Nurses not nukes' and 'Cut war, not welfare'. A People's Assembly spokesperson said: 'The adherence to 'fiscal rules' traps us in a public service funding crisis, increasing poverty, worsening mental health and freezing public sector pay. 'Scrapping winter fuel payments, keeping the Tory two-child benefit cap, abandoning Waspi women, cutting £5 billion of welfare by limiting Pip and universal credit eligibility, and slashing UK foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP, while increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, are presented as 'tough choices'. 'Real tough choices would be for a Labour government to tax the rich and their hidden wealth, to fund public services, fair pay, investment in communities and the NHS.' The People's Assembly said it is bringing together trade unionists, health, disability, housing, and welfare campaigners with community organisations under the slogan: No to Austerity2.0. There will be also be speeches from trade union leaders, disability rights activists, anti-poverty campaigners and groups calling for more investment in the NHS and other public services. The spokesperson added: 'We face a growing threat from the far right, fuelled by racism, division and failed politics. We need to see people's lives improve, we need to see the vulnerable cared for and an end to child poverty. 'On June 7, we march for education, for our NHS, for welfare, for refugees, against hate, and for a society in which our children can flourish.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The closing of a local hair salon tells you why Britain is going bust
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will stand up in the House and announce her latest plans for saving the country from bankruptcy. Somehow, she will have to produce plausible remedies for a crisis that seems insoluble: how to deal with catastrophic levels of government debt when there are endless demands for more public spending including a brand new commitment to provide more funding for defence. Having ruled out tax rises that clearly impinge directly on what they call 'working people' – income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance contributions – Labour has made this situation more complicated. But, perversely, they have chosen to make it even worse by pushing many of the most productive contributors to the economy out of business. The Labour Government, by putting supposed ideological solidarity over economic reality, has created the perfect formula for the failure of precisely the business sector which contributes most to national vitality and growth. Let me offer an illustration in the hope that it might prove instructive to the present and any future Chancellor. A hairdressing salon that I know in a prosperous North London neighbourhood closed for good several weeks ago. It had been at its current location for over thirty years and was so popular that it often took days to get an appointment. After lockdown it recovered well with its loyal customers delighted to return. The emergence of the four day working week meant that Fridays became as busy as Saturdays and the salon was humming. So what went wrong? The owner was hit simultaneously by the increases in the minimum wage and employer NICS. Added to ever-increasing energy costs (exacerbated by green levies), this burden finally broke them. Even though they were a well-run thriving business, they could not survive. Sadly all of the junior staff and trainees were laid off. Given the economic climate now, they will struggle to find similar jobs anywhere else so they will not be paying any tax for the indefinite future and will almost certainly have to claim unemployment benefit: a double loss for the Treasury. The salon as a company has gone so it will no longer be paying corporation tax. The senior stylists who have carried on working privately are now self-employed which means they can, perfectly legitimately, claim all their work expenses against tax – so they will pay less income tax than they did under PAYE when they were employees. You get the picture. The net effect of the Government's measures has been to reduce the tax take for their own coffers and increase unemployment among people starting out in their working lives whose chances are further damaged by the ridiculous stipulation that they must have full rights to secure employment from the day they are hired. What happened to one hair salon might not seem all that significant to the nation's future. But this pattern is being repeated in small businesses – particularly the ones that provide employment to young people starting out in working life – in countless numbers. Retail shops, building services and hospitality outlets are cutting staff and failing to hire new recruits because the cost of employing them is back breaking. As a result, they are not expanding and developing their businesses as they might have – and so not contributing to the growth of the economy in the significant way that small businesses, with their inherent dynamism and industriousness, once did. Labour, in its supposed determination to support 'working people' has created a doom loop in which fewer people will be joining the workforce and the consequent reduction in tax revenue will make the government even less able to meet the limitless demands of the welfare system as well as pay off its debts. Needless to say, there have been some obvious winners in the Labour dynamic: public sector employees have had their mouths stuffed with gold not only because Labour is historically inclined to favour the unions which represent them but because they can threaten disruption on a scale that reduces any complaining chorus from the small business sector to an inconsequential squeak. But there is more to it than that, in ideological terms: business generally, and small business in particular, are seen as inherently self-interested enterprises. Because they have been created, developed and run by private individuals in the hope of making a profit, they must be morally suspect and less worthy of support than the services that the state funds and operates for the general good of society. Carry this to its logical conclusion and it becomes admirable to penalise people who want to profit from other people's need for their services in order to pay for the provision of services dispensed 'fairly' (and without profit) by the government. You know where this ends, don't you? The most innovative, resourceful, determined individuals who might have developed new ways of creating real wealth and employing more people in experimental ways have impossible demands put on them which threaten their survival or, at the very least, make their continued existence as difficult as possible. They are encumbered with inflexible employment conditions which might possibly be appropriate for huge public sector organisations but are death to experimental emerging enterprises. Their tax arrangements are made so horrendously complicated and difficult to master that expensive accountancy advice becomes essential. I know self-employed sole traders in the creative industries who would like to enlarge their practice but are terrified of crossing the income threshold that would require VAT registration which now involves coping with Making Tax Digital – a peculiarly sadistic form of monitoring which, as HMRC has just discovered in its attempt to introduce it in self-employed income tax, can be susceptible to cyber hacking. Yes indeed, create a business on your own and try to make it a success – just try. The Government, and its agents in HMRC who can't even be bothered to answer the phone, will make your life as difficult as possible. And the more obstacles they put in the way to prevent you from flourishing and expanding, the more virtuous they will feel even though you and the real wealth that you create are the only things that might have saved them.
