A personal view from a member of a nearby Constituency Labour Party who campaigned in tbe by-election.

A report from the Gorton and Denton campaign

The actual Labour campaign was poor, even taking into account that it had to operate with three knives already in its back.

Labour’s stooping low as the campaign progressed included things like presenting recent poll findings on a leaflet with the Green vote missing, and adopting crazy attack lines on the Greens such as on their drug policy. The ‘Greens are for legalising heroin’ style of attack lines are the same as those used in the past by failed right-wing Labour figures like Phil Woolas, who accused his Lib Dem opponent in the 1995 Littleborough & Saddleworth by-election of softness on drugs. (Woolas was prosecuted in 2010 for electoral offences in a later election).

Campaign organisers seemed to think these were good tactics. On polling day, the briefing for canvassers by a party staffer emphased the drug policy attack line – “it seemed to work well on Tuesday”, she said. The canvassing teams looked at each other. “No, we’re not saying that”. And they didn’t.

But the first knife in the back of Labour’s candidate for Gorton and Denton was placed by the previous MP, Andrew Gwynn, together with a small group of Labour’s hard right including Tameside Councillors.

In 2019 Gwynn had set up a WhatsApp called “trigger my timbers” to organise the CLP’s hard right against the left, in particular trying to stop a trigger ballot. A leak from that WhatsApp group led Gwynn’s suspension from the Labour Party, and investigation by Tameside Council into the councillors involved, and widespread public horror at the comments made in that group: racism, antisemitism, vile comments about constituents, and so on.

It handed Reform – in particular their supporters on local social media – a perfect opportunity to paint Labour as a self-entitled and nasty clique only interested in its own interests. (Which was of course true of the Gwynn clique).

On the doorstep in the Tameside end of the Gorton and Denton I came across people undecided between Reform and the Greens. Whilst the focus of the left was ‘who is best to stop Reform’, these people just knew they wanted Labour out, by whatever means – with whoever stood the best chance to oust them. Some of them also told me their beliefs about Labour in Tameside being complicit in a cover up of child sexual exploitation – another reform campaign point – and other horrors. At least one was down on the Labour Party’s doorstep data as a previous Labour voter. The Gwynn scandal was a the key thing that had led to all this – and of course ultimately also to the by-election taking place in the first place.

The second knife in her back was placed firmly by the Labour NEC Officers Group (including the GMB and Usdaw reps in the group). When GM mayor Andy Burnham asked for permission to apply to be on the Gorton and Denton shortlist, every member of that group except Deputy Leader Lucy Powell voted against. It had been a high profile media story over that weekend, and something everyone in the constituency know about. Party members who were at the selection meeting told me that whilst Angeliki Stogia presented well (and as less “corporate” than the other candidate, who was seen as more “Starmerite”), but that had Burnham been on the shortlist he would undoubtedly have been selected.

Imagine being Stogia, knowing that everyone you speak to knows you were second choice. And there is absolutely no doubt that a Burnham candidacy would have pulled out more Labour members to campaign, and won significantly more votes – very probably enough to win the seat for Labour. (Burnham has previously won not only every ward but also every ballot box in Greater Manchester, including Gorton and Denton).

The third knife, plunged most deeply into her back, was the general mismanagement of the party and government by the Mandelsonian clique of Starmer-McSweeney. The Mandelson story broke right in the middle of the by-election campaign – as did the ‘Labour Together’ scandal – but actually the damage had been done by then. Anyone who has been on the doorstep for Labour since the last general election has heard revulsion for Starmer’s comments on Gaza, the cutting of the winter fuel allowance, the retention of the two child cap, his obsession with immigration or whatever – often from different people who would disagree between them on some of these things – when a clear focus on things like the Employment Rights Act could have made for very different conversations.

Very early in this government the Starmer “brand” became toxic, an electoral liability across a very wide range of opinion. His name then became associated with u-turns seen as weak and/or dishonest, rather than the result of intelligent listening.

Famously, Reform started their campaign with Lee Anderson (“30p Lee”) accidentally campaigning in the neighbouring constituency. The Greens started theirs by misspelling ‘Gorton’ on their posters. Labour’s errors were rather deeper.

A good number of people from my CLP turned out to help in the by-election, some putting in a lot of work. On the whole though these were the same people who turn out regularly in the constituency anyway, rather than those extras who come out for a general election, for example. When I was stirring up people to go, one member replied to me to say he would have gone had Burnham been the candidate. I have no idea how many others thought the same thing without saying it. (Sadly my reply, that Starmer’s antics make it important to work all the harder, did not convince him.

We did have good numbers out though – reportedly up to 1,000 in a day at one point – and the central meeting point struggled to cope with the numbers on polling day, with queues of people waiting for a road group to go out with. I was concerned, though, once I realised that far more of the organised sessions were in the Manchester side of the constituency (Gorton, Levenshulme) than on the Tameside side (Denton, Haughton Green). This was not just in proportion to the number of voters (there are twice as many in the Manchester side). Was it some sort of decision by organisers (largely staff from the NW) to focus on the battle against the Greens more than the battle against Reform? Was the Tameside side seen as less fruitful? A better campaign would have had at least two sub-bases (one in each part) rather than two in the Manchester side, as we did.

The Greens seemed to be struggling to cope with their numbers too – on polling day I saw a group of about a dozen Green campaigners out together – to many to effectively operate as a single group, and most doing nothing. They had certainly pulled a lot of people in from across the country.

A lot of leftists across Greater Manchester and elsewhere took the line of advocating a Green vote. I think they were wrong. It is important to stop Reform – but also to do more than that: to address the low wage crisis, the weakening of public services, the sense of being ignored, all those things that the cynical manipulators of Reform exploit in order to point to minorities and blame them. The Green candidate came across well, and seems like a decent person. She has responded well to the misogynist slurs thrown at her by Reform. But the Greens are still essentially just the “new Lib Dems”. That she has chosen not to be a trade union member says something about what sort of radicalism hers is.

If Angeliki Stogia had been elected, trade unionists could right now being organising to hold her to account through their own union branches and the representation those branches have at Constituency Labour Party meetings. They could link up through the party and unions to push for alternative policies, indeed to push for policies agreed at Labour’s national conference to be implemented – through the union voice in NEC elections, conference, and locally. They could be link that to work to democratise and politically rearm Labour – and the unions and union link.

But with the election of a Green MP, trades unionists can do…? Nothing – nothing that they couldn’t do anyway with a Tory or Lib Dem. Of course a Green is preferable to a Tory – or to Reform – but the structural connection that the Labour Party has with the organisations of the working class does not exist with any other party, including the Greens. That leftists ignore that seems to me to be part of a wider “retreat from class” and the idea that leftists getting together is more important than those leftists working in the organisations of the working class as they are.

Your Party is of course an example of that too, but despite the efforts of a local previous “independent” candidate for parliament (and possibly Counterfire member) Your Party nationally made the decision they would support the Greens. I don’t think local members had any say. I did meet one Your Party member on the doorstep, and had an interesting conversation about how she would vote. She was ex-Labour, and a trade unionist, so understood the core argument (though she was in the same union as me, one not affiliated to the party). She was wavering, so was I suppose part of the largest group reported in the polls, the “undecided”.

Polls and their use became a dominant thing in the campaign. At first, all we had was statistical extrapolations from larger surveys. Both Labour and the Greens used them in a way that would shame any year eight maths class, with missing data, bungled y-axes, and all the usual tricks. The Greens had a particular liking for using betting odds (which work rather differently mathematically to voter intentions percentages, and are of course in part led by betting behaviour). I treasure the Greens leaflet I picked up that on one side said their candidate had previously “campaigned on betting stores” (“On”? “Stores”?) and on the other side looked like an advert for online gambling, with the odds from various companies listed.

Politically the problem was that the Labour campaign was presenting us as the way to stop Reform, and the Green campaign was doing exactly the same thing. Neither campaign said a lot more than that. The early Green leaflets carried no politics at all, with the only slogan being “vote for the plumber from Manchester”. Labour started slightly better, but stooped lower and lower as the campaign proceeded.

As Nadia Whittome has pointed out, the problem with making the whole campaign “we are the only ones who can stop Reform”, is that once that is proved to be untrue we will have future problems with being believed in those seats where it is true.

And the focus on “stopping Reform” without undercutting Reform (with policies to address “cost of living”, services and so on) actually cements their vote.

The Green focus was presumably designed so that they could capture any anti-Labour vote – left or right – that was unconvinced about going to Reform, Their publicity only started to include some policies in the latter part of the campaign. A glossy “Hello”-style magazine in the last week included a call for a £15/hour minimum wage, rent caps, “building genuinely affordable homes”, and opposition to the NHS Palantir contract.

Their candidate, Hannah Spencer, was effective in responding to Reform in hustings, and came across well. Angeliki Stogia seemed to have a policy of focusing on the positive, and not getting drawn into responding to Reform. But of course the positives did not include policies agreed at Labour Party Conference even last year – like “progressive taxation, including a tax on extreme wealth”, public ownership, “good, unionised jobs”, leave to remain rights “enabling workers to challenge bad employers without the threat of deportation”, and so on. It was left in hustings therefore to the non-union Hannah Spencer to take on the class aspects, which she articulated well, even if without specific policies.

As so many have pointed out, politically Hannah Spencer would sit well in the soft left of the Labour Party. The tragedy is that Labour’s actual soft left are largely silent, domesticated, and enslaved to the Starmer right. That, to me, is the importance of things like the Tribune MPs starting to get a little better organised and the Mainstream organisation getting going in the CLPs. If Mainstream serves to ungag the soft left and align them with those to their left rather than to their right, then it could have a useful role in the future of ther Labour Party.

Galloway’s “Workers Party” announced a candidate, then two days later announced they were not standing. No one missed them, though the Greens publicly welcomed their withdrawal.

One thing that no one seems to have remarked on but that struck me was the change to Labour’s branding. This is the first election since Starmer became leader, I think, not to have the Union Jack plastered all over the Labour publicity. There was not one in sight. Instead we had simple yellow and red colours like those of the 1980s, and a hexagon, presumably to emulate the Mancunian “bee” symbol.

CLP officers in the constituency tell me it was what they wanted, but I can’t imagine the national party machine dropping their beloved flags without a focus group or some reserarch telling them it is damaging (something party members have been saying for a long time). Labour’s communications team are the people who put out 17 social media posts in one week in May, all about immigration, leading to a spike in resignations from the party.

Some Labour canvassers were very poor, though. A couple of weeks before polling day I found myself with a group who had come from Rugby and around, including a Labour MP whom I didn’t know and whose name I didn’t catch. He had absolutely no clue or skills on the doorstep. When one elderly woman told him she wouldn’t be voting Labour because of something to do with her late husband’s pension, he jumped straight in to tell her she was wrong, listing things the government had done, without even trying to understand what she meant. If there were people in the constituency who thought Labour were arrogant and out of touch, he only confirmed that idea. Other canvassers with him were far more keen to adopt a line of “yes, we got that wrong but this is why a Labour vote matters”.

A few people on the left in Manchester have justified their call for a Green vote on the basis that it would be a referendum on Starmer. The trouble is, what is the question on the ballot in that referendum? For some of those I spoke to on the doorstep it would be an end to what they believe is Starmer’s deliberate bringing in of extra immigrants, “two tier” justice discriminating against white people, “wokery”, and so on. Leftists kidding themselves that everyone voting Green did so for left reasons are niaive In the extreme.

Overall, there was little enthusiasm for anything in this election. It was a reasonably high turnout, with over 24 thousand people turning out in the rain to vote Labour and Green between them, against Reform, even if not clearly for any particular alternative. But it felt more like a grudging necessity than an inspired act. And ten and a half thousand voted Reform.

The Green Party is the exception, where obviously there is huge celebration. Many celebrating are people who would at one time have been attracted to Labour, and some are even ex-members. Without Labour’s grassroots organising for a change in direction and linking that to organising in the unions to use the affiliation link in pursuit of the same thing that trend will continue.

Momentum put out an accurate statement straight after the result: “Losing the safe seat of Gorton and Denton could not be a bigger warning: it’s time for a change in direction. This defeat could have been prevented if Andy Burnham had been allowed to stand, rather than being blocked by this authoritarian leadership. Control-freakery, top-down politics and political timidity have left Labour without a coherent offer to the country. If things do not change – and quickly – hardworking Labour candidates up and down the country will be the ones to face the consequences in May. Only a democratic Labour Party that listens to its members, MPs and trade unions can begin to develop the culture and ideas we need to reunite our voter base, and win.”

Mainstream’s statement was similar: “The Gorton and Denton result is an absolute disaster for Labour. Clearly, we now risk no longer being seen as the natural home for progressive voters. This loss was avoidable. Angeliki, members and our party staff worked tirelessly, but our leader and sections of the NEC blocked the one candidate who could have won it for us. That decision now looks like a catastrophic error. We need an immediate and fundamental reset – of strategy, of policy, and of culture – now.”

MP Nadia’ Whittome’s comments are the most comprehensive, and worth quoting in full:

Our party has just come third in Gorton and Denton, a previously safe Labour seat – an area where we haven’t lost an election since 1931.

It is those running our party who are to blame. We need change at the top and serious lessons need to be learnt:

1. Don’t ape Reform. In order to keep our voter coalition together we should be true to the progressive values that Labour is meant to stand for. The failure to do this meant large parts of our coalition fled to another progressive party.
2. Don’t put factional interests ahead of everything else. The party blocked a popular candidate in Andy Burnham, who may well have been able to win this seat, from even putting himself forward for nakedly factional reasons, while the terrible decision to appoint Mandelson as US Ambassador came back to bite Labour.
3. Don’t play dirty. The bizarre claims about the Greens in relation to drugs and sex workers were desperate, embarrassing, and harmful. It is no wonder they did not work and instead reflected badly on our party.
4. Don’t say only Labour can beat Reform if – thanks to the leadership’s own self-sabotage – it’s not true. Because it will be true in many other seats, and now voters won’t believe us.
5. But fundamentally, this shows why first past the post isn’t fit for purpose. If the government doesn’t introduce proportional voting, a far right party could win the next general election outright on a minority of the vote. This possibility inevitably makes tactical voting essential in some seats, and Labour is playing with fire.

Labour’s socialist members need to be organising in CLPs. The May elections must be managed better than this, and there are NEC elections to fight, conference delegates to elect, members to be brought back into activity, and campaigns to run.