Burnage Hustings 3 September 2026

I'm a little late to this, but as I've been in the habit of writing up the hustings for some years now, here goes. While I am aligned with one party, I will always do my best not to be too partisan.

Three candidates attended:

Carl Austin-Behan (Labour)

Daoud Nawaz (Green) 

Abdullah Vavdiwala (Lib Dem)

Apologies were received from the Reform candidate, and the Workers Party and Conservative candidates did not attend, with no apologies or explanations given.

As the host, Jeremy Hoad (on behalf of the Levenshulme Community Association), observed very few areas that still hold hustings, so it's to the credit of our community that people are prepared to turn up and listen to what the candidates have to say, and disappointing that some candidates seemingly can't be bothered to make their case to the people they hope to represent. My mantra has always been ' if you don't do the hustings, I don't vote for you.'

The three candidates made introductory statements, outlining their history, links to the area and reasons for standing.

Carl is a local businessman, running a cleaning company just outside the Burnage ward boundary. He is also Labour's recycled candidate (taking a leaf out of the Greens book on this) having previously been Burnage's councillor from 2014-18. 

Daoud is a lifelong Burnage resident (Boundary Commission changes notwithstanding). He got involved in politics at an early age and has been rooted in community activism and a commitment to human rights both at home and internationally. He declared himself tired of the "same old" which is why he joined the Green Party. 

Abdullah said that he is not a politician, but has been active in his community since 2003 and has now decided that it is time to 'step up.'

The first question from the audience was to ask each candidate what their top priorities are:

Daoud said that his top priority is the issue of speeding on Kingsway, mentioning that despite this  busy main route being in the seat of the previous Leader of the City Council, Bev Craig, this still wasn't enough to get action to make it safer, even after two deaths this year. He said that he would take action within his first 100 days to push this, and to work with neighboring areas where this is also an issue. He also wanted to address anti-social behaviour, through immediate action and education, to make local resources like the Fallowfield Loop safe for everyone.

Abdullah also referred to the issue of speeding, and also of fly-tipping which is a major problem in the area.

Carl stated that more enforcement is needed in respect of speeding and dangerous driving, adding that it also related to roads other than Kingsway. He also said that he would like to see more youth provision in the area, giving young people a place to go and things to do, such as the Duke of Edinburgh scheme. On transport links, he said that he would like to see the 169 bus route reinstated.

The next question asked for the candidates' views on rent controls or a rent freeze.

Carl favoured more social housing and making properties fit for purpose. In terms of supporting a vote on rent controls, he stated that he would need to see the proposals before committing to this.

Daoud would support a rent freeze at a time when there is so much poverty, reliance on food banks and empty properties. He added that while new homes are important, simply building housing over leisure facilities like Burnage Cricket Club is not the solution

Abdullah agreed that while he would support controls, he too would want to see detailed proposals.

The next question asked what changes the candidates would want to make.

Abdullah stated that change was definitely needed and referred sspecifically to the deterioration of Cringle Fields

Daoud stated that change is coming. People have lost patience with the complacency of the Labour council which with a billion-pound budget has overseen decline outside of the city centre. The city's new wealth has not trickled down to areas like Burnage, and he said that Green councillors will hold the council to account.

Carl said that having Andy Burnham as Prime Minister and Bev Craig as Greater Manchester mayor will strengthen Manchester and that he hoped to carry on Bev's work in Burnage. An audience member asked a supplementary question - "You were a councillor for 7 years. What can you do differently now?" In response, he referenced the Burnage community library and the Westcroft Centre, and said that the streets were being made cleaner through regular litter picking and other work with the community.

Daoud said that while Carl talked about what could be done, the reality is that nothing has been done, and queried whether voters could trust Labour given their record to date. He said that Burnage is a proud community, with 50% of residents under the age of 34. The right wing is on the rise and working class votes are not being looked after.

Abdullah asked how much longer Labour need to improve the area, adding that things were better when there were LibDem councillors. He undertook to support all communities.

The next question related to how much voters can trust the candidates to stand up for Burnage rather than for outside interests?

Daoud stated that there are not many big businesses courting the Greens, and said that he will be stepping up to be the best representative for Burnage and its residents

Carl stated that he lives in (near) the ward and is involved with local groups such as Friends of Cringle Park.

Abdullah stated that he has always looked after the community through his charity work, and while he would not neglect big businesses, local people would come first.

The next question was about Gaza, and what action the candidates would take to ensure that we are not complicit in the current genocide.

Carl noted that Labour had supported a ceasefire*. He also stated that he did not want to get involved in this, and wanted to concentrate on Burnage.

Abdullah will draw attention to the atrocities and pledged that he will always raise his voice for Gaza, Yemen, Sudan and other countries under attack.

Daoud said that the situation in Gaza is a genocide and that the Greens openly call for no arms sales. He disagreed that this is simply a national government matter, and that it is possible to do things at a local level, such as wearing a pin or seeking for the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) to divest from those funding genocide. We should not be afraid to speak up when genocide is in front of our eyes and the Greens will do so.

Jeremy noted at this point that there is a weekly vigil for Gaza on the village green in Levenshulme. 

Following on from this, the next question stated that in these divided times, how would the candidates ensure community cohesion?

Abdullah said that this could be achieved through more community activities, such as festivals

Daoud said that the divide can often now be between the affluent areas and the poorer ones where rogue landlords provide sub-standard housing. He favours common spaces, with more residents groups. He referred to great community work being undertaken by the Dahlia Cafe, part of the Southway housing trust and said that he favours the the Burnage Parade being made yearly. While there is a sense of community in Burnage, he warned that having knocked on 4,000 doors over the campaign, he had heard terms such as "invaders" being used, and said that conversations need to be had as to why this is.

Carl said that greater use could be made of churches and mosques. He also referenced Burnage Good Neighbours and said that it was important to make everyone feel welcome in this multicultural area.

It was noted that this year's Manchester Village Pride included several unethical sponsors. Carl advised that he believed that this referred to organisations' staff networks, and that those networks were entitled to take part. 

Daoud challenged Carl about this and pointed out that Leve Pride is run without recourse to unethical sponsors, He also pointed out that staff networks are not the same as financial sponsors.

Abdullah agreed that more scrutiny is needed regarding who offers financial support.

The next question asked how the candidates would  do politics differently.

Abdullah said that he was already demonstrating this through his community work.

Daoud said that the concept of 'Manchesterism' as a new way of doing politics seems to refer simply to shiny skyscrapers. He proposes more engagement with local areas, and if elected intends to knock 100 doors a week outside of election campaigns, as well as monthly surgeries. He referred to the late Sir Gerald Kaufmann and how responsive he had always been to all his constituents. He does want to do politics differently - making a difference in his own community. He stressed that he does not see the role of councillor as a stepping stone to higher political office. 

Carl referenced the "Number 10 in the North" initiative as a new way of doing things and said that he will always be visible as a councillor.

The ongoing issue of Levenshulme and Burnage Active Neighbourhoods was also discussed. Now 7 years in, many in the area wonder if it will ever be finished.

Abdullah said that it was important to get it finished soon.

Carl said that while there had been some opposition, there had also been support.

Daoud said that the schemes had not been well thought out or delivered. The concept is fine, but the execution has been poor. There are solutions that work for all and do not cost the millions that have already been spent.

The next question was that with European funding gone, how could this be replaced?

Carl stated that it is an issue of pooling resources and spending better.

Abdullah [my note-taking temporarily failed me on this one - my apologies to Abdullah].

Daoud stated that there is enough money, and that the Greens will hold Labour to account to make sure it gets to the right people, in particular to bring it to Burnage.

The next question related to ginnels and alleyways, which have fallen into disrepair, and how voices in Burnage can be championed on this issue. 

Daoud favoured working with residents groups to ensure that the right materials are used and that where something is unsafe, fix it quickly.

Carl agreed with this. He stated that alleyways could be better used and need to be fit for purpose.

Abdullah also referred to road safety issues, stating that there should be immediate action or an explanation. One audience member agreed, stating that it is often the flags themselves that are the issue.

The next question asked about improved facilities to encourage older people to come to Cringle Park.

Carl said that there are a lot of facilities and space to bring people together. He proposed setting up a new group or hub there.

Daoud said that is important to ask people what they need. He felt that people might take more pride in a mini garden or allotments than the 'Stonehenge' (a sundial) which has been installed there. He noted how few benches there are in the park, which impacts on older people. In one of the few green spaces in Burnage, it is important to bring older and younger people together.

Abdullah agreed that there was too little provision for older people, and in particular the lack of benches. 

The next question was on climate change.

Abdullah said that less green space adds to climate change. He also favours bringing empty houses back into use instead of building on green spaces. 

Daoud said that this is an issue for the whole country, but that we need to hold the council to account for its decisions, and he again stated that we should encourage the GMPF to divest from fossil fuel companies. We need to create more green spaces, making alleys into gardens and make everything more sustainable. 

Carl favours increased use of electric buses and tree planting, mentioning the Manchester Community Forest.

The next question stated that politicians are often in the pockets of big developers and asked the candidates whether they would put developers or Burnage first.

Carl stated he would put Burnage first.

Daoud challenged this, as the cricket club was recently sold to a developer with little experience, and with seemingly little consultation with residents who have already expressed concern about traffic.

Abdullah declared himself to be anti-developer, adding that he would not fit in their pocket!

Candidates were then asked how they would influence the council. 

Daoud pointed out that the Greens are already influencing events, locally and nationally. We have a new Prime Minister and a new GM Mayor - both of which are partly the result of Green power, starting with the Gorton and Denton victory. More Green councillors on Manchester City will have direct influence on the Labour council.

Abdullah said that Labour has done nothing much. He wants Burnage to be a place to live for.

Carl said that Labour will be strong for Burnage.

Jeremy then asked all three candidates to sum up.

Abdullah said that he will stick to his word. He is a good learner and is willing to take suggestions from all. As a keen cricketer, he knows which balls to play and which to leave.

Daoud said that despite the alleged "Burnham Bounce", it is time for real change. He has already spoken to many Burnage residents and will continue to do so. We should not go down the route of division, and should advocate for ethical change. Greens are the only ones who can hold Labour to account and take the fight to them. He asked people to vote for him for a Better Burnage.

Carl said that he has lived in the area for 16 years and goes by the slogan, "Say What You Do and Do What You Say."

Jeremy then closed the meeting, thanking everyone for attending.

My personal take: Both Abdullah and Daoud seem genuinely interested in Burnage and its people, with ideas about how they can help the area. For a seasoned politician, Carl seemed strangely disengaged from proceedings and lacking enthusiasm. In relation to the other candidates, which did not attend, again, I'd note that it is pretty poor not to accept an invitation to meet those who may wish to vote for you, especially when you don't even have the courtesy to respond to the invitation.

One final note - this event was held at St Peter's Church in Levenshulme, and while there are some Leve residents whose homes lie in the Burnage ward (or "South Levenshulme" as only the Labour candidate seems to call it) it would be good if future Burnage hustings could be held somewhere in the ward.

*[my typed notes say "Labour came out against the ceasefire" - I'm hoping that's a a transcription error!]

Life Laundry 2: The Legend Continues

Back in 2018, I posted about the mammoth task of clearing my parents' house before and after their death At the end of this, I said something about starting to make a clearance of our own house, which had accumulated 25 years' worth of clutter. It didn't help that we had imported the whole of my parents' 700-strong book collection, which my partner was intending to sift through and dispose of. This was not helped at all by his habit of storing old newspapers (for later reading) in the cellar. He'd been doing this since our daughter was born in 1998, and showed little sign that he had ever read any of them. 

In 2012, it had looked like this:

He did, to be fair, make a start on clearance - every fortnight, our blue bin was filled with a few more, but it barely scratched the surface. 

By 2014, it was a bit tidier, but no less full:

The thousand-plus VHS tapes on the shelves were sifted out to landfill (very much not recyclable).

Then came 2020 and lockdown which, although it afforded sorting time, meant it was quite tricky going anywhere to get rid of things in bulk. Mostly, it was a question of moving stuff around and around, taking out a few items each time.

And then, in 2022, Paul got ill, and died in the November of that year, less than 6 months after a cancer diagnosis. Which left me - grief and adjustment to widowhood aside - with a huge physical problem lurking in the basement. These were a few photos I took in late 2022, before I shut the door on the cellar for a while.

After some months, I ventured down there again - in part because I felt the need to do something constructive with my time (in addition to working full time and taking over the role of primary carer to two disabled adult children), something where I would see a tangible result. After a discussion with the kids, we decided it would be good to re-purpose the space (which is huge - former servant's quarters) as a craft area, as both of them do a lot of sewing, drawing, miniature model-making, etc, which tends to take over the house. P's old VHS shelving would hold all their materials and the addition of some work tables would allow them to work on projects without having to pack everything away. So, in the Spring of 2023, I made a start, and by May I had cleared a lot of the papers/magazines and was in a position to start going through mum and dad's books:

Look. Floor!

At least the piles were now hip-height rather than as tall as me...

Mum and dad's books, still in the same boxes we brought them here in 2016

More floor...

I was even able to reclaim enough floor space to set up a desk so I could catalogue the books and work out what to do with them.

The VHS tapes were long gone, so I could move the books on to the shelving, along with P's (almost) complete set of Sight and Sound magazine from 1991-2022. I really didn't want to simply recycle these, so I put out a few feelers and was able to donate them to Manchester Film & TV School, where a new generation of film lovers can now make use of them. They very kindly sent me a photo of them in their new home, along with a plaque acknowledging the donation. This was quite emotional, as P and I met through Manchester University Film Society.

By July 2023, I'd made sufficient in-roads into the newspaper archive and book collection to start on the other side of the room, which wasn't looking as clever:

Under there somewhere is a drop-leaf table that came with the house 30+ years ago and which housed film magazines, kids primary school art work (they're both now in their 20s), my dad's old printer, two obsolete iMacs and scores of sample CDs from Uncut magazine from the early 2000s. By October, I'd cleared some of it, but in December of that year there was a bit of a hiatus when we ended up offering temporary accommodation to a homeless young person. It is not, I hasten to add, a habitable space, but better than the streets. 

Not much clearance happened in 2024 (apart from the occasional trip to the tip) but in January of this year, I decided to go for a final push. Having recently taken early retirement, I no longer had to squeeze all activity into evenings and weekends which made things much easier. I bought some heavy duty racking on which to put my daughters sewing materials and made a concerted effort to clear the space so it could actually be used. 

There are still some bits to go to the tip, but all the newspapers are now gone, as are all the books (donated where possible) and I now have an almost clear floor area. I have also learned to use the wide-angled lens on my camera phone...

The last major job was to put up the racking and the second work table (cat for scale):

And now, we have a functioning work space, over a decade after we first said "We should do something about the clutter in the cellar." I'm going to get an electrician in to put in some additional power points and better lighting, but it's usable, so I may be able to reclaim the dining room table from my daughter's sewing machine.

I think I may just make myself a cup of tea now.

Working Class Culture

Or: How Not to "Get" it.

I originally drafted this in 2017, as a response to a Labour politician's pontificating about working class culture. For some reason, I never finished or posted it, but in the light of this week's discourse about what consitutes a middle class/working class living room (with respect to Green candidate Hannah Spencer), it still seems relevant somehow.

This book belonged to my grandfather.

The son of a labourer, orphaned and abandoned in childhood, he served as a stoker in the Royal Navy, saw active service on minesweepers during the Great War and was a prison officer during WWII. I don't think he'd ever claim to be anything but working class, growing up in a world with no NHS or meaningful welfare state.

The few books he possessed and which have been passed down to me include volumes of poetry like this one (he was especially fond of Longfellow) and more Dickens than his university-educated granddaughter has read.

Somehow, I don't think he'd have gone much on (for example) Mrs Brown's Boys.

In terms of 'poverty of aspiration', there's nothing like a politician telling us we have to "get" Mrs Brown's Boys to really understand working class people and their concerns. I've never "got" opera... does that mean I can't hope to "connect" with the middle classes?

It's much the same argument with "people's legitimate concerns about immigration" - this should not simply mean capitulating to ill-informed xenophobia. 

If people's "legitimate concerns" are based on the misinformation they've been fed by a range of sources, they can and should be addressed; reasonable people will be open to discussion. If people are out-and-out-racists, nothing you can say will change their minds and it is fine to call them out for what they are.

Funny how many politicans (including Labour ones) equate "working class" with "low brow" and/or ignorant 

"Bless 'em. They're fundamentally a bit racist. you won't change them, so no point trying" is a terrible attitude but is sadly typical of much of our political class at the moment.

Eve of poll musings

“But Jill, you were a Labour member. You campaigned for them! Why are you now saying Vote Green?”

I grew up in the Home Counties in a Conservative household but several years of working for a Conservative council, along with the miners’ strike, drew me towards Labour in my twenties.

I voted Labour from the mid-1980s until 2024. I continued to vote for them throughout the New Labour years, despite being a socialist; despite Iraq (all senior politicians will embark on a war given half a chance); despite their increasingly authoritarian policies; in 2010, in the hope of keeping the Cameron’s posh boys out of office; in 2015, despite Labour’s godawful manifesto and campaign (we should have known the immigration mug merch was a sign of things to come); enthusiastically in 2017, on a manifesto which promised real hope; in 2019, despite knowing that Starmer’s People’s Vote shenanigans in an election which was entirely about Brexit had already holed Labour below the water.

After the 2010 defeat, I decided to put my money where my mouth was and joined the Labour Party (I am not a natural joiner of things, so this was a big step). I went along to my local branch meetings, expecting to be surrounded by like-minded individuals working to a common purpose. What I quickly discovered was that the CLP and local party was riven with factionalism, underhand tactics and outright cheating. Although I remained a member for ten years, my active involvement ceased after five, as I felt it was detrimental to my wellbeing to carry on (all that I witnessed and experienced was submitted to the Forde inquiry, and the resultant report indicated that I was by no means alone in my experience).

I was still a member when Keir Starmer was elected leader. I didn’t vote for him as I had no doubt that his much-vaunted ‘pledges’ weren’t worth the paper they were written on. I stuck it out for another few months, growing increasingly angry at his inability to challenge Johnson’s mismanagement of Covid or any other policy and finally resigned my membership in November 2020. The relief I felt was palpable, and I looked forward to being free again to say what I liked.

[When I had previously told my father I was applying for selection as a Labour council candidate, his response was “I don’t think that’s a very good idea.” I was expecting a lecture on his vs my politics, but he continued, “You’re far too independent-minded to follow a party whip.” Good call, dad.]

I had been privileged to have Sir Gerald Kaufmann as my MP for many years. After his death, the Manchester Gorton seat remained safely Labour under Afzal Khan in 2017(possibly boosted by the Corbyn-era manifesto?) and even with the subsequent re-drawing of the boundaries to include part of Tameside, it remained comfortably Labour. Throughout the 2024 GE campaign, I (a now-floating left voter) was continually told that I *had* to vote Labour to keep the Tories out, after having previously been told in no uncertain terms to leave if I didn’t like Starmer’s party. In a marginal seat, I’d have maybe been torn but reckoning that Andrew Gwynne was a safe pair of hands (!) I voted Green for the first time ever in a general election. It wasn’t a ‘purity test’ vote – there is a distinct difference between not voting for a party because it doesn’t quite meet 100% of your values and not voting for them when they represent only about 2% of those values. I wouldn’t vote Reform (0%) on that basis so why would I vote Labour?

I have to admit to being wrong about Starmer’s Labour government. I was expecting disappointment, lack of ambition or vision, MPs with little actual politics other than ‘being in power’ but I wasn’t quite prepared for quite how inept and yet actively vindictive they would be. Whenever there was a good and honourable action, they chose the opposite; happy to hound the sick and disabled, gleeful in entrenching  transphobia in law, dismissive of worldwide suffering, beholden to lobbyists and big business donors rather than those who elected them. They are, to be blunt, dreadful, and yet still expect a loyal voter base that they do not deserve.

I hadn’t meant to get involved in campaigning again, but having joined the Green Party last summer, I signed up for a bit of leafleting once the Gorton & Denton by-election was called and over the last couple of weeks have canvassed, addressed envelopes and popped into the campaign HQ to pick up a couple of leafleting routes on a number of occasions. The difference in culture is astonishing. There is no hierarchy of ‘important’ people vs volunteers, people are respectful of each other and the voters. It’s collegiate, organisers are happy to learn from volunteer feedback, and – crucially – everyone is nice to everyone else. They don’t resent the influx of former Labour people as some have suggested they might. It’s been a thoroughly pleasant experience, no matter what the outcome is tomorrow.

All the indications are that it will be a very close race – depending on who you listen to, it’s either a dead heat 3-horse race, Greens slightly ahead of Reform or (according to Labour) a 2-horse Lab/Reform race that removes the Greens entirely from the equation, despite them being level pegging! Despite that, all the tactical voting sites are recommending a Green vote to keep Reform out.

I appreciate that some people will reluctantly be sticking with Labour for fear of a Reform win, but I’d urge those to consider voting Green, which has the double benefit of keeping Reform out AND giving Labour the vote of no confidence they so richly deserve.

So that’s it. I have a number of reasons for not voting Labour, a mix of personal  experience and current policy. They are actively causing harm to those I love and to wider society and I will not vote for that. For many of the same reasons, I will be voting for Hannah Spencer tomorrow, and I hoping you will too.

Democracy Update

 

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a member of the Green Party, having previously been a Labour voter since the1980s and former Labour Party member and activist. I will try and be as dispassionate as possible, but this summary will inevitably reflect my personal views. I’m not a journalist, just an engaged citizen. I may have missed some candidates’ answers but hope to have captured the main points.

Last night I attended the Gorton & Denton by-election hustings hosted by Levenshulme Community Association.

The event was held at St Peters Church in Levenshulme, and even by Leve standards, the attendance was amazing – about 300 people and standing room only.

Ten of the eleven candidates turned up, including the Reform UK candidate who had flounced out of a previous event in Gorton a few days before. Sir Oink a Lot sent his apologies, as he was on holiday.

Each candidate was asked to make a two-minute opening statement before taking questions:

Nick Buckley, MBE (Advance UK)

Leaned heavily into being a local, a former council youth worker and founder of a charity. He name-checked some local landmarks which are no longer there (appealing presumably to the nostalgia vote) and mentioning the former swimming baths – “now derelict” – without mentioning the new facility that replaced it. Or that his party is a far-right breakaway from Reform UK with Tommy Robinson as a member.

Charlotte Cadden (Conservative)

A former police officer, cited her work on combatting crime and grooming gangs. She also mentioned getting a second high school in Denton and improved train services but did not mention that her current role as a trustee of Sex Matters, a transphobic “charity.”

Dan Clarke (Libertarian)

A working class man, a local shopworker on a low wage.

Matt Goodwin (Reform UK)

Very slick, as you’d expect from someone with a media career on the right-wing GB News. Still bigging up his local connections and told us again that he is the first person in his family to attend university, which may or may not be accurate. Sadly, he did not divulge which Gorton takeaways he delivered pizzas to as a student.

Joseph O’Meachair (Rejoin EU)

Wants to re-join the EU. Passionate about the effects that Brexit has had on the country.

Jackie Pearcey (Liberal Democrat)

Veteran councillor in these parts. Lives locally and knows the constituency well.

Hannah Spencer (Green Party)

Has lived and worked in the area all her life. Says Labour has blown it locally and the battle is between Reform and the Greens.

Angeliki Stogia (Labour)

Manchester City Councillor. Came here 30 years ago and loves the city.

 Hugo Wils (Communist League)

Made the case for class struggle to fight against capitalism.

The first question to candidates was on antisemitism. All candidates rightly condemned it, but some were more nuanced than others. To some consternation, Nick Buckley said that he wanted “English” (corrected to “British”) integration because “multiculturalism has failed” – to a room full of people from multiple cultures. Advance UK is, after all, a far right party.

A supplementary question asked all candidates if they agreed that the situation in Gaza meets the definition of a genocide. A variety of opinions, including:

• ·       Goodwin thinks it’s a “tragedy” but ignores the term “genocide.”
• ·       Piercey states that despite any legal definition, what is happening there is "as near to genocide as I have seen."
• ·       Spencer echoes this and comes down firmly on it meeting the definition.
• ·       Stogia mentions that she has family in Palestine and has seen lives destroyed. Despite this, she does not think it is up to the Labour government to name it a genocide.
• ·       Buckley states that “our own problems are more important.”
• ·       Wils blames Hamas but stands with the Palestinians opposed to them
• ·       Cadden also lays the blame fully on Hamas.

The next question is on road safety, active travel, etc.

• ·       O’Meachair mentions that air quality has been improving due to adherence to better international standards, and this needs to be maintained.
• ·       Pearcey mentions that a pollution monitor on her home consistently shows poor air quality (she added that wood burning stoves add to particulate levels). She would welcome more tram provision in our part of the city, and said that we should design safety into road schemes.
• ·       Spencer mentions that as a Trafford councillor, she was able to get the council to commit to zero road deaths. She also said that more access to public transport is needed.
• ·       Stogia is keen to mention how much she had to do with implementing local traffic reductions schemes, even though the  LTNs in the area are controversial due to poor implementation and massive budget overspends (they have also filtered traffic on to other roads, moving the problem rather than solving it).
• ·       Hugo Wils says that transport is sold as a commodity
• ·       Buckley  says we need better, more linked-up public transport.
• ·       Cadden mentions that in government the Conservatives invested in transport and are not anti-car. She is not in favour of scrapping petrol/diesel cars
• ·       Clarke said that he would work with everyone on this.
• ·       Goodwin said that “levelling up” is hardly mentioned now. He is anti HS2.
• ·       Moore said that local cycle lanes appeared to have been designed by non-cyclists (this was disputed by others who pointed out that one of those consulted was Olympic cyclist Chris Boardman). He said that the LTNs with planters had not been consulted on adequately and were not good.

The candidates were then asked if they were members of a trade union:

• ·       Buckley and Cadden think unions should be supporting women workers re: “women’s changing rooms” (transphobic dog whistle). Cadden again fails to mention her role as a trustee of a trans-hostile organisation. This seems to be their sole concern, rather than low wages, poor employment practices, etc.
• ·       Stogia states that she has been a member of Unite for 15 years (about the time she became a council candidate, where it is expected of you to have union affiliation/endorsement?)
• ·       Spencer says that as a self-employed plumber she doesn’t belong to a union but  adds that trades are poorly represented in parliament (a comment from the floor indicates that plumbers can be trade union members).
• ·       Clarke says that he is a member of GMB, as this is the only union recognised by his employer. Union membership seems a bit at odds with libertarian thought, but if I worked for Asda I’d want to be a member of a union.

The next question was on LGBTQ rights and transphobia. Only Spencer and Pearcey express support for trans people. Stogia very weak on this and says that the Labour government cannot change the law after the Supreme Court ruling in April 2025. (They can – they have chosen not to). It sounded as if she may not personally be trans-hostile but was scared not to tow the party line.

A worrying amount of apathy, and trans-hostility from other candidates and members of the audience. This is what a moral panic looks like.

(MORE DISCLOSURE: This was my question, so I was quite invested in the answers)

The next question was on services for young people. Solutions, as you’d expect, vary. Goodwin says that we need to give young people aspiration again. Spencer points out his recent statement that young women should be producing more babies…

The discussion then moved on to fly-tipping:

• ·       Stogia mentions that the council has received £160m funding from the government and wants that to come to our area.
• ·       Hugo Wils indicates that this was a product of capitalism
• ·       Spencer wants more money for enforcement, and would hold Andy Burnham to account on dodgy landlords and to enforce standards.
• ·       Pearcey added that fines are too low
• ·       O’Meachair noted the difference between national legislation and local enforcement
• ·       Moore said that we should be ashamed of the level of fly-tipping, but that residents have to start looking after areas as well
• ·       Goodwin blew some more dog whistles. I think he means that it’s all the immigrants’ fault.
• ·       Cadden cited “broken window” theory.
• ·       Buckley stated that this is a Labour council problem and it’s “much cleaner in Denton”. Thanks, Nick!  

With the time reaching 9pm, the Chair noted that some of the candidates had to leave for other events and asked them all to give a 2-minute closing speech.

• Goodwin wished to address the ‘misinformation’ about him and re-stated his Mancunian credentials. He’s a Manc, speaking for the “silent majority.”
• Stogia says that this is a very important election and to give her our vote.
• Spencer says this we are not a poor country or city, but we are not feeling the benefit of our wealth. She added that we need more ordinary people in politics – voting Green will send a message and result in a good MP.
• Pearcey starts to make her closing speech, only to be drowned out by the loud exit of a number of the audience (possibly Goodwin supporters?). The Chair forcefully reminds those present of the need to be respectful of all candidates and remain in place to hear all their statements. She concludes by saying that we should celebrate this community.
• Cadden reiterates he background in public service and cites ‘Kemi’ (it genuinely took me a few seconds to remember who she was talking about).  
• Clarke speaks honestly, if hesitantly, about his beliefs
• Buckley states that it will make no difference if any of the three main parties win and urges people to vote for the candidate rather than the party.
• Hugo Wils states that the post-WWII order is disintegrating and that while working class people want peace we are driven towards war.
• Moore clearly loves Manchester, although it’s not entirely clear what his policies are.
• O’Meachair starts his closing address by stating that all the major parties’ candidates had left (Pearcey and Cadden take exception  to this) but it is taken in good spirit and O’Meachair gracefully acknowledges his mistake.

The meeting then closed. The vicar thanked everyone for attending and asked that we respected to local residents as we left the building.

My utterly subjective take on the evening  and the candidates:

The candidates:

Nick Buckley: made Matt Goodwin look reasonable and may therefore take some votes off Reform. Good.

Charlotte Cadden: Wrong on all points, but Conservative, so no chance in this constituency.

Dan Clarke: lovely man, but parliament would eat him alive.

Matt Goodwin: slick (as you'd expect from someone with a media career) and plausible if you haven't read Reform's actual policies.

Sebastian Moore: nice lad but still not sure what he stands for.

Joseph O'Meachair: he's probably right about Europe, but somehow this feels very "detached." A knowledgeable and witty speaker, though.

Jackie Pearcey: an old hand at this. Took it seriously and was strong on the genocide and transphobia questions.

Hannah Spencer: a strong performance and largely well received. Not fazed by Goodwin.

Angeliki Stogia: Oh dear. In such a vital seat, this is the best Labour can offer? I know several Labour councillors who would have made better candidates. No real passion, just the party line.

Hugo Wils: while we know capitalism is the problem, we could do with some practical ideas on how to crush it.

Democracy is pretty robust in Levenshulme. We are engaged and vociferous and this may have surprised some of the candidates. The event was well-run, with all candidates being given the opportunity to engage with the local electorate and it was largely respectful to all concerned.

It was great to see so many people there, and thanks to St Peter's for hosting and LCA Secretary Jeremy for chairing very efficiently. It's a Reform/Green contest. I hope after tonight, some Labour supporters will lend Hannah their vote to see off the threat from Reform, who really don't belong here.

The Problem with Young People Today Is....

Imagine for a minute that you are a child born in 2000 to parents in secure public sector employment, with access to (subsidised) pre-school childcare. Your primary school benefits from a Building Schools for the Future renovation.

In 2009 one of those parents is outsourced and subsequently made redundant, so the household income drops markedly.

In 2010, just as you are about to go to high school, the Coalition comes to power, and Austerity begins (history notes that we were not, in fact, "all in it together").

In 2014, you come out as trans and initially face hostility from one parent (they got better). At about the same time, your other parent is made redundant, and for a few months, the family is held together by goodwill and tax credits until one of them gets temporary work.

In 2016, the country holds a referendum on EU membership. There is talk of allowing 16 yr olds a vote which, even if it hadn't been knocked back, would still not have allowed you a say because the vote was a week before your birthday. Thanks to a lazy and lacklustre campaign by the Remain side, the country inflicts terminal damage on itself. In the same month, you lose both maternal grandparents within 10 days of each other - in the middle of your GCSEs.

You are already under CAMHS due to the mental health issues that have emerged, and which continue to grow over the coming years.

You get into 6^th form college, but the EMA which might once have helped you was taken away by Michael Gove a few years ago, as being “too expensive” (ie, Capita were being paid a fortune to administer it instead of local authorities doing it) and "poorly targetted" (a maximum of £30 a week, and only paid on 100% attendance, so hard to claim fraudulently). 

In 2017, a snap election is called, so you are still too young to have a say. However, for the first time in your lifetime there is a real alternative - and some hope - on offer (sabotaged, you later discover, from within).

In 2018, you age out of CAMHS support, with no referral to Adult Services, so your mental health gets worse. You obtain a university place, but without that support in place, you struggle to maintain it.

At the same time, your remaining grandparent is diagnosed with dementia and admitted to residential care. Your parents are now dealing with your sibling's additional needs and visiting the grandparent at the other end of the country, as well as your physical and mental health. As a result of which, they miss things...

In 2019, yet another election, in which you now can take part, but Brexit populism, more internal sabotage (including a future PM and his People's Vote) put the kybosh on the possibility of a change of government.

You drop out of university in early 2020 due to worsening mental health, only to find yourself in lockdown for most of the year. You apply for PIP. You wait. When you enquire, they've lost your application.

In 2021 your mental health hits crisis point. Even after emergency admissions, it still takes most of the year to get an assessment and a formal diagnosis.

In 2022 you finally get some proper therapy. In June, you also get the news that your father has terminal cancer. In November, you lose him.

You put in another PIP application in 2022. It takes 18 months, a lever arch file full of evidence and a tribunal to get a backdated award, during which time your physical health had deteriorated, but which can’t be taken into account at appeal/tribunal. This process takes longer than it took your father to be investigated, diagnosed, treated and die of cancer.

In 2023 you start to get your education back on track and get a place on an Access Course at a local college. You ace it, despite chronic pain and fatigue arising from your diagnosed incurable physical health conditions

In 2024, another election, with the promise of "change." No-one tells you that this will be change for the worse, but there you go. A Secretary of State for Health & Social Care who thinks mental health conditions are "overdiagnosed", gleefully taunts the Tories about having gone further with cuts than they did and is openly transphobic, enacting the widely-discredited Cass Review in opposition to almost every other government and world experts on gender-affirming care; a Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who thinks the best way to support disabled people is to remove their benefits (and seemingly, doesn't understand the benefits she's cutting). A Chancellor who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing and petulantly sticks to her made-up fiscal rules like Violet Elizabeth Bott rather than consider any alternatives even when the super-rich beg her to tax them more, and a weak Prime Minister who has no vision or political philosophy and is swayed by all the worst people (up to and including Trump). 

You also commence a new university course, this time with excellent DSA support, which makes a real difference (don't let's get on to travelling while disabled, though, where you can't travel to university from your local station due to lack of step-free access, and where definitions of a "dropped kerb" vary crossing by crossing).

And so now, after nearly a quarter of a century on the planet, you’re surviving despite, rather than because of, the governments in your lifetime.

Your parents did their best, but with an older sibling with significant additional needs, they missed the signs of your autism and ADHD, which is why these are only diagnosed in adulthood.

That’s my son, and he’s not untypical of young people of his generation.

 

So please... Labour ministers, MPs and random ill-informed middle-aged men and women on the internet: DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE tell me young people lack resilience/are lazy/don't want to work/are taking the mickey/are over-diagnosed. It's a bloody miracle they've made it this far into the 21st century!

The young people I know are endlessly resilient in the face of unprecedented attacks from politicians and the Not Yet Disabled general public. They are a traumatised generation, stunted by austerity, disrupted by Covid, their futures diminished by Brexit and their survival by climate change.

The one glimmer of hope they had that things could ever be different was extinguished by the very people who are now in charge. Everything in their lives is adversarial, and they are constantly criticised for things beyond their control. No wonder they're suffering from poor mental health.

 

Adventures in Politics

This was originally posted in 2015, about the state of candidate selections, but the Labour Party are still up to their dirty tricks today.

“There are copies of candidate statements available. Can you return them at the end of the meeting, to save on copying for other meetings?” said the officiating party representative. There was no need – the pile remained untouched and un-read at the end of the meeting.

It was no surprise that others had ambitions for our ward – that became clear when the recently-victorious candidate failed to thank any of her campaign team at her victory party, but managed to name-check a couple of people from outside the ward.

One of the criticisms our opponents threw at us for years was that our candidates weren't local – that they didn't live in the ward and until selection had little or nothing to do with it. For the 2015 campaign, the branch had two strong potential candidates from within the ward. Both with experience in campaigning and local activism, who were (or had been) union reps, school governors, local authority workers; who knew the area, whose children were educated in the local state schools, who had demonstrated commitment to the branch and to the campaigns of previous candidates. The branch was newly-energised, with a core group of dedicated members who regularly attended branch meetings, strong distribution networks for leafleting and a mission to engage with all sections of the local community, in one of the most diverse wards in the city.

“Local Labour party members select their local candidates within the party’s rules and guidelines. Those wishing to become Labour councillors are interviewed by an independent assessment team.”

Selection is a two stage process: shortlisting enables branch members to decide who to invite for interview (based on their candidate statements), and the selection meeting interviews all those shortlisted before voting for a candidate.

The shortlisting meeting had been booked at a local community centre, and all branch members were invited to attend. They were reminded that membership cards would be required on the night, to establish eligibility to vote. The shortlisting meeting is often the first opportunity ordinary members get to assess the capabilities of prospective councillors.

When the regular members arrived, they found that the meeting had been moved to a larger room than the normal one used for branch meetings and the AGM, and a sea of unfamiliar faces were already seated some 20 minutes before the meeting was due to start. There were two party officials present as observers but it was felt, as the Chair and Secretary were both potential candidates, that one of those observers should chair the meeting instead.

The procedure for the meeting was explained, membership cards checked (although some people were 'vouched for', having not brought their membership cards, despite this being clearly requested in advance) and it was agreed that the two potential in-ward candidates present would leave the room once the nomination process was due to start.

At this point, someone from the floor asked that any shortlist be restricted to just two names. The chair explained that the size of any shortlist was something that could determined once all nominations had been received. The two local potential candidates then left the meeting.

A total of 5 nominations were made; the two local candidates and three from outside the ward. At this point the size of the shortlist would normally be determined before discussing the merits of the nominated candidates and voting to determine which should go forward to selection. The proposal for a two person shortlist was voted on and accepted (without, apparently, any discussion of the rationale behind it) and the meeting then proceeded to a secret ballot; no discussion of the candidates' merits, just the vote.

A few minutes later, the meeting broke up. Two out-of-area candidates had been selected for interview; one of them, the person who'd been “thanked” by our new councillor....

Regular, active members, those who had been out knocking on doors and delivering leaflets in all weathers, were visibly upset at the outcome. That with two good local candidates to choose from, they had again been landed with an outsider. The one big campaign issue that could have been neutralised immediately (“You don't live here!”) would now once again be a fight campaigners would have to have before even starting on policy differences.

And this had been done on the basis of the votes of people who had never involved themselves with the branch, had never joined in campaigns, but had simply turned up to vote one one occasion, without any discussion of alternative candidates and seemingly no wish to hear what the other 3 nominees might have to say to them at the selection meeting. Notably, few of them have been seen since.

For a branch without a sitting councillor (which was in itself contentious, as the incumbent was not included on the panel of candidates, effectively de-selected by the party without reference to the branch who originally selected him, and whose appeal to the NEC was still pending on the night of the meeting), it would not have been unreasonable to have interviewed all five nominated candidates. While no rules had actually been broken, the selection was conducted in an unethical (and yet clumsily obvious) way. Active members had been left in no doubt that their hard work and commitment counted for nothing, and they would simply be given a favoured candidate for whom they were expected to campaign.

Nor was this the first year in which this had happened. When selection took place for 2014 candidates, the branch again had two candidates from within the ward (both male), but it was declared an all women shortlist (not that there is anything wrong with those). The branch was also the very last to hold its selection meeting, so the shortlist voted on by the branch diminished as other candidates got selected until on the night, there was only one remaining candidate to be interviewed. When this was questioned from the floor, the response was that if the branch did not make a 'selection', a candidate would be imposed.

The two local candidates in this case (the branch Chair and Secretary, don't forget) were not, and have never been, formally notified of the outcome of the meeting. Not that they had failed to be shortlisted, nor the names of those who had. As branch members, they should have been invited back into the meeting to discuss the final agenda points (timing of speeches, questions to be asked of candidates, etc for the selection meeting next week) but they were not, and were left outside until the meeting broke up. No commiserations from the two councillors present, both of whose election campaigns had been reliant on these people's hard work and enthusiasm. A very shabby way to treat good people. And if they treat their own activists with such contempt, one has to query what they think of the local electorate?

The party 'machine' had been used before the shortlisting to try and preclude one of the in-ward candidates from standing, on the grounds that he had a substantive job within the local authority. It had to be pointed out to them that under the rules a) local authority employees were entitled to stand as long as they resigned at the point of nomination (this has also, on occasion, been extended to resigning if elected) and that b) the person in question had disclosed his employment status at the initial panel interview without it being questioned. The machine then cranked up a gear, with a story being circulated that the other in-ward candidate had stood down from the process prior to shortlisting, an (incorrect) fact that was happily passed around the party.

After the selection, relations between the elected councillors and the branch executive worsened considerably. Laughable appeals for 'unity' which appeared to mean the branch supporting councillors' actions without question, failure to respond to reasonable requests for information, while accusing branch officers of inaction (when the officer in question was on holiday) regarding councillor actions/activities, discussing a significant issue about a branch officer privately with another officer on a matter which affected the branch more widely, seemingly appointing a campaign manager without reference to the Executive Committee and arranging a campaign meeting at 24 hours' notice during August, when most of the EC were unable to attend. There was also a (hastily withdrawn) threat from the CLP to suspend the branch for questioning councillors' actions, with the accusation that the branch was “trying to impose its will” on the councillors. A formal complaint to the party about the conduct of one of those involved has not given any response some sixteen months after it was made.

The smears continued. The first branch meeting of the autumn was held at a new venue, but some people turning up at the old one were told that it had been cancelled as 'trouble' was expected. Only mischief-making possibly, but deeply unprofessional. The next leaflet omitted the sitting-but-deselected councillor (whose term of office did not run out until May 2015) from the 'team' contact list, effectively air-brushing him from the branch.

In the next few months, both the branch chair and secretary resigned; a branch fundraiser attracted only about 15 people; activists stopped going out on the doorstep. By the time of the AGM, it was felt necessary to put forward a motion declaring that the branch had “complete confidence in its councillors and candidate” which, in itself suggested there might be a problem.

This is not an isolated case. There are reports of similar things happening all over the country. The Labour Party has many fine, committed activists, but increasingly, they were not being given the chance to serve their communities. It is a profoundly worrying trend and will ultimately do harm to a party already accused of ignoring its core vote and parachuting candidates into seats with which they have no connection.

In the last 24 hours, there have been news stories about muslim women being prevented from standing as candidates. Sadly, this is all too credible, despite the party's reassurances as to the robustness of the selection system. This system can be, and is, played to the advantage of the party machine. And it's not just muslim women, but all women (and some men) whose faces don't fit, for whatever reason.

Of course, there's a right of appeal. But when no actual rules are broken (just twisted to within an inch of snapping), what would be the point? As many of us have discovered, complaints disappear into a black hole. And, as we're always being told, party unity is important, so why would 'ordinary' members want to cause embarrassment?

Suggesting that other political parties don't have ways of influencing candidate selection would be naive. Other parties may  be "worse". But I expect better of the Labour Party. Members have had enough of 'keeping quiet' for the good of the party. This is wrong, and we shouldn't have been putting up with it.