Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
I don’t think the issue is Cameron earning something for himself after being PM, but he had what seemed to be an immediate line through to Cabinet members denied to almost everyone else.

I think one of their beloved focus groups might have picked up on “Tory sleaze” for Labour. I thought it was a valid issue to raise (although the focus on wallpaper became counter productive it seemed to me), but I agree that there needed to be more than the one string to Labour’s bow when it came to Hartlepool. I’ve some sympathy with Starmer because it’s been awkward for him to be too critical of theGovernment over the past year, but that also means that there was an opportunity for more attention to be paid to what Labour had to offer, but, instead, there was just more infighting and picking an arch Remainer to be their candidate at Hartlepool of all places qualifies as a schoolboy error.
I agree sleaze was a valid issue to raise but the entire campaign seemed to be based on that and nothing else. I agree also Labour selected the wrong candidate for Hartlepool given his fervent remain stance. Everything seemed to be focussed on sleaze and the wallpaper in particular which the public found to be largely irrelevant given the many other things going on. I think we agree.

However, I'm still struggling to understand the policies Labour was putting forward at the Hartlepool election. Can anyone tell me?