Next Leader of the Opposition

[Webbo]

They lost because a lot of people were becoming apathetic about the little difference in the parties and Labour supporting or putting forward similar policies. But it is true Corbyn may lose the middle ground Labour supporters if media portrays Corbyn as the villian.

The scare stories are already out with one paper reporting that ' three Corbyn nominaters' have spoken out against him but they fail to name the MP's by just referring to 'the three MP's' more than once.

I like to think I am not naive enough not to question that. But hey I am also a skeptic so what do I know. I am just a dum old man saying stupid things on a messageboard no one agrees with so anything that I say has no validity or worth.

Dumb.

[Bilo]

I suppose the big question is whether Labour lost the election because they moved too far to the left, or because Ed Miliband failed to connect properly with the electorate. Their results in Scotland and pre-election approval ratings would suggest the latter, while their electoral history over the past 40 years would suggest the former.

 

Across Europe there are serious questions being asked of the traditional left / left of centre parties, what with Syriza and Podemos and similar parties popping up which lean further to the left, sell themselves better to the public and subsequently pull the rug from under the feet of the traditional parties. Some of these parties have been shown to steal a lot of the working class votes back from the right-of-centre parties too.

 

So Labour has to decide whether its alignment was the problem, or its leader. Unfortunately for them, as a consequence of Blair's success their parliamentary party is packed with people who won't accept anything other than a faux-Tory leader in charge, as well as plenty who will pull in the opposite direction. They don't seem to have the same willingness to unite behind a leader as they had back in the early-mid 90s, so it's hard to imagine they'll be able to sell their product one way or the other.

 

In other words, they're fated to be their own worst enemy. Corbyn, whether he ends up facing the electorate someday or not, might well do a far better job of connecting with the electorate than Miliband, but still not win the support of those in the Blue Labour ranks who worry about their credibility in the City and in the Murdoch Press. If this is what happens then I fully expect a younger, more dynamic left-leaning party to rise up out of nowhere and hammer the final nail in their coffin. Something like Respect, only unshackled by George Galloway.

 

A fair post for me.

 

I personally think true socialism is dead and has been for some time in terms of it being a genuine election winning prospect - social democracy offers the best true opportunity for the centre-left to prosper in British politics these days, and I actually feel it's bigger than just the leader. Whoever wins the leadership, and I suspect it'll be Burnham, they need to put together a diverse and convincing Shadow Cabinet together to convince the electorate.

 

It's vital that the likes of Umunna, Jarvis and Starmer are involved as all are able to connect with the public and are a departure from the 1997-2010 government, probably giving them a better chance of picking up the floating voters who flitted between the Tories and UKIP in May. The Blue Labour ranks who you mention would like Umunna's pro-business stance, even the Murdoch empire would have a tough time attacking a decorated ex-serviceman in Jarvis and Starmer's CV tells you that he'd wipe the floor with Gove if appointed Shadow Business Secretary. 

 

As for left wing parties in England, that's not really where the threat is coming from. The Greens led a poor campaign in which Bennett was out of her depth, the SNP are little more left than Scottish Labour (left leaning policies are not the reason why Scotland ditched Labour after all) and Respect's only reputable politician was Salma Yaqoob, who left in 2012. I'd be quite surprised to see Respect having any realistic candidates in 2020, as Galloway's impending thrashing standing for London Mayor will most likely hasten his long overdue retirement. 

Labour's real threat comes from populist parties like UKIP and the centre-right, as we didn't do enough to convince the aspiring working classes they'd be better off with a Labour government or enough to convince many working class people that we tackle threats to jobs from migrant populations, hence the loss of votes to the Tories and UKIP respectively.

It's not an unwinnable battle, but the right decisions need to be made from the get-go or it's difficult to see us winning in 2020. That said, if the right decisions are made, it's plausible that Labour could at least lessen the gap by 2020. The SNP could leave themselves isolated in Westminster and generally fail to live up to their promise to the Scottish electorate, the Tories could easily implode over Europe and the impending debate over who will replace Cameron as leader and UKIP's infighting could end up proving problematic. It's fair to say that Labour are not alone in being divided, but that will prove scant comfort if not arrested soon.

[Guest]

I may come across as daft but as a young student who has leftist views, why is this? 

I probably didnt word that well. I also hold leftist views but there is never going to be a party to represent me and I accept that because the majority of people are purely self interested which is their right. It's more from an election winning perspective than me slamming anyone that is leftist. 

[Frank to be]

Self interest and leftism aren't mutually exclusive. In fact the opposite can be true and I think once the tories have had their turn, made their mates rich and the mass of people even more poor, continued breaking the law by invading everybody's privacy in secret and probably taken us to war for no reason again them people will understand why.

That's why a proper left wing candidate is the right choice for Labour now. By the time the next five years is up the electorate will be clamouring for a significant change of direction.

[Guest]

Self interest and leftism aren't mutually exclusive. In fact the opposite can be true and I think once the tories have had their turn, made their mates rich and the mass of people even more poor, continued breaking the law by invading everybody's privacy in secret and probably taken us to war for no reason again them people will understand why.

That's why a proper left wing candidate is the right choice for Labour now. By the time the next five years is up the electorate will be clamouring for a significant change of direction.

The privacy thing is a huge concern.  There'd be no such thing as Human Rights and Privacy if left up to them. 

 

We'll see I guess. I thought years of austerity measures might have forced people in another direction but it didn't.

[Strokes]

The privacy thing is a huge concern.  There'd be no such thing as Human Rights and Privacy if left up to them. 

 

We'll see I guess. I thought years of austerity measures might have forced people in another direction but it didn't.

I'm not a fan of the snooping charter, it's bullshit but the human rights act needs amending in my honest opinion and to be replaced with something more modern.

[Guest]

I'm not a fan of the snooping charter, it's bullshit but the human rights act needs amending in my honest opinion and to be replaced with something more modern.

I agree with you. 

[inckley fox]

In response to Bilo, Frank and Shanetko: The labour movement is in turmoil. This is because Conservative parties tend to uphold the mainstays of Attlee-era socialism - pensions, NHS, welfare state; the old battlegrounds, be it healthcare or mining, are either consigned to the past or no longer looked at in terms of Labour = public sector investment and reform / Tories = low taxes and a smaller state. The perception, however wrong it might be, is that a Tory party won't dismantle the NHS or cripple the 'poor' any significant amount more than Labour, while most working people accept that welfare reforms are necessary anyway.

 

The traditional socialist support has been decimated by misinformation from a largely right-of-centre press, the drive towards centre-ground politics and two core problems: that Labour voters are no longer grimy, starving white British manual workers on a 60+ hour week - many of the modern day 'working class' are working in bureaucracy, belong to ethnic minorities or, as many a Conservative would maintain, are somewhere between unemployed and unemployable. The second problem is that many of these same people don't consider themselves working class, and are frequently more concerned by other working class people - be they immigrants, people on council estates or petty criminals - than they are by the concentration of wealth among the elite. In fact they accept this as a necessity.

 

There was a conscious shift in the 80s and 90s from Labour being the 'party of the poor' to being representatives of 'progressive politics'. But it happened without a serious discussion as to who, exactly, was working class in a modern society, and how they'd be represented by a 'progressive' Labour Party. Basically, progressive politics progressed in a direction that alienated the traditional Labour support, while not adequately convincing the middle classes that they represented their best interests either.

 

I'm not sure that 'socialism' or 'left wing' are such dirty words as we think, just that very few people believe they serve their best interests. And when you consider the huge number of UK Unionists - traditional Labour voters - who turned to the SNP in the last election, it demonstrates how terrible Labour have been at communicating their purpose to their traditional core support. When you hear that 90% of Sun readers oppose inheritance tax, it tells you how deep a problem this is for a modern day socialist. And if their only solution is to become a sort of duplicate Tory Party, then do we really need them any more?

[purpleronnie]

If labour want a clue on how they need to change and why they have lost the scottish vote they'd do much worse than to view the Mhairi Black maiden speech over and over again.

[Rincewind]

I'm not a fan of the snooping charter, it's bullshit but the human rights act needs amending in my honest opinion and to be replaced with something more modern.

Really.  This includes the  FOI act being watered downso government departments cannot be held responsible for their actions.

Webbo. well done for picking the most importantone word  part of my post to comment on.

[Strokes]

Really. This includes the FOI act being watered downso government departments cannot be held responsible for their actions.

Webbo. well done for picking the most importantone word part of my post to comment on.

I've not looked into the proposed bill ken, so I can't say how much of it I support or not.

[Guest MattP]

It just beggers belief that some people still think Labour need a left wing leader. How many times do you have to actually lose before you get it? As usual Bilo is pretty much on the ball. I wouldn't say socialism is dead in itself, we should always try to help those at the bottom who are trying their best in life, the Palestinian flag waving, terrorist cuddling protest politics of the Jeremy Corbyn's, George Galloway's and Diane Abbott are certainly dead though on a wider scale.

 

Elections won by the party closest to the centre in my lifetime - 2015, 2010, 2005, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1987 - that's every single one for anyone who knows how old I am, I remember all of us Tories in those Blair years desperately trying to convince ourselves that the country actually wanted to lurch to the right so we elected Hague, Howard and IDS, in reality it was so ridiculous it doesn't bare thinking about now and a few years later we are watching a lot of the opposition think the same in reverse, it's Labour have to lose three elections on the trot every time before they realise it.

 

When was the last time Britain elected a socialist government? Late 60's? That time has long gone.

 

If Labour want to win the election they need seats like Nuneaton and Watford, these were seats they held under Blair, they are now seats that hold massive Tory majorities, does anyone seriously think these seats will be won back under a left wing leader? Do people seriously think voters went out and voted Tory because Labour were too much like the Tories? Come on people.

 

If labour want a clue on how they need to change and why they have lost the scottish vote they'd do much worse than to view the Mhairi Black maiden speech over and over again.

 

They lost the Scottish vote because they backed the "in" campaign, no other reason, this is tribal politics that has now turned against them. I really don't know how anyone can see it differently, the SNP are fake, even the IMF said their manifesto had far deeper cuts than Labour's did, people have fell for them being left wing just because they shout "anti-austerity" over and over again and they can do that whilst they don't control their own finances, it's incredible a party who said they could achieve full independence in 18 months now won't accept full fiscal autonomy because it would take "years"

 

Far easier to just throw away your responsibilities and blame the "evil Tories" rather than take control yourself and end up possibly looking like Syriza in Greece do now after chasing completely impossible financial politics. Labour won all over Scotland under Blair's central government, how quick people have forgotten that.

 

I watched Black's speech and thought she has some serious gall to be honest, she moaned about austerity whilst ignoring the fact austerity in Scotland would be ten times worse now than here had they voted for independence, the woefully embarrassing oil price predictions would have left them with a multi billion pound shortfall and the only thriving industry would be foodbanks, the obvious reaction would be been huge taxes and then they would get even less of that revenue in as anyone with wealth and any mode of transport headed south of the border.

 

Imagine being represented by a 20 year old in parliament, surely these people need some proper life experience, ironically she is moaning about the "Westminster elite" while coming straight out of University to a 70k a year job in Westminster.

[davieG]

The next time we have a new government will be when people get bored with the current one and fancy a change.

[Rincewind]

The next time we have a new government will be when people get bored with the current one and fancy a change.

True. You only know the difference by the different colour ties.

[Guest MattP]

True. You only know the difference by the different colour ties.

 

Only if you don't read the manifestos or take an interest in politics.

[Buce]

Only if you don't read the manifestos or take an interest in politics.

As is the case with the majority of the electorate, I suspect.

[davieG]

Only if you don't read the manifestos or take an interest in politics.

Majority probably.

[Guest MattP]

As is the case with the majority of the electorate, I suspect.

 

Absolutely right and that's why they are so careful. It's why when you see these leadership debates you get all the people who actually have any chance of some sort of power groomed to the hilt, saying everything from pre planned party written notes and being careful not to actually bring any attention onto themselves.

 

The only ones who wanted to be noticed and say something outrageous were Farage and Bennett and they got mocked and/or derided for it when they did.

[johnny the fox]

All the contenders are shight... if they can't find any better than this shower they will be out of power for 20 years... 

[Guest MattP]

I actually thought Corbyn performed the best on the Sunday Politics debate earlier. Granted he didn't say a lot and he owes most of it to the others being so useless and completely devoid of anything coherent.

The argument that Corbyn is unelectable doesn't even stand, none of them are really electable at the moment. Burnham has the best chance of them all if he grows into the role better than Miliband did. Chuka pulling out did the Conservatives a massive favour, any of the conservative candidates for next leader would make mincemeat out of that lot.

 

Sorry I missed this, personally thought Cooper and Burnham were the best but think Kendall is the most electable, she has to be, we keep being told by everyone she's a Tory for a start and they won a majority just a few months back.

 

Main problem I have with Corbyn is you can tell he's never had to think about someone else's viewpoint, he surrounds himself with friends from all these political pressure groups he is in and they all think the same as him, it's obscene for him to use the excuse he spoke to the IRA because "you have to talk to people you don't like" whilst a couple of says earlier refusing to speak to the Jewish cronicle because of it's backing for Israel.

 

Agree on Chukka, he would be a good leader, is he going to risk all that private life stuff coming out to do it though? I doubt it.

[Rincewind]

Andy Burnham claims on his  Facebook page that he voted against the welfare reform bill.. According to the official list his name was not on the against list. Cameron said before the election that he would turn down a pay rise  as it was unfair when others were receiving lower increases.. 2 months later he accepted it and said it was right.

Can you be sure that the other 639 or so MP's do not deceive and be sure of the ones that tell the truth?

I cannot and many of the public cannot.

Can  no one see why a lot of people have so much mistrust in MP's of all parties and feel they are out of touch with the ordinary working man?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Andy Burnham claims on his  Facebook page that he voted against the welfare reform bill.. According to the official list his name was not on the against list. Cameron said before the election that he would turn down a pay rise  as it was unfair when others were receiving lower increases.. 2 months later he accepted it and said it was right.

Can you be sure that the other 639 or so MP's do not deceive and be sure of the ones that tell the truth?

I cannot and many of the public cannot.

Can  no one see why a lot of people have so much mistrust in MP's of all parties and feel they are out of touch with the ordinary working man?

I have to agree there, Ken.

[Guest MattP]

Andy Burnham claims on his  Facebook page that he voted against the welfare reform bill.. According to the official list his name was not on the against list.

 

He voted for the Labour amendment that was put forward, not against the welfare reform bill.

 

I actually felt sorry for the Labour MP's voting last night, they were in an awful position, abstain and look like you are letting down some of your own constituents, vote for it and you look like you want to cut the welfare bill or vote against it and show the World you have voted against the living wage (despite calling for one for years) but for no reduction in benefits, you simply can't do that if you are trying to show you are a party of "the working man" as you call it instead of the dole queue.

 

Impossible position, the only ones who seem to have voted against it are the London based ones and Denis Skinner.

[purpleronnie]

Found out my brother in law voted Tory (always voted Labour before) because (in his words) he didn't want SNP to break the country up.

 

I guess there was some truth in voting for the enemy to stop a labour/SNP alliance. 

 

Wasn't that suppose to happen in Scotland with Tories voting Labour to stop SNP.

[danny.]

He voted for the Labour amendment that was put forward, not against the welfare reform bill.

 

I actually felt sorry for the Labour MP's voting last night, they were in an awful position, abstain and look like you are letting down some of your own constituents, vote for it and you look like you want to cut the welfare bill or vote against it and show the World you have voted against the living wage (despite calling for one for years) but for no reduction in benefits, you simply can't do that if you are trying to show you are a party of "the working man" as you call it instead of the dole queue.

 

Impossible position, the only ones who seem to have voted against it are the London based ones and Denis Skinner.

 

Shows what a pile of shit the whole system is, when you can't just vote for what you believe is right, and have to follow political strategies to play a game where the only losers are the people the MPs are meant to be representing.