Starmer Next Labour Leader

[Dames]

9 hours ago, Bilo said:

The new Blue Wall is built on sand. 

 

The two reasons the Tories won - Brexit and Corbyn- won't be vote winners in 2024, and the government hasn't exactly exuded competence thus far.

Exactly this. The 'Red Wall' seats only voted Blue this time around because they want Brexit, they are unbelievably desperate for it. They won't be voting Conservative in 5 years time because the issue of Brexit will be put to bed, in many of these places it was a one time deal.

 

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Dames said:

Exactly this. The 'Red Wall' seats only voted Blue this time around because they want Brexit, they are unbelievably desperate for it. They won't be voting Conservative in 5 years time because the issue of Brexit will be put to bed, in many of these places it was a one time deal.

I think this is so naive, Brexit has become more than just leaving the EU, its become a cultural position of many beliefs.

 

The idea these people are just going to run back to Labour isn't going to happen if the Labour party doesn't change. The politicians who think that are the same idiots who thought all the leave voters would turn on Boris if they just dragged him past October 31st and we saw how that went. 

 

Even more so if Boris and Cummings do start repatriating wealth to the Midlands and North.

 

If Starmer is the next leader the Tory campaign  of "he didn't respect your vote" starts immediately and Boris won't let him forget it every week.

[Mike Oxlong]

Whatever Labour do, whether they have a fighting chance  at the next election all depends on what the Tories do 

 

Boris and co would have to fvck up big time to put Labour in with a sniff 

[Alf Bentley]

13 hours ago, Guesty said:

Biggest problem with Starmer is every time I ever saw him on TV he was talking about how bad Brexit would be. Seemed he was one of the most vocal remainers.

 

I think it would be hard for him to win over all the northern seats who left Labour mainly because of Brexit. He seems the most competent of the lot; but people vote more with their emotions nowadays.

 

On the other hand, if Brexit goes badly, he could be the ideal candidate for when the next election comes around.

 

My initial instinct, too, was to think that because Starmer is closely tied to the Remain/Soft Brexit camp, he'd be a poor choice as leader. But, as your final comment suggests, where will Brexit be by 2024?

 

If Brexit has been a disaster, Starmer's history will stand him in good stead. If, contrary to my expectations, it has been a great success, Labour will probably be fvcked anyway! It may also be that economic/social consequences of Brexit persist but they're not necessarily viewed as such - particularly as it would be in the interests of the governing party to paint negative consequences as caused by something else (an economic downturn, irresponsible local councils, EU conspiring against us, tax-evading corporations, immigrants taking jobs etc.). That last scenario argues for someone of general competence to be leader - and similar people (not just the leader) to be in charge of the policies & image that the party presents.

 

But Labour has a role as Opposition before we even get to 2024- and how well it does that job will partly determine whether it rebuilds the credibility to win in 2024. Contrary to Boris' claims, Brexit is likely to be high on the agenda for at least a couple of years. Labour will have little political power, but can have some public influence in the arguments it presents about the relations/agreement needed & the pros/cons of any deal Boris does or doesn't strike. Starmer clearly has the intelligence & forensic understanding of the issue to do that well.....potentially helping rebuild party credibility & morale, help win local elections, by-elections etc.

 

I haven't decided who I'll support yet. But, having originally been disinclined to support Starmer, I wouldn't rule it out now. I'd like to hear what all the candidates have to say first, though. 

 

10 hours ago, Bilo said:

My main worry about Starmer is that his strengths could turn into weaknesses.

 

He strikes me as a thoughtful politician who isn't overly fond of the soundbite and wants to make judgements based on facts. Fine if you want to win a debate, not so much if you want to win an election these days.

 

This is a world where a known liar just won a majority of 80 and a POTUS who is out of his depth, underqualified, beset by scandals and undergoing an alarming cognitive decline is favourite to win a second term. Facts and substance matter much less than style and charisma, and that's something Starmer's team may need to bear in mind. He would, however, exude strength and control as a leader, which would be helpful.

 

You've accurately depicted some of his strengths (& potential weaknesses) there. On the positive side, he conveys intelligence and the capability to do the job - and I doubt he has much/any of the baggage that Corbyn had to allow opponents or media to easily depict him as extreme or unqualified. On the other hand, calm thoughtful moderation & capability may turn people off, if he's just seen as another dull politician out of touch with the people (a distinct possibility).

 

Someone on Twitter posted public opinion ratings for the likely candidates. Most, including Starmer's, were mildly negative (on a par with Johnson, not Corbyn's disastrous rating). Starmer's rating might improve if he gets better known or less implicitly associated with resisting Brexit....or it might not. The two potential candidates who had mildly positive ratings were Clive Lewis & Jess Phillips...arguably the two with the most charisma / entertainment value...possibly supporting your final point.

 

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

They might have been the main reasons given but it's far deeper than that - Labour has been moving away from its voting base for a decade and this was the election we finally saw it translate into seat losses.

 

Culturally the Labour party has been moving for some time, people like Paul Mason, Owen Jones and Ash Sarker etc have been on the airwaves weekly for a while calling their own voters everything from gammon to stupid and then they act surprised when they go elsewhere - Liddle did a good piece in the ST this Sunday about the Laboir council in Middlesborough banning Chubby Brown as his humour didn't meet their standards.

 

Until the people inside the party start to realise they can't keep telling people how to think and act this will continue - they've actually got many of these votes over the years despite many of the people being naturally quite right wing aside from fiscal policy.

 

It's going to be far easier for the Tories to move left on economics that it will be for Labour to move right on social issues and if they can't theyll lose more of red wall rather than win it back.

 

I don't think it has quite sunk in what has happened to Labour yet, with Scotland gone for them a Labour majority now means they have to win England outright and I just don't see that happening whatever occurs.

 

Starmer isn't the long term answer either, he's the best of a bad bunch here but he was one of the architects of the second referendum strategy and he was in the Corbyn cabinet. So all the issues of trust, antisemitism, not respecting the voters aren't going away.

 

Many of the seats they need now have 15,000/20,000 Tory majorities and the party is appealing to nobody outside the young, BAME and public sector demographics.

 

You need another untainted Tony Blair to turn this around.

 

I agree with some of this, but a couple of disagreements.....

 

Firstly, while it's true that Labour has been losing support in the "red/blue wall" areas since the 1990s (and needs to do some proper research into why that has happened), I doubt that hostility to Mason, Jones & Sarker or comments about gammon have much to do with it. Most voters are unfamiliar with Labour figures apart from Corbyn and a few others, so I'm sure most have never heard of Mason, Jones & Sarker - people who fire up politically-committed right-wingers and younger voters; less so retired miners in Bolsover, I suspect.

 

In several vox pop interviews I've seen, Lab-Con switchers in "red wall" seats have made comments like "Labour has done nothing for us for years here", so they're effectively giving the Tories a chance to do better. Their criticism of Labour is partly unfair as Blair/Brown did a lot for public services & childcare and Labour councils in such areas have been cash-strapped for decades. But it is partly fair criticism, too. The deindustrialisation of such areas mainly happened under Thatcher, but Labour in Govt did very little to remedy the situation by attracting new investment or high-quality jobs to those areas. Also, while council budgets were cut more under the Tories, they were also cut under Labour - part of Blair's centralisation & policy for good public services with fairly low tax....so the reputation of Labour councils may have been shafted more by Tory central govt, but also by Labour 1997-2010.

 

Secondly, how easy will it really be for the Tories to "move left on economics"? I assume that various projects will be launched this year and may win some popularity, but most projects that would make a meaningful difference take a lot of cash and a lot of time. It ain't quick and easy to build loads of major infrastructure or to attract lots of investment and good jobs to areas to which they've not been attracted for decades. That's a massive, long-term project - and voters are impatient.

 

There's also the potential impact of Brexit on Treasury funds. Of course, if Brexit is an immediate roaring success, generating an economic boom & a big upturn in trade, no problem. But even most Brexiteers expect a short-term economic downturn before things pick up. Most non-Brexiteers expect long-term damage to the economy and a reduction in tax receipts varying from moderate to massive. How easy will it be for the Tories to "move left on economics" if that requires years/decades of spending vast sums to rebuild struggling regions - and they have lower tax revenues than before? In the hypothetical event that Johnson tells the electorate that we need to accept tax rises or a big increase in deficit/debt to fund such rebuilding, will voters applaud?

[Guest MattP]

Jess Phillips confirms herself as running. The Sky News FB post on this story has 330 reactions and 220 of them are the emoji

 

The public love a victim obsessed, gobby woman, said absolutely no one ever.

 

Whilst its important they get the right person it's also important this contest doesn't turn into a joke - watching Lavery and Jess go at it could be pretty hilarious.

[Alf Bentley]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

Jess Phillips confirms herself as running. The Sky News FB post on this story has 330 reactions and 220 of them are the emoji

 

The public love a victim obsessed, gobby woman, said absolutely no one ever.

 

Whilst its important they get the right person it's also important this contest doesn't turn into a joke - watching Lavery and Jess go at it could be pretty hilarious.

 

There are obvious risks to choosing someone as outspoken as Jess Phillips and she'd certainly alienate some - but others like someone who comes across to them as honest and straight-speaking.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a poll - with the public, not Labour members - had her as 1 of only 2 candidates who had a positive opinion rating overall (Clive Lewis the other).

 

It could go badly wrong with Phillips' "straight speaking" - and I'm not yet convinced she has the overall command of policy or leadership skills required - but she's probably more Marmite, not as beyond the pale as you think.

 

Lavery would be a nightmare, though. A Lavery-Burgeon "dream team"? I'd emigrate!

[Guest MattP]

50 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

There are obvious risks to choosing someone as outspoken as Jess Phillips and she'd certainly alienate some - but others like someone who comes across to them as honest and straight-speaking.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a poll - with the public, not Labour members - had her as 1 of only 2 candidates who had a positive opinion rating overall (Clive Lewis the other).

 

It could go badly wrong with Phillips' "straight speaking" - and I'm not yet convinced she has the overall command of policy or leadership skills required - but she's probably more Marmite, not as beyond the pale as you think.

 

Lavery would be a nightmare, though. A Lavery-Burgeon "dream team"? I'd emigrate!

 Whatever happens I don't want to see the end of Burgon, arguably the funniest man in politics.

 

I had no idea Phillips had a favourable rating but I'd imagine that's a very small sample and I doubt much of the public will know who she is yet

 

The biggest problem with Phillips though isn't that she's outspoken, its just that she isn't very bright. Her grasp of economics and foreign affairs would make Corbyn look like Kissinger.

 

Just nothing about her screams leadership at all. I think she only popular in Westminster because that's what they view as someone who is working class.

[Alf Bentley]

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I had no idea Phillips had a favourable rating but I'd imagine that's a very small sample and I doubt much of the public will know who she is yet

 

 

Here are the ratings I was referring to. The figures in brackets show % of people who've heard of them, according to YouGov data. Doesn't say what sample size was.

So, 33% have heard of Phillips (more than Long-Bailey & almost as many as Starmer - she has a high media profile, I suppose).

 

Ian Warren‏ @election_data Jan 2

More

Now the net favourability of each Starmer -4 (41% have heard of him) Long-Bailey -2 (24%) Phillips +2 (33%) Cooper -5 (65%) Lewis +5 (27%) Thornberry -8 (44%) Nandy +2 (19%)

 

I hadn't noticed that Nandy also has a slightly positive favourability rating (but low recognition)

 

Here's a decent Nandy article from New Statesman: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/12/johnson-doesnt-get-britain-he-won-labour-must-now-show-it-does

"When we set up the Centre for Towns three years ago, we had felt the tremors under our feet in those Labour heartlands. After four decades of underinvestment, there was a drumbeat of concern for the lost bus networks, decaying high streets, and young people who had to leave home to find good work. A political system that shrugged its shoulders when people spilled their hearts out was already in serious trouble".

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Here are the ratings I was referring to. The figures in brackets show % of people who've heard of them, according to YouGov data. Doesn't say what sample size was.

So, 33% have heard of Phillips (more than Long-Bailey & almost as many as Starmer - she has a high media profile, I suppose).

 

Ian Warren‏ @election_data Jan 2

More

Now the net favourability of each Starmer -4 (41% have heard of him) Long-Bailey -2 (24%) Phillips +2 (33%) Cooper -5 (65%) Lewis +5 (27%) Thornberry -8 (44%) Nandy +2 (19%)

 

I hadn't noticed that Nandy also has a slightly positive favourability rating (but low recognition)

 

Here's a decent Nandy article from New Statesman: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/12/johnson-doesnt-get-britain-he-won-labour-must-now-show-it-does

"When we set up the Centre for Towns three years ago, we had felt the tremors under our feet in those Labour heartlands. After four decades of underinvestment, there was a drumbeat of concern for the lost bus networks, decaying high streets, and young people who had to leave home to find good work. A political system that shrugged its shoulders when people spilled their hearts out was already in serious trouble".

Not great ratings are they? Only Cooper worse than Starmer although they've all got fantastic ratings compared to Corbyn.

 

I can't believe people like Thornberry are considering it, they just have to be totally deluded to think that's what the country wants.

 

More I look at it Nandy looks the best shout electorally.

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Not great ratings are they? Only Cooper worse than Starmer although they've all got fantastic ratings compared to Corbyn.

 

I can't believe people like Thornberry are considering it, they just have to be totally deluded to think that's what the country wants.

 

More I look at it Nandy looks the best shout electorally.

 

Not brilliant ratings, though a lot of them are barely known to most voters - and most politicians have poor ratings.

Boris had negative ratings last time I noticed, but that didn't stop him winning....albeit against the most unpopular opponent in history!

 

No, I can't imagine Thornberry being a good choice. A senior shadow cabinet post, maybe, but not leader, likewise Cooper. I suspect that's where I'll end up with Phillips, too.

 

I'm undecided but mainly interested in hearing from Nandy, Lewis & Starmer at the moment.

Lavery & Burgon can get straight in the bin along with any Corbyn Continuity candidate (Long-Bailey?). I'd definitely favour Angela Rayner over Burgon for Deputy, if that's the choice on offer.

 

Some of these potential candidates won't get all the nominations they need, though, or will withdraw due to lack of support - some might be just raising their profiles to get good shadow cabinet posts.

[twoleftfeet]

Dianne Abbot would get my vote

[Dames]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

I think this is so naive, Brexit has become more than just leaving the EU, its become a cultural position of many beliefs.

 

The idea these people are just going to run back to Labour isn't going to happen if the Labour party doesn't change. The politicians who think that are the same idiots who thought all the leave voters would turn on Boris if they just dragged him past October 31st and we saw how that went. 

 

Even more so if Boris and Cummings do start repatriating wealth to the Midlands and North.

 

If Starmer is the next leader the Tory campaign  of "he didn't respect your vote" starts immediately and Boris won't let him forget it every week.

They won't run back to Labour instead they will just stop voting.

[Wolfox]

Good article here

 

id be happy enough with either Nandy or Phillips,  but, depressingly momentum will most likely get behind Long Bailey and labour will continue to lack relevance…

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/03/lisa-nandy-enters-labour-leadership-race-with-call-for-change?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_WhatsApp

[twoleftfeet]

20 hours ago, Dames said:

They won't run back to Labour instead they will just stop voting.

I think your wrong not on tge fact that they wont run back to labour in the fact that they will stop voting. They will pluml for the best of the bunch. The loyalty is what labour have lost i will be voting next time for the one i consider to be tge best at the time. I think Corbyns labour have broken the blind voting for red or blue. Perhaps he has done the nation a favour and we will get away of oeople voting on ghe basis that that is hiw they have always voted.

[oxford blue]

On 03/01/2020 at 14:46, twoleftfeet said:

Dianne Abbot would get my vote

A good choice...for all Conservative voters.

[Dr The Singh]

On 03/01/2020 at 14:46, twoleftfeet said:

Dianne Abbot would get my vote

Labour leader or Labour Fitty ?

[The Fox Covert]

On 03/01/2020 at 14:46, twoleftfeet said:

Dianne Abbot would get my vote

I am sure you are only joking!!!

Diane Abbott, who I met twice, a long time ago when she was not quite so fat, is an appalling person and a worse politician.

Promoted way beyond her ability and she is now at an age and state of health where she should gracefully retire.

A sort of political version of Junior Lewis, completely out of his depth in the Premier League.

But no worse than quite a number of Tory nonentities like Anna Soubry, Chris Grayling and Ian Something Smith.

However the two left feet picture during the election was a Tory lie.

I have seen a hi-res version of the notorious two left feet photo in the Daily Mail.

One of the shoes has a very un-natural and oddly pixellated area around it and it screams mile wide Photoshop fake.

If you don't believe me next time you go out try putting on two left shoes. Your feet are extremely unsymmetrical and it is well-nigh impossible to put a shoe on the wrong foot!!!

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, The Fox Covert said:

I am sure you are only joking!!!

Diane Abbott, who I met twice, a long time ago when she was not quite so fat, is an appalling person and a worse politician.

Promoted way beyond her ability and she is now at an age and state of health where she should gracefully retire.

A sort of political version of Junior Lewis, completely out of his depth in the Premier League.

But no worse than quite a number of Tory nonentities like Anna Soubry, Chris Grayling and Ian Something Smith.

However the two left feet picture during the election was a Tory lie.

I have seen a hi-res version of the notorious two left feet photo in the Daily Mail.

One of the shoes has a very un-natural and oddly pixellated area around it and it screams mile wide Photoshop fake.

If you don't believe me next time you go out try putting on two left shoes. Your feet are extremely unsymmetrical and it is well-nigh impossible to put a shoe on the wrong foot!!!

Behave there were several different photos of it, the lie was that it was photoshopped.

[Dr The Singh]

On 03/01/2020 at 14:46, twoleftfeet said:

Dianne Abbot would get my vote

Perve

[Tuna]

Starmer is the only one I could actually see as Prime Minister.

[SecretPro]

Lisa Nandy is the only one I'd put my willy near, so yeah, her. 

[oxford blue]

Jess Phillips says she would not rule out rejoining the EU. Has she effectively ruled herself out of a serious challenge? Any Labour leader must move on from the Brexit debate (as Starmer has done). To reconnect with the electorate in the North and parts of the Midlands, Labour must accept the Referendum result. Phillips could have done that, but unlikely now.

[Jon the Hat]

On 03/01/2020 at 12:33, Alf Bentley said:

 

There are obvious risks to choosing someone as outspoken as Jess Phillips and she'd certainly alienate some - but others like someone who comes across to them as honest and straight-speaking.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a poll - with the public, not Labour members - had her as 1 of only 2 candidates who had a positive opinion rating overall (Clive Lewis the other).

 

It could go badly wrong with Phillips' "straight speaking" - and I'm not yet convinced she has the overall command of policy or leadership skills required - but she's probably more Marmite, not as beyond the pale as you think.

 

Lavery would be a nightmare, though. A Lavery-Burgeon "dream team"? I'd emigrate!

She speaks her mind, however I’m not sure I could imagine her as a future PM.

[Guest MattP]

Have to say Starmer did look capable and Prime Ministerial on Marr - he is so wooden though.

 

Phillips on the other hand

 

She's just so false in every way, a victim when she isn't, "straight talking" despite never answering a question, working class despite not being. The clamour around her in SW1 and the broadsheet press is weird.

[urban.spaceman]