Starmer Next Labour Leader

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I've always wondered what Labour meetings in Liverpool must be like. Thanks to Twitter we can see part of.

 

These people are deranged.

 

Stuff like this makes me glad I don't use Twitter, though I'm sure there are good, valuable posters on there, too.

 

I do get the impression, though, that a lot of Twitter is about propagandists from different sides of politics drawing attention to extremists and idiots on the other side and trying to depict them as typical of "the other lot" (at least you say "part of").

All of which exacerbates polarisation, division and bitterness

 

I know that there are also leftist Tweeters who post footage of Tory fringe elements making outrageous comments, saying "look at the extremist/uncaring/racist Tories" or whatever.

 

Yes, this woman is clearly narrow-minded and bitter to describe Lab-Con switchers as "traitors" rather than trying to understand why they switched - and I've no time for the "I'd rather be pure and out of power" stance. And, yes, Long-Bailey waffles in response (trying to keep Hard Left votes in the leadership contest while not alienating those who might balk at bitter extremists like the questioner). 

 

But what does it mean? It means there are some extremist idiots in the Labour Party, but I think we knew that. It doesn't mean this woman is typical - any more than footage of some redneck extremist braying racist comments at a Tory event typifies all Tories or all Tories from a particular area. Plenty of idiots to go around in every large organisation.... 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I've always wondered what Labour meetings in Liverpool must be like. Thanks to Twitter we can see part of.

 

These people are deranged.

RLB looks bloody dim there. I think this point stands for all politicians however - when she says ‘we need to do some research’, really you need to have suggestions for answers. She simply doesn’t have the nous or depth to illustrate any opinion without alienating someone. Her comments the other week about ‘prospering under Tory rule is luck’ are alienating and quite frankly election losers. 
 

Labour really now need is to pause looking back and begin to plan their future. They can dwindle on the reasons why they lost but the ‘game’ has changed. Brexit will play out. Stop concentrating on what’s happened or you’ll be widening the gap.
 

Labour’s election ploy centred on pushing on how bad things have got in the last few years. There’s a discord where they don’t realise the working class is almost split in two; a genuine underclass and a workforce doing okay for themselves in certain careers. That latter is the target and a winner for them but if you alienate it by dismissing their life as luck or a sequence of events, you will continue to lose them. Instead your voters will be idealists (of which I won’t deny I am one). 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Stuff like this makes me glad I don't use Twitter, though I'm sure there are good, valuable posters on there, too.

 

I do get the impression, though, that a lot of Twitter is about propagandists from different sides of politics drawing attention to extremists and idiots on the other side and trying to depict them as typical of "the other lot" (at least you say "part of").

All of which exacerbates polarisation, division and bitterness

 

I know that there are also leftist Tweeters who post footage of Tory fringe elements making outrageous comments, saying "look at the extremist/uncaring/racist Tories" or whatever.

 

Yes, this woman is clearly narrow-minded and bitter to describe Lab-Con switchers as "traitors" rather than trying to understand why they switched - and I've no time for the "I'd rather be pure and out of power" stance. And, yes, Long-Bailey waffles in response (trying to keep Hard Left votes in the leadership contest while not alienating those who might balk at bitter extremists like the questioner). 

 

But what does it mean? It means there are some extremist idiots in the Labour Party, but I think we knew that. It doesn't mean this woman is typical - any more than footage of some redneck extremist braying racist comments at a Tory event typifies all Tories or all Tories from a particular area. Plenty of idiots to go around in every large organisation.... 

Yes there are, but the Conservative Party still manages to get itself elected despite its idiots. It took a huge effort stretching over many years from Kinnock, Smith and Blair to make Labour electable again after the 1983 election debacle. Now it feels like the party has slithered right back down to the days of the Militant tendency. Whoever is elected leader has a massive job on their hands in trying to turn Labour into a serious electoral prospect again - if indeed that is even possible.

Edited 25 February 2020 by ClaphamFox

[UpTheLeagueFox]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

I do get the impression, though, that a lot of Twitter is about propagandists from different sides of politics drawing attention to extremists and idiots on the other side and trying to depict them as typical of "the other lot" (at least you say "part of").

All of which exacerbates polarisation, division and bitterness

This pretty much nails it.

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Labour’s election ploy centred on pushing on how bad things have got in the last few years. There’s a discord where they don’t realise the working class is almost split in two; a genuine underclass and a workforce doing okay for themselves in certain careers. That latter is the target and a winner for them but if you alienate it by dismissing their life as luck or a sequence of events, you will continue to lose them. Instead your voters will be idealists (of which I won’t deny I am one). 

Great post.

 

The working class issue is huge now and Labour seem to be completely failing to understand what is supposed to be the core base. The Tories seem to have cottoned onto this even if they've crudely separated it into a deserving and undeserving poor. 

 

You can't help but think the lack of working class MP's in Labour and the continued development of middle class southern MP's has contributed to this. I mean when the election is over the last three Labour leaders will all be people who have lived their political life in Islington. 

 

The top part is important a well, there is still an assumption I hear so often from Labour voters the next election is there providing "the tories get it wrong".

 

You are already hearing it now - "If Brexit goes wrong Starmer will be PM".

 

It doesn't work like that - they have to see you as the better option to elect you, they won't do it just by default.

[CosbehFox]

58 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

You can't help but think the lack of working class MP's in Labour and the continued development of middle class southern MP's has contributed to this.

I don't think they necessarily have to be working class; they need to illustrate something of a career and intelligence. A figure of aspiration. Wakefield voted for a Tory who'd worked at UN and went King's College. 

 

Living here in Birmingham, Labour lost their seat from Richard Burden who'd been in office since 1992.

 

The replacement Tory Gary Sambrook, publicly went on record as gay and a freemason. He's 30. I have seen him in the local area on three occasions since the election but he's from the more affluent Sutton Coldfield. I never saw Burden in my life. Sambrook's election campaign was very public on social media and was quite simple videos rather than anything flash. His ideas have been simple and clear (is there some similarities in how Jess Philips didn't suffer a huge dent in her area?).

 

It's a lesson in how elections are in effect 650 elections and national policy is largely about perception.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

23 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Tory Gary Sambrook, publicly went on record as gay and a freemason.

Brother Gary 

[Guest MattP]

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yes there are, but the Conservative Party still manages to get itself elected despite its idiots. It took a huge effort stretching over many years from Kinnock, Smith and Blair to make Labour electable again after the 1983 election debacle. Now it feels like the party has slithered right back down to the days of the Militant tendency. Whoever is elected leader has a massive job on their hands in trying to turn Labour into a serious electoral prospect again - if indeed that is even possible.

 

You're absolutely right that any new Labour leader has a massive job on - and @MattP is right that Labour won't win by default in 2024, just by waiting for the Tories to cock it up.

 

But there seem to be a lot of reasons why 2024 looks a better prospect than 1987.....IF (and only if) Labour offers voters a convincing alternative:

- In 1983, after a period of unpopularity, Thatcher was on the up with economy improving, "right to buy" council houses popular etc.

- In 2020, Johnson faces a less rosy outlook (an aging population, insecure incomes, a decade of cuts & stagnant pay & slow growth, potential Brexit damage, debt still high, housing crisis, discontented youth, now the Coronavirus hit)

- In 1980s, Thatcher successfully appealed to British masochism, convincing people some pain was unavoidable due to necessary reform 

- In 2020, the public has been promised that Brexit means "taking back control", it will be "done" quickly along with great trade deals & fewer foreigners (implied), we'll have more of our own money to spend on the British people & talk of negative impact is all Project Fear "doom and gloom". On top of that, the Govt is promising to keep taxes low yet to "level up" & to spend vast sums on public services & turning round disadvantaged regions.....likely to be a lot of disappointed voters by 2024.

- In 1983 (& still in 1987) the centre-left vote was massively split with a credible alternative centre-left govt on offer from the Lib/SDP Alliance (25% of vote in 1983), getting favourable media coverage & led by known, popular politicians

- In 2020, the Lib Dems are at a low ebb & the SNP could face unpopularity soon. Admittedly, the Greens could surge by 2024 if climate change rises up the agenda & a Lab comeback in Scotland is not guaranteed, but for now rivals don't look so strong

- Although Militant only ever dominated in a few areas (Liverpool, Coventry, parts of Inner London), they remained a force into the late 80s, controlling a few councils etc. The Hard Left doesn't have that power base now

 

There's certainly no guarantee that Labour can stand a chance in 2024, but the prospects of a quick turnaround look a lot better than in the 1980s....IF Lab can present itself as a credible alternative govt, offering some popular but believable policies

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

 

I can exclusively reveal that nobody will ever propose the establishment of a "Richard Burgon University of Political Education".....

 

A "Richard Burgon School of Flatulence", possibly..... (in fact, he looks as if he's enjoying a discreet, semi-controlled slow-release fart in that photo).

[oxford blue]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

 

 

If this is really true and implemented"successfully" Labour will become a minority party. 

[Bilo]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You're absolutely right that any new Labour leader has a massive job on - and @MattP is right that Labour won't win by default in 2024, just by waiting for the Tories to cock it up.

 

But there seem to be a lot of reasons why 2024 looks a better prospect than 1987.....IF (and only if) Labour offers voters a convincing alternative:

- In 1983, after a period of unpopularity, Thatcher was on the up with economy improving, "right to buy" council houses popular etc.

- In 2020, Johnson faces a less rosy outlook (an aging population, insecure incomes, a decade of cuts & stagnant pay & slow growth, potential Brexit damage, debt still high, housing crisis, discontented youth, now the Coronavirus hit)

- In 1980s, Thatcher successfully appealed to British masochism, convincing people some pain was unavoidable due to necessary reform 

- In 2020, the public has been promised that Brexit means "taking back control", it will be "done" quickly along with great trade deals & fewer foreigners (implied), we'll have more of our own money to spend on the British people & talk of negative impact is all Project Fear "doom and gloom". On top of that, the Govt is promising to keep taxes low yet to "level up" & to spend vast sums on public services & turning round disadvantaged regions.....likely to be a lot of disappointed voters by 2024.

- In 1983 (& still in 1987) the centre-left vote was massively split with a credible alternative centre-left govt on offer from the Lib/SDP Alliance (25% of vote in 1983), getting favourable media coverage & led by known, popular politicians

- In 2020, the Lib Dems are at a low ebb & the SNP could face unpopularity soon. Admittedly, the Greens could surge by 2024 if climate change rises up the agenda & a Lab comeback in Scotland is not guaranteed, but for now rivals don't look so strong

- Although Militant only ever dominated in a few areas (Liverpool, Coventry, parts of Inner London), they remained a force into the late 80s, controlling a few councils etc. The Hard Left doesn't have that power base now

 

There's certainly no guarantee that Labour can stand a chance in 2024, but the prospects of a quick turnaround look a lot better than in the 1980s....IF Lab can present itself as a credible alternative govt, offering some popular but believable policies

I can't disagree with any of this. 

 

The 2019 was a freak election for so many reasons, and you can't help but think that the Tory majority is built on weak foundations.

 

There have been grossly unfair comparisons made between Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn, when the former was a towering intellect and barnstorming orator. If not for a bonkers manifesto, Militant tearing up the party and the Falklands, he'd have won the 1983 election by a mile. Thatcher's first term was largely disastrous after all. 

 

Corbyn was never going to win from Day One. The Tories put up their most ineffective leader in modern history with the worst manifesto and campaign, set against a backdrop of Brexit chaos, and still won in 2017. A competent Labour leader would have won it. I'd go so far as to say any of Cooper, Burnham or Kendall would have won a very comfortable majority on a par with Johnson's now.

 

All this means that Johnson has led a very charmed existence. He was the face of a policy behind which nearly 45% of the population were galvanised, namely Brexit, the Remain vote split between umpteen parties and the worst opposition leader since George Lansbury in 1935. While Labour can't take Blyth Valley, Bolsover and Stoke for granted any more, a lesson learned in the hardest way possible, it seems more than plausible that these constituencies have lent the Tories their vote to 'get Brexit done' and keep out Corbyn rather than gone full-on blue.

 

If Johnson and the Tories balls up Brexit, and his team doesn't exactly inspire confidence, they'll find it much more difficult to keep those votes than they found gaining them. Too many promises have been made that won't be kept, and the 'Remoaner' warnings can be glossed over as scaremongering until they start happening. It's at that point that being the face of Brexit becomes as big a handicap in 2024 as it was a boost in 2019. Similarly, being one of the people who tried to soften the blow and warned against a reckless hard Brexit could easily see them painted as a person to repair the damage. 

 

Ultimately, the electorate want strength and competence. While Johnson isn't exactly a paragon of the latter - it's hard to think of any major political role he's had that hasn't been awash with failure - he was consistent, strong and single-minded. His Cabinet was seen largely as the least bad option of the two owing to the frankly awful Labour front bench. Corbyn, by contrast, was known to be out of his depth. Unable to earn the faith of the PLP, effectively tackle antisemitism, articulate a clear message on Brexit and with a long history of car-crash interviews that saw him lose patience on too many occasions, there was little reason to hold faith for all but his dearest supporters. 

 

If Starmer plays it correctly, his Shadow Cabinet could look the better option. Priti Patel is a weak link, Rishi Sunak is already tainted with the label of a Cummings puppet, Cummings himself appears to make Alistair Campbell look like Pippi Longstocking, Dominic Raab is a low-key gaffe factory and Matt Hancock is little better. Once the honeymoon period is over and the cock-ups start to pile up, a decent Shadow Cabinet will expose them.

 

It'd take a huge turnaround, a significant increase in Labour's vote share as well as a collapse in the Tory vote, but it seems remarkably pessimistic to rule it out. 

[Guest MattP]

54 minutes ago, Bilo said:

A competent Labour leader would have won it. I'd go so far as to say any of Cooper, Burnham or Kendall would have won a very comfortable majority on a par with Johnson's now.

Yvette Cooper nearly lost one of the safest Labour seats in the country just a few months ago, the idea she would have won an 80 majority for me just two years earlier is just absolutely insane thinking.

 

Labour may have won in 17' with Andy Burnham or Alan Johnson though. Both of them put forward competent and sensible options for Brexit, both relate to the working class and both are very affable with the public.

 

It was a delight watching the former on Peston a few weeks ago, total breath of fresh air and it reminded me just how far ahead of the current three fighting it out for the leadership he is.

 

Completely mental the membership selected Corbyn over him.

[Guest MattP]

I'd imagine Cooper has local issues as well, you can't lose over 21 percentage points and nearly blow a 15,000 majority on just Corbyn and Brexit.

 

Results

1. LABLabour

   Yvette Cooper
   • Votes:18,297
   • Vote share %:37.9
   • Vote share change:-21.6
2. CONConservative

   Andrew Lee
   • Votes:17,021
   • Vote share %:35.3
   • Vote share change:+5.2
3. BRXThe Brexit Party

   Deneice Florence-Jukes
   • Votes:8,032
   • Vote share %:16.6
   • Vote share change:+16.6
4. LDLiberal Democrat

   Tom Gordon
   • Votes:3,147
   • Vote share %:6.5
   • Vote share change:+5.1
5. YRKSThe Yorkshire Party

   Laura Walker
   • Votes:1,762
   • Vote share %:3.7
   • Vote share change:+0.7

Change compared with 2017

[Bilo]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Yvette Cooper nearly lost one of the safest Labour seats in the country just a few months ago, the idea she would have won an 80 majority for me just two years earlier is just absolutely insane thinking.

 

Labour may have won in 17' with Andy Burnham or Alan Johnson though. Both of them put forward competent and sensible options for Brexit, both relate to the working class and both are very affable with the public.

 

It was a delight watching the former on Peston a few weeks ago, total breath of fresh air and it reminded me just how far ahead of the current three fighting it out for the leadership he is.

 

Completely mental the membership selected Corbyn over him.

I met the guy and voted for him in 2015. Very intelligent, affable and personable but a little bit weak on reflection.

[Guest MattP]

 

[Guest MattP]

Rebecca Long Bailey at 31%

Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler on a combined 31%.

 

Alexa, what percentage of the Labour party is completely bonkers?

[Finnaldo]

15 hours ago, MattP said:

Rebecca Long Bailey at 31%

Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler on a combined 31%.

 

Alexa, what percentage of the Labour party is completely bonkers?

There are some absolute freaks hanging about the Party isn’t there?
 

Here’s hoping if this is true the worst of the Infiltrators and Stalinists throw their toys out the pram and fvck off to start their own Islington Liberation Front or whatever. 
 

If that can be trusted, it’s encouraging we’re returning to some sense of normalcy. 

[Alf Bentley]

Great! Judging from @MattP's poll findings, my preferred candidates are set to finish last in both the Leader and Deputy Leader races! 

 

It'll still be a major relief and massive improvement if we end up with Starmer-Rayner, though. Starmer might not seem bold or charismatic, but he's a credible PM who makes few cock-ups, has a good mastery of policy/detail & I'd expect him to be good at managing a team and identifying policy priorities (a major problem with Corbyn's "wish list" approach).

 

If we do end up with Starmer/Rayner, hopefully they'll give important shadow cabinet / party roles to the likes of Nandy and Murray, while bringing back some of the pre-Corbyn heavyweights like Benn & Cooper, but keeping some of the saner Corbynista politicians on board - I wouldn't have a problem with Long-Bailey on the front bench, so long as she wasn't leader or too influential. Historically, the Deputy Leader has focused on the party grassroots/organisation & I could imagine Rayner doing that OK, as she's personable but seems intelligent & competent enough for that role & to deputise for the leader when needed.

 

As for Burgon, maybe there'd be a place for him as a junior environment minister - just attach a big pipe to his rectum and he could power the grid while reducing British methane emissions..... 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, Finnaldo said:

There are some absolute freaks hanging about the Party isn’t there?
 

Here’s hoping if this is true the worst of the Infiltrators and Stalinists throw their toys out the pram and fvck off to start their own Islington Liberation Front or whatever. 
 

If that can be trusted, it’s encouraging we’re returning to some sense of normalcy. 

I'll be voting for Starmer and Allin-Khan, but I'd take Starmer and Rayner in a heartbeat. The slow march back to credibility may be about to begin...

[Guest MattP]

Strikers solidarity tours and a global justice twinning scheme? 

 

A month more of this.

[Finnaldo]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Strikers solidarity tours and a global justice twinning scheme? 

 

A month more of this.

I long for a return to the days where these fruitcakes were confined to the Independent Labour Party and whatever weird shit they got up to in there. As Bevan said “Pure, but impotent”.
 

With a more moderate, but not quite Neo-Blairite candidate, there’s a comfortable space left of centre where the basic popular policies of Labour, like rail nationalisation, can be taken up without having the embarrassment of Diane Abbott on the front bench. This is the position Labour needs to mould over the next five years, or it will become a total irrelevance.

 

[BoyJones]

Mate, I voted labour 25 years until Blair came along and now vote conservative, but do believe we must have a viable opposition. 

 

Trouble is the new leader must IMO change in a minimum three areas:

 

1) Be able to debate sensibly and listen to other people. At the moment if you don't agree with any labour leader or supporter you are immediately vilified and call racist, a piece of shit or self centred. Personal first hand experience of this in the Clarendon Park Road area. At the moment there is no coherent arguments presented, just points scoring and trying to get headlines in the press. 

 

2) Actually start to understand why you lost the labour heartlands, like Hull. The fact is you don't represent the working man / woman anymore, because you can't relate to them. The labour leadership treated their previous voters with complete disdain as though they were idiots who would blindly follow the old mantra, without crediting them with being intelligent people who have the ability to see both sides of the argument. 

 

3) The next leader must show some love and respect for his country. The likes of JC and DA were desperate to remain in the EU, despite this meaning giving away our fishing rights, dissolving the armed forces by 2030, opening all borders, getting rid of the pound, giving Brussels (Berlin) the right to make all new laws and tax laws for the UK. We would have ended up a vassal state on the periphery of the action, part of a federal Europe in which we would have had no say. 

 

 

[Heathrow fox]

15 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Just had an email about the Corona virus from my kids' school written in the exhausted tone of someone who's been fending off twats all day, which helpfully confirmed there are no cases of it there, as if there might have been.

 

The most terse communication they've issued since that time parents 'expressed concern' about a trip to the mosque

 

45 minutes ago, BoyJones said:

Mate, I voted labour 25 years until Blair came along and now vote conservative, but do believe we must have a viable opposition. 

 

Trouble is the new leader must IMO change in a minimum three areas:

 

1) Be able to debate sensibly and listen to other people. At the moment if you don't agree with any labour leader or supporter you are immediately vilified and call racist, a piece of shit or self centred. Personal first hand experience of this in the Clarendon Park Road area. At the moment there is no coherent arguments presented, just points scoring and trying to get headlines in the press. 

 

2) Actually start to understand why you lost the labour heartlands, like Hull. The fact is you don't represent the working man / woman anymore, because you can't relate to them. The labour leadership treated their previous voters with complete disdain as though they were idiots who would blindly follow the old mantra, without crediting them with being intelligent people who have the ability to see both sides of the argument. 

 

3) The next leader must show some love and respect for his country. The likes of JC and DA were desperate to remain in the EU, despite this meaning giving away our fishing rights, dissolving the armed forces by 2030, opening all borders, getting rid of the pound, giving Brussels (Berlin) the right to make all new laws and tax laws for the UK. We would have ended up a vassal state on the periphery of the action, part of a federal Europe in which we would have had no say. 

 

 

Agree with 90% of that.I don’t think Corbyn was pro EU though.

[ClaphamFox]

Labour was formed 120 years ago yesterday but has only ever held office for 33 years. If you remove the two Labour prime ministers who are demonised by the membership for not being left-wing enough (Blair and MacDonald), that number drops to 20.5 years.