[Politics] Next leader of the Labour Party

[midnight_rendezvous]

1. The membership have been massively infiltrated by Momentum.

2. Why did he fail to beat the most ineffective Tory party in decades?

3. He cannot connect with many who might vote Labour if he was not at the helm.

Labour will NEVER win an election with JC in charge, hung House of Commons at best.

Ah yes of course, Momentum have “infiltrated” the party like some sort of Marxist ninjas to declare Comrade Corbyn supreme leader He did fail to win the 2017 snap election but ‘fail’ is an objective word, he did nullify May’s majority meaning she had to bribe the DUP to form a government and in doing so ultimately lost her job. I don’t doubt it will be a hung parliament but if history has taught us anything it is that it would be foolish to underestimate Corbyn.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

so you dont expect anything new, or anything to gain ground? where will Corbyn pick up 60 seats from?

Corbyn’s issue isn’t his policies, they’ve already proven to be incredibly popular among the electorate. Corbyn’s problem is his image. He doesn’t help himself on occasion but when the press are constantly calling him a terrorist sympathising, anti-Semitic, Czech spying, Marxist, Russian stooge, he’s kind of facing an uphill struggle to redeem himself in the eyes of the public.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree. Brexit will dictate the GE and Corbyn has, unfortunately, been less than impressive on the subject. However, I do believe he has been stuck between a rock and a hard place in the sense that if Labour were an out-and-out remain party, it would alienate many Labour supporters who voted to leave. I think their current policy, get a deal that protects worker’s rights, the environment etc and put it to the people along with the option of remaining, goes some way of mitigating the damage coming out on either side of the Leave/ remain question would have caused. Unfortunately, because it can’t be put in to a three word sound bite it’s wilfully misinterpreted and deemed ‘too confusing’ by the media and those wishing to discredit Corbyn at every opportunity.

I agree. But a significant proportion of votes don't want a leader who feels stuck. They want a leader to selects the best of two bad options and then does what is necessary to ensure the issue is resolved. Grasp the bloody nettle. (He hasn't succeeded just yet but) from where I am sitting it looks like the man most able and willing to be such a leader is Boris. And with an election looming it is impressions that count.

I have almost always voted labour and I started out prepared to give Corbyn a chance. But I remember how foolish the media made Foot and Kinnock look. And then I remember how clever Mr Tony and Mandleson were. So I was so disappointed when on almost his first phone interview, after he was asked an awkward question, he got all pissy then pretended his phone wasn't working. WTF?

It is no good preaching to the converted - you MUST be able to bring on board the floaters if you want to have a working majority.

I think Corbyn's main vote-losing errors and shortcomings are

1. Not making an early and definitive statement about 'talking to the IRA' that is passionate and plausible that puts the issue to bed.
2. Allowing an MP with apparent health issues and a really unfortunate manner to continue in shadow cabinet, for reasons that seem dubious.
3. Giving the impression of dithering over Brexit. To me he is in favour of leaving, but his plan would never be agreed by the EU. And another referendum?
4. Not dealing descisively and swiftly with the antisemitism trope (that I am assured by my lefty brother has been 'blown up out of proportion').
5. Allowing his broad church approach, which could be commendable, to look like weakness (e.g., his deputy gets away with contradicting his every statement).
6. Allowing the impression that it will be full steam back to 1981 if he gets in, with nationalisation, taxing the rich and a return to secondary picketing.
7. His antinuclear stance, which seems to be a needless rerun of early 80s politics that will have us leave NATO and annoy the yanks. Why?

All of this, as a list of concerns that I suspect many have, could be unfounded, and maybe he is poised to suddenly go up in the polls and win the GE - but if not, and if Corbyn thinks he's getting a bad press, it is up to Corbyn to bloody well unfound it. He gives the impression that being a wily politician and a salesman of his own convictions is beneath him.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Ah yes of course, Momentum have “infiltrated” the party like some sort of Marxist ninjas to declare Comrade Corbyn supreme leader He did fail to win the 2017 snap election but ‘fail’ is an objective word, he did nullify May’s majority meaning she had to bribe the DUP to form a government and in doing so ultimately lost her job. I don’t doubt it will be a hung parliament but if history has taught us anything it is that it would be foolish to underestimate Corbyn.

Foolish to under estimate Jezza? What has achieved? Being propped up by a subversive group within a political party that should be able to win elections if the opposition are so poor as often said? Well he failed at that!

The one thing he has achieved is to somehow project himself as a man of the people to the young, naive and gullible, whilst hiding away his £5 million wealth from the public eye. His double standards and treachery will see him consigned to history and failing to ever take a Labour to an election victory.

Kier Starmer meanwhile.........

 

[beorhthelm]

Corbyn’s issue isn’t his policies, they’ve already proven to be incredibly popular among the electorate. Corbyn’s problem is his image. He doesn’t help himself on occasion but when the press are constantly calling him a terrorist sympathising, anti-Semitic, Czech spying, Marxist, Russian stooge, he’s kind of facing an uphill struggle to redeem himself in the eyes of the public.

agree, and one might conclude from this that he is unelectable in spite of his policies.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

The most important issue facing us is Brexit as that will determine the way the economy will go for the next 20+ years.

If BREXIT is a moderate success (our income rises) it will have a massive negative impact on many people's lives as NHS gets broken up and state benefits continue to be reduced as we move towards a freer economy where there is even greater aggregation of wealth my a small minority.

If (as I expect) BREXIT fails to deliver benefits and our economy and incomes shrink then NHS still gets broken up and our benefits system gets screwed. Taxes will increase for the average tax payer to make up the gap in reduced GDP.

I hope the majority see what the Tory party has done and will continue to do if it wins i.e. screw the average person.

To me it needs to polarise around remain & leave and not labour, tory, lib_dem, snp or green .

Excellent post.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Foolish to under estimate Jezza? What has achieved? Being propped up by a subversive group within a political party that should be able to win elections if the opposition are so poor as often said? Well he failed at that!

The one thing he has achieved is to somehow project himself as a man of the people to the young, naive and gullible, whilst hiding away his £5 million wealth from the public eye. His double standards and treachery will see him consigned to history and failing to ever take a Labour to an election victory.

Kier Starmer meanwhile.........

What has his own wealth got to do with anything? Are you only unable to stand up for the many if you’re poor? But I thought that was the politics of envy? Funny isn’t it, if you want to change society for the better and you’re wealthy you’re labelled a hypocrite and if you’re poor you’re labelled as jealous and bitter.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

He is unelectable because he is unable to cut through and win in the seats that Labour would need to win in order to gain an overall majority. Sure, Labour members vote for him and he certainly increased the size of the Labour vote in established Labour heartlands, but under the FPTP system that is less important than winning additioanl seats and the plain fact of the matter is that he does not appeal to enough traditional Tory or Lib Dem voters to do that. Unelectable.

Which pretty much says that the only labour leaders able to get elected are those which can be accepted by the right wing media, and furthermore despite those policies of the left being popular in the country - see the chart posted elsewhere - we are highly unlikely to get a leader able to enact them

 

[beorhthelm]

Which pretty much says that the only labour leaders able to get elected are those which can be accepted by the right wing media, and furthermore despite those policies of the left being popular in the country - see the chart posted elsewhere - we are highly unlikely to get a leader able to enact them

there is a theory that, being in the business of selling something people want, the media reflect the public. so perhaps the conclusion to draw is that policies need to be popular and deliverable, that our public are as concerned about the how and who pays, as much as the what. you may disagree, or want to ignore this view but elections offer decades of evidence that the UK thinks this way, and leaders and their policies need to be accepted by a broad group of the public.

or, if we accept that the people are easily manipulated by media, then they get what they deserve?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

there is a theory that, being in the business of selling something people want, the media reflect the public. so perhaps the conclusion to draw is that policies need to be popular and deliverable, that our public are as concerned about the how and who pays, as much as the what. you may disagree, or want to ignore this view but elections offer decades of evidence that the UK thinks this way, and leaders need to be accepted by a broader group of the public.

or, if we accept that the people are easily manipulated by media, then they get what they deserve?

I believe, to a degree, that this is true about the Sun, they tend to swing where public opinion is.... its hard to ignore the views of the other obvious right-wing papers. They are reflecting their readership, yes, which tends to be older and more right-wing no doubt - but of course people start sharing their views, because they are the views of the 'Daily Mail readers', of which you are one, and you belong to that club. Is it manipulation? not as crude as you put it, perhaps. Just as all fans of one football club will passionately believe its a foul, and all the fans of the opposing club will passionately believe it wasn't.

I knew the referendum was up when I saw all the papers front pages that morning, relentlessly imploring their readers to vote leave, and leave they voted. In a 52-48 world you would have expected there to be an equivalent mass of front pages imploring a vote remain, but there wasn't... What does that say? Either, the papers have no impact whatsoever - very very hard to accept that argument. Alternatively, if left to their own devices, a majority would have come to the conclusion to remain.

A bit like when a policy is promoted - do you believe in Policy X - 70% in favour. Do you believe in Jeremy Corbyn's Policy X - 40% in favour. (the same would be true if Boris Johnson's name was put in front of the same policy). We're tribal, the papers both reflect that and use that, and the staff and the editors of the papers become the leaders of that tribe, and ever more extreme..

A bigger question perhaps - do the views and biases of the papers become established amongst the populace as a whole even outside of its readership? There is some evidence of that, as talking points and memes become shared and repeated.

 

[Gritt23]

In the last GE, I felt like Labour needed to get trounced to accept that the move to Corbyn was never going to get them a Parliamentary majority, and treating the last election as some sort of victory because they left May needing a deal with DUP to hold a majority, was quite frankly a bit embarrassing. The Maybot ran one of the worse campaigns I can remember, and Corbyn still lost. Sadly he carried enough momentum (pun intended) on the back of that defeat to prevent him being over-thrown.

To have such a weak opposition has been disastrous, and the indecision, and anti-semitic stories have just continued. Still utterly unelectable. As someone said much earlier, a step back is needed to take a step forward.

To teh original question, who would be the next leader. My bet would be Rebecca Long-Bailey. Certainly one to watch. Seems to have managed to be loyal, popular with the membership, and yet not made a complete arsenal of herself at any point.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I believe, to a degree, that this is true about the Sun, they tend to swing where public opinion is.... its hard to ignore the views of the other obvious right-wing papers. They are reflecting their readership, yes, which tends to be older and more right-wing no doubt - but of course people start sharing their views, because they are the views of the 'Daily Mail readers', of which you are one, and you belong to that club. Is it manipulation? not as crude as you put it, perhaps. Just as all fans of one football club will passionately believe its a foul, and all the fans of the opposing club will passionately believe it wasn't.

I knew the referendum was up when I saw all the papers front pages that morning, relentlessly imploring their readers to vote leave, and leave they voted. In a 52-48 world you would have expected there to be an equivalent mass of front pages imploring a vote remain, but there wasn't... What does that say? Either, the papers have no impact whatsoever - very very hard to accept that argument. Alternatively, if left to their own devices, a majority would have come to the conclusion to remain.

A bit like when a policy is promoted - do you believe in Policy X - 70% in favour. Do you believe in Jeremy Corbyn's Policy X - 40% in favour. (the same would be true if Boris Johnson's name was put in front of the same policy). We're tribal, the papers both reflect that and use that, and the staff and the editors of the papers become the leaders of that tribe, and ever more extreme..

A bigger question perhaps - do the views and biases of the papers become established amongst the populace as a whole even outside of its readership? There is some evidence of that, as talking points and memes become shared and repeated.

Just to point out The Daily Mirror, The i, The Times, The Guardian, The Sunday Mail, Financial Times, Observer and the Evening Standard all supported Remain.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Just to point out The Daily Mirror, The i, The Times, The Guardian, The Sunday Mail, Financial Times, Observer and the Evening Standard all supported Remain.

Misinformation from remain...never.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Old fashioned, out of touch party, only one not having had a female leader.

Needs a woman at the helm.

Maggie did such a terrific job

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

The best chance for Labour will be to occupy the centre left ground again and that means doing away with the idealogues on the far left and basically starting again with sensible moderates at the helm.

'centre-left' means more of the same - more pale pink tory policies - more destruction of the NHS - more hiving off schools to american based 'trusts' - more destruction of public transport - more blaming a fire service hacked to pieces for a crisis caused by toryblairite incompetence - more corruption - more scandals - and more far-right demagogues being given a platform.

If you want to change things for the better there is only one direction to go - the rest have demonstrated that they are incapable of solving the problem (indeed any of the problems). Capitalism sucks - time to give the far-left the opportunity for 'sensible' policies to solve the ongoing poverty, deprivation, inequality, war and climate crisis - because the 'centre-left' have proven they can do diddly-squat about these things over the past decades.

 

[Bold Seagull]

In the last GE, I felt like Labour needed to get trounced to accept that the move to Corbyn was never going to get them a Parliamentary majority, and treating the last election as some sort of victory because they left May needing a deal with DUP to hold a majority, was quite frankly a bit embarrassing. The Maybot ran one of the worse campaigns I can remember, and Corbyn still lost. Sadly he carried enough momentum (pun intended) on the back of that defeat to prevent him being over-thrown.

To have such a weak opposition has been disastrous, and the indecision, and anti-semitic stories have just continued. Still utterly unelectable. As someone said much earlier, a step back is needed to take a step forward.

To teh original question, who would be the next leader. My bet would be Rebecca Long-Bailey. Certainly one to watch. Seems to have managed to be loyal, popular with the membership, and yet not made a complete arsenal of herself at any point.

The election result was a bit more dynamic than that. He got more votes than all but 2 previous elections for Labour in history. He got 2.2m more votes than Blair got in 2001. Crucially Scotland and the SNP changed the political landscape as has Brexit. Corbyn wasn't the Labour leader that lost their Scottish seats.

I do kind of agree with you on Corbyn as a leader, but I also think this country does need a progressive socialist policy agenda such as we see from our neighbours in Scandinavia / Germany who continue to prosper. Let's get real here, our railways, post office, power infrastructure are currently run, owned or have major investment from State owned nationalised foriegn entities. That is madness surely?

We will have balanced media coverage under election laws from here on in. No good moaning about the leader right now, he is there, that is what it is. The real question perhaps is not the personality by the policy.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

1. The membership have been massively infiltrated by Momentum.

This is bullsh*t - and nonsense that has been peddled for decades - the LP was built out of trade union struggle in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century - it was built, not by the likes of Kinnock or Blair or Miliband - it was built by the left, by socialists like Keir Hardie. The 'infiltrators' have always been the pro-big business elites who think the LP is their plaything.

2. Why did he fail to beat the most ineffective Tory party in decades?

Because most of the Blairite Parliamentary Labour Party went out of their way to shaft any chances of winning the election.

3. He cannot connect with many who might vote Labour if he was not at the helm.

What he is doing is winning back LP voters who stopped voting - and winning support among the youth.

will NEVER win an election with JC in charge, hung House of Commons at best.

Labour with Corbyn as leader will not win as long as Corbyn allows the Blairites to control the LP HQ and the constituency organisations. He has a chance on Dec 12 if he does a clearout of the Blairites (and this would have been helped if he had supported mandatory reselection of MPs).

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

To teh original question, who would be the next leader. My bet would be Rebecca Long-Bailey. Certainly one to watch. Seems to have managed to be loyal, popular with the membership, and yet not made a complete arsenal of herself at any point.

Rebecca Wrong-Daily - really?

As far as putting her foot in it I guess you didn't see her tweet about Companies (Amazon etc.) paying more tax because they had big turnovers. She seemed to think Companies paid tax on turnover - not profits.

And she's shadow business secretary!

Agree though that it will be a woman.

 

[BLOCK F]

'centre-left' means more of the same - more pale pink tory policies - more destruction of the NHS - more hiving off schools to american based 'trusts' - more destruction of public transport - more blaming a fire service hacked to pieces for a crisis caused by toryblairite incompetence - more corruption - more scandals - and more far-right demagogues being given a platform.

If you want to change things for the better there is only one direction to go - the rest have demonstrated that they are incapable of solving the problem (indeed any of the problems). Capitalism sucks - time to give the far-left the opportunity for 'sensible' policies to solve the ongoing poverty, deprivation, inequality, war and climate crisis - because the 'centre-left' have proven they can do diddly-squat about these things over the past decades.

If that is what you believe, JRG, fair enough.
Trouble is, if you want to change things, you have to be in power and to be in power, you have to convince enough of the population to vote for you. Thereby lies the problem for the far left, anti capitalists. Most ordinary folk don't want this kind of regime in charge of the UK and I don't reckon there will ever be enough JRG' s to vote for a revolution such as you wish for.
For what it is worth, I really don't believe your revolution would result in Utopia. Do you? The track record doesn't look promising.
Anyway, this old capitalist has got to go out, fetch the grandson from nursery and perhaps spend a little of my ill-gotten gains on a cup of tea and maybe even a piece of cake, so, in the meantime, good luck with your plotting!

 

[blue-shifted]

there is a theory that, being in the business of selling something people want, the media reflect the public. so perhaps the conclusion to draw is that policies need to be popular and deliverable, that our public are as concerned about the how and who pays, as much as the what. you may disagree, or want to ignore this view but elections offer decades of evidence that the UK thinks this way, and leaders and their policies need to be accepted by a broad group of the public.

or, if we accept that the people are easily manipulated by media, then they get what they deserve?

Theory 1= The media doesn’t shape opinion. It states opinions which it’s readership already has with the aim of selling as many papers as possible.
Theory 2 = The media tries and succeeds in shaping opinion. Selling papers, whilst desirable, is subordinate to the wider business and strategic aims of the proprietor

To understand the relationship between the two I always think about a more extreme example. Other countries with all or mostly state sponsored media and very high levels of government support such as Russia, China or North Korea. Is it likely, that there is some national characteristic or cultural reason which explain this very high level of government support, would the governments still be as popular with a neutral media or no media? Or is it more likely that generations of relentless brainwashing is the main contributor?

Then I look at countries where this brainwashing abruptly stopped. The speed with which Germany and Japan went from extremist states to central world players after WW2, says to me it’s unlikely to be a cultural or national characteristic.

In my mind it’s inconceivable that the media doesn’t seek to shape public opinion and isn’t incredibly successful at doing so. It’s true to say that it is more common for it to strengthen existing views rather than to completely change someone’s opinion.

I believe that the countries that will do well in the future are the ones which have a high level of suspicion of media, government and being told what to think, and a high proportion of people capable of independent thought.

The ones which continually vote through populist governments and regressive policies, like us, are going to slide down the pecking order.