[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Weststander]

Ok, but every socialist leader of Labour since Wilson has LOST at a general election. (And even Wilson was moderate at the time, right?)

The only Labour leader the British electrorate has taken to in nearly 50 years is a 'socialist lite'.

You can argue that Blair had an easy win, but he gained power and stayed there.



Nobody is arguing that, but it needs to win over middle England too. Modern history suggests socialist policies won't do that.

This. ‘Middle England’ needs to be wooed as it was in 1997, 2001, etc., to give a credible Labour opposition/government a working majority in the Commons. The intelligent folk running the Labour Party in the 1990’s understood this.

 

[Spiros]

As a non-Labour voting on the outside looking in I guess the next leader will be largely dictated by the unions, though please correct me if I'm wrong. I heard Len McCluskey on the radio yesterday morning insisting that the only reasons for Labour's loss were Brexit and the right wing press media coverage. He sounded as if he wanted someone cut from the same cloth as Corbyn as the next leader. I'm not sure more of the same is really going to cut it ...

 

[pb21]

As a non-Labour voting on the outside looking in I guess the next leader will be largely dictated by the unions, though please correct me if I'm wrong. I heard Len McCluskey on the radio yesterday morning insisting that the only reasons for Labour's loss were Brexit and the right wing press media coverage. He sounded as if he wanted someone cut from the same cloth as Corbyn as the next leader. I'm not sure more of the same is really going to cut it ...

IMO Brexit was the main (note, not the only) reason lots of ‘working class’ people who normally vote Labour voted Tory.

However, the real question is why so many working class people, who normally voted for Labour, voted for Brexit in the first place.

 

[Weststander]

As a non-Labour voting on the outside looking in I guess the next leader will be largely dictated by the unions, though please correct me if I'm wrong. I heard Len McCluskey on the radio yesterday morning insisting that the only reasons for Labour's loss were Brexit and the right wing press media coverage. He sounded as if he wanted someone cut from the same cloth as Corbyn as the next leader. I'm not sure more of the same is really going to cut it ...

On Friday, he was openly damning of the Corbyn (and London mates) leadership and campaign.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Ok, but every socialist leader of Labour since Wilson has LOST at a general election. (And even Wilson was moderate at the time, right?)

The only Labour leader the British electrorate has taken to in nearly 50 years is a 'socialist lite'.

You can argue that Blair had an easy win, but he gained power and stayed there.

Nobody is arguing that, but it needs to win over middle England too. Modern history suggests socialist policies won't do that.

Not sure you can classify the defeats of Callaghan, Kinnock x 2, Brown and Millband as defeats for modern socialism. Kinnock had already started the reforms that Smith and Blair would continue and he lost 2 elections, the second of which was mainly down to a complete vilification of him as a man in the lead up to the election rather than policy. Neither Brown nor Milliband proposed anything but modest steps to the left.

Modern history would suggest that Foot lost in '83, and Corbyn '19 on socialist policies that have individually at least polled well even in the shadow of Brexit.

It may seem the simple answer is to move to the centre ground, but the complexities of politics is that it isn't that straight forward. Labour has won new support in areas such as London and the cities. It is popular amoung the 18-35 voting bracket. It has lost its core support to Brexit, and that isn't necessarily won back from moving to the center, it could actually be more damaging if the alternative to the Tories isn't seen as that different.

It is a very interesting debate.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

However, the real question is why so many working class people, who normally voted for Labour, voted for Brexit in the first place.

Maybe because their wages had been slashed by the huge influx of cheap, imported labour?

 

[Weststander]

IMO Brexit was the main (note, not the only) reason lots of ‘working class’ people who normally vote Labour voted Tory.

However, the real question is why so many working class people, who normally voted for Labour, voted for Brexit in the first place.

John Humphrys, once he could speak openly, felt that communities up and down the country (away from London) hated the way that mass immigration had altered those communities over the last 20 years. He himself was/is an avid Remainer. He surmised that the establishment and broadcast media had completely underestimated this strength of feeling and the numbers involved.

 

[ozzygull]

Jess Phillips won't get it - she's very much out of step with the membership - but the Tories wouldn't be laughing if she did win. She's a Remainer who represents a constituency that voted very heavily to leave the EU but, despite this, only lost 2% of her share of the vote - massively down on the national average.

I imagine that she'd be one of the people that the Tories would fear most.

Jess Phillips would get my vote if she puts her name forward.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Labour has won new support in areas such as London and the cities. .

Look at an electoral map of England.

London and the cities is ALL Labour have left.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Not sure you can classify the defeats of Callaghan, Kinnock x 2, Brown and Millband as defeats for modern socialism. Kinnock had already started the reforms that Smith and Blair would continue and he lost 2 elections, the second of which was mainly down to a complete vilification of him as a man in the lead up to the election rather than policy. Neither Brown nor Milliband proposed anything but modest steps to the left.

Modern history would suggest that Foot lost in '83, and Corbyn '19 on socialist policies that have individually at least polled well even in the shadow of Brexit.

It may seem the simple answer is to move to the centre ground, but the complexities of politics is that it isn't that straight forward. Labour has won new support in areas such as London and the cities. It is popular amoung the 18-35 voting bracket. It has lost its core support to Brexit, and that isn't necessarily won back from moving to the center, it could actually be more damaging if the alternative to the Tories isn't seen as that different.

It is a very interesting debate.

I don't think the answer is to move to the centre ground, its just to be less radical. Those policies will always appeal to the idealistic young but those longer in the tooth were more sceptical of the ability of Corbyn to carry them out - quite rightly, because he wouldn't have been able to do it. I don't think Labour would lose votes by getting rid of some of the dafter policies like free broadband for all, and nationalising electric and water utilities at a fixed price; but nationalising the rail network and ramping up cash to support the NHS would still resonate.

The new leader just needs to guide the party to more soft left policies which people will understand and believe are achievable. Not the idealistic stuff which sounds great in theory but won't work in practice.

 

[Wozza]

Not sure you can classify the defeats of Callaghan, Kinnock x 2, Brown and Millband as defeats for modern socialism. Kinnock had already started the reforms that Smith and Blair would continue and he lost 2 elections, the second of which was mainly down to a complete vilification of him as a man in the lead up to the election rather than policy. Neither Brown nor Milliband proposed anything but modest steps to the left.

Modern history would suggest that Foot lost in '83, and Corbyn '19 on socialist policies that have individually at least polled well even in the shadow of Brexit.

It may seem the simple answer is to move to the centre ground, but the complexities of politics is that it isn't that straight forward. Labour has won new support in areas such as London and the cities. It is popular amoung the 18-35 voting bracket. It has lost its core support to Brexit, and that isn't necessarily won back from moving to the center, it could actually be more damaging if the alternative to the Tories isn't seen as that different.

It is a very interesting debate.

Some valid points. There are certainly different shades of socialism but, again, none of them except 'Tory lite' appear to sit well with the (majority of the) English and Welsh electorarate.

I think many of Labour's policies work in theory, but ultimately don't win votes.

"Renationalise the trains? Yeah, nice one. Sort them out!" but then... "Wait, I will have to pay for this... and this... and this?"

A bit like tax increases. I'd be more than happy to pay a little more tax for decent services - I think many of us would?

And yet tax cutting is always the vote winner.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I don't think the answer is to move to the centre ground, its just to be less radical. Those policies will always appeal to the idealistic young but those longer in the tooth were more sceptical of the ability of Corbyn to carry them out - quite rightly, because he wouldn't have been able to do it. I don't think Labour would lose votes by getting rid of some of the dafter policies like free broadband for all, and nationalising electric and water utilities at a fixed price; but nationalising the rail network and ramping up cash to support the NHS would still resonate.

The new leader just needs to guide the party to more soft left policies which people will understand and believe are achievable. Not the idealistic stuff which sounds great in theory but won't work in practice.

Agreed. I don't think it's a big lurch to the center, but someone needs to simplify the message, and the key policies they are proposing aren't just 'fully costed' we believe there is competence and realism in implementing them. On the doorstep 'how you going to do that then?' has to be clearly answered.

What Labour can learn from the Blair years in my opinion is not policy direction, it's clarity of message. He understood that the electorate want pragmatism not idealism. As you've said, certain nationalisations, NHS, Education could be focused clear messages. Not a scatter gun approach. The announcement of the WASPI money AFTER the manifesto was the kiss of death for me. Even [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] joked it was my first negative post of the campaign. After the free Broadband, it was a moment for activists around the country.

 

[Hastings gull]

IMO Brexit was the main (note, not the only) reason lots of ‘working class’ people who normally vote Labour voted Tory.

However, the real question is why so many working class people, who normally voted for Labour, voted for Brexit in the first place.

History shows us that the more distant the politicians become, the more people turn to the right. I am not saying that is right or wrong, just that that is what tends to happen. The EU is a classic example of this with its waste and bureaucracy, and folk are understandably suspicious that the thousands who work for it, are there for the gravy train. Again, I am not saying that is necessarily right, but it goes a long way to answering your question.

 

[Hastings gull]

Agreed. I don't think it's a big lurch to the center, but someone needs to simplify the message, and the key policies they are proposing aren't just 'fully costed' we believe there is competence and realism in implementing them. On the doorstep 'how you going to do that then?' has to be clearly answered.

What Labour can learn from the Blair years in my opinion is not policy direction, it's clarity of message. He understood that the electorate want pragmatism not idealism. As you've said, certain nationalisations, NHS, Education could be focused clear messages. Not a scatter gun approach. The announcement of the WASPI money AFTER the manifesto was the kiss of death for me. Even [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] joked it was my first negative post of the campaign. After the free Broadband, it was a moment for activists around the country.

Yes, that was monumentally stupid. I think most folk doubted that 80 billion was really properly costed, and then he adds another load. I can imagine that must have been so frustrating for you.

 

[crodonilson]

Money piling in for Becky Long Bailey, into 5/4 now.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

John Humphrys, once he could speak openly, felt that communities up and down the country (away from London) hated the way that mass immigration had altered those communities over the last 20 years. He himself was/is an avid Remainer. He surmised that the establishment and broadcast media had completely underestimated this strength of feeling and the numbers involved.

I believe that the total number of immigrants in the Blyth Valley constituency is 45. No doubt immigration is a factor in some places, but of the voters of Blyth changed allegiance based on immigration, it was only what they read in the papers.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes, that was monumentally stupid. I think most folk doubted that 80 billion was really properly costed, and then he adds another load. I can imagine that must have been so frustrating for you.

You know when you're doing your best to defend a mate who has done something a bit stupid, and you're doing your best to convince the person it won't happen again, and they're really all right, and then in the background they're actually doing something equally stupid behind you again... That is how it felt.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Jess Phillips would get my vote if she puts her name forward.

I like Phillips a lot, but its Lisa Nandy for me. She has the ability to unite the different factions, in my opinion, and crucially is a Leaver. The next stage of brexit will take 10 years or so, and having a Leave voting leader, who favours a softer brexit, will be able to rise above the 'remoaner' jibes and be bring those northern defectors back to Labour whilst dealing seriously with the issues that brexit will serve us

 

[BLOCK F]

Just as long as BP ( and similar companies ) pay the tax they should ( unlike Amazon and Google ) then there is benefit to them paying shareholders as anyone with a private pension ( nearly anyone working nowadays ) will benefit. There's too many people that think paying shareholders is a bad thing without realising THEY are a shareholder.

I find it hard to believe there is such ignorance about the funding of pensions amongst the populace.It almost appears that ,for some, to own any shares is an immoral and selfish thing to do! They hint at this, as you say, not knowing that they themselves are probably shareholders too.
Additionally, those fortunate enough to have DB pensions, although rarer these days are perhaps blase about the stockmarket; this may include some public sector workers on here maybe?
As for 'blue-shifted', I just don't know what to say!

 

[BLOCK F]

So is Crispin Blunt in Reigate. Utterly invisible, gives bland answers to mail, and has one of the worst attendance records in parliament with only Sinn Fein and 3 other MPs turning up less.

Still, people in this constituency were happy to vote for him and his overall share of the vote fell by just 3%.

The state of politics in this country...

Hi Simster, I met him once when we lived in Reigate................a strange fellow and not my cup of tea!