[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Guinness Boy]

To develop policy, which they have been very successful at. I'm not an NSC nerd checking every post, you need to get over that

To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee, that's not an answer.....

The historical need for Momentum was that Corbyn had no base when he was elected leader and faced active opposition from his own MPs. That faded a bit (but not completely) over time. If it continues, it will probably be as campaigning group. It organised and motivated a lot of young people around the country, sending them to support candidates in marginal constituencies. It might continue to push for democratisation of the party. Something Corbyn failed to do as its opposed by both the PLP and the Unions. Or it might die.

.......THAT'S an answer.

There is absolutely no reason at all why the Labour Party cannot develop policy. That a sub-group does it is exactly why people don't trust Labour. The answer from [MENTION=5001]The Merry Prankster[/MENTION] at least puts that in context. However, again it reads as a hijacking pf the Labour Party from its MPs, who, don't forget, represent their constituants. I don't care if the likes of JRG consider Kyle a "pale pink Tory", he's my MP and if there was an issue affecting a large number of people in Hove and Portslade I'd expect him to do something about it. One way he can do that is to draft policy.

There is no escaping the perception that Labour is controlled by the unions and a left wing sub-clique. I don't care much whether you think that is actually a matter of fact or not, the point is that the people of Leigh and Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield clearly do.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Anecdotes aren't data

Here’s some data for you. Boris Johnson’s Tories have a majority of 78. Labour barely scraped 200 seats. Tory winning margin in Sedgefield, Tony Blair’s former seat 4513, a vote share gain of 8.4%. Corbyn’s general election wins 0. Corbyn’s minutes as Prime Minister 0.

More data - Kyle kept his seat with a large margin of victory.

All this against supposedly data supported policies like nationalising the railways and rolling out free broadband and a Tory party split by Europe and led by a mendacious racist (that last bit is, admittedly, opinion as there is no actual data on the level of Boris’s mendacious racism, much as there no apparent data on the number of b’stards he’s sired).

Frankly, it’s incredible to think that Krusty the Klown couldn’t have beaten BoJo and yet Corbyn, with the backing of Momentum, LOST seats and vote share.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wellquickwoody]

Plenty crowing among Tories and closet Tories on this thread, and fair enough we take it on the chin.

And there in lies Labour’s future problem. You don’t take it on the chin.

As a collective group the left sit and whine that the public are stupid, it was all about Brexit, blame the media, the public like our policies, the Tories are liars, and in the hours after the result some of the democracy defying loons are on the streets protesting against the democratic result! Shocking!

You need to change, or stay in opposition for a very long time.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Your history is correct. But it is irrelevant. There party needs to somehow come together, and somehow speak with one voice That means no more labelling people, certainly not in pejorative terms. Momentum is no longer needed. There can't be a party within a party. There just needs to be a party. It's important Union leaders shouldn't be directly influencing policy and shouldn't be seen as being anywhere near the decision making process. Certainly no more talk or threats of deselections. Those on the other side of the party, especially the PLP, need to moderate their language and show more respect for the party membership and the traditions of the party.

Both sides will need to forget about past slights and look at the bigger picture

It needs the leader of a lifetime to achieve all this

Here is your problem - you argue that the 'one voice' should effectively be a Blairite voice. You say 'no more labeling people' - yet the Blairites have been hurling abuse at Corbyn since he was elected leader.

'there can't be a party within a party' - yet the LP has always had 'parties' within it - the Co-operative Party is a party within the LP - indeed the LP was founded as a federalist that invited all left-wing parties and groups to join it. It was the right-wing in the 1920s around MacDonald that began the expulsion of socialists from the LP. The right-wing within the LP have always organised internal caucuses where the planned how to expel the left.

You say 'union leaders shouldn't be directly influencing policy' - I agree - union leaders shouldn't be - but the trade union movement absolutely should be. The LP was founded as the political arm of the trade union movement - in the same way that the Tories are the political arm of British Imperialism and big business.

The daft suggestion that there should be 'Certainly no more talk or threats of deselections' - so no matter how LP MPs behave the LP membership should have no say in whether they continue to be LP candidates or not. Well the Blairites tried that - and it resulted in LP MPs acting with impunity like little kings in their constituencies knowing that LP members could do diddly-squat about it.

And the only restriction you suggest on the right-wing LP MPs is that they should use more 'respectful' language.

The bigger picture is that if you put forward pale-pink Tory policies and pale-pink tories as LP candidates then you will get Tory policies implemented. Yet after the election it was socialist policies that were being supported by a majority of the electorate - this past week we saw the following -

64% support for nationalising the railways
63% support for nationalising the water companies
69% support for nationalising Royal Mail
55% support for nationalising bus companies
57% opposed to privatising the BBC

And by the way - a majority of Tory supporters also support nationalising the railways.

 

[beorhthelm]

... Yet after the election it was socialist policies that were being supported by a majority of the electorate - this past week we saw the following -

64% support for nationalising the railways
63% support for nationalising the water companies
69% support for nationalising Royal Mail
55% support for nationalising bus companies
57% opposed to privatising the BBC

and yet, packaged together with Uncle Corbyn on the label, only 32% want it. funny how that works, difference between people saying they'd like something and actually buying it.

 

[Weststander]

Here is your problem - you argue that the 'one voice' should effectively be a Blairite voice. You say 'no more labeling people' - yet the Blairites have been hurling abuse at Corbyn since he was elected leader.

'there can't be a party within a party' - yet the LP has always had 'parties' within it - the Co-operative Party is a party within the LP - indeed the LP was founded as a federalist that invited all left-wing parties and groups to join it. It was the right-wing in the 1920s around MacDonald that began the expulsion of socialists from the LP. The right-wing within the LP have always organised internal caucuses where the planned how to expel the left.

You say 'union leaders shouldn't be directly influencing policy' - I agree - union leaders shouldn't be - but the trade union movement absolutely should be. The LP was founded as the political arm of the trade union movement - in the same way that the Tories are the political arm of British Imperialism and big business.

The daft suggestion that there should be 'Certainly no more talk or threats of deselections' - so no matter how LP MPs behave the LP membership should have no say in whether they continue to be LP candidates or not. Well the Blairites tried that - and it resulted in LP MPs acting with impunity like little kings in their constituencies knowing that LP members could do diddly-squat about it.

And the only restriction you suggest on the right-wing LP MPs is that they should use more 'respectful' language.

The bigger picture is that if you put forward pale-pink Tory policies and pale-pink tories as LP candidates then you will get Tory policies implemented. Yet after the election it was socialist policies that were being supported by a majority of the electorate - this past week we saw the following -

64% support for nationalising the railways
63% support for nationalising the water companies
69% support for nationalising Royal Mail
55% support for nationalising bus companies
57% opposed to privatising the BBC

And by the way - a majority of Tory supporters also support nationalising the railways.

Those will always be popular policies in surveys. Before EACH general election, I recall similar positive polling for:
Spend far more on the NHS.
Labour most trusted with the NHS.
Spend far more on policing.
Spend far more on education.
Should university be ‘free’.
‘Free’ prescriptions for all.
‘Free’ NHS dentisty’.
More nurses and doctors.
Lower rail fares.

Plus of course, a 4 day week and writing off all student loans would be vote winners.

But, then swing voters in media interviews question the affordability of it all, and Labour poll as far less trusted on the economy.

It’s not as simple as saying each item on the shopping list was popular.

 

[ac gull]

When the Brexit party does not stand next time round then on current trends they will lose even more seats next time - have quite a few now with very small majorities in what should in theory be areas that they prosper in

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Here is your problem - you argue that the 'one voice' should effectively be a Blairite voice. You say 'no more labeling people' - yet the Blairites have been hurling abuse at Corbyn since he was elected leader.

'there can't be a party within a party' - yet the LP has always had 'parties' within it - the Co-operative Party is a party within the LP - indeed the LP was founded as a federalist that invited all left-wing parties and groups to join it. It was the right-wing in the 1920s around MacDonald that began the expulsion of socialists from the LP. The right-wing within the LP have always organised internal caucuses where the planned how to expel the left.

You say 'union leaders shouldn't be directly influencing policy' - I agree - union leaders shouldn't be - but the trade union movement absolutely should be. The LP was founded as the political arm of the trade union movement - in the same way that the Tories are the political arm of British Imperialism and big business.

The daft suggestion that there should be 'Certainly no more talk or threats of deselections' - so no matter how LP MPs behave the LP membership should have no say in whether they continue to be LP candidates or not. Well the Blairites tried that - and it resulted in LP MPs acting with impunity like little kings in their constituencies knowing that LP members could do diddly-squat about it.

And the only restriction you suggest on the right-wing LP MPs is that they should use more 'respectful' language.

The bigger picture is that if you put forward pale-pink Tory policies and pale-pink tories as LP candidates then you will get Tory policies implemented. Yet after the election it was socialist policies that were being supported by a majority of the electorate - this past week we saw the following -

64% support for nationalising the railways
63% support for nationalising the water companies
69% support for nationalising Royal Mail
55% support for nationalising bus companies
57% opposed to privatising the BBC

And by the way - a majority of Tory supporters also support nationalising the railways.

So how will labour win next time, given that they already have the most popular policies, and yet lost horribly?

 

[ac gull]

the narrative seems to be this election lost due to Brexit
Brexit will be done in four / five years time
so next time round repeat same policies and victory is assured
almost as simple as how to beat a governing party after nine years of austerity and in a bit of a mess over Brexit

 

[clapham_gull]

Lisa Nandy or Keir Starmer.

Dismissed Starmer (because of his wish for a 2nd ref) but I've changed my mind.

For some reason Starmer is viewed (probably by many on the left) as a lurch to right and a Blairite but he was only elected in 2015.

I quite like the option of somebody

1) More professionally successful
2) From a working class background ( son of a nurse and a toolmaker )
3) Knighted

.. opposing the entitled on the opposite benches.

Boris (lets face it) is also gonna struggle with a women opposite and one as pragmatic and loyal to her electorate as Nandy will cause him problems. Note her performances on Peston. Other MPs were deeply respectful of her and she knows when to go for the jugular. She is very difficult to argue with.

She is also politically savvy coming from a family deeply rooted in politics with differing beliefs. She a bit of a female Milliband.

Very authentic and stood up to Corbyn when required.

Unfortunately for the Labour Party neither is likely to win.

 

[clapham_gull]

And by the way - a majority of Tory supporters also support nationalising the railways.

Then they should have stopped there in terms of nationalisation.

Personally I think nationalising the water companies would be more important. They are a shit show and would be much better run by the state.

I'm very nuanced on nationalising the railways. If you nationalise them, the Tories will end up running them someday.

Most Tories actually like the NHS, even they can end up in A&E.

The railways ? Tories couldn't give a f### beyond the large vanity projects and have no emotional attachment to them. They view them as something that people who don't have cars use.

 

[Chicken Run]

So how will labour win next time, given that they already have the most popular policies, and yet lost horribly?

Yes JRG, how will Labour win then?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Is it not possible that as Boris says we will leave the EU and prosper rather than all the doom and gloom being spouted on here....

Yes, but we'll need to join the European Free Trade Association and maintain full EEA access in key sectors.

There are no signs that Johnson will do this, so any prospering sadly looks like a pipe dream.

 

[blue-shifted]

Here is your problem - you argue that the 'one voice' should effectively be a Blairite voice. You say 'no more labeling people' - yet the Blairites have been hurling abuse at Corbyn since he was elected leader.

'there can't be a party within a party' - yet the LP has always had 'parties' within it - the Co-operative Party is a party within the LP - indeed the LP was founded as a federalist that invited all left-wing parties and groups to join it. It was the right-wing in the 1920s around MacDonald that began the expulsion of socialists from the LP. The right-wing within the LP have always organised internal caucuses where the planned how to expel the left.

You say 'union leaders shouldn't be directly influencing policy' - I agree - union leaders shouldn't be - but the trade union movement absolutely should be. The LP was founded as the political arm of the trade union movement - in the same way that the Tories are the political arm of British Imperialism and big business.

The daft suggestion that there should be 'Certainly no more talk or threats of deselections' - so no matter how LP MPs behave the LP membership should have no say in whether they continue to be LP candidates or not. Well the Blairites tried that - and it resulted in LP MPs acting with impunity like little kings in their constituencies knowing that LP members could do diddly-squat about it.

And the only restriction you suggest on the right-wing LP MPs is that they should use more 'respectful' language.

The bigger picture is that if you put forward pale-pink Tory policies and pale-pink tories as LP candidates then you will get Tory policies implemented. Yet after the election it was socialist policies that were being supported by a majority of the electorate - this past week we saw the following -

64% support for nationalising the railways
63% support for nationalising the water companies
69% support for nationalising Royal Mail
55% support for nationalising bus companies
57% opposed to privatising the BBC

And by the way - a majority of Tory supporters also support nationalising the railways.

Me and you are on the same side.

I’d like to see a socialist Britain, where we properly care for vulnerable, properly tax those who are getting away with it and properly care for the environment.

The problem is that this vision of how the country should be has just been comprehensively rejected, as it has been time and time again.

You’ve got to look at the choices which are on the menu. Blairism isn’t as desirable as socialism, but it’s a million miles better than being led by a strongly right wing Tory PM.

If you could show me a socialist candidate who can unite the party and who you think could realistically win an election and actually put those beliefs into practice, I’ll happily get on board with you. But you can’t. Time for pragmatism.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I love listening to Emily Thornberry. She has a voice to die for, and a great way with words. Never shrill. She'd give Boris enormous problems across the dispatch box.

Unfortunately she has baggage. Some of it stored in a white van.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Me and you are on the same side.

I’d like to see a socialist Britain, where we properly care for vulnerable, properly tax those who are getting away with it and properly care for the environment.

The problem is that this vision of how the country should be has just been comprehensively rejected, as it has been time and time again.

You’ve got to look at the choices which are on the menu. Blairism isn’t as desirable as socialism, but it’s a million miles better than being led by a strongly right wing Tory PM.

If you could show me a socialist candidate who can unite the party and who you think could realistically win an election and actually put those beliefs into practice, I’ll happily get on board with you. But you can’t. Time for pragmatism.

This.

 

[blue-shifted]

Lisa Nandy or Keir Starmer.

Dismissed Starmer (because of his wish for a 2nd ref) but I've changed my mind.

For some reason Starmer is viewed (probably by many on the left) as a lurch to right and a Blairite but he was only elected in 2015.

I quite like the option of somebody

1) More professionally successful
2) From a working class background ( son of a nurse and a toolmaker )
3) Knighted

.. opposing the entitled on the opposite benches.

Boris (lets face it) is also gonna struggle with a women opposite and one as pragmatic and loyal to her electorate as Nandy will cause him problems. Note her performances on Peston. Other MPs were deeply respectful of her and she knows when to go for the jugular. She is very difficult to argue with.

She is also politically savvy coming from a family deeply rooted in politics with differing beliefs. She a bit of a female Milliband.

Very authentic and stood up to Corbyn when required.

Unfortunately for the Labour Party neither is likely to win.

This would be a massive risk, but I think Labour have got to try something …

What about a joint leadership. Starmer and Nandy.

On the grounds that ….. It’s a way of giving both sides of the party a voice, It works for the greens, It looks pretty modern

It would require exceptional maturity, ability to compromise and a good working relationship between the two individuals

Now clearly they can’t go into the next election on that basis (who would they say is the PM), I’m not talking about that. But Labour need at least 3 years to sort out this massive schism and agree a constitution for the party going forward. They then need a year to coalesce around a new leader and for him or her to agree a policy platform with all sides of the party.

 

[beorhthelm]

On the grounds that ….. It’s a way of giving both sides of the party a voice, It works for the greens, It looks pretty modern

thats lovely for the Greens, Labour are supposed to preparing to be in government, and we dont have two PMs. though they have the deputy which sort of allows for two heads representing major factions.

 

[Wozza]

What about a joint leadership. Starmer and Nandy.

On the grounds that ….. It’s a way of giving both sides of the party a voice, It works for the greens, It looks pretty modern

It looks indecisive.

 

[BLOCK F]

Just had a quick look through yesterday's posts and a couple of things come to mind: Delusionism is still alive and kicking amongst some of our number and secondly, some nasty comments suggesting that the Northerners who voted for Johnson are thick morons and the Southerners who voted for Johnson are amoral.
What arrogance and typical of the Metropolitan Labour Elite who basically dislike the working classes almost as much as they dislike the Tories.
No wonder Labour lost a lot of its core vote!