[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Grombleton]

One of my favourite twitter accounts has just scared the daylights out of me.

[tweet]1207571368348471296[/tweet]

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

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.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Labour Party is a coalition. Working class / unions; socialist ideologues; liberal centrists; one-nation types. Win them all and you get a huge majority; get a good leader and you can potentially win with just three of those groups (Blair's third victory was without the liberals). The one-nation types (I'd like a better name) are traditionally the swing voters, and Blair came from that ilk, but made sure that most of his front bench came from the working class / union background in order to keep the coalition together. As he is the only Labour leader to win an election in 50 years, we don't know if a strong leader from either the socialist background or working class background can win. However as we have just seen, a strongly socialist leader sees a lot of the working class/unions drift away. As Boris campaigned in many ways as Blair-lite, it seems they like that kind of one-nation leader?

 

[blue-shifted]

some nasty comments suggesting that the Northerners who voted for Johnson are thick morons !

Time will tell on this one

 

[Chicken Run]

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

.

With the greatest respect that tells you all you need to know about the current Labour Party when supporters are suggesting two leaders to satisfy the different factions.

You need to choose an identity and stick to it! And if I might add pool all the experience you have from previous failures in choosing, and there’s plenty of it to use

 

[BLOCK F]

Time will tell on this one

You see, this comment just about sums up why I said what I did, in my original post!

 

[blue-shifted]

With the greatest respect that tells you all you need to know about the current Labour Party when supporters are suggesting two leaders to satisfy the different factions.

You need to choose an identity and stick to it! And if I might add pool all the experience you have from previous failures in choosing, and there’s plenty of it to use

Yes, the factionalism was one of the main reasons for defeat. There are two ways of resolving factionalism within a party.

Firstly, annihilation. I don’t use the word pejoratively. It’s a tactic to consider. It worked for Trump and it worked for Johnson. Win the leadership and kick out those who doesn’t agree with you. The principled ones left will resign and the craven will say what they have to say to retain their careers

Secondly compromise. Have some sort of massive summit. Reach some sort of good friday agreement style deal within the party and gain assent from all relevant parties.

This is the first job for labour in their rebuilding process. Decide the method of the rebuild.

 

[BenGarfield]

Yes, the factionalism was one of the main reasons for defeat. There are two ways of resolving factionalism within a party.

Firstly, annihilation. I don’t use the word pejoratively. It’s a tactic to consider. It worked for Trump and it worked for Johnson. Win the leadership and kick out those who doesn’t agree with you. The principled ones left will resign and the craven will say what they have to say to retain their careers

Secondly compromise. Have some sort of massive summit. Reach some sort of good friday agreement style deal within the party and gain assent from all relevant parties.

This is the first job for labour in their rebuilding process. Decide the method of the rebuild.

I know, why not meet every year and call it a conference and then agree on policies, take a vote, and then agree to follow those policies even if you would prefer other policies because you accept democracy. That would be a fair way to deal with these issues.

 

[blue-shifted]

You see, this comment just about sums up why I said what I did, in my original post!

I’ll happily own being a part of some metropolitan (well Portslade) bubble then. I’m not denying that in the last week I’ve realised that I feel very different about Britain and the world to the majority of people I share this country with.

Are you totally sure Boris is going to keep the promises he’s making to these people though? Are you totally sure that if there’s a conflict between his interests and the new northern labour voters he successfully wooed, he’ll side with them?

 

[BLOCK F]

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, you haven't got the hots for Emily T., have you?
Well, if I see a white van parked up somewhere between Islington and Faversham, the little ditty I used to have on a window of my old VW Camper will come to mind:' Don't come a'knockin, when this old van is a'rockin'!

 

[blue-shifted]

I know, why not meet every year and call it a conference and then agree on policies, take a vote, and then agree to follow those policies even if you would prefer other policies because you accept democracy. That would be a fair way to deal with these issues.

I think it needs a bit more than a usual party conference on this occasion though. It’s not policy they need to work on, we’re 5 years out. Labour need to have a deeper conversation about it’s structure, it’s soul and how, if at all, they can ever work together.

 

[Bulldog]

Because the union block votes pervert democracy and the party dont follow the result anyway, look at private schools.

 

[BUTTERBALL]

I didn't vote for labour but i believe in a strong, effective opposition.

If Emily 'rolls-eyes' Thornberry, Rebecca Long-Bailey or the awful Jess Philips end up as leader, Labour will be out of power for at least another 10 years. None of the shadow cabinet offer much confidence, Kier Starmer is more moderate and a plausible candidate, maybe Lisa Nandy who i think is a good centrist MP and perhaps Angela Rayner who's a bit too left leaning but would be a strong leader or deputy.

 

[BLOCK F]

I’ll happily own being a part of some metropolitan (well Portslade) bubble then. I’m not denying that in the last week I’ve realised that I feel very different about Britain and the world to the majority of people I share this country with.

Are you totally sure Boris is going to keep the promises he’s making to these people though? Are you totally sure that if there’s a conflict between his interests and the new northern labour voters he successfully wooed, he’ll side with them?

Hi blue, of course, nothing is certain in politics with the possible exemption of eventual failure! However, if Boris doesn't make great efforts to improve the lot of those in the north who feel a disconnect with the present Labour party, he will certainly know about it. However, the main thrust of my post was the assumption that those northern former Labour voters were thick morons. I found this remark pretty abysmal. As for a conflict in interests, it is very much in Johnson's interest to prove his detractors wrong and if he gets it right, the whole country will benefit.
I think what saddens me, is the faction of people who really want the PM to fail just to prove that they were right all along and sod the people who may suffer!

 

[BLOCK F]

Yes, the factionalism was one of the main reasons for defeat. There are two ways of resolving factionalism within a party.

Firstly, annihilation. I don’t use the word pejoratively. It’s a tactic to consider. It worked for Trump and it worked for Johnson. Win the leadership and kick out those who doesn’t agree with you. The principled ones left will resign and the craven will say what they have to say to retain their careers

Secondly compromise. Have some sort of massive summit. Reach some sort of good friday agreement style deal within the party and gain assent from all relevant parties.

This is the first job for labour in their rebuilding process. Decide the method of the rebuild.

Well, yes and no.
I speak as a Tory voter, but one who didn't have any real beef with the Blair years, and believes that whatever shade of party is in Government, the country deserves an effective opposition to hold that Government to account.
I reckon the first job for Labour is to get away from the grip of the wretched Momentum cult and only then can they rebuild and once again become an electable organisation. I am sure there were quite a number of moderate Labour MPs who wanted to win their own seats, yet wanted their party to lose the election so that Corbyn and McDonnell and their 'advisers' would go and the party could be reformed.

 

[blue-shifted]

Hi blue, of course, nothing is certain in politics with the possible exemption of eventual failure! However, if Boris doesn't make great efforts to improve the lot of those in the north who feel a disconnect with the present Labour party, he will certainly know about it. However, the main thrust of my post was the assumption that those northern former Labour voters were thick morons. I found this remark pretty abysmal. As for a conflict in interests, it is very much in Johnson's interest to prove his detractors wrong and if he gets it right, the whole country will benefit.
I think what saddens me, is the faction of people who really want the PM to fail just to prove that they were right all along and sod the people who may suffer!

And you see the same mentality someone's with football fans wanting the players on their own they've been saying should be dropped to fail, so that they can protect their egos. It's stupid.

If Boris is good for the country great, i'll take back everything I've said about him. The reason why there is such a bitter reaction to Boris (and Trump) is about trust. Those who don't support him are intensely cynical about his motivations and his belief in the words that he says. That's why "metropolitans" have their heads in their hands at the traditional labour voters who have decided to put him in.

Metropolitans have disliked former Tory leaders before, Thatcher labelled a bitch, Major and May, ineffective, Cameron, corporate. But this is something different, a Tory leader with no obvious personal convictions, proven to say one thing before ruthlessly turning and doing the other for his own political advantage and with the apparent ability not to be accountable for any action. That's not something we've seen from a PM, not in this way anyway.

It could all be fine. I think the point you're making about his interests and the working class's interests currently being in alignment is fair. Currently they are.

 

[blue-shifted]

Well, yes and no.
I speak as a Tory voter, but one who didn't have any real beef with the Blair years, and believes that whatever shade of party is in Government, the country deserves an effective opposition to hold that Government to account.
I reckon the first job for Labour is to get away from the grip of the wretched Momentum cult and only then can they rebuild and once again become an electable organisation. I am sure there were quite a number of moderate Labour MPs who wanted to win their own seats, yet wanted their party to lose the election so that Corbyn and McDonnell and their 'advisers' would go and the party could be reformed.

So that would be option A. Annihilation by one side of the other.

Risky and difficult, but it doesn't matter too much for Labour if they are at war for 3 years (it does for the country), as long as it can be resolved with time to face Boris in 5 years time

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

This is simply not true. The Unions - yes, Momentum - no

So you are saying Momentum has no power or influence within labour?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is a problem in the Labour party.

Seamus Milne - Dominic Cummings - both unelected but have too much say.

[tweet]1207602121849344002[/tweet]

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think the point you're making about his interests and the working class's interests currently being in alignment is fair. Currently they are.

You may be right about Johnson's interests (being PM as long as possible) being in alignment currently. I guess we will find out in the next few months. Personally, I'm just not convinced that the people who invested £5.7M in the campaign to get him elected, namely

Aquind Ltd, a firm led by the Ukrainian-born businessman Alexander Temerko,
Malcolm Offord, a private equity tycoon
WA Capital, the private investment company
Countrywide Developers, owned by the property billionaire Tony Gallagher.
Lubov Chernukhin, whose husband Vladimir was formerly a minister in the Russian government of Vladimir Putin
Theatre impresario John Gore

have interests that are in alignment with the working class voters who voted for him

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

This is a problem in the Labour party.

Seamus Milne - Dominic Cummings - both unelected but have too much say.

[tweet]1207602121849344002[/tweet]

One of the first acts as new leader, whoever that is, must be to sack Milne.