[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Jess Phillips would be good entertainment value: you can tell that she absolutely detests Johnson. I reckon that it could kick-off during PMQs. (My money would be on Jess.)

Starmer would get my vote (and I did vote Labour).

 

[blue-shifted]

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

And when those interests are no longer aligned, do you have any thoughts on who Boris would side with?

 

[Two Professors]

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.

Talking of a joint leadership,I think Labour could go one better than the Greens.....

 

[WATFORD zero]

And when those interests are no longer aligned, do you have any thoughts on who Boris would side with?

I can't imagine

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

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

Of course they do - which is why they will elect RLB and be out of power for the next 10 years.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Jess Phillips would be good entertainment value: you can tell that she absolutely detests Johnson. I reckon that it could kick-off during PMQs. (My money would be on Jess.)

Starmer would get my vote (and I did vote Labour).

I just hope Corbyn has a Brother who'll apply ..... (and I didn't vote Labour)

 

[Gritt23]

Dianne Abbott!

Fulfils so many tick boxes.

More boxes than she can count.

 

[Guinness Boy]

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.

Except, according to [MENTION=1483]London Irish[/MENTION] it is Momentum’s job to make policy. You can see why people are confused about their role and have the impression that Labour isn’t aligned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

For Labour, the next election is already lost. Jeremy Corbyn's legacy to the party is it will be out of power for the best part of a decade. Labour must elect someone who can lead them to become a party which presents as an alternative government, rather than a party of protest which its become. Otherwise, they could be finished.

 

[blue-shifted]

For Labour, the next election is already lost. Jeremy Corbyn's legacy to the party is it will be out of power for the best part of a decade. Labour must elect someone who can lead them to become a party which presents as an alternative government, rather than a party of protest which its become. Otherwise, they could be finished.

Usually you would be right.

But these are febrile times. 2025 is there to play for, but Labour have to get everything right for the next 5 years.

They won't I suppose

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Usually you would be right.

But these are febrile times. 2025 is there to play for, but Labour have to get everything right for the next 5 years.

They won't I suppose

The numbers are beyond Labour for 2025. They need to win around 135-140 seats for a sustainable majority to get through a full parliamentary term and the party has only won more than 123 seats THREE times since 1929.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Of course they do - which is why they will elect RLB and be out of power for the next 10 years.

There is of course a possibility she takes a long hard look at herself and decides to not stand. It would take maturity, insight and good judgement to do that.

Hmmm....as you were

 

[Bold Seagull]

Except, according to [MENTION=1483]London Irish[/MENTION] it is Momentum’s job to make policy. You can see why people are confused about their role and have the impression that Labour isn’t aligned.

The thing is, you can have foreign oligarchs, fossil fuel companies and self interested individuals pumping millions into the Tory coffers for their campaign; for what policies in return no one knows? And no one seems to bat an eyelid.

30 or 40,000 Labour members belong to a group that promotes activism and policies of the left and it's anathema.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I just hope Corbyn has a Brother who'll apply ..... (and I didn't vote Labour)

Apparently tories with money to burn are lining up in droves to register as labour party members so they can elect the candidate most likely to fail.

So, did you find the process of joining the labour party straightforward?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The numbers are beyond Labour for 2025. They need to win around 135-140 seats for a sustainable majority to get through a full parliamentary term and the party has only won more than 123 seats THREE times since 1929.

It's always said that a week is a long time in politics.

We are talking about 5 years here. If Boris and co make a mess of things AND Labour get it right And lots of other ifs, you never know.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Apparently tories with money to burn are lining up in droves to register as labour party members so they can elect the candidate most likely to fail.

So, did you find the process of joining the labour party straightforward?

See, that sort of conspiracy theory seems like it has legs, until you consider that a lot of actual real Tories decided that the very man to lead them was someone who has gone on record as contradicting himself on Brexit, has been openly racist in print, professionally avoids debate and scrutiny, has literally countless love children and cannot complete a sentence without using the phrase-cum-noise “whiffle whaff”.

And they were right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

The thing is, you can have foreign oligarchs, fossil fuel companies and self interested individuals pumping millions into the Tory coffers for their campaign; for what policies in return no one knows? And no one seems to bat an eyelid.

30 or 40,000 Labour members belong to a group that promotes activism and policies of the left and it's anathema.

I didn’t say it was anathema. I’m saying that on this very debate you have two Corbynistas who cannot agree whether it is conference or Momentum who make LP policy.

I agree regarding the Tories but haven’t they always been supported by foreigners and big business? It’s not news.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The thing is, you can have foreign oligarchs, fossil fuel companies and self interested individuals pumping millions into the Tory coffers for their campaign; for what policies in return no one knows? And no one seems to bat an eyelid.

30 or 40,000 Labour members belong to a group that promotes activism and policies of the left and it's anathema.

I agree with your point. So how do the tories get away with it?

I'll first comment that under Blair the unions were kept at arms length from the control of the labour party to a much greater extent than before or now (although now the issue is more the reduced voting power of the MPs versus members in leadership elections rather than union tumescence). I can remember when the union block vote effectively monopolised the labour leader election and the leader was chosen by a red-faced shouty cabal of the likes of (from memory, apols for spelling) McLusky, Scargill, Feather, Jones, Scanlon. That was never going to appeal to the swing voter.

And I say that as a lifelong trade union member as well as labour voter. What Blair did was make it OK to be middle class and a labour voter, and put an end to, for example, some of my own colleages sneering at me for aligning myself with the 'hoary handed sons of toil'.

If momentum continues to control the labour party I can see moves to shift power further away from the MPs and more into the hands of the unions (albeit they may feel that it suits them better to increase the voting weight of the Ordinary Membership, given its current voting predilections).

OK, you could defend this by saying that if unions bankroll the labour party then they should have the major say. Well, what is good for the labour goose is good for the tory ganders and their choice of backers, shirly?

Personally, I would like to see the unions make a collective decision to stay out of selection of the leader of the party altogether. After all, **** me, I am a season ticket holder at BHA and I don't expect to have a say in the appointment of the BHA manager, FFS (albeit, if offered a slice of the franchise, my first instinct would be to sa 'I'm in' - ego innit). The trouble with the unions is they don't know what is in their best interest (in terms of obtaining a government that operates more in their favour).

Anyway this is kind of irrelevant since the group with the biggest say in electing the leader these days is, as noted, the 'ordinary member'. This is perhaps as it should be, albeit the party should be much more careful how it elects ordinary members. In my professional organization you need to be nominated by two current members of good standing, and if you break the rules, you're out. Meanwhile in the labour party we have untold carpetbaggers (tories who have joined to cause mayhem) with evidently useless scrutiny, plus untold numbers of others whose more hairy-arsed attitudes to issues such as 'Israel' (actually Jews) go unchecked and unchallenged (till it is too late).

I'm not saying that the tories are by contrast pristine (they clearly aren't, as the post to which I reply clearly illustrates). But in the great game of attracting votes, the mug with the biggest and most recognisable 'kick me' sign on their back is the one that gets booted most hard up the jacksy. Right now that is labour.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's always said that a week is a long time in politics.

We are talking about 5 years here. If Boris and co make a mess of things AND Labour get it right And lots of other ifs, you never know.

And if my old mum had had a cock she'd be my dad.

 

[London Irish]

Except, according to [MENTION=1483]London Irish[/MENTION] it is Momentum’s job to make policy. You can see why people are confused about their role and have the impression that Labour isn’t aligned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps I wasn't clear, they don't "make" policy. They come up with new policy ideas and campaign for them. It's Labour party members who make policy at annual conference, Momentum is less than 10 per cent of Labour's membership, if their ideas get adopted it's because the other 90% haven't come up with anything better - and when you think about ideas from the Labour "moderates" (as if the Iraq war was moderate), there aren't any. Except the second referendum and that went well