[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[CheeseRolls]

Bit disappointed that this one has fallen to me as well, come on people.

Seumas Milne - Can Do One!

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

say good bye to at least 50% of the votes then and a future of being a marginal party. We are moving towards a single party state with Brexit and LDs also disintegrating and Scotland & NI going their own way.

This is nonsense - the Tories do not have a mass base in society - Johnson won by shouting 'get brexit done' as loudly as he could and then hiding from any questions.

He may be emboldened from the election result but even he had to admit that working class people voted for the Tories on a one-off basis - and if he attempts to push the Tory agenda on the NHS and attacks on public services he is likely to meet an immediate backlash.

 

[BenGarfield]

Anyone who isn't a terrorist sympathiser.

Including anyone then that supports American/UK foreign policy then which actively arms the Saudi regime, terrorsm in Yemen, and funds trains Al-Quaida I suppose?

 

[Tory Boy]

I hope they keep Corbyn.

TB

 

[Bold Seagull]

Lansman openly boasted about and defended Momentum’s agenda, and the ensuing Manifesto. The losing Manifesto. He smugly bathed in their influence, on a gutting night for the likes of Alan Johnson who had tears in eyes.

This was analysed in great detail today on radio and TV. The 2017 Manifesto was far less extensive, ‘socialist’, with far fewer attacks on sections of society and business.

The New Statesman said this about Long-Bailey last week:

“In private, there is already live debate among Momentum activists over whether Corbyn’s successor should be a “true believer” such as shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey”.

I agree. That is what I meant by overcompensated. They took 2017 and in order to bridge the appeal to their leave voters who they knew they were losing to Brexit, they went all-in in poker terms and lost.

Blair won 355 seats in 2005 with 9.6m votes. Corbyn has had 12.9m votes and 10.3m. The political landscape has changed completely.

Labour now have an identity problem as I said in my first post you replied to. They have a problem with perception of Momentum and the influence it does or doesn't have, it's leader and his past, and the whole association with old school Marxism.

I don't think a lurch to the centre is the answer but going back to the simple principles of 2017, I don't just mean specific policies, but simple easy to understand messages.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Momentum is massively overplayed. They represent less than 10% of the Labour membership. She's simply been a loyal MP since her election in 2015, and we don't actually know how policy direction anymore than we know what Starmer or others will be.

If your assertion that the centre ground is what the electorate want, then that ignores a) the vote share of 2017, and b) how poorly the Lib Dems have done on a centrist manifesto that the IFS basically said was the best out of the main parties. An endorsement that has returned nothing.

It also simplifies the policy argument that Labour can only win with a centrist policy book when Labour had Scotland through those years, the SNP vote has changed all that, and Brexit has hardened the Scottish vote. The SNP can neither be called a party of the center.

It's a very confused picture with Brexit, Corbyn and McDonnell's baggage. The actual policies in 2017 went down well, only they overcompensated in this election because Labour was the party most effected by huge numbers of Leave voters in the North and Wales, but huge numbers of remain in the cities.

Not as straightforward as you're making out.

Long-Bailey is cast in the same Momentum mould as Corbyn and Lansman, an identical agenda. Unpalatable to 2/3 of the electorate.

perception is all in politics and the image successfully painted by the Tory press and the one people voted for is of a hard left Labour group who are going to steal your money and spend it on wasters leaving the country bankrupt. The image was centred around Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott (the three stooges) linked with Momentum (the new reds under the bed ) and Long-Bailey is associated with them. So she might head a much reduced Labour party but that's all. The reality is more complex than that but people like simple images and strong leaders....

 

[BenGarfield]

Corbyn should remain as leader and launch a struggle within the party to remove the Blairites who remain in control of the LP bureaucracy.

Labour lost this election because Corbyn attempted to accommodate the Blairites by caving in on his previous Leave position (coupled with the fact that he refused to take action against LP councilllors who imposed Tory cuts on local services).

The Blairites have been sabotaging Corbyn's leadership since he was elected - and the time has come now to make the public representatives of the LP more representative of the vast majority of the membership.

Pretty much agree but wasnt he trying to follow party policy over Brexit even though he didnt agree himslf? Also he didnt face off the accusations of anti-semitism nonsense directly. Now his now longer a threat, I dont suppose we`ll hear a whisper about this from anyone.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Corbyn should remain as leader and launch a struggle within the party to remove the Blairites who remain in control of the LP bureaucracy.

Labour lost this election because Corbyn attempted to accommodate the Blairites by caving in on his previous Leave position (coupled with the fact that he refused to take action against LP councilllors who imposed Tory cuts on local services).

The Blairites have been sabotaging Corbyn's leadership since he was elected - and the time has come now to make the public representatives of the LP more representative of the vast majority of the membership.

That is a truly wonderful post.

There really are no words....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lower West Stander]

Momentum is massively overplayed. They represent less than 10% of the Labour membership. She's simply been a loyal MP since her election in 2015, and we don't actually know how policy direction anymore than we know what Starmer or others will be.

If your assertion that the centre ground is what the electorate want, then that ignores a) the vote share of 2017, and b) how poorly the Lib Dems have done on a centrist manifesto that the IFS basically said was the best out of the main parties. An endorsement that has returned nothing.

It also simplifies the policy argument that Labour can only win with a centrist policy book when Labour had Scotland through those years, the SNP vote has changed all that, and Brexit has hardened the Scottish vote. The SNP can neither be called a party of the center.

It's a very confused picture with Brexit, Corbyn and McDonnell's baggage. The actual policies in 2017 went down well, only they overcompensated in this election because Labour was the party most effected by huge numbers of Leave voters in the North and Wales, but huge numbers of remain in the cities.

Not as straightforward as you're making out.

All I would say to that is that Long-Bailey has been utterly useless as shadow business secretary. She has absolutely zero understanding of the corporate world or the financial markets.

I admit that you never know how policies and views will turn, but as an individual, similar to the current incumbent, she is not party leadership material.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Coupled with your post of a couple of days ago, when you said that de-selection would ensure the "right" candidate ie a momentum stooge is put forward, you now lament the refusal to "take action" against those who dare to take another line; Sounds frighteningly like East Germany to me, and serves only to give ammunition to those who are deeply sceptical of the hard left's democratic credentials.
And then to prove that you haven't learnt a thing from last night, you insist on having a "suitable" candidate who represents the membership, quite forgetting or ignoring the fact that said membership is a small section of Labour support in general. When virtually everyone in the last 12 hours has pleaded that the Labour Party now listens to the public at large, instead of a hard left minority, you still want to choose that same disastrous route that led to the shambles. I don't vote labour so part of me thinks -yes, great and they will never gain power, but I also feel for the hard-working moderate folk, who must despair at what is happening.

The Blairites have spent decades expelling people from the LP that they felt were a threat to their power and control - since Corbyn was elected leader the Blairite bureaucracy have either expelled or refused membership to over 170,000 people - because they were supporters of Corbyn and his policies.

In political life there are two key democratic processes - the right of party members to select the candidate that is representing the party - and the right to decide policy through an annual conference and demand that political representatives implement these policies - the Blairites have demonstrated an utter contempt for the democratic process within the LP since the 1980s. Corbyn should now struggle to democratise the LP against the Blairites.

Those who are not members of the LP can then decide whether to support them or not - in the knowledge of the policies of the LP are and that those who are elected will implement those policies - and that is how the political process should operate.

The shambles that occurred yesterday is the result of a number of factors -
1. Corbyn failing to stick to his Leave position and caving into the Blairites on the issue of Brexit
2. The Blairites sabotaging the election campaign - those who were not standing spending large sums on advertising telling voters not to vote for Corbyn - and many those who were standing telling people that they wouldn't support Corbyn for PM
3. This has been the culmination of 3 years of active sabotage by the Blairites
4. A disgraceful, deceitful and scurrilous propaganda campaign against Corbyn accusing him of racism and anti-semitism (and a whole load of other crap besides) - not surprising given that most of the media in Britain is owned by billionaires.
5. Momentum also bear some responsibility for failing to build a mass, campaigning opposition to the Blairites, instead spending a lot of their time attacking others on the left who supported Corbyn.

As for 'listening to the people' - this is a soundbite - Corbyn's policies of defending the NHS, re-nationalising public services, defending education, reversing the austerity cuts etc - are popular among working class people - this election was not about those policies - it was about 'getting brexit done'.

 

[junior]

Including anyone then that supports American/UK foreign policy then which actively arms the Saudi regime, terrorsm in Yemen, and funds trains Al-Quaida I suppose?

In all honesty, none of that happens in England. IRA terrorism did.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Peter Kyle

This.

Only one Labour MP has been elected Prime Minister in the last 50 years, there is a reason why.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I would like to see someone like Peter Kyle run as deputy leader as well in a balanced ticket

I'm not sure he would do it. I've just been listening to him on Radio Sussex in the car. He really does come across well.

 

[BenGarfield]

If Scotland get independence, there may never be a Labour PM again.

There might be in Scotland though, because once the SNP has achieved its ambition of a self governing country in theory politics can develop as it has in Ireland the SNP may split into different factions to the left and right.

 

[Bold Seagull]

All I would say to that is that Long-Bailey has been utterly useless as shadow business secretary. She has absolutely zero understanding of the corporate world or the financial markets.

I admit that you never know how policies and views will turn, but as an individual, similar to the current incumbent, she is not party leadership material.

She is very early in her political career. It may well be too soon.

In terms of being useless in actual cabinet positions, doesn't appear to have stopped our current PMs career path.

 

[Lower West Stander]

The Blairites have spent decades expelling people from the LP that they felt were a threat to their power and control - since Corbyn was elected leader the Blairite bureaucracy have either expelled or refused membership to over 170,000 people - because they were supporters of Corbyn and his policies.

In political life there are two key democratic processes - the right of party members to select the candidate that is representing the party - and the right to decide policy through an annual conference and demand that political representatives implement these policies - the Blairites have demonstrated an utter contempt for the democratic process within the LP since the 1980s. Corbyn should now struggle to democratise the LP against the Blairites.

Those who are not members of the LP can then decide whether to support them or not - in the knowledge of the policies of the LP are and that those who are elected will implement those policies - and that is how the political process should operate.

The shambles that occurred yesterday is the result of a number of factors -
1. Corbyn failing to stick to his Leave position and caving into the Blairites on the issue of Brexit
2. The Blairites sabotaging the election campaign - those who were not standing spending large sums on advertising telling voters not to vote for Corbyn - and many those who were standing telling people that they wouldn't support Corbyn for PM
3. This has been the culmination of 3 years of active sabotage by the Blairites
4. A disgraceful, deceitful and scurrilous propaganda campaign against Corbyn accusing him of racism and anti-semitism (and a whole load of other crap besides) - not surprising given that most of the media in Britain is owned by billionaires.
5. Momentum also bear some responsibility for failing to build a mass, campaigning opposition to the Blairites, instead spending a lot of their time attacking others on the left who supported Corbyn.

As for 'listening to the people' - this is a soundbite - Corbyn's policies of defending the NHS, re-nationalising public services, defending education, reversing the austerity cuts etc - are popular among working class people - this election was not about those policies - it was about 'getting brexit done'.

So much crap here.

Best bit is your assumption that Blairites and leavers have identical views. The fact that you keep referring to leader who hasn’t run the party for 15 years says a lot. I’ll raise you 40 years when the country was brought to its knees by the sort idiotic policies “Jeremy” and friends have just had turfed out.

I know I’ll be talking to the wall with you, but I bit anyway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Pretty much agree but wasnt he trying to follow party policy over Brexit even though he didnt agree himslf?

Corbyn never fought for a 'left' Leave position at the party conference - he caved into the Blairites and supported a second referendum as a compromise to supporting Remain - the 'wait and see' (which is effectively what it was) allowed the Blairites to claim that Remain was an option and it allowed to Tories to attack Corbyn for wanting to delay Brexit - again.

Also he didnt face off the accusations of anti-semitism nonsense directly. Now his now longer a threat, I dont suppose we`ll hear a whisper about this from anyone.

It was guilt by association - and he remains a threat for as long as he remains leader - the attacks will continue.

He will resign at some point - but he can now act to leave a legacy of bringing the LP back to its roots as a party that fights for the rights of working class people - not the neo-liberal policies of the rich elites of the EU. It is up to him and his supporters in the PLP to decide if they are willing to engage in that fight.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Best bit is your assumption that Blairites and leavers have identical views.

Where did I imply that the Blairties and the leavers had identical views?

The fact that you keep referring to leader who hasn’t run the party for 15 years says a lot.

Blairite is a name for the policies pursued by the right-wing of the LP over 30 years - a pro- neo-liberal, pro-EU, pro-imperialist agenda - that brought privatisation, attacks on public services and war to the British working class.

I’ll raise you 40 years when the country was brought to its knees by the sort idiotic policies “Jeremy” and friends have just had turfed out.

40 years ago was 1979 - the year Maggie Thatcher came to power - and launched a 12 year onslaught on working class people creating widespread poverty and deprivation in Britain as she adopted a slash and burn approach to public spending - the birth of neo-liberalism that sees a tiny handful of individuals controlling most of the global wealth while billions are mired in poverty.

I know I’ll be talking to the wall with you, but I bit anyway.

Present a coherent argument, backed up with evidence and we can have a constructive debate on the way forward for the LP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

[beorhthelm]

Corbyn should remain as leader and launch a struggle within the party to remove the Blairites who remain in control of the LP bureaucracy.

Labour lost this election because Corbyn attempted to accommodate the Blairites by caving in on his previous Leave position (coupled with the fact that he refused to take action against LP councilllors who imposed Tory cuts on local services).

The Blairites have been sabotaging Corbyn's leadership since he was elected - and the time has come now to make the public representatives of the LP more representative of the vast majority of the membership.

absolutly, Corbyn should lead the long march through the Labour institutions and purge the moderates, install Momentum candidates in all LP to see through his mission. i'd be delighted.

 

[Lower West Stander]

Where did I imply that the Blairties and the leavers had identical views?


Blairite is a name for the policies pursued by the right-wing of the LP over 30 years - a pro- neo-liberal, pro-EU, pro-imperialist agenda - that brought privatisation, attacks on public services and war to the British working class.


40 years ago was 1979 - the year Maggie Thatcher came to power - and launched a 12 year onslaught on working class people creating widespread poverty and deprivation in Britain as she adopted a slash and burn approach to public spending - the birth of neo-liberalism that sees a tiny handful of individuals controlling most of the global wealth while billions are mired in poverty.


Present a coherent argument, backed up with evidence and we can have a constructive debate on the way forward for the LP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[/QUOTE]

“Pro imperialist”.

Love it.

And I guess you think Maduro is a great guy as well....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk