[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Surrey Phil]

This thread is dying a death.

Other than a hardy few, as there won’t be another GE for 5 years, who cares who Labour chooses.

 

[drew]

Evidence since the mid-70s is that enough English voters respond well to a robust right-wing leader who appeals to a version of patriotism. Under fptp this secures big majorities.

What would lead you to conclude that Johnson could ever lose an election...scandal maybe? After all bad economic news will never be 'owned' by Government, it would always be someone elses fault.

How do you explain Blair's massive majority in 1997?

 

[Bish Bosh]

How do you explain Blair's massive majority in 1997?

A widespread view that public services had declined too much and that a correction was needed.

A youthful telegenic leader who made great play of distancing himself from old perceptions of socialism e.g. his staged ditching of Clause 4.

Getting Rupert Murdoch on board.

Among other things...

 

[drew]

I take it you have a counter-argument - or are you just mouthing off for the sake of it.

The UK is not a socialist country. The vast majority are somewhere either side of the centre. They rejected Corbyn twice. They didn't trust his nationalisation proposals, they didn't believe him on anti semitism and they didn't really know where he genuinely stood on Brexit.

You bang on about his policies being popular but a lot depends on how you phrase the question.

'Do you think we should take back control of the water companies from the many foreign companies that own them?'

or

'Do you want to renationalize the water companies and the railways even thought it might mean putting tax up by 3 or 4%?

As for increasing the number of votes, I would put that down to the referendum galvanizing the electorate and that carried over to the next two elections as the Brexit remained the central issue.

At the end of the day, Labour can't change bugger all when they don't win an election and they haven't done that since Blair.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes - Starmer is a Blairite - he adopted a different strategy than others - quite possibly by agreement. Some, as drew says, threw their toys out of the pram, some engaged in smears, some went into hiding waiting for future opportunities and some, like Starmer, moved to influence Corbyn's team. Starmer was primarily responsible for Corbyn dropping Leave and adopting the Remain position that cost the LP the election. So you would have to say that he was the most effectual of the Blairites in terms of undermining Corbyn.

I will give two guarantees if Starmer is elected leader of the LP - at some point there will be a purge of the membership of the LP to preserve the rule of the Blairties within the LP - and - unless there is a complete f*ck-up, the Tories will comfortably win the next election. A Starmer leadership could also prompt a section of the trade union movement to move to establish a new LP (a positive development in those circumstances) - because it is likely that under Starmer the LP could move further to the right than under Blair.

I doubt that. But if he does I expect him to win. My fear is he will be too slow to ditch the lurch back to 1983, and will feel disinclined to compromise with the electorate for fear of upsetting the teenyboppers. Let's hope my fears are false.

As for a 'purge of the membership' - that's pure left wing paranoia. Purging is a left wing thing. Stalin. Pol Pot. It isn't what centrists do. More's the pity.

You need to get out of your echo chamber and listen to the pulse of the nation if you have any desire for a labour government.

Remember, you are arguing the toss here with a labour voter, not a floater like many others on NSC. Must do better if you want labour to win. Persuade hearts and minds, not explain to three decimal places why no-labour voters are fools.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes - Starmer is a Blairite - he adopted a different strategy than others - quite possibly by agreement. Some, as drew says, threw their toys out of the pram, some engaged in smears, some went into hiding waiting for future opportunities and some, like Starmer, moved to influence Corbyn's team. Starmer was primarily responsible for Corbyn dropping Leave and adopting the Remain position that cost the LP the election. So you would have to say that he was the most effectual of the Blairites in terms of undermining Corbyn.

i had no idea Starmer had so much influence, convincing the NEC and Labour conference to vote for the policy adopted.

 

[Gwylan]

Starmer came across brilliantly on BBC Breakfast today. Personable, warm, and never stuck in the bitter class warrior tones of the charmless automatons RLB, Burgon, Rayner and Thornberry.

Charmless automaton? My guess is that you've never head Angela Rayner - she's a long way from being charmless and certainly could never be described as an automaton. I still don't understand why she didn't stand for leader - she had more chance of winning than RLB did.

According to some commentators, because she's so noticeably human she was the leader that the Tories really feared, so there must have been cheers at Central Office when she didn't stand.

By all accounts, she's going to canter home in the deputy election - a sign of what could have been.

 

[beorhthelm]

Charmless automaton? My guess is that you've never head Angela Rayner - she's a long way from being charmless and certainly could never be described as an automaton. I still don't understand why she didn't stand for leader - she had more chance of winning than RLB did.

simple, would have split the backing and Momentum want Long-Bailey.

 

[Gwylan]

simple, would have split the backing and Momentum want Long-Bailey.

Yes, I know that they couldn't both stand, what I ask is why RLB? Rayner is far more human and a long way from an identikit politician, it's clear that she's going to have more resonance with the general public than cliche-spouting speak-your-weight machine. It's a baffling decision

 

[jakarta]

simple, would have split the backing and Momentum want Long-Bailey.

Momentum aren't the only people who want Wrong-Bailey.

Boris probably can't believe his luck when he sees what will be opposing him after the Beloved Leader has shuffled off...

 

[Weststander]

Charmless automaton? My guess is that you've never head Angela Rayner - she's a long way from being charmless and certainly could never be described as an automaton. I still don't understand why she didn't stand for leader - she had more chance of winning than RLB did.

According to some commentators, because she's so noticeably human she was the leader that the Tories really feared, so there must have been cheers at Central Office when she didn't stand.

By all accounts, she's going to canter home in the deputy election - a sign of what could have been.

Unite chose Burgon over Rayner, does that endorsement mean he’s a shoe in?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

If they don't hurry up and elect someone they might not have any voters left ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_U nited_Kingdom_general_election

 

[Surf's Up]

I doubt that. But if he does I expect him to win. My fear is he will be too slow to ditch the lurch back to 1983, and will feel disinclined to compromise with the electorate for fear of upsetting the teenyboppers. Let's hope my fears are false.

As for a 'purge of the membership' - that's pure left wing paranoia. Purging is a left wing thing. Stalin. Pol Pot. It isn't what centrists do. More's the pity.

You need to get out of your echo chamber and listen to the pulse of the nation if you have any desire for a labour government.

Remember, you are arguing the toss here with a labour voter, not a floater like many others on NSC. Must do better if you want labour to win. Persuade hearts and minds, not explain to three decimal places why no-labour voters are fools.

He's arguing the toss with many labour voters on here (has anyone agreed with him) who have a different perspective and who, in his lexicon, would be dismissed as "Blairites". The Labour Party will only survive if they either unite around a new leader, who will not be Long-Bailey, or if they split into two allowing the left to disappear into the political sunset and oblivion while the real Labour Party get on with adopting sensible socialist policies to give themselves a realistic chance of re-gaining power. This won't happen of course because the hard left are a parasite inhabiting the body of the Labour party, they need that body and the legitimacy it gives them to survive and they are already working on fixing the key jobs within the party to ensure they have control of the levers of power within Labour irrespective of who the new Leader is. Welcome to the wacky world of hard left politics.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

The UK is not a socialist country. The vast majority are somewhere either side of the centre.

That is the case in most countries - when people feel some sort of financial security they tend not to rock the boat. When there is a period of crisis people tend to look for an alternative to existing political groupings. It is part of the reason why there has been growing support for Brexit after the 2008 crash. Socialism arrives on the agenda when there is no other alternative to get people out of the mess they are in.

They rejected Corbyn twice.

I would argue that they rejected Corbyn once. In 2017 all the pundits were predicting a major defeat for Corbyn with the expectation that the LP would lose votes and seats - three weeks before the election all the polling companies were predicting that the LP would get about 160 seats - a week before the poll these were revised upwards, but still predicted that LP would get just over 200 seats. Corbyn won 266 seats and increased the LP vote by almost 10%. This was a remarkable result given the disaster of the Blairite leadership of Miliband. You can claim that Corbyn was rejected - the reality is that all the parties were rejected because there was no overall majority and the LP was the only party to significantly increase its seat numbers. The electorate did reject Corbyn in December and I have outlined the reasons why.

They didn't trust his nationalisation proposals,

Despite the fact that a significant majority of the population support public ownership - in 2016 62% of British people supported the nationalisation of the Port Talbot steelworks with only 17% opposed.

they didn't believe him on anti semitism

LP anti-Semitism was a manufactured smear campaign. Tories were openly supporting anti-Semitic views - including Johnson - but the media conveniently ignored this. The media were on safe ground because the anti-Semitic smears came from the Blairites. Corbyn should have challenged the smear campaign head-on - instead he pussy-footed around the issue.

and they didn't really know where he genuinely stood on Brexit.

And that was his downfall.

You bang on about his policies being popular but a lot depends on how you phrase the question.

'Do you think we should take back control of the water companies from the many foreign companies that own them?'

or

'Do you want to renationalize the water companies and the railways even thought it might mean putting tax up by 3 or 4%?

1. The Tories privatised public utilities knowing full well that they were likely to end up in foreign ownership
2. There is no requirement to put up tax to re-nationalise public utilities
3. You make a miserable attempt to create a fake racist question
4. The question asked in the poll was Do you think the following should be nationalised and run in the public sector or privatised and run by private companies? - and then listed off a range of public and private services.

At the end of the day, Labour can't change bugger all when they don't win an election and they haven't done that since Blair.

Including two elections with a Blairite as LP leader - in fact the LP lost vcotes in every election since 1997 except for the performance of Corbyn in 2017.

And you are correct the LP have to win an election - and I would argue that the best way of doing this is to build a mass movement of working class people in workplaces, in communities and on the streets to demonstrate the need to change society - but even then the change the LP can implement will be limited unless it breaks the straight-jacket of capitalism. The LP was responsible for the NHS, public education and the welfare state - yet despite its huge popularity, the Tories have systematically privatised huge parts of the welfare state in order to line the pockets of their financial backers.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I doubt that. But if he does I expect him to win. My fear is he will be too slow to ditch the lurch back to 1983, and will feel disinclined to compromise with the electorate for fear of upsetting the teenyboppers. Let's hope my fears are false.

So you believe that the the nest way for the LP to win an election is to out-Tory the Tories

As for a 'purge of the membership' - that's pure left wing paranoia. Purging is a left wing thing. Stalin. Pol Pot. It isn't what centrists do. More's the pity.

With the exception of Ramsey McDonald and his supporters who joined a Tory government - the only people ever expelled from the LP have been left-wing activists - and they were expelled by Kinnock and the Blairites. After Blair wwas elected the LP membership collapsed, dropping by 60% to about 160,000. Under Corbyn's leadership the membership went to over 550,000 and another 170,000 had their membership blocked by the Blairites. I absolutely guarantee you that a Starmer led LP will see its membership drop dramatically through a combination of people not renewing membership out of disillusionment, by the LP HQ refusing to accept a renewal of membership and through expulsions - it is what the LP right-wing have always done.

You need to get out of your echo chamber and listen to the pulse of the nation if you have any desire for a labour government.

Says the person who works in academia - there is no greater echo chamber.

Remember, you are arguing the toss here with a labour voter, not a floater like many others on NSC. Must do better if you want labour to win. Persuade hearts and minds, not explain to three decimal places why no-labour voters are fools.

The LP was founded as an open house - a federalist party that invited all individuals and political groups who wanted to improve the lot of working class people - it thrived on open robust debate and discussion - and then the right-wing shut down discussion and debate, banned political groups (except for those considered more compliant like the co-op party) and expelled those who promoted a socialist message. I stand by the tradition of robust debate and discussion - it is through debate that everyone with an open mind learns new things and adapts to changing circumstances. Circumstances will determine which of us is proved correct in our analysis and outlook.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

The Labour Party will only survive if they either unite around a new leader, who will not be Long-Bailey, or if they split into two allowing the left to disappear into the political sunset and oblivion while the real Labour Party get on with adopting sensible socialist policies to give themselves a realistic chance of re-gaining power

Actually a split would be very advantageous - and it would be the left who would thrive without the shackles of the Blairites - but the Corbynistas are unlikely to adopt this road because they lack confidence in their own ability and in the ability of working class people to recognise the need for a socialist alternative.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

He's arguing the toss with many labour voters on here (has anyone agreed with him) who have a different perspective and who, in his lexicon, would be dismissed as "Blairites". The Labour Party will only survive if they either unite around a new leader, who will not be Long-Bailey, or if they split into two allowing the left to disappear into the political sunset and oblivion while the real Labour Party get on with adopting sensible socialist policies to give themselves a realistic chance of re-gaining power. This won't happen of course because the hard left are a parasite inhabiting the body of the Labour party, they need that body and the legitimacy it gives them to survive and they are already working on fixing the key jobs within the party to ensure they have control of the levers of power within Labour irrespective of who the new Leader is. Welcome to the wacky world of hard left politics.

Indeed.

 

[Bry Nylon]

And you are correct the LP have to win an election - and I would argue that the best way of doing this is to build a mass movement of working class people in workplaces, in communities and on the streets to demonstrate the need to change society

Good luck with that. Let us know how you get on.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So you believe that the the nest way for the LP to win an election is to out-Tory the Tories


With the exception of Ramsey McDonald and his supporters who joined a Tory government - the only people ever expelled from the LP have been left-wing activists - and they were expelled by Kinnock and the Blairites. After Blair wwas elected the LP membership collapsed, dropping by 60% to about 160,000. Under Corbyn's leadership the membership went to over 550,000 and another 170,000 had their membership blocked by the Blairites. I absolutely guarantee you that a Starmer led LP will see its membership drop dramatically through a combination of people not renewing membership out of disillusionment, by the LP HQ refusing to accept a renewal of membership and through expulsions - it is what the LP right-wing have always done.


Says the person who works in academia - there is no greater echo chamber.


The LP was founded as an open house - a federalist party that invited all individuals and political groups who wanted to improve the lot of working class people - it thrived on open robust debate and discussion - and then the right-wing shut down discussion and debate, banned political groups (except for those considered more compliant like the co-op party) and expelled those who promoted a socialist message. I stand by the tradition of robust debate and discussion - it is through debate that everyone with an open mind learns new things and adapts to changing circumstances. Circumstances will determine which of us is proved correct in our analysis and outlook.

1. Er, no. The choices here are not simply death or glory.

2. If you had any idea how I operate in academia you'd laugh at your insinuation (that I'm an academic echo chamber afficianado). I'm what's known as a maveric, and 'his own worst enemy' Anyway, your comment is whataboutery.

All that aside, what's your link with Brighton and Hove Albion? I have to ask given that it is a bit rude if someone with no interest in the Albion comes on here just to discuss politics. I have been all over a couple of (right wing) poster for doing this. I don't mind your posting, myself, because I am more sympathetic to the left than the right, and find your views interesting (not that I agree with a great deal, but anyway), nevertheless, without some Albion credentials I can see other posters on here inviting you to bugger off

 

[drew]

That is the case in most countries - when people feel some sort of financial security they tend not to rock the boat. When there is a period of crisis people tend to look for an alternative to existing political groupings. It is part of the reason why there has been growing support for Brexit after the 2008 crash. Socialism arrives on the agenda when there is no other alternative to get people out of the mess they are in.
And exactly when has that happened in this country?


I would argue that they rejected Corbyn once. In 2017 all the pundits were predicting a major defeat for Corbyn with the expectation that the LP would lose votes and seats - three weeks before the election all the polling companies were predicting that the LP would get about 160 seats - a week before the poll these were revised upwards, but still predicted that LP would get just over 200 seats. Corbyn won 266 seats and increased the LP vote by almost 10%. This was a remarkable result given the disaster of the Blairite leadership of Miliband. You can claim that Corbyn was rejected - the reality is that all the parties were rejected because there was no overall majority and the LP was the only party to significantly increase its seat numbers. The electorate did reject Corbyn in December and I have outlined the reasons why.

Well just to placate you, lets say he was rejected once and that the second time he was rejected slightly more than the tories were rejected!


Despite the fact that a significant majority of the population support public ownership - in 2016 62% of British people supported the nationalisation of the Port Talbot steelworks with only 17% opposed.


LP anti-Semitism was a manufactured smear campaign. Tories were openly supporting anti-Semitic views - including Johnson - but the media conveniently ignored this. The media were on safe ground because the anti-Semitic smears came from the Blairites. Corbyn should have challenged the smear campaign head-on - instead he pussy-footed around the issue.

Hardly manufactured bearing in mind the number of complaints from people within the Labour party, Luciana Berger for example, or are you now going to suggest she was a Blairite conspirator planted in the party to undermine your hero.


And that was his downfall.


1. The Tories privatised public utilities knowing full well that they were likely to end up in foreign ownership
2. There is no requirement to put up tax to re-nationalise public utilities So where was all the money coming from?
3. You make a miserable attempt to create a fake racist question
4. The question asked in the poll was Do you think the following should be nationalised and run in the public sector or privatised and run by private companies? - and then listed off a range of public and private services. Can you provide a link to that then?


Including two elections with a Blairite as LP leader - in fact the LP lost vcotes in every election since 1997 except for the performance of Corbyn in 2017.

And you are correct the LP have to win an election - and I would argue that the best way of doing this is to build a mass movement of working class people in workplaces, in communities and on the streets to demonstrate the need to change society - but even then the change the LP can implement will be limited unless it breaks the straight-jacket of capitalism. The LP was responsible for the NHS, public education and the welfare state - yet despite its huge popularity, the Tories have systematically privatised huge parts of the welfare state in order to line the pockets of their financial backers.

Dream on. Corbyn, your left leaning hero, managed to change die hard labour voters into tories, albeit hopefully temporarily.