Step forward Andy Burnham, British prime minister in May 2020

[London Irish]

Do you even know what "grandstanding" means?

Seriously, I'd find your naiivity quite quaint and amusing if it didn't come with your trademark pomposity, writing off genuine contenders in your usual tiresome misplaced know-it-all manner just because they don't quite fit with your 40 year out of date political hue.

And if you want my ideas and contributions, you only have to read the thread. It really couldn't be more clear.

I've read them, they are not really taking the debate forward to any degree. I've no idea whether you support Burnham. One of the other candidates? What policy idea from any of candidates has grabbed you as important? Please explain.

All the rest is your usual standard impression of an excitable teenager discovering the internet for the first time and the thrill of being able to anonymously insult people.

You do know people who do that all have terribly low self-esteem? That you try to make youself feel a little bit better by these childish insults?

Seriously, in a youngster on here it's a bit sad but the immaturity would be forgivable. For a guy who must be in his 40s, it's really half-comical, half-pathetic.

 

[London Irish]

The last time Britain voted in a left wing party was 1974. The "New Labour" victories were achieved when Labour moved to the centre ground. I did not vote for Tony Blair because he was a bit to right wing for me.

I think the only way we have of getting a left wing labour party in power, is to win an election with the promise of centre ground policy and then move to the left once in power. E.g Get an electable person like Blair to win an election, and when in power bin him for a Tony Benn type after the election.

I get what you are saying but I think the press would rightly flay a Labour government that was going further than its manifesto mandate.

I do think this is a bit of a confidence trick by the New Labour-Blairites. John Smith would have comfortably won the 97 election without all the New Labour gubbins - given the chaotic state of the Tories. I'd recommend this article by Peter Oborne that makes it clear the easy circumstances Blair had http://www.politico.eu/article/labour-recovery-uk-election-blair/

I think many Labour supporters have moved beyond that debate now. Burnham is hardly from the left of the party but has shown a commendable willingness to listen to what voters want over the past few years in his stint as shadow health secretary, not what Murdoch editorials say what voters want.

He will be the true unity candidate in this leadership election and he will be able to utilise the talents of all wings of the party.

 

[Pavilionaire]

He's been the best performing Labour politician of the last five years, admired pretty much on all sides. Leadership contest will be a landslide.

For a supposed smart guy, Chuka sitting on the lap yesterday of has-been dinosaur Mandelson was spectacular own goal stuff. Remarkable to see all these Blairite chancers scrambling around like family members nicking the silver at a funeral wake - no loyalty to each other, just their own careers. They had better not swallow the Mandelson kool aid too much or they could find themselves sitting on the backbenches for the next 5 years or joining David Miliband charity chugging.

Burnham - within his health remit - genuinely appears to know his stuff and genuinely seems to give a sh1t about all of the stakeholders in the NHS. He seems a good all-round bloke. But you need different skills to be PM - a statemanlike presence, the ability to appeal to the middle ground and attract floating voters, including those who have voted for right wing parties in the past.

But above this when it comes to the leadership he is a loser, a man who contended and was never even in the mix. There's no shame losing to David Miliband but coming in 4th behind Ed Miliband AND Ed Balls?! I think the world and his wife accept that the unions backed the wrong brother - the party members and the MPs both backed David and I think the journos and public thought David's appointment was a foregone conclusion.

Burnham would be far better in, say, the Harriet Harman role of Caretaker Manager when Labour ditches a leader. He embodies the spirit of Labour, he understands the party's DNA and is well-respected.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I've read them, they are not really taking the debate forward to any degree. I've no idea whether you support Burnham. One of the other candidates? What policy idea from any of candidates has grabbed you as important? Please explain.

All the rest is your usual standard impression of an excitable teenager discovering the internet for the first time and the thrill of being able to anonymously insult people.

You do know people who do that all have terribly low self-esteem? That you try to make youself feel a little bit better by these childish insults?

Seriously, in a youngster on here it's a bit sad but the immaturity would be forgivable. For a guy who must be in his 40s, it's really half-comical, half-pathetic.

I think there's only one person on this thread who is being 'half-pathetic'

And it's not Simster.

 

[Simster]

I think there's only one person on this thread who is being 'half-pathetic'

And it's not Simster.

It's plastic paddy's modus operandi. Post some half-baked nonsense, then write two paragraphs of sanctimonious drivel when anyone dare's to point out what a child he is. It's probably why he's regarded as a complete joke even by people on his own side.

Talking about self esteem deficiency and my age are just a smokescreen he's put up in an effort to make himself feel better, but ultimately he's still smarting from the fact that my comment - that he appears clueless as to what would make Labour electable again - is easily the most liked post on this thread. The truth hurts, and that truth is most people agree with me that plastic paddy is completely clueless.

 

[London Irish]

Burnham - within his health remit - genuinely appears to know his stuff and genuinely seems to give a sh1t about all of the stakeholders in the NHS. He seems a good all-round bloke. But you need different skills to be PM - a statemanlike presence, the ability to appeal to the middle ground and attract floating voters, including those who have voted for right wing parties in the past.

But above this when it comes to the leadership he is a loser, a man who contended and was never even in the mix. There's no shame losing to David Miliband but coming in 4th behind Ed Miliband AND Ed Balls?! I think the world and his wife accept that the unions backed the wrong brother - the party members and the MPs both backed David and I think the journos and public thought David's appointment was a foregone conclusion.

Burnham would be far better in, say, the Harriet Harman role of Caretaker Manager when Labour ditches a leader. He embodies the spirit of Labour, he understands the party's DNA and is well-respected.

Agree with much of that.. but not the David Miliband choice - let's recall who his two closest party allies were and who ran his campaign - Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander. Two Labour politicians totally on the political scrapheap after last Thursday who we won't be hearing from for a while!

 

[London Irish]

It's plastic paddy's modus operandi. Post some half-baked nonsense, then write two paragraphs of sanctimonious drivel when anyone dare's to point out what a child he is. It's probably why he's regarded as a complete joke even by people on his own side.

Talking about self esteem deficiency and my age are just a smokescreen he's put up in an effort to make himself feel better, but ultimately he's still smarting from the fact that my comment - that he appears clueless as to what would make Labour electable again - is easily the most liked post on this thread. The truth hurts, and that truth is most people agree with me that plastic paddy is completely clueless.

Again, someone in his 40s checking the number of likes on a post

OK keep up the good work Simster

 

[Simster]

Burnham - within his health remit - genuinely appears to know his stuff and genuinely seems to give a sh1t about all of the stakeholders in the NHS. He seems a good all-round bloke. But you need different skills to be PM - a statemanlike presence, the ability to appeal to the middle ground and attract floating voters, including those who have voted for right wing parties in the past.

But above this when it comes to the leadership he is a loser, a man who contended and was never even in the mix. There's no shame losing to David Miliband but coming in 4th behind Ed Miliband AND Ed Balls?! I think the world and his wife accept that the unions backed the wrong brother - the party members and the MPs both backed David and I think the journos and public thought David's appointment was a foregone conclusion.

Burnham would be far better in, say, the Harriet Harman role of Caretaker Manager when Labour ditches a leader. He embodies the spirit of Labour, he understands the party's DNA and is well-respected.

Yes, this.

As I said on the GE thread, the only people who have a chance are Cooper and Umunna. I think Cooper is by far the better option, but would need to ditch the entire old guard, including her own husband who has had the misfortune of being attached to the Brown regime and has an abrasive personality that is hard to empathise with.

 

[Simster]

Again, someone in his 40s checking the number of likes on a post

OK keep up the good work Simster

That's a very sweet little riposte in the absence of anything meaningful. Look it's only something I observed - I can't say thumbsups are something I've ever referred to in the past.

I'm really sorry you're hurting so badly. Maybe I'll try and spare your feelings before highlighting much how you sound like a 19 year old student next time. You carry on fighting your silly class war like the grown up you obviously are and I'll leave you alone. Now where were you? Ah yes, you were busy telling everyone that Umunna has no chance because he was being chummy with the architect of 3 Labour GE wins, Peter Mandelson.

 

[beorhthelm]

But above this when it comes to the leadership he is a loser, a man who contended and was never even in the mix. There's no shame losing to David Miliband but coming in 4th behind Ed Miliband AND Ed Balls?!

this will be a proverbial millstone for him, constantly refered to by the Tory press. if Labour have any sense they'll install someone of no real consequence to see them through year of reflection and contemplation, rather than trying to rush in to a new leader this October to fight an election in May 2020.

 

[London Irish]

I'd also have a debate on what type of Labour Party its members want and then try to reconcile as much as possible the Labour Party policies with the motivations and aspirations of the British voters in general to come up with a platform of policies that they can stand proudly on. Make sure these are policies voted by the members and fully approved by the NEC.

And then and only then elect a leader who believes fully in those ideals. I think it will build consensus, recover morale, stop them from tearing the party into factions. They'd have the moral high ground and could say that they are listening. I can't see any benefit in electing a leader before you know what you want him to stand for.


EDIT - a bit of a tip for you though. Don't EVER ask for Russell Brand's endorsement in the future. And you might want to run any predictions on what will happen politically by NSC's Mustafa first. Whatever he predicts - you can safely assume the opposite will happen.

The first bit I think will genuinely happen - Burnham I think is uniquely placed to end the faction fighting, it's one of the reasons why I support him.

It's an iron law of politics that when Labour loses in government it will shift to the left somewhat and when it loses in opposition it will shift to the right a bit. Burnham will represent a small shift to the right from Ed but one that doesn't lead the party to haemorrhage important activists that provide the lifeblood of campaigning.

As for Brand, I don't know whether the Labour party will take your disinterested advice

I think it will continue to reach out to those alienated by tradtional middle class Westminster politics, Brand may be one useful conduit, there will probably be many others emerge over the next few years

 

[glasfryn]

The perfect man to make mincemeat of the Cameron/Buffoon Boris reign of incompetence and elitist spite over the next five years.

The NHS will be the No1 issue for the British public and there is not a man in Parliament better equipped and with more passion to lead the fight to save Britain's best loved institution.

Andy will sail through the Labour leadership campaign given all the Tony Blair soundalikes will end up acheiving backing from the Tory press but from sod all else.

Best footballer in Parliament too so shitty rags like the Sun are going to have to think up new lines other than too geeky, too nerdy etc

To my fellow NSC lefties, we've had a few days licking our wounds but enough of that - the fightback starts now and we never give up!!!

The days of the NHS privatising, fox hunt restoring, human rights abolishing shower are numbered

while I agree with your sentiments I honestly think Andy is a little to quiet, as I have said on another thread labour really need a right bar steward some one who can stick the knife in and turn it.
the trouble is who?
this is where I wish Dennis skinner was a bit younger, also I am considering rejoining the Labour party this assuming they do not go back to the watered down tories under Blair otherwise I will go on voting for the Greens.
and just one other thought maybe Labour ought to have a woman as leader?

 

[London Irish]

That's a very sweet little riposte in the absence of anything meaningful. Look it's only something I observed - I can't say thumbsups are something I've ever referred to in the past.

I'm really sorry you're hurting so badly. Maybe I'll try and spare your feelings before highlighting much how you sound like a 19 year old student next time. You carry on fighting your silly class war like the grown up you obviously are and I'll leave you alone. Now where were you? Ah yes, you were busy telling everyone that Umunna has no chance because he was being chummy with the architect of 3 Labour GE wins, Peter Mandelson.

Do you want me to "like" this? Would it cheer you up a bit?

 

[Simster]

Do you want me to "like" this? Would it cheer you up a bit?

No not really. I want you to fk off back to BrightonFans.com (or whatever that other cack site is called) where you were in the good old days, preaching to your 4 slavishly devoted followers, before you slunk back over here with your tail between your legs after a 2 year absence.

 

[London Irish]

I am considering rejoining the Labour party this assuming they do not go back to the watered down tories under Blair otherwise I will go on voting for the Greens.

Yep the sad thing is the Blairites don't think people like you exist.

We get devastated in Scotland by a party espousing anti-austerity politics, the Greens are on the rise as Brighton Labour knows only too well and the surge in UKIP in Labour's northern heartlands is partly because these voters feel the party is led by middle-class elitists out of touch. The likes of Chuka, Liz, Tristram have nothing to say, nothing to offer against this squeeze in our traditional support except, be more Tory and alienate them even more!

 

[glasfryn]

Don't take it personally but I think you need some new ideas:



Why? It clearly wasn't the number one issue last week, it was the economy. Why would that suddenly change?



They're not going away any time soon and if you want to win the next election then you need to understand why people voted Tory and didn't vote Labour (2 issues there).


IMHO, the best thing the Labour Party could do is not rush into a leadership contest. Take 6 months to have a post-mortem - gather as much info as possible about what went wrong, what the real motivations for people not voting Labour were and for that you need to get your mindset away from class-envy or that everyone that voted Tory are *******s because otherwise you'll never get it. I'd also have a debate on what type of Labour Party its members want and then try to reconcile as much as possible the Labour Party policies with the motivations and aspirations of the British voters in general to come up with a platform of policies that they can stand proudly on. Make sure these are policies voted by the members and fully approved by the NEC.

And then and only then elect a leader who believes fully in those ideals. I think it will build consensus, recover morale, stop them from tearing the party into factions. They'd have the moral high ground and could say that they are listening. I can't see any benefit in electing a leader before you know what you want him to stand for.


EDIT - a bit of a tip for you though. Don't EVER ask for Russell Brand's endorsement in the future. And you might want to run any predictions on what will happen politically by NSC's Mustafa first. Whatever he predicts - you can safely assume the opposite will happen.

Brand V Boris Johnson .............................I know which is the comedian

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Burnham - within his health remit - genuinely appears to know his stuff and genuinely seems to give a sh1t about all of the stakeholders in the NHS. He seems a good all-round bloke. But you need different skills to be PM - a statemanlike presence, the ability to appeal to the middle ground and attract floating voters, including those who have voted for right wing parties in the past.

But above this when it comes to the leadership he is a loser, a man who contended and was never even in the mix. There's no shame losing to David Miliband but coming in 4th behind Ed Miliband AND Ed Balls?! I think the world and his wife accept that the unions backed the wrong brother - the party members and the MPs both backed David and I think the journos and public thought David's appointment was a foregone conclusion.

Burnham would be far better in, say, the Harriet Harman role of Caretaker Manager when Labour ditches a leader. He embodies the spirit of Labour, he understands the party's DNA and is well-respected.

Never mind about Labour's DNA. That was said about Ed Miliband and look where Labour are now... The crux is can Burnham reach out beyond Labour's core votes and win in 2020? Yes, he can defend the NHS but that's not enough to win an election. Harman was risibly poor this morning and her refusal to answer a straight question is one of the reasons people are being put off by politics.
Alan Johnson should be the care taker and it's a great shame he's of an age when he doesn't want to do the job full-time. Step forward the next Alan Johnson....

 

[London Irish]

No not really. I want you to fk off back to BrightonFans.com (or whatever that other cack site is called) where you were in the good old days, preaching to your 4 slavishly devoted followers, before you slunk back over here with your tail between your legs after a 2 year absence.

Yep you've kinda given up on your heavyweight intellectual interventions into Labour's future, right? I think everyone can see that.

What now, 8 or 9 more posts of this kind of playground drivel? Any chance you can just roll into one big post so you don't end up totally boring the arse off an interesting thread?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Agree with much of that.. but not the David Miliband choice - let's recall who his two closest party allies were and who ran his campaign - Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander. Two Labour politicians totally on the political scrapheap after last Thursday who we won't be hearing from for a while!

They are on the scrapheap although the extent to which that is down to their personal failings versus the extent to which that was down to sheer unadulterated Scottish Nationalism is a matter for debate.

In fact, I think I'm being too kind there. How the hell can anyone think that a 20 year-old university student can represent their constituents better than an experienced, well-respected politician like Douglas Alexander? The girl speaks sense but has virtually no life experience to draw on and no political experience. I'm not being ageist here - late 20s / 30-odd then yes it's possible, but not 20. There's a reason it hasn't happened since 1667, and I think even that was down to The Great Fire of London the previous year.

 

[Simster]

Yep you've kind given up on your heavyweight intellectual interventions into Labour's future, right? I think everyone can see that.

What now, 8 or 9 more posts of this kind of playground drivel? Any chance you can just roll into one big post so you don't end up totally boring the arse off an interesting thread?

You really are a clown. But yes, it's getting boring so let's draw a line under this.