You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
“Kier who” I can hear them say already. Very serious and dull person who won’t attract anyone.
Not to mention the person who architected the move to supporting a second ref. If people think leave voters in Doncaster are going to vote for an arch remain London intellectual they're deluded. And that goes for Thornberry too. I can't see past either Rayner or Nandy. Both can speak to northern working class voters at their level without completely turning away everyone else.
It's interesting to note where Johnson's symbolic first visit as PM has been. Blair's former constituency which turned blue on Thursday. He is already trying to position himself across the centreground (and even what might have been described as the centre-left) - to cement these new Conservative voters in place for future elections. Who knows how successful this will be, but it reminds me of how Thatcher turned former Labour strongholds in the south into Tory ones in the 1980s.
Labour can choose not to compete for these voters, but it means the outcome of the next couple of elections is fixed already.
You all need to go and speak to the people who voted Johnson in.
This election was about keeping Corbyn out.
It’s interesting to note where Johnson’s symbolic first visit as PM has been.
Johnson is already out on the campaign trail ready for future elections, just as he was all summer while Corbyn kept a low profile.
I can’t see past either Rayner or Nandy.
Rayner was pushed forward next to Corbyn during this campaign, while others were held back. She may well have helped attract some of the voters you identified, but she also has this election hung around her neck now. If the current play makers at Labour think they have set her up well to be the next Labour leader with the members, I suspect they are right. Ask anyone who chose not to vote Labour what they think of her, and she is now clearly a tainted choice to win them back. If the new leader is seen as a Corbyn continuity leader, then champagne corks will be popping at no10. I really like Rayner… but then I voted Labour. If the new Leader isn’t chosen with an eye to widening support for Labour, and it’s still just about winning a battle inside Labour to keep control of the party, it’s game over for 15 years or more.
Oh, who is acting deputy leader now? Does the role just stay empty for now? Normally they would act as leader during a campaign to elect a new leader. Something for those calling for Corbyn to go soon need to think about… that could get very messy very fast… with no deputy in place.
Tom Watson said something interesting on C4's coverage on Thursday night along the lines of "the Labour Party owes it to the working class to to everything it can to get into power." I took that to mean moving closer to the centre ground and getting into power to implement their policies as and when they could.
edit- I don't think there is a deputy leader, the role was abolished recently.
If the new leader is seen as a Corbyn continuity leader
I bet most have never heard of her, she was only shadow education sec and only joined parliament in 2015 so has relatively clean hands. Truth is we don't really know what her actual policies or beliefs are, but I'm sure she'll come up with something dfferent to 'free everything'. She's clearly extremely passionate about education and social mobility. That'll play very well with the confused and malleable plebs in northern shitholes. She can be the popular public face, backed up with some intellectual rigour from Starmer and Long-Bailey. The problem however is I don't think she'll want it right now.
the role was abolished recently
It wasn’t. But the attempt to do so, to remove the only position other than leader that the membership get to have a say over who fills it, just because the current incumbent wouldn’t tow the line, sent out a clear message to voters. And they listened. The Labour Party isn’t for them, only for those that are left wing enough.
That’ll play very well with the confused and malleable plebs in northern shitholes.
There is no point engaging with you on anything to do with Labour, is there.
Lammy should probably be their next leader. I think they'll go for a woman though. no idea who mind.
There is no point engaging with you on anything to do with Labour, is there.
To be fair, for a while there was the hope that Labour would deliver a genuine left wing (but still mixed economy) leader that would genuinely to his best to improve the quality of life for the vast majority in the U.K.
That hope has just been crushed for years
And the killer blow was dealt by traditional labour voters choosing to facilitate a Conservative vision of a post EU UK
Being a big cheesed off and lashing out is understandable. Especially if there is a renewed effort to drag Labour away from the left. Which seems inevitable at some point.
Starmer in brexitland would be a mistake, unless the wheels come off brexit faster than I expect. He'd be a terrible choice today and could be a fantastic choice in a few years.
TBH there isn't a list of strong candidates. Most of the half decent ones had a crack last time and got their arses kicked by Corbyn, remember. I mean, ffs, Chuka Umunna was one of the great hopes and he couldn't even lead or stay loyal to a party when it was basically just him. If there'd been a good successor to Brown then Miliband wouldn't have been leader and the same's true of Corbyn.
Jess Phillips will get a lot of attention because she was so opposed to Corbyn but that doesn't make you a leader. I reckon she's the "who is most acceptable to the Telegraph" candidate, which isn't a good prize to win, and a false hope- being the one your enemies hate least gets you nowhere because they still won't vote for you. But that's going to have a lot of appeal.
Long-Bailey had a pretty bad election campaign imo, she gets badly hurt by association with corbyn but also for being ineffectually associated with Corbyn. I think she's doomed. Don't know enough about Rayner really, "pragmatically left wing" could be a really strong position to take but you can already see the "loony lefty" attacks being sharpened... Maybe that's inevitable? Don't know. Could be a great unity leader for a couple of years, I can't see her as a strong election leader though. Maybe she'd grow into it.
I'd like to see more of Lammy, he has a good combination of capability and ire. It seems to be more or less forgotten now but half the problem of Miliband was that nobody knew what he believed in, same with Andy Burnham- it's hard to get behind someone when you've no idea what direction they're facing. But he does make stupid mistakes too, and that's more or less the flipside of the things that makes him good, can't really get rid of one without the other. I think he could be a really good option for the party as it tries to get its shit together, but not sure about the next election. Deputy leader?
Main thing, I think, is that whoever it is has to learn from the whole story of the last 7 leaders of Labour- not just be a reaction to Corbyn or throw out the baby with the bathwater, but also remember why Corbyn happened, and why Miliband really failed. And they have to not swallow the big lie of Blair "making the party electable" which is stronger now than ever, but probably will need to be able to use it.
And I hope they don't write off Scotland, it's equally important to remember that the last 2 scottish leaders were absolute incompetents, and that the last decent one was ignored and marginalised by the national party. (Corbyn's faith in SLAB was absolutely ridiculous tbf, it's sort of amazing that they went from Miliband ignoring Lamont, to Corbyn having blind faith in Dugdale) I'm not sure Labour is really capable of learning these 2 lessons right now though, especially as appealing in Scotland opens them to attacks in England.
In conclusion, it's time to dig up and reanimate John Smith.
Labour need to realise its what the general public want that matters and not just about the labour members who keep standing by Corbin for some strange reason.
I can't believe Corbin hasn't resigned yet after being obliterated by a blonde buffoon, he just has to go.
Just get someone charismatic that people can relate to, not overly left and with half decent policies, not an oddball like the last three.
The lovely Rachel Riley did some damage and made Corbin look weak, he has always divided labour voters. A lot of people think he's a weirdy beardy with a wiff of cabbage about him and will just not vote for him. I now live in a Tory run town, first time for about 100 years, doom and gloom.
Not to mention the person who architected the move to supporting a second ref. If people think leave voters in Doncaster are going to vote for an arch remain London intellectual they’re deluded. And that goes for Thornberry too. I can’t see past either Rayner or Nandy. Both can speak to northern working class voters at their level without completely turning away everyone else.
And if you think people in London (which is a huge part of Labours support) are going to vote for Rayner, you're sorely deluded.
She is shit.
Let's not forget that those Northern working class people were happy to vote for the biggest Etonian nipple twister in politics save for the Moggster.
When people were shouting to be rid of Corbyn, (or was it just Binners?), it was not obvious who had the skills needed to take over. Personally I think it would be best to take time to reflect on this election and how to move forward. Everybody seems to have an opinion, and appears confident there’s is the right way - they do all seem to differ from each other however.
I have been impressed with Rebecca Long-Bailey when I’ve heard her speak.
I can’t believe Corbin hasn’t resigned yet after being obliterated by a blonde buffoon, he just has to go.
It's a cult of personality isn't it - the true believers can't accept that it was him despite the overwhelming evidence.
endomick
Member
I can’t believe Corbin hasn’t resigned yet after being obliterated by a blonde buffoon, he just has to go.
Pay a bit more attention, he's already announced he's stepping down and the leadership contest to replace him is already under way.
He's just not making the same damn fool error Miliband did of walking away and leaving a vacuum right at the most critical moment- and it'd be even worse this time as there's no deputy leader. Disorderly handover is how you end up with a Corbyn in the first place.
The structure of our general electoral system (FPTP) and the influence of the press and social media clearly favours personality over policy. Labour have lost the last 4 elections on this basis; however strong their manifestos were Brown, Milliband and Corbyn were just too unpopular with the broader electorate as individuals. If Labour don’t now recognise this and again play the game they did so successfully under Blair they will be in the wilderness for evermore. Progressive policy to improve all our lives and reduce inequality, homelessness and child poverty is much needed but useless without actually being in government.
Disorderly handover is how you end up with a Corbyn in the first place.
From the Guardian article, it's not how many within Labour see it.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, team Corbyn denies completely that it was the leader who repelled voters. Corbyn, when acknowledging Labour’s defeat in the early hours of Friday, refused to accept any personal responsibility for his second general election loss, and said he would stay in office during a “period of reflection”, before stepping down. He, shadow chancellor John McDonnell and party chairman Ian Lavery all insisted Brexit had drowned out Labour’s popular policy agenda, and that the leader had not been the problem. This has infuriated MPs and defeated candidates, who see it as evidence of the Corbynistas’ determination to hold on to the levers of power in order to install a successor in exactly the same mould as Corbyn who will deliver more of the same.
Surely they have only one candidate, and that has to be Diane Abbott, she is a person of the people and speaks for everyone.
taxi25
Member
From the Guardian article, it’s not how many within Labour see it.
That quote doesn't really support your point (or rather, it doesn't contradict mine). And it shows a bit of either paranoia or intentional misrepresentation- Corbyn as outgoing leader has no "levers of power" or ability to install a successor. Corbynistas? Yep, they have influence but that's the same regardless of whether Corbyn quits today and leaves a vaccuum, or caretakers til the leadership election. Only in the vacuum scenario they'd have less constraints.
If Corbyn tried to appoint/install a successor, that'd be the mark of doom. I bet you 20 scottish pence that he doesn't firmly back any candidate, but I'll go double or nothing that if he does, they get crushed.
However... Just saying that it's all down to the leader and his lefter-leaning policies leaves them wide open to making avoidable mistakes next. It's exactly how you end up saying "It wasn't brexit, Corbyn was unelectable" and installing Starmer without worrying about his remain stance.
Just exactly as happened after Miliband, funnily enough, where people kept insisting that it was because he was Too Left Wing when literally all of the party's analysis kept showing that actually it was because nobody knew what Miliband's labour stood for at all, and nobody votes for that. That lead to a bunch of candidates who had the exact same problem, whereas the one dude who actually had an opinion could stand out regardless of what it was. And Blair Made Labour Electable continues to cause them problems.
Basically the next leader can't be chosen on myths, unless they're myths that'll help win an election- but a lot of people will be selective about the lessons of the last few years and will insist that the spin that suits their agenda is the only one that counts. Not just Corbynistas.
Ach, too late for an edit but- you'd better be damn sure that the Tories are learning every possible lesson from the last election. Labour can't afford to settle for simple answers or scapegoats, as tempting as that is. But this is a mistake they've made over and over, and it's probably easier to make that same mistake again than to do better this time.
gauss1777
Member
When people were shouting to be rid of Corbyn, (or was it just Binners?)
People were shouting to be rid of Binners? Bit harsh.
Scotland is a write-off for Labour. They are the fourth party. So many SNP/Con marginals that Labour supporters will be obliged to tactically vote SNP.
Labour would be best just to rely on SNP support issue by issue. The "coalition of chaos" message is good for galvanising Scots Torys but no one in the rest of the UK seems to g.a.s? Union polled as not as important as Brexit etc?
According to to her Twitter, Lammy is Sturgeons "favourite Labour politician", pic of them cuddling etc. You'd imagine that they could work together well. UK Labour not in a position to turn its nose up at 48 potentially sympathetic MPs.
According to to her Twitter, Lammy is Sturgeons “favourite Labour politician”, pic of them cuddling etc. You’d imagine that they could work together well. UK Labour not in a position to turn its nose up at 48 potentially sympathetic MPs.
Which makes him toxic for Scottish Labour, the toxicity between SNP and Scottish Labour sometimes has to be seen to be believed. A London "mate" for Sturgeon would see membership cards getting torn up
crimsondynamo
Subscriber
Scotland is a write-off for Labour. They are the fourth party. So many SNP/Con marginals that Labour supporters will be obliged to tactically vote SNP.
Third party in vote share, only 4th in seats due to FPTP- MPs are a good way to count victories in an election but longer term trends come from votes not seats. And for that matter, while they're 7% behind the tories today, they were 1.5% behind in 2015. These aren't massive swings in a 3-and-a-bit party country, especially in what's going to continue to be an incredibly turbulent and divisive political climate.
As for tactical voting- in 2010, the SNP had to watch people tactically vote Labour against the Tories, just like Labour did in this election (they just did it with more grace and with an eye on the future). In 2015, they went from 6 seats and 20% of the vote, to 56 seats and 50% of the vote. In terms of voter share Labour today are in almost the same position as the SNP in 2010. Luckily the SNP didn't think that was a "write off".
Me, I'm a scottish nationalist, I'd be perfectly happy for Labour to just give up in Scotland. But it'd be really stupid of them. I do accept that every strategy they've had in Scotland has been stupid recently, but you never know. The good thing about annihilation is that it's easier to change things when you've got basically nothing to lose.
big_n_daft
Member
Which makes him toxic for Scottish Labour, the toxicity between SNP and Scottish Labour sometimes has to be seen to be believed.
Another thing which they desperately need to fix. A less insane approach in Scotland could easily have prevented Theresa May from forming a government, last time round- the scottish tories made the difference and the chances of that happening if they'd approached it any other way were slim.
Nobody senior in the party seemed to even understand that let alone act on it, but hopefully next time round they'll remember the difference between rivals and enemies. How anyone can compartmentalise "We hate this party so much that we'll run against them as our main opponents even at the expense of putting tories into SNP seats" and "we will probably need these guys' votes if we're going to govern again in the next decade" I don't know.
(Being opposed to independence shouldn't come into it since pretty much everyone with a brain realises that there would never be a Yes vote in an indyref under a national Labour government... the best thing Labour can do to fight independence is to make a UK that most Scots want to be part of, while the best thing for independence is to have a Tory government doing the opposite.)
Labour need to realise its what the general public want that matters and not just about the labour members
Yep, and I don't think they are going to realise this when then elect new leader. Very few people commenting on this thread understand it.
Popularity first, policies/ethics/integrity second.
The fact you don't see an issue with David Lammy in the Brexiter/racist northern constituencies is evidence of this. Don't think about who you would want as a decent leader, think who would be the most popular with the easily swayed and hard of thinking electorate.
And the killer blow was dealt by traditional labour voters choosing to facilitate a Conservative vision of a post EU UK
Which happened because they felt unable to trust Labour and their leadership. It's hardly the diners' fault if they go to a restaurant and the menu isn't too their taste. I can't even remember what the Labour punchline for this election was - the 2017 was 'Fpr the many not the few', the recent one, erm, wordy and forgettable. They should have been talking about fixing a broken country, one which the Tories broke, and had three or four punchy points. Probably the NHS, social services, education etc.
These are all traditional Labour strengths and things they should own, but they basically gave Johnson a free run at them by throwing out an unfocussed splurge of policies across the board.
New leader? I have no specific idea, but I'd ike to see someone who's actually under retirement age and not rooted in the 1970s - Corbyn is 70, McDonnell, 68 - and someone who has Jess Philips's authenticity and no BS clarity. Someone who's going to hold Johnson to account in plain Engish on the big points. Not necessarily Philips, but someone who has those qualities.
I like Keir Starmer as a forensic, calm, intelligent protagonist in Parliament, but I don't think he has wider appeal at a time when Labour needs to talk to its working class voters along with the urban middle classes. I don't think he's relatable. Blair had the opposite task no?
Finally, I think it's easy to be gloomy in the aftermath of the result, but does anyone really think that Johnson is going to successfully retain the support of northern, working class voters in the longer by delivering a Brexit that makes the country poorer and throwing token funding at infrastructure projects in the north of England. There are huge structural issues with our economy, the automation of jobs and the distribution of wealth in particular.
If you think that any Tory government is going to tackle those issues - along with climate change and the NHS - you haven't been listening for the last hundred years or so. It's a party bank-rolled by the super-rich establishment. Labour needs to be a credible alternative when reality starts to hit home, at the moment they're not.
And then there's the first past the post voting system.
Following Kerley's point - Based on popularity first - who do we think should be picked?
You'll have to go a long way down the list to find someone who doesn't have the stink of Corbyn on them.
Burgon was just on the news; what a vacuous drip of a man. Next!
#BackBurgon
Finally, I think it’s easy to be gloomy in the aftermath of the result, but does anyone really think that Johnson is going to successfully retain the support of northern
Johnson not so much. But unless Labour can get them back there’ll be a vacuum, which opens the door for something else. Either apathy or a new party.
And at the minute those voters aren’t looking particularly left wing.
The fact you don’t see an issue with David Lammy in the Brexiter/racist northern constituencies is evidence of this. Don’t think about who you would want as a decent leader, think who would be the most popular with the easily swayed and hard of thinking electorate.
So much wrong with this
Yet another post of the "you must be thick and racist" if you don't live in London type ( but you are alright if you are a SNP supporting Scot) on here
Thornberry quote "thick and stupid" about to kill her hopes
Lisa Nandy was just good on Marr. I think it has to be someone outside the inner leadership group after such a big defeat.
Lisa Nandy was just good on Marr. I think it has to be someone outside the inner leadership group after such a big defeat.
She will be fighting the NEC and conference more than the government, she wasn't loyal, she doesn't have the big name support
So much wrong with this
Yet another post of the “you must be thick and racist” if you don’t live in London type ( but you are alright if you are a SNP supporting Scot) on here
Thornberry quote “thick and stupid” about to kill her hopes
How else do you account for the correlation of swing with education?
Thinking it is one thing.
Calling them that directly and then subsequently begging for their vote shows a disconnect from reality
This is buried so deep in the PC version of the Guardian that only mobile readers are likely to find it so I'll provide a direct link.
Jess Phillips on Labour:
Jess Phillips on Labour:
The truth is, there is a clique who don’t care if our appeal has narrowed, as long as they have control of the institutions and ideas of the party.
If this isn’t changed, nothing will be.
The rest of the piece is spot on as well.
Yet another post of the “you must be thick and racist” if you don’t live in London type
Not at all. It is just understanding how people vote and what they base it on. Use objective facts and you will find;
The average voter is not intelligent
The average voter has a degree of racism
Take those facts and ensure that any leader is going tube accepted by them. The labour party probably don't have any MPs that fit the bill so would need to bring someone in who is already popular with the public but not sure if that can happen with Labour policy currently?
I’ll say it again. Corbyn made it easy for labour voters to vote conservative. Blair made it easy for conservative voters to vote (New) Labour.
If you do not appeal to the middle ground in FPTP voting, you are doomed to oblivion. I think it’s obvious. I have despaired at Labour since Miliband. I see little evidence of change. Maybe they think they weren’t left-wing enough?
It is just understanding how people vote and what they base it on.
Sadly Kerley is probably right. I’d love Lammy to be PM, but to put him forward would be to overestimate the voters of England I’m afraid. Same goes for any MP who is obviously Welsh, Scottish or from NI. Don’t give the English a reason not to vote Labour, before they’ve even heard what the new Leader has to say.
Blair is Scottish.
Thinking it is one thing.
Calling them that directly and then subsequently begging for their vote shows a disconnect from reality
Bit like "f*** business" ?
Lammy should probably be their next leader.
Lammy is a "funny tinge", to quote a former Labour MP who quit the party because it was too racist for her.
How about Dale Winton? Does it actually have to be a current MP ?
Blair is Scottish.
I used the word “obviously” for that obvious reason.
If you do not appeal to the middle ground in FPTP voting, you are doomed to oblivion. I think it’s obvious.
It's obvious that neither the conservatives nor Labour occupy the middle ground. It's obvious that most of the electorate picked one of them. It's obvious that the Lib Dems, occupying the middle ground, tanked. It's not obvious that occupying the middle ground is the route to electoral success.
It’s not obvious that occupying the middle ground is the route to electoral success.
It worked for Tony Blair.
Necessary and sufficient are not the same.
Corbyn busy claiming they won the argument today. Delusional or just stupid?
Suffice to say, he’s not ready to let go of his grip on Labour just yet, not until Corbyn mk2 is installed to replace him.
It worked for Tony Blair.
Why would you assume that what worked then works now?
Northwind
Subscriber
Starmer in brexitland would be a mistake, unless the wheels come off brexit faster than I expect. He’d be a terrible choice today and could be a fantastic choice in a few years.
I think this is fair comment. tbh, the leader labour need right now is just someone to steady the ship and bring the warring factions closer together, which will take time.
Basically, any leader right now, is probably just going to lay the ground work for the next leader.
Corbyn busy claiming they won the argument today. Delusional or just stupid?
Why can't it be both?
It’s not obvious that occupying the middle ground is the route to electoral success.
Middle ground? Johnson spent every week since he became leader going on and on about more police, more nurses, more hospitals… he even used Cummings’ favourite wining technique of lying about the numbers to get everyone talking about his promises as regards these key public services. That absolutely was about grabbing voters from the middle who want better public services, but aren’t interested in clause four style increased public ownership for anything beyond perhaps rail, road and health. Johnson didn’t keep popping up in Hospitals to sure up his core right wing support.
Middle ground? Johnson spent every week since he became leader going on and on about more police, more nurses, more hospitals… h
You think that people switched to the conservatives because they trust them to invest more in public services? Wow.
Johnson gave a simple message that he would invest in these areas that have fallen behind under previous Tory PMs. It wasn’t honest, but it absolutely was about pulling in voters who want improvements in these areas, and aren’t interested in, or don’t believe in, policies that include private companies giving the state 1% in shares each year for ten years, or renationalising anything beyond the railways and parts of the NHS.
Most of what Labour proposed nationalising I support. I am not the middle ground, not even close to it, despite the ire I get from people who think the UK wants the future that Seamous Milne, Andrew Murray and Len McClusky want. The public do not want that, and would rather vote for a lying buffoon leading a rabble of carpetbaggers than go down that route.
Johnson gave a simple message that he would invest in these areas that have fallen behind under previous Tory PMs.
His simple message was that he would deliver Brexit. That's what cut through above all else.
He repeated the lies promises about 40 hospitals etc every time he appeared. If you missed it, I’d be amazed.
You think that people switched to the conservatives because they trust them to invest more in public services?
Yes that was some of it but it was mainly because they trusted that the conservatives would get brexit done. These are the same people who cannot see what the tories have done for the last 40 years and think they would ever act in their interests.
He repeated the lies promises about 40 hospitals etc every time he appeared. If you missed it, I’d be amazed.
If you think that people voted for him because of that promise then you need to take more water with it.
Its about optics. You've got to look right and sound like you'll be a safe pair of hands. Too many variables to say centre ground is an election winner.
Labour did not appear to be a safe pair of hands - too many spending promises, & all the shit thrown at Corbyn stuck.
Labour must must must tackle their perceived weaknesses head on, like the Tories did with the NHS in this election.
You think that people switched to the conservatives because they trust them to invest more in public services? Wow.
No, I think people didn't vote Labour because the laundry list of spending was, in many people's eyes, way too much. They know all too well, i think that Johnson 's govt isn't going to be their best chance, but they do understand( rightly or wrongly) that Corbyn definitely wasn't.
Importantly, Johnson took on the NHS and Policing issues head on, repeatedly, from the moment he became Leader, all summer… Labour believed in the nonsense that they could do all their hard work during the election campaign proper, because of the swing they managed in 2017… that was a strategic failure that was obvious to everyone apart from… well… the blinkered. Corbyn was missing for so much of 2019, while Johnson milked his honeymoon and used it to associate himself with increased investment, spending and staffing in the public services that his predecessors damaged so badly (that so many people trust him on that is maddening, but there you go).
Edit: Ooops wrong thread
No, I think people didn’t vote Labour because the laundry list of spending was, in many people’s eyes, way too much.
I agree that their manifesto was a dog's breakfast, and that harmed their credibility. But a cursory review of the seats flipping to the Tories would strongly suggest that Brexit was the primary issue.
Johnson milked his honeymoon and used it to associate himself with increased investment, spending and staffing in the public services that his predecessors damaged so badly (that so many people trust him on that is maddening, but there you go).
Nah. The one thing everyone associates with him is "get Brexit done". It worked brilliantly.
The higher the Leave share, the greater the Tory gain, rising from a modest two-point swing in seats with a Leave vote below 45% to a whopping eight-point swing in seats where 60% or more voted Leave in 2016.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/15/britains-new-political-landscape
His simple message was that he would deliver Brexit. That’s what cut through above all else.
This ☝️
gauss1777
Member
When people were shouting to be rid of Corbyn, (or was it just Binners?), it was not obvious who had the skills needed to take over
This is a pretty important point- it goes towards the absence of obvious candidates but also towards the wider Labour party. Every time centrists or blairites tried to bring Corbyn down, it was obvious that they had no plan for what to do next. Owen Smith was the best offering they could find last time, perfectly nice guy and capable MP but how you scheme and work to replace a leader and then forget to put forward a new one I don't know. Corbyn might have been able to defeat a meaningful leadership challenge, but he never faced one- the best anyone could manage was "We should vote for someone else." "I'm someone else!".
It's another of the wider Labour problems that seemed to go unremarked amidst criticism of corbyn- the leadership challenges were so poorly thought out that all they ever achieved was damaging the party, they never had any chance of delivering any progress. It just showed a total lack of competence in the people who were trying to take over. Of course it was all Momentum's fault...
Say what you like about the Tories, when they stage a coup they do it well, and all that plotting and stabbing is basically their apprenticeship for leading.
how you scheme and work to replace a leader and then forget to put forward a new one I don’t know
Juts because you know what the problem is; it doesn't follow you know what the solution is.
It's not the fault of anyone but the Labour party that they have no credible candidates. The rot goes a long way down
His simple message was that he would deliver Brexit. That’s what cut through above all else.
Classic Dom
😉
@ransos you don’t win power by appealing to your core electorate. You appeal to those in the centre. Whoever wins the centre, when added to their core gets to govern. Those are the rules. Labour seem to have forgotten how to play and decided to just appeal to their core.
TIRed
That's kind of true, but not if you lose your core. The reason the Tories struggled to get a decent majority recently is they lost a lot of their core voters to UKIP/Brexit party. One of the reasons labour can't get anywhere near a majority is they've lost Scotland, which used to be a big part of their core.
You're right that Johnson appealed to more centrists this time, but he also got back the right of his party - if Labour had convinced Scotland to vote foe them thing would have been a lot closer.
I cannot see a route to Labour taking power again. They might attract a few more centrist constituencies, but without 50 or so seats from Scotland will they ever get enough?
I cannot see a route to Labour taking power again. They might attract a few more centrist constituencies, but without 50 or so seats from Scotland will they ever get enough?
Unlikely, but as the SNP are a left of centre party they would have enough in common for a coalition assuming Labour granted a second indyref. Of course if Scotland then voted yes it would be a one term solution with permanent opposition for Labour thereafter in an rUK parliament.
Until the working class leave labour vote has had a bellyful of brexit deciding who/what direction the party should shift in is a completely pointless exercise. It would make sense for Corbyn to stick around for a while see how brexit is panning out and pick the direction and leadership then.
Unlikely, but as the SNP are a left of centre party they would have enough in common for a coalition assuming Labour granted a second indyref. Of course if Scotland then voted yes it would be a one term solution with permanent opposition for Labour thereafter in an rUK parliament.
Unless this theoretical coalition did the sensible thing and introduced PR.
Yep PR please Santa
Yep PR please Santa
Santa says come back in five years, his elves are busy Getting Brexit Done.
I have a suspicion that the future success, or not, of Labour will have less to do with whoever is chosen as the new leader, or indeed where they position the party on the political spectrum. Rather it will be more influenced by the economic success or otherwise of the UK post brexit and more importantly, bank/lending base rate. Put simply, if the housing market goes tits and interest rates multiply, the Tories will be out on their ear.
Which is more than possible during this next 5 year term.
Aside from that, IIRC the Lib Dem’s were formed from the centrist labourites who were disaffected from the lefty socialists at the time.
I think what Slackalice says has some real merit. Once Brexit is done and if thinks haven't got much better, then the sheen will rapidly go off Boris. Governments tend to lose elections rather than oppositions winning.
It terms of parties coming back from the dead look at 1997 and 2001 - Tories with 165 and 166 seats respectively. It took another lost election (only 195 seats so still worse than Labour!) and a coalition but they recovered eventually.
But the warning for Labour is there - if Labour don't sort themselves out it could be a long time of Johnson rule!
I do think coalition or some sort of arrangement with the SNP wouldn't be the end of the world for Labour. SNP would be pretty supportive as they benefit from increased public spending (Barnett formula) but control health education etc policy and spending.
if Labour had convinced Scotland to vote foe them thing would have been a lot closer.
If everyone in Scotland had voted Labour, the end result would have been the same.
I'd agree that the next leader shouldn't necessarily go into the next election as leader.
Brexit needs to pan out a bit and see how the country lies 2 years on.
Right now for "Labour to be electable" they need to appeal to northern working class leavers, at the same time appeal to London remainers as well as Telegraph reading "moderate" Conservatives, and also the section of their core who love Corbyn.
I do feel the situation is much more complex than the one Blair had.
I’d agree that the next leader shouldn’t necessarily go into the next election as leader.
I doubt anyone will want to take on the ball-ache of being leader without the opportunity to fight an election.
I do feel the situation is much more complex than the one Blair had.
Don't be daft, all they've got to do is find a shiny suit and say they want to stay in the EU ad infinitum and they'll all come flocking back.