Next Labour Leader - Confirmed as Keir Starmer

[radamfi]

FPTP is where we are

The key is for Labour to finally agree to the end of FPTP and make a pact with all other non-Tory parties at the next election. Labour is unlikely to win a majority on the future constituency boundaries. If Blair/Brown had sorted this out when they had the chance then we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The key is for Labour to finally agree to the end of FPTP and make a pact with all other non-Tory parties at the next election. Labour is unlikely to win a majority on the future constituency boundaries. If Blair/Brown had sorted this out when they had the chance then we wouldn't be in this mess.

No it isn't. That's not going to concern the average person on the street. The one seeing the local A&E buckle, the dodgy roads, the perceived crime on every street corner - it's one of the political purists NOT Joe Public. The key for Labour is

• Get rid of individuals like Andrew Murray and Seamus Milne - unreconstructed communists. As Alan Johnson says, let them indulge themselves in their left wing protests...
• Get rid of the abject performers like Burgon and Abbott from the front bench.
• Root out the cancer of identity politics and intolerance (e.g. Judean Peoples Front) to other views, especially the anti-semites
• Keep the best of the current manifesto but ditch the ridiculous spending promises - the electorate aren't stupid and they knew it was unaffordable and undeliverable and so they were more disposed to listen to a proven inveterate liar
• Move to the centre and campaign on the issues that are important to the average person
• Have a realistic, deliverable vision - a clear picture of where we want to go

As for removing FPTP, it's not in the interests of either major party so it won't happen.

 

[radamfi]

As for removing FPTP, it's not in the interests of either major party so it won't happen.

It is now in the interests of Labour as they are unlikely to be able to get a majority in future with the boundaries that the Tories are going to impose. Under a new voting system they will at least have a chance of a getting into an anti-Tory coalition government.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is now in the interests of Labour as they are unlikely to be able to get a majority in future with the boundaries that the Tories are going to impose. Under a new voting system they will at least have a chance of a getting into an anti-Tory coalition government.

It is now they've royally cocked it up but they have no power and no leverage so it's pointless. Sadly, a point lost on many Corbynistas - without the power to do anything, the best principles in the world count for naught!

 

[underbank]

It is now in the interests of Labour as they are unlikely to be able to get a majority in future with the boundaries that the Tories are going to impose. Under a new voting system they will at least have a chance of a getting into an anti-Tory coalition government.

They won't get the support of the SNP who benefit massively from the current system as they have a highly disproportionate number of MPs compared to votes. So, basically, they'd need a huge majority in Parliament to get any changes, and if they managed to get a huge majority, they don't need such changes! So, it's FPTP for the foreseeable future.

 

[radamfi]

It is now they've royally cocked it up but they have no power and no leverage so it's pointless. Sadly, a point lost on many Corbynistas - without the power to do anything, the best principles in the world count for naught!

With a pact with the SNP/Lib Dems etc. there would no longer be any splitting of the anti-Tory vote. The Tories are unlikely to get over 50% of the vote so such a pact would work.

 

[radamfi]

They won't get the support of the SNP who benefit massively from the current system as they have a highly disproportionate number of MPs compared to votes. So, basically, they'd need a huge majority in Parliament to get any changes, and if they managed to get a huge majority, they don't need such changes! So, it's FPTP for the foreseeable future.

The SNP have been in favour of proportional representation for years. Even though it works for them in Scotland, it works against them in the rest of the UK.

 

[AlterEgo]

The key is for Labour to finally agree to the end of FPTP and make a pact with all other non-Tory parties at the next election. Labour is unlikely to win a majority on the future constituency boundaries. If Blair/Brown had sorted this out when they had the chance then we wouldn't be in this mess.

I saw something on Twitter earlier suggesting two thirds of Labour members wanted an abolition of FPTP.

 

[bramling]

The SNP have been in favour of proportional representation for years. Even though it works for them in Scotland, it works against them in the rest of the UK.

Indeed - the SNP’s MPs are largely symbolic. Whilst they’ve had an element of blocking influence over the last few months due to the Conservatives losing their majority, apart from that the only real value of the SNP MPs is being disruptive.

I can’t see any party being able to change the electoral system without some form of referendum. For me it would seriously lack legitimacy for any party to even attempt to change the system to something more beneficial to themselves.

Personally if I were Labour I’d hold my nerve. No doubt changing the system came into the minds of a few Conservatives during The Hague/IDS years. The system is outwardly daft for sure, but there are benefits to it - and no matter how people slag it off I can’t think of an election during my lifetime where the system hasn’t produced a result which ultimately reflected the mood of the country at the time.

 

[DarloRich]

Long-Bailey seems to be the favorite for the leadership. We have to be very careful that we don't repeat Milliband and look like progress is being made when actually nothing was improving.

Labour also have to understand that people don't want to be victims. They want to do better and provide better for their families. They want to feel there is a way out of the world they live in. They want to feel that having an aspiration to improve the lives of their family is not a bad thing. With a new leader they really (REALLY) have to get out and listen to people in Bylth and Redcar and Bolsover and Mansfield and Sedgefield and Don Valley. Stop listening to cockney London prats and start listening to the people for whom the Labour party was invented to protect! That might mean learning that some right on student rubbish actually doesn't bother people in the real world! That might be uncomfortable but is the reason, along with the clown Corbyn, why Labour lost.

Personally if I were Labour I’d hold my nerve. No doubt changing the system came into the minds of a few Conservatives during The Hague/IDS years. The system is outwardly daft for sure, but there are benefits to it - and no matter how people slag it off I can’t think of an election during my lifetime where the system hasn’t produced a result which ultimately reflected the mood of the country at the time.

I would agree with that. The system isnt the problem for Labour. The lack of a credible leader IS.

 

[TheBigD]

Long-Bailey seems to be the favorite for the leadership. We have to be very careful that we don't repeat Milliband and look like progress is being made when actually nothing was improving.

Labour also have to understand that people don't want to be victims. They want to do better and provide better for their families. They want to feel there is a way out of the world they live in. They want to feel that having an aspiration to improve the lives of their family is not a bad thing. With a new leader they really (REALLY) have to get out and listen to people in Bylth and Redcar and Bolsover and Mansfield and Sedgefield and Don Valley. Stop listening to cockney London prats and start listening to the people for whom the Labour party was invented to protect! That might mean learning that some right on student rubbish actually doesn't bother people in the real world! That might be uncomfortable but is the reason, along with the clown Corbyn, why Labour lost.



I would agree with that. The system isnt the problem for Labour. The lack of a credible leader IS.

Some of us get it but sadly a lot of the Labour party and it's supporters/members seem to be in a strange sort of denial.

From reading the articles on labourlist, the guardian and listing to some of Labour MPs/supports on the radio, it seems that more talking down to people, more identity politics, treating the northern/Midlands voters like a victim group, seems to be they way forward. The lack of anything aspirational is striking.

As for some spinning the line that they won the argument but not the election, words fail me.

 

[DarloRich]

Some of us get it but sadly a lot of the Labour party and it's supporters/members seem to be in a strange sort of denial.

From reading the articles on labourlist, the guardian and listing to some of Labour MPs/supports on the radio, it seems that more talking down to people, more identity politics, treating the northern/Midlands voters like a victim group, seems to be they way forward. The lack of anything aspirational is striking.

As for some spinning the line that they won the argument but not the election, words fail me.

that is much more of a problem than the sex of the leader! I discount the obvious clown army members in the media. They are desperate to hang onto the meal ticket and profile Corbyn has given them but there are sensible people saying some very silly thing.

Winning the argument doesn't matter. Winning seats does. Labour have to grasp that and play the numbers. They need to work out very carefully what they are saying and and how they are saying it to land with the groups they nee dot hit. They have to offer enough to tempt back former voters and tempt in undecideds. They don't need right on policies that play to the momentum gallery. That is what the evil Blair did. They need to work the system

The big risk for me is that Johnson DOES actually stump up cash to invest in northern towns. That will be spun very hard even if it is crumbs.

 

[notlob.divad]

The big hallucination about all women shortlists is we are supposed to believe women bring something special or unique to the table. Yet, at the same time, Labour’s manifesto essentially claims there’s no difference between men and women, that men can identify as women and fully claim all the privileges and societal protections of womanhood, and that being a woman merely depends on whether you feel like one and not whether you actually are one.

I’m not opposed to a woman being the next leader of the party, but I can’t think of one that would appeal to me. Phillips is the only one with a big enough personality to square up to Johnson, but she’s annoying and lacks some credibility. She’d need a few of her rough edges knocked off to be seriously considered PM material.

Labour must challenge Boris and the Tories. Many of the problems with the country today have arisen because the government has been poor and the opposition to utterly feckless that they’ve been unable to hold them to account. I don’t agree Labour have two terms; I think with the right approach they could challenge Boris in 2024, and even get a majority. He’s a poor administrator and will get many things wrong.

It is not a case of having two terms, I think it is a case of needing two terms. ,

I do have an appreciation for Phillips, and like you, I she would need to develop into the roll, and may well be a good choice for the next contest post 2024. However right now, she always comes across as Angry, and I am not sure that is the way you need to act around Johnson as he will always up the Rhetoric. I think you need a calm demeanor that will methodically and comprhensively dismantle his arguements. I hear everything you say about how it shouldn't matter, female or male, and having a female leader doesn't guarentee any progress on women's rights etc. However as I stated above, right now, Labour's historic lack of a Female leader makes them stand out from the other parties and not in a good way. Combined with the Misogyny, contempt and condesention that Johnson is incapable of hiding, The time has come for Labour to break it's duck and elect a female party leader.

 

[notlob.divad]

They won't get the support of the SNP who benefit massively from the current system as they have a highly disproportionate number of MPs compared to votes. So, basically, they'd need a huge majority in Parliament to get any changes, and if they managed to get a huge majority, they don't need such changes! So, it's FPTP for the foreseeable future.

You say that but...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...inster-nicola-sturgeon-confirms-10223302.html

Yes it is 4 years old that article. But the SNP appear to back PR as a point of Principle. PR will never be straight proportional either, you would still have some form of constituencys. So the SNP in its currnet form, would still be likely to take a high number of seats in a Scotland constituency.

 

[Comstock]

It The time has come for Labour to break it's duck and elect a female party leader.

In theory I agree.

However IMHO the new leader needs to be not too old (under 55) and not too young (over 40). To the left of Blair but to the right of Corbyn. They need to be willing to work with other parties and they need to be willing to accept Brexit.

That already rules out a lot of people. How many of those left are women?

 

[TheBigD]

In theory I agree.

However IMHO the new leader needs to be not too old (under 55) and not too young (over 40). To the left of Blair but to the right of Corbyn. They need to be willing to work with other parties and they need to be willing to accept Brexit.

That already rules out a lot of people. How many of those left are women?

Lisa Nandy probably fits your description. Not sure that Boris/the Conservatives will be fearing her across the despatch box though.

 

[notlob.divad]

In theory I agree.

However IMHO the new leader needs to be not too old (under 55) and not too young (over 40). To the left of Blair but to the right of Corbyn. They need to be willing to work with other parties and they need to be willing to accept Brexit.

That already rules out a lot of people. How many of those left are women?

I couldn't possibly comment, as I am not familier enough with the individual MPs in the Labour party and their personal alignment on the Left-Right spectrum.

I am however interested why you feel someone 40-55 is nessesary. I can understand an upper limit saying you want someone under the age of 60, at the next election as they will then be 65 at the end of that term. but 40 seems a very high age to set as a low point. Finland's Prime Minister is now a 34 year old.

 

[Comstock]

Finland's Prime Minister is now a 34 year old.

And (again IMHO) that's far too young.

 

[notlob.divad]

And (again IMHO) that's far too young.

Why? a 30 something leader could be a breath of fresh air into the party. A party that many people view as currently been controlled by a mates club of union elites. A 34/35 year old now, would still be 40 approaching the next election.

 

[Comstock]

Why? a 30 something leader could be a breath of fresh air into the party. A party that many people view as currently been controlled by a mates club of union elites. A 34/35 year old now, would still be 40 approaching the next election.

Well that's your view and I've got mine. Personally I'd be very loathe to vote for someone that young.

Blair was 41 when he took over, and he was considered young.

All this of course assumes the contest will be open to the general public again. After Corbyn they may only allow party members to vote.

 

[TheBigD]

A brutal and sobering assessment of Labour's election performance and challenges ahead...

https://labourlist.org/2019/12/the-road-back-for-labour-will-be-longer-and-steeper-now/

 

[507021]

A brutal and sobering assessment of Labour's election performance and challenges ahead...

https://labourlist.org/2019/12/the-road-back-for-labour-will-be-longer-and-steeper-now/

This is absolutely spot on.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

All this of course assumes the contest will be open to the general public again. After Corbyn they may only allow party members to vote.

I don't understand what you mean...the election of the Labour leader has never been open to the general public!

 

[AlterEgo]

A brutal and sobering assessment of Labour's election performance and challenges ahead...

https://labourlist.org/2019/12/the-road-back-for-labour-will-be-longer-and-steeper-now/

Hard to disagree with that.

I'm still very glad Labour were disemboweled in the election; it was entirely necessary, I'm not ashamed to say took terrific joy in it (some particularly damaging MPs were unseated), and the price of 5-10 years of further Tory government may be worth it if we can finally demolish student campus socialism as an electoral strategy and make Labour a party which properly and convincingly advocates social democracy which works for everyone.

 

[nlogax]

if we can finally demolish student campus socialism as an electoral strategy

That's a huge 'if'. Don't know about you but I don't have the sort of faith required to believe that a post-Corbyn Labour are willing to learn the lessons from his era's massive mistakes any time soon. Even if they are, the damage done by Corbyn will surely last a similar time as that which was inflicted upon it by Michael Foot up until '83.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

A brutal and sobering assessment of Labour's election performance and challenges ahead...

https://labourlist.org/2019/12/the-road-back-for-labour-will-be-longer-and-steeper-now/

Bang on.

 

[Cowley]

Bang on.

Agreed. Absolutely spot on.

 

[southern442]

A brutal and sobering assessment of Labour's election performance and challenges ahead...

https://labourlist.org/2019/12/the-road-back-for-labour-will-be-longer-and-steeper-now/

The general sentiment of the article makes sense but it sounds far too reactionary and over the top to be considered entirely helpful. Yes, they went overboard with the manifesto, but many of the key policies are generally backed by the majority of the public. The problem was Corbyn and Brexit. What we need is a younger, fresher face, who can be far more presentable and charismatic, seem like a competent leader even to those who oppose them, without any sort of troubled past, and who is less susceptible to media attacks as a result. They also need to be better at dealing with media attacks, and be both more accepting and more ruthless in the face of scrutiny. They MUST get over the fact that brexit is going to happen, and the tirade of South-East shouters calling for a people's vote should now just be quiet. They need to be able to get voters back, win over new ones, and more importantly, engage people who don't vote. Someone who can get everyone who doesn't show up to actually show up could win pretty much every seat in the whole country, obviously that won't happen but engaging these people and showing that Labour can speak for them is crucial to not just getting the seats back, but building a strong foundation for support in areas where they desperately need it. Someone who can both be an expert player of the political game whilst simultaneously being 'outside' of it. Someone who can be a 'voice for the people', populist and likeable figure that can also seem slick and fit for office. It's a difficult set of criteria but not an impossible one.

 

[Comstock]

I don't understand what you mean...the election of the Labour leader has never been open to the general public!

The 2015 election was open to anyone willing to pay £3

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

The 2015 election was open to anyone willing to pay £3

Ah...ok, the £3 members! Sorry, thought you meant anyone!