AlterEgo
Veteran Member
If it ends up being Long-Bailey they’ll lose my vote and I may even vote against them next time instead of abstaining.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Next Labour Leader - Confirmed as Keir Starmer
- Thread starter Bald Rick
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
southern442
Established Member
I'm not sure Long-Bailey is enough of a leader, even compared to Corbyn. Someone like Keir Starmer or Jess Phillips would be far better at commanding the troops, and coming across as a PM-in-waiting. There was a brief period in 2017 when Corbyn managed this but it fell away pretty quickly.
RE Scotland. I think the SNP are a dangerous party and Labour should try to get back the seats that they lost. Additionally, some seats, particularly in the Glasgow area, have got very low turnout, so if we have someone who can actually inspire people to come out and vote, Labour could make a few gains there too. However, when it comes to gaining from the Tories next time round, Scotland should understandably not be the main focus.
RE Scotland. I think the SNP are a dangerous party and Labour should try to get back the seats that they lost. Additionally, some seats, particularly in the Glasgow area, have got very low turnout, so if we have someone who can actually inspire people to come out and vote, Labour could make a few gains there too. However, when it comes to gaining from the Tories next time round, Scotland should understandably not be the main focus.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Labour’s major challenge is in trying to fuse vastly different sections of the electorate. It’s currently an uneasy coalition of:
- Socially conservative, working class Eurosceptic nation-staters
- Graduates under 40 who are socially liberal, pro-EU, internationalist and have an inflated sense of confidence in their worldview
- Radical socialists who deny the concept of a national interest and a national culture
- Counterculturalists of various flavours
- Socially conservative but working class ethnic minorities
The Labour Party is supposed to represent Britain’s Labour force, but the social change that happened after Blairism has hollowed out the Party and its voter base.
I am not sure the Labour Party is a viable concept.
TheBigD
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 1,993
First Emily Thornberry, now Clive Lewis...
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-be-labour-leader-pledging-to-unleash-party
Wonder how long before Keir Starmer, Rebecca Long-Bailey, etc etc declare?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-be-labour-leader-pledging-to-unleash-party
Wonder how long before Keir Starmer, Rebecca Long-Bailey, etc etc declare?
Skymonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,739
Labour went wrong when it chose the wrong Milliband and has never recovered. The leadership choice cannot be about left-wing ideology or whomever the unions want - the choice needs to be whoever is at the helm heads being credible to enough to average voters to enable the party to win an election.
Peter Kelford
Member
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 903
I think that Kier Starmer is a good choice politically. Having served in Corbyn's shadow cabinet as Brexit secretary, he will likely have every response necessary to 'GBD' from the government benches. In the longer term, he may well be a good candidate to bring together the younger voters voting for radical change in the metropolitan areas with ex-industrial towns. They don't need to go as centrist as Tony Blair.
NoMorePacers
Established Member
At the end of the day, if the Labour Party is truly to move some step towards being in government, then both Corbynistas and Blairites* have to accept the respective responsibility that each faction has in this disaster of a General Election. But since each side for the most part sees nothing else fit but to blame the other, I don’t really see that happening if I’m honest.
*Yes, both are at fault. I’ll happily explain if you don’t/won’t understand why.
*Yes, both are at fault. I’ll happily explain if you don’t/won’t understand why.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
They may both be at fault but to equal measure? I mean, who was driving the bus?
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
They both have driven the bus. The rot didn’t set in with Corbyn, although in my view he deserves the lion’s share of the blame.
NoMorePacers
Established Member
Agreed.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
And Blairites? Really? How many people do you think decided to Vote Conservative last week because they were angry at Tony Blair's Government?
underbank
Established Member
I'd say they went wrong when they allowed Brown to push Blair out. Brown was never fit to be PM, (he wasn't really fit to be Chancellor either).
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Probably almost none would cite Blair by name. One of the few benefits of the Corbyn leadership was that the party managed to cleanse itself of the Iraq War guilt.
However some of Blair’s legacy, particularly the insistence on multiculturalism, his closeness to the EU and keenness to undercut the low-wage worker by welcoming eastward EU expansion, are remembered by many.
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,603
Starmer is desperately boring and lacks any sort of charisma, the rest of the shadow cabinet are incoherent, numerically challenged or both. David Milliband is a quitter. Blair is a complete liability. Stephen Kinnock is from a family famous for EU troughing. Emily Thornberry is a parody of Mrs Bouquet. In short, no identifiable leaders here!
Bollocks. Just when I thought it was safe to listen to 7 Nation Army without some halfwit cult member ruining it!
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Again, the "Iraq War guilt" and other similar Blairite issues are most commonly raised by.... the Corbynista element of the Labour Party NOT the wider electorate. Even then, the association had nothing to do with Corbyn cleansing it.
However, Blair is regarded as toxic by the true believers and holders of the flame, and everything that he represents. Unfortunately, that extends to electoral success and so if Labour doesn't change tack, it will remain the protest movement it's become.
David Miliband and Tony Blair aren't even in the equation here. Starmer is a good sensible intelligent guy but he won't get the gig. Thornberry will always have the Rochester debacle thrown back at her - sneering at the working classes!
However, Stephen Kinnock is perhaps a good shout. You mention the EU troughing.... more pertinently, he was a Labour rebel saying we had to come out in line with the referendum and voted against Corbyn's line. He's also distanced from Blairism and might have to do the same job as his father in leading the party from oblivion and electoral humiliation.
Sadly, it'll be Rebecca Long-Bailey as the Corbyn continuity candidate. The only hope is that she's smart enough to know that more of the same simply won't work and will actually take the party closer to the centre
southern442
Established Member
I think you are making sweeping generalisations here which we all know is very bad.
The labour movement is united in wanting to create a fairer society, and yes there are large ideological differences but there are allowed to be. The same can be said for most large political parties. The next leader needs to be one who does not identify with any of the self-declared 'factions' of the party, and can be able to unite all of them together. I believe that in the ideal Labour manifesto there is something for everyone (unless you are the CEO of a corporation or a billionaire or you enjoy engaging in certain lewd acts to please Rupert Murdoch).
You overestimate him. I know people who swore to never vote Labour again because of what Blair did, and Corbyn managed (initially) to win them back. Not to mention the fact that Blair's embrace of Thatcherism and abandonment of certain Labour principles, it could be argued, led many to stop voting entirely (turnout hasn't reached 70% since).
We cannot put the 2019 manifesto back to the people again. But we also cannot offer no real change, that is also why people keep losing to populists. As I mentioned before, all Labour supporters wish for a fairer society in some way, and there should be things on the manifesto that reflect everyone's desire for change. The new leader needs to be able to reflect, in each person's preferences, their own desires for change. There needs to be trust in the new leader with all of these factions. Right now I am struggling to think of someone other than Jess Phillips who can adequately do this.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
@TheGrandWazoo has it spot on
Bollocks. Just when I thought it was safe to listen to 7 Nation Army without some halfwit cult member ruining it!
You can do the same with Keir Starmer, but only if you use his knighthood title
"Oh Sir Ke-ir Starm-er" doesn't have quite the same ring to it
Last edited:
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
This is an adolescent perspective which consists of a platitude and nothing else. It is not bad if you need ten million votes or more to get into power. You cannot legislate or appeal differently to each individual. You need to segment your audience and understand what their broad concerns are.
Something for everyone, except you aren’t allowed to make generalisations! How long will this manifesto be?
You misunderstand that the problem with Labour is not necessarily its mission or its manifesto (although the recent one was bonkers in its lack of realism as a programme for government). The problem with Labour is cultural. It goes far beyond the leadership and the parliamentary party.
southern442
Established Member
I am not suggesting that accounting for different groups in the party is wrong, I was just saying that, in my opinion, the generalisations you made were quite exaggerated and sort of ended up being inaccurate as a result.
I don't believe that the problem you suggest is a difficult one to overcome, if the right amount of effort and resources is put into it. A labour supporter from Oxford is understandably going to have different concerns to a labour supporter from Hartlepool. The manifesto needs to be centrist/sensible enough to appeal to those who were put off by Corbyn but left wing enough to provide real change, and to energise the public. What needs to happen is figure out what different people in different places want from Labour, and then champion certain bits of the policy in certain areas to satisfy everyone. The leader needs to be able to have an image that will fit with whatever aspects of the party are being championed, and can appeal to all these areas, ideally not being from a specific faction themselves.
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,039
In order to have any chance of doing that she'll need to dump Milne and Murray and tell McClusky to get back to running his union rather than trying to run the Labour Party.
Butts
Veteran Member
Talking of Labour Leaders (or rather x) why is Ed Miliband still an MP ? I appreciate Teresa May is as well , but Miliband lost his General Election nearly five years ago.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Yep absolutely
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Absolutely on the first two - they are as culpable as Corbyn but they still haven't walked either. Murray is an out and out Communist - he shouldn't be in the party let alone with the level of influence he wields.
McCluskey is a trickier one. Whilst affiliations are less of a proportion of Labour's income, Unite is still the single biggest contributor to their finances, but yes, he needs to step back.
He feels he can still be of use representing his constituents as a backbench MP? In a way it’s quite gratifying to see a politician who doesn’t see it as necessarily a stepping stone to something greater but as a worthwhile endeavour in itself.
Butts
Veteran Member
Unlike his brother ?
southern442
Established Member
Indeed.
It's also worth noting that, perhaps somewhat sadly, his performance in the commons has actually gotten a lot better since becoming a backbencher.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,087
It's an intriguing one - why do some party leaders, even P.M.s, continue to sit as MPs for ages afterwards? Ted Heath was probably the most notorious example, but it was almost certainly because he loathed Margaret Thatcher so much and did it to spite her. Recently, Iain Duncan Smith continues to think he's relevant, despite being in a supposedly marginal seat, Milliband would, of course, have lost if the Brexit Party hadn't split the Leave vote, as indeed would have Yvette Cooper. Amongst Labour people, Michael Foot continued as MP after his 1983 heavy defeat as leader, but then he probably genuinely never wished to be leader in the first place.
- Status