• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Corbyn is in charge until the the new leader is announced and in place.

Theresa May resigned from office on the 24th May last year but she was still PM for the next two months.

Corbyn is barely in charge of his allotment! He should have done one at 11pm on election day, instead he hangs about trying desperately to ensure a clown in his image is appointed. Labour are a joke, but then that doesn't matter to the Corbyn cult as they aren't interested in power or governing.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
"The Conservatives have the perfect opportunity to prove they can lead and drive this country forward"

Errrmmm ... Haven't they had that opportunity since 2010 and driven us exactly where ?

We will go nowhere but backwards under Conservatives as per.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Errrmmm ... Haven't they had that opportunity since 2010 and driven us exactly where ?

We will go nowhere but backwards under Conservatives as per.

One could quite realistically make a case to say the first five years were in coalition, and the second four years were largely dominated by Brexit. Then there’s the fact that things weren’t in the soundest state when they took over in 2010.

Hopefully none of these factors will apply now, so Boris has to deliver.
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
One could quite realistically make a case to say the first five years were in coalition, and the second four years were largely dominated by Brexit. Then there’s the fact that things weren’t in the soundest state when they took over in 2010.

Hopefully none of these factors will apply now, so Boris has to deliver.

2010, they chose austerity producing anaemic economic growth, low productivity and a decline in standards of living
2015, they chose to make Brexit an issue for the country rather than just the Tory party when we could have really done without the distraction

I'm sorry but I think they should take responsibility for the mess we are in. I'm not buying into "Oh, but it's a different Tory now. "
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
2010, they chose austerity producing anaemic economic growth, low productivity and a decline in standards of living
2015, they chose to make Brexit an issue for the country rather than just the Tory party when we could have really done without the distraction

I'm sorry but I think they should take responsibility for the mess we are in. I'm not buying into "Oh, but it's a different Tory now. "

Sound economic management in the first case, and response to democratic pressures (increasing UKIP vote) in the second.

Perhaps Labour might have addressed both issues sooner instead of focussing on a dodgy war and a sexed-up dossier?
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
Sound economic management in the first case, and response to democratic pressures (increasing UKIP vote) in the second.

Perhaps Labour might have addressed both issues sooner instead of focussing on a dodgy war and a sexed-up dossier?

Are you actually attempting to someway blame Labour for "Dodgy Dave's" Brexit calamity?
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Are you actually attempting to someway blame Labour for "Dodgy Dave's" Brexit calamity?

Had Blair’s government done something to address concerns about EU immigration arising from the eastwards expansion then I don’t think UKIP would have represented such an electoral risk to the established parties. So essentially yes.

Whilst Brexit may have been a personal calamity for Cameron, I wouldn’t say it’s a calamity in itself.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
Had Blair’s government done something to address concerns about EU immigration arising from the eastwards expansion then I don’t think UKIP would have represented such an electoral risk to the established parties. So essentially yes.

Wow, just wow.

So it absolutely nothing to do with the ERG?
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Wow, just wow.

So it absolutely nothing to do with the ERG?

I don’t remember ERG being an option on election ballot papers, and people voting for them in rather large numbers.

I’m not doubting that the ERG may have been a factor, however Europe has been an issue in the Conservative party for many years, yet it took until 2015 for a referendum to be offered. Something else had changed, and that something else was an increase in salience amongst the electorate.

I know this doesn’t suit certain narratives, however the rise of UKIP can’t just be ignored as if it never happened. Ironically Cameron possibly misjudged the fact that many UKIP votes were actually coming from disenchanted Labour voters!

It’s possibly easy to understand the latter point when we look back and remember that rather than do anything to address voter concerns, instead Labour’s then leader in 2010 chose to call one of their elderly voters a bigoted woman...
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
Sound economic management in the first case, and response to democratic pressures (increasing UKIP vote) in the second.

The sound economic management being ... ? Do you know about Keynesian economic theory ? Perhaps you should look it out because our current dire economy is exactly what would be expected by austerity.

How many UKIP MPs were elected in 2015, remind me ?

Whether you agree with Brexit or not, to have a vote was exactly the wrong time.

Perhaps Labour might have addressed both issues sooner instead of focussing on a dodgy war and a sexed-up dossier?

Yes, perhaps if they had done that, they could have avoided a global financial crisis .... err ... or probably not.

To summarise since 2010, the rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer . Who'd have thought that would happen under Tory governments ? I fully expect more of the same under Johnson.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
So Brexit was nothing to do with placating dissident Conservative MP's? Nevermind creating the biggest division this country has seen in living memory.

Be interesting how those in NI feel when they become part of a different country having voted by a large majority to reject Brexit.

Can you also explain to me despite working as many (if not more) hours than in 2010, I'm still earning less now than I was then? I wonder how many Tory MP's are in the same boat?
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
I know this doesn’t suit certain narratives, however the rise of UKIP can’t just be ignored as if it never happened. Ironically Cameron possibly misjudged the fact that many UKIP votes were actually coming from disenchanted Labour voters!

And with breathtaking stupidity, Labour did the same. And they're still doing it. Until they can accept it's very possible to be left leaning and what is these days commonly called "socially conservative", they have no chance of recovery. None of the leadership candidates convince that they will either.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
So Brexit was nothing to do with placating dissident Conservative MP's? Nevermind creating the biggest division this country has seen in living memory.

The Eurosceptic Tory backbencher is hardly a new phenomenon. Thatcher and Major had no end of trouble from them. Cameron was placating the electorate, not his party, a party that was very worried by UKIP.

Be interesting how those in NI feel when they become part of a different country having voted by a large majority to reject Brexit.

That's a remarkable tangent, isn't it? Not sure what relevance Northern Ireland is to the holding of the referendum, or indeed the next Labour leader.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Do you know about Keynesian economic theory ?

Ah yes, an economic theory which was pretty comprehensively discredited by the 1980s after Britain being bailed out by the IMF. Just the medicine we need...

Perhaps you should look it out because our current dire economy is exactly what would be expected by austerity.

Our economy isn't dire, not by a long way.

How many UKIP MPs were elected in 2015, remind me ?

That's the sort of head-in-the-sand thinking which did it for Labour last December. The risk wasn't how many MPs they won or were likely to win, but how they risked taking votes and costing seats to other parties. For example, if a million Conservative voters in a given seat switch to UKIP then that could be enough to allow Labour to win.

Whether you agree with Brexit or not, to have a vote was exactly the wrong time.

Absolutely agreed, a vote should have been offered much sooner IMO.

To summarise since 2010, the rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer . Who'd have thought that would happen under Tory governments ? I fully expect more of the same under Johnson.

Yet isn't it strange that in such "dire" times, people in places like Wrexham, Grimsby, Bolsover or Blyth Valley have voted for Johnson in large numbers? I take it you'd put these voters in the same bin as Gordon Brown put Mrs Duffy?
 
Last edited:

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
I mean, really it's not worth it, is it ? ?

But just one question. If Keynesian economic theory has been so discredited, how come Johnson seems to be following it so closely ?

... and if you don't think productivity is dire ....
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
My engineering business relies on capital spend, not massive amounts, but generally in the £10,000-100,000 range.

25 years established, orders have totally collapsed since the end of Q1 last year. I'm now contracting entirely in continental Europe to make ends meet (having never had to contract in the previous 24 years).

Business in the UK is certainly NOT buoyant.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
But just one question. If Keynesian economic theory has been so discredited, how come Johnson seems to be following it so closely ?

I'm not sure Boris's economic policy is Keynesian. For sure he's hinting that there's going to be some spending. Being charitable this seems to be targeted towards specific areas where he feels there's an economic boost needed (i.e. provincial England and perhaps Wales), whilst a more cynical analysis might say this targeting is simply an electoral necessity if he's going to retain the votes he will need to form a majority next time round.

There's little evidence of a massive spending programme accompanied by fiscal policy as seen last century.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,320
2010, they chose austerity producing anaemic economic growth, low productivity and a decline in standards of living
2015, they chose to make Brexit an issue for the country rather than just the Tory party when we could have really done without the distraction

I'm sorry but I think they should take responsibility for the mess we are in. I'm not buying into "Oh, but it's a different Tory now. "

In the absence of a credible alternative, Boris Mini-Trump was almost certain to win the 2019 election. And even if he throws a tantrum and destroys the BBC because they "displeased him", he will probably still win the next election (or 3).
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
In the absence of a credible alternative, Boris Mini-Trump was almost certain to win the 2019 election. And even if he throws a tantrum and destroys the BBC because they "displeased him", he will probably still win the next election (or 3).

I don't think it's the full story to say people despised Corbyn, although there's no doubt that was a factor. However from what I've been hearing is people in places like Grimsby or Bolsover *liked* Boris.

The result seems to bear that out, they could have chosen simply not to vote, but in fact that actively went out and voted Conservative.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
In the absence of a credible alternative, Boris Mini-Trump was almost certain to win the 2019 election. And even if he throws a tantrum and destroys the BBC because they "displeased him", he will probably still win the next election (or 3).

Talking of the BBC and the potential Labour leaders, I see Rebecca Long Bailey is proposing a "People's BBC Owen by staff and the public."

Dear dear me. "People's BBC." That period of reflection they talked about after the election couldn't have lasted long. For all their talk of discovering why they did so badly, they show no sign of actually being interested in doing so and acting upon it.
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
I would like to propose Chris and Kem from Love Island as the next Labour leadership ... I'm sure the people of Grimsby and Bolsover will be deliriously happy to vote for them, making them the ideal people to run the country.
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
To summarise since 2010, the rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer . Who'd have thought that would happen under Tory governments ? I fully expect more of the same under Johnson.

What about the vast majority of the population you conveniently omit to mention ?

Have those who are neither rich nor poor done okay or are they poorer.

If the latter why have they elected another Tory Government as they effectively are the Electorate in numerical terms.
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
What about the vast majority of the population you conveniently omit to mention ?

Have those who are neither rich nor poor done okay or are they poorer.

If the latter why have they elected another Tory Government as they effectively are the Electorate in numerical terms.

They are poorer.

Why did they vote in Cameron who promised nothing but more austerity when it was clearly not in their best interest ?

Why is there an inherent assumption that just because the 'electorate' vote someone in, it is okay and 'right' ?

What if they voted in the EDL ? Or, to spell it out, Chris and Kem ?

Hitler was voted into power, you know, by people believing it was in their best interests to vote that way. History is littered with, what proved to be, poor choices by the electorate.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
Austerity was pretty much a given in 2010. All the parties were competing to show how fiscally prudent they could be, for example this gem from the then Labour chancellor - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

Whether a different government would have changed course earlier and restored some of that spending is very much a hypothetical.

All the parties supported a referendum if there had been proposed a further transfer of powers to the EU. Nick Clegg had called for an in/out referendum in 2008, so it wasn’t just the Conservatives pushing for it. Labour also had groups calling for a referendum to match the Cameron pledge. In the end, only the SNP voted against passing the referendum act.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
They are poorer.

Why did they vote in Cameron who promised nothing but more austerity when it was clearly not in their best interest ?

Why is there an inherent assumption that just because the 'electorate' vote someone in, it is okay and 'right' ?

What if they voted in the EDL ? Or, to spell it out, Chris and Kem ?

Hitler was voted into power, you know, by people believing it was in their best interests to vote that way. History is littered with, what proved to be, poor choices by the electorate.

Please tell me I’m picking up the wrong end of the stick, however the above seems to read very much along the lines of “different choice to me = inherently wrong”.

Maybe people voted for Cameron because they considered austerity was at the time the best way to get the public finances back on track? That may well have been in their longer-term best interest.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
I think people vote for whoever they think is going to make them "richer" (or maybe "less poor" would be a better description)? Whether this is by increasing their income or by lowering their taxes is irrelevant.

I'm sure a party could get votes by proposing to lower income tax whilst at the same time increasing VAT substantially..................................... oh, hang on...
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Please tell me I’m picking up the wrong end of the stick, however the above seems to read very much along the lines of “different choice to me = inherently wrong”.

Quite. It's a recurring theme in modern politics, and it's completely unhelpful and self-serving. All parties aiming to win votes rather than an ideological purity award need to realise you need to appeal to a cross section of people. Few people other than the completely indoctrinated are going to agree with a party's stance on everything.

One nation and broad church are Tory party cliches, but the reality is they've managed to capitalise on selling themselves as the best choice overall to many, even if you don't agree with everything.

Labour seems completely unable or unwilling to attempt anything similar. A recent example is a debacle where members of the Labour leadership and leadership contenders began threatening members with expulsion if they held an opposing view. That's insanity.

They seem set on a course to implosion they won't divert from. It's an awful situation, regardless of your political leaning, because we need an effective opposition party. Which, perhaps cynically, I increasingly think is the heart of the problem, swathes of the Labour Party are perfectly happy in opposition and have no interest in listening to the ordinary membership or wider supporters.
 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,126
Location
Liverpool
....., swathes of the Labour Party are perfectly happy in opposition and have no interest in listening to the ordinary membership or wider supporters.

Sadly I agree. Its almost like the spoilt child, who doesn't want to play and takes their ball home so no one else can as well.

In some ways the hounding of Tony Blair by the "left" is the same, but he won three general elections and arguably if he had still been leader in 2009 would have won a fourth, (I say 2009 as I think Brown might have won also had he gone to the country sooner)?
 

433N

Guest
Joined
20 Jun 2017
Messages
752
Please tell me I’m picking up the wrong end of the stick, however the above seems to read very much along the lines of “different choice to me = inherently wrong”.

Not really. It is pointing out that it is a poor argument which uses as its premise 'people from Grimsby and Bolsover voted this way, so it must be right'.

Perhaps there is a (tiny, small, remote ... obvs) possibility that they are actually wrong (shock / horror).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top