Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Bald Rick, 13 Dec 2019.
If they can't win an election then what's the point of even having a Labour party
Jess Phillips seems to be a popular choice but she isn't Prime Minister material. Starmer could be.
Ha ha , very true
He unsuccessfully challenged Gordon Brown a couple of times, which was very brave of him. He's way more intelligent than Corbyn (including emotional intelligence) and understands economics and balance sheets, unlike almost everyone else on the left. He's a Trotskyist, though, whereas the string-pullers working Corbyn are, basically, Stalinists and the two lots loathe each other. He's also more pragmatic than many on the Far Left without totally compromising his principles, and didn't speak to Livingstone for ten years, which earns him great respect in my eyes. He'd have shut down both the anti-semitic and pro-Hamas/Hezbollah charges quite quickly if he'd been in charge, even the pro-IRA stuff, as he's already both apologised and explained the reasons behind the necessity of talks with them. Being someone just a couple of years older than Corbyn/McDonnell, though, I'd say it's a huge mistake leading a party that late in life.
P.S. Late news - McDonnell has just announced he's standing down from the shadow cabinet - now Corbyn needs to announce something similar, with immediate effect.
An SNP coalition could provide a route (if Scotland is even still there in 2024!), but if it happened I think it would be terminally unpopular in England, and most probably in Wales / NI too. It could be one way for Labour to upset people *even more* than they already have.
Obviously a lot depends on what happens with the SNP over the next few years. There’s even the remote possibility they could elect a more moderate leader who doesn’t despise England...
Mr Corbyn is still reflecting on the result, and doesn't want to give up the salary for being leader yet.
I'd agree, it's a shame he hadn't been leader as he would've had what it takes, i suspect under him there would've been a chance that Labour could've won the 2017 election. I watched his interview with GQ a few weeks back and it was fairly interesting - even if i don't agree with him on some things.
I do think the main downfall of Labour has been with Corbyn himself and not the policies.
Agree it would be unpopular south of the border, but it's the only way i can see them getting in for at least 1 term anyway.
I can't see Nicola going anytime soon as she still remains fairly popular within Scotland, certainly the most popular party leader. As for despising England, well that's utter nonsense. Just because you're a Nationalist it doesn't meant you hate the other countries in the Union, you just don't think the biggest of those should be able to rule your country and drag it about against it's will - which is how many Nationalists feel when it comes to Westminster.
Just injecting a bit of railway for a moment.
In the mid 1960s there were two adjacent platelaying gangs on the WCML just north of Leyland. Each gang was a different version of communism and hated each other. At oiling time, the fishplates marking the junction between the lengths were never oiled because neither gang would touch something the others had handled!
Thanks to you (and to others) for the explanation.
I fear that Labour may be in terminal decline - possibly finished as a party ever likely to win elections - just as the old Liberal Party faded 100 years ago.
We will probably have to wait until a new party emerges - goodness knows when - before there is a credible challenge to endless tory governments.
Well the Lib Dems and greens do everything labour does but better.
Agreed, the future leaders gender shouldn't come into it. Their sexual organs don't dictate whether they'll be a good leader.
I agree it should be the best candidate, but Mojo is right that Labour would have a massive PR problem if they elect another male leader.
The problem is made worse because if they move to the centre they need an especially strong leader to cope with the Momentum backlash. It could get nasty - perhaps to the level of Militant-style expulsions.
In theory Labour should be able to pick a strong experienced female leader from the 'Blair Babes' cohort. There aren't many left to chose from. Maybe part of the 'reflection' process needs to be looking at why that is.
Someone like Caroline Flint might have been the answer to win back those North East defectors, but not now.
Unless Momentum and the left can be beaten there is a possibility of a split.
Perhaps with the centrists teaming up with the LibDems under a new banner, and the remainder of Labour forming something like the French Communists.
I have never fully understood the SNP stance on wanting to leave to U.K. yet fully support being in the EU.
In both cases Scotland would have to leave the eu anyway. Why would they think they would be in a stronger position out of both unions ?
until of course they go back into the EU ( if the EU accepts them ) it is possible they won’t depending on how the negotiations go with The rest of the U.K.
Because the issue is with Westminster controlling Scotland and Scotland not having a say (Brexit being the perfect example). The EU has been beneficial for Scotland (and the rest of the UK) and Scotland remains very Pro-EU. I don't really think it's a fair comparison. As the EU doesn't and wouldn't have the same say over Scotland that the Uk Gov does. It should also be noted that in the 2014 referendum (which is now somewhat redundant) one of the main strong points for the No-Campaign was that if we voted no we could stay in the EU (obviously we've since been stabbed in the back by the UK Gov). The EU is a union of countries working together, the United Kingdom is basically Scotland doing what England says.
If Scotland went Independent it would give it the option to join the EU, which it doesn't have as part of the UK. It's been pretty well documented that the EU would welcome Scotland. How exactly the process would work i'm not qualified to answer, however the idea of a transition (acting as if Scotland never left the EU) has been floated about this would all depend however on how fast stuff moves with Brexit. The hope being that there could be a vote before the end of the transition period (which looks to be getting extended again...).
Fair enough, but how are they "ruled" by England?
Scottish vote is an awkward one, I saw a poll a week ago somewhere that said something like 1/3 of SNP voters don't even want independence, they just like the SNP.
Trouble with Starmer is he's now known as such a remainer I can't see many leave voting areas really warming to him. Same with David Milliband, even if he did come back. I have a feeling the Labour vote will now do do what the Tory association vote did and does, and cast their vote for who is the most eurosceptic. If the Lib Dems/People's Vote brigade kick up enough of a fuss in 5 years for EU rejoin to be a topic of conversation, Labour will be in a very awkward and potentially unelectable situation.
If Scotland left UK and was accepted into EU, then EU would insist that there were tariff / customs barriers between Scotland and Rest of UK, and that Scotland would have to use the Euro as currency (as, I think, do all new EU members after a transition period). That would help their tourism business - or not.
But are the Scots THAT pro-EU? I mean, not wanting to do what England tells them to do will eventually be replaced by being told what Brussels wants them to do. Being in the EU without the UK would mean less negotiating clout, meaning less opt-outs, and a possibly deeper integrated EU. I mean, would Scotland want to become independent just to find its given much of its own decision making power to the EU in the next Treaty?
but would the EU welcome Scotland with open arms ?
Again this is just my opinion but with the situation in Spain with Catalonia , I can’t see Spain backing Scotland to join for fear of another uprising.
Also I do think the EU would watch to see how Scotland negotiated its departure from the U.K. , I.e would Scotland make good their threat not to have its share of the U.K. debt if they did not get the deal they want.
The EU would look very poorly on this.
Also as Scotland can’t borrow atm , how would it show to the EU it would be able to meet their financial requirements, I.e meeting their borrowing to GDP being not more than 3%. Surely Scotland will need to be on its own for a good few years to show the EU it won’t need bailing out ?
also yes the EU has been beneficial to the U.K. in the same way the U.K. has been beneficial to the EU
Not sure i agree. The UK Gov and EU are very different, yes being in the EU would mean some sacrifice but at a trade and security standpoint it's very beneficial and i do believe Scotland as a independent country within the EU would do better than Scotland locked in a United Kingdom outside the EU. There's also the issue of political views, Scotland is more liberal these days than England - this can be seen by the fact that in this election around 75% of the vote share went to left/liberal parties.
It's impossible to really predict at this stage how it would/could all happen as there's endless possibilities and nuances that would appear, but even Scotland on it's own outside the EU would do better than it does inside the UK imo as we'd have far more control over how the country is run and how spending is allocated. We'd be able to follow our own path rather than the path chosen by England, again Brexit is the key example.
However perhaps i fear this is veering off the topic of the "Next Labour Leader"...
Yes it is going off a bit lol !
Scotland gets more money from being in the U.K. compared to what it would on it’s own via taxes ( which oddly enough Scotland can set its own rates already) in fact Scotland Pretty much decides on what to spend it’s money on. They have their own laws different to England and Wales.
All what you have stated leads to Scotland being in a very uncertain and weak position due to leaving the eu and U.K. I just can’t work it out lol.
Anyway labour a buggered for years to come maybe even decades if they can’t get rid of momentum
Agreed- the best two leaders in the last century were Churchill and Thatcher. Their genitals were exact opposites
Security wise, being part of the UK and controlling the GIUK surely is more important than anything.
Is Scotland more liberal? Even if it is, I just don't see it as a cause for ending 300 years of broadly very successful union. All countries have liberal and less liberal areas. Western/Eastern Germany, Texas/California, hell even London and the rest of England.
Out of interest, and hypothetically, if May had adopted a different path and established a panel of national representatives to make the decisions on how to shape our exit from the EU (aka the Red Lines), what policy position do you think the Scottish delegation to that panel would have taken?
For the sake of discussion lets assume the delegation would consist of one or more SNP ministers as representatives of the Scottish Government.
My own view is the SNP would have boycotted such an arrangement, as participating in it would constitute endorsing the principle of Brexit and be incompatible with a commitment to 'Stop Brexit'.
I also think that having any other kind of delegation from Scotland would have been rejected by the SNP as not representing the elected Government of Scotland.
No they are not. 38% of those who voted in the referendum voted to leave.
Scotland currently runs a deficit of around 7% of its GDP (compared to about 1.1% for the UK as a whole). Still that shouldn't be too much of a problem. EU nations are not supposed to run a current account surplus above 4% and a surplus above 6% is considered "excessively high". Germany has run the highest CA surplus in the world for four successive years and at times it has reached almost 9%. The EU says it is "looking at the situation." If it continues Germany "may face a fine".
I thought that too, but then changed my mind.
Whoever said Labour need seats in Scotland to get reelected was right. There aren't enough seats in England alone to get traditional Labour elected.
Which means if Scotland does leave the UK, Labour needs to reform itself as a party that appeals to more areas of England. (I'm not ignoring Wales, but even a clean sweep of seats there wouldn't make much difference to Labour's fortunes)
Which returns us to the topic of this thread. Labour need a leader who can do that reformation on the basis they may never again win more than a few seats in Scotland. It is unlikely that leader will be one who wants to return to the 1970/80's.
I get that , however the EU ain’t gonna throw its richest and biggest financial contributor out.
Scotland would be a different Situation owing to effectively being a brand new country with no history of having its own currency/ borrowing etc
I mean it's true however the chances of Labour regaining Scottish seats is pretty unlikely given that in many of them they're now the 3rd or 4th party and have less than a 20% vote share - simple fact is that there isn't the space for 3 left-centre parties in Scotland. Although it should be noted that Labour had a bigger vote share than LDs.
Regardless of what happens Labour will need to reform anyway, how exactly it's tough to say but certainly aiming more centrist. However if they went for a more Blair approach it could lead to a extreme leftist group propping up. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of the Lib Dems growing and becoming the 2nd major party, i suspect they would've done far better in this election if their leader wasn't so deluded and if they had focused on policies rather than personalities.
**** Separate post ****
Fyi i've not ignored the other posts where i'm quoted, i've just only responded to this one in order to remain on topic.
*Cough* See post #73.