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.
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.
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.
They may both be at fault but to equal measure? I mean, who was driving the bus?
Agreed.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.
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.
Labour went wrong when it chose the wrong Milliband and has never recovered.
And Blairites? Really? How many people do you think decided to Vote Conservative last week because they were angry at Tony Blair's Government?
You can sing her name to the same tune as 'oooh Jeremy Cor-byn" so all is not lost.
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.
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!
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.
And Blairites? Really? How many people do you think decided to Vote Conservative last week because they were angry at Tony Blair's Government?
Bollocks. Just when I thought it was safe to listen to 7 Nation Army without some halfwit cult member ruining it!
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
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.
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.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
Yep absolutely@TheGrandWazoo has it spot on
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.
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.
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.
Indeed.Unlike his brother ?
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.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.