Current Affairs The Labour Party

[peteblue]

They should ditch Corbyn immediately and put Hilary Benn in as temporary leader .....

 

[Chewbacca]

Just anecdotal evidence but most old people seem to be massive racists

 

[Number_25]

I'm not rekindling the arguments of the 2016 leadership election, if that's ok for you?

I campaigned in 4 constituencies this election:

• Rhondda Cynon Taff
• Ceredigion
• Stoke-on-Trent Central
• Stoke-on-Trent North

And have had conversations with people right across the political spectrum. These are the truths:

• People didn't like Jeremy Corbyn, often being unable to describe why they felt like that. Anti-Semitism was an issue.
• Leavers overwhelmingly rejected the idea of re-running the EU referendum. I don't know if many of them ended up voting for the Tories, but I know that many of them stayed home.
• People generally liked our policies, but didn't believe they were achievable over the course of a single parliament. This reaffirms my belief that the manifesto was too big, and we'd have been better off splitting it up into four year chunks.

 

[gonetomorrow]

I'm throwing my weight behind Lisa Nandy.

No offence.

 

[Number_25]

Whatever happens, we need to learn from this.

I don't know if the policies put forward were ever enough to win a majority in parliament. Whoever next leads our party needs to reflect these truths, and we - as members, need to understand that the sort of change we demand doesn't happen overnight.

I'm sorry to anyone reading this who needs a Labour Party, we failed you - again.

 

[Tubey]

Burgon as deputy, certainly. Either RLB or Rayner as leader would be acceptable, as would Starmer.

Would be a complete disaster and you'd be handing the next election to the Tories on a silver platter.

 

[Number_25]

Would be a complete disaster and you'd be handing the next election to the Tories on a silver platter.

Why?

 

[Tubey]

Why?

Rayner isn't bad as such but doesn't have the gravitas or experience required to be a serious threat to the Tories. She'd be a fantastic frontbencher but nothing more.

Long-Bailey shouldn't need an explanation - she's just terrible. Corbyn Lite.

Just my opinion of course, but Starmer and Phillips are the only two standouts. Starmer edges it as he has less baggage and Phillips is more prone to the dramatic when under pressure, but both would be very difficult for the Tories to attack.

 

[tsubaki]

Have you read Blair's book to say he didn't have a plan? I'm aware that the party likes to undermine itself no matter which side the leader happens to be on. That doesn't alter the facts, Brown moved the party away from the path that Blair wanted and then Miliband moved it further and Corbyn went further again.

Ah, "facts". Blair achieved power because he managed to buy off the media, and as a result didn't get demonized anywhere near as much as previous Labour leaders - thats why something like the windfall tax, which would have been absolute communism if anyone else had done it, was greeted as common sense.

He then "professionalized" the party, bringing in (and Brown was as guilty of this) a host of bright young things with the intention that they'd reshape Labour in his image - this worked to a degree, with the party membership changing as many left wing people left. The policy programme was also really clever, with many Labour voters stopped voting Labour as a result (he lost 4 million votes between 1997 and 2005). The drop in membership and insistence on a professional approach nearly bankrupted the party, which almost resulted in him being the first PM ever interviewed under caution.

This project then ran into difficulties when Blair was forced out; the bright young things turned out not to be so bright - first they failed despite several opportunities in removing Brown, then they lost the 2010 leadership election, then - convinced of their own popularity - they changed the rules for the next leadership election so that people from outside the party could vote in leadership elections, which would prevent 2010 ever happening again. The rest you probably know.

 

[Tubey]

Blair achieved power because he managed to buy off the media

Nope.

 

[Number_25]

Nope.

I've noticed that you never put forward reasons.

 

[neil999]

Rayner isn't bad as such but doesn't have the gravitas or experience required to be a serious threat to the Tories. She'd be a fantastic frontbencher but nothing more.

Long-Bailey shouldn't need an explanation - she's just terrible. Corbyn Lite.

Just my opinion of course, but Starmer and Phillips are the only two standouts. Starmer edges it as he has less baggage and Phillips is more prone to the dramatic when under pressure, but both would be very difficult for the Tories to attack.

I still think nandy could be a good unifying candidate

 

[Tubey]

I've noticed that you never put forward reasons.

I constantly do - if anything I type too much!

On this occasion, it's just a simple no - Blair didn't buy off the media.

 

[Number_25]

I constantly do - if anything I type too much!

On this occasion, it's just a simple no - Blair didn't buy off the media.

I'm hardly a Corbynista, and even I'd concede that we lost the majority of our traditional base under New Labour - without any doubt.

 

[Billy Dean]

Rayner isn't bad as such but doesn't have the gravitas or experience required to be a serious threat to the Tories. She'd be a fantastic frontbencher but nothing more.

Long-Bailey shouldn't need an explanation - she's just terrible. Corbyn Lite.

Just my opinion of course, but Starmer and Phillips are the only two standouts. Starmer edges it as he has less baggage and Phillips is more prone to the dramatic when under pressure, but both would be very difficult for the Tories to attack.

Starmer for me. Less divisive than Phillips. She seems quite unpopular on the left of the party, would she even be able to win enough votes to become leader?