Poll : Next Labour Leader.

[Deej]

This just sums it up, what an own goal, does anybody actually think before speaking? This will play well wit the Labour members (perhaps) but maybe not with wider country.

Exactly.

I'm no fan of the Royals myself but I know they remain overwhelmingly popular and that there is no thirst for a referendum on the monarchy.

Lewis would just open himself up to charges of being anti-British, something that is not going to win over the patriotic working class voters who Labour need the backing off.

 

[Seanm]

Sadly, it is going to take Labour more than a minute to sort out the mess they are in.

The membership voted in Corbyn. Twice. That really ought to lead them to question their own strategic judgement. Banging on about what happened with Owen Thingy so is totally missing the point of what just happened to Labour and why, it's just a perfect demonstration of how disconnected Labour thinking has become. If you are a Labour Party member wondering how to vote, don't use your own judgement, please. Phone a friend.

If you really want to go there (and honestly very few do) then, granted, Thingy was bested by Corbyn in debate, and seemed overall a bit of a lightweight, but how do you think he'd have done in a General Election? Try as I might, I can't see him doing any worse than Corbyn just did: it simply doesn't compute. He seemed more likeable, had a definite Brexit position, and more able to work constructively with the PLP and cross-party. He might have done OK or at least only Miliband-level bad.

Kind regards

- Garry

I'm not banging on about Owen Smith, you are.

If we're to take seriously the task of selecting a leader we need to think about what they intend to do, not just about what some fantasised public is going to think about their performance in the HoC. The candidates are all basically saying they're going to leave the policy direction as is, so we're trying to look at other things, such as strategy. Some candidates are saying more or less clear things here (Lewis, Nandy) but all we're getting from Starmer is, Judge me on my record (and, implicitly, on my hair). And the record includes some admirable things but also his participation in an extraordinarily incompetent PLP coup. That wasn't just about selecting a likeable leader either: it was about the PLP regaining control of the party and moving it back to the right. If the PLP manage to pull that off this time, if they think the next election can be won from Westminster, then we really are toast. So some people are thinking Starmer's a bit of a risk all round. We need to see some evidence that he's looking at the bigger picture, like we're getting from Lewis (whom the PLP are unlikely to risk, sadly).

I'm just trying to offer an ordinary member's perspective here. It's frustrating to hear all this stuff about being disconnected from reality from people who seem to think the reality of electoral politics begins and ends with a likeable leader. I mean, that's a plus, but there are other factors in play. Starmer already has a big lead, he's good looking, competent, seems to share the basic values of the membership and stuck by Corbyn right or wrong rather than sh_t-talking him in the Murdoch press. If he can't convert that into a victory amongst the members then he's a bit disconnected himself. He just has to say the magic words.

 

[35451]

When I worked in press (pre-internet) we used quote circulation & readership, the latter was based upon the number of people who would 'read' each copy, it was generally '3'. This seemed quite arbitrary, also the number of people who read each copy would often go up as the circulation went down. Very different times.

The figures from the Press Gazette could be rather optimistic & it doesn't take into account the differing ways of media consumption (on & offline).

The Camus study for PG is an amalgamation of soft and hard copy readership, so online is taken in account.
Methodology may be suspect, and you would expect optimism- all the more reason the numbers are stark in terms of national coverage

 

[clifftaylor]

I'm not that interested in whether or not the leader of the LP is likeable - I am interested in whether or not they can argue for LP policies convincingly, think on their feet, and not sound as if they're reading from a script all the time.

 

[35451]

That's irrelevant, isn't it?

It's how many articles are shared on SM that counts.

Most people don't read papers either off or online, but a lot more click on links fed from the papers on SM.

Stephen

That was the point, yes!, so when folk Moan about biased press it's also irrelevant

 

[SteveS1]

I'm not banging on about Owen Smith, you are.

If we're to take seriously the task of selecting a leader we need to think about what they intend to do, not just about what some fantasised public is going to think about their performance in the HoC. The candidates are all basically saying they're going to leave the policy direction as is, so we're trying to look at other things, such as strategy. Some candidates are saying more or less clear things here (Lewis, Nandy) but all we're getting from Starmer is, Judge me on my record (and, implicitly, on my hair). And the record includes some admirable things but also his participation in an extraordinarily incompetent PLP coup. That wasn't just about selecting a likeable leader either: it was about the PLP regaining control of the party and moving it back to the right. If the PLP manage to pull that off this time, if they think the next election can be won from Westminster, then we really are toast. So some people are thinking Starmer's a bit of a risk all round. We need to see some evidence that he's looking at the bigger picture, like we're getting from Lewis (whom the PLP are unlikely to risk, sadly).

I'm just trying to offer an ordinary member's perspective here. It's frustrating to hear all this stuff about being disconnected from reality from people who seem to think the reality of electoral politics begins and ends with a likeable leader. I mean, that's a plus, but there are other factors in play. Starmer already has a big lead, he's good looking, competent, seems to share the basic values of the membership and stuck by Corbyn right or wrong rather than sh_t-talking him in the Murdoch press. If he can't convert that into a victory amongst the members then he's a bit disconnected himself. He just has to say the magic words.

You are not an ordinary member Sean, if such a thing exists. All this talk of PLP coups and internal stuff is of little interest to the electorate.

Electoral success is not guaranteed with a likable leader, but electoral failure is pretty much guaranteed with one that is not liked. I don't think Starmer has any magic beans, but he looks like someone who can appeal much more widely and is a very competent performer.

 

[Seanm]

You are not an ordinary member Sean, if such a thing exists. All this talk of PLP coups and internal stuff is of little interest to the electorate.

Electoral success is not guaranteed with a likable leader, but electoral failure is pretty much guaranteed with one that is not liked. I don't think Starmer has any magic beans, but he looks like someone who can appeal much more widely and is a very competent performer.

This is all a bit populist, isn't it? The presumption that you just know what the electorate's interests are, first of all, but also the demand that every aspect and level of the representational system be measured against that interest. Should this CLP stick with the current delegate system or move to all member meetings? "Of what POSSIBLE interest is this to the ELECTORATE oh my GOD you people are such NAVEL GAZERS!"

Personally I'd like to see the party open up as much as possible, engage as much as possible with local communities, so that issues like how much power parliament has, and the kind of policies our elected representatives pursue, *are* of interest to the wider public, and become something they can engage with more directly. In fact I think this is pretty much a condition of us winning power. Which is why I happen to care about all this "internal stuff": none of this is going to happen if the PLP wrestle back control of the party.

 

[SteveS1]

This is all a bit populist, isn't it? The presumption that you just know what the electorate's interests are, first of all, but also the demand that every aspect and level of the representational system be measured against that interest. Should this CLP stick with the current delegate system or move to all member meetings? "Of what POSSIBLE interest is this to the ELECTORATE oh my GOD you people are such NAVEL GAZERS!"

Personally I'd like to see the party open up as much as possible, engage as much as possible with local communities, so that issues like how much power parliament has, and the kind of policies our elected representatives pursue, *are* of interest to the wider public, and become something they can engage with more directly. In fact I think this is pretty much a condition of us winning power. Which is why I happen to care about all this "internal stuff": none of this is going to happen if the PLP wrestle back control of the party.

Once again you're off into activist land. The electorate have proven time and again that credible policies and competent, well led MPs are required. How you arrive there is of little interest to them. This is about winning. The election that is, not 'the argument'.

 

[gassor]

Personally I'd like to see the party open up as much as possible, engage as much as possible with local communities, so that issues like how much power parliament has, and the kind of policies our elected representatives pursue, *are* of interest to the wider public, and become something they can engage with more directly. In fact I think this is pretty much a condition of us winning power. Which is why I happen to care about all this "internal stuff": none of this is going to happen if the PLP wrestle back control of the party.

Do you really think that if the Labour party was more open* people in their millions would change from voting Tory or SNP? Suppose you organise a discussion group to debate how much power parliament has, how many of the wider public would you expect to turn up on a Saturday morning? I would suggest not many even if you hand out free tea and biscuits.

* Labour party meetings open to the general public presumably.

 

[clifftaylor]

Do you really think that if the Labour party was more open* people in their millions would change from voting Tory or SNP? Suppose you organise a discussion group to debate how much power parliament has, how many of the wider public would you expect to turn up on a Saturday morning? I would suggest not many even if you hand out free tea and biscuits.

A good point. My sole direct involvement in Politics was as union rep for maybe six months with Royal Mail (east oxford branch which was certainly political circa 1998!), and my overwhelming impression was that people want to be led rather than involved.

 

[Seanm]

Once again you're off into activist land. The electorate have proven time and again that credible policies and competent, well led MPs are required. How you arrive there is of little interest to them. This is about winning. The election that is, not 'the argument'.

That's the lesson you're taking from recent events? 3 years of clown car jokes and the butt of them's handed a thumping majority: "Yes, yes, you see? The People just want to see competent management!"

My take is that lots of people feel disenfranchised, and at the same time want to see a politics based on values. It's not very original theory, it might be wrong, but it's less counter-intuitive than this competent management stuff.

 

[Lee T]

but electoral failure is pretty much guaranteed with one that is not liked.

Many who voted Boris cannot stand the guy but trusted Corbyn less.

 

[Dave H.]

Unless you are part of the Labour machine it is just moaning though

Please don’t wink like that, it comes across as a really passive aggressive attempt to be condescending. I’ve noticed it a lot recently, especially from those on the right (much as I realise that you wouldn’t say you were).

I don’t agree with that claim though. Labour members don’t exist in a vacuum, and discussions such as this can surely factor into their thinking about which way to vote. My GF will probably get a vote, but that doesn’t mean we don’t talk about this stuff just because I’m not a member. The ‘we’ I had in mind is all of us who care/pay attention, not just party members.

 

[Seanm]

Do you really think that if the Labour party was more open* people in their millions would change from voting Tory or SNP? Suppose you organise a discussion group to debate how much power parliament has, how many of the wider public would you expect to turn up on a Saturday morning? I would suggest not many even if you hand out free tea and biscuits.

* Labour party meetings open to the general public presumably.

I would like to see citizens' assemblies, citizens' juries, greater accountability for local councillors, more involvement of MPs in local issues, open selection for parliamentary candidates, the rolling out of Labour's community organiser program to more constituencies, more power given to regions and municipalities, PR. That's what I means by opening up the party system. Clive Lewis is openly calling for most of these things, Nandy for some of them.

 

[SteveS1]

Many who voted Boris cannot stand the guy but trusted Corbyn less.

Well yes indeed, let's hope they select someone who the public don't perceive as 'worse than Johnson'. That would be a start.

 

[SteveS1]

That's the lesson you're taking from recent events? 3 years of clown car jokes and the butt of them's handed a thumping majority: "Yes, yes, you see? The People just want to see competent management!"

My take is that lots of people feel disenfranchised, and at the same time want to see a politics based on values. It's not very original theory, it might be wrong, but it's less counter-intuitive than this competent management stuff.

No, the lessons I'm taking is not to elect a leader that the public think is worse than Johnson and produce a policy agenda to focus on key elements of inequality without becoming a confusing wish list.

At no point did I say "the people just want to see competent management" that's your spin. They expect competent management - offering up less than that puts you at immediate disadvantage.

Oh and I also learned I don't want to "win the argument" because that appears to mean you get your arse handed to you, but it's so honourable.

 

[gassor]

I would like to see citizens' assemblies, citizens' juries, greater accountability for local councillors, more involvement of MPs in local issues, open selection for parliamentary candidates, the rolling out of Labour's community organiser program to more constituencies, more power given to regions and municipalities, PR. That's what I means by opening up the party system. Clive Lewis is openly calling for most of these things, Nandy for some of them.

Don't think citizens' assemblies or juries are anything to do with opening up the Labour party. And I can't see them having much impact on voting behaviour. The other suggestions are hardly going to change Labour's fortunes either. Clive Lewis is calling for a ref on the Royals which I doubt will win many Tories over to supporting Labour.

 

[Del monaco]

Clive's call for a referendum is opportunistic. Not a good start in my book.

 

[Lee T]

Well yes indeed, let's hope they select someone who the public don't perceive as 'worse than Johnson'. That would be a start.

Anyone currently under the Labour banner will be deemed worse than Johnson unfortunately.

The only hope for a Labour win at the next election will be a seismic failure on the part of this government.

 

[SteveS1]

Anyone currently under the Labour banner will be deemed worse than Johnson unfortunately.

The only hope for a Labour win at the next election will be a seismic failure on the part of this government.

Oh I don't think so, a determined effort was required to be perceived as a worse alternative to 9 years of Tories with a generally acknowledged lying opportunist for a leader.

It's like the two guys running from a bear. One says "do you think we can out-run it?" The other guy replies "no idea, I only have to out-run you".