Next Labour Leader II

[Woodface]

Interesting feedback on the candidates pitches, thanks all for this as I cannot bring myself to watch them.

On Labours fully costed manifesto let’s not forget the circa £50bn pledge which wasn’t. It is a fine margin between being a critical friend & just a critic. That is Nandy’s challenge.

 

[droodzilla]

Again that may be a conscious strategy. There is certainly a belief outside the party that the members/Momentum got so stuck in their own echo chamber they totally lost touch with the wider electorate and effectively made the party unelectable. With this I’m not really talking about pandering to middle class progressive remainers like me, we always had the LDs and Greens, more about communicating with the working class northern heartlands. Which in fairness folk like Nandy and Philips will understand way better than the likes of Corbyn (wealthy private schooled southerner) ever will. The next leader obviously needs to get past the membership and worse the block trade union vote, but also appeal more widely to real voters. A tough ask to get both.

Both Lisa Nandy and Jess Philips are from highly comfortable middle-class backgrounds but yeah, Corbyn didn't resonate with "traditional Labour voters".

 

[Tony L]

I thought Lisa Nandy was from Wigan and Jess Philips from Birmingham?!

[ducks, covers...]

 

[h.g.]

This is hilarious coming from someone who studiously avoids responding to posts inviting them to back up their cosmology with facts or analysis, and chooses instead to engage with concern trolls like my man The Big C, who only really want to talk about a___holes.

I might regret asking but I cannot recall any discussion on the topic of a___holes or know who The Big C might be?

 

[vuk]

I think I've just had an orgasm.

you righties just love getting stuff for free.

 

[ks.234]

I'll have vanilla please.
Hopefully he'll turn out to be Taste the Difference Extra Special with real vanilla pod extract

They don’t call him Keir Madagascan Starmer for nothing

 

[Woodface]

Both Lisa Nandy and Jess Philips are from highly comfortable middle-class backgrounds but yeah, Corbyn didn't resonate with "traditional Labour voters".[/QUOTE
I always thought Philips was WC, she certainly acts the role. Can’t stand her anyway

 

[palacefan]

I think that Long Bailey and Thornberry will antagonise either end of the country but the Labour party has different wings and to obtain a greater chance of political and election success perhaps Momentum needs to run separate campaigns as a different party.

 

[35451]

Oh how time passes quickly whilst these chumps decide who will eventually lead their opposition, let alone what policies they will adopt to convince with any credibility that they are worth following.

They are still squabbling and posturing, with some still defending the incumbent loser, all in full view of an incredulous public.

You couldn’t make it up. There is a vacuum of opposition waiting to be filled.

I have an inkling that trans and Semite issues will not be a clincher at the next GE.

Deck chairs. Stern. Titanic. Rearrange.

 

[Seanm]

There’s almost nothing Tories won’t get uptight and resentful about. I can understand people being scornful about a leadership contest in a party they don’t support, but the outrage is weird.

 

[ks.234]

^
The outrage stems from the inner guilt that must necessarily come from voting Tory.

 

[thebigfredc]

Wanna bet.

 

[ks.234]

Wanna bet.

To be serious, the only people who can criticise Corbyn and remain blame free, are those who did vote for Johnson. You got what you wanted. Those who’ve spent 4 years sniping and undermining the only viable opposition to Johnson have been a casual factor in ensuring the opposite of what they wanted.

 

[Brian]

Interesting feedback on the candidates pitches, thanks all for this as I cannot bring myself to watch them.

On Labours fully costed manifesto let’s not forget the circa £50bn pledge which wasn’t. It is a fine margin between being a critical friend & just a critic. That is Nandy’s challenge.

That's how the "pledge" was portayed by the tory media, I'm not surprised to see you mention it.

It says it all that the media undermined this pledge by Labour, failing to highlight the money was taken by the tories and handed to the rich in tax cuts. Tories like to use the headline figure of £50b for effect, as though it is a year on year amount. However, that's not true, this was £58b spread over 5 years. I'll let you get the calculator out.

The Labour manifesto was fully costed, but of course, tories pretend it wasn't. What we see from the tories are ideas such as scrapping the higher rate of tax for high earners proposed by Javid, or the lie about 50,000 new nurses, or the mistake everyone can make of confusing the number 40 with 6.

Anyway, I digressed a little there and I apologise. However, I couldn't resist replying to yet more tory chaff. Ignoring it is how they get away with it, it needs to be shown for what it is whenever it appears.

 

[Nigel]

Sadly, it's become quite clear to me that Rebecca Long-Bailey is never going to win a general election. So what's the point in even considering her as leader?

 

[Tim Jones]

Point of order.

Nothing wrong with Westerhope. I was brought up on Newbiggin Hall Estate before we moved to that posh new place..West Denton.

To respond to the Rt Hon gent, nor do I, and, er, so was I.

 

[h.g.]

Sadly, it's become quite clear to me that Rebecca Long-Bailey is never going to win a general election. So what's the point in even considering her as leader?

If what is considered of highest priority to a labour member is that the hard left remain in control of the labour party and continue the progression towards becoming a pure hard left party which is content with itself then she looks the most likely to deliver. The price will be surrendering a chance to be the sole governing party in our FPTP system. The route to government will then almost certainly have to be in coalition with whatever party/ies the moderate left switches to. It splits the vote against the conservatives but so long as the conservatives are a minority party it is viable subject to the hard left not becoming so extreme the moderate left and other progressive parties will not form a coalition with them.

The alternative is to vote for a leader that seeks to reverse what has been happening over the last 5 years and move back towards the moderate left. Unless the hard left is disempowered to the extent they were 5 years ago the party will still consist of two incompatible warring factions and the question will remain of how to get the bulk of the general public with centrish views to vote for a party with visible hard left elements. The hard left are currently well dug in and no leadership candidate is currently making any noises about digging them out and so internal strife and the energy that consumes looks almost certain to continue. Worse it will also reduce the amount of moderate left support switching to other progressive parties in order to start building an effective opposition.

So yes there is a case for RLB as leader both from those that support the hard left and those that oppose the conservatives but cannot support the hard left. What the conservatives want is for the utterly ineffective opposition of the last 5 years to continue. The best route to that looks like a weakish labour leader trying to keep the lid on two warring factions but while still offering the hope that someday in the not too distant future a competent trustworthy moderate left party will emerge so please don't give up on us yet.

 

[Colin Barron]

If what is considered of highest priority to a labour member is that the hard left remain in control of the labour party and continue the progression towards becoming a pure hard left party which is content with itself then she looks the most likely to deliver. The price will be surrendering a chance to be the sole governing party in our FPTP system. The route to government will then almost certainly have to be in coalition with whatever party/ies the moderate left switches to. It splits the vote against the conservatives but so long as the conservatives are a minority party it is viable subject to the hard left not becoming so extreme the moderate left and other progressive parties will not form a coalition with them.

The alternative is to vote for a leader that seeks to reverse what has been happening over the last 5 years and move back towards the moderate left. Unless the hard left is disempowered to the extent they were 5 years ago the party will still consist of two incompatible warring factions and the question will remain of how to get the bulk of the general public with centrish views to vote for a party with visible hard left elements. The hard left are currently well dug in and no leadership candidate is currently making any noises about digging them out and so internal strife and the energy that consumes looks almost certain to continue. Worse it will also reduce the amount of moderate left support switching to other progressive parties in order to start building an effective opposition.

So yes there is a case for RLB as leader both from those that support the hard left and those that oppose the conservatives but cannot support the hard left. What the conservatives want is for the utterly ineffective opposition of the last 5 years to continue. The best route to that looks like a weakish labour leader trying to keep the lid on two warring factions but while still offering the hope that someday in the not too distant future a competent trustworthy moderate left party will emerge so please don't give up on us yet.

Labour do not have a right to 199 seats in the HOC for ever, and a business as usual approach will convert a borrowed vote into a brand loyalty Tory voter.

 

[Woodface]

That's how the "pledge" was portayed by the tory media, I'm not surprised to see you mention it.

It says it all that the media undermined this pledge by Labour, failing to highlight the money was taken by the tories and handed to the rich in tax cuts. Tories like to use the headline figure of £50m for effect, as though it is a year on year amount. However, that's not true, this was £58m spread over 5 years. I'll let you get the calculator out.

The Labour manifesto was fully costed, but of course, tories pretend it wasn't. What we see from the tories are ideas such as scrapping the higher rate of tax for high earners proposed by Javid, or the lie about 50,000 new nurses, or the mistake everyone can make of confusing the number 40 with 6.

Anyway, I digressed a little there and I apologise. However, I couldn't resist replying to yet more tory chaff. Ignoring it is how they get away with it, it needs to be shown for what it is whenever it appears.

I don’t read the Tory press.

The 50 billion I referred to was the potential cost of the Waspi women pension compensation, Corbyn said they would have to find the money for as it was the right thing to do. He admitted it wasn’t costed, I saw it with my own eyes on TV.

I am aware that the figure could be less than that, relying on mortality rates.

Why do you have to be so unceasingly patronising?

I know the Tories made loads of daft claims about Labours spending, I just don’t feel the need to constantly crap on about like some keeper of all knowledge. Bore off.

 

[russel]

To be serious, the only people who can criticise Corbyn and remain blame free, are those who did vote for Johnson. You got what you wanted. Those who’ve spent 4 years sniping and undermining the only viable opposition to Johnson have been a casual factor in ensuring the opposite of what they wanted.

Whilst I agreed with a lot of what Corbyn said, I was never convinced he could fully understand what he was saying and to execute those plans if he was in power, if he couldn't preach to the converted what chance did he ever have of being elected?, the party elected an unelectable leader. If I wanted someone to chair a committee into the site of a new library I guess he could do it but not anything more complex, he was useless as a leader of a major political party.