Labour Leader: Keir Starmer IV

[Mullardman]

There's always a tension between what the Party members want, who MPs will support and what the electorate will vote for. (For Labour there's the added factor of what the unions will put up with).

It's not at all difficult to come up with a similar statement involving the Tories, the Press, the 'dark forces' of capitalism..etc. The major difference is that the Tories tend not to air their dirty linen quite so publicly, or continually apologise for so doing.

 

[JonR]

Labour seem to have got themselves to a place the Libdems and centrist parties down the ages have long since occupied, ie. no-one seems to know what they stand for. I mentioned rail re-nationalisation when I posted yesterday - it seems to me this is the sort of thing Labour should be championing by definition, but I have no idea whether anyone in the top echelons of the party supports this idea or not. For me that's a pretty strange place for the Labour party to be in.

 

[Seanm]

There's always a tension between what the Party members want, who MPs will support and what the electorate will vote for. (For Labour there's the added factor of what the unions will put up with).

All this talk of Burnham, Lammy, Lewis, Rayner et al is pointless unless and until Labour has sorted out what it's for, rather than just what it's against (though it would be helpful if Labour could state unequivocally that it is against tax breaks for the rich). It would be better to keep Starmer in place for now, and get the policies right, rather than hoping that a different front man/woman will solve everything.

Yes, shuffling these people around isn't really going to get the party anywhere. I think it's inevitable though. It's an interesting process because it's really what *should* have happened in 2015, had something completely unexpected not happened instead: Labour rapidly go through a succession of hopeless stuffed shirts in an attempt to find the mythical Great Communicator that can sell their increasingly right wing and unappetising product, until eventually disappearing entirely or admitting that the long '90s are over, and moving left. It's possible that by 2030 the party as a whole will be ready to accept the 2017 manifesto .

 

[Seanm]

Labour seem to have got themselves to a place the Libdems and centrist parties down the ages have long since occupied, ie. no-one seems to know what they stand for. I mentioned rail re-nationalisation when I posted yesterday - it seems to me this is the sort of thing Labour should be championing by definition, but I have no idea whether anyone in the top echelons of the party supports this idea or not. For me that's a pretty strange place for the Labour party to be in.

I don't know what your personal take on things has been over the last few years, but it's worth remembering that this is exactly what moderates having been asking for - the vague, platitudinous commitment to being moderate, that is, not rail nationalisation.

 

[JonR]

I don't know what your personal take on things has been over the last few years, but it's worth remembering that this is exactly what moderates having been asking for - the vague, platitudinous commitment to being moderate, that is, not rail nationalisation.

They had Jeremy Corbyn on C4 news last week (doubtless you saw the interview?). As much as I loath the very prospect of him in charge of a mainstream party, in the interview he offered some pretty distinct ideas of what Labour should stand for. I'm not a Labour supporter so have no 'skin in the game' as it were, but my point is that these were ideas which would put clear space between Labour and pretty much any other (mainstream) party.

Under Starmer right now this isn't happening. I can appreciate his dilemma. On the one hand he needs to be moderate so as not to scare potential voters away. On the other hand he could end up with ideas so moderate and wishy washy that nobody understands them or could care less about them.

 

[ks.234]

Yes, shuffling these people around isn't really going to get the party anywhere. I think it's inevitable though. It's an interesting process because it's really what *should* have happened in 2015, had something completely unexpected not happened instead: Labour rapidly go through a succession of hopeless stuffed shirts in an attempt to find the mythical Great Communicator that can sell their increasingly right wing and unappetising product, until eventually disappearing entirely or admitting that the long '90s are over, and moving left. It's possible that by 2030 the party as a whole will be ready to accept the 2017 manifesto .

The problem is that they have nothing to sell. Policy free PR is the only tool in the bag. I can’t help feeling that if Labour did become explicitly right wing, it would attract some support but it seems to want to just sit in the middle ground, getting fat and hope people come to them

 

[droodzilla]

Laughable revisionism here. Burnham now the main man yet no one voted for him when they had the opportunity.

Rayner making mischief in the DL role when it wasn’t quite so popular when Tom was doing the same.

I like Burnham but not sure he is the answer. Blunkett has made some good points in the ‘I’ today; yes I know you all hate him but I feel he is right on this one, LP does patronise the WC by wallowing in nostalgia.

I would like Lammy to be given a go, not now as there is too much mess to sort out.

Who's revising what?

I voted for Corbyn in 2015 because, like Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall, Burnham ran an uninspiring campaign. He wised up towards the end and started to offer a more left-wing vision, but by then it was too late. I respect him for his stance on Hillsborough which was opposed by Blair (in Murdoch's pocket, as usual).

As for now, I'd settle for Burnham, as would many a soft(ish) lefty, I think. Anything has to be better than the present catstrophe and the all out factional purge the right of the party has now started.

 

[Seanm]

They had Jeremy Corbyn on C4 news last week (doubtless you saw the interview?). As much as I loath the very prospect of him in charge of a mainstream party, in the interview he offered some pretty distinct ideas of what Labour should stand for. I'm not a Labour supporter so have no 'skin in the game' as it were, but my point is that these were ideas which would put clear space between Labour and pretty much any other (mainstream) party.

Under Starmer right now this isn't happening. I can appreciate his dilemma. On the one hand he needs to be moderate so as not to scare potential voters away. On the other hand he could end up with ideas so moderate and wishy washy that nobody understands them or could care less about them.

I didn't see it, I've always found Jeremy hard to watch . But yes the appeal for many was that Labour under Corbyn knew what it wanted, and didn't apologise for wanting it. I guess that will become clearer to others now that stories about the left's support for terrorism aren't being belched into the public sphere 24-7.

2030. Eyes on the prize!

 

[droodzilla]

Labour seem to have got themselves to a place the Libdems and centrist parties down the ages have long since occupied, ie. no-one seems to know what they stand for. I mentioned rail re-nationalisation when I posted yesterday - it seems to me this is the sort of thing Labour should be championing by definition, but I have no idea whether anyone in the top echelons of the party supports this idea or not. For me that's a pretty strange place for the Labour party to be in.

It was literally in the 2017 and 2019 manifestos. But, as you say, God knows what Labour stands for now.

 

[droodzilla]

I didn't see it, I've always found Jeremy hard to watch . But yes the appeal for many was that Labour under Corbyn knew what it wanted, and didn't apologise for wanting it. I guess that will become clearer to others now that stories about the left's support for terrorism aren't being belched into the public sphere 24-7.

2030. Eyes on the prize!

Haha, yes me too. I don't think I've ever listened to a single speech all the way through although there are some memorable moments in a few of them.

 

[wylton]

All the stuff we're hearing right now about how Labour are gong to change and all that. I don't think they even have a clue about what is wrong. On the campaign trail, Starmer is an embarrassment; surely there must be a publicity team who could point him in the right direction. When he's out and about, he doesn't look as if he is comfortable with it. I can't believe how Labour wasted the opportunity of popularity that Corbyn had when he became leader.

 

[droodzilla]

Yes, I agree Tony. reading some of the linked articles posted above makes me despair. Labour is a total basket case and needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Let another progressive party have a chance.

It's a nice idea but new progressive parties don't materialise out of nowhere. It's possible that the Greens might eventually occupy that space (have you seen the local election results in Bristol?) but it will take many years of hard work and organisation.

 

[gavreid]

It's a nice idea but new progressive parties don't materialise out of nowhere. It's possible that the Greens might eventually occupy that space (have you seen the local election results in Bristol?) but it will take many years of hard work and organisation.

Great tensions will surface inevitably there too with a range of interests from naive youngsters to ex-Labour Momentum suporters through to some of the more namby-pamby retired folk from the local allotment group, it's unavoidable really. Particularly around protest and capitalism. Can corporations or billionaires save the planet, for example. The competitive nature of capitalism is the very force that's destroying the planet.

 

[Joe Hutch]

It's not at all difficult to come up with a similar statement involving the Tories, the Press, the 'dark forces' of capitalism..etc. The major difference is that the Tories tend not to air their dirty linen quite so publicly, or continually apologise for so doing.

Well, yes, but even with the Tories there are leaders who can't lead (eg IDS, May) and policies they can't sell (eg the Poll Tax). The difference is that the Tories are more ruthless in ditching unpopular leaders. A Tory leader is rarely allowed to lose two elections in a row.

 

[Joe Hutch]

It's a nice idea but new progressive parties don't materialise out of nowhere. It's possible that the Greens might eventually occupy that space (have you seen the local election results in Bristol?) but it will take many years of hard work and organisation.

And money. Will the unions switch from Labour to a 'new progressive party', particularly one which leads on green policies? If not, could such a party survive long-term on membership fees and donations?

 

[Funk]

All the stuff we're hearing right now about how Labour are gong to change and all that. I don't think they even have a clue about what is wrong. On the campaign trail, Starmer is an embarrassment; surely there must be a publicity team who could point him in the right direction. When he's out and about, he doesn't look as if he is comfortable with it. I can't believe how Labour wasted the opportunity of popularity that Corbyn had when he became leader.

The fact is that the 'popularity' was only skin-deep - most people, including many dyed-in-the-wool Labour voters, voted Tory.

I agree Corbyn was clear about what he stood for (and by proxy, the aims of the LP under his leadership) but the reality is that most people evidently don't want to buy what Labour is selling. It's not a 'message' problem - people got that, loud and clear. They just didn't want it.

I have no issue with Labour having hard-left goals and dreams; I would prefer they stick to that and be honest rather than lying, dressing up their policies and aims as 'centre-friendly' in an attempt to win power again. Underneath it's just the same Labour.

The biggest issue I have is that Labour are so massively in thrall to the unions; the unions control the purse strings and by proxy, the policies. Look at how they got Ed elected over David in the leadership contest for example.

 

[notaclue]

Refreshing to see a politician sound like a normal person instead of a career political wonk.

Ironically, Burnham is very much a career politician whereas Sir Keir isn't and has had a proper job.

But Burnham is friendly and warm and Northern and good on the tele'. And popular (in Manchester). All the things that Sir Keir isn't.

If Burnham was a woman and a sitting MP, he'd have the full house of what Labour will probably be looking for as the next leader. I do suspect Labour might think they need a woman leader for once. Could be Nandy this time.

 

[sean99]

The biggest problem that Labour have is that they invest more energy into factional in-fighting than they do into fighting the Tories. The Democrats did this prior to the 2016 election but they learned their lesson and there has been a strong show of unity both pre and post the 2020 election. Biden was an uninspiring choice and some of his policies are disappointing (healthcare) but another 4 years of Trump would have been the end of the US. ISTM the Labour party politicians aren't really serious about getting into power because if they were there would be a lot less infighting (as witnessed in many posts in this thread).

A new leader will not change any of this - particularly if the leader is seen to favour one of the factions over the others.

Even united Labour would face an uphill battle with the UK press landscape, but divided and infighting they will be out of power for a generation. I'm f*ck*ng sick to death of hearing debates about where the center is and what constitutes a true left policy - just come up with some policies to unite around that offer a serious alternative to the Tories and start selling them to the electorate.

 

[gavreid]

The biggest issue I have is that Labour are so massively in thrall to the unions; the unions control the purse strings and by proxy, the policies. Look at how they got Ed elected over David in the leadership contest for example.

Of course the unions collectively have many times the membership of all of the UK parties combined. They also formed the party to represent their voices in Parliament and there is still a tenuous connection to working people through the union leaderships. That is why the strength of the Labour vote matters. The real problem is that the unions are bankrolling the party for the better part of diddly squat in return and that will come to a head one way or another.

 

[NeilR]

Great tensions will surface inevitably there too with a range of interests from naive youngsters to ex-Labour Momentum suporters through to some of the more namby-pamby retired folk from the local allotment group, it's unavoidable really. Particularly around protest and capitalism. Can corporations or billionaires save the planet, for example. The competitive nature of capitalism is the very force that's destroying the planet.

The frustrating thing is that in a PR based system, these groups could happily coexist as smaller parties and then cooperate as necessary to form governments. Works in most other countries....