Next Labour Leader II

[ks.234]

I think you do KS. He sees the ambiguity issue from purely a Leave position as if keeping a few Brexit Party voters wouldn't have then lost even more Remainers (of which there are far more in Labour's support). He also (of course) did not accept that Corbyn was in issue despite him quite clearly being the biggest issue - something that both Labour leavers and remainers actually agreed on.

Finally, no humility at all when confronted with Blair's correct assessment that the offer of an election was an 'elephant trap' for Labour.

I agree with all of that, I just don’t agree that it’s necessarily re-writing history. It’s his opinion, and as much you and I might disagree with him, he hasn’t distorted the past

In fact, on the Leave/Remain issue he has history on his side. For all I argued against Leave in all its forms, looking back from where we are now, both the LP and the country would now be better off with a leave Deal that included membership of the CU and SM and the possibility of a trade deal with the EU that ensured the safety of our NHS.

On Corbyn, yes he was an issue, but the reasons for that are complex and more important, they’re now irrelevant. To keep going back to dissecting Corbynism, what ever that is, will only play into the hands of Labour’s opponents and affect the next Labour Leader negatively.

Finally, Blair was absolutely correct about the bear trap. Agreeing to the election was a huge mistake. But as McC pointed out on Marr, Labour’s options were hamstrung when Swinson had said she would agree to an election. If the Lib Dem’s had got behind an anti No Deal alliance/agreement proposed by Lucas, Sturgeon and Soubrey, things might’ve been different, but once Swinson had sided with Johnson, and the alliance/agreement broken down, the accusation that Labour was frightened of an election, frightened of a democratic process, would have grown louder and louder with consequences even more disastrous when the election inevitably came.

So, yes McC is, in my opinion, a dinosaur who for the sake of Labour should confine himself to Union matters. But re-writing history? Not so sure.

 

[SteveS1]

On Corbyn, yes he was an issue, but the reasons for that are complex and more important they’re now irrelevant. To keep going back to dissecting Corbynism, what ever that is, will only play into the hands of Labour’s opponents and affect the next Labour Leader negatively.

It isn't a case of keeping on dissecting Corbyn's leadership, it's making sure you don't repeat the same folly. There is no evidence of much support for RLB and clear evidence that many in the seats they lost at local level are hostile to what they rightly perceive as the closest option to 'continuity'. Len talking in terms of "my executive decided" makes it look and feel like an appointment.

Finally, Blair was absolutely correct about the bear trap. Agreeing to the election was a huge mistake. But as McC pointed out on Marr, Labour’s options were hamstrung when Swinson had said she would agree to an election. If the Lib Dem’s had got behind an anti No Deal alliance/agreement proposed by Lucas, Sturgeon and Soubrey, things might’ve been different,

I agree with this and hold Swinson mostly responsible for the failure of consensus on strategy and Sturgeon for her opportunism. But Corbyn still had cards to play and decided instead to look unreachable by any of the other opposition parties and then finally accepted the election it is claimed by some members - without even referring to the shadow cabinet, although I suspect Milne, McCluskey and RLB were pushing for it.

 

[ks.234]

It isn't a case of keeping on dissecting Corbyn's leadership, it's making sure you don't repeat the same folly. There is no evidence of much support for RLB and clear evidence that many in the seats they lost at local level are hostile to what they rightly perceive as the closest option to 'continuity'. Len talking in terms of "my executive decided" makes it look and feel like an appointment.



I agree with this and hold Swinson mostly responsible for the failure of consensus on strategy and Sturgeon for her opportunism. But Corbyn still had cards to play and decided instead to look unreachable by any of the other opposition parties and then finally accepted the election it is claimed by some members - without even referring to the shadow cabinet, although I suspect Milne, McCluskey and RLB were pushing for it.

I’m all for learning from the past, but there does seem to be a whole lot of ‘I told you so’ going on on here which only serves self justification and is feeding into a wider narrative that could damage any future leader. Marr today for instance threw the familiar ‘what Corbyn policies are you ditching?’ line at McC. Yes, Corbyn the man was hugely unpopular, but unless you believe Labour should move closer to Johnson on policy, there is a danger that Labour will be manoeuvred into accepting policies that, as a Labour Party, we should be opposing.

For all Corbyn’s faults he did bring about a vital change of direction to a Labour Party that had badly lost it’s sense of direction.

As to the future I’m still unsure who to vote for. I like what RLB has to say, especially on the Green Deal and the Regions, but wonder if a vote for appearances sake would attract less hostility and allow Labour to be more effective.

 

[SteveS1]

Marr today for instance threw the familiar ‘what Corbyn policies are you ditching?’ line at McC. Yes, Corbyn the man was hugely unpopular, but unless you believe Labour should move closer to Johnson on policy, there is a danger that Labour will be manoeuvred into accepting policies that, as a Labour Party, we should be opposing.

No need to move close to Johnson. What you quote there is just an indication of how poorly prepared and effective Len is when being interviewed. Had he anticipated being asked about policy, hardly a surprise question or an unfair one, it could have gone much better. There were quite a few things he could have said that would have looked suitably humble and learned from the experience of a shattering defeat.

He could have said.... "perhaps some of the offering looked a bit over-complex, that nationisation plans might have been more effectively concentrated on a couple of key industries. That the WASPI pledge not being part of the original maths was, in hindsight, perhaps not great. That the broadband pledge might have ended up looking gimmicky when it could have been better presented as part of a bigger comms strategy."

Things that at least make it look like you've thought about why you just got your arse handed to you in an election.

 

[ks.234]

No need to move close to Johnson. What you quote there is just an indication of how poorly prepared and effective Len is when being interviewed. Had he anticipated being asked about policy, hardly a surprise question or an unfair one, it could have gone much better. There were quite a few things he could have said that would have looked suitably humble and learned from the experience of a shattering defeat.

He could have said.... "perhaps some of the offering looked a bit over-complex, that nationisation plans might have been more effectively concentrated on a couple of key industries. That the WASPI pledge not being part of the original maths was, in hindsight, perhaps not great. That the broadband pledge might have ended up looking gimmicky when it could have been better presented as part of a bigger comms strategy."

Things that at least make it look like you've thought about why you just got your arse handed to you in an election.

Yes, agree with that.

 

[gavreid]

For all Corbyn’s faults he did bring about a vital change of direction to a Labour Party that had badly lost it’s sense of direction.

Corbyn won because the right and centre right were devoid of ideas - still are as far as I can tell

 

[notaclue]

Corbyn's brilliance is still shining brightly as he departs the stage (albeit that it's a rather sloooow exit). He's left the party* in rude health. I'm sure Big Len and Beccy can be trusted to take it to the next level**.

Britain Elects[URL='https://twitter.com/britainelects'][URL='https://twitter.com/britainelects']@britainelects[/URL][/URL]
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 49% (+4)
LAB: 29% (-4)
LDEM: 10% (-2)
GRN: 4% (+1)
BREX: 2% (-)
via @YouGov, 24 - 26 Jan Chgs. w/ GE2019, GB result

* The Conservative Party.
** 20% in the polls.

 

[palacefan]

The Tories are supported by the print media who make a career out character assassination and support some truly vile people and yet the labour party cannot grasp the simple fact that ultimately the electorate choose a prime minister and the same old will equal defeat.

If you fight an opponent who operates without decency and morality in his mindset you have to fight to win in a different way. As much as it hurts me to say it past history demonstrates liars are not that disadvantaged when you have a system which crudely put others a choice of personal wealth and status as opposed to country and fellow man.

I am afraid you need to sink somewhat to your opponents level to win, they fight dirty, Quieten down on ideology, they did not run a campaign on austerity,,,they just did it. A couple of weeks back I tried to explain how the Tories and their press will perceive and present the labour candidates.

The labour party have form in choosing someone who will not convince the country, which is absolutely essential. Who was the last labour leader to win....like it or not thats how you fight. Fancy being beaten so badly by such cretins?

RLB a repeat and defeat!

 

[ks.234]

The Tories are supported by the print media who make a career out character assassination and support some truly vile people and yet the labour party cannot grasp the simple fact that ultimately the electorate choose a prime minister and the same old will equal defeat.

If you fight an opponent who operates without decency and morality in his mindset you have to fight to win in a different way. As much as it hurts me to say it past history demonstrates liars are not that disadvantaged when you have a system which crudely put others a choice of personal wealth and status as opposed to country and fellow man.

I am afraid you need to sink somewhat to your opponents level to win, they fight dirty, Quieten down on ideology, they did not run a campaign on austerity,,,they just did it. A couple of weeks back I tried to explain how the Tories and their press will perceive and present the labour candidates.

The labour party have form in choosing someone who will not convince the country, which is absolutely essential. Who was the last labour leader to win....like it or not thats how you fight. Fancy being beaten so badly by such cretins?

RLB a repeat and defeat!

Sorry, but I have to disagree. If you fight fire with fire, chances are you’ll only get a bigger fire and burn down the very thing you’re trying to defend. When dissatisfaction with democracy is at an historic high, we need to be careful about feeding that trend. Dissatisfaction with democracy and parliamentary politics has unfortunate historic endpoints, especially in pre war Europe. In the modern era we can see dissatisfaction with democracy leading to a rise of the far right in Europe and America. A dissatisfaction with democracy that is leading to the rise of the ‘Strong Man’.

The last thing this country needs is someone to ‘out-Trump’ Boris Johnson.

 

[glancaster]

Corbyn's brilliance is still shining brightly as he departs the stage (albeit that it's a rather sloooow exit). He's left the party* in rude health. I'm sure Big Len and Beccy can be trusted to take it to the next level**.

Britain Elects@britainelects
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 49% (+4)
LAB: 29% (-4)
LDEM: 10% (-2)
GRN: 4% (+1)
BREX: 2% (-)
via @YouGov, 24 - 26 Jan Chgs. w/ GE2019, GB result

* The Conservative Party.
** 20% in the polls.

Perhaps Johnson will call another election soon to capitalise on this?

(I'm only half joking. The Fixed-terms Parliament Act is no longer an obstacle - he has the votes to override it or repeal it at will. All he is lacking is an good enough excuse. Not that that usually bothers him. If Labour sink to 20% in a year or two's time, he'll find it hard to resist.)

Apparently, Corbyn is planning some kind of world tour to 'cement his legacy'. This is the last thing Labour need, I would have thought. If he can't keep quiet, he should be unceremoniously booted out immediately and replaced with a caretaker.

 

[Woodface]

Perhaps Johnson will call another election soon to capitalise on this?

(I'm only half joking. The Fixed-terms Parliament Act is no longer an obstacle - he has the votes to override it or repeal it at will. All he is lacking is an good enough excuse. Not that that usually bothers him. If Labour sink to 20% in a year or two's time, he'll find it hard to resist.)

Apparently, Corbyn is planning some kind of world tour to 'cement his legacy'. This is the last thing Labour need, I would have thought. If he can't keep quiet, he should be unceremoniously booted out immediately and replaced with a caretaker.

He's already cemented his legacy & not in a good way.

 

[Seanm]

Perhaps Johnson will call another election soon to capitalise on this?

(I'm only half joking. The Fixed-terms Parliament Act is no longer an obstacle - he has the votes to override it or repeal it at will. All he is lacking is an good enough excuse. Not that that usually bothers him. If Labour sink to 20% in a year or two's time, he'll find it hard to resist.)

Apparently, Corbyn is planning some kind of world tour to 'cement his legacy'. This is the last thing Labour need, I would have thought. If he can't keep quiet, he should be unceremoniously booted out immediately and replaced with a caretaker.

Who'd do the booting? He remains the most popular leader in history with members.

 

[glancaster]

Who'd do the booting? He remains the most popular leader in history with members.

Someone who understands that the point of the Labour Party is not the satisfaction of its own members.

He's already cemented his legacy & not in a good way.

Yes, it's a legacy of failure and division.

You get that. I get that. Corbyn does not get that.

 

[SteveS1]

Who'd do the booting? He remains the most popular leader in history with some members.

They love a loser, pity it's voters that get to elect governments. Even Cameron had the grace to resign when the full extent of his failure was laid bare.

 

[Seanm]

Someone who understands that the point of the Labour Party is not the satisfaction of its own members.

I do find it fascinating that a common response from certain quarters to difficult democratic problems is "Pretend that it's a different kind of problem" - one that can be solved by "Someone who understands" what mere voters do not, and can do whatever the hell s/he likes.

 

[glancaster]

I do find it fascinating that a common response from certain quarters to difficult democratic problems is "Pretend that it's a different kind of problem" - one that can be solved by "Someone who understands" what mere voters do not, and can do whatever the hell s/he likes.

Eh? The voters understand. They rate Corbyn as the least popular opposition leader for 45 years (https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...rbyn/news/106687/jeremy-corbyn-most-unpopular).

It's just Labour Party members who are having trouble, if your statistic is to be believed. (Are you sure it's still true, even after the dreadful election result?)

What I find fascinating is the apparent disconnect between these members and the general public.

 

[palacefan]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. If you fight fire with fire, chances are you’ll only get a bigger fire and burn down the very thing you’re trying to defend. When dissatisfaction with democracy is at an historic high, we need to be careful about feeding that trend. Dissatisfaction with democracy and parliamentary politics has unfortunate historic endpoints, especially in pre war Europe. In the modern era we can see dissatisfaction with democracy leading to a rise of the far right in Europe and America. A dissatisfaction with democracy that is leading to the rise of the ‘Strong Man’.

The last thing this country needs is someone to ‘out-Trump’ Boris Johnson.

I do not totally disagree with you but how do you consider any leader can win by making the same mistakes, when I was a kid I put my finger into the gap between the kettle and steam, I never did it again, Not once have I implied that a Boris Johnson approach is the correct approach.

Nor do I accept that Foot, Miliband and Corbyn are ever likely to succeed, surely however much you dislike Tony Blair it was a style that bought victory I would sooner win, not be forever be second.

Obviously we get rejected with our principles and decency, so learn to fight, bible classes will not win.

 

[Seanm]

Eh? The voters understand. They rate Corbyn as the least popular opposition leader for 45 years (https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...rbyn/news/106687/jeremy-corbyn-most-unpopular).

It's just Labour Party members who are having trouble, if your statistic is to be believed. (Are you sure it's still true, even after the dreadful election result?)

What I find fascinating is the apparent disconnect between these members and the general public.

Voters in this case are the members. They actually exist, unlike your guy who understands and is going to come in and kick out Corbyn.

Yes, Corbyn's still very popular with members. So is Keir Starmer. Anyone with any curiosity would find this curious, but thinking about it might get in the way of saying "Look at the big difference between members and the electorate!" over and over again, so won't happen.

 

[gassor]

Why does Labour not get the new leader in more quickly? There is nothing to be gained by making the process such a long drawn-out affair which can easily magnify divisions in the party. Such contests should be short and snappy and not an ongoing distraction to fighting the Tories. Members must know how they will vote and should just get on with it.

 

[glancaster]

Voters in this case are the members. They actually exist, unlike your guy who understands and is going to come in and kick out Corbyn.

Yes, Corbyn's still very popular with members. So is Keir Starmer. Anyone with any curiosity would find this curious, but thinking about it might get in the way of saying "Look at the big difference between members and the electorate!" over and over again, so won't happen.

I have a theory that the job of successful political party leadership is to ignore your members as much as possible. They provide cash, a block vote during elections, and a pool of applicants for party jobs, so they have to be thrown some red meat once in a while, but they tend towards extremist views that alienate the general electorate.

Labour Party members are too socialist. Tory Party members are too authoritarian. Lib-Dem Party members are too liberal, and SNP members are too nationalistic.

They also prefer to discuss matters within their own little cliques, which only accentuates their worst traits. They are more interested in what their in-group thinks than in finding out what the wider and more diverse out-group does.

Success comes from building broad alliances outside your party. The membership will tolerate impurity of thought and deed, as long as the results keep going your way. Everyone loves a winner! But when your time as a leader is up, the support rapidly evaporates and you go quickly.

The Corbyn experience is proving so very different from this, right up to the close.

Kind regards

- Garry