The Guido loving Labour member. I know some people want a broad church. They will have to build an extension.
Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
You cut out the rest of my post to deliberately miss my point. Don't do that, it's not a good look.
I'm talking about the posters on here saying it can't be someone from London. I'd like to know why from them, not twitter.
Trouble is once tribalism kicks in there's a huge difference between saying someone would make a good leader and voting for them. I'd imagine RLB will be getting a fair few votes from people who'd openly concede someone like Starmer, ideological views aside, would make a better leader.
You do know black people drink right?
Is "people.can have a drink with him" code for no muslims?
Sorry if I sound scathing, and to be honest you are probably right about what people will vote for. But let's call it what it really is...
I totally agree with this. It is the only way to move forward.
Doesn't meant we should have to abandon Labour values and move centre right though.
Hey the people that love Johnson and Farage aren’t my cup of tea either. But the demographic changes mean Boomers rule the roost for the time being.
Yup, very possible. Though I struggle to see people getting as whipped up against him as they did against Owen Smith.
No it doesn't. We agree.
But getting in power to actually make a change whilst retaining the core values should be the priority, not pretending that compromising on surface issues to appease voters is some terrible sin. Not some moral high ground. Not some bullshit that because those of us outside the bubble want the momentum leadership to step down as they've clearly failed means that we want to purge everyone at grass roots.
The reason I'm so against people on the left chiming "centrist", and some who seem to pop up only to make their jokes but don't actually have any ideas themselves, is that it's not an us vs them scenario. There are many policies Labour hold dear, but the core ones should remain untouched. If people then want to label compromise on the others as some evil move to the centre, that's on them and is part of the problem.
It's ironic how we are told the media drives the narrative and everyone is stupid to belive it, and yet here we are with people accepting an equally flawed narrative from people who are only concerned with keeping power.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah, I’d suggest you don’t run for office in the UK. Congrats to the Soviets on their victory though.
I mean you say Britain is a great country but apparently you think the idea of showing solitary and celebration to other people liberation is well above them. As an Irishman I might actually have a better option of British people than yourself.
One thing that strikes me is how Conservative members venerate their past leaders and their achievements, minimising their errors. Thatcher and the poll tax would be a good example.
Every Labour PM (and I do mean every single one) has been criticised by the Labour membership.
See this on Attlee: https://capx.co/its-not-just-the-labour-left-that-has-lost-contact-with-reality/
Tony Blair is Labour's most successful PM ever. Yet many in the membership present those 13 years as a period of unmitigated failure. Richard Burgon did this repeatedly on election night.
Wilson, Callaghan, MacDonald, Brown.
Until we in the membership (and I include myself in this as I was guilty of this) actually present to the voting public a view of Labour in Government as positive, why on earth would people vote for us? If we present Labour Governments as disasters, then surely the electorate will think the same?
I do not mean to avoid all criticism of ineffectual policies or mistakes or worse, but it seems our main praise for our past Ministries is that we created the NHS. Which now happened 71 years ago, and which only came about through what I can only describe as Nye Bevan cooking the books and hiding the fact it was unaffordable.
Every Labour PM (and I do mean every single one) has been criticised by the Labour membership.
See this on Attlee: https://capx.co/its-not-just-the-labour-left-that-has-lost-contact-with-reality/
Tony Blair is Labour's most successful PM ever. Yet many in the membership present those 13 years as a period of unmitigated failure. Richard Burgon did this repeatedly on election night.
Wilson, Callaghan, MacDonald, Brown.
Until we in the membership (and I include myself in this as I was guilty of this) actually present to the voting public a view of Labour in Government as positive, why on earth would people vote for us? If we present Labour Governments as disasters, then surely the electorate will think the same?
I do not mean to avoid all criticism of ineffectual policies or mistakes or worse, but it seems our main praise for our past Ministries is that we created the NHS. Which now happened 71 years ago, and which only came about through what I can only describe as Nye Bevan cooking the books and hiding the fact it was unaffordable.
Absolutely correct.
To be fair, Wilson and Callaghan (Labour) + Eden , Douglas-Home and Heath (Tory) were part of a revolving door at No 10 in the 50s, 60s and 70s that no one talks about. They're all pretty obscure in terms of a legacy.
Defining any nation as 'great' seems like an inherently weird thing to do tbh - I'm not sure there's a nation that's been around for a long time that's not done some genuinely abhorrent things. That would apply to the UK and US - and indeed it's heavily impacted upon many people who haven't formed the elite of these countries and who've been oppressed time and time again.
We can appreciate the US for resisting any descent into tyranny when they were founded and for many of the interesting ideas and writings espoused by the Founding Fathers, but at the same time the US was inherently founded as a slave state where African Americans were seen as inferior to white people. It took them about 200 years to even obtain the same rights as white people, and even then they're still struggling to obtain anything resembling economic parity across the board because of how they've been held down. To those who've been victims of such oppresssion it's difficult to see your country as great. Similar could be said for Britain.
I so agree politicians have to (cynically) play up to nationalist sentiments to a certain extent and have to embrace some element of patriotism. Electorates don't want to be told that their country is shit, for the most part. And there's plenty Britain can take pride in. But the country shouldn't move away from confronting its fairly heinous crimes in the imperial era, and certainly any critical leftist party should take a critical view of such a time period. People can be patriotic without being patronised with a view of history that portrays Britain as great in every respect, lest they be offended that Britain's far from perfect in many respects.
Last edited:
I'd argue this is something that reflects the innate differences between leftism and conservatism to a certain extent. Conservatives parties are generally more interested in power for power's sake; leftist parties tend to (at least claim) to be representing workers, and insofar as that is concerned shouldn't be so liable to sell out the electorate for the mere sake of gaining power.
Which I don't think is inherently a bad thing. While the Tories are pragmatic in a way which allows them to obtain power, it's also created a party which is astonishingly morally bankrupt and which you could argue has very few fixed ideals beyond protecting the country's elite. A good political party is self-critical. It should be. If it purports to be working in the interest of the electorate as a whole, it should be willing to acknowledge when it's failed the electorate or when it's gotten things wrong.
But Labour certainly good be better at highlighting their own past records. The economic reforms of the 40s and the creation of the welfare state are most commonly cited as the party's chief successes - but it's often forgotten the extent to which the party implemented a number of key social reforms in the 60s that brought life forward in Britain massively, and which represented a fairly significant defeat of a moribund social conservatism which had been ruling the country for too long.
And there's probably a fair point to be made that Corbyn and his fans have probably been far too critical of other party figures when they'd had the benefit of never actually being in a position to wield power and make mistakes as a result. Because I'd imagine pretty much any political party or movement that holds power for a long time will, at one stage or another, make major feck-ups which ruin lives, and many will hold ideals or implement policies which end up being fairly bad in the long-term.
I would not necessarily say that in relation to Wilson. He was the longest serving Labour PM of the 20th century.
His Governments oversaw the first Race Relations Acts, the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18, the Equal Pay Act, the liberalisation of divorce laws, the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the decriminalisation of abortion, the ending of capital punishment, the creation of the Open University, as well as being responsible of 1.3m new homes built, a balance of payments surplus, keeping the UK out of the Vietnam War.
Can you imagine how he would be sanctified if he was a Conservative PM?
And yet this Labour Party, proponents of votes at 16, LGBT rights and not getting involved in foreign wars, mention the Wilson Labour Government's achievements zero times.
What does this even mean, which countries go around celebrating other countries history?
I don't know how you could possibly think that your line of thinking could ever endear to the British electorate? I mean you're even churlish enough to try and write all British efforts in WWII out of any credit in defeating the Nazis. You do realise that many people living in the UK in the present day had relatives that fought and died in the conflict. Their stories are much more important and profound to them than what the Russians or Americans did in the conflict. That's the connection and the reason for the narrow view of history.
No love for the liberation of Kosovo either? I suppose the disposal of a genocidal despot doesn't count when it you have to credit Blairite scum with their removal.
It just seems that you have a deep loathing for this country, something that emits from the hard left and taints their image to the wider electorate.
I’d say the difference between full on nationalism and patriotism is the former will allow for very little criticism of the country while the latter does. The former is a kind of cultural groupthink, that tends to define itself against “the other” while the latter can embrace many traditions.
Great point.
But elections aren't fought on history, you don't have to take it upon yourself to give penance for what happened in the past. Just say Britain is the best country in the world and I will make it better.
A lot of those things you mention are still unpopular in a certain section of the Conservative membership (votes for 18 year olds, divorce, abortion, and gay rights in a very small proportion) so a Conservative prime minister would never have done it. Cameron lost a huge amount of members over gay marriage.
@Cheesy
How is the critical role framed by a government through policy? Have the SNP done to confront the starring role that Scotland had in many of the crimes of the British Empire? Genuine question, not trying to dig.
How is the critical role framed by a government through policy? Have the SNP done to confront the starring role that Scotland had in many of the crimes of the British Empire? Genuine question, not trying to dig.
Are Labour fecked with momentum being involved and the leadership vote opened up to members? Seems to me they will vote in any super left socialist person that comes up which immediately means labour lose the next election. They need to reverse the membership vote decision.
That is very true, and I accept your point.
I think I could have been clearer. I was trying to say that if a Conservative PM had made equivalent achievements, then their membership would be holding them up as one of the greatest people to ever hold the Office.
In contrast, Labour members hardly ever mention Wilson (and when they do he is labelled a centrist or mediocre), when in my view they should be celebrating him as a great example of what Labour can do in Government.
Also notably comprehensive education. It was incomplete. It made mistakes, understandable now, of thinking ever bigger schools must be better as being more efficient and offering greater choice. Despite that there are millions of people today who obtained A levels and went on to great careers who would not have been able to do so before comprehensive education and sixth form expansion, and the idea of 50% of pupils going on to university would have been impossible from the start. I doubt many people understand now, fortunately perhaps, just what a ceiling on life that failing the 11-plus meant, some still achieved great things, but for most eleven year-olds, and their parents, it was a verdict that told them what their place would be for the rest of their life. At eleven.
Last edited:
Of course! Thank you - cannot believe I missed that out...
They absolutely do not need to reverse the membership vote and any move to do so would heavily backfire.
The actual issue is that the so called moderates can't be bothered to join their party in order to change it. They'll just sit on the sidelines and moan.
Well said. If you don't like momentum, cough up a few quid and buy yourself the right to vote.
This is true unfortunately.
I have, and have come across a few more too. They're not the type to go canvassing door to door, but that seems to be becoming a thing of the past anyway. The Tories didn't do that and they still won quite easily. Hopefully we'll be able to vote a better leader in than Corbyn anyway.
I’ve rejoined too. Together, @711 and I will elect a more moderate, electable leader and save the Labour Party from oblivion.
I rejoined too, as did @sun_tzu tzu
I think its a lot to do with the perceived Islington elite and how they appear to be out of touch with traditional heartland Labour voters in the North and Midlands.
It's not something I particularly agree with as I want a Labour leader who can bring all sides of the party together and don't care where they come from but I do get the impression that folk up North see those Londoncentric Labour politicians as being somewhat too far left and don't represent their own aims and ambitions.
Exactly, someone with sense needs to reverse it to balance it out. The hardcore left have taken control and until that changes Labour will never get back into power.
The next Labour leader has a lot of problems he needs to deal with;
1) Lazy Labour. Lot of people I've spoken too (this is certainly the case in Derby) feel Labour MP's and councillors take their vote for granted. They don't provide effective opposition, they don't campaign or meet the public often enough, they don't listen and they don't help people. My MP is great, but the local councillors are terrible for this. Absolutely no interest in helping anyone. The new leadership should ensure that all Labour elected officials and candidates are active in the community, not just at election time.
2) Labour Leavers. All the Labour people who voted to leave. Why did they vote to leave, what do they want from leaving, what do they hope will be different. We need to find that out and see if there is something we can promise to deliver in future manifestos. It's no surprise that neglected towns full of white people who used to vote Labour have started voting Conservative. It's not white people too. Labour lost Bury by 105 votes because the Conservative candidate promised to get more MOT test stations opened for taxi drivers. - http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/c...ma-bury-north-tories-overturn-labour-seat-105
3) Post Brexit apocolypse. They need to guage what that will be, who'll be worse effected and how to provide them hope, in exchange for their vote.
4) Unity. Labour have spent the last 4 years hacking away at each other, especially taking potshots at JC. They're still bitterly divided. Labour looks like a joke, even compared to the Tories. Whoever comes in, needs to do whatever it takes, even if it's de-selection etc, to ensure that Labour is all on the same page.
1) Lazy Labour. Lot of people I've spoken too (this is certainly the case in Derby) feel Labour MP's and councillors take their vote for granted. They don't provide effective opposition, they don't campaign or meet the public often enough, they don't listen and they don't help people. My MP is great, but the local councillors are terrible for this. Absolutely no interest in helping anyone. The new leadership should ensure that all Labour elected officials and candidates are active in the community, not just at election time.
2) Labour Leavers. All the Labour people who voted to leave. Why did they vote to leave, what do they want from leaving, what do they hope will be different. We need to find that out and see if there is something we can promise to deliver in future manifestos. It's no surprise that neglected towns full of white people who used to vote Labour have started voting Conservative. It's not white people too. Labour lost Bury by 105 votes because the Conservative candidate promised to get more MOT test stations opened for taxi drivers. - http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/c...ma-bury-north-tories-overturn-labour-seat-105
3) Post Brexit apocolypse. They need to guage what that will be, who'll be worse effected and how to provide them hope, in exchange for their vote.
4) Unity. Labour have spent the last 4 years hacking away at each other, especially taking potshots at JC. They're still bitterly divided. Labour looks like a joke, even compared to the Tories. Whoever comes in, needs to do whatever it takes, even if it's de-selection etc, to ensure that Labour is all on the same page.
The only one I respect is Keir Starmer - I pray we get him.
If you want a moderate then you need to join the party and vote yourself, the fees are about £4.80 a month. The membership is currently saturated with the far left and the membership will elect the leader ultimately.
Neither RLB nor Keir Starmer nor Jess Phillips really appeal to me as a Labour Party member to be honest.
I personally feel Labour need to resist any 'shift back to the Right', so in that sense, RLB is possibly the best choice.
My issue is I'm not sure any of the three will be any more successful in winning over the electorate.
The way I see it, there's the 30-odd% with whom Labour did 'win the argument' and will continue to vote Labour anyway. Then there are the 'Remain Alliance' Labour voters who may have switched to the Lib Dems, or the slightly left of centre Labour members who voted Lib Dem because they didn't like Corbyn or McDonnell. These may or may not be won back by switching to Starmer, Phillips or RLB.
My worry is, who is going to win over the 'middle Englanders', the Brexiters, the working class voters who voted for the Conservatives because Boris is a 'loveable rogue'.
In effect, I want the same message but I don't want it delivered in such an unappealing bookish way. Who's going to do that and resonate with the working class in really deprived, low income areas? None of those three that's for sure! Hate to say it (these are not my views) but the majority in the little working class ex-mining town I grew up in wouldn't vote for a woman or an ex-barrister. They want a left-wing Farage or BoJo - as another poster put it, a bloke they (think) they could go for a pint with
Fundamentally though, I'll give whoever wins a fair crack of the whip and I think all members need to take the same approach really
I personally feel Labour need to resist any 'shift back to the Right', so in that sense, RLB is possibly the best choice.
My issue is I'm not sure any of the three will be any more successful in winning over the electorate.
The way I see it, there's the 30-odd% with whom Labour did 'win the argument' and will continue to vote Labour anyway. Then there are the 'Remain Alliance' Labour voters who may have switched to the Lib Dems, or the slightly left of centre Labour members who voted Lib Dem because they didn't like Corbyn or McDonnell. These may or may not be won back by switching to Starmer, Phillips or RLB.
My worry is, who is going to win over the 'middle Englanders', the Brexiters, the working class voters who voted for the Conservatives because Boris is a 'loveable rogue'.
In effect, I want the same message but I don't want it delivered in such an unappealing bookish way. Who's going to do that and resonate with the working class in really deprived, low income areas? None of those three that's for sure! Hate to say it (these are not my views) but the majority in the little working class ex-mining town I grew up in wouldn't vote for a woman or an ex-barrister. They want a left-wing Farage or BoJo - as another poster put it, a bloke they (think) they could go for a pint with
Fundamentally though, I'll give whoever wins a fair crack of the whip and I think all members need to take the same approach really
Winning back the working class voter that abandoned Labour in this GE isn't enough though, is it? Obviously that should be the first focus but only doing that would surely just see Labour lose again, albeit less thoroughly. Seems to me they likely need to win back the working class areas and attract those in the centre. Tough order.