Would be genuinely funny if this ends up with Starmer as leader and Burgon as deputy, with Burgon constantly undermining him.
Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
Richard Burgon is definitely backed by Iannucci, Morris or Baren-Cohen
I'm deeply disappointed that Momentum threw their weight behind Burgon over Rayner, it's like he's intentionally running a shit campaign that won't win anyone over.
Momentum backed Rayner, Unite backed Burgon. Len is very stupid.
Oh really? I must be mixing up my left-of-Labour-affiliated Facebook groups.
I understand why many on the left are backing RLB, I just don't agree that she could win an election. Burgon's appeal is a complete mystery to me.
Maybe Burgon is simply Labour's answer to Boris?
Fight buffoon with buffoon.
Fight buffoon with buffoon.
Tbh, I agree with a fair amount of what he says, it's just...
Milliband’s problem was he looked like a grammar school prefect who thought that running the student council would make him fit in with the cool kids. He was a nonsensical choice to lead a national party and anyone who voted for him back then should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Starmer is nothing like him.If Starmer wins it will basically just be Miliband 2.0, which sort makes a vote for him at bit useless tbh. Even if he wants the policy set of 2017 & 2019(Which is a big if in my view), all them will be watered down by the right of the PLP, who Starmer will be desperate to keep on side but this will in turn kill off the activist base and the young vote(And never be right wing enough for the red wall voters). Plus add in the fact the right wing press will treat him just like any other labour leader who isn't the godfather to one of Murdoch kids and that he is rather dull, it just seems like a huge waste of time, that in five years Labour will end up getting less votes than they did in 2019 and people will still be arguing about wither the party platform was too left wing(Maybe leaving the country isn't such a bad idea after all)
At least with RLB or Nandy there's something of a ''plan''.
As for the likes of RLB having a plan, the problem is that it’s a shitty plan that is doomed to failure from the start. I liked a lot of Corbyn’s policies, but the simple truth is that he was obliterated at the polls against a bunch of posh Tory wankers who had been in government for a decade chuckling at poor people having to use food banks. At this point it can’t continue to be about what policies we personally like, either Labour find a way to become electible again and quickly, or they are fecked for a generation. That’s going to mean electing a leader that doesn’t terrify old people, and running on policies that are a lot more centrist than 2019.
Plus speaking of cool kids Starmer edited a trotsky magazine as a student. The whole odd liberal meme about the left being a student protest group is basically Starmer early background. The real point about Ed was about him hardly being a charismatic figure and regardless of you're politics the same is true of Starmer. Which isn't something I'm happy about, if Starmer was a Obama like guy but committed to running on the 2019 manifesto then great he would get my vote but he just isn't.
Also if the public hated the way Ed looked when eating a bacon sandwich just wait until the right wing press get hold of this
Blunders meant Jimmy Savile was not prosecuted while still alive
The Sun - Labour Commie loving Knight let Jimmy Savile roam the streets of Britain! The idea that Starmer is a pair of safe hand unlike Red Ed or I.R.A loving Corbyn is simply untrue.
Firstly this isn't what Starmer is putting forward but like you I just assume he is lying about his actual politics or that the PLP will push him to the right(Again similar to Ed)
The RLB argument(Well it should be this but her campaign is shite)against adopting a centrist politics is the outcome being saying good bye to the activist base and the whatever potentially the youth vote has(Labour got completely fecked in the election in seats lost but the actually vote percentage was something like 35, which I I think was more than 2015, 2010 and 2006. Point being it's possible for the party to sink even further in the future). But more importantly say good bye to tackling climate change. These aren't just policies we like but policies that are essential to fixing the current issues the country and world is facing.
Now not everything from the 2019 manifesto has to be included in the future but lots of it does. A good example being the tree planting scheme, now could that have put forward by the party in better way, well yes but if the idea of planting 2 billion over the next two decades scares people off then you're argument is basically the party needs to climate denial as a policy. To even start thinking about tackling climate change we are talking about such huge state investments and state role in the economy it's going to be impossible for us not to come off as state planning love commies, but we don't have a choice. Now possibly the only positive effects of things like the wild fires in Australia and floods here is that it will make people take the issue far more seriously. Because there's isn't a market solution to climate change, green tech on its own isn't going to save us, there is no centrist policy wonk that can fix this(The Paris Agreement isn't enough).
The left answer is and always has been more party democracy. You open the process to the public, you make it easier to join and change the party. To put it very simply you can't democratise you're party then you've got no chance of democrasting the British economy. Now this of course could fail but it's far more than anything I've seen from the others.
I did also mention Lisa Nandy in the post you quoted, her argument being if you want to win over these former labour towns why isn't the party not moving to a more right wing nationalist politics? Labour for far too long have been a party who's only interest is in London, the party has ignored the voters in small towns and the reason we lost was because we ignored them on Brexit. The tories have moved further to right and destroyed us at the election, Leave was clearly a right nationalist project and it won in the referendum. Why would electing a former lawyer from London who was key in pushing Labour to have a 2nd referendum in the party manifesto, win back these former Labour towns ?
Now I completely disagree with her analysis and could show why it's utter shite but again a bad plan is better than no plan. And maybe I'm just fed up with the constant stream of endless remaking of the 90's but why do we have to keep looking back ? The answer from the people who lost against Corbyn in 2015 was to try and go back to the late 90's Blair, The answer after the EU referendum result from the people who lost was to go back to the politics of early 2010's and now it seems the answer from labour members after losing last year is to return to the politics of 2017. There fact is the world is constantly changing, constantly in motion, there really is no going back, the politics of nostalgia will not fix our current issues. Where in the world is centrist politics both winning and actually tackling issues such as climate change and mass poverty ? And actually centrist politics like all politics has already change over time.I don't know if you saw the recent events in Greece and the migrate crisis(Greek officials trying to sink and kill migrates in a boat, plus shooting tear gas at a camp resulting in a baby dying) but here is the response by president of the European Commission(Labour MEP's voted for this women btw)
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is centrist politics. So why is Starmer the correct choice ?
Last edited:
People saw Ed as basically weird, and couldn't imagine him in number 10. The sandwich thing was a good encapsulation of it, but it wasn't that that made people think he was weird, they'd thought it for several years already. He also couldn't handle the wings of the party particularly well, with the unions jabbing at him for being too right wing, with most of the big beasts in the shadow cabinet seeing him as weak and ineffectual, with very few allies to speak of (that Umunna was regarded as one probably sums it up), and to top it off was seen by the public as having stabbed his brother in the back to win the leadership. That Labour had just recently lost power also didn't help, with many in the party still feeling that government was the natural state of affairs for them, rather than, as it actually was, a curious historical anomaly.
With Starmer, I don't think people will have much issue seeing him as PM. He's seen as boring, rather than weird. That may cause issues down the line for him, too, but there isn't that immediate and difficult-to-shake image problem that weirdness brings. Unity is his whole offer in this election, and has managed so far to get significant (but not universal) union backing, a clear majority of both MPs (from right and left of the party) and CLPs, and from the available polling evidence so far, also party members. You can't really say that for any leader since Blair - Corbyn didn't have the MPs, Miliband didn't have the MPs or the members, and Brown didn't even have the contest. It's a good start, but he'll live or die on managing to maintain that as leader, through the inevitable policy rows, personality clashes and Events. Unfortunately it's the kind of thing where you don't know whether they'll sink or swim until you chuck them in the deep end. It also doesn't itself lead to power, but would at least put in place a firmer foundation for any successor than the last decade and a bit of constant, bitter fights have. So I think in substantive terms, he is of a different order to Miliband, though that's no guarantee he'll fare much better in the long-run.
It's not a particularly exciting contest, certainly an overly drawn-out one, and I didn't feel any great hope when I submitted my ballot. The Tories will have been in power for longer than the last Labour government by the time the next election is up, but will be defending a larger majority in terms of both votes and seats. Centre-left parties still haven't found a winning message in the post-2008 landscape, with no clear way of marrying a newer middle class core vote with their more conservative heartlands. None of the candidates really offer any path forward on that front, so I couldn't really do much else but go with Starmer for the above party management reasons. I'll take dull.
With Starmer, I don't think people will have much issue seeing him as PM. He's seen as boring, rather than weird. That may cause issues down the line for him, too, but there isn't that immediate and difficult-to-shake image problem that weirdness brings. Unity is his whole offer in this election, and has managed so far to get significant (but not universal) union backing, a clear majority of both MPs (from right and left of the party) and CLPs, and from the available polling evidence so far, also party members. You can't really say that for any leader since Blair - Corbyn didn't have the MPs, Miliband didn't have the MPs or the members, and Brown didn't even have the contest. It's a good start, but he'll live or die on managing to maintain that as leader, through the inevitable policy rows, personality clashes and Events. Unfortunately it's the kind of thing where you don't know whether they'll sink or swim until you chuck them in the deep end. It also doesn't itself lead to power, but would at least put in place a firmer foundation for any successor than the last decade and a bit of constant, bitter fights have. So I think in substantive terms, he is of a different order to Miliband, though that's no guarantee he'll fare much better in the long-run.
It's not a particularly exciting contest, certainly an overly drawn-out one, and I didn't feel any great hope when I submitted my ballot. The Tories will have been in power for longer than the last Labour government by the time the next election is up, but will be defending a larger majority in terms of both votes and seats. Centre-left parties still haven't found a winning message in the post-2008 landscape, with no clear way of marrying a newer middle class core vote with their more conservative heartlands. None of the candidates really offer any path forward on that front, so I couldn't really do much else but go with Starmer for the above party management reasons. I'll take dull.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
dislike most of her politics but she has easily had the best campaign.
Labour leadership election results event on 4 April cancelled due to UK coronavirus outbreak
Hopefully starmer will make decent use of her... Home sec?
hopefully not
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
she ran a good campaign but at the end of the day she is just an opportunist.
Meh cant be any worse than dianne Abbott
I don't see what is wrong with her answer, considering he is under investigation. Surely, a potential leader pronouncing on the case could unfairly influence the decision?
Also, the label of 'opportunitist' sounds like a cheap dig to me, considering she has been saying most of the same things for a few years. She may well be, but you could say the same about the others too.
#CancelLabourLeaderElection is currently trending on twitter.
I don’t see a reason to cancel as votes are done online/postal aren’t they? But yes i agree it should have been over ages ago. Corbyn is a lame duck now no matter your thoughts on him and anything he says isn’t taken seriously (if it ever was).
But seriously they shouldn't cancel it. Tbh I wish it was already over
Hopefully whoever takes over helps to streamline the process as it’s a bit of a joke.
Labour are completely redundant here and are paying the price for Corbyn's vain cling to power. There's no one with any credibility to be a voice for the left. All the while we're living in a bizarre period with the Tories employing mind-boggling public spending whilst the left Twitterarti are criticising them for not being authoritarian enough.
?
I don't think it this leadership election has been any longer than the ones before(It just feels like it's gone on forever). It's partly the fault of the candidates, Stamier is trying desperately trying to not say anything as he's in the lead by miles, RLB is a bit rubbish and Nandy has a bizarre mix of left over politics from pre 2015. I get the feeling none of them actual want the job.
Also the covid19 virus(And of course Climate Change) has basically wiped out the possible of simply putting forward a more electable 2017 manifesto, which the membership seems so desperately wanting to go back to. We are likely seeing the biggest political shift since Thatcher or even the 1930's(Basically covid19 has proven without doubt neo liberalism is dead as a political project), it will mostly likely take Labour years to come up with any decent answers.
Last edited:
Funny, because that's the same feeling I've been shot down over and over on here about Labour actually wanting power.
As for the length of time to elect a new leader, it is a joke and utterly ridiculous. We all knew it would take ages, yet were told to trust the process and that there'd be some actual look into failures. Yet here we are, same old excuses and people actually looking at Corbyn staying in power longer thanks to Covid as a good thing...
As for the length of time to elect a new leader, it is a joke and utterly ridiculous. We all knew it would take ages, yet were told to trust the process and that there'd be some actual look into failures. Yet here we are, same old excuses and people actually looking at Corbyn staying in power longer thanks to Covid as a good thing...
Corbyn was assaulted in public, a guy literally drove into a crowd of muslims with the hope of killing Corbyn and Sadiq Khan, a labour mp was murdered by a neo nazi (Not to mention the constant death threats Labour MP's have been through). Anyone claiming that the party under Corbyn enjoyed being in opposition/'protest'' party or didn't want to win power has at best a very short memory.
The current candidates can barely call out a clearly incompetent tory government during an actual national crisis(Leaving the EU was never a crisis) or when they do it's days late or on twitter. Although as the examples above show, I don't blame anyone for not wanting the job.
Obviously those are deplorable.
But what about way before that? And besides, it goes hand in hand with your claim no one wants leadership.
What do the labour faithful in here think about the spending measures detailed this week in the face of the Covid-19 crisis? To little? Misdirected? Or pleased with it.
Genuine question btw
Genuine question btw
How far back are we going back ? The murder of Jo Cox happened in 2016 and Corbyn got the gig in 2015, unless you're talking about the Ed Miliband or Brown years(Although while both where sort of rubbish, I quite liked that Brown called that old cnut a bigot, I would argue that they clearly wanted to win the election for Labour).
Personally I've always thought the ''labour don't want to be in power'' argument was the expression of the liberal middle class not being represented by the labour leadership. To them the labour leader talking about the history of Chile or putting forward the ills of disabled people being treated by the DWP was a clear sign that the party wasn't ''serious'' about winning power. It was an argument based on nothing but hurt feels that for once a labour leader wasn't interested in their rather bizarre cultural references.
My point about no one wanting the leadership now is that non of the candidates have the political ideas or political will to change the country(Which has resulted in a meaningless leadership race). While Corbyn clearly didn't give a shit about living in number 10 for example he did care about putting forward and trying to implement polices that would make the country a better place. Stammer is a well educated upper class former lawyer who looks decent in a suit, running to potential be prime minster is what people like him just do(He's literally the only man running in what was suppose to be a all female leadership race), it's what the system produces and thats the only thing driving him imo. It why his campaign has been extremely dull. RLB is every socialist under the age of 40(Barring me and a few others on here)which is socialism = being nice to everyone(''Capitalism with a human face'')which ok gets you some nice policies but lacks the fundamental drive to want to change the country. And then finally Nandy is just a mixed of everything pre 2016(Barring some not completely awful pro trans arguments, which is good).
Again the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott didn't go through 5 years of absolute hell because they liked the comfort of the opposition benches but because of a commitment to socialism, which agree or disagree with it, that level of commitment is certainly something the current candidates are lacking(Although as I said before I can't blame them at all for not wanting the job,).
I'm not liberal middle class. Out of respect though, I didn't just roll my eyes and ignored you after that. I actually read the rest of your post and I do get it.
But the fact remains Labour continue to get it terribly wrong, even now after that humiliation, there's no introspection, there's no actual plan on how to win back voters. It's all blame, it's all excuses, it's all a leadership race that was exactly how we all knew it would go. Now this "none of them want it" just looks like another excuse to me, but worse than that, people within our party are clearly using the current situation to push for Corbyn staying in power. Despite the fact, as you must surely see, that's the death knell for our party.
And we'll go back as far as you want, but Labour continue to misread the public mood. I don't know if it's amateur hour, or the moral high ground, or the public really are that thick...but loses upon loses...
I wasn't outright calling you a middle class liberal (Although there nothing wrong with someone who is, it would be great in fact if there was more of these people)just that this is where the ''Labour didn't actually want power'' argument comes from.
Mate, you're going to have to be more detailed because this is just empty outrage. Give me you're actual views on what the issues are with party ,the fixes they need to make etc etc. Because at the moment all you're saying is Labour bad, me angry! Which I get because of the recent election lost but in the end it isn't productive.(Also the leadership elections are still going a head, no one is trying to keep Corbyn in power. Twitter isn't real life)
Labour leadership race: Keir Starmer’s ‘scorched earth’ plan to roast left
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...s-scorched-earth-plan-to-roast-left-zthbw2dqz
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...s-scorched-earth-plan-to-roast-left-zthbw2dqz
I don’t really see this as “roasting the left”. By all accounts everything I’ve read of Starmer he’s always been consistently left wing in his views. The Times framing any action against the most troublesome of Corbyn’s associates isn’t an attack on the left of the party, it’s doing what is absolutely necessary for the party to move forward with any credibility under a new leader - it’s tackling the issues of bullying and antisemitism head on.
It’s a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario as far as the media goes. If he tries to get on top of this issue and rid the party of this image, he will be portrayed as anti-Corbyn to fracture the party and create infighting. If he does nothing, they will accuse him of being weak and continue throwing allegations at the party and it will maintain the same image.
I mean, this is a benefit for the party and Kier. Anything he does that will be against Corbyn’s leadership, i.e. aggressively tackling anti-semitism, rowing back from some of the nationalisation pledges etc, will be seen by the press as him attacking the left, and have the consequence of making him look more moderate and electable.
It will make for a fairly easy honeymoon period.
It will make for a fairly easy honeymoon period.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And of course
Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare
Just voted for Leader and Deputy. No idea about the NEC and can't really be bothered to research them all. Can anyone advise who I should vote for, if I want momentum to have slightly less power/internal dominance than they do today?
Starmer/Murray
Already voted for those two. Just the NEC by-election - I was happy for someone else to tell me what to do there.
Ah sorry, I completely misread your post
Johanna Baxter and Gurinder Josan are the two non-Momentum candidates with the most constituency support (per https://labourlist.org/2020/02/rolling-list-clp-nominations-of-labour-nec-by-election-candidates/), so those are probably the most likely to get enough support overall.
Those were the same two names my mate answered the question with. That's enough for me.