Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win

The Labour leader will always be treated as unpatriotic by the right wing press.

ed-miliband-red-ed-daily-mail.jpg


Ralph Miliband was a Jewish asylum seeker to the UK who fled Nazi-occupied Belgium. He soon after joined the British war effort by being in the Royal Navy.

He did far more for this country's cause than the right wing hacks who more often than spout jingoistic clap trap about the troops but never served a day in uniform themselves. It's like people who say "we won the war, we liberated Europe, why are we subject to European rule" bullshit. First of all those people weren't around for the war but secondly most WW2 veterans living today are more pro-EU.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019...neration-are-almost-as-pro-eu-as-millennials/

I don't want Labour to resort to that kind of phony patriotism. I think if Labour want to be seen as more pro-British than they have been in recent years (which is a misnomer IMO) then they've got to make the case of their policies helping communities and helping the British people by way of public services investment protecting the NHS, building more schools and libraries, less homelessness, cleaner streets. Things that people will tangibly notice on their walk in town.

I'd also advise Labour to not get bogged down in regional conflicts around the world so much in opposition. It just invites trouble. For example making motions on Palestine/Israel and Kashmir just enabled the "what about Venezuela" retorts. A Labour government can influence foreign policy on these issues but in opposition it's not significant enough to win you votes but it may well cost you votes.
 
esmufc07 said:
For those old enough to remember how did the Tories react to their 1997 defeat? Fewer seats than Labour won in this one (165). I know they went through a bad period with the likes of IDS, Hague, Howard before Cameron won the leadership but how did they sought to reinvent themselves as a party and become once more electable?
Click to expand...

To be honest they just waited Labour out, not much more to it than that. Even though they had fewer seats than Labour now, there was a lot of cases where it was just floating voters in middle England choosing the best looking party at the time. Those people went back to the Tories when the Tories were the fresh faced up and coming party and Labour were the tired looking status quo. Its not outlandish to suggest that Labour could have won in 2010 if there was no financial crash.

The only comparable structural change they had to face up to was that London tipped from Tory to Labour - in 92 the Tories won 51 seats, in 97 they won just 11. But losing London wasn't enough to make it impossible for the Tories to win a general election, while losing both Scotland and the red wall makes it all but impossible for Labour. So while the defeat looks worse on paper, the Tories had less of a climb than Labour do now.
 
Smores said:
I think it's more that they see such accusations as anti-british which they take offence by association and it creates the image that the left care as much for 'them' as 'us'. Polling shows the empire is something many see with pride. Labour can and must become proudly British and British focused without pandering to xenophobia, perhaps that's the lesson missed from the brexit vote and several previous elections.

On the other hand people need to stop pretending that the country isn't moving right. I know it's comforting to rationale that everyone is reasonable and somewhere in the centre but it's not true right now as is the case across much of the world.
Click to expand...
It's not just the one issue, Labour activists seemed to lose all connection with how ordinary people feel. Right now they're furiously busy slagging off older people. Absolutely crazy, you don't gain votes by pigeon-holing and categorising whole sections of the population as the enemy. They don't even realise that's what they're doing, but the seeds of the next defeat are being sown already.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I’m quite literally saying the opposite of Make Britain Great Again. As Obama said about America in response to Trump, Britain is already great.
Click to expand...
But your not because you've still tied yourself to the nation state and one where the population are proud of its worst crimes. British nationalism due to the history of well.......Britain will always be reactionary.

The scary thing about what Obama said was that he appears to be more delusional than Trump on this topic.

MikeUpNorth said:
but rather moving forward based on our current successes as a nation.
Click to expand...
Who are you talking about here ?

The worker on minimum wage at Starbucks has a very different view on what a successful nation looks like compared to the retired pensioner. David Cameron views on the many ''successes'' of Britain is very different to the people who suffered under his government and the list can go on. And this is my problem with ''progressive'' nationalism, what does it actually solve ? New Labour tried this and we ended up with speeches on the white cliffs of dover, the party coming up with the slogan 'British Jobs For British Workers' and the BNP getting 2 seats in the EU elections. Nationalism doesn't fix the equality in Britain(Hi SNP voters), it doesn't fix the class antagonism and it certainly doesn't solve the rising bigotry we are seeing across the country. Christ the guardian even struggles to talk about class




Now I'm not saying we should adopt some anarchist meme about fighting for a stateless world but the fact is we live in globalised capitalism, whatever measurement or sector we can use to say Britain is great will depend on cooperation from other countries(The NHS being a good example). Which results in this empty bizarre nationalistic sentiment that pisses off the voter base because its very clear what the intentions are and importantly is never racist enough to win over the type of voters its aimed(No one cares about The 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony).

If Brexit is anything, it's a nationalistic reaction to the reality that Britain is just another cog in the machine, this won't change no matter how progressive we try to dress it up.

MikeUpNorth said:
If you genuinely believe Britain is ‘shite’, then you have no chance of winning an election.
Click to expand...
Most places are shite tbh. But good luck getting the radical change we need with any form of nationalism(How can Labour talk about climate change in a nationalist way without being massively racist and xenophobic ?). Oddly enough there is no alternative for the left when it comes to nationalism(Especially in the west), the only answer is to go beyond the nation state and push forward the idea of a global citizen(Labour conferences passing motions on EU citizens having the right to vote and expanding freedom of movement, were small signs of this).


sun_tzu said:
Mbga... It doesn't flow
Kick out Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland and we have MEGA... Winner
Click to expand...
A United Ireland might have been the only time Brexit voters and Corbyn agreed with each other. :smirk:
 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
A United Ireland might have been the only time Brexit voters and Corbyn agreed with each other. :smirk:
Click to expand...
Im not sure... given Corbyns long history of being anti EU and his reluctance to come out and back remain I suspect he agreed very much with a lot of the brexit voters - but found himself in a position where he couldn't admit it
 
711 said:
It's not just the one issue, Labour activists seemed to lose all connection with how ordinary people feel. Right now they're furiously busy slagging off older people. Absolutely crazy, you don't gain votes by pigeon-holing and categorising whole sections of the population as the enemy. They don't even realise that's what they're doing, but the seeds of the next defeat are being sown already.
Click to expand...

Can you really blame the young from feeling annoyed at the 60+ for voting brexit and more Boris? Surely you can identify the frustrations the young feel even if you don't share them.

We're 4/5 years away from the next campaign and a few days after defeat i dont think a bit of venting is that unreasonable. It's not like the older generation don't slag off them constantly either.
 
Smores said:
Can you really blame the young from feeling annoyed at the 60+ for voting brexit and more Boris? Surely you can identify the frustrations the young feel even if you don't share them.

We're 4/5 years away from the next campaign and a few days after defeat i dont think a bit of venting is that unreasonable. It's not like the older generation don't slag off them constantly either.
Click to expand...
I do share those frustrations, I voted against both. Five years yeah, but Labour members haven't got much time to work out what went wrong for them, the leadership elections will be on us in no time. I'll be voting, hopefully. :)
 
Boycott said:
The Labour leader will always be treated as unpatriotic by the right wing press.
Click to expand...

They are at risk of it... but Milliband also invited this scrutiny. He spent years attacking the Murdoch press prior to being Labour leader. Guess how they returned the favour. I'd say step 1 in winning a more favourable press would be not to go after them. It might stick in the throat, but sometimes politics is about picking your battles.
 
sun_tzu said:
Blair had the centre ground... they struggled to differentiate themselves and moved more and more to the right which was a rubbish idea but they were appealing to the conservative base rather than looking for somebody who appealed to the more general population (could have been very different i think if ken clarke had won one of the leadership contests) ... it wasnt till cameron came along with his compassionate conservatism and made overtures to the center they really had a chance (helped by brown being perceived as having moved to the left as well)
Click to expand...

The tories ran the Blair playbook (Cameron was a massive Blair admirer) moved to the centre ground, elected a telegenic, pragmatic leader, made a pitch for the social liberals and when it was "time for a change", they were ready.
 
nickm said:
The tories ran the Blair playbook (Cameron was a massive Blair admirer) moved to the centre ground, elected a telegenic, pragmatic leader, made a pitch for the social liberals and when it was "time for a change", they were ready.
Click to expand...
Yup... Only hope labour recognise the importance of that telegenic, pragmatic leader and the need to appeal to the middle
 
Supposedly Long-Bailey and Rayner have arranged it so Long-Bailey goes for leader, Rayner for deputy. That's good as Rayner is infinitely better than Dick Burgon.
 
Ubik said:
Supposedly Long-Bailey and Rayner have arranged it so Long-Bailey goes for leader, Rayner for deputy. That's good as Rayner is infinitely better than Dick Burgon.
Click to expand...

That's far more palatable. Burgeon seems a nice enough fella but there's not a lot going on in that head of his. As an aside I had a mate who got to work under Rayner for a year as part of a uni placement and apparently in private she says some rather colourful things about the Tories. Not convinced by Long-Bailey, my instinct is that I'd choose Starmer even if I prefer her politics.
 
What do people think of Clive Lewis? Announced he's thinking of running for leadership. He's young, seems charismatic, from outside of London and toured Afghanistan so he could appeal to the wider public and media. Not a Corbynite but seems soft left and carries no Blairite baggage as many of the centrists do, anyone think he could be a bridge between the left and centre of the Labour Party?
 
BobbyManc said:
That's far more palatable. Burgeon seems a nice enough fella but there's not a lot going on in that head of his. As an aside I had a mate who got to work under Rayner for a year as part of a uni placement and apparently in private she says some rather colourful things about the Tories. Not convinced by Long-Bailey, my instinct is that I'd choose Starmer even if I prefer her politics.
Click to expand...
Saw someone point out today that it's not promising for Starmer's political skills that he's so far been strangely absent from the post-election conversation, allowing the leadership's line that it was all about Brexit to take hold, particularly online. Then again I suppose it's preferable to the Thornberry path.

That said, a compromise candidate could theoretically have an advantage in that there's straightaway a 40% level of support for a non-Corbynite candidate, whilst the left vote could realistically split regarding Brexit and specifically whether a second ref was needed, and if enthusiasm is down.
 
Flamingo Purple said:
What do people think of Clive Lewis? Announced he's thinking of running for leadership. He's young, seems charismatic, from outside of London and toured Afghanistan so he could appeal to the wider public and media. Not a Corbynite but seems soft left and carries no Blairite baggage as many of the centrists do, anyone think he could be a bridge between the left and centre of the Labour Party?
Click to expand...

I've always been impressed with his media appearances. However, not sure how accurate it is to label him as 'not a Corbynite'. I'm not overly clued up about his views but from what I do know he seems pretty close ideologically to Corbyn. I'd agree that he could harbour wider support and may be one of the most palatable left choices for the party's centre.
 
BobbyManc said:
That's far more palatable. Burgeon seems a nice enough fella but there's not a lot going on in that head of his. As an aside I had a mate who got to work under Rayner for a year as part of a uni placement and apparently in private she says some rather colourful things about the Tories. Not convinced by Long-Bailey, my instinct is that I'd choose Starmer even if I prefer her politics.
Click to expand...

I know a mildly amusing anecdote about Raynor and her feeling on Tories but it also connotes to her being too entrenched in the us vs them mentality that I don’t think helps all that much. I also don’t think she’s ‘top talent’ either and it confuses me a bit as to why others do see her in that way.
 
Ubik said:
Saw someone point out today that it's not promising for Starmer's political skills that he's so far been strangely absent from the post-election conversation, allowing the leadership's line that it was all about Brexit to take hold, particularly online. Then again I suppose it's preferable to the Thornberry path.

That said, a compromise candidate could theoretically have an advantage in that there's straightaway a 40% level of support for a non-Corbynite candidate, whilst the left vote could realistically split regarding Brexit and specifically whether a second ref was needed, and if enthusiasm is down.
Click to expand...

Depends how much Starmer actually wants the leadership at this stage, I gather he's rather acute to his own deficiencies so may feel it's still not the ideal time for him. All the talk of Starmer for leader seems to come from people who like him rather than his own circle.

Doesn't the leadership boil down to two candidates in the end? So the left vote would regather itself by then. If that's the case then I can't see a centre candidate winning it to be honest. My feeling is that they'd have to appear exceptional to be able to win over enough on the left.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I know a mildly amusing anecdote about Raynor and her feeling on Tories but it also connotes to her being too entrenched in the us vs them mentality that I don’t think helps all that much. I also don’t think she’s ‘top talent’ either and it confuses me a bit as to why others do see her in that way.
Click to expand...

I think Labour need someone who will be combative against the Tories and really hold them to account. I could see Rayner doing that. She's someone who is sincere in her beliefs and that inspires trust. She has the potential to fare well in the 'Red Wall' constituencies. I wouldn't call her 'top talent' myself but out of all the candidates who deserves that label? I don't see anyone, it's all a bit of a gamble right now.
 
BobbyManc said:
Depends how much Starmer actually wants the leadership at this stage, I gather he's rather acute to his own deficiencies so may feel it's still not the ideal time for him. All the talk of Starmer for leader seems to come from people who like him rather than his own circle.

Doesn't the leadership boil down to two candidates in the end? So the left vote would regather itself by then. If that's the case then I can't see a centre candidate winning it to be honest. My feeling is that they'd have to appear exceptional to be able to win over enough on the left.
Click to expand...
I don't mean split between other candidates, I mean that some that voted for Corbyn (like yourself and others that have mentioned it in this thread) would plump for someone like Starmer. So if they made it to the final round, they'd likely have the 40% anti-Corbyn vote in the bag. But I've made a lot of suppositions there, including that the 40% are as averse to someone like Long-Bailey as they were Corbyn, who had plenty of other issues. But I feel that there's less chance it's over in the first round as it was the last couple of times, at any rate.
 
Ubik said:
Saw someone point out today that it's not promising for Starmer's political skills that he's so far been strangely absent from the post-election conversation, allowing the leadership's line that it was all about Brexit to take hold, particularly online. Then again I suppose it's preferable to the Thornberry path.

That said, a compromise candidate could theoretically have an advantage in that there's straightaway a 40% level of support for a non-Corbynite candidate, whilst the left vote could realistically split regarding Brexit and specifically whether a second ref was needed, and if enthusiasm is down.
Click to expand...
BobbyManc said:
Depends how much Starmer actually wants the leadership at this stage, I gather he's rather acute to his own deficiencies so may feel it's still not the ideal time for him. All the talk of Starmer for leader seems to come from people who like him rather than his own circle.

Doesn't the leadership boil down to two candidates in the end? So the left vote would regather itself by then. If that's the case then I can't see a centre candidate winning it to be honest. My feeling is that they'd have to appear exceptional to be able to win over enough on the left.
Click to expand...

Another point is that given the nature of this defeat, someone with real ambitions to be PM might decide they're better off letting someone else rebuild the party first. Whoever becomes leader now is facing a very tough job. If you think you can afford to wait until the next go around.....
 
sullydnl said:
Another point is that given the nature of this defeat, someone with real ambitions to be PM might decide they're better off letting someone else rebuild the party first. Whoever becomes leader now is facing a very tough job. If you think you can afford to wait until the next go around.....
Click to expand...
I think this is right.
 
sullydnl said:
Another point is that given the nature of this defeat, someone with real ambitions to be PM might decide they're better off letting someone else rebuild the party first. Whoever becomes leader now is facing a very tough job. If you think you can afford to wait until the next go around.....
Click to expand...
This is true, but you'd expect them to brief that they're not going for it. He's at the very least got a lot of influence. But then, obviously we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.
 
sullydnl said:
Another point is that given the nature of this defeat, someone with real ambitions to be PM might decide they're better off letting someone else rebuild the party first. Whoever becomes leader now is facing a very tough job. If you think you can afford to wait until the next go around.....
Click to expand...
It would be a gamble on 4 fronts
1. If somebody was successful in turning the party round and winning an election you've pretty much blown your shot
2. If a candidate who is very momentum or centrist is in there is a real chance the party implodes
3. With Boris in power there is always a chance of a scandle and an early election
4. If the new leader is given a shot at an election and even if they loose the next election can be another 5 years away ... Starmer will be 67 by the time that election comes round ... Would certainly be one of the eldest people to be elected pm 1st time and certainly the oldest for a long time

If he has the ambition to be pm I think he will stand this time... I'm genuinely not convinced he seems totally up for it
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
It would be a gamble on 4 fronts
1. If somebody was successful in turning the party round and winning an election you've pretty much blown your shot
2. If a candidate who is very momentum or centrist is in there is a real chance the party implodes
3. With Boris in power there is always a chance of a scandle and an early election
4. If the new leader is given a shot at an election and even if they loose the next election can be another 5 years away ... Starmer will be 67 by the time that election comes round ... Would certainly be one of the eldest people to be elected pm 1st time and certainly the oldest for a long time

If he has the ambition to be pm I think
Click to expand...

Aye, the age factor had occured to me as well in regards to Starmer.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
In America it doesn't seem to matter. Trumps over a decade past his bus pass. Look at McCain too and Bernie looks as old as time itself.
Click to expand...
Hillary's just had the most...um...unusual facelift (or surgery).
 
Hadn't seen these, from back in July



A lot's change since then, obviously, and Corbyn/McDonnell backing Long-Bailey will definitely boost her numbers bigly.
 
Sweet Square said:
Most places are shite tbh. But good luck getting the radical change we need with any form of nationalism(How can Labour talk about climate change in a nationalist way without being massively racist and xenophobic ?). Oddly enough there is no alternative for the left when it comes to nationalism(Especially in the west), the only answer is to go beyond the nation state and push forward the idea of a global citizen(Labour conferences passing motions on EU citizens having the right to vote and expanding freedom of movement, were small signs of this).
Click to expand...
I'm not going to agree that Britain is mostly shite, but anyway...

How can Labour talk about climate change in a nationalist way? It can say Britain has always been a global leader on important issues such as human rights, cancelling debt, international aid, helping end slavery etc (yes, I know the history is more nuanced than this in reality) and we must lead the world on the issue of climate change. Make people proud of the things we can achieve collectively as a nation. It's not difficult stuff.

I have to say I'm definitely one of those 'citizens of nowhere' Theresa May referred to, without a particularly strong emotional attachment to our country, but I also recognise that the vast majority of people do not feel like this. Their identity is to some degree wrapped up in their nation and they want to feel proud of it.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
How can Labour talk about climate change in a nationalist way? It can say Britain has always been a global leader on important issues such as human rights, cancelling debt, international aid, helping end slavery etc (yes, I know the history is more nuanced than this in reality) and we must lead the world on the issue of climate change. Make people proud of the things we can achieve collectively as a nation. It's not difficult stuff.
Click to expand...
So yeah the strategy for you is to just lie then. Also see here -
Sweet Square said:
Which results in this empty bizarre nationalistic sentiment that pisses off the voter base because its very clear what the intentions are and importantly is never racist enough to win over the type of voters its aimed(No one cares about The 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony).
Click to expand...
 
Sweet Square said:
Oh right just lying then.
Click to expand...
If you don't consider even the USA or the UK great countries, what countries could possibly be considered great? Are you not setting the bar impossibly high? Or do you think a 'great country' is an oxymoron?
 
Redlambs said:
I'm curious as to why people keep saying it cannot be a Londoner to run. I mean, someone who exemplifies one just absolutely destroyed Labour in the north, no?
Click to expand...
By people you mean the momentum and corbynite lobby... And they essentially are just briefing against starmer without coming right out and saying it because they want a mouthpiece like wrong daily in charge
 
MikeUpNorth said:
If you don't consider even the USA or the UK great countries, what countries could possibly be considered great? Are you not setting the bar impossibly high? Or do you think a 'great country' is an oxymoron?
Click to expand...


I think as a nation we need to get away from feeling that we are superior to others.
 
sun_tzu said:
By people you mean the momentum and corbynite lobby... And they essentially are just briefing against starmer without coming right out and saying it because they want a mouthpiece like wrong daily in charge
Click to expand...

I dunno, I'm willing to give people on here the benefit of the doubt on that one. I'd like to hear what they say.

I've just been thinking about the new leader and who I'd vote for, and it struck me as odd.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
If you don't consider even the USA or the UK great countries, what countries could possibly be considered great? Are you not setting the bar impossibly high? Or do you think a 'great country' is an oxymoron?
Click to expand...
The US was literally founded as a slave state(Maybe your setting the bar far too low).

I don't considered any country inherently great and personally I think it far more better to celebrate or to feel pride in the history of human emancipation regardless of the nation state. So be it the Union fight in the American Civil War, The French Revolution, Haiti Revolution, The Soviet Union defeating Nazi Germany, The 1916 Rising, Chartism and many many more.

Fanon as always said it best -

“I am a man and what I have to recapture is the whole past of the world, I am not responsible only for the slavery involved in Santo Domingo, every time man has contributed to the victory of the dignity of the spirit, every time a man has said no to an attempt to subjugate his fellows, I have felt solidarity with his act.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.