Any candidate that understood all northerners aren't stupid, poor and deprived would be a good start.
Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
I really can't see sticking with a far left agenda as being an effective vote-winning strategy.
Are you of the same mind as McDonnell who clearly thinks that Brexit was the sole reason for losing and that, in reality and deep down, the majority of the people like these Labour policies and don't question their deliverability?
Jess Phillips is very electable in my view.
She's a bit like Jacinda Ardern in that she is compassionate and has very good people appeal.
She would be the one that the Tories would least want. The likes of RLB, Rayner or Pidcock would be a gift to them.
She's a bit like Jacinda Ardern in that she is compassionate and has very good people appeal.
She would be the one that the Tories would least want. The likes of RLB, Rayner or Pidcock would be a gift to them.
It's only £2.77 p/m if you're a trades union member.
It's not just McDonnel or Momentum that think that. Plenty of the centrists are happy with a lot of the policies and its backed up with polling. I also refuse to believe the deliverability line whilst the same people vote Boris and Brexit.
As @esmufc07 quite succinctly put it, the issue is the volume of policies that were rolled out less the direction. They got fixated on being radical but drop the broadband rollout and stick to rail nationalisation only and its a very different picture.
£2.17 for me.
I think one of my favourite policies was the National Education Service, I think it's great and could be very transformative (I also think Rayner spearheaded it). As @MikeUpNorth said, pick a policy or two and focus in on it. The Tory manifesto barely had anything in it and they just banged the drum on Brexit/20,000 police officers.
Labour should look to do the same in 2024, I just worry with all that is coming out (and Corbyn's comments) that they think with Brexit done they can just pretty much carry on as is, which would be a huge mistake I think. Also, and I've said it before, bin the current shadow cabinet (or most of it), they are dreadful. I never want to see Burgon on my TV again.
£3/year for me as I'm a student
In case you haven't noticed, we are.
I mean, they do, there's polling to support that.
Corbyn's own unpopularity (which I would argue stems partly from his abysmal bungling of Brexit which made him look shifty, evasive and untrustworthy and partly from his past), the deluge of those policies (the broadband one being a particularly obvious one that voters scratched their heads at), and a complete failure to play politics.
Labour's manifesto was a vision for a 10-15 year programme not a manifesto for an election. Pick any two policies (NHS and rail I would probably argue) bang on about them, get elected, enact them show they're a good idea and then sell the public on your success in the next election and look to do more.
When McDonnell stated that he wouldn't be in the shadow cabinet, he also said "We'll all go now."
Boris won.
And whist not strictly being a Londoner, he typifies London politics.
During the campaign I heard a tory on 5live stating that he joined labour when Corbyn was first elected just so he could vote for him. Wonder how much of this wil log on again.
This is a very complex question and I'm not sure it's one I can commit to providing a comprehensive answer on - so please don't be too hard on my response if it feels a little 'lightweight', I suppose I'll just try and summarise my views.
- I do believe Brexit had a big impact, so let's start by saying that. However, we need to remember Labour were already significantly behind the Conservatives, in terms of number of seats, in 2017 and 2015 - so it would be foolish to say that it's only because of Brexit.
- I do also believe that yes the media has a huge impact. If you walk around my 'home' constituency of Amber Valley, what you will find is many people who have absolutely zero interest in Politics or Economists, but they largely voted Conservative because Corbyn is a 'terrorist sympathising, Marxist, anti-Semitic, Hamas-loving Communist' who 'wants to bankrupt the Country and take us back to the 1970's'. Truth is, these voters hated Corbyn, despite not really knowing anything about him or his policies. Now, the question is....how do Labour overcome this problem with the media? I've seen one school of thought that Labour should shift back right, which I fundamentally disagree with. I believe the answer is to be more pro-active. I know for a fact that friends of mine who voted Conservative won't ever have met a Labour MP/candidate. They won't have met a Conservative candidate either, but the media do their PR for them. It's up to the local Labour candidates and MPs to get out into their constituencies and prove that they are not the monsters the media make them out to be.
- I have to say, I don't believe the electorate necessarily have a problem with Labour's policies. Did people turn out in force to vote against increases in the minimum wage, against increased investment in Public Services? Against investment in infrastructure? Against a reversal of Universal Credit? Against small increases in taxes for the rich? No I sincerely believe they did not. You might counter by saying that they had a problem with how realistic these policies where....but then why didn't the electorate in major metropolitan constituencies in Manchester, Liverpool, London, Birmingham and Newcastle have the same concerns?
- I also find it interesting you imply Labour followed a 'far Left' agenda....I'm sorry but again I really don't buy this....I don't want to come across as argumentative here so feel free not to respond (I don't like to argue but I do like to talk about this stuff!) but which of Labour's policies did you feel where 'far Left'? I mean, surely it's about perception, right? Because you present those same policies to the Germans, the French, the Scandinavians etc....and they would barely be considered a flicker left of Centre. Public ownership of natural monopolies/public services, progressive taxation, Green agenda etc....all nothing out of the ordinary. Surely the perception that these policies where somehow outrageously radical Left Wing policies is down to their portrayal - because again huge numbers in the big cities were totally fine with them, as were 40% of the voters at the 2017 GE (Conservatives got 42.4%)
To answer your question....do I believe the electorate 'liked' Labour's policies deep-down....no I don't, I think that's an over-simplification. However, I do believe that a significant percentage of the votes cast had nothing to do with policy at all. Swap the Party leaders and swap the media representation of the two Parties and in my book you get a different result. People will find that difficult to believe/understand - unless you've ever sat in a shit hole rundown pub next to a large manufacturer in an old mining town and spoken to people there about their perceptions of the two Political parties. Seriously, they aren't talking about policies!
It comes down to perception and trust - Labour aren't winning either battle currently and they need to figure out a way to do this!
I'd probably keep Starmer and Raynor (Obviously depends who the leader is), the rest of them I wouldn't miss though.
I'd have thought winning back the voters who swung right would go hand in hand with dropping momentum and the hard left style. It'd also bring those who didn't bother at all too.
I mean if it doesn't mean dropping the core Labour values, just playing the game more, why are the left so afraid?
I mean if it doesn't mean dropping the core Labour values, just playing the game more, why are the left so afraid?
Yeah Labours PR game is weak. They could learn from a Pakistani group called Fixit. This group is based in Karachi and their leader has now been elected an MP in Karachi. They started off as a bunch of volunteers who went around highlighting government failures. For example of there were giant potholes they'd Graffiti the road around them and point out the government was failing the people.
The face is the Chief Minister of the Sindh province. I was reading earlier on twitter somone said that one of Labours biggest failures was not getting the Tories to take ownership of their mistakes. Eventually they started volunteering to fix things themselves!
What specifically would you classify as 'London politics'?
Yeah, I meant to put that but hit double 7 for some reason
He does but I'm only answering your question tbf. I was in my local on Sunday and people were still talking about champagne socialists ffs. Labour has to change this perception to appeal it's traditional voters. No need to convince me but to become electorally viable again it has to reconnect to the electorate but I do think there will be internal civil war in the party before that happens as I can't see the 2 sides of the party coming together to unite. That's why I don't think Starmer will stand, I think he will wait for the outcome and then try to take advantage of the fallout.
I only mentioned the soviet involvement in WW2 in the hopes that some one would bite(So Cheers but also they did most of the work). Also stop stealing @sun_tzu shtick
Honestly mate, its seems you've got fictional lefties living inside your head(Rent free of course).
Worth saying you've came to this conclusion all because I mentioned that maybe it would be better for us lot in Britain to celebrate the haitian revolution rather than the monarchy.
This is the impression that you give off on a consistent basis, along with many on the hard left.
Last edited:
I really dislike this argument about what goes on in other countries, because path dependency is important, and dynamics are important. You can't just create a Scandinavian paradise (which is breaking down in Scandinavia anyway) in Britain by raising taxes and nationalising a few industries.
This is because:
- The level of borrowing required to get from point A to point B
- The cultural norms within the society (if you proposed an NHS in the US it would also be considered far left)
- Our industry isn't and won't become the same as the countries you mentioned.
Which policies were far left? National Broadband and taking 10% from every single listed business to give to workers are without doubt far left policies. No other country in the world is even considering policies that drastic.
@Sweet Square
Whilst it may be noble to celebrate the Haitian revolution, Grant in the US Civil War or the achievements of the Red Army (I am assuming excluding the mass rape of innocents!), how many people in the UK know the details of these events? And do these events have any traction in the UK collective history?
If any Labour leader is seen to celebrate 'other' events or achievements over and above this country, then they will never get within a million years of being elected.
Whilst it may be noble to celebrate the Haitian revolution, Grant in the US Civil War or the achievements of the Red Army (I am assuming excluding the mass rape of innocents!), how many people in the UK know the details of these events? And do these events have any traction in the UK collective history?
If any Labour leader is seen to celebrate 'other' events or achievements over and above this country, then they will never get within a million years of being elected.
It's the same as expecting every single person to be so clued up on politics that they can make the most intelligent decision for themselves and the country.
If this is what you want, then you need power. If you want power, you have to play game. Like it or loathe it, thems the rules. Moral highground will never get you anywhere, in fact it is part of the problem right now.
But hey, principles over power. So far an outdated concept that it actually causes more harm than good.
Also people don't care. We don't have threads on here celebrating Arsenal's invincibles or Liverpool's team of the 80s. If asked a majority would say they were great teams, but we want and are focused on United to do well and of reliving the glory days of the past.
Agreed, and also principles are almost all by nature subjective, to do mass communication you need objectivity. Get Brexit done, 20,000 police, 50,000 nurses are all objective numbers but are value neutral, you as an individual can place them within your own principles.
You, McDonnell and the polls are all right in saying the policies were popular. In fact you could have added another dozen money-spending policies and they would have been popular too. You're wrong in saying people didn't think they were undeliverable, they thought exactly that. People were hugely suspicious of the 'fully-costed' claims to begin with, and when the very day after those costings were published they promptly announced another £58b it confirmed all their suspicions.
Being the age I am I know plenty of Waspi people, particularly the Mrs, but I don't think even those that stood to gain substantially from the policy were persuaded by it, they simply didn't believe it at best or thought the borrowing would be disastrous in itself.
I might be wrong but I think @esmufc07 's point about reducing the volume of policies was about deliverability, or the presentation of deliverability at least
Last edited:
It might have been enough pre-SNP ascension, but you’re right, they have the near impossible task of winning back the heartlands AND tempting the centre ground.
I think their chances also depends on what version of Boris we get. If we get the right wing Thatcherite purist, then Labour could probably getaway with a soft left opposition, where even moderate voters will start to feel the effects of a Tory ideological onslaught. If Boris however obliges his one nation promise, then they’ll have a tougher job projecting themselves as an appealing alternative to pretty much anyone outside of leftist echo chambers.
It’s also the idea that the state could conceivably nationalise and run railways, water, electric, gas, broadband, Royal Mail (and probably steel and whatever private companies start to struggle during their term), as well as founding whole new services such as a Green Investment Bank, national education service, national care service, as well as taking on house building, in one fell swoop without it being a complete and utter clusterfeck. It would be a shitshow. Obviously. At the same time as trying to deliver Brexit and a complete renegotiation of our trading relationships with the world.
There aren’t enough civil servants in the world to make that work I’m afraid. You can’t just magic things into happening because they’re written in a manifesto - some poor bloke has to work out all the details and do all the hard work. Labour jumped the shark.
Last edited:
They've already prepared to go down the leftist echo chamber route. The excuses have already spoken.
It doesn't matter what Boris does, the people controlling Labour right now only want the power they have and all that comes with it. People who think otherwise are as "dumb" to me as those turkeys who have just voted for Christmas.
I found Paul Mason's view interesting: https://www.paulmason.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/After-Corbynism-v1.2.pdf
The people controlling labour right now are also the only ones currently contributing to the a party selection process. Join the party, join the discussion and then have a say in the future of it. Not a dig at you, but it’s no good complaining about the ‘hard left’ if the same people complaining are apathetic to the internal process.
Completely. So many debates, especially on the left wing of politics, seem to exist in ideal worlds. To actually do anything you need to start from where you are with the resources you've got, decide what is achievable and move forward. You can't just magic Britain into being a country that it is not.
So you're not really disagreeing with me then - I think I say it's about perception. I didn't suggest we just copy any particular countries policies carte blanche, I'm just saying that the perception of the electorate is important and that's largely dictated by what's considered to be the 'norm'. Your American example is a perfect illustration of this.
I also find it interesting that whenever you mention another economy that may lean to the Left that people instantly jump to tell you what a disaster it is or how it's breaking down. I think you would be hard-pushed to say that our own economic system is a roaring success. Sure, we're largely OK at sticking a percentage point here or there on GDP from time to time but what about growing levels of inequality, the environment, crumbling public services etc....? Maybe it's time to start re-assessing what we consider to be the measures of a healthy economy?
I may accept re-distributing 10% of any given business may be the most 'radical' Left Wing policy....I'd also argue you could ask 100 voters in Amber Valley or Sedgefield why they didn't vote Labour and none would cite this as a reason, if they are aware of it at all.
(Re)Nationalising BT isn't that radical. As you say, it's all about the particular set of dynamics a given economy faces. Our privatised communications sector is currently failing to roll-out adequate services in both built-up and rural areas. Clearly it's all about costs, why would BT dig up roads in city centres or build huge amounts of infrastructure in rural areas if they aren't going to get payback?
I personally think we value the wrong things and are going down totally the wrong path under this Conservative Government. Was Labour's manifesto optimistic and ambitious? Sure it was, think that was the point! Going back to what this whole debate is about, I'm sure you could SELL that Labour manifesto, if you did it in the right way. This is this bit we're all fairly unanimously agreeing Labour failed
Do I think RLB or Jess Phillips or Keir Starmer could sell those ideas or the vision? Probably not
That's smart. The first job of the opposition is to oppose and you always felt with Labour they had something slightly more important to do instead. You see this for example in the US and think this is the right way to attack Trump, rather than the attacks on his character:
If you read these threads then you know many of us have. That's no longer a valid answer on here. Some of the biggest critics have already signed/re-signed.
Momentum, the people behind it anyway, are the problem. And even if we vote a new leader that's not changing at the moment is it? Already the excuses have rolled and now we are even seeing talk of election past the next one ffs. It's so tragically predictable.
Yup, focus on the modern good stuff and you can still add in some 'that old stuff was pretty shit of our forebearers BUT we've achieved so much good stuff since!'. Just let people feel some positivity and they'll accept the negative parts much more easily.
Not really.....there's only really two ways of doing things....the 'Right' (let the markets dictate) or the 'Left' (state involvement)....Blair obviously tried to implement his '3rd way' (a combination or public/private) with mixed results which ended up alienating people on both sides. I personally believe in a 'free-market first' approach but where markets fail, the Government must step in. Henceforth, Labour pitched it about right for me.
You start with a set of base ideas about how you want to structure the economy and society. I don't get this 'you start from what resources you have'...what does that mean?