Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
Defintely, might sound daft but one of the main things Labour should be looking for in a new leader is someone who can appeal to Tories. The way to win an election is to take voters from the opposition.
They have been trying that for years
You are truly insufferable
Indeed, a lot of these policies are broadly popular and anyone who has their head switched on will know to adopt some of them. Starmer's just someone who will play a lot better with the public than Corbyn was ever going to.
Agreed that Phillips would be really shit.
If one of Corbyn's inside circle run away with it at this point I think the party is genuinely finished as an electoral force and we'll see a wider split. You can't lose two successive elections while getting trounced and expect to be anywhere near power.
In retrospect 2017 has ended up being a bit of a disaster for Labour - it allowed Corbynites to become convinced he was on the verge of success when he was still comfortably defeated and only managed to slightly squeeze the ruling party. And even then he was never that popular anyway - his popularity ratings were evening out for a while and he was narrowly winning polls, but there was never any sign of dominance like you'd expect from a surging opposition party. Standards were lowered so much under him - despite the left's ascendancy, it arguably speaks to their lack of wider confidence in winning that they were so content with someone in charge who was, in all likelihood, going to lead them to electoral disaster at some point.
Hugely agree with all of that.
And what did they achieve with squeezing May into a minority government? Nothing. They easily could have used that to influence the Brexit process, force her to change her red lines, agree to May's deal as a compromise, try to push for a confirmatory referendum... anything. But it wasn't a priority, and we've ended that parliament with a materially harder form of deal. Twats.
What I don't quite understand is their tin ear. It was clear as day that Corbyn was fantastically unpopular but nobody seemed to be listening, or care. You saw the same thing on this very forum - you could not convince the true believers that their leader was the main threat to their whole project. When people say Labour need to start listening to the electorate again, this is the example I keep coming back to.
Aye, it's all a bit silly in retrospect - there was a lot of debate over whether Brexit would impact their overall vote, but every single poll told people again and again Corbyn was not well-liked. It was clear he was the overwhelming problem. As an individual he was the single biggest electoral barrier they faced. And every Labour leader will inevitably have trouble making themselves popular because they'll ineviably face an onslaught from the Mail and Express etc, but that can only be used as an excuse for so long; Labour know it's the environment they're working in, this isn't new. People pointed out Ed was slated for very similar reasons, but even his personal ratings weren't consistently so low and he mounted decent polls leads. Corbyn never did.
Pointing out that Ed was also slated is a poor argument - as leader, he had an awkward personality/manner, and hugely struggled to connect with the public. Also alienated large segments of the PLP.
Someone who can connect with the public and unite their party should be basic qualifications for the job, and neither Ed or Corbyn passed those tests.
Someone who can connect with the public and unite their party should be basic qualifications for the job, and neither Ed or Corbyn passed those tests.
Yep, always shouted down on here the moment you mention comrade wasn't actually all that liked.
The anti-semite denial from a few intelligent people was a real eye opener though. I'd go so far as to say it's quite shocking how readily the whole thing was/is dismissed by some people.
The only thing I'm hoping for is that the party's lurch to the left will convince a lot of the moderates that genuine change is needed and that things can't necessarily go back to what they were like before. Clearly a Corbynite isn't going to win, but a bit of shock therapy that forces the party into a renewal may not be the worst thing for them. Some of the left's more popular ideas can definitely be repackaged in future elections with a candidate who's actually capable of selling them to the public.
But yeah, all very depressing right now. A lot of people have compared it to Foot in 83, but this seems somewhat worse. This is Labour's fourth successive defeat, not their first after being booted out of government, and in 83 Foot could at least point to the SDP's popularity genuinely holding him back. Corbyn was gifted an open goal with the Lib Dems being shit under Swinson and did nothing with it. And not to mention that for a period Foot in the 80s did consistently lead polls - in alternative circumstances he could have led a government. In retrospect Corbyn didn't have even that.
As I said above, Ed's popularity ratings never even dipped to the same extent as Corbyn's did, and for a time he consistently mounted poll leads to an extent Corbyn didn't. So yeah, while there's a fair point to be made that all Labour leaders tend to get a tough time from the press, it's not something that can be used to excuse Corbyn.
Aye, all a bit grim. Especially grim was when people recognised it was a problem but clearly regarded it primarily as an annoying impediment to Labour being elected, as opposed to a genuinely serious issue that couldn't be apologised for once and then ignored.
The thing is, they all know the Labour Leader is going to get hammered by the media, and that Brexit was a massive issue. Time and time again people were banging on and on about the injustice of it all.
So where was Labours defence and plan? It seems like the only one they had was to bitch and moan after and everyone lament it all. That's why they can't use those things as excuses, because it's not like they were suddenly hit by them.
I like Starmer and see the obvious qualities and appeal of him but can people really see him winning back voters in the North/Midlands/Yorkshire that have been slowly abandoning Labour for over a decade now? Starmer seems far too close to the "liberal London elite" type to be the man for the job. I'd like to see him given much greater prominence within the Labour party but as leader I'm unconvinced as things stand that he's going to be the best choice. That said, I'll wait until I've read some good analyses of what's gone wrong for Labour and the causes of its defeat last night, because clearly they are far more complex than just Corbyn and Brexit, before I decide who I'd like to become the new leader.
As an side, I'm baffled by the absence of a Green/Labour pact. At least in some seats. Anti-austerity, pro-referendum, strong environment policies. Seemed natural for the two to align at least for this election. I'd hope that in the future an arrangement can be reached.
As an side, I'm baffled by the absence of a Green/Labour pact. At least in some seats. Anti-austerity, pro-referendum, strong environment policies. Seemed natural for the two to align at least for this election. I'd hope that in the future an arrangement can be reached.
This is my favourite post ever.
Labour arrogance on the last part it seems.
This.
The only "should" here, is Labour supporters should drop this moral high ground bullshit.
Is this just conjecture on your part? I've not seen anything in the press commenting on it. Would be interested to know if any discussions even took place and if so why no agreement was reached.
They have been trying that for years
This is an issue that immediately needs putting to bed when the next leader gets in. Apologise for it, work closely with the Jewish community to rebuild their trust and expel much quicker anybody who is found guilty of antisemitism.
I'm pretty certain it is. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the Labour party could well be finished.
I hope you are wrong too mate for what it's worth.
But I have hope. We just need to stop his moral shit and fight properly. That doesn't mean get as nasty as them, it means a solid plan to combat this stuff. A leader who can and will not only fight back, but do what Corbyn and Milliband utterly failed to do and that's call this arseholes out face to face and stick it.
And also just get over the Israel/Palestine issue. Forget about it. Britain has no influence in that regional dispute any more, and its almost masochistic for the British Labour Party to make a big deal out of such a divisive issue which is of no relevance to 99% of the British voting population. Why is it so important for the left to be seen to be criticising Israel? No one cares.
So I take it you'd also call for the 'Labour friends of Israel' movement to be disassembled?
The whole party should just stop making it an issue. It does no one any good.
I agree, they are obsessed with the issue.
I’d be interested to know how the saga impacted on the election results. I’m not seeing it being cited much by anyone (bar Livingstone) as an explanatory factor, which makes me wonder if any lessons will be learned, either way. The tendency of the true-believers to double-down doesn’t fill me with optimism there, but there will be less of them after this result.
Not sure I’d go that far, despite my massive criticism of Corbyn and the party. The Palestinian cause is a noble one when stripped down to its essentials, it would benefit massively from the support of a principled European party. It just needs advocates who demonstrate genuine empathy for the nuances and dilemmas of modern Jewish history and identity. Certainly the current Israeli government does not need yet another Western state to just nod along as it pursues its current path.
Having said that I understand that British influence is negligible in any case, and most Brits don’t care.
(edit): I see the bolded bits contradict each other - I wrote the first bit assuming the UK remains in the EU, which is obviously now not gonna happen.
Last edited:
Has to be a hard-lefter.
Under the new electoral rules you only need 10% of MPs to get on the ballot. And Labour's debacle last night means the required number is even less than it was before.
Once it gets to the membership, they're inevitably going to vote for a socialist candidate.
God that's a depressing thought. Not for me personally of course because I agree but there's frigging no chance if they go down this route again.
Whoever Labour choose, they need to pay attention to the stupid details which seem to count so much. If it's a man - not too old, not bald, no beard, well-dressed. If it's a woman - not too old, not fat, preferably has kids, well-dressed.
It's a shame people are so superficial and shallow.
I'm not denying that there has been anti-semitism in the Labour Party, but at the same time I don't think they have a monopoly over it and have been held to a higher level of scrutiny than other parties.
For example Johnson actually said things such as "Jewish oligarchs that fix elections" In one of his 'novels' he describes Jews as having "proud noses and curly hair". Imagine if Jeremy Corbyn said these things? Not to mention his comments on black people, Muslims, single mothers, poor people etc. There clearly has been one standard for Corbyn and another for Johnson, which has led to some Labour supporters become dismissive about the issue.
I think a lot of Labour supporters feel the anti-semitism issue has been weaponised by Labour's political opposition, which I believe there is an element of truth to. But at the same time there is an issue which needs to be dealt with but Labour doesn't have a monopoly over it.
I can't remember who exactly, but at least two of those that held their seat yesterday brought it up.
And yet people in here either deny it, or engage in whataboutism.
That's simply untrue. Polls make clear that Labour's policies are popular and their agenda can harbour a wide base of support. There is no reason why they will be doomed if they opt for another socialist candidate and nor is there any substance to the idea that simply opting for a more centrist candidate will automatically benefit them electorally.
Yes, notice the "not fat" thing only applies to women. It's easy to judge people by their appearance, any idiot can do that - which is why it seems to matter so much.
How is it "simply untrue" though? I'm not saying I fully support that idea, but in case you didn't notice, Labour just got humiliated. Add to that, 4 loses on the trot.
Polls, polls, polls, all you lot care about. The reality escapes you, because your bubble protects you from it.
Labour need much more than a centrist, or a socialist. They need rebuilding from the top down. And you all need to wake up to the idea that they have fecked this and very badly.
Whilst I do agree with you for a lot of people and their ridiculous bias, it's still what YOU have said. So quoting yourself is a little odd.
I don't think Corbyn's problem was his age or beard. If people want to use those as more excuses, then fine so be it, but there are far bigger reasons they lost. After all, Swinson got beat and she's hardly falling foul of your appearance rules.