Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win
- Thread starter Kaos
- Start date
It's amazing that he's an MP for Brent.
So so far, per rumours
Corbynite wing:
Leader - Rebecca Long-Bailey
Deputy - Dick Burgon
Loyal shad-cabs:
Leader - Thornberry/Starmer
Deputy - Barry Gardiner
No-one else probably stands a chance.
If both wings had to unite around one candidate, Starmer would probably be the most likely?
Came across this. This is how you handle and respond a GE defeat.
I think Thornberry might perform better in the campaign, and Long-Bailey would quite possibly have the Momentum backing, which is important for internal Labour stuff. And I think there will be pressure to go for a woman. Another question entirely is the unions, which could be the deciding factor and it's still not clear how they're going to react to a defeat that crushing.
I get the feeling a key test will be whether you support the 2019 manifesto going forward.
The same Andy Burnham who famously once abstained on a welfare bill then exclaimed shortly afterwards 'we cannot abstain on a welfare bill'? He's far too much of an amorphous blob to lead the party.
Absolutely not. Thornberry would be a right-wing wet dream. They’d destroy her before she has a chance of opening her mouth to speak.
The only choice is Starmer. Strong character, no baggage, good speaker, well liked by members on all sides.
I would urge anyone who wants a Labour government to become a member as every vote will count.
Thornberry was literally the first one I saw making typical Labour excuses.
She can do one.
She can do one.
I look at Starmer and actually feel inspired enough to go out and canvass for him. I think he would just get better and better in the job. What's his baggage/weaknesses?
I think he's got better since then.
He was touted for leadership in 2015 but turned it down himself for lack of experience. Skeletons usually start to come out after they’re elected and we don’t know how he eats a bacon butty but nothing public as far as his character is concerned. He’s always been London based and constituency wise so he may be seen as part of “the establishment” in rural areas however that can be remedied if he picks a broad representation in his shadow cabinet.
He’s the anti Johnson for me. Strong, measured, doesn’t waffle and methodical. Already held public office successfully, with no scandals and a knight of the realm. Should go down a treat with the little Englanders...
That’s why everyone needs ti register and make sure he gets in rather than Burgeon
My concern with Starmer is that he is a London MP and there is a massive disconnect between London and the rest of the country which again has been exposed in the election.
He’s also not that charismatic either and I think the Labour leader has to be able to connect with the average bloke which is not convinced Starmer can.
Still he is arguably the best candidate in my eyes of those that seem keen. No ones perfect.
Lacks charisma. I worry that his appeal would be too similar to Corbyn's and therefore struggle to reverse the declining support for the party since the Blair era in the 'Red Wall' areas. I don't think he'd be as good a campaigner as Corbyn on issues like austerity either. Corbyn, for all his other faults, was at his best on matters like that. Starmer might be a 'right guy, wrong time' candidate. Nevertheless, as things stand I will seriously be considering voting for him as the next leader.
As for baggage, it's inevitable that the press will be able to drag up at least something from his time in the legal service and period as Director of Public Prosecutions.
I don't know about the charisma thing. I think he has a quiet confidence about him and that he would grow into the role the more the spotlight was on him. He'd need a very sharp team around him though. That would be crucial.
I agree on the London part but I think it’s possible to move past that if the shadow cabinet is broad and representative.
I disagree on the charisma he’s a lawyer and speaks for a living. His bread and butter comes from being able to connect with people and instill in them arguments to take his side.
He looks like a dozy feckwit to me, at best a classic fence-sitter. Ah well, give him a chance, he might have well-hidden depths.
This was probably the only bit if media he was allowed to do all election because of his stance on Brexit. Compare that to the real dozy feckwits like Burgeon or Gardiner who were on endlessly during the campaign and tell me what you think.
Guardian piece on Starmer - the Remainer
While I agree that Starmer has a good logical, barrister, debating style, he is utterly unelectable and would have lost this election, and was a large reason for it's loss, in how he shaped the Brexit (Remain) policy.
Labour has a huge problem. It has become the new Green Party, ideological fantasists with undeliverable policies and manifesto partly written as such on the assumption that they won't actually win and so can get away with lying, when that lying only further destroys the trust in them and their credibility.
They are becoming just another minority party. Almost completely wiped out from Scotland, which they will probably never recover and need to for any hope of a majority, and even lost their heartlands in the Red Wall of the North. But it's the causes of that, that is the problem, and they are structural/institutional and philosophical. This is a democracy, and the only voice that has power in a democracy is that which wins a General Election or Referendum. Not the Unions. Not Momentum. Not the NEC or PLP. All the latter were Remainers. And that ideological opposition to Brexit made the Labour Party unelectable, because they put that above the will of the electorate as a whole. Being 'Right' (in their heads) is no use in politics if it isn't what the electorate thinks. There's no excuses for that. They can't claim ignorance. A Referendum already answered that. Corbyn's personal low popularity polls were known for a long time. Labour's polling was consistently far behind the Tories. And out of conceit and ideological fanaticism it was ignored.
The Tories, since the days of Clarke, were divided over Europe. Cameron sought to end that division once and for all by giving the Referendum. Instead the Tories became even more divided, now into 3: Remain, Soft Brexit and the ERG. Boris, the populist, recognised that with the threat of the Brexit Party (a threat which Labour ignored to their peril--most of the seats they lost had the biggest swing from Labour to TBP and not to the Conservatives), the only electorally viable policy was a hard(ish) Brexit, and made the decisive gamble to remove the whip from the Remainers and rebels, thus uniting his Party, and insisting, very publicly and repeatedly, that all his candidates had signed up to his Deal.
Labour however were conducting open warfare over it, and a divided opponent will usually lose to a united one. Labour had to cut-out the Remainers, and leave them to the Lib Dems. But it couldn't--because institutionally and demographically it's Remain.
The fact that Labour is beholden to the Unions, the same Unions who chose the period of the election and Christmas, to hold or plan/announce strike after strike, makes it unelectable imho probably permanently. This election revealed it's only way back, since it will never get a majority again, is by merging with the SNP, or at least a solid alliance. And I don't think that is likely or even enough.
The history of elections, and referendums, show the country making choices. The Thatcher era showed the country choosing capitalism over communism/marxism/socialism, a country siding against the Unions. Corbyn still stood on the losing side of that. The country also chose Brexit. And the Labour Party, as a whole, also stood on the losing side of that. The power structures in Labour now make it even harder than ever for the same mistakes to not be repeated. Just like the Greens, or Plaid Cymru, they are in essence irreversibly a minority party for minorities.
While I agree that Starmer has a good logical, barrister, debating style, he is utterly unelectable and would have lost this election, and was a large reason for it's loss, in how he shaped the Brexit (Remain) policy.
Labour has a huge problem. It has become the new Green Party, ideological fantasists with undeliverable policies and manifesto partly written as such on the assumption that they won't actually win and so can get away with lying, when that lying only further destroys the trust in them and their credibility.
They are becoming just another minority party. Almost completely wiped out from Scotland, which they will probably never recover and need to for any hope of a majority, and even lost their heartlands in the Red Wall of the North. But it's the causes of that, that is the problem, and they are structural/institutional and philosophical. This is a democracy, and the only voice that has power in a democracy is that which wins a General Election or Referendum. Not the Unions. Not Momentum. Not the NEC or PLP. All the latter were Remainers. And that ideological opposition to Brexit made the Labour Party unelectable, because they put that above the will of the electorate as a whole. Being 'Right' (in their heads) is no use in politics if it isn't what the electorate thinks. There's no excuses for that. They can't claim ignorance. A Referendum already answered that. Corbyn's personal low popularity polls were known for a long time. Labour's polling was consistently far behind the Tories. And out of conceit and ideological fanaticism it was ignored.
The Tories, since the days of Clarke, were divided over Europe. Cameron sought to end that division once and for all by giving the Referendum. Instead the Tories became even more divided, now into 3: Remain, Soft Brexit and the ERG. Boris, the populist, recognised that with the threat of the Brexit Party (a threat which Labour ignored to their peril--most of the seats they lost had the biggest swing from Labour to TBP and not to the Conservatives), the only electorally viable policy was a hard(ish) Brexit, and made the decisive gamble to remove the whip from the Remainers and rebels, thus uniting his Party, and insisting, very publicly and repeatedly, that all his candidates had signed up to his Deal.
Labour however were conducting open warfare over it, and a divided opponent will usually lose to a united one. Labour had to cut-out the Remainers, and leave them to the Lib Dems. But it couldn't--because institutionally and demographically it's Remain.
The fact that Labour is beholden to the Unions, the same Unions who chose the period of the election and Christmas, to hold or plan/announce strike after strike, makes it unelectable imho probably permanently. This election revealed it's only way back, since it will never get a majority again, is by merging with the SNP, or at least a solid alliance. And I don't think that is likely or even enough.
The history of elections, and referendums, show the country making choices. The Thatcher era showed the country choosing capitalism over communism/marxism/socialism, a country siding against the Unions. Corbyn still stood on the losing side of that. The country also chose Brexit. And the Labour Party, as a whole, also stood on the losing side of that. The power structures in Labour now make it even harder than ever for the same mistakes to not be repeated. Just like the Greens, or Plaid Cymru, they are in essence irreversibly a minority party for minorities.
Point taken.
Could not disagree with the first paragraph of that Guardian article at all.
Brexit is over. He wasn’t the leader this election so he didn’t win or lose. What makes him utterly unelectable going forward?
Exactly...and hopefully in five years he'll be the one to take us back into Europe when the country is fecked.
It's clear the corbynistas just can't let go.
Now Starmer is entirely to blame. Funny how everyone blames the media for hatchet jobs, until they agree with something...
Now Starmer is entirely to blame. Funny how everyone blames the media for hatchet jobs, until they agree with something...
He is Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
If an army goes to war, and loses, who loses their job or life first, the General or the King?
So? It’s just a shadow cabinet position, everyone will lose their jobs and probably be invited by the next leader if he sees them fit for his vision. Harold Wilson, Blair, Miliband all were in the shadow cabinet before becoming leaders. I can name Conservatives too but there would be no point. Cabinet/Shadown cabinet experience is a must for a leader to be successful as there’s an understanding of how government would work.
The vast majority of the public probably couldn't even tell you who Keir Starmer is, let alone what position he held in the shadow cabinet.
We will not be rejoining the EU for a long time, if ever, regardless of who wins the next election.
You missed the point. But if you can't see how the Tories would roast him over being a Remainer in charge of Exiting the EU and behind the most disastrous policy in modern times, then fine, go ahead and make him leader. It just proves my point even more how Labour supporters haven't a clue how to pick an electable leader.
The point you seem to be making is that having been a remainer will make you unelectable to the larger public even in an election that comes years after remain has been killed as a possibility. The UK is utterly fecked if it is that divided, voting against people based on a now irrelevant grudge.
In reality I don't think it would make a difference as politics will have moved past the remain/leave aspect of the Brexit debate by the time the next GE rolls around.
The other issue is that if you instead need to vote for someone who thought leaving the EU was a good idea then you are by definition voting for someone whose basic competence and grasp of economics needs to be questioned.
I can’t see any point made because by the time of the next election Brexit is done and it wouldn’t matter what stance anyone took over it. They cannot rehash Starmer blocked Brexit as an argument five years after Brexit. It’s ludicrous.
If it’s a success even if God himself was made leader of the Labour party it wouldn’t be able to beat Boris. If it’s a failure as everyone predicts then even by your argument Starmer is the best choice.
I’m interested in who you think is an electable leader.
It needs a caretaker leader, whose job it will be to lead the inquiry into the defeat, reform the internal structures, to then allow the reformed structures to elect the leader that will then have to reform the party philosophy, stance and strategy.
But it seems more likely that Corbyn will try to enshrine Corbynism into the party, and that the party will split just as Old Labour and New Labour split. It may well need to, to regain internal unity, and allow the next elections to determine the fate of which version of Labour survives. They really need to learn the right lessons this time, as they clearly didn't post-Blair.
Why would him being a Remainer matter come the next election when we'll be out of the EU in a month's time? Is anyone who ever voted to Remain now banned from becoming PM? Is this time limited though and in 50 years time they'll be allowed to compete again?
"Sorry mate, but like 48% of the population you chose wrong and that means you have to live in this hole with the rest of the losers while we get to reap all the Brexit rewards for ourselves. Now take your ration pack and feck off."
Have you seen how Corbyn has been attacked for things he said and did decades ago or not?
It's the Express.
It needs a leader to reform it and then choose another leader to take it to election? That’s even more ridiculous than Starmer being unelectable because he was a remainer.
Being a remainer isn’t quite the same as laying wreaths at a cemetery which also holds graves of terrorists. Five years after Brexit saying don’t vote for Starmer he supported remain doesn’t ring quite the same as Corbyn sympathises with terrorists.
If we’re still discussing Brexit after 5 years then by no means will it be done and again Starmer would be the best choice according to your argument.
Starner is popular with the membership and he’s neither Blair or Corbyn, he’s somewhere between the two which is where the party needs to be if it intends to gain power.
Everything is hanging on Brexit, if it’s a success there’s no chance anyone will beat BoJo. If it’s not then dare I tempt fate even Burgeon has a chance
By that logic half the Tory MPs should give up their seats. In the 23rd century when the Eurasian Federation drop nukes on us we’ll be deciding who gets a place in the bunkers based on how their ancestors voted in the 2016 EU referendum.
It needs a leader to reform it and then choose another leader to take it to election? That’s even more ridiculous than Starmer being unelectable because he was a remainer.
Being a remainer isn’t quite the same as laying wreaths at a cemetery which also holds graves of terrorists. Five years after Brexit saying don’t vote for Starmer he supported remain doesn’t ring quite the same as Corbyn sympathises with terrorists.
If we’re still discussing Brexit after 5 years then by no means will it be done and again Starmer would be the best choice according to your argument.
Starner is popular with the membership and he’s neither Blair or Corbyn, he’s somewhere between the two which is where the party needs to be if it intends to gain power.
Everything is hanging on Brexit, if it’s a success there’s no chance anyone will beat BoJo. If it’s not then dare I tempt fate even Burgeon has a chance
This is a key point, I think.
The Tories' hands are all over Brexit, from the beginning to the end. They are irrevocably tied to it. Which is good from a Labour point of view as it will inevitably have negative consequences for the country. Which means there should be an opportunity to lead both former remainers and former leavers against the Brexit the Tories deliver, either because Brexit itself is terrible, because the Tories botched it or indeed for a combination of both reasons. In which case I doubt it will matter in the slightest whether the person delivering that message used to be a remainer or used to be a leaver.