next labour leader

jeff_goldblum said:
I think you can probably put the Miliband result amongst the members down to their relative levels of charisma. It wasn't until Feb/March this year that Ed suddenly went up a gear and started looking quite credible (which is when the right-wing media got edgy and got out their sharpest knives). At the time of the last leadership election Ed looked like he was in a sixth-form public speaking competition and I think that was more of a factor than his politics.

Thanks for the facts on the unions, I wasn't aware of that change.
Click to expand...
I've just read my last part, I completely mis-typed it! Should read "the union vote will very likely take up FAR LESS than the 1/3 that it had a the last election".
 
Ubik said:
I've just read my last part, I completely mis-typed it! Should read "the union vote will very likely take up FAR LESS than the 1/3 that it had a the last election".
Click to expand...

Haha I figured! I still think the system still heavily favours the leftist multitude in the party over the more centrist/centre-right elements in the party hierarchy. The slew of new members after the Tory victory (who make up about 15-20% of the membership) will be key I think. It's yet to be seen whether most of them are like me, who's joined with the agenda of reconnecting the party to its roots, or whether they're middle class folks who want a centre-right party but don't want to be associated with the Tories.
 
The Labour party would do well to remember that it's the political wing of organised labour.
 
The last thing the Labour Party needs to be is a center-right party. People like Mandelson just seem out of touch suggesting that a move to the right will help Labour get those voters they lost back. In Scotland the only viable left-wing party (who are basically the same as labour are apart from trident) is the SNP for gods sake, they are barely more left wing yet have taken strongholds off them. BEcoming a proper left-wing party and alternative to the conservatives will help Labour in the long run, its the reason they did so poorly as well as having Miliband, who I personally had no issue with personally, he was just inept.
 
If you want to gain 100 seats and be ahead of the Tories, then I'm afraid the only strategy is to tack to the centre. The Tories got ~8% more votes than Labour, those votes aren't going to switch by having Labour go left, it's just the grim electoral reality. And enough of this centre-right stuff, using a growing economy to fund increases in public service spending as the last Labour government did is the standard social democratic party model these days.
 
Ubik said:
If you want to gain 100 seats and be ahead of the Tories, then I'm afraid the only strategy is to tack to the centre. The Tories got ~8% more votes than Labour, those votes aren't going to switch by having Labour go left, it's just the grim electoral reality. And enough of this centre-right stuff, using a growing economy to fund increases in public service spending as the last Labour government did is the standard social democratic party model these days.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Those who are very left-wing will mostly already be voting Labour. It's the centre voters they need if they want to have any chance of getting back into government.
 
This is becoming a mess. The 35 MPs support barrier's looking too high, with Burnam and Cooper hoovering up votes to block the entry of other MPs, while the likes of Chuka and Jarvis seem to have decided to 'sit this one out' as they don't fancy Labour's chances in the immediate future. Is there any thing/ one to get excited or optimistic about? Ugh.
 
The nomination process is total bollocks. The strongest chance Labour has of winning an election is selecting a candidate that the electorate are likely to vote for, including traditional Labour voters. Putting a whole bunch of candidates in front of the party membership (who are as close as you're going to get to a representation of the voters Labour has to win back from the SNP, UKIP and the Greens) is far more likely to yield an electable leader than a choice between a few candidates who were all high profile during the Blair/Brown years, are all of a similar demographic and all went to Oxbridge.
 
Last edited:
Tristram Hunt has confirmed that he'll be supporting Liz Kendall. I don't know how many MPs he rings with him, but for the good of this process there needs to be a serious contender without ties to the Blair/Brown era.


As an aside, why does Labour have a vote for the Deputy Leader by the way? Oughtn't that be the choice of the prospective PM? Party fudning and donations are a limited resource, it all seems rather unnecessary to me.
 
It's primarily a campaigning role, not really about being the leader's direct assistant. You can be deputy leader of the party in government and not be deputy PM, for instance.

Glad Hunt's got behind Kendall anyway, the way the other two are trying to make it a two horse race means she probably needs all the noninations she can get at this point. Need at least one person in the contest without baggage.
 
Guardian's pretty scathing of the state of the race so far:

Ed Miliband’s premature resignation was bad enough. It plunged the shellshocked Labour party into a leadership contest before it had time to absorb its general election defeat or to draw wise conclusions. Everything that has happened since has only made that initial decision seem more irresponsible. Labour MPs are now consumed by an inward-looking leadership contest. This brings out the worst in the Labour party. It also offers no guarantee at all that it will help answer the big questions that loom over its future.

Tristram Hunt’s announcement today that he is not entering the contest ought to set the alarms ringing again. That’s not because Mr Hunt is necessarily the ideal person to lead Labour. No one can say whether he is or not. But his is a voice worth hearing and now it will not be. Neither he nor any of the other possible candidates has yet had a proper chance to develop their ideas or their 2020 visions. Like Chuka Umunna before him, Mr Hunt has now withdrawn precipitately from a debate in which his ideas could and should have been properly heard and his candidacy thoughtfully assessed on the evidence.

Much of this is the fault of Labour’s leadership election system. At its malign heart is the process of nomination. To stand, a candidate needs the support of 15% of the party’s MPs. This bar – currently 35 MPs – is ridiculously high. In the Tory party, a candidate requires just a proposer and a seconder, which is a better and more open system. The problem is compounded by the candidates’ interest in amassing as many nominations as possible, which drains the pool still further. This happened in 2007 and 2010; now it is happening in 2015 too. Labour’s way squeezes out candidates and visions before things have even started. It lacks transparency. It takes power away from the voters. It is old-fashioned and absurd.

It also hands too much power to the power brokers – up to 130 of Labour’s MPs have backing from the Unite union, which has warned Labour to choose the “correct leader”. The nominations obsession encourages the sticks and carrots beloved of machine politicians – “nominate her and you’ll never get a shadow job” – while squeezing daylight and air out of the process ever further. Some 53 Labour MPs are new to Westminster. They haven’t even heard a single speech by any of the candidates. But a lot of them have decided who they are nominating. This is more than absurd.

In the Guardian’s view it is an outrage that Labour MPs are deciding the shape of this important contest so prematurely. No candidate has published a detailed argument about why Labour lost and how it can win. None has had more than a brief chance to take an argument to the public through the media or into the new Commons. No one actually knows what they really think about the big hard issues, yet the contest is being irrevocably moulded all the same. An essential process risks being sacrificed to the abuses of machine politics.

The logical democratic way would be to give the candidates a chance to shine, in parliament and around the country, before, not after, deciding who should run and who gives the party its best chance. The next general election is five long years away. In 2020 the Tory party will be led by a new leader, as may Ukip. Britain’s position in Europe and the future of the union will all look different by then. Choosing the leader now is pretty daft.

The scale of the task, the length of the timescale and the current warped system all point in one direction. Labour should put its thinking head on before it is too late. It should have agreed on an experienced interim leader who commands general confidence to take the party past the Scottish elections and the European referendum and into 2017, while preparing Labour – and its electoral system – for a proper contest between its next generation of leadership candidates in time for 2020. Ideally it should still do this. Someone like Alan Johnson would be perfect for that interim role. His experience, popularity and authenticity would help Labour start to think straight.

Labour is very important for Britain. It needs to do its duty and get this right. It should think, discuss and choose, in that order. Right now it is rushing off in the opposite direction to the one that it needs and its supporters deserve.
Click to expand...
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-view-labour-leadership-race-interim-solution

Hard not to agree, the mood after the election was one promising a rethink of ideas and allowing a debate across the party, now we've got two ex-cabinet ministers cashing in on their profiles to control as many nominations as they possibly can and restrict alternative ideas getting through. Even Kendall's only in such a prime position because the remains of the Blairites have pooled resources to ensure there's an alternative on the ballot. We've not even had a proper hustings yet and Burnham's reportedly got over 100 nominations? After finishing a distant 4th last time, where he had to take some nominations from Balls to get 33 himself? So much for debate and new ideas. It should at the very least be a system where, if you get to 35 nominations, you can't get any more. Not every MP has to nominate someone.
 
It seems ridiculous to me that its not a secret ballot for the MPs. Even if people were relatively open about who they were voting for, no-one could know for sure so it might discourage the 'vote for me and i'll make it worth your while' cronyism. I agree with you @Ubik about restricting votes for candidates. As I said above there should be every attempt made to allow as many candidates into the ballot as possible. Frankly a Labour Party leadership contest where the Blairite candidate is the 'alternative' is a joke.
 
Ubik said:
Guardian's pretty scathing about the state of the race so far.
Click to expand...
Alan Johnson, another old school whinger who wants to drag the party to the right (see Mandy, Clarke, Reid). Fork off and die.
 
peterstorey said:
Alan Johnson, another old school whinger who wants to drag the party to the right (see Mandy, Clarke, Reid). Fork off and die.
Click to expand...
It's an editorial, I don't think Johnson writes those for the Guardian. As for Johnson as a person, he has more personal knowledge of what poverty is like than most people begging Labour to veer left and be unelectable. He recognises that you don't change things by being the perennial opposition, you have to be in government.
 
It's a good article through, the leadership contest has been appalling thus far, and hard to see it changing if it's only Burnham/ Cooper/ Kendall let through.
 
Johnson is quite well regarded and has a high moral threshold given what's happened to labour over the last two generations. There is a big difference between being a strong opposition that represents the people rather than just being a party existing for power like the Tories. If Labour had responded to the real desires for reform and change during this election it might not be in this predicament. I think Labour needs to dig deep, rediscover its political identity and restore its roots. This has happened so often in the party it's shouldn't be a shock any longer. Johnson might just be the answer.
 
Stretford End Phil said:
Johnson is quite well regarded and has a high moral threshold given what's happened to labour over the last two generations. There is a big difference between being a strong opposition that represents the people rather than just being a party existing for power like the Tories. If Labour had responded to the real desires for reform and change during this election it might not be in this predicament. I think Labour needs to dig deep, rediscover its political identity and restore its roots. This has happened so often in the party it's shouldn't be a shock any longer. Johnson might just be the answer.
Click to expand...
Labour already has a political identity that appeals to the progressive, multicultural, metropolitan population (see election).
 
peterstorey said:
Labour already has a political identity that appeals to the progressive, multicultural, metropolitan population (see election).
Click to expand...

Yes but it was based on only targeting 35% of the population and hence why Ed Balls has been criticised for the pre-election strategy. Johnson, as I understand it, was opposed and most of all the other election agents in Yorkshire where Balls (very apt) was standing. Aiming at a segment of society was a cheap effort and not a real Labour tradition.
 
Stretford End Phil said:
Yes but it was based on only targeting 35% of the population and hence why Ed Balls has been criticised for the pre-election strategy. Johnson, as I understand it, was opposed and most of all the other election agents in Yorkshire where Balls (very apt) was standing. Aiming at a segment of society was a cheap effort and not a real Labour tradition.
Click to expand...
You can't have a Labour party adopting Tory or UKIP policies to win votes, it defeats the object. What you have to do is persuade the voters and non-voters to support fairness and equality.
 
I thought that (like others in this thread) you were recommending Labour moving right.
 
Johnson's not really a Blairite, he has impeccable credentials with a poor working-class upbringing and trade unionism. However, he has moved inexorably to the right in the last 30 years.
 
The base will always vote for you, it's not like they will vote tory out of spite. This is how Blair did it and the traditionalists hated it until he got in.

Sadly Britain needs a period of getting fecked over by the tories to realise that maybe they need someone else in power.
 
Grinner said:
The base will always vote for you, it's not like they will vote tory out of spite. This is how Blair did it and the traditionalists hated it until he got in.

Sadly Britain needs a period of getting fecked over by the tories to realise that maybe they need someone else in power.
Click to expand...

Actually, Britain has been as you say in their grip since the 80s. There comes a point when it will swing. This electorate wanted change but was derailed by cheap nationalism. The Tories can't turn that around so they have continue on the nationalist front. Expect actions against the EU and Scotland.
 
Where the Tories would be happy enougg wit Burnhamn's election to leader, Kendall would present more of a challenge.



Liz Kendall unveils raft of centrist policies; McCluskey told to keep his beak out leadership race.

By Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent
21 May 2015

Len McCluskey is attempting to “sabotage” the Labour leadership contest, Liz Kendall has said as she warned that trade union bosses must not determine who wins.

The Labour health minister pledged to fight defence cuts, back free schools and give “radial devolution” to England if she became leader in an open pitch to Tory voters.

She said it was a “fantasy” that the party lost the last election because it was not Left-wing enough and claimed voters rejected Ed Miliband’s price freeze proposals because they were unbelievable.

Ms Kendall also refused to guarantee her Labour leadership rivals frontbench roles if she wins and said she knew the party would lose to the Tories before the election.

It came as Ms Kendall, one of only two MPs from the 2010 intake running for the leadership, lunched with political journalists and discussed the leadership campaign.

“Speaking of attempted sabotage, last weekend Len McCluskey said that if Labour doesn’t choose the right leader Unite might leave the party,” Ms Kendall joked in a speech.

“Now I’m proud to be a member of a trade union and I passionately want a strong, modern trade union movement that can advance the interests of the working people across the country.

“But this election can’t be about who the general secretaries say impresses the most or who makes the Labour Party comfortable or who’s the best known candidate in 2015. It must be about who's got the best chance of winning and changing the country in 2020.”

Her comments will be seen as an implicit criticism of Andy Burnham, her leadership rival said to be the favoured choice of Unite, the union headed up by Mr McCluskey.

Ms Kendall, who has been characterised as the 'Blairite' candidate pitching for the centre ground, rejected the old party “labels” and declined to say she wanted the backing of the former prime minister.

However she laid out a series of new policy positions that appealed to Tory voters who the party failed to win over in England at the last election.

Ms Kendall pledged to maintain Britain’s Nato obligation to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence and said she would “hold [David] Cameron to account” over “firm commitments” to allies.

She promised not to “obsess” on school structures and indicated she would not oppose Conservative plans for more free schools.

On England, she pledged “radical devolution of power” to towns and cities and for called for renewed pride in the nation as well as Britain as a whole.

Ms Kendall also appeared to rule out a tuition fees cut – a flagship policy of Mr Miliband – as she promised to focus more on early years education than lowering the cost of attending university.

During the question and answer session with Westminster journalists, Ms Kendall also went further before on a number of major policy areas.

She pledged to vote to stay in the European Union whatever the outcome of Mr Cameron’s renegotiation and said Labour must make the “early, strong, passionate case for Europe”.

Suggestions there should be a separate Scottish Labour Party were rejected, as was the idea of any new grammar schools or a veto for English MPs on English-only laws.

Ms Kendall also left open the idea of a second vote on her leadership if she wins the contest, calling the idea “interesting”. Pushed on whether the party should be allowed another say on whoever becomes leader, she added: “If people think you're not up to the job then yes."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...bour-leadership-contest-Liz-Kendall-says.html
Click to expand...



Liz will be promoting her campaign right across the country, travelling to constituencies in a yellow school bus.
 
To me those don't sound like centrist policies, they sound like right-wing ones. I know it's the Telegraph so it's to be expected, but I think a really dangerous general trend in the last 20 years is that the media has managed to shift the goal-posts of the 'left-right' spectrum.

The Telegraph, the Mail and the Murdoch press constantly portray centre-right politics as bang-in-the-middle, whilst anything even slightly further left is described as being hard left or socialist. It's a disaster for political debate and the resulting homogeneity of the political parties means there's no-one willing to make bold decisions.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
To me those don't sound like Centrist policies, they sound like right-wing policies. I know its the Telegraph, so it's to be expected, but I think a really dangerous general trend that's been happening for a while is that the media has managed to shift the goal-posts of the 'left-right' spectrum. The Telegraph, the Mail and the Murdoch press containtly portray centre-right politics as bang-in-the-middle, whilst anything even slightly further left is described as being hard left or socialist.
Click to expand...

It's not known as the Torygraph for nothing. No point in reading sense about Labour from that rag.
 
Stretford End Phil said:
It's not known as the Torygraph for nothing. No point in reading sense about Labour from that rag.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the vast majority of the media is controlled by people with the exact same outlook as the Telegraph. It's the media that creates the perceptions which influence the way floating voters think and vote, the concerted attack on Labour from the bulk of the press made all the difference in the marginals. If it was as simple as just ignoring the Telegraph Labour's task would be far easier than it is.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
The problem is that the vast majority of the media is controlled by people with the exact same outlook as the Telegraph. It's the media that creates the perceptions which influence the way floating voters think and vote, the concerted attack on Labour from the bulk of the press made all the difference in the marginals. If it was as simple as just ignoring the Telegraph Labour's task would be far easier than it is.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate but this has been Labour's eternal problem back to the 1900s. It's timeless, those who have always put down on those who don't. The only way to break it is on the streets, the Internet, and Twatter. The newspapers are dying and the now the challenge is TV. Labour needs a TV channel to broadcast an alternative view without being boring.
 
Why is defence policy or English devolution be a product of the right? Considering the challenges Labour is facing in England at present, such an emphasis is surely part of the solution. Kendall is also seizing upon Tory weakness, as Osborne has called on the MoD to enact further cuts.
 
Stretford End Phil said:
Sorry mate but this has been Labour's eternal problem back to the 1900s. It's timeless, those who have always put down on those who don't. The only way to break it is on the streets, the Internet, and Twatter. The newspapers are dying and the now the challenge is TV. Labour needs a TV channel to broadcast an alternative view without being boring.
Click to expand...

Labour were negatively influenced by the media this time, but it's hard to feel sorry for them when they had the backing of Murdoch throughout the Blair era. They're not this anti-establishment voice who have the entire media against them; they are the establishment, just not to the same degree the Tories are. Granted, Miliband seemed to want to move the party in an improved direction in that regard, but if 2020 nears and Labour are looking like they'll definitely win, Murdoch may switch to them again. And if that happens, Labour will probably embrace him with open arms.
 
Cheesy said:
Labour were negatively influenced by the media this time, but it's hard to feel sorry for them when they had the backing of Murdoch throughout the Blair era. They're not this anti-establishment voice who have the entire media against them; they are the establishment, just not to the same degree the Tories are. Granted, Miliband seemed to want to move the party in an improved direction in that regard, but if 2020 nears and Labour are looking like they'll definitely win, Murdoch may switch to them again. And if that happens, Labour will probably embrace him with open arms.
Click to expand...

Very good points. I do think we have to wait and see how the Tories treat Scotland before we start thinking 2020. The Blairites abused the party and the media, the fall out has spooked left politics but it's not impossible to restore some traditions and shape a better political culture.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
The problem is that the vast majority of the media is controlled by people with the exact same outlook as the Telegraph.
Click to expand...

The Telegraph wouldn't appreciate being associated with certain tabloids, of that i am confident. lol The political motivations of the media vary depending upon the format; whilst it could be said that print output is of a majority right-leaning disposition, broadcasting arguably veers to the left.
 
Stretford End Phil said:
Sorry mate but this has been Labour's eternal problem back to the 1900s. It's timeless, those who have always put down on those who don't. The only way to break it is on the streets, the Internet, and Twatter. The newspapers are dying and the now the challenge is TV. Labour needs a TV channel to broadcast an alternative view without being boring.
Click to expand...

For all the talk of the newspapers dying, we have an aging population of whom the vast majority still turn to the papers for their political news as, rightly or wrongly, for them it retains a degree of respectability and reputability than the Internet hasn't got. A left-wing Labour Party will always have problems as long as that's still the case. I agree with you entirely on the bolded though, I'm not as much of a defeatist as my post may have made out. Whilst I think the media swung it for the Tories in this election, the papers are clearly not omnipotent and they can be challenged.

As for a TV channel, I don't think that's legal. Isn't all broadcast media is supposed to politically neutral? Like obviously it doesn't work out that way in practice, as there's a lot of leeway for 'asking the questions the public want to hear', even if those questions are biased, but on the face of it a formal Labour TV channel I think would break the law. There's a huge grey area with youtube channels and internet telly in general, not sure where they fit into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.