next labour leader

Cheesy said:
I honestly think that Labour under Corbyn could make some decent inroads again in Scotland. He's exactly the type of figure they need. He's someone who's exactly what a lot of SNP voters would want - perceived as principled, and fairly anti-establishment. The fact that he's got the Tory party and a large portion of the Labour party ridiculing him already stands in his favour. That's the sort of thing a lot of SNP voters will eat up. I'm not definitely going to vote for Labour or anything if he gets in, but I'm definitely more likely to give it some consideration, and I've seen plenty of others in the same boat.

As for the other two, would Burnham or Cooper do much better? The UKIP vote in the North is, presumably, consisted of many who feel a bit alienated with Labour and much of what it stands for. Burnham or Cooper aren't going to win those voters back.

And for the aspirational middle Britain, would Burnham or Cooper have anywhere near enough to tempt them away from the Tories? Presumably middle Britain, in its more general terms, is happy with the government currently, and thus is unlikely to turn back to Labour unless they're offering something really good.

Corbyn probably won't win an election, but I feel like he's a lot more likely to give the Tories some decent opposition than the other two, who are probably safer choices but, in reality, stopgaps until Labour choose their next leader after a 2020 defeat.
Click to expand...

Naturally, i wouldn't presume to tell you how the land lies in Scotland; although i do wonder if @Ubik's suggestion of an independent Scottish Labour Party might not be where the journey ends. Or even an entirely new unionist party, complete re-branding job.

I think Labour could build a campaign around Cooper, perhaps not one of ultimate triumph but it would probably leave the party in the best position post 2020 (successive failures in England would begin to have a toll on the activist base). She's demonstrated greater potential than Corbyn in the media appearances i've seen, and would i suspect be more canny with some of her policy choices.

I was reading an article earlier this morning in which some Tory figures expressed their doubts about Cameron walking away from power, yet were such to occur Corbyn would be too far removed on the political spectrum to take advantage. Of course in the interim there'll have been an EU referendum, a topic the prospective Labour leader could do with providing more clarity on.
 
Last edited:
I would have thought Corbyn would be quite well placed to pick up UKIP voters in the north. Wasn't that vote essentially anti establishment, disenfranchised working class voters who felt labour didn't offer a real alternative? They might not like his stance on immigration but that might pale in comparison to the other stuff.

Clearly his real strategy isn't to win over any of those 3 specific parts of the electorate mentioned above. It's about picking up people who couldn't be bothered to vote at all, because they didn't feel there was a real option that spoke for them. If he could make significant inroads into those groups he could do well, in theory.

That said I think if he is made leader we'll be seeing a lot more of the Tories, despite the hatred many more will feel for them by the end of this parliament.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Naturally, i wouldn't presume to tell you how the land lies in Scotland; although i do wonder if @Ubik's suggestion of an independent Scottish Labour Party might not be where the journey ends. Or even an entirely new unionist party, complete re-branding job.

I think Labour could build a campaign around Cooper, perhaps not one of ultimate triumph but it would probably leave the party in the best position post 2020 (successive failures in England would begin to have a toll on the activist base). She's demonstrated greater potential than Corbyn in the media appearances i've seen, and would i suspect be more canny with some of her policy choices.

I was reading an article earlier this morning in which some Tory figures expressed their doubts about Cameron walking away from power, yet were such to occur Corbyn would be too far removed on the political spectrum to take advantage. Of course in the interim there'll have been an EU referendum, a topic the prospective Labour leader could do with providing more clarity on.
Click to expand...

Independent Scottish Labour could be a possibility, but I still don't see it happening. Even if it does, an independent party which works very closely with UK Labour is still going to receive the same criticisms that Scottish Labour currently receives in regards to essentially being a branch office. In addition, if Scottish Labour become an independent party, they have to at least make it look like they're doing so out of principle, and because it's genuinely a good idea democratically, as opposed to merely doing so because it's electorally convenient, as they often do in a painfully obvious manner.

Their main problem right now though is that Kezia Dugdale is about to be appointed their new leader (probably), and she's painfully awful. She was closely associated with the likes of Murphy, and was another politician who didn't seem to realise that constantly shouting down the SNP while forgetting to tell people why to actually vote for Labour isn't a very good tactic. Scottish Labour need someone fresh and new, but she's associated with the old guard despite being fairly young. Wouldn't be surprised if the Tories manage to get the 2nd party spot up here in a few years.

As for Cooper, she wouldn't be an awful option, but I just find her a little bit bland. She's fairly uninspiring, and a bit of an incredibly safe choice if the party wants to just ride out the next 5 years then focus more on winning in 2025.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I think Labour could build a campaign around Cooper, perhaps not one of ultimate triumph but it would probably leave the party in the best position post 2020 (successive failures in England would begin to have a toll on the activist base). She's demonstrated greater potential than Corbyn in the media appearances i've seen, and would i suspect be more canny with some of her policy choices.
Click to expand...

Dunno if you spotted this because I believe you were away recently, but the Smith Institute did a report on why Labour lost

Red Alert: Why Labour lost and what it needs to do to change

From a Labour perspective it has a lot of depressing reading. However the Summary & Page 31 outline the electoral challenge for the party.

  • Labour faces an even bigger challenge in 2020, and (with boundary changes) will have to win over 100 seats to command a majority, compared with 68 seats in 2015.
  • Most of these 100 seats need to be taken from the Tories (around 92 seats). They are spread across the country. The Conservative-Labour marginals will be in: middle Britain – major towns and outer urban areas; wealthier Britain in rural and suburban parts of the midlands and north; new towns, largely located in the south, and struggling seaside towns.
  • In the 92 seats only 10 had a combined Lib Dem and Green vote that was bigger than UKIP’s.
Click to expand...
Much of the party seems to be doing a finger-in-the-ears-la-la-la job when judging the electoral landscape at the moment. Its certainly true that the party needs to stop losing votes in working class parts of the North, and make inroads in Scotland (which is why my personal preferred candidate Kendall isn't right for the job).

But it won't get back into power until it wins that block of seats in non-metropolitan areas in the midlands and the south. Lets be honest, they're not turning around all 90 odd seats by 2020 unless some deus ex machina appears. But at least Cooper is positioning the party in a place where they might start to make some inroads into those constituencies over the next 5 years.
 
Swarmy blairites are getting desperate, this is a new low - even by their standards:

Alastair Campbell urges people outside Labour to sign up and vote against Jeremy Corbyn
mental.gt.jpg



The New Labour spin doctor said Mr Corbyn has to be stopped


Jon Stone

Monday 10 August 2015

People who are not members of the Labour party should register to vote in its leadership election so they can stop Jeremy Corbyn winning, Tony Blair’s former spin doctor has said.

Alastair Campbell, who served as New Labour’s director of communications from 1997 until 2003, claimed Mr Corbyn could destroy Labour if he became leader and said he had to be beaten.

“The madness of flirting with the idea of Corbyn as leader has to stop,” he wrote in a post on his blog. “That means no first preferences, no second preferences, no any preferences. It frankly means ABC, Anyone But Corbyn.

“Anyone who wants to see another Labour government one day should do what people who want a Corbyn leadership are doing – namely sign up as registered supporters for three quid in the next few days; but then I would hope they vote ABC.”

Some Labour figures have previously criticised people signing up to vote in the contest and characterised them as “infiltrators”.

Mr Campbell also claimed that Mr Corbyn’s popularity was responsible for people rejecting the other candidates.

“One of the worst aspects of the so-called Corbynmania is that it is obscuring the solid decent abilities of the other candidates, who are each one of them better than most of the media will acknowledge, and far better equipped for the hard graft of detailed policy-making that has a chance of actually happening, so that we can make [change],” he argued.

A series of indicators including polls, local party nominations, and meeting attendance suggest that the left-winger is the favourite to succeed Ed Miliband to lead his party.

Mr Campbell is the latest New Labour figure to come out against Mr Corbyn.

Last month Tony Blair described the politics of the left-winger's supporters as "reactionary" and said anyone who believed in Mr Corbyn in their heart should "get a heart transplant".

Mr Corbyn is one of four candidates for the Labour leadership election – the others are Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall, and Yvette Cooper.
 
Tomorrow: Dracula endorses Corbyn
 
Wait, so Campbell encouraging people to sign up to vote is now a new low? There's plenty of legit stuff to criticise Campbell for, let's not start making stuff up to feel indignant, that's the kind of thing the Mail does.
 
All these Labour MPs publicly attacking Corbyn must have the least self awareness in the country. They are making the party look divided and a joke.
 
The Mitcher said:
They can disagree with him, but its so vehement and they are more interested in attacking his character than his arguments which is what I am trying to get at.
Click to expand...
But the stuff directed at kendel has been far more personal.
The tories must be loving this slow drawn out attack labour is undertaking upon its self.
I hope they look at the timetable for future elections and shorten it as it's doing more harm than good.
 
The Mitcher said:
They can disagree with him, but its so vehement and they are more interested in attacking his character than his arguments which is what I am trying to get at.
Click to expand...
Campbell didn't attack his character, in fact he praised it, he's attacking his politics which I would've thought is fair game when you're running to be leader of the opposition. They want Labour to win elections rather than be in opposition for another 15 years.
 
Russia welcomes Jeremy Corbyn in Labour leadership contest

Fyodor Lukyanov, a key associate close to the Russian foreign ministry, says Russia would welcome a leader like Jeremy Corbyn after leftwinger suggests Britain should have closer ties with the country

By Michael Wilkinson, Political Correspondent, and Roland Oliphant, Moscow Correspondent
11 Aug 2015

Russia would welcome Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, a key associate linked to the Russian foreign ministry has said.

It comes after the leftwinger hinted that he would want to form a closer relationship between Britain and Russia.

Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor of the journal "Russia in Global Affairs" and considered very close to the Russian foreign ministry, said of Mr Corbyn: "I think Russia would certainly be pleased to see such a person as the head of either major party. But my intuition tells me it is not very likely."

Mr Corbyn told the Russia Today news channel that he wanted Britain to work closer with its international opponents and treat them with more respect.

He told the Kremlin-funded media outlet: "What is security? Is security the ability to bomb, maim, kill, destroy, or is security the ability to get on with other people and have some kind of respectful existence with them?"

The Russia Today presenter said that the last leader to oppose US policy was Harold Wilson, adding: "We know all about the smear tactics against him".

But Mr Corbyn, asked if he too was ready to be smeared, said: "Look, if you believe in peace, you believe in human rights, you believe in justice and you believe in a foreign policy that sets those at the heart, rather than to militarily dominate the world. There are people who won't agree with that but will understand the need for peace and justice."

The Islington MP has taken part in a number of interviews with the propaganda TV station.

In April 2011 he highlighted on Twitter how he favoured the channel:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...remy-Corbyn-in-Labour-leadership-contest.html
Click to expand...

Additionally...
Jeremy Corbyn: Nato belligerence endangers us all - Morning Star



Is he simply a hypocrite or a fool, i wonder. The earlier column of his from the Morning Star is suggestive of a more sinister side to Honest Jeremy, but more importantly it exemplifies why some of his opinions would just prove too unpalatable for a prospective PM.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Additionally...
Jeremy Corbyn: Nato belligerence endangers us all - Morning Star



Is he simply a hypocrite or a fool, i wonder. The earlier column of his from the Morning Star is suggestive of a more sinister side to Honest Jeremy, but more importantly it exemplifies why some of his opinions would just prove too unpalatable for a prospective PM.
Click to expand...

The Telegraph story(Which is laughably bad by the way)is essentially a guy who knows a guy who knows someone in the Russian foreign ministry who thinks Corbyn would be a good Labour leader. It's not really bad news,shit it's hardly news in the first place. Then add in the bias in all the Telegraph articles about Corbyn(They've put head shots of Corbyn and Putin side by side in this one)and it's not worth taking much notice of.

And of course Corbyns not a huge fan of Nato or the excises they are practising now, the guy is the National Chair of the Stop the War Coalition. He's not a big fan of you know the War stuff, the guy is a lets all hold hands lefty and talk things out, what do people expect.
Personally foreign policy is probably the place where I disagree with Corbyn the most although comparing it to the one in place now(Drop a few bombs a go home) I would favour Corbyns.

Still not sure how you get something sinister from any of that.
 
Last edited:
bishblaize said:
Dunno if you spotted this because I believe you were away recently, but the Smith Institute did a report on why Labour lost

Red Alert: Why Labour lost and what it needs to do to change

From a Labour perspective it has a lot of depressing reading. However the Summary & Page 31 outline the electoral challenge for the party.


Much of the party seems to be doing a finger-in-the-ears-la-la-la job when judging the electoral landscape at the moment. Its certainly true that the party needs to stop losing votes in working class parts of the North, and make inroads in Scotland (which is why my personal preferred candidate Kendall isn't right for the job).

But it won't get back into power until it wins that block of seats in non-metropolitan areas in the midlands and the south. Lets be honest, they're not turning around all 90 odd seats by 2020 unless some deus ex machina appears. But at least Cooper is positioning the party in a place where they might start to make some inroads into those constituencies over the next 5 years.
Click to expand...

I think i saw you reference the report to another poster while i was away, although i have not myself read the document in its entirety. 92 does sound like a mountain electorally, yet Labour might not need to do all of the pushing if the Conservatives bungle the succession process. And presumably one of the Lib Dems or UKIP will begin to threaten their seats in the South West once again.

With Scotland's future status being rife with uncertainty (some SNP members recently split away to form their own nationalist party) Labour must have an eye to the target demographic groups in England, which is one of Corbyn's weaknesses IMO.

I'll have to set my iPad to read me the detail of that report a little later.


Sweet Square said:
The Telegraph story(Which is laughably bad by the way)is essentially a guy who knows a guy who knows someone in the Russian foreign ministry who thinks Corbyn would be a good Labour leader. It's not really bad news,shit it's hardly news in the first place. Then add in the bias in all the Telegraph articles about Corbyn(They've put head shots of Corbyn and Putin side by side in this one)and it's not worth taking much notice of.

And of course Corbyns not a huge fan of Nato or the excises they are practising now, the guy is the National Chair of the Stop the War Coalition. He's not a big fan of you know the War stuff, the guy is a lets all hold hands lefty and talk things out, what do people expect.
Personally foreign policy is probably the place where I disagree with Corbyn the most although comparing it to the one in place now(Drop a few bombs a go home) I would favour Corbyns.

Still not sure how you get something sinister from any of that.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less about the offhand remarks of this person in Russia, and the Russia Today interview was the catalyst for the article in any event. You can bemoan the Telegraph as you please, however the the Independent gave the story fairly similar coverage.

Corbyn's supporters ought to consider the cultural and political dynamics in this country, and the fact that his views on foreign policy are unlikely to garner approval amongst a majority of the public.

What i find sinister are the details Corbyn omits from his judgements. There was an almost satisfied undertone when he spoke about the rise of Russia and China, with their faults seemingly of little import. As such, i see a conflict between his campaigning on human rights and the role he would have the UK play in the world.
 
Last edited:
Ubik said:
Wait, so Campbell encouraging people to sign up to vote is now a new low? There's plenty of legit stuff to criticise Campbell for, let's not start making stuff up to feel indignant, that's the kind of thing the Mail does.
Click to expand...

If that was the case it wouldn't spark any sort of outcry - no one will bat an eyelid if Campbell simply encouraged folks to sign up and take part.

Instead he's petulantly pleading with anyone outside the party to sign up with the sole intention of keeping Corbyn out (his laughable 'ABC - Anyone but Corbyn' rhetoric). He's not even endorsing a candidate, just simply and desperately trying smear and sabotage the Corbyn camp as much as possible.

And people wonder why Corbyn is leading in the polls, just a shame they can't listen to the spin doctor who helped con the nation into an illegal and devastating war instead.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Additionally...
Jeremy Corbyn: Nato belligerence endangers us all - Morning Star



Is he simply a hypocrite or a fool, i wonder. The earlier column of his from the Morning Star is suggestive of a more sinister side to Honest Jeremy, but more importantly it exemplifies why some of his opinions would just prove too unpalatable for a prospective PM.
Click to expand...

A renown anti-war activist being opposed to military aggression and belligerent options, imagine that. Just as well the Blairites are the polar opposite.
 
Another day and once again each paper is meeting its anti-Corbyn quota. The Telegraph are exceeding themselves, even by their own standards.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Another day and once again each paper is meeting its anti-Corbyn quota. The Telegraph are exceeding themselves, even by their own standards.
Click to expand...

Even The Guardian seems intent on outdoing them.

Yet everyday his campaign is gaining more followers and momentum, keep it up I say :)
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Additionally...
Jeremy Corbyn: Nato belligerence endangers us all - Morning Star



Is he simply a hypocrite or a fool, i wonder. The earlier column of his from the Morning Star is suggestive of a more sinister side to Honest Jeremy, but more importantly it exemplifies why some of his opinions would just prove too unpalatable for a prospective PM.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with what he says in this column?

Corbyn's supporters ought to consider the cultural and political dynamics in this country, and the fact that his views on foreign policy are unlikely to garner approval amongst a majority of the public.
Click to expand...

That's just speculation.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I
Corbyn's supporters ought to consider the cultural and political dynamics in this country, and the fact that his views on foreign policy are unlikely to garner approval amongst a majority of the public.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point considering how recently Cameron's government was at odds with the British public regarding intervention in Syria.

I think you might be surprised regarding the public's views towards Corbyn's take on foreign policy. The post 9/11 hysteria has largely been extinguished and most people are fatigued by the neolib adventures in Iraq and Libya. If anything Corbyn's inclination towards diplomacy and anti-belligerent stances will likely be welcomed as a breath of fresh air for the public.
 
Ubik said:
Campbell didn't attack his character, in fact he praised it, he's attacking his politics which I would've thought is fair game when you're running to be leader of the opposition. They want Labour to win elections rather than be in opposition for another 15 years.
Click to expand...
They don't want Labour to win elections on a left-wing platform. They prefer the Tories to Corbyn, as their hero Blair declared openly.
 
Kaos said:
If that was the case it wouldn't spark any sort of outcry - no one will bat an eyelid if Campbell simply encouraged folks to sign up and take part.

Instead he's petulantly pleading with anyone outside the party to sign up with the sole intention of keeping Corbyn out (his laughable 'ABC - Anyone but Corbyn' rhetoric). He's not even endorsing a candidate, just simply and desperately trying smear and sabotage the Corbyn camp as much as possible.

And people wonder why Corbyn is leading in the polls, just a shame they can't listen to the spin doctor who helped con the nation into an illegal and devastating war instead.
Click to expand...
Firstly, anyone outside the party can't join. You have to declare support for it. In other words, he's encouraging people to do what Corbyn's camp have been doing successfully in getting people that are Labour voters to become members/supporters. This is not an affront to the democratic process as you want it to be, it's trying to broaden the electorate. He doesn't want a particular candidate to win... how many Corbyn supporters want one of the other three to win, given they're all "Tory lite"? Smearing and sabotaging? Coming from the guy that called one of the candidates a vile wench... Following the contest from the start, there's one group of supporters that have been far worse than the others in terms of abusing other candidates.
 
Kaos said:
If anything Corbyn's inclination towards diplomacy and anti-belligerent stances will likely be welcomed as a breath of fresh air for the public.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen - very little - Mr Corbyn is hardly a diplomat. :smirk:

Diplomacy is the supreme art of realism. Corbyn is a left wing fantasist whose entire career is one long refusal to acknowledge unpalatable truths. A purblind insistence that your enemies are not your enemies, they're just misunderstood, is self-indulgent myopia, not diplomacy.
 
I heard Burnham say he wouldn't change if he became leader, and wouldn't give up his Everton season ticket. Not sure what I make of that, maybe trying too hard to be a man of the people.
 
Will Absolute said:
Diplomacy is the supreme art of realism. Corbyn is a left wing fantasist whose entire career is one long refusal to acknowledge unpalatable truths. A purblind insistence that your enemies are not your enemies, they're just misunderstood, is self-indulgent myopia, not diplomacy.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
Kaos said:
A renown anti-war activist being opposed to military aggression and belligerent options, imagine that. Just as well the Blairites are the polar opposite.
Click to expand...

It seems to me, that he's rather selective when determining which act of aggression is dangerous and which is worthy of explanation or forgiveness.


Mciahel Goodman said:
That's just speculation.
Click to expand...
Kaos said:
This is an interesting point considering how recently Cameron's government was at odds with the British public regarding intervention in Syria.

I think you might be surprised regarding the public's views towards Corbyn's take on foreign policy. The post 9/11 hysteria has largely been extinguished and most people are fatigued by the neolib adventures in Iraq and Libya. If anything Corbyn's inclination towards diplomacy and anti-belligerent stances will likely be welcomed as a breath of fresh air for the public.
Click to expand...

Let's write up a few of Jeremy's likely foreign policy statements for 2020 (were he being frank with the electorate):

"As your Prime Minister, i will consider Argentina's claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands."
"As a tax haven we should be well rid of Gibraltar, i'd hand the territory over to Spain tomorrow"
"The UK shall cease all sanctions against Russia and its leadership. Putin was provoked by the West into invading Crimea and eastern Ukraine."
"The United Kingdom needs to step back from the ills and threats of the world; therefore, my government would enact a policy of cuts to all three services and unilateral nuclear disarmament."
"Military operations against IS are to be suspended in favour of diplomacy."
"Unmanaged, mass immigration should be embraced rather than controlled."

How many of the above can you envisage being vote winner for Labour?


ThierryHenry said:
Am I naive to think that foreign policy won't, and shouldn't be seen as a big deal in the short-to-medium term future? Was barely mentioned in the last election.
Click to expand...

If by that time Britain has voted to leave the EU, i'd venture to say that foreign affairs will be one of the msot important issues of the 2020 election.


ThierryHenry said:
Nick's complicated. :)
Click to expand...

Of the C words you could've gone with i'm glad you went with that one. ;)


Crono said:
@Nick 0208 Ldn aren't you a Tory?
Click to expand...

That really depends on the topic, and what your expectations are of someone when applying such a description. However @DiseaseOfTheAge is correct, i did vote for the Greens in May.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.