They've been thinking Labour screwed the economy for the last five years though as the two Eds made the decision to ignore the past and focus on the future, which plainly did not work. Just make the small concession (whilst saying Tories supported the spending levels), reinforce the fact it was a banking crisis from a sub-prime mortgage crash and get on with the main business of opposition. If Labour want to win another election then they need to do it or they'll just get bogged down in it again and again.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
How did Cooper do she has always struck me as a good politician albeit with questionable taste in men... Which may be the undoing of her in this election
That man still clearly affects her choices at the moment, she seems to be the last one maintaining the previous line on the economy. Other than that she didn't really come to the fore other than a small part on gender imbalance in the tech industry, from memory. I'd say Burnham's definitely ahead of her in terms of the "older" generation that would be seen as a safe pair of hands. Now Umunna's out he's the clear frontrunner, but I think Kendall will end up pushing him close.
If they don't kill it off now it will be the zombie returning in 2020 to kill them.
Last edited:
Exactly.
Whoever wins will be in a very vulnerable position If
jarvis decided over the next couple of years that the timing is now right
Or Chuka does not get exposed in the papers tomorrow and feels he can now cope with the intrusions
Or David Milliband stands in a by-election and becomes an MP
jarvis decided over the next couple of years that the timing is now right
Or Chuka does not get exposed in the papers tomorrow and feels he can now cope with the intrusions
Or David Milliband stands in a by-election and becomes an MP
Stella Creasy now standing for deputy along with Ben Bradshaw, Tom Watson and Caroline Flint (possibly others I've forgotten too, Angela Eagle might be). One of the best talkers Labour have, hard working and a very good campaigner. Probably won't win but hopefully puts her forward for higher profile jobs in the shadow cabinet.
Wow... What a lack of charismatic and inspiring option.
As with the leadership race it's self underwhelming would seem to be the best description.
Surely jarvis or chuka could go for this as it shouldn't be a role that totally takes over their life and comes with mass press intrusion? (if they were being genuine in their reasoning not to run)
Would be fine with Stella Creasy or Tom Watson as deputy leader.
I don't get this nuBlairite analysis that the party needs to move right.
First, there are 3 discrete constituencies:
- Scotland
- metro England & Wales
- shires England and Wales
Metro E&W voted for the Ed offer, Scotland said it was too Tory-lite. So you're not winning Scotland, risk losing metro E&W and punt at winning shires?
Second, the Lib-Dems have just been annihilated after playing Tory-lite (as voters cut out the middleman).
First, there are 3 discrete constituencies:
- Scotland
- metro England & Wales
- shires England and Wales
Metro E&W voted for the Ed offer, Scotland said it was too Tory-lite. So you're not winning Scotland, risk losing metro E&W and punt at winning shires?
Second, the Lib-Dems have just been annihilated after playing Tory-lite (as voters cut out the middleman).
There must be at least another constituency in your list there Pete, otherwise Labour would have no chance of ever winning elections given that all Scotland's extra 58 seats puts them below 300 still. Wales went against Labour, working class south-east towns went against Labour, Yorkshire went against Labour, the midlands went against Labour. They all moved towards the Tories, and they all need to be won for Labour to gain power (or even to be just the largest party).
So, is there some earth-shattering Umunna splash in one of the Sunday papers?
No, it never had anything to do with the media - tactical withdrawal.
There was a lot of speculation around drugs / dealing whilst at uni
It could be just speculation enough... I do find it hard to believe chuka who seems to clamour to be on TV as much as possible, has been in front line politics for a while and who has even been caught out by the media in the past for editing his own wiki page with the Obama references didn't know what he was letting himself in for
To what end though? Now he looks like a quitter who cannot handle pressure.
It can't be because of this surely. So he likes the high life...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-bar-named-rattled-leadership-contender.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-bar-named-rattled-leadership-contender.html
Outside London, a lot of the working class vote in metro areas like Manchester has gone to UKIP. They didnt vote for Ed, many left and went to UKIP but disgruntled Lib Dems going Labour meant the vote just about held up. But dont think for a moment this was a good election for Labour in cities outside London, if the Lib Dem vote had held up they'd have lost many seats.
In Scotland the primary issue is about Scottish voice and representation, as well as the complacency of Scottish Labour to its voters. People think that the SNP is a vibrant and upwardly mobile party and that Scottish Labour is tired and out of date. Again, this isn't about the paradigm of right and left. Besides the SNP really aren't a far left party, just look at the work of the scottish parliament, where the SNP are entirely centre left.
As for middle england, you can't ignore them if you want to win the election. Labour are 100 seats down, with boundary changes come. Even if they claw back half the seats they lost in Scotland, they're going to need to find another 75+* seats from somewhere. There simply aren't enough marginal seats in Labour's comfort zones to get close to that number.
*depending on swing
Last edited:
Stella won't get Deputy, but it'll be good to see her national profile continue to rise. Wonder what role she'll get in the shadow cabinet.
The Telegraph were more sympathetic
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11610529/The-tragic-past-haunting-Chuka-Umunna.html
I think @peterstorey is correct. It is not the right time for Chuka. It was badly handled but the specifics of the story were that his family were struggling, not him. I am sure that he can recover from this and will be a serious force in the future.
Until they become a UK wide party, no Labour government, no matter who would head it up, would ever get my support.
Though I was disappointed that Murphy stood down, I thought he could have actually revitalised Scottish Labour and could take the SNP down a peg or two.
Though I was disappointed that Murphy stood down, I thought he could have actually revitalised Scottish Labour and could take the SNP down a peg or two.
This is interesting - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...mentary-candidates-poll-reveals-10255799.html
Poll of defeated Labour candidates had Burnham on top with 27%, Kendall second with 18%, Umunna third with 13% and Cooper fourth with 8%. Only a sample of 62 so not exactly flawless, but surprising Umunna was so far back (it was done before he dropped out). Burnham's getting a lot of establishment support now though, Rachel Reeves endorsing him who would've previously backed Umunna, and she'd presumably be his shadow chancellor if he won the leadership. Kendall's going to have to go on a publicity drive before he gets too far out in front. He's also apparently trying to hoover up as many MP nominations as physically possible to prevent others entering the field, which concerns me somewhat.
Poll of defeated Labour candidates had Burnham on top with 27%, Kendall second with 18%, Umunna third with 13% and Cooper fourth with 8%. Only a sample of 62 so not exactly flawless, but surprising Umunna was so far back (it was done before he dropped out). Burnham's getting a lot of establishment support now though, Rachel Reeves endorsing him who would've previously backed Umunna, and she'd presumably be his shadow chancellor if he won the leadership. Kendall's going to have to go on a publicity drive before he gets too far out in front. He's also apparently trying to hoover up as many MP nominations as physically possible to prevent others entering the field, which concerns me somewhat.
Anyone with a United 'connection'?
Burnham's an Everton season ticket holder, the others don't strike you as football fans.
Edit - Sounds like Chuka's a Palace fan too. His Dad was even on the board (the only black Director within the Premiership at the time) before he was killed.
Edit - Sounds like Chuka's a Palace fan too. His Dad was even on the board (the only black Director within the Premiership at the time) before he was killed.
Last edited:
There is an interesting programme on Radio 4 at present about the unique plight of Labour in England; i'll post a link to it later.
His position was untenable. Had an awful election campaign, and did nothing to reverse Labour's misfortune; if anything he ended up heightening it.
The telegraph is running a very supportive piece on him today, strangely.
Oh I know, I was just surprised it was so bad.
I actually thought that had Labour not preformed so bad he could have stayed on, and actually built something with them.
This is the programme to which i was referring :: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05v6glv
It features union leader Len McCluskey, Jon Crudas and John Denham.
McCluskey hints at a split from the Labour movement unless the new leader engages with the concerns of "ordinary working people" (being from one of Saturn's moons he certainly doesn't speak for me). A recurring theme amongst other contributors is the establishment of a distinct English Labour Party.
It features union leader Len McCluskey, Jon Crudas and John Denham.
McCluskey hints at a split from the Labour movement unless the new leader engages with the concerns of "ordinary working people" (being from one of Saturn's moons he certainly doesn't speak for me). A recurring theme amongst other contributors is the establishment of a distinct English Labour Party.
Last edited:
This had better not be true
This contest needs to be a full post-mortem into why the party has lost connection with the electorate, and that means fielding candidates willing to challenge each other, aggressively if necessary, before unifying behind whoever wins. If it's going to be an undemocratic coronation of the candidate the unions (or should I say, Len McCluskey) prefer(s) then we might as well give up now. Someone on Burnham's campaign was essentially bragging about it in the Times today, which is something that has turned me off voting for him immediately.
This contest needs to be a full post-mortem into why the party has lost connection with the electorate, and that means fielding candidates willing to challenge each other, aggressively if necessary, before unifying behind whoever wins. If it's going to be an undemocratic coronation of the candidate the unions (or should I say, Len McCluskey) prefer(s) then we might as well give up now. Someone on Burnham's campaign was essentially bragging about it in the Times today, which is something that has turned me off voting for him immediately.
This time round is going to be very interesting and a lot more open because of the change in voting system. For those not in the know, previously votes were split up between Labour MPs/MEPs, members of affiliated unions and party membership. Each operated on a one member one vote system and constituted 33.3% of the overall vote, which meant that those who had risen to candidate status within the party effectively had voting power equivalent to that of about 650-700 ordinary members. This time round every member has an equal vote in an AV system, so the system takes a significant amount of power from the unions and the Parliamentary party and gives a whole lot more to the membership.
I joined the Labour Party the day after the election partly to try and make a difference but also so I got a vote on the leadership and a lot of my friends are doing the same. There's also an option to pay a one-off £3 to become a 'supporter' who can vote in the leadership election but doesn't get any of the other benefits of membership. I guess its to try and boost turnout and end up with a candidate the electorate want rather than one the unions or the hierarchy want. Whilst the unions will be weakened, Labour membership tends far more to the left than the parliamentary party, so I hope to see a shift to the left to try and win back Scotland, along with challenging in the Tory seats by taking back the working class protest votes that went to UKIP.
also - is there a reason this thread doesn't show up in the Current Events section? I had to search to find it
I joined the Labour Party the day after the election partly to try and make a difference but also so I got a vote on the leadership and a lot of my friends are doing the same. There's also an option to pay a one-off £3 to become a 'supporter' who can vote in the leadership election but doesn't get any of the other benefits of membership. I guess its to try and boost turnout and end up with a candidate the electorate want rather than one the unions or the hierarchy want. Whilst the unions will be weakened, Labour membership tends far more to the left than the parliamentary party, so I hope to see a shift to the left to try and win back Scotland, along with challenging in the Tory seats by taking back the working class protest votes that went to UKIP.
also - is there a reason this thread doesn't show up in the Current Events section? I had to search to find it
Maybe the OP was posted by someone you have on Ignore, jeff.
The Scottish labour leader? I saw him for the first time when he was giving a defeat speech, even then he seemed much more charasmatic than Miliband and a pretty nice bloke who is easier to relate to for most people in my opinion. Shame if he quit.
Nah, he had to go. After the referendum, Scottish Labour needed someone new, and fresh. Murphy's associated with the Blair era, and his left-wing, socialist message that he was trying to put across up here seemed bizarre considering he voted to introduce tuition fees down south, among other things. Labour need to win back SNP voters; this would have been very difficult under Murphy, who'd have been defeated comfortably in 2016 anyway.
Yep. I had nothing against him, personally. I think his job was impossible, to be honest. He's not the right choice going forward though.
I wouldn't say that's demonstrably the case, if you look at the 2010 leader election - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2010 - David Miliband actually did consistently better with the membership than he did with MPs, albeit only slightly, but he was always much the top choice of that group, even after all preferences are taken into account. Should note with those results for the unions (particularly the number of them) - that was when there was automatic supporter status for union members, meaning they could all vote and would have all their voting packs sent by the unions along with recommendations. This time round, they have to affiliate themselves as supporters and the voting packs will be sent by an independent group with no recommendations, and as a result the union part of the vote will very likely take up the 1/3 that it did in previous elections.
@Ubik
Did you have much of an opinion in 2010? I was quite strongly in favour of Ed (though a rather irational part of me would've prefered Abbot). In hindsight - I think I'd've preferred David. My thoughts at the time were that I don't like the Labour party being as far to the right as it can go as I felt this pushed politics on the whole to the right. I think now, I'm more drawn towards a centrist Labour party that I'd never vote for but could potentially take on the Tories whilst me and the other committed lefties vote Green (or indeed SNP).
Did you have much of an opinion in 2010? I was quite strongly in favour of Ed (though a rather irational part of me would've prefered Abbot). In hindsight - I think I'd've preferred David. My thoughts at the time were that I don't like the Labour party being as far to the right as it can go as I felt this pushed politics on the whole to the right. I think now, I'm more drawn towards a centrist Labour party that I'd never vote for but could potentially take on the Tories whilst me and the other committed lefties vote Green (or indeed SNP).
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.
Initially I was backing David, though as the campaign went on I got less and less impressed by him - he didn't really have a good campaign and looked as if the pressure of expectation (and having Ed as his main rival) was getting to him. Ed on the other hand was lively, interacted with people well in Q&As, talked a lot about social justice and addressing inequality and, at the time, was actually considered in the media as being the "less weird brother". Balls was always best on the economics side of things but never leader material. Burnham was meh. Always liked Diane from This Week but knew that wouldn't end well at all
I didn't have a vote as I wasn't a member at the time, but probably just about preferred David as he was the safer bet, but remember being quite excited that Ed would be able to achieve something after he won. Which...went well. This time round I'm leaning Kendall.