The next Labour leader

[LoveCurryPies]

Tom Watson.

[Mala591]

Caroline Flint - intelligent, articulate and is one of the few Labour MPs to believe that the democratic decision of her constituents is far more important than playing party politics.

[Colburn_Claret]

I think given when you voted for Labour, it could be described as “against a Tory Party that was all over the place” Unless the Iraq War played a part in why you didn’t vote Labour in 2005, or Labour was too rightwing for you before Corbyn (as it was for me), then I’d imagine Labour will have to find a way of winning without your vote. Where they were under Brown and Miliband (even had Blair remained), Labour was a sinking ship. It can’t be emphasised enough how the return to “people before profit” policies has revitalised Labour. It has opened up active political interest in young people, and many who didn’t vote before. For those who insist that to win power Labour has to be “centrist” (and by what standard would you judge that?), look at how badly that worked in 2010 and 2015. After five years of austerity, Miliband should have wiped the floor with Cameron, but instead he chose to back austerity (just not as bad), and had a wishy-washy policy on rail and utilities. Instead the SNP - who vigorously opposed austerity - destroyed Labour in Scotland. Granted, the press painted Miliband as a dangerous commie, but that was only to mobilise Conservative support. Those who would have liked a more radical Labour Party just stayed home, wishing they could have voted SNP.

People becore profit, is a bit like which came first the chicken or the egg.
Until you understand that unless the country makes a profit it cant help the people, you and the marxists controlling the Labour party will get nowhere. Theres a reason why Milliband didn't wipe the floor with the Tories, he was unelectable to large swathes of Labour supporters. Corbyn is the same, if not worse.
The ideological interest of young people is because they've never had a mortgage to pay, kids to clothe and feed. When you've worked hard all your life ideologies are replaced by reality. That doesn't mean you dont share a social conscience , just that you know pie in the sky pipe dreams aren't going to address the needs of the people.

[Guich]

The increased Labour membership is a huge red herring.

It still equates to less than five per cent of the vote Labour needs to force a hung parliament. It is made up of lot of idealistic, not really interested in economics or the leader's track record, mainly young disciples who will lose interest or grow up in a few years. And then they will be left with the true hard left fanatics and those with blind loyalty.

Had the Labour Party had the sense to avoid the temptation to prove they are such a broad church they'd shoe in an aging nutter like Corbyn onto the leadership ballot they would be in power within 12 months.

Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and even Liz Kendall would win a General Election against a government in this state.

I'd back Caroline Flint for leader too. But Diane Abbott would be truly hilarious.

[Steve1956]

We will see. People are waking up and starting to question the propaganda put out by the Tory media. Anyway the Tories seem to be involved in self destruction. The Tory leadership election is a wonderful comedy Cabaret show and if that upper class twit Boris Johnson wins he won't last two minutes. Reminds me of Pythons sketch Upper class twit of the year.

The 2 party system in this country is bollockks,the sooner it's broken the better,there isn't a decent politician in either of the Labour and Conservative parties.

[SammyBoy]

You mean like the Mirror, Guardian, Independent, Observer - which you are abviously not

2019 circulation of The Mirror, The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer - Circa 1.1 million.

2019 circulation of The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Daily Express, The Times - Circa 3.6 million (Not including the Evening Standard edited by George Osborne at 800k)

The “main stream media” is definitely more predisposed to the Tories, as it always has been.

[AndrewJB]

People becore profit, is a bit like which came first the chicken or the egg.
Until you understand that unless the country makes a profit it cant help the people, you and the marxists controlling the Labour party will get nowhere. Theres a reason why Milliband didn't wipe the floor with the Tories, he was unelectable to large swathes of Labour supporters. Corbyn is the same, if not worse.
The ideological interest of young people is because they've never had a mortgage to pay, kids to clothe and feed. When you've worked hard all your life ideologies are replaced by reality. That doesn't mean you dont share a social conscience , just that you know pie in the sky pipe dreams aren't going to address the needs of the people.

You're a lot more ideological than I am, and not just for name checking Marxism. You're ideological in your acceptance of the system we live under - what you might just blandly refer to as reality - as an immutable force, and expect other people to just accept and live under like you do. Your acceptance of this system means that if something is called "Marxist" you immediately dismiss it, perhaps without considering whether what has been called "marxist" is in fact so, because you're so ideological that anything related to Marxism must in your mind be wrong. In this way you could be said to be hamstrung by ideology. If we were in the late Eighteenth Century I might find you arguing against the abolition of slavery, and providing the appropriate quotes from the Bible, along with financial information to back your argument up. The you from the late Nineteenth Century might argue against giving women the vote, and then fifty years later might argue against the establishment of the NHS. Because these steps forward were simply; "pie in the sky pipe dreams" at one point and resisted by the establishments of their time (slavery and the NHS as being "unaffordable"). I'm not attacking your character in this, but the way you think. I don't believe your understanding of what is good and bad is flawed, but I disagree with the eagerness with which you embrace the arguments as to why some bad things "just have to be accepted as part of life", or why we "can't afford to change them".