Next labour leader?

[yTib]

Say what ever you like.

However, I'm pretty sure that it feels much better to be a "gloating" winner. Than the self-inflicted misery that is brought about from being a sore loser.

Being a brexiteer I'm unfamiliar with such a disposition.

Tell me now, how does it feel?

the thing is ringo i suspect you will lose just as much as most of us.

the only real winners for this government will be the already wealthy and large companies.

let's see those smug emojies in five years boy.

[Somethingfishy]

The people you describe as "underclasses", "workshy", and "the feckless" are our fellow citizens. I'm accused of being smug, but I haven't denigrated anyone in the way you just have.

You've described people who "feel" Labour doesn't represent them anymore. I'm not disputing the feeling they get, and I've seen my own relatives in the north reach similar conclusions (just as they have about immigration into the UK). Where I dispute this is in the facts of the matter, and then over the question of how people came to get this feeling.

Show me what policies Labour put forward that work to the disadvantage of working people. When I ask this of older relatives, I'm told that Labour want to let the whole world into the country - which is patently untrue (as I'm sure you'll agree, no more than right wing media rubbish). But if we just bring it down to the fact my relatives would like to see reduced inward migration, and Labour's policies are less restrictive than those of the Tories - my relatives have still been unable to explain to me how it is immigrants are damaging our economy, or their lives. I get things like "the strain on schools, housing, jobs, benefits, the NHS, etc" - which are all things the government has underfunded, despite bringing in more tax from EU newcomers than they have to pay out to them.

In short it's a completely bogus argument, and because people in the "red wall" live in areas largely unaffected by inward migration, the information they get on this is from the media, which has spent decades banging on about how the EU and migrants are the source of all of our problems. I understand that working class people in marginalised areas feel the Labour Party has abandoned them and instead taken the side of "the immigrant" (of which there is no evidence) - but it would be entirely dishonest of the Labour Party to make policy to appease these voters in this fiction. Instead the Labour Party should have taken more time and effort to counter this rightwing press hatred (because that's what it is), but with the decline of unions, that task is more difficult.

I don't know why you are banging on about immigrants. I didnt mention that once and whilst it may have been an issue for some i think in the end it was quite a minor one. Probably more aligned with the Brexit argument about Labour wanting free movement and yes that is something i wanted to end..hence being a leave voter. It serves no good purpose attracting people here with little skills. We of course should allow in the people we need, those with skills required. The Australian system often gets mentioned. I can't see what is wrong with that? Prove you have a skill, prove you have the funding and the job in place and in you come. We get the people we need. If a farmer in Lincolnshire can't get anyone to pick his crops then perhaps he should pay more..if he can't pay more then perhaps he needs to look at how he operates. This goes for any employer. If you can't pay a decent wage to attract decent people then you get what you deserve. This is the way to drive up living standards. The reason this doesnt happen is because the bosses want to reap in the profits and pay as little as possible..the rich get richer off paying the poor worker a pittance..something I am absolutely sure you agree with.
I come at this from a socialist angle believe it or not. Why should rich bosses exploit cheap foreign labour? It doesnt help our economy..it just lines their pockets and lowers living standards for the rest of us. It needs to stop.

[AndrewJB]

So it is perfectly ok to let these people just meander along in life expecting everyone else to pay their way for them? We need to help them get out of this malaise, this attitude which often spans the generations in the same families. That is done by making it pay to work rather than sit on their backsides. The same people that cry that they need foodbanks yet continue to have their luxuries like their beer, fags and quite often drugs. That in itself is a disgrace and in truth they are taking off the people that genuinely need it. Before you argue..this is the case. I know people who have worked in foodbanks and whilst they try to stop these people it just isn't as simple as that.

Foodbanks: You have to be assessed and provided with a voucher before you can go into one, and even then you only get three days of emergency food: https://www.trusselltrust.org/get-help/emergency-food/

There are other foodbanks that "self assess" - probably working more like soup kitchens. I'm sure some people can blag their way in, but I'd bet the vast vast majority of users are in real need. Nurses in London have been known to use them. That we have foodbanks should be a national humiliation. That we have the levels of poverty, homelessness, and rough sleeping we do is a disgrace.

Bringing down unemployment is a lot easier if we can create decent jobs for people to move into, so a government investing in a greener future could do this. It's also useful to have enough spaces to train or retrain people. Everything I've just described has been cut the the government.

[RingoMcCartney]

I repeatedly said that voting labour in places like Burnley was trans generational and habitual.

But if labour, the political class , the establishment and the dwellers of the metropolitan London borough of Ivory Towers were hell bent on betraying and thwarting democracy. Then trust in democracy itself would be shattered.

I said it time after time after time.

I've been proven absolutely bang on the money.

The "stigma" of voting tory , for millions, was less concerning, than ensuring that "Brexit got done"

Now that "stigma" has gone, if Boris plays his cards right (if) the former labour heartlands voters will no longer feel that inertia they traditionally used to suffer from.

I remember pointing out that EU money that came to Burnley as part of the regional Development Fund was, as a net contributor to the EU, just our own taxes returning to us.

Lancasterclaret mocked the idea and saying "christ on a bike Ringo it's not as simple as that!"

I posted Treasury and Full Fact evidence that proved I was right. Saying once we leave that money can still be sent to Burnley by electing a government that will do it.

With a sneer that only, his eminence , Lancasterclaret can do , he replied, " good luck getting a tory government to spend money on the north in places like Burnley!"

What have we heard since Thursday!!!!!!?????

Boris will have to spend big, on the forner Red Wall of northern constituencies like Burnley!!

Mystic McCartney proven right , not for the first time.

I've had dogs abuse, mocking, sneering, and no end of laughing at for the past 3 and half years.

Well, they're not laughing now, are they!?

[AndrewJB]

I don't know why you are banging on about immigrants. I didnt mention that once and whilst it may have been an issue for some i think in the end it was quite a minor one. Probably more aligned with the Brexit argument about Labour wanting free movement and yes that is something i wanted to end..hence being a leave voter. It serves no good purpose attracting people here with little skills. We of course should allow in the people we need, those with skills required. The Australian system often gets mentioned. I can't see what is wrong with that? Prove you have a skill, prove you have the funding and the job in place and in you come. We get the people we need. If a farmer in Lincolnshire can't get anyone to pick his crops then perhaps he should pay more..if he can't pay more then perhaps he needs to look at how he operates. This goes for any employer. If you can't pay a decent wage to attract decent people then you get what you deserve. This is the way to drive up living standards. The reason this doesnt happen is because the bosses want to reap in the profits and pay as little as possible..the rich get richer off paying the poor worker a pittance..something I am absolutely sure you agree with.
I come at this from a socialist angle believe it or not. Why should rich bosses exploit cheap foreign labour? It doesnt help our economy..it just lines their pockets and lowers living standards for the rest of us. It needs to stop.

I'm giving you my experience of how working class people came to believe Labour abandoned them. If you have another interpretation, I'm happy to look at it.

Again though, the facts don't back up the assertion. There's nothing in Labour manifestos or policy papers that is anti-working class. Yes, those people feel that way, but how did they come to feel that way, if not a decades long campaign by the right wing press?

[yTib]

jesus ringo your ego is so large anyone would think you were boris johnson.

libraries and swimming baths being closed under a tory government? that is not progress. the rise of foodbanks and homelessness. zero hours contracts. privatisation of the post office? don't celebrate too hard lad.

the bus route to my mum's village was recently closed - she's had to start driving again for the first time in thirty years. that is not progress.

you treat it like some immature partisanship but you are too obtuse to realise we all lose.

[Somethingfishy]

I'm giving you my experience of how working class people came to believe Labour abandoned them. If you have another interpretation, I'm happy to look at it.

Again though, the facts don't back up the assertion. There's nothing in Labour manifestos or policy papers that is anti-working class. Yes, those people feel that way, but how did they come to feel that way, if not a decades long campaign by the right wing press?

I am telling you why i abandoned them..being in the position that i did. If you sincerely believe it was thr right wing media as you call it then you are very much mistaken. Many of us sneer at the suggestion because it is simply not true and is missing the point completely. The out of touch thing again.
Being a Labour voter all my life (apart from 2010 when I voted Libdem as i was quite disgusted at the Labour government..as were many) I never believed I would vote Tory. The stigma has lessened and yes Brexit was a major reason. Democracy was not seen to be being done. Traditionally if i was annoyed at Labour i would vote Libdem. That was simply not an option this time. This can be added to the equation for many.
Jeremy Corbyn. Now whilst it would be fair to say he has been mercilessly attacked it would also be fair to say he has brought that on himself with his "beliefs". He simply was never going to be accepted, the press merely made sure it stayed in the publics mind. He would have been a security issue for this country. Labour cocked the gun choosing him..the public pulled the trigger.

[Somethingfishy]

I remember the feeling of elation I had when Blair won in 1997...the whole county felt it. After 18 long years of devisive tory rule. Now here I am voting Tory for the first time elated that a far left party that failed to want to uphold a democratic decision its core voters wanted has got decisively beaten. Perhaps hardcore Labour members and the party itself need to try and understand the journey people like myself have been on to come to that state of affairs. Blaming the press won't help..they won't change. Labour need to change. They need to change for the good of the country as we need an effective opposition. The Tory votes are on loan and could very easily come back and the wall would get rebuilt. If the tories fail (they surely have a new incentive not to) or Labour get their act together (that is a doubt in itself with the far left running things) then it may reverse at the next election.

[AndrewJB]

I am telling you why i abandoned them..being in the position that i did. If you sincerely believe it was thr right wing media as you call it then you are very much mistaken. Many of us sneer at the suggestion because it is simply not true and is missing the point completely. The out of touch thing again.
Being a Labour voter all my life (apart from 2010 when I voted Libdem as i was quite disgusted at the Labour government..as were many) I never believed I would vote Tory. The stigma has lessened and yes Brexit was a major reason. Democracy was not seen to be being done. Traditionally if i was annoyed at Labour i would vote Libdem. That was simply not an option this time. This can be added to the equation for many.
Jeremy Corbyn. Now whilst it would be fair to say he has been mercilessly attacked it would also be fair to say he has brought that on himself with his "beliefs". He simply was never going to be accepted, the press merely made sure it stayed in the publics mind. He would have been a security issue for this country. Labour cocked the gun choosing him..the public pulled the trigger.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that you or anyone else would read an article in the Sun, and unquestionably believe it. The influence the press wields is more subtle, and in the long term I’d say we’ve all been affected by it. They lead debate on issues, by providing false choices. They use preset assumptions to frame debate in certain ways, and repeated often enough this also makes the preset assumption “true”. This press has acted as the propaganda arm of the Tory Party for a long time, and apart from the brief period in which the Sun backed Blair, they’re all in lock step. When I asked an older woman why she believed Corbyn supported terrorists, and pointed out that the Sun (to which she referred) has lied about him before, she said “but all the papers are saying it” as if they can’t all be wrong. Even my parents have come out with things like this, and they live in Canada. You have described Corbyn’s beliefs as a reason you wouldn’t back him, but where did you learn what they are? Added to this their unquestioning support for the Tories and inability to report negatively on them and you have a deeply undemocratic situation. Look at the three areas in which Murdoch has a large share of media - the US, UK, and Australia - and tell me it’s just a coincidence that the political centre is significantly to the right of most other countries. You’ve said Corbyn would have been a security risk, but did you know that Foreign Office people described Johnson as one, after he attended a party in Italy at the palace of a Russian oligarch without his protection team? People blamed Parliament rather than the government for Brexit not being done, when it was the government that took so long to bring it to parliament. Papers full of stories about welfare scroungers just as the government is about to cut spending on that - despite the fact that fraud wasn’t seen as a big problem (only half as costly as internal mistakes), and then conveniently on to disabled scroungers afterwards. A lot of voters said they couldn’t trust Corbyn, and instead voted for a known liar - the press did their job with that. Labour plans were said to be completely unachievable, but the Tories didn’t even bother trying to cost theirs. I’m sure you get the point. It’s all cumulative, and they only needed to get a few hundred thousand to switch, and they got their majority. To shrug and say “it didn’t affect me at all” is to underestimate them.

[RingoMcCartney]

jesus ringo your ego is so large anyone would think you were boris johnson.

libraries and swimming baths being closed under a tory government? that is not progress. the rise of foodbanks and homelessness. zero hours contracts. privatisation of the post office? don't celebrate too hard lad.

the bus route to my mum's village was recently closed - she's had to start driving again for the first time in thirty years. that is not progress.

you treat it like some immature partisanship but you are too obtuse to realise we all lose.

Burnley's A and E shut down under labour.

Michelin closed under labour

Mullards closed under labour

I stand to be corrected but I think more hospital beds went under labour.

Every single labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it arrived. FACT

Zero hours contracts, homelessness , job insecurity, in places like Burnley the minimum wage being the wage . Could it be anything to do with unprecedented levels of mass immigration of cheap unskilled labour brought about free movement of people? Could it!? Possibly!?

And before you answer, 1, I dont blame immigrants on wanting to better themselves and taking advantage of free movement. But I and probably millions of others would love to live in Australia or Canada or Santa Monica for that matter . But in the real world we cant. Why? Because respective governments have s responsibility to protect the livelihoods of their citizens. And forcing millions to join a race to the bottom in wages, which a natural result of an over supply. Therefore they have sensible controls on numbers.


2 Whether you think it could be or not. It doesn't matter what you or I think . Millions of voters made their own minds up and did not blame the Tories and voted to leave in 2016.

They voted again in 2017 , labour pledging to "respect the referendum result "

Again in the EU parliamentary election

After parliament had blocked brexit .

And on friday they voted to "get brexit done" many breaking a trans generational tradition and throwing off the "stigma " of voting tory to ensure their original instruction to the political was finally implemented.

Dont trot out the line that they fell for the "lie on the bus". Its been nearly 4 years since then and people have had plenty of opportunity to have changed their mind.
Remember this. Millions of voters have had decades of eu membership to decide whether being in the EU has been a good thing, for themselves, their loved ones, family , their town and their country.

They decided "no"and voted, repeatedly, to show they wanted to Leave.

[nil_desperandum]

They will if they fail in the way some people are saying they will and if they are as right wing as what those same people say.

Sorry for the late reply - (busy day).
I don't think that that will matter, I'm afraid..
With no seats in Scotland, boundary changes, and the new rules for voting I just don't see where the Labour Party will be able to capture the necessary 125 seats in England / Wales in order to get an overall majority.
I can't imagine anything other than a Tory govt under FPTP in my lifetime, unless there's an unprecedented level of tactical voting to form an anti-Tory coalition, - and history suggests that this won't happen.
Burnley wanted a Tory government, and that's what it's now got. And as you say - that's democracy. Let's hope they are still happy with their decision in another 15 years or so.

[Top Claret]

The Labour Party are a shower and not fit to govern. The working class people of this country saw them for what they really are. Self serving, out of touch, anti white British.
I will never vote for a party who has no respect or love for its own country. Labour is a party for the ethnic minorities and the benefit spungers and not for the hard working people of our great country

[nyclaret]

The Labour Party are a shower and not fit to govern. The working class people of this country saw them for what they really are. Self serving, out of touch, anti white British.
I will never vote for a party who has no respect or love for its own country. Labour is a party for the ethnic minorities and the benefit spungers and not for the hard working people of our great country

The absolute state of these comments.

[Devils_Advocate]

The absolute state of these comments.

Must be day release at whatever ward he lives on

[taio]

Sorry for the late reply - (busy day).
I don't think that that will matter, I'm afraid..
With no seats in Scotland, boundary changes, and the new rules for voting I just don't see where the Labour Party will be able to capture the necessary 125 seats in England / Wales in order to get an overall majority.
I can't imagine anything other than a Tory govt under FPTP in my lifetime, unless there's an unprecedented level of tactical voting to form an anti-Tory coalition, - and history suggests that this won't happen.
Burnley wanted a Tory government, and that's what it's now got. And as you say - that's democracy. Let's hope they are still happy with their decision in another 15 years or so.

That would be the case if Labour continues with a far left wing socialist movement with fantasy politics controlled by the awful Momentum. Clearly there is no appetite for it as the emphatic election defeat confirms. Inevitably Labour will take a big step back to the centre ground sooner or later with the party controlled by moderate MPs that, unlike Corbyn's cronies, will be credible. But until that day happens - you're right - Labour will be totally unelectable. It's shameful that many longstanding Labour supporters have been forced to abandon the party, but let's be clear that's not because they have been brainwashed by the media because they can't make up their own minds. What an insult that is to those people which some socialists are peddling due to their complete denial and incompetence.

[Dy1geo]

AndrewJB - I admire the way you give a principled defence of Labour’s position and unlike Twitter you don’t abuse people who have an alternative view. The problem with this country is the regional differences and that ultimately influences people’s opinions. I can fully understand how a young person living in London feels when you see the vast disparities in wealth and the hopelessness people must feel regarding ever purchasing their first home. The statistics from Nationwide regarding housing in London are frightening “Mortgage payments as a % of mean take home pay are nearly 60%” compared to around 22% in the North West and “First-time buyer gross house price to earnings ratio (x) is nearly nine times compared to four in the North West. I can understand the anger that this must produce but up in the North we don’t have the disparity in wealth like there is in the south so when people down say how do feel about the poor because we don’t have as big of an issue that you have in London so it doesn’t cut through as much.

[ksrclaret]

The Labour Party are a shower and not fit to govern. The working class people of this country saw them for what they really are. Self serving, out of touch, anti white British.
I will never vote for a party who has no respect or love for its own country. Labour is a party for the ethnic minorities and the benefit spungers and not for the hard working people of our great country

Yeah good point, up the capitalists! The working class have rightly realised that the best chance they have is to continue with the mass extortion at the hands of the few billionaires who own everything. Those energy bills and train fares aren’t high enough! The working class would like to pay more!

More food banks and further decimation to our public services will be the cherry on the cake. Then, maybe finally, Britain can be great again.

[TVC15]

The Labour Party are a shower and not fit to govern. The working class people of this country saw them for what they really are. Self serving, out of touch, anti white British.
I will never vote for a party who has no respect or love for its own country. Labour is a party for the ethnic minorities and the benefit spungers and not for the hard working people of our great country

And there we are

[AndrewJB]

The amount of self awareness that your post displays is immeasurable!

Just days after a crushing electoral defeat you're still clinging to the misguided mantra that you , as a metropolitan bubble dweller, know what's best for milllions and millions of ordinary decent working class people.

You, in your pompous, arrogant way, believe that they need people like you to help them save themselves from themselves!!!!!

You clearly still believe the northern working class are uneducated parochial, pitchfork wielding bumpkins that are unable to think for themselves!!

Well, guess what Andrew!?

We can tie our own shoe laces!

I know this will come as a shock , but your attitude, just like the odious Emily Thornberry, when she said to a former labour colleague who'd just lost her northern constituency, "I'm just glad my constituents arent as stupid as yours," is the very reason why you and your self-aggrandizing, holier than thou, London centric looking down your lofty, ivory towered, disconnected nose labour party, got a well deserved, electoral bloody nose!!!

It's why after 3 and half years I've been proven absolutely right. And you Andrew have been shown to be utterly utterly out of touch and gloriously gloriously wrong in equal measure

Rather than engaging in conversation, you'd prefer to completely misrepresent what I said, and then debate with that misrepresentation? You know very well that I didn't denigrate anyone. Perhaps if you could have an exchange of ideas, rather than seeing it as a contest to win?

To repeat my point, I think it's a nonsense to suggest Labour have abandoned working class voters in the north, and you only have to look at policies and manifestos to see that is the case. Turning to the Tories as a working class person makes even less sense, when you consider their record just in the last ten years.

Not only were Labour campaigning on a better platform for working class people, they also offered a better brexit too - one to be put to a further referendum, but it would be a more accurate one than the one we had between remain or a completely undefined leave.

I've seen how a lot of northern working class people (but by no means a majority of them) have felt abandoned by Labour, but I don't agree with their reasoning if they say Labour is the party of the immigrant rather than the working class (a false choice), or that Labour is not respecting the democratic wishes of the people - when their brexit would have been immeasurably better than that offered by Johnson. When you consider who voted for which party, my opinion is likely shared by a majority of working class voters in the north.

Finally, your "metropolitan bubble dweller" accusation (aimed at me because I live in London?), is more accurately laid at the door of Johnson and those in his cabinet who are also millionaires. I live on the other side of the tracks.

[Dixie Normous]

Burnley is Tory , what a laugh. Thing is no one cares

[BennyD]

AndrewJB; how would Labour’s Brexit have been immeasurably better if the first thing they wanted to do was remove a hard Brexit from the table? What would they have to bargain with since the EU would have had absolutely no need to bargain at all. What better terms would they have got just by asking for them? It would appear that the working class saw through all their cr4p and decided to embrace BJ and his colleagues. Personally, I regard the result as revenge for the British electorate who have watched the metropolitan bubble dwellers do everything in their power to prevent the implementation of their wishes for the last 3.5 years. They turned out again to say enough is enough and now, hopefully, the remainers can see they have been well and truly defeated.

[RingoMcCartney]

Rather than engaging in conversation, you'd prefer to completely misrepresent what I said, and then debate with that misrepresentation? You know very well that I didn't denigrate anyone. Perhaps if you could have an exchange of ideas, rather than seeing it as a contest to win?

To repeat my point, I think it's a nonsense to suggest Labour have abandoned working class voters in the north, and you only have to look at policies and manifestos to see that is the case. Turning to the Tories as a working class person makes even less sense, when you consider their record just in the last ten years.

Not only were Labour campaigning on a better platform for working class people, they also offered a better brexit too - one to be put to a further referendum, but it would be a more accurate one than the one we had between remain or a completely undefined leave.

I've seen how a lot of northern working class people (but by no means a majority of them) have felt abandoned by Labour, but I don't agree with their reasoning if they say Labour is the party of the immigrant rather than the working class (a false choice), or that Labour is not respecting the democratic wishes of the people - when their brexit would have been immeasurably better than that offered by Johnson. When you consider who voted for which party, my opinion is likely shared by a majority of working class voters in the north.

Finally, your "metropolitan bubble dweller" accusation (aimed at me because I live in London?), is more accurately laid at the door of Johnson and those in his cabinet who are also millionaires. I live on the other side of the tracks.

God loves a trier Andrew. And God knows, you are really trying!

But just look at your words I've highlighted.

The stone cold facts that the general election results provide should , I say should , make you realise that you're assessment of how northern working class people are thinking is way off the mark.

Let me put it this way.

Do you genuinely believe that all those people that have voted Tory, for the very first time, in generations, have got it wrong. Where as you AndrewJB are unique in knowing what was better for them, and they should've listened to you all along , as you were right !?

May I suggest its probably time for some soul searching AndrewJB.

Its time for you to have a period of reflection

[AndrewJB]

I didn't suggest every aspect was rejected. For the avoidance of doubt, I believe the electorate resoundingly rejected them for the following main four reasons:

1) Their ambiguous and pathetic position on Brexit;
2) Their far left wing position underpinned by the cult that is Momentum;
3) Their package of proposals that the electorate thought were pie in the sky and undeliverable without seriously harming the economy; and
4) Their dreadful leadership that numerous moderate and respected Labour MPs deplored, including their ability to address antisemitism.

Corbyn's allies and yourself won't listen though.

The electorate didn't resoundingly reject Labour. The Tories won a resounding victory under our system, but Labour's vote share was still significant.

I share the opinion of other people in that Labour ran a poor campaign. I reference your point 3 in this, as the package of proposals being thought "pie in the sky" were released in a seemingly arbitrary fashion, and without any kind of proper groundwork being done among the population as a whole. So the policy around extending fast broadband across the whole UK came out seemingly as "free broadband" and then kind of trickled out in fuller detail (that might be the way it was reported too). They should have taken a lot more ownership of the message, and prepared the ground beforehand by making announcements that led up to it, so it wasn't a complete surprise (it wasn't supposed to be like a Christmas present), and had people ready to promote (and defend) it across the media. That goes for the rest of the policies, because (as others have said) without the surrounding information they just looked like off the cuff bribes to the public. Their seemingly abrupt policy with regard to WASPI women looked similar - announced quickly with no costing. It could have been done a lot better with just a bit more work (the WASPI women payment). The policies of nationalisation were all good (in my opinion, and that of a lot of economists), however they weren't sold with enough vigour or enthusiasm. They and the green industrial strategy should have been the cornerstone of their platform, and brexit sidelined as a secondary issue.

Brexit was their undoing. They should have had one brexit spokesperson - Keir Starmer, perhaps - and everyone else should have refused to discuss it, referring the questioner back to Starmer. "No! Talk to the Starmer!" Brexit should have been called "the Tory problem" - and Starmer should have spent as much time talking about the Tory failures on it as he did about the Labour policy (which was really quite straightforward, in renegotiate a softer deal, and put it back to the people). Brexit in my opinion became a trap, considering the huge divide in the Labour Party over it. The Tory "get brexit done" mantra was so full of holes, Starmer could have had a field day.

Corbyn (who, by the way, I quite liked) started off with very low personal ratings. Would it have helped had he stepped aside? Lots of people didn't vote Labour because of him, but then he had the same problem in the last election, and then lots of people voted Labour anyway. And some of those people did so because of the work done by activists who knocked on doors who were motivated by getting Corbyn into Number 10. So it's a tricky question. Alienate (or demotivate) a lot of activists who might then not knock on doors and motivate voters, or hope that a new leader will compensate for that by bringing back people who like Labour but hate Corbyn? One thing I have noted is that Corbyn's rallies in this election were rarely reported, in comparison with 2017, when many videos of them went viral.

I think the Labour Party should have formed some sort of pact with the other opposition when Johnson was but a lame duck prime minister, rather than giving him the election he was begging for. This coalition could have wreaked a lot of havoc on Johnson, making public the "Russian interference in our politics" and all the various plans around a no deal brexit. It might have highlighted the conversations between various spads, like Cummings, and shown the Johnson government as what it is. This would have allowed them to choose a later date for an election, and gave them all time to prepare better (perhaps in conjunction). I don't understand why they allowed him to call an election while he was riding high in the polls.

Your item number 2 suggests to me you've been reading right wing papers. When Momentum started, the Tories attempted to start their own versions, which all quickly failed.

Momentum is just a small part of Labour. Here is a list of more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... our_Party)

Of course all the unions have a say too. They represent a lot of individual people democratically. The right wing papers always talk about "union barons" - though they're the democratically elected members for thousands of people.

To sum up, I agree with you on a couple of things, but I think you've also missed a lot.

[RingoMcCartney]

The electorate didn't resoundingly reject Labour. The Tories won a resounding victory under our system, but Labour's vote share was still significant.

I share the opinion of other people in that Labour ran a poor campaign. I reference your point 3 in this, as the package of proposals being thought "pie in the sky" were released in a seemingly arbitrary fashion, and without any kind of proper groundwork being done among the population as a whole. So the policy around extending fast broadband across the whole UK came out seemingly as "free broadband" and then kind of trickled out in fuller detail (that might be the way it was reported too). They should have taken a lot more ownership of the message, and prepared the ground beforehand by making announcements that led up to it, so it wasn't a complete surprise (it wasn't supposed to be like a Christmas present), and had people ready to promote (and defend) it across the media. That goes for the rest of the policies, because (as others have said) without the surrounding information they just looked like off the cuff bribes to the public. Their seemingly abrupt policy with regard to WASPI women looked similar - announced quickly with no costing. It could have been done a lot better with just a bit more work (the WASPI women payment). The policies of nationalisation were all good (in my opinion, and that of a lot of economists), however they weren't sold with enough vigour or enthusiasm. They and the green industrial strategy should have been the cornerstone of their platform, and brexit sidelined as a secondary issue.

Brexit was their undoing. They should have had one brexit spokesperson - Keir Starmer, perhaps - and everyone else should have refused to discuss it, referring the questioner back to Starmer. "No! Talk to the Starmer!" Brexit should have been called "the Tory problem" - and Starmer should have spent as much time talking about the Tory failures on it as he did about the Labour policy (which was really quite straightforward, in renegotiate a softer deal, and put it back to the people). Brexit in my opinion became a trap, considering the huge divide in the Labour Party over it. The Tory "get brexit done" mantra was so full of holes, Starmer could have had a field day.

Corbyn (who, by the way, I quite liked) started off with very low personal ratings. Would it have helped had he stepped aside? Lots of people didn't vote Labour because of him, but then he had the same problem in the last election, and then lots of people voted Labour anyway. And some of those people did so because of the work done by activists who knocked on doors who were motivated by getting Corbyn into Number 10. So it's a tricky question. Alienate (or demotivate) a lot of activists who might then not knock on doors and motivate voters, or hope that a new leader will compensate for that by bringing back people who like Labour but hate Corbyn? One thing I have noted is that Corbyn's rallies in this election were rarely reported, in comparison with 2017, when many videos of them went viral.

I think the Labour Party should have formed some sort of pact with the other opposition when Johnson was but a lame duck prime minister, rather than giving him the election he was begging for. This coalition could have wreaked a lot of havoc on Johnson, making public the "Russian interference in our politics" and all the various plans around a no deal brexit. It might have highlighted the conversations between various spads, like Cummings, and shown the Johnson government as what it is. This would have allowed them to choose a later date for an election, and gave them all time to prepare better (perhaps in conjunction). I don't understand why they allowed him to call an election while he was riding high in the polls.

Your item number 2 suggests to me you've been reading right wing papers. When Momentum started, the Tories attempted to start their own versions, which all quickly failed.

Momentum is just a small part of Labour. Here is a list of more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist ... our_Party)

Of course all the unions have a say too. They represent a lot of individual people democratically. The right wing papers always talk about "union barons" - though they're the democratically elected members for thousands of people.

To sum up, I agree with you on a couple of things, but I think you've also missed a lot.

To sum up, you've clearly missed , the 2019 December 12th General election result.....

[AndrewJB]

AndrewJB; how would Labour’s Brexit have been immeasurably better if the first thing they wanted to do was remove a hard Brexit from the table? What would they have to bargain with since the EU would have had absolutely no need to bargain at all. What better terms would they have got just by asking for them? It would appear that the working class saw through all their cr4p and decided to embrace BJ and his colleagues. Personally, I regard the result as revenge for the British electorate who have watched the metropolitan bubble dwellers do everything in their power to prevent the implementation of their wishes for the last 3.5 years. They turned out again to say enough is enough and now, hopefully, the remainers can see they have been well and truly defeated.

Labour would have negotiated a deal that kept us in the customs union, meaning no issue with the Irish border, and no free trade deal required. Free movement for us and them, though anyone coming here would have to be here for five years before they could get out of work benefits, and have healthcare insurance for the same amount of time. Likewise UK citizens - though we could charge healthcare back to the NHS. Out of the EU, but not losing trade.

It would appear that a small percentage of the working class bought a shitsandwich.

[AndrewJB]

To sum up, you've clearly missed , the 2019 December 12th General election result.....

If that's all you have to say, I have to wonder why you made the effort.

[RingoMcCartney]

If that's all you have to say, I have to wonder why you made the effort.

And if that's all you have to say, I have to wonder whether you ever tried to make the effort.



To think...............

[AndrewJB]

And if that's all you have to say, I have to wonder whether you ever tried to make the effort.



To think...............

You're unable to deal with my post, so you take a small chunk and make a snide comment. Show us all that you're not just a loser, looking for "quick wins".

[RingoMcCartney]

You're unable to deal with my post, so you take a small chunk and make a snide comment. Show us all that you're not just a loser, looking for "quick wins".

In stark contrast you're a lofty , disconnected, aloof metropolitan London bubble dweller, that has yet , come to terms with the reality, that his parochial world view has , by the general election result , been shown to be a long term lose!

Its upto you to deal with that.



Tell me. As an outsider, what do you think of the Real World?

[RingoMcCartney]

You're unable to deal with my post, so you take a small chunk and make a snide comment. Show us all that you're not just a loser, looking for "quick wins".

Do you genuinely believe that all those people that have voted Tory, for the very first time, in generations, have got it wrong. Where as you AndrewJB are unique in knowing what was better for them, and they should've listened to you all along , as you were right !?

They were wrong . Hundreds of thousands of them. You were right

Yes



Or



No?

[FactualFrank]

Burnley is Tory , what a laugh. Thing is no one cares

And that's it?

[BennyD]

Labour would have negotiated a deal that kept us in the customs union, meaning no issue with the Irish border, and no free trade deal required. Free movement for us and them, though anyone coming here would have to be here for five years before they could get out of work benefits, and have healthcare insurance for the same amount of time. Likewise UK citizens - though we could charge healthcare back to the NHS. Out of the EU, but not losing trade.

It would appear that a small percentage of the working class bought a shitsandwich.

Sounds good. How much would we have had to pay for the privilege?

[AndrewJB]

Sounds good. How much would we have had to pay for the privilege?

Less than the cost of the loss of trade that comes with not being in it.

[Lowbankclaret]

Less than the cost of the loss of trade that comes with not being in it.

I am not sure what you thinks going to happen next!

We will enter a transition period, nothing will change, apart from we will have no MEP’s.

The trade deal will take 3-5 years to complete.

[BennyD]

Less than the cost of the loss of trade that comes with not being in it.

How much is that then?

[RMutt]

Tories all over this thread. Why are you bothered about who the next Labour leader is? And don't give me that, ‘ it’s better for democracy when we have a strong opposition, rubbish, that you don’t want anyway.

[bobinho]

Next labour leader?

How about the best person for the job, regardless of sex/religion/ skin colour etc.

McDonnell now spouting it should be a woman. Utterly bizarre. The sooner this lot move on and labour get some fresh blood in with some fresh thinking, the better for us all.

[KateR]

same old comments from same old people, but as the thread title states, who will be the Next Labour Leader, and why, plus will they change from the policies of the last few years or not?

I believe the policy issue is the important one

[bobinho]

Tories all over this thread. Why are you bothered about who the next Labour leader is? And don't give me that, ‘ it’s better for democracy when we have a strong opposition, rubbish, that you don’t want anyway.

So you managed to answer the question then.

Any right minded person wants a strong opposition to EVERY sitting government.

I’d like to believe in the Labour Party. Corbyn and his cronies have made it a bloody joke, and because of that, we now have the biggest Tory majority since god knows when. At the moment, I’m happy with that, because they are the best option. At least in five years time, there may well be some money in the pot and a strong economy. Corbyn and his ‘team’ would’ve bankrupted us.

[RMutt]

So you managed to answer the question then.

Any right minded person wants a strong opposition to EVERY sitting government.

I’d like to believe in the Labour Party. Corbyn and his cronies have made it a bloody joke, and because of that, we now have the biggest Tory majority since god knows when. At the moment, I’m happy with that, because they are the best option. At least in five years time, there may well be some money in the pot and a strong economy. Corbyn and his ‘team’ would’ve bankrupted us.

So you want a Labour leader that is strong enough to be good in opposition but not so good that they win any elections?

[Blackrod]

Not surprised Andrew has done a runner.

[AndrewJB]

Not surprised Andrew has done a runner.

Not sure what I can add to what I’ve already said.

[bobinho]

So you want a Labour leader that is strong enough to be good in opposition but not so good that they win any elections?

No. I want a labour leader I can believe in and trust enough to vote for. That wasn’t on the table for any of us. So I didn’t.

But even if I was an outright Tory supporter, which I’m not, yeah, I’d want the leader of the opposition to be strong and honourable, so that the sitting govt don’t become complacent. That WAS on the table. Nobody in their right mind wants that.

[AndrewJB]

No. I want a labour leader I can believe in and trust enough to vote for. That wasn’t on the table for any of us. So I didn’t.

But even if I was an outright Tory supporter, which I’m not, yeah, I’d want the leader of the opposition to be strong and honourable, so that the sitting govt don’t become complacent. That WAS on the table. Nobody in their right mind wants that.

You’ve repeatedly attacked Labour policy is unworkable, or too expensive - just as I don’t like Tory policy because it hits vulnerable people, and public services, and I don’t think trickle down economics is either efficient or works. The fault lines are too big when it comes to state ownership, or alleviating poverty, or funding the public sector, or taxing the rich. I think that rather than holding your breath for a Labour Party to cross this divide, you’re better off sticking with the Tories, or picking the LibDems instead. Ed Miliband tried to triangulate it all with “austerity lite” and it failed. His - for that reason (in my opinion) - leadership was weak. And the clear difference in policy Corbyn brought about led to him being a leader who held the Tories to account (again in my opinion). Look at the actual record rather than going with the preset assumption the press created. We know this worked because we can see how far he ate into May’s poll lead during 2017, and the subsequent “we’re ditching austerity” by the Tories.

[clarethomer]

You’ve repeatedly attacked Labour policy is unworkable, or too expensive - just as I don’t like Tory policy because it hits vulnerable people, and public services, and I don’t think trickle down economics is either efficient or works. The fault lines are too big when it comes to state ownership, or alleviating poverty, or funding the public sector, or taxing the rich. I think that rather than holding your breath for a Labour Party to cross this divide, you’re better off sticking with the Tories, or picking the LibDems instead. Ed Miliband tried to triangulate it all with “austerity lite” and it failed. His - for that reason (in my opinion) - leadership was weak. And the clear difference in policy Corbyn brought about led to him being a leader who held the Tories to account (again in my opinion). Look at the actual record rather than going with the preset assumption the press created. We know this worked because we can see how far he ate into May’s poll lead during 2017, and the subsequent “we’re ditching austerity” by the Tories.

Tory policy because it hits vulnerable people and public services....

Labour's policies were no magic pill to these issues and that was the crux of their failure to win people around like me.

Regardless of how much money you spend on different services/programs/departments - you are still going to have vulnerable people. You are still going to have poverty and people excluded from society.

Let's take the film I, Daniel Blake.. I'm not sure if you will have seen it? It's a great example of the challenges that exist for vulnerable people trying to access help. In the film, it shows that he can't access information online, because of lack of knowledge, can't apply for benefits because of lack of knowledge... There was help there for him, he could have got access online for free at the library but the system wasn't designed for people like him who lived their life 'offline as the 'online' world had passed them by'.

Now I know there were wider issues within that film but it was just a small example of how the world has moved on past some of these vulnerable individuals.

You believe that private corporations are not the answer.. You are probably right in saying that a lot more could be done by private corporations but they are not the evil that some describe them to be.

Take HSBC for example... they are looking to provide a solution to those people who are financially excluded within Society https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/34 ... k-accounts

For me, there does need to be effective opposition but Corbyn didn't provide it clearly by the loss last week. Yes he gained seats and had a better result last time round against May but it became really clear that the policies being introduced within the manifesto would have ended up costing the people they were trying to help more than some would like to admit.

I'm really welcome debate around how we help move this country forward and provide opportunity for private and public to work together to help improve lives for those who need it.

If the next Labour leader believes Corbyn was on the right tracks, I really fear for the realisation that there may not be an effective opposition in place.

[Colburn_Claret]

Going back to the thread title, who the hell is there?

Looking at the names mentioned so far, and they look awful. Deniers of reality, like Thornberry, or never wozzers.

As a personality, they need to be strong, they need a vision of their own that can carry the party faithdul, rather than being a figurehead for the likes of momentum. Mostly they need to drag the Party back to the centre ground.

I can't see anyone that fits the picture. Because of that it could be a long while before Labour are ready to put up a realistic opposition at the ballot box.



There is such a huge difference not just to the way we voted, but the way we see the world we are living in. Whether its down to some people being optimists while others are pessimists, maybe.

I read what Andrew and others say about this country, and the sad state it is in, but i just cant see it.
Homelessness is sad, but its far more a social issue, than a government policy one. Drugs alcohol, wrong life choices, they all contribute, and systems are in place for those people to seek assistance. Yet its all the Tories fault, no.

Foodbanks are another issue. They serve a good purpose, and to some people they are necessary, but as Bosscat says, they are abused by people who don't need them, just taking advantage of an opportunity to save cash for the important things in life.

Poverty is the biggest issue. How people, especially me, would describe poverty is a bloody long way from how poverty is calculated by officialdom. Yet Andrew et al would use it as a stick to beat the government. Why.
There are basic rights that everyone should be entitled to. A roof over your head, heating, food on the table, clothes on your back, shoes on your feet. Free education and free health service.
If you have all of those things you might be poor, but you're not living in poverty. I'm not saying we shouldn't help the poor, just saying that this notion that millions of Brits are living in poverty is hogwash.
If you judge wealth by disposable income, then I can't recall a time when working class man has had it so good, a point the Labour party failed to grasp. Even people on benefits have disposable income.
Ive said before, there are people who slip through the system, or the system lets down, and as a Society and a country we all need to do better for them, but it certainly isn't the black picture that the ultra Left would have us believe.

[nil_desperandum]

How much is that then?

Statistically, and provable - 0.3% of GDP
As to the cost of not paying it, genuinely incalculable due to so many variables, but undoubtedly massively more than 0.3%.
Of course the question is now, what sort of trade deal with the EU will we get, what will it cost, and will our economy benefit by as much in the future as it did in the past?
I don't want to continue the "brexit" debate, as we've moved on, but it's difficult to imagine that (in financial terms) we will get better deal than we had because 0.3% is such a small amount to contribute. (Most economists agree this, so you'll have to weight that against return of "sovereignty" etc.)

[BennyD]

The point is; no one really knows how much it’ll cost until the deal is done and everything is washed out.

[BennyD]

Going back to the thread title, who the hell is there?

Looking at the names mentioned so far, and they look awful. Deniers of reality, like Thornberry, or never wozzers.

As a personality, they need to be strong, they need a vision of their own that can carry the party faithdul, rather than being a figurehead for the likes of momentum. Mostly they need to drag the Party back to the centre ground.

I can't see anyone that fits the picture. Because of that it could be a long while before Labour are ready to put up a realistic opposition at the ballot box.



There is such a huge difference not just to the way we voted, but the way we see the world we are living in. Whether its down to some people being optimists while others are pessimists, maybe.

I read what Andrew and others say about this country, and the sad state it is in, but i just cant see it.
Homelessness is sad, but its far more a social issue, than a government policy one. Drugs alcohol, wrong life choices, they all contribute, and systems are in place for those people to seek assistance. Yet its all the Tories fault, no.

Foodbanks are another issue. They serve a good purpose, and to some people they are necessary, but as Bosscat says, they are abused by people who don't need them, just taking advantage of an opportunity to save cash for the important things in life.

Poverty is the biggest issue. How people, especially me, would describe poverty is a bloody long way from how poverty is calculated by officialdom. Yet Andrew et al would use it as a stick to beat the government. Why.
There are basic rights that everyone should be entitled to. A roof over your head, heating, food on the table, clothes on your back, shoes on your feet. Free education and free health service.
If you have all of those things you might be poor, but you're not living in poverty. I'm not saying we shouldn't help the poor, just saying that this notion that millions of Brits are living in poverty is hogwash.
If you judge wealth by disposable income, then I can't recall a time when working class man has had it so good, a point the Labour party failed to grasp. Even people on benefits have disposable income.
Ive said before, there are people who slip through the system, or the system lets down, and as a Society and a country we all need to do better for them, but it certainly isn't the black picture that the ultra Left would have us believe.

A very good post. The latest rejection of the far left takes us back to the days that spawned New Labour; they appreciated that Labour would never get back in with a majority unless it was completely overhauled. They chose Blair because he looked to be a great front man who could connect with the people. He did and had a long period of power until the residual left-tendencies turned them into a running car crash. Until Labour get someone like Blair, that takes them more towards the middle, they will be stuck in the wilderness fighting amongst themselves. I agree, that doesn’t help democracy in this country, but rather that than someone like Corbyn and McDonnell running the country.

[Darthlaw]

Where's Keir Starmer fit into this?

I digress, I haven't really kept up on him as a politician but should he be able to get free of the shackles of the hard left he seems statesmanlike enough to be a decent leader. Or is he of the McDonnell / Corbyn ilk?