Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Who will be the next Labour leader and can they unify the party to eventually beat the conservatives


Recommended Posts

Corbyn was good but their comms team went wrong (changed personnel I believe) - hence the shitty result in the second election... plus the Palestine issue too, of course - which most UK voters don't give a damn about one way or the other. 

Other than that, it has to be Andy Burnham - he has charisma (Starmer does not) - and understands how to work the PR machine (again, Starmer does not). Burnham should move in on Starmer now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For Conservative supporters this must seem great. But I would temper the enthusiasm. The reason the  population have embraced the conservatives is the same reason for SNP success, Nationalism and throwing around money. All those people in Hartlepool or Barrow wouldnt be so keen on a Thatcherite wanting to cut the tax credits they or their children receive. 

There is now no fiscally responsible opposition to the money taps. A Labour party would never be in a position to oppose this anyway. The right wing press and Thinktanks have got on board with Boris Johnson, that any genuine free market/ fiscally responsible principles they may have held are conveniently forgotten. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy Burnham isn't a good choice. It is easy to be revisionist and assume that it was mental illness that made labour members overwhelmingly choose corbyn over him. Fact was Burnham was uninspiring in a very weak field which led members to vote for who they liked best, as they saw none of them as good enough to beat the tories. If a robin cooke or Barbara Castle had been running they would have romped home. What has burnham done as mayor of manchester anyway? Told the government that they wernt offering manchester enough money, only to receive less?

Whoever is next labour leader will not realistically win the next election. They need to make the Labour party a better party, which will involve the unenviable position of getting higher quality people involved in the party machinery and PLP. 

I am not a Labour party member, but if I was, Clive Lewis would be my choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/05/2021 at 15:03, FANG said:

After Sir Keir Rodney Starmer I actually think the labour party are now finished and will eventually go into a slow decline.

Unless they can elect a strong leader who is in tune with the people of this country and can stop the Tories from being the ruling party for the next 50 years.  

Nonsense. The Tories have a weak leader albeit plugged into SM and they are doing just fine ;)  But FFS please lets not have another one of those !

Within reason, its little to do with choosing this or that character anyway. Starmer is fine for the time being - its more a tactical / political problem about setting and winning the agenda. If that is done our shape-shifting PM won't be a problem.

For example Brexit politics have been extended into the straw man of BLM and identity politics. Apparently this is one of the most important things on voters minds while nobody GAF about wallpaper lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Starmer will lose the 2024 election and will of course resign afterwards. Unfortunately it was always going to be a tough task to get a majority in 2024 given the 2019 result regardless of who is in charge. 

Despite critics, Labour policies have been popular - it's just the messenger that hasn't been (Corbyn et al). I think if they can promote 3 core policies and really hit them home, they would have a chance of increasing voter share in 2024. They will need to tackle difficult topics which they are currently avoiding such as immigration and Brexit without losing their support amongst their votes in the cities. 

In terms of the next party leader, it's too difficult to call presently but it needs someone who is much more of an attack-dog in the Media who will really go after BJ and the Tories. The 'sleaze' thing that Sir Kier Starmer was trying to get at was so poor in its execution. He should have straight out called it Corruption and went out on the attack.

To be balanced though, Sir Kier has had to balance criticising the government during a pandemic in order not to appear opportunistic which hasn't done Labour any favours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really does seem like football team mentality to chuck out the leader after about 12 months. More so for a candidate who won a mayoral contest as though its broader appeal.

Raynor going seems knee-jerk but also seems like Starmer being told appealing for unity won't work. Might as well die on own vision rather than trying to appease Corbyn stalwarts. Rebecca Long-Bailey was straight out of the traps doing interviews saying how terrible the offering is and need to build on Jeremy's successes... just mind boggling

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bartelbe said:

Broadly speaking the country is a bit left of centre economically but right of centre when it comes to social issues.

Really? I would have thought the opposite. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, zugzwang said:

 

Unregulated free market capitalism brought us to this point. It allows pricing errors to accumulate without limit until the point of systemic collapse is reached (see 2008). Socialism is the only corrective. Regulated markets to correct the inefficiencies that externalities, cartelism, speculation and hoarding etc cause; and public ownership wherever natural monopolies are found to exist, or physical constraints make costly market failures inevitable (see Enron).

 

Really? 

Capitalism just doesn't collapse . Marx was living in Hampstead saying that and it never happened. 

Why turn private monopolies into public monopolies? That doesn't work either. 

Socialism doesn't work either. It won't beat the Tories.  

Labour can come up with something more convincing than that surely.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 24gray24 said:

Really? 

Capitalism just doesn't collapse . Marx was living in Hampstead saying that and it never happened. 

Why turn private monopolies into public monopolies? That doesn't work either. 

Socialism doesn't work either. It won't beat the Tories.  

Labour can come up with something more convincing than that surely.  

 

Marx believed in the deterministic evolution of the economy towards a fixed point, a workers' revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's dynamically absurd and has never been observed to happen anywhere. Free market capitalists also believe in the deterministic evolution of the economy towards a fixed point: a Pareto efficient equilibrium between market agents possessed with infinite computational horizons. An idea at least as absurd if not more so.

The shadow banking system crashed irrecoverably in 2008 when the $700 trillion tower of credit derivatives it had helped create finally proved unsupportable. It took the banking system proper down with it, despite a frantic attempt by the world's central banks and treasuries to contain the fallout.

The global economy has been on life support ever since. We're all socialists now.

Private monopolies operate uncompetitive practices, fail to invest for the future, and lock their customers into extortionate tariffs. That's why Andy Burnham is about to take Greater Manchester bus services back into public ownership with one integrated service to replace dozens of private operations in a broken market.

Do keep up.

 

Edited by zugzwang
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sprrite said:

I think Starmer will lose the 2024 election and will of course resign afterwards. Unfortunately it was always going to be a tough task to get a majority in 2024 given the 2019 result regardless of who is in charge. 

Despite critics, Labour policies have been popular - it's just the messenger that hasn't been (Corbyn et al). I think if they can promote 3 core policies and really hit them home, they would have a chance of increasing voter share in 2024. They will need to tackle difficult topics which they are currently avoiding such as immigration and Brexit without losing their support amongst their votes in the cities. 

In terms of the next party leader, it's too difficult to call presently but it needs someone who is much more of an attack-dog in the Media who will really go after BJ and the Tories. The 'sleaze' thing that Sir Kier Starmer was trying to get at was so poor in its execution. He should have straight out called it Corruption and went out on the attack.

To be balanced though, Sir Kier has had to balance criticising the government during a pandemic in order not to appear opportunistic which hasn't done Labour any favours.

 

Major Corruption and Captain Hindsight.

They deserve each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 24gray24 said:

Really? I would have thought the opposite. 

When you look at the polls the public support higher taxes for big business, more public spending, nationalising natural monopolies and more protections for workers. Which are left of centre positions.

There isn't however a majority backing for more radical social position.

This comes with the proviso that most people think someone else's taxes should increase to increase public spending

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/05/2021 at 01:48, zugzwang said:

"Here I stand. I can do no other."

I'd sooner vote Green than vote for Starmer. The further he takes the party to the right the less likely I am ever to come back.

 

 

 

Lol. I think "slow" Northerners are just starting to realise that Labours ideas are not beneficial to them or the country; that  of importing millions of fast breeders form the 3rd World and having an over-generous welfare state to support the feckless popping out sprogs, and then continuining to bang on about inequality (theft from all workers to pay for it all) . The residents of Sedgefield and others must be so thick to have voted Blair continually. Hey ho - the result is now clear - too much demand for houses cos we are overpopulated; and people screaming on here. Makes me laugh 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bartelbe said:

This comes with the proviso that most people think someone else's taxes should increase to increase public spending

Plus those same people will claim "what the gov or others should do for the country and greater good is XYZ" which often a euphemism for "what other people should do that benefits me".  Such is human nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people think Starmer will make it to the GE?

 

I reckon half the problem is not having genuine local candidates.  Labour have been parachuting dumb candidates into constituencies that tick the right boxes.  Rayner must be a classic example, she would struggle to be a shift manager at McDonald's, yet due to the right connections and a back story that involves struggle she is seen as the right person.  Obviously the Tories also do this, but their parachute candidates aren't as dumb as rocks.

 

One other thing.  I think the green party will soon be causing trouble for Starmer.  This trend has caused the German equivalent of the Labour party a lot of troubles already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, zugzwang said:

The private sector is much too indebted to reform itself. Public sector investment is the only way we'll avoid bankruptcy, by holding up the economy as the private sector de-leverages.

A mixed market economy is the only way of ensuring the same thing doesn't happen again.

We already have a mixed market economy. Sounds like you just want to alter the mix a bit.

Nothing wrong with that.

Any mixed market economy will of course include capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, zugzwang said:

 

Marx believed in the deterministic evolution of the economy towards a fixed point, a workers' revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's dynamically absurd and has never been observed to happen anywhere. Free market capitalists also believe in the deterministic evolution of the economy towards a fixed point: a Pareto efficient equilibrium between market agents possessed with infinite computational horizons. An idea at least as absurd if not more so.

Yes so what we are seeing here is the stories people tell themselves and the myths that underpin their beliefs. These exist across the political spectrum and are absurd from a pragmatic point of view but very important in terms of politics.

The way I see the political compass, its divided into three planes, each of two axes which denote state power and the level of intervention in private life undertaken by the state.

The middle plane which sits between the other two is what we might call reality, the space of reachable social structures given human nature and real world constraints. All political parties that participate in the power structure necessarily reside on this plane. The other two planes are mythic.

One of the mythic planes is reserved for the superstitious and suspicious, representing probably the majority of the population and typically (in the west at least) those with individualistic viewpoints. Most of the modern population, of limited education, remains very superstitious, tending to believe all kinds of **** and bull. In this plane we find ideologies like fascism, right- and paleo-libertarian, and popular socialism - all of which are obsessed with the individual structure of society (often in moral terms e.g. paleolibertarian or paleoconservative). These are all populist, since populism appeals to the superstitious and irrational. 

The remaining plane (which I'll term humanist)  is reserved for those that have enduring belief in the inherent goodness of humanity as a whole and eternal progress towards humanistic nirvana. This tends to be the somewhat more educated section of society and their myths are focussed on equality and obsessed with the collective structure and governance of society, and they tend to believe that any social structure is possible with sufficient will and enlightenment. In reality though, this is not true and never will be and their myths are no more real than those of the populist dimension.

To look at real world outcomes of policy we need to look at where the party of that policy sits in the real world pane which is where it enacts policy. What the parties say and offer will reach into the mythic plane, but this is just talk.

So a good way of rationally judging political parties is to evaluate the degree to which their policy is pragmatic and grounded in reality, and the degree to which it reaches into the mythic dimensions. Johnsons tories, with their nationhood myth combined with visible actions on levelling up and visible national vaccine success is quite a powerful combination because it is mostly grounded in the pragmatic plane, and thus credible. That is, there is enough myth to be appealing, and the myth appears on the face of it to be matched by real world outcomes. One would expect Johnsons policy to be pragmatic and not mythic, because he is an opportunist.

Labour today on the other hand, spend most of their time in the mythic humanistic plane and fail to backup their mythological policy with concrete actions and results in the real world, and exactly like trump could not make reality match the story telling. Contrast with New Labour, who being supremely opportunistic and pragmatic, and with an appealing myth of Cool Britannia (another nationhood myth cleverly stolen from the populist dimension, and at the time matching the actual real world quite well for a time), did very well for themselves.

To recover, labour will need to work on a sensible achievable policy set for the medium term and attach that to a political myth, ideally with a "nationhood" aspect that is clearly distinguishable from the tories) that is lent credence by current events and the current situation. Since labour voters reside politically in both the superstitious (red brexit) and humanistic (remainer) planes, they have their work cut out for them to present a clear mythic component that shows what they stand for. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lisa Nandy?  
 

My view is that in England we have three parties essentially chasing the same 1/3 of voters: well educated, left-leaning, and socially liberal internationalists - The Greens, LibDems and Labour. These Parties  need to merge or at least start cooperating. 
 

And at the same time we have not got any party representing those of us in the working class who find tradition, openness, fairness, integrity, and local society to be the most important aspects of our lives. Someone upthread mentioned conservative with a small c. This 1/3 of the voters have been Labour voters in the past, but they have been ignored (and derided) by the cosmopolitan London-centric leadership and now have nowhere to go (some even voting for Boris for reasons that I still struggle to understand).  
 

To get the two groups above to vote together is tough, but not impossible (take the SNP in Scotland perhaps?).
 

Of course we also have the 1/3 of voters who just want their wives to have bigger breasts and have more chance of owning a BMW M3.  But they are, I think, a lost cause.    

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/05/2021 at 12:19, GregBowman said:

The corrective is a move back to the middle and capitalism with a small c

The Lib Dems are back to all their MPs being able to fit into a taxi, Starmer's Labour are being handed their backside, but still the 'the answer is centrism' theory lives on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Build policies based on shared values between the two groups. Inclusive society and fair society to all participants. They should hang onto woke-ism, but push it from the front line focus. Front line focus should be on education, health, jobs and housing for all.

On spending, more than the Tories. But put the emphasis as well on responsible and spending and value for money. This is ground to be seized after recent debacles.

Throw out Brexit/remain and focus on the future relationship with Europe instead and how that will be taken forwards. Brexit is a political meat grinder. The sooner you throw it out the better.

If this makes them identical to the Tories, so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

Lisa Nandy?  
 

My view is that in England we have three parties essentially chasing the same 1/3 of voters: well educated, left-leaning, and socially liberal internationalists - The Greens, LibDems and Labour. These Parties  need to merge or at least start cooperating. 
 

And at the same time we have not got any party representing those of us in the working class who find tradition, openness, fairness, integrity, and local society to be the most important aspects of our lives. Someone upthread mentioned conservative with a small c. This 1/3 of the voters have been Labour voters in the past, but they have been ignored (and derided) by the cosmopolitan London-centric leadership and now have nowhere to go (some even voting for Boris for reasons that I still struggle to understand).  
 

To get the two groups above to vote together is tough, but not impossible (take the SNP in Scotland perhaps?).
 

Of course we also have the 1/3 of voters who just want their wives to have bigger breasts and have more chance of owning a BMW M3.  But they are, I think, a lost cause.    

 

I was (one) of the people talking about little c conservatives earlier on.  Agreed there is a massive open goal for a party.

The nearest I have found is the SDP (no idea if they are related to the SDP of the 80s) but they are very minor I don't they they field many candidates even. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

Lisa Nandy?  
 

My view is that in England we have three parties essentially chasing the same 1/3 of voters: well educated, left-leaning, and socially liberal internationalists - The Greens, LibDems and Labour. These Parties  need to merge or at least start cooperating. 
 

And at the same time we have not got any party representing those of us in the working class who find tradition, openness, fairness, integrity, and local society to be the most important aspects of our lives. Someone upthread mentioned conservative with a small c. This 1/3 of the voters have been Labour voters in the past, but they have been ignored (and derided) by the cosmopolitan London-centric leadership and now have nowhere to go (some even voting for Boris for reasons that I still struggle to understand).  
 

To get the two groups above to vote together is tough, but not impossible (take the SNP in Scotland perhaps?).
 

Of course we also have the 1/3 of voters who just want their wives to have bigger breasts and have more chance of owning a BMW M3.  But they are, I think, a lost cause.    

 

You are thinking along the right lines. Really, all the internationalists (including the labour component who have never been that left leaning anyway) need to work together whether left or right leaning, because globalism is a very tarnished myth at the moment and they'll need every vote they can get. They would probably be better served by uniting around a domestic liberal green agenda than one explicitly internationalist. Most of the remainer crew are more upset by the lack of an international humanistic future than they are about issues like equality etc.

What remains of labour is then the more socialist aspect of it, and they need a myth to work with. They have two options: populist socialism or localism, or some combination. The nationhood myth is already sown up by Johnson, and in any case none of the labour socialists really subscribe to that myth. A workable localism platform with the right leadership could start to win back the north and would be a natural ally of the SNP.

That won't be an election winner, but could produce (ironically) a successful coalition with the internationalists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, reddog said:

One other thing.  I think the green party will soon be causing trouble for Starmer.  This trend has caused the German equivalent of the Labour party a lot of troubles already.

 

Eventually you get tired of apologising to Establishment obstructionists for being liberal, progressive, metropolitan etc and start to look for more sympathetic political alternatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nightowl said:

I was (one) of the people talking about little c conservatives earlier on.  Agreed there is a massive open goal for a party.

The nearest I have found is the SDP (no idea if they are related to the SDP of the 80s) but they are very minor I don't they they field many candidates even. 

I quite like the tag Red Tory. It doesn't seem incompatible to me that you can believe in the power of free markets but recognise they need some form of  regulation. That bloated national government is  a waste of tax payers money and they should focus on infrastructure and in the cases of local councils, local services. That basic employment rights need protection they have been hard won over centuries. Private healthcare and education should get minor tax breaks to encourage cheap and more effective competition.

There are infrastructure industries that should be under state control the utilities and the rail network (not sure about the train operators but the tenders have to be more aligned with public interest)

Public spending of any kind from warships to PPE should be operated on a UK first basis providing the spec is met at the right price

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, bartelbe said:

When you look at the polls the public support higher taxes for big business, more public spending, nationalising natural monopolies and more protections for workers. Which are left of centre positions.

There isn't however a majority backing for more radical social position.

This comes with the proviso that most people think someone else's taxes should increase to increase public spending

It is not a radical position, it needn't be.....they are policies the majority of the population would agree with.....clearly there is nobody within the Labour party that is of leadership material......no clear plan or the ability to sell, put to the people their intentions on how they would take the country forward......too many in battles internally.

I don't even think Starmer wants to run the country, doesn't act like it, an interim position....;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.