Hard to argue with that Southam. But ideology is likely to trump personal qualities in any leadership election. The challenge is for Labour leader electors to see the candidates as the rest of us do.
As important, of course, is that the voter-repellent likes of John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Diane Abbott and Corbyn himself would be hidden from view, just as they used to be.
How can you say that about Richard Burgon, he's absolutely awesome, and should be next Labour leader.
I should have probably vetted this article before publication.
Agree with most of this, but...who is this ideal leader? It is not obvious. I would be for Jarvis, but his personal circumstances don't permit it and it is doubtful he could win. Jez is useless and has been given a fair go, but the lack of an obvious successor who would command broad support is the real, root problem.
One of the tenets of PB has long been that "the Labour brand" will survive this crisis and given the right leader recover. I'm no longer so sure. While we're all familiar with how May thrashes Corbyn, people may be less aware that in the Midlands the Tories now thrash Labour - and are even marginally ahead of them in the North.
'....and a Labour team that includes the likes of Chuka Umunna, Yvette Cooper, Chris Leslie, Caroline Flint, Dan Jarvis, Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy, Liz Kendall, Jon Ashworth, Stella Creasey, Stephen Kinnock, Angela Eagle and even Ed Miliband would give it a run for its money.'
Agree with most of this, but...who is this ideal leader? It is not obvious. I would be for Jarvis, but his personal circumstances don't permit it and it is doubtful he could win. Jez is useless and has been given a fair go, but the lack of an obvious successor who would command broad support is the real, root problem.
One of the tenets of PB has long been that "the Labour brand" will survive this crisis and given the right leader recover. I'm no longer so sure. While we're all familiar with how May thrashes Corbyn, people may be less aware that in the Midlands the Tories now thrash Labour - and are even marginally ahead of them in the North.
The midlands look like being an absolute bloodbath for Labour come 2020. Con Gain Bolsover & Dronfield if the new boundaries are put in place according to my calculations.
The lesson to be learned from France, Germany and Italy is that a lot of a party’s success depends on its leader. Of course, we know that applies in England – and the UK, more generally – too, but it is a truth that Labour has chosen to ignore since 2010. Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn, even more so, could have been perfectly designed to put off the kind of floating voters in marginal English constituencies whose support a party needs in order to win elections.
Why just 2010? Labour knew full well while still in office that Gordon Brown was an electoral liability from about mid 2008 onwards yet failed to replace him too.
Good piece Mr Observer, and quite agree, a good leader can achieve great things for their party and electoral success, whilst a bad leader will do the opposite. - I think Corbyn is about to test this hypothesis to destruction.
Agree with most of this, but...who is this ideal leader? It is not obvious. I would be for Jarvis, but his personal circumstances don't permit it and it is doubtful he could win. Jez is useless and has been given a fair go, but the lack of an obvious successor who would command broad support is the real, root problem.
Leaders even successful ones aren't necessarily obvious at the time.
Agree with most of this, but...who is this ideal leader? It is not obvious. I would be for Jarvis, but his personal circumstances don't permit it and it is doubtful he could win. Jez is useless and has been given a fair go, but the lack of an obvious successor who would command broad support is the real, root problem.
Is it indeed doable in one jump ? It seems from the outside that the first task is to find someone that can pull the party back together and get everyone pointing in the same direction, that might well not be the same person as someone that can take that now "finely-honed tool" and use it to fight and win an election.
Maybe the first jump needs to be to a Tom Watson figure, middle of the party, tolerable if not acceptable to most members, and well connected with the unions. While that person is pulling the team together the wonks in the backrooms need to decide what Labour stands for in the post BrExit globalised world.
Ultimately it is going to need a charismatic leader to sell the new ways to the old warhorses, especially when they have to learn that the answer can no longer be throwing around big chunks of other people's money. Once one this is done is there a realistic chance of selling the electorate on a platform this isn't "not the tories". Sure that might work if the Tories screw up horribly, but otherwise floating voters are going to need a positive reason to try something new.
Unfortunately I start work again on Friday. The good news is all the fun has gone out of the Labour leadership market for the time being - only job now for me to tidy up the few remaining reds at suitably long odds.
One of the tenets of PB has long been that "the Labour brand" will survive this crisis and given the right leader recover. I'm no longer so sure. While we're all familiar with how May thrashes Corbyn, people may be less aware that in the Midlands the Tories now thrash Labour - and are even marginally ahead of them in the North.
The midlands look like being an absolute bloodbath for Labour come 2020. Con Gain Bolsover & Dronfield if the new boundaries are put in place according to my calculations.
Back in the summer of 2015 the feeling was Corbyn would do well in Scotland, than he would in England.
Right now, Labour are in third place, polling in the teens, lord knows how badly the IRA honouring Corbyn will go down with the voters that remember the IRA pub bombings.
Unfortunately I start work again on Friday. The good news is all the fun has gone out of the Labour leadership market for the time being - only job now for me to tidy up the few remaining reds at suitably long odds.
There's quite a few of us on holiday/half term a week on Friday.
Next Friday could be fun. It could be a day long remembered, it could see the end of Nuttall and it could also see the end of Corbyn.
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
Yvette Cooper looks to be someone to lead Labour to a middling defeat to me. But she won't get the job.
Haven't Labour placed themselves is a position that is somewhat more invidious than the rosy picture Joff paints of "it's the leader, stupid?"
They have shown that they are a split party. They have publicly aired and accepted some vehemently unpleasant strands within the party. They have damaged the 'brand' They have taught loyal voters to put the precious X elsewhere on the ballot paper. Once a habit is broken it is easy to continue breaking it. They have shown that the party can lurch left to right, what you vote for may not be what you get. The internal structures allow for a takeover from a determined wing of the party. That has to be cured or will be a millstone (as opposed to Edstone) round their electoral neck for some time to come.
What they have to do is put in hard graft and earn trust, respect and votes. The change of leader is only one aspect, as they have so comprehensively lost their way, a change of leadership will not be adequate.
A leadership election this year or next.... It is probable that any change in leader will take place in an orderly way at conference - September 2017 or 2018. Image the carnage to prospects by September 2018.
How much can the LIbDems damage Labour in those 7 or 19 months? How much can Labour damage Labour in that time? How much will Brexit damage Labour in that time?
I suspect that Labour has Structural, Strategic, Organisational, and Operational challenges (as well as competition) to overcome before it reaches the sunny uplands.
Which is a pity, as we need a coherent opposition.
I agree that a good leader is important but I think Labour's problems go deeper. They have no answer to the needs of the modern age - resorting again and again and again to the same tired slogans of which 'the NHS in crisis' is the most typical. They are caught in mid 20th century statist ideology and any derogation from this produces howls of rage from the producer class. The same goes generally with other public services. Meanwhile the contempt felt for their erstwhile voting core outside the big cities is held barely beneath the surface by many of their MPs who aren't the usual suspects.
In France the main centre left party is led by the Corbynista Hamon, Macron is basically a LD while in the Netherlands the Labour Party there could come 4th or even 5th in their election in March. Given Corbyn has won two landslide victories amongst the membership now I would have thought moderates within Labour would have realised the membership are not going to pick a Blairite to lead them into the general election any time soon. Indeed after IDS was toppled by Tory MPs despite having won the membership vote they replaced him with the equally rightwing Michael Howard and it was only after another general election defeat that the Tory membership picked Cameron. Better to let the Corbynista project lose a general election than try and impose a moderate who then loses and thus give the left the chance to say 'I told you so if only we had been led by Jeremy!'
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
The thing is if they weren't their own worst enemy, they could pick someone with a chance of leading them to victory in 2020 (by getting a hung parliament, not a majority's which is likely impossible for now). Jarvis for example. 2020 doesn't have to be a write off.
A well-written article by Joff, and as others have said there's not much to disagree with. However, it would be a mistake to fall into the trap of projecting all of Labour's woes onto Jeremy Corbyn and his immediate circle. The party has strategic problems which transcend personalities, including:
- Scotland, where they've carelessly mislaid around 50 of what used to be some of their safest seats;
- Related to that, dependency on a deal with the SNP to get anywhere near a lever of power;
- A near-total lack of specific policy ideas which might deliver the motherhoold-and-apple-pie aspirations ("We are all stronger when we work together to achieve common aims; when the weakest and most vulnerable are fully protected; when there is equality of opportunity for all; when the state stands as the guarantor of best-in-class services and basic living standards" could have come from a Theresa May speech, but she comes across as having at least some idea of how these might be delivered);
- A profound lack of trust by the electorate in their economic competence;
- The reluctance to give up some of the barmier policy positions, at least amongst a large proportion of their MPs and activists;
- Far too much reliance on 'not the Tories', which is fine as far as it goes but doesn't go very far if you're not seen as a credible government-in-waiting;
- Reliance on a splintered coalition of ethnic minorities, Guardianistas, NHS and other public sector workers, and the remnants of the WWC - who have different and often contradictory concerns;
- Brexit, where the disarray is a wonder to behold.
All this will take a huge amount of work to address. Some deep thinking, and a lot of grindingly-hard work, will be required before Labour can be credible. There's a good precedent for this - the meticulous work which the New Labour team put into making Labour under Blair credible once again, systematically identifying and addressing each weakness in turn.
I see absolutely no signs of any such effort being put in or even contemplated yet by the non-Corbynista parts of the party. Until it is, the beneficial effects of changing leader will be slight, even if they end up choosing someone serious, moderate and competent.
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
The thing is if they weren't their own worst enemy, they could pick someone with a chance of leading them to victory in 2020 (by getting a hung parliament, not a majority's which is likely impossible for now). Jarvis for example. 2020 doesn't have to be a write off.
This is the point I've been making for a while, Labour don't need to win a majority to become the government, they can be around 70 odd seats short, and the SNP and the rest of the rainbow alliance come into play
I know we live in interesting times, but I cannot foresee a world where the SNP form a coalition with the Tories.
"We are all stronger when we work together to achieve common aims; when the weakest and most vulnerable are fully protected; when there is equality of opportunity for all; when the state stands as the guarantor of best-in-class services and basic living standards."
Well, yes, in general.
But what do these actually mean?
"Common aims" - what are they? What about when there are conflicts between the aims of one group in society and the aims of another? What will determine how Labour makes that choice?
"When the weakest and most vulnerable are fully protected" - from what? At all costs? It is of course good that we should protect the vulnerable. But that cannot be an excuse not to have any change nor an excuse for policies which may be economically harmful to millions of others.
Labour - all parties, really - need to think hard about how you effect necessary changes while minimizing the pain for those who absolutely cannot help themselves. Too often the reaction has been to say that there must be no change at all because someone somewhere might be worse off. This is a recipe for stasis and decline.
It is the default instinct of an ancien regime that seeks to live off past glories and resists any change. To hear Labour these days is to hear a party which thinks that what it did in 1945-50 is the best that it could ever do and can never ever be improved upon. It is absurd.
Labour are like the French Bourbons in the 1780s: aching for the glories of the Sun King (Atlee et al), blissfully aware that their policies have bankrupted the country and heading for disaster.
"Equality of opportunity for all" - yes, absolutely. But Labour often says this but actually means "equality of outcome". The two are not really compatible.
The state as "guarantor of best-in-class services": interesting how you have put it. "Guarantor" does not mean "provider". Labour have always focused on the latter i.e. it has seemed more important that the state should provide something rather than what gets provided is as good as possible. I'm not at all sure that the current Labour party is anywhere near where you are on this.
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
That is going to need an elder statesman. None of the "young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling", are going to risk a possible career in Downing Street by picking up Corbyn's mess. Who does that leave, Hattie ? Postie ? Or maybe a younger player with the self awareness to know they will never win an election as leader but might that the thanks of their party for sorting out the mess - Watson ?
The Labour MP for Vauxhall, Kate Hoey, has strongly defended herself after being told of threats of deselection from her local party and criticism from political opponents over her strong support for Brexit.
Several members of her local party have expressed their disapproval of Hoey’s support for Brexit to BuzzFeed News, and all the individuals we spoke to said they felt she was likely to be deselected in 2018. The Liberal Democrats’ prospective parliamentary candidate told us he has been contacted “every week” by lifelong Labour voters who are now considering switching to the Liberal Democrats.
There is or should be a tension in our politics between the individualist, equal opportunity but then good luck brand and the society has a moral duty to look after those left behind brand.
Without an effective opposition the Tories have a tendency to drift too far along the spectrum and frankly to pay insufficient attention to the realities of whether people have equal opportunities or not. An effective opposition that challenges their thinking drives them closer to the middle ground whether that opposition gains power or not. It is also inevitably the case that from time to time a rebalancing is required. 1997 was such an occasion when a government which had lost touch with how much so many rely on the State had starved the public sector excessively over a long period of time.
For these reasons I think that this country needs a functioning Labour party that has much to say about the national conversation and direction. There are serious structural problems in Health, Social Care, housing and education which unfairly disadvantages too many of our fellow citizens. And of course there is Brexit.
Labour are not only letting themselves and their supporters down, they are letting the country down in a way that is shameful. I don't see another alternative opposition on the horizon. We all need Labour to get its shit together and fast. But I just don't see how and Joff's excellent piece does not have an answer either.
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
Yvette Cooper looks to be someone to lead Labour to a middling defeat to me. But she won't get the job.
Cooper doesn’t stand a chance of being elected imo, while the party leadership is determined by a far leftish membership. – Perhaps a way round this whole debacle is for a membership drive to hopefully re-balance its present dominance by momentum.
The Labour MP for Vauxhall, Kate Hoey, has strongly defended herself after being told of threats of deselection from her local party and criticism from political opponents over her strong support for Brexit.
Several members of her local party have expressed their disapproval of Hoey’s support for Brexit to BuzzFeed News, and all the individuals we spoke to said they felt she was likely to be deselected in 2018. The Liberal Democrats’ prospective parliamentary candidate told us he has been contacted “every week” by lifelong Labour voters who are now considering switching to the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats’ prospective parliamentary candidate told us he has been contacted “every week” by lifelong Labour voters who are now considering switching to the Liberal Democrats.
Is this necessarily more than the same two voters contacting him every week?
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
The thing is if they weren't their own worst enemy, they could pick someone with a chance of leading them to victory in 2020 (by getting a hung parliament, not a majority's which is likely impossible for now). Jarvis for example. 2020 doesn't have to be a write off.
This is the point I've been making for a while, Labour don't need to win a majority to become the government, they can be around 70 odd seats short, and the SNP and the rest of the rainbow alliance come into play
I know we live in interesting times, but I cannot foresee a world where the SNP form a coalition with the Tories.
Conversely the reliance on the SNP alliance is a wedge that drives away the floating voters that Labour needs to get back in the game. The more outrageous Mrs Turnips demands appear to the rUK voter, the less likely they are to countenance voting for a Labour Party that will only be in power at the whim of the Scottish nationalists. Especially since as Southam observes one of Labour's problems at the moment is their inability to cater to the patriotic vote, they certainly won't help that position by appearing to be reliant on the SNP!
Unfortunately I start work again on Friday. The good news is all the fun has gone out of the Labour leadership market for the time being - only job now for me to tidy up the few remaining reds at suitably long odds.
There's quite a few of us on holiday/half term a week on Friday.
Next Friday could be fun. It could be a day long remembered, it could see the end of Nuttall and it could also see the end of Corbyn.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
Unfortunately I start work again on Friday. The good news is all the fun has gone out of the Labour leadership market for the time being - only job now for me to tidy up the few remaining reds at suitably long odds.
There's quite a few of us on holiday/half term a week on Friday.
Next Friday could be fun. It could be a day long remembered, it could see the end of Nuttall and it could also see the end of Corbyn.
Pretty unlikely to be the end of both
I'm going to be unlikely to be anywhere near wifi or a mobile signal for most of next Friday.
'....and a Labour team that includes the likes of Chuka Umunna, Yvette Cooper, Chris Leslie, Caroline Flint, Dan Jarvis, Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy, Liz Kendall, Jon Ashworth, Stella Creasey, Stephen Kinnock, Angela Eagle and even Ed Miliband would give it a run for its money.'
Just like they did in 2015. Yup.
It won't take a lot for a personable, centrist Labour leader to make massive inroads against the Tories. In 2015 the Tories were a party of the centre right, emphasis on centre..not sure thats the case anymore. Theres a huge gap to be filled, particularly as the Lib Dems appear to have veered leftwards.
Equally both Cameron (in 2015) and May currently are both significantly more personally popular than both their parties and the respective Labour leaders.
Any sort of post Brexit malaise will cause the blame to be heaped firmly on the governments shoulders and combing that with the NHS and education funding/organisational problems could lead to serious problems for the Tories.
From the list above I'd imagaine Jarvis, Nandy, Creasey and Starmer could all cause Mrs May problems.
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
Yvette Cooper looks to be someone to lead Labour to a middling defeat to me. But she won't get the job.
Cooper doesn’t stand a chance of being elected imo, while the party leadership is determined by a far leftish membership. – Perhaps a way round this whole debacle is for a membership drive to hopefully re-balance its present dominance by momentum.
A Labour Party incapable of electing Cooper is one incapable of winning elections.
She is basically a Labour version of Mrs May. Sensible, clever, earnest but a bit dull. She is well educated, has plenty of experience and good union connections. She might not set the leftie hearts racing, but she won't scare the horses, and might appeal to Mr & Mrs Smith in Acacia Avenue. She would also break the taboo on Labour electing women leaders.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
"The LibDems look alot more promising." Who are you and what have you done with Patrick?
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
Yvette Cooper looks to be someone to lead Labour to a middling defeat to me. But she won't get the job.
Cooper doesn’t stand a chance of being elected imo, while the party leadership is determined by a far leftish membership. – Perhaps a way round this whole debacle is for a membership drive to hopefully re-balance its present dominance by momentum.
A Labour Party incapable of electing Cooper is one incapable of winning elections.
She is basically a Labour version of Mrs May. Sensible, clever, earnest but a bit dull. She is well educated, has plenty of experience and good union connections. She might not set the leftie hearts racing, but she won't scare the horses, and might appeal to Mr & Mrs Smith in Acacia Avenue. She would also break the taboo on Labour electing women leaders.
The Labour Party didn't elect Yvette because Yvette didn't want it.
She went on holiday in 2015 the middle of the campaigning period. That is not someone who wants the job.
The job facing the Labour leader will involve some ugliness & unpleasantness as well as hard work. It needs someone who is willing to get dirty.
Myself, like Tristram, I'd prefer to ... have a fun job running a big museum.
From the list above I'd imagine Jarvis, Nandy, Creasey and Starmer could all cause Mrs May problems.
Starmer is the only one of those with any sort of government experience, even in the shadow cabinet. The real problem though is none of those are going to want the job which will probably lead to a defeat and resignation in 2020, rather than let someone of the previous generation pick up the mess and have a real chance of power in 2025.
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
Yvette Cooper looks to be someone to lead Labour to a middling defeat to me. But she won't get the job.
I voted for Corbyn in 2015 precisely because I reckoned that all that Cooper or Burnham would be capable of would be to lead us to a middling defeat.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The job facing the Labour leader will involve some ugliness & unpleasantness as well as hard work. It needs someone who is willing to get dirty.
Myself, like Tristram, I'd prefer to ... have a fun job running a big museum.
Quite. Which is why as I said above they need a bruiser for 2020, someone that can kick some arses in the party and get them pulling together, which sounds like Watson, or Balls if he wants the job and they can find him a seat. The young princes will want to wait for the main chance in 2025.
Problem as ever will be the clicktivist members are unlikely to elect a leader that can fix Labour, and wants the job of fixing it.
I think it's got to a stage now in Labour (and among it supporters) that any MP who delivers a half competent speech, or has a good interview on TV (or even a bad one), is touted as a potential future leader. In its 100 year odd history, I doubt any incarnation of the Labour party has been as desperately weak and so devoid of talent as it is now. My own thoughts are that the next Labour PM is not even an MP yet.
Labour need to crown a Michael Howard equivalent figure to lead them to an honourable defeat in 2020 and aim to have an election winner in place for 2025.
Yvette Cooper looks to be someone to lead Labour to a middling defeat to me. But she won't get the job.
Cooper doesn’t stand a chance of being elected imo, while the party leadership is determined by a far leftish membership. – Perhaps a way round this whole debacle is for a membership drive to hopefully re-balance its present dominance by momentum.
A Labour Party incapable of electing Cooper is one incapable of winning elections.
She is basically a Labour version of Mrs May. Sensible, clever, earnest but a bit dull. She is well educated, has plenty of experience and good union connections. She might not set the leftie hearts racing, but she won't scare the horses, and might appeal to Mr & Mrs Smith in Acacia Avenue. She would also break the taboo on Labour electing women leaders.
This is a very astute comment. I agree entirely.
Apart from the women leader comment, the same could be said for her husband...
I think it's got to a stage now in Labour (and among it supporters) that any MP who delivers a half competent speech, or has a good interview on TV (or even a bad one), is touted as a potential future leader. In its 100 year odd history, I doubt any incarnation of the Labour party has been as desperately weak and so devoid of talent as it is now. My own thoughts are that the next Labour PM is not even an MP yet.
In 92 the next Tory leader to win an election was only just out of University. On current performance, I could quite well imagine the winning next Labour leader not being an MP yet.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The UKIP turkeys really did campaign for Christmas.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
So it is. Apologies. But I don't think it takes away from my basic point. It would take at least a generation for the Lib Dems to replace Labour.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The UKIP turkeys really did campaign for Christmas.
Well worth it though for Brexit. Can't be many other people who have left politics having achieved their goal. That's why Farage will go down in history as one of the greats (Nuttall less so!)
One of the key questions is whether Lab is willing to compromise to win. Lab can't win by just getting votes from "nice" LDs and Greens. They also need to pick up votes from "selfish" Tories and "racist" UKIP
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
But when you realise how bad Sarah Olney is then I guess its 8
Their resurgence in council by elections has been impressive, if they had a better leader in their ranks they would be making proper inroads in national polling.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
its still just a taxi full...
Mind you, UKIP's total is just a pushbike full, and not even a tandem.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The UKIP turkeys really did campaign for Christmas.
I remain unsure if they will even stand on a national basis by 2020. I really don't see the point or where the money is going to come from.
Labour has massive problems. It needs two new electorates:
1. A new electorate for the Leader. I can't see how the current one - a motley mix of the left to far left leaning, with Trade Union muscle - gets close to electability. A single election debacle won't do it. The leadership electorate may have had a shock, but their instinctive answer will be to increase the voltage.
2. A new electorate for Westminster. The current one just doesn't remotely buy into what the left to far left leaning Labour membership now hold as its core principles. The State they believe in can't be paid for. The current Conservative Govt. is going about as far as is possible to fund a public sector that the public still demands. The current shedding of public sector jobs and services is not as the left believes, ideologically driven by the "Tory scum". It's just that the private sector can't realistically support servicing any more debt. The voters broadly know this. And having no alternative for how to operate with a much smaller public service stuffed Labour in both 2010 and 2015. Hard to see where that answer comes from in 2020 or in 2025 - short of Labour becoming Tory Lite. That is, by resurrecting Tony Blair.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
Not for the present. The lost C2DE Leave vote is Labour's biggest problem but a party positioning itself as diehard Remain cheerleaders is hardly in a position to capitalise on it. The LDs will be able to do no more than appeal to a niche market so long as the country is focused on Brexit.
Yvette Cooper as leader of the Labour party.. Jeez , wasn't it she who gave us the useless HIPS legislation and I seem to recall focus groups were not impressed with her. She lacks gravitas, far tooo lightweight despite years in the HOC and despite OGH having ideas about it
Labour choose their leaders via member votes. Many appear to disbelieve Opinion Polls, and will vote for the most Left Wing candidate possible. In other words, what problem?
Even in power,Labour neglected its traditional working class areas. Even the dumbest Labour voter is realising that..
And as Scotland proves, once the dam breaks, the tide goes out very quickly leaving only a few rocks.
The Tories tend to leave their supporters richer when they lose power. Labour leave theirs inevitably poorer - because subsidies or benefits are the first things cut when the economy hits the rocks.
And finally, Labour is so PC, it ignores for decades any complaints of its voters which conflict with its beliefs. "Racist" etc,,
All the symptoms of a Party which needs radical surgery and renewal..As no-one is promising that, it appears stuffed. (to use a technical term)
I was stunningly unimpressed by her during the leadership campaign and the only time she showed any passion was over wanting to admit more refugees to the UK. And she was more than a little hyperbolic on it.
Important as it is to the Labour base it shows a tin ear for those voters - particularly those concerned by immigration - that Labour needs to win back over.
From the list above I'd imagine Jarvis, Nandy, Creasey and Starmer could all cause Mrs May problems.
Starmer is the only one of those with any sort of government experience, even in the shadow cabinet. The real problem though is none of those are going to want the job which will probably lead to a defeat and resignation in 2020, rather than let someone of the previous generation pick up the mess and have a real chance of power in 2025.
Everyone wants to be Tony Blair - no-one wants to be Neil Kinnock.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
"The LibDems look alot more promising." Who are you and what have you done with Patrick?
I'm still me! Relative to Labour a naturist in a motorcycle helmet looks more promising. If they're all as sensible as our very own John Loony then the MRLP look better. Minor Fart is a minor fart but he's 1000 times less dreadful than Labour. Apart form the EU thing, natch. :-)
The article completely ignores the fact that Labour is down to just one MP in Scotland with little prospect of that changing. The party can, with a great deal of hard work, recover its reputation in the north of England, but unless they can find a way to get back at least a dozen seat north of the border, its chances of ever getting near power again are minimal.
Yvette Cooper as leader of the Labour party.. Jeez , wasn't it she who gave us the useless HIPS legislation and I seem to recall focus groups were not impressed with her. She lacks gravitas, far tooo lightweight despite years in the HOC and despite OGH having ideas about it
Her latest high profile campaign to increase the number of refugees coming here struck me as a paradigm of her career. Well meaning, genuinely compassionate, more than somewhat out of touch with the majority and not great on the practicalities. Her campaign for leader made Liz Kendall's look good.
David L - we don't need Labour to get its shit together fast. Better that it dies. We need a decent lefty opposition to get its shit together fast. Very different. The LibDems look alot more promising.
The Lib Dems are just so far away that they cannot offer meaningful opposition. They now have 7 MPs. A good result at the next election might get them up to 30. They are not competitive in far too many seats around the country.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
The total of LD MPs is 9 not 7
So it is. Apologies. But I don't think it takes away from my basic point. It would take at least a generation for the Lib Dems to replace Labour.
There were 6 SNP MPs two years ago. Generations can be expedited.
I was stunningly unimpressed by her during the leadership campaign and the only time she showed any passion was over wanting to admit more refugees to the UK. And she was more than a little hyperbolic on it.
Important as it is to the Labour base it shows a tin ear for those voters - particularly those concerned by immigration - that Labour needs to win back over.
Yvette Cooper ? She makes a dead fish come alive by comparison. As for being a safe pair of hands.. well any politician that allows herself to be drawn into promising something she does not want to do - and does not do it - is NOT safe.. (Houses for refugees).
Not a bad article by Joff but I feel the analysis is incomplete:
(1) Continental EU voters are turning to nurse - i.e. institutionally pro EU politicians- as they face up to the UK leaving, a hostile US administration and a gleeful Russia (2) It's not just the leader, it's also the electoral cycle and booting out politicians who've been in power a long time. Merkel has been there a very long time: over 11 years (3) It remains to be seen if these hypotheses are born out in elections, but the splintering of the Right that enables a Left government to win (Sweden, and possibly Germany and France) does not resolve the long-term problems of social democracy
From the list above I'd imagine Jarvis, Nandy, Creasey and Starmer could all cause Mrs May problems.
Starmer is the only one of those with any sort of government experience, even in the shadow cabinet. The real problem though is none of those are going to want the job which will probably lead to a defeat and resignation in 2020, rather than let someone of the previous generation pick up the mess and have a real chance of power in 2025.
Everyone wants to be Tony Blair - no-one wants to be Neil Kinnock.
I think that is broadly true in the modern world of professional politicians, in former times where people came from a successful career to provide service to their country they would conceive of taking one for the team, now that isnt going to happen, everyone wants a long and glorious career.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out that what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
I really can't agree with you about the identikit Labour leader. The most successful one in my lifetime would never play the patriotic little Englander or bow to the cross of St George. . His accent was 100% metropolitan and his popularity transcended parties and generations.
At the time there was no evidence whatsoever that he was a nutter.......
Re this - "Labour needs a leader who is not uncomfortable with the kind of harmless patriotism that most English people of all political persuasions are happy to indulge in" - I think the Labour party needs to go further.
It needs to be seen as a party which puts the interests of Britain and its people first. Not merely "not uncomfortable".
It's not just Corbyn's flirtation with terrorists who wanted to bomb Britain which is the problem but also the attitude expressed by our own dear Mr Palmer last August where he said this:-
"How does it feel about the nation it seeks to govern? I don’t intuitively agree with Cyclefree’s view of “Britain first”. I think we should follow the more subtle policy of ensuring that Britain’s needs get fair consideration. That’s an important role for Britain’s government (nobody else will bother), but I don’t favour putting our needs above everyone else’s."
I think a lot of the voters Labour needs to win back do feel that Britain's government should "favour putting our needs above everyone else's."
I really can't agree with you about the identikit Labour leader. The most successful one in my lifetime would never play the patriotic little Englander or bow to the cross of St George. . His accent was 100% metropolitan and his popularity transcended parties and generations.
At the time there was no evidence whatsoever that he was a nutter.......
Oh some of us did clock him right from the start as the narcissistic weasel he turned out to be.
To my mind he is streets ahead of any other politician for the damage he has done to Britain and its political institutions. Pretty much everything he touched turned to ashes. It will take generations to rebuild the trust in our politics which he destroyed.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
Yvette Cooper as leader of the Labour party.. Jeez , wasn't it she who gave us the useless HIPS legislation and I seem to recall focus groups were not impressed with her. She lacks gravitas, far tooo lightweight despite years in the HOC and despite OGH having ideas about it
Her latest high profile campaign to increase the number of refugees coming here struck me as a paradigm of her career. Well meaning, genuinely compassionate, more than somewhat out of touch with the majority and not great on the practicalities. Her campaign for leader made Liz Kendall's look good.
And interesting that the only thing which made her passionate was the plight of refugees. Nothing wrong with that at all. But a politician seeking votes here should surely be able to develop some passion for curing injustices here at home. Otherwise, why the hell did they go into politics?
I think Marquee Mark makes a very astute point about the absolute level of public spend we have to play with. We're pretty much at the max already. Further tax and spend would be a disaster. Which forces attention back on the efficiency of the public sector. A major Labour turn off is that they are owned and paid for by the producers not the consumers. They bleat about service but every solution is more money. Their utter rejection of any meaningful reform comes across to everyone who is used to getting a decent service in the private sector as an unwillingness to help the public because so doing would harm Labour. It looks - and completely is - very self serving.
I really can't agree with you about the identikit Labour leader. The most successful one in my lifetime would never play the patriotic little Englander or bow to the cross of St George. . His accent was 100% metropolitan and his popularity transcended parties and generations.
At the time there was no evidence whatsoever that he was a nutter.......
You are having a laugh, don't you remember Cool Britannia ? More union jacks than you could shake a bulldog at.
The article completely ignores the fact that Labour is down to just one MP in Scotland with little prospect of that changing. The party can, with a great deal of hard work, recover its reputation in the north of England, but unless they can find a way to get back at least a dozen seat north of the border, its chances of ever getting near power again are minimal.
Hi @Davegoo. Ian Murray is my MP. It's a three-way fight now. The LDs are no longer in play here, and if Labour support falls, which I expect, the Conservatives are as likely to benefit as SNP (though their candidate was god-awful last time so they may claw back some votes with a different one).
Yvette Cooper as leader of the Labour party.. Jeez , wasn't it she who gave us the useless HIPS legislation and I seem to recall focus groups were not impressed with her. She lacks gravitas, far tooo lightweight despite years in the HOC and despite OGH having ideas about it
Her latest high profile campaign to increase the number of refugees coming here struck me as a paradigm of her career. Well meaning, genuinely compassionate, more than somewhat out of touch with the majority and not great on the practicalities. Her campaign for leader made Liz Kendall's look good.
And interesting that the only thing which made her passionate was the plight of refugees. Nothing wrong with that at all. But a politician seeking votes here should surely be able to develop some passion for curing injustices here at home. Otherwise, why the hell did they go into politics?
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out that what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
Depends how you read it though. If you read it as a learned and objective report on the feasible alternatives to CFP under international fish-stock agreements, then we are indeed stuffed.
I was stunningly unimpressed by her during the leadership campaign and the only time she showed any passion was over wanting to admit more refugees to the UK. And she was more than a little hyperbolic on it.
Important as it is to the Labour base it shows a tin ear for those voters - particularly those concerned by immigration - that Labour needs to win back over.
Yvette Cooper ? She makes a dead fish come alive by comparison. As for being a safe pair of hands.. well any politician that allows herself to be drawn into promising something she does not want to do - and does not do it - is NOT safe.. (Houses for refugees).
An utter turnoff.
Ed Balls is the answer. He can do Metro and blue collar.
Not a bad article by Joff but I feel the analysis is incomplete:
(1) Continental EU voters are turning to nurse - i.e. institutionally pro EU politicians- as they face up to the UK leaving, a hostile US administration and a gleeful Russia (2) It's not just the leader, it's also the electoral cycle and booting out politicians who've been in power a long time. Merkel has been there a very long time: over 11 years (3) It remains to be seen if these hypotheses are born out in elections, but the splintering of the Right that enables a Left government to win (Sweden, and possibly Germany and France) does not resolve the long-term problems of social democracy
Re 1: I think the combination of an expansionary Russia and an indifferent US is almost guaranteed to drive the remaining EU countries closer together.
Yvette Cooper as leader of the Labour party.. Jeez , wasn't it she who gave us the useless HIPS legislation and I seem to recall focus groups were not impressed with her. She lacks gravitas, far tooo lightweight despite years in the HOC and despite OGH having ideas about it
Her latest high profile campaign to increase the number of refugees coming here struck me as a paradigm of her career. Well meaning, genuinely compassionate, more than somewhat out of touch with the majority and not great on the practicalities. Her campaign for leader made Liz Kendall's look good.
And interesting that the only thing which made her passionate was the plight of refugees. Nothing wrong with that at all. But a politician seeking votes here should surely be able to develop some passion for curing injustices here at home. Otherwise, why the hell did they go into politics?
I was stunningly unimpressed by her during the leadership campaign and the only time she showed any passion was over wanting to admit more refugees to the UK. And she was more than a little hyperbolic on it.
Important as it is to the Labour base it shows a tin ear for those voters - particularly those concerned by immigration - that Labour needs to win back over.
Yvette Cooper ? She makes a dead fish come alive by comparison. As for being a safe pair of hands.. well any politician that allows herself to be drawn into promising something she does not want to do - and does not do it - is NOT safe.. (Houses for refugees).
An utter turnoff.
Ed Balls is the answer. He can do Metro and blue collar.
I would have thought so too, but our friends on the left tell us he has as much chance of being chosen by the selectorate as he does of walking on the moon.
Document obtained by the Guardian states existing [fishing] quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
It turns out the what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
quotas will remain despite promises made by leave campaigners
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
There was an official Leave campaign. It is not unreasonable for voters to have taken its claims and pledges seriously. However, the Guardian should distinguish what the official campaign said from Nigel Farage's unofficial musings.
Not a bad article by Joff but I feel the analysis is incomplete:
(1) Continental EU voters are turning to nurse - i.e. institutionally pro EU politicians- as they face up to the UK leaving, a hostile US administration and a gleeful Russia (2) It's not just the leader, it's also the electoral cycle and booting out politicians who've been in power a long time. Merkel has been there a very long time: over 11 years (3) It remains to be seen if these hypotheses are born out in elections, but the splintering of the Right that enables a Left government to win (Sweden, and possibly Germany and France) does not resolve the long-term problems of social democracy
Re 1: I think the combination of an expansionary Russia and an indifferent US is almost guaranteed to drive the remaining EU countries closer together.
They will be driven together mostly by need to put up a plausible defensive force, especially if they piss off the Brits and we take out ball home. That will involve massive changes in public spending which will be a) hugely controversial at home, possibly even courageous, and b) be the source of endless bickering and bloodletting as to who picks up the bill for what. Could be kill or cure.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Labour fights back; or dies
Comments
As important, of course, is that the voter-repellent likes of John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Diane Abbott and Corbyn himself would be hidden from view, just as they used to be.
How can you say that about Richard Burgon, he's absolutely awesome, and should be next Labour leader.
I should have probably vetted this article before publication.
2020 - Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour check into Dignitas.
Just like they did in 2015. Yup.
Always back "someone else".
Why just 2010? Labour knew full well while still in office that Gordon Brown was an electoral liability from about mid 2008 onwards yet failed to replace him too.
Maybe the first jump needs to be to a Tom Watson figure, middle of the party, tolerable if not acceptable to most members, and well connected with the unions. While that person is pulling the team together the wonks in the backrooms need to decide what Labour stands for in the post BrExit globalised world.
Ultimately it is going to need a charismatic leader to sell the new ways to the old warhorses, especially when they have to learn that the answer can no longer be throwing around big chunks of other people's money. Once one this is done is there a realistic chance of selling the electorate on a platform this isn't "not the tories". Sure that might work if the Tories screw up horribly, but otherwise floating voters are going to need a positive reason to try something new.
Right now, Labour are in third place, polling in the teens, lord knows how badly the IRA honouring Corbyn will go down with the voters that remember the IRA pub bombings.
Next Friday could be fun. It could be a day long remembered, it could see the end of Nuttall and it could also see the end of Corbyn.
They have shown that they are a split party.
They have publicly aired and accepted some vehemently unpleasant strands within the party.
They have damaged the 'brand'
They have taught loyal voters to put the precious X elsewhere on the ballot paper. Once a habit is broken it is easy to continue breaking it.
They have shown that the party can lurch left to right, what you vote for may not be what you get. The internal structures allow for a takeover from a determined wing of the party. That has to be cured or will be a millstone (as opposed to Edstone) round their electoral neck for some time to come.
What they have to do is put in hard graft and earn trust, respect and votes. The change of leader is only one aspect, as they have so comprehensively lost their way, a change of leadership will not be adequate.
A leadership election this year or next.... It is probable that any change in leader will take place in an orderly way at conference - September 2017 or 2018. Image the carnage to prospects by September 2018.
How much can the LIbDems damage Labour in those 7 or 19 months?
How much can Labour damage Labour in that time?
How much will Brexit damage Labour in that time?
I suspect that Labour has Structural, Strategic, Organisational, and Operational challenges (as well as competition) to overcome before it reaches the sunny uplands.
Which is a pity, as we need a coherent opposition.
- Scotland, where they've carelessly mislaid around 50 of what used to be some of their safest seats;
- Related to that, dependency on a deal with the SNP to get anywhere near a lever of power;
- A near-total lack of specific policy ideas which might deliver the motherhoold-and-apple-pie aspirations ("We are all stronger when we work together to achieve common aims; when the weakest and most vulnerable are fully protected; when there is equality of opportunity for all; when the state stands as the guarantor of best-in-class services and basic living standards" could have come from a Theresa May speech, but she comes across as having at least some idea of how these might be delivered);
- A profound lack of trust by the electorate in their economic competence;
- The reluctance to give up some of the barmier policy positions, at least amongst a large proportion of their MPs and activists;
- Far too much reliance on 'not the Tories', which is fine as far as it goes but doesn't go very far if you're not seen as a credible government-in-waiting;
- Reliance on a splintered coalition of ethnic minorities, Guardianistas, NHS and other public sector workers, and the remnants of the WWC - who have different and often contradictory concerns;
- Brexit, where the disarray is a wonder to behold.
All this will take a huge amount of work to address. Some deep thinking, and a lot of grindingly-hard work, will be required before Labour can be credible. There's a good precedent for this - the meticulous work which the New Labour team put into making Labour under Blair credible once again, systematically identifying and addressing each weakness in turn.
I see absolutely no signs of any such effort being put in or even contemplated yet by the non-Corbynista parts of the party. Until it is, the beneficial effects of changing leader will be slight, even if they end up choosing someone serious, moderate and competent.
I know we live in interesting times, but I cannot foresee a world where the SNP form a coalition with the Tories.
"We are all stronger when we work together to achieve common aims; when the weakest and most vulnerable are fully protected; when there is equality of opportunity for all; when the state stands as the guarantor of best-in-class services and basic living standards."
Well, yes, in general.
But what do these actually mean?
"Common aims" - what are they? What about when there are conflicts between the aims of one group in society and the aims of another? What will determine how Labour makes that choice?
"When the weakest and most vulnerable are fully protected" - from what? At all costs? It is of course good that we should protect the vulnerable. But that cannot be an excuse not to have any change nor an excuse for policies which may be economically harmful to millions of others.
Labour - all parties, really - need to think hard about how you effect necessary changes while minimizing the pain for those who absolutely cannot help themselves. Too often the reaction has been to say that there must be no change at all because someone somewhere might be worse off. This is a recipe for stasis and decline.
It is the default instinct of an ancien regime that seeks to live off past glories and resists any change. To hear Labour these days is to hear a party which thinks that what it did in 1945-50 is the best that it could ever do and can never ever be improved upon. It is absurd.
Labour are like the French Bourbons in the 1780s: aching for the glories of the Sun King (Atlee et al), blissfully aware that their policies have bankrupted the country and heading for disaster.
"Equality of opportunity for all" - yes, absolutely. But Labour often says this but actually means "equality of outcome". The two are not really compatible.
The state as "guarantor of best-in-class services": interesting how you have put it. "Guarantor" does not mean "provider". Labour have always focused on the latter i.e. it has seemed more important that the state should provide something rather than what gets provided is as good as possible. I'm not at all sure that the current Labour party is anywhere near where you are on this.
Several members of her local party have expressed their disapproval of Hoey’s support for Brexit to BuzzFeed News, and all the individuals we spoke to said they felt she was likely to be deselected in 2018. The Liberal Democrats’ prospective parliamentary candidate told us he has been contacted “every week” by lifelong Labour voters who are now considering switching to the Liberal Democrats.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/marieleconte/this-enthusiastically-pro-brexit-labour-mp-is-now-at-war-wit?utm_term=.qjwjeg9GdG#.lgWmop6A7A
Without an effective opposition the Tories have a tendency to drift too far along the spectrum and frankly to pay insufficient attention to the realities of whether people have equal opportunities or not. An effective opposition that challenges their thinking drives them closer to the middle ground whether that opposition gains power or not. It is also inevitably the case that from time to time a rebalancing is required. 1997 was such an occasion when a government which had lost touch with how much so many rely on the State had starved the public sector excessively over a long period of time.
For these reasons I think that this country needs a functioning Labour party that has much to say about the national conversation and direction. There are serious structural problems in Health, Social Care, housing and education which unfairly disadvantages too many of our fellow citizens. And of course there is Brexit.
Labour are not only letting themselves and their supporters down, they are letting the country down in a way that is shameful. I don't see another alternative opposition on the horizon. We all need Labour to get its shit together and fast. But I just don't see how and Joff's excellent piece does not have an answer either.
Is this necessarily more than the same two voters contacting him every week?
It is nailed on to happen.
Equally both Cameron (in 2015) and May currently are both significantly more personally popular than both their parties and the respective Labour leaders.
Any sort of post Brexit malaise will cause the blame to be heaped firmly on the governments shoulders and combing that with the NHS and education funding/organisational problems could lead to serious problems for the Tories.
From the list above I'd imagaine Jarvis, Nandy, Creasey and Starmer could all cause Mrs May problems.
They need to find another USL that distinguishes them from both LD and UKIP and is attractive to the CDEs
She is basically a Labour version of Mrs May. Sensible, clever, earnest but a bit dull. She is well educated, has plenty of experience and good union connections. She might not set the leftie hearts racing, but she won't scare the horses, and might appeal to Mr & Mrs Smith in Acacia Avenue. She would also break the taboo on Labour electing women leaders.
Who are you and what have you done with Patrick?
She went on holiday in 2015 the middle of the campaigning period. That is not someone who wants the job.
The job facing the Labour leader will involve some ugliness & unpleasantness as well as hard work. It needs someone who is willing to get dirty.
Myself, like Tristram, I'd prefer to ... have a fun job running a big museum.
Now such a result is an aspiration!
I took the shit or bust option, and it bust.
UKIP are of course even further away. Despite the towering genius and multi-talented leader that is Nuttall (at least for a few more days) they look extremely unlikely to improve their representation in Parliament at the next election. It is an irony that once their MEPs lose their position the party is going to be dead.
Problem as ever will be the clicktivist members are unlikely to elect a leader that can fix Labour, and wants the job of fixing it.
Apart from the women leader comment, the same could be said for her husband...
1) Kendall
2) Corbyn.
Their resurgence in council by elections has been impressive, if they had a better leader in their ranks they would be making proper inroads in national polling.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/831824395131899904
1. A new electorate for the Leader. I can't see how the current one - a motley mix of the left to far left leaning, with Trade Union muscle - gets close to electability. A single election debacle won't do it. The leadership electorate may have had a shock, but their instinctive answer will be to increase the voltage.
2. A new electorate for Westminster. The current one just doesn't remotely buy into what the left to far left leaning Labour membership now hold as its core principles. The State they believe in can't be paid for. The current Conservative Govt. is going about as far as is possible to fund a public sector that the public still demands. The current shedding of public sector jobs and services is not as the left believes, ideologically driven by the "Tory scum". It's just that the private sector can't realistically support servicing any more debt. The voters broadly know this. And having no alternative for how to operate with a much smaller public service stuffed Labour in both 2010 and 2015. Hard to see where that answer comes from in 2020 or in 2025 - short of Labour becoming Tory Lite. That is, by resurrecting Tony Blair.
Labour choose their leaders via member votes. Many appear to disbelieve Opinion Polls, and will vote for the most Left Wing candidate possible. In other words, what problem?
Even in power,Labour neglected its traditional working class areas. Even the dumbest Labour voter is realising that..
And as Scotland proves, once the dam breaks, the tide goes out very quickly leaving only a few rocks.
The Tories tend to leave their supporters richer when they lose power. Labour leave theirs inevitably poorer - because subsidies or benefits are the first things cut when the economy hits the rocks.
And finally, Labour is so PC, it ignores for decades any complaints of its voters which conflict with its beliefs. "Racist" etc,,
All the symptoms of a Party which needs radical surgery and renewal..As no-one is promising that, it appears stuffed. (to use a technical term)
I was stunningly unimpressed by her during the leadership campaign and the only time she showed any passion was over wanting to admit more refugees to the UK. And she was more than a little hyperbolic on it.
Important as it is to the Labour base it shows a tin ear for those voters - particularly those concerned by immigration - that Labour needs to win back over.
@jdportes
Over last year, UK born in employment *down* 120K, EU-born (non-UK) up 190K, non-EU born up 240K"
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/831803155218305024/photo/1
The party can, with a great deal of hard work, recover its reputation in the north of England, but unless they can find a way to get back at least a dozen seat north of the border, its chances of ever getting near power again are minimal.
An utter turnoff.
(1) Continental EU voters are turning to nurse - i.e. institutionally pro EU politicians- as they face up to the UK leaving, a hostile US administration and a gleeful Russia
(2) It's not just the leader, it's also the electoral cycle and booting out politicians who've been in power a long time. Merkel has been there a very long time: over 11 years
(3) It remains to be seen if these hypotheses are born out in elections, but the splintering of the Right that enables a Left government to win (Sweden, and possibly Germany and France) does not resolve the long-term problems of social democracy
It turns out that what this actually means is that a document produced by a committee of MEPs says they'd like existing quotas to remain. Well there's a surprise.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/15/uk-fishermen-may-not-win-waters-back-after-brexit-eu-memo-reveals
At the time there was no evidence whatsoever that he was a nutter.......
It needs to be seen as a party which puts the interests of Britain and its people first. Not merely "not uncomfortable".
It's not just Corbyn's flirtation with terrorists who wanted to bomb Britain which is the problem but also the attitude expressed by our own dear Mr Palmer last August where he said this:-
"How does it feel about the nation it seeks to govern?
I don’t intuitively agree with Cyclefree’s view of “Britain first”. I think we should follow the more subtle policy of ensuring that Britain’s needs get fair consideration. That’s an important role for Britain’s government (nobody else will bother), but I don’t favour putting our needs above everyone else’s."
I think a lot of the voters Labour needs to win back do feel that Britain's government should "favour putting our needs above everyone else's."
To my mind he is streets ahead of any other politician for the damage he has done to Britain and its political institutions. Pretty much everything he touched turned to ashes. It will take generations to rebuild the trust in our politics which he destroyed.
This sort of bullshit is very tedious. Do people say "despite promises made by ASH" when the government changes smoking legislation, or "despite promises made by the CBI" after every budget ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38984204
Damned shame.
As for St Georges Cross, there is this