Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A woman leader could give LAB the polling breakthrough that it
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A woman leader could give LAB the polling breakthrough that it is looking for
I was on holiday last week with an old mate who is intensely proud of his northern roots. Born a scouser he made his mark on Yorkshire newspapers before his well-honed shorthand, bulging contacts book and nose for news earned him a transfer to Westminster.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oh and first, due solely to being in a different time-zone.
He will go at some point though and I think Don is right that other things being equal a female successor is likely. Corbyn has a big personal following which would not necessarily transfer to someone like John McDonnell or Diane Abbott IMO.
I see very little chance though that a candidate on the right could win on a platform of aping the Tories/cutting welfare to be serious/maintaining pay freeze etc etc.
She’s also not a fully fledged Corbynista imo (although she has been loyal) which might make her more acceptable to a broader range of MPs and help her get on the ballot.
Of course it won`t. In 2017 Labour had the benefit of the so-called "progressive alliance" to boost its vote. That idea is now dead and buried. Labour under Corbyn has shown itself to be anything but progressive - they even keep voting with the Tories all the way over Brexit.
Nobody is going to make the case next time that all non-Tory votes should converge on Labour.
I am unconvinced that a female leader per se will do much more for their voting base. they already do quite well among women, young, urban voters etc.The benches are packed full of talented women (just like in 1997/2001/2005 and look what happened), harriet harman made some interesting comments about this in her time in government which the party membership would do well to ponder.
has TM set the cause for female PMs back? I am generally trying to work that one out, but seeing her rather clumsy attempts at bonhomie with Trump, Macron etc its an interesting one.
As it stands, the next election is going to be between the two major parties. A revival of the centre is certainly possible, and 2022, assuming the government stumbles along for the whole term, is quite a ways off but there's no hint of it yet.
It is a weakness of all politicians to see the opposition's voters as fools or knaves.
As for Corbyn voluntarily standing down, at least this side of a defeat, it's for the birds. Even if he was personally minded to, like he allegedly was in 2016, there's no way his acolytes will let him while there's still a chance of him being replaced by even a left-winger who isn't totally sold on completing the project. Both Thornberry and Rayner would likely be Kinnockesque in keeping left-wing policies while reaching out to other wings of the party and stopping the rot by dealing with the structural capture of the party by the unreconstructed hard left. Lansman, Murphy et al aren't stupid. They know that if Labour regains a semblance of normality they could be finished as quickly as they've risen.
The question is, if after either a defeat or a polling collapse, the members who backed Corbyn because he seemed nice and they don't like Tony Blair or anyone who can be tangentially tied to him, but equally don't quote Gramsci on Twitter, decide enough's enough.
Quite. The '£176bn' figure quoted is a mere 10% of the existing national debt. I'm not being sarcastic; the Tories have failed to address the deficit, and it makes it hard to argue about tax 'n' spend when HMG is still living beyond its means ten years after the crash.
Labour have often, like the Democrats in the US, given the unfortunate impression that they care about token representation rather than merit. Abbott would be the most egregious example - on the list with the nominations of her leadership rivals to ensure there would be a black woman in the field. Corbyn himself is scarcely better, on the slate to ensure the long-forgotten views of socialism would be represented despite his distinctly underwhelming previous career.
What they need instead is to embrace full meritocracy, and be seen to be voting for someone not because she is a woman but because she's the best candidate. That's how both Tory female leaders did it and it is worth remembering that no female Tory leader has ever lost a general election.
It is not to Labour's credit that last time around they turned down Cooper - who whatever her shortcomings clearly was by a distance the best candidate for PM - in favour of both Burnham and Corbyn, and it does suggest a problem with sexism - women are OK as a downtrodden minority to be represented but shouldn't expect to be at the top. All-women shortlists frankly give the same impression (I know all parties use them).
So elect a female leader - yes, that would be a positive step. But only if she's there because she's the best candidate, not because Labour are embarrassed at being a bunch of old white men. That's the way Labour will show it really has embraced equality.
Rayner has youth on her side but she has yet to prove herself as a political thinker. Her recent comments about Labour's (lack of a coherent) economic policy indicates that she might be able to see a problem but is not yet fighting for her own vision of how to make things better. She is not always good at handling difficult interviews. The main thing people currently know about her is the fact that she was a teenage mother. Personally I don't think that a back story is sufficient to wanting to lead the country.
The issue of misogyny in the Labour movement has hampered the careers of many talented women and, indeed, put off many from even wanting to try. The fact that these two names are being touted as the future is a sign of weakness not strength.
Promotions to the Shadow Cabinet over the past two years have not been because of great talent but more from the fact that there are many on the opposition benches won't serve under Corbyn. This has allowed MPs to reach offices that would never have been offered them under a different leader.
Yes, Corbyn had a good campaign. And that has reduced the amount of internal criticism that reaches the public but it hasn't reunited the parliamentary party.
None of our political parties are enjoying a golden era of talent. But to claim that Thornberry and Rayner are the future only serves to highlight how mediocrity might be all anyone can hope for.
The idea that his replacement should be a woman is, as others have said, the worst form of tokenism rather than seeking to appoint the best person for the job. There’s also no indication that the more general Labour membership and the Unions would be interested in backing a woman - they certainly haven’t so far. It must really annoy the Harman types that the Conservatives have produced two female prime ministers.
Finally the issue with Angela Rayner isn’t the way she speaks, it the content of what comes out of her mouth.
UK growth upgrade could dwarf Brexit. Of course the effects of Brexit are likely to be so modest that any number of effects could dwarf it one way or the other. This one happens to be positive but no doubt there will be negative effects as well. As O'Neill contemplates these unrelated effects will all be seen through the prism of Brexit by both sides. I personally believe it will prove impossible to demonstrate a Brexit effect one way or the other for a decade or so and quite possibly never.
After a quick stop at "Better than Expected Election Results", the bus travels over some bumpy roads and gets to its terminus.
It's no surprise. Sometimes Don Brind travels a different route. But, we always arrive at the same destination.
It's "Jazza Must Go".
For me, the most interesting metric post-Brexit will be FDI.
The membership is almost 50% female and I don't think is opposed to a woman leader in any way, but there again they'll choose the most sympathetic politically, with some but not overwhelmig consideration of electability (partly because it's hard to tell in advance who will really do well). The field is pretty open IMO because McDonnell doesn't want it and a lot of the front bench is quite new. Rayner and Thornbery are obviously possibilities, more than Pidcock at this point, but 4+ years from now, who knows? Not a market to tie your money up in.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/22/nhs-crisis-is-main-worry-for-conservative-voters-poll-suggests
I suspect that most people actually have barely heard of Jeremy Hunt - we understimate how little people know about non-leaders. So although only 34% of Tories like him, I wonder if most of the 66% aren't just "don't know".
Sinn Fein, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP & the Tories don't have too much in common.
But, they've all elected females as leaders.
The race is on between the last two, the LibDems and Labour, for the Misogyny Crown.
I note that Don doesn't say why a female leader would be Labour's panacea and instead indulges in a diversion about regional accents.
The main reason Major got a bounce in 1990 was a policy issue ie he dumped the poll tax and Thatcher had simply gone on too long after 15 years as Tory leader, Corbyn has only been there for 3
But you wouldn't do something so silly like that would you? (No need to answer, I can guess).
But in point of fact while I do recall saying she didn't deserve a sacking, she was quite lame in making excuses over the whole England flag business.
The real reason why the Referendum lost was because Labour (or rather more specifically, Jeremy) did not pull their weight.
But, David Cameron has gotten all the blame for that.
Despite ample evidence to the contrary, there are Remainers who seem to believe firmly that Jeremy wanted to Remain.
The parties can be divided into two sets. Those that have had female leaders and those that have not.
Labour are in the latter set.
It looks likely that when Vince steps down, the LibDems will get a female leader. Probably if she had stood last time, Jo Swinson would have won it.
So, we may soon be in a situation in which only Labour have not had a female leader -- I suspect that will make many women in the Labour Party very uncomfortable.
Perhaps. But the two main parties are regularly on 40-42%. I'm not sure there's a lot further either can go right now.
Also, a Not-Corbyn candidate might well be doing a lot better right now. But whoever they get, it seems the far left has successfully occupied its host, not unlike a Goa'uld (although, personally, I'd vote for Lord Yu over Corbyn's Labour).
Very good thread header.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/tories-dangerously-close-losing-public-confidence-crime/
I don’t think we should be happy that more and more of our housing stock is ending up in the hands of overseas investors. Of course FDI a la Nissan is a boon for the economy, but plenty of FDI does not result in additional employment, innovation or exports for the U.K. economy, and results in a permanent transfer of rents and wealth outside the country. If UK investors could buy housing stock in Singapore or China that would be more reasonable, but we can’t.
Are we sure?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/theresa-may-faces-cabinet-demands-pledge-100m-extra-per-week/
Another week in which he is attempting to demonstrate that he is May's replacement and it is only a matter of timing.
Now if it had to do that there would need to be a much greater emphasis on productivity increases, on having an education system which equiped future workers, on having affordable housing and on infrastructure investment which led to higher growth rather than funding political vanity projects.
Instead the UK chose to shake the magic money tree.
There are some here would have you think that comprises most of the Tory Party membership these days... ;-)
* Source: YouGov https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
Then it was delayed, but going to happen when Article 50 was deployed.
Then it was delayed, but going to happen when we actually left the EU.
Now they are finally admitting the supposed crash won't even be visible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090
But it's definitely there, honest. And we should believe that because they have been so accurate so far.
To be honest, I think Jim O'Neill missed the memo. They were meant to have a phase saying it wouldn't happen until the transition period was over. Could have kept the wheeze up for another couple years.
All that it takes for this supposedly desperately important gap that Corbyn is 'failing' to achieve (forgetting how far back the polls showed him to be compared with subsequent real-world results) is for the also historically very high Tory figures to fall back. After another few years of government in which it is unlikely many people are going to be seeing an improvement in living standards or public services, in fact likely quite the opposite, and attitudes towards the Tory obsession with hard Brexit are likely to sour considerably, it is not hard to imagine the Tories dropping a few %.
Indeed it is hard, especially after potentially 12 years in government during which economic performance (in the real economy, affecting real people) will have been dire, to see them hanging on to what they have.
Talk of John Major, as beloved by obvious tedious shill stevef as well as it would appear our Don, is clear b*ll*cks, as it it never seems to be made clear that John Major lost a bunch of seats, he was just bequeathed enough in the first place to just about carry it off. May or her incredible unknown successor (names are never offered for this miracle-worker to come) don't have that luxury. If they lose 5-10 seats they are screwed.
From nowhere she has established herself as Labours 2nd most popular individual with the Labour base (after Corbyn) whilst doing an interview with `The Spectator` that would have got her respect with her Tory opponents.Her main handicap is the snobbery of the professional middle class who will look down on her for her accent and leaving school at 16.
Emily Thornberry comes across as typifing that condescending professional middle class voice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
It was going to happen if we left the ERM.
Then it was delayed, but was going to happen when the Euro was launched.
Then it was delayed, but was going to happen when the Euro cash was launched.
Then it was delayed, but was going to happen if we ruled out future Euro membership.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Fool me eight times ... ???
She is blank canvas onto which it is very easy to project your own hopes. But that isn't enough to demonstrate her leadership potential.
10-15 years time - that may be very different. But I have not yet seen much potential there.
A resurgent Lib Dems seems sadly unlikely, especially with the great invisible man (aka Cable) in charge. UKIP are a mess, and are more likely to disintegrate than improve.
The next GE will probably be a case of both sides getting out their vote (moderate Labourites appalled by Corbyn, and Conservatives who think the government has lost its way), especially in a few core battleground seats.
Might the fabled ground game matter more than ever before?
Serious wonga to be made if she succeeds Jeremy Corbyn.
More seriously, Tories rarely lose elections when they can motivate more than 40% of the voting public to back them. Keeping the broad spectrum of 2017 supporters and ensuring those who sat on their hands vote Tory in the right places is going to be key...
https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/06/markets-after-referendum
https://twitter.com/chrisgiles_/status/747418086031097856
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/opinion/this-is-just-the-start-of-the-brexits-economic-disaster.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
The inevitable predictions of imminent recession, City redundancies, stock and house price falls.
I wonder if any of these 'experts' had the honesty to subsequently admit they were wrong.
Clearly the British army has rarely been a match for the Russian/Red army. So what's going on?
Having said that, I think people tend to underestimate that value of the NATO alliance, and the stability which it has given Europe for the last half century and more. It's not that a Russian invasion of Europe is likely any time soon, but Russian influence on, and indeed interference in the politics of Europe would be an order of magnitude greater without continued US commitment to NATO.
The world is shifting, and as we are seeing with Trump, we can't take our security - and more particularly the guarantee of US backing - completely for granted. A credible level of defense funding is essential both in its own terms, and as a means of retaining US support.
'Comparing Nicola Sturgeon to Margret Thatcher is just not credible'
https://tinyurl.com/ydd5b58g
Edit: just noticed the shocking typo in the headline!
I don't buy Don Brind's idea that the next leadership race should be dominated by questions of gender. The best candidate should be chosen.
As it happens, most of the most interesting potential candidates are women. Angela Rayner in particular would be a breath of fresh air. She looks like everyday Britain.
It was far from ideal, but we didn't lose.
You lost, because you lost your hard-won majority. Corbyn lost because he stayed in opposition. The Lib Dems lost, because they lost two leaders and didn't make any progress.
Above all, we lost.
* Apart from maybe the DUP who hit a million dollar jackpot.