Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The King of the North succeeding Starmer? More like The King of Wishful Thinking – politicalbetting.

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 16 in General
The King of the North succeeding Starmer? More like The King of Wishful Thinking – politicalbetting.com

Andy Burnham: Labour’s red wall seats would have been safer under me https://t.co/ngiQCOsOVQ

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    edited May 16
    Sums up how empty the cupboard is for Labour that we are talking about a twice failed leadership candidate, at best not a very good minister, and who ultimately left being an MP to become a regional Mayor, is now considered THE candidate.

    The Tories in comparison, despite having plenty of weak ministers (if we are being generous), they do have a number of possible replacements for Boris that would be an instant step up and play better to the more diverse population / lazy stereotype of Tories being racist e.g. Javid or Dishy Rishi.

    Even somebody like Hunt is far from done and dusted, a steady eddie candidate, that is superior to anything Labour have.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 436
    I'm a Jar-vishead simply because Burnham looks like an ageing ken doll. And the perception will be that the ex-para can khaki wash over Labours patriotism 'problem'.

  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,037
    And a new aphorism will come to pass. A good Mayor does not a Prime minister make..
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,266
    I’m not sure the Indian* variant is much help to Labour. Not once during the pandemic have Labour questioned the government’s lax restrictions on travel.

    * so-called as the news keep saying. I don’t remember them saying that when it was the Kent variant.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    It's time to put the scientists back in their box. They're just scaremongering now. Otherwise the Indian strain will become the Bangkok strain, the Tamanrasset strain, the Nauru strain ... an endless load of panic for no good reason.

    We have brilliant vaccines. It's time to trust them.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    So who is the answer to this?

    'in my lifetime there’s been only one politician who has been politically bullet proof when it comes to the NHS'

    I notice that TSE is tease minus a couple of vowels.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,266
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,500
    edited May 16
    One has to laugh. In the Sunday Times today there is a piece on the unhappy relationship between Rayner and SKS. It would appear that Rayner wants to go to a rave when restrictions are relaxed and that she has SKS on her mobile as Mr D'Arcy ...


    Labour are fecked with either of them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380
    Peers are members of parliament. Just not members of the House of Commons.

    Although that actually strengthens your point. I can’t think of any leader of a major party who wasn’t a Westminster representative. Of course, you have the SNP at Holyrood. And Dafydd Iwan was leader of Plaid Cymru when a member of Gwynedd County Council.

    But in Labour’s case, it specifically states in their rule book that the leader must be a member of the House of Commons.

    Burnham is not only a non-starter, he’s turned up at the wrong racecourse.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,725

    I'm a Jar-vishead simply because Burnham looks like an ageing ken doll. And the perception will be that the ex-para can khaki wash over Labours patriotism 'problem'.

    I doubt a ex officer in the 'Maroon Machine' can ever be a viable candidate for PM while the current situation in the 6 counties remains.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630

    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year

    Could you not largely do a Find > Replace in this article for Burnham and Jarvis?
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    moonshine said:

    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year

    Could you not largely do a Find > Replace in this article for Burnham and Jarvis?
    I'm not making out that Dan Jarvis is the next saviour of the Labour Party but he obviously has little or nothing in common with Burnham.

    Do I really need to spell that out? Or could you maybe look up his biography yourself?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,822

    Sums up how empty the cupboard is for Labour that we are talking about a twice failed leadership candidate, at best not a very good minister, and who ultimately left being an MP to become a regional Mayor, is now considered THE candidate.

    The Tories in comparison, despite having plenty of weak ministers (if we are being generous), they do have a number of possible replacements for Boris that would be an instant step up and play better to the more diverse population / lazy stereotype of Tories being racist e.g. Javid or Dishy Rishi.

    Even somebody like Hunt is far from done and dusted, a steady eddie candidate, that is superior to anything Labour have.

    I don’t think ethnic minorities are going to vote Tory in their droves or think of them as less racist simply because Rishi or Javid are leading them. That’s the worst kind of identity politics.

    Anas Sarwar is Labour leader in Scotland, I doubt that concerns over Labour’s issues with racism have died simply because he is leader.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    edited May 16
    Dura_Ace said:

    I'm a Jar-vishead simply because Burnham looks like an ageing ken doll. And the perception will be that the ex-para can khaki wash over Labours patriotism 'problem'.

    I doubt a ex officer in the 'Maroon Machine' can ever be a viable candidate for PM while the current situation in the 6 counties remains.
    I've no idea what the six counties means. I've never heard the expression.

    A military man ticks certain boxes which matter to the red wall voters (see Dan Hodges' piece).

    And the squaddie-officer divide doesn't really come into play when you're talking about paras or marines.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    By the way, Labour must resist the idea that they have to select a woman at all costs. That way lies disaster. They need to select the best person for the job.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,516
    Burnham only has a passing interest because he doesn't look much like the current Labour Party. He appeals to a cohort of voters who want the Labour Party as it was in some mythical golden age, not how it is in reality today. It isn't returning to that golden age, so they won't vote for him over the shambles of a party the voters see.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,500

    Dura_Ace said:

    I'm a Jar-vishead simply because Burnham looks like an ageing ken doll. And the perception will be that the ex-para can khaki wash over Labours patriotism 'problem'.

    I doubt a ex officer in the 'Maroon Machine' can ever be a viable candidate for PM while the current situation in the 6 counties remains.
    I've no idea what the six counties means. I've never heard the expression.

    A military man ticks certain boxes which matter to the red wall voters (see Dan Hodges' piece).

    And the squaddie-officer divide doesn't really come into play when you're talking about paras or marines.
    The 6 counties, =Northern Ireland
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,822
    edited May 16
    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,700
    edited May 16

    Sums up how empty the cupboard is for Labour that we are talking about a twice failed leadership candidate, at best not a very good minister, and who ultimately left being an MP to become a regional Mayor, is now considered THE candidate.

    The Tories in comparison, despite having plenty of weak ministers (if we are being generous), they do have a number of possible replacements for Boris that would be an instant step up and play better to the more diverse population / lazy stereotype of Tories being racist e.g. Javid or Dishy Rishi.

    Even somebody like Hunt is far from done and dusted, a steady eddie candidate, that is superior to anything Labour have.

    I don’t think ethnic minorities are going to vote Tory in their droves or think of them as less racist simply because Rishi or Javid are leading them. That’s the worst kind of identity politics.

    Anas Sarwar is Labour leader in Scotland, I doubt that concerns over Labour’s issues with racism have died simply because he is leader.
    Absolutely correct - but Labour makes an unnecessary fuss over issues which most voters see more simply, as does the Tory party. If the person can do the business that is all you need to know.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,822

    Burnham only has a passing interest because he doesn't look much like the current Labour Party. He appeals to a cohort of voters who want the Labour Party as it was in some mythical golden age, not how it is in reality today. It isn't returning to that golden age, so they won't vote for him over the shambles of a party the voters see.

    Burnham appeals to a cohort of voters for the following reasons:

    - He is seen as having provided opposition to the current government where the current leadership are perceived to have been poor in this area.
    - Burnham is seen as defining himself in relation to the current government in a much more clearer way than Starmer has currently.

    It’s not really about some kind of golden age.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,760
    edited May 16

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,930

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    I think so too. The flags stuff is just vacuous. Labour needs a coherent plan and set of ideas to show what a Labour Britain would look like, and a leader articulate enough to get it across.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380

    By the way, Labour must resist the idea that they have to select a woman at all costs. That way lies disaster. They need to select the best person for the job.

    If they’d selected a leader on the basis that she was female in 2015, they (and we) wouldn’t be in this bloody awful mess now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380
    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Cameron was being tipped as a potential future leader from at least 2003 onwards, when he and George Osborne were Michael Howard’s PPS and were dubbed ‘the Tories’ Blair and Brown.’

    There isn’t any younger candidate in Labour who has that kind of buzz about them AFAICS.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,500
    edited May 16
    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    There isn't one that I can think of but that's partially because the opposition has been so so anonymous. I have no idea who most of them are.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630

    moonshine said:

    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year

    Could you not largely do a Find > Replace in this article for Burnham and Jarvis?
    I'm not making out that Dan Jarvis is the next saviour of the Labour Party but he obviously has little or nothing in common with Burnham.

    Do I really need to spell that out? Or could you maybe look up his biography yourself?
    Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed.

    Jarvis is also not in Parliament but is a mayor. Does Sheffield merge the role with PCC too? I don’t know. He has flirted with a leadership bid in the past but never made it to the starting post. Like Burnham he lacks a particularly notable big political achievement.

  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,822
    edited May 16
    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Many of these voters voted for Labour when Blair was leader, and are voting Tory with Boris as leader. Neither of those have a military background nor do either of them have a northern accent. So I don’t think that having a northern accent or being ex military necessarily neutralises those concerns. While I get your point, there are limits to the gains you can make from representation.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,760
    edited May 16
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Cameron was being tipped as a potential future leader from at least 2003 onwards, when he and George Osborne were Michael Howard’s PPS and were dubbed ‘the Tories’ Blair and Brown.’

    There isn’t any younger candidate in Labour who has that kind of buzz about them AFAICS.
    My old friend Wes Streeting doesn't fully compare, but he has a little buzz around him, would break a diversity first (at least openly), and next year will be the same age as Cammo when he got the leadership. And he'll be a cancer survivor, hopefully. Or there's Stella Creasy, who is two years older. Both at good odds on Betfair.

    The weaknesses they both have are of being yet more London Labour MPs and both being lifelong political careerists. Really Labour needs someone with a 'real' background (i.e. who has worked at something significant outside the overlapping worlds of politics, journalism, PR, lobbying and pressure groups). But then even the Tories current and previous two leaders all fail that test
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,516

    Burnham only has a passing interest because he doesn't look much like the current Labour Party. He appeals to a cohort of voters who want the Labour Party as it was in some mythical golden age, not how it is in reality today. It isn't returning to that golden age, so they won't vote for him over the shambles of a party the voters see.

    Burnham appeals to a cohort of voters for the following reasons:

    - He is seen as having provided opposition to the current government where the current leadership are perceived to have been poor in this area.
    - Burnham is seen as defining himself in relation to the current government in a much more clearer way than Starmer has currently.

    It’s not really about some kind of golden age.
    The "golden age" is in reality Blair pre-Iraq with a shed load of added spinning - and a press letting him get away with stuff because it was a very extended honeymoon period. It broke that cycle of Labour election results of lose - lose - lose - lose, then lose - lose - lose - lose. Without a very slick spin operation selling you a Tory government with a red rose logo, the Labour proposition has sat on the shelf, unloved.

    Andy Burnham does not fix that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Cameron was being tipped as a potential future leader from at least 2003 onwards, when he and George Osborne were Michael Howard’s PPS and were dubbed ‘the Tories’ Blair and Brown.’

    There isn’t any younger candidate in Labour who has that kind of buzz about them AFAICS.
    My old friend Wes Streeting doesn't fully compare, but he has a little buzz around him, would break a diversity first (at least openly), and next year will be the same age as Cammo when he got the leadership. Or there's Stella Creasy, who is two years older. Both at good odds on Betfair.

    The weaknesses they both have are of being yet more London Labour MPs and both being the type of lifelong political careerists. Really Labour needs someone with a 'real' background (i.e. who has worked at something significant outside the overlapping worlds of politics, journalism, lobbying and pressure groups). But then even the Tories current and previous two leaders fail that test
    Wes Streeting is currently taking a break due to illness, although I agree he’s a Good Thing. But even so he doesn’t seem to quite have the Future Leader Aura.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year

    Could you not largely do a Find > Replace in this article for Burnham and Jarvis?
    I'm not making out that Dan Jarvis is the next saviour of the Labour Party but he obviously has little or nothing in common with Burnham.

    Do I really need to spell that out? Or could you maybe look up his biography yourself?
    Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed.

    Jarvis is also not in Parliament but is a mayor. Does Sheffield merge the role with PCC too? I don’t know. He has flirted with a leadership bid in the past but never made it to the starting post. Like Burnham he lacks a particularly notable big political achievement.

    Jarvis is an MP as well:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630
    Foxy said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    I think so too. The flags stuff is just vacuous. Labour needs a coherent plan and set of ideas to show what a Labour Britain would look like, and a leader articulate enough to get it across.
    It is vacuous to stand in front of a flag and think that fixes anything by itself. However it is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for power to exude at least a quiet pride in your country, its people and its history and achievements. For some politicians, being seen with the flag subliminally draws attention to these attributes (just about every past PM I can think of).

    For others it only serves to underline their nervous embarrassment at their country, and in others still their outright hostility to it. Labour have moved from the third (Corbyn) to the second (Starmer) but have some way to go get to the first (Blair, Wilson). It sounds glib but if you want to understand the rot at the electability of the modern Labour Party, you need look no further than Emily Thornberry’s 2014 tweets about flags.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,822

    Burnham only has a passing interest because he doesn't look much like the current Labour Party. He appeals to a cohort of voters who want the Labour Party as it was in some mythical golden age, not how it is in reality today. It isn't returning to that golden age, so they won't vote for him over the shambles of a party the voters see.

    Burnham appeals to a cohort of voters for the following reasons:

    - He is seen as having provided opposition to the current government where the current leadership are perceived to have been poor in this area.
    - Burnham is seen as defining himself in relation to the current government in a much more clearer way than Starmer has currently.

    It’s not really about some kind of golden age.
    The "golden age" is in reality Blair pre-Iraq with a shed load of added spinning - and a press letting him get away with stuff because it was a very extended honeymoon period. It broke that cycle of Labour election results of lose - lose - lose - lose, then lose - lose - lose - lose. Without a very slick spin operation selling you a Tory government with a red rose logo, the Labour proposition has sat on the shelf, unloved.

    Andy Burnham does not fix that.
    I don’t think voters who are keen on Burnham believe that he will return Labour to some kind of pre- Iraq era. That appears to be a projection on your part. Especially since those most likely to be sympathetic to Burnham are either on the left or the soft left of the party.

    As for New Labour simply being a Tory government with a red rose logo, I’m no fan of New Labour but even I wouldn’t go just far. One of the reasons why Labour were elected in 1997 was because the main issue shifted from the economy - where Labour had moved rightward - to public services, where Labour were perceived as being a party that would invest in public services where the Tories hadn’t. Labour were also seen as a much more socially liberal party in comparison to the Tories at that time.

    Andy Burnham at least appears to have some idea of what Labour in the 2020s ought to be. Many of Labour’s establishment figures are lacking in that regard, and that has been seen across the last decade or so.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    edited May 16
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Cameron was being tipped as a potential future leader from at least 2003 onwards, when he and George Osborne were Michael Howard’s PPS and were dubbed ‘the Tories’ Blair and Brown.’

    There isn’t any younger candidate in Labour who has that kind of buzz about them AFAICS.
    You're partly right but not wholly. Cameron was an outsider until 'that' speech to the party faithful in 2005. It was delivered without notes or a lectern and he paced the platform like an evangelical preacher. Until that moment he was trailing behind David Davis.

    The speech changed everything.

    It was a triumph.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/david-cameron-speech-leadership

    Here it is:

    https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2015/12/watch-cameron-the-2005-conference-speech-that-turned-the-leadership-election-around.html


  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,266
    edited May 16
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year

    Could you not largely do a Find > Replace in this article for Burnham and Jarvis?
    I'm not making out that Dan Jarvis is the next saviour of the Labour Party but he obviously has little or nothing in common with Burnham.

    Do I really need to spell that out? Or could you maybe look up his biography yourself?
    Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed.

    Jarvis is also not in Parliament but is a mayor. Does Sheffield merge the role with PCC too? I don’t know. He has flirted with a leadership bid in the past but never made it to the starting post. Like Burnham he lacks a particularly notable big political achievement.

    Jarvis is an MP as well:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
    Indeed, he’s a part-time MP:

    https://order-order.com/people/dan-jarvis/

    Though I guess some might argue it’s not all that different to being in government.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year

    Could you not largely do a Find > Replace in this article for Burnham and Jarvis?
    I'm not making out that Dan Jarvis is the next saviour of the Labour Party but he obviously has little or nothing in common with Burnham.

    Do I really need to spell that out? Or could you maybe look up his biography yourself?
    Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed.

    Jarvis is also not in Parliament but is a mayor. Does Sheffield merge the role with PCC too? I don’t know. He has flirted with a leadership bid in the past but never made it to the starting post. Like Burnham he lacks a particularly notable big political achievement.

    Jarvis is an MP as well:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
    Fair do’s. Hadn’t realised he was double hatting.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,822
    I’m not the biggest Wes Streeting fan, but I agree with Stella Creasy as a shout. She’s done very good work re payday loans.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Cameron was being tipped as a potential future leader from at least 2003 onwards, when he and George Osborne were Michael Howard’s PPS and were dubbed ‘the Tories’ Blair and Brown.’

    There isn’t any younger candidate in Labour who has that kind of buzz about them AFAICS.
    You're partly right but not wholly. Cameron was an outsider until 'that' speech to the party faithful in 2005. It was delivered without notes or a lectern and he paced the platform like an evangelical preacher. Until that moment he was trailing behind David Davis.

    The speech changed everything.

    It was a triumph.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/david-cameron-speech-leadership

    He was still being tipped in the press and the party as a potential future leader in 2003. It was admittedly generally thought that his time would be 2009/10 and not 2005 (albeit he had other ideas) but that doesn’t alter the conversations.

    Is there anyone in Labour who is currently being so tipped? I haven’t seen any names put forward in that way.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    edited May 16
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year

    Could you not largely do a Find > Replace in this article for Burnham and Jarvis?
    I'm not making out that Dan Jarvis is the next saviour of the Labour Party but he obviously has little or nothing in common with Burnham.

    Do I really need to spell that out? Or could you maybe look up his biography yourself?
    Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed.

    Jarvis is also not in Parliament but is a mayor. Does Sheffield merge the role with PCC too? I don’t know. He has flirted with a leadership bid in the past but never made it to the starting post. Like Burnham he lacks a particularly notable big political achievement.

    Jarvis is an MP as well:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
    Fair do’s. Hadn’t realised he was double hatting.
    Well, like I said, maybe read up a bit first?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 4,069
    There's another aspect of Burnham's CV which sits uncomfortably with his current ambitions.
    It was perfectly legit for him to choose to leave the House of Commons during the Corbyn Years. But it does have an air of moving to Switzerland for the duration of World War Two. To be launching squibs against Starmer from his current perch really isn't on.

    I'm not sure the current Labour Party is leadable by anyone.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,516

    Burnham only has a passing interest because he doesn't look much like the current Labour Party. He appeals to a cohort of voters who want the Labour Party as it was in some mythical golden age, not how it is in reality today. It isn't returning to that golden age, so they won't vote for him over the shambles of a party the voters see.

    Burnham appeals to a cohort of voters for the following reasons:

    - He is seen as having provided opposition to the current government where the current leadership are perceived to have been poor in this area.
    - Burnham is seen as defining himself in relation to the current government in a much more clearer way than Starmer has currently.

    It’s not really about some kind of golden age.
    The "golden age" is in reality Blair pre-Iraq with a shed load of added spinning - and a press letting him get away with stuff because it was a very extended honeymoon period. It broke that cycle of Labour election results of lose - lose - lose - lose, then lose - lose - lose - lose. Without a very slick spin operation selling you a Tory government with a red rose logo, the Labour proposition has sat on the shelf, unloved.

    Andy Burnham does not fix that.
    I don’t think voters who are keen on Burnham believe that he will return Labour to some kind of pre- Iraq era. That appears to be a projection on your part. Especially since those most likely to be sympathetic to Burnham are either on the left or the soft left of the party.

    As for New Labour simply being a Tory government with a red rose logo, I’m no fan of New Labour but even I wouldn’t go just far. One of the reasons why Labour were elected in 1997 was because the main issue shifted from the economy - where Labour had moved rightward - to public services, where Labour were perceived as being a party that would invest in public services where the Tories hadn’t. Labour were also seen as a much more socially liberal party in comparison to the Tories at that time.

    Andy Burnham at least appears to have some idea of what Labour in the 2020s ought to be. Many of Labour’s establishment figures are lacking in that regard, and that has been seen across the last decade or so.
    The 1997 Labour Government came in effectively pledging to maintain Tory economic policy. Blair's soft-lefty feel-good stuff in Number 10 bolted onto keeping Ken Clark's sensible money stuff in Number 11.

    Its problems really began when Brown went off-message.
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Cameron was being tipped as a potential future leader from at least 2003 onwards, when he and George Osborne were Michael Howard’s PPS and were dubbed ‘the Tories’ Blair and Brown.’

    There isn’t any younger candidate in Labour who has that kind of buzz about them AFAICS.
    You're partly right but not wholly. Cameron was an outsider until 'that' speech to the party faithful in 2005. It was delivered without notes or a lectern and he paced the platform like an evangelical preacher. Until that moment he was trailing behind David Davis.

    The speech changed everything.

    It was a triumph.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/david-cameron-speech-leadership

    He was still being tipped in the press and the party as a potential future leader in 2003. It was admittedly generally thought that his time would be 2009/10 and not 2005 (albeit he had other ideas) but that doesn’t alter the conversations.

    Is there anyone in Labour who is currently being so tipped? I haven’t seen any names put forward in that way.
    This is revisionism I'm afraid.

    Cameron wasn't being widely tipped at all. I know this for a fact.

    Even in 2005 he was trailing in the race until that moment when he wowed the party faithful.

    Cameron was shadow education secretary, a minor role, and he was a shadow in more than one meaning of the word. There are plenty of similar shadows in the Labour party.

    It's always this way. The great leaders of the future seize the moment. It happened with Tony Blair who was NOT about to become leader until John Smith tragically dropped dead from a heart attack.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630


    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year

    Could you not largely do a Find > Replace in this article for Burnham and Jarvis?
    I'm not making out that Dan Jarvis is the next saviour of the Labour Party but he obviously has little or nothing in common with Burnham.

    Do I really need to spell that out? Or could you maybe look up his biography yourself?
    Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed.

    Jarvis is also not in Parliament but is a mayor. Does Sheffield merge the role with PCC too? I don’t know. He has flirted with a leadership bid in the past but never made it to the starting post. Like Burnham he lacks a particularly notable big political achievement.

    Jarvis is an MP as well:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
    Fair do’s. Hadn’t realised he was double hatting.
    Well, like I said, maybe read up a bit first?
    Or you could have sent the message that ydoether did rather than being an obnoxious prick?
  • borisatsunborisatsun Posts: 188
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Cameron was being tipped as a potential future leader from at least 2003 onwards, when he and George Osborne were Michael Howard’s PPS and were dubbed ‘the Tories’ Blair and Brown.’

    There isn’t any younger candidate in Labour who has that kind of buzz about them AFAICS.
    You're partly right but not wholly. Cameron was an outsider until 'that' speech to the party faithful in 2005. It was delivered without notes or a lectern and he paced the platform like an evangelical preacher. Until that moment he was trailing behind David Davis.

    The speech changed everything.

    It was a triumph.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/david-cameron-speech-leadership

    He was still being tipped in the press and the party as a potential future leader in 2003. It was admittedly generally thought that his time would be 2009/10 and not 2005 (albeit he had other ideas) but that doesn’t alter the conversations.

    Is there anyone in Labour who is currently being so tipped? I haven’t seen any names put forward in that way.
    Ed Balls

    :)
  • Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    edited May 16
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    You can get 50-1 on Dan Jarvis as next Labour leader with William Hill.

    Bet of the year

    Could you not largely do a Find > Replace in this article for Burnham and Jarvis?
    I'm not making out that Dan Jarvis is the next saviour of the Labour Party but he obviously has little or nothing in common with Burnham.

    Do I really need to spell that out? Or could you maybe look up his biography yourself?
    Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed.

    Jarvis is also not in Parliament but is a mayor. Does Sheffield merge the role with PCC too? I don’t know. He has flirted with a leadership bid in the past but never made it to the starting post. Like Burnham he lacks a particularly notable big political achievement.

    You were a bit rude about Jarvis, stating he's not merely in the wrong race but the wrong racecourse.

    That's not true. He is an MP. He also has a lot of the right credentials.

    However, I think you are quite correct to point out his lack of a particularly notable big political achievement, although I'd rather have someone with real life experience than a career politician. He has plenty, not only in his military career but in his personal life.

    There's another aspect with Jarvis. A few years back he was being tipped, including by a friend of mine from his constituency. However, he had other priorities in his family life and wanted to back away. His wife died from bowel cancer and he wanted to concentrate on bringing up his children.

    I think he's a good man. Possibly too good to be a party leader.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367974/MP-Dan-Jarvis-Widowed-father-juggling-politics-bringing-2-children.html


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,930
    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    I think so too. The flags stuff is just vacuous. Labour needs a coherent plan and set of ideas to show what a Labour Britain would look like, and a leader articulate enough to get it across.
    It is vacuous to stand in front of a flag and think that fixes anything by itself. However it is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for power to exude at least a quiet pride in your country, its people and its history and achievements. For some politicians, being seen with the flag subliminally draws attention to these attributes (just about every past PM I can think of).

    For others it only serves to underline their nervous embarrassment at their country, and in others still their outright hostility to it. Labour have moved from the third (Corbyn) to the second (Starmer) but have some way to go get to the first (Blair, Wilson). It sounds glib but if you want to understand the rot at the electability of the modern Labour Party, you need look no further than Emily Thornberry’s 2014 tweets about flags.
    Any fool can stand in front of a flag, and often does. It can and does look false when Starmer does it.

    The key is less fetishistic, to show real pride in the peoples and land of Britain and a viable vision of the future. There is plenty to be proud of in Britain's radical tradition, and of social reform. Burnham shows how it can be done, but I see him as kingmaker* rather than king.

    *probably queenmaker in reality. I think if Starmer steps down, and under Labour rules a coup is very difficult, it will be Rayner or Nandy. Not because they are female or northern, but because they are the best candidates.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,760

    I’m not the biggest Wes Streeting fan, but I agree with Stella Creasy as a shout. She’s done very good work re payday loans.

    I agree he is somewhat flawed, but he has the self belief, which is a large part of career advancement. Either of them would send a powerful 'new generation taking over' message and get the party another look, in the way that Starmer hasn't.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,500

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Cameron was being tipped as a potential future leader from at least 2003 onwards, when he and George Osborne were Michael Howard’s PPS and were dubbed ‘the Tories’ Blair and Brown.’

    There isn’t any younger candidate in Labour who has that kind of buzz about them AFAICS.
    You're partly right but not wholly. Cameron was an outsider until 'that' speech to the party faithful in 2005. It was delivered without notes or a lectern and he paced the platform like an evangelical preacher. Until that moment he was trailing behind David Davis.

    The speech changed everything.

    It was a triumph.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/david-cameron-speech-leadership

    He was still being tipped in the press and the party as a potential future leader in 2003. It was admittedly generally thought that his time would be 2009/10 and not 2005 (albeit he had other ideas) but that doesn’t alter the conversations.

    Is there anyone in Labour who is currently being so tipped? I haven’t seen any names put forward in that way.
    This is revisionism I'm afraid.

    Cameron wasn't being widely tipped at all. I know this for a fact.

    Even in 2005 he was trailing in the race until that moment when he wowed the party faithful.

    Cameron was shadow education secretary, a minor role, and he was a shadow in more than one meaning of the word. There are plenty of similar shadows in the Labour party.

    It's always this way. The great leaders of the future seize the moment. It happened with Tony Blair who was NOT about to become leader until John Smith tragically dropped dead from a heart attack.
    ..but who from amongst the anonymous has the required talent AND policies. Its not enough to be Tony mk2
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,822

    Burnham only has a passing interest because he doesn't look much like the current Labour Party. He appeals to a cohort of voters who want the Labour Party as it was in some mythical golden age, not how it is in reality today. It isn't returning to that golden age, so they won't vote for him over the shambles of a party the voters see.

    Burnham appeals to a cohort of voters for the following reasons:

    - He is seen as having provided opposition to the current government where the current leadership are perceived to have been poor in this area.
    - Burnham is seen as defining himself in relation to the current government in a much more clearer way than Starmer has currently.

    It’s not really about some kind of golden age.
    The "golden age" is in reality Blair pre-Iraq with a shed load of added spinning - and a press letting him get away with stuff because it was a very extended honeymoon period. It broke that cycle of Labour election results of lose - lose - lose - lose, then lose - lose - lose - lose. Without a very slick spin operation selling you a Tory government with a red rose logo, the Labour proposition has sat on the shelf, unloved.

    Andy Burnham does not fix that.
    I don’t think voters who are keen on Burnham believe that he will return Labour to some kind of pre- Iraq era. That appears to be a projection on your part. Especially since those most likely to be sympathetic to Burnham are either on the left or the soft left of the party.

    As for New Labour simply being a Tory government with a red rose logo, I’m no fan of New Labour but even I wouldn’t go just far. One of the reasons why Labour were elected in 1997 was because the main issue shifted from the economy - where Labour had moved rightward - to public services, where Labour were perceived as being a party that would invest in public services where the Tories hadn’t. Labour were also seen as a much more socially liberal party in comparison to the Tories at that time.

    Andy Burnham at least appears to have some idea of what Labour in the 2020s ought to be. Many of Labour’s establishment figures are lacking in that regard, and that has been seen across the last decade or so.
    The 1997 Labour Government came in effectively pledging to maintain Tory economic policy. Blair's soft-lefty feel-good stuff in Number 10 bolted onto keeping Ken Clark's sensible money stuff in Number 11.

    Its problems really began when Brown went off-message.
    I did say Labour moved rightward on the economy. What gave Labour a route to power though, was a shift in the major issue going from being on the economy (where the Tories still had more trust than Labour) to public services and social issues (I.e. an area where Labour could actually articulate a dividing line and convey that they’d be more competent on these issues).

    I wouldn’t really say Labour’s differences with the Tories on social issues was just ‘feel good stuff’ given that the Tories had a real problem being seen as the party of social conservatives out of touch with the modern world for a good while.

    Labour’s issues began when Blair decided to invade Iraq. His competence and legacy went from being defined by domestic issues, to a contentious foreign policy issue.

    Brown’s mistakes came into play from 2005/2006 with the whole 10p tax rate scandal.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,500
    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    I think so too. The flags stuff is just vacuous. Labour needs a coherent plan and set of ideas to show what a Labour Britain would look like, and a leader articulate enough to get it across.
    It is vacuous to stand in front of a flag and think that fixes anything by itself. However it is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for power to exude at least a quiet pride in your country, its people and its history and achievements. For some politicians, being seen with the flag subliminally draws attention to these attributes (just about every past PM I can think of).

    For others it only serves to underline their nervous embarrassment at their country, and in others still their outright hostility to it. Labour have moved from the third (Corbyn) to the second (Starmer) but have some way to go get to the first (Blair, Wilson). It sounds glib but if you want to understand the rot at the electability of the modern Labour Party, you need look no further than Emily Thornberry’s 2014 tweets about flags.
    Any fool can stand in front of a flag, and often does. It can and does look false when Starmer does it.

    The key is less fetishistic, to show real pride in the peoples and land of Britain and a viable vision of the future. There is plenty to be proud of in Britain's radical tradition, and of social reform. Burnham shows how it can be done, but I see him as kingmaker* rather than king.

    *probably queenmaker in reality. I think if Starmer steps down, and under Labour rules a coup is very difficult, it will be Rayner or Nandy. Not because they are female or northern, but because they are the best candidates.
    I just don't understand the liking for Rayner at all. Everything I hear about her makes me like her less. And the recent pronouncements about wanting to go to a rave and the Mr D'Arcy nonsense just reaffirms my view that she would be a disaster as Labour leader.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,633
    Re Rachel Reeves as a Loto candidate, it slightly surprise me how much people fixate on pols’ physical appearance but much less on their voices (at least as important a weapon for a politician). I haven’t the slightest doubt that Starmer is a much more principled and decent human being than Johnson but this is apparently no longer important when it comes to being PM of the UK, and when I hear his flat, droning tones, my heart sinks regardless of what SKS is saying.

    Rachel Reeves has flat, droning, nasal tones, ergo...
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,822

    Re Rachel Reeves as a Loto candidate, it slightly surprise me how much people fixate on pols’ physical appearance but much less on their voices (at least as important a weapon for a politician). I haven’t the slightest doubt that Starmer is a much more principled and decent human being than Johnson but this is apparently no longer important when it comes to being PM of the UK, and when I hear his flat, droning tones, my heart sinks regardless of what SKS is saying.

    Rachel Reeves has flat, droning, nasal tones, ergo...

    With Reeves you are really getting the same issues you have with Starmer, only difference is she’s a woman.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 4,069
    Dura_Ace said:

    There's another aspect of Burnham's CV which sits uncomfortably with his current ambitions.
    It was perfectly legit for him to choose to leave the House of Commons during the Corbyn Years. But it does have an air of moving to Switzerland for the duration of World War Two. To be launching squibs against Starmer from his current perch really isn't on.

    I'm not sure the current Labour Party is leadable by anyone.

    Rayner seems like she'd be a good laugh and is capable of impersonating a normal person. However, they'd be better off going for a squad based approach with very prominent frontbenchers like Jess Rodham Philips and Lisa Nandy taking turns to put the boot into Johnson 24/7. There isn't a pube's width of difference in policy between Labour and the tories so they need to concentrate on destroying Johnson as he is their problem.
    It's not difficult. Just recognise that attacking the incoherent, greedy bloke on the other side who keeps getting things wrong is more useful than attacking your boss.

    Even if you think your boss is a bit of a duffer.
    Especially if you think your boss is a bit of a duffer.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630
    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    I think so too. The flags stuff is just vacuous. Labour needs a coherent plan and set of ideas to show what a Labour Britain would look like, and a leader articulate enough to get it across.
    It is vacuous to stand in front of a flag and think that fixes anything by itself. However it is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for power to exude at least a quiet pride in your country, its people and its history and achievements. For some politicians, being seen with the flag subliminally draws attention to these attributes (just about every past PM I can think of).

    For others it only serves to underline their nervous embarrassment at their country, and in others still their outright hostility to it. Labour have moved from the third (Corbyn) to the second (Starmer) but have some way to go get to the first (Blair, Wilson). It sounds glib but if you want to understand the rot at the electability of the modern Labour Party, you need look no further than Emily Thornberry’s 2014 tweets about flags.
    Any fool can stand in front of a flag, and often does. It can and does look false when Starmer does it.

    The key is less fetishistic, to show real pride in the peoples and land of Britain and a viable vision of the future. There is plenty to be proud of in Britain's radical tradition, and of social reform. Burnham shows how it can be done, but I see him as kingmaker* rather than king.

    *probably queenmaker in reality. I think if Starmer steps down, and under Labour rules a coup is very difficult, it will be Rayner or Nandy. Not because they are female or northern, but because they are the best candidates.
    There is indeed much to be proud of in Britain’s history for those of a centre left persuasion. The trouble is that the modern Labour Party still has too many who are seen as actively hating their country, thanks to Corbyn’s legacy.

    But perhaps more difficult to fix is the modern Labour tradition or being all a bit embarrassed by the idea of nation states and in particular, of Britain’s complex history. It is made worse because the core media mouthpieces of the centre left amplify this tendency, which will make it quite difficult for a Blair figure to emerge from obscurity and reach the top.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,700

    There's another aspect of Burnham's CV which sits uncomfortably with his current ambitions.
    It was perfectly legit for him to choose to leave the House of Commons during the Corbyn Years. But it does have an air of moving to Switzerland for the duration of World War Two. To be launching squibs against Starmer from his current perch really isn't on.

    I'm not sure the current Labour Party is leadable by anyone.

    Oh it is perfectly leadable - it just lacks a message that appeals to much more than 30% of voters - the danger at the moment is that it's continual failure will lead to the shedding of even more votes to the Greens.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,809
    Dura_Ace said:

    There's another aspect of Burnham's CV which sits uncomfortably with his current ambitions.
    It was perfectly legit for him to choose to leave the House of Commons during the Corbyn Years. But it does have an air of moving to Switzerland for the duration of World War Two. To be launching squibs against Starmer from his current perch really isn't on.

    I'm not sure the current Labour Party is leadable by anyone.

    Rayner seems like she'd be a good laugh and is capable of impersonating a normal person. However, they'd be better off going for a squad based approach with very prominent frontbenchers like Jess Rodham Philips and Lisa Nandy taking turns to put the boot into Johnson 24/7. There isn't a pube's width of difference in policy between Labour and the tories so they need to concentrate on destroying Johnson as he is their problem.
    If all their policies are being implemented, they don't really have a problem.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,389
    edited May 16
    Good morning

    Labour are in danger of becoming an irrelevance, no matter who their leader is

    They need to break away from the Corbyn wing entirely, and move away from the woke agenda

    The Mail on Sunday has a poll that is stark for the labour party and explains just why Boris is so far ahead at present

    The Greens are a real threat to Labour and the Lib Dems and if they are being frank and honest, then they have no answer to this crisis unless they can coalesce around a more acceptable and popular policy platform in conjunction with the greens, (minus the XR factor), otherwise conservative governments are likely here to stay for a very long time
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,725

    Dura_Ace said:

    There's another aspect of Burnham's CV which sits uncomfortably with his current ambitions.
    It was perfectly legit for him to choose to leave the House of Commons during the Corbyn Years. But it does have an air of moving to Switzerland for the duration of World War Two. To be launching squibs against Starmer from his current perch really isn't on.

    I'm not sure the current Labour Party is leadable by anyone.

    Rayner seems like she'd be a good laugh and is capable of impersonating a normal person. However, they'd be better off going for a squad based approach with very prominent frontbenchers like Jess Rodham Philips and Lisa Nandy taking turns to put the boot into Johnson 24/7. There isn't a pube's width of difference in policy between Labour and the tories so they need to concentrate on destroying Johnson as he is their problem.
    It's not difficult. Just recognise that attacking the incoherent, greedy bloke on the other side who keeps getting things wrong is more useful than attacking your boss.

    Even if you think your boss is a bit of a duffer.
    Especially if you think your boss is a bit of a duffer.
    On other the hand if she takes out Starmer (and she nearly did last week) then that demonstrates she's got the necessary bloodlust. She is more Johnsonesque in her political methods and presentation than either of them would admit.


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380
    edited May 16

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    No, but trying to be objective, those voters whose principal reason for not voting Labour is because they are too southern or Tory is because they are too white might at least given their party another look if it did have a leader that neutralised that concern. Which may not be many people but it is more than none.

    And symbols can be very important in political leadership in sending messages about wider changes.

    Cameron came from almost nowhere in a very short period, as I recall. The betting challenge is spotting Labour’s Cameron.
    Cameron was being tipped as a potential future leader from at least 2003 onwards, when he and George Osborne were Michael Howard’s PPS and were dubbed ‘the Tories’ Blair and Brown.’

    There isn’t any younger candidate in Labour who has that kind of buzz about them AFAICS.
    You're partly right but not wholly. Cameron was an outsider until 'that' speech to the party faithful in 2005. It was delivered without notes or a lectern and he paced the platform like an evangelical preacher. Until that moment he was trailing behind David Davis.

    The speech changed everything.

    It was a triumph.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/david-cameron-speech-leadership

    He was still being tipped in the press and the party as a potential future leader in 2003. It was admittedly generally thought that his time would be 2009/10 and not 2005 (albeit he had other ideas) but that doesn’t alter the conversations.

    Is there anyone in Labour who is currently being so tipped? I haven’t seen any names put forward in that way.
    This is revisionism I'm afraid.

    Cameron wasn't being widely tipped at all. I know this for a fact.

    Even in 2005 he was trailing in the race until that moment when he wowed the party faithful.

    Cameron was shadow education secretary, a minor role, and he was a shadow in more than one meaning of the word. There are plenty of similar shadows in the Labour party.

    It's always this way. The great leaders of the future seize the moment. It happened with Tony Blair who was NOT about to become leader until John Smith tragically dropped dead from a heart attack.
    Well, you may know both of those for ‘a fact’ but you would be completely wrong.

    There were a number of articles on Cameron from 2002 onwards in the Times and Telegraph suggesting he had what it would take. There was frequent mention of him by other MPs on TV and radio, usually bracketed with Osborne, Johnson and Gove. There was a documentary on Michael Howard in 2004 that mentioned him as a long term leadership contender. Gossip in the PCP suggested he and Gove might be realistic leadership contenders for a 2009 leadership election should Labour have won again.

    So if you didn’t know this it was because you weren’t paying attention.

    As it happens, he bobbed up much more quickly than expected, partly through his own gambling instincts, partly through that speech and partly because David Davis turned in such a dismal performance. But that doesn’t mean he emerged from nowhere.

    Similarly, Blair was tipped as a potential leader from the mid-1980s onwards, although he was thought to be behind Brown in the Buggins Turn stakes.

    And I say again, I don’t see or hear the same commentary about any current Labour MP.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,995
    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 39,785
    One of the many problems with Labour's front bench is that they are inevitably becoming less and less experienced of actual government. They have now been out of power for 11 years and will be for at least another 3 years, possibly 8-9 before they are back.

    The political genius of Cameron and Osborne and indeed Blair and Brown is that they were able to overcome similar disadvantages after long periods in opposition but this is rare. Burnham has cabinet experience albeit this is something of a mixed blessing. More significantly, he has current executive experience as Mayor of Greater Manchester. I don't see anyone else in the Labour party offering this range of experience from which he has presumably learned.

    His problem is that this is all happening just a bit too quick for him. He needs SKS to hang on another couple of years so that he can do at least a reasonable stint as a second time Mayor and then find a seat. It is looking increasingly likely that the void at the top of the Labour party will have been filled by someone else by then.

    As for Reeves, lets see if she can make more impact that Dodds did. They are both smart and good with numbers but that is not enough in politics. Reeves needs to start by being noticed, a trick Dodds did not manage.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,633

    Re Rachel Reeves as a Loto candidate, it slightly surprise me how much people fixate on pols’ physical appearance but much less on their voices (at least as important a weapon for a politician). I haven’t the slightest doubt that Starmer is a much more principled and decent human being than Johnson but this is apparently no longer important when it comes to being PM of the UK, and when I hear his flat, droning tones, my heart sinks regardless of what SKS is saying.

    Rachel Reeves has flat, droning, nasal tones, ergo...

    With Reeves you are really getting the same issues you have with Starmer, only difference is she’s a woman.
    If I had the slightest inclination to ever vote Labour again, Reeves’ comments about benefits claimants would put me off entirely. She just seems a facsimile of a Labour leader put together by Tories, a speciality of certain PBers.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630
    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    TINA.

    Lib Dem brand still tarnished. UK greens a less professional and attractive proposition than for example their German counterparts. There is a gaping space for someone to fill. It might be a future Labour leader. But it might not.

    What be fascinating if someone who really knew what they were doing politically got hold of the Green Party and had a clause 4 moment with the wilder XR crowd.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,500
    moonshine said:

    FPT
    I got my second zeneca, no side effects at all this time. I have a swathe of acquaintances receiving their first Pfizer in recent and coming days, somewhere along the way supply of Pfizer has really come on stream. Steady as she goes and in a few weeks this drama about Indian Covid will be forgotten, as we tend towards about 90% of adults with antibodies.

    I had mine too. I am an early riser but by 10pm last night I could barely keep my eyes open. Went to bed and slept heavily. No side effects so far ...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380
    DavidL said:

    One of the many problems with Labour's front bench is that they are inevitably becoming less and less experienced of actual government. They have now been out of power for 11 years and will be for at least another 3 years, possibly 8-9 before they are back.

    The political genius of Cameron and Osborne and indeed Blair and Brown is that they were able to overcome similar disadvantages after long periods in opposition but this is rare. Burnham has cabinet experience albeit this is something of a mixed blessing. More significantly, he has current executive experience as Mayor of Greater Manchester. I don't see anyone else in the Labour party offering this range of experience from which he has presumably learned.

    His problem is that this is all happening just a bit too quick for him. He needs SKS to hang on another couple of years so that he can do at least a reasonable stint as a second time Mayor and then find a seat. It is looking increasingly likely that the void at the top of the Labour party will have been filled by someone else by then.

    As for Reeves, lets see if she can make more impact that Dodds did. They are both smart and good with numbers but that is not enough in politics. Reeves needs to start by being noticed, a trick Dodds did not manage.

    Did any member of the current Shadow Cabinet serve in Brown’s cabinet? I can’t think of one. Cameron had Hague and Clarke (and Fox had been a junior minister). Blair had Cunningham and Beckett who had both been junior ministers. But I can’t think of even a junior minister from Brown’s government in the SC at the moment.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,877
    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    You would think that would be more of an issue for the Conservatives. They are the government and their lack of talent and ideas are there for the seeing.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 4,069
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the many problems with Labour's front bench is that they are inevitably becoming less and less experienced of actual government. They have now been out of power for 11 years and will be for at least another 3 years, possibly 8-9 before they are back.

    The political genius of Cameron and Osborne and indeed Blair and Brown is that they were able to overcome similar disadvantages after long periods in opposition but this is rare. Burnham has cabinet experience albeit this is something of a mixed blessing. More significantly, he has current executive experience as Mayor of Greater Manchester. I don't see anyone else in the Labour party offering this range of experience from which he has presumably learned.

    His problem is that this is all happening just a bit too quick for him. He needs SKS to hang on another couple of years so that he can do at least a reasonable stint as a second time Mayor and then find a seat. It is looking increasingly likely that the void at the top of the Labour party will have been filled by someone else by then.

    As for Reeves, lets see if she can make more impact that Dodds did. They are both smart and good with numbers but that is not enough in politics. Reeves needs to start by being noticed, a trick Dodds did not manage.

    Did any member of the current Shadow Cabinet serve in Brown’s cabinet? I can’t think of one. Cameron had Hague and Clarke (and Fox had been a junior minister). Blair had Cunningham and Beckett who had both been junior ministers. But I can’t think of even a junior minister from Brown’s government in the SC at the moment.
    MiliEd?
    And was David Lammy something under Brown?

    Thin crop, to be fair.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,051
    Good morning, everyone.

    Rayner[sp] has made a silly mistake.

    Either support your boss (publicly, at least) or mount a leadership challenge. All she's done is undermine without removing Starmer, increasing division within her own party.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,389
    FF43 said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    You would think that would be more of an issue for the Conservatives. They are the government and their lack of talent and ideas are there for the seeing.
    It does not appear to be having any effect on the support HMG is receiving
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the many problems with Labour's front bench is that they are inevitably becoming less and less experienced of actual government. They have now been out of power for 11 years and will be for at least another 3 years, possibly 8-9 before they are back.

    The political genius of Cameron and Osborne and indeed Blair and Brown is that they were able to overcome similar disadvantages after long periods in opposition but this is rare. Burnham has cabinet experience albeit this is something of a mixed blessing. More significantly, he has current executive experience as Mayor of Greater Manchester. I don't see anyone else in the Labour party offering this range of experience from which he has presumably learned.

    His problem is that this is all happening just a bit too quick for him. He needs SKS to hang on another couple of years so that he can do at least a reasonable stint as a second time Mayor and then find a seat. It is looking increasingly likely that the void at the top of the Labour party will have been filled by someone else by then.

    As for Reeves, lets see if she can make more impact that Dodds did. They are both smart and good with numbers but that is not enough in politics. Reeves needs to start by being noticed, a trick Dodds did not manage.

    Did any member of the current Shadow Cabinet serve in Brown’s cabinet? I can’t think of one. Cameron had Hague and Clarke (and Fox had been a junior minister). Blair had Cunningham and Beckett who had both been junior ministers. But I can’t think of even a junior minister from Brown’s government in the SC at the moment.
    MiliEd?
    And was David Lammy something under Brown?

    Thin crop, to be fair.
    How could I have forgotten Miliband? :smile:
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the many problems with Labour's front bench is that they are inevitably becoming less and less experienced of actual government. They have now been out of power for 11 years and will be for at least another 3 years, possibly 8-9 before they are back.

    The political genius of Cameron and Osborne and indeed Blair and Brown is that they were able to overcome similar disadvantages after long periods in opposition but this is rare. Burnham has cabinet experience albeit this is something of a mixed blessing. More significantly, he has current executive experience as Mayor of Greater Manchester. I don't see anyone else in the Labour party offering this range of experience from which he has presumably learned.

    His problem is that this is all happening just a bit too quick for him. He needs SKS to hang on another couple of years so that he can do at least a reasonable stint as a second time Mayor and then find a seat. It is looking increasingly likely that the void at the top of the Labour party will have been filled by someone else by then.

    As for Reeves, lets see if she can make more impact that Dodds did. They are both smart and good with numbers but that is not enough in politics. Reeves needs to start by being noticed, a trick Dodds did not manage.

    Did any member of the current Shadow Cabinet serve in Brown’s cabinet? I can’t think of one. Cameron had Hague and Clarke (and Fox had been a junior minister). Blair had Cunningham and Beckett who had both been junior ministers. But I can’t think of even a junior minister from Brown’s government in the SC at the moment.
    Is there some reason I have missed why Hilary Benn is not in the Shadow Cabinet?

    He carries the same Brexit baggage as Starmer but I think is a far more capable communicator and parliamentary performer. He could be Labour’s Howard figure with ease I’d have thought. Steady the ship, stop the bleed, promote new blood and set it up for a Labour government in 2028.

    If Angela Raynor is the answer then the wrong question is being asked. Sure, she has personality and ideas. But she’s not going to be elected as PM and it will be back to square 1 after the next election.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,967
    edited May 16

    I think the likelihood now is that the next Labour leadership election takes place after SKS has lost the next election. Burnham could easily present himself as a candidate for e.g., the Leigh constituency in 2024 and be in Parliament as an MP for the next leadership election, resigning the Mayoralty.

    Burnham can be at the racecourse in time.

    Is there going to be a leadership election before 2024?

    Labour are loyal to their leaders. But, it is also in the interests of the successor that SKS owns the coming defeat. And after the defeat, it will be easier.

    First, the next leader needs to be facing someone other than Johnson, and I suspect Johnson will now go after GE 2004. Problems build up for PMs and gradually their popularity is chipped away. Johnson will go when he has become seriously unpopular.

    Second, the Labour party will be easier to manage after another defeat. It is the defeats that enabled Blair to take control and impose his will. Whilst Labour does not need another Blair, they do need to buckle down under the vision of a single leader.

    So, from the POV of the successor, I think you don't want to take over right now. You let SKS do some of the grunt work, and you really hope he doesn't lose too badly in GE 2024.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 4,069
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the many problems with Labour's front bench is that they are inevitably becoming less and less experienced of actual government. They have now been out of power for 11 years and will be for at least another 3 years, possibly 8-9 before they are back.

    The political genius of Cameron and Osborne and indeed Blair and Brown is that they were able to overcome similar disadvantages after long periods in opposition but this is rare. Burnham has cabinet experience albeit this is something of a mixed blessing. More significantly, he has current executive experience as Mayor of Greater Manchester. I don't see anyone else in the Labour party offering this range of experience from which he has presumably learned.

    His problem is that this is all happening just a bit too quick for him. He needs SKS to hang on another couple of years so that he can do at least a reasonable stint as a second time Mayor and then find a seat. It is looking increasingly likely that the void at the top of the Labour party will have been filled by someone else by then.

    As for Reeves, lets see if she can make more impact that Dodds did. They are both smart and good with numbers but that is not enough in politics. Reeves needs to start by being noticed, a trick Dodds did not manage.

    Did any member of the current Shadow Cabinet serve in Brown’s cabinet? I can’t think of one. Cameron had Hague and Clarke (and Fox had been a junior minister). Blair had Cunningham and Beckett who had both been junior ministers. But I can’t think of even a junior minister from Brown’s government in the SC at the moment.
    MiliEd?
    And was David Lammy something under Brown?

    Thin crop, to be fair.
    How could I have forgotten Miliband? :smile:
    Whatever the elixir is, you could make a fortune if you can bottle it.

    Hell, yeah.

    Especially if it works for other politicians of the late 2010s.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,725
    moonshine said:



    What be fascinating if someone who really knew what they were doing politically got hold of the Green Party and had a clause 4 moment with the wilder XR crowd.

    Such a person would never get anywhere near the leadership of the Greens. Extra-parliamentary insurrection is in our collective DNA. We fucking love it. I just wish we were a lot more violent.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,139
    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    I think so too. The flags stuff is just vacuous. Labour needs a coherent plan and set of ideas to show what a Labour Britain would look like, and a leader articulate enough to get it across.
    It is vacuous to stand in front of a flag and think that fixes anything by itself. However it is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for power to exude at least a quiet pride in your country, its people and its history and achievements. For some politicians, being seen with the flag subliminally draws attention to these attributes (just about every past PM I can think of).

    For others it only serves to underline their nervous embarrassment at their country, and in others still their outright hostility to it. Labour have moved from the third (Corbyn) to the second (Starmer) but have some way to go get to the first (Blair, Wilson). It sounds glib but if you want to understand the rot at the electability of the modern Labour Party, you need look no further than Emily Thornberry’s 2014 tweets about flags.
    Oh come on, plenty of Tories thought that house looked ghastly as well.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,916
    EXCLUSIVE: Matt Hancock helped former Tory minister secure £180m PPE contract

    Brooks Newmark, who resigned in sexts scandal, lobbied him on behalf of Chinese supplier

    He got "urgent" help and had contract signed in days


    W @GeorgeGreenwood @Direthoughts
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0ed3468a-b5aa-11eb-a803-dd7acc9bc346?shareToken=d1c8fcc1c13ec77442ac22c16b1decb8
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630
    Dura_Ace said:

    moonshine said:



    What be fascinating if someone who really knew what they were doing politically got hold of the Green Party and had a clause 4 moment with the wilder XR crowd.

    Such a person would never get anywhere near the leadership of the Greens. Extra-parliamentary insurrection is in our collective DNA. We fucking love it. I just wish we were a lot more violent.
    Try going to the meetings of that other party with green seats on the UK election map?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,630

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    In the same way that red wall voters aren’t going to automatically vote for Labour if their leader has a northern accent or flags in the background, they aren’t suddenly going to be drawn to Labour if their leader has an ex-military background. .

    Labour is not offering solutions to any of the issues or concerns voters have, that is their biggest problem. Voters are not dismissive of Labour because of Israel v Palestine, or because Starmer took the knee one time, but because they appear to be incompetent and out of ideas.

    I think so too. The flags stuff is just vacuous. Labour needs a coherent plan and set of ideas to show what a Labour Britain would look like, and a leader articulate enough to get it across.
    It is vacuous to stand in front of a flag and think that fixes anything by itself. However it is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for power to exude at least a quiet pride in your country, its people and its history and achievements. For some politicians, being seen with the flag subliminally draws attention to these attributes (just about every past PM I can think of).

    For others it only serves to underline their nervous embarrassment at their country, and in others still their outright hostility to it. Labour have moved from the third (Corbyn) to the second (Starmer) but have some way to go get to the first (Blair, Wilson). It sounds glib but if you want to understand the rot at the electability of the modern Labour Party, you need look no further than Emily Thornberry’s 2014 tweets about flags.
    Oh come on, plenty of Tories thought that house looked ghastly as well.
    Maybe they did but their snobbery was probably not centred on the flag.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380
    moonshine said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    moonshine said:



    What be fascinating if someone who really knew what they were doing politically got hold of the Green Party and had a clause 4 moment with the wilder XR crowd.

    Such a person would never get anywhere near the leadership of the Greens. Extra-parliamentary insurrection is in our collective DNA. We fucking love it. I just wish we were a lot more violent.
    Try going to the meetings of that other party with green seats on the UK election map?
    I’ve never thought of Plaid Cymru as especially violent.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,916
    I quoted bits of this thread yesterday outlining how badly Johnson got it wrong again on Covid, this time on the Indian variant. It’s worth reading the whole thread from @EdConwaySky to see how gobsmackingly slow Johnson was to act. Spoiler: it’s ‘very.’
    https://twitter.com/Aiannucci/status/1393835557969661955

    https://twitter.com/edconwaysky/status/1393271922595667971
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,383
    Fenman said:

    And a new aphorism will come to pass. A good Mayor does not a Prime minister make..

    Has he been a good mayor?

    I haven’t watched his recent career but he became a bit of a media darling when he refused to lockdown unless he got more compensation for his area.

    Perhaps standing up for his area. But IIRC he didn’t get any more money than other areas and more people died as a result of his actions.

    Is he objectively that good?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,380
    Charles said:

    Fenman said:

    And a new aphorism will come to pass. A good Mayor does not a Prime minister make..

    Has he been a good mayor?

    I haven’t watched his recent career but he became a bit of a media darling when he refused to lockdown unless he got more compensation for his area.

    Perhaps standing up for his area. But IIRC he didn’t get any more money than other areas and more people died as a result of his actions.

    Is he objectively that good?
    It’s interesting how much of that could apply to Johnson...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 29,633
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,916
    Boris Johnson, shutter of stable doors, was made to hold Friday’s briefing by the scientific advisers
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-india-travel-b1848100.html https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1393836884770574336/photo/1
  • FishingFishing Posts: 2,995
    edited May 16
    FF43 said:

    Fishing said:

    I'm surprised that Labour is polling so well when you see how barren they are of both talent and ideas, and how badly the centre-left is doing across Europe.

    You would think that would be more of an issue for the Conservatives. They are the government and their lack of talent and ideas are there for the seeing.
    I disagree. Talent is subjective, but I can see three or four ministers (Sunak, Truss, etc.) as PM. And they do have a bunch of ideas (planning reform, Get Brexit Done, levelling up, protect the Union, etc.) One may disagree with them, but they exist and are clearly attractive to some people. In the last 15 years, Labour hasn't even come up with a decent, memorable slogan that I recall. "British Jobs for British Workers" is ex-BNP and "Protect the NHS" is at least 40 years old now.
  • borisatsunborisatsun Posts: 188
    ydoethur said:

    Well, you may know both of those for ‘a fact’ but you would be completely wrong.

    There were a number of articles on Cameron from 2002 onwards in the Times and Telegraph suggesting he had what it would take. There was frequent mention of him by other MPs on TV and radio, usually bracketed with Osborne, Johnson and Gove. There was a documentary on Michael Howard in 2004 that mentioned him as a long term leadership contender. Gossip in the PCP suggested he and Gove might be realistic leadership contenders for a 2009 leadership election should Labour have won again.

    So if you didn’t know this it was because you weren’t paying attention.

    As it happens, he bobbed up much more quickly than expected, partly through his own gambling instincts, partly through that speech and partly because David Davis turned in such a dismal performance. But that doesn’t mean he emerged from nowhere.

    Similarly, Blair was tipped as a potential leader from the mid-1980s onwards, although he was thought to be behind Brown in the Buggins Turn stakes.

    And I say again, I don’t see or hear the same commentary about any current Labour MP.

    Thought you were right, so wanted to wanted to find some 2002/3 stories with DaveC future leader mentions..

    I searched google for "David Cameron" from 1/1/2002 to 1/1/2004 and found an article he wrote in the Guardian about Macedonia and an Oxford Mail story about local MP visiting a school. (Also, don't think he was the 18yo student David Cameron who set fire to his friend dressed as a mummy in toilet paper https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/student-set-fire-paper-mummy-2491691 )

    Extending my search to 2004 there was this from August
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-314340/Love-Tory-Conservatives-golden-girl-married-man.html
    Which is a story about his stepfather-in-law having an affair with his boss's political secretary who happens to be his son's godmather. Usual political incest stuff.
    Says of Cameron "In her role as political adviser, one figure Miss Whetstone has helped promote is David Cameron, 37, the Conservative MP for Witney in Oxfordshire and a happily married father-of-two (with whom she is not involved romantically).
    Eton-educated Cameron, who is in charge of policy co-ordination for the party, is the stepson-in-law of Viscount Astor, 52, a former government whip and Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords." No potential future leader stuff.
    Somewhat amusingly followed by this about Boris
    "Three weeks before publication of his first novel, Seventy Two Virgins, preening Spectator editor and Tory MP Boris Johnson has uncharacteristically come over all modest.
    For I hear that at the last minute he has cut from the book, which is heavily autobiographical - the hero is a bicycle-riding MP - a number of sex scenes and details of an affair.
    Why could this be? According to publishing sources, twice married Boris was concerned that readers might take the louche behaviour in the novel too literally."

    Did manage to find a July 2004 Standard article that's along the lines you're talking about..
    https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/could-public-school-toff-be-future-leader-6959153.html
    "Virtually unknown outside the Westminster village, MPs such as David Cameron and George Osborne are hailed by their friends as the answer to New Labour's dominance"

    Again rather amusingly followed by a Boris take..
    "Mr Johnson goes down a storm at Tory conference fringes, but his Dulux dog fringe is the main image the public have of him. His appearances on Have I Got News For You have obscured his political talents.
    Labour MPs are delighted at the idea that he could ever be a contender for leader. "It would be a dream come true if Boris became Tory leader. The man is a joke," one minister said recently."

    But nothing else, and I've been through all 13 pages of hits on google for the 3 years..

    Am I looking in the wrong place?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 35,760


    I think the likelihood now is that the next Labour leadership election takes place after SKS has lost the next election. Burnham could easily present himself as a candidate for e.g., the Leigh constituency in 2024 and be in Parliament as an MP for the next leadership election, resigning the Mayoralty.

    Burnham can be at the racecourse in time.

    Is there going to be a leadership election before 2024?

    Labour are loyal to their leaders. But, it is also in the interests of the successor that SKS owns the coming defeat. And after the defeat, it will be easier.

    First, the next leader needs to be facing someone other than Johnson, and I suspect Johnson will now go after GE 2004. Problems build up for PMs and gradually their popularity is chipped away. Johnson will go when he has become seriously unpopular.

    Second, the Labour party will be easier to manage after another defeat. It is the defeats that enabled Blair to take control and impose his will. Whilst Labour does not need another Blair, they do need to buckle down under the vision of a single leader.

    So, from the POV of the successor, I think you don't want to take over right now. You let SKS do some of the grunt work, and you really hope he doesn't lose too badly in GE 2024.

    Difficulty is, if SKS makes progress, he will be hard to shift, and if he goes backwards, the mountain becomes unassailable, and the job a lot less attractive.

    We should be looking for someone who is already open to working with other parties. Which probably knocks Streeting out as too tribal. I might put a few quid on Stella.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,920


    I think the likelihood now is that the next Labour leadership election takes place after SKS has lost the next election. Burnham could easily present himself as a candidate for e.g., the Leigh constituency in 2024 and be in Parliament as an MP for the next leadership election, resigning the Mayoralty.

    Burnham can be at the racecourse in time.

    Is there going to be a leadership election before 2024?

    Labour are loyal to their leaders. But, it is also in the interests of the successor that SKS owns the coming defeat. And after the defeat, it will be easier.

    First, the next leader needs to be facing someone other than Johnson, and I suspect Johnson will now go after GE 2004. Problems build up for PMs and gradually their popularity is chipped away. Johnson will go when he has become seriously unpopular.

    Second, the Labour party will be easier to manage after another defeat. It is the defeats that enabled Blair to take control and impose his will. Whilst Labour does not need another Blair, they do need to buckle down under the vision of a single leader.

    So, from the POV of the successor, I think you don't want to take over right now. You let SKS do some of the grunt work, and you really hope he doesn't lose too badly in GE 2024.

    Flaw with that argument is that the next election is going to be at a time of Boris's choice which means 2023. So Burnham can either stand as an MP and resign as the mayor or continue as mayor.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,916
    🚨 Here's the inside story of how Boris Johnson's former top aide approved a £187m taxpayer-backed loan to help a luxury property developer ... that was paying him

    Lord Lister apologised last night, said he should have recused himself from the key meeting

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/35bfe9ee-b5ad-11eb-8f2a-87b6de480dfc?shareToken=a3db448562248d1917ff27132fbd86dd
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,916
    Fishing said:

    And they do have a bunch of ideas (planning reform, Get Brexit Done, levelling up, protect the Union, etc.)

    Those are slogans, not plans.

    And the only one they made any progress on (Brexit) is so badly fucked up the guy who did it says it can't continue

    We don’t know who the “senior ally” of @BorisJohnson quoted by @Telegraph is. We can guess. @DavidGHFrost well knows that if the Northern Ireland Protocol is “dead in the water”, so is the “oven-ready” Brexit. Either that or the Good Friday Agreement. /1.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/15/northern-ireland-protocol-dead-water-senior-ally-boris-johnson/
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,562
    Similarly cavalier interpreters of history?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,168
    I admire Burnham and think he would be a very decent leader, though it isn't going to happen. However it would be a huge mistake to think that because you are very popular in Liverpool/Manchester that this translates to the rest of the north, let alone the rest of the country. The big divides now include very urban v smaller towns and rural.

    Everyone knows that London is one country and the south east quite another (look at polling figures, which are startling). The north is the same.
This discussion has been closed.