Next Labour leader - Starmer and Rayner win

MikeUpNorth said:
The factions of the party obviously need to compromise with each other.

It is possible. Nowadays, people seem to think New Labour was some monolithic block, but it was really a grand compromise between Blairite and Brownite visions and ideas. The fact people remember it as a unified force is a testament to how successful it was at branding and presentation.

Something similar has to happen now between the socialists/statists and the centre ground.
Click to expand...

I don't think the divide between Blairites and Brownites was profound enough to really create all that much of a schism within the party beyond the personal dislike the two men eventually had for each other though. They had different approaches to politics and different ideals, but in many respects they both embraced the project of New Labour and of the party's modernisation. They both allowed deregulation of the financial sector to progress and were fine to retain fairly low taxation while boosting public investment. They were both pro-EU, pro-immigration, and internationalist in their outlooks. There were differences, yes, but not for the two men to be seen as representing fundamentally different wings of the party as the left and centre do now.

I'd say the difference now is that the socialists and centrists just have hugely different ideological outlooks. The left don't see New Labour types as all that much better than moderate Tories; New Labour see the left as worse than moderate Tories/Lib Dems, for the most part. Their ideologies vary to the point where I'm not sure it's tenable for the two factions to continue in the same party in the long-term, while both retaining power to an extent.
 
Redlambs said:
But then you are just arguing the same argument as they see the left as the problem! And going by what's been said since the election, they are right. It's excuses upon excuses by those in charge because they care about keeping power than doing what's right.

And stop with the purge nonsense, it's long since been said that at least on here it's not about purging from the party it's about them releasing power and letting others take the reigns. Nothing to do with core left policies which i agree should remain at all costs.
Click to expand...

Yes of course I'm.arguing the same argument, because so many say it's completely the fault of "the left" and no one else has any blame to take.

"Releasing power" is a fantasy. You aren't going to get that by telling people that the left fecked up, that the left needs to own it and shouldn't be in charge as a result.

Anyway all will become clear in the actual campaign, most of the chatter before then is just reinforcing factionalism and being self-indulgent.
 
2cents said:
If we use ‘great’ in the more neutral sense, as in ‘influential’ or ‘impactful’, then I think it may become a bit more useful to speak in such terms. We can all acknowledge that Britain is one of the ‘great’ nations/states or whatever, just as we’d recognize, say, Buddhism as one of the great religions without necessarily attaching any moral significance to it. Britain’s contribution to the making of the modern world places it in a very small, select category of historical powers.

I think the danger lies in attempting to measure Britain’s legacy like a score-card or balance-sheet. This approach doesn’t really do much to help our understanding of how Britain shaped and continues to shape the world we live in, it’s more useful for telling us about the politics of the person arguing for one or the other side of the balance-sheet. Which is why I think the Labour manifesto approach discussed above is probably mid-guided, though well-meaning. It comes across as an attempt to balance the score-board rather than promote genuine understanding, and it inevitably provokes a response which deepens the problem.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I absolutely think 'great' is a useful term in that regard...but then it simultaneously is arguably undermined by the fact that it could also be applied to most of the major European states and indeed many prominent world-leading countries today, insofar as many of them have had a significant global impact on culture and society over the past few centuries.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
The Labour factions desperately need to get together and agree a compromise on the leader/deputy leader and head off the factional infighting. Those on the left need to accept that RLB/AR isn't a strong ticket even if it is the one which reflects their political views. Those on the right need to convince the left that they're willing to act in good faith going forwards and that electing a soft-left deputy to a leftist leader (or vice-versa) wouldn't lead to another Tom Watson situation, where as soon as he'd been elected he started throwing dung at the people who just voted him in and undermining the leader/left.

Starmer as leader/Rayner as deputy would be my preferred combo to lead a party hovering around the 2017 manifesto in terms of its offer to the nation. Maybe it's wishful thinking but I'd hope that would be a ticket most in the party could back, and which could take the party forwards.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with all that. 2017 manifesto is the place to build off, rather than 2019. Starmer and Rayner would, I think, be a good bet. It'll also be beneficial that the shadow cabinet can be chosen from the entirety of the PLP again, rather than just those not implacable opposed to Corbyn.
 
Shamwow said:
Yes of course I'm.arguing the same argument, because so many say it's completely the fault of "the left" and no one else has any blame to take.

"Releasing power" is a fantasy. You aren't going to get that by telling people that the left fecked up, that the left needs to own it and shouldn't be in charge as a result.

Anyway all will become clear in the actual campaign, most of the chatter before then is just reinforcing factionalism and being self-indulgent.
Click to expand...

It's not the left as such though is it, it's Corbyn and the powers that be that made the mistakes. If you want to take that personally because you back him, fine, but I'm not saying people like yourself should go rather the whole thing need a rethink that should be clear to everyone no matter the side.

Your points are weird to me because you keep banging on about "left left left" as if I or others on here are blaming the left as some kind of entity for this mess. I've made it clear time and again that's not it, and it's not grassroots guys, I've also stated I've not joined purely to vote against momentum either. But you seem to somehow miss those posts to make generic comedy posts like that one yesterday after I was talking about us being civil to each other in here.

The only funny thing is you are doing exactly what the like of Corbyn and Thornberry did straight away, and what you keep accusing everyone else of. Making excuses and blaming everyone but the people who fecked this. If you think that's the way forward and just accepting the people in charge aren't going anywhere, that's fine that's you prerogative, but having generic digs at people at least discussing what needs to be done as if we are accusing you personally is not it.
 
711 said:
Also notably comprehensive education. It was incomplete. It made mistakes, understandable now, of thinking ever bigger schools must be better as being more efficient and offering greater choice. Despite that there are millions of people today who obtained A levels and went on to great careers who would not have been able to do so before comprehensive education and sixth form expansion, and the idea of 50% of pupils going on to university would have been impossible from the start. I doubt many people understand now, fortunately perhaps, just what a ceiling on life that failing the 11-plus meant, some still achieved great things, but for most eleven year-olds, and their parents, it was a verdict that told them what their place would be for the rest of their life. At eleven.
Click to expand...

A fine example of the betrayal of labour by much of the older generation.

My brother got A levels at secondary school while I went to a grammar and got none. He went on to university and has benefited greatly from that education. He's staunch labour though so he's not betrayed the party that fought for him.
 
Frosty said:
I found Paul Mason's view interesting: https://www.paulmason.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/After-Corbynism-v1.2.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing. Suggest all interested in future Labour positioning have a look.

Mason made some interesting points not being highlighted by Corbyn acolytes post the election. Most important being not the lost votes to Leave Conservative, but the real vote loss to LibDem. As the author states 'Labour lost nearly twice as many votes to progressive pro-Remain parties as it did to the parties of Brexit and racism'

There are several other seismic statements that the author makes and which make me mad because they are so obvious to external and objective Labour sympathisers:
  • "We were facing an alliance of the right and far right, with one relentless message. But the progressive parties refused any kind of tactical unity and fought each other instead"
Blair made Labour electable by uniting Left and Left centre. Cobynista's not only excluded left centre ideology from the party manifesto, it also made enemies of them, with the likes of Swinson going as far as saying they would never co-operate. And Corbyn made zero official attempts of coalition or cooperation during the campaign. That accounts for 1.1 million lost votes ​
​
I've tried to think how I'd have voted (Remain voter) if Labour had adopted a pro brexit and referendum respecting positioning. In reality, I'd have to accept that I didn't have a leg to stand on, and so would have to have accept the vote and party position on the vote. By taking the rebellious and anti democratic stance of not respecting the referendum, Labour gave me hope. That strategy could only work if it was successful. The neutral position ended up pissing off both sides of the fence.​

  • "we lost because part of former industrial working class in Midlands and North detached itself from the values that are now core to our party."
That is sooo damning!!! And despite focusing on a purely leftist manifesto designed to serve traditional working class voters, they totally misunderstood that these voters put their views on Brexit above party loyalty. That was another 880,000 votes lost.​


My very over simplistic view: Corbyn's view of the country is deeply depressing, only accounts for a small minority and hence does not resonate with the majority of the country. Whilst Labour must always have a place for the less fortunate and less able, it can't be the central pillar upon which the manifesto is built around. 'Social Giving' is not electable position and will also curry no power whilst in opposition.

It seems to me that what lost voter from the North seek is 'opportunity'. Inspired or misguided, they believe that 'opportunity' will come from Brexit. So 'opportunity' has to be a core part of any future positioning. Likewise, 'opportunity' is also something that resonates with the people who actually voted Labour this time around (professional and technical, skilled trades and administrators).

Should Labour continue with a Corbyn inspired positioning, they will be relevant an ever decreasing segment of the electorate. Whilst there is a gap between rich and poor (of which Labour must accommodate) the majority segment of the working class are further up the economic spectrum and so Labour must move from left to centre left to resonate with them.

Worth saying Mason totally disagrees with my stance!
 
Last edited:
Redlambs said:
It's not the left as such though is it, it's Corbyn and the powers that be that made the mistakes. If you want to take that personally because you back him, fine, but I'm not saying people like yourself should go rather the whole thing need a rethink that should be clear to everyone no matter the side.

Your points are weird to me because you keep banging on about "left left left" as if I or others on here are blaming the left as some kind of entity for this mess. I've made it clear time and again that's not it, and it's not grassroots guys, I've also stated I've not joined purely to vote against momentum either. But you seem to somehow miss those posts to make generic comedy posts like that one yesterday after I was talking about us being civil to each other in here.

The only funny thing is you are doing exactly what the like of Corbyn and Thornberry did straight away, and what you keep accusing everyone else of. Making excuses and blaming everyone but the people who fecked this. If you think that's the way forward and just accepting the people in charge aren't going anywhere, that's fine that's you prerogative, but having generic digs at people at least discussing what needs to be done as if we are accusing you personally is not it.
Click to expand...

Loads of people are saying the left needs to be rejected now.

And we've had the likes of Austin, Woodcock and now Flint simply acting to wreck the party rather than make any positive efforts.

The precise issue i have with your arguments is this vague idea of "the powers that be". If you mean Corbyn then yeah definitely. Likewise most of his inner circle such as Milne and Murphy. But there are individuals who have been influential in Corbyn's campaign who should definitely be considered in terms of who drives this party forward. And Momentum are and will be a positive force for the party.

What I'm hoping we'll see in the leadership campaign is that there are a good range of promising candidates from the left, as well as more centre leaning candidates who are willing to work with the left. If not to win this one, the next as my instinct says go for whoever the media safe candidate looks to be this time. 2015 and 2017 the choices just didn't seem to be there. And people supported Corbyn because there wasn't really anyone else with the same aims broadly speaking. Same for the people who have worked with him in the last 4 years - there are the true Corbynites but also many just acting out of pragmatism.
 
Kaos said:
OK let me make a confession - I'm a momentum member, I proudly voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections, and this time I'm inclined to vote for a more central candidate.

The point I'd like to make is not all of us are a bunch of hardline, loony, beret-donning marxists intent on waging class warfare. Most of us are disillusioned, mostly young voters who've gravitated towards a platform we felt would enfranchise us and offer us a genuinely progressive platform. The trouble however is if the Labour membership as it stands currently is dominated by our ilk, then unfortunately it serves as nothing more than an echo chamber, churning out excuses with no one within the membership there to contest or debate them. Most members you'll find are innately reasonable and receptive to a debate in changing the party's direction, heck I'd shamelessly throw myself in that category.

What I can say is simply smearing them as cultist loonies who are exclusively at fault will only force them to double down and further entrench themselves in their echo chambers, there needs to be a broad and civil discussion. Re-joining is a good start, but simply paying your £3, voting for Jess Phillips, doing nothing else and complaining that the Momentum loonies have damned the country again isn't the answer to that. If you feel passionately about it join your local Labour community forums, encourage others to take part or at the very least attempt a civil and objective discourse over social media. If people can't be arsed with that, then they have no right complaining that Momentum continue to hold a grip over the party.
Click to expand...

Mate, even if it has come across that way, you are not the target of anyone on here's ire. Nor should you be. As I've said numerous times now, people like you and shammy and jeff are exactly who need to stay. You all have been at this far longer than someone like me, and it's not for me to wade in and tell any of you that you should go.

But what I am is a floating voter, a neutral. Except I'm no longer neutral as I voted Labour and as you can tell from my posts, I've got involved. I've joined and I will vote for the leader if allowed, and more than that, I'm going to do my best to be as informed as I can be when the time comes. But what I can bring is that outsider view, I'm not in the Labour bubble which is why it's hard for me to understand why some can't see what's happening. Why even though literally straight away after that humiliation it's already the same excuses as always, topped up with new ones and talk of reflection. That's all Labour ever seem to do though, there's never any change and there won't be now.

Momentum leadership and Corbyn have failed, no question. Now to me that should mean they go and we move forward, but that doesn't mean giving up all the good they've achieved or suddenly lurching to the centre. Maybe I'm just naive, but I can't see why we can't keep the core policies but also learn how to play the game better. After all, surely the goal should be power first then real change, otherwise what's the point? Anything else is just talk.
 
Shamwow said:
Loads of people are saying the left needs to be rejected now.

And we've had the likes of Austin, Woodcock and now Flint simply acting to wreck the party rather than make any positive efforts.

The precise issue i have with your arguments is this vague idea of "the powers that be". If you mean Corbyn then yeah definitely. Likewise most of his inner circle such as Milne and Murphy. But there are individuals who have been influential in Corbyn's campaign who should definitely be considered in terms of who drives this party forward. And Momentum are and will be a positive force for the party.

What I'm hoping we'll see in the leadership campaign is that there are a good range of promising candidates from the left, as well as more centre leaning candidates who are willing to work with the left. If not to win this one, the next as my instinct says go for whoever the media safe candidate looks to be this time. 2015 and 2017 the choices just didn't seem to be there. And people supported Corbyn because there wasn't really anyone else with the same aims broadly speaking. Same for the people who have worked with him in the last 4 years - there are the true Corbynites but also many just acting out of pragmatism.
Click to expand...

Well this is where I hope to educate myself mate, and I'm already learning so much. Because I haven't joined just to vote against the momentum candidate and I do appreciate it's not all of them and I also am aware there are those more centre who want their power grab and probably would make an even bigger mess.

But at least for me, it's not the left or the centrists. Which is why, as you've seen, it bores me to tears seeing talk of right or centre or left as if those are the only options. Labour need at heart to be left, I just don't see why they can't play the game better without people going into meltdown about centrists and all that.
 
Grinner said:
A fine example of the betrayal of labour by much of the older generation.

My brother got A levels at secondary school while I went to a grammar and got none. He went on to university and has benefited greatly from that education. He's staunch labour though so he's not betrayed the party that fought for him.
Click to expand...
You could look at it that way but it wouldn't make the achievement any less. You could also ask whether that generation has left Labour or whether Labour has left them.
 
sammsky1 said:
Blair made Labour electable by uniting Left and Left centre. Cobynista's not only excluded left centre ideology from the party manifesto, it also made enemies of them, with the likes of Swinson going as far as saying they would never co-operate. That accounts for 1.1 million lost votes
Click to expand...

This is a strange narrative. Swinson basically anchored her whole persona and Lib Dem appeal in being a party of anti-Corbyn Remainers. You can probably count on one hand the amount of times Corbyn personally named Swinson during the Labour campaign whereas Swinson name-dropped Corbyn at every given opportunity. She was desperate to win disillusioned Tories and that strategy centred on a demonisation of Corbyn that precluded even a hint of an alliance with Labour. Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Labour would have been open to one anyway, but let's drop this idea that it was purely the fault of Corbyn/Labour policy that no accommodation was possible. The Lib Dems have shown little enthusiasm to work with Labour be it under Brown, Miliband or Corbyn. The likelihood of a Lab/LD alliance is often overstated because people do not appreciate the gap between the ideology of the two that exists irrespective of who leads the parties.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
Click to expand...


How dare you be consistent with what we did last time!

There's too much talk of rallying behind candidates right now. We really need to hear from the selections first, right now it's just arguments for the sake of it to slag each other off.
 
I really dont get this type of sneer.
So do uneducated people have to be represented by an uneducated person? Is that what this is saying?
Are people from working class backgrounds, who succeed over the generations no longer welcome in the would of the oppressed and depressed left? Is that what it's saying?

Labour purity tests are very odd, given they are on the path to irrelevance.

 
MikeUpNorth said:
Click to expand...

:lol:

The PLP forgetting they ruled out thousands of members signing up in 2016, in bid to stop Corbyn winning a 2nd leadership contest. Still the idea of thousands of ''liberals'' signing up to the labour party in attempt to change the party seems a bit far fetched.
 
Last edited:
Funny how sources always speak like journalists write. Football sources the same too.
 


Rachel making her pitch for shadow chancellor then

Tbf she's more qualified than most and might get a look in if it's a non momentum leader... For sure she would be a lot better than burgon
 
Again, a 'source' sounds like a character from The Thick of It.
 
sun_tzu said:


Rachel making her pitch for shadow chancellor then

Tbf she's more qualified than most and might get a look in if it's a non momentum leader... For sure she would be a lot better than burgon
Click to expand...


My grandma would be better then Burgon and she’s been dead for 15 years.
 
Theoretically speaking. I wonder if Blair might just work? Or would Boris just say 'Iraq' every time he stood up at the despatch box?

Perhaps they need to reinstate Blair as party Godfather, and he should be the power behind any future leader?

 
Last edited:
sammsky1 said:

I wonder if Blair might just work? Or Would Boris just say "iraq' even time he stood up at the despatch box?

Perhaps they need to reinstate him as party Godfather, and he should be the power behind any future leader?
Click to expand...

Let's not just completely destroy the thread at this point, @sammsky1 :lol:
 
SteveJ said:
Funny how sources always speak like journalists write. Football sources the same too.
Click to expand...



This was my favourite source of recent times. Criticising Corbyn was an open goal after the election and this was the best analogy a Labour MP could muster. It's all the more painful because he/she was plainly proud enough of it to brief it to a journalist.
 
BobbyManc said:


This was my favourite source of recent times. Criticising Corbyn was an open goal after the election and this was the best analogy a Labour MP could muster. It's all the more painful because he/she was plainly proud enough of it to brief it to a journalist.
Click to expand...

The failure to reform the PLP was another huge mistake.
 
There must be room to mix elements of the two wings of the party. Imagine combining the dodgy wars and deregulation of Blair with the rank incompetence and financial illiteracy of Corbyn, and let’s see just how many seats we can lose next time out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.