Philomena Cunk?
As a Tory the only credible person in the whole of the labour party is Dave Miliband. If they had elected him in the first place they'd be in power tonight. I know the Labour party have never learned from any of their past mistakes, but they should learn from this one - if Dave M was their leader I might even vote for them. Chukka is not leader or PM material. Nor is Burnham. They both come across very badly on Question time (my personal benchmark of a politician) - very evasive regarding answering the question - moreso than most other politicians, but with an added air of arrogance and petulism, only surpassed by that tosser Balls. And both refuse to acknowledge the mistakes and mismanagement of the economy of the last labour government, which was one of their many downfalls in this campaign - they should have held their hands up, fessed up, apologised and learned from it, rather than pushing exactly the same policy. The general public can be daft, but not that daft.
I don't pretend to know a lot about politics, but when you have two brothers, one who is charismatic, good in front of the camera and looks like a leader and another who looks like his slightly special brother, you don't put Danny Devito in the place of Arnie and expect to win. However this happened it is a sign that the Labour party don't have a clue.
David Miliband was a shoe in and his brother never stood a chance.
They could headhunt Nicola Sturgeon
Until the Labour Party decides what its core policies are, then tries to persuade the electorate to vote for them, they don't stand a chance.
The last 5 years have been spent looking for populist policies, leading to inconsistency and lack of trust. A good leader takes people with him, rather than just chasing votes.
Labour might split into a centrist SDP like faction in south England and Laondon and seek a relationship with lib dems (again) and a rump left wing party for old industrial areas
The left do well in London. Londoners elected Ken Livingstone a few times. And yesterday Labour won 45 seats in London compared to 27 for the Tories and 1 for the LibDems.
London is as solid Labour as any "old industrial area".
The future of the Labour party. Oh and I won't be voting for him, but even so if they want to stand a chance they better get the right person for the job.
To be fair, I think David won that argument. He was angry as well, I like that.
The big question is whether someone in a safe seat will "fall ill" quickly to create a byelection for the other Miliband
This.
Suggestions locally for Rachel Reeves, She's female, young(er than most), attractive(er than most), well educated but not posh and doing well in the commons and the shadow cabinet. That said, she's quite new labour, and also currently quite pregnant. Not that that should stop her aspirations, and I would love to see a working mother owning the house of commons, but I'm pretty sure the old guard wouldn't allow something so abhorrent!
David Miliband is Tony Blair in a better suit.
If that's what you want, fine.
Andy Burnham dyes his hair - I know all the other leaders do too, but it looks dishonest.
Chuka is electable, but I can't remember him ever saying anything of note.
So, Stephen Fry anyone?
Maybe it's time for the Labour leader to be someone that has actually been one of the 'working people' that Labour claim to represent. As well being someone that hasn't been to private school.Is there anyone like that in the Labour Party?
I went to primary and secondary school with Andy. I can assure you it wasn't private. There are no private schools that I know of where we're from. Or Grammars for that matter.
And it depends on what your idea of 'posh' is? A bog-standard comp in Warrington, with a catchment area of some pretty impoverished areas? With plenty of people on free school meals? Where a couple of your classmates disappear in third year, as they've been sent to young offenders institutes? Where your journey to school takes you past the pit they've just closed down? That kind of 'posh'?
Maybe you shouldn't make so many assumptions?
Andy did end up at Cambridge? Why? Because he's a genuinely clever, hard working bastard.
Its also worth noting how much respect he's got amongst the core labour vote in the north, for his work for the Hillsborough families. The inquest going on at the moment wouldn't be going on if it weren't for him. He put an awful lot of hours in to get that. Buys you a lot of kudos round this neck of the woods, that kind of thing. Similar campaigns by other candidates are notable by their absence.
TBH I think those of us on the left have to accept one of two things
1,. we either go all out to create a SNP type movement to move the populus to the left. Given the media and the "wealthy" south I cannot see this taking hold nationally. Perhaps if we can persuade all those who dont vote as I firmly believe the marginalised are more likely to both not vote and vote labour if they think change will come.
2. Accept that the battle is won in the centre ground by attracting floating voters - those folk of such fine and noble principle that they can switch between both parties [ HOW?} based on such noble principles as
* Its time for a change
* he looks like he would make a good leader
* Whats in it for me?
* I am not racist but can we have a few less folk coming here- PS dont call me a bigot
* I am not voting for him he looks a bit weird
* lets talk tough about benefits and tax avoidance but only really do the former
TBH you need to win over these folk to win elections and speak to them about what they care about- Blair did this, like him or loathe him
There was a massive failed Lib Dem vote to be won by Labour and they did not get it. They need to elect someone bland and middle of the road who will appeal to them [ middle england not that into politics but will vote] as that is who win you elections.
Its not me , nor binners nor RS as we would vote for almost anything that was not a Tory
The other one is to take control of the media and print stories abut how those on sanction are affected using examples of folk waiting life saving operations who need to look for work but the rich and the powerful control that and they dont want anything even vaguely radical anywhere near power. FFS they called ed Red Ed when he was to the right of Thatcher
Burnham is the only logical choice IMO. First priority has to be re-building the base in the north, and a northerner is the only one who can do that. I'm not talking about pandering to the UKIP-tempted anti-immigrant ignoramuses, but persuading them that their fears about immigration are unfounded. A posh metropolitian londoner is not going to be able to do that.
Not sure about D Miliband. If he could demonstrate that his charity work hiatus has blunted his blairite inclinations I could be persuaded it's a good idea. I seem to remember last time that he had some interesting ideas about turning the labour party into a broader based progressive movement rather than just a mouthpiece for the unions.
Being serious.
I'd vote for Andy Burnham in an instant - but it won't be allowed by the Party right now.
They have no idea of what they believe anymore, conviction scares them.
We'll get Chuka - a Blairite with friends in law and the city.
The leader we need at the moment is Ed Miliband - at least for six months or so.
I think he knows exatly what went wrong and I hoped he'd have been brave enough to hang on for the inquest, learn from his mistakes, sack the yes men and deflect some of the blame from the next incumbent.
First priority has to be re-building the base in the north, and a northerner is the only one who can do that.
We do not need a leader who we like
Look at the election result our view is the minority
We dont need more support in the north we need support in the South
More of the same wont help redress this
You dont seem to have got this and think that more left wing will win an election
it wont - though I wish it would.
If you cannot win over middle [ of the road] england then you wont be the PM
Yvette is going to walk it, Chukka is too New labour, Andy B is extremely well liked in the party but has too much baggage from his time as health secretary and the party will not risk another questionable leader.
This thread is incredibly depressing. Time to move to Scotland I think.
you and Junkyard need to understand that the SNP is not a leftist party. it's being bankrolled by two homophobic multimillionaires that made their fortunes through Tory privatisations of public transport!
Chuka would be another disaster for Labour. He crumbles under easy interviews, lord knows what would happen with some tough interviews where he can't walk off. He also has the problem that he doesn't connect with the working person he is trying to represent just another solicitor with aspirations of power.
Wont be surprised if Reeves acts as Chuka's running mate lending her support to him in return as deputy leader and shadow chancellor.
the SNP is not a leftist party
True but it is relative to the labour party
I have no idea who funds them but happy to see a link - genuine Q /seeking knowledge there my two minute google was a bit futile and I am in the middle of baking
There's no need to rush, plenty of time in fact. Labour needs some LT planning and some new faces.
Talking of Croydon (I recall it came up a few days ago) what happened there?
you and Junkyard need to understand that the SNP is not a leftist party. it's being bankrolled by two homophobic multimillionaires that made their fortunes through Tory privatisations of public transport!
Maybe, maybe not, but certainly left of the Londoncentric hounds that will quite possibly unleash the full force of 'proper' right wing policies upon the weak, the poor and the wage slaves of the country, unrestrained as they are now by their previous minority. At least Scotland will have strong representation by a party with Scottish issues at heart, unlike the Midlands and the North of England.
I'd vote for Burnham. but I fear we will get Chuka.
you and Junkyard need to understand that the SNP is not a leftist party. it's being bankrolled by two homophobic multimillionaires that made their fortunes through Tory privatisations of public transport!
Jesus wept.
David Miliband is Tony Blair in a better suit.
If that's what you want, fine.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't want any of them as to me they are just tories in drag. All I'm saying is that if they want to win they need someone who actually stands a chance.
I see the labour party as a slightly less worse choice than the tories. A pile of dog turd, but perhaps not as offensive as the huge steaming pile of dog turd left in the middle of a busy street that are the conservatives.
You dont seem to have got this and think that more left wing will win an election
it wont - though I wish it would.
Oh I do. I'm not saying that they should move more the left, but they need a base to build from. Like it or not that's in the north, and they lost a lot of northern votes to UKIP, although whether this cost them any seats is uncertain. Burnham is hardly a ranting lefty, he bridges both sides, but crucially has credibility. I think the main lesson is not in losing votes to the tories in the south, but what has happened in Scotland. If they don't address that the north will go the same way and Umunna will only accelerate that process. Like I said though I wouldn't be too upset if D Miliband came back from the US. Doubt he will though.
Just done the UKIP thing on another thread so not repeating it o them but not seats
they harm the tories more is the precise.
Labur lose some votes t
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/stw-2017-eu-inout-referendum-thread/page/3#post-6899069
Dan Jarvis is the only one who can win. So they'll pick one of the others.
Junkyard - lazarusYou dont seem to have got this and think that more left wing will win an election. it wont - though I wish it would.
TBH I don't agree. This last election, what you had was a total failure to actually get the message across, and simultaneously to call out the opposition for their bullshit. Generally, a failure to even really try. They lost the argument on the economy with a whimper, for example, and ended up just trying to fight it on Tory terms, where of course they got their arses kicked.
A problem of leadership, a problem of strategy and communication, much more than a problem of fundamental policy direction. Sadly we'll never know what a competent campaign could have done with much the same material. I'm not saying it's a given that the campaign is the only reason they lost, but I would say that the campaign was certainly bad enough that it could be.
Some of the problems they face are outwith their control- they'll face a hostile media in the UK and that gives them a massive communication issue. But right Labour could clone Cameron and deliver the exact same policies as the Tories and still get slated in the media so that's not a problem they can fix without a long term policy shift that would make them a different party.
(personally I find this bizarre; Labour actually didn't get that much smaller a voter share than the Tories, how is there no market for a populist, leftist media outlet?)
PS, awaits someone insisting that media makes no difference, an argument which for some reason only ever comes from the side that has all the media and commits massive effort into keeping it that way.
[b]Agree? Retweet.[/b]
That's going to be the epitaph of the of the Labour Party!
People who live in a bubble preaching to the choir - they work, socialise and live with likeminded Labour supporters, they no longer connect with anyone outside the bubble, anything that challenges their belief system is categorised as evil, any divergent opinion is castigated, dissent was silenced, they began to recruit from their own ranks of family and friends - even the union reps no longer connect with the workforce, safe in their full time Union posts, only venturing out of the office for diversity seminars and TUC congress.
This loss has been along time coming
Want to change it?
Step one
Drop all party lists and Union selected candidates, remove candidate selection entirely from local party officials and hand it back to the members in a local hustings.
Next leader of Labour should be Nicola Surgeon.
Agree with NW. We already have a party of small-minded self-interest. That's the Tories. There's no point having a Labour party if they just replicate Tory policies. So their task is to develop a vision and COMMUNICATE that vision to the electorate.
If Burnham gets it, bearing in mind he came 4th last time, he'll not last 5 years, probably two at most as he can't seem to survive a serious interview.
Probably buying time for the other Miliband to return, gain a seat and work the party to get elected leader.
Could even be the real plan hence why he's being talked up as a front-runner
[quote=teamhurtmore > http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/10-delusions-about-labour-defeat-watch-out
br />
Rule number one of left-wingery: it is always, somehow, Tony Blair’s fault.
😆
...and pick a socialist!
How about this working class chap called Tristram Hunt as the next Labour leader ... he seems to be a very determine person. 😛
rogerthecat - Member...and pick a socialist!
With or without champagne?
teamhurtmore - MemberTalking of Croydon (I recall it came up a few days ago) what happened there?
Well George Osborne said that they needed to win Croydon Central to form a government and they beat Labour by 165 votes.
The Greens got 1,454 votes. If Labour hadn't spent years pissing off people like me they would have won the seat (I live in neighbouring Croydon South). Labour certainly didn't lose because their candidate was too left wing - take note Junkyard.
Of course some people will say that the real losers are the people of Croydon but frankly there isn't sufficient differences between Labour and the Tories, as Ed Balls kept reminding us, to make voting Labour worthwhile. Croydon Council flips from Tory to Labour regularly and Labour are perfectly happy to implement Tory policies. Although they will give motorists a bit of a hard time because they think it makes them look left-wing.
As someone who worked hard over many years to help turn Croydon Central from a save Tory seat a Labour seat it gives me no pleasure to say these things.
The LibDems came 5th with less votes than the Greens, an appalling result for them and all the more so when you consider that they had been in power in neighbouring Sutton, and Croydon was the scene of a historical LibDem by-election victory in 1981. Possibly the first LibDem by-election win ever, I can't quite remember.
UKIP did poorly in Croydon as they generally do in London polling well below their national average at 9.1%.
Rule number one of left-wingery: it is always, somehow, Tony Blair’s fault.
I don't why they use the word "somehow", it's a self-evident fact that Blair and his warmongering alienated many traditional Labour voters.
Only someone seriously deluded would think that Labour would only have one seat in Scotland today if John Smith had remained Labour leader.
Blair was the beginning of the end for Labour in Scotland.
See delusion #5 ernie.
Nah, but thanks, I wasn't sufficiently impressed rule number one to be bothered with delusion #5.
Though I'm sure it's very funny and that it made you laugh loads just like "rule number one" did.
It was only the TB one which made me laugh ernie, because it's a bit of a meme on here. Nothing particularly humorous about anything else in that list.
The Greens got 1,454 votes. If Labour hadn't spent years pissing off people like me they would have won the seat (I live in neighbouring Croydon South).
If labour pandered to people like you they'd have 5% of the vote and one mp.
