Starmer is very dull. Remember the winning leader has to have a personality that the public will warm to. Starmer is not that, at all. Integrity, experience, saying and doing the right things is irrelevant and that can all be done by all the other MPs in the party.

You have to hand it to the tories when they selected Boris while those who are into politics knew he was a useless clown the masses like him.

Starmer is very dull.

He’s even more dull than May was. Good job he has zero chance of winning. It’s pretty funny everyone on here pronouncing on what’s best and then suggesting Starmer. You really are all mental.

Look, it’s pretty simple. Labout need someone who can:

1. Connect with people outside the cities without repelling the city dwellers

2. Someone with actual labour policies

3. Someone who respects the left without pissing off the right or vice versa

4. Someone ready to accept and do their bit towards brexit without pissing off all the remainers

5. Someone who is not a clone of anyone who came before.

Find someone who ticks 4 of those and they have a chance. Rayner is the only one I know who ticks all 5, but sadly McDonnell has got to her. RLB only ticks 2, Phillips and Nandy 4, and Starmer none. Haven’t even considered Thornberry as Caroline Flint has already done for her. The other possibility is Clive Lewis.

Starmer is the man most responsible for “let’s sit on the fence over brexit” and was a highly visible remainer. Said it earlier in the thread, that maybe won’t be as big an issue in the next election once brexit starts to really bite and a remainer can say “Boris did this to you” but right now it’s so obviously the wrong choice. He’d spend his entire early leadership getting monstered for “ignorning the referendum AND the election” and nothing else he says or does would matter a damn. And if the time that being a remainer stops being toxic does arrive, he’ll be too damaged by then.

Brexit aside I think he’s probably the best candidate but saying “brexit aside” would be about the stupidest thing they could do.

Remember the winning leader has to have a personality that the public will warm to.

You have to hand it to the tories when they selected Boris while those who are into politics knew he was a useless clown the masses like him.

That was their plan but Boris’s approval ratings were bad and his campaign was rubbish so the masses didn’t go mad for him at all. IN the end he won because Labour didn’t turn up, not because he was good.

Obvs finding a leader the public warm to is gold dust but there’s often not anyone. Stramer’s as good as anyone else on offer in that sense.

Academic since RLB is a shoe in.

Unfortunately, the two main requirements are mutually exclusive.

1: Willing to put up with the structural shitshow that is the current Labour Party
2: Sane

I’m not ready to write-off Starmers chances yet.

Labour have been very coy about membership numbers in recent years, but it’s pretty much known they fell a lot after Corbyn got leader, not because of any great revolt, but lots of Momentum types considered it ‘job done’ and didn’t renew. Momentum is very “For Jeremy” they might not be ready for his Heir apparent.

Momentum are meant to represent about 20% of Labour membership, they don’t have as much of a vice like grip on the Party as we might think.

Corbyn and Co’s delusion in the face of defeat won’t be winning as many fans as they hope, I mean, Corbyn is currently fighting another internal election to keep Labour hard-left, the only election he’s ever won at national level was his own appointment, yeah there will be a lot of hardliners who either think ideology is more important than popularity and are happier being an ‘effective’ opposition rather than a compromised Government, or at least, it’ll only take another 5 years of austerity and we’ll all be begging them for Collective Farming, but a lot will be going through the 7 stages now and by January will be ready for new ideas and directions.

Only really stupid people think if you keep doing the wrong thing better, eventually it will work.

Starmer is very dull.

Maybe, maybe not. You can’t really fight fire with fire – Boris is very flamboyant, lots of noise and fluff over substance. If you try to argue with him at PMQs he’ll drag you down to his level, and then surprise you with his very expensive education.

A stoic, well spoken speaker, who can drop in a bit of humanity now and again is near unbeatable – an Obama if you will.

The Boris Johnson Prime Minister Product ™ is just a semi-scripted reality show character. A few set-pieces, some pre-rolled lines, a little ad-lib.

The public can’t (or won’t) tell the difference between that, and an actual statesman.

A stoic, well spoken speaker, who can drop in a bit of humanity now and again is near unbeatable

Corbyn is stoic and well spoken. Seems quite clued up in general, can drop in a bit of humanity. Even better, he’s already leader. Maybe we just need to buy him a suit and a razor?

Maybe, maybe not. You can’t really fight fire with fire

No maybe about it – he is extremely dull and won’t engage the masses.

And fighting fire with fire is exactly what needs to be done. Being honest and full of integrity is not much use when you have 160 less seats…

The public can’t (or won’t) tell the difference between that, and an actual statesman.

So how do you explain Boris’s dreadful personal approval ratings? Worse than May’s.

Preston reporting polled members preferring Starmer

an Obama if you will.

Are you seriously comparing Keir Starmer with Barack Obama?! Have you been drinking? 🙂

Being honest and full of integrity is not much use when you have 160 less seats…

Not to mention a media willing to repeat lies verbatim from one side. You couldn’t get much more honesty and integrity than Corbyn, despite what the papers and Peston-Kuensberg say.

It really is weird hearing people on the right seriously suggest Starmer is the answer, and then in the same breath accuse the left of only supporting the ‘anointed’ candidate.

Actually has Kier Starmer got a little brother?

Labour have been very coy about membership numbers in recent years, but it’s pretty much known they fell a lot after Corbyn got leader, not because of any great revolt, but lots of Momentum types considered it ‘job done’ and didn’t renew. Momentum is very “For Jeremy” they might not be ready for his Heir apparent.

Momentum are meant to represent about 20% of Labour membership, they don’t have as much of a vice like grip on the Party as we might think.

Preston reporting polled members preferring Starmer

Interesting perspective. Maybe the membership will fix the problem they caused. It would be a terrific outcome for the party and the country.

P-Jay

Member

Only really stupid people think if you keep doing the wrong thing better, eventually it will work.

True. But not everyone will agree that they did the wrong thing- and that’s compounded by the fact that so many people are looking for the simple answer and going “It’s all Corbyn’s fault”.

Or put it another way, it’s equally stupid to think that doing the right thing badly and failing means you shouldn’t try it again. Which there was a lot of, after Miliband.

This is what I mean when I keep saying learn the real lessons, don’t just take the easy simple answers or build comforting myths. It’s not all about brexit, it’s not all about Corbyn, it’s not all about left/right, and nailing everything to one of these things almost ensures sleepwalking into avoidable problems with the others.

I mean, remember that when they tried to replace him, the preferred candidate’s core campaign was “I am kind of like Corbyn but not Corbyn”. So it’s not like this is a new problem.

And while some people will take a wrong position for the right reasons, there’s going to be a lot of very cynical/dishonest campaigning in this leadership election. Anything vaguely left wing can be tagged with “too left wing”, anything Corbyn supported can be tagged with “but Corbyn”- but there’s some absolute core Labour values in there, and also some really sensible and really popular politics. Public ownershop frinstance is absolutely getting tarred with the Corbyn/Too Left Wing brushes but frinstance nationalising railways is an easy sell, it’s popular even amongst core tory voters- 64% in favour, 19% against.

And equally on the left there’s going to be a lot of “that was a good idea but as the Labour right says, Corbyn was toxic- it could have succeeded with a better campaign”. Some of which will have the advantage of being true, lots of which will be wishful thinking and some will be absolute bullshit. But while “Blame it all on Corbyn” is popular with the Labour right it could excuse the left.

And since none of this is new, everyone is also suspicious of pretty much everything everyone else says, and even completely honest comments can be shot down. And of course lots of people will also want to blame this party split on Corbyn when he’s really a product of it.

Think it will have to be a woman but got to say I was very impressed by Wes Streeting on tele t’other day.Spoke intelligently and with more eloquence and passion than I have heard from anyone in Labour for a good while.Don’t know if a young,gay,London, Metropolitan remainer who seems to have been invovled in politics of one form or another since his student days is the right candidate to win over disillusioned Northerners though.

Only really stupid people think if you keep doing the wrong thing better, eventually it will work.

Bit of an empty statement that as ‘the wrong thing’ varies quite a lot depending on who you talk to. However, the Labour policies are actually quite popular with the electorate when talked about in isolation, i.e. not associated with Corbyn. This is because General Elections are largely a personality contest. People voted against stuff they like, because of the person presenting them.

And never under-estimate the ability of people to make excuses for the person they like or demonise the one they don’t, without heed to rationality.

Anything vaguely left wing can be tagged with “too left wing”

Anything ‘vaguely’ left wing?
All the candidates will be left wing.
With left wing policies.
This is the Labour Party.

and that’s why it will continue to be in opposition for a long time

Nah, people want left wing policies woven into their own lives without too big a risk or change… plenty of support for them if they can be seen to be achievable and grounded in the reality of the modern interconnected world.

For example… rail nationalisation isn’t popular just because it is seen as needed… but because there is a plan to incrementally take franchises back. Need + benefits + plan + realistic costings.

4. Someone ready to accept and do their bit towards brexit without pissing off all the remainers

I actually don’t think this part is of the same level of concern as it used to be. My feeling is that, in the most part, people want to hear as little about brexit from now on as possible.

people want left wing policies woven into their own lives without too big a risk or change

I would substitute “want” with “need”, and “too big a risk or change” for “noticing”

If Labour shout about just how left it all is, they’ll get clobbered. Around these parts, being left equals don’t get in.

Meanwhile, the Tories have forever been banging on about “supporting the NHS” (yeah, I know, really very questionable claim), which is about as socialist an idea as it gets.

I am not sure Labour have been shouting how left it is. The tories and media have been shouting it is far left as though there is something wrong with that and then bringing out the ‘marxist’ word if they want to make it look really severe

No, they haven’t.

The left label sticks though.

The next leader needs a better PR team.

mrmonkfinger

Member

The next leader needs a better PR team

This for sure. A lot of people think that some of the party mechanisms either were refused or refused to work with Corbyn but tbh that seems like paranoia, Miliband’s team were feeble too. Not as amateurish but not really any more effective, and no good at working with his limitations. The Ed Stone ffs. I’m wondering how much better the party apparatus can do, or if they need someone from outside.

I think possibly that’s a legacy of Campbell, he was bloody effective but a lot of the party, even in Blair’s inner circle, hated him and were terrified of him, and many people didn’t like seeing a press sec become the story or apparently being a policy setter rather than a policy deliverer. But there’s a balance to be struck. The tories have kept theirs mostly less in sight, except for For **** Sake Fridge Guy Rob Oxley- but then he used to be Deliveroo’s PR guy so they probably didn’t want him to become the story.

Damian McBride is working for Thornberry now, that’s not a great look. Godric Smith got out of party politics I think. Not sure what happened to the other Blair guy, Tom Kelly

P-Jay

Member

Only really stupid people think if you keep doing the wrong thing better, eventually it will work.

True. But not everyone will agree that they did the wrong thing- and that’s compounded by the fact that so many people are looking for the simple answer and going “It’s all Corbyn’s fault”.

IMHO it doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour in the U.K., if you lose 2 elections against an opposition as bad as they faced, you’re doing it wrong.

Hmm. The opposition was bad, was it?

Bad in terms of policy and integrity, sure, but people don’t care about those things. They were very very good in terms of telling people what they wanted to hear, smear tactics, and coming across and likeable. The Tory campaign was VERY good at what matters in democracy – winning people over.

Labour fought the wrong battle.

Bad in terms of policy and integrity, sure, but people don’t care about those things. They were very very good in terms of telling people what they wanted to hear, smear tactics, and coming across and likeable. The Tory campaign was VERY good at what matters in democracy – winning people over.

I think this is what Labour need to be thinking about now. The leader is vital, as is policy but they need to work out what Labour stands for, how people will be better off with a Labour government and then producing a concise way of getting that message to the electorate.

A leader and manifesto can be picked for the next election well down the line but improving the party’s image and getting people on board with what it stands for is going to take years and lots of work.

Was the writing not on the wall back in 2015 when Tories were signing up for £3 to votw Corbyn in as leader? Someone on the left of the Labour party with his history was not a wise choice if winning elections is the aim.

Assuming the next election is well post Brexit then I don’t think whether a candidate was a leaver or remainer will matter. There were arguments for both sides. It will be back to the usual NHS, the economy, and crime/security. I’d suggest either Yvette Cooper or Keir Starmer as candidates from the middle. Starmer has actually headed a large organisation before before entering politics. Cooper has experience of govt from the Blair years. Currently chair of the home affairs select committee.

Whether either are far enough left to get elected by the unions and party membership is another question.

Labout need someone who can:

1. Connect with people outside the cities without repelling the city dwellers

2. Someone with actual labour policies

3. Someone who respects the left without pissing off the right or vice versa

4. Someone ready to accept and do their bit towards brexit without pissing off all the remainers

5. Someone who is not a clone of anyone who came before.

Sure internally those things are important, the number one priority however is some-one who can take the fight to the Tories, and score hits on them relentlessly, will go on Telly and radio to slag them off relentlessly, and will tell Boris to sit the **** down when he gets above himself at the despatch box, relentlessly.

None of which Corbyn was remotely capable or interested in doing. and I can’t see RBL achieving either.

P-Jay

Member

IMHO it doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour in the U.K., if you lose 2 elections against an opposition as bad as they faced, you’re doing it wrong.

Yes, but that doesn’t matter- or rather, it doesn’t make the point. Like I say, it’s totally possible to do it right but badly, or wrong but badly, and not everyone’s going to agree on where that line is. And far too many people are going to insist it’s right at one end or the other.

And that’s going to be a problem, because there will be people who genuinely believe that Corbyn’s policy platform is totally deliverable with the right frontman. Actually, they might be right, but I think it’s definitely a harder sell than other approaches and therefore riskier and therefore probably stupid. There’ll be others who will want to throw out literally everything that Corbyn thought was a good idea, and that’ll be a mistake too, because there was a lot there that could be presented by a more popular candidate in a more centrist policy set

(though it gets a bit harder to say “we need to be centrist” when the brand new wholly centrist party got absolutely annihilated, when Labour’s attempt to find a centre position on Brexit failed because it was longer than 3 words, and when the Tories went overtly to the right and won big)

But the more a person blames Corbyn, the less convincing it is when they say the policies were undeliverable- because that plays unintentionally to “do it again but better”.

And it’s not like there’s even one set of Corbyn policies to object to- this election was totally different to the last in that regard. There’s going to be people thinking “If we’d just nailed brexit, and run on the 2017 platform, maybe we’d have pulled it off.

With the best will in the world- and not everyone has the best will- there really isn’t a clear line where you can say “that worked, that didn’t, that could have, that never could, that actually did work but was drowned out by the other stuff” and hope for everyone to agree. That’s kind of the other side of the coin of “don’t seek out simple or comforting answers to difficult questions”.

Imagine Rayner trying to debate Boris, it’d be worse than Dianne Abbot – it would end up being like something out of Idiocracy.

Corbyn is stoic and well spoken

Corbyn wasn’t well spoken, he’d trail off and half heartedly mumble in a voice that sounded too much like Alan Partridge.

Corbyn wasn’t well spoken

When I left the Labour party proper, there were only a few like Corbyn left. They often as not didn’t care to explain, or discuss their ideologies, as if it was somehow beneath them or the “rightness” of their position was so blindingly obvious that it didn’t need to be articulated. The idea that you could have a view different to theirs was in of itself an affront, and they’d do a sort of laugh and walk away shaking their heads.

It’s politics as philosophy, if it changed lives (for the better, one would hope), then that was only ever a side-effect, not the point.

Well, at least the cult members are starting to realise that a leader with just a teensy but less baggage in their history would be a good idea.

As a Labour Party member, an unlikely but dream scenario for me would be Labour merging with the Green Party ..lots of similar policies and Green policies are increasingly becoming a vote winner particularly amongst the younger voters.

To help facilitate this…

1)Force Sadiq Khan to stand down from 2020 London mayoral elections and get behind Siân Berry. Siân will be getting my vote already.

2) Give Caroline Lucas a prominent shadow cabinet post, to me she has great future leadership potential too.

The Greens did only get 865k votes in the General election but many don’t vote for them due to them not realistically being capable of winning a seat outside of Brighton, many of whom apparently vote Lib Dem instead.

Kier Starmer is impressive but is probably too dry for the electorate, a cert for a top Cabinet post though.Is the country ready for a non-white P.M. ?I’m a big fan of Clive Lewis. Dan Jarvis could be a real crowd pleaser but only really outside of the current more left of centre membership.

raybanwomble

Member
Imagine Rayner trying to debate Boris, it’d be worse than Dianne Abbot – it would end up being like something out of Idiocracy.

What makes you say that? From the speech I heard her give first hand I have no doubt she would have the charisma and quick wit to more than match him. Reckon she could get under his skin and make nasty Johnson emerge. When I saw her I didn’t really know much about her but was very impressed.

Looks like she’s not standing though so neither here nor there.

Is the country ready for a non-white P.M. ?

No, he’d suffer the same treatment as Corbyn.

What makes you say that? From the speech I heard her give first hand I have no doubt she would have the charisma and quick wit to more than match him. Reckon she could get under his skin and make nasty Johnson emerge. When I saw her I didn’t really know much about her but was very impressed.

Looks like she’s not standing though so neither here nor there.

She reads off scripts just fine, it’s her debates and interviews that are often car crashes.

To clarify though, when I stated it would be like idiocracy, it wouldn’t just be the fault of Rayners dullness – it would be a mix of that and Boris’ bluster and word salads.

Is that the best we have got to show to the world? Boris and Rayner? Really?

Labour need someone who appeals to the slightly right of centre floating conservative voters. Starmer has that appeal. Charisma may not be the high point, but the won’t exactly come flocking to anyone tainted by support for JC. Long-Bailey, it’s not you.

Failure to appeal to this group of voters will not improve the Labour vote.