Who will be the next Labour leader?

[fakeplasticgirl]

I think the decline of the labour party outside of the cities is a bit more than this and tbh this sort of stuff is pretty lazy and insulting really. Also the single issue which most undermined that vote in 'northern england' (which includes west/east mids and wales apparently) between '17 and' 19 was the fucking batshit brexit position. The one that starmer still stands by.

No, corbyn’s leadership was a bigger factor than Brexit.

Anyway, I’m repeating myself now as I’ve posted about this before.

 

[butchersapron]

They were one and the same.

Anyway, not seen you so enthused since Cleggmania and the 2010 tory/lib-dem coalition.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

They were one and the same.

Anyway, not seen you so enthused since Cleggmania and the 2010 tory/lib-dem coalition.

Huh?

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Are you implying that because I support starmer I must be a Tory?
That’s a great argument. Try it on the thousands of labour voters that are hopefully going to vote him in as leader.

 

[butchersapron]

Huh?

I mean that the leadership 'question' was entirely bound up with brexit and the collapse into an effective remain position amongst the labour leadership.

And i mean that the last time i recall seeing you posting so enthusiastically about politics and leaders was around Clegg and the Lib-dems and their 2010 election performance and then coalition with the tories. In ordere to suggest that your reading of the direction of travel wasn't so accurate last time.

 

[butchersapron]

Are you implying that because I support starmer I must be a Tory?
That’s a great argument. Try it on the thousands of labour voters that are hopefully going to vote him in as leader.

Are you implying that lib-dem voters are tories?

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

I mean that the leadership 'question' was entirely bound up with brexit and the collapse into an effective remain position amongst the labour leadership.

And i mean that the last time i recall seeing you posting so enthusiastically about politics and leaders was around Clegg and the Lib-dems and their 2010 election performance and then coalition with the tories. In ordere to suggest that your reading of the direction of travel wasn't so accurate last time.

What did I say? That I was disgusted that they joined forces or something?

 

[butchersapron]

What did I say? That I was disgusted that they joined forces or something?

Quite the opposite, after boosting clegg and the lib-dems throughout the election you went onto justify the coalition as lib-dems would be able to curb the tories plans.

(edit: and i haven't dug this up to attack you, i was searching through old posts for something else first thing this morning and came across all this again)

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Quite the opposite, after boosting clegg and the lib-dems throughout the election you went onto justify the coalition as lib-dems would be able to curb the tories plans.

Yuck how disgusting and wrong I was.
I’ve just searched and feel nauseous.

 

[brogdale]

Team Starmer.

 

[Proper Tidy]

No, corbyn’s leadership was a bigger factor than Brexit.
View attachment 200755
Anyway, I’m repeating myself now as I’ve posted about this before.

Yes I'd rely on this over comparing the actual results in 2017 under corbyn with a we will respect the result position against the actual results in 2019 under corbyn with a we will have another referendum position

 

[Proper Tidy]

Yuck how disgusting and wrong I was.
I’ve just searched and feel nauseous.

Not being snide but perhaps some insight to be gained here

 

[brogdale]

Not being snide but perhaps some insight to be gained here

Certainly scope for circumspect reflection.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Yes I'd rely on this over comparing the actual results in 2017 under corbyn with a we will respect the result position against the actual results in 2019 under corbyn with a we will have another referendum position

17 and 19 were different though so can’t really compare. May v Johnson. Dementia tax. Different Labour manifesto. Lib Dem surge a few months out which threatened the Lab vote.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Not being snide but perhaps some insight to be gained here

I fully admit to being wrong there, but I’m still supporting starmer.

out of interest - who are you voting for?

 

[killer b]

Dunno about you guys, but I'm never going to let being hilariously wrong in the past stop me making confident political predictions in the present.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Dunno about you guys, but I'm never going to let being hilariously wrong in the past stop me making confident political predictions in the present.

if starmer wins and fucks it up though, that doesn’t mean RLB would do any better. And it’s impossible to compare.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I fully admit to being wrong there, but I’m still supporting starmer.

out of interest - who are you voting for?

Still deciding between nobody or long-bailey through gritted teeth

 

[Proper Tidy]

17 and 19 were different though so can’t really compare. May v Johnson. Dementia tax. Different Labour manifesto. Lib Dem surge a few months out which threatened the Lab vote.

And different brexit positions. In an election defined by brexit. With the tories basing their entire campaign around getting brexit done. Which they picked for a reason, a very good one. And with labour losing seats almost exclusively in constituencies with a leave majority.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Certainly scope for circumspect reflection.

I was in my early 20s then

 

[killer b]

if starmer wins and fucks it up though, that doesn’t mean RLB would do any better. And it’s impossible to compare.

TBH I have been hilariously wrong in the past, so I try to be a bit more circumspect these days.

FWIW I think Starmer will probably do ok - and he's going to win the leadership whatever I think anyway. But I also think Labour under him probably won't be something I'm up for being involved with.

 

[sleaterkinney]

How do you think Starmer will go down in what were leave voting areas/ the 'Red Wall'/whatever you call it, given the perception of him as a remainer? (Also as a London centric member of the elite, which I do think is slightly unfair BTW)?

They didn't have a problem voting for an old etonian Tory.

 

[strung out]

Not sure why Waitrose is being used as an insult for Starmer. The Waitrose nearest me is populated by Daily Mail readers who have voted in Jacob Rees Mogg for the last four general elections.

 

[Mr Moose]

And different brexit positions. In an election defined by brexit. With the tories basing their entire campaign around getting brexit done. Which they picked for a reason, a very good one. And with labour losing seats almost exclusively in constituencies with a leave majority.

If Labour had kept the same position it would have had to convince that the leadership would have been able to resolve ‘dither and delay’ Brexit better than Johnson. 2017 was not the same, it was a choice between poor leaders (May astonishingly poor) in a Brexit mire.

There is no chance whatsoever that a (by 2019) thoroughly exposed Corbyn would have done that. He would have been offering a reheated May deal, but even closer. Other than the second ref caveat that’s what Labour ended up offering.

 

[Proper Tidy]

If Labour had kept the same position it would have had to convince that the leadership would have been able to resolve ‘dither and delay’ Brexit better than Johnson. 2017 was not the same, it was a choice between poor leaders (May astonishingly poor) in a Brexit mire.

There is no chance whatsoever that a (by 2019) thoroughly exposed Corbyn would have done that. He would have been offering a reheated May deal, but even closer. Other than the second ref caveat that’s what Labour ended up offering.

That's a pretty big caveat you've slipped in there mate.

Look I'm extremely familiar with all the sophisticated justifications for why actually Labour should have gone more remain etc but its just all bollocks. May being weak, Johnson strong, also bollocks. May went into '17 seen as a formidable powerhouse, 100+ seat majority. She was weak in hindsight because labour's campaign fucked her and it fucked her by taking the crown jewel of brexit and reducing it to a side issue and fighting the campaign on everything else where labour policy was better, more attractive, more in line with public attitudes.

Labour in 2017 and 2019 had the same leadership, the same flaws, the same strengths, and while people can bang on about different manifestos as far as public were concerned they had the same priorities and policy commitments. NHS, housing, jobs. The only substantive difference was its brexit position in an election that was all about brexit because labour allowed the tories the chance to make it all about brexit, and the seats they lost were all seats that had a leave majority. No attempts at sophistication can obscure that. You're wrong, sorry.

 

[Proper Tidy]

And while we're at it, this isn't at you moose, but the idea that labour saw off the libdem threat. Wtf. If you are labour who do you want the threat to be coming from, the libdems who always underwhelm at general elections or the fucking tories, I mean do me a favour

 

[Mr Moose]

That's a pretty big caveat you've slipped in there mate.

Look I'm extremely familiar with all the sophisticated justifications for why actually Labour should have gone more remain etc but its just all bollocks. May being weak, Johnson strong, also bollocks. May went into '17 seen as a formidable powerhouse, 100+ seat majority. She was weak in hindsight because labour's campaign fucked her and it fucked her by taking the crown jewel of brexit and reducing it to a side issue and fighting the campaign on everything else where labour policy was better, more attractive, more in line with public attitudes.

Labour in 2017 and 2019 had the same leadership, the same flaws, the same strengths, and while people can bang on about different manifestos as far as public were concerned they had the same priorities and policy commitments. NHS, housing, jobs. The only substantive difference was its brexit position in an election that was all about brexit because labour allowed the tories the chance to make it all about brexit, and the seats they lost were all seats that had a leave majority. No attempts at sophistication can obscure that. You're wrong, sorry.

There is a very good chance that after two years of personal carpet bombing by the press, Corbyn’s weak 2017 Brexit position would not have been enough to keep those seats. It was doomed.

Get Brexit, get Johnson. Was always going to happen, just took longer to play out.

 

[Mr Moose]

And while we're at it, this isn't at you moose, but the idea that labour saw off the libdem threat. Wtf. If you are labour who do you want the threat to be coming from, the libdems who always underwhelm at general elections or the fucking tories, I mean do me a favour

It’s fair enough to throw that at me. But not because I thought the useless yellow twats would do well, but because the Labour Party appeared to be splitting open on the question and divided parties don’t win. Corbyn simply wasn’t in a strong enough position to pull off a Johnson type expulsion coup.

 

[Proper Tidy]

There is a very good chance that after two years of personal carpet bombing by the press, Corbyn’s weak 2017 Brexit position would not have been enough to keep those seats. It was doomed.

Get Brexit, get Johnson. Was always going to happen, just took longer to play out.

He was carpet bombed before '17, I mean come on. There was only one substantive change and the losses all occurred in seats that would object to that change, everything else is just wind

 

[Proper Tidy]

It’s fair enough to throw that at me. But not because I thought the useless yellow twats would do well, but because the Labour Party appeared to be splitting open on the question and divided parties don’t win. Corbyn simply wasn’t in a strong enough position to pull off a Johnson type expulsion coup.

Yeah well on the internal labour stuff you may have a point, but then all the more reason not to elect the person at the forefront of that