Who will be the next Labour leader?

[Wilf]

Milord starmer is a cunt for accepting a knighthood. And more generally.
Thornberry's alleged comments to flint resonate with her white van man stuff, so she's no chance.
Hope Rayner gets it, just because of her solid working class background and she seems decent, talks normally etc. Not really heard much of her wider vision so don't know about that. She also doesn't seem to be getting much momentum (pun not intended) though it's early days.

As others have said, my choice would be whoever thinks about the 're-engaging project' in terms of moving back to communities, not being fussed about keeping things within the labour brand etc. NoIt holding me breath but if there's every a point where that should be the blatantly obvious thing to do, it's now.

Edit: no doubt mentioned by others, but thornberry is an islington mp iirc, which is a handicap in this election.

 

[Cid]

Milord starmer is a cunt for accepting a knighthood. And more generally.
Thornberry's alleged comments to flint resonate with her white van man stuff, so she's no chance.
Hope Rayner gets it, just because of her solid working class background and she seems decent, talks normally etc. Not really heard much of her wider vision so don't know about that. She also doesn't seem to be getting much momentum (pun not intended) though it's early days.

I think Rayner's saying she'd run for DL to RLB's leader.

 

[Wilf]

I think Rayner's saying she'd run for DL to RLB's leader.

Yeah, I saw that quoted on here, was still hoping she'd go for leader. Also, deputy seems an ill defined role, she might be better holding out for a key shadow cabinet brief instead.

 

[sunnysidedown]

Rayners strength would be PMQs, does the DL role allow that? Or is it a under certain circumstances thing?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Rayners strength would be PMQs, does the DL role allow that? Or is it a under certain circumstances thing?

They usually stand in if the leader is unavailable don't they. I guess they can decide when that is but the leader would have to do most of them.

 

[Pickman's model]

They usually stand in if the leader is unavailable don't they. I guess they can decide when that is but the leader would have to do most of them.

Thornberry seemed to stand in for Corbyn at PMQ's rather than Watson doing it

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Thornberry seemed to stand in for Corbyn at PMQ's rather than Watson doing it

That's true - I suppose although the deputy would normally do it you don't have to send them. You might not if they happened to be a massive cunt, for example.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's true - I suppose although the deputy would normally do it you don't have to send them. You might not if they happened to be a massive cunt, for example.

Like Tom Watson, the nonce's friend

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Thornberry seemed to stand in for Corbyn at PMQ's rather than Watson doing it

Lidington usually did it for the Tories in the PMs absence, and he was Leader of the Commons. Thorneberry deputised firstly as Shadow Foreign Sec and then as shadow First Secretary of State, so I'm guessing there's no rules about it at all.

 

[kebabking]

The DL is a party post, not a parliamentary one - the leader choices his/her shadow cabinet, they don't actually have to have the DL in it.

I rather doubt Thornberry thinks she has a chance of getting the leaders job - she's running so that the next leader has to recognise her as a 'player' and a 'big beast' so that she gets a place in shadow cabinet. If she didn't run she'd be almost guaranteed to be sent off to the back benches within moments of the new leaders election, and I rather doubt that her ego is interested in that...

 

[redsquirrel]

I think Rayner's saying she'd run for DL to RLB's leader.

AFAICS neither Rayer nor Long-Bailey have made any statements. The Guardian piece is basically justing repeating twitter speculation (nice work if you can get it).

However, in a move one colleague described as “sisterly” she is now expected to run for deputy leader instead – smoothing the path for Long-Bailey.

 

[chilango]

Turns out Starmer was involved with a Trot group in the 80s. Some Pabloite thing according to Twitter if anyone's interested...

 

[binka]

I bet the Tories have some shit to throw at Starmer from his time as DPP if he becomes leader. There were some stories early last year about his role in the Warboys case

Keir Starmer breaks silence amid growing pressure over John Worboys' release

 

[Cid]

The DL is a party post, not a parliamentary one - the leader choices his/her shadow cabinet, they don't actually have to have the DL in it.

I rather doubt Thornberry thinks she has a chance of getting the leaders job - she's running so that the next leader has to recognise her as a 'player' and a 'big beast' so that she gets a place in shadow cabinet. If she didn't run she'd be almost guaranteed to be sent off to the back benches within moments of the new leaders election, and I rather doubt that her ego is interested in that...

Will she get enough PLP nominations though? I imagine the left of the party will want to get behind one candidate... Leaves plenty of nominations on the centre/right mind you, and they might go for it just to try and throw a spanner in the works of whoever the main left candidate is. I suppose it's worth it to her.

 

[sunnysidedown]

I’m sure a photo will emerge of Starmer drinking tea with Corbyn

 

[butchersapron]

It's worth reading from the oldest to the newest posts on here about Keir Starmer.

For some people anyway.

 

[kebabking]

Will she get enough PLP nominations though? I imagine the left of the party will want to get behind one candidate... Leaves plenty of nominations on the centre/right mind you, and they might go for it just to try and throw a spanner in the works of whoever the main left candidate is. I suppose it's worth it to her.

They only need 10 PLP votes to (iirc) get on the list - she stands no chance of actually winning, but I don't think that's what's important. It don't think it's a 'what will fuck up the left?' tactic, I think it's a 'what will keep me in a position where I can attempt to steer party policy?'.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

It's worth reading from the oldest to the newest posts on here about Keir Starmer.

For some people anyway.

Good to jog my memory. He’s got some form, that’s for sure, fucking snake.

 

[Cid]

They only need 10 PLP votes to (iirc) get on the list - she stands no chance of actually winning, but I don't think that's what's important. It don't think it's a 'what will fuck up the left?' tactic, I think it's a 'what will keep me in a position where I can attempt to steer party policy?'.

10%, so 22 nominations.

 

[Cid]

Dunno why that's not working... link

I was thinking more that the right of the PLP could back a leftish candidate likely to leach votes off the main left candidate.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I’m sure a photo will emerge of Starmer drinking tea with Corbyn

Not in an office their won’t. He’s never been on one. Only factories

 

[Smokeandsteam]

10%, so 22 nominations.

They have 204 MPs so 21 surely?

 

[butchersapron]

They have 204 MPs so 21 surely?

It's MPs+MEPS - 10 more of them.

 

[Cid]

They have 204 MPs so 21 surely?

Includes MEPs, so after Jan 31st (?) 21, at the moment 22.

 

[sunnysidedown]

Not in an office their won’t. He’s never been on one. Only factories

maybe somewhere hot, on a veranda. Drinking mint tea together.

 

[sunnysidedown]

It's worth reading from the oldest to the newest posts on here about Keir Starmer.

For some people anyway.

Do you think there's been any thought put in by his team about all the dirt the tories could throw his way? It seems a daft decision to put him forward with what they could potentially pin on him.

 

[William of Walworth]

Do you think there's been any thought put in by his team about all the dirt the tories could throw his way? It seems a daft decision to put him forward with what they could potentially pin on him.

Tories getting into dirt-flinging is true of all candidates though. I'm no fan of Starmer, but every potential candidate has skeletons with which the Tories/Tory press will make hay.

 

[sunnysidedown]

Tories getting into dirt-flinging is true of all candidates though. I'm no fan of Starmer, but every potential candidate has skeletons with which the Tories/Tory press will make hay.

they'll certainly have the knives out for whoever it is. Starmer though appears a special case for extra mud slinging, stuff that will stick that none of the others seem to have, that I'm aware of.

 

[William of Walworth]

they'll certainly have the knives out for whoever it is. Starmer though appears a special case for extra mud slinging, stuff that will stick that none of the others seem to have, that I'm aware of.

I think I'm less confident than you about that, but for me that's probably the immediate aftermath of a particularly nasty General Election period as much as anything else

 

[Mr Moose]

Tories getting into dirt-flinging is true of all candidates though. I'm no fan of Starmer, but every potential candidate has skeletons with which the Tories/Tory press will make hay.

This is certainly true, but it’s not the only factor. Corbyn was deeply unpopular after four years of carpet bombing by the press, but also unpopular with many people who would instinctively disbelieve anything they wrote.

You can argue that this is simply permeation of their influence, but he had too much baggage and no sympathetic story to hawk. These are considerations. Can Starmer present himself as likeable or trustworthy given a bruising career? Would for example Rayner’s personal story play better? Not that these things matter so much if no candidate has the competency for the other demands of the role.