Who will be the next Labour leader?

[sunnysidedown]

The mass media are pushing hard for Starmer. He’ll be awful. I don’t know much about Lavery but he looks up for a scrap. The Scum has started slating him so he must have something going for him.

I think Lavery may have a conviction for football hooliganism?

 

[cantsin]

Depends on how he went about it - if he embraces brexit reality and offers some form of lexity/hopeful brexit, then he'll be happily forgiven for being a remainer, if however he just carps on about how awful it all is, and allows a impression to develop that Labour would not-so-secretly like to brejoin, then Labour will be toast. (Again).

Labour are going to have to put a shift in to re-establish some form of trust on the brexit/referendum issue, but it could be done - but only by putting the work in and doing it relentlessly for the next 5 years, not a couple of Guardian articles, a manifesto 4 weeks before the election, and 4 years of Labour people tweeting #FBPE...

bit galling for those of us who supported Leave, got support for relevant motions passed @ CLPs to go fwd to conference, who defended Corbyn vs the Remaniacs for 3 yrs, and bitterly opposed the shift toward any kind of acceptance of / support for 2nd ref

 

[kebabking]

bit galling for those of us who supported Leave, got support for relevant motions passed @ CLPs to go fwd to conference, who defended Corbyn vs the Remaniacs for 3 yrs, and bitterly opposed the shift toward any kind of acceptance of / support for 2nd ref

Sorry, but that effort simply wasn't visible to the important people in this affair - the electorate - and obviously it wasn't very effective either. That's not being sarky, it's just what I saw in the media, on twitter and heard from party members - they were almost exclusively pushing a 2nd ref agenda. Labour Leavers - and respect-the-referendum-result-ers - effectively disappeared after the 2017 GE.

In practical terms that means a leader who respects the referendum result, doesn't carp on about how awful brexit (in principle) is, clearing out the Shadow Cabinet of people like Thornberry, and selecting Parliamentary Candidates who will spend the four years prior to the next election in their local papers, on twitter, on Facebook, and knocking doors saying what a success Labour will make of brexit.

 

[MickiQ]

So we think voters and Tory politicos in new blue Northern / Mids constits are going to just forget Starmers' militant anti Brexit / pro 2nd Ref past come the time ( with the Brexit process still v much in motion ) ?

Labour (regardless of who leads them) have already lost the next election, they have been beaten not by policies or poor leadership or even Brexit but simple maths. In order to win in 2024 they need to take 124 seats for a majority of 1, 150+ for a decent majority. They can't take seats off the SNP since Scottish Labour is dead in all but name. They can't take them of the LD's because they don't have any to take so that means off the Tories.
No matter how badly BoZo screws Brexit (and he will) it won't be bad enough to cost him a full half of his seats, the best that Labour can hope for is rebuild the so called "Red Wall" and reduce the Tory majority to a realistic one. I think they can do that no matter who leads them since by then it will have dawned on the suckers who voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done" to realise that they have been sold snake oil and their lives will not have been improved either by Brexit or by a Tory Govt.
To be fair I think Starmer will probably appeal more to the new Blue voters than Long-Bailey but neither of them can win a GE.
There is not going to be a Labour govt this side of 2030 and Brexit will be (mostly) settled by then. The next Labour PM is probably not even an MP at the moment.

 

[redsquirrel]

There's no way whoever becomes Labour leader will be able to remove all the pro-EUers from the Shadow Cabinet. There's simply too many of them with too much political capital.

 

[bluescreen]

There's no way whoever becomes Labour leader will be able to remove all the pro-EUers from the Shadow Cabinet. There's simply too many of them with too much political capital.

It wouldn't be the Labour party you want, but a pro-EU Labour party would have cleaned up south of the Wash. In places where it didn't - my safe rural Tory remainer seat, frex. For what it's worth, so mebbe not a lot. Who knows, up north, how many Labour remainers didn't bother turning out? So the Tories wouldn't be in power now. It might not be what you want, but it might not have been as bad as what we'll all get.

 

[Proper Tidy]

It wouldn't be the Labour party you want, but a pro-EU Labour party would have cleaned up south of the Wash. In places where it didn't - my safe rural Tory remainer seat, frex. For what it's worth, so mebbe not a lot. Who knows, up north, how many Labour remainers didn't bother turning out? So the Tories wouldn't be in power now. It might not be what you want, but it might not have been as bad as what we'll all get.

Sorry but this is pure putting own views ahead of all known facts. The only labour party that had any hope of stopping a tory majority was one that was, or was perceived to be, committed to leaving. There is no other rational reading of the results, of the seats lost and held.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

but a pro-EU Labour party would have cleaned up south of the Wash. In places where it didn't - my safe rural Tory remainer seat, frex.

would it really?

the lib dems were pretty much campaigning on 'stop brexit' (in the south east at least - no idea if they were putting a different message out in the north) and it didn't do them a great deal of good. i live in a remain voting* but fairly safe tory constituency with euro-septic incumbent MP, the lib dems put up an ex tory (former MP for neighbouring seat who either quit or got turfed out of the tories) up and a huge amount of effort / spending on leafleting, and they managed to overtake labour in to second place...

(* - although borough and consitutency have slightly different boundaries, suspect the bits that form part of neighbouring constituency were more remainy)

and would a pro-EU labour party have lost even more seats in the north / midlands?

the vast majority of seats labour lost this time round were in leave voting seats.

 

[Shechemite]

They held London, Liverpool, Newcastle, Middlesborough, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry etc. Basically they held cities. Which gets distilled down to them being a 'London party' (or a metropolitan, liberal or 'Islington' one) by people who like to dismiss the working class populations of those cities because it gets in the way of their 'Hipsters and middle class students are all Labour have' narrative. In London especially it allows both the media/political class and their critics to keep indulging their wank fantasies of politics beginning and ending in Westminster because everyone else in the city is really like them. Except for the millions of precarious and low waged workers they walk past every day, who don't exist.

right, so labour is still holding seats in certain working class communities but not others. Their voters in london (and other cities) who have stuck with them aren’t all media/oxbridge wankers are they?

If labour are holding onto seats in some areas and others, perhaps their manifesto/image/whatever was more appealing to working class communities than others?

 

[Shechemite]

And that's not a defence of Labour, it's annoyance at the lazy bullshit of dismissing urban voters as irrelevant or solely middle class city workers through a tired line of cliches. 'They drink coffee' being the perennial and bizarre favourite, as if any cunt left living hasn't seen a Costa.

yeah that’s fair enough. Not sure anyone who isn’t a twat would disagree with you on that though

 

[Shechemite]

I’m starting to think that the LP is more stress than it’s worth tbh

 

[gosub]

There's no way whoever becomes Labour leader will be able to remove all the pro-EUers from the Shadow Cabinet. There's simply too many of them with too much political capital.

That, this time round isn't a problem. With Boris having a working majority, makes sense to be the voice of "you don't wanna do that". The previous dynamic of a PM who actually didn't want to do Brexit and a Leader of the Opposite that kind of did in a parliament with no clear majority was a recipe for a fuck up

 

[03gills]

I voted leave but at this point i just want it to be done with either way, but more & more I'm convinced Labour had no fucking business pandering to the FBPE ultras with a second referendum. Some of the worst cunts on twitter dwell within that hashtag, & most of them refuse to accept remain lost Labour the election & would rather throw the policies &/or Corbyn under the bus (and most of them voted Lib Dem anyway) If Starmer is elected leader then Labour will have learned fuck all from their defeat.

 

[William of Walworth]

I voted leave but at this point i just want it to be done with either way, but more & more I'm convinced Labour had no fucking business pandering to the FBPE ultras with a second referendum. Some of the worst cunts on twitter dwell within that hashtag, & most of them refuse to accept remain lost Labour the election & would rather throw the policies &/or Corbyn under the bus (and most of them voted Lib Dem anyway) If Starmer is elected leader then Labour will have learned fuck all from their defeat.

Agree with most of these things (and I was a remainer!) but Starmer's options re Brexit will be much more limited than that bolded last point implies.

I'm no Starmer supporter , but there won't be another GE for five years, and the thing any LP leader will most want is :

a. For the next GE to be nothing about Brexit
and
b. Boris Johnson to have totally fucked both Brexit and (more importantly) most other policy

Whoever the next Labour leader is, and whoever their (non Seamus Milne!! ) team are, the very best thing they can do is to get half-way competent in opposition/communication.
And straight a-fucking-way!

More on this tomorrow, for what little my thoughts are worth

 

[bluescreen]

This is the thing I struggle with:

the thing any LP leader will most want is :

(a. For the next GE to be nothing about Brexit

[not arguing about that]

and
b. Boris Johnson to have totally fucked both Brexit and (more importantly) most other policy

because maybe I'm too literal and simplistic but b. sounds appalling, so why should anyone want it unless they want to be some kind of political Mary Sue just to make it all better?

 

[redsquirrel]

It wouldn't be the Labour party you want, but a pro-EU Labour party would have cleaned up south of the Wash. In places where it didn't - my safe rural Tory remainer seat, frex. For what it's worth, so mebbe not a lot. Who knows, up north, how many Labour remainers didn't bother turning out? So the Tories wouldn't be in power now. It might not be what you want, but it might not have been as bad as what we'll all get.

What the PTs said, total wishful thinking.
This election was always going to be decided in Lab-Tory marginals, the vast majority of which had majorities for the Leave vote in 2016. The idea that by going full remain Lab could have taken safe Tory seats with remain majorities is our fantasy that is exactly the strategy the LDs tried and it failed miserably.

That, this time round isn't a problem. With Boris having a working majority, makes sense to be the voice of "you don't wanna do that". The previous dynamic of a PM who actually didn't want to do Brexit and a Leader of the Opposite that kind of did in a parliament with no clear majority was a recipe for a fuck up

I'm not arguing whether it would be a "problem" or not, I'm saying that the "clearing out the Shadow Cabinet of people like Thornberry" proposed by kebabking is not going to happen. In 2015 Corbyn won in the first round (something I'm skeptical will be achieved by the winner this time) and still had to accept a Shadow Cabinet containing people very far from his politics.

Thornberry has enough political capital that I cannot see how the next Labour leader could remove her from the Shadow Cabinet even if they had the will, which I don't think most of the candidates do.

 

[cantsin]

Labour (regardless of who leads them) have already lost the next election, they have been beaten not by policies or poor leadership or even Brexit but simple maths. In order to win in 2024 they need to take 124 seats for a majority of 1, 150+ for a decent majority. They can't take seats off the SNP since Scottish Labour is dead in all but name. They can't take them of the LD's because they don't have any to take so that means off the Tories.
No matter how badly BoZo screws Brexit (and he will) it won't be bad enough to cost him a full half of his seats, the best that Labour can hope for is rebuild the so called "Red Wall" and reduce the Tory majority to a realistic one. I think they can do that no matter who leads them since by then it will have dawned on the suckers who voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done" to realise that they have been sold snake oil and their lives will not have been improved either by Brexit or by a Tory Govt.
To be fair I think Starmer will probably appeal more to the new Blue voters than Long-Bailey but neither of them can win a GE.
There is not going to be a Labour govt this side of 2030 and Brexit will be (mostly) settled by then. The next Labour PM is probably not even an MP at the moment.

all v true .... except it's day 3 of 2020, and Lenin's 'sometimes nothing happens in a decade, other times decades happen in a week' maxim is starting to look slow paced, as Australia burns, Trump's havingg a decent go at getting a pre election war going, and Dom Cummings is recruiting an army of incel militants to staff whitehall... your v rational line of argument belongs in the last decade, or possibly the one before that...wouldn't be at all surprised if Boris doesn't see out this term, let alone another one.

 

[MickiQ]

No one blames the Tories for bushfires on the other side of the world and even fewer will care if Civil Service recruitment rules are changed.
The unfolding events in the Middle East do look like becoming BoZo's first foreign crisis but unless he gets us involved in another war then the public doesn't care about foreign wars.
If he does it could have some impact but Blair getting us involved in Iraq didn't hurt him much in 2005.
But I don't think he will, he is astute enough to learn from Blair's mistake and cares more about his own position than impressing Trump

 

[Proper Tidy]

So Nandy and Phillips both declared now.

Slim pickings really isn't it

 

[sleaterkinney]

bit galling for those of us who supported Leave, got support for relevant motions passed @ CLPs to go fwd to conference, who defended Corbyn vs the Remaniacs for 3 yrs, and bitterly opposed the shift toward any kind of acceptance of / support for 2nd ref

It’s ok, brexit is happening now.

 

[William of Walworth]

This is the thing I struggle with :

the thing any LP leader will most want is :

a. For the next GE to be nothing about Brexit

[not arguing about that], because maybe I'm too literal and simplistic but

and
b. Boris Johnson to have totally fucked both Brexit and (more importantly) most other policy

b. sounds appalling, so why should anyone want it unless they want to be some kind of political Mary Sue just to make it all better?

Perhaps with that post of mine above, I was being ultra-pessimistic enough to think that the only way Johnson can lose at the next GE is to be a publicly spectacular failure with everything?

Entirely possible where Boris Johnson is concerned .....

 

[William of Walworth]

Whoever the next Labour leader is, and whoever their (non Seamus Milne!! ) team are, the very best thing they can do is to get half-way competent in opposition/communication.
And straight a-fucking-way!

The above was my main real point though.

 

[Hollis]

Labour (regardless of who leads them) have already lost the next election, they have been beaten not by policies or poor leadership or even Brexit but simple maths. In order to win in 2024 they need to take 124 seats for a majority of 1, 150+ for a decent majority. They can't take seats off the SNP since Scottish Labour is dead in all but name. They can't take them of the LD's because they don't have any to take so that means off the Tories.
No matter how badly BoZo screws Brexit (and he will) it won't be bad enough to cost him a full half of his seats, the best that Labour can hope for is rebuild the so called "Red Wall" and reduce the Tory majority to a realistic one. I think they can do that no matter who leads them since by then it will have dawned on the suckers who voted Tory to "Get Brexit Done" to realise that they have been sold snake oil and their lives will not have been improved either by Brexit or by a Tory Govt.
To be fair I think Starmer will probably appeal more to the new Blue voters than Long-Bailey but neither of them can win a GE.
There is not going to be a Labour govt this side of 2030 and Brexit will be (mostly) settled by then. The next Labour PM is probably not even an MP at the moment.

That is a tad pessimistic - I think there could be a Lab PM, if not a Lab govt before then - if they do a deal with the SNP then I assume they only have to do slightly better than 2017 to get into hung parliament territory. I expect LibDems will move to the left so that should be a few more seats...

I guess this is heading towards 'progressive alliance' type territory - with a deal being based on a reformed voting system and ind2... A reformed voting system has to be in Labour's interests if Scotland leaves the Union - otherwise we could be heading to 'permanent' Tory govt..

 

[Marty1]

right, so labour is still holding seats in certain working class communities but not others. Their voters in london (and other cities) who have stuck with them aren’t all media/oxbridge wankers are they?

If labour are holding onto seats in some areas and others, perhaps their manifesto/image/whatever was more appealing to working class communities than others?

The working class areas Labour did hold onto still saw significant drops in vote share.

But Labour have generally alienated themselves from their core support as they are now largely regarded as a London based party for liberal elites.

This says it all really:

 

[butchersapron]

It says nothing of course

edit: why did i even

 

[Treacle Toes]

The working class areas Labour did hold onto still saw significant drops in vote share.

But Labour have generally alienated themselves from their core support as they are now largely regarded as a London based party for liberal elites.

This says it all really:

View attachment 194898

Where did you get this map from. Link?

 

[Marty1]

Where did you get this map from. Link?

Screen grab from a BBC video after the election if memory serves me correctly.

 

[Proper Tidy]

While it would still show a heavy tory bias, only a map based on population density has any relevance. Obviously.

 

[two sheds]

Have you got a map that corrects for population densities?

Eta what PT said.

 

[brogdale]

e2a: apols....should have given source & this quote...must have been the shock of the new!

In these cartograms, a series of different cartographic techniques is used to show how the political landscape in the UK is shaped and has changed since the last election in 2017, not only by physical space, but also by political dimensions as well as from a people’s perspective. The conventional (land area) map is complemented by a hexagon cartogram in which each parliamentary constituency is represented by a hexagon (some minor changes in constituencies in recent years are reflected in split and merged hexagons). There is also then a gridded population cartogram in which each area is resized according to the number of people living there