Who will be the next Labour leader?

[fakeplasticgirl]

We do not know that labour Leave voters were minorities in these 90% (52 seats) of seats that labour lost that voted leave. We have only the average across the 130 seats (60% remain) - and given that there is one thing common across nearly every single single one of those lost seats i'm pretty sure that figures there were higher than those they didn't lose.

What seats would the labour party have lost to the lib-dems if they hadnb't backtracked on brexit? Do they add up to at least 60? And if they were to lose them by keeping the same brexit platform that they won them on in 2017 why would they lose them in 2019?

“I’m pretty sure” - but aren’t you guessing then too?
From the data we have - we know that even in strong Leave seats (with a Leave vote of >60%), Labour voters were about 60% Remain. So therefore it's highly likely that this trend held in the seats Labour lost, particularly since a lot of the seats Labour lost weren't strong Leave seats.

Sure - labour wouldn’t have lost 60 seats to the Lib Dems - but that doesn’t matter - as Labour would've lost plenty of these Leave seats even by backing Brexit - voters turned against Labour for far more reasons than just Brexit (Corbyn being the main one if you look at the stats) and many would've been lost by a swing nationally against Labour.

I just don’t see - going on the data we have at the minute - how we can come to the conclusion that Keir Starmer, who incidentally is the only one at the minute with a positive favourability rating, is the disaster for the Labour Party that people here are making out.

 

[butchersapron]

“I’m pretty sure” - but aren’t you guessing then too?
From the data we have - we know that even in strong Leave seats (with a Leave vote of >60%), Labour voters were about 60% Remain. So therefore it's highly likely that this trend held in the seats Labour lost, particularly since a lot of the seats Labour lost weren't strong Leave seats.

Sure - labour wouldn’t have lost 60 seats to the Lib Dems - but that doesn’t matter - as Labour would've lost plenty of these Leave seats even by backing Brexit - voters turned against Labour for far more reasons than just Brexit (Corbyn being the main one if you look at the stats) and many would've been lost by a swing nationally against Labour.

I just don’t see - going on the data we have at the minute - how we can come to the conclusion that Keir Starmer, who incidentally is the only one at the minute with a positive favourability rating, is the disaster for the Labour Party that people here are making out.

There are no exact figures = what there is is near universal commonality across the seats that labour actualy lost.

If they're not going to lose seats to the lib-dems with a remain backlash then who are they going to lose them to? There isn't anyone else. And they didn't need to back brexit, they just needed not to change the 2017 platform - why would they have lost those seats in 2019 on the same platform as they won them on in 2017 - why would there be a remain backlash costing them seats in leave areas. And why is this leadership voting-motivation separated off from brexit and the change in the labour platform over it? That's exactly one of the reasons that leads to a negative view of the leadership - changing to a second referendum position. This isn't a distinct thing, it's surely part and parcel of the same thing in those lost seats.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

There are no exact figures = what there is is near universal commonality across the seats that labour actualy lost.

If they're not going to lose seats to the lib-dems with a remain backlash then who are they going to lose them to? There isn't anyone else. And they didn't need to back brexit, they just needed not to change the 2017 platform - why would they have lost those seats in 2019 on the same platform as they won them on in 2017 - why would there be a remain backlash costing them seats in leave areas. And why is this leadership voting-motivation separated off from brexit and the change in the labour platform over it? That's exactly one of the reasons that leads to a negative view of the leadership - changing to a second referendum position. This isn't a distinct thing, it's surely part and parcel of the same thing in those lost seats.

I said they wouldn’t lose 60 seats - not that they wouldn’t lose any.
as I said in an earlier post, 2017/19 are not comparable: 2017 had Theresa may, dementia tax, and the chaos and threat of no deal wasn’t present then either.

 

[Proper Tidy]

These sixty things are on fire, shall we use water or more fire

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

On a semi-unrelated note: KS is the only leadership candidate who currently has a positive rating amongst the over 55s - the exact demographic labour need to win back!

 

[kabbes]

These sixty things are on fire, shall we use water or more fire

Well, what does one famously fight fire with?

 

[Proper Tidy]

Anyway popularity of candidates now is irrelevant. Starmer is being treated well in press, looks & sounds like a politician, has a posh chin (I don't care his mum was a nurse of whatever) which probably explains why he is less unpopular (not more popular) than others when people are pushed to make a choice. It says nothing about prospects for labour in elections. Would starmer's politics be attractive to those voters it needs to attract, I think everybody here knows the answer to that

 

[Mr Moose]

On a semi-unrelated note: KS is the only leadership candidate who currently has a positive rating amongst the over 55s - the exact demographic labour need to win back!

View attachment 199077

No, you’ve lost me now. Speaking as one of them, fuck them.

 

[butchersapron]

I said they wouldn’t lose 60 seats - not that they wouldn’t lose any.
as I said in an earlier post, 2017/19 are not comparable: 2017 had Theresa may, dementia tax, and the chaos and threat of no deal wasn’t present then either.

You said it would have been worse if they didn't go the second referendum route didn't you? I'm asking how. They wouldn't lose seats to lib-dems or Tories if there was a remain backlash. But why would there be one if the policy wasn't changed anyway.

How did the no deal nonsense effect the vote?

Have you an explanation for why 52 from 60 lost seats were leave? Luck?

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

So - who’s everyone voting for then?!

I’m undecided

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

You said it would have been worse if they didn't go the second referendum route didn't you? I'm asking how. They wouldn't lose seats to lib-dems or Tories if there was a remain backlash. But why would there be one if the policy wasn't changed anyway.

How did the no deal nonsense effect the vote?

Have you an explanation for why 52 from 60 lost seats were leave?

I already tried to explain this - essentially they’d have lost more ground to the Lib Dems- not 60 seats I’m sure, but labour were polling at 20% before the second referendum policy and only then did they manage to claw their way back up - and they’d still have lost to the tories in the “red wall” because Corbyn was universally loathed there and to the extent Brexit was a factor they couldn’t out-Brexit BoZo anyway.
edit - and the article I sent which showed that the majority of labour supporters in leave seats backed remain.

 

[andysays]

Well, what does one famously fight fire with?

You use a different coloured fire extinguisher depending on the source of the fire, but I can never remember which colour is which.

 

[Mr Moose]

You use a different coloured fire extinguisher depending on the source of the fire, but I can never remember which colour is which.

Water goes well with electrics I believe, but then I have no eyebrows so make of it what you will.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

So - who’s everyone voting for then?!

I’m undecided

I'll be voting either for hopeless (RLB) or clueless (Nandy). I'll be voting Rayner for Deputy. I've explained my reasoning for both decisions on this thread.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Brexit will be done and dusted by the next election anyway, pointless going over it. It's about who can lead the labour party going forward.

 

[brogdale]

I already tried to explain this - essentially they’d have lost more ground to the Lib Dems- not 60 seats I’m sure, but labour were polling at 20% before the second referendum policy and only then did they manage to claw their way back up - and they’d still have lost to the tories in the “red wall” because Corbyn was universally loathed there and to the extent Brexit was a factor they couldn’t out-Brexit BoZo anyway.
edit - and the article I sent which showed that the majority of labour supporters in leave seats backed remain.

You keep referring to one poll finding from one pollster as though it somehow represents the whole polling picture; it really doesn't. Even at their lowest ebb, (just after the 2019 GE was called), the LP was always polling substantially higher figures than the LDs in aggregated ("poll of polls") polling. As the campaign went on the gap between the two parties widened:



Not sure what it adds to your argument to continue insisting that the LDs were out polling the LP; they weren't and never did.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

You keep referring to one poll finding from one pollster as though it somehow represents the whole polling picture; it really doesn't. Even at their lowest ebb, (just after the 2019 GE was called), the LP was always polling substantially higher figures than the LDs in aggregated ("poll of polls") polling. As the campaign went on the gap between the two parties widened:

View attachment 199082

Not sure what it adds to your argument to continue insisting that the LDs were out polling the LP; they weren't and never did.

But that’s from November which was AFTER labour announced their second referendum policy in all circumstances thing - which kind of proves my point. The poll I shared was from the beginning of July - ie beforehand.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

True. Who do you think is best?
Edit: meant to quote sleaterkinney

 

[brogdale]

But that’s from November which was AFTER labour announced their second referendum policy in all circumstances thing - which kind of proves my point. The poll I shared was from the beginning of July - ie beforehand.

No, I don't think so.
Even on a longer time-frame, it's not at all obvious what effect (if any) the July decision to adopt a 2nd Ref position had on polling, tbh. If anything, the period over the summer up to the GE saw the LP's poll share as pretty static:

 

[killer b]

Stephen Bush's article in the Staggers today addresses some of this, on the anniversary of the formation of TIG - I more or less agree with him.

The Independent Group ended in failure, but they changed British politics

Their biggest impact was in forcing Labour to change its Brexit policy.

www.newstatesman.com

 

[kebabking]

No, I don't think so.
Even on a longer time-frame, it's not at all obvious what effect (if any) the July decision to adopt a 2nd Ref position had on polling, tbh. If anything, the period over the summer up to the GE saw the LP's poll share as pretty static:

View attachment 199085

Yeah, I don't think it's worth getting hung up on this or that date or announcement - I wasn't particularly aware of it, and compared to most people I'm a political nerd - what mattered was the very obvious direction of travel. In 2017 Labour accepted brexit, in 2019 it didn't.

The Thornberrys', Starmers' and McDonnells' (remarkably, in his case) of this world were responsible for pushing that, and Corbyn was responsible for not pushing back.

That's what the voters saw - among other things they didn't like - and that's what they reacted to.

 

[redsquirrel]

This is yougov from 9-10 july

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/28gnxojyae/TheTimes_190710_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

That is a single poll in the aftermath of the EU elections - as I said there was not point at which Labour were consistently polling behind the LDs.

 

[sleaterkinney]

True. Who do you think is best?
Edit: meant to quote sleaterkinney

Starmer/Rayner

RLB will just be the same non-entities in the shadow cabinet, muddled policies from the advisors and zombie 80s left talking points.

 

[kebabking]

Nandy for me - don't agree with a large slice of what she says, but she's a decent communicator, and has the intellectual curiosity to at least stand a chance of working Labour out of its current malaise. Some direction being better than none at this stage...

Starmer just comes across as meh - he comes on the radio and I just hear the voice from Charlie Brown: wah wah wah, wah wah wah...

Long Bailey is just hopeless. For all her prolier-than-thou bollocks she seems utterly divorced from anyone who doesn't get all shrieky on Twitter - and she's just unutterably shit at every thing she does: no backbone whatsoever, and Chris Grayling levels of basic competence.

Thornberry: voter repellent.

 

[oryx]

- and she's just unutterably shit at every thing she does: no backbone whatsoever, and Chris Grayling levels of basic competence.

what evidence do you have for this?

 

[brogdale]

Nandy for me - don't agree with a large slice of what she says, but she's a decent communicator, and has the intellectual curiosity to at least stand a chance of working Labour out of its current malaise. Some direction being better than none at this stage...

Starmer just comes across as meh - he comes on the radio and I just hear the voice from Charlie Brown: wah wah wah, wah wah wah...

Long Bailey is just hopeless. For all her prolier-than-thou bollocks she seems utterly divorced from anyone who doesn't get all shrieky on Twitter - and she's just unutterably shit at every thing she does: no backbone whatsoever, and Chris Grayling levels of basic competence.

Thornberry: voter repellent.

All that Nandy will achieve is to ensure that (if he doesn't win on 1st round) Starmer will take the second with 90% of her 2nd prefs going to Sir Kia.

 

[kebabking]

what evidence do you have for this?

Everything I've seen, heard, and read?

I started off thinking she might be at least part of the answer - right background, right accent, right end of the party, but she's taken on the worst aspects of the Corbyn era and proven to be a wooden charisma bypass. Her campaign has been appalling - which bodes less than well for a GE - she's just crap.

 

[Pickman's model]

Starmer just comes across as meh - he comes on the radio and I just hear the voice from Charlie Brown: wah wah wah, wah wah wah...

 

[SpookyFrank]

Long Bailey is just hopeless. For all her prolier-than-thou bollocks she seems utterly divorced from anyone who doesn't get all shrieky on Twitter - and she's just unutterably shit at every thing she does: no backbone whatsoever, and Chris Grayling levels of basic competence.

While I'm no fan of Long-Bailey, she doesn't come close to Grayling levels of failure. Few mortals ever have.

 

[oryx]

Everything I've seen, heard, and read?

But what, specifically?