Next Labour Leader

[Darat]

Couple of names are starting to appear.

Keir Starmer seems ready to throw his hat into the ring. I think he could be a good leader, he is a good communicator, and intelligent.

[The Don]

I guess it will come down to whether the Labour Party is minded to make itself electable again, or whether ideological purity is seen to be more important.

My experience in the 70's and 80's is that it may take considerable time and effort to move the party from the latter to the former.

[Darat]

Emily Thornberry*throwing her hat in.

I do like her bluntness.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Couple of names are starting to appear.

Keir Starmer seems ready to throw his hat into the ring. I think he could be a good leader, he is a good communicator, and intelligent.

It will be Keir Starmer IMV.

Although he comes across well - important in a political leader - he does come up against the problem of being Centrist (ex-Blairite) and thus will face opposition from the hard left Momentum wing.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Emily Thornberry*throwing her hat in.

I do like her bluntness.

I can't stand her.

[Matthew Best]

I've met her a few times (she's my local MP) and I've found her to be very pleasant in person.

[GlennB]

Long-Bailey is warm favourite at 7-4. 'Continuation Corbyn' it seems.
Nandy 3-1
Starmer 6-1
etc

But there are plausible candidates yet to make it official.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Long-Bailey is warm favourite at 7-4. 'Continuation Corbyn' it seems.
Nandy 3-1
Starmer 6-1
etc

But there are plausible candidates yet to make it official.

Shami Chakrabarty *taps nose knowingly*

[ceptimus]

The ideal candidate for the modern Labour party would be a black Marxist transexual Muslim - apparently mostly female - and preferably disabled somehow: perhaps in a wheelchair. Such a candidate would tick all the boxes for them, but unfortunately, there is currently no such person available amongst Labour MPs.

So let's look at the likely runners.

Long-Bailey is Corybn in his younger days, with painted on eyebrows, lipstick, and a shouty voice. As I posted before in another thread, she will be the choice of most of the existing front bench and probably the unions too.

Starmer is a younger more articulate Corbyn with a knighthood. He's a man though, so has no chance.

Nandy, if she stands, seems the most human and normal of the bunch. Jess Phillips is similar but I don't know if she's considering standing.

That leaves Lady Nugee (Thornberry) - the most sneering and contemptuous MP I can think of at the moment (from any party). She's the one who had to be sacked when Milliband was the leader for making mocking media posts about an Englishman who was so racist that he actually displayed English flags on his house! And he drove a white van too! Disgusting! I'm sure that if she woman-splains loudly and often enough to leave supporters how they were misguided, stupid, or racist, then that will persuade them to give her their full support.

Tories will be delighted to have any of these candidates as the new Labour leader as it will likely gift them another fifteen years in power. Nandy or Phillips would worry them the most - but I've yet to see a candidate that will really trouble them. The rot for Labour began when they elected the wrong Milliband as leader, and locked themselves into a system where their activist mostly Marxist members get to choose the leader - and the MPs have relatively little say in the matter.

[Camillus]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Shami Chakrabarty *taps nose knowingly*

Who can't stand for the leadership because she's not an MP.

[commandlinegamer]

In the short term, I think what's needed is someone to cut Boris down to size, tear strips off that egomaniac. He might be able to escape journalists [sic] by hiding in a fridge, but he can't get away with that trick at the despatch box, if only because there's little enough room in the Commons as it is.

[Agatha]

Please, not Wrong-Daily. Or any other Momentum-backed candidate, still clinging to the idea that voters just didn't understand their core message. When will they accept that voters understood and rejected the message?

I'd like Jess Philips, but Kier Starmer is probably a safer bet.

[zooterkin]

I quite fancy Yvette Cooper; whether she has a chance as Labour leader is another matter entirely, of course.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I've met her a few times (she's my local MP) and I've found her to be very pleasant in person.

I've heard Rees-Mogg is extremely charming. Means nothing in politics.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The ideal candidate for the modern Labour party would be a black Marxist transexual Muslim - apparently mostly female - and preferably disabled somehow: perhaps in a wheelchair. Such a candidate would tick all the boxes for them, but unfortunately, there is currently no such person available amongst Labour MPs.

So let's look at the likely runners.

Long-Bailey is Corybn in his younger days, with painted on eyebrows, lipstick, and a shouty voice. As I posted before in another thread, she will be the choice of most of the existing front bench and probably the unions too.

Starmer is a younger more articulate Corbyn with a knighthood. He's a man though, so has no chance.

Nandy, if she stands, seems the most human and normal of the bunch. Jess Phillips is similar but I don't know if she's considering standing.

That leaves Lady Nugee (Thornberry) - the most sneering and contemptuous MP I can think of at the moment (from any party). She's the one who had to be sacked when Milliband was the leader for making mocking media posts about an Englishman who was so racist that he actually displayed English flags on his house! And he drove a white van too! Disgusting! I'm sure that if she woman-splains loudly and often enough to leave supporters how they were misguided, stupid, or racist, then that will persuade them to give her their full support.

Tories will be delighted to have any of these candidates as the new Labour leader as it will likely gift them another fifteen years in power. Nandy or Phillips would worry them the most - but I've yet to see a candidate that will really trouble them. The rot for Labour began when they elected the wrong Milliband as leader, and locked themselves into a system where their activist mostly Marxist members get to choose the leader - and the MPs have relatively little say in the matter.

Now you are trolling us.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I quite fancy Yvette Cooper; whether she has a chance as Labour leader is another matter entirely, of course.

I have always been impressed by Yvette Cooper's political acumen and ability to get to the heart of a matter. It'd be great to see her elected as Labour leader. She would make complete mincemeat out of Boris as she does not tolerate BS.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Camillus

Who can't stand for the leadership because she's not an MP.

She certainly could, as a member of the House of Lords. And one can be Prime Minister from the Lords as well (and up to the beginning of the 20th Century, I believe more PMs had governed from the Lords than from the Commons....). In addition, plenty of peers have served as government ministers and shadow ministers in modern times (indeed, there's talk of Nicky Morgan being ennobled in order to be made a minister in Johnson's new government).

It's true that modern tradition dictates that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should both sit as MPs in the Commons (though, as I said, it's certainly not mandatory). But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever why someone like Chakrabarty could not stand for election to the leadership of the opposition (and win) from her current seat in the Lords. What would probably need to happen at that point would be that a serving Labour MP in a safe seat would accept an ennoblement, and Chakrabarti would renounce her peerage and stand for Labour in the by-election (and win it)*.

Let's see how things play out. One thing's for certain however: Chakrabarty absolutely is not out of the running purely on account of her (currently) being a peer in the Lords rather than an MP in the Commons.


* Incidentally, something similar to this actually happened within the past 60 years, and what's more, it concerned the transition of the position of Prime Minister rather than just the Leader of the Opposition. When Macmillan was forced to resign as PM in 1963, Alec Douglas-Home stood for, and won, the leadership of the Conservative Party - and by extension became PM - from his seat in the Lords. As soon as he won, he renounced his peerage and stood in a by-election to replace a Conservative in a safe seat who in turn accepted a peerage.

[MarkCorrigan]

Speaking as a paid up member of the party I'm voting for Kier Starmer.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I've heard Rees-Mogg is extremely charming. Means nothing in politics.

I had three substantial meetings with Rees-Mogg in the 90s when he was running an investment fund under the Rothschild Asset Management umbrella and I was pitching advisory services to him on behalf of a boutique investment bank I was working for at the time. He was an arse throughout, and had a worryingly-poor grasp of both figures and the industries we were discussing. And I particularly noticed at the time (and remember to this day) that he was curt and verging on unpleasant to the RAM reception staff and the girl who brought in teas and coffees etc (the meetings were all in RAM's offices).


(On that last point, I remember reading something by Ricky Gervais which has always resonated, and which immediately reminded me of exactly this Rees-Mogg set of incidents. Gervais recounted that after The Office went gangbusters in the USA, all sorts of big-time producers and studios in LA/Hollywood wanted to work with him. Inevitably he'd meet them for lunch (since "lunching" is almost always how one conducts early-stage meetings in Hollywood...). Gervais would notice how the producers or studio honchos treated the restaurant staff (and it was always the producers/honchos who booked the tables, took the lead within the restaurant, paid the bill, etc). He was surprised and somewhat angered by the high proportion of them who were either abrupt and unfriendly towards the restaurant staff, or even downright hostile. And he resolved that there was no way whatsoever that he'd ever work with any such producers/honchos, no matter how seemingly-attractive the offer. A good rule to live by, in my opinion.)

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Now you are trolling us.

If you think that, you haven't grasped yet how disconnected the average working class voter is from the North London champagne socialists currently leading the Labour party.

Many Labour MPs are still in denial - they believe they just need to explain their policies better, and have a more likeable leader - they think once ex-Labour voters understand their policies, they'll vote for them. They are wrong. Working class people fully understand that you can't give everything for free to everyone, and have just a few rich people pay for it. Working class voters did understand what Labour were offering - and that's why they chose not to vote Labour.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Speaking as a paid up member of the party I'm voting for Kier Starmer.

I'm afraid I just can't see Starmer getting the job done (i.e., ultimately, getting his party back into power with himself as PM). He's tremendously able, a good speaker, and someone with real experience and skills outside of politics (all big plus points).

But..... I just don't think he has the "X-Factor": the charisma, the drive, the hunger in his eyes, the personality that gives off an urge for change and improvement and the promise of a better world ahead (stop me if I'm getting all esoteric, new-age and wonky....).

I think someone like Starmer would make an outstanding occupant of one of the other great offices of State: Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, or Chancellor. But under someone else as PM.

I think back to when John Smith died in 1994 as Labour leader. It was likely that the next election was going to be in 1997 (as indeed it was), and John Major's premiership was sailing onto ever-rockier ground. The received wisdom is that a) John Smith's Labour would have won a stonking majority in 1997 if he'd lived, and b) John Smith would have been a towering PM in the same way as his successor Blair ended up being (and that Smith and the country had been robbed of this by his untimely death).

But I think differently (and my view echoe that of some political commentators): I think that Smith was a fantastically talented man, with moderate views and the ability to unite the party. But.... he just was not very charismatic or dynamic (nor was he all that young, and he looked like a late-middle-aged accountant). By contrast, Blair was younger, dynamic and photogenic, as well as being extremely intelligent and able. I think the country could see in Blair the prospect (whether just an illusion or not) of real change, re-invigoration, excitement and prosperity.

I think that had Smith lived, Labour would most likely have won a majority in 1997. But I don't think Smith would have served more than one term in office, and nor would he have much of a lasting legacy. As ironic and unpleasant as it sounds, Smith's death in 1994 was perhaps in many ways the best thing that could have happened to the Labour party: Blair was consequently able to lead them into 13 years of Labour government and (at the time at least - even though horribly sullied by history, especially with respect to foreign policy) a true legacy of achievement in power.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Darat

Emily Thornberry*throwing her hat in.

I do like her bluntness.

She would be terrible.

[welshdean]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Shami Chakrabarty *taps nose knowingly*

That's a bottle then, or 2-1 in tic-tac.

[welshdean]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I have always been impressed by Yvette Cooper's political acumen and ability to get to the heart of a matter. It'd be great to see her elected as Labour leader. She would make complete mincemeat out of Boris as she does not tolerate BS.

Oh come now, she positively blossomed under Bliar.

[Sideroxylon]

Needs to be someone who wont frighten voters on issues like climate change or the widening wealth gap. Take a leaf from Australian Labor’s Albanese who likes coal mines and doesn’t rock the boat by voting against the incumbent right wing coalition too much.

Socialists need not apply for Labour Party leadership.

[welshdean]

What the opposition needs is a leader that can galvanise the centre right, the remain vote and the anti buffoon ex Tory that will never vote for Johnson. Add in the disaffected brexiteers from the north and they could be a party that a disenfranchised loyal Tory could and would vote for.

Can't see me voting Tory again.
Will never vote for anything vaguely smelling of Corbyn.
Wasted my Dec 12 vote on SDP rather than spoil.

I am one of many that need representation but have nowhere to turn.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by welshdean

What the opposition needs is a leader that can galvanise the centre right, the remain vote and the anti buffoon ex Tory that will never vote for Johnson. Add in the disaffected brexiteers from the north and they could be a party that a disenfranchised loyal Tory could and would vote for.

Can't see me voting Tory again.
Will never vote for anything vaguely smelling of Corbyn.
Wasted my Dec 12 vote on SDP rather than spoil.

I am one of many that need representation but have nowhere to turn.

SDP? Do they still exist?

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

SDP? Do they still exist?

All these parties do in some form or other.
It's a bit like the Life of Brian gladiator arena scene.
"That's him over there"

[The Don]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

SDP? Do they still exist?

Yup:

https://sdp.org.uk/

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Don

Yup:

https://sdp.org.uk/

Wow! “The Hidden Majority”!

No kidding; they are very well hidden. They ran twenty candidates by the looks of things.

[Worm]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

She certainly could, as a member of the House of Lords....

I'm not sure about the technicalities of it, and I take the point about a successful leadership candidate standing in a 'safe' by-election to become an MP, but my understanding from reporting I have seen is that one has to already be an MP to stand for Labour leader. That's not a parliamentary rule or precedent, it's a Labour Party rule.

[Camillus]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

She certainly could, as a member of the House of Lords.

Clause VII of the Labour Party Rule-Book:

Quote:

The leader and deputy leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among
Commons members of the PLP

She would have to renounce her seat in the Lords, find someone to step down as an MP and get elected before she could run. Not going to happen.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by The Don

I guess it will come down to whether the Labour Party is minded to make itself electable again, or whether ideological purity is seen to be more important.

My experience in the 70's and 80's is that it may take considerable time and effort to move the party from the latter to the former.

Was it Healey who talked about people "who perfer the ideological purity of opposition to the hard decisions of power"?

I've been in a few Labour discussions where all the loudest Corynistas apparently thought that Labour centrists (i.e. anyone not of their stamp) was the first enemy to be removed. Good call guys, alienate the people you have most common ground with.
I think another Corbynista would be a bad idea as they seem totally tone deaf. And the first layoff should have been Seamus.
There's been a spike in Labour party membership as a lot of people for various reasons want a say in selecting the next leader.

[Giz]

Yvette Cooper or Kier Starmer sound OK.

Only go with Thornberry if you have a burning desire to guarantee Boris wins the next election.

[commandlinegamer]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

he just was not very charismatic or dynamic (nor was he all that young, and he looked like a late-middle-aged accountant).

[cough]John Major[/cough]

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

[cough]John Major[/cough]

Oh I agree. But at the time of the Thatcher downfall, as bizarre at it may seem now, Major was actually the most go-getting "Young Turk" from among the credible candidates to succeed her as Conservative leader! And it also needs to be borne in mind that Kinnock lost the 92 election as much as Major won it.

I'd strongly argue that between the mid-80s and the mid-90s, the game changed significantly in politics to one where presentation and (perceived) dynamism started to count for much more electorally than ever before. I suspect a big catalyst for that change was (Bill) Clinton's ascent to the Democratic nomination and then the presidency in 92. Suddenly it seemed that the leaders of major democracies had to have the verve, dynamism and sheer youth to be able to credibly claim that their victory would bring real change, prosperity and national pride.

As I said in my previous post, I suspect that Labour under Smith would have won a majority in 97 and Smith would have become PM. But I just can't see that Labour would have lasted nearly so long in power, nor been so successful, had Smith been at the helm. Perhaps one single incident encapsulates the difference for me pretty vividly: when Diana died in 1997, only a couple of months after Blair's labour victory, Blair stood outside the church near Chequers the following morning and made that now-legendary speech packed with empathy and feeling in which he identified Diana as "The People's Princess". IMO, even if those exact same words had been spoken by either Major or Smith (though I don't think they'd have even chosen those sorts of words...), neither of those men would have been able to "sell" the words anything like Blair did. He seemed, in a very real sense, to be the mouthpiece of the whole nation that day (irrespective of your party politics). And that's just one (albeit good) example.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Camillus

Clause VII of the Labour Party Rule-Book:



She would have to renounce her seat in the Lords, find someone to step down as an MP and get elected before she could run. Not going to happen.

Ah that gosh-darned Labour Party Rule Book! I'd forgotten about Labour's idiosyncratic party rules. Oh well. I'd agree that, especially given the time frames in play, it's very unlikely to happen.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

(On that last point, I remember reading something by Ricky Gervais which has always resonated, and which immediately reminded me of exactly this Rees-Mogg set of incidents. Gervais recounted that after The Office went gangbusters in the USA, all sorts of big-time producers and studios in LA/Hollywood wanted to work with him. Inevitably he'd meet them for lunch (since "lunching" is almost always how one conducts early-stage meetings in Hollywood...). Gervais would notice how the producers or studio honchos treated the restaurant staff (and it was always the producers/honchos who booked the tables, took the lead within the restaurant, paid the bill, etc). He was surprised and somewhat angered by the high proportion of them who were either abrupt and unfriendly towards the restaurant staff, or even downright hostile. And he resolved that there was no way whatsoever that he'd ever work with any such producers/honchos, no matter how seemingly-attractive the offer. A good rule to live by, in my opinion.)

Moral: if Ricky Gervais thinks someone is an ********, then they must really be an ********.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Ah that gosh-darned Labour Party Rule Book! I'd forgotten about Labour's idiosyncratic party rules. Oh well. I'd agree that, especially given the time frames in play, it's very unlikely to happen.

I think any party trying to get a member of the House of Lords to be Prime Minister would be trying to pull an idiotic move. It may have been done in the past, but people wouldn't stand for it now.

[3point14]

If the last few weeks have taught me anything it's that the most important thing is that he be acceptable to the Tory press.

Which, to my mind, is not a good starting point.