Who would you like to lead the labour Party

[Marc Meakin]

I have to go with Kier Starmer
He is centrist.
A sobering though is that the last truly left wing government was elected in 1974.
I think Marxism and Communism is a dead duck in the UK.
Anyone for New , New , Labour

[Gevin Chapwell]

I have to go with Kier Starmer
He is centrist.
A sobering though is that the last truly left wing government was elected in 1974.
I think Marxism and Communism is a dead duck in the UK.
Anyone for New , New , Labour

How are you defining Marxism and Communism? Which Labour policies in particular are part of this dead duck?

[Marc Meakin]

I have to go with Kier Starmer
He is centrist.
A sobering though is that the last truly left wing government was elected in 1974.
I think Marxism and Communism is a dead duck in the UK.
Anyone for New , New , Labour

How are you defining Marxism and Communism? Which Labour policies in particular are part of this dead duck?

Not to over simplify things but :
Robbing the rich to feed the poor.
Nationalisation.
Things that work in places like , let me think.....Utopia.
The sooner this country realises how outmoded these ideas are in the 21st Century the sooner we can get rid of the buffoon

[Gevin Chapwell]

I have to go with Kier Starmer
He is centrist.
A sobering though is that the last truly left wing government was elected in 1974.
I think Marxism and Communism is a dead duck in the UK.
Anyone for New , New , Labour

How are you defining Marxism and Communism? Which Labour policies in particular are part of this dead duck?

Not to over simplify things but :
Robbing the rich to feed the poor.
Nationalisation.
Things that work in places like , let me think.....Utopia

Graded income tax, free schools, the NHS...

[Marc Meakin]

Sounds like a no brainer except the majority didn't think so.
That is my point.
The caring , sharing make the most noise.
But the greedy and the selfish keep winning

[Gevin Chapwell]

Sounds like a no brainer except the majority didn't think so.
That is my point.
The caring , sharing make the most noise.
But the greedy and the selfish keep winning

I don't think the majority are against the policies in principle. It's how it's been presented. And I'm not just talking about Corbyn.

[Marc Meakin]

You have to appeal to the LCD.
Tony Blair knew that and cosied up to Murdoch to get the Sun readers onside.
I think only a Centrist will do nowadays
Put simply as long as the haves outnumber the have nots then the Tories will keep on winning

[Phil H]

I'm surprised not to have heard David Lammy mentioned yet. I don't feel I know enough about him to champion him, but he's certainly impressed me on occasion.

Then again, I have my doubts about whether an apparently pro-Brexit electorate would ever elect a black Prime Minister, and Labour might have the same doubts but struggle to own up to them for fear of further alienating that electorate.

[Gevin Chapwell]

Put simply as long as the haves outnumber the have nots then the Tories will keep on winning

I don't think it's that at all. You mentioned the press. It's much more how it's presented than the actual policies.

[Paul Worsley]

I don't think it's that at all. You mentioned the press. It's much more how it's presented than the actual policies.

So let me get this right. The Labour party just suffered their worst defeat since 1935, and you think it's down to presentation?

[Marc Meakin]

I don't think it's that at all. You mentioned the press. It's much more how it's presented than the actual policies.

So let me get this right. The Labour party just suffered their worst defeat since 1935, and you think it's down to presentation?

With hindsight if Corbyn had fallen on his sword early this year when the anti semitism scandals were at there peak. ( yes I know it's mainly dirty tricks by the right wing press )
A new leader was voted in like Kier or Jess Phillips who would have been a worthy adversary to May and Boris .
The policies could have remained largely unchanged .
A non fence sitting stance by the leader on Brexit would have been a good thing.
A mandate based on the British people having been lied to on Brexit and offering an opportunity of a do over on the referendum with clear Brexit choices might have given labour a chance

In a nutshell , the worst 9 years of a Tory government I can remember , they have nothing that they could be proud of.
Austerity , massive underfunding of the NHS , and the police.
A leader who lied to the Queen and yet Labour couldn't win.
Smh.

[Gevin Chapwell]

I don't think it's that at all. You mentioned the press. It's much more how it's presented than the actual policies.

So let me get this right. The Labour party just suffered their worst defeat since 1935, and you think it's down to presentation?

People hate Corbyn and he's the leader presenting their policies.

Plus the media have fuelled this with their presentation of Corbyn.

So to answer your question - yes, absolutely.

[Gevin Chapwell]

And also let's not forget the Tories' presentation. You've got Boris Johnson in charge, and as you all know he's a loveable, affable, blundering, lying, nasty piece of work, so who wouldn't vote for him?

It's also worth noting that Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Green got over 50% of the vote between them, so if we had a proper voting system we'd have a left-leaning coalition with Labour as the main party in that.

[Jon O'Neill]

Labour got more votes and more seats this GE than the 2015 GE so to call it their worst defeat since 1935 is a little misleading in a discussion about how they fared.

This was the Brexit election. UKIP got 3.9m votes in 2015 and the Brexit party got 600k in 2019. Where did the other 3.3m votes go? I'd bet the vast majority went to the Tories.

Policies, presentation etc.. it's all surely secondary.

[Paul Worsley]

Labour got more votes and more seats this GE than the 2015 GE so to call it their worst defeat since 1935 is a little misleading in a discussion about how they fared.

Labour won fewer seats than they did in 2015.

[Jon O'Neill]

Sorry - I meant votes. Vote share as well.

[Innis Carson]

Labour got more votes and more seats this GE than the 2015 GE so to call it their worst defeat since 1935 is a little misleading in a discussion about how they fared.

This was the Brexit election. UKIP got 3.9m votes in 2015 and the Brexit party got 600k in 2019. Where did the other 3.3m votes go? I'd bet the vast majority went to the Tories.

Policies, presentation etc.. it's all surely secondary.

They're a not-insignificant secondary, but I agree with this. So far none of the many, many hot takes I've seen on what Labour's Brexit strategy should have been have been at all convincing - the idea that there's some colossal swathe of floating Remainers who would flock to any party who were sufficiently 'pro-Remain' has been disproven at pretty much every opportunity, and the idea that Corbyn could have been expected to make some miraculously compelling case for the EU that would win over Leave voters in the seats Labour lost (something that, conspicuously, nobody has ever been able to do) seems totally unrealistic.

Equally, given that a majority of Labour's 2017 vote base (and a bigger majority of their MPs and members) were Remain voters, it takes a lot of faith to imagine that the leadership could have fobbed off all calls for a second referendum without an unmanageable backlash.

I just hope this tired issue can be laid to rest now and that Labour can focus in on the issues where they have a popular and common-sense case to make. They need to pick their fights a lot better than the outgoing leadership did (and fight them more effectively) but they do have to actually pick some fights - if they retreat into the previous morass of empty slogans and abstract philosophising about an unspecified 'centre ground' then there's still plenty more seats for them to lose.

[Gevin Chapwell]

Given that the country was pretty much 50/50 split on Brexit, if all the leave-voting people who would normally vote Labour felt the need to vote Tory, why was there no effect the other way - remain-voting Tories feeling the need to vote Labour?

[Jon O'Neill]

The Lib Dems did get 1.4m more votes than the 2017 GE. So that's evidence of the effect. But who's to say the elasticity(/plasticity?) of Tory Remainers' vote is the same as Labour? It's a hard thing to know.

I'd be interested to read more statistical analysis of all the above. There are some sweeping generalisations flying about (predominantly by me) and I'd like to read more without having to do the analysis myself. Are there any good blogs on this stuff? It's harder than it should be to Google for stuff like referendum result voting vs. GE voting (I think it's impossible to know from publicly-available data but can be estimated quite accurately).

[Graeme Cole]

The Lib Dems did get 1.4m more votes than the 2017 GE. So that's evidence of the effect. But who's to say the elasticity(/plasticity?) of Tory Remainers' vote is the same as Labour? It's a hard thing to know.

I'd be interested to read more statistical analysis of all the above. There are some sweeping generalisations flying about (predominantly by me) and I'd like to read more without having to do the analysis myself. Are there any good blogs on this stuff? It's harder than it should be to Google for stuff like referendum result voting vs. GE voting (I think it's impossible to know from publicly-available data but can be estimated quite accurately).

YouGov: How Britain voted in the 2019 general election

That was published this morning. It's got some good graphics showing the proportions of voters for parties in 2017 which switched to other parties in 2019, and how Remainers and Leavers voted in the election.

[Jon O'Neill]

The Lib Dems did get 1.4m more votes than the 2017 GE. So that's evidence of the effect. But who's to say the elasticity(/plasticity?) of Tory Remainers' vote is the same as Labour? It's a hard thing to know.

I'd be interested to read more statistical analysis of all the above. There are some sweeping generalisations flying about (predominantly by me) and I'd like to read more without having to do the analysis myself. Are there any good blogs on this stuff? It's harder than it should be to Google for stuff like referendum result voting vs. GE voting (I think it's impossible to know from publicly-available data but can be estimated quite accurately).

YouGov: How Britain voted in the 2019 general election

That was published this morning. It's got some good graphics showing the proportions of voters for parties in 2017 which switched to other parties in 2019, and how Remainers and Leavers voted in the election.

That's awesome. Thanks.

For everyone else, don't bother reading it. It just confirms everything I speculated about above.

[Conor]

Equally, given that a majority of Labour's 2017 vote base (and a bigger majority of their MPs and members) were Remain voters, it takes a lot of faith to imagine that the leadership could have fobbed off all calls for a second referendum without an unmanageable backlash.

Of course, with perfect political hindsight, this looks like it would have been a much better strategy. It also aligns with their position in the 2017 election, so the backlash should have been tolerable. Those remain supporters would have been disappointed and may have cost Labour some seats in strong Lib Dem areas, but may have prevented hemorrhaging seats to the Tories in Leave areas.

[Paul Worsley]

Coming back to the original question, I believe that Sir Keir Starmer or Lisa Nandy would be the best choice to lead the Labour party. Given that both candidates are seen as too centrist for Momentum, it's likely to be Rebecca Long-Bailey.

None of them will ever be PM, but Nandy stands the best chance of making Labour electable again.

[Marc Meakin]

Coming back to the original question, I believe that Sir Keir Starmer or Lisa Nandy would be the best choice to lead the Labour party. Given that both candidates are seen as too centrist for Momentum, it's likely to be Rebecca Long-Bailey.

None of them will ever be PM, but Nandy stands the best chance of making Labour electable again.

Momentum is toxic and is poisoning the Labour party from within
They have far too much sway.

[Gevin Chapwell]

The Lib Dems did get 1.4m more votes than the 2017 GE. So that's evidence of the effect. But who's to say the elasticity(/plasticity?) of Tory Remainers' vote is the same as Labour? It's a hard thing to know.

I'd be interested to read more statistical analysis of all the above. There are some sweeping generalisations flying about (predominantly by me) and I'd like to read more without having to do the analysis myself. Are there any good blogs on this stuff? It's harder than it should be to Google for stuff like referendum result voting vs. GE voting (I think it's impossible to know from publicly-available data but can be estimated quite accurately).

YouGov: How Britain voted in the 2019 general election

That was published this morning. It's got some good graphics showing the proportions of voters for parties in 2017 which switched to other parties in 2019, and how Remainers and Leavers voted in the election.

That's awesome. Thanks.

For everyone else, don't bother reading it. It just confirms everything I speculated about above.

Yes. On a superficial level. But there is still the question of why Tory remainers were less likely to change their voting habits than Labour leavers. It's not enough to say it's just because. And I do think that must come partly down to how Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party were seen generally. Not everyone voted on Brexit anyway, and if you've got a party and leader that the mainstream media are shitting all over, it's bound to make a difference among people who could have gone either way. Sure, Brexit was a thing, but it wasn't the only thing. Also:

In fact, the Conservatives actually did better amongst C2DE voters (48%) than they did amongst ABC1 voters (43%). Labour performed the same amongst both social grade groups (33%).

Yeah, thanks for that informative insight, you jargon-obsessed dickheads. I do, however, think the following is interesting:

The highest level of education someone has achieved remains an important dividing line in how people vote. Labour did much better than the Conservatives amongst those who have a degree or higher, by 43% to 29%.

Reasonable and well-educated people tend not to vote Conservative. Voting Conservative tends to come from ignorance or self-servingness.

[Zarte Siempre]

Coming back to the original question, I believe that Sir Keir Starmer or Lisa Nandy would be the best choice to lead the Labour party. Given that both candidates are seen as too centrist for Momentum, it's likely to be Rebecca Long-Bailey.

None of them will ever be PM, but Nandy stands the best chance of making Labour electable again.

I wanted Nandy to run in 2015. I'm really hoping she runs this time. I will be joining the party for long enough to vote for her if she does.

[Conor]

Yes. On a superficial level. But there is still the question of why Tory remainers were less likely to change their voting habits than Labour leavers. It's not enough to say it's just because. And I do think that must come partly down to how Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party were seen generally. Not everyone voted on Brexit anyway, and if you've got a party and leader that the mainstream media are shitting all over, it's bound to make a difference among people who could have gone either way. Sure, Brexit was a thing, but it wasn't the only thing. Also:

I would guess: many of the Tory remainers may not have been hard remainers, and in the ensuing 3 years had come to accept the result. Labour's position, another referendum sometime down the line (which they might lose again anyway) seemed like more trouble than the quick pain of getting it over with.

Reasonable and well-educated people tend not to vote Conservative. Voting Conservative tends to come from ignorance or self-servingness.

Maybe that should have been Labour's slogan. But anyway, voting Labour correlates well with being younger, as does whether someone holds a degree. You'd need to see education level when restricted to different age groups to make something meaningful out of it.

[Fiona T]

Yes. On a superficial level. But there is still the question of why Tory remainers were less likely to change their voting habits than Labour leavers. It's not enough to say it's just because. And I do think that must come partly down to how Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party were seen generally. Not everyone voted on Brexit anyway, and if you've got a party and leader that the mainstream media are shitting all over, it's bound to make a difference among people who could have gone either way. Sure, Brexit was a thing, but it wasn't the only thing. Also:

I would guess: many of the Tory remainers may not have been hard remainers, and in the ensuing 3 years had come to accept the result. Labour's position, another referendum sometime down the line (which they might lose again anyway) seemed like more trouble than the quick pain of getting it over with.

Reasonable and well-educated people tend not to vote Conservative. Voting Conservative tends to come from ignorance or self-servingness.

Maybe that should have been Labour's slogan. But anyway, voting Labour correlates well with being younger, as does whether someone holds a degree. You'd need to see education level when restricted to different age groups to make something meaningful out of it.

And even then the only "meaning" would be to affirm the sense of superiority that Labour voters, being selfless and educated, are "right" and the self serving thickos who vote differently are wrong.

There are sound and valid reasons to vote for any of the main parties, and also sound and valid reasons not to vote for any of them! The thing that drives me crazy is the refusal of both main factions to accept that the other side's policies could have any merit whatsoever.

I don't ever remember elections being so divisive in the past. You voted how you thought best, you lost, you shrugged and got on with it.

I'm a natural labour supporter, but I'm really concerned by the stuff I've seen on social media from some Labour voters against anyone who voted differently. They have, with the odd notable exception, shown little wish to understand why someone might have a different viewpoint. For people that would like to think they have a liberal viewpoint, it's a fine example of narrow minded bigotry. My life is a lot better since I unfollowed the worst culprits.

[Gevin Chapwell]

And even then the only "meaning" would be to affirm the sense of superiority that Labour voters, being selfless and educated, are "right" and the self serving thickos who vote differently are wrong.

There are sound and valid reasons to vote for any of the main parties, and also sound and valid reasons not to vote for any of them! The thing that drives me crazy is the refusal of both main factions to accept that the other side's policies could have any merit whatsoever.

I don't ever remember elections being so divisive in the past. You voted how you thought best, you lost, you shrugged and got on with it.

I'm a natural labour supporter, but I'm really concerned by the stuff I've seen on social media from some Labour voters against anyone who voted differently. They have, with the odd notable exception, shown little wish to understand why someone might have a different viewpoint. For people that would like to think they have a liberal viewpoint, it's a fine example of narrow minded bigotry. My life is a lot better since I unfollowed the worst culprits.

Political parties aren't like favourite colours - it's not a purely subjective thing as to which is better. And just because a party is mainstream it doesn't automatically make it acceptable. If you accept that a party can be a force for bad, then it's perfectly possible that a mainstream party can be.

And the point is that I think that the Conservative Party is a force for bad. We've seen the effects of austerity over the last near decade. It's the poorest in society that have suffered, disabled people, and generally those that are least able to stand up for themselves. This isn't abstract philosophising about obscure points of policy - this is people's lives. And given what I've seen of the Tories and that they've elected Boris Johnson as their leader, a guy with no scruples whatsoever, yes I think they are a bad party. And what they have done is far worse than upsetting a few people on the internet.

And given that I think that, it's impossible for me not to conclude that people who vote Tory are either not very nice people themselves or simply wrong about things. It's not bigotry. It's an inescapable logical conclusion.

Of course, simply posting on Facebook or Twitter what you think of the Tories and Tory voters in the run up to an election is unlikely to change people's minds, so it's best to be a bit more tactful about what you do post if you actually want to make a positive change. I mean, I posted some stuff the day before the election but I don't think what I posted was particularly offensive to anyone. But as for what I post on c4c - this is the place I go to be more blunt about things.

[Fiona T]

Political parties aren't like favourite colours - it's not a purely subjective thing as to which is better. And just because a party is mainstream it doesn't automatically make it acceptable. If you accept that a party can be a force for bad, then it's perfectly possible that a mainstream party can be.

And the point is that I think that the Conservative Party is a force for bad. We've seen the effects of austerity over the last near decade. It's the poorest in society that have suffered, disabled people, and generally those that are least able to stand up for themselves. This isn't abstract philosophising about obscure points of policy - this is people's lives. And given what I've seen of the Tories and that they've elected Boris Johnson as their leader, a guy with no scruples whatsoever, yes I think they are a bad party. And what they have done is far worse than upsetting a few people on the internet.

And given that I think that, it's impossible for me not to conclude that people who vote Tory are either not very nice people themselves or simply wrong about things. It's not bigotry. It's an inescapable logical conclusion.

Of course, simply posting on Facebook or Twitter what you think of the Tories and Tory voters in the run up to an election is unlikely to change people's minds, so it's best to be a bit more tactful about what you do post if you actually want to make a positive change. I mean, I posted some stuff the day before the election but I don't think what I posted was particularly offensive to anyone. But as for what I post on c4c - this is the place I go to be more blunt about things.

But nor is it black and white, good guys vs bad guys, and if you (generically, not specifically) can't understand why people didn't vote Labour you're not in a position to address their concerns and make Labour electable.

I don't believe the current Labour party have got a grip on what it takes to have a successful economy - especially with Brexit uncertainty continuing - I think one of the Tory 'wins' was that they were very clear on what a Tory vote would mean for Brexit.

If businesses don't have confidence they stop hiring, freeze pay, move elsewhere. Taxes are down, unemployment rises, and there simply is no money to pay for the services we all agree are underfunded. Businesses were seriously worried about a Labour victory and for good reason.

Austerity was very harmful to the most vulnerable, but overspending is unsustainable, and there's a sweet spot for tax increases before it becomes counter productive (I know this discussion was had elsewhere and views on that differ, but there is plenty of evidence to support that viewpoint).

There's got to be a happy medium, and I don't think either of the main parties have got the balance right. If it were that black and white, Labour would have walked in.

I voted Lib Dem this time because despite agreeing with most of what you say about the Tories, Labour did not offer an alternative that I could buy into either, but I get why people voted Tory, and it's not because they're selfish or stupid. (My area is so blue it makes naff all difference who I vote for anyway!)

[Jennifer Steadman]

Can't say at the moment - we don't know for sure what sort of platform they'll be running on, and I don't really watch televised political stuff so all my impressions of candidates are based on social media impressions, pictures and what other people are saying.

But the two biggest issues for Labour above all else seem to have been Corbyn and Brexit. From that perspective, I'm interested to hear from Lisa Nandy - she's got distance from Corbyn without being totally centrist, and has covered her arse on Brexit. (Although, who knows how we'll all feel about Brexit in 5 years? Personally I think it will be a 'success'; i.e. living standards, workers' rights and the economy will be worse, but not dramatically so - and therefore, having exceeded the worst expectations of Remainers, it will be spun as a success. I do not think there was a Brexit strategy that Labour could have taken that would have fundamentally swung the election the other way.)

Innately I see Keir Starmer as a very strong frontbencher rather than a leader, and from what I've heard he's not a strong speaker - but he does give off a 'strong pair of hands' vibe. I would like to see what sort of a platform he runs on.

I would love for Angela Rayner to be leader and win an election - she represents the absolute polar opposite of everything Boris Johnson does - but sadly I just can't see it happening (too close to Corbyn, will get ripped apart by press specifically for being the polar opposite of a Johnson or a Cameron). RLB concerns me; she's the favoured pick of the current leadership, but that current leadership has unprecedented levels of unpopularity with the public. I think she would be a diluted Corbyn with absolutely no chance against the sharp claws of the press.

Jess Phillips would IMO be even more of a disaster than Corbyn (circa 2019) in an election. At a national level I get the impression that she appeals to the demographic that got excited by the formation of Change UK. Do not want. Thornberry is doomed - her sneering at 'white van man' legacy is exactly the sort of thing that Labour cannot be seen to represent.

Whoever is chosen, the odds of a Labour majority in 2024 are slim (especially if the Conservatives hulk a load of £ to the 'red wall' constituencies that they flipped - fwiw I think losing these seats is as much a New Labour legacy as a comment on the 2019 leadership), but I think the key steps should be:

-> Putting out a really tight, focused manifesto (this year's manifesto was a clusterfuck of policies that came across as disjointed, excessive, and in some cases magicked out of the air) with 5 key pledges, strong message discipline across the party and tbh laying the groundwork for those core pledges well in advance. (This is where Labour were strongest in 2017, I think.)

-> Building/rebuilding ties between CLPs and local communities. This is really key. Voters need to know that in most cases, people getting involved aren't 'establishment elites' or crazed commies - they're just people who want a fairer society and believe that redistributive policies are the best and most inclusive way to achieve this.

-> A big focus on improving digital and physical campaigning at constituency level (this piece on the Isle of Wight CLP's campaign is very interesting). Labour has a membership of half a million members - it now needs to engage and deploy them.

One final point - the Tories got hammered by non-Tories during the election for empty sloganeering. But - much as it is at best a deeply reductive soundbite - 'get Brexit done' is a *fantastic* slogan, objectively. It taps into a very broad sentiment shared by Leave and Remain voters alike, bridging that divide, and makes them sound pragmatic and decisive against the delay/dither approaches of other parties. I'm not surprised it proved so successful.