New Labour Leader (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter shmmeee
- Start date
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Good old Guido making a complete tit of himself today. Ran this story on Long-Baileys husband being a multi-millionaire. Obviously ignored the possibility of there being more than one person called Steven Bailey.
Between this and the Daily Telegraph going after her based on her looks I guess we're throwing out the idea that it was just Corbyn they were interested in and any new leader not getting the same relentless smearing.
Between this and the Daily Telegraph going after her based on her looks I guess we're throwing out the idea that it was just Corbyn they were interested in and any new leader not getting the same relentless smearing.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
This piece in the Independent, based on new polling, highlights a huge issue for Labour which is anything seems to be getting worse.
The policies of the last election campaign get great polling results yet the same people say Labour should move away from those policies under a new leader.
https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/bmg-i...es-popular-but-many-want-change-in-direction/
Corbyn name ‘toxified’ popular Labour policies in general election campaign, poll suggests
The policies of the last election campaign get great polling results yet the same people say Labour should move away from those policies under a new leader.
https://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/bmg-i...es-popular-but-many-want-change-in-direction/
Corbyn name ‘toxified’ popular Labour policies in general election campaign, poll suggests
I wonder what the people polled want in relation to the tax policy then ?!! (If they want labour to change course)
Id question the clarity of the questions. If it’s ‘do you want to Nationalise a certain industry’ that’s one thing. If it’s ‘do you want to nationalise a certain industry but it’s going to initially cost you X in extra tax’, it’s another.
I’ve also seen different polling regarding nationalisation and not all industries polled a majority in favour (rail definitely was though)
I think many on here agree with a number of the labour policies (many don’t dramatically differ from the Tories), however, the combination of the ideological basis of some of them (far reaching uncosted nationalisation inc free broadband - ridiculous), combined with Corbyn and Brexit was too much for many voters
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Surely another leader in the mold of Corbyn would keep the tories in? Don't labour have to take a different direction.... surely all the northern voters labour lost wouldn't want Bailey due to her similar polices to Corbyn
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It was all too much. The left are terrible at strategy. Look at Thatchers privatisation record. I think she was only talking about one at first (maybe BT?) then rolled out more as that was a “success”.
I’d like to see utilities (including broadband infrastructure TBH) nationalised in the long run because they aren’t real markets. Given that I’d start with rail as it’s popular and low cost, then look at a government locally run energy company (similar to the 2017 manifesto proposal) to compete with the big six. Then maybe OpenReach but not as an ISP. Then finally look at water and gas once you’ve got a proven model. Post I think is pointless personally.
I’d like to see utilities (including broadband infrastructure TBH) nationalised in the long run because they aren’t real markets. Given that I’d start with rail as it’s popular and low cost, then look at a government locally run energy company (similar to the 2017 manifesto proposal) to compete with the big six. Then maybe OpenReach but not as an ISP. Then finally look at water and gas once you’ve got a proven model. Post I think is pointless personally.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Long Bailey would be a disaster. I’d be done with Labour if we elected her TBH. Aside from anything else she’s just really unimpressive as a politician
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Whats Keir like? Is he like Corbyn in terms of policies? Or is he more central?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
He plays his cards quite close to his chest. Everyone’s assuming the membership wants Corbyn so is playing up their left wing credentials. Starmers got the support of a lot of the more centrist MPs though, as had Nandy and Phillips.
The one thing stopping me from voting Starmer at the moment is I want to see a clear change of direction from Corbyn. Nandy with her respect for the referendum result is winning on that score for me. We will see after the hustings I guess. Right now it’s all about winning the support of unions and the CLPs which are both more left wing than the overall membership so you’ll see lots of playing up left wing credentials.
Still not sure who I’m voting for between Starmer and Nandy but it’ll be whichever one recognises where we’ve gone wrong the most.
If you look at the voter intentions the big issues are health and the environment (which the left is strong at) as well as Brexit (hopefully not an issue any more but Nandy is best on), crime, and the economy. It’s those last two I want to hear how we are going to win voters back on.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The premise of the 'free broadband' policy isn't just about free broadband it's about taking control of infrastructure and improving and providing coverage across the country. Waiting on private entities to do it doesn't properly serve the population as a whole. Of course the facile press can't even think beyond a superficial headline.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It was badly presented to be fair. And overreached. If it had just been “nationalise OpenReach” they wouldn’t have had Sky et al briefing against the idea.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Agreed, she's in one of the safest seats in the country as well. I think the left of the party has to be more strategic like you say, pick its battles on policy and go with the public mood on a leader.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It’s all strategy that’s my issue. The Tories aren’t any less right wing for basing their manifestos around voter concerns and targeting based on seats and not values.
Labour has always been a coalition between working class and middle class left and the latter seem to have forgotten that and just want someone just like them. We’ve got to compromise and win arguments instead of going “I don’t want the votes of bigots” while calling the majority of the country bigots.
The investment in infrastructure etc can (and will) be undertaken, (partially by the state, without offering free broadband for all. If I’d have been the Tories I’d have jumped on the policy and said it’s a tax cut for the rich and business (who quite happily pay for broadband already), that’s what labour would’ve done. It was a headline grabber but ill thought out and not necessary. This and the wider ideological nationalisations (together with Corbyn and Brexit) helped to overshadow some other good/popular policies.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Fair point
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I'm as left as they come but I find RLB really uninspiring. I think Rayner would have been a much better option.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Whoever the next person is - if they are even a micrometre left of Rupert Murdoch they will be vilified, hounded and have their character assassinated. This is why I believe Rayner has not stood for Leader at this stage.
Having less baggage than Corbyn will temper this (a little)
Having less baggage than Corbyn will temper this (a little)
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Rayner is less far left than RLB, in her words “ideology never put food on my kids table”.
Frankly if all it takes to get elected is promising Murdoch you won’t hurt his business interests (apparently what Blair promised) then let’s do it. It’s less important than solving the housing crisis or preventing climate catastrophe. Plus he’ll be dead soon enough and print media is dying anyway.
Rayner has a Blair/Brown type deal with RLB anyway doesn’t she? She’s a shoe in for deputy.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
I think Boris will be happy with any of these candidates tbh which is good news:smuggrin:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Depends. If he does what he’s done at every previous position and fuck things up royally Id be worried about Starmers professionalism if I was him. He was great in a battle of personalities with Corbyn but there were an awful lot of voters who didn’t like either of them and picked Johnson as best of a bad bunch or solely for Brexit reasons.
He’s still got some of the lowest approval ratings for a new PM ever IIRC.
Edit: yup
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
We shall see lad
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
It’s pretty tough to tell their motivations anymore outside of Brexit. Some people in these constituencies blamed the incumbent MP for the woes in their area despite them not being in power.... ‘voting Tory was a vote for change in our circumstances’
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Who cares, it's bound to rise! Take a look at the gap between himself and Corbyn lol
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Corbyn isn’t his opposition any more. And sitting PMs don’t tend to improve their approval rating historically.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Especially as he's one gaff away from a catastrophe
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Even if we forget the Brexit risk we are due a recession which is normally a killer for the sitting PM. He’s walking a hell of a tightrope with just some jovial bluster as a safety net.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Starmer; Phillips or Nandy for me - the country needs an electable opposition to keep the government honest and on their toes. If it's Long-Bailey or Thornberry, following the same Corbyn agenda, I cannot see Labour getting even close next time around. Ideally it would be a candidate following policies I could vote for. However, despite all the sound and fury, I think that Johnson will be a centrist one-nation PM who will make Labour getting reelected unlikely for years anyway.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I didn't know much about Lisa Nandy but up until the other day I'd been impressed with her but she wasn't great when being interviewed by Andrew Neill.
Whatever anyone thinks of Starmer he's someone who can argue politics quite forensically which would normally be a huge plus but aren't we now living in an age of slogans and soundbites rather than well though out arguments and policies?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Everyone said that about Trump too. Boris has just kicked out all the one nation Tories and replaced them with ranty gammons so I’d be surprised. His record is pretty liberal, but also pretty incompetent. Could go either way.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Has it ever been different? I'm constantly frustrated by politicians failing to explain their positions in detail - I guess because they assume that they will lose the majority of the population who cannot follow. For example, last night on QT, Helen Waitely floated the idea that A&E waiting time measurement may be stopped. Putting aside personal opinions, there is a case for this. Constant measurement forces hospitals to make poor patient decisions to hit targets (must see the dope with a cold who came into A&E within 4 hours even though there are patients with greater needs also waiting). And yet she didn't explain that. There were lots of intelligent discussions that could have taken place over the EU vote but I didn't see a single one until the eve of the referendum - 'twas all rhetoric and soundbites from both sides.
I agree that Starmer is clearly intelligent and capable of serious debate - a massive step forward IMO from a man I consider to be an imbecile (just my opinion). I find RLB equally dumb. Petulance, virtue-signalling and soundbites didn't do too well for Labour in December - I hope they begin their long journey back to elect-ability with this appointment.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Well, neither of us know but I'm optimistic. Which ranty gammons do you think he's brought into the cabinet?
I think there’s going to be a cabinet reshuffle late Feb and budget shortly after, that should give a fair idea about the direction of travel.
I lean towards Trenchs view....anyone opposite Corbyn is going to appear far right, but in reality, the manifesto and spending pledges are anything but.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I think you are a teacher? I used to teach also in the 80s. I had the freedom to teach my subject (Maths) as I wanted back then and could diverge into something else if it was interesting and came up. I cannot remember how, but at one stage I recall discussing anachronisms with a class. I had limited administration and so took in all books every week to mark homework and see how they were getting on. I get the impression that this has changed with constant measurement and IMO it's not a step-forward.
