• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Next Labour Leader

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
125,721
Location
South East, UK
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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*
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
I quite fancy Yvette Cooper; whether she has a chance as Labour leader is another matter entirely, of course.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 

Back
Top Bottom