The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
Wow, and these guys want to run the country... They can't even run their own party. Blooming joke party.
Tsk tsk didn't put his seatbelt on.
I'm not a labour voter, but I thought Yvette Cooper generally came across well when I've listened to her. Then I found out she's married to Ed Balls. Cannot stand him.
Corbyn seemed to talk some sense too when I watched him debate on TV. Then I saw pictures of him with Jerry Adams taken both in the past and recently. That doesn't sit well with me at all.
Leaves Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall. Oh dear god.
I just can't believe these candidates are the best Labour has to work with. I can't see any of them as a leader. Maybe it's just me.
They aren't the best. The best candidates have all run a mile from this contest with the hope of spending the next 5-10 years in the shadow cabinet or the back benches. The consensus among many in the PLP is that Labour needs a fresh start, another Blair/Brown/Mandelson or Cameron/Osborne. It'll take time to form those alliances, to build a new vision. The people that are interested in doing that were never going to be anywhere near this contest.
Cooper and Burnham were meant to duke it out instead, with the winner (like Ed Miliband) forming a team from the dregs of the Blair/Brown era. They are caretaker candidates.
Corbyn is something of a surprise - nobody expected him to stand, and certainly nobody expected him to be the front runner. It's not really a huge surprise though when the contest's two main candidates are so dull.
Liz Kendall seems alright, but she completely miscalculated. She hasn't been an MP for very long, doesn't have the experience of Cooper or Burnham and probably should have waited a few years before making a bid for leader. Bit sad to see her finishing fourth really as it isn't representative of her ability, more her lack of experience.
Cooper and Burnham were meant to duke it out instead, with the winner (like Ed Miliband) forming a team from the dregs of the Blair/Brown era. They are caretaker candidates.
Corbyn is something of a surprise - nobody expected him to stand, and certainly nobody expected him to be the front runner. It's not really a huge surprise though when the contest's two main candidates are so dull.
Liz Kendall seems alright, but she completely miscalculated. She hasn't been an MP for very long, doesn't have the experience of Cooper or Burnham and probably should have waited a few years before making a bid for leader. Bit sad to see her finishing fourth really as it isn't representative of her ability, more her lack of experience.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,239
- Location
- Billericay, UK
When the starting favourite is Andy 'The Mid Staffs Bungler' Burnham it says all you need to know about this group of hopefuls. And as much as despise the politics of Corbyn he is a breath of nostalgic air.
I wouldn't worry about it. At the current time, being the Labour leader makes you about as relevant as the leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party.
They've got plenty of time to decide what their party stands for. The electorate are in no hurry to put them back in office
Because the Conservative Party has such a convincing majority?
Get real. 2015 was closer, and the Tory Party are less popular, than many would like to admit. It is the Lib Dems, sadly, that are knee-deep in poop (and I say that as a Lib Dem party member).
Get real. 2015 was closer, and the Tory Party are less popular, than many would like to admit. It is the Lib Dems, sadly, that are knee-deep in poop (and I say that as a Lib Dem party member).
Last edited:
it really is laughable - they are showing themselves to be complete amateurs.
i know most politicians are morons but this is taking the mick.
Is it just me, or was that kept quiet?
It is on their Wiki's... I'd have thought the media would have made more or a point about it (or again, I've completely missed it)
I doubt that very much. From what I've seen, it seems the Tories would love Corbyn to become Labour leader because they view him as unelectable. And most of the loud voices in the Labour party itself seem to agree.
Fairly well known. Especially during the expenses scandal where they designated different houses as second homes despite living together. It seems the Great British public weren't upset enough to not vote them back in...
Its going to be glorious.
It's a double edged sword really.
On one hand, Jeremy Corbyn isn't likely to win an election for Labour (although that could change - he wasn't likely to do this well in the Labour leadership election either).
On the other hand, he is likely to affect Conservative policy going forward. 2020 could be a tough election for the Tories as their record comes under attack from Labour, the SNP, the Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens, all of whom will be pushing similar ideas that are at odds with the government's own policy. 2015 saw weak opposition to austerity, for example. In 2020 that won't be so true.
To be honest, were I a Tory strategist, I'd prefer any of the other three candidates. Corbyn could be easier to beat, but more compromises will need to be made on policy to appease the electorate.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
Not specifically to do with the leadership race, however whilst catching up with twitter the other day, I came across this...
I lol'd. Someone paid good money to put that message out there!
I lol'd. Someone paid good money to put that message out there!
Last edited:
My read on the last election result was that the Tories have the distinction of being the least unappealing alternative. Their vote was hardly a ringing endorsement, but then, neither was Labour's. Both, by the way, marginally increased vote share, but the Tories gained a couple of dozen seats and Labour lost a couple of dozen. It wasn't a direct transfer, though. It was more complex than that.
I suspect that the relevance to the leadership race would be a consideration of, after several years of "austerity", quite why the Tories went from largest party and coalition, to an overall majority even if a slender one?
Something about Labour 2015 was distinctly unappealing to the electorate. But what? A good chunk of it was losing Scotland to the SNP. The reasons for that, in my opinion, make it unlikely they'll gain large numbers of those lost seats back any time soon. And if Labour can't, it means they've got to do much, much better taking seats from the Tories, and that means they have to do much better in those marginal areas that Blair won, several times, and Brown and Miliband couldn't reach, like the South East, and East Anglia. It's not just those areas, but without inroads in those areas, it's hard to see Labour winnng in 2020.
So .... in areas traditionally centre, or slightly right of centre, will Corbyn reach them when Brown or Miliband couldn't? Standard electoral logic would suggest it's highly unlikely.
If JC wins, as seems likely, the next four years leading up to Gen Elec 2020 should be ..... interesting.
Last edited:
If JC wins, as seems likely, the next four years leading up to Gen Elec 2010 should be ..... interesting.
Someone should tell Corbyn he can't win the 2010 election
Unless he's a Time Lord.