Keir Starmer

[mcfc1632]

Do you apply this to brexit too? If not, you should as the fact Johnson got a landslide doesn't change a thing about what a mess is coming. I do think however that it's probably a good thing that johnson is in charge of this. The man who has promised everything will now have to see it through or everyone will see how full of shit he's been (I am in exactly zero doubt as to which of these outcomes will happen).

As for labour leader, it's Kier Starmer for me, but I can't see the labour membership voting for him. There seems to be this 'we need a woman' charge now. No, we need a competent leader. If that person happens to be a woman, sound, but ownership of testicles should play zero part in the choice.

Genuinely - I cannot understand your first comment - apply to Brexit in what way?

I am clearly referring to the reality that means that Labour have been and will be a failure in election/votes.

Brexit fares excellently in this regard:

2016 - Referendum - Won
2018/19 - Various shit May deals need to be defeated to stop a fate worse than Brino - Won
2019 - GE needs to be successfully fought to ensure that the government "gets Brexit is done" - Won
2020 - Brexit WA confirmed and we leave the EU - Won

Yep - struggling to see the logic in that suggestion/comparison

Re Johnson - you are right - it is all on him now - although your assessment of what will happen reflects that you are stuck in a Brexit doomsday world IMO

Re Starmer - his window has gone I'm afraid. Given the membership will not select him then he has little to no chance IMO

 

[inbetween]

But the train companies make 3% profit. Is that excessive?

The reason rail fares are so expensive is because that is the government's choice. Rail travel is already subsidized, but it chooses not to put in a larger subsidy on the basis that it thinks rail users should pay for rail travel, and not people who don't use it.


I am not saying whether this is right or wrong or whether I agree with it or not. Merely that this is the way it is. If we want cheaper fares, there are only two options:

1. Drastically cut the unprofitable services - which is most of them. And run trains only on busy profitable routes and timetables. (Probably not a realistic option).

2. Increase the government subsidy.

These two choices could make a big difference. Moaning about a private company making a 3% profit, is neither here nor there and nationalising them would change bugger all.

3% profit is not excessive but any 'normal' company delivering the same service levels would be bankrupt and not make a profit. This is why to me the franchise model is broken because it clearly doesn't demand a happy service level.

The only reason the likes of Northern aren't bust already is because people have no choice but to use them. If the services are cancelled, late, expensive or whatever then their advantage is that people still have to use them.

I'm not saying nationalisation is the answer and I've opposed it on here but I can understand the frustration.

I can only imagine that for regular commuters it's an absolute bloody nightmare at the moment and they are paying lots of cash, blood, sweat and tears for the privilege too.

 

[Chippy_boy]

3% profit is not excessive but any 'normal' company delivering the same service levels would be bankrupt and not make a profit. This is why to me the franchise model is broken because it clearly doesn't demand a happy service level.

The only reason the likes of Northern aren't bust already is because people have no choice but to use them. If the services are cancelled, late, expensive or whatever then their advantage is that people still have to use them.

I'm not saying nationalisation is the answer and I've opposed it on here but I can understand the frustration.

I can only imagine that for regular commuters it's an absolute bloody nightmare at the moment and they are paying lots of cash, blood, sweat and tears for the privilege too.

Agree with all of that. And certainly agree that the franchise model has been badly implemented.

No-one has yet managed to successfully explain to me why train operators were not offered "slots" on routes and on timetables which would enable them to compete for passengers on the state-run network. So you'd have real choice between different service levels and price and proper competition to maintain or improve standards and drive down fares. But I am no expert on the rail industry so maybe there is good reason.

What is for sure though is that near-monopolistic services require a strong regulator and when service standards drop, there needs to be consequences in terms of penalties and impact for executive bonuses. I think that regulators in general are too weak and let private businesses all too often get away with murder. That's a bad structural mistake. Persistent service disruption - down to the train company, not Network Rail - should be heavily penalised. But it is a sad fact that most disruption is down to Network Rail, and that is nationalised already.

I know more about the water industry than I do about rail, and there the regulator has real teeth and there are serious consequences for businesses with too high leakage or customer complaints for example. By serious consequences, I mean material financial impact, which focuses the attention of execs and shareholders. So they treat this very seriously indeed.

 

[bluejon]

Genuinely - I cannot understand your first comment - apply to Brexit in what way?

I am clearly referring to the reality that means that Labour have been and will be a failure in election/votes.

Brexit fares excellently in this regard:

2016 - Referendum - Won
2018/19 - Various shit May deals need to be defeated to stop a fate worse than Brino - Won
2019 - GE needs to be successfully fought to ensure that the government "gets Brexit is done" - Won
2020 - Brexit WA confirmed and we leave the EU - Won

Yep - struggling to see the logic in that suggestion/comparison

Re Johnson - you are right - it is all on him now - although your assessment of what will happen reflects that you are stuck in a Brexit doomsday world IMO

Re Starmer - his window has gone I'm afraid. Given the membership will not select him then he has little to no chance IMO

Just because lots of people voted for it doesn't mean it's a good idea. The same applies to both Corbyn and brexit. Anyway, there's another thread for that discussion. I see little chance of labour electing anyone decent so we're sat yet again with an ineffective opposition which is bad for the country. Merry fucking christmas.

 

[robbieh]

Thread infested with Tories advising out of the goodness of their hearts what Labour should do now.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Thread infested with Tories advising out of the goodness of their hearts what Labour should do now.

It probably appears there's more of us since most of the usual Labour suspects have been rather less vocal than early last week, for some bizarre reason.

 

[liamctid]

Don't think any position/leader post-Corbyn will be seen overwhelmingly as the right choice as the party in itself is so split, you can see that by the discussions on here.

As many have pointed out, Jeremy was the reason why so many "traditional" Labour supporters defected to the Conservatives and in effect lost so many seats and therefore took a pasting regarding seats, however 10.2m still voted for him (more than Blair in his last GE), and I don't think that you could call 10.2m people "hard left" in this country. So despite a crushing defeat for seats, he's still got a lot of people going out to vote for him. Or do people think there's a good % of this who will vote Labour regardless?

Again looking at the actual number of voters instead of seats won/lost I personally cannot see why anyone would have voted Labour in 2017 and not 2019 if Corbyn was the reason - the alleged anti-semitism/IRA and other terrorist links haven't just appeared between June 2017 and now - yet 2.6m people changed their vote, which is probably why despite "what was said on the doorstep" Labour are pointing the finger more at Brexit and Labour/Corbyn's flakey approach to it.

I know someone earlier on the thread mentioned Dan Jarvis, although I don't know loads about him, someone ex-military, member of LFI, not affiliated with Blair or Corbyn and not from London ticks a lot of boxes for Labour at the moment, I think.

 

[Bluemanc100]

Thornberry is either very posh trying to sound common or very common trying to sound posh ,and she taking Flint to court, how silly

I've never seen her and Caroline Quentin in the same room.. Just sayin'

 

[urban genie]

I posted this in the wrong thread - but you will see, for the reasons given, I will be shocked if it is not RLB:

I fully expect RLB to be the next Leader of the LP - and that will be a huge fuck up for Labour.

Is it not straightforward?, because:

• The Leader is voted for by the members​
• The membership is dominated by the hard-left​
• Momentum took action during the conference specifically to get the deputy leadership to be a joint role - with a woman appointed.​
• That was surely done specifically to ensure that RLB could take over from Corbyn when he stood down. Although that is now an unnecessary step - it shows the intent of the hard-left​

Surely for them not to now vote for her it would take the membership to 'see sense' and vote to move to the centre. Not going to happen​

Not sure RLB will be many of the lefties choice tbh.

It will depend who she is up against

 

[Fame Monster]

Not sure RLB will be many of the lefties choice tbh.

It will depend who she is up against

You're a Labour Party member aren't you urban genie?

Who do you think they'll go for?

Please don't say Abbott.

 

[NeilYoungIsBack]

Possibly too much is being made of the Corbyn effect or even Brexit.

According to the pundits on BBC election night TV the loss of my local seat Wrexham to the Conservatives for the first time ever was some kind of seismic event, emblematic of the night as a whole.

But this was weak analysis: the loss shouldn't have been any surprise, it has been on the cards for a while , as the data below attests:

1997 - Labour majority 11,622
2001 - Lab 9,188
2005 - Lab 6,819
2010 - Lab 3,658
2015 - Lab 1,831
2017 - Lab 1,832
2019 - Conservative majority 2,131

When I look at that data I see a steady loss of support over 22 years reflecting demographic and other changes.

The aberration from the trend was actually the 2017 result when Labour's steady loss of support was stemmed temporarily. The 2019 result simply reflects a return to the long term trend for this seat.

r

 

[Fame Monster]

Possibly too much is being made of the Corbyn effect or even Brexit.

According to the pundits on BBC election night TV the loss of my local seat Wrexham to the Conservatives for the first time ever was some kind of seismic event, emblematic of the night as a whole.

But this was weak analysis: the loss shouldn't have been any surprise, it has been on the cards for a while , as the data below attests:

1997 - Labour majority 11,622
2001 - Lab 9,188
2005 - Lab 6,819
2010 - Lab 3,658
2015 - Lab 1,831
2017 - Lab 1,832
2019 - Conservative majority 2,131

When I look at that data I see a steady loss of support over 22 years reflecting demographic and other changes.

The aberration from the trend was actually the 2017 result when Labour's steady loss of support was stemmed temporarily. The 2019 result simply reflects a return to the long term trend for this seat.

r

I agree.

Labour have ignored the working class for a long time.

It started with Blair on the EU (immigration, rebate, Turkish accession), through to Brown and 'bigotgate', and by the time Miliband got in, he was on a hiding to nothing because he wasn't prepared to offer the referendum that so many wanted on Brexit because he knew the risk of losing was very real.

Corbyn is just another leader in that list (although on immigration, foreign policy, national security, by far and away the least appealing to them) and I sense, was a lot more sceptical about remain than your Blair/Campbell types who backed a second referendum from the get go.

That's why the answer won't ever be as simple as 'copy Blair' although there are undoubtedly a lot of things Blair got right including winning back trust on the economy and getting tough on crime.

 

[urban genie]

Can we define the word traditional please?

Are we talking the original union movement and socialist parties that formed it.
The 1920 moderate labour party
The post war socialist radical labour party
The gaitskill split with the party moving to the right
The foot years where the party returned to a socialist message.
Kinnocks failed attemps are reform
John Smiths move to a liberal social democratic movement
The blair social neo-liberal years
The return to socialism.

Which one is this traditional labour people speak of as it has had so many faces over the century?


To some what we have just had is traditional labour to others it is radical left labour and to others it is extreme labour.

To some other incarnations were traditional but also considered radical, extreme or

 

[jay_mcfc]

I agree.

Labour have ignored the working class for a long time.

It started with Blair on the EU (immigration, rebate, Turkish accession), through to Brown and 'bigotgate', and by the time Miliband got in, he was on a hiding to nothing because he wasn't prepared to offer the referendum that so many wanted on Brexit because he knew the risk of losing was very real.

Corbyn is just another leader in that list (although on immigration, foreign policy, national security, by far and away the least appealing to them) and I sense, was a lot more sceptical about remain than your Blair/Campbell types who backed a second referendum from the get go.

That's why the answer won't ever be as simple as 'copy Blair' although there are undoubtedly a lot of things Blair got right including winning back trust on the economy and getting tough on crime.

You both make very good points. Corbyn and Brexit were the straw that broke the camels back for many voters, many of whom it would have been impossible to vote Tory ten years ago. But the truth is we’ve been losing the northern vote for nearly two decades now and we have to get it back quick or else we’re Done.

But we can’t do that at the expense of what we’ve built in the south, with the youth, with the BAME communities etc, it has to be a compromise that appeals to both sides. Sure that’s the holy grail but it’s patently obvious that in fighting and going from one extreme to the other will see us lose election after election.

 

[jay_mcfc]

And whilst those slyly laughing about RLB being Corbyn in a dress remember that only yesterday Caroline Flint recommender her. You don’t get any further away from Corbyn in the party as Flint so RLB obviously commands respect across the board which is exactly what we need. I honestly believe RLB and Phillips could form a strong partnership.

 

[urban genie]

You're a Labour Party member aren't you urban genie?

Who do you think they'll go for?

Please don't say Abbott.

Honestly it depends on the choices

Burgon has no chance even the left think he is a idiot

Starmer I have heard many left leaning mates say they were vote him but dependant on other stading.

Thornbury has no chance.

Nandy is gonna be popular with those cooper voters but the left I cannot see it.

Phillips isn't liked by many members especially on the left, but those who plumped for smith will go for her.

To some of my mates Raynor is popular with them and tbh I would consider her depending on the candidates.

Long-baily is gonna be pushed by the leadership, but doesn't necessarilarly mean all will go for her as she can be unispiring at times.

Personnally I would prefer to see Clive Lewis, Angelor Raynor, Kier Starmer, Luct Nandy and Long-Bailey stand and see what happens.

I could not bring myself to vote for Phillips, I have no time for her at all

Also as a dark horse I have a lot of time for is Andrew Gwynne.

Deputy leader I would like to see My own MP Afzal Khan to put himself forward as I have a lot of time for him, he has been a prominent leader of Muslim organisational groups in the European parliament as an MEP, was Lord Mayor of Manchester and has been credited and praised for his work bringing Islamic and Jewish communitoes together and promoting unity amongst communities.

 

[urban genie]

Just because lots of people voted for it doesn't mean it's a good idea. The same applies to both Corbyn and brexit. Anyway, there's another thread for that discussion. I see little chance of labour electing anyone decent so we're sat yet again with an ineffective opposition which is bad for the country. Merry fucking christmas.

Oi @bluejon it is time we started and Khan for leader or deputy campaign Gorton rules ;-)

 

[jay_mcfc]

Khan is a great shout for a prominent role. There could well be shock candidate that does well as there’s no obvious no.1.

 

[urban genie]

I agree.

Labour have ignored the working class for a long time.

It started with Blair on the EU (immigration, rebate, Turkish accession), through to Brown and 'bigotgate', and by the time Miliband got in, he was on a hiding to nothing because he wasn't prepared to offer the referendum that so many wanted on Brexit because he knew the risk of losing was very real.

Corbyn is just another leader in that list (although on immigration, foreign policy, national security, by far and away the least appealing to them) and I sense, was a lot more sceptical about remain than your Blair/Campbell types who backed a second referendum from the get go.

That's why the answer won't ever be as simple as 'copy Blair' although there are undoubtedly a lot of things Blair got right including winning back trust on the economy and getting tough on crime.

The thing is on the bigotgate is she was biggoted the only problem was brown got caught

And let's be honest when we play someome like burnley or ever talk about the place it is refered to as a place full of inbreds, six fingered trogs, yonners , backwards people, racists etc and people from warrington, skem, liegh are refered to as woollybacks, and you see it in here from posters of all political leanings

Really it isn't just labour and the woke brigade that look down on these places, but city dwelling folk in general, the difference is labour let too many city dwellers speak for them.

If you get what I mean

 

[Chippy_boy]

Possibly too much is being made of the Corbyn effect or even Brexit.

According to the pundits on BBC election night TV the loss of my local seat Wrexham to the Conservatives for the first time ever was some kind of seismic event, emblematic of the night as a whole.

But this was weak analysis: the loss shouldn't have been any surprise, it has been on the cards for a while , as the data below attests:

1997 - Labour majority 11,622
2001 - Lab 9,188
2005 - Lab 6,819
2010 - Lab 3,658
2015 - Lab 1,831
2017 - Lab 1,832
2019 - Conservative majority 2,131

When I look at that data I see a steady loss of support over 22 years reflecting demographic and other changes.

The aberration from the trend was actually the 2017 result when Labour's steady loss of support was stemmed temporarily. The 2019 result simply reflects a return to the long term trend for this seat.

r

Good insight that mate.

Of course there will be significant regional variations and anomolies, but I wonder to what extent the data above is representative of the general direction of travel of the UK? My guess would be "very".

Whilst the resident hard left dickheads will endlessly claim that the country is more like Sierra Leone than the UK, the reality is that *most* people have been getting progressively better off over the past 50 years, and that less and less, people are identifying with Arthur Scargill politics. One Tony Blair spotted this, but the nutters now running the Labour Party still have their heads in the sand.