Jump to content

Who ahould be the leader of the Labour Party? 49 members have voted

  1. 1. Who should it be?

    • Andy Burnham
      6
    • Yvette Cooper
      12
    • Liz Kendall
      7
    • Jeremy Corbyn
      16
    • RON
      1

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Featured Replies

The interesting thing in that poll is that even among Labour members, Burnham is rated as the most likely to win in 2020 (Cooper is second on that measure, followed by Jezza with amusingly Kendall in a distant last place even on what is supposed to be her USP).

 

The question is whether when it comes to the crunch, members decide to go with the person they think is the most likely winner, or if they decide that the most important thing is a guarantee of proper opposition now and attempts to stop Tory policies now.

Which won't work. The Tories will do exactly the same thing as they did last time and load up all of their unpopular (with the public) stuff through early while they have the PCP (that can't be what they're actually called can it?) on side.

 

I think we should be voting against a lot of it anyway, but not because we're likely to win.

  • Replies 702
  • Views 49.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which won't work. The Tories will do exactly the same thing as they did last time and load up all of their unpopular (with the public) stuff through early while they have the PCP (that can't be what they're actually called can it?) on side.

 

I think we should be voting against a lot of it anyway, but not because we're likely to win.

 

But they don't - we've already seen Tory MPs come out of the woodwork to complain about tax credits, and the Spectator has been saying Tory MPs are coming under pressure from their local councils to oppose further council cuts.

 

Plus, UKIP have shown how you can affect policy by shifting public opinion / the terms of debate.

Edited by Danny

UKIP didn't shift public opinion though - anti-immigration and anti-EU sentiment has actually gone down since UKIP's rise, it just grouped those who really cared about it together. It already existed, they just vaulted off it, and not especially successfully. And I'm not sure I want Labour to go from the job of being an opposition government-in-waiting to the job of being primarily a pressure group pushing items onto the agenda - that's what third parties are for.

 

In any case, Ed Miliband did plenty as opposition leader to force the government's hand and change strategy while in opposition - indeed, more than any other opposition leader ever has. Was it really worth it in retrospect? I'd honestly far prefer a Labour government now with a leader that hadn't made their main aim for the last five years pressuring the government to shift the odd policy, rather than one who made the Tories row back on a policy or two but left us where we are now. It's the equivalent of choosing scraps off the table for ten years rather than waiting five and having a proper three-course meal.

 

I should add that that isn't to rule out trying to defeat the government where possible - it's a great way of eroding their record for competence - but you've got to be pretty careful on the areas you do it. It would probably be a bad idea on Heathrow, for example.

Well forcing a government defeat on things like national infrastructure or foreign affairs when you don't actually disagree on the material issue's just a bit undignified really. That's more the type of oppositionalism that goes down badly.
UKIP didn't shift public opinion though - anti-immigration and anti-EU sentiment has actually gone down since UKIP's rise, it just grouped those who really cared about it together. It already existed, they just vaulted off it, and not especially successfully. And I'm not sure I want Labour to go from the job of being an opposition government-in-waiting to the job of being primarily a pressure group pushing items onto the agenda - that's what third parties are for.

 

In any case, Ed Miliband did plenty as opposition leader to force the government's hand and change strategy while in opposition - indeed, more than any other opposition leader ever has. Was it really worth it in retrospect? I'd honestly far prefer a Labour government now with a leader that hadn't made their main aim for the last five years pressuring the government to shift the odd policy, rather than one who made the Tories row back on a policy or two but left us where we are now. It's the equivalent of choosing scraps off the table for ten years rather than waiting five and having a proper three-course meal.

 

I should add that that isn't to rule out trying to defeat the government where possible - it's a great way of eroding their record for competence - but you've got to be pretty careful on the areas you do it. It would probably be a bad idea on Heathrow, for example.

 

LOL, I thought the election had killed off this meme. He didn't remotely challenge the Austerity narrative / the idea that the deficit was the top priority / that most welfare claimants were undeserving scroungers, and he only made the argument that the rich and big businesses weren't pulling their weight very intermittently and very timidly. That he once made the government get some figleaf concessions on energy prices once doesn't remotely mean he was an effective Opposition leader.

 

And the problem is that Labour tried the approach of being a "government-in-waiting" for the past 5 years, and the end result was they didn't win the election anyway AND they allowed the Tories to shift the terms of debate infinitely to the Right, allowing them to present very right-wing ideas as normal in a way they wouldn't have gotten away with if Labour had put up more intellectual resistance over the past few years.

Edited by Danny

LOL, I thought the election had killed off this meme. He didn't remotely challenge the Austerity narrative / the idea that the deficit was the top priority / that most welfare claimants were undeserving scroungers, and he only made the argument that the rich and big businesses weren't pulling their weight very intermittently and very timidly. That he once made the government get some figleaf concessions on energy prices once doesn't remotely mean he was an effective Opposition leader.

And BSkyB (leading to Leveson), and Syria, and payday loans, and Palestine. He did more than literally any opposition leader. That you can refer to it as useless and meaningless just goes to show how little inflicting defeats/forcing government policy shifts matters at the end of the day if you aren't in a position to win.

And BSkyB (leading to Leveson), and Syria, and payday loans, and Palestine. He did more than literally any opposition leader. That you can refer to it as useless and meaningless just goes to show how little inflicting defeats/forcing government policy shifts matters at the end of the day if you aren't in a position to win.

 

Every Opposition leader in history can boast a small list of concessions which showed their "impact": Cameron could claim that in opposition he got government climbdowns on the 10p tax rate, the Gurkhas, an Iraq war inquiry, calling off the 2007 election with his conference speech, etcetc.

 

That doesn't change the fact that on the big issue of the day, Miliband never even attempted to challenge the central premise of the Tories' argument: that cuts were necessary and that the deficit needed to be reduced no matter what the costs to society.

Well forcing a government defeat on things like national infrastructure or foreign affairs when you don't actually disagree on the material issue's just a bit undignified really. That's more the type of oppositionalism that goes down badly.

Oh I don't think it should be done for the sake of it - we'd need a workable alternative position.

 

Every Opposition leader in history can boast a small list of concessions which showed their "impact": Cameron could claim that in opposition he got government climbdowns on the 10p tax rate, the Gurkhas, an Iraq war inquiry, calling off the 2007 election with his conference speech, etcetc.

 

That doesn't change the fact that on the big issue of the day, Miliband never even attempted to challenge the central premise of the Tories' argument: that cuts were necessary and that the deficit needed to be reduced no matter what the costs to society.

It's practically impossible for an opposition leader to dictate the economic argument, especially one in a party coming off 13 years of government. Cameron didn't manage to convince people of the need for austerity until he was actually in Downing Street.

 

Also, it says a lot that you see Syria as a "small concession".

Well he did attempt to challenge it - 'too far, too fast' and all collides directly with 'get down the deficit no matter the cost'. Ultimately the public at large was never going to (and will never) buy a solution which argued cuts or tax rises weren't necessary at all at any point. You can't literally just create a winning number of people in favour of your position by arguing it. But anyway, we're about to get the case study to demonstrate that, so there's little point in arguing the hypothetical when we're about to test it for a minimum of a few years.
Also, it says a lot that you see Syria as a "small concession".

Nothing matters in politics apart from welfare and public services. Well...it's an original take, at least.

Oh I don't think it should be done for the sake of it - we'd need a workable alternative position.

It's practically impossible for an opposition leader to dictate the economic argument, especially one in a party coming off 13 years of government. Cameron didn't manage to convince people of the need for austerity until he was actually in Downing Street.

 

Also, it says a lot that you see Syria as a "small concession".

 

He did, to an extent - nobody cared about the deficit when the financial crisis first broke, when the public initially overwhelmingly approved of stimulus as a response to the crash. It was precisely because of the Tories constantly arguing that the deficit mattered that opinions changed by the time of the 2010 election, helped by Labour (especially Alistair Darling) already starting to concede the intellectual ground on the argument back then.

To be pedantic, I didn't say Syria was a small concession, I said it was part of the small (as in short) list of concessions :P
He did, to an extent - nobody cared about the deficit when the financial crisis first broke, when the public initially overwhelmingly approved of stimulus as a response to the crash. It was precisely because of the Tories constantly arguing that the deficit mattered that opinions changed by the time of the 2010 election, helped by Labour (especially Alistair Darling) already starting to concede the intellectual ground on the argument back then.

Their focus on the deficit and the whole "age of austerity" guff is largely seen as what cost them a majority.

looking at various comments above, and none in particular, hmmm, so every nation faced with the same problems as the UK (and to a lesser extent in most cases) all went on a spending spree?

 

Economic crisis means you should borrow even more money and spend your way out of trouble (and yes I know we've been there before splitting hairs about wealth and debt and nations)?

 

(Infrastructure programs of great use to the nation have been noticeably absent for decades from all parties in government, apart from empty promises here and there that never actually materialised, give or take the odd Olympics event)

Completely tone-deaf from her. The vast majority of Labour members, including people who are not even voting Corbyn, agree with him on principle even if they have doubts about whether it could win a general election. But her saying that being anti-Austerity is wrong in principle will just confirm that the current leadership just don't "get it". Plus, there's sttill no indication of what she's going to do over the next 5years to stop Tory cuts from Opposition.

 

Burnham's comments were much better-judged.

Edited by Danny

Eh?

 

1. "We agree that we need an alternative to George Osborne’s austerity ideology."

 

2. Burnham's 'Corbyn's right - don't vote for him!' statement is more well-judged?

 

One passage aside (you know the one I mean), I'm not really sure which part of this could be taken as tone deaf rather than a coherent and principled critique of what Corbyn claims the solutions are. The bold bits in particular I think come across really good.

 

And so now in the Labour party, in the yearning for answers and for Britain to change, I can see why many people have bought into what Jeremy is offering.

 

I’m not going to dismiss the values and the intentions of Jeremy and those who are supporting him. I’m not going to claim they don’t believe in social justice or the ideals of the Labour party because I don’t think that’s right.

 

But nor am I going to pander or pretend I agree with them on the answers, and claim I’m just a more electable version of what they stand for.

 

Because the truth is that Jeremy is offering old solutions to old problems, not new answers to the problems of today.

 

We have to look the 21st century in the eye, face up to the future.

 

That’s where we will find the new radicalism, the answers in the modern fight for social justice, equality and solidarity

 

Not the old answers of the past.

 

I understand Jeremy has strong support.

 

But I feel really strongly – not just as a leadership candidate but as a Labour Party member that desperately wants an effective Labour Government – that his are the wrong answers for the future.

 

That they aren’t radical.

 

And they aren’t credible.

 

That they won’t change the world, they will keep us out of power and stop us changing the world.

 

That’s what I want to set out this morning.

 

Saying this rather than pretending I agree with the person who is currently the most popular candidate in the race may lose me votes. But it needs to be said.

 

Our party, the values we stand for, and the country we want to fight for are too important not to be honest about what is at stake.

 

And I want to show today that there is an alternative that is both radical and credible, true to our values, but serious enough to win.

 

And we have to fight for it before it is too late.

 

RADICALISM FOR FUTURE

 

Consider the future economic challenges we face.

 

Our economy is polarising, too reliant on cheap labour. Britain isn’t creating high quality new jobs. Economic power and wealth are stuck in the hands of the few not the many. From the Governor of the Bank of England to the Head of the OECD, global economic leaders are warning that the short termism of markets and widening inequality are undermining growth and prosperity.

 

Gone now are so many of the factories and mills even of thirty years ago. This is an interdependent, networked world which invests more in IT knowledge than in bricks, mortar and machines. The fight for social justice has to start from today, not the world we remember it to be.

 

As Hilary Clinton has warned we still have a quarterly capitalism based on short term cashing instead of investing in the future of long term growth. The Tories can’t solve this – they just believe in laissez faire, in shrinking the state and pulling back.

 

The radical approach of the future is to reform capitalism so it serves people, not to try to destroy it with nothing to put in its place. To reform markets so power isn’t concentrated, so they encourage the talents and ideas of all, invest in the long term, not return to clause IV as Jeremy has suggested.

 

To work with business to double our investment in science and the future, so we can create 2 million more good quality high tech manufacturing jobs not return to British Leyland.

 

To deliver the vocational revolution we need, end the old British snobbery between academic and vocational skills that is holding us back. And we should be devolving education and skills out of Whitehall and into local councils and communities not the centralising policies either of Michael Gove, or Jeremy’s plan for a National Education Service.

 

The radical plan is to put power in the hands of the many not the few. Not to concentrate power in Whitehall, or in the central state, but to hand it back to communities across the country to give people control over their lives.

 

And we need what is bluntly a much more feminist approach to our economy and society. Put family at the centre of our economy. As any parent will tell you, that would be really radical and it would transform families lives. Stop families being stretched and stained to fit round work, and change work to fit round family life. Universal free childcare should be as much the infrastructure of the modern economy as trains, planes and boys toys.

 

And we need a radical vision to end child poverty in a generation - to stop poverty and prejudice holding people back. That’s why one of the simplest and most radical policies we have is Sure Start.

 

As one of the Ministers who started it I think it doesn’t go far enough. We should extend it, not just for the under-fives but for older families too.

 

There in the heart of the family is the power to give every child the love, the hope, the opportunity they need. Yet poverty, trauma, lack of opportunity or abuse can destroy lives for generations.

 

I talked to one Mum about what Sure Start meant to her. She had hit rock bottom, the council had tried to take her children away because she couldn’t cope. Then she went to Sure Start. She told me without it she wouldn’t have been sitting there living and breathing in front of me. She got her kids back and her confidence and strength back too. Got some training. Part time work. And she joined – and then she led - the local labour party campaign to keep it open when it was threatened with closure. They put her on the council, and this autumn she starts her university degree. All because of sure start. That’s the vision I want.

 

And people say they want radical politics.

 

So tell me what you think is more radical.

 

Bringing back clause IV: spending billions of pounds we haven’t got switching control of some power stations from a group of white middle aged men in an energy company to a group of white middle aged men in Whitehall.

 

Or extending Sure Start; giving mothers the power and confidence to transform their own lives and transform their children’s lives for years to come.

 

What is more radical? False promises to the South Wales mining communities you will re-open the now capped and flooded pits or investing in the green technology including clean coal technology of the future.

 

Britain’s last deep mined pit Kellingley pit is still open in my constituency. I’ve fought hard to keep it open – with little support from many on the Corbyn campaign – promoting clean coal technology and calling for state aid. I’m a coalfield MP proud to have the nomination of the NUM. But I’m not going to make people false promises ion the coalfield communities that we can turn the clock back to the middle of the 20 century instead.

 

And at a time when we are dealing with a global climate change threat, when international borders have ebbed, when extremism doesn’t recognise nations, and when we need to work together more than ever, is it really radical to quit NATO, to prevaricate over membership of the EU, or trash our reputation as an internationalist party

 

I say no.

 

We should stay in the EU, stay in the European Court of Human Rights, stay in NATO – sorry, Jeremy, internationalism is a core Labour principle and I will always fight for it

 

And what is more radical?

 

A Labour party after a century of championing equality and diversity which turns the clock back to be lead again by a leader and deputy leader, both white men.

 

Or to smash our own glass ceiling to get Labour’s first elected woman leader and woman Prime Minister too. Who’s the real radical? Jeremy or me?

 

Yes there are areas where Jeremy and I agree.

 

We both feel passionately about human rights, about ending homelessness, about building more homes.

 

We agree that we need an alternative to George Osborne’s austerity ideology.

 

I’ve argued from the start we shouldn’t swallow the Tories myths about Labour’s public spending.  It wasn’t too many teachers, nurses or doctors that caused global banks to go bust. And I don’t think Andy was right to apologise for Labour’s public spending record.

 

The debt and deficit need to come down. But we should never sign up to George Osborne’s 40% cuts – that’s way beyond what is needed to bring borrowing down.

 

It’s not prudence its punishment – driven by right wing ideology that wants to shrink the state

 

It’s not common sense economics – its deliberate dismantling of our public services.

 

We have to have a radical alternative

 

But it also has to be credible. And Jeremy’s approach isn’t.

 

Quantitative easing to pay for infrastructure now that the economy is growing is really bad economics.

 

Quantitative easing was a special measure when the economy collapsed, liquidity dried up, interest rates fell as low as they could go

 

But printing money year after year to pay for things you can’t afford doesn’t work – and no good Keynesian would ever call for it

 

History shows it hits your currency, hits investment, pushes up inflation, and makes it harder not easier to get the sustainable growth in a global economy we need to tackle poverty and support our public services.

 

So it’s not radical. It won’t stand up to scrutiny. And it won’t get us elected.

 

And that matters. Because otherwise we let people down.

 

Jeremy and I agree we need an alternative – but I want one that’s radical and credible so we can pull people behind it and make it happen.

 

We are a broad church in the Labour party – and we have to be. Some people may want to divide our party and to pull us apart – from left or from right.

 

I will never believe that is the right thing to do. I believe in the solidarity of our party just as I believe in the solidarity of communities or of families holding together through thick and thin

 

I believe our party has to stand together to change the country

 

When we were founded back in 1900 the whole idea was to be an alliance of workers and intellectuals, of Fabians and socialists, of women and men, of trades unionists and Christian socialists, of radicals and moderates. We even did a deal with the liberals.

 

And there was good reason for that broad alliance. Because people were sick of losing battles in Parliament and in the courts and they wanted to change the world

 

I don’t believe that Jeremy can hold the party together – and I can’t bear to see us pulled apart when I believe Britain needs a Labour party more than ever.

 

As for this idea that power doesn’t matter so long as our principles remain intact.

 

I dare you to tell that to the woman in tears because she can’t afford her bedroom tax arrears

 

Tell that to the working parents on tax credits about to lose thousands of pounds who can’t afford new school shoes for the autumn term

 

Tell that to the family struggling with care costs, forced to sell their family home

 

Tell that to the student, scraping to make ends meet to get through university, about to lose their maintenance grant

 

Tell that to all those people who are being hit by Tory Government

 

All those people with no one else to stand up for them than the Labour party

 

Than us. That’s our job. We can’t walk away.

 

We can’t just luxuriate in our own righteousness out on the side lines. That’s not a luxury the most vulnerable in Britain can afford

 

It’s not enough to be angry at the world. We’re the labour party, we have a responsibility to change the world or what’s the point of us at all.

 

NEED LABOUR

 

Because in the end Britain needs a strong Labour party now more than ever.

 

Power is in the hands of a narrow Tory elite, concentrating wealth, widening inequality, fragmenting Britain, letting people down.

 

Already they broke their promises, already they are turning the clock back

 

They only have a majority of 12. We can beat them.

 

They are still only Tories. Now is not the time to give in.

 

We cannot condemn today’s five year olds to spend all their childhood under a Tory Government.

 

We’re fighting for a fairer country for our children to grow up in.

 

So this is the choice.

 

Between a Labour Party back on its feet, fighting the Tories, fighting for our principles, fighting for our future

 

And a Tory Britain while Labour walks away.

 

This is about the 2020 election.

 

I’m in it to win it.

 

The Labour Party must be too.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.