Still trying to decide between FULL ACCELERATIONISM NOW or Burnham.

Still trying to decide between FULL ACCELERATIONISM NOW or Burnham.

 

As 2nd preference, or have even you abandoned Kendall now? :P

 

Do you think Burnham would be a "successful" leader?

2nd preference - I honestly don't get that IPSOS Mori poll's findings for Kendall as it clashes so much with all of the previous polling for Kendall with there not really being much she's done that you'd expect to have cut-through to cause such a sudden shift in attitudes amongst the general public that are paying attention. And I still stand by my belief that something closer to New Labour than what Corbyn's offering is the most likely way Labour will reconnect with the public at large any time soon, and I'd rather Liz weren't totally embarrassed by the result in order to make that happen sooner rather than later - she's not especially good at how to successfully do internal politics as moderate, so it's down to her errors there for her last place finish, but I don't want her getting trounced.

 

I've always believed Andy has the most emotional intelligence of all the candidates (I'm inclined to consider his tactical mid-step on the Welfare Bill being more down to not wanting to necklace his leadership beforehand by disobeying and then expecting calls of loyalty to be needed if he wins). My main issues are the baggage he has - I can look past the political disagreements if he looks capable of winning - and he does seem to have built up a regard amongst the public. My main worry is how his leadership deals with the Jezbollah insurgency, and that's something I could see potentially draining his authority and public goodwill very quickly, because the element of the party that's borrowed its 'quisling!' rhetoric from the cybernats definitely isn't going away any time soon.

 

So the question becomes then - could Andy be a strong enough leader to overcome that *and* everything the Tories are just waiting to throw at him? Or is the quickest way to lance the boil and shut down the incredibly toxic atmosphere in the party from some of the Cyberbennites just to elect Corbyn, give him a run of two years which prove beyond doubt that their prescriptions will never win over the public, and then have someone like David Miliband (who's obviously on manoeuvres) play the Michael Howard figure after to at least haul Labour to a point where we aren't going further backwards in 2020, if not more? The latter scenario looks likely to me if a Corbyn victory happens, but skims over three inevitable years of wrenching internal strife and makes huge numbers of assumptions, so I'm still genuinely undecided.

I dont think Corbyn would go, polls or no polls, once in office - so you're talking about a coup before he's even been in a general election. That isn't going to do Labour any favours, and the militant left in the 80's preferred electoral suicide to a chance of winning. Even with millions on the dole, a cold war going on, rioting in the streets, strikes for years on end, terrorist bombs, war, yuppies on a gravy train, flight of the moderates in the party, and a deeply unpopular poll tax, they still couldn't persuade anyone to vote Labour.

 

Don't see how anyone could possibly think they would be vote-winners in the current political climate, but any new young lefties have blind optimism and no experience of recent history to draw on.

 

That's not to say I disagree with most Corbyn policies (I don't) but they need to be presented as SOCIAL policies by a moderate leader first and foremost and the more obvious leftie policies vote-losers dropped until a second term....

I have never understood the 'coups do no favours' theory. Do people really think IDS would've done as well as Michael Howard had he stayed? That Thatcher would've won a fourth majority in 1992? That Alan Johnson would have done worse than Ed, or Gordon? It's rarely ideal, but if you're about to go off a cliff...

That's not to say I disagree with most Corbyn policies (I don't) but they need to be presented as SOCIAL policies by a moderate leader first and foremost and the more obvious leftie policies vote-losers dropped until a second term....

This is essentially my dilemma. I want most of the things that Corbyn says, but I think he himself will be too easily typecast as an unelectable throwback once the press get their claws into him. He also suffers from the same problem as many of my friends in the Labour left in that he's not clocked onto the fact that emotional arguments about the awful things this government has done clearly aren't enough to convince the electorate to get rid of them. Explaining why cutting tax credits/selling off council houses etc. make no economic sense is the only way we can successfully argue for the things we want.

 

At the moment I think it's more likely that one of the "moderate" candidates will be able to offer that after being pushed left by Corbyn. So far Burnham has responded to that, but that should probably be expected given Cooper seems to pitching for Kendall's second preferences.

Well in fairness, they're the only second preferences guaranteed to be on offer. It's taken Burnham/Cooper and the commentariat far too long to clue on to the painfully simple fact that if Corbyn's finishing top two then his votes won't be transferring.

Well in fairness, they're the only second preferences guaranteed to be on offer. It's taken Burnham/Cooper and the commentariat far too long to clue on to the painfully simple fact that if Corbyn's finishing top two then his votes won't be transferring.

True, but if she carries on she could end up so far behind Burnham after Round 1 that she'll still be knocked out.

This is essentially my dilemma. I want most of the things that Corbyn says, but I think he himself will be too easily typecast as an unelectable throwback once the press get their claws into him. He also suffers from the same problem as many of my friends in the Labour left in that he's not clocked onto the fact that emotional arguments about the awful things this government has done clearly aren't enough to convince the electorate to get rid of them. Explaining why cutting tax credits/selling off council houses etc. make no economic sense is the only way we can successfully argue for the things we want.

 

At the moment I think it's more likely that one of the "moderate" candidates will be able to offer that after being pushed left by Corbyn. So far Burnham has responded to that, but that should probably be expected given Cooper seems to pitching for Kendall's second preferences.

 

Yes, and I hope Burnham goes on the plain-speaking offensive a bit more - he got a right grilling last night on Newsnight, and was genuinely uncomfortable at times but I think it forced him to stop fudging and start plumping a bit more. I can understand his reluctance to criticise past Labour governments - all cabinet members have to put up a unified front, just as the Tories are right now, but that doesn't mean you can't say after the event where you felt they went wrong without laying into former colleagues. I think a more left-of-centre tint to his statements in public wouldn't hurt by any means - he all but said he's in favour of rail re-nationalisation last night....!

In fairness I think Evan's interview was a bit unfair towards Andy, essentially insisting that he wasn't being straight about his position when he's been totally open that he's been on a journey on his opinion on Blair over the last few years. Also absurdly unfair to characterise his position on Syria ('we'll make a decision when we see the evidence') as a fudge rather than, y'know, what any grown up person does.

Yes I thought that too. I also liked that he actually smiled a couple of times, I don't know why politicians are so afraid to be seen as straying away from being serious policy machines, it makes them more likeable to just deflect a daft question with a knowing smile and "oh come on Evan..." cos the interviewers know the deal as much as they do...

The rhetoric in the membership (and, actually, mainly the registered supporters) really is getting gross. Idiots like John McTernan aren't helping, but having been referred to as 'interloping filth' by some prick who claims to have never voted Labour before and that he won't vote Labour any time soon unless Corbyn wins, I really am beginning to think we may as well write off the next five years at minimum (and prepare for a potential wave of deselection attempts).

Oh, don't say that I don't think I could stand another 10 years of Tories destroying all of the social advances and rewriting a new Rich-Friendly disintegrating United Kingdom in their own selfish image, thanks to bickering among people who should know better. I had to live through the grim 80's thanks to both sides taking that stance and I have no desire to see it repeated!

 

Bright side, of course, that LibDem comeback might be sooner than expected cos everyone gets fed up quickly with a party that bickers amongst itself endlessly...

Oh, don't say that I don't think I could stand another 10 years of Tories destroying all of the social advances and rewriting a new Rich-Friendly disintegrating United Kingdom in their own selfish image, thanks to bickering among people who should know better. I had to live through the grim 80's thanks to both sides taking that stance and I have no desire to see it repeated!

 

Bright side, of course, that LibDem comeback might be sooner than expected cos everyone gets fed up quickly with a party that bickers amongst itself endlessly...

It's easier to have party discipline with next to no MPs and a membership who will do anything just to feel relevant again.

 

But yes, there might be a small revival in some areas. Probably LD-Tory ones.

It's easier to have party discipline with next to no MPs and a membership who will do anything just to feel relevant again.

 

But yes, there might be a small revival in some areas. Probably LD-Tory ones.

The Lib Dems have had some good results in local by-elections in the last few weeks. Of course, there is still a long way to go before there can be talk of a lIb Dem revival, but there are at least vague signs that it might be happening.

The Lib Dems have had some good results in local by-elections in the last few weeks. Of course, there is still a long way to go before there can be talk of a lIb Dem revival, but there are at least vague signs that it might be happening.

I hadn't noticed, any places in particular?

I hadn't noticed, any places in particular?

They won a seat from Labour in Wrexham last month. However, that one has to be put down to local circumstances. I don't know what those circumstances were, but the result is so bizarre that no real conclusions can be drawn from it.

 

However, on the same night, they comfortably held a seat in Kingston (with a massive increase in their vote) and gained a seat from the Tories in Battle. The Lib Dem candidate lost the seat in May but regained it a couple months later with 58% of the vote. Earlier in the month, they gained a seat from the Tories in Richmond-upon-Thames. That seat became vacant because the Tory councillor resigned her seat after becoming an MP (she beat Vince Cable).

 

In most seats where the Lib Dem vote had almost entirely disappeared, they continue to do badly. However, there are at least some faint signs that they could make net gains next May for the first time since before the 2010 election. The aim has to be to make enough gains to make headlines.

GAME-CHANGER ALERT:

 

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago

Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU

 

Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.

 

Turns out I underestimated this. Apparently even EMMA REYNOLDS will deprive us of her talents if Labour members don't do The Right Thing.

Edited August 2, 20159 yr by Danny

Are we really surprised? It would take quite something for a leader who still believes in a command economy and exchange controls to fill his Shadow Cabinet in the current Labour Party. Luckily he won't have to choose given he's bringing back Shadow Cabinet elections. His bigger problem will be counting on loyalty and the whipping system amongst his own MPs - given he's *the* most serial rebel in the party, it would take some gall for him to start expecting it on things like, say, Heathrow, Syria or Palestine.

Are we really surprised? It would take quite something for a leader who still believes in a command economy and exchange controls to fill his Shadow Cabinet in the current Labour Party. Luckily he won't have to choose given he's bringing back Shadow Cabinet elections. His bigger problem will be counting on loyalty and the whipping system amongst his own MPs - given he's *the* most serial rebel in the party, it would take some gall for him to start expecting it on things like, say, Heathrow, Syria or Palestine.

True. To complain would be gross hypocrisy. If he wins and presides over a cabinet he didn't choose that's not a recipe for harmony...