Sensible discussion on Labour Leadership hopefuls

Margaret Hodge recorded an meeting with Corbyn, she did not sell it. Perhaps grandad43 would name those he accuse
of doing this ?

Cheers grandad ?

Paul Waugh of HuffPost, in his Waugh Zone email has summed up where we are currently with those who have put themselves forward. This is my summary of the numbers.

Rebecca Long Bailey, Jess Phillips, Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer are all over the threshold of 22 MPs/MEPs needed. Emily Thornberry (9) and Clive Lewis (4) have a way to go. Barry Gardiner is still out of the country and no total was quoted.

Starmer already has Unison and may get USDAW. Long Bailey is expected to get Unite, the CWU and TSSA Nandy and Phillips are still looking for the 5% of constituency party nominations or 5% of affiliates. Waugh's opinion is that Nandy is hoping to get the GMB which would then put her on the ballot paper, but the union has not yet declared. Otherwise, both these candidates are relying on the CLPs and it is possible that Starmer and Long Bailey could take the bulk of CLP nominations although some may not nominate at all.

Waugh sees Nandy as winning the on-line game so far but does not see that as "enough" - as Corbyn found.

He also talks about the way the timing of any national hustings could affect Nandy and Philips if they come before they have got all they need to be on the ballot and suggests it could be a straight run-off between Starmer and Long Bailey.

He expresses other opinions which may well be repeated on HuffPost but I thought the figures important.

Oh dear, RubyLou. Are you actually an LP member with a vote. If so is it really okay to call another LP members views "Stalinist". The approximately 20 million deaths under Stalin make it so insulting. Could we be a bit more realistic in our discussions? Perhaps it would help if people declared an interest in NOT having a Labour government where it applies rather than simply skewing an interesting discussion.

I would add that you may not have been on GN for long but we do not pick people up on their spellings in general. With 10% of the population having some level of dyslexia you are very likely to be attacking a disability.

Sorry, the second paragraph of my 08:21 post should have been directed to Manmar2

Oh dear grandad. I’m terribly sorry I did realise you were dyslexic. Your posts are so articulate and long winded so I never suspected you had a disability. Please accept my sincere apologies and I duly note my dreadful post has been deleted. On a more positive note grandad you now know how to spell ridiculous. ?

Should read - did not

Your posts are so articulate and long winded

Don't sound so surprised, Mnamar2! Having problems with spelling doesn't mean that a person is unable to use language effectively

OTH, 'long winded' has a very derogatory feel to it; often a code for 'boring and repetitive'. I hope you didn't intend it to sound that way.

And Manmar2 you now know how to spell ridiculous I have spent years tryng to get people to understand how rude. damaging and discriminatory phrases like that are to dyslexics. I suggest you do some research on hidden disabilities and then begin to consider your words more carefully.

You can ‘suggest’ all you trisher. Is the view nice up there on your high horse? ?

Manmar, some of us do not have English as our first language either...

Should read - all you like

GN we need an edit button!

Jura2 - yes, very true.

Grandad1943 I can understand the temptation to hope that Rebecca Long Bailey would act decisively to remove disloyal and deceitful politicians, and I think that Margaret Hodge's behaviour was despicable and sly, in fact I prefer Jess Philips more open hostility in a way. But I also think that the Labour Party needs to present itself as a "broad church" to appeal to a greater number of voters.
However I am still not sure which policies would be acceptable to the "broad church". I wonder if any of the Gransnet centrists could give me one or two examples of what policies they would like to see, or what they find unacceptable.

ilovecheese I think the main problem with the policies was the way they were presented, which was a bit like finding everybody on your list the biggest Christmas present you could find.

I think they should ditch the big promises such as getting rid of Ofsted, student loans and Universal Credit, without giving some idea of the alternatives.

They need to come up with some positive policies, such as regional infrastructure, a plan for housing and a sustainable form of apprenticeships (Angela Raynor is good on this).

As we leave the EU, they need to scrutinise what's happening very closely, especially workers' rights.

The "biggies" are freedom of movement and security. Labour was seen as weak on security and the Tories (and Brexit mob) exploited that. Freedom of movement is problematic. The "liberals" obviously want it, but immigration was an issue in the areas where Labour lost seats and they can't continue to ignore it. They need to come up with a strategy.

Having said that, it wasn't all about policies. The voters didn't think Labour was credible, partly because of the media propaganda, "fake news" and partly because it isn't. They need to get a top class spin doctor and thinker on board, who can play the media at its own game.

growstuff Freedom of movement is really problematic, I can't see how that can be resolved. The Conservatives will have the same problem.

I can see what you mean about the number of promises in the manifesto, but don't know which should be dropped in order to appeal more to "centrists"

Ilovecheese, I am so pleased to hear your comments about Margaret Hodge's behaviour and Jess Philips' and I couldn't agree more.

What I am not sure about, and I mean unsure because I don't know enough, is whether the Labour Party does need to present itself as a "broad church". It feels to me as if we are on a cusp of smaller parties and agreed co-operation. I know it has felt like this before and it may be me wishing for something I want but I do wonder if more people would vote if it was clearer what they were voting for and if they knew this might well lead to a coalition. We really have coalitions now - or single-issue parties as the Conservatives were in the last election. I think I would like to know just what my vote is for even if I have to accept this will mean some agreement with another party.

GracesGranMK3 Interesting idea, you have given me something to think about.

Being realistic, Labour needs to gain about 150 seats at the next election. It's not going to get anywhere in Scotland any time soon and boundary changes will mean it loses another dozen or so safe seats.

Even if the LibDems were to agree to some kind of working arrangement, the FPTP system means the odds are against its winning more seats. The Labour Party is going to remain the biggest partner in any alternative coalition for the foreseeable future.

Its first priority must be to develop a marketable brand image, which people will actually vote for. Even in the so-called northern heartlands, people aren't all on benefits and going to foodbanks. They're aspirational, want to see their towns being more prosperous and for their children to have better opportunities, etc (same as everybody else). They dislike the minority whom they see as wasters as much as anybody. I don't think most of them really care much about socialist purity. The new Labour leadership really needs to speak to the defeated MPs and the people living in those constituencies and find out why they really switched their votes. My hunch is that they don't like being patronised and really do see the Conservatives as more positive.

If you look at the election results, Labour would have lost even more seats, if the Brexit Party had stood down in Labour-held constituencies because it split the right wing vote.

Post election polls suggest that the majority of C2DE voters and people with lower educational qualifications voted Conservative. Admittedly, that's a bit misleading because pensioners are usually lumped into the lower socio-economic groups. However, it does suggest that there's a significant realignment of party support. Labour can't just take the moral high ground and expect people to vote for it for ideological reasons. It needs to become the Party which genuinely represents what people want, without becoming cheap and populist. It's not going to be easy. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are going to have to reconcile its new voters and its traditional "toffs". It might try and brand itself as something new and exciting, but that's not going to go down well with the idea of conserving.

Growstuff, what would they need as a majority - assuming the Tories didn't lose any seats if they were in coalition with the SNP?

It's difficult to know. If boundaries changes go ahead, it's reckoned that the changes will be worth about 16 seats to the Conservatives. Wales would lose over a quarter of its constituencies and Scotland (SNP) would lose about five.

For an overall majority, Labour would need 301 seats (if the number of MPs is reduced to 600), but currently has 202 MPs.

A coalition with the SNP would mean Labour only has to gain about 50 or 60 seats, but that might put some Labour voters off, so they'd have to be very careful and do their research first. It would give the SNP additional leverage, which wouldn't be popular with people who want to keep the union.

Ideally, Labour needs to gain (or regain) just over 100 seats - more to take into account boundary changes.

It lost 60 seats at the last election, so it needs to regain those, then it needs to gain some seats (at least 40) which haven't been Labour since at least 2010, so it needs to get support from "middle England". It's not going to do that without understanding what those constituencies want.

Until Corbyn goes Labour are dead in the water.

I feel that only two factors can be clearly predicted in regards to British politics in terms of the next five years.

The first of those would be that Brexit will now definitely happen, but its effects on the national economy are impossible to predict as that will not be in any way clear for at least two to three years.

The second of the above would be that the Conservative Party will be in government for the next four to five years in all probability. In that, with a majority of eighty seats in the House of Commons, the Tory Party will be able to bring forward any legislation they wish, and no fine words by any opposition party or individual MP will prevent any of this governments legislation being brought into being.

Therefore, for the next three years at a minimum, the best that the Parliamentary Labour Party can achieve would be to appear to the British public as a body that is unified around a clear set of principles based within a strong left-leaning stance. The foregoing has to mean that all within the Parliamentary party fully support the elected new leader WHOEVER that may be.

The Labour movement overall has a wide ranging structure that allows all to bring forward their ideas, views, concerns and grievances for others to debate and support should it be that any matter carries a majority anywhere within that structure. It cannot be witnessed again a situation such as where even when Jeremy Corbyn stood twice within Two years for election as party leader there were still a number within the Parliamentary Labour Party that did not accept that overwhelming democratic verdict and did all that could be possibly imagined to undermine his leadership.

The Labour Party does not require to gain new voters at this point in time or engage in detailed new policies, for that can be confronted later. What is required now is for the Parliamentary Labour Party to demonstrate it can unify around its new leader, for failure to do so will surely see the end of the Parliamentary Party in its present form as the broader Labour movement in the country ends support for its long-standing political wing.

I didn't mean to set you such a conundrum Growstuff. Thank you for the walk-through. It's difficult to know where we will be in three to five years time. I did sound as if Mr Johnson was determined to get rid of the Fix-Term Parliament Act which could shorten the five years if they see a "good" time to go.

I think I agree on Grandad, that the LP must show they know exactly what they stand for and stand together. I would have thought most of the real opposition to anything that doesn't resemble Blair had gone but perhaps not.

The reason I say "I think I agree" is that I would want to know too so they need to be able to be clear to the voting public as well as unifying.