Sensible discussion on Labour Leadership hopefuls

It has been stated that the Parliamentary Labour Party National Executive Committee is now not to meet in full section until mid January. As that is the only body in the Labour moment who have the authority to trigger a leadership election, then no first-round voting would in all probability be possible until mid March at the earliest.

There are many outside factors in play in regards to the future of the Parliamentary Party, so that may well delay the leadership election even further I feel.

Therefore in regard to candidates "throwing their hats into the ring" at this stage, many contenders may probably feel it is wise to "keep their electoral powder dry" at this period in time.

Gaga apologies if that was your reasoning.

With Thornberry , she had a difficult childhood but speak of that and recent years and expect - she has forgotten where she came from ?

I doubt you ever forget a bad childhood. But now it’s me that’s digressing.

I don’t think she is right for the job, but I will listen to what she has to say and decide if it lacks conviction or understanding.

I meant what could be said of her.

I joined the LP after the first leadership vote. I'd watched the 4 contenders and Corbyn was the only one that appealed. When Andy Burnham talked about the workers it was mainly about those in the public sector, ignoring those poorly paid people working in the private sector. Liz Kendall irritated me and I thought Yvette Cooper to be rather bland.

However, in no way am I, or ever have been, a Momentum supporter.

I hear from friends who are in Emily Thornberry's constituency that Momentum have taken over and are divisive in local party meetings.

Back in the 80s I thought that the LP were forgetting those of their core supporters who had got good jobs, maybe bought their own home, etc etc. When Blair came to power the LP moved towards the centre which appealed to that core but the disadvantaged were neglected.

Momentum, in moving the LP back to the left have forgotten those people in the middle ground. Don't get me wrong, I think that our society should be looking after the disadvantaged and with such a wealthy country, we should be doing much more.

In the run up to the election, focus groups approved the party's policies, until they were told the origin of those policies at which point their approval vanished. And we know that policies such as re-nationalisation of rail and utilities is popular.

IMO we need a strong left of centre candidate. I like Emily Thornberry who performed very well at PMQs, even gaining approval from the Tory benches for her quick wittedness. Unfortunately I think she is tarred by the white van man comments. Even if one agrees with her, the tabloids won't let us forget it.

So, after all the above, I'm in accord with those who favour Keir Starmer and Jess Phillips

That made interesting reading DinahMo

Thornberry who doesn't much like white working class people?

And Johnson does?

I disagree that with Blair the disadvantaged were neglected

Sure Start, minimum wage. Tax credits. Low pay commission.
Increase in teachers and NHS staff. New hospitals were built.

Johnson isn’t up for labour leadership

No need for sarcasm Annie.

My point was obvious - Johnson has said worse but now commands a big majority.

Anniebach Quote [ I disagree that with Blair the disadvantaged were neglected

Sure Start, minimum wage. Tax credits. Low pay commission.
Increase in teachers and NHS staff. New hospitals were built. ] End Quote.

And in addition, there were Zero Hours contracts, Gig Economy working, the Iraq War and the British end of the Banking Crisis that the disadvantaged and lowest paid in our society paid for more than any other grouping with their jobs and homes.

Great Stuff.

Most of the really good things that Labour did for poorer people, minimum wage etc. were done before their third term in office. Buy the end of their third term they had moved very much more towards the right, which made them almost indistinguishable from the Conservatives.
I think that was the main reason that the party membership were so glad to see someone who was talking about core Labour values.

I agree Riverwalk; each time Johnson says something vile I think he's toast, but he just pops back up again. ditto Rees Mogg. I'm not one who totally blames the media for Labours downfall but they certainly don't let anyone forget certain comments made by Labour or LibDem [even when they've been disproved] and yet Johnson et al just get away with it. I've just seen an article in an old newspaper that was floating around, about Johnson threatening a young woman who supported his first wife but that is now forgotten history. When they control the BBC [for all the good they are] and Ch4 I doubt if we'll ever hear the truth about anything.

It doesn't matter who the Labour party picks, The press, and probably the BBC too, will still smear him/her.

Anniebach Tax credits, of the working variety, did no favours. Obviously it helped those on low wages but it enabled the large companies to pay the minimum wage to their staff and increase their profits. What was needed (and may be still is) was a reversal of some of the anti union legislation of the Thatcher government and also of the decline in union membership.

What really bugged me was that the public didn't realise what was happening following the introduction of WFTC; ie the large corporations were benefiting from the use of taxpayers' money. In other words, we were all contributing to their shareholders' dividends. If there had been more union members then maybe there would have been fairer wages.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti capitalism and enterprise. Some of the GN members who occasionally write about their work forces seem to be excellent employers. There are some however, who forget what their work force achieves for the employers. Obviously they should get financial recognition for their enterprise and hard work but supposing their work force was all wiped out. What then? No profits, no dividends.

The press go digging regardless of Party

The people making big money aren't employers. They're the people who own property or those buying and selling money, stocks and shares, who don't actually produce anything. In traditional economics terms. they're the landlords rather than the capitalists. The entire work force would need to be wiped out for them not to make a profit. No wonder our PM said "F*ck business".

Sorry, I've diverged from the thread. :-(

Dinaho hindsight !

Chi Onwurah wrote a sort of job description for the next leader, which I thought made sense:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18/labour-working-class-voters-policies

Labour needs to recognise the importance of wealth creation and patriotism. If people feel more optimistic, they don't much care about the moral flaws in their PM (as the last election has shown).

Or Stephen Kinnock?
He has been more visible than usual in the past few days.
Emily Thornberry has been distancing herself from Corbyn

Inequality has increased over the last ten years and more people than ever have zero hours conracts - yet people have rejected "Labour values" at the ballot box.

Point is though, it didn't DIE because of him. It GREW because of him
But, it didnt get in with him in charge. Indisputable fact!
No, true. But more members.

There are, or were, far more Labour voters than the half million or so members of the LP. Not all the members of the LP voted for Corbyn as leader either. He got 59% of the vote the first time, 61% the second time.
They did not do well in local elections, came third in the European elections and, after this GE, have the lowest number of seats since 1935.
There are also thousands upon thousands of floating voters upon whom a change of government depends.

Unless the new Labour leader has a wider appeal than just the Labour Party members who vote for that person, they will be out of office for a long time.

Grandad1943 Wed 18-Dec-19 15:02:11
It seems sensible not to rush into a leadership election.

Time to re-assess and re-evaluate what their aims are and who best can fulfil them.

Unfortunately, Grandad, we are still paying over the odds for those lovely new hospitals, built by Blair's government under PFI.

It was a good idea at the time, as they say.