Sensible Discussion on Labour Leadership hopefuls MK 2

In regards to POGS post @11:50 today, in reality, I do not believe that more than a half dozen Labour Party MPs are involved in this threat to resign from the party should Long-Bailey be elected as leader. However, I do feel that the actions of whatever number are involved could well dramatically impact the future of the party.

I believe that many within the whole Labour movement have hoped that this leadership election would be a chance that through fresh leadership unity would be brought to the Parliamentary Labour Party. However, what the actions of these MPs has demonstrated before the result of this contest is even known would be that the foregoing is in fact very near to impossible.

Outside of the Parliamentary Labour Party there is, and has been for a considerable time deep disenchantment with the performance and disunity within the current sitting MPs. In that, I firmly believe that if undermining tactics such as that which have been carried out throughout the years of the Corbyn leadership continues in regard to the new leadership, then the pressure on the trade union leadership to "pull the plug" on its current political wing (the Labour Party) will become irresistible.

The Parliamentary Labour Party was set up to support the ambitions of trade union members outside of their workplaces. For over one hundred years often low paid trade union members have funded the Labour Party repeatedly gaining little in return. The foregoing situation was particularly acute during the years of the Blair administration when he took funding in amounts never given before and gave absolutely nothing meaningful in return.

in the above, the disharmony among Labour MPs along with the contempt that some of those persons demonstrate towards the trade union members brought the situation to near-breakdown within a considerable number of the leading trade unions just prior to the General Election when the Parliamentary Party were requesting even higher funding

In the wake of the General Election failure, I attended for the first time in many years a special meeting of my Unite Union Transport Branch where an onsite lay union rep summed up the whole atmosphere of the meeting when he stated, "there are many Labour MPs that look upon us as trade union members and activists in the same way as they look upon a lump of dog sh*t on their shoe."

Should the these threatening Labour Party MPs not cease their activity then I believe a complete ending of the funding and all other support by the broader Labour movement in the country of this Labour Party is inevitable, and a new political wing formed.

Nobody's perfect.

No, it wasn't behind a paywall, unusually.

I do remember criticism of him over the Worboys case.

I've always thought he would make a good Leader of the LP and, depending on policies, a good PM.
He has gravitas which so many do not.

Labour did not lose heartland seats like Blyth because they were too left wing. They lost because they had promised in 2017 to "honour the Referendum result" and when Labour MPs were asked this time round whether the Party supported Leave or Remain, they were utterly incapable of giving a straight answer.

Bear in mind that 60% of Labour MPs in the 2017 Parliament represented Leave voting constituencies. MPs who chose to ignore that simple fact, and, worse, sought to undermine the UK's negotiating position by removing a "no deal" option, were always going to risk being defeated, but the Labour Party as a whole was inevitably going to face a backlash in every one of those Leave seats!

There is plenty to be said about the causes of Labour's failure POGS. I have been a member for fifty years and I don't dispute that at all. But criticising someone from a working-class background for succeeding in life through education is, in my opinion, a denial of everything that the Labour party should stand for.

The fact is Labour suffered it's biggest ever defeat at the last election and the Leader stood down.

There was inevitably a need for an autopsy as to the reasons why and that comes from the MSM and by Labour MP's, Unions and membership alike.

If the thought is only the MSM are to blame then all I can say is fingers must be in ears because from the day after the General Election the Media both visual and print have reported what, who has said what and the copious amounts of interviews that have taken place with Labour MP's/Unions/Momentum/Novara Media /Leadership debates etc. have discussed the many nuances, backgrounds, accountability of ' ALL ' of the Leadership Candidates.

Sticking up for one candidate is down to personal choice of that candidate but believing there should be nothing said to upset an apple cart regarding him/her is is never going to happen. It is perfectly acceptable to raise issues that were ' possible' reasons why the electorate turned their back on Labour.

Call two seconds on google brought this . It’s behind a paywall but the opening sentence says it all. There’s plenty more where that came from ( but I think you know that
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/08/keir-starmer-high-flying-law-man-desperate-desperate-stress/amp/

He isn't light on policy Urm. If you follow him on Twitter you can see what his views are on a range of issues. However, he has a very difficult line to tread to get elected in a fractured and factionalised party. He needs to be a canny politician in order to become leader.

Call ?

True Calli - like Trudeau. Never under estimate a good head of hair!

If what Labour needs is a leader who can take the party through the process of agreeing what it stands for and producing a coherent set of policies that will both deliver that and get the support of the voters, Keir Starmer is the obvious choice.

The fact that he himself appears to be light on policy would be a major advantage in that role. The last thing that Labour needs is to elect someone with strong factional support from either left or right.

Are there any examples of Starmer being criticised for coming from a privileged background in the MSM?

I haven't seen any.

He has even got neat hair!!

Mamie me too but such is the rational logical thought processes of so many right of centre people.

I would have thought most criticism of Starmer has been from his fellow candidates and party members rather than the press. He is 1/7 odds-on to be the next Labour leader so it doesn't seem to have done him a lot of harm.

It is appalling isn't it. Starmer comes from a working-class family, becomes a QC and DPP through intelligence and hard work and is then criticised as a member of an elite, or some such rubbish. I despair.

"Why would Starmer be criticised for his background?"

Because the press can't find anything else to criticise?

Why would Starmer be criticised for his background?

In fact, he does look what one might term posh but he isn't.
He does look statesmanlike.

Laughable really, isn't it? On another thread a poster was stating that all voters made 'well considered decisions' on their choices and now we have worries about candidates being judged on their 'titles', their houses and heaven knows what other irrelevancies..

I agree MaizieD, there is nothing wrong with it, but the MSM will try to make out that there is, simply because he is looking a likely candidate for the leadership.

I would say that Farage is very far right
Nandy is nothing like Farage!!

Nowhere near.

But there's nothing wrong with Starmer's background or previous job! This is what is so crazy about it all.

Especially in the UK with its current government... ☹

Anyone who becomes leader of the Labour Party will be criticised on here and in the MSM. they will find something, anything, to throw at the leader.
In Keir Starmer's case it is his background, and previous job.
Rebecca Long bailey has been pilloried for living in a nice house.
If Lisa Nandy looks like succeeding, there will be some mud found to fling at her.

Grandad

I read your links. Besides a comment from Neil Coyle and an ' anonymous' MP did I miss anybody else mentioned?

I am not disagreeing with what has been mooted but I hold no sway with ' anonymous' voices and Neil Coyle is hardly a fully fledged Corbyn/Momentum fan.

If it is the case there are MP's who are saying they will not work with Long Bailey then I see the equivalent in the Conservative Party with those MP's who said they would not work with Boris Johnson.

Some see MP's who say they will not work with their Party Leader / resign from the party as ' principled ', some see them as ' traitors ' and there is usually a hypocrisy attached to who and which party is deemed as either ' principled/traitor '. I am thinking of examples such as Ian Austin, Dominic Grieve et al.

I am not saying this is not a credible story, sounds feasible, but it does seem pretty lame as to the credentials behind the story and the numbers who have supposedly said they will resign or refuse to work with Long Bailey.

Starmer was knighted for his stint as Director of Public Prosecutions. He has impeccable working class origins and is well known for his work as a barrister on human rights issues.

It is curious to see reactions to him, both on here and on other MSM. On the one hand he is castigated for appearing to be 'posh' and, presumably, out of touch with Labour voters, but surely his success, unaided by family wealth, private education etc. should speak in contradiction of the constantly repeated accusation that the LP doesn't support aspiration? (As an aside to that, if the LP doesn't support aspiration then it is denying its fine history of supporting workers education and aspirations)

Or is the LP conflicted in what it believes? Can you be successful and authentic?