Who to replace Corbyn?

Will hazard a guess......Tom Watson.

Not Tom Watson, I just can't over the fact that he was at Glastonbury at the weekend. Even if the vote had gone the other way, he should have been available at the weekend to help deal with any of the fallout. And when he knew what the result was he should have cancelled going to stand shoulder to shoulder with Corbyn . I am furious that the Labour Party has thrown away the chance to show statesmanship and leadership to the country in the midst of the Tory infighting.Even if they think Corbyn is not fit to be the leader, now is not the time for this political posturing. Cameron, Johnson, Gove and Farage should be facing the worst grilling of their political careers, and the opposition should be looking strong and sure, and all we have got is playground behaviour which looks set to destroy the Labour party, and the ones who got us into this mess are getting away with it.
But to answer the OP question, Dan Jarvis is my contender.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said Mr Corbyn was "not going anywhere"

You can say that again, and the Labour party's going nowhere along with him.

dramatic, I agree with you about Tom Watson.

Personally, I hope Corby stands again and wins. Then we might get a centre party!

I think they should now have a leadership contest who thinks like me that he could well win again?

kittylester

I'm with you Dramatictessa. I would find it very difficult to support anyone who has been so unsupportive and has contributed to this orchestrated withdrawal of support. The PLP have been obstructive since Corbyn was elected and I am fed up tothe back teeth with most of them.

Oh dear, I really am going to have to get a grip and calm down. But at least Iceland won last night, because after seeing the English fans on Channel 4 news last night, there was no way I could support England.

Who ever stands will be putting the party before their ambitions

I am still backing Corbyn but am appalled at the way the LP is behaving when as dramatictessa says this is absolutely not the time for political infighting.

The party comes first,

I think he'd win again. All those young people who joined the party just to vote for him are probably still covered by their joining fee, and would vote him in again.

He's harmless. Bless.

What a great time for the Labour party to choose to implode - just when a bit of proper opposition is required. I have not yet heard any of them challenge DC on going back on his promise to stay put and deal with the next step whatever the vote. Crazy lot - they have no credibility now.

Well said Anniebach. No-one is bigger than the party. I gather the Speaker of the House can name the Leader of the Opposition if there is any doubt according to some Act of Parliament. Now that will be interesting.

But the party cannot come before the country.

Bloody hell! How John Bercow would love that...!

Devorgrilla, we now live in a time where personality is more important than anything else. When Corbyn was elected leader he was mocked here for the most trivial things, would he kiss the queens hand, his vest, taking a walking holiday in October

He didn't have charm and charisma . The press were worse . For me as a member for many years the party comes first . Corbyn will not win a general election, he is honest, principled , has strong beliefs which he defends regardless of the flack he gets from the Tory press. The people want a Boris, God knows where his charm and charisma are hidden, one can guess

Elegran, you don't get it do you

Don't get what, anniebach ?

In choosing a head of a party, the party should be more important that the man - of course.

And the country should be more important than the party - of course.

If the party is more important than the country, then the main objective of the party is its own continuance, not the good of the country which it wishes to serve. The leader of an opposition party should someone who could be a good Prime minister if necessary.

A Prime Minister who put his party before the country would not be serving his country, he would be serving the part of it which voted for his party. That has been a major complaint of many on this forum about those on the right in politics. Should they not extend the principle to those on the right?

Mised a bit out so the end of that didn't make sense - "extend that principle to the left as well as the right"

You are stating the obvious Elegran. This thread is about Corbyn as leader of the party, the party's chances of winning an election with Corbyn or different leader, doesn't take a genius to know without this sorted labour cannot do a damn thing for the country

Keep going without me, then. As I am not contributing anyhing useful I shall butt out.

Elegran, I did not say that

Anniebach and Elegran, I think we are all in agreement here. The party is bigger than the leader but the leader has to be able to win a majority from the electorate of the country to have the power to carry out the manifesto and change peoples' lives for the better. Without that majority they can't change anything. That's why, despite him being a good guy and having principles that I can agree with, he needs to lead us to victory and I do not think he can do that. He never sought high office until propelled into it. He didn't win a majority of the long term members if I recall correctly.