Boris Johnson

[johnnycool]

I am not convinced Starmer will be there in 2 years.

I was kinda hoping the Yorkshire cops did fine him TBH..

I can't warm to him.

And who would you want to replace him? At least he stands a chance in a GE as he's relatively Centrist. The corbynista brand of Politics is toxic in the UK.

Andy Burnham be a good shout

He's not an MP at the minute. Currently mayor of Manchester (trying to do a Boris in London), he's known as a bit of a political opportunist so fair chance he'll be back at some point. Sadiq Khan, current London Mayor, has eyes on it too longterm I'd imagine.

If Burnham stands as an MP in the next GE then you could see him go for it thereafter as I think Starmer will get this next GE but if he doesn't win it with the Torys being abjectly poor then he'll never win it.

Chris Bryant would be another good shout.

[seafoid]

I am not convinced Starmer will be there in 2 years.

He is purging a lot of lefties. On the other hand how will they get lefties to vote Labour ?

Labour had to do this under Kinnock.  Appeasing the hard left will not get them elected - a lot of the Labour party activists it seems would be content to have their principles even if it mean permanent opposition to an increasingly strident and extremist Tory party.  It still took another 10 years after the 1987 General Election before Labour got in again.

1983 was different. The economic system changed in 1980. Many people benefited.
Now the UK economy is marked by stagnation. Only the rich benefit.

Corbyn wasn't even radical but the rich did not accept his analysis.
There won't be a real reforming Labour government until neoliberalism collapses. Starmer would collapse the economy slower than Truss.

[APM]

A Labour government has to get elected first.  You are right about Corbyn not being a radical.  Some of his policies were centrist.  However, Crorbyn had some policies that left him open ongoing attack from the press.  It wasn't just the rich that didn't accept his policies. Not enough people accepted his policies to get him elected and until Labour have a pragmatic leader in the mould of Blair, with the support of the party, who is prepared to compromise some principles to get elected so that other more critical policies can be advanced, Labour are going nowhere. 

The primary purpose of a political party is to get elected and drive change.  Too many Labour activists think they should be like the Greens - better out of power lobbying, than in power, taking responsibility. 

[seafoid]

A Labour government has to get elected first.  You are right about Corbyn not being a radical.  Some of his policies were centrist.  However, Crorbyn had some policies that left him open ongoing attack from the press.  It wasn't just the rich that didn't accept his policies. Not enough people accepted his policies to get him elected and until Labour have a pragmatic leader in the mould of Blair, with the support of the party, who is prepared to compromise some principles to get elected so that other more critical policies can be advanced, Labour are going nowhere. 

The primary purpose of a political party is to get elected and drive change.  Too many Labour activists think they should be like the Greens - better out of power lobbying, than in power, taking responsibility.

The Labour performance was reasonable other than in the so-called Red Wall where the Tories won 40 seats from Labour for a majority of 80.
They won those seats because they focused on nationalism. They may lose them in the next election.
If Starmer wins, nothing will change. It'll be the same as FF in 2008 or Labour in 2011 or Greens now. Then the Lefties will get a turn. The analysis is still valid.

[APM]

A Labour government has to get elected first.  You are right about Corbyn not being a radical.  Some of his policies were centrist.  However, Crorbyn had some policies that left him open ongoing attack from the press.  It wasn't just the rich that didn't accept his policies. Not enough people accepted his policies to get him elected and until Labour have a pragmatic leader in the mould of Blair, with the support of the party, who is prepared to compromise some principles to get elected so that other more critical policies can be advanced, Labour are going nowhere. 

The primary purpose of a political party is to get elected and drive change.  Too many Labour activists think they should be like the Greens - better out of power lobbying, than in power, taking responsibility.

The Labour performance was reasonable other than in the so-called Red Wall where the Tories won 40 seats from Labour for a majority of 80.
They won those seats because they focused on nationalism. They may lose them in the next election.
If Starmer wins, nothing will change. It'll be the same as FF in 2008 or Labour in 2011 or Greens now. Then the Lefties will get a turn. The analysis is still valid.

Even if they won the red wall seats they were still on a hiding to nothing.  There may be an element that with Scotland gone to SNP, Labour activists may be encouraged to put principle before success, because they probably feel that they will win nothing anyway, even with the red wall.   But Labour will not win an election unless they win over middle of the road voters and the English press will see to it that this won't happen with a left winger in charge.  Blair recognised this and secured the support of the Murdoch press, unsavoury as that may seem.  Unless there is a significant change in terms of UK press ownership / regulation etc, the only Labour leader I can see getting in will be a centrist.  Labour have a responsibility to see that this happens, because the Tories will do a lot of damage if they retain unfettered power. 

[seafoid]

A Labour government has to get elected first.  You are right about Corbyn not being a radical.  Some of his policies were centrist.  However, Crorbyn had some policies that left him open ongoing attack from the press.  It wasn't just the rich that didn't accept his policies. Not enough people accepted his policies to get him elected and until Labour have a pragmatic leader in the mould of Blair, with the support of the party, who is prepared to compromise some principles to get elected so that other more critical policies can be advanced, Labour are going nowhere. 

The primary purpose of a political party is to get elected and drive change.  Too many Labour activists think they should be like the Greens - better out of power lobbying, than in power, taking responsibility.

The Labour performance was reasonable other than in the so-called Red Wall where the Tories won 40 seats from Labour for a majority of 80.
They won those seats because they focused on nationalism. They may lose them in the next election.
If Starmer wins, nothing will change. It'll be the same as FF in 2008 or Labour in 2011 or Greens now. Then the Lefties will get a turn. The analysis is still valid.

Even if they won the red wall seats they were still on a hiding to nothing.  There may be an element that with Scotland gone to SNP, Labour activists may be encouraged to put principle before success, because they probably feel that they will win nothing anyway, even with the red wall.   But Labour will not win an election unless they win over middle of the road voters and the English press will see to it that this won't happen with a left winger in charge.  Blair recognised this and secured the support of the Murdoch press, unsavoury as that may seem.  Unless there is a significant change in terms of UK press ownership / regulation etc, the only Labour leader I can see getting in will be a centrist.  Labour have a responsibility to see that this happens, because the Tories will do a lot of damage if they retain unfettered power.

Labour only win as a coalition. There have only been 3 labour leaders who won an election since 1945. So they have to offer stuff to Liverpool, centrists and nationalists. Taxing plutocrats would go a long way.

[imtommygunn]

A Labour government has to get elected first.  You are right about Corbyn not being a radical.  Some of his policies were centrist.  However, Crorbyn had some policies that left him open ongoing attack from the press.  It wasn't just the rich that didn't accept his policies. Not enough people accepted his policies to get him elected and until Labour have a pragmatic leader in the mould of Blair, with the support of the party, who is prepared to compromise some principles to get elected so that other more critical policies can be advanced, Labour are going nowhere. 

The primary purpose of a political party is to get elected and drive change.  Too many Labour activists think they should be like the Greens - better out of power lobbying, than in power, taking responsibility.

The Labour performance was reasonable other than in the so-called Red Wall where the Tories won 40 seats from Labour for a majority of 80.
They won those seats because they focused on nationalism. They may lose them in the next election.
If Starmer wins, nothing will change. It'll be the same as FF in 2008 or Labour in 2011 or Greens now. Then the Lefties will get a turn. The analysis is still valid.

Even if they won the red wall seats they were still on a hiding to nothing.  There may be an element that with Scotland gone to SNP, Labour activists may be encouraged to put principle before success, because they probably feel that they will win nothing anyway, even with the red wall.   But Labour will not win an election unless they win over middle of the road voters and the English press will see to it that this won't happen with a left winger in charge.  Blair recognised this and secured the support of the Murdoch press, unsavoury as that may seem.  Unless there is a significant change in terms of UK press ownership / regulation etc, the only Labour leader I can see getting in will be a centrist.  Labour have a responsibility to see that this happens, because the Tories will do a lot of damage if they retain unfettered power.

Unfortunately you are absolutely bang on with this. I fear for the damage the tories will do here and I think they could do a bit of damage to the whole island not just the north - that's both economic and political instability (economic to both parts but instability to north).

Tory backers like the media are running the country.

[screenexile]

Truss just drove the SNP closer to Labour for the next election anyway.

There have been plenty of rivals but her comments in Scotland today are up there with the stupidest things I've ever heard from a politician!!

She's a shoo in for the role why has she made it harder for herself when she actually gets into office by saying stupid shit and pandering to people she doesn't really need to??

[imtommygunn]

Maybe it's because she is stupid? No more than a puppet.

[seafoid]

Truss is working for the man.

[johnnycool]

Truss just drove the SNP closer to Labour for the next election anyway.

There have been plenty of rivals but her comments in Scotland today are up there with the stupidest things I've ever heard from a politician!!

She's a shoo in for the role why has she made it harder for herself when she actually gets into office by saying stupid shit and pandering to people she doesn't really need to??

She doesn't care, it was a shortterm soundbite to her Tory base.

It's what Boris would have done, say what you need to say to get elected and then do whatever you like thereafter and never keep any of those promises.

[seafoid]

The UK is in a very sad state. The South left in similar circumstances a century ago.

[Gael80]

A Labour government has to get elected first.  You are right about Corbyn not being a radical.  Some of his policies were centrist.  However, Crorbyn had some policies that left him open ongoing attack from the press.  It wasn't just the rich that didn't accept his policies. Not enough people accepted his policies to get him elected and until Labour have a pragmatic leader in the mould of Blair, with the support of the party, who is prepared to compromise some principles to get elected so that other more critical policies can be advanced, Labour are going nowhere. 

The primary purpose of a political party is to get elected and drive change.  Too many Labour activists think they should be like the Greens - better out of power lobbying, than in power, taking responsibility.

The Labour performance was reasonable other than in the so-called Red Wall where the Tories won 40 seats from Labour for a majority of 80.
They won those seats because they focused on nationalism. They may lose them in the next election.
If Starmer wins, nothing will change. It'll be the same as FF in 2008 or Labour in 2011 or Greens now. Then the Lefties will get a turn. The analysis is still valid.

Even if they won the red wall seats they were still on a hiding to nothing.  There may be an element that with Scotland gone to SNP, Labour activists may be encouraged to put principle before success, because they probably feel that they will win nothing anyway, even with the red wall.   But Labour will not win an election unless they win over middle of the road voters and the English press will see to it that this won't happen with a left winger in charge.  Blair recognised this and secured the support of the Murdoch press, unsavoury as that may seem.  Unless there is a significant change in terms of UK press ownership / regulation etc, the only Labour leader I can see getting in will be a centrist.  Labour have a responsibility to see that this happens, because the Tories will do a lot of damage if they retain unfettered power.

I'd agree but Truss is talking about 'regional public sector pay boards'. That is unlikely to tie into the 'levelling up agenda' and more likely to scare off red wall voters. For all of Labours problems they pretty much have London wrapped up and significant gains in the north would put them into a position where an initial coalition was possible, to get the Tories out of power. The most obvious would be with the SNP but that is politically risky so if the Lib Dems continue to make gains around the south west and midlands, my money is on Labour/Lib Dems being the next government.

Starmer has one chance at it, if he fails and the Tories get back in then Andy Burnham will be the next Labour leader and would probably be in the mould of Blair and win a GE outright.

[armaghniac]

I'd agree but Truss is talking about 'regional public sector pay boards'. That is unlikely to tie into the 'levelling up agenda' and more likely to scare off red wall voters. For all of Labours problems they pretty much have London wrapped up and significant gains in the north would put them into a position where an initial coalition was possible, to get the Tories out of power. The most obvious would be with the SNP but that is politically risky so if the Lib Dems continue to make gains around the south west and midlands, my money is on Labour/Lib Dems being the next government.

It would be good crack if they adjusted the Barnett formula for the colonies Scotland, NI and Wales as lower salaries are appropriate to those places in keeping with local salaries.

[RedHand88]

She's scrapping the regional payscale plan now.