New Labour Leadership

Burnham is being teed up as the next leader, though clive lewis might step in on the left.
Burnham was quoted the other day as saying he'd only return to Westminster as leader of the Labour Party.
For now, he's quite happy being mayor of Greater Manchester where, judging by the results, he's more popular than the alternatives because he does it without overtly being a Labour mayor, just one that tries to do what's best for that area.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Labour's problem is that it's essentially two separate organisations, as I posted earlier. Labour supporters in the traditional industrial heartlands could happily embrace both collectivism and Bernard Manning whereas the 'Fabian' tendency approaches politics in a doctrinaire and quasi-religious manner which places a huge emphasis on conformity and is deeply intolerant of dissent.

Labour has been taken over by this second group and their doctrinal orthodoxy seems designed to appeal to individuals and groups which have a profound dislike for this country and/or its traditions, including those for whom such opinions are an intellectual conceit - the broadcast media and academia for example.

Labour's offering is an inherently joyless, punishing and ultimately hypocritical celebration of identity politics and the politics of control that its activist elements will not allow it to step back from. This world view is at odds with an electorate that is far more moderate and combines a healthy mistrust of politicians with a robust sense of fairness. The excesses of no-platforming and liberal-left metropolitan social media lynch mobs only serve to alienate the electorate further.

The debate in the Labour Party will be between the minority who realise that Labour has to ditch much of the social engineering agenda of the last twenty years in order to become relevant again and those who would rather go down to glorious defeat than embrace heresy. The heretics won once before and the result was Tony Blair. I suspect that the true believers won't let that happen a second time, which means that the Labour Party's going nowhere.
 
Burnham was quoted the other day as saying he'd only return to Westminster as leader of the Labour Party.
For now, he's quite happy being mayor of Greater Manchester where, judging by the results, he's more popular than the alternatives because he does it without overtly being a Labour mayor, just one that tries to do what's best for that area.

Curious: 'cos I've read it that the chancer has been long on the campaign trail, particularly during the earlier part of the Covid crisis.
 
I was trying to remember the name of the Labour leader prior to Jeremy - I had to Google to be reminded it was Ed Milliband. Didn't exactly make his mark on British political history - apart from showing his lack of training in how to eat a bacon sarnie.

Is it worth putting a crafty 50p on his brother chucking his hat into the ring if there's another leadership contest? I always thought Milliband D was the more capable of the two - apart from photo shoots featuring bananas.

Ed made his mark, alright - if he hadn’t arrsed around with the leadership election rules, Corbyn wouldn’t have got the job. They’d have had a more competent leader - probably someone like Cooper or the King of Greater Manchester (I’m measuring competence against Corbyn, Burgon, Abbott and McDonnell) - who might very well have won enough seats in 2017 to be able to form a coalition government.

While this is, of course, speculative there is reason to believe that the ‘I’m not voting for that **** Corbyn’ factor saved several Tory MPs in 2017. A Burnham or Cooper-led party might very well have flipped more Tory seats red, and had they got to 280 (far from an impossibility), they’d have faced a PM looking at 299 seats of her own - well within striking distance. The key would’ve been the SNP - a promise of a 2nd EU Referendum followed by a 2nd IndyRef (with the caveat that if ‘no’ won that one, it’d be the last for two/three parliaments). The Lib Dems (12 seats) in coalition, with SNP confidence and supply (on the above basis), the guaranteed vote of Lefter than Left Lucas and bang! Labour PM....

Thus one can argue - tongue planted very firmly in cheek - that had Ed not muffed the leadership rules, we’d still be in the EU, Scottish independence would be a dead issue until 2030 and Mrs May would already be safe holder of the label of ‘worst PM in modern UK history’... By giving us Jeremy, albeit unwittingly, Ed changed British history. Or maybe not...
 
Last edited:
Curious: 'cos I've read it that the chancer has been long on the campaign trail, particularly during the earlier part of the Covid crisis.
In Manchester he' s the biggest fish in a medium sized pond, and, in fairness, works with any party that improves things locally. There's minimal backstabbing from rivals, and that allows him to concentrate on building local coalitions to achieve desired outcomes.
In contrast, the PLP can't agree what day it is without forming yet another navel gazing committee to plan yet another policy that Joe Public cares not a whit about.
 
Ed made his mark, alright - if he hadn’t arrsed around with the leadership election rules, Corbyn wouldn’t have got the job. They’d have had a more competent leader - probably someone like Cooper or the King of Greater Manchester (I’m measuring competence against Corbyn, Brugon, Abbott and McDonnell) - who might very well have won enough seats in 2017 to be able to form a coalition government.

While this is, of course, speculative there is reason to believe that the ‘I’m not voting for that **** Corbyn’ factor saved several Tory MPs in 2017. A Burnham or Cooper-led party might very well have flipped more Tory seats red, and had they got to 280 that (far from an impossibility), they’d have faced a PM looking at 299 seats of her own - well within striking distance. The key would’ve been the SNP - a promise of a 2nd EU Referendum followed by a 2nd IndyRef (with the caveat that if ‘no’ won that one, it’d be the last for two/three parliaments). The Lib Dems (12 seats) in coalition, with SNP confidence and supply (on the above basis), the guaranteed vote of Lefter than Left Lucas and bang! Labour PM....

Thus one can argue - tongue planted very firmly in cheek - that had Ed not muffed the leadership rules, we’d still be in the EU, Scottish independence would be a dead issue until 2030 and Mrs May would already be safe holder of the label of ‘worst PM in modern UK history’... By giving us Jeremy, albeit unwittingly, Ed changed British history. Or maybe not...

A Jew that destroyed the Labour Party, how ironic
 
Bristol going Green? Is this election where the Greens start their long march to some sort of power, are we behind Germany where the cabbage munchers are on the cusp of power? Is Labours business plan to pack the big cities with student's and immigrants stating to back fire and they are 'going Green' not Labour?

 
As party chairman she is in charge of campaigning and I think Starmer has formed a view that she didn't do a great job.


It obviously requires a sharp, incisive legal brain to work that out...

...oh...wait...
 
Curious: 'cos I've read it that the chancer has been long on the campaign trail, particularly during the earlier part of the Covid crisis.
If he thinks he can garner sufficient leadership support at Westminster, Burnham would be off like a jewes foreskin. Ego alone.
 
The Labour party is so fragmented that it now looks like parts of three jigsaw puzzles have been mixed up in the same box.

IMHO this is not good as we need a strong opposition to keep the Tories on track.

My business partner does not support Labour and will not vote for them, but he always bemoans the fact that Labour is simply not an effective opposition to the goverment.

The present Conservative Governemnt and MPs invariably show up the opposition as the bunch of ignorant, irrelevant clowns and party hacks that they are.

One only has to listen when some of the Labour MPs open their mouths to speak to realise this.

This country needs a good opposition but Labour isn't, and is unlikley to be so for the foreseeable future.
 
Seems Angela was sacked as she choose the Hartlepool candidate, seems a an obvious error, she could of not made the decision on her own?

Any way Labour are cock-a-hoop over winning Cambridge & Peterborough and feel as they lose Northern Seats they will make up the shortfall with seats in the SE/SW where more educated socially aware voters live. Maybe Brighton, Bristol, Southampton and other urban large towns however a glance at an election map shows this is a pipe dream, the numbers just stack up.

Southampton council has just switched to the Conservatives.
 
Southampton council has just switched to the Conservatives.

Presumably Darby Road will be there to keep the Tory councillors occupied
 

Labour loses council for first time in 100 years​

Labour has lost control of Durham council for the first time in a century.
The party lost 21 of its seats, while the Conservatives gained 14.
BBC Newsnight correspondent Lewis Goodall says this is a "totemic result" for Labour and points out that Durham was the first ever county council to be controlled by Labour, which it first won back in 1919.

giphy.gif
There is a very large number of "Independents" on that council. Growing up there the local Labour party used to say that an Independent was a Tory in sheeps clothing, and frankly they weren't wrong.

Incidentally, Labour did such a good job running County Durham that in the 1930s Durham was the only part of the UK that had an Army recruiting ban as too many Durham lads were trying to get away join up.
 

Latest Threads

Top