Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Clive Lewis will be the next Labour Prime Minister. There.

I could see him running an Obama-esque campaign.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Well 2015 been's the first election year I've actually followed (General Elections are the only ones that count IMO) and it's going to be pretty crap if we have Labour getting crushed at the may election losing their Shadow Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, and then going on to elect someone who is going to be the worse leader since well ever. 

Tony Blair resigns and is replaced by:

Gordon Brown who is more to the left of Blair... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Ed Miliband who is more to the left of Brown... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Jeremy Corbyn who is more to the left of Miliband... who goes on to...

You can guess the rest I think

After Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Jones will be elected leader.

[Simfan34]

Clive Lewis will be the next Labour Prime Minister. There.

Too old!

[tpfkaw]

Well 2015 been's the first election year I've actually followed (General Elections are the only ones that count IMO) and it's going to be pretty crap if we have Labour getting crushed at the may election losing their Shadow Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, and then going on to elect someone who is going to be the worse leader since well ever. 

Tony Blair resigns and is replaced by:

Gordon Brown who is more to the left of Blair... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Ed Miliband who is more to the left of Brown... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Jeremy Corbyn who is more to the left of Miliband... who goes on to...

You can guess the rest I think

Obviously Brown was only very moderately more to the left of Blair but he was a more traditional tax and spend Labour right winger than "Third Way" Blair ever was.

I would only quibble with the Blair->Brown part.  I think even if Blair led LAB in 2010 LAB would still have lost, mostly likely by greater margins.  The internal civil war inside LAB if Blair stayed on would have guaranteed defeat no matter what.  Not that Brown taking over stopped Blairites and Brownites from snipping at each other. 

But Blair staying on would almost certainly have helped the Lib Dems the most (and due to tactical voting increases in the Lib Dem percentage mainly effect seats where they're one of the top two parties), so a Lib-Lab coalition might have ended up being possible.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hardly any senior figures in either party actually wanted that outcome though.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There is no way the Lib Dems would have propped up Blair at that stage.

[Leftbehind]

Christ, a Blair and Clegg coalition? I mean, why even bother at that point? Even if it were theoretically possible.

Well 2015 been's the first election year I've actually followed (General Elections are the only ones that count IMO) and it's going to be pretty crap if we have Labour getting crushed at the may election losing their Shadow Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, and then going on to elect someone who is going to be the worse leader since well ever.  

Tony Blair resigns and is replaced by:

Gordon Brown who is more to the left of Blair... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Ed Miliband who is more to the left of Brown... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Jeremy Corbyn who is more to the left of Miliband... who goes on to...

You can guess the rest I think

Obviously Brown was only very moderately more to the left of Blair but he was a more traditional tax and spend Labour right winger than "Third Way" Blair ever was.

It's funny I've noticed the same folk who are entirely equivocal about Scotland's results, and warn how terribly complex it is, are to be found wheeling out this tripe in the next breath.

"Brown was a milimetre to the left of Blair, clearly another rejection of the Left! Not New Labour!"

If you don't think Miliband's (and Balls') in many cases timid opposition to the Tories disappointed and disillusioned any left-wingers I'm not sure what to say. But you're right, "we'll cut, but nicer" was a great rallying cry for the Left and SNP & the Greens surge took no strength from that.

Tell me, was Blair winning elections and leading in the polls for Labour at the time of his departure? Before the financial crash, remember.

[Silent Hunter]

Tell me, was Blair winning elections and leading in the polls for Labour at the time of his departure? Before the financial crash, remember.

Blair exited the PM's job in summer 2007 and no he wasn't; there was however a significant boost to Labour's support when Brown took over, which lasted until Northern Rock collapsed.

The crash would have taken any government with it.

[tpfkaw]

I suspect the Lib Dems would've demanded Blair's departure (as they did Brown), yes.

[ChrisDR68]

"Even if you hate me, please don’t take Labour over the cliff edge"

That headline would seem to indicate that ol' Tone is well aware of the disdain a large proportion of people on the left in the UK hold him in.

Quite touching really...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/12/even-if-hate-me-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair   

[Cassius]

Christ, a Blair and Clegg coalition? I mean, why even bother at that point? Even if it were theoretically possible.

Well 2015 been's the first election year I've actually followed (General Elections are the only ones that count IMO) and it's going to be pretty crap if we have Labour getting crushed at the may election losing their Shadow Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, and then going on to elect someone who is going to be the worse leader since well ever.  

Tony Blair resigns and is replaced by:

Gordon Brown who is more to the left of Blair... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Ed Miliband who is more to the left of Brown... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Jeremy Corbyn who is more to the left of Miliband... who goes on to...

You can guess the rest I think

Obviously Brown was only very moderately more to the left of Blair but he was a more traditional tax and spend Labour right winger than "Third Way" Blair ever was.

It's funny I've noticed the same folk who are entirely equivocal about Scotland's results, and warn how terribly complex it is, are to be found wheeling out this tripe in the next breath.

"Brown was a milimetre to the left of Blair, clearly another rejection of the Left! Not New Labour!"

If you don't think Miliband's (and Balls') in many cases timid opposition to the Tories disappointed and disillusioned any left-wingers I'm not sure what to say. But you're right, "we'll cut, but nicer" was a great rallying cry for the Left and SNP & the Greens surge took no strength from that.

Tell me, was Blair winning elections and leading in the polls for Labour at the time of his departure? Before the financial crash, remember.

No, the Conservatives were racking up leads of 5-10 points (and occasionally more) in the opinion polls, and winning back large numbers of councils from the Labour party.

[tpfkaw]

Of course, it's not exactly like Brown turned things around immediately; at Labour's nadir at the peak of the financial crisis in 2008, the Tories were touching 50% in the polls.  Which would've translated into a game of predicting which cabinet ministers in ultra-safe constituencies wouldn't lose their seats.

[Phony Moderate]

Over 600,000 are eligible to vote, apparently. A hefty number (a majority?) of those are not members but registered supporters. Hard to envision many registering to vote for Burnham, Cooper or Kendall. Corbyn also of course won the highest number of CLP nominations (in which only members can vote) by a decent margin and a lot of those meetings were held before his surge really got going.

You'd have to say that he's the firm favorite, wouldn't you?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm sure it is very painful for Mr Tony to see so many in his Party hate him so much (and I sympathise, I really do), but his interventions are not helpful.

[afleitch]

I'm sure it is very painful for Mr Tony to see so many in his Party hate him so much (and I sympathise, I really do), but his interventions are not helpful.

Do you think it's safe to say that, with respect to each of their parties at similar points in their history, Blair might just might be on a 'liability par' with Thatcher?

Labour seem to be wanting that elusive cocktail of 1997-2007 (without the sociopath) yet perhaps don't grasp that this was a product of it's times and a product of the complete trashing of the Conservative brand (parties ebb and flow, but none have been trashed internally and externally before...though the Lib Dems have now reached that nadir).

Labour's hope may be in the 'missing millions'. The steep dive in turnout in 2001, which has never been given the proper analysis it deserves and is one of the damning legacies of what Blairism actually made people feel may be a better hope for Labour fortunes than going after the soft vote (which might not actually be nor have ever been that soft) of those that delivered them victory under Blair. Why think the electorate, which includes non voters actually want Burnham or Cooper over say Corbyn? Why make such broad assumptions about where Labour can get the votes to win? It's astounding. These sorts of interventions as you say don't help. They are coming from people who quite frankly, need to shut up at this moment in the party political process.

And to be so frightened of the new party members too, as if they are alien. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't as docile, or complicit as Labour's centralising tendencies would like them to be. It's unlikely that anyone will come close to Miliband's general sh**teability, so there's no risk in offering something different.

I actually want Corybn to win. Not to destroy the party, which he won't even come close to doing, but to actually give it focus. Once you focus, others will listen.

[kashifsakhan]

Clive Lewis will be the next Labour Prime Minister. There.

The man looks like Gus from Breaking Bad!

[Phony Moderate]

Thatcher effectively handpicked Major and Hague, don't forget.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Labour seem to be wanting that elusive cocktail of 1997-2007 (without the sociopath) yet perhaps don't grasp that this was a product of it's times and a product of the complete trashing of the Conservative brand (parties ebb and flow, but none have been trashed internally and externally before...though the Lib Dems have now reached that nadir).

Well that's just Labour's way: after 1945 the Party spent decades trying to re-create that electoral coalition, which was also the product of particular circumstances.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The drop in turnout in 2001 specifically or the general longterm decline that it was a big part of? The latter has clearly been caused by generational change (though this but raises new questions: why not try to reach out to the young, who are generally much more receptive to Labour right now?), but a really convincing explanation for the former has never been put forward, sure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's basically the default response of factionalist dickheads of both flavours to large numbers of new members that they suspect will be hostile to their faction. There was some grumbling on the Left in the early 90s about new members, while followed grumbling in the 70s and early 80s from the Right...

[Phony Moderate]

Cooper made a speech today in which she criticised Corbyn's views. Few specifics of course, just bland and vague statements like "he has old ideas for old times" and "we need to face the 21st century" etc, but then she isn't a politician who gives the impression of holding sincere opinions on anything. I imagine that she will gain some support but whether it will be enough is another matter.

[ChrisDR68]

Cooper made a speech today in which she criticised Corbyn's views. Few specifics of course, just bland and vague statements like "he has old ideas for old times" and "we need to face the 21st century" etc, but then she isn't a politician who gives the impression of holding sincere opinions on anything. I imagine that she will gain some support but whether it will be enough is another matter.

John Rentoul has attempted to dissect Corbyn's views in his article in the Independent today. There would certainly be plenty of ammo for the Tories to throw at him at general election time.

Here's a snippet:

But the big problem with Corbyn’s policy is his approach to taxation, public spending and borrowing. He thinks that in 2020, when the government books will probably be in surplus, the government should tax, spend and borrow more on a vast scale.

As Yvette Cooper says in her speech today, Labour’s economic policy “has to be credible, and Jeremy’s isn’t”. She calls his plan to print money (“people’s quantitative easing”) “really bad economics”, saying “no good Keynesian would ever call for it”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/daily-catchup-what-is-wrong-with-jeremy-corbyns-policies-anyway-10453123.html

Of course if public spending is in surplus by the next general election there may well be a groundswell of support for targeted investment spending to bolster the foundations of the UK economy.

[YL]

The Guardian has a comparison of the candidates' policy stances:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/aug/13/labour-leadership-candidates-comparison-burnham-cooper-corbyn-kendall

I'm still not sure who to vote for, mind...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's quite funny reading the polls that rank Corbyn as the most "brave". Aside from the risk of M15 assissinating him if he gets too high in the polls, there is very little that is brave in standing in front of a bunch of Labour supporters and saying exactly what they want to hear.

 Now Kendall: there is a brave (read: insane, freakishly masochistic) politician.

[Silent Hunter]

Latest ICM poll has Tories on 40 and Labour on 31. That's a bigger gap than the general election.

[afleitch]

Latest ICM poll has Tories on 40 and Labour on 31. That's a bigger gap than the general election.

But not bad given that Labour have been firing into their own faces for the past three months.

[Phony Moderate]

Latest ICM poll has Tories on 40 and Labour on 31. That's a bigger gap than the general election.

It would be unusual for the winning party of the previous GE not to be performing as well or better in the polls than at the previous GE at this stage in a parliament.