What now for Labour? (Part 1)

First topic message reminder :

A post mortem

We lost. I feared the worst a few days ago when walking my dog. I met a left-wing man I’ve known for years who said that he was voting for the Peace Party. Someone of his persuasion was going to throw his vote down the drain instead of opting for the only party which could replace the Tories. That made me apprehensive about whether millions of anti-Tory voters would use their votes effectively. (The Peace Party came seventh in my constituency.) Worse was to follow when I logged in here. To read that a serious Tory hater couldn’t “become enthused by any party on offer” and chose not to vote for the only viable alternative to Cameron’s evil regime, was further evidence, albeit anecdotal, that the Labour campaign, despite having so many troops on the ground, was failing to motivate enough people to secure a victory.

About eleven million people in the UK (about 37% of those who voted) chose the Tories, and it resulted in them winning 331 of the 650 seats in Parliament, 12 more than all the other parties combined. In our so-called democracy, we have to respect their choice, even if it’s difficult to understand it. I’ve never come to terms with how anyone of modest means, or anyone with a social conscience, could ever vote Tory. I have a brief encounter with OCD whenever I go into a polling booth, checking what I’ve done on the ballot paper several times before I put it in the box.

What makes it even more difficult to understand now is that many people believed Cameron in 2010, he lied to them and has since broken a string of promises (which have been recorded elsewhere on this forum any number of times). He’s presided over the cruellest government in living memory, and yet so many people don’t seem to care. He’s stuffed the House of Lords with cronies, often after the Tories have received generous donations from them, and he's sold off state assets at knockdown prices, in the case of the Royal Mail enabling Osborne’s best man to make a fortune. He and his government have even been reprimanded several times for falsifying statistics.

The Tories often complain that the BBC is ‘left-wing’, which it isn’t, as a thread on this forum fully demonstrates; if anything it leans to the right these days, and it has always fawned over so-called ‘royalty’. But the Tories never complain about the rabid right-wing nature of most of the press, with even ‘The Independent’ giving them a tepid endorsement this week. That press, and programmes such as ‘HIGN4Y’ and ‘News Quiz’, have participated in the character assassination of Ed Miliband over a long period of time, gradually corroding his credibility, and dismissing him as “not being prime ministerial”. Whether he is we will never find out now, but does Cameron fit the bill? So often he’s shown himself to be an arrogant, bad-tempered, out-of-touch bully with a sense of entitlement. His behaviour on the day after the Scottish independence referendum incited the Scots and drove many of them from Labour into the arms of the SNP. In this campaign, he created fear of the SNP to scare many English voters towards the Tories. Had he been alive today, Machiavelli could have learned lessons from Cameron.

Ed Miliband sometimes looks awkward on television and isn’t very good at eating a bacon sandwich (who is?). But what does it say when the issue of choosing a potential prime minister is reduced to the level of a vote for ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ or ‘The X Factor’? Would Clement Attlee - in my opinion the greatest PM we’ve ever had - have won many votes for his celebrity status? Shouldn’t it be more important to choose between the bedroom tax and a mansion tax, and between democratically managed public services or private ones controlled by unaccountable corporations? Did those who voted Tory really want the ultimate destruction of the welfare state? Are they really so blasé about the possibility of becoming sick, unemployed or disabled one day? Instead of thinking about such issues, so many were distracted by the Tory charge that Miliband was ‘weak’, even though Cameron was too scared to debate head-to-head with him.

So it was rather like 1992 after all. No triumphalist Sheffield rally this time, just a silly stone monument, but the polls telling us that it was neck-and-neck and then the Tories winning easily. Three party leaders have resigned, but so should the pollsters. Electoral Calculus was claiming only yesterday that the chance of a Tory majority was just 4%. I don’t think I’ll ever bother to look at an opinion poll again; studying tea leaves is probably a more reliable guide to election outcomes.

Maybe the similarities with 1992 (which turned out to be a good election to lose) won’t end there. Five months after John Major lied his way back into office with scaremongering and promises of “tax cuts year on year”, Tory economic incompetence was there for all to see on ‘Black Wednesday’. His hapless government, riddled with sleaze and tearing itself apart over Europe, limped through five unhappy years, and we all know what happened next. So maybe 2020 will be like 1997, but five years is a long while to wait to find out, and sadly a lot of vulnerable people are going to suffer in the meantime.

Completely agree. I chatted to a number of people during the week or so before the election. Not one really liked what was on offer by the Tories, however they had go sucked in by all the lies especially about the economy and the SNP. The campaign by them was sneaky to state the least and as you state Red, the drip, drip process came into effect. We need a really hard hitter this time round. Also Cameron won't be leader at the next election, but Boris Jonhnson. Like Tony Blair that guy has Teflon coated underwear, nothing sticks.

sickchip wrote:I suggested Labour would lose about 3-4yrs ago on these pages and was not really taken seriously.

Join the club. mate! And in addition, it now appears to have become a 'posting crime' to express  a view which fails to laud the Labour efforts from 2010 to 2015. If this is the prevailing attitude, the faithful can also forget any prospect of success in 2020, since they clearly wish only to dream the dreams and not to confront reality.

I couldn't agree more.

The next 3 months will see this government attempt to implement the most regressive policy agenda seen in 30 years.

I despaired yesterday and through the weekend at Labour mudslinging on the twittersphere at everybody else on the left - who by the way were perfectly entitled to stand candidates, and many of whom offered far more radical agendas striking at the very heart of the austerity consensus than the Austerity-Lite proposal from Labour did.

The point is this.  If the priority of Labour right now is seen to be to sling mud at people it can work with, SNP included, rather than to mitigate the onslaught that is coming from the government, not only is it going to have a very rough ride attempting to recover seats in Scotland, it is unlikely to be forgiven elsewhere either - and certainly not by me.  

It's time to for Labour to get on with the constitutional duty it has been elected to do - oppose.  It needs to get its priorities right and fast, it gave the Tories a 6 month head start last time, and it can't afford to do that again.

It is also relevant, Ivan,  to discuss the referendum in Scotland in this thread, it's as relevant to Labour's future as its past.  I'm not alone in this thinking - here's LabourLeft's very own Eoin Clarke yesterday:

"After #IndyRef SNP quadrupled membership. We in Labour must learn from that. Let's get 1 million members. Join here"
Dr Éoin Clarke (@LabourEoin)

It is inextricably intertwined with the loss of all but one of it's seats in Scotland, and in finding a way forward from this pickle there are lessons from the referendum that need to be learned - particularly about building and engaging membership, creating a media alternative to the censored offerings of the capitalist classes, crediting the franchise with some intelligence unlike the frankly insulting Better Together campaigning in which it was complicit, and realising that those who don't agree with Labour are by and large potential converts or allies rather than the devil incarnate.

The main electoral barrier is that the right is largely united under one banner, and the left is split into it's various groups which splits the vote.  Attacking others on the left is not how Labour can win elections going forward, it only does that by splitting the vote on the right.

If that's Harriet Harman being honest I'd hate to think how she sounds otherwise. Labor lost because it had a weak leader and no alternative to austerity.

Went to a meeting of my local Labour party last night - all very unhappy as you may well imagine.

The consensus emerged that clearly we got the message partly wrong, and the priority for the next set of actions is to start listening to people locally in order to fine-tune our understanding of what's needed. Seems a start, to me.

Labour isn't 'them' it's 'us'

Then put someone in charge who isn't another bloody tory lite!

GW Ed Miliband was NOT Tory lite if he had of been Tory lite he would not have made those in homes worth £2 million pay a bit more or would have allowed the energy compnaies to rip the people of the UK off so there profits went through the roof, but he was not going to allow the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer but thanks to people like you who voted Tory we are in for a very tough eime and hope you will be just as vocal when the Tory cuts cut into your living standards.

Very true Redflag,the only problem with Ed as far as I could see,was that he did not make himself heard enough above the Tories which made him seem tame, which is not what you want in a leader is it?

Redflag wrote:GW Ed Miliband was NOT Tory lite if he had of been Tory lite he would not have made those in homes worth £2 million pay a bit more or would have allowed the energy compnaies to rip the people of the UK off so there profits went through the roof, but he was not going to allow the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer but thanks to people like you who voted Tory we are in for a very tough eime and hope you will be just as vocal when the Tory cuts cut into your living standards.

Yes he bloody was. He was a hopeless leader, utterly hopeless. No alternative to austerity. No progressive politics, nothing. Labour need to get back to where they belong, not lurching further to the right with capitalists like Chuka Umuna!

Only one thing out of your tirade against Ed G.W. and that is we do not want Chuka Umuna as our Labour leader,as he would send the party backwards,and if he becomes our new leader I will tear up my labour party membership card.
The things you have said regarding Ed are totally untrue, as I said in my previous post he just was not vocal enough against the Tories and that is why people saw him as lame/tame.

Hardly a tirade though is it.

He may be a nice guy; i've never said otherwise. But it's the truth nonetheless. He was a terrible choice and hardly a progressive.

He spoke at one of the rallies in London a few years back and was (rightly) booed for saying there would still have to be cuts. He's a signatory to the idea of austerity, even if lighter.

Yes, I would have preferred him over Cameron, but that's like saying I'd rather eat Brussell Sprouts than dogshit. Who wouldn't?

John McDonnell shold be in charge, but they rejected him entirely last time he tried.

Ed Miliband became Labour leader by standing against the man widely tipped to get the job (his brother). He rattled Murdoch’s cage by calling for a judicial enquiry and saying explicitly that he would seek to limit the percentage of media that one man could own. He threatened the banks with separation between their investment (casino) and retail (piggy bank) arms. He was prepared to break up the big six energy companies unless they gave consumers a better deal. He wanted to give councils new powers to penalise development firms which don't build on the land they have and wait for it to go up in value. He even challenged Google to pay more tax.

If Ed had been as weak as some people like to claim, would the endless character assassination by the rabid right press have been necessary? If he was so weak, why was Cameron scared of a head-to-head debate with him?

Exactly Ivan,just needed someone stronger to write his speeches for him,and tell him to be more vocal with them so they bought the house down so to speak.

ghost whistler wrote:Hardly a tirade though is it.

He may be a nice guy; i've never said otherwise. But it's the truth nonetheless. He was a terrible choice and hardly a progressive.

He spoke at one of the rallies in London a few years back and was (rightly) booed for saying there would still have to be cuts. He's a signatory to the idea of austerity, even if lighter.

Read Ivans post and read his words not what you think he is saying, if you want to Whinge & moan I would direct it at those that voted Tory last Thursday, because if you thought the last five years where bad I can assure the next 5 will be worse if your on low pay or depend on in-work benefits Heaven help us all.

Is anything ever right for you GW? because whenever you come on here you do not seem to praise anything or anyone.

Why should I have to vote if I don't want to?

Fair comment.  Nobody should be compelled to do something they don't believe in, but it would be very surprising to find someone who genuinely had no interest in being able - when an opportunity is offered - to exercise some control over their own destiny.

Historically, the destiny of most people was decided by a King, who would exact taxes by force if necessary, demand unpaid service in his battles, and grant the local Lord absolute rights over your person, property, produce, and daughters if he found them attractive. Similar conditions still apply in some parts of the world, where corrupt Police have to collect their wages from the community over which they have control; in Countries where El Presidente is elected year after year with 99% of the votes. In places where dissenters tend to "disappear".

We're better than that here in the United Kingdom of course, Government is elected by The People, who are allowed to express an opinion every five years.  In between, that Government does largely as it pleases, but the thought is there.  We tend to take for granted such rights that we do have, but our ancestors in some cases fought and died for them.

The United States of America would still be a British Colony if the settlers hadn't rebelled against the rapacious tax-gathering excesses of George III. Suffragettes suffered horribly to get British women the vote, and it is only the people who do vote that can claim any right to criticise the result.

Well said OW, those points or at least some of them,and especially the last one,were put to Phil when he said he was not going to vote, but alas it made no difference.

Phew - it's certainly a good job that I come from a long line of folk who take the minimum of notice when being told what they 'should have done'...    




" ...and don't let me catch you not voting again, Hornby..."

Perhaps instead of playing ‘the blame game’ and watching the left and the Blairites fight for control of the Labour Party, it would be more positive to explain why the Tories won the election. They scared people over a possible Labour/SNP arrangement, they convinced people that the economy was recovering, and they made their customary bribes (‘Right To Buy’ and housing association homes for sale this time) along with unfunded promises on tax cuts. They had 85% of the media rooting for them and shedloads of money from corporate and hedge fund donors.

The Tories poured much of that money into Lib Dem constituencies, which were easy targets as the incumbents had become so unpopular. In most cases, smaller swings were needed for the Tories to capture Lib Dem seats than Labour. The result was that the Tories gained 26 seats from the Lib Dems. As they made a net loss of 2 to Labour (gaining 8 but losing 10), they gained 24 seats in total when compared to 2010, taking their number of MPs from 307 to 331.

Labour’s total went down because it lost 40 of its 41 seats in Scotland to the SNP. In England and Wales it made a net gain of 14 (2 from the Tories and 12 from the Lib Dems). The overall swing in the election was 0.35% from the Tories to Labour. It’s worth noting that every government elected in the last eighty years, apart from Heath’s Tory administration of 1970-74, has survived at least one subsequent election.

The only government in the last eighty Ivan to win and go a third term was in fact margeret thatcher in 1987 I believe.
So at least after this 5years we can live in hope can we not?

Big mistake to remove Ed as party leader. They lost the election this time, but in time the electorate will begin to see the tories for what they are - because the tories will mess up big style, and the electorate will realise it was a mistake to vote them back in.

Labour should've stuck to their guns, kept Ed as leader, and stuck with the same agenda - integrity is vital; and Ed would have won them the next election.

Labour need to prove that they were right, and the electorate were wrong.......the tories will, of course, do this by screwing up.

TriMonk3y. Most of the mudslinging I’ve seen in the last few days has been within the Labour Party, mainly Blairites blaming the campaign for being too left-wing, which is ridiculous. I think Labour had to keep its distance from the SNP during the campaign for two reasons. Firstly, it would have played right into the Tory scare narrative about what would happen in a hung parliament. For some reason, the Scots were encouraged to stay in the UK but their democratically elected MPs are not supposed to have any say in its governance. Secondly, Labour candidates were fighting (very unsuccessfully as it turned out) to save their seats in Scotland, and if an arrangement between Labour and the SNP had already been a done deal, there would have been even less incentive for defectors to the SNP to return to Labour.

It was wrong of Labour to target Caroline Lucas (unsuccessfully) in her Brighton Pavilion seat, as she was not likely to ever do anything to help the Tories at Westminster. I’d be more than happy to see her join a Labour cabinet as environment secretary, few politicians are as on top of their subject as her. I don’t have much knowledge of what went on in Brighton, but Labour should have made a greater effort to take the nearby Kemptown seat, where the Tory clung on by only 690 votes. However, I can’t help thinking that some tactical voting by the 3,187 people who voted Green there wouldn’t have come amiss, and they’d probably have been happier with a Labour MP than a Tory one.

You’re right to emphasise the divisions on the left, which are probably inevitable when progressive people have different ideas on the direction, scale, pace and electoral viability of the changes they think should be made. Anyway, under our anachronistic FPTP system most votes end up being ‘wasted’; I’ve never in my life voted for a winner in a general election.

I think it unlikely that the second term of Tory government will include any kind of move towards PR, but there are five years in which the more progressive parties could develop practical ideas for getting away from FPTP, which at this point in time might appear likely to maintain the Tories in power for ever and ever amen.

stuart torr wrote:-
The only government in the last eighty Ivan to win and go a third term was in fact margeret thatcher in 1987 I believe.

The Tories were in for three terms between 1951 and 1964 (during which they had four different PMs), and for four terms between 1979 and 1997 (with two PMs). And of course Labour had three terms between 1997 and 2010 (with two PMs). If you’re just talking about election victories by individuals, Thatcher and Blair both won three in a row. Harold Wilson won four of the five elections held between October 1964 and October 1974, but in two of them he had single figure majorities and in one no majority at all.

sickchip. Ed Miliband wasn’t removed as Labour leader, he resigned. Whether his position was still tenable is anyone’s guess, but I expect he’d had enough and wouldn’t want to face the smug Cameron and his braying mob in the Commons any more. The dilemma now is whether Labour should choose a new leader quickly, while the party is still in shock, or whether it should take its time, as it did in 2010, which allowed the Tories to embed some of their lies in the nation’s psyche. I’m sure Harriet Harman could do a good holding job for a few months if the latter option is chosen.

Ivan I don't disagree with much, if anything that you say above, but with the caveat that the election has now gone and the game has changed - it's time to work together.  Just because the other side has a majority doesn't mean that they should be allowed to steamroller everything through in the first 100 days.  If the franchise wanted that, they would have awarded them a bigger majority.  Opposition is allowed, and that too gets to the very nature of democracy - in fact, its exactly what they've been elected to do.  It is unfortunate (I am probably alone in this bit) that Ed resigned straight away with HH taking on the mantle, I thought her leadership was poor to middling 5 years ago and the Labour Party needs a strong voice right now with so much regressive business coming our way in the first 100 days.

The Brighton Pavilion campaign was, I suspect, a heavily misguided decapitation strategy which failed - that's not how Labour should behave if it wants win voters back from the Greens.  I know little about the issues on the council in Brighton - but I think you've already pointed out the causes in previous posts.  What I do know is that CL achieved a disproportionate amount in the last parliament and was recognised for it. I've incidentally just started reading her book, which is pretty good so far.  It would have been nice to gain the 4 seats we really targeted across the UK, but we'll take heart from the %rise in each and expect to do better next time around.

We are a broad church on the left, our division can be a strength in the same way that the confinement of the right in one camp will be its' biggest handicap.  It's not each others' votes and seats that we should be attacking, but those going the other way.  I'd much rather have parties of the left compromising to provide effective government than the uncheckable majorities of New Labour.

In Scotland during the referendum it was widely acknowledged by all but the most extreme on both sides that the media was heavily biased to the No campaign.  Some of the tales of doom emerging every other day were beyond preposterous, and repeated verbatim by the BBC to infinity and beyond. Labour suffered from exactly the same phenomena during the election.  Scotland post-election saw the rise of new alternative media sources such as CommonSpace, build up of existing alternative media like BellaCaledonia, Newsnet Scotland etc, and the emergence of an alternative paper in the form of the National.  The SNP gained from this during the last 7 months (and Scottish Labour suffered), and Labour needs to learn from both.  Labour can have the best policies and the strongest leader in the world, but if it cannot get it's voice out there, then there is no coming back.  Similarly if it has to mould its' message to what the corporate media want then we might as well get rid of any pretence of democracy and just ask Murdoch to take the post of Dear Leader.  

I have asked earlier in the thread if similar new media sources are emerging in England?  I can see the usual academic stuff, but little more mainstream. If not then we should start building them...

Addendum - This is the sort of blame stuff that I'm seeing. It's factually nonsensical - these are not votes stole from Labour we can vote any which way we want, really poor, and not what the priority of the labour movement should be right now. https://twitter.com/OxUniLabour/status/598251084109508609

I do agree that Ed Miliband stepping down immediately was not necessarily the right thing - he learned a lot during the campaign and was beginning to develop a strange sort of charisma based on his principled opposition and his refusal to resort to dirty tricks.
In my view, that is what we need in opposition - a constant quiet but firm refutation of the lies put out by an increasingly right-wing government and an increasingly strident and right wing press - and by the end of the campaign Ed was managing to present himself as the man who had the stamina to stay calm while refusing to be shifted on matters of principle - we could do with some of that presence now, to oversee the election of a new leader and to provide continuity while the party gathers its forces for a new period in opposition.

Having lived through a general election campaign, I can quite well see why, having led a losing campaign, he might not want to stay in place too much longer- but another 6 months or so would perhaps have been helpful in terms of keeping some sort of opposition strategy going.

As it is, it's clear the new government had their plans all ready, as they did in 2010 and will try to steamroller over the opposition with a batch of really frightening and regressive policies while the Labour members are in disarray and not, it seems keeping their eye on the ball.

IMHO (as a grandfather) Labour's best hope is with the young. All the comments about false perceptions of relative economic competence are true, but look at what the opinion polls (yes, I know, but ...) said. Every mention of 'the economy' lost Labour votes. Telling the truth sounded like making excuses, because the Big Lie had become The Truth - Labour handed over a country nearly bankrupt because they had over-spent. We can overturn that big lie in the same way it was created - by repeating the same few, short, simple messages over and over again at every opportunity over the next 5 years.

But that's a different issue - back to the young. Labour support is very strong among the young: as important Conservative support is very weak. One problem is they don't vote. Another related problem is they don't understand how democratic politics works. Also, going about their normal (lawful) occasions, they don't come across information from the mainstream left or have opportunities to engage with it except in the run-up to general elections. All these things, though, are changeable - over time.

The Labour Party remains the Opposition, but may allow Scottish MPs to lead the first assault on Cameron's (now undiluted by coalition) plans.

The real test will be to see whether the new Parliament divides materially on The Queen's Speech.

sickchip wrote:Big mistake to remove Ed as party leader. They lost the election this time, but in time the electorate will begin to see the tories for what they are - because the tories will mess up big style, and the electorate will realise it was a mistake to vote them back in.

Labour should've stuck to their guns, kept Ed as leader, and stuck with the same agenda - integrity is vital; and Ed would have won them the next election.

Labour need to prove that they were right, and the electorate were wrong.......the tories will, of course, do this by screwing up.

Thank you sickchop I am 100% with you and your post, the Labour party has done EXACTLY what the Tories wanted them to do get rid of Ed Miliband, so who ever gets the job of leader it will give the Tories and there right wing Tory donors RAGS.

If they had kept Ed Miliband in place he had toughened up to the nasty smear campaign the Tories were relentlessly doing because they where shit scared of him, there is one thing they can not repeat this time is the sad LIE the "Mess Labour Left"

The great thing is to avoid the inward-looking idiocy of the last fuhrer-election, during which the tories were allowed to get away with HUGE lies, and, if possible, get Mr Miliband to stand again.

I agree PendernEd became able to bat away the drivel that came out of the gobs of shit scared Tories they knew they had to get rid of Ed hence stopping him from bringing in his DECENT policies. Maybe another 5 years of this nasty Tories will persaude those that had promised to vote Labour but ended up voting Tory will give them food for thought I do believe the majority of them will regret voting Tory, I just hope those that voted Tory really suffer through there own STUPIDITY.

It's important that the Labour party do not change their policies, or veer far off the course that Ed was steering them in. Why? Because if they do suddenly lurch to the centre, or to the right, they will appear fickle - and fickle does not signify integrity - and a lack of integrity does not inspire confidence, faith, or belief.....a sudden change of direction WILL make the Labour party appear fickle - and as a consequence weak - a party willing to compromise and appease just to curry favour, rather than a party that sticks to principles attempting to convince people those principles/policies are right for Britain. I really wish Ed, and Labour, simply viewed this election as a slight setback and were carrying on with their message.

Ed really wasn't doing much wrong and, as I said earlier I believe the electorate got it wrong; and I believe Ed should have remained leader. That would have signified strength, determination, and resolve. He would have won the next election with a majority because the Tory party will mess up and a lot of people will turn on them and come to regret putting them in government.

You are very right sickchip, because the Tories are planning to mess up straight away are they not by taking us out of europe,then by repealing the human rights bill. their first things and they are messing up already.

So far the four that have flung there hat in the ring do not set the world on fire or mine for that matter, so I hope a few more that have got the fire in there tummy because that is what is needed so when Davy boy fires smears & Insinuations across the dispatch box, then be able to pick it up double it then fire it at Davy boy making sure it hits him "BELOW THE BELT".

We all know he can dish it out let us see if he can take some of his own medicine, which I very much doubt it, so I hope that some one within the Labour party will fling there hat into the ring that has these qualities, Keir tarmer name has been mentioned though he is just coming into the Labour party as one of the 2015 intake, that does not matter in my eyes as long as he can put the Tories back in there box.

Who do you think is the right man/women for the job as leader of OUR LABOUR PARTY.     All ideas will be welcomed it may give me some idea on who to vote for because otherwise I will not be returning my voting papers to the Labour party.     If you think of any other qualities that our new leader needs should have to get our vote please let us know.

The MP for North-East Derbyshire if he is still there.   Skin the buggers!   Or there's EM, of course - he should do very well!

I think you are talking about Dennis Skinner Penderyn, as far as I am aware he retired in 2015 but his age would stop him he was 83 last February more is the pity as he would have made a fine leader of the Labour party.

My preferred candidate, Dan Jarvis, won't stand for a good reason. His two oldest children lost their mother from cancer five years ago, and he says he doesn't want them to lose their father as well, since being leader of the opposition (and maybe then PM) is a very time-consuming role.

If there are no other candidates, I shall vote as follows:-
1. Andy Burnham
2. Yvette Cooper
3. Liz Kendall
4. Chuka Umunna

Redflag wrote:I think you are talking about Dennis Skinner Penderyn, as far as I am aware he retired in 2015 but his age would stop him he was 83 last February more is the pity as he would have made a fine leader of the Labour party.

We tend to assume that certain institutions go on forever. Last time I met him was very long ago, and I managed to count as being to his left, so he suited his conversation to my position: I have never heard so many things being described as "effin'". Ed Miliband will be a poor replacement, but as tried and true as we're likely to get in this fallen world!

Andy Burnham has not had much contact with labours grass roots members though has he Ivan? and is he not more in contact with new labour also?
I prefer Tristam Hunt if he stands for leadership.

Also Chuka Umunna is too London based to get contact with the grass roots membership, so it would be out of the two females who have put their names forward so far,with Yvette Cooper the most obvious choice.
Roll on Tristam putting his name forward PLEASE.

Yvette Cooper is the person most likely, of the four suggested, to win Labour more votes......so I would suggest Yvette leads the party.

Andy Burnham isn't strong enough.