Who will be the new Labour leader?

[Mark Benson]

Vaud said:

Mark Benson said:

I suspect when he saw that whoever puts themselves forward for this leadership wasn't going to unite the party - Labour needs to have this schism and sort out once and for all what it wants to be, once they've done that we'll see the likes of Ummuna back in the ring.

I agree, but will there be a party left, or will it split and the centrists join the LDs to form a "Democratic" party or similar?

The next few months will tell. It wouldn't surprise me to find one or two of the centre-left gravitating towards the Lib Dems if Corbyn becomes leader, but Labourites are nothing if not proud of their party's heritage and it would be a huge wrench for many Labour MPs to leave the party, however loony it became. They'd know it wouldn't last forever - with Tristram and Chukka waiting in the wings, it's only a matter of time until the membership realises that values are one thing, electability is another.

Labour will survive, even if it means a couple of terms of unelectability.

[cirian75]

wow, calling the Blairites a virus that needs to be purged from the Labour party.

There is a virus in the Labour party, they are called left wing socialists.

[BlackLabel]

Wow Corbyn now favourite with punters too. When he started his campaign he was priced around 25/1.

[Snozzwangler]

Ha! Did anyone here put a cheeky tenner on?

[truck71]

johnxjsc1985 said:

I think the "real" Labour party members have been kept locked in the attic since 1997 so I think its their chance to seek revenge on the Blairites or the Brownites. The real issue should be the lack of talented MP's from all parties suitable to lead this country in the future.
If these four are the very best that Labour can produce then gawd help us

Agree, the lack of calibre is depressing. Not having a credible opposition is unhealthy regardless of political persuasion. The role needs to be proffesionalised and aspirational to attract the right people and rewarded accordingly with firm rules on outside activities. Having strong beliefs and being vocal about it doesn't a good politician make. Compare the likes of the late Charlie Kennedy to a large proportion of the commons and the chasm is huge.

[Derek Smith]

The last time labour lurched to the left, there were major internal schisms. The sharper ones tried to resist the move but eventually felt it best to abandon the party and start their own.

The SDP and one time got 40% in the then fledgling polling industry - mind you things are not any better now it would appear.

The liberals have a new leader, one whose ideas seem to be along the lines of a middle of the road labour MP.

I wonder if we are about to see the birth/rebirth of a new party.

[cirian75]

[johnxjsc1985]

truck71 said:

Agree, the lack of calibre is depressing. Not having a credible opposition is unhealthy regardless of political persuasion. The role needs to be proffesionalised and aspirational to attract the right people and rewarded accordingly with firm rules on outside activities. Having strong beliefs and being vocal about it doesn't a good politician make. Compare the likes of the late Charlie Kennedy to a large proportion of the commons and the chasm is huge.

I was very impressed with the late John Smith just think of him and consider this lot. Labour can still be a left of centre party without letting the lunatics out of the asylum.Sadly they have been using Tony Blair as a template for their young MP's for over a decade and this is the problem.

[turbobloke]

johnxjsc1985 said:

truck71 said:

Agree, the lack of calibre is depressing. Not having a credible opposition is unhealthy regardless of political persuasion. The role needs to be proffesionalised and aspirational to attract the right people and rewarded accordingly with firm rules on outside activities. Having strong beliefs and being vocal about it doesn't a good politician make. Compare the likes of the late Charlie Kennedy to a large proportion of the commons and the chasm is huge.

I was very impressed with the late John Smith just think of him and consider this lot. Labour can still be a left of centre party without letting the lunatics out of the asylum.Sadly they have been using Tony Blair as a template for their young MP's for over a decade and this is the problem.

True enough but if they don't do that then not getting elected for the foreseeable will be the problem. The times they have a-moved-on since Smith.

In fact now that enough of the electorate is sufficiently aware of the deception inherent in New Labour and associated spin, a Bliar Mk 2 would have serious difficulties.

Labour politicos are in a pickle.

[Snozzwangler]

The fact they talk of changing what labour stands for shows they're all shysters.

Surely the party should stand for what it always has stood for, if the electorate agree, it will succeed...

[Vaud]

Snozzwangler said:

The fact they talk of changing what labour stands for shows they're all shysters.

Surely the party should stand for what it always has stood for, if the electorate agree, it will succeed...

I think parties are allowed to (and should) evolve as society evolves.

[johnxjsc1985]

Snozzwangler said:

The fact they talk of changing what labour stands for shows they're all shysters.
.

Shysters is as good a name for them as any other isnt it.

[Mermaid]

Vaud said:

Snozzwangler said:

The fact they talk of changing what labour stands for shows they're all shysters.

Surely the party should stand for what it always has stood for, if the electorate agree, it will succeed...

I think parties are allowed to (and should) evolve as society evolves.

For starters, I think they should adopt a new name - Labour is so old century.. Within their new name, their ethos.

[Snozzwangler]

Mermaid said:

Vaud said:

Snozzwangler said:

The fact they talk of changing what labour stands for shows they're all shysters.

Surely the party should stand for what it always has stood for, if the electorate agree, it will succeed...

I think parties are allowed to (and should) evolve as society evolves.

For starters, I think they should adopt a new name - Labour is so old century.. Within their new name, their ethos.

Evolve, yes.

Change direction based on getting the most votes... Hmmmmm

[turbobloke]

Vaud said:

Snozzwangler said:

The fact they talk of changing what labour stands for shows they're all shysters.

Surely the party should stand for what it always has stood for, if the electorate agree, it will succeed...

I think parties are allowed to (and should) evolve as society evolves.

Within that scenario, extinction is one natural endpoint of evolution.

With luck, CMD's lot will evolve into a Conservative Party.

[John145]

Snozzwangler said:

Mermaid said:

Vaud said:

Snozzwangler said:

The fact they talk of changing what labour stands for shows they're all shysters.

Surely the party should stand for what it always has stood for, if the electorate agree, it will succeed...

I think parties are allowed to (and should) evolve as society evolves.

For starters, I think they should adopt a new name - Labour is so old century.. Within their new name, their ethos.

Evolve, yes.

Change direction based on getting the most votes... Hmmmmm

Change direction based on what the voters want.... Hmmmmm that's democracy!

[BlackLabel]

truck71 said:

Not having a credible opposition is unhealthy regardless of political persuasion.

I used to agree with this but now if I had to choose between a strong Labour opposition vs Labour in disarray I'd choose the latter any day of the week.

I hope Corbyn wins and Labour lurch further to the left as this will help Labour somewhat in Scotland (and hopefully stem the tide of toxic nationalism up here) whilst also making Labour unelectable in Westminster elections.

Go Corbyn!

Oh given the way the House of Lords functions they will always play the role of a credible opposition imo.

[Snozzwangler]

John145 said:

Change direction based on what the voters want.... Hmmmmm that's democracy!

Democracy is different to bending yourself to be the most popular.

[turbobloke]

Snozzwangler said:

John145 said:

Change direction based on what the voters want.... Hmmmmm that's democracy!

Democracy is different to bending yourself to be the most popular.

Bending to be the most popular - then reverting to type once the scam has worked.

Opportunistic shysterism definitely isn't needed and will be rejected.

[P5BNij]

turbobloke said:

Snozzwangler said:

John145 said:

Change direction based on what the voters want.... Hmmmmm that's democracy!

Democracy is different to bending yourself to be the most popular.

Bending to be the most popular - then reverting to type once the scam has worked.

Opportunistic shysterism definitely isn't needed and will be rejected.

They've pretty much painted themselves into a corner, in a relatively short space of time too. What is the point of the Labour party? I agree that we need some quality opposition to keep the Tories on their toes, but if Labour can't decide who they represent anymore they may as well be up front and disband altogether. As a political entity they have no right to exist! They certainly don't represent me anymore. They are akin the school bully who having been found out, is desperate to make friends, ANY friends, whatever the price.... until his newfound mates are on side, then he'll turn on them once more when it suits.

How did it come to this..?