JoeLeg

Teresa May, I would say. She's the most likely to keep a level head, as although she was a Remain supporter she stayed out of the campaign largely, and thus in untouched by any gaffes or 'mis-speaking'. I'm no fan of hers, but I think she's probably the most likely to stay pragmatic. I don't think she'll be elected though. I think it'll be Boris and who knows where that will lead? Though better him than Liam Fox or Jeremy Hunt.

citylover Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blabla- yes I do, and this country has always been > split, it's a sign of how healthy we are with all > our different opinions. But you think that the Remain voters were patronising towards you? How can you see that as healthy? A single family will even > have splits and huge differences of opinion- > what's the problem? It's so egotistical to try and > force others to think 'your' (in the general > sense) way. Would Leavers have demanded a re-run? Nigel Farage said a 52% vote in favour of Remain would be grounds for a new referendum. Now I doubt you are a Farage supporter, and I doubt you agree with him, but many are and do. > I don't think so, it's more of a far-leftist > trait, protesting against "wrong" results I'll agree with that. But then they also tend to lose more often, which is a different debate entirely. whether > it's a general election or the ref, always seems > to be due to people being 'misled' or similar > nonsense. Look, don't take this the wrong way (again), but there's ample evidence that the Leace campaign includes some serious misleading, to be charitable about it.

Edited because I wrote a long reply to citylover, realised they aren't worth it, so I'll just say this... Stay classy Brexiters, stay classy...

I think that's a fairly accurate prediction all round Otta.

To be honest I'm not sure Corbym would ever go unless he felt he'd lost the support of the membership. It's a principle (and an admirable if naive one), and he is ultimately a man of principle. Anyway, back to the 80's we go. I liked some of the music at least...

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sky saying don't put it in an email unless you > want everybody to read it. > > Someones leaked something :) Possibly this...oh dear! http://news.sky.com/story/1719331/goves-wife-raises-johnson-leadership-concerns

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > JC is operating within the party democratic > envelope - the PLP want him to consider what they > view as the 'bigger' picture representing the > whole country. > > Let's try to address the issues. I might be misunderstanding you, but surely that is the issue at stake here? That there's essentially a battle line being drawn between those who feel the will of party members is sacrosanct, and those who feel that the ability of the party to be elected supersedes it? And Louisa is right. Whatever this is, it needs to be put to bed fast, one way or the other.

Jeremy Corbyn is not exactly new generation. He should remember what happened last time Labour had a civil war.

"What you, and the parliamentary MP's need to "get" is that you do not have the support of the ordinary and natural Labour Voters throughout the country." Frankly you're making one heck of an arrogant assumption about what Labour voters think. I suspect that Corbyn has s lot of support, but not as much as much as you think.

And that would be another parallel to the 80's, when opposition parties split and all they did was dilute opposition to the Tories. I ask you, how do they not learn from their own recent history?!

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I have absolutely no idea what exactly Corbyn > believes in" > > Really? > > Economic beliefs = the old clause 4 - public > ownership, essentially. He has back-pedalled from > reinstating clause 4 itself and been persuaded to > tone down his statement about renationalisation, > but there's no real doubt about what he believes. > > Foreign policy - united Ireland good, Israel > bad/Palestine good, US bad/anyone who opposes US > good, NATO bad, anyone called 'revolutionary' > good. > > Domestic policy - pro trade unions, welfare state, > human rights, animal rights, public sector, > environmentalism, anti monarchy, big business > (maybe any business), EU, free trade These are not policies that will get you into 10 Downing Street. These are policies which will divided the nation enough to keep you out of there. Like I said, he doesn't know how to compromise or unite disparate views.

Essentially this is a debate about what people want the Labour Party to be. If you want Corbyn and his way of doing things then fine, but his principles are starting to be shown as something that will stand between him and power. And it seems to me that those party members who hang onto him regardless, talking abut how 'the members' support him overwhelmingly, well they seem to think that only the members opinions count? Now of course that is true, until we get to parliamentary debates, when it's the MP's who matter - has Corbyn got authority over them? And of course that is true, until we get to an election, when it is everyone who counts - will he enjoy similar levels of support in the wider population? If you think the answer to both of those is yes, then fantastic. Support him all the way. If he answer to either is no, then Labour have a problem.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JC has shown that it > is he that is in touch with ordinary members & > they now have painted themselves into a corner. Well, I see your point, but is he in touch with the wider electorate? As has been pointed out, you can have a massive mandate from those who voted for you in the party, but that means nothing if the nation as a whole doesn't want you. I'm about as left wing as they come on most issues, and I've got no intention of voting for him. I know others who think the same; maybe we're a minority, but I suspect not. I want to see a Labour Party that is more than just protesters shouting futilely on the wind, unable to gain power. I don't want a return to the 80's when they fought between themselves and the Tories did what they wanted.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > did he actually lie about anything? if so, what? You mean Corbyn? In regards to what? To be fair, I don't think he's lied about anything, it's not something he'd do. But I ask myself if pulling back during the campaign (let's be honest, he wants out of Europe) amounts to the same thing? A kind of sin of omission? Another example of where his personal beliefs sat very much at odds with his responsibility as a leader, and something I think Momentum should be asking more about, rather than blindly following.

""Mandate, mandate, mandate..." What good is a 'mandate' if its just a mandate from a tiny selection of your overall 'target market' and the vast majority would want nothing to do with you?!! It's just a word. " This. Exactly this. Corbyn is used to dealing with groups who share his opinions and agree with him on issues. He's had comparatively little experience in deal-making, compromising and going into a room full of people who disagree with you and having to find and way to work with them. He'd be a terrible PM.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Unfortunately, living in London I don't think we > necessarily appreciate what's going on outside it > :( I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been under any illusion about the fact that you don't have to go very far to find a world where immigrants, LGBT, Muslims and really anyone else a little bit different are treated badly. As Seabag points out, Bromley is roughly where it starts (sorry Louisa, I know you love Petts Wood, but let's not kid ourselves about what lies just beneath the surface). And Seabag is right, they've been given a platform, and a certain amount of legitimacy. That prejudice never went away it stayed behind closed doors and I hoped it was slowly dying out. Now it's had new life, we have to fight harder against it. I've never been deluded enough to think I can eradicate racism myself, but I will never tolerate it in my own little part of the world. That's all any of us can do, but if enough of us do it we will create an atmosphere of tolerance and welcome. Otherwise 'no blacks no irish' really isn't that far away.

"What the racists fail to realize is that their actions will merely strengthen support for immigrants, and, though their actions are unacceptable & hurtful in the short term, they are just farting in the wind. It will pass & the country will be stronger, more united & better." Now THAT is the London I recognise and love. This attitude is what we all need to carry with us.

Maybe, and then we're even worse off, with no way to challenge what will become a decade-long Tory hegemony over British politics. We had that in the 80's, and look where it got us. We need a credible opposition that is able to appeal to the centre. Corbyn isn't that.

Funnily enough I asked the same question the other day. Answer came there none, thus far...

Exactly my point. You can be as happy as you like that he's shaking up the party or challenging entrenched views, but if the result is a massive no-confidence vote them you plainly aren't leading a united Labour Party. There is a time for emotion and belief - and there should be a lot more of it in politics - and a time to recognise cold hard facts. Fine, keep him. But I'm not voting for any Labour Party with him at the helm, and neither are most supporters I know. He hasn't done the job needed, and I don't believe he can be a PM. Labour are f'in doomed with him, ironically reminds me of the last days of Thatcher! They knew, just knew they would lose if she stayed, so they cut the support and coalesced under a new leader. Result - re election. Labour can't do that because they elect differently, so Corbyn reckons he can hang on. And yes, he has a mandate, but it means nothing at the general election, and Momentum can cry all they want but they'll still be no closer to power.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe once labours rid of the tories Not clear what you mean by this, can you elaborate? a different > party may emerge. He is making change, seems to > stay focused on the issues he cares about, > regardless of the shite hes had thrown at him. Yes, and at the risk of being a stuck record, I recognise his ethics and integrity. I think he's a truly honest politician. But too many of his personal beliefs are dividing the party. A leader is supposed to unite.

What I mean is that too much of the PLP honestly believe they can't win an election with him at the helm. I think there's also a fair feeling that he didn't do enough during the campaign to support the Remain vote, and I think that has hurt him. Of course there's a lot who just want him gone regardless and will use any excuse. And of course he's a passionate believer in what he says. But he is never, never going to be PM, and so what use is he as a leader?

Yeah, but it's not about that anymore. I agree with you that a lot of MP's elected as 'Labour' could barely be defined as true left wingers. I also agree that Blairites will be taking the opportunity to screw over Corbyn. But surely no one out there thinks the Labour Party has even any faint chance of success at a general election? Is he fair, principled, honest and decent? Was he democratically elected? Does he have massive grass roots support? Of course. Can be become PM? No way. And so it's a terrible choice they face. But he has to go.

I suspect Boris may be about to break that streak - and I'm not sure any of the others would actually be better; Jeremy Hunt FFS?! And anyone who thinks Stephen Crabb has the experience to handle the office of PM needs their head examined. What is Sajid Javid doing backing him? It looks this morning like the battle lines in negotiations will be drawn over immigration. Not surprising, but I'm still surprisingly depressed by that.

Interesting early analysis from the BBC about him, which includes this line: "What you will see over the next 48 hours is Boris Johnson rebranding himself as Boris Johnson Mark 1 - the socially liberal mayor of London - and discarding Boris Johnson Mark 2, the populist Brexiteer." Is to possible he already has his eye on the 2020 election, and knows he has problems if he doesn't find a way to reconcile with the 48% who didn't agree with him? He particularly won't want to be seen as losing the backing of London and Scotland (good luck with the second one mate). His self-serving greed that bought us to this point may yet be the only thing that can find a way through. It's hard to see how Article 50 can be avoided though, given the language coming out of Brussels.