Would Labour be any better with McDonnell as leader?

[DuncanW]

Agree with much of what has been said here.

Neither Corbyn or McDonnell are electable leaders. That won't change.

The Tories should be in the mire right now, so it's a crying shame we don't have a credible opposition.

It's not clear who the next leader of the LP could be. Emily Thornberry was impressive on QT last week. Pity she ruled herself out of ever being leader of the Labour party when she posted the 'White Van' tweet.

Who else?

Chuka - Would have been great, but second chances don't come easy

Keir Starmer doesn't seem to want it, and lacks parliamentary experience

Hilary Benn, maybe???

[Jeremy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Corbyn and MaDonnell would be better off taking

> their huge youth support and starting a new party

> for left wing students to vote for.

Yes maybe. Either that, or let Labour be Labour. And the blairites, centrists, and social democrats can splinter off.

The Social Democratic Party (SDP) sounds like a nice catchy name. Then they could merge with the Lib Dems to form the Liberal Democratic Democrats.

[dbboy]

So the Labour Party are currently screwed, the Conservatives are in fighting amongst themselves with Osborne showing no understanding of those on Disability benefits and should be in receipt of PiP's (when they should have been on the up and winning at the dispatch box), which leaves The Liberals, not credible at the moment with so few seats and UKIP - has Farage already peaked?

What next?

[Loz]

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not clear who the next leader of the LP could

> be. Emily Thornberry was impressive on QT last

> week. Pity she ruled herself out of ever being

> leader of the Labour party when she posted the

> 'White Van' tweet.

>

> Who else?

>

> Chuka - Would have been great, but second chances

> don't come easy

> Keir Starmer doesn't seem to want it, and lacks

> parliamentary experience

> Hilary Benn, maybe???

Starmer's a knob. Chuka's a Tory. Benn might have been a one-hit wonder, we'll see.

Alan Johnson doesn't want it. Beckett is too old now. Cooper is too tainted by the Blair years. Burnham messed up the last leadership contest. Tom Watson's a loose cannon.

I kind of like Stella Creasy. Speaks well and knows her stuff.

But who, in their right mind, would want to be the next Labour Leader? Exorcising the ghost of Corbyn (i.e. Momentum) will be almost impossible.

[Louisa]

Labour cannot be electable until they exercise the demons of the past. Corbyn and the current setup is a symptom of that recent past. The parliamentary party needs to get its act together and find a credible candidate who can bridge the gap between social democrats and socialists within the party as a whole. The Tories knew they'd have a free reign for in fighting following the general election, what with Labour in the wilderness and the Libs almost extinct.

Louisa.

[Blah Blah]

Sometimes though, the unelectable leaders are needed to get a party to the leader who is electable. It's almost a necessry form of metamorphosis after a long time in power. The Tories went through the same merry-go-round after the demise of Thatcher.

[JohnL]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sometimes though, the unelectable leaders are

> needed to get a party to the leader who is

> electable. It's almost a necessry form of

> metamorphosis after a long time in power. The

> Tories went through the same merry-go-round after

> the demise of Thatcher.

I like that you count John Major as unelectable.

He won an election because of a headline in the Sun :)

[ratty]

A few labour MPs I know want Owen Smith.

[Mick Mac]

Trouble with Labour is that its not what the MPs want that matters, its the members, hence the members vote someone in who the MPs then set about undermining. There will always be a left wing candidate or two amongst the short list.

Labour, obviously, have been through this cycle before with Michael Foot etc, unelectable but true Labour. Its happening again as Labour think they lost the election by being too centreist.

I think the real trouble is that between Michael Foot and Corbyn's time, Britain has evolved from an industrial country with declining competitiveness to a leading capitalist centre of financial expertise (amongst other skill sets) and an old Labour politician in charge of the country with finance as its main source of wealth and taxes is a misalignment of interests and not likely to happen.

Labour will ultimately move back to the centre ground I'd imagine. Corbyn and McDonnell will be long gone. Both have a role to play and its interesting to see and hear their views but its an opportunity missed at the moment with the Tories making mistakes.

And David Milliband .... eminently electable - if only Ed hadn't been such a backstabbing tw*t.

[Otta]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And David Milliband .... eminently electable

Why?

[Jeremy]

Because he talks the centrist/Blairite language... a pragmatic pro-business approach coupled with aspirations of social justice. And he's a better speaker than his brother.

[Otta]

I find him deeply unlikable for a reason that I can't really put my finger on.

[Blah Blah]

I think Labours problems with the left are a certain type of misguided activist who still dreams of a truly socialist revolution that is never going to happen. And those people would rather see Labour lose elections than seek to truly represent everyone.

To be honest, the Tories are now so far to the right in economic thinking that Labour don't need to leave the centre ground on the economy anyway.

[Louisa]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think Labours problems with the left are a

> certain type of misguided activist who still

> dreams of a truly socialist revolution that is

> never going to happen. And those people would

> rather see Labour lose elections than seek to

> truly represent everyone.

>

> To be honest, the Tories are now so far to the

> right in economic thinking that Labour don't need

> to leave the centre ground on the economy anyway.

Much like anything in politics, perception hits home more than reality. It appears the public perception of the Tories is that they are very much in the centre ground of economic policy and Labour caused the crash and therefore are to the left of them. In reality this of course isn't true and yes the Tories have a fundamentally right wing approach to the economy. Until perception is changed (ie change of Labour front bench) this cannot be remedied overnight.

Louisa.

[JohnL]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because he talks the centrist/Blairite language...

> a pragmatic pro-business approach coupled with

> aspirations of social justice. And he's a better

> speaker than his brother.

He got on with both Condoleezza Rice and Hilliary Clinton.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/17/hillary-clinton-david-miliband-interview

[????]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think Labours problems with the left are a

> certain type of misguided activist who still

> dreams of a truly socialist revolution that is

> never going to happen. And those people would

> rather see Labour lose elections than seek to

> truly represent everyone.

>

Yup...and they've got one of them as leader

[Jeremy]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It appears the public perception of the Tories is that they are very

> much in the centre ground of economic policy and

> Labour caused the crash and therefore are to the

> left of them.

Well I'd suggest this is the Tories own spin rather than genuine public perception. They tell us that theirs is a compassionate brand of conservatism and that they are the new centre ground. When in fact economically they are hard right/Thatcherite.

Sure, the financial crisis could have been partially mitigated by tighter/smarter regulation, but a) all major financial centres were hit hard, b) historically the Tories are a party of financial DEregulation, c) they (or even the FSA) had no clue what was about to happen or what specific regulations would have been needed.

[????]

The problem is the old model of tax take and welfare provision is f*cked globally and no-ones brave enough to admit it or found a way to deal with it. The state will need reinvention or we'll go bust. Tough choices somewhere down the line. But cutting disability allowances (which DOES need reform) whilst cutting higher rate tax (no problem with the allowance going up at the bottom)and leaving pensions untouched is just disgusting even for those that support the general idea of getting our finances in better shape that the coalition and now the tories, are at least making an attempt to do.

I know Labour under Corbyn hasn't really put out much of an economic plan/policy yet but noises around tax increase for the wealthy/'corporations' (which lessens tax take); nationalisation; removing benefit caps and reversing public sector spending cuts sure as hell adds up to me........I'm willing to see what they actually come up with in their manifesto but my suspicion is it's going to be France at best and Venezuela at worst

[Mick Mac]

Sub prime had a lot, but not all, to do with the financial crisis and that certainly wasn't Labours fault. Bill Clinton and credit ratings.

[Mick Mac]

Yeah. Lets make the country uncompetitive and demotivated - that should work.

[????]

I would mention the "Money Tree" as an obvious solution but my old antagonists aren't around anymore and I'm not in their echo chambers :)

*waits patently by riverbank*