Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Who are you voting for in the Labour leadership election?

Thought I'd test out opinions on who people think would make the best leader of the Labour party.
My thinking is this:
Corbyn falls at the first hurdle because he wants the UK to leave NATO.
Cooper falls at the second hurdle because she thinks a low carbon economy is feasible at the moment, and should be worked towards.
That leaves Burnham and Kendall.
Of these Burnham is most popular with Labour voters and least popular with Conservative ones, making him the default choice.
In the Deputy leadership contest, Creasy doesn't like the Green party much, and wants to modernise Labour, making her the top choice for me at the moment.
What are your thoughts?

Aug 8, 2015 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerry C

I find it quite easy to be apolitical on this matter.
Anybody who enthuses about a "low carbon economy" is a dimwit of the first order. A plank. A moron. An idiot.

Aug 8, 2015 at 9:14 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

As I'm not a member I won't be voting in this election. However I'm with michael hart on the "low carbon economy". Kendal is a History graduate. Burnham is an English graduate and both will therefore follow what DECC says without questioning anything. It doesn't look like there is a good choice, not even a least worst.

Whatever the result I think the entry of Corbyn, win or lose, means the in fighting will go on for quite a while.

Aug 9, 2015 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

I'm torn. All the candidates have good points and none is obviously outstanding.

A) Corbyn provides the first opportunity since 1979 to stop the ratchet effect of the political debate towards the right.

B) Both women would win the General Election just because the disinterested, who only vote in General Elections, would vote for a woman just for a change (especially amongst the distaff wing of the electorate).

C) Burnham and Cooper have experience of managing the top level of the Labour Party and working with the Civil Service.

So I'm torn between Cooper and Corbyn.

Aug 9, 2015 at 9:27 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Everyone's a bloody English grad. I asked my builder if he actually knew the difference between a joist and a girder. He said 'Yes. Joyce wrote Ulysses and Goethe wrote Faust'.

Aug 10, 2015 at 9:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Reed

Who would make the best leader of the Labour party?
"Best" in what sense?
If the issue is "most chance of beating the Tories in 2020" then it makes no difference, none of them has any chance, unless this Govt makes a monumental cockup. IMHO the question of who will be the next Labour leader is as vitally important for the future of the country as whoever those people were who led the Tories after 1997.
If "best" in the sense of most entertaining and thought-provoking, then obviously Corbyn. The latest poll has him on 53%, Burnham on 21%.

Aug 11, 2015 at 8:55 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Clearly the Labour Party is going to ditch triangulation and offer a left wing alternative, although I don't think having a leader who's never missed a chance to proclaim people who kill British people as the real victims is going to help them in the polls. They can kiss goodbye to the British working class vote, and, despite what they assume immigrants aren't necessarily anti-capitalist many of them being entrepreneurs.

Aug 11, 2015 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Labour kissed good-bye to the working class vote 50 years ago.
Wilson only got elected in '74 because the Heath government was so mediocre (I'm still in mourning for Ian McLeod who would have made all the difference as Chancellor!).
The "working class" fell into the claws of the ultra-left union activists like McGahey, Scanlon, and Scargill and the Trotskyite activists who gave us the winter of discontent and Labour 17 years in the wilderness. Their first reaction to a genuine right-wing government was to claim that they were defeated because they hadn't been left-wing enough* (explain that one if you can) and thought that Foot was the answer.
In the end it wasn't Labour that won in '97; it was Blair, helped by Conservative party in-fighting over Europe, an insipid (but very nice) Prime Minister and the fact that after 18 years a change of government was essential.
The current Labour Party is the party of the apparatchik, the politically correct, the bien pensant, pseudo-intellectual, economically illiterate dinner party-goers of NW. Vote Corbyn for its total destruction and replacement with a genuine grass-roots party of the genuine working class. A party that would be at is best led by the likes of Alan Johnson, for example.

* You'll notice the party is at the same trick again. We lost in 2015 because we weren't "left" enough. Definition of insanity: doing the same thing twice and wondering why it didn't work the second time as well.

Aug 12, 2015 at 9:31 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

As a follow up to that now I've finished mowing the lawn (where I do my best thinking), the only reason Labour didn't win in '92 was Kinnock. Like this year nobody realised how wrong the polls were until the results started coming in because they were effectively too late to catch the public reaction to that rally which was a mass outburst of "I'll decide, Neil, thankyou" followed by "better the eejit you know ..."
Think how different British politics would have been if Kinnock had managed to restrain himself a bit. (Of course, if he had he wouldn't have been Kinnock, I suppose.)

Aug 12, 2015 at 10:45 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

It goes around and around. High welfare and high spending on things like a bigger state leads to high debts and destruction of the economy. Then the other lot gets in and we have austerity. Then the people long for fantasy land so they vote for anti-austerity and the first lot get in. Yawn.

Aug 12, 2015 at 9:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

I don't think it matters who wins but, if Corbyn does win, matters will probably progress at a quicker pace. Blair has interpreted developments unfavourably, and has warned us!

But it's not Blair's warning that is the news in this article, it is too predictable! What is news though, is the number of new membership applications. And it looks like it is being driven by Corbynmania:

Blair warns Labour faces 'annihilation' as Corbynmania sees 400,0000 new members flood leadership race to install hard-left MP
* Massive surge in members registering to vote hands Corbyn major boost
* 600,000 voters will elect the next leader, up from 200,000 at last election
* MPs have called for contest to be paused over fears it is being hijacked
* Tony Blair tonight warned Labour was in its worst crisis in 100 years

The membership has tripled since the last election!

So, it's possible, if not probable, that a Socialist party might end up with a Socialist leader and, if the new members stay involved, it has every chance of acting like a Socialist party. Socialist, as in USSR, of old, with tractor production targets, or Venezuela, where they are suffering food shortages and a lack of life saving medicines, while having the second largest hydrocarbon reserves in the world, or something similar.

Blair is right when he says it's a crisis, but that is only a stage in a sequence of events when decisions are made that determine the trend of future events, for better or for worse. It is a turning point.

I hope so!

We have been kicking the can down the road, whether it involves the EU, the Eurozone, printing money - continually, DECC and the 2008 Climate Change Act, Obama and the EPA, Calais or the Greeks being told off for not feeding the thousands that arrived on their shores without an invitation. It seems so ridiculous that the richest and most powerful continent cannot defend itself in any shape or form, or act with any intelligence: being compassionate, even if tough-minded, to all concerned. The young need affordable opportunities, but across Europe many end up being ignored because of decisions they have made, decisions encouraged by those already in a secure job. Many of us expect to have power cuts because the Hockey Stick Graph was so frightening, to others!

Sustainability is the name of the game, yet little of what hits the headlines, every day, is sustainable!

We have survived by thinking, yet so few do today. And, many that do, live in their own cocooned reverse universe, where the decisions that improve the comfort, the career prospects or the status of the individual concerned are detrimental to the community, whether that is a village, a country or the world. And not enough people care to make a difference, in a democracy! No wonder we are in the state we are in. It is bonkers!

I hope Corbyn does well enough to force everyone to think, and discuss, and continue to think, and use their intelligence to choose their future.

No one else can do it for you, and we might even get our sovereignty back, so we can make our own mistakes once again!

Aug 13, 2015 at 12:19 AM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Robert Christopher
The point has been made that a surge in membership appears to be consistent with losing an election. Don't ask me why! Outburst of support for the loser, perhaps. Very British!
So perhaps we shouldn't read too much into the extra 400,000, even assuming it's accurate which it may not be.

Aug 13, 2015 at 8:37 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Corbyn. Politicians have become too similar. We need real debates so that reasons for doing things can be properly aired. Despite no Conservative making a good argument for Tory policies including austerity, the public voted for them anyway. Perhaps if the labour leader had been a more feisty opponent, the Tories might have risen to meet the challenge. As it was, the SNP won the election for them because people didn't want a weak Milliband being dangled on Sturgeon's strings.

I can see the appeal of the things Corbyn offers. At the moment we have a series of generations who, through their own experiences know that a little socialism goes a long way and that ultimately it has to be paid for. That situation is changing. There is a rise of a generation who think their lives are the worst evah! They know it's true because the BBC and Russel Brand tells them so. They want those lucky SOBs, the Baby Boomers to pay through the nose for the misery of Generation Y. Why not? Nobody speaks up for hard workers, savers and home owners, so it must mean they're guilty. (That might seem like bitterness but I'm not a Baby Boomer or one of Generation Whiney).

We need politicians who want to do their best for the British people, not follow a politically correct set of decsions that are currently fashionable. A good example was the Climate Change Act. Because politicians no longer have strong opinions on things they nearly all vaguely agreed with each other. At the very least they need their limp feelings on the issues zapped so that they can be enthusiastic one way or the other.

Aug 13, 2015 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

My enemy's enemy is my friend. Corbyn is that man.

Aug 13, 2015 at 8:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

I'm posting this here as a reply to a comment by tomo on unthreaded, and it seems relevant:

BoFA There seem to be a crowd of quite shouty Greens who are all for Corbin - mostly seen out + about on Twitter. I assume they are the of the watermelon tribe - some of the rhetoric is very reminiscent of undergraduate SWP Trot twits of the 80s....

Nationalise gas - phew!! - anybody here recall BNOC / BritOil ?

Aug 14, 2015 at 6:17 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Well, BP was a nationalised oil company that acquired them, and was later privatised, with great benefit to the treasury. Maybe the warm global watermelons are coming round to the idea that fossil-fuel energy companies are actually highly profitable (i.e. not subsidised in any real sense of the word) because they supply products that we need and thus want.

Whether Corbyn (the Labour leadership candidate) realises this, I don't know.
Or much care. The Conservatives are still talking the global-warming shite, but are beginning to get a (little) bit of credit with me for acting as if they don't really believe it. Still need to repeal the Climate Change Act, though.

But having a nationalised shale-gas/oil company is an interesting idea to kick around the park. Given the nature of government ownership of mineral rights in the UK, I am increasingly of the opinion that the private sector will largely walk away from developing UK fields without the genuine 'buy-in' of the UK government. The green lobby may lie, and cheat, and break the law to prevent private development, but history shows that they can succeed at that in this country.

We need some genuine initiatives from politicians. Corbyn may be a communist plonker, but I welcome him putting this matter on the table

Aug 15, 2015 at 2:33 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Call me a cynic, but 400.000 extra Labour voters suddenly signing up since the party was soundly defeated in the last election sounds distinctly suspicious to me. Judges referring to voting systems that would disgrace a banana republic and places such as Tower Hamlets spring to mind.

Aug 15, 2015 at 7:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

If governments are going to demand all sorts of anti competative junk (like windmills) and then subsidising them until they're profitable, then in many ways there's no point not to take back certain businesses into public ownership. With fracking in mind, it's easier to ride roughshod over public opinion by setting up publicly owned gas drilling than to support a 'greedy' oil company to do the same thing.

As for 'infiltrators' into the Labour party, I think there are very few who wouldn't vote Labour in an election. The Tory intervention is probably mostly a media myth. I read the Telegraph article that sparked it and it just made me laugh, not consider handing over my money. Yes, there's probably a green intrusion but a great many greens vote red when election time comes round because they know their own party will never get anywhere.

The Labour boom years were with Tony Blair who, for all the things I think he genuinely did wrong, is pilloried for the Iraq war which I think was a forgiveable mistake. The issue gets clouded by fossil fuel paranoia but most people have forgotten the fundamental question that was asked at the time - do you turn a blind eye to what a leader does to his own people? 20, 20 hindsight says 'yes'. I remember being concerned at the time when Tony and George talked about winning hearts and minds. 'Why should the Iraq people be grateful to be liberated from Saddam?' I wondered 'We liberated the French from Hitler decades ago and they still hate us for it'. What nobody then or now will admit is that for some reason Those parts of the world can't live in peace. Remove the ugly head and hydra like, many uglier heads spring up. Now there's a bit of right wing paranoia - those nasty foreigners aren't capable of being civilised. Hmmm, but what if it's true, at least for the next few decades? Because the parties are now so similar, that sort of question can never be debated. Had it been possible before the Iraq war, Blair's name might not be mud.

We need there to be a gulf between Left and Right so that the plusses and minuses of issues are researched and aired. When the parties agree, they don't examine things deep enough.

Aug 15, 2015 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2 on Aug 15, 2015 at 9:51 AM

"We liberated the French from Hitler decades ago and they still hate us for it'"
Probably more than the Germans do! :)

"Tony Blair ... is pilloried for the Iraq war which I think was a forgiveable mistake."
It wasn't the war, itself, that was the mistake. It was a consequence of an accumulation of errors, from his lack of planning (failing to plan is planing to fail), a lack of any formality in the discussions (responsibilities were not specified nor assigned), no end goals were set, no exit strategy was agreed, experts saw increased budgets as an incentive, and I expect the History of the area only 'got in the way'.

So similar to the 2008 Climate Change Act's roots, it could have been overseen by the same group of idealists.

"We need there to be a gulf between Left and Right ..."
I agree that we need more people to examine more, and deeper, but I haven't yet worked out what Right is. If the Front National, a socialist party, is right wing, at the BBC keeps telling us, we end up with left wing and right wing Socialists, so where do those aspiring to small government fit in. Don't tell me it is the centre: it's where the winning parties have been, always, and where we have been since before Climate Change, and I just want to be somewhere else, please!

Aug 17, 2015 at 10:50 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

"It wasn't the war, itself, that was the mistake. It was a consequence of an accumulation of errors" Robert Christopher

And I agree, those are the reasons to despise him but that's not why he's so hated. Corbyn's support of the Stop the War march is considered one of his good points but the march wasn't about our lack of preparation. There was no talk of how Saddam was the best of a bad lot. There were a lot more people in support of the Arab Spring but the same things happened as in Iraq. Evil dictators were pulled down and multiple insane despots were free to flourish. There was nobody brave enough to say that those cultures are not yet grown up enough to be peaceful.

Secretly the BBC love Corbyn. He embodies much of what the people there believe. They've been oozing far left view points for years as fake balance. With Corbyn actively voicing those views, they will no longer have the excuse of providing representation for the far left, so if nothing else it will clip their wings.

Aug 18, 2015 at 8:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2: "Secretly the BBC love Corbyn ... ... ... if nothing else it will clip their wings"
Get the popcorn in! Either to consume during the entertainment, or for strategic food supplies!

TinyCO2: "When the parties agree, they don't examine things deep enough."
The BBC's current position, as you describe, will make it more likely that more people will be moved, not only examine things deeply, but to do something about the licence fee and the BBC's unaccountability. If the Climate Change fraud unravels as well, who knows what the future holds.

Aug 18, 2015 at 3:36 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher