UKH

Why isn't the deputy leader either (a) whoever comes second or (b) a joint ticket with the leader.

Because either you want the two most popular choices working together to bring everything together or a leader/deputy team picked together.

A) would be silly as, if the vote is split between opposed wings and future directions of the party, you could end up a staunch left winger playing second fiddle to a centerist. Or vice versa. It would be an impossible situation.

b) is an interesting suggestion but it would stop any eventual winner picking any other candidate as deputy, and I suspect some candidates would want the same deputy.

Those are my guesses?

Who cares who the deputy leader of the Labour party is. They will probably be just as useless as the next Labour leader. Adept at burying their heads in the sand if nothing else......

Sounds a bit like what has just happened with Corbyn and Watson trying to pull the party in different directions.

Allowing the leader to pick their own deputy in the same way as they select their own cabinet/shadow cabinet would obviously be the most sensible approach but then Labour likes to bind itself up with complicated rules and procedures to make it more difficult to get anything done.

What's the issue you want them to address that they're ignoring?

I think Jess Philips had it bang on when she said today something like "politics is now about appealing to people's emotions, and getting people's trust. I think there's a chance I can do that."

If Labour got a leader who could appeal to enough of the right people, then that'll make a difference at the next election. If Brexit goes badly and the country is clearly more of shithole in 5 years than it is now, and the euphoria of taking back control and "feeling more British" (or whatever it is we're meant to experience) doesn't actually outweigh the lack of economic opportunity and the shitness of public services, and they see that immigration hasn't actually changed because employers still want the same labour as they did and nothing's changed about the British workforce...then people might think Boris has totally f*cked it up.

If that's the case, it's going to matter a lot who the leader of the Labour Party is. The Tories won't have "get Brexit done" on their side next time; and hopefully Labour won't have someone that people think is "anti-British" or a "terrorist sympathiser". It won't make much difference for a while, but it looks to me like it could make a lot of difference in 5 years time.

Well they pretty much ignored more than 50% of the voting public and are now paying the price. They need to address the public perception that they have no credible fiscal policies, are anti democratic for reasons which don't need explaining and are pro migration to the extent where its open season at the borders. It's clear to me perceptions are more damning than facts so whether the perceptions are true or not is largely irrelevant. They need to change the way they are seen and that means a clean break from the past.

I think I've got more chance of winning the next general election than Jess Philips. A whining woman with a Brummie accent will appeal to nobody outside her own constituency.

If, if, if. Kier Starmer is the only credible politician on the Labour front bench and even he is in denial about how useless Corbyn is and how toxic Monentum are.

But then again it will probably make f*ck all difference. People either like you or they don't.  As in all things time will tell.

Wasn't "2 Jags" Prescott supposed to be from the left of the party? 

I totally agree that perceptions are everything. I don't think in 5 years anyone will be talking about "anti-democratic" - that's totally brexit-specific. As for their spending plans, I doubt that's really the vote swinger as it doesn't really get people's emotions worked up. I agree that a lot of the voters they'll need to persuade are socially conservative on key issues and prefer stricter policies on immigration and crime (e.g. everyone loves "tougher sentences" even though they're a total waste of money and don't reduce crime - these might be the same people who want "fiscal credibility", ironically).

There's definitely a lot of truth in the idea that Labour are embarrassed by the social conservatism of working class voters in their former heartlands. Labour want their votes at election time, but they don't actually want the same things for society. My personal view is that Labour should cynically make superficially convincing noises in that socially conservative direction. Maybe there's a way to elegantly appeal to people's in-group loyalty and respect for authority with policies that aren't economically and ethically retarded, it's just that no one's thought of them yet?

I know what you mean about the Brummie accent - I don't think she's whining, I think she's straight-talking. But she is a woman. I think a lot of people are dumb enough to think that "a leader" is a posh bloke in a suit, so she probably is the wrong choice. This is very depressing though, isn't it? I like her, but I think I might pay my £25 and vote Starmer as a more likely winner for exactly that reason. 

He probably knows full well how useless Corbyn is, and is quite right, tactically, in not saying so because he has got to bring the left of the party with him rather than have a civil war on his hands. I think right now he has to not upset Momentum, and if he wins, he'll need to dilute and neutralise their influence.

That's exactly why it makes a difference. If the popular view of Jess Philips is that she's a "whining woman" but they see Starmer as a "strong leader"(doesn't seem to fit, he's kind of nerdy) then that could change the course of the country in 5 years time.

. "I think a lot of people are dumb enough to think that "a leader" is a posh bloke in a suit, so she probably is the wrong choice."

Which takes us back to that Tory woman leader, greengrocers daughter, wore a skirt and went to Grammer school. She managed to get some votes. 

I think it is hard to judge how the public will react to a leader, until they have been in post, the little things seem to turn people's perceptions on or off. How the **** is Boris in post, that is against all the odds from say 12 months ago. He's egotistical, untrustworthy, far too posh and there he is.

Labour has always had a spectrum of ideas and differing leader/deputy leader perspectives are probably helpful in managing the party. So far, the only one I’ve formed an unfavourable opinion of is Long-Bailey, her internal voting record tells me that she’s an opportunistic power seeking brown nose. Quite apart from being the Momentum candidate. They’ve had their shot and blown it.

This is the heart of the problem with politics at the moment. I want facts, plans, metrics attached to policy, not an appeal to my emotions.

Didn't she have to change herself to make herself seem a lot more posh (and maybe less feminine too?) to get those votes?

Up to a point. It was entirely obvious how it was going to turn out with Corbyn!

I don't think poshness turns people off. It represents authority, and people like that. Although I agreed with what Jess Philips said about connecting emotionally, I think that being 'relatable' isn't necessarily the way to connect when running for PM. That's more about being 'leaderly' - which is where being posh is handy.

It's the heart of the problem with human beings. It's not going to change.

Another way to consider my point then. You want winners as leaders - who puts themselves forward to be #2?

If the top 5 are those aiming at the #1 job, then that means the #2 job goes to someone who isn't a top 5 leader.

I could understand it if they were teams. That way the one going for leader picks a deputy to run with them that as whole brings balance. Could be male/female, could private sector/public, rural/urban whatever.

The system they have doesn't do anything to prevent have a popular but extreme leader with a weak deputy.

It won't matter, it'll be someone else's fault. Johnson will barely even need to push that idea, nobody who voted for it will want to feel either conned or knowingly culpable and after three years of bitter squabbling it's identity now, people can't just shrug it off as if they didn't choose 'brexit', there will need to be another explanation for its failure. The media that pushed for it won't be wringing their hands, excoriating themselves and the ideology of their patrons.So: EU punishment, remainder sabotage, global economic conditions, the Muslims... take your pick. Or we could have a nice little war as a distraction.

Are you sure 'get brexit done' won't still resonate in 5 years? EU talks could easily still be ongoing or if patience or control is lost within the Conservatives and we crashed out with effectively no-deal either 2021 or after another failed extension maybe in 2022 there'll be a desperate ongoing scrabble to build Brexit-Britain's link's to America.

jk

Someone who doesnt think they are ready for #1 yet and wants to build their experience up?

Yes, people are kidding themselves if they think that the next Labour leader won't face the same media propaganda character assasination as Jeremy Corbyn did. They might get a honeymoon period while the establishment tries to kill off the left.

As soon as it matters any bumps in the road on Brexit will be "Remainer sabotage in defence of the establishment" and Sir Kier Starmer will play right into that media narrative.

Which 50% did they ignore?

Leave or Remain?

Have a wild guess but the answer lies within the constituencies. 

Both 50%'s, appealing to neither leavers nor remainers.

If they behave like Corbyn then yes they'll get fried. 

Isn't the job of the opposition to create those bumps in the road? Challenge policy etc..

Every time a party chooses a leader then that leader becomes an obvious target for attack by opponents. You're handing them whatever history they have to throw back at you. 

Certainly they'll try. However, a combo of Starmer having a far FAR less controversial history than Corbyn, plus him also appearing to actually have a modicum of political awareness, will mean the damage won't be close to what was and still could be thrown at Corbyn.

That's what I thought you were doing. Where do you get your 50% figure from?

Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions and high profile opposition to the brexit cult. By the time he's facing Johnson in five years time and the Mail, Sun et al are done with him he'll be singlehandedly responsible for a feral plague of foreign rapists, several terror attacks, the failure of the brexit and the ensuing industrial exodus.

Not a reason not to elect him of course, none of the others will fare any better against the UK press, we're saddled with Conservative misrule for at least another decade while the early stages of brexit play out.

jk

Like I said, they'll of course try their hardest, but do you think he's as soft a target as Corbyn?

No but I don't think that matters, nobody is hard enough or slippery enough. 

Jk

Blair was. And before anyone points out that he cosied up to the Murdochs, maybe that’s what being hard means in this context, making the distasteful compromises needed to get into government.

I'd like to see the next Labour government deliver change towards a fairer society rather than continue Thatchers project of tearing up society.

Blair maybe applied a bigger sticking plaster than a Conservative regime would have done but fundamentally he was protected by the Murdochs because he followed the same damaging economic policies where the proceeds of society are handed to the elite. 

This is what caused the disconnection between Labour and the working class that we saw come to fruition in this GE. Politics has changed now, if Boris wants to be re-elected in 2024 he is going to have to keep his new working class constituency and if he does deliver for the working class then I might even consider voting Tory rather than for a Blair mark 2.

I mean nobody is able to weather a full force attack by the UK media and go on to lead Labour to victory. Until the UK media ditches the tories Labour won't win and I don't see the media turning on Johnson for Brexit, they're as culpable as he is. Maybe if he seriously screws something else up... Still they'd seem more likely to back another blue challenger in that case than Labour.

We accept the power the media holds because we believe they gaze into their crystal balls in the run up to an election then back winners but to me it looks rotten, it looks like at the moment they wield enough power to make and buy winners.

jk

They've already started, basically because he's been educated or isn't poor, and it's not just him, they see him as being a hypocrite.

Reading some of the comments below these articles is disheartening to say the least, I know the Sun and DM aren't likely to be Labour supporters, but honestly, it's as if some people would only be happy if the next Labour leader was living on the streets and could hardly speak never mind be able to read and write.

Someone pointed out that the real hypocrite is the person who tells you they're working for you and ends up working for themselves, or that being rich and proposing putting up taxes is the exact opposite of being a hypocrite, and the dislikes are in the high hundreds.

I'd like to see a law where blatant untruths are punished, that would have seriously impinged on the last Tory campaign.

I don't agree. The traditional media's stranglehold on public opinion is slipping and currently only the Tories and Brexiters are taking advantage of that. Without resorting to illegal funding and outright lies a clued-up and targeted social media campaign could have some positive impact for the opposition parties.

We also have no other choice but to try our hardest regardless of the obstacles.

I think Labour need to realize in a First Past the Post system .. if you are not the winner ... then you are a nothing.  Labour are about to learn this the hard way in the next 5 years.

Labour were too focused on winning the argument and not on winning the vote.  In the UK the game isn't about winning the argument.  The game is about winning the vote and the prize is getting into power.  Labour have forgotten this and need to relearn it.  

The question that Labour needs to ask itself is "Do we want to get back into power and change the UK?".  If the answer to that question is yes ... then their top priority of business is electing a leader that is "electable".  Forget where they come from, what their accent is, if they are woman, if they are colour, if they are diverse ... all of those things are progressive and great and we should do it and we will one day ... and they don't matter a squat in a general election.  In a general election the public decide and they aren't bound by any laws, regulations or guidelines - they just choose who they like based on their own wildly biased opinions.

There are 1000's of pages out there that will tell you that opinions are formed within ~7 seconds.  Labour cannot win the next general election in 5 years time without an electable leader.  If they want to stand any chance of winning .. it starts with selecting someone to lead the party that the public are actually going to give half a chance. 

If in 2 months time the the position the electorate start from is "this new Labour leader is as unelectable as the last one" ... the game is lost before it is even begun.

The UK needs a strong opposition now more than ever.  Labour need to start playing the game by the rules of which the game is played.

I know what you mean. That's where Blair's strategy worked, repulsive though it was in some ways. 

This is changing; the power of the print media is declining. But I'm not convinced that the new digital media, social or otherwise, necessarily change the result. Instead we have new ways for money to be spent to buy elections (Facebook, Cambridge Analytica etc.).

It's a major oversimplification to suggest that Labour continued 'Thatchers project of tearing up society'. 

Largely true, but New Labour did attempt a covert redistribution of wealth to the lowest segment of society, not entirely successfully. 

I think the disconnect is probably more complicated than that. The Labour Party's approach and its movement towards a base in the larger cities are a part of it, amongst other things. 

Not entirely successfully is an interesting turn of phrase. During the Blair years, the top 10% got richer, and the bottom 10% got poorer - the exact opposite of redistribution of wealth to the lowest segment of society.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

The media moguls have everything they want from the Conservatives. No matter how morally flexible the next opposition leader, there's no Faustian bargain to be made with the press better than that which they already have.

The power of the print media may be waning (debatable, it still does much of the investigative grunt work and sets the broadcast agenda) but the power of the people who own print media companies doesn't appear to be. They don't just own print media, they have broadcast and digital outlets too. It seems to me they've won the fight for an insular Britain and in it they will hold more sway than ever, to no doubt slightly misquote Murdoch from memory 'when he goes to Downing street they listen, in Brussels he's nobody'.

jk

We can recognise a lost cause and quit Perhaps we shouldn't but there are other places out there on different trajectories and life is short.

jk

I thought the same, visited Ireland where my other half is from and got put off by a couple of bus journeys and a dip in the news there. If I thought I could learn Portugese...

You are UKC's very own Eeyore.

Can we all try to remember that Corbyn nearly was prime minister three years ago.

And why wasn't he? A few super marginals went one way and not the other. The Scots swung to the Tories for their own reasons, blah, blah.

It's incredibly unpredictable. Five years  in post Brexit Britain will be an awful long time in politics.

Corbyn was never anywhere near being prime minister. Ever

Well admittedly he was only ever near it once so your hyperbole is unnecessary. But really I think they were only a few hundred thousand votes shy.

And I'm not saying that would have been a good thing - I'm no corbynista.

Room for optimism? It will be a brave reporter that knowingly tells lies about Keir Starmer - he doesn't have to take legal advice,  he spent half his life giving it. And it will be a brave judge who does not take his views seriously.

And he's bright. When was the last time we had an opposition leader like that?

At the time in question we had the worst prime minister in history, who was barely even prepared to campaign for her own re-election, we had no credible third party in England or Wales to seriously dent the opposition vote, and all polling suggested the majority of the electorate were opposed to the one single clear manifesto pledge the Tories were committed to. The fact that he failed to win even in such rarefied advantageous circumstances told us everything we needed to know about his electability.

I note a lot of bollocks talked about TB earlier on up this thread but no matter.

This special Question Time a week before the '97 GE has Tony Blair taking questions from the audience. It is a masterly display of advocacy and shows how to get natural tory voters to vote Labour. It's a bit of long watch but worth it, don't concentrate on the politics but concentrate on the tactics. Labour will need a politician as skilled as TB to get back into Government in 2025.

youtube.com/watch?v=q5wXbnym3PE&

It's been mentioned before when I warned Johnson was looking at a landslide last year. Optimistic is too much to hope for, I'd gladly settle for being wrong.

Pull the other one. Corbyn did a bit less poorly than the naval gazing media were predicting.

Quite but demographic change will be glacial and the psychology of voters is drearily predictable, we won't own our mistakes and we're all too smart to have been conned so unless brexit really does deliver milk and honey (here's hoping) the same old scapegoats and lies will do just fine again in 2024.

jk

Let's not rewrite history, when Mrs may called the election there was a predicted total wipeout for labour. She only became a negative campaigner during the campaign.

At that time Brexit Brexit Brexit. The ambiguity of labour wasn't so toxic then.

The country was in recoil. And yes even then he was the wrong man for the job but in spite of all that Labour made huge gains.

On that point I give you as many karma/kudos points as you can spend. You were spot on. I was trying to be optimistic rather than realistic at the time.

I disagree, the Tories were not predicted to lose their majority. Let's not rewrite history.

A lot can and will happen in the next five years. Some of it could be inspiring.

New Labour's record was pretty ambiguous, which is why I used that phrase. This Full Fact piece has some interesting details;

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-inequality-1997-2010/

I just saw a chart from the IFS showing that between '97 and 2010 the rich got 15% poorer and the poor 10% richer.

The idea that Labour did nothing to help the poor is clearly nonsense no matter how much those with an agenda want it to be true and when selecting a new leader the first thing a member should ask themselves is whether their candidate can win a GE. Ideology comes second.

Not entirely true. To take an extreme example if voting for nuclear war would get you the election I think most people would prefer to come second and just have the conventional war proposed by the other party.

On a more realistic level there is also the issue around the overton window and the shifting middle ground. If you keep ceding ground every election you end up with a massively shifted baseline to the extent. Keep going long enough and you may end up like the USA.

Whereas if you are actually giving alternatives then the other party may have to shift as, indeed, the tories pretended to.

Pretended to? There was a real shift! In the words of Jeremy Corbyn: "We won the argument". Q.E.D.

I voted Labour at this election partly tactically to keep the Liberals out and partly out of a desire to see investment in public services.

I will say though on a relative basis since the financial crash there has been virtually no austerity here as compared to countries that really got their economies and bond markets slammed post GFC. Southern European countries are the obvious ones close to home.

We are now almost a decade into a global expansion which on average last 8 years so we are already heading into the tails...... with real interest rates still effectively negative, at the next major global recession I think people might thank the Cons for reigning the deficit in over recent years. Monetary policy has no levers left and we will at least still have some fiscal levers to throw at it while at the same time we are facing a demographic time bomb as retiree liabilities increase. 

Ultimately demographics and technological development will drive this economy in the long run independent of who is in power. As for Brexit - it is frankly a side show compared to the demographic time bomb coming. We will probably have to renege on the baby boomers pensions and renegotiate them or face a spiralling debt crisis. There is not enough growth at current rates to pay for their unfunded pension assets that they have been promised out of taxation. 

That pension view is right wing insurance propaganda. The way UK funded pension defecits are calculated, with caution piled upon caution, upon caution, any current funded scheme is pretty much guarenteed to leave a surplus unless the whole financial system crashes. For the same reasons current UK unfunded schemes will have paid more in to government than comes out. The best clear example I know is the closed Coal Miners scheme... subject to dire risk warnings about costs to taxpayers, from the likes of the Telegraph, when the government took it on, and despite a decade of slow growth it has been consistently delivering huge skimmed-off profits for the taxpayer, so much so that it's become the subject of political campaigns for a rebalance. It was the miners' money afterall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47468691

If you are refering to social care funding you have a point, but the government are working on that... current health outcomes are so poor, despite medical improvements, that UK life expectancy is now static and some say might even be in decline.

https://www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/uk-life-expectancy-drops-while-oth...

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/whats-happening-life-expectancy-u...

I don't think it is correct to say concern about pensions deficits is purely down to "right wing propaganda".   

The dependency ratio is set to increase in the UK which is going to cause stress on unfunded pensions and as you rightly say social care unless economic growth pics up and people become wealthier.  While life expectancy extensions seem to have stalled there is hardly an aggressive decline happening and if there was, it would become a political issue which would have to be addressed because the electorate would not accept it. This is not right wing propaganda, it is a matter of demographics, politics and whether there is sufficient funding and growth to be able fund this without having to tax and spend more, force people to contribute more of their salaries or borrow more or a combination of these?

As for funded pensions I hope that your view on the liquidity risk modelling in pension funds being so conservative that they will be almost guaranteed to deliver surplus is correct; I don't have direct professional experience of pension fund risk modelling but recent history surrounding risk modelling in the financial industry does not fill me with confidence, as financial risk models are notoriously terrible at predicting outcomes and identifying systemic risk and hedging against these.  

I'm not surprised that the closed Coal Miners pension scheme will deliver a surplus; surely the life expectancy for coal miners is far lower than in other industries because the health and safety of these workers was not looked after.  There is certainly a higher prevalence of respiritory illness in coal mining, COPD and Asbestos related illness for example.

I do hope you are right that there is no pension crisis occurring.  

Funded Vs unfunded - does it make any difference? The demographics are the same. 

Unfunded -  x working age tax payers per pensioner.

Funded - x working age buyers of pension assets per pensioner selling pension assets.

The Telegraph provided exactly the same doom laden advice before the government took the Miners Scheme on, as it still does for other funded public sector pensions.  The huge size of the surplus in the Coal Miners scheme is massively more than anything likely from health differences from the general population. The very real industrially related health issues many retired miners suffer from are a key reason the government should take a smaller cut of the surplus and provide more for the workers: the scheme afterall is just the sum of their deferred pay.

The reason this happens is the accounting processes don't work properly in economic times like those we are travelling through.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/11/howard-flight-how-ou...