RugbyRebels

Phillips and Nandy declare.
Not sure Phillips is leadership material but if you gave her a portfolio that played to her strengths/passions she’d be bloody effective.
I don’t know much about Nandy but her analysis of why Labour lost seems the most incisive I’ve heard from any of the candidates.

From a Conservative perspective, there seems to be enough clout for a leadership team to emerge that would have me worried. I think a team of Starmer, Phillips, Nandy and Rayner would be pretty formidable. Stick Champion in there as well, I believe her and Phillips are close, and I’d be even more worried.

I like Phillips. She is the sort of personality the Tories should fear. She and Starmer could be a good combination with a decent supporting cast.

Can the Labour membership be that astute though?

Nandy speaks pretty well on winning back Labour heartland seats, but she has nothing to say about taking middle England back, so frankly what's the bleedin' point?

Phillips I like, but I like Jo Swinson too, and like Swinson I'm not sure how she'd play as the leader. It might not be the worst thing for Labour of they tried someone out now and it didn't work providing they look to correct in another 2-3 years, someone elected now if not proving very popular will have earned a fair amount of voter fatigue by the next election, so if they're going to try out someone like Phillips rather than a Cooper or Jarvis then now's the time.

It's too easy to portray Phillips as nothing more than a shouty woman. And Nandy as a whiner.

Personally, I don't see either of them as having much to say other than we didn't get it right last time, we should have listened to you more, but not saying what Labour actually should have done, or what it should actually do now. I don't have a problem with them being on the front bench though.

Starmer is in it to win it:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ...we should have listened to you more.......or what it should actually do now.

The first part answers the second.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ...we should have listened to you more.......or what it should actually do now.

The first part answers the second.

Not really. Does it mean you do whatever people tell you they want? What do you do if you think they're wrong? What do you do if different people want different things?

Mellsblue wrote:Starmer is in it to win it:

Like it.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ...we should have listened to you more.......or what it should actually do now.

The first part answers the second.

Not really. Does it mean you do whatever people tell you they want? What do you do if you think they're wrong? What do you do if different people want different things?

Listen to your base, not just conference.

Mellsblue wrote:Starmer is in it to win it:

Starmer is the only one who looks like a statesman, and from that video it looks like he has solid left wing credentials to boot.

We can unify around the radical is a nice idea, though I think I prefer the line on the field free market, and of course the idea Keir never sought to take any credit is nicely juxtaposed with him being praised for those actions he never sought credit for in a video launching a leadership campaign. It's not maybe a bad first attempt as such communications go, but he could use a subtler touch

Mellsblue wrote:Starmer is in it to win it:

Thought it twere an old 'ovis advert. But he's not the best thing since sliced bread, tho possibly the best Labour have got.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The first part answers the second.

Not really. Does it mean you do whatever people tell you they want? What do you do if you think they're wrong? What do you do if different people want different things?

Listen to your base, not just conference.

But what if your base is divided?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Not really. Does it mean you do whatever people tell you they want? What do you do if you think they're wrong? What do you do if different people want different things?

Listen to your base, not just conference.

But what if your base is divided?

This isn’t just about Brexit but, if you do zero in on that, make a decision rather than sitting on the fence.
No party with the size to win an election will have a homogenous base but there was virtually nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes. At least nothing in the headlines and certainly not enough to stop them holding their noses and voting for the Conservatives. Everything was about creating a socialist utopia rather than tackling day-to-day issues faced by the working class. The red wall viewed Labour as having their priorities far too down the list.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Listen to your base, not just conference.

But what if your base is divided?

This isn’t just about Brexit but, if you do zero in on that, make a decision rather than sitting on the fence.
No party with the size to win an election will have a homogenous base but there was virtually nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes. At least nothing in the headlines and certainly not enough to stop them holding their noses and voting for the Conservatives. Everything was about creating a socialist utopia rather than tackling day-to-day issues faced by the working class. The red wall viewed Labour as having their priorities far too down the list.

Nothing in there for the middle classes either really, and they cannot win power by only talking to the working class, though I would agree they've taken the working class for granted for far too long

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Listen to your base, not just conference.

But what if your base is divided?

This isn’t just about Brexit but, if you do zero in on that, make a decision rather than sitting on the fence.
No party with the size to win an election will have a homogenous base but there was virtually nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes. At least nothing in the headlines and certainly not enough to stop them holding their noses and voting for the Conservatives. Everything was about creating a socialist utopia rather than tackling day-to-day issues faced by the working class. The red wall viewed Labour as having their priorities far too down the list.

If you think there was nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes then you haven't read it.

But I'm not here to argue about the contents of the manifesto. My point is that statements like "we should have listened more" and "we will listen more" are largely content-free. It's very easy to say it, and perhaps get people to think "if they listen to me, they'll do what I want". But they can't do what everyone wants - it's impossible. So these kinds of statements are PR - they have no substance.

If they said "the people were asking for X - we failed them because X wasn't in the manifesto - but I am promising X now", then that would be honest.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: But what if your base is divided?

This isn’t just about Brexit but, if you do zero in on that, make a decision rather than sitting on the fence.
No party with the size to win an election will have a homogenous base but there was virtually nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes. At least nothing in the headlines and certainly not enough to stop them holding their noses and voting for the Conservatives. Everything was about creating a socialist utopia rather than tackling day-to-day issues faced by the working class. The red wall viewed Labour as having their priorities far too down the list.

If you think there was nothing in the Labour manifesto for the working classes then you haven't read it.

But I'm not here to argue about the contents of the manifesto. My point is that statements like "we should have listened more" and "we will listen more" are largely content-free. It's very easy to say it, and perhaps get people to think "if they listen to me, they'll do what I want". But they can't do what everyone wants - it's impossible. So these kinds of statements are PR - they have no substance.

If they said "the people were asking for X - we failed them because X wasn't in the manifesto - but I am promising X now", then that would be honest.

As I said ‘at least nothing in the headlines’ and ‘their priorities far too down the list’. That said, no I didn’t read the Labour manifesto but I didn’t read my kids’ letters to Santa, either. If I’m being completely honest, I didn’t read any manifestos other than the Yorkshire Party, wishy washy as it was, as all of the parties’ leaders and leadership teams are massively flawed. I could’ve voted for the YP until I realised who their candidate was...the man is a complete waste of space. The Conservatives seem to be following through on my reasons that I could’ve voted for the YP - investment in poor northern and midlands areas and devolution - so I’m happy.

I agree that you can’t be all things to all men but you can at least pretend to treat all men relatively equally. The northern working class knew/believed they were miles behind ideological priorities.
I agree there needs to be more meat on the bone but I’m sure that will come during the campaign.
This isn’t really meant to be a critique of the runners and riders, merely the point that listening to those voters you lost is a bloody good way to start any debrief, even more so when they’ve voted for you for generations, and seems to be missing from the process so far.

Fist things first. You have to get the public to believe you are credible. That you can govern sensibly, that you are serious and competent. Are you a prospective PM and government that we can trust (you'll hear this word a lot)
Labour's manifesto was brimming with policies - many of them perfectly decent - but that doesnt mean much if the perception of you is one of a hamfisted bungler devoid of leadership quality. Can you deliver even half of what you are offering? If the suspicion is that you can't, you are on an uphill slog all the way.
Starmer, Phillips and Nandy at least recognise this and are at least asking the right kind of questions.

fivepointer wrote:Fist things first. You have to get the public to believe you are credible. That you can govern sensibly, that you are serious and competent. Are you a prospective PM and government that we can trust (you'll hear this word a lot)
Labour's manifesto was brimming with policies - many of them perfectly decent - but that doesnt mean much if the perception of you is one of a hamfisted bungler devoid of leadership quality. Can you deliver even half of what you are offering? If the suspicion is that you can't, you are on an uphill slog all the way.
Starmer, Phillips and Nandy at least recognise this and are at least asking the right kind of questions.

RLB launches her campaign in Tribune, alongside another article slagging off Jess Phillips. Its basically 'carry on as we are with me instead of Jeremy. Policies were fine cos I wrote them, just badly presented.'

If I'm hearing RLB correctly they can't be Blue Labour, but if she uses the word green enough then people will not notice they're Red Labour

Abbott backs RLB and......Burgon
Unison back Starmer- so I'd think that'd do it?

Banquo wrote:Abbott backs RLB and......Burgon
Unison back Starmer- so I'd think that'd do it?

Well Unison get around 1.4 million votes, and Abbott by her own counting gets about 14 million

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Abbott backs RLB and......Burgon
Unison back Starmer- so I'd think that'd do it?

Well Unison get around 1.4 million votes, and Abbott by her own counting gets about 14 million

Do the Union get a 'block vote' at this scale in the leadership election? I'd assumed it was guidance for members who happen to be members of the Labour party?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Abbott backs RLB and......Burgon
Unison back Starmer- so I'd think that'd do it?

Well Unison get around 1.4 million votes, and Abbott by her own counting gets about 14 million

Do the Union get a 'block vote' at this scale in the leadership election? I'd assumed it was guidance for members who happen to be members of the Labour party?

The Unions do not get a block vote, though I did have in mind the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch on voting for the/coffee and Abbott's pre-eminent position as the country's authority on numbers

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Well Unison get around 1.4 million votes, and Abbott by her own counting gets about 14 million

Do the Union get a 'block vote' at this scale in the leadership election? I'd assumed it was guidance for members who happen to be members of the Labour party?

The Unions do not get a block vote, though I did have in mind the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch on voting for the/coffee and Abbott's pre-eminent position as the country's authority on numbers

I was just reading the rules for the election, but frankly, and unsurprisingly got a bit bored.

Be interesting to see what happens if the membership goes against the majority PLP ticket of Starmer and Rayner.