Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I always thought Burnham would have been the best chance of uniting the lefties and the moderates. I think he'd be too weak though.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would of thought that someone like Yvette Cooper, who yes was a moderate, but would have united the party. Corbyn only got 20ish Parliamentary supporters, When you watch PMQs its rather depressing, the Tories just thrash him and the backbenchers dont really support Corbyn.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    I would of thought that someone like Yvette Cooper, who yes was a moderate, but would have united the party. Corbyn only got 20ish Parliamentary supporters, When you watch PMQs its rather depressing, the Tories just thrash him and the backbenchers dont really support Corbyn.
    And he asks all the wrong questions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And he asks all the wrong questions.
    Its not even the questions, its the way he asks them. He puts no pressure on Cameron so Cameron can just dodge the question with his frontbench laughing at the Labour Mess..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What do people think about the fact that once a significant party leader loses an election, it is de rigueur for them to resign. Is it good, as it removes a leader the public have rejected, and rejuvenates the party to move on from its electoral defeat?

    Or is it a bit peremptory to tag someone as a political loser after one election, and suddenly blame the entire defeat on someone who they were praising as the next Prime Minister only days ago? After all, Abraham Lincoln lost 8 elections (but you could argue that was a very different political landscape).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    Its not even the questions, its the way he asks them. He puts no pressure on Cameron so Cameron can just dodge the question with his frontbench laughing at the Labour Mess..
    And Corbyn just doesn't know how to handle the media, just giving fuel to his opponents without them having to put any effort in, just look at PMQs pretty much any week and the Tory back benchers are fed questions based on all the media gaffes, how many were there this week, three including Dodds' question? Back channels with IS, ignoring the Falkland Islanders very near unanimously supporting British rule and Trident without the trident, or have I missed one?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by pamplemousse.)
    What do people think about the fact that once a significant party leader loses an election, it is de rigueur for them to resign. Is it good, as it removes a leader the public have rejected, and rejuvenates the party to move on from its electoral defeat?

    Or is it a bit peremptory to tag someone as a political loser after one election, and suddenly blame the entire defeat on someone who they were praising as the next Prime Minister only days ago? After all, Abraham Lincoln lost 8 elections (but you could argue that was a very different political landscape).
    I think it's largely a sign of the change of times, these days with elections becoming more and more presidential, and the leader being so important to the campaign, after all the last election was really do you want Dave who has proved his competence or Ed who, well..., and the next one will be a question of Do you want Gideon/BoJo or somebody who is soft on security and will destroy the economy?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I think it's largely a sign of the change of times, these days with elections becoming more and more presidential, and the leader being so important to the campaign, after all the last election was really do you want Dave who has proved his competence or Ed who, well..., and the next one will be a question of Do you want Gideon/BoJo or somebody who is soft on security and will destroy the economy?
    I'm not saying Corbyn hasn't got a chance I am saying that he will have to work his socks off, and a lot of other things, to win over the electorate. The first thing to do is to produce a manifesto that the whole Labour Party agrees with, that way the PLP will unite. He needs to polish up his performance in the house of commons. Forget, Scotland Labour has no chance, but he needs to win the London election and keep hold of Wales.(Bristol he also has to win)
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    .
    "Here's a video of a hugely divisive dogmatist speaking which doesn't support my point at all but if I'm lucky nobody will notice."
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    I'm not saying Corbyn hasn't got a chance I am saying that he will have to work his socks off, and a lot of other things, to win over the electorate. The first thing to do is to produce a manifesto that the whole Labour Party agrees with, that way the PLP will unite. He needs to polish up his performance in the house of commons. Forget, Scotland Labour has no chance, but he needs to win the London election and keep hold of Wales.(Bristol he also has to win)
    The problem in winning over the electorate and the PLP is that it goes against pretty much everything he believes in, the things he stood on. Holding Wales is a given, holding an effective majority, unlikely, I think they also need to avoid being relegated to third in the Scotland, which is a possibility
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    With December polling averages putting Labour 7% behind with polling samples that we now know are under-weighting the Tories.. just how badly does Corbyn need to be performing for his supporters to accept that he must be replaced for the good of the wider party.
    I'm not a Corbynite but I think he needs at least a few years in the job before his leadership can be properly evaluated.

    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Never, because it boils down to this: I have my set of views, and I believe that that set of views would lead to a better Britain. As such, I want the leader of the Labour Party to share a good chunk of those views. Corbyn does. I don't care how badly he's doing in the polls because Corbyn on 30% is a hell of a lot better in my eyes than Liz Kendall on 40%.
    This is a farcical statement which I find hugely concerning. New Labour achieved fantastic things for this country, and even if like me you regret that they didn't go far enough, you must surely accept that the Blair years were significantly better than the last 6 under Tory rule.

    It's this kind of thinking that might bury Labour - getting into power is the number one concern of the party. It has to be. The Labour Party exists to enact significant change, not to just be another opposition group. Personally I thought Kendall was a weak candidate and too far right for me but the choice between her and Cameron is so clear cut it isn't worth considering.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    But a Blairite Labour government such as the one Liz Kendall would lead wouldn't necessarily make things better. Blairites don't even support rail renationalisation fgs. It just wouldn't make things worse. That's not good enough.
    Question: How many Liz Kendall supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?

    Answer: Both of them!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by St. Brynjar)
    This is a farcical statement which I find hugely concerning. New Labour achieved fantastic things for this country, and even if like me you regret that they didn't go far enough, you must surely accept that the Blair years were significantly better than the last 6 under Tory rule.

    It's this kind of thinking that might bury Labour - getting into power is the number one concern of the party. It has to be. The Labour Party exists to enact significant change, not to just be another opposition group. Personally I thought Kendall was a weak candidate and too far right for me but the choice between her and Cameron is so clear cut it isn't worth considering.
    New Labour also did a lot of awful things for this Country, PFI, Iraq and so on. They had a golden opportunity, and completely and utterly wasted it. Yes we did a lot of good such as the minimum wage, lords reform ect, however none of it went far enough at all, and by the 2001 General Election I think I wouldn't have voted as there was no party I'd really feel a supporter of, and in 2005 I almost certainly would have voted Lib Dem. Blair lost four million votes between 1997 and 2005, Miliband only just did worse than Blair did in 2005, and actually did better in England than Blair did in 2005.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Question: How many Liz Kendall supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?

    Answer: Both of them!
    And that's why the lights all went out at her campaign HQ, because she doesn't count as a supporter
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Question: How many Liz Kendall supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?
    None. She lights up the room with her presence



    :love:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    New Labour also did a lot of awful things for this Country, PFI, Iraq and so on. They had a golden opportunity, and completely and utterly wasted it. Yes we did a lot of good such as the minimum wage, lords reform ect, however none of it went far enough at all, and by the 2001 General Election I think I wouldn't have voted as there was no party I'd really feel a supporter of, and in 2005 I almost certainly would have voted Lib Dem. Blair lost four million votes between 1997 and 2005, Miliband only just did worse than Blair did in 2005, and actually did better in England than Blair did in 2005.
    I'm not sure you've understood my point - the Blair years were imperfect to say they least but surely, surely you can see the difference between those ten years and the six we've had since 2010. You mention some of the great things we achieved but preface it with the phrase "completely and utterly wasted it", which I'm not sure is a consistent view.

    You are of course right to point out our declining vote share since Blair's 1997 landslide. Obviously, that's to be expected - it's very rare for governments to increase their share in an election (something which made the result in May all the more gruelling) and Blair had very little room for improvement electorally. I think a the fact he led the party to an election victory three years after Iraq (which, like most Labourites, I'm appalled by) shows just how impressive his tenure was.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by St. Brynjar)
    I'm not sure you've understood my point - the Blair years were imperfect to say they least but surely, surely you can see the difference between those ten years and the six we've had since 2010. You mention some of the great things we achieved but preface it with the phrase "completely and utterly wasted it", which I'm not sure is a consistent view.

    You are of course right to point out our declining vote share since Blair's 1997 landslide. Obviously, that's to be expected - it's very rare for governments to increase their share in an election (something which made the result in May all the more gruelling) and Blair had very little room for improvement electorally. I think a the fact he led the party to an election victory three years after Iraq (which, like most Labourites, I'm appalled by) shows just how impressive his tenure was.
    They did a lot of nice little half steps, minimum wage, civil partnerships, lord reforms, but stopped short of the finish line. No living wage, no equal marriage we still have hereditary peers sitting in the Lords. This is what I meant by "completely and utterly wasted it", with such a large majority we had a chance to embark on something special, to truly change the Country positively, instead Blair decided to chuck the manifesto in the bed and embark on something considerable more right wing. I have many, many issues with what the Blair government did, better than what Hague, or IDS or Howard would have done, but not that good. Hence why I said I would likely have abstained in the 2001 election and voted Lib Dem in the 2005 election.

    As I pointed out about the declining vote, Miliband almost did better than Blair, and did do better in England alone than Blair did in the 2005 election. However we say what an awful job Miliband did, and what a great job Blair did winning a third term, there wasn't much in it vote wise, just Blair's vote won more seats due to the nature of FPTP.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    They did a lot of nice little half steps, minimum wage, civil partnerships, lord reforms, but stopped short of the finish line. No living wage, no equal marriage we still have hereditary peers sitting in the Lords. This is what I meant by "completely and utterly wasted it", with such a large majority we had a chance to embark on something special, to truly change the Country positively, instead Blair decided to chuck the manifesto in the bed and embark on something considerable more right wing. I have many, many issues with what the Blair government did, better than what Hague, or IDS or Howard would have done, but not that good. Hence why I said I would likely have abstained in the 2001 election and voted Lib Dem in the 2005 election.
    It's easy to say that looking back, at the time I expect they were significantly more radical than they seem now. The fact that Blair's achievements are considered insufficient by a good few now just show how much of a legacy Blair has had on the political position of the populace.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It's easy to say that looking back, at the time I expect they were significantly more radical than they seem now. The fact that Blair's achievements are considered insufficient by a good few now just show how much of a legacy Blair has had on the political position of the populace.
    I suppose for us, given our age range, that is one way to look at it, but that wouldn't explain those who at the time didn't think Blair was doing nearly enough, and still don't today think he did enough. I don't deny we did some really good, great even, things, but there was so much more to do and we, imo, wasted the time and majority we had, especially on issues such as the Iraq war, on the idea of ID cards, implementing PFI and so on.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    They did a lot of nice little half steps, minimum wage, civil partnerships, lord reforms, but stopped short of the finish line. No living wage, no equal marriage we still have hereditary peers sitting in the Lords. This is what I meant by "completely and utterly wasted it", with such a large majority we had a chance to embark on something special, to truly change the Country positively, instead Blair decided to chuck the manifesto in the bed and embark on something considerable more right wing. I have many, many issues with what the Blair government did, better than what Hague, or IDS or Howard would have done, but not that good. Hence why I said I would likely have abstained in the 2001 election and voted Lib Dem in the 2005 election.

    As I pointed out about the declining vote, Miliband almost did better than Blair, and did do better in England alone than Blair did in the 2005 election. However we say what an awful job Miliband did, and what a great job Blair did winning a third term, there wasn't much in it vote wise, just Blair's vote won more seats due to the nature of FPTP.
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on New Labour - I think the mistakes on financial regulation and Iraq have completely overshadowed what was a competent, redistributive government. It's certainly a shame that it is held in such poor regard by some on the left, especially considering the damage the current government is doing.

    Under a proportional system you'd be right in your second point but the vote share issue is illustrative of one of Labour's main failings in the general election - we increased our vote share in our safe seats and did disastrously in the marginals. Blair was a success electorally because he was able to win those Tory marginals and retain the core vote.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by St. Brynjar)
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on New Labour - I think the mistakes on financial regulation and Iraq have completely overshadowed what was a competent, redistributive government. It's certainly a shame that it is held in such poor regard by some on the left, especially considering the damage the current government is doing.

    Under a proportional system you'd be right in your second point but the vote share issue is illustrative of one of Labour's main failings in the general election - we increased our vote share in our safe seats and did disastrously in the marginals. Blair was a success electorally because he was able to win those Tory marginals and retain the core vote.
    It is the mistakes which do tar the New Labour Government so completely as there was no need for them, and those on the left told them as such at the time. Yes they did a lot of good, I don't think a lot of it went far enough, but there were great things, but with that majority Blair could have done a lot, lot more, that's my issue, along with the mistakes, with New Labour.

    Vote share is nevertheless important, Miliband did a far better job than he is given credit, winning more votes than Blair in England, and winning more seats in England than Brown did, had we not lost Scotland which is not something I think we can blame Miliband for at all, we would have won more seats than in 2010, and possible seen a greater vote share than in 2005 across the UK. Both of which would have been positive for Labour.

    I would also point out about 1997 than the torys where just burnt out and pretty much disliked as a whole, their economic credibility was in the bin and they seemed flat on their feet, John Smith would have won, and any of those who ran against Blair could have won, they may have had a smaller majority but a good win in 1997 was literally ours to chuck away given the mess the tories where in both with the public on the economy and internally over Europe
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2018
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.