The Student Room Group

Who do you want to be next labour leader.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by Mister Fantastic
As a Tory who paid £3 to a vote in future Labour Leader Elections, I choose Rebecca Long Bailey as I would feel more comfortable if Boris had a 100+ majority next time. :biggrin:


I'm sure you did. Many people are saying the same thing. A caller on LBC said the same as well.
Original post by adam271
I'm sure you did. Many people are saying the same thing. A caller on LBC said the same as well.

Having looked through this thread and looked around the labour ranks this Monentum women thing could prove a fatal mistake, almost as bad as suggesting Starmer (right politics but he’s literally made himself the symbol of Labour Remain the last 2 years).

Of the shadow front bench the only two I think have the communication skill (the grammpa thing is nice but hardly charismatic) are Gardiner and Ashworth. Gardiner accepted Brexit until this year so is not really stained and is on the hard left while Ashworth is loyal but a moderate Brownite having come through with Miliband, he has also not really entered the Brexit debate much.

Outside of the front bench the best candidates are Cooper (remoaner but not prominent and actually capable of strength in communication) and Kinnock. Both are on the right side of the party and have baggage but both are excellent communicators without any real Brexit baggage.

Starmer needs to be the election after next to have any chance and Bailey would struggle to beat Miliband’s haul.
Original post by Rakas21
Having looked through this thread and looked around the labour ranks this Monentum women thing could prove a fatal mistake, almost as bad as suggesting Starmer (right politics but he’s literally made himself the symbol of Labour Remain the last 2 years).

Of the shadow front bench the only two I think have the communication skill (the grammpa thing is nice but hardly charismatic) are Gardiner and Ashworth. Gardiner accepted Brexit until this year so is not really stained and is on the hard left while Ashworth is loyal but a moderate Brownite having come through with Miliband, he has also not really entered the Brexit debate much.

Outside of the front bench the best candidates are Cooper (remoaner but not prominent and actually capable of strength in communication) and Kinnock. Both are on the right side of the party and have baggage but both are excellent communicators without any real Brexit baggage.

Starmer needs to be the election after next to have any chance and Bailey would struggle to beat Miliband’s haul.

Gardiner's voice would ruin him. I know its nonsense and harsh, but how a person sounds still makes a difference, and I know plenty of people who aren't switched on to poltiics but would hear that voice and just say 'nah..'
Original post by fallen_acorns
Gardiner's voice would ruin him. I know its nonsense and harsh, but how a person sounds still makes a difference, and I know plenty of people who aren't switched on to poltiics but would hear that voice and just say 'nah..'

I agree that voices can be an issue which is why I think Rayner and Phillips would struggle but I don’t actually have issue with Gardiner’s voice.
#allinforabbott
Another guy with Jewish background like Ed milliband to get rid of the spray media have done on labour over the antisemitism stuff.
Original post by Rakas21
I can't say the Tories will be living in fear of any of those.

Long-Bailey is not an especially good communicator and comes across as whiny.
Butler is just poor.
Raynor sounds common which while not an issue for myself, will be an issue to the tory floaters in southern england they need to pull across.

Starmer and Cooper have the best meld of politics and ability to communicate but Starmer is much too tainted by being a London Remoaner and Cooper now has a majority of about 1500 (granted Raynor's is only 4000).

Right now their options are pretty poor.

Starmer's biggest problem is being male.
Reply 27
Original post by adam271
I do not want Jess Philips. She's too woke, I don't think it will go down well with voters.
I do not want Sadiq khan. He has made Boris look like a competent major of London which is staggering.

But I'd like David miliband. Heck I would quite like Tony Blair.
But I'm one of the few people who agreed with him that Iraq was a war worth fighting.

Who do you want.

Why might one ask?
Original post by adam271
We need someone outside the Westminster bubble.

Doesnt that kind of rule out almost every single MP...?
Original post by Napp
Why might one ask?


Because he watches old Christopher hitchens videos online. He posted a quote from him on the other thread..

I mean, its a reasonable quote, but wierd to post now considering that Hitchens made the comments long before we knew the outcome of the wars, and of course he never would see the outcome as he died before it all resolved itself, so he never had a chance to adjust his possition and let his mindless followers adjust theirs as well.
Reply 29
Original post by fallen_acorns
Because he watches old Christopher hitchens videos online. He posted a quote from him on the other thread..

I mean, its a reasonable quote, but wierd to post now considering that Hitchens made the comments long before we knew the outcome of the wars, and of course he never would see the outcome as he died before it all resolved itself, so he never had a chance to adjust his possition and let his mindless followers adjust theirs as well.

That is rather rude.
Also bit unfair I dont watch youTube I have read his book on it though.
He also died in 2011 a few days before we withdraw from Iraq and to my knowledge never changed his view. Although he always seemed more preoccupied with ****ting on religion which did grate me a bit.

I do like Hitchens a lot though. I'll try to justify my foriegn policy to you though.
I am not in favour of non-interventionism. Because it leads the door open to other parties to run rampant.

Think of WW2, Americas policy of not getting involved at the start was a poor one due to how global all wars are now in the 20th and 21st century.
I believe the Vietnam war was also a just war in theory. Yes, it was poorly run but this was a period of time when the Communist block was actively trying to increase its influence. Mao, Stalin and later Khrushchev all were funding communist revolutionary parties to try and increase their power. America were fighting Mao's China in Vietnam just as much as the Vietnamese. It is why almost at least 300,000 chinese have died during the war. A figure that is probably far higher.

Korean war another war we had to fight. This was not a war against Kim Jung-Sung. Although he was an tyrant. This was a war again against the communist block. Apparently almost 3 million Chinese died in this conflict. (Impossible to get a true figure). Hopefully I do not need to defend this war but can if you want. Fun fact about the war is that Kim-Jung-Sung wanted the war to end far earlier than it did; he was worried he wouldnt have a country left as it was bombed to hell. Yet, Mao continued with the war with the hopes that America would use the A-bomb so he could pressure Stalin into sharing Nuclear technology with him. Mao actively wanted America to use the nuclear bomb.

Personally I think the biggest blunder of the 20th century was the west actively stopping Chiang Kai Shek coming to power in China. America and the UK used soft force like threating to remove funding and support if he attacked the communists. So he had has hands tied behind his back while fighting the Japanese and the communists. Another fun fact, more died in Maos reign than the current population of the United Kingdom. The scale of his atrocities are staggering and largely our fault.

Falklands - The people of the falklands wanted to remain under British rule. Regardless if the Islands belong to Argentenia or not. If the inhabitants of the Island do not agree to it you can not use force. So another just war. (Although not really a war more a conflict)

First Gulf war. This is when we should of took Iraq. Instead we stopped and in the process all the Kurds who we went to help ended up fleeing for their lives. Could well be a pointless war as we only done 1/4 of a job.

Syrian conflict. I think we should of intervened with Syria at the start. But I understand now it is probably too late and once again the Kurds who fled Iraq to Syria and Turkey are not being abandoned by their so called western allies. It is tragic but what STOP the WAR campaginers do not understand is if WE do not intervene then the other parties like Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and Syria have free reign to do whatever they want.

If you want I can defend my poisition on the wars Hitchens have mentioned but I am in agreement with him.
I understand my view is not a popular one but it is my view. I could of quoted Tony Blair but people seem to have a lot less respect for him which is a shame.

Edit:
I'd be more than happy to know your position on Iraq on any other war. Because everytime someone tells me they are against 'the war' they seem to know very little about the actual conflict they just seem to think if one side stops than the other side will. You could just say they are just watching STOP THE WAR youtube videos or joining university protests and forming their view that way. :tongue: But I am just jumping to assumptions now.
(edited 4 years ago)
Reply 30
Rayner, Starmer,Gardiner and Butler for me
I also agree with OP that Iraq was a war worth fighting! Absolutely love Blair!

I would like Dan Jarvis, Stephen Kinnock or Liz Kendall (I think she'll run again). Maybe Yvette Cooper?

They cannot have someone John McDonnell endorses, that would be the end!
(edited 4 years ago)
They need someone who can:

Appeal to floating Tories
Appeal to the North
Not totally isolate Scotland
Not isolate Wales
Not isolate London

Tories, Wales and London I believe will be driven by policies and the rest are dependent upon the leader.
Reply 33
Carlo ancelotti
Original post by adam271
I don't like starmer tbh.
I'm trying think who else but it's a struggle.

I wouldn't mind a female leader but none have the authority like Thatcher which I think you need.
Even May could run rings around the possible contenders.

Maybe with the exception of Harriet Harman but brexit has damaged her as well


I think Yvette Cooper stands a chance. She’s 8-1 anyway
My dad
Reply 36
Dennis Skinner, he'll make the comeback of the century
Reply 37
Rebecca long bailey.
I don't know her well but I've heard she is just Corbyn without a beard.
The fact that the John McDonnell has endorsed her should automatically rule her out.

I also think Thornberry would be a terrible choice.

I really hope labour does not push a female candiate as leader just for the sake of having a female leader.
Original post by adam271


I really hope labour does not push a female candiate as leader just for the sake of having a female leader.

They obviously will.
Original post by Rakas21
Having looked through this thread and looked around the labour ranks this Monentum women thing could prove a fatal mistake, almost as bad as suggesting Starmer (right politics but he’s literally made himself the symbol of Labour Remain the last 2 years).

Of the shadow front bench the only two I think have the communication skill (the grammpa thing is nice but hardly charismatic) are Gardiner and Ashworth. Gardiner accepted Brexit until this year so is not really stained and is on the hard left while Ashworth is loyal but a moderate Brownite having come through with Miliband, he has also not really entered the Brexit debate much.

Outside of the front bench the best candidates are Cooper (remoaner but not prominent and actually capable of strength in communication) and Kinnock. Both are on the right side of the party and have baggage but both are excellent communicators without any real Brexit baggage.

Starmer needs to be the election after next to have any chance and Bailey would struggle to beat Miliband’s haul.

Starmer has the charisma of a sleeping sloth.

Labour are truly f@cked.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending