His job is to represent everyone in his constituency, not just those who voted for him. FPTP means that the pro-Remain majority, split across multiple parties, loses to the united minority.
I’m not Labour. I voted tactically.
And it’s not rightness, it’s fact that there is no good side to Brexit. You might as well suggest we craven towards climate change deniers if they won a referendum.
There’s plenty of valid criticism to be made of Labour and Corbyn, but this country even now is still Remainer. FPTP did us in.
And there is your problem in a nutshell, such an absolutist position means that you are starting from a mental position that anyone taking the opposite view must be an idiot or actively malign. That just isn’t the case. There are plenty of intelligent and thoughtful people on all sides who believe, for perfectly valid reasons, that the UK is better off leaving the EU.
You aren’t wrong to feel so dissappointed but you are horrendously shortsighted to imagine yours is the only possible valid view.
Your position is not a “fact” in any manner of meaning that I’m familiar with. It is far too complex an issue to boil down to a certainty one way or another. It is impossible to know, beyond the immediate horizon, whether the UK will ultimately end up being better or worse off after leaving the E.U. Not least because “better off” and “worse off” are not universally defined or agreed.
I once turned down a promotion that meant I was far worse off financially and in terms of career advancement. I don’t regret it for a second because I ended up with greater freedom in terms of family time and job satisfaction.
Democracy means having the abilty to choose incorrectly. I wanted us to remain and strongly act to change the direction of travel. I suspect in the future that may still happen, heck, by us leaving we may even bring about the change that leaves the EU as an organisation we may want to be a part of. I don’t know, nor do you, nor does Europe.
on what do you base this assertion?
Except that the popular vote didn’t show a pro-Remain majority, did it?
The Tories were clear Leavers: leave based on the withdrawal agreement: 43.6%.
Labor was sorta-kinda-wishy-washy Leavers: re-negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, then hold a second referendum, with the Labour Party leader not taking a position on the most important issue in a generation. Wishy-washy-sorta-kinda nonetheless got 32.1%.
The SNP and Lib-Dems campaigned for Remain and got just over 15% combined.
That’s not a problem with FPTP. If anything, it’s a problem with a gutless Labour leader who refused to take a position on the most important issue in a generation, but even so got a third of the vote, tending to Leave.
I don’t know much about the various contenders but I have been reading their bios and watching some videos. Overall Keir Starmer seems like a solid choice and the rest seem pretty unimpressive.
For example Rebecca Long Bailey seems to be a leading contender but I honestly can’t figure out why. She is young and inexperienced and also comes off as thoroughly mediocre, more middle management than a potential prime minister, e.g. check out this interview.
She’s the favourite of the current leadership. She would be a straight continuation of the Corbyn project. They will try to ensure she gets elected as leader because that somehow will prove that they were right after all.
If labour has any sense they’ll avoid her like the plague.
For those not already familiar with the details, here are some thumbnail sketches of the possible contenders:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/15/labour-leadership-contest-who-are-the-runners-and-riders
Every time I have seen her in an interview, I am reminded of a hair-dryer turned to full blast. If Labour choose a Corbynite like Long-Bailey or Rainer they are destined to be in the wilderness for another 10 years.
Labour have such a long, hard climb back to power that a transitional figure like Starmer, in the Kinnock role, clearing out the extremists, might be just what they need.
Lisa Nandy was very impressive on Andrew Marr yesterday. I could see her becoming leader of the Labour Party. Jess Phillips is appealing too. They are both near the middle of their party and could unify the two wings.
I hate the idea of yielding any power to the right-wing press but choosing someone less obviously mockable in The Sun and the Daily Mail than Corbyn would be a plus. Both Nandy and and Phillips pass that test. Not sure if Starmer does.
I’ve seen Lisa Nandy mooted - I’ve never heard of her before but she appears to be working on rolling the pitch for a campaign.
Part of me really wants Peter Kyle to run; he’s not been in Parliament long (since 2015) but he managed to piss off Corbyn for daring to suggest that maybe Corbyn wasn’t the best leader for the party. In reaction Corbyn actively called for Kyle to be deselected despite Kyle going from a small majority in 2015 to a huge one in 2017. My kind of guy.
To borrow some parlance from the Democratic primary: there are four streams. Whichever stream turns out to be the most important will determine the winner. The streams are not (all) mutually exclusive.
The streams:
[ol]
[li]The leader needs to be a woman.[/li][li]The leader needs to be a northerner.[/li][li]The leader needs to be someone from the left of the party.[/li][li]The leader needs to be someone from the centre of the party.[/li][/ol]
Angie Raynor and Rebecca Long-Bailey tick the first three boxes. Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips & Yvette Cooper tick a different three.
Ticking less boxes: Emily Thornberry & Keir Starmer.
Thornberry is too easy for The Sun to caricature.
I’m genuinely curious what you mean by “socially liberal” here. Access to health care & education? Social housing? Freedom of movement? Prison reform?
God, guns, gays, abortion and religious freedom are not live issues in the UK the way that they are in the USA and I struggle to think of what you might mean by the phrase.
Stella Creasy would be my pick, but I seriously doubt she’s interested. She’s carved out a useful niche for herself, brand new baby etc.
Borrowing heavily from this blog, there’s a bigger question here than who the next leader will be. It is, “What is the next leader’s job?”
OK, yes, sure, to lead the Labour party. But right now, what does this actually mean? It’s clearly a different thing from what it meant in, say, 2007. Different times bring different challenges and whether someone is the right leader depends very much on how their particular skills and experience match up with the challenges the next leader will have to overcome.
The next election will not be till 2024. This is just as well for Labour, as they have a lot of work to do to get ready for it. Do Labour need:
A back room deal maker?
A great policy intellectual?
Someone who can appeal to the lost voters?
Someone who can re-energise the membership?
An cynical electioneering strategist?
A great communicator?
Someone who can credibly present strong left-wing beliefs?
Someone who can compromise with the electorate?
Someone who can keep the troops in line with iron discipline?
A Commons performer?
I mean, yes to all, right? But nobody can do all of those things. So what are the priorities? What will re-establish Labour as a viable government in waiting by early 2024? Is it the job of one leader or should Labour be looking to get someone who can do the internal head-banging and peace-making done now before making way for an election-winning communicator?
Labour needs to have a good look at itself and work out what its for and how its going to get there. A good leadership contest is one way to go through that process. But three months might be a little light for that.
Thanks for this! A good, concise overview, I thought.
I have to keep reminding myself that it was only a few weeks ago people were talking about the Tory party ripping itself apart, possibly never winning another election, etc. Amazing how that narrative seems to have been completely turned on its head.
The row over their Brexit policy will be as nothing compared to the row over what Labour should do next. The folks on the left will not want to give up any of the “momentum” they have made towards proper socialism. The folks in the centre will point to the disaster of this election and want to move back towards where they were in the Blair years (back when they won elections).
Will the party even survive the battle?
it is a good question, the other good question is “what have labour from this defeat?” At the moment it looks like the leadership want to annoint a straight replacement for Corbyn. I think that is a mistake.
I also think the over-emphasis on it having to be a female leader is pretty stupid and counter-productive.
I agree that an anointed successor would be a horrible idea, given that the outgoing leadership hasn’t exactly demonstrated the ability to judge what appeals to the general public or indeed the party.
Having read the Guardian piece I now remember Jess Phillips from her various public statements and media appearances. She’s a tad…unpolished… but is taking a decent line on bringing the party together post-fiasco. I don’t know if she’d be a good leader - or indeed if Labour are interested - but she wouldn’t be the worst choice of the bunch.