So - who does everyone think is likely to be the next Labour leader?

[LittleFluffyMoo]

I'm watching Tristram Hunt. Fairly new, so a rank outsider, but seems to handle himself well (apart from the nun thing a few weeks back, but it may well be a one off). Or possibly (more likely) Yvette Cooper.

Any thoughts?

[Tensmumym]

Thanks very much claig. I have got so used to 5 min clips of videos shared by friends that I must admit my heart sank when I saw that the video was 1 and a half hours so it's great to get your views. Shame to hear about Liz Kendall (I know this isn't Sleb Gossip section but I was intrigued to hear that her partner is the comedian Greg Davies). Tristam has let himself down before with his "yummy mummy" comment and for saying to Nicky Morgan the Commons "Not my responsibility love" in an Education debate.

[claig]

Don't forget those are only my views and I am not a Labour supporter. Liz Kendall speaks well (but to me it is mainly rhetoric). But Tristram was the worst in my opinion.

There is another video below with a brilliant Labour person (in my opinion), Jess Asato, whom I have never seen before. She is very good but she lost in Norwich North. Labour have got some good people, and Dan Jarvis comes across quite well, but some of the top candidates are not as good as Jess Asato for instance.

Bring back some of the older guard - Caroline Flint is effective, much more so than some of the ones that Labour promotes.

[Tensmumym]

Interesting. I'll have a look. What do you think of Stella Creasy? I think she always comes across well and is I think going for deputy. Shame she didn't stand for leader.

[Tensmumym]

Yes, from what I've read Dan Jarvis also seems good.

[noddyholder]

Tristram is media friendly WHoever becomes leader now will never be PM wich is why I suspect Chukka pulled out. It is a bit of a caretaker job and a thankless task I assume.

[claig]

Andy Burnham surprised me. Usually I am not keen on listening to him, but he did quite well.

I don't like Stella Creasy, to me she comes across like a righteous vicar preaching but not having a real clue. Jess Asato is on the same panel as Stella Creasy and for me there is no contest about who speaks most sense.

Yes, Stella is going for Deputy, but so is Caroline Flint (who is much more of a heavyweight and serious in my opinion and is someone who can take the Tories on) and so is Tom Watson, whom I like a lot.

Stella Creasy's strategy is to use activists and people and communities in partnership with Labour. She says they (Labour) can't do it alone, they need to involve the people etc. To me this is just vicar stuff. Most people have not got the time or interest to get involved and they expect the fulltime political class to come up with some answers that they can choose from.

Labour are in trouble because they have lost their confidence and their mission. Having thousands of "conversations" with the people and getting the people to be "active" in "helping them" is not going to work because it is just another bigger self-selected focus group. Labour need a vision, as Owen Jones rightly says on the same video as Stella Creasy, they can't just do what Harreit Harman has said today i.e we need to choose a leader, not that we like, but whom the people like.

It is not about popularity or even picking people just to try and win, because Farage is more popular (has a higher approval rating than any of them), it is about a message, a mission and a vision (as Owen Jones says on that video). That is why it is so sad to see Labour trying to distance themseves from the unions and its working class base and falling into the Tory trap of believing in union bogeymen. As Owen Jones says in that video, if Labour cut their links to the unions, then there is no longer a Labour Party.

Labour's leadership are now all at sea, they have forgotten what they are about and they want "conversations" with the people and they want non Labour members of the public to try and tell them what they shoukd be about. If they carry on like that, they will never make it back.

[claig]

Harriet Harman's statement today about their new strategy to let the people help decide shows how rudderless and even clueless Labour's academic elite are

“We must let the public in,” said Harriet Harman this morning as she announced plans to allow the hoi polloi a vote in the Labour leadership contest:

“We will allow people who are not party members or who are not affiliated supporters through a trade union or Labour linked organisation like the Fabian society to have a vote. Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register – can become a registered supporter, pay £3 and have a vote to decide our next leader.”

order-order.com/2015/05/18/labour-leader-vote-hijack-could-rivals-do-a-balotelli/#_@/cL21KOITlmIfOw

People don't want to have to tell them what to do, people want leadership, they want direction, they want vision, they want confidence, they want strategy, they want people to take the Tories on, they want a choice. They don't want to have to tell them how to eat bacon sandwiches, they want leaders who know what they are doing without needing to be told.

[noddyholder]

The attempt to cover all bases could be their undoing They are trying not of offend/alienate anyone and that is just not politics

[Varya]

Labour need someone charismatic and no one in the line-up is right IMO. Not sure anyone in the Labour party has the right qualities; may have to look across to US for David M.

[knickernicker]

Andy Burnham will win.
I like Mary Creagh.

[claig]

Exactly right. You can't please everyone and trying to will mean you please no one.

That is what Establishment forces are trying to do to UKIP, making them appeal to the mythical "centre" so that they will alienate ther core vote.

The Tories have done the same to Labour they have made them ashamed of the unions who represent milions of nurses, care workers, office workers, teachers etc etc. Why doesn' Labour stand up for nurses and unions and start offering pay increases? That would win them some support and set the Tories back.

[ExitPursuedByABear]

Had to laugh the other day, listening to someone on the radio talking about Andy Burnham. The essence of his comments were as follows.

Andy is a true Northerner and has a great understanding of social issues, but he is a real intellectual blah blah blah.

But!!!

[claig]

Tristram Hunt has pulled out and is endorsing Liz Kendall.

I don't think he received enough support.

[Amethyst24]

That's what he says, Claig:

"It is clear to me that I do not have sufficient support to be certain that I can run for the leadership myself.
And it is also clear to me that in trying to gather the names I need, there is a real risk that I might help restrict the choice for the party.
That is not a risk I am prepared to accept.
Instead, I am offering my endorsement to my colleague, Liz Kendall."

So Kendall's gone from a rank outsider to second favourite, and the "old labour" vote will be split between Burnham and Cooper. Interesting stuff!

[claig]

Good point about the vote split.

I must admit I think it is a shame that there is not a wider choice of candidates and particularly some real left wingers. This thing about needing 35 MPs to back a candidate restricts the choice and diversity available, it seems. In the end for such a crucial decision, it will come down to 2 or 3 of the same faces. That means Labour may get such a big decision wrong by narrowing the choice.

[Madamecastafiore]

I don't think Tristram's father being a Baron would have gone down too well with the anti establishment lot !

[claig]

It's one member one vote, provided MPs have given their prior approval.

Tom Watson is standing for Deputy, but he is one of the few Labour MPs who looks like he is telling the truth and answering a straight question minus all of the spin.

[Amethyst24]

Yes, it's surprising that there's no left-wing candidate but I guess Andy Burnham shut that one down. He could still do a deal, I guess.

I must admit I'm quite excited that we could end up with a woman leader, a woman deputy and a woman candidate for London Mayor

[prh47bridge]

That is what Establishment forces are trying to do to UKIP, making them appeal to the mythical "centre" so that they will alienate their core vote

The centre is not mythical. You ask voters to place themselves on the political spectrum and most will cluster around the centre. UKIP does not have to appeal to the centre. It may well get some MPs elected without appealing to the centre. But any party that wants to gain an overall majority or be the largest party in a hung parliament must appeal to the centre or it won't happen.

You may not have noticed but UKIP's offering has shifted significantly to the left - through choice, not because anyone forced them. This was to improve their appeal to disaffected Labour voters. It worked to a degree. Now they need to figure out how to turn those votes into seats. But there is no guarantee they will be able to do so.

[claig]

Yes, but the centre is changing and constantly moving to the right. The centre that the Conervatives aimed at 5 years ago with their hoodie hugging, husky hugging, rooftop wind turbine message has disappeared and UKIP has taken 13% of the vote and as you say has taken the working class vote. But UKIP has done that with a message that the BBC and the liberal Establishment call "toxic" and right wing, together with left wing common sense. The ex-Tory progressive coup against Farage failed and Farage will continue being himself and saying what he pleases which does not please the liberal centre.

Politics has changed and if there was a PR voting system now, then within a few years UKIP would clean up because UKIP has a common sense message versus the left liberal progressive modernising message of the Tories and Labour.

[claig]

This is Janet Dakly in the Telegraph in 2011

"As some of us have been saying for a long time, the centre ground of politics – which is to say, what most people see as reasonable, moderate opinion – is a moveable feast. You may recall that, as they staged their coup for control of the party, the Conservative modernisers made a considerable meal of the fact that in opinion polls voters consistently claimed that they would be happy to pay more tax.

Provided that the extra revenue was to be spent on improving public services, and alleviating poverty, the electorate was not averse to being taxed more – and it certainly did not favour tax cuts over increased "social equality". That was then.

This is now.
...
But however you interpret these figures, whether you deplore them as a sign of resurgent selfishness or welcome them as an indication of emerging public wisdom, there is one thing that they prove beyond doubt. If a political party ties itself to what appears at the moment to be the "centre ground", it will always be behind the curve. It is for political leaders to present their principled case and lead public opinion rather than follow it. There are arguments to be made which can be won – even if they seem to run against the prevailing received wisdom of the day. The centre ground of politics is not a fixed mathematical point"

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100122055/the-centre-ground-has-shifted/

I think UKIP has shown that going against BBC wisdom has been successful and UKIP have moved the centre by sticking to a non-centre message.

[claig]

Sorry, Janet Daley

[Fingeronthebutton]

For those of you who think Andy Burnham is ok to be the next leader, check out his response to the horrors that were happening at Mid Staffs hospital when he was health minister. There was no response from him.
In the investigation as to what happened there, it was stated that 1,200 people died unnecessarily.

[Amethyst24]

Finger, I'm no fan of Andy Burnham and while I don't think blame for what happened at Mid Staffs can be laid at his door, I'm pretty sure it will be raised over and over during this campaign, to his detriment.

[prh47bridge]

the centre is changing and constantly moving to the right

Those on the left will tell you the centre is constantly moving to the left.

It may be that UKIP will establish itself as the party that receives the "none of the above" vote, which is where the LibDems used to be. That has nothing to do with its policies. It is all about being seen as a safe party to vote for that will give the big parties a kicking but doesn't stand a chance of being in government. That is the position UKIP currently occupies.

It may be that UKIP will become a major party, replacing either the Conservatives or Labour and being genuine contenders for winning general elections. History tells us this is unlikely but not entirely impossible.

It may be that UKIP will splinter and either disappear or get absorbed by one of the more established parties (as happened with the SDP). Given the extent to which UKIP is built around one man this has to be a real possibility.

Time will tell.

Oh, and to look at your criticism of Cameron, the things he did were, in my view, necessary to de-toxify the Conservative brand. It is partly because he did those things that he is more popular than his party. He lost some voters on the right in the process (mainly to UKIP) but picked up a lot more voters from the centre. That is how you win general elections.