What Can Labour Do To Have A Chance Of Ousting The Tories At Next Election?

[SpocksBrain]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55943661

[gulliver1]

Deathly silence on this thread now, everyone is frightened to post.

[Untitled]

It isn't just about Corbyn and Corbynism.... Labour also lost in 2015 with an intelligent and impressive leader with far more ideas and integrity than his opponent but was simply not good at PR (the silly stone pledges, the acting tough, the bacon sarnie). I dearly wish I knew what Labour could do to oust the wretched Tories... if I knew that I'd join up and try to take over!

[gulliver1]

18.11 " Wretched Tories " Careful now, you are on A/B . your answer could easily be removed

[pixie374]

The problem is more, why are there basically only two real choices, in a democracy. A little competition might be better for both of them.

[andy-hughes]

Untitled - // Labour also lost in 2015 with an intelligent and impressive leader with far more ideas and integrity than his opponent but was simply not good at PR (the silly stone pledges, the acting tough, the bacon sarnie). //

If memory serves, you are talking about Ed Miliband, so when you think back to what he was like, your 'intelligent and impressive' tags seem to shed credibility rather quickly.

For some reason, Labour has an unenviable reputation for selecting party leaders who are utterly unsuited to the role, and could not get elected to their local golf club committees - Michael Foot, Jeremy Corbyn, the latter Tony Blair, and of course Ed Miliband who possessed all the personal magnetism and confidence of the stone tablet on which his pledges were stamped - which disappeared only slightly quicker than he did.

[andy-hughes]

gilliver - // Deathly silence on this thread now, everyone is frightened to post. //

I've never been frightened to post in my life!

[CrapAtCryptics]

I just think Labour are a party of the past and, as such, irrelevant to our present needs.

[Untitled]

Don't confuse poor screen presence for inability andy... Miliband was a perceptive and intelligent man who often displayed good sense on things that mattered... he wisely thwarted Cameron's attempt to get this country embroiled in Syria and had the honesty to say that he would not hold the EU referendum because he considered it irresponsible. His energy policies were mocked at the time, then stolen by Theresa May in a pinch. You should listen to some of his podcasts made since then he is a proper "nerd" about policies with good attention to detail. I would much rather have been governed by someone like that. Unfortunately he was bad at PR, and that's why people didn't vote for him - he was outspun by Cameron... the point is that many people simply don't like labour because they don't like labour regardless of the leader's quality.

[Untitled]

and yes he interviewed badly and had the misfortune to be eating a sandwich in an unflattering way with cameras nearby... i could have lived with that personally so long as there was a person of integrity and intelligence in charge. But most people did not feel the same.

[gulliver1]

21.14 , No Comment.

[andy-hughes]

Untitled - // Don't confuse poor screen presence for inability andy... //

I don't - but believeability and personal warmth are more essential that a good grasp of facts and policies, because the vast majority of electors don;t know and don;t care about the facts and policies, but they do vote with their gut instinct on whether or not they can believe what is being said to them, and believe the person who is saying it.

Miliband didn't have it, Kinnock may have had it, but lost it falling over in the sea and then grandstanding like a US football coach, Foot never had it, Smith had it but died before he could use it, Corbyn was wilfully against being personable and pleasant, and Starmer is a bore.

Boris Johnson saw the writing on the wall, made Brexit his campaign, and walked it, because it was what people wanted to hear, and he said it sincerely enough to be believeable.

There are parallels around the world - Trump was a TV star and also made the right noises, Blair was charismatic, ok he turned into a meglomanaical war monger, but he had the right stuff in the beginning.

There is no real mystery to politics - make your leader appealing, make him or her say the right thing, and your party will win.

[andy-hughes]

gulliver - // 1.14 , No Comment. //

No point posting then - is there?

[JimF]

Labour picked the wrong Milliband.

[andy-hughes]

JimF - // Labour picked the wrong Milliband. //

True - and a lesson they will have regretted learning ever since.

David Milliband had a level of charm and charisma that would have won shedloads of votes, but as you say, they picked the wrong one, and paid the price.

Then they get someone who is literally obsessed with politics, and simply can't grasp the concept that everyone else in the world is not as obsessed as he is.

And now they have the best of a (seriously) bad bunch, and I have grave doubts that he is good enough in the right areas to win back the voters that Corbyn took for granted, and drove away.

[lankeela]

Even Labour won't know the answer until the Tories have published their manifesto, because Captain Hindsight doesn't have any ideas of his own.

[tonyav]

Should be B.A. for that, lankeela. You are right.

[Untitled]

I don't think you are wring about how people vote andy... its just a shame because "gut feelings" are often wrong. Cameron and Johnson both won people over despite being dishonest men with little integrity... yet many tories found them "believable"... ho hum.