It was an interesting night for by-elections.
Let's celebrate the good news. UKIP could not win Stoke. Paul Nuttall's credibility has been shattered and even Farage cannot want to return to UKIP now: their vote fell heavily in Copeland in an ominous sign for them of what might well be happening in the country as a whole. The Brexit vote has happened. UKIP has no role left. The signal is emphatic and clear to politicians: move on and deal with the world we're now living in.
For democracy it was a poor night: turnouts were low. In Stoke the MP was returned with 37% of the vote; in Copeland with 44%. Most people remain unrepresented in Westminster, as usual. It's very hard to defend such a situation any more. The time for electoral reform has arrived.
The chance of it happening also seems more remote than ever. The Libdems saw vote increases in both by-elections that will cheer them and discourage deals. Labour remains as tribal as ever. The Conservatives will after an historic by election win - the best for a sitting government in a century (I believe) - see no reason for changing anything.
Which brings attention back to Labour. Yes they won Stoke, but so they should have done. It took a mighty effort to do so. Losing Copeland more than neutered that. Again we're talking about over-turning a century of history. I know the excuses that will be offered: it was all about nuclear. But it was also all about the NHS. And Labour could not win when the local maternity unit was closing and as a dad who has had to drive an in-labour mum to hospital wondering whether we would make it in time I can tell you an hour to a maternity unit seems far too distant to me. So Labour lost on two counts. And with hospital closures across the country coming up this is a disaster.
If Corbyn has not got the sense and the vision to go now then things can only get worse for Labour. There is no doubt that he lost this election. We desperately need an opposition in the UK and he is not providing it, Worse, it is now clear that he never will. For the sake of the country as a whole it is time he moved on.
But I doubt that he will. And that's deeply depressing for what it says about the left, Labour, and the greed for power of supposedly ethical politicians.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I cannot understand England’s ongoing infatuation with the Tories. They’re teflon. Nothing ever sticks to them.
I’m also beginning to seriously regret Cameron didn’t trigger Article 50 on the morning after the referendum. It’s actually allowing them to hide from the consequences, at least temporarily.
What do you say to the idea that labour’s problems run far deeper than corbyn, with unreconcilable decisions between the leavers and remainers in its voter base (or the hard vs soft now). Are the lib dems not far better suited to being the party of opposition here, so ought we not kill labour now and more on as quickly as possible?
It seems that the blame is already being apportioned to ‘disunity’ in the party from sitting Labour MPs and it appears that McDonnell is putting the blame on Blair and Mandelson’s recent comments. I find this particularly ironic as, on the one hand these individuals are supposed to be to blame for the disconnect with Labour voters, yet on the other hand they have sufficient influence to sway the core vote in Copeland. You really can’t have it both ways.
There has been no mention of Corbyns imposition of a three line whip on article 50 which created significant divisions of its own and alienated most of the Labours remain vote. It increasingly seems to me that if there is a wrong decision to be made Corbyn instinctively reaches for it. It is terrifying that we are embarking upon one of the most significant decisions that this country has made in in its post war history in the absence of any opposition. A particular cause of concern was that Labour bussed truckloads of momentum activists into Stoke (the parties secret weapon according to Corbyn) who must have knocked on just about every door and they still only managed to hold the seat with reduced majority.
The way things are at the moment, I’m not even convinced that Corbyn will go following a massive electoral defeat in 2020. I have cancelled my Labour party membership as I cannot see the party going anywhere under Corbyns leadership.
I think you are one of a growing number who have had enough
Stop it Richard your getting monotonous. The only people who lost Copeland is the old established Tory light Labour. You know the ones you keep on supporting.. There crap in Copeland
And have been for years. It might help if Labour got behind Corbyn
For a change. Over previledged lazy do noughts except moan, moan and more moan. He’s the leader for all his faults, get over it.
I know I have.
The Copeland candidate was a Corbynista
Stop supporting the Tories -0 because that’s what you’re doing
Your blog, so you can blame Corbyn as much as you like, but calling Gillian Troughton a Corbynista is “fake news” She wasn’t and isn’t.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/20/jeremy-corbyn-labour-copeland-byelection-gillian-troughton
http://www.newstatesman.com/…/01/labour-picks-gillian-troughton-fight-copeland-election
She voted for Corbyn
I think that’s some indication she may be
How was the Copeland candidate was not a “Corbynista”?
Corbyn’s preferred candidate was Rachel Holliday but local members rejected her for Gillian Troughton.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/20/jeremy-corbyn-labour-copeland-byelection-gillian-troughton
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-supporter-rachel-holliday-copeland-by-election-momentum-key-test-nhs_uk_5877ea56e4b04a8bfe69f309
OK
Point noted
But she still voted for him
That’s hardly an antagonist in that case
The Guardian article states:
“Local activists instead chose a former doctor, Gillian Troughton, who backed the failed leadership challenger Owen Smith last summer, which will be seen as a victory for Labour moderates. The leadership is understood to have preferred Rachel Holliday, a homelessness campaigner and vocal Corbyn supporter who had only recently joined the party.”
So she didn’t vote for Corbyn after all.
I’m sorry
I read she did and repeated it in good faith
It looms like the local party knew what it needed
No wonder they’re not chuffed
It’s all good. I’m absolutely confident it wouldn’t have made a difference either way. I also believe that about the Labour leadership, whether it was Smith, Burnham, Lewis or whomever (sad that I can’t add more female choices but I just don’t see who would have even been in with a shot), made much of a difference here.
The third problem listed in the BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39076233) is the key one. There are too many places where a complacent Labour party have been ineffectual for years. New Labour was a disaster for these places and bringing in a minimum wage that didn’t offset the increase in cost of living was never going to be good enough in the face of huge losses to well paid jobs.
The problem of not being able to capture the anti establishment mood is significant and one thing I’m absolutely sure won’t work is trying to revert to a tepid version of 3rd way politics overseen by managerial, visionless politicians. The SDP, PSOE, PASOK, PS etc. all show that way is dying or dead.
So we wait. Our economy is on the rocks and Brexit will implode at some point. There are three more years for the cuts to services to be felt and at the end of it the debt will be just as bad.
Oppositions don’t win elections, Governments lose them. Plus ca change.
Well this one might lose big time…
Valerie, can I ask a couple of questions?
1) Did you vote to leave the EU?
2) Do you seriously think Corbyn imposing a 3 line whip on Labour in Parliament over the Article 50 issue, made any sense when most members of Labour wanted to stay in the EU, and most Labour voters (unlike Tory voters) also voted to stay in the EU?
@sickoftaxdodgers and @valerie
In answer to question 2) above, Corbyn’s “strategy” was based on the reasoning contained in this piece from Sqwawkbox:
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/02/01/simple-graphic-shows-corbyn-right-on-the-money-again-with-brexit-position/
Further to the above, and Valerie’s point, there’s little doubt but that Sqwawkbox’s reasoning is correct in every essential, except the final tests of electoral proof and long-term viability.
As regards electoral proof, these two by – election results suggest the thesis us flawed.
As regards long-term viability, I have posted before – here and elsewhere – my view that, in pursuing the route he has, Corbyn has effectively mimicked Ramsay McDonald, who caved in to the Tory view on austerity, and opted for cuts, where Lansbury and Atlee took the principled view of opposing austerity in favour of spending into the economy.
This principled opposition saw Atlee increase Labour’s dismal 54 seats in 1931 by 100+ seats in 1935, putting Atlee on course to have won a General Election in 1940, had one been held.
In the same way, principled opposition to BREXIT would have lost Labour seats in the short-term, but could have seen it win in 2020, when BREXIT WILL have gone seriously wrong.
Now instead, by effectively caving in to a Tory take on BREXIT, Labour will be tarred with the same brush, and will suffer the consequences, whoever is Leader.
Ironically Labour’s best hope may be for May to go for an early election, that will see Labour shafted, and to then follow the Lansbury/Atlee route under a new leadership, as even a new leadership prior to 2020 will not be able to extricate Labour from the hole it has dug itself into, of being tarred with the pro-BREXIT brush I have outlined above, if we wait till 2020.
I agree with Andrew Dickies post.
Corbyn has sacrificed a coherent long term strategy for a very short term tactical advantage over a perceived threat from UKIP.
When the BREXIT starts to unravel, (as it inevitably will do over the next two years because Mays wish list is unachievable), he has confidently handed her a stick to beat him with at every opportunity he attempts to oppose elements of negotiation (the results of which will inevitably leak from the EU whatever May does to impose secrecy) e.g. “The honourable gentleman was so keen on Brexit he imposed a three line whip on his party in support of it but now he is saying he is against it —so is he for it or against it? A leader who can’t make his mind up which way to face. He cannot lead his own party but he aspires to lead the country” Queue laughter from Tory benches and headlines in the Mail about two-faced Corbyn.
By allowing a free vote he could still have argued he was being democratic by giving MPs the freedom to represent the best interests of their constituents. Nothing wrong with that, we live in a representative democracy, he recognises the majority but recognises a sizeable minority who were not so enthused and as the only part representing the entire country not just half of it we must ensure they are not alienated.
This would have generated short term ‘flack’ from the right wing press and maybe from the left wing Marxists, but would have neatly positioned him to attack May on the results of Brexit and sweep up the growing discontent when it becomes apparent that Brexit isn’t going to solve anything. As it is, he has painted himself into a corner in being forced to oppose something further down the line when he whipped his own party into the government lobby in support of it.
Agreed
Firstly seeing UKIP beaten in Stoke was a very good thing.
That’s the good news.
For Labour, losing a seat and seeing its majority halve in another, the warnings signs could not be writ larger.
Carry on as we are, with a leadership widely disliked and mistrusted, and almost certain electoral catastrophe will ensue. Its pretty clear cut: Labour under Corbyn are a deeply unattractive proposition for large swathes of the voting public. That wont change. Impressions have been made and most people can see that Corbyn is hopelessly ill equipped for the demands of high office.
His removal, or resignation should he manage to locate that apparent principle he has so much of, cannot come soon enough.
Who do you see as a potential Labour leader? The most depressing thing is I can see no one. Who stood out and gave an eloquent speech against Article 50? No one springs to mind. The blame does not lie only with Corbyn but with all those MPs who did nothing but publicly trash him. Whatever his faults such public trashing has ensured that Labour will not win any time soon.
Maybe
In which case, who else?
The problem as I see it is that the Labour Party is hopelessly divided over issues such as
Brexit
Immigration
Trident
The economy
These divisions will exist with or without Corbyn as leader and are not of his making. However, I do not believe he is the person capable of healing these massive rifts, unfortunately. Which begs the question: if not Corbyn, who?
I agree, that’s a tough one
Keir Starmer?
Seems most likely to appeal to the necessary non-Labour voter without whom Labour will nog get into govt. There certainly isn’t an impressive selection available.
Absolutely unelectable
It’s not tough at all. The answer is literally anyone of the PLP would be better than Corbyn, except perhaps McDonnell, Abbott or Thornberry, who just so happen to hold key positions in his shadow cabinet.
Sadly the fight within the Labour Party is not between pro or anti Corbyn factions within the left. If it was, I would echo your views that Corbyn should go. In fact, as Mandelson has made clear, it is between the majority of Labour MPs who still believe in neoliberal economics – using austerity to ‘balance the books’ and the minority – characterised by the press as the ‘hard left’ – who don’t. If Corbyn were to stand down now, who would replace him? Odds would be on a ‘centrist’ or ‘moderate’ and we all know what these codes stand for. Be careful you don’t advocate throwing the bathwater out with the baby.
Which is why the party should have accepted Smith – who was imperfect but from the left even though the left tried to deny it
As much a I agree the situation is problematic I do have to ask two questions which I’m yet to get clear answers on:
1. On what basis are different constituencies making decisions on?
It seems to me that voting characteristics have changed substantially from the 2015 elections, with “Neo-Nationalism” (courtesy of Mark Blyth) becoming a major factor in voting decisions. I imagine in the UK this has a greater determining effect in areas heavily favouring Leave or Remain as well, with other factors such as the NHS, etc. either seen as secondary, or associated by Leave or Remain decisions (£350m for NHS for example).
2. Given the above what can and should the Labour party do?
As much it sounds like an easy solution, what does replacing Corbyn mean? I’ve seen this stated before, as for example with Owen Smith. So if Owen had been leader, what do you think would have happened in Copeland and Stoke?
In my humble opinion replacing Corbyn sounds like a easy thing to do, but with who? A more important question relates, for me at least, to what Labour’s “brand positioning” in the UK political spectrum can and should be.
Given what seems to be fairly right wing sentiments I fail to see anything but an election loss in the short term. I can personally live with that if, and only if, the party positions itself to address the real, fundamental issues that I understand we will face post Brexit.
Unfortunately, much like the Democrats in the US, I cannot see consensus amongst the Labour PLP (Corbyn included) on that vision and don’t share your optimism that simply replacing him would simply address that either.
Having a dud leader is a millstone around the neck of the party that it can ill afford. His replacement at least solves that issue. That is not to be sniffed at. Frankly anyone drawing breath in the PLP could do better. I’m not joking, Corbyn really is useless.
And in being an obvious third rater he sends out a terrible message to the electorate that we’re not really serious about winning your support, or in forming a government.
Replace Corbyn and the party can move forward. That would be an improvement on where we are now, though I accept there are many serious issues that need to be addressed.
A point not made so far is that the Tories have adopted more than just UKIPs anti-EU policies. Erstwhile UKIP voters can now vote Tory and get most of what they wanted – with a real governmental with the power to implement those policies. Sadly, they will find out just how much those policies will hurt them. Then there will be even more anger
As for Corbyn, a look at Labour list sees the same old excuses being trotted out. Media, Blair, etc, etc. I suspect that people could see through his pretended support for nuclear just as he pretended to support Remain. We have a clique clinging onto power regardless of the damage it does to the wider country.
The yawning gap in the centre-left continues
John Curtice’s article in The Guardian is an interesting when read in conjunction with your blog, Richard (John Harris also has a good piece). Personally I think Curtice’s analysis and conclusion is correct, though whether Corbyn could ever bring himself to follow it given he’s a long time Brexiteer is doubtful. I do wonder, therefore, whether the strategy of Corbyn and his advisers is to sit and wait for the true Brexit debacle to hit the Tories (not that it isn’t also a debacle for Corbyn given his leadership). This is bound to kick in to an increasing extent from April, and will become a tsunami by mid 2018. Furthermore, tie this into the domestic policy disasters waiting in the wings (the NHS and social care being the most obvious, but there are many others) and we have a perfect storm approaching.
I note that commentors are referring to the ‘teflon Tories’ – which at the moment they are – but in terms of opportunities lost I find it very odd that they are not taking the time in this period of ‘calm before the storm’ to put in place measures that address the fairly obvious impending policy disasters. This is their last chance to do so while at least some ministers are not consumed by Brexit negotiations and issues. Then again, perhaps they already are but this is being kept quite for as long as possible so as to mask the fact that almost everything they’ve claimed over Brexit is bullshit of the most base type. There’ll be nowhere to hide from April onwards, and if they think they can rely on the Brexit press to come to their rescue they should note that the shriller and more unhinged the Brexit press become in trying to blame all of the shite on the EU the tougher the stance of EU negotiators will become. After all, if you’re going to be branded a bastard for just doing what’s necessary then you may as well be a real bastard.
Labour / Corbyn told me in March last year their whole EU strategy was to let it tear the Tories apart. Your analysis first that
As O said to the Greens in Norwich the other night, May is not Teflon, she’s heading for a profound bruising. Again we agree
I should add that I don’t know anyone who knows anything about how government and public policy actually works who disagrees that the disasters in the NHS and social care are now unstoppable. That’s because the point has passed at which any form of emergency measures would have any impact on the underlying – and fundamental issues. That is, a dire shortage of doctors and nurses and a dangerous mismatch between bed capacity and the rising demand for it (even stripping out issues with social care. Ditto social care: staffing and capacity issues cannot be addressed over a period of months but require years that we no longer have.
A slightly less dangerous situation also applies in education. We know that pupil numbers are due to increase steadily over coming years. Yet the number of teachers is already below what’s required and recruitment is poor. Furthermore, school budgets are being “redistributed” on a “fairer” basis say the government (the formula does seem fairer I have to agree). But this policy is being used as a smokescreen to mask yet another case of agressive underfunding (unless you are a frree school, of course). So here again we have a serious capacity problem that can only be “fixed” over a number of years (somewhere between three and five to be accurate). So any attempt at an emergency fix will not work – and that includes trying to recruit teachers from the military, a policy that has already underperformed badly.
There are many more examples (e.g. a massive backlog of road repairs that will now take years to address even if the government released the necessary funding next month – there’s simply not the capacity to undertake such work on an emergency basis).
Agreed
I’m reluctantly now beginning to agree with you Richard, that Corbyn has to step down, but not for any of the reasons you state. His problem, as I see it, is that his ‘kinder gentler politics’ are precisely what we don’t need at the moment — in the country and certainly for the Labour Party.
He’s been far, far, too timid in addressing the systemic problems within the Labour Party and has not addressed the overt corruption of it’s internal democracy. His weakness in this respect is exemplified by his failure to remove the crooked (and I say that quite deliberately) General Secretary, Iaian McNichol.
This is a man who has been happy to subvert internal Labour processes to weaken Corbyn at every stage. McNichol has, and this is by no means a comprehensive list, suspended and reorganised pro-Corbyn CLPs on utterly bogus grounds, openly flouted Labour Party rules in key conference votes, improperly suspended thousands of members in the run up to the leadership elections, and failed to even consider investigating any number of serious accusations of rule breaches when these accusations are made against opponents of Corbyn (including threats of violence, racial abuse and the recent very-serious party-within-a-party evidence of improper Israeli government interference).
McNichol should have gone and gone long ago — the fact that he has not means that the party will remain unchanged and any hope of the radical proposals you have recently posted (and are supported by all the members I know) will get nowhere — smothered by the flacid TINA “pragmatism” of the entrenched “moderates”.
In a wider context, here’s just one of many tens of thousands of reasons why the kinder, gentler politics has never been less appropriate:
http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/pip-claimant-who-took-her-own-life-had-written-about-unfair-assessment-report/
I agree McNichol has not served Labour well
But he is far from alone
If you think that Corbyn’s most serious flaw is that he hasn’t fired McNichol then you are seriously deluded.
I’m not saying that at all – I raised the McNichol situation as an example where more decisive action was warranted (glaringly so), but not taken.
Too often Corbyn (and his team) have been passive in fighting back against internal and external obstructions and too timid in their response to the relentless negativity (and yes, smears).
It’s easy to say in hindsight, but the appalling hand he’s been dealt – a self-interestedly inadequate bunch of troughing back-bencher mediocrities, a transparently biased media, a Brexit-bipolar base of ‘traditional supporters and a monstrously economically-misinformed electorate – has needed boldness from the word go.
I can tell you that from the word go he bowed down to them
I just could not see why in September 2015 and don’t now
I’m not an academic, and certainly not a social psychologist, so please forgive my layperson’s interpretation & analysis.
Having read all of the above, everyone has a point. There are many factors conspiring against Labour, both within and without the party itself. However, for me there is a wider consideration – the prevailing political ‘zeitgeist’. As has been mentioned many times, Overton’s Window has shifted significantly to the right over the past 20 or so years. Coupled with the Valence theory of human behaviour – strongly influenced by the MSM – the west in general is going through a period of ‘conservativism’, triggered by a number of externalities (immigration, ISIS, the EU, loss of traditional jobs, economic confusion, etc. etc.). That’s the direction of the prevailing political wind and I don’t see a change for at least a decade.
This gives anti Neo-liberals a reasonable period to coalesce around a common manifesto – in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and various EU members. ‘Parfois il faut reculer pour mieux sauter’ – sometimes you have to take a step back in order to leap further forward. In the meantime ‘Events’ (in the Macmillan sense) will happen anyhow, some of which will strengthen the mood for change, which should be capitalised upon, and some that will favour the status quo. Yes, radical change is long overdue. But the political tide is not yet flowing in that direction.
The keystone to real change is a public understanding of how it has been ripped off by the lie of neo-liberal junk economics. Until that happens expect more of the same, because when people are uncertain they retrench into a ‘conservative’ mind-set, until they are so negatively affected they see no other alternative than to change their individual mind-set.
While I’m pessimistic for the medium term, I’m optimistic for the long haul. Change will happen. It always does. In the meantime it’s good to dwell on Richard Carlson’s take on life itself: “Don’t sweat the small stuff … but it’s all small stuff. Something wonderful begins to happen with the simple realisation that life, like an automobile, is driven from the inside out, not the other way around.”
I hope some of that makes sense. Happy weekend to all!
Thanks
It does make sense
Maybe, but you need the rest of society to provide the automobile, the roads, the fuel, the spare parts, and the repairs.
If we’re using automobile analogies, then I prefer Abba Lerner’s, as described his 1941 essay ‘The economic Steering Wheel’, and re-worked in the first chapter of his 1951 book, ‘The Economics of Employment’.
If anyone hasn’t read it yet, then I thoroughly recommend it.
Bill Mitchell quotes from it here:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=5762
The UK economy would appear to be heading for the rocks for two reasons:-
A) No Leaver has been able to put forward a convincing argument why the economy will do as well or better if the UK leaves the EU.
B) Hardly anybody seems to understand what money’s core function is and how it’s created for the UK economy. So, for example, few understand the National Debt consists of government created pounds that haven’t yet been used to pay taxes. Instead a “fallacy of composition” argument perpetually circulates like a “hocus-pocus epidemic” and used to justify austerity cuts. The argument is continuously reinforced by politicians and the main stream media that the UK government must balance its books like a household whereas for some mysterious reason the argument doesn’t apply to the commercial banks who in normal times perpetually run a deficit.
The vast majority of the electorate are grossly ignorant and the democratic process in consequence is being misused.
Issues I addressed yesterday…and money was discussed in Norwich
Here’s what I posted on my Facebook feed this morning:
‘A couple of thoughts on last night’s byelections…
Firstly, Copeland. While this is being spun in the centre-right press such as the Guardian as “a shocking defeat in Labour’s heartlands” and “entirely due to Jeremy Corbyn’s lack of support for the nuclear industry”, the actual results show this is garbage. Copeland was a marginal seat where the Labour majority in 2015 was only around 2 percentage points. Since then, Labour is polling about 4% down on where it was in 2015, and the Tories about 7% up. The result? Labour down by 5%, Tories up by 8% – almost dead in line with national polling. The nuclear effect? Hard to detect.
Secondly, Stoke. Most of the coverage of this result assumes that Nuttall of UKIP threw away his chance to win by behaving like an amoeba for a month. But again, look at the headline numbers; UKIP up 2% on the 2015 result (again, close to current national polling, Labour down 2% (a bit better than national polling, but only a bit). Just taking a model of uniform swing from national polls and applying it to these constituencies would have forecast these results perfectly. The implication is that in these cases, the local factors were irrelevant.
Finally, the conclusions to draw. Well, Labour is in a hole for several reasons (the manic disloyalty of the “chicken coup”, Jeremy’s general ineffectiveness as a leader, capitulation to the right wing of the Tory party over Brexit, lack of coherent socialist policies leading to endless recycling of “save the NHS” as its main campaign slogan, and more). Until this changes and they move away from the LINO approach of managed surrender to the Tories on the major policy issues, these guys ain’t gonna get so far. But at some point there’s got to be an alternative to stylised posturing and capitulation. There simply *has* to be.’
Has? You sure? I hope so…
Regarding Copeland, it wasn’t any real sort of a surprise when you remember that the previous incumbent of the seat, Jamie Reed, has been speaking out against Corbyn from the very first minute of his leadership with the embarrassingly staged resignation.
I’d imagine he wasn’t overly complimentary about the Labour Party leadership in his local media up to the point when he jumped ship back to Sellafield, either. Not too surprising that it would be a struggle for any candidate to win the seat. If I was being cynical (and I generally am), I’d imagine Reed is very happy with the result.
On the other hand, regardless of the unpopularity of Corbyn, it once again shows just how breathtakingly naive the electorate can be. The Tories are serving up a sh*t sandwich to the electorate and making no bones about it, yet they continue to eat heartily!
Corbyn is not opposing them though
He whips his MPs through the lobby in support of them
No wonder his own MPs are critical of him. It’s extraordinary crassness
Can I ask why you think Starmer is unelectable? I don’t think he is up to being leader yet but just wondered why you said that.
Dull politically, whatever his other skills
Vague and inconsistent
Not charismatic
Fair enough.thanks.
It is time to give Clive Lewis a whirl in my view.
He is definitely media friendly and says that he is a ‘socialist’. Corbyn has at least tried to assert the Left in Labour – mainly as a hand brake for further right wing drag. And he should stay in the party and continue to do that.
We could do worse but there are some good MPs in Labour who are under-utilised – many of the women by the way. They need a good leader but I only mention Lewis not because he is a man but he certainly has charisma – I could see him working well with the public.