I agree on Andy Burnham - the Labour leadership process seems like it could do with an overhaul - they don't have a deputy either.

They should just draw straws. Short straw has to be leader for next five years.

Red and Blue Army!

I know people will call me deluded for this but feel like this site needs a bit of balance so here's the view from a Corbynite perspective...

Corbyn was elected Labour leader 4 years ago. His task as set out in his leadership pitch was to democratize the party and turn the tide of unrelenting neoliberalism in this country.

To an extent he succeeded, but of course the election was a disaster. However, many including myself would say that in a political climate of near complete supplication to billionaires, media barons and entrenched elites, it was too ambitious to assume all would be realised within 4 years, regardless of if the election was won or not.

So what's the choice now? Back to mediocre PR savvy types who look good and wear nice suits, or invest in the political project that the Labour Party was originally set up for? More work needs to be done on the ground. Momentum needs to become an active group in aiding food banks, homeless shelters, political education classes and promoting unionisation. And the leader needs to be someone who can harness the biggest political movement in Western Europe as well as winning trust of millions who have lost faith in labour over the past 20 years.

I quite like Clive Lewis personally. One final point: the election did highlight the sharp generational divide in our society which is surely promising for Labour going forward. Think Lewis would be a good spokesperson for those people, and he's ex military so should be able to take the pounding Murdoch et al will inevitably give him.

Edited by serial thriller (20 Dec 2019 9.54am)

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

The fact that Labour and lefties in general think that both supporting the EU and promoting mass immigration is somehow in step with this aim is tragic.

I think it's oversimplifying just to put it only down to that. For young people, climate change, tackling vulture landlords and austerity were massive issurs, and obviously they affect young people more than the old.

And for older people, clearly the arguments about Corbyn's past with particular organisations and support for socialism were less popular. And obviously Brexit was a bigger issue as well.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Trying to deliberately Conflate trade deals with handing over of sovereignty to a foreign, un-elected and undemocratic power is clearly nonsense. The reason people wanted to leave the EU is because it's no longer just a trade organisation (and probably never intended to be). In fact it's the essence of neo liberalism.

Your second point is unclear. Who is "the establishment" in this context? Are you saying this "establishment" is somehow anti immigration? Is it due to "inefficiency" that we continue to increase the NHS funding or the fact we add an extra 500,000 people a year whilst the native population shrinks? In your own words they "bring in the least money" so who is paying their share other than through taxes on normal working people and endless borrowing and national debt?

Edited by W12 (20 Dec 2019 1.25pm)