Name one Labour MP born after 1970 who has shown evidence of independent thought…

I wouldn’t – but then I try not to be sentimental about innate female virtue masquerading as feminism these days. It also depends on whether the selection criteria was based on talent or loyalty to the party line. That said, I’ve read the occasional article attesting to the sexism within the Labour party that would make it difficulty for more outspoken (i.e. talented) women to make it.

Most important one which seaps right through certain elements of the party from the cabinet table (“with nothing to go on other than that she spoke out against banker bonuses and therefore must be plotting”) right through to the grassroots (who’ve been climbing the greasy pole, but can see the Westminster career vanishing from their eyes) are the mindsets.

Given the right of the party are becoming more and more bitter & vicious in their attacks, the second battle, is why would people want to join the Labour Party, there’s no point fighting over a hollow shell

28. Mike Killingworth. Excellent summary of why many voters do not emotionally connect with Labour MPs and the lack of clear drive and direction.
The social conditions that created the Labour Party no longer apply. Its 30- and 40-somethings are all techocratic geeks with no “feel” for what works politically. It is an exhausted volcano.

My concern is that if we have a prolonged depression and massive unrest lasting 5-10 years , a Cromwell type figure may be very attractive . By that time, most voters could consider most MPs to be tarred with the same brush and may be very happy to have a strong leader uncontaminated by sleaze with a clear and strong message for this country. Modern day communication makes the rise of a charismatic leader who has less need for a political party than before , far more likely. When politicians had to gain the support of a base within a party before they can rise to power it acted as a break on them. Liberals may be swooning over the rise of Obama but there is no reason why an authoritarian politician could not be even better at using technology in order to become elected. Labour has no MP who has broad experience, proven leadership abilities, an ability to emotionally connect to lower and middle income people and who is charismatic. If the BNP came up with someone who has these qualities, after 5 years of depression and civil unrest, they may not win an election but they could act as the kingmaker. In France in the presidential election before last , the Socialists fell apart and it was a contest between Chirac and le Pen . The socialists are still in a mess. As Newmania has said many BNP voters are former Labour voters. Is Harman the British version of S Royal. I cannot see Harman’s equality agenda doing much to encourage people in the old industrial heartlands of the UK to vote Labour but I can see them drifting into the arms of the BNP.

Sunny – you could have all of those ‘upcoming battles’ in relation the next manifesto, unless it’s too late (which is a reasonable assumption) or it must be the case that New Labour will have to learn the hard way that The Project Is Over before it can begin to renew.

However most colleagues realise she is an intellectual lightweight that blows with the wind in a particularly nasty way. If you have any doubt on this, re-watch the Paxman interview regarding her support for Michael Martin over the Damian Green affair.

Toe curling.

More generally, I think the Labour Party is irrecoverable. Sunny assumes that it will, throughout the next Parliament, continue to run at least as far ahead of any other Party as it lags the Tories. I see no grounds for this assumption.

The social conditions that created the Labour Party no longer apply. Its 30- and 40-somethings are all techocratic geeks with no “feel” for what works politically. It is an exhausted volcano.

Now, what we need is a more serious discussion on the Labour party and how we approach it with the assumption they will lost the next election. Ergo – what are the big upcoming battles? Where should the party be headed? Who is the person to guide them through that? etc etc…

Mike Killingworth – if Harman is ‘our’ Hillary Clinton: (a) she’d have challenged Brown rather than settling for being his ‘political wife’ (remember: Clinton wasn’t running for VP); (b) it probably means David Lammy will be the next Labour PM (I’m talking figuratively, if we’re going to run the analogy into the ground)

Sunny:

Besides, Labour will lose the next election – the question now is who can steer them to some intellectual renewal. HH is way better in that regard then the other choices there are on offer right now.

That’s fine, if you’re entire strategy is to claim ‘The big boys did it and ran away’ (see the commentariat response to Sigurdardottir as Icelandic PM: never mind policies to fix a bankrupt nation, she’s not a bloke – and that’s all that matters). Hell, it worked in the deputy leadership race – why not for Leader of the Opposition/fourth term New Labour PM? (Oh, and you can sack Darling and replace him with Yvette Cooper rather than Ed Balls on the same principle)

And of course no Tory mps are claiming silly expenses for their houses Alasdair? They are much worse in my opinion because they always banging on about people living off the state. Biggest welfare queens are Tory Mps.

You mean incredibly divisive and a bit annoying?

Harman is not terribly likeable, so it’s little wonder that she’s somewhat disliked. Personally I find her old-skool bitterly partisan politics a turn off. It’s the same reason I dislike shits like Osborne.

What Labour’s next leader will have to do first of all is to offer reasons for people to rejoin the Labour Party with a view to winning the election after the election after next, i.e. in 2019 or thereabouts. I don’t see how anyone in the Cabinet is qualified to do that.

According to TheyWorkForYou, she voted very strongly for the Iraq war. So if you want the next Labour leader to be someone whose words say one thing and whose actions say the opposite, she’s clearly fit for the job.

She also voted strongly for introducing ID cards and voted strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws. Therefore on the most important issue currently facing this country, she’d dead wrong, and I hope her political career nosedives.

So the privately-educated scion of the establishment is happy to disallow privilege for future generations.

This woman will “signal her support” for anything that she thinks the morons who clutch their NuLab memberships will approve of. A plague on the lot of them.

anyone who voted for the war has the possible escape route of saying they were gullible enough to beleive the stuff about WMD. however, they would have to feel outrage and want to know how and why they had been misled.

Anyone – like Harman – who voted strongly for the war and yet against any inquiry is a devious toad who places loyalty to a discredited cause above integrity.