The argument getting play that Chuka is to the right of Milliband so he is bad because England is crying out for a far left leader is hilarious. He is positioned approximately where Blair was, ie the one single labour winner in my lifetime.

Labours biggest issue was being seen as not only too willing to dive into bed with the snp but also being too left to be trusted with the economy. Electing another slave to unite won't get labour anywhere.

2020 labour needs to fight the tories on 2020s issues, not 1980s issues.

^ agree

To the right (or centre, more accurately) is exactly what Labour needs. I am hopeful that enough Labour supporters realise it, and it is just that those to the left tend to make more noise.

I disagree with that. I don't think Labour lost because of it's issues. The economy was growing. Quality of life was improving, and Cameron was just a better candidate.

You don't look at Ed Milliband and see a leader of a G8 country. He would routinely get beat in PMQ's and he was awkward as hell.

Whatever your principles are, whatever your ideals, you stand by them, you articulate them, and you convince the voters that you're right.

Labour is not going to win by running to the center and letting the Lib Dems and the SNP claim it's most ardent supporters.

I dunno. I'd still like to see one election with a real left-wing option rather than the choice being between right and centre-right.

This might be a UK v America thing, but centrist here, ie Tony Blair, is where you give more money to public services but stay tough against striking unions and are seen as being good for the economy.

They need to take the middle class family voters like new labour did. Especially when the boundaries get redrawn. Those swingy voters are key because their value goes up significantly in five years.

There are a lot of good centrist fights that labour supporters want to see fought that can hold off the snp - EU withdrawal (many tories are on the wrong side there), the British human rights act, immigration, regional devolution (they need to give ground on English for English but can turn this into a North v South power issue if the are smart), financial services reform (Chuka is likely the nearest thing to a credible expert in the field fwiw) and a fair social services system.

As for the snp and Scotland they can chase those seats all they like they are not going to go left enough to be more attractive than the snp as things sit. They need to just let them implode on their own over the course of the next parliament. Chasing Scotland won't win England and England wins, and especially will next election, Britain's parliament.

Oh and yeah get a charismatic leader. Chuka is pretty goram rough but he is solidly far ahead of milliband now let alone where he was when he won the leadership spot.

I am not that we'll versed in the field but I don't think there is a Teflon Tony amongst them.

Ftr, this is something that could make me break my vow to never vote labour. Chuka especially is far enough from the bliar brown days to be clean but can be a centrist that Britain needs. His race, frankly, is also a huge positive in a very white very male political system.

Also fwiw I loved the way he walked off in that interview on sky about the Muslim letter.

This Tristram Hunt guy is a clown.

Sounds like he should be the favorite.

I just think this is dead wrong. If you don't count Blair/Brown (and I don't) there hasn't been anything resembling a left wing government since 1979. Personality and charisma in a leader are necessary but nowhere near sufficient to have a chance of being elected.

Election victory for Blair in 1997 demonstrates the rewards available if you can appeal to Middle England. Middle England thinks the economy is a huge deal and doesn't trust a left wing government with it.

If there can be a positive thing about such a crushing election defeat, it's that members are probably more likely to come along for the ride if they think there's a chance of winning. Even if it doesn't quite match their concept of what Labour should be about. In any case, I would put "supporters running off to Lib Dems" somewhere near the bottom of my list of worries in the current climate.

All just my opinion, of course.

Chuka has withdrawn from the leadership race!!

Dammit, scooped!

Yvette Cooper: Labour didn't spend too much before the crash

To be fair she was probably too busy flipping her second home to notice.

Shame about Chuka. Seems a bit naive not to anticipate the level of attention he would get but I guess it's one of those things where you can't be sure how you'd feel until it happens. Can't blame the guy too much.

I think it's a real shame, because there seemed to be a lot of support developing for him and the implied direction that would take the party. As I said before, I can't see how Labour get into government without going that way.

I honestly don't know enough about Liz Kendall but from what I have read, it seems at least plausible that those who would have supported Chuka Umunna could rally behind her. Unless somebody else emerges I kind of hope that happens because I don't think Yvette Cooper can beat the union candidate. She has far too much baggage, not least being married to Ed Balls, but also too close to the financial crisis. I worry that even if she can get the leadership, she is no more appealing to the electorate than a perceived union puppet.

It looks like Andy Burnham will be the preferred choice of the unions and without strong opposition, I think he's a healthy favourite to take the leadership. Already he is trying to disown the leftist candidate tag and I think that's necessary. But taking the union support to get the leadership and then trying to keep them at arm's length is the Ed Milliband blueprint and it didn't end well (obviously plenty of other problems with Ed too). For what it's worth, I quite like him, and I think he could prove to be a popular leader. At least that would be an improvement on Ed Milliband who wasn't even that popular in his own party. I also think he comes across as genuine and passionate, certainly by politician standards. But he'd be up against it from the start, and would have to do something special to overcome the "unions' choice" tag, which IMO is toxic for someone who wants to be elected PM.

So I have had a couple of bets. £20 on Andy Burnham at 2.32 and £10 on Liz Kendall at 7.6. I stand to profit £15.58 if Andy Burnham wins or £43.70 if Liz Kendall wins. I think the biggest danger to my capital is some surprise candidate popping up out of the blue. Yvette Cooper seems far too short at 3.4. I wouldn't give her a 20% chance. I guess we will see!

I think that he's shown a degree of naivety by withdrawing due to 'media scrutiny'.

There will be a section of the press that thinks 'what has he got to hide' and starts looking harder, it would also seem to me it's something that might come back to haunt him in any future leadership campaign.

Seems odd from the 'slick' politician that he was touted to be.

Yeah it's definitely not a good sign. But at least in the States, the media lays off its search for dirt when they back out of a race.

How does the voting changes for party leadership affect the Union's influence for their choice?

I asked the question itt about how was Labour actually on the left, answers were underwhelming.

Its not like Labour under Ed were within a million trillion miles of Old Labour. Yea there were a few fairly minor things but yea they are not actually the Tories so some differences are expected.

The distance between the parties is so slight that there is only the slightest room for any move to the right without actually just being Tories v2.

Labour lost because people vote on belly feel.

A leader has to sell his vision, be charismatic and statesmanlike.

Ed was a total and complete failure on all counts and was never going to be elected PM.

Just pick a photogenic leader who is a good orator and has charisma and stay evar so slightly left of center.

We are due a recession by 2010, people will belly feal out of the Tories better at economy myth and as long as the Labour Leader is not another Ed, they stand a good chance of being elected.

What odds the Sun headline will be a variant on 'He's Chuka'd in the towel'

^^ 2/5

Lol

It has the feel of a made up excuse to cover some other reason.

Anyway, anyone but Mrs Balls please. She just can't be an effective opposition like the country needs and I'd be willing to punt a tory win in 2020 straight away if she wins.

Some people were proclaiming Labour gone for a generation after this election. Obviously that's nonsense but I do think it's a bit more complicated than just not picking a doofus.

I take your point about Labour under Milliband not being particularly left and I don't have any answers because I agree with you. I was probably clearer in subsequent posts that what I am talking about is perception more than anything. In this last campaign, Tories would paint Milliband as more left than he actually is, because they know it's not appealing to middle England. They'll do the same to any candidate who becomes leader via the unions and it'll be effective, no matter the reality.

I think the comment about the distance between the parties being very slight will be less true after 5 years of unfettered Conservative government. I'm only advocating a move to something resembling Blairism and there's plenty of time for the Tories to show how left wing that might seem in comparison.

Yea its very important that:

A: The Unions dont very clearly get to use there influence to win the leadership.
B: Some utter **** does not leave a note saying "there is no money left"
C: Leader can eat a bacon sandwich.

The problem is people don't really understand what left and right is, especially in here.

Statements like "The Tories are also Socialist" pretty much sum up the level of political knowledge floating around here. You have some claiming the "economy is growing and quality of life improving" when they don't even live in the UK. It's all regurgitation of political rhetoric seen on the news.

Everyone buys into the narrative that there is some kind of left right dichotomy when Red Ed promises to build some new houses or freeze the already exorbitant energy prices, but none of it is really about distributing wealth and narrowing the gap in equality we have here or anywhere else. It's still all geared towards appeasing shareholders.

Perhaps the now bigger voice of the SNP will provide some proper opposition and bring the real issues to the fore, rather than just the politics of 'hey look over there while I rinse you' that we're used to. It's been said in here previously that it was one of the great victories of the Tories under Thatcher - to get everyone to believe the centre ground runs right along the line of her stinking fanny.

you're concerned about it being too intellectual for the sun then?

I'm paying £88 per month for power (gas and electricity), is that really exhorbitant?

This is the attitude that got the Tories elected last week - "I'm cool. **** everyone else".