And your new Labour Leader is...

[Galant]

...Keir Starmer?

Hope not. He's clearly the favourite though.

Here's your final five:

Keir Starmer – 86
Rebecca Long-Bailey – 33
Lisa Nandy – 30
Jess Phillips – 23
Emily Thornberry – 22

Can we just put the five of them on an island (other than Britain), and see which one survives? I mean, that's going to be the situation for the UK once Brexit kicks in properly and we leave European civilisation far behind. I for one am already stockpiling sharpened sticks and dry wood and trying not to get the two confused (I am from the north, after all).

What do you reckon Hexites?

Who wins it? And, if different, who would you like to see win it?

[kalniel]

The torys will be hoping Long-Bailey gets it, and I wonder how many have remained signed up just to be able to influence the vote in that direction. Not to say that she doesn't also have support from the momentum section, just like Corbyn did.

In the short term the UK needs someone who will put proper scrutiny on the govt. and make sure that the benches supporting it are doing so out of conviction rather than just to go along with the leader unchallenged. In the longer term we need a viable choice in 5 or so years time (if Johnson doesn't change the length of govt. term, which I suspect he will). I don't know enough of the candidates to suggest which would be best that the above points with much certainty. Thornberry possible for the short term but I don't think she's as strong if it comes to the electorate - either of Starmer, Philips and Nandy probably edge that.

[Galant]

I'll wear the colours for Team Nandy.

She impressed me when speaking in Parliament and in a few videos I saw of her after that. Some moderate and clear talking politics is sorely needed. Some might say that's a knock against her, but if Labour want to stand a chance and actually go somewhere real it's what they'll need.

[PC-LAD]

I'll wear the colours for Team Nandy.

She impressed me when speaking in Parliament and in a few videos I saw of her after that. Some moderate and clear talking politics is sorely needed. Some might say that's a knock against her, but if Labour want to stand a chance and actually go somewhere real it's what they'll need.

WIGAN, WIGAN, OH WIGAN WE LOVE YOU. As someone who has met her in person, with no bias, I think I'd be happy with her as the labour leader.

[smargh]

I'd like a Starmer-Nandy co-leadership.

[DanceswithUnix]

Is there someone that the Momentum group doesn't like? That's probably the one I would want

[Saracen999]

Personally, as rather implied by kalniel (at least, in how I read it) I'm not convinced it much matters.

Either we have a 5-year wait, or if Boris dumps the FTPA, it'll be at a time of his choosing which we can be sure won't suit Labour.

So, either :-

1) Whoever gets it wins over both party and, more importantly, ex-Labour voters in seats they lost,

2) Or, we'll likely get at least one more iteration of leadership challenge.

Personally, despite what some here (or maybe were here) may think, I'm inclined to the centre ground. Blair beat Major by parking his tanks on centre ground, and BoJo just did the same .... with the added complication of the B-word issue.

The issue is .... just where is the centre?

The further Labour tack to the left, like Corbyn, the more scope for their opponents to occupy the centre, as the centre shifts. The really big question is whether this country is, or in 5 years might be, up for a far-left Corbynistic government? I don't think they are, ever have been, or are ever likely to be, but the only way to find out for sure is at the ballot box.

To win, in 5 years, Labour need to convince that newly flexible portion of the electorate that voted Tory (even if they did it holding their noses) that, first, they have a leader that's credible as PM, and second, they have a program that reflects where the voters are, not an ideological stance that they expect voters to move to. And I think Labour just failed on both.

Frankly, though I understand why they're doing it, I think Labour are currently self-indulgently putting cart before horse. I think they need a quiet, considered analysis of what went wrong, not one full of ass-covering excuses, but a truly introspective and honest one.

And then pick a leader to deliver change.

Which is why I don't think it much matters.

After Blair kicked Major's butt in '97, it took the tories years before they got even remotely honest with themselves. But given that Labour got such a drubbing, despite a Marmite Tory leader, a Tory party publicly riven over Bre ... sorry, the B-word, and 10-years of so-called austerity, if they get such an unprecedented kicking with that background, heaven help them if things are much better.

If Labour can't be brutally honest with themselves over why they lost, it doesn't much matter who leads ... though a less credible candidate than the current incumbent is hard to imagine. Long-Bailey as the "continuity Corbyn" candidate comes a close second, given the above.

Who do I want? Don't much care. I doubt they'll last the duration.

Who do I think will win? At the moment, Starmer, though there's a long way to go and a week is an eternity in politics.

Best option? Hmmm. Nandy, probably. First, she's more centre, second she's a woman (long, LONG overdue as Labour leader), third she's a good arguer and presents well. But I doubt she'll get it.

[Ttaskmaster]

Who wins it? And, if different, who would you like to see win it?

Keir Starmer will win, because he's male. For all their liberal lefty bleating, I do not believe Labour are anywhere near as liberal as they claim, and they've never had a (non-acting) female leader anyway.
And because Keir Hardie.

Lisa Nandy – Sounds like a newsreader.
Jess Phillips – Sounds like a student environmental activist.
Emily Thornberry – Sounds like an up and coming period drama actress.

Rebecca Long-Bailey is a cool name, though. Sounds like she commands a rather fast Tall Ship with some impressively large cannon, or something!

[Domestic_Ginger]

(if Johnson doesn't change the length of govt. term, which I suspect he will).

He will remove the system whereby the ruling party cannot call an election. No idea what its called but the LD/Tory coalition passed it into law. Of real concern; the tory manifesto states they will redraw the constituency boundaries.

I quite like Jess Phillips; probably because she's been on HIGNFY. No idea who the other contenders are.

[GamingLexus]

Personally, despite what some here (or maybe were here) may think, I'm inclined to the centre ground. Blair beat Major by parking his tanks on centre ground, and BoJo just did the same .... with the added complication of the B-word issue.

The issue is .... just where is the centre?

The further Labour tack to the left, like Corbyn, the more scope for their opponents to occupy the centre, as the centre shifts. The really big question is whetger this country is, or in 5 years might be, up for a far-left Corbynistic government? I don't think they are, ever have been, or are ever likely to be, but the only way to find out for sure is at the ballot box.

To win, in 5 years, Labour need to convince that newly flexible portion of the electorate thst voted Tory (even if they did it holding their noses) that, first, they have a leader that's credible as PM, and second, they have a progdam that reflects where the voters are, n8t an ideological stance that they expect voters to move to. And I think Labour just failed on both.

Couldn't agree with this more. I look forward to a viable alternative to Jeremy Corbyn.

[Saracen999]

He will remove the system whereby the ruling party cannot call an election. No idea what its called but the LD/Tory coalition passed it into law. Of real concern; the tory manifesto states they will redraw the constituency boundaries.

I quite like Jess Phillips; probably because she's been on HIGNFY. No idea who the other contenders are.

It's the FTPA, Fixed Term Parliament Act. It's designed to stop the incumbent calling an election when it suits, but, short of fairly extreme situations, mandates every five years. Over-riding can be done, but it requires a fair degree of agreement from both major parties.

To be honest, I think there are good reasons for having the FTPA but also, good reasons for not.

As for redrawing the constituencies, there are certainly bood arguments in favour of that, but remember, it'll be the Electoral Commission that does it, not either main party. Also, a good chunk of it has already been done.

There's also good arguments in favour of seriously trimming numbers, in both houses but most especially in the Lords. The US manages with, what, 100 Senators (upper house) and some 450 Congressmen in the lower house. We have 650-ish in the lower house and pushing on for a 1000 in the upper. And we've less than a quarter of the population of the US. Okay, the functions of the two houses varies in the US from here, but really? Nearly 1500 parliamentarians for 65m people, as opposed to 550 for 300m? Come on, now.

Our upper house has some good, diligent hard-workers in it, but it is also stuffed with useless time-wasters only put there as a political reward, and alternately stuffed by Labour and Tories alike, trying to get an advantage.

How about having, say, 300 in the Lords, and then working on only letting more in as others leave. And, maybe a fixed, maximum term (maybe 10 years).

[Domestic_Ginger]

It is only by getting Brexit done that we can start the necessary task of restoring public trust in government and politics:
 We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action.
 We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.
 We will continue to support the First Past the Post system of voting, as it allows voters to kick out politicians who don’t deliver, both locally and nationally.

p48 Tory manifesto.

No culling. I agree it could be slicker. Not entirely sure they can be trusted on this. A result closer to the popular vote would hurt the traditional Tory seats.

Trimming lords to 300 would be okay however peerages are pretty popular ATM. Cummings has made no secret of his plan to fill it with cronies. It makes me think of the judges trump is appointing. The reps blocked Obama from appointing judges and there is a flood now of semi educates who fail to meet the american bar association standard. I can't this it will not be abused in a similar fashion.

[Saracen999]

p48 Tory manifesto.

No culling. I agree it could be slicker. Not entirely sure they can be trusted on this. A result closer to the popular vote would hurt the traditional Tory seats.

Trimming lords to 300 would be okay however peerages are pretty popular ATM. Cummings has made no secret of his plan to fill it with cronies. It makes me think of the judges trump is appointing. The reps blocked Obama from appointing judges and there is a flood now of semi educates who fail to meet the american bar association standard. I can't this it will not be abused in a similar fashion.

There certainly is an analogy with US judges and the Lords, but there's also a major difference.

The similarity is that each side, in power, loads up the Lords/US Supreme Court with "their" judges. One difference, of course, is that the number of USSC judges is limited, so each prssident has limited scope, so they can't load the balance until an existing one retires or dies. Otherwise, they'd probably have 1000 of them by now.

But the real difference is the difference in the underlying legal system

In the US the SC is the supreme arbiter of whether something is constitutional or not, and the bar to changing the constitution is VERY high, essentislly reqjiring both parties to sign up. Short of that, the SC can strike down part, or the whole, of laws pased by congress on constitutionak grounds, and even worse, activist judges can effectively create law, filling in the gaps between laws passed by congress and then they are extremely hard even for congress to change. Exsmple? Roe v Wade.

In the UK, however, our constitution is mostly unwritten, and so comprises eon-old tradition and czse law decisions which, parliament bring supreme, and be over-ruled by statute. The UK SC interprets laws, and only makes new ones to the degree that they csn say Law A overrules Law B.

And that, by the way, is at the core of the "sovereignty" argument in ... you know, .B-Word, because the EU's ECJ much more closely follows the US model and can't be overturned. Or not without great difficulty, and not by a member state alone. So activist ECJ can, and have, passed laws seeking to overturn the clearly expressed will of Parliament, and UK law.

[ik9000]

He will remove the system whereby the ruling party cannot call an election. No idea what its called but the LD/Tory coalition passed it into law. Of real concern; the tory manifesto states they will redraw the constituency boundaries.

I quite like Jess Phillips; probably because she's been on HIGNFY. No idea who the other contenders are.

Careful! One of the reasons Boris got to where he is is due to the exposure HIGNFY gave him. Not everyone who is good for a chuckle should be given the keys to your car/house nevermind health, pension and future.

[adidan]

Careful! One of the reasons Boris got to where he is is due to the exposure HIGNFY gave him. Not everyone who is good for a chuckle should be given the keys to your car/house nevermind health, pension and future.

I think the role of HIGNFY can be overplayed, I mean the Londoners voted him and his invisible magic money eating bridge in as Mayor. Twice.

But yeah, trust a guy who has been sacked for lying? No chance.

[Galant]

Andrew Neil is looking to interview the candidates.

First up - Lisa Nandy: