You better start hitch-hiking now, do you even know where Harrods is?

I like to go there to see if I can see my hero, Tim Martin, spending his millions.

Johnson is more secure [iat this point[/i because there isn't an obvious alternate leader around.



When Cameron was there, the obvious contenders for the succession were Osborne and Johnson. Theresa May benefited from Osborne's departure and the sabotage of Johnson's campaign by Gove, but from then on there was always a brooding Johnson waiting for his moment.



When you have that kind of contender with future ambitions, they aren't a threat to the existing PM as long as their ambitions have a timescale that doesn't clash with the existing PM and they feel the existing PM is giving them sufficient promotion and opportunity to build their power base (eg Osborne for Cameron, or Brown in the early days with Blair). Once the wannabe leader feels their time is due, they cluster allies around them who start briefing against the PM and causing mischief (Brown later on; Johnson).



At the moment I think Johnson is in the fortunate position that his coronation has seen off the rivals of his own generation. The old guard like Fox, Gove, Davis, Hunt are not going to be leader now. It's likely that the next leader of the Tory party will be from the next generation, who at this point will be looking to put in their loyal service for a few years. Someone like Rishi Sunak might be a favourite pet of Johnson, willing to do the work, turn up for the tough interviews that Johnson doesn't fancy doing, but who won't be a short-term threat.



But there will be trouble down the road. William Hague has a quote like: "the Tory party is always loyal to its leader....until its not". It has a record of discipline much better than Labour's, until there's a sniff of weakness in the leader and the vultures circle. Even Thatcher became insecure once the Tories started to lose by elections in safe heartlands and with an election 18 months away many Tory MPs started to look nervously at their own seats and be susceptible to the argument 'if only we had a new leader, we might get away with our jobs'. That example might show the potential end for Johnson - the impacts of Brexit are likely to hit the north/midlands industrial base (what's left of it) disproportionately harder than the services-based south. There are a lot of Tory MPs in those areas now with smallish majorities and if the economy goes bad they will be nervous.



Johnson is an enthusiast for history and so he will have seen the way rulers of the past have met various sticky ends. I think he may be different from Thatcher and Blair in that I don't know if he has the drive in him to go on and on past his sell by date as leader. Those two were driven by having a vision of how the country should be and wanted to remake it in that way, which made them cling to power. Being PM probably just appeals to Johnson's vanity in the way being President appeals to Trump. It's something he has always wanted to 'do' but I think he will get tired of the pressure and complexity of office sooner than Thatcher and Blair did. I also think Johnson likes the idea of being an important/popular figure in public life more than just squatting in Downing Street. He might look at Churchill and MacMillan and how they became seen as national treasures in their later life, and look at Blair now trying to have his say on various issues and being treated with scorn, and think he'd rather be a Churchill or MacMillan.

Silly me, this being a rugby forum, I thought it was about Anthony Gelling

Looking at the names banded as possible leaders of the Labour party moving forward Labour will do well to not fall even deeper into the mire never mind overturning the tories majority in 5 years time.

I agree

Of all the names mentioned so far, there is only Starmer and Cooper who should be anywhere near the position of leader.

Thornbury is just awful and although Long Baily and Angela Raynor may well be political heavyweights of the future, they are nowhere near ready yet and will be seen as being too close to Corbyn's politics to make any significant change to the direction of the party and change is something that Labour must do.



I dont see them getting anywhere near No 10 at the next election and they probably need to be looking at the following election.



The very small silver lining to the cloud of another 5/10 years of Tory rule is that they wont be able to dodge responsibility for the state of the country and the ecconomy and the fall out from Brexit. Although, I suppose that they will most likely blame the EU, if we dont get a free trade deal, something that I dont think the EU can actually afford to give, as it would massively weaken the future of the Union.

He claimed that he had negotiated a new and much improved withdrawal agreement with the EU when in fact all he did was relocate the border from land to the sea. It did not change the fact that a border would be in place but as per usual it was portrayed as a great new deal that only he could have negotiated. He and his friends in the press continued to push this line despite it being disproved as per usual.

I expect that whatever he agrees with the E.U. on trade if he does it will be handled the same but this time he does not have an existing agreement to work on.

They won the election therefore it is our responsibility to point out when they do not live up to the few promises he made, no more hiding in fridges but I expect a lot of dodging of interviews other than through the right wing press just like Trump and Fox.

Yvette Cooper has no chance - a bully when she was in Brown's inner-sanctum now she is out of the chosen few. She was an arch remainer who tried to overthrow the democratic vote on Brexit. She also has a slender majority - she would have gone had it not been for the Brexit party

You may be right but, she is someone who at least isn't seen as being part of the Corbyn shadow cabinet who, let's face it, didn't come out of the election with too much credibility and Labour has to change direction or they could be done, for a very, very long time.



Regardless of the fact that they have picked up seats "up North", without any serious opposition, the Tories will cause some real harm to certain parts of the electorate.

Despite his flying visit to Lancashire and the North East, Boris is true blue and doesn't give a tinkers toss about those outside his inner circle and at some point you would expect a gaffe that will prove terminal to his political ambitions.

I agree with wrencat that the best two would be Starmer or Cooper, based on capability to actually do good governance. Long Bailey will not be PM and the people supporting her know that, her candidacy is about the hard left holding on to control of the party institutions. Karie Murphy, Seamus Milne will stay involved at the top, RLB knows that her position owes a lot to them because she's been chosen and promoted by them and so will be easy to control.



I think the strategy of the hard left is basically hold control of the party for long enough and eventually they will obtain power by default. The Conservatives cannot win forever. Economic crashes have a way of sweeping governments out of power in a way that the long slog of austerity hasn't - look at how New Labour - who were sitting pretty after the 'Brown bounce' in 2007, melted away over the next two years. When people lose their jobs and houses they turn on the government. I think privately a number in the left feared a situation where Corbyn became PM, inherited this Brexit mess, had to keep together a coalition of Lib Dems and SNP, and the country fell into recession straight after Brexit, it would have been the ultimate validation both for Tories to say - "see, when Labour come in power you get an economic crisis" and for Blairites to say, "see, the left ruin the economy". So the RLB strategy is about keeping control of the party and waiting. If a crisis did happen and the Tories lost, then Seamus Milne would be in No10 running things, like Dominic Cummings is really running things not Boris.



But that won't happen if Starmer or Cooper are there. Although the Tories would scoff at either of those being chosen - "remainer elite", they would fear either of them much more than Long Bailey or the others. They would fear that if the economy tanks after Brexit, the disaffected remainers would have a rallying point, and that could see a coalescence of 'middle England' and the business community around a centre-left Labour, which is the position that checkmated them during the Blair era. They would remove Labour's association with the hard left, antisemites etc, in a way that I don't think the other leaders would.



I do think both Starmer and Cooper face a difficult task in winning the leadership though. Probably only one of them at best can get through the MPs ballot. If they get through to the members though, it will be interesting. Starmer in particular would pick up a lot of the youth vote that rallied behind Corbyn last time.



RLB has been quiet recently. Her team is probably keeping her out of the media using the strategy that Boris did - when you are the favourite, say as little as possible to avoid gaffes, and just get through till the vote. But if the polls of members started to suggest the race was close or she slipped behind Starmer, then she'd have to come out and show what she was about, and I'm not sure she will come across very well. Her big ticket will be 'Green New Deal' but she isn't a charismatic figure like AOC in the USA. When I have seen her she has seemed more suited to just loyally repeating party lines. Starmer is more of an independent thinker and although he's a quiet and understated character, he will beat her for clarity of argument and intellect.



The challenge for Starmer down the track is he lacks charisma in terms of big speeches, and he isn't a Blair who can give good pithy sound bites. He is more like the classical lawyer, who will make a lengthy and well researched argument, but that doesn't always work well in modern political comms. Still, he'd be much better than RLB.



Cooper...I think she's good, but I think she will find a struggle given that she's been around a long time. She'd face similar problems that Hilary did in the US. The press would give her a hard time as a woman, and also she has been on the scene too long to be a credible 'change' candidate.

5

YAWN, YOU LOST, get over it, you'll get an ulcer.

One of Labour's issues has been internal squabbling it did for Kinnock/Brown and Milleband. It is no surprise that Labour were successful when Blair ruled the party and the hard left were quelled. With an infrastructure that is controlled by the likes of Lansman/Corbyn/McDonald/Nichols and McClusky a candidate from the right has no chance of bringing the party together it would not a complete destruction of the current infrastructure. I could see two parties emerging from this. It could lead to centre left party including the lib dems and a hard left Labour party with its current infrastructure.



I agree with you RLB has no chance of taking Labour into power - I don't think there is a suitable candidate on the hard left that can win an election. There tactics during the last election does not show them in a good light - all the lies and desperate attempts to smear Boris rather than focus on why their policies were more beneficial. The desperate attempts towards the end - Waspi women, reduced rail fairs etc looked ridiculous.



Both Starmer - who presentable but buckles under pressure, Cooper is too wishy/washy that leaves Thornberry who is feisty and is one of the left's strongest critics. Whilst I don't like her I do respect her spirit - can she bring Labour together - tough one. Would she give Boris a run for his money without a doubt.



The problem with RLB she suffers from what a lot of young Labour suffer - they shout the argument, it is not considered debate - this is a legacy of the Momentum influence - you see in RLB, Laura Pidcock, Ash Sakar, Grace Blakely, Angela Rayner etc. This arrogance is an issue for Labour - the idea that Labour believe they won the argument - is stunningly stupid. Everybody loves free stuff but nobody believed it all could be funded just from companies and rich people.



People like the idea of public ownership because they think their bills will be reduced - doubt they think it will so great when this doesn't happen. Why should road users subsidise reduce rich people in London using the train? The green issue was over played and the reality is like tax unless its a global endeavour the impact would be limited - 250bn was a bonkers strategy especially when considering its limited impact and the issues in other areas such as the NHS/Police/Education. Free broadband - why? it goes on and on. Something has to change with Labour's approach or they will cease to be a mainstream party

Roll back under your stone, this discussion is some way above your level of intellect

Still trying to use patronising emoticons, how very intellectual.



labour have proven that the hard left is not wanted in the UK, Corbyn's idealogy is as morally bankrupt as is his support for terrorism and hatred of success.



Unless Labour shift back to a more central position they will remain unelectable. No amount of online bleating about how "bad" Boris is will change that.

I know that you find it difficult to understand but, we were discussing, Labours need for a new leader and who may be the best candidate.

However, instead of contributing ANYTHING to this subject, you decide to throw in the "you lost" boll***S.

If that'really is the best that you can muster, you really should consider leaving the discussion to the grown ups

here you go again, emoticons, having said that anyone using a Simpsons character as their avatar tells us a lot. I am glad you see yourself as a grown up, must be reassuring that at least one person sees you that way.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50942825 that will be 10 years of Conservative realism ahead then. I am sure these idiot Lefties believe what they say, which is even more worrying.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50942825 that will be 10 years of Conservative realism ahead then. I am sure these idiot Lefties believe what they say, which is even more worrying.

Come on we are trying to have a serious discussion here - its not a school yard

At least we know not to believe what Johnson says, which unfortunately many will discover for themselves over the next five years.

Please tell us you didn’t actually believe the lies Johnson told during the campaign. The first to discover how low he went will be those businesses in Northern Ireland that we all know will face increase work to move their goods. This will be followed by the people using the M4 car park when the E.U. start imposing tariffs.

I look forward to you defending each lie as they unravel.

One thing is for sure he will do more in five years than Labour would have ever done - all Labour would have done is give back the power to the unions, increase CT and the tax the rich. Then they would have realised this doesn't bring in the revenue they had hoped and guess what escalation in borrowing and everybody's personal tax would be rising. Be very careful what you wish for - unlike you most could see straight through Labour's hollow promises.

100% accurate, but the lefties can't even admit defeat graciously.

If you are among the better off in the UK, you are probably right.

However, for those less well off and outside the M25, do you really believe that the Tories and in particular, Boris, actually give a damn.

Fundamentally, the Tories believe in having the smallest welfare state possible, which, again, is ok as long as you never end up near the bottom of the pile.

It's interesting that you mention borrowing, which, by the Tories own admission, is going to rise over the current Parliamentary term and despite "getting Brexit done", nobody knows what the fall out will be from our exit.

Let's hope that he enjoys his political honeymoon as it's likely to go the way of all of his previous relationships.



Btw, Christmas Dinner should have been interesting round at the Johnsons, I wonder if Jo had an invite

On Boris yes I do think he cares - I think Corbyn its all about a project can escalated public ownership really deliver in the 2020's - if it doesn't it doesn't matter he and McDonald will not be there and Lansman is pretty wealthy so he doesn't really care as the impact on him would have been the same as all rich people very limited. I see NMW is increasing by 6.5% not bad for someone who supposedly only cares for his rich mates.



I think the Tories believe in you taking personal ownership and only using the state as a last resort - Labour believe the state is an alternative to work - simple difference in philosophy, and I know which most in the country deem appropriate. There are people who simply cannot work through physical/mental issues and they need looking after correctly.



The Tories have said net borrowing will be below what it is now at the end of this parliament. Compared to the telephone numbers Labour were talking about they are pretty modest.



As for Boris his family is no different to everyone else's they have ups and downs - I'm that is the case in your family - certainly is in mine. We have all made mistakes in relationships that have consequences we have to live with to suggest Boris is unique is crass.

What would you view as being a [igracious[/i admission of defeat?



The candidate and party I voted for lost. I’m disappointed (without being remotely surprised), concerned and I hope the country, and indeed the world, takes a different path in the future.

That argument would have made more sense if we were in the 1980s comparing Thatcher's Conservatives with Foot/Kinnock's Labour. The current Conservative party isn't a party of small-state empowerment policies, it's become more one of embracing a kind of economic populism to direct state funding towards strategic interests for political purposes.



Hence all the talk about redirecting state spending towards projects in the north; northern universities are now going to receive more cash. The big push to be outside EU state aid rules so that they can use taxpayers' money to prop up ailing industries that struggle to adjust to costs of Brexit.



If Conservatives and the right wing media are honest, these are policies that they would have been heavily criticising if they were coming from a Labour government, just like they would if Labour were jacking up the minimum wage by 6.5%. They would be comparing that to the incomes policies of the 1970s. Remember it was also the Conservative government who introduced an energy price cap, which was an Ed Miliband idea and the Tories warned it would lead to investment flooding out of the sector.



There are a lot of spending pledges coming out of the Tories, and economic commitments (like the NMW rise) that are going to rely on some pretty strong economic growth and/or tax rises somewhere if we are going to avoid just letting borrowing rise. Remember also that during the Tory leadership contest Boris talked a lot about tax cuts which he seems to have gone quiet on, but maybe those were pledges just made to bring that particular demographic onside which he is less wedded to honouring now.



Maybe their plan will be just to increase borrowing, like Trump has done in the US, safe in the knowledge that the media won't talk about 'burdening future generations with debt' when they have a right wing government in charge so much, and the 'tea party' style activists also go strangely quiet.



But it will mean that a lot of Conservatives will have to swallow some strange compromises to their ideology in order to ride the Boris train. I suspect Conservatives are better at compromising ideology if it means accepting power than most Labour supporters are (which may be why the Conservatives have held power for much longer over the past century). When Blair was aping some Thatcher policies he took a lot of crap from Labour supporters.